Blogging the San Diego Padres… established 1997

Late last week talks broke down between the Padres and shortstop Khalil Greene. The Padres control Greene through 2009 but are interested in pursuing a long-term deal with him.

According to the U-T, the club offered a 3- or 4-year deal (no money disclosed) without success, and the two sides now have exchanged salary arbitration figures. Quoth GM Kevin Towers:

A long-term contract with Khalil at this time is probably doubtful. I don’t know, it might not be able to get done. Khalil’s family is on the East Coast and I think there are some health concerns.

With Khalil, it might have nothing to do with the money. It might be family.

First off, it’s tempting to doubt the veracity of “nothing to do with the money,” but considering that it came from Towers, and not Greene’s camp, I’m inclined to believe it. Towers gains nothing by employing the phrase.

Towers also knows Greene better than you or I do. Even then, his use of the word “might” serves as a good reminder that none of us really understands what motivates Greene (or anyone else, for that matter).

Sure, we might jump at more money and scoff at those who claim they wouldn’t, but this speaks more to our own desires than to the situation at hand. Not everyone thinks along those lines. Ask Tony Gwynn, who could’ve profited greatly by leaving San Diego.

Anyway, Corey Brock adds a few thoughts of his own and asks a tough question:

Do you trade Greene after the season rather than head into the last season that he’s under club control? He’s coming off a huge year at the plate, he’s very good defensively and his trade value is through the roof right now and, at 28, he’s in the prime of his career.

Two quick points:

1. The Padres worked out a long-term deal with Adrian Gonzalez shortly after they renewed him for 2007. Yes, Gonzalez is a local product who may have had additional incentive to stick around San Diego for awhile, but from an outsider’s perspective, I find it a bit premature to dismiss the possibility of both sides reaching a deal at some point. This doesn’t mean it will happen, of course, just that we (and more importantly, the Padres) shouldn’t assume that it won’t.
2. I’m not certain that Greene’s trade value is “through the roof” right now. Petco Park creates a tremendous drag on his overall offensive numbers and it’s possible that this could affect his value in any potential trades the Padres might wish to explore.

I’ve been thinking about this. A lot. Here are a couple excerpts from the upcoming Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual:

At some point, Greene and the Padres need to make a decision. For Greene, the key questions will be how much he values money and prestige. The fact that San Diego is a mid-market town in a part of the country that isn’t well represented by national media affects everyone; Greene faces the additional challenge of having his offensive skill set largely neutralized by Petco Park.

…

Are the Padres willing to pay top dollar for a player who may not be able to reach his full potential playing at Petco Park? Does it make sense for them to do so? Is Greene willing to forego greater fortune and fame by remaining in such an environment?

These are difficult questions to answer. Greene is the best shortstop in club history, but Petco kills his game. This hurts both player and team.

Another question is this: If the Padres move Greene, how do they replace him? Drew Cumberland is the best internal hope, but he’s light years away.

The list of potentially available short-term replacements underwhelms. Pittsburgh’s Jack Wilson (yawn) probably is the best of the lot. Only problem is that he has a good year about every three or four seasons, and he just had one.

I think the more fundamental issue is that “we can’t sign this guy to a long-term deal” doesn’t fit into my concept of good reasons to make a trade. It’s ahead of “I’m bored” but way behind “we have a chance to improve the club.”

For all Greene’s faults, if the Padres deal him, they will downgrade the shortstop position. The players who are likely to be better than him over the next 3-4 years (Hanley Ramirez, Troy Tulowitzki, Johnny Peralta, Jimmy Rollins, J.J. Hardy, Jose Reyes) aren’t available in trade.

For the club to take a loss at shortstop — a key position, and one that has haunted the Padres for years (for instance, I have Damian Jackson at #6 all time) — they would need to make gains elsewhere. Pitching and center field seem to be the logical choices, but good luck finding anyone willing to trade impact players at those positions.

Could the Padres trade Greene? Sure, it’s possible. But there shouldn’t be any sense of urgency to it. Greene plays a premium defensive position, is in his physical prime, will be paid well below market value for the next two years, and will net the Padres a draft pick if he leaves via free agency.

The Padres should be more concerned with procuring talent than with giving it away. If they can move Greene for something that fills a need and provides value going forward, great, but what that “something” is must be identified before proceeding.

In other words, we’re asking the wrong question. Or at least, we’re framing it the wrong way. “Should the Padres trade Greene?” No. “Should the Padres seek to add talent, possibly using Greene to acquire it?” Well, maybe.

In vacuo, getting rid of Greene creates more problems than it solves. Hopefully the two sides can continue working toward a mutually beneficial agreement and get something done a la Gonzalez. Otherwise we’ll just enjoy the remainder of Greene’s stay in San Diego and hope that whoever succeeds him will be an improvement over Ricky Gutierrez, Andujar Cedeno, Chris Gomez, Damian Jackson, D’Angelo Jimenez, Deivi Cruz, and Ramon Vazquez.