At Least We’ve Got Adrian
Wed, Jun 4, 2008
by Geoff Young
Right now there is exactly one reason to watch the games, and his name is Adrian Gonzalez. I wonder if this is what it was like to root for the Padres back in ‘72:
| Player | Team | Player/Team | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | RBI | HR | R | HR/HR | RBI/R | |
| Statistics are courtesy of Baseball-Reference and are through games of June 3, 2008. | ||||||
| Nate Colbert, 1972 | 38 | 111 | 102 | 488 | .373 | .227 |
| Adrian Gonzalez, 2008 | 17 | 55 | 49 | 222 | .347 | .248 |
1972
Nate Colbert: 38 HR, 111 RBI
next two guys combined: 19 HR, 91 RBI
2008
Adrian Gonzalez: 17 HR, 55 RBI
next two guys combined: 15 HR, 49 RBI
The ‘72 Padres finished 58-95. That’s a .379 winning percentage. This year’s squad is pretty much on pace with a .383 winning percentage.
Hooray for us…
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 4, 2008 at 7:59 am
So, um, yea…we got that going for us!
I think you also forgot to mention that he is a blast to watch with the glove as well. Dude is good.
June 4, 2008 at 8:04 am
Over at GLB, Dex has a post about how Adrian could break an MLB record by being reponsible for more than 23% of his teams runs.
June 4, 2008 at 8:17 am
#1@Coronado Mike: Definitely that, too! From the June 2008 Padres Magazine:
#2@Phantom: Oh, crud. I had no idea. Here I thought I was doing something original. Sigh…
June 4, 2008 at 8:18 am
I’m behind in the comments … this is likely already posted … in case not … a few more thoughts from DePo …
http://tinyurl.com/5l55ww
… with 2nd Bill Murray reference in as many days
Sounds like he’s hinting at “college reliever” to me … and I’m OK with that …
(GY … this post got spam-filtered with the actual DePo-blog URL in it)
June 4, 2008 at 8:19 am
GY … spam filter is set to “high” this morning … ate a post with direct link to DePo’s blog … then ate the repost with the tinyurl in it … ug …
June 4, 2008 at 8:32 am
#5@LynchMob: Got it, thanks! I’m not real thrilled at the idea of Cashner or Perry, although I’m trying to get used to it because I think there’s a good chance we’ll end up with one of ‘em. Honestly, this isn’t a great draft class.
June 4, 2008 at 8:48 am
#6@Geoff Young: I’d be more at-peace with the weak draft class idea if the same thing hadn’t been said about the 2004 draft. Leaving Bush Matt aside, guys who were picked only in the first round include Verlander, Weaver, Drew, Hughes, Bailey, Fields, and Butler. 2008 might be a weak class, but in a weak class it may make even more sense to take risks.
Of course much of the available risks depend on who’s picked above us. It’s not a great year for HS hitters or pitchers.
June 4, 2008 at 8:53 am
#3@Geoff Young: Great minds
June 4, 2008 at 9:03 am
Jonathan Mayo at MLB.com still has us picking Schlereth, but he’s also linked us, somewhat tenuously, to Lance Lynn, junior RHP out of Mississippi. That would make me very depressed. He’s a right-handed Cesar Ramos.
June 4, 2008 at 10:32 am
College reliever? What’s the point? A pick like that further cements this team as never, ever, being elite again without a whole lotta luck.
We’re not signing superstars in free agency. So we have to find ways to acquire them either through trade (difficult) and the draft. If we don’t draft upside, we’ll constantly be in the race but never good enough to win it.
Fun.
June 4, 2008 at 10:55 am
SI and BP has their mock draft. Here’s what they have to say about the Padres:
23. San Diego
Teams picking below the Padres are having trouble figuring out what they’re doing, and the rumor seems to change every 12 hours or so. The top two stories that seem to be gaining currency during draft week couldn’t be more different. The first is South Carolina shortstop Reese Havens, a fundamentally sound college grinder; the much more strange rumor has the Padres doing some late homework on Connecticut prep school phenom Anthony Hewitt, who might offer more tools and less refinement than any player in recent memory. That kind of player seems like the anti-definition of a Grady Fuson selection. They might also be intrigued by Hunt at this point. Early in the season, the Tulane ace looked like he might be one the first ten selections, but he ran out of gas by the end of the year, and rarely more than ordinary. If the Padres believe in the early-season showings, Shooter would be a steal here.
Selection: Shooter Hunt, RHP, Tulane
June 4, 2008 at 11:14 am
Brian Giles is having an All-Star season, too.
June 4, 2008 at 11:19 am
I would love to see the Padres draft Hewitt at 23 and draft a solid more polished college SS like Justin Parker or Brandon Crawford later in the supplemental rounds or 2nd round. That way they would have solid SS in both Ft Wayne and LE next year with the potential or Parker or Crawford moving up to
But eerything I have read has said that Hewitt will not sign for slot…
June 4, 2008 at 11:24 am
#12@Kevin: Good point … and obviously Jake is an All-Star … so that’s 2 huge differences between the ‘72 and ‘08 Padres … also, iirc, we fans of the ‘72 Padres had much, much lower expectations for winning … both short-term and medium term … and that makes it easier to be in love with the team and its players
June 4, 2008 at 11:35 am
#13@Steve C: Hewitt has a solid commitment to Vanderbilt and the Commodores haven’t lost many (maybe not any) recruits in the past few years. I can’t see him taking slot money either.
In some ways I’m tempted to focus on Havens because the Red Sox like him so much, and Boston’s system has been a dominant drafting team in recent years.
June 4, 2008 at 11:50 am
#13@Steve C:
Good call on Crawford. He had a down year but if he was there in the late supp. picks or the 2nd round I would be inclined to pull the trigger on him.
June 4, 2008 at 11:54 am
#16@KRS1: Yeah it depends on who’s there when they draft at 46 but if he is there in the 2nd I would love to see the Padres grab him.
June 4, 2008 at 12:02 pm
At 1pm West Coast time, Kevin Goldstein of BP will be chatting about the draft and prospects.
June 4, 2008 at 12:03 pm
#13@Steve C: I’d be very wary about drafting Hewitt. Most scouting reports say that he’s an awesome athlete but not a baseball player at the moment. What makes you think the Padres, with their history, could develop him? I have my doubts on that. Also, since the Padres seeming to prefer college players over high schoolers, it makes me think that they don’t really trust their coaches that much either. Until we see improvements in their young players (Headley is a start but he’s only one player) you could see why they might use their first pick on a college reliever — someone who is already mostly developed.
June 4, 2008 at 12:08 pm
#12@Kevin: He’s playing really well, but All Star might be a stretch. I think there are about 13 or 14 NL OF with higher VORP, including 3 RF, one of whom is X Nady. Go X!
June 4, 2008 at 12:50 pm
#19@Schlom: There has been a few reports linking the Pads to him but as I said in my post I don’t see the Pads pickng him because he won’t sign for slot….
June 4, 2008 at 2:06 pm
BA’s Prospect Hot Sheet looks at the first 2 months of the season (rather than just 1 week) …
http://www.baseballamerica.com.....66253.html
… and features Chase at #16 … and Antonelli on the “not hot” list (along this with un-fun-fact: he has yet to collect a hit versus a lefthanded pitcher; he’s 0-for-22 with 10 strikeouts and nine walks, which still yields a .313 on-base percentage.)
June 4, 2008 at 2:17 pm
#20@Pat: In the National League, Giles is 17th in runs above replacement (using wOBA which is derived from linear weights and multi-year park adjustments from Baseball Reference). He’s sixth among outfielders (behind McLouth, Bay, Rowand, Ludwick & Burrell). That qualifies as All-Star caliber. Adrian is 12th overall and third among first basemen (behind Berkman & Pujols).
June 4, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I nominate this for the best name of a blog I’ve seen in awhile:
http://taoofstieb.blogspot.com/
June 4, 2008 at 2:28 pm
DePo’s post from today responded to the criticism of “low ceiling” players: http://itmightbedangerous.blog.....iling.html
June 4, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Here’s a question from a chat with Kevin Goldstein on BP:
Corey (Phoenix): Kevin, As you are around the scouting circles more than most at BP, besides Strasburg and Gibson, who are some names to look for come this time next year?
Kevin Goldstein: College positon player wise, there are the pair at Southern Cal — catcher Robert Stock and shortstop Grant Green — I’m a big, big Green fan. High school wise I like GIGANTOR New Jersey righty Chris Jenkings and ultra toolsy Florida shortstop Mychal Givens.
That would be the Grant Green that the Padres drafted and didn’t sign in 2006.
June 4, 2008 at 3:08 pm
In fairness, pretty much every college player was drafted out of high school (and obviously didn’t sign). However, why waste a pick if you aren’t going to sign the guy?
You wonder how much stronger the Padres would look in the future if they had both Grant Green and Christian Colon in the minors.
We hear continual talk from the front office on how things have changed but it just doesn’t seem like it has. The same mistakes are repeated over and over — and these are crucial errors since the draft is the easiest way to get better.
June 4, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Paul DePo with another gem about the draft: http://itmightbedangerous.blog.....iling.html
And as for #27@Schlom: I think it’s a terrible over-simplification to say that the draft is the easiest way to get better. The draft is, by and large, still a crap shoot. Sure, there are certainly calculated risks. But there are also a lot of picks that never go anywhere, while you’ve got guys like Piazza and Peavy who were drafted pretty far down and have become MLB studs.
I understand your frustration with the Padres’ draft strategy, but I would caution you from suggesting that it’s so cut and dried. If the draft was an exact science and an easy thing to figure out, more than 10% of all players drafted would actually make it to the bigs.
June 4, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Whoa, C-R-A-P is bleeped? Yowza.
June 4, 2008 at 3:26 pm
#29@Phantom: You could just say the draft is unpredictable.
June 4, 2008 at 3:27 pm
#28@Phantom: Easiest being a relative term. It’s easier to get better by drafting because you control both who is acquired and how they are developed, and you retain that control for some time. Trades require you to part with more limited resources, and you need a willing partner. Free agency pits you against other teams and almost requires you to overpay.
No one should believe that scouting or drafting is easy. But it’s still more efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable than trading or free agency.
June 4, 2008 at 3:32 pm
#28@Phantom: It’s the easiest for the Padres with their current approach. Obviously spending a bunch of money is the easiest way but that’s not happening here. Towers might be able to pull of more A-Gon/CY like trades, but then again, maybe he’ll have more clunkers like the Giles trade. I think trading is a bigger crapshoot then drafting as far as building your team (I like the fact that it bleeps it out but then you can see exactly what the word is. Does that work for all swearwords?)
June 4, 2008 at 3:34 pm
#29@Phantom: I guess the key was the space in between since it worked for me!
June 4, 2008 at 3:41 pm
#23@Richard Wade: OK, but I have no idea what you just said.
June 4, 2008 at 3:43 pm
#24@Kevin: That was a great movie.
#32@Schlom: Yes, you can still see the word. Don’t ask me how much time I spent obsessing over that decision.
June 4, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I missed this quote from Towers in the U-T article this morning:
Towers said the Padres likely will adhere to signing-bonus recommendations from the commissioner’s office.
That’s certainly not a good sign but does perfectly sum up the Padres team building philosophy “We don’t care about how good a guy is but rather are more concerned about keeping costs down.” That worked out real well last season, didn’t it?
There was another whopper from the article as well, Talent evaluations vary from club to club. For example, the consensus among Padres evaluators last June was that touted prep pitcher Rick Porcello ranked below the top five players. Maybe it’s time for some new talent evaluators?
June 4, 2008 at 3:44 pm
#32@Schlom: Eh, there are people who would disagree with you about the Giles trade. That’s not nearly the whooping its typically understood to be. GY performs a great analysis of this in the DS annuals.
I will concede that drafting should be a more reliable way to build a franchise. I think that the Padres certainly have reasons for the way they do things, and until this year, their failure in the draft hasn’t seemed as dire. This isn’t to say that more educated Padres fans weren’t critical of their draft strategy, but up until this point, it hasn’t really seemed to have an appreciable effect on the team.
Headley and (hopefully) Antonelli are promising. LeBlanc seems like he’s finally putting it together as he was the PCL player of the week. Carrillo will hopefully be effective when he’s ready.
I think DePo’s post today is really a good read wrt to the draft. It’s important to draft guys with seemingly limitless potential, but it’s also important to draft guys who have a chance of realizing their potential. A guy like Joey Gathright seems to be a prime example of a toolsy unpolished guy who hasn’t been able to put it together.
I don’t recall if Khalil was the sexiest pick in the world. But he’s developed into a solid-to-good major leaguer who had plenty of polish when we popped him.
June 4, 2008 at 3:47 pm
#35@Geoff Young: Maybe you should put in age verification so that way the kids won’t be able to see the words but the rest of us can swear as much as we want, I suspect we are going to want to after tomorrow!
June 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm
#37@Phantom: Giles and Bay were about the same in 2004 and 2005, Bay was much better in 2006 and Giles was better in 2007. Bay has been better then Giles so far this season and is a better bet going forward. Add in the fact that the Pirates paid Bay only $10.23m vs. the $41m that Giles received and they also acquired Oliver Perez I don’t see how you can say it was a good trade, especially with the financial impact. It wasn’t terrible but in retrospect, it wasn’t a good trade.
What worries me is that they aren’t going to go over slot for any player. That means that they will be picking lower regarded players or at least financial considerations will be an import factor in who they draft. That didn’t work out so well last year or in 2004 did it? And if they aren’t going to pay for top amateur talent and they aren’t going to pay a lot for major league talent, how exactly are they going to get better?
June 4, 2008 at 4:06 pm
#39@Schlom: “And if they aren’t going to pay for top amateur talent and they aren’t going to pay a lot for major league talent, how exactly are they going to get better?”
I can’t give you a blueprint, but they seemed to do just fine from 2004 to 2007.
I also wish people would stop repeating the meme that they don’t “pay a lot for major league talent.” What exactly was the off-season extension with Peavy about, then?
June 4, 2008 at 4:41 pm
#40@Phantom: It was… easily ignored since it doesn’t fit the talking points adhered to by a certain portion of the fan base.
June 4, 2008 at 4:45 pm
#39@Schlom: Part of what you need to look at when evaluating a trade is what was known at the time. Who was considered more likely to put up those numbers at the time the trade was made? The Padres took on more salary while the Pirates took on more risk. Both have benefited from having the players they acquired in the deal. One could argue (rightly in my view) that since Bay has put up comparable to better performances since the deal was made that the Pirates “won” the trade, but at the same time it’s difficult to argue that the Padres “lost” in that Giles has been an instrumental part of four consecutive winning seasons and two division titles.
June 4, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Anyone going to the game tonight?
I really wanted to see the Cubs this season so I bought a ticket a while back and I will be there. If you come be prepped because it just started raining downtown. Might be a long night.
Even though I have a real problem with the way the Padres drafting strategy goes I am still super excited. I thought DePo hinted today in his blog that maybe this would be the draft that they took more risks but who knows what that means.
June 4, 2008 at 5:03 pm
#40@Phantom: It’s great that they extended Peavy but where are the future Peavy’s going to come from? Peavy was a 15th round draft choice who dropped because he was committed to going to Auburn, not because people saw him as a 15th round talent. Lately the Padres have used later round picks on high potential high school players but haven’t bothered to sign them because they were deemed to expensive. If they drafted Jake Peavy the last few seasons they wouldn’t have signed him.
Again, it’s not always terrible to take signability picks. It worked for the Braves in 1990 and could have for the Marlins in 2000. Certainly Chase Headley wasn’t too highly regarded and was one of the best 2nd round picks that year (Yunel Escobar and Kevin Slowey are the only others to make the majors) and overall as well. But usually, the better the player, the higher the bonus. I can understand limiting major league payroll by not signing free agents but I don’t understand doing the same for amateur players.
June 4, 2008 at 5:04 pm
#39@Schlom: Using win shares, Giles was better in 2004. They were about the same in 2005 adn 2006. Giles was better in 2007.
This is because of park adjustments, and Giles is a better fielder.
June 4, 2008 at 5:08 pm
D-Backs are losing everyday now and the Dodgers just lost two of three to the lowly Rox. We must win tonight to move to 8.5 games out. Who says we are out of it in the Wacky West. Will 82-80 win it again ? Keep the faith !
June 4, 2008 at 5:11 pm
#45@Kevin: I’m not a big fan of Win Shares, but WARP (which also has issues) more/less agrees with those numbers save ‘06 where Bay was much, much better than Giles.
June 4, 2008 at 5:13 pm
#42@Richard Wade: Well, you can’t grade a trade simply when it was made, it has to be when you look back over time. There were certainly logical reasons for Towers to make the move but quite simply, it didn’t work out. I’m sure Jon Daniels had logical reasons for trading for Adam Eaton but that still doesn’t make it a good trade.
As far as Giles being part of 4 winning teams for San Diego, what does that have to do with anything? If Bay was here they would have been just as good or maybe better. By that logic, the Red Sox made a good trade for Mirabelli since they won the WS last season.
If you make enough trades you are eventually going to get burned. To get something of quality you are going to have to give up quality. Sometimes it works out like the trade with the Rangers and the Mets but sometimes it backfires like the trade with the Pirates.
June 4, 2008 at 5:20 pm
#45@Kevin: I just went off OPS+ since I think they are both bad fielders. I’m not a huge fan of OPS+ because I don’t think it takes extreme batting environments into account well enough.
However, considering that they were both about the same offensively and Giles cost 4 times as much, Bay was the far superior player to a team with a low payroll. Add in Oliver Perez and it was a fairly clear win for the Pirates.
June 4, 2008 at 5:20 pm
#48@Schlom: To say it didn’t work is a way-over-the-top statement. More or less, they produced at about the same level.
June 4, 2008 at 5:22 pm
#49@Schlom: Giles has been a good to very good fielder for the Padres.
June 4, 2008 at 5:27 pm
#48@Schlom: You have to partially grade a trade on what was known when it was made. The Adam Eaton deal looked like a bad trade for the Texans at the time it was made. That deal isn’t comparable.
What does it have to do with anything? Well, the point of the game is to win and Giles has been a big part of the winning that has gone on here. The Mirabelli trade isn’t comparable because he wasn’t one of the key reasons they won. Rather they won in spite of him.
Obviously, if you make enough trades some of them aren’t going to work out and there is a valid argument that this trade was less successful than others Towers has made. But you can’t honestly refer to this trade as getting “burned.” Giles has by some metrics (WS for instance) outperformed Bay. The net value here if negative is not especially so. It certainly isn’t in the same ballpark as giving up Gonzalez and Young for Eaton and Otsuka. That’s one of the most lopsided deals ever.
June 4, 2008 at 5:31 pm
How many teams in the draft go over “slot”? Five?
We already knew that the Padres were going to intend to stick with the commissioner’s recommendations, so there is no use in crying over spilt milk. Just hope that they pick the best available player (reading DePo’s blog and other sources indicate they are going to go “talent” over “need”) and they can get that guy to sign for “slot”. With the extra comp picks, the Padres are still likely to spend more on the draft than most other teams, just like last year.
Don’t expect them to draft Boras clients and/or people who are believed to be demanding substantially more than slot. Lie back, enjoy, and get used to it - that is how it was, is and will likely be as long as the pro-Selig Moores owns the team. And despite all the crud they get for it on this forum from certain vocal critics, they have moved their system from 29th to 12th in the eyes of Baseball America. They must be doing something right - it appears that is stockpiling draft picks to replenish the system.
June 4, 2008 at 5:48 pm
#52@Richard Wade: Unfortunately for a small market team paying $30m more for the same caliber of player can’t be considered a win. Throw in the fact that the Pirates got Oliver Perez and it was a clear loss for the Padres. Maybe having Bay and his lower salary instead of Giles prevented them from signing someone like Fukudome this year (or then again maybe not).
#53@The Fathers: If they aren’t going to go over “slot” then they aren’t going to draft the “best available player” but rather the best available player that doesn’t want too much money. Those aren’t exactly the same thing. As far as the ranking goes, most of that is because of the prospects in the low levels, not in the higher levels. Teams with good farm systems don’t have to rely on pitchers like Shawn Estes and Wil Ledezma.
June 4, 2008 at 6:03 pm
#53@The Fathers:
Just because that is the way it is doesn’t mean that everyone should just climb on board with it and not say anything if they disagree.
BTW if you are going to give them credit for improving their system in the eyes of Baseball America then you should also point out that if they had taken Porcello last year then they would probably be 5 or 6 out of 28 instead of 12. They could have even shelled out an extra $200k on Toledo and Colon and been in the top 10.
June 4, 2008 at 6:09 pm
#54@Schlom: I’ve already acknowledged that fact. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that they took on the additional salary because Giles was more of a sure thing to produce the way they both did. Also, it’s not like Perez has lit the world on fire. He had one very good season in 2004 that was completely out of line with expectations and his performance since then. The Pirates were lucky to get that out of him. The trade was not a particularly good trade, nor was it a particularly bad trade. Apparently around here a near wash is equivalent to the worst trade ever.
June 4, 2008 at 6:11 pm
#55@KRS1: But the fact that it ain’t going to change no matter how much one cries about it and the fact that it has been relatively successful in improving the farm system over the last couple years is probably a good reason to stop crying about it incessantly.
June 4, 2008 at 6:17 pm
#53@The Fathers: No, many more than that. Last year it was close to half, depending on how far over they have to go to qualify. This year fewer teams may go over because they revamped the slots upward after last year’s near-collapse.
Again, in hopes that perhaps someday it will sink in, people can’t use Baseball America’s (or anyone else’s) rankings to claim that the Padres are doing well and simply ignore those experts when they strongly criticize the approach employed by the Padres (and other teams) when it comes to signability and upside. Those same evaluators who ranked the Padres 13th (not 12th) are highly critical of an excessively college-heavy approach that is devoted to the slot system. It’s intellectually dishonest to accept their praise and ignore their critiques. Yes, the system has gotten better. Yet somehow in all that success and all that praise, Baseball America never ranked us has having one of the 5 best drafts in any year. Washington climbed quite a bit in the rankings, too; in fact they leapfrogged us to land at 10, and a big part of the reason is they went over-slot to get Smoker and they took a chance on Burgess, the HS kid with huge hitting tools.
When a team graduates young players, it necessarily falls in the farm system rankings. The minor leagues will also benefit from astute trades and international signings, neither of which means that the draft is being conducted as well as possible.
June 4, 2008 at 6:24 pm
#58@Tom Waits: Goldstein, formerly of BA now of Baseball Prospectus, is the one who ranked them 12th I think.
June 4, 2008 at 6:27 pm
#57@Richard Wade: It’s the day before the draft, the major league club is back to playing other major league clubs and is therefore losing, we’re in 4th place, and the farm system this year has hardly set the world on fire. The Padres themselves talk about the need to build from within almost constantly. DePodesta’s own blog has been all about the draft for a week. Hell, even GY, the most even-tempered of bloggers and hardly a firebrand, wants the Padres to do things somewhat differently.
What do you expect people to be talking about?
June 4, 2008 at 6:30 pm
#56@Richard Wade: I never said it was the worst trade ever, just in retrospect it was a bad move. I think we can both agree on that. Look at the trade with the Rangers and the Padres in 2006. The Rangers thought that Gonzalez wasn’t a great prospect plus he was blocked at 1B. It wasn’t an unreasonable assumption at the time since A-Gon hadn’t hit much in the majors. Eaton had better “stuff” then Young, plus Young was an extreme flyball pitcher in a hitters park. Again, not unreasonable. Plus the Rangers also got Aki and their bullpen was terrible in 2005. Again, all those assumptions were reasonable at the time. Unfortunately Young was younger, cheaper and most importantly better then Eaton (who was also a free agent after the season) and Gonzalez turned into one of the better 1B in the league (yet still not better then the Rangers’ one at the time). For a trade that seemed somewhat reasonable at the time, it’s going to go down as one of the worst in baseball history.
Would the Padres have been better off if they didn’t make the trade for Giles? Almost certainly. And don’t forget that Giles was a free agent after the 2005 season, if the Padres wanted him so bad they could have signed him as a free agent.
June 4, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I don’t understand why they’d be so intent in not going over slot. If a really good talent dropped to them, why wouldn’t you take him, especially if it was just over a few million dollars (granted, easy to say since it’s not my money).
The Padres decided on slot last year, how did that move make out? Instead of having the 21st ranked prospect this season (before even throwing a pitch professionally) and a likely top ten prospect next year, they drafted someone who has a good chance of not contributing at all to the major league team. All to save a few million dollars.
If the Padres front office is so smart (and I think they are) shouldn;t they avoid making the same mistakes year after year?
June 4, 2008 at 6:55 pm
#60@Tom Waits: Not this week necessarily, but this is a constant refrain. I expect people to talk about the draft, but complaining about something that isn’t going to change instead of discussing the draft within the context we know it will take place in seems overly pointless.
#61@Schlom: The trade at the time it was made was recognized as a bad deal for the Rangers. It turned out to be even worse than believed. The Padres’ deal for Giles looked like a reasonable move for both parties at the time and has been a near wash production-wise. It’s a bad comparison. It just strikes me as ridiculous to continue bitching about a trade four years later that wasn’t all that bad of a deal in the first place.
June 4, 2008 at 7:30 pm
#63@Richard Wade: Pirate fans dont see it that way. They unloaded a high priced Giles at near peak, and got young talent in return. Go on any Pirate site, and the Giles/Bay trade is always mentioned as a very good trade for them.
I like Giles a lot. I will hate to see him go. That doesnt change that the Padres gave up too much to acquire him.
June 4, 2008 at 9:55 pm
#64@parlo: It was definitely a good trade for them. They got a couple young guys with potential for a veteran who wasn’t going to be around when they started to compete seriously. They were lucky enough to get a good season out of Perez and two good seasons out of Bay. Of course, there’s a chance he’ll be gone by the time they’re ready to compete, too.