Another one down: Lofton signs with Dodgers

by SC on Dec 20, 2005 1:56 PM EST in News Comment 15 comments

So no Lofton for us. I'll live, though I preferred him greatly to Jeromy Burnitz.

That's an...interesting team the Dodgers are putting together.

C Jason Phillips
1B Nomar Garciaparra
2B Jeff Kent
3B Bill Mueller
SS Rafael Furcal
LF Jose Cruz
CF Kenny Lofton
RF JD Drew

Then you've got guys like Izturis, who is insurance for IF injury, Sandy Alomar Jr., Repko, Ledee, Choi, Werth.

I guess their starting rotation will be Lowe, Edwin Jackson, Perez, Penny and a fifth guy. They could be good. Or they could suck with a lot of name players.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Never fear...

The Orioles just signed David Newhan, cue "Thus Spake Tharthustra."

by rebop on Dec 20, 2005 3:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re:

Ah yes, now the "plan" is crystalizing. These .200 hitters are the Ubermensch that will lead the O's onward to glory.

In addition, we'll also get another season of annoying quotes and whining.

"We are coming back strong next year ... I know you have heard that tune before, but this time it will literally come true." Peter Angelos 09/2005

by drj on Dec 20, 2005 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And Cubs sign

J. Jones

I know the O's plan!

PLay like you want it, Live like you need it

by merdon1332000 on Dec 20, 2005 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Either the Dodgers or the Mets will stink this year. I'm not quite sure which one... I wouldn't be suprised if both stink. Both teams, more so with the Mets, remind of the 2000 Dodgers that Kevin Malone asembled (i believe it's 2000, whichever dodger team that had kevin brown for the first year after his huge contract). On paper, the 2000 Dodgers were absolutely star studded but didn't perform well. A combination of over the hill stars and young players not living up to their expectations ultimately sunk the team. I can easily see this happening with the Mets or Dodgers.

by birdman on Dec 20, 2005 7:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

DIE BIRDMAN

THE METS WILL DO GOOD, or not.

by Larry Bigbie3 on Dec 20, 2005 8:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

damn larry

sorry, i didn't know you were a mets fan! i will say that if the mets do win, it'll be next year. pedro is bound to decline in a couple of seasons, glavine will be gone after next year as well as cliff floyd. i think wagner will be excellent next year but there's no way he'll be productive for the entire length of his contract. and their farm system is gutted especially if lasting gets traded. beltran though is bound to improve. but i think minaya's win now strategy is hurting the long term health of the franchise.

by birdman on Dec 20, 2005 10:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Preston Wilson

I prefer Wilson to either Burnitz or Lofton. I also prefer Encarnacion to Lofton. Wison would give us defense and pop in LF and be a back up for CF when Matos gets injured and/or sucks mightily. If they don't want to trade Bedard for Dunn why not trade him to the Chisox for Garland. Then Tejada can have his ace. Get really brave and sign Millwood(it's beginning to look like he's gonna have no where else to go)and you have a solid rotation.
Garland
Cabrera
Millwood
Lopez
Chen

by el gordo on Dec 20, 2005 8:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

bedard for garland

Garland is a free agent next year. I would rather sign him a free agent rather than give up Bedard for a one year rental. Besides Garland has only had one good season. He might be a flash in the pan.

by birdman on Dec 20, 2005 10:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Garland

Is no ace! one ok season with an era of 3.50. I wouldn't trade berdard for him, maybe Gibbons

PLay like you want it, Live like you need it

by merdon1332000 on Dec 20, 2005 8:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand

Why everyone is so keen on trading Gibbons. Despite all the criticism, he is a dependable everyday player, a strong force in the clubhouse, and a recognizable face of the franchise (not on the Tejada level, but he is a regular, recognizable face).

Not only that, but Gibbons is versatile. He plays RF, 1B, and can DH. And he's willing to do all three (something that, as we are finding with Javy, not all players are willing to do). His numbers, though not spectacular, are not bad either. I like Gibbons, and to be honest it would take a pretty good deal to persuade me to part with him.

by therobotian on Dec 20, 2005 8:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bedard ,Garland, aces?

Bedard and Garland are both 27 years old. I would have to say Garland is a lot further along in his development than Bedard. He's coming into his prime. He'll probably be a top flight pitcher for some time. Bedard on the other hand is still learning how to pitch. There's no guarantee he'll ever be much better. By the way I believe you would regard Schilling as an ace. When he was 27 he went 16 and 7 with a 4.02 ERA. Garland at the same age was of course 18 and 10 with a 3.50 ERA.

by el gordo on Dec 20, 2005 10:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

OK try this

Garland = 4million
Bedard = 400K
Gibbons =3million

All I said was I wouldn't trade Bedard for Garland. I think Gibbons for Garland would be a better deal for the O's.

Then we could still push for a Deal with the Reds for Dunn. Although I think Dunn isn't going anywhere for now.

PLay like you want it, Live like you need it

by merdon1332000 on Dec 20, 2005 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

bedard versus garland

"I would have to say Garland is a lot further along in his development than Bedard."

This is true but remember Garland has several more seasons under his belt so I think it's bit natural for Garland to be more polished than Bedard.

by birdman on Dec 20, 2005 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

This is true but remember Garland has several more seasons under his belt so I think it's bit natural for Garland to be more polished than Bedard.

Yeah, Garland doesn't get hurt every year.

"I don't see why you reporters keep confusing Brooks and me. Can't you see that we wear different numbers?" - Frank Robinson

by SC on Dec 20, 2005 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Garland /Bedard

Yes but what's taking Bedard so long to develop? It's not like he was being blocked by any body. By the way for all you Gibbons bashers. Baseball Prospectus ranks Gibbons' VORP at 89 out of 994 position players. FYI Tejada is 12, Roberts 13 and Mora is 59. How bad could he be? And I'd take Garland for a year over Bedard if it would help us contend. If you signed Millwood as well I think we could.

by el gordo on Dec 20, 2005 11:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs