Padres (31-42) @ Yankees (39-33)
Josh Banks vs Joba Chamberlain
10:05 a.m. PT
Channel 4SD
AM 1090, FM 105.7, XM 176
MLB, B-R
The fact that I’ve reached an age where I feel compelled to eat oatmeal every day for breakfast doesn’t bother me so much as the fact that I actually seem to enjoy it.
Some guy named Chamberlain is pitching for New York. Never heard of him…
#150@LynchMob: KK has had a history of back problems so this is not new.
#149@UCLA Grad: It is the same in that I don’t follow the players until they get to the Padres or N.C. State.
148: If you look back at the top-ten picks in the MLB draft in 2004, you’ll note that Weaver and Drew are not present. Weaver was selected at 12 and Drew at 15. 11 other teams passed on Weaver. 14 teams passed on Drew. Calling the Padres out for passing on those players in particular is a little silly since half the teams in baseball also passed on them.
Does this indicate that there is something inherently unfair about the baseball draft-Absolutely. I wish that the Padres had spent the $ as well, but as was stated earlier, 3 of the 4 guys that Tom or I would have picked (Niemann, Townsend, and Nelson) have not panned out either. We would have spent more money for the same amount of production that Bush has given the Padres. The baseball draft needs to get fixed-slotting bonuses like the NBA does would be a great solution, but right now it’s broken and it’s important to note that even though the Padres made a bad decision, there are systemic corruptions at work as well.
#139@LynchMob: Erik Davis knows a bit about what CY is going thru …
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/college/?p=569
#153@Paul R: The most important fact about the 2004 draft for me is that it has been acknowledged for its mistakes and MAJOR changes have been made within the Padres FO since then … so it’s ancient history … it’s been learned from … reacted to … responded to … done …
155: That’s exactly my point! Post 42; 90…and others.
2004 needs to stop being brought up as a point against this front office.
#153@Paul R: To me, the only way a fixed slotting system would be fair to the players is if the owners agreed to radically shorten the time needed for them to become free agents, maybe based on the age of the player when he was signed. Something like this (back of the napkin) for college draftees:
No more than 3 years of service time in the minors without being on the 40 man. If they don’t put you on by then, you have the option of becoming a minor league free agent.
Major league free agency after 4 years of service time.
After two full years of major league service time, everybody is eligible for arbitration.
That’s not something I’ve put a ton of thought into, but it seems like it might balance the needs of The Game (to distribute talent to teams that need it) and the needs of the employees (to have some means of increasing their earnings after giving up the right to negotiate the money in that first contract).
#154@LynchMob: I’m amazed that doesn’t happen more in college with the aluminum bats. During the Gorilla Ball era we were lucky no one died.
#148@Schlom: I might be misinterpreting your first sentence, so sorry if this is not what you meant, but
Are you calling the 2007 draft a probable complete and utter failure AFTER ONE YEAR?!!?!?!?!?
#155@LynchMob: Has it changed? We hear talk but no action. In 2007, for their first pick, they passed on a perceived superior talent to take a cheaper, polished pitcher. This past draft, it certainly looks like they took a cheaper, polished player ahead of a more expensive, higher risk/reward player. They’ve also failed to sign high school talents over the past two years. This year there are three “hard” signs, Mooneyham, Figueroa, and Kipnis. We’ll see if what happens with them.
#159@Ben B.: Nope, just calling the first pick a likely failure. Just because other picks hit doesn’t excuse the failure with their first selection. If Kyle Blanks makes the majors (or is traded for someone who contributes) does that make the 2004 draft a good one?
In both of those years, they let financial considerations play a large role (maybe the largest role) in who they selected. Does that make any kind of sense to you?
Understand that I’m not knocking the Padres’ management for everything, just for two things — their amateur draft philosophy and their inability to secure a passable 5th starter. I think everything else they’ve done is simply amazing — show me another veteran team in this day and age that wins with a payroll like the Padres. I don’t think there is one (heck, there might not have been one ever).
But just because they’ve been successful lately doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for improvement. If you get one regular major leaguer out of each draft that would be outstanding. And since your first pick is the player most likely to be that impact player, why would you let anything other then talent factor into your decision making?
#131@LynchMob:
Rivera vs. the Padres: 1 double, 1 GiDP, 7 K’s (2 vs. Khalil).
It’s too bad that the Padres couldn’t score today with the bases loaded and no out, and, perhaps, get Trevor a chance to pitch in the 9th in Yankees Stadium.
Josh Banks, otoh, turns out to be pretty good pitcher against that lineup.
Great job, Josh. Welcome to the Padres, where you must only give up 1 run or fewer to win games.
#160@Schlom: Yes, it has changed. There is a completely different front office in place.
#164@Richard Wade: Well, not completely different. Gayton and Towers both still play key roles in the draft. But there’s now a well-designed process in place, whereas before it was a lot of randomness. They’ve had four above-average drafts in a row.
#161@Schlom: Of course money should be considered when making picks. Just like money is considered in every other aspect of baseball operations. I do agree with you that they’re undervaluing the upside of these players they’re passing on for financial reasons, but if they decide Mooneyham this year isn’t worth the $3 million (or whatever) he’s asking for, that’s a perfectly legitimate conclusion. Every team in baseball reaches that conclusion frequently. For example, the Red Sox didn’t sign Pedro Alvarez out of high school.
#162@Schlom: I’d say Josh Banks looks to be a pretty serviceable fifth starter, as did Estes until he fell down those stairs.
#162@Schlom: I think you are on the mark much of the time (especially your hyper focus on the draft) but not sure where you are coming from with your “passable” 5th starter criticism. Of all the things to harp on the 5th starter spot has been fine this year. After all, isn’t this one aspect that KT has been good at, finding a “passable” pitcher off the scrap heap. Banks looks good to say the least. Look at the 2008 season and examine the 5th starter spot and give me the stats/rundown.
#168@JP: I can’t run the stats easily as too many of the “5th” starters have relief stints as well. It might take a little while. I’m defining 5th starter as a starter outside of Peavy, Maddux, Yound and Wolf.
That actually didn’t take that long since there was only five starters: Ledezma, Germano (6 starts each), Banks, Estes and Baek (4 starts each). In those 24 starts, the total ERA is 4.84 with a WHIP of 1.332 (not counting HBP). In 128.1 innings, they’ve given up 124 hits, 47 walks, 70 strikeouts, and 13 home runs. For probably starting half their games in Petco (I didn’t look up home and road starts, too much trouble) that’s really not that good. By comparison, the Big 4 have an ERA of 3.61, 1.256 WHIP. In 49 starts, they have 291.1 innings, 274 hits, 92 walks, 236 strikeouts and 32 homeruns. That’s a significant difference.
Does Wil Ledezma get his starts this year if we has picked up someone like Kyle Lohse ?
Take Ledezma out of the equation and then what do we have as far as the WHIP and ERA ?
There is not a single team in all of baseball that is 7 servicable starters deep.
Picking up someone like Lohse wouldn’t have made one bit of difference to this team. A team whose offensive production has been pretty darn bad.
BTW, spending a lot of time in Chico, Ca. and with Lohse being a Chico boy, I have followed Lohse’s career pretty closely and lets face it, the guy has been a fringe pitcher most of his career and so to now, in hindsight say at the half point of the season, “see I told you so” sounds to be a bit tainted by sham.
#115@JP: Looks like you are losing that bet pretty badly haha. Branyan is getting his MLB ABs and making the most of them. .305 AVG .800+ OPS with 10 HRs in his last 20 games.
#173@SDSUBaseball: Yeah and I owe you, Ben B. and Waits !
I’ll eat big time crow on this one
Your not going to tell me though that we would have won the crown in 2007 if we had kept Branyan….are you ?
Anything is possible…..these guys are pro’s after all.
Look at former Padre Ramon Vasquez.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6815
I didn’t realize how few at bat’s Russell the muscle has had though in 2008. Only 70 or so at bats……and 9 homeruns……that’s unreal….no one could have seen this coming….the dude was out of baseball with no contract until mid- March.
#79@LynchMob: Going back to Schlom’s constant and legit. critique of the drafts of Padres past –it absolutely amazes me how little emphasis the Padres seem to put , considering Petco, on team speed. Shouldn’t there be 3 or 4 Cedric Hunters in the system. Why is it that Cedric Hunter is the lone prospect speed merchant in the system ?
How can you consistently field a team in Petco that has no speed.
#177@JP: They’ve consistently had winning records, often strongly so, in Petco without much speed. And Hunter isn’t a speed merchant, btw. Above-average speed, and since he’s usually described as physically mature already he may not grow to “average” the way some players do. Some of the kids they drafted this year have above average speed, too. Several Padre prospects are in that 15-25 steal range as pros. Not burners, but not cloggers either.
#168@JP: The lack of quality back-end starters hurt us in 2004 (no replacements for Valdez), 2005, and 2007.
#172@JP: Of course a better SP would have made a difference. It wouldn’t have put us at .500, but Lohse (example) has been much better than Germano and Ledezma, and would have helped cushion the blow of losing Young. It’s not as important as Greene’s struggles at SS or the nothing our catchers have provided at the plate, but we can’t just blow it off, either.
It’s true, very few teams go 7 quality starters deep. Probably the same number of teams that have 3 major-league quality centerfielders on their 40 man roster in late September.
#178@Tom Waits:
It’s true, very few teams go 7 quality starters deep. Probably the same number of teams that have 3 major-league quality centerfielders on their 40 man roster in late September.
I’m not asking for the world here. I would have rather had someone like Freddy Guzman in center field than a 35 year old left fielder that they picked up off the waiver wire patrolling center field.