Rumor has it...

by Grant Brisbee on Dec 22, 2005 12:32 AM PST in News

...the Dodgers signed Brett Tomko.

Nothing official. If he one-hits us at any point during the season, I will take his mother -- Dorothy Tomko -- out for a nice seafood dinner, and never call her again.

Discuss.

Tweet Comment 46 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Two things...

I reserve the right to erase this post if the rumor is false.
I'll stop with the Anchorman references, I promise.

by Grant Brisbee on Dec 22, 2005 12:33 AM PST reply actions

Re: Two things...

...but Dorothy Tomko is a saint!!

by hammystyle on Dec 22, 2005 12:37 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Two things...

Never stop with the Anchorman references. If you do, I will find myself trapped in a glass cage of emotion.

by Skaldheim on Dec 22, 2005 8:55 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Two things...

When in Rome ...

by Flynn Blake on Dec 22, 2005 7:40 PM PST up reply actions

I'm kind of obsessed with this movie....

I go through phases of "comfort movies", where I watch a movie 50 times in a period of two months, and "Anchorman" just happens to be this year's winner.

Other comfort movies:

Casablanca
The Godfather
Shawshank Redemption
The Royal Tenenbaums
Flirting with Disaster
True Romance
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Them Lord of the Rings things
Miller's Crossing

Shawshank and Casablanca are tied for the all-time most overdone phases. I had a roommate yell at me for Shawshank, and a girlfriend get disgusted with me for Casablanca. They both absolutely loved the respective movies, mind you. Just thought I was kind of weird. That's some high praise for Anchorman, but it's kind of the "Who's on Second" to my inner Raymond.

by Grant Brisbee on Dec 22, 2005 11:21 PM PST up reply actions

Re: I'm kind of obsessed with this movie....

When I was a kid in the '70s, I used to live for the local evening news. "Anchorman" isn't that far off my memory of what those newscasts were like.

I'm not a huge Will Ferrell fan, but he is so damned funny in that one.

"Mmmmmmm scotch. I love scotch. Scotch scotch scotch."

by Skaldheim on Dec 23, 2005 8:53 AM PST up reply actions

From Rotoworld

The Dodgers and Brett Tomko have agreed to terms on a two-year, $8.7 million contract that includes a club option for a third year and a $1 million buyout, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Well, he had to get more than Scott Elarton, we suppose. Dodgers GM Ned Colletti's old team kept trying to drop Tomko from the rotation last season, which the 32-year-old concluded with a 4.48 ERA. Tomko has a career ERA of 4.52 and his best season was his rookie campaign of 1997. He's not worth this kind of money.

by keithr on Dec 22, 2005 1:18 AM PST reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

Ned Colletti has gone off the deep end. 8.7 Million? What? Good. Fuck those fuckers.

by wjackalope on Dec 22, 2005 1:32 AM PST reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

colletti is betting on tomkos familiarity with the west, and his low era at the latrine.

what he forgets is that the guy falls apart at errors (which should be plentiful in that infield) and lack of run support.

he better keep his wife away from lowe.

by bacci40 on Dec 22, 2005 2:18 AM PST reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

The infield defense (Mueller, Furcal) isn't too bad -- and, when Izturis returns, it should be excellent. The outfield is average at worst, probably above average due to the strengths of the corners when Cruz, jr plays.

Saving countless runs with my defense

by lyricalkiller on Dec 22, 2005 10:39 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

Crud, just scrolled down and saw the existing comments on this topic. Doh.

Saving countless runs with my defense

by lyricalkiller on Dec 22, 2005 10:40 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

$8.7, with the way pitchers are being paid right now? It's not THAT expensive. By the way, I'll add that this could very well add more hatred to the rivalry. Why? Tomko's head is just wacky enough that he'll put it together in games when he plays the Giants...like he did last year right about the time that he was hoping to impress someone for his next contract. Sabean will probably pick him up in two to three years when he's a bit older.

by Kent @ McCovey Chronicles on Dec 22, 2005 3:28 AM PST reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

I'd rather the Giants had kept him. Not that I wouldn't rather have a significant upgrade over Tomko (very unlikely at this point,) but he had his moments. I sure rather he was pitching in the #4 spot than Hennessey.

by Sayhey on Dec 22, 2005 4:34 AM PST reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

Ditto. Tomko is overall an average pitcher, but his lows linger like a cat box that hasn't been cleaned in weeks.

by Skaldheim on Dec 22, 2005 8:56 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

Hopefully, Cain is pitching #4 and Hennessey is #5. I'd have been happy to keep Tomko as the #5, but not for 8.7 million dollars; dimes yes, dollars no.
And there's no way Tomko keeps his cool in L.A. Between their infield defense and the roving eye of Derek Lowe, he'll blow a gasket by July.

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Dec 22, 2005 7:08 AM PST reply actions

Infield defense?

Mueller is good, Furcal is very good, Kent is okay, and Nomar is an ex-SS playing 1B so that can't be bad (unless he is too injured to even move).

by Nick Schulte on Dec 22, 2005 7:49 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

>Between their infield defense and the roving eye of Derek Lowe, he'll blow a gasket by July.

Who's A. Gasket?

by leftymalo on Dec 22, 2005 10:34 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

He use to play second base for the Cardinals' AAA team back in the late 70s but is now the Dodgers' go-to-guy for Mr. Pibb and uneasy male-on-male backrubs.

by seanmcleary on Dec 23, 2005 8:28 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

I think you're giving too much credit there Nick. Mueller is good but has the range of a traffic pylon, Furcal is decent but he's no Viz, Kent has never been more than okay and his range is dropping and Nomar is a question mark and irrelevant by May 1st anyway. I wouldn't call it bad defense, but I wouldn't call it good either.

by prospecthound on Dec 22, 2005 7:53 AM PST reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

I think Furcal is better than Vizquel. I haven't seen that much of Mueller or Kent in a while, their respective ranges are probably fading. But calling Nomar a big question mark at 1B doesn't make any sense. He used to play SS and anyone can play 1B, I think everyone around here overvalues 1B defense due to an over-exuberant teen-squealing love of JT Snow.

by Nick Schulte on Dec 22, 2005 8:06 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Rumor has it...

fucking hell's teeth. this makes me so mad!!

by tk on Dec 22, 2005 8:49 AM PST reply actions

Tomko sucks

Honestly, the contract doesn't seem to be out of whack with the market. But who cares? Its Brett Tomko. This addition does not make the Dodgers any better. Its weird to me that there has been so much hand-wringing over this guy. He's a half-way decent 5th starter. The Giants took him out of the rotation when they didn't even really have anybody to put in his place. Paying him 8.7 over two years isn't that bad a deal, but I am glad the Giants didn't do it.

by hammystyle on Dec 22, 2005 9:36 AM PST reply actions

Dodger Infield Defense Aside

(and I agree with Nick - ecspecially about the JT syndrome), Tomko is not worth that money. $8.7 million over two years is #3-#4 money. Tomko's got a career ERA+ of 94. He's had one above average year over his last eight seasons. He probably projects to about a 92 ERA+ this season. That's a #5. Anybody that pays above $1.5 million for a #5 is an idiot. Thank God this idiot now works for the Dodgers.

by GiantJim on Dec 22, 2005 9:48 AM PST reply actions

Who cares how much it cost to win a World Series?

Do we want a team that wins a World Series or one that is the most cost effective? I for one don't care how much players make other than on my most jealous days. Now I don't expect Magowan and friends to go broke paying baseball players, but I do expect they put the best product they can on the field. They owe the long suffering Giants fans that much. If that means they lose a few million one year in order to win it all, I'm all for it. The owners more than make up for it with the skyrocketing value of the teams. To the point, I don't expect the Giants to spend money like the Yankees, but I would like them to pay whatever is necessary to field a team that has a chance of winning it all.

More to the point, Tomko may seem overpaid to some here, but he would have helped the Giants win more games than what is likely coming out of the arms replacing him. That's what I care about. It's going to be small compensation if the Dodgers win the division if all I can say, "but they overpaid to do it."

Right now the Dodgers have an experienced 1 through 4 rotation (Penny, Lowe, Perez, and Tomko) with a promising rookie in the 5th spot (Jackson.) We, on the other hand, have experienced starters in the 1 through 3 spots in the rotation (Schmidt, Morris, and Lowry) with a promising young arm in the 5th spot (Cain.) That discrepancy will hurt the Giants chances over 162 games. Unless we significantly upgrade the fourth starter in the Giants rotation, this isn't a signing I feel like crowing about.

by Sayhey on Dec 22, 2005 10:59 AM PST reply actions

Edwin Jackson

Just curious how many years in a row this guy can be labeled a promising rookie. I thought the bums were ready to give up on him.

"San Diego, which of course in German means a whale's vagina" - Ron Burgundy

by W8ingForATitle on Dec 22, 2005 11:13 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Edwin Jackson

As long as he has the raw talent to make scouts swoon. I much prefer our talented rookie over theirs, but I don't deny Jackson has talent. Of course, at some point he loses his rookie status an "underproducing veteran."

by Sayhey on Dec 22, 2005 11:31 AM PST up reply actions

Ugh

Why is it so hard to realize the Giants operate on a budget? Only two teams in the league don't. Last year they had the 7th highest payroll. They'll probly be 8th this year. The point of saying that 8.7 million is a lot for Tomko is that it precludes the Giants from spending that money elsewhere. They may not do it until midseason or even next year, but its still there on the books.

I am pretty sure that the Giants have had a payroll higher than the World Series champion 3 out of the last 4 years.

by hammystyle on Dec 22, 2005 11:14 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Ugh

The Yankees have a budget, too. Methinks $200 million is it.

by Skaldheim on Dec 22, 2005 11:22 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Ugh

Why do you think the $85 million budget is sacred? Is it your money? In two years this franchise will be minus some very big salaries and then all those who want to compete with the "Moneyball" experts across the Bay will be happy. I know, let's replace Win-Loss records with Wins/Budget stats and we can feel better about ourselves while others win the trophies.

by Sayhey on Dec 22, 2005 11:50 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Ugh

You ignored the comment about the Giants outspending most of the recent World Series champions. I don't care about moneyball and of course I would like the Giants to spend more money and get better players. The point is I know they won't and I don't know why it is so hard to accept that as a reality. Its the same thing that almost every team in every sport has to deal with. They are not a cheapskate franchise. They have been right there in the top 8 or 9 every year.

Can you even point to a team that just said "Screw it, we are blowing our wad this year" and then won the championship? I guess maybe the Marlins in '97, but that is it.

by hammystyle on Dec 22, 2005 12:24 PM PST up reply actions

2001 Diamondbacks?

I think they spent a lot that year, but a lot of it was deferred or something.

by Nick Schulte on Dec 22, 2005 12:31 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Ugh

I don't think the Giants are cheapskates. I just don't think they are willing to spend the money necessary in the present circumstances to put together a team capable of winning the Series. That's the point. The Giants have a big gaping hole in their rotation and it is likely going to take more than their $85 million budget allows to fill it. I'm for breaking the budget in order to have a better chance at winning - simple as that. And I'm not willing to stop complaining about their putting the $85 million figure over what it take to win.

Many teams have overspent to try and win now. The '97 Marlins, 2003 Marlins, the 2001 D'backs, and every winning Yankee team in the last decade are just a few examples. Many teams have tried this approach and a few have won. In the Giants case is isn't a huge budget increase we are talking about, but I can't think of a better way of increasing their chances of winning than spending what it takes to have a complete rotation.

by Sayhey on Dec 22, 2005 1:07 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Ugh

2003 Marlins had a really low payroll. The Diamondbacks and the Yankees were spending within their means. That leaves the '97 Marlins as a good example, but even they were just a solid team that made the playoffs and then had a great run. That's how the 2003 Marlins, 2002 Angels, 2001 D-Backs, and the 2005 White Sox all did it.

The Giants do have a chance at winning. They don't need to break the budget for freakin Brett Tomko to do it. Maybe they stretch the budget for a SP or 1B in a midseason trade (which they have done numerous times in the past). They just need to make the playoffs and then have things fall in place once they do.

by hammystyle on Dec 22, 2005 3:50 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Who cares how much it cost to win a World Seri

Morris replaces Tomko in the rotation. I disagree that Tomko is going to win more games than Morris.

I share your concern about the back of the rotation. I'm not comfortable with Hennessey or Correia as the fifth starter, and would like to see an upgrade. For that reason, I would have been fine keeping Tomko. I think that Tomko will be better than either Hennessey or Correia this season. For that reason, I think letting Tomko go was a mistake. However, there is still time to pick up a starter to bolster the back of the rotation.

I share your frustration with discussion of contracts and dollars to a large extent. However, I do not want to see the Giants blow out the budget just to contend. If you have a contending team like in '97, '98, '00, '01, '02, or '03, then overspending to win the Series makes sense. (And the Giants did extend the budget in the middle of some of those seasons.)

However, this team depends on too many fragile pieces to warrant breaking the budget right now. There's a great chance the '06 team will have another losing record, a result of injuries to Bonds, Alou, Schmidt, et al. Sabean would be smart to see how the first half plays out. If everything holds together and we bounce back to winning 60% of our games, then I say go balls out and trade like a maniac in July. Otherwise, cash in and trade like a maniac in July.

by Skaldheim on Dec 22, 2005 11:21 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Who cares how much it cost to win a World Seri

My only major disagreement is that this is unlike other years. Barry Bonds is in the last year of his contract. He may play one more year after this if he has a legitimate shot at Aaron's record, but two years is the time limit on a World Series victory that includes Barry.

Why is that important? Only that Barry's once in a lifetime talent gives the Giants the best possibility of winning it all. That means if you have to overpay this year to build a team around him that can compete, then you do it. Add to this that the Giants are also dependent on other stars at the end of their careers like Vizquel, Matheny, and Alou and it is clear two years from now the window for winning will be closed. Sitting and waiting for the next decade while the Giants put together a post-Bonds team that can win isn't to my liking.

Oh, yeah, because Morris comes in and Tomko leaves doesn't mean one replaces the other. Morris is a real top of the rotation starter; Tomko never was that. I would never predict Tomko as a better starter than Morris. It's just that we need a full staff to compete.

by Sayhey on Dec 22, 2005 11:43 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Who cares how much it cost to win a World Seri

We've been rebuilding on the fly around Bonds for years now. Every year is the "last best chance" for him to win a ring. Every year, the window for winning is going to be closed two years hence. Wasn't 2004 supposed to be the collapse year, or was it 2005? No, it was 2006--wait, 2007!

The Giants have turned over nearly all the roster since the 2002 World Series. By 2008, we'll be looking at yet another nearly total turnover. We can't say now that the Giants will have no chance in 2007 or 2008, because we don't know who's playing. I don't see any reason to panic because Barry might not get a ring...I honestly don't care if he does or not. If we could trade him and improve the team, I'd do it in an instant.

by Skaldheim on Dec 22, 2005 1:37 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Who cares how much it cost to win a World Seri

You misunderstand me. The point isn't that the Giants must go all out to get Barry a ring. Although I'd be happy if he gets one. The point is that Barry's talent gives them the best chance to win. He is almost unique in baseball history (Ruth is clearly one other example) of a player who transforms a team from mediocre to very good when he is in the lineup. One only has to look at how the Giants struggled last year to get a clue of what the team will perform like without him.

I know others have predicted Barry's and the Giants imminent decline for years, but this is different. Barry has a contract through this upcoming year. He might stay one year longer if Aaron's record is in reach. Alou is around for only one year more. Vizquel is the same. Schmidt very likely the same. Durham isn't likely to be around for much longer. Either is Matheny. If Finley helps this year it's a bonus. Just name how many starters the Giants can depend on being around in two years and contributing any kind of quality play. If he signs a new contract, Winn? Morris? Lowry? Feliz? If he pans out, Cain? That's not a lot of players to build upon, and outside the pitchers almost no proven quality.

All of this is true because the Giants have built a veteran squad to help Bonds produce victories, and up to last year it worked. Anyone who bets on the Giants on being competitive longer than two years out is smoking something. A contender isn't coming from the farm system and who knows when superior talent will come available on the free agent market. In short, it doesn't take a doomsayer to figure out the Giants window of opportunity is closing - just a realist.

Win one now and I'll be happy to wait through a decade of rebuilding, but if I have to wait another ten years for a Series shot because the management does not want to spend an extra five to ten million now, then I and every other Giants fan have every right to be pissed.

by Sayhey on Dec 22, 2005 9:07 PM PST up reply actions

I agree

that the Giants need another starting pitcher. I'm okay with Tomko going somewhere else if we can get a Tomko-like pitcher for less or get a better-than-Tomko pitcher. The "budget" does make a difference in who else can be signed. And the budget should vary depending on if the team has a shot at the playoffs, World Series, etc. I'm okay with Sabean waiting until half-way through the season to see what he actually has before raising the budget. Unless they could get a difference maker right now, and there are none on the free agent market with Millwood being the closest (and extremely expensive).

There's an added benefit in the Alfonzo-Finley swap that I just realized. They're both due $8M total and $7M salaries, but, Alfonzo has a $1M signing bonus paid out in January and Finley has a $1M option buy-out paid out in next year's budget (when all of our players are free agents anyway).

That means we reduced our 2006 budget by $1M with this trade and that money can go to signing another starting pitcher.

by Nick Schulte on Dec 22, 2005 11:50 AM PST up reply actions

Re: I agree

Nick, it's essentially the same salary, $8 milion each.

Alfonzo: $7 million salary for 06, plus $1 million signing bonus due in Jan. 06.

Finley: $7 million salary for 06, plus $1 million buyout due after 06 season.

Same money, save a few bucks in interest.

Yeah, the thing about Tomko is that he is a bad value for $4.35 million a year. I think, GMs consistently overrate Tomko because while his production is bad, his stuff is good. You can get an equally proven #5 for no more than half of Tomko's salary. Values can be had. Hermanson was signed for $800,000 a couple of years ago.

The Giants, because of salary restrictions can't afford to look for a #4. They can get a cheaper version of Tomko and hope that Cain comes through.

by GiantJim on Dec 22, 2005 2:09 PM PST up reply actions

But it's different years

This year's budget is much more constrained than next year. The Giants are only going to spend an X amount of dollars this year. This deal gives them $1M more in between where they are now and the X. Next year so much salary is coming off the budget that it doesn't matter if they're paying an extra $1M.

It's not a big difference but it could make a difference in being able to sign somebody. Maybe.

by Nick Schulte on Dec 22, 2005 2:13 PM PST up reply actions

Re: But it's different years

Duhh, you're right. Sorry.

Even though both $million payments are in the same calender year, Alfonzo's payment is against the 2006 payroll and Finley's against the 2007 payroll. Good point.

Absolutely, a $million helps. Like I said, Hermanson was signed for less than a million for the 04 season. There are plenty of other examples.

by GiantJim on Dec 22, 2005 2:43 PM PST up reply actions