Not to beat a dead horse, but it’s worth noting that since reaching the big leagues in September 2003, Khalil Greene has hit more home runs on the road (42) than any other shortstop in baseball. Baltimore’s Miguel Tejada comes in second, with 40 in about 300 more at-bats.
Greene also has the best ISO. Here’s the full list:
| Player | AB | BA | OBP | SLG | ISO | AB/HR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics are courtesy of David Pinto’s Day by Day Database and are through games of August 14, 2007. Minimum 500 plate appearances. | ||||||
| Khalil Greene | 929 | .274 | .331 | .509 | .235 | 22.12 |
| Hanley Ramirez | 553 | .316 | .365 | .524 | .208 | 27.65 |
| Carlos Guillen | 976 | .303 | .372 | .497 | .194 | 30.50 |
| Miguel Tejada | 1225 | .305 | .360 | .470 | .165 | 30.63 |
| Jimmy Rollins | 1360 | .274 | .328 | .433 | .159 | 43.87 |
| Bobby Crosby | 774 | .248 | .311 | .403 | .155 | 32.25 |
| Alex Gonzalez | 904 | .246 | .298 | .398 | .152 | 33.48 |
| Juan Uribe | 961 | .239 | .276 | .386 | .147 | 35.59 |
| Felipe Lopez | 959 | .264 | .337 | .409 | .145 | 39.96 |
| J.J. Hardy | 465 | .241 | .303 | .385 | .144 | 35.77 |
| Jose Reyes | 1038 | .275 | .325 | .418 | .143 | 51.90 |
| Michael Young | 1321 | .297 | .344 | .438 | .141 | 41.28 |
| Jhonny Peralta | 802 | .253 | .320 | .394 | .141 | 38.19 |
| Derek Jeter | 1270 | .292 | .357 | .424 | .132 | 42.33 |
| Edgar Renteria | 1162 | .293 | .352 | .422 | .131 | 46.48 |
| Julio Lugo | 1145 | .281 | .338 | .412 | .131 | 49.78 |
| Cristian Guzman | 632 | .234 | .270 | .351 | .117 | 63.20 |
| Y. Betancourt | 588 | .287 | .315 | .400 | .113 | 73.50 |
| Alex Cintron | 732 | .264 | .294 | .377 | .113 | 81.33 |
| Clint Barmes | 481 | .218 | .260 | .331 | .113 | 53.44 |
| Jack Wilson | 1135 | .262 | .304 | .369 | .107 | 66.76 |
| Rafael Furcal | 1208 | .257 | .313 | .363 | .106 | 71.06 |
| Angel Berroa | 874 | .238 | .265 | .342 | .104 | 62.43 |
| Adam Everett | 908 | .228 | .272 | .328 | .100 | 69.85 |
| Omar Vizquel | 1061 | .292 | .351 | .390 | .098 | 96.45 |
| Neifi Perez | 683 | .255 | .286 | .350 | .095 | 75.89 |
| Jason Bartlett | 478 | .274 | .346 | .368 | .094 | 95.60 |
| Cesar Izturis | 849 | .285 | .326 | .372 | .087 | 169.80 |
| Royce Clayton | 901 | .260 | .312 | .340 | .080 | 225.25 |
| David Eckstein | 1046 | .276 | .332 | .347 | .071 | 130.75 |
Greene’s road ISO (.235) during this period is better than that of Alfonso Soriano (.232), David Wright (.226), Troy Glaus (.225) Vladimir Guerrero (.221), Derrek Lee (.219), Chase Utley (.211), Magglio Ordonez (.202), Gary Sheffield (.199), and Frank Thomas (.198), among many others.
Greene gets a huge boost from simply dominating Coors Field (.346/.413/.737, 12 HR in 133 AB), and of course, he’s had horrible results (.230/.293/.373) at Petco Park over the years. We certainly can’t dismiss these factors, but maybe now we have a better idea of just how much Greene’s home park distorts his true abilities.
Incidentally, this isn’t a call to alter the dimensions at Petco. The Padres account for 60% of home runs hit there in ‘07, a radical departure from seasons past:
| Year | SD | Opp | SD% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics are courtesy of Baseball-Reference and are through games of August 14, 2007. | |||
| 2001 | 69 | 109 | .388 |
| 2002 | 59 | 76 | .437 |
| 2003 | 55 | 95 | .367 |
| 2004 | 57 | 75 | .432 |
| 2005 | 54 | 64 | .458 |
| 2006 | 75 | 92 | .449 |
| 2007 | 51 | 34 | .600 |
Notice that the Padres’ propensity for being outhomered at home precedes their move downtown. Anyone complaining about the current state of affairs is invited to sit through the 2001-2003 seasons again. Nice to see the Padres finally taking advantage of their home park. It’s not just the homers, it’s the runs scored:
| Year | SD | Opp | SD% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics are courtesy of Baseball-Reference and are through games of August 14, 2007. | |||
| 2001 | 327 | 394 | .454 |
| 2002 | 333 | 338 | .496 |
| 2003 | 306 | 376 | .391 |
| 2004 | 329 | 342 | .490 |
| 2005 | 308 | 318 | .492 |
| 2006 | 315 | 337 | .483 |
| 2007 | 231 | 205 | .530 |
I find it interesting that despite all the griping by certain fans and former players, the Padres continue to improve at home. Yesterday, in discussing Todd Helton and Brian Giles, I pointed out that good players adapt. Today, I’ll follow up by noting that good teams adapt, which is exactly what the Padres have done.
150 Comments
According to ESPN.com:
“The Tigers and first-round draft pick Rick Porcello reached agreement Tuesday on a four-year contract worth $7.28 million.”
1: There’s an article in the UT with the Padres FO coyly blasting the Tigers for signing so much above slot. It’s also interesting to read that we signed Bush for more than it cost to sign Verlander.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/padres/20070815-9999-1s15padnotes.html
Khalil’s road numbers are simply amazing. It sucks to watch him struggle at home, but I’d rather have someone that tears it up 50% of the team on offense (and all of the time on defense) instead of a replacement.
And he walked last nite!
When will Moores learn?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070815/news_1s15padnotes.html
This is the attitude that got the Padres the biggest draft bust in what maybe one of the most talented draft classes in years.
I’ve posted a little something on the Porcello signing over at Knuckle Curve:
http://www.knucklecurve.com/porcello-signs-with-tigers/
The slotting system is a complete joke, and the draft itself is in danger of becoming one as well…
re 3: Steve I think you missed the point of what Fuson was saying: They didn’t have Porcello ranked above Schmidt, why pay an extra 6M for someone your scouts don’t like any better?
As long as Fuson and Guyton are running the draft the Padres won’t be reaching for a high school pitcher if an established college arm is available.
RE: 2 you beat me to it!
So either the Padres (Fuson) are lying or our scouts opinions were basically the exact opposite of every other MLB scout in the world. I’m not sure which irritates me more.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/padres/20070815-9999-1s15padnotes.html
“Did we scout (Porcello)? Yes,†Fuson said. “Did we sit on him? No. He didn’t end up on our board above Schmidt. We had him all over the place. Is he a high school guy that throws hard? Yeah.â€
Re: 5 im not knocking the schmidt vs Porcello pick, who knows who will come out on top there im knocling the Bat Mush vs Weaver/Drew pick because we all know who was right on that one.
I will improve at Petco. I will hit for a higher average and my defense will still be stellar. Go Padres.
We can all understand why Moores will not overpay for guys like Juan Peire but if you say you want to build through the draft you cant pass on a top guy because he will not sign for “slot money” $7.25 mil over 4 years and having control of him for 6 years is a bargain if the guy turns into Jared weaver they risked more money per year on David Wells.
What can/should the Padre scouts who didn’t like Verlander in 2004 learn from the events of the past 3 years?
Are these the same scouts that did not rank Porcello ahead of Schmidt?
We can’t know all that goes on inside the Padre organization … and I think we all agree that “baseball scouting” is one of the more inexact sciences around … all we can judge by are the results on the field over time … and decide for ourselves whether those results merit continued support (ie. purchasing of tickets and merchandise and watching the TV and/or listening to the radio, ie. providing the Padres with revenue) …
For me, the reality is that I’m a Padre fan and always will be … it will never take much for them to keep getting my support …
I guess I hope that they are motivated by potential rewards (ie. increased revenue) of winning … because when they win, I enjoy being a Padre fan more … except that then it’s harder to get good tickets …
Why do the Yankees and Red Sox continue to have great minor league systems when they pick 29th and 30th every year and constantly trade away their top prospects each off season? its because they sign all the top guys they KC, and TB wont sign because they will not take “slot money”.
The Angels are the same way but they don’t trade away their prospects.
If Moores does not want to pay his employees millions of dollars then he should not be in the buiness of baseball, its just how the system works.
#5: Not necessarily true. Fuson drafted Jeremy Bonderman for the A’s ahead of college pitchers such as Justin Pope, Noah Lowry, Wyatt Allen, Jon Skaggs, and others.
#8: Bush was a mistake; everyone knows and acknowledges that, and the organization since has taken steps to ensure a better process going forward.
Moores also cant come out with an article like this:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070804&content_id=2128967&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
One week and like this:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070815/news_1s15padnotes.html
The next
#12: Yes, the draft is broken. If players and agents are able to dictate who picks them on the basis of how much they’re willing to sign for, then how is that any different from pre-draft days when everyone just signed the best available amateur free agents? In such a system, it’s not that Kansas City and Tampa Bay won’t compete, it’s that they can’t compete.
Also, Moores does pay millions for his employees.
I am not a huge fan of the Padres’ compliance with Uncle Bud in paying slot. I think the Tigers have done very well (and so have the Yankees in recent years) grabbing players who fall b/c of salary demands. The Angels as well. Please note all three teams are very, very good.
We should be taking advantage of other teams being idiots.
However, I fail to see the hype for Porcello. To me, this is a case of him being the best player to fall, not necessarily a certain Top 5 guy like a Drew. I’m skeptical of HS arms in general, but Porcello hasn’t been protrayed as Josh Beckett.
Re: 13 but if the team ever gets the first pick in the draft again (and I really hope they wont) we all know that they wont draft the best player because he will not sign for slot money.
It would be nice if the Players union would take a hint from the NBA and their draft situation. Probably the one thing you can credit the NBA for is the way the contracts for rookies works. Although those players make their money from endorsments and that is not really an option for draftees in baseball. It is a flawed process though and baseball really would be better if there was something they could do about it.
Re: 15 KC CAN pay more for thier draft picks because they dont pay that money to FA’s its been well documented that because of KC’s low payroll hand high revenue shares they pull in more profit than most of the teams in the league.
TB is a mess who knows if they can pay top dollar in the draft or not.
All of this seems to indicate (to me at least) that the draft system in baseball is a joke. I really wish it was something like in football where even if the kid goes back to school, he belongs to that team.
Geoff is absolutely right. The entire point of drafting in reverse order of your record is to promote roster-balancing increase parity. The way the system works right now accomplishes none of these things.
#14: Why not? I don’t see any inconsistencies. It may not be easy, but it’s not impossible to get a big-name player while exercising some semblance of fiscal responsibility. Mike Piazza and Greg Maddux spring to mind. Yeah, those guys are near the end of their careers, but right now the Maddux signing looks a heckuva lot better than the Barry Zito signing.
7 … re: “So either the Padres (Fuson) are lying or our scouts opinions were basically the exact opposite of every other MLB scout in the world.” …
Hmmm … lying … that seems too strong … it’s not that simple … Moores and Alderson are clearly in support of the MLB policy of “Major League Baseball’s bonus guidelines” (ie. sloting) … so what do we expect Fuson to say? I’m sure that “on the board” doesn’t mean just a ranking by talent (but even that has multiple dimensions, including what I percieve to be a higher probability of a high school pitcher to get hurt before he has time to get to MLB) … in other words, saying “ranked all over the place” means that some scouts had Porcello ranked clearly ahead of Schmidt … and some that didn’t … so then it sounds like internally they factored in the “bonus guidelines” and decided Schmidt was a better fit … the best fit, actually, of all the players still available at pick #23 …
They were wrong in 2004 … and it’s hurt the organization on and off the field … and, it’s my understanding, that the personel changed. The man at the top (Moores) hasn’t changed … and we know his core philosophy hasn’t changed … his business philosophy seems opposite to that of the current Yankee/RedSox/Tiger approach … that’s what we’ve got … and if “we” (ie. Padre-nation, for lack of a better term) don’t like it, then we need to vote that with our dollars (and voices) with a goal of “regime change” … but I, personally, am not inclined to vote that way … in other words, my bottom line is that I’m happy with the results of the past several years … the team/organization seem to be improving … onward!
Re: 20 the NFL seems to be doing ok with thier draft system, they dont have “slots” they just have teams willing to pay for the talent that they draft.
15: Kansas City and Tampa Bay absolutely do have the money to sign draft picks. They’re receiving multi-millions in revenue sharing; they’re paying Reggie Sanders multi-millions per year. The Pirates just traded for Matt Morris and his entire contract a couple of months after going cheap and picking Daniel Moskos. These teams have the money; they spend it elsewhere less effectively or they keep it and pocket it.
#17: We all know this? Evidence?
#20: Yep, it’s becoming another free-agent market.
12: It’s only been in the last couple years, if that, that the Yankees’ farm system has become respectable again. Let’s see how long that lasts, especially if George fires Cashman for not making the playoffs or something.
22: I thought that the scouting personnel were all set to draft Drew, until Moores said he couldn’t afford him. If that’s true, then the most relevant cause of that fiasco is still in the organization, still in charge, and still dictating the exact same policy of not spending over slot, even for premium talent.
I could be wrong about the circumstances regarding the pick, though.
#19, 24: Okay, I see that my point was not clear. I’ll try this again: If the draft continues to move closer to a free-agent market, it will kill teams like KC, Pit, and TB. The draft is intended to help those who need it, not those who have the most money. Right now, it is failing and there aren’t any signs pointing toward a turnaround.
Re: 21 Maddux and Piazza would have been the franchise players in 97 not 07, the Giants over payed for Zito and im not a huge fan of signing any player to more than a 3 year deal.
My point is that you cant say we need to spend the money to get a big name one week then come out the next week and say well we dont want to overpay for anyone.
Well in baseball you have to overpay if you want a big name, its just how it works, you get six years of having cheap talent then you have to over pay them its just how it works, if you want to change it then dont give out guaranteed contracts.
18, 23 … the NFL and NBA draft athletes with much less uncertainty about ROI … imo … baseball is a hard game to play at the MLB level … and I really have no idea at all if there’s any skill to “scouting an amateur baseball player” … in other words, it’s not clear to me at all if the scout that finds/signs a future HOF’er isn’t just the lucky guy in the right place at the right time … we don’t the data about a scouts evaluations / recommendations on a large number of players over a long period of time … we just have the results on the field …
16.
Porcello has been said to be the best high school arm since Beckett and would have gone #2 to the Royals had his contract demands not been what they were. You may not have been sold on him but he was the concensus #2 prospect in this draft behind Price.
22.
Well I can’t believe that every other scout had Porcello ranked highly and he wasn’t even on the Padres “board”. That doesn’t make sense to me. You may be right with how the Padres make up their “board” and only signable guys make it, but the statement leads the reader to assume money wasn’t the issue and I am certain it was. He may not have been lying technically but by making a miss-leading statement (which I think he was) you are more or less doing the same thing. I don’t expect Fuson to make a stance against Moores and Alderson but honestly I would have so much more respect for all of the parties involved if they just came out and said “Listen fans, we liked this kid a lot but we were just not prepared to spend 75% of our draft budget on an 18 year old kid.” . At least then it wouldn’t seem like they think we are idiots and in a way I would understand. $7mill is a lot to spend on a kid who has never faced a professional hitter.
Buster Olney opines about slotting system in his blog today. (He doesn’t like it.)
I think it was Jayson Stark’s column yesterday that I saw that Cust and Ryan Howard are threatning Mark McGwire’s record for “best TTO” season ever – I think it is 42.3% of PA resulting in HR, SO, BB or HBP (any others?)
Before last night’s game, Cust had 105ish Ks in 250-some ABs with 59 walks. He hit two HRs last night, giving him 20. Howard had 139 Ks and a ton of walks with just 365 ABs. I think he’s at 33? Too lazy to check (but not to post, ha).
27 … I think you’re right on … and I’m OK with that, since our choice is to take all of Moores (ie. be a Padre fan) or none of Moores (ie. don’t be a Padre fan) … I guess our dollars and voices can attempt to change Moores in this specific area we don’t like … but that doesn’t seem likely …
28 … I’m thinking that the hard-line “slot guidelines” could still work … if all the teams do agree and actually do follow the guidelines, then doesn’t that get to the ideal of getting the best players to the worst teams? It sure seems worth a couple of years of trying to see how it shakes out. I think what might happen is that the “slot guidelines” get adjusted (upward) to match the market reality. For example, let Scott Boras set the “slot guidelines” … he seems to be best just of “market reality”, doesn’t he?
14 … how I interpret Moores’ quote is this … “I noticed the value of having a big-name player to give this franchise some financial stability” … and I’m encouraged that this represents a change in Moores’ philosophy … the next time a Bonds-like, Vlad-like FA is on the market, perhaps that Padres will make a bid … will that be Miguel Cabrera? I wasn’t Barry Zito, nor Carlos Lee … not even Soriano … the identification of a “big-name player” is CRUCIAL … it should be easier than finding the diamond-amateur … but it’s still *not* easy!
31: I think it could just be a case of, “we don’t talk bad about our draft picks. We support Nick Schmidt and want him to feel like he was our top choice regardless of money.”
31 … you’re right on, KRS1 … and I think the reality of Fuson’s job is that his comments have to keep the majority of Padre fans “happy” … and those of us who aren’t “idiots” (and we really are a minority in terms of the revenue we provide) have to know what reality is (and it seems to me to be exactly the quote you proposed) …
34 … ya, that too … good point!
33: Maybe if we complain loud enough Moores will let us influence how he spends his money.
As to the second part, Johan Santana! I would settle for Miguel Cabrera as well, though. Both of those guys are Vlad-like, Manny-like awesome players that are going to actually earn their $25 million per year.
34.
I guess but I mean Schmidt knows he wasn’t as highly reguarded it’s not a secret. He signed for slot or a little less didn’t he? I mean it’s not like he couldn’t have said “but on the other hand we feel Schmidt is just as good of a pitcher who has performed against a lot stiffer competition”.
23: NFL teams can trade their draft picks. And, it’s easier to have a sure thing in NFL drafts than in MLB drafts.
29: Overpaying for a big name doesn’t equal more wins in a season. And there is no such thing as big names in drafts, just more highly regarded. These draftees are not proven talents.
Some people (the Tigers certainly) think that Porcello is a sure thing and, apparently, the Padres FO doesn’t think so. Plenty of if’s go with Porcello signing for such a big number. Stephen Drew hasn’t turned into what a lot of scouts are thinking he’ll be but he certainly is better than Batt Mush.
I believe that had the FO think very highly of a super prospect they’d have the balls to spend some money as pointed out in one of the comments above, over the length of the control years, it’ll be money well spent and better than the Randy Myers debacle.
I still think that Michael Main would have been better than Schmidt. We’ll see how that will turn out in about 3-4 years.
35.
I see your point and I do agree with it to an extent. There are (as with most cities i’m sure) some real idiots in this town when it comes to fans. They are in essence running a business so they can spin any decission any way they want if they think it will effect their bottom line. I don’t on the other hand think that they would have to do that and disguise the comments the way they do if they had not done this before or had such a reputation as being cheap skates.
OT, but I thought this was a pretty funny quote by Blummer in an article about “Tough Players”:
“Brocail is the guy I’m avoiding if a brawl breaks out, because of his mental stability combined with his toughness,” said Padres infielder Geoff Blum. “Oh yeah — he’s had two stents put in his heart.”
I love “because of his mental stability”…notice he did not mention that the guy is as big as a house…
37 … by the way, it’s my understanding that the “value” of the big-name player is now $30M+ … based on what I’ve heard about A-Rod’s value … ie. I’ve heard reasonable people say that if he opts out of his $25M/yr deal with the Rangers/Yanks that he’ll get a new contract at well over $30M/yr …
So, that’s what they appear to be “worth” … the key question, as Didi raises in #39, is does that mean “more wins in a season”?
The Bonds signing was worth it dollar-wise … but they didn’t get a WS victory … the Red Sox got a WS win with Manny … the Angels have not had a WS victory with Vlad … the Rangers nor Yanks have gotten a WS win with ARod …
So, there are pro’s and con’s of an MLB team taking the “big-name” approach … and pro’s and con’s of taking the “good young players and depth of veteran talent” approach … the key seems to be going one route or the other … not being wishy-washy between them …
Rany over at BPro analyzes the Porcello situation and negotiations (it’s free).
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=491
#33: As long as the slots are “guidelines” there is no real way to enforce them. The MLBPA will ensure that they never become more than guidelines.
#34: Conceding that it’s a money issue could also have negative ramifications in terms of future dealings with potential draftees.
#43: Thanks for the link, Ben. That is a solid take.
29: The difference between spending a bunch of money on a FA and a bunch of money on a draft pick should be apparent, I would think. With a big-name FA or franchise player, you would think that there is some kind of track record or proven ability you are paying for. All the scouts in the world can’t guarantee you how someone will perform in MLB.
Thus, if you’re going to spend a lot of money, spend it on a proven commodity instead of a risk.
To me, the Padres’ scouting principles are completely rational. If you have two guys who project to be roughly as good according to your scouts and one is marginally better, but that player is going to cost $7 million instead of $1.1 million, why would you take the first guy?
The problem only arises if your scouts are wrong, and that was the case prior to the Fuson era. If you look at the Padres’ 2004 and 2003 drafts, it’s amazing how few MLB players came out of them. I’m sure there are a few who just haven’t developed yet, but it doesn’t look good.
By contrast, Fuson’s drafts have been filled with guys who are moving through the system and projecting well for success in the majors. I think the Padres have turned scouting/development from a weakness to a strength very quickly, and I’m very optimistic about the probability of sustained success for the organization with the current personnel in place.
1 thing about Fuson-yes he did take Bonderman, but from all accounts that was a clear case. Looking back at his drafts with the A’s, he leans heavily toward college pitchers.
Additionally I’m not sure the whole fiasco with the #1 is really relevant anymore, major changes have happened in the FO/minor league system since then. I’m confident if given the chance again they’d take Drew.
I think we will really see if Moores means what he says about franchise players after next year when Santana and Carbrera are FA’s and Cabrera would certainly bring out the fans to the park and given the Padres the middle of the order bat they need to have some type of consistent offense.
At the book blog, they had a discussion of the contract Buehrle signed with the White Sox. Santana’s name came up in the comments, and tango concluded Santana will be worth 7 years, $250 million dollars. He’s probably not going to get that much, so whatever he does sign for, he’ll be worth it, barring catastrophic injury.
Here’s the link to the specific comment, but scroll around a little to read some of the other arguments.
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/buehrle/#9
#47: At least one person (Billy Beane) didn’t think that taking Bonderman was a clear case.
maybe its just me, but i for one do not see miguel cabrera as the franchise type guy. A lot of people are concerned about his longevity and he doesnt seem to have the best attitude.
i would love for us to get santana. A potential rotation of santana/peavy/young/latos/scmidt or leblanc or ayala or carillo is awesome
50: I should also add Inman and Startup to that list of potential rotation guys.
Miguel Cabrera is 24. In his five years in the majors, his OPS+ has gone 109, 130, 150, 159, and then 173 this year.
51 … “Startup”? Who he?
53: The other pitcher that the Padres got from the Braves in the Ledezma deal.
51/53 … http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Will%20Startup&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=489336
… and from padres.mlb.com … on July 31st …
Acquired LHP Wilfredo Ledezma and LHP Will Startup from the Braves in exchange for LHP Royce Ring
… cool!
You guys are right about the paying a player doens’t mean a World Series. On the other hand… Only 1 team wins the WS every year so picking out a team that didn’t win it is like picking a number that didn’t hit on a roulette wheel. Just going out there and paying a guy a ton of money is stupid. It’s about getting the right guy. I don’t have any numbers either but I would imagine that the attendance would go up and that’s the only reason I think Morres made those comments.
50/52 … classic “point” / “counterpoint” … like I said in #33c, it’s *not* easy to identify “the franchise type guy” … and it’s a HUGE, make-or-break decision …
52: You forgot to mention that he’s also FAT and need to lose weight according to Ozzie Guillen.
OT: from Bad Altitudes, a Rox blog,
——–
So it’s another road trip in the division, to the mysterious and exotic part of the NL where they (oddly) try and win games with no offenses. Three games with the Padres, three games with the Dodgers. L.A. is on the brink of falling out of the discussion in the NL West all together, while Padres fans have even more reason than Rockies fans to look up at the frontrunning Arizona Diamondbacks and say “Seriously, what the hell is going on there?” An update, if you haven’t been looking at this stat every morning first thing the way I have: Arizona is now fifteen games over .500 despite having been outscored on the season by more than twenty runs. That’s freakier than David Bowie’s erect radio signal-transmitting nipples.
———
I do hope the Dbacks will be going on a long losing streak soon. Even if they only give back 8 of those freaky games, the Padres will be in good shape to win the division.
As far as the scoring of runs is concerned, I think that what’s finally happened is that Towers figured out the kinds of players that work in Petco. Right-handed power hitters, players with gap power and speed, slap hitters, guys who work the count.
This is completely different from the ‘Murph, where guys could hit to the opposite field gap and still get the ball over the fence. Guys like Klesko and Nevin just couldn’t adapt to that game.
I think Greene has figured out how to hit home runs in Petco, but he gets too focused on that and it hurts his average.
Lastly, with regards to the fences, the real problem is the air at Petco. When the sun goes down, the air from the Bay rolls in and that’s thicker than pea soup. Towering shots (particularly to right) that would normally go out are fly balls. I’m not sure how you could change the fences to compensate for that.
I’ve been very critical of the Padres drafting over the years and especially the decision to take Nick Schmidt over Porcello. My main problem with the Schmidt pick is that it appeared that they didn’t learn from their mistakes in 2004 (going cheap and picking a lesser talent in order to save a few bucks). This year, they passed over the consensus #2 talent (really the most talented pitcher overall but Price was older so he had less injury concerns) because they wanted to save money (in this case about $6m). The team that took him, the Tigers, didn’t care so much about the money and drafted and signed him. My biggest complaint is that the Tigers see themselves as a big market team while the Padres do not. Why exactly is that? The Tigers were one of the worst teams in history just 4 years ago. Before last season they hadn’t had a winning record since 1993. The Padres have been a way more successful franchise than them for the past 15 years. Yet, they are now a big market team while the Padres scrape by with one of the lower payrolls in the league. It shows that winning is a mindset and that for Moores the bottom line is more important than the end result of the team.
51: I am pretty sure Startup is thought of as a reliever isnt he. The way Garrisson is pitching, you could add him to the list as well.
I’m pulling for Kyle Blair to not sign with the Dodgers and go to USD.
Kill two birds with one stone as the saying goes.
re: 60
the Tigers have always been a big market team. They just made terrible decisions in the past, like the Cubs and Phillies and others.
so, I take it you have to be in the Fuson is lying camp, because as others have pointed he out, he made clear that Porcello was not above Schmidt on the Padres’ board.
It is sad to see so many people allow the Bush pick to cloud their senses and make them see a money conspiracy behind every pick the Padres do or do not make.
Good job Geoff on your posts. The Rany J post on Boras’ leverage was awesome analysis as well. In my view, MLB needs a hard line slotting system for the draft. Boras must be emasculated in the draft. I could care less if he has free rein in the free agent market – the more that big market teams overpay for free agent talent and waste their economic advantages, the better that is for smaller market teams like the Padres.
61: Not sure. For some reason, I thought Startup was a starter, but I could be wrong. I know KT intended him to be the jewel of that trade, though.
As for who the Padres should and shouldn’t draft, I’ll definitely defer to you guys as there are just too many players to track. I tend to trust the Padres, especially the current scouting administration, as several of the guys we’ve drafted recently appear to be doing quite well.
60 … and I, for one, am Ok with Moores’ bottom line … because I see one alternative being more Oriole-like … ie. high payroll without a trace of a possibility for even post-season play for years and years and years …
65 … OT … and my anti-Oriole-FO sentiment was *greatly* entrenched during my time in Cooperstown … check this out … http://www.freethebirds.net/ … the “Free the Birds” campaign’ers were very organized and got lots of support that weekend!
63.
I’m not really sure what you are getting at with the Matt Bush pick is clouding our senses thing. In 2004 they picked Matt Bush instead of Drew, Nieman or Weaver because of money. In 2007 they passed on the consensus #2 prospect in the draft according to basically every scout (except apparently the Padres) who had miraculously fallen to them. I don’t see how thinking that the two situations could be for the same reason is because we are clouded. Actions speak louder than words and if this were the first time it had happened then yeah this would probably be out of line but it’s not so I can’t help but think that they are similar.
#59: I pretty much agree with everything you say here, but I want to use this as an excuse to mention something I couldn’t fit into the original post. Did you notice the home run that Kouz hit last night? Specifically the trajectory it took and how far beyond the center field fence it landed? He’s done that a couple times this year, and it impresses the heck out of me. The ball shouldn’t carry that far in this park at that trajectory. With Branyan gone, Kouz is the closest thing we have to a guy that can hit the ball out to any part of any park.
The Tigers are a big market team? Since when? Since last year when they made it to the World Series? So you are saying that winning creates market size? That’s pretty much what I believe.
I don’t know if Fuson is lying but he is doing a bad job of defending his pick. There are only two reasons that Schmidt would be rated ahead of Porcello: money and risk of injury. The reason Boras wanted a Josh Beckett type deal for him is because his talent is close to Beckett’s. Is that a guarantee that he’s going to be a star? Obviously not. Could Schmidt turn out to a better pitcher? Certainly possible. Sometimes going cheap works out (it worked for the Braves in 1990 when they took Chipper over Todd Van Poppel). My main problem is the fact that the Padres automatically wouldn’t draft Porcello because of his bonus demands while a similar franchise would.
#65: Given the choice between money and brains, you go for brains every time.
Starter or reliever, Will Startup may be the biggest no-brainer in the history of warm-up music selection.
I can hear Richards’s signature guitar lick now…..
I’m not complaining about the Padres major league payroll as I think that Towers and co. have done an outstanding job this year. However, in my opinion, they’ve done a terrible job of investing money into the draft which is where they need to be successful. They aren’t going to sign Johan Santana or Miguel Cabrera or Hanley Ramirez or any other player like that. We don’t even know if it would be worth it even if they did. However, Rick Porcello might be the next Santana (he certainly has a greater chance than Nick Schmidt). It’s going to be next to impossible for the Padres to stay successful if they continue to draft poorly and keep a low payroll.
69: Winning has nothing to do with market size. The Yankees will always be a big market team, regardless of their success.
As for everyone decrying the Padres passing on the consensus #2 pick, when did we pick this year? 23rd? By that logic, there were over 20 opportunities for teams to take this guy. And magically, they all passed as well.
So how much of a consensus #2 could he have been? And who’s consensus is this?
I will say this in the Padres defense about drafting Schmidt: it was a lot easier to pass on Porcello in order to take Schmidt(who could have gone as high as #6) then it would have been for the Tigers to pass on Porcello in order to take the 26th best player.
That being said, the draft is one of my major frustrations with this team. If they don’t take Porcello then they HAVE to take other guys who fall later on in the draft. They did some of that this year, but still haven’t got everyone signed.
Losing players like Toledo hurts more if you don’t have as many top end guys.
A short blurb about Kouz-delete his April and he has hit .283-12-42 over 75 games.
Given average defense he’s a nice player to have around, especially while posting those totals in Petco.
73.
Everyone was scared at the money he and Boris were going to ask for. I think you bring up a valid point to an extent but you also have to remember that for a lot of those picks from 2-22 there were still some top rated guys on the board to choose from. As you start getting closer to 23 the talent level starts to fall of so yeah all those teams needed to choose to deal or not deal with the reports of his high demands. Basically it was about his agent not his arm.
63: You could make the same argument about the draft that you made for free agency: if the Tigers want to overpay for someone like Porcello and waste their money, let ‘em.
74: Yeah, not signing some of the guys later in the draft is more frustrating to me than not blowing most of the draft budget on Porcello. They claimed before the draft to have the money, these guys’ demands aren’t ridiculous, and the savings if any one of them pans out will be enormous. More farm system talent means not having to waste $5 million on a Wells in the future. Signing these guys costs a lot less than paying Wells.
I think an important question to ask is whether the Padres’ draft process is better in 2007 than it was in 2004. It is one thing to be dissatisfied with the organization’s strategy as compared to, say, that of the Tigers, but quite another to view it in light of where were just a few years ago. Radical change — which I think we all agree was necessary — doesn’t happen overnight.
Don’t get me started on the love affair KT has with Wells…..drives me crazy
Interesting fluff on the next 300 winner.
http://tinyurl.com/28q5wd
78.
It is better for sure. At least there is a direction now. I just found the article in todays paper such a load of crap. I’m okay with the fact that they didn’t take Porcello I really am (that’s a lot of freaking money) but I just don’t want them to tell me that money wasn’t an issue and Schmidt was ranked ahead of him because I just don’t believe it.
I think the great thing is that we are complaining about things on the periphery (draft questions, who will play next year) rather than complaining about things that matter now. I have no doubt they are going to win the division — they are superior to the D-back — and they are only going to get better when they (finally) get Hensley into the rotation. Hopefully, Jake learns to relax when he gets to the postseason and thankfully no game will be started by David Wells. As we learned last year, pretty much any team that makes that playoffs can win the World Series. Speaking of that, have you seen that the Cardinals are only 3 games back in the loss column now? Of course, in the NL Central, the win column is probably more important since they are all more likely to lose than win.
67, 69:
There were plenty of big market teams drafting ahead of the Padres who also passed on Porcello. Consider also the Padres’ organizational emphasis on drafting college players with higher picks. While a keyboard scouting analyst or two might have said Porcello was top two, it doesn’t follow that every team evaluated him that way, particularly not a team like the Padres. You can criticize their evaluation process, but it does not follow that passing over Porcello was completely a money move like the Bush mistake.
I will give you this: it was indirectly a money move for any team to stay within the informal slotting guidelines and not select Porcello on that basis. If you don’t like that, criticize the slotting guidelines, and teams’ decisions to stay within those. I will stand up for them. However, given what he actually said, to assume that the Padres passed on Porcello for slotting reasons, you would have to assume that Fuson is lying or being deceptive in his comments.
And yes, the Tigers are big market, regardless of their record.
And no, I would not say that the draft should be likewise skewed to big market teams, so that only the big money teams can afford Boras clients. The draft is the most efficient way for the poorer performers and smaller market teams to remediate some of the imbalance caused by other teams’ financial power. I will never criticize any team for following informal slotting guidelines; I just wish it were tougher.
I’d much rather play the Cardinals in a short series then the Cubs, seeing Zambrano twice in 5 games may make things difficult
The Padres’ media market is in the bottom third of the league. I think it’s obvious that they’re going to be on a tighter budget than say 2/3 or so of the league.
81 … I know this is part of *your* point … but you need to be careful about the words you choose … Fuson never said money wasn’t an issue and Fuson certainly didn’t say that Schmidt was ranked ahead of Porcello … he said that Porcello was not ranked above Schmidt … we don’t know how broad the ranking bands were nor what the ranking criteria were … and I think we’ve established several motives for Fuson (and the rest of the Padre FO) to speak coyly …
Last year Jim Callis of Baseball America looked at all draft picks receiving deals that were 10% above or below slot in the first rounds of the 2001-04 drafts (excluding college seniors and Tim Stauffer because of his injury). The conclusion was that teams got a much, much better return on investment with the guys they paid above slot money too. 5 of the 20 below slot players look like productive major leaguers, while 11 of 15 paid above slot look like major league regulars. The article is subscriber only.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/prospects/features/262107.html
Chris Young in cartoon.
http://tinyurl.com/2yu2mt
88.
Haha where the hell did you find that? I like how CY appears to just be putting the ball in the catchers glove with his long arm.
Do the callers that call Coach Kentera’s show on XX crawl out from under a rock every day? It takes a whole different type of person that calls his show I guess. Every time I tune in and hear him it’s like the same show everyday with them same clueless people.
Jim Callis at BA says its doubtful we’ll sign either Toledo or Colon. The latter I could take or leave. Toledo is reportedly asking for just above slot, and the draft budget the Padres trumpeted has room for 5 or 6 Toledo’s in it. Schmidt’s already shut down – truly a durable college pitcher – and Bush is facing TJ. Seems like a perfect time to inject another arm into the system.
78: The Padres do have a process and they’re following it, but it’s a process that is skewed heavily towards avoiding risk instead of accumulating talent. We’ll spend 5-6 million on David Wells for 5 months, but not an extra 100K to control a talent like Toledo for most of a decade. I hope they get something done in the next couple hours with him.
83: It wasn’t keyboard analysts who had Porcello that high. If anything, keyboard types will shy away from high school kids in the northeast, because the competition is soft and there isn’t a lot of hard evidence. The #2 pitcher/top 5 draft talent evaluation came from scouts. All the teams that passed on him could have done so for completely rational reasons. 7 million is a ton of money. So he’s really talented but still not worth the asking price.
88: Does anyone read Japanese? I’d love to know what’s in those word balloons.
Re: 90 “We’ll spend 5-6 million on David Wells for 5 months, but not an extra 100K to control a talent like Toledo for most of a decade.”
my point exactly!
90: I honestly don’t understand the logic behind not signing a guy like Toledo if they’re only 100K apart.
#90: Agreed on the point about risk. This is something the Padres are doing differently now than they did in 2004. The question remains, is the current “low-risk” approach better or worse than whatever process was in place when they took Bush with the first pick overall?
93: That’s the rumblings, he could be asking for more.
If it is a nominal amount – which I admit is a big “if” – then it’ll be interesting to see reaction. I think we can agree that if Toledo was signed, the more unabashedly pro-Padre observers would talk about how much better he makes us. If he doesn’t sign I bet some of those same folks will say “The Padres must have seen something they didn’t like.”
95: I honestly don’t know enough about these guys to even really form an opinion at this point. But if in fact Toledo is as good as I’ve been lead to believe and the difference between his demands and the Padres’ offer is relatively small, I just don’t get what they’re trying to do.
I understand that as an organization you put a number on a guy that represents what you think his value is and you don’t want to pay more for a guy than he’s worth to you, but 100K when you’re well short of your stated budget just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Re: 90/92: I think that’s everyone’s point. Right now it seems like the Padres philosophy is to occasionally find someone in the draft (Peavy, Greene), sign mid-level free agents to one year deals (Maddux, MGiles, Wells, Blum), scour the waiver-wire (K.Cameron, Linebrink, Hampson, Ensberg, Bradley, Germano), and rip other teams off in trades (Gonzalez, Young, Bell, Cameron, Cla, Hensley, Kouz maybe). The important question is whether or not they can keep doing this forward. That’s why the draft is so important. It’s the only way you can get cheap talent. You know they aren’t going to sign to free agents and it’s probably doubtful they resign their own once they can hit the open market. Who is more likely to step into Peavy shoes when he departs as a free agent in a few years, Schmidt or Porcello? Probably the latter. To save a little over $2m in bonus money ($3.58m for Porcello, $1.26m for Schmidt) they took the lesser player. That point is not debatable, no matter what Fuson says.
Somewhat unrelated note, the Padres have gotten pretty good production out of left field compared to say Soriano.
BA/OBP/SLG/2OPS
Soriano .297/.336/.511/.394
Padres .256/.345/.454/.381
Hell, when you take into account the difference between PetCo and Wrigley that’s even more impressive.
94: It’s undoubtedly better than the 2004 process, because there wasn’t one. But the 2005-2007 pattern of taking polished college types was there in 2003, which was a disaster too. At least 2004 gave us Kyle Blanks. We’re implementing the process better and we have more picks to use, but we’re still very college-heavy, almost to the point of ignoring HS kids. If only we’d ignored them in 2004.
I just made myself sick looking at our draft classes in 03 and 04. I don’t fault them so much for Stauffer because they didn’t know about his shoulder, but the rest of the picks…Yeesh.
98: And the MLB Average for LF is .274/.346/.448/.380.
Porcello’s exact contract is now known. His bonus was $3.58 million. He’ll receive major league salaries of $380,000 in 2007, $1.1 million in 2008, $1.2 million in 2009 and $1.025 million in 2010. The Tigers also have club options for $1.536 million in 2011 and $1.344 million in 2012.
#97: Beyond the fact that we don’t know what the future holds for Peavy, Porcello, or Schmidt, if we’re going to take Fuson and the Padres to task for not drafting Porcello, then we need to do the same with at least 20 of the other teams that passed on him.
102.
If I gave a crap about any of the other 20 teams that passed on him I would totally agree with you.
Teams with a media market as small as the Padres based on Nate Silver’s numbers: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Pittsburgh.
Brackman signed a major league contract with the Yankees for $4.5 million guaranteed, with escalator clauses that can take it to $13 million. That contract seems a lot more insane to me than Porcello’s, considering Brackman wasn’t that great in college, is rumored to need Tommy John surgery, and wore down after 78 innings, which was a career high.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/?p=209
105: Well, that’s the Yankees for you.
91: It’s Korean.
The title is 2007 midseason impact players.
CY is yelling “YOOP!”
his arm is saying “SSOOK!”
and the hitter is yelling “KAEK!”
and the narration reads, “Munk shoot”
I’m not sure what it all means, but I suspect the first three are just grunts and sound effects.
We really have no clue if the Porcello contract will be a disaster or a bargain, we don’t know if Schmidt will become a left handed Chris Young. My concern is Moores’ unwillingness to sign players above slot, there was a plan in 2004 it was to draft Drew that is until a few days before the draft when Moores said there was no way he would spend the extra cash.
This is coming up again with Toledo, the padres are well under their $10 mil draft budget and yet they still wont go above slot with him.
105.
That is out of control!!! Scott Boris is the anti-christ of baseball. Brackman lucked out I can’t freaking believe that.
#99: Okay, so we’re agreed that even if the Padres aren’t quite where we’d like them to be, they’re at least moving in the right direction. For most of this franchise’s history, we haven’t even been able to say that much.
As for the ‘03 and ‘04 draft classes, those were disasters. The last three haven’t gone precisely the way I would have liked, but again, we’re making strides.
#103: LOL. As long as we recognize that the Padres weren’t alone in their assessment of Porcello.
On a more general note, and having nothing to do with folks here, I notice a tremendous disconnect between the unprecedented success the Padres currently are enjoying and the amount of negativity I hear from “typical fans.” Some days it’s all I can do to keep from inviting them to follow a different team, like maybe whichever one just won the World Series.
103: Agree. While I can understand passing on Porcello, we can’t always pass on high-ceiling kids in favor of known entities. Or if we do, we’re going to have to win almost every trade and be more active in free agency, because talent wins.
105:Agree, again. The Brackman deal looks crazy. Yankee coaches and medical specialists must think they can turn him into something amazing after surgery. Still, if he does pan out, 13 million for several seasons of dominant relief (which is where I bet he’s headed) is cheap compared to what bullpen guys get on the open market.
#105 – It’s funny – I was just listening to the top rated sports talk show in Dallas “The Ticket” and the host also just referred to Scott Boros as the “antichrist of baseball” !
110.
I will agree with you that Padres were not alone in their assesment that the price or the headache of Boris was more than they wanted to deal. I am not sure you are going to get another head of MLB scouting (or whatever Fuson’s title is) to tell you that Schmidt was higher on the board than Porcello though.
Brackman is hardly a sure thing, I think a lot of people thought that drafting him that high (31st) was an overdraft since his performance never matched his “stuff.” Plus you need to throw out whatever contract that the Yankees sign a player too, it’s completely meaningless. Kind of like the Clemens contract, the Yankees gave him probably double what any other team would have (which makes sense since NYC is twice as expensive as pretty much any other city out there).
Hey, the Padres are currently above league average at three positions (C, 1B, LF) and above league average at five positions when adjusting for park (C, 1B, LF, CF, RF). That’s above league “positional average” not just “average” which includes pitchers and other positions.
107: Eek. Sorry.
109: Boras didn’t make the Yankees pay Brackman one dime. They decided he was worth what Boras asked for.
113: Yep. The Padres may have downgraded him because he’s a HS kid, although HS pitchers are now not the risk they were years ago. But on tools, anybody who finds me a scout who rated Schmidt above Porcello gets a set of steak knives.
114: Verlander’s performance never matched his stuff, but in all fairness, it came a lot closer than Brackman’s.
116.
You are right he definitely didn’t make the Yankees pay that but I’ll bet you he suggested it. I also bet that he uses the fact that he got a couple of back of the 1st round picks MLB contract against teams next year also. I mean I don’t blame the kids or Boras for getting all they can but MLB has seriously got to do something.
David Price signed…
He did ok too.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/?p=212
#118: Wholeheartedly agree that “MLB has seriously got to do something.” The draft as it currently exists is not functioning as it should.
118: Of course he suggested it, he’s Brackman’s agent. The teams that are afraid of Boras are playing right into his hands. Instead of drafting the best player available and negotiating hard, they let a lot of talented kids fall to the teams who can pay them twice what they’d ask for without blinking an eye.
As Jim Callis said in his last chat, nobody is screaming bloody murder that the Royals paid replacement-level dinosaur Reggie Sanders 5 million for 24 games so far this year, or that they paid him 5 million for 88 games last year when they had no chance to compete. Nobody is saying that Sanders’ agent is the AntiChrist or even a mid-level demon. But Boras asks them for 5 million for Moustakas, who would then become a Royal property for most of a decade, and he’s evil personified.
A lot of teams would benefit more from an Intelligence Floor than a Salary Cap.
I say scrap the Minor League system (except AAA to keep a 40 man roster) and make everyone play college ball for 3 years.
#121: True about the “Intelligence Floor,” although I’d hate to see one instituted. That is where the Padres gain much of their competitive advantage.
120: Why can’t baseball just let the market determine these things? Their last attempt to level the playing field has done the opposite. Why should the bigger-market teams, who are already paying revenue sharing and luxury tax (which is fine by me) also be forced to basically subsidize the accumulation of amateurs by other teams who are afraid to work hard on the draft?
The difference between Moustakas’s slot (3.15) and his reported asking price (around 5 million) is a fraction of the money most teams waste on poor free agent signings.
122: Don’t know if you’re serious, but some great baseball players would have flunked out the first week of college.
Re: 125 no i was being sarcastic
Continuing TW’s rant from 121 but expanding it to mock other teams, the Pirates just traded for Matt Morris and his albatross of a contract. They could have funnelled a quarter of that money into the draft and picked Wieters or Porcello, instead of settling for a future reliever. The Orioles spent $20 million+ over the offseason buying bad middle relievers. They couldn’t have been a crappy team this year without Baez and put some of that money toward signing Wieters? The bad teams have the opportunity to draft the premium talent that is sliding back to the good, high-payroll teams, but because they’re spending money in the wrong places they can’t afford these guys. More intelligent front offices in the bad teams would make the draft a lot fairer.
Re: 125 there are some pretty dumb football and basketball players who seemed to make it though a few years of college.
121.
My antichrist statement was more of a joke than anything. Like I said before I don’t blame Boras or the picks for holding out for what they can get. In a dream world yeah every team would pick the player pay them their slot and they can take it or leave it. If you don’t like it try again next year. I think that if every team did that it a bunch of guys wouldn’t sign for a year or 2 but after that most everyone would kind of fall in and deal with it. I basically agree with everything you said. I don’t think the issues will ever get fixed unless MLB steps in and sets limits.
127: It’s not even that they can’t. Their choice isn’t between spending 5 million on Amateur Player X or spending zero, thereby “saving” 5 mil. In many cases the players are asking for 1 million or less over what you’d pay to somebody who settled for slot.
It’s like they think the currency is different for amateurs and professionals. No, we can only spend 5 million in the draft, we can’t possibly spend 6. However, we will gladly spend 2 million on Ancient Utility Infielder who does nothing well, when we could get the same production from a 350K youngster. Are the stories about how A.U.I. once got a broken-bat single against Roger Clemens really worth 1.65 million dollars?
#124: Baseball should let the market determine value. As I said way back in #4, the slotting system is a joke. All it does is discourage teams (except those willing and/or able to break rank) from taking the best available player. I see that as a fairly significant problem.
I agree with KRS1 that MLB needs to do something about the draft. However, I think the solution lies in the direction of less regulation, not more. What we have right now is an awkward compromise that satisfies no-one (except possibly Boras and some of his clients).
130.
Very good argument.
Not sure if anyone else has ever met Boras(yes, I had the pleasure a number of years ago) but he’s the most impressive guys I’ve ever seen at working both a player and their family. Combine his natural charisma with the fact that his scouting budget is reportedly about 4 times the Padres and I can understand why teams are scared to deal with him, even though they know he will annually control some of the top talent.
113 … you did it again, KRS1 … Fuson did *not* say “that Schmidt was higher on the board than Porcello” … I don’t disagree that the difference borders on being a “a miss-leading statement” (#31) … but it is different … you don’t seem to be able to put yourself into his shoes … the Padres (and 24 other MLB teams) found a player they prefered to Porcello … and they are not going to tell us why (because they think their reasons are their competitive advantage).
I don’t think MLB can unilaterally step in because I think the draft is collectively bargained since compensation picks are tied to lost major league free agents. I could be wrong about that and would appreciate any correction. Basically, agents like Boras control the MLBPA, so they don’t want too many changes that reduce their leverage in the draft.
Another point against Porcello was passed on due to money concerns: the Padres said they had a 10 million draft budget; they obviously didn’t use it. However, Porcello would have fit within their draft budget assuming they did have one at the amount claimed. So, basically Fuson and Towers would both have to be lying.
Upon further reflection, I admit that money is a factor in a guy like Bush and a guy like Porcello in terms of the Padre selecting one and passing on the other. However, there is a difference between a Matt Bush cheap pick at #1 and an unwillingness to go above slot at 23. There are different motivations for each pick, even though money is involved in each.
Until there is some sort of firm slotting system, the only way to beat Boras is to have the top teams pick the top projected players and not let them slide to big money teams. If Fuson is lying and Porcello truly was a unanimous top 5, then one of the teams in the top 5 or shortly thereafter have to pick him, offer him slot, and if Boras insists on more, tell him to pound sand since the team’s BATNA is a similar pick in the following draft. Allowing these guys to slide plays into Boras’ remaining leverage.
134: LM, I’m not clear on what you’re saying. Fuson says Porcello “didn’t end up on our board above Schmidt.” There are no ties on a draft board. If he’s not above Schmidt, he’s below him. The draft board is a list of players from 1 to Whatever. Some teams may start their 1 with lower-players because they’re drafting so late that the true top guys aren’t going to be available. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Chargers didn’t even bother listing Calvin Johnson on their board this year, because you’re just going to cross him off somewhere in the first 5 picks. But the board isn’t a band. It’s a linear ranking of the players who might be there for you to pick. And as they get snatched, you cross them off.
Here’s an idea … have Boras set the slot dollars … then the team with the #1 pick decides which slot to take … if Boras says the #1 slot is worth $7M and the #2 slot worth $6M, etc, then each team decides what they want to pay for each of their picks …
Hmmm, what if no one wants to spend $7M? Uh, I guess that’s a detail that’d need to be worked out
134.
In my book saying “He didn’t end up on our board above Schmidt” is the same thing as saying Schmidt was higher on our board than Porcello. If you want to grasp at straws fine go for it.
135: I don’t think Fuson is lying. I think he’s simply leaving out the part where the Padres didn’t think the reward justified the cost, which was almost historically steep. Signability can be a legitimate measurement.
The problem with the compensation pick is that it’s not protected. We’ll probably see teams take very signable kids with the comp picks because they don’t want to come up empty two years in a row.
134 and 135: Team officials are usually going to put a positive spin on things. Right after we drafted Bush we heard a LOT of stories about how the Padres were ecstatic to have received his call before the draft, how they say him as a legitimate hitter at a premium defensive position, how they weren’t picking him on bonus demands alone. That doesn’t mean Chief Gayton and KT were flat-out lying, but they weren’t painting the whole picture. That just happened three years ago, I’m surprised that some people are trying to frame this debate as a complete dichotomy, either Fuson is a lying dirtbag or he’s being completely honest.
136: concur wholeheartedly.
Perhaps LM, Krasovic should have explicitly asked Fuson whether or not the Padres factor signability into their draft boards. My understanding is that draft boards are not normally done that way, and the article gives the impression that Fuson/Padres had Schmidt rated higher than Porcello.
137 Any idea to give Boras control over the amount of dollars per slot I assume is purely comedy.
136 … OK … now I see/understand our difference … I do percieve that what Fuson was talking about was a “band” (rather than a strict 1-to-N ranking) …
As a reminder … here is what he said …
“He (Porcello) didn’t end up on our board above Schmidt. We had him all over the place. ”
… and to me, the “band” the union/consensus of “all over the place”. I take this to mean that their bottom line (factoring in talent and signability/cost and risks) was about an even match … and they then decided to spread their draft dollars over more players, and follow along with the “slot” guidelines.
Another reason I think of the “draft board” as having bands of players is because of the position differences … the decisions on who to take have (at least) 2 factors … who you like and who you need … granted that I think the majority of us here believe that at least with ones #1 pick the only factor should be “who you like” … but I know that my experience with doing “roto drafts” leads me to have a “band”ed “draft board” …
107: Cool. Translation. Thanks, man.
139: The Bush thing was complete and total spin. You didn’t hear the Padres specifically talking about Bush at all until rumors surfaced a day or two before the draft, around the time that Moores intervened. It was all Niemann, Jerod Weaver and Stephen Drew.
Assuming the 10 million budget this year was not a lie, there was no signability issue with Porcello. They could have had him and still probably been under budget.
There may have been a valuation issue – perhaps they didn’t value him as a 7 million/3.5 mil bonus guy. I can concede that point easily.
140(b) … au contraire … it sure seems like many commentators think that Boras is the best talent *and* market evaluator in the baseball world today … isn’t that what we’re clammoring for … that the draft somehow be free-market-based/driven?
144 … also, I don’t really think what I proposed (137) is very different than today … Boras set Procello’s price at $7M before the draft … then 25 teams decided not to take that “slot” … right?
OT … Masticore317 just posted a link to his pics from HOF …
http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2007/07/cooperstown-photos.html#comments
… hey, check out the “Loyal Fans” pic … that’s Coronado Mike in the back-left standing next to Phantom’s orange beach towels!!!
142/107 … yes, thanks for the translation, Eric … I wonder if the “Munk” in “Munk shoot” is really “Monk” which is a variation on “Padre” / “Friar”???
141: Before he threw in 2007, Porcello and Harvey were mentioned in the same breath. Harvey, another guy we could have popped, btw. A team that scouted him heavily might move him up and down depending on how well he did the last time he saw him vs how well the other prospects in his range did, even on which scout saw him. An area scout could see him 5 times and be hot for him, then the cross-checker comes in when Porcello throws a couple of 55 foot curveballs and his grade goes down.
Early in the process you might not have a strict board, but pools or bands, like “guys we love” and “guys we like” and “guys we’re not touching.” But on draft day, there’s not a grab bag. I’d more readily believe that Porcello wasn’t on the Padres list because they had zero intention of picking him than that he was ranked below Schmidt on physical ability.
148 … bingo … I’m very confident that if you asked Fuson directly / specifically about the ranking of Porcello vs Schmidt on “talent” / “physical ability” that he’d concede that category to Porcello … and I agree with the “zero intention”, since he had made his salary demands clear and the Padres have a clear position on following the slot guidelines …
BA reports there’s zero chance we sign Toledo. MadFriars reports the same, and further that there’s almost no shot at getting Colon or Pelzer under contract. We’ve already passed on Ovens. Which means that in a draft class loaded with HS talent, we’ll end up signing 2 high school players of the 9 we selected.
The odds of any drafted player, HS or college, making the majors is slim. But those odds go to absolute zero when you don’t sign them.
I wonder if any of the local writers will run a story about how to turn 10 million into 7 million. This is just an estimate, subject to correction, but based on published reports Toledo, Pelzer, and Ovens together would have been looking for less than 1 million.