Padres employees are physically incapable of saying "Super" and "Two" in a single sentence

by Dex on Jun 20, 2008 8:29 AM PDT

Two questions going unanswered as of right now on Paul DePodesta's blog:

Doug said...

How much did money, arbitration, super two and other concepts I don't fully understand come into play with when Headley would be called up?

and

Tangotiger said...

If I got my numbers right, the fewest service days for super2s threshhold in the last several years was 131 days. Upton and Shields were in the 120s. Longoria just missed the 172 day service time to get in his full year this year. (All Rays players.) Why can't teams honestly say that they are clock-watching? And, what is your personal opinion about this?

Let me just reiterate that I think Paul is great and that the front office is full of smart guys. Let me just also reiterate that the reasoning that the front office officially gave for not bring Chase Headley up really appears non-sensical to most of us. It seems much much much more likely that the front office doesn't believe Average Padres Fan sophisticated enough to understand or accept what the true reasoning was.

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Public disclosure of motivations

DePodesta’s and Towers’ and Alderson’s lack of comment on the financial aspects of Headley’s call-ups has NOTHING to do with the fans.

Admitting that you are holding someone back to pay him less creates possible legal issues. It definitively creates tension with the individual player and the players’ union.

I applaud what DePodesta is doing, but fans need to understand that there are questions you will not get a 100% honest answer to, and sometimes there’s a really good reason for that. (And no, I’m not a Padres employee).

by GoGorath on Jun 20, 2008 8:54 AM PDT reply actions

very good point

I know what you’re saying that the decision not to talk about it has nothing to do with the fans, but I think that there’s a way to avoid saying it without actually saying it. And there’s definitely a way to avoid saying it without resorting to really implausible answers.

by Dex on Jun 20, 2008 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions

I don't think

the FO knew how to deal with this kind of situation, which is what likely led to the plethora of crazy arguments thrown out. When was the last time we had a highly touted prospect to bring up mid-season?

by Phantom on Jun 20, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions

Mid season?

Highly touted?

I’ll take Jake Peavy on June 22, 2002 for 200 Alex.

Other acceptable answers include:
Oliver Perez June 16, 2002
Dennis Tankersley May 10, 2002
D’Angelo Jimenez June 25, 2001
Adam Eaton May 30, 2000
Ben Davis June 13, 1999
Ruben Rivera May 16, 1998
Derek Lee April 28, 1997

However, I believe each and every one of those was an injury replacement. Also, I don’t remember Jake getting quite as much attention the in minor leagues as the other guys I’ve listed.

I watched all 22 innings and all I got was this lousy signature.

by Wonko on Jun 20, 2008 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Toucé salesman.

by Phantom on Jun 20, 2008 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions

I think the perception that the FO didn't know what it was doing

is a byproduct of there being a corporate hydra in the FO. You have Towers and Alderson on the the radio every week, Paul DePo’s blog, the beat-writers. Each sort of beat around the bush in their own way in lawyerly fashion and together didn’t deliver a coherent “answer.” I think they want to avoid having to say, “No comment.”

Average Padre Fan to me is the SoS brigade and the people on the radio who call for Harrison and Garrison. “Sophisticated” is not quite on the mark if I were asked to describe them.

can you cure us of this fate
mock the litany in its face

by Axion on Jun 20, 2008 10:00 AM PDT reply actions

In fact... case in point at the end.

Though it might seem so, my statement is really not at complete odds with what KT had been saying for a while now. I was addressing the issue of Chase playing his first three games this year in Yankee Stadium. KT has been speaking on a much broader level – he was saying that we didn’t want Chase to feel (and be perceived) as though he was the answer to all of our problems. Calling Chase in the midst of our slide back in May could have created that situation.

People are having a hard time making sense of it all.

can you cure us of this fate
mock the litany in its face

by Axion on Jun 20, 2008 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions

I think the FO

SHOULD be considering the super two for determining callups. Honestly when you are in near to last place. One player is not going to make you a contender. But if the situation was reversed, and we needed a playoff push, then they should forget about the clock and make a push for the post season.

I would be dissapointed if they didn’t consider the clock as a factor. In fact, if they didn’t consider it, I would call them inept at their jobs.

"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 Jun 20, 2008 12:19 PM PDT reply actions

Agreed

but let’s just do away with all the “high expectation” excuses that they were throwing around.

by jbox on Jun 20, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Well if that had something to do with it

and you can’t say “We’re holding him back because of money he may or may not be due in the future” then you go with what you can say, at least, I think.

can you cure us of this fate
mock the litany in its face

by Axion on Jun 20, 2008 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions

even if it's a lie?

by Dex on Jun 20, 2008 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Theres a wide margin of difference between

bullshitting and lying.

The only way Kevin Towers is a liar is if you equate playing 3 games in Yankee Stadium with the pressure of being “the answer to all of our problems,” which DePo points out above.

can you cure us of this fate
mock the litany in its face

by Axion on Jun 20, 2008 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

I should rephrase that

The only way he lied in this instance.

can you cure us of this fate
mock the litany in its face

by Axion on Jun 20, 2008 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions

well

one is a moral issue, the other could be used for union grievance, especially since Headley already made his major league debut and is part of the players union.

If managment openly states we are not bringing him up because of arbitration issues, before they finish that statement a greivance would be filed.

If they state they don’t want to put pressure on him, then he is just a liar.

"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 Jun 20, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Let me play lawyer for a second.

Not about actual legal issues, but about calling someone a liar. I think, as with most decisions, there are primary issues and secondary issues that are taken into account when making a decision. In our example above the primary issue is the Super Two status. The secondary issues are pressure, position change, players without options. The primary issue drives the decision (i.e. without it the decision would change), but the secondary ones reinforce the decision. So if you say that you are keeping him down and only give secondary reasons, it’s not entirely a lie. Like Axion said, it’s more like bullshitting. They are technically reasons for leaving him down, just not the main reason. A real lie would be giving a reason that in no way influence your decision at all.

Of course, I don’t really care if you call Towers a liar, but I guess I won’t be, basically because of what I said above.

I watched all 22 innings and all I got was this lousy signature.

by Wonko on Jun 20, 2008 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions