Rosenthal: Dodgers Pursuing Jack Wilson
by Charlie
on Jul 5, 2008 12:41 AM EDT
[T]he Dodgers' bid for [C.C.] Sabathia is complicated by their pursuit of Pirates shortstop Jack Wilson as a replacement for the injured Rafael Furcal, sources say.
To get Wilson, the Dodgers would need to trade the Pirates some of the same players that the Indians want for Sabathia, leaving Los Angeles with a choice of one deal or the other...
Class AA right-hander James McDonald, Class AAA shortstop Chin-Lung Hu and third baseman Andy LaRoche are among the Dodgers' prospects likely drawing consideration form the Indians...
[T]he addition of Wilson, 30, would fill the void created by the absence of Furcal, who will be out at least eight more weeks after undergoing back surgery...
By acquiring Wilson, the Dodgers would signal that they might not intend to keep Furcal, whom they probably consider too big of a physical risk to re-sign as a free agent.
Well, there's no way to know until something happens. I've already said I think the Bucs should try to get Matt Kemp, but I seriously doubt the Dodgers would consider giving him up for Wilson.
I like the players mentioned in the article, though. McDonald has a very good performance record and looks like he could be a good big league starter, and he'd significantly improve the Pirates' awful minor league pitching depth. Hu and LaRoche are both good buy-low candidates; neither one is having a great year, but they've had success in the minors in the past. Hu is actually very much like a young Wilson--he doesn't appear to have great plate discipline or power, but he's hit for high averages in the minors and is potentially a vacuum cleaner at short. As for LaRoche, given that the Bucs should soon have both Neil Walker and Pedro Alvarez in their system at third, I'm not sure where he fits in, but you can never have too many good hitters.
If I were the Indians, I would want better players than this for Sabathia. But for Wilson, they're good enough.
0 recs |
22
comments
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
Some stats of interest
James McDonald (AA) 17 starts 4-2 3.19 ERA 90.1 IP 77Hits 30BB 93K’s .232 OBA
Chin-Lung Hu (AAA) .159 career hitter in LA in 107 ABs with a 43 OPS very good D
Andy LaRoche (AAA) .277 5HR 26RBI in 119ABs 87 OPS
Major Leaguers
Matt Kemp .281 7HR 44 RBI 17 steals 85 K’s in 295 ABs
Andre Either .276 9HR 34RBI (lefty stroke that will be 20/90 at best)
I’d say McDonald, Kemp, and a marginal prospect for Jack and Grabow.
Just throwing it out there.
by Bad Andy on Jul 5, 2008 1:33 AM EDT 0 recs
From what I see
Andy LaRoche doesn’t significantly improve things. Especially since we have some people that can play 3rd. If he was that good, Blake Dewitt wouldn’t have spent most of the season with the Dodgers. Hu…at least so far…looks like a AAAA shortstop, with something like Adam Everett numbers to be expected. Right now…I don’t see LaRoche and Hu being much of an upgrade (other than maybe a little defensively for Hu) over Bautista and Bixler.
McDonald, on the other hand, catches my attention. He appears to be a power pitcher with decent control. Given a choice between Kemp and Ethier…I would probably take Kemp.
Not sure the Dodgers really need a lot in the bullpen, but I do notice Pierre is on the DL. Maybe McDonald, Kemp and a marginal prospect for Jack and Duffy.
by Thunder on Jul 5, 2008 2:01 AM EDT 0 recs
Not exactly.
McDonald works around 90 with a good curve. He’s a mid-rotation type, which is useful, but he’s not really a “power pitcher” in the way you’re using the term.
LaRoche the younger is a big-time bat and a good glove. He was slated to get first crack at 3B, but got hurt, which is why DeWitt got the chance to steal the position out from under him.
Hu’s problems with the bat this year are worrisome, but there are reasons for optimism in his past, and he’s a very, very good glove. If he’s not the best-fielding SS prospect in baseball, he’s at least in the conversation.
The Rosenthal article implies that we might get two of the three in a deal for Jack, which would be an absolutely exceptional haul.
by Vlad on
Jul 6, 2008 10:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I hope you're kidding
Kemp won’t be wearing black and gold unless Bay is involved.
Since Hu is limited offensively, I’d take McDonald. Andy LaRoche doesn’t do anything for me.
by woobie on Jul 5, 2008 2:03 AM EDT 0 recs
Andy LaRoche
I was actually thinking Wilson to the Dodgers when Furcal went down. I hope it happens. I’d be ecstatic if we could get McDonald or LaRoche. I don’t know what’s not to like about LaRoche—power and plate discipline is a pretty good combination. And I like Hu. He’s a better hitter than he’s shown this year. I don’t know
by bolton on Jul 5, 2008 4:26 AM EDT 0 recs
Jack Wilson is pretty damn important to the Bucs,
as we saw earlier this year. If we`re going to trade him, and without any overly impressive SS options in the organization now, we`d better get a heckuva lot for him.
I don`t know enough about the prospects involved to say much else, but I sure as hell wouldn`t trade Jack Wilson AND John Grabow for a AA pitcher who may have pretty good potential, and Matt Kemp, and some throw-in-like Bad Andy suggests. Kemp is interesting, but what if the others turned out to be equivalents to Bobby Hill and Matt Brubacker(sp?)?
We need more for Jack Wilson, or don`t make the deal. Just trading to say, “Hey, we`ve done something,” makes no sense for the long-term success of the franchise.
by patthatt on Jul 5, 2008 5:39 AM EDT 0 recs
It depends upon when we hope that the Pirates will be competitive ...
if in the next couple of years than, yeah, we have to keep Wilson. But middle infielders don’t usually age gracefully and I’d expect Wilson to be clearly on the downside of his career by 2010, if not earlier. His trade value is likely to decline significantly in the near future so if we figure that the Bucs chances lie further in the future trading Wilson now makes a lot of sense.
As much as I like him and would hate to see him go, I’d be happy if we could get the three prospects for him and even happier about those three plus Kemp for Bay Wilson and possibly a reliever.
by WestCoastBuc on
Jul 5, 2008 1:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Understood
that is will leave a BIG gap as ss for us, but you worry about that later. If you can get Kemp for Jack you do it.
by DITO on
Jul 7, 2008 12:42 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Elsewhere on the trade front
I keep hearing bits and pieces that the Rays would like to get either Bay or Nady from us. Has anyone heard anything about who might be available in a deal for one of them or have any thoughts on a deal that might make sense to both teams?
by WestCoastBuc on Jul 5, 2008 1:30 PM EDT 0 recs
Wow, this amazes me
Ok, first Patthatt,
you are exactly what is wrong with Pirates fans! You trade Jack Wilson and Grabow yesterday if it lands you Kemp and McDonald. We have 0 pitching depth in our system. Nady and or Bay will be gone and most likely if we trade with Tampa we will get Brignac and some more pitching.
You have to take your lumps with Bixler, Wilson is paid a lot and he deserves it for his glove, but you trade him in a heart beat if it lands you 2 legit players like Kemp and McDonald and a marginal prospect. This team has to get much worse, before it can ever get better!
by Schnoah on Jul 5, 2008 9:12 PM EDT 0 recs
Wilson is Important to the Bucs
That’s a good one. How important is anyone on this club that has a 15-year span of losing seasons (soon to be 16). Agreed, there is no depth at short or for that matter anywhere else but maybe 3rd base, which is why you make the trade to get more potential players. I like Jack and he has played his heart out, no doubt, but it is not enough. Trade him now if the players have potential (1 player for 2 or more players with potential is good for the PIrates)
by long4willie on Jul 5, 2008 9:51 PM EDT 0 recs
I bet GM Huntington
will not trade Wilson and Grabow for Kemp, a minor league pitcher like McDonald, and this ridiculous Dave Littlefield-like desire for a marginal prospect.
If you read my posting history, I`ve said repeatedly that this team MUST make moves. But this proposed trade is not sufficient in value to the Pirates, IMHO.
2 legit players like Kemp and McDonald
Kemp is a “legit” player with a certain amount of upside, but why do you insist that a AA pitcher like McDonald deserves to be in the same category? He MAY turn out to be something, but trading just to make moves because the team has been bad for so long makes no sense.
Wilson for Kemp and McDonald might make sense-it would depend on how highly the Pirates think of McDonald`s potential, but the inclusion of Grabow in the deal would make it lopsided in value for the Dodgers. If you want to send Grabow packing to LA with Wilson, you`d have to get at least one more top prospect for this to make sense for the Bucs.
But keep it up with the marginal crap if you want. We could always use some more marginal soft-tossing AAA middle reliever types since DL hasn`t been around for almost a year to acquire some.
by patthatt on Jul 5, 2008 9:57 PM EDT 0 recs
really?
Ok… your thinking makes no sense. Jack Wilson is a gritty hard nosed player who plays great defense and can hit a little. Yes we all saw how much he meant to this team when he was out. But who the hell cares when you cant pitch enough to even come close to a winning season.
Your going to get Matt Kemp to play RF, he has a cannon for an arm, and plays extremely good D. He is going to hit a min. of .280 -.320 on good years, he is learning plate discipline. He is going to hit 15-20HR and steal 30+ bags a year.
McDonald has 261K to only 67BB in 2 years… he is a power pitcher with a great K rate… He also has not had an ERA over 4. at least in the last 3 years i see.
You put in Grabow, and you will prolly get another legit type prospect. Maybe not someone like HU but you will def. get prolly 2 more arms, and most likely going to be power arms.
Then the Pirates turn around and trade Bay to the Rays and you get Brignac and Niemman and wow.. you all of a sudden have legit players in the system and you get 2 comp picks for Marte next season when you turn down the option, and offer arbitration as he will get a multi-year deal next season.
Wow, in one trade deadline and offseason Schnoah would have changed the entire outlook of the Pirates…
by Schnoah on
Jul 5, 2008 10:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wow, this amazes me....
Bad Andy wrote:
I’d say McDonald, Kemp, and a marginal prospect for Jack and Grabow.
I simply objected to this as insufficient return for Wilson AND Grabow. For Wilson, perhaps, but I also objected to the DL-like sounding idea of getting a marginal prospect at the back end of the deal. Quality vs. Quantitiy.
Schnoah then wrote:
You trade Jack Wilson and Grabow yesterday if it lands you Kemp and McDonald.
Insufficient return for both players!
But then schnoah wrote in his next post:
Wilson is paid a lot and he deserves it for his glove, but you trade him in a heart beat if it lands you 2 legit players like Kemp and McDonald and a marginal prospect.
You put in Grabow, and you will prolly get another legit type prospect.
But I said all along:
Wilson for Kemp and McDonald might make sense-it would depend on how highly the Pirates think of McDonald`s potential, but the inclusion of Grabow in the deal would make it lopsided in value for the Dodgers. If you want to send Grabow packing to LA with Wilson, you`d have to get at least one more top prospect for this to make sense for the Bucs.
So, essentially you are agreeing with me, which begs the question: What is your point?
Scnoah wrote:
Wow, in one trade deadline and offseason Schnoah would have changed the entire outlook of the Pirates…
Click your heels, Dorothy, and back to Kansas with you.
by patthatt on Jul 5, 2008 11:32 PM EDT 0 recs
you guys are underrating Kemp
I don’t think the Dodgers would trade Kemp for both Wilson and Grabow. The guy is an above average right fielder at 23 and has near-Vladimir Guerrero upside. PECOTA, for example, forecasts a near-.900 OPS for the next five years as a mean—his ceiling is better still. Wilson and Grabow are known commodities; neither will be cost-controlled for much longer, and while they’re close to average players at their positions (realizing that Jack’s .858 OPS over the past year is a bit fluky) they are still pretty much fungible. Note that the Dodgers are primarily looking for an injury replacement for Furcal, which shows how highly they value Jack this year.
by shayborg on
Jul 6, 2008 2:42 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Well said
I really don’t see how anyone could possibly feel different.
I would be nervous about not getting Hu in a deal, though, unless Neil already had a deal done that involved Brignac or another ML ready SS. But that wouldn’t be enough to turn down a deal for Kemp.
by DITO on
Jul 7, 2008 12:50 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Who the hell is John Grabow?
I must have missed the part where he’s even slightly above average. He doesn’t get lefties out any better than righties, he’s never been a workhorse, and he’s got chips in his elbow. He’s having his best year ever this year, and his WHIP is 1.30. John Grabow exists to be thrown into a deal like he and Wilson for Kemp and McDonald.
by azibuck on
Jul 7, 2008 2:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah
That’s the nice thing about decent relievers… you can ALWAYS buy more over the offseason. Last offseason, Tampa got Trever Miller (a guy with a Grabow-ish track record) pretty cheap: $1.6M this year, and then either a $2M option for 2009 or a $400k buyout.
We play out the string this year, we sign Will Ohman or Aaron Fultz or Scott Eyre or someone like that in November, and by the time 2009 rolls around, it’s like Grabow was never even gone.
by Vlad on
Jul 7, 2008 4:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Geez
I’d take a bag of batting practice balls and a warm body in exchange for Jack. Somebody wants to give me a real live prospect??? I’ll take one and consider it a steal. No need to press my luck.
by matskralc on Jul 6, 2008 1:24 PM EDT 0 recs
New FanPost
