Yes, folks, he’s back,. Actually, he was back yesterday, with some crap article on Manny which I’m not even going to link, but, for my own sanity, I skipped it. But today, I just can’t resist. I try to resist, I really do, but it’s just so hard. It’s therapy for me, despite the fact that with the amount of columns he’s putting out lately, we might have to rename ourselves: “Fire Bill Plaschke.com.”
Anyways, he’s back today, whining about the ace the Dodgers failed to get. Because pissing off Dodger fans wasn’t enough, he decides to also devote his article to pissing off Angels fans too, but, for the sake of brevity, I’ll just post most of the pertinent Dodger quotes. Ironically, his article is entitled: “Dodgers, Angels make risky bets,” but it’s not half as risky as if you actually read the whole thing. I assure you.
Take it away, WPS!
Both teams have done this before, refusing to imitate the big-market
swagger of the New York Yankees, shunning the win-it-now attitude of
the Boston Red Sox, preferring to trust stopwatches instead of wallets.
Refuse to imitate the “big market swagger?” Not opening up their wallets? Hey Kevin Malone, is that you? If not, then, here’s a bit of a history lesson, WPS… but… hey… do the names Kevin Brown, Darren Dreifort, Shawn Green, Jason Schmidt, J.D. Drew, Juan Pierre, and Andruw Jones ring a bell? And, hey, I can’t even stand the Angels, but Vladimir Guerrero, Bartolo Colon, Kelvim Escobar, Gary Matthews, Jr., and Torii Hunter are all on line one. Does it also ring a bell when the Dodgers have been, sans 2005, in the top 10 in payroll every year with payrolls very near, but mostly above $100 million? Same with the Angels since Arte took over. Not bad for a bunch of cheapasses!
Oh yeah, I forgot another thing: for all of your grumbling about these two teams constantly holding back, wasn’t it these two teams who, this time last year, made the two biggest blockbusters when the Angels got Teixiera and the Dodgers got… oh, what was his name again… ah, that’s right… Manny fucking Ramirez?! I figured YOU, out of all people, would know that, given your fetish with smearing him every chance you get since May.
suits local fans who feel as if they are growing up with the kids. It
suits local bankers by keeping their payrolls manageable.
Problem is, it doesn’t do much for the local ring industry.
So a team with young kids is detrimental to the “local ring industry?” And therefore, as WPS will imply later, that’s a reason why the Dodgers haven’t won in so long? Yeah, because you know what I’m really pissed off at over the past 21 years? That the Dodgers didn’t spend the 1990′s trading away MORE young talent and spending MORE money on older players and kissing away the future. Yeah, that’s right. In fact, Bill, there was a time when YOU were sick of it, too. Remember in 1999, which was, of course, a year after you advocated the Piazza trade (only to go 360 on it six months later, by the way), that you got sick of the Dodgers play to the point where you yourself advocated a youth movement to get back to “winning ways?” And that was all despite the fact that those Dodgers were in the midst of doing everything you’re advocating these Dodgers do now: establish themselves as that big market, “go for it now,” checkbook opening team. They even had the 7th highest payroll in all of baseball that year.
Didn’t quite help out that ring industry, did it?
In the last 21 years, the Dodgers and Angels have combined to win only one championship.
Really? Only one? So given that 21 years ago was 1988, did the A’s really win in 1988 or did the Giants really win in 2002 and that guy who used to be the Iraqi Information Minister is just lying to us? Dammit!
During that same time, the Yankees and Red Sox have combined to win six championships.
Hey, he might be able to count after all! Nonetheless, very deceptive, William. Did you also remember to mention that, while those Yankee teams did have their share of veterans, they also won their championships in the 1990′s on the backbone of players like Jeter, Williams, Pettitte, and Rivera? You know, all the guys who came out of their farm system. Thank God you weren’t in charge, though, because since Andy Pettitte’s first two postseason series (1995 and 1996 ALDS) weren’t anything to write home about (4 ER’s in each start), you would have shipped him out. And, remember, the Yankees of 1996-2000 weren’t the “hey, let’s spend more money than every team combined” Yankees of 2001-present. Yes, their payroll was always near or at the top, but it was at least very close. Ironically, this defeats your point: what have those big spending Yankees won in 9 years?
As for the Red Sox? I’ll concede that 2004 was largely a group of veterans, but 2007 is a bit different: what about the performances of Dustin Pedroia, Jacoby Elsbury, Jon Lester, Daisuke Matzusaka, and even Kevin Youkillis, who was, for the most part, playing in his real first postseason (only 2 AB’s in 2004 playoffs)? Does that sound like the reckless “win it now” attitude you claim they have?
Yeah, I guess I can see your point; really didn’t do anything for the ring industry either, did it?
Billingsley has given up 22 runs in his last 26 1/3 innings and was rocked in two NL Championship Series starts last October.
And, in fact, totally rocked the Cubs in the NLDS that same postseason. Again, why is that forgotten?
Kershaw, still only 21, has given up only three earned runs in his last
38 innings, but his next playoff start will be his first.
Yo, Cliff Lee, here. I’m the guy that Plaschke advocated the Dodgers should get. But do you wanna know a secret? Do you promise not to tell? Cool. Well… the truth is, I haven’t ever started a postseason game either! Shhhhh… (whispers) seeeeeeecret…
Billingsley was one player the Dodgers could have traded without much uproar but didn’t.
Hey, wait… something doesn’t seem right here… didn’t you just say a few days ago…
No, you don’t trade Kershaw and, even though it’s tempting, you don’t trade a 24-year-old Billingsley.
Ah, he DID say that! You liar! I feel SO violated.
The Dodgers will fight through with a starting pitching tandem of Chad
Billingsley and Clayton Kershaw, both of whom have postseason talent
but lack postseason pedigree.
Two things, here. First off, which pitchers don’t “fight through?” Why is it just the Dodgers? Secondly, ignoring all the vaguery of the terms “postseason talent” and “postseason pedigree,” if WPS means “postseason pedigree” in the terms of them lacking postseason history and experience, then way to contradict the whole argument, for both Billingsley and Kershaw on their own have more postseason history and experience than either Halladay or Lee combined. So given that we’ve settled the “postseason pedigree” part of this, then that leaves us with the “postseason talent” aspect, which you say both Dodgers have. Now, surely, you think Halladay and Lee have them too. However, given your articles and the quote above, you seem to place a much greater emphasis on pedigree. So, given your stronger emphasis on “postseason pedigree,” then shouldn’t it logically follow that you advocate Billingsley and Kershaw above Halladay and Lee?
Colletti stuck with them. He will now have to win with them.
Correction: not only can he win with them, but they have won with them. In fact, if it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
If Philadelphia shows up again, the young Dodgers have to keep down those pitches.
And, what, if we get to face Philadelphia, Lee gets to keep them up? What the hell does this mean? Only young pitchers get to keep their pitches down?
Suicide squeezing, all of them.
Coincidentally enough, after reading through your columns, I would also advocate that you try s… oh, forget it, I’m too tired.