Friday Links (5 Oct 07)
Fri, Oct 5, 2007
by Geoff Young
Busy, busy, busy…
- Scouting Jake Peavy (Baseball Analysts, via Jim Parish in the comments). Joe P. Sheehan dissects the repertoire of Jake Peavy.
- Brian Giles has surgery on knee (San Diego Union-Tribune, via Tom Waits in the comments). Brian Giles, who has been having trouble with his right knee since April, is expected to be ready for Opening Day 2008. Also, the possibility of Matt Antonelli leading off next year is mentioned.
- Overachievers, ey? (Friar Forecast). MB isn’t impressed with Nick Canepa’s latest. (Neither is Dex at Gaslamp Ball.)
- Coming up short: Padres were a good team, but couldn’t overcome obstacles (North County Times). Dan Hayes looks back at the season that was and offers suggestions for the future.
- Bradley won’t be suspended for incident (Los Angeles Times). Quoth Bob Watson: “If his manager hadn’t gotten him, we’re talking a whole different situation.”
- Hoffman accepts blame for defeat (Padres.com). Quoth Trevor Hoffman:
You can’t really point to any other factor than my performance tonight. It’s a burden I’m going to have to deal with.
Actually, you can point to many small failures throughout the season. This is not on any one moment or person.
- Rockies Celebrate… But He Still Has Not Touched Home Plate! (San Diego Spotlight). Not to dwell on it, but Rich offers his thoughts regarding the Matt Holliday/Tim McClelland fiasco that ended the Padres season. Be sure to read the comments; unintentional humor is the best kind.
- Speaking of which, by request, we now have Waiting for Holliday shirts available. I’m going to do some housecleaning at the store over the next few weeks, so if there’s something you’ve had your eye on, now might be a good time to get it.
- California League Top 20 Prospects List (Baseball America, via Peter Friberg in the comments). Antonelli checks in at #4, while left-hander Wade LeBlanc is ranked #12. No love for Kyle Blanks.
- 101 Best Baseball Blogs of 2007 (LA Snark, via Gaslamp Ball). I’m overjoyed to be ranked #44, which as we all know has been retired by the Padres in honor of Willie McCovey. Furthermore, it’s the number Peavy wears.
- 2008 Baseball Free Agents (Knuckle Curve). Calling my own number here; I’ve gathered a few links for tracking potential free agents this winter. Might come in handy while we’re trying to figure out how to shore up the Padres’ various holes.
- OOTP league and Sunday softball openings (Friar Watch). Anthony is looking for softball players. I’m in, if that makes a difference.
Most Commented Posts
On another note, someone was asking about this the other day; here are the top 5 non-IGD threads at Ducksnorts:
- Blum, Bocachica, and a Slice of History (June 7, 2007)
- Jake the Efficient (September 27, 2007)
- Padres Poised to Pop Pitcher (June 6, 2006)
- Till It Hurts, Kiddo (September 27, 2006)
- Padres, Mets Swap Spare Parts (November 16, 2006)
I love that our fifth most heavily commented thread ever came in November. We are such geeks. 
I’ve also been reminded of an old thread about which ballparks we’ve visited. I’ll need to update my list to include the parks I stopped by on the way to Cooperstown this summer. Feel free to hop on over and add your own if the spirit moves you.
And as always, we’ve got a boatload o’ links at del.icio.us. Happy reading…
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.
October 5, 2007 at 7:33 am
Reading the sad comments on Rich’s article, I continue to be amazed by people who:
a) quote rule 7.06 as justification for the safe call at home, when that rule clearly states the catcher has a right to be where he was when in the act of fielding the ball, which Barrett was. Whether the fielding of the ball was successful or not is not the point of the rule.
b) keep bringing up the Atkins double/HR call as somehow “evening things out”; first - there is no replay of that call that shows that ball clearing the fence. In live action it looked short to me and the replays haven’t contradicted that.
Also, why did Schmidt have the surgery just now? Seems to me I remember them diagnosing this months ago…where they waiting to see if rehab did the trick? What’s the update on Carillo btw? Is he able to start throwing this winter?
Antonelli leading off…let’s see him make the team out of the spring first, and then, I don’t know, maybe put him in a better position to succeed than immediately taking the leadoff spot in the order right away?
October 5, 2007 at 7:44 am
Yet Canepa got several positive comments about his column on signonsd, which I’ve decided attracts the dumbest baseball fans in town. Just … let … it … go, Stephen.
October 5, 2007 at 8:27 am
Well, despite our not being there, its good to see the NL West representing well in the playoffs. Both Az and Col have very good chance to move on after yesterday. The NL W used to be the doormat of the NL. No longer. Az v Col and Bos v Cle, Col v Bos=Bos champs.
It occured to me that pretty good pitching/D and the ability to really mash, is a good formula for winning. Col has five guys above 300. Padres could learn from this, that good pitching/D with no hitting burns your staff. So for next year CF, Lf, 2nd like to see some high avg guys. That is why I would not bring back Camy, might trade OG. We need hitters to compliment our pitching.
October 5, 2007 at 8:36 am
I’d be very surprised if the Pads trade OG. I just don’t see another team giving back enough value. Who’s going to give us anything for an aging corner outfielder with no power? I think he gives us more value than we’ll get by trading him.
Everything is set for Cameron to go to Atlanta, no way will he resign with us. We need to fill LF or CF with a big time player, either Hunter, Jones or Rowand in center or if we trade for a Coco Crisp then we need to get some offense out of LF. I’m ok with Hairston/Bradley if we can get a big time player for CF but they aren’t going to carry a no-hit glove man in CF.
Has there ever been a player who tanked his free agent year as badly as Andruw Jones? Imagine the payday if he had been a free agent last year. He’ll still get a lot of money but he must have cost himself millions of dollars.
October 5, 2007 at 8:42 am
This is an unconfirmed rumor from a source who I trust, but I don’t vouch for the accuracy.
The Dodgers have 48 hours to reach a deal with Johan Santana. They’re willing to give up Kemp plus other players. Santana’s current contract demands are in the neighborhood of 8 years, 200+ million.
October 5, 2007 at 8:44 am
If the Dodgers get Santana for prospects that is a complete disaster for the rest of the division.
October 5, 2007 at 8:51 am
Nick Schmidt, surgery. Nice. Michael Main managed to get through his first professional season without scars on his elbow and with 34 strikeouts in 27 innings, even though he spent part of it competing with college players in the Northwest League. I’ve already talked about what Michael Burgess did earlier this year.
October 5, 2007 at 8:54 am
5: I hope that stays a rumor unless they trade all their young hitters (Loney, Kemp, Abreu/LaRoche etc) for him. I can see their rookie 3rd baseman being part of that trade since the Twins badly needed a hitter at the hot corner.
Still, that would be a big obstacle to overcome for the rest of the NL West.
October 5, 2007 at 8:59 am
6, 8: Yeah, it’s a time bomb on the back end, but for the next few years it makes them the prohibitive division favorite. Within two seasons they could have Santana, Lowe, Penny, Billingsley, and Kershaw, with a recuperated Schmidt available for depth, plus a lot of other arms. I hope they have to give up Kershaw.
October 5, 2007 at 9:05 am
The Pads need to improve on-base pct period. The team was otherwise not as bad offensively as many made it out to be.
October 5, 2007 at 9:05 am
With the Dogers luck Santana will learn to suck badly somewhere in the range of 15 to 20 minutes after he signs his name on that contract. I’m not really worried about it one way or the other. In fact at first glance I would almost be happier if they did get Santana. Spending $200mil on a pitcher seems like an extremely risky move and I would in no way shape or form be pissed about getting any combo of Kemp, Loney, LaRoche, Kershaw the hell out of the division. I think I would prefer to face Santana 4 or 5 times a year then see all those kids that can flat out rake 3 to 4 times a game 19 times a year for the next 10 years. Those are just my first thoughts though.
October 5, 2007 at 9:17 am
Are teams even allowed to announce trades during the playoffs?
October 5, 2007 at 9:20 am
11: It’s not just that we’d have to face Santana a few times a year. It’s that he starts 30-35 games for the Dodgers, games that they have a lot better chance of winning than with any other pitcher on their staff.
It’s a huge contract and the Dodgers are loaded with debt. How is that possible, Mr. Moores, if everyone has to comply with the DSR? I’ll table that question until the deal actually happens. Before that it’s just a rumor.
October 5, 2007 at 9:22 am
Dex in his Moneyball reference understandingly inserts the phrase”in that particular point in time” before his comments regarding the high relevance of OBP & K in general. I wonder if there’s been any research on OBP in relationship to batting order and particular lineups since 1986.
October 5, 2007 at 9:33 am
13.
Yeah that’s true but I still like the idea of having another division rival potentially get screwed by giving a pitcher a stupid contract. With that said if there was ever a pitcher that deserved a contract of that size it would be Santana. I don’t think the Dogers are going to be able to go out and spend like say the Mets so I can’t see giving up all that talent and paying a guy $20mil a season to play every 5th game a smart move. Especially if it means giving up Kershaw and if I were the Twins I would make sure I got Kershaw or we probably wouldn’t have a deal. They could probably Hughes and Chamberlin or Kennedy from the Yankees so for me Kershaw would be a must.
October 5, 2007 at 9:37 am
Im all for the dodgers giving up all thier top prospects and signing a pitcher for over 1/4 of thier budget for the next 8 years. They may get one or two years of dominace out of it but they would be crushed over the long haul.
October 5, 2007 at 9:42 am
15, 16: Why would they be crushed? They have money. Their owner doesn’t claim to have a hard cap on what he’s legally allowed to spend. If the Angels can afford a 100+ million payroll, the Dodgers sure can.
If Santana dominates for 3 years, is good for 2 years, average for 1, and below average for 2, that’s still a good deal. In 3 years their other big contracts are gone and their scouting director actually can rebuild a system in that time.
October 5, 2007 at 9:59 am
17.
I don’t want to try to get into the finances up in LA because I have no clue about them but from the minute the McCourts bought them I have heard over and over about the debt issues and what not. Santana is a scary thought to think about in this division but so are those kids they have. Either way the Dogs look to come out smelling pretty decent. For me it’s like the lesser of 2 evils though. Do I want to see them keep these outstanding prospects that could kill us for the next 10+ years and cost basically nothing for the nexts few years leaving them more money to spend on other superstar types? Or do I want to see them send off some of the kids for the best pitcher in baseball but is going to cost 20+ million a year? For me I say the latter. $20 million is not chump change and it will effect them in the future at some point. Not too mention all the bad contracts on that roster already. Pitching is great but i’d rather spend that type of money on a guy that plays every game and not just every 5th. That’s just me though.
October 5, 2007 at 10:04 am
18: Those kids are good prospects, but the odds are strongly against them ever being as good as Santana. And, barring a catastrophic Santana injury, Logan White can find kids who will be ready to step in by the time he’s less productive.
Again, just a rumor……
October 5, 2007 at 10:04 am
I’d hate to see Santana in the division but I”m ok with it if he goes to the Dodgers because I don’t see them as a threat if they trade away their young talent. I’d much rather see him in LA than Arizona or Colorado. Are they going to keep guys like Gonzo, Kent and Nomar, or are some of those guys free agents now?
October 5, 2007 at 10:04 am
I just see it handicapping them, with Peire thats 36+ mil tied up into 2 players, and who knows what Martin will comand in a few years. The dodgers do get alot of revenue but they still dont get Yankee/Redsox/Cub type revenues. I would also think that Krenshaw or Billingsly would be part of the deal.
October 5, 2007 at 10:07 am
Re: 20 almost all of LA’s big contracts end in 08
October 5, 2007 at 10:13 am
I agree with this sentiment from Beyond the Boxscores, and thus, Trevor will be back as the closer next season.
The Wes Littleton They Call that a Save? Award
Thursday (last week) Jamie Walker logged a save throwing a perfect ninth. He was protecting a three run lead with the feared Ray Olmedo, John McDonald, and Matt Stairs lineup core batting.
Season Leader:
With the way that bullpens are used these days, I really don’t have much of an issue with the “closer” being the third or fourth best pitcher in a bullpen. They’re rarely used in situations where they have to get somebody out of a jam. The setup men usually get that job. But it merits mention that Ryan Dempster and Joe Borowski are both significantly outclassed by the less famous members of their bullpen. With Borowski, he posted an AL leading 45 saves while Rafael Betancourt and Rafael Perez did his heavy lifting for the most part and when arbitration time comes, they should be paid like the guys with the flashy save totals. With Dempster it was Carlos Marmol with the quality work. While ERA is a lousy way of judging relievers, closers who have ERA’s of 5.07 (Borowski) and 4.73 (Dempster) usually lose their jobs in short order.
Also of note is the guy who this award is named after. Bask in the glory of the most ridiculous save ever recorded (link to: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....=270822201).
October 5, 2007 at 10:15 am
Nice read here:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/m.....-phillies/
October 5, 2007 at 10:18 am
The Dodgers fared better when the kids played. The Dodgers offense still sucks and they still have WAY too much money tied up in sucky offense. The Dodgers will finish 3-4 in ‘08 again. If they’re going to trade away their best offensive pieces to get more pitching then Colletti should get a paycheck from Moores & McCourt.
October 5, 2007 at 10:20 am
25: Agreed. Let them mortgage the farm for one pitcher.
October 5, 2007 at 10:20 am
TW, With the caveat that: one season does not make a career… I have to say, so far you were right and I was wrong with regards to Burgous. He is raking so far…
October 5, 2007 at 10:34 am
25: A lot of those kids will still be there. Nothing’s stopping them from putting Kent at 3rd, signing Iguchi to be a decent 2nd baseman, playing Loney full-time at first, and playing Ethier and Young on either side of the horribly overpaid Pierre.
They’d be replacing 30 starts by Tomko and Hendrickson with 30 by Santana. They didn’t have THAT much pitching.
The downside to the deal is possible injury and decline. A number one starter in his prime is a huge upgrade, especially if the main piece going to Minnesota is a corner OF.
26: They don’t need to mortgage the farm. They’ve got so much farm talent they can make this trade without serious damage, and White can replace what they’ve lost.
October 5, 2007 at 10:38 am
BTW, at first wasn’t sure about TBS, but they have done a good job, better then Fox. The announcers are plainer and no Tim McCarver, yet.
October 5, 2007 at 10:41 am
29: That’s a huge plus. No McCarver, no Joe Morgan, no Chris Berman. Addition by subtraction. **** Stockton isn’t really a baseball announcer but his voice brings back fond memories of the 1980’s Celtics vs Lakers NBA finals.
October 5, 2007 at 10:47 am
29: Yeah they’re not doing a half bad job. But the one thing that bugs me, and it’s mostly due to my broadcasting background, but man they need to turn the levels on the announcers up and the crowd mic’s down just a smidge.
At times you couldn’t hear any of them over the sound of the game itself. Not to mention Gwynn is a soft speaker anyways, and he was constantly getting drowned out.
October 5, 2007 at 10:48 am
8: Dont the Twins want to move Mauer to 3rd?
October 5, 2007 at 10:48 am
I think the Santana questions works it way back to the Peavy question. If the Twins can get a small village for Santana, can the Padres get a high end center fielder, a catcher , and a highly rated pitching prospect for Jake? Will his value ever be higher than it is right now?
October 5, 2007 at 10:52 am
Whether or not the Dodgers get Johan Santana, the Padres are screwed going forward because of their complete inability to draft. With two teams (Dodgers, Giants) have huge payroll advantages with the D-backs also potentially being higher, plus all but the Giants being infinitely better at drafting and developing young talent, the Padres window of opportunity may have passed. Their squandering of the first pick in 2004 was one of the lowpoints of the organization. Picking Schmidt over the consensus #1 or #2 talent (Rick Porcello) is just another nail in the coffin. I was very critical of the Schmidt pick at the time and it obviously looks much, much worse now. Unless they make a big splash in free agency I don’t see how they can be picked anywhere but 4th in the division. At least the Giants are going to suck for the next couple of years.
October 5, 2007 at 10:53 am
33.
My thoughts exactly. I have a hard time thinking his value will ever be higher than it is right now. If there is a Santana deal Jake would be pretty much 2 on everyone’s wish list I think. He could really get us some big return. But then again we would be short a real #1.
October 5, 2007 at 10:59 am
Clayton and others… yeah, interesting reading, eh? I’m glad I have a thick skin. On the other hand, I almost feel like I should talk about it more and make even more noise. That’s the Fox way of getting attention, right? Who cares if they hate me as long as they read me?
…and Geoff’s comment about unintentional comedy is dead on.
I just wrote about the Bradley non-suspension ( http://mvn.com/mlb-padres/2007.....uspension/ ).
Santana? I’d rather not face him. But I would think that the price the Twins exact would be very high. In the long run, it might play to our favor.
October 5, 2007 at 11:02 am
33.
I disagree with Catcher being that high a priority. Bard is decent, if not great. I would substitute second base in that list.
That said, I don’t want Peavy going anywhere.
October 5, 2007 at 11:05 am
Re 17: According to the Forbes 2006 numbers, the Dodgers have a franchise value 72% greater than the Padres, they brought in $50 million more in revenue in 2006, and they had $22 million more in earnings before depreciation, interest, taxes and appreciation than did the Padres. If one properly understands those numbers, in conjunction with the Dodgers’ team debt, one would understand that McCourt is in fact complying with the debt service rules and that this is also creating a limit on his payroll.
Dodgers payroll actually went down substantially in McCourt’s first two years of ownership. It is just now exceeding 2003 levels.
However, the Dodgers easily have the resources, even when complying with debt service rules, to afford a $25 million per year salary player. This is even more so now that they are getting much better and cheaper production from their farm system. If they would quit wasting their money on the Juan Pierres and Jason Schmidts of the world, they would be even better off.
October 5, 2007 at 11:13 am
32: Mauer catching 90 games and DHing 60 is worth more than him playing 3b for 150, but now that Ryan’s out, who knows what their plans are? If they had a legitimate 3b instead of Nick Punto, they might not have ever considered moving Mauer.
34: Yes, if we can’t build through the draft - actually build, not almost strictly pay slot to college players - we’re going to find it rough going.
October 5, 2007 at 11:23 am
37
I don’ tlike the idea of Jake going anywhere, but Aldeson is not going to sign Jake to a 6 year deal, not gona happen, wouldn’t be prudent. The only question I see is: Do you ride him until he is gone, or trade for max value?
October 5, 2007 at 11:25 am
Re: 40 they will trade jake next offseaon to an AL club
October 5, 2007 at 11:26 am
39: Maybe they’ve been drafting conservatively to populate the farm system. And now that Fuson’s guys will be filling out AAA next season, they’ll draft some riskier guys with more upside
October 5, 2007 at 11:41 am
38: McCourt bought the Dodgers with 225 million in borrowed money that doesn’t count against the DSR. Yet people continue to insist there is one iron-clad law of accounting.
39: This is brought up often, and as of yet no one has explained what value you derive from populating the farm system with players who aren’t very good. The Padres’ job isn’t to make sure the fans in Eugene, Ft. Wayne, Lake Elsinore, San Antonio, and Portland have acceptable clubs. It’s to win major league baseball games, hopefully enough to get into the playoffs. We’re not going to be as good as we could be drafting almost entirely “polished” college pitchers and corner hitters, especially when those “durable” pitchers keep getting Tommy John surgery. And as long as the directive from Moores is to not exceed slot, we’re going to have a hard time taking risks.
October 5, 2007 at 11:45 am
43: Even without exceeding the slot money, the Padres could have had Michael Main instead of Schmidt.
October 5, 2007 at 11:50 am
Re: 43 Why did the Padres not send Headley up to Potland this year and move Freese up to SA?
There are some advantages to having good farm teams, that being said I think its time for the Pads to go with high risk high reward picks now. They should get picks for Cameron, Barrett so they will have 3 first round/supplemental picks to play with, they should at least take a chance with 2 of them, although im not sure what kind of talent is in this draft.
October 5, 2007 at 11:54 am
Other note, the Padres could have used this player:
Jack Cust hit .256/.408/.504 with 105 walks, 164 K and 26 home runs in 395 at bats for the season for a 58.2% TTO figure. His K/PA is almost 1/3 but 45/101 hits were XBH. Would have been a useful player.
October 5, 2007 at 11:55 am
Re: 46 Cust cant play 2B
October 5, 2007 at 11:56 am
I dont knock the Pads for trading Cust, Im just bummed that did not get anyhting for him.
October 5, 2007 at 12:06 pm
44: You’re right, and Burgess goes in that list too.
October 5, 2007 at 12:06 pm
48: Exactly.
October 5, 2007 at 12:07 pm
43: I don’t think you’re ever going to hear someone explain the value you derive from bad players. However, when you have no real farm system to speak of, there is value in drafing guys that may be less likely to become stars, but are more likely to proceed through the levels.
Put another way, a player’s value being held constant, the greater his upside, the greater his risk of being a bust. When you have a well-populated farm system, you can afford to take more chances on those guys.
October 5, 2007 at 12:09 pm
45: The story, which may have grown a tiny acorn, was that the Padres didn’t want their good minor leaguers exposed to the Portland atmosphere. It seems as if McAnulty, Robles, and Hensley (those were the names I heard) were pissed about being sent down and made this feeling known.
46, 47: He could have pinch-hit instead of Sledge and Myrow in September.
October 5, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Re: 51 I agree we 100%, but we dont know if that is the Padres plans or not. We had this discusion before the draft and we thought this was the year they were going to take some risks and they stuck with college guys. Thier one risky pick (Toledo) they did not sign because he wanted above “slot” money.
October 5, 2007 at 12:09 pm
41.
Why?
October 5, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Re: 54 he will only cost them $6.5 mil next year and they still have controll of him in 09.
Also with it being Maddux, Hoffy’s and Giles last year on team I think they are going to keep the same core of guys together for one more run. Offering Jones a one year deal kind of shows that as well.
October 5, 2007 at 12:13 pm
re 43: Interesting that MLB characterized $225 million of the debt financing to be McCourt’s personal obligation and not the team’s. Regardless, the Padres should be happy that MLB approved the sale to McCourt. He still has substantial team and personal debt, which coupled with the debt service rules, have in fact acted as a restrictor on Dodger payroll.
Since McCourt has owned the club, the team’s payroll ranking has been consistently below their revenue ranking. They are just now re-starting to spend on a level with the Mets, which should scare Padres fans if Coletti ever figures out how to spend it wisely.
Like others, I too could see a Padre 4th place finish next year if the Dodgers acquire Santana and if they can adequately replace what they lose in such a trade. He has been and is currently that good and can make up the difference in the standings. I could also see the Padres finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd next year
October 5, 2007 at 12:22 pm
51: That’s a false dichotomy. As we’ve seen with two of our last three first overall picks, a safe college pick may be anything but. A lot of busts don’t bust until they hit AA or AAA, so there’s no substantive difference for most of their minor league careers between the safe pick who flames out at AAA and the high-upside pick who does it at AA.
October 5, 2007 at 12:29 pm
39: I think they want to move Mauer for his health, not really because they dont have a stud 3B prospect. This what I hear from Twins fans.
October 5, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I would be ok with the low risk, low reward draft strategy if it was producing something besides injured pitchers.
52: Wow. McAnulty, a guy with no real defense who never really showed anything at the ML level, and Hensley and his injured shoulder thought they were owed a major league gig?
October 5, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Not sure why Catcher would be a problem since Bard was the 7th most valuable C in all of baseball last year.
People don’t appreciate what he does well, very well actually. He gets on base, I know that’s a foreign concept on this team and most people in San Diego would probably think paying Ivan Rodriguez 10M next year would be a good idea……but they need more players like Bard, not less.
October 5, 2007 at 12:40 pm
re Hensley, Robles and McAnulty….that doesn’t even make sense….all of those guys were hurt for significant portions of the year and would have been rehabbing in Arizona, not Portland.
Seems like someone is making up stories about specific guys instead of saying that the team in general sucked and was disfunctional.
Where did you see those specific names?
October 5, 2007 at 12:42 pm
57: The direct relationship between risk and reward isn’t exactly a groundbreaking theory. You misinterpret less risk with no risk. Once again, I don’t think you’re ever going to hear someone explain to you that a AAA bust is more valuable than a AA bust. The point is that a high reward player is more at risk to bust. A low reward player is less likely to bust. The minor league level of the bust is irrelevant. I don’t think this theory is really up for debate. The issue is whether you believe the Padres’ strategy is the appropriate blend of risk and reward, and the quality of the picks within the strategy.
October 5, 2007 at 12:43 pm
59: And thus not so low risk. Jeff Allison’s addiction or a college pitcher with a borrowed ligament in his throwing arm, neither one of them are doing you any good.
That was just the rumor making the rounds. I do not vouch for its accuracy. If I was PMac, I’d be a little aggravated that the Padres hadn’t found a way to use me after I’d hit .300 in the minors for what seems like 20 years.
October 5, 2007 at 12:46 pm
59: Agreed, the question is whether those were bad picks within the low risk/low reward strategy or the Padres just getting burned by bad luck and small sample size. My faith in the FO leads me to the latter, despite the benefit of hindsight, but that’s just faith, no expert opinion
October 5, 2007 at 12:49 pm
61: No, all those guys were first sent to Portland.
McAnulty got 233 at-bats in 63 games, about half a season, in Portland.
Hensley pitched 13 games for Portland, again about half a minor league season’s worth of starts.
Robles talked about going to Mexico when he was sent down. He didn’t, but he did spend 28 games with Portland.
October 5, 2007 at 12:51 pm
55.
The way I see it Jake’s value is at it’s highest now. Any team that trades for him will have 2 years of service at really below market cost for 2 seasons. If we hang on to him we risk him getting hurt or actually going on and winning another CY Young. If he gets hurt then we have to reluctantly pick up an $11mil. option and hope he bounces back in 2009. If he wins another CY or has another great year his FA price goes through the roof and teams will not give up as much for what is most likely a 1 year rental.
Who knows what the front office is thinking but with the holes we have we could potentially get some really premier young talent in return for a player like Peavy. Especially when we know he will not be signed by the Padres for what he will get on the open market.
October 5, 2007 at 12:58 pm
62: Are you defining bust as failure to reach his projected ceiling? Because taking a kid with a low 80s fastball and no curve who’s willing to sign for $100, then watching him get destroyed in rookie league, would seem to qualify as “not a bust” because he did exactly what you would expect him to do. But the pick itself is a bust because it failed to generate any value for the club.
64: Rany J. looked at draft outcomes in detail and found virtually no difference between college and high school pitchers in the value they provide. Yet we continue to act as if college pitchers are far less likely to flame out. That suggests we’re acting on skewed data.
The last 3 drafts they’ve had the opportunity to take approximately 150 players. They’ve reached for less than 10, and signed….what, Peter, 3? Latos, Miller, Breit? I could easily be forgetting a few, but they had 100+ other picks to “stock the system.”
October 5, 2007 at 12:58 pm
re 65: Maybe we’re talking about 2 different things, but how can 3 guys who weren’t even in Portland for more then half the year each be responsible for ruining the team?
Additionally, why would the Padres call up Robles and Hensley late in the season when they clearly had other options at least as effective(at least in Robles case) if they had causing that much trouble?
I’ll ask again, where did the names come from? Friend? Co-Worker? Newspaper article?
October 5, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Re: Santana
I too see the Padres in 4th next year whether LA gets Santana or not. I just can’t imagine that KT can pull enough rabbits out of his hat to do much better than that, certainly not enough to make a run at the division - though I’d love to be wrong.
So, thinking that a window has closed on us, I’d just as soon LA make a deal that helps them in 2008, at a cost farther down the road. I just hope that the Twins strike a hard bargain for as many good Logan White prospects as they can.
Factor in the uncertainty that always comes with pitchers, I’m okay with it even more.
October 5, 2007 at 1:03 pm
66: What the Padres will get for Peavy may not be equal value anyway since teams know that the Padres will not sign Peavy to such high contract. No sense trading him (getting rid of an ace) for a couple of players to fill holes in the lineup.
We don’t know what the FO will do with Peavy, nor do we know that Peavy will leave as a FA for sure.
October 5, 2007 at 1:06 pm
70: I meant that other teams suspect the Padres won’t sign Peavy to a long term high dollar contract.
October 5, 2007 at 1:10 pm
66.
You say we risk him actually winning another Cy Young like it’s a bad thing. If he wins another CYA next year, then chances are extremely likely that the Pads are in contention yet again. In fact, I’d say it’s almost a given. I see no problem with being worried about a future that you are clouldy on, but not when you have a true shot in the present. I would mortgage the future anyday for a sure(r) thing now. And the chances of a pennant in the next two years decrease dramaticly with no Jake.
After all, with this payroll and club history, how often do the Padres actually have a playoff window. We’re not the Pirates, but we are sure not the Braves with a years after years run either.
October 5, 2007 at 1:15 pm
68:
Pmac was sent down in mid-April. He was back and forth, then sent down to Arizona in late July.
Robles was sent down at the end of March, recalled late April, sent down again early June.
Hensley went on the DL in early May, was sent to Portland for rehab mid-May, was optioned to Portland June 1.
There was plenty of overlapping time, and the Portland team as a whole wasn’t doing well. I don’t believe I said they ruined the team, just that they significantly contributed to the crappy attitude. How do you go from “were pissed about being sent down and made this feeling known” to “ruining the team?”
I expect they called them up because they wanted to win more than they wanted to play Big Dad. They weren’t even sure Robles was going to be healthy in time, one reason they called him up was to use him as a DL placemarker for KRod-ish promotions, if needed.
Source: Somebody associated with the Portland team.
October 5, 2007 at 1:15 pm
71.
Teams know that they can get the best pitcher in the National league for less thatn $18mil over the next 2 years they don’t care about knowing if the Padres are going to sign him or not. Nobody expects the Twins to sign Santana back but that won’t effect their trade options.
I really expect the Padres to take a step back for a year or 2 so if we got a good bounty back I would be okay with it. It all depends on what the Padres could pry away from someone. If we could a top outfield or pitching prospect back you would have to seriously consider it.
October 5, 2007 at 1:17 pm
67: No, I should have been more clear, I mean someone that doesn’t contribute to the ML team.
All I’m saying is that when you have no real farm system to speak of, I think it makes sense to employ a low risk/low reward strategy. When that system is well-populated, it makes sense to increase your level of risk. The past few drafts have led me to believe they may be employing such a strategy and this is the year they increase the risk. They very well may not be following this strategy, or perhaps they should have adjusted the risk/reward of past drafts.
Carrillo and Schmidt also present a separate issue. Is that the Padres bad luck and small sample size, low risk doesn’t mean no risk, and their careers are far from over. Or are they doing a poor job assessing the risk/reward of players they draft?
October 5, 2007 at 1:21 pm
75: And I use the terms “low” and “high” in a relative sense with regards to risk and reward
October 5, 2007 at 1:25 pm
75: Counterpoising what the Padres said about the draft beforehand, and what they actually did, leads me to believe they’re locked into the low-risk, low-reward strategy for good. They’ll take the occasional flyer, but that’s what it will be, a flyer, an outlier. And if the risky picks want more than slot and we refuse to pay it, it’s just like not taking them.
October 5, 2007 at 1:26 pm
72.
If the Padres are in contention next year great. Do I expect them to be? No! I guess you put more faith in the 2008 team then I do. I think right now things are very questionable for next year. If they go out and pay for some FA talent or trade some prospects for help it might turn around but since that neither one of those options is really the FO style I remain skeptical about next season.
Peavy winning a CY doesn’t cement that we go to the playoffs by any stretch it doesn’t cement contention. It would help for sure though.
October 5, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Re: 66 I agree with your Logic but trading away peavy for prospects means that the Padres are pretty much throwing in the towel for next year.
Re: 71 It wont matter if teams know the Pads won’t re-sign him, teams will be competing against each other to get him, ie what happens to top players at the trade deadline.
October 5, 2007 at 1:29 pm
77: I’m afraid you may be right
October 5, 2007 at 1:34 pm
79.
A lot of fans will see it that way (if that happens) but it’s really easy to look over at Colorado and Arizona and see the sucess they are having as we speak with kids they developed or traded for. It’s obvious to me that we need to get younger if we want to compete with those guys. They will be good for a long time I’m afraid.
October 5, 2007 at 1:35 pm
78, 79: Yeah, if moving Peavy for prospects is the main move of the winter, then the 2008 season is the longest of shots. At that point, don’t call ANY valuable prospect up until September, because you’re only starting their service time clock early.
I can see ways it would work, as long as there are other moves…..we trade Peavy for a very high-upside AAA pitcher, a solid #4, and some eye candy hitting prospect. The two pitchers work out, the prospect fails. Chris Young stays healthy all year, Maddux has another good year, and Tomko has the best season of his life in the 5th spot. Kouz builds, Antonelli and Headley contribute, and oh yeah, one of the other moves was signing Andruw Jones, who bounces back big. That team could take the NL West. No dominant starting pitching, but good from top to bottom. Still, the odds of those things happening…..not so good.
October 5, 2007 at 1:40 pm
74, 79: I forgot about that fact. It’s not that teams are competing with the Padres but that they will compete against one another to get Peavy from the Padres. Seems like a good situation for the Padres.
I still don’t like the idea of trading Peavy, though. I’m with Steve C in this one, trading him = less chance of success next year.
October 5, 2007 at 1:42 pm
81: Colorado has a good young team, but (and I don’t want to sound bitter at all) they also got incredibly lucky at the end. Any winning streak of more than 8 games, you’ve got Lady Luck on your side. They lose one more in that span and we’re talking about how they came up just short. Bradley doesn’t get hurt and we probably don’t just compete with them, we beat them by a few games and maybe take the division.
The NL West is a much tougher place to compete than it was, but we can still do it without full-blown rebuilding. That’s why the draft worries me so much. It’s going to be extra-hard in this division to win with a 70M payroll and drafting mostly college players who will sign for slot.
October 5, 2007 at 1:44 pm
78.
While it would not make it a lock, typically MVP and CYA winners only come from teams in contention. There are exceptions (Ernie Banks and ARod with Texas for example), but it is usually the norm.
As for how much faith I have? With how Petco plays and considering games in Coors as well, I happen to feel that everything is going to depend on what they do in CF, and to a lesser degree, 2B. A great defense up the middle can cover for a whole lot, especially when it is the primary focus of your team.
Having any faith at all is a tough call for me now though. Every single one of my teams lost last weekend (Pads, Rams, Oregon) and, as a Trailblazer fan, I’m still dealing with Oden’s injury.
October 5, 2007 at 1:48 pm
84.
I agree with you that Co got lucky to be where they are but their long term over look at this point looks much better than ours do you agree?
October 5, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I just think that almost every good team around sucked for a while before they were good. It’s almost the norm. I want to win a World Series more than anything and unless the FO is going to go out and purchase us the best players available then we need to build a little for our future. I guess the real thing I wish was that this FO was in place before PETCO. We have already been through this and because of poor planning or managment or drafting or payroll or every thing top to bottom we are facing it again.
October 5, 2007 at 2:05 pm
OT: I’m working on the player section for next year’s book, and I’d like some feedback. Does anyone have time to look at Adrian’s entry and give comments? There’s no great sense of urgency on this, I just want to make sure the presentation is reasonably clear. Drop me a line if interested…
October 5, 2007 at 2:18 pm
If they move Peavy for prospects this winter(I think there is a better chance of San Diego being struck by earthquake