Dodgers fifth starter candidates

The Dodgers have no less than eight candidates for their fifth starter spot, according to ESPN's Buster Olney. The list includes current and former prospects and major- and minor-league journeymen. Here's our best guess at the initial pecking order this spring:

James McDonald - 26-year-old talent struggled as a starter last year
Scott Elbert - 25-year-old prospect could replace McDonald in bullpen role
Eric Stults - Potential default option, but unimpressive career numbers
Russ Ortiz - Hasn't put together a complete season since winning 15 games in 2004
Charlie Haeger - Knuckleballer with little upside
Carlos Monasterios - Solid minor league control pitcher
Josh Towers - Unlikely candidate who pitched in two games in the majors last year
Ramon Ortiz - Hasn't pitched in the majors since 2007

Fantasy Impact: McDonald looked good out of the Dodgers bullpen last season, but he had rotation written all over him before reaching the majors. You'd expect the Dodgers to take a long look at him this spring. Elbert's injury-plagued past could lessen his chances as a rotation guy, and nobody else exactly jumps off the page. If the youngsters and journeymen struggle, Russ Ortiz or Ramon Ortiz could play caretaker for all or part of the season. The Dodgers should be good in 2010, so the fifth starter could provide some helpful numbers in deeper fantasy leagues. If McDonald or Elbert wins the job, they could be in line for a breakout season. Consider those two sleepers if they make the rotation.

Winners and losers in Manny deal

I find the LA Times coverage of Manny Ramirez's signing odd, if not overly cynical. The Times' headline on Wednesday's agreement between the Dodgers and Ramirez: Manny Ramirez deal with Dodgers: Who won?

Bill Plaschke says Dodgers General Manager Ned Colletti was the big winner, "correctly reading the market and holding firm despite a winter's worth of criticism.''

You can follow Plaschke, by the way, at twitter.com/latbillplaschke.

Jeff Passan of YahooSports! writes that all the stalling still didn't give the Dodgers enough time to recognize "the gravity of their mistake.''

As for Ramirez, he reportedly will appear at a news conference tomorrow in Arizona, but he spoke to T.J. Simers last night and revealed that he was close to returning to Mannywood.

I guess it's not just the paper that has the cynical view of the deal being between enemy combatants "The Dodgers" and "Manny Ramirez." Jeff Passan obviously sees it that way, too, that the Dodgers and Ramirez were at war over the contract, and there's obviously a winner and a loser between the two.

That's hard to say, and it's not really what negotiating is about. I remember early on in my career, when negotiating my work contracts, I was told the best deal resulted in both sides feeling like they could've done better, meaning each gave a little to get closer to what they wanted. What someone wants vs. what they get is not necessarily winning and losing. It's what's attainable vs. what isn't attainable at the time. The Dodgers, in a bad economy, decided they could only spend so much. Manny Ramirez found he couldn't get more money elsewhere and took the best offer he could get from Los Angeles.

There's no winner or loser here. Ramirez got a ton of money ($45M over 2 years). The Dodgers got one of the top offense outfielders in baseball. If anyone lost, it is the National League West, and perhaps whoever else offered up Ramirez a contract.

Broxton is closer material

If Jonathan Broxton is the Dodgers closer this year, is that such a bad thing? Losing out in the Trevor Hoffman sweepstakes might leave the Dodgers with less depth in the 'pen, but Broxton is strong and talented. He's certainly more than capable of handling the closer role.

Broxton struck out 88 batters in 69 IP in 2008. He saved 14 games while filling in as closer. He's a no-brainer to star in the position with his 3.02 ERA and a 1.174 WHIP last season.

Furcal: no contract from A's

Rafael Furcal says the A's have not offered him a contract.

"The whole thing is wrong," sports agent Paul Kinzer said of El Caribe's claim that the A's have offered Furcal a four-year, $48 million deal. A well-placed A's source called the report "untrue" without elaborating further.

El Caribe also reported that the Mets have made Furcal an offer to play second base, and Kinzer said, "We haven't even had any discussions with the Mets, if that gives you an idea how inaccurate this is."

Kinzer said Furcal hopes to narrow his choice of clubs down to two in the next few days. Furcal is talking with the Giants and his former club, the Dodgers. Both the A's and Giants have seen Furcal's medical reports; the 31-year-old missed much of last season following back surgery. Considering this is a holiday week, there's a good chance that negotiations would continue into December.

Sounds like Furcal's options are limited, and the Giants are the best possibilit at this time. Then again, this comes from a Bay Area newspaper, so the questions my be stilted.

Manny being money

Dodgers GM Ned Colletti offered Manny Ramirez a contract worth somewhere in the $22.9 to $27.5 million range per year. While that's a ton of money, especially for a player who turns 37 in May and was unceremoniously run out of Boston in the middle of a pennant race, in this case it is worth it.

"If you saw the bid, it's nothing that we're embarrassed by," Colletti said at the GM meetings. "Manny was close to that number, anyway — closer to that area than the last place he's been."

Most likely, the Dodgers offered Ramirez a two-year contract worth just over $50 million. Colletti said the Dodgers also offered an option year, but declined to specify the exact length of contract.

"We said, 'Think about it for a while. It's not going to be there forever,"' Colletti said. "Things are always subject to change, and it depends on what else we do, to some extent. I've been asked a few times here if we're going to wait to see what happens with this before we do anything else. But I'm not sure we're going to have the luxury to do that. If there's something else that comes about that we feel we need to do, and the timeliness is there to do it, we'll have to do it."

The Dodgers would be smart to tie up a slugger for the next two seasons. Ramirez is something they haven't had in a long time (he hit .520 in the playoffs!), and even if he does decline the Dodgers would only be on the hook for a couple of seasons. That's nothing.

Peavy to Dodgers? Um, no

A Bleacher Report article breaks down the chances of the Los Angeles Dodgers acquiring the Padres' Jake Peavy in a trade.

The Dodgers have a ton of money coming off their books this winter but are just as obligated in dead-weight contracts for the likes of Pierre and Jones. They also have the potential for big paydays for all of the young studs that carried them through the first round of the National League Playoffs.

However, is there a better move that could be made than to not only add an annual Cy Young candidate to your rotation, but to take that same talent off a division rival? It is hard to think the Padres would move Peavy not only inside their division, but within a one (or five, depending on traffic) hour drive of their stadium without a substantial payout. This potential marriage has uber-blockbuster written all over it, with the likes of a Hershel Walker-to-Vikings deal written all over it.

Even if the pieces are in place to make this deal, I don't see it happening. Why would San Diego give away its ace to a division rival? As much as a trade could give the Padres a chance to get better, a trade to Los Angeles gives them a chance to be dominated be Peavy for many years. Jake Peavy will never be traded to the Dodgers.

What's your name?

Lost in the fray of a Dodgers five-game meltdown in the NLCS was the story that Dodger Stadium might, for the first time, hand out naming rights in 2009. Alas, that won't end up happening, although everything else in the ballpark is up for sale.

Available canvases include the bullpens, dugouts, base lines, outfield pavilions, parking gates, press box, Stadium Club, luxury suites and clubhouse. The team's newly adopted spring training facilities in Arizona are also up for grabs.

The Dodgers said Monday that they had formed a partnership with the William Morris Agency of Beverly Hills to identify opportunities to rename parts of the stadium and its planned $500-million addition. The expansion is intended to transform the ballpark into a year-round destination for dining, shopping and recreation -- and could also serve up numerous branding opportunities.

That brings us to this little piece on stadium naming rights. It's very interesting, especially if you've ever tuned into a broadcast and wondered why you always thought Bank of America stadium was actually called Ericsson Stadium. It was.

All the changes make it really tough on bulletin board warfare; especially for fans visiting another team's message board.

Rockies fan: "We're gonna wipe you out at Pac Bell!"
Giants fan: "It's AT&T Park."
Rockies fan: "Seriously?"
Giants fan: "Yes."
Rockies fan: "Not for long!"

Everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. One more note, why wasn't Fenway ever called "Yankees Suck Stadium?"