And Josh Paul lost as well.

A veritable blood bath of arbitration losses for the players today.

I hope the Dodgers' sales force produce a lot of shareholder value this year!

Time for everyones favorite event, the Pro Bowl.

On the academic front:

Drew Gilpin Faust, a Civil War historian and dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard, is expected to be named Sunday as Harvard's 28th president.

For some, the question would be, will she reduce the academic qualifications for athletic admissions.

Some of those Harvard alums really want the Crimson to make another trip to the Rose Bowl.

It's been 87 years!

Miguel Cabara, Joe Mauer and Chad Cordero will all get big raises regardless of what happens in their cases.

6 Miguel Cabrera and the Florida Marlins really seem to dislike each other. As far-fetched as it sounds, I truly believe the Dodgers could ship LaRoche, Billingsley, and Ethier to the Marlins for Cabrera.

And I would do that deal in a heartbeat.

Would it make you feel any better, Greg, if I thought that the PAC-10 wasn't over-rated, it's just that college basketball is getting worse?

With four minutes to go in Pullman, Cal has made 10 field goals.

8 I think it's hard to say. Sometimes it seems like the freshman who would otherwise make themselves available for the draft are hurting their teams by trying to be one-man shows for scouts. Alternately, one could argue that college basketball has more talent now than it ever has.

I really don't know.

7 -- What a terrible deal for the Dodgers that would be.

The beauty of living in a small city and very near the Post Office.

I got TWO separate first class mail deliveries today.

One at 11 am and one at 3:30 pm. My letter carrier noticed some other stuff for me in the office and brought it around.

I don't know either. I do know that the NBA is dead to me, while college basketball is on notice.

11 Oh, it would be horrible. To get the best hitter in the National League not named Pujols for two two unproven prospects and a smoke and mirrors Ethier would be terrible.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not using sarcasm in a way that can be interpreted negatively.

14 I think you signed him to a 7 year $85-90M deal, it would be okay.

I was watching the 1992 NBA All-Star game and it made me sad thinking of how much worse the NBA has gotten.

And I await the Canuck megapost telling me why I'm wrong. I look forward to it. Maybe I am wrong.

I'm still working on the one regarding Hadleyville and Pittsburgh, but I'm waiting for a call back from Ed Rendell's office.

I would have done that Cabrera trade a couple years ago, but now I think LaRoche can be a star in this league. I am also confident in Billingsley's skills, so I doubt I would like that trade. Ethier I do not really care about.

List of players not named Pujols or DiMaggio with under 25 numbers like Cabrera:

.

14 -- It's amazing how people think the word "unproven" attached to prospects negates their value. I suppose it relieves one of the actual bother of talent evaluation and projection of future value. The odds are against any one of the three Dodgers you named being as good as Cabrera, of course, but LaRoche projects to be a very good MLB third baseman a shade worse than David Wright, if Billingsley isn't a #1 starter he will be at least a #2, and Ethier is already good and is likely to only get better, notwithstanding your conviction that the young man's MLB career peaked at age 24 and it is all down hill from here. Take those three players together and then ask if their SEVENTEEN pre-agency years together are more valuable than Cabrera's THREE pre-free agency years, and the answer is obvious. All of which is pretty much saying that getting a twenty dollar bill in exchange for five tens really isn't a good deal.

I am starting to worry about Cabrera's work ethic. He was kind of fat last season. He still did well, but hear some issues of him being lazy.

Cabrera is great. But he's not so much better than LaRoche that I'd give up three virtually free years of LaRoche plus two virtually free years of a likely front of the rotation starter, plus two virtually free years of a decent corner outfielder. Unless I was so jam packed with replacements for those parts that it didn't matter.

The Dodgers aren't. Nobody is.

21 I find your argument compelling and well written, yet unpersuasive. I'll take Cabrera.

23
My exact feelings.

I'll add that this is all academic, since Cabrera will probaly play with the Marlins until the Yankees sign him in a few years.

Cabrera is great. But he's not so much better than LaRoche that I'd give up three virtually free years of LaRoche plus two virtually free years of a likely front of the rotation starter, plus two virtually free years of a decent corner outfielder.

Since Cabrera's and LaRoche's major league performance completely negates that argument, I'll have to disagree. You hope that LaRoche is 90% of the player that Cabrera already is.

By the way, Greg, I hope you don't think I was attacking you. I just strongly disagree with you. No hard feelings.

28 Of course not, Canuck. You always bring great stuff to the table. We just happen to disagree...A lot. It happens among intertubes friends.

I just happen to believe LaRoche will be real good. And I happen to believe that Billingsley will be pretty darn good too. Ethier already looks like a solid major leaguer. Cabrera is real good, but I think it helps the team overall to have three talented players, especially one that is a young starting pitcher.

logan white interview part II up on the latimes blog.

Projected 2007 WARP

Cabrera: 7.9

LaRoche: 5.0
Billingsly: 3.2
Ethier: 3.1
Combined: 11.3

It hurts me to say the history teachers arguement is more compelling then the flawed Canadian economic model. Winning is the goal.

Re (4): Are you kidding about Harvard scrapping its admission standards to admit more talented jocks?

Harvard has no need to prostitute itself; it has the largest endowment of any university in the world. Harvard doesn't need the Rose Bowl. It cares more about Nobel and Pulitzer prizes.

Dilution of admission standards is unfair to students with higher grades and test scores whose places in the admission queue will be taken by lesser-qualified jocks.

Most top football and basketball schools relax their admission standards for jocks. USC is a case in point. They have justifiably become an elite school. Admissions standards are high. Except for jocks, who are admitted even when they barely meet NCCA minimum standards. I see these athletes as the equivalent of ringers since they in no way reflect the average admittee there.

I realize that you won't find a meritocracy in any college admission system. Even at the most academically rigorous schools, legacies and offspring of potential high donors are treated preferentially. This is wrong. But it is equally wrong for a university to reject an applicant with high grades and test scores to create room for an athlete who barely made it out of high school.

These special athletic admittees are a source of great entertainment to sports fans like us, but let's not kid ourselves -- the system that enables them is a scam.

32 I would only say that I find those WARP projections to be overly optimistic. Billingsley, I think, will be great. LaRoche and Ethier, I don't trust. But we'll see.

But I consider Cabrera's 8 WARP a certainty. And I like certainty.

What's unfair is sending your kid to Harvard in the first place. At least give them a chance to make something of their lives.

33 ToyCannon agrees with me.

Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

31 -- Nate, you haven't been around for a while. Have you been posting at the new scout.com board? I can't get access to it so that finished my posting, or even reading posts, at scout.com.

38

ive posted a couple times on the new scout board but honestly, i dont like the layout at all. Ive been lurking alot here though. I haven't had anything worthwhile to say and baseball news right now is slow.

34
I firmly believe that I would have been granted admission to Stanford if there hadn't been another guy in my high school with a slightly lower GPA and test scores, who happened to be 6'7", 250 lbs, and an All-LA City offensive lineman.

This was back in 1983 when 6'7", 250 was really big.

32
That is much to simplistic.

30
Miggy is not "real good", Miggy is the 2nd best hitter in the NL and will probably be the best hitter in baseball over the next 5 years. If we were only talking about a real good hitter then I'd agree the trade would be foolhardy but were not talking real good, were talking top of the line prime grade beef.

33 -- Winning is the goal, but winning is not made more likely by trades that are the equivalent of getting instant cash on terms that amount to enriching Louie the Loan Shark in the long run.

I love the Dodger prospects. This, however, is where prospect fetishism goes completely overboard. We're talking about Miguel Cabrera here.

MIGUEL CABRERA.

One reason this argument isn't crazy is that, this year losing those three means Loney replaces Ethier, and Kuo replaces Billingsly. Assuming Loney can handle RF, LuGo doesn't act his age, and that Wolfe really truly has resurrected himself. I wouldn't bet my own money on two of those three assumptions.

I'd rather have a team full of very good players than a superstar and supporting cast. It's cheaper, less likely to be destroyed by an injury or other unforeseen event. Cabrera is a reliably great player. But if he blows out his knee, where are you? I'll take the uncertainty of prospects with long, good track records over their certainty of having all one's eggs in one basket.

43- Star, er, humper.

I can't think of any reason why Greg Brock would be concerned about the development and production of hyped young players. Nope, not one.

But kidding aside, it's a pretty terrible idea to include Billingsley, particularly because we end up with a staff full of Hend(E)ricksons in return.

Re (34): Check Stanford's recent record on the gridiron. They can't compete for the the top 100 high school football athletes. How many blue-chip jocks have 4.0's and 1500 scores on their SATs?

41- It wasn't meant to end the argument, but I don't see what it hurts pointing it out.

39 -- Have you been thinking about the June draft at all? BA's HS and college player rankings came out recently. I don't know why, but I have a feeling, just a feeling, that the Dodgers might be interested in taking local boy Ryan Dent in the first round.

35
May I ask, why you do not trust LaRoche? Is it just because he has not made it to the bigs yet?

I can completely understand why people are reluctant to deal multiple quality prospects for one player.

On the other hand, you're all wrong. Look at Cabrera's career comparable players. Look at his numbers. Look at what he is. If it wasn't for Pujols, and if he didn't play for the Marlins, he'd be a god. Not wanting to trade prospects for Miguel Cabrera is, in my silly little mind, crazy.

47
So college football recruiting changed that drastically since 2001 when Stanford won the Pac-10 in football?

I thought one of the reasons Stanford declined in football is that they brought in a bad coach in Teevens and Cal brought in a good coach in Tedford.

And that small matter of USC being able to get every good player plus four more that they don't need.

I would trade prospects, just not those prospects. Substitute Broxton for Billingsley and I like it more.

50 It's not that I don't trust LaRoche. I love LaRoche. LaRoche is going to be 75%-80% of David Wright, which is outstanding.

But Miguel Cabrera is 100% of Miguel Cabrera. The guy is on an elite level that about 5 players per generation meet.

34 Its hard to get the humor when you lurk from board to board. That statement was actually related to the hire of the new head at UCLA. No one on the Bruin boards like BRO talk about the academics, all they care about is will he somehow convince admissions to let in more football and basketball players.

I don't believe any Ivy League school ever considers lowering their standards for an athlete.

49

i havent dove head first into it yet but ive been looking over the available college players for next year. Since our pick is 20th or something, most likely another HSer is going to be it eh. Im hoping for a hitter though and if ryan dents the guy, then yay. although i really dont know too much about him. care to provide some?

BTW - 1 more week until the first workout for pitchers and catchers at Vero Beach.

If you do not think UCLA lowers its standards enough for football players go check Raymond Carter's Myspace.

Agreed that Cabrera is, at least, the right player to have this conversation about, but you cannot trade Chad Billingsley. This organization cannot be held to the vagaries of Ned Colletti's membership in the Lucky Arbitration-eligible Pitcher Of The Month Club. If Cabrera and the Marlins hate each other, then we can have a chance to sign him in two years for a bajillion dollars.

Miguel Cabrera's comparable players, at age 23:

1. Hank Aaron (959) *
2. Orlando Cepeda (931) *
3. Frank Robinson (925) *
4. Joe Medwick (920) *
5. Mickey Mantle (914) *
6. Andruw Jones (907)
7. Ken Griffey (906)
8. Hal Trosky (905)
9. Vladimir Guerrero (900)
10. Al Kaline (900) *

Forgive me if I don't care about multiple prospects. Look at that list.

Yes, I'm going to say it again, for no particular reason...LOOK AT THAT LIST.

Who cares about Hal Trosky?

I've never figured out if his name was prounced "TrAHsky" or "TrOHsky".

Would you trade Ethier, Billingsley, and LaRoche for Henry Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, Ken Griffey, Vladimir Guerrero, Al Kaline, or Hal Trosky?

Yes...You would. I consider the conversation over.

58 I believe he was among the last group approved for admission, no one denies that as a whole, athletes in most Division 1 schools have lower academics than the rest of the student body. There a lot of sports fans who just don't care about it.

Greg, you seem to be emphasizing, repeatedly, just how good Cabrera is, when that is so not the point. The quality of Cabrera is not in dispute. We all know how good he is. I think the difference between you and those of us who don't like your trade idea is that you have a much more pessimistic idea about what the value of Billingsley, LaRoche, and Ethier is going to be over the next five or six years. You also are not appreciating that Cabrera's limited amount of time before he can auction himself off in free agency effectively devalues him against lesser talents who still have a full six years before they can say goodbye to the Dodgers. Building a winning team isn't just about getting a superstar. It is about mundane things like service time and payroll flexibility and breadth of talent on a roster.

64 There was a time when you could say, nice season Mick, here's $10,000 more for the next season, take it or take it.

64 -- You mean, 44 year old, 755 home run Henry Aaron? Sure, I'll trade them for all those guys and the crystal ball that comes with it.

David Frishberg, to my mind the absolute authority on this matter, sang Trŏ-skēē. Good enough for me, boy howdy.

The Sun Devils put up a fight, but lose by four to the Beavers at Gill Coliseum.

Pac-10 standings:
1) UCLA
2) Washington State
3) USC
4) Stanford
5) Oregon
6) Arizona
7) Washington
8) Cal
9) Oregon State
10) Arizona State

Stanford is at Washington tomorrow. If Stanford wins, the standings stay the same. If Washington wins, Stanford drops to #6 and Oregon and Arizona move up one.

66 You're absolutely right. I consider the value of a once-in-a-generation hitter to be beyond the value of mulitple good players, their payroll status, their service time, and other things. Although I am Stathead McGee, I really believe in the value of a true dominant hitter...A guy that changes the face of your lineup.

You seem to assume that losing LaRoche, Billingsley, et al creates a vacuum that can't be filled by other players. As though losing those guys means that nobody else fills the void. I simply don't agree. Gaining a player like Cabrera is far tougher than getting prospects.

56 Nice to see you Nate, not much since your comments to Sickels about his Dodger prospect grades.

You are correct, the Dodgers have the 20th pick from the Lugo signing, currently their next pick is 43rd in the Supplemental 1st Round, that round may go about 36 picks or so.

The Padres better set some money aside, they have 7 or maybe 8 picks in the first 80, based on comps from the last few years, they'll need around 5-6 million to sign those guys.

69
Dave Frishberg has admitted that he didn't know how to pronounce the names of the players when he wrote "Van Lingle Mungo." He was just trying to get the meter right based on how he thought the names were pronounced.

73- Blasphemer!

74
He says "Es-Tah-Leh-Leh" instead of "Es-Tah-Lay-Ya".

75- It's like you just don't want to go to heaven when you die. So sad.

I'm surprised by how much my DT brethren love all the Dodger prospects. I mean, after all, we have Logan White, the greatest talent evaluator since Branch Rickey. Why wouldn't we trade some kids for Miguel Cabrera. Logan will get us ten more great kids...right?

But if we traded for Cabrera we would have to trust Ned to go find replacements at those positions.

I do not trust Ned. Do you want more Juan Pierres and Gonzos?

It would take awhile for those kids to be ready.

And I love Logan White, but LaRoche and Billingsley are two of the top guys he has ever gotten. I would probably say they are the best along with Kershaw.

White's going to be pulling some crap draft positions for the next five to ten years (assuming Mr. Ned doesn't blow it). I love the man, but you don't turn the twenty-third or twenty-seventh pick into a one or two pick.

But Ned went out and got us a left fielder. Why would he trade for Cabrera?

It's fine. I'm just saying that I would gladly trade Billingsley and LaRoche for a player who's comparables are Mickey Mantle, Henry Aaron, and Frank Robinson.

I guess I'm crazy, in a sort of "You're all wrong" sort of way.

83
It's not that you're paranoid Greg. We're just all out to get you.

Well, there's your Pro Bowl highlight.

84 Getting me would be a "Walk in the park"

56 -- Nate, about Ryan Dent, he is described as somebody who projects to be a Rafael Furcal-type shortstop. A prototypical leadoff man. He attends Wilson High School in Long Beach, if any of you Angelenos are familiar with that school.

Why do I have a feeling the Dodgers would be interested in him? Not just because he is local, although that might help a bit. I just wonder if Colletti's love affair with speedy leadoff me, proven by his investing over $80 million in multiyear contracts for TWO of them in one year, is going to shape our draft strategy, especially considering that our farm system does not have players like that, and the Dodgers might want to be thinking about who will replace Furcal and Pierre when their contracts are up.

87

thanks. doesnt really sound like someone i would be interested in at the 20th pick.

That was a brutal hit.

Cal is the poster school for lowering its admission standards for athletes. DeSean Jackson had a 2.8 gpa and an SAT score of 1280. I've also heard of USC recruiting players with sub 800 SAT scores.

RIP Clippy, the MS Office equivalent of Scooter.

http://www.appscout.com/2007/02/to_kill_a_paperclip.php

Canuck, (or any other Canadians) do you watch Trailer Park Boys?

I started watching it and I love it.

90

although not really cal level, a 1280 is a pretty good score on the SAT.

93- I agree 1280 is a good score for the old SAT, but that's on the new test. :)

What is the difference in the new test? You have to write?

93
Assuming that the 1280 is based on the old 1600-max SAT standard.

Cal has always had relatively relaxed standards and they would take in players who didn't qualify at first back in the days of Proposition 42.

It used to be. With the writing section added to the SAT, it's the equivalent of and old 850.

94

lol, i forgot they did that.

94 Why did he take the new test? I believe he's the class of '09, and they didn't require the new SAT until the class of '10.

95 Yes, but they add another 800 for it.

After researching a bit, I'm very confidant that Jackson scored a 1280 on the 1600 test, not the 2400 version. They didn't even offer the 2400 until he was a senior.

Re (52): "And that small matter of USC being able to get every good player plus four more that they don't need."

This was the right answer, Bob. Do you remember anyone from Stanford's 2001 team? I can't.

Back to baseball. I would agree with the post that LaRoche, Billingley, and Kershaw may be Logan White's top picks. Elbert can't be far behind. I want to keep these guys. It will be fun to watch them develop.

My favorite student ever, a kid that would make any parent proud, came into my class and cried for an hour because he scored poorly on the SAT. This kid is everything a teacher dreams of, and he wanted to give up academics because he only scored a 1270 on the SAT.

I hate the SAT. I hate standardized testing.

87 Actually, Logan did draft a guy a prototypical leadoff man in Ivan DeJesus.

81 2002 - James Loney 19th pick
2003 - Chad Billingsley 24th pick
2004 - Scott Elbert 17th pick, Blake DeWitt 28th pick
2005 - No pick
2006 - Clayton Kershaw 7th pick, Bryan Morris 26th pick.

And those of course were the 1st round picks, Miller, Broxton, Kemp, LaRoche, Martin, Meloan, Josh Bell and Mattingley were all picked after the 1st round.

It helps to get a lot of early picks like the Devil Rays and D-Backs but in the end, you build your system with all the other picks.

96

I've met Desean...

Honestly though, I'm pretty sure most schools wouldn't mind lowering their admissions standards to have him on their football team.