Help me embrace the reality that is Padres' baseball...

by charmeljun on Dec 8, 2010 2:03 AM PST

I know the financial reality of the Padres. I'm not a troll nor am I an idiot that thinks that the Padres should get into a bidding war for Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, and should have kept Adrian Gonzalez at all costs. I know why the Padres traded Jake Peavy and Adrian Gonzalez. But I don't like the WHY.

I know I should cheer for the name at the front of the jersey and not the back. I know I should have hope that money doesn't always equal championships. I know that we should follow the path of the Rays, A's, and Twins and build from the farm system up and I know that takes time. But I also know that since the implement of the infamous Moneyball system in Oakland, and the growth of stars such as Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer in Minnesota, and the great three year run of Tampa in the tough AL East, NONE of those teams have won championships in this salary era of baseball. And I also know that with the Giants winning last season, San Diego is the now the only baseball city in California never to have raised the World Series trophy.

Call it a crisis of faith of sorts. I want to love this team. I always had and despite some of my latest efforts, I suspect I always will. I have no real desire to find another team to root for with deeper pockets. This is my team, good or bad, but I'm wearing thin in the belief and faith that I will ever see a World Series championship flag flying over the center wall at Petco in my lifetime (I'm 40.)

My dream is that MLB will follow the NFL's model of revenue sharing and a salary cap that will end the pillaging of the have nots (Padres, Pirates, Royals) by the haves (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets) but I know that is nothing more than just that, a dream.

So I ask, with my Padres cap in hand, my fellow Padres' fans, how do I embrace this reality? How do I love this team again that just seems to break my heart over and over again?

This FanPost was written by a member of the Gaslamp Ball community and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Gaslamp Ball managers or SB Nation.

Tweet Comment 56 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

My dream is that MLB will follow the NFL’s model of revenue sharing and a salary cap that will end the pillaging of the have nots (Padres, Pirates, Royals) by the haves (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets) but I know that is nothing more than just that, a dream.

AHEM

Bolts from the Blue - Destroying your opinions with facts.

by John Gennaro on Dec 8, 2010 9:07 AM PST reply actions

Is it really that difficult to root for an underdog?

Welcome!

"When the going gets tough... TheGrandHatching pops in later." -- WG

by TheGrandHatching on Dec 8, 2010 9:27 AM PST reply actions

Agreed!

Plus for me it’s really easy. I grew up and A’s fan until I moved here. And let me tell you, as much as the Padres may break your heart, at least they’ve not been threatening to move for 15 years while playing in a disgrace of a stadium that they have to share with the Raiders. THAT all gets old. I’ll take a trip down to PETCO to watch the Pads over that any day.

by athletics68 on Dec 8, 2010 2:57 PM PST up reply actions

What else are you going to do in the spring and all summer?

Watch basketball?

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ◔ヮ◔
Uncommon Sportsman :: Absurdity in play

by Axion on Dec 8, 2010 10:08 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

You don’t need a reason to love something.

You just do.

by red_jekkyls on Dec 8, 2010 10:42 AM PST reply actions

I've heard Tequilla's awesome

"You're like the nicest internet person I know." - theodore donald kerabatsos

by Jordan_Ming on Dec 8, 2010 10:46 AM PST reply actions

So is tequila. =]

(I’m a tyrant.)

I need new pants.

by jodes0405 on Dec 8, 2010 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I guess you've learned SOMETHING from all that drinking...

by Darklighter on Dec 8, 2010 12:56 PM PST up reply actions

and something from SDSU

"Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

by Ron Mexico on Dec 8, 2010 2:47 PM PST up reply actions

Isn't that what I just said?

by Darklighter on Dec 8, 2010 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Thank you

And I understand, it makes your day

"You're like the nicest internet person I know." - theodore donald kerabatsos

by Jordan_Ming on Dec 8, 2010 3:00 PM PST up reply actions

Our GM is SUPER sexy.

by Drama on Dec 8, 2010 10:57 AM PST reply actions

You can only love the best team?

My first team was the Yankees, before they fell apart in 1965. So I understand the satisfaction that comes from expecting your team to be first and have that happen, from looking at my team’s roster and seeing solid veterans everywhere, while everyone else’s puny teams have obvious weakness. Oh, we’re so much better than they are.

Then even though I’d moved away and all these gleeful writers were writing “once-proud Yankees”, I still loved the Yankees. I especially loved Horace Clarke, that singles machine, unlike Yankee fans who saw him in the field regularly. They had this almost miracle season in 1970 when they went 93-69 due to good young players like the rookie Thurman Munson and some resurgent veterans like Lindy McDaniel. They didn’t break anyone’s heart with that, as the then master team of baseball, the Orioles, won 108 games, but were the Yankees back?

No, they weren’t, not until their money problems ended with George Steinbrenner taking over. His initial attempts to buy a championship had mixed results, but by the time he bought Don Gullet and Reggie Jackson, he transformed the Yankees into the World Series winning mercenary machine that they continue to be today, with a roster that depends on players who sold out the teams they came up with, but sold out at a price almost any of us would sell out. That’s 21st century baseball.

So I had some vengeance on those “once-proud Yankees” cracks, and I had some existential joy at moments like Jackson hitting 5 home runs against the Dodgers in a World Series. Only it surprised me how muted my joy was. Who are these guys anyway? Jackson was this low average power hitter with the A’s. He sort of became my guy when he sold himself to the Yankees, but like Garland with the Padres, it wasn’t like he was there to be a permanent fixture.

The Yankees fulfilled my childhood dream in 1977-78, but my God, I wasn’t going to stay married to these mercenaries. Not when I’d met someone else. In the seventies I found a team where I could get seats behind home plate any day I wanted, at the last second. Cheap seats were plentiful, too. Parking was a breeze. There must have been post-game traffic jams, but I can’t remember a single one.

I liked all of that, but I found some things to love, too. Some of these players were pretty good. They worked hard, for almost no glory. Some fans remember Ozzie Smith at shortstop for the Padres in 1979, but you know, Paul Dade was working hard just to his right that year, after the Padres shipped Mike Hargrove off to Cleveland for Dade. I remember all that and smile. It doesn’t matter that the Padres didn’t finish first. They worked hard enough not to finish last, a rare year for them at that point.

Everyone wants a trophy wife, until you’ve actually experienced the down side of that. If someone insists that anything less than a trophy is worthless, then maybe that person needs the experience of how empty a trophy can be. So there isn’t any answer for that person than root for someone who’s likely to win the trophy, even switch allegiances at the last minute if necessary.

If you can’t find someone to love among the major and minor league rosters of the Padres, even among the front office, especially Pretty Boy Hoyer with his soothing voice, you’re not really interested in love. They may not win enough, but all MLB teams give you at least 50 wins to celebrate. And they perform everyday. Yes, they may sell themselves to a higher bidder someday. Wouldn’t you? Their performance may fall way off, like Brian Giles. You can’t be too inhibited from just moving on to some player who is performing. Love without commitment, what a concept.

by playingwithinmyself on Dec 8, 2010 11:24 AM PST reply actions 6 recs

"those 'once-proud Yankees' cracks"

"When the going gets tough... TheGrandHatching pops in later." -- WG

by TheGrandHatching on Dec 8, 2010 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

rec'd

for a lot of copy I won’t read

I drink therefore I am.
W. C. Fields

by Hormel on Dec 8, 2010 3:12 PM PST up reply actions

Not a front runner...

To answer in order…

Thanks for the welcome.

Hard at times to cheer for the underdog, but being a San Diego sports fan, that’s everyday life.

I do love basketball and the Lakers. So I guess I have an idea of what a Yankee fan is like.

I do love the Pads, I’m just wondering how much more losing I can take.

Tequila, tried it, love it, want more of it.

Jed does have this whole chiseled babyface thing going on…

How can I be a front runner when I’ve followed, and stuck by the Padres all my life? Whether I was in Guam, Japan, Washington, Virginia, or the Bay Area, I managed to find a paper, radio, or local bar with satellite to continue to follow them on a daliy basis (that’s pre-internet my young friends… =)

I agree that cheering for the Yankees to win the World Series is like cheering for Bill Gates to win Lotto and takes all the imagination of a toilet seat, (and almost the same warmth as one,) but it is hard to watch as the richer get even richer while the rest of us wait for lightning to strike in the right place and hoping that we’ve got the right kind of jar to catch it. I know that a World Series title, even just one, would mean more to this city than any of the 27 that the Yankees have, and this city would celebrate it for eons, but I am losing hope that I will ever see this in my lifetime. I’m just disheartened and trying to find my way, again, to hope.

by charmeljun on Dec 8, 2010 11:47 AM PST reply actions

We got this season

My prediction: Best Season Evar.

by Dex on Dec 8, 2010 11:49 AM PST up reply actions

Kind of like the Olympics?

by Darklighter on Dec 8, 2010 12:57 PM PST up reply actions

Tequila, tried it, love it, want more of it.

You’re gonna fit in well here. Come join the GLB Party Posse.

I need new pants.

by jodes0405 on Dec 8, 2010 12:33 PM PST up reply actions

OKAY, I AM TIRED OF THIS WHOLE

“BASEBALL SUCKS WHY CAN’T WE BE LIKE… [NFL] [NBA] [SOCCER] [ANY OTHER LEAGUE”

Here, World Series participants since 1995:

1995 Atlanta Braves 4–2 Cleveland Indians
1996 New York Yankees 4–2 Atlanta Braves
1997 Florida Marlins 4–3 Cleveland Indians
1998 New York Yankees 4–0 San Diego Padres
1999 New York Yankees 4–0 Atlanta Braves
2000 New York Yankees 4–1 New York Mets
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks 4–3 New York Yankees
2002 Anaheim Angels 4–3 San Francisco Giants
2003 Florida Marlins 4–2 New York Yankees
2004 Boston Red Sox 4–0 St. Louis Cardinals
2005 Chicago White Sox 4–0 Houston Astros
2006 St. Louis Cardinals 4–1 Detroit Tigers
2007 Boston Red Sox 4–0 Colorado Rockies
2008 Philadelphia Phillies 4–1 Tampa Bay Rays
2009 New York Yankees 4–2 Philadelphia Phillies
2010 San Francisco Giants 4–1 Texas Rangers

Notice that I included the Yankees days of damnation. Even with that, 18 EIGHTEEEEEEEEENNNNN different teams made a World Series appearance over 16 years.
That’s about ONE new team every year, and this includes the time period where the Yankees were THE unquestioned dominant force in baseball.
Looking at 2000+, 15 different teams appeared in a total of 11 different world series.

Part of the reason this parity appears is that teams realized that if you produce good, young players, you retain control of them for at least 4 VERY affordable years. And you can then trade them away for new young players.
It took a while for this system/model to be developed, but it has, and it IS STILL WORKING.
With the exception of the Yankees and Red Sox, virtual every other team on that list made it to the World Series because they learned how to develop GOOD YOUNG players. The Giants pitching staff (the good pitchers) are a perfect example of this. The same goes for just about every other team on that list.

Now, what about the teams that have not made the World Series since 1995?

AL:
Toronto Blue Jays
Baltimore Orioles
Minnesota Twins
Kansas City Royals
Seattle Mariners
Oakland A’s
NL:
Washington Nationals
Cincinnati Reds
Milwaukee Brewers
Pittsburgh Pirates
Chicago Cubs
Los Angeles Dodgers

Okay, out of those 12 teams all but 5 have made the playoffs since 2000.
Those five: Nationals, Royals, Pirates, Blue Jays, Orioles.
Four of those five teams have had or do have VERY VERY bad ownership/GM issues… The exception being the Blue Jays, but I would be willing to hear arguments about how bad their ownership/GM has been. The Blue Jays have finished above .500 a lot over the last 10 years, but they play in a really difficult division.

Of the 7 teams that have made the playoffs, but not the world series:
The Twins are perennial winners of the AL central… so, they are a good team.
The A’s were winning 80+ games as recently as 2006.
The Dodgers/Mariners/CUBS make REALLLLLY stupid money decisions… so, that’s their problem.
The Reds have clued into developing young talent (finally). The Brewers were really poorly run for a number of years, had a brief peak, and are looking (potentially) bad again.

As for the other 18 teams… you made the world series (since 1995). You may not have won or been there more than once, but you were competitive. In 16 world series, if we LITERALLY forced parity on the league, each team would only make ONE world series appearance. So, guess what… Your team is doing average. Good Job! And you are doing better than teams like the Cubs and Dodgers who spend tons of money.

Now, what about the NFL or the NBA??? Well, I don’t know. My guess though is that far fewer teams made their respective finals during this same time period post 1995 or 2000+
So, let me look…. searching…. searching…. searching….

MLB:

Since 1995- 18 teams (out of 30 teams, but 8 make playoffs)
Since 2000- 15 teams

NFL:
Since 1995- 21 teams (out of 32 teams, but 12 make playoffs—only need to win 1 game)
Since 2000- 16 teams

NBA:
Since 1995- 15 teams (out of 30 teams, but 16 make playoffs)
Since 2000- 11 teams

So… baseball does perfectly fine relative to the NFL or NBA.
When you consider the quality of the team during an entire season baseball runs away from the competition. In baseball, very few teams make the playoffs, which means far fewer teams have the chance to reach a championship game. In football and basketball many more teams (50% more in football and 100% more in basketball) are eligible to make the championship game after the season. This means you can be sub .500 in basketball and have a decent chance of making the playoffs every year.

If we were to do a complete analysis, comparing winning % of the various teams in and out of the playoffs and the frequency of playoff appearances relative to playoff spots available and the number of teams in the league, I think it would be clearer that MLB is really very good in terms of parity and teams having solid chances to make the playoffs and win titles. However, this is difficult to do considering the various formats and number of teams involved in the post season.

In baseball, it is very hard to be an “okay” team and make the world series because you have to play 162 games AND you have to be capable of winning a 7 game series against other very good teams. Therefore, I don’t think the NFL numbers are nearly as robust as the MLB numbers (if a QB has one bad game, that’s your entire playoffs down the drain). And if you watch the NBA, even casually, I think it is clear that they have serious dynasty issues every decade.

So, my point is not that baseball is fair or perfect, but rather that we have a system that works pretty well right now. Perhaps in a couple of years that will change. But the way things are structured right now, big money teams will always be tempted to buy up the big name talent… paying exorbitant prices for players that will often have serious regression. Smaller teams avoid these pitfalls because they cannot pay $100 million for a single player. AND yet, teams with small payrolls win division titles and pennants all the same.
Honestly, the Padres have been competitive more years than not since 2002, including two years in which we were eliminated from the playoffs in the last game of the season (2007 and 2010).

that’s my two cents (and like $1000 more)

by Zen Blade on Dec 8, 2010 2:24 PM PST reply actions 4 recs

rec'd

for a lot of copy I won’t read

I drink therefore I am.
W. C. Fields

by Hormel on Dec 8, 2010 3:13 PM PST up reply actions

Additionally... The Padres are 574-561

In the last 8 years… and that includes a couple years of pure suck.

I think we have a quality mid-market franchise.

"This team looks dangerous, like a convict with a temper, nothing to lose and a switch blade." -jbox

by MrDanielX on Dec 8, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions

Ah, the '03 season. Those were the...well...those days really, really sucked.

Ehhhh, I don't deserve a signature...

by sdchicken on Dec 8, 2010 4:45 PM PST up reply actions

Meh

Using the same data set, you could argue that there’s very little parity in the league. You’re correct that, if there were absolute parity, each AL and each NL team could expect to make it to the World Series roughly once in a 16-year span. However, if you look solely at the AL, the Yankees have achieved that feat 7 times (accounting for roughly 44% of all AL Championships since 1995). Furthermore, if you look at those 3 AL teams who appeared in the World Series more than once in that 16-year span (Yankees, Red Sox, and Indians), you’ve now accounted for 11 of the 16 World Series, which means that only 19% of the league won the AL Championship 69% of the time.

"When the going gets tough... TheGrandHatching pops in later." -- WG

by TheGrandHatching on Dec 8, 2010 4:10 PM PST up reply actions

Interesting...

When you’ve look at the numbers that way, there’s very little parity in baseball and in particular the AL.

I remember hearing George Will saying that winning, when done all the time, isn’t good for a sport…but then again, since he’s a Cubs fan, I’d expect him to say that. But isn’t it tiresome to see the Yankees simply buy their way into nearly half the AL championships since 95? Also, if the Padres were faced with signing their fading but longtime face of the franchise and the Yankees were looking to resign their most valuable offensive player still in his prime, there would be no question as to what would happen in either case. And yet, innthis reality, the opposite is true as well. Some teams have different operating rules than the others and yet, the goals and the rules to get to the goals are the same.

It is a broken system that has a few solutions, but none of them viable nor realistic since we’re talking about the oldest and most powerful players’ union in sports.

You can’t say that having the ability to spend the most money isn’t an advantage because it doesn’t even require you to be the smartest of GMs, as evidenced in the way Brian Cashman handled the Derek Jeter resigning. But they can make a $10M mistake and bury it with a $20M player. The Padres have said that a player making $20M on their roster would be devastating to the franchise. I’m not saying I disagree, but I don’t like the WHY it is that way. The Why is always more important.

(I’m partial to The Who as well, but love Zeppelin and the Beatles more…:)

by charmeljun on Dec 8, 2010 5:28 PM PST via mobile up reply actions

Of course having more money is more of an advantage

But it’s like saying that the best pitchers are those who throw the ball the fastest.

That isn’t true. Yes, pitchers who can throw the baseball faster than others have a better chance at being good/great, but it is not the only thing. For one thing, everyone knows the Yankees/Red Sox will overpay… and so, the players can hold out longer for more money. Their fading captain (Jeter) can demand a salary much higher than he probably deserves, etc…

The system is not broken for several other significant reasons, but I have written enough on this subject for now.

by Zen Blade on Dec 8, 2010 5:52 PM PST up reply actions

The good thing is...

No matter how much money one team has or doesn’t have, one thing remains true and it may just be my one hope for this franchise: intelligence matters.

Money can’t buy that (Peter Angelos) It can make up for a lack of it at times (Brian Cashman) but there is no substitute for it.

There are smart people here in this front office and (hopefully) there is an owner willing to spend in the draft and on the farm. We can only hope that Jed Hoyer and company have found and will continue to find young talent that will make this revolving door roster more palatable.

Smart Em to death. That’s the edge this franchise needs over the Dark Empire and something I can embrace.

Hey! That worked! :)

by charmeljun on Dec 8, 2010 6:41 PM PST via mobile up reply actions

^This

It really makes me happy to see rich teams do ridiculous things with their money (I’m looking at you Cubs). There is definitely something to be said for being thrifty.

I’m not sure if was on this thread or another thread, but someone mentioned that in 2012 we will be getting a new TV deal, which should bring in a lot more money to help us raise payroll… bumping us up into the 60-80 mil range?

Plus we’ve got The Jedi running things around here… smart AND money? I wouldn’t be surprised if we ended up being a serious contender in the coming years.

"I don't think about the things I say. You guys are the ones who think about it."

by surferfromSD619 on Dec 9, 2010 9:03 PM PST up reply actions

^This

It really makes me happy ~~to see rich teams do ridiculous things with their money (I’m looking at you Cubs). There is definitely something~~ to be ~~said for being thrifty.~~

~~Plus we’ve got The Jedi running things around here… smart AND money? I wouldn’t be surprised if we ended up being a serious contender in the~~ coming ~~years.~~

www.FriarsOnCardboard.blogspot.com
"jbox does not drink coffee, as it makes him clean house big time." ~Kev

by TheThinGwynn on Dec 10, 2010 1:29 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs

This really should be greened

Ehhhh, I don't deserve a signature...

by sdchicken on Dec 19, 2010 11:57 AM PST up reply actions

But what you are not saying out of that is that

8 AL teams have been in the world series out of the last 16 years. That’s over half of the teams in the AL (there are 14 teams). THEREFORE, 8/14 = 4/7 = 57% of the AL teams have been in the world series in the last 16 years.

Looking at just the NL, 10 different teams have been there over the last 16 years. There are 16 NL teams. 10/16 = 5/8 = 62.5% of the NL teams have been in the world series in the last 16 years.

AGAIN, how much parity do you want? More than half of the teams of each league have made the World series within the last 16 years. That means that most of the teams of each league have been the best team in their league at some point. And I detailed the outcomes of the teams that were not. What numbers would you want to see instead?
Even random probability would NOT likely yield more than about 14 different teams over 16 years (Imagine rolling dice with 16 sides… what will happen first, rolling all 16 sides once OR rolling one of the sides more than once?)

So… “meh” all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of the teams in each league have been able to compete over the last 15 years—especially when you consider teams like the Twins and A’s who might win several divisional titles, but not a pennant.

by Zen Blade on Dec 8, 2010 5:47 PM PST up reply actions

The Yankees and Red Sox have done an extremely good job of developing young talent.

When the Padres develop a roster similar to Jeter, Rivera, Cano, B Williams, Pettit, Posada or Youkilis, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Varitek, and Lester…be sure to let me know

With the exception of the Yankees and Red Sox, virtual every other team on that list made it to the World Series because they learned how to develop GOOD YOUNG players

by strummer on Dec 9, 2010 1:06 AM PST up reply actions

I think

that is a fair number of good young players (Stretched over 15 years), but the Padres have had similar numbers of solid young players. We haven’t had many superstars, but Adrian, Trevor, Bell, all of our other young relievers, Peavy, Latos…. Those are all young players who we have had (we may not have developed them) during that same time period.

But this pales in comparison to a team like the Rays or Giants or Rangers or Phils. Who have developed a core group and then gone out and grabbed a couple of more expensive complementary parts (at most). The Yankees and Red Sox have some good young players, but they go out and buy a lot of complementary parts.
The Padres try to wheel and deal, and sometimes it works… but it is tougher.

by Zen Blade on Dec 9, 2010 4:15 AM PST up reply actions

Six names that define The Padres problem:

Carrillo, Antonelli, Schmidt, Dykstra, Tate, Whitson

by field39 on Dec 9, 2010 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Want more?

Chamberlain, Hernandez, Mendoza, Nick Johnson, Ming Wan, Philip Hughes, Soriano
Garciapara,Paplebon, Vaughn, Valentin,etc

Notice I didn’t use players aquired by trade. If I did, then the list would be twice as long and include players like Ortiz and O’Neil

by strummer on Dec 9, 2010 6:09 PM PST up reply actions

We'll be the first ones to admit that the Padres have had some abysmal drafts

over the last 20 years. We’re just starting to get it together and draft guys who will actually be able to come through the organization.

The Padres are good, but make no mistake: we've gotta beef up the linwup.

If I had a nickel from every SBN blog that has banned me, Arrowhead Pride would owe me 5¢.

by StrangeBroP25 on Dec 11, 2010 12:28 PM PST up reply actions

Yes and no.

While they have drafted some guys that look good, they have continued to whiff in the 1st round. They cannot continue throwing away their 1st round draft picks and expect to be successful.

by field39 on Dec 11, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Let's not forget that the MLB draft is not the NFL

We’re not drafting the best players out of AAA. It’s a lottery with more misses than hits. I’m not saying we’ve been that good but assuming that all your 1st round picks will end up as starters is a little too far.

Oh internet, what a wicked web you weave.

by Mad_Villain on Dec 11, 2010 2:06 PM PST up reply actions

Who may I ask

is assuming that?

by strummer on Dec 11, 2010 2:49 PM PST up reply actions

Me :(

Oh internet, what a wicked web you weave.

by Mad_Villain on Dec 11, 2010 2:59 PM PST up reply actions

Out of their last eight 1st round picks,

Stauffer is the only one that has produced anything at the major league level. The horror, the horror.

by field39 on Dec 11, 2010 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Besides Stauffer, these picks include:

-A dude who didn’t sign (Whitson)
-A dude who gets injured every time a bell rings (Tate)
-A dude who had some good years before imploding mentally and is now out of baseball (Greene)
-The Ryan Leaf of MLB (Matt F*cking Bush)

Cesar Carillo still has upside, I guess. Antonelli has yet to show anything at the major league level, Allan Dykstra is still slogging away through the low-level minors, and Nick Schmidt has been so-so at Lake Elsinore.

The Padres are good, but make no mistake: we've gotta beef up the linwup.

If I had a nickel from every SBN blog that has banned me, Arrowhead Pride would owe me 5¢.

by StrangeBroP25 on Dec 11, 2010 3:23 PM PST up reply actions

Cumberland looks to be a stud..

Oh internet, what a wicked web you weave.

by Mad_Villain on Dec 11, 2010 3:40 PM PST up reply actions

Along with Decker, Cumberland was chosen in the compensation round.

I am pointing out the 1st round because that is the most likely place to get impact players, the kind of players the Padres lack.

by field39 on Dec 11, 2010 3:47 PM PST up reply actions

1st round in my mind..

but I agree with your sentiment. We need a better success rate. All I’m getting at is that I don’t really care what round our players are drafted in. Too me, 1st rounders are guys to get excited about but I don’t expect them to do too much immediate damage like Stras. Peavy was taken in the 15th round. I’d be more concerned about having to find talent through free agency. Who cares what round they’re drafted in if we can groom our own quality players and not rely on other team’s castaways to plug holes, you know?

Oh internet, what a wicked web you weave.

by Mad_Villain on Dec 11, 2010 4:07 PM PST up reply actions