Comments on: 2005 in Review - First Base

By: The Fathers

The Fathers — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:04:23 +0000

TW: Okay, thanks again for the info. Maybe now I have it right. All of the info I looked at says that Nady now has 2.059 service years. If he doesn’t qualify as a Super Two, then I guess they can renew his contract this year (but I don’t know the rules on how much they have to pay him since he made more than the minimum in 2005), and have him arbitration eligible from 2007-2009. If he does qualify as a Super Two, then I was right on the 2006-2008 time frame.

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

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:51:28 +0000

I believe Nady has just over 2+ years. He wouldn't receive a full year of service time for 2004. He may be in the Super Two arbitration category now, but that's hard to figure out. His salary is different even without arbitration because of the draft deal.

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

By: The Fathers

The Fathers — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:29:16 +0000

TW: Thanks for the info. If I understand it correctly, Nady has played enough in the 2003, 2004, and 2005 seasons to be credited with 3 full years of service time; he also has a fraction for his 2000 appearance. That would mean he is eligible for arbitration from 2006-2008. Did I get this right, or is it more complicated than that?

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

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:00:30 +0000

I don’t believe Nady’s a free agent after 2006. He got a major league contract when he was drafted, which meant he had to be on the 40 man roster, but free agency is earned after 6 years of major league service time, which is based on years spent in the majors. At most he’s eligible for arbitration.

Here’s a handy reference for FA and roster rules that I found today:

http://groups.msn.com/baseball.....rules.msnw

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

By: The Fathers

The Fathers — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:25:09 +0000

Geoff, great discussion on 1B. One thing I didn’t see mentioned was Fick’s defense; he was well above average in his limited opportunities, and I think he got an honorable mention in that Gold Glove article you posted.

As you probably know, I am not sold on Nady defensively, or offensively against even decent right handed pitching. However, if they can get rid of Klesko and even if they can’t, I would be all for Nady being the full time starter at LF first or 1B second, at least for the first two months of the 2006 season. Hopefully, this plus his past history would dispel whatever doubts (or meet whatever expectations) the team and its fans have about or for Nady. I am pretty sure he is a free agent after this year, so they need to make a big decision soon, but I could be wrong on this.

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

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:48:45 +0000

Tom’s comments about Nady perhaps being a late bloomer are spot on. I think Burroughs, Nady, and Green for that matter came up with a heavy burden on their shoulders: Justifying 5-6 years of low productivity from the Padres farm system.

Yes, we have stars (Peavy, probably Eaton) and probable stars (Green), but as most will admit, for all the top draft picks the Pads have had since 1998, they’ve got very little to show for it, particularly with position players. It’s both comical and sad that folks lean so hard on Burroughs, and he just turned 25 years old last September. Every new rookie that comes up is the great next hope. Its nice to have the opportunity to get to the “Bigs”, but I almost feel sorry for Ben Johnson, for example. Padres fans have been in such a drought for talent, unless Johnson puts up Pujols or Bonds types of numbers, some will still be disappointed. The pressure on these guys is huge.

Then look at Mark Loretta’s career. By his own admission, he didn’t “get it”, i.e. turn the corner on hitting, and in particular hitting knowledge until he was 30. So, no way have I given up on Nady or Burroughs.

Hmmm.. this is still supposed to be a thread about first base. Well, what the heck, I’ll toss this in anyway.

It’d be better if the Pads just declared 2006 a rebuilding year - period. Disadvantage: $$ problems at the gate (dishearted fans may not show up), but that could be managed. Advantage: Nady, Burroughs, Green, Johnson, Barfield, Oliva, Hensley and others get playing time, in a low-pressure environment. The Padres shed a huge amount of salary in 2007 (maybe sooner, if Klesko, Park, maybe Hoffy decide to finish their remaining professional careers with contenders in 2006). The Pads can find out who came to play during 2006, and will have money in 2007 to fill in the talent-gaps revealed by the end of the season. They won’t find out of they play Klesko/Roberts/Giles in the OF, Mark Sweeny or Fick at 1st, Loretta at 2nd, Randa (or equivalent) at 3rd, Hernandez at the plate, or Hoffy to close, for that matter. Rebuild in 2006, but ACTUALLY rebuild, and spent some serious cash in 2007 on FA’s as needed.

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

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:14:46 +0000

He does turn 27 next year, generally a good age to play a guy a lot. Maybe he'll be a Richie Sexson type without the unholy leverage. Spotty as a part-timer, comes into his own in his late 20s. Might as well find out, he's getting closer to his expensive years every minute and he's not likely to fetch a lot in trade.

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

By: Geoff Young

Geoff Young — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:33:00 +0000

No, I think if Nady is playing everyday *and* not being productive, then Bochy has every right to (and darned well better) look for other alternatives. But we need to see what Nady can do if he gets 90% of the starts for more than a 2-week stretch here and there. All I’m personally asking for is to give the guy a chance. If he can’t do it, he can’t do it. But we won’t know until it happens.

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

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:09:02 +0000

It’s easier to think about Nady playing everyday in 2006, or at least at the start of 2006. When he supposedly “lost” playing time in 2005, Bochy was trying to flog the team into the playoffs. Unfortunately, none of his 1b players made it easy on him.

The same thing could happen next season if we find ourselves competing. Klesko still hits righties, still gets on base. If we give Nady 90% of the starts until the All-Star break and he’s at 260/310/430, with the team 2 games out, are we going to fault Bochy for cutting back his time?

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

By: John Conniff

John Conniff — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:32:10 +0000

Some valid points Tom, I guess the only counter I can think off is I would just like to know,one way or another, what Nady can or can't do. In my opinion, just about everyone on the Padres is up and down at the plate, Nady just seems to be the only that is punished for it. Right now, I would much rather see X with 500 ABs than Klesko.

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