Towers traded Khalil so they wouldn't be forced to trade Peavy
by jbox on Dec 5, 2008 9:17 AM PST
40 comments
XX Sports: Kevin Towers Interview (MP3)
- It's difficult to trade someone that you signed and developed in your organization. He'll be missed.
- Over a year ago they tried to sign Khalil to a multi-year deal but he refused. The Padres knew they wouldn't be able to keep him once he became a free agent. "We decided now is the time when we could move him and get the most for him"
- There was no thought of trading Khalil after the 2007 season.
- Towers is excited about Mark Worrell beefing up the bullpen.
- Towers says it's not a secret that they needed to reduce their payroll from $50 million and get closer to $40 million. The way the Padres looked at it, if they moved Khalil they would have a better chance to keep Peavy.
- The Padres have identified 3 or 4 shortstops that may come in a trade. "I just don't think we can count on Luis [Rodiguez] playing a full six months"
- Darren Smith said Khalil was telling people that he thought he needed a change of scenery towards the end of the season.
- Towers thinks that Khalil wanted to move closer to his homes on the East coast.
- Two clubs were after Khalil and they were very close to sending him to another club, but the Cardinals offered a package that was much better.
- The Padres are now in a position where they can keep Peavy to start the season.
- The grievance against Khalil didn't factor at all into the decision to trade him.
- Worrell has put up tremendous numbers in the minor leagues.
0 recs |
40 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
A couple of things:
1) The Padrs are not going to keep Peavy. If this move demonstrates anything, the team has no interest in being competitive anytime soon. So why keep a giant drain on payroll in Peavy if he’s going to be wasted? The only thing they’re trying to do is pretend to other teams that they may not trade Jake to try to drive up a return. Totally and completely transparent and full of crap.
2) “We decided now is the time when we could move him and get the most for him” – Do I even need to state how totally and completely ludicrous this sounds? If the team was so hellbent on not retaining him after 2009, they SHOULD HAVE traded him after 2007. You know, when you could have gotten the most for him.
3) Khalil was telling people that he thought he needed a change of scenery towards the end of the season – I call total and complete BS on this one. With how porous the clubhouse and the FO has been over the past year, there’s no way this wouldn’t have been leaked to the media if it was ever actually said. I mean, think about it. The $40 M payroll thing was leaked during the Giles/Red Sox drama. Are you really telling me that Khalil was telling people this and the media was choosing not to report it? You’ve got to be kidding me.
This is a straight salary dump. Period. If the team had the balls to come out and say it, a lot of people would still be pissed but they may have some respect for the team. To try to spin this like this was a smart trade is a complete slap in the face to the fans.
We have got to have the worst PR skills of any team in baseball.
by Phantom on Dec 5, 2008 9:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
response
1. They never said they’d keep him, just that they’d start the season with him. He’ll be traded.
2. That was the best part
3. Whether he said it or not, I think it’s true.
by jbox on Dec 5, 2008 9:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think it's true though?
It literally makes no sense that this is the first time we’ve heard this. The media in San Diego LOVES to undermine the Padrs and stir crap up. The notion that “Khalil started saying this toward the end of last year” and that this is the first time we’ve heard of it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Look, I know you’re glad he’s gone. And I know it’s fun to kick me when I’m down. But you’re really buying everything KT is selling here?
by Phantom on Dec 5, 2008 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It is fun to kick you when you're down, but
I just thought #2 was funny because they obviously sold low on him. He’ll be good in St. Louis, I don’t think he would have been good here.
I’m not celebrating that he’s gone, but I needed a change just like I think he does.
by jbox on Dec 5, 2008 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe he said it and nobody heard
i think the stuff greg maddux, jake peavy and trevor hoffman would probably have been enough to keep the beat writers busy.
to quote batman begins… why do we get kicked while we’re down? so that we can learn to kick people when we get up.
by Dex on Dec 5, 2008 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not to be a nerd, but...
And why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up.
by 'Eaters on Dec 5, 2008 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know...
I’m pretty sure you’re both wrong, and that the real quote is:
Why do we get up after falling down? So that someone can knock us down again.
by pjbno4 on Dec 5, 2008 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
what about
Why do we squat when we poop? So that we can stand erect when we poop not.
by Dex on Dec 5, 2008 5:33 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
"pooping not'
is going to be what i say every time someone asks me what i’m up to from now on. in fact. i’m going to put it in my signature.
www.wellbelowthemendozaline.blogspot.com
by justdave on Dec 5, 2008 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2., 3,
Yes, it’s BS, but then again, people thought the Pads would be competitive last year, and to that end, were counting on Khalil to have another good year. So that’s why they didn’t move him then. But after this disaster of a season/offseason, I’m sure Khalil wants to get the hell out of town. Get out of the frustrating ballpark, off of a sinking ship/train leaving the station, and start fresh somewhere else. I don’t think that part is BS at all.
by Dalton on Dec 5, 2008 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe take a step back, Phantom
And try to play the other role:
Maybe the “change of scenery” thing didn’t get to a reporter. Do you really think Krasovic and Center report everything they hear or that they in fact are in on every piece of dirt?
Besides, KG at this point seems like the ideal candidate for the ol’ scenery change.
They’re acknowledging the salary implications. Isn’t that good enough? He was awful at the plate last year and is coming off an injury. This is what happens when you sell low. Most everyone seems to think Adam Everett is at the top in D and dude isn’t exactly getting moved for prime prospects. Heck, maybe the Pads should sign him.
I imagine you’ve read Geoff’s take about not trading him after ‘07. I think it’s a good one
by SR on Dec 5, 2008 9:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is about Claw isn't it??
"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 Dec 5, 2008 10:05 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Khalil's trade value
The Padres may have missed the boat by not trading Khalil after his nice 2007 (especially after he turned down a long extension) but realistically I don’t know how they could have traded him. The Padres thought they were going to compete for the division title so trading him at that point wouldn’t have made any sense at the time — of course, looking back it would have been the right decision.
Also, we are assuming that Khalil was going to bounce back this season (if he stayed here). That certainly wasn’t a given. Next year might have been just as bad, or worse, than 2008. He’s not young (just turned 29), peaked as a rookie, and makes way too many outs (even when he has a great slugging season like 2007). It also appears that he’s a horrible fit for Petco Park.
by SchlomSD on Dec 5, 2008 10:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I just listened to the interview
The thing about Khalil saying he wanted a new address came from Darren Smith, not Kevin Towers, which to me makes that comment a whole lot less dubious.
by SR on Dec 5, 2008 11:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Anything from Darren Smith
about Khalil Greene should be suspect, period. Darren Smith and Billy have been the leading edge of the effort to get him out of town.
by Phantom on Dec 5, 2008 11:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
HAHA
What are you talking about Phantom? Darren and Billy are “pro-players” and “anti-front office” whenever they talk about the Padres. You need to see through your man crush on Khalil for a second and look at it realistically.
by SDPads_1 on Dec 5, 2008 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As someone with the biggest man crush
I can tell you that Darren and Billy have ALWAYS trashed Khalil. It started to get really bad when Khalil got married and nobody knew about it. Since then on, they’ve constantly slagged him as someone who didn’t seem to get along with the team and was not very good at the plate.
Seriously, I have the man crush. I know which of the pundits liked him and which didn’t. Most of the radio guys liked him outside of Darren, Billy, and Chris Ello.
by Phantom on Dec 5, 2008 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm convinced
That Darren Smith knows very little about baseball and Billy cares very little. If you judge what they talk about by their enthusiasm for the subject, they mainly like college football and anything else they talk about is just the news of the day. It’s amazing during the baseball season how many time Darren says “Well, I didn’t see it, but I think…” blah blah blah.
"Whoa... You can't say stuff like that!"
"I get it Chief. I'll play ball. You just gotta blow the whistle and call the fouls. Alright?"
by Wonko on Dec 5, 2008 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take a few months of sweet sweet Peavy
over a full year of Khalil any day. Sorry Phantom. Plus, I think if we can dump a little more salary and are even somewhat competitive around the deadline, we keep Peavy. yay!
2009 San Diego Padres. Not as bad as Aztec Football!
by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Dec 5, 2008 11:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I will guarantee
that while I’m in Vegas next week, we trade Jake Peavy.
We can place a healthy wager on it, if you want. But there’s no way in hell Jake ever pitches in 2009 as a San Diego Padre.
by Phantom on Dec 5, 2008 11:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're going to break my prediction
made on Oct. 11 that ‘09 will be Jake’s last season as a Friar.
Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?
by Axion on Dec 5, 2008 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I want this bet.
Winner decides the loser’s GLB signature for the next year.
by Dalton on Dec 5, 2008 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're on
But which terms are we betting on?
I’m confident in my prediction about Jake not pitching for the Padres at all, but I’m not as confident about him getting traded next week. Either way, though, I opened my big stupid mouth so I can live with the consequences of whatver you wanna go with.
by Phantom on Dec 5, 2008 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Peavy being traded while you are in Vegas next week. I have no idea what your schedule is, so I would suggest by the end of Saturday the 13th at 11:59 PM a deal would have to be in place.
by Dalton on Dec 5, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You got it
Can we solicit ideas for the signature from our peers?
by Phantom on Dec 5, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that would be the idea.
Something fun around here should happen this offseason, ya know?
by Dalton on Dec 5, 2008 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"We decided now is the time when we could move him and get the most for him"
Now is always that time with continually declining value.
Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?
by Axion on Dec 5, 2008 11:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think something overlooked in the Greene situation is his injury history
He’s got the broken hand this year, the finger injury that probably cost him ROY in 2004, the toe injury (2005), and the year he broke a finger fielding a ground ball (2006). Off the top of my head, and correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t 2007 the only year he finished a season healthy?
by 'Eaters on Dec 5, 2008 11:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
You are indeed correct.
I’d say, though, that most of his injuries were pretty freakish.
by Phantom on Dec 5, 2008 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm prepared to call two of the four freakish (you can pick which ones)
but four in five years is a trend.
by 'Eaters on Dec 5, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But if two are freakish
Then you only really have 2 in 5 years, which isn’t as strong of a trend.
by pjbno4 on Dec 5, 2008 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like this logic.
www.PadsAndEnds.blogspot.com
"jbox does not drink coffee, as it makes him clean house big time." ~Kev
by TheThirdGonzalez on Dec 5, 2008 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Freakish?
I think it may be a sign that he plays very hard and that’s what makes him good defensively. Much like some other guys that retain much of their defensive value by playing hard, it can lead to increased injuries. If that’s the case, then these injuries could be part of a trend that will continue.
"Whoa... You can't say stuff like that!"
"I get it Chief. I'll play ball. You just gotta blow the whistle and call the fouls. Alright?"
by Wonko on Dec 5, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree its a trend
I’m just meeting Phantom half-way on the freakish thing to be agreeable
by 'Eaters on Dec 5, 2008 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
