Operation Center Field: Acquiring Targets
Wed, Nov 14, 2007
by Geoff Young
Now that we’ve identified potential trade targets, let’s move to the next logical step and consider what it might cost to acquire said targets. This exercise consists in determining a) what your partner needs and b) what you (i.e., the Padres) have to offer.
The order of these two, as I’ve learned over many years of playing fantasy baseball, is crucial. If you don’t have a strong grasp of your partner’s needs, and you base your offers solely on what you’re willing to give up, you’ll get nowhere fast because, well, that’s just the way life works. By and large, people act in their own best interest. Provide them with goods or services that serve that interest, and then you’re onto something.
To the targets…
David DeJesus
What do the Royals need? Snarky answer: Everything. Useful answer: It depends on where they see themselves in the success cycle. In Kansas City’s case, the organization features some intriguing young players — Alex Gordon, Mark Teahen, Billy Butler, Zack Greinke, ex-Padre Joakim Soria, maybe a few others depending on your taste — that now have big-league experience under their belts. The fact that this club went out and signed Gil Meche to crazy money last winter tells me that the Royals probably don’t see themselves as rebuilding. In terms that Padres fans will understand, think more v. 2003 than v. 1971.
In other words, I imagine that the Royals will want some big-league or at least big-league-ready talent, preferably youngish. Maybe someone with flaws but upside — remember that they traded for Milton Bradley before the Padres did (and then nixed it due to the oblique injury). Maybe someone like Paul McAnulty. Not necessarily McAnulty, but you get the idea.
So, where do the Royals need the most help? Shortstop (.260/.280/.357 in 2007) and left field (.264/.315/.345) would seem to be logical starting points. So would starting pitching (4.88 ERA). The Padres don’t have shortstops or starting pitchers to give away, but they do have left fielders (including the aforementioned McAnulty).
Problem is, most teams recognize that all else being equal (stupid phrase), it’s not wise to move a center fielder for a left fielder — defensive spectrum and what-not. In fact, a quick perusal of the Royals’ farm system reveals an abundance of McAnulty types waiting for their chance.
Bill James has written at length about this sort of thing, but you see the issue. Every franchise has good-hitting corner outfielders, which makes them mostly unmarketable unless they are really young or really good. Look at what Jack Cust fetched last season; great story, but teams weren’t banging down doors trying to acquire him — if they wanted him, they shouldn’t have released him the first place, right?
Anyway.
Seems to me a secondary need for the Royals might be a catcher. John Buck has shown flashes, but he just might be the new Jason LaRue (which is kind of funny because the old LaRue is Buck’s backup — learn from the master, I guess), in which case maybe Kansas City wants to hedge its bets.
The Padres have some catchers. Colt Morton is the most big-league ready, but he’s even more LaRue-like than Buck is, and less proven. Mitch Canham is too far away, which leaves Nick Hundley, who might make a good fit for the Royals.
We’re moving in the right direction here. Maybe something along the lines of McAnulty (or Will Venable?), Hundley, and possibly a low-level prospect for DeJesus. I don’t know that this would be enough. Would I do it if I were the Royals? Well, I’m not sure; then again, the idea of sticking Joey Gathright in center every day doesn’t excite me at all, so it’s hard for me to know what they’re thinking.
We can debate names, but this is the tack I think I would take. I’d try floating a young catcher, a young corner outfielder, and possibly a prospect, and see where things go from there.
Ryan Church
Moving from DeJesus to DeChurch (sorry, couldn’t resist)… The Nationals, despite their surprising success in 2007, presumably understand that they still have a lot of work to do. At the big-league level they are strong at, um, they have Ryan Zimmerman. Maybe Austin Kearns and Wily Mo Pena. Heck, Church is one of their best players; why do they want to move him again? Oh, right, because supposedly Washington might make a play for Torii Hunter.
If the Nats sign Hunter and decide that this makes Church available, then I don’t understand how they think and it will be difficult for me to finish the exercise. Their greatest needs at the big-league level appear to be behind the plate (.245/.325/.354), in left field (.245/.316/.396), and in the starting rotation.
Wait, if the Nationals have a need in left, then why would they move Church? Ah, maybe to make room for Pena? Here we go again with the defensive spectrum thing. The more I look at this, the less certain I am that there’s even a fit here. Washington should be able to fill its corner outfield spots internally, which leaves catcher and starting pitcher. The Padres don’t have any of the latter to give, and I don’t think they have a catcher good enough to land Church.
It’s a nice idea, but I don’t see a fit here. Next…
Brian Barton
Stan Ridgway has a great song called “The Roadblock” (I can’t find a video, so you’ll have to settle for “Don’t Box Me In”), which has nothing to do with Barton but whose title is a nice metaphor for Barton’s situation, stuck behind Grady Sizemore.
The Indians are in a very different place than our first two potential partners. They are coming off 96 wins and a postseason appearance. They have expectations, and so do their fans.
Cleveland has a few needs at the big-league level, notably at second base (.252/.289/.350), at third base (.258/.320/.407) and in left field (.259/.315/.404). Ex-Padre Josh Barfield was a disaster at second, and he eventually lost his job to Asdrubal Cabrera. Still, Barfield is young and is a decent bet to rebound. The Indians are a well-run organization, and they aren’t likely to panic based on one disappointing season.
Third base is fraught with irony. Cleveland moved Kevin Kouzmanoff in the Barfield deal to clear room for Andy Marte, who promptly lost the job to Casey Blake, a 33-year-old right fielder. Marte is only 24 and was recently well regarded, but right now, he’s looking like a guy with more of a past than a future. Would the Indians have interest in a guy like Chase Headley? Possibly, although he should fetch more than Barton.
Left field? Jason Michaels isn’t a long-term solution. He isn’t really a short-term solution either. Internal candidates for the job would seem to be Ben Francisco, Jason Cooper, and Barton. You know what? I’m seeing the same problem here as I did with the Nationals. How are any of the Padres’ available corner outfielders better than what the Indians already have? And now that I look at him more closely, I see that Barton played more right than center last year, which kills the whole “Roadblock” thing I had working.
Too bad, it’s a good tune…
Coco Crisp
First, we have to address the disconnect between what the Boston media/fans want and what the front office will do. When you hear nonsense like Jake Peavy for Mike Lowell and then actually see Doug Mirabelli for Josh Bard, Cla Meredith, and cash, there’s only one sensible course of action: Ignore the Boston media and fans.
That little rant out of the way, what do the Red Sox need? Well, they just swept the World Series, so not much. They could use help at shortstop (most teams can) and in center (this will be resolved internally by Jacoby Ellsbury); beyond that, they have no obvious weaknesses. Yeah, Curt Schilling and Tim Wakefield are old, but they’ve been old for a while and it doesn’t seem to matter. Eventually it will, but who knows when.
With Lowell filing for free agency, Boston has a potential opening at third base and no real in-house options. Lowell and Alex Rodriguez are the only third basemen worth pursuing on the open market. Lowell could re-sign, while Rodriguez, after his upstaging of the Red Sox during the World Series, probably is not an option. They could make a play for the Marlins’ Miguel Cabrera or possibly move Kevin Youkilis back across the diamond in a pinch.
The point is, there’s a potential need here. Can the Padres fill it? Yes, but… defensive spectrum notwithstanding, Kouzmanoff and Headley both should be worth more than Crisp. By a lot. The Red Sox have an intriguing middle infield prospect who played at Double-A last year, Jed Lowrie. I wonder if Headley for Crisp and Lowrie might work? My gut tells me that’s not enough because, despite Crisp’s nice defensive numbers in ‘07, I still don’t trust him as anything more than a Jay Payton stopgap.
I could live with Crisp in center until the Padres find someone better, but I can’t see parting with a big-league ready third baseman to get him. In the current market, a guy like Headley — should the Pads decide to move him — should fetch more than a weak-hitting center fielder with a spotty defensive track record.
Luke Scott
I had Jacque Jones here, but he’s since been traded. Also, the Astros have acquired a center fielder, leaving Scott in no-man’s land. I’m still not sure about his defense (he’s playing left field this winter in Venezuela), but the guy can hit. Scott is not our first option, but he belongs in the discussion.
The Astros have needs almost everywhere and shouldn’t be looking to move Scott. They could use catching help but don’t seem to know it (actually I see now that they have a kid, J.R. Towles, that dominated the Texas League in ‘07); they need a second baseman, but Matt Antonelli is too much to give for Scott; like everyone else in baseball, they could use more starting pitching, but we already know where the Padres stand on that front.
I don’t know why Houston would make Scott available, I don’t know that he can play center field (he has five big-league games there, compared to four for Terrmel Sledge), and I don’t know that the Padres have any pieces that Astros would want that aren’t an exorbitant amount to pay for Scott. That’s a lot of things I don’t know, which tells me maybe it’s best to pass…
Winter Leagues
- Javelinas 17, Saguaros 5 (box | recap). Venable, batting eighth and starting in left field, went 1-for-4 with a strikeout; in the comps I’m working up for the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual, Venable’s 2007 at San Antonio is similar to the big-league seasons of Melky Cabrera, Coco Crisp, and Shannon Stewart. Two Padres pitchers worked in this one, which you’d think would be a disaster in a game where the Saguaros gave up 17 runs. All the damage came in the first five innings, though; Will Startup allowed a single in an inning and a third, striking out one. Jonathan Ellis worked a scoreless ninth, allowing a single, walking one, and fanning two.
- Licey 4, Estrellas 1 (box). Yordany Ramirez entered in the seventh as a pinch-runner and scored his team’s third run; he then took over in left field and popped out to first the next inning.
- Gigantes 7, Escogido 6 (box). Vince Sinisi continues his torrid hitting; he went 4-for-5 in this one (the last hit came off ex-Padre Dario Veras).
Navojoa 7, Culiacan 3 (box). Oscar Robles singled and walked twice in five plate appearances. Luis Cruz, starting in center and batting third, went 1-for-5. On the other side, Karim Garcia and Ruben Rivera bat third and fourth for Culiacan. They were the #8 and #5 prospects in John Sickels’ 1996 Minor League Scouting Notebook, ahead of guys like Bob Abreu and Vlad Guerrero. What a colossal waste of talent. - Obregon 4, Mazatlan 1 (box). Brian Myrow, in the #4 hole,
wentdoubled and walked in four trips to the plate. Incidentally, the 2008 CHONE projections for hitters are now available, and Myrow checks in at .263/.353/.419; this is about the same as CHONE projects for Mark DeRosa, for whatever that’s worth.
Whoomp, there it is…
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 14, 2007 at 9:24 am
Geoff, Great post. I agree with you that way too many fans perceive the job of the general manager as going out and getting good players. It’s like saying, “Man, we’ve gotta go get Carlos Beltran.” Well…if you’re talking about a trade, you’ve got to put yourself in the other teams shoes. And clearly the Mets have no incentive to trade away Beltran. That said, its hard to predict what other teams’ needs are, because a few trades can change everything. For instance, remember when the Red Sox acquired Marte just to swing him right around to the Indians in exchange for Crisp? They didn’t get Marte to fill their hole at third. They got him to use as trade bait. All I’m saying is that lots can change in one offseason.
Therefore, I think a more successful approach to this exercise would be to focus on teams with an excess or a logjam in the outfield. This is why I keep mentioning Baldelli. It seems like the Rays are one of the few teams out there with multiple major league ready center fielders who are plus defensively. Can you think of any more?
November 14, 2007 at 10:07 am
Baldelli would be interesting if not for 2 reasons:
1) Dude is hurt all the time
2) Dude gets paid already:
08-2.25M
09-6M(4M buyout)
After 09 they would have to either make him a FA or pick up his 2 option years simultaneously.
10-8M
11-9M
I don’t think I’d want to pay Baldelli 25M over the next 4 years to see if we can get more then the 419 games he’s played over the past 4 years, or the .767 career OPS.
We also have to think that defensively he may be diminished because of all the injuries.
November 14, 2007 at 10:26 am
2: On the contary, I think that Baldelli’s contract makes him pretty appealing. It’s reasonable for the two years (Only about 8M) and if he’s performing to his potential, it will be reasonable for the next two years as well. He’s a great fit.
November 14, 2007 at 10:27 am
To hijack my own post, here are two things I’m messing around with that may be of interest to some folks:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=27461525576
http://ducksnorts.wikidot.com/
Feel free to… whatever…
Meanwhile, I kind of like the Baldelli idea assuming the price is right, but he comes with a lot of baggage.
November 14, 2007 at 10:29 am
OT … if you’re at all in the Uni-Watch, today’s post is very interesting …
http://www.uniwatchblog.com/20...../#comments
November 14, 2007 at 10:31 am
FWIW, 1360 has Center and Krasovic on from 10 to 11 today (as in right now).
November 14, 2007 at 11:12 am
everyone make sure to superpoke geoff on facebook! muahahaha
November 14, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Great analysis as always Geoff!!!
(Another) threadjack…
Some people say the Padres are merely cheap when it comes to amateur talent acquisition (draft & undrafted FA’s)…
Look at these for these 2 pitchers:
Pitcher 1: 4.16 ERA, 168 IP, 193 H, 12 HR, 47/118 BB/SO ratio
Pitcher 2: 3.42 ERA, 79 IP, 82 H, 8 HR, 14/49 BB/SO ratio (pitcher 2 also gave up 11 unearned runs - those scare me - is the pitcher giving up jacks after a misplay in the field, or are the runs really the fault of the fielder?)
Those are the top 2 prospects in the Marlins organization: Chris Volstad & Brent Sinkbeil (each of whom was passed by the Padres).
Those 2 years they Padres took Carrillo & Antonelli - obviously the jury’s out on Cesar but Antonelli is doing just fine.
November 14, 2007 at 12:27 pm
By the way Geoff, I don’t think Hundley and Venable is nearly enough for DeJesus…if it was KT would have already made that deal and moved on.
November 14, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Rick (Boston): What does SD have to offer back for Crisp?
Jim Callis: Chase Headley and Nick Hundley? That’s off the top of my head, might not be enough.
November 14, 2007 at 12:32 pm
10: Oops, no preface. That was a question in a Jim Callis ESPN chat today.
November 14, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I would think the Royals would want at least one major league ready bullpen arm, a pitching prospect (maybe Ayala) and Hundley.
November 14, 2007 at 12:36 pm
10: That’s hilarious. Maybe we can throw in Peavy and get Mirabelli back.
I caught the tail end of a report on 1360 that sounded like Phil Nevin was arrested for punching someone at the Chargers game. Anyone have any details?
November 14, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I think Headley and Hundley are to much for Crisp though I think getting Crisp would be a good move for the Padres
November 14, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I really dont want to see crisp in a padre uni so I think anything over Hundley is to much.
November 14, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Your not going to find a power hitting Center fielder so why not go for a guy who plays great defense and can steal bases
November 14, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Re: 16 I would rather trade for a younger guy who they can control for awhile.
It would help set up a young team that can grow together with Adrian, Kouz, Headley, Greenie (if they can sign him) Antonelli, and a young CF, there would be a consistent lineup for the next 4-5 years.
Also I dont think Crisp would hit any better in Petco than he has in Fenway.
November 14, 2007 at 12:58 pm
#7: Er, um, er…
#9: I think you’re probably right, but it seems like a reasonable starting point.
#12: Ayala is a good call.
November 14, 2007 at 12:58 pm
16.
Because we can do better than Crisp. If he had not been in Boston the past couple of years would anyone even know his name let alone talking about trading Headley for him? I really don’t think so.
November 14, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Crisp has a career OBP of .329, thats not a top of the lineup guy.
November 14, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Jack from Boston:
I know you keep trying to convince us all that:
1-Crisp doesn’t suck
and
2-KT is a moron
We aren’t all that easily convinced no matter what the national media tries to tell us. We know a replacement level CF when we see one and you don’t pay that guy 5M a year, let alone deal 2 of your 10 best prospects for the privilege of doing so.
November 14, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Name me a better Center fielder thats available Please If your looking for a Center Fielder that plays great defense hits 350; hits 40 hr’s and knocks in 125 runs well than Crisp is not your guy thats true
November 14, 2007 at 1:19 pm
#22: DeJesus is younger, cheaper, and probably better. Crisp had a good year defensively in ‘07, but historically he’s been pretty inconsistent in the field.
November 14, 2007 at 1:20 pm
If Matt Garza is going to cost the Padres Headley to the Twins, what would Scott Baker cost? Didn’t his minor league numbers project him to be pretty good?
Maybe Balsley can work his magic with him too.
November 14, 2007 at 1:22 pm
22: There’s also that pesky pre-2007 notion that Coco was no great shakes in CF. What happened?
November 14, 2007 at 1:24 pm
21: I don’t think Jack’s trying to convince us KT’s a moron. Crisp doesn’t excite me because base stealing is secondary to hitting and because Boston’s demands are likely to be higher than Crisp’s production warrants.
At the cost of Headley + Hundley I’d hang up on Boston and see what it would take to get DeJesus or even Gwynn Jr., who also doesn’t excite me.
November 14, 2007 at 1:25 pm
22: the trouble is that Crisp is going to be playing at cavernous ballparks in NL West and his numbers are going to be worse than his career averages. And, Geoff already covered the other reasonings. Cost for one is prohibitive. The Redsox may be willing to pay money for Crisp’s numbers, the Padres can’t afford to have those numbers in the lineup.
November 14, 2007 at 1:26 pm
24: I’d rather have Garza. 10K per 9 vs 7.62. Baker’s control is better, but Garza doesn’t walk many and he’s 2 years younger.
November 14, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Perhaps Crisp became a better fielder when he moved to Boston and their bandbox park? When Fox showed that graphic of Fenway overlayed on Coors Field the difference was striking.
November 14, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Thank You Tom
If its going to cost two top prospects than No All Im saying at the right price Crisp would be a great addition
November 14, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Re: 29 that was an awsome graphic
November 14, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Quote from Krasovic in the the UT
“Many or all of the eight Padres free agents probably will sign with other clubs. One, utility man Geoff Blum, said yesterday the Padres remain his No. 1 choice, but that he probably will sign with the Astros. “Apparently, I don’t fit into the Padres’ priorities,” Blum said.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
So, all you B(l)um haters can breath a sigh of relief (almost). I admit, I am not a big fan of Blum’s, but he has come through in a big way on rare occasions.
November 14, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Good point. Set aside park effects on Coco’s offensive numbers. What about in the field?
More evidence that the Coach is a [fill in blank]: He was talking about Arod and where he might want to play for the best chance to break the HR record. He dismisses Dodger Stadium then kinda settles on Boston, say if Lowell signs elsewhere. I saw a park effects chart that showed Fenway to be a bigtime HR-suppressing park. Indeed, Neyer brought that up in his blog yesterday or day before. I think it was in Bill James ‘07.
November 14, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Re: 33 Cubies here he comes!
November 14, 2007 at 1:46 pm
28: Looking at THT, Baker’s FIP ERA is lower but he gave up more HR. If the Padres can get him at a lower cost than Garza should they do it? I guess Garza’s stuff is just better than Baker’s. At worst, he’ll be a younger Brett Tomko.
November 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm
How do you think A-Rod would do in Yankee Stadium?
It just might happen!
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/
November 14, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I would love to see A-Rod sign with the Yankees for less than he would have made if he didnt opt out.
November 14, 2007 at 2:05 pm
35: With so few innings, and especially with Garza’s age, I’m more interested in their minor league numbers.
Baker’s not a bad pitcher, but I’d pay Headley to get Garza.
November 14, 2007 at 2:51 pm
29: Is that graphic on the net anywhere?
November 14, 2007 at 3:14 pm
37: Unless there’s collusion, I doubt he’ll make less money.
November 14, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Fenway suppresses HR’s? Link anyone? First I’ve heard of that. Even if it does, it doesn’t seem to have hurt Manny or Papi and I think PayRod is a comparable hitter in terms of quality to them so I don’t think it would bother him much.
RE Crisp in CF: UZR had him at -13 runs per 150 Games in 100 games in CF with Boston in 2006, but he made a complete turnaround in 2007 so it doesn’t appear to be due to the park. Health maybe?
November 14, 2007 at 3:15 pm
39: I haven’t seen the Fox graphic but from what I’ve seen it was completely wrong. I remember it made Fenway look like a little league field, every dimension was shorter than Coors, which is not accurate. This one appears to be more reasonable:
http://hubgrub.org/fenway_vs_coors.jpg
This site has scale drawings of all parks, although you can’t overlay them:
http://www.andrewclem.com/Base.....-side.html
I don’t have access to Photoshop right now or I’d overlay Petco and Fenway for comparison.
November 14, 2007 at 3:22 pm
41: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
HR factor has been well below 1.00 for years. I believe it started to change in the early 90s when they did some remodeling that changed the prevailing wind patterns.
Crisp hurt his wrist in 2006, it definitely affected his offense. I could see where maybe it made him tentative in the field as well, not as willing to dive for balls.
Anyway, he’s not worth giving up decent prospects AND paying his full salary at his current level of performance. Anyway, if I were the Red Sox I’d hang onto him as insurance in case Ellsbury flops or Drew gets hurt and to use as a defensive replacement for Manny.
November 14, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Today’s Tom Krasovic article in the U-T says:
-No Blum for next year. He’s not in the clubs plans; it looks like he’ll sign with the Astros. We’re in trouble in those 14 inning games.
-Bradley is probably not coming back. They’ll make an offer to Jenkins, who’d make a great platoon partner for Hairston (my opinion). Headley will see time in left during spring training.
-They have some money to spend, but there’s not really anyone worth spending it on. They’ll make an high dollar short year offer to A. Jones.
-A three team trade to land Matt Kemp is being contemplated. Wow. It’s hard to see how we’d possibly lose in a deal like that, so that is definitely intriguing, if a huge longshot.
The article is followed by a cool little salary chart. It appears they already added on Peavy’s Cy Young bonus to his team option for 2009.
(Hat tip to mlbtraderumors for finding the article.)
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
November 14, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Hey, thanks for the link, Anthony!
November 14, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Hacksaw openly campaigning for duh du duh…. Paul LoDuca!
WTF?
After listening to that and reading the comments at the UT page I really want to puke. A lot of fans in this town deserve a freaking beating!
November 14, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I can understand not liking Crisp in terms of his offensive production, but he’s very likable and a total whiz on defense. Giving up Headley would be a mistake, but he would make an excellent 4th outfielder or short-term starter, and maybe the NL would be good for his offense.
November 14, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I would rather have Mike Cameron, remember him, than Coco Crisp.
Now we’re talking about Crisp as a fourth outfielder. That seems closer to the truth than the All-Star others makes him out to be.
November 14, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Yeah, but teams do need fourth outfielders. If the Padres can get him for that value or slightly more, I think he’d be worth it.
Re-signing Cameron would be great, but not if he requires a huge, long contract.
November 14, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I wasn’t disagreeing with your theory or that he could be used in that way. I’m glad some reason was injected instead of the theory he would move to Petco and become a great hitter, like someone said last week.
November 14, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Fluff piece on MSNBC about Jake being the easy pick for the CY.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21781513/
November 14, 2007 at 5:47 pm
#48: I don’t think the front office has forgotten about Cameron. I think they’re waiting to see how low that price is going to go. In the meantime, they can see what else is available on the trade route. If something comes up better than Cameron, they take it. If not, Cammy’s their fall back, at least after 25 games.
November 14, 2007 at 5:48 pm
It looks like we’re after Matt Kemp???
November 14, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I don’t think they have forgotten either, but I think some fans have, and he’s a better option than Crisp, who has been talked about quite a bit.
November 14, 2007 at 6:37 pm
8: no insult is appropriate, but wait a minute, Volstad was drafted #16 by Fla BEFORE Carillo at #18 with little $ delta. Yikes, do we really want to look at that draft and see Garza at #25(Tom & Didi mention him today) and ELLSBURY also soon after Carillo. (per BB Cube)You could have mentioned a pitcher the Cubs paid $200k more with #20.
November 14, 2007 at 7:03 pm
53: I wouldnt mind Kemp in either corner and possibly a back-up CF
November 14, 2007 at 7:29 pm
definitely. just having trouble seeing the dodgers trading away kemp in division. seems counterintuitive.
November 14, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Re. 51: “Fluff piece”
More like piece of… crap
“…A San Diego area newspaper recently reported that the team is willing to consider trading its best pitcher…”
“The Padres aren’t eager to move him, and they’re asking multiple top prospects in return, but let it serve as fair warning to San Diego fans. Celebrate the kid’s triumph now, because in two years, he’s probably going to be on another team that isn’t afraid to pay him what he’ll be worth.”
Bull!
Jake is going NOWHERE!
And mark it here, Jake will be a Padre in 2010 (in case you don’t figure it out yourself, that’s after he’s a free agent).
The Padres paid $33mm over 3 years to Giles, they paid $16+mm over 3 to Hoffy… Jake is FAR superior to either of those players and at that time Alderson &/or KT made comments about retaining a local icon is smart business decision if the player still performs.
The players the Padres HAVE let go via free agency (Ramon Hernandez, Dave Roberts, etc.) have either bombed, or not played at levels consistent with their contract levels.
Furthermore when the Padres are called “cheap,” it’s because they didn’t sign or re-sign some guy in his 30’s… Jake will be 28 when he’s a free agent. Now I’m not about to suggest (at this point) that Jake will be Padre for his whole career, but he’s not leaving any time soon.
The Padres will re-sign Jake and they may even do it this offseason.
November 14, 2007 at 8:51 pm
58: I really think the only place you could make the argument that the Padres are cheap is with regard to amateur talent and even then that’s more about the slotting system than their being cheap. I think you’re probably right that Jake will still be a Padre in ‘10 and hopefully by then he’ll have another CYA or two.
November 14, 2007 at 10:01 pm
58: I am sorry but I really doubt Jake will be wearing a Padre uniform in 2010 and probably even 2009.
The Padres are “cheap”, that doesnt mean they dont make good decisions it just means they dont want to spend. The payroll was 90 million in ‘98, hasnt been close since. They do make the right choices with the players they do let go, but they also sign or keep cheap substitutes (Castilla, EY, Sledge).
I am happy with what the FO does, but I think they are cheap.
November 14, 2007 at 10:11 pm
The payroll was 43,500,000 in 98
http://www.baseball-reference......1998.shtml
November 14, 2007 at 10:21 pm
It sounds like Matt Clement wants to come here and he’s not looking to break the bank, a 1 year deal with incentives should do it:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/articl.....ed=rss_mlb
As long as we have some insurance arms it should be fine.
So Hacksaw was saying today that the Padres have $34 million to spend, or some such nonsense. I added up all their commitments according to the chart in the UT today and it came to $52 million, plus whatever increases the arbitration eligible guys get. He thinks we’re going to have an $86 million payroll?
November 14, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Hacksaw is a hack… He doesn’t know crap about baseball.
November 14, 2007 at 10:33 pm
63: We have a glaring hole at catcher! Should San Diego fill it with LoDuca? Poway! Reaction!
November 14, 2007 at 11:27 pm
61: My bad, I dont know where I got that number from.
November 15, 2007 at 2:14 am
63: I think that’s part of his appeal.