Except for the stadium renovations and ludicrous Torre contract, the Dodgers sure don't act like a big-market monster.

My question: how long has this been going on? Is the, ah, frugality with international players a relatively new phenomenon? Did it exist with DePo in charge or is this a Ned thing?

Not that it matters, I guess. It's truly sad. I grew up with the idea that the Dodgers were big players in the international community. Why we took such a huge step backward is beyond me.

Teams that "sacrifice" to the slotting system are fools. Draft signings are a huge huge bargain. The slotting system is a gross undervaluation. Quite frankly, the slotting system should be illegal (and would be in any other multi-billion dollar monopoly).

Someone needs to convince Frank that the best way to save money in the long run is to spend it on amateur players.

I haven't read it yet but I already know this is going to be a great write up. Kudos in advance.

Why don't they see that if they just spent the extra bit of money initially, then down the road they don't have to pay outrageous amounts of money for mediocre depth since you will already have that depth available in your system.

Yes, he does have a flaw.

I have no orginial thoughts tonight.

Without any expertise or experience, I would guess that the international draft would be more of a high risk, high reward endeavor relative to the domestic draft. My reasoning is that there has to be less data available for international FA's relative to HS or college players. Not sure if this is true, so feel free to roast me.

Anyway, great write up and something I hadn't considered before.

Anyone think the Dodgers' leasing of one of thier fields in the DR has any relation to this? Maybe its an organizational thing that's been in place for a while.

---

Is it too late to say I'm interested in a shirt?

After the new collective bargaining agreement was signed, players must be placed on the 40-man roster:

1) within 5 seasons after the year drafted if signed when 18 or younger
2) within 4 seasons after the year drafted if signed when 19 or older

Requirements used to be 4 and 3 seasons, respectively.

James McDonald was drafted in 2002, and signed when he was 18, so he must be protected on the 40-man roster next month or he will be subject to the Rule 5 draft.

What about Justin Orenduff? He was signed at age 21 in 2004, so shouldn't he not have to be placed on the 40-man until December 2008?

Same with Xavier Paul...signed at age 18 in 2003...shouldn't he also be a 2008 addition?

Answer that question, and you will find the answer to the question you ask!

The things I'm willing to do for you, Philosopher King. It's all about sacrifice, I think.

Even if two out of ten signings pan out, it's a huge return on a relatively small investment.

That's just speculation, though.

Mainly I wanted to salute Canuck's superb report. Who needs the MSM? I assume the Dodger PR staff monitors DT, so I would like to ask for a response from the organization to the issues Canuck has raised. Let's hear your side. I'm sure Jon would be more than happy to post it.

http://tinyurl.com/2qyny4

Of course, if the Dodgers really thought that, they'd have signed Kyle Blair.

It's worth noting that the last three high-profile international signings the Dodgers have made (or at least, the last three I can remember) all panned out to a reasonable degree. Guzman was used as a trade chip that eventually got us Chris Withrow and James Adkins; Kuo gave us a starting pitching boost without which we'd have missed the 2006 playoffs; and Hu was the best SS in minor league baseball this year.

Was driving home from my softball game (we lost in the finals 21-16) tonight and Joe McDonnell was on one of the local sports radio stations talking about AROD. I thought I'd listen in, either that or some bad reception on a RHCP song. The first thing he said made sense about AROD taking a big risk by opting out because there were only a few teams that could afford him. Then he started going through a few of the teams. First up was the Mets. His first thought was, oh they have David Wright so just move Wright to firstbase. Blah blah blah they have Delgado. So move Wright to the outfield or put AROD at SS and can their shortstop. Uh, ok. Now if he would've said Wright or Reyes to 2B, I could've agreed a little bit. Then he said the Cubs, with no mention of ARAM at 3B. Then the Dodgers. He said the Dodgers owner doesn't have the money to pay AROD 1/4 of the team's payroll (probably some truth). He said the Dodgers could afford him by having McCourt build a mall and condos in the Dodger Stadium parking lot. He said from the money made at the mall and from the condos they could pay AROD. He then added, how cool would it be to live in a Condo in the parking lot of Dodger Stadium. Luckily, that's when I got home and turned the radio off.

vr, Xei

First Mochican makes a point that I thought of as well, it seems that the Dodgers, I think in the early Fox years made a conscious effort to to lower their efforts in the Carraiban. In addition to the leasing of their facility in the DR, didn't they also get into trouble with signing players who were too young.

If my memory is correct after the Dodgers were fined by MLB, they also made cuts in their scouts down there. All of this adds up to a lower profile coupled with more competition in the area and not paying top or even mid-level dollar and you end up with more examples of bad Dodger management.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7445434

He pretty much said the same thing about Torre and we know how that turned out.

For political reasons, Taiwan has to call its team "Chinese Taipei" even when it is playing at home. It keeps China happy.

The winner of the game gets first place in its group and will play either Canada or the Netherlands in the quarterfinals.

It's like some bizarro world.

That seems nice. I'm glad to know that Torii Hunter would also bring the Dodgers "presence."

And all this speculating is predicated on Juan Pierre playing left field. Ugh.

In unrelated news, if anybody knows how I transfer the data (contacts and calendar) from one Blackberry to a new one, please send me an email.

vr, Xei

Just reminding everybody of that particular bit of stupidity.

When ESPN releases it's January "Free Agent Winners and Losers" claptrap, I'd like to be a loser. Let's go to bat with what we have. We have a lot.

and i also agree with whomever said they liked the font in canuck's article better than the fonts on rest of the site.

However, I don't agree with Christina Kahrl's thoughts of brilliance of the move. Loaiza is good for somewhere between a 4.50-5.00 ERA, which is good enough for a 5th starter.

Ridiculous.

http://tinyurl.com/yp6hmz

You're a more forgiving soul than I, Xei. Bad, bad move.

What?

Matchup these clubhouse presences with their 2006 stat lines:

Torii Hunter
Luis Gonzalez

Wow, Andrew. Why don't you and Esteban get a room already. But really, come on. He'll surely be better than Stulton. At only twenty times the cost.

It's just endemic of a "spend now, think later" philosophy. Zero long term investment.

And I can't believe that the Dodgers would adopt the position that the international kids are too far from the majors to assess accurately, because that is an argument that saber teams use to justify avoiding high schoolers and picking college players, and White's drafts show a preference for younger draftees whose tools he believes in, rather than a record of performance. Scouting international kids is all about trusting the tools you see, so that is right up White's alley. Now maybe White can say that he thinks the Latin boys getting big money are getting more than they are worth, but then I would have to say that as good as White is, can so MANY teams giving out these big bonuses be completely wrong in their scouting evaluations? Are there NO Latin kids worth more than a couple hundred thousand dollars? That doesn't sound reasonable to me. In fact, that position would be practically racist. It makes more sense that White would spend the money if he had it, and he simply doesn't have it.

But "bigot" has a real bite, and is appropriate when discussing ethnic groups. Just food for thought.

Second, he is only signed for one year with a very low buyout and if they can make it through the year, then the young guys should be in better position to fill in.

It is unlikely you could sign any free agent (unless it is someone like Wolf) for only one year and Loiaza is probably at the going price.

Which I probably owe you anyway.

I was hot on Cabrera, but not at these prices. My focus is now on Andruw Jones, a player who might well be happy with a Furcal-type of deal and, if he's able to bounce back could make a difference in our offensive productivity. A full year of Loney, Kemp, Kent, healthy Furcal, Martin and Jones, combined with good pitching and it could be a decent year, something to build on.

Torre's got three years, after all. A World Series in 2010 would be fine with me.

Agreed.

Here's what I don't get: We know that locking up Cabrera is going to take a MASSIVE deal...well, if you're going to do that, why not just sign Arod?

Sure, Arod might take 25-30 a year....but will Cabrera be THAT much less to extend? If we're going after a third baseman, I'd MUCH rather just sign Arod than deal Kershaw, Laroche, Kemp and whatever else for Cabrera.

I have to agree with you on Loaiza. I'm not a huge fan, but at 7 mill per if he can pitch at least average than things have worked out.

To put it another way, I'd much rather have Loaiza starting every fifth day than Tomdrickson.