Categorized | Mark Timmons

Dodger’s Minor League Free Agents

Dodger’s Minor League Free Agents

It turns out that the Dodgers have 34 minor league free agents, which is more than any other team.  What does that mean?  Does it mean that our farm system is depleted?  Well, weGregMiller did trade away a few prospects (Santana, Bell, Johnson, Young, LaRoche, Meloan, et al), but the biggest culprit of why we have so many older “career minor leaguers” is simply our success.  In a 2 or 3 year period of time, we had so many players graduate from the farm to the big club that we needed a few “placeholders” – guys like Chick, Choi, Strickland, Maza, Luna and Brown.  Just think about it.  We have promoted Martin, Kemp, Ethier, Loney, DeWitt, Billingsley, Broxton, Kershaw, Troncoso, Kuo and others.  I don’t think the farms is gutted – it’s just that we have a lot of lower level prospects, who will start moving up next year.  Anyway, here’s the list (below), and we will lose some of these guys, but some will be back.  Frankly, I can’t see any occupying a roster spot.  It may mean Goodbye to Greg Miller.  Maybe he needs a new start and with his “live” arm, someone will give him a shot.

RHP:

  • Carlos Alvarado (AAA)
  • Kendy Batista (AA)
  • Henry Bonilla (AAA)
  • Travis Chick (AA)
  • Hyang-Nam Choi (AAA)
  • Tim Corcoran (AAA)
  • Nick DeBarr (AAA)
  • Joselo Diaz (AAA
  •  J.D. Durbin (AAA)
  • Francisco Felix (AAA)
  • Harvey Garcia (AA)
  • Dwayne Pollok (AAA)
  • Jordan Pratt (Lo A)
  • Zach Schreiber (AA)
  • Scott Strickland (AAA)

LHP:

  • Marlon Arias (AAA)
  • Greg Miller (Hi A)
  • Erick Threets (AAA)
  • Joe Torres (Hi A)

C:

  • Danny Ardoin (AAA)
  • J.D. Closser (AAA)
  • Gabriel Gutierrez (AA)
  • Mike Rose (AAA)

1B:

  • Brett Harper (AAA)
  • Gaby Martinez (AA)
  • Vinny Rottino (AA)

2B:

  • Sergio Garcia (AAA)
  • Juan Gonzalez (AA)
  • Luis Maza (AAA)
  • Ramon Nivar (AA)

3B:

  •  Hector Luna (AAA)

OF:

  • Dee Brown (AAA)
  • Andres Perez (Hi A)
  • James Tomlin (AA)

About Mark Timmons

When you see the invisible, you can do the impossible!

19 Responses to “Dodger’s Minor League Free Agents”

  1. Ken says:

    Ask and you shall receive!

    Do you know which of the younger kids need to be added to the 40-man roster in order to not be made available in the Rule 5 draft?

  2. lawdog says:

    On the other thread I did read Ken’s post too fast. I guess the ball is in Frank’s court. Will he respond to Jamie’s challenge? Will he counter her assertion that she was responsible for the club’s success with a knee jerk denial and claim that it was his efforts that turned the Dogs into what they’ve become since 2004?

    If he takes the bait he’ll have screwed himself. If he’s smart he’ll say neither of them turned the Dogs into what they are but instead attribute all the credit to Ned and Fred! That’s the ticket! He should argue they are both nothing but big turd blossoms that fell into a fortune–the credit going to the well oiled machine that basically runs itself.

    In 2004 I would think real estate looked like a better investment at the value set at that date than a mediocre ball club in a great market which you had to mortgage up the wazoo to buy at it’s market value of approximately $375 million on that date leaving yourself highly leveraged when it came to cash flow when your required outlay for overhead is so cash unfriendly. There was much greater chance that Frank would not be able to make the balloon payments to Fox or pay the salaries of players like Manny and Andruw despite the fact that such payments would have to be forthcoming when due or the team would be lost. Talk about high stress! No wonder that marriage broke up!

    Real Estate, in 2004, looked like it would continue to appreciate at outrageous rates every year because that’s what has happened every year since the 1950s.

    Unless Frank’s lawyers are dumb enough to walk into the trap set by Jamie’s Beans as explained by Ken, I don’t think the trial judge will give Jamie a second bite at the apple. No heads I win tails you lose. If you sleep with dogs you’re going to get fleas. If you make a bet based on misreading of the different markets futures, the judge won’t let you crawfish the bet afterwards. Not when your an attorney.

  3. lawdog says:

    Ken, you have gotten me totally intrigued in this now. If you apply Van Camp to the increase in value of the Dodgers after 2004, then Frank will most likely argue that Jamie’s contribution to his separate property asset was at least comparable to his own in terms of valuation of the community interest in the asset of each in the form of the value of their labor as a community asset. He’ll argue he was just a dumb old boy–maybe try comparing his “work” for the club to that of Dubya Bush when he owned the Rangers which basically appreciated through no efforts on his part and at the same time argue that she did a lot for team for which the community ned be reimbursed.

    But didn’t both of them receive salaries for their “community labor” on behalf of the asset in the form of salaries, bonuses, etc.? If so, then the value of the CP in the form of labor would already be paid and used by the community as living expenses.

    What was the holding in Gilmore? I have forgotten the holding in that case. It would seem like Frank’s actual “community labor” in the Dodgers would be akin to a car dealer’s “community labor” for his SP dealership where he basically did nothing but collect money and write checks. But again, in our case of Frankie v. Jamie, they both worked for the Dogs after 2004 and were each paid big bucks which were then spent by the community.

    Could the single act of hiring the right people after 2004 (Ned and all the right Freds) be considered a community act which was worth 300 million? I don’t see how–and I think Jamie will be out of luck under the Van Camp method.

    Seems like Jamie would want Beans to argue the appreciation of the value of the team should be valued using the Pereira method and that Frank should just get the value of the Dodgers in 2004 when the post nuptial was executed, plus reasonable interest (whatever that would be) and rest of the difference when that total is subtracted from the present value of the team should be considered community property.

    I still think the Judge will rule that they each acquired specific assets which were of substantially equal value at the time and both the property she received and both were expected to appreciate. Her portion probably was expected to appreciate faster than Fred’s in 3004 because of the real estate boom she was riding and the horrible way Frank was leveraged by being virtually “unliquid” and having huge overhead obligations. It would certainly seem like he was assuming the great risk at that time in that there was an actual possibility that he might lose his shirt on the team if he couldn’t make payroll or pay the $25 million dollar installments to Fox when they came due the possibility of losing his shirt. Egad! Think of what the contracts of Schmidt and Jones must have done to the state of their marital bliss? The Manny problem was huge too. He got him for nothing as a rent a player who then became so popular he had to give him that huge contract just to keep the fans from hating him and not showing up at the gate.

    I think Frank should win on this, the main issue. But if he does he’ll probably get whacked with a huge alimony award. And in any event, this will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court and make new law.

  4. Ken says:

    Adding to Badger’s post excepted from Dodger Divorce

    “When Frank ultimately refused to sign the post-nup, he knew he was going down a path which would likely lead to divorce. If his motivations were purely financial–that is, he realized that Jamie was screwed and this was the right time to cash out of the marriage–he sure comes off as greedy. But I’m not willing to dismiss the possibility that the marriage was broken already, and Frank just made a wise business decision to enforce the agreement Jamie had wanted in the first place.”

  5. Badger says:

    I know this from experience, both in the military and in divorce court – anyone who goes into battle with a reinforced enemy never comes out stronger. Even the victor pays an extreme price.

    Whoever wins this is going to be weakened financially. That’s just a fact. How can the Dodgers be better off no matter what happens?

    I still say unless there is a money partner brought on, there will be some serious losses within this organization. The next 3 years could be lean. We will win some games with our current group of affordable players, but the team’s make-up will change. In today’s game you cannot go from $118 million payroll to a $75 million payroll and expect to improve.

    “Real Estate, in 2004, looked like it would continue to appreciate at outrageous rates every year because that’s what has happened every year since the 1950s.”

    I have to disagree with you here ldog. Real estate, especially in California, was rising on an unsustainable bubble. You cannot expect 15-20% increases to continue. All you have to do is read history and know periodic adjustments must be seen. People in real estate, my brother-in-law being one of them (we had lengthy discussions on this issue before the crash) were just fooling themselves. Real estate is just a portion of the value of a ML franchise. Professional sports is like an addiction. People need their release from day to day stresses and they find it at the ballpark. I knew the Dodgers would continue to draw during the recession and I was right – they did. I still say that no matter what happens, they will draw 3 million again. And there are 21 other franchises out there that would love to be able to say that.

    But again, unless there is a Mark Cuban in the Dodgers immediate future, there will be no championship in Los Angeles for the next few years.

  6. Blue Haze says:

    Let’s hope a judge can come to a decision on this quicker than Obama can make a decision on sending needed to troops to his Afghanistan War. How is that Hope and Change working out for ya?

  7. Badger says:

    “his Afghanistan War”

    There you go again. You make asinine statements like that and you expect them to just fly by? How long has the United States been in Afghanistan?

    Hope and Change? Well, I still have hope. And any change from where we being driven is a good one.

    And FYI, it isn’t the judge that will drag this think out. The judge won’t make any decision until both sides rest. Then the decision will be immediate. How long will that take? That is what many have been asking since this started.

  8. lawdog says:

    Egad! I can’t believe the number of typos in my midnight posts. Remind me not to do that without the benefit of an edit button. Most of the errors (like typing 3004 when I meant 2004) are of the type that I’m sure those who are actually interested can figure out what I was trying to say–so I won’t try to say it again. I was just running through the different ways California used to value separate property assets that have appreciated at least in part by the “labor” of one or both parties for which the community must be be compensated. I think Frank comes out a winner here but will pay for it in the end in the form of spousal support.

    And Badge, the fact you and I knew the Dogs were an investment that would appreciate in a depression while real property–particularly the kind owned by high rollers would likely depreciate to the point that the owners of most of the high dollar property would end up under water on their mortgages when the economy went into freefall isn’t the issue. The question is–was the division fair to Jamie when she entered into the bargain? If she was represented (she was–by herself) then even if it wasn’t fair she might well get stuck with it unless it’s downright unconsionable to enforce. If you look to the two markets in 2004 when the two of them entered into the agreement, real property was appreciating like mad and no one expected it to crash like it did in 2009. The ball club, on the other hand , was a team of underachieving, overpaid geezers for the most part in a great market. A mediocre to terrible team in a market that was supporting a team that appeared to be going no where. Fox got fair market value from Frank, but took back two $25 million dollar notes nd his entire parking lkot as security. If my memory serves me, Frank was able to pay the $50 million as it came due–but Fox foreclosed on the parking lots and Rupert took it in the shorts because they were overvalued.

    But, bottom line is when Frank bought the team it wasn’t expected to almost double in value in 5 years. If that was forseeable, Rupert never would have sold it for what he did. So if the real property, art and personal belongings were of substantially the same value as the what the McCourt’s paid for the Dodgers in 2004–for all practical purposes it looked like Jamie ripped Frank a new one.

    Who knew real estate would tank and the Dogs would double in value by 2009?

    And whouldda thought Frank would have been able to pull this off when he was virtually bankrupt in terms of liquidity, had huge balloons due to Fox and goes out and signs Schmidt, Nomah, Andruw and Manny to huge back loaded deals-and manages to play both ends against the middle and produce a team almost good enough to compete with the Phils and the Yanks two years running?

    In retrospect–I can’t believe he managed to pull it off and I can’t believe Ned survived the Andruw Jones fiasco.

  9. lawdog says:

    Haze–do you really want to expand the political argument here beyond the little joke I made in conjunction with Ken’s remark that my smiley face looked like he might be suffering from high blood pressure? I’m game as I’m sure Badger is as well, but Mover will throw us off the board faster than you can say “Jack Robinson”.

    Remember Obama inherited the terrible economy and the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anybody with half a brain is going to pause and take stock of what the right thing to do actually is at this point in those countries before needlessly wasting more American lives and treasure in wars botched by President Cheney and his side kick Dubya.

  10. Ken says:

    Groundhog Day

    Do you know which of the younger kids need to be added to the 40-man roster in order to not be made available in the Rule 5 draft?

  11. Slo Dawg says:

    Blue Haze:

    Keep the change!

  12. lawdog says:

    WHOOOA! Ken, didn’t somebody already ask that very same question???

    RULE 5–MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL

    Players are eligible for selection in the Rule 5 draft who are not on their major league organization’s forty man roster and:

    - were signed at age 19 or older and have been in the organization for four years; or
    - were signed at age 18 or younger and have been in the organization for five years.

    The exemption periods were extended by one year in October 2006 as part of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. The change took effect immediately, exempting many players from the 2006 Rule 5 draft even though they had been signed in some cases more than four years before the new agreement came into effect. Prior to the rule change, players were exempt from the first two or three Rule 5 drafts held after their signing (regardless of the year they were drafted), rather than from the first three or four Rule 5 drafts after their signing.

    Cost and example

    To prevent excessive turnover in the minor league levels, each draftee costs $50,000. If the draftee does not stay on the selecting team’s 25-man (major league) roster all season, the player must be offered back to his original team at half-price. Organizations may also draft players from AA or lower to play for their AAA affiliates (for $12,000) and may draft players from A teams or lower to play for their AA affiliates (for $4,000).

    The Rule 5 draft has opened opportunities for teams to take other teams’ top prospects who may not be ready for the major leagues.

    A prominent recent example is Johan Santana, who was chosen in the 1999 Rule 5 draft by the Florida Marlins when the Houston Astros declined to put him on their 40-man roster. After the Marlins traded Santana to the Minnesota Twins for minor leaguer Jared Camp, the Twins kept him on their roster for the 2000 season, despite the pitcher’s subpar performance that season (6.49 earned run average) which was unsurprising given his youth and inexperience.
    Having kept Santana in the major leagues for all of the 2000 season, the Twins subsequently had the right to option him to their minor league system. By 2002, the more fully developed Santana had returned to the major leagues and established himself as an above-average pitcher. Since 2004, Santana has won two Cy Young awards. Had he not been chosen in the Rule 5 draft, Santana likely would not have made his major league debut until the 2001 or the 2002 season with the Astros.

  13. lawdog says:

    Now you just have to take the list the Dog’s minor league link and check each player’s profile to see who is likely to get grabbed away from us.

  14. Mark Timmons says:

    That’s why I haven’t posted it. One of you retired guys need to do it.

    I’m running two companies and doing a bad job of it, and writing a book. I need to hire a GM for my Indy Dealership. I am looking for THAT guy. This is too crazy!

    Hey, it’s my birthday – Drink a beer for me and I’ll drink one for each of you! ;)

  15. Mark Timmons says:

    I raced my brother today (he’s 9 years younger) and I beat him!

    Well, he didn’t actually run (said he wasn’t going to race someone who just had his hip replaced), but he was just sacred! I know it!

    ;)

  16. lawdog says:

    Happy Birthday <Mark! This Molsen Ice is for you! ;)

  17. Badger says:

    Yep, Happy Birthday mover.

    I see that Lambo and Josh Bell have the same BA in the AFL. Bell did fine at AA last year so he just might be ready to make the move up. I wish him well. Lambo? Where will he end up next year? I know where I want him the year after next.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading