Los Angeles Dodgers Number Five 2010 Top Prospect - Chat & Vote
by Phil Gurnee on Oct 28, 2009 8:24 AM PDT
83 comments
TBLA Prospect Number One Chat and Vote - Chris WIthrow
TBLA Prospect Number Two Chat and Vote - Dee Gordon
TBLA Prospect Number Three Chat and Vote - Scott Elbert
TBLA Prospect Number Four Chat and Vote - Ivan DeJesus
Even though a vocal minority of one in our community felt that DeJesus did not deserve to win this vote his arguments fell on deaf ears as DeJesus easily wins the fourth spot. While he may chide us for not understanding, the majority felt that maybe he was the one who did not understand.
For the fifth vote I'm going to change it up a little and remove several of the players who have gotten little support. While Eovaldi and Gould may have big futures the voters don't feel they belong here yet. It is a testament to the system that we still have such quality on the board that will take us all they way to the top ten.
| Prospect Information |
| DOB | Prospect Name | Drafted | Info |
| 6/6/1989 | Ethan Martin | 2008 No 1 | Number one pick in 2008 Ethan Martin started 2009 on fire but ran into trouble in June April. He ended up the year in a tag team with Nathan Eovaldi and the Dodgers never let him throw more the 3 innings after Aug 1st. Highlights - April - 32.9 K/PA along with 8.9 BB/PA , Downlights - June - 14.7 K/PA and 13.7 BB/PA. He was picked by BA as the 10 best prospect in the MWL. He very possibly has the best arm on this list, unless it Nathan Eovaldi's. |
| 9/1/1987 | Trayvon, Robinson | 2005 No 10 | No one made a bigger move up the prospect ladder then Trayvon Robinson who came into the year with a reputation as a slap hitter with great speed who struck out to much and had little plate discipline. He ended the 2009 campaign as the starting CF for the AA Lookouts after torching the California League, showing large not subtle improvement in his power and plate discipline. |
| 9/18/1987 | Aaron Miller | 2009 Suppl No 1 | Number one 2009 draft pick Aaron Miller was quick to make an impact with his sterling work for the Great Lake Loons, winning the first playoff game in Loon history and impressing everyone along the way. Striking out over 32% of batters faced while walking less then 10% will put a smile on Dodgers fans as they contemplate the future with Aaron Miller. |
| 6/15/1987 | Josh Lindblom | 2008 No 2 | 2008 number two pick Lindblom started out in AA working in relief and starting but once promoted to AAA he was used strictly as a relief pitcher. He had a good year but not a dominating year and failed to make any top prospect lists. |
| 8/11/1988 | Andrew Lambo | 2007 No 4 | Muddled through his first full season of AA ball and some scouts have marked him down to a fourth outfielder. That seems very premature given his age since he only turned 21 during the season. He held his own but didn't give any indication he can hit enough to man LF but the jury is still out. With an ISOP of only .150 in combination of a walk rate below 9% he's got a lot of work to do but has plenty of time to get that work in. On the plus side he is totally mashing in the AFL as we speak. BA ranked him as the 18th top prospect in the Southern league. |
| 2/13/1990 | Nathan Eovaldi | 2008 No 11 | Nathan was supposed to be a sleeper pick headed into this season but anyone who payed attention knew about his big arm. He had a few stretches this year where he was the best pitcher for the Loons and just like Miller, he was never allowed to throw more then three innings after Aug 1st. He had a rough April, settled down in May and then went the exact opposite of Martin with a stunning June in which he allowed only two earned runs in five starts. His numbers in Aug were dreadful as the K/PA fell to 14% while the BB/PA increased to 15% after being below 9% the previous three months. He's already had TJ surgery, will his arm hold up over a full professional season? Given how few innings he pitched in 2009 the fall off in August has to be a little concerning. |
| 7/19/1991 | Garrett Gould | 2009 No 2 | Gould only pitched in three games for Ogden so any support for him will have to come from what he did in high school. From the baseball factory:
Gould is a big, strong RHP who is aggressive with his fastball that pushes into the low 90s. There is some deception to his high effort delivery and a curve ball with bite and change with fade round out his repetoireThis is what Kensai has to say about him |
0 recs |
83 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I went with Lambo here. I can’t wait to be able to make countless “First Blood” jokes in 2012
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 8:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The worst part about the McCourt divorce
is that it seems likely to delay the renovations to Dodger Stadium. It would have been cool to see what they could have done to the non-Field levels, and the clubhouse could have been awesome.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 8:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully that will rank as the worse part
but I doubt it. We are already a big joke in this town and it is only going to get worse. They are an embarrassment to the Dodger legacy at this point. Any hope for a classy divorce went out the window.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
There is such a wide range of things that could happen, most of which that would hurt the franchise, that it is pretty sobering to think about.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps the most interesting thing
that may come out is the details of Frank’s liabilities. Jamie is claiming the Dodgers are worth $800 million to the McCourts, but I’m sure that is inflated to buff up her net worth and potential divorce booty.
Frank will have to come out and detail that the Dodgers aren’t in fact worth that much and we will get a glimpse into just how leveraged his ownership is.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Sorry to diverge away from the prospect talk. I do find it greatly interesting to read about, especially since I don’t know twaddle about how they are rated. I do learn a lot from what Phil, and the other guys who know a lot about it write.
How exactly can this divorce specfiically effect the quality of the ball club? Can someone explain that to me? Either someone tell me, or I will have to ask the big shot lawyer -ex-girlfriend of mine.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 28, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The divorce could affect the team in the short term because they will most certainly have to sell the team, and the process of doing so could affect the willingness to take on any more long term debt (either free agents or buying out arb years and free agent years of the young kids), to make the club more attractive in a sale.
This offseason probably won’t matter that much because the Dodgers’ two main needs, starting pitcher and second baseman, will likely be solved with short-term deals (which likely would have been the case with no divorce anyway).
The worry, too, is that the divorce could drag on and the sale of the team could be delayed, etc, such that next offseason would be affected too.
There is also the fear, rational or not, that McCourt authorizes shortsighted deals to throw prospects away for short-term gain that wold negatively affect the long-term prognosis while only gaining slightly in the short term, to “ensure” another year of playoff revenue.
However, I don’t think we will end up like the Padres, during the Moores’ divorce, cutting payroll from ~$70m to ~$40m to get the team sold.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank for the info. I appreciate your time to write that.
I have heard it often said lately that they will “most certainly have to sell the team.” Why? With Frank having to give half of his assets besides the Dodgers to Jamie, will that force hiim to sell the team? This the murky part that I don’t understand.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 28, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am betting on the fact that the Dodgers will end up as community property
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you are getting at now.
I re-read what you wrote below. So there is a belief that McCourt actually is out of money and that the cost of his divorce will force him to sell the team…..So where is all the money going from the huge attendance figures and nig concession prices?
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 28, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant "big" and not "nig." I wasn't trying to be funny with a
racist comment.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 28, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
can't we just sell it to Eli Broad once and for all!
William Doolittle at your service, a.k.a. will do.
by Ollie on Oct 28, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's the only good thing
we’ll finally find out just what’s been going on over there, or at least know a lot more than we used to.
by LA Taco on Oct 28, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get the whole pile it on Frank McCourt thing.
He is getting a divorce. Who hasn’t had at least one divorcei n their life? I mean if you compare O’Malley and the City evicting homeowners from a long lived residence, McCourt getting a divorce from his wife doesn’t bother me too much. The guy has done a lot to bring a winning environment to the Dodgers. I don’t find McCourt a joke compared to the rest of the world.That’s just me though.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 28, 2009 8:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
“We’re all a part of the same hypocrisy, Senator.”
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, to a point. I don’t begrudge the McCourts for increasing revenue any way they can. Raising ticket prices really sucks for us fans, but the fact is they are charging what the market will bear. I have no way of knowing just how many empty seats went unreported, since only tickets sold are counted, but the fact is Dodger attendance is as strong as it has ever been, at least on the surface. Perhaps Phil or BH or anyone who went to 40+ games can lend some insight on this (if there were a lot of empty seats often, even on nights when the “attendance” was high).
I guess we will have to wait and see until McCourt’s liabilities are made known how much of a part of the decision-making behind “prospects in lieu of cash” was a simple baseball/budget decision or rather a mandate from McCourt that he didn’t have any money left
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you a lot actually.
I was bothered to no end about them raising parking prices, and the beer prices are a fucking joke. I think I also read about how Jamie McCourt was upset with MLB for asking the Dodgers to lower some concession prices and whatnot this year in regard to the recession. I thought she sounded like a jerk. My guess is that Jamie is the one responsible for the increase in just about everything at the ballpark, but she also is probably responsible for making the Dodgers profitable, worth more and have the money to sign guys. Frank is probably the negotiator and hand shaker. I actually could not afford to go to a ball game this year for the first time in forever. Usually I see about 15 games a year. I simply didn’t want to give the McCourts and the Dodgers my money. But I can’t deny that they have put the Dodgers on the map again and I do enjoy watching a yearly competitive team. I like that Frank realizes the good wisdom of building players from within and it seems like he truly does love his team. If he loves it like I think he does, I think the Dodgers will come out fine.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 28, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prices
for the LA Market compared to the rest of baseball is reasonable given what the McCourts have put into capital expenditures. The cost of going to a ballgame is high but it is high everywhere. This has been stated many times but we must remember that high attendance revenues are nice and all but until the Dodgers get their hands on the TV revenue the high attendance revenues are not enough to make us a large market team. A large market team is a large market team because of the TV revenue. An extra 500,000 fans at 30.00 a pop is just enough to pay one lousy A Jones contract.
When I say “joke” I don’t mean specifically that Frank is a joke, I’m referring to the fact that the Dodgers because of a acrimonious divorce are a joke in this town. From late night to water cooler talk who isn’t make fun of them? The latest “911” crap is just an example of this.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what was the 911 thing?
I didn’t hear about that.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 28, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I expect the last thing Frank
wants is to see his liabilities spelled out in the court documents. This divorce may give those interested quite an insight into the Dodger economics, especially if Jamie has to prove the team is worth the $800M she is claiming. If would be quite fascinating to see the cash flows and expenses involved.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought everyone knew that people were evicted from Chavez Ravine for a failed housing project, not the Dodgers. It really gets under my skin that everyone still thinks that.
by delias man on Oct 28, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only those who watched the documentaries
You can’t change what people have been told for 50 years with one documentary that no one watched.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From what I have read and watched
it did not go down like that at all. I actually have read quite a bit about it in fact. The failed housing project was in fact a federally funded project that lost its backing partly because it was thought of as a socialist cause. As some of the Spanish speaking residents gave in to selling pressure, the rest were essentially low balled increasinlgy.
So in essence, people were originally evicted in order to build a housing project that never happened and then it was conveniently sold by the city to O’Malley to build the ball park.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 28, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't the main point
that they were going to be evicted even if the Dodgers never existed?
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes,
but once the Dodgers came into the picture and the housing project idea was long gone, there were still people there who owned homes and were holding out. They were forcibly removed.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 28, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I voted for Martin
though it was close between Martin and Lambo. If Martin has the best arm on the list and still projects as a starter (he does doesn’t he?) then I feel comfortable with my pick.
With Lambo, perhaps I’m putting too much weight on his struggles in AA or not enough weight on his performance in the AZL. Either way, I thought that Martin probably had the higher upside as a rotation guy as opposed to a LF only.
by Michael White on Oct 28, 2009 8:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
on ethan martin projecting as a starter still
BA put him as the number 10 prospect in the MWL for a reason… they said he has a long arm motion that might lead him to becoem a bullpen arm..
by matthewmafa on Oct 28, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Martin
Best fastball, maybe best curveball, highest ceiling.
by silverwidow on Oct 28, 2009 8:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Which Dodger pitching prospect ...
Would you guys expect to reach the majors first?
I would guess Miller slightly over Withrow.
by pdotmac1 on Oct 28, 2009 9:34 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Lindblom easy choice to reach majors first.
Tight race between Miller and Withrow. Withrow may be a head of the game but I’d rather start his clock later then sooner given his age. Both might be on the team come next Sept but I’d be shocked if they are seen before then.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For some reason I could see Miller moving quickly if he has a good year this year.
Withrow seems like a good candidate to start out in the bullpen like Bills and JMac.
With Lindblom, Elbert and Jmac all being possible late inning relievers, I’d love to see Ned try to get prospects for either Sherrill or Broxton and flip them for Halladay. (Then again, I have delusions of Halladay helping Bills as Carp did Wainwright)
by pdotmac1 on Oct 28, 2009 10:20 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I would rather see Broxton get a few arb years bought out
and be able to watch him in blue for many years to come, like the next decade or so.
by MammothDodger on Oct 28, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He only has two arb years left, and long-term extensions for closers are risky.
I hope Broxton is a Dodger for many more years, but if the Dodgers wouldn’t feel comfortable with a long-term deal, then now wouldn’t be a bad time to explore his value.
Two Georgia boys (Broxton and Martin) for one (Heyward). Okay, I’ll stop
by pdotmac1 on Oct 28, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Broxton a lot
one of my favorite Dodgers.
But I don’t think (from a business standpoint) it makes sense to buy out any of his arb years.
by Michael White on Oct 28, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
buying out his arb years plus 2 or 3 FA years (4-5 years total)
could make business sense, as the total out lay over the 5 year span for his services would be less that 2 arb awards and 3 FA years. By the end of that span he is only 30 years old and while their is always a risk of injury I would think it is something to consider (well except that this stupid divorce thing will make it very hard to plan anything out 5 years) Also toward the end of that period the dodger revenue will be enhanced greatly by the ending of the fox tv rights.
by MammothDodger on Oct 28, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just not a big fan of paying market value for closers
I suppose it all depends on what deal you can structure, but to me, money is better spent elsewhere.
by Michael White on Oct 28, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lindblom.. yes but hes a reliever
i think a better question would be… who will be the next dodger STARTING pitching prospect to get to the majors first… miller withrow, ethan martin or whoever else that might have a chance..
by matthewmafa on Oct 28, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like a good poll question
once the 40 man roster is filled before and after the Rule V draft.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Manny to remain a Dodger
not surprising, per Jon Heyman.
Also, Webb remaining in AZ
http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman/status/5233040456
Story coming soon up top
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 9:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
New story is up
http://www.truebluela.com/2009/10/28/1104717/manny-to-exercise-option-return-to
But prospect talk is still cool here of course.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gave Trayvon Robinson
my support.
1. Trayvon – CF who improved in every aspect of his game
2. Lambo – LF who declined in every aspect of his game
3. Martin – Kickass April with a big arm, huge June dropoff where you started worrying about his arm, then a decent comeback but not enough for me. That June drop off really bothered me. Makes me wonder if he has the arm to pitch a full season without encountering trouble. That K rate dropping from .32 to .15 and the subsequent rise in the walk rate scared the crap out of me. We need a power hitting 3rd baseman, maybe he and Baez should trade places.
4. Lindblom – nice season but now he looks like a relief pitcher so I can’t put him a head of the others even though he will probably have a larger major league impact over the next two seasons.
Aaron Miller would have been my next choice.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 9:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like that analysis
Although I have only started following the minor system closely very recently (read July 2009 when I got updates at this great website called True Blue LA). While it looks like we have several potential big league arms about to rise quickly through the system it is the outfielders that really grab me Robinson, Lambo and I hope Russell.
I also have trouble discerning whether a pitcher who is being brought along so slowly (Martin Eovaldi lindblom) will be a starter or reliever in the bigs so that colors my choices some.
by MammothDodger on Oct 28, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We need a power hitting 3rd baseman, maybe he and Baez should trade places.
Hadn’t thought about that. Martin very well could be our version of David Wright. But then again, I heard that two-way players can start out as hitters and switch to pitching but not the other way around.
by silverwidow on Oct 28, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is very rare.
Ankiel isn’t a great hitter anyway.
by silverwidow on Oct 28, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Musial was born in Donora, Pennsylvania, where he frequently played baseball in both informal and organized settings, eventually playing on the baseball team at Donora High School. Signed to a professional contract by the St. Louis Cardinals as a pitcher in 1938, by the time Musial made his Major League debut on September 17, 1941, he had been converted into an outfielder.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So he was actually the first "Stan the Man Unusual"?
According to his minor league record, he pitched (223 IP) and played a position (405 AB) quite a bit in 1940 in D ball, after mostly pitching in 1938 and 1939. In 1941 as only an OF, he played C, AA and MLB ball – quite the leap.
Curiously, he appeared as a pitcher in one game in the majors, in 1952 (alas, slightly before the “retrosheet era”, but though he is credited with a batter faced, he has 0 IP, 0 H, 0 HBP, 0 BB, 0 everything else. Either the guy reached on an error or CI, or he started or finished a batter that the other pitcher received credit for.
by David Young on Oct 28, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
as i recall
from the book 40 years ago he switched to being an outfielder because he hurt his shoulder but I could be wrong.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possible. Clearly in 1940 he was doing both, and 223 IP plus OF duty on a 19-year old arm might have been a bit much.
by David Young on Oct 28, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Musial pitching in the majors
From Wikipedia (with a cited source):
The only major league pitching appearance of Musial’s career occurred as a publicity stunt during the last Cardinals’ home game of the 1952 season. Cardinals manager Eddie Stanky had a reluctant Musial pitch to Frank Baumholtz, the runner-up to Musial for the best batting average in the National League that season. With Baumholtz batting right-handed for the first time in his career, Musial’s first pitch was hit so hard it ricocheted off the shin of third baseman Solly Hemus and into the left field corner. The play was ruled an error, and Musial was embarrassed enough by his complicity in the gimmick to avoid pitching again for the remainder of his career.
From Baseball-Reference’s BR Bullpen:
Musial’s only pitching appearance took place on September 28, 1952. Safely in first place in the batting race, Musial was called in to pitch for a single batter in the sixth inning. The opposing batter was Frank Baumholtz of the 1952 Cubs the runner-up in the batting race, who batted from the righthand side of the plate. Starter Harvey Haddix moved to right field and Hal Rice covered center while Musial pitched. After Baumholtz reached base, Haddix returned to the mound, Rice to left, and Musial to center for the remainder of the game. Later in life, Baumholtz recalled that the play was a hot smash to third that should have been counted as a hit.
by David Young on Oct 28, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The vote is as
close as I expected. I almost just put those three in the poll. I think the next poll will just have the two who don’t win and they will become numbers 6 and 7.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 11:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Close race
I just hope we’re not overestimating Miller. He will be 23 next year, so hopefully he’ll prove himself in AA.
by silverwidow on Oct 28, 2009 11:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He may be 23 but I think
we have to remember how little he has actually pitched for his age. If anything I think we as a group are underestimating him considering how well he did in his first taste of professional baseball and what the scouts think of his stuff.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On second thought
He doesn’t turn 23 until September. So a 22 y.o. in AA is still a very good prospect.
by silverwidow on Oct 28, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How did Xavier Paul lose his prospect status?
Does his going onto the 15- then 60- day DL from the 25 man roster count against him? Doesn’t seem like he was active enough days in the majors to lose his rookie status, and he definitely doesn’t lose it due to playing time.
by David Young on Oct 28, 2009 11:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He is still a prospect
Just not worthy of Top 5 consideration.
He doesn’t have 130 major league AB.
by silverwidow on Oct 28, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose you’re right about where he ought to rank. He obviously has some major-league skills, but the K rate is pretty high without the power to go with it. Plus he’ll be 25 in the spring, so that clock is ticking pretty loud.
by David Young on Oct 28, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't
Eric confirmed to me that he’s still a rookie headed into next year as his DL time did not count against him. I just haven’t included him because I don’t think he’s better then anyone we have run up there yet. As soon as Lambo/Miller/Martin go I’ll run him out.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gave my vote to E. Martin
His mid-first round pedigree and high ceiling tipped it for me, but like last year, this feels like a year where one could argue the exact order of a range of prospects, maybe three through eight or so, forever and never be convinced they were all that certain.
by David Young on Oct 28, 2009 12:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
True
this is just a fun exercise, no need to take any seriousness to it.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is fun
Are you concerned that casual visitors (non-members) are voting in these?
by Michael White on Oct 28, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I'm always concerned
it really pisses me off that SBN has blown off multiple blogger requests to create a poll option where only your members or SB Nation members can vote..
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where you been?
I was just wondering how we could have so many comments on a prospect thread without you being part of it.
by meercatjohn on Oct 28, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2/3 of this Supposed PROSpect thread are
about the freaking mccourts…
and i do not care one bit to talk about those fools
by matthewmafa on Oct 28, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
19 votes apeice for
Lambo ethan martin and aaron miller…
WOW this is going to be a GREAT finish
by matthewmafa on Oct 28, 2009 1:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have heard it mentioned a few times here in the past week....
What is the deal with the dodgers television rights? Anyone want to fill me in?
by mattpeters on Oct 28, 2009 2:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fox has them for 3 more years, I believe.
The Dodgers will win 3 WS in that time, thus creating massive fan interest and spawning a Dodgers Cable Network.
We will then have revenue streams like the Yankees but instead of having a $200 million payroll we will simply draft first round talent each round of the draft and sign everyone, along with outspending everyone in international free agency.
by pdotmac1 on Oct 28, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it might be through 2013, but that is basically the gist of it
by Eric Stephen on Oct 28, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From Ken Gurnick's Mailbag back in '07
With the Dodgers being in the largest market outside of New York, what are the chances they create a regional sports network like YES, NESN, and SportsNet New York?
— Eddie Y., Cerritos, Calif.
Anything is possible, but it doesn’t appear that will happen anytime soon. The Dodgers’ current television deals with Fox Sports and KCAL run through 2013. Remember, when the McCourts bought the club in 2004, they bought it from Fox’s parent News Corp. The only reason News Corp. bought the club from the O’Malley family was for the programming. So, even though they sold the team, News Corp. still valued the programming and insisted on a long-term TV rights deal. Without that, the team wouldn’t have been sold to the McCourts for the $430 million sales price.
by pdotmac1 on Oct 28, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks. All hail Google, we should get them to buy the team. haha
I’m actually glad it’s 2013 and not sooner.
My biggest fear is that McCourt gets fleeced out of everything possible in the divorce except the Dodgers, and that he slashes payroll and operating costs to try and keep ownership until he can get the stadium renovated and get TV rights which would greatly increase the franchise’s value.
I suppose this is too early to make the leaps and speculate that far down the road, but I can’t help but wonder how this is going to effect the Dodgers particularly around the team the service clocks hit 6 for the Jacksonville 5 and their younger brothers.
by pdotmac1 on Oct 28, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This poll is too close
I say we do a 3 way runoff.
by silverwidow on Oct 28, 2009 2:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Runoff Vote – Members only
http://www.truebluela.com/2009/10/28/1105269/prospect-number-five-runoff
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Oct 28, 2009 3:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
