Friday Links (8 Dec 06)
Fri, Dec 8, 2006
by Geoff Young
Happy Friday, folks! Have some links:
- I am honored to participate — along with Tom Goyne of Balls, Sticks, & Stuff and Joe Hamrahi of Baseball Digest Daily — in this week’s Friday Five over at D.A. Humber’s Baseball Central. Big thanks to D.A. for the invite and for asking such thought-provoking questions.
- Black likes Maddux signing; Padres lose Piazza, Embree to the Athletics (North County Times). Pretty self-explanatory. Forget Bud Black’s lack of managerial experience — he’s totally got the cliches nailed; he’ll do just fine. My favorite part of this article has nothing to do with Black, though. This is beautiful to me: “They now have five extra selections before the second round for the signings of Embree, Dave Roberts and Woody Williams.”
- David Pinto has his latest defensive ratings up at Baseball Musings, for second base and shortstop. Tony Graffanino, who earlier had been mentioned as a possibility at second in 2007, tops the list; Todd Walker, the incumbent who has accepted salary arbitration, pulls up the rear. On the other side of the bag, Khalil Greene checks in at a surprising #4, ahead of Alex Cora, Omar Vizquel, and Alex Gonzalez, among others.
- What real GMs could learn from Roto Baseball, part #4216 (Baseball Prospectus). Nate Silver offers his thoughts on the cycles that exist within a given free-agent market and explains why there might be bargains ahead this winter. [Hat tip to reader Richard for the heads-up on this one.]
- Speaking of the free-agent market, Dex at Gaslamp Ball talks about where all this money is coming from — it’s a compelling read, and he’s got links to more of the same. Sort of gives you a different perspective on some team blowing $55 million on Gil Meche. Well, not really — that’s still pretty stupid, but you get the idea.
There you have it.
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
December 8, 2006 at 6:10 am
Posted this on the end of last night’s thread, but I heard on ESPN this morning (either Gammons or Phillips…which obviously impacts how seriously you can take this) that the BJ’s might be looking to move Vernon Wells to get pitching, since he’s a year from being a FA anyway.
Would we trade Peavy or Young for him? I think I would.
December 8, 2006 at 6:20 am
That Friday 5 was great stuff - Geoff, good job representing DS strongly! Hopefully will drive more traffic to the blog, helping you w/ ad revenue, etc…
Was the question about a 3rd NY team serious or just speculation? What I mean is, I haven’t heard any rumors of that at all, so I’m wondering if I’ve been missing something or whether that was purely a thought-exercise.
December 8, 2006 at 6:35 am
#1: Interesting question, and tough call, but I don’t think I wouldn’t trade either of those guys for Wells. He’s had two great seasons (2003, 2006) surrounded by three good ones (2002, 2004, 2005). If I were the Jays, I might be looking to move him right about now as well. For Peavy or Young, who are good, young, and cheap, I’d want more.
#2: Thanks, Clayton. I’m not sure about the NY question. That one caught me off guard more than the others and was the most difficult for me to answer. I have no idea whether there’s any basis in reality to that one or if it’s entirely speculative.
December 8, 2006 at 6:58 am
Geoff, I am with you…I don’t think I would do the VW for JP or CY trade. Getting a guy that is going to get $15mm per by the beginging of 2008…we have Cameron for next year and probably could lock him up for 3 more if we play our cards right…plus, he would not cost $15mm per.
December 8, 2006 at 7:24 am
As we continue to think about trades…Do we have anyone on the roster who would appeal to any team shopping a big hitter other than Peavy or Young? The only one I can think of is Linebrink and his appeal would be limited to those who need relie andbelieve his could be a steady closer. Even then we may still have to thrown in another player.
At last season’s trade deadline we didn’t make a big move because there wasn’t much out there AND we didn’t have much to bargain with. Are we still in that predicament?
December 8, 2006 at 7:28 am
Thought the numbers on our Rule 5 pick up yesterday were intriguing…With the Twins’ Triple-A club, Cameron, 26, went 6-4 with a 2.98 ERA in 66 1/3 innings and struck out 65 against 26 walks last year.
Re: 5 — I really don’t understand why the Pads don’t work on the Linebrink for Burrell deal. The Phills need a back of the bullpen guy to back up Flash (He is 39), they really have not wanted Pat the Bat on the roster for a few years, and he can hit the ball out of Petco. Pat has said that he would waive his complete no-trade clause to go to the West Coast. Seems like too good a fit.
December 8, 2006 at 7:34 am
Re: 6. Yes, seems like a good fit for both clubs and I would welcome such a move. Linebrink is valuable and expendable and I think our best and perhaps only option in a big trade. But other teams know this as well as the fact we won’t move a starter and Gonzalez, so our options may be limited.
December 8, 2006 at 7:40 am
No way I’m trading Peavy or CY for a year of Vernon Wells.
December 8, 2006 at 7:41 am
Peavy or Young for Wells certainly is a possible move, but only if you can extend Wells. No way can you give either of those guys up for a one year rental, can you?
Sure we could probably sign Cameron for another 3 years, and it would be for much less than Wells will get, but I think Wells will be worth a whole lot more over the next 3 years, too.
How about if we sign him after next year to replace Mike with some of the money we’re not spending this offseason (and we’re apparently raking in through MLBAM)?
December 8, 2006 at 7:46 am
re 6: UT mentioned this morning that Burrell had a really bad time defensively on the Phil’s trip to Petco. I don’t remember it that way, but maybe the team has that in the back of their minds. Other than that, I also can’t see why this potential trade isn’t getting at least discussed.
December 8, 2006 at 8:10 am
Since we’re still one pitcher short of a full rotation, and we’re not yet any better in the SP department than we were last year, trading Young or Peavy for Wells doesn’t help. You’d have to have a Cameron deal in place to get a pitcher, because we need the pitching and because Cameron does not want to play in an OF with another CF again (Beltran collision).
As things stand now we’re roughly as good as we were last year. Upgrade at 3b balanced by downgrade at catcher, static everywhere else. Last year was a good team, don’t get me wrong, but the offseason so far has definitely been a disappointment. I can’t even get too torqued at the front office, I don’t see how anyone would have predicted a market in which Gil Meche is paid 55 million.
At this point we’ll judge the 2006 offseason by the 2007 draft, and we’ve been waiting a long time for a good draft. We sure better sign Latos with some of the money we’re hoarding.
December 8, 2006 at 8:12 am
#5-I think that the Phil’s acquisition of Freddy Garcia may make it a little more difficult for us to get Burrell. The Phillies now have an extra starting pitcher (Jon Leiber) that they are looking to trade for a reliever. Burrell isn’t their only bait anymore and that might make him a little more difficult to acquire. Also, I look at their lineup and just think, apart from Ryan Howard and Utley, where are they getting the production in that lineup? They might need Burrell’s bat since they whiffed on every other bat available this winter.
#1-I think that I would do Young or Peavy for Wells if we were able to sign him to a semi-reasonable extension at the time of the trade. I think that there is little chance of that happening. All he’s got to do is put up decent numbers and stay healthy and he’s going to be an 18-22 million dollar player next offseason. Add gold-glove defense to Soriano and subtract some SB and that’s what you’ve got in Wells. If Toronto doesn’t sign him by June I’d love to see the Padres make a deal for him at the deadline. He’s enough of an impact player that he could propel your team to a title.
December 8, 2006 at 8:14 am
We’re going to do something nuts like give David Wells $12mil to break both ankles on his first start, aren’t we.
December 8, 2006 at 8:17 am
A thought just poped into my head. How much does Vernon Wells remind you of Shawn Green?
December 8, 2006 at 8:21 am
And a quick look over at Baseball-Reference.com and it shows Green as the most similar batter to V. Wells through age 27.
December 8, 2006 at 8:24 am
Pretty sure Vernon Wells has stated he’s not signing any extensions. He’s looking forward to free agency after 2007. So it’s all kinda a moot point to me.
December 8, 2006 at 8:32 am
11.
I was thinking the exact same thing the other day about that Latos kid and this years draft. With all this extra money and extra picks we better draft the best players available and not the most cost effective ones.
December 8, 2006 at 8:45 am
OT, but interesting nonetheless…
Did you guys look at some of the numbers put up by closers this year? I think we would all agree that except for a 2-3 week stretch in July, Trevor had a very good year. 46 saves, 2.14 ERA, .97 WHIP, and 50 k’s…but look at some of the other closers:
Joe Nathan 36 Saves, 1.58 ERA, .79 WHIP, and 95 K’s
JJ Putz 36 Saves, 2.30 ERA, .92 WHIP, and 104 K’s
Francisco Rodriguez 47 Saves, 1.73 ERA, 1.10 WHIP, and 98 K’s
Jon Papelbon 35 Saves, 0.92 ERA, 0.78 WHIP, and 75k’s (IN THE AL EAST!!! Oh yea, he is a rookie!!!)
Holy Cramoly Batman…that is just the AL and I left out guys like BJ Ryan and his sub 1.4 ERA and Mariano Rivera.
I think I will have a tough time voting for Trevor as “Closer of the Year” over at MLB.com.
December 8, 2006 at 8:49 am
10: I remember Burrell looking outmatched out there for at least one game, and I remember Krasovic or Center writing about it the next day.
December 8, 2006 at 8:50 am
MLB.com and MiLB.com will be broadcasting the “Top 50 Prospects Show” at 9am Pacific today.
To whet your appetite, here are the top 5 from the 2006 Top 50:
Delmon Young, OF Devil Rays
Jeremy Hermida, OF Marlins
Brandon Wood, SS Angels
Francisco Liriano, LHP Twins
Justin Verlander, RHP Tigers
Looks like they did a decent job last year…I wonder where Kouz will fit?
December 8, 2006 at 9:01 am
How do you think our 25 man roster is going to look for next year? my guess is below. I’m going with 14 batters and 11 pitchers.
1B - Gonzalez
2B - Walker
SS - Khalil
3B - Kouz
C - Bard
LF - to be acquired
CF - Cameron
RF - Giles
Bench:
1 - Bowen (C)
2 - Blum (IF)
3 - Branyan (3B/1B/LF)
4 - Cruz Jr (OF)
5 - Sledge (OF)
6 - to be acquired utility IF
Rotation
Peavy
Young
Maddux
Hensley
Wells (or Thompson)
Pen
Hoffman
Linebrink
Meredith
Scott Strickland
Heath Bell
Andrew Brown (or Royce Ring or Kevin Cameron or Cassidy)
December 8, 2006 at 9:03 am
Kouz came in ranked at #49 in the MLB.com top 50 prospects…
“He has done nothing but hit at every level he has played.” Said that he is “more than just a slugger, flirting with .400 at times”.
With those minor league numbers, that seems an awfully low ranking…
December 8, 2006 at 9:06 am
#21: Good guess. I hope that with Branyan’s flexibility, the last bench spot will go toward an extra bat (Paul McAnulty, please). I also imagine that southpaw Ring has the upper hand on the final bullpen slot. (This has the potential to be a real nice ‘pen, BTW.)
December 8, 2006 at 9:08 am
CM, I’m actually pleased with that ranking. One thing Kouz has going against him is age. He doesn’t have the monster upside that some younger guys have, but he’s pretty much ready now. The fact that he made the top 50 despite his age is encouraging.
December 8, 2006 at 9:11 am
I think it will look more like this:
1B. Gonzalez
2B. Walker
3B. Kouzmanoff
SS. Greene
RF. Giles
CF. Cameron
LF. Branyan (his power will put give him the spot over sledge)
C. Bard
Bench:
Bowen
Sledge
P-Mac/Cust
Blum
Cruz
Hill
Rotation:
Peavy
Young
Maddux
Henseley
Wells/Thompson/Stauffer/Ketchner
Pen:
Hoffman
Meredith
Linebrink (dont think they will trade him now)
Ring
Bell
Strickland/Brown/Cameron (will fight it out in ST)
December 8, 2006 at 9:12 am
Geoff, point well taken.
If anyone is interested, MLB.com does a SD Padres Winter Meetings Wrap up…here is the link:
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/.....;fext=.jsp
December 8, 2006 at 9:28 am
Started to look at our minor leagues…did you know that we have less than 15 players on our AAA roster right now? Have you seen how barren our minor leagues really are?
Looking at match-ups for trades…beyond my man-crush on trading for Pat the Bat…
The Devil Rays and Braves seem to have a glut of MI in the mid-high minors…we seem to have a glut of bullpen arms…they both need bullpen arms…”Things that make you go hmmmmm”.
Still wonder if we match up with Houston…bringing us a guy like Everett, Ensberg (if the Pads want to move Kouz to LF), or even Tavares (as insurance against losing Cameron in ‘08?). They have shown interest in Linebrink, Hensley, and Greene. It seems like it would have to be a swap of major league talent, but there may be something there.
December 8, 2006 at 9:36 am
#27: I’d be interested to see what Houston would do with either Jason Lane or Luke Scott. Also, Ensberg seems to be on the out with them, don’t know why? Don’t like Taveraz at all.
Neither do I like Willy Mo from Boston. Coco, though, would be interesting.
It’s irritating to me to listen to XX and the Padres fans that called in about the team. All these money doesn’t have to be spent this off season and like somebody pointed out yesterday, more money to spend on the best players in the upcoming draft. Not to mention the flexibility to be able to trade for an impact bat at the trading deadline.
Geoff, that Friday Five is very interesting. Good job, man.
December 8, 2006 at 9:39 am
#11: Totally agree about Latos. Signing him has to be a priority.
December 8, 2006 at 9:54 am
Does anyone know what happened with the guy that we picked 2 picks after Latos, the prep SS Grant Greene? Did he end up going to the University?
December 8, 2006 at 9:57 am
http://www.aflacallamerican.co.....cfm?id=120
looks like he went to USC
December 8, 2006 at 10:01 am
he is on the 2007 USC roster
http://usctrojans.cstv.com/spo.....l-mtt.html
December 8, 2006 at 10:02 am
Rotoworld mentioned that the Braves may end up non-tendering Marcus Giles. Apparently no one wants to trade for him and they need to trim payroll. Does that mean he becomes a free agent?
December 8, 2006 at 10:02 am
28: Padre fans have a reason to be suspicious about the draft. We’ve had 8 drafts since we supposedly started to build from within. We have a weak farm system, little depth, near-zero impact talent. Matt Bush is still fresh in some minds, and the 2 drafts since then have not been very good. Better than 2002-2003, but not good.
30: Green (no last e) went to USC.
This is the last year for draft-and-follows.
December 8, 2006 at 10:03 am
why dont the padres offer something small like a AA prospect for him just to the braves dont let him walk for free, its win win.
December 8, 2006 at 10:03 am
33: I think so. That would be a helluva pickup.
December 8, 2006 at 10:05 am
Thanks Steve…
Re: 33 — If a team does not formally tender/offer a contract by a date in December (I think the 20th), the player is granted free agency.
December 8, 2006 at 10:06 am
Re: 34 I think its a little early to judge the 05 and 06 draft.
December 8, 2006 at 10:09 am
35: The Padres might be thinking they could sign Giles for less than what he’d get if he was traded and went to arbitration. They must feel like they have the inside track, he could play with his brother on their hometown team. If you could get him for a 2 year, 6 million contract without trading anybody, that’s better than trading for him and paying around 5 after arbitration.
Trading for him wouldn’t be a bad idea, though.
December 8, 2006 at 10:11 am
33, 35, 36 - I think that would mean we have to cut or trade B. Giles as MLB has a strict one-Giles-at-a-time policy.
Or at least I do.
December 8, 2006 at 10:12 am
Tom I agree that maybe what the padres are thinking that but my only problem is that the mets are still without a young 2B and they may be willing to offer him more than what he’s worth and stick it to a divisional rival at the same time.
December 8, 2006 at 10:16 am
Here is our 3rd catcher and back-up 1B…
http://www.pinstripealley.com/.....1273/74485
Okay, I really don’t think so, but I laughed when I read this…
December 8, 2006 at 10:18 am
38: I don’t. The last 2 years we’ve drafted safely. That approach has its place, but you have to be realistic. The power hitters we drafted last year are likely to end up as Jon Knott or Paul McAnulty. Antonelli looks a lot like Ryan Freel. Many of the pitchers we drafted in 2005 have already been turned into relievers.
There’s also the problem of drafting for trade chips. Nobody wants our prospects.
December 8, 2006 at 10:19 am
42: Who can blame him? The way teams are throwing money around, expect to see Babe Ruth claw his way out of the earth for one more payday.
December 8, 2006 at 10:21 am
43…Tom couple that with Matt Bush and I 100% agree with you…
Justin Verlander and Stephen Drew…
That makes me sad all over again.
December 8, 2006 at 10:24 am
Re: 38 I agree with your analysis but I think because of the barren state that the minors where in (lets face it KT could not draft a position player if his life depended on it, and was not that great with pitchers as well) the new regime had to take safe pick’s just to put some talent on the ML teams so when real prospects come through they have a little bit better of a surrounding and the system wont drag them down.
December 8, 2006 at 10:25 am
I mean would you really want a top prospect on a team with the likes of a Matt Bush to influance him?
December 8, 2006 at 10:26 am
45: I drew (or Drew) the line at 2005 because that was the first year of the Alderson/Fuson regime. That may be giving them too much slack, but whatever. The 2005 and 06 drafts were better, but we still picked a lot of signability types and passed on high upsides. Not close your eyes and cross your fingers Matt Bush kind of upsides, serious upsides.
The next draft class is supposed to be better than the last few. We’ll see how we use those supplemental picks. I’d like to think we’d simply go down our draft board and pick the best player available at each slot, but will anyone be surprised if we hear “When you have a lot of picks, you have to choose guys who are sure to sign so you don’t bust the budget?”
December 8, 2006 at 10:28 am
#43: Slight correction to that last statement. It should read, “Nobody but the Cubs, Devil Rays, and Indians wants our prospects.”
December 8, 2006 at 10:35 am
49: Nobody but us wanted Walker or Branyan. We can move some low-level scrubs for underperforming vets with limited upside. Yay us.
The Indians didn’t take a prospect, they took our starting 2b.
Let’s say we wanted to trade for Jason Jennings, who is on the block. Or Vernon Wells. Somebody who really improves the major league club. We can’t do it with minor leaguers.
December 8, 2006 at 10:39 am
Re 50 i belive GY was refering to the Mike Adams/Brian Sikorski deal
December 8, 2006 at 10:42 am
Barfield was drafted and developed by the Padres. Regardless of who wanted Walker or Branyan, both players provided value.
True that our current crop of minor leaguers won’t land an impact player in trade. Hopefully under Fuson, that will be less of an issue going forward.
December 8, 2006 at 10:43 am
51: Wow, if we’re counting 32 year old Sikorski, signed as a free agent out of Japan, as both “ours” and a “prospect,” then we’re in even worse trouble.
December 8, 2006 at 10:43 am
Tom, we can’t get Jennings b/c he plays for the Rockies…
But I agree with your point. I was going through the roster of our AAA, AA, and A ball teams and they are silly…not silly good, but silly bad. If we want to make a trade for an impact player, the only real chips we have to trade are Greene (with an e), Linebrink, and Peavy. Since Towers and Alderson swear up and down that Peavy ain’t goin’ any where that leaves us with Liney and KG.
KG would create a hole w/o a replacement…as much as y’all know I am not a fan of KG, it would take a lot to trade him (rightfully so.)
So that leaves Linebrink…and he should net us Pat the Bat.
How is that for power of deduction?!!??
December 8, 2006 at 10:44 am
Well I dont think they were looking for imp[act players I think they were looking for guys who in a few years could be called up to the big leauges if someone got hurt. If Cameron, Greene, or Kouzmanoff, Bard or Bowen goes down this year who can we pull up from AAA to replace them?
December 8, 2006 at 10:46 am
But you are correct TW I think this years draft should be the year they take a risk on an impact player.
December 8, 2006 at 10:48 am
I may have missd this (I know they were talking about it last year) but when did Mobile move to San Antonio?
December 8, 2006 at 10:52 am
Wow the Yankees really do need pitching!
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=2690331
December 8, 2006 at 10:58 am
57: Just this fall. Towers HATED Mobile.
55: It’s good to have some players who are safe bets. That’s about all we’ve been doing since 99-00, though. If you’re not going to pay FA prices to get great players, they’ve got to come from somewhere. That means either developing them or having enough prospects to trade for them. If they’re not looking for impact players, they need to find other work.
Any team in the majors could have made the Walker/Branyan trades. Everybody’s got relief prospects or kids with big arms and no control in low A ball.
December 8, 2006 at 11:01 am
Re 57 - It was announced about 1 month ago, but it was known about 3 months ago.
December 8, 2006 at 11:14 am
Re: 59 & 60, Thanks I thought i heard KT say they were thinking about moving on the radio but I never heard the official anouncement.
Re: 59 I agree I think they were establising a base the firs 2 years now they really need to go after the high upside guys.
December 8, 2006 at 11:27 am
IF the non-orange Giles gets non-tendered, AND we do sign him what do we do with Todd Walker? I guess Giles can play 3B also, but I can’t see us carrying him as a “utility” infielder especially when he can’t play SS.
I’d like to see us pick up Omar Infante as a backup IF, personally.
December 8, 2006 at 11:33 am
62: We have a couple options. We could trade Walker. Might have to wait until May, not sure, that used to be a requirement for free agents but I don’t know about free agents who accept arbitration. Keeping him isn’t bad, either. He’s not really a utility player, since he only plays 2nd and 1st adequately and doesn’t have the power you want for 1st base, but we’ve had many worse PH than him.
Infante’s not a bad idea. Better if we didn’t already have Blum.
December 8, 2006 at 11:59 am
I disagree with TW and agree with Steve regarding the Padres’ drafting philosophy from 2005 and 2006. When your system is terrible at the upper and lower levels, you need to build a base. You need to make relatively safer picks and you try to avoid giving up compensatory draft picks. Except for David Wells prior to the 2004 season costing them a pick (which may have impacted the Matt Bush selection), the team has tried to execute both strategies. In such circumstances, you can’t afford to swing and miss as much.
As the base is built, then you can afford to be more risky. I am not sure they are there yet - if TW is to be believed about the state of the farm system, they are not there yet. In that case, they need to err on the side of safety in making picks to further build the base.
On the other side, I am open to being convinced that my view is wrong. If TW would be so kind, perhaps he could let us know which picks he was advocating prior to the 2005 and 2006 drafts, which picks he can demonstrate the Padres avoided because of signability concerns. I will consider any except Hochevar, who in 2005 couldn’t even come to terms with a high revenue/salary team with a currently elite farm system.
December 8, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Here is as post to follow up a post I did yesterday regarding the payroll rankings of the pas 15 world series winners.
The list below is of the teams who had the most wins in each league and their overall payroll ranking for the past 15 years.
year - team - # of wins (Payroll rank)
AL
1991 - Twins - 95 (16)
1992 - A’s/Jays - 96 (5/3)
1993 - Jays - 95 - (1)
1994 - Yankees - 70 (1) (Strike year)
1995 - Indians - 100 (9)
1996 - Indians - 99 (4)
1997 - Oriels - 98 (2)
1998 - Yankees - 114 (2)
1999 - Yankees - 98 (1)
2000 - White Sox - 95 (26)
2001 - Mariners - 116 (11)
2002 - Yankees/A’s - 103 (1/28)
2003 - Yankees - 101 (1)
2004 - Yankees - 104 (1)
2005 - White Sox - 99 (13)
2006 - Yankees - 97 (1)
NL
1991 - Pirates - 98 (14)
1992 - Braves - 96 (11)
1993 - Braves - 104 - (7)
1994 - Expos - 74 (27) The only team with a lower Payroll this year was the padres
1995 - Braves - 90 (3)
1996 - Braves - 96 (3)
1997 - Braves - 101 (5)
1998 - Braves - 106 (3)
1999 - Braves - 103 (3)
2000 - Giants - 97 (17)
2001 - Astros - 93 (17)
2002 - Braves- 101 (7)
2003 - Braves - 101 (3)
2004 - Cardnals - 105 (8)
2005 - Cardnals - 100 (6)
2006 - Mets - 97 (5)
December 8, 2006 at 12:18 pm
64: I’ll rank the players who were considered higher impact than the Padres picks in the last two drafts, IF anyone can demonstrate the usefulness of having “a base.” I’m taking Steve’s idea that you do it so your later superstars have nice guys around them as sarcasm rather than a true reason. What’s the payoff for not swinging-and-missing?
Just going off last year, Drabek, Beato, Chamberlain, Conger, and Bard were all higher upside picks than Antonelli, and that was only the 1st and 1st rd supplemental. That’s four potential #1 - #2 starters and an impact bat at catcher. Throw in Sulentic, who didn’t go until the 3rd but was considered a potentially huge bat. Did we pass on them for signability or because we honestly thought Antonelli was better? Don’t know, they don’t publish transcripts of the Padre draft meetings. There’s no question they had higher upside before the draft and that they have higher trade value than Antonelli now.
December 8, 2006 at 12:22 pm
63: Why do you exempt Hochevar? He wasn’t considered any tougher sign than other Boras clients before the draft. He was high on our board, too, if I remember the story correctly. But when we got Carrillo, who was a good choice, we didn’t have the budget for Hochevar with our next pick. So we went the safe route with Ramos, and essentially spent 800,000 for nothing. We didn’t swing and miss, we thought we were getting a finesse lefty who wouldn’t strike many people out, and that’s exactly what we got. Goody.
December 8, 2006 at 12:25 pm
67: Meant 64.
December 8, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Re: 66 it was half sarcastic half true, I do think that you need to have good players around an up and coming player for them to succeeded.. My real point for a base is that if the padres have a solid minor league system then they can pull from it during the year when their players go down. Once that base has been established I think they can then go after guys that have more upside but may be more of a project.
December 8, 2006 at 12:32 pm
As it is, I think we’re gonna have to bring in our backup 2B everytime Meredith takes the mound.
December 8, 2006 at 12:33 pm
case and point mike thompson, he will never be more than a 4/5 starter in the majors but he did well when the pads pulled him up. Who can the padres call up if Greene, Walker, Cameron, Kouzmanoff, Bard or Bowen go down?
December 8, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Re: 70 is blum that much better than Walker with the glove?
December 8, 2006 at 12:41 pm
69: Do you think the team could time things even if they believed that? We’ll draft a bunch of safe players to provide a cushion for higher upside players, who might come right out of high school and be 1 or 2 levels behind the safe guys? The 2007 draft leans heavily toward high school. Most of the players we drafted last year will be in Ft. Wayne at a minimum, it wouldn’t be surprising to see several of them in San Antonio by June. Maybe they can give the high-upside 2007 draftees their own Sidekicks so the cushion 2005 and 2006 draftees can provide electronic support.
December 8, 2006 at 12:42 pm
I exempt Hochevar because he couldn’t even get signed by the Dodgers. Logically, you have to assume that even if drafted by the lower budget Padres in 2005 yet offered a solid offer like the Dodgers made, he wouldn’t have been signed.
As for the importance of building up a farm system, if you have a weak one to start, one is less likely to improve it overall by taking a bunch of high school high upside guys, because the odds of swinging and missing are much higher, rendering you more likely to remain weak. If you primarily take relatively lower upside college guys who project as solid system guys and/or productive major leaguers who will reach top levels faster (but not necessarily become superstars), you can build up the overall quality of the system much faster, i.e. “the base”. When you have and can maintain that base, it hurts much less to swing and miss on high upside/higher risk players.
However, the essential elimination of draft and follow, an area where teams like the Padres could more easily take some risks than they could on first round high schoolers, will make draft strategy different for the Padres this year than it was in 2005 or 2006.
I project more high school choices earlier in the upcoming draft, given the abundance of draft picks collected by the Padres.
December 8, 2006 at 12:43 pm
No where it will all come to head is in AAA, the average players will be stuck there (see John Knott) and the good players will move on.
December 8, 2006 at 12:45 pm
By the way, TW, your cynicism and sarcasm doesn’t do much to foster a useful exchange of ideas. Then again, your writing is reminiscent of a sarcastic/cynical type who posts on the espn.com boards, a true haven for such writing.
December 8, 2006 at 12:46 pm
I Think TW is bring rather nice today compaired to days past
December 8, 2006 at 12:47 pm
* being not brining
December 8, 2006 at 12:47 pm
what do you do for a living TW is you dont mind me asking?
December 8, 2006 at 12:54 pm
74: Wait, on the one hand you only want me to point out picks who were generally considered to be higher upside BEFORE the Padres pick, but you want to exempt Hochevar because of something that happened AFTER the draft. It can’t work both ways. I don’t fault the Padres for drafting Tim Stauffer because they didn’t know about his shoulder when they picked him. Knowing what they knew when they knew it, he was a good pick. Knowing what teams knew about Hochevar before the draft, he was the best pick on the board and we grabbed Ramos instead.
BA has shown that the gap in reaching the major leagues between HS and college players is perception, not reality. Pick the right HS kids, they’re just as likely to make it as “safe” college picks. The difference is the price tag.
I don’t mind them taking some college guys. I’m a big Freese fan. If Alderson can convince Moores to spend in the 2007 draft, good. Since he’s on record as wanting to take the risk out of drafting, I’m not holding my breath. Will we go for the big upsides or will we see the 2007 versions of Omar Ortiz, Casey Burns, and Mike Bynum?
December 8, 2006 at 1:00 pm
76: Gee, thanks Dad. I’ll be sure to spend the next few days contemplating your words of wisdom. How did I ever get this far in life without your guidance?
Or maybe I’ll check my belly-button for lint.
December 8, 2006 at 1:00 pm
TW has a good point; the Padres have generally passed on high upside, difficult to sign guys. This has continued the past two years (although it is too early to evaluate how well they made those picks). This could be because the drafts were college heavy, because the front office believed sure thing, limited upside guys are more important for this team right now, or because the Padres are cheap. But it seems like this draft has more high school strength (from what I’ve read), and the Padres have enough picks to get sure thing limited upside guys and one or two guys with high upside and perhaps some signability concerns. And hopefully that is the reason the team is stockpiling picks.
December 8, 2006 at 1:00 pm
FWIW, I find TW’s views refreshing and thoughtful even though I don’t always agree with him.
Thanks, TW, for providing a good counterpoint.
December 8, 2006 at 1:02 pm
83: GY making me feel that 81 was perhaps a bit gratuitous on my part. A wee bit of the old ultraviolence.
December 8, 2006 at 1:02 pm
80: I recall a baseball prospectus study recently mentioned that by far the best return on draft picks came on college hitters. After that, however, the other three groups (college pitchers, prep hitters, prep pitchers) were pretty much indistinguishable.
December 8, 2006 at 1:03 pm
#82: I agree with this to an extent; however, I believe the picks of Latos and Cedric Hunter represent at least some movement in another direction (baby steps). Getting Latos signed would be huge. I seem to recall the Padres drafting a high school right-hander in round 15 of the ‘99 draft. Maybe lightning can strike twice.
December 8, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Hey, checking one’s belly button for lint is a worthy endeavor.
December 8, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Re: 77 I spoke to soon
December 8, 2006 at 1:06 pm
85: I remember a study like that, but I thought the big difference was college 1b and everybody else, and that was largely because the 90s had several huge impact college 1b. I think it was Alan Schwartz of BA who did the study comparing HS and college.
At the risk of being cynical and/or sarcastic, I believe there have been at least two studies that show the biggest gap in the draft is between the 1st overall pick and everybody else. I hope we never earn that pick again, because it would mean we were bad the year before and because I’d have to relieve Matt Bush.
December 8, 2006 at 1:08 pm
89: Relive.
December 8, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Here’s the BP study on draft returns:
http://www.baseballprospectus......cleid=5152
Great stuff in there, everyone should definitely check it out. Conclusions are: college players more likely to reach the majors (nothing about upside once they are there, though). High school players’ returns have increased relative to college players recently, but college players still have an advantage. College hitters offer the best return. There is a lot more great stuff in the article.
December 8, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Oh, and the data was through 1999 because it’s still too early to judge drafts in the 2000s conclusively.
December 8, 2006 at 1:18 pm
91: I don’t know if Schwartz’s BA study is online. It was in the magazine, but I don’t keep the hard copies.
I suspect the difference may be in Rule 2, the part about equal draft caliber. I can’t recall how Schwartz calculated where a player “should” have gone.
December 8, 2006 at 1:20 pm
92: I’d expect the values continue to converge, since teams are less willing to let HS kids get away. The mandatory signing date and the compensation for not signing a pick gives teams a little more leverage, too.
I don’t know if any draft study has looked at HS pitchers who sign and get hurt from age 18-21 versus those who go to college and get hurt before they’re eligible for the draft.
December 8, 2006 at 1:27 pm