Baseball America: Dodgers have hired Patrick Guerrero as their Latin American Coordinator.

Guerrero, who lives in the Dominican Republic, will run the organization’s scouting throughout Latin America. The Mariners had fired Guerrero as their Latin American coordinator earlier this month at the same time they announced that Bob Engle, their vice president of international scouting, had decided to leave the organization. Seattle’s decision to fire Guerrero, according to Baseball America’s sources, was made above Engle, an unusual move for a Latin American scout. Both Guerrero and Engle had been with the Mariners since 2000.

Baseball America: Bob Engle has been added to the Dodgers staff as the Vice President Of International Scouting.

The Dodgers have made more changes to their international scouting department, most notably with today’s hiring of Bob Engle as their vice president of international scouting.

Bob Elliot reported last night on Twitter that the Dodgers were going to hire Engle, whose contract with the Mariners as their vice president of international scouting ended yesterday.

Word in the industry is that there could be more major changes coming to the team’s front office, but the team has already confirmed that Engle will bring aboard several of his former lieutenants with the Mariners to work for the Dodgers.

He’ll bring on scouts that have worked with him with the Mariners.

Three other scouts who had worked for Engle in Seattle will join his staff with the Dodgers. Pat Kelly is coming in as the team’s Pacific Rim coordinator after holding the same title in Seattle. Jamie Storvick, who resides in Taiwan, will also be heavily involved in the team’s Pacific Rim work. Gene Grimaldi will help lead the team’s efforts in Europe. The Dodgers are also bringing in Mike Tosar, who had been out of baseball but also previously worked with Engle in Seattle, as a special assignment scout.

Dodgers continue to add quality staff, which can only be seen as a positive.

—–

MLB.com: Todd Coffey, Juan Rivera, and Matt Treanor had their options declined by the team.

The Dodgers declined the 2013 contract options for pitcher Todd Coffey, outfielder Juan Rivera and catcher Matt Treanor on Monday.

Coffey, who missed the second half of the season after undergoing his second Tommy John elbow reconstruction surgery, was bought out of a $2.5 million salary for $300,000.

Rivera, who shuttled between left field and first base until the trades for Shane Victorino and Adrian Gonzalez, was bought out of a $4 million salary for $500,000.

Treanor, who saw only sporadic action backing up A.J. Ellis, was bought out of a $950,000 salary for $150,000.

No shockers here. We’re all just glad they’re gone, I figure.

Los Angeles Times: Chad Billingsley seems to be on track to pitch in 2013.

“It looks like he’s going to be ready for the 2013 season,” said Dave Stewart, Billingsley’s agent.

Billingsley touched 94 mph with his fastball and threw an assortment of pitches, including his four-seamer, two-seamer, curveball and changeup. Billingsley threw 35 to 40 pitches.

One still has to wonder how long this will last though. I haven’t heard of too many success stories in regards to rehabbing torn elbow ligaments.

MLB.com: Kenley Jansen is on the road to recovery after heart surgery.

“I feel so much better now than I did at the end of the season,” said Jansen, who has recovered enough from last week’s heart surgery to take part in a Halloween candy giveaway on Monday at the Home Depot Center soccer stadium.

“I was dragging all day long at the end,” he said. “I can tell I’ve got so much more energy. Now I look at this soccer field and just want to get out there and start playing. I’m feeling so good.”

Jansen underwent a successful three-hour ablation surgery performed by Dr. Koonwalee Nademanee at White Memorial Hospital on Oct. 23. During the procedure, the abnormal tissue in his heart was identified and then cauterized to stop the erratic electrical signals sent from the area.

Jansen said his heart went into an irregular beat when the surgery started, helping doctors quickly pinpoint the areas needing attention. He said he still has some stiffness in his groin area, where two small incisions were made, but otherwise feels better than he had.

“It wasn’t scary at all,” said the 25-year-old. “I just wanted to get it over with. I feel it’s a relief and it will be good for me for the rest of my life. I just wanted to get it done, and I know this doctor is one of the great experts and I have a lot of confidence in him.”

Baseball aside, I just hope this ends his heart issues once and for all.

—–

FanGraphs: Jeff Sullivan thinks that Brandon League‘s contract is an example of inefficiency by the team.

Yet I might just be skipping around the major point. Brandon League has closer-type stuff, and the Dodgers want League to close, but the Dodgers already had an effective closer in Kenley Jansen. Granted, Jansen just underwent heart surgery, but his outlook is very good and he intends to be at full strength come spring training. Last year Jansen had 99 strikeouts in 65 appearances. He’s dominant when he’s pitching, and on top of that, he’s cheap. So the Dodgers aren’t paying League to fill a gaping void. That makes this move seem more unnecessary.

And League has supposedly figured it out before, only to lose it again within weeks or months. The fact that he had to re-discover the feel for his splitter says that, previously, he has lost the feel for his splitter after having had it. League, at his absolute best, is a very good reliever worth millions of dollars, but he’s seldom at his absolute best and he’s hardly been the model of consistency. The Dodgers didn’t just make a godawful move. They made a move that’s easier to criticize than defend. Individual inefficiencies aren’t a big deal, but individual inefficiencies do add up, and the Dodgers seem to be adding them up.

Baseball Prospectus: R.J. Anderson doesn’t think history will view the deal favorably.

Handing out a three-year deal to any non-elite reliever is asking for a lousy return on investment—ditto the $7.5 million average annual value. Why then are the Dodgers marching into the land of poor ROI? It might be that Colletti suspects the rest of the league, flush with cash, will hit the market with similar ferocity; causing an apparent overpay to blend in with the norm in the coming weeks. The chicken-or-the-egg scenario here is whether Colletti’s attempt to beat the market inadvertently set the market, but that’s a topic for another day. In a market with so many right-handed relief options available, it seems fair to ask if the endowment effect fooled the Dodgers into liking League more than they should.

In all likelihood, no one, save League and his agency, will stamp this move with a gold star in three years. You can make sense of it from the Dodgers’ point of view if you want to, however.

Sounds familiar, so I guess I’m not the only one thinking along those lines.

—–

FanGraphs: Does throwing a lot of strikes indicate a pitcher who is at less risk for injury? A case study by Jeff Zimmerman seems to suggest that.

Hanley Ramirez‘s agent Adam Katz told Tim Brown of Yahoo! Sports that his client is thrilled:

Hanley agent Adam Katz:”If he was going to be moved then this was his first choice. He can’t wait to get here, compete, do what’s asked.”

— Tim Brown (@TBrownYahoo) July 25, 2012

Well, at least the most important guy likes the trade.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello likes the deal for the Dodgers.

So for the price of a decent pitching prospect, a low-level minor leaguer, and giving Miami salary relief, the Dodgers have filled two huge holes. If Ramirez doesn’t get his mojo back, then this is probably a win/win for both sides, since even a lessened Ramirez is superior to Uribe and Miami gets Eovaldi and out from Ramirez’ salary. If Hanley rebounds to be something like what he was before – and at 28, there’s still time for him to do so – then this becomes a massive steal for the Dodgers.

It’ll be a while before we know how this turns out, because it could be years until we see what Eovaldi really turns into. Today, on the morning of the deal, I can at least say something I don’t really get to say too often around here: good job, Ned. This isn’t a slam dunk deal, but with everything considered, it is one that is absolutely worth making.

Feelin’ Kinda Blue: Chad Moriyama‘s own Dustin Nosler loves the trade.

So, the Dodgers gave up a couple talented arms for a former and potential superstar (seems weird to write that). The Dodgers were able to use their best asset — deep pockets — to make this deal happen. It seemed the Dodgers weren’t going to be able to swing a deal or acquire a decent player without giving up Zach Lee. However, they found middle ground with the Marlins and were able to absorb all the money, allowing them to acquire Ramirez.

And by moving Eovaldi, the Dodgers are almost a lock to trade for a starting pitcher (*cough* Ryan Dempster *cough*) before Tuesday’s trade deadline.

I absolutely love this deal and I still can’t believe it happened. I wish Eovaldi and McGough all the luck in the world, but the Dodgers got the better end of this deal.

Marlins Daily: Dave Gershman doesn’t think the Dodgers package was worth Hanley Ramirez.

A weird start to the day here on the East Coast, and who knows, it could get weirder if the Marlins continue unloaded pieces whom they don’t see as part of their future plans. For now this one deserves to soak in. Eovaldi is a guy with hard stuff which includes an explosive fastball, something of a potential #2 or #3, I’d say, but I don’t think he’s worth Hanley Ramirez.

FanGraphs: Jack Moore points out that the Dodgers needed to improve and they did.

This Hanley Ramirez is no longer a superstar, but he fills the holes of the Los Angeles Dodgers nearly perfectly. If the Dodgers are going to make a run at the playoffs, they need contributions from the left side of their infield, and Ramirez makes that a possibility again.

Baseball Prospectus: Colin Wyers, Kevin Goldstein, and R.J. Anderson analyze the pieces in the trade.

If Hanley’s upside is a return to something approaching his All-Star years and his downside is puttering along at around league average, the Dodgers have made a gamble they simply can’t lose. Don Mattingly is going to have his own version of Sophie’s choice to make when Gordon returns: “You can lose Juan Uribe or Dee Gordon from your lineup. Pick one and only one.” But either way, the Dodgers have improved their lineup over what it was yesterday.

Sports Illustrated: Cliff Corcoran offered a rare negative take on the Dodgers side of things.

Ramirez has now hit .245/.328/.405 (.249 GPA) in 776 plate appearances over the last two seasons combined. That is not a $15-million-per-year player. That, plus his poor fielding (by the advanced stats, which are generally in agreement, he grades out as every bit as much of a liability in the field at third base as he was at shortstop), means he is not a player who is going to single-handedly put the Dodgers into the playoffs.

Even the diminished Ramirez will be an upgrade over the production Los Angeles has been getting from the left side of the infield (it’s not yet known where he’ll play for the Dodgers). There’s also the “change of scenery” fantasy. The last imagines that getting away from manager Ozzie Guillen, with whom he butted heads, and from a team on which he was literally pushed aside by a new $106 million bauble named Jose Reyes, who has been no more valuable than Ramirez this season, could give Ramirez a fresh start that would rejuvenate his bat. That, however, is wishful thinking, not sound decision-making.

R.J. Anderson looked at Ned Colletti‘s trade history over at Baseball Prospectus and wondered why Dodgers fans are so worried about him.

Colletti’s evaluation mistakes cost the Dodgers two middle-of-the-rotation starters, an All-Star catcher, and a good fourth outfielder at most. But what about the flip side? What about when Colletti correctly evaluated his own prospects? Silver wrote, “One of [Colletti's] strengths seems to be knowing when to bail on his own players.” In the time since, Colletti has reaffirmed that notion. Some of Colletti’s better trades have come when correctly identifying the lemons in his own bunch. He traded Bryan Morris and LaRoche to acquire Manny Ramirez (easily the best deal of his career), used the intrigue of Joel Guzman to land Julio Lugo (whom, for whatever reason, fell to pieces, mitigating an otherwise clever deal), grabbed Jon Garland for Tony Abreu, got Jim Thome for nothing, and added Ted Lilly and Ryan Theriot for Blake DeWitt and two prospects who were unable to make the Cubs’ top-20 list this preseason.

Tagging Colletti as a good or bad general manager adds no value. What can add value is breaking general managers down to tools and skills. Colletti seems to understand that future value is worth less than present value, particularly when his team has the ability to compete now and the resources to compete later. Proper evaluation is the engine in Colletti’s machine. That means the Dodgers have to continue to land potentially useful players and continue to evaluate and harvest the potentially overvalued prospects. Every once and a while, Colletti is going to miss on a player. It happens; even John Schuerholz, the master of farm system self-evaluation, lost a few times.

This isn’t to say that Dodgers fans should have blind faith in Colletti, just that cowering in fear seems to be equally as unreasonable.

Andrew Grant addressed the notion that Ned Colletti’s not that bad of a General Manager over at Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness.

Ned Colletti isn’t without his merits. He’s good at assembling a bullpen on the cheap and the Dodgers get more mileage out of their veteran utility guys than most teams, but these are minor things in the big picture. Colletti inherited a dream situation, the best farm system in baseball with a payroll in the upper echelons of the league and the more it has become his team, the worse it has gotten. If you compare Ned’s moves to Bobo the General Managing Chimp he looks great, but if you assume a base level of competence from your GM Ned falls massively. James Loney’s monthly home run doesn’t make him a good player, so all of Ned’s moves not failing miserably shouldn’t make him a good GM.

I was actually going to write something similar, including using the exact same links he used, but instead, I’ll just address the question of whether Dodgers fans are justified in worrying at the trading deadline.

—–

Despite my derision of him as a General Manager, Ned Colletti has, in my estimation, specific strengths and weaknesses. He is terrible at major free agent signings, but fringe/average on the minor free agent deals. He’s good at trading away major league talent (usually guys that he signed, unfortunately) for useful minor leaguers. And as Andrew showed, he’s basically average at trading away minor league players, but it’s rare that he gets value in return for all that he trades away.

Coincidentally or not, his strengths all seem to derive from scouting and evaluation of minor league players (trading for minor leaguers/drafting minor leaguers/trading away minor leaguers). Such opinions were earlier justified in quantifiable form by The Hardball Times. Now I’m not saying that all the minor league strengths are due to Kim Ng/Logan White/De Jon Watson, but that is their job description, and two of those three were with the team before any of us were aware Colletti existed.

—–

So with that established, I don’t understand how or why R.J. gives Colletti credit for getting present talent in return on trades as if that’s what happens all the time when Colletti deals away minor league players.

Looking at the trades he has made over the years, it’s a bit odd to use that angle. Manny Ramirez was a once-in-a-lifetime scenario in which the Red Sox had to dump a Hall Of Fame talent, even the most ardent fan of Ned Colletti would have to admit that, and that’s ignoring entirely the report that Frank McCourt was the one who made it happen because he wanted to sell tickets. Andre Ethier was Colletti’s shining moment, and despite what Nate Silver said, I loved the trade at the time. Again though, that’s clearly not a deadline deal where he acquires current talent in exchange for future talent. Quite the opposite actually, and it’s certainly not what Dodgers fans are worrying about here.

So why are they worried? Because essentially, he has lost an All-Star catcher (a good one, at worst), two middle-of-the-rotation guys, and an outfielder who would have definitely started for the Dodgers over the years in return for what? Greg Maddux and Casey Blake for two months? Neither of which vaulted the Dodgers to the next level in the present or future.

As such, I would say Dodgers fans are justified to be worried about Colletti at the deadline. That is, unless David Wright decides to push over a Mets employee, bad mouth the Mets in the press, and quit on the team or Bobby Abreu blows his top and becomes a clubhouse cancer, forcing a deal for a minor league prospect. Because while the odds are good that he’ll both get nothing that helps the team and give away nothing that matters, more often than not, when the players involved have mattered, he’s come out on the losing end.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello once feared the exact deal that Andre Ethier signed, and while he holds some concerns, he finds it hard to argue against the deal.

What interests me more right now is trying to figure out just how much a big 2012 could enhance Ethier’s value on the market, because there’s a big difference between a deal for, say, 3/$36m (which I’d certainly love to do) and something more like 5/$85m (which I’d run away screaming from).

So the end result, in my view, is that the Dodgers paid a fair price to lock up one of the two best and most popular hitters on their team, a player with his share of flaws, but one who provides a service which couldn’t easily be replaced on the open market or via trade. I’m slightly apprehensive about the idea of Ethier being a $100m type player, yet I suppose I can’t really argue with the logic behind the move.

So he thinks they got market value, that it helps public relations, and that it was the best fit.

—–

Baseball Prospectus: R.J. Anderson thinks the deal is fair.

No extension is complete without hemming and hawing over the financial figures. Ethier is being rewarded handsomely for being a consistently good player (his Wins Above Replacement Player totals seem locked in around three wins per season). Is Ethier worth this kind of investment? It isn’t an easy question to answer. Consider the Dodgers’ perspective. These are new owners taking over a club whose previous owner soured the fan base. Fan morale should be improved thanks to the club’s first-place standing, but locking up a large part of the team’s recent good times gains public relations points, too.

Here’s something else to consider: the Dodgers know their own budget the best, and also know that the league might be flush with cash this offseason. It’s possible, not likely but possible, that Ethier’s deal looks prudent should teams splurge this offseason.

Even if the deal doesn’t win awards for being the most efficient usage of resources, the Dodgers should be happy to retain Ethier’s bat for an additional five or six seasons.

He believes the team may have gotten market value, that it will help public relations, and that it may prove to be a solid fit.

—–

FanGraphs: Dave Cameron thinks it’s an overpay but that the team should have the finances to overcome it, rendering the overpay meaningless.

From an abstract point of view, Ethier’s not worth this contract, but when you consider the Dodgers specific financial position, the team’s attempts to rebuild credibility with an alienated fan base, and the fairly minor scope of the overpay, this just isn’t something that anyone should get all that worked up over. The Dodgers paid a nice player a little bit more than he’s worth in order to keep him, and the difference probably won’t have much of an impact on their ability to do anything else. It’s an overpay, but an irrelevant one that shouldn’t garner all that much criticism.

He thinks the Dodgers paid over market value for Ethier, that it will help public relations, and that the future budget will take care of the overpay.

—–

True Blue LA: Eric Stephen takes a different approach to looking at the contract and compares Ethier to similar players.

Sammy Sosa, Jim Edmonds, and Carlos Beltran were the only three of the bunch to improve in their age 31-35 seasons. This group collectively averaged 2,844 plate appearances from age 26-30, and averaged 2,216 PA from ages 31-35, a 22.1% drop, with only three of the 13 players accumulating more PA as they aged. Four of the 13 players didn’t even make it to their age-35 season.

There is a fair amount of risk that Ethier could fall off a cliff from a production standpoint, with fellow Dodgers right fielder Shawn Green providing a prime example. But if Ethier does decline, the Dodgers are hoping for more Magglio Ordonez and less Trot Nixon.

You should go look at the chart, it’s interesting and much better than the similarity scores from Baseball Reference.

—–

Baseball Nation: Grant Brisbee makes the case that the message behind the deal was more important than the deal itself.

Maybe the Dodgers overpaid, and maybe they assumed a lot of risk with the Ethier deal. It’s not a bad deal, especially when you think of Jayson Werth and Carl Crawford as possible corner-outfield comps. But the Dodgers were sending a message just as much as they were trying to build a 2014 roster. If Magic Johnson is to be believed, the message will have several parts, and they’ll all be expensive. That’s the brand of the new Dodgers. It just happened to kick off with some old Dodgers.

This is yet another analysis of the contract that mentions the public relations angle, which is an interesting way to look at the deal. I actually didn’t think much of it before, but laid out like this, yeah, I can see how this might influence their decision to give him what he wanted, even if it is a little over market value.

Whether I agree with that logic is a different story though.

—–

Dodger Thoughts: Jon Weisman is upbeat about the outcome of the contract.

It’s hard to get a true bargain with established stars — which is why it was so wonderful for the Dodgers that Ethier (acquired as a minor leaguer from Oakland in 2005) and Matt Kemp emerged from their farm system in the first place. On some level, if the Dodgers can avoid with Ethier what happened with the Toronto Blue Jays and Vernon Wells, they should be happy. A major hope of the new ownership is that it won’t have to penny-pinch. As long as Ethier remains a reasonably productive player and not an albatross, the Dodgers and their fans should be happy to have him, even if he ends up pocketing something more than he’s worth.

He thinks that it’s probably an overpay, but it’ll be fine if he doesn’t become terrible.

Well yeah, but I think the risk that he does become terrible is built into the analysis of the deal, no? I mean, if I could rule out the possibility of attrition, then yeah, I love the deal.

—–

ESPN: Uh, I guess Keith Law couldn’t even be bothered to write an article on it, but it’s probably safe to say he doesn’t like it.

Someone needs to hand Ned Colletti a pen and a blank piece of paper and ask him to draw a typical hitter’s aging curve.

— keithlaw (@keithlaw) June 12, 2012

More like ROFLMAO “@Crev10: @keithlaw Did you ever publish a write-up on Either’s contract or would it have just read: “LOL”?”

— keithlaw (@keithlaw) June 13, 2012

I don’t think many are quite at this end of the spectrum.

=====

All in all, most seem to agree that’s he’s getting a deal that’s over market value and that there are concerns about regression as he ages. However, their concerns are mitigated primarily due to public relations reasons or because of the assumed budget.

The public relations angle is wonderful, and the expanding budget is part of the reason I’m somewhat neutral on the deal. However, all I care about is the Dodgers being a quality team again, so call me heartless or whatever, but I couldn’t care less about public relations or the loyalty of the fans or how many people would cry if Ethier wasn’t re-signed.

All I want to know is whether or not the deal was worth it from a baseball perspective, and judging by most of the analysis purely from that angle, the consensus seems to be that the jury is still out and they will be that way for a while.