Cruz, Maddux, Book Status
Tue, Dec 5, 2006
by Geoff Young
Long post this morning, so grab yourself a cup of coffee and get comfy…
Padres Sign Cruz
As noted yesterday in the comments (you’re reading those, of course), the San Diego Union-Tribune is reporting that the Padres have signed outfielder Jose Cruz Jr. to a 1-year, $650,000 deal. Is he the answer to anyone’s prayers? No. Is he a useful guy to have around at a very cheap price? Absolutely.
Cruz is coming off a terrible season in which he hit .233/.353/.381 for the Dodgers. Over a 10-year career, however, his numbers are a much more respectable .249/.339/.453 (OPS+ of 104). He turns 33 in April so there’s a decent chance he’ll bounce back to league average. Mike Cameron is listed as Cruz’ most similar batter through age 32 at Baseball-Reference. Former Padres Ruppert Jones (#2), Kevin McReynolds (#5), and Ron Gant (#8) also make his list of top 10 comps.
Reports on Cruz’ defense are mixed. He won a Gold Glove in 2003 while playing for the San Francisco Giants, but there is talk that his game has slipped since then. Looking at range factor (always a dicey proposition), his numbers are slightly below average in center and well above average on either corner.
As the roster currently stands (for whatever that’s worth in December), Terrmel Sledge would be the starter in left field, with the switch-hitter Cruz playing against southpaws. For his career, Cruz has an OPS about 50 points higher batting from the right side.
Cruz essentially replaces Dave Roberts in the fourth outfield slot and is a better fit for the Padres because he’s strong against left-handed pitching and he comes at a fraction of the cost. Look at it this way: he’s got a higher career OPS+ than Jose Guillen (98), who just signed with the Mariners for 1 year, $5.5 million. Or, if you prefer, the Padres picked up a slightly above-average outfielder for less than the price of Geoff Blum or, better yet, Tanyon Sturtze. Seriously, where’s the risk in that?
Padres Eye Maddux
MLB.com and other outlets are indicating that the Pads have serious interest in bringing future Hall of Famer Greg Maddux to San Diego to help fill out the 2007 rotation. The asking price is believed to be 2 years, $22-25 million, and the Dodgers also are thought to be in the mix. Sure, the guy turns 41 in April, but he’s provided 199 innings or more of better-than-league-average ERA every year since 1988.
Maddux no longer dominates, but who cares? He still never misses a start, and his ERA since 2003 is a very respectable 4.10. Plus, can you imagine letting kids like Jake Peavy, Chris Young, and Clay Hensley have unlimited access to the wisdom of both Maddux and Trevor Hoffman?
Hello. Let’s get this thing done!
Book Update
I’m attacking the book on several fronts right now. The two main items I’m working on are:
- the September 4 game against the Rockies at Petco Park where Josh Barfield hit a walk-off homer off Brian Fuentes
- an evaluation of every trade Kevin Towers has made during his tenure as Padres GM
Barfield Game
I’ve just gotten through the bottom of the second inning. If you ever get the chance, I highly recommend sifting through an entire game at a very slow pace, rewinding as necessary to catch various nuances and subtleties that can be missed in real time.
In this one, Mike Cameron ends the second with a fly ball that Cory Sullivan catches about a half-step away from the fence in deepest center field. Cameron swings at the first pitch, an 89-mph Josh Fogg fastball on the inner half of the plate, and absolutely hammers it. If Cameron gets his hands through the zone a little quicker, he hits the ball out of the park to left or left-center.
But Cameron doesn’t turn on the pitch, at least partly because the previous batter, Russell Braynan, has seen nothing but off-speed pitches from Fogg. The separation between his fastball and change-up isn’t huge — about 8-9 mph — but it’s just enough to keep Cameron from pulling the ball and get Fogg out of the inning without damage. The best part, though, is watching Fogg come off the mound and walk back to the dugout. He’s got a big ol’ smile across his face — he knows he got away with one, and he knows exactly how he did it.
Towers Trades
I’ve just finished compiling a list of every trade Towers has made. I still need to go through and evaluate them, but here’s a little something to geek on in the meantime.
Since his first meaningful trade on December 21, 1995, Towers has made 89 deals that involved at least one win share passing hands. The net of those deals, in terms of win shares, is +459 in the Padres favor. That’s actually a staggering number, and one that shocks (no offense to Towers) the heck out of me.
Here are Towers’ 10 “best” trades in terms of win shares gained by the Padres through 2006:
- March 29, 1999. Traded Andy Sheets and Gus Kennedy (minors) to the Anaheim Angels. Received Phil Nevin and Keith Volkman (minors). +121 win shares
- December 22, 1999. Traded Wally Joyner, Reggie Sanders, and Quilvio Veras to the Atlanta Braves. Received Bret Boone, Ryan Klesko, and Jason Shiell. +115
- December 21, 1995. Traded Bip Roberts and Bryan Wolff (minors) to the Kansas City Royals. Received Wally Joyner and Aaron Dorlarque (minors). +52
- June 18, 1996. Traded Brad Ausmus, Andujar Cedeno, and Russ Spear (minors) to the Detroit Tigers. Received John Flaherty and Chris Gomez. +48
- November 19, 1997. Traded Trey Beamon and Tim Worrell to the Detroit Tigers. Received Dan Miceli, Donne Wall, and Ryan Balfe (minors) +32
- December 20, 2004. Traded Jay Payton, Ramon Vazquez, David Pauley, and cash to the Boston Red Sox. Received Dave Roberts. +32
- February 2, 1999. Traded Mark Sweeney and Greg Vaughn to the Cincinnati Reds. Received Damian Jackson, Reggie Sanders, and Josh Harris (minors). +30
- November 10, 1999. Traded Andy Ashby to the Philadelphia Phillies. Received Adam Eaton, Carlton Loewer, and Steve Montgomery. +30
- December 11, 2000. Traded Donne Wall to the New York Mets. Received Bubba Trammell. +27
- March 28, 2001. Traded Matt Clement, Eric Owens, and Omar Ortiz (minors) to the Florida Marlins. Received Cesar Crespo and Mark Kotsay. +30
Quick observations: First, a lot of Towers’ “great” deals came during the late-’90s; only one of his top 10 (the Roberts trade) has occurred in the past five years. Second, Towers owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to his former college teammate, Mr. Joyner. Third, the Mike Cameron deal will be on this list a year from now; it’s already at +20.
I should add a disclaimer here that this isn’t necessarily the order in which Towers’ top trades will appear in the book. Win shares are just a starting point for us, something to look at while we’re dissecting and analyzing each of these deals.
And now for the “worst” deals of Towers’ tenure:
- December 15, 1997. Traded Derrek Lee, Rafael Medina, and Steve Hoff (minors) to the Florida Marlins. Received Kevin Brown. -65 win shares
- August 2, 2001. Traded Woody Williams to the St. Louis Cardinals. Received Ray Lankford and cash. -27
- November 26, 2003. Traded Mark Kotsay to the Oakland Athletics. Received Terrence Long and Ramon Hernandez. -23
- March 22, 1996. Traded Raul Casanova, Richie Lewis, and Melvin Nieves to the Detroit Tigers. Received Sean Bergman, Todd Steverson, and Cade Gaspar (minors). -22
- February 23, 2000. Traded John Vander Wal, Geraldo Padua (minors), and James Sak (minors) to the Pittsburgh Pirates. Received Al Martin and cash. -20
- December 7, 2005. Traded Mark Loretta to the Boston Red Sox. Received Doug Mirabelli. -16
- November 18, 1997. Traded John Flaherty to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Received Brian Boehringer and Andy Sheets. -15
- December 16, 1996. Traded Willie Blair and Brian Johnson to the Detroit Tigers. Received Joey Eischen and Cam Smith (minors). -14
- March 21, 2006. Traded Dave Ross to the Cincinnati Reds. Received Bobby Basham (minors). -13
- June 26, 2002. Traded Alan Embree and Andy Shibilo (minors) to the Boston Red Sox. Received Brad Baker (minors) and Dan Giese (minors). -13
Heh. If you’re wondering why we don’t stop with win shares when evaluating these deals, #1 up there should give you a pretty good clue. There’s a strong chance this one will end up in my final list of top five trades Towers has made due to what Brown’s presence meant to the franchise. Without Brown, there is no World Series; without the World Series, there is no Petco Park; without Petco Park, there might not be baseball in San Diego.
The other thing I find interesting is that, with a few exceptions (Williams for Lankford, which was defensible at the time; the Randy Myers deal, which doesn’t show up on this list because no win shares were exchanged; the Mirabelli fiasco, which was vindicated a few months later), Towers doesn’t get taken to the cleaners when he goes to the trading table. Get on the guy for his infatuation with the Rule V draft, but Towers’ track record in trades is fantastic — and much better than I’d imagined.
Final stupid number thingy:
- positive win shares: 46 (average gain, 17.5)
- no difference: 3
- negative win shares: 40 (average loss, 8.65)
Man, I really do need to get a life. Anyway, just a little something to chew on while we’re waiting to see what happens with Maddux. Enjoy!
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
December 5, 2006 at 9:19 am
That’s great stuff on the Towers trades, Geoff. What I’m taking away from that as the bottom line is: he loses not quite as often as he wins, and he almost always wins bigger than he loses (i.e. does a great job managing his downside risk while keeping a ton of upside in play). There are a lot of Fund Managers on wall st. who wish they were that adept at managing risk.
I’m with you on Maddux…get ‘er done, pronto! As soon as ink hits paper, get him a classroom and make Jake, Chris and Clay achieve some credit hours in a Master’s course in Pitching with ‘ol professor Greg. Giddyup.
At $650K, the JC Jr signing looks great. Gives KT a lot of leverage in trade talks for a LF’er I think, b/c his fallback of a Sledge/Cruz platoon is pretty respectable. More respectable than Sledge solo, especially in the eyes of other GM’s trying to size up how needy KT is.
December 5, 2006 at 9:21 am
If I could have just one of Towers’ trades back, it would certainly be the Giles for Bay blunder. I can assure you Bay’s win shares would be higher if he had been a Padre. That is the whole problem with win shares. How many Royals have a huge number of win shares anyway?
December 5, 2006 at 9:25 am
I’d rather see the Padres overpay and get something they want in this market (like Maddux), than see them waste that money on someone else because they feel they have to sspend this offseason.
I’ve also heard that Todd Walker is close to accepting arbitration so that might solve the 2B issues, at least from the offensive side. And I know as much as the Barfield love fest we still have to have here, fact is Walker would play against the tough righties and since we will face more RHPs than lefties, Walker is a good fit.
Walker v RHP .302/.380/.434 *(in his time with SD)
Barfield v RHP .266/.299/.376
Barfield v. LHP .331/.378/.587
If Barfield can turn it around against righties in cleveland, which I’m sure some of us are hoping for, his numbers could fly.
December 5, 2006 at 9:28 am
I’ve always heard that Maddux is pretty unapproachable and doesn’t like talking to young pitchers (or to put it simply, that he’s a jerk). With two pretty good pitching coaches on the staff, I don’t think bringing in Maddux so Peavy and Hensley and Young can talk to him is much of a selling point.
December 5, 2006 at 9:34 am
that should say “isn’t much of a selling point.”
December 5, 2006 at 9:38 am
#2: SB, acknowledging the limitations of win shares, I think the Myers deal is a much bigger mistake than the Giles deal. At least the Padres got value out of the latter. The Myers deal didn’t do anything positive and probably cost them the services of Bret Boone. Given the situation at the time (needing a marquee player to establish credibility heading into the new ballpark), I don’t consider the Giles trade a blunder at all. The possibility that Bay might turn into something existed; then again, that didn’t deter the Expos and Mets from giving him away. Put it another way: I’d rather be the team getting Giles for him than the team getting Lou Collier or Steve Reed for him.
#4: Bryan, thanks for the info on Maddux. I hadn’t heard that about him — too bad.
December 5, 2006 at 9:44 am
Despite the name, does a team’s record have anything to do with its players’ individual Win Shares? Don’t think so.
Bay’s 3-year WS: 18/34/24 (76)
Giles’: 25/35/23 (83)
December 5, 2006 at 9:48 am
Great post GY, I think we are all assuming that Sledge would be the LF if the pads dont sign anyone but wouldn’t it make more sense to put a guy like Branyan there?
December 5, 2006 at 10:04 am
#4 - bummer…had not heard that anywhere before. Still, just be able to watch and observe will have value for the young pitchers.
December 5, 2006 at 10:09 am
Jason Schmidt claims that he learned a ton from Maddux during the 95/96 season.
December 5, 2006 at 10:09 am
According to Houston Chronicle (via ESPN Rumor Central), the Stros are interested in Peavy. Just for fun, who should the Padres ask for? I’d start with flag-football-loving Lance Berkman.
December 5, 2006 at 10:11 am
Berkman is the only Astros player that would fit the padres needs but there is no way the Astros would give him up.
December 5, 2006 at 10:16 am
Regarding two points brought up above — win shares don’t have anything to do with a team’s wins, they are a stat designed to tell the value of a particular player. When you think about it, it makes sense — the more better players (players with high win shares) you have on your team, the more you win, and vice versa.
I’m not so sure I agree with #4 either. When Maddux went back to the Cubs and then was later traded to the Dodgers, there were stories about how much Maddux helps young pitchers. In fact, I think that was one of the reasons the Cubs resigned him. I don’t ever remember hearing stories about him being unapproachable or blowing off young pitchers. If you have some evidence, let us know.
December 5, 2006 at 10:33 am
An interesting note from WC @ BP …
Mike Piazza is a name of interest now–both the Rangers and A’s have him ticketed for their backup catcher role with a heaping helping of DH duty on the side. Piazza’s contract demands have surprised some teams–he’s not willing to go incentive-heavy–but he might be signed by the time we leave Orlando.
December 5, 2006 at 10:35 am
… and this … (note: WC is a BP writer who’s currently in Orlando for the Winter Meetings) …
Greg Maddux should be signed by the time the Meetings close, perhaps at some point tomorrow. The Dodgers appear to have been outflanked by the Padres, but a late flurry of offers from the Dodgers and one other team seem too little, too late. Credit Ken Rosenthal on this scoop.
December 5, 2006 at 10:42 am
Here is what Maddux’s catcher says FWIW
It’s been a privilege, that’s for sure, and a blessing,” Barrett said about catching Maddux. “I just love being on the same team as him and learning from him as a teammate. I think it’s elevated my game in so many ways — it’s helped me as a player, it’s helped me as a person. To be able to be part of this is truly special.”
Maddux was supposed to be a mentor to the young Cubs pitchers, but he’s tutored Barrett on the fine points of the game as well.
“He’s worked with me and showed a lot of patience with me when he’s out there pitching,” Barrett said. “There are times when I’m not even close to where he is. He’s a quality teammate. He helps me understand what he’s thinking, and when you can get into the mind of a guy like that who’s been around as long as he has, it can help in so many ways. It can help as a player, as a hitter, it can help you all together.”
Ask about an at-bat in the past, and the 39-year-old right-hander can recite the count, the pitch he threw, and what the batter had for breakfast. He pays attention to the game.
“Maddux has done nothing in his entire career except help the team win,” Barrett said. “It’s never been about himself, it’s been about the team. There’s nothing more to it than that.
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/.....p;c_id=chc
December 5, 2006 at 10:50 am
Sounds like his poop don’t stink! This should be a great signing for us.
December 5, 2006 at 11:08 am
Why is the KB trade bad? KB took us to the WS and ripped out a few toilets on the way.
December 5, 2006 at 11:12 am
BTW, Geoff. saw a book about Chargers history at BN Grossmont Center and it brought back a lot of memories.
The History of San Diego Chargers: NFL Today (Hardcover)
by Adam Schmalzbauer
It has some great old pictures of Gary “Big Hands” Johnson and Fouts, Jioner, and the crew.
Hope your books has some good pictures. The Charger book is a coffee table book. Is yours going to be like that?
December 5, 2006 at 11:26 am
I can’t recall exactly where I read what I did about Maddux, but I’m 100% positive I read it. Since I really can’t prove it, you pretty much have to take my word for it. Take it or leave it I suppose, although I’d much rather have him not be a jerk than be one.
December 5, 2006 at 11:30 am
Bryan, I remember reading something similar. Maddux as a low injury risk, 200IP, mid-range starter is where his value is. I wouldn’t count on or pay for any pitching coach contribution he might make.
December 5, 2006 at 11:36 am
Re: #2 – I may be in the minority, but I would do the Giles trade with the Pirates every day, all day, and twice on Sunday. We may not have gotten the huge power numbers we wanted/expected, but we have gotten a good player who, contrary to popular SD belief, has performed well. When we traded for him he was one of the top OF in the game, a marquee name, and a guy that was a rock for the line-up.
Sure, Bay turned out to be a good player (Surprised? Should not be, did you ever watch him play before he was moved? Even his short stint with the Pads, before the broken arm, he looked like he belonged.), but at the time it filled our needs and has provided a solid, proven major league ball player who has been above average in the field and with the stick. Sure, he is not a “Fantasy League Gem” like Bay, but he has been a very good Padre and was a name for the new park. It is just sad that we never saw 30 bombs from him.
Re: #4 – I have heard way too many good things about Mad-dog to be concerned.
December 5, 2006 at 11:42 am
FWIW, Ollie Perez has generated a total of 17 win shares since the trade, most/all of which came in 2004.
That brings the 3yr win shares for Pirates/San Diego Giles deal at:
Padres +83
Pirates +93
I still pull the trigger.
December 5, 2006 at 11:54 am
CM: There are discrepancies between the win shares that appear in the Bill James Handbook and those that are available at Hardball Times. I’m using Hardball Times for everything since 2004, when they introduced a change in their methodology. Per their data, the 3-year totals are at 94 for the Pirates and 80 for the Padres. Just FYI, in case folks other than myself are wondering, however unlikely that might be.
December 5, 2006 at 11:56 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bay and Perez make a ton less $$ than Giles, right? You all know how I feel on this trade, was a bad idea then and remains so today. Not a popular opinion, but that’s how I see it.
December 5, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Plus, and I know this isn’t quantifiable at all, but I believe Ollie would not have seen the same decline in performance in ‘05/’06 had he stayed in SD pitching in Petco under the Balsley/Bochy regime.
Of course, fair’s fair - on the flip side, Bay’s #s wouldn’t be quite as good playing in Petco vs PNC…
December 5, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Thanks Geoff…my figures were simply a quick reference…no deep analysis of Win Shares…actually not a hug fan, but I digress…
My basic premise is still the same…Bay/Perez for Giles I do again.
FYI, Bruce Bochy will be on MLBTV shortly.
December 5, 2006 at 12:20 pm
#18: PM, the trade for Brown is one of KT’s best. Among other things, it points to the limitations of win shares (or any metric, really) and the importance of context in evaluating this stuff.
#25, 26: Clayton, I totally get where you’re coming from here; politically speaking, though, after breaking up the ‘98 team and making promises to invest more in payroll on moving downtown, the failure to land a marquee player around which to build would have been very difficult to sell. I know Bay is a stud, but how would the average fan be able to differentiate between him and, say, Ruben Rivera, D’Angelo Jimenez, or Ben Davis?
As for Perez, I think his biggest problem goes back to the fact that the Pads brought him up after just four appearances above A-ball and didn’t do enough with his mechanics before he arrived in San Diego. Once he got here and succeeded despite all the crazy arm angles, I imagine it wasn’t easy trying to consolidate his delivery. Just speculation on my part, but that’s the way I see it.
#27: Cool. I just wanted that out there now, since it’s something I’ve been struggling with since I started down this line of inquiry.
December 5, 2006 at 12:24 pm
That’s a good point Geoff. The “unwashed masses”
needed a name…not unlike where we are today. I also choke thinking about how we would have controlled the two of them for several more years, while BG was able to stick us up for a new deal. Anyhoo, water under the bridge, but my initial despite for that deal has definitely flavored my judgment of Giles’ on field performance since, no doubt.
December 5, 2006 at 12:28 pm
speaking of Schmidt,
$11m/yr for Maddux’s age 41-42 seasons
vs.
$15m/yr for Schmidt’s age 34-37 seasons
Pretty sure we can’t do both…why are we doing the former?
December 5, 2006 at 12:37 pm
30: If we do that, we value safety over performance, and I don’t like it.
We should be able to do both, but we probably won’t. We should also have a couple of 5th starter candidates in the minors, but that’s another scab to be picked another day.
December 5, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Schmidt has back problems…He is not a $15mm pitcher (Are there really any? Maybe Santana.) A 4+ yr deal for a pitcher can be dicey.
I would prefer to have Schmidt, but is the extra $28-30mm it would take to land Schmidt worth it? I will answer with a qualified maybe.
December 5, 2006 at 12:53 pm
32: The last 5 years Schmidt has thrown 185, 207, 225, 172, and 213 innings. Back problems? I’ll take those back problems.
Of course any contract for a pitcher can be risky. The only way to avoid risk and still perform well is to have so many good young pitchers that you can swap them out if one gets hurt. Does that sound like the Padres? Paying Maddux 11M to perform like Woody Williams did last year only keeps us running in place at a more expensive pace.
December 5, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Latest from ESPN.com
Why would the Reds offer Mark Loretta two years and $6 million when they already have a talented second baseman in Brandon Phillips? The Reds think Loretta can log enough at-bats as the right-handed first base complement to Scott Hatteberg to make the deal worthwhile. Loretta’s first preference is to return to San Diego to play second, but the Padres are more interested in signing Ronnie Belliard or trading for Marcus Giles.
• Something to ponder amid reports that San Diego is closing in on a two-year deal with Greg Maddux: In Maddux’s last contract, which was reported as three years and $24 million with the Cubs, only two years and $15 million were guaranteed. The Cubs could have voided the third year, for $9 million, if Maddux didn’t pitch a total of 400 innings in the first two seasons. Agent Scott Boras is known for playing games with semantics, and it’s questionable whether the Dodgers or Padres would bite on a two-year guaranteed agreement.
December 5, 2006 at 1:06 pm
From Buster Olney
The Padres should know very soon whether they will sign pitcher Greg Maddux, but he couldn’t be a more perfect fit for San Diego.
Not only for the addition of Maddux, a future Hall of Famer who won 15 games last season and was 8-5 with a 3.88 ERA after the All-Star break. But also what he might do to help other members of the San Diego rotation, Jake Peavy and Chris Young.
Peavy frustrated the Padres at times last year by pitching deep into counts repeatedly and trying to finish off hitters with strikeout pitches rather than simply taking advantage of the movement of his fastball and generating groundballs. A dose of Maddux-speak — while sitting in the clubhouse, or standing at the dugout railing during a game — might be the best thing for Peavy to get at this stage of his career.
December 5, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I don’t think Maddux will get a second year guaranteed with the Padres. It may ended up being a performance clause a la the ones given to Gwynn.
That’s a lot of dough for Maddux to be a Padres for 2 years. I love the guy when he was younger but now, I’d rather have Boomer back for one year at the lesser price.
#22: I agree with you. At the time of the trade, the more concern for the trade was how good Oliver Perez was going to be rather than how good a hitter Jason Bay would be. I thought we were going to be able to put Jason Bay in LF when he came up. Too bad his broken arm changed that plan.
Geoff, you are probably right that the Padres brought Perez up too soon and his succeeding in the early going didn’t help his development. I wouldn’t mind getting him back and see what Balsley can fix after the adjustment made by Peterson in NY.
December 5, 2006 at 1:32 pm
on foxsports.com it says the pads and maddux are crossing the “t’s” and dotting the “i’s”
December 5, 2006 at 1:44 pm
I like Maddux, particularly pitching at Petco. I’d really like to see us lure Wells of the waves with 1/2 the money. Also, rumors have it that we are talking with Ronnie Belliard. Ugh.
December 5, 2006 at 1:44 pm
21: I couldn’t agree more. If we bring him in, let’s bring him in to be a good pitcher, not a mentor.
December 5, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Re: 38 give wells a deal where he only has to pitch home games and does not have to go on road trips ala the rocket.
December 5, 2006 at 1:47 pm
With regard to whether Maddux is willing to talk to younger pitchers, a wise man once (allegedly) said “You can observe a lot just by watching”.
Obviously Maddux is at the tail end of his career but I’d much rather go 1 year with an option than 4 years/$15mil for Schmidt, and I like Schmidt a lot. I’d take Zito over both of them but that seems unlikely now. I’d also like to see Wells come back but have him come out of the pen. He could pitch forever as a LOOGY if he wanted to.
Geoff, good stuff on the Barfield game. That’s the kind of observation based analysis I wish we’d see more of. There’s little things that happen in virtually every at bat that we rarely notice. The best color commentators will pick up on things like that but it’s pretty rare.
December 5, 2006 at 1:49 pm
40: yup, I’d take it. The guys got a rubber arm and is great in the clubhouse. The risk is that he doesn’t keep the rest of his body in shape and continually “tweaks” things that keep him from home starts.
December 5, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I don’t think Well’s EGO would let him be a left handed specialist. I Have a feeling he would either be a starter or retire.
December 5, 2006 at 1:56 pm
40: You make that sort of deal for one of the 3 best pitchers in the game, not for a slightly better than average performer. Why throw the rotation into turmoil on a 12 game road trip just so you can have Boomer? He’s not close to Clemens.
41: They could watch him on TV. If we sign Maddux we’re getting a 30 VORP pitcher. We better sign him because we think that’s worth the contract.
On Schmidt vs Maddux: Maddux is a safe bet to be a somewhat better than average pitcher. Schmidt is a little bigger health risk, although it hasn’t shown up in his IP totals recently, but he’s also more likely to be a great pitcher. Not good, not average, great. Just under a 50VORP last year, which Maddux doesn’t have a chance at.
If we’re looking to go old and cheap, I’d rather sign Wells at 2m with a lot of incentives than Maddux at 10M. But that doesn’t sound like what we’re doing.
December 5, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Re: 44 Sarcasm
December 5, 2006 at 2:01 pm
My guess is Wells wouldn’t do $2M + inc. I’d rather risk it for Schmidt if he’d do around 4 years/$50ish million.
December 5, 2006 at 2:04 pm
45: too bad, I thought there was another foolish Wells fan out there like me.
December 5, 2006 at 2:05 pm
44: Do you think Wells would agree to a deal like that? I think he likes his food and drink too much to come back anyway. I haven’t seen him lately but I imagine he’s looking like a bigger version of Tony Gwynn now that he doesn’t expect to be back.
I do think the Padres are more in love with the idea of signing Maddux than they are with his actual performance. Gives them a big name, gets lots of love from the “casual fan”, maybe sell a few more tickets. $10 million for Maddux does seem like a lot but maybe the braintrust just doesn’t want to go 4 years on an over-30 pitcher.
December 5, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Re: 48 I think your right with the big name factor but I also think the padres like that they can get a quality pitcher for only a year or two at the most, that way if maddux’s arm falls off they are not stuck with him for all that long.
December 5, 2006 at 2:10 pm
48: I don’t know if he would, but I do know that there’s very limited upside in Maddux. He is what he is, and at his age, and with a possibly degraded Padre defense behind him, he may not even be what he was in 2005 and 2004. I know the market has exploded this year, but 10-11M for a pitcher who will be between the 50th and 75th best pitcher in the majors, it seems like we could find somebody to do that for a lot less. Finding somebody like Schmidt, who could be among the 10 best pitchers in a game, is worth the extra money.
December 5, 2006 at 2:14 pm
49: But if Schmidt’s arm doesn’t fall off, they’ve got a great pitcher locked up for 4 years in an inflationary market.
You can put your money in a CD and be sure to get 3%, and sometimes that’s the right thing to do. Other times the right thing to do is to buy a growth stock. Maddux is the CD. You’re almost certainly not going to be worse than you were last year, but you’re not going to be much better, either. Maddux’s VORP was close to what Woody gave us in 2005. Schmidt’s riskier and more expensive, but he was more valuable than any Padre pitcher last year.
December 5, 2006 at 2:18 pm
FWIW, ex-Padres Catcher Brian Johnson is on MLBTV right now.
He is talking about his new “crisis management” business, marketing it to baseball. He is trying to help teams and players manager off the field issues.
Otherwise he is saying very little of interest. Just thought some of you who remember him might like to know what he is up to.
December 5, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I don’t think that Maddux should be signed for anything longer than a one year deal, if they include a club option and a cheap buyout, then that’s fine also. Personally, I would only sign superstar free agents as pretty much anyone else is going to be a bust. Team’s always make the mistake of signing quantity over quality when it comes to free agents — they would rather sign Phil Nevin and Ryan Klesko for $8m each rather than Vladimir Guerrero for $16m.
December 5, 2006 at 2:38 pm
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6239728
Ken Rosenthal says one year with club option for 2008 at this point. I like the deal if it’s for one year. Maddux is a safer bet for solid production in 2007 than Lilly or Meche or Padilla, and, assuming a one year deal, he’s gone after that, so it sounds like a fine deal for the Padres to help fill out their rotation with little risk in the short term and none long term.
December 5, 2006 at 2:45 pm
I’ve wanted the Padres to sign Maddux for a long time, that being said, a one year guarantee with a second year option with a buyout would work for me. Assuming the rumored terms are true, we would be overpaying a bit. Hopefully, the presence of so many pitching mentors on a team (eg., Black, Balsley, Hoffman, and Maddux) won’t result in chaos (due to competing “approaches”) but will make Peavy, CY, Hensley, Carrillo (assuming he shows up before the end of the year), et al. that much better in the long run. I also believe that the presence of Maddux will help our young catchers with their game calling and approach.
December 5, 2006 at 3:02 pm
I love Maddux for 1 year ala Piazza. Consider him a “placeholder”, albeit an expensive one, for Carrillo, and one who is far more likely to throw 200 IP than Wells. He should do well in Petco…he can still get a lot of ground balls but gets hurt by the long ball now in ways he never did when younger…Petco should help correct that.
Hr/9:
“Heyday” years:
‘92 0.5
‘93 0.6
‘94 0.3
‘95 0.5
‘96 0.4
‘97 0.4
‘98 0.5
“Decline” years:
‘03 0.9
‘04 1.1
‘05 1.1
‘06 Chi 0.7
‘06 LA 0.6
‘06 showed how a bigger park like Dodger Stadium could help him a lot…he didn’t have to pitch Aug/Sep (good ball-carrying months) in Wrigley. I don’t have month by month HR/9, but I bet those 1.1 years had higher end-of-season months.
Point of all this: he’s not going to break down, and Petco should keep those flyballs in the park. Could be a good year for him.
December 5, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Rosenthal is reporting that Jorge Cantu is highly available. I know that he’s a poor fielding 2B, but what do you think about a platoon of he and Walker at 2B. We’d have a lot of versatility for Black (since both can play 3B and 1B) and I would have to think that we’d have one of the best offensive 2B production in baseball. We’d have to carry a decent fielding utility infielder for late/close situations, but…might be a name to consider. He had 28 HR two years ago and he’s only 24.
December 5, 2006 at 4:02 pm
From CBSSportsline: San Diego expects Todd Walker to accept arbitration and play second base. That would leave Mark Loretta and Ronnie Belliard still looking for jobs.
December 5, 2006 at 4:18 pm
ESPN reporting that Maddux will sign a deal with the Pads…
$10mm/1yr with a player option for 2008 at $7mm…performance incentives could raise that number to $10mm.
December 5, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Wow! I can’t wait for this book!
I really like hearing all these stat things but will you be including how these things are calculated in the book? If not I can always google them, but it’s fun hearing you explain things in your way you explain things.
December 5, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Belatedly, I want to chime in on the Giles for Bay/Perez. It is a totally defensible trade at the time, but part of the value was the perception of a getting a marquee player vs. a pure baseball move. Giles was a great player, but the risk of decline (which happened) was highly predictable, and described by BP at the time of the trade. It was defensible, but I disliked at the time and still do. Giles for Bay favors Bay in terms of production and cost, and then you throw in Perez’s 2004 year and the Padres win the West. That would have shut up any critics. That year we were killed by our 5th spot. You keep Perez you have Peavy-Perez-Wells-Eaton-BLaw, about as dominant as a rotation can get.
To go a bit deeper into the coulda-woulda-shoulda, I was never crazy about giving up on Kotsay. Keep Kotsay in the OF (instead of Payton) and get some middling FA catcher or trade for Kendall like Oakland did, and the Padres would have crushed the West in 2004 and been well set up for 2005 and beyond, even with the uncertainty at catcher.
The Cruz signing is awesome. As people have commented, it gives us a plausible left field as we search for improvements. I am OK if we go into the season with that platoon, though Termil gives me pause, since he would presumably get the bulk of AB’s. But great to see a seemingly valuable signing in this overheated market.
Assuming we can get Walker, if we could just find a utility/2B platoon guy that is tough on lefties, we have 2B reasonably covered as well. I thought Loretta would have been great, but too bad to see him picked up. I guess Graffanino is done, given he got arbitration?
December 5, 2006 at 4:52 pm
For a one year deal, that’s about as good as the Padres could get. Better than paying Padilla for 3yrs/$33Millions by the Rangers.
#56: that’s pretty good numbers, Clayton.
Maddux gave up 13 of 29 HR in 123.1 IP after June in 05, 18 of 35 HR in 112.1 IP after June in 04, and 10 of 24 HR in 105 IP after June in 03.
I haven’t looked into his Home/Road split in those years in the same period, though.
In any case, I think he’ll like Petco Park.
December 5, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I agree that the Maddux signing should help the Pads next year. I also agree that paying him for 1 year is better than paying Padilla for 3.
Anybody have interest in Trot Nixon for LF? He’s got nasty platoon splits, but there doesn’t seem to be a ton of interest in him and he would provide a +800 OPS. If you were careful with him against tough lefties (Read-start Jose Cruz) then he could be a pretty productive player.
December 5, 2006 at 5:04 pm
From Scott Miller’s article:
“I don’t think clubs are fearful of (bad) contracts,” Towers said. “You’ve seen it already, how aggressive some clubs have been.
“Some clubs have money to spend, but I don’t think a lot of clubs want to spend money unless it’s to improve the club. We looked at who’s out there, and we have $25 (million) to $30 million to spend but we may only spend $10 (million) to $15 million, and wait for the trade deadline.”
Translation: In the non-Manny Ramirez category, is Cliff Floyd, or Luis Gonzalez, or Kenny Lofton, worth a bidding war?
“I think most people think they make smart decisions,” Jocketty said. “You may have money, but that doesn’t mean you have to spend it. It’s like I tell my wife all the time when she’s going shopping, you have money, but that doesn’t mean you have to spend it all.”
Wise words to live by in this holiday shopping season.
December 5, 2006 at 5:06 pm
It sounds like the JD Drew deal is done (5/$60m) and they can’t get anyone to bite on Manny so that leaves Boston with either Wily Mo Pena or Coco Crisp as the odd man out. They still need bullpen help too. Linebrink for WMP or Coco?
If we can get Trot on a bargain deal I’d be happier with him than Sledge in a platoon. He might be a little too Giles-like to fit in, another high OBP aging slugger with rapidly declining power.
December 5, 2006 at 5:09 pm
I don’t like the idea of Cantu. He’s a horrendous defender at 2B. And while I like the idea of a platoon partner for Walker, getting guys who are accustomed to full time gigs like Loretta and Cantu doesn’t seem like a good option for someone we’d be looking to start about 40-50 games.
The Boston Herald reports Houston is interested in Josh Bard. Not sure why we’d want to trade him, unless Piazza may be on the way back?
December 5, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Oops, that’s 5/70 in the Drew deal but the salary for the 5th year is dependent on incentives.
Count me on Cantu as well. Any backup for Walker needs to have a good glove.
The Bard rumor is weird unless he’s part of a larger deal.
December 5, 2006 at 5:13 pm
#60: Thanks, Steve. Not sure about the stats — maybe a glossary or some such. Good suggestion.
#61: Good call, JSF, on Kotsay. That trade was brought on at least in part by the failure of Ben Davis to develop. Ramon Hernandez was much needed, but it never should have come to that. Without having done the actual analysis yet, I’m guessing that the Kotsay deal makes my final list of bottom five trades by KT.
#63: PR, I’d be all over Nixon if the price is right. Anyone have an idea what he might command? Maybe 3/$25M?
On another note, I’ve just finished watching the top of the third inning of the Barfield game. I know it doesn’t take rocket science to figure this out, but Todd Helton’s swing is just beautiful.
December 5, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Nixon has had some serious injuries the last couple of years, I can’t seem him getting that kind of money. Of course Pittsburgh is rumored to be interested so who knows what they’ll throw at him. Maybe he’ll get a 1 or two year deal at $6m per?
December 5, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I’m always amazed at how unenthusiastic a baseball town San Diego can appear to be at times (I’m currently in Chicago so my comparison may be unfair). Yet, this site has some of the most insightful comments that you could hope for as a dedicated fan.
The Towers trade analysis is very interesting. I would think the “best trades” coming in the late 90’s vs. the past five years would have to be substantially influenced by the unavoidable fact that recent trades have less time to accumulate win shares. I’m curious how you’re going to deal with players that are flipped quickly (e.g. Mirabelli) so their win shares don’t adequately represent their value. I’d also be interested to see trends in ages and salaries exchanged.
You always do great work Geoff, and you maintain a great blog. Congrats on the life-altering decision. Great to see someone pursue their passion. I wish you the best
December 5, 2006 at 5:42 pm
GY,
Are you going to do the same sort of analysis on draft picks that you did for KT’s trades? I’m thinking that it won’t be quite so stellar.
I don’t think you can blame KT for that, though. The scouting department has let him down, through the years. Names that come to mind are Burroughs and Davis.
December 5, 2006 at 5:50 pm
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) – J.D. Drew and the Boston Red Sox culminated weeks of negotiations by reaching a preliminary agreement Tuesday on a $70 million, five-year contract.
December 5, 2006 at 6:07 pm
71: Our scouts weren’t the only people high on Burroughs.
December 5, 2006 at 6:31 pm
71: Davis was also pretty widely well-regarded.
December 5, 2006 at 6:42 pm
#70: Thanks, Daniel, for the kind words. I’m sure you’re correct that “less time” is a factor in the differences in win shares. I’ll be interested to see, as I go through everything, if there are other factors as well. Regarding guys who are flipped, that’s something I’m still trying to figure out: one of the best examples is the Hermanson for Veras deal that proved to be quite important for the Padres but which also landed the Marlins a very productive player in Cliff Floyd.
#71: LaMar, I don’t think I’ll go quite as in-depth on the draft, but I’m planning to address Davis and Burroughs specifically. As Richard and Paul correctly note, both were highly regarded as amateurs (although Davis had a few more question marks). But I do have some thoughts on the wisdom of putting one’s proverbial eggs in one basket that I hope I’m able to articulate well enough to include.
Off to the USD hoops game. I’ll start prepping tomorrow morning’s Maddux entry when I get home.
December 5, 2006 at 7:10 pm
maddux signed. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=2687700
one year, $10MM……….player option for 6-10 for