Air Supply or Suicide?
Fri, Jun 27, 2008
by Geoff Young
Reader Didi and I had an excellent time in Section 214 (prime foul ball territory) on Thursday afternoon… well, except for the whole losing thing. It was good to be reminded that hanging out at the ballpark and enjoying a big-league game with friends is way more fun than just whining about the team all the time, which isn’t particularly productive or even interesting.
I’m preparing for my trip up to Oregon, so this will be brief. Three quick items:
- I’m happy to note that long-time Padres minor-league observer Peter Friberg (he did the reports here in 2007) has relaunched his blog. Be sure to check it out when you have a moment.
- Another friend and colleague of mine, Eric Seidman (of Statistically Speaking and elsewhere), has published his book, Bridging the Statistical Gap. Quoth the author:
It is designed to be a sabermetrics101 type of book for more casual fans intimidated by statistical analysis but still looking to get their feet wet. Nobody reading will be overwhelmed but will walk away with a greater understanding of not only numbers in general, but also the history of certain stats, what they do and do not tell us, and which stats/metrics DO tell us what we seek.
Also, Jayson Stark wrote the foreword, which is pretty darned cool. Anyway, go buy Eric’s book if you are so inclined (and I think you should be).
- Reader LynchMob notes that the Baseball Prospectus Petco Ballpark Event has been scheduled for Friday, July 11. Paul DePodesta will be speaking. Having attended a few of these in the past, I can assure you that Dave and the guys do a fantastic job putting them together. I always learn something new and have a great time in the process.
That’s all for now. And remember: The next time you’re feeling down about the Padres (which according to my calculations is about 2 seconds ago), just take comfort in the fact that you’re not, say, at an Air Supply concert.
You’re welcome…
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.
June 27, 2008 at 8:18 am
Hey, I’m still going to baseball games. Crappy team can’t keep me away!
June 27, 2008 at 8:21 am
Hey…I saw airsupply…TWICE.
What’s it to ya?
June 27, 2008 at 8:21 am
Air Supply, you young people and that crazy music you listen to.
Love the Twins, Padres should play so well. The mid market team that could.
Ah, Seattle. a team with a lot more problems then we have. You see friends, it all relative.
June 27, 2008 at 8:45 am
#2@Coronado Mike:
What’s Air Supply?
June 27, 2008 at 9:07 am
‘You’re every woman in the world to me….you are my fantasy, you are reality”
June 27, 2008 at 9:08 am
#2@Coronado Mike: Dude…
June 27, 2008 at 9:20 am
Hey, I ain’t having the flesh torn from my bones with red-hot pliers, either. It doesn’t make the memory of not pinch-hitting for Carlin any better.
OWWWW.
Okay, watching that half-inning again is better than having the flesh torn from my bones with red-hot pliers. I stand corrected.
GY, are you getting to any NWL games while you’re in Oregon?
June 27, 2008 at 9:30 am
#6@Geoff Young: What…she was hot!
No, not Air or Supply…Stephanie…the college girl.
Can we stop focusing on my musical choice (”Lying alone with my head on the phone…thinking of you till it hurts…I know you hurt too, but what else could we do…tormented and torn apart.”) and start focusing on how we rebuild for 2009? Please.
Stop looking at me!
June 27, 2008 at 9:43 am
#8@Coronado Mike: You may not come back quickly from that admission, buddy. In fact I could see you becoming the Ducksnort Wicker Man, tortured to appease the baseball gods.
June 27, 2008 at 9:43 am
An Air Supply concert? I thought we were protected against cruel and unusual punishment. What other horrors are in store? Perhaps a dissertation on Muskrat love?
June 27, 2008 at 9:52 am
#7@Tom Waits: I’m catching the Beavers in Sacto on Monday, and the Ems in Eugene on Tuesday.
#10@Field39: “Singin’ and jingin’ the jango”… Man, that’s right up there with “There were plants and birds and rocks and things.”
On another note, I realize the site is loading slowly this morning. I’m looking into it, but no luck so far. Sorry for the trouble…
June 27, 2008 at 10:38 am
#3@PM: As good as the Twins have been this season, they are still showing that low-payroll teams can’t afford to make any mistakes. And the Twins certainly made one by trading Santana this off-season instead of holding onto him. Not only would they be leading the division if they held on to him, but even if they fall out of it, the Yankees could certainly use him.
Same thing with the Padres and their potential trades this season. They can’t make a “mistake” like they did for trading for Giles.Not that Giles was a bad player and probably better then Bay overall since the trade but he cost a ton more for not that much more production and the Padres also lost Oliver Perez.
June 27, 2008 at 10:44 am
According to MadFriars.com, Nick Hundley has thrown out 22 of 54 attempted base stealers this season. Forget the 11 HR’s and 36 RBI’s. He should be on the Padres based on that stat alone.
I asked Depo on his blog about the concerns with bringing up Hundley too soon and he answered that they ideally would like to wait until a player earns a promotion, which tells me that they don’t believe he’s earned it yet. But when he’s an obvious upgrade, offensively and defensively, over what they’re currently running out there, I’m not sure what else he has to prove.
Kevin Towers stated in the U-T a few days ago that they needed to find a catcher that can throw. So I expect to see Hundley real soon or else they make a trade.
#4@KRS1: Go to the local soft pop station. You shouldn’t have to wait longer than 15-20 minutes until you hear an Air Supply song.
June 27, 2008 at 10:48 am
#12@Schlom: Here in Dallas, the talk is that the Rangers will not part with any of there prospects but will unload Milton Bradley, Vincente Padilla, and Kevin Millwood. I am starting to believe that Jon Daniels has actually hit the comeback trail as far as maybe becoming a decent G.M. . My favorite recent Daniels trade was getting Max Ramirez for Kenny Lofton.
* I am looking forward to attending the Beavs-Sacto game on Wednesday with my new video camera in tow.
June 27, 2008 at 10:53 am
SDUT has a transcript of the “advance scout” interaction between SA and the 1090 guys yesterday …
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....cript.html
There was more to the interview than this … you can get a link to the full mp3 and many good comments about it in yesterday’s IGD … here’s my summary …
- a question about “speed” SA turned into a question about “SB”s … I think the source of the question/concern is all the runners thrown out on the bases … most notably at the plate! I understand that it’s always a balance … I think the criticism is that the team is now out of balance … and SA recognized this as a “void” … he’s saying they just don’t execute … eh, sounds right …
- SA’s “biggest missing” = OBP … and the biggest component problem of that is “batting average” … clear enough …
- the questioners did seem over-snarky … SA trying to “strip out the attitude” … good for him
- SA’s seen Inoa pitch! … and isn’t interested in bidding on him … good for him
- “1 advance scout” vs “video + stats” … what’s most effective? I’m guessing that people who talk about the value of and advance scout don’t know what information is being extracted from video+ …
The bottom line appears to be that 2008 is a tough season … “it’s hard day-to-day to lose” … and by that, I think he’s saying that it’s still too close to actually know what you’re learning as it’s happening …
I think SA did well … he got some non-softball questions and he spoke to the issues … and he confronted the issue of “saving $100K on an advance scout” very directly …
BOTTOM LINE: I’m a Sandy Alderson puppet … I admit it … I’m proud of it … he is THE MAN!
June 27, 2008 at 11:05 am
#15@LynchMob: During that exchange, the reasoning for using video/stats over an advanced scout was lost in the snarkyness. What people heard, was Alderon getting angry at the host, over what they percieve to be a tough question. Alderson had a good chance to educatede the fan base on how advanced scouts are quickly becoming obsolete, and muffed it.
June 27, 2008 at 11:12 am
#15@LynchMob: When Darin Smith was pressing him on the advantage the Yankees had by using an advance scout against the Padres, Alderson said something like, “do you really think they needed an advance scout to figure out that they could run on us?” or something like that. I thought he made his point. In fact, I think he handled all the questions very well and he is the man for actually taking calls from listeners when it was obvious they weren’t going to be very positive.
June 27, 2008 at 11:36 am
#12@Schlom: It’s not always about performance, sadly. While you could make an argument based on costs associated with production, there was a very real reason the Padres signed Brian Giles in 2003.
They wanted a current superstar for Petco. The ownership wanted to give the team a new look and they figured a bold move for a respected slugger would do it. I don’t think many people assumed the production would fall off the way it did, but I think the FO was making a statement with that move. They were trying to establish a new course forward.
The same argument can be made for the Twins. Johan had been the face of their franchise for some time and the team and the fan base both realized that Johan was leaving after the season, whether they liked it or not. The team then got together and made a decision to reorient the franchise and its direction. The Twins made honest appeals to their fanbase that they were going to retool and get younger. They committed to this whole hog with their trade of Garza for Young. The extensions of Cuddyer and Morneau were curious, but I expect the team wanted to give the impression that they would reward players who wanted to be Twins.
So, in totality, you can’t always examine moves in a vaccum that only considers talent and cost. There are always very real factors outside of cost and talent that influence when and what kind of moves a team makes.
June 27, 2008 at 11:37 am
#18@Phantom: That should be “acquired” and not “signed” in the first paragraph.
June 27, 2008 at 11:41 am
There’s nothing like being at a game in the first row of a game to pick up the little things that you never pick up on video. Especially from a scout that has watched the game for a long time and is knowledgable on the nuances of the game.
“Do you really think they needed an advance scout to figure out that they could run on us” ? One element of the game that of course scouting may not have helped but what about the other roles or variables ?
Are there not many aspects to the game that being there in person might help you recognize ? I am not entirely sure, just throwing it there. I am definitely going to do some homework and find out from the other side of this debate why advanced scouting is important.
June 27, 2008 at 11:50 am
#18@Phantom: The problem is that in reality, only performance matters. We can talk about whether or not a “superstar” will bring in fans (certainly Brian Giles isn’t a superstar and even in his prime years in Pittsburgh wasn’t one) but the fans in San Diego have proven that they will support a winner and ignore a loser.
Trading Santana wasn’t a bad idea but the timing and return were. With him, they’d be leading the division. Was the return (Gomez and three pitchers) worth a playoff appearance this year? I wouldn’t think so especially since the Twins have proven that they don’t have any problems producing pitching talent. And if the Twins fall out the playoff picture the demand for Santana (especially from the Yankees) would be much greater then it was during the off-season. That trade certainly could work out, but it looked like a bad idea at the time and looks like a bad idea right now.
June 27, 2008 at 11:52 am
#15@LynchMob: - “1 advance scout” vs “video + stats” … what’s most effective? I’m guessing that people who talk about the value of and advance scout don’t know what information is being extracted from video+
Player performance of future opponents mined for legitimately helpful intelligence can be gathered in one fashion and that is through video. There is no need to have a scout at the game. Is this your position ? There is no need to be in the stands at all to pick up any other nuggets of intel ?
Video or Advanced Scouting ? How about both ? Do any teams do both ?
June 27, 2008 at 12:19 pm
A mistake now would be to go after the Giles of 2003, Jason Bay of 2008 by repeating the trade of 2003 and trading 2 prospects away to the Bucs for Bay. Most of the time, it is probably better to risk the future on the youth with upside then gather a vet at his peak.
Initially and not long ago, I was pushing for the Pads to trade Headley for Bay. That would be a mistake. Most (if not all) learned bloggers here at DS of course did not want that trade either. I have seen the light as to the current philosophy of this organization which is the only way to build this club back up.
I think that the Giles example is a good one to posit in terms of framing the future. Giles has been good and I don’t harbor any regrets about the move but it was a mistake based on how Bay alone has performed.
The Pads need to tough it out for the next year or two and they will be fine.
June 27, 2008 at 12:21 pm
#22@JP: I’d like to know how in the world Tony LaRussa and his staff prepare for a series. It’s still mind-boggling how that 2006 team was always in the right spot defensively for the entire playoff series against the Padres. Wherever they were positioned, that’s where the ball was hit. That was frustrating. If that was done with advance scouting, I’m all for it. Then again, maybe LaRussa just has better baseball instincts or knows how to utilize a scouting report better than others.
June 27, 2008 at 12:31 pm
#24@JMAR: great question as far as to the value of advanced scouting I am just not entirely sure. I am going to be asking around in the baseball world as to what they think they think the value is or isn’t. I am motivated on this issue to find out.
June 27, 2008 at 12:32 pm
#24@JMAR: Dude, I like your site/URL !
June 27, 2008 at 12:36 pm
#21@Schlom: Brian Giles in his prime years in Pittsburgh was absolutely a superstar. That a knowledgeable fan like yourself, a fan of Giles’ current team, thinks Giles wasn’t a superstar in Pittsburgh speaks to how underrated he has been. In 2002, he had a 1.072 OPS with a .450 OBP, for a 177 OPS+. During the four seasons prior to the trade, he was over 150 OPS+ each year. For his career, he has a 139 OPS+. If you believe MGL’s UZR for defense, Giles was also one of the best defensive players in baseball from 2003-2007 (and presumably before that too). So, yes, Giles in Pittsburgh was a superstar. Sorry to go off on this minor point in your argument, but Giles is criminally underrated and deserves more attention. Also, I guess you could have been referring to the “intangibles” of being a superstar and hype and all that. In which case, no, he didn’t get hyped much, but that’s definitely not his fault.
June 27, 2008 at 12:40 pm
#23@JP: That move was defensible at the time since I don’t think anyone thought that Bay (that was his 3rd trade in about a year and a half) or Perez would turn out so well.
However, it was still a mistake in the long run, just like various draft picks have been since 2002. Again, those picks were defensible at the time and no one thought they would be near complete busts (not sure if you’d consider Stauffer a complete bust since he did make the majors and the picks around him were even worse).
But those decisions certainly had a large financial cost and performance cost to the franchise and the Padres, unlike some other teams, can’t cover up their mistakes with money.
The team has done a great job of overcoming mistakes the past four years but you wonder if the blunders are finally catching up with them.
June 27, 2008 at 12:47 pm
#28@Schlom: *Defensible* but in hindsight a *mistake* ?
Can you have it both ways ?
Seems difficult to reconcile the two here.
June 27, 2008 at 12:48 pm
#27@Ben B.: I know he was one of the best players in baseball during that time but I don’t think he was ever perceived as a “superstar” (whatever the heck that means) by the general fan. I don’t think there were too many fans in cities thinking “Let’s go to the ballpark to see Brian Giles.”
Giles is still hugely underrated now as not only is his main skill (OBP) generally unnoticed by the general fans but he also plays in Petco which kills his power stats.
I’m not trying to say that Giles is a bad player, in fact he’s probably been better then Bay since the trade. However, taking into the account the money and Oliver Perez it was a clear loss for the Padres. It’s easy to say now of course because we have the benefit of hindsight but if the Padres don’t make that trade, do they win more then one playoff game the past four seasons? I’m guessing yes. That’s what I mean about them not being able to afford mistakes.
June 27, 2008 at 12:53 pm
#27@Ben B.: Absolutely spot on. Giles and Bobby Abreu were the two most underrated/underappreciated superstars in the game for years.
June 27, 2008 at 12:55 pm
#29@JP: I’m not complaining about the move, I thought it was a good idea at the time. Just the fact that their margin for error (because they carry a smaller payroll) is razor-thin.
The comparison was to the Twins — even though they are completely overachieving at the moment, they really hurt their chances to contend this season because they decided to trade Johan during the off-season instead of holding on to him.
I’m not saying it’s easy to be GM, far from it. I think Towers is one of the best GM’s in baseball, however because of Moores general reluctance to carry a high payroll, every move he makes needs to be good for the Padres to contend. This year is a perfect example of this, they won 89 games last season, made a few minor (or at least that’s what most of us thought) moves and the team is horrible this season. And it’s not like Towers can trade for CC Sabathia or add a ton of payroll to cover up the team’s weaknesses.
June 27, 2008 at 12:59 pm
#28@Schlom: How do we avoid a lineup next year that will look eerily like the 1988-1990 Braves ?
Do you have to suffer through a few 95-100 loss seasons sometimes to get where you need to go ? If we hold on to all of the good young pitching (AA and up) and simply hope that Egon, Gerut and Co. can hold it down under 100 losses for a few years until we have two or three of these arms develop.
June 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm
#30@Schlom: Why would you guess yes? Perez has not been successful; you said Giles has probably been better than Bay. So what is the difference? Is the salary difference between what Bay and Perez would be earning really enough to allow other key players to be brought in?
June 27, 2008 at 1:18 pm
#26@JP: Thanks! Hopefully you can find some good info on the percieved value of advance scouting. Now that it’s a topic of discussion, thanks to the 1090 interview with SA, I’d be interested in knowing more.
#30@Schlom: I’ll throw my two-cents in on the Giles argument. I have often wondered if this team would have been as successful if it had held onto Perez and Bay instead of trading them for Giles. What I have come to accept is that Giles was a big part of the first four-winning-season-streak in Padre history. While Bay put up huge numbers during this time, there’s no way of knowing how Petco Park would have affected his stats or his psyche. On the other hand, Giles’ numbers have declined but he has been a perfect balance to a lot of the free swingers the team has employed over this four-year span. He is also a great clubhouse presence and probably one of the smartest baserunners and defenders on the team. And no one breaks up a double play like Giles. I think 5 years (and maybe more) of Giles has been well worth it.
And I’m pretty sure we would have tired of Oli Perez’ inconsistency and shipped him elsewhere anyways.
June 27, 2008 at 1:26 pm
#34@Pat: Mostly because of the salary difference between the two. Bay has made $10.41m since 2004 (including this season) while Giles has made $41m (that’s roughly 12% of the Padres total payroll during that time). It’s usually not a good idea to pay $31m more for about the same performance.
Add in the fact that Perez (as big of a disappointment as he has been since 2004) has still been better then the usual dregs that the Padres have thrown out as a 5th starter over the past four seasons and the fact that pitching in Petco might have helped him out.
June 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm
#34@Pat: Can’t agree on Perez. He was great in 2004 and 2007. Very bad in 05 and 06, though. But those other two years, especially 04, he was a monster.
I see no reason to say the trade was a bad one now. Most young pitchers don’t work out. Most young hitters don’t hit like Bay. It was a good trade that worked out for both sides. The Padres paid more for certainty, but they didn’t get hosed. It wasn’t OG’s salary in 04 or 07 that kept the team from the playoffs; it was not having a reliable 5th starter for too long. Last year it was any of 3 or 4 particular pitches.
June 27, 2008 at 1:46 pm
#37@Tom Waits: I did some quick research on Giles vs. Bay. Using BP’s WARP, Giles was at 25.1, Bay at 29.5. In Win Shares, Giles had 109, Bay had 104. In OPS+, Giles averaged 124, Bay 132. During that time period Giles had 2993 plate appearances, Bay 2809.
Certainly they were very close in performance, I’m not sure which one you could say was better. Since Giles went to the plate almost 200 times more, I guess you could give him the edge. However, he also cost $31m more. That’s a huge amount of money. That’s nearly 10% of the Padres total payroll from 2004-2008 (roughly $320m). With that money, maybe the Padres don’t go cheap in the draft in 2004 and 2007. Maybe they resign Milton Bradley this off-season. Maybe they actually add a good free agent. Then again, maybe Moores just pockets it (and launders it to keep it away from his soon to be ex-wife or blows it on his mistress!)
June 27, 2008 at 1:54 pm
#38@Schlom: The Padres had plenty of money aside from Giles. They managed to pay Wells, Maddux, Wolf, and several other players over that time.
A decision can only be judged on what you knew (or could have known) at the time it was made. For example, we could make a reasonable argument that drafting Schmidt was a mistake, because there seems to be evidence that he was a greater-than-normal injury risk when he was picked. On the other hand, nobody that I know of had ever voiced delivery or mechanical concerns about Carrillo. I don’t see how that one could get called a mistake. With Bay and Perez, knowing what we knew about them and what we could reasonably predict based on comparing them to 1,000s of other players, it was a good trade. It may not have been the optimal outcome (although it’s closer than many believe), but that doesn’t make it a mistake. Not in foresight or hindsight.
June 27, 2008 at 2:02 pm
#29@JP:
JP I really don’t see this trade as being all that bad. It was both defensible then and now. With out looking at the total win shares for all players involved I would imagine they are fairly close. Bay has had a ton of injuries and Perez is every bit the enigma now that he was back then. The point was back then that the Padres wanted a superstar type going into Petco. Giles fit the bill. How do you think Padres fans would have felt going into their new stadium with Bay (who if I remember correctly wasn’t a Headley or Antonelli type of 1 or 2 prospect) Klesko, and Jay Payton as the starting outfield?
One thing that I have also noticed is that I think Giles can still be the 30 HR type he was in Pittsburgh if he doesn’t play in Petco. He definitely has had a power drop but I honestly think that a lot more of that has to do with a change in approach and swing at this park than his getting old or not having it or lack of PED’s. If you watch him in other parks he really looks like the old Giles. When he is at Petco he is a line dri8ve hitter and rarely tries to turn on a pitch or elevate the ball. Giles and Khalil are 2 guys that I think if we trade will thrive in a different more hitter friendly enviornment.
That could be just me though.
June 27, 2008 at 2:07 pm
A couple things…
I’m a HUGE Sandy Alderson supporter - (no giggles from the peanut gallery!), but… I disagree with him on whether the Padres should have an advance scout.
The Padres cannot compete with the Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, Cardinals, Cubs, Dodgers, and other when it comes to payroll. So instead of paying more for the obvious choices, they have to make better choices. The only way you make better choices is better information. You get better information from multiple sources. Sandy asked that with a team that had a $70m payroll why would they worry about an additional $100k? I’d turn that back around… With a $70m payroll, what’s another $100k? Get an advance scout, and look at his findings and compare them with video & stats to see what the info looks like together.
Next…
#24: JMAR, LaRussa is well known for using his hit-charts to determine where he wants to play his defense on different players. You’ll see him in dugout flipping through his notebook. What isn’t so well-known is that he petitioned MLB to let him use his laptop in the dugout. They said no. So he prints out his data and uses that notebook. So how’s that for irony. The poster boy for a pro-scouting/anti-stathead argument (not you JMAR – just in general) wants to have a computer in his dugout. I digress… Think about those hit charts for a moment… What is a batted ball location, trajectory, velocity, etc.? Data. Statistics. In fact (and this is one of my biggest pet peeves in baseball), what is velocity? You have a scout standing behind a batting cage watching a pitcher throw with the radar gun aimed at him… Velocity is a statistic… Now, scouting can tell you how much the pitch moves where stats cannot, but if a guy has a high K-rate those pitches sure as heck aren’t straight and easy to hit…
I’m rambling…
June 27, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Oh yeah… another thing… I was a fan of the Giles trade. I knew why we wanted to get a “name” and he was the best “name” available. However, I thought Bay & Perez were a lot to give up. I was hoping we’d give up Nady rather than Bay.
June 27, 2008 at 2:23 pm
#39@Tom Waits: Just because something looked good at the time doesn’t keep it from being a mistake. The simple question is whether the Padres would have been better off with Bay, Perez, Corey Stewart and $31m or Brian Giles. Not sure how you can realistically say that the Padres got the better end of that trade.
Same thing with Carrillo. Obviously it’s not easy to pick talent in the draft but it was still a wasted pick. There were an incredible amount of misses in the 1st round, especially around Carrillo:
http://www.baseball-reference......ype=junreg
June 27, 2008 at 2:29 pm
DePo’s got a new post up…
It’s about the hot hitting Dominican SS, Jonathan Galvez
http://itmightbedangerous.blogspot.com/
June 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm
#18@Phantom:
Perhaps the most curious move of all was giving all that $ to Joe Nathan.
June 27, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I just read that interview transcript on the UT. Wow, was that bad by Darrin Smith.
I’m going to have to side with Alderson on this one, what possibly could an advance scout see that video couldn’t? The whole idea is laughable and seems to me like it’s just an us vs. them attitude by the players. When someone like me mocks that attitude they can say “What do you know, you’ve never played the game.” Talk about not seeing the forest because of the trees.
June 27, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Geoff, I just posted a link to DePo’s blog that was eaten…
Everyone, DePo has a new post up… AWESOME stuff
June 27, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Schlom - NO WAY! Carrillo will be fine. his time-table got pushed back b/c of the injury but he can still pitch.
June 27, 2008 at 2:40 pm
#47@Peter Friberg:
That made me warm and fuzzy.
June 27, 2008 at 2:41 pm
#43@Schlom: That’s exactly what stops it from being a mistake. A mistake is “I knew it was wrong (or should have known it) and I did it anyway.” Otherwise it’s just second-guessing.
June 27, 2008 at 2:46 pm
#48@Peter Friberg: I’m not so optimistic. He was supposed to be fine before last year, IIRC.
Guys do bounce back from TJ surgery, but it’s not automatic. That still doesn’t make it a wasted pick, as Schlom suggests.
June 27, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Check out #3 and #4 in this week’s BA PHS …
http://www.baseballamerica.com.....66408.html
June 27, 2008 at 3:00 pm
#37@Tom Waits: Well, OK. He’s had 2 good years out of 4; his ERA+ for that span is 99. I guess it depends on how you define successful. It certainly wouldn’t have hurt to have him on the team, at times, but it certainly would have at other times.
June 27, 2008 at 3:02 pm
#50@Tom Waits: No, a mistake is a mistake. A decision that didn’t work out is the same thing as a mistake. Now we can argue over whether it was an avoidable or unavoidable mistake or not but it was still a mistake. I’m sure some of those other players drafted after Carrillo were on their radar — especially someone like Matt Garza who was a similar pitcher (college righthander). Unfortunately they just made the wrong pick.
#48@Peter Friberg: I hope you are right, just like I hope Schmidt comes back as does Matt Bush. I’m not holding out much hope though.
June 27, 2008 at 3:07 pm
In the UT today the report that the Padres are planning to promote Luis Rodriguez, I assume for Craig Stansberry. Nothing like promoting a player when he’s hot (hitting .194 since coming off the DL). Why carry someone that can’t hit when you only have 4 players on the bench (not counting the 2nd catcher since he’s rarely used in a game).
June 27, 2008 at 3:12 pm
#34@Pat: This is really not a debate about whether Giles was truly a “superstar” or just a “star” when the Pads acquired him. This is a philosophical move based on where this club is right now. Do the Pads trade for 32 year olds like Giles who are at their peak by giving up this organizations top prospects ? The question of whether it was a mistake or not should therefore not hinge on OG’s value based on past performance. It hinge on whether, at all, do you trade two prospects for a 32 year old at that stage on the franchises history ? Or at the present moment. For example, what if the Angels had traded the suddenly aging superstar Vladmir Guerrero to us over the winter and we gave up Headley, LeBlanc, and Geer. Bad decision ? Maybe, though Vlad is a superstar is he not. The DECLINE happens fast as it did with OG.
June 27, 2008 at 3:18 pm
#54@Schlom: They have to have a backup middle infielder on the roster. Rodriguez is really the only experienced backup at SS so it makes sense, even if he doesn’t hit much. I posted a story today on my site with some other possible roster moves, all minor, that would make sense in the near future:
1) Rodriguez for Stansberry
2) Nick Hundley or a catcher acquired in a trade for Michael Barrett
3) Clay Hensley for Cla Meredith
4) Joe Thatcher for Justin Hampson (Yeah, I know. Thatcher was terrible this season and I was his worst critic but did anyone notice what he’s done in his last 10 outings?)
5) Chip Ambres for P-MAC
June 27, 2008 at 3:24 pm
#55@Schlom: Put your high IQ and shared anxiety for the future of the Padres to better use. We need your attention of more pertinent questions, which your insight is valued. After all, by 1993, Bravos fans couldn’t recall the Andres Thomas for Alexis Infante roster move of 1990.
Rodriguez is handier with the glove and thus prevents us from losing one more game this year ? It’s the lesser of two evils really because Stansberry is not good at either.
Just keep thinking about 2010 or 2011….
June 27, 2008 at 3:24 pm
#54@Schlom:
So the outcome of a decision dictates how we should judge the decision itself. Am I understanding you correctly?
June 27, 2008 at 3:47 pm
#54@Schlom:
If you got a great deal on a great car and two days later a semi hit you and totaled it, you didn’t make a mistake buying it.
If a doctor gives you a sulfa-based drug because your medical records say you’re not allergic, and you spend the next 3 weeks in the hospital because you really were allergic, the doctor didn’t make a mistake.
If we had traded Rusty Tucker, Cory Stewart, and Justin Germano for Giles, and in ST 2004 Giles lost his eyesight in a freak tanning booth accident, the mere fact that Germano would have contributed more than OG since then wouldn’t have made it a mistake.
June 27, 2008 at 3:58 pm
#59@Geoff Young: Of course, how else can you judge something? Was the Giles trade reasonable at the time? With Bochy and his distrust for young players it was a reasonable move. Did it work out? Probably not. Doesn’t that by definition mean it was a mistake?
#60@Tom Waits: You aren’t really comparing the same things in your first two examples. For the third example, of course it would have been a mistake. Again, maybe it was an unavoidable one, but it was still a mistake.
I guess for the sake of this discussion, we can substitute “bad move” for “mistake.” I’m saying it’s the same thing although maybe some of you don’t think so.
June 27, 2008 at 4:00 pm
#57@JMAR: All lateral moves (which doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t give Ambres 80 at bats in September) except for Hundley coming up here. Which is would like done soon. Maybe, Thatcher up here as well as I think he has more upside than Hampson.
I am thinking that we should stick it out with Meredith all year. I wouldn’t demote Meredith for Hensley because of Hensley’s arm problems and always present lack of control. Meredith still intrigues me because of the fact that he is a specialist and if he spots his pitches can be very effective when a late innings ground ball is needed. Hensley will be up here anyway soon because he is next in line at AAA and we are only 1/2 way.
June 27, 2008 at 4:05 pm
#60@Tom Waits: Here’s an example, let’s say before the 2007 the Padres traded Cla Meredith (or some other reliever) for Chris Carpenter. I, along with everyone else, would be ecstatic. It would look like one of the greatest trades in the history in baseball. However, looking it now it wouldn’t look quite as good, would it? Not only would the Padres lose Meredith (or whoever) but they’d also be on the hook for $63.5m and get a grand total of 6 innings out of him (assuming he doesn’t come back).
If that trade happened, how could you say it was good trade? Just because you couldn’t foresee that Carpenter would make only one start before blowing out his elbow, doesn’t make it a good move.
June 27, 2008 at 4:07 pm
#61@Schlom: In each of those cases, someone made the best possible decision with the information they had, and something they could not have known about happened. The outcome (wrecked car, hospital stay) is, in your mind, the value of the decision. If that’s your standard, which you’ve said it is, only things that end up well are not mistakes. So I could do something incredibly stupid but through blind luck it turns out okay, and to you the original decision wasn’t a mistake.
Good decisions can have bad outcomes. Bad decisions can have good outcomes.
June 27, 2008 at 4:08 pm
#61@Schlom: Let’s assume your contention is true and outcomes are the only way to evaluate decisions (as you say, “how else can you judge something?”). It then necessarily follows that if I win the lottery, my decision to play was the correct one (i.e., it was not a mistake). How do I now decide whether to play in future lotteries?
June 27, 2008 at 4:10 pm
#63@Schlom: That would be the classic good decision - poor outcome. Not a mistake. Not a bad move.
To go somewhat pop culture on you, there’s an exchange in the Val Kilmer Movie “Ghost and the Darkness” about a lion trap that didn’t trap any lions. Michael Douglas, playing another hunter, says he tried the same thing before and it didn’t work either….but that didn’t make it a bad idea. Sometimes great plans fail. Sometimes poor plans succeed.
June 27, 2008 at 4:12 pm
#58@JP: Considering he’s played 8 games in the majors as a SS, I’m not sure exactly what need he fills. He’s not a good hitter so he most likely won’t start at 2B or 3B, nor should he ever pinch-hit. Maybe the Padres figure that giving Khalil days off will heat up his bat?
June 27, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Decker is ON FIRE!
2-4, 2B, HR, 3 R, 3 RBI, 2 BB, & a SO
June 27, 2008 at 4:16 pm
#65@Geoff Young: Absolutely. It’s hitting on 19. It’s drawing to an inside straight.
June 27, 2008 at 4:22 pm
OMG, Tomko is back; Hampson to Portland.
June 27, 2008 at 4:23 pm
The point Schlom, is that you cannot control the outcome. You can only control the decision-making… Since you cannot control the outcome it doesn’t have any baring when we evalute the decision and the person making the decision. When we evalutate the decision and the person, we have to go back to the information we had at the time… Anything else is just a crapshoot.
Let’s look at Geoff’s lottery analogy a little differently…
Let’s advise 100 20 year-olds to put $2000 into the lotto every year (52 weeks - let’s round down to 50, 2 draws/week = $20 twice a week)… Now let’s have them do that 10 years…
Let’s also advice 100 20 year-olds to put $40 bucks a week into investments…
Assuming 8% ROI the investers would each be worth more than $1.5mm by the time they’re 65. The Lotto-players may or may not have won big but they would certainly wouldn’t have that $20,000 they spent on Lotto tickets…
Who made the better decision?
June 27, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Balsey is the only Dr. who knows what ails Bret Tomko… Not a bad pickup…
June 27, 2008 at 4:26 pm
#60@Tom Waits: Giles was 32 years old when that trade went down. Which is fine, as its not like Giles gave us nothing and he is still producing, though not ever at the level that we expected.
Would you today, based on the Pads 2008 status, trade away two prospects of equal value ( to Bay/Perez) for Jason Bay or Vladamir Guerrero with Giles like 2002 or 2003 numbers .(940 OPS) even though they are 32 years old ? I don’t think that today that they make the samle deal which what I believe Mr. Schlom was showing concern over. 2003 the Pads went 68-94. In 2008 they will finish with roughly the same record but will not risk mortgaging the future by bringing in an older “superstar”. To me, that is a sound decision.
BTW, are there any research projects that reveal stats /trends that show decline from ages 32 and up ?
June 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm
#70@Geoff Young: The Padres and Brett Tomko, a co-dependent relationship. Get out! Come back! Leave me alone! Let me in!
#68@Peter Friberg: I like me some Jaff Decker. The 3 picks after Dykstra were my 3 faves of the day. Maybe if we don’t sign Dykstra, we have the money to lure Mooneyham. Looking for silver linings in case the Dykstra situation turns bad.
June 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The sound decision, is that the front office will look to add talent if that talent can help them win beyond 2008. If Elsbury suddenly became available and the Padres were out of it in July, he’d still be a smart pickup because he would be under the Padres control past this year… We added Giles when we did because the Pirates wanted to get out of his contract and we wanted him for 2004 not so much 2003.
June 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm
“The point Schlom, is that you cannot control the outcome. You can only control the decision-making”
I don’t want to speak for him, but isn’t this essentially what Schlom is talking about ? Let’s not make a short term hasty decision and hold on to our talent of the future.
June 27, 2008 at 4:30 pm
#75@Peter Friberg: Ellsbury is 24.
June 27, 2008 at 4:32 pm
How about this: Deal Wolf for a solid prospect-saves you 150k a start……then sign both Dykstra and Mooneyham……..you can sign a guy who would have been a top 15 pick-let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth.
June 27, 2008 at 4:33 pm
#70@Geoff Young: You gotta be f’ing kidding me? Well, I guess he hasn’t looked that bad during his stints with the Padres.
June 27, 2008 at 4:35 pm
#65@Geoff Young: We aren’t talking about the lottery, or lion traps, here. We are talking about baseball decisions. By using your reasoning, the trade by the Rangers in 2006 was a good move. Since the Rangers didn’t need Adrian Gonzalez (they already had Mark Teixiera), and Chris Young (had already been traded twice for Matt Herges and then Einar Diaz!, didn’t have overpowering stuff as a high fastball pitcher that didn’t break 90mph and was worse in the 2nd half of 2005 season 4.66 ERA vs. 1st half 4.01) the return of Adam Eaton (overpowering stuff and could look unhittable at times, a change in environment and a new pitching coach might unlock his potential), Aki Otsuki (the Rangers had the worst bullpen ERA in 2005) and a prospect catcher, looked like a good move at the time. Why would have Jon Daniels have made the move unless he thought it was going to improve the team. Obviously, looking back at it, it was a major fleecing, one of the worst trades in major league history.
So was that trade a mistake or not? It was made with good intentions so does that mean it was a good decision that just happened to not work out?
June 27, 2008 at 4:37 pm
#70@Geoff Young: No !!!!!!!!! I thought you were joking.
OMG, I called my Raiders fan when they signed Jeff George last winter and gave him a load of **** and he countered with the PADS and Tomko and now we actually signed him again. What in the heck could be the value in bringing him back here ?
O.k JP (REPEAT) lateral move that will mean nothing down the road. I just chastised Schlom for bringing up the Rodriguez move to roster so why will I focus on this transaction ? ..deep breath…means nothing….deep breath…means nothing….not important…..deep breath….
June 27, 2008 at 4:39 pm
#73@JP: When we traded for Giles he was signed for 2004 and 2005 at 14 million total. In those years he put up 128 and 146 OPS+. That’s exactly what we should have been hoping for. That’s one very good and one great offensive performance to go with very good defense. If Schlom wants to extend it to encompass the deal we signed him to after that, and count the money against the trade, that’s bull.
I believe lots of people have looked at aging, and 32 is definitely more dangerous than 27. But the team wanted a completely healthy, reliably good offensive and defensive outfielder going into Petco. Not making that trade now is not the same thing as saying the original trade was a mistake.
Two prospect of equal value to Bay and Perez, as they were valued in late 2003, would be…..Venable and a pitcher we don’t actually have, but somebody nowhere near as valuable as Perez was after 2004. Bay didn’t even make BA’s top 10 list in 2003, and our farm system was bad then. One area I hope the Padres will improve on is understanding their own players (Soria, Bay) better, but we weren’t trading our top prospects for Giles. We were trading what most people considered a marginal position player and an enigmatic pitcher. That marginal position player turned out to be a lot better than many people thought.
June 27, 2008 at 4:43 pm