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…
Love the blog? Buy the book!
The Ducksnorts 2009 Baseball Annual provides the most comprehensive analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres available anywhere... featuring a foreword by Padres Executive Vice President Paul DePodesta.
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.
December 12, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I don’t think there’s any reason to rush to any judgments here. Our front office is, collectively, one of the smartest in the business. I have no doubt that there was a Plan B and a Plan C, with all the various ramnifications and waves accounted for and analyzed.
I think they will push some trades, won’t give up any of the talent they have in the minors, unless it is worth it, and wait it out. There’s a long time between now and spring training.
December 12, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I’m not sure why we’d be interested in X Nady. A 105 OPS+ corner outfielder with poor defense is not a starter on a good team. We still have several options that would be much better than giving up talent to have him start. He should really only be a last resort, and we’re not close to reaching that point yet. It’s still early December, it’s too early to be giving up and acquiring Nady and Morris.
Not that Morris would be a bad fifth starter, but he has negative trade value making $12 million.
December 12, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Yes Phantom, you’re on crack… And it has nothing to do w/ your comments - JK
KT was just on XX and said every time a team brings up Headley or Antonelli in trade talks they kill those talks. The Padres are not willing to part with either player.
Bay for Headley would be a GREAT trade — for the Pirates. The Padres? Not so much…
***
You guys checking out/contributing to the discussion of John Sickles’ top 20 Padres?
http://www.minorleagueball.com...../1555/1519
December 12, 2007 at 12:52 pm
91: Some Pirates fan on MLBTR said they’d need two more prospects with Headley. [Begin laughing now.]
December 12, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Scott Miller just told Extra sports that Rowand signed a 5 year deal with the Giants.
December 12, 2007 at 12:53 pm
KT was on 1090 at noon. Said he talked to Pittsburgh during the GM meetings but not during the winter meetings, they wanted Antonelli or Headley and he’s not trading either. Coach Kenterra brought up Corey Patterson (he’s Coach’s type of player: fast with poor OBP) but KT said Patterson doesn’t fit in with the Padre philosophy and would be way down on his list of options. It sounded like he’s looking at trading for a CF rather than free agency and he seemed to imply that he might be picking up some non-tenders tomorrow.
I thought it was interesting that KT didn’t mention Mike Cameron as an option until one of the 1090 guys brought it up. He said they would like to have him back but the 25 game suspension impacts how much they’re willing to pay him.
December 12, 2007 at 12:53 pm
…Also…
The Padres are not moving Kouz or Headly off 3B IN CASE they get a can’t refuse trade offer for either (each of them retains a higher trade value at 3B than at LF).
However, KT has said that Headley has a chance to make the big league club out of spring training and I think he’ll be the starting LF well before the All Star break.
December 12, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Re: 85 Tavaris plays for the rockies.
December 12, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Rowand to the Giants! Woo-hoo!!!
I’m setting the over/under at: .260/.320/.415
December 12, 2007 at 1:02 pm
93: Hahahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Wow. I love having the Giants in our division.
December 12, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Interesting that two of the big FA CFs this year signed in the NL West, where the parks are notoriously brutal. 5 years is bad enough, but if the amount is over $55, then I’m going to be rolling around my office laughing.
December 12, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I bet it’s 5/60M for Rowand. What is that, a third of their payroll tied up in Rowand and Zito?
December 12, 2007 at 1:12 pm
David DeJesus is a name thats been floated about a few times. How does everyone feel about him now?
December 12, 2007 at 1:16 pm
97:That’s a pretty good over/under Peter. I might take the over, but just barely…
December 12, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Getting back to that Jerry Crasnick article about the best and worst lineup’s in baseball. I’m amazed that a national writer for the self-described World Wide Leader doesn’t take into account park effects.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....p;type=reg
Now the Padres vs. the Rockies is slightly skewed because the Rockies have to play in Petco and vice-versa which in reality probably makes them close to even. But the Rockies are certainly no better. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised because it is from ESPN and it’s filled mostly with idiots. So whenever you read something from an ESPN columnist, realize that it reality, they have no idea what they are talking about.
December 12, 2007 at 1:33 pm
What’s a good games played over/under for Rowand in SF…..500? Lower?
Yeah at this point I every team in the division has made some type of questionable signing:
Arizona-10M a year for Byrnes, with their outfield prospects?
Dodgers-Pierre lol blocking either Kemp or Ethier
Giants-about their whole team, Zito, Rowand, Wynn, Roberts
Unfortunately both the DBacks and Dodgers can bury us with prospects and it is going to majorly suck having Justin Upton in the division forever.
December 12, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Oh my God, local radio in Oakland reporting 5/80!
*not sure how accurate this is*
December 12, 2007 at 1:48 pm
ESPN reporting 5 years, $60 million.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3152201
December 12, 2007 at 1:50 pm
If nothing else this should make for fun radio when Hacksaw comes on and rips the Padres for being too cheap to sign a gamer like Rowand.
December 12, 2007 at 1:50 pm
If you’re getting really depressed about the offseason, go check out the ZIPS projections for the Padres. It’s uplifting.
http://www.baseballthinkfactor.....im_angels/
It’s pretty funny that we’re getting a worst lineup shout-out when we scored more runs than 11 other teams, including 4 in the AL where they have the DH. So even if you completely ignore park factors, the Padres still don’t have one of the five worst lineups, and aren’t particularly close.
December 12, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Oops, wrong link above. Here’s the right one:
http://www.baseballthinkfactor.....go_padres/
December 12, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Is anyone else puzzled on why the Padres were prepared to spend $30m plus on Fukudome but not on Andruw Jones? Considering they are they same age (Jones is 3 days older), Andruw Jones’ major league track recond is far superior (obviously) and the fact that Jones is one of the best center fielders in baseball while no one know whether Fukudome can be an average CF, it seems logical that Jones is far preferable to Fukudome. Granted, you would give the same amount of money to each but get Jones for one less year but he is the far safer pickup. His worst case is that he turns into someone like Mike Cameron for the next two years with better defense while Fukudome’s is that he turns into Kaz Matsui and becomes another long-term big deal albatross to the Padres.
It seems like lately the Padres prefer to take the lower ceiling player, rationalizing that it makes them the safer choice, whether or not this is true (see the pick of Nick Schmidt over Rick Porcello). It’s a troubling development because their window of opportunity appears to be small, as they have less financial resources then any team in the division while also appearing to have the least amount of young talent (except for the Giants of course). If they squander these next two seasons because they were afraid to take a gamble to win now, it doesn’t bode well for the future.
December 12, 2007 at 2:10 pm
89: Couldn’t agree more. I really don’t see our front office doing something stupid just to do something.
December 12, 2007 at 2:15 pm
108: I think that has a lot to do with most fans and a fair number of writers just not being terribly bright.
December 12, 2007 at 2:35 pm
110: Easy answer might be that Fukudome would be a much bigger draw, pulling in new fans eager to see the “latest Japanese sensation” as opposed to Andruw Jones who is a star, but wouldn’t attract new fans to the park.
December 12, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Re 112: There is a huge difference between being ignorant of statistical values and not being bright. I would venture to guess that most fans and most writers are very bright. They may not be able to differentiate the value between certain players based on often difficult to understand statistics, but that does not mean they are not bright. It most often means they haven’t put the time into learning those things. Now I agree, some writers, and radio personalities are a little daft at times, but I am sure most of them are fairly bright.
JMO
December 12, 2007 at 2:44 pm
113- Maybe Andruw would’ve brought some of the 15,000 Braves fans I saw at Petco last year!
December 12, 2007 at 2:47 pm
113: Do you seriously believe that? Do you think that the Padre management believes that? If they do, that’s not a good sign. I guess if he turns into Ichiro that’s certainly possible, but do you think fans would flock to the ballpark to see a .280, 15HR outfielder?
I wasn’t a fan of signing Fukudome to a long term deal — certainly I think that giving an unproven 31 year old 4 years is slightly crazy if you have any kind of payroll restrictions. The problem is that the Padres should be trying to win the division, not to keep their payroll under control. Why bother to sign Jake Peavy to a huge extension if you aren’t going to try to win the next couple of years? In a division as competitive as the NL West, there is only going to be a few seasons in which the Padres would be clear-cut favorites. 2008 would have been one of them if they decide they want to improve the team enough to do it. I guess I have different expectations then the Padre management, I want to win the division while it seems they just want to compete (and turn a profit).
December 12, 2007 at 2:47 pm
15,000 Braves fans? We exaggerate just a little, eh?
I’m pretty sure I heard Towers say on 1090 that they went 4 years/40 mil for KF.
December 12, 2007 at 2:53 pm
The Coach’s trade proposal for Jays OFer Alex Rios: Josh Greer and Michael Barrett. Does JP Richie Boy laugh hysterically at KT or insult him and hang up?
December 12, 2007 at 2:56 pm
116: Who’s to say that the Padres’ current approach doesn’t put them in a good position for 08? The Dodgers got Joe Torre and Andruw Jones, big deal. To me, that means that one of Andre Ethier or Matt Kemp is going to see less playing time in 08, which is a GREAT thing. At this point, I’d be more afraid of seeing Kemp 18 times a year than I am of Jones.
The thing that people continually fail to realize when it comes to baseball is that you can guarantee nothing. No amount of spending guarantees you success. There is no specific equation that says “To win the division, you must be in the top half of every offensive category” or that “every person in your lineup must post an OBP north of 300″.
The Padres had a FANTASTIC year in 2007. They won 89 games! They ran into the hottest team this decade (who then lost all of their momentum after an 8 day hiatus) and lost in the 13th inning on a ridiculously questionnable call.
I have the utmost faith in KT and the rest of the FO to assemble a smart, competitive, and fiscally responsible contender. You want to know why they locked up Jake Peavy? Because it was an affordable and intelligent decision that will pay dividends in both team success and fan loyalty.
December 12, 2007 at 2:57 pm
118: I’m sure Sledge would have been the cornerstone of that deal if he was still around. Kenterra is beyond vacuous.
December 12, 2007 at 3:03 pm
#116: The Padres came within three outs of winning a third straight division title last year.
December 12, 2007 at 3:04 pm
114: Using a conception of bright as in the top half of intellect, I’d have to agree with Richard, a lot of them just aren’t bright. I’m sure they still have a lot of other great qualities, I hear Crasnick makes a to-die-for peach cobbler.
116: If having Fukodome meant that the Padres would get more airtime in Japan and could increase its advertising and other miscellaneous revenue, then it makes sense. If you make another 2 mil a year off the guy, then paying him 12 mil is like paying anybody else 10 mil.
December 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm
The Padres have been more than competitive since moving into Petco, and there is no evidence that they have been trying to turn a profit. You can certainly disagree about how they allocate their money, but they have been spending it - all available information shows that.
As to Jones, he may be a good bounce back candidate if he gets back in shape but he is a low upside player and the Dodgers can take the hit much better if he busts than can the Padres. I never think it is a good idea for a team to put 25% of their payroll into one player, but if it was a good idea, my candidate for that would never be a player with the profile and recent history of Andruw Jones. Fukudome was a much better risk for a team like the Padres because he fits their profile (high OBP) and they wanted him for a longer term than they did Jones.
December 12, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Two things Phantom. You say that the Padres had a great year last year, I agree but so what? What does 2007 have to do with 2008? Absolutely nothing I think we’d agree.
And you say big deal to the Dodgers acquisition of Andruw Jones. That might be somewhat true — unless the Padres end up with someone like Nate McLouth in center field. In that case it is a big deal. Again, I think we differ on what the Padres goal should be next season. You and Padres management seem to think that the goal should be to put together a fiscally responsible contender. I look at the Padres roster and the rest of the division’s roster and think that the Padres should make an all out effort to win the division next season. Now in some years your goal would make sense. But in 2008 it doesn’t make sense.
I’m not saying that they can’t win the division without Andruw Jones in CF, they nearly did it last year and did it the two previous years. However, why take the chance? Remember, it’s not usually the contract amount that burns teams but the contract length.
I’d rather have Andruw Jones for about double the money for two years rather then Fukudome for the same money and 4 years as Jones makes a lot more sense for the ballclub and their particular holes. But it seems like the Padre immediately crossed him off the list because he wants too much money per year. Why do they gamble on lower ceiling players? That makes no sense to me.
December 12, 2007 at 3:15 pm
121: 1 out, wasn’t it? If Gwynn Jr flies out instead of tripling…..
December 12, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Gosh, Hacksaw needs a fact-checker. I counted four or five mistakes and his “Best 15 minutes” isn’t even over.
December 12, 2007 at 3:18 pm
123: Jones is far from a low upside player. In 2006 he hit 41 HR, the year before 51. Possible 900 OPS centerfielders are the personification of huge upside.
December 12, 2007 at 3:23 pm
124: 2007 is extremely relevant to 2008 because aside from Cameron, we’re probably going to run a similar team out in 08 as we did in 07. So, if we had a good team in 07, that means we’ll likely have a good team in 08.
The Dodgers acquisition of Jones should have no impact on who we plug into CF. If they kept Juan Pierre there, does that mean I could have played CF for the Padres?
As I said the day the Jones trade was announced, there is no reason to think that the Padres didn’t make a comparable offer to Jones. But, if you are a Free Agent slugger who is trying to re-establish value and your choice is comparable deals between San Diego and Los Angeles, which stadium is going to help you better accomplish your objective? It’s probably a similar thought process that Milton Bradley went through, although the prospect of DH also affected that decision.
The Padres went hard after Fukudome and offered him $1 million/year less than the Cubs. But he went to the Cubs. Is it the money? Probably not. It’s probably the fact that he can play CF (and therefore be more valuable then he would be as a corner OF) and put up better offensive numbers.
Also, of all the rate stats, OBP is probably the one that translates most closely between different levels as it reflects a fundamental player philosophy and ability. So it made more sense for the Padres to pursue a guy with an OBP near .400 (Fukudome) then it did for them to pursue a guy with decliding OBP numbers (Jones).
December 12, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I hate to say it again but to Geoff and others about the Padres coming within a few outs of making the playoffs last year — So What? They didn’t make it, the end result is all that matters. There were probably some moves that they could have made last season that would’ve helped them win the division (picking up a real leftfielder in the beginning instead of in June and July). But the move (or non-move) that has killed them and shows their organizational philosophy was the 2004 drafting of Matt Bush. With a chance to pick a high ceiling possible franchise player, they decided they would spend less money and take a lower ceiling player. That move really killed them and will continue to hurt them into the future. Now you can argue that drafting Stephen Drew wouldn’t have helped much over the past two seasons but at least he looks like he has a major league future.
December 12, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Could someone check who we’ve been linked too so far for CF?
Internal: Antonelli, Hairston
Trade Candidates: Edmonds, McClouth
Free Agents: Cameron
Others Potentially Available: Hamilton
Did i get them all?
December 12, 2007 at 3:33 pm
130: Before most of the FA signings began, the Padres were also said to have interest in Reggie Willits.
December 12, 2007 at 3:33 pm
#129: Good process (which can be controlled) matters at least as much as end result (which cannot). What 2007 demonstrates is that the Padres are following good process and are committed to winning, which you suggest in #116 that they are not. The available evidence does not jibe with your contention.
December 12, 2007 at 3:35 pm
128: The Dodgers acquisition of Jones should have no impact on who we plug into CF.
Are you serious? Of course it should. Why do you think the Red Sox payroll has gone up so much in the past few seasons? Why do you think that the Tigers acquired Miguel Cabrera? Remember, baseball is a zero sum game. If someone gets better, someone else gets worse. If it looks like the Dodgers have improved your team, you’d better improve your team as well. I also don’t under why you think Jones is a much bigger gamble then Fukudome. Only Japanese relief pitchers have come close to replicating their stats from Japan, everyone else has taken huge hits. People talked about Dice-K like he was one of the top 10 pitchers in all of baseball and he was just decent last season and he’s in his prime. The chances of Fukudome having a .400 OBP are about zero. I saw earlier that his best comp is Mark Kotsay — without the ability to play centerfield. You’d rather have that then Andruw Jones?
December 12, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I’m not saying they aren’t committing to winning, I’m saying they are only committing to winning within certain financial boundaries which isn’t exactly the same thing. I think they’ve done amazingly well considering their payroll and how poorly they’ve drafted. It’s easy to have a low payroll when your team is full of players that you’ve drafted yourself, it’s nearly impossible when you only have a few on your roster. Everyone praises Billy Beane for what he was able to accomplish in Oakland with a low payroll but I think the core of that team was mainly homegrown. KT has built this team mainly but shrewd trades which is great.
I guess my point is that there is no reason for the Padres to have such a low payroll. There shouldn’t be much difference between the Padres and Tigers yet the perception is that the Padres are a small market team and the Tigers are a big market team. And the only reason the Tigers are a “big market” team is that they act like one. Could the Padres act like a big market team? I don’t see why not.
December 12, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Firstly, you’re advocating that the Padres adopt a reactionary approach to their spending. You have a budget for a reason. It’s what you can afford to do. Other teams in the league have greater financial resources than the Padres. It’s a fact of life. Just because one of them goes out and spends money on a big name does not mean the Padres should do the same.
So I stand by claim. Whomever the Dodgers plug into their positions should have no effect on what the Padres do except for the fact that those players are not available for their own plans. To advocate that the Padres should constantly try to “one-up” the Dodgers is an extremely unrealistic view of the real economics of the NL West. Did the Dodgers go out and spend a crap load of money on a pitcher or trade the farm for an ace just because the Padres extended Peavy? Of course not. They have their own plan, and they are sticking to it irrespective of what we do.
Secondly, I would have been more comfortable spending 11 mil a year for 3 years of Fukudome than 16+ million for 2 years of Jones. I don’t think Jones is the player he used to be, and he is showing signs of slowing down both defensively and offensively. While it might be unrealistic to project Fukudome’s OBP to remain near his .400 mark, there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t be about .350, which is higher than Jones’ career mark.
You either trust the team to be successful, or you don’t. We’ve just completed the 4 most successful consecutive years in franchise history, so I have a ton of faith in what the team is able to do with their resources. It appears that you do not share this faith.
December 12, 2007 at 3:49 pm
134: How can you honestly say that the Padres should act like the Tigers? Do you know the relative financial situations for each of these teams?
According to Nielsen’s DMAs, Detroit ranks 11th for TV while San Diego ranks 27th. For radio, Detroit ranks 11th while San Diego ranks 17th. There is no way given these facts that you can logically claim that San Diego and Detroit have similar markets. None whatsoever.
So when it boils down to things, you think the Padres are cheap. You have every right to think that. But let me put up a scenario for you:
Let’s say you have a job making $50,000 a year and your brother makes $100,000. You each have monthly budgets that relate to your income and your own particular financial situation. Now, if your brother goes out and purchases luxury automobile that retails for $50K, are you going to to the same just because your wife whines at you that you should? Of course not. You realize that your brother has a different financial suituation and can thus act in different ways than you can. To purchase the same automobile with no regard of your own spending limitations would be incredibly foolish.
December 12, 2007 at 3:52 pm
My point is that their budget shouldn’t be static. Remember, the goal should be to make the playoffs as that will lead to best financial windfall (more home games with higher ticket prices plus the carry over effect). I think of lot of you are missing the point in that Padres have to win now. This year and maybe next year might be their only chance of winning for a long time. The other teams in the division either have greater financial resources or better young players or both. I guess it comes down if you’d rather see a season like 1998 and then some bad ones or a period like 2004-2007. Personally, I’d take the World Series run but I can understand why others would rather see a few years of 85 or so wins.
December 12, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Phantom, go back and look at the Tigers and Padres total attendance over the past ten years.
December 12, 2007 at 3:57 pm
138: Revenues generated from stadium attendance are negligible when compared to reneues generated from broadcast rights.
December 12, 2007 at 3:58 pm
#137: I get that the Padres have to win now. I also get that they are winning now. What I don’t get is this “either/or” scenario of World Series or a few years of 85 or so wins. There’s no reason, IMHO, that the Padres cannot continue to be front-runners in the NL West by following the same process that got them there.
December 12, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Better yet 136, Look at Forbes. The Tigers had only $10M more in revenue than SD in 06. SD actually had $11M more in gate receipts and charges $21 average seat vs. $18 for rust belt Detroit.
December 12, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Actually, that’s not technically true. The higher the attendance, the more popular the team is. The more popular the team is, the greater the revenue the team can get from their broadcasts. Their is no way the Tigers were getting more money from their TV rights when their attendance was lower then the Padres, much lower in some seasons. They might get more now since they are a lot better, but who did they get a lot better.
December 12, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Come on guys TV money isn’t hard to figure out: teams make a set amount per household that receives their games.
For example, TBS was once paying the Braves $2 per household.
December 12, 2007 at 4:06 pm
129: Geez, somebody call this guy a WAAAAAAmbulance. The 2004 signing of Bush killed the franchise? Killed them so dead they went out and won back-to-back division titles. Killed them so dead they posted their best W-L record yet in Petco in 2007. Killed them so dead they now have four straight winning seasons, a first in franchise history.
And let’s not forget the front office and scouting in place for the Bush signing has been completely revamped, and has drasticallly overhauled and improved the minor league system in a very short span since that draft.
December 12, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Yahoo sports again today has an article by sports finance expert and author, Vince Gennaro, who explains the value of free agents to “cusp” teams which could earn the oft-quoted additional $30-$40M reaching the playoffs by adding one player for say $10M. In other words teams in the mix should attempt to calulate the additional 2-5 games that player might give them to make the difference in a tight race. The payoff could be 300% on such an “investment”. Maybe teams that are ostensibly, primarily concerned with bottom line profit could “profit” from his book.
December 12, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I guess I’m just confused on exactly what the Padres are doing this offseason. I think the Randy Wolf signing was great, a one year deal on a pitcher who if healthy, will be one of the better pitchers in the division (check out his stats from last year, except for his ERA they were awesome). But I have no idea what they are trying to do in the outfield. I don’t have a problem with letting Milton Bradley go, they got what they wanted out of him and he just seems like he’s too high maintenance to rely on. But to me, their preference of Fukudome over Jones is just baffling. We’ve heard them talk about how important defense is to the club and yet they try to sign a corner outfielder to play center? And a 31 year old with absolutely zero major league track record to a 4 year deal? That’s just not logical. And why would they sign Geoff Jenkins? Does he have anything left? I’d rather have Hairston play everyday in LF and use that savings toward a CF or another high-impact player then Jenkins and whoever else they get.
I always thought that the Padres would end up resigning Mike Cameron and right now that seems like the best case scenario. It would be perfect if Scott Hairston could play CF but I’m not sure if that can happen.
Now, I’ll take all of this back if it turns out that Jones wouldn’t play for the Padres for any amount of money. I think that’s certainly possible although historically, Jones has hit much better in Petco Park then in Dodger Stadium (although he was terrible in Qualcomm although not much worse then in Dodger Stadium).
http://www.baseball-reference......mp;year=00
But for some reason, the Padres didn’t even offer him a contract. But they were prepared to spend the same amount of money (or more) for Fukudome. I’d just like an explanation why.
December 12, 2007 at 4:16 pm
If the Padres don’t add substantial payroll this offseason do they make large investments in the draft, intl players again? If so, I’m all for not signing Rowand/Hunter/Jones/ etc. and going with a cheap option- Our team should have a good shot at the NL West crown as it is, and our returns from the draft are finally paying good dividends. Id rather keep allocating excess funds there then marginally improving our Major League roster via FA.
December 12, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Pat, I guess killed might be too strong. But it definitely cost them. Let’s say that instead of Bush they drafted Jared Weaver. They might have won a playoff series in 2005 or 2006. They definitely would have made the playoffs last year. Could they have made the World Series in any of those three seasons? I don’t know but their odds with Weaver were certainly better then the 0% they had by drafting Matt Bush. Let’s just say they would have made it in one of those seasons. Do you think we’d have a different view of the Padres if that happened? All because the team wanted to save $1m or so. So maybe not killed, but it definitely really, really, really hurt.
December 12, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Looking at what Jones did last year, he is at the very least a major risk. Even if he was a sure thing, the Pads would have been streching to offer a 18M/year contract for 2 years, and he is at this point in no way a sure thing. Even if the pads could afford that, they would have had their hands tied over upgrading other positions like iguchi, wolf, etc. midseason moves, and the draft as well.
Clearly the Pads plan A was Fukudome in left, Milton in center, BG in right with hairston playing 4th OF.
Plan B seems to be Jenkins at left (with his 100+ OPS+) Cammy in center
Who knows what they have after that - I’d assume a trade?
And worst case is they slide over Hairston, give one of their young recent pickups a shot, or try out Antonelli.
Going through all the muck, thats what im getting so far.
December 12, 2007 at 4:29 pm
128: The Padres admitted they didn’t make an offer to Jones.
139: There’s no way that gate receipts are negligible. 2.8 million fans at an average of at least 30 a pop is 60 million. I don’t even know the figures, but that’s a huge chunk of revenue. If gate receipts are negligible, why did we need to build Petco?
144: Not at all completely revamped. Gayton is still there. Towers is still there. The organizational philosophy of paying slot because players who will sign for slot are seen as lower risk, which they are not, is still there. Gayton favored college players before he had Fuson over him. They’ve improved their execution of the plan. The plan itself and the people involved in formulating haven’t changed enough to be completely revamped. Semirevamped.
December 12, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Here’s the article Malcolm was talking about:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne.....;type=lgns
This is exactly what I’ve been saying in my myriad of posts today. I’m not sure they’ve improved their team from last year while the rest of the division has probably gotten better (with the exception of the Giants of course). So if they weren’t good enough to win last season, do you think they will be good enough to win this season?
December 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm
147: Their draft budget in 06 and 07 was a couple million more than it had been. In the 6-7 million neighborhood, depending on when you put a pin in the various late signings. It’s not dependent on free agent signings.
December 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Schlom, every team has a maybe, coulda, woulda shoulda. Before Bush, it was the Giles trade, and I’m sure something else will come around to get our attention. But if it took Matt Bush for Moores to realize he had to get out of the baseball decision making process and get in some pros to take care of the draft, then it was a cheap lesson.
December 12, 2007 at 4:33 pm
149: If Plan A had Bradley in CF, it was a crazy plan, and they probably would have offered more than 4 million.
I think their plan was, if we can get Jenga at a good price, he’s one corner outfielder. Then we live with Fukodome in CF for a season and try to upgrade defensively as time goes by.
December 12, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Cheap lesson? Costing the team $20m at the low point doesn’t seem very cheap to me but then again I’m not a multi-millionaire who required other, less rich people to pay for my stadium for me.
December 12, 2007 at 4:36 pm
150: Broadcast revenue is far more important than revenue from attendance. So if the Padres and the Tigers drew about the same the past 10 years (no idea if this is true, I haven’t looked at the numbers), the Tigers STILL hold the edge because they are in a significantly larger media market.
While stadium revenue is an important consideration, it’s not the only one. We needed Petco because the Padres were getting raped on their agreement at Qualcomm. It also was no longer feasible as a baseball stadium. If sheer attendance numbers are what’s more important, than it would be stupid to downgrade from a 50,000+ stadium to one that holds just over 40,000. But obviously there was more to that move.
People either appreciate the Padres FO or they don’t. But let’s not try to invent numbers. If you ran the team and you were spending your own money, you wouldn’t operate at a loss. People don’t buy baseball teams because they hate money. You can either look at the real world situation and accept that the Padres do all they can given their resources, or you can constantly bitch and moan that Moores is a crook who has continually mislead and lied to Padres fans. I’ll take the past four years of baseball in San Diego at Petco over just about any other period in Padres history (not-withstanding my youth when Tony was in his prime. Those are memories I will forever cherish).
December 12, 2007 at 4:36 pm
153: Moores may not be deep in the actual decisions on draft day, but his mark is all over their decision-making parameters.
He forced Towers and Gayton to pick Bush because he was afraid of spending too much on Weaver or Drew. He’s still worried more about spending too much than about getting the best talent. They need to strike more of a balance between rigid adherence to slot and acquiring the best available player.
December 12, 2007 at 4:47 pm
156: The “rape” aspect of Qualcomm was signage. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to tickets and concessions.
According to Forbes the Padres had revenue of 164 million. 64 million in gate receipts. Add concessions, which is huge. All teams get the same from MLB.COM, rumored to be over 10 million per team. That’s well over 100 million before they broadcast one game.
The Padres signed a below-market deal with Cox, which limits their revenue, and their market size will make it hard for them to ever generate as much media revenue as larger-market teams. But people coming to the park are at least as important, if not more so, than broadcast.
Who’s saying they should lose money?
December 12, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Tom, are you including intl signings? Technically not the draft, but the same function. Im not going to dig through madfriars right now, but if i remember right, they spent quite a bit more for Intl players then they historically did. And were much more aggressive at the deadline then they have been for some time. Highlighted by the complaining about the team changing too much, we picked up hairston, bradley, barrett etc. during the course of the season. moves we couldnt replicate this season if we were right at our payroll limit. I hate sounding like an apologist- I was looking forward to Japanese television carrying Padres games because of Fukudome, but I havent received the impression Moores was skimping.
December 12, 2007 at 4:50 pm
156: “People either appreciate the Padres FO or they don’t. ”
Completely false choice. I can appreciate some things they do while not believing that everything they do is smart. If they’re truly smart, which I believe most of them are, they’ll be willing to adapt their plans in order to stay competitive. One adaption would be looking at certain players as investments rather than solely as debt. Maybe they did that with Peavy. Another possible adaptation would be modifying their draft strategy to include more high-ceiling players who want more than slot.
December 12, 2007 at 4:52 pm
158: My understanding of the Qualcomm deal is that concessions WERE NOT entirely going to the Padres. The Chargers, as I recall, got a cut of all concessions from Qualcomm, irrespective of the nature of the event.
I tend to believe that the Padres spending close to their means. The player payroll is but one aspect of running a team, with stadium debts, taxes, and franchise costs making up the rest of the difference between total revenues taken in and the amount they allocate to the player payroll. Stadium operating costs also increase as attendance does.
December 12, 2007 at 4:53 pm
158: unless the pads open up their books, i cant see us getting to the bottom of this. BTW, how much are they paying in debt service?
December 12, 2007 at 4:55 pm
160: I’m not so sure I see that as a false choice. Most people readily fall into one of those two camps. Not everyone does, to be sure, but most do. I think it’s fair to say that in genreal, you are either pleased with the current ownership, or your not.
December 12, 2007 at 4:56 pm
159: We’ve spent a lot internationally before. There was a LHP out of Mexico we spent 800K on a few years ago.
They have spent more in 2006 and 2007 on amateur players. But they did it largely by having more picks and selecting primarily safe players who would sign for slot.
I’d rather be maxed out on money on opening day, with that team ready to roll for 162 games, than have the payroll flexibility to add talent to a roster that needs it for 70 games.
December 12, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Let’s get back to the Detroit vs. San Diego market for a bit. In the past 10 seasons (from 1998) the Padres have had 25.398m in attendance while the Tigers have had 20.25m — 25% less. Even taking into consideration the fact that the Detroit area is larger than San Diego, there is just no way they could have pulled in more revenue then the Padres. I even doubt whether they got more money for their broadcast rights. I think attendance figures are pretty good indicators of how many people also watch the games, I’m sure the numbers are probably in the Padres favor there too.
The strange thing is that in 3 of the past 4 draft the Tigers have picked right behind the Padres. In 2004, the Padres took Matt Bush, the following pick was Justin Verlander. In 2005 the Tigers took Cameron Maybin 10th and the Padres took Cesar Carillo 18th. In 2007, the Padres took Nick Schmidt 23rd and the Tigers took Rick Porcello 27th. That’s a huge factor in their success obviously to get one ace starter and use the other in a package to get the best young hitter in baseball. Obviously it’s too early to rate last year’s draft but it looks like it’s going to swing in the Tigers favor.
That’s why I say there’s no reason why the Padres couldn’t turn into the Tigers. With some canny drafting and investment into their team, they could be the NL West power not the poorly run Dodgers.
December 12, 2007 at 5:03 pm
161: Never said they didn’t. But the revenue goes into the same bucket. Gate receipts of 64 million are huge, not anywhere in the neighborhood of negligible. Anyway, if concessions were part of that “negligible” component of revenue, why would it matter how much the Padres got at the Q?
162: It’s not really a debt service question. It’s how much money they get from various sources. I’m not advocating for wild spending, just stating that the idea of media market absolutely trumping gate receipts is not true.
163: Of course it’s false. There are a dozen DSers I could list who are not completely in one camp or the other. If you want to say “Some people appreciate them or don’t,” fine. But certainly not People. Not even Most People. Most People are happy they signed Jake, even people who don’t think they have the optimal draft strategy, even people who call radio talk shows and scream for a Big Bat.
December 12, 2007 at 5:06 pm
150: TW, I think completely revamped is fair, keeping in mind revamped does not mean replaced. Fuson is in chareg of scouting now, not Gayton, which is a huge change. Alderson as KT’s boss makes big impact on day to day operations, imo, and also has changed the way KT operates, again imo. There are also other significant changes such as DePo and Randy Smith.
To me any one of these changes would not have been worthy of being deemed completely revamped, but in total I think they certainly qualify.
December 12, 2007 at 5:06 pm
163: So you really don’t think you could walk down the street in San Diego and ask people to definitively say whether or not they’re happy with the Padres management? I think you overestimate how many people delve into baseball as much as we do and are willing to consider all aspects of running the team as a business. I would expect that if you polled 100 people on the street, between 80 and 90 would give you a definitive answer.
December 12, 2007 at 5:07 pm
One thing that I don’t think has been mentioned as far as Schlom’s argument is concerned is that the Padres have a terrible broadcasting deal with Cox, and are locked into it for an insane number of years. I can only imagine that the Tigers have a much better one.
Also, I don’t understand the idea that it’s 2008 or nothing. Here’s what the Padres look like in 2009:
Peavy: $8M (I think the contract doesn’t get huge until the extention kicks in later)
Young: $4.5M
Gonzalez: $3M
Greene: After arbitration, probably something like $8M? That’s a guess.
Headley/Antonelli: league minimum
Kouz: maybe $3M, using Gonzalez’s extension as a model. Maybe less?
So who’s missing that we couldn’t afford to lose? Is there anybody?
December 12, 2007 at 5:10 pm
168: Sorry, that should have been 166.
My absolute terms were basically way of saying that there are either people who are happy with the team’s current direction and staffing or they are not. Trying to convince one side of the other is like me trying to tell Coronado Mike why Khalil isn’t overrated. I’m willing to bet that no matter how many compelling, fact-based arguments either of us make, we’re both going to hold our stances.
December 12, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I think it’s 2008 or 2009 or nothing due to the makeup of the other teams in the division. I’m not really worried about the Rockies as I think last season was as good as it’s going to get with them and they won’t have a high enough payroll to keep their team intact. The problems are the Dodgers and the D-backs. Both of them have shown they can have very high payrolls and both are stacked with young talent. If they keep their teams intact (and that would be realistic) I don’t see how the Padres are going to compete with those two teams without having a huge payroll, which I think everyone thinks isn’t going to happen.
December 12, 2007 at 5:12 pm
By the way, this article gives an interesting perspective on why the Padres left Qualcomm. It sure would have been nice to see those financials…
http://www.sddt.com/Commentary.....0020805tza
December 12, 2007 at 5:16 pm
171: The D’backs will not be able to go into a high payroll scenario again for some time. Their world championship run at the beginning of the millenium has resulted in a ton of deferred monies that have hamstrung them severely. If not for Bud Selig bailing them out, that team would have gone belly up already. AZ might have the young talent to sustain themselves for a while to come, but they really don’t scare me that much. Carlos Quentin was supposed to be a big deal and he never got it going. I think that Justin Upton will be the real deal, but he’s only one player.
As for the Dodgers, they have fantastic young players but they sure don’t know what to do with them. Russel Martin is the only young position player developed through that system that has been given a consistent starting role. Others, like Ethier, Kemp, Loney, and LaRoche have been or are currently blocked. The Dodgers will always be able to outspend us, but that doesn’t mean they’ll have better teams or greater success.
December 12, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Phantom, I think that most of us are pretty happy with the overall direction of the Padres but that doesn’t mean that we think that Towers is infallible. He’s definitely made some mistakes over the years so not everything he does is perfect. I guess we should wait and see and what happens to the outfield. If they put Hairston in CF and Headley/Kouz in LF and they both turn out to be brilliant moves I’ll be the first one to say that I was wrong! (Actually, that’s my dream scenario).
December 12, 2007 at 5:32 pm
165: The Dodgers are not the NL West power, the Padres are the only team that’s been over .500 the past 4 years for the best record over that span, and fell one call shy of 3 straight playoff appearances
December 12, 2007 at 5:32 pm
About those Qualcomm concessions: would anyone believe that the Chargers actually received a higher % of revenue from concessions at Padres games, then the Padres did?
Completely true fact for the Padres final 2 years at the Q.
December 12, 2007 at 5:33 pm
167: Fuson and Gayton worked together for 10 years in Oakland. It’s not a major change. They both like college players. They both believe in statistical evaluation.
Look at the players Gayton preferred when he was running things solo and the players we pick now that he’s under Fuson. Very heavily oriented towards college guys in both cases.
They’re still drafting polished college players and paying slot bonuses. They’re still not signing many HS kids at all. They’re mostly just doing a better job of identifying which college players to pick.
December 12, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Oh and before people draw too many parallels between the Petco deal and what the Chargers are trying to put together, let’s mention that the Chargers sites wouldn’t be able to receive state tax increment financing like the city/team/taxpayers got in East Village.
That distinction alone would add at least 12-16% to the final costs of any stadium deal and is the real reason why east village was selected instead of a more favorable Lane Field site.
December 12, 2007 at 5:38 pm
re:169
Thats our core id say. And id put it up there against anyone else in the NL West.
A good-great inf (assuming antonelli pans out)
a good-great top of the rotation
and Headly, wherever he ends up.
Our minors are finally starting to produce as well….
December 12, 2007 at 5:39 pm
168: I think you’d be very surprised at how many people would say “They do a pretty good job with pitchers but don’t seem to know how to build an offense.” Or “I like the way they build a bullpen but I wish they’d add speed.” Or “I’m really happy they signed Peavy but I wish they’d have signed (Jones, Rowand, Hunter).”
169: Signed in 2001 for 10 years. The way baseball revenues have expanded in the last 10, that really hurts.
176: Oh, I can believe it. But concessions/signage/tickets can’t be negligible now but important enough to require a new ballpark 10 years ago. Which I know was not your point.
December 12, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Relatively speaking, as between teams, what makes the biggest difference between small, medium and large market teams are their media contracts. I think this is the point Phantom is trying to make. Attendance does mean something as well; so does a team’s debt structure.
The interesting comp of the Tigers and Padres for the 2006 season is instructive. They had similar attendance, but the Tigers made $10 million more in revenue; the Tigers do in fact have better media markets, which is reflective of the media market size difference. Some of this difference could also have come from the extra playoff revenue for the Tigers, but that is primarily MLB controlled as I understand it.
I do agree that the Cox deal stinks, mostly its length. The problem facing the Padres back then is that there was no FSW or other regional sports network available as a realistic alternative; they would have had to start their own network (or got less years with Cox) to try for a more palatable deal. Perhaps they should have; then we could be whining at them hiding money off the books just like many teams with team-owned media do.
December 12, 2007 at 6:01 pm
180: I suppose I should have clarified that when comparing teams, the difference in revenues from attendance in negligible when there are large differences in thier media sizes.
December 12, 2007 at 6:02 pm
181: Good points on market differentiation. A lot of playoff-related revenue, as I understand it, is actually a bounce in attendance the year after a team makes the postseason. It eventually wears out if you keep going or are maxed in attendance anyway.
If a team is hiding revenue by owning its own broadcast stations, then how would pointing that out be whining?
December 12, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Where did you the figures for the 2006 revenue? If the Tigers made just $10m more then the Padres then most likely the Padres made more in their broadcast contract then the Tigers did. Their attendances were essentially the same: 2.660m for the Padres, 2.596m for the Tigers. The Padres had 4 playoff games, two at home. The Tigers had 13 playoff games, 6 at home. So their stadium revenue was probably at least more then $10m more then the Padres. So wouldn’t their broadcast contract be lower then the Padres? Again, who is the big market team then?
December 12, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Granted, the revenues might not be correct. But if the Padres have a bigger tv contract and higher attendance then the Tigers yet have had a lower payroll over the past few years, wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that the Padres (or really John Moores) are more concerned about making money (or at least not losing it) then in winning? That’s fine if that’s what the team wants to do but they should be honest about it.
December 12, 2007 at 6:15 pm
184: I’m confused. You recognize that the Padres had greater attendance through 164 games, but made $10 million less. You then conclude that they must have made more off their media.
I’m really confused about this. If the Tigers had lower overall attendance, but pulled in $10 million more in revenue, wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that the $10 came from a source like media revenue?
December 12, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Those attendance figures were just for the regular season, not the playoffs. I just made a wild guess for the playoff numbers and figured that the Tigers probably made at least $10m more then the Padres in revenue (might not be correct but it’s probably close). At worst, despite Detroit being the 11th biggest media market in the US and San Diego being 27th, the Padres made more or at worst equal to Tigers in tv money.
December 12, 2007 at 6:23 pm
That last sentence doesn’t really make sense, doing too many things at once. Should read: “At worst, the Padres made the same amount of money despite Detroit being a much larger media market.”
December 12, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Adam Everett was non-tendered by the Astros today. He’d make a really good backup middle infielder who never, ever hits, unless Khalil goes down with an injury, in which case he could hold down the fort better than anyone else in the organization. Or we could trade Khalil! (because this thread hasn’t gotten enough comments already.) I guess carrying 12 pitchers makes it difficult to carry someone like Everett on the bench.
December 12, 2007 at 6:45 pm
188: If your theory is correct, lets walk through the math. The Tigers had 4 more playoff games than the Padres and Comerica holds approximately 40,000 people, meaning we can assume that a total of 160,000 people attendend those 4 games. Now, if we divide the $10 million difference in revenues by 160,000, we get 62.5. Theoretically, this would be the average price per ticket paid by each of those 160,000 people for those 4 extra games.
I can guarantee you that there is no way that $62.50 was the average price paid per playoff ticket in 2006. Given this, it is completely illogical to assume that the additional $10 million in revenue was a result of the playoffs.
Even though this is a low estimate, lets say that the average price per ticket was $100. Multiplied by 160,000, we get $16,000,000. Taking this $16,000,000 and subtracting the $10,000,000 difference in revenue, we must conclude, by your assertions, that the Tigers made $6 million less from TV revenues in 06 than the Padres.
I think more realistically that the extra $10 million in revenue does NOT inlcude the playoffs and is likely a function of the media deal.
December 12, 2007 at 6:51 pm
189: If we’re worried about improving our offense, going from Khalil to Everett would certainly not help things.
December 12, 2007 at 7:06 pm
191: No, but the idea is that if trading Khalil gets you Rich Hill and Felix Pie back, Pie+Everett+Hill > Greene by himself. Or maybe Adam Jones + Everett > Greene. But Khalil’s probably not going to get you those guys in return, so the point is basically moot.
Everett still would be nice insurance and a great defensive replacement. UZR had him at an insane +33 runs/150 games for 2003-2007, which would make him probably right around average at short.
December 12, 2007 at 7:06 pm
192: Last sentence should read “right around average at short overall”, since his offense is such a minus.
December 12, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I dont’ write often but Adam Everett was just non-tendered today… so was Dallas McPherson…
I think those 2 guys are worth at least a flyer on..
December 12, 2007 at 7:12 pm
192: I certainly don’t have a problem with him as a back-up, but I’m not sure how keen on such a role he would be.
December 12, 2007 at 7:14 pm
since KG is not a liability on D, the addition of Everett would not be as helpful as it may be for another team….but on the other hand, if hes that good, wouldnt it be like having a defensive replacement in the OF late in the game? Having a super defensive sub for the late innings and backup for if/when khalil goes down seems like a fine idea to me - sort of like blum except we dont hope forelornly for offense.
December 12, 2007 at 7:33 pm
i guess i should hit refresh a little more often.
December 12, 2007 at 7:46 pm
also - according to rotoworld, prior has been non-tendered. he must really be medically gone if the cubs couldnt get anything for him.
December 12, 2007 at 7:48 pm
and we cut lose engsberg, cassell, lane and ketchner
December 12, 2007 at 7:49 pm
190: I’m assuming that a team gets a portion of the revenue when they are on the road during the playoffs. Isn’t this correct? Also, I’ll bet the average ticket was close to $60 in the World Series and that’s not even adding in any non-ticket revenue that’s generated during the games. The Tigers might have made slightly more money from their tv deal but it’s probably pretty close. In the past ten years they have been comparable markets. In fact, I’ll bet that the Padres revenue has been higher then the Tigers over that period. The main difference between the Tigers and the Padres isn’t the number of people that live in their area, but that the Tigers owner will do whatever it takes to win while Moores will always look at the bottom line. I don’t think that’s debatable.
December 12, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Just read that MGL has Everett at 3 WAR which is about a win (10 runs or so) ABOVE average. He is a tremendously underrated player.
Link: http://www.insidethebook.com/e.....eason/#258
December 12, 2007 at 8:10 pm
200: $60 is such a gross under-estimation of the prices that it’s not even funny. The CHEAPEST ticket last year for the World Series at Petco would have been $150. I know because I wanted to buy playoff tickets and was completely stunned by how expensive they were. Are you telling me that the average price (the cheapest was $150, most expensive field seats - not boxes- was round $300) rose more than $130 in a year? Come on man, I know you can’t honestly beleive that.
December 12, 2007 at 8:16 pm
201: Interestingly, that’s about 5 runs (half a win) worse than you had Khalil. Since Everett is so incredibly undervalued, he’s going to be much cheaper than Khalil over the next few years. Everett is two and a half years older, so he’ll likely see age related decline before Khalil, and he might not be quite as good defensively after his broken leg. However, based on these numbers I would say it makes sense to bring in Everett and to look into what Khalil would bring back in a trade.
December 12, 2007 at 8:17 pm
203: Man I think that’s such a bad idea that I can’t even explain. As you’ve pointed out Everett may never be as sound defensively after his inury and he’s nowhere near as potent offensively as Khalil.
December 12, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Do great defensive infielders decline with age?
December 12, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Phantom, I don’t get what you are saying. Are we in agreement that the Tigers made more then $10m in revenues do to their longer playoff run? Or do you think that the revenues that they publish in Forbes don’t include playoff revenue? Why would they do that? You would think that revenues would include everything. But I guess you could be right, that might just include regular season revenue (although that wouldn’t make any sense of course).
December 12, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Nats cut Nook Logan…
December 12, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Re: 203 CM are you posting under a different name now.
December 12, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Good point Ben … about the injury. If the injury has changed his “true talent” level then that projection by MGL may be off. But I guess who knows about that at this point. I would definitely consider bringing in Everett … as a backup if he would or maybe like you’re saying (with trading Greene).
Looking back at my post on Khalil, I actually ended up calling Greene a 3 WAR player, so I’m guessing they are pretty close … although, I’ve messed up things in the passed and I definitely may be off.
December 12, 2007 at 8:32 pm
204: Right, which is why you bring him in before dealing Khalil so you can get a good look at him. Based on MGL’s numbers, Everett is one of the greatest fielders in the history of the game. If the Padres’ internal numbers match that, and they bring him in and evaluate him and determine he hasn’t lost anything, then Everett is likely 20 runs better than Khalil on defense. Sure, he gives back 20-30 of those on offense, but presumably the players Khalil would help us acquire in a trade would make up that gap and then some.
But good luck explaining a move like that to the 1090 callers.
December 12, 2007 at 8:32 pm
er, that should be “past” in that last line.
December 12, 2007 at 8:39 pm
206: I have no idea if Forbes’ numbers include the playoffs. But if you bear out the math as I’ve done, it seems highly unlikely that they do include revenues from the playoffs.
I guess we’ll just agree to disagree on this, but Nielsen shows Detroit to be a significantly larger media market than San Diego. Based on that fact alone, I sincerely doubt that their broadcast revenue is anywhere near as low as that of the Padres, let alone lower.
210: I still think it’s way too risky to trade Khalil and hang all of your hopes on a banged up Everett. Especially since Evrett’s offensive numbers have been slightly inflated by Minute Maid (which makes things REAL scary). I do, however, understand that Khalil could potentially bring quite a haul this off-season and it would be reckless of KT not to listen. However, I don’t think anyone is willing to offer something that would make it prudent to ditch Khalil.
December 12, 2007 at 8:42 pm
205: Omar Vizquel has kept being really, really good into his 40s now. I would have guessed that defense would be one of the first things to decline because of a loss of speed, but there’s a counterexample to that guess.
208: Not CM, and in general I have a pretty high opinion of Greene. He’s an above average shortstop. It’s just in this case I have been convinced the market is improperly valuing someone as awesome defensively as Everett. Plus it would be exciting to watch one of the greatest defenders in history in action (I’m too young to have appreciated Ozzie Smith).
209: I actually went back and looked for that post, but missed the point where you adjusted the runs above replacement for playing 80% of the games. Before that you had him at 1.5 wins above average, so I just assumed that translated into .5 wins better than Everett.
December 12, 2007 at 8:54 pm
174: Awesome post - I think it’s the first time you’ve been positive on this board.
I think a lot of would have liked to see the Padres sign Andruw (he’s one of my faves of ALL TIME) or Fukudome or trade for Miguel Cabrera or sign Rick Porcello. However, KT has led this organization to its best 4 year stretch in team history. And when they don’t sign a player because he got too pricey I’m willing to cut him/them slack (a lot of it) because I remember how bad the team was from ‘99 through ‘03 and how bleak the farm was prior to Fuson joining the club.
So when the team has an opening (like right now at CF, back-up C, and 5th SP) I’ll debate the merrits of potential candidates but I will not gripe and moan about what should have been because 1: I don’t have ALL the details, and 2: I trust their ‘big picture’ judgement - they’ve earned my trust.
December 12, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Thanks for looking at my posts, Ben ; )
I think I’m finally getting better at the whole estimating value thing, like I did with Iguchi today. Who knows, though … even guys like Tango and MGL disagree by quite a bit on some players. When they are just rough estimates using different numbers, adjustments, etc. it can be pretty tough. MGL has an actual projection system and everything and Tango is pretty brilliant, so I’d trust those guys. We’ll have to see if they do Iguchi and if I’m close at all.
Anyway, Greene’s probably somewhere in that range — high 2’s, low 3’s. He’s a very good player. Everett is too, though (in a much different way). It’ll be interesting to see if they make a play towards him or not.
December 12, 2007 at 9:07 pm
210: If you can get something along the lines of Pie and Hill or Adam Jones in a deal that involves Greene, you have to do it (if you pick up Everett). Greene is only going to get more expensive and he probably wont be worth it. Having Everett would be outstanding. He is still relatively young and is the best SS i have ever seen and will probably be cheap because he is greatly underrated. You would make up what you lose with Khalil with Jones or Pie/Hill (or something comparable) easily and most likely add a few wins. A lot of people like Khalil but if something comes up that will blatantly improve your team you HAVE to do it.
December 12, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I’m OK with every move so far — and I can even understand not signing Andruw Jones — as long as they have a plan for CF. However, if they sign Mike Cameron and Geoff Jenkins I’ll be very disappointed. For the same money they could get better production out of Jones and Scott Hairston. I’m very high on Hairston, I think they should give him the everyday LF job. I think it would be great if he can play CF but I don’t think he can. Again, my main problem with this off-season is that I can’t figure out what they are doing. They don’t want to sign one player for $18m a year but it don’t think they’d have a problem with signing Cameron and Jenkins for more then that. To me, that doesn’t seem logical. Again, it seems like they value low-ceiling players over anyone else.
December 12, 2007 at 9:24 pm
217: I definitely agree with you about Hairston. I think he’s earned a shot at starting.
December 12, 2007 at 9:26 pm
You all realize that if the Padres pick up Everett he’d probably struggle to hit .200. I’m not sure any team could afford to play someone who hits 210/250/300 no matter how well he plays defense.
December 12, 2007 at 9:30 pm
$18 million per year for Jones was steep. I read that no one else had an offer even close, so I think Jones was lucky the Dodgers felt he was worth that much.
December 12, 2007 at 9:36 pm
219: They pay .100/.150/.150 hitting pitchers based on their ability to prevent runs ; )
December 12, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Josh Towers was also non-tendered, so he’s another option for that fifth spot.
December 12, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Whoa, just saw Otsuka got non-tendered, which suggests he’s going to need Tommy John. Not sure why else Texas would non tender a guy that’s been a well above average reliever when healthy.
December 12, 2007 at 10:27 pm
re:222 gotta figure kt will make a run at towers.
schlom - i betcha jenkins/cammy dont make 18m together next year, and also, from a risk standpoint, neither have as large a potential downside (or an upside). For them both to tank seems unlikely - I wouldnt be that suprised for Jones to have a second consecutive bad year
re:223 Wow they got taken in the Young/Gonzalez trade
December 12, 2007 at 10:31 pm
224: If he’s even close to healthy that was a dumb move. But then teams that have problems putting together a pitching staff aren’t known for making smart decisions with their pitchers.
December 12, 2007 at 11:14 pm
If Everett is healthy, the Padres seriously need to consider signing him.
December 13, 2007 at 1:23 am
Wow, heated discussions today. Nice.
I can’t believe Adam Everett is cut. Who’s going to play SS in Houston? The Padres should definitely consider getting him to back up Greene. Yes, he’s recovering from the leg injury. I hope he’s getting better so he can play ML SS again.
The Padres should trade for Willits/DeJesus to play CF next season.
Getting Prior would be a good move too for the pen/long relieve to get his arm back in shape with an option for 09. I think there’ll be plenty of teams interested in Prior.
December 13, 2007 at 1:28 am
227: Tejada will play SS in houston
December 13, 2007 at 1:42 am
Should the Padres consider getting Wily Mo Pena (124 OPS+ with Washington last year) to play CF?
December 13, 2007 at 1:45 am
#227 - Tejada looks to be slated there for Houston at this point, hence the cutting of Everett. Great backup but almost too good to be true with the exception of his complete lack of offense.
It doesn’t appear that Willits or DeJesus are/were in the plans of the FO for the time being but their plans seem to be falling apart as of late. Only time will tell for now.
With the news of Prior’s medical records souring the Friars, I doubt we will see him here. I wonder where we see him and in what capacity.
Also, I am really wondering how many of the players we just saw non-tendered in the last hours are going to show up on the Mitchell Report this afternoon. That would explain some of the minor surprises that I felt.
December 13, 2007 at 1:52 am
So, now, the Giants is full of OF also. I’d think that Winn, Doc, and Rowand are starting so that leaves Lewis/Davis as forth OF. Can the Padres get one of them to platoon CF?
December 13, 2007 at 3:43 am
I’m probably late on this, but Prior was released:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3152880
December 13, 2007 at 4:24 am
116: Sorry I’m late to the response, but to say that Fukudome is an “unproven 31 year old” is like saying the Beatles were “a musical group with guitars”. I’m not saying that he’d be the Beatles of Baseball, but judging the Fukudome signing on straight stats completely ignores how much of a draw he would be. Look how many people love Greg Maddux. Could his $10 million last year have been spent on a more effective pitcher? Probably. Would there have been another pitcher with as much star power? Probably not.
Also, I read through most, but not all of the rest of the thread, and I gotta say… Schlom, you’re being a little bit of a defeatist/revisionist. The San Diego Padres were considered by most experts to be either the best or the second best team in the National League for basically all of last season, next to the Mets. The season that the Cardinals won their most recent World Series, they were considered to be the NL’s weakest option. Same goes for the Rockies, despite the short-term memory bandwagoners trying to explain the Rockies late success. The Padres have managed to build consistent success without relying on overpaid superstars so let’s take the finger off the panic button and trust that KT isn’t the type of person to not notice that he isn’t fielding enough outfielders.
December 13, 2007 at 5:06 am
Also, I hope it didn’t come off like I was calling you names, Schlom. I’m just very much a “glass half full” kind of guy, maybe to a fault. Also, I just feel like the Padres have an exceptional number of Smart Baseball Guys in the front office and I get defensive on their behalf when people don’t consider the recent seasons as being successful. Like I said… Maybe a weakness on my part, though I like to think that I’m looking at this stuff with a semi-critical eye.
December 13, 2007 at 6:28 am
Man, this living on the East Coast thing makes it difficult to be a regular contributing member of the DS community…althought I get a kick out of the love being shown!
Re: 180…Name me one hitter developed by the Padres…just one in the last 10 years…no, KG does not count. You need to have an OBP better than .300 to even be in the discussion.
Re: 185 — Tigers make entirely more money on Radio/TV than the Pads…I see this $10mm number thrown around and I will have to cry BS on it. That may be the difference in the TV deal alone…then throw in the radio money and the merchandice revenue and the gate revenue from away games (yes, the visiting team gets a cut) and I guarantee you that the Tigers pulled in WAY MORE than $10mm over the Pads…probably safe to assume at least double if not triple that or more.
Re: 208 — No, but I have a new friend…
I have been advocating giving Everett a shot at SS for 2 years now…no, really, go back and look at some of the trade discussions around the ASB…KG’s defense is not in the same caliber as Everett and his offense, while showy, does not make up the difference, especially when you consider what KG might bring in a trade. You telling me that a Chicago (AL or NL) or Boston, or even the Blue Jays would not jump at the chance to bring on KG? If we can get a solid ROI for KG, we need to do it!
Finally, you have to believe that the reports about the Pads being very concerned about Prior’s medical reprots are a bit overblown. Could it be that info was leaked so as to make sure the Cubs thought the Pads backed off and won’t be brought back to the table. I lay 2-1 odds that Prior signs with the Pads…probably a 2 year deal or 1 + option deal…
December 13, 2007 at 6:37 am
Two other interesting names…
Johnny Estrada, Catcher, was released by the Mets.
Ben Johnson, OF, yes, that Ben Johnson, ex-Padre, released by the Mets.
December 13, 2007 at 7:03 am
And I am not advocating an Estrada signing…just interesting.
December 13, 2007 at 7:19 am
Hey if the Pads trade Barrett I would love for them to sign Estrada!
Im sure Aki is coming back to SD, he loves it here, we love him here, its win win. I would imagine that if he does need TJ then the pads will sign him to a minor league deal and wait for him to rehab.
I also would like the pads sign Nook Logan and give him a shot.
I think Everett would waste a spot on the bench because he cant hit let alone PH, and with Greenie you dont need a late defensive sub. I know he would be great to have if Greenie gets hurt but he’ll be just a waisted bench spot when Greenie is healthy.
December 13, 2007 at 9:04 am
214: Now that was an awesome post. Great summary of my perspective on the FO; thanks for writing that up for me, Peter.
DEX: Great to have you post here. I haven’t posted at Gaslamp Ball, but I love reading your blog, too! It’s a dynamite blend of smart, knowledgeable baseball and fantastic humor. Good to have you over here.
December 13, 2007 at 9:33 am
238: I like Estrada as a backup too.
Nook Logan? I wasn’t aware the Storm needed a CF.
December 13, 2007 at 9:40 am
#240: Well, we did “lose” Yordany Ramirez.
December 13, 2007 at 10:44 am
Everett signed with the Twins. Very nice move, defensive replacement for Brendan Harris?
December 13, 2007 at 11:56 am
I don’t like Estrada as a backup at all. He’s a bad defender, his OBPs are usually around .300, and his SLGs are usually around .400. And beyond that, he is generally unliked by his teammates. I’d rather go with Colt Morton or poach someone from another team’s AAA roster than add Estrada.
December 16, 2007 at 9:56 am
Nice overview - I posted a follow-on at my blog. It looks at some of the differences called out in this original post.