Monday, January 3, 2011

Ten Questions with Mike Petriello of MSTI

To give insight into the 2011 Los Angeles Dodgers -- who I believe will be the Giants' toughest competitor (great rotation, solid bullpen, good offensive upside), I asked Mike Petriello of Mike Scioscia's Tragic Illness ten questions about the team. Not only did he respond quickly, but he also provided very thoughtful and intelligent answers. Enjoy...


1) Where do you think the Dodgers rotation ranks among all major league teams? Can you shed any light as to why people might not be giving the Dodgers rotation any credit?

I think there's a few answers to the lack of credit. A big part of it is that public perception of the Dodgers just hasn't been very positive over the last year, in large part because of the McCourt divorce, but also because of the Manny controversies and 2010's general disappointments. Also, while the Dodgers have signed four possible starters this winter, three - Hiroki Kuroda, Ted LillyVicente Padilla - ended 2010 with the club, while Jon Garland spent time there in 2009. That familiarity means that none of them are the big new shiny toy that people are eager to learn about - their moves just haven't been splashy like getting a Cliff Lee or a Zack Greinke might be.

From a baseball point of view, I also believe it's because people are underrating depth. I'm not going to argue that that guys like Greinke and Gallardo, or Lee and Halladay, or Lincecum and Cain aren't killer 1-2 combinations. They are, though I do think Kershaw and Billingsley can stand up to most of them. But who's the #5 starter in Milwaukee, Chris Narveson? Once Joe Blanton is gone, are the Phillies turning to Kyle Kendrick? You need 5 starters - usually more - to get through a season, not 3, and the Dodgers have put together six quality options. That'll come in handy when other teams are dipping into AAA to fill starts, and so I think the combination of top-flight talent in Kershaw & Billingsley + quality veteran depth in Lilly, Kuroda, Garland, and Padilla make this a top-10 rotation easily, if not higher.


2) Matt Kemp went from being a 5-WAR player in 2009 to a 0.4-WAR player in 2010. How well do you think he'll perform in 2011?

I'll admit my obvious biases here, but I have a lot of hope for Kemp to bounce back to at least 2009 levels in 2011, and possibly even higher. If you asked 100 people what went wrong for Kemp in 2010, you'd probably get 100 different answers, ranging from "he got full of himself", to "he clashed with the coaching staff," to "he was distracted by Rhianna".

I don't put a lot of stock into the Rhianna bit, though now that they've split you better believe we'll be hearing that if he rebounds. I really do think that it was a combination of old-school management handling him poorly and Kemp not handling the criticism all that well.

Remember, Kemp got off to a blazing start to 2010. He had a .938 OPS on April 28 as the team was crumbling around him; they were in last place when Ned Colletti called out Kemp's poor baserunning and defense. As I said at the time, it wasn't that Colletti was wrong (Kemp's baserunning and defense had regressed, though that was partially perception because he never deserved the Gold Glove he got in 2009), but considering how many other things were going wrong with the team, it was insane to call out Kemp.

It kind of went downhill from there, as he got into arguments with bench coach Bob Schaefer and Torre, leading to a benching that Torre may have kept up indefinitely had Kemp not finally seeked him out. I'm not saying Kemp is blameless, just that Torre, Schaefer, and Larry Bowa never seemed more out of touch with the younger generation than they did there.

The good news is that Kemp ended the season on a rampage (homers in the final five games) and reportedly has a very good relationship with Don Mattingly. On top of that, Bowa and Schaefer are both gone, with Davey Lopes coming in to coach first base - and Lopes not only has a reputation as being the best baserunning coach around, he's close friends with Kemp's agent, Dave Stewart - and Kemp acknowledged near the end of last season that his year wasn't what he'd expected.

Remember, Kemp is so talented that he had a 107 OPS+ - still above-average - and it was seen as a massive disappointment. I really think all the pieces are in place for a big year from him.


3) Giants fans were sad to see Juan Uribe go to the Dodgers, but the general feeling was that it wouldn't have been worth the 3yrs/$21MM the Dodgers gave him. What are your thoughts on the Uribe signing?

In a vaccuum, I liked it, and I actually advocated for them to sign him as far back as October. However, that was before Uribe hit a few big postseason homers and before we saw how crazy the market would be, so the one-year deal I was hoping for was clearly not realistic by the time free agency opened.

So I'm really torn about it. I do think he helps the team in 2010, because his pop and decent glove make him a far better choice than the utterly awful Ryan Theriot. Even in 2011 it's not awful, because his versatility will be a plus as both Casey Blake and Rafael Furcal may be free agents. It just seems like a ton of money for a guy who doesn't get on base a lot, and whose career was basically over before getting $1m from the Giants before 2009. Uribe's a useful player, but $21m is a lot of money, and the Dodgers have made a few signings like this that make me just wish they'd just cashed the lot of it in on Adam Dunn.


4) Jonathan Broxton was a top closer in the first half of 2010, but had a very rough second half. Do you think he'll completely return to form in 2011? His peripherals seem to indicate that his 2010 ERA was at least partially a product of bad luck.

I'd say the holy war over Jonathan Broxton is one of the least fun parts about being a Dodger fan right now. People freaked out when he had high-profile blown saves against the Phillies in the NLCS in 2008 and 2009, as though every other closer on the planet is perfect each time out, and as though he hadn't been successful in the playoffs before.

Then he had a poor second half last year, and "the sky is falling" people really came out in force. I particularly enjoyed those playing amateur psychologist, claiming that they could look into his eyes and that he didn't have "it", whatever that means.

To be honest, I have a hard time seeing how you don't put a lot of the blame for Broxton's 2010 on Joe Torre. Broxton was hands-down the bext closer in baseball in the first half of the season, despite Torre's odd usage patterns where he'd bring Broxton into 7-run games and then lose 1-run games with lesser relievers because Broxton was unavailable. After shutting down the Yankees on June 26, Broxton’s 2010 line was asburd. He’d held batters to just a puny .217/.254/.258 line, with an amazing 48/5 K/BB.

But of course then there was the famous meltdown on Sunday Night Baseball (though it should be noted that James Loney botched what could have been a game-ending double play) and it was all downhill from there. Torre had made him throw 99 pitches in 5 days - i.e., what a starter would do - and he never came back from it. While his velocity was still good, it was down slightly and he'd lost movement on his pitches.

To be honest, I just hate the amount of blame a closer gets for things that aren't his fault. There was the Loney play against the Yankees, but he also was on the hook for the Mattingly "double visit" game, which wasn't his fault, and in another game he blew against the Phillies, Ronald Belisario faced five men in the 8th and got zero outs, and Broxton induced a perfect double-play ball that went right through Casey Blake's legs. Yet the firestorm around him just got worse.

As for 2011, I'm hoping that a winter off and being away from Joe Torre will help him rebound. He at least deserves the chance to prove it, just like Chad Billingsley did after his poor end to 2009.


5) Who would you like to see the Dodgers pursue as their 2011 left-fielder?

At this point, it's really too late. There's not much left on the free agent market, and certainly no one you'd hand a starting gig to. With outfield prospects Jerry Sands and Trayvon Robinson each looking to be ready for 2012, it's probably better that they didn't sign a mediocre vet to block them anyway.What they might do is get Casey Blake some at-bats out there against lefty pitching (who he still crushes, despite a poor 2010) and use the versatility of Juan Uribe and Jamey Carroll to cover those games at 3B. Longterm, Andre Ethier is a mediocre defensive right fielder and probably profiles better in LF.

If there is still one name out there that interests me, provided you can get him very cheaply, that's Lastings Milledge. He's still quite young, and he's been able to hit lefty pitching pretty well over his career. Throw in his ability to play all three outfield spots, and he could be an interesting bench piece.


6) I read through John Sickels' post on the Top 20 Dodgers prospects for 2011, and I found this statement to be interesting: "All in all, the Dodgers system has a lot of very intriguing raw material in it, but there are a huge number of questions as well. It is not a thin system, but even the elite guys at the top have a doubt or two." Are you optimistic about the Dodgers farm system? Are there any players that you're truly excited for, or that you think could make an impact in the near future?

I am optimistic, though there are certainly question marks. Much was made of the heralded crew of Kemp / Loney / Billingsley / Martin / Broxton / Kershaw / etc that arrived between 2006-08, and there has definitely been a lull in that pipeline over the last two years or so.

As Sickels notes, the Dodgers have a ton of righty pitching prospects, many of whom have run into difficulties. They're all very talented though, so I have to think that at least one of the Ethan Martin / Chris Withrow / Aaron Miller / Rubby De La Rosa / Allen Webster pans out into something legit, and being able to sign 2010 top pick Zach Lee away from LSU for above-slot money was a real coup.

The offensive side of the ball is a little closer, with Dee Gordon and Trayvon Robinson both possessing the raw tools to step into the 2012 lineup. If I'm particularly excited about anyway, it's Jerry Sands, who followed up a 1.019 OPS in the low levels in 2009 with 35 homers and a .981 OPS in 2010. We might see him this September, and if all goes well he'll be ready for a job either at 1B or LF in 2012.


7) Do you think Clayton Kershaw is underrated? I remember him pitching against the Giants late this season, and well, they just couldn't really hit him. But it seems to me that he's not really talked about when it comes to discussions of the top pitchers in baseball, and I can't understand why that is.

I do, and for one very good reason: wins. For a large stretch of last summer, he was arguably the best pitcher in baseball, and you could make a good case that he was better than Tim Lincecum last year. Yet despite that, he was just 13-10 and has a career record of 26-23. Though he obviously pitched better than that, he was sabotaged several times by poor run support and bullpen failures. Though I like to think we've made progress in devaluing wins (see Felix Hernandez and Zack Greinke winning Cy Youngs), if just 3-4 or those had gone the other way and Kershaw's record was something like 17-6, I think you'd be seeing a lot more respect. The fact that the Dodgers were a total nonfactor in 2010 didn't help him on a national scale, either.

I've been dying all winter for the Dodgers to sign him long-term before it's too late, because he's not even 23 yet and he's already dominant. He made progress last year in his one major weakness (getting wild, thus racking up the pitch count and not going deep into games) and if he can maintain that he's going to be an absolute beast in 2011.


8) What are your thoughts on Ned Colletti as a GM?

Suffice to say, not a fan. His tenure started out horrifically (big money to Juan Pierre, Andruw Jones, Jason Schmidt, signing lousy vets like Luis Gonzalez to play over Ethier and Kemp), steadily got worse (I will never get over trading Carlos Santana for Casey Blake), and though he made some solid moves in 2009, all of his in-season moves in 2010 flopped horribly. Everyone could see that the club just didn't have it last year, yet he traded a boatload of prospects for Lilly, Octavio Dotel, Scott Podsednik, and Ryan Theriot. Lilly was good, but the other three were awful, and he paid for the privilege. That's without even getting into the Garret Anderson disaster.

Colletti's got a long history of overvaluing mediocre veterans - he just signed Juan Castro again - while undervaluing young players. His supporters point to three postseasons in four years, while I point out that the 2006 team was largely Paul DePodesta's, and the 2008-09 club made it there on the back of Logan White's farm system. There's a pretty good argument to be made that the Dodgers would have been better off had Colletti done nothing at all. It's a constant fear that his highly thought-of assistants, White and Kim Ng, will leave for a GM job one day while we're stuck with Ned and his cowboy boots.


9) Do you think Don Mattingly will perform well as the Dodgers manager in 2011?

It's hard to say, and that uncertainty is what's worrisome. I know a lot of people like to point to the "double mound visit" debacle against the Giants, but I'm not going to kill a guy over one mistake. He's never managed (save for a stint in the Arizona Fall League, which hardly counts) and so we have no idea what he's going to be like. That's in large part why many of us were backers of Tim Wallach, who had managed the Dodgers' AAA club the previous two years and earned accolades in the process.

While some like to point out that Mattingly learned at the feet of Torre for years in New York and Los Angeles, that's exactly what worries me. I couldn't stand Joe Torre. I'm willing to give Mattingly his fair chance, but my biggest fear is that he is a Torre clone.

Either way, I'm happier to have a manager in his 40s than I was having one over 70.


10) It seems that beyond Andre Ethier and Matt Kemp, the Dodgers offense doesn't have a huge punch. In the Dodgers ZiPS projections, for example, Kemp and Ethier are the only two to have a projected OPS+ of 110 or higher. The Dodgers then have three players -- Loney, Furcal, and Uribe -- who are projected to have an OPS+ slightly above 100. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be much offense on the team. Do you think the Dodgers' offense will be their weakness in 2011?

Absolutely. The pitching staff is probably championship-caliber, because I think Kershaw takes that next step and the pitching depth is unmatched. But the offense needs a lot to go right. Furcal needs to stay healthy. Kemp needs to be more 2009, less 2010. Ethier needs to be at least lousy against LHP, rather than unplayable. Loney doesn't need to be a 30-HR beast, but he does need to show something that proves there's more in there.

The real problem is the way in which Colletti has put together his roster, because it's been proven time and again than OBP = runs, and this is an awful group as far as getting on base. Sure, guys like Rod Barajas and Uribe have nice pop for their positions, but they're dreadful at getting on base. Casey Blake appears to be on the downswing as well, and lord knows what you'll get from guys like Jay Gibbons and Tony Gwynn in the outfield. This is where losing the high-OBP skills of Manny Ramirez and Russell Martin are going to cost them.

The Dodgers are going to need most of those uncertainties to break their way, or they're going to be in trouble because there's not a whole lot behind them, unless you want to rush guys like Sands, Robinson, and Gordon up before they're ready.

There's always been complaints that Colletti wants to model the team after the Giants, and San Francisco winning it all this year with great pitching and fluky performances from veteran bats doesn't help. Those cries haven't diminished after signing Uribe, trying to get Aubrey Huff, and generally having a very good pitching staff with a very questionable offense.

So yes, offense - OBP particularly - is the great worry. It'd be a shame to waste what looks to be a very good pitching staff with an offense that can't support it.

--

I just want to once again thank Mike Petriello for his graciousness and for his insightful answers. If you have not already done so, you should check out Mike Scioscia's Tragic Illness.

Also, you can expect me to continue this series (probably with a Rockies blogger next time).