Because I Can

The Dodgers changed their minds and decided not to go after a power bat, or that they were going to wreck their future on something stupid, or both. They signed Juan Pierre to a 5 year, $44 million deal (the 5th year is worth $7.5 million). Why they would pay that much for a younger Kenny Lofton that's more likely to get out is beyond me, and even if his defense is better, that's still not a good move. Whatever, maybe his defense will help enough that it won't matter. Nomar was resigned to a reasonable 2 years, $18.5 million. While he's no Frank Thomas at the plate, he's also no Frank Thomas in the trainer's room, so paying him less because of the lacking option and getting someone that plays defense is a pretty nice deal.

So here's the Dodgers right now:

Lineup
Pierre - cf
Furcal - ss
Nomar - 1b
Kent - 2b
Ethier - lf
Martin - c
Betemit - 3b
Loney - rf

Which while somewhat balanced, will not inspire a lot of fear throughout the league.

Here is the pitching staff as of now:

Rotation
Lowe
Penny
Billingsley
Kuo

Bullpen
Broxton
Brazoban
Beimel
Hendrickson
Tomko
Dessens

Definitely out:
JD Drew
Julio Lugo

Probably out:
Greg Maddux

Status Unknown:
Eric Gagne
Takashi Saito

Potential Free Agent Starters:
Zito
Schmidt
Maddux

The Dodgers need a free agent starter, and then Gagne and/or Saito. At this point, though, LA cannot afford to part with Broxton. Trading him is now at the top of my fears list.

Labels: Dodgers

This past Thursday, Milton Friedman died at the age of 94. It is particularly interesting that this story, then, would come up in the AP that Charlie Rangel wants to re-instate the draft.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.

The article goes on.

Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

Congressman Rangel, you don't support the war, but you do support the draft. So what does that say about you?

Now economics tell a different tale of how this works.

This is a supply and demand graph for military labor. Economics treat goods as subject to supply and demand, even labor. What this shows is that the military is currently paying W1, and that is why the government is willing to pay for L2 but only getting L1 of labor. This model, of course, applies to the all-volunteer army. A draft army does not work this way, because soliders do not have a choice about joining the military.

So if you ask an economist how to increase troop levels, the answer is to pay the troops more. Let us examine the equilibrium wage of We. At this price, more troops are willing to serve, but the government is not willing to pay as many. This means that not only can troop levels increase voluntarily, but also the government will be more careful in the use of military force.

Rangle, though, makes the argument that Congressmen do not care about the money, only their own children, and that the element of fear is a vital deterrent of war. If that is the case, Rangle should advocate an all-draft army to increase the level of fear involved in the military as well as reduce the wages a little more. There are a few problems with this, not the least of which is that living in fear runs opposite to living in a free society. Not only that, but insisting on such tactics would reduce type I errors of unnecessary war and increase type II errors of unpreparadness and reluctance to fight when it is absolutely necessary.

This does not even go into the fact that his argument is flat out wrong. In the first place, Congressmen whose children go overseas can and likely will get preferential treatment - heck, when Al Gore was in Vietnam, he was a military photographer with a bodyguard - so there goes the congressman's fear. Then there's just the unpopularity of the draft; it is not coincidental that the 18-year-old right to vote was followed shortly thereafter by the all-volunteer army. Studies of the electorate have shown that politicians generally do what voters want, and according to this article in the Washington Post 70% of the public opposes the draft. Further, supply and demand are not complete or perfect models, but they are accurate, at least enough so that one could determine that increasing military salaries by at least 50% will drastically increase numbers in the service.

The relevance to Milton Friedman is extroardinary. In a debate with General William Westmorland (ht: Don Boudreaux) about the draft, Westmorland said to Friedman that he didn't want an army of mercenaries. Friedman had him right where he wanted him.

Mr. Friedman interrupted, "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?"

Mr. Westmoreland replied, "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves."

Mr. Friedman then retorted, "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher."

Labels: Economic Stuff, Politics

Check the post in Dodger Thoughts, and here's what I see for LA for next year if Colletti is accurate and can get what he wants:

Lineup
Furcal - ss
Loney - rf
Nomar - 1b
Sori - lf/cf
Kent - 2b
Ethier - cf/lf
Martin -c
Betemit - 3b

Rotation
Zito
Lowe
Penny
Billingsley
Kuo

Bill Plaschke's article on Joe Beimel suggests that he will likely be back next year, making for a bullpen of at least

Bullpen
Broxton
Brazoban
Beimel
Tomko
Hendrickson
Dessens

And finally, the bench looks like:

Bench
Saenz
Hall
Anderson
Martinez
Repko
Werth*

The crop of minor league players that could potentially hit the majors, just to clarify this one again:

Pitchers
Mark Alexander
Greg Miller
Eric Stults
DJ Houlton
Infield
Andy Laroche
Oscar Robles
Wilson Valdez
Outfield
Matt Kemp
Delwyn Young

* - denotes that he will be coming off a full year on the DL
italics denote that a player is a free agent signing or can qualify as a rookie next year

Labels: Dodgers

JD Drew flew the coup. Drew has the opt-out option in his contract, so he flew the coup, leaving drastic implications for the Dodgers in the future.

First of all, they are now seeking two bats for the lineup, specifically a 3 and 4 hitter. Given budget constraints, Colletti decides that he keeps Maddux and goes for that rotation.

The Dodgers also need two starting outfielders for next year, so it goes without saying that Aramis Ramirez is certaily not a priority. With Wilson Betemit, and Andy Laroche at AAA, why would Ned Colletti want to get another third baseman, especially when Betemit could be close enough for a lot less money. There are basically 6 guys who could get the job done available on the market. In parentheses, their 2004-2006 OBP/SLG and my estimate for 2007 home runs.

1) Alfonso Soriano, 31, Free Agent (.327/.519, 35). ( He's a power/speed guy, so he will be productive for the length of his contract. He will also get better in the outfield.

2) Carlos Lee, 30, Free Agent (.350/.517, 33). He's got a little speed, and consistent power, average with the glove.

3) Pat Burrell, 30, Phillies (.382/.488, 29). He's owed $27 million over the next two years. That said, he's the only guy listed here that comes close to JD Drew's OBP, yet he delivers 25-30 homer type power, and he's more durable. He'll need convincing to come over, but it can be done. Phillies will require picking up his entire salary, and probably a pitcher or two. Beimel will factor in.

4) Vernon Wells, 28, Blue Jays (.339/.493, 28) He's cheap next year, but he'll need to be extended for a few years. He's a good centerfielder with 25-30 homer power, although with subpar OBP. Also a good doubles hitter. A centerfielder, so bye Matt Kemp, and likely Hu too.

5) Adam Dunn, 27, Reds (.380/.543, 42). He's owed $10 million, and his option is not valid, so an extention would be necessary. Strikes out a lot, which leads him to hit for terrible average, but walks a lot too, which gives him good OBP. When he hits the ball, he hits it hard. Defense is not a strong suit. The Reds are odd to please; they like guys who don't strike out a lot, don't care about OBP, and they love middle relievers. Joe Beimel and Mark Hendrickson along with another prospect, probably, will do it. Krivsky is asking for it.

6) Andruw Jones, 30, Braves (.345/.532, 40). He's owed a bit, and in the last year of a contract that will be dwarfed next year. An excellent player, gold glover and cleanup hitter. Decent OBP, 40 homer power. Will be the most costly, not just financially, but in terms of personnel, and any deal for him will definitely involve Broxton and Kemp.

My guess is that Colletti goes for one of the above, though two is a possibility. Going for two, though, would almost certainly rule out even the possibility of getting a big name pitcher. Assuming that Jason Schmidt is in the cards, though, here are some free agents that Ned Colletti will consider adding as that other bat:

Nomar Garicaparra, 33 (.355/.483, 17). Nomar was already on the team, a fan favorite, a great player, and certainly serviceable. He's capable of more than these predictions, but that would be satisfactory. Even signing him to 3 years wouldn't be bad if he plays in the outfield or he's the new second baseman once Kent leaves. Best 3-hitter out of the group.

Luis Gonzalez, 39 (.358/.462, 20). Gonzo was the favorite player of none other than Andre Everett Ethier, so it is not at all a stretch that Colletti would want to add such a role model. Gonzo would also be eligible for a 1 year contract, and can be brought back just in case Matt Kemp is not ready for 2008.

Cliff Floyd, 34 (.334/.466, 22). Floyd has had achilles problems, but can hit the ball pretty hard. Good enough likely for a 2 year deal.

Ryan Klesko, 35 (.377/.435, 13). Basically he's a spring training invite, guy who won't get $1million next year, if he's still playing.

Moises Alou, 41 (.373/.547, 26). He's still serviceable, but the question is how much he'll play. If given enough playing time, could be a decent middle-lineup bat.

Trot Nixon, 32 (.365/.435, 12). Has above average OBP, but frankly looks like too much of an injury risk, and demand for him at age 32 will be too high to try.

Jose Guillen, 31 (.347/.472, 24). Spring Training invite, because he just had Tommy John. Much less certain.

********************

That said, here are my rankings in order of preference of the top 6 guys:
Dunn
Jones
Burrell
Soriano
Lee
Wells

If LA gets any two of these, I'm thrilled and I say stick with the pitching we've got. If signing Barry Zito comes into play (possibly because Penny is traded), my order of preference for the other guys:

Nomar
Alou
Gonzo
Floyd
Guillen

because on second thought, I don't think Klesko or Nixon are what LA could use right now.

**************

The Dodgers lineup before:

Furcal
Loney
(help)
(help some more)
Kent
Ethier
Martin
Betemit

New lineup:

Furcal
Loney
Nomar
Dunn
Kent
Ethier
Martin
Betemit

Labels: Dodgers

Down by about 8200 votes currently but likely on his way out, George Allen ruined his campaign by failing to be courteous, basically. So, in a choose your own adventure novel, let's go ahead and see what could have been.

"My friends, we're gonna run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas, and it's important that we motivate and inspire people for something.

"This fellow here over here with th-the yellow shirt, um, hey son, what's your name?"

Loop until "the name" = "correct"{

[SD Sidarth gives him a name to go by]
[Allen says = the name, asking if he got it right]
[Sidarth corrects him]}

[Allen writes this down]

"[Allen says the name correctly], he's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great; we're going to places all over Virginia, and he's having it on film and it's great to have you here. You show it to your opponent, because he's never been there and probably will never come, so it's good for you to see what it's like out here in the real world. Rather than living inside the beltway, his [sic] opponent right now is actually with a bunch of Hollywood movie moguls. (pause for laughter) We care about fact, not fiction. So welcome, let's give a welcome to, uh [name] here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

That would have been clever. The words "Welcome to America" just reinforce the idea that Webb and the Democrats just don't represent the state effectively. Being a bit more personable, Allen could have even gotten in a discussion with the guy and found out that he's a student at UVA, where Allen got his bachelor's and law degree. Fact of the matter is, it all came down to Allen failing the most basic test of common courtesy - asking someone their name. That would have meant George Allen would have won, no problems.

But noooooooo. Somebody couldn't remember basic rules of 4-year-old manners. Instead, this is what we got:

"My friends, we're gonna run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas, and it's important that we motivate and inspire people for something."

"This fellow here over here with th-the yellow shirt - Macaca or whatever his name is, he's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great; we're going to places all over Virginia, and he's having it on film and it's great to have you here. You show it to your opponent, because he's never been there and probably will never come, so it's good for you to see what it's like out here in the real world. Rather than livin' inside the beltway, his [sic] opponent right now is actually with a bunch of Hollywood movie moguls. We care about fact, not fiction. So welcome, let's give a welcome to, uh Macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

Just like this movie tells you how to lose a guy in 10 days, that speech tells you how to lose a double digit victory and shot at running for the presidency. Stupid.

Labels: Politics

Before one can make conclusions about data, one must grasp the meaning of the inferential statistics that point to that conclusion. Before that, one must grasp what those inferential statistics are testing, namely the descriptive statistics. Before that, one must obtain the data. And before that, one must have a method of obtaining a sample from the population.

This is why one of the first stories statistics students are told is the 1948 Presidential election. This election had more significance than keeping Earl Warren from becoming Vice President and thus making him available for the Supreme Court. What was more important was that the polls absolutely blew it. The public opinion polls of the time were all leaning towards Dewey, so much so that the infamous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline was printed up before the results were even made final, and before it was proven wrong.

How did the pollsters blow it? Well it's quite simple: they took a biased sample. They were conducting several telephone polls, and at the time people who owned telephones were generally wealthier, thus more likely to vote Republican. Since then, controlling for party affiliation (Republican, Democrat, Independent, Other) and other concepts to draw a sample from the whole population has made polling more reliable. Also, as the telephone became more commonplace (basically within the next decade), it became a more reliable source of data.

Ever since Caller ID became popular, though, polling by phone has always struck me as odd. Pollsters, like other telemarketers, show up as unavailable. My parents don't answer telemarketers or survey calls, so understandably more calls have to be made. What becomes especially curious, then, is whether there are any particular demographics which people with Caller ID belong to. Further, whether Caller ID becomes a call screening object or not varies from person to person. My thoughts:

1) The elderly would have a greater representation in these polls because they are more likely to answer every phone call, not to mention that they are likely retired and at home.

2) Perhaps there is a correlation between intelligence and Caller ID use patterns; given the expected value of a call labeled "unavailable" is some guy trying to sell you something, it's probably best that one does not answer the phone on such calls.

3) Polling places would put themselves in an interesting situation if they identified themselves as polling organizations. Because of the high volumes of calls required because of Caller ID, picking up the phone and participating could in effect become a method of voluntary response. So we assume this does not happen, and the call is simply filed under "unavailable."

4) Since cell phone numbers are not in the phone book, those numbers will not be reached. This will essentially exclude college students as well as other young people who have cell phones but no land line phone.

5) Effects 1 and 4 may likely cancel, depending on voter tendencies.

6) Since the internet is not a good place to conduct a poll, perhaps a gas station or a supermarket would be more suitable. Yet even this could be complicated. In Richmond, VA, the grocery store with the highest market share is closed on Sunday and does not sell alcohol. Polling would have to occur at several grocery store locations in order to get an accurate read of the population.

7) Major League Baseball's ratings have gone down by at least one of the following: either the advent of Caller ID (and baseball fans all use their caller IDs to block annoyances), or Fox taking over broadcasting the postseason.

Labels: Politics

Way back in 1998, Mike Piazza was traded in what was easily the worst trade by the Dodgers in the last decade. The result was Gary Sheffield, who was good, but then he was traded because he was a jerk, and that yielded Odalis Perez and Brian Jordan. Jordan wasn't much, but at the time Perez seemed attractive. In 2006, Perez soured, and the Dodgers dumped him for Elmer Dessens. So this would lead us to believe that Elmer Dessens is the last link to Mike Piazza.

But there is good news. Gary Sheffield netted more than Odalis Perez and Brian Jordan; he also got the Dodgers a guy by the name of Andrew Brown, a 6' 6" pitching prospect. Brown was later traded, along with spare outfielder Franklin Gutierrez for Milton Bradley. Bradley was decent, and funny to watch if you weren't too embarrassed by him.

Along the way, the Dodgers made a few somewhat useless deals. In 1996, they signed 18-year-old Luke Allen as an amateur free agent. He was traded for Jason Romano, who was traded for Antonio Perez.

On December 13, 2005, Ned Colletti traded Bradley and Perez for a prospect in the A's system by the name of Andre Ethier. So that's right: Andre Ethier is the Dodgers' last link to Mike Piazza.

Labels: Dodgers

Assuming that a power-hitting free agent is not obtained, the Dodgers have a few options to go with via trade. So here are some power bats to look for, in order of priority.

1) Adam Dunn, Reds (.234/.365/.490 in 2006, .245/.380/.513 career)
2006 HR: 40
162 game avg: 39
Years left on contract: 1
Money left on contract: $10.5 million
2007 Opening Day Age:27

The Reds will want pitching, but will take pitching in any form apparently. After the trade with Washington, Krivsky may settle for Joe Beimel. Downside is that at a higher price, he may not be worth it because he's basically a rent-a-player.

2) Pat Burrell (.258/.388/.502 in 2006, .258/.362/.479 career)
2006 HR: 29
162 game avg: 31
Years left on contract: 2
Money left on contract: $27 million
2007 Opening Day Age:30

The Phillies are more interested in making room for the future, clearing payroll, and youth (and pitching). Burrell is probably the lowest-valued, yet most tradeable player on the market. A team agreeing to take on his salary will likely not have to part with too much in terms of personnel. He's more of a stop-gap player than a rental,

3) Andruw Jones (.262/.363/.531 in 2006, .267/.345/.505 career)
2006 HR: 41
162 game avg: 34
Years left on contract: 1
Money left on contract: $13.5 million
2007 Opening Day Age: 29

Jones is worth the hefty price tag, and for this reason if he is made available to trade, expect the Braves to demand a package of Kuo, Broxton and Kemp. Of course, if you get Andruw Jones, you don't need Matt Kemp. Jones will be offered a big contract extention immediately, so this will be a move designed for the future.

4) Vernon Wells (.303/.357/.542 in 2006, .288/.336/.492 career)
2006 HR: 32
162 game avg: 28
Years left on contract: 1
Money left on contract: $5.6 million
2007 Opening Day Age: 28

Best value on the market. The Blue Jays are not likely to trade him, though, because you don't rebuild after spending $100 million on two pitchers in the previous offseason, even though they have long-term deals and you need to find another way to get a leg up on your competition. The Jays could potentially get a lot of pitching from him, so it's hard to say. The Dodgers may be satisfied to make him their centerfielder for the next several years, but that will likely be decided at season's end.

5) Manny Ramirez (.321/.439/.619 in 2006, .314/.411/.600 career)
2006 HR: 35
162 game avg: 42
Years left on contract: 2
Money left on contract: $38 million
2007 Opening Day Age: 34

The deferred salary makes this contract look worse, and Boston will have to eat some of it. The more they eat, though, the more value they get. The Red Sox will deal shrewdly, though, definitely going for Broxton, among other prospects, because this guy is one of the top 5 players in the game, period.

6) Alex Rodriguez (.290/.392/.523 in 2006, .305/.386/.573 career)
2006 HR: 35
162 game avg: 43
Years left on contract: 4
Money left on contract: $66 million (?)
2007 Opening Day Age: 31

Again, huge contract, but the Yankees will pick up some of the tab to get some value for him. The Dodgers may or may not want him, but with better depth at third than in the outfield (compare Laroche and Betemit to Kemp and um . . .), probably unlikely.

Labels: Dodgers