Padres get Barrett, miss Jenkins, are subjected to Schilling's long winded opinion

by Dex on Dec 20, 2007 7:27 AM PST in News

Geoff Jenkins is going to the Phillies. Ouch. At least we re-signed Barrett. I don't think he's really demonstrated his full value to the Padres just yet.

Also, Curt Schilling is really long winded. I see significant drop offs in traffic when I post anything more than 85 words. I don't get how Curt Schilling can pull 3,678 words. Three thousand six hundred and seventy eight words. I think there would be mutiny.

Tweet Comment 43 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Easy explanation for Schilling

Red Sox fans love windbags. Simple.

by Winfield's Ghost on Dec 20, 2007 7:57 AM PST reply actions

"SCHILLING???"

by Drama on Dec 20, 2007 8:00 AM PST up reply actions

ALWAYS funny

Always.

by Winfield's Ghost on Dec 20, 2007 9:08 AM PST up reply actions

So I guess...

Our outfield IS set after all. But if Geoff wants to have a hitter friendly ballpark at home, and wants a guaranteed second year, then he should get it. Was anyone on here REALLY that excited about him?

Yea and Schilling is just a blowhard assclown. We don't care about yur opinions on EVERYTHING. You're like an Andy Rooney that can throw a baseball. That's right...I went there.

...and we're STILL waiting for MATT HOLLIDAY to touch the plate.

by offspeedkills on Dec 20, 2007 8:07 AM PST reply actions

With Barrett agreeing to a reasonable contract

I totally expect him to get flipped for some OF help.

by Phantom on Dec 20, 2007 8:09 AM PST reply actions

I have got to say, I'm fucking pissed about Barret

Help me out here guys.

Use every stat or sabermetric in the book, any avenue of logic or reason, any school of magic or sorcery, or any pictures of Barrett's hot wives, girlfriends, sisters or daughters to explain to me why we should pay 3.5 MILLION DOLLARS to our .226 never-walking backup catcher.

Barrett was a colossal failure last year, and I had high hopes for him. Bard had a solid year and remains in the top 10 NL catchers.

Why didn't we take the 3.5 million we just gave to Barrett and apply it to the Milton Bradley fund? Or anybody else?

At this point it seems we're hoping that Barrett goes 4/10 to start the year and we trade him ASAP it seems like.

Yes, this is a bit of pent up frustration that every team, sans the world-series Rockies, got noticeably better in the off season except us... but I'm trying to figure out how 4 million dollars for a catcher who showed no upside last year is a good move for a team which is starting to look like a retirement home.

by Brad @ Gaslamp Ball on Dec 20, 2007 8:36 AM PST reply actions

My condolences...

on having Barret on your roster for another year. I still can't believe Towers took him, and I find it troubling that he wanted him back. Maybe it's just me, but Towers MO regarding catchers has usually been to ignore the offense and find the guys who can call a good game, handle a pitching staff well, and give you above average defense. Barret has regressed at the plate, looks confused behind it, and let's not even talk about him throwing from it to 2nd base. Unless he has a pretty significant bounce-back year offensively, or he gets traded for another outfielder with some pop, keeping him will be a mistake.

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 20, 2007 8:59 AM PST up reply actions

Let's give him 1 year

Or at least, until the trade deadline, to play in one city away from the Zambrano hullaballoo. Some players are starters, and play their best when they get daily ABs. You take that away from a player, and they struggle. It's a tough cycle to get out of. I'd like to think that it'll be a fight for the starting job out of spring training, as I think Barrett's got more offensive upside ultimately than Bard (and neither can throw a guy out so that point's moot), but Bard can call a better game. Let's just not throw him overboard immediately.

But, um, if we do, let's get someone decent for him. Yeah.

by California Penal on Dec 20, 2007 9:34 AM PST up reply actions

Jumping the gun

In 2006, Bard posted an unbelievable .325 EqA (Mike Piazza has a .312 EqA for his career), and as could be expected, returned to a more reasonable .275 EqA last season. Michael Barret had a terrible year for the Cubs abd Padres last season, but the three years before that he posted .289, .275, and .282 EqA's, about the same you can expect out of Bard. I think the front office looks as last season as a severe offyear for Barrett, and expect him to return to form next year. I think Barret will be a good backup for Bard (which we definitely need), and a nice hitter to have off the bench.

Also, I don't see how every team got better except for us and the Rockies...

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 9:43 AM PST up reply actions

NL West gets better & more barrett..

Dodgers: Andruw Jones (who annihilates everything at Petco Park) and the Japanese pitcher Kuroda, with a solid young core of players (Loney, Martin) and a great rotation: Penny, Lowe, Kuroda, Jason Schmidt, Billingsly.

Zonies: Just got Dan Haren, a Cy young contender. Brandon Webb and Haren in the same pitching rotation!?

Giants: Losing Bonds will actually be a good thing, as the team can now focus on actually being a winning team as opposed to just riding the Barry Bonds train and being distracted every game. Plus, Aaron Rowand.

Anyway, back to the Barrett: So the question is, are we going to give him the constant AB's that was suggested up above (and fuck Bard in the process), or hope he comes to life off the bench?

by Brad @ Gaslamp Ball on Dec 20, 2007 10:01 AM PST up reply actions

NL West

Dodgers: Jones definitely had a career-bad year last year, and I am sure he will rebound a bit. Even so, he is a career .281 EqA hitter, about the same so far as Bard and slightly better than Mike Cameron. He is defintely a nice addition defensively, if for nothing else than they get Juan Pierre out of Center Field. He has certainly done well in Petco over a statistically small sample size, we will have to wait and see if he can keep it up. Pitching-wise, I honestly don't know how much Kuroda will add.

Arizona: Yes, Dan Haren is a nice addition. Assuming they defy all odds and repeat last years statistically improbable season, he may make the difference. Their offense is still pretty bad though, and I don't know if Haren is any better than a healthy Chris Young(the pitcher).

Giants: Bonds posted a 1.045ops last season, or a .344 EqA, whichever you like better. Even if it was only over 340 ABs, the guy was still a monster at the plate. There is no way in hell Rowand is anywhere near that good at the plate. There are a multitude of reasons he probably won't be as good as he was last year. He is basically Mike Cameron, just more inconsistent. Now Rowand in CF and Roberts in left is definitely an improvement defensively, but not enough to overcome the loss in offense.

The Diamondbacks and Rockies beat us out by one game in a season where everything went right for them, and we were crippled by injuries. As sad as it was, we had a better offense than everybody in the NL West save the Rockies. I will take our pitching staff over anyone elses in our division.

As far as Barrett goes, I am not sure what the plan is. He accepted arbitration though, so I don't think he hates playing in San Diego, and would have to realize that Bard is the front runner. I would guess he is ok with his situation, and that can make a big difference.

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 10:35 AM PST up reply actions

Jones

This is what scares me about Andruw Jones.

Andruw Jones at PetCo Park:

.545 .615 1.000 1.615 [6/11, 1 hr, 5 RBI]
.333 .448 .958 1.407 [8/24, 4 hr, 10 RBI]
.300 .353 .833 1.186 [3/10, 2 hr, 3 RBI]
.455 .455 1.000 1.455 [5/11, 2 hr, 3 RBI]

Herculean? Mammoth? Destroyer of worlds? I don't know why, but the man turns into He-Man at PetCo Park. Call it an aberration, say it's unrepeatable, and Sure, he won't continue to perform at those numbers; it's still worth being a bit worried about.

I agree about Bonds contributing way more offensively than Rowand ever will. Still, I maintain that Bonds biggest affect to the Giants was not on the scoreboard. Bonds was the focus of the SF organization, to the exclusion of even fielding a decent baseball team. The Giants might be horrible, but as long as Bonds was there and hitting home runs, Sabean was a happy camper.

Now that Bonds is gone, SF might try to field a decent team and make some smart moves and actually try to win. Now that Bonds is gone, some of the young guys might actually have a chance to step up and go after some spotlight. What if Zito rebounds too?

On paper, SF is worse with Rowand instead of Bonds. But that organization just excised an enormous, cancerous demon from their system that they fed off of for years. Who knows what will happen now.

by Brad @ Gaslamp Ball on Dec 20, 2007 10:54 AM PST up reply actions

Agreed

Even given that 56AB is a statistically insignificant number, he is scary at Petco.

I would also agree that Bonds leaving is a good thing for the Giants, except for the fact that they keep making stupid moves. Rowand is not enough to make that team a competitor, just like Zito wasn't. Yet they keep over paying these guys and crippling themselves for the long run. They have some great young pitchers and should be building for the future.

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 11:02 AM PST up reply actions

NL West

Andruw Jones is only "slightly" better than Mike Cameron?!? And only "the same so far" as Josh Bard?!?

I'm sorry, your rationale is nuttier than squirrel turds, osbug.

Paul Lo Duca is MLB's Pablo Escobar..

by DodgerBlueBalls on Dec 20, 2007 11:20 AM PST up reply actions

Rationale

has nothing to do with it. Jones to this point in his career has posted a .281 EqA, Cameron has posted a .275. Based on EqA, Jones is slightly better than Mike Cameron. Josh Bard posted a .275 EqA last season.

I am using EqA because it adjusts for park factors, league factors etc., so it is nice for a general comparison. I am sure there are other stats we could use too.

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 11:37 AM PST up reply actions

Fair enough, but

You are saying that Andruw Jones is only "slightly" better than Mike Cameron???

Paul Lo Duca is MLB's Pablo Escobar..

by DodgerBlueBalls on Dec 20, 2007 11:49 AM PST up reply actions

Again

Just going by EqA then yes, Jones is only slightly better than Cameron. Even in his 51HR season (which was listed as the worst 50HR season ever), he posted a .300 EqA. Looking at the numbers, Mike Cameron has just been more consistent over his career. Since 1999, the first season he got 500+ AB, he has never posted an EqA lower than .271. Every year he is in the .271 to .290 range. Since 1998 (the first year he got 500+AB), Jones has posted anywhere from .251 to .300. Although his upside is higher, it is not by much.

In the field, even with his decline Jones is better than Cameron.

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 12:03 PM PST up reply actions

Wow!!!

That's what I thought you were saying. You really are saying that Andruw Jones is only a slightly better ballplayer than Mike Cameron. Wow!!! The statement leaves me just dumbfounded. Wow, wow, wow, wow!!!

Paul Lo Duca is MLB's Pablo Escobar..

by DodgerBlueBalls on Dec 20, 2007 12:55 PM PST up reply actions

Ok

Go ahead and convince me otherwise.

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 1:46 PM PST up reply actions

Do you not know how...

to use the internets to look up things called statistics? I prefer www.baseball-almanac.com but there are an assload of places to get the so called "facts" about a player's performance.

Here are a some easy ones though...

Career Stats

Jones out slugs Cameron by 50 points .445 to .497
Jones has a higher BA .263 to .251
OPS??? --- Jones wins again again .849 to .786
OBP??? ---virtual tie Jones .342 and Cameron .341

Defense is not even close....

FLD% RF
Jones .992 3.42 GoldGloves=10

Cameron .985 3.36 GoldGloves=3

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 20, 2007 2:32 PM PST up reply actions

Ok

The difference is EqA adjusts for park, league and the fact that you don't face your own pitchers. It takes into account baserunning (which over the last few years certainly doesn't help Jones). By it's definition, it is a measure of offensive value per out. After all those adjustments, Jones comes out a little better than Cameron offensively. Defensively, Jones is probably significantly better than Cameron, but I couldn't tell you by how much. The numbers you give there are a nice starting measure, and Jones certainly outperformed Cameron in +/- last season. Is that worth an extra 7mil a season?

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 2:41 PM PST up reply actions

Well

If you look at "what have you done for me lately" Mike Cameron had higher stats in AVG, OBP, SLG, and OPS. Not to mention he played half his games at Petco. So there.

You must defeat my dragon punch to stand a chance.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Dec 20, 2007 3:06 PM PST up reply actions

In 2007 Season.

You must defeat my dragon punch to stand a chance.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Dec 20, 2007 3:07 PM PST up reply actions

I'm not arguing VALUE...

I was merely pointing out that Jones is superior to Cameron at playing the game of baseball. I don't think he's worth the $ he's getting, but I don't think ANY mlb baseball player is worth what these guys make. I'd think my kids teachers and our firemen/police officers deserve the MLB minimum.

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 20, 2007 3:20 PM PST up reply actions

I agree

I think Jones is a better overall player than Cameron, and I never said otherwise. Just not by as much as people seem to think. Would I rather have him than Cameron? If we throw contracts and money and everything out the window, and look at it in a vacuum, than yes. Fortunately for the Dodgers they can overpay him, and still hold on to Juan Pierre's ridiculous contract. Not many teams can do that.

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 4:11 PM PST up reply actions

BTW

Thank you for taking the minimal amount of time to look up some stats for the guys. That was light years ahead of DodgerBlueBalls analysis.

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 4:16 PM PST up reply actions

LOL...

"I don't see how every team got better except for us and the Rockies..."

Your Divional rivals have signed/traded for

Dodgers - Andruw Jones, Hiroki Kuroda

Arizona - Dan Haren, Chad Qualls

San Fransisco - Aaron Rowand (They will still suck, but they got better.)

You're telling me you would rather have Edmonds, Barret, Iguchi, Wolf, Fick, and DeVannon than any of those guys?

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 20, 2007 10:16 AM PST up reply actions

Exactly right.

Yep, yep and yep =)

I'm glad I'm not the only person who sees this.

by Brad @ Gaslamp Ball on Dec 20, 2007 10:24 AM PST up reply actions

Well

He seemed to be implying that those teams got SIGNIFICANTLY better while we did nothing.

I will take a one year contract for Edmonds and the risks it will carry over the ludicrous contracts that Jones and Rowand got, and the risks they carry.

Dan Haren was a nice pick up, but they gave up quite a bit for him. Would I want to see the Padres give up the farm for him? No. How have all the other great pitchers that have moved from Oakland done so far? That place is a pretty extreme hitters park as well, second only to Petco. Arizona on the other hand is an extreme hitters park, fifth on the list. Will he do well? Probably. Will that by itself be enough? Probably not.

Chad Qualls was anice pickup, except they gave up their lights out closer for him.

I still don't see how they have significantly improved and we haven't improved at all. Or is this like last year the big signings were Barry Zito, Jason Schmidt, Dave Roberts and Juan Pierre? How did those work out?

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 10:42 AM PST up reply actions

What makes you think we're done?

And why did you feel it necessary to inlcude minor signing like Fick and De Vannon? You make it seem like those are the Padres' primary moves, when EVERYBODY signs minor league and fringe guys. Why didn't you list Gary Bennet as the primary pickup for the Dodgers?

I love the Jones signing for the Dodgers because they still have to play Juan Pierre's dopey ass somewhere in the OF. That takes ABs away from one of Andre Ethier or Matt Kemp, both of whom put up better numbers than Jones last year. So that's a net gain in my eyes.

The only team that should concern us would be the D'Backs, who played WAAAAAYYY over their numbers. 07 was likely Byrnes' career year, and as of right now, the D'backs have no reliable third-bagger with Tracy hurt.

by Phantom on Dec 20, 2007 10:58 AM PST up reply actions

Actually...

if I wanted to "make it seem like those are the Padres' primary moves" I would have put their names at the beginning of that spectacular list.

Yeah, the Dodgers will have to figure out how to make their OF work, and having some OF depth never hurts...just ask Towers.

But seriously, I expect this team to compete in the division just based on the pitching alone. However, if Giles and Gonzales don't have some type of offensive increase from last year, your gonna have to hope Peavy and Young finish the year with sub 3.00 ERAs if you expect to win it.

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Dec 20, 2007 12:03 PM PST up reply actions

This exchange

shows that some people like perception, and others like reality. Perception is only important in areas that don't value results (office politics, ticket sales, marriage), and reality is results oriented (Wins and Losses, investing, engineering).

I like reality and I don't think Dodgers, Rockies, Padres is more than 3 games better or worse than they were last year.

'Zona is better with Harren, but not enough to make up for the wins if the regress to norm in 1 run games. Plus everyone says their young hitters will get better with another year, but that will only be true for half of them. The other half will get worse, or will show last season was a fluke year.

Giants are terrible. period. terrible. Could be a 90 loss team.

Dodgers can be really good if their pitching holds up. But there is nothing to suggests that any of their pitchers can make it through the season (and the only thing you can accurately predict about Japanese starting pitchers transitioning to the MLB is that their will be a signfigant 2nd half drop off in performance, due to league figuring them out, the change in season length, and transitioning form 6 days off to 5 days off.)

Rockies are probably the best offensive team, and their success depends on their starting pitching.

Padres have the best pitching by far, and the offense will make less outs this year (actually they will make about the same number of outs per game-either 27 or 24 save extra innings, but the rate at which they make outs will be better). They should be around 88-92 wins, which will make the last week of the season importatn. And as a fan, that is all I can ask for.

"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 20, 2007 11:20 AM PST up reply actions

my take

The Giants will win no more than 70 games. Beyond the fact that their offense sucks, their bullpen is pretty bad too.

I am not a big Joe Torre fan, but I think he's just what the Dodgers needed. It seemed like Jeff Kent was trying to coach that team himself, and that is never a good idea. I think that's a 100-win team if they can get their heads together, and much scarier than the Rockies or D-Backs overall.

Diamondbacks: Their rotation is solid, but they weakened their bullpen by getting rid of Valverde. Qualls will be solid, but Valverde was scary at times. As for their hitting, I'm not convinced they're good enough yet. I think Reynolds will regress, I don't think Upton or Young have enough plate discipline, I'm still not sold on Byrnes (if he does it again this year, then maybe I'll buy it). CoJack has been a pretty replaceable 1B guy, although he does have upside. Basically, they need a lot of young players to turn the corner at the same time, and I don't believe that will happen. I think they win 85 games or so.

Rockies: Love their hitting, not sold on their pitching. Francis is too hot and cold, Morales and Jimenez looked overmatched in the playoffs, Cook is your average veteran starter ... nothing scares me here. I don't think the hitting will be better this year unless they give Ian Stewart a shot at 2B. I don't think they're as good as their hot streak or as bad as they were before that. Maybe an 80-win team.

Padres: I'm very worried about them. Young looked terrible down the stretch, Maddux is ancient, Wolf is a complete question mark. The bullpen will be great, Peavy will be great, but the pitching is a total question mark otherwise. On offense, it's hard to say they'll be better than last year. A full season of Good Kouz would help. But it's hard to compare this offense with the offenses in Colorado and Los Angeles and honestly think this one is as good. Replacing Cameron and Bradley with Headley and Edmonds could work, or it could be a disaster. I see this as a 80-85 win team. They'll need a lot of people to play above their 2007 levels to stand much of a chance.

"Winfield's head hits the wall! It's rolling toward second base!" - Jerry Coleman

by metalsupplier on Dec 20, 2007 12:03 PM PST up reply actions

To be fair

Young looked terrible after his injury. He was probably brought back sooner than he should have been. Before that, he had a shot at taking the CY from Jake.

After adjustment, the Padres had a better offense than the Giants, Dodgers and Diamondbacks last season. As I have probably made more than clear, I don't think any of the other teams did much to improve offensively. Just like any team, there are a lot of what ifs and need to be. I think we have a pretty good offense in the infield. Kouz and Adrian posted pretty good years even with their month long slumps, and Khalil is a nice offensive shortstop considering the defense he gives us. It would be hard to say we haven't improved at second base. With Bard and Barret behind the plate, I would say that we will have a better offensive year this year than last.

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 12:22 PM PST up reply actions

i hope you're right

I just think it's a little optimistic. It's hard to look at the team as it's currently assembled and say "That's the team to beat." Sure, things could break their way, but you can say that about a lot of teams.

"Winfield's head hits the wall! It's rolling toward second base!" - Jerry Coleman

by metalsupplier on Dec 20, 2007 12:42 PM PST up reply actions

I agree

I also don't think there is one team in the NL you can look at and say that is the team to beat. The way I see it, last year everything went right for the Rockies and Diamondbacks, and everything went wrong for the Padres. They beat us out by one game. If everything levels out a bit, I think we have a good chance.

by osbug on Dec 20, 2007 2:47 PM PST up reply actions

Snakes and Rocks played beyond their ability

last year. No way the Colorado wins 28 of 30 games again. Injuries and sophomore jinks will bring them back to earth. However, Pads had MB for a month last year, and it made a huge difference. Unless we get a surprise performance or two, we will all be moaning about lack of offense in 6 months.

by planetjeffy on Dec 20, 2007 12:14 PM PST up reply actions