Maddux Comes to San Diego
Wed, Dec 6, 2006
by Geoff Young
Okay, people know who Greg Maddux is, so I can’t just make stuff up on this one. As you probably are aware by now, the Padres have signed Maddux to a 1-year deal worth $10 million that includes a player option for 2008 which will be worth $6-10 million depending on 2007 performance.
With the horrible contracts being handed out to mediocre pitchers this winter (Adam Eaton, 3 years, $24.5 million; Vicente Padilla, 3 years, $34 million), I shudder to imagine what the likes of Jason Schmidt and Barry Zito will end up landing. In that context, now is a great time to invest short term in someone who can provide immediate help and who won’t tie up a lot of resources well into the future.
How do you do that? Simple, find an old guy.
Seven starting pitchers age 37 or older filed for free agency this winter. All but two of them (Roger Clemens, 44; David Wells, 43) have signed. Recognizing that Maddux’s career took a serious downward turn in 2003, here is how the five old starting pitchers (not an elegant description, but accurate) have fared since then:
| Pitcher | Age | Dollars | IP | ERA+ | H/9 | BB/9 | SO/9 | HR/9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tom Glavine | 41 | 10.5 | 200.1 | 110 | 9.32 | 2.86 | 4.77 | 0.84 |
| Orlando Hernandez | 38/42 | 12.0 | 94 | 98 | 8.75 | 3.52 | 8.13 | 1.17 |
| Greg Maddux | 41 | 10.0 | 214.2 | 106 | 9.35 | 1.45 | 5.48 | 1.12 |
| Mike Mussina | 39 | 23.0 | 189 | 112 | 8.96 | 1.93 | 7.63 | 1.05 |
| Woody Williams | 41 | 12.5 | 179 | 99 | 9.30 | 2.50 | 5.81 | 1.07 |
| Notes: Age is age at end of contract. Dollars is dollars (million) guaranteed throughout duration of contract. IP is average number of innings pitched during seasons 2003-2006. Stats courtesy of David Pinto’s Day by Day Database, Baseball-Reference, and ESPN’s Free Agent Tracker. | ||||||||
In terms of performance and money commitment, Glavine probably is the best investment. Hernandez easily is the worst. If I had to rank these signings, I’d do it as follows:
- Glavine
- Maddux
- Mussina
- Williams
- Hernandez
Mussina is the hardest to figure, because you have to do the conversion rates for Yankees money. His $23 million probably comes out to around $13-15 million for most other clubs, and that’s a pretty good deal. You could make a strong case for putting him ahead of Maddux, and I wouldn’t argue the point.
Either way, Maddux is a solid investment in the current market. He’s old, but he’s durable, reliable, and reasonably effective — certainly effective enough to be someone’s #3 or #4 starter, which is all the Padres are asking. Maddux really takes over the role held by Wells in 2004 and Williams in 2005-2006. He’s pricier than either of those two guys were, but today’s market is significantly more insane than the one that existed when they signed.
In Maddux, the Padres get a solid innings eater into the back of the rotation without tying up long-term resources. They also get a guy who doesn’t cost any draft picks. The Dodgers, fearful that he might accept, didn’t offer Maddux arbitration.
The only potential downside to this deal is that, at his age, Maddux could fall off the proverbial cliff any moment. But you have to like 19 consecutive seasons of 199+ innings pitched and 100+ ERA+.
An added benefit to having Maddux on the club, as Jake Peavy notes, is that other pitchers on the staff will have the opportunity to “sit on the bench and talk baseball with him.” There was some discussion in yesterday’s comments about the extent to which this might be true and, if so, how much value it would provide, but apparently Peavy and Maddux are friends, so at least one pitcher will have a chance to pick the professor’s brain. Obviously, you bring a guy in for what he can give you on the field, but something like this seems like a nice little bonus to me.
Another benefit is that, with Todd Walker and the Padres apparently headed to arbitration (and with Walker likely to cost around $3 million), there should be plenty of room in the budget for a power-hitting left fielder. Off the top of my head, I believe the Pads have spent about half of the $30 million or so they had available coming into the off-season. That should be enough to land a replacement for Dave Roberts in left — if not in the market as it stands right now, then perhaps closer to spring training or even after the season starts.
(It’s important to remember that payroll flexibility benefits a team even after winter has passed. If it turns out that there isn’t a good fit for the Padres right now, I expect the doors will remain open to finding a legitimate left fielder.)
Time to wrap up what has become a rambling post. Signing Maddux is a solid short-term move that should help the Padres stay competitive in 2007. It doesn’t hurt them long term, in terms of money or draft picks, and there is the potential side benefit of kids like Peavy, Chris Young, and Clay Hensley getting to watch and/or talk to Maddux about his craft.
I don’t believe the Padres are done yet (in addition to finding a left fielder and a platoon partner for Walker at second, there’s talk of re-signing Wells). The front office still has work to do if they want to bring a third straight division title to San Diego, but adding Maddux to the staff certainly is a nice start.
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 6, 2006 at 8:46 am
What about CHP, or is he too expesive. That would be a tough rotation, Pev, Mad, CHP, Young, Clay.
Who are the possible left fielding big bats available?
December 6, 2006 at 8:48 am
I think that the pads may see what happens with Manny after everything cools down and if the sox have not traded him they may make another run and may be willing to take on a lot of his salary.
December 6, 2006 at 8:55 am
But then again I also have kind of an odd gut feeling that the Padres may stick Branyan in left as kind of a poor mans Adam Dunn and say that they are going to save the extra cash and try to make a move at the deadline.
Career #’s
AB/OBP/SLUG/OPS/HR
Dunn 2832/.380/.513/.893/198
Branyan 1705/.327/.483/.810/111
Im not an advocate of this move I just think the pads are heading this way.
December 6, 2006 at 8:56 am
Last night on XX, Bob Scanlan was nearly tripping over his words talking about what a great teammate Maddux was when they played on the Cubs.
December 6, 2006 at 9:19 am
Yeay, the Padres got Maddux without breaking the bank.
Excellent move, KT. Glad you got this deal done.
December 6, 2006 at 9:41 am
I say no to CHP as he is a Boras client. I’d rather have David Wells back. Hell, I’m not opposed to going after Schmidt too and having a completely stacked rotation of Peavy, Schmidt, Young, Maddux and Hensley!
I’m still liking the idea of Pat Burrell in LF if Linebrink gets him.
December 6, 2006 at 10:07 am
I keep seeing Marcus Giles name popping up in various nations rumors articles concerning the padres, I thought that deal was dead and the pads had moved on, has any one heard anything different.
December 6, 2006 at 10:10 am
Any concern about the lack of a lefty starter? Getting Wells to man the #5 spot would fix that toot-sweet. What about Estes? Is he completely out of the plans?
December 6, 2006 at 10:16 am
#9
I don’t mind not having a left-handed SP so much due to the Petco factor. I’d rather have our opponents batting left-handed and trying to pull the ball to right as opposed to making new divots in the Western Metal Supply Building batting righty. That being said, we seriously need to due something about the lack of a consistent right-handed power bat in the lineup.
December 6, 2006 at 10:17 am
Re: #8 I would not mind either guys in the #5 spot, but is Estes ready to go?
December 6, 2006 at 10:17 am
I think Estes is like Mulder in that he won’t be available until June-ish due to his surgery. He would be a great addition is he can regain his strength and control. His first (and only) game last year was decent.
December 6, 2006 at 10:17 am
Opps…should have been #8 and not #9.
December 6, 2006 at 10:28 am
Re: #11 maybe Estes would sign a minor leauge deal so that he can do his rehab downthere and then be called up by the big club if he shows that he can do it.
December 6, 2006 at 10:30 am
msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6242312
Schmidt goes to the dodgers 3 years $47 mil
December 6, 2006 at 10:34 am
Padres are 11 and 9 v.s. Schmidt in 27 total starts with an ERA of 4.78.
The odd thing is that in 5 career starts at Petco park Schmidt is 2and 3 with an ERA of 5.90
December 6, 2006 at 10:35 am
Estes hasn’t been a good pitcher in 7 years. A minor league deal at most.
The Dodgers got Schmidt, easily the best pitcher to sign this year. Yes, it’s for 27M total more than Maddux might make. He’s also a lot better pitcher and he could be working for them for 3 years. You can look at contracts as liabilities or investments, and the Padres seem to only see the danger part, never the investment side.
December 6, 2006 at 10:43 am
Re: 16 Estes had a good year in 2004
W/L = 15/8
IP = 202.0
his ERA was 5.84 but is was in the mile high city pre-humidor days.
December 6, 2006 at 10:49 am
I think Estes would be a solid 5th starter and could hold a place in the roation for any of the young guys coming up through the minors.
December 6, 2006 at 10:54 am
In 2004 Estes’s ERA+ was 86. 100 is average. The last time he was even at 100 was 2001, and that’s just average, not good.
The humidor was installed in 2002.
When you’re trying to build a great team, you should avoid stinky 5th starters.
December 6, 2006 at 10:56 am
#14: Ouch, that’s a lot of money. I’m a little surprised that Schmidt wasn’t able to get a fourth year out of LA.
#16: I think it’s safe to say the Padres saw the “investment side” when signing Klesko and Nevin to long-term deals.
December 6, 2006 at 10:58 am
The 15 wins would have led the padres last year and the 202.0 IP would have been second to Jakes 202.1 IP. It was a good season, not a great one but a good one.
December 6, 2006 at 11:07 am
20: Whether they saw Nevin/Klesko as investments then, which I don’t think is all that safe to say, they’re sure putting too much weight on the fact that those two got hurt. Oh, they got hurt and it hamstrung us for years. The real lament should be, Oh, they got hurt, and we let it paralyze us. How do we plan so that a future injury to a highly-paid player doesn’t paralyze us?
If the team wants to avoid all risk in the free agent market, where’s the upside going to come from? Where are the 10 extra wins that make us a great team? Not from Maddux, who isn’t likely to pitch any better than Woody did last year. Not from the farm system, not when we continue to draft passively.
December 6, 2006 at 11:10 am
21: If you’re going to judge how good a pitcher was by his win total, then we’re done. In any adjusted measurement he was a below-average pitcher who got a lot of run support. And 202 innings have value, but a lot more value if they’re good, or even average, innings. Jose Lima could still give you 200 innings if you didn’t care what he did with them.
Good is better than average, not worse.
December 6, 2006 at 11:14 am
Re: 23 I agree you cant look at a pitchers value off of win totals and IP alone, but from a single season stand point Estes pitched well enough to get 15 wins and really isnt that what matters? Im not saying he was an ace and that he should get a big contract because of it im just saying if a pitcher wins 15 games no matter how he does it you have to look at it as a good year.
December 6, 2006 at 11:22 am
24: No, you don’t HAVE to look at it as a good year. You HAVE to look at it as a really lucky year. He was healthy enough to start 34 games. His team scored a lot of runs for him. His manager left him in.
Even if he was average, which we already have enough of, there’s no reason to give him a contract after TJ surgery.
December 6, 2006 at 11:24 am
I doubt that the fifth starter will be anyone that costs any money. I would guess that maybe a combination of Mike Thompson, Tim Stauffer and whatever veteran they can sign for extremely cheap. The Padres still need a right handed 2B to platoon with Walker (assuming they sign him) and someone for LF. I don’t think that Branyan will play LF as he’s probably insurance for Kouzmanoff at 3B. I still think that Linebrink is going to be traded, why else would they trade for Bell and Ring?
December 6, 2006 at 11:25 am
It wouldn’t have bothered me if the Pads gave that to Schmidt. At some point, you gotta splurge a little, don’t you? For some reason, I’m not crazy about bringing back Wells.
December 6, 2006 at 11:25 am
Tom: I would say the Padres did an excellent job planning around the injuries to Nevin and Klesko; they are after all coming off back to back NL West championships. With Towers at the helm, it seems like the upside comes from trades; it was certainly the case this year.
December 6, 2006 at 11:30 am
28: It took them 3 years to “recover” from the time that Klesko/Nevin got hurt. The front office used the money “sunk” in them from 2002 to 2005 to explain why we couldn’t make big deals. Now they’re so afraid to get hit by lightning again that we’re going to see a succession of short-term deals, which would be fine if we had a strong farm system and only needed a little veteran help. I don’t have any faith that the money they’re holding back (for the deadline or next year) will actually get spent on someone who makes us better for 3 or 4 years.
December 6, 2006 at 11:33 am
#22: I suspect the truth is that neither you or I know enough to judge whether the Padres viewed Klesko/Nevin as investments at the time or Maddux as an investment now. With that in mind, it’s probably pointless for us to speculate on such things. Not that this will stop us, of course.
I also think that your question of “How do we plan so that a future injury to a highly-paid player doesn’t paralyze us?” is crucial. I am interested to hear your answer to that. My solution would be not to get caught up in the market frenzy, but I’d like to hear other suggestions on how to mitigate risks of expensive, long-term deals.
December 6, 2006 at 11:36 am
TW, forgive me for being so forward, but you sound exceptionally angry today, not your usual self. Is everything OK?
December 6, 2006 at 11:45 am
30 - didn’t the Marlins have the idea of only giving 1-yr deals? Let’s do that. Or not.
Tom W, I hear the frustration, but I don’t want the front office spending the kind of money for the kind of value that deals like the Soriano or Lee or even Schmidt represent. I’m ok with investing that money into the farm system (not being afraid to pick the highest profile guys who will demand big signing bonuses) when the FA market is this out of whack.
*******
I’m glad Schmidt stayed in the NL West. As pointed out in #15, he’s really struggled against us, and specifically at Petco. For whatever reason, we seem to have his number.
December 6, 2006 at 11:49 am
Go Tom Waits, go! However, one thing to keep in mind is that the front office’s perspective has changed with the introduction of Sandy Alderson, Paul DePo, etc. I think they are significantly less risk-averse now than they were in the grisly, penny-pinching, Rule V, Donaldo Mendez days of 1999-2004. For example, they NEVER would have done a deal like Maddox’s back then. Never mind the risk side — it was simply too expensive, end of story. Now there seems to be a better understanding of the risk/reward balance you mention.
Does anyone know the details of the Piazza-to-A’s deal?
December 6, 2006 at 11:50 am
Schmidt is a poor investment to make for this team. He is 34, had major injury issues of some sort two years ago (sorry for not knowing the details here), and has had declining K rates for the past two years. Signing him would have required a three year commitment. He would be a bad fit for the Padres because Kevin Towers has a good track record of picking up pitchers on the cheap that offer good returns. The farm system also has been a lot better at producing pitchers. Additionally, the Padres have two young frontline starting pitchers that are better than Schmidt. If this is going to be an investment, we should go for someone less risky who fills a bigger need. With the Padres’ payroll, the best way to avoid being paralyzed by an injury to a highly paid player is to make absolutely sure that highly paid player is the right player to spend the money on.
And having said that I don’t think Schmidt would have been a bad signing, certainly better than Zito will be and Soriano and Lee were.
December 6, 2006 at 11:53 am
#34 - I don’t understand, you say Schimdt would be a bad investment and then you say he wouldn’t have been a bad signing. Which is it?
December 6, 2006 at 12:03 pm
34: Oh, sorry, that was me liking to argue with people, and then backing away from that argument to try and be nice/reasonable. So, I’ll say the answer is somewhere in the middle and I don’t have a strong opinion. I just like to argue and play devil’s advocate.
Other benefit of signing Maddux instead of Schmidt: we get to keep our first round draft pick.
December 6, 2006 at 12:04 pm
I don’t think Schmidt would be a good signing since the Padres already have enough pitching. Does it really make sense to spend $16m on a 4th starter? Of course, he could be the best pitcher on the staff, but the difference between him, Jake, Clay and CY isn’t really enough to make him worth getting. Throw in the fact that he isn’t young and his performance is declining, them not getting is pretty much a no-brainer. Even more so now that he’s signed with the Dodgers.
Again, the question is whether they are going to get enough offense to win the division. As it stands right now, they are significantly weaker at catcher and leftfield, significantly better at 2B, and probably the same everywhere else. As the team stands now, is that enough to win the division? Probably not. The key is to get a big bat, preferably in LF. The question is whether to get him now, later in the year, or wait until next year. Right now, there isn’t much out there. Waiting until the middle of season probably won’t help since the Padres biggest trading chip (Linebrink) isn’t worth as much to a non-contending team. And waiting to next year obviously doesn’t solve the problem for this year and you’ll have to go through the same thing next season. Anyway, that’s how I see it.
December 6, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Aargg, and then I go and respond to the wrong post in my explanation. 36 is not directed at myself (34), but rather at post 35.
December 6, 2006 at 12:11 pm
#37 - Explain how we are better at 2B. Barfield was not a boat anchor , he hit the ball and fielded it decently. Wo don’t have a 2nd basemen at present, so how can we be better?
December 6, 2006 at 12:15 pm
A’s have signed Embree. More draft picks. Woo-hoo!
December 6, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Ooops, I meant 3B (obviously). All that typing undone by a stupid error!
December 6, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Holy ****, we’re going to have like 60 picks in the draft!
I would have been OK with re signing Embree .. . didn’t click on the link — what did he get? In this market, probably 5 years 35 million
December 6, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Joe Sheehan (BB Prospectus)’s take on Maddux to the Pads:
“The best signing of the day was by the Padres, who got Greg Maddux, a league-average innings-muncher at this stage of his career, to come to San Diego on a one-year deal that will pay him $10 million, and includes a vesting option for 2008. As I have written ad nauseam, short-term contracts are virtually never a bad deal. In this case, the Padres get a pitcher who’s certainly no worse than Vicente Padilla and clearly superior to Adam Eaton for a price between the two and a total outlay of far, far less. The move to PETCO Park should arrest Maddux’s rising home run rate, although the considerable uncertainty over the Pads’ defense—they have two major lineup holes to fill and an open question at third base—tempers my enthusiasm for his overall expectation. Mad Dog needs defensive help, and the Padres right now are hard to project defensively. Even at that, the signing of Maddux is worth it; we’re just speculating about whether they’ll get the most out of him. ”
I would disagree with the concern over defense. In the IF, having Adrian Gonzalez at first really helps everyone involved. The OF defense could be a concern, but I’m hopeful we’ll solve that via Burrell (not the worst OF’er out there) plus late innings defense from Juamel Sledruz.
December 6, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Embree’s deal is 2 years, with a club option for ‘09. No terms have been disclosed, but in this market, I’d imagine he’ll be getting about $3M per year.
December 6, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Wow im surprised the A’s gave him a 2 year deal.
December 6, 2006 at 12:35 pm
44 - maybe this will turn out like his stay in Boston…my memory is fuzzy but didn’t it go:
1. Perform great in SD
2. Sign big $$ contract w/ Sox
3. Stink up the joint in Boston
4. Get booed mercilessly, force team’s hand to cut you
5. Resurface in SD
6. Perform great in SD
7. lather, rise, repeat
December 6, 2006 at 12:41 pm
#45: Embree has been healthy and performing this past season with the Padres. Probably for the A’s, it’s a good move, not too expensive and get to move one pitcher from the bullpen to starting and replace with a better LOOGY.
TW: adding Schmidt doesn’t make the rotation that much better. With Jake and Chris as #1 and #2, now Maddux at #3, and Hensley at #4, I think of Schmidt over long term as a bad risk at that much money. Two years, yes, more, no way.
December 6, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Oh, and no Estes. Didn’t like it last year, don’t like it this year.
December 6, 2006 at 12:53 pm
1: CHP is going to cost more than he should. I’d rather have Wells back.
16: I agree with you. Estes hasn’t been good for a damn long time and I don’t see why we should sign him in the hopes that he might be ready to pitch in June. His only real skill for a few years now has been the ability to throw a baseball with his left hand and he can’t do that at the moment. For a contract to be a good investment, you have to have reason to believe the player you’re investing in is going to be worth more than you’re paying over the entire life of the deal. Schmidt probably isn’t going to be worth $17M this year and I can practically guarantee you he won’t be worth that in the third year of the deal. That’s a bad investment.
22: “How do we plan so that a future injury to a highly-paid player doesn’t paralyze us?” What you do is you don’t sign guys to long-term, big money contracts. That’s how you plan to avoid an injury to such a guy. You could argue that a strong farm system would be the back up, but why not start the guy from the strong farm system? Maddux is practically a guaranteed 200+ IP, with a 100+ ERA+. That’s worth $10M for one year.
34: Schmidt is a bad signing. There shouldn’t be any argument there.
39: Walker’s a better hitter than Barfield and there’s a reason we used to talk about putting Josh in the outfield.
43: While I disagree with Joe, I would argue that Adrian while good at preventing throwing errors doesn’t increase the range of his infielders, so if you think that we lack range at the other positions you have an argument there.
December 6, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Schmidt was the one FA pitcher out there that I thought was worth signing to a longer (more than 2 yr) deal, especially since I had thought he kind of took down his own price a notch when he (or was it his agent?) made it known that he was pretty much interested in only the west coast teams. At 3/47, I guess his price really didn’t go down, just the length of the deal. I like him, and think he would have been a reasonable bet to be the Padres #1 next year at least, and perhaps, given all the unknowns with younger pitchers, even for three years. I like him alot, but maybe not quite so much at 15-16M/yr.
Having said that, now that he’s a Dodger, I hope he completely tanks.
December 6, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Here’s another name to throw out there for the OF. According to Jon Heyman on SI.com the Devil Rays are looking at unloading Rocco Baldelli for pitching. Not sure if Linebrink is enough to get him but it’s worth a shot.
I think everyone is underrating Clay Hensley. If his 2nd half numbers are for real (2.66 ERA, 7.0 K/9) than he’s going to be the Padres 2nd best starter. The ideal starter is one that gets groundball and strikeouts. Hensley has a GB/FB ratio of 2.1 and increased his K/9 a bunch in the 2nd half (although his control got worse). And to think that we got him for Matt Herges, who was also traded at one point in his career for Chris Young too.
December 6, 2006 at 1:14 pm
I think that this market has shown that it’s absolutely imperative for the Padres to lock up their young players. Young, Hensley, and maybe Gonzalez have to be signed now. The Padres just can’t afford to let anyone get to the free agent market because their salaries will be ridiculous. If Adam Eaton is worth $24m than what would Young get? $15m or more?
December 6, 2006 at 1:15 pm
51: The walks are a little less of a concern with a groundball pitcher.
December 6, 2006 at 1:20 pm
49: I’ll be prepared to argue that Jason Schmidt, with his near-50 VORP last year, who has averaged a 6.3 WARP the last 4 years even though he was hurt a little in 2005, is a helluva lot better investment than Maddux, with his 30 VORP last year, with an ~ 5 WARP for the same period.
Everybody’s looking at the 47 million side of the contract. That buys Schmidt for 3 full years. And 3 years isn’t long-term.
47: Schmidt was a better pitcher than any Padre starter last year. He was better than Maddux. How does adding a better pitcher not make us a better team?
December 6, 2006 at 1:26 pm
54: You’d really want Schmidt roughly a quarter of the payroll for the next 3 years?
December 6, 2006 at 1:29 pm
54: Schmidt project to be one (maybe two) win(s) better than Maddux next year. That’s not worth $7M.
December 6, 2006 at 1:30 pm
55: Absolutely.
1, if he’s healthy, he’s tradeable at any point.
2, he’s a very good pitcher. Am I crazy or do very good pitchers tend to help teams win?
We’ve got Maddux at 1/7 of the payroll for 2 years, assuming his option vests and he hits very achievable goals. Having a league-average pitcher eat up that much of the payroll is somehow better than having a better pitcher eat up more of it?
December 6, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Nate Silver on Schmidt:
While I wouldn’t usually call your attention to win-loss record — especially this early in the cycle when we don’t have a good gauge of a pitcher’s run support — it does tell us something here. Schmidt is a slightly above-average pitcher; a 15-10 guy in his best years, a 9-11 guy in his lesser ones, and somewhere in between that the rest of the time. He’s not an ace.
December 6, 2006 at 1:33 pm
If 15.67 million gets you 6.3 WARP, then isn’t 10 million for 5 WARP a better deal, with fewer years and player option making it even better?
December 6, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Regarding contract length, I vaguely recall a quote from Sandy in response to a question posed “What are some of things you regret?” His answer was “Signing any player to a long term deal”. Not bad players, any player. And he has a point; how do you know at the start of the deal whether it will be a killer or not? You don’t, so you are taking on a lot of risk. Just imagine if Reyes and Wright got serious injuries, deals generally applauded by all of baseball? NY would struggle to find replacements, but could weather the financial storm. We cannot. So, you have that philosophy at the top, we are not going to see any LT deals.
With the player money out there, this really is a “creative” destruction game. You build a team up, knowing you have to let it crumble soon enough but set the seeds up for the next few squads. It kind of reminds me of the NFL, where it is all the draft and coaching because the players careers are so short. The only difference is that where in the NFL all the good players get hurt or retire, in the MLB they all go NYA, BOS, LA, NYN or, apparently, CHI.
I like the Maddux signing very much, and hope our money gets us a LF and 2B/utility guy. As an aside, I would love to have Nady back and see if he could play that role. He was a decent 1B, played 3B in college and can play OF.
Geoff’s comments that we can wait are probably accurate and probably a good strategy, especially if the money keeps flowing. People will be tapped out, creating opportunity.
I really do hope Wells come back; he cannot be as sharp as 2004, but could be a very solid 4-5 slot guy. I really like Peavy-CY-Maddux-Clay/Wells.
December 6, 2006 at 1:34 pm
57: Maddux was worth 5.9 WARP last year. That’s 0.1 less than Schmidt. There’s a big difference between 14% and 24% over two years versus three.
December 6, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Just heard on XX: Jack Kronin, playing the part of Giants FO: Barry, we’ll take you back but you’re not going to be a starter. We’re going to give Linden more starts in LF.
Good call, Jack.
56: We tied with L.A. this year. Are you sure about that? It’s not your $7 million.
December 6, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Oh and with regard to Geoff’s “waiting” comment, this was an interesting blog post by Nate Silver.
December 6, 2006 at 1:39 pm
I like Hensley a lot too. Glad he finally got the chance as a starter last year. Seems like a good guy on top of it all.
December 6, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Re: 37 — If we had signed Schmidt, he would have been our #1 or #2 starter. He really is better than Young and Hensley at this point. He is probably even better than Peavy, although that can easily be disputed. No, I am not saying long term, I am simply talking about today.
Re: 62 — Stephen…no, we did not tie with them. We were the Western Division Champs and they were the WC. Would I have liked the extra 2-4 wins Schmidt would have given us, yes, but don’t be Dodger fan saying Co-Champs…there is no such thing.
December 6, 2006 at 1:42 pm
62: They replaced Maddux with Schmidt. We replaced Woody Williams with Maddux. Both are 1-2 wins better than the guy they’re replacing. Also, woudn’t Schmidt cost a pick or was he not offered arbitration?
December 6, 2006 at 1:46 pm
How worried can we be about the Dodgers when they’re doing stupid things like signing Juan Pierre to a 5 year deal?
December 6, 2006 at 1:51 pm
re 67, I was very afraid when De Podesta went to LA. Thankfully, that did not work out and we have him and LA has a the mini-me from SF. I would say we now have LA and SF with veteran biases, against constant regeneration. I really think Arizona and Colorado are going to be the teams to watch out for over the next 2-5 years. But they do not command the same resource differential as LA or SF, so it is a fairer fight.
December 6, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Amusing post from True Blue LA
December 6, 2006 at 1:54 pm
68: Hopefully the McCourts are more patient with Ned. Give him say the rest of his career to see if he works out.
December 6, 2006 at 2:03 pm
I am very happy with the Maddux signing. He is a horse who will keep us in every game he pitches. This was a great way of shoring up the rotation. We should be able to put a solid, qualified guy in at the fifth spot making our pitching again our leading asset.
Even if we land a pounder to play left, this time will struggle to score runs again next year making the Maddux move vital to staying competitive in the division.
December 6, 2006 at 2:10 pm
#43 - I think his name is Josmel Sledruz. Juamel was his brother!
December 6, 2006 at 2:14 pm
72: Crudge has to be the last name.
December 6, 2006 at 2:17 pm
61: Schmidt also has a couple of 8.0 WARP seasons in his recent past. He has a chance to do that again. Maddux’s chances of doing that are non-existent. Schmidt is also 7 years younger. That mitigates some of the risk. A 2 year deal for a 41 year old or a 3 year deal for a better 34 year old?
December 6, 2006 at 2:18 pm
74: I’ll take Maddux as 10/6-10 over two years every time.
December 6, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Over the last three years, Maddux and Schmidt have the same WARP total.
December 6, 2006 at 2:37 pm
65: I could have been clearer. My point was if one or two more wins means going to the playoffs or going home, I’m going to spend the extra $7 million. Now obviously, Towers can’t go to Alderson in December and say, “We win 90 and L.A. wins 89 if we spend extra on Schmidt.” But I think it’s a reasonable expectation that a healthy Schmidt is worth that much over a healthy Maddux.
December 6, 2006 at 2:39 pm
77: Where did I get the $7 million? I meant the yearly difference in salaries.
December 6, 2006 at 2:48 pm
77: In his best seasons which are behind him, Schmidt was worth about 8 wins over replacement. Last season, Maddux was worth 6. Do you really think Schmidt is LIKELY to have a career year next year? Also, it’s not an extra $7M it’s an extra $24M and I believe a draft pick.
December 6, 2006 at 2:50 pm
The Schmidt signing by the Dodgers gave them surplus starters. My worry is that one or more of those starters would net them Manny Ramirez.
BTW, Saito will return as the Dodgers’ closer. He and the many young arms (Billingsley, Broxton, Kuo) will give the Dodgers good pitching arms. We can hope that Colletti will trade them away for some older ‘proven’ players.
December 6, 2006 at 2:50 pm
77: Exactly.
76: That’s entirely because Schmidt was hurt in 2005, which is admittedly something to be aware of. But if you’re looking for peak performance, you go with Schmidt. 180Ks vs 117. More likely to dominate a game, which would be nice to have in the playoffs if we get there again.
December 6, 2006 at 2:53 pm
79: That extra 24 million buys you not only higher performance, but an entire extra season.
I’d be a lot more worried about the draft pick if we hadn’t completely blown it the last time we had this many, and if we’d been aggressive in the draft the last 2 years. Losing a draft pick that we’d likely spend on a low-ceiling college player, not so much of a worry.
December 6, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Back of the envelope calculations: I think we’re looking to be about three wins better with our position players. That’s projecting a dropoff at catcher and left field, and an improvement at first, third and right.
December 6, 2006 at 3:09 pm
83: I also think the rotation is considerably better. If you project no improvement (or dropoff) from our “big 3″ and Maddux. They would equal the production we got from all five starting spots last season on their own.
December 6, 2006 at 3:25 pm
83- why do you project an improvement at first?
79- what would you spend the extra $24m on?
December 6, 2006 at 3:30 pm
#85 - With a better third baseman, some of the throws AGon is going to get will be more catchable. I suspect this will help his defensive stats a little. Being an old 1st baseman in semi-pro ball, I was always pissed when I was charged with an error that should have gone to the thrower.
December 6, 2006 at 3:39 pm
85: Adrian is young enough that he should still be improving and also he played a good bit better after the first couple months. I’m only projecting maybe a 1 win improvement.
It’s actually a $27-31M difference (not sure where I got 24). I’d consider investing some of that money back into our players before they reach arbitration. I’m not a fan of big free agent acquisitions because you can’t help “overpaying” relative to what you’d give guys for extensions or even in arbitration. I can’t begin to comment on potential trades because I have no idea what’s out there.
December 6, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Richard, I can’t believe you wrote this.
RICHARD wrote on December 06, 2006 11:46 AM: “Woo hoo! Earlier the Padres were interested in Barry Bonds and now their going to sign Greg Maddox. Last year they gave us Piazza and Wells.This team is a joke! Its the senior tour of the league.The city of San Diego bent over backwards to give this owner a new ball park and this is the team he expects us to support?! I guess to him 40 really is the new 30.So ten years from now maybe they’ll sign Jeter or A-rod to a fancy one year contract…cant wait!Alex Spanos is an owner thats been dedicated to winning from day one and has backed it up with spending and now he has one of the best GMs in the league who has built a team of young, talented stars yet they might leave because the city wont let them build a new stadium?! Pathetic.”
From the North County Times Web site under the “Maddux signs” story.
December 6, 2006 at 4:18 pm
88: I guess I have to go back to commenting with my last name attached.
December 6, 2006 at 4:23 pm
If you want to rely on WARP, Baseball Prospectus has Schmidt down for a projected 4.9 next year.
Not exactly 15.67 million in expected value, IMO.
December 6, 2006 at 4:35 pm
90: That’s a 2006 MORP of $7,887,660. For 2007 (given the crazy inflation), it’ll be higher, but still not in the 15+ neighborhood.
December 6, 2006 at 4:35 pm
90: I’d be curious about 2 things:
1. What is their projection for Maddux? He’s not cheap.
2. What does the 50th/75th/90th percentile forecast look like for Schmidt? I’ll go way out on a limb and say his upside is mucher higher than Maddux’s.
Maddux isn’t a terrible deal in this market, but his ceiling isn’t high. Peavy is the only pitcher from last year who you can reasonably say should pitch better. I don’t expect Young and Hensley to pitch better than they did. Maddux = Woody. How did we get better here? What we were last year wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t great, either. Schmidt would have been much more likely to make us great.
December 6, 2006 at 4:39 pm
92: Forecasts aren’t out for ‘07. Silver just mentioned it in a blog post.
You really can’t compare Maddux to Woody. Over the last five years, Maddux has put up WARP totals of 5.9, 5.3, 6.0, 4.5 and 7.3.
Woody has put up 4.9, 6.3, 3.4, 2.3 and 3.2.
December 6, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I expect Hensley will pitch better than last season. His pre-ASB numbers were poorer than his post-ASB’s. Considering that hitters are supposed to adjust to pitchers as the season progressed and the pitchers were tiring some, I’d say that’s a good development for Hensley. While he’ll never be a Jason Schmidt, he’s still a good pitcher for next season.
#92: I don’t think Schmidt would have made the Padres great. Even by your account, with a better Peavy and a lesser Chris Young (doubtable if he’s healthy) and Hensley (probable but unlikely), Schmidt does not make that drop in production, unless he’s way great which I don’t think is likely. Yes, the K’s will be there but so what?
While his upside may be greater than Maddux’s for next season, I think the difference is a lot smaller than you think.
What happens to all the talk about Mark Mulder?
Is he waiting for the market to sign Zito to gauge what he’ll get?
Do the Padres still have interest in him? Can’t be worse than getting Estes last season and with better upside definitely.