Webb Deservedly Wins Cy Young Award
Wed, Nov 15, 2006
by Geoff Young
I know I’m supposed to toe the party line and support my guy, but I’d rather see the writers get it right. I love Trevor Hoffman, and being at Petco Park when he broke Lee Smith’s all-time saves record is not something I’ll soon forget, but there’s no way he belonged in a serious discussion about the National League Cy Young Award this year, despite some assertions to the contrary.
The BBWAA ended up giving Hoffman plenty of support — maybe as acknowledgment of a great career that has been overlooked by too many for too long — but ultimately made the right choice in picking Brandon Webb. The last way I wanted to spend this winter is defending a Hoffman Cy Young Award with some lame comeback like, “Yeah, that’s baseball for you.”
Acknowledging that Bill James’ win shares aren’t a substitute for actual analysis, they do provide a pretty solid indication of a player’s value. Here’s how this year’s Cy Young candidates measure up:
| Player | 1st-place votes | Points | Pitching win shares (Rank) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brandon Webb | 15 | 103 | 23.2 (2nd) |
| Trevor Hoffman | 12 | 77 | 11.0 (32nd) |
| Chris Carpenter | 2 | 63 | 21.8 (4th) |
| Roy Oswalt | 3 | 31 | 22.0 (3rd) |
| Carlos Zambrano | – | 6 | 19.2 (7th) |
| Billy Wagner | – | 4 | 12.3 (25th) |
| John Smoltz | – | 3 | 19.4 (6th) |
| Takashi Saito | – | 1 | 14.4 (13th) |
| Source: Voting via ESPN; win shares via Hardball Times. | |||
As reader Kevin notes in the comments, the guy who merited serious consideration but received none is Cincinnati’s Bronson Arroyo, who actually led the NL in pitching win shares. Dude had a fantastic season in a very difficult environment and he ends up getting zero votes.
As for Hoffman, I’ll take him as my team’s closer any day of the week, but he wasn’t anywhere near the best pitcher in the NL in 2006. For as much of a Padres and Hoffman fan as I am, I’d rather see the voters get it right than have my guy take an award from someone more deserving of it.
Love the blog? Buy the book!
The Ducksnorts 2009 Baseball Annual provides the most comprehensive analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres available anywhere... featuring a foreword by Padres Executive Vice President Paul DePodesta.
November 15, 2006 at 8:04 am
Nick Canepa. Every day he must wake up and think to himself, “Really, I can write anything I want and the checks will still keep rolling in.” He puts as much thought into his columns as a dog deciding where to drop a load.
Hoffman has to pitch 1 inning in games which the Padres are already very likely to win. Any of the SP candidates start with a blank slate and are usually responsible for at least 2/3 of their team’s innings. And Webb obviously can’t be that good because he didn’t inspire his offense to score more runs or his bullpen to preserve more leads, and everyone knows that inspiration of your teammates is the true measure of a pitcher.
November 15, 2006 at 8:23 am
Anybody else lisen to XX in the morning? I normally don’t, but Towers was on this morning and said that the Padres will be announcing a trade this morning where they send a position player and a relief pitcher who has been “up and down” this year to another team for a pitcher. They pressed him later and he said the guy that we are acquiring has SDSU ties and is a relief pitcher as well….
Royce Ring? Maybe as part of a package that also includes Oliver Perez?
November 15, 2006 at 8:37 am
Pitcher who has been up and down, Thompson? Cassidy? Sweeney?
November 15, 2006 at 8:41 am
The pads aquiering a relife pitcher Via trade tells me that linebrink will not be in a padre uni nexxt year.
November 15, 2006 at 8:44 am
Those were the three that I thought of as well. I’m not sure that Royce Ring is a guy that I’m pursuing all that hard though…He did have more than a K/9 in AAA last year, but he also walked 15 in 39 innings. Decent velocity for a left-hander. Maybe he’s worth a flyer. I do trust KT on relievers, so if he says he’s worth something I’ll buy it. Maybe Ring is insurance in case Embree doesn’t sign.
In other news…Who do you all want to see as a bench coach for Black?
November 15, 2006 at 8:48 am
#2: Linebrink is probably staying, says a Krasovic item in U-T.
November 15, 2006 at 8:49 am
Oops, that shoulda been in response to #4.
November 15, 2006 at 8:49 am
3.
Maybe I didn’t hear it right but Scott and BR were the ones saying SDSU. I am pretty sure the only thing I heard KT say was ‘San Diego ties” which makes it a little more open than just SDSU. Like I said maybe I heard it wrong or maybe I am trying to think outside of the “Royce Ring” box in hopes that it’s someone else.
November 15, 2006 at 8:50 am
Re: #6 KT saying linebrink is staying telss me that he is going, KT is just trying to bump up the price.
November 15, 2006 at 8:51 am
The great Kenny R.: The Mets added another outfielder to their left-field mix Wednesday, acquiring Ben Johnson and right-hander Jon Adkins from the Padres for right-hander Heath Bell and left-hander Royce Ring, FOXSports.com has learned.
November 15, 2006 at 8:53 am
Well the likes of Justin Speier possibly earning double or more Linebrink’s salary in 07 would seem to increase SL’s value.
November 15, 2006 at 8:57 am
I think that UT article about Linebrink is probably true. KT said something along the lines of… Someone is going to have overpay for Linebrink or he’s not going anywhere because of the weak relief market. He might be trying to buck up the trade value a little but I think for the most part that’s probably accurate. He could have made a ton of trades last year for Linebrink and didn’t and with there not being a ton of good relievers out there I can’t see him changing his mind especially when Linebrink is not killing the payroll and still gives you really good production.
November 15, 2006 at 8:59 am
Re: #12 I think someone will overpay for linebrink for the reasons you just mentioned. I have a feeling that the apds will make a big trade this year and linkbrink will be involved.
November 15, 2006 at 9:04 am
Re #10, wow the pads have sent thier two best OF prospects to the mets in as many years. Maybe they feel bad for stealing bay from them?
November 15, 2006 at 9:07 am
If we are getting back Bell and Ring, I’m pretty stoked about our bullpen next year. It really seems like this deal gives us the opportunity to trade Linebrink.
It’s become increasingly clear that the Padres were not going to give Johnson a chance to start this year. Turning him into one quality 7th inning guy (Bell) and a possible lefty in the bullpen doesn’t seem like a terrible return, especially if it allows us to deal Linebrink for 2B/LF help.
November 15, 2006 at 9:13 am
I like the deal as well I just thought it was odd that our top two OF prospects have been delt to the mets in consecutive years.
November 15, 2006 at 9:14 am
Foxsports.com is the only site reporting the deal.
November 15, 2006 at 9:25 am
Si.com has it too - Johnson and Adkins for Ring and Bell
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....index.html
I am also wondering if this frees up Linebrink, or simply stocks, once again, our pen for next year. Could be that in looking at the SP crop and the prices they will command, KT is saying “I’ll stand pat with the SP’s I have and really load my bullpen”.
November 15, 2006 at 9:25 am
Towers already tipped off the trade on XX.
November 15, 2006 at 9:31 am
13.
I wouldn’t bet against you at all on that because I definitely think KT is dangling Linebrink out there, I just buy KT’s comment that Linebrink isn’t going anywhere without them overpaying.
November 15, 2006 at 9:35 am
Oh, I think KT is DEFINITELY dangling Linebrink, but w/ the market doing what it’s doing combined w/ Linebrink’s salary ($1.75m) his value is very high and KT is telling suitors that he won’t trade Linebrink for just anything…
November 15, 2006 at 9:36 am
GY & Kevin,
Nice analysis on Webb v Hoffman v Arroyo. One other confirming note: by WARP1, Arroyo again edges Webb: 9.1 to 9.0, with Hoffy at 5.7.
We all love Hoffy, he’ll deservedly be a HOF-er, but he ain’t the Cy Young this year, and he wasn’t in ‘98.
Scholfield, a la Canepa, made an ass of himself on this in this morning’s NC Times, too:
http://www.nctimes.com/article....._15_06.txt
November 15, 2006 at 9:49 am
Tell me if you think im crazy but could this all be setting up an A-rod to SD deal?
The Yanks were looking at a Sheffield for Kouzmanoff deal.
The Yanks have shown alot of intrest in Linebrink, and where one of the teams bidding for Giles last off season.
Is a Linbrink, Kouzmanoff, Giles for A-rod and cash deal that far fetched?
November 15, 2006 at 9:57 am
Steve I think the Bombers and Padres match quite nicely as trading partners, and I think the influx of RP helps in that. But I think it is more likely that we’d see a Peavy-Linebrink for A-Rod+cash deal w/ Kouzy moving to LF…
***
Changing directions, Mussina re-inks w/ the Yanks for 2/$22.5m according to ESPN
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=2662633
…that’s a serious value-deal for the Yankees. Mussina is still solid.
November 15, 2006 at 10:00 am
Re: 24 yeah your probably right I just dont want to give up Peavy.
November 15, 2006 at 10:04 am
I don’t know how Win Shares are calc’d, but any statistic that gives you Bronson Arroyo as the best NL pitcher needs to be re-evaluated. He may have been the best pitcher on a mediocre team…maybe that gives him credit for a large % of Cincy’s wins…so name him team MVP and move on.
I don’t know if you were actually advocating that Arroyo should have won Cy Young or not, but his lead in that stat makes the stat pretty irrelevant to the Cy Young discussion, IMHO.
November 15, 2006 at 10:06 am
Re: 23–
I don’t see the Yankees looking for Giles at all. I think that they’ve about cornered the market on high salary OF. I agree with Peter that a deal for A-Rod is going to cost us either Peavy or Young. And it should, right? I mean, we’d be getting one of the top-5 players in the game. It’s supposed to cost something. A Young-Linebrink-Kouzmanoff for A-Rod and cash seems about right.
November 15, 2006 at 10:17 am
Paul and I have often discussed the TB system w/ regards to potential Padre trades…
BA released the TB top 10 today:
http://www.baseballamerica.com.....62834.html
1. Delmon Young, of
2. Evan Longoria, 3b
3. Reid Brignac, ss
4. Jeff Niemann, rhp
5. Jacob McGee, lhp
6. Elijah Dukes, of
7. Wade Davis, rhp
8. Matt Walker, rhp
9. Jeremy Hellickson, rhp
10. Joel Guzman, of/1b/3b
And they also project a 2010 lineup:
Catcher Dioner Navarro
First Base Joel Guzman
Second Base Jorge Cantu
Third Base Evan Longoria
Shortstop Reid Brignac
Left Field Carl Crawford
Center Field Rocco Baldelli
Right Field Delmon Young
Designated Hitter B.J. Upton
No. 1 Starter Scott Kazmir
No. 2 Starter Jeff Niemann
No. 3 Starter Jacob McGee
No. 4 Starter Wade Davis
No. 5 Starter Matt Walker
Closer Juan Salas
That doesn’t take Iwamura into account and it assumes that Dukes and Gomes are gone. Dukes’ value is low right now b/c of his off-the-field stuff but hit .293/.401/.488 in AAA and Gomes’ value is low b/c he struggled in ‘06 (.216/.325/.431).
November 15, 2006 at 10:23 am
Wow…what an amazing looking top-10. One thing missing there is relief help. I don’t think that I’d trade Linebrink for Dukes even-up, but I’d love to have him be part of a deal that we made with TB. I’d still love to see Baldelli come this way in a trade, even if it cost us Linebrink and prospects. Upton would be an interesting pick up for the Padres as well. I’d love to drop him in as our leadoff hitter and leftfielder next year.
November 15, 2006 at 11:07 am
#26: No, my vote would have gone to Webb. Point about Arroyo is that he had a much better season than I think most folks (myself included) realized and deserved serious consideration. I also don’t hold him accountable for Cincinnati’s mediocrity, any more than I would’ve held, say, Steve Carlton responsible for the Phillies’ ineptness in 1972. The fact that the Reds weren’t very good this year shouldn’t have a bearing on Arroyo’s Cy Young worthiness, IMHO.
November 15, 2006 at 11:13 am
Does the trade on BenJo solidify Termmel Sledge as at least the No. 4 outfielder?
November 15, 2006 at 11:29 am
re: 26
“[Arroyo's] lead in that stat makes the stat pretty irrelevant to the Cy Young discussion, IMHO.”
Really. That’s insane. Win shares are a valuble way to evaluate the best players and pitchers, some say the best way. It has nothing to do with what team a player plays for or how many games that team won. Some people just take the name of the stat — Win Shares — too literally. It also adjusts for park factors.
Arroyo had a 3.29 ERA in 240.2 innings pitching half the time in Cincinnati, the toughest pitchers park in the majors.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
Webb had a 3.10 ERA in 235 innings pitching half the time in Arizona, the fourth toughest pitchers park in the majors.
Carpenter had a 3.09 ERA in 221.2 innings pitching half the time in St. Louis, 20th on the list.
If you think that Webb is considerably better than Arroyo, or even better at all, then you either think that a 0.19 difference in ERA is very significant AND you think there is no such thing as park factors.
In either case, you would be wrong.
November 15, 2006 at 11:43 am
I would have liked to see some consideration for Arroyo’s staffmate, Aaron Harang (but maybe I just really like Harang, with his SD connections and all). Harang had much better peripherals than Arroyo and got hurt by a ridiculous .326 BABIP (compared to .274 for Arroyo with similar batted ball distributions and the same defense). Harang had better K/9, BB/9, and HR/9 numbers than Arroyo.
I like the trade with the Mets if we turn around and trade Linebrink for a good second baseman or left fielder (aka Marcus Giles). If this doesn’t happen, it looks like we just unnecessarily traded away a good fourth outfielder (at the least) to add two bullpen arms that will pitch in low leverage situations.
November 15, 2006 at 11:53 am
From BA’s Tampa chat:
Q: Mark from The D asks:
How likely is a CrawfordBaldelli for Pitching trade? It seems like they could trade 2-3 of their top hitting prospects and still have an OF or two rotting in Durham.
A: Bill Ballew: If I were the Rays, I would be cautious about dealing a Crawford or Baldelli unless the return included some immediate help at the major league level. Standout minor leaguers can show promise, but there are only so many true big league performers, and both Crawford and Baldelli fit that description. Yes, there is a lot of depth in the organization, but if someone wants to take Dukes off my hands, I’ll find a way to make the deal.
“…If someone wants to take Dukes off my hands, I’ll find a way to make the deal.”
Granted he’s talking in 1st person as if he was a member of the D’Rays org… The D’Rays may not have the same opinion, but they clearly have a numbers problem and need bullpen help. I would do Linebrink for Dukes; maybe even straight-up.
November 15, 2006 at 11:55 am
Webb wasn’t Sandy Koufax, but he was lights-out dominant for a stretch, and just had the one blow up game at the end (courtesy of our Padres) that inflated his final ERA. I would not defend Webb as CY against pretty much any other CY winner in history really.
Park factors are great but they’re not exact. Pitching in Cincy and pitching in AZ are, for all intents and purposes, the same degree of difficulty. There’s enough room for error in a one-year view of those factors that the difference between 1st and 4th isn’t material.
Plus, Arroyo gave up 2x the HRs in a park that gives up less than Chase Field.
November 15, 2006 at 11:57 am
Ben B.
Ring has some negative stigma because he was a 1st round pick who hasn’t become an All-Star and was selected in front of Switzer… That said his numbers say he should be solid in relief. Future closer? Probably not, but he did it effectively in college.
November 15, 2006 at 12:05 pm
The nice thing about Ring is that he is as effective against LHB as Meredith is against RHB.
That’s certainly a useful guy to have, especially when he is under your control for the next 5 years.
November 15, 2006 at 12:05 pm
33.
KT said no to a Linebrink for the non-orange Giles.
I think he was right. We can get a comparable player to Giles on the FA market while Linebrink’s value has probably never been higher. Linebrink’s value could be used much more effectively at getting a hitter rather than filling the 2nd base hole. I am actually really pleased with the way the off-season is going so far. It was pretty obvious Ben Johnson was going to be a 5th outfielder and even though I liked him a lot and thought he showed a lot of potential I think it was a really good move especially with Termel Sledge still sitting there as the 4th outfielder.
November 15, 2006 at 12:10 pm
26: The fact that a stat disagrees with your perceptions in most cases does more to render your opinion irrelevant than it does the stat in question.
November 15, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Mark DeRosa gets 3 yr, 13 million from the Cubbies. That is a BAD contract.
November 15, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I bet Dukes can be had a lot cheaper than Linebrink, and he’s a very interesting young player. Strong, although it hasn’t turned into HR, good defender, good plate discipline, good speed.
I wonder if they’d take Stauffer for him. They’ve done everything but change the combination on his locker after his last discipline problem.
November 15, 2006 at 12:13 pm
One thing I’ve never understood on Park Factors, and seeing Kaufman stadium sitting in the top 5 for hardest parks for pitchers made me think of this…how do you control for the quality of pitching staffs vs the park’s inherent advantages/disadvantages.
The Royals had a terrible pitching staff, top to bottom, and they were involved in half the innings pitched in every game at Kaufman. Going to games at Kaufman, I can’t say I see it as a bandbox like GABP or featuring quirky environmental factors like Coors. So, to what extent is KC’s park factor influenced by the fact they had a joke for a pitching staff?
November 15, 2006 at 12:14 pm
“Figgins, who last season had run-ins with teammates and Manager Mike Scioscia, who questioned his effort, also could be traded for bullpen help. A straight-up swap with the San Diego Padres — Figgins for reliever Scott Linebrink — is possible.”
http://www.latimes.com/sports/.....-pe-sports
November 15, 2006 at 12:14 pm
38: I agree with the idea of Liney’s value being higher than that of Giles. I was in favor of dealing them straight up, but the more I look at the available relievers and the contract values that are being tossed around, the more I think Linebrink’s worth a hell of a lot.
November 15, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Park factors are figured by how you do at home vs. on the road and how your opponents do at your house compared to how they do elsewhere…
November 15, 2006 at 12:17 pm
42: Park Index: 100*(Home)/(Road)
Adjusted Park Index: (Park Index)/((Park Index/100+16-1)/16)
Park Factor: ((Park Index/100+1)/2)/((Park Index/100+16-1)/16)
The quality of the team doesn’t come into play.
November 15, 2006 at 12:17 pm
45: Yeah, or I could have just said that.
November 15, 2006 at 12:19 pm
44.
I agree with you. I was talking about the non orange Giles that plays for Atlanta not bright orange Giles that is in right field for us. I think when it’s all said and done we might all be pleasantly surprised with the kind return we get on a Linebrink trade.
I also agree with Waits that we could probably get Dukes for a lot less and Stauffer might not be a bad place to start.
November 15, 2006 at 12:19 pm
43: Linebrink for a bench player? No thank you.
November 15, 2006 at 12:20 pm
48: Yeah, I know you were (or thought you were, at least).
Dukes for Stauffer would probably be a good deal (off the top of my head anyway).
November 15, 2006 at 12:22 pm
How old is Dukes? He had an MLE of .257/.349/.415 last year.
November 15, 2006 at 12:22 pm
I would gladly trade Stauffer and his .402/.461/.606 MLE allowed.
November 15, 2006 at 12:23 pm
I’d definitely take Figgins straight up for Linebrink, but then I’m not very high on Liney going forward.
Another metric re: the NL Cy Young…
SNVLAR (essentially, wins above replacement level):
Oswalt 7.7
Smoltz 7.5
Arroyo 7.3
Carpenter 7.3
Webb 7.2
Big drop off after those five.
WXRL (which is the equivalent for relievers):
Hoffman 6.0, 1st among NL relievers, edging out Billy Wagner
So Arroyo by several measures (Win Shares, WARP, SNVLAR)definitely deserved consideration.
November 15, 2006 at 12:23 pm
re: 39
Richard, here’s how I view it, and I analyze #s (no, not Bill James #s) for a living and do it quite well:
No matter how well constructed and well thought out a statsitic or piece of analysis is, if it doesn’t fit into an observable reality, or present a scenario that can be rationally explained, it isn’t useful. A stat that shows Arroyo to be the best pitcher in the national league…maybe it’s just a quirk of this season, but either way you have to throw it out. He’s not chopped liver, but he’s far from elite.
And, by the way, maybe it’s not intentional, but please drop the superior tone in your comments - it’s not helpful to the discussion…I am presenting opposing viewpoints and you’re acting like they don’t deserve merit or consideration (and you did the same thing when I was sharing my views on Brian Giles). This is supposed to be a friendly atmosphere…
November 15, 2006 at 12:25 pm
re: 40
It depends on how you look at it. What if you’re DeRosa?
November 15, 2006 at 12:26 pm
54: The stat doesn’t claim to show his true talent level. It shows his actual production level.
I apologize for the perceived superior tone. I’ll try to watch it. Although I’d caution you against the same.
November 15, 2006 at 12:27 pm
55: Well, it’s a fine contract for DeRosa.
November 15, 2006 at 12:28 pm
56 - done and done
November 15, 2006 at 12:32 pm
More than $4 million a year for DeRosa is probably too much but he seems like one of those guys that you just want on your team because he’s a player. If you need a 3rd baseman, outfielder, 2nd baseman he’ll do it and he’ll do a decent job. He’ll will probably hit around 20 HR’s a year in Wrigley so it doesn’t jump out at me as being horrible. If we signed him for that I’d probably be a little pissed but for the Cubs who have money it sounds like an okay price to pay for a decent player that will give you some insurance at a few different positions.
November 15, 2006 at 12:32 pm
58: Cool. Getting back to the CYA. Is it your opinion that the CYA should go to “the best” pitcher rather than the pitcher who had “the best season?” Or are you arguing that it should go to the pitcher who had the best season among those pitchers who have previously had great seasons?
November 15, 2006 at 12:33 pm
re: 54
Uh, yeah. In post 26, you said that you don’t know anything about Win Shares, then proceded to say they are stupid because you don’t perceive Arroyo as a great pitcher. How does he not fit into a perceived reality? His ERA was 0.19 higher than Webb. It’s not like I said I was the best pitcher in the league.
When you post something like that, it also has a poor tone, and is not constructive.
November 15, 2006 at 12:34 pm
MLE’s are cool, but Dukes only played 80 games and had 283 ABs…
He hit .293/.401/.488 with 15 2B, 5 3B, and 10 HR with a 44/47 BB/SO ratio…
I know MLE’s are interesting, but I think Dukes (22 years old) would do better than .257/.349/.415 but he’d also cost more than Stauffer…
November 15, 2006 at 12:41 pm
60 - best season. I think Arroyo had a good season, not the best. I disagree with win shares if they show his season as the best.
61 - My point, perhaps not well stated, is that Webb had, in my opinion, a clearly better year. I say “clearly” with a purpose - I don’t really believe it’s close. Their parks are essentially the same, and Webb’s ERA was lower even after that last game. He gave up 1/2 the homeruns compared to Arroyo, and was completely dominant for a stretch. If your club had to face one or the other, I believe every major league manager would opt to face Arroyo. Plus Webb won more often (and I know that’s really dependent on the team and bullpen, but are Cincy and AZ really that different?). Therefore, a stat like Win Shares, even not knowing the calculation, can be ignored in my opinion because Arroyo should not be in the conversation. Again, my opinion, not my statement of what the truth has to be.
November 15, 2006 at 12:42 pm
62: I don’t know, Peter. .257/.349/.415 out of a 22 y/o is pretty impressive. I’d expect him to improve, too. I also think he’d cost more than Stauffer (I was merely responding to someone else’s earlier comment in that regard). MLEs aren’t supposed to predict future performance. Rather they tell you what his past performance looks like when translated for park & league difficulty. So, I’m curious what the “but” was for.
November 15, 2006 at 12:45 pm
63: The thing is, though, that Win Shares is based on the record of actual events and is not subjective in any way. The fact that it tells you that Arroyo had a year way out of line with his past performance tells you that he had a better year than was expected not that Win Shares (which I dislike, btw) are inherently wrong. He had more Win Shares than in past years, so it’s not like Win Shares is biased towards Arroyo and/or his style of pitching or something like that.
November 15, 2006 at 12:47 pm
63: It seems like you’re rejecting the idea that Arroyo was better in 2006 than he was in the past. I suppose that’s possible (that he was). However, his production was better than in years past and according to you, you’re ignoring past years, but that really doesn’t seem to line up with your arguments.
November 15, 2006 at 12:48 pm
The Rays have a glut of position players, they had one even before they won Iwamura’s rights. They’ve suspended Dukes twice. It might take more than Stauffer, but there’s no way we should give up our best trading piece for him.
I’d be interested in Gomes, too. Down year last year, but rakes when healthy.
November 15, 2006 at 12:49 pm
67: Gomes is really more of a DH, though.
November 15, 2006 at 12:51 pm
65, 66
He also switched leagues, which the other contenders did not do.
Now I’m confused however…is Win Shares a time series looking back, or a measure of this year? Maybe I’m just too unfamiliar with it. Since you were using it to justify an Arroyo-for-CY argument (or at least an Arroyo-for-CY consideration argument), I assumed it was only about this year. If it’s about this year vs last year, then I have to agree that he probably showed the most YoY improvement….but again he had the benefit of switching to the weaker overall league.
November 15, 2006 at 12:54 pm
BP’s rate stats have Gomes as an average LF, better than average RF. Tiny sample, the Rays obviously didn’t think much of him, but I’d still look at him even if not as a starter. Him and Branyan on the bench to handle PH duties from opposite sides of the plate.
The Rays are supposedly easier to deal with after the ownership change. I don’t know if Stauffer or Wells have any value left. I wouldn’t move Linebrink for a Ray not named Crawford, though. And he’s not going to get Crawford.
November 15, 2006 at 12:56 pm
69: It’s only for this year. My point was that I think you’re remembering Arroyo’s past performance which wasn’t in line with this year’s and disregarding the system because of that.
November 15, 2006 at 12:58 pm
69:
Win Shares is about only one season.
November 15, 2006 at 12:59 pm
70: Hmm… I wonder what UZR says about Gomes…
November 15, 2006 at 12:59 pm
69: Switching leagues works both ways. NL hitters hadn’t seen him, but he hadn’t seen them, either. The Reds had a terrible defense, too. The support-neutral and win shares are supposed to account for that, but I can see Arroyo having to work harder to put up those numbers than the other contenders.
It could have gone to any of 5 guys and I’d have been okay with it. Hoffy wasn’t one of them, but I’d still have been happy for him.
November 15, 2006 at 1:00 pm
The reason Arroyo “got” so much better is because he went to an easier league.
November 15, 2006 at 1:04 pm
75: That’s a big part of it.
November 15, 2006 at 1:05 pm
“but” = non-edited post
I’m a big Elijah Duke fan, I think if he’s around guys who are better characters, he would mature. But in a crappy org, I would imagine it’s easy to sour.
November 15, 2006 at 1:16 pm
71: Ok, now I understand where you were coming from - you thought maybe I was letting past years bias my opinion. I am not, at least not consciously. I saw him pitch 4 or 5 times this season (on TV, not in person), and was never that impressed, whereas with Webb I felt like I was watching a really top-notch pitcher.
I still believe, if you polled all managers and GMs and gave them a choice of facing Webb or Arroyo, they would rather face Arroyo every time. Webb was inconsistent you can say, but so was Arroyo. Bottom line is none of these guys really deserve a CYA.
My problem probably boils down to there not being any stellar candidates. In a normal year I don’t think any of these guys would finish near the top.
November 15, 2006 at 1:22 pm
78: I’d also rather face Arroyo than Webb. I think Webb is a better pitcher. That said, I think Arroyo’s production this year was superior to that of Webb. The more I think about it, the more I think Oswalt should have won, but Webb is a defensible choice.
As for the lack of stellar candidates, four guys had an SNLVAR higher in ‘05 than Oswalt (NL leader in ‘06) had this year.
November 15, 2006 at 1:29 pm
79 - so maybe Arroyo is the “Little Engine that Could” this year. If Webb had kept up a similar pace compared to when he had the 30 scoreless innings in a row, this would have been a slam dunk.
Need to start poaching some of that AL talent, get some quality depth back to the NL, quit wasting it in a league with made up rules like the DH.
November 15, 2006 at 1:31 pm
79: Yeah, if Webb had pitched better, he’d be a more obvious candidate.
Agreed on that AL talent and that horrendous DH rule.
November 15, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Ken Rosenthal on Pat Burrell: “Phillies left fielder Pat Burrell has informed the club that he would accept a trade only to the Yankees, Red Sox or a west-coast club, according to a source with knowledge of his thinking. The Phillies badly want to move Burrell, who has a complete no-trade clause. They also would be willing to trade center fielder Aaron Rowand for a quality reliever. …”
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6174052
That is definitely good to hear.
November 15, 2006 at 1:55 pm
How good is Burrell’s range? Petco has big wide-open spaces to cover…just wondering how he’d cope. Having Cameron in CF certainly helps, but my mental image of PB is a big slow guy. Not sure whether that’s true or not.
November 15, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Pretty sure the reason Gomes was a DH most of the year was due to shoulder issues.
November 15, 2006 at 2:01 pm
83: He supposedly has better than average range.
November 15, 2006 at 2:01 pm
84: Are these shoulder issues no longer… issues?
November 15, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Arroyo v. Webb is an interesting comparison. I was prepared to come down on the Webb side for similar reasons as Clayton noted, he just doesn’t look impressive. Skinny kid with a big leg kick, doesn’t throw hard and has that frisbee breaking ball. Webb is big and ugly and imposing and throws that nasty power sinker. But then I looked at the stats and they’re remarkably similar. I think that’s why Webb beat Carpenter as well, Webb just looks more effective.
As for Trevor, I love the guy but all the complaining on 1090 is out of hand. How can a guy be the most valuable/effective/whatever pitcher when he only pitched 60 innings? The same people would complain if Peavy had Webb’s stats and Billy Wagner won the CYA. Personally, I’d like them to redefine the CYA so it only applies to starting pitchers and the MVP to cover position players so we can stop hearing all the whining. And while we’re at it, define Valuable as “most productive” so voters will stop ignoring guys on bad teams.
November 15, 2006 at 2:08 pm
80 & 81: Nowhere in your incoherent ramblings have you even come close to anything resembling a point. We are all now dumber for having read this string of posts. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul…..
(Billy Madison)
November 15, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Anyone else find it at least borderline amusing that we traded for Ring & Bell?
November 15, 2006 at 2:10 pm
88: Great movie…
November 15, 2006 at 2:12 pm
My first / gut reaction to the Adkins/Johnson for Ring/Bell trade = VERY POSITIVE for the Padres … I’ve had my prospect-eye on both Ring and Bell for a couple of years now … and while I liked Adkins and Johnson, they both seem likely to be at “peak value” right now … ie. sure hope Johnson doesn’t go “Bay” on us …
Richard & Clayton … I appreciate your comments and your conversation … THANKS! I’m a *huge* Bill James fan from the early-80’s … I bought the WS book but haven’t read it yet (let alone studied it) … but if it’s good enough for BJ, it’s good enough for me … and if it says Arroyo was top-tier in NL for 2006, then that’d carry some weight with me if I were a CYA voter. I’m a roto-player, and I distinctly remember being frustrated by his performance this past season for a competitor in my roto league, and waiting and waiting and expecting and expecting him to “come back down to earth” … and wishing I’d have had the foresight to acquire him for my team … note: Jeff Johnson on the Marlins was another guy like that …
November 15, 2006 at 2:14 pm
91: I thought his name was Josh.
November 15, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Keith lays down the Law on the trade (boy, am I clever): Nothing surprising. Calls Johnson the best player of the four. None of the three pitchers grade out particulary well, though one of the two coming back is pretty tough on lefties. I forgot who.
November 15, 2006 at 2:22 pm
re: 92 … yup, that’s the guy! http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7669 … you can’t get more “underrated” than having a blogger not know your first name! He finished 2006 at 12-7, 3.10, 1.30 in 157 IP … nice season!
November 15, 2006 at 2:22 pm
89: I was at least amused to get an email with the subject “Padres acquire Bell and Ring from Mets.” Sounded like a scavenger hunt in a really old computer game… ^_^
November 15, 2006 at 2:22 pm
93: Ring.
November 15, 2006 at 2:25 pm
More wild rumors: Boston is interested in Linebrink. I think the only (realistic) interesting name in Boston for us is Wily Mo Pena.
http://www.boston.com/sports/b.....ivity.html
November 15, 2006 at 2:27 pm
97: And what an interesting name that is.
November 15, 2006 at 2:36 pm
97 - I like the “Not Cla Meredith” tag at the end of that post. Sounds like some bitterness there, and I love it.
What was the story w/ WMP in Boston? He was hurt for a while right? Was he an unhappy camper anyway? I don’t follow much that goes on in the AL, I just recall that they were disappointed in him.
November 15, 2006 at 2:38 pm
97: Yes indeed. Is his first name pronounced like the normal “Willy” or like the attribute “wily”? Is the “Mo” part of his last name, or just a middle name that he likes to be called by? The last name is pretty boring, I guess, but it still manages to have a tilde.
After some preliminary research (aka checking wikipedia), I have determined that the “Mo” is actually short for Modesto. As such it appears to be a middle name.
November 15, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Oops, that was directed to 98 in 100.
November 15, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Unrelated, but hilarious (to me):
“KANSAS CITY (-10) over Oakland
Andrew Walter on the road, doo dah, doo dah, Andrew Walter on the road, I’ll take the points.”
November 15, 2006 at 2:50 pm
If we can have a bit of license here… I would think it would be improved either by transposing “Mo’ Wily” or at least canning the abbreviation and calling him “Wily Modesto”
November 15, 2006 at 2:52 pm
How about Wil E. Coyote?
November 15, 2006 at 3:06 pm
So let’s get this straight. This team needs:
a catcher (fingers crossed for mike piazza)
a second baseman
a left fielder
and two pitchers to fill out the rotation.
And without Ben Johnson, there are very few in house options, the only ones being Bard, Carrillo, Stauffer, and Thompson. And those last three are big question marks.
It’s going to be a very interesting offseason.
November 15, 2006 at 3:09 pm
105: Bard is also a question mark.
November 15, 2006 at 3:10 pm
105 - I’d say Sledge qualifies as an “in-house option” for LF … and if push comes to shove, Branyan or K2 at 2B?
November 15, 2006 at 3:11 pm
106 … as in “how good might Bard be?” … I’m inclined to think he’s a good question mark … at worst …
November 15, 2006 at 3:12 pm
106
I’d agree.
November 15, 2006 at 3:12 pm
#107
Doesn’t Branyan have some experience in a corner outfield position? I would imagine he’d be a better defensive left fielder than Klesko was here.
November 15, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Well I should say I’d agree, but it doesn’t seem like anyone in the front office is too worried, so I didn’t initially count him as one.
November 15, 2006 at 3:16 pm
111: Just because they’re not saying he’s a question mark doesn’t mean they don’t think of him as one. They’re quite secretive.
November 15, 2006 at 3:25 pm
So, who would want to see Wily Pena in a Padre uniform next year?
I think I would. The guy will be 25 and he has crazy potential.
November 15, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Linebrink seems like quite a bit to give up for Pena (although maybe not, since last season the Red Sox traded the guy Richard says should have won the Cy Young for him). I’d want to also get a young arm back in that deal–or maybe Jed Lowrie (minor league 2B).
November 15, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Branyan and Pena would put up some massive whiff totals in a platoon in LF….they’d also hit at least 30 HR’s.
November 15, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Rosenthal is reporting that the Padres are thinking about Barry Bonds
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6176772
November 15, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Man…I don’t know about that. It would be tough to start rooting for Barry after all of these years of just despising him. There’s no doubt that he would be a massive improvement to the lineup, but…there’s a lot of baggage there.
November 15, 2006 at 4:02 pm
wow NO Bonds no way, I really hope that is not the big bat that they are talking about.
November 15, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I wouldn’t mind Willy Mo at all that guy has potential to be a !!! With that said I would be a little underwhelmed if that was the only player we got to be that “Big Bat” they have been talking about. It would be an amazing move if that Soriano at 2nd base rumor was true. But Willy Mo alone as the lone “Big Bat” move to me is extremely risky.
November 15, 2006 at 4:04 pm
118: Bonds IS a pretty big bat…
November 15, 2006 at 4:12 pm
We know that Towers has been salivating for a power LH bat; preferably a LF. Bonds is pretty much the prototype there. If he is the target, I really wish that we had kept Johnson to spell him and play defense in LF.
November 15, 2006 at 4:12 pm
121: Sledge is capable.
November 15, 2006 at 4:15 pm
122: I suppose…I’m not in love with his defense.
November 15, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Okay so which one of you guys is Darren Smith from XX radio? Everytime someone drops a link or brings up a name it seems like that dude is relaying it through the radio. Already twice with the Willy Mo thing and the Bonds thing today just minutes after each post he said the exact same things. Maybe it’s all common knowledge stuff but I’m just curious!
November 15, 2006 at 4:18 pm
124: Same sources (foxsports, espn, etc.)
November 15, 2006 at 4:18 pm
I think it just shows that Darren is getting his info from Ken Rosenthal on Fox Sports.
November 15, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Wily (rhymes with silly) Mo broke his hamate bone (wrist) during the season and missed a chunk of time as a result. More importantly, though, he’s a guy who was given a major league contract when he was drafted (by the Yankees) and thus ran out of options very quickly. This led to his sitting on the bench in the majors when he should have been learning to hit (well, K less) and to field (at all…) in the minors. I don’t know how he got to the Reds, but they traded him to the Red Sox in Spring Training for… Bronson Arroyo.
Wily Mo (never Wily Pena, BTW…) has hit some of the longest and sharpest HRs I’ve ever seen (including one at Fenway that very nearly killed a guy in the Monster seats; I can think of at least two more on the road that sparked discussion of whether anyone had ever hit the immovable objects in the parks that he hit). I’ve also seen him misjudge balls horrifically; Opening Day he dropped a long fly ball into the bullpen for a home run. Good arm if he can choose the right route to the ball; I’ve seen the same look on his face that I personally have in the outfield, and that’s not a good thing. He’s never been an “unhappy camper” but he’s going to have to learn to be a better fielder and ideally a more selective hitter on the job, and that’s an expensive proposition for a contending team.
Clayton, I wouldn’t say it’s bitterness you see in Cafardo’s column–just worth making sure explicitly that the Boston folks don’t think it’s a possibility. In 69 and perhaps elsewhere you note that Arroyo got to face a weaker league… let’s not forget in 99 that Cla got that same benefit too! ^_^ Best of all possible situations for young Mr. Meredith that he was traded when he was, and where, and I say that as a longtime fan of his.
November 15, 2006 at 4:19 pm
123: Fair enough. Still, it’s passable.
November 15, 2006 at 4:22 pm
127: Thanks for that. The guy does have awesome power…
November 15, 2006 at 4:26 pm
I don’t see how Barry Bonds is any different than Gary Sheffield, who some were excited about acquiring. Both steroid users, both absolutely awful for team chemistry, both aging and bad defenders, and both guys that can probably still really hit. That being said, Bonds would be extremely hard to stomach.
On the Darren Smith thing, I brought up Pena as pure speculation. I found a Boston newspaper article saying the Red Sox really liked Linebrink, and I guessed that Pena could be someone to target. But it does make sense for both sides.
November 15, 2006 at 4:40 pm
It’s not just today but I have noticed Darren talk about stuff that I have only seen on ducksnorts. I check pretty much every website all day long especially during this time of year and I just have a feeling that he is watching all the stuff we talk about because routinely he will bring up some things on the radio while there is a discussion going on here. Just an observation I had noticed but I suppose I could be wrong.
November 15, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Unrelated:
A poll on FoxSports.com asks “Which QB is the best?”
72% Rivers
17% Lesser Manning
11% Roethlisberger
November 15, 2006 at 4:51 pm
I e-mail Smith from time to time, including the Bonds thing today, but I’m hardly a Ducksnorts rep; I saw KR’s story, e-mailed him, then came here - where link was already posted - for REACTION. And he probably saw the Willy Mo thing in the Boston Globe item. I did tell him today that posters around here have been throwing around Pat Burrell.
November 15, 2006 at 5:05 pm
If Darren Smith Does check the blogs then he’s doing his job, he’s finding out what fans want to talk about.
November 15, 2006 at 5:28 pm
132: Hmm…why do those names seem related to me?
November 15, 2006 at 6:16 pm
132: I’d rank them Rivers, Big Ben and Eli. I know it’s only been 9 games, but Rivers looks terrific.
I’m a Steelers fan, so I love Ben — but he seems a little dopey sometimes (and I’m talking about ON the field, not when he’s driving a crotch rocket without a helmet).
I would say the Stillers got good first round value from Ben. I would take him with the 13th pick every single time.
RE: The trade today
I think it’s a solid move. I’ve seen Bell pitch a few times — he throws hard, and he’s got a nice swagger. Ring has been a top prospect ever since he was with the White Sox — I think he had a pretty decent year, and it’s always nice to get a competent lefty.
As far as giving up Johnson — that’s fine with me. I like Sledge a lot, I think he can really hit, and I know management was impressed with how he did at Portland this year. Adkins, I really don’t care about, I guess — seemed like a decent reliever, but I think Ring/Bell represents an upgrade.
November 15, 2006 at 6:20 pm
As far as Linebrink for Wily Mo . .. Pena is very raw. I would hope that the Pads could get more in that deal. You know, like maybe another 23 year old reliever as a throw-in.
I wonder how Linebrink would fare in Boston, though. I think Fenway might mess with his head a little.
November 15, 2006 at 6:27 pm
I think the Yankees’ bats might mess with his head a little.
November 15, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Bonds? Oh, crap. I don’t know how I’d feel about that. Bleh!
That and the JD Drew rumor . . . he’s another one. Yuck.
Isn’t there some Japanese LF we can bid on? Or how about we just bring up Cust and let him play?
November 15, 2006 at 6:57 pm
137/138: If 138 happens, second part of 137 will happen, trust me…
I don’t want Linebrink on the Red Sox, personally. A little ambivalent about Wily Mo for the Pads. He really is a tempting talent, and it’s possible that Petco’s outfield would be less of an obstacle for him than RF at Fenway, but from the Padres’ perspective I’d leave him as the Sox’ problem.
November 15, 2006 at 9:02 pm
I am guessing this deal today opens up the Linebrink for M Giles trade. So be it. I hope M Giles can rebound, and I hope one of the three relievers we’ve acquired can replace Liney. I’m not going to miss Johnson too much - he was a 4th outfielder at best, and Adkins wasn’t much of an asset. I really don’t want to see SD mess around with Wily Mo Pena, though - the man is a brutal outfielder and total hit or miss at the plate - he’s a two-true-outcomes player (HR or out) as opposed to Branyan, a 3TO player (HR, Out or Walk). I am intrigued to see how it all plays out though; my gut tells me Marcus Giles is coming next. I hope so; Pena is just a bad idea, I think.
November 15, 2006 at 9:04 pm
141: Out isn’t a true outcome. Strikeouts are, though.
Linebrink may actually be able to fetch more than Marcus Giles at this point.
November 15, 2006 at 9:05 pm
139: I’m pretty sure Cust is a FA right now; The Pads don’t have him on their 40-man roster. He’s one of those AAAA players you hear so much about - hits like a beast at 3A but doesn’t do much in the majors. He’s gotten a few shots to prove himself over the years and failed, and he really can’t play left (or first, or anywhere). He needs to go to Tampa Bay or KC and DH for a season to establish himself, but he’s pretty old for a prospect.
November 15, 2006 at 9:42 pm
If we can get more than M Giles for Linebrink, well and good, but let’s not forget M Giles is not chopped liver. Since he became the starter in Atlanta, going by WARP, he’s had two HOF years and two very productive years, despite some pretty significant injury and personal problems.
I’ve looked through the FA 2B’s out there, and there is no one who is comparable to M Giles available. There are definitely serviceable options out there, but no one with Giles’ upside. Does anyone know his contract status? mlbcontracts.blogspot shows him signing a one year deal for 2006 to avoid arbitration, but doesn’t say anything about next year.
November 15, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Giles is arb-eligible this season and will be a free agent after 2007.
November 15, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I hate to even post this rumor…
“Jerry Crasnick on Espn Radio has just reported that The Padres are close to Dealing both Peavy and Linebrink to Atlanta for Giles, Ramirez and Prospect Saltalamacchia.. He says JS and Kevein Towers arent done talking yet but we might see this happen the latest on friday.”
I don’t have a problem w/ Towers shopping Peavy & Linebrink, but this return is scandalous… The report HAS to be missing something, doesn’t it?
I don’t mind going after Salty & Giles, but Horacio Ramirez is a stiff…
http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/mb.....&ctx=0
November 15, 2006 at 10:17 pm
143: I agree Cust is bad decision for the Padres. But I like to argue, so I will point out that he’s never gotten his chance in the majors. He has 144 ABs in the majors in his career. His season high was 73, and in those 73 ABs, he hit .260/.357/.521. An AL team could do a lot worse for a cheap DH option with the potential to explode. Royals and Rays have too many options already, so maybe a team like the Twins, Mariners, Orioles, etc. I wonder why the Orioles didn’t hold on to him in the first place when he had those awesome 73 ABs for them.
November 15, 2006 at 10:23 pm
146: There’s absolutely no way they make that deal. Peavy alone is more valuable than that return.
November 15, 2006 at 10:24 pm
147: Cust definitely deserves a shot as a DH.
November 15, 2006 at 10:27 pm
148 - I agree BIGTIME, but Crasnik isn’t some hack spreading gossip just to sell a few local papers. He’s as connected as anybody not named “Gammons.”
I do think it’s likely we’re talking to Atlanta and that ‘Linebrink for Giles’ was expanded to include Peavy, and even that we’d want Salty, but Ramirez isn’t enough to conclude that deal…
I don’t know… I think we will all be on pins and needles until we find out more about this one.
November 15, 2006 at 10:38 pm
150: Is Crasnick really that great of a source on trades? If so, he has to be missing something…
November 15, 2006 at 10:43 pm
I agree with both of you. There is no possible way that we make that deal. Like Peter I believe that Peavy’s name came up in connection with Atlanta. I disagree with us being “close to a deal.”
November 15, 2006 at 10:48 pm
There is a good chance that the poster on the message board just got Crasnick’s report significantly wrong. For hope, remember the Mike Lowell for Jake Peavy rumors.
November 15, 2006 at 10:53 pm
153: Also, some of it could be wishful thinking.
November 15, 2006 at 10:54 pm
I just saw “The Departed.” It was better than Jake Peavy.
November 15, 2006 at 10:59 pm
NAPLES, Fla. — The Toronto Blue Jays are closing in on a deal with free agent designated hitter Frank Thomas, two sources at the general managers’ meetings told ESPN.com.
November 15, 2006 at 11:00 pm
I saw someone claiming a similar trade only Lerew instead of Ramirez.
155: I liked that movie. Saw it a week after it came out.
November 15, 2006 at 11:01 pm
156: That makes it more likely the A’s will get Bonds, I’d think.
November 15, 2006 at 11:03 pm
How about this:
Peavy & Linebrink
for
Marcus Giles
Salty
and Ramirez —> Manny Ramirez
w/ something going Boston’s way (obviously)…
It makes more sense than Horacio Ramirez.
November 15, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Yeah, I think the A’s have to be right there w/ the Giants as front-runners for Bonds’ services. He can DH & that should help his production…
November 15, 2006 at 11:05 pm
159: Still rather insane, but in a better way.
November 15, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Saltalamacchia is not a name I want to type on a regular basis… I say no to any trade involving him.
November 15, 2006 at 11:09 pm
How about, while we’re altering the trade, we throw in McCann instead of Salty? And the Departed was awesome.
November 15, 2006 at 11:11 pm
163: McCann’s pretty awesome.
November 15, 2006 at 11:12 pm
164: It’d still be a horrible trade…
November 15, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Plus it’s easy to type as long as you remember the extra C.
November 15, 2006 at 11:14 pm
I was thinking of putting him into the Manny Ramirez version.
November 15, 2006 at 11:14 pm
166: But you do have to capitalize the second c and that’s kind of a bitch.
November 15, 2006 at 11:14 pm
167: Oh, well that’s different.
November 15, 2006 at 11:19 pm
166: It really is a shame we had to go trade a nice phonetic name like Josh Barfield for someone like Kevin Kouzmanoff. Andrew Brown kind of makes up for it, though.
November 15, 2006 at 11:19 pm
This has to be the most active/potentially active offseason the padres have ever had….minus the ’90s fire sales
November 15, 2006 at 11:20 pm
170 - I don’t know, can’t you already picture the Saturday night Koozy give-aways?
November 15, 2006 at 11:22 pm
170: Andrew Brown makes up for it, I think.
171: Hopefully it will be.
172: I hope they do that.
November 16, 2006 at 12:59 am
Thanks Peter. That should have been obvious when I noticed he wasn’t an FA and he only signed a 1 year deal avoiding arbitration last year.
November 16, 2006 at 7:43 am
130 - to me, the reason Sheff and Bonds were different is that as Padre fans we are conditioned to hate Bonds, whereas w/ Sheff we had a positive experience that ended through no fault of either side (fans or Sheff…fault lay with old management). Plus, Sheff hates the Dodgers due to his messy divorce there, which would have been a plus for us b/c if there’s any player out there who can actually raise his production level based on a grudge, it’s Sheffield.
But you’re right, both are cheaters. Sheff at least has sort-of come clean (though his “I didn’t know what was in the cream” defense is pretty weak), whereas Bonds is still an a-hole.
November 16, 2006 at 8:01 am
Updates from U-T this morning
“Tony Muser has been notified he will not be returning for a fifth season as the Padres’ bench coach. “What a strange series of events the last couple of months produced,” said the former Kansas City manager who helped Bruce Bochy with tactics since 2003. “It was a great ride, and I had fun. Buddy Black (the Padres’ new manager) needs to have a couple of his own people on the staff. The only tough thing is that the timing was not good. Most major league slots are filled.” ”
That does suck for Muser…shouldn’t the team have known as soon as Bochy was let go that Muser would not be back? I guess there is no advantage for the team to letting him go before they had to, but that’s a tough break for a good guy. I am not, however, sad to see him go.
“The Padres will put in a transfer bid Monday for left-handed starting pitcher Kei Igawa of Japan’s Hanshin team. ”
Any thoughts on how competitive this will be? I’m imagining it will be tougher than Iwamura, given that he’s a lefty starter…but obviously nothing like the D-Mat circus.
” A Padres official last night denied rumors that the Padres would be interested in Giants free agent Barry Bonds.”
Hallelujah! Hope this is true. I know BB is a LH’er and a LF’er and basically the biggest bat around, but I’d rather lose the division than add him to the Padres. There is a limit to what I can stomach to win!
November 16, 2006 at 8:26 am
Did anyone listen to Ted Leitner and Scott and BR this morning? I missed most of the Bonds conversation but they were talking about a “denial of a denial” and as if the Bonds speculation seems legit as far as speculation goes.
November 16, 2006 at 9:12 am
Does it seem strange to anyone else that our park is tailored to suppress Bonds and now we’re trying to sign him?
November 16, 2006 at 9:52 am
It seems strange to me that we’re trying to sign him, period. The park set up being one factor among many such as him representing all that is evil in the world.
November 16, 2006 at 9:57 am
#159
I actually wouldn’t be opposed to that trade (Peavy and Linebrink for Salty, Giles and Manny). But I think we’d have to be in line for a FA starter first before we give up our most-prized position player (Peavy). How about Peavy for ARod and Farnsworth, then flipping Farnsworth and a McAnulty-type for M Giles. I know it’s unlikely, but it would be a better deal from the Pads end.
#147
Shouldn’t the fact the Orioles didn’t hang on to him (Jack Cust) after those “awesome” 73 ABs speak volumes? He struck out a third of the time that season, and in his 144 career ABs has K’d 60 times. Extrapolate that out to a full, 500 AB season and that’s 200 strikeouts, which is probably not going to be offset by the 60 or so walks he’ll draw, along with 20 HR power, no defense or running ability, and a sub-230 average. I think we have to take Portland hitting stats with a grain of salt anyway, and especially those put up by Minor-League vets like Cust and Leone.
November 16, 2006 at 10:23 am
#133: Oops, I was wrong about Wily Mo being mentioned in that boston.com item.
On Peavy to ATL rumor, wouldn’t you expect that to show up on ESPN.com somewhere?
November 16, 2006 at 10:37 am
http://insider.espn.go.com/esp.....ILC-INHEAD
Olney’s blog today - you have to have Insider to see it.
Selections from it for those of you who don’t have Insider:
Manny Ramirez’s contract has been the 160-ton weight hanging around the necks of the Red Sox for six years, and Boston executives have repeatedly tried to do his bidding and unload the slugger, despite the fact that he drives in 130 runs a year. The Red Sox have tried to waive him, trade him, swap him, sell him, everything.
Gordon Edes reported in September that Ramirez once again asked to be traded, and early in the offseason, Red Sox executives felt there was little chance of that happening, because of the remaining financial weight of the contract (two years, about $40 million) and because of how Manny sometimes conducts himself (Phillies GM Pat Gillick used the word “distraction”).
But it’s as if a volcano loaded to the dome with cash has erupted, money is flowing all over the place, and the baseball landscape is changing by the hour, and if you’re a 38-year-old slugger like Frank Thomas, with bad wheels and a horrendous injury history, you can get a deal in which you can make north of $30 million. And in this new world, Manny Ramirez is suddenly a relative bargain. I wonder if the Red Sox might finally find themselves in a climate in which they can trade Ramirez.
Imagine if you are the Cubs, or the Mets, or the Astros, and you are looking for offensive help. You will bid heavily on Alfonso Soriano or Carlos Lee, and either may cost you somewhere in the range of $80 million to $120 million.
Say that price scares you. Say that six- or seven-year commitment scares you. And say that you are desperate to add an impact-type bat.
Do you go with Soriano at seven years, at $120 million?
Or do you look at an alternative who is much cheaper and yet somehow more accomplished: Ramirez, who might cost you a couple of prospects and $42 million over three years. Ramirez, who has driven in 100 or more runs in 11 of the last 12 seasons.
“A no-brainer,” an American League executive said yesterday. “Manny looks much better in this market.”
————————————-
No kidding! If you could get comfortable with Manny’s attitude, $40MM for 2 years of Manny seems suddenly cheap.
November 16, 2006 at 10:41 am
More from Olney - and I love this, as if $1.1MM were pennies…
Boston’s bid for Daisuke Matsuzaka had Larry Lucchino’s fingerprints all over it, writes Dan Shaughnessy. Rival executives assume that the Red Sox made their bid in this way: Initially, the Red Sox figured to bid $50 million, but then, like savvy disciples of the “The Price Is Right,” they added another “1,” figuring that could be a tiebreaker. And then, guessing that another team might also try the same ploy, they added another “1,” coming up with $51.1 million
November 16, 2006 at 11:03 am
So in other words some Japanese team owes Bob Barker a few million right now.