Moorad to Buy Padres?
Mon, Jan 5, 2009
by Geoff Young
I trust everyone enjoyed their holidays. I walked all over town, watched a boatload of Dresden Files and Extras, and finished the first draft of the Ducksnorts 2009 Baseball Annual. It currently weighs in at 265 pages, so I’ll be spending the next few weeks trying to whittle that down a bit.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, reports indicate that Jeff Moorad is interested in buying the Padres. Moorad, who resigned as CEO of the Arizona Diamondbacks on Friday, is a former player agent whose philosophy in running an organization appears to align well with that of John Moores. As the U-T’s Tim Sullivan notes:
In partnership with Ken Kendrick, Moorad’s tenure in Arizona was characterized by an infusion of youth, a reduction in payroll and a reliance on computer analysis. That strategy sounds strikingly similar to that which the Padres have espoused with uneven results, so much so that Moores declared the Diamondbacks, “almost a poster child of how clubs should be run” in a September story in the Arizona Republic.
The rest of the article is filled with quaint righteous indignation, my favorite passage being this:
If Moorad and his associates have the means to buy the ballclub, their first order of business ought to be restoring the shattered faith of the Padres’ many disaffected fans. The quickest way to achieve that would be to declare that the fire sale is finished and to plow enough cash into the product to show sincerity.
So cash equals sincerity. I think I missed that day in class.
Anyway, if Moorad does purchase the Padres (and it’s still not clear to me what role the Moores divorce plays in all this), I have a few suggestions:
Keep citing a World Series championship as the goal
Sure, it’s hopelessly unrealistic, seeing as how 97% of teams will fail in a given year, but people love hearing that crap. The trick is to say it with conviction. Prop glasses help, if you remove them at just the right time: “Our goal is… [dramatic pause, followed by removal of glasses] …to win a championship.”
You don’t have to believe this tripe, you just have to make fans believe you believe it. You know that a more reasonable goal is to be competitive, say, four years out of five (as the Padres have been since moving to Petco Park), but you mustn’t give voice to that truth.
As Karen Armstrong observes in A History of God, “Humankind cannot bear very much reality.” So lie to the fans; spin them a colorful yarn that gives them a reason to believe — talk about will and commitment, hard work and dedication, whatever — just make stuff up that sounds good. Then, once they’re happy with your little story, get back to the business of positioning the team to be competitive 80% of the time.
It’s all about perception. Once you’ve convinced the fans that you’re gunning for a World Series title, it doesn’t really matter what you do.
Keep the current front office intact
Count me on the side of Ray Lankford at Sacrifice Bunt. The brain trust has a plan and it’s mostly working. Hire someone charming to tell the media and fans a lovely story of hope or whatever it is they need, and let the decision makers focus on what they do best, i.e., make decisions.
The good news is, Moorad is the man responsible for hiring Josh Byrnes as GM of the Diamondbacks. During his time with the Red Sox, Byrnes worked with Bill James, so I think it’s safe to assume that Byrnes is reasonably well versed in performance analysis. And presumably Moorad wouldn’t have hired Byrnes if he didn’t value that aspect of his game. This should bode well for Sandy Alderson, who was the first GM to put James’ theories to use in a real working environment.
Kevin Towers? Well, Moorad interviewed him for that same D’backs GM job a few years ago. And Towers’ trade record pretty much speaks for itself.
Moorad has been running a franchise on a shoestring budget; he gets how that works. So does the current Padres front office. Given their familiarity with the system, it would be foolish to throw all that knowledge out the window, and Moorad doesn’t strike me as a fool.
Change the team’s name to Chargers and slap yellow lightning bolts all over everything
The Chargers brand has gotten under San Diegans’ skins in a way that no other sports franchise’s has. At the very least, people won’t hate you when you finish the season with a .500 record and still reach the playoffs.
Yeah, I’m kidding on that last one. Sort of…
Love the blog? Buy the book!
The Ducksnorts 2009 Baseball Annual provides the most comprehensive analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres available anywhere... featuring a foreword by Padres Executive Vice President Paul DePodesta.
January 5, 2009 at 7:24 am
I’m sorry to say this GY but I think this will equal the end of Sandy Alderson in San Diego. I don’t see a new owner — especially one who is used to running a team — giving Alderson the same control of the team that Moores did. I think Sandy will stay until the end of the season (or whenever Moorad’s group takes full control) and then there will be a mutual split. I know they share the same philosophy but I think there will be too many chefs in the Padre kitchen at that point and I don’t think Alderson will want to start asking for permission to get things done.
January 5, 2009 at 7:44 am
Question for the UT. What fire sale? We traded Khalil, and? Does not actively pursuing free agents now constitute a sale?
January 5, 2009 at 8:07 am
#1@Steve C: People said the same about Alderson and KT. We shall see.
#2@Josh: Stop making sense.
January 5, 2009 at 8:19 am
#3@Geoff Young: Yeah, but that was because he and KT did not share the same philosophy at the time but if SA did get rid of KT he would still have to hire a new GM so he could continue to run the day-to-day operations. If Moorad assumes the CEO role of the club then SA is kind of the odd man out. I guess we don’t really know what Moorad’s plan is but since he is probably going to be a minority share owner (the big money will come from his investment group) I would imagine that he would take over the day-to-day operations role to protect his investors.
January 5, 2009 at 10:52 am
Yeah (#2) No kidding!
I do think Moorad will loosen the purse-strings slightly as it relates to the draft, but I think we will see an overall business-as-usual strategy (more NL West Titles, thank you!).
Moorad is about as good as we could have hoped for.
January 5, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Spot on.
@Josh: I think dumping Khalil, trying to get rid of Peavy along with letting Hoffman go pretty much gives the same vibe as a fire sale, even though it might not quite qualify.
Let’s hope the FO team sticks around, and I’m down for a conversion to the Chargers, I’m fond of “The Padres” but a lightning bolt is so much more fearsome than a Friar.
January 5, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Great, just what we need: more pointy-headed nerds who make decisions with their slide rules. What we need are gamers like David Eckstein and Eric Byrnes, and speedsters like Juan Pierre and Willy Taveras. Speed doesn’t slump! What does Bill James know? I mean, come on, he never played the game!
Disclaimer: the preceding statements should be read in the voice of Philly Billy Werndl.
January 5, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Moorad doesn’t seem like an idiot, so I am hoping that he sees the value in keeping Alderson, Towers and Depo. On to more important things… I thought I was the only person in the world that liked the Dresden Files.
January 5, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Maddux, Randy Wolf, Khalil, have all been traded. Hoffman was allowed to walk, and they are entertaining offers for Peavy. That’s not quite a fire sale, but they are dumping salary left and right.
January 5, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Maybe I’m in the minority here but I think I’d like to see Sandy and KT be replaced with Moorad’s guys. I haven’t been too impressed with KT as of late, and Alderson’s strategy just isn’t working with SD in 2009. I know the Moores’ divorce plays a part in the team’s inadequacy, but I’d like to see some new blood in there.
Geoff, what do you think?
January 5, 2009 at 8:54 pm
#2@Josh: I think everyone is wondering about the “Fire Sale” that has been constantly referenced, not just in the UT but also on espn.com and SI.com. Everyone knew that the Padres were going to shed $14m from their 2008 payroll (Maddux retirement and dumping Barrett). Subtract another $6.5m for Greene which I guess could be called part of a fire sale, but then again Khalil was horrendous last year so maybe not.
Peavy is almost certainly going to be on the team next year and I suspect that Hoffman will as well (who else would sign him? A good team wouldn’t want him since he’s too dangerous to use as a closer and why would a bad team waste a bunch of money on a closer?)
January 5, 2009 at 9:07 pm
I’m glad you wrote this because I had not seen much positive commentary on Moorad yet. Instead of focusing on Josh Byrnes, most of it had focused on giving an insane contract to Eric Byrnes.
Will be interesting to see how it shakes out and if it is ever consumated. My biggest concern is whether the current FO will be kept in place should the sale go through. I would hope so, but we’re dealing with giant, I’m talking enormous, egos here, and I could easily see Moorad bringing in his own crew just because he has to show he’s the boss. Way too early to get worked up about anything like that though.
I’d like to second Geoff’s remark to Josh. Josh, what were you thinking? Enough of the rational thought process and calm, detached analysis. Besides, did you forget we traded Peavy for a bag of balls and a new fungo bat? What’s that? We didn’t trade him, we only expored the market to see what his possible return was? Now that’s just crazy talk! I know we traded him for 10 cases of sunflower seeds and a pack of Hubba Bubba.
January 6, 2009 at 6:03 am
Yeah!!! Go Chargers!!! I hope they re-sign Peavy and win the National League West!!!
January 6, 2009 at 6:05 am
#8@Dan: No way; Dresden Files rocks.
#9@parlo: Maddux and Wolf were on one-year deals; they would have been gone at season’s end anyway and held no value to a team on its way to 99 losses beyond what they would fetch in trade. The Padres have resisted trading Peavy because they haven’t gotten good offers for him. Hoffman is 41 years old and — for the reasons Schlom mentions in #11 — there’s a decent chance he might return. That leaves the Greene trade, which was a pure salary dump.
#10@teag: Again, I like the FO as it currently stands. These are some of the best minds in baseball.
January 6, 2009 at 7:27 am
#4@Steve C: I don’t think Moorad will fire SA. I think he will leave on his own when Moorad assumes most of his decision making responsibilities. I just don’t see SA sticking around if he has to start getting clearance before he makes decisions.
Either way I hope Moorad hires someone to do a better job marketing the team, which is something I really feel that they have lacked since the Lucchino days.
January 6, 2009 at 9:31 am
Seems to me that Alderson’s status depends on how active Moorad plans to be in the senior executive, rather than owner, role. If Moorad wants to do a lot of the things that Alderson was hired by Moores to do, then Alderson may be superfluous. I’d prefer that Alderson stay to ride herd on the front office he’s built; otherwise the dysfunction that many have predicted, and which doesn’t appear to have occured, might become reality.
Going to GY’s original post, I’m not sure why the lack of fan support is so much on the fans. Padre fans aren’t some unique breed. They have developed a strong relationship to the team in the past. Other fanbases have suffered through similar problems without turning away. If they’re turning away now, it’s because the team isn’t attracting them, not because they’re a bunch of mouth-breathing knuckle draggers who could be lured back with ribbons and bright lights. Clearly the on-field success isn’t powerful enough for many fans, and the team needs to address that in a way that involves more than a well-timed removal of eyewear.
There are lots of reasons for current fan disenchantment, and the team choosing “be competitive” over “win a championship” is way down on the list. I wouldn’t want them making baseball decisions for marketing reasons, at least not in any significant way. But they do need to develop a marketing strategy to compensate for decisions that could cause negative visceral reactions. Alderson’s proclamation that he’s “not in the business of selling anything” is emblematic of the problem; if you’re content to let the product on the field sell itself, then even if the product is very good, you’re limited in how many fans you can attract. And when the product goes bad, there are very few brakes on fan disenchantment.
January 6, 2009 at 11:56 am
The big question is whether he is going to keep Towers in the GM position or not. The Padres had 7 winning seasons in the 27 years prior to KT becoming the GM in 1996, and 6 in the past 13 years. There isn’t much question that’s he’s by far the best GM the Padres have ever had and one of the best in MLB. Now I’ve had my complaints with him (he’s been horrendous in the draft, giving some bad contracts to aging players, fallen in love with the Rule V Draft and other team’s prospects over his own) but those don’t outweigh his positives (identifying blocked failed players on other teams and giving up nearly nothing for them, building a bullpen almost for free from other teams castoffs).
I’ve seen reports that since Moorad wanted to interview KT for the D-backs GM job that means that he’s going to keep him and differing reports saying that he’s going to bring in his own people.
January 6, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I do hope they keep the front office, but I disagree with the those saying the fan base has no reason to characterize what is going on right now as a “fire sale”. A fire sale it is not, but no one would say the transactions they have been doing are making the team stronger. We are shedding salary. If that translates to us spending the money intelligently in the future, great, but that is an article of faith. We don’t know how, or if, they will spend it.
A Peavy trade for good quality prospects would be “re-building”, in that we are trying to convert current value into future, affordable value. But those types of trades are risky, and often salary dumps are characterized as “re-building”.
I share the frustration of the “dumb” fans. The bulk of my frustration comes from the salary discrepancies across teams. Yes, smaller market teams can compete if they are very disciplined, invest well in the draft and trade well. Our management does trade well, but is so-so on the draft. And FA’s we’ve signed have not been that great. But they are still a very good FO. They made their bets, intelligently as they could, and they only partially paid out. And here we are, facing at least two more years of mediocrity.
But, being a smaller market team, we have to take our shot, then re-build. Large market teams can afford to fill in when their prior gambits don’t pay off. We have to bite the bullet, shed our mistakes and plan for 2-3 years out. That is hard for the average fan to accept. And they shouldn’t have to.
If the FO was going to be honest, they would say “Look, we are going to suck for 2009 and probably 2010. And it does not make sense to pay for Jake’s ability during these years. It is a waste for us and a waste for him. We cannot not afford to bring in FA’s to build a team around Jake and Adrian, our farm is not ready, so we have jettison Jake, maybe Adrian, but will do our best to get as much value as we can in the process.”
What fan should like hearing that, even if it is honest and true? Toss in the fact that the fan may have financed some of the team through taxes, and it is anextra bitter pill to swallow. Fans in major market teams do not have to hear that. They can afford to attempt to be competitive every year. The fact that some minor market teams strike paydirt from time to time does not negate the inherent unfairness of the salary structure in this game.
Baseball is an elegant, statistically rich game I love. But when over half of the outcome comes from the variance in market size, we are quipping over only half of the puzzle. Until the teams are on even footing from a salary, resource perspective, the game’s engagement will erode. Why should fans in San Diego, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Seattle not get the same year-to-year chance as fans in LA, NY, Boston and Chicago? There are ways to gain fairness without screwing players or creating windfalls for owners. But I wish there were more commentary on that half of the equation instead of just ignoring it, or, worse, pretending it is an acceptable handicap.
January 6, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I’m all for a MOOR-RAD Padres.
John Moores brought the Padres into the 21st century. He took us from small market/no new stadium to mid market with an epic stadium. Without his vision and money we San Diegans may not have a team. I hope this sale helps his future as well as the fans.
New blood=new ideas…
We can only hope for someone who cares about good baseball and has the finances to achieve it.
Here’s hoping for a More Rad Padres. That’s lame, I know.
Looking forward to 2009, 2010, 2011 and beyond. Anyone looking to buy a team must be excited to put their energetic stamp on the team. This means a winning focus. I doubt he wants to buy the team to make it worse and less valuable.
January 6, 2009 at 10:35 pm
#6@TJB: Only if one gets their vibe from guys like Sullivan and other pop/mass media outlets who make their living off of sensationalism and by catering to the ignorance of the masses. I know that sounds harsh, but there simply hasn’t been anything which has taken place with the Padres coming anywhere near a “fire sale,” imo.
#9@parlo: What Geoff said.
Trading Maddux and Wolf, both in the last year of their contracts, makes perfrect sense for a team out of contention. Letting Hoffman go hurts emotionally, but from a business perspective makes perfect sense; and it’s not entirely impossible he’ll be back. The FO has been letting people know for years that Greene was on his way out, if they had bothered to pay attention. Alderson has made no secret of his dislike for Khalil’s approach and everyone knows “Moneyball” is all about walks, which KG could not draw to save his life (I’m being somewhat facetious here, but this is the popular perception of Moneyball and even Joe Blow ought to be able to look at our FO and KG’s OBP and put two and two together).
Peavy was shopped, but is still on the roster. Hardly an example of a “fire sale.” In fact, if you look at it from a cold, hard business perspective, it again makes perfect sense. Jake is a very high profile player and very affordably controlled for almost any team; however, he is also a pitcher and, therefore, much more prone to breaking down or ending his career via catastrophic injury than a position player, like say Adrian Gonzalez (about whom I’ve never heard a word about being shopped around). Jake is also a guy who has lost a lot of time to injury already in his career who could bring a BIG return in trade. For a team looking to cut salary due to a difficult ownership situation, getting a great deal on a guy who could be done before his contract expires is well worth looking into.
Not only do I not see a “fire sale,” I don’t even see any smoke.
January 7, 2009 at 7:39 am
#16@Tom Waits: Regarding lack of fan support, it probably isn’t unreasonable but I find it incredibly demoralizing — much moreso than anything the team is doing. Part of this is because every day I have folks telling me that the Padres are crappy and beyond hope, which flies in the face of the research I’ve been conducting for the past several months.
The fact that people don’t want to hear the message seriously kills my desire to continue delivering it, if you catch my drift. It would be a good deal easier for me to shut the hell up and let folks believe what they want to believe.
#18@jay:
I’m uncomfortable with this assumption because it admits defeat before any games have been played. Once guys are on the field anything can happen. Heck, a team that looks like it should win 80+ games can go out and lose 99. I think 2009 will be difficult, although not as difficult as 2008, but assuming the ownership situation gets sorted out, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see this team be competitive in 2010.
No, but it does underscore the importance of having smart people run the show. Maybe it’s a flaw in the way I’m wired, but I just cannot bring myself to buy into the victim mentality. If I believed that the Padres (or any other team) were ill prepared to field a consistently competitive team, then I would probably just say thanks for the memories and go follow the Yankees or Red Sox. That’s not what baseball is about to me, though, and I’d rather see the Padres try to win with what they’ve got.
I realize that I’m in the extreme minority on this, and yes, that is very depressing to me. If you think it sucks to follow a team coming off a bad year, try following that team while feeling totally alienated from your fellow fans. Actually, don’t; you won’t like it.
January 7, 2009 at 9:53 am
John Sickels has his top twenty Padre prospects posted at Minor League Ball:
http://www.minorleagueball.com.....-top-20-pr
January 7, 2009 at 10:16 am
Looks like I was wrong in saying that Hoffman would be back here next season, it seems that he is going to choose between the Dodgers and the Brewers to be their closer.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/ne.....;type=lgns
Kind of baffling why either of those two teams would sign him as you can’t win in the playoffs with Hoffman as your closer. 2 seasons ago, the Padres tried and we know how that turned out:
http://www.baseball-reference......9290.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference......0010.shtml
January 7, 2009 at 10:29 am
#20@Pat: I am not debating the merits of each individual trade, or the contracts involved. From a public relations standpoint however, a great deal of talent has left the team in the past 6 months. It has been viewed as a cost cutting measure, and the FO has done very little to make fans believe otherwise.
I am sure you can look at the ‘93 Padres, or the ‘76 A’s, ‘98 Marlins etc, and justify each trade on an individual basis also. The perception however, is that the FO is thinking cost cutting first, and team performance second.
For many fans (not just the talk radio louts), that is terribly frustrating. And that does not even factor in that Mr Moores and the stadium have been taxpayer subsidized. Some great things occurred during his ownership, but in the end, people feel cheated.
IMO, they are entitled to feel so.
January 7, 2009 at 11:42 am
The Padres should look at the Tampa Bay Rays. Stick with your own and watch them grow into contenders, Eckstein? Vizquel? Are you kiddin’ me?
January 7, 2009 at 12:31 pm
#18@jay: The entire fire sale — trading Spicoli — has made the team stronger.
January 7, 2009 at 5:01 pm
#21@Geoff Young: People who think the Padres are hopeless should be smacked in the nose. On the flip side, people who think things are great need medical help.
On the planning horizon: You don’t want the team to quit prematurely, but you also don’t want them misjudging their window. A decision to increase competitiveness in 2009 could hurt badly in 2010-2013. It’s certainly possible for the team to compete in ‘10; it would have been possible for them to do it in ‘09 (and still is, with various miracles). But the front office should not bet stakes of any meaningful sort on long chances like winning in 2009.
January 7, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Off topic, but wow — Smoltz going to Red Sox:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3817694
January 7, 2009 at 11:05 pm
#24@parlo: “The perception however, is that the FO is thinking cost cutting first, and team performance second.”
And what is this perception based on? It must be based on either the individual transactions, the sum of those transactions, or the nonsense spouted by the popular media. Or am I missing something? What exactly has transpired to engender this perception?
Is there a problem with cutting costs during the season when a team is clearly out of contention and the players moved brought something in return whereas had they been retained the team still would have been out of contention and the players would have left as FA’s after the season costing money and bringing nothing in return?
Is there a problem with moving a player who has not only not progressed as a hitter but regressed and who seems to have some serious emotional issues with hitting in his home park? And, yes, I am aware it leaves a hole at SS, but all teams have holes to fill during the offseason.
Finally, why do people feel cheated and why do they have an entitlement to? Are four straight years of winning baseball and two playoff appearances in five years (in an absolutely gorgeous new park) not enough? This has been the greatest run in Padres franchise history. No other 5 year period even comes close. Even the Dick Williams era only had two winning seasons out of four, and the two big years in the 90’s are sandwiched between three 70-win seasons. Where does this sense of entitlement come from?
January 8, 2009 at 7:41 am
#26@Kevin: Don’t bogart that joint. Whatever’s in it is clearly a new hybrid akin to a cross of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia.
A goofy delivery reliever, even one with great numbers, is nowhere near as valuable as a starting shortstop. That was a dump, pure and simple, resulting in less on-field talent for the Padres.
January 8, 2009 at 8:02 am
#25@Jack from Boston: Break out the fungo bat and get Matt used to playing SS!
January 8, 2009 at 8:05 am
The Rays should not exactly be looked at as an example of running a major league team. Losing for 10 straight seasons in order to acquire top draft picks like Upton, Longoria, etc… is not an ideal situation.
Furthermore, we can all be thankful we’re not Pirates fans. On a side note….we averaged 10,000 more fans per game than Pittsburgh. Being competitive can’t be all that bad, can it?
January 8, 2009 at 8:26 am
#27@Tom Waits: That’s a lot of noses to smack. And yeah, I couldn’t agree more with you about ‘09.
#30@Tom Waits: The only way in which the trade helps the Padres on-field product is if it ultimately allows them to keep Peavy.
#32@BobbyV: The Twins are a better model for the Padres, and it seems they are attempting to follow many of the same strategies, e.g., an emphasis on pitchers that throw strikes.
January 8, 2009 at 8:41 am
#33@Geoff Young: I never really bought that the Greene trade would allow the team to keep Peavy (and I believe they said that it would let them start the season with Peavy) I think what scared Moores about Peavy’s contract was the back end; who knew at the time how long it would take to sell the team and I don’t think they could afford to shell out $17mil to one player when their payroll was projected to be around $40 to $50 mil. I think if they do keep Peavy it will have more to do with the new ownership group providing financial stability than it will have to do with the $6 mil they saved for one year by trading Greenie.
January 8, 2009 at 9:02 am
#33@Geoff Young: Yeah, if trading Greene helps them keep Peavy, that’s the right move. But Peavy was on the team last year. We didn’t get stronger; we got weaker at one key position in order to retain strength elsewhere.
BTW, Hoffman’s a Brewer.
January 8, 2009 at 9:08 am
It’s official — Trevor is a Brewer:
http://sandiego.padres.mlb.com.....mp;c_id=sd
January 8, 2009 at 9:23 am
#35@Tom Waits: Sucks about Hoffman. I always wanted to get to a game once before he retired.
I guess on the bright side, Milwaukee is half a country closer, but it’s not the same.
January 8, 2009 at 9:25 am
#29@Pat: As I stated earlier, I am not debating the merits of each individual trade. I can certainly understand the team wanting to cut ties with Hoffman and Greene.
I think the problem is that the FO is looking to replace Greene with 42 year old Omar Vizquel. And yes, you are right,…lots of teams have holes to fill in the off-season. The frustration for many fans is that the FO seems to be spending their time creating more holes, instead of filling holes.
I don’t think blaming the media, or accusing people of having an entitlement mentality is really the way to go. That is just a counterweight to the people screaming obscenities at the FO.
If there is a youth movement or rebuilding plan in place, then the FO should try to do a better job at getting their message out.
Until then, I can certainly sympathize with fans who are frustrated.
PS:I haven’t been on here in awhile- where’s turbine dude?
January 8, 2009 at 10:06 am
I have no problem with the Chargers because they have the best talent in football, but are just underachieving. The Pads have very little talent year to year and occasionally overachieve. Has there ever been a year where they have been picked to even compete for the playoffs?
MLB is broken. I don’t consider it a legit sports league anymore as the payroll discrepancies make it unwatchable.
January 8, 2009 at 11:37 am
#30@Tom Waits: I don’t smoke.
It helped the team because replacing Greene’s production should be easy. Now the Padres may be testing that theory with some of the shorstops they are talking about, but losing Greene’s production shouldn’t be an issue, whether he was making $50 a year or $50 million.
And the team didn’t want him long term.
And his stock was really low.
January 8, 2009 at 11:46 am
I’m a Brewer, too.
January 8, 2009 at 11:49 am
#35@Tom Waits: Did they get weaker at SS? Certainly they are probably going to be weaker at SS in 2009 than they were from 2004-2007, but will they be worse than they were last season? The Padres SS’s hit 244/291/348 with a 78 OPS+ last season, ahead of only the Cardinals, Pirates and Giants. I don’t think that signing Vizquel is the answer but it shouldn’t be hard to replace what Khalil did last season. Everyone is assuming that trading Khalil was a straight salary dump but it’s certainly possible that he’s done and using pretty much anyone (for a league minimum salary) is going to be better. Odd that the Cardinals had worse hitting shortstops last season and they acquire one that was just as bad as the ones they had last season, isn’t it?
January 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm
This has been horrible to watch, not just for Greene and Hoffman going, but what it says about the intermediate payroll goals for this club. It appears that the FO is doing the best they can given a very severe payroll target number given to them. Given that number, they are making decisions, probably a lot more shrewdly than any of us could do. So I cannot really blame the FO, aside from communication.
But, how in the world is a fan supposed to like it? We have given away a starting SS, albeit one with flaws but many strengths, without a really viable replacement. In addition, when I see Burrell, Bradley and others sign at modest prices, this is not the case of FO sitting back in an over-priced FA market.
Just imagine if we traded KK (Headley to 3B) for 2B and/or pitching, kept Greene, signed Burrell. We would have a hole a catcher, maybe 3/4 starter and maybe some relief, but I honestly believe that would give us a chance in the West. And that would not cost a staggering amount.
Instead, we are being asked to wait for the farm to develop (wait for cheaper talent) preferably dumping Peavy for prospects, but we have not had a great farm record, so why do we believe that is going to save us?
Arizona, Tampa and presumably Oakland have been the only teams to compete almost exclusively on farm talent. Tampa had a lot of high picks to accumulate, Arizona has stepped back and Oakland is in a rebuilding mode. So even the best have an inconsistent record. What about all the other franchises trying to do the same thing but failing? We have a better FO than most, and am grateful for that, but there is little lining in this dark cloud for me.
January 8, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I thank Hoffman for all he’s done with the Padres and wish him the best with the Brewers.
However, I don’t see this as a good move on his part. Moving to NL Central with smaller ballparks and better hitters won’t translate well for his numbers. Yes, his peripherals are still healthy but he’s basically an average pitcher now. I expect the Hoffman experience for the Brewers to result in similar ones to the Todd Jones experiences were for the Tigers.
And I hope I’m wrong, and he’ll be better than that.
January 8, 2009 at 10:02 pm
#38@parlo: What do you believe the perception that cost cutting is being placed over performance is based on? Going back to your original post #9 you specifically cited four personnel moves. If you’re not debating the merits of those moves and their contribution to a perception the FO is placing cost cutting over performance, what are you trying to say? Are you saying it’s all based on moving Greene?
I did not accuse anyone “of having an entitlement mentality.” You said people feel cheated and you believe they are “entitled to feel so.” Why are they so entitled?
I am saying this is an irrational perception, without solid basis, based largely on a hyperbolic media who makes its living on sensationalism and pandering to the ill informed (controversy and hype sells, and if there isn’t any, create some). If one cannot look beyond a trade of one player, who is certainly problematic at best and, perhaps, fatally flawed in his home park at worst, to see the Padres have just come off of the most successful 5 year period in their rather brief MLB history and see no one has been cheated, one is simply not being reasonable, imo.
And if one cannot be patient enough to wait until at least the start of Spring Training to judge whether performance has been significantly sacrificed for payroll concerns, I believe one is being too rash.
January 9, 2009 at 6:25 am
#42@Schlom: Given his age, it’s unlikely that Khalil is done; that said, it does happen. Angel Berroa immediately jumps to mind.
#43@jay: Add the Twins and Indians to the list of teams that have enjoyed a fair measure of success developing from within. Also, the Pads’ lack of past great farm record has little bearing on the current state of the system, which is solid average and improving. There aren’t any real franchise players, but there are several guys who could make an impact within the next few years. The past few drafts are looking good so far, as is the investment the club has made in tapping the international market.
#44@Didi: I’ll have a post about Hoffy up on Monday, but yeah, I have a bad feeling about this for him.
#45@Pat:
In the shameless plug department, there will be a 20-page chapter on this very subject in the book. As for why folks are entitled to feel cheated, that is the by-product of a free society. Everyone gets to form and express their own opinion. It is our greatest strength and also our greatest weakness.
January 9, 2009 at 7:32 am
#40@Kevin: Then you must be a serious drinker. Replacing what Greene did in 2008 shouldn’t be that hard, although we’ve thought that about 2b and 3b in the past and been smacked in the face by reality. Greene is far more likely to be the player he was from 04 to 07 than he was in 08.
The team not wanting him long-term and his value being low have nothing to do with what he could contribute to the 2009 team compared to Worrell. There’s no way that trade made the team stronger. In fact, the last two statements in your post point that out. The team not wanting him and selling him low aren’t points in favor of the trade; they help explain why the team got such a low return.
#42@Schlom: What Greene did last year isn’t what he’s going to do this year. It’s not odd that the Cardinals snapped him up, it’s smart. It’s the same thing the Padres did with Agon, Chris Young, Heath Bell, and some others…buy when the other team is down on a player even though there are good reasons to believe the player is better than that. As GY said, Greene “could” be done. But it’s very unusual for a player to be washed up at age 29 after posting solid numbers 4 of the past 5 years.
January 9, 2009 at 7:38 am
#45@Pat: -”What do you believe the perception that cost cutting is being placed over performance is based on?”
That’s easy…the amount of talent that has left the team vs. the amount of talent that has been acquired by the team. The number of holes on the roster one year ago vs the number of holes on the team right now.
-”Why are they so entitled” to feel cheated?
Every fan makes an emotional investment in their team. The FO has done a very poor job in disclosing what their actual intent is, other than cutting salary. Also, despite the team falling on hard times, Mr Moores will still walk away with several hundred million dollars in taxpayer subsidized profit. In this political and economic environment, a certain amount of cynicism about the finances is understandable.
Also, I am not buying your line that anyone who disagrees with you is “ill informed” and being “manipulated” by a “pandering media”. I don’t listen to talk radio and I don’t read tabloids. Besides, you seem to be following the same playbook as talk radio, by portraying anyone who disagrees with you as some “ill informed” know-nothing.
No Thanks!
January 9, 2009 at 7:51 am
#45@Pat: On the other hand, if you’re counting on spring training to tell you much of value, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.
#46@Geoff Young: The farm system being “solid average” after four drafts of the New Regime is not that encouraging. I’ve seen people trumpeting John Sickels overview of the Padre system — never have the words “not as bad as people say” been stretched so far out of shape. When your top prospects each year are drawn heavily from the last year’s draft, that’s not a good thing. It means that there’s been a lack of progress by many players drafted in previous years, and The Hot New Things have passed them by. In turn, those Hot New Things have consistently been passed by Next Year’s Models.
When independent evaluators rank farm systems, the consensus will place the Padres between 15 and 20, probably closer to 20. That’s really not that much progress after 4 drafts, especially with as many extra picks as we accumulated. And people who made much ado about BA ranking them 12th last season will say that BA (and the other serious prospect evaluators) don’t know what they’re doing.
January 9, 2009 at 10:34 am
RIP Dave Roberts.
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/030625.php
January 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm
#46@Geoff Young: As Branch Rickey said, it’s much better to get rid of a player a year too early than a year too late. Plus with Khalil’s nearly non-existent plate discipline I wouldn’t exactly think he’d be the type of player that’s going to age well.
Lost in all the Trevor backlash (along with the reported Fire Sale) is that the Padres have been entirely quiet about their 3B/LF plans next season. Logically, the Padres would trade Kouzmanoff, move Headley to 3B, and go into the season with a Gerut, Venable, Giles and Hairston OF. Maybe he’ll be traded closer to spring training?
One final thing on the Hoffman departure. Trevor isn’t really good enough to be a closer on a good team (odd that the Brewers would sign him but I guess he might be better than Gagne) His main value to the Padres was in remembering the past when he was a dominate closer. I understand that role has some value, I’m sure there are some fans who go to the games simply for the chance to hear “Hell’s Bells” in the middle of the ninth inning.
January 9, 2009 at 11:47 pm
#43@jay: I think it is clear Greene is more than slightly flawed, particularly in Petco, and his “many strengths” are two: plus defense and plus power for a SS. I believe, and the FO seems to believe, his flaws, which are indeed many (can’t hit for average, can’t draw a walk, can’t adjust to the breaking ball, declining plate discipline, declining BB rate, increasing K rate, apparent lack of mental/emotional ability to adjust to hitting in Petco), outweigh his strengths.
I think there’s good reason Burrell and Bradley weren’t pursued by the Padres. Why give an aging slugger wtih terrible LF defense, better suited to being in the AL where he can DH, a contract to play in a Park which places a premium on OF defense? Why give a fragile, both emotionally and physically, player a contract when you are likely to get similar production, much more cheaply and for a longer period of time, from Chase Headley? I also find it very hard to believe Burrell, whatever we could get for Kouz and keeping Greene would make the difference in taking us from worst to first. That really seems like a stretch.
Everyone has to make up their own mind about whether to “believe” in the farm system/FO, but given the current market conditions in MLB, it is the only long term, viable method for competing in the SD market. There is no way for the team to compete on the model of Boston, NY, Chicago who buy talent via FA.
#46@Geoff Young: Well, I should credit you for highlighting the issue for me. I don’t think it was an original thought on my part at all, but rather developed from reading Ducksnorts over the past several years. So plug away, you deserve it1
January 10, 2009 at 2:57 pm
#47@Tom Waits: If these are jokes, they sure are falling flat.
I don’t smoke, and I probably have a few beers a year.
January 10, 2009 at 10:17 pm
#48@parlo: Can you be more specific about the talent? It’s not as if Maddux would have been back; Wolf is certainly no great loss; I’ll take Bell over Hoffman from a purely performance point of view; and we don’t yet know who will replace Greene.
So what are the holes now and what were they a year ago?
Thanks for explaining the perspective on feeling cheated. I won’t argue with you about that. I have no idea whether it is well founded or not, but regardless, as you point out, it’s an emotional issue so it doesn’t have to be rational.
I think you overstate my position with regards to anyone who disagrees with me, but I do require rational argument and factual support for one’s position to be persuaded. I haven’t seen that in discussions of the team’s performance nor in relationship to the roster moves we’ve been discussing.
January 10, 2009 at 10:23 pm
#49@Tom Waits: “On the other hand, if you’re counting on spring training to tell you much of value, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.”
You misunderstood me. It’s not that ST will tell you anything from a performance perspective, but it will at least tell you who is going to replace Greene. Speculating at this point that it will be Vizquel I believe is rather premature. This is what I was saying.
January 12, 2009 at 7:06 am
#53@Kevin: So without drugs or alcohol, you believe that trading an above-average defensive shortstop who is likely to be a league-average hitter, which is an uncommon combination, for a minor league reliever whose success is largely based on a weird delivery “makes the team stronger.”
That doesn’t require any further comment.
January 12, 2009 at 2:19 pm
#56@Tom Waits: So if you disagree with someone, especially if you really disagree with them, then they are on drugs or alcohol.
That doesn’t require any further comment.
Attack positions, not people.
January 12, 2009 at 2:43 pm
#56@Tom Waits: #57@Kevin: This conversation is done. Thanks.
February 6, 2009 at 11:43 pm
PEAVY NEEDS TO STAY, we cannot trade Jake now that Moorad has taken over. I used to think that Jake needed to go for a package prospect deal, but let’s keep him for this year at least to see how things pan out. If Moorad is willing to buy the Pads now in this economy, then he must be sitting comfortably at least, eh? So why not believe this turnaround might come sooner than expected?