Brilliant Jon.

I pledge five dollars to sign Kyle Blair.

The Seattle Mariners, desperate for a closer at the trading deadline [ten years ago], dealt two of their best prospects to the Boston Red Sox for reliever Heathcliff Slocumb.

The Mariners won one postseason game that year, and have yet to reach the World Series.

Those two prospects who were traded to a Red Sox team that finished 20 games out of first place?

Future World Series championship players Jason Varitek and, um, er, Derek Lowe.

"Well, yeah," Lowe said.

All have been drafted in the first or supplemental rounds and gotten bonuses at or near the amount Kyle Blair reportedly came down to in his negotiations with the Dodgers.

They also have had some type of surgery and though its remains possilbe that Miller, Orenduff, Elbert and Morris will pitch in Dodger Stadium, there are no guarantees it will happen.

I agree with Jon that the team should not a let a few dollars stop them from acquiring good young talent but that is about 5 million in bonus money that is currently either waiting to throw again this fall or is back in Jacksonville so just because someone is highly touted, doesn't put him in Chavez Ravine.

Dental Plan!

Nothing more fun than baking on a 100-degree day. But it's a mix, so the prep work is next to nothing. It involves measuring, pouring, and inserting in the oven and that will be it.

So does Carolyn

This downward snowballing has got to stop.

First the ship sank then the sea dried up, all that was left were tears.

I'd rather have one high upside arm make it then 3 rotational fillers. I understand your point, I don't agree with it. If this was a 2nd round talent asking for 1.1 then he'd be out of line but most draft hounds said that Blair was a 1st round talent. If Brackman gets 3.3, then Blair would seem to be worth 1.1. It almost seems like a no brainer to me.

How about -- the Dodgers are on probation. They don't get another dollar of my money until they show they deserve it.

Examples of not deserving my money:
Trading away young, power-hitting infielders
Choosing not to sign young, talented pitchers
Picking up stiff after stiff from the trash heap
The list goes on...

Thus the problem. Maybe you can see it, maybe I can see it, maybe all of DT can see it. But what if the deeply serious baseball people see different? Let's take it player-by-player.

Hendrickson: Relatively low contract, pitched well for his previous team and might pitch even better in a pitchers park like Dodger Stadium. Provides depth and he's left-handed.

That's not a bad argument to get Mark Hendrickson.

Shea Hillenbrand: A two-time All-Star who was OPSing over .800 with Toronto last season . He's not doing anything now but, of course, neither are we so why not get him and see if he can't help drum up a winning streak?

I think if the Dodgers were truly out of it, they would've passed on Hillenbrand.

Brett Tomko: Grady Little likes his arm. And if my manager says he likes his arm, I like his arm.

What do all of these players have in common? They have all (quite arguably) had success in the bigs and in the case of the two pitchers, they've enjoyed success with the Dodgers.

Oh yeah--I forgot one.

Martinez/Valdez: I haven't been able to tell the difference between these two since they joined the team.

Brady Clark drove him in.

I think the image of the guys sitting around in Panama hats smoking cigars is fading.

We're going festival tonight to raise money. We can do it!*

*We can't really do it.

All I am saying is that they had two more months to look at him and maybe their projection changed, maybe they don't even see him as a first round guy in three years, again you'd have to ask them but I think it was more than just the money.

Or me.

Well said above Jon. I keep feeling like we must be missing some piece of information, something, other than that they cheaped out, but haven't seen it yet.

Contreras - I'm sure we can get Pierre through waivers. Let's just trade him even up with each team taking on the contract of the guy they got. The White Sox need a center fielder for next year (and the three years after that).

I don't think Jackson made up the quotes.

And how do they compare to the brownies that trainwreck wants me to buy in Golden Gate Park...?

http://tinyurl.com/2bzzzj

If it were cooler, I would make cookies from scratch and then there would be a contest.

When the Depo era was over, I still was excited because of the push for the youth movement. Colletti has by-and-large reaped benefits from that, and to his credit hasn't wasted it (yet). But my excitement dampens with each cruddy veteran that we overpay for, and every young guy we miss out on or trade (for any reason).

Rooting for mediocre veterans is not thrilling. It is not interesting. If the team isn't solidly in first, it's downright sad.

With the payroll they can wield, I honestly can't figure out why the Dodgers wouldn't take a two-pronged approach: keep the farm system crowded with tons of hot young talent (by drafting smartly and being willing to pay), and, by having a young MLB team with a relatively low payroll, targeting top-priced free agents that are the best in the game.

It just makes too much sense. Why wouldn't you take this approach?

Sorry, I don't think Sweeney has been here long enough to be at or near the top of the lackluster list. After all, he's hitting .400 and he was just showing a lot of hustle last night, going to second even though the ball was obviously foul.

Nats have the same game of chicken running with Jack McGeary who may go to Stanford. Twist is, the team has said (through "sources" that they can get agreement on the money but are unsure if they want to buck the league on slot issues - esp. since it'd be a 6th round pick somewhere above $1.5M.

They leaked last night that it was done and McG was to college. Then today other sources told the beat guy they were still working it, with the caveats described above. Crazy.

Is it worse to lose the prospect over $300G or over not wanting to ruffle Selig's feathers?

If the Cardinals win, they'll be just 3 1/2 out. The Astros are just 8 out.

Withrow has better projection but Blair has tad better present stuff. I'd probably take Withrow over Blair but Withrow hasn't pitched in 2 weeks..

I just don't like to mix perspiration into my brownies.

Just blood and tears...?

I've got exactly 38 bucks in my wallet I'll pledge it as well.

Maybe I should have asked if was a coinicidence that last nights play involved 1 of LAs most lackluster players.

70 - why nothing but fastballs?

Is BORA$$ Blair's agent? That would explain a lot. If so, why did White draft Blair knowing he would have to deal with BORA$$? Do White and Ned never learn from their previous mistakes?

Boras is not Blair's agent.

73

probably choice A.

Except you, I guess.

because he can't throw anything else for strikes.

He is very lackluster.

http://www.beloblog.com/Pe_Blogs/baseball/dodgers/2007/08/blair_project_finished.html

Overall, I would say he definitely lacks luster.

that doesn't even make sense considering he will probably cost more in 3 years and a top 10 pick.

Yeah, just like we got Utley the next time around. Does that ever actually happen?

You really believe anything these guys say?

No, I don't. What's your point?

Yeah, we really think he will be good, but we don't want to pay him for it.

well if that board took into account players they could sign, then i believe it. If it was strictly a talent board then absolutely not.

Will I get more used to it?

from TJ in the comments section

To answer npurcell's question, yes, it has a LOT to do with the commish's office. Not enough teams were willing to risk Selig's wrath by going too far over slot. The more teams that do it, the less the fallout is going to be for each one that does.

Darrell Scott says he is going to take an official visit to UCLA and we seem to be among his favorites.