Comments on: Moorad to Buy Padres?

By: mato

mato — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 07:43:41 +0000

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?

By: Geoff Young

Geoff Young — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:43:07 +0000

#56@Tom Waits: #57@Kevin: This conversation is done. Thanks.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:19:12 +0000

#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.

By: Tom Waits

Tom Waits — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:06:08 +0000

#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.

By: Pat

Pat — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:23:39 +0000

#49@Tom Waits: "On the other hand, if youâ€™re counting on spring training to tell you much of value, youâ€™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.

By: Pat

Pat — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:17:04 +0000

#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.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:57:38 +0000

#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.

By: Pat

Pat — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:47:46 +0000

#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

By: Schlom

Schlom — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:56:07 +0000

#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.

By: Didi

Didi — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:34:39 +0000

RIP Dave Roberts.

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/030625.php