Chad Moriyama Dodgers, Sabermetrics, Scouting
Steve Dilbeck of the Los Angeles Times wrote yesterday that if the Los Angeles Dodgers are confident that Andre Ethier will return to form, they should extend him before the 2012 season begins.
If the Dodgers believe in Andre Ethier, if they are confident he will rebound and have a successful 2012 season, they need to sign him to a long-term contract. Like soon.
If they wait and he puts together another season like he did in 2009 (31 homers, 92 runs, 106 runs batted in) or even approaches a full season like the start he was off to in 2010 before breaking his pinkie, it could either cost them a serious amount of dough or his services completely.
It’s a risk worth taking, and I know when talking about the moody Ethier, risk is inherent.
Basically the premise is that the Dodgers brass should strike while Ethier’s value is lowest, much like I suggested they do with Matt Kemp and Chad Billingsley before they had their bounce-back seasons.
So before you suggest he’s crazy to come up with the idea, realize that it does make sense, in theory. With that said, I just don’t agree with the individual it’s being used on.
—–
This has less to do with Ethier personally, despite his ornery nature of late (giving the middle finger randomly, complaining publicly, inferring he’d rather be on another team), and more to do with the timing of the whole thing.
Sure, I had faith in the talents of Kemp and Billingsley, and I felt the same way about Clayton Kershaw as well, but the one constant with all those players was the emphasis on locking up young and talented players well into their primes.
At the time of their respective suggested extensions, Kemp was going to be 26, Billingsley was going to be 25, and Kershaw was going to be 23. Ethier? He’s about to turn 30.
So while I’ve always liked Ethier, as he felt a part of the young core, the timing is all wrong for me. Locking up a corner outfielder with a four year declining trend in wOBA, mediocre defense (despite the joke of a Gold Glove), the inability to hit lefties, and questionable athleticism just isn’t a risk I’d feel comfortable with. Sorry, but when I look at the type of player Ethier is, I can’t help but envision Brad Hawpe and his precipitous decline at age 31.
So while the idea itself is built on solid logic, I don’t think it’s right for the situation that Andre Ethier currently finds himself in.
Eff ‘im. Ship his ass to the highest bidder!
I personally am hoping for the scenario MSTI opined on his blog; Ned Colletti’s band of merry over the hill vets collapse leading the dodgers unloading ethier for a high quality 3rd baseman.
That would be ideal. Set things up nicely for the new owner/new GM too.
If Ethier excites right out of the gate like he has done before, then hopefully the new GM (wishful thinking) will be smart enough to flip him at the trade deadline for a young bat and more. We’ve all been Gay for Dre at some point, but he’s too spotty in too many ways. Could he put up amazing seasons 4 years in a row? Sure. Is it likely? Not really, based on his history and age. I am curious to see his attitude when the new owner comes in. I just think of what a good GM may be able to get in return for a hot hitting Ethier and start to drool over the prospects (figuratively and literally).
There won’t be a new GM immediately. :o
ok, so what’s the plan to get Ned fired then? I’m good with photoshop if that helps.
Wait until 2012 is about to end?
It makes me cringe to read Dilbeck’s article. Apparently the Dodgers should lock up Ethier since he’s as bad as he has ever been. Ethier’s as likely to return to his 2009 production as Loney is to become an average 1st baseman. If some team needs a platoon guy and Dodgers don’t have to eat too much of his salary, then we should ship him out for whatever random pieces we can get.
Well I don’t mind the concept of buying low, just not at age 30.
Alright. So who on the free agent market do we replace his production with, while also improving in other areas? That’s the problem. There’s loads of SPs next winter for us to scoop up with a higher budget given by new ownership, but all there is in the way of hitters* is Hamilton, Berkman, and Ethier. Hamilton is injury-ridden, Berkman’s old. There are some decent catchers out there, but nothing that’ll improve enough to absorb losing Ethier.
*Excluding Shane Victorino, of course.
You don’t panic and immediately think you have to sign hitters that you don’t want just to make up for his production.
If the surplus is in pitchers, then lock down the rotation and get hitters when you can.
I would say let them all walk and wait for Joey Votto to hit free agency.
Ned Colletti strikes again, having already filled out next seasons rotation, not to mention possibly blocking Rubby. The guy is a genius at doing exactly the wrong thing year in and year out.
If they truly let Eovaldi or Rubby be blocked by any of those guys, that’s a bigger issue than Colletti signing them.
I don’t know what you mean when you say signing Hamilton or Berkman wouldn’t help us absorb Ethier’s production. Ethier is nowhere near as good as Hamilton and Berkman. To replace Ethier’s production (circa 3 WAR), all you need are guys like Cuddyer or Francoeur or some other random OF who can play sort of decently. I don’t know what such OF will be available at the end of 2013, but I’m sure there will be many, and fairly certain, too, that most of them will be cheaper than Ethier, who weirdly has gained a reputation as this some kind of a star.
I sort of agree with him though.
Even aside from the risk of relapse and the potential headaches associated with that, he’s injury prone and not gonna get younger. Same goes for Berkman, who is not somebody you would want to ink to a large long term deal at this point in his career.
It’s not about Panicking, it’s about the fact that there’s no clear better option on the FA market that doesn’t have either more question marks or similar question marks and a higher price tag. I don’t want to throw away 2013 waiting for Votto. If we can manage to dump two of Harang, Capuano, and Lilly and give Rubby a spot, sign Hamels, and sign Ethier, we’ll have a hell of a rotation. Then we can sign Votto (it’s nice being able to pick out top FA’s without having to remind yourself that there’s no chance of getting them.
SP- Kershaw
SP- Hamels
SP- Rubby
SP- Billingsley
SP- Lilly or Capuano (Harangs sucks the most of them, imo)
CL- Jansen (unless Guerra keeps the magic flowing, in which case he can be my guest here)
C- Ellis/Montero/Insert2013FAPickupHere
1B- Loney/Sands/Stopgap
2B- Ellis/Hairston/Uribe
3B- Uribe/Hairston
SS- Dee Gordon
LF- Rivera/Sands
CF- Kemp
RF- Ethier
See, that’s a contender, without having to worry about whether Hamilton’s going to relapse and break half of his bones or whether Berkman’s going to make his 4pm reservation at Sizzler’s.
But throw out Ethier and there’s a chance we go the way of the 2009 Giants.
The problem is that if he has a big year, he’s going to demand big money into his mid-30s. Even if they did it now, it would require multiple years at a price higher than his arb number.
Sometimes you have to wait, you can’t undo years of horrible decision making in half a year.
—–
At this point in time, with his track record, there’s no evidence to suggest he’s any more reliable than Hamilton or Berkman, IMO.
TEL, that is one awful team and there is no way that team will leapfrog Arizona or even the Giants. Think about it. The team you described is great at 1 position (CF), above average at 1 position (RF), barely average at 1 (1B), and below average everywhere else. In fact, we may get negative value from 3rd base. If we are extremely generous, then we are looking at somewhere south of 15 WAR from 7 positions, and about 5-6 WAR from Kemp. A playoff team needs around +50 WAR. Our staff is not giving us +30 WAR, especially when we are counting on Rubby as our 3rd.
And let’s stop talking about Ethier like he belongs in the same neighborhood as Berkman in his old age and Hamilton. Berkman put up 5 WAR last season at 36 or something, and was good for 6-7 WAR in his prime. Ethier’s best two seasons were good for 3 and 3.5 WAR, he has been less than that, and he’s sure to get worse.
It’s not an awful team. It’s a mediocre lineup. There’s a difference. You completely ignored the pitching, which would be more than stellar. Kershaw AND Hamels as your top 2? Ouch, then you throw in Rubby and Billingsley as your 3 and 4 guys, who are, in good years, #2s? And Lilly as a 5th starter would be a top 7-8 or so #5 starter in the MLB. With that pitching, the amount of offense generated by that lineup would be more than enough to keep us contending in 2013, not that it would make us the favorites. Again, the plan after that would be to sign Votto, which is where it all comes together and turns the team into the favorite for the division.
Or we could just not commit big money for the sake of doing so because there’s a need.
That’s how we got Jason Schmidt and Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones.
I don’t believe that there’s that kind of potential for a deal with Ethier to go South to the point of a Jones or a Schmidt.
I just cited what is a close parallel in the post.
I mean, what difference does it make that Ethier hasn’t the potential to go south like Andruw Jones? Ethier at his very best is just barely above average; Ethier at age 31 is probably an average player.
As for our rotation helping us contend in 2013, you are asking what would be the 3rd best rotation in NL West (unless SF loses Lincecum or something) to carry what may be the worst offense in NL West by 2013. I don’t see that happening.
“As for our rotation helping us contend in 2013, you are asking what would be the 3rd best rotation in NL West”
That’s idiotic. First off, the Giants will probably lose Cain next offseason, secondly, the D-backs and Padres wouldn’t have a rotation better than the one i mentioned. I don’t think you realize how good Rubby or Hamels are. Even if Cain’s resigned, then we’re still the #2 rotation with a better offense and a comparable bullpen.
Ok, so we have Kershaw, who is better than anyone on the AZ rotation and rivals Lincecum as best pitcher in NL West. But what else do we have?
Bills, well, he’ll be good for 3-4 WAR and a lot of frustration for the Dodgers fans. That’s a solid #2.
Rubby has started all of what, 10 games so far? And he’s been a walk machine. He may still work out, but then Ely and Haeger looked good for 10 game stretches as well.
Hamels isn’t actually on our team.
Ted Lily sucks. Being top 10 among 5th starters is meaningless, when all of them pretty much suck. Of course, Lily gets paid $12 mil. unlike other 5th starters.
So if we get Hamels in 2012 for 5/$80 mil. or more like 6/$100 mil. (don’t forget, C.J. Wilson got $75 mil this off-season after 2 good years in the majors), we will have like $50 mil. committed to the starting rotation to not be as good as SF at pitching. Considering we have no cost-controlled options for offense, I doubt we are getting Hamels.
Kershaw is actually better than Lincecum at this point.
Bills, well, he’ll be good for 3-4 WAR and a lot of frustration for the Dodgers fans. That’s a solid #2.
And he’d be our 3 or 4 pitcher.
Haeger and Ely never looked good for that long and Rubby is a legitimate #2 ceiling prospect who flashed that ceiling last year.
“Hamels isn’t actually on our team.”
Of course not, but by this logic Ethier will be on our team regardless.
“Ted Lily sucks”
Ted Lilly is only slightly below average, which makes him your traditional #4 starter. Remember, SF’s rotation, which you love to say is the best in the division, has Zito as it’s 5th starter, so Lilly here is a win.
“So if we get Hamels in 2012 for 5/$80 mil. or more like 6/$100 mil. (don’t forget, C.J. Wilson got $75 mil this off-season after 2 good years in the majors), we will have like $50 mil. committed to the starting rotation to not be as good as SF at pitching. Considering we have no cost-controlled options for offense, I doubt we are getting Hamels.”
1. Do you honestly believe that a new owner would keep our payroll at $100m? For once, we’re actually going to have money to spend. Hamels is likely the best choice among free agents next offseason.
2. We would, in fact, be better than SF, mostly because Cain will go through free agency and they’ll likely lose him. We’ll also have a better offense than them either way, meaning that even if they keep Cain we’d be on par with them.
3. The rotation is clearly superior with AZ’s, which would make us a contender even with a mediocre offence.
1) I do think Hamels is a realistic possibility unless the owners truly want to make the fans hate them and skimp on payroll.
2) I wouldn’t be so quick to throw the Dodgers ahead of the Diamondbacks.
I think Kennedy is at his ceiling, but Hudson has room for growth and Cahill is better than Billingsley. Yes, the Dodgers have Rubby and others, but the Diamondbacks have three top pitching prospects who are a year away from cracking the majors. It’s close.
Then factor in their offense.
3) Back to the point, it’s a zero sum game, and it all depends on payroll, but if Ethier’s signing would be a hindrance to signing far superior players, it’s not worth the risk.
Investing 15 million a year or more is barely worth it right now, much less as he gets older.
As an example, if the Dodgers KNOW they have enough payroll room to extend Kershaw, sign Hamels, and sign Votto, then sure, consider risking it with Ethier. If not though, and we have to sacrifice players of that caliber because they sink 14-17 million a year into an above average right fielder, then I’ll pass.
Los Doyers should keep him if he producing and they are winning, otherwise he needs to gtfo. Saying this team needs runs is like saying the Pope is catholic, so maybe he can be flipped for some infield (corner) pop.