Ned Colletti Deserves An Extension

Or at least Murray Chass thinks so.

"GIVE THAT MAN A CONTRACT

Ned Colletti, the Los Angeles Dodgers’ general manager, is in the last year of a four-year contract, which also includes a mutual option for a fifth year. When a Los Angeles newspaper recently asked Frank McCourt, the team’s owner, if he planned to exercise the option, he lauded Colletti for the job he has done but declined to talk about the option.

Instead McCourt talked about the need to go further than the Dodgers have in recent years and win the World Series. 'That is a promise we have made to our fans,' he said.

What can the man possibly be thinking? He should have instantly said of course, we will exercise the option; why wouldn’t we?"

More than my problem with Colletti himself, it's appropriate that Chass is the first to truly mention his option, because he hates bloggers, statistics, and (apparently) intelligence.

Anyway, Chass' re-sign Ned Colletti campaign continues on.

"Since a previous Dodgers ownership (the Fox Group) foolishly fired Fred Claire in 1998, the Dodgers had a succession of poor choices as general manager. Kevin Malone and Paul DePodesta (McCourt’s first general manager) particularly stood out."

Uh, what? I agree that Rupert Murdoch was a terrible owner, but have we forgotten that Fred Claire is the man behind trading away Pedro Martinez, John Wetteland, and Tim Belcher? In my opinion, he also started the recent trend of signing big name free agents that bust (Darryl Strawberry). Unfair removal? Yes. Unjustified? No.

Putting Kevin Malone in the same category as Paul DePodesta is also a joke. Malone is arguably the worst GM in modern baseball history. I think he might very well have been that bad in the context of the times. And while I was never a huge fan of DePodesta (I liked what Dan Evans tried to do), he was certainly miles ahead of Malone, and surely most can agree that his track record is better than Colletti's.

"With Colletti, though, the Dodgers finally got it right. They reached the playoffs in two of Colletti’s first three years, winning the National League West title last year, and they are poised to win it again this season."

Okay, this is the logic that angers me. Whether it has to do with baseball or life, people using the correlation/causation fallacy frustrate me to no end.

"The Dodgers win division titles under Ned Colletti. Therefore, Ned Colletti is necessary for division titles."

"The Dodgers won when Juan Pierre was in the lineup. Therefore, Juan Pierre is key to the Dodgers' success."

"The Dodgers hadn't won a playoff series in 20 years. They won a playoff series under Joe Torre. Joe Torre was the reason they won a playoff series."

Why does this make sense to anybody?

Besides, should it really be a point of accomplishment to say that the Dodgers have won the NL West in 2 of the last 3 years? Honestly, it's probably been the weakest division in the MLB over that period. Also, the only team that spends anywhere near the amount of money the Dodgers do is the Giants, and they are horrible because they have an arguably worse GM in Brian Sabean. Oh, and when the Dodgers won the division in 2006, the core of that team were players leftover from the DePodesta era.

But yeah, congratulations to Colletti for putting a team on the field that has averaged 84.7 wins over the last 3 years (88 wins was the high and it came in 2006 with DePodesta's players). It sure is nice to know that a good GM is a guy who can fill a roster that is barely capable of being 3 games above .500 even though the franchise is averaging 108.5 million dollars in payroll.

"And for individual achievement, Colletti held his ground in the Manny Ramirez negotiations this past winter and induced Scott Boras, Ramirez’s agent, to blink first."

Is this a joke? Blinked first? Manny got his money and an option. Nobody else offered him anything. True, he didn't get 4-years 100 million in a crashing economy, and if anybody is really going to give Colletti credit for that, then I have no argument. Might as well give Colletti credit for not giving Wolf a 3-year, 45 million dollar deal too.

"It would be in McCourt’s best interests to exercise Colletti’s option - or give him a new contract, which would be the more intelligent way to go - because if he should let Colletti go, he would probably bungle the choice for his successor."

I believe McCourt bungles a lot of things, but he has two easy in-house options (Logan White/Kim Ng) at his disposal.

Now i'm not saying that those two are guaranteed to be good GMs, but what are the chances they are worse than Colletti? The only Dodger GM with a worse track record in trades and decision making is Kevin Malone, and I don't know anybody who thinks White or Ng would bomb on that level.

While we're on the topic of White and Ng, do these people crediting Colletti with the success of the Dodgers even think about how this roster has been constructed? Look at it, it's chock full of young players who are cost controlled. Guess who is in charge of drafting and development? Yup, White and Ng.

So basically, Colletti has been gifted a weak division, a high payroll, and half of his roster being filled out by the farm system, but he can still only barely muster a .500 team.

The fact that he has been thrown into a situation that is almost fail proof, but still manages to botch thing bad enough to the point where his job is in jeopardy, really speaks for itself.

I hope the Dodgers win the World Series, and I also hope Ned Colletti gets replaced afterwards. The 2009 Dodgers might be a good team, but it doesn't make Ned Colletti a good GM.