As noted in the comments yesterday, the Padres have traded C Humberto Quintero to the Astros for RHP Tim Redding. I’ll preface this by saying I’m a big fan of Quintero. I love his hustle and enthusiasm. And I love that he was able to have such uncanny success against Randy Johnson last year. But here’s the thing about Quintero. He’s 26 years old and until last season, he never really hit much. Check out Q’s OPS at every minor league stop where he’s had 100+ plate appearances:
Age Lvl AB OPS 20 R 155 676 21 A 248 589 22 A 197 651 22 A+ 154 547 23 A+ 160 459 23 AA 125 614 24 AA 386 732 25 AAA 259 819
For his minor-league career, he’s hitting .271/.316/.348 in just over 1800 at-bats. A little perspective is in order here, in the form of Gary Bennett and Mike Matheny:
AB BA OBP SLG
Quintero 1812 .271 .316 .348
Bennett 2245 .250 .319 .362
Matheny 1193 .246 .304 .354
Here is how their respective minor-league numbers look per 500 at-bats:
AB H 2B 3B HR BB SO
Quintero 500 135 26 2 3 22 54
Bennett 500 125 24 1 10 46 78
Matheny 500 123 27 2 8 38 113
I guess it’s possible that Quintero could develop into a starting catcher based on his defensive skills, a la Matheny, but it seems more likely that he’ll be a career backup. Given that the Padres have two superior options at the big-league level in Ramon Hernandez and Miguel Ojeda, and that one of their best position prospects, George Kottaras, is a catcher, Quintero was pretty expendable.
As for Redding, I’ve seen him compared to Darrell May on the basis of a poor 2004, but there are a few obvious differences:
- May is 33, Redding is 27
- May is lefty, Redding is a righty
- May throws in the mid-80s, Redding throws in the mid-90s
Redding had a very nice 2003 season at age 25 and looked poised to take the next step. It didn’t happen, and now he finds himself in San Diego with a new opportunity. Redding may or may not turn out be a useful part, but he’s an excellent gamble. The guy has stuff, he’s young, he has pedigree, and he’s had some success at the big-league level. Check out his minor-league numbers:
IP H/9 BB/9 SO/9 554.0 6.82 4.45 10.80
As recently as 2001, Redding was considered by many to be a top-notch prospect. A few excerpts:
From Baseball America’s 2001 Prospect Handbook:
Managers rated Redding’s fastball the best in the FSL. He repeatedly hits the mid-90s, and he’s capable of touching 98 mph with a four-seamer that rides or getting filthy sink with a two-seamer. His power curveball can be unhittable, and at times his changeup is above-average.
From John Sickels’ 2001 Minor League Scouting Notebook:
Redding was a 20th-round draft pick in 1997, but he has a 95-MPH fastball, a hard slurve and sharp control. All of his ratios were strong: K/BB +51 percent, K/IP +44 percent, H/IP +19 percent… Grade B+
From Baseball Prospectus 2001:
Redding vaulted into prospect status after he was moved to the bullpen in mid-1999, though the Astros made the unconventional move of putting him back in the rotation in 2000. He was phenomenal, finishing third in the minors with 192 strikeouts. His control needs work, and he probably needs another year in the minors, which the Astros will happily give him. He should be on all the prospect lists in 2002.
Redding’s big-league comps are an interesting mix and probably represent his upside (Carl Pavano, Billy Swift), his downside (Jack Armstrong, Ken Dixon), and something in between (Bob Walk). Personally I look at him as a poor-man’s Adam Eaton: a kid with talent who hasn’t quite figured out what to do with it yet. Redding could flame out and be nothing. But he also could be an adjustment or two away from turning into a mid-rotation starter. [Update: I neglected to give my good friend Medea's Child credit for planting this seed in my head.] He’s a better gamble than Jaret Wright was in 2003. And at what cost: a catcher in the Bennett/Matheny mold? I like Quintero, but this is a deal you make every time. Even if Redding doesn’t pan out for the Padres, he at least has a chance to contribute in a meaningful way, which is more than Quintero likely would have gotten in San Diego.
Geez, am I looking at this trade way too closely or what?
Other reactions:
- Baseball Babble thinks the deal helps both clubs but isnt too excited for either side.
- Peter at Padres RunDown isn’t real thrilled from the Padres perspective. He views Redding more as a journeyman than a potential up-and-comer. Fair enough. It’s entirely possible that I’m seeing things in Redding that simply aren’t there. Wouldn’t be the first time.
“But he also could be an adjustment or two away from turning into a mid-rotation starter.”
Sounds vaguely familiar.
I wonder who’ll end up with Matt Riley, and what he’ll be traded for. Even more upside and risk than Redding. Not sure who I’d rather have.
Regarding your comparison to May and Redding. Redding is younger, and throws with a different arm, plus harder. I’m not so sure that translates into a better pitcher. ERA+ the last four years:
Year May Redding
2001 87 83
2002 96 79
2003 135 120
2004 79 75
Outside of two blips in ’03, both have been pretty below average pitchers, but May’s been more towards the mean than Redding each season.
Redding, as a starter, lasted only a touch over 5 innings a start last year. That doesn’t bode well with our other guys who tend to struggle to get past the 6th.
I’m not upset with this trade, we dealt from strength and addressed a weakness. I’ve seen Redding compared to Eaton as much as compared to May.
I’d guess he’ll fall somewhere in between. But gambling on a change of scenery was a smart move on Towers’ part.
“Even when (Valdez) was here and winning games, he wasn’t very good.” Huh? We’d be better off with the best losing pitcher instead of a bad winning pitcher? This confounds me.
Moreover, Valdez was precisely the kind of guy you seem to like for this role — cheap ($800K), mediocre and a cast-off from one or more organizations. Finally one of these needles in the haystack outperforms expectations (NINE wins at the Break) and that’s not good enough?
Brian: No, we’d be better off with a good pitcher. Valdez was not a good pitcher. He was a bad pitcher (5.53 ERA) who benefitted from strong run support (can’t find the exact number). Put a good pitcher in his place with the same kind of support and he does better than 9-6.
Furthermore, I don’t ever like mediocre pitchers in the rotation. Cheap, yes. Castoff from other organizations, maybe. Mediocre, no.
Bottom line: Valdez was lucky last year, not good. Let’s not confuse the two.
Upon rereading, I realized that my note comes across as a slam on you, which was most definitely not what I was intending. Sorry.
My point was that, lucky or not, bad or not, he won his starts. I don’t care if he got 78 runs per game behind him. When he started, they won a lot. Or, at least, they won far more frequently than could have been reasonably anticipated. Then they traded him without even a marginal replacement. And, in fact, EIGHT months later, they mind-blowingly still don’t have one.
With Ish, nine wins from the #5 starter (don’t know how many more team wins). Post Ish, zero wins from the #5 starter (don’t know how few team wins). Was this seemingly obvious hole in the team adequately addressed this Winter? We’ll see soon enough but all indications are that they were not.
Brian: No worries, I didn’t take your comments as a slam on me personally. Debate is a good thing, and I’m glad to see that people actually give a damn about these guys.
You’re right that the Padres did get results with Valdez. I do share your concerns about the #5 spot this year, but they are mitigated somewhat by the presence of Ashby, Germano, Stauffer, and now Redding. If that group (or some facsimile thereof) gets 30 or so starts this season, the Padres should be able to win 12-18 of them. That’s not great, but if the front of the rotation does its job, we don’t need great; we just need good.
Redding alone gives us a chance to be better at #5 than Valdez was. It may or may not happen, but at least he’s a worthwhile gamble.
Hey Jeff: Glad to see you over here! Geez, I hadn’t realized May’s 2003 was that good. I pretty much agree with your points. Redding may not turn out to be much, but at least he’s got a chance. It’s nice to see Towers trying for lighting in a bottle instead of another veteran retread.
In Portland, naturally, we’re disappointed in this deal.
As far as how it trickles down to us – Michel Hernandez looks like the #1 guy right now. My guess would also have Nick Trzesniak on the Beavers roster. Trzesniak has struggled with the bat at nearly every stop in his minor league career and, though he’s only 24, with Kottaras right behind him, time is running short for Nick to establish himself.
One little tidbit concerning Trzesniak – other than being the last pick in the 1st round of the 1999 draft, anyone know who was selected immediately after him?
If you said Carl Crawford, you’d be 100% correct.
Just something I found interesting.
Brian G.–
“My point was that, lucky or not, bad or not, he won his starts. I don’t care if he got 78 runs per game behind him. When he started, they won a lot. Or, at least, they won far more frequently than could have been reasonably anticipated.”
Ismael Valdez did not win his starts, the Padres did. The Win stat is so misleading that I recommend you just ignore it altogether…don’t fabricate meaning from it the way the mainstream media does. Look at how Valdez pitched and leave it at that…he pitched badly. His replacements also pitched badly…the only difference is the run support.
Jonathan: Good to hear from you! Yeah, sometimes we forget about the trickle-down effect. I think Hernandez won’t be much, if any worse, than Quintero would have been, but we know that Q was fun to watch. As for Trzeniak, that’s a guy I thought might turn into something once upon a time. The attrition rate for catching prospects is just astounding. And Carl Crawford would look real nice in a Padre uni right about now.
Eric,
You’re suggesting that they scored 78 runs/game for the #5 guy when it was Valdez, then they suddenly, inexplicably stopped scoring all together when he left for Florida?
I don’t deny he was horrible but somehow they won when he pitched and that’s all that matters. I agree that individual wins can be misleading, but it’s applied equally across all pitchers. The fact remains that the #5 spot won when he was out there and it most definitely didn’t after he was traded. (I can’t believe I’m coming off as some kind of Ismael Valdez groupie.)
My larger point, however, was that this glaring hole in the rotation remains a glaring hole eight months (or longer for those of you dissatisfied with Valdez winning too often) after the trade. Can you imagine a GM from a team that wins, like John Schurholtz or Billy Beane, going that long without making a single move to solidify the position? The Darrell May trade was more about unloading Terrence Long than it was about getting anything in return. Stauffer and Germano are projected as middle- to end-of-the-rotation at best and are not ready to step in. Ashby and Redding are trying/hoping to put their careers back together… This is the plan?
A similar debate is going on at the Fanstop Padres Message board (not the first time), and a good poster there summed up my thoughts pretty well…I’m sure he won’t mind me reposting:
“I am curious how many wins Valdez would have managed had the offense been asleep in his starts like they were after the trade. Valdez made 20 starts for the Pads while we scored on average 6.3 runs in those starts. After his departure Germano, Sweeney, and Tankersley ac#####ed for 13 starts, in those starts the Padres managed to score on average 1.9 runs a game. If our offense would have average 1.9 runs a game in Valdez’s starts how many wins would Ismael have managed with his 5.53 era? I’d guess 2, out of 20 starts I’d say Valdez would have won 2 of them if the padres managed to score only 1.9 runs in his starts. You’re giving credit to Valdes when you should be giving it to the strong offense that carried his gimp ass!” –Chase
How can you just “not care” if he was bad, lucky, or how much run support he got and just trust the win stat blindly?
Aside from all this, I agree with your larger point. Valdez is not a big deal, and his name is not worth this much mention…but I have a larger point too…I hate the win stat. It’s worse than rbis.