What kind of season did the Padres really invest in?

by Dex on Sep 10, 2008 9:30 AM PDT

I've entered a spiral of frustration with this team, which is probably why I haven't posted much recently. My frustration stems from the growing suspicion that the front office had to know that this wasn't going to be that competitive of a team. I know it's been hashed and rehashed, but there were so many gambles going into this season, I wouldn't be surprised if KT scored himself free meals at the buffet for the year.

Pick me apart all you want, but by my now-clouded-with-rage recollection, here are some of the gambles I can remember:

Hairston would continue his tear at left field based on a month's worth of production.
Paul McNaulty would finally prove himself a Major League hitter capable of outperforming any defensive liability he might be.
Jim Edmonds would find a fountain of youth and not instinctively try to destroy the Padres as he had done in his entire career prior.
Mark Prior would return anything on his million dollar investment. Hey Padres, if you have that kind of money to throw around on people who live in San Diego, then shake some my way. I can put "perfect throwing mechanics" on my resume too.
Tadahito Iguchi's less than steller MLB hitting career would somehow turn around in a park designed to eat guys like Iguchi alive.
Khalil Greene would not injure himself as he had done in every year except last year.

And that's really just the gambles that didn't pan out. I'm a little surprised that Randy Wolf turned out to be the win that he turned out to be. I'm still annoyed about the Chase Headley thing. I'm glad that Brian Giles continues to be great and that Kouzmanoff continues to be very capable.

I watch this team that we field now and it's completely turned over, but even more frustrating, it's actually somewhat competitive. It's competitive with a nice little blend of young guys looking to prove themselves at the Major League Level. I know it's a different set of gambles when you're dealing with guys who are on the rise, but why weren't we hedging our bets with guys on the rise instead of gambling on guys who were on the decline or had a history of disappointment? I know it's easy enough for me to say now, but we obviously had questions about several of these decisions well before other gambles started rolling up craps.

Why didn't the Padres gamble on the upside?

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

That's not what you do with young players

especially when expectations are high. If you throw the rookies out there off the bat, and they fail, there’s no alternative. They have to sleep in the bed they shat in.

Let’s not forget that Edmonds was not a first choice and nobody expected Gerut to be this good coming off knee injury and having just previously been released by the Pirates.

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?

by Axion on Sep 10, 2008 10:49 AM PDT reply actions

how high were expectations of guys like Dave Winfield?

we spend too much time coddling these people, worrying about their “psyches”.

by Dex on Sep 10, 2008 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

So given that past three years

you just dump it over and it’s baptism by fire?

The Rockies and Rays do that year in, year out, with no expectations from the previous year preventing them from flipping the roster (like, say… being 1 out away from the playoffs). You want to lose for a decade by throwing shit to the wall and seeing what sticks, I’ll show you a failing franchise. The Rockies had their lone “magical” run and the Rays finally put it together, nobody thinks they can do it, but everyone wants them to. Why? Because they’re young.

Since you brought up Dave, I’ll run with it. Dave Winfield played his first game with the Padres in 1973. In 1972, and every year prior, the Padres were dead last. There was nothing to hang on to, no reason to try to preserve what was there last season.

Second, who exactly in the Padres farm system is drawing comparisons to Dave Winfield?

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?

by Axion on Sep 10, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions

You're taking me out of context a little

Obviously, promoting Headley, Antonelli and these other guys haven’t turned us into “shit” and by virtue of their promotions, we’re not going to be shit for the next ten years.

You want a quick way to turn this team bad? Keep making high priced, low upside acquisitions with downside gambles. And what’s wrong with having a young team that people can be excited about? There’s something really weird about baseball if it’s the only sport in the world where a younger talent moving towards his athletic prime can’t compete with 40 year olds.

by Dex on Sep 10, 2008 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions

But we didn't know that

The only high price I see up there was Edmonds, which clearly everyone agrees that was a mistake. Stripping away the context of “we need some experience in CF, and we aren’t confident about trying to get back to the playoffs with what we have” it’s clearly a colossal fail.

Antonelli did nothing to show he could hack it up here, and what they thought about Egon clearly was expressed in signing Iguchi. I just don’t think our prospects needed to be rushed up here at the beginning of the season. (not counting Egon as a prospect)

That something really weird about baseball is one of the things that makes it great. :)

There’s nothing wrong with exciting young talent, and we’re getting to see it now, but we weren’t coming off a complete failure of a campaign.

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?

by Axion on Sep 10, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions

EGon

I think EGon falls into the PMac category. Older, good minor league numbers, known to have bad defense. The results just happened to go in opposite directions.

With all due respect, you are not allowed to find our division rivals sexy.

by Wonko on Sep 10, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions

You have to consider the prior 3 successful years

built on luck, has-beens, dregs and cast-offs. The FO thought they could use their magic and produce something from nothing (again) – and make KT look brilliant (again). Pitching was no longer able to keep teams to one run and the house of cards fell down. One or two bad season doesn’t bother me. What I’m pissed about is that this assortment of AAAA players doesn’t even fit into moneyball mold – No sinker pitchers, no high OBP hitters and no power hitters. Moneyball becomes an excuse instead of a philosophy.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana"
Groucho Marx

by planetjeffy on Sep 10, 2008 12:02 PM PDT reply actions

Moneyball is a book not a philosophy

And who exactly used it as an excuse?

With all due respect, you are not allowed to find our division rivals sexy.

by Wonko on Sep 10, 2008 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Dex sometimes blames moneyball

People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Sep 10, 2008 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions

But he doesn't work for the Padres

With all due respect, you are not allowed to find our division rivals sexy.

by Wonko on Sep 10, 2008 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Moneyball is a general term used for sabermetrics or whatever you call the analytical approach

to baseball first practiced by Billy Beane and Sandy and Depodesta (and other FOs). It is supposed to be the driving force for putting together a team by finding under-valued players. I think the FO has used “moneyball” to explain away the their cheapness in getting dregs, cast-offs and has-beens. None of these players seem to have the “moneyball” profile that would make the team successful – high OBP for instance. The Padres are 3rd from the bottom in OBP. Then again Oakland is last. Same with sinker ball pitching which leads to low pitch counts and lots of ground outs. I’m too lazy to look up the stats, but I see lots of fly outs and high pitch counts. They are getting cheap players because they are cheap – not because the quants have found them to be a good value to build a good team. Their excuse is that “we are going to stick with this system/plan” – which isn’t really a plan at all – just a way to keep payroll down.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana"
Groucho Marx

by planetjeffy on Sep 10, 2008 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions

then again

1 bad year after 3 good ones is not so bad.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana"
Groucho Marx

by planetjeffy on Sep 10, 2008 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions

I disagree with everything you said in your post

And it would take me way too long to explain why.

With all due respect, you are not allowed to find our division rivals sexy.

by Wonko on Sep 10, 2008 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions

You should seriously just say this more often

by Winfield's Ghost on Sep 11, 2008 6:51 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm learning self-control

It’s been a slow process.

With all due respect, you are not allowed to find our division rivals sexy.

by Wonko on Sep 11, 2008 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Looking ahead

I remember someone from ESPN saying that the Padres had been walking a tightrope with the moves that thay had made over the last four years and that at some point the rope would break. Well, the gambles did not pay off this year, the rope snapped and we fell flat on our asses.
I agree with alot of what Dex said. We hedged our bets on a bunch of questionable contracts and it didn’t pan out. Hopefully, the FO learned a lesson here. Lesson being that when you take big risks on a consistent basis, you lose more often than you win. One only needs take a trip to Las Vegas to test this theory.
I do however believe that we’re headed in the right direction. I like seeing all of these Beavers playing inspired baseball. Venable’s base running has been a breath of fresh air, Hundley throwing out the occasional base thief, Le Blanc’s quality start last night. if we’re going to suck again next year, lets field a team of prospects that can only improve, not a team of overpaid falling stars.

"...do hereby declare that I am not a member of the Human race (not an earthling) and in fact am an alien from another planet other than earth. I hope that this will prove to the person that is putting electric shocks to my head that I am an alien. I am declaring this so that I am not in any violation of any world or international laws of the earth as I am showing by this admission that I am in fact an alien."

by The Kipper on Sep 10, 2008 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't think the FO learned a lesson

They knew what could happen, but they were willing to risk it in order to preserve a competitive club.

With all due respect, you are not allowed to find our division rivals sexy.

by Wonko on Sep 10, 2008 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't quite understand how the Padres could have gambled on upside

They didn’t have guys in the minor leagues ready to play for the big team until we got to this point. They had McAnulty and Hairston as two proven prospects and they had Headley and Antonelli two players that needed time to develop their defensive abilities at their positions. That’s it. I know you seem to think that the only reason that players stay in the minor leagues is because management wants to protect their psyche, but that just isn’t true. There isn’t a job in the world where a company is willing to put their young new employees in high profile positions before they have proven their competency levels. Psyche be damned.

The team knew they had a core of players that (in this division) could vie for a playoff spot. They tried to make moves that wouldn’t force them to commit to aging players beyond 2008. I’m sure they also knew that their moves could backfire, but you simply don’t blow up a competitive team to start rebuilding (unless you’re the Marlins). It takes a year like this to get us on a new track (a better track, IMHO). A track that I think Sandy has wanted all along and has been working to get to. We will start to build from within and we will no longer gamble with the Jim Edmonds, Michael Barrett, Joe Randa, Vinny Castilla and Paul McAnulty types and instead will gamble with Headley, Venable, Antonelli, LeBlanc and Geer types. It just took time (and opportunity) to get here.

With all due respect, you are not allowed to find our division rivals sexy.

by Wonko on Sep 10, 2008 12:43 PM PDT reply actions

As an aside

It was the Pre-Sandy FO that got the Padres to the point where they didn’t have the prospects to gamble on upside with. The fumbled draft of the early aughties are the anchor that has finally dragged this franchise to the bottom of the ocean.

With all due respect, you are not allowed to find our division rivals sexy.

by Wonko on Sep 10, 2008 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions

You gamble on upside by not gambling on downside

Upside gamble: Hairston in center with P-Mac in left. Downside gamble: Edmonds in center.

How do you know who is and isn’t ready to play in the big leagues? Was P-Mac ready? What made him more ready than Chase Headley? His birth year?

by Dex on Sep 10, 2008 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Pretty good point about P-Mac vs Headley

I think the difference is that Headley needed to spend time learning LF and hitting the type of pitchers that are in AAA. PMac had proven his ability to hit AAA and his defense was never going to get any better. He was a finished product who only needed (and still needs) a chance to prove himself at the major league level. I still think that at the start of the season it was reasonable to think that PMac and Headley were capable of producing equal offensive numbers in 2008 (therefore had the same short term upside). Headley has the better long term upside, but needs work to get there, work they knew could be done properly in AAA without hindering the big league, whereas PMac could either succeed and be a 1 year stop gap with trade value or fail and cost the team less in the long haul vs. Headley failing due to not being prepared. The age didn’t have so much to do with as the experience level. There are also the financial things involved, but we’ve rehashed those to death and I think we both agree that the Padres were in the wrong if that was their main motivation.

With all due respect, you are not allowed to find our division rivals sexy.

by Wonko on Sep 10, 2008 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions

After (over)thinking the whole downside gamble thing

I’m not sure I follow.

The Padres were gambling that Jim Edmonds would hit near his 2006 numbers and play defense near those levels after coming back from an injury that hurt his 2007 production. How is that gamble worse than gambling against Headley struggling with the jump from AA to the majors, not properly learning a new position, and basically losing a year of development? Not to mention the associated gambles of Gerut returning to health and Hairston learning CF? Maybe it was too conservative a move (maybe that’s what you’re trying to say), but I think the likelihood that Edmonds could hold down center with PMac and Hairston holding down left was better than the likelihood that they could patch together CF and throw Headley out in LF.

A similar thing could be said for Iguchi, except he just needed to produce exactly the same as he had in the past couple of years. His bat was better than a number of other free agent options, but was willing to sign a 1 year deal. And in hindsight, aside from a freak injury, the move worked. He played a decent 2B and hit like he had in the past.

With all due respect, you are not allowed to find our division rivals sexy.

by Wonko on Sep 10, 2008 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions