Los Angeles Dodgers Number Twelve 2010 Top Prospect - Chat & Vote
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 3, 2009 7:48 PM PST
in Minor League Updates
134 comments
1 Chat and Vote - Chris Withrow
2 Chat and Vote - Dee Gordon
3 Chat and Vote - Scott Elbert
4 Chat and Vote - Ivan DeJesus
5.Chat and Vote - Ethan Martin
6.Chat and Vote - Andrew Lambo
7. Aaron Miller
8. Chat and Vote - Josh Lindlbom
9. Chat and vote - Trayvon Robinson
10. Chat and vote - Nathan Eovaldi
11. Xavier Paul
It took two different votes but Nathan Eovaldi holds off Xavier Paul to win the coveted TBLA 10 spot. A near dead heat in the first vote resulted in a run off vote that was close for most of the day, but the late afternoon/evening crowd pushed Eovaldi into the lead by 18 votes.
Now this may ruffle some feathers but I'm not putting Paul back out there. He got enough support for the 10 spot that I'm putting him in at 11. I don't agree with it but the voters have given him plenty of support. The vote is on for 12 and I'm adding the youngest player in the organization.
We all have our reasons for who and why we vote for someone. For me the next three spots are between the teen-agers. The high bonus golden arm of Garrett Gould or the promise of Jonathan Garcia or the unexpected brilliance of Allen Webster.
Fricking crazy that I'm talking about three guys who were born after 1990.
Anybody else you would like to have the voters have a crack at? Lucas May, Jamie Hoffman, Brent Leach, Francisco Felix, Travis Schlichting, Justin Sellers, Javy Guerra, Pedro Baez, Steven Caseres, Jamie Ortiz, Tim Sexton, Kenley Jansen, Tony Delmonico, Jamie Pedroza, Gerald Sands, Geison Aguasviva, Jon Michael Redding , Allen St. Clair, Brian Cavazos-Galvez, Gorman Erickson, Franklin Jacobs, Mario Songco, Brett Wallach, Jonathan Garcia, Danny Danielson, Roberto Feliciano.
| Prospect Information |
| DOB | Prospect Name | Drafted | Info |
| 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 |
| 2/10/1990 | Allen Webster | No 18 2008 | Where did he come from? Just an 18th round pick in 2008, Webster was ranked by BA as the 3rd best prospect in the Arizona League, where this 19 year old turned some heads. From BA
No AZL player boosted his prospect stock this season as much as Webster, who's listed in the MLB database by his first name (Carl) but prefers to go by his middle name. An 18th-round pick in 2008, he walked 17 batters in 18 innings during his first pro season in the Rookie-level Gulf Coast League. After moving to Arizona when the Dodgers shifted their complex-based affiliate, he posted a 56-14 K-BB ratio in 48 innings before continuing to excel following a promotion to the Rookie-level Pioneer League. Though Webster still is growing into his 6-foot-2, 165-pound frame, he already has a fastball that reaches 94-95 mph. He throws strikes with his heater, as well as with a plus breaking ball and a promising changeup that he needs to use more often. Dodgers pitching instructor George Culver said an improved delivery was the key to Webster's big step forward. "He had a lot of issues with it last year. He was a green pea," said Culver. "His mechanics right now are as good as you want to see with a kid with no more pitching experience than he's had. |
| 7/24/1986 | Scott Van Slyke | 2005 No 14 | Great bloodlines looked to be naught until this year. The Dodgers were aggressive in promoting Van Slyke year after year even though he stunk at each level. In 2008 he had an OPS of .638 when he was inexplicably promoted from the A ball to A+ ball. In 2009 he spent the full season in A+ ball and his his first taste of success. He swatted 69 XBH and ended the season with a .907 OPS. He was not recognized by BA as a top prospect in the league as everyone is curious if he will continue to hit once he leaves the easier offensive setting of the Cal League. This one is for Canuck, I'm not much of a fan but if Canuck wants to make an argument for him, I'd be willing to listen. |
| 6/27/1986 | Kyle Russell | 2008 No 3 | The Good - CO-MVP of the MWL, led the league in Home Runs with 26, Total Bases with 262, RBI's with 102, 3rd in OPS at .916, 6th in Walks with 72, did not hit into one DP, Stole 20 bases and was only caught twice. Considered an excellent outfielder who has the arm for right field. That looks like one hell of an outfielder doesn't it. To bad about the negatives, one he can't control and the other he's unable to. He's 23 which is old for the MWL. The other is that his K Rate is a killer. He struck out 180 times in 563 plate appearances at the age of 23 in A ball. I want to believe in Kyle Russell but the reality is that this may have been his best season. When looking at other 23 year olds who dominated the MWL over the last five years, no one has been able to keep it going. I can't find any comp's for someone who strikes out at that rate, at that age, at that level who was successful. Russell Branyan did it but he was 20 years old when he did it. So even without the K rate he's going to have a tough time ever bringing that power to Dodger Stadium. |
| 11/11/1991 | Jonathan Garcia | 2009 8th round | Garcia played all summer as a 17 year old in the Arizona Rookie League. Among the regulars his OPS was only bettered by 21 year old Nick Akins. Easily the youngest player in the organization he was able to post a solid .862 OPS and was honored by BA as the 9th best prospect in the league. They had this to say about him :
The Dodgers may have gotten a steal when they selected Garcia out of Puerto Rico in the eighth round of the 2009 draft. He had a reputation in high school as a player who was better in workouts than in games, but that wasn't the case in the AZL. He hit .304 with 16 doubles in 138 at-bats. Garcia, 17, is very aggressive at the plate and the ball jumps off his bat. He has power to all fields and is expected to get stronger. He worked closely with hitting coach Leo Garcia and continually made adjustments during games. |
0 recs |
134 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I've been voting for Gould since the nine spot; I ain't stoppin' now.
by David Young on Nov 3, 2009 7:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you will finally support a winner
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 3, 2009 7:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Brent Leach is not a prospect anymore
A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list).
Leach was with the big club for almost all of May, June and July, which is over 45 days, so you can remove him from the “who else” list.
by David Young on Nov 3, 2009 7:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Off topic, but I didn’t notice your Fan Shot RE: Mattingly before posting mine.
by Eric Stephen on Nov 3, 2009 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty interesting that we both picked the word “speculate”.
by David Young on Nov 3, 2009 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You are right
Leach has 90 days of service time.
by Eric Stephen on Nov 3, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Leach may still be included in some Dodger prospect lists though
because some places, like Baseball America, do not take into account service time when ranking players. They go only by the 50 inning/130 AB rule.
by Coolguy_88888888 on Nov 3, 2009 8:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I saw the following on a Dodger transaction list somewhere:
09/30/2009 Eric Stults called up from minors – not to report
09/30/2009 Tony Abreu called up from minors – not to report
09/30/2009 Cory Wade called up from minors – not to report
09/30/2009 Brent Leach called up from minors – not to report
Moot point for Abreu, but what does this technical move mean? Does it put them on “equal footing” with the September call up players? Make them major leaguers for the purpose of Spring Training?
by David Young on Nov 3, 2009 7:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not sure
Usually the whole 40-man roster is invited to camp, so they would be covered there either way.
by Eric Stephen on Nov 3, 2009 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gould's low ranking is based because the slow push from the Dodgers.
Stuff wise, he’s up there with Martin, Withrow, Elbert, and Miller
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 8:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Gould
At this point, I take a flyer on Garrett as I’m not as sold on the other guys enough to overlook Gould’s upside.
by Capt Obvious on Nov 3, 2009 8:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Going back to Paul
If Manny opted out and left us, who would play left, Pierre or Paul?
by Capt Obvious on Nov 3, 2009 8:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Juan Pierre.
Paul would be the 4th outfielder
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
diamond83
Fire away. RT @dylanohernandez Dodgers GM Ned Colletti said he has told (agent Adam) Katz his team is interested in re-signing Padilla.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 8:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Before or after he shot himself in the leg?
by Capt Obvious on Nov 3, 2009 8:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps that doesn't matter in the end. :)
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 8:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Please join us tomorrow when we visit former MLB pitcher Vicente Padilla for a round of target practice.
Bullet-proof attire is reccommended.
by 68elcamino427 on Nov 3, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, the Dodgers confirmed that Padilla shot himself, not his bodyguard
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 8:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Could be a joke, but idk, lol, did he actually shoot himself?
by Ivdown on Nov 3, 2009 10:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ned, please pass on Padilla unless you can sign him dirt cheap (a salary you can afford to swallow) for only one year – and even then think long and hard about that. Do you never learn your lesson? Brett Tomko started out ok for the Dodgers too, but you saw how he crapped out in the end. Padilla will revert to same mediocrity he always was soon enough.
After nine starts for LA (playoffs included):
Padilla: 5-0, 2.35 ERA, 53 2/3 IP (2 of those in a relief appearance)
Tomko: 5-1, 3.21 ERA (2.88 after eight starts), 56 IP
And then Tomko reverted to being Tomko and got pounded.
by David Young on Nov 3, 2009 8:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The real question
How good can Padilla paint?
by Eric Stephen on Nov 3, 2009 8:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't the real question
If Triple-A guys will try to find playboy pictures of Padilla’s wife when he rehabs there.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i voted webster...
he reportly has a 94 to 95 mph fastball while gould sits more of the low 90s and they both have plus breaking balls with developing change ups..
so im gonna go with the guy who has more experiance rather then the guy who has pitched 2 and 2/3 inning in his career.
by matthewmafa on Nov 3, 2009 8:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I trust Canuck’s high opinion of Webster, so he’s my choice. Although Gould’s curve is RIDICULOUS and was almost enough to get my vote. But alas, I went with the bigger body of professional work.
by silverwidow on Nov 3, 2009 8:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
We can probably make some comparsions of them next year.
Since they’re both probably starting in Odgen next year.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they'll be the Loons' co-aces
by silverwidow on Nov 3, 2009 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Webster was promoted very late in the season to Odgen.
Gould only pitched for two weeks.
E.Martin, and N. Nolavdi probably will start at Low-A again themselves. The number crunch almost necessitates Webster and Gould starting in Rookie ball. Also, I think it would be extremely aggressive if the Dodgers put both Webster and Gould at low-A.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 8:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Martin/Eovaldi
I’m betting they take their act to San Bernardino to work with Charlie Hough. Don’t underestimate his ability to coach our top prospects.
by silverwidow on Nov 3, 2009 8:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Martin and Eovaldi
No way they will stay in low A. Neither guy was THAT young for the level, and the Dodgers don’t demand that a guy dominate a level before moving him up. Not their way.
by CanuckDodger on Nov 3, 2009 8:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No way in heck are the Dodgers exposing these two to High-A.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 8:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They let Withrow do it
Again, Hough is probably the best pitching coach in the organization. That is a huge factor in their development.
by silverwidow on Nov 3, 2009 8:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya
I mean, almost all of the top flight current pitcher came through the Cal League. Why start sheltering players now?
by Michael White on Nov 3, 2009 9:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, There's Withrow, and there's James McDonald. Who else?
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 9:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe he's referring to baseball in general
Lincecum, Felix Hernandez…two Cy Young calibre pitchers, for example, who came up through the CAL League.
by silverwidow on Nov 3, 2009 9:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants have one of the only pitching parks in the CAL leauge.
Don’t know about the M’s though.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Felix was a 66er
He dominated as an 18 year old in 2004. But he’s a completely different animal, of course.
by silverwidow on Nov 3, 2009 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Inland Empire Is A Pitcher's Park Relative To the Rest Of The League
…and Felix Hernandez’s home park was Inland Empire.
by CanuckDodger on Nov 3, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was also thinking Billingsley
then I realized that was in Vero Beach…..
by Michael White on Nov 3, 2009 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Webster To Great Lakes, Gould To Ogden
That is my guess how things will be.
by CanuckDodger on Nov 3, 2009 8:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Good call
One of them will definitely be in the Loons’ rotation at least.
by silverwidow on Nov 3, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I also voted for Webster
discussed in a previous thread why I put Webster ahead of Gould….
by Michael White on Nov 3, 2009 8:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Garrett Gould
Although Webster has a great fastball, Gould can reach 94 himself and he showed me his wicked curve. Though Gould lacks any pro experience, from what I saw, he’ll be just fine in Ogden. He was regarded as the best high school pitcher in the state of Kansas, don’t know if that means anything, but it sounds great.
by Julio Nievas on Nov 3, 2009 9:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Just curious
why some of you think Gould will not pitch with the Loons?
Who was the last high draft pick who did not pitch in A ball the year after he was drafted?
2008 – Martin – A Ball
2007 – Withrow – missed season with injury
2006 – Kershaw – A Ball
2005 – Joshua Wall – Pioneer League Rookie SS
2004 – Elbert – A Ball
2004 – Blake Johnson – A Ball
2003 – Billingsley – A Ball and AA
2003 – TIffany – A Ball
2002 – Broxton – A Ball
2002 – Greg Miller – A Ball
2001 – Edwin Jackson – A Ball
So the only High draft, HS School pitcher who did not start the year in A ball the year after being drafted was Josh Wall over the last eight years. I’ll be shocked if Garrett Gould is not pitching for the Loons come next April.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 3, 2009 10:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I only
researched high school pitchers if you are wondering why Adkins/Morris are not on the list.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 3, 2009 10:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
checked where the pitchers signed with the team
Clayton Kershaw: June 2006
Chris Withrow: June 15th, 2007
Ethan Martin: July 10, 2008
Garret Gould: August 14, 2009.
Gould missed a month of Development time, and then didn’t really get his feet wet. He’s not pitching in the instructional league, and he seems to be shut down more or less. Martin, Withrow, and Kershaw signed early and were in the system a lot longer than Gould has been at the same point of time.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 10:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That could be important
but I still think he will be pitching in Michigan come April. You are only talking about month’s difference between him and Martin and Martin barely touched a mound after signing.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 3, 2009 10:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And to compensate, the Dodgers put him on a 3 innings limit.
I guess the Dodgers can put Gould on a similar limit at least to start in Low-A just to make sure that his arm is warmed up.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I think a month’s a long time in your draft year. Look at Aaron Miller, he signed early, got to pitch in the rookie leagues, dominates and he’s starting for the Loons in the playoffs. Then he goes and has a pretty good AFL season, and scouts are raving about him now. There’s talk of him starting at High-A next year as well. That’s what Gould missed by holding out until August 14th.
If Gould signed early would he be pushed as aggressively as Miller? Probably not, but he’s still that much further behind a guy who was considered to have less stuff prior to the draft.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gould...
…MIGHT pitch for the Loons, but I am thinking that there are a number of factors that might put him in extended spring training to start the season:
1) A crowded rotation in Great Lakes. Webster and Wallach, of course. Elisaul Pimentel and Matt Magill did well starting in Ogden, but not well enough that anybody would try and skip them past low A. I think Danny Danielson has spent enough time in Rookie ball that he will be skipped past Ogden completely. Carlos Frias, whom I view as a top 15 prospect, also might start out in Great Lakes. He is a couple of years older than Gould.
2). As alluded to above, Gould is a little young. Age 17 in his draft year. Ethan Martin was actually age 19 when we drafted him.
3). The lack of pro innings in his draft year by itself might not be a problem, but combine that with the fact that Gould is from Kansas, a state with notoriously poor high school competition, and Gould does not look like a fast-track candidate. Perhaps if he were high-schooler from Texas (like Kershaw, Withrow, and Eovaldi) it would be a different story.
by CanuckDodger on Nov 3, 2009 10:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Great point about Kansas. I hadn’t thought about it that way.
by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 7:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good points Canuck
I’m just looking at the history but when you take a look at your arguments you may be right.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 9:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
11 high draft picks
Injuries – Miller and Tiffany
Crappy – Wall and Johnson
Late Bloomer – E Jackson
Still Waiting on – Elbert
Hopefull – Martin, Withrow
Made it – Billingsley, Broxton, Kershaw
If Elbert makes it that is a good %, if Elbert and either Martin/Withrow make it we are doing great. If all three make it, that would be quite impressive.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 3, 2009 10:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Looks like Scott Van Slyke
is going to be bounced from the next poll. Lucas May?
Lambo goes 0 – 5 today, dropping his league leading average of .423 to .386. Lucas May with two more hits is having quite a 2009 after a rough 2008. Solid year in AA, excellent World Cup campaign, and now having a successful AFL season.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 3, 2009 10:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I still can’t take May seriously. Unless reports of his defense become much more positive, he’s not a starter.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Javy Guerra
has still not given up a run in the AFL but he seems to be a lucky SOB since he’s allowed 11 baserunners in 7 innings of work. Five walks in seven innings? No thank you.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 3, 2009 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bill Shaikin with a great article in the L.A. Times
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-shaikin4-2009nov04,0,5095602.story
In particular, he writes about Carlos Santana and the McCourt’s inability to set the right priorities for the Dodgers. He also writes about the farm system.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 10:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
We also wanted to ask Mannion about how the Dodgers had spent the $18.8 million that covered the insurance payment for Jason Schmidt’s contract and the money saved by the suspension of Ramirez. He was not available for comment.
The numbers speak for themselves. The McCourts have not been shy about asking fans to pay top dollar and, at least according to the divorce proceedings, they have not been shy about paying themselves top dollar.
It’s time to invest top dollar in player development. It’s better to be the talk of the World Series for what your players do, not for what your lawyers say.
Great ending, and a great fuck you to Bill Plaschke’s whiny ass column a couple of days ago.
by Tripon on Nov 3, 2009 11:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What did Plaschke say?
Fuck the farm system?
by Julio Nievas on Nov 3, 2009 11:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The McCourt’s priorities are straight … it’s all about them isn’t it?
We’ve just been like a cheap renters to them, buying Dodgers seats and goodies.
by 68elcamino427 on Nov 3, 2009 11:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This straight up drilled me
That balance was $2 million. The McCourts could have paid themselves a little less, and the Dodgers could have kept Santana, perhaps enabling Colletti to get Lee.
by Julio Nievas on Nov 3, 2009 11:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't that just make you feel great
But then again, Mrs Mccourt needs her half a million dollar lifestyle a month…….
by Ivdown on Nov 4, 2009 12:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder how many youth baseball fields could be built from the money the McCourts put into just one of their four LA area homes….
by David Young on Nov 4, 2009 1:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And international signings
The Dodgers, so proud of their heritage in Asia and Latin America, today are a non-factor in bidding for top amateur players abroad. In 2008, according to Baseball America, major league clubs combined to sign 115 such players for bonuses of more than $100,000. The Dodgers did not sign one.
To be fair, during the McCourt year, they did bring in Saito and Kuroda, who are professionals, not amateurs.
by David Young on Nov 4, 2009 1:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ALso interesting t o note Dee Gordon was included in the offer for Cliff Lee.
by LA Taco on Nov 4, 2009 7:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Shaikin's article is right on point
He was asking the right questions (where the money saved went) and he brought up the selling of Carlos Santana which I don’t remember any of the mainstream columnists discussing last year. The blogs were on the front lines of that mess since guys like Plaschke and Simers don’t care about prospects.
Interesting tidbit on Gordon, though I’m not sure why Cleveland was insisting on (who Shaikin calls) the Dodgers best prospect when they excepted less from Philadelphia. Seems like evidence of other teams trying to shake down the Dodgers. Shaikin discusses the trade for Lee through the lens of Carlos Santana which makes sense, since it would seem to contradict his point about the Dodgers having a weak farm system if he would have advocated moving Gordon in the Lee deal. Especially since Lee eventually got moved after Bell was dealt to bring in Sherrill.
by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 8:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In Ned’s interview last week on 710 ESPN, he talked about two players in the Lee deal that might hurt us in the long run. One of them is obviously Gordon. The mystery pitcher was speculated as Withrow, but my instincts say Martin because Ned was probably more willing to trade someone who’s further away.
by silverwidow on Nov 4, 2009 9:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
would you trade
Martin, Gordon, Elbert for Lee?
by LA Taco on Nov 4, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is that Martin, Gordon and Elbert for Lee?
Hell no.
by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 9:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Expecially now that Lee did not pitch 3 times in the WS
And the likelyhood that PHI will not win will make it really not worth it. In hindsight.
by delias man on Nov 4, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It was a 4 for 1 deal
Those three names might be correct, with Josh Bell also involved (before he was sent to Baltimore).
by silverwidow on Nov 4, 2009 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm no
enjoy knapp and carrasco indians
by hirambocachica on Nov 4, 2009 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
Cleveland got shafted. Head case Carrasco and injury concerns Knapp. We knew Gordon was part of the Lee talks awhile ago, it was only recently Ned let up that there was a pitching prospect involved (though if it was a 4 for 1 you kinda have to figure that).
So let’s say Gordon, Bell, Martin, and Elbert for Lee….way better than what Philly gave up…and yeah, we always seem to have to give up more than other teams.
by Capt Obvious on Nov 4, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I wish that the McCourts
were altruistic people with the best intentions in mind….They are rich greedy baseball owners. But the thing is, I think all owners are trying to make money and are greedy and that is the bottom line. I also don’t think if the Dodgers had gotten Lee they would be in the World Series. Maybe if they got Lee and another power hitter, plus a more hitting mature Matt Kemp like he will be next year, they are in the Series. But I think this years team had too many holes and young guys still maturing as players. Plus in the article, Shaikan says that the Dodgers farm system was ranked 23rd last year. It seems that info is rubber and elastic and can change quickly. The way that all the prospect expert people on here talk, it seems like it has recovered. In short, I am not worried about the Dodgers or their future all that much. They have a good young team and will be competitive for a long while with that, plus these great arms in their systems will serve them somehow. I won’t bash McCourt until he disesembles this current team with cheapness. If he does that, than fuck him. But I will give him the benifit until then.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 9:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I also don't look at the lack or small bonus signing money as all that important.
Maybe I am way off base, but just looking at the number 1 draft signings over the last few years, alot of them don’t make it to the big leagues, and the ones that do, very few of them become stars. I like how Logan White just kind of makes good picks with what he has. He seems to populate the farm system with good young talent without having to overspend.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Studies have shown
that big money (high draft picks) have a huge advantage over the rest of the draft when it comes to success. You may not think that is the case with the Dodgers but without Kershaw just how impressive would our core be? Kemp is the only above average position player we have who we drafted that wasn’t a top line draft pick.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of the players on the team now
were not high draft picks. Even Loney and Bills were late first round guys so their bonuses wouldn’t be that big compared to the first 10 picks, right? Without Kershaw, it is weakened, but I still like the team without him. Part of it for me, is that I am not ready ot give up on Loney and Martin yet. I think they are still developing.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just wanted to add, that I like Jamie Hoffmann
and I would like to see him as a top prospect. Also, maybe Frank McCourt fired Jamie McCourt because he had enough of her lavish spending and was like “enough, lady.” Good for him in that case.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Dodgers had so little regard for Jamie Hoffman
they actually released him and only signed him back because no one else in baseball was interested and they all had a crack at him last summer.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well you put him on your listing second after Lucas May.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The list is not a list of prospect status but top down from AAA to Rookie league of players I thought someone might want to see a vote on.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hoffmann is a guy I would like to see voted on.
But it looks like I am the only one, so that is alright. :)
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought that was a "wink wink roster move"
We will release you to make room on the 40 man, you clear waivers, we will resign you to a minor league contract with a nice bonus. Am I remembering that incorrectly?
by MammothDodger on Nov 4, 2009 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They did make a side deal with Hoffman too, that he would be added to the 40-man by sometime in May (I’m not sure how they came up with that date).
by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But he had to clear waivers
that was a gamble by the Dodgers. If they valued him that highly, they would have figured out another way to clear out a 40 man spot. Like DFA’ing Repko.
by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If he had not cleared waivers, couldn't the dodgers have just pulled him back?
then do something like DFAing Repko? Thus not really that much risk of losing Hoffman?
by MammothDodger on Nov 4, 2009 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
he was designated for assignment. The type of waiver is a release waiver. If someone claimed him, the Dodgers could have worked out a trade with that club or just let him go. There was no option to pull him back.
by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why wouldn’t they do it the way Mammoth Dodger is describing? That’s how it happens at the end of the year after the trade deadline. I assume there is some rule which deals with service time but I’m unclear on this point.
by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They needed the 40-man spot. Designating him for assignment immediately removes Hoffmann from that roster spot, and gives them 10 days to trade or release him.
by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If a team claims a DFA, do they have to put that player on to their 40-man roster?
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Nov 4, 2009 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hoffmann was DFAed in the first week in September, right after most teams had completed their call-ups and activated players like Eye Chart off the 60-day DL. I wonder how many teams had room on their 40-man at that point to make a claim.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Nov 4, 2009 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
that might have been part of the gamble
by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I supposed a team could DFA a guy on their own 40-man if they liked Hoffman better, or maybe the timing doesn’t work out for that kind of move.
But yeah, that was my point, maybe a week into September is a lower-risk time to sneak a minor-leaguer through a DFA.
Still, everyone passed, which isn’t a feather in Hoffman’s prospect cap.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Nov 4, 2009 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just a brief example
in 2002 Prince Fielder was the number three pick and Loney was the number 19. I’d say with 100 certainty that Prince Fielder has played like a number 3 pick. Loney has actually done better then you would expect for a number 19 pick, and not one single 1st baseman after the 19 pick is worth mentioning.
The only thing Martin is developing into is a non tender candidate by next season.
I’m not ready to give up on anyone, but your comment that high bonus prospects don’t pan out is just false. Studies have been done, there is a reason players are drafted in the top 10. They may not pan out but the % is very low compared to the %of players drafted after the 10th pick.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
I didn’t say that high bomus guys 100% don’t pan out. A lot of them don’t though. So what my point is that I would rather have a strong all around draft than one really good pick. I would rather have that one really good pick, if it is say a Prince Fielder or Ryan Howard.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I"d rather
have a top 10 pick every year then take a chance on having my scouting director by smarter then everyone else.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If it weren’t for the losing that would have to come with those top 10 picks, I agree :)
by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
just saying all things being equal I’d rather have one great pick then 10 mediocre ones.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just think there are a lot of great "one" picks out there
to be had in a lot of rounds. I would rather have the good scouting director who builds franchise stability throughout. I see the first round as sort of taking a chance with a lot of money. I doubt a Clayton Kershaw caliber player will materialize with any kind of consistency.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can see your point.
But I still like the idea of having a good scouting director draft 5 good picks over that one great pick unless that great pick is for sure. How that is determined, I don’t know. Drafting a superstar will carry the team, but also general strong drafting in late rounds can sustain a team.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Piazza?
Ancient history?
Too painful to remember?
by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he means of the current organizational roster.
by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that the 23rd ranking is misleading.
These past two drafts have been very good, with a lot of players coming from later rounds to establish themselves as legit prospects.
This coming year as more of those guys get to higher levels, our system will be rated much higher.
by pdotmac1 on Nov 4, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
The 2008 draft was fantastic and will be thought of in the same terms as 2002-03 in a few years. These guys just aren’t ready yet.
by silverwidow on Nov 4, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
my point of view
prepare yourself to say goodbye at least to withrow elbert and gordon. we are going after halladay maybe not at that price but its going to happen.
joe torre’s final season
manny’s final season
andre’s prime time
the bison’s prime time
kershaw and bills (healty i hope)
loney breakout (better be in the gym)
you know ned is going after halladay.
by hirambocachica on Nov 4, 2009 10:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
No way
Ned has pubicly balked at Halladay’s salary ($16M) during an interview around the trade deadline. He won’t be sending elite talent if we have to pay that.
by silverwidow on Nov 4, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Frank is a lame duck owner
we have no idea which way he will roll.
1. Sell the farm system for a final run at the WS
2. Remove salary to make the team more attractive
3. Stay the status quo
It could go any direction.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My pick is number 3.
That or he sells the team to someone who can better afford it and knows how much of a money pot this team is.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it would less attractive to sell off players if
the team is for sale. This is the Dodgers being sold mind you, and not the Padres or some other small market team.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you mean sell off the farm or remove salary from the major league roster?
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ned is going to be straight out of Lowcash
Think of the best starter available. Ok now think of the next 3 or four guys. Now think of the guy that is half as good as them. Now think of the guy that is half as good as him. Start looking there.
by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I found a bullet wound in the leg.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Nov 4, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I mean in both cases.
The Dodgers still have some good young talent under contract for a while at a low price. They are a good team with a future, and salary controlled players both at the big league level and in the minors. They would be an attractive buy, I think.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 10:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I doubt the enterprise value of the Dodgers
factors in talent level of the club, salaries, that sort of thing. The valuation will likely revolve around market share (good) and earnings (will be excellent in a few years.) I realize that earnings would be impacted by talent level and signings, but the fuzzier is murky when dealing with professional athletics. The Cubs are managed horribly but the club is incredibly valuable.
Besides, you would expect an owner would be looking at this being a longer term investment than the current team/farm system. The life span of any player should be much shorter than the life span of the owner.
by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that is a good point.
With the investements the McCourts put into the Stadium and Spring complex, plus the Los Angeles market, the legacy and teh fact that the team will be good, cheap and marketable, I think a lot of people would jump at the chance.
One thing though, if a guy like Mark Cuban were to buy the team, how would that impact the NBA and the Lakers/Mavericks? Is their some kind of conflict of interest at all, I wonder?
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure about jump at
remember we had no buyers for the team until McCourt showed up and that was when the team was “only” worth 450-550 Million. Now if he needs to sell the team for $800 Million who is going to step upto that plate? I mean if you wanted the Dodgers and you had billion dollars wouldn’t you have bought the team four years ago? How many new billionaires have serviced since the downturn?
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the team has gone up in value
in all aspects of the franchise. McCourt has refrubished the Stadium, bought a much more viable spring complex, and has developed a good young team. I would think that there are some smart investors or a group out there who would have the forsight to see how much the club is goign to keep gaining. The only thing left would be for them to eventually secure their own network.
by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rotojunkie chimes in with a Top 15 list
Los Angeles (NL)
1 Dee (Devaris) Gordon SS 21 A-Lo
2 Chris Withrow SP 20 A-Hi/AA
3 Ethan Martin SP 20 A-Lo
4 Andrew Lambo OF 21 AA
5 Trayvon Robinson OF 22 A-Hi/AA
6 Kyle Russell OF 23 A-Lo
7 Josh Lindblom RP 22 AA/AAA
8 Pedro Baez 3B 21 A-Hi
9 Nathan Eovaldi SP 19 A-Lo
10 Scott Elbert RP 24 AA/AAA/Maj
11 Xavier Paul OF 24 AAA/Maj
12 Ivan DeJesus, Jr. SS 22 R
13 Scott Van Slyke OF 23 A-Hi/AAA
14 Jerry Sands OF 22 R/A-Lo
15 Steven Caseres 1B 22 A-Hi
TBLA’s is far, far better….
by silverwidow on Nov 4, 2009 3:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Look at Kyle Russel on that list.
He is definitely the toughest guy to slot.
by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Elbert 10th is bullshit
Baez 8th is terrible, Dejesus 12th is just discounting him cause he missed this season.
Jeez.
by Ivdown on Nov 4, 2009 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on True Blue LA
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.
