PDA

View Full Version : What's the dirt on Evans?


pudge
02-11-2004, 06:38 PM
What is wrong with this guy? He gets passed over in Chicago for KW, then he gets booted as soon as a new owner takes over in LA... does anyone have any inside info on why this supposed "rising star" keeps getting the shaft?

doublem23
02-11-2004, 06:50 PM
Trading Todd Hundley for Eric Karros and Mark Grudzielanek should have gotten this moron fired on the spot. I'm amazed he finished out last year.

SoxRulecubsdrool
02-11-2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Trading Todd Hundley for Eric Karros and Mark Grudzielanek should have gotten this moron fired on the spot. I'm amazed he finished out last year.

Agreed! That is one I never understood. :o:

SEALgep
02-11-2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Trading Todd Hundley for Eric Karros and Mark Grudzielanek should have gotten this moron fired on the spot. I'm amazed he finished out last year. Ya that was pretty dumb.

doublem23
02-11-2004, 06:56 PM
And then there was Steve Karsay for Ricardo Rodriguez, which would be the equivalent of, I suppose, Kris Honel for Antonio Alfonseca.

Again... W :?: T :?: F

Evans is of the same mold as KW... He can build a nice little farm system but has some serious trouble in attempting to piece together a cohesive Major League team. Dan had more money to work with and inherited the foundation of a ridiculously good pitchign staff and still couldn't get them over the hump. I doubt he would have been any more effective than Kenny considering who holds the pursestrings.

Mickster
02-11-2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Trading Todd Hundley for Eric Karros and Mark Grudzielanek should have gotten this moron fired on the spot. I'm amazed he finished out last year.

Agreed but I think that move was nothing more thn a salary dump. Remember Karros made $8mil in 03 w/ a $1mil buyout if not exercised for '04 and Grudzielanek made $5.5m with a $500K buyout for '04. Saved $7.5mil in 03 salary and approx. $2.5mil over 2 years. (Not that I am agreeing with the moves) I think that was the real motivation for the trade.

Rex Hudler
02-11-2004, 07:21 PM
Trading Todd Hundley for Eric Karros and Mark Grudzielanek should have gotten this moron fired on the spot. I'm amazed he finished out last year.

Originally posted by SoxRulecubsdrool
Agreed! That is one I never understood. :o:

You guys just let me know when you want a lesson on how to see the big picture and learn a little baseball. The move didn't work out as planned, but it was not a stupid move.

Rex Hudler
02-11-2004, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
And then there was Steve Karsay for Ricardo Rodriguez, which would be the equivalent of, I suppose, Kris Honel for Antonio Alfonseca.

Again... W :?: T :?: F

Evans is of the same mold as KW... He can build a nice little farm system but has some serious trouble in attempting to piece together a cohesive Major League team. Dan had more money to work with and inherited the foundation of a ridiculously good pitchign staff and still couldn't get them over the hump. I doubt he would have been any more effective than Kenny considering who holds the pursestrings.

We better hope Honel turns out better than Rodriguez. He was so good, Cleveland dumped him a year later and he still hasn't done squat.

Rex Hudler
02-11-2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by pudge
What is wrong with this guy? He gets passed over in Chicago for KW, then he gets booted as soon as a new owner takes over in LA... does anyone have any inside info on why this supposed "rising star" keeps getting the shaft?

Evans got passed over in Chicago for a lot of reasons. Mostly because KW was Reinsdorf's boy. Don't discount the minority aspect either.

He is getting the boot in LA because the media is on a witchhunt and the new owner wants to make a splash. He is overlooking the fact the Dodgers organization is better than it was when he inherited it and is primed for success in the next year or two. The Dodgers will win, DePodesta will get the credit for working with the foundation that has already been laid by Evans and his staff. Evans is still respected in baseball circles and will not be without a job for long, unless he chooses to sit out for a while.

jabrch
02-11-2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
You guys just let me know when you want a lesson on how to see the big picture and learn a little baseball. The move didn't work out as planned, but it was not a stupid move.

Oh Great Rex - techer of all that is baseball - please tell me how it is smart to acquire a .237 hitting catcher who was about 30 with a history of injury in exchange for two guys who were starters at positions where you had no backup or depth - and where your best FA options were no better than the guys who you were trading away.

Actually, on second thought, don't bother.

SoxRulecubsdrool
02-11-2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
You guys just let me know when you want a lesson on how to see the big picture and learn a little baseball. The move didn't work out as planned, but it was not a stupid move.

Yea, I want to learn a little baseball if you would be so gracious.

jeremyb1
02-11-2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Oh Great Rex - techer of all that is baseball - please tell me how it is smart to acquire a .237 hitting catcher who was about 30 with a history of injury in exchange for two guys who were starters at positions where you had no backup or depth - and where your best FA options were no better than the guys who you were trading away.

Actually, on second thought, don't bother.

Neither Grudz nor Karros was starting for the Dodgers and both made an exhorbitant amount of money. Their contracts were considered immovable and they were not considered valuable players. If they were we'd have seen yourself and others starting threads on this board about how the White Sox should acquire them even with their unreasonable salaries because they could provide a lot of help. By trading both players, the Dodgers took on something to the effect of 5 million in '03 and 5 million in '04 instead of just taking the hit of 10 million in '03. This is because they wanted to be competitive both seasons and felt they could do so by increasing payroll flexibility in two seasons instead of one. The money available allowed them to sign Mcgriff last season. Debate that move all you want but for fans that complain constantly if their team isn't contending every season I don't see how you could bash a trade that was designed to improve the team's ability to win immediately instead of in the future.

Chisoxfn
02-11-2004, 07:42 PM
Didn't Rodriguez get dealt for Paul Shuey (Not Karsay; whose been with the Yanks for a while). I liked Rodriguez a hell of a lot when I saw him, but the Indians obviously saw things otherwise and now I think he's in the Rangers organization (Don't remember where he went).

But Shuey isn't exactly too shabby. Last season (his first full season with the Dodgers) he was really sucessful and was probably the forgotten man in that pen, but was easily as dominant as any of the other guys (Well except Gagne).

I don't like Evans, but my reasons to not like him are more for some stupid contracts he made and Rex, I understand what your trying to say but he moved Grudz because he was handing THurston the job (Grudz has stated that a few times). And moving Karros wasn't too sharp either, because he's always been a solid player and could of easily fit in as a role player as well.

I think they saved like 2 mill, but 2 mill would of been a bargain when you consider the difference between Grudz and Karros and Hundley, although you get an extra roster spot (Meant nothing cause the Dodgers were flipping and trying so many different guys last year at the plate).

The Dodgers also sat around during free agency when they had the opporunity to better the team. And if he didn't want Perez, he should of got rid of him early by non tendering him and used the money he freed up to get a bat (He could of got someone like Carl Everett at the 5 mill Perez would of made).

But in general, I've always felt Evans wasn't that great.

LATruBlue
02-11-2004, 07:45 PM
Mickster and Rexhudler,

It's comforting to know that some people actually understands Evans' moves and the rationale behind them and that yes, McFool wants to make a splash and Evans is his sacrificial lamb and the LA press are the stonethrowers.

Rex Hudler
02-11-2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Oh Great Rex - techer of all that is baseball - please tell me how it is smart to acquire a .237 hitting catcher who was about 30 with a history of injury in exchange for two guys who were starters at positions where you had no backup or depth - and where your best FA options were no better than the guys who you were trading away.

Actually, on second thought, don't bother.

I will, just so you can take your all-knowing attitude and stick it somewhere. Then maybe learn a little....

First of all, the Dodgers already had a starting catcher so Hundley was only acquired as bench help. His salary was taken on to move Karros and Grudz. Evans had dealt with Hundley when he was a consultant for the Cubs and knew that much of Hundley's problems were personal. Evans took a chance that Hundley had solved his personal problems and gave him a second opportunity. Any production from Hundley would have been gravy.

Grudz was tradeable because he didn't want to share playing time. The Dodgers had Joey Thurston who was ready to step in full-time at 2B. Or so everyone thought (not just Dodgers personnel). Thurston ended up being a bust after hitting .334 the previous year in AAA. To say in hindsight that Thurston should not have been given the chance is not a fair assessment.

Karros' production had seriously declined for the Dodgers. He bounced back to do well with the Cubs, but that could not be counted on.

Evans signed McGriff to replace Karros. Even though McGriff had gotten older and his production had declined somewhat, it was still much better than Karros. In fact, the previous year, McGriff's numbers were as good or better than Karros and Grudz COMBINED. Fred had 30 HR vs. 21 by the two Dodgers. He hit .273 vs. 271 combined which is basically a wash. He had 103 RBI vs. 121 by the two Dodgers, only 18 fewer. He walked 63 times vs. 57 by both Karros and Grudz.

McGriff had also never been on the disabled list in his entire career. There was no way to expect him to not only miss a month and a half of the season, but that he would struggle early in the season as well.

It is very reasonable to assume that the combination of McGriff and Thurston would be much improved over what the Dodgers got out of Karros and Grudz the year before. Anything Hundley gave them would be gravy, plus they saved cash in the process.

Things don't always work out as well as they are expected to. But the basis behind that trade was a very reasonable one. Was it expected to be a blockbuster? Hell no. But it could have been a very good one for the Dodgers. Sometimes you just have to look past the principals in a trade and look at the big picture. How moving certain players will allow you to obtain others and how they will fit into the lineup.

If you look at this OBJECTIVELY with some baseball knowledge, it is not hard to see the trade had potential to help the Dodgers.

Rex Hudler
02-11-2004, 08:06 PM
I don't like Evans, but my reasons to not like him are more for some stupid contracts he made and Rex, I understand what your trying to say but he moved Grudz because he was handing THurston the job (Grudz has stated that a few times). And moving Karros wasn't too sharp either, because he's always been a solid player and could of easily fit in as a role player as well.

Jason, the problem with that is neither Karros nor Grudz wanted to be role players. Karros had 2 seasons where he combined for 28 HR and 136 RBI with an OBP around .315. He was due to make $8 million. If the Sox had a player due to make $8 million that had those numbers, they would be dying to get rid of him..... Oh wait, they have one now that actually totalled 45 HR 169 RBI with an OBP at .340.

You couldn't expect Karros and Grudz to stick around and produce in a part-time role after having been there for awhile. He needed to move them, saved money in the process and figured to replace both with better production.

jabrch
02-11-2004, 08:08 PM
I wish I had the baseball knowledge of Rex - geez, that and .25 would get me a big gumball at the carwash.

Evans should have known that Hundley was hurt and that he would have no value. His back had been a problem for a while, and as a catcher getting older, long removed from any decent performance, he was worth NOTHING. Were Grudz or Karros any good - no, of course not - but there is always a market for a serviceable veteran IF in this league. If you are telling me that Joe Thurston and Fred McGriff are the reason that this was not a bad deal, then I should probably end this arguement. Thurston looked like nothing more than an average IF - no pop, an average glove, and slightly above average speed, IIRC. McGriff was just off of a .275/.353 season in Wrigley - everyone knew he was on the downside of his career.

The dodgers took on an IMMOVABLE contract, even if Hundley performed to his career average, in exchange for two guys who would likely be movable if they performed to their career averages.


The case for this trade being smart is Joe Thurston and a 40 year old 1B coming off a bad year...yeah - real sharp that Danny Evans is.

Chisoxfn
02-11-2004, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I wish I had the baseball knowledge of Rex - geez, that and .25 would get me a big gumball at the carwash.

Evans should have known that Hundley was hurt and that he would have no value. His back had been a problem for a while, and as a catcher getting older, long removed from any decent performance, he was worth NOTHING. Were Grudz or Karros any good - no, of course not - but there is always a market for a serviceable veteran IF in this league. If you are telling me that Joe Thurston and Fred McGriff are the reason that this was not a bad deal, then I should probably end this arguement. Thurston looked like nothing more than an average IF - no pop, an average glove, and slightly above average speed, IIRC. McGriff was just off of a .275/.353 season in Wrigley - everyone knew he was on the downside of his career.

The dodgers took on an IMMOVABLE contract, even if Hundley performed to his career average, in exchange for two guys who would likely be movable if they performed to their career averages.


The case for this trade being smart is Joe Thurston and a 40 year old 1B coming off a bad year...yeah - real sharp that Danny Evans is.
If Thurston and McGriff come through the Dodgers make the playoffs last year and no one would be talking about firing Dan Evans.

I don't like Evans, but if that team had any offense, they would of been a big time playoff team. Now I think they had a lot of guys who had career years and the pitching staff will probably tail off some, but Evans was fired based on that move (Because Thurston, McGriff and to a lesser extent Jordan...I know that has nothing to do with this, but his injury was huge, didn't come through).

This offseason he could of saved himself, but he sat there knowing the Dodgers needed bats (and while I respect him for not giving up top prospects) being able to acquire a guy like Maggs or even going after someone lesser (freeing up some cash and finding a way to sign Everett) would of been very worthwhile for that club.

I do think he did a very solid job with the farm system and he did improve during his tenure, cause he made some very foolish moves his first time around. Still, Evans to me didn't have the Cohenies to pull off the big moves necessary to put the Dodgers over the top (It may turn off he was right all along but to Dodger fans and McCourt, that wasn't the answer; most fans don't want to hear about top notch prospects when a team has the best pitching staff in baseball; prospects infers rebuilding and the Dodgers fans didn't understand the talk of that when last years staff was as dominant as any staff in a while...although we could argue how they would of done in the playoffs without a true ace).

Rex Hudler
02-11-2004, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
I wish I had the baseball knowledge of Rex - geez, that and .25 would get me a big gumball at the carwash.

Evans should have known that Hundley was hurt and that he would have no value. His back had been a problem for a while, and as a catcher getting older, long removed from any decent performance, he was worth NOTHING. Were Grudz or Karros any good - no, of course not - but there is always a market for a serviceable veteran IF in this league. If you are telling me that Joe Thurston and Fred McGriff are the reason that this was not a bad deal, then I should probably end this arguement. Thurston looked like nothing more than an average IF - no pop, an average glove, and slightly above average speed, IIRC. McGriff was just off of a .275/.353 season in Wrigley - everyone knew he was on the downside of his career.

The dodgers took on an IMMOVABLE contract, even if Hundley performed to his career average, in exchange for two guys who would likely be movable if they performed to their career averages.


The case for this trade being smart is Joe Thurston and a 40 year old 1B coming off a bad year...yeah - real sharp that Danny Evans is.

It's obvious you are too ignorant to see the stats that state you are wrong. Thurston was very highly regarded. Karros had declined. Even in decline, McGriff was better than both of the together. All it took was decent production out of Thurston and Hundley contributing anything for this to be at minimum a marginally good deal for the Dodgers. I can't help you if you refuse to see what is true.

Chisoxfn
02-11-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
It's obvious you are too ignorant to see the stats that state you are wrong. Thurston was very highly regarded. Karros had declined. Even in decline, McGriff was better than both of the together. All it took was decent production out of Thurston and Hundley contributing anything for this to be at minimum a marginally good deal for the Dodgers. I can't help you if you refuse to see what is true.

Rex, Karros didn't really decline, he was more hurt. You may be right of them not accepting lessor roles, but Grudz always stated he wanted the chance to earn the 2nd base job, that was it. If Thruston beat him out then so be it and I think Karros would of sacrificed a little to stay with the Dodgers and if it meant platooning with someone (Which is essentially what Karros did in Chicago) then so be it.

I should say Jim Tracy is a good part of the Dodgers problems. He is easily Jerry Manuel 2 and in my opinion a very lousy manager. I watched quite a few Dodger games on TV, since Im' in their region and I think most die-hard Dodger fans would agree with that assesment on Tracy.

Rex Hudler
02-11-2004, 08:27 PM
Rex, Karros didn't really decline, he was more hurt.

Jason, Karros had 524 AB's in 2002 and 438 AB's in 2001. That doesn't sound too hurt to me.

jabrch
02-11-2004, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
It's obvious you are too ignorant


And at the point of namecalling - IGNORE

Chisoxfn
02-11-2004, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Jason, Karros had 524 AB's in 2002 and 438 AB's in 2001. That doesn't sound too hurt to me.

Trust me, his knee was killing him. The big reason he suceeded with the Cubs was his knee was healthy and he wasn't asked to play every day.

Their were always reports on how much pain he was in down in the LA area. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that his knees were done.

This isn't like the supposed hip injury of Konerko (Which is well documented on the various message boards, but has never been reported in the media). Karros has had bad knees for some time, I think he's had 2 or 3 surgeries on them.

Heck, I thought he had surgery the offseason he was dealt to the Cubs (like a minor one) but I know in 02, he had some type of scope or such done as well.

pudge
02-11-2004, 08:44 PM
I think you could argue the Karros and Grud thing forever... just because they said they didn't want to accept role positions, doesn't mean you couldn't force them into it... there's also the argument that they could have been deadline-tradable...

BUT, who cares really... what I really wanted to know is if Evans has some strikes against him somehow, but it sounds like he doesn't... sounds like it's just a case of a new owner wanting to make a splash.

Rex Hudler
02-11-2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
And at the point of namecalling - IGNORE

Call em like I see em. Sorry if you can't handle it!

joecrede
02-11-2004, 08:55 PM
Evans hands were tied by poor decisions by his predecessor, Kevin Malone, and FOX putting the team up for sale.

hillbilly
02-11-2004, 09:26 PM
rex, i in fact agree with all the pionts you are arguing. Why not get rid of those two dead salaries when you can and dont just hope that you can trade them later in the season. The two guys, thurston and mcgriff, were just as serviceable for a lesser price tag. Also, about that argument that karros was injured most of the season. Maybe evans knew he had a recurring problem and thats why he dumped him. Guys, GM's make moves that may look ridiculous player wise, but business wise it is a positive while not losing much on the field. I dont know much about this deal at all not following it, but theres no reason to call that deal dumb.

batmanZoSo
02-11-2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
And then there was Steve Karsay for Ricardo Rodriguez, which would be the equivalent of, I suppose, Kris Honel for Antonio Alfonseca.

Again... W :?: T :?: F

Evans is of the same mold as KW... He can build a nice little farm system but has some serious trouble in attempting to piece together a cohesive Major League team. Dan had more money to work with and inherited the foundation of a ridiculously good pitchign staff and still couldn't get them over the hump. I doubt he would have been any more effective than Kenny considering who holds the pursestrings.

Yes, we'd be no better off if Dan Evans got this job three years ago. Dare I say, we might even be worse off. I think KW's a better GM than Evans. KW did make some moves that we thought were ridiculous, but he's made some pretty good ones too and they're outnumbering the bad ones. He can only do so much with that cheapskate running the show.

gosox41
02-12-2004, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I will, just so you can take your all-knowing attitude and stick it somewhere. Then maybe learn a little....

First of all, the Dodgers already had a starting catcher so Hundley was only acquired as bench help. His salary was taken on to move Karros and Grudz. Evans had dealt with Hundley when he was a consultant for the Cubs and knew that much of Hundley's problems were personal. Evans took a chance that Hundley had solved his personal problems and gave him a second opportunity. Any production from Hundley would have been gravy.

Grudz was tradeable because he didn't want to share playing time. The Dodgers had Joey Thurston who was ready to step in full-time at 2B. Or so everyone thought (not just Dodgers personnel). Thurston ended up being a bust after hitting .334 the previous year in AAA. To say in hindsight that Thurston should not have been given the chance is not a fair assessment.

Karros' production had seriously declined for the Dodgers. He bounced back to do well with the Cubs, but that could not be counted on.

Evans signed McGriff to replace Karros. Even though McGriff had gotten older and his production had declined somewhat, it was still much better than Karros. In fact, the previous year, McGriff's numbers were as good or better than Karros and Grudz COMBINED. Fred had 30 HR vs. 21 by the two Dodgers. He hit .273 vs. 271 combined which is basically a wash. He had 103 RBI vs. 121 by the two Dodgers, only 18 fewer. He walked 63 times vs. 57 by both Karros and Grudz.

McGriff had also never been on the disabled list in his entire career. There was no way to expect him to not only miss a month and a half of the season, but that he would struggle early in the season as well.

It is very reasonable to assume that the combination of McGriff and Thurston would be much improved over what the Dodgers got out of Karros and Grudz the year before. Anything Hundley gave them would be gravy, plus they saved cash in the process.

Things don't always work out as well as they are expected to. But the basis behind that trade was a very reasonable one. Was it expected to be a blockbuster? Hell no. But it could have been a very good one for the Dodgers. Sometimes you just have to look past the principals in a trade and look at the big picture. How moving certain players will allow you to obtain others and how they will fit into the lineup.

If you look at this OBJECTIVELY with some baseball knowledge, it is not hard to see the trade had potential to help the Dodgers.


The logic behind the trade at the time makes more sense then, I don't know, trading 2 top prospects for Pittsburgh's #3 starter. Or tradig an All Star second baseman for a 24 year old AAA bust with a 6.00 ERA. Or trading one of the top relievers in the game for a flame thrower who has no movement on his fastball just to save a million bucks.

Bob

Dadawg_77
02-12-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Yes, we'd be no better off if Dan Evans got this job three years ago. Dare I say, we might even be worse off. I think KW's a better GM than Evans. KW did make some moves that we thought were ridiculous, but he's made some pretty good ones too and they're outnumbering the bad ones. He can only do so much with that cheapskate running the show.

So you must think Dan Evans is the 40th best GM in baseball. I put would put some minor league teams GMs ahead of the idiot we watch. (And if this Frank trade is true......)

BP on Evans (Premium Subscription required)
http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2540

The Dodgers have been contenders in both seasons under Evans, and their two-year record of 177-147 is fifth in the NL in that time. The Dodgers have achieved that mark despite the crushing weight of former GM Kevin Malone's worst mistakes. In both seasons, the Dodgers got next to nothing for more than $20 million of their money. Darren Dreifort took home nearly $22 million over two years, and threw a grand total of 60 2/3 innings, all in '03. In '02, Kevin Brown made $15.7 million while throwing just 63 2/3 frames (to the tune of a 4.81 ERA). This past year, Andy Ashby closed out his three-year deal by providing 78 innings of 5.18 ERA ball, while cashing in for $8.5 million. .....

In two years, Evans presided over two competitive seasons despite having an effective payroll less than 80% of his actual payroll. He was restricted to second-tier free agents, and managed to sign some good ones. He probably has the best trade record of any GM during his tenure, and has improved the Dodger farm system from poor to average, while resisting the temptation to trade the fruits of that system for short-term gain.

Exactly who does Frank McCourt think he's going to get that's going to do a better job? The only people with better performance records as GMs are all employed, which means that unless McCourt finds a way to hire Billy Beane or Brian Cashman--neither of whom have permission to interview--he's going to be downgrading the spot. Anyone who would choose, say, Pat Gillick over Evans isn't using an evaluation system recognizable to me.

doublem23
02-12-2004, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
We better hope Honel turns out better than Rodriguez. He was so good, Cleveland dumped him a year later and he still hasn't done squat.

Well, that's probably more to do with the arm injuries he's encountered in his young career than lack of talent. Put it this way... He traded one of their better pitching prospects for a garbage starter/reliever.

Nice move, Danny.

doublem23
02-12-2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
The logic behind the trade at the time makes more sense then, I don't know, trading 2 top prospects for Pittsburgh's #3 starter. Or tradig an All Star second baseman for a 24 year old AAA bust with a 6.00 ERA. Or trading one of the top relievers in the game for a flame thrower who has no movement on his fastball just to save a million bucks.

Bob

Josh Fogg a top prospect? Pass whatever you're smoking this way, please.

None of us are saying that Williams knows what he's doing, we're just saying Evans wouldn't have done a better job.

Rex Hudler
02-12-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Well, that's probably more to do with the arm injuries he's encountered in his young career than lack of talent. Put it this way... He traded one of their better pitching prospects for a garbage starter/reliever.

Nice move, Danny.

The pitcher was Paul Shuey not Steve Karsay as you mentioned. Shuey is a solid reliever and was a good addition to the bullpen for the stretch run that year.

Rodriguez, was highly regarded at the time, and I questioned the move as well. Rodriguez has done nothing since to show Evans was wrong. His problems were more due to attitude and approach, than injury. Evans knew that. The Indians found that out very quickly and dumped the problem on Texas. When you deal with people there are more factors than scouting reports and stats.

I find it funny that you don't want to give Evans credit for a trade that didn't work (Karros-Grudz) or one that did (Shuey). Try a little objectivity.

jeremyb1
02-12-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Were Grudz or Karros any good - no, of course not - but there is always a market for a serviceable veteran IF in this league.

The dodgers took on an IMMOVABLE contract, even if Hundley performed to his career average, in exchange for two guys who would likely be movable if they performed to their career averages.

What uninformed inaccurate statements. I wonder where your immense knowledge of players' values relative to their contracts came from? Did you spend a lot of time working the phones with other GMs last offseason? By all accounts from writers with knowledge of these situations such as Gammons and Rosenthal, Evans spent the majority of the offseason trying to find some type of taker for Grudz or Karros but could not find one. In other words, their contracts were immovable until agreeing to take arguably the worst contract in the game back in return. I'd love to know who you think is out there trying to add six million in payroll in a stagnant economic climate for a backup infielder. Evans moved his two huge contracts and freed up salary for the upcoming season to add offensive help the only way he was able to after months on the phones discussing possible deals. Do you really think he turned down Grudz or Karros for prospects? Or that despite all of his front office experience and some shrewd moves as GM he's just the stupidist GM ever and really wanted Karros? I just don't get it.

doublem23
02-12-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler

I find it funny that you don't want to give Evans credit for a trade that didn't work (Karros-Grudz) or one that did (Shuey). Try a little objectivity.

I am giving him the credit he deserves... None. Those are two terrible, terrible trades. The man deserved to get fired.

Let's not overvalue Shuey, either. I can find a reliever to give me 60 innings a year with a 3.00 ERA anywhere; certainly not worth a top starting pitching prospect. This is absurd.

longshot7
02-12-2004, 05:31 PM
Wow, you guys sure are drinking the Evans Kool-Aid... do you even watch the Dodgers on a regular basis? I do.

let's start with this, the most significant move in Evans' tenure: HE TRADED AWAY GARY SHEFFIELD.

Why did the Dodgers have no offense the past two seasons - their best player was NEVER adequately replaced. Expecting McGriff or Jordan to fill Sheff's shoes is foolhardy. Nevermind the fact that Sheff was the only remaining player from the Piazza trade, the worst trade in modern history (which Evans was not here for - but FOX was) Evans did not stand up to his FOX bosses when they wanted to make bad decisions. Malone, despite all his shortcomings, did. He wouldn't have traded away Sheff. With him, they make the playoffs.

In 2001, the Dodgers had the opportunity to make a stretch-run move. Evans (& Dave Wallace) made what move? They traded for JAMES BALDWIN. What other stretch run moves have they made? TERRY MULLHOLLAND comes to mind. Others?

Karros & Grudzielanek - although beaten to death - is not worth even discussing its merits. There are none. There is no excuse if you have one of the highest payrolls in the game, to not spend money. They didn't need to dump payroll. And considering how awful Hundley was the FIRST time he was here, you'd think someone over there would've learned.

At least now the Blue have an owner that wants to win - I hope. And what's his first move? Axing the GM. I guess I'm not the only one who feels this way about Danny Boy.

But to put it in the easiest possible terms, it's all this simple. Before Evans joined the team, I had season tickets. Now, I don't.

Support him all you want. But you're wrong.

soxtalker
02-12-2004, 06:03 PM
Just curious if there has been any discussion of the assistant GM in LA. I forget her name, but she had been getting great reviews in NY. Comments were made to the effect that she might be the first female GM.

jabrch
02-12-2004, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
What uninformed inaccurate statements. I wonder where your immense knowledge of players' values relative to their contracts came from? Did you spend a lot of time working the phones with other GMs last offseason? By all accounts from writers with knowledge of these situations such as Gammons and Rosenthal, Evans spent the majority of the offseason trying to find some type of taker for Grudz or Karros but could not find one. In other words, their contracts were immovable until agreeing to take arguably the worst contract in the game back in return. I'd love to know who you think is out there trying to add six million in payroll in a stagnant economic climate for a backup infielder. Evans moved his two huge contracts and freed up salary for the upcoming season to add offensive help the only way he was able to after months on the phones discussing possible deals. Do you really think he turned down Grudz or Karros for prospects? Or that despite all of his front office experience and some shrewd moves as GM he's just the stupidist GM ever and really wanted Karros? I just don't get it.

Another person much smarter than me who isn't ashamed to tell me so - I love some of you guys. I don't know you - so I can't say for sure, but I probably spent as much time (if not more) talking to MLB GMs than you did last year. Regardless, I hope you aren't telling me that to have baseball knowledge you must be a GM...

I love people who start off posts by telling others that they are ignorant. It really lends credibility to all their future statements.

longshot7
02-12-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Just curious if there has been any discussion of the assistant GM in LA. I forget her name, but she had been getting great reviews in NY. Comments were made to the effect that she might be the first female GM.

I think Kim Ng is her name & I have not heard her name in any reports associated with the GM search. That doesn't mean she's not part of it - I just haven't heard anything about her. I have heard good things about her, but even if she's baseball-smart, she has some huge hills to climb if she wants to be a female GM. Could happen someday, but I don't know about 2004. I'll bet we see a female head basketball coach for an NBA team first.

gosox41
02-12-2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Josh Fogg a top prospect? Pass whatever you're smoking this way, please.

None of us are saying that Williams knows what he's doing, we're just saying Evans wouldn't have done a better job.

If KW would not have made a single trade from the day he started here, this team would be in a much better position in 2004. Considering they disappointed for 3 years in a row further frustrates me.

Bob

Daver
02-12-2004, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
If KW would not have made a single trade from the day he started here, this team would be in a much better position in 2004. Considering they disappointed for 3 years in a row further frustrates me.

Bob

So you would be happy with Sandy Alomar as your everyday catcher?

gosox41
02-12-2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Daver
So you would be happy with Sandy Alomar as your everyday catcher?

No. Hopefully the Sox would have signed someone to not get injured and put up Olivo like numbers. They're are not great catchers available unless you want to eat Kendall's contract, but the two guys KC lost are bette options then Alomar. For all I care I could have lived with Mark Johnson as an everyday catcher. Where some see a pathetic .190 BA, I see a .310 career OBP. DOn't et me wrong. He's no star, far from it. But you can argue that he has been more productive offensively then Olivo. Of course Olivo only has one year under his belt and will improve. I just don't expect a big jump in stats in 2004 and don't think he's going to be anywhere near the next Ivan Rodriguez.

I thought Alomar was a mistake to sign the first time around, let alone the second and third.

But that's not to say that this team would not be better as a whole if absolutely zero trades were made under the KW regime. I'm only speaking of the 2004 season. We all know how KW's moves wound up for the last 3 years I'm also talking trades only not free agent signings or drafts.

Bob

jeremyb1
02-13-2004, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by longshot7
Wow, you guys sure are drinking the Evans Kool-Aid... do you even watch the Dodgers on a regular basis? I do.

let's start with this, the most significant move in Evans' tenure: HE TRADED AWAY GARY SHEFFIELD.

Karros & Grudzielanek - although beaten to death - is not worth even discussing its merits. There are none. There is no excuse if you have one of the highest payrolls in the game, to not spend money. They didn't need to dump payroll. And considering how awful Hundley was the FIRST time he was here, you'd think someone over there would've learned.

This thread has incredibly little to do with support of Dan Evans. The discussion has almost exclusively regarded the merits of one specific deal. Baldwin, Sheffield, or any other trades Evans made are not the issue here. The Dodgers payroll also has nothing to do with Dan Evans. Last time I checked, owners are the ones setting payroll, not GMs. I'm sure Evans would have the largest payroll in the game if it was up to him because its not his money.

jeremyb1
02-13-2004, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Another person much smarter than me who isn't ashamed to tell me so - I love some of you guys. I don't know you - so I can't say for sure, but I probably spent as much time (if not more) talking to MLB GMs than you did last year. Regardless, I hope you aren't telling me that to have baseball knowledge you must be a GM...

I love people who start off posts by telling others that they are ignorant. It really lends credibility to all their future statements.

Please refer me to the exact quotes from my post where I question your intelligence. I also never resorted to calling you ignorant as a means of name calling and discrediting your character as you imply in your post. I question your knowledge of players' values because you're making statements without any support about players' values that directly contradict what I consider to be accepted facts. I've given you my sources and the support for my opinion: 1) a number of major baseball writers wrote articles explaining that Evans was unable to move the contracts of Karros and Grudz over a substantial period of time during the last offseason 2) infielders with suspect numbers and 6 million dollar contracts that have been relegated to the bench on their clubs are not easily tradeable. If your conversations with GMs or other sources of information directly contradict this, you should explain that and make a serious argument. If you simply continue to insist my posts consist of little more than name calling I'm going to assume you're conceeding the argument...

Rex Hudler
02-13-2004, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Please refer me to the exact quotes from my post where I question your intelligence. I also never resorted to calling you ignorant as a means of name calling and discrediting your character as you imply in your post. I question your knowledge of players' values because you're making statements without any support about players' values that directly contradict what I consider to be accepted facts. I've given you my sources and the support for my opinion: 1) a number of major baseball writers wrote articles explaining that Evans was unable to move the contracts of Karros and Grudz over a substantial period of time during the last offseason 2) infielders with suspect numbers and 6 million dollar contracts that have been relegated to the bench on their clubs are not easily tradeable. If your conversations with GMs or other sources of information directly contradict this, you should explain that and make a serious argument. If you simply continue to insist my posts consist of little more than name calling I'm going to assume you're conceeding the argument...

Jeremy, I was the one that said he was ignorant. I still stand by the remark. On this particular issue, he is either ignorant as to why the deal was made and what was expected from the deal, or he was ignoring basic reasoning on purpose because it didn't fit with his pre-conceived dislike for Evans. Either way, on this issue he was wrong. My comments were based on this particular issue and not on the individual personally because I don't know him. If he took them more personally than they were intended, then so be it. I stand by my comments. Sorry you took some of the heat for, at worst, agreeing with me. :) There is no sense in beating a dead horse so it is time to move on from this discussion.