Comments on: Operation Center Field: Acquiring Targets

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:14:51 +0000

63: I think that’s part of his appeal.

By: SDSUBaseball

SDSUBaseball — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:27:11 +0000

61: My bad, I dont know where I got that number from.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:33:50 +0000

63: We have a glaring hole at catcher! Should San Diego fill it with LoDuca? Poway! Reaction!

By: Peter Friberg

Peter Friberg — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:22:51 +0000

Hacksaw is a hack… He doesn’t know crap about baseball.

By: anthony

anthony — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:21:08 +0000

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/article.jsp?ymd=20071114&content_id=2300682&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb&partnered=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?

By: Field39

Field39 — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:11:45 +0000

The payroll was 43,500,000 in 98

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SDP/1998.shtml

By: SDSUBaseball

SDSUBaseball — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:01:02 +0000

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.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:51:05 +0000

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.

By: Peter Friberg

Peter Friberg — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:27:39 +0000

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 arenâ€™t eager to move him, and theyâ€™re asking multiple top prospects in return, but let it serve as fair warning to San Diego fans. Celebrate the kidâ€™s triumph now, because in two years, heâ€™s probably going to be on another team that isnâ€™t afraid to pay him what heâ€™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.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:29:48 +0000

definitely. just having trouble seeing the dodgers trading away kemp in division. seems counterintuitive.