I think the better Cash analogy is "One Piece at a Time" since the Dodgers are being pieced together with parts from various years and hoping to be able to fit together.

So how much improved is Brazoban over the winter? If he can handle the closer position now, then either he or Gagne is expendable in a hot market for closers. Colletti has shown no particular obsession for a strong bullpen in his past. He has a big hole still in left field. Maybe today's moves are the first move towards filling his biggest remaining need.

It seems that Colletti has fallen in love with older more experienced players instead of trying to put a lot of talent onto the playing field. I say good to that as a Giants fan but I imagine in maybe even as few as 2 years I could be commiserating with Dodger fans (Yes I work with some of them and I am forced to talk to them as much as it pains me) seeing as how Colletti is right out of Sabean's camp.

Here is to hoping Colletti sells off more of his up and coming studs for nothing more than a few spare parts.

Don't sell Colletti short just yet. Guess what above average team is without a closer? It wouldn't surprise me if Colletti uses one of his RP's, possibly even Gagne since his contract is up for renewal next year, to make a trade with the BRAVES for a young outfielder!

Answering your question of what McCourt got for his $100M payroll, this team could very easily be just as injured as the 2005 squad. For one thing, the outfield is older with the addition of Lofton as its starting centerfielder. I don't have much faith in Drew to stay healthy, and there will undoubtedly be other downside injury surprises as well. I don't think it will be as bad a team as last year's, but that's not saying much.

I think the better Cash analogy is "One Piece at a Time" since the Dodgers are being pieced together with parts from various years and hoping to be able to fit together.

"One Piece at a Time" works, too. I was just thinking in terms of the floodgates now being opened to more deals in which the Dodgers trade their future for the present.

If these deals don't work out, Dodger fans may end up singing "Busted," "Cry, Cry, Cry," and "Dark as a Dungeon."

***

So how much improved is Brazoban over the winter? If he can handle the closer position now, then either he or Gagne is expendable in a hot market for closers.

I don't think the Dodgers would get full value from Brazoban or Gagne today. Gagne needs to prove that he is healthy, especially at a $10M price tag. If anything, his contract makes him more of a liability than an asset at this point.

"For instance, why give the 39-year-old Lofton almost a million more than what it took the Oakland A's to sign Milton Bradley?"

I just assumed the Dodgers had concluded Bradley could not, for personality reasons, remain. Not being privy to everything, it's hard to judge, but that happens sometimes.

"...but is it unrealistic to think [Aybar] could put up a .275/.350/.400 line while saving the Dodgers about $4.5M over each of the next two years?"

To what end? Why should the Dodgers be scrimping and saving when the NL West is eminently winnable? Ok, maybe they should invest more in their already stellar farm system, but this comments strikes me as marginal-win-efficiency run amok. The Dodgers are trying to win in 2006. Trading Jackson and Tiffany for Baez takes this too far, IMO, by potentially weakening the future for a marginal gain, but signing Bill Mueller just costs cash, and, as you note, is probably a noticeable improvement over who they've got.

Why should the Dodgers be scrimping and saving when the NL West is eminently winnable?

I'm not suggesting that the Dodgers should be "scrimping and saving." However, I'm not a fan of signing and acquiring a bunch of $5M per year players like Garciaparra, Mueller, Tomko, and Baez--guys who I don't think add much in the way of win expectancy over in-house options. Instead, I would prefer an under/over strategy, combining up and coming young players on the cheap with "difference makers" as detailed in an article I wrote in November.

I should also add that I'm not against Mueller per se. But I would be surprised if he exceeds his 2003-2005 road stats of .284/.360/.426 in either 2006 or 2007. He'll be 35 in March and will be playing half of his games at Dodger Stadium.

What's the point in trying to build a team for the short term that can win a lousy division? So, you win 86 games and get steamrolled in the playoffs. So what?

Rich,
Excellent write-up on the current stat of affairs. I'm sort of both appaled but not surprised. Jackson's mechanics are fixable--as Jon has pointed out in Collins assessment of our one time prodigy. I hate to see both him and Tiffany go.

I suspect that we'll be looking back 6 years from now groveling about these two--who will probably be worthy performers by that point. I'm not going to call them superstars. Not yet.

I will say this though. If we have a single starter go down during this upcoming 2006 season, that's where we will undoubtedly feel the pain of losing Edwin Jackson.

Happy New Year by the way.

Early one morning while making the rounds
I took a shot of Baez and shot my team down
I went right home and I went to bed and stuck that 28 beneath my head

Got up next morning and grabbed that Baez took a shot of Carter and away I run
Made a good run but I run too slow they overtook me down in Beach called Vero.

Thanks, Tommy. Happy New Year to you, too.

***

Big Bob. Big Bad, Bob.

James -- there's a sizable non-linear gain in marginal revenue to be had for making the postseason, even if a team gets steamrolled. Not only do they get to sell tix for a few extra games, attendance tends to be higher going in, in season tix sales the following year, and generally in attendance as well.

For more, see Nate Silver @ Baseball Prospectus (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4412): "A single playoff appearance can result in a meaningful increase in both attendance revenues and local broadcasting revenues for as many as 10 years."

None of which is to say that I like the Baez deal very much. But at least neither Jackson nor Tiffany rank as the team's top pitching prospects these days (that honor belogs to Chad Billingsley). Jonathan Broxton and Scott Elbert arguably rate higher as well.

I think some of Jackson's struggles point to a serious flaw in the LA organization's player development system, namely that their Triple-A franchise in Las Vegas is a brutal park for pitchers. It's not too far off from sending a guy to Coors Field to learn how to pitch. Tiffany -- an Extreme (capital E, as in 0.58 according to BA) flyball pitcher -- is the kind of player whose value after going through the Vegas meatgrinder (likely in 2007, given that he spent '05 at Vero Beach) could be severely lessened.

What's the point in trying to build a team for the short term that can win a lousy division? So, you win 86 games and get steamrolled in the playoffs. So what?

Perhaps you've noticed that a few wild card teams with records similar to the one you mentioned have won the world series recently.

Rich,

I agree with the general philosophy of inexpensive ok players and big-bucks difference makers. But no move's made in a vacuum. In this case, the relevant context, I think, is a very winnable division, in which marginal improvements could pay off. These are all short-term deals, so they look low risk to me.

If they could have signed Baez to a two-year deal like they did with those other players, I think it would have been another decent move. Unfortunately, they had to trade a couple of players who might help more than Baez in a year or two, which is why I'm not fond of the deal, either.

A lot of people forget that "potential" means just that, potential. It's not written in stone that a #72 prospect and a former top prospect will turn out to become #1,2,or3 starters. As a Dodger fan, I hope all these Dodger prospects turn out to reach their potential, but when has that ever happened with any team. Look at Atlanta, they gave up a top 10 prospect for a "marginal" player.

Consider this...The Dodgers have a lot of players on the last year of their contracts. Depending on how they do this year will determine if they try hard to resign many of them.
If they do well this year (win Division) it might mean that Colleti was right on his decisions and should try to bring back those who contributed.
If they don't do well, the Dodgers can give the farm system prospects a shot and let most of these free agents sign elsewhere, giving them conselation picks in the upcoming draft, which will give Logan White more draft options.
That to me is the upside of signing short term contracts with proven major leaguers.

Who would've been comfortable with Gagne being set up by a combination of Brazoban, Broxton, Osoria, and Kuo? While I like (or REALLY like) all of those four, they had no other veterans to
complement Gagne.

Brazoban is either brilliant or sloppy or downright frightening. He reminds me of Mota before he put it together--a former OF with a tremendous arm but questionable head and too-straight fastball. I think he can still turn the corner like Mota did, but I don't want him to be Gagne's set-up man.

If the Dodgers didn't have someone else to rely on, what would have happened if Gagne went down this year, even for a short while? While I disliked losing Jackson and Tiffany, the bullpen worried me. I feel a little better now about it.
This trade can be evaluated better in 2-3 years. To say right now that it's bad is premature.

Rich, I enjoyed the read, and agree with much of what you write. I understood what Colletti was trying to do in signing guys like Mueller and Garciaparra in an attempt to win now, but I also understood that in doing that, moves like this (Tiffany & Jackson) would also need to be made. There are only so many free agents available. That is why I begrudgingly accepted his "win while trying to rebuild" plan. Obviously most fans want that, to win now, and obviously he is trying to appease that.

Signing free agents is the easy part of the plan, in that you are not required to give up players. Trades is where it gets tricky. If trades are an acceptable part of building a team, then did they get an adequate return? I happened to like the Seo trade, and feel they did get a good if not great return! But the Baez trade makes very little sense. As you point out, he is nothing really special, and certainly not better than what they already had, in my opinion.

I guess the biggest question is, if Jackson and Tiffany have been passed up by other prospects in the Dodger organization, did they really need to be traded right now? And the real question is could the Dodgers have received more? If Bradley had to be moved as someone else mentioned, is it inconceivable to think some kind of package including Bradley, Tiffany, and Jackson would not have fetched Zito?

I disagree with the idea that you judge trades 2 or 3 years down the road. It is irrelevant to judge them then, because anyone can do that! It's hindsight. Trades need to be evaluated at the time they are made. In this trade, the Dodgers trade 2 unknowns with possible high upside, for 2 knowns with average, or "pedestrian" as you called it, ability and very limited upside. Given that, it doesn't look to be a very smart move. And that is independent of how Tiffany and Jackson turn out. From my vantage point, I see Tiffany and Jackson needing to bomb, in order for this trade to end up being a wash to slight edge for the Dodgers. Baez is more than likely gone next year, so 2006 had better be magical.

From my vantage point, I see Tiffany and Jackson needing to bomb, in order for this trade to end up being a wash to slight edge for the Dodgers. Baez is more than likely gone next year, so 2006 had better be magical.

Jackson already had bombed, though he's young yet. Tiffany is a flawed prospect according to Bryan Smith ("Sometimes he is the best pitcher in the Dodger system, other times his struggles are massive."). There aren't any clear winners here, though I will give you that trading a couple starting prospects for a pair of dubious relievers is itself generally a bad deal. Nonetheless, it would take a while before the Dodgers completely depleted their farm system, one I've thought was widely overrated before. This trade is just an indicator that I might be on to something.

Rob, while Jackson has struggled, I don't think he can be considered as having "bombed" already. You point out he's still young, so I'm guessing you would somewhat agree with that assessment.

As for Tiffany, I don't see how someone calling Tiffany a flawed prospect is a reason to trade him. It would seem to me that someone who at times looks like the best pitcher in the system, and at other times has massive struggles would still be someone a team would want to hold onto, at least for another year given that he is still only 21, and left-handed! In reading Bryan's assessment of Tiffany and some of the responses, it seems that Vero's relatively high HR factor of 1.62 and the cancerous mole he had removed last year could make some of his problems in 2005 seem a bit overstated. In any sense, there doesn't appear to be any good reason to have traded him, given what they got in return.

While your assessment of the Dodger farm system may turn out to be correct, that still does not offer a justifiable reason to trade from it, when the return is essentially the same. What would you rather have? Over-rated minor leaguers that cost very little? Or over-rated major leaguers that cost alot?

Rich,
Less than excellent write-up on the current state of affairs, I have to say. Jackson had been given opportunities over the last two years at three different levels and hadn't improved - in fact he'd regressed by all estimations. Tiffany's work ethic and weight had been questioned, his fastball had not gained anything (still sitting in the 88-92 MPH range) and neither had his breaking stuff, and he has been passed in the system by Scott Elbert among lefties and is in danger of losing more ground to the '05 draft class as well. One could easily rank Billingsley, Broxton, Orenduff, and Elbert all above either of these guys; and that's not even mentioning Miller, Blake Johnson, Leach, Horlacher, or relievers Brazoban, Osoria, Kuo - point is, there is serious depth of pitching in the Dodgers farm system and Jackson and Tiffany were apparently slipping.

Picking up a young, experienced, improving set up man/closer for two slipping prospects? I don't see how that can do anything but help the '06 team. And as for the future, I think it's in fine hands with the pitchers I listed above and the genius of Logan White.

"I was just thinking in terms of the floodgates now being opened to more deals in which the Dodgers trade their future for the present."

WOW! Let's get drastic! One trade of good prospects and all of a sudden the floodgates are open? That's quite a leap. So he's going to pull another SF Giants old-guy makeover? There's no reliable data to date to support that. Colletti has said all along he was going to build for the future, keeping the prospects largely intact and each and every one of his moves are pointing directly to that philosophy. Furcal received the longest contract of three years; Mueller and Tomko are two years; Garciaparra, Lofton, Alomar, Baez, and Carter are all one year. So how does this show he is selling off the farm or blocking all the prospects?

Not to mention Colletti's GM philosophies are being judged by what he did as an ASSISTANT. The selling of the farm, old-guy tactic is Sabean's, not Colletti's. Don't assume what Colletti will do based on what he did as a subordinate, that's unfair and highly unreliable. Add that everyone knows Colletti was the 'contract' man in SF, while Sabean was the 'dealer'. How can one surmise that Colletti's going to sell off the farm based on his time in SF when he wasn't even the one pulling the strings?

Jackson had been given opportunities over the last two years at three different levels and hadn't improved - in fact he'd regressed by all estimations.

I covered this very point and, in fact, used the word "regressed." The fact of the matter is that he is just 22 years old and has a major league fastball and slider. As I mentioned, he needs to work on his command and perhaps improve his changeup to become a solid starting pitcher in the big leagues. Tampa Bay is obviously willing to make that bet.

Jackson's stats at "AA" Jacksonville (which is actually an advanced level for most 21-year-olds) were pretty good. Ken Howell, the pitching coach, deserves some of the credit from what I have read.

As for Tiffany, I tend to like lefties who record perfect games and no-hitters while striking out 12 batters per nine innings as a 19- and 20-year old against mostly older competition.

The fact that Billingsley, Broxton, and Elbert now rate higher than Jackson and Tiffany is neither here nor there when it comes to assessing the latter pair's value. These rankings fluctuate annually and, again as I mentioned, Baseball America rated Jackson's fastball and Tiffany's curveball as the best in the system.

I never even discussed Colletti's "philosophies" as an assistant. I have only judged him on his moves as a GM. I'm not going to argue against the Furcal signing. It's McCourt's money, not mine. Other than the Seo deal (which I liked), I'm not overly impressed with any of the other acquisitions.

You state that "Colletti has said all along he was going to build for the future." I say he is doing whatever he can to win in 2006. I don't have a problem in going for it this year. However, I don't like the idea if it means doing so at the sacrifice of building a more sustainable, longer-term winning franchise.

I think the Dodgers are spinning everything as positive as can be this winter. Colletti's statement, "I talked to [Baez] and he's thrilled to be a Dodger" is the latest example and is at odds with the reliever's comments in today's papers.

Furthermore, trying to sell the public on Carter is insulting. "Carter can pitch a couple innings at a time, which is intriguing, and he's also closed games. It takes a special character to be able to do that, a mindset and willingness. He was successful at it and that tells me a lot about his makeup."

Makeup, schmakeup. Give me a break. Carter is nothing more than a back-of-the bullpen, replacement-level pitcher.

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. We'll see how it all plays out.

"You state that "Colletti has said all along he was going to build for the future." I say he is doing whatever he can to win in 2006. I don't have a problem in going for it this year. However, I don't like the idea if it means doing so at the sacrifice of building a more sustainable, longer-term winning franchise."

Sure he's doing what he can to win in 2006, but I reiterate, why does the trade of two of the bevy of prospects spark the reaction that the floodgates are now open? We have top ranked prospects at 1B (Loney, Dunlap), 2B (Aybar, Abreu, Denker, Young, possibly DeWitt), SS (Guzman for now, Hu, DeJesus), 3B (LaRoche, DeWitt), C (Navarro, Martin), OF (Kemp, Ethier, Ruggiano, Raglani, Van Slyke, Pedroza), SP (Billingsley, Orenduff, Elbert, Broxton, Miller, Leach, B. Johnson), and RP (Kuo, Osoria, Alexander). I don't see the paranoia that Colletti's gutting the future.

"I think the Dodgers are spinning everything as positive as can be this winter. Colletti's statement, "I talked to [Baez] and he's thrilled to be a Dodger" is the latest example and is at odds with the reliever's comments in today's papers."

Sure they're spinning positive, wouldn't you? What are they supposed to do? Downplay the moves and rip the players? Of course not. As for Baez' comments - I've heard Baez say he would prefer to be a closer (surprise, surprise . . .), but he understands the situation, is happy to be in LA, respects Gagne and will do the job he is asked to do. I would expect a proven, 40 save closer to prefer to return to that role, so any comments taken out of context that say he wants to close, I would expect and even welcome. I don't want such a player to be happy with being pushed out of that position.

As for selling Carter . . . Can't argue with that one. He's filler with a prayer that he can return to better form. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I'm not thrilled about trading Jackson and Tiffany either. But I'm also not jumping too far and am happy getting a proven vet closer to bolster the back of the bullpen. The prospects MIGHT develop into something in the future - Baez WILL help the 2006 bullpen. I can handle giving up MIGHT to get the WILL we needed; especially with all the depth we have in our system. We shall see how it all plays out.

Maybe this will be one of those trades that works out for both teams. It is definitely a swap that involves two ball clubs with different objectives. There is almost no questioning the fact that Baez will be more valuable to the Dodgers this year than Jackson and Tiffany. However, I would bet on the combined futures of Jackson and Tiffany over those of Baez and Carter--and that is the point I was trying to make.

Very good points, hunteralan...

"Other than the Seo deal (which I liked), I'm not overly impressed with any of the other acquisitions."

How can you not be impressed with Colleti's skills on getting proven veterans for less than what they were offered elsewhere? (Mueller, Garciaparra, Lofton)...I'll take them over Choi, Valentin, Phillips, Ledee, Cruz Jr. anytime, which is who DePodesta got last year.

"These rankings fluctuate annually and, again as I mentioned, Baseball America rated Jackson's fastball and Tiffany's curveball as the best in the system."

Who's to say that these ratings aren't going lower than one might think. I read that Colleti made sure to talk to all his administration about the move...(Ng, Logan White, Terry Collins). Also, Baseball America rates Billingsley with the best curveball while Broxton has the best fastball.

"Maybe this will be one of those trades that works out for both teams. It is definitely a swap that involves two ball clubs with different objectives. There is almost no questioning the fact that Baez will be more valuable to the Dodgers this year than Jackson and Tiffany. However, I would bet on the combined futures of Jackson and Tiffany over those of Baez and Carter--and that is the point I was trying to make."

That doesn't look like the point of the article to me. It looks to me the point is Colletti is mortgaging the future for a win today mentality. That he's lied to us all about caring about the prospects and he's going to start dealing them all for overpriced, aging veterans.

Maybe the deal will work out for both teams. However, for that to happen Jackson and/or Tiffany have to actually make it as successful major leaguers. As it stands now, this trade will work out for the Dodgers as they have the major league proven pitcher in Baez; Tampa has to wait and see. And that in my opinion is a win for the Dodgers.

And you're placing more value on the futures of two prospect pitchers who have not shown much (or nothing at all) above AA, than you are on a proven major league bullpen talent? On the arms of two minor league pitching prospects, who in general, flame out at a much higher rate than they "flame on", so to speak. Minor league pitchers are more volatile than Kilamanjaro.

Again, I am not happy Jackson and Tiffany are gone by any means, but the Dodgers have a bevy of minor league pitchers with as much or more talent and projectability as Jackson and Tiffany and in this process the team has acquired a proven, improving major league talent that fills a need.

Yes colletti is trying to win in '06, and YES he is also (to date) watching out for the future stability of the franchise. Until he starts dealing away our Top 10's from the minors and starts signing veterans longer term, I am not going to jump to what I find is an irrational opinion, that Colletti is mortgaging the future and cares little to nothing about our highly prized prospects.

I refuse to be reationary based on one deal, and choose instead to trust the man to his word until he proves he is not worthy of such trust.

By the way, I'm curious, what are the two different objectives you see these teams striving for?

What would you rather have? Over-rated minor leaguers that cost very little? Or over-rated major leaguers that cost alot?

Well, we already know Jackson wasn't cutting it at the major league level, not as a starter, anyway. Now, perhaps as Rich suggested, he should have been moved to the bullpen and one of his pitches taken away, but I doubt the Devil Rays will do that, to either player. The cost for the Dodgers isn't that great; what they need are guys who can play right now, and sometimes it's the other guys who have patience. As Rich says, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out, but my feeling is that, for now, it looks to me that Colletti got rid of this year's Franklin Gutierrez in Jackson.

BTW, HunterAlan --

Add that everyone knows Colletti was the 'contract' man in SF, while Sabean was the 'dealer'. How can one surmise that Colletti's going to sell off the farm based on his time in SF when he wasn't even the one pulling the strings?

No, everyone does not know that. In fact, in a 2003 interview ($$) with Baseball Prospectus, Colletti mentioned how much latitude he had within the front office:

My role here encompasses a lot of things I'm not sure every other assistant GM gets a chance to do. One of Brian (Sabean)'s strengths is his ability to delegate--there are no territorial problems here. In that sense he's been great with me in broadening the scope of my career. He's helped me in making trades, to where now everyone's open to suggestions and anyone--whether it's myself, Brian, or (VP, Player Personnel) Dick Tidrow--might be the person to go after a deal.

Colletti was certainly the guy who did the contracts ("I don't think [Sabean has] done a contract in the last seven years"), but the above paragraph makes clear that he also had his hand in some of the team's trading activity.

Rob,

I had not seen that quote . . . . . . you didn't make it up out of your imagination, did you??? ;) . . . . . . but I will stand corrected and amend my outlook on Colletti accordingly. It does not remove the trust I have in Colletti, yet it will temper it, even if just a slight bit. I still take Colletti at his word that he is not going to strip the farm and is committed to seeing our own prospects populating the team within the year and for the forseeable future. Everything he has done points to that conclusion. Whether you like or dislike any of the moves made, it can not be said that Colletti is currently blocking any of the high level prospects.

On a bit of a tangent - It seems to me many are in a bit of a rush to see these prospects hit LA. Outside of Aybar and Delwyn Young (who are switching positions), which of our top 15-20 prospects have even seen extended time at AAA? Unless I'm blanking on someone right now, none have. Billingsley, LaRoche, Guzman, Martin, Loney, Orenduff, Elbert, Broxton, DeWitt, Kemp, Ethier, Miller, Hu . . . they have been in the lower to mid level minors over the last two years. They are only now beginning to hit the AAA level.

I'm in no hurry to rush these guys to LA at the risk of detrimental damage to their development. Comments from Colletti have made me think he has the same opinion and that is why he has brought in the short term vets to fill the holes. Personally, I see it as near-genius work and a perfect way to contend now while allowing the studs to fully mature on the farm and begin filtering in within the next year.

"The cost for the Dodgers isn't that great;"

Rob, the cost to the Dodgers is unknown! How can it already be determined "not great?" And when did 20-21 years of age become the defining point in a pitchers life as to what can be expected from that pitcher career-wise?

"what they need are guys who can play right now"

They already had guys who could play now! As Rich points out, and I agree with him, Baez is nothing special! I don't see him as an upgrade to what they already had! Anyone of Houlton, Brazoban, or Broxton could set-up. I'm of the impression Jackson could have done it as well!There simply wasn't a need for a pitcher of Baez caliber! I don't understand this prevailing attitude that since Jackson and Tiffany had somehow been passed up by other Dodger prospects, there was this sudden need to trade them. How does one arrive at that thought process?

I have no problem in trading Jackson and Tiffany. But, prospects are said to fill 2 purposes. Fill the needs of the parent club, or used in trade to fill those needs. It appears that the trade of Jackson and Tiffany did neither! Unless of course one finds significant use from the likes of Baez and Carter.

Which leads back to my question, that you didn't answer. What would you rather have, over-rated minor leaguers who cost very little? Or over-rated major leaguers who cost alot?

"I'm in no hurry to rush these guys to LA at the risk of detrimental damage to their development. Comments from Colletti have made me think he has the same opinion and that is why he has brought in the short term vets to fill the holes. Personally, I see it as near-genius work and a perfect way to contend now while allowing the studs to fully mature on the farm and begin filtering in within the next year."

Near-genius? Isn't that overstating it a bit? He's just spending money! Nothing genius there! Who did he acquire that you didn't see coming? Perhaps Furcal, but that was over-spending! Mueller, Garciaparra, and Lofton were obvious choices if one wanted change, though it remains to be seen if they provide an upgrade over what the Dodgers had. They could easily have stayed with Aybar, Choi/Saenz, and Ledee/Werth and not brought up the rookies as you fear.

I don't mind some of the changes, they add some interest to atleast the beginnig of the season. My fear is that by trying to contend in 2006, Colletti has opened the door to making a deadline trade or two "he" feels is necessary and in doing so trades off someone even more prominent than Tiffany/Jackson. And despite your trust in him, no one can know what Colletti will do if faced with that situation, because he's never been there before. The fact that he can make the kind of needless trade he did this past weekend? Well, it's enough to scare this Dodger fan!

I stopped being a Dodger fan (I was raised a Dodger fan) in the mid 90's because I got tired of being promised contending teams year after year only to be disappointed.
This year was the first year since then that I have asked myself, "You want to go to the ballpark again to see this team, don't you?"
DePodesta may not have known what he was doing (even though I think he did and needed longer for the plan to happen. The A's didn't happen overnight), but he was a guy for the future. He wouldn't have sent guys like Jackson and Tiffany in a deal for a guy that will jump ship in a year and a barely servicable major leaguer, but he was run out of town. Colletti is a complete opposite and trying to win now. Did he give up a little future? Sure. Even though I have never been sold on Jackson, I was high on Tiffany. I would have demanded a further commitment out of Baez, but it is what it is and with the league switch, it could prove very fruitful this year when Jackson and Tiffany were going to give us possible great stats in Triple A. Neither will be any better than a number three if they are lucky, especially with the league switch.
Billingsley is going no where in a trade, no team is that dumb except for the Mets (trading Kazmir). Everyone in LA has been crying for years "Why can't we be more like the Yankees?" Then, when someone finally gives them that it's "we're trading away our future!" It's what the Yankees do! Sure I place a lot of stock in prospects, but in the end, I would rather have pennant, after playoff apprearance, after championship, always in the mix year after year rather than waiting for somoneone that "could be" the next Doc Gooden.
I am a Royals fan (yes, I know) and have spent year after year, watching suppossed top flight pitching prospect after pitching prospect get to the majors (Wood, Gobble, Affeldt, Bautista and the list goes on). Did they work out? Track record says no right now. Develop your offense through the draft and buy your pitching. Put together a great offense and the pitchers will come. Sure it's great to see a Felix Hernandez or Matt Cain come along once in a while, but Dodger fans ask yourselves, how often does that happen?

John, that's all fine and dandy, but like others who have chimed in, you seem to be suggesting that the prospects may never pan out, so it's smart just to trade them....for apparently nothing! That's what boggles my mind about this trade. It seems to have created this supposed 2-sided stance of those who think the trade is okay because you never know with prospects, and those who think the trade is bad because you should never trade prospects.

The real issue with the trade though is none of those 2 stances. The real issue is, if you are going to trade prospects, it is okay, so long as you get players you actually need, and that you get adequate return. If say a Jackson and Tiffany were packaged with others to land a Bobby Abreu or someone like that of actual value, I don't think you would see such an outcry concerning Tiffany and Jackson. That they were traded for essentially nothing is what is appalling.

I mean, if Baez had been a free agent, I wouldn't have been hoping the Dodgers would sign him.

Trade prospects to build the parent team! I have no problem with that. Trade them, just for the sake of trading them? Why? And, if a Tiffany/Jackson and others package doesn't fetch someone of value like an Abreu? Then fine. Why is it a crime to have players in the minors developing?

The prevailing analysis I get from this trade is that of "the Dodgers didn't lose much." I find it funny that I have yet to read that the Dodgers got a steal! That they were very fortunate to get a guy of Baez ability! By most accounts, Baez is nothing more than a Duaner Sanchez. Well, that's a ringing endorsement! Not!

"Near-genius? Isn't that overstating it a bit? He's just spending money! Nothing genius there! Who did he acquire that you didn't see coming? Perhaps Furcal, but that was over-spending! Mueller, Garciaparra, and Lofton were obvious choices if one wanted change, though it remains to be seen if they provide an upgrade over what the Dodgers had. They could easily have stayed with Aybar, Choi/Saenz, and Ledee/Werth and not brought up the rookies as you fear."

At the beginning of this off-season, and even before that, there were people left and right declining the opportunity to come to LA and even heading off any interest that may come their way before it happened. There was a perception that the Dodger franchise was in total chaos and turmoil and no one wanted to be a part of that. Colletti helped change that with the signing of Furcal - and it is your opinion that it was overspending. With the lack of a viable alternative to Izturis, a dearth of young and/or available SS talent in the league, Furcal may very well prove to be a very good signing for the money. Add that Colletti had to spend a little more to get his man and change the perception of the franchise, and I see the Furcal deal as very good.

As for the 'he's just spending money' comment, are you not familiar with the name Kevin Malone??? I have known many the GM who spent money very foolishly, overspent for less than stellar talent and put franchises in long term financial binds by 'just spending money'. So please don't oversimplify the fact. Colletti has spent quite frugally if you ask me; Mueller took less than Pittsburgh offered to sign with the Dodgers, Lofton could have had a guaranteed two year deal elsewhere but chose to come here for less, Garciaparra was rumored to have more lucrative offers elsewhere. Colletti changed the way people were thinking about the franchise and lured players who could all have probably received more money elsewhere. I think Colletti did much more than 'just spend moeny'.

If you saw all these free agents coming to LA, then maybe I should tab you as near-genius too . . . However, if you are seriously questioning whether Mueller will be able to outproduce a rookie with 86 at-bats at the major league level that FAR outpace anything he's ever done in the minors, or espousing that Choi and Saenz would outproduce Garciaparra (as long as he's healthy - a big IF, I understand), and I don't know where you're even getting the Ledee/Werth thing . . . then I think the near-genius tag has to be dropped, sorry. Aybar is no where near proven and a healthy Garciaparra can hit 5th and produce there, while I would cringe at the sight of Choi there at all and Saenz when used too much. If you're opinion is that Aybar, Choi, and Saenz will outproduce Mueller and Garciaparra, fine. I can't see it at all, given full health of all involved. I'm very happy with the Mueller signing and believe the Garciaparra signing was a risk worth taking for one year.

"The fact that he can make the kind of needless trade he did this past weekend? Well, it's enough to scare this Dodger fan!"

Needless? So you were happy going into the season with Wunsch and a bunch of rookies in the bullpen to support Gagne? Not me. Not that I'm not a huge fan of the youngsters, Broxton in particular is my favorite prospect, I definitely am, but I also know the value of having proven relaibility in the pen and the dangers of having too many unproven youngsters that have to be relied on. This was far from a needless trade.

"My fear is that by trying to contend in 2006 . . . "

So I can surmise by this comment that you do not wish to contend in '06? Me . . . I WANT to contend. I can't imagine not wanting to. You either misspoke, or you need to check your priorities as a Dodger fan - there should never be a time we don't strive to contend. EVER . . .

"At the beginning of this off-season, and even before that, there were people left and right declining the opportunity to come to LA and even heading off any interest that may come their way before it happened. There was a perception that the Dodger franchise was in total chaos and turmoil and no one wanted to be a part of that. Colletti helped change that with the signing of Furcal - and it is your opinion that it was overspending."

At the beginning of the offseason, they had no coach, and they had fired their GM after 2 years. That resulted in the chaos you speak of, and it wasn't merely perception. It was fact! McCourt changed that by signing a new GM, not Colletti signing Furcal. I don't mind Furcal, but they overspent for him, by alot! And, by the way, that's not just my opinion. That's an opinion shared by MANY!

"As for the 'he's just spending money' comment, are you not familiar with the name Kevin Malone??? I have known many the GM who spent money very foolishly, overspent for less than stellar talent and put franchises in long term financial binds by 'just spending money'. So please don't oversimplify the fact."

Just because there are many stupid GM's, doesn't mean that everyone that is not stupid, is automatically considered "near-genius!" Now who's oversimplifying? Sure he didn't overspend to a ridiculous extent, but I don't find his moves to be anything special. I don't mind them, but they are nothing special. Near-genius would be trading a Delino Deshields for a Pedro Martinez, or a Larry Andersen for a Jeff Bagwell. Not signing journey-men players who are past their primes to 1 or 2 year deals. Again, they are deals that make sense for the Dodgers given their current situation, and the need to appease most fans wishes to win now! But nothing special.

"If you saw all these free agents coming to LA, then maybe I should tab you as near-genius too"

No! I am nowhere near the genius stage, but I appreciate the thought. My point was, if you are any kind of a Dodger fan like me, you spend enough time on different mediums discussing possible moves and reading Dodger info where you can get it. To that extent, everyone of the Dodger acquisitions was discussed ad naseum, before they took place, so there were no surprises. Again, they were moves that made sense that most Dodger fans who were paying attention saw coming way before they happened.

"If you're opinion is that Aybar, Choi, and Saenz will outproduce Mueller and Garciaparra, fine. I can't see it at all, given full health of all involved. I'm very happy with the Mueller signing and believe the Garciaparra signing was a risk worth taking for one year."

I never said out-produce! Re-read my post. I said they could easily have stayed with Aybar, Saenz/Choi, and Werth/Ledee. I happen to believe they win the NL West with these guys, just as I expect them to with Mueller, Garciaparra, and Lofton. Do I believe the latter 3 would significantly out-produce the others? Significantly? No! Do I believe the latter 3 lead the Dodgers to the World's Championship? No! I think in either case, the Dodgers make the playoffs, but don't win it all. Then I think Baez, Lofton and Garciaparra are gone with Laroche replacing Mueller at 3rd. That is why I make the statement they could easily have gone with the others. Watch the season and playoffs and see if I'm wrong. Obviously as a Dodger fan I hope I am! We'll see.

"Needless? So you were happy going into the season with Wunsch and a bunch of rookies in the bullpen to support Gagne? Not me. Not that I'm not a huge fan of the youngsters, Broxton in particular is my favorite prospect, I definitely am, but I also know the value of having proven relaibility in the pen and the dangers of having too many unproven youngsters that have to be relied on. This was far from a needless trade."

Again, all depends on your perception of Baez. Again, I don't find him to be anything special. Again, watch the season and see if I'm wrong. Yes, I DO beleive the Dodgers would have done just as well as they are likely to do had they not made the Baez trade. We'll see.

"So I can surmise by this comment that you do not wish to contend in '06? Me . . . I WANT to contend. I can't imagine not wanting to. You either misspoke, or you need to check your priorities as a Dodger fan - there should never be a time we don't strive to contend. EVER . . ."

Again, re-read my post. I never said I didn't want to contend. My fear in attempting to contend is that GM's often overestimate their chances during the season, and even more so, overestimate the value of players available at the deadline. That tends to lead to trades dumber than this one, and much more damaging!

I didn't mind his (Colletti's) 1 year moves with the majority of his offseason decision's, but at the same time feared moves like this. And I don't care about the relative perceived values of Tiffany/Jackson. That's really not important. If they had been traded for someone like Zito? Fine! That's an upgrade! You acquire a player like a Zito, then the comments like "the Dodgers didn't lose much" hold more water. When acquiring the likes of a Baez? Well, I am more focussed on the comments like "the Dodgers didn't get much!"

As for your point about me needing to check my priorities as a Dodger fan? I'm quite comfortable with my priorities. I don't place a ton of importance into one season. I look more for a plan that is designed to yield long-term success. If that means burning a year to build the team up and even saving some money for future years when the signing of say 1 or 2 key free agents will have a significant impact on leading the Dodgers deep into the playoffs for several years? I'm all for it.

As to your point about "there should never be a time we don't strive to contend. EVER . . ." Well, that's about the hollowest statement I have ever read. Do me a favor. Re-read that comment of your's, and then ask yourself, "how's that been working out for the Dodgers over the last 17 years?" I mean, when was the last time the Dodgers were actually built to really contend? It's been well over 20 years! And, yes that includes 1988! That year, things went significantly well, and lest we forget they were huge underdogs to both the Mets and the A's. Did they win? Of course! Were they built to contend? Hardly! Is this year's team built to contend? For the division yes! But that's not saying much! For the WS? I don't see it! Again, I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see.

Is that you, Mr. Tracy??? Haven't heard someone answer their own questions that often since good Ol' Jimbo! ;)

In any case, I can agree with most of what you're stating and certainly agree with the priorities and philosophies I see, we just arrive at them from different directions. I certainly don't see the Baez trade as the missing link by any means, but I do see it helping the team win and simply don't understand how so many see it as you state, a 'dumb' trade. But I can agree to disagree on that. I think Baez will prove to be an asset, you don't see it that way - fair enough.

And I too want to see the team contend for years to come and don't want the farm stripped. I understand the fears you have about the door that this trade opens, however I don't see Colletti walking through that door and fulfilling your fears. If he does, I'll join you in the lynch mob, but at present I don't see it happening. I also don't have a problem with dealing Jackson and Tiffany as I feel we have quite a few more top end pitchers on their way up. I do wish we could have gotten a little more for the two of them, although I like the Baez part of the deal, but I have to believe the likes of Ng and White had a say in how this went down and were okay with dealing the two pitchers for whatever reason. In those statements, I found my trust in the front office making this deal.

Thanks for the discussion.