The Dodgers are the favorite to win the Zack Greinke sweepstakes, according to Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald.

According to an industry insider, the Dodgers are the favorites to wind up with top free agent starter Zack Greinke, with the Angels and Rangers on the outside looking in. And no starting pitcher on the market is going to be complaining by the end of the hot stove season.

Furthermore, “rival GMs” are telling ESPN‘s Buster Olney that if the Dodgers want him, they’ll get him.

The Rangers want Zack Greinke and are willing to be aggressive. The Angels want to keep Greinke. But ultimately, rival GMs predict, if the Dodgers intend to sign Greinke, they will get him. L.A. is also bidding for Hiroki Kuroda, whom they know well from his previous time with the team. “Cost is no object for them,” said a GM. “They are playing a different game than the rest of us right now.”

All of this is great news if you were worried (like me) about how the pitching rotation would shake out even with all this spending. Greinke, despite whatever concerns you may have about him, has more than enough talent to slot in as a #1/#2 type behind Clayton Kershaw.

—–

The Dodgers are also front-runners (or close to it) for Hiroki Kuroda‘s services, according to Mark Saxon of ESPN Los Angeles.

Previously, teams have been under the impression that Kuroda would either re-sign with the New York Yankees or return to his native Japan to finish his career. But Kuroda has told friends that his first preference is to pitch in Southern California, where his two daughters are attending elementary school.

Joel Sherman of the New York Post adds that the Yankees are only willing to give him a one-year deal, which only adds to the chances that he ends up in California.

That is because, The Post has learned, the Yankees are willing to offer Kuroda just a one-year contract at present. Two other teams that seemingly would be attractive to Kuroda, the Dodgers and Angels, probably would be willing to offer at least a two-year pact to the righty.

I do wonder how much truth there is to all of this talk, because signing two or three starters in free agency (also rumored to be in on Anibal Sanchez) would mean they have eight or nine starters going into 2013. Now, after that A-Gon trade, I’m never going to completely dismiss a Dodger rumor when it comes to them spending money, but it does seem unlikely that they are in the lead for all these pitchers.

As far as Kuroda goes, I’m not sure how much legitimacy there is in him wanting a two-year deal. With the way he pitched a couple years ago, if he wanted a multi-year deal he could have got one, but he took that one-year deal because he wasn’t sure about his feelings in the future. Perhaps he changed his mind, but it would seem inconsistent with his previous behavior that he would now want to be locked in for more than a year.

—–

Dodgers are a member of the group of teams after Kyuji Fujikawa.

Right-hander Kyuji Fujikawa started meeting with MLB clubs and touring their facilities this past week, reports Gerry Fraley of The Dallas Morning News. He’s already visited the Diamondbacks and Cubs and is expected to meet with both the Dodgers and Angels as well. It’s unclear if he’ll meet with the Rangers on this trip.

An interesting relief option out of Japan. Video from the 2012 NPB season here:

—–

Nick Cafardo of The Boston Globe says Kevin Youkilis is on the radar for the Dodgers.

9. Kevin Youkilis, 1B/3B, free agent — Good-sized market so far for Youkilis, at both third and first base, according to his agent, Joe Bick. The Indians are looking at him as a first baseman, while the Phillies and Dodgers are considering him at third (a back-burner option for the Dodgers). The Diamondbacks made a call, but Towers indicated they will likely not be involved.

Hell, why not, right? If the rumors are true that they’re just going to spend anything they want, why not sign Youkilis? Even if you like Luis Cruz over him, Youkilis is useful off the bench anyway.

I’ve already been wrong before about the Dodgers ownership and their willingness to spend. I figured they would be willing to open up the checkbook, but assumed they would stop short of the luxury tax, much like the Yankees have tried to do in recent years. Instead? They have blown that limit away and now project to enter 2013 with the highest payroll in MLB history.

As such, I understand when analysts and fans cite an unlimited payroll and assume the Dodgers could acquire anybody at any time. After all, who besides Steve Dilbeck legitimately thought the Adrian Gonzalez/Carl Crawford/Josh Beckett deal was remotely realistic, much less likely? Still, what I find disturbing is this new rhetoric going around where the Dodgers have so much money to blow that payroll efficiency and management has now been rendered unnecessary.

Not only are they assuming that the Dodgers have an unlimited payroll, which is a significant assumption in itself, but also that the lack of payroll restrictions will exist for an indefinite amount of time far into the future.

If that were true though, then why not seriously go out and sign Zack Greinke, Hiroki Kuroda, Anibal Sanchez, Josh Hamilton, Michael Bourn, and Mike Napoli?

“Oh you’re just being facetious.”

No, I’m being dead serious. If there literally was no limit to the wealth, then why not? All of the mentioned players would help upgrade the current roster, would they not? So if money isn’t an object, just designate players to clear room and sign them all. Then offer Andre Ethier, Yasiel Puig, and Zach Lee plus their entire contracts to the Mets for David Wright and then re-sign him for 10 years.

The reason why you’re probably saying that I’m nuts right now is because you know in reality that the payroll isn’t actually unlimited, we just haven’t seen what it is yet. As such, I stick with my assumption that there is a cap in mind and that it still needs to be managed on some level. The higher payroll provides the advantage of being able to fill holes with elite players in case the farm system is bereft of them, as the team is able to absorb the risk that other teams cannot. However, while overpays are to be expected in certain cases, what exactly is the point of overpaying average players?

Like on the Brandon League deal I see a lot of people going with the logic of “yeah, he’s not worth that much, but the payroll is unlimited anyway”. Well where would be your limit? I fail to understand where people would draw the line in these cases. Why not five years and $40 million? What difference does it make under the unlimited payroll logic? Five years and $75 million? There’s no end to it, really.

The rationale just doesn’t make sense to me. It’s the same train of thought as “well he’s better than James Loney” or “well he’s better than Juan Uribe”.

GREAT.

It’s a $200 million team, at what point does that stop being an excuse?

Now I understand that the instinct is to be optimistic, especially coming off the Frank McCourt ownership. I get it, perhaps more than most do, but I also feel that because there’s been no consequences for the team’s actions as of yet, people are getting way too deep into the forest made out of money to see the trees. It’s as if reality has been temporarily suspended and we all moved to this fairy tale land where spending money inefficiently has no consequences. And here I am, with my hand meekly raised, simply inquiring when that has EVER been true in baseball.

Then again, that’s just the conservative approach to things, and the Dodgers have blown past my assumptions before.

The most talked about news of late regarding the Dodgers is Ed Desser of The Hollywood Reporter estimating that the Dodgers television rights deal could be worth anywhere from $4.5 billion to $8.5 billion depending on the route ownership chooses to go.

Sign a Rights Deal

Most Major League Baseball teams license about 150 regular-season games a year for regional telecast. The Dodgers can extend the license arrangements with Fox and/or KCAL; make deals with other stations in the market; contract with the two Time Warner Cable sports networks that launch Oct. 1; or license a new entity or some combination of these alternatives. Given the competitive marketplace for Dodgers rights, we estimate average annual rights fees between $175 million and $225 million. Assuming a 20-year initial term — the length of a deal recently inked by the L.A. Angels of Anaheim — this low-risk arrangement could be worth $4.5 billion.

Start a Network

The Dodgers could start their own regional sports network. In this scenario, they would essentially “sell” the rights to themselves and compete with their jilted suitors. The team would control production, ad and sponsor sales integration, team-related support programming and distribution of its product. But it would also undertake far greater risk, effectively “doubling down” rather than outsourcing the risk. Several teams have successfully launched such networks (the New York Yankees/Brooklyn Nets YES Network, Boston Red Sox/Bruins NESN). However, others have been unsuccessful in such endeavors in the past decade (Minnesota Twins, Kansas City Royals). Because of the wide range of potential distribution outcomes, we estimate average annual revenue from as little as $125 million to as much as $425 million. Over 20 years, if everything were to go very well, this could be worth $8.5 billion, including rights, profits and equity value.

The Hybrid Model

The Angels, San Francisco Giants and Texas Rangers have partnered with Fox and Comcast regional sports network operators to license their rights and obtain a share of equity ownership. The risks of obtaining distribution are effectively mitigated, and a large entertainment company provides the financial backing. The Dodgers could make such a deal with Fox or TW Cable. They could also take on production, sales, financial and/or distribution partner(s) to gain greater control but with lower risk and upside. With predictable distribution, the difference in value turns on the ownership percentage the team might obtain, the rights fee and the network’s profitability. We estimate the annual value to the Dodgers of $225 million to $375 million. A 20-year deal could be worth $7.5 billion in rights, profits and equity.

That’s all well and good, but I see this being used by people as justification for spending any amount of money on any amount of players, and quite frankly, it’s a bit scary.

While I’m certainly as excited about having payroll freedom as any fan is, I don’t agree with the sudden attitude shift. It’s as if the mindset now boils down to, “OMG! TEAM HAS MONEY! SPEND IT ON ALL THE BEST FREE AGENTS! WHO CARES WHAT IT COSTS?!”

Sort of an ironic attitude to adopt as we complain about the Yankees and Red Sox and mock the Giants for Barry Zito‘s deal, no?

—–

Fandom aside, my primary concern lies in the luxury tax serving as a de facto salary cap.

The luxury tax remained relatively unchanged in the new CBA. The threshold level for the luxury tax will be $178 million in both 2012 and 2013 (the same as it was in 2011), and will be raised to $189 million from 2014-2016.

I talk about it being a salary cap because under the new CBA, it has become punitive enough that even the Yankees are looking to head under the luxury tax by 2014. The Red Sox apparently aren’t immune to it either, as they traded their starting shortstop for a situational lefty before the 2012 season in what now appears to be an effort to avoid the luxury tax.

Given that the Dodgers payroll for 2012 now stands at $138,083,695, and that the team has already committed $148,383,716 in 2013 and $93,875,000 in 2014, I don’t think throwing money around wildly as if the Dodgers now have no limits is exactly the wisest course of action for the franchise.

To put the payroll situation in perspective, the Dodgers are already one big ticket signing away from being on the edge of the luxury tax next year, so people suggesting that the team go out and dump money in front of Zack Greinke, Josh Hamilton, and everybody else on the market might want to pump the brakes a bit before the team ends up with as little payroll flexibility as they had before Frank McCourt got evicted.

With a headline like that, you would expect this is for the division lead, right?

Click To Enlarge

No. It’s to see which team ends up in last place.

I swear these two teams could both be at 40-121 going into the last game of the season and their finish would still be hyped more than the teams who were actually winning.

While I defended Hiroki Kuroda‘s choice to sign with the New York Yankees even if it was simply a financial decision (much like Jon Weisman and Mike Petriello did), his detractors look even stupider today after it was revealed that he wasn’t even given an offer by the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Hiroki Kuroda confirmed what Dodgers General Manager Ned Colletti said earlier this month: Colletti remained in contact with his agent until he decided to sign with the New York Yankees three weeks ago.

Kuroda said the Dodgers were exploring ways they could fit him onto their roster, even though they had already signed free-agent starters Aaron Harang and Chris Capuano.

“They were unable to ever make a formal offer,” Kuroda said in Japanese. “I couldn’t wait any longer.”

The Japanese right-hander took a one-year $10-million contract with the Yankees that included a full no-trade clause. The deal was officially announced this week.

Yeah, sorta stupid to argue about loyalty when the team didn’t even give him a chance to make that an issue.

So is he still a “worthless piece of crap”?

I hope that Hiroki Kuroda signs with the Colorado Rockies, mostly because he is a worthless piece of crap who has the brains of a snail. Other than that, I think he’s a wonderful idiot! Hiroki loved the Dodgers so much that he refused a traded to a team (BoSox) where he might have won a World Series (and cost the Dodgers a really nice pick) because he only wanted to play major league baseball for his beloved Dodgers. Now, since the Dodgers have signed Chris Capuano, and he sees that he is not in the Dodgers plans (he said he wasn’t sure he wanted to play in America in 2012), he now wants to be a HO and sign with whoever pays him.

Screw you Hiroki, you worthless piece of crap. You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As they say in Texas, you couldn’t pour water out of a boot with instructions printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans.

You’re a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a weasel’s rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolor yawn. And did I mention that you smell?

You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world that rejects the likes of you. You didn’t crawl out of a normal egg, either, but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientistas being below his low standards. Your alleged parents abandoned you at birth and then died of shame in recognition of what they had done to an unsuspecting world. They were a bit late, and we are weary of your ilk.

Not linking to where I got that, but I’m sure you know where it’s from.

With the Los Angeles Dodgers in the news for the impending bidding war over the ownership of the team, I thought this would be as appropriate a time as ever to run through the publicly declared bidders, as the deadline for submission has come and gone.

Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times breaks down the specifics of the bidding process in nice and tidy parts.

If McCourt has the final say on the new owner, what role does Major League Baseball play in the process?

MLB has agreed to approve up to 10 bidders. Yet Blackstone is unlikely to clear even that many bidders for MLB consideration, given the time needed for the league to investigate the structure and financing of each potential ownership group. To cover the costs of the investigation, MLB will charge $25,000 to each bidder cleared by Blackstone.

If MLB rejects a prospective bidder cleared by Blackstone, does McCourt have any recourse?

Yes. He can appeal to the mediator who brokered his settlement with MLB.

Do the other MLB owners have a say?

Yes. They can approve or reject any bidder that passes the MLB investigation. However, once the league informs Blackstone of which prospective buyers have been approved by MLB owners, McCourt conducts the final round of bidding and determines the winner. If the winning bidder’s final offer is dramatically higher than the initial offer, MLB reserves the right to review the financing.

When will this happen?

There is no set date, but the calendar suggests the end of March. McCourt has agreed to select the winning bidder by April 1 and disclose the winner to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court by April 6.

Outstanding stuff, as always.

Regarding the bidders themselves though, who are the groups and what good or bad traits do they bring to the table?

Let’s find out.

=====

Mark Cuban

The Good: A charismatic fan favorite of an owner, basically the exact opposite of Frank McCourt. His tenure as the Dallas Mavericks owner has obviously been a successful one, as he turned a joke of a franchise into a perennial contender. While his money has often been cited as the reason for the change, he has proven that he will explore any avenue that could potentially give his franchise an advantage. As such, he is unlikely to be as sabermetrics averse as the current Dodgers front office, as evidenced by his implementation of analytics in basketball to score his first NBA Championship.

The Bad: I’m not convinced he’s that legit of a threat to win. He’s not an idiot and he’s unlikely to go over whatever he has the Dodgers valued at, as he showed in the bidding for the Texas Rangers. While I’m confident he would find quality baseball men to run the franchise, he’s not going into the process with anybody in place.

My Take: I would love for him to be owner, as his history suggests he would make winning a priority and would explore the most efficient ways to do so. Unfortunately, I think it’s a long shot.

—–

Magic Johnson/Stan Kasten/Mark Walters

The Good: Magic Johnson instantly becomes the face of the ownership and it should go over extremely well with fans. Stan Kasten employs his experience with the Atlanta Braves and Washington Nationals to run the baseball operations. Mark Walters could use his eleventy trillion dollars to supplement the payroll and buy elite players. Seriously, Guggenheim Partners has over $100 billion in assets and he’s the CEO.

The Bad: Uh…none?

My Take: My current preference to win the bidding. I can’t see a better combination.

—–

Steven Cohen/Steve Greenberg/Arn Tellem

The Good: Founder of SAC Capital Advisors and a hedge fund manager, Steven Cohen is worth over $8 billion. The group’s baseball experience will come from Steve Greenberg, who served as a deputy commissioner of baseball, and Arn Tellem, who is a player agent for the Wasserman Media Group. Get to use puns on Arn Tellem’s name.

The Bad: In today’s political environment, it’s not exactly ideal in the public relations department to have a hedge fund manager as an owner, and especially not one whose company is under investigation by the SEC. Went through an ugly divorce that led to lawsuits. Sound familiar?

My Take: Do. Not. Want. I don’t want to deal with yet another owner with baggage. Haven’t Bud Selig and the other owners learned their lesson yet? Yes, other ownership groups could have drama, but this one has already been confirmed to have been involved in messes before, so why bother? My fear is that the Blackstone Group, which is in control of the sale, is a significant investor in SAC Capital Advisors, and that could give the latter a gigantic advantage.

—–

Rick Caruso/Joe Torre/Byron Trott

The Good: Joe Torre becomes the face of the franchise and has a ton of baseball experience. Despite his tenure with the Dodgers, I get the feeling that fans love him, and given that he just left a position with the MLB, he and Bud Selig should have a solid working relationship. Byron Trott, named by Warren Buffett as the only banker he trusts, heads BDT Capital Partners and was previously the vice chairman for Goldman Sachs. I would have the same concerns with him as I do with Steven Cohen, but he has no legal issues with his comapny and Buffett’s word carries weight. Rick Caruso is a local developer who is worth around $1.7 billion and has tons of local popularity.

The Bad: Honestly? Torre as the baseball man frightens me. A lot. He’s not progressive with his thinking at all and he never seemed to have a problem with Ned Colletti, leading me to believe he just might keep him around. Disastrous.

My Take: I don’t necessarily have a problem with the group, but the risk that Torre could regress the Dodgers to decades old thinking and retain Colletti is too much for me to bear. Out.

—–

Dennis Gilbert/Larry King/Jason Reese/Randy Wooster

The Good: Both Larry King and Dennis Gilbert are Dodgers fans, which is always a plus. King’s name carries weight, though I’m not sure he has any name value as a sports personality. Gilbert has extensive baseball experience as a former player agent, former player, and current special assistant to Jerry Reinsdorf, who owns the Chicago White Sox. Jason Reese and Randy Wooster are Chairman/CEO and President of Imperial Capital, a Los Angeles area investment bank, and the two will be providing the financial thump in the group.

The Bad: Not much public motivation, honestly. No idea if they actually have the money to compete.

My Take: If they have the money to spend competitively, then I have no issue with the group, but as of now, that’s a big unknown. There are rumors that they might have to hook up with Fox or Time Warner to get the finances to work. Ugh.

—–

Leo Hindery/Marc Utay

The Good: Leo Hindery is a Managing Partner at private equity fund InterMedia Partners, and he founded the YES Network for the New York Yankees and served as Chairman & CEO until 2004. Marc Utay is a Managing Partner at private equity firm Clarion Capital Partners. The pair of them tried to buy the Chicago Cubs back in 2009, so there’s a history there.

The Bad: They’ve been under the radar, and as a result not much has been revealed as to their finances or plans, so the biggest downside right now is the uncertainty.

My Take: Hard to judge what you know little about, so I can’t provide much positive or negative feedback until more is revealed.

—–

Steve Garvey/Orel Hershiser

The Good: Their resume in baseball speaks for itself, though little is known about their actual qualifications as executives. They certainly figure to have local support and can become the faces of the franchise.

The Bad: They don’t seem to have funding. Last time they spoke on the Dodgers, they were still looking for investors and it’s unknown who they found.

My Take: Not enough information to endorse two former players with unknown finances and unknown executive experience.

—–

Josh Macciello

The Good: He’s not a hedge fund manager or a banker or an executive, he’s a regular guy like you or me. He’s the CEO of ArmItal Sports and plans to use the gold mines he owns, which are valued in the tens of billions, as collateral for the purchase, so he says he has the financial backing.

The Bad: He’s a regular guy like you or me. The lack of baseball connections, the lack of executive experience, the lack of community support, and the legitimate questions about whether he would even be taken seriously by the commissioner and fellow owners. All of those are negatives.

My Take: I understand why fans might want to side with him, but I just can’t. It has little to do with his looks or his spelling or whatever else. It has more to do with the lack of experience in everything that I think an owner should be about.

—–

Stan Kroenke

The Good: Stan Kroenke is the largest shareholder in Arsenal F.C., owns the St. Louis Rams, Colorado Mammoth, and Colorado Rapids, and he formerly owned the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, and Colorado Crush, all of which he transferred to his son to comply with NFL ownership rules. Needless to say, he has experience with this sort of thing and his teams have generally performed well under his tenure in charge.

The Bad: Perhaps his money will be spread a bit thin and I’m wondering if this has more to do with trying to move the Rams to Los Angeles than actually caring about the Dodgers. No idea about the baseball side of things.

My Take: I’m okay with this in theory, but I’m going to hold off on endorsing the move until more is revealed. We know a lot about him as an owner, but not a lot about his interest in the Dodgers.

—–

Potential Mergers And/Or Group Joiners

Peter O’Malley: Submitted an ownership bid himself, but has been rumored to be in discussions to link up with the bid of Stanley Gold & Roy Disney’s Family and/or Tony Ressler. A throwback to the good old days of Dodgers family ownership, but it’s probably not gonna help that he was talking about how terrible McCourt was as an owner considering McCourt will hold the ultimate decision.

Stanley Gold/Roy Disney’s Family: Submitted an ownership bid as their own group, but have been rumored to be linking up with Peter O’Malley and/or Tony Ressler. Gold is the President & CEO of Shamrock Holdings and has local popularity, but his financial clout is not known. Not much is known about what Roy Disney’s Family brings to the table either, I assume it’s money but nobody knows. Group is short on baseball experience.

Tony Ressler: Rumored to be linking up with either Stanley Gold & Roy Disney’s Family or Peter O’Malley or either or both. Co-founder of local investment firm Ares Capital, which has in excess of $40 billion in assets.

Tom Barrack: Chairman & CEO of investment firm Colony Capital has a net worth over $1 billion. Has been rumored to join several groups, but no specifics have popped up yet.

Fox: Seriously? No. Please no.

Time Warner Cable: They haven’t actually done anything wrong, but why get involved in this type of ownership situation again? Fool me once…

—–

Rumored Bidders

Alan Casden: A real estate developer worth over $1 billion, he might have more interest in the property the Dodgers own more than the team itself, which is disconcerting. Remember, this is the guy who tried to buy the team last time around and had plans to move Dodger Stadium to a different location. MLB didn’t want him last time because of an investigation into illegal campaign contributions to local politicians. Why deal with the headache?

Ron Burkle: Worth over $3 billion dollars, he is the current co-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins. While no baseball people are rumored to be on board yet, he seems to carry a lot of weight locally. Divorce was…uh…messy.

Fred Claire/Andy Dolich/Ben Hwang: Fred Claire has experience as an executive with the Los Angeles Dodgers and Andy Dolich has experience as an executive with the Oakland Athletics. Ben Hwang, former executive at Life Technologies, will provide the finances for the group. The question mark revolves around money and whether they have enough of it.

Tom Golisano: Founder of Paychex is worth $1.4 billion and is the former owner of the Buffalo Sabres. Was preparing a bid, but it’s unknown whether he followed through or not. Worth noting is that Sabres fans criticized his lack of spending, and he’s on record as saying that the biggest payroll doesn’t lead to championships, which is correct in theory, but seems like code for not wanting to spend much.

Is this real life?

I honestly didn’t know this was a thing outside of a few Twitter re-tweets from Tony Jackson of ESPN Los Angeles.

As usual, Jon Weisman from Dodger Thoughts was on point talking about Los Angeles Dodgers fans criticizing Hiroki Kuroda for his decision to sign with the New York Yankees.

This is a pretty bizarre loyalty test, where you’re required to make a sacrifice for a team that, the minute you make the sacrifice, is no longer your team. I don’t know where the idea that he owed the Dodgers something comes from.

Trading Kuroda for prospects would have helped the Dodgers. So would Kuroda and all his teammates playing for free. It doesn’t mean they’re lesser people for choosing not to do so. It doesn’t mean that Kuroda didn’t have valid reasons for staying.

Those of you who are employed – would you accept a sudden and immediate transfer to a completely different company, across the country, even when you didn’t want to go, only because it would help the company you were previously working for?

Even putting that aside though, the odd part about any criticism directed towards him is that Kuroda didn’t do anything particularly disloyal.

And this is coming from a guy who wanted him to go at the trade deadline so the Dodgers could get prospects.

By all accounts, he seemed to have wanted to remain a Dodger, but Ned Colletti opted for a gaggle of two-year contracts for average veterans instead, thus leaving no room for Kuroda in the budget. At that point, it wasn’t so much about loyalty anymore, it became a question of whether Kuroda was willing to take 5-6 million less (or if he even had a real offer from the Dodgers at all) to play for a mess of an organization on a team that probably wouldn’t contend with a GM that already clearly choose other players over him.

At that point, staying with the Dodgers was not only completely irrational, but borderline insulting as well.

Hard to expect a professional athlete to tolerate all of that when you or me wouldn’t.

As you probably already know by now, bidding on Yu Darvish ended just recently after the star right-hander was posted by the Nippon Ham Fighters a few days ago. I mention this because earlier today on Twitter I made a few statements about Yu Darvish and Asian players that generated some interesting discussion and I wanted to clarify my point.

All this started after reading article after article that lazily compared Yu Darvish with Daisuke Matsuzaka and Kei Igawa. I simply questioned whether any other player was subject to these generalizations based on his nationality, ethnicity, and race or whether any other players are lumped in with other busts and generalized to say that they all possess similar qualities because of their personal backgrounds.

—–

Through the course of the discussion, certain people managed to transform my desire to not lazily lump all Asian players into the same pool as being equal to saying that people should not criticize Asian players, which simply isn’t the case.

It’s the way people are criticizing Asian players that has me cringing.

I recognize that there are a ton of question marks that go into signing players from the region, question marks that simply don’t apply to American players. However, there are question marks for just about every other player on the market as well, it’s just that those players are analyzed as individuals and by their potential value, whereas it seems to be almost a requirement to compare prospective Asian players with current or past Asian players as if they are all the same.

It’s probably nothing to other people, but it’s honestly just awkward for me to read.

—–

Jon Paul Morosi – Fox Sports – 12/12

Robert Whiting, an author and expert on Japanese baseball, said he believes the Rangers and Yankees will submit posting bids on Darvish. But Whiting added: “If he signs with Texas, playing in that small park will not help him … I am afraid if Darvish goes to a hitter’s park, his game may suffer. Chan Ho Park was an ace at Dodger Stadium, not so good in Texas.”

I respect Robert Whiting for the work he has done on Japanese baseball, and I have enjoyed the books he has written, but this is just absurd.

What does Chan Ho Park having success with the Dodgers but not the Rangers have anything to do with Darvish? They are completely different and unrelated circumstances. The only thing relating them at all is the fact that they are both Asian, which is the only reason Park is even mentioned.

—

The park effects factor will have an affect how Darvish performs, but it will do so like it would for any other pitcher. That’s why we have statistics that normalize for things like league, park, and competition.

Relevant analysis would revolve around how Darvish’s stuff fits in different parks. What is his fly ball percentage? How many bats does he miss? Will the switch lead to a change in distribution? Which parks do those skills fit in?

But no, none of that is addressed in any article on Darvish that I see in the mainstream media, it’s all simply glossed over in favor of lazily throwing together anecdotal connection after anecdotal connection between pitchers who both happen to be Asian.

How is this acceptable? Ugh.

Tom Verducci – Sports Illustrated – 11/15

Said Rangers assistant GM Thad Levine, “The anecdotal assessment suggests starting pitchers have a two-year window of success followed by a rapid decline, followed thereafter by disappearance. Even a lot of the relievers have had success quickly, reaching a hot peak followed by a rapid decline.”

“Anecdotal”

Says it all.

When the Yankees signed Kei Igawa after the 2006 season, for instance, they relied on very few first-hand evaluations. Now the Yankees invest more time and resources in making sure they get multiple looks at NPB players.

Exactly. The Yankees didn’t do their due diligence on Igawa because they made a reactionary bid in response to losing out on Matsuzaka and since Darvish is Asian like they are, that’s Darvish’s fault.

Wait, what?

David Waldstein – The New York Times – 12/13

After the uneven results of Matsuzaka, Igawa and others, the bidding for Darvish is expected to be more restrained, perhaps $30 million to $50 million, and recently some people in baseball have projected that figure below $30 million.

Yes, we get it.

See above.

Jeff Passan – Yahoo! Sports – 12/8

Oh, and there’s the whole matter of pitching, the one question that will take years to answer. While the sample size remains tiny, the Japanese ace in the major leagues has had a short window of success. Hideo Nomo: two years. Matsuzaka: two years. Perhaps Hiroki Kuroda is breaking that trend, what with four consecutive solid seasons, but the skepticism remains.

See: Verducci, Tom

Tom Verducci – Sports Illustrated – 11/15

“You have some great examples of players who came here and starred,” said Dodgers GM Ned Colletti, “and some who came here and were average at best and some who were below average. Like it is with any prospect, it’s always something you have to look at on a case-by-case basis. One thing we do know is that the grind of our schedule is different, therefore there are different dynamics for a position player and for a pitcher.”

“Looking at players on a case-by-case basis and treating each Asian player that comes over as an individual? No, no, no, that just won’t do. It doesn’t fit my narrative.”

You know your argument is completely fucked when Ned Colletti is the voice of reason, right?

—–

Perhaps the saddest part is that the sample above is just taken from the top results on Google and what I found on MLB Trade Rumors. Basically, stuff like this is in almost every article about Darvish, so it wasn’t hard to find these examples at all.

So what’s the point?

The point is that there should absolutely be questions asked about Yu Darvish, but those questions should be asked about Yu Darvish the pitcher, not about Yu Darvish the Japanese pitcher or Yu Darvish the Asian pitcher, and certainly not about how Daisuke Matsuzaka and Kei Igawa relate to him.

Intellectually lazy leaps in logic always bother me, but I felt the need to point this out because it seems nobody ever has a problem when people do it in regards to Asian players (like this). Let’s be honest, similar comparisons would never be made so overtly and so shamelessly if we were talking about Black or Latino players because people would lose their jobs over it.

—–

Originally, I was planning on writing an article about how Japanese players who come over through the posting system are generally overvalued because it’s akin to getting a prospect except they aren’t team controlled. Of course, the difference between my planned analysis and what is currently happening on the journalism landscape is that I would have actually done my homework and looked at each case as individual results instead of lumping them all into one category and making wide ranging generalizations.

By far the most common comparison is between Yu Darvish and Daisuke Matsuzaka, which is appropriate for the point I’m trying to make because even a cursory comparison of the two would reveal totally different pitchers, personalities, and backgrounds.

Ample reason to see them and analyze them as individuals.

But hey, why do research when you can just be lazy, right?