“I am curious how many wins Valdez would have managed had the offense been asleep in his starts like they were after the trade. Valdez made 20 starts for the Pads while we scored on average 6.3 runs in those starts. After his departure Germano, Sweeney, and Tankersley ac#####ed for 13 starts, in those starts the Padres managed to score on average 1.9 runs a game. If our offense would have average 1.9 runs a game in Valdez’s starts how many wins would Ismael have managed with his 5.53 era? I’d guess 2, out of 20 starts I’d say Valdez would have won 2 of them if the padres managed to score only 1.9 runs in his starts. You’re giving credit to Valdes when you should be giving it to the strong offense that carried his gimp ass!” –Chase

How can you just “not care” if he was bad, lucky, or how much run support he got and just trust the win stat blindly?

Aside from all this, I agree with your larger point. Valdez is not a big deal, and his name is not worth this much mention…but I have a larger point too…I hate the win stat. It’s worse than rbis.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

You’re suggesting that they scored 78 runs/game for the #5 guy when it was Valdez, then they suddenly, inexplicably stopped scoring all together when he left for Florida?

I don’t deny he was horrible but somehow they won when he pitched and that’s all that matters. I agree that individual wins can be misleading, but it’s applied equally across all pitchers. The fact remains that the #5 spot won when he was out there and it most definitely didn’t after he was traded. (I can’t believe I’m coming off as some kind of Ismael Valdez groupie.)

My larger point, however, was that this glaring hole in the rotation remains a glaring hole eight months (or longer for those of you dissatisfied with Valdez winning too often) after the trade. Can you imagine a GM from a team that wins, like John Schurholtz or Billy Beane, going that long without making a single move to solidify the position? The Darrell May trade was more about unloading Terrence Long than it was about getting anything in return. Stauffer and Germano are projected as middle- to end-of-the-rotation at best and are not ready to step in. Ashby and Redding are trying/hoping to put their careers back together… This is the plan?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

“My point was that, lucky or not, bad or not, he won his starts. I don’t care if he got 78 runs per game behind him. When he started, they won a lot. Or, at least, they won far more frequently than could have been reasonably anticipated.”

Ismael Valdez did not win his starts, the Padres did. The Win stat is so misleading that I recommend you just ignore it altogether…don’t fabricate meaning from it the way the mainstream media does. Look at how Valdez pitched and leave it at that…he pitched badly. His replacements also pitched badly…the only difference is the run support.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

As far as how it trickles down to us - Michel Hernandez looks like the #1 guy right now. My guess would also have Nick Trzesniak on the Beavers roster. Trzesniak has struggled with the bat at nearly every stop in his minor league career and, though he’s only 24, with Kottaras right behind him, time is running short for Nick to establish himself.

One little tidbit concerning Trzesniak - other than being the last pick in the 1st round of the 1999 draft, anyone know who was selected immediately after him?

If you said Carl Crawford, you’d be 100% correct.

Just something I found interesting.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

You’re right that the Padres did get results with Valdez. I do share your concerns about the #5 spot this year, but they are mitigated somewhat by the presence of Ashby, Germano, Stauffer, and now Redding. If that group (or some facsimile thereof) gets 30 or so starts this season, the Padres should be able to win 12-18 of them. That’s not great, but if the front of the rotation does its job, we don’t need great; we just need good.

Redding alone gives us a chance to be better at #5 than Valdez was. It may or may not happen, but at least he’s a worthwhile gamble.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

My point was that, lucky or not, bad or not, he won his starts. I don’t care if he got 78 runs per game behind him. When he started, they won a lot. Or, at least, they won far more frequently than could have been reasonably anticipated. Then they traded him without even a marginal replacement. And, in fact, EIGHT months later, they mind-blowingly still don’t have one.

With Ish, nine wins from the #5 starter (don’t know how many more team wins). Post Ish, zero wins from the #5 starter (don’t know how few team wins). Was this seemingly obvious hole in the team adequately addressed this Winter? We’ll see soon enough but all indications are that they were not.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Furthermore, I don’t ever like mediocre pitchers in the rotation. Cheap, yes. Castoff from other organizations, maybe. Mediocre, no.

Bottom line: Valdez was lucky last year, not good. Let’s not confuse the two.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Moreover, Valdez was precisely the kind of guy you seem to like for this role — cheap ($800K), mediocre and a cast-off from one or more organizations. Finally one of these needles in the haystack outperforms expectations (NINE wins at the Break) and that’s not good enough?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)