OT: Dodgers' trades (bad things happen in threes?)

[SackAttack]

So apparently, in their neverending quest for truth, justice, and a Player Who Can Hit, the Dodgers made three trades today. I can't say as how I'm happy about any of them, but on two of them, I don't know enough about who LA got back to judge, so I'm hoping that there might be some Mariners and (don't laugh) Devil Rays fans lurking who can provide some input.

Trade #1:

Franklin Gutierrez, PTBNL for Indians' Milton Bradley

I think this is a bad, bad idea from start to finish. He had a run-in with LoDuca last year, and now they're sharing the same clubhouse. Worse yet, this is the same guy who got demoted to the minors by the Indians for failing to run out a pop fly that eventually landed for a single. I'm not sure that's the kind of player the Dodgers should be trading for.

Trade #2:

Jolbert Cabrera for Mariners P's Aaron Looper and Ryan Ketchner

I hate the idea of losing Cabrera at all because of his defensive versatility, but also the sparkplug he provided for the offense in the games he DID start last year. I would rather have had him starting at 2nd than Cora this season, truthfully. On top of that (not that it matters), he was also hitting something like .350 this spring. If we're looking for an offensive jumpstart, surely that wouldn't have been a bad place to start? But...are the two pitchers any good? I've never heard of them.

Trade #3:

Jason Romano for Tampa Bay SS Antonio Perez

Again, is Perez any good? I hate to see Romano go, but I dunno if he was just out of options and wasn't going to make the club anyway, or what the deal is here.

[Crapshoot]

You're kidding right ? I hate the Dodger bums, and I think they made 3 great deals- in trade 3, they traded a useless part for some upside- in trade 2, they dealt a backup middle infielder for 2 decent arms, and in trade 1, they acquired a 26 year old 3 years from FA who had an OPS higher than any Dodger regular last year for a "toolsy" outfielder...

[SackAttack]

Well, let me clarify. I really dislike the trade for Bradley. I don't think anything good can come of that. On the other two, i don't like losing the two players we gave up, but I freely admit that I don't know a whole lot about what we got back. I'm keeping an open mind on those two, but until I find out some more about them, I kind of have reservations about all three moves.

[mckerney]

Bradley hit .321 and had an OPB of .421 last year. Not running out a pop up in spring training isn't a good thing, but it's not a a horrible and uncorrectable problem as you seem to make it out to be. By the same right though, I suppose you'd be upset if they'd traded for Bonds who did the same thing in the regular season a few years back.

[SackAttack]

mckerney, the impression I've gotten is that the failure to run out the pop-up was just symptomatic of a larger problem between him and the Indians, and was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

It's less his offensive production I'm concerned with, and more the intangibles he's going to bring to the clubhouse.

[lynchjm24]

The first trade puts them in the hunt for the playoffs THIS YEAR. The Indians did get a nice prospect back though in Gutierrez.

The second trade was a nice little move to pick up a few arms. 2003 looks like it was the best year Cabrera was going to have. Looper is a decent arm and Ketchner has great minor league strike out numbers.

Perez plays mostly second and they got more then they gave up in Romano.


I'd say:

1. That division is there for the taking - why not go try and win it.
2. Cabrera is very replaceable
3. They got the better player in the deal.

Pretty good day if ask me for the Dodgers.

[rexallllsc]

Romano was out of options.

[JonInMiddleGA]

1) I hate the deal for Bradley, my bet is he doesn't make it to July 1st with the club.

2) The Looper trade doesn't seem all that bad IMO. Looper is some bullpen filler for now, Ketchner is probably facing a make-or-break year at AA but still has some upside. Cabrera is a decent fill-in but those aren't really that hard to find.

3) No idea really, strikes me as a spare-part-for-spare-part deal.

[Celeval]

I love the deal for Bradley.

Of course, I'm an Indians fan.

[rexallllsc]

I don't get this (from the ESPN article):

Last year, he had run-ins with Los Angeles catcher Paul Lo Duca and Yankees first baseman Jason Giambi. Bradley also threw his helmet and bat in the direction of plate umpire Bruce Froemming.


Bradley had baseball cards of Lo Duca and Giambi above his locker this spring.

[rexallllsc]

hxxp://rosenthalgregg.blogspot.com/archives/2003_06_08_rosenthalgregg_archive.html

[samifan24]

As an Indians fan, I applaud Mark Shapiro for moving Bradley and setting the precedent that even star players are accountable in front of their manager. I was never a fan of Bradley to begin with and, while he is a very talented player, he is a headache above all else and I think he spells trouble. I'm glad he's gone.

[Carligula]

OK. There seem to be a few people here who believe that intangibles, or clubhouse presence, or chemistry, or whatever you want to call it is important. I would like to understand this phemonenon better, so I have a request of you folks - tell me which teams have the best chemistry, and the worst chemistry, on this Opening Day.

See, the way I look at it is, with every other attribute of a good team, we know about it when the season starts - whether it's deep pitching, or a great outfield defense, or a manager who gets the most out of his hitters. Why should chemistry be any different? If it's so important, why didn't I hear anybody saying at this time last year "The Marlins have great chemistry - look out for them", or the Twins or the Angels two years ago?

Until someone can point it out to me before it happens, I'm going to continue believing that good chemistry is just randomly attributed to a team mid-season as a short way to say "This team's playing better than I thought they would, and I can't be bothered to figure out why."

[Ksyrup]

You don't need to believe in chemistry to believe that trading for a guy who has an on-going feud with one of your better players will adversely affect the team.

[rexallllsc]

You don't need to believe in chemistry to believe that trading for a guy who has an on-going feud with one of your better players will adversely affect the team.

Yeh. The baseball card thing is weird...I can't wait to hear Paulie Lo Duca's soundclip...not to mention LoDucs is prob. the second best-liked current Dodger...

[QuikSand]

I generally agree with Carligula's connotation on the matter of team chemistry, especially as a winning factor.

But there are individual guys who are undeniably "clubhouse cancers." Don't work hard, whine about things a lot, not supportive of the team... that sort of thing. Milton Bradley is pretty undeniably one of those guys. He has talent, but was pretty readily ushered out of Montreal for this reason, by all reports. And Cleveland, who doesn't exactly have a star-studded outfield to begin with, is looking to deal him even though he is very cheap this year. This is a guy with some issues.

[Chief Rum]

I generally agree with Carligula's connotation on the matter of team chemistry, especially as a winning factor.

But there are individual guys who are undeniably "clubhouse cancers." Don't work hard, whine about things a lot, not supportive of the team... that sort of thing. Milton Bradley is pretty undeniably one of those guys. He has talent, but was pretty readily ushered out of Montreal for this reason, by all reports. And Cleveland, who doesn't exactly have a star-studded outfield to begin with, is looking to deal him even though he is very cheap this year. This is a guy with some issues.

I agree with everything here. The only thing I have to say, though, is where there is one, is there not likely to be the other?

In other words, if we agree that clubhouse cancers exist, and that they affect the play on the field, doesn't it also stand to reason that clubhouse "angels" or "good guys" or what have you also exist, and they, too, can have an effect on the play on the field?

I think team chemistry is way overblown, and not nearly as important as overall team talent and playing to that talent. But I do think team chemsitry exists and plays a role.

CR

[Carligula]

Oh, no doubt the Dodgers' clubhouse just became a less pleasant place to be. I just don't buy that it'll have any on-field effect. Most anybody who gets to the major leagues in the first place has a very well-developed ability to block out distractions and concentrate on the task at hand.

Single examples don't mean much of anything to this debate, but I can't resist one - Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds. By all accounts they couldn't stand each other. Yet both played the best ball of their lives when they were teammates.

So that's my take on it - sure the Dodgers, and Lo Duca in particular, probably aren't going to be too happy spending six months with Milton Bradley(tm). I just don't think they're going to play any worse for it - so how does it matter to us?

[CentralMassHokie]

As a Red Sox fan, I was dying for the Sox to make a deal for Bradley. He's simply too good to not take a shot at.

As for the clubhouse issues, what people tend to forget is that a) he's still extremely young; b) he grew up in a seriously bad environment; and c) he's done a ton of good things for the Cleveland community.

This is a fairly young player who's had some bad breaks and is prone to flying off the handle. I'm confident that some team will get through to him, or catch him as he matures, and is going to get a hell of a player.

I was hoping it would be the Sox (Bradley in CF would be a huge upgrade over Damon), but it looks like DePodesta is quickly on his way to turning around the Dodgers.

And honestly, he gave up *nothing* to get Bradley. Toolsy outfielders with loads of power but little plate discipline have a funny way of turning out not so great.

The series of moves DePodesta has made since getting to LA have all pretty much been spot on. Dealing from areas of strength (the Dodgers minor league pitching) for areas of weakness (offense throughout the system).

As soon as DePo can find a mediocre pair of middle infielders, he'll obviously be dumping Cora and Izturis, who are gigantic black holes in an offense that already sucks.

[CentralMassHokie]

Oh, one other addition.

Who the hell gives a crap if Paul LoDuca has a problem with Milton Bradley?

The next time Paul LoDuca puts up a better second half than most middle infielders will be the first time in his career. He should leave the talking to players who can, you know, actually hit. Which, on the Dodgers, is pretty much just Shawn Green.

The funny part of this whole thing is going to be when DePodesta deals LoDuca, since he's horribly overrated and only has a job because the old school Dodgers were still in denial about the impact that catchers have "calling a game."

[rexallllsc]

Oh, one other addition.

Who the hell gives a crap if Paul LoDuca has a problem with Milton Bradley?

The next time Paul LoDuca puts up a better second half than most middle infielders will be the first time in his career. He should leave the talking to players who can, you know, actually hit. Which, on the Dodgers, is pretty much just Shawn Green.

The funny part of this whole thing is going to be when DePodesta deals LoDuca, since he's horribly overrated and only has a job because the old school Dodgers were still in denial about the impact that catchers have "calling a game."

You should check out LoDuca's stats

hxxp://rosenthalgregg.blogspot.com/archives/2003_06_08_rosenthalgregg_archive.html

[CentralMassHokie]

You should check out LoDuca's stats

I have. He's had *1* year in which he was better than league average (using OPS+), and that was 2001, at age 29.

Most players, especially catchers on the wrong side of 30, don't all of a sudden learn how to mash.

Lo Duca is very very average. Last year, offensively, he was below average (92 OPS+).

And before anyone raises the point about hitting in Dodger Stadium, OPS+ is park-adjusted.

Lo Duca's not a bad player at all, defensively. He was the #2 catcher in the NL in Fielding Win Shares, which made him the #4 NL catcher in overall Win Shares. Unfortunately, more than half of his value was in fielding. The reason that's unfortunate is that the Dodgers are in serious need of offense and would likely be better if they took a shot at a poor-fielding, good-hitting type behind the plate (for instance, someone like LeCroy).

Anyway, I just like to make fun of players who get all indignant about the behavior of opponents. Especially when the player in question isn't terribly well-liked around the league.

[DeToxRox]

DePodesta is a numbers man. Clearly it worked for the As, clearly it helped the Blue Jays. I think you shouldn't doubt what he's capable of, be it his first year or not. History is on his side.

[mgadfly]

Oh, no doubt the Dodgers' clubhouse just became a less pleasant place to be. I just don't buy that it'll have any on-field effect. Most anybody who gets to the major leagues in the first place has a very well-developed ability to block out distractions and concentrate on the task at hand.

Single examples don't mean much of anything to this debate, but I can't resist one - Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds. By all accounts they couldn't stand each other. Yet both played the best ball of their lives when they were teammates.

So that's my take on it - sure the Dodgers, and Lo Duca in particular, probably aren't going to be too happy spending six months with Milton Bradley(tm). I just don't think they're going to play any worse for it - so how does it matter to us?


Having played on some teams in my life (college football, high school basketball/baseball), I believe team chemistry matters. Having watched the Portland Trailblazers the past decade only reinforces my opinion. Baseball fans love statistics and often times will argue that if it isn’t measurable, it doesn’t exist or doesn’t make an impact. That’s absurd in my opinion.

I think the problem people have is they misunderstand what “good” team chemistry is. It isn’t players who love each other and come to the ball park and the day (practice, batting practice, weight lifting, etc…) is like a 6 year old’s day at Chuck E Cheeses. “Good” chemistry is a clubhouse/lockerroom environment which encourages and allows players to improve and get better. This can be with people you don’t get along with, or with people you do get along with, which makes it difficult to predict.

I’ve experienced playing for and with people that I didn’t like, but the environment was such that I was able to improve and get the most out of myself and teammates. I’ve also played places where I’ve had a good-enough time but for whatever reason was never able to get those around me to really want to give it their all.

And the last reason I’m convinced it matters is that if you talk to coaches or managers they often tell you that the most important part of their job isn’t the X’s and O’s or strategy or whatever, but it is getting the guys to work hard together. If the best coaches in the country believe it is the most important part of their job, I’m inclined to agree, even if I can’t measure it with statistics, or easily predict which teams will have “good” chemistry.

[rexallllsc]

DePodesta is a numbers man. Clearly it worked for the As, clearly it helped the Blue Jays. I think you shouldn't doubt what he's capable of, be it his first year or not. History is on his side.

I'm down for DePo.

[CentralMassHokie]

The Oakland A's of the 70s hated each other. They hated their owners and management. Yet they put together some pretty good teams.

The Pirates of the 70s were, by all accounts, a pretty horrible environment to play baseball in. Yet they weren't too bad.

Yes, chemistry (or whatever you want to call the intangibles that arise during a season) matters, but how much it matters is the question. I'd argue that it matters a whole lot less than having good players. So much less that it's almost not worth considering when acquiring new talent (via FA, trades, draft) other than in the most extreme cases (Carl Everett, Ramon Castro).

Jimy Williams is supposedly one of those managers who gets the "best" out of his teams. Yet they continually underperform their expected winning percentage.

I think, 9 times out of 10, "bad chemistry" is really bad luck.

Neither luck nor chemistry are really worth considering when acquiring a baseball player.

[Suicane75]

Anyone who follows the Dodgers closely know if the plan is to move Roberts or Ventura out of the starting lineup?

[Chief Rum]

Anyone who follows the Dodgers closely know if the plan is to move Roberts or Ventura out of the starting lineup?

It was suggested during the Angels-Dodgers telecast that Green would be playing a lot of first base (it was Depodesta who said it, too), so I am guessing Ventura will be the odd man out. Too bad he can't play second or short.

CR

[Buddy Grant]

I love the deal for Bradley.

Of course, I'm an Indians fan.
Priceless:)

[Arles]

Another thing on the Bradley trade. According to Gammons, Gutierrez was the Dodgers player of the year in the minors (A and AA) last year. Also, he stated the "player to be named later" is going to be a top-10 prospect in the Dodgers' farm system. So, essentially, LA gave up two top-10 prospects for Bradley. That changes the value a bit.

[SackAttack]

I don't know about the PTBNL, but here's the thing.

Yeah, Bradley had a pretty good year last year. Am I the only one who noticed that he only played 101 games? That's barely half a season. What was somebody saying about LoDuca tailing off in the second half? At least he gives you 162, or close to it, every year.

I don't know. I'm still very iffy on the Bradley trade. I don't think any good can come of it, and I appear to not be alone in that assessment. I think it's fairly telling that some Indians fans seem delighted with the trade.

If, as lynch believes, the Dodgers make the playoffs as a result of this trade, then I may have to revisit my thoughts at the end of the year and see if anything has changed.

I'm just not convinced that Bradley's supposed offensive talent is a significant value considering his attendant baggage, and if the PTBNL is in fact a top-10 prospect, and it's either James Loney or one of the Dodgers' top young arms, then I'd say the deal can *only* be a success with a playoff berth or an extended playoff run.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

As far as the Dodger lineup is concerned, 980 KFWB is reporting that Bradley will play center and bat 3rd, that Roberts would slide over to left, Encarnacion to right (best place for him with that arm), and that Green will be the Dodgers' opening day first baseman.

Which means, I suspect, that LoDuca is gonna spend a lot of time behind the plate again this year. I just hope David Ross is used enough to keep Paulie fresh for the second half.

[Bad-example]

Will they give Bradley the same locker that Ricky used last year?

[SackAttack]

Hey, Rickey was actually a positive influence on the Dodgers last year. He had a .350 OBP despite the fact that, y'know, he couldn't hit.

But neither could the rest of the team.

I blame the Gatorade.

[lynchjm24]

If, as lynch believes, the Dodgers make the playoffs as a result of this trade, then I may have to revisit my thoughts at the end of the year and see if anything has changed.

I'm just not convinced that Bradley's supposed offensive talent is a significant value considering his attendant baggage, and if the PTBNL is in fact a top-10 prospect, and it's either James Loney or one of the Dodgers' top young arms, then I'd say the deal can *only* be a success with a playoff berth or an extended playoff run.

I think it improves their chances in the division by about 5-10%. I don't know if it will push them over the top but it improves their chances.

Everything I read is that while the PTBNL is good, he's not a better prospect then Gutierrez.... so it's not going to be anyone that outstanding.

[Arles]

Here's ESPN on the the guys Cleveland gets:

"Gutierrez, 21, had a breakthrough of his own last year. Signed out of Venezuela in 2000, he homered six times in six games to open 2003 at high Class A Vero Beach. He hit .287/.350/.524 with 24 homers, 80 RBI and 20 steals in 128 games between Vero Beach and Double-A Jacksonville. Ranked 31st on Baseball America's Top 100 Prospects list, Gutierrez is a legitimate five-tool outfielder. His power is his most obvious skill, but he also can hit for average, steal bases, cover enough ground to play center field and throw well enough to play right. With Grady Sizemore also on hand in the Cleveland system, Gutierrez projects as the club's right fielder of the future. He's still working on hitting breaking pitches, using the whole field and showing more patience at the plate. He'll start 2004 at Double-A Akron.

Once the player to be named has been identified, we'll analyze him as well. The Indians reportedly can choose from a list of three solid prospects, and have until June 30 to make their decision."

IMO, the value of the deal comes down to how Bradley plays. If he has a good year and helps the Dodgers make the playoffs, it will be hard to knock LA regardless of how the two young guys turn out. But, in terms of value, I think it depends on which of the three prospects the Indians choose.

[CentralMassHokie]

There are two other things to keep in mind here:

1) Everyone overvalues there own prospects.
2) It is nearly always more valuable to have a good major leaguer than a solid player in AA (or lower).

On point #1, everyone is always up in arms when a player gets traded for prospects because "Prospect X could have been the next Bonds" or "Prospect Y could have been the next Clemens". Except, more often than not, Prospects X and Y turn out to be the next Rusty Greer and Allan Levrault.

There's a good change that Gutierrez is going to be a solid major leaguer. It's not hard to argue that a good comp for him at the major league level might be ... Milton Bradley. So the Dodgers traded someone who could be Milton Bradley in a couple of years if everything goes right for Milton Bradley now. The same Milton Bradley who's under Dodger control on a cheap contract for (I think) 3 seasons.

Even if the PTBNL is a good prospect, it sounds like it's going to be a pitching prospect from the past draft (hence being a PTBNL, since those picks cannot be traded yet). Pitching prospect are even more suspect than hitting prospects, and it's an area of strength for the Dodgers.

If Bradley flops, and there's certainly a chance in that, that's pretty much the only way this turns out to be a really poor trade for the Dodgers.

Cleveland has further stocked their farm system, giving them better odds of someone valuable developing.

So it works out pretty well for both sides. It works out particularly well for Gutierrez who's not going to be rushed to the majors now (with Gerut and Sizemore already there/on the way) as he might have been in the Dodgers system.

The NL West is so wide open this year that anything the Dodgers can do to improve their offense should be explored. Especially since the pitching is going to regress some this year (Ishii looks more and more average every year, Nomo should be solid, Weaver and Perez will be ok if they can keep the ball in the park).

The most interesting thing (to me) will be to see what DePodesta does to take advantage of Dodger Stadium. Over the next couple of seasons I could see him make moves to get average/slightly better than average pitchers who keep the ball down and have decent HR rates. Let them pitch a season or two in Dodger Stadium and put up gaudy stats (see Chan Ho Park/Kaz Ishii) and then flip them to a team who'll be willing to overpay. Sort of the same thing he and Beane did in Oakland with Koch and Foulke as closers.

[QuikSand]

Most players, especially catchers on the wrong side of 30, don't all of a sudden learn how to mash.

Actually, the funny thing is... according to the data, you're exactly wrong on where older catchers fit in here. In general, players don't "all of a sudden learn how to mash" - true enough. But if there is one group of players who have a surprising tendency to have an unsupported power spike, it's catches over 30, oddly enough.

So, if you remove "especially" and substitute "except" - I'd agree with you. But...uh... that wouldn't prove your point very well.

[Ksyrup]

Where is Ozzie Virgil when you need him?

[CentralMassHokie]

Actually, the funny thing is... according to the data, you're exactly wrong on where older catchers fit in here. In general, players don't "all of a sudden learn how to mash" - true enough. But if there is one group of players who have a surprising tendency to have an unsupported power spike, it's catches over 30, oddly enough.

So, if you remove "especially" and substitute "except" - I'd agree with you. But...uh... that wouldn't prove your point very well.

Yeah, that wouldn't prove my point well at all :)

Anyway, I've always seen that the offensive production of catchers tends to decrease much faster than their counterparts at any other position. Hence the questions about moving guys like Piazza or Pudge to 1b or DH to maintain some of their offensive value.

So, do catchers get a power spike, or is it that they get a power spike when they move out from behind the plate?

I'd certainly buy the latter. If I get some time (maybe over lunch), I'll try and take a look at the data.

I should google it too. Tangotiger from Baseball Primer/Baseball Stuff tends to have a lot of this research already done.

Regardless, as I mentioned above, I was being particularly hard on Lo Duca. He's not a bad player. He's a very average player in a time when average production at catcher is good enough.