Friday Links (30 Nov 07)
Fri, Nov 30, 2007
by Geoff Young
Boom goes the dynamite:
- Caution expected at Winter Meetings (Padres.com, via Ben B. in the comments). Quoth GM Kevin Towers:
We’ve been more active in trade discussions. We have always had more success with trades than free agency. Free agency is such an unknown. There are no guarantees. That’s why I like to look at my trade options first.
Cries of “cheap” to follow from the masses.
- Sledge to Japan (San Diego Union-Tribune, via Ian C. in the comments). Terrmel Sledge has signed a 2-year, $2.85 million deal with the Nippon Ham Fighters. I hope he has a nice career over there, and I’m not being even a little facetious. For whatever reason (injuries?), we never saw the Sledge that had performed so well in Montreal.
- Mailbag: What’s the latest with Greene? (Padres.com, via KRS1 in the comments). Corey talks about a bunch of stuff, including the third-base and center-field situations.
- Speaking of center field, 322 Feet is running a series looking at options for 2008: incumbents, free agents, and trade candidates. Yeah, I’m a big Xavier Nady fan (in the sense that I want to see him do well), but that Chase Headley for Nady and Nate McLouth rumor is garbage. One name in the list of trade candidates that I hadn’t thought of before intrigues me: Oakland’s Travis Buck. If he’s a legitimate center fielder, then… well, then why is he available? You know, even if he’s a corner guy, I’d be okay with that. Dude can rake. Yeah, I’d be real okay with Buck in just about any capacity.
- If not Cameron . . . who? (San Diego Union-Tribune). Tim Sullivan offers his thoughts. I’ve been hearing talk of Andruw Jones for a while, and I think Towers says it better than I can:
My history of dealing with Scott Boras is that Andruw Jones is not going to happen any time soon.
- Early Rule 5 Preview (Baseball America). Chris Kline throws out a few interesting names, including Cleveland’s Brian Barton, who we’d previously identified as a potential trade target. Not sure he can play a legit center, though.
- Top 50 Prospects (MiLB.com, via Steve C. in the comments). Matt Antonelli and Headley check in at #27 and #29, respectively.
- Top 30 prospects: Overview and random thoughts (Friar Forecast). Speaking of prospects, MB is preparing to unleash his list of Padres prospects. This post explains a bit of his thought process and touches on the philosophical problems inherent in creating such lists, which I really like. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy prospect lists (just like I enjoy player projections), but I take them with more grains of salt than I did, say, five years ago. Anyway, I like MB’s approach, and I’m looking forward to the series.
- Comparing K/100 Pitches with K/9 IP (Baseball Analysts, via Didi in the comments). Rich revisits an alternative way to measure a pitcher’s ability to miss bats. Be sure to read the comments as well.
- Keltner List: Fred McGriff (Braves Journal). Mac Keltnerizes the former Padre first baseman. Personally, I think the Crime Dog’s biggest, er, crime was spending much of his career in an era that just preceded an offensive explosion. He never hit more than 37 home runs in a season, but twice led his league in that category (including in ‘92 with the Pads).
- A zone of their own (Hardball Times). Jonathan Hale examines the strike zones of various home plate umpires. This is a fascinating line of research, and I’ll be interested to see where it leads.
Happy Friday…
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.
November 30, 2007 at 9:02 am
Does it make me one of the masses to point out that we don’t know any more about a player we trade for than one we sign in free agency? Nor that traded players also do not come with guarantess? Often you know less, since free agents have been playing in the majors for 6 years while many of our trade targets are youngsters.
The Padres don’t favor trades because there’s more data or the players are more likely to work out. It’s because there’s less financial risk. That’s good reasoning, nothing I have a kick at. You’re almost always going to overpay for free agents.
I don’t see many attractive free agents out there of the kind that would require big money. I’d rather spend 10 million on multiple reclamation project pitchers than for one season of Carlos Silva.
November 30, 2007 at 9:06 am
Re: 1 well said!
November 30, 2007 at 9:31 am
Yup…I had the same thought…What do you mean “such an unknown”…everything in baseball is an unknown. If he is saying the risk is higher b/c of the cash involved, ok, but every trade is unknown…
November 30, 2007 at 9:33 am
1: Unfortunately the Padres history of not making large financial commitments, combined with the touchiness of the fan base over this issue means that KT can’t come out and say that so he has to say silly things like that. How is Andruw Jones more of an unknown right now than he would be if he were under contract and the Braves were shopping him?
Ken Rosenthal has some Padres tidbits, although nothing really new:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7506740
-Peavy wants to be a long term Padre but the team’s track record isn’t good. I just can’t see the Padres being willing to offer even a 4/$60M contract for Peavy, which would be well below what he’d get as a free agent. And I do agree with Peavy that he can’t sign for below market value because that hurts his fellow players. I hate to say it but if the Padres are more than 8 games out at the deadline they have to trade him.
He also reiterates the Headley for Nady/McLousy rumors and says that Tampa and Philly are also in on Geoff Jenkins. Says Barrett might accept arbitration if the Pads offer it.
I wouldn’t mind Barrett splitting time with Bard but that seems like a waste of $4+ mil. Why not pick up a minimum salary defensive specialist and spend the money where it will make more of an impact? And couldn’t Barrett get a Torrealba/Kendall type deal somewhere?
November 30, 2007 at 9:45 am
133 at bats, 2 walks. I don’t need to see that again, if he is Barrett is playing for free.
November 30, 2007 at 9:57 am
#1: The problem is that you’ve given the issue careful consideration, which pretty much eliminates your chances of being “one of the masses.”
November 30, 2007 at 10:11 am
According to MLBTradeRumors.com:
According to SNY via Metsblog as well as WFAN, the Mets have traded Lastings Milledge to the Nationals for Brian Schneider and Ryan Church.
November 30, 2007 at 10:39 am
Re 4: Actually, the Padres do have at least some track record on offering premium pitchers. They offered Kevin Brown 4 years and a large sum ($60 million?) to stay after the 1998 season. I don’t see why they couldn’t offer Peavy the same (he has less leverage) or more (the prices have only skyrocketed since), although he probably would reject it if he is in it for the cash like Santana is.
November 30, 2007 at 10:44 am
Re: 4 4Years/$60 M is way to low I think 5 Years/$80M would be the minimum.
November 30, 2007 at 10:49 am
Re: 7 hmmm interesting deal
November 30, 2007 at 11:01 am
8: The problem with the Kevin Brown contract is that not every pitcher is Kevin Brown. It’s like the Ryan Leaf thing … you can’t stop drafting quarterbacks in the first round because one guy was a flame out. I bet the guys who picked before the Chargers don’t regret the guy they picked with the #1 overall pick.
When Tom Glavine signed with the Mets the contract was mostly derided, but it worked out pretty well even in his decline years.
When you start talking yourself out of the best players in baseball because the contract is for too many years, you damn yourself to eternal mediocrity, eternal barrel-scraping. If you can replace a B-grade veteran with someone from the farm, do it; but you can’t replace Jake Peavy with Tim Stauffer or Justin Germano or even a free agent like Bartolo Colon or Carlos Silva. Players like him aren’t replaceable.
If you re-sign him for a long contract and it doesn’t work out, those are the breaks. But if you let him walk out the door over # of years, you don’t really have a chance in the first place.
November 30, 2007 at 11:15 am
the Kevin Brown offer was 6yrs/$60m
November 30, 2007 at 11:20 am
Re: 11 you cant compare NFL contracts to MLB contracts, NFL contracts are not guaranteed and there is a salary cap so players cant demand a salary that is a quarter of your payroll because he would not be able to make that much with a team in a larger market. I think we all have learned in San Diego what can happen to a team when long term deals don’t work out so well. Even giant market teams such as the red sox shy away from giving long term deals to players because of the risks involved (although I have no idea what happened with the Drew deal). If the Padres tie up a quarter of their payroll into a guy that plays once every 5 days that may end up crippling their team, also if he gets hurt for a long period of time and can no longer contribute to the team then it will be a crushing blow to them over the length of the contract. Under the current ownership the Padres payroll will never be high enough to be able to pay for mistakes over the long haul so big contracts for long periods of time just don’t make sense.
November 30, 2007 at 11:22 am
11.
Yeah but don’t you take a risk at losing out on players you could get if you trade Jake as well? If we sign Jake and he gets hurt (a lot of people see him as a high risk guy because of his delivery) 20-25% of our payroll is totally gone. No matter how much I love Jake I have a real problem paying a guy who plays every 5 days that much of your total payroll. If you could get top prospects for him in return especially top pitching prospects like Hughes or Bucholz at least you are giving yourself some future insurance. It’s a really tough position for everyone I think. I love Jake but I wouldn’t sign him for market value. Then again prospects don’t always translate to stars. I think that with the edge that Petco gives our pitchers if Jake could bring us a top teir pitching prospect and a top outfield prospect I would pull the trigger. Something basically along the lines of what we are hearing Santana might fetch.
November 30, 2007 at 11:39 am
8: “In it for the cash?” I don’t want to put words in your keyboard, but that sounds critical. Aren’t the Padres in it for the cash? Doesn’t Peavy have the same capitalist right to make money that John Moores does? And while Moores has a big philanthropic side, billionaire Carl Pohlad is near to an unreformed Ebenezeer Scrooge. He’s held Minnesota’s feet to the fire to build him a new park with little or none of his own money while he rakes in millions from revenue sharing and the new media deals, but Santana’s “in it for the cash?”
11: Yeah. These kind of discussions always tend to focus on the FA deals that teams regret, rather than the ones that work out well. Nobody says “Wow, the Braves must really regret having paid Andruw Jones 75 million for the last 6 years.” All that bought was an average 120 OPS+ and plus defense at a critical position. The Cardinals got a World Series title with some aging players who signed big free agent deals. They might wish those deals were shorter now, but they don’t regret that trophy.
November 30, 2007 at 11:47 am
Re: 15 both players were not pitchers and both teams had +$30M more to spend on payroll each year. With the current ownership group the Padres just dont have the payroll to sign players to big money deals.
November 30, 2007 at 11:52 am
Re 15: not intended to be critical; just a fact of life in most player contracts. Some players take discounts or have other motivating factors; some don’t. The Padres, given their financial situation, need to be prepare to lose most of their home grown premium or even good players when they reach free agency; how they deal with that is important in terms of trades or simply holding the player to his contract and accepting draft pick compensation
I have seen no evidence that the Padres themselves are in it for the cash, unless you mean in it to lose the least amount of money possible or, God forbid, break even on a yearly basis while still trying to maintain a competitive team. No question that penurious owners like Carl Pohlad or the guys in KC and Pittsburgh and maybe even Tampa were making money on a yearly basis. Big timers like Steinbrenner and Henry probably do too, but they do a better job of hiding it through interested party transactions.
November 30, 2007 at 11:56 am
Look at the ridiculous contracts garnered by guys like Linebrink. Aren’t the Padres doing the right thing by first scouting and then bringing players in that are much, much more reasonably priced and also more effective like Thatcher or Meredith ? Is this being cheap ? Hardly. It’s being (baseball/business saavy) smart. The Padres DON’T sign free agents simply to make the fans here happy or appear that they are spending the big bucks to build a winner.
November 30, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Sledge and Yu Darvish on the same team? The Fighters should easily win the award for ugliest team next year.
November 30, 2007 at 12:27 pm
16: The Braves don’t regret the free agent contracts they gave Maddux, Glavine, or Smoltz either. And baseball revenues are far greater than they are now.
The Padres don’t want to sign big FA deals because of the risk they represent, which is fine. It’s a lot different than not being able to.
November 30, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Re: 20 your 100% correct, and im sure the red sox dont regret signing Varitek, Ortiz, and Beckett to long term deals as well but they also have the payroll flexability to sign big name guys to big money deals and still have payroll left to fill out the rest of the roster.
The rangers regret signing A-rod even though he did put up great numbers there, the Rockies prob regret signing Helton, the Royals prob regrest signing Sweeney ect… mid market teams end up killing thier payroll when they sign guys to a big money long term deal.
Can the Padres expand payroll? I dont know no one has see their books. Will the Padres expand their payroll? Not with Moores writing the checks.
November 30, 2007 at 1:32 pm
21: The Rangers regret signing Arod because they’re not a well-run organization. They scapegoated the best player in the game. The contracts given to Park and Michael Young are far more egregious and harmful to the Rangers’ ability to compete.
“Mid market teams end up killing their payroll when they sign guys to a big money long term deal.”
Sometimes. Sometimes they don’t. It depends on which guy they sign. St. Louis is a mid-market team (21st DMA). Minneapolis claims to be a small market team and the Hunter deal didn’t cripple them.
Of course it’s easier for big market teams to overcome financial mistakes. It doesn’t then follow that all big contracts are bad for all smaller teams.
November 30, 2007 at 1:33 pm
OT … a mini-moneyball update …
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne.....;type=lgns
… I love the concept of “moneyball” … it’s always changing …
November 30, 2007 at 1:40 pm
the Cardinals cover a lot of the Midwest not just StL, also their payroll is $30M more than the Pads. You are correct if you run your org right you can have 1 big deal ie Hunter in Minnesota (although they cant afford him anymore) and Chavez in Oakland, but both teams have let a lot of stars get away because they just simply cant afford to (or just wont) pay them.
November 30, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Regarding 2B, the Padres should try and trade for Chris Burke from the Astros. The Astros just signed Kazuo Matsui and Burke has been in the doghouse with that team for a couple of season now. I think he won’t cost much and he’ll be a good place holder for Antonelli until the ASB.
November 30, 2007 at 2:01 pm
13: I wasn’t comparing contracts, I was comparing high-profile mistakes.
I’m not saying the Padres should overpay for Peavy. But if he’s willing to take a reasonable annual salary, you have to be willing to give him more years than you’d otherwise like. He isn’t just any pitcher: he’s a perennial Cy Young candidate, and probably will be as long as he stays healthy (and in the NL!).
As far as Peavy’s health is concerned: yeah, he might get hurt. If he signed a big deal and got hurt, it would be a disaster. But the alternative is to continue to cultivate young pitchers in their controlled years, and hope that a few of them are better than league average. By the time they mature, it’s time to ship them somewhere else. And every year the team will top out at 90 wins as a best case scenario, and never really have a chance against an AL squad even if they somehow squeak through the NL (unlikely).
I’m not saying that the Padres have to re-sign Peavy. If his requested annual salary is just too much (i.e. more than 20mil/per), or if the Padres don’t realistically think they have a good chance to win even with him, do a Billy Beane and put him on the market. But if you think you’ve got a chance, pull the trigger and give yourself a chance to excel, not just overachieve.
November 30, 2007 at 2:02 pm
24: Their payroll is what they spend, it’s not a reflection of how much they can. St. Louis’ DMA is 21, SD is 27. St. Louis used to have a bigger reach, but baseball expansion’s over the last forty years cut way into that. It’s a lot of radio, too, which isn’t big money. Their revenue in 2005 was 165 million compared to 160 for us. They had a 2.7 million advantage in operating income. Big gap?
“Won’t” is the word for most teams. Oakland has a harder payroll, and even they were up to 79 million in 2007.
November 30, 2007 at 2:05 pm
25: I was thinking about Burke, too, but his offensive numbers are nasty. An 80 OPS+ for his career.
26: Well said.
November 30, 2007 at 2:11 pm
27 I agree that its a wont scenario for the Padres. They won’t expand thier payroll to match the Cards under Moores, I dont know if the can or not but I do know that they won’t, but in all honesty I dont care what thier payroll is, if they can win with a $5M payroll id be happy.
November 30, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Look at the ridiculous contracts garnered by guys like Linebrink. Aren’t the Padres doing the right thing by first scouting and then bringing players in that are much, much more reasonably priced and also more effective like Thatcher or Meredith ? Is this being cheap ? Hardly. It’s being (baseball/business saavy) smart. The Padres DON’T sign free agents simply to make the fans here happy or appear that they are spending the big bucks to build a winner.
There’s a difference between wasting money on a middle-reliever or a veteran mid-tier outfielder, since both are largely renewable resources. I don’t want the Padres to go out and sign a Craig Monroe-type or sign Linebrink long-term. I don’t want to sign Torii Hunter when I already have Gary Matthews. I don’t want to sign Mark Derosa to a huge contract to be a utility player.
But there isn’t a place you can go to get a Jake Peavy.
November 30, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Given KT’s trading record over the last few years, I think his statement about focusing on trades versus FA signings is just fine with me.
We would not have been 2-time division champs w/o that Texas deal he made that brought in Gonzo and CY, and the core of the bullpen was also built by good deals made.
However, standing pat with what we have (and that means bringing back Cameron - sorry - I’m not on board with that) isn’t going to result in a better team with a better record next year. I expect there to be more deals that come our way, and hopefully ones that we’ll look back on this time next year in the same way we look at the Texas, Boston, and NYM trades from 2+ years ago.
November 30, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Re: 31 standing pat would look like this:
RF: Giles
CF: Hairston
1B: A-Gon
3B: Kouz
SS: Greene
C: Bard
2B: E-Gon
LF: Headley
I think that may give the rockies line up a good run for thier money - j/k
November 30, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Boy, is Mets Fan pissed off today or what?:
http://myespn.go.com/s/convers.....ry/3135406
Omar Minaya is getting cracked over the head for the Milledge trade - KLaw just skewered him for that move and Mets fan is piling on big time. Too bad the Pads couldn’t take advantage of their largesse and ended up with Milledge plugged into his natural position (CF)…
Just another reason I’m thankful that we’ve got KT.
November 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm
26.
“By the time they mature, it’s time to ship them somewhere else. And every year the team will top out at 90 wins as a best case scenario, and never really have a chance against an AL squad even if they somehow squeak through the NL (unlikely)”
Yeah maybe but it didn’t seem like the case for Florida.
I see what you are saying but my point is that I wouldn’t spend anywhere close to 20% of my payroll for the next 5 or 6 years on a power pitcher with a quirkly delivery. He only plays every 5th day and I think he is a serious injury risk. If we can get premium, young, cheap talent that can fill holes in our lineup for years to come I don’t see how you can pass it up. I’m talking about guys like Hughes, Chaimberlin, Bucholz, Ellsbury, Brignac, Jay Bruce, Maybin, Homer Bailey, Andrew McCuthen. Studs not just average players.
If the prospects fail (Hughes almost threw a no hitter this year and Bucholz did) then at the least we still have that payroll to spare on someone else. If Jake goes down then we are up a creek! Don’t forget it was only a year ago we were all sitting here talking about Jake and his list of weird injuries and lack of dominance in big game situations where we all leaned on him to get us a win.
Once again I love Jake but if we get a package comparable to what we keep hearing Santana or Bedard could get I’d gladly cash that check and fill some holes.
November 30, 2007 at 3:46 pm
It’s too bad we couldn’t get involved on any of the players in the Mets-Nats trade. Church or Milledge would have been nice targets.
November 30, 2007 at 4:15 pm
4: Re: backup catching options. There are no minimum salary defensive specialists available. Jose Molina, who must be a defensive specialist because he has a career 64 OPS+ and is 32, signed for 2 years, $4 million with the Yankees. I like the idea of going with Colt Morton as the backup, so hopefully Barrett will decline arbitration, but it’s not that terrible if he accepts. Brian Schneider, who the Mets just traded an actual valuable player to get, will make $5 million a year the next two years, and he had OPS+ of 77 and 72 the last two years. So there is hope someone would be willing to pay Barrett to start, and I’d bet Barrett would rather sacrifice a little money to start somewhere and/or get a longer term deal.
November 30, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Insurance,while expensive, minimizes the risk of injuries on a long term deal. The Pads likely recoup 1/2 or more if Jake gets injured.
November 30, 2007 at 6:38 pm
35: I agree. If that’s all that it took to get Lastings Milledege, I wish that we had been in on the talks.
November 30, 2007 at 8:18 pm
4: Surely there’s got to be some minor league free agent AAAA type catchers with good arms out there, no? I can’t see us spending $4+ million on a backup catcher. I have to think if KT offers arbitration to Barrett it’s with an under the table deal that he won’t take it.
December 1, 2007 at 3:18 am
Is it smart for Barrett to decline though? Barrett liked it in SD, and if he can’t find substantial playing time elsewhere he would surely accept.
December 1, 2007 at 3:22 am
“If Barrett declines arbitration the club would likely go after free agents Paul Lo Duca or Damian Miller.”
And suddenly I’m praying Barrett comes back. It sounds like he almost certainly will accept arbitration.
http://www.nctimes.com/article....._30_07.txt
December 1, 2007 at 7:56 am
It is funny…I am pretty sure that barret’s track record suggests that the last 1/2 of the 2007 season was a bit of a fluke. The last 3 years his OPS+ was 108, 110, 121…in that order. A good trend line to say the least.
Will he rebound in 2008? I don’t know, but if I am the Padres, I think it is a pretty smart gamble, unless he is a clubhouse cancer…
All that to say, I sorta hope he accepts arbitration. He is another guy that could prove to be 1. Valuable to the Pads as a bat off the bench and a 2 games a week catcher 2. Valuable trade commodity come July if there is an injury or need elsewhere.
December 1, 2007 at 9:12 am
I am seeing the packages being offered for Haren and I wonder why we are not hearing about the Pads dangling Peavy a bit more. Maybe Towers is doing it VERY QUIETLY…if he is, kudos.
I am begining to think that, much like OBP a couple of seasons ago, frontline starters might be a bit overvalued. Are they valuable? No question…Are they so valuable that you should not trade them for 2 top “can’t miss” types and other parts? No way, Jose.
Like I said the other day, I love me some Peavy, but if the market is as gaga over front line starters like him, then we really need to explore that. I would venture to guess that we would be pleasantly surprised as to what he would bring.
**Especially if you included KG in the package!
**
December 1, 2007 at 10:31 am
From ESPN MLB Rumor section:
“The Padres are among the clubs trying to trade for Cubs pitcher Mark Prior, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. Prior, a San Diego native, has made it known he wants to pitch for the Padres.
The Cubs can retain Prior by offering him a contract by Dec. 12. But Prior, who made $3.65 million last season without pitching because of injury, could make it more expensive for the Cubs to keep him by taking negotiations to arbitration.
Padres GM Kevin Towers and Prior are San Diego neighbors. Towers has chatted with Prior after crossing paths with him on morning walks. “He doesn’t live too far from here, which is good,” Towers told the newspaper.
Towers and Cubs GM Jim Hendry have made three trades over the past two seasons. Sending Prior to the Padres, the Cubs probably would dip into the San Diego farm system a third time. This year, the Cubs inquired about Single-A second baseman Rayner Contreras, Double-A pitcher Wade Leblanc and Double-A left fielder Chad Huffman.
Prior went 18-6 with a 2.43 ERA in 2003, but injuries limited him to 57 games over the past four seasons. He underwent shoulder surgery in April and probably won’t be ready before May.”
December 1, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Bring in Prior.
Do you trade any of the three prospects mentioned for him? My personal choice of the three to go would be Contreras, as he’s the farthest away.
He probably has the most upside too, I’d guess.
December 1, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Padres sign Wolf:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7512772
December 1, 2007 at 2:51 pm
46: Maybe if we can sign Prior too, Wolf and Prior can combine to equal the starts of 1 starter.
December 1, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Contreras was rated the 31st best Padres prospect coming into the year by Baseball America. They have a scouting report available on him in the link below. He hit .276/.330/.414 in Ft. Wayne as a 20 year old this year. He sounds like a nice guy to have in the system, but if you can get a guy that will help you at the major league level for your 31st best prospect, I think you make that trade.
http://www.baseballamerica.com.....63152.html
December 1, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I like the Wolf signing, assuming the money is reasonable (I’m sure it is, we’re talking about the Padres after all). Are we going to become the destination of choice for rehabbing free agent pitchers? It makes sense for guys like that to sign here at a reduced price to take advantage of the park.
Prior is definitely worth taking a chance on, I’d give up any of those guys.
December 1, 2007 at 5:11 pm
BP had Huffman as the 7th(off the top of my head) best outfield corner prospect in baseball last year……I wouldn’t let that stop me from dealing him for Prior who is one of the most talented pitchers in the game(can anyone really say he won’t get healthy and have a Chris Carpenter type run?) but with Antonelli taking over 2B dealing Contreras would be a lot easier to stomach especially after the type of year LeBlanc just had.
December 1, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I could see Huffman in the OF as soon as ‘09.
December 1, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I’ll be shocked if they move LeBlanc for Prior. As others have said, Contreras seems the best solution if the Cubs are taking just one player back.
December 1, 2007 at 7:05 pm
50: I agree. I wouldn’t mind moving Huffman for Prior either. It might be nice to get a low-level arm back from the Cubbies if we were giving up our 7th best prospect…
December 1, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I would not move Huffman or Leblanc for a player in which they only have control over for one year, who can’t pitch untill May, and even then is ahuge risk.
December 1, 2007 at 7:37 pm
With the signing of wolf that gives us Peavy, Young, Maddux, Wolf. Do we go after both clement and prior still? Also, what are everyones expectations for Wolf?
December 1, 2007 at 8:21 pm
55: Might as well go after Prior and Clement to go with Wolf. None of the three will last a full season.
December 1, 2007 at 8:22 pm
oh and btw, the wolf signing is for 4 Million with incentives pushing it up to 9. one year.
http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com.....mp;c_id=sd
December 1, 2007 at 8:37 pm
re 57 thats not so bad, its practically what we payed marcus if he really flames out the way giles did.
if he doesnt, and he works out, then we pay him what he would have made off his option from last year.
a win win i guess, or is this breaking even?
December 1, 2007 at 8:40 pm
im still a little excited that we wont watch anymore outfield antics/horrible strikeouts from terrmel this year
December 1, 2007 at 10:41 pm
25 … count me “in” as being a Chris Burke fan … he’s better than the numbers he put up in 2007 …
December 1, 2007 at 10:43 pm
also, at first blush, I like the Wolf signing …
re: trade for Prior … I’d not trade Huffman nor LeBlanc … but Contreras would be a no-brainer …
December 2, 2007 at 4:08 am
Sounds like a great deal, considering the contract and incentives. But Wolf isn’t likely to make 30+ starts, so I think we still get Clement and Prior both if possible. Between the three of them maybe they can fill two spots.
December 2, 2007 at 10:08 am
I really like the Wolf signing. If Wolf is healthy then he will give the Pads 10 to 12 wins as a back of the rotation pitcher. Even if Wolf gives us a half a season with 6 or 7 wins (like the last two years for Phils and LA) and a 4 ERA then it would be worth it. Also, though I am somewhat shocked that the Pads would bring back Barrett as a backup catcher after his abysmal performance for the Padres, it probably is the best option that the Padres have as far as a backup catcher. Barrett seemed a little shell shocked last year after the move–maybe he settles in and becomes a much better option than a Colt Morton or another minor league unproven.Jim Edmonds has another year left in the tank - if we bring him in here then I would be really excited. I would see this move much like I saw the Piazza signing of a couple of years ago. Piazza was the major key to a Pads team (2006) that I still can’t believe won 88 games.
A lot is to be determined, but it seems like the Padres will be a little more agressive than usual on the free agent market this off season.
December 2, 2007 at 11:46 am
With both the Red Sox and Yankees both trying to outbid each other for Santana, does anyone think that KT might offer Peavy to the team that does not get Santana for the same package they offered?
It would make sense for the team that does not get Santana to over pay for Peavy in reaction to the their division rival getting one of the top aces in the game.
I would love to keep Peavy but something does not sit right with me in giving him a long term (5+ years) deal between $15-18M per year. If the Pads could get Ellsbury and Buchholz/Lester for him then I think they would have to make that deal. A deal like that along with the few top prospects that the Padres have may put them back on top of the division by as close as 2009.
December 2, 2007 at 4:14 pm
If you can get Ellsbury and Buchholz (and maybe something else, low level prospect) for Peavy, you do it. I love Jake, but Buchholz will be a front line starter, and Ellsbury is exactly the CF we need.
December 2, 2007 at 4:44 pm
64, 65: Anybody trading for Peavy would get an extra year of service compared to Santana. You better get more than what anybody’s offering the Twins if you move him this season.
If they keep Peavy it’s a lot easier to be on top of the division in 2008 and 2009. He’s got a lot of trade value but he’s also the most difficult player to replace on the entire roster. I’d move Agon and Greene before him.
Draft a few more arms w/stuff instead of control types the last 5 years and we might have had a possible internal replacement or two.
December 2, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Two items - we’re negotiating with Tomko on a one year deal. Tomko would like be looked at as a reliever.
Jim Edmonds would likely waive his no-trade clause to come to a southern California team.
December 2, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Scratch those trade talks, according to Rosenthal the Padres are close to extending Peavy through 2012, at about $17 million annually. Very exciting that the Padres are willing to step up and pay to retain a marquee player like this.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7518156
December 2, 2007 at 4:59 pm
The Padres are close to signing Peavy to a 3-year extension according to Ken Rosenthal
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7518156
It would average around 17M/year. This is pretty ideal for the Pads. Relatively affordable, 2 years of free agency, moderately low-risk as far as length of contract, and a lower salary than Santana (will get), Zambrano, and Zito
December 2, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Ben-You beat me by less than a minute
December 2, 2007 at 6:01 pm
good stuff — Peavy for a few more years. Nice to see the pads spending some $$$ on the right guy.
December 2, 2007 at 6:27 pm
#43: The only problem is, “can’t miss” types don’t exist. And if they did, nobody would trade them.
#64: There’s no reason to wait until 2009. We can and should be at or near of the top of the division this year.
#69: Three years is a good length for Peavy. There is some interesting research on the optimal length of contracts which will be published shortly.
December 2, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Love that we’re finally giving real money out but I have a bad feeling about Peavy’s arm thru 2012. Having said that - it’s not my money and let’s cross our fingers. Good deal hopefully!!!
December 2, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Wait a minute, this can’t actually be happening, right? I mean, it’s the Padres. They NEVER pay this kind of money. John Moores must be crying in a dark alley.
Snark aside, this is a great move for the Padres, both from a personnel standpoint and a PR standpoint. Anytime the fans ***** about “where’s the money,” the team can now point to #44.
Hopefully they can get something done with Khalil this off-season, giving them a great core group of players for the next few years.
December 2, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Great PR move and great move overall. Fans are always saying that the FO doesn’t spend any money. This silences those critics, to some extent. Plus we are spending the money on a known commodity. We aren’t spending $17 million on a Boras centerfielder coming off a down year. It’s spending money on your own, who has just come off a CY award.
I’m hoping that the FO adopts a Charger philosophy. Draft and develop well, then sign your own players to less expensive long term deals. I like rewarding our own.
December 2, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Great news about Peavy if thats true. Credit has to go to Jake for that deal as much as to KT. The 3 year length is a way for him to give the Padres a break while still staying near market value in yearly salary. If he didn’t really want to stay he could quite reasonably hold out for 5 or 6 years, knowing the Padres won’t sign a long term contract.
And it’s a much better use of the money than throwing it at Aaron Rowand or Andruw Jones. Like Phantom says, get Khalil done now. With Peavy, Greene, Gonzalez and Young under contract and Kouz, Antonelli and Headley under club control (assuming they pan out) that practically guarantees we’ll be competitive every year.
December 2, 2007 at 6:49 pm
re 75: Can’t really compare the NFL and MLB simply because in the NFL a high draft picks first contract is often his richest one. Yeah this should shut a lot of the bs around SD up. Now both Peavy and Young will be locked up for another 5 years. That is impressive and should guarantee that they win 85+ games every year in that span.
Can you imagine if they can sign/trade for Prior and he actually got healthy for a couple of years like Carpenter did?
December 2, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Jake obviously wants to stay in SD. This is a good thing.
December 2, 2007 at 7:22 pm
re 77: I understand the issue of high draft picks. However, the Chargers wrapped up free agent walk ons and lower round picks to long term deals at lower cost, once they showed their value. They did a good job identifying the talent and sewing it up long term. I don’t know why that doesn’t translate to baseball, as well.
December 2, 2007 at 7:24 pm
43, 72: Seconding GY’s comments. Six years ago Corey Patterson and Sean Burroughs would have been at the top of every can’t miss list in the business.
77: Imagining a healthy Prior gives me localized high blood pressure.
December 3, 2007 at 7:32 am
Wow 3 years, I cant believe Peavy is taking such short deal! Scratch comment #64 If they can sign him to a 3 year deal then do it!
December 3, 2007 at 7:49 am
Thought this was interesting from Gammons…
Ken Williams always liked Scott Linebrink, which is why he offered former No. 1 pick Lance Broadway and another prospect for him at last July’s trade deadline.
December 3, 2007 at 7:55 am
Pirates may non-tender Nady:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07336/838486-63.stm
December 3, 2007 at 8:12 am
82: There’s a player named Lance Broadway? And we didn’t get him when we had the chance? That’s a shame…
83: I can’t see them non-tendering X, he has some trade value to someone.
Krasovic’s column today mentions that Steve Finley is in Nashville, trying to persuade someone he can still play CF. Keep him away from KT!
December 3, 2007 at 8:20 am
Running late. Have something by 8:30 a.m. PT.
December 3, 2007 at 8:23 am
84: There’s another report out of Pittsburgh denying that Nady would be non-tendered. At 3 million he’s not hurting anything.
December 3, 2007 at 8:23 am
Couple of things I read, but I can’t remember where I saw them, so no links, but someone speculated that Finley could end up here, depending on Cameron’s situation. In other words, Finley would be our centerfielder for the first 25 games until Cameron came back, if we cut a deal with Cameron.
Also, I read that if Barrett declined arbitration, we’d have interest in Piazza again.
December 3, 2007 at 8:24 am
Re: 86 I think they would be crazy to non-tender him but hey I would not mind seeing him in LF next year.
December 3, 2007 at 8:25 am
Re: 87 the Finley story was in the UT today.
December 3, 2007 at 8:27 am
Okay, it’s up:
http://ducksnorts.com/blog/200.....agues.html