Big Football Day Today

Or handegg, as WBBaS calls it.

Can the Pats beat the Broncos in Denver? Can the Cardinals beat the weather and the Panthers in Charlotte? For info on these burning questions, go to NFL.com.

Can we get these games out of the way so we can enjoy (!) all the hype of the next two weeks and get that much closer to Spring Training?

In Dodgers news, prospect Cody Bellinger is #6 on MLB Pipeline’s ranking of 1B prospects. He hit 30 HRs and led the California League with 97 runs scored and 103 RBI in 2015. If he pans out the Dodgers just need to squeeze two more seasons out of Adrian Gonzalez.

The same outfit has ranked LHP prospects, and Julio Urias of the Dodgers comes out on top. The only thing he’s short on is experience: he’s yet to pitch more than 90 innings in a season.

175 thoughts on “Big Football Day Today

    • My eyes have been on him for a couple of years now. I am a fan. I think Seager will be a very good shortstop and will stay there until he either gains maybe 20 pounds or the Dodgers have a chance to put a super quick player there.

      But I have to admit that Bellinger and Seager at the corner infield positions intrigues me. I can vision three young lefty hitters playing together for a long time in Seager, Pederson, and Bellinger.

      I wish Verdugo swung from the right side because I like Puig and Verdugo playing in the outfield corners. Maybe Verdugo plus X could be traded for Javier Baez to get that right handed bat that could play either left or second base.

    • Cody with a Tweet today crediting his trainer for adding 20 pounds over the offseason.

      • I hadn’t thought about that. I like it. I am for the DH. If the NL wants to tweak the DH rule by saying a DH can’t be used after the 6th inning I would be okay with that compromise.

        I also want electronic calling of balls and strikes. The ump can still be behind the plate calling foul tips and plays at the plate. I want a bi-product of calling balls and strikes electronically to be stats on pitchers that throw up and in with penalties for those who do it too much, whatever too much would be.

        One way to penalize pitchers that throw up and in too much would be to electronically shrink their strike zone for a period of time.

      • Thanks Audit, Link, and WB. I was trying to do a quick paste instead of saving the picture and then do the usual clicks to show the picture. The picture pasted successfully but when I tried to post it, I got a message that said I had to have text. So I added text and only the text posted. When I tried to delete the meaningless text without the picture it would not let me delete everything so I had to change my text for the edit to be successful. That is when I wound up with the text that you all saw.

        Sometimes my comments just go up in flames.

    • When you try to make a post, there is a dialog box divided into two parts. The lower part has a small symbol in it. Click on that symbol and it will open up your files to select the picture or video you want to post. Click on the selected picture and then on the usual “Post As Bumsrap” button.

  1. Audit, I would like to explain why I like the DH. I sometimes think about some of the following:
    Can the Pitcher hit at all?
    Should the pitcher hit based on that days performance to that point?
    Is the pitcher a good bunter?
    Is the player before the pitcher capable and should he try and steal a base?
    What type of incoming pitchers are available to pitch? There are more but I won’t cover more.
    You would give up the thinking for a chance to send up a bat that may or may not be capable of delivering a hit? Pretty easy to manage in that situation. The Dodgers have mostly always been able to play small ball and I truly love the thought that goes into it not even going into tradition ect. ect. I think that the DH will probably be instituted because of the players union but we will all be the lesser for it in my opinion.

    • Another area of agreement between you and WBB… Reasons why I like the DH:
      1. A pitcher who is pitching well doesn’t have to be removed for a pinch hitter.
      2. There is a position for a good hitter who can’t field anymore. Hanley Ramirez comes to mind.
      3. Lessens chance of injury to pitchers.
      4. I don’t think anyone likes to watch a player who really isn’t trying. Most pitchers with bats in their hands obviously aren’t trying. I’m sure other players resent that as much as I do.

      • I don’t think a pitcher has to be removed for a pinch hitter. He can bat and continue to pitch as you saw with Kershaw and Greinke many times. If a player cannot field anymore maybe he should retire. Hanley or any other DH player. If he cannot field he really is not a complete player. Agree? Injuries are part of the game and if a player/pitcher is not trying he should be suspended no matter who they are. I just think that when I was a kid I would have wanted to play as much if you had told me I could not play in the field.

      • Package and I can agree on this. If you want to put an Edgar Martínez in the lineup, you should have to live with his defensive shortcomings.

        In Game 6 of the 1952 Series (I’ve seen a film replay), the Dodgers were trailing the Yanquis by a run with two out in the seventh and Billy Loes, the starting pitcher, came to bat. He got a base hit and immediately stole second, but Billy Cox struck out to end the rally. That’s memorable.

  2. I expect Turner to turn back into a mouse or pumpkin sooner or later, so I favor using him as backup and pinch hitting or trading him while his price is inflated. And. Signing Ian Desmond to play shortstop the next 4 years or so and switching Seager to third base now instead of a year or two from now. Desmond can be had for a quite reasonable sum and he would be a worthwhile addition to the lineup.. Turner’s health makes him more suited to a bench role. I’m not knocking Turner, just wanting to put him in a smaller role and relying on him less.

    • Surrendering a high draft choice to sign an overpriced mediocrity like Desmond makes no sense. You’re in Package territory now.

      • Doesn’t matter what you think of the idea. Or me either for that matter. I just hope FO reads this blog and likes the idea.

    • Loved Desmond in watching the Nats over the years, but he refused an extension for 5 years that would have paid him $18 million per year! After a down season in 2015 and not much interest on the FA market, what is the reasonable sum that you think he can be had for (given that he would cost us a draft choice)?

      • He now has some idea of how high an opinion some people have of him. I’m sure he would jump at 5 years@$14MM with a two year opt-out. Maybe start at $12MM and work up…

        • Would guess that his own opinion of himself hasn’t changed, so might be looking for a one-year contract/opt out to prove himself to others again as an alternative to a longer contract for less money yearly.

          • Bottom line, he may not be the longer term solution for what you see as issues involving Seager and Justin (full disclosure: I don’t buy into these requiring urgent and major moves at this point at such risk and costs).

          • You think he is a long term solution at a reasonable price for the issues that you have identified?

          • Five years is a long time in MLB, $14MM is not much money in MLB. From what I have red about Desmond, he is considerably about average in shortstop offensive output, at least average in defense, and the Dodgers do have money. I would rather pay him $14MM than pay $7MM for the corpse of Chase Utley/

          • Ian is unlikely to take a five year contract at $14 million, which is significantly below the $18 million offer he rejected last year, as well as the $16 million qualifying offer he more recently rejected. On the Dodger’s side committing $90 million plus over five years and losing a draft pick is not comparable to spending $7 million one year. Ian could sign a one-year contract/opt out to regain his value on the market next year, but then it wouldn’t be a long term solution that you think the Dodgers need..

          • It doesn’t have to be long term, that’s why I put the opt-out suggestion in the contract. The Dodgers have some viable shortstop options in the minors for the future. Only time will tell whether they are as good as Desmond. I doubt they will hit as well.

          • Really? I mean there is Alphabet, who we might both agree doesn’t seem to be up to snuff for the Bigs. Other than that, we don’t have anyone else in our top 50 prospects. Beyond that we have a couple of teenagers who wouldn’t be ready for 3-4 years at best, even if they turn out to be very good. Perhaps we can pick up someone better in upcoming drafts.

          • Or we might reassess the need to sign him at all. In the Dodgers’ case it’s “only money plus 50%”.

          • (Utley is right up there with Carl Crawford on my list of people for whom there’s no room on Earth.)

      • Professionals got to get the words out every day to keep their job. I suspect they know it’s not Pulitzer material…

        • In all fairness to the author, he was responding to an esoteric question and apparently had nothing better to do than to research it.

  3. Beachy outrighted to OKC, so an open slot on the forty man. While they could be making a move, it also opens up a slot in case one of the NRIs makes it.

    • Would lose the draft pick in any event if no one picks him up. Could do worse. Howie has good splits, so Chase could move over to back up both 3rd and 2nd and Quique remains the super sub backing up SS/CF/LF/2nd.

    • Just to clarify, I won’t mind if they sign Kendrick. I would prefer Desmond but Kendrick has always been OK in my book. If they do sign him, maybe they’ll dump Utley to the Angels or someone…

    • I just checked it out. Bumsrap is posting there. The first article is about Joe Blanton and pitch framing. Read the comments, lots of people have their doubts about pitch framing. I think some of us will enjoy that site too, so far I haven’t seen any crazies on it…

      • There seemed to be only two people questioning “framing” in that thread and one of them cited an article from FanGraphs, which basically said that it exists but that umps may be getting “wise” to it.

        • I guess they had multiple posts then. Point I considered most important was at least several people are in favor of electronic ball and strike calling.

          • Hard to be against accuracy, but at first blush would seem to be awkward to introduce, as the plate guy has other duties. I don’t suppose the umps would take a pay cut.

      • We know, you would prefer to trade Seager, Urias and all the other prospects for declining veterans like Hanley, and then give them contract extensions into their forties.

        • Don’t think I ever said that but if I did it would only be because he contributed more last year than many others and losing him would hurt more than keeping him. I am not big on all this platooning.

          • Followed the O’s after I moved to the East Coast in the late 1970s. Earl Weaver was a big proponent of platooning and I grew to appreciate it.

          • It just seems like you get two lesser players for one position to me. Of course moneywise it is much cheaper than 1 impact player.

          • Certainly one way to look at it. How about this? Ethier made $18 million last year. He had an OPS+ of 148 against right handers (big impact), but against left handers he had a 33. The Dodgers used SVS as a platoon and he had an OPS+ of 121 against left handers. He cost the Dodgers an additional $522k.

          • How does that work out with SVS and Crawford which is where SVS played a lot. I also think that only works with inflated contracts. That may not be the case with the type players this FO seems to want.

          • No team has a regular “impact” player at all 8 positions. Not sure why you would begrudge the FO for using a platoon approach at 2-3 positions and maximizing the contribution of the bench that they have actively tried to deepen.

          • Because there sometimes there comes a time when you cannot utilize a platoon system and I would rather have players that have a larger potential than platoon players. Again, I do not factor in money as much as most of you all.

          • Then you must have a lot of it. Whether any of us give it too much weight or not doesn’t matter, for any business will consider it, even the Dodgers. Another factor in favor of platoons is that one injury (or slump) doesn’t hurt the team as much.

          • Audit, let’s put it this way. I have been blessed and don’t worry about money but I have also been in business and it is all about risk and reward. Usually the bigger the risk the bigger the reward. The Dodgers nowadays don’t want to risk anything. Why? Who knows, I have my opinion and others have theirs.

          • For that matter, why should they ‘risk’ anything? Thanks to their huge television contract and the way the MLB operates, they are guaranteed, GUARANTEED, a reward that is a far larger amount than I (and most other people) could even conceive spending…

          • The name of the game is WIN. No, they do not have to risk anything but why play at all? To make money? That only works for a while until the fans quit coming.

          • You don’t have to have an IQ to be a fan. No matter what the clubs do, people will still be fans. The owners and the FO want to operate more economically than they have recently, and that’s what they’re going to do.

          • If I may interject my unasked opinion… An “impact player” as you characterize them will cost 4 or 5 times the salary of a platoon player who will only produce 40% to 50% of the output of the impact player, so two platoon players will be needed. But the result can be that the two platoon players can equal or come close to the impact player’s production for half his cost. That is a philosophy I can accept. Increasing the roster size so more platoons can be utilized will have to be considered.

          • I have never been comfortable giving players $20MM to $30MM in the HOPE that they will continue producing like they have in the last year or so. I will always think that’s foolish. I don’t like to put all my eggs in one basket. (Actually, I don’t eat eggs…)

          • OK but I will just lay it all out there. The Dodgers have not won in over 27 years. They have a team that is worth more than most if not all of the MLB franchises. Their ownership is rich beyond most of us wildest dreams but they chose to operate like a small market team and all the while tell us to be patient. Maybe some of you folks will keep buying that stuff but I am sick of it. We could have had a chance if the Dodgers would have traded for Cole Hamels but chose not to. I would like to win once before I die. This ownership can afford it but would rather make money and keep telling us that they are trying. The problem is I don’t buy it but others do.

          • But how does this justify you bad mouthing the FO for picking up Howie, a player you yourself advocating picking up? Because we got him cheaper than had been thought? (BTW-Hamels didn’t win either of the games he pitched in the playoffs). Team outspent every other team in baseball last year and will likely do so again this year.

          • And over 90 million was for players we did not even have. I did not bad mouth the FO for picking up Howie. Please quote me on what I said to make you say that I bad mouthed the FO? As I said, he was better than what we had. Hamels did not pitch for the Dodgers so we will never know for sure but he certainly would have been a key pickup for last year as well as this year.

          • In response to a post with an article on the acquisition of Howie, you write “Yeah, get all the FA players nobody else wants. Great plan.”

          • That was simply meant to say that the FO does not take the lead in obtaining FAs However, nobody did pick up Howie. What does that mean? Is he as good as some other FAs? It was not meant as a throw off of Howie but rather the FO waiting to sign anyone. The pitchers are another example.

          • Hey Bob, this FO has now had 2 off seasons to refine a 94 win season and a 92 win season the year before that. Last season they won 92 games so I would think by now they could have fixed whatever was wrong with the 94 win season and make us a WS champion or at the least in the WS.

          • With only another two wins every season, in 35 years the Dodgers will go undefeated! A modest proposal!

          • Well, they chose to operate like a small market team by having the highest payroll in baseball. We realize, though, that you would have dumped all the prospects for Hamels, who failed to take Texas very far, losing the deciding game of the Division Series badly.

  4. Congratulations, Package. Seems like you’re the only one who can inspire any action on this moribund blog…

    • There are some people who respond in such a manner as to intimidate others keeping the posting low. They think they are the only ones who can be right.

      • Not to speak of the ones who defend their opinions and put a damper on discussion by saying “it doesn’t matter what you and I think, it’s the FO that decides”. That’s a real winner.

  5. Frequent Flyer Ronald Torreyes is on the move again, from the Angels back to the Yankees, replacing the player that replaced him when the Yankees put him on waivers a few weeks ago. A lot of teams want him, just not bad enough to give him a 40 man roster spot…

  6. We caucused here in Iowa tonight. It is a very interesting process. Caucus today, blizzard tomorrow!

  7. Greg Maddux and Raul Ibanez to Dodger staff. Confirms talk about Maddux a while back.

    http://dodgers.mlblogs.com/2016/02/02/greg-maddux-raul-ibanez-join-dodger-front-office/

    Wouldn’t it be insane if Maddux could pick up and impart something to Kershaw to make him even more dominant? Like help elevate CK’s changeup to the level of his slider and FB? A change was one of Maddux’s best weapons, IIRC.

    Succeed at that and multiple no-hitters may follow. ;-])

    • Another thing: at times this spring Sandy Koufax and Greg Maddux will be on the field at the same time helping pitchers. What young pitcher wouldn’t love that?

    • Like the article stated, we would not get much in return and have to pay part of his salary. I would just keep him at this point.