More Roster Moves
Wed, Dec 14, 2005
by Geoff Young
Won’t they stop already? Just catching up on the latest flurry. New and improved chart at the end.
Chris Oxspring to Japan for Cash
The Padres have sold the contract of RHP Chris Oxspring to the Hanshin Tigers of the Japanese Central League for a reported $550k. On the one hand, I’m real sorry to see Oxspring leave without getting a chance to show the Padres what he can do. On the other, he’ll be 29 years old in May and probably will make a much better living over in Japan than he would have on this side of the Pacific. Oxspring was one of my favorites during his time at Elsinore, and I’m happy for his opportunity.
Pete LaForest from Tampa Bay off Waivers
LaForest has played parts of two seasons with the “big-league” Devil Rays, hitting .170/.223/.241 in 112 at-bats. He was Tampa Bay’s #11 prospect according to the Baseball America Prospect Handbook 2004 after having been listed at #16 in the previous year’s edition.
From the 2003 book:
Signed as a third baseman, LaForest has made significant strides during his conversion to catching but remains far from a polished product behind the plate… LaForest’s greatest improvement has come with the bat. He makes solid contact and is able to drive the ball.
And from 2004:
He has good power from the left side and draws a good amount of walks… LaForest has a big swing and strikes out a lot, the main reason he never has hit better than .275 at any of his stops in the minors… He might be better suited to be a DH/first baseman/backup catcher than a regular backstop.
Executive summary: Upside is maybe a poor man’s Matt LeCroy? Don’t expect much.
Dave Roberts Re-signs
According to the U-T, it’s a 1-year deal for $2.25M. With the acquisition of Mike Cameron, Roberts moves to left field, where he is a pretty good defender. His lack of arm strength won’t be as much of a liability in left as it was in center, and with less ground to cover, maybe he can stay away from those nagging leg injuries and become a good base stealer again.
The Padres needed someone to bat leadoff, and Roberts did a capable job in that role last year. If he can duplicate that effort ― admittedly a big “if” given his age and how completely out of line his 2005 numbers were with anything he’d done since 2000 at Triple-A Buffalo ― Roberts will continue to be a valuable contributor.
The potential for decline, possibly precipitous, is undeniable. But I’ve doubted Roberts before and he proved me wrong in a big way this past season. I am hopeful that the move to a less demanding position will help him assuage my doubts once more.
The big downside is that we may not get to see what Ben Johnson can do this season. Then again, with Xavier Nady gone, we have to clamor for the Padres to free someone, right? 
Ricky Steik to Detroit for Kenny Baugh
The Padres drafted Steik in the 7th round of the 2004 draft out of Golden West College. Beyond that, I don’t know a lot about Steik, but he didn’t show up on any of the Padres prospects lists I’ve seen. That happens with 21-year-old middle relievers in Low-A ball.
Baugh was selected 11th overall by the Detroit Tigers in the 2001 draft. Unfortunately he was ridden extremely hard at Rice and missed the entire 2002 season due to labrum surgery.
Prior to the injury, Baugh had been the Tigers’ #4 prospect in the Baseball America Prospect Handbook 2002. In the accompanying writeup, Baseball America said of Baugh, “He’s the frontrunner to be the first player from the 2001 draft to reach the majors.” Of course, he had the setback and still is waiting for the call.
In 2003, Baseball America ranked Baugh the Tiger’s #17 prospect, and the following year, he climbed to #10. In the 2005 book, he dropped all the way to #24. From that edition:
Baugh’s velocity got back to 88-91 mph last year, enough to get by because he commands an average curveball and changeup. The key for him is to stay on top of his pitches, because his fastball and curve flatten out when he drops down.
I dunno, can he be any worse than Ismael Valdez was a couple years ago? Baugh essentially takes over Oxspring’s role as a guy who the Padres can bring up from Portland to make the occasional spot start if needed. And of course, he didn’t cost much. So the net is that the Friars gave up a Low-A reliever to free up half a million bucks. From a baseball standpoint, this series of moves is the equivalent of treading water. From the business side, though, it’s pretty slick.
For grins, here’s how Baugh and Oxspring fared at Triple-A last year:
Age IP ERA H/9 BB/9 SO/9 HR/9
Baugh 26 165.1 3.38 8.66 3.27 5.82 0.71
Oxspring 28 160.2 4.03 8.29 2.35 7.00 0.84
Reaction from the Tigers blogosphere is lukewarm: Detroit Tigers Weblog, Tiger Tales, TigerBlog.
Robert Fick to Washington as Free Agent
According to MLB.com, the deal is worth $850k for 1 year. I hate to see Fick leave because he’s such a gritty player. On the downside, his ISO had dropped every year since 2001. Last season’s .100 wasn’t nearly enough for a corner infielder/outfielder (Neifi Perez even managed an ISO of .108). So I’m sorry I won’t get to watch Fick play next year, but I understand that he can be replaced.
Ramon Hernandez to Baltimore as Free Agent
The deal is reported to be 4 years for $27.5M. That’s not quite the 4 years for $34M I predicted in March but it’s still wacko money for a 30-year-old catcher who has missed 114 games the past two seasons.
As with Fick, I’m sorry to see Hernandez leave. But I’d hate to be the Orioles right now or, say, in 2008. You think Phil Nevin was tough to move. Heh.
Doug Brocail Signs as Free Agent
Okay, technically this one hasn’t happened yet, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to dedicate an entire entry to Doug Brocail when it does. Reports are that the deal will be 1 year for $1M.
Brocail, you may recall (or not), was the Padres first-round pick in the January regular phase of the 1986 draft. Yep, he was around when there was a January phase of the draft. He played for the Padres before Trevor Hoffman ever came to San Diego. He was part of the December 1994 deal that brought Ken Caminiti and Steve Finley to the Friars. Two of the players in that trade have passed on. Dude has been around a while.
Brocail also isn’t a bad pitcher. At least he wasn’t before last season. Brocail did a decent job for the Rangers in 2004, but his best years came in Detroit, from 1997 to 1999.
Brocail will be 39 this season and he’s coming off a down year. At his age, it’s hard to know whether that was a blip or the beginning of the end. For $1M, the Padres are about to find out. Have I mentioned lately that this was a good winter to be a free agent reliever?
| Pos | Out | In |
|---|---|---|
| SP | Brian Lawrence Chris Oxspring Ricky Steik |
Dewon Brazelton Seth Etherton Steve Andrade Kenny Baugh Doug Brocail |
| C | Ramon Hernandez | Doug Mirabelli |
| 1B | Mark Sweeney (RF, LF) Robert Fick (C, RF, LF) |
- |
| 2B | Mark Loretta Damian Jackson (SS, OF) |
- |
| 3B | Sean Burroughs | Vinny Castilla Geoff Blum (2B, SS) Bobby Hill (2B) Justin Leone |
| OF | Xavier Nady (1B) | Mike Cameron Jack Cust |
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 14, 2005 at 10:49 am
If only we could dump the lovable Klesko…
December 14, 2005 at 12:09 pm
From BP, Christina Kahrl’s take on recent Padres moves:
“There’s a lot here that just doesn’t work. Ditch Loretta to add an okay catcher who just turned 35? Hoffman, for that much? What does he cost without a hometown discount? Some unkind suggestions have been attached to Loretta as to why he was so available, but dealing him creates more doubts than it alleviates. Is Mirabelli really an adequate replacement for Ramon Hernandez? Is he really going to be significantly better than either Miguel Olivo or David Ross? I’m even more concerned about the Padres’ risky position in the middle infield: if Josh Barfield doesn’t win the job, do you really want to go with some combo of Geoff Blum and Bobby Hill covering second? Or is Eric Young going to come back into the infield? This doesn’t make for a great interior defense, and the lineup’s already going to have to carry what’s left of Vinny Castilla.
What I like are the little moves. I’m not a huge Brazelton fan, but I think the combination of getting away from his failures with Tampa Bay, getting into an organization that isn’t starting over, and having the opportunity to pitch in Pac Bell are all factors that might get him a career. I can certainly see how it’s worth taking that chance while ditching the disappointing Burroughs. I also like the decision to claim Laforest. He may yet turn out to be a useful backup catcher; again, freed from the stigma of trying to make it up with LaMar’s Legion of Doom, he could finally stick.
Then there’s the minor league journeyman grab bag. Going out of your way for Etherton seems a bit of a stretch, but if he can make it anywhere, it might be in San Diego. I’m more impressed with the decision to nab Andrade, because beyond being one of those veterans you always want to see break through, he could be a major asset as a middle reliever on a club that has its problems in the rotation. A strike-thrower par excellence, he’s a great add.”
December 14, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Does the organization have to trash every player we trade? No wonder the San Diego discount is getting smaller. Not only do we trade Loretta for junk, we whisper in the ears of journalists to explain why we did it.
Just man up, KT. You didn’t want to spend a lot of time thinking about how to “solve” multiple “problems,” so you took the easiest course.
December 14, 2005 at 2:16 pm
I have not heard/read anything disparaging about Loretta as the reason for the trade.
Anybody wants to inform me?
If true, that’s really too bad. What have you heard Tom?
December 14, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Besides the BP article, Tim Sullivan responded to an email (mine) with a sort of “you don’t know everything about Loretta” tone. There’s also been talk about Loretta’s position as player union rep. Atmospheric stuff that adds up if you have a conspiratorial mind.
It’s supported by the way the team treated other players it wanted to move. Most recently Nevin and Klesko.
December 14, 2005 at 3:08 pm
I haven’t heard anything bad about Loretta and anything negative from the organization about Nevin and Klesko is about 1% of how most fans feel. When you have two guys drop off so drastically after a steroid crackdown and they make as much as those two guys I think there’s justification for some negativity. And it’s a fraction of the backbiting and negativity that goes on in a place like Boston or New York.
Maybe I’m naive but I really think the Loretta trade was just a dumb move to save salary and try to shore up a weak spot. KT seems to think acquiring a bunch of mediocre guys will somehow make up for losing Ramon.
December 14, 2005 at 3:23 pm
Most fans were screaming for Nevin and Klesko to be retained a few years ago. You can’t have it both ways - demand that the team spend money on its best players but ignore the chance of a decline.
Players got hurt a long time before steroids ever entered the game, particularly in their mid-30s.
The team does a lot to influence public opinion. Angel fans love Darrin Erstad even though he’s bad. Why? Because the team promotes the hell out of him. Their front office types don’t make anonymous comments to beat writers about Erstad being a cancer. They don’t act as sources for a story about Klesko and his surfboards. They don’t try to paint Erstad as a bastard who is willfully blocking a younger player. You don’t increase a player’s trade value (or the team’s marketing power) by running the player down.
I do agree that we haven’t made any serious upgrades so far. Not so much with Ramon, since he only played 99 games for us last year. But overall we’re not much better, if any.
December 14, 2005 at 3:31 pm
A friend of mine has a theory concerning the Padres sudden spike in age: Moores plans on selling the team.
He’s filling the roster with older players or journeymen who’s contracts will expire in the next 1-3 years. Fans won’t care if we don’t resign them. Once they’re off the books, a franchise with a new downtown ballpark and zero payroll looks attractive to a potential buyer. Moores makes a fortune on his $85 million investment.
It makes more sense to me than believing the Padres have a plan on winning a World Series title.
December 14, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Ya gotta love conspiracy theories, particularly fan initiated conspiracies. Seems just as likely to me the moves Carne is referring to are to allow those contracts to come off the books in 2007 (all but Trevor’s come off in 1 year, even Cameron’s although there is a second year option). At that point Klesko and Park/Nevin alos come off the books, which will allow us some room to play in the FA market while bringing in those internally developed players ready to make an impact.
As to Moores selling the team to make a fortune, he may, but he’s already made several fortunes elsewhere and they continue to grow as his RE empire grows so I don’t know that making a fortune would be his motivation for selling although he’s certainlly shrewd enough to maximize his profit should he sell.
December 14, 2005 at 4:27 pm
The above strategy allowed the Indians to win the pennant…oh, wait, that was in Major League.
December 14, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Interesting. I don’t know about selling the team but they sure as hell aren’t making a big push, are they? I think it’s as much about staying in the middle of the pack with enough name players to attract the interest of the “casual” fan. Stay in the race until September to sell tickets, if the rest of the division is crap maybe we can win again.
I think all teams try to manipulate public opinion to some extent. I’m sure the Angels wouldn’t be hyping Erstad if they felt he was hurting them as much as most outsiders think he is. The Padres had no problem hyping Klesko when he was producing, Nevin too.
Personally, I like Klesko as a player and hope he’s healthy and bounces back. I even liked watching him in LF, at least compared to Kerry Robinson.
December 14, 2005 at 6:07 pm
Although you have to admit, watching Robinson misplay that ball at Coors Field a couple years ago had some entertainment value.
December 14, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Wow, BP ripped us. Don’t they say you SHOULD get rid of an aging non-star… For all Loretta did for us while he was here, he’s not a guy you break the bank for (like Giles - even then, I mean “break the bank” in the most non-literal way). Barfield is ready or darn near so… And Bobby Hill has long been a BP fave, someone they said deserved a chance. Of course, now that he’s a Padre, they change their tune.
Whatever!
December 14, 2005 at 11:14 pm
Christina had seemed to be rather high on Hill, or at least on giving him a chance to prove himself at the Major League level.
December 15, 2005 at 5:06 am
I’ve never heard that stuff about Loretta before. I agree with Tom, that if KT is slamming Loretta post-trade, that’s pretty stupid. Just own up to it.
I did not agree with KT’s comments in the Boston Globe that “if I had Boston’s payroll, Loretta would still be here.” It seemed like a one-sided deal. I thought we could have gotten more for him, even if it was only a prospect.
Does anyone think there’s any connection between Mirabelli for Loretta and a possible trade for Wells? In other words, “you give me Loretta for Mirabelli, and I’ll give you Wells for something less.”
I have mixed feelings about the Pads’ offseason. I love the Cameron acquisition, and I’m really looking forward to see Barfield play, but that’s about it. This other stuff — B Hill, Brazelton, Brocail, etc. — might ensure that we don’t lose 95 games, but it sure isn’t going to win a pennant.
December 15, 2005 at 5:50 am
BP’s general belief is that players are commodities. Eric said it a week ago - KT doesn’t look at the value of players as much as he looks at filling holes on his roster. So he’ll overspend to meet a perceived “need.” Instead of focusing on getting the most we could for a Payton or Loretta, then paying what is fair for what we want, he rolls it all into one transaction.
There aren’t that many fans, on the internet anyway, who are that broken up about losing Loretta. The problem is what we got for him and the spin from the Padres. ANY trade of Loretta opened up 2b for Barfield and saved money to pay for Hoffman, it didn’t also have to be a trade that landed Doug Mirabelli, 35 year old backup catcher.
Any GM who waits for a player’s value to crater before trading him isn’t going to win points with BP.
December 15, 2005 at 6:38 am
Tom,
“KT doesn’t look at the value of players as much as he looks at filling holes on his roster.”
That may be true, but KT is now more of a figure-head w/ Alderson being ever-more-active. And Alderson trained Billy Beane who DOES look at a player’s value. It would be hard to believe that Alderson isn’t looking at that value as well.
I think the Loretta deal was almost strictly a salary dump. Plus, I think we’re holding Boston over a barrel on the Wells deal. He doesn’t want to play in Boston (or he’ll likely retire), and really doesn’t want to play anywhere else (so they really can’t ask for much in return - they won’t pay his salary for him to pitch for us, they’d rather he’d retire, but they need to take a next-to-nobody in return). KT & Alderson know this, so they’re in no rush.
December 15, 2005 at 7:10 am
I agree with Peter. I think if there was a two-part trade in this whole Loretta/Mirabelli/Wells business, they would have been completed at the same time. In the “you show me yours, and I’ll show you mine” game, we already showed ours. What’s to stop them from walking away? A gentleman’s agreement?
Loretta was probably a salary dump, but if you look at it as “filling a need” then you’re mistaken. We may have cleared the way for Barfield, but we certainly didn’t need Mirabelli by any stretch of the imagination…
December 15, 2005 at 7:11 am
There’s no way the team was looking at value if they moved Loretta for a player like Mirabelli. Loretta had a down year. He still hit 280 with a 360 OBP and is respected by managers and other players. Still an ideal #2 hitter even if his power never comes back.
You can pick up Doug Mirabellis on the clearance rack.
Calling a move “strictly a salary dump” doesn’t jibe with Alderson actually paying attention to Loretta’s value. It can be one or the other, not both. You trade Loretta for a BoSox prospect, you get value AND salary room.
Boston, Seattle, Texas, St. Louis, the Cubs, and the Mets all need a 2b. There was no doubt that Texas would trade Soriano or that the Mets want Matsui out. Between those teams we couldn’t get more for a 3.75M Mark Loretta than Doug Mirabelli? Please. We just didn’t try. We paid $5 for a cup of coffee that cost $2.50 and left the change in the tip cup.
December 15, 2005 at 8:30 am
I’m with Mr. Waits on this one. I looked around at all the teams needing 2B, which includes some big market teams, and just have no explanation why we couldn’t have done better, received more value, in return for Lo. At the same time by picking up a young prospect or two we would have reduced salary further than we did, and there were at least 8 FA backup catchers available who are as bad as Mirabelli. It just doesn’t add up.
December 15, 2005 at 9:32 am
Wouldn’t common sense dictate that if you needed to dump a player due to salary issues you would shop him around a little? It’s mind boggling that we just took the first crappy offer we got from the Red Sox. EVen worse, KT is probably the one that suggested the trade. I happen to like Mirabelli a lot but Pat is right, there’s no shortage of comparable players on the FA market.
If this means we ultimately get Wells for well below market value then it at least partially explains it. I have a feeling it’s going to be Aki for Wells, which in my opinion is just as lopsided in Boston’s favor.
December 15, 2005 at 9:52 am
Red Sox, among others, are looking at Seanez:
http://redsox.bostonherald.com.....eid=117145
(via Metsblog.com)
December 15, 2005 at 9:52 am
What I suspect happen is that Towers and the Boston team were in a room for a long time talking about David Wells. Loretta and Mirabelli get mentioned as part of that deal. When the time came to cut payroll so we could afford Hoffman, Towers thought “This is easy. I can cross three things off my list with just one trade.” So he did. He went back to the team that he knew had interest in Loretta and gave him up for an aging backup catcher who, contrary to public statements, does not hit RHP very well.
December 15, 2005 at 10:32 am
Someone should inform Christina Kahrl that the Pads play in Petco Park.
Re: Lo/Mirabelli trade. I think KT is praying this works out for the best. Who knows how these things will turn out, maybe Mirabelli plays 90 games and hits .280 with 15 homers and Barfield is the next Khalil. Kenny Williams was getting reamed for bringing in Contreras and Freddy Garcia and even now for bringing in a hurt Thome, but sometimes these things work out. 400 yr old Vinny Castilla, Cameron on the mend, rookie Barfield, 1B Klesko, Roberts in left for any significant time, Olivo/Mirabelli. We have a lot of things on this team that need to “work out”, eh?
December 15, 2005 at 11:01 am
I don’t remember too many people being down on Contreras and Garcia, at least not respectable analysts. That leaves out almost everyone at ESPN.
Contreras had great stuff and had been successful in the majors and the Yankees added cash, that’s the kind of player to take a chance on. Not a Vinny Castilla who can tell you stories of riding with Zapata or a Rod Barajas, I mean Javier Valentin, I mean Eddie Perez, I mean Todd Pratt, wait, I really mean Doug Mirabelli. Those aren’t bad catchers to bring in, necessarily. Just bad catchers to trade Loretta for.
You’re right, everything could work out. In the 3rd year of Petco Park, the 10th year of Kevin Towers, the 11th year of John Moores, I wish we weren’t still crossing our fingers.
December 15, 2005 at 11:45 am
From a recent Olney post:
Williams will make deals which, on paper, sometimes don’t appear to make a lot of sense. At the time Williams added Jose Contreras, the pitcher, as a market commodity, could not have been worth much less. The White Sox took on money in making that deal.
The trade for Jim Thome is something of a head-scratcher. Thome is 35, he’s had some serious physical problems, and he’s coming off a year in which he batted .207 with 7 homers and 30 RBI. Now, if he was a free agent, would you commit a three-year, $21 million deal to get him, while also surrendering a solid major-league center fielder (Aaron Rowand) and a good minor-league pitching prospect (former No. 1 pick Giovany Gonzalez)? Probably not. And yet that’s basically what the White Sox agreed to do.
He made this point better than I did.
December 15, 2005 at 12:04 pm
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Kenny Williams took a chance on a player with huge upside in Contreras. At worst, he’d have an overpaid league-average pitcher with the Yankees paying part of the bill. At best, well, that’s what happened, he found himself with one of the best pitchers in the AL. Whereas we’re taking chances on Vinny Castilla and Doug Mirabelli. At worst they’re awful. At best they’re slightly above average, and they’re both so old that it’s not good to expect it.
Castilla might give us more than we got from 3b last year. We were outscored by 42 runs last year, we need to get a lot better, not a little. Or, if we’re really just trying to hang on until 2007, we should have traded Loretta for someone who might help in 2007.
December 15, 2005 at 12:07 pm
I think there’s a general consensus on this blog about just how sucky the Loretta/Mirabelli deal was. Here’s one more to pile on, BP’s Joe Sheehan:
“The Mark Loretta-for-Doug Mirabelli trade is still baffling. If the Padres had a second-base prospect whose talent or performance demanded he play, it would be one thing, but Josh Barfield isn’t that guy. Barfield’s .310/.370/.450 line at Triple-A Portland isn’t terribly impressive, and his strikeout rate (one every 5.5 PAs) is still high enough to cause concern. Mirabelli is a good backup catcher with power, a useful player to have around, just not someone worth trading an everyday second baseman for. The deal is a considerable net loss for the Padres, and exposes them to a lot of risk at second base in ’06.
Credit has to be given for the acquistion of Steven Andrade, the last piece of the Sean Burroughs-for-Dewon Brazelton trade. Andrade has been effective at nearly every stop in his minor-league career, including a ridiculous 2005 in which he allowed 23 hits in 50 1/3 innings for the Blue Jays’ Double-A affiliate in New Hampshire. He’s one of two Rule 5 picks (the other being Jamie Vermilyea) who I expect to have an impact in the majors in 2005. Getting Andrade alone would have made the trade of Burroughs worth it.”
December 15, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Barfield hit over .340 after the first two months of the season, stole 20-25 bases and had a nearly .500 plus slugging percentage from July on. Throw in that he played a great second base and has been in the top 3 of Baseball America’s Padres prospects for three years running, is eleven years younger than Loretta…I think those are some pretty good reasons. If you don’t give Barfield a shot, why even have a minor league system?
The money the Padres saved on the deal pays for the increase in Giles salary, Hoffman will make the same next year. Mirabeli gives the Padres a vet option at catcher.
It was a good trade.
December 15, 2005 at 1:35 pm
I agree w/ BP’s assessment of the Mirabelli trade, but I don’t think I agree with the assessment of Barfield.
He’ll probably be better than Loretta was last year, which is enough to give him a chance.
Should have gotten more for Loretta. Oh, well. Shoulda coulda woulda. Guess we just have to pray that Mirabelli hits .275 with 12 HRs.
December 15, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Runs Scored NL West:
AZ 696 = 4.30/G
COL 740 = 4.57/G
LA 685 = 4.23/G
SF 649 = 4.01/G
SD 684 = 4.22/G
Runs Allowed NL West:
AZ 856 = 5.28/G
COL 862 = 5.32/G
LA 755 = 4.66/G
SF 745 = 4.60/G
SD 726 = 4.48/G
It looks like it’s going to have to come down to our pitching staff again. As we can see, NL West was just terrible at scoring runs in general with every team having negative run differential.
The Padres, however, pitched a lot better than the rest of the division.
Given all the moves in this off season, are the Padres better/worse than the rest of the divison?
I would think that the Padres are not that much improved yet either in pitching or in hitting.
December 15, 2005 at 2:07 pm
BP is always going to look askance at a player who is that dependent on batting average and has a marginal walk-strikeout ratio. They’re going to weigh his cold months right along with his hot ones, too.
Not many people mind replacing Loretta with Barfield.
Giving up a valuable commodity (Loretta) for a backup catcher is not a good trade. Backup catchers are everywhere. We got LaForest for the waiver fee. Like I said, paid $5 for a $2.50 item.
We’d have saved money trading Loretta in lots of other scenarios. Probably more money than we saved trading him for Mirabelli.
I get a little tired of the appeal to authority defense of this move, people who think that Towers surely explored all possibilities and this was the best trade available. Yeah, because he’s never overpaid in trades or shown poor strategy before.
So no, it wasn’t a good trade. It was a simple trade. You’re tying things together to justify it that could have been accomplished in several different ways, all of which would have had more benefit to the team. Towers just didn’t want to work that hard.
December 15, 2005 at 5:07 pm
Amen, Tom Waits. I don’t understand this undying loyalty to the Padres brass.
The Padres have had essentially 3 good years under Towers and Moores (96, 98 and I’d say 04 over 05). Why Towers is considered an upper crust GM confuses me. And when people say he’s limited due to Moores payroll, I say “Why then does Towers choose to stay?”
I think Moores has gone cheap on us and it could end up costing us the Chargers down the road (why give the Chargers a new stadium after the Padres pulled a ‘bait and switch?’)
Some say Alderson is now in control. Yet no one seems to be able to make sense of this offseason.
Don’t tell me to wait til 2007. I’ve been waiting since 1998 for a winner (if your happy with the 05 team, why? To fly a banner? That team was not good). All I heard was wait til we get to Petco. Now it’s wait til 2007?
I love the Padres, but I’m frustrated. Big time. I still haven’t renewed my season tickets.
December 15, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Folks, where else can you go to hear “Tom Waits” talk to “Stephen Malkmus” about Padres baseball? Sweet!
December 15, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Tom: I would be interested to read how specifically you would have got more for Mark Loretta and also acquired a solid backup catcher.
Stephen: Trivia for you - Most Divison Titles since 1996:
1. Atlanta Braves - 10
2. New York Yankees - 9
3. St. Louis Cardinals - 5
3. Cleveland Indians - 5
5. Houston Astros - 4
6. SAN DIEGO PADRES - 3
6. Arizona Diamondbacks - 3
6. Minnestota Twins - 3
6. Oakland A’s - 3
6. San Francisco Giants - 3
6. Texas Rangers - 3
December 15, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Three divisions titles is great. Don’t get me worng. Unfortunately, twice we were swept in the opening round, once we finished the year under .500.
Oh, and I’d bypass the division title for a World Series ring, ala Florida (twice), the Angels and Red Sox.
Just give me some high quality, entertaining baseball…or at least a gameplan
December 15, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Forgot to mention: zero World Series victories in 20+ years. But if you’re cool with that…
I love so much, it hurts. It just hurts.
December 15, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Wouldn’t we all love to have a guarantee of high quality, entertaining baseball, but that isn’t how it works, unless, maybe, you are a Yankees, Braves, Red Sox or Cardinals fan.
As far as a gameplan, is it not evident?
1. Build through the farm system and player development (the long term aspect rebooted through Alderson and Fuson), including extending quality home grown talent (Peavy, maybe Greene or Eaton);
2. retain and/or sign a quality free agent or two (Giles, maybe Hoffman);
3. fill holes in starting eight with short term veterans where 1. or 2. ready (to give freedom to go those routes in future), and fill most bench and bullpen holes with mid- to low-level veteran FA or trade.
December 15, 2005 at 5:55 pm
should read “where 1. or 2. NOT ready”
December 15, 2005 at 6:02 pm
TW - I think saying “Towers just didn’t want to work that hard” is a stretch. The impression I got from seeing & hearing him at the Pizza Feed back in June was anything but someone who doesn’t work hard … I’m much more inclined to believe that is MUCH harder to be a GM, to make trades, etc than you or I will ever know/understand. I think that if you think Towers is sluffing, then you’ve also gotta be ding’ing Alderson, right? Ain’t he Towers’ boss? If so, then he’s GOT to be able to evalute the situation not tolerate sluffing. But that’s irrelevant really … both those guys are professionals … I think you’re better off questioning their ability than their work ethic.
December 15, 2005 at 6:08 pm
I don’t see how anyone can defend Towers. The Loretta for Mirabelli is baffling, there is no other way to describe it. Loretta, even coming off a down year, was still a decent player. Mirabelli has had two good years, 2001 and 2004, and if you believe in the backup catcher theory, than those weren’t too unexpected. He’s 35 and has never played in more than 82 games in a season. Basically he had no trade value and to get Loretta for him is unbelievable. Maybe there was some non-performance reason for the trade.
December 15, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Tom - I think you’re last line was all I was trying to say … I don’t think I was defending Towers as much as suggesting that either we don’t know some things he knows (which would explain why he thought it was a good trade to make) or else he made a mistake (which I take to be the consensus here, and I don’t have an argument against that). I think the most likely thing that we don’t know is the projected impact of Loretta’s thumb injury … I’m assuming that the doctors and baseball talent evaluators are saying that think, due to the injury, Loretta is *DONE*. The 2006 season will tell us that soon enough …
December 15, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Here’s another “fun fact” … Doug Mirabelli may play for Italy in the upcoming WBC
http://www.baseballamerica.com.....ayers.html
December 15, 2005 at 8:45 pm
“Wouldn’t we all love to have a guarantee of high quality, entertaining baseball, but that isn’t how it works, unless, maybe, you are a Yankees, Braves, Red Sox or Cardinals fan.”
Maybe our Padres are on the ten year plan…winners in the mid ’80s, winners in the mid ’90s and winners in the mid ’00s.
So do we win again soon or is it “Just wait til 2015!”?
December 16, 2005 at 12:32 am
I don’t think we’ll be waiting until 2015. With Alderson and Fuson on board, I’m pretty confident this team will continue to be competitive over the next several years (esp. after 2006, when the last of the bad contracts expire) and without having to break the bank on free agents. It’s a gradual process but there’s no doubt in my mind that the Padres are in a *much* better place than they were in the late-’90s.
Regarding Loretta, I maintain that the deal looks horrendous on paper. Like LM says, maybe the Padres knew something we don’t. Still, that’s pretty lousy value for a guy who was one of the best second basemen in all of baseball just over a year ago.
Regarding Towers sluffing, I don’t buy it. I can’t imagine anyone sluffing under Alderson’s watch and lasting long.
Is Towers without fault? Of course not, but he’s done a better job than most of his predecessors. Courtesy BA Exec Database & Retrosheet, arranged by descending winning percentage:
________________W-L___Pct_WR_DT
J. McIlvaine 189-193 .495 2 0
K. Towers____793-827 .490 4 3
J. McKeon____803-845 .487 4 1
B. Fontaine__255-311 .451 1 0
R. Smith_____155-210 .425 0 0
P. Bavasi____264-384 .407 0 0
B. Bavasi____234-404 .367 0 0
WR=winning record, DT=division titles
When evaluating Towers as GM of the Padres, we need to keep the historical context in mind. Only McIlvaine has a better winning percentage (in far fewer games), only McKeon has as many winning seasons, and McKeon also has the only other World Series appearance.
A strong argument could be made that the bar is now higher than it was in terms of how we measure our GMs success. But I’d also submit that Towers has played a large part in raising the bar. He should get some credit for that.
December 16, 2005 at 5:56 am
John C.: I don’t think anyone is saying we shouldn’t give Barfield a chance. In fact, I think everyone recognizes this was the time to trade Loretta as he wasn’t going to be back after 2006. However, not only did the trade not free up significant payroll ($1.5 mil while Giles gets a $2 mil raise), but guys like Mirabelli are a dime a dozen. A comparable player could have been had via FA. It was not a good trade. It certainly served its purpose, which may be Towers’ methodology as others have pointed out, but there’s a difference between being good and being utilitarian.
December 16, 2005 at 6:57 am
TF: I’ve already listed the teams that needed a 2b this winter. Each of them has at least a few prospects of interest. Sticking with Boston, my wish would have been for 2 of Shoppach, Delcarmen, Meredith, all in the “B” range.
Then I’d pick LaForest off the wire. But if you insist that the team get an experienced veteran backup (i.e., an old guy), I’d grab Todd Pratt. He signed for 1M. That saves us even more money, and we have two more mid-level prospects in the system. I could list all the experienced MLB catchers available this winter who could be expected to perform like Mirabelli, but that’s a lot of typing. It includes people like Kelly Stinnett, who signed for 650K.
There are iterations upon iterations of what could have been done. The route Towers picked, of trading Loretta to fill one of the three least important spots on the roster, was one of the worst possible iterations. Multiple teams needed a 2b.
An organization with such a tight budget and with this many problems developing talent should not be so cavalier when trading valuable commodities.
December 16, 2005 at 7:03 am
Geoff, I’ll always have a problem judging a person by comparing him to a cohort of bad GMs or those who were handicapped by elements beyond their control.
Calling Towers lazy is more favorable than calling him dumb, which is the other explanation of how he turned Mark Loretta into Doug Mirabelli. You can stop being lazy. Towers hasn’t always been lazy in the past. If he was dumb, we’d be in more trouble. Dumb is forever.
December 16, 2005 at 8:20 am
If we’re willing to give other Padres GMs a free pass for “elements beyond their control,” then I think it’s going to be difficult to view what Towers has accomplished in a positive light. As for the Loretta deal, which I still hate, we need to account for the possiblity of more than two explanations. It’ll be interesting to see if there is more to the story than what we’ve been told.
December 16, 2005 at 8:53 am
I can almost understand how this whole mess developed: At some point in the Hoffman negotiations it seems the front office decided that the best way to afford the extra money (above the initial offer) was to trade Loretta. It also seems that there had been a lot of contact with Boston on a Wells deal and I’m sure Boston must have asked about Loretta. So Towers thinks, hey I have a suitor for Loretta right here, what do they have that’s cheap that I need? For all we know Boston could have offered Shoppach and Towers turned them down because he’s inexperienced, it’s clear he was after a veteran catcher. I highly doubt Boston would have offered Mirabelli since he has far more value to them than he has to any other team due to his ability to catch Wakefield. If Towers brought up Mirabelli Boston would have been hesitant but they’re smart enough to know it’s a big win for them so they did it.
What’s amazing about this whole thing is that he didn’t ask any other teams about Loretta. Does he only talk to certain teams? You can’t tell me Minaya wouldn’t have made a deal, he loves to trade prospects for vets. Any other team that needs a 2nd baseman would have traded their backup catcher and a prospect, all we got was the backup. A good backup, but still a backup.
December 16, 2005 at 9:27 am
Brocail deal finalized:
http://tinyurl.com/7ph4o
December 16, 2005 at 10:05 am
I’m willing to give Towers some credit for working under constraints, too. What constraints were involved in the Loretta trade?
In a market where a declining Castillo fetches two bullpen arms, 29 year old Aaron Miles (686 career OPS with 436 Coors Field at-bats) is drawing interest, and Tony Womack is moved without gunfire or kidnapping, Mark Loretta has more trade value than Doug Mirabelli.
The explanations would seem to be laziness, stupidity, or that 29 other GMs decided that Mark Loretta (148 career win shares) wasn’t worth a B prospect or two. The same GMs who DID have interest in the 2b listed above and who have handed out 15M contracts to middle relievers like Halloween candy decided that Loretta is done.
I know which explanation makes the most sense. Towers saw three problems and solved them with one move. Too bad for us that separating the solutions would have been better.
December 16, 2005 at 10:46 am
“What constraints were involved in the Loretta trade?” We don’t know. Maybe none, maybe something that we haven’t heard about.
December 16, 2005 at 11:15 am
Geoff said:
With Alderson and Fuson on board, I’m pretty confident this team will continue to be competitive over the next several years (esp. after 2006, when the last of the bad contracts expire)…
***
Bingo!!!
PLUS, in NO WAY do I give Towers a free pass. Those of you who remember, I was excited to see Towers’ heading to AZ. I AM willing to give ALDERSON a free pass (a year+) to see how things are going.
I’m also a HUGE Fuson fan (did I just say, “I’m fat”?). And I’m real excited to see how this next draft shakes out.
Furthermore, we KNOW that the Padres had talks with Texas about Loretta. So maybe Mirabelli was all we could get for Mark (I’ll admittely find that hard to believe, but there it is never-the-less).
December 16, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Of all our new players, I’m most excited about Ozzie Guillen favorite Willie Mays Hayes and slugger Pedro Serrano, who can absolutely crush a fastball. Also, watch out for young hurler Rick Vaughn. Great arm speed.
Minuses: Jake Taylor, Roger Dorn, and Eddie Harris make for a nice team… TEN YEARS AGO.
December 16, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Speaking of Ten Years Ago, use this link to check out the greatest idea for a magazine EVER!
Oh, and allow hilarity to ensue…Steve Finley fans need only apply.
http://www.chinmusic.net/Finley.html
And Geoff, as one who appreciates Tom Waits chatting up Stephen Malkmus on the fruits of the Friar offseason, this magazine is for you. Enjoy.
Last note: I swear I saw Ben Davis near the Mission Valley mall holding a “Will Squat for Food” sign. I say, “Why not?”
December 16, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Sweet, thanks for the link. I like the Trevor interview where he ‘fesses up to going to a Stryper show. (Lest anyone think I’m picking on him, be assured that I’ve seen *much* worse bands.)
December 17, 2005 at 8:46 am
If we’re going to play the “We don’t know what really happened” game, then there’s really no point.
Maybe Scott Boras held a gun on Tom Hicks in December 2001. I mean, we don’t KNOW that the Park signing was a bad idea, so why should we criticize it? We don’t KNOW that Towers only deals with a limited number of teams (wait, we do know that, he said so). We don’t KNOW that Towers will overpay to fill a perceived roster hole (wait, we know that too, he said so when he traded for Roberts).
If Doug Mirabelli is all you can get for Loretta, you know what? You don’t trade him. You bite the 1.5M bullet. Towers sits Bochy down and tells him that Loretta can either start at 3b or be the main utility infielder, but that he’s not the starting 2b. Unlike Royce Clayton, Loretta actually would have value in the utility role. But geez, Towers wouldn’t want to make Bochy mad, so let’s just shove Loretta out of town for whatever anyone will offer.
December 17, 2005 at 9:36 am
TW: I’m not suggesting that because we don’t have all the facts about a situation, we shouldn’t attempt to evaluate it. I’m suggesting that we should, but that we shouldn’t necessarily jump to any firm conclusions.
I believe the Loretta for Mirabelli trade was terrible from the Padres standpoint based on information I have. I also believe it’s possible that I don’t have all the information. That’s been my point all along.
Furthermore, I’m also not comfortable ascribing motives to Towers in terms of laziness, wanting to placate Bochy, etc. I don’t know these people, and I don’t know what drives them. All I can really do is look at what’s on the table, which is a trade that involves a talent loss and a money savings.
I’m not defending the move. I’m just trying to figure out an explanation for it. And I’m willing to give Towers et al. the benefit of the doubt based on past performance.
December 17, 2005 at 10:20 am
whoa…gettin’ spicy in here
December 17, 2005 at 10:30 am
That “past performance” includes such gems as signing Bobby Jones, trading Williams for Lankford, the Trammell/Jarvis extensions (some mitigating circumstances there), giving up three players and cash for Dave Roberts, not trading Phil Nevin after a 298/368/492 2004 season with 26 HR and 105 RBI, signing Fellow Lefties Who Suck Eddie Oropesa and Denys Reyes, and more. I won’t get into his draft record except to say, once more, Matt Bush.
He’s made good trades, too. I don’t deny that. He seems like a genuinely nice man. I don’t see the kind of stellar history that earns him the benefit of the doubt in regard to the Loretta-Mirabelli trade.
December 17, 2005 at 11:07 am
Just off the top of my head:
Sheets for Nevin
Scott Sanders for Hitchcock
Ashby for Eaton
Hamilton for Woody
Joyner, Reggie Sanders, and Veras for Klesko and Boone
Carlos Hernandez for Ben Johnson
Linebrink off waivers from Hou
Aki from Japan for almost nothing
Seanez for almost nothing
It’s funny about the Roberts trade. For as much as I hated it at the time, look at what happened. Roberts made a positive contribution to the Padres, and only Pauley remains with the Red Sox.
Come to think of it I really didn’t like the Sanders-for-Hitchcock or Hamilton-for-Woody deals when they were made. Both worked out very well.
As for Matt Bush, it happens. I’ll counter with Jake Peavy in the 15th round.
If we’re going to knock Towers for the bad moves he’s made, we also should give him credit for the good ones.
December 17, 2005 at 11:39 am
And in not one of those good trades did he give up the player with the most perceived value for a backup. In his good moves, he landed players with upside. Sometimes substantial upside. What’s Mirabelli’s upside?
How does Payton and Vazquez not being with the Red Sox indicate anything? I could counter that Payton went on to play outstanding defense and hit with the A’s, and that Towers valued Dave Roberts so much that he replaced him in CF after one season. Or that Dave Roberts played only 115 games for us and was replaced against LHP by Giles in CF. Or that we’re going to pay him more than $2M to, in all likelihood, give us a 700 OPS from a corner OF position.
Jake Peavy is the opposite of Matt Bush. Nobody doubted his talent. There was no “Well, he throws hard, but he’s wild” or “He’s got control but fringy stuff.” With Matt Bush, it was “He’ll have gap power if he adds strength” and “He might be a 270 hitter” but “Wow, look at his arm.”
I’m giving Towers credit for his good moves. You and Peter seem to be giving him extra-credit.
Next season Mirabelli could hit 280/340/420 with 10HR, Loretta could blow out his knee in April. It’s still a bad trade if Towers could have gotten more for Loretta.
December 17, 2005 at 11:57 am
“It’s still a bad trade if Towers could have gotten more for Loretta.” Absolutely. But the “if” part of the equation remains unknown.
December 17, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Also, I’m not giving extra credit to Towers for his good moves. My main issue is that I don’t find “laziness” a very plausible or satisfying explanation for what he is doing. Seems we disagree on that point, which is cool.
December 17, 2005 at 12:32 pm
The problem I have with the deal is that it seems obviously lopsided to pretty much everyone, not just Padres bloggers. I listened to Billy Beane on the radio, and he was shocked. Rob Neyer was shocked. And if Billy Beane was shocked, you better believe that there are a number of general managers out there who had no idea that Loretta (”was hard to work with”, “is on a decline”, “killed a drifter”, whatever)
For me, this all sounds like a lot of post-trade spin. You’re telling me that the Twins wouldn’t have given us one or both of the prospects they shipped for Castillo? You’re telling me the Rangers wouldn’t have traded Laird and someone else to replace Soriano? I don’t believe it. We couldn’t have picked up Yorvit Torrealba and NOT given up a 2004 all-star second baseman in the process?
December 17, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Loretta indeed killed a drifter. We here at ESPN didn’t cover it because it didn’t involve a New York or Boston team.
Gotta go. Bronson Arroyo is about to take the stage…