Peace, Love, and Delusion
Tue, Jun 3, 2008
by Geoff Young
Sometimes you can get away with making stupid mistakes against lousy teams. Unfortunately the Cubs aren’t a lousy team, and they saw to it that the Padres paid for their transgressions.
Carlos Zambrano is a terrific pitcher when he’s on his game. He wasn’t at his best Monday night, but the Padres let him off the hook just the same.
Despite having trouble controlling his pitches and his emotions (he needed separate conferences with the catcher, third baseman, and manager at various points during the first two innings), Zambrano limited the early damage and then settled into a groove. And he couldn’t have done it without the Padres — specifically Michael Barrett, Khalil Greene, and Jody Gerut.
If you get out to Petco Park in June, be sure to pick up a copy of Padres Magazine (the one with Tadahito Iguchi on the cover). I’m profiled on page 73.
Big thanks to Shaun O’Neill and Leslie Filson for making that happen!
His team up 3-0, with Kevin Kouzmanoff at third and one out in the first, Barrett got a strange case of slideritis. For whatever reason, he felt compelled to expand the strike zone and help his former sparring partner get out of the jam. Maybe Barrett caught it from the on-deck hitter, Greene, who has been similarly afflicted all season. Either way, with Barrett and Greene flailing at pitches from a guy who couldn’t find the plate, Zambrano left Kouzmanoff stranded.
Then, in the second, Zambrano started strong before losing the plate again. He issued two-out walks to Gerut and Tadahito Iguchi, then fell behind Brian Giles, 2-1. Zambrano proceeded to pick Gerut off second base to end the frame. How you get caught napping in that situation, I’ll never know.
At the very least, Gerut could have dived back to the back to make it look good. Pulling a Jeremy Giambi doesn’t impress anyone. Curiously, I can’t find any mention of the play in articles about the game.
You would think that a baserunning gaffe with the team’s two best hitters due up might be worthy of attention. An explanation would be nice, too. It wouldn’t help because what’s done is done, but it would be nice to know what went wrong. Or even acknowledge that it happened.
No matter. From there, it was just a matter of watching a superior team take advantage of the situation in a house full of way too many Cubs fans.
Cha Seung Baek? He reminds me of someone, but I’m not sure who. Maybe you can help:
- Sean Bergman
- Dave Eiland
- Justin Germano
- Kevin Jarvis
- Bobby Jones
- Brian Meadows
- Paul Menhart
- Chan Ho Park
- Adam Peterson
- Pete Smith
- Stan Spencer
- Mike Thompson
- Brett Tomko
- Ismael Valdez
Don’t stress; there are no wrong answers…
Jim Edmonds? He stinks when you pay him $8 million but suddenly finds the fountain of youth when you pay him league minimum? What a dork.
Still, I feel good this morning. You know why? Because last night I dreamed that the Padres had traded Adrian Gonzalez for Matt Herges. Is Herges still playing baseball?
Anyway, the point is that it’s possible to remain optimistic about the Padres. You may have to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve that state, but a little delusion never hurt anyone, right?
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 3, 2008 at 7:52 am
Well on the brightside GY the draft is in 2 days!
Also congrats on the Padres the magazine profile!
June 3, 2008 at 8:05 am
On the bright side, we have not lost the series yet to the Cubs.
Lets see, hmmmmm. AG is hitting really well, wow. 17 ding dongs, nice. Peavy is returning soon. Ummmmm.
Edmunds: it was the right move to wave him. He is playing better because there is no expectations from the cubs. They are fine without him. Padres wanted him to be a savior. Jimmy’s just a ballplayer, not a messiah. And maybe a good guy goes deep into the playoffs.
June 3, 2008 at 8:10 am
‘Peace, Love, and Delusion’ piece helps me laugh to relieve the pain. Great stuff.
In addition to Paul Menhart, Baek reminds me a little of Wally Whitehurst as well. Perhaps I am putting a bit too much thought into this comparison.
June 3, 2008 at 8:11 am
Adrian should be a legit MVP candidate at this point. It’s truly unfortunate that nobody outside of San Diego has any idea who he is. Hell, more people know about Jay Bruce than Adrian.
I take all of the blame for last night’s loss, by the way. While I was in class, we had a 3-1 lead. As soon as I turned on the game in my car, Gerut got picked off second. Then, on my way home, we proceeded to cough up the lead.
And yeah, Edmonds is a douche. Look at his numbers at BR for this year. His OPS+ is over 50 points higher as a Cub. And that accounts for park-effects. Ugh.
Just another in the long line of fun things that have happened to our team this year.
June 3, 2008 at 8:24 am
BTW, congrats on the magazine profile GY! I’ll certainly pick-up one of these this weekend. Well done, sir!
June 3, 2008 at 8:32 am
Here is a LITTLE piece on a potential Padres draft target.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/.....376.column
Big surprise there… Brett Wallace… Great bat but a defensive liability and probably resigned to 1st base as a major leaguer. Chief Gayton, Grady Fuson and the rest of the Padres scouting department do realize we are not in the American League and do not have a DH right? Ok, just checking.
Here is a scouting report on Wallace.
http://www.minorleaguebaseball.....mc=wallace
June 3, 2008 at 8:35 am
Geoff,
I think your system Tom Waits’ed me and ate a post with a couple of links in it.
June 3, 2008 at 8:47 am
ON THE BRIGHT SIDE
1. Padres succeeded in hitting Zambrano well, and in drawing walks
2. Initially they were successful in jumping on his mistakes
3. Baek APPEARED (to me) to be throwing decent pitches, so I don’t think he’s THAT bad, he just needs work
4. We came back whereas last time against the cubs we were dead in the water
5. A-Gon is the freakin man!
Edmonds sucks so damn bad he’s a black hole
June 3, 2008 at 8:56 am
I’m glad I didn’t buy a TV when I got back to SD last fall. I’ve watched a few games, but I find the pain of listening to the horrendous radio announcers we have to be less than watching this team. They are bad and they are horribly unlucky, which is a lousy combination. Here’s to having a healthy team come July and maybe seeing some improvement later in the summer. Here’s to making some trades and trying to pick up some prospects for the future. Here’s to seeing Headley come up and trying to establish himself at the major league level. At least those things still keep the team interesting and worth following, but they certainly are not interesting or worth watching in terms of being a good baseball team who are competitive within their division.
June 3, 2008 at 9:07 am
How can anyone despise Andy Masur?
C’mon, they’ve still won 4 of 7.
June 3, 2008 at 9:08 am
re: Edmonds … I’m wondering if the few days off that Edmonds got between getting cut by the Padres and picked up by the Cubs made a big difference to his health … ie. gave his injured leg time to heal? It still seems to me that he needlessly rushed back from his injury into the Padres starting lineup (and I know that that was 3-4 weeks … it just seems like it might have needed 4-5 weeks).
Also, the Padres have been playing better and winning more as a team since Edmonds was cut, right? This grass is greener on our side of the fence … let it (him) go …
re: Peace, Love, and Delusion … coincidence that today’s the day that Billy Joe MacAllister jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode_to_billie_joe
June 3, 2008 at 9:10 am
OT but funny…
Lou Piniella might not use the internet much but he has been caught leaving a Chicago hot spot by Google Maps. The Cubs manager can be seen walking if you type in the address 3552 N. Clark, Chicago IL 600636, click street view and spin the camera around 180 degrees. From Google Maps.
June 3, 2008 at 9:17 am
#9@Stephen: I really like Masur I think the Pads did a great job stealing him away from Chi town, I cant stand Lightner, and I hate to say it but the Colonel needs to retire he had a great career but he just can’t do it any more…
June 3, 2008 at 9:20 am
#2@PM: Savior? I think not. Edmonds was expected to be marginally competent in center field and at the plate. He failed about as miserably as possible on both counts.
@KRS1: Got it, thanks! I haven’t looked too closely at Wallace because, frankly, I don’t think he’ll be available at #23, but yeah, he seems like someone we’d target.
June 3, 2008 at 9:22 am
Baek reminds me of my former favorite Padre, Kahlil Greene. They are totally emotionless. At least Baek perspires. When it comes to pitchers, Cha reminds me of the honorable H. Irabu.
Yesterday I went looking for a Padres t-shirt here in Las Vegas. Lots of Angels, Dbacks, Dodgers stuff, but nothing San Diego. So, in honor of the 2008 Padres, I bought a Dodgers shirt to remind me that even teams with big budgets can suck, too.
Oh, my favorite Padres is now AGON, with Heath Bell a distant second. Kahlil is challenging the Mendoza Line and AGON leads the NL in RBIs which is difficult when no one is on base except Giles.
ballparkfrank in vegas
June 3, 2008 at 9:49 am
#6@KRS1: MLB.com projects the Pads taking LH setup guy Daniel Schlereth, and the Blue Jays taking Wallace…which would make more sense, with the whole DH thing.
http://tinyurl.com/6rh2qm
June 3, 2008 at 10:22 am
I don’t see the Padres drafting a relief pitcher in the first round as long as KT is their GM.
June 3, 2008 at 10:24 am
Going along with the Padres seemingly endless search for a number 5 starter, what is the plan with Hensley, I have noted he has been starting games, would be nice to see the 2006 version of Hensley back in the starting rotation.
June 3, 2008 at 10:26 am
#16@Dalton: Unless it is a top 5-7 pick, I don’t think any of these guys can project out. WAY too many things can happen.
June 3, 2008 at 10:27 am
Baek is Chan Ho Park. Not just because of the Asian thing, but because he has a straight fastball, but pretty good velocity, and some pretty nasty breaking stuff at times. When his location is on, he’s very good; when it’s off, he’s not.
Some of those guys on your list have nowhere near the stuff Baek has.
June 3, 2008 at 10:33 am
Ahh, Sports Illustrated decides to rub it in: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....ml?eref=T1
June 3, 2008 at 10:33 am
GY, post eaten! Please to help! It has a link to SI.com.
June 3, 2008 at 10:35 am
#15@Frank Barning: I totally saw the Hideki Irabu comparison during his first appearance, but Baek’s not as fat as Irabu. Unfortunately, his results yesterday were very Irabu-like.
I guess it was probably asking too much for two cast-offs to pitch well in their first starts as Padres.
June 3, 2008 at 10:39 am
#16@Dalton:
BARF!!!
IMO that is a horrible mock draft. But yeah Wallace probably won’t be there. I just wonder why these guys continue to scout these types. I mean great if we need them but 1st base is probably the only position I think we have covered for sure and unless they trade Kouz then Headley is manning left. I turned on the radio Saturday and heard someone I have no idea who but they were talking about how they know the Padres would love one of the top college like Smoak or Alonso. Why? Where the hell would they play those kids? I mean it’s great to build organizational depth but I would probably start with building some depth at a position like SS or CF not 1st.
I’m no expert so call me crazy if you want but I think if it were me knowing that the big league team has a limited budget and has never been a player in free agency the draft seems like the place where you target your skill positions. SS, CF, RF, C all seem like the type of places where drafting and developing players would pay the most dividends to me.
June 3, 2008 at 10:40 am
#17@Steve C: #19@Coronado Mike: I meant to preface my post with “FWIW…”
But yeah. A lefty specialist in the 1st round?
June 3, 2008 at 10:42 am
#25 Dalton
Royce Ring anyone?
June 3, 2008 at 10:46 am
#24@KRS1:Its the age old debate of do you draft for needs or the best player on the board? Its like the discussion we had a few weeks ago on why the brewers drafted LaPorta when they already have a crowded OF.
June 3, 2008 at 10:52 am
#26@Loren: Right, I know it happens, but out of all of the deficiencies the Padres have, I don’t think lack of lefty 7th/8th inning guys is what’s hurting the team. Seems like the writer had a deadline to meet and randomly assigned the Padres’ pick 5 minutes prior to finishing the article.
June 3, 2008 at 10:54 am
What do you guys think about hypothetically picking up Bill Hall? He’s not the greatest defender, but he has some pop, and he might be a good buy-low candidate.
June 3, 2008 at 10:55 am
#27@Steve C:
The Brewers drafted LaPorta when Braun was still at 3rd base and taking a few hundred practice balls a day to try and get better. LaPorta has also been playing RF this year so he might have potential to be something more than a LF/1st Base guy.
June 3, 2008 at 10:57 am
#29@UC Michael: He would be a good pickup if they are planning on trading Greenie, but I dont think he will come here and take a bench role.
June 3, 2008 at 10:57 am
#29@UC Michael:
For what position? In the off-season I thought he might be a decent guy to take a flyer on if the price was really low but I wouldn’t want any part of him or that contract these days.
June 3, 2008 at 10:58 am
29; I think he’d be a nice addition in CF, but hte outfield’s getting mighty crowded. They need to clean some of the garbage up (McAnulty, Huber, Hairston) before they can bring someone else in (not to mention putting Headley in at LF)
28; that much i do agree unless the guy in question could be considered a potential closer. Otherwise yeah I agree, I’d have gone with Weeks
June 3, 2008 at 11:03 am
in other good news, the NL West is coming back to us big time. Az has cooled, we know this, at only 6 games above 500 and the dogs are a game under. Currently, we are 13 games under but, glass half full baby, glass half full. Get to 500 by mid Aug and it might be a race.
Whatever happened to peace love and understanding
June 3, 2008 at 11:05 am
#30@KRS1: even with Braun at 3B the Brewers still had a log jam in the OF and 1B. Don’t get me wrong I don’t want to see the pads draft another 1B with their first round picks but if someone slides or their is someone there who’s talent just can’t be ignored then I think they have to take him and figure out a spot for him later (they have at least 4 years to put them on the 40 man roster).
June 3, 2008 at 11:11 am
I was at the game last night. Some observations:
How does Greene not get an error for the play where he couldn’t get the ball out of his glove?
Baek looks like he has two problems: 1. Too many pitches: A fastball he can throw between 87 and 93, a slider I saw anywhere from 77 to 85, and the big curveball. 2. Inconsistent release point: I think trying to change speeds and throw all the different pitches with a consistent release point is very difficult. All of his pitches were in the dirt at some point and at other times he made great pitches. I think he may need to simply his pitch selection.
Kouz looked really bad on the Zambrano bunt. It was a good bunt, but there was no excuse.
The Gerut play was huge. The emotion in the park just totally deflated when he was picked off. DeRosa had noticed something I believe. Because it was one or two pitches after DeRosa visited the mound that Gerut got picked off and DeRosa reacted like he knew it was coming. Zambrano was definitely on the rocks - totally ready for an implosion.
If the Padres had any sort of adequate replacement for Greene I would give him a week off to get his head together. He just looks totally lost at the plate.
The good. Giles and AGon at bat.
No one got hurt.
Sitting in the UT Box is really nice.
June 3, 2008 at 11:15 am
#6@KRS1: The more I look at this, the more I’m convinced Wallace won’t slip to #23. I’ll be surprised if he makes it past Oakland at #12.
#17@Steve C: You may be in for a rude surprise. I’m guessing that Cashner and Perry are pretty high on their draft board.
#22@Phantom: Thanks for the heads-up. I know it’s a pain, but I really appreciate when y’all let me know right away so I can reinstate the comment and continue to train the software.
#27@Steve C: According to Fuson, there isn’t much of a debate and I agree:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com.....res-draft/
June 3, 2008 at 11:19 am
Cha Seung Baek was often referred to in his Korean homeland as “The Asian Dave Wehrmeister.”
June 3, 2008 at 11:20 am
I would love to get Brett Wallace, but he seems a lock to go before us. If he hits like everyone thinks he’s going to, he’ll be a very valuable commodity, like LaPorta is.
I think our pick is going to be Reese Havens. Just please, no college reliever.
June 3, 2008 at 11:22 am
#32@KRS1: I could see him at 2B in 2009 (Antonelli obviously isn’t ready), and as a utility guy for 2008. He has a little more pop than Iguchi, and I like that he can play so many positions adequately. His OBP and BA have fallen off this year, but I don’t see any reason to assume that will be his new norm. Also he’s about 5 years younger than Guch.
June 3, 2008 at 11:23 am
#37@Geoff Young: Bleh it would be a shame if the Pads burn the 23rd pick on a position that KT has mastered finding diamonds in the rough at…
June 3, 2008 at 11:40 am
I love this qoute from Colletti (appears in Verducci’s article at SI), “The young player has become more valuable than ever,” says Dodgers GM Ned Colletti. “When [free agency] gets to the point where you have to think about spending X millions of dollars for some pitcher with a 52-71 lifetime record, clubs started thinking, Hey, why not give one of our young kids a chance?”
Tom, don’t you have to follow-up with this? “Mr. Colletti, with this in mind, how do you explain the Pierre and Jones signings?”
June 3, 2008 at 11:43 am
#21@Phantom: Thanks for the link, Robby … it’s easy to feel like that writer is bashing the Padres … a few extra spins and missing caveats make his arguement appear clearer than it really is … he does eventually mention the bottom line (Padres in playoffs in ‘05 and ‘06 and almost in ‘07 … and the BA ranking up from 29th to 12th this year) … the reality of all the pre-Khalil pics is pretty daunting …
It makes me not want to take a short-stop … it makes me want to take “the best player available” … and if that’s a relief pitcher who contributes to the Padres “soon”, then that’s a good / successful pick. At #23, all the “can’t miss” players are long-gone … and it even seems like the “high upside” guys should be gone by then …
I like what I’ve read about Ike Davis … he’s the guy I hope is available and that they take @ #23 … but if he’s already taken, I hope they take the pitcher they think will bring the most Win Shares to the Padres … and then take the biggest bat on the board with their higher pick in the 2009 draft …
June 3, 2008 at 11:56 am
DePo with another blog post with a view of how the Padres are creating their board …
http://itmightbedangerous.blog.....is-it.html
June 3, 2008 at 12:21 pm
#43@LynchMob: I more take issue with how the article is written. It’s cosntructed in a way that is purposefully confusing about certain things and he is flat out wrong about Khalil winning NL ROY in 2004. How that actually gets published by an establishment like SI is way beyond me.
June 3, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Did any watch the UCLA-Cal State Fullerton game last night? Former Padres draftee Christian Colon looked pretty good, batting 2nd for the overall 5th seed Titans. He had a pretty good season, starting every single game at SS, hitting 335/408/453. I’m sure that wasn’t worth the extra $100k or whatever it was going to take to sign him.
Decisions like that don’t exactly fill me with confidence for the draft at the end of the week. Looking at their past history, their first round pick is going to be someone who’s already close to his potential, especially if it’s a pitcher. I’m sure someone highly regarded will fall to the Padres but they’ll pick someone else and claim that their picked player was higher on their board.
June 3, 2008 at 12:33 pm
#45@Phantom: I just noticed that about Greene winning the Rookie of Year Award as well. Maybe he meant to say that Greene should have won the ROY Award in 2004.
As far as bashing the Padres, how can you list their 1st round picks without bashing the team? Just look at that list again. It’s absolutely horrendous. Only the Pirates are probably worse and they haven’t had a winning record since Bonds left.
Man, it’s painful to look at those names again.
June 3, 2008 at 12:45 pm
#46@Schlom:
Yeah that $100k was well spent on about 2 Jim Edmonds AB’s. But I mean I think Colon wanted $150K so lets say 3 Edmonds At Bats just to be fair.
June 3, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Yeah it is pretty sad that since 1999 the Padres have only had 3 first round picks make it to the majors and the two that are not named Khalil Greene have pitched a total of 158 innings and have a combine ERA of 6.92…
June 3, 2008 at 1:17 pm
It just goes to show what an unbelievable job Towers did in building the 2004-2007 Padres. As I said before, it’s nearly impossible to win without either a high payroll or having lots of young players — in that 4 year run the Padres had neither. Unfortunately it the max potential of the team was squandered by poor drafting.
I thought the best case scenario for the Padres would be like this years Cardinals but the Padres payroll is still $20m lower. They are somewhat like the 2005 Astros (who had a payroll of $78m) but they traded for Carlos Beltran — I don’t see the Padres ever making a mid-season superstar rental trade like that. All the other good teams over the past few years have either been stocked with young players (Rockies, D-backs, Brewers) to keep payrolls down or had much higher payrolls (the Braves have had the lowest payroll of a good team and they are in the $90m range). In fact the team with a payroll closest to the Padres is the Reds but they won 301 games vs. the Padres 346.
June 3, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I could be wrong, but didn’t Kahlil win the ROY from some publication? I know he didn’t win it for MLB, but I remember him getting it from some publication like Sporting News or something like that.
June 3, 2008 at 2:24 pm
#51@PF4L: I thought he won it from Baseball America. Could be wrong, though.
June 3, 2008 at 2:24 pm
#47 Schlom
What matters is what they’ve done with the draft picks they’ve made recently, and its been ok. I’m not ready to call it quits on Carillo, Schmidt or even Bush. Stauffer was a bust, and Greene’s a pain in the *** but the draft picks have been better lately, and most publications would agree.
June 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm
#46@Schlom: It would be nice if you called your shot now instead of second guessing. Let us know which player(s) will still be on the board for the Padres with the 23rd pick, but won’t be picked by the Padres due to signability concerns, and will clearly be a better prospect than the person the Padres do draft.
June 3, 2008 at 4:19 pm
What ticks me off the most about playing the Cubs is the fact that Jim Edmonds may have even an ounce of success at Petco in another uniform after stinking up the joint in a Padre uniform. At the moment I’m calling that Towers’ biggest gaffe in his Padre tenure (I have little problem/regret over Prior even, compared to Edmonds). The Padres could win this series and if Edmonds makes a play in the outfield or gets another hit like last night, I will still be pretty pissed. (I know, I need to get over the Edmonds thing)
June 3, 2008 at 4:29 pm
#54@The Fathers: I’m going to guess they are going to take one of the relievers — Josh Fields, Andrew Cashmer or Ryan Perry — and that either Hosmer (most unlikely), Cole or Hicks falls and gets taken by a big market team. Then with their supplemental picks they’ll take polished college hitters — Reese Havens, Conor Gillespie, Allen Dykstra, players like that.
June 3, 2008 at 4:41 pm
#55@Keith in New Jersey: The 2004 Draft was way worse then the Edmonds signing because it’s not like the $6m they spent kept them from getting a better player. Granted he sucked but it’s not like the other realistic alternatives (Jody Gerut or Scott Hairston) would have propelled them into first place. It was a gamble that didn’t work out but at least they don’t have to pay him after this season.
Actually, maybe the Randy Myers waiver pickup in 1998 was worse then the 2004 Draft. At least Matt Bush only cost $3.5m or so.
June 3, 2008 at 5:08 pm
#55@Keith: I’d say the Woody Williams - Ray Lankford trade was worse. Maybe not in terms of win shares, but in terms of the dollars that got tied up. The Randy Myers pickup was pretty horrific as well.
June 3, 2008 at 5:37 pm
#54@The Fathers: Why does he have to call who won’t be on the board now? The 22 teams before us could pick a ton of high-upside players. It doesn’t mean the Padres wouldn’t have passed on them had they been given the opportunity. They’ve been passing on them for the last 6 years. It’s especially silly to demand that when some of the Padres most egregious picks have occurred in the supplemental rounds, when even more players are off the board. You’re basically saying that unless Schlom (or anyone else) can accurately predict the first 22 picks, his criticisms are invalid. Nonsense.
The “clearly better” prospect tag ignores the fact that teams already have set values on many of these players. What if Schmidt comes back from Tommy John surgery and in three years is a serviceable LH reliever, but Rick Porcello is bitten on his pitching hand by a heretofore unknown spider variant and his career ends the day before his first big league start? Between the day they were signed and that spider-cursed moment, Porcello would have carried a lot more value, value that could have been extracted by the Tigers in a variety of ways.
June 3, 2008 at 5:40 pm
#53@Loren: Most publications would agree on “better,” although when you’re starting from near-zero, you’re bound to go up. Those same publications would also agree on “limited” or “not as good as they could have been.”
We can’t accept the praise of subject-matter experts and then ignore their criticisms.
If Wallace is still there at 23, I’ll be shocked and then (hopefully) very happy.
June 3, 2008 at 5:56 pm
#59@Tom Waits: He already did call a few players that he believes will fall to big market teams. People on this forum have been griping for so long about how player X (such as Rick Porcello) was plainly the better pick than player Y (such as Nick Schmidt) but was passed on b/c the Padres insist on going slot and/or is a Boras client and/or they were concerned he would go to college instead of signing.
So it isn’t nonsense to ask the critics to let us know how it is going to play out again, especially since there is the claim that they have been doing it for six years. In fairness, as long as the critics are posting in the draft day thread and calling it beforehand based on who actually is available, that is fine too.
I am relatively sure the Padres objectively valued Porcello’s skills pretty highly, but wouldn’t sign him b/c he was a Boras client. What I am interested in is what the critics of the Padres drafting philosophy can predict they will do in relation to draftees that the publications/scouts/whatever say are more likely to be better players, regardless of any hypothetical ailment that may befall them in the future, and who they will supposedly take as the “safe” pick.
June 3, 2008 at 6:21 pm
#61@The Fathers: He did, but it doesn’t mean that if Hosmer, Cole, or Hicks does NOT fall, that criticism of the Padres for passing over other players would be invalid. What if they pass on Collier? Is the point that the Padres consistently pass on HS talent invalid?
People have been griping about the Padres passing on better prospects because the Padres insist on passing on them. We won’t know EXACTLY how it plays out until the draft happens, and maybe this is the year they surprise us. Maybe they take Collier. He seems likely to sign for slot, so it’s not a huge reach.
If the Padres draft in 2008 like they’ve drafted since 2001, then they will take almost entirely college players who will sign for slot. Unless Moores has removed the slot requirement, anybody they take will have to sign for it or he won’t be a Padre prospect. Those are the facts of the last several drafts, both before and after the Alderson-Fuson regime took over. I fail to see why critics need to be as specific as “The Padres will take Josh Fields instead of Collier at 23, Schlereth instead of Galloway at 42, and Danks instead of Chatwood at 46…”
Maybe that’s not what you’re asking for, but suggesting that critics must put names on the page before we know who’s available doesn’t seem worthwhile.
June 3, 2008 at 6:25 pm
#61@The Fathers: In terms of who they will pick, GY’s recent review is a good start. I wouldn’t be surprised by any of several college relievers (disappointed, not surprised). There are a few college bats without strong defensive positions who seem right up our alley. Havens feels like a strong candidate to me. Collier would be a major change and a welcome one, and of the HS kids around, he seems the most likely to accept 23rd pick money.
As I and many others have mentioned before, the Padres don’t have to go crazy with every pick. Taking (and signing) even a couple high-reward players who require more than slot money would be a good start.
June 3, 2008 at 7:05 pm
#45@Phantom: Because SI isn’t very good.
June 3, 2008 at 7:06 pm
#51@PF4L: Baseball America
June 3, 2008 at 7:11 pm
#53@Loren: How is Greene a pain in anything?
June 3, 2008 at 7:14 pm
#57@Schlom: The Randy Myers pickup did what it was designed to do, keep him away from Atlanta, which wanted a left-handed reliever. If Atlanta got him, maybe he would have done well against the Padres in the NLCS. We don’t know.
June 3, 2008 at 8:07 pm
#67@Kevin:
1. Was that a worthwhile goal? I thought Schuerholz later said the Braves had no interest. Even if they did, was it worth it? I suspect even Towers would say that move wasn’t well considered.
2. We do know that Myers had a 62 ERA+ for us in the regular season, a 13.50 ERA against the Braves in the NLCS, and a 9.00 ERA against the Yankees.
3. If the Braves had wanted a LH reliever, there were others available.
June 4, 2008 at 11:05 am
Getting in late on some of these…
#38@Lance Richardson: Nice pull!
#49@Steve C: Thank goodness for Jake Peavy in the 15th in ‘99, eh?
#56@Schlom: Thanks for dropping some names. I agree with your assessment of how our draft likely will go.
#58@BigWorm: Pads got burned on the Williams for Lankford for deal. That really should have worked.
#67@Kevin: The Myers pickup was a disaster. Towers got completely schooled on that and, to his credit, hasn’t done anything like it since. Among other consequences, Myers’ contract kept us from hanging onto Bret Boone during his MVP caliber seasons. For as bad as drafting Bush has turned out, it’s nowhere near trading for Myers in terms of bad moves. Bush cost $3.5M and has a chance — albeit remote — to make something of himself. Myers stunk and cost the Pads $13.5M, which had repercussions that were felt for years.
June 4, 2008 at 11:22 am
#69@Geoff Young: Ha even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again…
June 4, 2008 at 11:27 am
#69@Geoff Young:
The points I always bring up when someone says that “X” cost us Brett Boone’s 2001 are:
1. A decision to not spend money is different than not having it to spend. The Padres could afford Boone in 2000, when he made 3.75 million, and when they were still paying Myers. In 2001 Myers was off the books, and Boone ended up signing in Seattle for 3.25, after we declined his option and paid his buyout.
2. Does Boone…how shall I put this….commit himself to the weight room and its associated paraphenelia if he isn’t cast aside by the Padres? Or was he driven to that level of…..dedication?….by the realization that he was not in high demand?
June 4, 2008 at 12:15 pm
#71@Tom Waits: Well, yes, it’s an unstated assumption that the Padres chose not to spend that money on Boone. Presumably the team had set a budget for ‘01 and had no advance knowledge of what it would cost to re-sign him. A similar thing happened this past winter: I’m pretty sure if the Padres had known they could keep Mike Cameron at 1-year, $8M, they’d have done it.
As for Boone’s “dedication,” that’s a whole other issue and I don’t have an answer. We’ll never know, but you’re right that it’s possible he wouldn’t have “applied himself” in the same way if he’d remained here.
June 4, 2008 at 12:48 pm
#72@Geoff Young: Whatever their budget for 2001 was:
1. Boone had an option that wasn’t onerous.
2. Any 2001 budget didn’t include any money for Myers. His contract mercifully ended in 2000.
Which doesn’t mitigate what a disaster the decision to claim Myers was.
June 4, 2008 at 12:50 pm
#73@Tom Waits: Hey Waits, how do you like your steak cooked ? Branyan’s as hot as a Texas summer, which probably guarantee’s him 100 or so more PA’s.