Parsing Peavy
Mon, Aug 20, 2007
by Geoff Young
You’ve read Jake Peavy’s comments in Sunday’s San Diego Union Tribune. My first thought was to embark on a full-on rant, but talk radio does that much better than I ever could, so instead, I’ll call upon skills learned way back in college and do a detailed textual analysis of Peavy’s words:
Text: I’m not optimistic about staying here as much as I’d like to remain a Padre.
Subtext: Pretty straightforward. The phrase “as much as I’d like” suggests that we, as fans, are not to blame Peavy for whatever happens.
Text: I hope it’s not the case, but I think it’s inevitable that I’ll wind up somewhere else.
Subtext: The key words here are “hope” and “inevitable.” Peavy at once plants the seed that his desire is to remain in San Diego while also absolving himself of responsibility should that not happen. He hopes that he doesn’t have to leave, but if he does, it’s not his fault. Peavy returns to this theme later.
Text: I am not looking to break the bank. I’m not saying I want a huge payday. I’m going to ask for what’s fair.
Subtext: This time we’re focusing on “not” and “fair.” The cliche is true: If it’s not about the money, you can be pretty sure that it’s about the money. Asking for what’s fair seems reasonable; we can all relate to that. If he doesn’t get what he asks for, what he deems “fair,” then it’s because management wouldn’t give it to him.
Text: And although I hope it happens here, I just don’t see the Padres spending that much on a player.
Subtext: Peavy nails the second part. He’s got an excellent read on the front office, which probably won’t spend “that much” (which Peavy seems to equate with “what’s fair”) on a player. He again uses the word “hope,” which reinforces the notion that his desire is to remain in San Diego.
Text: And if they’re not thinking in that direction, they might decide to trade me before it comes to the point of free agency.
Subtext: Again, Peavy is right. The Padres might decide to trade him. It strikes me as odd that a team’s star player would speculate on such matters during the heat of a pennant race, but as long as his focus remains on the task at hand, then I suppose there’s no real harm done beyond further alienating some fans who don’t believe that the organization is doing all it can to field a competitive team. The other danger is that in hinting at the possibility of a future trade, Peavy might be making overtures toward such a move, but that’s extrapolating a bit.
Text: It’s not in my hands, as much as I wish it was.
Subtext: Whatever happens, don’t blame Peavy.
Text: And when you look at (Padres CEO) Sandy (Alderson’s) stance on long-term contracts, well, he’s not been keen on them.
Subtext: None. Peavy is simply stating the truth.
Text: All I’ve heard from friends today are questions about Zambrano.
Subtext: Not much. I suppose you could extrapolate and surmise that the Cubs gave Carlos Zambrano “what’s fair” in Peavy’s eyes, but that’s a stretch. I think it’s a good bet that folks have been talking to Peavy about Zambrano, end of story.
Text: Obviously with the Padres’ track record, they’re not going there, nor would I expect them to.
Subtext: This one’s a little confusing, but I take it to mean that Peavy isn’t asking the Padres to match what the Cubs gave Zambrano. In other words, Peavy would consider a lesser amount to be “fair.”
Text: 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.
Subtext: This is a nice touch. The humility angle will play well with fans, as will “proud to be a Padre.” Regardless of whether Peavy believes these things (I happen to suspect that he probably does), he’s put himself in excellent position.
Text: I love it that I’m climbing up some charts here and closing in on the strikeout record. I’d like to be the all-time win leader here.
Subtext: Peavy understands and appreciates his place in Padres history. Another nice touch.
Text: What I’d most like is to take those results and have them be a part of winning a championship.
Subtext: He’s on a roll. Peavy moves from personal milestones to team goals that tug at the heart strings of all Padres fans.
Text: I’m more concerned about the team making a conscious effort to win a world championship.
Subtext: The key word here is “team.” Is Peavy referring to players or to the front office? If it’s the former, then I hope he is able to help motivate his teammates (and keep himself healthy — no more breaking ribs in post-game celebrations before the playoffs). If it’s the latter, then I’d submit the fact that the Padres have reached the playoffs in each of the past two seasons and are battling for yet another berth in ‘07 as evidence that management is committed to winning.
Text: At times, I don’t know if they’ve gone out on a limb to make it happen. I believe the big philosophy is right. But the first question I’d ask is, ‘Can you give me your word that we’re going to make an effort to win the World Series?’
Subtext: This answers our question; he’s talking about the management team.
Text: Honestly, they’ve done a phenomenal job with what they’ve spent. But we’re being asked at a $58 million payroll to compete against the Dodgers and Giants . . . and we’re doing it.
Subtext: Now he seems to be defending management, or at least acknowledging that the folks in charge of his team have done a better job of assembling talent than the guys in charge of teams with more money have. Peavy also may be hinting that he’d like to see his team spend more money, perhaps making the assumption that a greater financial commitment will lead to further success. (How’s that working for the Giants?)
Text: But if we had made a little bit more of a financial commitment to winning, I think we could have already won a World Series.
Subtext: I’d like to know the basis for Peavy’s assertion that the front office isn’t doing all it can to foster success. How much of a financial commitment would have ensured that Peavy brought his A-game to the post-season in ‘05 and ‘06? This strikes me as a very dangerous line for someone with a 12.10 career playoff ERA to be casting.
In conclusion, it’s important to note that Peavy was responding to questions asked of him. As a fan, I’m disappointed that his comments are coming to light now, when the focus should be on trying to win the NL West (or at least the wild card). Beyond that, I’m curious to know the motivation for discussing Peavy’s aspirations after his current contract expires following the 2008 season (or 2009, if the Padres pick up his option). Why is the U-T hot on this story now, while the home team and its fans might be more interested in the playoffs this year? There may be valid reasons (need to pay the bills, controversy sells, etc.), but we should still ask the question.
The other concern I have deals with perception. I’ve hinted at this in the past, but it seems to be getting worse: Despite the unprecedented success the Padres are enjoying right now, the amount of negativity I hear on the radio, at the ballpark, and elsewhere around town is staggering. You’d think we were the Pirates, who haven’t had a winning season since 1991. I’m not sure the exact root of this malaise, this vague distrust of current management, but it’s spreading. I don’t imagine that a story highlighting the fact that one of the Padres’ most celebrated current players expects to leave San Diego before long will help matters in that regard.
Peavy isn’t anyone’s puppet; he is free to speak his mind. It’s just sad that this apparently is what’s on his mind right now, even as the Padres are attempting to defend their division title…
by LynchMob
[Ed note: LynchMob returns for a second week of PPR in Peter Friberg's absence. Enjoy...]
Friday, August 17, 2007
AAA
Paul McAnulty: 5 AB, 1 R, 2 H, 0 RBI
Craig Stansberry: 3 AB, 1 R, 1 H, 1 RBI; HR (#12), BB, SO
Matt Teague: 4 IP, 4 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 3 BB, 4 SO (???)
AA
Springfield 2, San Antonio 1 (Game 1)
San Antonio 1, Springfield 0 (Game 2)
Matt LeBlanc: 5 IP, 4 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 2 BB, 5 SO (+ 1 RBI )
High-A
Inland Empire 7, Lake Elsinore 6
David Freese: 5 AB, 3 R, 3 H, 0 RBI; SO
Craig Cooper: 5 AB, 1 R, 3 H, 3 RBI; HR (#8)
Kyle Blanks: 5 AB, 1 R, 3 H, 2 RBI; SB (#10)
Low-A
Eric Sogard: 4 AB, 0 R, 2 H, 0 RBI
Short Season-A
Kellen Kulbacki: 5 AB, 1 R, 1 H, 1 RBI; HR (#3), 2 SO
Rookie
No game scheduled.
Commentary:
Triple-A Portland is such a mess… lack of minor league pitching depth appears to have resulted in two of our 2007 draftees, Matt Teague and Robert Woodard, getting called up to fill in at Triple-A… I saw Teague pitch for Eugene just last Sunday… he looked OK… and he did well for Portland tonight… the same cannot be said for Robert Woodard (5 ER in 1 IP).
Saturday, August 18, 2007
AAA
Yordany Ramirez: 5 AB, 0 R, 3 H, 1 RBI; 2B (#3), CS
Paul McAnulty: 5 AB, 0 R, 2H, 1 RBI
Brian Myrow: 4 AB, 0 R, 3 H, 1 RBI
AA
Will Inman: 6 IP, 4 H, 3 R, 3 ER, 3 BB, 1 SO (3-1, 2.59)
High-A
Lake Elsinore 13, Inland Empire 4
Sean Kazmar: 3 AB, 2 R, 3 H, 3 RBI; 2 2B (#13), 3 BB
Chad Cooper: 5 AB, 1 R, 3 H, 1 RBI; BB, SO
Low-A
Brandon Gomes: 7 IP, 2 H, 1 R , 1 ER, 0 BB, 4 SO
Short Season-A
Danny Payne: 2 AB, 1 R, 2 H, 0 RBI; 2B (#7), BB
Rookie
Angel Mercado: 5 AB, 1 R, 2 H, 2 RBI; HR (#5)
Cooper Brannan: 0.2 IP, 2 H, 7 R, 7 ER, 4 BB, 0 SO
Commentary:
Gotta be close to the end of the line for Cooper Brannan (ERA now at 11.14)… baseball’s harder to play professionally than it might appear on the surface. I’ll root for him to the bitter end…
Storm with one of their “fun” games… Kazmar now at .299/.369/.431… I don’t see him on most “prospect” lists… and he is back down at Lake Elsinore after a struggling start at San Antonio…
Sunday, August 19, 2007
AAA
Yordany Ramirez: 5 AB, 1 R, 3 H, 1 RBI
Paul McAnulty: 4 AB, 0 R, 2 H, 0 RBI; BB, SO
Will Startup: 2 IP, 2 H, 1 R, 1 ER, 0 BB, 1 SO
AA
Matt Antonelli: 5 AB, 0 R, 2 H, 0 RBI; CS
Chase Headley: 4 AB, 1 R, 2 H, 0 RBI; BB, SO
Brett Bonvechio: 4 AB, 1 R, 2 H, 1 RBI
Chad Huffman: 4 AB, 1 R, 1 H, 4 RBI; HR (#4)
Luis Cruz: 4 AB, 1 R, 2 H, 1 RBI; HR (#3)
Joshua Geer: 7.2 IP, 6 H, 1 R, 1 ER, 1 BB, 2 SO (14-6, 3.40)
High-A
Inland Empire 7, Lake Elsinore 5
Kyle Blanks: 3 AB, 2 R, 1 H, 0 RBI; 2B (#30), BB, SO
David Freese: 4 AB, 1 R, 1 H, 2 RBI; HR (#16), 2 SO
Low-A
No game scheduled.
Short Season-A
Kellen Kulbacki: 4 AB, 1 R, 2 H, 1 RBI; HR (#4), SO
Lance Zawadzki: 4 AB, 1 R, 3 H, 0 RBI; SO
Bradley Chalk: 3 AB, 1 R, 1 H, 2 RBI; 2B (#1), BB, 2 SO
Mat Latos: 5 IP, 4 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 1 BB, 5 SO
Rookie
Andrew Cumberland: 3 AB, 2 R, 0 H, 0 RBI; 2 BB, SB (#2)
Edgar Garzon: 5 AB, 1 R, 2 H, 2 RBI; HR (#2), SO
Shane Buschini: 4 AB, 1 R, 1 H, 2 RBI; HR (#2), BB, 2 SO
Commentary:
None.
Thanks, LynchMob. Off day on Monday, then the Padres are in New York for three against the Mets. Should be fun…
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 20, 2007 at 8:12 am
Wow looks like the P-Mac Attack is back! I think its time to call him back up!
Great job at breaking down Peavy’s comments G.Y. a few things.
Peavy’s timing is bad but he has never been a cliché guy with the media, he always is honest with how he feels and you have to appreciate that.
Peavy is right he will not be here past next year because the Pads will exercise his 09 option and trade him away for max value after next season (see Hudson and Mulder).
We as padre fans have to understand that we have been spoiled with guys like Tony Gwynn and Trevor Hoffman (up until his last contract negotiation) who have always accepted far less than market value to stay in SD. Most players will take a little less to stay with their home (see Brian Giles) but Peavey will be getting offers of 5-7 years at 18 mil a year the pads won’t even come close to that so you cant really blame him if he leaves.
I know if I got an offer of twice my salary to perform the same tasks and my job was guaranteed for 5-7 regardless of my performance I would really have to look at taking it.
August 20, 2007 at 8:27 am
Honestly, and I hate to say this, but I don’t think Jake is clever enough to be making some opening gambit here that will allow him to walk and still have the goodwill of the fans. I think, for all his talent, he’s a very basic guy thinking-wise, and when asked questions about Carlos Z, he just answered what he was thinking. Wrong time, wrong place, wrong comments, but not a calculated strategy to deflect blame.
Hate that we’ve probably only got one more year of Jake, but ready to accept that too. He always seems like a major injury risk waiting to happen and I would not be in favor of team mgmt breaking the bank to keep him. A responsible deal in the 5-6yr, 10-12MM range I can get behind, but Jake knows he can make 30-40mil more on the market.
August 20, 2007 at 8:40 am
Peavy’s actually done the Padres a favor here. The fans who believe the team needs to invest more cash are still going to think that, but the fans that see all ballplayers as overpaid have moved one step further into the pro-management camp. Bill Center’s informal e-mail survey of reaction to the Peavy story was running 60-40 “against” Jake.
Peavy’s playoff record isn’t helpful, but how many W’s has he left on the table the last 5 years? He’s pitched his guts out for the team in the regular season, way back to his major league debut out of AA against a little ole team called the Yankees.
Like many of his teammates, I wish Peavy had deflected these questions until after the season (postseason, maybe), but he’s spot-on with his analysis. The Padres are unlikely to give anybody a 5 year deal.
August 20, 2007 at 8:45 am
The whole Peavy thing is kind of humorous considering the players problem with the Linebrink deal and how that was undermining the clubhouse in a playoff race….yet one of the 3 team leaders is allowed to bitch about his contract which isn’t up for 2 and a half years?
The Padres won’t be extending Peavy until close to the end of that deal for a couple of reasons:
-Why should they?
-Chris Carpenter!
Mark
August 20, 2007 at 8:46 am
G.Y. I also wanted to comment on your comment of:
“Despite the unprecedented success the Padres are enjoying right now, the amount of negativity I hear on the radio, at the ballpark, and elsewhere around town is staggering.”
All fans complain its part of the fun of being a fan. Its more interesting to talk about how the team could improve then to just say “hey the team is great I hope they don’t change a thing”.
Yankees, Phillies, Mets, Dodgers, Cubs, and Redsox fans all complain, you read their respective news papers and you would think the writes hate the team and they have twice the payroll in most cases then the Padres do.
You cant judge the perception of a franchise by what fans say when they call into a sports talk show you have to base it off attendance at the ballpark, if people are willing to spend money to see something that they can see on channel 4 for free then you know that the fans are truly satisfied with the product.
August 20, 2007 at 8:53 am
I think a lot of the complaints can also be attributed to the fact that the Chargers are very good right now and have the 2nd most marketable player in the league.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it does seem to me that when both the Padres and Chargers are good many people in San Diego seem to take sides with 1 team over the other.
Considering the Padres new stadium I think it is only natural for many people who might prefer the Chargers to be the ones with the new digs to complain about the Padres not spending money.
August 20, 2007 at 8:56 am
Wow! The Peavy comments really caught me by surprise. I spent the entire weekend moving. Of course the cable and internet was supposed to be hooked up by thursday last week and it didn’t happen so I spent the last couple of days in the baseball dark ages. Although most of what Peavy said is pretty true I wish he would just bite his tounge sometimes. GY you bring up a great point about Peavy’s post season numbers. I think I am pretty torn on the Peavy contract issue. I mean the Padres have never really shown the ability to spend what it might take to sign Peavy. On the other hand they are going to get killed if they let him go. I think there is a chance they trade him if they can get a couple of real good prospects but with OG’s contract coming off the books at the end of next year I could see them using that money to put towards Jake. I think it’s for sure going to get a lot more interesting. Haha sorry If i’m a day late on this!
August 20, 2007 at 8:56 am
Great job, GY. Timing issues aside, the only area where I believe Jake is completely out of school are his comments about the organization’s committment to winning framed almost entirely in terms of how much money is spent. Generally speaking, players have no clue how to run a baseball team or how the Padres are being run, how much they bring in, and how much they spend and what they spend it on.
Agree on 3. On the other side, though, fans do identify with players and could side with the players, wanting them to stay with the team, without giving serious consideration to organizational structure and team revenues and expenses. Hence, we get comments like yesterday to the effect that if the Padres don’t pay Peavy it will show yet again that Moores is just interested in lining his pockets. The whole “Padres are cheap if they don’t re-sign Peavy” meme is nonsense, but has surfaced in a lot of fan comments in a variety of fora.
August 20, 2007 at 8:59 am
FWIW, the Padres supposedly made a 4 year, 60 million offer to Kevin Brown after the 1998 season. So, there is at least one precedent for the Padres under Moores making a serious, market appropriate offer to a prospective free agent who played for them the previous year.
Not saying that will happen with Peavy, and in fairness the Brown offer wasn’t five years or more.
August 20, 2007 at 8:59 am
Re: 6 I think its just part of being a fan, I complain about Moores just as much if not more than anyone else here but I still jump at the chance to go to a game whenever I can, and my wardrobe continues to be dominated by Padres attire. I love the fact that the team is playing above .500 ball for its 4th consecutive year but it does not mean that I think that the club cant improve and it does not make me any less disappointed that I know that one of my favorite players in Jake Peavy will ultimately wear another uniform because of the Padres spend less on more philosophy its all just part of being a fan.
August 20, 2007 at 9:03 am
6: I don’t know about the Chargers, they seem to be in the same position as the Padres. Very good regular seasons, don’t advance in the playoffs. In 2005 they didn’t even make the postseason. They do seem to be popular even though their GM is just as tough-minded and abrasive as Alderson could ever be. Maybe there’s a lesson in there somewhere. And the salary cap keeps people from complaining about money in the NFL.
Some of the frustration is because the offensive problems, while probably overstated because many fans don’t understand park effects, doesn’t appear to have been a priority. There have been smart, low-cost moves designed to yield real but limited benefits. I don’t know what fixes that besides better PR. “We’re not going to pursue Carlos Lee because he reminds us of Phil Nevin,” but suitably polished.
August 20, 2007 at 9:07 am
I posted this in the IGD yesterday, but I was curious to see if anyone thinks that I have a somewhat rational approach to this problem:
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 20, 2007 at 9:07 am
Given the number of contract extensions that have been given to players since the trade deadline, it comes as no shock to me that the franchise player (arguably) is thinking “What about me?”. Another thing to consider is this, if Jake were pitching in a bigger market he would have bigger and better endorsement deals that will add to his bottom line. Given that, I’m reading Jake’s comments as “Let’s talk extension now”, so we can all be on the same page later regardless of the outcome. Given the spotty health of the up and coming arms in the system, I’d be inclined to sign Jake to a longer term deal that includes a no-trade clause to any of the other teams in the NL West, so when the arms in the system make their way up to the big club Jake could be traded for a big bat and some prospects and limit Jake’s potential to hurt the team as an opponent.
August 20, 2007 at 9:07 am
Oh, Jake. What have you done? You could’ve said, “No comment. We (the Padres) are in the middle of a pennant race, why do you ask this question now? I have a contract and I have a job to do. Win the WS.”
Of course, if what Jake had said was right on as far as the philosophy of signing a pitcher to a 5-year contract for big bucks with the FO. If I were asked the some question, I couldn’t have broken it down any better. However, Jake should not have commented on this. It made him look bad and discontent. I bet the reporters were eating this up.
August 20, 2007 at 9:08 am
Actually now that I think of it the Padres will not have OG, Hoffman or Maddux (assuming he picks up his option) money to pay after 2008. So if my estimates are correct what’s that like $26-29 Million? I could see a scenario where they make Jake a legit offer. Obviously I’m not saying that it’s a real possibility but the money would be there (It’s probably there anyways). I am curious to hear the FO’s response!
August 20, 2007 at 9:09 am
re 12: They have no good reason to buy out any of the current contract. This isn’t football, I can’t think of a single time that has happened in MLB and I think we all know Moores/Alderson certainly won’t be the first team to give players more negotiating leverage.
On the other hand though a 5/75 extension seems fair, as long as it starts after 09.
August 20, 2007 at 9:10 am
Re: 11 there would be alot less complaints about the Pads if they sent 11 players to the All Star team each year. The ont thing that the Chargers have over the Pads is star power.
Imagine if the Pads had A-Rod, Puljos, Peavy and Santana on the team along with several all stars.
August 20, 2007 at 9:12 am
Re: 16 “5/75 extension seems fair”
Not from a market standpoint
August 20, 2007 at 9:12 am
8: I’d generally agree that most players would be useless as GMs. “Commitment to winning” doesn’t always mean money to them, but it almost always means “getting players I’ve heard of.” Most players would rather have Todd Jones than Pat Neshek.
Peavy may be talking about proven veterans, but he may not just be talking about free agency. A big trade would have helped. And if the weakness of the Padre farm system prevented that kind of trade the last two years, that’s an indictment of the organization, not of Peavy. He doesn’t have to know what went on in the 03/04 drafts to know that they left us with zero big trading chips.
August 20, 2007 at 9:14 am
16: I know that teams always buy out arbitration and free agent years, but I wasn’t sure if anyone had ever done something like this.
I still think that it makes sense to get a barometer from Peavy THIS offseason to see what he thinks is fair. I’d much rather have the Padres potentially jump the gun and trade him for a king’s ransom (and good lord, can you imagine what we could potentially get for 2 years of Jake Peavy at his current price?) rather than have him string the team along into FA and hope that he decides to take a discount. If he’s clearly going to test FA, then we might as well get something for him while we can.
August 20, 2007 at 9:17 am
GY … you’re an up-and-at-em, eager-beaver … thanks for coverin’ my back
August 20, 2007 at 9:22 am
re 18: Really? Considering the injury risk involved(and the fact that the current deal isn’t up until after 09) it seems like Oswalt’s deal is a much better barometer then Zambrano’s.
August 20, 2007 at 9:26 am
Oswalts deal was before Zito and Zambrano set the market.
August 20, 2007 at 9:28 am
I think dealing Peavy any time soon is a terrible idea, but I think it is especially bad because over the next 12 months the Padres could have a much better idea about their team going forward:
-Are Headley, Kouz and Antonelli guys you can build around with AGon?
-Are any of the young pitchers panning out? Do they need to focus on getting MLB ready pitching back?
August 20, 2007 at 9:28 am
The pads could have extended Peavy for less than that last off season but he still had 3 years left on his deal. Each year the contracts get bigger and bigger there has not been an off season where dollar amounts have regressed its just how the market works.
August 20, 2007 at 9:30 am
re 23: I don’t think Zito is relevant to the discussion as he actually became a FA…..Zambrano plays in a big market for a team that is spending its money like a sailor on leave.
Realistically we’re talking about an extension at somewhere between 15-18M per year….if the Padres were willing to go 4/60 on Brown back in 1998 I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t take care of Peavy at that price.
Mark
August 20, 2007 at 9:31 am
To me, Jake’s comments are problematic due to the timing — not anything he says. His comments are the long-standing debate in San Diego about the Padres and spending money.
Today, I heard a clip from Jake apologizing, saying he wasn’t calling anyone out, but he was just answering questions. I think overall, I think that is true. I don’t think Jake is a calculating, media-manipulating guy.
What he does say frames the issues existing among Padre fans for years. Tony never received market value, but elected to give that up and stay in San Diego. He is revered for that as much as anything. There have been complaints as long as I remember about the Padres being cheap. ( I moved here in ‘74.)
A big percentage of Padre fans want the team to spend money. The front office does not, at least on the value available this last off season.
I think one thing that sticks in the fans’ craw is that we have such a low payroll this year, yet are so close to being an elite team. “If they’d just spent that money to get back to their payroll last year. . . ” Unfortunately, there was no one to spend it on.
I’d like to think the Padres have their annual budget of $65 million and that they took the unused $30 million from this year and put it into the budget a few years from now so we can pay our free agents or pay some bigger money on a short term deal to a named free agent.
August 20, 2007 at 9:32 am
Re: 26 Zito and Zambrano are realivent because it shows that teams are willing to spend 18 mil on top pitchers, just because the Pads wont go there it does not mean that other teams wont.
August 20, 2007 at 9:34 am
Talking about this off season can I be the 1st to suggest signing Mark Prior to a 1 year deal
August 20, 2007 at 9:36 am
Re: 29 if they can get him to do it im all for it!
August 20, 2007 at 9:45 am
re 19: Fair points. Would you consider Milton Bradley, Michael Barrett and Morgan Ensberg to be players that are at least comparable in name recognition to Todd Jones? I will give you that Scott Hairston and Rob Mackowiak and Joe Thatcher are more along the lines of a Pat Neshek name wise only.
If Peavy did know that the failure of the team to draft properly in the past prevents them from making impact trades now, why complain about that by implication in your “committment to win” comments? It is in the past, and you can still be committed to winning while executing that committment poorly. Unless he is criticizing current drafting, which isn’t likely to return on field or trade results for at least a few years, that doesn’t seem to apply to the organization being committed to win now.
I really think he is talking mostly about the team spending more on player payroll.
August 20, 2007 at 9:58 am
With all of our discussions about the draft, specifically the team going cheap with its 1st round pick BP has a very interesting look back at all the above slot signing since 1998:
Looking back would the team do it again:
Yes: 18
Maybe:11
No:28
Talking about HS pitchers there aren’t many examples(relating to Porcello) but there are a few:
Yes: Scott Kazmir, Josh Beckett
Maybe:Adam Loewen, Matt Belisle
No:Chuck Tiffany, Gavin Floyd
After looking at the list I can more easily understand the decision for Schmidt also a note on our current favorite Cy Young candidate:
Estimated Slot: $425,000
Signing Bonus: $1,650,000
Basketball Influences (NBA)
What He’s Done: Emerged as a darkhorse Cy Young candidate and the best really tall pitcher since Randy Johnson. Do It Again?: Yes. It’s not quite clear whether Young got a big signing bonus because he was a credible threat to play in the NBA, or a credible threat to find some other way to make a lot of money with his Princeton education. Clearly an inspired pick; less so the Pirates’ decision to trade him for Matt Herges.
August 20, 2007 at 10:01 am
Good read on how the Snakes are winning the race so far.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/m.....n-arizona/
August 20, 2007 at 10:04 am
Geoff, I generally agree with your point of view, but I can’t here on your complete defense of the front office. I love what they’ve done, but Jake isn’t the only person wondering if we’re doing everything we can to win when:
1. We’re locked in a pennant race with a payroll $12MM lower than last year.
2. Part of our justification for doing less at the ML level was to supplement the minors; we just let a couple of talented Top 10 round picks walks over hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I love what Alderson and Towers have done. But Moores is not interested in winning as a primary goal — it is secondary to cash flow.
August 20, 2007 at 10:05 am
12, 16: I can think of one good reason to buy out the remaining years, and that’s to keep Peavy a Padre without going too far beyond the period we already control him for. A 5 year deal now is only 3 years beyond our current control.
18: Agree. Peavy’s one of the top 5 pitchers in the game. A much worse pitcher just got 800 gazillion dollars from the Giants. Big Z just got 90 million.
31: I doubt Peavy cares if the players are brought in through FA or trade. He just sees that they’re not here. I don’t necessarily agree with this POV, but the clear difference between the Pads and Cards last year was hitting. We brought in Kouzmanoff, Cruz, and NOG. Those are not big moves. They’re relatively low-risk moves, smart moves (even though NOG stinks on ice, he was a good a gamble), but they’re not 3 wins of separation.
If the Padres had not sputtered offensively or wasted so many starts on David Wells, so that they were tied or in first place, the clubhouse sentiment might be “We’re a bunch of misfits who show that big money doesn’t always win.”
August 20, 2007 at 10:07 am
29: I’d like to sign Prior and trade for Santana if he’s available, but our farm may be too weak for that.
August 20, 2007 at 10:15 am
Re: 36 youj mean Erving right? I dont think the pads have the farm system to get Yohan
August 20, 2007 at 10:16 am
Looking at Peavy’s situation, the Twins has a similar one in Johan Santana.
Here’s a nice article on how good Santana is and how great Pedro Martinez was. It’s a good thing that Tommy traded him away from the division.
http://tinyurl.com/yvvbvd
August 20, 2007 at 10:18 am
Scary to think the Yankees probably have the prospects to trade for both Peavy and Santana if they are ever made available…..or wait a year then sign Santana as a FA and trade for Peavy once they find out which starters out of Hughes/Joba/Kennedy look like long term fits
August 20, 2007 at 10:19 am
I would imagine if the Yankees wanted Peavy it would cost them Hughes + Kennedy
August 20, 2007 at 10:27 am
We can stop the madness of speculating where Peavy is going to end up, guys! He’s still a Padre and will be one for at least until the end of 2009.
August 20, 2007 at 10:33 am
41.
Or until they trade him! If he keeps being so outspoken about this and the FO’s commitment then he might be out of here sooner than later. I would imagine he could fetch some premier prospects.
August 20, 2007 at 10:36 am
Re: 42 it depends on when the FO decide to overhaul the entire roster and completely rebuild the with the top guys that are currently in AA/A+.
August 20, 2007 at 10:47 am
43.
It depends on a lot of things. All I’m saying is that I don’t thing it’s a sure thing that Peavy is a Padre till the end of 2009 like 41 stated.
August 20, 2007 at 10:48 am
Re: 44 I agree I think he will be traded in the 08 off season (sorry Didi)
August 20, 2007 at 10:52 am
44: Agree with your sentiment that if he shows himself unwilling to negotiate a contract, he’ll be gone before FA hits.
I still think we should strike while the iron is hot on this one. Make a legitimate offer this offseason and see how Peavy reacts. If he clearly doesn’t want to sign an extension, deal him now for some uber-propsects/ML ready players.
BTW, I would be fine with trading Jake to the Yanks for something like Cano (although this would be hard with Antonellic oming up)/Hughes/other good prospect.
August 20, 2007 at 11:00 am
46.
I agree. Wasn’t there talk of Antonelli at CF/of when he was drafted?
August 20, 2007 at 11:02 am
I think the Padres will say ”what’s the point of negotiating with him” they are not going to give him a big money deal and he has made it clear that he will not stay in SD for much less than market value so they may as well get some top prospects for him and let him go a year early. It sucks but that’s part of being a fan of a money sensitive team.
August 20, 2007 at 11:05 am
Re: 47 yes, and ive heard his D at 2B is not MLB ready yet but who knows.
August 20, 2007 at 11:10 am
Here are Jim Laslavic’s comments from last night’s Sportswrap show (as promised):
“The Laz Word”
Jake Peavy stated the obvious and now he’s the hot topic.
Thank goodness there are players like jake who are willing to speak up.
Jake has been quoted a couple times saying he doesn’t expect to be a padre after his contract expires following the 09 season.
This has become a hot topic after the Cubs signed their ace, Carlos Zambrano to a five year deal worth $91 million.
Jake knows it’s not Sandy Alderson’s style to sign power pitchers to long term deals.
This is not divisive or negative talk.
This is just a firm grasp of the obvious.
His teammates aren’t concerned about the 20-10 season.
Heck, only two players are signed beyond ‘09, Adrian Gonzalez and Chris Young.
There might be five guys on this roster who will still be around in three years.
It’s just the nature of the game.
Jake did suggest the Padres need to spend more to win a World Series.
That is absolutely the case.
Again, Jake is just stating the obvious.
Maybe it will help light a fire under the front office.
Nah, probably not.
August 20, 2007 at 11:18 am
in case anyone cares at all, Jose Cruz Jr signed a Minor League Contract with the Yankees.
so yeah
August 20, 2007 at 11:27 am
50: On Laz.
So, it’s okay to make one person the topic, instead of the team. That is the lamest comment one can makes. Jake is stating the obvious and now it’s the team’s FO’s turn. What a bunch of crap! Spend more money to win WS.
That works out well for the Orioles and the Giants, don’t it? Heck even the Evil Empire hasn’t won in a while.
August 20, 2007 at 11:38 am
#52: Yeah, but at least the Yankees are making a financial commitment (see #51).
August 20, 2007 at 11:42 am
Spending money to spend money is one thing spending money wisely is another. The pads don’t need to go out and make a splash every year but when the opportunity presents its self they need to. Imagine if they had Vlad in RF along with Giles in LF and Cameron in CF I don’t think they would be near the bottom in ever offensive category.
August 20, 2007 at 12:04 pm
54: You are right that the wisely spent money would be the key. I’m PO’ed at the general statement that Laz provided. The fact is in the past off-season, Carlos Lee, Soriano got the insane deals that very few teams can afford. Otherwise, the Padres probably would have pursued the ‘Big Bat’ more.
Even then, when the team is losing, I imagine that we would still find a way to bitch about the team. BTW, when was Vlad available to the Padres? Cameron didn’t want to come here until the Mets got Beltran to play CF. OG is OG.
August 20, 2007 at 12:08 pm
People talk about the Yankees like they’re failures, while the Padres going to the playoffs two years in a row places them above criticism. The Yankees went to the playoffs every stinkin’ year from 1995 to 2006 and are in great position to do so again. Yes, they spend a ton. Yes, we’ll never come close to their revenues. But spending money is not a curse.
With all the talk of how much brainpower we’ve crammed into the front office - which we have - why do people act like we’re doomed to make stupid money decisions if we spent more?
We don’t need to be big spenders at the major league level, necessarily. My fan support doesn’t depend on it. But if they’re going to hold at 70M, even as debt decreases and revenue increases, they need to invest more in amateur talent.
August 20, 2007 at 12:11 pm
49: In a poll of Cal League managers, Antonelli was rated the best defensive second baseman. But those polls aren’t too reliable. Like Gold Gloves, the guy who’s beating your head in at the plate tends to get more consideration. Antonelli’s own coaches say he’s still working at things.
August 20, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Re: 55 Vlad was willing to take an SD discount when he was a FA SD said they still could not afford him (because of Klseko and Nevin) so he went to the angels.
August 20, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Re: 57 I heard the LE coach on the radio say his glove is not MLB ready.
August 20, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Vlad wanting to play for Pads article:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
August 20, 2007 at 1:06 pm
59: I believe it, but defensive reps have a way of changing even when the player doesn’t.
August 20, 2007 at 1:10 pm
60 … *GREAT* link, SteveC … THANKS!
Here’s some quotes from the article (from 2004) …
- [the Padres] believe player salaries and, in turn, risk should be spread out
- World Series champions seldom employ one player who eats up 20 percent of the payroll.
- If you give somebody a (bad) multiyear contract, you end up paying for somebody that’s not performing. And we’re just not going to do that.
There’s a ton of info in that article to support many other points of view … *very* interesting!
56 … hmmm … good question (why do people act like we’re doomed to make stupid money decisions if we spent more?) … from the 2004 article …
- Moores increased the budget, enabling Towers to get center fielder Jay Payton for $5.5 million.
… yikes!
Actually, I guess this was pre-SA/PD, right? Whew …
August 20, 2007 at 1:20 pm
If you have one player as dominate as vlad its ok if he takes 20% of your payroll.
August 20, 2007 at 1:20 pm
the pads would be just over 70mil this year with vlad and would be serious WS contenders.
August 20, 2007 at 1:24 pm
62: The player salary / percentage thing isn’t causal, though. On big-money teams have won the WS, a salary that “would be” 20% for us was not for them.
Of course a multiyear contract is a risk. It’s also a risk to continually rely on finding players who are good enough to help you but so (old, injury-prone, unlucky with balls in play, underappreciated) that they’ll sign 1 or 2 year deals. It’s not a wasted money risk, it’s a lack-of-wins risk.
Payton’s contract was 5.5M (.5 a buyout for 2006) over 2 years. That’s not stupid. Rather average contract for a rather average player. Not a bargain, for sure, but just because he didn’t hit well in 2004 doesn’t mean it was a bad risk.
August 20, 2007 at 1:25 pm
60: Thanks for the link. I missed this one. I remember the talks about the Dodgers signing Vlad but they were in the middle of a sale and, thankfully, Vlad became an Angel. Another reason not to spend money stupidly, like signing Klesko and Nevin to big money and giving them no-trade clauses.
Could have had Vlad in RF. One can only imagine.
56: What are you talking about? Nothing in the statement that it’s stupid for a sportwriter to comment that spending money win WS makes the Yankees a failure and the Padres’ FO above criticisms. Spending money alone can’t make either team a WS winner, it’s a fact. Not spending money wisely is as dumb as spending money for the sake of it. I trust the FO to be pretty smart in spending THEIR money.
Peavy’s statement and, subsequently, Laz’s that the team needs to spend more money to win the WS is silly. Peavy’s own assessment that had the team ‘made more financial commitments to winning’, the Padres would have won a WS is purely conjecture and wishful thinking. The fact is the Padres were lucky to have made it into the playoff in 05, and the Cardinals completely fooled the league in their winning of the WS ‘06. Nothing is guaranteed once teams made it into the playoffs.
August 20, 2007 at 1:35 pm
65: Completely right on the low-risk low-reward contract to players like David Wells’ this season. The Payton deal was a good example of a risky contract that didn’t quite work out but there was some value out of it. As it turned out the Wells’ contract was not quite as good but the FO bet it was going to turn out better. Same as NOG’s. He was great in April but horrible in other months.
August 20, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Its funny everyone is pointing to the Cardinals 06 run and saying look at what can happen if you make it to the playoffs. You have to remember that the Cards had the best hitter in the game, one of the best pitchers in the game, a gold glover behind the plate in CF and at 3B, and a little spark plug at SS. Its not like they were a bad team that got hot, they were a good team that got crushed by injuries during the season. A lot of people thought it was between them and the Mets for the NL at the start of the year.
August 20, 2007 at 1:37 pm
#60: I love the Vlad idea, but it’s easy to forget what a staggering impact winning the WS had on the Angels and their ability to spend:
2001: $ 47,735,167
2002: $ 61,721,667
2003: $ 79,031,667
2004: $100,534,667
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.c.....aheim.html
Most teams don’t more than double their payroll in a span of four years…
#65: Dead-on about Payton. What I said at the time:
http://ducksnorts.com/blog/200.....place.html
August 20, 2007 at 1:45 pm
66: There are fans, some right here on Ducksnorts, who have mocked virtually any free agent signing of any length. It’s as if they believe spending money on free agents renders a team incapable of success. They’ve completely bought into the FO desire to minimize risk. It’s very important to minimize risk, but you also have to maximize talent. Steve’s UT article summarizes it nicely. We’re so worried about paying for 1 bad year if Vlad (or someone like him) takes a downturn, we don’t get to enjoy his 4 great years. Nobody’s suggesting wild-eyed spending every winter. We seem to have an organizational mandate against ever doing it. And, to be clear, we can succeed under that mandate. But it doesn’t follow, as some suggest, that spending and even overspending on fr