Black Named Manager, Barfield Dealt to Cleveland
Wed, Nov 8, 2006
by Geoff Young
Pretty uneventful day, huh? Somehow I get the feeling “uneventful” is not a word that will ever be used to describe Sandy Alderson’s tenure with the Padres. And it’s nice to see that Kevin Towers isn’t content to rest on any laurels after receiving a contract extension.
You might want to sit down for this one. We’re going to be here a while tonight.
Back in Black
So, the Padres made a decision on their next manager. Bud Black gets the call over Trey Hillman and, let us all breathe a huge sigh of relief, Dusty Baker.
Black played at SDSU with Tony Gwynn in 1978 and 1979, and enjoyed a fine big-league career, winning 121 games over parts of 15 seasons. Since 2000, he’s served as pitching coach for the Angels, where he helped develop the likes of Jarrod Washburn, John Lackey, and Francisco Rodriguez.
According to his Angels bio, Black hasn’t managed at any level. How much does that matter? Eh, the difference between “has fresh ideas” and “lacks experience” is about the same as that between winning and losing.
Honestly, I would have been perfectly happy with either Black or Hillman (Blez at Athletics Nation likes both as well). I’m just glad the decision has been made and we can get on with life.
Who Moved My Barfield?
I’m a huge Josh Barfield fan. I’ve been covering him at Ducksnorts since July 2, 2001. After his monstrous 2003 season, I geeked out big time on the kid. No, I mean really big time.
Heck, one of the key chapters in the book I’m writing focuses on an improbable walk-off home run he hit just over two months ago. I made T-shirts because of that homer (get ‘em now; soon, like Barfield, they’ll be gone forever!).
None of this, of course, is a compelling reason not to deal Barfield. I can be sad to see him go but also acknowledge that, from an organizational standpoint, moving him for a third baseman makes sense.
The one concern I have is that in filling one hole, the Padres are opening another. This is mitigated to a large extent, I believe, by the fact that second base should be a much easier hole to fill than third base has proven to be over the past few years (Sean Burroughs, we salute you!).
Case in point, here are this winter’s free agent second basemen of note, along with how they did in 2006:
- Ronnie Belliard: Age 31, .272/.322/.403 — solid, unspectacular; about on the same level as Barfield, obviously without projectability
- Mark DeRosa: Age 31, .296/.357/.456 — flukish season aided by home park; useful talent but could be overvalued
- Ray Durham: Age 34, .293/.360/.538 — had a career year, but he’s been extremely consistent over most of the past decade
- Adam Kennedy: Age 30, .273/.334/.384 — not many secondary offensive skills; good defensive reputation
- Mark Loretta: Age 35, .285/.345/.361 — on downside of career; previously enjoyed success in San Diego
This doesn’t include guys like Atlanta’s Brian Marcus Giles, or the Padres’ own Todd Walker. So, really, we’re looking at five relatively useful guys, one of whom (Durham) stands out a bit from the others.
And here are the third basemen:
- Rich Aurilia: Age 35, .300/.349/.518 — enjoyed second best season ever since career year in 2001; with four seasons of extreme mediocrity in between, someone else can pay to see whether he’ll repeat or revert
- David Bell: Age 34, .270/.337/.399 — we’ve had enough third basemen in San Diego who can’t crack a .400 SLG, thank you
- Pedro Feliz: Age 31, .244/.281/.428 — can’t get on base
- Aubrey Huff: Age 29, .267/.344/.469 — decent option who will be overpaid due to lack of competition
- Aramis Ramirez: Age 28, .291/.352/.561 — opted out of an $11M deal with the Cubs; hint: he doesn’t expect to make less this year
Japan’s Akinori Iwamura is also available. So, here we’ve got one guy who will break the bank (Ramirez), one who should do pretty well for himself (Huff), and three who should scare the heck out of you and me.
In short, there are more options at second than there are at third, and none should cost so much as to prohibit bringing in a legitimate power hitter to play left field and/or a big-name starting pitcher.
[Brief pause for hot chocolate]
Kouzmanoff? Gesundheit!
For their troubles, the Padres received Kevin Kouzmanoff (pronounced kooz-MAHN-off) and minor-league right-hander Andrew Brown. Peter Friberg has profiled Kouzmanoff quite nicely at Padres Run Down. Basically he’s a 25-year-old hitting machine. His minor-league numbers are impressive, to say the least. Yes, he’s a tad old, but so were Mike Lowell, Bill Mueller, and Phil Nevin when they got their big-league careers started.
Baseball Think Factory’s Dan Symborski likes the deal for the Padres from a talent standpoint (he compares Barfield to Rennie Stennett; I think Orlando Hudson is a better comp) but cites the aforementioned hole it creates at second base as a negative. Symborski’s ZiPS projection system tabs Kouzmanoff as a .279/.334/.452 hitter. Sure, I’ll take one of those.
Between Kouzmanoff and Russell Branyan, the Padres should be in pretty good shape at the hot corner for the first time since Nevin played there.
Big Picture
The Padres still have holes to fill. But that was the case even before they moved Barfield for Kouzmanoff (and Brown). In making this deal, they’ve just shifted the nature of one of those holes, presumably making it easier to fill.
I hate to see Barfield leave. And I have concerns about the perception among some fans (mostly the ones I hear on the drive-time sports talk shows) that the Padres somehow aren’t trying to improve themselves through this and other moves. I don’t know if it’s a general misunderstanding of Moneyball, fueled in part by some members of the media who maybe can’t (or won’t) figure it out themselves, but I hear a lot of negativity about the direction Alderson, Towers, and company are headed. I don’t think it’s very well founded.
But never mind what I think. Just let me know the last time the Padres had three straight winning seasons. Or the last time they reached the playoffs in back-to-back years.
Alderson talks about the Padres teaching their young hitters to be aggressive, with judgment. He mentioned on the radio Wednesday afternoon that he holds the front office to that same standard. Dealing Barfield for Kouzmanoff and Brown is consistent with this philosophy. Does it upset fans from time to time? Yes, probably so. We all get comfortable with what we know. But there’s a difference between being comfortable and being great. And when push comes to shove, as a fan of this team, I’m glad that the guys running the show appear to be more interest in greatness than in comfort. As for those of us who find change difficult, rest assured, we’ll feel better when this team becomes great.
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.
November 8, 2006 at 10:19 pm
*Atlanta’s Marcus Giles
Nice analysis overall.
November 8, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Thanks, Richard; got it. I’ve also added Kouzmanoff and Brown to the org tree. And I took the liberty of sponsoring Bud Black’s page at Baseball Reference.
November 8, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Geoff,
Once again your analysis is SPOT ON! I agree with you completely. I hate to see Barfield leave but I am very pleased with the possibility of having a relatively young and potential option at 3rd for the future. It’s been a really boring few weeks but I am so ready for this off-season to start taking shape. Thanks for giving myself and all these other die hards a place to go!!!!
November 8, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Holy Cow! When you said Barfield for a 3B I was thinking Marte. Kouzmanoff? Can I call the 1090, XX, or whatever it’s called and whine about how I’ve never heard of this guy?
I think I’ll trust the guys who do this for a living to have scouted him enough to know whether he’s worth moving Josh for or not. Still I’ll miss Josh, he was an exciting, young player and I wish him well.
I like having Bud Black on board, too. Nothing particularly against Bochy, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Black is more in tune with Alderson and the rest of the Front Office. I hope having a pitching coach as the manager doesn’t make Balsley want to go elsewhere though. Anyone know if he and Bud have any sort of prior relationship? I really love the job Darren does with our staff.
November 8, 2006 at 11:36 pm
One possible negative with Kouzmanoff that deserves mentioning is his injury history. He’s had back problems and pulled his hamstring recently. But other than that I do like the aggressiveness this shows, and hopefully it does solve the third base problem for the foreseeable future.
November 8, 2006 at 11:47 pm
I like the analysis Geoff, but I think the stability that Barfield brought was invaluable. I don’t really care if Sandy says that second base is an easy position to fill - having a new guy there every season isn’t exactly a quality I associate with a winning ballclub. Moving a cheap, proven commodity with room to improve for an unknown, especially with a glut of third basemen in the minors, isn’t a very good move.
November 9, 2006 at 2:06 am
Indians fan here- looking for Padres fan’s perspective on this. Overall reaction has been favorable from Cleveland standpoint. We had gaping hole at 2B since trading Belliard and giving Brandon Phillps away.
We had a glut of corner/dh guys with no potential to play other positions- Kouz, Marte, Garko, Hafner, Victor Martinez. No ready replacements from within for middle IF. Also lacking 2 hitter since losing Vizquel and no team speed whatsoever beyond Sizemore. Free agents at 2B were not attractive considering age and $$. Looks like win/win depending on how SD fills in at 2B. Andrew Brown was out of options and not likely to make the club.
November 9, 2006 at 6:35 am
#5: Good point about the injury history, Ben. That is a risk.
#6: True, Bryan, there is something to be said for stability. As for the “glut” of third baseman, it’s mainly Chase Headley, and he’s even less proven than Kouzmanoff. Again, I’m not ecstatic about this deal but I understand it.
#7: Hey, Kevin, thanks for stopping by to give the Cleveland perspective. It does sound like a win/win. I think you’ll be happy with Barfield, although his low OBP probably makes him better suited to the bottom of the order (#7 or lower) at this stage in his career.
November 9, 2006 at 7:04 am
Breat analysis GY. Always fun to log on and get your reasoned perspective. I was thinking about the 2b hole now. One thought that I had was to still go after Iwamura, only now for 2b. First, the posting fee is a one year hit, leaving us money and flexibility for next year. Second, he gives us a hedge at 3b, in the event Kouz gets injured or has some difficulty adapting at the ML level.
I met Barfield once at a Padre function. A great kid and I thought he’d turn into a plus 2b. But, if we can stay even on production at 2b, we’ll have a huge upgrade at the black corner. Hopefully, Kouz will be as likeable as Barfield and he’ll become a fan favorite. (If he hits like he did in the minors, fans will be saying, “Josh who?”)
November 9, 2006 at 7:06 am
What about Soriano? He wasn’t listed in the 2B section - isn’t he available? Or, is he not on the wish list?
November 9, 2006 at 7:17 am
#3: No, KRS, thank you for reading and exchanging ideas. I probably don’t say it often enough, but I couldn’t do this without y’all.
#4: Pat, a few of us have wondered about the impact Black’s presence might have on Balsley. I have no clue whether they have any kind of history, but out of anyone on last year’s staff, Balsley is the one guy I don’t want to see leave.
#9: Thanks, LaMar, for the Barfield story. I really hope he does well with the Indians. I’ll be following him like I followed Nady this year. When you see a kid in A-ball, it’s hard not to get a little attached.
#10: Mike, thanks for the note. Everything I hear indicates that Soriano can’t actually play the position. Several folks have talked about his selfishness; I can’t speak to that, but if the price is right, it wouldn’t kill me to see him play LF for us next year.
November 9, 2006 at 7:23 am
I like the Black hire - don’t know how he’ll do, but I’d rather watch him than some tired old skipper (Hello, Dusty) bumble around for several years.
On trading Barfield - like most everyone, I liked Barfield and thought he played pretty well, particularly for a rookie. I understand the thinking that 2B is easier to fill than 3B and Kouzmanoff’s minor league numbers are impressive. So the trade makes sense from that standpoint. Trading a guy who played a solid, full big league season for a guy who has not is an aggressive move - so the folks on the radio that are complaining about the team’s unwillingness to improve are missing that.
My concern is this - 3B is such a tough position to fill. So many teams over the last 10 yrs have thought they had “The Guy” to be the next Mike Schmidt - a player who could play the position in the field and bring a serious bat - and most of them have been dead wrong. Rolen is the only guy that immediately comes to mind who fills that description, though David Wright seems on his way to doing it, too. I’m probably missing a couple of others. But rosters have been littered with guys who were supposed to be the next big thing at 3B and most disappeared quickly. Kouzmanoff is still learning defensively and has already experienced back trouble - not something that usually goes away when a guy’s a power hitter and has to hit the ground a lot to cover the 3B line.
So while I understand the team’s thinking and I do think this was a move that could make the team better, it also seems to be a bit of a gamble. The odds on finding a productive, healthy 3B just don’t favor most teams.
November 9, 2006 at 7:23 am
I always hate trading young proven talent for young unproven talent, but I do understand this move.
I also like the fact that no one is untouchable on the pads and that they are making moves for the sole intent of making the team better. This move was not make because of a money issue but because Towers/Alderson felt that it would improve the team which you could not say about alot of the padres moves in past years.
November 9, 2006 at 7:33 am
UT is saying that Counsell, Garciaparra or M Giles may be considered for 2B.
November 9, 2006 at 7:36 am
How does Koozy sound for a nickname?
November 9, 2006 at 7:38 am
Wow Counsell is a step back, Nomar was talked about last year but I thought he had some throwing issues, and Giles may be ok, he can also fill the hole left in the leadoff spot since it lookes like the pads will not re-sign roberts.
Giles
Giles
Gonzalez
Piazza (Maybe)
Cameron
Greene
Kouzmanoff/Branyan
Johnson/Sledge
Not to bad still lacks that big bat though.
November 9, 2006 at 7:41 am
Barfield is on 1090 right now. He says he feels like the rug was pulled out from under his feet. He had absolutely no idea it was going to happen. He was in town for the awards banquest and was eating breakfast.
November 9, 2006 at 7:43 am
JB just said he feels like he got dumped (as in by a girlfriend). Wow, it sounds like he is really bummed.
November 9, 2006 at 7:44 am
He said he may not go to the awards banquet tonight, but will think about it.
November 9, 2006 at 7:48 am
Here’s the U-T article mentioned in #14 (thanks for the heads-up). Didn’t realize Barfield is represented by Boras. Interesting…
November 9, 2006 at 7:50 am
Cammy II tried to convince him to go.
November 9, 2006 at 7:52 am
GY I wonder if that had anything to do with Towers decision. Not for the immediate future, but for when they do have to negotiate with him in 5 years. I know Boras is not anybody’s best friend around here.
November 9, 2006 at 7:52 am
Another interesting link at
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/new.....etail.html
“A source inside the Padres organization said the team feels very confident they’ll sign Alfonso Soriano when the free agent signing period begins, NBC 7/39 reported.”
Couple that with Towers’ statement in the UT that “We’ve talked to 2 or 3 second baseman, one of star quality” and you have the makings of a really hot stove.
November 9, 2006 at 7:59 am
Interesting La Mar, thanks for the link.
GY, expand on your point about Soriano not being able to play 2B. Is that widely understood? If so, why would KT want him for that position?
November 9, 2006 at 8:06 am
I still have to believe that if the do go after Soriano it is as a LF not a 2B…
November 9, 2006 at 8:08 am
I heard the Barfield interview. Seems like a great kid. I’m 30, I can say that. Made me a bit bummed this morning, even if his lobs to first and swing-first MO drove me nutty. The new guy’s back and hammy problems scare me a bit.
Ryan Zimmerman is another 3B worth mentioning. Not to mention Eric Chavez and Mike Lowell. Those two may fall short of the MIke Schmidt hemisphere but still pretty good. Does A-Rod count?
I think Soriano is considerd a minus at second, simple as that.
November 9, 2006 at 8:13 am
#24: I’m not as well versed in the latest and greatest defensive metrics as others, but my understanding is that Soriano’s numbers at second base were terrible before being moved off the position. I found some discussion on this at Get Up Baby from earlier in the year. Maybe Richard or someone can chime in with their thoughts?
November 9, 2006 at 8:32 am
27: Soriano’s hands, footwork and instincts are all negatives. He’s almost avergae on plays to his right or straight on, but is probably the worst in the business at going to his left. He is significantly (and I mean significantly) worse than every other second baseman in the Majors. Hopefully the guy KT thinks is a star is Nomar and not Soriano.
November 9, 2006 at 8:47 am
One thing that caught my attention-if Soriano can’t make plays to his left, is that problem lessened significantly because Adrian Gonzalez is one of the 2 best 1B defensively in the NL?
I think watching Adrian, he certainly makes a lot of plays to his right that other 1B don’t even think about making.
If they do sign Soriano then I suggest extra practice covering 1B for the pitchers!
November 9, 2006 at 8:48 am
If I remember right, in last year’s off-season the Padres explored the possibility of Garciaparra at 2nd, but the Padres had some question on whether his throwing motion was suited for 2nd base and whether he could make the pivot. I don’t know enough to make this up, so I must have read it somewhere.
November 9, 2006 at 8:51 am
Geoff, thanks for reminding me again why I love this site and your analysis. I think we’re pretty much on the same page 98% of the time.
Kouzmanoff (who, by the way, was nicknamed “Koozy Bear” - I wish I were kidding) is a kid who is going to flat-out hit the baseball. He’s got a great approach to hitting, and doesn’t seem to be the type who’s thinking power first. He reminds me (and I talked to Ed Barnes of Channel 4 about this yesterday on our podcast) of an Adrian Gonzalez-type hitter. I pegged Kouzmanoff as a .280 with 20 homer type hitter (which is what we projected for Adrian before last year), and that’s something Padre fans would have to be happy with. Sure, the Friars need a big bat, but I still think that bat can be had in left field, if not in another position.
The key thing to remember here is that the Friars will have two corner guys under the age of 26 that crush the baseball. Branyan did a nice job in his time in San Diego, but we’ve seen him over the course of a year. I don’t think that’s something we need to see again.
Add to this the acquisition of Brown, who throws the hell out of the baseball, even if he may not know where it’s going all the time. The Angels have had a history of guys like this (Brendan Donnelly is one that comes to mind), and I think Black and/or Balsley can get this guy under control a bit. KT is already expecting him to break camp with the big club.
Barfield’s a really strong young player, but his being dealt, while shocking, is not going to cripple this team. Signing Soriano as a six-year solution at second base, however, just may do so. I saw Soriano in Anaheim, and he takes bad angles to the baseball at second, he jabs at the baseball instead of exhibiting soft hands, and he gets in bad throwing position. The problem with signing Soriano is that he’s going to have to play left, and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
November 9, 2006 at 9:05 am
The past 3 to 4 months: Let me explain … no, there is too much. Let me sum up.
Castilla in - Castilla out.
Walker in - Young out.
Branyon in, Walker to 2B, Barfield to Bench.
Bochy out.
Black in.
Kouz in - Barfield out.
The “huge” pending FA moves we are expecting and holes to fill at 2B and LF
At this point, this is like a Vegas cab ride with cab driver Sandy Alderson. We are running stop lights, jumped a couple of curbs, we almost hit some guy with a Utah plate who looks lost and I have no idea how we are going to get where we are supposed to be headed going this way.
I am going to trust that you know what you are doing Sandy because all I can do at this point is take a huge swig of my beer and watch like its a video game all the while thinking, wow, I wouldn’t have done that in my car.
November 9, 2006 at 9:09 am
32: That was, if nothing else, quite humorous.
November 9, 2006 at 9:12 am
#32: Great post! Like watching someone else play “Grand Theft Auto.”
November 9, 2006 at 9:29 am
Counsell 2B
Giles RF
Gonzalez 1B
Soriano LF
Sheffield RF
Cameron CF
Greene SS
Kouz 3B
November 9, 2006 at 9:32 am
Like many of us, I am sorry in some ways to see Barfield go, but mostly because he was a home grown player who was respectable. But his numbers were really not very good last year. Sure his average was allright, and he hit for a little more power than I would have thought, especuially playing for San Digo, but he drew just 23 unintentional walks last year, and I would guess he drew even less than that when you consider he batted 8th and was pitched around occasionally. He swings a lot, and he swings and misses a lot. This doesn’t make for a great number 2 hitter, and his speed and power are a bit of a waste batting 8th. Defensively he was fine, but I don’t see him developing into an elite player. With Cleveland he’ll imp-rove a little offensively, but I think Kouzmanoff will ultimately be a little better at the plate. Plus, as Geoff points out, there are far more options at second than at third.
And I really hope the Padres aren’t going after Soriano. I am still a little scared of his defense and inability to draw a walk. I just feel that he’s going to have a massive collapse sometime soon - players of his type don’t tend to age well.
November 9, 2006 at 9:35 am
#35-
That’s an interesting lineup - four outfielders and no catcher. Will they even let us play like that? I see a lot of passed balls….
November 9, 2006 at 9:41 am
Wow…I heard the Barfield news but thought someone was kidding!
Anyone else think that Marcus Giles is on the way here now? I wonder what we’d have to give up to get him. Linebrink + ?
I also think there’s a fair chance that Sheffield will end up in SD…
November 9, 2006 at 9:43 am
Gary Sheffield…..nnnoooooooooooooo!!!
November 9, 2006 at 9:44 am
I like Counsell a lot as a backup, not so much as an everyday guy. That’s kind of surprising that the Padres are after Soriano. I’ve never heard so many negatives about a guy with his HR and SB numbers, he’s certainly a polarizing player.
Mark raised a good point about Gonzalez. I think he saved Barfield some errors on bad throws last year so maybe he would help a little with Soriano. Maybe he goes from bloody awful to just awful. Every little bit helps.
November 9, 2006 at 9:48 am
PM, this will be theraputic, repeat after me:
Gary Sheffield is an asset.
Gary Sheffield is an asset.
Gary Sheffield is an asset.
Gary Sheffield is an asset.
November 9, 2006 at 9:49 am
…and no cheating by removing the last 2 letters…
November 9, 2006 at 9:50 am
So, given that he is a lousy 2B option, what do we think of Soriano in LF? Seems a risk at 6 years, probably reasonable at 5 and good move at 4+buyout
November 9, 2006 at 9:54 am
If I remember right, Soriano had double the errors at 2b over the last 5 years (2001-2005) than anyone else.
I can say that 40/40 erases a lot of defensive miscues…
I just wish the Pads were able to be this aggressive when Vlad wanted to come here.
RE: 36…Soriano has proven to be an anomaly…Stats guys hate him and talk about how he “can’t” keep this up, but look at the numbers over the past 5 years and you can’t argue with the final results…heck, he even did it in the Grand Canyon Ballpark in DC. I seem to remember reading Rob Neyer predicting a huge fall for him…now a couple of years later admitting that he was wrong on the guy and that he is one of the few that can produce HUGE overall numbers despite the lack of plate discipline.
No, he is not at the top of my list for 2b, but if he will play LF for us, we will be very happy. He improved dramatically in the OF last year and will certainly be average defensively (better than Carlos Lee). He has a body type that projects well as a longer term type player (Tall, thin, long/lanky arms vs. Lee, who, well looks like me).
November 9, 2006 at 9:56 am
Jonathan, I was talking to Paul R. (a frequent poster) last night about this. I think he said 5/$75-80. I’d probably do that too, but I prefer Alou or Sheffield plus Zito.
I don’t think there is a pitcher out there who will be comprably as good or as cheap as Alou is offensively and I think Zito is less likely to decline than Soriano…
November 9, 2006 at 10:00 am
Maybe it is just me, but I really do think having Gonzalez takes away a lot of the issues with Soriano at 2B-given the available FA choices and already having Johnson/Sledge/McAnulty as somewhat capable replacements in the organization already……I’d much rather have Soriano at 2B then LF.
One of the key questions for me regarding Soriano is if the increase in BB rate last year was a change that he made, or simply a function of being pitched around more then ever before.
Certainly a guy who walks 60+ times and has 90 XBH is worth a ton offensively.
Add Soriano, Alou and Kouzmanof to the lineup in place of Castilla, Barfield and Roberts and I think it is very apparent that the team is a ton better then they were last season.
November 9, 2006 at 10:01 am
Peter, usually love your stuff, but as you are aware, our feelings on Zito are not the same…Let’s go into the year with our top 3…sign Eaton and find a #5. I will take our chances with Soriano in LF and let someone else take the growing walks/ERA and decreasing k’s at $15 mil per…
November 9, 2006 at 10:09 am
I’d settle for Mulder plus a good bat over Zito with no good bat.
November 9, 2006 at 10:09 am
A link to a quote from the Giles Brothers’ agent:
http://www.rotoworld.com/conte.....amp;spln=1
“”If it could work out for Marcus to play with his brother, that would be a great thing,” said Joe Bick, agent to both of the Giles brothers. “It’s one of those things … it’s almost like it’s too much to hope for. We’ll just see how it works out.” It’s believed the Padres and Braves have already discussed a swap. Scott Linebrink could go to Atlanta in a deal, though the Padres would most likely prefer to get a trade done without using him. Nov. 9 - 10:00 am et”
November 9, 2006 at 10:19 am
Maybe Todd Walker will be brought back as the 2B now?
November 9, 2006 at 10:19 am
I’d have no problem with Linebrink for Marcus Giles.
November 9, 2006 at 10:29 am
51: ?
November 9, 2006 at 10:29 am
52: No posting images, eh?
November 9, 2006 at 10:31 am
I’m also excited about what I hear for Andrew Brown. Sounds like he’s got a power arm, throwing in the upper 90’s.
November 9, 2006 at 10:32 am
Zito’s full-season numbers:
‘01: 3.49 ERA, 214.1 IP, 80/205 BB/SO
‘02: 2.75 ERA, 229.1 IP, 78/182 BB/SO
‘03: 3.30 ERA, 231.3 IP, 88/146 BB/SO
‘04: 4.48 ERA, 213.0 IP, 88/146 BB/SO
‘05: 3.86 ERA, 228.1 IP, 89/171 BB/SO
‘06: 3.83 ERA, 221.0 IP, 99/151 BB/S0
He certainly walks more than I’d like, but his walk totals have varied by only 21 BB over 6 seasons. And while he isn’t striking people out like he did his first 2 season, his last 4 seasons K/9 rates have been: 5.67, 6.89, 6.74, and 6.15… Furthermore, while he hasn’t posted any more sexy sub-3.00 ERAs, if we throw out that amazing 2.75 in ‘02 and that awful 4.48 in ‘04, every other ERA is within roughly half of a run of eachother (3.30 to 3.86).
Zito isn’t a prenniel Cy Young candidate, but he doesn’t get hurt, he’s consistent, and he’d make our staff amazingly good.
From my blog:
The Padres scored 731 runs in 2006 while allowing 679; both numbers are among the lowest in all of baseball (four teams scored fewer runs and only the Tigers allowed fewer runs).
&
[With Peavy, Young, Hensley, and Zito] the Padres would have 190ish, 200, 200, and 215 IP from their three remaining + Zito; that’s 805 IP. Every pitching staff in the National League had roughly 1430 to 1460 innings in 2006.
Lastly:
Adding Zito probably subtracts 25 runs from the Padres total. If the Padres again score 730ish runs (I think they’ll improve and score more) and have added Barry Zito, they should give up somewhere in the neighborhood of 650 runs. An 80-plus run differential, should translate to 89 to 95 wins.
I’d sign him.
November 9, 2006 at 10:33 am
#49
I would prefer to not lose Linebrink, either. His numbers looked a little off last year, but throw out two weeks in laste July when he was distracted by trade rumors and pitched terribly, and he was a very good pitcher. And in 05 he was the best reliever in baseball, and it wasn’t close. As far as Marcus goes, I wonder if a)his heart trouble from last year is really not going to recur and b)if he is going to regress as much as Brian has - they’re similar players. I like Brian because of his walks and defense, but his power is gone and his middling speed is about gone, too. Marcus’ k-BB ratio is much worse than Brian’s, and he stole just 10 bases last year, in 15 tries. That’s not good, especially for a leadoff hitter, and throw in the fact that all of Marcus’ numbers dropped precipitously last year, I would be hesitant to deal a lot to get him. But if the Braves want to just GIVE him away, we could do worse.
#44
I agree that people have been predicting Soriano’s demise for a while, and he has continued to defy the stats. But here’s a little statistics for you that should give some pause. Career numbers
Player A - Age 35, Career Stats - 280/372/507, 272 HRs, 943 RBI
Player B - age 31, Career Stats - 280/325/510, 208 HRs, 560 RBI
Player B is Alfonso Soriano. Keep in mind that these stats include last season, Soriano’s best, by far.
Player A’s stats also include last season, which was subpar, plus the two previous, which were not good either, Still, player A’s stats are better, across the board, than Soriano’s, even after including 3 seasons of poor play. They might give some insight into the true quality of Soriano’s play - one that may be obscured by 40-steal seasons.
Player A? Ryan Klesko.
November 9, 2006 at 10:34 am
My Zito link:
http://padresrundown.blogspot......-zito.html
November 9, 2006 at 10:39 am
#55
I am with you on Zito. It’s not just that his numbers have been fairly consistent, it’s the health that impresses me. How many stud front-of-roatation pitchers have his record of staying healthy? Just Santana off the top of my head, and Santana hasn’t been at it as long.
If we’re going to spend 15 million on a player, I’d much rather it be Zito or Matsuzaka than Sheffield or Soriano.
November 9, 2006 at 10:47 am
55: I’m still unsure about Zito. Long-term $13M+/year contracts for a 29 y/o pitcher just sounds like a bad idea. His production “should” decline every year of such a deal and the last year or two could really end up hobbling the Padres.
November 9, 2006 at 10:50 am
#30. Lamar, you’re right. The Padres said they had problems with his “arm slot” on throws from second base. I think this was just a nice way of them saying they didn’t want to spend the money on someone they thought was washed up. Now that he had a productive season again last year for the Dodgers, I wouldn’t be suprised if we are, in fact, looking at him as a possible free agent pickup for our hole at 2B.
November 9, 2006 at 11:18 am
Why do I have a feeling that the anti-Zito sentiment — sound as it is — is going to be similar to a “cons list” for just about every supposed quality free agent pitcher this offseason and in the future? I bet you’re going to see few 1 and 2s hit the market, with more teams trying to lock up their pre-FA top of rotation guys when they see the Matt Morrises and Jeff Suppans get $9-$10 million a year for league-average/slightly better results. (I know that I’m ripping off some Buster Olney or Gammons column.) The Twins of all teams gave a 4 yr/$40 million contract to Santana. Probably better return than the Giants are getting from Morris. “Overpay” is going to be the most abused verb of the offseason and I’d rather pay too much for someone closer to No. 2 than No. 4.
November 9, 2006 at 11:54 am
Re:61 I think after the Klesko/Nevin era I think we all are leary of signing anyone to a big long term deal. Sure I would love to see Zito, Lee or Soriano in a Padres uni and I wouldn’t mind if the team gave them $12 mil a year but not for 5 years which is what each of them will command.
November 9, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Re #35: Sorriano has Struggled in the 4 hole, granted its a small sample size but…
Slot / AB / OPS
#1 / 706 / .928
#3 / 557 / .773
#4 /41 / .617
#5 / 573 / .839
Soriano has clearly excelled leading off so I would hope the pads would keep him there (if they sign him which I still dont think will happen).
November 9, 2006 at 12:23 pm
We get to play w/ 2 RFs next year because we’re awesome
November 9, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Matty V. was on XX probably on monday or tuesday I can’t remember but his quote went something like… “Padres fans, I hate to break it to you but there is absolutely ZERO chance Barry Zito pitches for us next season”. I don’t know what he knows or thinks he knows working for the organization and all but he said it as if it were a fact or he would be willing to bet his house on it or something. I thought it was interesting but I have not heard anyone else talk about it yet so thought I would share.
November 9, 2006 at 12:46 pm
This is just for fun but I think i figured out Boch’s ideal lineup for the Giants in 07.
1. Winn RF
2. Visquel SS
3. Finley CF
4. Bonds LF
5. Klesko 1B
6. Nevin 3B
7. Blum 2B
8. Bennett/Fick C
November 9, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Re: 65, Matty V knows that Zito is represented by Boras which makes it a safe bet that the pads will not even try to deal with him.
The pads keep floating Zito intrest out there for PR reasons, San Diegans love thier own and Zito is a San Diego Kid so they have to say that they are looking at him.
The pads had the best ERA in the NL in 2006 and were 13th in runs scored. Logic tells you that they need to spend money somewhere other than pitching.
November 9, 2006 at 12:55 pm
What do y’all think about Mark DeRosa? His splits were pretty even. Is someone going to give him a 3 yr/$22M contract or something crazily similar?
November 9, 2006 at 1:01 pm
David two problems with that…one is that Soriano has put up very solid numbers for a longer time than Klesko…Second, tough to compare those guys b/c of the age difference when they put up the numbers.
I dunno…I like Soriano. Seems like a nice guy who puts up solid numbers year after year. Defensive liability at 2b and adequate in LF…One thing the pads have lacked (maybe forever) is a legit, scary batter. You plug his 40/40 in our line-up and we just became a force…No, I am not on the sign Soriano bandwagon yet, but I am getting there.
I maybe driving the No-Zito bus though…and no, it has nothing to do with my wife “hanging out” with him in HS.
November 9, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Hanging out in quotes. Such mystery.
November 9, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Re: 68 I dont think a team will give DeRosa that kind of money becaue last year was really the first year he has put up solid numbers and there is a glut of 2B with similar or better numbers on the market.
I wonder if the pads are even going to think about Loretta? If the pads can re-sign him then that makes the Meredeth/Bard trade that much better.
November 9, 2006 at 1:15 pm
#69
Klesko has had 7 seasons of excellent play, Soriano 6.
As far as the age difference, the point I was trying to make was this: Klesko, through age 31, was a far better player than Soriano was through age 31. While I don’t have the actual stats of Klesko through age 31, (I could do it manually, but that’s too much work for a blog comment!) considering that his overall numbers are better than Soriano’s, despite Klesko’s 3 down years since turning 31, I would have to assume that Klesko’s stats through age 31 are far superior to Soriano’s - lets say 290/380/530 to Soriano’s 280/325/510. While everybody assumes Soriano is only going to get better, he is at the age that players start to decline. 31 is not young. And if you’re going to give Soriano 15 million dollars, at age 31, then you have to look at what he does better than Klesko at the same age. And the answer is this: Soriano is a slightly better basestealer. He stole 41 bases last year, while being caught an unacceptable 17 times. Klesko, in his age 31 year, stole 23 bases and got caught 4 times. So, considering Klesko was a better hitter at 31 than Soriano (which is statistically certifiable), and they are both terrible fielders, you’re left with an advantage for Soriano of 18 SBs. Is that worth 15 million a year? I venture to say no, it’s not.
November 9, 2006 at 1:27 pm
And, postscript, the other point I was tring to make is this: Soriano looks good in a uniform, and we think he’s a great player because he is a good athlete and played for the Yankees in their heyday, but, really, at age 31 he’s equal, as a player, to Ryan Klesko. And if the Pads had given Klesko, at age 31, a 15 mil/year contract for 5 years, we would all be up in arms about it, and rightfully so. And that’s why I don’t think SD should entertain 5-year/75 million dollar offers for Soriano. He’s not appreciably better, at age 31, than Ryan Klesko was at age 31.
November 9, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Just for kicks, here are career OPS+ for Klesko and Soriano through age 31:
Klesko: 134
Soriano: 115
Klesko had a higher OPS+ in each of his first three seasons with the Padres than Soriano had last year.
November 9, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Rack that up as another fine trade for KT.
November 9, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Also just to put it in play, I read over at ESPN that Soriano’s agent said that he needs a minimum of a 6 year deal — not 5. Agent-speak or real? If real, teams have to be really careful, or they end up with a Klesko situation.
November 9, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Gary Sheffield is an asset.
Gary Sheffield is an asset.
Gary Sheffield is an asset.
Gary Sheffield is a…..nnnoooooooooooooooooo!!!!