Dogs sign Loaiza

Esteban has actually pitched quite well since returning from injury.  I thought the signing was actually one of Ned Colletti's better moves.

Yeah, I remember that. At least the Giants actually got something back for Morris. :P

Yeah. The LA police chase is a hobby Loaiza can indulge in -- with all the extra time he'll have while spending most of the coming year on the DL.

Bonus Feature: The coverage from helicopters and breathless reporters will keep Loaiza's name in the news.

Mark, you act as if you know in advance the outcome of the Loaiza waiver claim.  I would submit that you don't.

Personally I have little idea how Esteban will do or even if he can remain healthy.  But given how little pitching was available, I thought Ned took a calculated gamble.

Ned hasn't made the best of moves, but I would say this one has a chance to turn out for him.  If he can get seven months of decent service from Loaiza at less than $9 million for that period, he may have crafted a much better deal than the Giants did when they signed Barry Zito.

If the Giants were in the race and needed starting pitching help, we would likely be very excited about signing Loaiza.  True, Esteban is a gamble -- but as you correctly point out, the Dodgers are in a position in which taking a calculated risk would seem to be a good thing.

Let me respectfully say you are missing the point. Yes, the Dodgers took a risk on some starting pitching at the beginning of the year that hasn't panned out. That was particularly true with Schmidt, but also with Wolf. Tomko was only supposed to be in the pen. Now, with a month to go and 3.5 games back, the Dodgers are still trying to win the division. Should they do that with the best players they can get to help them do so? Or should they pretend they have no chance and bring up untested players who aren't ready for prime time? Remembering that the Dodger's farm system, unlike the Giants, is well stocked and ready to help position players, but not so much with pitching, just who do you suggest they put into the rotation instead of Wells and Loaiza? Should they have risked their future and traded their young talent for better starters that could be on the roster for only a month? What Ned did was take a course that gave away none of their talent and gave them almost no extra payroll burden. What is crazy about that? I call it the best course he could have taken with a bad starting rotation, and without the pitching depth of either the Giants or the Padres.

Again, I think the response to this says more about a preoccupation with a youth only approach than it does to an objective analysis of what the Dodgers have done. If it works out for the Bums and they make up the 3.5 games to take the division, it will be because Coletti made some very low risk moves that paid huge dividends. Why should I, or any Giants fan, laugh about that?

As was already pointed out, Loaiza is likely their replacement for Wolf in next year's rotation, so the swapping of Loaiza's salary for Wolf's is pretty much a wash. Also comparing a former 20 game winner with Tomko doesn't work well for Brett. Obviously Loaiza isn't the pitcher he was in 2003 (or maybe even 2006,) but even on his worst days he was a better bet than Tomko. I'd like them all to fall on their faces and have the Giants pass them in the standings, but I'm also enough of a cynic to believe Loaiza could win some games down the stretch and help the Dodgers into the post-season.

and all that. The Dodgers are not a small market team. They don't need to be the most "efficient" team in MLB. For a team like the Dodgers, in the current market, 1 year $8 million is hardly an "albatross". Furthermore, it isn't as if Loaiza would be blocking some uber Lincecum like prospect. Also, the $8 million they owe Loaiza is unlikely to prevent them from acquiring other players.

Besides that, if healthy, Loaiza can be a league average pitcher or slightly better than league average pitcher. Jeff Suppan and Ted Lilly both got contracts worth slightly more than $40 million this past offseason. They career ERA+s are similar to Loaiza's: Loaiza's 99, Suppan's is 101, Lilly's is 102. Now Suppan and Lilly are better pitchers, not least because they are more durable and consistent than Loaiza, but $8 million for Loaiza isn't unreasonable.

for 1 year is the market rate for inconsistent pitchers who can be decent. At the start of this season, the Mariners signed Jeff Weaver to a 1 year ~$8 million contract. If Loaiza was consistent, he would be getting a deal similar to at least to Miguel Batista's deal, about 3x$8million, in the open market.

The Morris contract was better. It's also IRRELEVANT. We're not talking about the As signing him to 3 years $21 million. We're talking about the Dodgers taking on a 1 year $8 million commitment.

If he sucks the next year, the trade would only be a mistake for the money wasted. It would not be a mistake because they are too stupid to understand sunk costs and insist on starting him even if he sucks.

Do you believe that Loaiza is blocking any Dodgers pitching prospect? Will the $8 million spent on Loaiza prevent the Dodgers from signing other players or extending their current players? If he is a bust, will the $8 million be an albatross that cripples the franchise for years to come?

How is $8 million for the guy who arguably should have won the AL Cy Young Award in 2003 a worse deal than $126 million for the guy who actually DID win it in 2002?  :)

the problem then is not the initial decision to sign the player. The problem then would be that they're too stupid to understand the concept of sunk costs, and continued playing a bad player.

Furthermore, Tomko was not a bad pitcher last season. ERA wise he was a league average pitcher in 2006.