Isn't Jake Peavy distracted enough?

by Dex on Aug 20, 2007 8:58 AM PDT in News

I just thought I'd give my rambling thoughts on the discussions happening in the diaries on Jake Peavy. Personally, I don't think pitchers are worth it. Jake has a lot of heart and a lot of talent, but if there's two things that we know about him:

He doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. (See "Get me a real cop" incident)
He doesn't know when to speak up and say something. (See incidents: "I don't have a broken rib" and "My eyes see just fine")

This is obviously situation 1. I hate when baseball players talk about what's "fair". Sorry, Jake. If what was fair was fair, then Chris Young would be getting at least the millions that you're getting this season instead of making a fraction of what Barret or Macowiack are making. Maybe for the sake of faireness, Jake would like to send over a couple million to CY for holding up his end of the deal?

To me, this stinks of a prelude to what happened with Adam Eaton. See, when baseball players want "fair market price", they actually mean that they want $14+ million a year. That's what that means. Don't forget that there was a time when Padres fans saw Peavy and Eaton as being the "Two Aces" of the future. As soon as Eaton saw that the wheels were coming off, he started demanding "fair market price" and was quickly left with his ass kicked to the curb to see if "fair market price" would be paid by some other sucker.

The way I figure it, Jake Peavy is valuable in two ways. The first being how much he contributes to the team's winning. The second being how enjoyable he is to watch. To the Padres upper managemet, both of those things will eventually equate to a certain amount of money, either through ticket sales, merchandise or sponsorship. The way I also see it, the Padres aren't in the business of making stupid moves because San Diego fans aren't in the business of just showing up to games no matter what happens.

The Padres will have to decide how much Jake's worth soon. Santana will be making about 25% of the Twins total payroll with his new deal. To me, for a player to be worth that, he has to be responsible for either 25% of the teams total wins, or 25% of the team's total draw at the gates. Now, since a starter only pitches once every five days and the Padres average a little over 30k a game, by my calculations, Peavy has to draw about 38k fans to each of his starts. Doing a quick analysis (I'll try and do a more proper one a little later), whether or not Jake starts has a very minor effect on whether or not people show up to the park. Remember Dontrelle Willis a couple years ago? That's not what's happening here.

As far as wins go, the Padres are currently on pace for 90. Let's pretend that they actually get to 92. I know that I've said that wins aren't any way to measure a pitcher, but will Jake have pitched well enough that he's the equivalent of 23 wins this season?

If I were to keep my crazy baseball blogger hat on and kinda take a glance at my Sports MBA hat, I'd place Jake's value to the Padres at $11.74 million. That's the very most I can see the Padres dishing out for him. If he wants to help out his cause, he needs to become more famous. There's a fascinating cycle that goes on. Why is Greg Maddux the highest paid Padre? Is it because of his current skills? Hardly. It's because he can affect a certain amount of wins and he gets people to show up at the gate.

If Padres fans really want Jake in 2010 then it's on us to do something. I guarantee you that if Jake manages to sell out a Tuesday night game, he'll see the money that he wants. Until then, I really want people to quit distracting him with this petty crap. We've got a postseason to go after.

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

On Maddux..

I don't think Maddux is the highest paid Padre because he puts fans in the seats. I mean, at this point, people may desire to see him once more before he retires, but I don't think anyone gets pumped up for a Greg Maddux start.

I think the problem with your analysis is that you are determining a "fair" salary based on what he produces, revenue-wise, for the club. From a business perspective, that's a logical approach, but there are many variables that get left out...

A more fair way to figure out a "fair" salary, would be to figure the average salary for an MLB starting pitcher. Then figure the standard deviation for that salary. Then Figure out how many standard deviations better than that average pitcher Jake really is, and apply those, in salary terms, to Jake.

I tried to do it myself, but the I could find a good database of player salaries -- one that wouldn't take too much work.

by pjbno4 on Aug 20, 2007 10:18 AM PDT reply actions

Business perspective

At the end of the day, isn't that all that matters when you're trying to answer the question, Is he worth it? Also, I know that Maddux has a lot going for him in terms of being a leader and being a solid #3, but realistically, the only reason he's getting paid as much as he is is for name value. The average "die-hard" Padres fan would have a had fits if the Padres didn't sign somebody with some name recognition. Think about the stuff you read in the UT and realize that a very high number of fans take it as gospel. We complain about the Padres not "doing" anything to improve their chances. Well, signing a guy like Maddux, even at the tail end of his career, went a long way towards quieting some of those critics and it's all because of his name recognition.

by Dex on Aug 20, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions

11 mil?

no way is that going to cut it. and you even link to another article with nate silver's MORP that has him at 17mil+. all that matters is what other clubs are willing to pay for him. that determines his value.

by gofriarsgo on Aug 20, 2007 10:55 AM PDT reply actions

I was figuring his value to the padres

No way he's worth $17 million to the Padres. I was saying that the Padres likely see his value between $11 and $12 million. I agree that market value will be much higher.

by Dex on Aug 20, 2007 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions

value is king.

Though I have no data whatsoever to back up this thought, I might contend that starting pitchers who generate their own salary in revenue are very scarce.

Let's say we have two options:

A) Pay jake 17M even though he only generates 11M, for a net loss of 6M.

B) Pay a miscellaneous starting pitcher 7M, even though he might only generate 1M, for a net loss of 6M.

In each case the value proposition is the same. And of course, I might argue that maintaining team success generates more ancillary revenue (tv contracts, increased fan base, etc) than being very good one year, then mediocre the next.

by pjbno4 on Aug 20, 2007 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions

you wont have much of a roster...

using your method. basically becasue the dosgers or someone else would always pay more than the only players worth it for the padres to pay the salary of would be prospects that havent yet hit FA. then you'd look an awful lot like the marlins or devil rays. good luck with that business plan.

by gofriarsgo on Aug 20, 2007 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions

Marlins

have won two world series =/

by osbug on Aug 20, 2007 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions

old marlins

who spent a lot on payroll. not the current marlins who are in stadium limbo.

by gofriarsgo on Aug 21, 2007 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Jake

First off, I understand why Bill Center asked Jake the question. Zambrano and Jake are pretty similar...age, stats, etc. If Center hadn't asked the question, someone else would have. It was inevitable. These guys need to sell papers. Their job is to get a story, not worry about team chemistry. Not saying its right, I'm just saying that's the deal.

The problem, as Dex stated above, was Jake's response. A simple "Look, I've spent my whole career with the San Diego Padres...during that time, the Moores family and Kevin Towers have always treated me fairly and respectfully. I would expect nothing different in any future negotiations." End of story.

What pisses me off about this is that it takes the focus off of what's most important. The last few weeks have been hard on everyone associated with this team. We all know this team is much better than what we've seen as of late. That's what the most frustrating part really is. The next sixteen games mean EVERYTHING. We start on the road with six tough games against two potential NL East playoff teams. Then it's back home for four games against the D-Backs and three against the Dodgers. Then to top it off, our last shot at the D-Backs comes in AZ with three more games. THAT'S IT. This stretch will determine the fate of the 2007 season.

Our focus right now needs to be on getting back to playing the way we're capable of playing and looking at this upcoming stretch for what it really is: A HUGE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE EVERYONE FORGET ABOUT THE LAST FEW WEEKS AND TAKE CONTROL OF THE NL WEST.

None of us knows what the mood is in the locker room right now. Maybe Jake's comments pissed off some people...maybe they feel he's probably right and the comments don't really bother them. To be honest, I don't really care either way...what I DO care about is the fact that now it's "out there". Which means more questions...more distractions this team doesn't need. With pre-apologies to padresgirlforlife44...F*CK YOU, JAKE. You're supposed to be the ACE of this team. You're supposed to be a leader. You should know better. You're running off your mouth about something that is still over TWO years away?? Right now?? In the middle of a dog-fight for the division? F*ck, f*cking you. Don't bitch about the payroll and rip the commitment of management to win a championship while at the same time telling us how much you want to be Padre.

Which brings me to something else that bothers me about this baseball team: Leadership. Where is it? Where is the guy in that locker room to stand up in the middle of that clubhouse and have an absolute shit-fit? I want a stereo destroyed...a table flipped and thrown into a wall. Why haven't we read about a players-only meeting? Or Buddy closing the clubhouse to media for 20 minutes after a game and unloading? Someone, ANYONE...stand-up and show us you care. Show us how badly you want to play in October.

I'm with Thriles, I know we can win this thing and I still believe we will. I just want them focusing on baseball and showing us that's ALL they care about.

by Drama on Aug 20, 2007 11:26 AM PDT reply actions

I'm with you on

every effin' bit of that. Briles seems like the only one I can think of who would go off, question everyone's heart and commitment, tell them to shut up and play like they can but haven't thusfar this season, and get them fired up enough to go out and kick a bunch of asses. The only other players who have the tenacity to do something like that haven't been here very long at all, so it seems like he's the only one who can step up and lead them right now. Who else is going to do it? Trevor? Ha! Face of the franchise, yeah. Greatest closer of all time, yeah. Influential, yeah. Positive leader, yeah right.

"You get nervous when you see those guys come into the shower... you definitely don't close your eyes in there, even when you're shampooing." ~CY

by TheThirdGonzalez on Aug 20, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions

we should name a team captain

Let's do it!

by Dex on Aug 20, 2007 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Ticket Sales

To some extent, though, you can't look just at ticket sales for games in which they pitch. Season ticket sales represent a decent chunk of the ticket sales, and those are bought without regard to who's pitching on a particular night.

The differential between games in which Jake's pitching and in which other guys are pitching is more meaningful, but that doesn't get at the whole picture, as the opponent and the date/time of the game all matter, and are probably more important than the starting pitcher.

Plus, the presence of Jake (or any other fantastic player) can draw fans to the ballpark on days they're not pitching. People want to see teams that are doing well overall, and he helps us do that. A rising tide lifts all boats, and keeping a team in playoff contention makes all the games down the stretch more meaningful.

I'd think that the backlash against the Padres if they let Jake go would be harsher than they'd deserve. Jake and Trevor are the faces of the franchise at the moment, and even if a trade (or outright letting him go to free agency) made baseball sense, I think it'd end up hitting their pocketbook pretty hard.

by Boy Howdy on Aug 20, 2007 11:39 AM PDT reply actions

well, I think that's Dex's argument...

The last sentence at least.

He's saying it makes baseball sense to keep Jake, because Jake's the best and everyone knows that.

His point is that it does not make pocketbook sense because he won't generate as much as his market value would demand.

For the most part, I believe the baseball market behaves fairly rationally, though there are noted exceptions -- name recognition being one of them. Dex uses Greg Maddux as the example here.

I would contend Jake does not benefit from this, since he actually is as good as his name.

by pjbno4 on Aug 20, 2007 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions

Agree

I forgot about season ticket sales, though I think that a signing like Greg Maddux and David Wells speaks to those facts. The rotation at the start of the season with Jake, Chris Young, Maddux, Wells and Clay Hensley looks good enough that a season ticket holder could expect to see somedbody worth seeing on any given day. It's shaken out a little at the tail end of the rotation, but I'd think a lot of Maddux's value was seen there.

by Dex on Aug 20, 2007 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Time Value of Money

It a basic concept applied to business and investing, but baseball players don't understand it.

I think the Padre's have a good chance of signing Jake, but the need to do it this offseason. Right now he is schedule to make $6M next year and $8M in '09. If the padres are willing to bump it up to 11M in '08, 12M '09, 14m '10, 15M '11, 16M '12 (team option) then they can get the deal done, because there is no way a good agent would tell a PITCHER to turn down close to $70M in guarnteed money (he "only" has '14M guarnteed to him now.

This would be a good deal for the Padres, since the revenue and salaries are increasing at a high rate, and a good agent would tell him to take the deal. He would still be a free agent at the age of 32 and could sign one more big contract.

Of course if he doesn't take a deal like that now, if he continues to pitch like 2005-2007 (not 2006), and doesn't have any major time on the DL, and his velocity doesn't drop, and a big time major league team has money available in 2010, then he could sign a $120M contract. That is a lot of if's for a pitcher.

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. " ~Frank Sinatra

by Sammy G on Aug 20, 2007 12:00 PM PDT reply actions

I think that would be a good option

There is NO WAY that Jake would be unhappy with $70 mil and he had already stated that he doesnt want or need that much money. Or at least he would be happy with a lesser value than that of Zito and Zambrano. He's a simple guy.

Back to the ticket sales that were mentioned earlier, I think its a known fact that ticket sales and attendance would drop drastically if Jake were not there. Being a teenage girl and Jake being my favorite, I know that I make a large effort to go to the game especially if Jake is pitching. I like going anyways, but if he is pitching, then I try extra hard. And I know its the same for others as well.

If he was not there, I imagine that there would be some boycotting of the games, and not just by young ladies, but men as well. I think I would even boycott going for a while. It would be a way that the fans who are unhappy with the decision could let KT, Moores, and Alderson know.

So basically, the ticket sales are lower when Jake is not pitching and its would be a mistake to let him go. SammyG is absolutely right and his guesstimate of the salaries would be a good one.

PS: Drama, thank you for a pre apology and no hard feelings ;)

by padresgirlforlife44 on Aug 20, 2007 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions

One more thing

I think the whole questioning-the-desire-of-management-to-win-a-championship thing is a cop-out; a total ploy; just typical athlete crap. It's something to say so that if we haven't won rings when that time comes, he can shrug and use that as his excuse to go get paid somewhere else. Of course, the other side of the coin is that if we do win a championship, he'll demand more money because he's a leader; an ace who wins championships. The more I think about this, the more I see him as just your average prima donna bullshit superstar. This is of course not to say I don't want him out there on the mound in a Padres uniform every fifth day until he retires. Tim Wakefield's a good guy who's always taken the hometown discount when he could've gotten a lot more elsewhere and I respect him for that but let's be realistic- I'd still rather have an a-holeish Jake Peavy on a bad day than a model citizen Wakefield on his best day.

"You get nervous when you see those guys come into the shower... you definitely don't close your eyes in there, even when you're shampooing." ~CY

by TheThirdGonzalez on Aug 20, 2007 12:44 PM PDT reply actions

While I agree with your last sentence,

You really think he's an a-hole? Or just wha the said makes him come off like that. I thought we all knew, because it has been said, that Jake Peavy is no where near an a-hole. Everyone in the clubhouse always talks about how nice he is. And from the interviews, we can all see that.

by padresgirlforlife44 on Aug 20, 2007 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm just waiting

for Boomer's autobiography, where he shares with the public the unadulterated details on what really goes on in the padres clubhouse....

by pjbno4 on Aug 20, 2007 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm not quite ready

to call him an a-hole, so I just said a-holeish. I'm sure he is a nice guy; he was nice when I've seen him in person but he clearly has some tendencies that are present in a-holes. There's some good in the worst of us and a little bad in the best. While I have no doubt that Jake Peavy is a gentleman and, wait, nevermind, I'll leave the scholar part to CY, anyway- I don't want to see him mutate into a full-on ego-driven superstar jerk and it appears he may be paving the way for that.

"You get nervous when you see those guys come into the shower... you definitely don't close your eyes in there, even when you're shampooing." ~CY

by TheThirdGonzalez on Aug 20, 2007 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Do you know what he wants his money for?

A hick truck and a farm in Alabama.

No ego there. Just pride.

by padresgirlforlife44 on Aug 20, 2007 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions

I think it's worse for pitchers

I'm more sympathetic to that idea than you, I think, because I think most professional athletes really do have a strong desire to win. There are a couple things that I think make that kind of gripe more legitimate for MLB pitchers than for most other professional athletes, though.

The main one is that their championship hopes depend so much on others. They're participating in maybe 20% of the regular season games (setting aside the occasional Maddux pinch-run or Peavy pinch-hit), and about 25% of the postseason games. That's enough to contribute some, but they're totally at the mercy of the other starters and the everyday guys.

They're also dependent on their offense in the games they do pitch, as our pitchers know all too well at this point in the season. That's common to other sports, though (I'm sure the Bengals' offense and the Ravens' defense exchange wistful glances throughout the NFL season).

The other big point is that there's no spending cap, just a luxury tax that the vast majority of teams don't hit. We know you can't buy a championship, but it's sure as hell gotta be reassuring to your ace if you try your damndest to do so.

It seems like there's more reason for an MLB pitcher to take management attitude into consideration than most other athletes, so for the most part, I'm not as bothered by it.

Roger Clemens, of course, can kiss my ass.

by Boy Howdy on Aug 20, 2007 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions

correction

I didn't mean to imply that you don't think that athletes don't have a desire to win. I phrased that first part badly.

by Boy Howdy on Aug 20, 2007 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Can someone

name one good big money, long term contract that has actually worked out?

Just off the top of my Head;

Kevin Brown (not so good for the Dodgers or Yankees)
Mike Hampton (three teams paid him not to play for them)
Denny Neagle (really, really bad)
Carl Pavano
Barry Zito (7 more years)
Pedro Martinez (one good-not great year with the mets for a four year contract)
Chan Ho Park (.........)
A.J. Burnett and B.J. Ryan
Mark Mulder
Ben Sheets (not terrible, but not many starts)
Chris Carpenter (could be back next season, but doubt he will be near all-star level until 2009)
Glendon Rusch (ouch!)
Russ Ortiz (double ouch!!!)
Javier Vasques
Randy Johnson (both contracts)
Odaliz Perez
Jason Schmidt
Jaret Wright
Kris Bensen
and many others

I love Jake, but I understand Sandy's stance on long term contracts.

I was trying to remember the last time a team has "bought" a championship by having a lot of high price free agents (since the free agents period as we do know that the yankees bought a bunch of championships by taking a bunch of players from cleveland and st. louis in the 1930's), and the only ones that were truley bought was the 1977 Yankees and the Marlins first title. Almost all of champions team core were constructed from the farm system, and they may have added one or two key pieces and rounded out the rosters, but the mercinary approach jake eludes to, hasn't really worked.

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. " ~Frank Sinatra

by Sammy G on Aug 20, 2007 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Arod

if you only count regular season stats.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Aug 20, 2007 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions

I was looking at pitchers

as they have more injury risks and sudden loss of effectivness. Position Players tend to have less fluctuations, with the occasional career/down years.

Of course you say AROD, and I say Bobby Bonilla who was another free age 3B that signed the largest contract ever at the time.

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. " ~Frank Sinatra

by Sammy G on Aug 20, 2007 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions

It is all in the TV deal.

The Pads signed a deal with Cox in 01 that expires in 2010. I don't know what the amount was, but I heard Sandy Alderson say it was way too cheap. Great article from Forbes about each club, revenues, valuation.... You can see that the Pads revenue went up by almost 50% (50 million) 3 years ago with the new park. Did they spend that money wisely? They will be able to spend more when the new TV contract comes around in 3 years....about when Jake's contract comes due.

Also, contracts that seem expensive today will look cheap in the future - if the player performs.

by planetjeffy on Aug 20, 2007 2:57 PM PDT reply actions

if the player performs

the days of klesko and nevin chewing up 25% of our payroll to suck.

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. " ~Frank Sinatra

by Sammy G on Aug 20, 2007 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions

2010 TV

The Cox deal is a killer. Their hands are tied to it too. Realistically, the Padres should be getting a big chunk of a proper regional sports network that features Aztec and Torrero basketball and football when available, the Padres and probably things like the Lake Elsinore Storm and AVP when it comes locally.

by Dex on Aug 20, 2007 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions

The Yes Network and the Yanks.

The Yanks got 64 mil 2 years ago from the Yes network (I'm sure more now). Yes takes in 200 mil per year and the Yanks own 38%. The network itself is worth 3 billion.

Not that SD is NY, but the Pads could have pulled off something as creative as Yes - and pocketed maybe 10 - 20 mil more a year, at least.

There are only 6k more seats to sell - avg per game. The Pads sell 80% of available tickets. If they sold 90%, they would pocket 4 million or less. Unless they dramatically raise ticket prices, there is not much more to come out of the box office.

by planetjeffy on Aug 20, 2007 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions

From what I've read

yeah, the Pads did ink a shit deal as far as TV's concerned. I think ticket prices are about as high as they're gonna get without all sorts of hell being raised- I think if they raised them they'd make the same amount or less.

"You get nervous when you see those guys come into the shower... you definitely don't close your eyes in there, even when you're shampooing." ~CY

by TheThirdGonzalez on Aug 20, 2007 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions

No way

The Padres didn't have any leverage when the Cox deal was signed. Nobody was going to games. Nobody was watching games. Those were the days when the slogan was, "Hey, it's baseball", because it certainly couldn't be described as anything beyond that. The Yankees have decades of tradition. The Padres had an empty stadium, no television audience and a team with eyes towards leaving the city.

Cox at the time seemed like a terrific deal.

by Dex on Aug 21, 2007 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: The Fans Paying for Jake

If people are really going to get furious with the team when Jake leaves for ridiculous money, then the FO should propose a Jake Peavy tax on all games. They could charge and extra $2 a ticket as a Jake Peavy tax. That would amount to about an extra 5 mil a game. If that's not enough, bump it up more.

I think that if it came down to it, though, people wouldn't pay more for tickets just to keep Jake. They bitch about ticket prices as it is and they want the FO to make all of these magical things occur without having to shoulder any of the burden themseleves (i.e. buying more tickets)

by Phantom on Aug 21, 2007 8:33 AM PDT reply actions