Bye Bye Abreu? Dodger Prospect Performances and Minor League Box Scores - Aug 31st, 2009
by Phil Gurnee on Sep 1, 2009 8:37 AM PDT
66 comments
If Tony Abreu is indeed the player to be name later Ned will have shown a tendency to do one thing. Trade highly rated switch hitting prospects. In twelve months Ned will have dealt Carlos Santana, Josh Bell, and now Tony Abreu. The skill level drops a bit with each player but it is clear that Ned has little interest in switch hitting prospects. Trayvon Robinson watch your back.........
Ned continues to hit and miss during these trading periods. Greg Maddux was not worth Mr. Watt last summer, Casey Blake was not worth Carlos Santana, Manny was definitely worth LaRoche and Morris. This year Belliard is probably worth Garcia, and Thome is the steal of the waiver wire deal, but I find it doubtful that Garland will be worth Abreu. In my own opinion Tony Abreu has the capability of being Orlando Hudson at a fraction of the cost over the next several years. If this deal had been made in June and the rotation needed a lift, then maybe I sing a different tune but in Sept with a 5 1/2 game lead this is expensive insurance. With options like Haeger, Padilla, Elbert, Stults and McDonald able to flesh out the rotation over the final month who really cares about the fifth spot since that is all Garland is? If everyone is healthy the odds are high he won't even be on the postseason roster.
Unlike Eric I don't think Minky is now a lock for the postseason roster. He can still only pinch hit and Torre was only considering him because they had no other left handed presence. With Thome that changes and he will probably find someone else to take that spot. JMO
Negating the sting of the Garland deal is the arrival of Jim Thome who has been one of my favorite players since he arrived as a lousy fielding 3rd baseman with the Indians. Those Indians with Manny, Baerga, and Albert Belle were big favorites of mine so it is awesome to have Manny and Thome on the same team again. Wouldn't it be cool if those two could get the World Championship they were denied when Jose Mesa imploaded on them.
Check out the Dodger Draft Scorecard.
Don't forget to check out the latest from Jon Chapper
Aug 13th - Jon Chapper Dodger Minor League Report
Dodger Minor League Pride Awards for July
Jon Chapper Minor League Report
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kensai Minor League Reports:
August 20-Down on the Farm - Dominican Dreaming
August 19-Down on the farm, Arizona Heat
August 14-Down on the farm, Rookies Galore
August 12-Low A
August 11-High A
August 10-Double A
August 7-Triple A
July 25-Rookie
Kensai Player Profiles:
August 13-Geison Aguasviva
August 10-Jesus Castillo
August 5-Steven Caseres
August 17-Prospect Profiles - Danny Danielson
August 20-Prospect Profiles - Chris Jacobs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid Season Prospect Ranking - True Blue LA
Mid Season Dodger Prospect Ranking from Kensai/Canuck/Phil
- First Inning link to the Daily Boxscores
- Minor League Splits provides a daily recap of the top prospects in baseball along with the top performances
- Minor League Splits provides Top Dodger Minor League Performances and Box Scores. Sometimes this link is not updated until 11:00 with the previous nights box score.
Check out these links and let us know what you think. From the above links you can see the daily Dodger minor league box scores, a recap of the best Dodger performances, and a recap of all of baseballs top prospect performances, along with a recap of simply the best minor league performances even if they aren't considered prospects. The Hector Luna performances if you will.
From the First Inning site you can check out the leaderboards for each league including advanced statistics like wOBA and FIP. From the minor league split web site you can click on the player link and check every which way they are doing.
0 recs |
66 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I have since backed off my MIentkiewicz stance. It would take an injury for him to make it now. The postseason bench appears set:
C Ausmus RHB
OF Pierre LHB
PH Thome LHB
SS Castro RHB
IF Belliard RHB
IF Loretta RHB
Then they can carry 11 pitchers.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 1, 2009 9:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i can see loretta coming in for defense after a thome AB
but i don’t see many ABs for loretta
by stillnotah8er on Sep 1, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'd just move Blake to first, an dhave Castro or Belliard to play 3rd.
Or have Belliard play 3rd.
by Tripon on Sep 1, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might disagree on the Blake trade
Though I know nothing of the financials involved, I rate CB’s contribution to the team quite highly. I think he has been nothing less than fantastic.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6310/gamelog;_ylt=At4mpAJtIBUiRKTC5CGbBT.FCLcF
It looks like at no point in the season has he had 10 ABs in a row with neither a run nor a hit. That kind of consistency is rare.
by stillnotah8er on Sep 1, 2009 9:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
well that's this year
we gave up santana for the last 2 months of blake’s contract. he resigned with us in the offseason — we could have waited those 2 months, kept santana, and still signed blake as a FA… baffling.
by whorge on Sep 1, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2009 has nothing to do with 2008
And adding Casey Blake in 2008 had nothing to do with him other then the Dodgers would not pay his remaining contract. Thus Santana. It looks to be the same deal with Garland. Short term thinking which will hurt in the long run. Another chip is gone who might have been part of a bigger package for a bigger fish. Dont’ get me wrong on Blake, I’m glad we added him last year, just not happy we choose to be cheap about it.
Instead of rentals of Maddux, Blake, and Garland just think what a package of Santana, Watt, and Abreu would bring this winter. It surely would have netted us Cliff Lee this summer if we had had two of those three players.
by meercatjohn on Sep 1, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think it changes if if we had a different GM?
Where we wouldn’t be willing to offer good prospects in exchange for rentals on Maddux, Blake, and Garland?
by Tripon on Sep 1, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so
Maybe a different GM brings in different players but in the end this seems to be about costs. It appears that we will not pay anyone’s contract so prospects are sold so that we can acquire the player without paying the contract. This has to be Ned working under a specified budget. Funny how the cash strapped Diamondbacks will throw in money to acquire a prospect while the Dodgers are the team selling prospects for contracts.
Will not so funny to me.
People who say we shouldn’t be complaining because Ned is building a deep team don’t understand the complaint. It is not about getting those players but it is about Frank being cheap. I’d rather have the players, have Frank spend some money and then use those prospects as chips in acquiring real players like Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay, and others of that ilk. By themselves they are not enough, put them together and it is a decent package.
by meercatjohn on Sep 1, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the odd part is that we lopped off $20 million from the payroll in 2009
And we still are asking teams to pay for contracts in exchange for better prospects.
We’re also carrying significant deferred payments to Manny, Schimdt, Andruw Jones, so we can expect the same thing next year, and beyond.
by Tripon on Sep 1, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe a different GM realizes they aren't necessary and
they could package all those prospects for a real impact player.
by kensai on Sep 1, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Santana/Watt/Abreu/Bell
Sounds like a big enough package to get a significant piece. :o
by kensai on Sep 1, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
High praise for Abreau
Guy is nothing more than a utility player…..if he goes to the D-Backs, he becomes the next Auggie Ojeda….no great lose here….
by Dodgerfan 34 on Sep 1, 2009 11:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I expect last year at this time
you probably thought Santana was no big deal either. Now he’s the 2nd best catching prospect in baseball.
by meercatjohn on Sep 1, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I like Santana and they should have kept him around considering the Dodgers are thin at catcher. But thanks for trying to read my mind! 0-1 but a nice try non the less.
by Dodgerfan 34 on Sep 1, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your right
I shouldn’t have tried to read your mind or group you in with the same usual suspects. SInce we differ so much on so many issues I just figured that since I liked Santana as much as any prospect last year that you didn’t.
by meercatjohn on Sep 1, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Santana is a very good catching prospect and the fact that the Indians dealt Victor M to have Santana take his spot, says alot about him. It is sad that sometimes that Ned is short sighted with the prospects.
by Dodgerfan 34 on Sep 1, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We differ on opinion
on Abreu but you could be right or you could be wrong. The Diamondbacks thought enough of him that they kicked in 3.6 Million to have him on their team. Not bad for a team who is having financial problems.
by meercatjohn on Sep 1, 2009 11:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cross posting, but the PTBNL in the Garland trade is confirmed to be Tony.
In return, the White Sox will receive Minor League infielder Justin Fuller. The D-backs will receive a player to be named, who, according to several Dodgers, will be Tony Abreu, but Abreu needs to first clear waivers. Abreu once was considered a top infield prospect, but his progress was stalled by three years of injuries.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090901&content_id=6726228&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
by Tripon on Sep 1, 2009 11:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That doesn’t mean confirmed, BTW. Its still highly likely, but not confirmed.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 1, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
D-Backs judgment
The D-Backs also gave a fat contract to Eric Brynes, depleted their farm system for Haren, overspent for Jose Lopez and still have hope the Chris Young can reutrn to form (whatever that is). so I wouldn’t put to much stock into the fact they love Abreu.
by Dodgerfan 34 on Sep 1, 2009 11:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You think the deal for Haren was a bad deal?
This is where we differ big time. I’m all for trading prospects for impact players and Dan Haren is an impact player with an excellent contract.
by meercatjohn on Sep 1, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's noise that the D'Backs will trade Haren if they don't contend.
The Haren trade was a ‘win now’ move, but if their window already closed, then he doesn’t do much.
by Tripon on Sep 1, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love Dan Haren but the problem I have with the Haren deal, was how much the D-Backs gave up for him. Then when it comes time to (1) make deals to improve the team (2) look for players to fill key roles and (3) Overall orginizational depth, there was none to find. Haren is fine but the D-backs gave up plent of prospects for him and put their development back for at least 2-3 years. good for Dodger fan, bad for D-Backs orginization.
by Dodgerfan 34 on Sep 1, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By that logic
The Dodgers have done loads of stupid shit. So why should we put stock into what the Dodgers think of Abreu? Because Ned Colletti is so great at making those minor league trades?
by kensai on Sep 1, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, the Angels Sean Rodriguez is the PTBNL in the Scott Kazmir deal.
by Tripon on Sep 1, 2009 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
DuranLART @SPTimesRays INF Sean Rodriguez is #Rays player to be named later in Kazmir deal, details on tampabay.com4 minutes ago from twidroid
by Tripon on Sep 1, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
becomes quite a haul for Kazmir.
Still sucks from an emotional standpoint for fans.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 1, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why did you say Jordan Walden a few days ago?
by silverwidow on Sep 1, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because that was what Haloheaven reported.
by Tripon on Sep 1, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’ll say anything on the teleprompter :)
by Eric Stephen on Sep 1, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
chris withroww!!!
starting today for the lookouts at 4:00!!!
facing a loaded jacksonville team with 2 top 30 prospects and a top 100 prospect…
mike Stanton Top 3 prospect… logan morrison Top 30.. Matt dominguez.. top 100…
by matthewmafa on Sep 1, 2009 3:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Should be a great test
They say Stanton has incredible power.
by meercatjohn on Sep 1, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A loaded Jacksonville team.
Sounds familiar… :)
by Eric Stephen on Sep 1, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1 inning 1 hit 0 runs 1 walk 2 Ks
first batter.. single up the middle
2nd batter: walked on 5 pitches
3rd batter: logan morrison: struck him out on 3 pitches.. strike 3 was a curveball at his knees and in…
4th batter: MIke STanton: popped him up to the first basmen on the 2nd pitch on a fastball in at the hands
5th batter: strike 3 fastball down the middle…
announcer says hes throwing 94-95..
by matthewmafa on Sep 1, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 innings 2 hits 0 runs 2 walks 3 Ks
he walked dominguez on 4 pitches but the announcer thought 2 of 4 balls were strikes and he actually said strike called but then was like o he called it a ball…
by matthewmafa on Sep 1, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1-2-3 3rd inning
3 innings 2 hits 0 runs 2 walks 4 Ks
got morrison to groundout in his 2nd AB
49 pitches 29 for strikes..
by matthewmafa on Sep 1, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
5 innings 2 hits 3 walks 8 strikeouts
A very good performance against a pretty solid offensive team
by Bluetrek on Sep 1, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno
I definitely agree with the assessment that Ned’s very much a hit or miss guy, but in fairness, I think he’s more “hit” than most people give him credit for. The Thome trade looks like an excellent one, more so than the Garland trade may be a bad one. I do agree, though- if Abreu is the guy to be named later- and who knows, it may be someone even MORE worthwhile- I don’t think he’s worth Garland.
Still, to say that “Tony Abreu has the capability of being Orlando Hudson” at a fraction at the cost is getting WAY ahead of yourself. There are too many prospects with little time at the big league level that are supposed to be the next (fill in the name here), and few of them pan out, let alone reach the level of Orlando Hudson. (Consider that most people think of Loney as somewhat of a disappointment, though he’s probably still lived up to his potential more than 75% of other former prospects who are considered on equal footing.) Then there are other times, you get a guy who is supposed to be “limited” who just breaks out. (It wasn’t all that long ago that Andy LaRoche was a bigger name than Matt Kemp.)
As for Carlos Santana, even for those that have given up on Russell Martin entirely, remember that at the time the trade was made, Russell was just starting what we now know was the beginning of a prolonged decline. And don’t forget how bad the 3rd base situation was before Blake- the last mainstay was Adrian Beltre! Sometimes, you have to give up something to get something, and that’s what the Dodgers did to get Casey, and at least for the moment, they’re better off for it.
And Josh Bell? Well, again- give up something to get something. The Orioles weren’t just going to fork over their closer for nothing. It hurts, but sometimes, it’s worth it. Besides, I’ll take these trades over Clayton or Bills (AND prospects) for Halladay ANY day.
by sarcastro9 on Sep 1, 2009 6:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
we also gave up steve johnson for sherrill
he would be a top 12 prosepct for us
by matthewmafa on Sep 1, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But would you take
Santana/Bell/Steve Johnson/Watt/Abreu for Halladay? Because that is what we could have done. I don’t think saying Abreu can become Hudson is much of a reach. Hudson is barely above average as a 2nd baseman. It is not like he’s any great shake and never has been. He’s a solid 2nd baseman, nothing more, nothing less.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Sep 1, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absofuckinglutely
Or to address more pressing issues, Loney/Santana/Bell/Watt/Johnson for A. Gon or something.
Anything but constant one year rentals for veterans that have minimal impact.
by kensai on Sep 2, 2009 2:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why
Do people associate trading Santana as a necessary component to getting Blake for the next 3 years?
The Dodgers are paying him money to do what he’s doing this year. They offered him one more year and a couple million more than the Twins, that’s the only reason he’s here and not in Minny. We gave up Meloan and Santana for 2 months of Blake in which he sorta hit like shit.
I’m not flipping out over Abreu, but he was a legit contender to fill in that slot. Even if he is a utility guy, what sense was it to give up a cheap utility guy under your control for 5 years for a guy who ranks maybe 5th out of your 10 starters that you have with a month of baseball left to play?
by kensai on Sep 2, 2009 2:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not flipping out over Abreu, but he was a legit contender to fill in that slot. Even if he is a utility guy, what sense was it to give up a cheap utility guy under your control for 5 years for a guy who ranks maybe 5th out of your 10 starters that you have with a month of baseball left to play?
Agreed. Abreu was too step a price to pay for depth.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 2, 2009 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garland
I am wondering if the plan is to exercise the option on Garland for next year, and let him take over the role of “veteran innings eater” while Wolf is allowed to go elsewhere for a long-term deal. Thus the Dodgers aren’t really looking at this deal as about just September or even the playoffs. We have Kuroda, Bills, and Kershaw returning for 2010, and I said on DT if I had my way Elbert and McDonald would join them in the rotation. I also said there is no way the Dodgers would allow that much youth in the rotation. Yes, I am thinking that Garland is expected to be a Wolf substitute next year.
by CanuckDodger on Sep 2, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Dodgers are getting money to pay for Garland's buyout
No matter what it is.
Besides, if you want an innings eater, you might as well go with Wolf.
by Tripon on Sep 2, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But they can’t sign Wolf for a one-year deal
by Eric Stephen on Sep 2, 2009 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but there should be cheaper options to start.
Eh, I guess I can live with Garland for a year, but eventually guys like Elbert, and McDonald need the chance to start, or they either lose their prospect status, or get traded.
Either guy is young, they’re both going to be 25 next year.
by Tripon on Sep 2, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you; just pointing out a likely organizational thought.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 2, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Take the money, don't buy him out
and then book the cash as additional revenue!
by mwhite06 on Sep 2, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assume if the Dodgers pick up the option, Arizona doesn't put up any of the buyout money
by Tripon on Sep 2, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just wondering...
can the Dodgers decline the option (wink, wink), then he gets the 2.5 mil from Ariz. Then turn around and sign him for 7.5 mil so he gets the 10 mil total?
by MammothDodger on Sep 2, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess. But Arizona would be steamed about it.
by Tripon on Sep 2, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am sure they would
and I just threw it out there as a question. With all the concern with Frank’s money i thought it might be relevant.
From my perspective, I hope the Dodgers keep Garland or else the trade of Abreu was too steep to pay for a month+ rental. I think a rotation of Bills, Kershaw, Wolf, Padilla and Garland would not be the worst of all outcomes for next season. Use some of the 16 mil from Schmidt to keep them all. But sign none of the older guys for more than 2 years and if they do not like it they can walk.
by MammothDodger on Sep 2, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Short term memory loss
How did I forget about Kuroda.
So a rotation of Bills, Kershaw, Wolf, Kuroda and Garland. better the my previous idea making it, IMO, certainly not the worst of possible outcomes for starters.
by MammothDodger on Sep 2, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s an interesting observation. I guess I had already assumed they would buy out the option, but you are right, bringing him back is a possibility.
I would imagine AZ would kick in the minimum $1 million toward next year’s salary if that were the case; I’ll try to find that out this weekend.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 2, 2009 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 more hits for Hector Luna tonight...
Call him up!
by Bluetrek on Sep 1, 2009 11:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not agreeing with Rosenthal here, but I think the prespective is intresting.
The Diamondbacks quietly added to their pool of young talent with their trades of right-hander Jon Garland and relievers Tony Pena and Jon Rauch.
In fact, the D-Backs might even have acquired the future right side of their infield, obtaining first baseman Brandon Allen for Pena and reportedly getting second baseman Tony Abreu for Garland. The team also added a potential back-of-the-rotation starter, right-hander Kevin Mulvey, for Rauch.
One rival executive, however, says the D-Backs should have gotten more than just Abreu when they agreed to absorb the rest of Garland’s contract. That figure will be between $1.1 million and $3.6 million, depending upon whether the Dodgers exercise their end of Garland’s $10 million mutual option or pay him a buyout.
http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/10011642/Royals-must-rebuild-to-win-a-World-Series
We as fans might think giving Abreu away was too high, but people in the business might be saying that he’s not enough for Garland. Just one of those things.
by Tripon on Sep 2, 2009 10:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind
the person “in the business” is a rival executive. I’m assuming that means an executive for either SF, SD or Colorado. In that lens, of course the executive would want AZ to fleece the Dodgers for more talent.
by mwhite06 on Sep 2, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
