2019 LA Dodgers Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 246, 247, 248  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:57 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:


Why did you include Homer Bailey?


He was part of the trade, an addition, though temporary, and noted.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31786
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:56 pm    Post subject:

The Dodgers are also apparently discussing Starling Marte with the Pirates. I'm sure many of you know that he has served a PED suspension in the past, but that didn't stop the Dodgers from trading for Grandal once upon a time. Other than a terrible '17, Marte has pretty much been a solid player, producing between 2.7 and 4.3 WAR in every other full season he's had. (He was at 3.8 last season.) To put it another way, Marte has 26.2 career WAR in exactly 3400 plate appearances; Bryce Harper has 27.4 career WAR in 3957 plate appearances. (The more I investigate Harper, the more I wouldn't consider giving him the deal he's going to end up getting, and I don't blame the Dodgers for passing on him.)

Marte is also affordable, and in his prime at 30 years old. He's due about $10.3MM this season, and then has a $11.5MM club option next season ($2MM buyout) followed by a $12.5MM club option in '21 ($1MM buyout). So he would be considerably cheaper in terms of cash than what signing Pollock would be. Of course, signing Pollock wouldn't cost you anything but money; the Pirates will obviously want something for Marte, whether that's a major league player or two or prospects. But maybe this has some legs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16024

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:25 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:


Why did you include Homer Bailey?


He was part of the trade, an addition, though temporary, and noted.


Yeah, he was a part of the trade, but my question is - why did you include him? What was the relevance?

I mean, we sent $7M to the Reds, does $7M have a WAR?

Homer Bailey's basically just a contract, why would you attach a WAR to a contract.

You can also look at it like we sent $28M to the Reds to pay Homer Bailey's contract.

And if Homer Bailey didn't play last year, he'd have a 0 WAR, which he'd have for us this year.

So, I can't see the significance of counting his -1.5 WAR. It seems whatever relevance you're trying to achieve w/ that list - including Homer Bailey just doesn't make alot of sense.

I understand trying to be accurate - but, there's gotta be some relevance to it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:50 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:


Why did you include Homer Bailey?


He was part of the trade, an addition, though temporary, and noted.


Yeah, he was a part of the trade, but my question is - why did you include him? What was the relevance?

I mean, we sent $7M to the Reds, does $7M have a WAR?

Homer Bailey's basically just a contract, why would you attach a WAR to a contract.

You can also look at it like we sent $28M to the Reds to pay Homer Bailey's contract.

And if Homer Bailey didn't play last year, he'd have a 0 WAR, which he'd have for us this year.

So, I can't see the significance of counting his -1.5 WAR. It seems whatever relevance you're trying to achieve w/ that list - including Homer Bailey just doesn't make alot of sense.

I understand trying to be accurate - but, there's gotta be some relevance to it.


I considered your point, but, if it is important, factor without him. It changes little.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16024

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:25 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:


Why did you include Homer Bailey?


He was part of the trade, an addition, though temporary, and noted.


Yeah, he was a part of the trade, but my question is - why did you include him? What was the relevance?

I mean, we sent $7M to the Reds, does $7M have a WAR?

Homer Bailey's basically just a contract, why would you attach a WAR to a contract.

You can also look at it like we sent $28M to the Reds to pay Homer Bailey's contract.

And if Homer Bailey didn't play last year, he'd have a 0 WAR, which he'd have for us this year.

So, I can't see the significance of counting his -1.5 WAR. It seems whatever relevance you're trying to achieve w/ that list - including Homer Bailey just doesn't make alot of sense.

I understand trying to be accurate - but, there's gotta be some relevance to it.


I considered your point, but, if it is important, factor without him. It changes little.


Well, this list you've got right here:

Quote:
Plus:

+1.3 Russell Martin
+0.5 Joe Kelly
-0.2 Jamie Schultz
-0.1 Adam McCreery
-0.4 Paulo Orlando
+0.3 Shane Peterson
-1.5 Homer Baily (though released)

-0.1

Minus

+0.2 Tim Locastro
+0.2 Kyle Farmer
+1.1 Matt Kemp
+2.7 Yasiel Puig
+1.3 Alex Wood

+5.3


Every player that we lost played for us last year at some point? But, not every player we acquired will be on the active roster. So here, it looks pretty lopsided:

5.3 to (-0.1)

But, you can't count players we acquire that we have no plans on putting on the mlb active roster.

So, I don't know who's making the roster, but I have a pretty good guess that Russell Martin and Joe Kelly will.

So, it should at least look a bit better, 5.3 to 1.8

All the other dudes with a negative WAR, probably none of them will be on the roster anyways (at the most 1 of them makes it?)

For instance, if someone had a bad year last yr and we offer him a minor league contract - you shouldn't include his negative WAR (Paulo Orlando). A team shouldn't be penalized for giving out long shots to bad players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17197
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:39 pm    Post subject:

Dodgers are projected to win 5 more games than anyone else in the NL, and that's not considering who we might bring up from the farm. I think we'll be OK, but it's still concerning to see us not spending up to the tax limit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:33 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:


Why did you include Homer Bailey?


He was part of the trade, an addition, though temporary, and noted.


Yeah, he was a part of the trade, but my question is - why did you include him? What was the relevance?

I mean, we sent $7M to the Reds, does $7M have a WAR?

Homer Bailey's basically just a contract, why would you attach a WAR to a contract.

You can also look at it like we sent $28M to the Reds to pay Homer Bailey's contract.

And if Homer Bailey didn't play last year, he'd have a 0 WAR, which he'd have for us this year.

So, I can't see the significance of counting his -1.5 WAR. It seems whatever relevance you're trying to achieve w/ that list - including Homer Bailey just doesn't make alot of sense.

I understand trying to be accurate - but, there's gotta be some relevance to it.


I considered your point, but, if it is important, factor without him. It changes little.


Well, this list you've got right here:

Quote:
Plus:

+1.3 Russell Martin
+0.5 Joe Kelly
-0.2 Jamie Schultz
-0.1 Adam McCreery
-0.4 Paulo Orlando
+0.3 Shane Peterson
-1.5 Homer Baily (though released)

-0.1

Minus

+0.2 Tim Locastro
+0.2 Kyle Farmer
+1.1 Matt Kemp
+2.7 Yasiel Puig
+1.3 Alex Wood

+5.3


Every player that we lost played for us last year at some point? But, not every player we acquired will be on the active roster. So here, it looks pretty lopsided:

5.3 to (-0.1)

But, you can't count players we acquire that we have no plans on putting on the mlb active roster.

So, I don't know who's making the roster, but I have a pretty good guess that Russell Martin and Joe Kelly will.

So, it should at least look a bit better, 5.3 to 1.8

All the other dudes with a negative WAR, probably none of them will be on the roster anyways (at the most 1 of them makes it?)

For instance, if someone had a bad year last yr and we offer him a minor league contract - you shouldn't include his negative WAR (Paulo Orlando). A team shouldn't be penalized for giving out long shots to bad players.


Fair enough. I presented a more worst case look and you present a better case look. Neither impress me.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16024

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:58 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:


Why did you include Homer Bailey?


He was part of the trade, an addition, though temporary, and noted.


Yeah, he was a part of the trade, but my question is - why did you include him? What was the relevance?

I mean, we sent $7M to the Reds, does $7M have a WAR?

Homer Bailey's basically just a contract, why would you attach a WAR to a contract.

You can also look at it like we sent $28M to the Reds to pay Homer Bailey's contract.

And if Homer Bailey didn't play last year, he'd have a 0 WAR, which he'd have for us this year.

So, I can't see the significance of counting his -1.5 WAR. It seems whatever relevance you're trying to achieve w/ that list - including Homer Bailey just doesn't make alot of sense.

I understand trying to be accurate - but, there's gotta be some relevance to it.


I considered your point, but, if it is important, factor without him. It changes little.


Well, this list you've got right here:

Quote:
Plus:

+1.3 Russell Martin
+0.5 Joe Kelly
-0.2 Jamie Schultz
-0.1 Adam McCreery
-0.4 Paulo Orlando
+0.3 Shane Peterson
-1.5 Homer Baily (though released)

-0.1

Minus

+0.2 Tim Locastro
+0.2 Kyle Farmer
+1.1 Matt Kemp
+2.7 Yasiel Puig
+1.3 Alex Wood

+5.3


Every player that we lost played for us last year at some point? But, not every player we acquired will be on the active roster. So here, it looks pretty lopsided:

5.3 to (-0.1)

But, you can't count players we acquire that we have no plans on putting on the mlb active roster.

So, I don't know who's making the roster, but I have a pretty good guess that Russell Martin and Joe Kelly will.

So, it should at least look a bit better, 5.3 to 1.8

All the other dudes with a negative WAR, probably none of them will be on the roster anyways (at the most 1 of them makes it?)

For instance, if someone had a bad year last yr and we offer him a minor league contract - you shouldn't include his negative WAR (Paulo Orlando). A team shouldn't be penalized for giving out long shots to bad players.


Fair enough. I presented a more worst case look and you present a better case look. Neither impress me.


Yeah, if your goal was to conclude that you're unimpressed with the Dodgers' offseason transactions, you probably could have done so without the numbers.

I don't think you'll find one person that will argue that they've been impressed with what the Dodgers have done this offseason.

Using numbers is just a way to introduce accuracy into an argument - and the way you've used the numbers I think is the most inaccurate depiction possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:18 am    Post subject:

DuncanIdaho wrote:
Dodgers are projected to win 5 more games than anyone else in the NL, and that's not considering who we might bring up from the farm. I think we'll be OK, but it's still concerning to see us not spending up to the tax limit.


This may turn out to be true, but, if so, it is largely due to the players acquired, or in the system, prior to the new regime. The new regime makes trades like there are bonus points attached to volume, and points subtracted for quality.

Since Oct 2014 when Friedman took over, the additions to the team, such as Walter Buehler, Max Muncy, and Kenta Maeda, are few and far between, and are about a wash with the losses, such as Dee Gordon, Zack Grenike, and Yasiel Puig. As such, there is little, if any, growth on the team due to the new administration, and the farm has fewer top notch prospects. To add, almost all of the success is due to the parts already in place: The kids from the farm, Corey Seager, Cody Bellinger, Joc Pederson, Julio Urias, and Alex Verdugo, and the vets such as Turner, Ryu, Jansen, and Kershaw.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:24 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:


Yeah, if your goal was to conclude that you're unimpressed with the Dodgers' offseason transactions, you probably could have done so without the numbers.

I don't think you'll find one person that will argue that they've been impressed with what the Dodgers have done this offseason.

Using numbers is just a way to introduce accuracy into an argument - and the way you've used the numbers I think is the most inaccurate depiction possible.


Well, that horse is no longer in the pasture. You made your point three posts ago, and since we don't really agree, as I see value in the numbers and I qualified Baily, we should leave it as it is.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16024

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:44 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
Dodgers are projected to win 5 more games than anyone else in the NL, and that's not considering who we might bring up from the farm. I think we'll be OK, but it's still concerning to see us not spending up to the tax limit.


This may turn out to be true, but, if so, it is largely due to the players acquired, or in the system, prior to the new regime. The new regime makes trades like there are bonus points attached to volume, and points subtracted for quality.

Since Oct 2014 when Friedman took over, the additions to the team, such as Walter Buehler, Max Muncy, and Kenta Maeda, are few and far between, and are about a wash with the losses, such as Dee Gordon, Zack Grenike, and Yasiel Puig. As such, there is little, if any, growth on the team due to the new administration, and the farm has fewer top notch prospects. To add, almost all of the success is due to the parts already in place: The kids from the farm, Corey Seager, Cody Bellinger, Joc Pederson, Julio Urias, and Alex Verdugo, and the vets such as Turner, Ryu, Jansen, and Kershaw.


1) Dee Gordon landed us Howie Kendrick, Enrique Hernandez, and Austin Barnes. Last 4 years, Dee Gordon has produced 9.4 WAR.

Austin Barnes - 3.0 WAR
Kike Hernandez - 6.1 WAR
Howie Kendrick - 1.6 WAR
Total - 10.7 WAR

2) Why would you count Greinke against this front office? The previous regime offered him an opt out after 3 years and he opted out. He signed a stupid deal with AZ which everyone agrees he's not worth. Why would you count that against this FO?

On the flip side, they've retained Kershaw, Jansen, and Turner and they get no credit for that. So pretty much, if they retain players that were acquired by the previous regime - then they get zero credit, but if they lose any players from the previous regime, then they get full blame. How's that for a fair assessment?

3) Why no credit for the Kemp for Grandal trade? Grandal in 4 years gave us 9.8 WAR. Plus, they got rid of Kemp's huge contract (given by the previous regime).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16024

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:54 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:


Yeah, if your goal was to conclude that you're unimpressed with the Dodgers' offseason transactions, you probably could have done so without the numbers.

I don't think you'll find one person that will argue that they've been impressed with what the Dodgers have done this offseason.

Using numbers is just a way to introduce accuracy into an argument - and the way you've used the numbers I think is the most inaccurate depiction possible.


Well, that horse is no longer in the pasture. You made your point three posts ago, and since we don't really agree, as I see value in the numbers and I qualified Baily, we should leave it as it is.


1) "that horse is no longer in the pasture" - yeah, I don't know what this means.

2) "I see value in the numbers and I qualified Baily" - yeah, you see value in numbers and you included his WAR numbers and other players which probably won't make the roster. There's value in numbers and there's value in whether it's accurate or relevant to include such numbers. You felt that it would be the most accurate and relevant to include numbers of players that are released and players who are signed to minor league contracts.

I see no relevance in that. I pointed it out. You said - it changes little because you are still umimpressed. So, if getting accurate and relevant numbers is of little importance to you, then probably there's no need to use them. The point of using numbers is that they are unbiased, accurate and relevant. That's the whole point. There's nothing accurate and relevant about including the WARs of players released and players signed to minor league contracts with an invitation to Spring Training.

Now you're saying that as long as you put in a notation that Bailey was released, it's ok to use his numbers.

The bottom line, it's your list. It's up to you which numbers you want to include or not. The method you chose seemed to be the most inaccurate way to depict what's going on.

Now you're saying you don't agree. Not sure what it is that you don't agree with. That the list is an inaccurate portrayal?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:09 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
ribeye wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
Dodgers are projected to win 5 more games than anyone else in the NL, and that's not considering who we might bring up from the farm. I think we'll be OK, but it's still concerning to see us not spending up to the tax limit.


This may turn out to be true, but, if so, it is largely due to the players acquired, or in the system, prior to the new regime. The new regime makes trades like there are bonus points attached to volume, and points subtracted for quality.

Since Oct 2014 when Friedman took over, the additions to the team, such as Walter Buehler, Max Muncy, and Kenta Maeda, are few and far between, and are about a wash with the losses, such as Dee Gordon, Zack Grenike, and Yasiel Puig. As such, there is little, if any, growth on the team due to the new administration, and the farm has fewer top notch prospects. To add, almost all of the success is due to the parts already in place: The kids from the farm, Corey Seager, Cody Bellinger, Joc Pederson, Julio Urias, and Alex Verdugo, and the vets such as Turner, Ryu, Jansen, and Kershaw.


1) Dee Gordon landed us Howie Kendrick, Enrique Hernandez, and Austin Barnes. Last 4 years, Dee Gordon has produced 9.4 WAR.

Austin Barnes - 3.0 WAR
Kike Hernandez - 6.1 WAR
Howie Kendrick - 1.6 WAR
Total - 10.7 WAR

2) Why would you count Greinke against this front office? The previous regime offered him an opt out after 3 years and he opted out. He signed a stupid deal with AZ which everyone agrees he's not worth. Why would you count that against this FO?

On the flip side, they've retained Kershaw, Jansen, and Turner and they get no credit for that. So pretty much, if they retain players that were acquired by the previous regime - then they get zero credit, but if they lose any players from the previous regime, then they get full blame. How's that for a fair assessment?

3) Why no credit for the Kemp for Grandal trade? Grandal in 4 years gave us 9.8 WAR. Plus, they got rid of Kemp's huge contract (given by the previous regime).


You just keep itching for a fight.

You add Kendrick who is not on the team. Gordon had 9.6 WAR and plays a position the Dodgers have looked, and failed, to replace since.

Kemp is not on the team.

Grandal? Are you really going to ignore his playoff's performance?

Greinke left, and possibly justifiably so, even though there were many who wanted to trade back for him. Regardless, he was never replaced, and still isn't. That is another hole. Now Buehler could be that guy, but age has left Kershaw less than he was, in other words, I'd take Kersh and Greinke then over Kersh and Buehler now. But hey, we did git a bunch of 4th and 5th starters--who, thankfully, are mostly gone.

The assessment is where the Dodgers were when Friedman took over and where are they now. If you think they are better off now, especially the depth or the farm now, due to Friedman, I'm sorry, we're world's apart.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16024

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:42 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
You just keep looking for a fight.


Not sure what this means. You keep saying things I disagree with. Should I pretend I agree with the things you post?

ribeye wrote:
You add Kendrick who is not on the team. Gordon had 9.6 WAR and plays a position the Dodgers have looked, and failed, to replace since.


Are you assessing what the FO has done since 2014 or are you assessing the team as of today? You brought up since they came into office in 2014, so it's a bit unclear.

Dee Gordon had an 0.6 WAR last year. He has 2 yrs $27.5 M left on his contract. Would you be interested in brining him back?


ribeye wrote:
Grandal? Are you really going to ignore his playoff's performance?
Yeah, I don't get the criticism against the FO. Who was our catcher before Grandal? Who's our catcher now after Grandal?

I mean, if you're going to criticize the FO for Grandal, then bring up the catchers that we had with the old regime. If you're going to use WAR in one post, then why can't we use WAR when assessing Grandal? Now, you're just going to ignore Grandal's WAR and bring up playoffs? Is your assessment of the FO just arbitrary?


Quote:
Greinke left, and possibly justifiably so, even though there were many who wanted to trade back for him. Regardless, he was never replaced, and still isn't. That is another hole. Now Buehler could be that guy, but age has left Kershaw less than he was, in other words, I'd take Kersh and Greinke then over Kersh and Buehler now. But hey, we did git a bunch of 4th and 5th starters--who, thankfully, are mostly gone.


Greinke and Kershaw were here for 3 years together. Greinke had a career year in 2015. We never made it as far in the playoffs with Greinke as we had without him the last 2 years.

We can have Greinke back if you want. I think Arizona would give him back to us for free. Would that please you?


Quote:
The assessment is where the Dodgers were when Friedman took over and where are they now. If you think they are better off now, especially the depth or the farm now, due to Friedman, I'm sorry, we're world's apart.


When Friedman took over, we had a $236M payroll. We hadn't made it to the WS in 28 years?

Today, we have a payroll under $180M? We made it to the WS the last 2 years.

Are we better off now than we were in 2014? YES!!!

Our main position players back then were Kemp, Ethier, Hanley Ramirez and Adrian Gonzalez. You want any of them back?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:30 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:

When Friedman took over, we had a $236M payroll. We hadn't made it to the WS in 28 years?

Today, we have a payroll under $180M? We made it to the WS the last 2 years.

Are we better off now than we were in 2014? YES!!!

Our main position players back then were Kemp, Ethier, Hanley Ramirez and Adrian Gonzalez. You want any of them back?


Look Andrew, we made it to the World Series with a team largely, made up from the past regime, as I already said but you ignored. The team was already built or about to be with the players already in the system. We replaced Kemp with Joc, Ethier with Verdugo, Hanley with Seager, and Gonzo with Bellinger, and let's be complete here, Uribe with Turner, a free agent, who has been the backbone of the team and a main reason for the recent success. And, since all the others came from the farm, the farm no longer has these players, or others comparable, another point you ignore.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
oasisdude77
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 2734

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:59 am    Post subject:

While our success is largely predicated on our previous regime, I'm not going to discount going to two world series in a row. The old regime had a stud in Matt Kemp, a prime Greinke, Hanley, Ethier, A-Gon and up and coming Kershaw and Jansen and we couldn't do squat.

Even though most of our success came from our graduated farm guys from the old regime, it's no suprise that we are still ranked as having the best farm system out there so Freidman and co are doing something right. They basically have us at a 'win-now' mode while also building for the future. Again, if it wasn't for Kershaw and Kenley imploding at inopportune times, we could easily have 2 WS titles and Freidman would probably be getting a statue at Dodger Stadium.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16024

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:01 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:

When Friedman took over, we had a $236M payroll. We hadn't made it to the WS in 28 years?

Today, we have a payroll under $180M? We made it to the WS the last 2 years.

Are we better off now than we were in 2014? YES!!!

Our main position players back then were Kemp, Ethier, Hanley Ramirez and Adrian Gonzalez. You want any of them back?


We made it to the World Series with a team largely, made up from the past regime, as I already said but you ignored. The team was already built or about to be with the players already in the system. We replaced Kemp with Joc, Ethier with Verdugo, Hanley with Seager, and Gonzo with Bellinger, and let's be complete here, Uribe with Turner, a free agent, who has been the backbone of the team and a main reason for the recent success. And, since all the others came from the farm, the farm no longer has these players, or others comparable, another point you ignore.


So what exactly is it that you are arguing exactly?

You're not really clear. I brought up Howie Kendrick, you said he's no longer on the team.

What are the actual parameters that you want to have a discussion about?

You asked if we're better today than we were when Friedman took over, I answered yes.

Then you bring up all the prospects that the previous regime left behind. Ok?

So, how did you want me to answer that question exactly? Was there a way for me to answer that question?

ribeye wrote:
The assessment is where the Dodgers were when Friedman took over and where are they now. If you think they are better off now, especially the depth or the farm now, due to Friedman, I'm sorry, we're world's apart.


What room have you left this FO to be fairly evaluated on? The previous regime left alot of great prospects. Ok.

They signed Turner, they brought up Kershaw and Jansen. Ok.

What is it that you are evaluating this FO on? If they don't re-sign Greinke - ok, black mark on them.

If they re-sign Turner, Jansen and Kershaw - ok, no points for them.

If they trade Kemp for Grandal, ok no points for them.

If they find hidden gems like Taylor, Muncy - ok, props for Muncy, no props for Taylor.

I mean, it seems you want to give so much props to the previous regime but they never had much success. So, yeah, I don't get it.

I mean, they even won last year when Seager went down, yet you still count Seager.

One of the things this regime has been able to do is build a reliable bullpen year after year w/o using alot of assets. That was one of the reasons why the previous regime failed. Remember when all we had was Kershaw and Greinke and no bullpen and bad defense?

This regime fixed that. They've been able to build a bullpen year after year devoting little to no assets to it.

So yeah, I'm not really sure what parameters you're using to assess this front office. But it seems that there's actually no room at all to give them any credit.

Seems you want to give all the credit to the previous regime. Ask you this, if you had a choice right now to go back to the previous regime, would you do it?

You can have Ned Colletti back. And Logan White and that entire scouting department. Would you do it?

Or we can go back to 2014 and just keep things exactly as they were. Would you do it?

I mean, how long was Logan White and Ned Colletti in charge for? Didn't they have their time? This regime's been here for 4 years and 2 WS runs and you're so unhappy with the results?


Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:05 am    Post subject:

Andrew, I'm not going to waste my time further with this useless exercise. You think the team is in better shape now than in late 2014. I don't.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16024

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:07 am    Post subject:

Who's Andrew?

You could call it useless, fine. But if it's useless why even pose the question?

Why ask a question, get an answer, then refer to it as a "useless exercise."

Unless the question was rhetorical?

But it's ironic that we took Ned Colletti from the Giants. We had no success with him. Replaced him with Friedman and Zaidi and now the Giants went and poached Zaidi from us.

So, the Giants want some of what we've been doing for the last 4 years. But you don't. You pine for the days of Ned Colletti. You yearn for 2014 again.

What exactly was so magical about 2014 anyways?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:11 am    Post subject:

It seems like the difference between past as present is the past regime got a lot of really good pieces while the current FO has maximized their potential (for the most part).

We had guys get hurt, goe through slumps, get sent down, get replaced with rookies or no-name journeymen and the team found a way to keep chugging along and make it to the WS twice. I'll be the first to say Dave and the FO's obsession with the numbers and tinkering cost us a title but it's not fair to not also mention that their methods are what got us there in the first place. We didn't have this kind of success in 2008-2016 despite having a lot of talent.

I definitely agree with LBP that this front office has been very successful but I also see the point Ribeye made of them inheriting a lot of the pieces (as everyone does unless it's an expansion team).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:13 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
Who's Andrew?

You could call it useless, fine. But if it's useless why even pose the question?

Why ask a question, get an answer, then refer to it as a "useless exercise."

Unless the question was rhetorical?

But it's ironic that we took Ned Colletti from the Giants. We had no success with him. Replaced him with Friedman and Zaidi and now the Giants went and poached Zaidi from us.

So, the Giants want some of what we've been doing for the last 4 years. But you don't. You pine for the days of Ned Colletti. You yearn for 2014 again.

What exactly was so magical about 2014 anyways?

I think this was the year we should have won, had Hanley not gotten beamed in the ribs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16024

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:17 am    Post subject:

loslakersss wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
Who's Andrew?

You could call it useless, fine. But if it's useless why even pose the question?

Why ask a question, get an answer, then refer to it as a "useless exercise."

Unless the question was rhetorical?

But it's ironic that we took Ned Colletti from the Giants. We had no success with him. Replaced him with Friedman and Zaidi and now the Giants went and poached Zaidi from us.

So, the Giants want some of what we've been doing for the last 4 years. But you don't. You pine for the days of Ned Colletti. You yearn for 2014 again.

What exactly was so magical about 2014 anyways?

I think this was the year we should have won, had Hanley not gotten beamed in the ribs.


That was the previous year - 2013 in the NLCS.

In 2014 - we got beat in the NLDS - 3-1 by the Cardinals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
oasisdude77
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 2734

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:18 am    Post subject:

loslakersss wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
Who's Andrew?

You could call it useless, fine. But if it's useless why even pose the question?

Why ask a question, get an answer, then refer to it as a "useless exercise."

Unless the question was rhetorical?

But it's ironic that we took Ned Colletti from the Giants. We had no success with him. Replaced him with Friedman and Zaidi and now the Giants went and poached Zaidi from us.

So, the Giants want some of what we've been doing for the last 4 years. But you don't. You pine for the days of Ned Colletti. You yearn for 2014 again.

What exactly was so magical about 2014 anyways?

I think this was the year we should have won, had Hanley not gotten beamed in the ribs.


That was 2013, if I'm remembering correctly.

2014 is the year Kershaw imploded in game 1 vs the Cards and we lost in the first round 3 games to 1.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:24 am    Post subject:

oasisdude77 wrote:
While our success is largely predicated on our previous regime, I'm not going to discount going to two world series in a row. The old regime had a stud in Matt Kemp, a prime Greinke, Hanley, Ethier, A-Gon and up and coming Kershaw and Jansen and we couldn't do squat.

Even though most of our success came from our graduated farm guys from the old regime, it's no suprise that we are still ranked as having the best farm system out there so Freidman and co are doing something right. They basically have us at a 'win-now' mode while also building for the future. Again, if it wasn't for Kershaw and Kenley imploding at inopportune times, we could easily have 2 WS titles and Freidman would probably be getting a statue at Dodger Stadium.


I won't say the team didn't do squat.
Code:

2018   92   71   0.564   Lost WS (4-1)
2017  104   58   0.642   Lost WS (4-3)
2016   91   71   0.562   Lost NLCS (4-2)
2015   92   70   0.568   Lost LDS (3-2)
2014   94   68   0.580   Lost LDS (3-1)
2013   92   70   0.568   Lost NLCS (4-2)
2012   86   76   0.531   
2011   82   79   0.509   


As can be seen, the team was getting better and better, and made the playoffs in 2013. Yes, the team did a bit better after that, though never winning the big prize, but it was with the players largely from prior to Oct 2014. Essentially, a 92 win team in 2013 team became a 92 win team (with one more loss) in 2018--though yes, for those who look at the trees and not the forest, to be exact, the team averaged 94+ wins from 2014-2018--but still, and forevermore, with players largely from the previous regime.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:26 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
Who's Andrew?

What exactly was so magical about 2014 anyways?


Well, Andrew, as stated earlier, that was when you took over.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 246, 247, 248  Next
Page 28 of 248
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB