Looking Forward, Johnson Rumors
Tue, Dec 26, 2006
by Geoff Young
I hope you are having an excellent holiday season. I’m still recovering from bad science fiction movies, but other than that, all is well.
Two quick items on the table today. First, my latest article is up at Hardball Times. It’s a silly list of wishes for each of the 30 teams for the coming year. Very little Padres content.
The second item involves a nasty little rumor about Randy Johnson possibly coming to San Diego. The price is believed to be reliever Scott Linebrink.
Two thoughts:
- The Padres already traded George Kottaras for David Wells. If they insist on sticking an ancient left-hander at the back of the rotation, why not work something out with the guy they already gave up something to get?
- If the Padres weren’t willing to give Linebrink for Marcus Giles, a good young second baseman, then why would they be willing to do so for a 43-year-old pitcher coming off a 5.00 ERA season?
Apparently Johnson wants to be closer to his Arizona home. The Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Giants and Angels are thought to be other possible destinations for him. Honestly, I wouldn’t have a problem with him ending up in any of those places, especially if it costs one of the NL West clubs a good young player or two.
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 26, 2006 at 9:15 am
I’m not sure I understand the “Big Unit” talks either. Hopefully we’re in the middle of a 3 team deal that gets us a bat for left field. Randy Johnson doesn’t seem to fit on or off the field.
December 26, 2006 at 10:17 am
I bet the Pads are in the Johnson mix to drive up the Yanks’ asking price from Arizona.
December 26, 2006 at 11:05 am
I imagine it’s working, because supposedly right now we have the best offer on the table.
December 26, 2006 at 11:41 am
I think Johnson in San Diego would be intriguing, and I don’t think the Kottaras-Wells deal has a thing to do with it.
December 26, 2006 at 11:42 am
Other than Linebrink and the 15M increase to the payroll, what do you expect Johnson to cost? He could be a huge upgrade to the rotation and if Wells is going to cost 8M/year, I’d rather have Johnson.
December 26, 2006 at 11:48 am
I think the Padres are merely trying to drive up the cost for Arizona…
December 26, 2006 at 11:52 am
If the Padres can land Johnson without giving up Linebrink or anything else of value, I’m all for it. Otherwise, I’d rather stick with Wells or even Mike Thompson until more reasonable options become available. Agreed that Johnson in San Diego would be intriguing. Not sure that “intriguing” is such a good thing in this case…
December 26, 2006 at 11:56 am
When did Linebrink become Albert Pujols? First, the Padres were going to trade him for Wilson Betimeit, then Marcus Giles, now Randy Johnson. This may be the time to trade him. Linebrink wasn’t dominant last season.
December 26, 2006 at 12:00 pm
And I meant intriguing as a good thing.
December 26, 2006 at 12:04 pm
I’m glad they didn’t trade Linebrink for Betemit (Branyan cost less and outperformed him) or Giles, who they were able to sign as a free agent instead.
True that Linebrink wasn’t dominant last season. Neither was Johnson, who is 13 years older. If I had to bet on one of them bouncing back next year, I know which one it would be.
December 26, 2006 at 12:06 pm
I’d do Linebrink + something for Johnson…I don’t know what the Yankees would be looking for (any interest in Todd Walker?). I’d be thrilled to have him in the rotation next year. A rotation of Peavy-Johnson-Maddux-Young-??? (I’m assuming that we’d trade Hensley for a LF) is pretty easy to dream on.
December 26, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Linebrink’s upside is a lot smaller than Johnson’s. Nate Silver just wrote a column on BP about how big of a bargin that Johnson would be. His high ERA last year was not due to declining peripherals or reduced performance–he gave up a .370 BABIP with runners on base. That’s a total fluke statistic that will norm next year. I think he’d be the second best pitcher on the Padres. PECOTA projects him for a 3.52 ERA next year. We’d take that…
December 26, 2006 at 12:09 pm
If the Padres trade Liny for Randy “the whiner” Johnson, I’ll kill myself.
Ok, overstated, but that doesn’t sound like a KT type trade anyway. Besides, we already have one old guy pitcher, possibly two. We dont need another, especially a whiny one (speaking of whining). Basestealing, leadoff hitter, left fielder with pop in the bat. Keep thinking that.
December 26, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Count me with Paul and Kevin on Johnson’s value. Johnson is no sure thing, but Mike Thompson is there whether this trade gets made or not. A healthy Johnson smokes David Wells or any other pitcher we can land. There aren’t any attractive FA bats for left, so what does saving money get us?
I don’t see them trading Hensley for a LF because there’s so much health risk in the rotation and the farm is so barren. Free Paul McAnulty!
December 26, 2006 at 12:16 pm
13: Too bad MLB won’t let us play 10 guys in the field. We have one open spot, LF. Our LF is not going to be a basestealing leadoff hitter with pop in his bat. Nobody under contract fits that description and the likely trade targets, Burrell, Dunn, don’t steal bases or fit the leadoff mold.
December 26, 2006 at 12:22 pm
RJ - yeah, that 5.00 ERA is very misleading. His peripherals looked like a 3.50 pitcher. We need to add some upside to this team. Age means little if you’re committing only 1 year to him.
December 26, 2006 at 12:23 pm
PM, Sorry, but TW is right. Our leadoff hitter will be some shade of Giles. SB aren’t going to be the priority out of LF.
December 26, 2006 at 12:32 pm
They might still have the LF leadoff (Sledge), but then you don’t get SB or big power.
December 26, 2006 at 12:33 pm
ZIPS projections for the Phillies are out today. http://www.baseballthinkfactor....._phillies/
Burrell projects to a 262/373/487 season. I wonder how much that SLG would drop in Petco? I’d still take an .850 OPS out of our LF for next year.
December 26, 2006 at 12:36 pm
I’m all for Johnson. I think he could have a huge year at Petco, and then we let him walk for 2008.
We’d have the hands down best rotation in MLB…
December 26, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I wouldn’t trade Hensley.
Stolen bases are not important.
Marcus Giles is the leadoff man.
December 26, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Good point, Eric, about Johnson’s peripherals. One disturbing trend is his declining strikeout numbers. Throwing out 2003, when he made only 18 starts due to injury, here are his recent K/9 rates:
Age 37: 13.41
38: 11.56
40: 10.62
41: 8.42
42: 7.55
Again, I’d be okay with bringing Johnson here, but I wouldn’t want to see the Padres give up much. I’d rather have someone else in the division blow some prospects on him.
December 26, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I’m in favor of a Linebrink for Johnson swap. As mentioned above, here is the Nate Silver article on Johnson’s PECOTA for next year (keep in mind the numbers are for Yankee Stadium in the AL East):
http://www.baseballprospectus......e571557696
I have enough confidence in our non-Linebrink bullpen members to trade Linebrink and not expect a major dropoff, and Johnson is notably better than Wells or any other fifth starter option. He would put us over budget (I think), but it’s a one time cost with no future impact. It’s also worth noting that Linebrink is a free agent after this year.
December 26, 2006 at 1:49 pm
As a Yankee fan, I watched (or listened) to virtually all his Yankee game. His stats are very misleading. Back out 4 “throwback” starts and his ERA is 5.75. His wins were largely a result of the Yankee bats, virtually every start was a struggle.
Bad guy in the clubhouse too, apparently. Frequently injured, always making excuses.
If it’s only money, Padres should take a chance with him as 4 or 5. But the odds of a hurting 43 year old making a comeback are very long indeed. Linebrink has much more of an upside.
December 26, 2006 at 2:03 pm
I hope everyone had a nice Christmas.
Let me be the first to say that I’d much, much rather have 1 year of Johnson instead of Linebrink.
I don’t see a LF bat that makes a ton of sense at this time(unless those Andruw Jones rumors are true) combined with the fact that the Padres HAVE to spend another 10M+.
Yes Johnson’s K rate is down-but move him to Petco and into the NL West combined with some bounce back from being in a familiar league…..is having a K rate around 9.0 really unrealistic?
Probably not and other then Peavy I’d bet Johnson would be our best pitcher next season.
December 26, 2006 at 2:12 pm
22: His K/9 is down, but he went to the AL East, and even 7.5 puts him 3rd among our starters. Behind Peavy and Young, ahead Maddux and Hensley, well ahead of Boomer.
24: He doesn’t seem to be likeable, but he’s been part of a lot of winning clubs. His personality isn’t incompatible with winning.
24, Part 2: We’ve seen Linebrink’s upside. A dominant setup man. A dominant starter, like Johnson was as recently as 2005, is worth more. I’d say even an average starter is more important than 75 innings from a reliever.
December 26, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Re 26, wow, I am not sure I agree that an average starter is worth more than a dominant reliever and I don’t think Johnson is still necessarily an average starter anymore.
Then again, I thought Clemens was done 10 years ago so what the heck do I know.
December 26, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Nate Silver, one of BP’s top analysts thinks Johnson is a terrific pick-up. I don’t know if DS will let me post the link, but it’s in the Unfiltered section of Baseball Prospectus.
http://www.baseballprospectus......red/?p=119
There’s a crossover point where a reliever is more important than a starter, but the extra 125 innings from an average starter is very valuable. The reliever has to be extraordinary to make up for that.
December 26, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Silver article is interesting but so is my memory of last season. Johnson had some throwback starts where he dominated but the typical start seemed like such a struggle with the danger of a gopher ball at any time. He reminded more of Kevin Brown the year before than a number 1 or even a number 3.
I know it is very unfair, but I backed out his 6 dominant starts and came up with an ERA of 6.12 in his other 27. In addition, Johnson benefited from the left hander’s advantage in Yankee Stadium. I don’t know statistically how much that is worth but I imagine it would offset the DH a bit.
I think he would be a great pickup for the Padres as a number 5 starter. I don’t think a number 5 is worth Scott Linebrink unless 2005 was a total fluke.
December 26, 2006 at 3:36 pm
29: What was his ERA if you throw out his six poorest starts?
December 26, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Just how many starts are you going to back out? I can back out Linebrink’s 36 best innings, roughly the same as Johnson’s 6 throwback starts, and he’ll look worse than Tim Redding.
ERA is one of the more volatile pitching measures. Johnson’s not the same pitcher he used to be, but he’s not as bad as his ERA looked last year.
Our interest in him should be completely dependent on several experts examining his back and pronouncing it fit for 30 starts.
December 26, 2006 at 4:03 pm
We’re not counting on Johnson for 4 years. This is a one year deal. As Tom said, if his back will hold up for 30 starts, the Padres would be foolish not to trade 70 innings of Linebrink for 200 innings of Johnson. The only reason not to make this trade would be if the doctors say that Johnson’s back is absolutely shot.
December 26, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Random nickname note: according to Matt Meyers of ESPN Kouzmanoff was referred to as the Crushin’ Russian. However he’s not Russian, but rather Macedonian. Meyers suggests The Mashedonian. I found it amusing. Thought I’d share.
December 26, 2006 at 7:22 pm
re: 30-32
Exactly. I couldn’t agree more.
Why would you throw out starts? It’s all part of the whole picture. Throw out every starters’ six best starts, then reconfigure the league average.
As you said Tom, the difference between 70 innings and 200 innings is significant. And to make up that difference, the reliever has to be significantly better than the starter.
December 26, 2006 at 7:42 pm
And one more thing:
God bless James Brown.
December 26, 2006 at 9:06 pm
#35: Amen to that. Sorry I never got a chance to see him perform live.
On another note, I’m messing around with something that may or may not be useful. Let me know what you think:
http://ducksnorts.com/blog/san.....-gonzalez/
Anything else I should add?
December 26, 2006 at 9:30 pm
I’ve read the Silver article. I understand the peripherals pointing to a higher level of performance than his ERA. I still don’t think Johnson is worth picking up. I don’t buy him rebounding at his age and with his recent injury history. Don’t forget there’s more than just his back problems. He has no cartilage in one of his knees and has to receive injections of fluid just to allow him to pitch.
Furthermore, his salary is about 4 times what I’ve heard we might be able to get Wells for, and we don’t have to give up Linebrink for Wells. Even if Johnson rebounds, is he worth more than Wells, Linebrink and $12 million more in salary?
That being said, I’m all for trading Linebrink and adding some salary, as long as the salary added goes toward paying Burrell, whose salary is $3 million less than Johnson’s, btw.
December 26, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Kevin Goldstein’s Top 10 Padres prospects are up at Prospectus.
December 26, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Wow. Baseball Prospectus really isn’t very enthusiastic about our prospects. Ouch!
December 26, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Re 39: No secret there; no one else is very enthusiastic either.
Hopefully after this draft things will look a little brighter, but it is still going to take even Alderson, Fuson, and DePo a few years to build it up.
December 27, 2006 at 1:19 am
The system was so awful that I’m actually pretty happy to only be “very bad” now.
December 27, 2006 at 5:57 am
RE: Linebrink. Throw out one bad month last year (actually, it was basically two bad outings - on July 23 and 24th, with trade rumors swirling around him big-time, Linebrink gave up 6 ER in less than two innings. Throw those out and he had a good season. )
I like Randy but there’s no way of knowing how well his back has recovered - he had offseason surgery to repair a herniated disc - risky at his age. I would offer up some middling prospects/players for him and see if the Yanks bite - they’re more interested in dumping his salary than in actually acquiring anybody of value.
RE: the Padres minor leaguers…
Imagine how much better we’d rank if we had avoided “signability” picks and taken, oh, I dunno, Stephen Drew over Matt Bush? Or anybody over Kevin Nicholson. Or Tim Stauffer? The mess that is the Padres minor leagues is not the fault of bad luck - it’s because of cheap, faulty drafting strategies. Can anybody tell me, with a straight face, that Bush was better than Drew when drafted? Can you imagine a team right now that had Drew at short, Greene at 3rd or as trade bait, Kouzmanoff at 2nd? Ah, wishful thinking. At least Bush didn’t get into any bar fights last year. That’s reason to hope, right?
December 27, 2006 at 7:00 am
As a Yankee and Padre fan, my last word on the matter, my other Yankee fan friends are greeting with enthusiasm any trade that gets rid of Johnson, so caveat emptor.
Playing with stats is wonderful but you got to see the games and Johnson was by and large painful to watch last year. Linebrink for the 8th inning would be a great addition to the Yanks and hopefully allow Farnsworth to be dealt and lessen the workload on Procter. Johnson out of the rotation would be addition by subtraction.
If the trade happens, may it be a win/win for my two favorite teams.
December 27, 2006 at 7:51 am
42: Nicholson and Stauffer weren’t signability picks. Nicholson was bad drafting, but Brad Sloane thought he’d be a player. Stauffer was a very highly ranked college pitcher. We got him cheap because we found out later he was hurt, we didn’t pick him because he’d be cheap. The next pick that year, Daniel Moore, that was a signability move.
That whole 2003 draft for us was nasty. It wasn’t a good draft class in general, we didn’t draft well, and we had bad luck with the good players we did draft. Not a fun trifecta.
Kouzmanoff can no more play second base than I can fly. If we’d drafted the way the scouts wanted, it would be Drew and Greene sharing the middle infield with Kouzmanoff at 3rd. Or it would be the same infield we have now with Jered Weaver as the #3 starter.
December 27, 2006 at 7:53 am
This kind of flew under the radar but the padres picked up Craig Stansberry off wwaivers from the pirates, deos anyone know anything about this kid? His minor leauge stats make him look like the 2nd coming of mark bellhorn.
http://www.thebaseballcube.com.....erry.shtml
December 27, 2006 at 7:57 am
43
Lem I agree. I saw/heard quite a few Johnson starts last year, and they were painful. He looked old.
But that maybe due to his bad back. I’m on the fence about the “trade” — but if it’s Linebrink for Johnson straight up, I’d pull the trigger. TW in #31 is correct — a good (or average) starter is more valuable than a good reliever.
I still think the Pads are in this to increase the asking price, however — which also is a good move.
December 27, 2006 at 8:00 am
From the NY Post:
“The Yanks and Arizona have been engaged in serious talks for a week. Hall said the Diamondbacks had rejected the Yanks’ initial request for top pitching prospects, and Arizona has made it clear that such positional targets as Conor Jackson, Alberto Callaspo, Chad Tracy and their best outfielders are off limits. The Padres are believed to be offering reliever Scott Linebrink and two prospects, possibly including Kevin Kouzmanoff, whom the Yanks pursued earlier in the offseason as a righty-hitting first base alternative (the signing of Shea Hillenbrand with the Angels yesterday removed one Yankee target).”
December 27, 2006 at 8:02 am
Re: 42 & 44, You have to remember Stauffer had some buzz around him up until he came up for a cup of coffee in 2005, I believe he was in either the 2003 or 2004 futures game and threw a dominate inning.
Stauffer just lost his confidence when he came up a few years ago and has not really regained it.
December 27, 2006 at 8:04 am
Re: 47 you have to remember that your getting that from the post, who are not exactly known for their accuracy.
I believe Linebrink but not Kouz.
December 27, 2006 at 8:22 am
47: I don’t believe we have any intention of trading Kouzmanoff, especially not for a single Randy Johnson season.
48: Stauffer may have lost his confidence, but he also lost 3-5 mph off his fastball when his shoulder got hurt during his junior year. He was supposed to be throwing a little harder in the second half of last season, but if that’s true it didn’t show up in his numbers. July was the only month he had acceptable strikeouts.
December 27, 2006 at 8:56 am
No way we give up Kouz. We don’t have a 3B without him, aside from Branyan. Makes no sense.
As for Linebrink for Johnson, I added up their VORP for the last four years: RJ: 141.9; LJ: 97.5; average: 35.5 vs 24.4. So, yes, an edge for Johnson, but not a huge one. I am guessing they will be about even in 2007. I would get Wells if we could (don’t have to give up anything).
December 27, 2006 at 9:10 am
I don’t believe Kouzmanoff would be dealt either. Too bad we can’t throw something in to make it Linebrink + ? for RJ and Licky Cabrera.
December 27, 2006 at 9:12 am
Tim Kurkjian wrote a nice article on Gwynn
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=2708775
December 27, 2006 at 9:45 am
51: It’s all a matter of where you draw the line. If we went for WARP over the last 3 years, Johnson’s been 9.2 wins better than Linebrink. Most of that was in his dominant 2004, though. Go for just the last 2 years and the gap is only 2.4 wins, which is still a real gap, it’s hard for any one player to be worth a full win over a true major leaguer.
The other question is upside. Scotty’s 30 years old. He’s not going to start striking out 2 per inning. He’s a very good reliever, you can expect him to be worth 3-4 more wins than replacment level. As “bad” as Johnson was last year, his WARP was 3.6. But there’s a chance he can get you 7 wins above replacement, and Linebrink can’t. The flameout risk is higher on Johnson, but so’s the reward.
December 27, 2006 at 9:53 am
I don’t think it really matters in the long run, KT is just driving up the price for the D-backs who probably want Johnson to retire in purple and teal. The D-backs will end up taking on way to much of Jonson’s contract and giving up one of their many good prospects.
December 27, 2006 at 10:50 am
I heard that Randy Johnson lost his brother recently and that’s why he asked Cashman for a trade from the Yankees. He does have no trade clause, I think. Also, the Diamondbacks are still owing him money from the last contract Johnson had with them, getting Johnson back into the new red uniform will, supposedly, allow the Dbacks to rework that payment plan.
My guess, no way is he coming to San Diego. And even if the Padres has to trade for Johnson, there is no reason to do it now. Didn’t Johnson just had a back surgery? Counting on him to throw 200 plus innings is probably not very wise. I saw a couple of Johnson’s start last season and I believe that he has become hittable. Maybe the back was bothering him a lot.
However, if he’s healthy, a straight swap for Linebrink is worth it. Still, for the amount of money that the Padres are going to pay for Johnson, and the fact that the price of a reliever has gone way way up, I’d be very careful on evaluating Johnson’s health.
December 27, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Padres are definitely in this to drive up the price for AZ.
They can get a way better deal than Johnson for Linebrink.