Falling Off the Bandwagon
Tue, May 13, 2008
by Geoff Young
We are all products of our environment. The recent environment in San Diego baseball has been one of winning. Since moving downtown for the 2004 season, the Padres have seen unprecedented on-field success. For the first time in franchise history they’ve enjoyed four straight winning seasons. In 2005 and 2006, they reached the post-season in back-to-back seasons, another first. And as fans in these parts are all too aware, they came within a strike of making it three straight.
Through Monday, the Padres have won 360 games since 2004. That’s more wins than all but three teams in the National League (Cardinals, 389; Phillies, 369; Braves, 368) over the same period. Only the Padres and Phillies have posted winning records in each of the past four seasons.
Critics will cite the Padres’ lack of post-season success as evidence that the team has been “good but not great.” This ignores the fact that short series are largely variable and therefore unpredictable. Would anyone call the 2006 Cardinals a great team on the basis of their World Championship? They won 83 regular-season games that year, the same number as Florida had won the previous season. Heck, the Padres have exceeded that total in three of their first four years at Petco Park.
It’s in this context that we’re seeing an interesting response from fans in the wake of a poor stretch to begin 2008: people are giving up on the team six weeks into the season. Perhaps in the absence of adversity, we’ve lost the ability to deal with it. Perhaps the way 2007 ended has battered our collective ego to the point where we can’t shake it. Or perhaps we really are as fickle as our reputation (”Know what California and granola have in common? Just a bunch of nuts and flakes.”).
Listen to talk radio, read the papers (heck, they’ve even got the players buying into it), or peruse the comments right here. There is a sense of panic more appropriate to followers of an organization in disarray — the Pirates, Nationals, or Reds, to name a few recent examples. For fans of a team that is in the midst of its most successful run in nearly 40 years of existence to start fantasizing about next year with more than 120 games remaining on the schedule is nearly unfathomable, but that’s just what we’re doing.
If you find this stuff interesting, and you probably don’t, there’s some good work being done in this area. I haven’t read through all of these carefully yet, but I’ve skimmed them and they appear to be worthy of further attention:
Academic Papers
Masters Thesis
Book
Newspapers
This list is hardly comprehensive, I’m sure, but it’s a starting point.
The notion of fans abandoning their team when things go bad isn’t unique to San Diego. Sociologists have even come up with a couple catchy acronyms — BIRGing and CORFing — to help explain our behavior. BIRG stands for “basking in reflected glow,” while CORF is “cutting off reflected failure.” The clothes we wear and the pronouns we use in discussing a team (”we” win, while “they” lose) are manifestations of this. I haven’t found anything in the literature about bad-mouthing one’s own team, but I’m guessing that would constitute a form of CORFing.
Whatever the case, we’re encountering a lot of mindless negativity (as opposed to “constructive criticism,” which would focus more on solving problems than on belaboring them) toward the Padres right now in spite of their recent success. Where negativity does yield to constructive criticism, most of the “solutions” we’re seeing concern the promise of a brighter future as opposed to fixing the here-and-now. (The sociologists probably have something to say about that as well, but no matter.)
In this vein, I’ve heard some creative suggestions for “rebuilding for the future”; here are my favorites:
Jettison the Veterans and Let the Kids Play
The abstract concepts of, say, Matt Antonelli, Chad Huffman, and Wade LeBlanc are more appealing to many than are the tangible realities of, oh, Tadahito Iguchi, Paul McAnulty, and Shawn Estes. Nothing against Antonelli, Huffman, and LeBlanc, all of whom are fine young prospects, but it’s a lot easier to love them when you haven’t seen them play yet.
We have a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of Iguchi, McAnulty, and Estes (well, I don’t think he has any strengths, but you get the idea) because we’ve watched them enough to have a feel for their game. The prospects, on the other hand, are just romantic notions in our heads. They are a magic pill that will “solve” whatever it is that people imagine ails the franchise.
What happens when the pill doesn’t work? We had Ryan Braun in our minds but we got Adrian Gonzalez instead. Not the Gonzalez we’ve come to know and love, but the version the Rangers gave up on too soon.
So there’s one question: How long do you wait for the kids to become productive big leaguers before jettisoning them in favor of the next wave of prospects? Here’s another: How much confidence do you then have that your player development people will convert those kids into somethng useful?
Part of the trouble with embarking on a full rebuild is that you’re effectively putting all of your proverbial eggs into one equally proverbial basket. We saw how well that worked in center field this year. Even if the talent is there, why would an organization want to bet the farm on, well, the farm?
The Arizona Diamondbacks won 90 games last year with a youth-oriented roster. They’d won 76 the previous season. Aside from the fact that they have some exceptional talent in their system (how many teams can cast aside Carlos Quentin because they’ve got younger and better options?), the fact is that veterans like Orlando Hudson, Eric Byrnes, Doug Davis, and Livan Hernandez all played prominent roles on the ‘07 squad (with Tony Clark and Randy Johnson providing value in more limited opportunities). If the Snakes had decided to ditch even one of those guys because of a “youth movement,” they most likely wouldn’t have won the NL West. By most standards, failure to reach the playoffs would be considered a less successful season.
Trade Established Guys Who Are Overrated
This one’s tricky because there’s a subtle bias at work. Look at the word “overrated.” Who is rating these players and according to what criteria? I’ve heard the label slapped on Kevin Kouzmanoff, Khalil Greene, and Chris Young, among others. We watch these players every day, and maybe in the process we lose some of our objectivity in attempting to evaluate them. It’s hard not to do that. It’s difficult to separate, e.g., Greene’s career 98 OPS+ from the image of his flailing at sliders down and away. We had trouble doing it with Phil Nevin when he was here, why should Khalil be any different?
Returning to the issue at hand, the concept, as I understand it, is that the Padres should trade these guys while they still have value. Of course, trades don’t happen in a vacuum. At the risk of sounding incredibly crass by speaking of human beings in this manner, an exchange of goods takes place. So if you decide to move Greene or Young, you’ll be getting something in return for them. And of course, from the Padres standpoint, a trade makes sense only if they’re able to get equal or greater value as a result of such a move. (I know this seems like really basic stuff, but you’d be surprised how many people miss the concept and simply want to trade someone because, well, just because.)
The good news is that Kevin Towers has a tremendous track record when it comes to making trades (see pp. 164-190 of the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual). That said, there still has to be a market. And if nobody wants (or more appropriately, is willing to pay an agreeable price for) the guys he might be dangling, then what can he do?
So when we talk about “overrated” and “while he still has value,” we need to be careful in defining our terms. Young, for example, is a solid #2 starter on most teams, maybe a #3 on some. I doubt that many executives view him as more than that, but if Towers can find one who does, then by all means, he should explore whatever resulting opportunities might arise. Unfortunately, for the most part (yes, there are exceptions), these guys getting paid big bucks to make big decisions aren’t nearly as stupid as we seem to think they are. Every now and then a team will run into something spectacular, but if it were that easy to turn, say, Young into Jose Reyes, then it would happen more often.
More to the point, the fact that you or I may think a player is “overrated” doesn’t make it so. And therefore our conception of his value shouldn’t play a role in what a team’s general manager, who is charged with doing this sort of thing for a living and at stakes a tad higher than bragging rights at the water cooler, ultimately decides to do in terms of personnel moves. (And if it does play a role, then you should be very afraid of your team’s general manager because he is making decisions based on the wrong inputs.)
Play for the First Overall Pick in 2009
It’s been suggested that the Padres might be better off trying to lose as many games as possible so they can tab SDSU right-hander Stephen Strasburg with the first overall pick in 2009. This is so rich, I hardly know where to start.
Let’s disregard the ethical implications for a moment and focus on the strategy itself. Assuming the Padres finished with the worst record in baseball this year, picked Strasburg, and signed him, how long would it take to develop him into a big-league pitcher and what upside would he have? What are the risks involved in such an investment?
History shows that the chance for failure exists. Even if Strasburg (or whoever) makes it to the big leagues and achieves some degree of success, will it be enough to turn around a franchise that just finished with the worst record in baseball? According to Jim Callis, of the 301 first-round picks from 1990 to 1997, a mere 4.3% became stars. Those are pretty long odds.
Shifting our attention to ethical considerations, there are two basic problems. First, the strategy demonstrates a lack of integrity and respect for the game. It also betrays an alarming ignorance of history. You may recall that (some of) the Chicago White Sox tried to lose games in 1919 and it didn’t go so well. Pete Rose? There’s a reason he’s not in the Hall of Fame. (Although he never bet against his team explicitly, you have to wonder what he was thinking on days he didn’t bet for his team.)
Second, it breeds tolerance for and even encouragement of losing on the field of battle. If you tell your charges that the goal for this season is to lose as many games as possible in pursuit of the first pick in next year’s draft, how motivated do you suppose those players will be to perform for you when you’re ready for them to stop losing?
As strategies go, this one is right up there with cramming oneself into a barrel and floating over Niagara Falls. It could work, but I wouldn’t want to bet anything of value on it.
Bringing It All Home
The Padres have played some of their best baseball in franchise history over the past four years. Fans have been mostly supportive — the occasional grousing about payroll, beer prices, and “boring” (low-scoring) games notwithstanding. Despite the level of trust we might expect this to afford the club, with less than a quarter of the season behind us, many folks have given up hope. Attendance is at its lowest since the Padres moved to Petco Park, and fans are more interested in ditching the current plan in favor of some other, ill-defined plan than in seeing their team make an honest attempt to compete.
Without question, the Padres are off to a poor start. There’s no way to sugarcoat that. They aren’t hitting well and they aren’t pitching well. They’re already 8 1/2 games out of a playoff spot, and it will take a fantastic effort to make up that kind of ground. At the same time, with 123 games remaining on the schedule, it’s hardly fait accompli that the team will continue to stink all year.
With a few notable exceptions, players aren’t performing up to their abilities. Greene and Josh Bard have been hitting well below their established norms, Young has been inconsistent, and Trevor Hoffman stumbled out of the gate. In the case of Hoffman, maybe we could sense it coming because of his age, but the other guys are in their primes. We knew there were questions in center field and the #5 spot in the rotation, but who imagined the bullpen collapsing the way it has?
The season is long. We’ve gotten spoiled with a winning environment these past four years, and that’s great because — well, it’s been a long time coming and we deserve it. The downside is that success raises our expectations. When the club falls short, we don’t quite know what to do. The logical course of action would seem to be getting behind the team and encouraging them to win, but instead we stop attending games and devise various schemes for tearing the club apart and putting it back together again.
It’s a fascinating response, don’t you think?
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.
May 13, 2008 at 7:56 am
Great post GY. Very well reasoned and very passionate.
To my mind, there is still no better place to be than Petco Park on a Saturday night or Sunday afternoon. And hey, my loyalty was rewarded with a weekend of winning.
I do think you’ve completely nailed it, that we’re in effect “spoiled” because of the success we’ve had since coming to Petco. Something that has annoyed me since Petco has opened is that there has been this sense of entitlement amongst fans that has been simmering since the day after Prop C passed. There seems to be this irrational logic that “I voted for the stadium and I paid for it with my taxes, therefore I am owed a World Series.” As you mention, there are several people who lament that we’ve only been “good, not great” when our aggregate success puts us in the top 4 of the NL over that span.
If people want to give up hope on the team and not come to games, then that is certainly their right. The argument that “Don’t go to games, it will force them to spend more money” is so mind-blowingly stupid that I don’t know where to begin. Yes, attendance is a way to measure the populace’s opinion of the team and the FO. But as a small-market team, we can’t exactly expect the FO to spend more money if their taking in lower revenues. Our ownership is already pumping non-Padres monies into the franchise, and there are some amongst us who wish he would spend more of his own money while we refuse to spend our own.
May 13, 2008 at 8:01 am
Bravo, Geoff! Bravo!!
May 13, 2008 at 8:10 am
This is just poor timing, the Padres farm system is so close to being ready to harvest but it just needs one maybe one and a half more years before its ready to stock the padres roster with young talent. The FO has done a great job pulling this team out of the cellar with a completly bare minor league system and a frugal owner its just to bad that they could not hold it together for one more season.
May 13, 2008 at 8:10 am
Bottom line…Padres win, more fans will go to the games…
Most people here (Ducksnorts) aren’t that fickle. Unfortunately, most people in San Diego don’t even know this site exists.
For the casual fan, the team is virtually interchangable. They just want the atmosphere; the atmosphere that comes with a winning team (like in the movie Major League).
It’s a shame the Padres didn’t get off to a hot start. Fans would be more likely to stick with the team. “Oh, we’re in first place (after 20 games)!”…
Padres still have a shot…Especially, at the Wild Card…Not happy about the cut of Edmonds either…But, whatever….
May 13, 2008 at 8:18 am
Heard on XX this morning that Edmonds signed with the cubbies
May 13, 2008 at 8:26 am
Its funny, I know I heard them say it. They said it would be great if he started in center tonight. Maybe they were joking and I only caught the tail end of the joke.
I can’t find a single thing about it anywhere though. Weird.
May 13, 2008 at 8:26 am
Interesting you called out the Reds. As a lifetime Reds fan and long-time (until recently) San Diego resident and Padre partial-season-ticket holder, I have to say I’d rather be watching the (bad) Reds than the (bad) Padres. I’m speaking mostly about an entertainment product, but also about hope for the near future.
Other than Jake and Gonzalez, there’s not really an interesting player on the roster. Kouzmanoff, maybe. Maddux is cool to have around, and Young can be compelling sometimes. But other than that, it’s a bunch of ancient and/or mediocre guys.
Meanwhile, the Reds have Harang, Volquez, and Cueto on the mound; exciting young talent in Votto, Phillips, and Encarnacion; the unique Adam Dunn; and two consensus-top-10 prospects in Homer Bailey and Jay Bruce by midseason.
The Padres management team is superior to the Reds in almost every way, but I really don’t see where this Padres team goes in the near future.
May 13, 2008 at 8:26 am
#1@Phantom: You nailed it about the sense of entitlement, although from what I hear it’s more about the payroll and lack of a big name free agent than it is about a World Series.
I think the bad attitude we all have is due not just to the losses, but the way the team looks when they lose. The lack of speed and (perceived?) lack of passion makes it look like they don’t care. Who would have thought we’d be longing for Milton Bradley?
I think KT is doing what he can to right the ship: bringing in fresh arms to shore up the weak bullpen, cutting Edmonds, giving Gerut a shot, calling up Carlin to provide some solid defense. The only help we’re likely to get from the farm system is Headley; everyone else is either not ready or just not good enough.
The Cubs signed Edmonds? That’s crazy. He’ll probably start hitting now. Maybe now we can trade Maddux for Pie.
May 13, 2008 at 8:35 am
#8@Anthony: Seriously, Edmonds will probably rake in the Confines and everyone will just lambast the FO.
Maddux for Pie would probably we worth it.
May 13, 2008 at 8:36 am
#6@PF4L: Here’s the MLBTR post:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/.....derin.html
May 13, 2008 at 8:48 am
The bandwagon, by it’s very nature, should be finite. IMHO, it’s better that the majority of the casual observers stop paying attention in the bad years. The alternative might be to have a fan base like the Toronto Maple Leafs. Never a more cannibalistic group of fans has been spawned.
Perhaps the negativity (and let’s face it sports talk radio is just an echo chamber for negativity and schadenfreude) is understandable, if not justified. At their current rate, the Padres will win something like twenty to thirty fewer games this year than their average win totals from the past four years. No matter how sage and wise the organizational plan, that’s just not going to sit well with the most ardent supporters, let alone the bandwagoneers.
May 13, 2008 at 9:14 am
“At the same time, with 123 games remaining on the schedule, it’s hardly fait accompli that the team will continue to stink all year.”
I’m not sure this is the issue. . .isn’t it more a case of “with 123 games remaining on the schedule and the Padres trailing by 9.5 games in the West, they will likely need to win at a nearly 70% clip the rest of the way to sniff the playoffs.”
That’s my problem - these next two - three weeks will basically spell out the rest of the season if we continue to lose. And if we continue to lose, it’s over. In May. I don’t care if we went to the playoffs the last 5 years in a row, if they all came up short of a World Series berth (not even a World Series championship, I just want to make it back to the Series), then I’m always going to be left wanting more next year.
My frustration stems from the fact that the FO could have made one or two simple moves this offseason (alright, they aren’t “simple” moves. . .maybe “obvious” is a better word) and the team is competing right now. Yes, the bullpen exploded. But why did we have no contingency in the outfield? Why did we not trade for a center fielder who can bat leadoff? These moves should have been obvious, but the FO chose to roll the dice. . .again.
That being said, I attended games this weekend (hell, I live downtown about two blocks from the park) and I will continue to attend this season. And I don’t advocate selling off all parts and bringing up all the kids (although a trade at the deadline, if we are out of it, would be nice if we can get back some value). And I certainly don’t advoate playing for the #1 pick. . .this isn’t the NBA where a top pick is virtually guaranteed to be a star.
May 13, 2008 at 9:28 am
#12@BigWorm: My contention is that I don’t know that there WERE obvious moves to be made. Sure, we saw moves that could be made. But, as GY mentioned above, trades are a two-way street.
Sure, we thought it would be great to get DeJesus, Willits, or Crisp. But the FO thought the costs were prohibitive. Going with Hairston wasn’t a bad plan in the OF, and the team DID try to sign Bradley.
Hindsight is always 20-20. While none of us thought Edmonds would produce at the plate, I don’t think we expected him to be so ineffective defensively. I think that pretty much surprised everyone.
May 13, 2008 at 9:38 am
I was with you till the very end…
I think logically, once a positive experience turns negative, if one is incapable of having a significant impact on changing the experience, one avoids the experience altogether.
May 13, 2008 at 9:46 am
At the risk of offending our host, I certainly haven’t seen this flood of negativity. Most people who talk about trading veterans do so in the context of “if we’re out of it in July.” Same thing goes for discussion of the 2009 draft. Has anyone suggested that the team should deliberately tank the rest of the year? All I’ve noticed is talk about what might result if our losing ways continue. We might be in position to draft a top talent who wouldn’t necessarily have an insurmountable bonus demand. That’s a happy thought, something to help keep faith alive when we’re losing 2 out of every 3 games.
Fixing the here-and-now is virtually impossible. The fixes to this team will have to come from current players improving and/or prospects who do well. In the interest of not blowing things up back in 2004, the Padres decided to hang on to Phil Nevin after his 130 OPS+ season with 26 HR, then found themselves unable to trade him for anything more than Chan Ho Park the next year. Sometimes the bold move is the right move. I do completely agree on the “unknown” being more attractive than the known. I suspect that if Reggie Willits, or Tony Gwynn Jr., or whatever other young CF is being discussed really was a Padre, people would be less sanguine about them.
I see no reason the Padres can’t rebound to play .550 ball the rest of this year, and definitely no reason they can’t put together a very strong team in 2009. But I also don’t see why 2004-2007 should mute criticism of the poor decisions (not poor outcomes) that led us to this point in 2008.
May 13, 2008 at 9:51 am
#15@Tom Waits: But what poor decisions did the FO really make for this year? As I’ve said before, the majority of the team is the same team they were last year. We have players that are flat-out underplaying. You can’t blame the FO for failing to predict the drop off from Bard, Khalil, and the bullpen.
People keep saying “if only we’d made a simple move,” but what moves could we have realistically made? Sign Kyle Loshe? Germano did OK in the fifth spot, as did Ledezma. The starting pitching hasn’t sunk this team, it’s been the bully and the position players.
May 13, 2008 at 9:53 am
#12 Big Worm: You touched on the frustration I feel. The FO knew there were needs this past offseason, yet chose to bring in Jim Edmonds . They made a conscious effort to take a step back, instead of forward.
I also think a little too much is made of this so called “winning tradition” since 2004. They never won 90 games, and one division flag was an 82-80 record. It sure beats losing,…. but its not much of a peak.
As for the playoffs, yes they are a crapshoot and anything can happen. But getting knocked out both times rather easily leads me to believe that there is more than just bad luck at work here.
May 13, 2008 at 9:55 am
#13@Phantom: Lots of people thought that Edmonds, with Hairston as the backup, was a significant risk. And maybe the costs to get another CF were prohibitive, in terms of future competitiveness. But an analytic front office can’t really have been surprised that Edmonds failed and that Hairston looks more like a platoon LF than a starting CF.
#14@Dex: Agree. Most teams in most sports see their attendance decline when they play poorly. Why would the Padres be any different? If the front office has failed to convince a significant portion of the fan base that they’re doing everything possible to compete, why would those fans continue to drop $100 per game? I’m not saying this is true or false, but there seems to be a widespread perception that the Padre organization does “just enough.” Without a successful plan to overcome that, you’re not going to draw the Moral Support crowd.
May 13, 2008 at 10:02 am
Geoff, your analysis of the current state of things is really solid, but I’m curious what course of action you’d like to see the team follow?
I believe that Towers et al. have earned the luxury of having a bad season after several good ones, but I’m not all that convinced that 2009 will be much better just based on what’s in the pipeline right now. I fully expect Headley and Antonelli (or whomever) to struggle initially, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see Wolf or Maddux (or both) pitching for another team by this August. There’s going to be a ton of new faces next year. What sort of players could the Padres bring in and realistically compete with LA and Arizona in 2009?
May 13, 2008 at 10:02 am
#16@Phantom: In some regards I agree; you can’t plan for 70% of your starting players to hit so far below their norms. On the other hand, the decision to rely on Edmonds without a realistic backup (and to trade a prospect and pay Edmonds 7 million) was clearly fraught with danger.
Germano has a 66 ERA+. How is that OK in any spot? Lohse has been better (not good at all, 86 ERA+) than 2 of our starters. So yeah, he’d have been a smart move too.
Towers and the front office may have started to believe their own press clippings when it came to the bullpen. There were a lot of waiver claims with mediocre numbers and Rule 5 acquisitions penciled into the 2008 bully. Their failures (to either perform or be healthy enough to play) aren’t the same as underperforming.
May 13, 2008 at 10:02 am
#13@Phantom: I agree, trades are a two way street. And most likely asking for Willits or DeJesus would have received a counter-offer of Headley or Antonelli. Which I guess gets to the heart of the problem - our organization has been so poor at drafting and developing talent that when we do have some talent, we hang on to them like a man in the desert with one cantina of water. Suppose we had another promising 2B prospect at AA this year - I’m guessing Antonelli would no longer be with this team and in his place we would have a starting CF.
And I will agree with you that Edmonds was like plan C for the padres - it just seems like they didn’t have a plan D, plan E or plan F. . .or even a plan C-1 in case Edmonds got hurt or sucked (which given his last three years, was EXTREMELY likely to happen).
So if you really want to know what poor decisions the front office made, it basically comes down to Edmonds. But they took a huge gamble at a position that is important, but even more important for a team playing in Petco 81 games every year.
May 13, 2008 at 10:03 am
#14@Dex: But should 39 games really be enough to turn four years of positive experience into something negative? Maybe I’m just wired wrong, but I don’t get that mentality at all.
#15@Tom Waits: It’s pretty prevalent here in town, believe me.
May 13, 2008 at 10:05 am
#17@parlo: #18@Tom Waits:
I guess we’ll agree to disagree re: Edmonds. I didn’t expect him to do ANYTHING at the plate. I did expect him to be a passable CF. From what I remember the general opinion being, my take was pretty close to the norm.
As I said, hindisght is 20/20. Looking back, it’s obvious that Edmonds wasn’t going to do it. But I really don’t remember a chorus of concern about Edmond’s defense. And I really think it was that, moreso than his woeful appearance at the plate, that led to the team cutting ties with him.
As for us not winning 90 games in the past 4 years: Only the Diamondbacks (COL doesn’t count since they needed an extra game), Mets, Braves, and Cardinals have reached that plateau since 2005 (there were a ton of 90+ wins in 2004, even from teams that didn’t make the playoffs). That means that from 2005 to 2007, only 1/3 of the teams that made it to the playoffs in the NL had 90 or more wins. In those years, teams that won 89 (Houston), 83, and 89 (regular season) won the NL and made it to the World Series.
May 13, 2008 at 10:09 am
#19@UC Michael: Oh, I can see a ton of ways the Pads could compete next year. But it requires smart trading this year, possibly earlier trading than many fans would like.
May 13, 2008 at 10:15 am
#7@Chris: Yeah, the Reds are in pretty good shape right now. I was mostly referring to the fact that they haven’t sniffed .500 since 2000.
#19@UC Michael: Short-term, they’re already doing some of the things I called for last week:
http://ducksnorts.com/blog/200.....-come.html
Personnel-wise, I’m not sure what else there is to do right now. If the FO misjudged its players’ capabilities this badly, then that’s a problem, but I still see room for significant improvement in guys like Bard, Greene, and CY.
Long-term, I’d continue to build around Peavy and Adrian, with Greene, CY, and Kouz as secondary components. I’d then attempt to integrate some of the prospects a little at a time — maybe get Headley up here around the ASB, give Antonelli and LeBlanc a cup of coffee, etc. Doing a full rebuild feels like a complete panic response to me, and I don’t believe the club is in bad enough shape to warrant that. Also, the farm system, while improving, isn’t where it needs to be. I’d like to see more power arms taken in the draft. I don’t mind a few finesse guys here and there, but relying almost exclusively on them doesn’t strike me as a good strategy.
May 13, 2008 at 10:16 am
#23@Phantom: If the team’s intent with Edmonds was to have a passable defense and not care about his bat, there were a lot of players who could have been had without trading a prospect or paying 7 million dollars. The oft-mentioned Corey Patterson would have done that, and he signed a minor league deal. Blocked players like Owens (White Sox) or Reed (Seattle) would have been cheaper alternatives.
I really don’t think the front office traded for Edmonds with the idea that “ok in the field, not much at the plate” would be acceptable.
May 13, 2008 at 10:16 am
Great work, Geoff. Totally agree, which is rare for me. Most fans live in a dream world. At the end of the season, you will read comments about getting Ichiro. Right!
One of those who commented today talked about baseball as entertainment. Something to get into in Ducksnorts might be about bringing in the Petco fences. More runs are entertaining and changing the power alleys would be less expensive that high-priced power hitters, in the long run.
Khalil is my favorite Padres. If I were him, I would not resign with the team when he is free to go, unless the fences are adjusted. And why would any power hitter, given choices, want to play there?
Speed on the bases is exciting, too. Another direction to consider, and speed is also less expensive than power hitters.
Thanks, Geoff. You’ve got us thinking, rationally. But if we could only get Ichiro. Just kidding.
Frank Barning
aka Ballparkfrank
Las Vegas
May 13, 2008 at 10:21 am
#21@BigWorm: Edmonds was a reasonable gamble. What makes his situation bad is that the club effectively had no backup plan. The failure to acquire a #5 starter is a huge problem also, as demonstrated by the fact that Shawn Estes will be making a start this evening. There’s nothing pretty about his game, but Livan Hernandez has been effective for Minnesota this year and for minimal cost. An innings eater at the back end would come in handy right about now.
May 13, 2008 at 10:45 am
An interesting comparison with the Padres is the 1974 Mets. There are a lot of similarities.
They won a weak NL East in 1973 with an 82-79 record.
They had strong pitching and weak hitting.
They played in a pitchers park.
Donald Grant was a cheap owner.
The FO did little to address the offensive voids.
They were lulled into thinking that despite some flaws, the team had made it to game 7 of the 73 WS.
The ‘74 team batting was even worse than the ‘73 batting.
The ‘74 bullpen collapsed.
The starting pitching was also less successful (Seaver was injured).
The 73 team had overachieved at 82-79
In ‘74, the Pirates, Phillies, and Cardinals all improved.
The Mets FO stood still, and the team went backwards.
http://www.baseball-reference......1973.shtml
May 13, 2008 at 10:48 am
You know, I have thought about this for the past two hours…
Let’s start with, I love MY Padres…I follow them every single day. I wake up in the morning and before I even get out of bed, I pick up my celly, go to ESPN.com and check my Padres score. I am bummed when they lose. I am happy when they win. And the days that I can watch them I am even more elated!!! They are my team. I am a fan. I love them no matter what. I went when there were 5 or 6 thousand of us at the Murph, I had season tickets when I could not afford them in college at the Q, and I still have them even though I live 3000 miles away. I wear Padres gear almost daily (I work from home, that makes it easy), I spend 4 days every March at Spring Training, I take road trips to see them at other stadiums, and I spend WAY TOO MUCH time reading about them.
Coming from that perspective, I have to say, I love this site Geoff and I usually agree with you, but it seems we diverge here.
I am disappointed with this team’s start. I think it is terrible that we are 11 games UNDER 500, 9.5 games back, and we are almost 25% done with the season. To finish at 500, winning a total of 81 games, we have to go 67-56 the rest of the way out…doable? Sure, but this team should be seriously talking about 85+ wins and in the hunt into September, not hoping for a 500 finish.
Why aren’t we? Well, the OF situation was mishandled…we were at our fourth or fifth option for CF and we were trusting LF to a handful of unproven or unsuccessful MLB players. That is 2/3 of your OF with serious question marks to begin the season. That does not even begin to take into account the need for superior OF defense, not just at Petco, but throughout the NL West…where we play an additional 36 or so games…
The IF has disappointed, and I don’t lay blame on the FO for this…KG has been a disaster, Iguchi stumbled pretty badly, and Kouz forgot that he is a RH power hitter. What I am frustrated about is the inability to carry bench players that can play a role backing up KG, Kouz, or even Gooch…How many teams that consider themselves contenders carry Rule V picks as the primary back-up? Very few. How many teams with HUGE holes in the OF and back-up middle infield carry “one-trick ponies” like Tony Clark? Very few. I love the guy and enjoy watching him hit for us, but he is a luxury a team like the ‘08 Padres can’t afford.
The starting staff came into the season with huge questions at 4/5, but we all (yes, me included) gave KT the benifit of the doubt, due to his record in assembling pitching staffs. Wolf has been solid, but our 5 spot has been putrid…The bully has not performed up to our expectations, owned mostly to the regression of Heath Bell, the unreliable stretch from our aging closer, and a misc. bag of arms that may or may not be reliable major leaguers. Let’s just be honest here, the law of averages had to come back to bite KT at some point. Relying on the **** shoot building that he has done so well on over the past couple of years is going to have down seasons…I don’t care how lucky your marker is, you can’t keep rolling points forever, you will eventually **** out.
And then we have the minor leagues…which is much better than it has been, but certainly no where near the quality one would expect with the number of top picks we have had over the past 6 years. Sure we have Headley and Latos, potential top players, but then we have a mish-mash of role players that fill roles and insure that the Pads can continue to be playing from behind when facing the D-backs and Dodgers over the nest 3-5 years. There is something wrong when Padres fans are really excited that P-Mac is seeing meaningful AB’s in the majors or we are looking forward to seeing Kellen Kulbacki anchor our OF.
In the end, I can live with this. That is the eb and flow of a baseball franchise, but please don’t expect me to be “Keeping the Faith” when the realist in me says out loud that our farts stink. I am sure y’all won’t just dismiss me as some 1090 calling kook. I know baseball…I live baseball…I love my Padres…I just don’t see ‘08 coming together as most of us had hoped.
May 13, 2008 at 10:49 am
What do you guys think of potentially signing Milton Bradley this offseason, maybe in the area of 3 years/30 million?
Sure wish the Padres had spent a little extra to get Fukudome, although maybe the Cubs would’ve won either way.
May 13, 2008 at 10:59 am
Whether you agree with some of the moves or not, I think you have to at least give the FO credit for not panicking right now. It would be tempting to give in to the cries for team speed and trade Antonelli for Joey Gathright or Juan Pierre but they haven’t done that.
As others have pointed out, the lack of any kind of backup is troubling though. Guys like Nook Logan are available for virtually free. Sure they may suck but at least they can cover some ground. How hard can it be to find the speedy CF equivalent of a Luke Carlin? And the lack of any viable SS option anywhere in the system isn’t good either. I think a few days off would do Khalil some good.
May 13, 2008 at 11:00 am
#31@UC Michael: Not a chance…dude plays like a superstar when healthy, but how many times has he played 100 games in his entire career? Twice…one of them being 101 games and he is in year 7 of his career. Not a good risk/reward for the Pads.
May 13, 2008 at 11:00 am
“We are all products of our environment. The recent environment in San Diego baseball has been one of winning. Since moving downtown for the 2004 season, the Padres have seen unprecedented on-field success. For the first time in franchise history they’ve enjoyed four straight winning seasons.”
I think this speaks more to the futile history of this franchise instead of the front office’s ability to build a great team recently. We have only averaged 86.5 wins per season since moving into Petco Park. Sure we may have two division crowns and came close to a third last year, but for most teams 86.5 wins is second or third place and watching the postseason on television.
May 13, 2008 at 11:00 am
#22@Geoff Young: Not just the 39 games of course, but a disastrous end to last season, combined with an offseason of acquisitions that were pretty obvious gambles (Iguchi, Edmonds, Wolf, Prior being the main “gambles” in my mind).
You take all that and the terrible start and you combine a fan base where a good percentage readily admits that the Padres are their second favorite team in baseball and that leads to people just looking for something else to do until the team turns it around again.
May 13, 2008 at 11:07 am
I thought this was cool.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....ml?eref=T1
I also don’t really want to get into this whole argument too much but… I have to say yeah I’m bummed and I don’t really think it’s fair to say that we have been spoiled by all of this winning. The Padres failures as an organization in the pre and early Petco years are what brought us to this point. If those years had been at all productive in terms of the draft or players development we probably wouldn’t be the worst team in the league today.
I also don’t really jive with the Padres off-season. The strategy seemed to be hope. But whatever we are past that.
The last thing I don’t really jive with is the lack of attendance thing. I was at Petco Saturday and I was blown away that close to 34,000 people were on hand to watch the 2 worst teams in the league. Maybe the attendance is down but when I look around and see gas prices over $4 per gallon, a un-winnable war that is costing us god knows what everyday, homes going into forclosure left and right and the government handing out $600 economic stimulus checks so maybe just maybe the country can avoid a full blown recession I really am not that concerned. All those things coupled with the fact that we have the worst record and most feeble offense in the league and I find it quite understable that not as many people are coming out to the park but even still it’s not as thought Petco is empty every night like the Q was.
May 13, 2008 at 11:11 am
#36@KRS1: Can I guess your political leanings?
May 13, 2008 at 11:17 am
#37@Coronado Mike: Obviously a Bush supporter
I think you bring up some great points KRS1. The interesting thing would be to see if aggregate attendance for the entire league is down from this point last year. If it is, then we can reasonably infer that some of the Padres lower attendance could be a result of the greater woes of the economy and the country in general.
May 13, 2008 at 11:25 am
In case anyone was interested in addressing one of the OF needs with an inquiry into Jacque Jones (like I was), looks like he may be headed to Florida.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sp.....?track=rss
May 13, 2008 at 11:32 am
#38 Phantom: Our rank in average attendance is down this year. We are averaging 30,853 which is 10th in the NL. So regardless of overall NL attendance, we are drawing less this year in regards to other teams. Previous ranks at Petco ranged from 5th to 9th.
I think it is too early to blame it on the team though. A large chunk of tickets were bought in March or April when the season was new.
By July and August, I think the poor record will have a big impact on attendance, and the novelty of a new park might finally be waning.
May 13, 2008 at 11:39 am
#40@parlo: Free Charles Steinberg…he can pack ‘em in!
He can’t like LA as much as SD!!
May 13, 2008 at 11:40 am
#36@KRS1: Agree on the “spoiled” thing. It implies a widespread lack of maturity that I just don’t see. How many teams have a fan base that whistles merrily along when their WP is .359?
GY is right about the need to avoid panic and to temper expectations for the farm system. People absolutely fall in love with prospects and young players in general. Inman is Maddux. LeBlanc is Glavine, or the good Zito. Bush was Ozzie Smith, now he’s Tim Lincecum. Venable is Edmonds. Hunter is Gwynn. Two years ago Meredith was untouchable and the heir apparent to Hoffman. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real issues with the Padres or that anyone who discusses them is whiny or traitorous.
May 13, 2008 at 11:51 am
#40@parlo: Interesting. Thanks for pulling that up. Are there any numbers comparing last year’s attendance to this year?
May 13, 2008 at 11:56 am
#42 Tom Waits: I agree about the “spoiled thing”. Ticket prices have gone up, poor decisions were made in the off season. Expressing dissatisfaction should not automatically brand you as some abrasive lout. People have a right to feel disappointed and even disgusted.
Being a passionate fan does not mean we are spoiled.
The Yankee fans are spoiled, not us.
May 13, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Well, SOME of us who are hardcore Padres fans saw this coming 4-5 years ago. They don’t develop their own talent, and have been (luckily) plugging holes in the boat with the right veterans.
Petco sucks, the new uniforms suck and John Wesibarth is a tool.
And there’s a difference between a GOOD 1-0 pitcher’s duel and a BAD one. If two aces are shutting down the other team’s lineups, great, that’s fun. But the Padres like to make medicore starters with mediocre sfuff look like Cy Young on any given night, which is really annoying and hard to watch.
May 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm
We know the goal of the organization is to remain competitive while rebuilding the farm system and developing the latin program. This year, so far, has fallen short of that goal.
Do we throw up our hands in disgust? Give up and do something else all summer besides baseball?
There are some who will do that.
I agree with GY. I am a Padres fan. I support them good or bad and trust that the organization means what they say and will continue to improve the overall system while trying to put a respectable team on the field now. No, we will not win the Series this year. We probably won’t get to the playoffs. I am still hoping for a competitive club to root for this summer.
The CF/leadoff position is taken by Jody Gerut. Let’s see what he can do before he is dismissed out of hand. If KG, Kouz and Bard continue to struggle, we have problems. I, for one, am grateful we have a professional baseball team to complain about. There were two times in our history when SD looked doomed to lose the Pads. Complaining is fun. I just hope everyone remembers where we came from and be hopeful for where we are going.
May 13, 2008 at 12:13 pm
#43 Phantom:
2004: 37,244 7th/16
2005: 35,429 5th/16
2006: 32,837 8th/16
2007: 34,234 9th/16
2008: 30,853 10th/16
I think the rank is more telling than the average number for this season. April attendances tend to be less than later months, when kids are out of school. Also, April night games in some places are still quite cold.
http://www.baseball-reference......tend.shtml
May 13, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I think Geoff sort of undervalues the 1st overall pick as that pick is far and away more valuable then the rest of the picks in the first round. Here’s the list of all the 1st overall picks (not including last season):
http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/
42 total picks and only 3 didn’t play in the majors — Matt Bush, Brien Taylor and Steve Chilcott (taking by the Mets in front of Reggie Jackson, ooops). It’s hard to classify some of the players but I only count 8 “busts,” the rest are either solid regulars or in some cases stars.
The main problem with the Padres playing for the worst record and the 1st pick next season is that there is too great of chance that the Padres would screw it up.
May 13, 2008 at 12:31 pm
#48@Schlom: Yeah, Rany J. looked at that and determined that the greatest value separation in the draft is between the 1st pick and everyone else.
Again, I haven’t seen anyone suggesting that the Padres should tank to get that pick, only discussions of what might happen if we did get it.
May 13, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Great post Geoff. I’ve been following the Padres for a couple of years now but since I’ve bought MLB.TV it feels like I’ve become a “real fan”. Because of some geographical issues(I live in Belgium) I’ve not been able to attend too many games(= 1 game 4 years ago) but still I feel somehow connected to this team. I’ve already given up a lot of hours of sleep this season just to watch the Padres lose(and win of course) and altough I sometimes wish I hadn’t given up those hours when I wake up the morning after, I still feel like all those hours were worth it.
Supporting the Padres, for me, is unconditional. I love to watch baseball, but watching the Padres play baseball is a hundred times better. Whether they win or lose is not the most important to me. I, for some reason, feel a “connection” with this team that gets me fired up every time they do something good. Seeing Gerut homer and Gonzalez hitting an RBI single make a 12-3 loss worthwhile. Baseball is a sport, and in every sport you simply can’t win all the time. That’s why it’s important to support and enjoy your team while they are winning but its even more important to give extra support when they are losing (and also keep enjoying!). That’s when a team really needs it.
I’m not saying real fans should blindly approve every move the FO makes but I do think that a real fan has to forget every wrong choice that was made once the game is underway. Obviously the guys on the field need every help they can get this season and that’s exactly what the fans should give them. Of course it’s simple for to say that as I’m only able to watch games via MLB.TV but hey that’s just the way I feel about it and I root as hard as I can(which is not very loud given the fact most games I watch at night and some people in my house actually sleep during the night) from behind my laptop.
Obviously fans have every right to criticise when there are no games being played, better yet, it is necesarry that they do that. But in this criticism two sayings, well actually I don’t know if they’re really sayings, should be kept in mind: “Patience is a virtue.” and “It’s easier to tear something down than to build something up.” Constructive criticism, as Geoff nicely put it, is the way to go here.
Anyway to close this rambling of mine off I’d like to use a phrase used in England to get support for local teams: “Don’t search for glory, support your local team” I do realise the problematic element of using the word “local” in my case because San Diego is about 10000 km removed from the place where I live but I hope you get the point
Greetings from a staunch Padres fan from Belgium
May 13, 2008 at 12:34 pm
#29@parlo: This is good food for thought, thanks. I will have to take a closer look at the ‘74 Mets.
#34@Bryan: Yes, I agree that the current regime is paying for the futility of eras past. It’s too bad, but that seems to be the reality. As for 86.5 wins, NL teams have reached the post-season with fewer in each of the past three seasons, and one of them won a World Series.
#35@Dex:
That’s a pretty good description of “fickle,” I think.
May 13, 2008 at 12:39 pm
#48@Schlom: I did consider this. Here’s a bit that got cut during editing…
Assuming that you’ll end up with one of the former is a dangerous idea.
May 13, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Speaking of Strasburg, on Baseball America today:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/college/?p=404
Great writing, Geoff. Love feeling the fire in you. Just what we need right now.
I commend you on mentioning the integrity of the baseball game. At times we as fans just lose it and completely forgot how good a baseball game is and that we all should enjoy it as such and that means taking the losing gracefully at times like this.
May 13, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I disagree that people should not be frustrated. As others have outlined, the FO took some risky moves that seemed to designed to fill things in on the cheap this year.
Capable CF options were out there
Just saying “Hairston is it” without any plausible back up is very risk
Capable 4/5 options were out there
Just saying “Kouz is it” without any plausible back up is somewhat risky
Bullpen is hard to predict, but they ended up with some stinkers; this may be bad outcomes to good decisions
Then there is my frustration with penny-wise/pound foolish on drafting. Granted drafting is messed up, but seeing the Padres trying to buck the system and enforce drafting slot discipline is fine but a losing battle.
My final irk when I see them taking extra risk towards avoiding final commitment is the taxpayers have skin in this. They paid big money for the ballpark. What do they get? Pay more for tickets.
This FO has been very good on trading and bullpen, but stingy on impact FA and on paying for quality draft picks. When you pull it off, yes, you can shut people up. When it blows up in your face, I don’t think you can ask people to say “Shucks, what do we do next?”
Especially when the city ponied up money into the franchise.
Again, it sure looks like they are gearing up for 2009 all along. But, if that is so, do it whole hog and not partially.
May 13, 2008 at 12:58 pm
#54@jay: Nearly every city “ponies up” money for their sports franchises, one way or another. It’s why the franchise is there. Ask the people in Seattle how they feel about the Supersonics getting stolen by Oklahoma City.
By your logic, every team whose ever had a facility built with public monies must win, or they are renegging on their deal with the city. This seems like such a flawed argument to me. You voted to build a new ballpark to have the right to watch baseball. Give that choice to people in Nashville. Give that choice to people in Boise. Give that decision to people in New Orleans. I guarantee you they’ll vote for a team, even if they suck.
I do not understand the conflation of “I voted for the stadium, therefore I deserve a winner.” You voted for a stadium. You voted for the privilege of watching a team play professional baseball. You didn’t vote for a World Series.
May 13, 2008 at 1:05 pm
30: Nice counterpoints/addition.
May 13, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Geoff,
Wow. That’s why I constantly tell you that you are a great writer.
Keep it up, man.
Dave Rouleau
May 13, 2008 at 1:11 pm
#54@jay:
“This FO has been very good on trading and bullpen, but stingy on impact FA and on paying for quality draft picks. When you pull it off, yes, you can shut people up. When it blows up in your face, I don’t think you can ask people to say “Shucks, what do we do next?”
That’s it. If the front office wants to be known as the uber-smart crew that thinks its way to success, then there’s no complaining when they get a D on an essay. They can’t talk about how much success they had with Piazza and Maddux and ignore Vinny Castilla and Jim Edmonds. They can’t use Jenga as an example of the buy-low philosophy and expect everyone to forgive Joe Randa. They can’t tout Kevin Cameron and throw up their hands when people ask about Joakim Soria.
May 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm
#55@Phantom: Not to speak for jay, but I didn’t see “I paid taxes and I deserve a winner.” I read that as “the citizens of San Diego have an investment in the franchise and have a right to make their feelings known, not to be accused of disloyalty.”
GY was worried about the fan support before the season started. If he was right, and support had not kept pace with the team’s on-field success, then doesn’t the problem lies more with the Padres ability to sell themselves to the public than with the fans overreacting to a bad April. It’s like a parent telling his kid that the bedtime story is great because it won an award from Whatever Association Gives Kids Book Awards, but the kid thinks it’s boring. If fans aren’t buying the Padre “story,” then you need to get a new story or tell the current one differently.
May 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm
#55 Phantom: Much of your argument seems to be based on the idea that we should be grateful that we have a franchise, and therefore we should not ever complain. I wholeheartedly disagree.
If our only alibi is to bring up Boise Idaho, and Nashville Tennessee, then god help us all.
May 13, 2008 at 1:26 pm
#55: its just the finesse on paying for talent; I am thankful we don’t do Juan Pierre deals, but in that calculus of how much to pay and how much is too much, when they err on the side of caution, which keeps the risk to their profitability lower, it is a trade-off of profits vs. higher-expected wining percentage. Knowing what that right trade-off is belongs to the FO, but in a year like this when they seem to err way on the side of frugality instead of filling holes, it irks you.
I can stomach this easier when the public has not already tossed in a bunch of money to the franchise. I don’t know about other cities, but I know SF privately financed their stadium. Hate the Giants but respect that choice. They are the exception and not the rule, but it can be done.
The NFL is much, much worse offender because they have much more favorable labor deals, with money flowing out of every ******* yet STILL make cities pony up for them to stay in the city or attract new ones. Given their profitability flows from exemption from anti-trust legislation, conferred by the government, it seems nuasiating greedy to stick up the government (albeit a different level) for more money. I digress.
I still love our FO, our team, etc, but think we are big trouble this season, think we could have avoided it reasonably easily, and think the quality in the minors is going to need some FA help to compete.