Links for 18 Dec 08

Before we get to the rest of the links, I have to call my own number. I’ve got a new article up at Hardball Times that looks back at some old projections I did here at Ducksnorts many moons ago. Good fun…

Lots to cover this morning:

  • Padres experienced relative success in Moores Era (San Diego Union-Tribune). From Tom Krasovic’s article: “John Moores presided over four Padres trips to the postseason, a World Series appearance and the construction of a downtown ballpark.” Shhh, you’re going against the Angry Fan Company Line that Moores is a crappy owner. Enough with you and your silly little facts.
  • Past and present Padres players respond to the team’s possible sale (U-T). I’ll use this as an excuse to remind folks that, as with the “Jake Peavy trade,” it isn’t news until something happens. When “possible” is removed from the preceding headline, then it becomes news.
  • Moores seeking buyers for Padres ( Barry Bloom injects a harsh dose of reality into the ownership story, offering this tidbit on John and Becky Moores:

    Together, they own 90 percent of the team, and because of community property laws in the state of California, Becky shares 50 percent of that asset. She must agree to any sale, and in the event that they can’t come to an agreement, the California state court presiding over the divorce would be the arbitrator.

    Cool, sounds like that should be a snap. Seriously, how hard can it be to get two people involved in divorce proceedings to agree on the sale of something valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars? [h/t Steve C]

  • Notes from MLB’s Winter Meetings (U-T). More common sense from Krasvoic. Don’t expect the Padres to be sold anytime soon, which means… get used to the low payroll (or hope for a Christmas miracle).
  • Padres Contract Projections. Speaking of payroll, Websoulsurfer is a newish Padres blog that has the Padres projected to spend about $41 million on the current roster in 2009.
  • Peavy talks off, Padres CEO says ( Speaking of the current roster, “hold” has always been an option with Peavy, although people seem to forget that. The Padres went out and tested the market, didn’t like what they saw, and then walked away. People do this all the time with houses, which depending on what part of the world you live in may or may not be more expensive than Peavy.
  • Is Peavy a product of Petco Park? (ESPN). Speaking of Peavy, Rob Neyer chats with readers about how well the right-hander would do in less pitcher-friendly ballparks. Neyer’s explanation of why Peavy struggled in 2006 — “he was just terribly unlucky” — isn’t entirely satisfying. That may have been part of the problem, but anyone who watched Peavy pitch in ’06 can tell you he had a heckuva time putting hitters away once he got ahead of them. Now, the root cause for that phenomenon remains unknown (I’ve heard his participation in the World Baseball Classic offered as an excuse, but I’m not sure how much stock I put into that). Anyway, we’ll never know until/unless Peavy actually leaves, but it’s fun to toss these things around in December. Beats watching football. ;-) [h/t Kevin]
  • Padres’ Giles sued by ex-girlfriend ( This doesn’t sound good:

    Padres’ outfielder Brian Giles is being sued by his former girlfriend as part of a lawsuit that alleges Giles battered her while she was pregnant, causing her to have a miscarriage.

    Without knowing the whole story, my first reaction is to wonder what happened to the criminal charges. Seems to me that if something like this actually happened, it would merit more than a lawsuit. But I’m admittedly ignorant of the way these things work, so who knows.

  • Former Padres pitching coach dies ( San Diego native Dave Smith, who served as the Padres pitching coach from 1999 to 2001, died Wednesday of a heart attack at age 53. My condolences go out to his family and friends.

Geez, I’m just spreading all kinds of holiday cheer today. Not that you want to take pleasure in the misery of others (unless they really deserve it, heh), but it does make you appreciate what you’ve got…

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses »

  1. As far as Giles goes…there were police reports taken for differnt incedents and this video is pretty damning…

    Just when we though this offseason could not get any worse.

  2. #1@Steve C: If by “pretty damning” you mean “totally inconclusive,” then I agree.

  3. #2@Geoff Young: The police report with several witnesses is totally inconclusive?

  4. #1@Steve C:

    #2@Geoff Young:

    That incident is apparently what led to Giles being ordered by a judge to attend anger-management classes. It sure leans towards “damning” rather than “inconclusive.” You could be unconvinced about the hair-pulling; it’s tougher to explain the falling body and the witnesses.

    There might be some mitigating circumstances as to why Giles lost it, but there’s no way that footage, the testimony, and a legal order are inconclusive. We could use the Rodney King incident as an example; people can argue whether he was really resisting arrest or not, but you can’t argue that he got wailed on. When video, witnesses, and a judge say that he slapped her, the question of What is close to moot. And there are very few things in the Why category that would make Giles look any less thuggish.

    I had the same thought as Steve (could this offseason be any worse), but I feel dirty for thinking it, given that we’re talking assault and battery by a 210 pound pro athlete against a woman.

  5. Regarding the Giles case:

    If I worked for a law firm (which I do), I would have say that I don’t see a whole lot of particularly damning evidence in the Arizona video that Brian Giles’ ex could use against him. I would probably ask her for a little bit more evidence than that when demanding a hefty sum like $10 million.

    Just my humble, professional opinion. ;)

  6. #3@Steve C: Sorry, I only looked at the video and saw something that looked like Sasquatch. Then again, my eyes don’t work as well as they once did…

  7. #5@Surfin’ Bird: I expect that OG’s lawyer will follow a similar strategy, trying to separate abuse from palimony. It’s not clear to my amateur mind if that linkage is valid or compelling. Maybe it is under the standards of a civil trial, but I’d imagine OG’s legal team will try to pry them apart.