Black vs Bochy
Wed, Dec 12, 2007
by Geoff Young
I picked up the Bill James Handbook 2008
The winter season ticket holder event took place at Petco Park on Tuesday night. Tales of the Heliosphere has details here, here, and here (hat tip to Gaslamp Ball).
Quick caveat before we get too far into this. We have exactly one year’s worth of data for Black, so it’s hard to call any of what he did “tendencies” just yet. Still, it’s what we have, so we’ll use it.
To the tables (numbers in bold denote league leader):
| Mgr | Yr | LUp | PL% | PH | PR | DS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Key: LUp, number of different lineups used; PL%, percentage of players who had the platoon advantage at the start of the game; PH, pinch hitters used; PR, pinch runners used; DS, defensive substitutes used. | ||||||
| Black | ‘07 | 115 | .62 | 279 | 18 | 13 |
| Bochy | ‘06 | 111 | .60 | 264 | 64 | 48 |
We see no appreciable difference in the number of lineups used or frequency with which platooning was employed. The items that stand out here are in those two rightmost columns. Bochy used pinch runners and defensive substitutions a lot more than Black. In 12 seasons as manager of the Padres, Bochy led the league in pinch runners used four times. He also averaged 48 defensive substitutions in his three seasons at Petco Park. Black used the latter strategy less than any other manager in MLB last year.
| Mgr | Yr | Quick | Slow | LO | RCD | LS | Rel |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Key: Quick, quick hooks; Slow, slow hooks; LO, long outings by starting pitchers; RCD, relievers used on consecutive days; LS, long saves; Rel, relievers used. (You’ll need to buy the book to get precise definitions for some of these, but you get the general idea.) | |||||||
| Black | ‘07 | 63 | 28 | 13 | 122 | 0 | 485 |
| Bochy | ‘06 | 42 | 42 | 24 | 111 | 2 | 475 |
This surprises me. It often seemed as though Black stuck with his starters (especially the old guys) too long, but reality indicates otherwise. Black was more protective of his starting pitchers and a little more liberal in his usage of relievers — at least in his first year — than Bochy. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Black was a starting pitcher for most of his career?
| Mgr | Yr | SBA | SacA | RM | PO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Key: SBA, stolen base attempts; SacA, sacrifice bunt attempts; RM, runners moving with the pitch; PO, pitchouts ordered. | |||||
| Black | ‘07 | 79 | 85 | 73 | 56 |
| Bochy | ‘06 | 154 | 77 | 106 | 21 |
The reduction is stolen base attempts is largely a function of the fact that Black didn’t have Josh Barfield and Dave Roberts at his disposal. Sacrifices? Pretty much everyone in the National League (except Clint Hurdle, who never tires of the tactic) bunts the same amount. Black doesn’t get the runners moving as often as Bochy, who was famous for the move. Well, marginally well known for it, anyway. Black loved pitchouts — called more of ‘em than any other manager in baseball. Heck, he called more of ‘em than Bochy did over the span of three full seasons at Petco Park. I would like to see a breakdown of how often Black’s pitchouts were successful. It sure seemed like they didn’t help any. Then again, I’m not even sure why the Padres were pretending to hold runners. When guys are that slow the plate, there’s not much you can do.
| Mgr | Yr | # | Good | NG | Bomb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Key: #, intentional walks issued; Good, intentional walks resulting in a good outcome; NG, intentional walks not resulting in a good outcome; Bomb, intentional walks blowing up on the manager. (Again, refer to the book for precise definitions.) | |||||
| Black | ‘07 | 48 | 28 | 20 | 11 |
| Bochy | ‘06 | 63 | 43 | 20 | 10 |
Black didn’t issue as many free passes as Bochy, but they sure came back to bite him more often.
| Mgr | Yr | W | L | Pct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Key: Seriously, if you have to ask… | ||||
| Black | ‘07 | 89 | 74 | .546 |
| Bochy | ‘06 | 88 | 74 | .543 |
Black ran into an insanely hot Colorado team. Bochy ran into an insanely cold St. Louis club that got hot at the Padres’ expense and won the World Series. Otherwise, not much difference.
Winter Leagues
- Hermosillo 9, Culiacan 7 (box). Marshall McDougall, batting second and playing second base, went 1-for-5.
- Mexicali 9, Navojoa 0 (box). Oscar Robles, still at DH, walked in four trips to the plate. Luis Cruz, batting seventh and playing shortstop, went 1-for-4 with a double.
- Mazatlan 1, Guasave 0 (box). Brian Myrow, batting third and playing first base, drew three walks and laid down a sac bunt (which set up the game’s only run). Yep, the good ol’ 0-for-0.
There it is. Happy Wednesday…
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.
December 12, 2007 at 7:56 am
Good stuff. I guess I’ll have to buy the book to really answer this but how does Black compare with Mike Sciosia? I always find it interesting to see where managers learn their habits.
I remember Bud called for consecutive pitchouts on a few occassions last year. Didn’t he play for Roger Craig in SF?
December 12, 2007 at 8:14 am
Although I’m late on all of this, I think Iguchi is a great pickup. Not so bummed about the loss of Fukudome.
I’d like to get X and Bay from the Pirates, but I’d want to do it without having to give up Headley. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening.
Even if we get X and Bay, with Giles and Hairston, who the hell plays CF?
Also, anyone think we could inquire with the Angels about Willits for CF? It seemed like they were going to deal some OF talent to pick up Cabrera, but obviously that never happened.
December 12, 2007 at 8:19 am
X has played some CF in petco before…
December 12, 2007 at 8:21 am
Re: 2 I do not think the pads matchup well trade-wise with the Angels but who knows they have a surpluss of OF.
December 12, 2007 at 8:23 am
Read on Olney’s blog that the Cubs *may* non-tender Mark Prior today. If that happens, do we know if the Padres are still interested in picking him up? Local guy (USDHS, I think), possibly undervalued due to injury (like Wolf), and all that…
December 12, 2007 at 8:24 am
There’s a great post over at Sons of Sam Horn that keeps track of all the CF options out there:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=25896
If the Reds are really looking to move Josh Hamilton, why are we not in on that? He’s had his problems but is no more of a risk than Milton Bradley was.
I have to think that Mike Cameron’s asking price has gone up a little. If Bradley felt slighted by the Padres late offer, how does Cameron feel? He’s being treated like the third fallback option when he was one of the most valuable players on the team last year.
December 12, 2007 at 8:24 am
4: If we’re willing to ship Headley to the Pirates for incomplete fits, I’d rather ship him to the Angles for a legitimate CF need.
December 12, 2007 at 8:25 am
6: Agreed. We should really look into Hamilton. I’m sure the Reds would love some relievers.
December 12, 2007 at 8:26 am
Doesn’t make sense to deal Headley to the Angels…Willits value is much lower then that.
I’d be ok moving Headley for Bay….straight up thats a good deal in my book.
December 12, 2007 at 8:35 am
What about Hensley/Cameron or Meredith for Hamilton? Does anyone think the Reds do that?
I am one of the few people who is completely skeptical of Bay. He certainly seems to have lost a step over th elast 2 years, and I’m not sure how he’ll bounce back.
December 12, 2007 at 8:43 am
#5: From the U-T: “After gathering medical information on Cubs pitcher Mark Prior, who is coming off shoulder surgery, the Padres have cooled somewhat on the former USDHS star.”
#10: Possibly, with the help of powerful mind-altering drugs. How do we procure and administer those drugs?
December 12, 2007 at 8:44 am
10: I’m very skeptical of Bay as well. This BP profile raises a lot of red flags:
http://www.baseballprospectus......cleid=6495
“His 2005 boost in production is easily explained by a fluke line-drive rate… we can see that Bay has been lucky for much of his career… He’s had no such luck in 2007—despite 14 infield hits this season, Bay’s power production has plummeted. Bay’s slump may be a sign of actual decline and a loss of bat speed.”
Pitch location data also shows he’s had a hard time getting around on inside pitches. Regardless of the reasons, he’s declined every year. The Jason Bay we traded away is not the same Jason Bay we’d get back. And he’s not a center fielder so why is he even being discussed?
December 12, 2007 at 8:45 am
11: Burn. I think Hensley has legit starting potential (second-half of 06) and he’s a sinker-baller, which would certainly help at Great American. Plus, you throw in an effective reliever (probably have to go Meredith or maybe even Thatcher) to bridge to Weathers and Cordero. Cincy’s bullpen was a mess last year, and I was of the opinion that the Reds had a young CF who was ready to step up?
December 12, 2007 at 8:50 am
re 13: Yeah that doesn’t mean they are going to give Hamilton away for pennies on the dollar…..and Hensley coming off a year with an ERA around 6 and a generic middle reliever is pennies on the dollar.
They are going to want a legit top 20 pitching prospect for him, or at least a cheap league average ish SP.
Think Hensley coming off his 2006 season as a starting point.
Hamilton is going to make the min the next 2 seasons, that just makes the price in prospects even higher.
December 12, 2007 at 8:50 am
Thanks for showing the breakdown on BB vs BB…I enjoy BB v.2 more than the original French BB…but I am biased against slow footed catchers who can’t hit. A fault of mine.
Stoked about Iggy at 2b…looking forward to seeing what Antonelli can do in AAA…now, how about an outfield, eh KT?
December 12, 2007 at 8:54 am
Here is the article saying the Padres are “deep into discussions with the Pittsburgh Pirates about a multiplayer deal that would be centered around All-Star outfielder Jason Bay.”
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3151599
Headley and Barrett are mentioned on our side…Bay, X, and Matt Morris on theirs…not necessarily as that swap, but just mentioning the names they think are being discussed.
December 12, 2007 at 8:57 am
Saw this on MLBTraderumors…
Interesting stuff from ESPN 1000’s Bruce Levine this morning regarding Kosuke Fukudome.
The Rangers offered the most money.
The White Sox were not outbid - they offered about the same as the Cubs. However, Fukudome did not want to displace Jermaine Dye from right field.
Fukudome was just intrigued by the Cubs, and liked the idea of being their first Japanese player.
December 12, 2007 at 8:57 am
Bay would be a huge get. He’s also a good defensive player which is essential in Petco.
December 12, 2007 at 9:01 am
I don’t think the Padres will trade for both Bay and X. I can’t see them starting either in CF and I doubt San Diego would be willing to pay X millions to be a fourth OF.
Also a scenario that could happen is the Padres are more willing to trade Kouz than Headley for Bay. If you look at the Padres actions they seem much more inclined to keep Headley at 3b than to start makinging him into an OF and I don’t think the team believes that Kouz can play LF.
December 12, 2007 at 9:09 am
-We are still allowed to make more trades after Dec 12th, right? Who is to say that they wouldn’t turn around and deal Nady to the Angels for Willits?
re 19: Where do you get that feeling about Headley and 3B?
All of their actions and all the talk has been about Headley taking fly balls starting in January, while they seem to be penciling in Kouz to 3B and a 3/4/5 spot in the lineup.
December 12, 2007 at 9:11 am
John…I can’t imagine that the Pads would move Kouz…at this point, they know he can hit major league pitching, has power (potentially big power), and handles the hot corner well.
Headley projects, but his one stellar year does not mean that he will be an all-star. I don’t know, but I would bet that Headley brings more in a trade than Kouz AND Kouz seems to be a better fit for Petco…IMO
December 12, 2007 at 9:13 am
Re: 20 why would the Angels want X?
December 12, 2007 at 9:13 am
One of the things with an improving farm system is that the team is going to have the opportunity to sell high on some guys that they don’t think are going to be all star caliber players.
Given Headley’s lack of power at lower levels(including college) it is possible that he’s only a 15HR a year guy, at 3B that probably doesn’t get it done.
December 12, 2007 at 9:14 am
21: Agreed completely. Kouz seems to have guaranteed himself the job for awhile, and Headley is still just a prospect at this point.
Since everyone seems to think I’m on crack when it comes to a Hamilton deal, what is fair and reasonable to get a deal done with the Reds?
December 12, 2007 at 9:15 am
re 22: I think you might have missed the point, feel free to substitute Angels with Twins, Royals etc……there are teams that still need a corner outfielder, no?
December 12, 2007 at 9:16 am
I’d be surprised to see Kouz moved. His trade value is lower than Headley’s, but he could easily be the better overall player because his offensive potential is higher.
If Pittsburgh sends us McLouth, Bay, and Morris, with Barrett, Headley, and a couple more prospects going back…..eh, I don’t like it as much as I thought I would unless McLouth really can play CF well. I’d rather trade Headley and more to the Cardinals for Edmonds and Reyes. Reyes is a possible #3 starter as he develops.
December 12, 2007 at 9:20 am
Re: 26 Really? Jim Edmonds? you don’t think they could do better for Headley than a 14 games looser (I know he has potential) and a 38 year old declining CF who maybe has one year left in him?
December 12, 2007 at 9:26 am
27: Edmonds fills CF for one year. That’s it. If he was the Jim Edmonds of three years ago it would take Headley and Antonelli to get just him, if he was even available.
Reyes has all kinds of potential, almost 10 strikeouts per 9 innings as a starter in the minors. I’m quite confident that Padres know better than to look at how many losses Reyes had when deciding how good he might be.
For all the talk of how deep our farm system is, there’s not a lot of highly-sought players between Headley/Antonelli and the rest of the pack. I’d prefer to deal Hundley, but are the Cards going to move those two for a bargain price? The rumored Pittsburgh trades still end up being Headley, and maybe another prospect we care about, for a one-year pitcher and Bay, who declined badly last year. I’m not sure they’d even give up McLouth. Morris+Bay isn’t very different from Edmonds+Reyes. The potential part of the package is just different in each case, arm or bat.
December 12, 2007 at 9:26 am
27: I’m not sure how I feel about Edmonds, but I think Reyes could certainly develop into something credible.
He’s got a career 1.35 WHIP and a somewhat scary 5.42 career ERA.
He sports a 6.9 K/9 and an underwhelming 1.95 K/BB. He’s given up more flyballs than groundballs in his career, which could be helped at Petco.
December 12, 2007 at 9:29 am
As for Headley it just seems that the Padres have always been fairly adamnet that he’s going to be at 3b. When we asked the Padres if they planned to play him the majority of the time in LF at Portland in ‘08 the answer was no.
Headley supposedly has more upside defensively at 3b and should post a higher OBP. His power numbers on the road away from San Antonio were much better than his overall numbers .346/.453/.624.
I’m not saying they should do or will do it, it just appears that they are more sold on Headley as their 3b of the future.
I don’t know if his power numbers this year are just a fluke, which is a good question - but usually people that hit at AA or above, hit in the majors.
December 12, 2007 at 9:30 am
also the sticking point with the Pirates could be Headley. If they include him they get Bay, if they don’t then they get option #2 Nady.
December 12, 2007 at 9:34 am
Re: 28 Edmonds is not the Edmonds of three years ago so that is not relevant, at this point the Cards are trying to get anyone to take him. My point about Reyes 14 losses is that his stock is at an all time low where Headleys stock is at an all time high. So in a sense the Pads would be trading their #1 prospect for a one year 38 year old rental in CF which it seems like no other teams want, and a pitcher who is coming off a down year and who’s stock is at an all time low.
December 12, 2007 at 9:35 am
re 30: Seriously where have you ever seen that Headley is staying at 3B? Everything lately has said that he would be at least giving LF a try in spring training.
December 12, 2007 at 9:37 am
From Padres.com
Third-base prospect Chase Headley was at the Winter Meetings on Wednesday, relieved to hear the Padres have essentially no intention of trading him. He said he’s put on 15 pounds of muscle this winter and is up to 230 pounds. Headley will take fly balls at PETCO Park next month in anticipation of playing the position to some degree in Spring Training. ..
December 12, 2007 at 9:41 am
33. Mark you are correct they have said they are going to have him take some balls in LF, but he’s going to play the majority of his time at 3b in spring training and he will be at 3b in Portland in ‘08.
My assumption is that if they were serious about holding on to both Kouz and Headley I would think their would be a permanent position shift with Headley.
Any talks at Madfriars we’ve had with Headley, his San Antonio coaches or the Padres seemed to indicate that he’s staying at 3b.
I’m not sure what they have going with Kouz - everything I’ve read in the paper says that he’s staying at thrid as well.
I don’t mean to convey that I have some type of special “insider” information - I just think they plan on getting rid of either Kouz or Headley.
December 12, 2007 at 9:41 am
The biggest downside to losing out on the Fukudome derby is that we’ll be forced to overpay for our OF acquisitions, be it through FA or through trade. Even though the options out there aren’t particularly sexy, we might have to settle for less than what we believe that Headley and others could fetch.
December 12, 2007 at 9:45 am
Re: 36 I dont see SA freaking out and overpaying for someone like KT has done in the past.
December 12, 2007 at 9:49 am
37: It may not matter if we don’t want to overpay. The fact is, if we’re going to try to make acquisitions at this point, whomever we’re negotiating with will drive the discussion and set the price. We need the OF, other teams don’t necessarily need what we’re shopping.
December 12, 2007 at 9:51 am
MLBTR is saying that the Astros have acquired Tejada for Luke Scott and a couple others. I suppose we could look at Baltimore to see if they have any OF they’d want to trade, as it seems they might have a logjam in their OF situation now.
December 12, 2007 at 9:51 am
Re: 38 I just think that they will put Scott Hairston or Jason Lane in CF beofre they overpay with the few prospects or the little money that they have. The team is looking long term and they are not going to burn thier farm system to fill a hole with a subpar player for one year.
December 12, 2007 at 9:56 am
Well there are certainly options still available for the outfield:
Rowand doesn’t have many suitors lined up, Cameron is still available as well as Corey Patterson.
Its not like its March 20th and they still only have 1 OF on the roster. Letting Hairston play LF everyday is a very believable story from the Padres considering they went into 07 with Sledge out there.
That said, if they really have no intention of moving either Headley or Kouz to a different position, then its time to sell high on Headley and bring in Jason Bay.
December 12, 2007 at 9:56 am
32: As Phantom said, other teams are going to want Headley, Headley, and Headley in any trade for major leaguers. We can hopefully talk them down, but that’s what they’ll be asking for. I’m not saying the Cards are an ideal solution by any means, but Edmonds isn’t Rolen, they’re not blasting him publicly. They don’t have to make any moves.
40: The team also knows that playoff appearances boost ticket sales. If they go into next season with an OF of Headley/Lane/Hairston, with Giles still recovering, or even Headley/Lane/Giles, we’re in serious trouble. That would be one of the worst defensive OF in a park that demands pretty good OF defense, and the hitting would be subpar.
December 12, 2007 at 9:58 am
re 42: You don’t really believe any of those OF’s are realistic do you?
December 12, 2007 at 10:03 am
36: If we won Fukudome, we may have overpaid for him. If he wants a 5 year deal at 13ish a year that seems like overpaying for a guy who has never hit MLB pitching and is a fringy CF (at best).
December 12, 2007 at 10:07 am
RE: 42 I agree that the cards will ask for Headley I just dont think the Pads should/would give him up.
I just dont see SA overpaying for someone otherwise they would have signed Fukudome, would be talking to Rowand or would already have a deal done with Cameron. I also dont see them moving Headley for a CF who will not be here for the long haul.
December 12, 2007 at 10:08 am
Who should we have starting at second
1 Iguchi
2 Gonzales
3 Crabbe
4 Robles
5 Stansberry
6 Rodriguez
What happened to our second baseman will come from within and I guess Antonelli is not in the mix as Towers told us
December 12, 2007 at 10:09 am
Re: 46 I think Iguchi is starting at 2B.
December 12, 2007 at 10:11 am
Why was Iguchi available?
December 12, 2007 at 10:13 am
I can’t see any reason not to trade Headley this off-season…we have our 3B, who still has tremendious upside.
Any talk of moving positions has to be buffeted by this thought…Headley is a very valuable chip as a hitting 3 bagger…he is a moderate chip as a LF…he does not move unless they plan on keeping both Kouz and him…I just don’t see that happening.
December 12, 2007 at 10:13 am
Re: 48 because he was a FA.
December 12, 2007 at 10:15 am
John…Baring injury, Iguchi is the starting second baseman in 2008
December 12, 2007 at 10:16 am
43: Absolutely I see them as realistic. I would hope that all 3 wouldn’t be in the OF to start, but do you really see Headley in LF, somebody in CF, and Hairston in RF while Giles’ knee heals as unrealistic?
45: They’d have a CF for one year and a young pitcher for 5 years.
46: They found a better option. I’d rather have them open to improving any position than sticking with a comment out of principle. At the time Towers said that 2b would be filled from within, that was most likely. Iguchi taking a one-year deal was a surprise.
December 12, 2007 at 10:23 am
A couple things I’d like to clarify:
1) I’m totally fine with the Padres not giving Fukudome the moon. It’s hard to justify that much money for a guy who’s never seen an MLB pitch.
2) I’m totally fine with Hairston in LF, but the team has been linked to three corner OFs that fell through (Scott, Bradley, and Fukudome) and has heavily pursued Jenkins. Even though I’d be fine with Hairston in left, it doesn’t seem like the team is.
3) Because the Padres have been linked to three corner OFs that they have not landed, the perception about the Padres is that they are desparate to land an OF. Any GM or agent worth his salt would take note of this, and if he was approached by the Padres, he would ask the moon to start the discussion. Granted, negotiations would ensue, but the Padres have very little bargaining power in their search for OF help.
I’m not panicking about our team, but I think we have to realize that Headley will be dealt, and probably for less than he could have fetched two weeks ago. It’s nobody’s fault, but we’re going to have to keep that in mind if we don’t end up looking like geniuses in a trade.
December 12, 2007 at 10:29 am
With all the players at second I hope there will be room for matt at AAA
December 12, 2007 at 10:31 am
54: I’m sure Matt will be at the top of the list if the Padres don’t make him a CF. If he’s a 2b, the other players will be cut or play other positions. Stansberry might get time at short.
December 12, 2007 at 10:32 am
Re: 54 Ha im sure Matt will start at AAA.
December 12, 2007 at 10:33 am
Why would they waste time moving Matt to second if they were going to move him to CF
December 12, 2007 at 10:36 am
Re: 57 because Headley was blocking him at 3B and there was a need at 2B, the Pads have talked about moving Antonelli to CF since the draft.
December 12, 2007 at 10:42 am
KT said last night at the State of the Padres meeting that they moved Matt to 2nd base and he did all right. So, they thought they’d try him out in center.
December 12, 2007 at 10:47 am
So when do you think they move him to CF
December 12, 2007 at 10:51 am
Re: 60 I would think that they will start in ST and if he does well there then he will prob split time between 2B and CF in AAA next year.
December 12, 2007 at 10:51 am
Have you started hitting flyballs to him in the backyard yet Jack?
December 12, 2007 at 10:52 am
My recollection is that KT said they’d have him taking fly balls during spring training. Geoff, if that what you recall? I was trying to post the news to Ducksnorts about Iguchi and KFuk while KT was still talking, but that’s what I remember him saying about Matt.
December 12, 2007 at 10:55 am
62 Hey Steve
If you thought Matt sucked at second wait till you see him in the outfield. huh huh I guess Keith Law was right Antonelli will be a utility player. Honey where is my Fungo?!
December 12, 2007 at 10:57 am
I know it isn’t a very exciting name these days, but what about Kenny Lofton in center? He’d be cheap, he still puts up good OBP numbers… he’s not much of a defender these days, but his defensive numbers don’t look that different than 2007 Mike Cameron, and the Padres could definitely stand to improve their team OBP.
At worst, he’d be a nice platoon / backup.
December 12, 2007 at 10:59 am
I never though he sucked at 2B (never seen him play so I really have no idea how good his D is), I’m sure he will mash where ever he plays though!
December 12, 2007 at 11:03 am
From what I’ve read, Matt’s not just a good athlete, but a superior athlete. A 15 HR, 400 OBP centerfielder with plus speed and a good arm is very valuable, probably more valuable than a 2b in our home park. I wouldn’t take it as a slight on Matt at all. In fact, I was sort of surprised they didn’t move him there right off the bat given the organization’s thoughts on the replaceability 2b.
December 12, 2007 at 11:05 am
Antonelli will be at 2b in Portland for most of the year, I don’t think they move him to CF. Then the next year, if he plays like he probably will in Portland, will be the starting 2b in San Diego for years to come.
There is a reason they signed the guy to a one year contract, its called a place holder.
December 12, 2007 at 11:05 am
Im just a little upset that you hear that Matt will get a chance in Spring training and they sign Iguchi and Matt doesnt get a shot. I should have listened to the Dodger scout that drafted Matt out of high school he said to me Dont ever believe what you read or what you hear. I guess he was right again!!
December 12, 2007 at 11:06 am
65: I wouldn’t mind Lofton for one year at all.
December 12, 2007 at 11:12 am
Keep Headley and play him in LF or trade Kouz and play him at 3B.
December 12, 2007 at 11:12 am
Re: 67 exactly, that’s what I meant by that, I was not slighting him in anyway by the CF talk, if anything I was giving him credit for his tremendous athleticism, I’m sure he could start at any of the 8 every day spots on the diamond.
December 12, 2007 at 11:16 am
From Alderson this morning, yeah he actually answered one of my emails:
Antonelli is being discussed in CF, due to lack of options but it is a reluctant move on their part.
If the season started today Headley and Hairston would be in a platoon in LF
December 12, 2007 at 11:17 am
RE: 72
I didnt mean you personally I was just joking about the way he would probably play as an outfielder
December 12, 2007 at 11:23 am
73. I would be very surprised if you saw Antonelli in CF in San Diego or Portland.
December 12, 2007 at 11:31 am
According to ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick, the Padres “merit consideration” as one of the bottom 5 lineups in baseball…he does not put them there, but it is a dishonorable mention:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3151453
Top 5 are:
1. Detroit
2. New York Yankees
3. Boston
4. Phily
5. Colorado
Bottom 5 are:
1. Minnesota
2. Pittsburgh
3. Washington
4. KC
5. San Fran
December 12, 2007 at 11:42 am
From ESPN’s chat with Chris Kline:
—
Al (Pittsburgh): Hi Jim, What do you make of this Bay to Padres rumor? What kind of prospects should the Pirates target for our lone star? Thanks, Jim.
SportsNation Chris: (2:35 PM ET ) I say Headley, but I suspect the Padres are saying Kouzmanoff, and that might happen with Neal Huntington’s history as a Kouz backer when both were with the Tribe.
—
I hope this is not true, id we are giving Headley or Kouz, the return has to be better than Bay.
December 12, 2007 at 11:46 am
Does anyone think that Khalil and Wilson might be swapped in this deal? I hope to hell not, but Khalil’s family lives in Pittsburgh (even though Khalil and his wife live somwhere in the Carolinas if I remember right).
It’s pretty amusing reading all of the commnets being thrown around back and forth on the MLBTR thread.
December 12, 2007 at 11:52 am
Re: 78 Some where CM is smiling.
December 12, 2007 at 11:53 am
If Khalil is thrown in we would get more than Bay and Wilson. I really wouldnt mind seeing Matt Morris round out our rotation.
December 12, 2007 at 11:53 am
Where is Jay Payton when you need him?
Kenny Lofton for one year would be welcome.
December 12, 2007 at 11:55 am
78,80: I mind seeing Morris in the rotation. He’s no good. I also mind seeing Wilson in the lineup. He can’t hit and he can’t slug.
December 12, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I think Wilson would be a significant downgrade at short, and I think it would not be a poplular move within the fanbase. Granted, there’s no real indication that Khalil would be involved in such a deal, but I suppose it’s always a possibility.
December 12, 2007 at 12:02 pm
53-3: It’s all about perspective. You can frame all those runs at corner OF’s that didn’t pan out as KT being serious about being willing to stick with what he’s got rather than overpaying. And if the team has excessive OF’s, he can point out that most of the other teams have filled their corner OF needs so if they want to convert that extra corner OF to something useful then they better listen to what he’s got to offer.
December 12, 2007 at 12:04 pm
BTW, what happened to Willy Taveras?
December 12, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Or Will Mo Pena?
December 12, 2007 at 12:17 pm
KT is saying on 1090 right now that Headley and Antonelli aren’t going anywhere. Said he hasn’t talked to Pittsburgh since the GM meetings.
December 12, 2007 at 12:25 pm
82: Morris isn’t a bad option. Career OPS+ of 109, but that has fallen to 90 the last 2 years. It was 103 as recently as 2005.
Pittsburgh has plenty of revenue, though. No team really should feel the need to move payroll.