The Dodgers are experimenting with using outfielder Brett Eibner as a pitcher, Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times writes. Eibner pitched in college and reached 95 MPH with his fastball, and he’s now working on developing secondary pitches; it remains to be seen, of course, how those would play against big-leaguers. The Dodgers’ plan is to continue to treat Eibner primarily as an outfielder, but they envision using him as a pitcher more frequently than the typical position player taking the mound to relieve an exhausted staff. If Eibner were to prove effective as a pitcher, he’d become a useful and interesting tactical piece, reminiscent, perhaps, of a two-way player like Brooks Kieschnick, who first arrived in the big leagues as an outfielder but who also ended up pitching for Milwaukee in 2003 and 2004. The added versatility might also help Eibner from being shipped back and forth to Triple-A so frequently, Shaikin suggests — the Dodgers have already optioned him to Triple-A Oklahoma City four times this season. Here’s more from around the game.
- The Yankees have promoted top prospect Gleyber Torres to Triple-A Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, as MLB.com’s Matt Kardos first tweeted. Torres hit well for Double-A Trenton, batting .277/.363/.504 over 135 plate appearances this season. The move suggests the 20-year-old could make his big-league debut in the not-too-distant future, meaning that the Yankees could perhaps continue to see relatively quick returns on the trade that sent Aroldis Chapman to Chicago for Torres, Adam Warren, Billy McKinney and Rashad Crawford. (Warren, of course, is currently in the midst of a strong season in the Yankees’ bullpen.) Torres ranks second on MLB.com’s list of the game’s top 100 prospects, topped only by another recently traded player, White Sox infielder Yoan Moncada.
- The Padres are doing “exactly what they should be doing,” Shaikin writes. The Padres are losing games (their current .348 winning percentage is worst in the Majors), but they’re also piling up prospects through Latin American signings, the Rule 5 Draft and trades of veterans, and they’re grabbing top draft picks as well, just as the Cubs and Astros did prior to their current runs of success. Interestingly, manager Andy Green says one challenge of leading a rebuilding club is getting his players to focus on getting better while ignoring Internet commentary about their current struggles. “Everybody is on Twitter. Everybody reads everything everybody says,” Green notes. “You’re fighting a cultural battle. You have to create something special inside the house, so guys will guard their minds, guard their focus and show up every day to play. Without a doubt, it’s a challenge, but a challenge I welcome every single day.”
- Rangers infielder Joey Gallo’s wild season thus far is testing the limits of three-true-outcomes baseball, writes ESPN’s David Schoenfield. The “three true outcomes,” of course, are home runs, walks and strikeouts, and Gallo has piled up big numbers in all three categories, particularly the first and last. In 165 plate appearances this year, he has 13 homers, 21 walks and a ridiculous 65 strikeouts. He’s currently on pace to break Mark Reynolds’ record for whiffs in a season (223), and he could also top Reynolds’ record for most homers in a season with a sub-.200 average (32). Of course, Gallo’s immediate future is up in the air, since Adrian Beltre could soon return from a calf injury. (There’s hope Beltre can begin a rehab assignment next weekend, as Jeff Wilson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram recently tweeted.) And as Schoenfield notes, Gallo has faded in recent weeks, with a May batting line of just .148/.268/.443.
So Eibner is going to be an ultimate utility player? Well the guy has a bat, so I’m cool with a 9th bat in the lineup.
Gallo has lost all of his trade value. No one’s going to want a guy who can K at a 40% clip in AAA ball regardless of how much power he has.
Except he’s still young. Young power = potential.
I remember when the Padres were trying to trade Cashner and/or Tyson Ross for him.
Completely uneducated comment.
I don’t know he’s pretty much just a better version of Chris carter at this point
You realize that “this point” is practically his rookie season?
Ugh. Cubs win one season and their fans are suddenly baseball GMs. Get lost
lol
Yeah no 23 year old ever improves. Everyone knows that
The Quest for the First Pick has been going smoothly so far.
But is that a really worthwhile quest? There’s no can’t miss prospect in the 2018 draft.
Padres couldn’t even tank right last year. The top 2 picks in this years draft are going to immediately be top 10 prospects in baseball. Padres have the 3rd pick and wont get a shot at either of them.
The first two picks are going to immediately be top-10 prospects? I doubt that. They might end up as highly ranked prospects, but there’s no sure thing with prospects. The Padres have drafted plenty of guys who never panned out.
As have, say, the Dodgers. Justin Orenduff, Zach Lee, Preston Mattingly, Chris Reed, Bryan Morris, Ethan Martin, Chris Withrow, Aaron Miller, James Adkins., All Dodgers first-round picks.
As you can say with all teams there is 40 rounds. So there will be a lot more misses than hits. 25 man roster not all 40 guys will make a team later in their career. Add in international signings and thats 50 players a team could sign every given year.
You must not be following the hype the top 2 prospects have in this years draft. Swanson became top 10 in 2015 so its not anything unrealistic. Hunter green and mckay have so much more hype then anyone since harper and strasburg. You missed the entire point. I said they would be top 10 prospects not sure fire mlb stars. And the dodgers busts from 10 years ago in the late 1st round are irrelevant. Padres have the #3 overall pick and they have to get it right. And at number 3 they are much more likley to draft a bust then at 1-2. Last year they made a reach with cal quantrill. Theres no way prellar can make a reach at 3
Well, sure. They’ll be highly ranked at first. Matt Bush was a highly ranked prospect immediately after being drafted. But then there’s the development process. The last first-round pick the Padres drafted and developed who did anything in the majors was…ummm…Khalil Greene maybe? That was in 2002. I feel like the Padres should focus more on developing their high-upside IFA signings and draft best player available without overthinking it. One of the three guys drafted 1-3 in this draft is going to bust, probably two of them, if history is any indicator.
Tim Stauffer had a decent career and he was a Padres high first round pick (I think around 2003). But like you said, other than him and Greene, that’s about it.
Corey Luebke before TJS, Logan Forscythe (after he was traded).
So because a previous regime sucked at drafting the draft is useless?
I agree tho that they need to just take the best player available at #3 this year.
Yeah, Stauffer was a signability pick – a college righty whose stocked dropped mightily after he suffered a shoulder injury in college. He signed for a way below-market bonus for the spot he was picked. But you’re right he was a pretty useful reliever there for a few seasons and had one decent season as a starter. Then he went to the AL and just got destroyed.
But generally teams don’t use first round picks on decent middle relievers. Or they shouldn’t.. But that 2003 draft was kind of a disaster. The first overall pick was Delmon Young, who was never really any good and had some serious off-field issues. Rickie Weeks was the second pick and he had a short run as a good player. Nick Markakis and John Danks were first rounders picked after Stauffer, and both of them had decent careers, Markakis of course is still playing. Picking him would have obviously been better but you can’t build a team around a singles-hitting outfielder with no speed.
The rest of that draft was pretty terrible, so the Padres getting some good years out of Stauffer has to be considered a success. Especially from that draft. The best player from that first round is Adam Jones, and he was picked 37th. The draft is a crapshoot.
You’ve got your history wrong on Stauffer. The injury was unknown at the time of the draft and only came to light when he reported it from a private physician’s appointment he had. The team lowered its bonus to him after that, but when he was selected, he and Kyle Sleeth were the clear top college pitching prospects in their class.
Every draft has plenty of prospects that “don’t work out”. Check out the results of the 2010 draft that Harper was taken 1st, Machado 3rd, but very few of the other top 32 have made any impact whatsoever. Sale is there, Harvey is there, Yelich is there, Grandal is there……That’s 6 out of 32 , or about 20% success rate.
That’s why we call them “Prospects”…….lol
mymlbdraft.com/2010/round1/
it’s a little early to say that isn’t it?
1. Yes it is a worthwhile quest. You need to stop it with your little crusade to try and debunk the value of high draft picks. There is no way that drafting lower means your prospects are more likely to succeed. If the Padres had a chance of contending this year you might have an argument but they don’t. The Padres really lose nothing by tanking hard and going for the #1 overall pick. Screw the product on the field and screw making the season slightly more bearable.
2. The 2018 draft isn’t for more than a year so you really can’t say there are no can’t-miss prospects in that draft. The guys in that draft have a full year left to show what they got. Within the next year, some guys will break out, some will stumble. I don’t believe Kris Bryant was regarded as a “can’t miss” prospect this time 5 years ago.
Mike Trout was drafted 25th in 2009. The Padres had the 3rd pick in that draft. It’s a crapshoot. 5 of the ten WAR leaders in 2017 were not drafted in the first round. And only one was drafted 1-1.
The San Diego Padres, in 2007, had six first round picks. One of them made the majors.
Wait. So let me get this straight. Are you saying that, because the Padres drafted third, they were somehow not allowed to take Mike Trout? Are you saying that Mike Trout was always going to go 25th no matter who got the 25th pick? Cuz only then does your argument hold water.
So because a previous regime that has been replaced 3 times now sucked at drafting, the draft is useless?
Yes that’s one reason and for franchise that’s been losing for almost 50 years tanking is not route
It’s not about drafting; it’s about player development. Name the last player the Padres drafted and developed who had even a halfway decent major league career?
The previous regimes were of course handcuffed by cheapness, but they also made terrible decisions. Scouts in 2009 were so divided on Donavan Tate, and the Padres opened the wallets to pay him 6.7 million bucks, at that time the biggest bonus they’d ever given out. That 2009 draft was loaded – besides Trout at #25 , there were 6 or 7 players drafted after Tate who became reasonable major-league talents or even stars. Tate was an absolute disaster.
But the other reason I don’t really care about high draft picks is just history. That 2009 draft, for example, was considered to be a really strong draft class. and even then, 16 of the first 25 picks completely flamed out. That’s pretty similar of every draft class. I think the key isn’t drafting well, but developing players well.
Chase Headley and Logan Forsythe.
Dude, you need to let it go. We all know that Matt Bush and Donavan Tate happened. That doesn’t mean every high draft pick will turn out like them.
Headley was a second round pick. He has had a better career than any first round pick the Padres have drafted in the last 15 years. Which sort of proves my point. Forsythe is a good player but not really a star. But you’re right, that’s a success.
Tate and Bush and Kulbacki and Gautreau and Trzesinski and…I could go on and on. And it’s not just the Padres. Even teams that have been great for the last ten years have major busts in the first round . And I don’t know about “letting it go.” This is, presumably, a discussion knowledgeable baseball fans can and should have. What is really the value of the 1-1 pick in a baseball draft? That’s actually a reasonable discussion.
Player development I agree look at Padres track record with Alonso and Gyorko
It is a reasonable discussion, but a few extra wins when the team isn’t going to make the playoffs anyway has no value to a team. So even if drafting higher only gives you a marginal advantage, tanking is still worth it.
Chris Sale was taken at #13. At least 6 players taken before him “have done nothing significant” in their career to date.
Padres took Karsten Whitson at #9…???…
Christian Colon was at #4……MLB exp = 127 games, .
slash line in 2016……….231/.294/.293/.586…………Yawn.
Getting his “last shot” with the Marlins right now.
If you think that the 12 teams that picked before the White Sox we’re somehow barred from taking Chris Sale, then and only then does your argument hold water.
That doesn’t matter. The higher a team chooses, the larger the talent pool available and the greaterer leverage they have when it comes to slot money. There is zero reason to say that they shouldn’t look forward to a higher pick.
That’s true if you were drafting in the NBA or NFL, where top draft picks almost always become stars. In baseball, top draft picks, let’s say top-5 draft picks rarely even touch the major leagues or make any kind of impact. Just doing a quick-and dirty look at the drafts between 2007 and 2011 (I don’t want to go further than that because a lot of players from the 2012 draft are still prospects or developing)
So of those 25 players drafted in the top-5 in that span, 12 never reached the majors. That’s nearly a 50% bust rate, and some of the guys that did reach the show, like Christian Colon or Pedro Alvarez or Brian Matusz or Drew Pomeranz, were just replacement-level players or worse.
Wait, so let me get this straight. Are you saying that players drafted later have a higher chance of succeeding than players drafted earlier? Cuz only then does your argument hold water.
Well, that’s obviously true because baseball’s draft goes 50 rounds and there’s only 30 or so picks in the first round, so just probability would say later round picks would be more likely to be good players. But we’re talking about the first round, right?
I don’t know if that is true of every year, but lets look at 2009, since that’s the fun one. Stras went first, everyone knew he was going to go first, he’s been an ace-level starter at times. The second pick was Ackley, who mostly stunk. Tate was third. The next two guys never played in the majors. The next three guys were mid-rotation starters for a while (Leake, Minor, Wheeler). Other guys picked after the top ten who played in the majors – Crow, Storen, Pollock, Shelby Miller, Kyle Gibson, Grichuk, Trout, Paxton, Skaggs, Boxberger, Owings, Scheppers…the lower you go in that first round the better the players get.
But maybe I’m cherry-picking. I’m going to just go random, and I’ll pick the 2006 draft. That produced a lot of great major-league players in the top of the draft. 4 0f the first five picks were busts: Hochevar, Greg Reynolds, Lincoln, Morrow. Longoria went third. the best player picked in that draft was picked #7 overall – Kershaw. Max Scherzer was picked 11th. So again, the further down the draft you go the better the players end up. Lincecum was picked ahead of Scherzer, for example. Andrew Miller was a top 10 pick but he didn’t get good until he became a reliever.
Nobody after pick 12 or so had much of a career except Kennedy and Ottavino. But, yeah, the first pick in that draft was Luke Hochevar. The second pick was Greg Reynolds. The 7th pick was Kershaw. The 11th pick was Scherzer. The draft is a crapshoot.
So are you saying that, had the Royals drafted 7th as opposed to 1st, they would have gotten Kershaw instead of Hochevar? Did drafting 1st somehow bar the Royals from taking Kershaw? That is the only way you argument makes any sense.
No. My argument is that the draft is a crapshoot. Most talent evaluators thought Hochevar was better than Kershaw.. Unlike the NBA and NFL, there’s almost no guarantee in the MLB draft that a top pick will be succesful. Unless, of course, there’s a Harper or Griffey or Strasburg. So why work so hard for that? Why not spend that energy and money in the development side of the equation?
This.
If the Royals won more games and picked 8th instead of 1st, they wouldn’t have even had the chance to pick Kershaw… David is right in the sense that the MLB is “generally” more of a crapshoot at the top than the NBA and NFL. That being said, there is no benefit to winning 70 games instead of 60. You get a lower draft pick (in every round), you get less slot bonus, and your team still sucks either way. Why would you not want first dibs in every round? Just because many teams have messed it up doesn’t mean it’s a bad spot to be…
The Astros had the opportunity to pick Kris Bryant #1 overall but stupidly chose a college pitcher that underperformed that year. If they won a few more games and had the #3 pick, they wouldn’t have even had that opportunity. Again, in most years, it’s not as big of an advantage as in some of the other sports, but it’s still an advantage nonetheless.
And here’s the other point; I grew up in San Diego. We grew up very poor, but once a year we would muster up enough money to go to a Padres game. My first game was in ’84. The Padres got creamed, something like 10-1. Eric Show got slaughtered. But the lineup was terrific, and they were obviously not tanking – Wiggins/Gwynn/Garvey/McReynolds/Nettles/Martinez/Kennedy/Templeton.. So even though they lost and lost badly it was okay. We had to save up all year to go but it was still cool to see.
A kid in 2017, who might only get to see one Padres game this year, might have only been able to see Friday night’s game, Where the Padres ran out a pitcher who is clearly not a major league pitcher. It’s bad fan service. Try explaining to a 10-year old kid that the team is losing on purpose because maybe in like five years they might have a good player.
1) Most 10 year old kids would be happy just going to the game no matter if they won or loss – especially if they can only go to 1 game a year.
2) You don’t have to explain to a 10 year old that they are losing on purpose. It’s not like the players are actively trying to throw the games. We aren’t talking about a playoff or bubble team that just decided to tank for a better draft pick. We’re talking about a garbage team no matter how you slice it. Would fans really be THAT much happier with a 70 win team instead of a 60 win team? I think not.
3) It sucks to watch, but it is what it is. Teams that don’t have unlimited payrolls need to build through the draft (plus international signings). Heck, even the extremely rich Cubs did it to help get to where they are now. Despite what we have both agreed upon with the top of the MLB draft generally being more of a crapshoot than the NFL/NBA drafts, having a top pick is still better than not having one. Just because teams mess up the top pick all the time doesn’t mean it’s not a benefit to have it. You can pick ANYBODY you want. Again, with Kershaw going #7, the 6 teams ahead of the Dodgers at least had the opportunity to get him. The #8 team didn’t. Just because those 6 passed on him doesn’t mean whoever was in the 8th spot would’ve if they were ahead of the Dodgers. It’s all about opportunities and what you do with them.
Lol so you are suggesting that the Padres appeal to the casual fan, even if it’s not a good business move? The casual fan wanted us to keep Justin Upton even tho doing so would have meant outbidding the Tigers and that contract is looking really bad thus far. The casual fan wanted us to hold onto Kennedy and Kelley at the 2015 trade deadline in order to “put a good product on the field” even tho we weren’t contending that year and not trading them meant we would lose them for nothing (I know Kennedy did end up getting a QO but at the time it was questionable whether he would. There was still no excuse for not trading Kelley). Stop it with your delusion. Every move we make right now must be geared towards making the team better in 2019 and beyond. Winning games now will not do that. Once again, screw the product on the field and screw making the season slightly more bearable.
No. But I have a child. I don’t want to have to explain why the team is losing on purpose. So we don’t watch
And this is the other thing: as a kid I wanted to see the Padres win. If they lost I at least knew they wanted to win. I can’t quite explain to my son the idea that they aren’t even trying.
Again – the players aren’t out there actively trying to lose, despite what you may think.
No. I’m just arguing the draft is a crapshoot. Talent evaluators thought Hochevar was better than Kershaw.
And baseball is a product. People pay lots of money to see it. If I’d paid to take my family to Friday’s game I would have been ticked off. Not because they lost. That happens. But because they had five guys in the starting lineup with OBPs under .300 and they started Jered Weaver. And I’m far from a “casual” fan, whatever that means.
Casual fan = fan who likes watching the game but is clueless as to the way MLB contracts and stats work. They tend to like “big name” players over player who simply produce. A casual fan might think that the Padres HAD to keep Justin Upton and made a mistake in trading Matt Kemp, for example.
There have been 4-5 “Can’t Miss” prospects in the last 31 years that went #1 overall. Harper, Arod, Griffey, and Chipper. So far Harper is not even the best pick from that year, but he is definitely a can’t miss type prospect. There are as many like Matt Bush, Tim Beckham, Bryan Bullington, and Brien Taylor as there are guys that turned out to be even a decent player, let alone can’t miss type prospects.
I feel sorry for managers like Andy Green. When the team you manage goes through a rebuild you know that you won’t be the manager there when the team actually gets good. Recent examples of that are the Cubs, Astros, Nationals, Tigers, and I guess you could say the Braves too since they expected to at least be playing .500 ball this season. Depending on what the plan is for the Padres to be competitive pretty much sets the lifetime of his job.
Go get yours, Eibner! #WoooPig
Go Giants, though.
The Bombers are back like it or not haters! The next couple of years will see the return to normalcy in MLB..Sox vs Yanks matters!
Not with that rotation. They’ve given up more runs this month already, than they did in April. There are still 10 games to go.
and still they win!
Wow Eibner is going to be an All Rounder (Cricket Term). It won’t work! It’s not cricket. He will just turn into a bits and Bobs player. With little or no value
I don’t know much about cricket, but in baseball (especially in the NL) a player who can be used in a variety of situations brings a special value to a team. It is rare but not unheard of for a position player to pitch, but it usually only happens in very long extra-inning games when everybody else has already been used. If Eibner does appear as a pitcher, it would probably be in that kind of situation.
Weren’t you the one giving the Padres so much grief for using Bethancourt as a reliever/catcher? What is the difference?
Bethancourt has no movement on his fastball. And he never had a real reliable off speed to fool players. And his timing is WAY off, he consistently pitches on the same beat.
Sure he can throw a 64MPH knuckleball and a 94MPH heater, doesn’t matter if either can’t move an inch.
Legitimately, the only thing that makes a fastball pitcher good is if they can make it move. Unless your Chapman or Kopech where you can gun it past someone at 100 you have no reliable chance at becoming a stable pitcher in the MLB.
Maybe Eibner has some tail on his fastball, I don’t know, maybe his Change is good.
Well he came out of college with a sinker and nasty slider with a so so change up. So who knows how long it’ll take him to get re acquainted. As a mop up guy in a blowout situations it’ll be just to save an arm or two.
No, I was not. So that’s the difference.
I played against Eibner in college and I always thought he should’ve kept pitching. Glad to hear it.
I guessed advanced stats has thrown out the single, double and triple.
Literally half of gallos hits are homers. And how do you even think that saying he’s a three true outcome hitter is advanced stats?
Nearly 60% of his PAs are a K, BB, or HR. That blows people like Mark Reynolds and Chris Carter out of the water. Even historical three outcome players like Kingman and Rob Deer aren’t close.
Cole for Torres and Sheffield?
Lol
If the Yankees really believe in Torres and go hard after machado after 18 season.
Cole and Harrison for Didi, Clint Frazier or Rutherford, Sheffield, Acevedo, andujar and then some negotiating on some smaller pieces moving from both sides.
Yankees get a real ace and a guy who can fill in anywhere on the field and can hit. Pirates get a very good all around MLB shortstop, 3 top 100 prospects, and then in Acevedo a pitcher who regularly hit 100,101 as a starter, maybe a closer down the line.
Layoff the shrooms pal!
You’re highly undervaluing Didi.
We don’t need or want Harrison or his salary.
3 top 100 for
Cole would be good by itself. You’re not getting Acevedo and Didi in addition.
You have mistaken Cashman for DDombrowski. No thank you
Deals are rarely made where significant prospect capital isn’t exchanged. If you want Cole, it’s going to be for the big boys. Teams generally prefer their value to be concentrated rather than diversified.
Exactly!
I expect the “Eibner needs Tommy John Surgery” story soon.