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!
144 Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/2007/06/22/sports/baseball/22padres.html?_r=1&ref=baseball&oref=slogin
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: 9 ill see you there
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
TW, sorry, I didn’t write my intro…
*
Truth is, I still don’t have one…
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” …
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.
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 …
oops I meant Re: 17
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) …
when did they sign Kubacki, Payne and Cumberland?
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.
17, not 27
stupid Fathers
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!
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)…
Payne’s playing
4 AB, 2 H, 8 BB, 2 SO, 2 SB…
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.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=l_sco&lid=121
(looks like the league is too cheap to provide real-time scoreboard updates
)
30 … my comment about Cumberland being signed is based on this AZL Padres roster at madfriars.com …
http://padres.scout.com/a.z?s=315&p=8&c=2&nid=1771704&yr=2007
That’s a predicted roster… He has not signed yet.
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/sports_details.php?DB_OEM_ID=8500&AID=10669&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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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”
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!
Re: 44 you should have kid napped them for the weekend!
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/players/3933/splits;_ylt=Alre8rFuHo2IM0aIl62OtWGFCLcF?year=2006&type=Pitching
… so *when* that happens (*and* when clearly not worth $10M in 2008), I’ll still say he was a good signing.
Re: 46 I wonder if they will be able to retain Maddux and Hoffy as coaches in a few years.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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/uniontrib/20070304/news_1s4padres.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.â€
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.â€
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.
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!
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!
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.â€
… 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).
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/sports/canepa/20070621-9999-1s21canepa.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.
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!
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.
17 … BA is saying that Colon is signed …
http://www.baseballamerica.com/draftdb/2007xteam.php?team=SD
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 …
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.
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.
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!
63: Canepa didn’t write the article I linked to. That was all Krasovic.
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) …
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.
62: If I was quoting a puff piece in the UT, I probably wouldn’t talk too loud about “sources.” You would expect them to do fact-checking? There’s no sign of that. Fact-checking would be a line like “Other sources confirm Moores’ statement” after his claim to be dumping cash into the Padres.
Here are links to Forbes articles on the Padre revenue:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/06mlb_baseball_valuations_land.html
Here’s a story that talks about the general mendacity of baseball in regards to money:
http://www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/documents/waystowin.shtml
Doug Pappas wrote a lot about this topic before he died. Sigh. I miss Mr. Pappas. You can look up his articles yourself. Most of his work was about baseball finances in general.
I agree with LM that Moores has every right to make money, as much money as he can, on the team. He doesn’t have the right to tell people that he’s losing money or can’t afford to spend more because of his own accounting choices.
Here’s an older story on the revenues generated by MLBAM. They’ve gone up substantially since this was published:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/mlbam-the-stealthy-money-machine/
Baseball Prospectus has a lot of stories about revenue, but you have to subscribe to see them.
64: And if you look at the post I was replying to, it was The Father’s comment in which he says that my inclusion of the draft budget is a red herring because St. Canepa didn’t talk about it in his article.
re 63: Who cares if people “feel” misled about payroll, when factually they weren’t? That is those whiner’s own problem that they don’t need to project onto the team. While it is not the team’s primary problem, it wouldn’t be a bad idea if Alderson and Towers put this myth to bed more completely. A little anthology of Padres press releases and conferences circa 1998, Channel 4 shows at the time (which relentlessly pushed for Prop C), and anything else publically there still out there would get this done fine.
Also, Canepa researched the UT archives in addition to contacting Towers and Lucchino. Many public statements were made by Padres officials before Prop C passed, and Towers and Lucchino were the main spokespersons for the team. Why should Canepa not go to primary sources? You don’t honestly think it is better for him to be credulous of self-deluded hearsay emailers, do you?
By the way, please identify your independent sources on team finances. If you are relying upon Forbes, you have probably misread the numbers and I will be glad to explain why. If you are relying upon something else, I would be glad to take a look at it.
66: I agree wholeheartedly Geoff.
63 … it’s clear that there are a few loud whiners who feel misled about the Padre payroll … I’m *not* interested in them … I’m interested in you, TW … do you feel misled? I personally do not … but I’m not a San Diego resident who’s paying for Petco … just a Padre fan reaping the benefits. I think all we’re asking you to do is refresh us on the source of you feeling misled. I have a gut feel that agree’s with you … baseball owners in general have kept their books closed and have coluded and other bad things and none of them, Moores included, deserves any benefit of the doubt, and they don’t get it from the player’s union … and the law and the free-market have kick’d the owner’s butts for many years now … *and* the owners still appear to be making big bucks … so everyone (players and managment and owners) seems to be winners in the growing popularity of MLB … cool.
Sure Canepa is a shill ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill ) … let’s agree to ignore him, OK? You, TW, can do a good enough job is providing doses of reality for us here at DS … thanks!
#67: “I agree with LM that Moores has every right to make money, as much money as he can, on the team. He doesn’t have the right to tell people that he’s losing money or can’t afford to spend more because of his own accounting choices.”
One characteristic of the current group is that they’re pretty forthcoming with information. Sometimes that means they’re wrong about stuff. It is possible that if they adopted a more “closed-lip” policy, folks would have less to complain about because there would be nothing to point back to when reality deviated from expectation based on something somebody said. Personally, I would find this unsatisfying, and I’d prefer they continue to err on the side of TMI.
In a way, I suppose, Moores has the same problem that Jake Peavy has when he talks about wanting to hit a guy in the ribs…
To address a really specific point in this argument (Wells vs. a better starter acquired during free agency – call him Lilly):
The Padres currently have the best record in the National League. For the sake of my argment, I’m going to make the stupid assumption that the standings remain the same for the rest of the season. Regardless of this assumption, I think we can agree that the Padres as currently built are a good enough team to make the playoffs with average luck. If these are true, then the Padres have no incentive to upgrade the 5th starter spot this year. With Wells or Lilly, they’ll still make the playoffs. Once in the playoffs, the fifth starter doesn’t pitch. So for almost no upgrade in the current season, the Padres take a huge risk on significantly limiting their ability to spend and build a stronger team in the next three seasons by signing Lilly.
Note: this analysis becomes stupid if the Padres do not make the playoffs this year for a reason other than abnormally bad luck. In that case, yeah, Lilly would have totally been worth the extra money this year and in the future if he just gets us to the playoffs this year.
As to other aspects of this argument, yeah, the draft budget sucked, and if money keeps the club from acquiring someone that can help like Bradley or Dunn at an acceptable cost to the future, then that will suck and we’ll have something to complain about.
66: I’m confident in this front office, too. I’ve never advocated that they start shoveling money at long-term FA contracts. I simply cannot understand why they continue to beat the “we don’t have money” drum.
A lot more people would be moved by “Baseball contracts and players are risky investments, and we’re trying to win without putting ourselves at serious risk” than “We never promised you a rose garden” and “We’re still losing money.” Talking about how you’re not able to make ends meet the same year you decrease payroll and increase ticket prices is exactly why some people are upset. Other people are going to be upset no matter what, but it’s a mistake for the front office and others to dismiss them all as ignorant crybabies.
69: I doubt Canepa has the mental resources to research anything more complex than a menu. Last I checked, the Union-Tribune wasn’t the Complete and Unedited Compilation of All Knowledge.
You don’t just ask the people who have the most to gain from slanting the story. If somebody’s wife thinks he’s cheating on her, does she just ask him? Or does she ask other people too?
As to why people feel misled, it’s far more complex than just what the Padre front office said. When every talk radio host in San Diego was talking about how a new park would let us compete with LA for free agents, did Towers correct them the next time he was on? When team officials complained that the Myers, Nevin, and Klesko contracts were handcuffing us in Qualcomm, was it plain stupid of people to think that the new park would relieve some of that? When Moores publicly blasted Bruce Henderson and partly blamed him for the Padres inability to compete between 99 and 2004, what lesson should people have taken from that? That we couldn’t compete because a ne’r do well was standing in the way of the new park?
#74: Good point. I think by now, everyone should realize that we’re a mid-market club and get over it. There are a lot of assumptions behind the “we don’t have money” argument and you’ve elucidated them quite nicely in your suggested approach of talking about risk. I make those assumptions every day, and I think a lot of us here do because that’s how we think about baseball. But not everyone does, and maybe that’s where the credibility issues come into play. When I hear “not enough money,” my instinct is to add “to offset the risk” in my head, but when others hear it, they may replace the phrase with something closer to “we’re too cheap to care” and then get frustrated.
I should stop here. Most times I barely know what’s going on my own head, let alone other folks’ heads.
Good stuff…
67: Have you ever worked as a journalist? You don’t necessarily have to put something in like “Mr. Smith’s statement was confirmed by his neighbor.” You simply do not print something that hasn’t been confirmed. These are the reasons why you have editors that are supposed to question the content of your pieces. I had several things pulled from my first few articles because I couldn’t obtain confirmation of them before our deadlines. When I did have things confirmed, I simply left them as is.
I will admit that I don’t understand what the 56% Debt/Value ratio means.
After reading an ESPN article, http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0312/1350460.html I’m concluding that the 56% debt/value number implies that 56% of the Padres overall value is held in debt. This would imply that the Padres have more of their overall value in debt than in actual assets. Thus, to get the true value of the team, you’d have to multiply the team’s total value by 0.56. Yes, the Padres have made more money since leaving Qualcomm (check out the sidebar), but they still spend more than they make.
71: I don’t feel misled about promises made or implied in 1998. I feel like they’re trying to mislead people now about the financial state of the franchise.
It’s one thing to say “We didn’t want to spend money on any of these particular players.” It’s quite another to say “We can’t afford to play in free agency.” The first statement may be part of a blueprint for a very successful operation. The second statement is a lie.
74 … TW, thanks for links in 67 … but what I’m interested in is a recent source for your comment in 74 …
… I’m not hearing that drum … refresh me … and/or let’s get back to that the next time it happens (ex. if/when they start to explain not spending $10M on this year’s draft … and/or if/when they start to explain not getting a “big bat” at/before trade deadline).
78 … I’m interested in getting a link to a quote from an FO person that you think is a lie … I’m not saying that hasn’t happened … I’m just saying that that’s a *strong* statement and I’ll adjust my fan-status if/when I think that I’m being lied to. That’s a big deal to me.
77: Operating income = Gross Profit minus SG&A Expenses. It is the income from current operations.
SGA expenses = Payroll costs (salaries, commissions, and travel expenses of executives, sales people and employees), and advertising expenses a company incurs.
According to Forbes, we had a 13 million operating income in 2006. Which, again, is totally fine. I’d be happy for John Moores is the income was 3x that. But where I’m not fine is where the team acts like they’re looking for loose change in the locker room after the players leave. I’m not fine when they say that money won’t be problem in a draft loaded with HS kids and then pass on one hs player after another to take Luebeke, Payne, and Chalk.
#78: If that’s what they’re saying (I’m not as well versed in this area), they might be well served by amending it to “Due to the unacceptable amount of risk involved, we can’t afford to play in free agency as much as some people might hope we would” or some such.
Sounds like Elijiah Dukes has gotten the Milton Bradley treatment from TB this morning…..anyone interested? It’s too bad both Bradley and Dukes are crazy(although its the only reason they are available) because having an outfield including Bradley, Dukes, Giles and Cameron would be a nice problem to have both offensively and defensively.
Bradley would be a perfect fit, if only for 3 months, I wouldn’t want them anywhere near Dukes.
#81: This is a valid criticism, but it speaks as much to a lack of confidence in their talent identification process as to their unwillingness to spend money.
81 … re: money won’t be problem in a draft … if they end up spending ~$10M on ~$10M worth of talent, then I’ll be OK that they pass’d up on the high-upside players that they did, indeed, pass up on … because then that tells me that they had other budget plans that would qualify as “money won’t be a problem”.
re: “looking for loose change” … that reminds me … what was going on with the floating dollar bills yesterday? They’ve got video of that at padres.mlb.com … it was kinda funny … kinda embarassing …
79: Canepa’s column: Drumbeat.
Krasovic’s article (Phantom’s link): Drumbeat.
The Padres targeting almost all slot players in the 2007 draft: Drumbeat.
83: I’d like Bradley, too.
83 … *HUGE* thumbs-down Dukes … that guy is scary … and I think it was a good/tough decision for the D-Rays to make! I think his situation is *very* different from Bradley …
OT: Is anyone not excited about this weekends series? I feel like this is the series I have looked forward to all season so far and it has worked out perfectly since both teams are the top teams in their respective leagues.
86 … re: drumbeat … but in Krasovic’s column, Moores is quoted as saying this …
… that’s the beat of a different drummer! And just because Canepa responds to “bait-and-switch e-mails I’ve received over the years” doesn’t mean the Padres are crying “poor”, does it? Remember, let’s ignore Canepa … he’s gotta make a living … and if he can do that being a shill, so be it … we don’t don’t have to let anything he says or writes be of import to us. I want to focus on quotes from FO personel … either they are lieing or they are not … and if not, then let’s not accuse them of such (as you appeared to do in 78).
I think the main point is that it would be stupid for the Padres to spend money on mid-level free agents. Look at the Blue Jays, they wanted to make a statement about increasing their payroll and now they are saddled with two terrible contracts on injured pitchers (Ryan and Burnett). In a few years, I’m sure the same thing will happen with Marquis, Meche, Lilly, etc. The real question is whether they can re-sign Peavy, Gonzalez and Young when they finally come up on free agency. If they let them go (and don’t have adequate replacements) then I think you can scream about the payroll but for now there is no reason to since their way is working.
Also, do you think any other team will spend $10M or more in 2007 on free agent prospects? That doesn’t seem consistent with a “we don’t have money†drumbeat …
88: I’m uber-stoked about this series. I actually had tickets to this entire series, but due to circumstances beyond my control (my friend’s are getting married tomorrow nite and I just drove home from San Diego yesterday), I’m unable to make any of these games. I’m not actually sure I’d want to attend any of them anyway, since we’ll see all of the “I’m a Padres fan when the Red Sox aren’t playing them” fans come out of the woodwork.
As I said all the way back in #1, I really, really, really hope the Pads play well this weekend and that they earn some respect.
92: Yes i totally agree. Last series with the O’s was just sloppy. The defense needs to be sharp again and our pitching has to do what they have done all year. If they do that I dont see how we couldnt be in each game this weekend.
92: I think that we’ll be fine Phantom. I’m looking forward to the Padres really acquitting themselves well against what is probably the best team in baseball.
I also have to give a thumbs down to Dukes, it’s looking more and more difficult for him to separate himself from his past. Bradley is a different story; however, keep in mind that he’s never played more than 141 games and in 5 of the last 6 years he’ll have played less than 101. I’m a little concerned about his injury history and if acquiring Bradley means not pursuing Dunn/Dye/Griffey, I don’t know if I’m interested.
83, 87: I agree w/ 87 — it’s really not fair to compare Bradley and Dukes. For our front office’s willingness to go after Bradley, Barrett is actually the better comparison. Fighting with Jeff Kent, like AJ Pierzynski, may not be a dealbreaker; and both players priced to move.
If they are prepared to give him a more or less regular spot in the outfield, why not get him?
Amidst all of the baseball discussion here today, we’ve neglected the single most important factor regarding tonite’s game:
It’s 80’s night! Any idea which uni (if any) the Pads are gonna wear? Are they gonna mess with their photos again?
Matt Bush
1 IP, 0 R, 0 H, 0 BB, 2 K.
I see that Colt Morton is in AZ. Seems like he’s been around forever.
97.
2k’s = NICE!
Man I hope he can get his ass in gear!!!
96 … it’s my understanding they are going to wear the uni that Tony Gwynn first wore as a Padre … so that’d be 82/83ish …
99: Thanks for the info. Lookn forward to it!
From ESPN
Padres Placed pitcher Doug Brocail on the 15-day disabled list, retroactive to Thursday; recalled pitcher Royce Ring from Portland of the Pacific Coast League (AAA).
97 … forever? Colt Morton was drafted in 2003 …
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/M/Colt-Morton.shtml
98 … here’s the first AZL Padres box score …
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=g_box&gid=2007_06_22_pdrrok_mrnrok_1
… yup, there’s Matt Bush pitching the 6th inning … and Yefri (the great) going 2-for-5 …
101 … good news (for the Padres, not Brocail, I s’pose) … I think this is an upgrade!
re 81: I don’t have the time now to go over all of the arguments you have made that aren’t very convincing, but I will try to do so on the weekend. However, in post 81 is the key analytical mistake you have made and one I alluded to earlier. You are reading the Forbes numbers flat wrong.
Go back to “Operating Income”. Now go to the footnote 3 identified. It says – “3 Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.” This is also known as EBITDA, an accounting term for “paper profits”, i.e. profits before deductions that may or may not be real. In the Padres’ specific case, and unlike some other teams, they have a real and very big “interest” component – i.e. the interest on stadium debt. It is widely reported to be somewhere around $12-14 million a year. I would also assume that the Padres have legitimate “taxes” line items, since they are a part owner of the stadium and the footprint, and probably have to pay property and other taxes. I have no clue about the depreciation or amortization components, but I know they are almost certainly there, and they are most certainly “paper” deductions.
So, even if you have an EBITDA of $13 million in 2005 – not 2006, that is just the year of the report – and you assume NO taxes and discount amortization and depreciation entirely, but deduct the very real interest expense, you still end up with a range of a net $1 million operating profit to a net $1 million loss. That is break-even.
You do that for the 2004 numbers and you get a small operating profit – anywhere from 3-5 million. You do that for the 2006 numbers and you get a bigger, but still relatively small, operating loss – anywhere from 7-9 million.
You include taxes and you probably have net operating losses each year.
And you can do all that while completely dismissing the depreciation and amortization accounting items, those heavily criticized by the late Doug Pappas. You can also disregard so-called “interest” from owner loans to the team, another way some teams make their finanical picture look worse than it is. Not sure Moores has ever so characterized any of his multiple contributions to the team.
Regardless, this claim that the Padres are making money on a regular operating basis is just so much bollocks, and the Forbes numbers, criticized by MLB for being too harsh, even show that.
On a side note, check out the historical graph for Padres EBITDA – before Petco, the overall picture was even uglier. Also, the current baseball financial rules require teams to run certain EBITDA amounts depending upon their income and debt and value; thus you see the Padres reversing the trend starting around 2002, when those rules were first implemented.
I hope this helps you understand this better.
104: I agree-swapping Brocail for Ring is probably an upgrade. Ring has really seemed to be doing well in AAA this season and I’m excited to have 2 lefties in the pen.
102. Just seems like it, I suppose. I thought the same about Ben Johnson when he was in our system.
105 … wow, TF, well done! We have TW to keep us honest … and we have you to keep TW honest … the perfect storm, so to speak!
107 … you want “forever”, check out Chad Mottola’s career …
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Chad%2520Mottola&pos=OF&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=119456
“Selected by the Cincinnati Reds in first round (No. 5 overall) of the June 1992 First-Year Player Draft” … and now has over 1000 career RBIs in the minor leagues … YOW!
105.
DUDE…. Can you help me out with my math homework? Or maybe help me get a deal on this condo I want?
Here’s what I did: took net profit per Business of Baseball-Forbes.com and noting major differences in players’s expense vs. Cot’s BB contrcts, I adjusted all 30 teams. The Padres came out 6th with an est profit of $37M less payroll tax. You can do this by clicking on each team at Forbes. Cot’s is up to date w/ Barrett. DC,TB,FLA,&AZ topped SD all having lower gross income & salaries, but higher net. NYY had the lowest net at $5M. From this it would seem $ are available as profit exceed MLB ave. by $10M.
105 … taxes? You mean the Padres are paying taxes? So the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego and the State of California and, in fact, the USA is getting some benefit from the business known as the San Diego Padres? Hmmm, who knew?
111 … way to go Malcolm … you keep TF honest
you can crunch the numbers how ever you want but the fact is that the padres ran the numbers and figured that they could have a payroll of 70 mil this year, they infact have a payroll in the mid 50’s unless they were planning on taking a $15 mil hit this year I would say they are well within the black at this point.
or they were lying about the $70 mil all along
105: Talk about not being convincing. Took you all afternoon to write that when it can be undercut with…..
EBDITA is whatever the team says it is.
Here’s a link:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ebitda.asp
As to the Padres financial credibility: Remember last year when Towers told us we couldn’t take on more than 1 million in salary because of the debt service rule? You move a single item out of one column on your spreadsheet and that 1 million limit turns into 5 million, 10 million, whatever you want it to be.
You act like these accounting principles are written in stone. Paul Beeston (Toronto’s VP) said “Under generally accepted accounting principles, I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss, and I can get every nation’s accounting firm to agree with me. ” That’s a baseball executive admitting that financial measurements are flexible.
114/115 … OK, now there’s a specific we can talk about … what did they say about a $70M payroll for 2007? How do you know it’s currently “mid 50s”? These numbers agree with my understanding … I just don’t know if they are fact or fiction … if they are apples/applies or apples/oranges …
I’m just not gonna get worked up about the bucks if/when they are winning … unless they are lieing …
Re: 105 & 116 when did we start speaking greek on this board?
Alderson has confirmed the 70’s # several times Im to lazy to goto cots and tally up the mid 50’s #.
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/san-diego-padres.html
Opening day payroll $58 mil, figure with barrett $59 now still $11+ above thier original profit margin.
109…Crash Davis? Future manager in their system? Can’t imagine why they keep a 35 year old unless they have something in mind for him later.
Also if you want to look at profit:
John Moores bought the Padres for $94M in 1995.
Forbes magazine valued the club at $367M in April, 2007.
He also got a sweet development deal with the land around the stadium
118 … I *love* the “greek” … I don’t understand most of it … but it’s very interesting to see the various sides of what TW is describing as “financial measurements are flexible” … which exactly matches my understanding based on working for HP (when they started reporting “non-GAAP results”, many folks were livid, because it’s practically admitting that it’s smoke-and-mirrors, not that GAAP is much better, which is TW’s point).
Below is a great comparison of what sucess can do to a teams value.
David Glass purchased the Royals for $96M in 2000.
Forbes magazine valued the club at $282M in April, 2007.
119/120 … fair enough … now what? Are you going to quit being a Padres fan because of it? If I thought they (the FO) were lying then I’d quite being a fan. But if I think they are making bigger profits, well, that’s sorta what I expect. Plus, what I really think is that they are building a strong position for long-term success, both on the field and on their GL.
Re:125 No I couldn’t careless about how much profit they are making if the team is winning and they are doing everything in thier power to keep it that way.
Where I get annoyed is when they cry about not having money or when they lie about loosing money when its not true.
Moores wont spend the money in the draft or on the minor league system (this years draft proved it again) and thats what kills me. How do the redsox and yankees always have top prospects when they are always picking late in draft? Because they are willing to put more money into thier picks and minor league system.
The tigers are a great example on how overpaying for 2 FA and putting a ton of money into your minor league system can take you from a 100 loss team to the WS.
126 … we’re sorta on the same page, then (focus on “team is winning”) …
I’ve never seen SA nor KT nor John Moores “cry” … but I have heard the whiners on XX (etc) read an article in the newspaper where Moores says “We’re doing OK financially” and then claim that what he said is that the team is “poor” … and that seems twisted, that those people are coming into the conversation with a chip on their shoulder, stuck in an anti-ownership paradigm (hey, that’s fancy talk
).
I’ll bet businessmen and politicians lie more than I think they do … but based on the few interactions I’ve had with SA, I honestly don’t believe that guy is capable of lying or being a part of any organzation that does. Is that rose-color’d-glasses? Perhaps, but they look good on me, don’t they? Or perhaps you can’t see them because I’ve got my head buried in the sand? Well …
126 … re: yankees – when was they last time they won?
re: bosox – what “top prospects” do they have? (I really don’t follow AL teams)
re: tigers … yes, recent WS participants are, by definition, “great examples” of how to put together a winning team … that seems like your “cherry picking” … it’s not that big of a gap between the tigers and the royals/reds/bucs/rays … the tigers were a mess a coupla years ago … remember, MLB is a zero-sum game … it’s hard just to be in the “top half” year after year … previous Padre administrations have not succeeded in doing that … so far, this one is in “Year 3″ and still on an upward trend … I like it.
128: BoSox have a pretty nice farm led by Cla Bucholtz, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Michael Bowden.
RE 111:There’s an interesting disconnect between profitability and winning at the low end. If my team was Wash, Pitt, Fla or TB, being in the top five for profits would be offensive. It appears the Padres profits are on the high end, but besides winning with low payroll,which points to astute management, there is a reserve that could be used before year-end. The Dodgers have $5M less “profit” or reserve and Az. $5M more, so it will be interesting to see which if any makes an expensive move. Even though we know these arent certified #’s, quantifing the relative amounts hopefully will reduce the disappointment some people feel about the payroll.
#126: Red Sox and Yankees put more money into their picks because they have more money.
#128: Well said. The Tigers are a great example of one organization that has turned its fortunes around, but I wonder how many of their fans were clamoring for more even as it was happening. We’re in the middle of something here, and it’s hard to judge our position accurately in real time. We won’t know until after the season is over whether or not we got where we were trying to go. Still, I like our current path a lot better than many other paths we’ve followed throughout this franchise’s existence.
105, 116 – I’d like to weigh in (late) on this. Both of you are right. I can say this because I work in finance (several years on Wall St. plus an MBA to top it off) and spend too much of my time staring at financial statements. Here’s one truth about financial statements, and another commenter already said this – you can make them show darn near anything you want. There are two reasons why this is especially true in the case of the Padres.
1. They’re a private business and as such don’t have to report their results to the SEC. Where did Forbes get their data? I looked and couldn’t spot a source. If Forbes doesn’t have access to the team’s internal numbers, they’re not getting a truly accurate look at the business. The only people who really know how the Padres are doing financially work in the front office, and they’re not talking.
2. There is a difference between accounting metrics and cash performance. EBITDA (like net income) is an accounting metric, and as such it can be manipulated. We know very little about the Padres’ cash flow, which is really how you should evaluate a business.
What all of this means, well, we don’t really know enough to say with confidence how the Padres are performing financially, and how that impacts their spending on players. I do, however, trust the front office – Alderson, Towers & co. have my confidence, and Geoff and a few others have said what I’ve been thinking for a while now – it’s been a long time since it was this much fun to be a Padre fan.
P.S. – No one buys a big league team to provide a stream of income. Franchise owners don’t make their money at the end of the year, they make when they (A) sell the team, or (B) leverage the team to produce a more profitable stream of income. The Yankees are a great example – the baseball operation loses a ton of money, but the Yankees television network is phenomenally profitable, and subsidizes the team. Or, look at it another way – the Yankees exist to provide programming for a TV network. Any winning they do is a bonus.
Moores did something like this – he used the Padres to get Petco built, and then did real well investing in the subsequent development in and around Downtown. The Chargers are trying to pull something like this off in Oceanside, and just like the Padres found ten years ago (!), it’s quite difficult.
The Chargers are having problems because they(stupidly) continually select areas for redevelopment which are not considered blighted, if the Padres and the city had to add on 22% to the costs in east village/ballpark district the stadium would never have been built.
Also, it is important to note that while Moores(through JMI realty) is making a killing downtown, he can only profit from the projects which his company actually builds….like the Omni. He cannot profit as a development company strictly on the resale of land in a redevelopment area, so the new condos(Icon, Park Terrace) directly outside right field didn’t make Moores anything.
Mark
Royals just traded for Milton Bradley. they gave up middle reliever Leo Nunez…
Are they acquiring him just hoping that he gets hot so they can redeal him? Anything else doesn’t make sense to me…
132, 133: Thanks for cooling things out. I agree, Forbes is doing the best they can based on what they can get their hands on. The alternative is accepting that Moores, alone among baseball owners for the last 100 years and alone among business men for all time, is being completely accurate and forthright in his statements.
131: GY, you know it’s not that simple. The Red Sox investment in the minors compared to the Padres is a few million dollars per year. You get far more bang for every buck signing amateurs. A big amateur signing budget for any team would be 10M. The same budget for a team playing it safe and not playing hard in the int’l market would be 5 million. It’s where the smaller teams can really close the gaps. With amateurs, 5 million can get you a couple of premium US picks and a couple of high-end international talents. In the pros it gets you a journeyman corner OF.
134 – yeah, I didn’t want to get into what I think about the Chargers and their stadium efforts. Suffice it to say, I’m not impressed.
Good point about redevelopment and the other condos. Back in ‘04 (right before Opening Day at Petco) Slate had an article on ballparks as a catalyst for redevelopment, citing Petco as the one example of a ballpark that did what it was advertised to do – revitalize a blighted neighborhood. Here’s the link:
http://www.slate.com/id/2098064/
#135: Interesting. Maybe they will try to extend him beyond this season? He’s still fairly young.
#136: Yes, I’ve oversimplified matters, but the money those organizations have is a primary driver in how much they are willing/able to spend in all areas.
135: The Royals also need to sell seats through the rough KC summer, but I bet they’d turn Bradley around in a second for a decent offer.
138: I haven’t crunched any numbers to figure an equation, but every dollar you spend on the farm, assuming you have competent people running the show, is worth multiples of that at the major league level. It’s a force multiplier, as they used to say about every new weapons system. Maybe they still do.
At the amateur level you you might lose some Venezuelan kid to the Red Sox for 100,000. Obviously some will be more, but many will be much less. In the draft you’re passing on players who want 1.5 million and the slot is 1.2. At the big league level you’re missing out on ManRam by 20 million.
Or look at it this way: Had the Padres been as aggressive in the amateur market as the Red Sox just during the Petco era, we’d have a farm system that would allow us to trade for an available player. And it would have cost us 10-12 million over that period more than we spent. Say 16 to make it easier, 4 million per, 4 seasons. That gets you 3 or 4 arms in the high minors so you don’t have Boomer in the rotation. It lets you put a great offer on the table if the Marlins decide to move Cabrera.
#138: You raise a great point here. Another analogy would be to investing in a 401(k) plan. The sooner you get in, the more value you accrue over time.
Re 116: sorry, but your generalization about EBITDA hardly undercuts what we know about the Padres, and any argument in that regard is a fallacy. The Padres in fact took out a large loan to fund the stadium. They in fact pay interest on that loan; they in fact pay 12-14 million a year in interest. Denying reality does not help your argument.
No fuzzy math there, and none of the known shenanigans recognized by critics like the late Doug Pappas and the still going critic Andrew Zimbalist, both of whose work I have read and value greatly.
I already conceded that we don’t know anything about Padres’ claimed depreciation and amortization. I disregarded those entirely. I didn’t even make a deduction for taxes. So, if you accept the Forbes numbers, which I am willing to do, you still get a break even operation for the Padres because of the very real interest they pay, which is not included in Forbes “Operating Income” numbers.
Re 132, 133. Agree wholeheartedly. It would be nice if we had complete access to the Padres’ books, because the facts currently available haven’t convinced cynics like TW. We would probably see something similar to what I have posited, although if the Padres wanted to, they could probably claim substantial “losses” through appreciated depreciation and/or amortization of the stadium and other assets and/or recharacterization of liabilities. That is what Paul Beeston really means when he says you can turn a 4 million profit into a 12 million loss. Beeston also means things that teams like the Yankees do – funnel profits out of the team through an interested party transaction with their local media netword, owned – voila – by the Yankees. Teams like the Yankees do that because (a) they can; (b) to make a profit look like a loss; and (c) – most important, to reduce their revenue sharing contribution.
Also, I wish it made a day to day difference that the Padres’ franchise has appreciated in value, but it doesn’t. That only matters to the owner if/when that owner sells the team. Baseball also changes its team accounting/fiscal responsibility rules so that a team now has to have enough EBITDA to service its actual debt; it doesn’t consider the old debt/equity ratio any more. If it did do the latter, then the equity appreciation of the franchise could matter more for day to day operations. Since it does the former, the Padres are further handicapped relative to other teams – they have actual substantial stadium debt, which Forbes also recognizes.
142 … thanks, again, TF … so, your bottom line seems to be that the Padres are doing a good job with their business given the current operating rules and are, for the most part, being pretty forthright in their public statements, right? And agreeing with Moores when he says “Financially, we’re actually doing OKâ€, right? Which means Moores is making money somewhere, which is fine by me. That’s my perspective, from a financial-layman’s point of view …
Re 144: I don’t really have a bottom line here, other than that the Padres seem to be spending pretty much everything they take in, and arguably then some, if you believe Moores’ recent statements about putting more money into the DR and his recent statement that he would make a cash call this year.
His “we’re actually doing OK” statement is ambiguous – it could mean they are making money, it could mean they are breaking even, or it could mean they are losing less on a yearly basis than they had in the past. I think the latter two are more reasonable options given what facts are available to the fans.
Based on the information available to us, the best supported view is that Moores is NOT directly making money on the team on a yearly basis. I don’t think he expects to do so. He would make substantial money if he sold the team, but my current understanding is that he has no intent to do so and wants to keep it in his family when he is gone.
However, you can always argue that Moores is indirectly making money off the team from the investments that his companies have made in the surrounding redevelopment zone. However, he seems to be wasting at least some of his money on the Saudi- and other Arab dictator–coddling Carter Center, but that is another story entirely.