IGD: Padres vs Astros (19 Aug 07)
Sun, Aug 19, 2007
by Geoff Young
| time: | 1:05 p.m. PT |
| tv: | 4SD |
| sp: | Greg Maddux (8-9, 4.00) vs Matt Albers (3-5, 5.99) |
| pre: | Padres.com, SI.com, B-R.com |
A little haiku for your dining and dancing pleasure…
request to Padres:
please don’t make me fall asleep
again at Petco
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.
August 19, 2007 at 10:36 am
A sweep by the Astros would be tough. Can Az please just loose once.
August 19, 2007 at 11:20 am
Braves are up 5-2 in the fourth. Escobar just went yard, to go with Teixeira’s two homers. Petit is getting torched.
August 19, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Arizona loads the bases in the ninth, but the Braves hold on to win, 6-2.
August 19, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I’ve had enough Lance Berkman for one year…
August 19, 2007 at 1:21 pm
how the heck did Berkman hit that out? Off the bat it looked like an easy pop up to left.
Also it’s a really bad sign to see them strand OG right there.
August 19, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Yeah, that was a brutal at-bat by NOG. Adrian hit the ball hard but right at Lamb. If NOG makes contact and Adrian’s shot is a little higher…
August 19, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Adrian’s hit was bad luck. He hit it hard but unfortunately it was just right at their 1B. That just seems to be like how it’s been going lately.
August 19, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I’m really not too confident in today’s lineup. Greene, Mackowiak, and Sledge right where the power part of the lineup should be. I would prefer to see Kouz hit cleanup then Greene.
August 19, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Bard complains way too much (arguing balls & strikes) when he is at the plate. Most catchers will keep from showing up umpires so as to protect their pitchers on the same close calls….
August 19, 2007 at 1:50 pm
9: Yeah, but that pitch was well outside.
Batting the worst hitter second has really hurt today. Black should stop doing that.
August 19, 2007 at 1:51 pm
And now I’ve had enough NOG for one year.
#9: Really? I’ve generally been impressed by Bard’s restraint in those situations. The pitch he was called out on in the second missed by quite a bit.
August 19, 2007 at 1:55 pm
But it is like NOG is calculating, what is the worst thing I can do now?
First inning, the K fails to move up the runners.
The third, his ground ball might have moved up OG in the first, is now a tailored 643.
I wish he could suck in less destructive ways.
Some confusion about OG’s base running. In the first, he puts a ball to the wall that outfielders have to run a long way to get. I assumed that was going to be a triple, but he pulls up at second.
Then, in the 3rd, he chops one into LF, long run for the OF, and Maddux can even take 3rd, the throw going straight without cut-off. Why did he not advance to second and take away the DP? Nice hitting but a little hustle might have gained us a run or two.
August 19, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Ridiculous play by Lamb to rob Mack.
August 19, 2007 at 2:04 pm
#12: Lane got to the ball pretty quickly in the first and you don’t want to make the first out at third. In the third, I’m not sure you can assume that the throw is coming to third base. Hard to fault OG on either play.
On another note, Kouz crushed that ball. I thought it was leaving yard. Oh well, two runs are nice…
August 19, 2007 at 2:10 pm
What is the scouting report on 23 year old AAAer Yordany Ramirez ?
Do the Pads see him as a player who could contribute soon at the mlb level ?
I was listening to the Beavers radio network the other night and the interviewer, Beaver broadcaster Rich Burke, led off the interview by raving about several nice plays that Ramirez made defensively over the last few games. Also, he seems to be hitting as well as displaying some speed in terms of stolen bases.
August 19, 2007 at 2:25 pm
#15: Ramirez is a good defender who doesn’t hit enough to play regularly in the big leagues. He might have a career as a fourth or fifth outfielder in the vein of, say, Kerry Robinson. IMHO, Ramirez has a bit of work to do before he even gets to that point…
August 19, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Lamb fleeces Mack again.
August 19, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Lefty comes in to face Cameron with the bases loaded and issues a four-pitch walk? I don’t understand it, but I appreciate it.
August 19, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Do we need to trade for Mike Lamb so you can cut loose with those puns, Geoff?
August 19, 2007 at 2:43 pm
#19: You know it.
August 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Hey everyone! I come here often, but I usually lurk in the background and just read everyone’s comments when I get a chance. I wanted to see what everyone thought about the comments Peavy made in the UT. Apparently, he’s questioning the padres commitment to winning and is not optimistic that he will be a Padre after his current contract is up.
I have to probably agree with what he says - and he is obviously just looking at what the history of this club has shown. With Peavy and Young at the front of this rotation and Trevor still effective, the window of opportunity to win is small and they should go for it. I really think they need to make a major offensive move this offseason. They need to find a way to get a big bat somehow while some of their young guys are still affordable.
August 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Anybody else shocked that Linebrink give up 2 in the 8th and took the “L” for the Brewers today?
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gid=270819108
August 19, 2007 at 3:10 pm
21 … http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
I’d like to focus on these statements …
“I’ve got to say, the Padres have helped set me up better than I could have ever dreamed. They have given my family security. And I’m proud to be a Padre.
“I love it that I’m climbing up some charts here and closing in on the strikeout record (he is 11 shy of Andy Benes’ 1,036). I’d like to be the all-time win leader here.
… and he asks the right question …
Can you give me your word that we’re going to make an effort to win the World Series?
I’m pretty sure his interpretation of “an effort to win the WS” is different from Towers/KT/SA … and I think all his other statements in the article are an acknowledgement of that …
August 19, 2007 at 3:10 pm
#21: Hey, Dann; thanks for stopping by and saying hi! Here is the U-T article on Peavy:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
I will have a full rant on this tomorrow…
#22: Did the meaning of “shock” change recently?
August 19, 2007 at 3:11 pm
23 … acknowledgement *and* honest assessment.
August 19, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Hey, a Jenga sighting!
August 19, 2007 at 3:13 pm
#23: Honestly, I’m disappointed with Jake’s comments, particularly the timing. I’ll have more to say tomorrow.
August 19, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I guess that rules out the DL for Bradley. Then again, that’s what I thought after his last pinch hit appearance, and that was 11 days ago.
August 19, 2007 at 3:23 pm
No outward committment to winning from the Pads front office yet all they have been doing over the last four years is generally win (.530) - How many teams over the last 3.75 years have a better record than the Pads ? Bosox, Yankees, Cards…? Also, do great trades count (CY/Adrian acquist) as a displayed committment to winning (hours and hours of homework so that when you get on the phone with the Ranger GM Jon Daniels you can fleece him, this doesn’t count as committment? - the “committment” always seems to mean exclusively spending a boatload of money . Spending money for example on a free agent big arm like Zito, Schmidt, Suppan, Weaver, Igawa is just one component of an overall committment - Remember all the crap the Padres brass took when they decided to let Dave Roberts walk. The “spend money or you aren’t trying to win” partisans close themselves off to logic much of the time.
August 19, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Hey Jake, stop chirping to the press in the middle of our playoff chase, continue to pitch well and have a good playoff start or two in this years post season and help us get to the promised land ! Can we get YOUR committment to focusing on the season at hand and accomplishing this ?
August 19, 2007 at 3:52 pm
30 … I don’t see Jake as “chirping to the press” … they are chirping the questions to him … it’s part of the business of baseball … and, as he is quoted as saying in the article, *the* topic of conversation even amongst his friends is reaction to the zambrano signing … so he’s obviously done a lot of thinking and talking about it in recent days … it’s his style / character to say what he’s thinking … and, really, nothing he said was radical at all, imo …
*AND* it’s good to remind him of our expectations for *his* contribution to winning in the post-season, well said, JP!
August 19, 2007 at 3:53 pm
#23 - I must say though, after actually reading the article, Jake does use some finesse in how he words his criticism and is opining in a little different context than the “you don’t care about winning” mode. I suppose it is the fact that he has picked this moment to be voicing this critique is where the problem may lie.
August 19, 2007 at 4:10 pm
#32: Jake also has done a nice job of preparing fans for disappointment while at the same time pre-emptively pinning responsibility on management (”inevitable,” “not in my hands”?) in the event that he is traded or not signed to an extension.
August 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm
32: In all fairness to Jake though,timing issues aside, do you really see the Padres ponying up the money to keep him? It’s going to take more than Zambrano money to sign a pitcher of his talent on the open market.
Of course these things are better said in October, and he should have told the reporters that he’s not going to talk about it now, but that’s not the way he does things. I also am not going to vilify the guy or accuse him of preparing the fans for disappointment or pinning the blame on management when every one of us knows that, in all likelihood, he is not going to be a Padre after the 09 season. If the team steps up to sign him to a market rate deal, it would be the first time since Bruce Hurst (that I can recall) that the Padres have splashed the cash to keep or acquire a player in his prime.
It pains be to even be discussing this because he’s one of my favorite Padres of all-time, but with this front office and ownership, I just don’t see him being on this team on Opening Day 2010. I wish things were different.
August 19, 2007 at 4:35 pm
#33 I think you just nailed it. Of course. He wants to spin it so that fans will not blame him in the slightest when he bails for NY or Boston dough unlike how Kevin Brown was treated as the turncoat who had no heart but only knew money.
August 19, 2007 at 5:39 pm
35: Thats because it will be managements fault for letting him go. Peay would like to say here, so you figure if the Padres offer is even close (which it wont be) then he will stay.
August 19, 2007 at 5:52 pm
33 and 34: The correct answer to the questions at the time they were posed: No comment.
Agree with Geoff that Peavy is preemptively setting up management for blame, and that is nothing different than I would expect from a guy I love to see pitch, but who is also immature and does not know how baseball franchises are run. Peavy plainly infers that management needs to spend more money to demonstrate a “commitment to win” - that is the only thing that players ever mean when they discuss such things.
The fault with Peavy being likely to leave in the near future via trade or free agency lies with the inequitable financial system baseball is using, not the team or the player. If the system was instead like the NFL, the Padres would have the ability to keep one or even two of their big name/big talent free agent players without crippling their flexibility to round out a competitive team.
August 19, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Just out of curiosity, what kind of money do you think it would take to keep Peavy? 7 years, $126 mill. like Zito got? At $18 mill per year, that means that about 25% of the payroll would be tied up with one player. History shows that contracts for pitchers of over 3 or 4 years are more often than not bad ideas, because it’s so hard to predict injuries and dropoff in production for pitchers. So basically, in 2010, the Pads will be faced with the question of whether they want to let Peavy go or to make an unwise investment akin to the deals given to Kevin Brown, Chan Ho Park, Darren Dreifort, Carl Pavano, etc, etc, etc. It pains me to say it, but I think Jake is right. His days as a Padre are numbered.
August 19, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Here’s an article that provided the numbers for what I was just talking about: http://baseballanalysts.com/ar.....free_a.php
August 19, 2007 at 6:04 pm
37 … I understand he could have replied “no comment” … but that’s just not done … the model that has worked for MLB for years and years and years is for newspapers to provide free advertising of their product in exchange for lots of content for them to include in that advertising … quotes and pictures galore … anything goes … no holds bar’d …
Besides, like I said above, what’s radical about what Peavy said? I haven’t heard anyone yet suggest anything but complete agreement with everything he said … so that’s why I’d prefer to focus on the attitude he clearly stated that he’s proud to be with the Padres now and making progress toward some all-time franchise records!
I’ll bet he’s been watching as Tony has been deified recently … not just in SD … but throughout the MLB universe. Several of his quotes in today’s article suggest to me that that matters to him … which seems a good thing for fans like me that want to similarly deify Jake Peavy … both because he earned it on the field … and because he stayed in SD.
August 19, 2007 at 6:20 pm
37: How can Peavy be setting up management to blame when it is unlikely that the Padres will even be a serious player when he’s a FA? Are we going to make Peavy the bad guy for wanting to get paid the market rate for someone of his caliber as opposed to taking the infamous San Diego discount? I understand that his timing is very poor, but are we going to start applying cynical motives to the guy already when he still has two more years in a Padres uniform?
Frankly I think that the average fan is not going to blame Peavy if he leaves for a huge contract someone else. The average fan has been wanting the team to spend money in search of the Big Bat (TM) for two off seasons, and if the team doesn’t spend the cash to keep one the best players to ever wear the uniform (homegrown even), it’s just going to be more evidence to the average fan that Moores is only interested in pocketing the cash and not serious about spending the money needed to field a winning ballclub.
All I would want is for the Padres to make a serious competitive offer when the time comes. If Peavy leaves then, I will wish him luck, but will be disappointed. If the Padres were not to make a serious offer, how can I be upset at him if he leaves? The Padres would have no one to blame but themselves.
August 19, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I think Peavy’s comments are made at a much more simplier analysis of the situation. I don’t think he’s intentionally trying to setup the FO for blame if he walks - I think he’s just simply looking at the facts of the franchise history. In light of the Zambrano and even the Oswalt deals, since when has San Diego ponied up that type of “market-value” contract to keep one of their players? We’re not talking a 30+M Nevin contract, we are talking about having one of the top 10 contracts (maybe even top 5) for a pitcher in baseball and possibly breaking the 100M mark for the first time in franchise history. Based on history, Peavy’s correct - it is more likely that he will be traded or not extended.
He does sort of use that analysis as an argument against wanting to compete for a WS title, but that’s just in his perspective. Perhaps in his mind, he thinks “if they don’t want to pay me a market-value contract, then they don’t want to win.” That can mean win at that time (after 2009). With the recent success of the team, it is a bit odd to bring this up now, especially at 2 years away from free agency. However, I am sure this is just the media asking Peavy’s thoughts on the Zambrano deal. I’m sure since the deal was announced, Peavy has probably asked himself, “Would the Padres really do something like that for me?”
August 19, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Although this discussion will get more heated tomorrow, here’s what I would do if I was the Padres.
After this season, you approach Jake and his agent and you tell him “Look, we want you to be a Padre for a long time, but if you want Zambrano money, it’s not gonna happen. That said, lets see if we can work out a mutually beneficial deal by February 1st. If we can’t work out something by then, we’ll table discussions and see where the world takes us.”
I think the Padres could reasonably offer 5 year/75 million at this point. You buy out 2008 and 2009 and add Peavy through 2012. Maybe even a club option for 2013.
I also think that the Padres need to make this as pbulic as possible, so they don’t get burned. They can say that they tried to make a fair offer to Jake, and if he turns it down, he turns it down. If he really means what he says about wanting to stay a Padre, then they can work something out with him.
The reason I say the February deadline is because of something I heard on the post game show today. Kenterra brought up the great point that dealing Jake after this season would net you a huge return (you’d be trading him after one of his best years and he would be under control for 2 years). If you wait until the end of 2008 to trade him, you risk him having an unmemorable 2008 and 1 less year of control.
I love Jake and I want him to stay, but it’s the San Diego Padres, not the San Diego Jake Peavys. Ultimately, this team has to do what’s best for them in the long run. Although I would miss having Jake around next year, if we dealt him to the Yanks for something like Cano/Matsui/and other awesome prospects (hell, maybe even Hughes), I think you’ve got to listen. It’s pessimistic to think about dealing him now, but if Jake makes it clear that he wants Zambrano money, then you might as well get something for him while you can.
August 19, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Related to a FA “wanting to win”, I think that Alex Rodriquez would have a ring if he’d have signed with the Mariners (for a reasonable “west coast discount”) instead of the mega-contract he took with the Rangers. After he left, the Mariners got better … and it seems plausible that with him at SS, they’d have won.
Part of my point here is that players aren’t always good judges of a teams ability to win a WS … and there are several cases of players saying “it’s about winning, not about the money” when it sure seemed to me to “about the money”.
If you don’t stay with a team, then it sure seems likely it’s “about the money”. For Tony & Cal, it might not have been “about the money”. For most players, it’s “about the money”, and I respect that. And I sometimes respect an attitude that says “it’s about winning” … but it sure seems to me that the Padres have done some winning during Jake’s tenure with the Padres … and it seems reasonable to me that he could lead the Padres to a WS title given the Ownership and FO that’s in place. But I also agree that the facts make it clear that they are and will continue to be a lower-then-average-payroll franchise … and that that has to make it harder to win a WS … but I think Alex Rodriquez’ and Barry Bonds’ and Barry Zito’s and Vlad Guerrero’s experience makes it similarly clear that a premier player has a hard time predicting the franchise that he can lead to a WS championship!
August 19, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I know the players are under pressure by the Player’s Union to take the highest contract possible, but why does Jake have to go to the highest bidder? Tony could have made much more money on the open market, but he stayed at San Diego. Trevor Hoffman could have made more going to the Indians, but he chose to stay at San Diego.
Unless Jake is traded before his contract is up, I don’t see it as anyone else’s fault than his own if he won’t be a Padre after ‘09. He’s the one that signs on the dotted line. It’s ultimately his decision if he wants to have a “fair” $100 million contract, or a reasonable contract from a small market franchise.
August 19, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Hate to plug my show, but be sure to DVR Sportswrap tonight (11:35pm on NBC 7/39) Jim Laslavic will have some comments on the Peavy issue.
August 19, 2007 at 8:23 pm
46 … for those of us out-of-towners, who is Jim Laslavic? Would you come back later a post a summary of his comments?
I think it’s OK for you to “plug my show” … we know it’s “about the money”
August 19, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Sorry, I incorrectly assumed most of us on this blog are in SD…
Laz is a long time sports guy in town, probably the most respected and well known in San Diego…. anyways, I am the producer of our Sportswrap show on Sunday nights (and a Ducksnorts fan) and I am writing this from work.. I just thought Geoff in particular would like to her Laz’s comments. I’ll post his comments tomorrow, as requested.
August 19, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Worrying about Peavy’s contract two+ years before it runs out is just begging the baseball gods to make his arm fall off. It’s really silly for him to be talking about in the midst of a pennant race, even if his concerns are mostly true.
Maybe after we win the World Series two of the next three years, we’ll have the money to re-sign Peavy and to sign Miguel Cabrera too.
August 19, 2007 at 8:41 pm
#48: And of course, he used to play LB for the Chargers!
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/spo.....etail.html
Incidentally, my rant is turning into more of a detailed textual analysis…