Clayton Kershaw related to Dylan Hernandez that the hip injury which felled him during the 2012 campaign has not been an issue this offseason.

“It was never a problem for me,” said Kershaw.

The Dodgers allowing Kersh to pitch on the balky hip late last season – in what was a lost season towards the end, no less – still does not sit right with me. Luckily for them and all of us, Kershaw’s injury never progressed to a more serious state.

—–

A.J. Ellis tells Steve Dilbeck that he has fully recovered from knee surgery and will be ready to start the season as usual.

Catcher A.J. Ellis said he feels fully recovered from left knee surgery and is already partaking in all baseball drills.

“I’m doing all my regular baseball activities,” Ellis said. “It looks like a normal January for me.”

In a season that already has a lot of injury question marks, having him declared healthy is a boost.

—–

Chad Billingsley, whose uncertain health spurred the Dodgers to their offseason spending spree for starting pitchers, said he’s had no issues with his right elbow during the winter.

With less than two weeks before the first pitchers-and-catchers workout, Billingsley said he feels “absolutely great.”

“Tomorrow I’ll throw off a mound for the eighth time and I’ve had no issues,” he told Jorge Jarrin on AM570′s DodgerTalk Thursday night. “It’s just like any other offseason.”

“Everything’s been great,” he said. “I’ve had no issues, no setbacks. Everything is looking good going into Spring Training.”

Hate to continue harping on it, but while it’s great that he insists he’s healthy as normal, there’s minimal reason to be confident in an issue-free 2013.

=====

Greg Zakwin is the founder of the site Plaschke Thy Sweater Is Argyle. Follow him on Twitter @ArgyledPlaschke.

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.

Via Steve Dilbeck‘s blog, Dodgers Now:

[Updated at 9:01 p.m.: Chattanooga pitching coach Chuck Crim later confirmed The Times' Kevin Baxter that Eovaldi is headed to Los Angeles and said he was told the right-hander would take Lilly's place in the rotation.]

Dodgers Manager Don Mattingly was unusually coy about Eovaldi, who was scheduled to start Saturday night for double-A Chattanooga but instead pitched one inning of relief, striking out all three batters.

Previously, I gave my thoughts on what this might mean, and I’m worried quite a bit about Ted Lilly‘s health.

Hopefully an update on that situation comes soon.

Jared Kushner has withdrawn from the Los Angeles Dodgers ownership sweepstakes, leaving seven candidates left.

Kushner, the owner and publisher of the New York Observer and son-in-law of Donald Trump, submitted a bid with a financial structure Major League Baseball declined to approve, according to a person familiar with the sale process but not authorized to discuss it.

Kushner was invited to consider restructuring his bid or joining with another group, the person said. He instead withdrew his bid.

Peace, bro.

Speaking of the ownership situation, Steve Dilbeck had a nice find, as he wrote about Darren Rovell‘s thoughts about the team being overvalued.

Will he get the bid he dreams of? Stay tuned. But if the new owner is dropping $1.5 billion to $2 billion, sports business writer Darren Rovell of CNBC.com said there is no money to be made on the team.

Rovell said the team itself is still valued at $800 million and the property from $200 million to $300 million. Some have claimed this is less about buying the Dodgers than the TV rights.

Wrote Rovell: “Some will say it’s in the TV money, but it’s not there either. A deal with a network would yield about $150 million a year, but if the Dodgers start a regional sports network, they’ll likely be sharing at least 25% of the overall revenue, which would affect the rights fee.”

If it’s a vanity buy, it is one crazy purchase. And then you have to wonder about the impact down the line.

“If a bid is a stupid bid, do you think the owner wants to pump more money into the team?” Rovell asked. “If a bid is fiscally irresponsible, does it necessarily increase the value of all teams? No. It’s just an outlier.”

Besides the parking lots, my worry now is that the new ownership will be so focused on making their money back that the money won’t be spent on the team.

—–

The team recently signed two players in right-handed pitcher Blake Johnson and second baseman Brandon Mims.

The Dodgers originally selected Blake Johnson in the second round of the ’04 draft, then packaged him in a deal to the Royals for Elmer Dessens in July ’06. Johnson pitched in the Royals and Rockies organizations last year.

The Blue Jays signed Brandon Mims for $230,000 out of the ninth round of the ’10 draft, but they released the Carrollton, Texas, product last September after he did not play during the season. He went 1-for-2 in the Gulf Coast League in ’10, and that’s the extend of his pro experience.

I’d honestly like to know what the personal reasons were for Brandon Mims being released, but for now he seems like a solid addition to the system at a minimal price.

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.