Community Organizational Prospect List - #6
by Zonis on Nov 26, 2008 4:53 PM PST
Email
PrintGio Gonzalez wins the #5 slot, and we're off to #6. Voting will end and the next vote will be up every day at 7 PST, except when called early due to Landslide votes. Not that I expect many Landslide votes to happen from now on.
The Next Vote Starts Now.
Candidates:
SP Michel Inoa, IF Adrian Cardenas, 1B Sean Doolittle, SP Vincent Mazzaro, SP James Simmons, C Josh Donaldson, 2B Jemile Weeks, P Henry Rodriguez, Rashun Dixon, Brett Hunter.
Possibles:
Fautino De Los Santos
Dustin Coleman
Corey Brown
Arnold Leon
Tyson Ross
Nino Leyja
Jason Christian
Matt Sulentic
Sam Demel
Andrew Carnigan
Jeremey Barfield
Eric Patterson
Petey Paramore
Matt Spencer
Jared Lansford
Craig Italiano
Carlos Hernandez
Jason Fernandez
Grant Desme
Landon Powell
Anthony Recker
Ryan Webb
Michael Madsen
Jeff Baisley
Jeff Gray
Jamie Richmond
Tyreace House
Robin Rosario
Javier Herrera
Travis Banwart
Cliff Pennington
Gregorio Petit
Danny Putnam
Justin Sellers
Chris Berroa
Daniel Thomas
Ricardo Penalba
Jose Crisostomo
Franklyn Contreras
David Thomas
86 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cardenas
I think he has a better chance of being an above average player (for his position) than any hitter in the system.
Dixon
More tools then just about anyone in the system and he seems to have a clue about how to use them.
The monster at the end of this blog.
He's 18 though. That's my only slight against him.
Though I’ll admit I’m not entirely sure how these rankings work – I’ve gone off the basis of how quickly they could help the Major League team in relation to their performance/potential, which is why guys like Dixon and Inoa wouldn’t be very high on my list as although talented they’re unproven and years away.
Maybe I’m going about it all wrong though, if so please enlighten me.
No, that's about right...
I tend to vote based on who I think will have the best pre-free agency career (thus, provide the most value for his team). Naturally, a player who’s further away from the majors is more likely to flame out on his way there.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I voted Mazzaro
Not only does he have value to us as a player and a possible midseason call-up, but also he has trade value I’d imagine for teams needing a near-MLB-ready pitcher. He took tremendous strides last year to establish this value so I think he should be rewarded with the #6 spot.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
Doolittle
Cuz the 4 comments above this all supported different people. It was between him and Cardenas anyway.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
+1
He mashes the ball (30 HR, 81 extra base hits), he plays good defense, and he’s durable (169 games played this season!). How many guys in this system can you say that about?
Next several for me go Doolittle, Simmons, Cardenas, Inoa, Mazzaro. Then things start getting interesting.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Switch Cardenas and Simmons and I'm with you
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Switch Doolittle and Simmons and Im there with you.
Oh crap, grover said something else….AH!!
(head explodes)
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
Two more things
1. Minorleagueball’s ranking of the A’s top 7 in their poll (now at 75):
Cahill 8
Anderson 16
Carter 51
Cardenas 57
Cunningham 67
Gio 69
Inoa 72
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
That was either one thing, or seven things
Definitely not two.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Lol
My second comment was gonna be about adding Leon on the poll in about three rounds. But I figured I’d wait on that.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Do you have a link ?
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
That list represents multiple posts and thus links
Just head over to the site (‘tis an SB Nation site) and you’ll find them.
The monster at the end of this blog.
What's interesting is that the Giants have several in the top 25. Maybe we can trade Crosby and Eveland for one of these.
5. MADISON BUMGARNER – SP (San Francisco)
8. TREVOR CAHILL – SP (Oakland)
12. TIM ALDERSON – SP (San Francisco)
16. BRETT ANDERSON – SP (Oakland)*
19. BUSTER POSEY – C (San Francisco)
25. ANGEL VILLALONA – 1B (San Francisco)
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Heh
Not happening…
Also, FWIW, the placement of those Giants prospects is highly suspect, as there’s good evidence of tampering with the voting for several of them. There won’t be many, if any, top 50/100 lists by non-homers who have Tim Alderson at #12.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Cue whining about ballot stuffing
Pinstripes and King could eliminate all the noise about rigged voting if they’d abandon the polls and demand write-in votes.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Actually I was very curious from the post above from vignette17 how accurate this top 75 would be.
When I saw so many from the Giants in the top 25 I had to wonder.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
damnit i just broke the tie between cardenas and doolittle
'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long
Arnold Leon
Now that Doolittle is winning, I want to start voting for Arnold Leon. I move for Arnold Leon to be the next player added to the poll.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
This is a new one-- someone whose Leon-love exceeds mine...
Interesting…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Rodriguez until he's voted in. Tools. Performance. Projectability
Tools (from BA) — “92-96 mph with his fastball, which has outstanding late life in the zone, riding in on righthanders and down and away from lefties…changeup shows signs of being a plus pitch…athletic, repeats his delivery and fields his position well”
Performance — 27.5% K-rate, 51.1% GB rate. High K’s plus high GB% is the optimal combo
Projectability — Overpowering performance without having developed a plus breaking pitch. K-rate is the best indicator of future longevity and performance.
Peak ERALF from BBPro (basically projected Peak DERA) — all approximate
Cahill — 3.30
Gonzalez — 3.74 (AAA only)
Rodriguez — 3.76
Anderson — 3.93
Gallagher — 3.94
Mazzaro — 3.94
Eveland — 4.19
Simmons — 4.38
Braden — 4.38
He’s only this low because he can’t hit the side of a barn and he’s likely to start out as a reliever. He reminds me of Jose Rijo.
Inoa, Hunter, Dixon and Weeks don’t have the projectable minor league track record that Rodriguez has. Mazzaro, Simmons, Doolittle and Donaldson don’t have his upside.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
I see his upside as being Oliver Perez
which is as underwhelming to me as Corey Brown’s upside apparently is to you. And he’s very unlikely to even be that good, because he’s almost certainly ending up a reliever. A much more likely outcome is something like Fernando Rodney. And he just isn’t anything special. I’ll take Kevin Slowey over Fernando Rodney any day, thanks.
The most likely outcome of all, of course, is that he ends up in the same garbage heap with most of the command-less flamethrowers out there. Literally the entire premise of him being even above replacement level is based on the notion that he will magically develop the ability to throw a baseball for a strike, an ability which he does not currently possess.
The great thing about the A’s system is that I can effortlessly find ten pitchers I’d rather have than Rodriguez…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Rodriguez = Van Poppel
That’s the way it looks to me.
However, Van Poppel had a few good years out of the pen later in his career.
Rodriguez's upside
His upside, while dependent on magically being able to throw strikes, is HUGE. Not many guys can throw 100 mph. If he ever does wake up one morning with a 3 BB/9 arm, he’ll be something else.
A big part of Van Poppel's suck
is the major league deal that forced him into the majors way before he was ready. Had he been properly groomed in the minors, he still may have wound up a reliever, but he probably would have had a lot more success.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
But in a way, that's some of the concern over Rodriguez
He’s already used 1 option, he only has 2 more before he has to be on Oakland’s roster or the A’s risk losing him on the waiver wire.
The monster at the end of this blog.
3, I think
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
This is only his second season in full-season ball
A guy gets a 4th option if it’s only his 4th or 5th season in full-season ball.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
AZL isn't 90 days, gotcha
So if I’m reading things correctly he has 3 more options.
The monster at the end of this blog.
When did Van Poppel ever strike out 27% of BFP in a season with a 51% GB rate?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 27, 2008 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
Oliver Perez has had a great season (145 ERA+) and another very good one (120 ERA+), plus two pretty good ones.
(107 and 100 ERA+) by the age of 26. You’re saying Kevin Slowey is going to do better than that? You’re saying you can find 10 pitchers in the A’s system who are going to do better than that? Please feel free to list them and support that argument? According to you this should require no effort, so you’ve no excuse for not doing it and doing it sufficiently well to convince even the most diehard skeptics.
What was your view on Jose Rijo after his Age 21 season? Now tell me what great differences you see between Rijo’s Age 21 season with a 91 ERA+ and Rodriguez’s Age 21 Season with a MLE FIP in that neighborhood and tell me why that isn’t Rodriguez’s upside?
Finally dismissing Rodriguez as a “flamethrower” doesn’t show adequate consideration of his superlative K-rates and very good GB rates. Further your comparison to Fernando Rodney, a career reliever in the minors other than a few starts, doesn’t demonstrate an understanding of the difference between the two roles.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 27, 2008 8:19 PM PST up reply actions
It's easy to cherrypick examples from the thousands of minor league pitchers in history
Fact is, the vast majority of pitchers do NOT magically improve their command. Which is what people mean when they say “low probability.” I suppose Rodriguez could become Jamie Moyer, too, but I’m guessing the odds of him switching pitching hands is pretty low. The odds are very high that he will continue to be what he is now: a guy who cannot throw strikes.
Keep in mind, I said his UPSIDE is Oliver Perez. I don’t think he has much of a chance at all of being that good. Maybe 10%, if that.
10 pitchers I like better? OK:
Cahill
Anderson
Simmons
Mazzaro
Inoa
Leon
DLS
Gio
Demel
Carignan
Bailey
Oops, that was 11. Well, just proves the point.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Outman is kind of the lefty Rodriguez...
I don’t know, I lack a strong sense of which of them would be the better pitcher. You’re probably right though— at least lefties with a pulse can invariably find bullpen work somewhere.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
the other thing about Henry is that he is already on the 40-man
so that’s a strike against him. It’s his second (third?) year having to be protected. The more years that his option years get burned through, the less valuable he is as a organizational piece. It’s a small quibble, but it also means that there will not be as many years that he can be shuttled back and forth from AAA to the bigs if he needs the development time.
Right now he is lower teens on my list, but that has much to do with believing in so many other of the pitchers in the org.
This is a key factor
He’s younger than Corey Brown, but in a way he’s really in the same boat. Both players are extremely talented but have crippling flaws in their games, and both are running out of time to fix those flaws— Brown because he’s getting old for a mid-minors prospect and Rodriguez because he’s going to start running out of options.
The one good thing is that I think Rodriguez has a fourth option year. Still, that gives him pretty much a hard deadline— he has to greatly improve his control by 2012.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Rodriguez pitched in pretty bad luck last year as well
With no one on:
4.22 FIP, .314 BABIP
With RISP:
3.56 FIP, .402 BABIP
So he pitched better in the clutch but got much worse results due to luck/random fluctuation.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
Gotta go with Cardenas
If for no other reason than outside of Cunningham, I think Cardenas is the most likely position-player prospect to have a starting job on the A’s in the next 2-3 years. I like Doolittle, but I need to see more. Plus, he’s a 1B (if he’s so good defensively, have they thought of trying HIM at third? Can he throw?). If Cardenas can stick at short, he might move up to the top 3 ahead of Cunningham.
by thejd44 on Nov 27, 2008 12:53 AM PST reply actions
Right
Devo points out on a prior thread that if Doolittle threw right-handed and was a candidate for other infield positions, he would probably have been picked much higher than #41.
C’est la vie.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Oh, my bad
I thought he just batted left-handed. I don’t know why I assumed he threw right.
by thejd44 on Nov 27, 2008 8:31 AM PST up reply actions
I was one of the four who picked Donaldson.
I love his rate stats, and that he’s a catcher. I realize he has fluctuated wildly in the year and a half he’s been a pro, but he obviously has talent. What I’d like to know, is why the folks who post on this site and others who clearly know more about these prospects than I do, do not think of him very highly as compared to, say, Doolittle or Cardenas, when, e.g. he plays a much tougher position than Doolittle, and has much better stats than Cardenas.
"All your baserunner are belong to Greg Smith" ~ walk off bunt
Donaldson is a guy with lots of strengths and weaknesses
Strengths:
College track record
Bat relative to position (catchers hit very poorly)
Durability
Low K rate suggests he can hit for high average
Catchers take a while to develop, so older isn’t necessarily worse
Weaknesses:
Wildly inconsistent pro play
Defense (will he stick at catcher?)
Questions about plate discipline (walked a lot less this year— is there a reason for it?)
Average age relative to level, maybe slightly below average (a year older than Doolittle, but at a lower level this season)
I think he has enough warts that people aren’t ready to buy into him yet. The big one is whether he’s going to stick at catcher or not. As a third base prospect, he’s not great; as a first base prospect he’s mediocre; as a DH prospect he’s practically a nonfactor.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Donaldson would probably be a Top 5 player in most systems
Just not this system.
by thejd44 on Nov 27, 2008 8:34 AM PST up reply actions
Thank you
That’s exactly what I wanted to know!
"All your baserunner are belong to Greg Smith" ~ walk off bunt
by Philip Christy on Nov 27, 2008 8:40 AM PST up reply actions
Right, and that makes him at least 4 years away from the majors
I just can’t rank a guy that far away with such a small sample higher than guys who are much more likely to make the majors. At this point, everybody in the top 5 and Doolittle and Cardenas are all much more likely to put on a major league uniform.
by thejd44 on Nov 27, 2008 9:19 AM PST up reply actions
You are absolutely correct
Cahill, Anderson, Cunningham, Carter, Gonzalez, Doolittle & Cardenas are all more advanced than Dixon and are therefore more likely to wear a big league uniform. The counter argument is Dixon has such a high ceiling that if he hits he’ll be better than 4-5 of the more advanced players.
This is an age old argument and one that usually sees me taking the side of the more advanced player. Dixon is an exception to my standard rules.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Right
I love Dixon’s tools as much as the next person. It was a fantastic coup to get him in the draft and it is exciting to have a player with the power/speed potential combo but the fact remains that he has yet to perform above rookie ball level and “only” hit .263 there and struckout nearly a third of the time. His potential is great but at this point you have to take guys like Doolittle, Cardenas and Brown who also have good to great tools but have performed at a higher level and have a greater chance of producing at a major league level.
I can see your point of view however as I would probably rank Inoa above Mazzaro just because Inoa’s potential is so great so it is horses for courses I guess.
Here's my take:
Inoa: $4.5M bonus
Dixon: $600K bonus
Unless we know something the market doesn’t (hint: we don’t), Inoa needs to rank ahead of Dixon right now. Part of a year in rookie ball isn’t enough to reverse that, even if it was a damned impressive part of a year.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I disagree with Inoa over Dixon based on salary bonus
$4.25 million plus his scouting reports was enough for me to rank him in my Top 10, but Inoa is so far away from being ready he loses some of his shine. As things stand now, the A’s aren’t going to let Inoa see pro action until the 2009 Dominican Summer League. Figure Vancouver in 2010 and full season ball in 2011. Now Inoa is supposed to have the talent to accelerate that schedule but he’s also still a kid and the A’s have treated their HS arms with kid gloves in recent years, advancing them one level at the start of each season.
Dixon probably starts in Vancouver next year, although I suppose there’s an outside shot he could jump straight to Kane County for game experience in April. Either way, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Dixon in Low-A at the end of 2009. I’m going to wait for a full year performance before I drool anymore than that.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Inoa is coming to the states next year
He’s going to pitch in the AZL so that he can work directly with the A’s head office personnel.
I’d expect him to move on to the MWL at age 18, and he could be part of the big league team by his age 21 season, which would be 2013. He’s a bit behind Dixon developmentally right now, but I think he could actually move faster through the system.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
He is coming to the States in the spring
But the article that says that doesn’t mention where he’ll play.
I thought I had read the A’s were having him play in the DSL because he’s so young, if he went to the AZL he’d be almost a full year younger than anyone the A’s had there in 2008 (Nino Leyja was the youngest BTW). I can’t find where I might have read that, I could have just inferred from what the A’s have done with their other 17 year old prospects. AZL vs. DSL will probably boil down to his English skills more than his pitching.
I won’t even entertain the idea of the MWL in 2010 until he’s pitched in the States. That is an extremely aggressive call and it runs contrary to what the A’s have done with Cahill, Anderson, Italiano, etc. The A’s will take it slow until Inoa forces them to accelerate the plan.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Cahill was pitching in the MWL in his first real season of pro ball
He barely pitched the year he was drafted. Anderson moved even more quickly. Lansford got bumped to A+ despite mediocre-at-best performance; Mazzaro and Webb have been moved up likewise. Simmons went straight to AA. I see a lot more evidence of the A’s being aggressive with their pitching prospects than of being cautious.
BTW, anyone else find it ironic that the coach for Inoa’s next season is probably going to be Ariel Prieto?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Cahill was 19 before he threw his 1st MWL pitch
Trevor started in Extended ST in 06 then got a taste of the AZL at the end of the year. Then Instructs, then Extended ST again in 07 before going to Kane County.
Lansford was also 19 before he threw his 1st MWL pitch and got smacked around when he got a taste of the Cal League in 06. He then missed most of 2007 due to injury and was then sent back to Stockton in 2008.
Webb spent a year and a half in High-A.
Mazzaro got bumped up to AA because the A’s wanted to keep him in the rotation and a demotion wasn’t going to do him any good.
You’re talking about sending an 18 year old from another country to the MWL before he’s pitched his 1st pro game. That’s a little aggressive at this time.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Huh?
He’ll have spent a season in the AZL in 2009. It would hardly be his first pro game.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Poor sentence structure on my part, I apologize
You’re setting a MWL ETA for a guy who hasn’t pitched his 1st pro game.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Well, obviously it's penciled in...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
well, Dixon wasn't a free agent
so those numbers aren’t really comparable. Dixon would certainly have gotten a lot less than Inoa if he was an international, but he may well have gotten more.
The A's colors are green and gold.
OK, rough rule of thumb: multiply a drafted player's bonus by 2.5 to get what he'd make as a free agent
Dixon’s still making a third of what Inoa is.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
So?
The Rangers were willing to give Inoa $5 million to sign with them. Does that make Inoa at $5 million a more valuable prospect than Inoa at $4 million?
Of course not.
Arguing that Inoa is the better prospect because he got the bigger bonus is pointless. I’ve got no problem saying Inoa has the higher ceiling of the pair, I just knock him below Dixon because he’s way further down on the developmental curve. Dixon has smelled the smoke and had some success… Inoa hasn’t.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'll be the first to argue that there are many instances in which free markets produce weird results
that aren’t actually economically efficient or socially desirable.
This ain’t one of them.
The best predictor of how well a prospect with minimal pro game experience will do is not where he was drafted, it’s how much money he got paid to sign.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Again
That argues that a $5 million Inoa is more talented than a $4 million Inoa.
Which is wrong ‘cause we’re talking about the same guy.
The monster at the end of this blog.
It's an irrelevant hypothetical
Sometimes people overpay. Sometimes they underpay. Over the long haul, they pay about the right amount.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Which is a fine general statement...
but it does nothing to prove Inoa’s worth one way or another.
All I’m saying is of all the arguments one could make about Inoa being the better prospect, talking about the size of the signing bonus has got to be one of the least relevant.
The monster at the end of this blog.
No, it really isn't
Otherwise we’d be ranking Dixon in front of Tim Beckham right now.
I mean, you can’t really compare Dixon and Inoa on tools— it’s apples and oranges. The opinion of pro teams is worth a fair amount… and it’s the best guess we have.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Besides, prior to 2008 the highest bonuses went to:
Wily Mo Pena (Yankees, 1999) $2.44 million
Joel Guzman (Dodgers, 2001) $2.255 million
Byung-Hyun Kim (D’Backs, 1999) $2.25 million
Chin-Hui Tsao (Rockies, 1999) $2.2 million
Proof that he-who-gets-the-highest-bonus doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to succeed.
Of course, Inoa is going to prove your theory right because otherwise the A’s never would have signed him.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think both of these guys are in the top 10 or at least in the top 15 right now.
They both have the talent and upside to move up our list rather quickly. I think Beane did a great job in getting both of these players. He also drafted some good SS prospects lately.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Mazzaro is not a better prospect than Simmons people.
I dont get the Mazzaro love fest. I mean he had a great year but its his only good year. Simmons is much more polished.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
Agreed
But his performance this year was pretty good in AA-AAA for a 21 year-old. He really brought his walks down, going from 4.16 BB/9 in Stockton in 2007 to 2.37 BB/9 in Midland/Sac in 2008. IF he can do it again next year in AAA, he should be a decent MLB starter.
I’ll still bet on Simmons to have a better MLB career.
Zonis:
How about a system where the bottom two, or even three, vote-getters are dropped from the next the poll each time, so that we can gauge interest in the next ten or so guys who haven’t been on a list yet. Maybe you’re already doing something like that, but for instance it’s clear that Weeks and Hunter aren’t going to win any time soon, so I’d like to see some new names.
The A's colors are green and gold.
I wonder where Fautino DLS would fit in this list if he were healthy.
Or, for that matter where he will be next year.
I don’t know how long it will take him to come back from TJ surgery but last year he was listed as above Anderson in the MLB top 50 list He could prove to be a factor in 2010 or 2011, right with Cahill and Anderson.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Well, what do you mean "if he were healthy"?
If he was healthy and pitched like he did last year, he’d be #1 on the list, easily. If he was healthy and pitched like crap, he’d probably not be much higher than he’s going to be anyway.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Hopefully he will be able to pitch like he did before
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Josh Outman
needs to be added to the voting choices. He’s somewhere between 9-11 on my prospect list.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
There’s no number between 9 and 11.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
