Roster Reset
Thu, Dec 8, 2005
by Geoff Young
Last night I said, only somewhat facetiously, that I’d lost track of who’s on the team. Here’s something that may help:
| Pos | Out | In |
|---|---|---|
| P | Brian Lawrence | Dewon Brazelton Seth Etherton |
| C | Ramon Hernandez | Doug Mirabelli |
| 1B | Mark Sweeney | Jack Cust |
| 2B | Mark Loretta Damian Jackson |
- |
| 3B | Sean Burroughs Joe Randa |
Vinny Castilla Geoff Blum Bobby Hill Justin Leone |
| OF | Xavier Nady | Mike Cameron |
Former Angels first-round draft pick Seth Etherton was taken in the Rule V draft this morning. And that should get us up to speed until the next move happens, whatever that may be.
Meantime, we have reactions to Wednesday’s moves and also, if you missed it, an interview with Tim Powers, a reporter for Sports Ticker and all-around good guy.
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 8, 2005 at 10:40 am
Etherton… odd choice…
December 8, 2005 at 10:46 am
Philadelphia Daily News: “Rudy Seanez…made it known he likely will stay in San Diego.”"
December 8, 2005 at 10:46 am
A nice reminder …
BP’s STAT OF THE DAY
Top 5 2005 NL Relief Corps, by Total Relief Pitching VORP
Team, VORP
St. Louis Cardinals, 85.0
San Diego Padres, 82.2
Washington Nationals, 77.2
Houston Astros, 70.3
Milwaukee Brewers, 62.8
December 8, 2005 at 10:48 am
No arbitration to either Seanez (perhaps because they’re close to a deal?) or Hammond. Interesting. More cost cutting?
Anyone know the terms of Ramon’s proposed Orioles contract?
December 8, 2005 at 10:51 am
Last I heard, Ramon was going to get 4 yrs, $27 million.
December 8, 2005 at 10:51 am
Etherton seems like a GREAT Rule 5 pick … I don’t usually think of guys with ML experience being available in the Rule 5 draft … if he can fill the role of last-guy-outta-the-pen, with any upside at all, it seems like a good use of $50K …
December 8, 2005 at 10:55 am
Nick is correct on the Ramon front:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=2252475
LM: As I think most folks know, I haven’t been thrilled with KT’s selections in the Rule V draft, but Etherton is a nice pickup. Assuming he’s healthy, there’s not a lot to lose here. This isn’t jumping a shortstop from Low-A ball, this is a guy who has material big-league experience.
December 8, 2005 at 10:56 am
From this morning’s SF Chronicle: “The Padres, despite having Ryan Klesko, are among teams interested in J.T. Snow, according to a high-placed major-league source.”
December 8, 2005 at 11:03 am
That Chronicle blurb is funny “Despite having a horrible fielding 1B, the Padres are intersted in an excellent fielding 1B” I would love to see Snow at first, assuming we can get him for cheap.
Any word on what the alleged Rule 5 “considerations” were from Tampa in the Rule 5?
December 8, 2005 at 11:07 am
We already have 2 last-guys-outta-the-pen. Chan Ho Park and Dewon Brazelton. We’ll be lucky next year if our BP isn’t Hoffman-Linebrink-4 Bad Pitchers.
The Loretta trade. What the hell is that? Five or six teams need 2b and we trade him for Doug Mirabelli?
December 8, 2005 at 11:11 am
Question about Loretta … any chance his performance in 2003/2004 and subsequent decline in 2005 is steroids related? I’ve not read any “rumors”, nor is it my intention to start any … just asking. If not, then I’m left assuming that the Padres think his injury last season has left him unable to slug > .400 ever again?
December 8, 2005 at 11:19 am
Players have had spike years since 1870. Loretta stayed healthy for two straight seasons in his physical “peak.” I don’t see any evidence for PEDs.
Even if the Padres don’t think Loretta will hit for power again, is that what the rest of baseball thought? You couldn’t have sucked a prospect out of the Cubs or Cardinals? The Mets are desperate to get a different 2b. Now that the Rangers have traded Soriano, they wouldn’t want Loretta?
December 8, 2005 at 11:33 am
Towers isn’t very value-oriented in trades. He’s more target-oriented and roster-construction-oriented.
December 8, 2005 at 11:41 am
I seem to remember hearing Vasgersian mention on a telecast that Loretta said he worked very hard to learn how to turn on an inside pitch, thus accounting for his inreased power. I never saw him play before the Padres got him but he certainly can turn on an inside pitch now. I also think I remember Matt V saying he noticed the improvement from his days in Milwaukee. And tearing up his thumb sliding into 1st would definitely account for a decrease in power.
I agree the pattern could be suspicious but in this case I really do think it’s just a guy who worked very hard at improving his skills.
Good point Eric. The Roberts trade last year certainly fits that pattern.
December 8, 2005 at 11:44 am
From Baseball America:
Devil Rays selected righthander Steve Andrade and sent him to the Padres to complete the Dewon Brazelton-Sean Burroughs trade.
Andrade has put up gaudy stats in the minors in the Angels and then Blue Jays systems since the Angels drafted him in the 32nd round in 2001 out of Cal State Stanislaus. In 2005, he went 3-2, 1.97 in 50 innings at Double-A New Hampshire with a .134 opponent batting average and 71 strikeouts. He walked just 16; his opponents on-base plus slugging percentage was .418. He has a 2.65 career ERA in 251 innings with just 167 hits allowed and a 357-82 strikeout-walk ratio. Andrade has a plus-plus slider with fringy fastball velocity and an unconventional, deceptive delivery.
Sounds pretty good.
December 8, 2005 at 12:07 pm
I thought that, by not offering Seanez arbitration the Padres in effect cannot sign him now until May 1. If that’s the case, it’s clear to me he will not be brought back. If they were serious about resigning him, they would have offered him arbitration, which would have extended the negotiation window another 30 days in order to sign him, like they did with Astacio.
John Sickels also reports that the Devil Rays will trade their Rule V selection the Padres as part of the Burroughs deal. Pitcher by the name of Andrade I think.
Maybe the Lorretta deal has me shook up, but our team depth is not looking promising so far. The bench is full of low slugging hitters except for Johnson, and the back end of the pen looks like garbage atm.
December 8, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Here’s one guy we no longer have to worry about:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=2252575
December 8, 2005 at 12:49 pm
This winter feels eerily like the NHL 2-3 seasons ago. The owners knew they were going to lock players out, so they didn’t care what kind of money was spent.
Teams are voluntarily giving out this money. That won’t stop them from crying about the outrageous free agent market in a year or two.
December 8, 2005 at 12:59 pm
Etherton was a former 1st round pick of the Angels back in 1998. Seeing Victor Santos drafted also raised some eyebrows.
If you look at the history of the Rule V Draft, there’s a very small percentage of these guys that make a real impact with a big league club. Johan Santana and Chris Shelton are the few examples of hitting the lottery. Just look at some of the scrubs the Padres have devoted a roster spot, time and resources to: Kerry Taylor, Kory DeHaan, Shane Victorino, Jason Szuminski.
Back in 1996, the NL Central leading Cardinals kept a Rule V toolsy outfielder by the name of Miguel Mejia on their roster the entire season. He had no business being in the big leagues. Tony LaRussa only summoned Mejia to the plate 23 times over the course of the regular season! Mejia never made it back to the bigs and his career numbers are .087/.087/.087.
To reininerate what Geoff and LynchMob said, I love the Etherton pick. For the dirt cheap price, you can’t go wrong with a former mid-round 1st who pitched fairly well at AAA Sacramento last season.
December 8, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Etherton is no Oropesa. Every time someone talks about KT’s ability to build a BP on the cheap, I think of Boyd, Rodney Myers, Dennys Reyes, MIT, Mike Matthews, Matt Whiteside, Matt Whisenant…
Seems like we’re acquiring a lot of pitchers for the least-important spots. We needed to improve our SP, not throw a bunch of goo at the wall and hope some of it sticks.
December 8, 2005 at 1:26 pm
That was supposed to be “Etherton is no Oropesa, at least.” One of our worst signings in recent memory.
December 8, 2005 at 1:56 pm
I’m actually pretty excited about the acquisition of Andrade in the Rule 5 draft. His numbers from last year, in AA, are pretty remarkable. A 71/16 K/BB ratio is incredible at any level. He struck out those 70 in only 50 innings and allowed a BA against of only .134 while having an ERA of 1.97.
Baseball America describes him as having a “plus-plus slider” and only fringe velocity on the fastball (88-90 in this case). BA also noted that he has a deceptive delivery. He should get a shot at middle-relief for the Padres this year. I think that he is quite a bit more valuable than a retread like Etherton.
December 8, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Andrade’s got a nice statistical profile, but there are a lot of qualifiers. He’s old (28 in Feb.). He’s only thrown 13 innings above AA. He’s only thrown about 250 innings since he was drafted in 2001.
He’s worth taking a look (an honest look, not B squads) at in ST, but you run an older guy with a tricky delivery and a nasty slider against 21-22 year olds in AA, you’re going to get some K’s.
We don’t need to spend crazy money for FA relievers, but how many marginal arms are we going to keep? Figure in some regression by Hoffy and Linebrink, the possible trade of Aki, we could have a miserable BP in the blink of an eye.
December 8, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Andrade reminds me of JJ Trujillo!
December 8, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Not to imply it means anything, but in case any of you are keeping track, here’s a note from BA about the minor-league Rule 5 drafts today …
The Padres, who aren’t blessed with great depth in their farm system, lost six players in the Triple-A and Double-A phases, including righthanders Eddie Bonine (to the Tigers) and Geivy Garcia (Cubs); lefthander Edgar Huerta (Rockies); infielders Ronnie Merrill (A’s) and Peetet Ramos (Phillies); and outfielder Brian Burgamy (Phillies).
… I remember Huerta from a spring training game (he threw wild to 1B on a pickoff attempt and it ended up costing the Padres the game), and Burgamy from a Eugene Emeralds game (his hustle was outstanding) …
Eh, maybe this means the Padres’ farm system isn’t as bad as we think? Or wasn’t … but might be now?
December 8, 2005 at 8:25 pm
None of the guys the Padres lost in the Rule V were really any threat to make the club now or in the near future. I doubt any of them would have made anyone’s top 30 prospects. Bonine stuggled mightly in LE this year, and has switched to throwing the knuckler all the time. Huerta, despite a big signing bonus, has done next to nothing with the organization. Burgamy, Ramos and Merril would be lucky to be in the organization next year. They are all good guys, but out of the five only Bonine and Huerta really have much of a chance, and a slim one.
December 8, 2005 at 8:32 pm
An email I get from BA about winter league players indicates Ben Johnson is only hitting .216 in the Dominican Winter League … sigh …
December 8, 2005 at 9:34 pm
I hadn’t seen any mention of Fick … so I checked the “transactions” at padres.mlb.com … saw this …
Offered arbitration to RHP Pedro Astacio and C Ramon Hernandez. Declined to offer arbitration to IF/OF Robert Fick, LHP Chris Hammond, 3B Joe Randa, RHP Rudy Seanez and IF Mark Sweeney.
… Gaack! Why not bring back Fick??? It must be they think he’d get too much in arbitration??? Bleh …
December 8, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Geoff,
I just looked at your chart, you may want to move Bobby Hill from 3B to 2B…
***
Looks like I was wrong on Sadler.
Like Paul R. (you guys have seen me reference him before) I’m high on the Rule V acquisition. It’s a worthy risk.
December 9, 2005 at 8:25 am
PF: I stuck Hill at 3B because over 99% of his big-league PT last year was at that position and I’ve heard less-than-glowing reports about his defense at 2B. Do you think he has a legitimate shot to see much time there?
December 9, 2005 at 9:38 am
One of the concerns with Loretta was reduced range. Hill is at a disadvantage there, and it’s not like Vinny doesn’t need regular rest.
December 9, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Vinny’s age says he needs some rest, but his playing averages don’t suggest that he needs a LOT of rest. He’s averaged 145.2 games over the last 5 years (never more than 148 and never less than 143).
Regarding B. Hill, he played 55 games at 2B in ‘02 (of 56) and 40 of 68 at 2B in ‘04…
Plus:
“Towers said he’s eager to see what Bobby Hill and rookie Josh Barfield can do in Loretta’s stead.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
December 9, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Don’t forget, we have Blum to back up at 3B as well…
December 9, 2005 at 12:06 pm
More on Etherton and Andrade:
http://tinyurl.com/9j386
Also, we picked up Joey Gomes in the minor-league phase of the Rule V, who I believe is Jonny Gomes’ little brother.
December 9, 2005 at 12:08 pm
PF: You may be right about Hill. I figured his being moved over to 3B was an indication that his days at 2B were behind him. Certainly his offensive game is more conducive to 2B.
December 9, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Maybe Vinny would have been productive outside Coors Field with more rest. Not to belabor the obvious, but he’ll turn 39 halfway through next season. He was hurt with tendinitis this year, and rest is critical to healing tendinitis.
Blum and Hill. Hill and Blum. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. We don’t need both. I’d rather keep Hill, but that seems unlikely.
December 9, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead!
Sorry. Couldn’t resist a bit of literary ‘humor’.
December 9, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Nothing funnier thna Hamlet.
December 9, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Wow! I’ve heard baseball described as poetic, but droppin’ some Billy Shakespear on us… Too cool!
December 9, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Greatest…Padre…website…ever.
December 9, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Chris Oxspring to Hanshin Tigers, former TB catcher Pete LaForest claimed off waivers. This one isn’t on the web yet. LaForest stats: http://tinyurl.com/9uwrb
December 9, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Apparently the rumors with Texas won’t die off:
http://www.dallasnews.com/shar.....7f3e2.html(reg. required)
I would be all for aquiring Wilkerson, then we can stick Klesko on the bench as our LH power bat (for $10M!)
Would still make our pitching dangerously thin, but Eaton/Otsuka for Laird/Wilkerson/prospect (throw in Olivo to give TX a C in return) or Gonzalez/Wilkerson would do it for me. Wilkerson could leadoff and play LF (making Roberts expendable) or he could play first and we could give Klesko away for all I care. A youngster like Laird or Gonzalez can only give us good options going forward.
December 9, 2005 at 7:28 pm
R&G are Dead is Stoppard, not uncle Billy Shakes.
I can’t believe we couldn’t sign Julio Franco to fill our hole at first. That’s make the 39 yrd old Castilla feel completely rejuvenated! But I guess I’ll have to live with Cust. Why do we have Ryne Klesko again?
December 9, 2005 at 10:17 pm
MT: You are correct; however, Stoppard took his title from a line in Hamlet. Willie said it first.
December 10, 2005 at 8:01 am
If we could get Wilkerson and Gonzalez in that deal I’d be thrilled. I’d move Giles to left, with Wilkerson in right, and Gonzalez would replace Klesko at 1B. Klesko would still be on the payroll, so maybe we could still find a spot for him. Bullpen catcher, or something.
December 10, 2005 at 10:23 am
I thought Stoppard had lifted other lines from the play to structure the narrative but had paraphrased the title. But Act V Scene II proves me wrong. So I’ll shut up about English literature for the moment. And I’ll shut up about Doug Mirabelli and Vinny Castilla for a few days as well. At least we didn’t trade for Soriano or sign one of the intialed pitchers.
Wlikerson would be nice, though.
December 10, 2005 at 11:01 am
I went to the theater and a baseball discussion broke out, LOL. I agree that Wilkerson would be real nice. Here’s a link to Wilkerson speculation that doesn’t require registration:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/spo.....367841.htm
Also, the Oxspring-to-Hanshin deal apparently netted the Padres $550k:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
December 10, 2005 at 11:25 am
FYI for sites requiring registration, bugmenot.com can bypass 99% of those. It is essentially a database of user-submitted login/passwords for site like the New York Times and such.
I’d trade Eaton for Wilkerson in a heartbeat. Is Towers on crack? Is it only me that thinks that trade would be a no brainer? Granted, our starting pitching stinks, but this would be a great trade for us. And might rectify that trade of a 2b for a c that I promised I would shut up about…
December 10, 2005 at 7:11 pm
I was working on a “who needs Trevor Hoffman as a stopper when you can instead have Stoppard” quip but I could never really make it work.
Ages of our starters:
1B - 35
2B - 28 (assuming it’s Hill)
3B - 38
SS - 26
LF - 34
CF - 33
RF - 35
C - 27 (or 35 if Mirabelli)
Ask last year’s Giants how having five regulars 33 years old or older (Matheny, Snow, Durham, Vizquel, Alou, not including Bonds) worked.
December 10, 2005 at 10:09 pm
Thank you, Brian, for giving me another reason to loose sleep.
That is one savvy line-up. In case you don’t know, savvy is Towers’s favorite polite word for old.
I think I just threw up in my mouth.
December 11, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Two thoughts on the age-issue:
1. I don’t think Mirabelli will be our starter…
2. I don’t think Klesko will be our starter for more than a couple months.
And a bonus thought:
“Dave Roberts is my LF & leafoff hitter.” …or however he worded it… could indicate that’s the direction he wants to go, or it could me a negotiating ploy to tell another team, “You know, I like your player, but I’m perfectly happy with the guy I already have.”
December 11, 2005 at 2:30 pm
A few more things on the age-issue:
1. Is our current aggragate age a problem? Yes.
2. Would anyone say this team is worse than it was last year? A few might, but I’m not one of them…
3. Who’s in the plans for next year (’07 age in parenthesis)?
C - Olivo (28)
1B - FA
2B - Barfield (23)
3B - [Chase Headley in '08]
SS - Kahlil Greene (28)
LF - Giles (36)
CF - Cameron (34)
RF - FA
December 11, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Welcome to Porn Valley? (See ad to the right.)
Geoff, will your site now get blocked by my work firewall?
December 11, 2005 at 6:54 pm
I interrupt this conversation about the Padres’ future to bring you . . . the link to Chan Ho Park’s wedding picture:
http://www.kois.go.kr/News/New.....0051211019
Obviously, the reason for his mediocre pitching this year was that he was distracted by the wedding.
I mean, you try pitching when you’re planning a party for 500 people — it’s tough, man.
Here’s another random thought: What do you get someone who makes $10 million a year?
December 11, 2005 at 7:59 pm
Well, look at Geoff’s handy graph for the comings and goings. With the exception of Cameron, did we really improve anywhere? I don’t think so. Did we cut payroll to go after pitching anywhere? Not really. What did we do except get older? To me, that isn’t a good sign.
December 11, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Brian: Thanks for the heads-up on the new ad. I certainly hope your firewall won’t block the site. If you encounter any problems, let me know and I’ll talk to management.
December 11, 2005 at 9:50 pm
Matt and I disagree, but I think we improved…
A whole year of Vinny will be better than a year of Burroughs/Blum/DJ/Randa + I just read that Towers & Co. (read: Alderson) think that Headley could be ready as soon as ‘07… So the last thing we want to do is sign a mediocre player to a 3 year deal blocking a guy who’s probably a cross between Mark Loretta & Brian Giles (minus some power).
Now at 2B, I don’t think we’ve drastically improved, but don’t forget, you can’t compare what Barfield and/or Hill do there in ‘06 to what Loretta did in ‘04 (.335/.391/.495 w/ 16 HR & 47 2B). That was sublime. You have to compare Barfield/Hill to what we got at 2B last year:
404 AB of Loretta at (.280/.360/.347)
112 AB of DJ at (.268/.314/.393)
81 AB of Blum at (.194/.194/.194)
44 AB of EY at (.250/.313/.318)
7 AB of Manny Alexander at (.286/.286/.429)
3 AB of Jessie Garcia at (.333/.333/1.333)
As you can see (I’m too lazy to put it all together) but also, and more importantly, the aggragate 2B production (or lack thereof) made quite hole in our offense. Getting even a decent season out of Hill or Barfield could be boon to our offense.
Furthermore, I heard reports that other teams were scared off on Loretta. They felt that he never did show what he did in ‘04 last year (even before the thumb injury). And that ‘04 may have been a fluke and that they were uncertain if he could replicate that ever again.
I don’t want to be pissin’ on somebody’s grave; I’m not GLAD Mark’s gone, I just don’t think he’s worth cryin’ over.
I still want to see how the rest of this team shakes out. Do we land Mench? Wilkerson? Do we end up with Wells? Do we trade for another starter? I don’t think we’re done. Here’s what I do think is done
C Olivo
1B
2B
3B Castilla
SS Greene
LF
CF Cameron
RF Giles
P1 Peavy
P2
P3
P4
P5 Hensley
Now I think that Towers/Alderson would be willing to break camp w/ something close to what we currently have, but I do think there is more to do…
December 11, 2005 at 10:32 pm
Well, I promised I wouldn’t bitch about the Loretta trade, but if all we could get was Mirabelli, why trade him? That deal makes no sense. What earthly purpose does Castilla serve other than making us better defensively at third? What are we going to do with Dewon Brazelton?
Trading Burroughs? A good idea. Loretta probably will not post another season like 2004, so trade him. Brian Lawrence, a league average pitcher. But we got pretty useless parts in return with much less trade value than we started with, and failed to address our single most glaringly obvious need, which is starting pitching. If you’re going to trade Loretta, flip him for some young arms. Ditto Burroughs. I know we wouldn’t get high level prospects for them, but the moves we made there made no baseball sense. I don’t think we improved.
December 12, 2005 at 6:23 am
Matthew,
You said,
“…We got pretty useless parts in return with much less trade value than we started with, and failed to address our single most glaringly obvious need, which is starting pitching.”
However,
Borrowing from RBW’s post a few days ago:
Padres 2005 stats:
Padres Adjusted Equivalent Runs Allowed Per Game: 4.51 (16th)
Padres Adjusted Equivalent Runs Scored: 682 (25th)
***
We were 16th out of 30 in pitching (which admittedly doesn’t deliniate between starters and relievers) but we 6th from last in terms of scoring. Adding Vinny over Burroughs helps, and Hill/Barfield are likely to exceed what we got out of 2B last year.
Plus, who said we’re done with the pitching staff?
***
On an unrelated note, I’m having a verbal spar with a poster on John Sickles’ site w/ his 2005 Padres top 20 Prospects (in review)…
This is what I noted our 2008 regulars should look like:
C - Kottaras (24)
1B - FA
2B - Barfield (25)
3B - Headley (24)
SS - Greene (28)
LF - Giles (37)
CF - Cameron (35)
RF - Johnson (27)
P1 - Peavey (27)
P2 - FA
P3 - Carillo (23)
P4 - Hensley (28)
P5 - Stauffer (25)
Obviously nothing stands as is, but still, this has to be encouraging.
December 12, 2005 at 7:19 am
Peter:
I think that looking at what the Padres should get out of 2B in 2006 is difficult. What are you basing that on? Will Barfield be on the big club? I know we had sub par production last season, and I know Loretta probably won’t have another season like 2004, but I’d certainly take him next year over Hill, and who knows what Barfield will do in his first big league season. If the argument is that we should get Barfield in the lineup now to get him ABs and get him acclimated to big league pitching, that is one thing, and I can see the logic there. But I fail to see how our production there offensively will increase.
And Randa is younger and has been a better hitter over the paast five or six seasons than Castilla. When was the last time Castilla was above average at the plate? Now, Castilla probably makes this a wash with his glove. But I wouldn’t say we improved. Yes, he is a sligt improvement over Burroughs, but that is damning with faint praise, and Burroughs was pulled from consideration midway through the season.
Again, the main thing that pisses me off is what we received in return for some of these trades. I think we could have done better than Castilla for Lawrence (that trade strikes me as a marketing trade for a ‘name’ player). I think we could have done much better than Brazelton for Burroughs. And I think we could have done much better than Mirabelli for Loretta.
December 12, 2005 at 7:44 am
MT: That sums up my thoughts on Loretta. The Padres wanted to do three things. Free up money to pay for Trevor, remove an obstacle from Barfield’s path, and acquire a backup catcher. It doesn’t follow that all those things had to happen in one transaction.
No one can tell me that Loretta didn’t have more trade value than Mirabelli. Loretta was a good player before 2004. His trade value wasn’t nil because nobody thought he’d ever hit 335/391/495 again.
This nonsense about Mirabelli’s playoff experience and RH splits just sickens me. He has 19 ppostseason at-bats. His OPS against righties is 698, vs LHP it’s 889.
The way to accomplish those goals is to trade Loretta for the best package you can get. That saves money and liberates Barfield. Then you pick up a catcher by paying that catcher’s actual value. Two days after we gave up one of our best trading pieces for Mirabelli, we acquired LaForest for the waiver fee. LaForest actually does hit RHP well. You still solve all three problems but you end up with more talent and maybe more money.
December 12, 2005 at 8:01 am
Couple quick thoughts:
Once source I found a while back had Barfield’s MLE last year at .273/.327/.388.
http://home.comcast.net/~briankaat/mle05.csv
Last year, Padres 2B hit .263/.336/.339. So assuming Loretta wasn’t going to return to pre-2005 levels (a pretty safe assumption at his age), I have no problem starting Barfield this year. Like others, I don’t mind moving Loretta to clear a space for Barfield, but I am surprised they couldn’t get more than an aging backup catcher in return.
On another note, the more I look at Vinny Castilla’s numbers, the less I like the idea of him starting at 3B for us next year. He was eighth from the bottom in OW% in the NL (.406), which is a shade better than Willy Taveras and a shade worse than Adam Everett. And he’s moving to a park that hasn’t been kind to RHB since its inception:
http://tinyurl.com/9z2fy
Here’s hoping that Chase Headley is ready sooner rather than later.
December 12, 2005 at 8:20 am
Over at Scout.com, John Conniff (Hi John!) has a real good recap on the moves made so far:
http://tinyurl.com/bejgh
December 12, 2005 at 8:48 am
Re: Coniff.
Sorry, I can’t buy that as a good recap. It reads like a Padre PR piece. We either won or tied every trade so far. Sure. I especially like the Nady double-standard. We win every other trade in which we give up young talent because it was just time to cut bait. But we trade Nady for Cameron and suddenly the young player who has shown some flashes is worth holding onto. Sounds like a serious Nady backer at work.
Hensley may or may not be better than BLaw. Chan Ho isn’t. BLaw averaged a 30 VORP from 2002-04. He fell to 15.8 this season. I’d post Park’s VORP for those four seasons, but after reading them I need to find a dark, quiet place to cry for a few hours.
Boone and Miles are comps for Loretta. Okay. When somebody has to dig that deep and posit that many hypotheticals to make us “win” a trade, well, we didn’t win it.
We won the Cameron trade. Castilla and Brazelon are ties at best; BLaw is more likely to have a good season than Castilla, but call it a tie. Loretta for Mirabelli is a loss.
December 12, 2005 at 9:10 am
I don’t agree with all of John’s takes, but I still think it is a good recap. Personally I’ve got all the trades as draws except the Loretta one, which we lost. We could win the Cameron one also.
December 12, 2005 at 10:09 am
I suppose I have a problem with the different standards in that article.
Some trades that bring in immediate 2006 help are defended when other moves (not trading BLaw, trading Loretta for prospects) might have paid off not only in 2006 but for years beyond. But when talk turns to Nady, then it’s all about the future. Or the Loretta trade is a Padre win because X, Y, and Z follow, but the Nady trade isn’t a win even though it also has a cascade effect (Klesko to 1b, more playing time for Johnson if/when Roberts is hurt/traded).
I don’t expect Nady to get that much playing time in NY. Diaz beat him in EQA and VORP and hits LH. If the Mets get Manny without losing Floyd, Nady’s back on the bench or traded again.