Friday Links (22 Jun 07)
Fri, Jun 22, 2007
by Geoff Young
I love that it always comes as a surprise when this team drops a series — nice change from the old days, when you secretly expected the worst before anything even happened. Now the Red Sox are in town, which means that people in other parts of the country might be paying attention. This would be a good time for the Padres to “regress to the mean” and play better than they did against Baltimore.
To the links…
- Offense missing: Deal with it (San Diego Union Tribune). Tom Krasovic takes a closer look at new Padres catcher Michael Barrett. Quoth Geoff Blum: “This environment will be good for Mike, because Lou Piniella and catchers don’t get along, in my experience.”
- Padres make deal for catcher who can slug; Barrett acquired from Cubs for Bowen, Burke (North County Times). John Maffei breaks down the Barrett trade.
- Padres never did commit to huge payroll (San Diego Union Tribune). One of the most sensible articles Nick Canepa has ever written: “…there’s a rather large difference between promises made and not kept and promises inferred and not kept.” The only thing the Padres committed to was winning, and they’ve delivered on that in spades since moving downtown. People who can’t deal with that really need to follow another team, or maybe another sport.
- Padres trainer ready to become a mom (Padres). Nice article on Kelly Calabrese, who will be out till October 1. The entire training staff gets huge props from the players, so hopefully she’ll be missed but not too much, if you know what I mean.
- Michael Barrett Heads West and Yankee Talk With Bronx Banter (The Pitch). Joe was good enough to have me on his podcast this week; hint: I’m the guy not talking about the Yankees.
- Episode 25: Steroids, The MLB Draft and Sam Perlozzo (Suicide Fan). Aaron also had me on his podcast, and once we got rolling, it was impossible to stop us. Whether this is a good thing I leave as an exercise for the reader.
- On the Dunn rumor (Reds Insider, via Steve C in the comments). Talk of Adam Dunn coming to the Padres won’t die. Whatever.
- Restocking the Cupboard (Baseball Analysts, via Didi in the comments). With the obligatory caveat that nobody really knows at this point, Marc Hulet likes the Padres’ draft — to a degree (thinks they should’ve gone for a little more upside with all those extra picks, a sentiment shared by many readers here). He also likes Arizona’s, and so do I. That organization is starting to bother me; the Snakes have got tons of young talent and a front office that knows what it’s doing.
- Stats aside, Padres encouraged by rookie (North County Times, via LynchMob in the comments). Everybody loves Chase Headley. Also, draftees Kellen Kulbacki, Danny Payne, and Jeremy Hefner have signed and reported to Short-Season Eugene.
- Eugene Emeralds 2007 season preview (MadFriars.com). John Conniff breaks down the Em’s roster.
- The All-Fitt Team (Baseball America, via Didi in the comments). Aaron Fitt identifies a list of “players I have most enjoyed watching and/or talking to in 2007.” Padres draftees Mitch Canham, Eric Sogard, and the aforementioned Payne all make this fictitious squad.
- Bears Sign Shortstop Donaldo Mendez (OurSports Central). Ex-Padre Donaldo Mendez hit .272 last season in the independent Northern League. Sometimes when we complain about the current state of affairs, it’s good to remember just how crappy things used to be.
by Peter Friberg
You will not see Matt Antonelli in the Futures Game. For some unknown reason, the powers that be (Baseball America and Major League Baseball) determined the following U.S. born second basemen are better candidates.
Adrian Cardenas 2B (Phillies), born: October 10, 1987 - Lo-A Lakewood (SAL)
.274/.335/.427 with 14 2B, 1 3B, 7 HR and a 21/38 BB/SO ratio
Chris Coghlan 2B (Marlins), born: June 18, 1985 - Lo-A Greensboro (SAL)
.332/.432/.553 with 22 2B, 4 3B, 8 HR and a 40/29 BB/SO ratio
…and for comparison’s sake…
Matt Antonelli 2B, born: April 8, 1985 - Hi-A Lake Elsinore (CAL)
.310/.399/.483 with 14 2B, 3 3B, 9 HR and a 37/47 BB/SO ratio
Matt is playing in a higher level than either participant, he is roughly the same age as Coghlan (both Antonelli and Coghlan are considerably older than Cardenas), while Coghlan has superior numbers, he’s doing it at a lower level. Antonelli also has more “pedigree” as a first-round draftee and is an exceptional athlete.
Like the MLB All-Star Game, the Futures Game requires that each organization be represented by at least one participant. Yet the Phillies have Carlos Carrasco, and the Marlins have Rick Vanden Hurk; thus Baseball America and Major League Baseball cannot claim they needed the two U.S.-born second basemen slots to fill quotas.
Antonelli should be heading to San Francisco as a Futures Game participant. I am outraged he was not selected.
By the way, congratulations to Craig Stansberry on his selection to the Futures Game.
Update: From Baseball America’s John Manuel:
The answer’s actually very simple and has nothing to do with a “snub.” We have to send a list to MLB with three suggestions for each club for both the US team and the World team. Our US Padres all were/are having better seasons than Antonelli — Chase Headley, Wade LeBlanc and Chad Huffman. Obviously Headley’s since been promoted but the wheels were in motion for this about a month ago. He was our fourth-choice Padres U.S. player but we only get 3. I see some merit to your argument, but I think you’ll see merit in ours — we had other Padres in mind.
***
Thanks so much John for getting back to us.
I still disagree with Antonelli’s omission. Huffman is having a great season and I like him a lot, but Antonelli plays a premium position and is putting up similar numbers. Similarly, LeBlanc is having a great year, but I think part of his success is over-matching undisciplined Hi-A players. I do think LeBlanc will continue to have success all the way into the major leagues, but I would argue that Antonelli has the potential to be a perennial All Star at 2B… In conclusion, again, I disagree with Antonelli’s omission, but I do understand how we got there.
AAA
Clay Hensley: 5.1 IP, 10 H, 8 R, 4 ER, 2 BB, 4 SO, 0 HR - injured?
Jared Wells: 1.2 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 0 BB, 0 SO, 0 HR
AA
Nick Hundley: 3 AB, 1 R, 1 H, 2 RBI; 2B, BB, SO
High-A
Matt Antonelli: 3 AB, 1 R, 1 H, 0 RBI; BB
Low-A
Andrew Underwood: 5.0 IP, 10 H, 9 R, 9 ER, 1 BB, 2 SO, 2 HR - ouch
Short Season-A
Danny Payne: 3 AB, 0 R, 2 H, 0 RBI; BB, SO, PO
Commentary:
It was an interesting day in a news sense (see my Futures Game rant above) and a boring day in terms of prospect performances…
I have not seen anything that says Hensley is injured, but he is too good of a pitcher to be struggling this much in Triple-A if he’s right. However, keep in mind that, “…if he’s right,” could just as easily be about his head instead of his arm.
Hundley has batted .286 (12 for 42) with 6 extra-base hits in his last 11 games.
Thanks, Peter. Happy Friday, everyone; we’ll have the IGD up and running by 6 p.m. PT. Go Padres!
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.
June 22, 2007 at 7:42 am
Well, if we had to lose a series this homestand, I’m glad it was to the O’s. I’m really, really, really hoping that the Padres play to the best of their abilities this week and put the entire country on notice. Of course, even if the Padres do manage to win the series against Boston this week, they probably still won’t be mentioned on Sports Center. It will just be noted that some guy named Young on some unnamed team in that division that might exist on the west coast struck out Manny, and Ortiz.
June 22, 2007 at 8:05 am
I can’t seriously believe I’m suggesting this, but…
Milton Bradley has been designated for assignment by Oakland. Would he have any value to the Padres? How much of his salaray would we have to pick up if we claim him off waivers?
His numbers from 2006/2007/ and lifetime:
2006
AB R HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
351 - 53 - 14 - 52 - 51 - 65 - .276 - .370 - .447 - .817
2007
AB R HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
65 - 6 - 2 - 7 - 8 - 14 - .292 - .373 - .447 - .820
Lifetime Average
AB R HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
576 - 83 - 17 - 73 - 71 - 119 - .271- .354 - .430 - .784
I can’t seriously believe I’m advocating this, but the man does seem to know how to get on base. I have no idea if he’s less of an ass than he was as a Dodger, but here’s another potential free pick-up that could give us a shot in the arm.
June 22, 2007 at 8:18 am
So the Padres’ credibility hangs on Nick Canepa’s research skills? The only thing that keeps Canepa from being all the way up the Padres posterior is his own corpulence. His inability to find a smoking gun quote isn’t convincing, but even if he had done the legwork it’s not the whole story. The Padres certainly benefited from the perception that Petco would mean no more crying poor. Their current stance, that no Padre official can be tied to a specific monetary promise, is no different than a politician who lets his campaign managers or supporters handle the attack ads. “I never said that Hillary Clinton would push for mandatory lesbianism, that ad was paid for by a political action committee.”
Canepa says there’s no bait-and-switch. They JUST DID IT with the draft. 10 millon is going to turn into 6 or 7 million, while high-upside players go to other teams. I’m very glad they’re winning, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t misrepresented their finances before and after Petco opened.
We can all point to overpriced players (Juan Pierre) or risky players who backfired (Jason Schmidt), but it doesn’t follow that all spending is bad. The Padres would have a 3 game lead or more if they’d signed a better pitcher than David Wells, and that’s a long list of pitchers.
June 22, 2007 at 8:28 am
Well, the Padres would have a 3 game lead if they just knew how to use David Wells…
It doesn’t bother me that our 5th pitcher isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread. Pitching is so not this team’s downfall.
Offense and managerial decisions regarding pitching are the things that need to improve.
June 22, 2007 at 8:30 am
Say whatever you want about Matt Bush (I have) but this is a really good article in probably the biggest paper in the world. I thought it was pretty freaking cool. I’m not sure I buy the 95 mph fast ball or that “he has big league stuff right now” but I wouldn’t mind being wrong!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06.....ref=slogin
June 22, 2007 at 9:12 am
4: That assumes a heavily loaded pen, at least the best relievers in it, would hold those leads. It is strange that we’re not pulling Wells sooner when we have 7 relievers.
A better pitcher makes for a better team. I’d like to have better position players too, but a better SP in that spot means less need for a better offense when he throws.
June 22, 2007 at 9:16 am
The Padres not having a 3 game lead has very little to do with David Wells being our 5th starter. I also have issues with the notion that we should have spent a ton of money on another starting pitcher this off season. Would you rather have Jason Schmidt now? Or Barry Zito? A look at either pitcher’s numbers will tell you that Wells/the Padres spending is not the issue.Spending more for a 5th starter who isn’t going to make a start in a postseason series would have been a poor allocation of funds.
Now, if Michael Barrett is the biggest inseason acquisition that a contending team makes…that might be cause for complaint. But we’re not there yet.
BTW, as was pointed out a few days ago. The 7 million or so that we’re going to spend on the draft could easily become 8 or 9 with the addition of foreign, non draft eligible players. I’m hoping that the Padres will be active on the foreign market in acquiring some of the high upside guys that we all were hoping that the draft would provide.
June 22, 2007 at 9:18 am
2: I agree with you. Good job laying out his case. Bradley would make this team better. If we claim him off waivers we pick up his whole salary, or we could work out a trade with the A’s that guarantees we get him (instead of hoping he makes it to our waiver spot) and perhaps the A’s pick up some salary, but then we’d have to give up something in return. Either way he’s a definite upgrade on Crudge, offensively and defensively.
Who should we have signed that’s better than David Wells that wouldn’t require a ridiculous long term commitment? Randy Wolf, I guess, but he was a health risk and really wanted to play for the Dodgers.
June 22, 2007 at 9:20 am
Just got tickets to Sunday’s game Peavy vs Beckett!!! They just released some on http://www.Padres.com if you are trying to get some.
June 22, 2007 at 9:22 am
Re: 9 ill see you there
June 22, 2007 at 9:24 am
2: I’m also OK if the Padres decide that Bradley is the best LF option for this team. I’d love to have the power of a Dunn or a Dye, and I do worry about the injuries that Bradley has had this year, but his skillset really seems to be something that the Padres brass appreciates and he would fit well in the #2 spot in the order. He’s been on his best behavior this year-and it’s a contract year for him, so I’m not terribly worried about him melting down.
June 22, 2007 at 9:27 am
7: David Wells has a 4.7 VORP. Ted Lilly has a 16.2 and could start in the playoffs.
Like I said, we can all find overpaid players who wouldn’t have helped us AND highly-paid players who would have. You say Schmidt and Zito. I counter with Meche and Lilly. Even Jason Marquis has been almost 4 times as valuable as Wells so far. If he pitches a whole season Wells makes 7 million, which puts him in the ballpark with Lilly and Marquis on a per-year basis. Are those other pitchers good long-term investments? Almost certainly not. Sometime during their contracts they’ll be overpaid and Wells will be a memory. But would we be better with them right now than Boomer? No question.
The Padres were crystal-clear about the draft budget. 10 million ON THE DRAFT. You don’t draft international players. They’re going to be millions short of that target, and the bad part isn’t that they didn’t spend it, it’s that they passed on legitimate talent. If somebody else had grabbed all the high-end players before we could, then you shrug your shoulders and do the best you can. We continually passed on players with more upside than the ones we drafted and who we were told we could afford.
June 22, 2007 at 9:27 am
We asked Baseball America for their take on Antonelli’s omission and they got back to us this morning. Geoff will have their responce (and my rebuttal) up in a few minutes. So make sure you check that out.
June 22, 2007 at 9:38 am
8: I listed two Cubs. Lilly’s on the long-end at 4/40, but we had room for that. It would have taken us to the 2005-2006 payroll. I don’t know that we could have ever grabbed Wolf.
Player contracts are not just commitments. They’re also investments. It’s nice to be free of Boomer’s contract after this year. It would also be nice to have a pitcher under control for three years.
Just because there are overpriced players not performing doesn’t mean that every FA player you sign will underperform.
June 22, 2007 at 9:43 am
14: Ted Lilly is also signed for 4 years and $40 million. Meche is signed for 5 years and $55 million. Both have career ERA+ of 100, even after including their good results this year. David Wells had an ERA+ of 101 last year. Jason Marquis is horrible, just getting really, really lucky this year (49 k’s against 35 bb’s). The Padres aren’t the Yankees or Dodgers; when they’re five year investments in pitchers go bad, they’re screwed. Pitchers are notoriously unreliable and injury prone.
June 22, 2007 at 9:47 am
The Padres handled the offseason pitching market exactly the way that they should have. Overpaying guys like Meche or Marquis is suicide-everyone knew it when they signed last year. The outrage on this forum would have been palpable, and justified, if the Padres had outbid the Cubs for Marquis or the Royals for Meche. Some people would have been happy if we had signed Zito or Schmidt. I think that it’s clear that the front office knew what they were doing.
June 22, 2007 at 9:57 am
TW your complaint about the Padres not spending money
Tommy Toledo
Christian Colon
Hunter Ovens
Ross Wilson
Each of those guys will cost a lot more than “slot.”
Schmidt: $1.25
Latos: 1.25
Kulbacki: 1.00 (guess)
Cumberland: 1.00
Canham .500
Luebke .750
Payne .750 (guess)
Sogard .750
Chaulk .600
Toledo .750
Kluber .400
Zawadzki .400 (guess)
Hefner .300
Quiles .300
Baum .250
Teague .200
If we add those up it’s $10.45m I may have overestimated a few of the bonuses, but by how much? $1m? The Padres are spending money…
June 22, 2007 at 9:58 am
TW, sorry, I didn’t write my intro…
*
Truth is, I still don’t have one…
June 22, 2007 at 9:59 am
5 … THANKS for the link, KRS1 … *very* nice article about Matt Bush … and the best part, for me, was at the end, when they mentioned that he might get promoted to Eugene this season … that’d be fun! I can root for Matt Bush … at this point, he’s clearly an “underdog” …
June 22, 2007 at 10:09 am
Re: 15 thats if they sign everyone, they have yet to spend any of the $10 mil, also Latos was part of last years draft.
June 22, 2007 at 10:09 am
3 … vintage TW … thanks for keeping us (and the Padres) on our toes … and making me LOL in the process!
My perception is that the FO is doing OK at dancing on the fine line “pay for a winner now” versus “stay profitable and competitive over the long term” …
So far, my impression of the majority of the alternatives to Wells for 5th starter would have been worse business-decisions (ie. the improvement in 2007 on-field results would be offset by the long-term costs) … they are doing fine with Wells in the #5 spot (and it does seem like they could be doing better by pulling him sooner).
I think they have 2 major moves to make … get an OF’er that will provide significant offense … and upgrade at backup SS (both offensively and defensively) … and I think KT is working every day to do just that … and in the meantime, I think Randy Smith is working the International scene to find players to improve the Padres organization in the long-term.
It’s an exciting time to be a Padres fan …
June 22, 2007 at 10:10 am
oops I meant Re: 17
June 22, 2007 at 10:14 am
17 … nice list, PF, thanks!
20 … I think it’s fair to think of Latos’ bucks as coming out of the $10M … and we have signed Kulbacki, Payne, Zawadzki and Cumberland (and Buschini) …
June 22, 2007 at 10:16 am
when did they sign Kubacki, Payne and Cumberland?
June 22, 2007 at 10:33 am
re 27: I would love to read TW’s response. Don’t know too much about draft bonuses, but I bet he will object to you including Latos in this year’s mix.
re the Wells versus long term free agents: it has never been part of Alderson’s philosophy, and never part of the team’s philosophy under current ownership to sign expensive free agents from other teams to long term contracts. There is little doubt in my mind that the Padres weren’t going to get in a bidding war for Lilly, and even if they wanted to, they weren’t going to outbid the Cubs, who outbid the Red Sox, and got a cleaner shot at Lilly once Pettite said he wanted to go to Yankees.
I also don’t recall anyone clamoring for the Padres to sign Marquis, particularly not to a long term deal, so unless TW is making a pure cheap hindsight point, I don’t get that one either.
In the real world, the Padres still get to cry poor in relation to the NL West rivals Dodgers and Giants, not to mention all other big and medium market clubs like the Cubs, Mets, Red Sox, Yankees, Angels and Mariners etc. All Petco really did was keep the gap from widening even more than it would have if they stayed at Qualcomm.
June 22, 2007 at 10:33 am
17, not 27
stupid Fathers
June 22, 2007 at 10:34 am
Odd news that I saw in the agate-type in the newspaper this morning …
Catcher Ben Davis (Malvern Prep), who had been playing for the independent Camden Riversharks, signed with the Los Angeles Dodgers and was assigned to the team’s Triple A affiliate in Las Vegas.
… he lives!
June 22, 2007 at 10:35 am
24, Kulbacki is signed & in Eugene but hasn’t played yet (I’m estimating his contract it’s got to be at least $900k and probably closer to $1m) Cumberland has not signed but the Padres are confident. In an article I read somewhere, MadFriars.com I believe, Towers is confident they’ll get everyone through round 9 (Colon was taken in the 10th)…
June 22, 2007 at 10:36 am
Payne’s playing
4 AB, 2 H, 8 BB, 2 SO, 2 SB…
June 22, 2007 at 10:37 am
24 … Kulbacki signed very recently, is on Eugene’s roster but hasn’t played yet. Payne signed a while ago and has been brilliant at the plate in Eugene’s first 3 games (see PF’s summary above and previous 2 days). Cumberland signed recently and is on the AZL Padres roster … and their first game is going on as we speak …
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.....mp;lid=121
(looks like the league is too cheap to provide real-time scoreboard updates
)
June 22, 2007 at 10:41 am
30 … my comment about Cumberland being signed is based on this AZL Padres roster at madfriars.com …
http://padres.scout.com/a.z?s=.....mp;yr=2007
June 22, 2007 at 10:43 am
That’s a predicted roster… He has not signed yet.
June 22, 2007 at 10:44 am
Draft bonuses: Yes, Peter, I do expect that you’re overestimating those bonuses. Kulbacki expected to get between 850 and 900K.
http://www.dnronline.com/sport.....amp;CHID=3
The others are high as well, and you’re assuming that they’ll sign all of them. If you go just by the slots, we’re not coming close to 10M. The Red Sox went out of slot for several players the last few years and never spent 10M.
Yes, I do object to including the bonus for a 2005 draftee in the 2006 budget.
Pitchers: I’m not suggesting the Padres should have signed any of those pitchers, and despite the expected Official Padre Talking Point from The Fathers, I’m not using hindsight. People here, and Canepa, are basically saying that the Padres COULD NOT be better even if they’d spent money. That’s clearly not true. Whether players are getting lucky or not, there are players they could have spent money on who would make them better than they are now.
June 22, 2007 at 10:51 am
25: Our payroll is currently less than it was for a few seasons at Qualcomm. Meanwhile, baseball teams are making more money than ever.
Forbes has us 13th in revenue. We’re 15th in value. Our payroll is 24th, behind such big markets as Minnesota, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Kansas City.
This point may be too subtle for the designated Padre Mouthpiece, but while it’s true that spending doesn’t guarantee success, this team did have more money to spend and could be better had it spent it. They may have been unwilling to do so, but they weren’t unable.
June 22, 2007 at 10:57 am
33: Peter’s draft bonus chart does not include money for the tough sign guys like Colon and Ovens. Colon, if we sign him, will likely get 2nd round money which adds another high six-figure amount.
Also, I don’t think that anyone on the board is saying that the Padres couldn’t be better. Lynch listed a couple of ways that we can improve (21). However, it is my contention that the Padres handled the pitching staff in about the best possible way over the off season. Pitching just seems like a strange area to attack. We’ve got the best pitching staff in baseball…
June 22, 2007 at 10:58 am
17: More info on PF’s estimated draft bonuses.
Danny Payne was the 64th player taken this year. Last year the 64th player received a 575K bonus, right-on slot, right in line with what the players around him got. You’ve got him at almost 200K more than that.
Sogard’s the 81st pick. Your figure, 750K. Last year’s figure, 450K.
As the saying goes, 300,000 here, 200,000 there, across 10-14 of those picks, pretty soon you’re talking real money.
2M+ in overestimated bonuses, cut out the bonus for the 2005 draftee, they’re around 7 million.
June 22, 2007 at 11:02 am
34: I’ll feel a lot better about supporting this point if the Padres don’t acquire a big bat at midseason.
There are lots of factors that are keeping the Padres payroll artificially low right now-one of which is that we’ve got a lot of pre-arbitration and early arbitration players starting right now in positions which are typically big money positions. We shouldn’t be trying to catch up in payroll. We’ve also got a better record than any of the teams that you mentioned in 34 (edit: we’re a game behind Cleveland). $ does not = wins.
That being said, the Padres could be better, and if they don’t spend money to acquire a bat during the season, I’ll be complaining with you about the revenue and payroll disparity.
June 22, 2007 at 11:04 am
34 … right on, TW! And I believe the spin that says that have been unwilling to spend more recently because they have determined it’s not in their long-term best interests (ie. some balance of short-term winning with long-term winning *and* profitability) …
33 … we disagree about the Latos’ money being considered part of the $10M budget for 2007 draft … they signed him in 2007 after stating their budget … what’s the big deal about this? They have drafted good players and have started to sign good players. I expect them to sign some players “above slot”. Yes, they passed on some “high upside” players, and I’m not happy about that either … but I think that’s where the spirit of “Padre Mouthpiece”s article comes in to play … the MLB club is winning now (and winning BIG, quite frankly) … and the farm system seems to be improving at the grass roots level … and so we, the fans, do need to be enjoying this … it’s a good time to be a Padres fan!
June 22, 2007 at 11:12 am
35: Pitching is where people are pointing to what great bargains we got, which is only partly true. Wells has not been a great bargain. If he keeps making starts, he’s going to cost 7 million this year.
Giving any FA pitcher a multiyear deal is dangerous. They’re almost always going to be overpaid and, like any pitcher, they might get hurt. That’s a financial risk. What we have in Wells is a performance risk. He’s okay as the 5th starter, although not a great fit for a team that already had 6 IP Maddux. He’s not cheap, but he’s only this year. Spending more for a different pitcher clearly could have resulted in a better pitcher and thus more wins. Would we have picked the right other pitcher?
I have no real problem with how the front office put this team together. I do have a problem with them floating stories about how much money they’re losing, how they can’t afford to be FA players, and how price will not be an object in the draft, all of which are plainly false.
June 22, 2007 at 11:22 am
34: I’ve never said the Padres should be trying to spend money just to keep up. But when they’re floating stories about how their hands are basically tied financially, that’s pure BS. You surveyed the free agent market and didn’t see a good fit? That’s fine. You want to start claiming that you couldn’t afford those players or that you bear no responsibility for the expectations fans had as a result of Petco? That’s not fine.
33: Because Latos was drafted in 2006. They didn’t have to use a pick on him. They controlled his rights for a year. Did they not have room for him in the 2006 budget? If he’d said “Hell yeah, I’ll sign!” last June, do you think the Padres would have passed because they hadn’t allocated money to get him? What happened to the money that was there for him and/or Grant Green, who was NOT a D&F candidate?
June 22, 2007 at 11:25 am
39 :I suppose that not every pitcher on the Padres roster is a bargin, but the pitching bargains that we have should be talked about. Peavy, Young, Germano, and probably even Maddux are certainly values for what they are paid. I’d even argue that D. Wells performance is about what you can expect for 7M nowadays.
The bullpen is also full of values-Linebrink, Bell, Meredith, Hampson, and Cameron all should probably be spoken about as bargains for their performances this year.
June 22, 2007 at 11:40 am
41: I don’t disagree that the Padres have some bargains in their pitching, although I would say you’re overestimating how good Maddux has been. He’s going to cost 10M, his option is going to vest to make it a 2/20 deal, and so far he’s been our 4th most valuable starting pitcher by VORP. People are screaming about how overpaid other players are and Maddux has a 13.2 VORP and a 1.6 WARP. That’s pedestrian. Less production than El Duque, for example. I’m not at all upset we signed him, he’s a solid presence, but he’s not a bargain.
The flip side of bargain hunting is that it should leave you money to take a chance or two.
June 22, 2007 at 11:45 am
40/33 … why don’t you think that unspent bucks from 2006 was added to the 2007 budget to get to the $10M number? That’s what it looks like to me … seems simple. I think it’s very fair, given that they did give out the $10M number to expect them to spend it … and I agree that it does look like PF’s guess’es are on the high side. I think we’ll see some money spent on the internation market that will account for the balance of the $10M. If that turns out to be $8-9M, OK … if it’s $6-7M as you’re suggesting, then that’s worth making some noisy-complaints about.
If you can find some examples of “floating stories about how their hands are basically tied financially”, post the links and I’d be interested to refresh myself. I share the same general feeling you have that I’ve read those stories … and I share a distaste for them … but I’m also worried that I’ve been biased by listening to whiny-fans and reading whiny-blog-comments (*not* here at DS). The times I’ve heard SA and KT speak, I have been *very* impressed … and I therefore have a *deep* trust that they are good at their jobs … and therefore have a good feeling for mid-to-long-term future of the Padres. And I’ll bet Moores is a smart man too … to some extent, “spin” is part of the game/business of baseball … and it’s easy to get cynical about it … but if/when the MLB team is wining and the organization as a whole seems to be improving, then we need to make sure that “criticism” is coming from a spirit of “things can always be better” rather than “you suck and you lie”
June 22, 2007 at 11:47 am
WOW!!!
I just went on my lunch break and since I work downtown I usually go get something to eat at Horton Plaza. So as I am coming up the escalator I step off and about 20 feet away I see some dude decked out in Red Sox gear. I also notice BRAIDS… Sure enough Manny and Coco Crisp were walking around the mall. As much as I hate to admit it I totally geeked out for a second and felt like some 13 year old girl at an Nsync concert!
June 22, 2007 at 11:50 am
Re: 44 you should have kid napped them for the weekend!
June 22, 2007 at 11:52 am
42 … re: Maddux … I *do* believe the Padres are getting a lot of “intangible value” from Maddux … he’s a “brand-name” that puts butts-in-seats … and I believe he’s coaching/mentoring many of our younger players … so while I agree that he’s not a bargain, he’s turning out to be a better value than I feared … and I still expect him to have a 4-6 week stretch of VERY BAD RESULTS … just look at what he did last year during May/June/July …
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/pl.....e=Pitching
… so *when* that happens (*and* when clearly not worth $10M in 2008), I’ll still say he was a good signing.
June 22, 2007 at 11:54 am
Re: 46 I wonder if they will be able to retain Maddux and Hoffy as coaches in a few years.
June 22, 2007 at 11:55 am
From mlbtraderumors.com …
Possible Milton Bradley Suitors
Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle mentions several potential suitors for Milton Bradley in today’s column. She names the Padres and Pirates as possibilities, citing connections to Paul DePodesta and Jim Tracy. Additionally, Slusser quotes Billy Beane in saying that he worked on a Bradley trade within the past three weeks but it fell through.
The Pirates, as a non-contender, really don’t need to be picking up impending free agents. There’s just no reason for it. They need to give as much playing time to young players as possible.
The Padres, though, make a fine fit. Bradley could help them in all three outfield spots, when healthy. John Perrotto confirms interest from both teams.
Meanwhile, the Mets will apparently pass because of Bradley’s baggage. Bradley, though, had a relatively peaceful stay in Oakland.
June 22, 2007 at 11:57 am
The phrase “…there’s a rather large difference between promises made and not kept and promises inferred and not kept.” is classic Clintonian (or Alberto Gonzalezesque — I’ll remain politically neutral here) hair-splitting.
If Mr. Canepa’s e-mailbox is overflowing with bait-and-switch rants, one can only conclude that a LOT of San Diego voters made the “inference” that a new half billion dollar, taxpayer-funded ballpark would translate to the Padres 2007 payroll ranking higher than 24th. Or that they’d be able to sign a legitimate #1 pick overall rather than cry poor and settle for a signable local kid.
I’m with Tom — it’s not that we’re not thrilled with the way the team is performing, it’s the “once we get Player X’s handcuffing contract off the books (Klesko, Chan Ho, Nevin, Luther Hackman, etc.) we’ll REALLY be players in the offseason” quotes and articles that ring hollow and contradict the actions of the front office.
We’re not advocating spending for spending’s sake (spending does not equate to winning, et al), just don’t expect us to lap up yet another apologetic explanation of why the Padres missed another opportunity to sign a player because of limited financial resources. And do not insult us with nonsense about inferences vs. promises.
June 22, 2007 at 12:00 pm
48 … John Perrotto writes for BP … and he put together this interesting list recently …
10 moves teams didn’t make last winter that have them smiling now:
1. The Los Angeles Dodgers don’t trade Brad Penny
2. The Los Angeles Angels don’t trade for Adam LaRoche
3. The Chicago Cubs don’t pursue Barry Zito and Jason Schmidt
4. Philadelphia doesn’t trade Aaron Rowand
5. St. Louis doesn’t re-sign Jeff Weaver
6. Baltimore doesn’t trade Brian Roberts
7. Atlanta doesn’t trade Chuck James
8. Florida doesn’t sign Danys Baez
9. Texas doesn’t sign Keith Foulke
10. Pittsburgh doesn’t sign Tomo Ohka
… I like the perspecive … and I’m glad I’m not seeing any players that the Padres ended up on the short-end of!
June 22, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I don’t think that the Padres should be spending more money, at least not for a starting pitcher. I just don’t think it makes sense to give a starting pitcher $10m a year or more for 4 or 5 years when you can sign someone to a one year deal for the same money and get the same performance. Long term deals kill teams when the player doesn’t perform to expectations. Personally I hope they keep their payroll down and then sign Miguel Cabrera (although I know that’s not going to happen). Free agents, except for the young ones, are always disappointments as you are paying for what they’ve done, instead of what they are going to do.
June 22, 2007 at 12:07 pm
To those that complain about the FO not spending money that they “have,” this is why I have a problem. Posted from this UT article http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html March 4, 2007:
According to Moores and Alderson, Moores will spend between $10 million and $20 million on the Padres this year to offset the difference between revenues and club expenses. Some $5 million of the expenses owe to the club’s construction of its baseball complex in the Dominican Republic.
“Financially, we’re actually doing OK,” Moores said. “Like everybody, we have to comply with the debt-service rule. The capital call this year will be reasonable. There will be a capital call next year and the year after and a year after.”
Saying “there’s something offensive about trying to buy a World Series,” Moores isn’t wild about how the Red Sox and Yankees are behaving. He noted that Boston’s $127.3 million payroll in 2004 was the largest ever by a World Series champion. Shaking his head, he said he doesn’t see how other clubs can financially compete with the lump-sum purchases to Japanese clubs that got the Red Sox ($51.1 million) and Yankees ($26 million) the negotiation rights to pitchers Daisuke Matsuzaka and Kei Igawa, each recommended by Padres international scout Randy Smith.
Moores, who projects a payroll of about $70 million for the Padres, lauded the White Sox for winning the 2005 World Series with a $75.2 million payroll that ranked 13th of 30 clubs; and the 2006 Cardinals who, after eliminating the Padres in the divisional playoffs, prevailed with an $88.9 million payroll that ranked 11th of 30.
“Jerry Reinsdorf and Bill DeWitt are two men that I admire, and they did it the right way,” Moores said.
As for what awaits the 2007 Padres, Moores referred to newcomers at three positions, saying, “If you can tell me what will happen at left field, third base and catcher, I’ll tell you how far we’ll get in the playoffs.”
Moores is spending 10 to 20 million of his own money on this club to offset expenses. You can’t honestly claim that this guy needs to throw more of his money into the team when he’s not getting an ROI. Of course he’s making money off the downtown developments, but unless my financial skills are totally teh suck, he’s not making money off the Padres.
June 22, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Also, I don’t think we should second guess any Kevin Towers moves. With the exception of the OG trade and resigning, he’s done a brilliant job of putting together this team. He’s either gotten off waivers or completely stolen with trades the following players: Gonzalez, Sledge, Cameron, Bard, Branyan, Young, Bell, Linebrink, Meredith, Hensley, Germano, Cameron, and Hampson. That’s about 40% of the offense and half the pitching staff. The trade with the Rangers will go down as one of the greatest trades ever (how the Rangers just extended their GM’s contract is beyond me). I always say this but imagine if the Yankees had Towers as their GM instead of the incompetent Cashman. It would sort of take the fun out of baseball seeing the same team win year after year!
June 22, 2007 at 12:13 pm
47: I really like that idea
Also i really liked that article on Matt Bush, gives me hope that he may bring his first round talent up to the big league club. It will be fun to watch him and see how he does. Peter, keep us posted!
June 22, 2007 at 12:15 pm
52 … awesome link, Phantom, THANKS! My favorite part is about KT …
Moores said Towers blew away Padres board members with a presentation yesterday morning that also reflected well on the Alderson-Towers tandem, which enters its third year.
“Kevin, I believe, I know, has grown in the game,” said Moores, who approved Towers’ ascendancy into the GM job in November 1995 and has signed off on Towers’ contract extensions, the latest of which, issued by Alderson in November, runs through 2008. “This morning, Kevin gave an absolutely cerebral overview of the Padres, the National League West and baseball. It was very, very impressive. Kevin couldn’t have done that 10 years ago. I think Alderson has made Kevin a better baseball executive, no question.”
… this aligns with what I saw/heard at the Pizza Feed in 2005 (ie. I was surprised and impressed by the depth of what he said).
June 22, 2007 at 12:15 pm
re 33: I’ve never said that the Padres couldn’t be better if they spent more money on player payroll, and that is not what the Canepa column was about - it was about the idiotic whiners who incessantly write him nasty grams claiming “bait and switch”, when there was in fact none. Those same idiots call in frequently to XX. Those same idiots, including a particularly ubiquitous one who goes by the name Paul Conrad, writes the same letters to the UT editor, ad nauseum.
I will do you a favor and not lump you in with those same idiots. I would appreciate it if you would do me a favor and take my arguments more seriously. Calling them an official team talking point is rhetorical garbage and you should be better than that. If you are not, please let me know.
Besides, since I will assume you know the team’s financial history, I am going to let you tell everyone why (a) it is misleading and does discredit to your position to assert that team payroll was 24th at the beginning of the season (hint, hint); and (b) why it is misleading and does discredit to your position to compare beginning of season base payroll (hint, hint) to payroll in certain years at the Q. If you are willing to admit your error on these points, that would be a true sign that you are interested in serious discussion. Otherwise, let me know, and I will demonstrate the fallacious arguments for the rest of this group of fine commentors.
By the way, here is another link to the article:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....anepa.html
Read it for yourself and you will find no mention of an alleged draft budget. That is a red herring that doesn’t bear on Canepa’s point.
Also, it does not follow that just because you have a budget of up to ten million, that you will necessarily spend it all. If you draft the players that you want and you end up spending less then ten million, then great, you can redirect that money to other areas of need. If, however, someone has any hard evidence that the Padres refused to draft a player this year because of budgetary concerns, I would be glad to see it - haven’t seen any such thing in the UT or other sports media I read. I am open-minded on this topic b/c I don’t know much about the draft or bonuses.
June 22, 2007 at 12:19 pm
52 … and I think the *key* statement in the article is this …
“Financially, we’re actually doing OK,” Moores said.
… when a businessman says his business is “doing OK”, that means he’s makin’ money, *big* money … and I don’t begrudge him that one bit … that’s what it’s all about … and I think he knows that his best long-term way to sustain that is via wining at the big-league level … and I think he’s put together the FO to do just that for many years to come!
June 22, 2007 at 12:21 pm
re 49: No, one cannot reasonably assume that a LOT of voters believed such junk, or even that they really cared about the Padres more than they cared about the rest of what Proposition C was supposed to do.
One can reasonably assume that a certain number of people write Canepa the same stuff over and over again, that those same people repeateadly bitch and moan on XX and write endless letters to the paper, and that there is some trickle down to other less discerning fans resulting from those whiners.
June 22, 2007 at 12:27 pm
17 … BA is saying that Colon is signed …
http://www.baseballamerica.com.....hp?team=SD
June 22, 2007 at 12:30 pm
59 … oops, I was seeing Keith Conlon of Texas Christian rather than Christian Colon = 10th round ss/2b out of Canyon HS, Canyon Country, Calif. … never mind …
June 22, 2007 at 12:33 pm
52 and 53: I don’t believe that he’s putting money into the team. Independent sources say our operating income / revenue / profits is enough to pay for baseball ops and the stadium debt. It may serve his tax interests to put money in, but their revenue is sufficient that he doesn’t need to.
56: After your “pure cheap hindsight” shot, you expect some kind of affection?
The team payroll was a simple fact at the beginning of the season. It has gone up as Wells hits his incentives (which can total 4 million) and another 1 million with Barrett. Those amounts DO NOT move us meaningfully in the payroll rankings.
The Qualcomm payroll is completely germane to this discussion. The argument for Petco was that it would provide greater revenue than Qualcomm. You don’t have to spend that revenue, but you can’t say that it’s not available. Yet our payroll now, and since we moved into Petco, is comparable to several seasons at the Q. This despite the increased revenue from Petco AND from other sources, like MLBAM.
Where did you get the idea I was limited to discussing Canepa’s article? It’s one example of the team misleading people as to their finances. The article that Phantom linked to is another. Moores is WALLOWING in cash from the Padres. Not just from his real estate investments around it, just from the baseball ops. Every independent observer says so. But Moores sits down with the UT reporter to bemoan the cash drain.
Our “safe” approach in the draft has been written about by many people already. GY put a link to one such story in today’s post. BA has talked about it. You may assume that they passed on high-end arms like Nevin Griffith or Matt Harvey because Padre scouts didn’t like them, which makes Padre scouts unlike every other scout in the business. I assume they passed on players universally rated better than the ones they drafted because they didn’t want to pay them.
June 22, 2007 at 12:36 pm
61: See, this is the problem I have with your argument. You can’t just throw out “independent sources” without linking to something. I have my belief that Moores is doing what he can because I have a concrete article that supports it. If you can produce your independent sources, maybe people will give more credence to your argument.
I mean, this is just like saying, “I have a friend that saw KT kissing Sandy Alderson. That’s why he still has his job!” You can’t take that kind of thing seriously unless you have some kind of corroborating evidence. And although the UT is undoubtedly going to me more favorable towards the Padres, I would expect them to do some fact-checking of their own before they printed something like that.
June 22, 2007 at 12:40 pm
58: That’s hilarious. We have actual evidence that people feel misled about the Padre payroll, and you claim it’s the product of a few loud whiners. That sounds like Cheney and Rumsfield dismissing the “dead-enders.” But unless I can break into the Padre accounting department to see the unvarnished books, or plant a listening device in their staff meetings to find out why they passed on high-upside players in the draft, then it’s all speculation.
Canepa is on-board with the Padres and the Chargers. You don’t stay on-board with teams by questioning them too closely. He might grump about how today’s players aren’t as tough as the ones he remembers when he was a lad in Little Italy, but he’s not going to do any digging. When he wants to find out if the Padres ever said that Petco would let them expand payroll, what does he do? He calls Kevin Towers and Larry Lucchino! That’s an investigative journalist for you!
June 22, 2007 at 12:42 pm
63: Canepa didn’t write the article I linked to. That was all Krasovic.
June 22, 2007 at 12:48 pm
61 … re: “Moores sits down with the UT reporter to bemoan the cash drain” … see my comment #57 on this … I do *not* read *any* “bemoan”ing … he said very clearly that they are doing “OK” financially, ‘nuf said.
You may be right, to some extent, about the “WALLOWING”, but I gotta think that’s a bit overstated … perhaps just “wallowing” without the all-caps? Clearly they are making a ton of bucks from MLBAM … it’s my understanding that that was the source of the money for this past offseason’s mega-contracts … so the Padres are building a “war chest” … let’s see wha they do with it … I’m with Shlom (#51) in hoping their saving it for Miguel Cabrera … $dreamoff.
I’m OK with the “safe approach” to some extent … it got us Chase Headley, for example. It sure appears to me that they are thinking and acting “long-term” … and at the same time getting short-term results … and you gotta admit that this season appears to be headed towards a post-season appearance … and that in this era of MLB, once you get to the post-season, it’s just a crap-shoot. Yes, their chances in post-season will be better if they come up with a “big bat” for LF … and yes, that seems unlikely they will find one … but I also think that between KK and OG and MCamy and KG, one of those guys could be the post-season-big-bat (AG being a “big bat” is a given) …
June 22, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Fascinating discussion, folks. I’m currently reading Vince Gennaro’s Diamond Dollars, and one thing he does is make clear the relationship between a team’s on-field success and its revenue potential. There is very little doubt in my mind that current ownership is doing everything it can to build a winning and consistently profitable franchise.
This club also is at an important point in its history — the difference between 89 and 95 wins is much greater than that between, say, 82 and 88. I’m more comfortable questioning some of the specific decisions made than I am questioning the motives for making those decisions. At that point, it becomes a matter of personal taste in how best to allocate resources. I hope this doesn’t make me sound like a mouthpiece for anyone other than myself, but if it does, oh well.
Bottom line is that I have more confidence in the current ownership/FO combination to do its job with a high level of competence than I have had in any group that’s been in place here since I’ve been a Padres fan. I understand that some people (not here necessarily, but listen to the radio) retain the mistrust that results from being delivered a less-than-stellar product more often than not over the years, and to those folks, I guess all I can do is tell them to keep watching. This organization is in better shape right now than it ever has been. We’re not quite where we want to be just yet, but as LM says in #38, now is a great time to be a Padres fan.