How Will We Know When They’re Done?
Thu, Dec 22, 2005
by Geoff Young
I was going to take today off, but the Padres had other ideas. Can you remember such a hyperactive winter, ever? If you’re keeping track, 55% of the Pads at-bats and 49% of their innings last year belong to guys no longer with the team (and this doesn’t include Pedro Astacio and Craig Breslow, who remain in limbo).
As noted in last night’s comments, the Padres have signed RHP Brian Sikorski and 2B Mark Bellhorn. The former has spent the past several years pitching in Japan and is expected to compete for one of the many bullpen vacancies created by the departure of Akinori Otsuka (traded to the Rangers), Rudy Seanez (signed by the Red Sox), and Chris Hammond (signed by the Reds).
Bellhorn has some decent pop for a middle infielder, once hitting 27 home runs in a season (2002, Cubs). He also walks and strikes out a lot. Bellhorn originally was drafted in 1992 by the Padres but didn’t sign. He subsequently was drafted out of Auburn University in 1995 by the A’s, with whom he began his big-league career in 1997. Bellhorn also has played with the Cubs, Rockies, Red Sox, and Yankees.
I’ve updated the roster change chart to reflect these latest moves.
Other Stuff
- New Padre faces (metalsupply). Michael helps you put faces to names. Love the captions.
- John Conniff’s take on the Adam Eaton trade. John calls this one a draw.
- Padres Prospect Journal: Sean Thompson (Scout.com). The Padres young left-hander is the victim of a practical joke.
- Vote for Ducksnorts at Red Reporter’s 2005 Sports Blog Awards. Right now we (and everyone else) are totally getting smoked by the excellent Bat Girl, but there’s still plenty of time to make up ground. While you’re over there, why not throw some love Gaslamp Ball’s way in the humor category?
- The response to the Ducksnorts Frappr! map has been excellent. Obviously San Diego is well represented, but we’ve also got folks checking in from the Bay Area, Oregon, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New York, Hawaii, and yes, Austria. Pretty cool; check it out and feel free to add yourself if you haven’t already.
Finally, here are a couple of blogs I’ve recently discovered that may be of interest to you:
- World Baseball Classic Blog. Get all the latest info on the WBC. I don’t know if anyone else is fired up about this, but I am. I’ll be at the semifinals and finals in March. Behind the plate, upper deck.
- Minor League Researcher. I eat this stuff up; here’s a sample: “In my research, I came across a series of three games played by the Robinsons against the Parkers (the Robinsons taking two out of three games) beginning on May 18, 1859, so I wouldn’t at all be surprised for some one to come up with earlier contests, especially since I found this note from the Petaluma Journal: “This game [baseball] is fast becoming a favorite in this locality. Scarcely a day passes but parties may be seen participating in it.”
That’s all for now. We’ll wrap up our look back at the starting pitchers tomorrow.
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
December 22, 2005 at 8:25 am
Found these at the U-T after I posted.
Bellhorn and Sikorski:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....lhorn.html
Fence moving update:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
December 22, 2005 at 8:57 am
isn’t that spelled Goff Blumm?
Looks like the RS are not looking at DR. Just as well.
December 22, 2005 at 9:22 am
I can’t figure out this Coniff guy at Scout.com.
We get the better, younger, cheaper SP. Win for us.
We get a 1b prospect who slugged 561 with a 399 OBP in AAA last year. Great fielder. He’s 23. Nady barely beat those numbers in his 3rd try at AAA when he was 25.
We get a platoon partner for Ben Johnson, a 3.5 or 4th OF who can actually hit and play some D.
All that for an expensive SP who has never performed up to his potential, gives up HR despite working half the time in the Q and Petco, and in all likelihood won’t sign with the Rangers next winter, plus a good reliever. Killian’s 5 years away.
Seems to me that Coniff picks his favorites - Nady, Johnson, Barfield - and judges a trade based on how it affects them, not whether it improves the team. Can’t wait to see how he spins the Loretta trade now that we’ve acquired Bellhorn. So much for it being a good deal because it cleared the decks for Barfield.
December 22, 2005 at 9:34 am
Who cares what some writer thinks? A majority of them have no clue about baseball — look at the support for players like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson for the Hall of Fame while they keep denying Bert Blyleven. Heck, some people even think that the Nationals ripped off the Rangers when they traded for the completely overrated Alfonso Soriano. I understand that some writers personally know the players which colors their judgement but you need to look objectively at things.
Bellhorn may be horrible again like last year but then again he might be good like 2004. Either way he’s cheap and it doesn’t work out, easily dumpable unlike past Padre signings like Klesko or Nevin.
December 22, 2005 at 9:45 am
It will be interesting to see how Bellhorn works out. As a poor man’s three true outcomes type, he definitely is a good bet to out-slug Loretta and maybe even Vinny. If I had my way, I would platoon him with Vinny at third, mainly because I am not sold on his defense at second. But Bochy no doubt has slotted “WS Hero” Geoff Blum into that role already. If he can bounce back from his poor year last year, he might build some value that we can turn around and trade when Barfield cannot be held back any longer.
Unfortunately for Barfield, this pickup almost shuts the door on him making the team out of ST. There is no way Bochy will play Barfield over a proven vet like Bellhorn. The odd man out also seems to be Bobby Hill, who I could see starting at third in AAA waiting for the inevitable breakdown of Vinny Castilla. At the very least, Bellhorn will add some needed power to the bench, but we already have too many utility types with Young, Hill, Blum, and now Bellhorn. As usual, everything will ride on Bochy’s “talent evaluation” based on only 30-40 Spring ABs. We’ll see what happens when the music stops.
December 22, 2005 at 10:12 am
A reminder of the truth of 2005 … BP’s STAT OF THE DAY
Bottom 5 2005 NL Rotations, by Total Starting Pitching VORP
Team, VORP
Cincinnati Reds, -12.6
Colorado Rockies, 19.4
Pittsburgh Pirates, 60.1
San Diego Padres, 63.5
Arizona Diamondbacks, 76.4
December 22, 2005 at 10:19 am
The Mighty 1090 is just so hard to listen to. Endless commercials, the owners hourly editorials, lack of outstanding hosts.
But I’m forced to listen with all the Padre moves going on. ESPN radio doesn’t spend much time on the Belhorns, Blums, Hills and Ross’s of the Padre world.
I miss the Dave and Jeff show. I miss the Matt Vasgersian Show. Thank God for Jimmy Rome.
Good night now.
December 22, 2005 at 10:29 am
Well those BP numbers are sobering, but hey it can’t get much worse. Can it?
If we can somehow swap Woody for Wells without giving up too much, we would be a lot better off.
December 22, 2005 at 1:12 pm
I’d swap Woody for a bag of balls, at this point. Don’t forget…Woody’s here because of the position Wells put us in last off season. He strung KT along and them went back on a deal they’d agreed on. This left KT out in the cold on free agen options and especially in trade options. Woody was the best option, but obviously not a very good one. Woody is a #5 at best, right?
December 22, 2005 at 1:22 pm
How much do The Padres pay 1090 for continual, on-air commercials from their hosts?
Just checking….
December 22, 2005 at 2:38 pm
How many of you would be VERY UPSET if the Padres signed Brett Tomko for 2 years @ $8.7M? I know I would be … but that’s just the Dogs did … so it’s HAPPY DAYS! And yet another symptom of the reality of the market for pitchers???
December 22, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Yeah, I’d be pissed. I’ll take Chris Young @ 4-600K for the next few years, thank you very much.
December 22, 2005 at 3:42 pm
The Padres are awesome at saving money! They make the best deals around. It’s cool that we rarely sign people for market value, because I think that frees us up to trade them in the future to save even more money.
Klesko and Park are throwing us off the curve and I still don’t get the Giles and Hoffman deals but, hey, nobody’s perfect.
Alderson has us set for years to come!
December 22, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Agree about the 1090 owner editorializing, which seems in heavy rotation. I guess we should all “behave” because mr lynch says so. What a complete ass, who happens to own a radio station.
No Tomko, please. I’d rather have a bunch of players I know nothing about and fantasize, then players a know about an kevech. Klesko is going to be hard enough to live with.
I miss Mason and Ireland. Used to throw papers those were funny, probably why they work in bigger markets now.
December 22, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Tom,
Thanks for comments, good or bad, its always informative and fun to get feedback.
I thought the trade was a draw because it helps both teams, there wasn’t a loser on either side.
You’re right Gonzalez did have a .561 slugging percentage, which is nearly 100 points better than he had ever done before in his career. Throw in the fact that nearly everyone on the Oklahoma RedHawks hit, and I’ll stick by the assertion that his ability to hit with power is still an open question. Especially in a place like PETCO park which is hell on lefties. Throw in the fact that that Padres are now Gonzalez’s third organization, and somehow I don’t see this guy as a superstar in the making.
http://www.thebaseballcube.com.....alez.shtml
Also, to state that Nady was going through his “third try at Portland” implies that Nady had three full seasons at Portland, which he did not. He played parts of the season in Portland in 2002, in which he was recovering from Tommy John surgery and could barely throw and 2003, when he was bounced back down in midseason. I would argue, and admittedly I like Nady, that 2004 was his first full season in Portland and he put up much better numbers than Gonzalez ever has in career at any level.
Finally, I don’t see some huge difference between him and Paul McAnulty, who posted about the exact same offensive numbers as Gonzo. The only difference is it wasn’t the first time McAnulty showed that he could hit with power.
http://www.thebaseballcube.com.....ulty.shtml
Sledge had a nice year in 2004, and maybe he will bounce back, but as someone saw the Nationals play quite a bit I wasn’t that impressed with him. A guy whose big tool is his speed and has stolen a grand total of five bases in 153 games didn’t really excite me or the Nationals.
As for my “favorites”, I do admit as a Padres’ fan I do get excited by players who have performed as well as Josh Barfield and Ben Johnson in Portland. They are good players and deserve a chance to play, or are you one of those guys whose mantra is “minor league stats aren‘t major league stats“, but then writes about how the Padres never develop any players?
As far as “spinning” the Bellhorn deal there is nothing to spin. I don’t like the deal and think it is a mistake. However, I do think you are jumping the gun a bit in assuming that this automatically means Barfield is out.
I really don’t understand the non-tendering of Olivio either. We’re trying to get some comments from the Padres before running the next piece, so hopefully can provide a little more information than just a “what were they thinking piece”.
John
BTW - Its “Conniff”, not “Coniff”. It was printed on the second line of the article you just read.
December 22, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Good retort Conniff, and good questions Tom & Mr. Waits…
I like the Gonzo deal. I’m glad we weren’t apart of the Tomko signing. I understand Conniff’s appreciation of Nady, though I think Camron fulfills a bigger need. I like Bellhorn signing & Hill trade (I think 2B is Barfield’s to lose, but it’s nice to have options in case he does lose it - keep in mind he stuggled early in the season in AA in 04 & in AAA in 05).
Back to Gonzales, one way AG is different from P-Mac, is that Gonzales is a slick-fielding 1B. A good defensive 1B is handy thing to have around. It inspires confidense in his IF-mates. They know they don’t have to make perfect throws. He’ll catch anything…
I’m excited about this team.
December 22, 2005 at 10:01 pm
PF: Good point about Gonzalez’ glove. Also, here are some MLEs for Gonzalez and McAnulty:
AG: .302/.355/.482
PM: .263/.324/.408
http://home.comcast.net/~briankaat/mle05.csv
Those numbers for AG are Sean Casey v. 2001. Or, if you prefer, J.T. Snow v. 1995. Either way, I’ll take it.
John: I’ll be real interested to hear what you find out about Olivo. Kinda makes you wonder if maybe the Pads are going to make a play for Molina.
December 23, 2005 at 12:29 am
Geoff
Damn right we’ll take that!
John Conniff
Of course, Adrian Gonzalez is not going to be a superstar in the making. Last season, Gonzalez was ranked as the #8 prospect in the Rangers organization by Baseball America which is far from blue chip, can’t miss status. Prospect guru John Sickels graded him as a B in his book and he wasn’t included in his top fifty position prospects.
Despite all that, I will take Sean Casey type production for a dirt cheap salary for the next 1-3 years.
I think the world of Barfield. He’s the second baseman of the future and I see 1-2 All-Star Games in his career. However, I don’t think he’s ready. Barfield would benefit from at least a half year at Portland if not another full season. Petco Park is a tough place to throw a rookie into the fire.
December 23, 2005 at 6:59 am
LC,
I saw Barfield play a few times last year in Portland for Madfriars.com, and I thought his glove was there. As for his offense, you can look at the stats as easily as I can, and if you hit over .340 with power the last three months of the season, I don’t know how much you have left to prove in AAA.
Yeah, Geoff I was shocked by the non-tender of Olivio hopefully I will get some calls returned before the article goes up.
I like that we got AGon, I just didn’t believe Chris Young was the key to the deal.
John
December 23, 2005 at 7:03 am
Mr. Kahniph
Maybe you ought to wait until I actually write something about minor league statistical projection to major league performance before assuming you know my position on it.
I like how Nady’s 451 AAA at-bats before 2004 don’t count. Why? Because they make him look like a free swinger who didn’t make enough contact to take advantage of his raw power? Why not mention that Nady’s 4 years older than Gonzalez?
Sledge’s big tool is not speed. His offensive game reminds me of Mark Kotsay, but he’s nowhere near the defender. Line drive swing, mid-range pop, fast enough to take a bag and stretch singles. Talk about minor league stats - his minor league OBP is over 400. Ben Johnson is about 50 points lower.
Towers took the Rangers apart in this trade. Only someone overly invested in Ben Johnson and Paul MacAnulty could see it any other way.
December 23, 2005 at 8:11 am
How could Chris Young NOT be the key to the deal?
Some people might want to see Barfield be a little less dependent on batting average. 3 hot months in Portland is nice, but you can’t discount his cold start there or his year-long struggle at Mobile in 2004. If he doesn’t hit 270, he’s going to be an OBP hole.
December 23, 2005 at 11:02 am
Tom,
I wasn’t assuming any position that you may or may not have, I was just going by what you wrote.
As for Nady’s at bats “not counting”, I don’t believe that, but I also believe that I gave you the reasons why I thought 2004 was his first full season at AAA.
According to the Padres they really worked on cutting down Nady’s swing and giving him a shorter path to the ball, which I think is evident in anyone who saw him pre-2004, to the player he is now.
While its true Nady is older, because he went to college first before turning pro, Gonzo has also had about 1000 more minor league at bats than Nady, something you neglected, or more likely didn’t notice.
I’m not overly invested in PMac or Johnson, but just happen to believe that they have played well. Which offensive stat did Gonzo blow PMac away on last year? Also both of those guys can play the outfield, something Gonzo can’t do - or does that not fit into your theory?
Barfield did struggle in Mobile in 2004, but if struggling is leading the Southern League in RBI’s and leading Mobile to the co-championship. I’ll take that any day. Do you want to compare his stats to Gonzo’s in the Southern League? A “hot three months”? The whole season is only five months, and three months is fairly consistent time frame to judge.
Finally both sides could benefit from a trade, you can argue all the trades the Padres have made this year have benefitted the other teams as much as the Padres.
December 23, 2005 at 9:39 pm
I’m relying largely on minor league stats when judging the Eaton trade. Sledge, Young, Gonzalez all have very good indicator stats. Thus we picked up three good players who we’ll control for a long time for an overrated SP, a good reliever, and a catcher who won’t be in the majors this decade. Somehow you construe that as me not thinking that minor league stats mean anything. Apparently in your world, the only minor league stats that mean something are those compiled by players you like.
McAnulty can play LF in Petco like a bear can roller skate. I like him as a hitter. Gonzalez has the same strengths, is younger, plays great defense. Win for us.
Barfield led the Southern League in RBI and “led” his team to a co-championship. Yes, those are definitely the kind of statistical markers that indicate greatness. Why not talk about his HALO skills as an indicator of a positive clubhous presence? Could you get any further removed from his actual production? He had a 730 OPS in Mobile with a 48/119 walk-strikeout ratio.
Gonzalez has more minor league at-bats than Nady because he signed out of high school. He wasn’t a 25 year old from a major college program finally beating up on AAA pitching. He was a 23 year old who had consistently put up better K/BB rates than Nady.
It’s awfully funny to see you appeal to authority on the Loretta and Lawrence trades. Those opened playing time for players you liked, so even though they didn’t actually represent good value moves, you mark them as Padre wins and tell the fans to just trust Towers. Then Towers makes a move that threatens the playing time for a favorite (or moves a favorite out of town) and its a loss for us, even though we’re more talented as a result. Suddenly Towers CAN’T be trusted.
December 23, 2005 at 10:14 pm
“Barfield did struggle in Mobile in 2004, but if struggling is leading the Southern League in RBI’s and leading Mobile to the co-championship.”
Are you really using RBI’s and the record of the team a player was on to make an argument?
December 24, 2005 at 6:36 am
“Are you really using RBI’s and the record of the team a player was on to make an argument?”
To some extent, yes. Barfield in 2004 was the best player on the best team in the Southern League, which I think is somewhat important. Furthermore, outside of Ben Johnson, offensively that team was very weak.
Barfield also started off the year with a pretty severe hamstring injury, which pretty much hampered his effectiveness early on.
Still, I thought going into 2005 Barfield had a lot of questions to answer with a .713 OPS, which he did this year. The Padres really worked hard on reconfiguring his swing and his selectivity at the plate. It paid off this year in Portland with his OBP going up 57 ponts and his OPS increasing by 90.
December 24, 2005 at 7:27 am
Tom,
Thank you for your wonderful response. Since you seem to enjoy taking so many personal attacks at me as opposed to the content of what I have written, here is a piece of advice which might help you be less angry; why don’t you actually read what I have written, then decide if you need to work yourself into such a little lather?
One more time, I LIKE THE TRADE, understand? I guess, according to you, a trade only works if you can run around like a moron yelling “KT beat them, KT beat them”.
Once you get done with that exercise, maybe you can realize that this deal not only helps your team, but the other one as well, as have most of the deals this off-season. The Rangers get a #1 starter, for whom they may be willing to pay after a year‘s audition, and a top relief pitcher for a team that badly needs pitching. In essence, they get two good arms for one on a team that desperately needs pitching. Hope the math doesn’t confuse you there.
McAnulty can play the OF, not great, but a credible outfield, but then again I’m only going off of seeing him play in Mobile, Portland and San Diego, talking to people who saw him play everyday and the Padres…but I’m sure you have great insight into this, you probably saw him play there once on TV.
Cute analogy to a bear on roller skates, is that like you trying to write and think about baseball?
You like him as a hitter? Considering that he did have about the same exact stats as Gonzalez, whom you are comparing to the second coming, that is a very high compliment. I guess you were actually able to understand the statistics.
As for Barfied, I believe I answered your question in the earlier post. You should try that, as opposed to just launching personal attacks, which is what I am doing now in addition to answering your contentions.
I understand that you liked Loretta, and that Barfield…well I can’t really comment on him using stats because I am so horribly biased..
We can go through Nady’s history from when the Padres drafted him to the trade, which I think was a huge waste of money by the Padres. Gonzalez does not project, even by his most ardent supporters like yourself to be as good a player as Nady, simply because he doesn‘t have the power potential.
Having 1000 more minor league at bats is much more valuable for your development as a pro than playing at a major college program. Hitting with wooden bats, playing everyday, instructional leagues, is infinitely more valuable than playing two or three times a week in college baseball against competition which isn‘t as good as short-season A ball.
Most of the people that I have interviewed or read their assessment of him say at best Gonzo is a Mark Grace/Wally Joyner type of first baseman, which is tough to sustain in a day where most people want more power from that position. I’m not saying, before you go off on some great attack on me, that he is not a valuable asset, but that guys like that are not that difficult to find.
I did like the Loretta deal at the time, but as I stated earlier which you obviously didn’t read (this is kind of a recurring theme) I didn’t understand the Bellhorn signing, which negates most of my reasons for liking the Lorretta deal. I’ll stick by the Blaw assessment, unless you have some magical insight into why it was such a bad trade.
Here is an idea, maybe if you choose to respond you can just write that you disagree with what I wrote and leave the personal shots out, I‘ll try to let you know why I wrote if you care. If not, I really don‘t have a problem with a sarcastic, invective laden response if that is what you want.
I just think the former, a discussion of the issues is more entertaining and informative way of looking at what should be entertainment, something this site is better known for than most.
Your call.
December 24, 2005 at 9:26 am
1. If you really think that all these trades benefit the other teams, you wouldn’t have written an article that states we “won” so many of them. Your “scoreboard” is laughable.
2. You’ve now used RBI and a team co-championship to prop up Barfield and you’re calling Eaton a #1 starter. Your credibility is in tatters.
3. You’ve resorted to baseless accusations of personal attacks. That’s the sign of a man foundering for purchase. It’s right up there with calling out spelling mistakes.
So what we have is someone who has painted himself into a corner with asinine trade assessments and is now trying to distract his opponent.
If you think that Gonzalez’s advantage in OBP and defense don’t outweigh the chance that Nady runs into a fastball, well, it’s just one more sign of your “interesting” method of evaluation. There are plenty of scouts who look at Nady as a future platoon corner OF. You believe that a RF who plays against left-handed pitching is more valuable than Gonzalez. Wally Joyner and Mark Grace were both immensely valuable players even though they didn’t fit the power mold.
It’s amusing that you write what I’m sure you think is a masterpiece of sarcasm, THEN say “Let’s just stop.” If you hadn’t done such a terrific job of revealing your own weaknesses, I might have had to do some actual work. As it is, I can just let your own words stand for themselves. Long live RBI as the benchmark of offensive prowess! Acquiring backup catchers is a sure path to success!
December 24, 2005 at 12:59 pm
Interesting discussion, although personally I could do with a little less flirting.
Merry Christmas, everyone. May all the Padres’ moves this winter pay off beyond our wildest dreams!
December 24, 2005 at 8:20 pm
What are your feelings on this World Baseball Classic semi-finals and finals being held here at Petco?
I think that all the negative publicity about Cuba not initially being allowed a Visa to play here in the USA is drawing a lot of publicity and media attention to the WBC which really was not on baseball fan’s minds cause of the offseason. Just imagine when Cuba gets the okay to participate and perhpas Cuba can get past their bracket against tough teams like Puerto Rico and Venezuela and make it to the FINAL 4 here in Petco … this event will be off da hook.
December 24, 2005 at 11:14 pm
Well Tom maybe one of the few “points” that you actually did convince me off is that I should have phrased the scorecard as being beneficial to the Padres, which does not necessarily mean that the other team with whom they were trading was worse off.
Point taken.
However you still seem unable to grasp the fact that trades can benefit both parties, but I’m sure a great many things in life are a big mystery to you.
As for Eaton being a number one starter, just out of curiosity what number do you think he was on the Padres this past year and going into 2006? Ummm, maybe #2? Barring any trade or free agent signings by the Rangers, he will be #1 starter going into the season; but hell I‘m just repeating what the Texas GM said. What could he know? Its such a big jump from number two to number one…
Stating that the only reason I believe Barfield is a good choice to replace Loretta solely because of his leading the Southern League in RBIs 2004 is a reach even for you. Did I really write that, or is just something fun to make up so you can “win” an internet argument? Come on Tom, try reading what someone actually wrote, there is plenty to give me a hard time about instead of just making things up.
Spelling is important. Its an indicator of how much attention the writer is paying to detail, and so far as you have so ably demonstrated with your own writing, not much.
Maybe you are right on Gonzalez, I hope so. Although I do think you have some sort of unnatural hatred towards Nady.
You win Tom if you want sarcasm, no problem. Its funny that you stated I resorted to “baseless accusations of personal attacks”, when you started out several threads with them. If you remember correctly, I even thanked you after for your first critique, but you seem more interested in hurling invectives at me, and yes, I went down to your level. Its no problem, and even kind of fun and I will grant you this, you are consistent. Not only do you have no idea what I wrote, but you are equally as ignorant about your own writing.
One piece of advice, if you have kids and purchased something for them that needs assembly this Christmas, try reading the directions first, even if, as with your opinions on the Padres, you “know what you are doing”. Trust me, if these threads are any indication of your intelligence, you need to read every word of those directions. Try doing it aloud too, that way other people can help you out too, I want you to be able to put together those toys.
December 25, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Besides RBI being a key indicator of offense success, you’ve now deemed Adam Eaton a #1.
Adam Eaton had a 10.1 VORP this season.
In 2004 it was 14.7.
In 2003 it was 24.9.
Brian Lawrence beat those numbers every year. I suppose that makes Lawrence a 1+ Starter.
I don’t hate Nady. I have a rational understanding of his limitations. He’s defensively limited, he doesn’t hit right-handers, he doesn’t control the strike zone, he’s still vulnerable to booking (look that term up). As a platoon corner OF, he can be valuable. Not as valuable as a Gold Glove CF with power and decent OBP. We handed him the 1b job after the Nevin trade and he flopped.
Don’t blame me for dragging you down. You’ve done this to yourself. Nobody forced you to write that Loretta for Mirabelli was a good trade. Nobody held a gun to your head and made you claim that trading for Vinny Castilla before the winter market had started up was a good idea. Nobody’s forcing you now to engage in a battle of wits with your superior.
Instead of claiming to be an expert, maybe you should reposition yourself as “The Analyst For Padre Fans Who Rode The Short Bus To School.”
I’ll be out of town for a week or so. Go ahead and thrash about aimlessly.
December 26, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Things are finally getting interesting in the comments. It’s usually quite the lovefest.
When evaluatong both John’s and Tom’s takes on Padre transactions, I tend to lean toward Tom. Although he makes more sense when he’s not pissed-off.
And John, you really shot yourself in the foot with your assessment of the Loretta trade. Getting Mirabelli in the deal was tantamount to handing Loretta his outright release. Loretta had genuine value to some contenders, and I don’t feel Towers adequately explored that.
That being said, if Barfield is going to have a career, it’s time to get on with it.
December 27, 2005 at 7:27 am
Agree Lance, although it is always amusing to see two intelligent (normally) adult commentators resort to calling each other names. I would encourage John and Tom to leave that stuff for the espn boards, where that type of behavior seems to be in vogue.
Big ups to the Padres for the Eaton trade. If possible, I would have much rather seen the Padres get a couple of “B”-level position player prospects for Loretta, or something remotely similar to what the Marlins got for Castillo, in lieu of a guy like Mirabelli, particularly when cheap FA backup catchers were available.
December 27, 2005 at 12:15 pm
On the contrary, I’m hoping for more vicious in-fighting here in the comments. Great fun.
I still can’t imagine that Loretta’s stock had fallen for enough for Mirabelli to be the best Towers could do. Someone’s always willing to pay too much for past performance.
December 28, 2005 at 7:01 am
Well I really don’t think Tom cares what I actually wrote, as opposed to what he wants to believe I did, so any further responses are pointless.
I wrote why I believed the Loretta trade was beneficial to the Padres in an earlier article.
http://padres.scout.com/2/477549.html
Its a bad deal, in my opinion, if you only see it as Loretta for Mirabelli, which it wasn’t.
As for the Padres being able to get a better player for Loretta, I agree they could have. However it is also highly unlikely that they could have gotten one that made less or the same as Loretta, which is why Mirabelli may have been the best option.
January 2, 2006 at 8:21 am
Conniff, your problem is that I actually do pay attention to what you write. It’s not my fault that you now wish you hadn’t written it.
Mirabelli’s salary goes up if he’s deemed the starter. Guess what? He’s the starter. So we save about 600,000 dollars. A ringing endorsement.
Blum, Young, Hill, Bellhorn. Yes, we have definitely removed every impediment to Barfield winning the 2b job.
Of course it was Loretta for Mirabelli. Every other supposed benefit of the trade could have been achieved by any trade of Loretta.
“However it is also highly unlikely that they could have gotten one that made less or the same as Loretta”
Absolute, total, pure speculative BS. How much does a AAA pitching prospect make? Billy Beane, in his own words, was “shocked” at the Loretta trade. That’s a specialist in how to value players and a close friend of Towers being amazed that he got so little.
January 2, 2006 at 9:18 am
TW, the Greene signing further validates your arguments. Guys like Greene are available without giving up a player of the quality of Loretta; you could even get two of them as a bridge to Kottaras. If they had to trade Loretta, they would have been better off giving him away for a middling prospect or two plus complete salary relief, if they couldn’t, as John suggests, get much better than Mirabelli in return.
Sorry, John, the Loretta trade is looking worse and worse as more time passes. Only a tank job by Loretta and a better than expected performance by Mirabelli in 2006, plus a solid performance by Barfield, can redeem it in hindsight.
January 2, 2006 at 10:47 am
Well maybe you are right (”Fathers“), but I still think that you couldn’t get a player of Loretta’s ability for (1) less than he was currently making or (2) in one of the positions that the Padres needed a pitcher or catcher. There were simply too many second baseman on the market this year.
Most people, myself included, would have thought we could have gotten rid of Brian Lawrence for nothing but prospects without taking salary back, but it wasn‘t to be.
…and Waits I’m glad that you could finally figure out how to spell my name since it was in front of your face the whole time. I guess that is another example of your new found “attention to detail” which I hope I helped you to discover.
There are simply too many errors and incomplete thoughts in all of your writings to bother to respond without engaging in another ESPN “message board war“, which unfortunately I was as much a participant as you. Additionally, most of which you are currently whining about I have already commented/responded too again, and again and again in this thread.
One final thing, go back and read the articles again. All of them differentiate between “fact” and “opinion”, which is something else hopefully this thread will have taught you in addition to your new found spelling prowess.
I’ll have a few more articles coming out later this week so you can get yourself worked up into a lather.
Enjoy.
January 2, 2006 at 11:22 am
That’s a proud accomplishment, writing that many words without saying anything.
ESPN war? You wouldn’t catch me within a mile of the ESPN forums. The only interesting thing is counting how many times the word “idiot” appears in a given day.
Basically your argument comes down to “The team couldn’t do any better.” Which means we all might as well never comment on any move the team makes.
Worried about how Nady was handled, well, obviously Bochy knows something we don’t.
Trade Lawrence in a pitching-thin market for a player the Nationals would cut? No problem, clearly Towers explored every single option.
Worried about why Towers didn’t move Nevin after 2004? Obviously the market just wasn’t there. We should all be happy to have landed even Chan Ho Park.
That’s liberating. Big Brother knows best. We can all just turn off our brains and accept whatever the organization does. You’ve got a head start on the rest of us there.
January 2, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I LOVE you guys!!! The comments section has never been better. (…and no, I am not being sarcastic.)
My initial comments regarding the Tom & John feud came prior to my reading of John’s article (I know, stupid of me). Since reading Conniff’s piece, I get where he’s coming from. Tom’s positions are more defensible, however. I remain appalled by both the Loretta and Lawrence deals, and I am unlikely to change that stance. I’m still okay with the Texas deal, though, and grade the overall off-season as a positive.
At the very least, we’ve had plenty to talk about. And now, back to Tom and John…
January 2, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Waits you really need to get a life. Why would you care what I think? I certainly can care less what you believe you “know“ or what new “internet board wars” that you have recently “won”. The only reason I’m responding to your attacks is that because they are personal, not substantive.
I think your following statement is a great example of the intellectual rigor that goes into your thinking/writing.
“ESPN war? You wouldn’t catch me within a mile of the ESPN forums. The only interesting thing is counting how many times the word “idiot” appears in a given day.”
Tommy boy, try to think even if it is just for a moment. If you are not “within a mile of the ESPN forums” how would you know what does or does not go on there on any given day?
You wouldn’t.
It’s an illogical statement, as is most of what you attempt to write.
How about we try another example of your inability to think or use logic with the Padres?
I’m sure you are correct that there was a huge market for Lawrence. The Padres would have much rather taken on Castilla’s salary and paid the Nationals $675,000 as opposed to dealing him to some team where the only requirement was to take his contract. Why would the Padres want to remove nearly $4 million dollars from their books and have the freedom to choose any third baseman that they would want, such as Bill Mueller?
No, I’m sure Kevin Towers never contacted any other team other than the Washington Nationals on Lawrence. He probably never even thought about it. Golly, if only KT had you working with him, the Ducksnorts spelling champ…
Yes, that makes sense. Great point Tom.
You really should visit the ESPN board and count the number of times the word “idiot” appears, as you claim to. From my perspective its the same as counting the number of times your name, name “Tom Waits” appears, both convey the same meaning.
And Tom, even a semi-literate such as yourself should get some sort of thrill out of seeing your name in print.
January 3, 2006 at 7:56 am
Con-Air
How many times are you going to claim to be finished, then come back with an even longer post that makes even less sense?
You started whining about personal attacks where there weren’t any.
You claimed that Adam Eaton was a #1 pitcher.
Now you’re confused about ESPN and some sort of war we’ve had? Well, you’re consistent in your delusions. I hope those are easier to treat.
I’ve looked at the ESPN boards. I don’t post there specifically because the level of discussion is, well, you. How could I be involved in an Internet war on a board I don’t frequent? Is this too hard for you?
Actually, if you’re posting on multiple boards, maybe you really are the Padre shill that your writing makes you out to be. Sort of an undercover marketing tool trying to convince fans that the Padres are executing a consistent plan. We give away Loretta, don’t worry, John Conman says its the best we could do. We trade Lawrence as the first move of the winter, before anyone else has done anything, for a player the Nationals couldn’t give away? Don’t worry, Johann Conehead says there was no reason to wait, even though the Blue Jays now have a dozen 3b and Chan Ho Park is in the rotation. The Padres draft Matt Bush in a process reminiscent of the Keystone Kops? Don’t worry, Eoin of the Clan Constipate says that many #1 overall picks have a 208/263/291 line after 550 pro at bats.
Do the Padres at least pay your ISP bill?
January 3, 2006 at 8:17 am
Another reminder of why the Lawrence deal was so bad.
http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com....._id=120221
As things stand now, he’s taking the ball every 5th day.
Maybe Vinny Castilla was the best player we could land for Lawrence. Vinny wasn’t going anywhere. There was no need to rush.
Russ Branyan signed an 800,000 UNGUARANTEED contract with the Brewers for 2006. He had a 17.9 VORP last year, beating Vinny by 3.7, er, VORPS. Branyan’s EQA was 296. Vinny’s was 257. Give Branyan 800 guaranteed, keep Lawrence, keep Park OUT of the rotation, we’re a better team.
Or wait to make a Lawrence trade. You could get Koskie for him now and the Jays might add money or a prospect. They’ve publicly said Glaus is their 3b, leaving Koskie nowhere to play. That gives you a career 276 EQA third baseman for 2006 and 2007.
This from a Baseball Prospectus chat:
“Bowden fleeced Towers in the Lawrence/Castilla deal
Daniels fleeced Bowden in the Soriano/Wilkerson deal
Towers fleeced Daniels in the Young/Eaton deal
The circle is complete.”
January 3, 2006 at 11:22 am
Tom, critics of the Loretta deal, and I guess I fall in that camp, can point to the Castillo trade as an analogue to support the at least somewhat speculative claim that the Padres could have done better in trade.
How do you do that with Lawrence? I don’t recall any similarly craptacular pitchers being traded for much of anything this offseason, but maybe you can help me out here.
January 3, 2006 at 12:00 pm
First, I’d disagree with the idea that Lawrence had to be traded at all, let alone to fill 3b at no savings. Branyan (17.9 VORP) is just one example of a player who could outplay Castilla (14.2). Leone is a pretty decent 3b (hurt last year) and he was free. The Twins are supposedly sick of Cuddyer (14.2 VORP).
As of now, our rotation includes the unproven Hensley and Park. Even if Hensley is better than Lawrence was in 2005, Park isn’t. He’s awful. That’s a huge downgrade.
But let’s say we had to trade Lawrence for whatever reason. Have similar pitchers been traded this winter? Yes.
Miguel Batista was just part of a trade for Troy Glaus. Batista’s VORP last year was 8.9. Lawrence almost doubled that (15.8) in his worst season as a pro. Not that we’d ever make a deal with Arizona, but Batista wasn’t seen as a negative.
Some other pitchers who were about as valuable as Law last year include Jason Schmidt, Bronson Arroyo, Jerome Williams, Mike Gonzalez, David Bush, and our own Hensley and Astacio. All those players have more value than Vinny Castilla.
Bush was part of the Overbay deal. Arroyo has been mentioned as the price for Jeremy Reed, Brad Wilkerson, and Jason Michaels. Glaus, Overbay, Reed, Wilkerson, Michaels. Those are the kind of players that a Brian Lawrence kind of pitcher can help you land. Vinny Castilla? The Nationals had already given 3b to Zimmerman. Were they going to make Vinny an OF?
The one thing I’m sure of is that Vinny Castilla wasn’t going anywhere. If we hadn’t landed a 3b by February, THEN you make the trade.
January 3, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Well, I’m not convinced . . . yet. I am not a big fan of VORP comparisons between hitters (which doesn’t factor in defense) and pitchers (which uses a different scale and doesn’t factor in offense or defense). I’d prefer WARP, and Castilla beats Lawrence and he also beats Branyan, a bad fielding 3b.
I also don’t see the similarity between Lawrence and any of the pitchers you mentioned, possibly excepting Arroyo, who has not been traded yet.
Considering how poorly the Padres’ 5th starters pitching in 2005, I don’t see Chan Ho Park as a downgrade relative to that “performance”. He might be an upgrade, as awful as that sounds.
I do tend to agree with your last paragraph though; perhaps Towers pulled the trigger too early and Castilla could have been had, if needed, for much less. Just doubtful that Lawrence could have brought much more, except maybe if he had been traded a year or two earlier.
January 3, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I’m not using VORP to compare pitchers and hitters. I’m comparing available 3b to Castilla and other SP to Lawrence.
Castilla does have a defensive edge over Branyan, Leone, and Cuddyer, but some of his WARP advantage is just because of games played. Branyan did his damage in 202 at-bats. Vinny took 494. Double Branyan’s playing time and his WARP is 4.6.
Batista, Astacio, Bush, guys who get decent results with marginal stuff. Faster fastballs, because everybody’s fastball is faster than Lawrence’s, but nothing outstanding. Arroyo may not be traded at all, but he’s being linked to better, younger players than Vinny Castilla.
There’s no exact match, but pitchers who performed about as well, and make about as much, have been valued more than we did Lawrence.
I thought the idea was to make a 83 win team better. May, Redding, and Reyes set a low standard for 5th starters. We should be trying to improve on that, not match it by using Park. Lawrence would have been a huge improvement in that role.
Like I said, I don’t buy that Lawrence had to be traded at all. Sign Branyan and you get the improvement at 3b plus Park is out of the rotation. That’s worth 1,000,000.
January 3, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Before Jon Konef (Fanetik phonetic) pounces, I know we won 82 games last year, not 83. It’s called a typo.
I could have let him have the easy ding, but I want him to move from spelling, typos, and baseless accusations of personal attacks to the next line of defense: The “you never played baseball, did you?” move. I want to see how far away he can distance himself from his actual evaluation of the Loretta-Mirabelli trade. It’s also fun to see how anger inhibits judgment. You can almost feel the spittle hitting his screen in that last post.