The agent for Mark Mulder, Gregg Clifton, has said six to eight teams are interested in his client, and the team rumored to be at the top of the list is the Los Angeles Dodgers.
So that begs the question: Would Mulder be a good signing for Los Angeles?
So that begs the question: Would Mulder be a good signing for Los Angeles?
The answer, plain and simply, is more than likely no.
Mulder has made two starts in the last two years, making three for the Cardinals in 2007 and then one more in 2008. He gave up 17 earned runs in 12 2/3 innings.
He's been a shell of himself since a solid 2005 campaign that saw him go 16-8 with a 3.64 ERA. His injury and control problems started in 2006 when he made 17 starts, won six games and had an ERA of 7.14.
Mulder is certainly intriguing. Before he suddenly lost his control and began battling shoulder problems, he was one of the premier pitchers in baseball.
From 2001 to 2005, he pitched 1,054 innings and threw more than 200 innings in each season with the exception of 2003. He still threw over 186 innings, doing so in just 26 starts. He threw 229 1/3 innings in 2001 and 225 2/3 in 2004.
The guy finished what he started a lot of the time, throwing 25 complete games over those five terrific seasons, winning 88 games.
Wouldn't it be something if he could recapture glories past and the Dodgers could find a diamond in the rough?
Oh wait...they've tried that already. A number of times, doing so several times this season in partcicular.
They signed Jeff Weaver, who won double-digit games five times in his career. They signed Shawn Estes, who once won 19 games once and won 15 twice and they signed Eric Milton who won 13 games in four out of five seasons from 2000 to 2004.
In recent years, they've tried this with Josh Johnson, Esteban Loaiza, David Wells, Aaron Sele, Scott Erickson and Hideo Nomo with very little success.
I have to admit that Mulder is a bit more intriguing than all of the above, because he is still young (32 in August) and unlike the others before, he was at the top of his profession.
Another question mark is certainly something that this pitching rotation does not need. What it needs is to let James McDonald and Eric Stults pitch while they are throwing well, it needs Hiroki Kuroda to be healthy and it needs to bring in a stud (Roy Halladay, Erik Bedard, Jake Peavy) with a big splash that sends the message that this is a World Series season.
Mulder has made two starts in the last two years, making three for the Cardinals in 2007 and then one more in 2008. He gave up 17 earned runs in 12 2/3 innings.
He's been a shell of himself since a solid 2005 campaign that saw him go 16-8 with a 3.64 ERA. His injury and control problems started in 2006 when he made 17 starts, won six games and had an ERA of 7.14.
Mulder is certainly intriguing. Before he suddenly lost his control and began battling shoulder problems, he was one of the premier pitchers in baseball.
From 2001 to 2005, he pitched 1,054 innings and threw more than 200 innings in each season with the exception of 2003. He still threw over 186 innings, doing so in just 26 starts. He threw 229 1/3 innings in 2001 and 225 2/3 in 2004.
The guy finished what he started a lot of the time, throwing 25 complete games over those five terrific seasons, winning 88 games.
Wouldn't it be something if he could recapture glories past and the Dodgers could find a diamond in the rough?
Oh wait...they've tried that already. A number of times, doing so several times this season in partcicular.
They signed Jeff Weaver, who won double-digit games five times in his career. They signed Shawn Estes, who once won 19 games once and won 15 twice and they signed Eric Milton who won 13 games in four out of five seasons from 2000 to 2004.
In recent years, they've tried this with Josh Johnson, Esteban Loaiza, David Wells, Aaron Sele, Scott Erickson and Hideo Nomo with very little success.
I have to admit that Mulder is a bit more intriguing than all of the above, because he is still young (32 in August) and unlike the others before, he was at the top of his profession.
Another question mark is certainly something that this pitching rotation does not need. What it needs is to let James McDonald and Eric Stults pitch while they are throwing well, it needs Hiroki Kuroda to be healthy and it needs to bring in a stud (Roy Halladay, Erik Bedard, Jake Peavy) with a big splash that sends the message that this is a World Series season.
Mulder would not be a good signing. Let's get a big named pitcher and make a serious run.
Wow three bombs off Oswalt (another stud I would add to the list of possibles that could be traded in this economy) in the sixth...our lineup is scary!!! Imagine if our rotation added a stud, and a solid pen to get to Broxton...what relief help could be aquired to shore up the seventh and eight?
NO GO ON MULDER! or any free agent for that matter, wait until trading deadline time and pick up a proven winner!
no mulder. bedard or halladay.
The Dodgers' payroll is 99 mil. this season. Are you telling me that signing Mulder to an incentive laden deal (all he can be hoping for) is a bad idea? This doesn't preclude trading for a big name later- not for one second.
Think of all the other benefits if it worked out:
1. The bullpen, which is soon to re-add Cory Wade anyway, could also re-add McDonald. That means the otherwise very questionable pen would have McDonald (who you could use as a swingman- a big need right now), Wade, Kuo, Mota, Belisario, Ohman, and Broxton. That's a good looking group.
2. If all Mulder is good for is a swingman, he's still useful to us.
3. The Dodgers would not be as desperate for frontline starters, which means they wouldn't be asked to give up as much. If Mulder is good, then they won't be as desperate for a big name in the middle of the season. And just like in any business, the more desperate you are, the more you have to be willing to give up to get what you need. If the Dodgers have 5 starters who are getting them by in a bad division and only need 4 of them in the playoffs (and mostly just 3!), then they won't have the same desperation for a front line guy.
4. The contract is so minimal that it doesn't really hurt anything to sign him. The Dodgers added more seats this offseason, and if I heard correctly, netted something like 200 mil (and that's conservative) last year. They have the money.
If it doesn't work out- oh well! No big deal. Heck, he might not even sign for more than a minor league deal at this point.
Get a couple of their best scouts and trainers to watch him throw. If he looks good and healthy, sign him to an incentive-laden deal. If not, don't sign him.
Everyone would rather get Peavy, Halladay, or Bedard. Of course. But you have to improve your team in any way you can whenever you can. If it doesn't cost much money, why not get him?
I agree that Mulder's price wouldnt hurt the Dodgers at all, but I dont think that Mulder trying to rehab back will be better than McDonald or Stults.
Also the bullpen of Wade, Kuo and Mota hasnt blown my skirt up at all, if they dont find themselves in the next couple of weeks Id rather call up Lindbolm and the other rehabers in AAA to pitch
Not very impressed by the level of analysis here, and I find Andrew Laris to state a much more compelling argument FOR signing Mulder.
One point not mentioned here is that if Kuroda winds up on the DL for a substantial period of time and Mulder bounced, say, McDonald from the rotation, we'd have 3 LHP and 2 RHP. We'd be making ourselves very susceptible to strong right-handed hitting teams like the Diamondbacks. And nobody's trading an ace like Halladay until after they're well out of contention. Even teams like the Blue Jays and Padres can get off to a good enough start that they'll draw crowds to see their aces. It'd be smart to do something safe like sign Mulder to a Minor League deal high in incentives and then hope he can contribute at some point.
You guys are hoping for a lot of if's, and ignoring the biggest one, which is Mulder himself.
The Jays, Padres and Mariners will be out of contention by July.
And the level of analysis you are questioning? All I did was break down Mulder's numbers prior to his injury, post-injury and the failures the Dodgers have had with retreads. What's so bad about that?
Sure, Laris makes a good argument, but one based on if's, hopes and speculation.
Blueblood if Mulder bounced McDonald from the lineup we would have four left handers and one righty not 3/2. Also the analysis posted here had arguments for and against the signing, Faris made a good case for the pros and everyone else was against...The analysis against signing Mulder is that we already have Milton, Weaver and Estes on the rebound trail, plus a bad history of hoping for comebacks, and IF he is healthy (the biggest IF) he wont be the stud he once was...Mulder would be just the same as Stults, McDonald and the rest of the rehab crew at AAA...How is signing a pitcher who hasnt pitched healthy in 2+ years safe?