Comments on: Padres Month in Review: April 2006 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html Blogging the San Diego Padres baseball club. Established 1997. Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:09:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: hank http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15153 hank Tue, 02 May 2006 04:58:23 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15153 thanks for the info, in the future I will just leave out the links. I can put them in later if someone wants them.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-15153">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> thanks for the info, in the future I will just leave out the links. I can put them in later if someone wants them.

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

]]> By: Geoff Young http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15136 Geoff Young Tue, 02 May 2006 02:01:02 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15136 Hank: Sorry 'bout the moderation thing. That's just an anti-spam measure I've got in there to catch folks who dump comments full of meaningless links. I've made a note of this in the comments policy and added a link to the policy above the reply form so everyone can see it. Again, apologies for the trouble!<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-15136">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> Hank: Sorry ’bout the moderation thing. That’s just an anti-spam measure I’ve got in there to catch folks who dump comments full of meaningless links. I’ve made a note of this in the comments policy and added a link to the policy above the reply form so everyone can see it. Again, apologies for the trouble!

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

]]> By: Pat http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15132 Pat Tue, 02 May 2006 01:00:08 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15132 Didi: Part of what I was saying is, theoreticall, last year's team should have lost more than they won. Ergo, expecting this year's team, which I don't think is markedly improved from last year's team, to be much better than .500 is unrealistic. Anthony: I hear you. Their offensive performance has been way less than expected, but it's still a small sample size. Over the course of the season that should come up somewhat, but I still don't think we should have expected this to be a particularly good offensive team. There is really only one stellar player in the starting lineup, Giles, and he is followed by a mixed bag of aging veteran's, who would have to be considered to have about as much chance, if not more, of declining significantly as performing better than league average, and young players/rookies who are bound to be up and down all year. Factor in a starting rotation which has consisted of guys like Park, Williams, Estes and Brazelton, and there just doesn't seem to be much cause to believe they would be better than last year. If they had bumped up the rotation, or brought in some better bats, maybe, but the offense just wasn't improved enough to make them competitive with that staff. Still I think we will see better play in the weeks to come if we can keep our lineup out there and healthy. Cameron should make an impact at the plate and has already made his presence felt in the field. But, unfortunately, I don't think they will be much over .500, if that. Of course there's always hope. Peavy, Young, and Hensley could form a pretty good front three. Williams and Park could keep up their performance as the back end of the roation, and the bullpen is looking pretty good. I'm pulling for them!<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-15132">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> Didi: Part of what I was saying is, theoreticall, last year’s team should have lost more than they won. Ergo, expecting this year’s team, which I don’t think is markedly improved from last year’s team, to be much better than .500 is unrealistic.

Anthony: I hear you. Their offensive performance has been way less than expected, but it’s still a small sample size. Over the course of the season that should come up somewhat, but I still don’t think we should have expected this to be a particularly good offensive team.

There is really only one stellar player in the starting lineup, Giles, and he is followed by a mixed bag of aging veteran’s, who would have to be considered to have about as much chance, if not more, of declining significantly as performing better than league average, and young players/rookies who are bound to be up and down all year.

Factor in a starting rotation which has consisted of guys like Park, Williams, Estes and Brazelton, and there just doesn’t seem to be much cause to believe they would be better than last year. If they had bumped up the rotation, or brought in some better bats, maybe, but the offense just wasn’t improved enough to make them competitive with that staff.

Still I think we will see better play in the weeks to come if we can keep our lineup out there and healthy. Cameron should make an impact at the plate and has already made his presence felt in the field. But, unfortunately, I don’t think they will be much over .500, if that. Of course there’s always hope. Peavy, Young, and Hensley could form a pretty good front three. Williams and Park could keep up their performance as the back end of the roation, and the bullpen is looking pretty good. I’m pulling for them!

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

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15131 Tom Waits Tue, 02 May 2006 00:29:20 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15131 Players are currency. Do you spend ten bucks to get a six dollar burger? Loretta was worth ten bucks at the end of last year. Not the fifty bucks he was worth at the end of 2004, not just six bucks either. I haven't seen any reports that Loretta was asked to move to 3b and declined. It doesn't matter, anyway. You shop Loretta all winter and spring, when he was hitting .340. Worst case, a trade for a backup catcher was going to be there at the end of spring training. If I buy a new car at a great price and crash two days later, I still made a good deal. We sold Loretta low. Selling Mirabelli relatively high doesn't make up for it.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-15131">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> Players are currency. Do you spend ten bucks to get a six dollar burger? Loretta was worth ten bucks at the end of last year. Not the fifty bucks he was worth at the end of 2004, not just six bucks either.

I haven’t seen any reports that Loretta was asked to move to 3b and declined. It doesn’t matter, anyway. You shop Loretta all winter and spring, when he was hitting .340. Worst case, a trade for a backup catcher was going to be there at the end of spring training.

If I buy a new car at a great price and crash two days later, I still made a good deal. We sold Loretta low. Selling Mirabelli relatively high doesn’t make up for it.

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

]]> By: Steve http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15130 Steve Mon, 01 May 2006 23:42:56 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15130 It may not look like that bad of a deal if Loretta keeps hitting at a .219 clip this year. To me this deal justifies the Loretta deal, Loretta would have been gone at the end of this season regardless to make room for Barfield, now the padres have the rights to a young catcher who will bridge the gap to Kottaris and will be a solid back up for years to come. Long term (which based upon this april the Pads really need to plan for) this looks like a good deal.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-15130">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> It may not look like that bad of a deal if Loretta keeps hitting at a .219 clip this year.

To me this deal justifies the Loretta deal, Loretta would have been gone at the end of this season regardless to make room for Barfield, now the padres have the rights to a young catcher who will bridge the gap to Kottaris and will be a solid back up for years to come.

Long term (which based upon this april the Pads really need to plan for) this looks like a good deal.

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

]]> By: hank http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15129 hank Mon, 01 May 2006 23:35:42 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15129 Loretta had to go. He wasnt going to voluntarily move off of second base and Barfield was ready. The Padres had asked him to play 3b but he declined. We had to move him or suffer the same fate as when Burroughs replaced Nevin at 3b. We did not need that again. Lo's nrs were starting to decline and seem to have declined further this year.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-15129">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> Loretta had to go. He wasnt going to voluntarily move off of second base and Barfield was ready. The Padres had asked him to play 3b but he declined. We had to move him or suffer the same fate as when Burroughs replaced Nevin at 3b. We did not need that again.

Lo’s nrs were starting to decline and seem to have declined further this year.

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

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15128 Tom Waits Mon, 01 May 2006 23:30:25 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15128 Me too, Lamar. Mirabelli for Bard, Meredith, Crash or Cash, pretty good deal. Loretta for Mirabelli, bad deal. Doesn't matter what Loretta does in the regular season, he was worth more. He was worth more all spring when he was hitting very well.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-15128">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> Me too, Lamar.

Mirabelli for Bard, Meredith, Crash or Cash, pretty good deal.

Loretta for Mirabelli, bad deal. Doesn’t matter what Loretta does in the regular season, he was worth more. He was worth more all spring when he was hitting very well.

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

]]> By: LaMar http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15127 LaMar Mon, 01 May 2006 22:53:00 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15127 It seems to me that we're forgetting that Mirabelli cost us Loretta. That means we essentially traded Loretta for Bard, Meredith and PTBNL and/or cash. It's hard for me to get behind that one, even though Barfield has outplayed Loretta.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-15127">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> It seems to me that we’re forgetting that Mirabelli cost us Loretta. That means we essentially traded Loretta for Bard, Meredith and PTBNL and/or cash. It’s hard for me to get behind that one, even though Barfield has outplayed Loretta.

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

]]> By: hank http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15126 hank Mon, 01 May 2006 22:50:20 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15126 my comment is awaiting moderation? this something new?<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-15126">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> my comment is awaiting moderation? this something new?

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

]]> By: hank http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15125 hank Mon, 01 May 2006 22:48:36 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2006/05/padres-month-in-review-april-2006.html#comment-15125 There are a couple to get mildly excited about. Joshua Geer 3 0 2.86 4 4 0 0 0 22.0 27 8 7 1 1 2 18 1.32 http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/joshua-geer.shtml Neil Jamison 0 0 0.00 4 0 0 0 3 4.0 1 0 0 0 0 3 9 1.00 http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/J/neil-jamison.shtml late round sleeper Brenton Carter 1 1 6.08 5 5 0 0 0 23.2 33 20 16 2 2 6 19 1.65 http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/C/brent-carter.shtml John Madden and Jon Link also have potential..<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-15125">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> There are a couple to get mildly excited about.

Joshua Geer 3 0 2.86 4 4 0 0 0 22.0 27 8 7 1 1 2 18 1.32

http://www.thebaseballcube.com.....geer.shtml

Neil Jamison 0 0 0.00 4 0 0 0 3 4.0 1 0 0 0 0 3 9 1.00

http://www.thebaseballcube.com.....ison.shtml

late round sleeper

Brenton Carter 1 1 6.08 5 5 0 0 0 23.2 33 20 16 2 2 6 19 1.65

http://www.thebaseballcube.com.....rter.shtml

John Madden and Jon Link also have potential..

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

]]>