On The Topic of “Aces”
December 31, 2010 at 10:00 am | Posted in aces, Bert Blyleven, Ivan DeJesus, Jack Morris | 46 CommentsOther than pointing out that Jack Morris wasn’t really any better than Orel Hershiser the other day, I’ve tried to steer clear of the Hall of Fame debate around here. Part of that is because gallons of virtual ink has already been spilled on the “Morris vs. Bert Blyleven” and “no, you can’t just baselessly accuse Jeff Bagwell of juicing” debates, and the world hardly needs another viewpoint on that. Also, none of this has really been Dodger-related, since no prominent Dodgers are up for inclusion.
However, a Twitter conversation I had with SI’s Jon Heyman (and for all the garbage everyone gives him, I respect that he’s at least willing to have the conversation, wrong as he may be) brought up a topic that we’ve been talking about here on this blog for years: the topic of “aces”. This has been relevant to the Dodgers for a while because uninformed media members continually state that the Dodgers need an ace, conveniently ignoring the ascent of Clayton Kershaw.
This all started this morning when Heyman asked, “why was morris ace of great teams and bert no. 2 on good/bad/soso teams?”
That right there is a huge problem, for two reasons. The term “ace” is so subjective, and in large part is not something a player can control. Remember, the point of advanced statistics is to eliminate the noise of things that a player cannot control and focus on the things he can. It’s why we know wins are stupid, because they don’t account for offense or defense. It’s why we know RBI are irrelevant, because it’s almost entirely dependent on coming to the plate with men already on base.
Trying to declare someone an “ace” is just as troublesome. First, what determines an “ace”? Is it being the Opening Day starter, as so many have pointed to in defense of Morris, who made 14 straight such appearances from 1980-1993? By that logic, Vicente Padilla was the ace of the 2010 Dodgers. (h/t Chad Moriyama on that one). Is it having the most wins? If so, Chad Billingsley was the ace of the 2009 Dodgers, and you don’t need me to remind you how people felt about him after the season. Is it who starts the first game of the playoffs, as Heyman seems to be claiming with Morris? If so, then Randy Wolf was the ace of the 2009 team, as though choosing your Game 1 starter doesn’t depend on opponent, location, or how the rotation lined up if you weren’t lucky enough to clinch early. In 1993, Jack Morris was 7-12 with a 6.19 ERA for a championship Blue Jays team. He started on Opening Day. Was he really that team’s ace?
So right there we can prove that identifying someone as the “ace” is subjective and nearly impossible. But it doesn’t stop there. Even if you could find a way to identify someone as the “ace” (yes, I’d suggest WAR or ERA+, but clearly that won’t satisfy everyone) there’s also the issue of competition. As I argued to Heyman, players don’t put together the roster, and neither do the managers who choose playoff and Opening Day starters.
What that means is that you could be the third best pitcher in baseball, but if you’re teammates with one of the two guys better than you, technically you’re not the “ace”. I’m sure there’s dozens of examples, but two that came to mind immediately for me were Don Drysdale and Tom Glavine. Drysdale’s a Hall of Famer, and Glavine likely will be. Yet for much of their careers, they were outdone by teammates Sandy Koufax and Greg Maddux, who are probably two of the five best pitchers of all time. Does not being the “ace” make Drysdale or Glavine any lesser pitchers, just because they happened to be paired with legends? I think not. It’s just more evidence why trying to determine an “ace” is silly, because I’m sure we would have preferred Glavine in the mid-90s to whomever you considered the Dodger ace at the time, like Hideo Nomo or Ismael Valdes.
Heyman’s reply to that was that Blyleven wasn’t paired with talent like that on the Twins, Pirates, and Indians, and therefore if he was really that good, should have been the unquestioned ace. Yet I’m having trouble seeing what exactly made him not the ace. He started on Opening Day 12 times, if that means anything to you, just one less than Morris. Is it because he didn’t start the first game of the playoffs? His teams made the playoffs just three times; in 1970, the first of those times, he was just 19 years old. In 1979, he’d pitched in the final game of the season, making him unavailable for Game 1, plus he had well-known personal issues with Pirates manager Chuck Tanner. The same happened in 1987, where he’d pitched Game 162 and pitched Game 2 while Frank Viola – a very good pitcher in his day – started Game 1. As Mike Axisa of River Ave Blues points out, C.C. Sabathia didn’t start Game 1 of the 2008 NLDS either. You know why? He was pitching a complete game on the last day of the season to push the Brewers into the playoffs. Yet you’d consider him an “ace”, wouldn’t you?
If Blyleven wasn’t seen as the ace of his teams at the time, it’s because unenlightened spectators of the day placed far too much importance in his unimportant win/loss record. It’s because circumstances out of his control prevented him from pitching Game 1 of the playoffs. It’s because we know more now than we did then.
But mostly, it’s because claiming someone as an “ace” is often impossible. There’s no standard for it. It’s often based on flawed statistics like wins, or a manager’s gut feeling on Opening Day, or who your teammates happen to be, or how the schedule plays out for the playoffs. There’s probably no such thing as an “ace”, and it shouldn’t be a concern in Hall of Fame voting.
(This will not stop me from calling Clayton Kershaw an ace all season long, of course.)
******
Back to the Dodgers, this isn’t good news for anyone hoping Ivan DeJesus would grab the 2B job in camp, thus pushing Juan Uribe to 3B and Casey Blake to LF. Over at Minor League Ball, John Sickels ranks his top 20 Dodger prospects. It’s no surprise that Dee Gordon, Jerry Sands, and Trayvon Robinson are the top 3, but DeJesus didn’t even make the list, rather placing in the honorable mentions. I said back in October that I didn’t think he was ready to make the leap to start the year, and Sickels’ assessment doesn’t add a lot of optimism there. That’s not to say I think DeJesus is a non-prospect – far from it. He’ll have a major league career, but it’s unlikely he’ll be above average, or someone we should be waiting on to break through. Yes, his AFL performance was impressive, but don’t put too much stock into small sample size stats against varying competition.
46 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
How Many McCourt Sins?
MSTI on the web
MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
awesome post Petriello.
Comment by davegershman— December 31, 2010 #
That was quick. Thanks!
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— December 31, 2010 #
How about Curt Schilling? He’s probably not in the company of Glavine, but he had some outstanding seasons pitching alongside Johnson (and a very good one “behind” Martinez). Pinheads everywhere (Dan Shaughnessy, Seth Everett) are already saying he can’t get into the hall until Morris does, and while I admit he’s a borderline candidate, he has a MUCH stronger case that Morris.
Comment by Greg— December 31, 2010 #
Agreed. There’s a lot of cases i could go on n on.
btw i wonder if anyone still considers cole hamels an ace…
Comment by Tymathee— December 31, 2010 #
I like that. Hamels is the #4 starter in Philly. He has changed at all since he was the “ace”?
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— December 31, 2010 #
Exactly, they have 4 “Aces” but i wouldn’t be surprised if people turned around and said Cole was nothing special, “a #3 on another team at best”
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 31, 2010 #
Cole Hamels is not the pitcher he was when he burst on the scene in 2006. Don’t get me wrong, he’s still very, very good. But a little like Billingsly in that he hasn’t quite lived up to the hype (not knocking Bills either). He gives up a lot of dingers (20+/yr) for an “ace”. Shifting gears, IMO it all comes down to the difference between an “ace” and a “number 1″. The ace is almost always a #1, but the #1 is rarely an “ace”.
Comment by carolinabluedodger— January 2, 2011 #
I know that Schilling won “only” 216 games but in my mind, he’s a Hall of Famer. He pitched at the height of the steroid era and turned in some of the best seasons in modern memories. I don’t care if it was paint or blood, Schilling was also the consummate post-season performer with an 11-2 mark in 133 1/3 innings and 120 K’s compared to 25 walks. He was a good one. Morris and Blyleven should also be in the Hall. Blyleven should have been in a decade ago. The 60 shut outs speak for themselves.
Comment by Abner Clarke— December 31, 2010 #
There should be no question that Schilling should be voted into the Hall of Fame. He not only was a great post-season pitcher, he put together a pretty fair career on that raised hill 60 feet and 6 inches away from the danger of speeding spheres coming at your head! Schilling was called a horse every 5th day and a horse’s ass on the other 4 by teammates and fans alike, I know that, but Ty Cobb wasn’t the most warm and fuzzy guy to meet! And Early Winn once remarked that he knock his own mother down if she dug in. In 1997-1998 for the Phillies, in 522 IP, Schilling was 32-28, with a 3.12/1.08 ERA/WHIP, 444 HA and a 619/119 K/BB. He saved his best work for the seasons of 2001 and 2002 for the Diamondbacks. In 516 IP, Schilling was a remarkable 45-13, a 3.10/1.02 ERA/WHIP, 455 HA, and an unbelievable 609/72 K/BB. And, like you point out Mr. Clarke, Schilling pitched when steroid use was rampant in major league clubhouses. He finished 216-146 and his 3116 K’s was 15th on the all-time strike out list at the time of his retirement. A 6-time All-Star and a 3-time Cy Young runner-up. I’m comfortable with the chubby kid from Alaska as a member of baseball’s Hall of Fame. I think that we, as fans, have to stop looking at total wins. Schilling was a big game guy and I would say that’s the definition of the term “ace” that’s been so elusively evading us! Have a good New Year’s guys!
George Hubschman
rotoimbeciles.com
Comment by george hubschman— December 31, 2010 #
SI’s Joe Posnanski wrote a great article on the 8 players he’ll be voting for this year of the HOF and he takes on Heyman’s Morris over Blyleven argument. Subjective criteria like whether someone “feels like a hall of famer” or “you had to be there” are even more ridiculous in this age of advanced statistics that tell the real story. However, the stat that blows my mind the most is that Blyleven walked 68 fewer batters than Morris but pitched 1,146 more innings. Whether or not you agree with Posnanski’s analysis on the other players, he makes well-reasoned arguments. Hell, he even got me to look at McGwire’s situation in a different light.
Comment by Max— December 31, 2010 #
I don’t think Morris wasn’t your prototype great pitcher. He had a bulldog mentality and found his way clear to 254 major league wins. He is remembered for a few big games including a couple of 1-0 wins in the post-season. I know that it counts on his lifetime stats but in Morris’ last 2 seasons (’93-”94) he was Jeff Suppan-like going 294 innings with a 5.91 ERA and a 1.65 WHIP and 352 hits. He definitely took the Steve Carlton path to retirement. He did have 175 career complete games, was a 3 time 20 game winner (leading the A.L. twice), led the league in shut outs (1986) was a 5-time All-Star, and started 13 opening days in a row. Like you say, Max, Blyleven should have been a no-brainer. The knee-buckling 12 to 6 curve was one of the best of all-time and, when he retired, the 3701 strike outs were 3rd overall.
Comment by Abner Clarke— January 1, 2011 #
Thank you! Finally someone agrees with me. Being an “ace” is so subjective and any Dodger fan who over looks Kershaw as the “Ace” of the Dodgers is so blinded that he shouldn’t even be called a Dodger fan.
Personally, I Think Ace should be used along the word “celebrity” because all “aces” have some type of fame attached to them. They’ve thrown no-hitters, complete game shut outs, just done something to get them in the media, thus getting them notoriety so then BSPN does stories on them because now they’ve done something amazing and have gotten themselves in the headline, thus making them an Ace!
Comment by Tymathee— December 31, 2010 #
*High Five* i always come back with, what did the Phils do last year? Lee is great but what happened in the WS? Where are Carp and Wain?? Polishing their rings? I don’t think so
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 31, 2010 #
I feel like the low expectations for dejesus are a little preliminary. Many prospect rankings are arbitrary, I would wait until BA’s prospect rankings to get a second opinion.
Also, regarding the left field options, could it be found in Jamie Hoffman? His splits show in the minors he is much better against lefties than righties
Comment by Ryan— December 31, 2010 #
Whos to say there cannot be more then one “ace” on a pitching staff, aka philly. There are 4 aces in a deck of cards right?
Comment by Chris S— December 31, 2010 #
I too hold out hope that DeJesus will be a productive MLB option. Too many times the Dodgers have given up on players prematurely because they were afraid to play them over veterans or because somehow they pissed off the FO. I’m not saying that he will be a superstar but just a productive member of a roster.
Comment by west coast ram— December 31, 2010 #
Great point. What I wonder is how much more will DeJesus gain at Triple A, and would the Dodgers not be better off in the long run in finding out what he can do at 2nd, but Blake into the platoon in left and then put Uribe at 3rd, and if things don’t work out in left or at 2nd, there is still Jamie Carroll.
Comment by Louis— December 31, 2010 #
I think that if pedro ,big unit ,mad-dog,schills or any other pitcher goes into the hall canseco,big mac and bonds all have to go!why you might ask because probably they had ped users playing on their teams.
Comment by Pete guerrero— December 31, 2010 #
Off topic, but who do you think has the best chance of making the Opening Day Roster? Lindblom, Schlicting, Elbert, Hawksworth, Monasterios, Ely, Link or Troncoso
Comment by juan— December 31, 2010 #
Hawksworth. He’s out of options.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— December 31, 2010 #
I like the erstwhile Elbert, Lindblom and Hawksworth in that order. Keep an eye on Link. Of the others he’s probably the best one. I would see if I could move some of the other fungible relievers for some moveable and potential useful parts.
Comment by Richard Cranium— December 31, 2010 #
Josh Lindblom had a season to forget in his first full year at Triple-A. In 95 innings, he had a 6.54 ERA and a 1.84 WHIP, with 84 strike outs and 32 walks. He gave up a whopping 143 hits. That can’t be an accident, either. Maybe he caught too much of the plate in an effort to keep his walks down. Whatever it was, the experiment didn’t work out too well. And I think it was starting that Lindblom saw a lot of his adversity. The 6’5″ 240 lb. Lindblom is better suited for relief work. It was real regression from 2009 when in 96 1/3 innings between AA/AAA, he had a 3.83 ERA and a 1.19 WHIP with an 82 K and 26 walk. I think, even if he has a good spring, he will be sent back for more seasoning. Elbert has a shot, if he’s mentally back from his foray into the darker regions. It would be a bad reason for Hawksworth to make the team based solely on the fact that he’s out of options. But that’s seems to be a real possibility. Troncoso has a little bit of a shot but doesn’t miss enough bats. Ely could serve as a good #6 or 7 starter at Albuquerque and Monasterios may start the season at Double-A. The Dodgers may not be done adding to the pen!
Comment by Abner Clarke— January 1, 2011 #
Some of the luster has sure come off on Lindblom. I was a big fan of this kid on my site from the 2008 season. And, like you mentioned, Lindblom really had some regression this year. Almost like going from an A student and a 3-sport star as a Junior in High School to a C minus kid and a pot-head. I agree that no one can be a fan of the 143 HA in 95 IP. Look at it this way, he won’t be 24 years old until mid-June and his 2009 season wasn’t light years ago. He did have a decent season between Double and Triple-A that season. But, as hard as I try, it’s tough to get past the 6.54/1.84 ERA/WHIP at Triple-A this past season. Those are numbers that you just don’t forget. I just don’t think we can grant Lindblom a breakfast ball on the ’10 season. The best case scenario for him is to sharpen up the stuff, work his butt of in the minors, and force the Dodgers to make a decision on him come the end of May, early June. Because this is kind of becoming a make or break year for him! And, unlike Scott Elbert, he’s not a left-hander. I’m not a big fan of Hawksworth but he probably makes the club and maybe Link. That list of RP is like the guys sitting on the couch at the beginning of the movie Animal House to meet Stephen Furst and Thomas Hulce. No one really excites me, though, with seasoning, Monasterios may have a future. And maybe it’s time to admit that some of those guys should be on the stage. The next stage out of town!
Comment by george hubschman— January 1, 2011 #
Good Animal House stuff. I could never get past the wall-eyes of the actor Thomas Hulce. Fortunately for him, he played the composer Mozart in the film Amadeus. And no one ever saw Mozart’s face. I always thought that he was actually a bust of himself and that Mrs. Mozart was very unhappy with him. (Though it’s been written that she could have played on the other team). Lindblom’s season was surely a bust also. From every aspect. I know that he came out of the rotation and did better as a reliever, which wasn’t saying much. He did throw harder, George when you were touting him to the world almost 3 years back. Maybe Lindblom could give hitting a try. He’s a lifetime .310 hitter with 7 rbi’s in 42 at bats and an 8/6 K/BB rate. It kind of worked for Rick Ankiel, though the jury could still be out. Ted Williams did pretty good with it too! While you’re at it, don’t hold your breath on Carlos Monasterios unless the Dodgers stop miscasting him as a swingman.
Comment by Pete Sweeney— January 1, 2011 #
Wonderful stuff, Peter. I do vaguely remember the “traveling eyes” of Hulce. I sometimes get the actor confused with the OF, David Hulse, who played with the Rangers and Brewers in the 90′s. David had better eyes. Good remembrances of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart though I never saw any proof that his wife was a switch hitter! They could have a Mozart bobble-head doll day at the stadium. That would be a nice thing to do for the young fans. It will make them forget the signing of Guerrier for $4-mil/year for 3-yrs! I’d like to forget my love affair with Lindblom as well but it’s tough. Some things are harder to let go than others. I agree with the team’s misuse of Monasterios. In the right role, he may be OK but I have a feeling that he will be plying his trade in the minors, at least to begin the season. A good point was made by a poster to trade that excess in the Dodger pen. Because, as I well know, one man’s garbage is another man’s treasure and vice-versa!
Comment by george hubschman— January 1, 2011 #
I did see that Ronnie Belisario is having success in the Venezuelan Winter League. In 18 innings, he has a 1.00 ERA, 15 strike outs and 4 walks. I know that it’s a small sample but if he can regain some composure on the mound and get past any more personal issues, he could be a helper in the Dodger pen! He took a little bit of a step back in 2010 but, if you look under the hood, he wasn’t much different from a skills perspective. I may be one to give him a mulligan on the 2010 season. It’s a New Year and I’d like to give the kid whose hit series include JAG and NCIS a clean slate for the start of ’11. Then it will be up to him if he wants to pitch the way we know he can. And, if not, we’ll wash our hands of him and move on to the next guy!
Comment by Abner Clarke— January 2, 2011 #
I did read that Belisario also has 14 saves. But how tough can these Winter Leagues be when a guy like Bartolo Colon is 2-1 with a 1.93 ERA in 7 starts. He also has 28 strike outs and 6 walks in 37 1/3 innings. Colon hasn’t been effective in the majors probably in almost 5 seasons. I wonder what kind of competition these guys could be facing? At least it’s a step in the right direction for Belisario who battled purported substance abuse issues and eventual help this season. I’m not too sure either that Belisario is from the same family that produces those fine shows, including NCIS, Los Angeles. But if he does, it would be good for him as he would always have something to fall back on if this whole pitching thing doesn’t work out! He’s look pretty good as a lab tech.
Comment by Pete Sweeney— January 2, 2011 #
or eveland
Comment by juan— December 31, 2010 #
I’m sorry Juan that I didn’t get back to you sooner on this matter of the heart. I did put up a blog on my site concerning my deep feelings for Eveland the day that he got signed by the Dodgers. Here it is, Juan: I don’t have the same cynicism on the Eveland deal that I do for, let’s say, the Dontrelle Willis signing by the Reds. Because, if truth be told. I think Willis is done and I’ve stuck the proverbial fork in him. God, I hope I’m wrong and that he can resurrect his career as a RP. That just seems tough as he’s been given chance after chance. And, why not, he’s a good guy, and an entertainer as well. Those kinds of guys sell tickets when they’re going well. When those guys go south, you have a revolution on your hands. Which brings me to Eveland. he’s had some minor league success as evidenced by his 39-26 record in 584 2/3 IP with 555 HA, a 3.34/1.27 ERA/WHIP and a 545/188 K/BB. Those are good numbers considering he’s spent a lifetime at Triple-A. Don’t forget that he was the 469th overall pick of the 2002 draft. And what do they say about lefties maturing a little later? Eveland just turned 27 in October and, while I think he signed with the wrong organization in the Dodgers, there still could be a glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel. My one caveat is that I’m a little gun-shy about guys, especially pitchers, that have been released by the Pirates. At worst, he will be a good #3 SP with the Albuquerque Isotopes. And that’s where other teams will notice!
Comment by george hubschman— January 2, 2011 #
Here’s another topic you guys might want to read. dodgerdugout.com has talked about the possibility of us getting Jermaine Dye. I don’t think he’ll come to L.A. due to the fact he is a horrible outfielder. But then again Carlos Quentin is sort of similar to Dye. I really don’t know if we should even be talking about Dye. Anyway, click on the link so you can think about your own opinion.
Comment by Eduardo— December 31, 2010 #
acutually just search for the website since it wasn’t highlighted
Comment by Eduardo— December 31, 2010 #
I like what i saw in lindblom a few yrs back is he still a starter or is he seen as a future closer?
Comment by Pete guerrero— December 31, 2010 #
More of a middle reliever he throws in the 85-88mph range. He began last season as a starter but after strugling mightily he took time off and became a reliever.
Comment by juan— December 31, 2010 #
Out of the bullpen he has more velocity, but he lost a lot when he was used as a starter.
Comment by Taylor Maricle— January 1, 2011 #
I’m reading “Ball Four” right now and i’m not surprised that the writers still use this kind of “old school” thinking toward baseball.
P.S. If anyone invites you to a Raider game don’t go! :)
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 31, 2010 #
i don’t know what heyman (or anybody) means by “ace.” i’m willing to bet money they don’t either. but, just for kicks, i’ll go with innings pitched. that, to me, seems like a universal sign that, when in doubt, the manager started a particular pitcher more often than the others he had at his disposal. or, if the pitcher didn’t start more often, that pitcher had the juice to outlast the other guys on his staff. or…. you get the idea; for purposes of this argument leading a team in IP =”ace”
… blyleven led his team in innings pitched seven of ten seasons from age 20-29. one of those seasons was 1979, when blyleven led the crappy pirates in IPs as they stupidly won the world series, screwing up the other half of heyman’s imaginary logic, in which blyleven only pitched on crappy teams…
i stopped looking this stuff up at blyleven’s age 29 season because, frankly, i got bored. also, i think the point is clear: heyman (and a few other writers) seems willing to make up pretty much anything (including non-factual facts, apparently) to defend an indefensible position. the argument that goes “i can’t vote for bert because he was never an ace on a good team” screams “i’m throwing stuff out there because i’ve taken a position that, in retrospect, seems stupid, and now i’m just going to bullshit my way out of it”…. (i’m not criticizing heyman, by the way; i regularly down this road with the wife)…
i don’t have a particular jones for bert blyleven. i think he’s a clear cut HOFer, and to whatever extend the HOF is an interesting institution, it should include blyleven. but it’s not the end of the world for me.
still, i am curious how otherwise intelligent folk like heyman (i often disagree with his op ed pieces, and i laugh out loud at some of the idiocy he writes, but he’s also often a solid reporter and i totally respect that) can put their fingers in their ears and scream, or whatever, in order to ignore the obvious.
it’s an interesting trend that extends far beyond baseball.
Comment by immouch— December 31, 2010 #
Who decides that Blyleven was never the ace of the staff he was on? Heyman says it like it’s self-evident, like the ace of a staff always has a little “A” sewn on his jersey somewhere.
Comment by Bip— December 31, 2010 #
WAAAAAAAAY off topic but, what is considered a day game? 4P.M and earlier?
Comment by juan— December 31, 2010 #
@juan – 4PM Pacific or earlier. The 7PM Eastern games should always be considered day games, because it’s 4PM in the only time zone that matters.
Comment by The Dude Abides— January 1, 2011 #
Thanks dude ahahah
Comment by juan— January 1, 2011 #
Hey Mike I guess we’ll let the Angels have Scott Podsednik since the Rangers are nearing a deal with Adrian Beltre. HAHA!
Comment by Eduardo— January 2, 2011 #
Hold on, they’re still talking with Betre.
Comment by Eduardo— January 2, 2011 #
I mean Beltre.
Comment by Eduardo— January 2, 2011 #
I can’t agree that “there’s no such thing as an ace,” but to me, it’s a nonspecific descriptor, like “superstar.” Superstars exist, and there’s certain guys we can all agree ARE superstars (Albert Pujols), but there are a lot more guys upon whom there will never be agreement (Derek Jeter). I think we can all agree Roy Halladay is an ace, and most people on THIS site would agree Kershaw is, but there’s a lot of guys upon whom all of baseball can’t agree. Here’s what I know: Blyleven was an ace.
Comment by Dave— January 3, 2011 #
[...] should have mentioned this the other day when I noted that Ivan DeJesus didn’t make John Sickels’ top 20 Dodger prospect list, [...]
Pingback by Should the Dodgers Be Looking For A Lefty Bullpen Arm? « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— January 3, 2011 #
Salutations à vous tous ,
Pour commencer , donnez-moi la possibilité de vous montrer ma gratitude pour toutes les excellentes informations que j’ai découvertes sur cet beau forum de discussions .
Je ne suis pas assuree d’être au meilleur endroit mais je n’en ai pas trouvé de meilleur.
Je viens de Prevost, usa. J’ai 48 années et j’éduque 2 très gentils enfants qui sont tous âgés entre 8 ou 10 ans (1 est adoptée ). J’adore beaucoup les animaux et je tempte de leur donner les concoctions qui leur rendent l’existance plus festive .
Je vous remercie à l’avance pour toutes les très pertinentes délibérations dans le futur et je vous remercie surtout de votre compassion pour mon français moins que parfait: ma langue de naissance est le vietnamien et je fais de mon mieux d’éviter les erreurs mais c’est très ardu !
A +
Arthru
Comment by mimanulj6— March 29, 2011 #