Wolf, Peavy, and Winter Leagues
Mon, Dec 3, 2007
by Geoff Young
I normally don’t like to report on stuff that hasn’t quite happened yet, but there isn’t much else going on right now, and these two items are potentially important pieces to the puzzle for 2008 and beyond.
Randy Wolf Signing
First up, the Padres are about to sign left-hander Randy Wolf, who pitched for the Dodgers in 2007 when he wasn’t on the disabled list. Wolf has missed huge chunks of time over each of the past four seasons and is coming off August shoulder surgery, so it’s hard to get a good feel for what he’s capable of these days. That said, he strikes me as a reasonable gamble.
Wolf is only 31 years old and provided decent (97 ERA+) production for the Dodgers over 18 starts in ‘07. Yeah, that last part is kind of a problem, and the Padres will need to have a solid #6 starter at the ready (to say nothing of a #5 starter, but that’s a different issue), but with guys like Carlos Silva and Kyle Lohse at the top of this winter’s free-agent market, I can live with a base salary of $4 million for 1 year. Incentives could kick it up to $9 million, but presumably if Wolf reaches those incentives, then he’ll have earned his keep (MB at Friar Forecast agrees and provides excellent analysis of the deal).
I was critical of the Dodgers for signing Wolf last year, but my objection was to their giving a guy with his track record $8 million guaranteed. An incentive-based contract makes a lot more sense to me.
It’s the Moneyball philosophy at work. Find soft spots in the market and exploit the bejeezus out of them. From Corey Brock’s article at Padres.com:
San Diego general manager Kevin Towers has said that he prefers some of the pitchers who are coming off surgery — such as Wolf, Matt Clement and Bartolo Colon — to the healthy ones on the free-agent market.
I’m inclined to agree with this assessment. There are so few healthy starting pitchers on the current market that many are likely to command more than they are worth. Let teams that can afford to waste money do so.
My expectations of Wolf are modest. If he can make 20-25 slightly below-league-average starts, I’ll be happy. This is the #4 guy in the rotation, not the staff ace. When available, Wolf has been reasonably effective. Health is the unknown part of the equation, which is why he’s available at such a discount.
Don’t get me wrong, I want to see the Padres bring in the best players possible, but when the market values J.C. Romero at $12 million for 3 years, you’ve got to be a little careful with how you spend. Find bargains to fill little holes, and save your big money for impact players. Say, that reminds me…
Jake Peavy Extension
The second item that hasn’t happened yet but that appears to be near completion is a contract extension for Jake Peavy. According to the U-T’s Tom Krasovic, it’s expected to be a 3-year deal worth $50-54 million guaranteed, plus TBD incentives and no-trade provisions.
I really, really hope this deal gets done. Despite some pipe dreams about Peavy being traded for a bunch of young studs and putting the Padres in position for 2009 (uh, hello, how ’bout 2008?), paying near-top dollar — he’s worth more in the current market — for a homegrown ace who is in his prime seems like a no-brainer to me, especially since it’s only three years.
Yeah, there’s risk, but dude will be 30 years old at the end of the contract. Look, I’m as averse to spending big money as anyone, but if there’s a player worth the risk, I think it’d have to Peavy. How many dominant pitchers in their mid-20s are there, anyway? Not a lot.
On a more general note, when is the last time the Padres had three very good, relatively young players locked up to long-term deals? With Adrian Gonzalez and Chris Young already signed, and assuming the Peavy deal is finalized, that’s a nice little nucleus. Sure, maybe you’d like to see some of that spread to positions a little further to the right on the defensive spectrum, but still, it’s a start.
Winter Leagues
I’m way behind in winter-league coverage. We’ll get back to the usual game-by-game stuff on Tuesday, but for now, here are the to-date stats for Padres playing off hither and thither:
| Player | Tm | Lg | AB | BA | OBP | SLG | BB | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics are courtesy of MiLB.com and are through games of December 2, 2007. | ||||||||
| Matt Antonelli | PeS | AFL | 56 | .214 | .333 | .268 | 10 | 9 |
| Luke Carlin | Est | DWL | 21 | .238 | .333 | .238 | 3 | 4 |
| Luis Cruz | Nav | Mex | 163 | .245 | .296 | .399 | 12 | 20 |
| Nick Hundley | PeS | AFL | 41 | .244 | .327 | .366 | 6 | 10 |
| Jose Lobaton | Car | VWL | 1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0 | 0 |
| Drew Macias | Car | VWL | 13 | .385 | .500 | .769 | 3 | 3 |
| Marshall McDougall | Her | Mex | 166 | .307 | .389 | .530 | 23 | 40 |
| Brian Myrow | Maz | Mex | 109 | .312 | .490 | .440 | 35 | 25 |
| Oscar Robles | Nav | Mex | 152 | .322 | .418 | .434 | 22 | 13 |
| Vince Sinisi | Esc | DWL | 120 | .300 | .390 | .517 | 19 | 18 |
| Will Venable | PeS | AFL | 92 | .228 | .268 | .391 | 3 | 21 |
| Player | Tm | Lg | IP | ERA | WHIP | BB | SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics are courtesy of MiLB.com and are through games of December 2, 2007. | |||||||
| Paul Abraham | Car | VWL | 17.1 | 2.60 | 1.33 | 6 | 13 |
| Brian Bass | Ara | VWL | 42.2 | 3.38 | 1.01 | 5 | 29 |
| Jonathan Ellis | PeS | AFL | 11.1 | 5.56 | 1.50 | 8 | 11 |
| John Hudgins | PeS | AFL | 12.1 | 8.76 | 2.03 | 8 | 8 |
| Neil Jamison | PeS | AFL | 5.1 | 10.13 | 2.06 | 2 | 5 |
| Wil Ledezma | Mar | VWL | 8.2 | 1.04 | 1.62 | 4 | 6 |
| Will Startup | PeS | AFL | 12.2 | 0.71 | 0.87 | 2 | 9 |
| Steve Watkins | Mxc | Mex | 8.0 | 7.88 | 1.88 | 7 | 9 |
| Jared Wells | Mxc | Mex | 15.0 | 6.00 | 1.80 | 7 | 11 |
McDougall signed with the Padres just before Thanksgiving. The soon-to-be 29-year-old infielder is probably best known for once hitting six home runs in a college game.
Bass, a right-hander who turns 26 in January, signed around the same time as McDougall. He also has a nifty 3.17 GB/FB ratio working in Venezuela. [Update, Dec 4, 2007: I don't know my head from my Bass. This guy is in the Minnesota system. The pitcher the Padres signed is Adam Bass. Thanks to Masticore317 for pointing out the error, and sorry for any confusion.]
Abraham may have signed with Seattle, but I can’t find confirmation anywhere.
That’s all for now. Happy Monday…
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
December 3, 2007 at 9:00 am
I’m a bit surprised that the Peavy deal doesn’t include a pay raise for the next two seasons. Jake’s salary for 2008-2009 combined with the extension effectively makes it a 5 year/$68 million deal. Even with a full no-trade clause and some performance bonuses that’s an incredible deal for a 26 year old Cy Young winner.
December 3, 2007 at 9:50 am
geoff, we Re-Signed Paul Abraham a while back to a minor league contract, not sure about an invitation to spring or not. but im guessing he’ll get one
anyways heres how i found out
http://www.baseballamerica.com.....cts/?p=668
December 3, 2007 at 9:57 am
It seems like a real good deal for Jake, and, at least from a PR standpoint, for the Padres.
Following up on what Tom Waits and others have said in the past thread about the Padres’ spending habits vis-a-vis other teams, comparisons to the Saint Louis Cardinals are inappropriate. The Cardinals have a regional sports network - FSN Midwest- with much greater TV viewership (66% more), a huge radio network, a greater history with their fans, and much better corporate sponsors - Anheuser Busch naming rights for the win. They also now have about $20-25 million more revenue than the Padres on a yearly basis.
The interesting thing for the Cardinals is that their player expenditures have plateaued. Using the inappropriate 2005 Forbes figures only, which actually show 2004 figures when the Cardinals did NOT have a new stadium, the Cardinals spent $100+ million on player expenses; the Padres, in their first year at Petco when they weren’t sure how much they would bring in, spent $74 million, a 26 million gap. Since then and through the 2006 season, the Padres had adjusted to Petco revenues by spending more, their “operating income” has dropped, and player payroll expenditures INCREASED $16 million from 2004 to 2006. For the Cardinals, despite moving into a new stadium and boosting their overall revenue gap with the Padres from $5-15 to $25 million; their payroll has remained stagnant.
How about 2007? It looks like the Padres retrenched some; unsure about the Cardinals. We can wait for the Forbes figures to come out next year to have a better one-year and overall perspective.
The Cardinals and Padres also appear to have different organizational philosophies at this time. The Padres are putting more of their money now into minor league and international player development than in the past; overall, they also have put more high profile and thus more expensive people into their front office. Over the last few years, the Cardinals appear to be putting more emphasis on free agency. This may change, if their player payroll remains stagnant.
Why aren’t the Cardinals spending more money on major league players despite bringing in more money? Because they are cheap? No, because they have to two the MLB line and service their stadium debt, just like the Padres do.
December 3, 2007 at 10:13 am
They also have Puljos making $16M/Yr, Scottt Rolen making $12M/Yr, Chris Carpenter making $10.5M in 08, then geting a raise to $14-15M/yr in 09-12, Isringhausen making $8M/Yr, Edmonds making $8M/Yr, and Mulder making $6.5M/yr. The cards have alot of money tied up in thier current players why whould they spend more? thier not the Yankees, Red Sox, or Cubs they have to have some kind of cap.
December 3, 2007 at 10:19 am
According to MLBTR, the D-backs have traded Carlos Quentin to the White Sox for Chris Carter.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/.....de-qu.html
I know it would never happen but I was hoping the Pads may try and get in the mix for Quentin.
December 3, 2007 at 10:19 am
Re 4: Ever since moving into their new stadium, the Cardinals are bringing in more. Why wouldn’t they be spending more? Unless there are debt service constraints, which those who accuse the Padres of being cheap generally refuse to recognize is the case with the Padres as well.
December 3, 2007 at 10:25 am
3: There was never an argument that the Padres and Cardinals are identical. The Cards are a mid-market team that has not been crippled by several large free agent contracts. The very fact that they’re not rolling in the dough and lighting their cigars with $100 bills, but have been very competitive since 2000 (6 playoff appearances, 2 WS appearances, 1 WS championship) shows that mid-market teams are not inevitably crippled by big deals, which was the heart of the recent discussion.
December 3, 2007 at 10:26 am
Re: 6 or they were loosing money in their old stadium, also they did not have the same issues in thier old stadium as the Padres did with Qualcomm.
I don’t know if the Pads can spend more or not, we have gone through this debate countless times. Unless the Padres make their books public we will never know how much profit they truly make. Moores probably does not want the team to show a profit for tax purposes so even if they do make money on the team I’m sure there is some creative accounting going on to make it look like a loss (as do a lot of businesses).
Like I have said several times I dont care what the Payroll is as long as the team wins.
December 3, 2007 at 10:27 am
Re: 7 not to mention going 9 - 1 against the Pads in the playoffs sinse 96.
December 3, 2007 at 10:56 am
#2: Thanks, Ian; I’m glad to see that. Abraham seems like a guy who could be marginally useful for very little cost.
December 3, 2007 at 10:59 am
Given the injury history that Wolf has, I hope the Padres are trying to get another pitcher i.e. Erik Bedard from the Orioles given the recent news of his declining an extension offer from Baltimores. He’s still young, good and has also just come off an injury that shut him down toward the end of last season and will not be a free agent until the end of 09. I’m sure there will be a lot of competition to try and get him when Santana’s deal is done.
When Jake’s deal is done, that’s a great thing for the organization and the community. It’s not everyday a pitcher of his caliber is available to the Padres or the league and it’s nice to see him stay in SD.
I hope either one of the three among Myrow, Robles, Sinisi will be with the club next season. What happened to Jonathan Ellis? Loving Bass’ stats. Another potential bullpen arm for the Padres.
December 3, 2007 at 11:43 am
Re 7: My misunderstanding then. I agree that some teams do not cripple themselves with big contracts. Do you think that the 2007 Cardinals and their outlook going forward may be a counterpoint to an argument that they did not harm themselves by investing so much in free agent players, particularly relatively big risks like Rolen, Edmonds and Mulder? I won’t for a second question the Pujols contract; by today’s standards dude is underpaid.
I am also reticent to point to the 2006 Cardinals as a show piece for the argument that an upper mid market team can make a good amount of big money free agent acquisitions and roll to victory. They were a mediocre at best team for most of that season, and then got incredibly hot in the playoffs. Screams fluke to me.
I still like the develop/trade/extend model for low mid market teams like the Padres, but the “develop” part still needs a ton of work.
December 3, 2007 at 11:54 am
We don’t have the pieces to get Bedard…unless you want to deal Headley and Kouzmanof for him.
December 3, 2007 at 1:24 pm
5: Apparently Kyle Blanks would have gotten it done, because Blanks and Carter seem almost identical. They’re both big firstbasemen, Blanks is three months older, they had OPS’s within 20 points of each other (distributed similarly between OBP and SLG%). Their differences are that Blanks was in A+ while Carter was in low A, Blanks is 2 inches taller and 50 lbs heavier, and Blanks stole 11 bases while Carter stole 3 (both getting caught twice). Also, I’m not sure about park and league effects.
December 3, 2007 at 1:27 pm
14: Oh, and I believe they are both of the same race, which means comparing them is allowed.
December 3, 2007 at 1:46 pm
12: It’s not just the 2006 Cardinals, who fluked. It’s the 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006 Cardinals. Win totals of 95, 93, 97, 105, 100, and 83 in those years, 85 and 78 the years they didn’t make the playoffs this decade. If we want to yank the 06 Cards out, we might want to give extra credit to the 04 model, which ran headlong into a Boston team that did things no one could have predicted.
We hear a lot about the unprecedented 4 straight winning seasons by the Padres (unprecedented for us, and not that easy for anybody, don’t get me wrong). Even with that, we’re at best welterweights compared to the success the Cardinals have enjoyed by following an very different strategy.
December 3, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Re: 14 but would the D-backs have traded within the NL west again?
December 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Loretta wants to come back to SD but the Pads say no, he may now sign with the rockies.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....ckies.html
December 3, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Re: Abraham. Sounds like he might get taken in the Rule V draft.
http://www.baseballamerica.com.....cts/?p=674
December 3, 2007 at 2:48 pm
2, 10: According to BA, Abraham is eligible for the Rule 5 draft.
December 3, 2007 at 2:52 pm
re 19, 20
funny, i just read that, and then came here. haha
December 3, 2007 at 3:02 pm
re 16: I understand the Cardinals have used a different model and it has been successful for them, but are you in any way trying to compare them to the Padres over 2000 to the 2006 seasons? Except for the first year of Petco Park, a year in which the Cardinals went $11 million in the hole to attain their roster, the divergence in revenues between the Padres and Cardinals has been significant, and the resultant disparity in player payroll is mostly explained. In 2004, the Cardinals were already three years into what I will call their free agent-based system.
You also have to consider their relative divisional context. They are with one of the dumbest big spenders in baseball, the Cubs, and are basically on a similar basis with the Astros, who also have recently demonstrated dumb spending behavior. They are able to outspend the other teams in their division quite substantially.
The Padres have been and always will be substantially behind the Dodgers and Giants; thank God the Dodgers and recently the Giants have been afflicted by dumb spending habits. They are about equal with, sometimes behind, sometimes a little ahead, of the Rockies and Diamondbacks financially.
December 3, 2007 at 3:09 pm
14 and 17: that’s what i was thinking. the d-backs probably would not want to trade him within the division even if Blanks does equal Carter. What i can’t believe is that they’ve given up on Quentin. are his injuries that bad? he was supposed to be a STUD, his minor league numbers are strong and he’s just 25 this season.
December 3, 2007 at 3:31 pm
GY, a poll idea. How many of the other 10 newly eligible players on this year’s HOF ballot will receive more support than the only qualified newcomer, Tim Raines?
I could easily see Justice and Knoblauch garnering more support and possibly Fryman, Finley, Nen and Dunston receiving more votes. I hope I’m wrong, very, very wrong, but the voters are so hard to figure.
I mean why is Jim Rice getting 63.5% while Dale Murphy is getting only 9.2%? Why is Alan Trammell getting slightly less support (and nowhere near the support he should be receiving) than Dave Concepcion?
Oh well, at least it looks pretty good for Goose Gossage to go in. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for him. Blyeleven should go in with him, but we’ll probably get Rice (which wouldn’t be a total travesty) instead.
December 3, 2007 at 3:33 pm
22: I’m not comparing the time period between the teams. We had the delayed Petco, although it would have been nice for the Padres to have been more serious about their farm when they were getting their teeth kicked in at the big league level. But I understand that they wanted to fill seats.
The Cardinals have been successful for a long time, in baseball terms, being a relatively free-spending mid-market team that ignored its farm system. That’s almost diametrically opposed to what we’re doing. Both strategies can be successful. So far under Petco we’ve avoided bringing in any free agents for more than 2 years, as best I recall. There are some people who think that those contracts, by their very nature, will kill a team. Not saying you’re one of those, but that was the gist of the conversation last week.
I don’t see the spending of the opponents being all that relevant. What we’re questioning is whether a mid-market team can survive or thrive giving out “normal” free agent contracts. The Cardinals did.
December 3, 2007 at 3:46 pm
BP’s STAT OF THE DAY
Top 5 2007 NL Bullpens, by WXRL
Team, Inh Runs Prevented, WXRL
San Diego Padres, -6.3, 15.7
Arizona Diamondbacks, -6.2, 14.5
Washington Nationals, -10.5, 12.9
Los Angeles Dodgers, -4.8, 12.8
St. Louis Cardinals, -16.5, 12.2
… a reminder of what went well for the 2007 Padres … for 160 games anyway …
December 3, 2007 at 3:47 pm
25: Are the Cards really mid-market considering their somewhat unique geographic location? I’ve never looked into it, but I’ve always seen people describe how much reach they have with no close geographic and/or NL rivals to the west, south and east for quite some distance.
December 3, 2007 at 4:01 pm
22: Where are you getting your numbers? You’re debunking the Forbes numbers while simultaneously spitting out specifics on financial losses and comparisons to other clubs.
Do you have some form of insider knowledge? Just curious.
December 3, 2007 at 4:12 pm
27: There’s distance, but there ain’t people. Their DMA is bigger than ours, but smaller than….
New York City
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Dallas/Fort Worth
San Francisco/
Oakland/San Jose
Boston / Manchester, NH
Atlanta
Washington, D.C.
Houston
Detroit
Phoenix
Tampa/St. Petersburg/
Seattle/Tacoma
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale
Cleveland/Akron/Canton
Denver
DMA isn’t the sole determinant of market size; the Cardinals have 100+ radio stations in their network. Their radio network has been huge for a long time, but it doesn’t have the same marketing power it used to. The popularity of the Braves, for example, has cut into their appeal in the south.
The Cardinals also draw well, but a lot of that is because they’re a good team, not just because they’re not hemmed in by geography.
December 3, 2007 at 4:56 pm
re 28: The numbers are from Forbes, such as the “operating income” figures. No debunking of the Forbes numbers at all, just putting them in the proper context. Other info on DMAs and market sizes comes from public sources, probably just like the same ones TW uses. No inside info.
re 25: FYI, I am generally opposed to bringing in 4+year contract free agents on big dollar deals for a team like the Padres, less so when that player still has prime years to offer, even more so when it is a pitcher.
For the Cardinals, have they brought in anybody fresh for a lengthy contract in the last few years? Pujols is home grown; Rolen was acquired in trade in a contract year; Edmonds and Mulder came in trade; Carpenter came in as a reclamation project, right? It looks like they are more in the trade for and extend mode, then in sign outside free agents to long term deals mode. Or do you disagree?
Also, as long as there is an unbalanced schedule and some significant amount of correlation between how much you spend on players and wins, I do consider the spending of divisional rivals to be relevant and IMO essential for context.
December 3, 2007 at 5:27 pm
13: Both of them? I think not. There is no reason not to inquiry. I don’t think Bedard will be dealt within AL East, and the Orioles farm system and bullpen are not in that great of a shape. I think the Padres has as good a chance as half of the teams.
BTW, Dick Williams got elected into the HoF.
I don’t understand why the Snakes gave up on Quentin already. Clearly they weren’t going to trade within the division or the Padres would have had a chance to get him.
Are the Nats in the business of rehabbing players? They got both Dukes and Milledge now.
December 3, 2007 at 6:15 pm
30: What’s the difference between acquiring a player in trade and extending him or just signing him? I guess you know how he behaves in the clubhouse, but they’re basing decisions on what he does on the field.
The amount the Cardinals can spend has nothing to do with what any other team does spend. The Cardinals have shown that a mid-market team can dominate a division with bigger spenders without being paralyzed by fear of long contracts.
December 3, 2007 at 6:39 pm
#24: Dunston? Wow, I thought I was pessimistic.
Trammell’s lack of support, of course, remains appalling.
December 3, 2007 at 7:12 pm
If there was ever a great year to have a top 5 farm system and be willing to empty it……Bedard, Santana and Cabrera….youza!
December 3, 2007 at 7:31 pm
re: 31
Maybe not both of those, but one of those and some other piece or pieces. Bedard is an elite pitching talent and would give the Padres the best 1-2 — possibly in the majors. Or maybe it would take both of those players.
December 3, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I don’t understand Miller not being elected and Kuhn being elected. Well, I do. The Hall of Fame and its voters make terrible choices.
But there could a class with Goose Gossage and Dick Williams. That would be fun.
The Baseball Reliquary inducted Miller into its Shrine of Eternals, and I think it’s a better organizations than the Hall of Fame:
http://www.baseballreliquary.org/shrine.htm
December 3, 2007 at 7:40 pm
#30 The “numbers” from Forbes and Cots are:STL 2006 gross $184M,2007 payroll $90M 49%, SD $160M gross, $58M payroll ,36%. Adjusting for a 20% increase admited by MLB in 2007—STL paid 41% and SD 30%. StL is just at average payroll 41% on $6,000,000,000 MLB income. At 41% SD’s payroll would have been-$79M last year. Why wouldnt SD be able to pay the average MLB % of payroll to revenue?
December 3, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I looked at the Forbes stuff a while back, after The Fathers told me about it. One thing I remember: it’s not official by any means, right? Is there any reason to trust it?
Secondly, they do a terrible job explaining what the stuff is and their site, in general, I thought was pretty bad (in terms of layout, etc.). It’s probably aimed toward people more familiar with the terms, but whatever. I guess that’s neither here nor there. Anyway, I’d consider doing some “analysis” with it, if I knew it was reliable. Is it, anyone?
December 3, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Krasovic keeps harping on the Padres trading for Josh Towers.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....trade.html
I can’t tell if this is real or simply Kras making stuff up. If we are trying for both Prior and Towers and come away with Towers only, I am going to be sorely disappointed. I know there’s the possibility that Prior won’t pitch in the first month or so, but now’s the time to grab him and lock him up for two years cheaply. Settling for Towers for the 5th spot in the rotation behind a recovering Wolf is not a recipe for improving this team.
December 3, 2007 at 10:20 pm
39: Urgh. I hope not. I’d rather stick with Cassel and some other minor league guys than Towers.
December 3, 2007 at 10:22 pm
33: Agreed. I just hope he keeps a little bit more support this year. Trammel should be in already.
December 3, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Interesting read on some players.
Given how rare these picks turned out to be good, I sure hope KT is more cautious this year than in the past.
http://baseballanalysts.com/ar.....he_minors/
December 3, 2007 at 10:39 pm
The host of the MLB Rumors blog is at the Winter meetings and posting information he is gathering by talking to team execs. He has stated that the Padres are moving closer to a deal for either Mark Prior or Josh Towers.
Also, they have inquired about the Cardinals pitcher Anthony Reyes, who has 14 losses last season. If the Padres miss out on Fukudome, they could trade a pair of low level prospects for Anthony Reyes and Jim Edmonds.
December 4, 2007 at 5:55 am
My favorite topic (next to KG) is the HOF…I think I am getting stodgy in my “old” age, but Trammel belongs in there less than Rice…and I am a Trammel fan.
Gossage is borderline, but other than that, there really are no players that I think *have* to be put in…
Re:16…Tom, are you saying that the Cardinals were “flukes” each of those years?
December 4, 2007 at 6:54 am
44: Quite the opposite. The Cardinals were the most successful NL franchise from 2000 to now. That’s despite being a mid-market franchise that signed free agents to normal free agent dealsl, didn’t invest much in the minor leagues, and traded many of its prospects anyway.
December 4, 2007 at 7:48 am
44: Oh, CM! Am I going to have to school you on Tram like I did on Bly?
But seriously, why would you say Tram doesn’t have as good a case as Rice? I wouldn’t even be comparing them since one was a SS and one a LF. Relative to SS in, Trammell clearly belongs. Where do you feel he falls short? Relative to LF or corner OF, Rice is not nearly so clear a choice, imo. Why do you feel he’s such a strong choice?
Also, I think the only way someone like Gossage can be considered “borderline” is if you don’t consider relief pitcher to be a separate position and simply lump all pitchers in together. Now that is truly stodgy.
December 4, 2007 at 11:30 am
Pat…I don’t think Rice belongs in, I just don’t think Trammel has that much more of a case than Rice does.
December 5, 2007 at 9:48 am
Re 37: There are some serious math and analytical errors in your comparisons.
1. The 2007 Forbes numbers are for 2006 revenue.
2. The 2007 salary figures from Cot’s are good on an individual basis but since they are only for starting amounts - the Padres increased theirs over the season; not so much the Cardinals - they are worthless for analysis purposes.
3. 20% of what increased in 2007? The amount of money MLB gave to teams? Local revenue for the Padres? Without context, you need to wait for the 2008 Forbes numbers to get a glimpse of what Padres revenue was in 2007.
4. No question the Cardinals spend more on major league payroll as a percentage of team revenue than the Padres. This makes sense because they are free agent heavy. By any reasonable estimation, the Padres spend more on front office personnel and minor league development/international player acquistion (some of this is catch up spending) than the Cardinals. Both teams have stadium debt - this explains to me why Cardinals payroll has stagnated since new Busch opened; not sure how much each team has to make on yearly interest payments.
December 5, 2007 at 9:52 am
Re 38: For some, the reason to trust the Forbes figures is because they are NOT sanctioned by MLB.
For me, the reasons to trust Forbes numbers are: (1) it is the only game in town; (2) I do have some rudimentary understanding of financial and accounting terms; and (3) the numbers make sense.
They are not perfect, and I do take portions of them with huge grains of salt, particularly for teams with substantial interested party transactions.
If something comes along that is better, I am all for it.