PDA

View Full Version : FYI: LA prospects Edwin Jackson, Greg Miller


JDP
02-09-2004, 09:17 AM
In a dedicated response to trade discussions involving LA:

The number before the name denotes their position amongst the MLB Top 100 Prospects:


#2. Greg Miller- LHP, age: 19

2003:
(A) 21GS: 11-4, 2.49 ERA, 115.2 IP, 103 H, 41 BB, 111 K
(AA) 4GS: 1-1, 1.01 ERA, 26.2 IP, 15 H, 7 BB, 40 K

Miller is a very mature pitcher… as evidenced by his success in the Florida State League (and even briefly into Double A) at the age of just 18! He throws hard for a lefty (90+ mph range) and already has good command of four pitches. He's a very aggressive pitcher that should fill out his 6'5" frame and become not only a workhorse, by an intimidating presence on the mound. It's too late to say he'll move quickly… he's already done it.

#8 Edwin Jackson- RHP , age: 20

2003:
(AA) 27 GS: 7-7, 3.70 ERA, 148.1 IP, 121 H, 53 BB, 157 K
(LAD) 3 GS: 2-1, 2.45 ERA, 22 IP, 17 H, 11 BB, 19 K

Jackson is one of those pitchers that can hit the mid-90's when he doesn't even look like he's trying. He needs to refine his secondary pitches, but he has the arm to succeed. Look for him to be in the LA rotation out of Spring Training. Could be one of the elite starters in the NL in coming years.

Maximo
02-09-2004, 09:59 AM
Now that I've got a little more information on these two guys, it's easy to see why Konerko for Perez and one of these two fellas just won't cut it with the Dodgers.

Thanks for the info.

mantis1212
02-09-2004, 10:04 AM
My heart is still with Thomas, but if one of these guys was included with Mota and Perez, might not be so bad...

SSN721
02-09-2004, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by mantis1212
My heart is still with Thomas, but if one of these guys was included with Mota and Perez, might not be so bad...

Agreed, but only if its decided we absolutely have to lose Thomas. I would rather not see him go.

Deadguy
02-09-2004, 10:44 AM
I doubt the Dodgers would be willing to part with either of these two in a trade for Thomas, which is why a trade of Thomas makes little to no sense at this point.

Thomas' DH status and negative national perception makes him an undervalued commodity. However, at 6 million dollars, he provides the offense of Bagwell, Thome, Giambi, Delgado, etc. at 1/2 to 1/3rd of their salaries, which makes him a very good bargain if he plays 1B 140+ games next season.

Plus from our vantage point, there's really no way to replace his bat at this point, besides replacing him with lesser options in Travis Lee, Karros, or McGriff.

Overall in the trade, we'd probably have to end up spending more money when you combine the salaries of Perez and one of the three above options, while making ourselves less competitive in 2004.

Thomas must be demanding a trade or KW must have an unprofessional hatred for FT for this trade to go down. Otherwise, it just doesn't make any sense.

SEALgep
02-09-2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Deadguy
I doubt the Dodgers would be willing to part with either of these two in a trade for Thomas, which is why a trade of Thomas makes little to no sense at this point.

Thomas' DH status and negative national perception makes him an undervalued commodity. However, at 6 million dollars, he provides the offense of Bagwell, Thome, Giambi, Delgado, etc. at 1/2 to 1/3rd of their salaries, which makes him a very good bargain if he plays 1B 140+ games next season.

Plus from our vantage point, there's really no way to replace his bat at this point, besides replacing him with lesser options in Travis Lee, Karros, or McGriff.

Overall in the trade, we'd probably have to end up spending more money when you combine the salaries of Perez and one of the three above options, while making ourselves less competitive in 2004.

Thomas must be demanding a trade or KW must have an unprofessional hatred for FT for this trade to go down. Otherwise, it just doesn't make any sense.

The problem is that there is too much speculation and not enough facts. KW wants to win, and any personal dilemma with Frank is going to be overlooked because of his production. Although I feel we have a competitive team, we do have some holes, particularly with pitching. However, if they aren't going to give one of these prized pitchers, than the deal simply doesn't happen. KW, from what I gathered, has made it clear. If one of them is part of the deal, in addition to Perez- I'd be inclined to give it serious thought.

TaylorStSox
02-09-2004, 01:22 PM
Miller's K/BB ratio is unreal for an 18 year old.

jabrch
02-09-2004, 01:28 PM
I'll stand by my earlier thoughts.

If we know we can't resign Magglio, I'd ship him to LA for one of these two, along with Mota and Perez.

rahulsekhar
02-09-2004, 04:17 PM
From what they've said, I don't know that they'd give that up. Especialy for Maggs that IMO they won't be able to resign (my guess is he'll want to come back to the AL and to a park where he can put up better #s).

But I'd demand Perez, Mota, Jackson/Miller, and their CF prospect, who's supposed to be very good.

soxwon
02-09-2004, 04:46 PM
if we trade thomas for pitching great, but who replaces him offensively?
are we gonna get a name hitter then?
a carlos lee-maggs-crede offense sounds dismal
some talk of gettin mcgriff to dh? is he any good anymore?

Rex Hudler
02-09-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by soxwon
if we trade thomas for pitching great, but who replaces him offensively?
are we gonna get a name hitter then?
a carlos lee-maggs-crede offense sounds dismal
some talk of gettin mcgriff to dh? is he any good anymore?

Lee and Maggs can hit 30 HR. Konerko, Crede, Valentin are good for 20+. Rowand will add 10-15. Did I forget anyone?

That's enough power. Frank's production would not be replaced. It would be absorbed by several different players.

jabrch
02-09-2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Lee and Maggs can hit 30 HR. Konerko, Crede, Valentin are good for 20+. Rowand will add 10-15. Did I forget anyone?

That's enough power. Frank's production would not be replaced. It would be absorbed by several different players.


Frank's production would neither be replaced nor absorbed. It would be CLEARLY MISSED.

That said, if the right deal is out there that would be a near-sure thing to make us competitive again in the future, I'd have to consider it.

Randar68
02-09-2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Lee and Maggs can hit 30 HR. Konerko, Crede, Valentin are good for 20+. Rowand will add 10-15. Did I forget anyone?

That's enough power. Frank's production would not be replaced. It would be absorbed by several different players.

And who is going to be on base?

The intangible that Frank brings that not even a top-of-his-game-Maggs can bring is his ability to work counts and get on base. Without him, we're a lineup of no-walk strike-out artists.

It's a bigger hole that it would appear by just looking at his power and average #'s.

Rex Hudler
02-09-2004, 05:08 PM
I don't remember the whole story, so perhaps someone can help me out here.

Miller somehow graduated from HS early. He was pitching in the Minors when he should have still been playing in high school. He won't turn 20 until November, so he will play this entire upcoming season at 19.

I wish I could have seen him last year.

Rex Hudler
02-09-2004, 05:10 PM
Frank's production would neither be replaced nor absorbed. It would be CLEARLY MISSED.

That's what Seattle thought when they lost Griffey.... and when they lost ARod....

maurice
02-09-2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Frank's production would not be replaced. It would be absorbed by several different players.

The players you name will not become more productive because Frank is removed from the team. In fact, some of those players will do worse without Frank's protection in the lineup. Beside, the biggest problem with the Sox offense is not lack of power; it's a lack of high OBP guys. KW better not trade the best we have unless he gets a heck of a lot in return. The offense is certain to do much worse if you simply hand all of Frank's ABs to, say, Ross Gload.

JDP
02-09-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Miller somehow graduated from HS early. He was pitching in the Minors when he should have still been playing in high school. He won't turn 20 until November, so he will play this entire upcoming season at 19.


Not only that, but Edwin Jackson *just* turned 20 either on or around his pro debut last September, so he will be playing an entire MLB schedule at age 20.

JDP
02-09-2004, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
But I'd demand Perez, Mota, Jackson/Miller, and their CF prospect, who's supposed to be very good.

The Dodgers don't really have a CF prospect MLB-ready or in the "top propsect" picture.


Another FYI for those curious or what not:

In the 2002 Draft, the Sox took Royce Ring #19 overall, Round #1.

:Greg Miller was selected in the Compensation A round at #31 overall.


In the 2001 Draft the Sox selected Kris Honel #16, Wyatt Allen #39, Ryan Wing #71, Jonathan Zeringue #103, John Mattox #133, Angel Gonzalez #163.

:Edwin Jackson was taken #190 overall, the very end of Round #6.


Go KW and Crew!

Jjav829
02-09-2004, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by JDP
The Dodgers don't really have a CF prospect MLB-ready or in the "top propsect" picture.


Another FYI for those curious or what not:

In the 2002 Draft, the Sox took Royce Ring #19 overall, Round #1.

:Greg Miller was selected in the Compensation A round at #31 overall.


In the 2001 Draft the Sox selected Kris Honel #16, Wyatt Allen #39, Ryan Wing #71, Jonathan Zeringue #103, John Mattox #133, Angel Gonzalez #163.

:Edwin Jackson was taken #190 overall, the very end of Round #6.


Go KW and Crew!

You can do that with a lot of players. The bottom line is every single MLB team passed on Edwin Jackson at least once. To single out the Sox scouting staff for passing on him is ridiculous. We can do that with any player. What about all the teams that passed on Mark Buehrle? Drafts in any sport are a crapshoot. Players chosen in early rounds are going to bust. Players chosen in late rounds are going to become spectacular. Theres no way to stop that. You can try your best to reduce your chances at missing good players or taking bad players, but it will never be near perfect.

JDP
02-09-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
You can do that with a lot of players. The bottom line is every single MLB team passed on Edwin Jackson at least once. To single out the Sox scouting staff for passing on him is ridiculous. We can do that with any player. What about all the teams that passed on Mark Buehrle? Drafts in any sport are a crapshoot. Players chosen in early rounds are going to bust. Players chosen in late rounds are going to become spectacular. Theres no way to stop that. You can try your best to reduce your chances at missing good players or taking bad players, but it will never be near perfect.

Yes, but my points that I was trying to further emphasize:

a) This wasn't the 2000, or 1999 draft -- how can the Sox (yes, and others) pass on two pitchers, one MLB read from 2 years ago, one MLB end of this year or '05?
b) Who is worse with talent -- Sox scouts or Sox developmental personnel?
c) Why did we draft 3 OF our first three picks in '03?

Man Soo Lee
02-09-2004, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
That's what Seattle thought when they lost Griffey.... and when they lost ARod....

I think adding Olerud, Cameron, Boone, and Ichiro might have helped a little.

beckett21
02-09-2004, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Man Soo Lee
I think adding Olerud, Cameron, Boone, and Ichiro might have helped a little.

But you see that is the point. There were few bigger, arguably NO bigger stars in the game than those two at the time Seattle traded/lost those guys. Frank Thomas is great but anybody is replacable. It is up to the Sox to find worthy replacements. It can be done, just maybe not by our stooges. Cameron was with US for cryin' out loud.

Rex Hudler
02-09-2004, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by JDP
Not only that, but Edwin Jackson *just* turned 20 either on or around his pro debut last September, so he will be playing an entire MLB schedule at age 20.

September 9

maurice
02-09-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
There were few bigger, arguably NO bigger stars in the game than those two at the time Seattle traded/lost those guys. Frank Thomas is great but anybody is replacable.

I hope nobody is arguing that the Sox never could replace Frank's production. I'm arguing that it's too late to replace his production, particularly at a comparable cost, in 2004. Trading a $6 million player in February really is not analogous to making an offseason decision not to resign your SS at $24 million per and then spending the savings on other productive players. IMHO, trading Frank now would be like white flagging 2004, which would bother me (and probably most other Sox fans) to no end. Fortunately, I don't think KW intends to do this.

I'm not opposed to trading anybody, if it immediately improves the team. Heck, I even started the "trade Maggs" threads many months ago and took plenty of heat. The key difference here is that a big cost-cutting move in October 2003 potentially would have allowed the Sox to improve the team before spring training (e.g., by signing a decent SP and middle IF). Now, however, almost all the good FAs are gone, and trading Frank really wouldn't save much (if any) money anyway.

joecrede
02-09-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by maurice
I'm not opposed to trading anybody, if it immediately improves the team. Heck, I even started the "trade Maggs" threads many months ago and took plenty of heat. The key difference here is that a big cost-cutting move in October 2003 potentially would have allowed the Sox to improve the team before spring training (e.g., by signing a decent SP and middle IF). Now, however, almost all the good FAs are gone, and trading Frank really wouldn't save much (if any) money anyway.

I'd hate to trade Thomas because of what it would do the team in 2004, but if the Dodgers are going to give up Jackson and Miller for him I don't see how Williams can pass it up. Thomas simply isn't worth that type of pitching potential at this point in his career.

SEALgep
02-09-2004, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I'd hate to trade Thomas because of what it would do the team in 2004, but if the Dodgers are going to give up Jackson and Miller for him I don't see how Williams can pass it up. Thomas simply isn't worth that type of pitching potential at this point in his career.

It would only be one if any. I wouldn't be opposed to Perez and Miller, but people on other forums seem convinced it's Thomas for Perez straight up. I have a real hard time believing KW would even consider that. I think it's mostly wishful thinking on the Dodger's part. KW hasn't publicly said anything about this possibility, so as far as I'm concerned, it's all speculation. KW has said before that he wouldn't listen to any overtures about Frank that insulted what he has done over his career, and wat he can continue to do. To me that means Perez straight up is out, but I guess it remains to be seen.

gosox41
02-10-2004, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
It would only be one if any. I wouldn't be opposed to Perez and Miller, but people on other forums seem convinced it's Thomas for Perez straight up. I have a real hard time believing KW would even consider that. I think it's mostly wishful thinking on the Dodger's part. KW hasn't publicly said anything about this possibility, so as far as I'm concerned, it's all speculation. KW has said before that he wouldn't listen to any overtures about Frank that insulted what he has done over his career, and wat he can continue to do. To me that means Perez straight up is out, but I guess it remains to be seen.

I think KW really wants Thomas out of here and would do that trade just because he's an idiot.

Bob

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I think KW really wants Thomas out of here and would do that trade just because he's an idiot.

Bob

He immediately shut down the Thomas for Weaver deal. I can't believe they even asked KW to do that deal.

LATruBlue
02-10-2004, 11:56 AM
Here is an article written by Ken Gurnick on Edwin Jackson.
http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/la/news/la_news.jsp?ymd=20040209&content_id=635654&vkey=news_la&fext=.jsp

This article by Ken Gurnick is about Greg Miller.
http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/la/news/la_news.jsp?ymd=20040114&content_id=628099&vkey=news_la&fext=.jsp

Thought I'd post them since well, this thread is about them.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
Here is an article written by Ken Gurnick on Edwin Jackson. Thought I'd post it since well, this thread is about him.

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/la/news/la_news.jsp?ymd=20040209&content_id=635654&vkey=news_la&fext=.jsp

Sounds like a stud.

JasonC23
02-10-2004, 12:36 PM
The reason this whole thing scares me is the age of the pitchers. These guys are too young and have too great of a chance of injury ("normal" or catastrophic) to be the main focuses of the trade if it's for Frank. There's a reason many people stand by the saying, TINSTAAPP (There Is No Such Thing As A Pitching Prospect).

If it's for Konerko or Lee, well, by all means. One is overpaid and the other is overrated.

ChiSox65
02-10-2004, 01:29 PM
I remember prospects like Ruffcorn and Baldwin, Wells and Garland just to mention a few.

:gulp: