Comments on: Notes on a Victory http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html Blogging the San Diego Padres baseball club. Established 1997. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:02:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Bruce http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html#comment-191266 Bruce Thu, 29 May 2008 05:05:32 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2560#comment-191266 #24@<a href="#comment-191144" rel="nofollow">Tom Waits</a>: A little late to this conversation, but if the Padres take a college reliever with their first pick, I am going to be supremely disappointed. It's one thing to take another "polished," "strike-throwing," [insert whatever cliche you want] college starting pitcher (and thankfully even Fuson has admitted the crop is not as deep this year), its quite another to waste a pick on such a player when your system lacks a great deal of upside. The fact that there have been a few rumblings that the team might be considering a hitter and even *gasp* a high school hitter, I have allowed myself to get excited about next week. If they were to take a college reliever, you're right they better take a ton of risks later in the draft.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-191266">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #24@Tom Waits: A little late to this conversation, but if the Padres take a college reliever with their first pick, I am going to be supremely disappointed. It’s one thing to take another “polished,” “strike-throwing,” [insert whatever cliche you want] college starting pitcher (and thankfully even Fuson has admitted the crop is not as deep this year), its quite another to waste a pick on such a player when your system lacks a great deal of upside.

The fact that there have been a few rumblings that the team might be considering a hitter and even *gasp* a high school hitter, I have allowed myself to get excited about next week. If they were to take a college reliever, you’re right they better take a ton of risks later in the draft.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html#comment-191203 Tom Waits Thu, 29 May 2008 01:16:47 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2560#comment-191203 #61@<a href="#comment-191200" rel="nofollow">parlo</a>: Is that you or Sullivan? Because Sullivan's piece starts with "Kevin Towers' official position is that his motivation is not money...That claim is pure poppycock, of course." Sure sounds like more than 50-60%.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-191203">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #61@parlo: Is that you or Sullivan? Because Sullivan’s piece starts with “Kevin Towers’ official position is that his motivation is not money…That claim is pure poppycock, of course.” Sure sounds like more than 50-60%.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: parlo http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html#comment-191200 parlo Thu, 29 May 2008 00:47:51 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2560#comment-191200 #59@<a href="#comment-191197" rel="nofollow">Tom Waits</a>: OK, so you believe that money is 20-40% of the reason. Thats pretty significant. I am not sure why you feel in such disagreement with someone who thinks its probably 50-60%.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-191200">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #59@Tom Waits: OK, so you believe that money is 20-40% of the reason. Thats pretty significant.
I am not sure why you feel in such disagreement with someone who thinks its probably 50-60%.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html#comment-191198 Tom Waits Thu, 29 May 2008 00:39:07 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2560#comment-191198 Now if we're talking draft, there's no question in my mind the decisions are based primarily on money.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-191198">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> Now if we’re talking draft, there’s no question in my mind the decisions are based primarily on money.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html#comment-191197 Tom Waits Thu, 29 May 2008 00:27:18 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2560#comment-191197 #54@<a href="#comment-191191" rel="nofollow">parlo</a>: So in 2007 they cared so little about money, and so much about winning, that they gave him 17 June at-bats and put him in "danger" of being a Super Two, but on Opening Day 2008 and for a few weeks thereafter, when the NL West still seemed winnable, they were just "Meh. Who needs Headley to help us maybe make the playoffs if it costs us 1 million bucks 2 years from now or 4 million bucks 5 years from now." If I was estimating the importance of the various factors, I'd put money between 20-40% of the reason Headley was kept down.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-191197">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #54@parlo: So in 2007 they cared so little about money, and so much about winning, that they gave him 17 June at-bats and put him in “danger” of being a Super Two, but on Opening Day 2008 and for a few weeks thereafter, when the NL West still seemed winnable, they were just “Meh. Who needs Headley to help us maybe make the playoffs if it costs us 1 million bucks 2 years from now or 4 million bucks 5 years from now.”

If I was estimating the importance of the various factors, I’d put money between 20-40% of the reason Headley was kept down.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Richard Wade http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html#comment-191196 Richard Wade Thu, 29 May 2008 00:19:39 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2560#comment-191196 #55@<a href="#comment-191192" rel="nofollow">Tom Waits</a>: Perfectly said, TW. Money is always part of the consideration. It has to be. But there is no evidence that it's the biggest consideration with regard to Headley.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-191196">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #55@Tom Waits: Perfectly said, TW. Money is always part of the consideration. It has to be. But there is no evidence that it’s the biggest consideration with regard to Headley.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Schlom http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html#comment-191195 Schlom Thu, 29 May 2008 00:15:45 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2560#comment-191195 No one is debating that the financial considerations have played <b>a</b> role in keeping Headley in Portland, however Sullivan thinks that financial considerations is the <b>only</b> reason he's there. Sure everyone is entitled to their own opinion but in that case it's wrong and doesn't deserve to be a front page article in a major newspaper's sports column. #50@<a href="#comment-191187" rel="nofollow">UC Michael</a>: I think that's kind of our point, in that the Padres are so risk-averse in their drafting philosophy yet willing to take huge gambles at the major league level. For a team that operates as a small market franchise those kinds of decisions don't make a whole lot of sense -- wouldn't you rather gamble $6m on someone who might be worth $50m over his career with the team like Porcello rather then spend $6m on someone like Edmonds who best case would only be worth $4m? I'm going to discount the public relations part of it because do you think that signing Jim Edmonds would look better then signing one of the best, if not the best, players in the 2007 draft? And instead of signing Mark Prior (one mostly healthy season in his career) they could have signed someone who could turn out to be as good as the "good" Mark Prior.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-191195">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> No one is debating that the financial considerations have played a role in keeping Headley in Portland, however Sullivan thinks that financial considerations is the only reason he’s there. Sure everyone is entitled to their own opinion but in that case it’s wrong and doesn’t deserve to be a front page article in a major newspaper’s sports column.

#50@UC Michael: I think that’s kind of our point, in that the Padres are so risk-averse in their drafting philosophy yet willing to take huge gambles at the major league level. For a team that operates as a small market franchise those kinds of decisions don’t make a whole lot of sense — wouldn’t you rather gamble $6m on someone who might be worth $50m over his career with the team like Porcello rather then spend $6m on someone like Edmonds who best case would only be worth $4m?

I’m going to discount the public relations part of it because do you think that signing Jim Edmonds would look better then signing one of the best, if not the best, players in the 2007 draft? And instead of signing Mark Prior (one mostly healthy season in his career) they could have signed someone who could turn out to be as good as the “good” Mark Prior.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Steve C http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html#comment-191193 Steve C Thu, 29 May 2008 00:06:14 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2560#comment-191193 #55@<a href="#comment-191192" rel="nofollow">Tom Waits</a>: Right I agree with you.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-191193">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #55@Tom Waits: Right I agree with you.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Tom Waits http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html#comment-191192 Tom Waits Thu, 29 May 2008 00:04:49 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2560#comment-191192 #53@<a href="#comment-191190" rel="nofollow">Steve C</a>: The Padres weren't 10 games out on Opening Day 2008, either. They weren't 10 games out on April 15. By mid-April they weren't getting much out of McAnulty and Gerut had already been sent down. It's hard to imagine that money was so determinant this year that the Padres would go with weaker options, even when the division still seemed within reach, but didn't matter at all last year. Looks to me like it's not nearly as important as Sullivan claims.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-191192">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #53@Steve C:

The Padres weren’t 10 games out on Opening Day 2008, either. They weren’t 10 games out on April 15. By mid-April they weren’t getting much out of McAnulty and Gerut had already been sent down.

It’s hard to imagine that money was so determinant this year that the Padres would go with weaker options, even when the division still seemed within reach, but didn’t matter at all last year. Looks to me like it’s not nearly as important as Sullivan claims.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: parlo http://ducksnorts.com/blog/2008/05/notes-on-a-victory.html#comment-191191 parlo Thu, 29 May 2008 00:02:19 +0000 http://ducksnorts.com/blog/?p=2560#comment-191191 #51@<a href="#comment-191188" rel="nofollow">Tom Waits</a>: They were in a pennant race and brought up the player they believed would help them the most. In 2008, they could deal with his status. That is what I believe happened when he was not on the Opening Day roster.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-191191">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> #51@Tom Waits: They were in a pennant race and brought up the player they believed would help them the most. In 2008, they could deal with his status. That is what I believe happened when he was not on the Opening Day roster.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]>