What does a potential Peavy trade mean to San Diego Padres fans?
by Dex on Oct 19, 2008 8:55 AM PDT
Email
PrintRemember throughout the season how the Padres were trying to get us to buy into the idea that the first four seasons of Petco were so good and the team was so competitive that we should give a pass for 2008 because it was something like a hiccup. An anomaly.
The pieces were essentially the same as the previous year, so we should be good, right? We shouldn't have to rebuild. We should just reload. Oh well.
Sullivan's latest piece breaks down the situation the Padres are in right now.
Yet the real issue here is not front office flexibility, but fans' faith. Time after time, the Padres have signed key players to long-term contracts only to develop buyer's remorse before the ink dries. When your foundation is forever in flux, your customers may be prone to cynicism.
Exactly.
Given the bait-and-switch allegations that still linger from the campaign to build Petco Park, the Padres have to be careful to explain themselves and to cushion (as much as possible) the frustration fans feel when popular players are sent packing.
Personally, I wish there was a way for us to keep Peavy. I'm familiar with the situations that exist when a team trades away their best player and improves the next season. That doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Trading away a guy like Peavy means you're trading for prospects. And by definition, prospects are just that: They're prospective. You have to look to the future, because they haven't done anything in the past. And that means we'll likely be in a tenuous position next season, which is basically where we've been for several seasons, only the Padres FO wasn't telling us that.
Just because Sandy Alderson has a particular philosophy that has worked in the past doesn't mean that I have to like it. There's a good chance that I won't like it regardless of how hard he and his supporters try to convince me that I'm stupid for not liking it. It's a philosophy that forces me to learn the names of players that will be useful for a few years and go on to be stars for other teams. It's a philosophy that builds a lot of support on the internet, where fans can discuss and strategize, but doesn't build support in the ballpark where people are forced to watch it.
Still, it's what we have. I understand the reasoning behind it. Don't tell me I don't. I understand the necessity of it. Don't tell me I don't.
I don't like it. Don't tell me I have to.
20 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sunday Morning Sermon
Nice. I think we’re all feeling the same way. Except for the math minds amongst us, who value statistics over the human element (Sandy included).
by The Kipper on Oct 19, 2008 9:44 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
"It's a philosophy that forces me to learn the names of players that will be useful for a few years and go on to be stars for other teams."
I’ve heard this a couple of times. I’m curious, who are these players? Ollie Perez is the only one I can think of. I guess Jason Bay, but he barely played for the Padres (he spent more time in the Mets organization than ours). That barely compares to Adrian Gonzalez, Chris Young, Kevin Kouzmanoff and Heath Bell. Lately it seems like we are the ones getting other teams guys and having them be stars for us. We also seem to get rid of guys at the right time. Josh Barfield, Adam Eaton, Ben Johnson, Dave Roberts, Ramon Hernandez, Phil Nevin, Sean Burroughs, Scott Linebrink and Aki Otsuka have all been less than what they were as Padres.
Homer: Ohhhh, The Denver Broncos.
Marge: Whats wrong with the Denver Broncos?
Homer: Marge you just don't understand football.
I think he is referring more to the system that SA implemented with the A's.
Draft talent, develop it, wait until it has a good season or two then trade it away for younger, cheaper, undeveloped talent, rinse and repeat.
Maybe
But that was really Billy Beane’s system. Sandy didn’t do much of that. I guess he did trade Mark McGwire in his final year as GM, but McGwire was injury prone and 33 years old at the time.
Homer: Ohhhh, The Denver Broncos.
Marge: Whats wrong with the Denver Broncos?
Homer: Marge you just don't understand football.
It was a little different back then because of the lack of free agency,
but Alderson has said many times that he adheres to the same philosophy as the A’s and twins organizations not just sabermetrically but from a player development standpoint and a fiscal standpoint as well.
Not to be rude
But…
1. There was free agency the entire time Alderson was a GM.
2. The Twins and A’s couldn’t be farther apart in player development philosophies. The Twins like high risk, high reward speedy athletic good defense types who they have to teach to be aggressive at the plate. The A’s like the lower risks guys with defense and speed as secondary skills that only matter if all else are equal. The A’s teach hitters patience. A’s like college pitchers, Twins like high school pitchers.
Homer: Ohhhh, The Denver Broncos.
Marge: Whats wrong with the Denver Broncos?
Homer: Marge you just don't understand football.
Yes...
1. There was free agency back then but it was pre-1994 strike when free agency really got out of hand and if you look back the A’s had the highest payroll at the time which was somewhere around 30 mil.
2. From a player development standpoint I meant draft well (what ever your philosophy is) develop your own players and then trade them away when they hit arbitration. Fill your roster out with young home grown talent and then move that talent after 4-5 years.
I dare you
Name me one player the Twins traded away because he was about to hit arbitration. Actually, name me an Athletic with that description. The Marlins do that, that might be what you are thinking of, but they operate on a fraction of the Padres budget. I will admit that the Twins and the A’s keep their talented players until it reaches a point where they can get more in return then they will get from the player himself. Usually that comes with the prospect of becoming a losing team. Gotta get better somehow. I’ll also admit that hey can’t afford to sign their players if they hit free agency (Padres are somewhat similar, but were able to bring back Giles a few years ago), but most players who want big dough in free agency don’t end up re-signing with their former team. That’s just the business of baseball.
The Padres are in a situation where they need to find ways to maximize their talent level within a budget that makes sense. Hopefully they find a way to do it better than the A’s or Twins because there are no champions there. But so far they haven’t had to trade their star players (that was my point right?) because they have stayed competitive without doing so. Also, their CEO doesn’t really have an MO of doing so, budgetary reasons or otherwise. With the current state of the club, they may have to do something to get better. But, it hasn’t happened yet. I just don’t know that it’s worth complaining about something that hasn’t happened yet.
And because this comment isn’t wordy enough, I’d like to add one more thing. Sometimes I hear people say that this organization isn’t ballsy enough. That they play it safe and don’t go all out for anything. Well, trading Peavy may be one their ballsiest moves yet. This move may be the fastest way to get this team back in contention. Better to be the A’s or Twins and make moves and develop players in an effort to build a better franchise, than live out life like the Orioles or Royals placating their fanbase with useless free agent acquisitions and tempting them with the hope of their next ill-advised draft pick or over-hyped prospect that got that way because their player development is an afterthought.
Homer: Ohhhh, The Denver Broncos.
Marge: Whats wrong with the Denver Broncos?
Homer: Marge you just don't understand football.
by Wonko on Oct 20, 2008 1:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Johan Santana?
from the A’s: Tejada, Harden, Haren, Hudson, Mulder, Hernandez…
They signed all of those players to contracts early on much like that the Padres did with Peavy, Young and A-Gon…back loaded the contracts to get them through arbitration and moved them a year or two before the contract is up.
I’m not saying its a bad thing, both the twins and A’s are in the playoffs most years but what I am saying is that there is never any consistency for the fans years in and year out…you never want to buy a jersey with any players name on it becayse you don’t know if he’ll be there the next year.
These are the players you mentioned, all of which played into their arbitration years with the A's or Twins:
Santana: Played with Twins 2 years past the end of when he would go to arbitration. Traded because they didn’t just want draft picks and he was determined to go to free agency and get the most money possible
Tejada: Wasn’t traded. Elected for free agency to get the most money possible
Harden: Injury prone, was killing the team year to year with potential and no results. They were paying him to do next to nothing. Also, he had already signed a team friendly (when healthy) deal to avoid arbitration.
Haren: Was never going to arbitration since he signed a very team friendly deal. Traded because of the overwhelming help to the club.
Mulder: Signed a team friendly deal prior to arbitration, traded before free agency made him cost more than he was worth.
Hernandez: Traded after he had reached his arbitration years for a player who was almost twice as expensive (Mark Kotsay).
Anyway, the point here isn’t that the Twins and A’s trade good players. They do and often are better off for it. Teams have made trades to get better for over a century (Texas Rangers notwithstanding). The point is that the Padres are being rubberstamped with the same label because of a guy who was the GM on none of the players you mention. In fact, he isn’t even the Padres’ GM. In addition, I’m starting to lose what the point of this all is since you say the A’s and Twins make the playoffs, but have a concern that you can’t buy a players jersey. So having consistency is more important than winning. Shelling out $100 for a shirt provides more value to the fan than a chance at championship. I’m not sure I can get on board with that.
Also, go check out the hall of fame someday. The majority of players there didn’t stick with one team for their careers. Players did it a little more in the 50s and 60s when farm systems and reserve clauses trapped them to one team. Curmudgeonly writers and older fans pine for these as the good old days, but really they are pining for days when the owners got rich and the players were left searching for alternate incomes.
Homer: Ohhhh, The Denver Broncos.
Marge: Whats wrong with the Denver Broncos?
Homer: Marge you just don't understand football.
by Wonko on Oct 20, 2008 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
you are on fire
great posts.
Its amazing see what teams are willing to trade for Jake. I think a lot of people misunderstood Paul D’s posts about teams getting better after losing a star player. I don’t think Paul ever said that getting rid of these players made them get better, just that after getting rid of these “awesome players” team somehow manage to improve. One player doesn’t make a championship, it takes a rotation with no holes and a lineup with no holes. You don’t need a lot of superstars. Tampa Bay is a great example. While they may have a lot of players who could become superstars, if you look at the individual production of each player, none of them had MVP type stats, just a lot of really solid production 1-9.
"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
no quite
Close but not quite. NBA 1 player can turn around a franchise. Ewing theory is when someone is over rated by fans/media but isn’t quite as good as one believes, and actually may hurt the team with there presence. Ewing was this since the team was built for a motion offense, but played dump-post up ball when he was in. NFL really only has 1 position with this much impact (QB), baseball you have to be 1 of the 3 greatest players EVER to have this impact. AROD leaving Seatle is interesting, since he preformed well, but instead of spending $250M on Arod, they went out and got Ichiro, some good piece to the bullpen, steroids for Buhner and Boone to go along with their homegrown talent, then won 115 games the next season
Look at what Santana and Haren did. Both played awesome for their new teams, but both teams barely improved record wise and both missed the playoffs. It wasn’t their faults, but they didn’t have the huge impact on the pennant like everyone thought they would. The reason was the teams were too flawed to begin with and needed more than the “final piece.”
If Jake nets 2 potential all-stars plus 4 potential MLB regs, I think you have to pull the deal. Number 44 is my favorite player, but I have also been waiting for the other shoe to drop with him for awhile.
"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 Oct 20, 2008 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
True
It would have a similar effect for pitchers though. Same as one of the main arguments against pitchers winning an mvp. If they are healthy the whole season, they get what, 32 or 33 starts? They are out there every fifth day. That is where the overrated value part would come in. Like you said close but not quite. If you lose someone like Peavy, and say replace him with a pitcher that wins ten games, you need to be getting some X wins worth out of the other players (I know it is not that simple, but it illustrates the point). If you upgrade your hitters (or fielders) at two or three positions, and they are out there every day (or close enough), it makes such a move worthwhile. Like the point you were making, getting a superstar pitcher doesn’t really help unless you have the other pieces in place.
As much as I don’t want to see him go, if the offer is right, it makes sense. I don’t think they will get the right offer though.
Not that I totally disagree with you but…
Santana was traded away because he was going to be a free agent..
Tejada was granted free agency by the A’s.
Harden was traded away in his last year of being controllable for the club (well, they had a team option for 2009).
Haren (and Connor Robertson) was traded for seven players. He would have been making 4mil in 2008 and 5.5mil in 2009. And they had a team option for 2010 of 6.75mil.
Hudson was traded away going into the last year of his contract.
Mulder was traded away going into the last year of his contract (and they got Haren in return).
Santana was with the Twins seven years. Tejada was with the A’s 6 full season, Harden five years, Haren only three years, Hudson six years, Mulder five years and Hernandez five. Each one of them basically served out their team controlled years. I don’t think any of those guys qualify as being traded away because they were going to be arbitration eligible. I just don’t see how that is unusual. That is what happens with most teams and players.
Exactly
And it’s not that I was saying that the Twins and A’s don’t make these moves to save money. They often do. But they are more like middle class household on a budget using coupons to save on groceries so that they can have a nice Christmas. Trading players before arbitration years (like the Marlins) is more like a impoverished household trying to decide whether to pay the rent or buy the groceries.
Homer: Ohhhh, The Denver Broncos.
Marge: Whats wrong with the Denver Broncos?
Homer: Marge you just don't understand football.
The "divorce" has more to do with any moves
than philosophy. I think SA would be happy to keep his cluster of Giles, AG, Peavy, Young – possibly Kouz and Headley, while filling in with has-beens until he can bring up talent from the minors. This is all about a huge salary dump, so John can hold onto the team. Moores will have no extra money to fund the team and instead, will have to start paying out to Becky. Cutting 30 mil from the payroll is the first step. Renegotiating (and extending) the TV contract is next. Selling off their 30% ownership to the stadium is a possible 3rd. In this economy, John cannot get much for the properties (around the stadium and elsewhere) his company is owns or is developing. This could be a very bleak 5 years if Moores decides to try and hold onto the team – and Becky wants her cash.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana"
Groucho Marx
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
