Friday Links (4 Jan 08)
Fri, Jan 4, 2008
by Geoff Young
Got the coffee flowing, music playing: Massive Attack, Groove Collective, and George Benson if anyone cares. The Benson is his The Other Side of Abbey Road, which is full of Beatles songs and which absolutely sizzles. His guitar lines are so fluid, it’s disgusting. I mean, he’s not Joe Pass or Grant Green, but still. Apparently Benson recorded his album just three weeks after the actual Abbey Road was released. How sick is that?
Anyway, you come here for the baseball. Very well, then, let’s get to it:
- The Last 4 Years: Part 1 (Regular Season) (Sdpads1 Blog). The Padres own the fourth best record in the National League since moving into Petco Park. They’ve won 12 more games than the division’s second-best team (Dodgers) during that stretch while spending $136 million less on payroll. Once again, smart money beats deep pockets.
- History shows Prior a bad gamble for Padres (Sporting News, via Jonathan S in the comments). David Pinto examines pitchers throughout history who have missed an entire season and doesn’t like Mark Prior’s chances to rebound in ‘08. Jonathan wonders how accurate comparisons are over time given advances in medical technology, and I have to agree. Chris Carpenter is the only guy on this list who has pitched in the last 15 years, and I’ll be tickled if Prior so much as sniffs that kind of success. I don’t think he will, mind you, but I’m also not sure how much we can learn from looking at, e.g., Mal Eason’s 1902 season or Cy Barger’s 1914 season.
- Dan Szymborski, on the other hand, likes the gamble.
- Prospect View - Matt Antonelli (Baseball Digest Daily). Dave Rouleau profiles everybody’s favorite Antonelli (sorry, Johnny!). Not a lot of new info, but it’s great to have all this stuff in one place.
- Chase Headley: What can we really expect? (Rich Folkers…) Corey wonders… well, I think it’s pretty obvious…
- Our friends at MadFriars are running interviews with the play-by-play announcers from Padres minor-league affiliates. These guys see the kids play every day and offer good insights:
The interview with Rich Burk, voice of the Portland Beavers, is scheduled to run on Saturday.
- Debate: Is Goose Gossage a Hall of Famer? (ESPN). This is one of a series of debates between voters on the worthiness of various Hall of Fame candidates. The thought process is sometimes… interesting. (Vegas Watch gets into this a little more.)
- Two more takes on the Hall of Fame: Dave Studeman examines the current candidates, while Patrick Sullivan identifies the best eligible players not enshrined.
- Take the fifth: Examining bottom starters’ impact (Sporting News, via Didi in the comments). Yikes, not only was our #5 starter terrible in 2007, but also he got way too much work.
- Here are two articles about pitching that I’ve only glanced at and thought, gee, I really should read this more carefully when I have time: 2007 NL Starting Pitching Analysis (Statistically Speaking) | tRA and ROA, a new pitching metric (Lookout Landing).
- Lahman Database Version 5.5 is now available for download. It contains stats from 1871 through 2007 and is guaranteed to blow your mind.
Finally, thanks for all the suggestions regarding PadreBlogs.com. An aggregator is at the top of my list; I’m evaluating a few tools, but the book is priority #1 right now, so testing and implementation may take a while. Unless, of course, someone with mad skillz would like to volunteer their services. 
Oh, and be sure to vote in the spring training meetup poll to let us know which dates work best for you. Happy Friday!
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.
January 4, 2008 at 7:54 am
GY one more comment on PadresBlog.com
Put some advertising on it, make some money off of all of us!
January 4, 2008 at 8:49 am
That 5th starter list is exactly why we shouldn’t be satisfied with our current rotation. Look at that ERA. And that’s with Petco and the NL on our side. A decent back of the rotation and we win the division with 8 days left.
Wolf and Prior together might be counted on to be one average pitcher between them. It’s foolish to rely on any hope that Prior is ready before the AS break. Great if it happens, but poor planning. Estes, Rusch, etc. are no better, and possibly worse, than most of the 5th starters we ran out last year.
There are average innings-eaters available. If we can’t, or are unable to, land a better pitcher (like Bush and possibly Igawa), we should be looking at Livan and Matt Morris. Maybe we are. It’s a slow time of year.
January 4, 2008 at 8:58 am
Re: 2 I think the Pads are done until ST unless they make a small move like signing Sweeney. Rusch, Estes, Hensley and Germano will duke it out for the 5th starter role in ST and Prior will be ready in time to take over for Wolf when he goes down in June.
The only thing I dont like about the roster is that they are going to put alot of pressure on Gonzalez, Kouz and Greene this year in the 3, 4, and 5 spots.
January 4, 2008 at 9:07 am
3: They may be done, but Rusch/Estes/Hensley/Germano are all poor choices for a rotation spot on opening day. Hensley had the worst type of shoulder injury. Germano was at least adequate, but the team obviously lost faith in him as the season came to a close. There are a lot of risks in the entire rotation that would be somewhat covered by spending 5M on Livan or Morris (with Pittsburgh covering the rest, maybe taking Barrett back as well).
Does the Mitchell Report, detailing how widespread PED use was and presumably still is, make it easier for Padre fans to accept the idea of Barry Bonds in LF and as a pinch-hitter? SD can’t be his first choice, not with Petco and the Syringe Incident, but he’s one of the few players capable of providing a 900+ OPS at bat in our park.
January 4, 2008 at 9:09 am
Re: 3 agree with you about the rotation. Disagree about Bonds.
January 4, 2008 at 9:14 am
3: I think it’s probably time to start treating those guys as the crux of our team. They’re going to be the franchise guys for the next few years (so long as they extend Khalil, which I believe they will) and they will truly be the centerpieces of our offense. Once Antonelli and Headley are ready, those five guys will be a great core of players with varied skills. Antonelli and Headley will be your table setters, Kouz and Adrian will be your higher average guys, and Adrian and Khalil will be your mashers.
January 4, 2008 at 9:18 am
4: I still think Hensley has the potential to be electric again. While it might not come directly at the beginning of the year, he will get there by mid-season. I think the team is in a tough spot right now, as they have several guys who can potentially really contribute about a month or two into the season, so they don’t want to sign another pitcher to cover that time frame. Would they be better off promoting someone up than going with a FA?
Bonds will never happen in San Diego. I don’t think that many people feel sympathy towads him post-Mitchell report. The fact of the matter is that he’s still an arrogant and abrasive ass. As injury prone as our offensive pieces are right now, getting another guy with that risk doesn’t seem to be a wise move to me. The Jay Payton/Kenny Lofton options seem to be more attractive in my mind.
January 4, 2008 at 9:59 am
5, 7: Bonds is an abrasive ass, but he’s also a terrific hitter, and anybody who doesn’t have their head buried in the sand (not you guys) can claim he’s a Lone Cheater anymore. I don’t know if fans would accept him, but now that he’s clearly 1 of several hundred, instead of the Worst Cheater in History, they might tolerate him.
On pitching….we have 3 potential starters coming off shoulder surgery (Hensley, Prior, Wolf) and Young, who is a very good bet to spend 3-5 weeks on the DL. Peavy’s had some health issues in the last three years. Maybe LeBlanc or Germano can cover it, but if they can find a solid innings guy in the 5 million neighborhood, they should do it. You can always find a place for an extra starter. We could always use Prior out of the pen.
January 4, 2008 at 10:07 am
7: One thing specifically on Hensley. I think he might have been pretty lucky in 05 and 06. His strikeout rate was nothing special and he was walking a lot of people. His peripherals were headed the wrong way before he got hurt.
http://tinyurl.com/3c6ugw
How did I not play with FanGraph before today? Anyway, I’m not holding my breath that he’ll be electric in the future, whether his shoulder is totally fine or not.
January 4, 2008 at 10:26 am
Re: 8 It’s not the cheating that bugs me with Bonds, its the fact that I cant root for the guy because he is a complete ass. The other thing that bothers me is the media circus that will be created around the team because of the federal indictment that he will have to face in the near future. Sorry TW but I think you and Pedro Gomez are the only two guys that are pulling for Bonds to come to SD – j/k.
January 4, 2008 at 10:30 am
10: I’m not really pulling for him to come here, just wondering if it’s more tenable now that we know how widespread the PED issue is.
I used to yell for Padre pitchers to just hit him on the first toss if they were going to walk him anyway, he’s not my favorite cat.
January 4, 2008 at 10:32 am
Hope Planet Venus is something you’re considering for the PadreBlogs aggregator:
http://www.intertwingly.net/code/venus/
Sam Ruby, the developer, is a genius.
In any case, your blog is the bee’s knees.
January 4, 2008 at 10:33 am
10: I pretty much agree with you on all counts. You can’t discount Bonds’ ability, but his dick-itude is on a completely different level than say a Milton Bradley. We could cheer for Bradley because he went through a lot of crap as a Dodger (and lets be honest, if I was a Dodger, I’d probably do some pretty f’ed up things too). Bonds has been an arrogant and annoying ass for quite some time, unapologetically.
Do we match up in any conceivable way for one of the Brewers’ extra starters?
January 4, 2008 at 10:37 am
13: Chase Headley for David Bush. Might have to include a reliever on our side.
January 4, 2008 at 10:38 am
Re: 13 not unless we send Headley over, so no.
January 4, 2008 at 10:38 am
Apropos of nothing, here are the teams that hit the greatest percentage of total home runs that their own park yielded last year:
1. Padres .615
2. Indians .595
3. Brewers .585
4. Marlins .582
5. Yankees/Rangers .569
January 4, 2008 at 11:03 am
16: But, but, but, the Padres are horrible on offense!
January 4, 2008 at 11:10 am
17: Our power was fine. Our OBP not so much. Our EQA (adjusted for park) put us in the middle range of all MLB teams.
January 4, 2008 at 11:27 am
The problem with the pads O last year was that it came in spurts, they would win a game 15-1 then lose the next three nights 1-0.
January 4, 2008 at 11:32 am
As far as an aggregator goes, I use planetplanet (might be called something else now) on my site. It’s pretty easy to setup, and you can just sort of forget about it once it is setup.
Love the blog, long time reader, first time caller…
January 4, 2008 at 11:36 am
18: Agreed. Headley seems to have great discipline, and I wonder if Matsui will help in that respect as well.
I don’t know why, but I think that this could be Khalil’s break-out year. He really turned it on in August & September, batting .301/.341/.487 in August with an OPS+ of 121 and .271/.313/.534 in September with an OPS+ of 122. Over those months, he mashed 30 xBHs, 11 of which were roundtrippers. If Khalil can finally get his OBP into the .330 range, I think he’ll have a monster season.
January 4, 2008 at 12:07 pm
9 … re: FanGraphs … yo … those are *fun*! And now they are loaded with Bill James’ projected stats for 2008!
http://www.fangraphs.com/stats.....position=P
… shows Jake projected at 212 IP in 31 starts with 3.23 ERA and 180 H + 67 BB = 247/212 = 1.165 WHIP … which will be fine by me!
January 4, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Barry Bonds is not more signable than he was before the Mitchell Report for the Padres or any other team. I never heard anyone say he was a lone cheat.
Sandy Alderson said they are not signing him, so let’s move on.
January 4, 2008 at 12:11 pm
22 … OK, just one more projection … KK …
http://www.fangraphs.com/stats.....osition=3B
498 AB, 151 H, 35 2B, 23 HR, 90 RBI, .303/.362/.520
EXCITING!!!
January 4, 2008 at 12:23 pm
re: 24
Those are on my site on the player pages.
January 4, 2008 at 12:43 pm
#20: Thanks, Jason, for “delurking” and offering the suggestion. I will add that to my list of tools to evaluate.
January 4, 2008 at 12:44 pm
If that Kouz projection is true, that would be awesome, especially considering the Petco effect. The Pads might have kind of strange lineup next year with all their offense coming from their infield while the outfielders would primarily be concerned with getting on base depending on how much Hairston plays (and hits). I think he might be the key to the season — if he can hit like he did down the stretch for the Padres (and he did in the minors) and play passable defense in the outfield (especially if he can play CF), the Padres offense should be pretty good. They’ll be above average at 1B, 3B, SS, and C. Hopefully Iguchi can be average. The OF is more unsettled. Giles will get on base but who knows if he will hit for power again? Edmonds is a question mark obviously but the LF platoon could be decent. The offense probably won’t be any worse then last year and that was good enough.
January 4, 2008 at 12:46 pm
23: Did you get appointed the Toastmaster and nobody told me? Alderson made those comments before the Mitchell Report came out, if memory serves. I believe we’re free to continue discussing him even if Alderson says it again, in terms of whether it’s smart for a team with such a slim margin to pass on a great player because of his marketing issues.
LOTS of people scapegoated Bonds as the worst offender. Now we’ve got Brian Roberts and Andy Pettite admitting they used, although always with the “I just tried it once” excuse.
January 4, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Maybe they appoint me that, I don’t know.
My point is: What’s the point?
Barry Bonds is still by far the worst offender because he accomplished the most and gained the most from PEDs. It’s not even close.
I haven’t heard anyone say that Bonds looks better now or is more sympathetic or whatever after the report.
In fact, the idea borders on the ridiculous.
January 4, 2008 at 12:57 pm
25 … Kevin, you’re site is now even fun-er with the 2008 projections … from there, I can easily see that Maddux is again projected for 200 IP … cool-e-o! You get my vote for Toastmaster
Hairston’s forecast … http://www.fangraphs.com/stats.....osition=OF … 277 AB, 76 H, 14 HR, 39 RBI, .274/.341/.498 … and I’m hoping he gets more ABs …
January 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Here’s the best projection:
Chase Headley
http://www.fangraphs.com/stats.....osition=3B
January 4, 2008 at 1:05 pm
29: Gained the most? He was a first-ballot hall of famer before he did anything but drink Gatorade. The players who gained the most were the ones who weren’t superstars before and made 30-50-90 million only because they used. Mark McGwire might have retired with 180 career HR and a season high of 35 if he didn’t use. Bonds was better before the drugs and he was better after, but he didn’t NEED them to climb out of minor league oblivion (like a certain hotheaded ex-Padre 3b/1b) or restart his career after a prolonged slump (another certain ex-Padre from the 96-98 squads), or to turn himself into an MVP (like yet another beloved ex-Pad, RIP).
I didn’t say he looked more sympathetic. I said he might look less like a pariah. Instead of being the designated scapegoat, anyone paying attention, unwilling to leave their heads stuck in the sand, knows better now. Does that include many Padre fans? Who knows.
As to what’s the point….well, what’s the point of your blog and the projected graphs? If we’re only concerned with what actually transpires, let’s all pack up shop. Every Padre fan and observer can limit him or herself to retrospectively examining game results. Of course, you could also ask what’s the point of that, the game already happened……
January 4, 2008 at 1:09 pm
31: How do they project Headley to have a 398 BABIP? That seems crazy. The major league BABIP is usually close to 290-300, isn’t it?
January 4, 2008 at 1:14 pm
33: That’s a MONSTER year for a rookie season. If Headley really puts up those numbers, we should be doing quite well next year.
Combined with Hairston, James is projecting about an .825 OPS out of LF next year. Man, that would be great.
January 4, 2008 at 1:28 pm
#34: Yep, it would be a slight improvement over last year’s 802.
January 4, 2008 at 1:33 pm
34, 35: We can’t expect Headley to be too sharp defensively, to say nothing of that insane BABIP.
2007 Bradley, Cruz, and Hairston might have been good enough defensively to make up that projected OPS difference. Sledge makes it a closer race. Hairston’s probably due for some regression, since he wasn’t near as good in LF for Arizona as he was for us.
January 4, 2008 at 1:41 pm
33 … nice catch … 398 BABIP does seem way overboard … KK and AG are in 320s … otoh, neither of them are projected at .400+ OBP … and also Chase was BABIP = .411 last year at AA (and .343 in ‘06 at A) … still, projecting a 398 BABIP is “an issue” … as is projecting him to 467 ABs … it’s not obvious to me that he won’t start in AAA … it’s hard to believe that the Padres have *2* good 3B-men, ain’t it?
January 4, 2008 at 1:45 pm
36 … re: Hairston regression … perhaps … but make sure that “the mean” for him includes his minor league performance (ex. .995 OPS @ AAA in 2006) …
January 4, 2008 at 1:46 pm
all the James projections seem very optimistic. why is EVERYONE projected to improve, even oldies like Maddux and Giles?
January 4, 2008 at 1:47 pm
#36: Also, to my poorly made point, 825 ain’t much better than what we had in ‘07.
Regarding Headley’s projection, it seems pretty far out of whack, just like Kouzmanoff’s did last year. Other systems I’ve seen have Headley much lower than the BJH and seem like more reasonable guesses.
January 4, 2008 at 1:52 pm
40: I guess the James projections seem more consistent in LF. I think that’s why LF appeared worse than it was for us. It was pretty much either awesome (Bradley or Hairston) or mediocre (Cruz & Blum) to downright awful (Branyan & Sledge).
January 4, 2008 at 1:56 pm
#41: True. Left field was maddeningly inconsistent, but the serious suckage happened at second base. It was kind of like left, but without Bradley and Hairston.
January 4, 2008 at 2:09 pm
42: Good point. 2B and the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation killed us last year. Iguchi seems to be an upgrade at 2B and if our rehab projects work out, we’ll be in better shape at the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation.
January 4, 2008 at 2:51 pm
OT … in the spirit of Friday Links … here’s a fun video of Ryan Zimmerman catching a ball with his shirt …
http://homerderby.com/archives/1716
… and the link to “Magic Bat” is a goodie also.
January 4, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I was completely in the dark about what Mark Prior’s injury history looks like. We’ve all heard rumblings, especially re: Dusty Baker, but I wanted to more depth into what happened. This is what I came up with:
http://thesacrificebunt.com/ma.....-big-baby/
January 4, 2008 at 3:15 pm
#45: Cool, thanks for the heads-up; not sure how I missed that…
January 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm
RE: 39 - Eric (nice name, btw), if you take a look at my 2007 NL SP Analysis that Geoff linked to today, you’ll see that Maddux was actually a VERY effective pitcher in 2007 - top 15, since my analysis weights a ton of different variables to level the playing field between those on good/bad teams, with/without run support, etc.
The Bill James projections are based on established baselines. Maddux, as far as I can gather, is expected to improve because of how effective he was this year, as well as the fact he will be more comfortable in a Padres uniform, and due to his established baseline past a certain age. He has improved in a relative sense.
He is not improving from his early Cub or Braves days, but relative to his 2nd Cubs stint, he has showed improvement over the last few seasons in a number of areas - again you cannot look at just ERA and W-L record to judge improvement because there are many factors that go into everything.
I would expect Maddux to be a 13-16 game winner next year, though, and also continue to be my idol.
January 4, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Tom:
Yes, Bonds was already a Hall of Famer. I still think he gained the most from PEDs. He set the single season and career records for home runs. He set slugging and on-base percentage records. He went from being one of the top 25 players of all time to the top five.
I know McGwire and Sosa and Palmeiro may have doubled or tripled their career value. It just depends on how you look at it. I’ve written about 20 opinion pieces on steroids for a newspaper during the past two seasons, so I’m aware of the problem and how they affected the careers of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc.
Your other point: OK, you didn’t use the exact word “sympathetic.” To use your word, he is NOT any less of a pariah.
I don’t think he was ever the designated scapegoat. He is the big fish in baseball’s PED problem and rightfully so. He retarded baseball history more than anyone else. He is the “big get” in finding out who used PEDs.
Everyone knew PEDs were a baseball-wide problem before the report. The report just put names to the problem. So no, it doesn’t matter than there were a bunch of names named a few weeks ago in relation to how Bonds is viewed.
Also, you must not know anything about my web site, so good job in criticizing it. Technically, it’s not a blog, because others can’t comment on it, and there’s very little opinion on it. There are no graphs on it. I was saying that the Bill James projections are also on my site just like the graphs site. My site is http://www.padresnation.com.
When I said “what’s the point,” it didn’t mean you can’t talk about whatever you want to talk about — Bonds, the Padres, anything else in the world. But it did mean that if Alderson said they aren’t acquiring Bonds, then they aren’t. Or it’s a one in a million shot. Acquiring Bonds has been discussed a number of times here. Yes, you have the right to talk about it. Feel free.
My two cents: I just think analyzing facts and things that could happen are more interesting and productive than conjecture and things that won’t happen. There have been about a billion trade proposals on this blog since the season ended. Most of them make no sense, and if they were so brilliant, Towers would have already done them.
But yet some (not you, necessarily) refused to look at road stats when analyzing the Padres pitching and hitting.
(For those who don’t care about this pissing contest, sorry this is so long.)
January 5, 2008 at 9:17 am
48: If you want to get technical, which apparently you do, there’s no requirement that a blog include comments. Ducksnorts didn’t have comments for quite some time, if memory serves. Nor does a blog require any “opinion” content.
I wasn’t criticizing your content, but your approach of passing judgment on what’s worthy of discussion. If you think something isn’t worth discussing, but other people do, you have two options. One, interject yourself into the discussion but portray it as unworthy of your time, usually while attempting to achieve a tone of superiority. Two, don’t say anything. If you really feel there’s no point, go with Option Two. Option One doesn’t work well if anybody’s paying attention.
Bonds jumped some. I’d argue he was already Top 5 before PEDs, but let’s say it was from 25 to 3. McGwire and Sosa went from 350 to 50. Who gained more? How was Bonds breaking a 6 year old record more “retarding” to the game than McGwire and Sosa breaking a 37 year old record?
A pariah is, by definition, somebody who stands alone. We now have immensely popular and successful players, like Clemens, named. The estimates by Canseco and Caminiti, that more than 50% of players have used PEDs, now look solid. How can Bonds still be such an outcast if he’s standing with 600 or more other players, even if he’s at the head of that line? It’s hard to be an outcast when you’re in the majority.
It doesn’t matter “to you” that other players were named. I’m sure it doesn’t matter to some others. It does matter to plenty of people. Does it matter enough for enough Padre fans to tolerate Bonds, without canceling season tickets or staying away from games? That’s what the Padre marketing department should be looking at.
January 5, 2008 at 9:24 am
On a lighter note: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.c.....5148/92664
BTB interviewed DePo.
January 5, 2008 at 12:00 pm
50 … thanks for the link … good one … must read, even!
The first thing in there that stood out for me was his comment about KK … “There is no doubt in my mind that he’ll stay at 3B” … which seems like a strong statement … given the presence of Chase Headley …
January 5, 2008 at 12:01 pm
50: Good interview. Thanks for the link.
A support for Trammell, who should be in the HoF, in this link:
http://www.nysun.com/article/68941
January 5, 2008 at 12:17 pm
49: I don’t think that the FO would reconsider getting Bonds in LF. The public outrage against that move would be very damaging. I still don’t want Bonds here.
The public as a general rule are very hard to sway to change their minds so I don’t think it will be as easy as you think to get them to support a Padres team that includes him on the roster even with recent revelations.
Look at how hard it is to convince the fanbase that the Padres are doing more with less by winning since moving to Petco without succumbing to spending big dollars on FA. I still have friends who despise the FO since big money was not spent on FA this off-season (one went as far as cancelling the season tickets he’s had since the early 90’s). They think the Padres are not trying even when I mentioned the winning records in the past 4 seasons.
In any case, getting a slugger for a LF is not a move that will improve the team as much as getting that competent #4 and #5 pitchers that are healthy. I’m still concerned with the rotation that’s relying on rehab projects so far. And in that, I’m just as irrational as my friends who prefer big name sluggers FA to my reliable back-end pitchers.
January 5, 2008 at 12:38 pm
re: 49
Gee, thanks for giving me all my options. I actually have about a million options, but I won’t detail them here.
I did not say that Bonds is still an outcast. He wasn’t even an outcast before, because of Canseco, Caminiti, etc. (Pete Rose, for example, would be an outcast.) My argument is that his steroid use is a bigger deal, about 100 times bigger, than these other players. In the case of McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, maybe not 100 times bigger than them. But I still think a bigger deal.
I said in my previous post that I realize than McGwire and Sosa helped their careers more, in a way. I realize McGwire had the single-season home run record. But also pointed out that Bonds has the all-time record, what was arguably the most important record in sports.
Maybe it does matter to some that many names were named in the report. It was certainly interesting. But anyone who has followed this controversy since the Caminiti story knew it was a widespread problem. The difference: We now know that F.P. Santangelo took PEDs, instead of just “a lot of players.”
My overall point by saying what’s the point is: No, the Padres marketing department shouldn’t “be looking at” Bonds and how he would fair in San Diego as a personality. The image of Bonds has not changed, not one bit, I would argue. Alderson has said they won’t sign before and I don’t see how Clemens and a bunch of average players being revealed in the Mitchell Report would change that.
Also, it seems we’ve taken quite a bit of time for you to say you were just criticizing my “approach.” Yes, you might not have liked how I said it — I don’t like about 15 things that happen everyday — but I have answered your question about Bonds in San Diego a few times now. So we’ve a discussion about it.
What is the difference between a blog and just a sports web site? Just curious.
January 5, 2008 at 1:34 pm
50: Fantastic link!
January 5, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hey, what’s everyone doing here on a Saturday? Well, as long as you’re here, would some of you mind hitting this:
http://padreblogs.com/test/test.php
I’m still tweaking stuff. As always, feedback is welcome…
January 5, 2008 at 1:50 pm
#54: This is an interesting question…
There are as many opinions on this as there are people to give them. Here’s one school of thought:
http://weblogs.about.com/od/ab.....ebsite.htm
Personally, beyond branding purposes, I don’t find the distinctions to be terribly useful. Regardless of what label anyone slaps on the thing, it’s all publishing.
January 5, 2008 at 2:45 pm
56 … I like it … simple is good!
Are the 5 from mlb.com on your list?
http://www.mlb.com/news/articl....._id=mlb#sd
January 5, 2008 at 3:23 pm
#58: Thanks. Three of ‘em are; the others appear to be dead or at least in deep slumber.
January 5, 2008 at 3:34 pm
54: You have two options that make any sense if you think a discussion is a waste of time. Participate with criticisms or abstain. If it was happening on your blogwebsite and you wanted to put an end to it, then you’d have some reason for option 1.
Based on how Bonds has been demonized for his PED use, and the way Caminiti was lionized in San Diego even after his death, I’d say that not nearly as many people have been paying attention as you think.
I don’t believe you really think that you speak for all Padre fans. The Padre marketing department should maybe listen to more than just you. They should at least be asking the question, not assuming they know the answer….a good habit.
Not only were there several better than “average” players named in the Mitchell Report (including possibly the best pitcher of all time), it also exposed how widespread PED usage was. I’d bet that a large portion of fans thought that PED usage was largely limited to hulking star sluggers. Finding out that the usage spectrum included every category of player, from journeyman to star, from light-hitting infielder to power-hitting outfielder to middle reliever to starting pitcher, MIGHT make some people more tolerant of Bonds. I’m not even saying they’re for sure going to be more tolerant. I’m saying, Let’s find out. When Bonds was brought up last offseason, Alderson said they backed off partly because so many angry fans were against it. It wouldn’t be that hard to find out how many of those folks would still be that angry.
January 5, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Re: 56 Looks great GY!
January 5, 2008 at 7:24 pm
56: Like it. Simple and clear.
January 5, 2008 at 8:34 pm
60:
If you look at the definition of blogs and web sites Geoff posted, my site is clearly a web site. The writing is not personal or conversational. It’s information with static pages updated periodically.
I have many options. I could throw my computer away for one.
You said: “The Padre marketing department should maybe listen to more than just you.” I don’t even think they should listen to me and never said that. Also, it would be Padres marketing department.
As for your last paragraph, we agree for the most part. We just disagree on how much fans are informed or not. I don’t really worry about how much fans are uninformed. It’s hard enough staying informed myself. If this is turning out to be a discussion of how dumb fans and people in general are, then yes, they are dumb. When I say “we knew …” whatever about steroids, I meant that “we the informed.”
If you have a clear idea of what the marketing department should do, you should write them a letter. But with Alderson and Towers in charge of the franchise, I have quite a bit of trust in them.
January 6, 2008 at 12:26 am
like the test version of Padreblogs geoff…saves a lot of time surfing from one to another to check for new updates
January 6, 2008 at 9:55 am
Regardless of whether or not the Padres fans would accept Bonds as our left fielder, Petco is the wrong park for a defensive liability. Not sure the offensive benefits offset the defensive downside, even for six or seven innings a game.
If we could get Matt Morris from the Pirates paying only $5M of his salary, I’d be all for it, even if we had to send Barrett along to make it happen.
For what it’s worth, I’d hate to move Antonelli to CF. Even though we haven’t found a top level CF this year, we’ll get by with a Hairston out ther for a year (unless he has to cover for Bonds). I’d like to see Antonelli at 2B for the next ten years.
Thanks for the opportunity to sound off a bit.
Go Chargers!!!!!!
January 6, 2008 at 10:52 am
64: Really? Spelling and complaints about “blog” versus “web site” before you even had a solid definition of “blog” yourself? Talk about “what’s the point?”
You stated that the Padres shouldn’t even bother researching the question because people’s opinions of Bonds haven’t changed. The only thing you know for sure is that YOUR opinion of Bonds hasn’t changed. You might know a bunch of other people who feel the same way. The Padres drew almost 3 million fans last year. Their TV market is about 3 million. So yeah, you’re basing your idea on what the Padres’ marketing team should do on…..you.
We The Informed weren’t a large part of the people threatening to cancel their season tickets over Bonds. The people who might - again, might - think differently about him now are mostly people who bought into the idea that he was the worst of a handful of players willing to break the law to achieve greatness. You might still think he’s the worst, but nobody can pretend he was one of a handful. Now that Those The Less-Informed can read about the pervasiveness of the issue, perhaps thinking back to the 96-98 Padre “All Muscle” squads, maybe they wouldn’t cancel their season tickets if Bonds was brought onboard.
January 6, 2008 at 10:56 am
65: Well, we play 81 games away from Petco. He could play LF when Peavy was on the mound, since so many outs are recorded by Ks. He’s going to have the chance for at least 1 at-bat most nights, since a CG is so rare.
He could easily get 350 at-bats next year without being a defensive liability. Last year we spent 800 at-bats on Blum, Cruz, and Sledge. It’s a serious swing from a 650 OPS to 900 or higher.
January 6, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Yes, really.
I don’t think the Padres marketing department “should” do anything. They can do whatever they want. They can call in sick everyday. I wouldn’t research it, but that’s just me. There’s a reason we’re being snarky on a blog and not running the marketing department.
I never said my opinion of Bonds or if it has changed. I was simply asserting that the public perception — especially among a chief rival’s fan base — certainly has not changed.
I have written about 15 columns in The Washington Times on Bonds and steroids during the past two seasons, so I have a good understanding of this issue and the public’s perception of it.
Yes, I understand the difference between the informed and the uninformed. I went some ways toward explaining it my previous post. And I know your point about the uninformed. That’s how this whole thing got started.
January 6, 2008 at 1:31 pm
67 - You are no doubt correct that he could accumulate 350+ AB’s in 08 with us, and his on base percentage would be outstanding. That said, he’s still a defensive liability in any ML park. It’s just gonna be worse in Petco, and with the uncertainty of Edmonds ability to defend, I would be concerned about starting Bonds much at all. The potential for a quality rotation makes it easier to accept, but I’m still not comfortable with it.
In your opinion, what would he want to sign? I wouldn’t think we should go over $4M. My thought is that he would want $8M or more.
January 6, 2008 at 3:10 pm
68: How can you write and believe that “the public perception — especially among a chief rival’s fan base — certainly has not changed” without researching it? How many of those columns are post-Mitchell? Probably not many, given the 2 year time frame. The question of how Bonds is perceived now versus two months ago is worth asking. Maybe the Padres have no interest in him anyway, so they don’t need to ask it. But if they’d like to sign him and aren’t asking for terms because they’re worried about a fan backlash, then they should be asking it.
I’m snarky no matter the medium. Commenting on a blog, work meetings, signing a new mortgage, romantic dinner with the wife…..
And if you’re really going to be a martinet about spelling and such, shouldn’t it technically be “Padres’ marketing department,” as in the marketing department that belongs to the Padres? Pointing out spelling mistakes on the Internet is often seen as, well, sorta desperate.
January 6, 2008 at 3:16 pm
69: Bonds was in the range of “fairly poor defense but you can live with it” last year, by stats that account for his home park. He actually made a fair number of players out of his zone, which surprised me. Guys like Dunn, Lee, and Burrell were worse. SF’s left field is no picnic.
The last part is probably the deal breaker in any case. He’s going to want more than we want to pay. He might accept a lower base if he was hitting in a better home park, but that’s not ours. Plus, SD was the first place that had to clear out a seating section to protect him. He may not have fond feelings.
January 6, 2008 at 4:40 pm
No, if you’re going to be technical, it should not be “Padres’ marketing department.” Padres describes what kind of marketing department it is. Jazz marketing department, Wolfpack marketing department, etc. I can see if someone disagrees with that, but that’s the rule I use.
Pointing out spelling and other errors probably isn’t done enough, and people on the Internet don’t take the time to read what they are writing a second time.
How can I write and believe that “the public perception — especially among a chief rival’s fan base — certainly has not changed” without researching it?
Because I believe it to be true. Because there has been no evidence to suggest it has changed, and I believe the notion that it has is fairly ridiculous. Yes, it’s nice to have research, but not everything in the world is researched, and one of the reasons why is something has to be deemed worthy of research. Why don’t we take an informal poll on this site?
Which is what you wanted to do in the first place. I gave my two cents. So did others. Big deal. But I don’t see why mine elicited the “Toastmaster” comment.
January 6, 2008 at 6:32 pm
72: I think it could go either way on the possessive. But you’ve thrown enough sentence fragments around to not be setting yourself up as the Grammarian. The Internet is largely an informal setting and blogs are on the deep informal end. What’s fairly ridiculous is quibbling about “Padre” vs “Padres” when neither word changes the content of the argument. The team itself uses both terms when dealing with the public.
You can’t say “there’s no evidence to suggest it has changed” without, hmmm, looking for evidence. By your own admission much of your evidence predates the Mitchell Report. You’re closing your eyes and then saying “I didn’t see it.” You didn’t look. How do you know if it’s there or not?
Your original opinion was that we shouldn’t bother discussing the point, which you then proceeded to discuss at length. Setting yourself up as the Arbiter (originally of what topics should be discussed, now of people’s vocabulary) earns you the “Toastmaster” title.
January 6, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Tom “the Snark” vs Kevin “the