I’ve been dreading this post (series of posts, really), been avoiding the subject for several months because it’s complex and difficult to frame. I’m still not ready to write about it in any meaningful way, but we can’t put it off any longer. Maybe the exercise itself will help us.
The Problem
Mike Cameron‘s contract is up. He turns 35 years old in January, which makes him a long-term risk. There are few top-tier free agents at the center field position, which means that the players should have the upper hand. In this climate, and with no viable in-house candidates, the Padres must decide whether to bring back Cameron or explore other possibilities.
The Questions
The answers to some of these are obvious, or at least seem obvious, but they still need to be asked. You never want to overlook something because you took it for granted as true without examining it.
This is hardly an exhaustive list, but here are a few points we should consider:
- What do the Padres need in a center fielder? Specifically, what skills are required to play the position for 81 games at Petco Park, and
189 (d’oh!) more each at Coors Field and PhoneCo (it may help to compare and contrast Cameron and his predecessor, Dave Roberts)? - What will it cost to re-sign Cameron, in terms of both dollars and years?
- What skills does Cameron currently possess, and how much will those erode over the course of his next contract?
- What other options are available for filling the position, and how much will they cost in terms of either players (i.e., trade) or money and possibly draft picks (i.e., free agent signing)?
- Do the Padres need a long-term solution, or will someone within the organization (Brad Chalk, Cedric Hunter, Danny Payne, Yordany Ramirez, etc.) be ready in a year or two?
I’m reaching in the dark here. We keep throwing out names, but without proper framing of the problem, we might as well be throwing darts. Before we get too involved in the details, we must ask ourselves what the goal is.
In its most basic form, the goal is to procure a center fielder for 2008 and possibly beyond. Digging a little deeper, the goal is to do this at a cost that keeps the organization as flexible as possible so that it can continue to attack problems on other fronts as they arise.
I’ve got some theories of my own on the above questions, but I’d like to hear your thoughts before revealing those. I’d also like to know if there are any additional questions that I’m missing. Yes, I know, this is a tedious way to attack the problem, but I think in the long run, it will be much more effective than throwing darts.
Winter Leagues
Moving from the abstract to the concrete…
- Surprise 10, Saguaros 5 (box). Matt Antonelli (.188/.235/.250) started at second and batted eighth, doubling in four trips to the plate. Neil Jamison surrendered two runs on three hits in the ninth.
- Hermosillo 4, Navojoa 1 (box). Oscar Robles (.258/.324/.387), batting second and playing shortstop, went 0-for-3 with a walk. Luis Cruz (.250/.345/.417), batting seventh and playing second base, went 1-for-4 and drove in his team’s only run.
Also, the Dominican Republic opened its season on Wednesday. Box scores were not available as of this writing, but I did find team assignments for two Padres.
The aforementioned Ramirez is playing for Licey. D’Angelo Jimenez is also on this team. How is he only 29?
Outfielder Vince Sinisi is on the Escogido roster. His teammates include former Padres Miguel Olivo and Freddy Guzman, as well as some guy named Alex Rodriguez.
95: Any player who gets to 2 strikes has a much higher chance of striking out, obviously. I’d like to see how many defensive swings result in anything other than a single. A defensive swing triple? HR? How often does that happen for all teams across a sesaon? Once or twice? Yippee.
100: All those occurrences, added together, mean very little. A couple of seeing-eye grounders get through…..but the player who takes a full cut might get 1 HR. Most botched DPs end with a runner on first, rather than second, and by far most possible DPs are turned.
Extremely low strikeout guys are usually more in the Randall Simon mold than DiMaggio or Ted Williams. You ask most players to cut down on K’s, you’re going to see a reduction in other useful skills.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617
“there is a distinct, positive correlation between an individual’s strikeout rate and a number of useful attributes: hitting for power—as represented in this case by isolated power (ISO, or slugging percentage minus batting average) and slugging percentage (SLG)—as well as drawing walks—as represented by walk-rate (BB/PA).”
100, again: Where’s the cutoff for your acceptance of strikeouts? 20+ HR, 20+ SB, a (usual) 340 OBP, 60 XBH, Gold Glove defense, that guy’s costing you games because he strikes out too much?
32: Peter, I don’t disagree with you at all on player development as the way to go, but all of those teams have supplemented their homegrown players with players acquired via FA or trade.
The Padres have a pressing need in CF. Andruw Jones is ONE player. I am not advocating throwing out the Padres’ emphasis on player development. My suggestion of signing Jones to a multi-year deal is more along the lines of 4 years at 16 per with an option for a 5th. Anything less will not bring him here. I also am not suggesting that we give him 100+. I do happen to believe that this past year was a blip, and that we can expect years closer to his career norms going forward.
More importantly I think he would provide superior defense to most of the CF options that we have discussed. As he ages, it’s not inconceivable that he could slide over to RF with a Hunter or Payne in CF.
A lineup with Jones could look like this: RF Giles, CF Jones, LF Kouz, 1b Gonzalez, 2B Antonelli/Stopgap 2B, SS Greene, 3B Ensberg/Headley, C Bard.
That’s certainly good enough to compete for the division next season, while continuing an emphasis on younger players. The Padres are in real danger of finishing 4th if they continue their plug and play approach. Is anyone really excited about an outfield consisting of Hairston, Crisp, and Giles? If they want to compete for the division next season, they are going to have to try and take a risk by either increasing our payroll to make up the difference or trading some of our more mature prospects for a player that might make up that difference. Just by adding Jones, the Padres can save some of those youngsters for themselves.
Way OT: but for everyone who does not like the mighty XX, Xtra sports is going to make a return to SD on Nov 1st.
http://sdradio.net/2007/10/16/air-america-to-hd-radio-xtra-sports-1360/
It will be nice to see XX get a little local competition, force them to put out a better product.
#87 – Who of the list of bench players that the Pads have control over next year do you think they will keep? Anyone have any other thoughts –
Morgan Ensberg – Decent bat off the bench – Can he learn another position ?
Jason Lane- Will be back -decent speed and has proved (though been a couple of years) that he can perform at this level.
Luis Rodriguez- The signing of Rodriguez is simply insurance. Not sure why people are agitated with this signing. Why not ? Can we have to many versatile utility infielders ? Robles may not be back and what if Blum were to get hurt. Stansberry still unproven.
Terrmel Sledge- WILL NOT BE BACK (Thank god) –
Scott Hairston – BENCH PLAYER ? I project him as a starter.
Paul McAnulty – AAA in Spring. May get ONE more crack.
#103 Prediction : Antonelli will not be ready for this level. I am surprised that people even pencil him at this point as a potential starter. It’s simply not realistic.
The Pads should not employ a stopgap option. Do we really want to see Blum start 80-100 games at second. Please god…no. Can we not get a legit. starter in here to play second base ?
W/ Hacksaw as broadcaster, XX doesn’t have much competition…
“East County, do you hear me? Let’s get these phones lit up…”
Yeah but im a fan of Dave and Jeff even though they are Raider fans. It will be alot better to listen to them in the morn than scott & BR or Cowherd
ohhh, I’m a big Cowherd fan… He’s out there and he doesn’t know squat about baseball, but he’s right on when it comes to college football (my other favorite)….
104: It agitates me because we’ve devoted 4 roster spots to the least important role on the team. Last year we claimed Stansberry and it cost us Soria. Then we didn’t even use Stansberry.
105: Team officials have said they’d like Antonelli to get the job. Why would you be surprised to see fans reacting to that?
The problem with a legit starter is they want multiple year deals. They may need one anyway if they move Antonelli to CF based on shaky defense. His bat will play there, too.
Great stuff today. Playing catch-up here:
#40: Thanks, LM, for welcoming Gracie. How caddish of me not to do so myself. A belated welcome, Gracie!
#55: You raise a good point about contrarian tendencies. This particular debate is so old that I’ve forgotten it’s still being contested.
#64: Now that is a beautiful use of B-R.
#73: One of the reasons we study these things is that often what we see with our own eyes doesn’t tell the whole story, or even an accurate story.
#75: Simon’s mother.
#78: This makes no sense. Boston fans must be lusting after Peavy again.
#80: Could replace Brady Clark.
#88: Agreed about P-Mac. He could have Mark Sweeney’s career if someone gives him the chance.
#110: In the Padres’ defense, how many pitchers have succesfully jumped to the big leagues after 16 2/3 innings in the minors, all below High-A ball? What Soria did this year is remarkable.
Adding a name to the Kouz-type solution for CF: Val Majewski out of Baltimore’s system. Hasn’t hit like he did before shoulder surgery in 2005 and I don’t know about his defense, but if he can play center I’d rather have a guy like that than Crisp.
On Soria, it’s not that I’d have expected the Padres to promote him to the majors. But we had absolute chaff on the 40 man roster when we chose not to add him. Linebrink showed us what a big-time fastball can do, even without secondary stuff, and Soria was still young. How do you protect guys like Stauffer and Stansberry over him? Makes me wonder about the Padre scouts who thought he didn’t have a strikeout pitch. We need to do a better job of knowing our own players.
#112: But would you have expected Soria to stick with anyone in the big leagues this year? I have a hard time faulting our scouts for not “knowing” the guy on the basis of 16 2/3 pro innings. The Royals went after a long-shot and it worked; good for them.
112: It’s not knowing or not knowing our players it’s having a good sense about what other teams will let through the system…
Also, wasn’t Stansberry added to the 40-man late in the season? He wasn’t on it all season was he?
Peter, leave hacksaw alone….
111 … yo … word of the day alert!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caddish
re: Soria … I’m on TW’s side on this one … losing Soria to Rule 5 draft was a huge mistake by somebody in the Padres org … a low-budget team can not make mistakes like that …
#116: On what basis should the Padres have anticipated that Soria would be able to make the jump from essentially Rookie ball to the big leagues and that another team would be willing and able to use a roster spot to test this theory? Is there a precedent for what Soria did? Johan Santana doesn’t count because a) he spent an entire season in the Midwest League before being snagged in the Rule V and b) he got pasted in his first year with Minnesota.
I’d like to know why the Padres should have thought that Soria would be claimed in the Rule V draft and stick with a big-league club despite having pitched fewer than 20 professional innings. Someone help me understand how, without benefit of hindsight, that seemed like a reasonable outcome.
Wow some great discussions here.
Thanks, Ben B for the data. That was very informative and useful in deciding whether or not Cameron is good at the plate. I still think he’s useful for the Padres, just not at the price that he’ll command at the market. Of course, what is the baseline of a useful CF at Petco Park for the Padres. We agree that the player will have to be excellent (at least very good) with the glove. What’s the line for the bat?
117: regarding Soria, I have no problem that he was claimed given his stats that were based on very small sample. What I have problem with is the fact that the Padres didn’t use Stansberry at all and, instead, kept him and Robles as insurance policy for Silent L. I’d rather have a fireballer waiting in the wing for possible trade later.
#110 re: Antonelli “Team officials say…” Perhaps it is the cynical Political Science teacher in me speaking , but I never trust or take much stock in early Hot Stove posturing on a player. Perhaps they are simply trying to “jack up” his trade value or attempting to let other teams believe that they are “o.k” at second base so that when they shop, teams will not have them over a barrell. Of course I could be wrong, but I saw him play live and my immediate reaction was that he is not ready yet. Granted, I am certainly no expert, but the 22 year old Antonelli needs to mature a little bit more physically.
119: That may be true, but you acted genuinely flabbergasted that fans would think he might be ready. Non-Padre evaluators have said he might be ready, too. I don’t know if he is or not, but you can’t act like everybody who believes so is in fantasyland.
Soria:
There are three different aspects to this.
1. The Padres own flawed evaluation of him, regardless of his susceptibility to the Rule 5 draft. A pitcher without a strikeout pitch whose American K/9 was over 10, whose K/9 in the Mexican League was over 8, and had one of the fastballs in the system. Other organizations saw him as having 3 above average pitches. Soria didn’t play much in the United States, but he threw as much as most relievers in the Mexican League
2. His attractiveness in the Rule 5 draft. We didn’t need to know that other teams were zeroing in on him to know that what all teams covet is young pitching with upside. We knew before the Rule 5 happened that teams were looking at him; look at BA’s Rule 5 coverage, the “big buzz” on Soria. There were at least 9 teams who, if they were honest with themselves, knew they had no chance to compete this year. Those are 9 teams who might be willing to carry a pitcher like Soria. The Padres have carried Rule 5 pitchers even when we thought we could win.
3. The ultimate value of the player we chose to put on the 40 man roster – Stansberry. You can pick guys like Stansberry up as free agents every spring training without spending a 40 man roster spot on him. That’s not a hindsight judgment based on the team’s unwillingness to use Stansberry when NOG was bad and because Blum can’t hit LHP. A utility infielder for a team that already had Blum and Cruz was unnecessary.
114: Stansberry was on all year. The Pirates put him on waivers to try and get him off their 40 man.