nilodnayr

Absolutely. Anderson is only a couple years younger. And while people focus, justly, on his horrible lack of OBP, he can't hit for power either. He hasn't crossed the 20 HR threshold since 2003. He's less of a hitter than Mike Fontenot. Not to mention Anderson is a terrible defender.

Care to explain this? I was a big fan of Hermida, but he took a step backward last year. Do you just happen to think it was a fluke because he's still so young, or is there something I'm missing? Falling off a little was probably to be expected with as high as his BABIP was in '07, but his '08 is masked by terrible numbers in a terrible hitters park. His .288/.364/.487/.851 line away from home as a 24 year old is pretty stellar, and with his age and minor league pedigree you can expect him to improve. He'd also combine with Soto to give a great cost effective pair of hitters to ease the pain of Lee/Ramirez/Soriano declining or leaving the team. As you know, throwing out half of someone's stats isn't the best thing to do. Not generally, but when you have a guy who plays in an extreme pitchers/hitter's park, it gives you a decent idea of what you might expect out of him in a more neutral setting. Not looking more at road stats when judging guys who play in places like Florida and San Diego or Colorado is really not an better an idea. And thats why you take his home stats and park adjust them...even though park adjustments aren't great, thats infinitely (well not infinitely) better than cutting your sample size in half. Throwing them out is just plain wrong. "Throwing them out" is wrong if you are trying to measure his production. After all, he was killing the Marlins when he batted at home. But in trying to see how he'll do for us, it is a good tool. You don't want a half-year of stats(?), look at the last two years on the road. Good prognostication requires tools that are sensitive. Hermida might be no big deal. But he has a chance, unlike Matt Murton for instance, to be special. Aren't we trying to measure his production? Baseball stats is really a sample size game, it'd be irresponsible to throw out half your sample especially for a guy with such little major league time.

Wouldn't re-signing Edmonds be a MUCH better idea than signing Anderson?

He would be nearly half of the Rays payroll. They'd have to pick up a TON of his salary to get a guy like Davis or Hellickson.

Care to explain this? I was a big fan of Hermida, but he took a step backward last year. Do you just happen to think it was a fluke because he's still so young, or is there something I'm missing? Falling off a little was probably to be expected with as high as his BABIP was in '07, but his '08 is masked by terrible numbers in a terrible hitters park. His .288/.364/.487/.851 line away from home as a 24 year old is pretty stellar, and with his age and minor league pedigree you can expect him to improve. He'd also combine with Soto to give a great cost effective pair of hitters to ease the pain of Lee/Ramirez/Soriano declining or leaving the team. As you know, throwing out half of someone's stats isn't the best thing to do. Not generally, but when you have a guy who plays in an extreme pitchers/hitter's park, it gives you a decent idea of what you might expect out of him in a more neutral setting. Not looking more at road stats when judging guys who play in places like Florida and San Diego or Colorado is really not an better an idea. And thats why you take his home stats and park adjust them...even though park adjustments aren't great, thats infinitely (well not infinitely) better than cutting your sample size in half. Throwing them out is just plain wrong.

Care to explain this? I was a big fan of Hermida, but he took a step backward last year. Do you just happen to think it was a fluke because he's still so young, or is there something I'm missing? Falling off a little was probably to be expected with as high as his BABIP was in '07, but his '08 is masked by terrible numbers in a terrible hitters park. His .288/.364/.487/.851 line away from home as a 24 year old is pretty stellar, and with his age and minor league pedigree you can expect him to improve. He'd also combine with Soto to give a great cost effective pair of hitters to ease the pain of Lee/Ramirez/Soriano declining or leaving the team. As you know, throwing out half of someone's stats isn't the best thing to do.

No they Don't have to trade him. No need for the size 200 font. But there have been rumors that the owners may decide to cut payroll to somewhere around 30 some million I believe because of the divorce, which would make it extremely difficult to fit 24 other guys under that limit in addition to Peavy. Just because you put it in 200 point font doesn't mean this won't come into play this winter. Doesn't mean it will either. My best guess is someone will pony up a worthwhile offer and the deal will be made. Maybe the Brewers if they don't bring Sabathia back. Well evidently it worked because people immediately stopped talking about how we can get him for pennies on the dollar and that there was an ultimatum to trade him. We can't and there isnt. Buster pegged it at $50M and all other reports are saying $20M off 2008, which would be just over $50M, either way that still allows them to field a team with Peavy. Towers denied reports of a $40M payroll during the Giles trade debacle. Even if it was $30M off, they could still field a team with Peavy and get rid of Giles or Greene. I've shown you that they absolutely can fit Peavy and 24 other guys in $50M, you just chose to ignore it. I guess I should have put it in 200 point font. Obviously the Padres are under a payroll contraint. That point is undeniable, but it is 100% absolutely false for people to think that it is impossible or even difficult for the Padres to field a 25 man roster with Peavy and stay within those payroll constraints. First, people didn't stop talking about trading for Peavy because of your post. This threads been going for awhile now, is getting up there in pages, and is beginning to suffer from BRTII syndrome. Second, I didn't choose to ignore anything. It's not in any teams best interest to tie up a third of their payroll in one player. No one ever said it was impossible for them to keep Peavy and 24 other guys on the books. What you're obviously missing is that everyone thought everyone else understood that the team wouldn't want that high of a percentage of their payroll on one guy, and they would find it difficult justifying keeping someone in his salary class when they're cutting back everywhere else. You keep talking in extremes, but you're the only one. No one is saying they're going to do or not do anything for sure other than yourself. The only thing anyone else is saying is that they should be compelled (not absolutely, but to a degree) to move him for a variety of reasons. From a business perspective, they're taking a huge gamble if they keep Peavy. He had some arm problems this year, he has a long term contract, and he is taking up a huge percentage of their projected payroll. If he goes down this year with TJS, it would be a total utter disaster that would set their franchise back significantly, kind of like Albert Belle with the Orioles from 2001-2003. If he were on the DL for an extended period, they'd have a payroll of somewhere in the low to mid $30 millions with the figures you reported for the other 24 guys and his replacement. As far as anyone saying we can get him for peanuts, I agree with you on that one, they won't give him away for nothing. But if they can get maybe 70% (maybe more, maybe less) of what they would under more normal circumstances, I think they'd have to think real hard before turning it down. A) Peavy would be roughly 22% of the payroll, not 33%. B) Correct, you did not say it would be impossible, you said it would be extremely difficult...I outlined how it wouldn't be extremely difficult at all. My points are these. Based on all the information out there, the Padres do not need to trade Peavy this offseason. They can field a team with him on the 2009 payroll and fall within $50M. If they need to cut payroll beyond that, they have other options (Giles, Greene). They are not trading him only for money sake. They are trading him to improve their team and organization. If they feel they cannot do that this offseason, they have the flexibility to wait until the summer and trade him at the deadline or wait until next offseason. Now is the right time to trade Peavy regardless of payroll cuts because for 2009 he has a large amount of value (performance-salary). That gap shrinks dramatically after 2009.

No they Don't have to trade him. No need for the size 200 font. But there have been rumors that the owners may decide to cut payroll to somewhere around 30 some million I believe because of the divorce, which would make it extremely difficult to fit 24 other guys under that limit in addition to Peavy. Just because you put it in 200 point font doesn't mean this won't come into play this winter. Doesn't mean it will either. My best guess is someone will pony up a worthwhile offer and the deal will be made. Maybe the Brewers if they don't bring Sabathia back. Well evidently it worked because people immediately stopped talking about how we can get him for pennies on the dollar and that there was an ultimatum to trade him. We can't and there isnt. Buster pegged it at $50M and all other reports are saying $20M off 2008, which would be just over $50M, either way that still allows them to field a team with Peavy. Towers denied reports of a $40M payroll during the Giles trade debacle. Even if it was $30M off, they could still field a team with Peavy and get rid of Giles or Greene. I've shown you that they absolutely can fit Peavy and 24 other guys in $50M, you just chose to ignore it. I guess I should have put it in 200 point font. Obviously the Padres are under a payroll contraint. That point is undeniable, but it is 100% absolutely false for people to think that it is impossible or even difficult for the Padres to field a 25 man roster with Peavy and stay within those payroll constraints. I'm going to assume you are talking about me "immediatly stopping posting" once you used big font since you used my "pennies on the dollar phrase." Just to let you know, some people have jobs during the day that takes up their time and doesn't allow them to monitor internet message boards to see if someone replied to something they wrote by using really big font. As far as the Peavy issue, we disagree. I think he will get traded, and the return will be less than you expect. We'll just have to see what happens. I'm going to go spend some time with my family now, so if I don't respond to what you write, I can assure you it has nothing to do with whatever font, bold, or italics you choose to use. Ok, well then when you get back from your job and your family you can read through this thread and see that I don't have extremely high expectations of a huge return for Peavy because frankly, his production/cost isn't that great (I used the Danny Haren comparison, noting that Peavy should garner less in return than Haren). However, never did I think he would be available for "pennies on the dollar". Of course, 10 pennies and 90 pennies are both pennies, so it depends on how much you mean. I was just annoyed by people who were thought video game trade scenarios would be appropriate and realistic. Its a pet peave of mine. Word has now come out that Peavy would be willing to expand the list of the teams he would accept a trade to (thereby increasing the competition to get him and driving up his price), yet in order to not veto a trade he wants more money (thereby decreasing the price). It will actually be an interesting study in economics to see what happens.

No they Don't have to trade him. No need for the size 200 font. But there have been rumors that the owners may decide to cut payroll to somewhere around 30 some million I believe because of the divorce, which would make it extremely difficult to fit 24 other guys under that limit in addition to Peavy. Just because you put it in 200 point font doesn't mean this won't come into play this winter. Doesn't mean it will either. My best guess is someone will pony up a worthwhile offer and the deal will be made. Maybe the Brewers if they don't bring Sabathia back. Well evidently it worked because people immediately stopped talking about how we can get him for pennies on the dollar and that there was an ultimatum to trade him. We can't and there isnt. Buster pegged it at $50M and all other reports are saying $20M off 2008, which would be just over $50M, either way that still allows them to field a team with Peavy. Towers denied reports of a $40M payroll during the Giles trade debacle. Even if it was $30M off, they could still field a team with Peavy and get rid of Giles or Greene. I've shown you that they absolutely can fit Peavy and 24 other guys in $50M, you just chose to ignore it. I guess I should have put it in 200 point font. Obviously the Padres are under a payroll contraint. That point is undeniable, but it is 100% absolutely false for people to think that it is impossible or even difficult for the Padres to field a 25 man roster with Peavy and stay within those payroll constraints.

Well that must be where Hendry got the idea that Fuld should be untouchable.

Heres the convo between me and TT in regards to 2009 salary...In essense, we can get to a $10M bump in payroll by not resigning wood and getting rid of marquis, while signing Dempster. If we were to get rid of Lee, Marquis, and not resign Wood, we wouldn't have a 1st baseman AND we still wouldn't have enough money for Maggs. Trading Lee? Not bringing Wood back? Trading Marquis? Trading Lee lops off 13M from 2008 Not brining back Wood lops of 7.5M from 2008 Trading Marquis lops off 6.375 from 2008 Grand total of about $27M saved over 2008 budget from the guys you mentioned We'll also lose Howrys 4M, Liebers 3.5M and Wards 1.2M, for roughly $36M total Now lets look at the increase in salaries from 2008 to 2009 Z=2.75M ARAM=1.65M Sori=3M Lilly=5M Fukudome=5.5M Dempster=lets assume 7M (increase from 5.5M to 12.5M) DeRo=.75M Harden=5M Gaudin, Johnson, Wuertz, Cotts, and Cedeno go to arbi, lets estimate $3M more total. So thats roughly $34M in increases meaning net net, we can drop our firstbaseman (without any reasonable subsitute), our closer (without adding another back of the BP guy), and our 5th starter (with a more than viable replacement) and save a whopping $2M from the 2008 payroll to go out there and throw at Tex! Now the above doesn't include signing bonuses. I don't think anyone is really sure how MLB teams account for them. Additionally, Crane did say that the payroll could be bumped. But all in all, the point of the exercise is to show that the Cubs are gonig to need a payroll bump to bring back the same team and even will need a bump if they get rid of Marquis and don't sign Wood. Where this money is coming from to throw at Tex, I still have no clue. Harden is only a 2.5 mil increase, from 4.5 to 7. I had a bit of a simpler exercise in mind. Would you agree that money wouldn't be a problem in the team bringing back Wood and Dempster(within reason of course)? I hope so, because that's the assumption I'm running with. To simplify, let's say Dempster would sign 4/50 and Wood 3/30. Trading Lee and not bringing Wood back is 23 million. Teixeira for ~20 mil and Cruz for ~5 is right there and it fits easily with any type of backloading on Teixeira's deal. If Lee brought you back a good SP, then you don't have to bring back Dempster, or you can drop Marquis' expiring contract on whoever wants his innings, that frees up an additional 6-12 million. We didn't have Harden for the entire year so we didn't pay his entire salary. Hence, for the Cubs, Harden's salary will increase ~$5M. As for your assumption. I think based on what we are hearing on Wood, its not a safe one. I also think they are banking on trading away most of Marquis' money. In total, we can bring back the same team (minus Howry, Lieber, Ward) with Demp at 4/50 and Wood at 3/30, we are looking at a $150M payroll. Thats over a $30M bump from this year. Last year we also got a $20M spike. To put that in perspective, in the 6 years from 2001-2006, our payroll increased $30M. Getting rid of Marquis and not re-signing Wood puts us back down to $130, which seems pretty reasonable to me. $10M is a bump, $30M is an out and out bonanza. Your scenario only works if that decent pitcher that we get back makes no money and is good enough to allow us to have faith in our pitching depth to get rid of 2/5ths of our rotation (ie Matt Cain). And frankly, I don't think Lee for Cain is all that likely.

I know I'm a broken record, but where is this money coming from?

That $49M is with a 25 man roster. However, they obviously have to go cheap at some positions. The only position they lose a starter at is 2B. They have internal options such as Antonelli (although he had a disasterous 2008) or Edgar Gonzalez and Scott Hairston. Worse off though is their rotation after Peavy and Young. They have to find 3 guys out of Baek, Hensley, Banks, LeBlanc, Greer, Germano, and God knows who else. They can bargain hunt like they always do though for Estes and Ledezma -esque guys and will surely be looking at the rehab guys again like Prior and Clement, so its not an insurmountable task to build the back end of their rotation, especially since they know they aren't going to compete. Their bullpen should be OK (not good or even average, but probably good enough), even without Hoffman.

Aligning yourself with Paul Sullivan isn't going to convince anyone on this board that your opinions are correct. In fact, it will do just the opposite. Just an FYI.

The Padres 2008 Payroll was $73.7M. Buster Olney reports the Padres want to have a 2009 payroll around $50M. Looking at the Padres currently, with them picking up Giles option and arbi raises they have roughly $49M committed. THAT INCLUDES PEAVY. It does not include retaining Hoffman. If they really want Hoffman they'll have to either decline Giles' option or trade him or trade Greene and get nothing in return. Regardless, the Padres DO have room in their budget for Peavy for 2009. They don't HAVE to trade him. Like I said above, the timing of the trade is due to his maximum production/cost, not the divorce.

Exactly. The Cubs may have a chance to get a stud pitcher for pennies on a dollar. Hendry needs to make this happen. Hopefully SD feels they "have to" trade Peavy. There are not many options other than the Cubs. Pie, Marshall, Castillo, Ceda might be enough. No No No. It doesn't seem like there is a total ultimatum (and if there was then obviously no one would know about it). We aren't going to get Peavy for pennies on the dollar. We are going to have to give up a lot. How does it not seem like there isn't a total ultimatum? Why would SD even entertain the idea of trading Peavy if they didn't have to slash payroll? He is their best player, and is signed to a team friendly deal for the next 5 years. Of course we don't know for sure, it sure seems to me like they have to move him. If they do have to trade him they only have a couple options, and they might have hard time finding a better deal than one from the Cubs. 15, 16, 17, 22. Those are the reasons why the Padres want to trade Peavy now. Those are Peavy's yearly salaries from 2010-2013. Whats significant about those numbers isn't so much the fact that they will be a big bump in pay by the team after 2009. Whats significant is that they will be fairly close to Peavy's ACTUAL value. Once Peavy reaches the part of his contract that he signed the extention last winter he isn't going to be such a great deal anymore. He'll be a $20M pitcher making $17.5M. Now really is the right time where hes reached the inflection of his best production AND best value. The demand from the market SHOULD be at its highest, however because there are seemingly few trading partners it is not. If that indeed is the case then I'm guessing we'll see them hold onto Peavy and trade him at the deadline. Additionally, you have to look at the Padres as a whole. They have many holes and a poor farm system (in addition to the payroll issues). One Jake Peavy isn't going to propel this team into the playoffs. They need multiple young, good, cheap players. It would be foolish for a team to not entertain offers on their best player if it will help them have a better team overall. DePodesta has said that many times on his blog. Regardless as to whether or not payroll slashing is going on in SD, now is the right time to trade Peavy.

Exactly. The Cubs may have a chance to get a stud pitcher for pennies on a dollar. Hendry needs to make this happen. Hopefully SD feels they "have to" trade Peavy. There are not many options other than the Cubs. Pie, Marshall, Castillo, Ceda might be enough. No No No. It doesn't seem like there is a total ultimatum (and if there was then obviously no one would know about it). We aren't going to get Peavy for pennies on the dollar. We are going to have to give up a lot.

If Towers takes that, Hendry has some nasty pictures of him. That platter wouldn't land Peavy alone, let alone Greene. I'm thinking Pie/Theriot/Marshall/Veal/Adkins might get them to discuss that deal. I'm thinking he's operating under the assumption that Greene has negative trade value. Not outrageous depending on just how much money Moores needs to recoup. Honestly, I think Pie/Castillo/Marshall would be a decent start. This is exactly what I'm thinking. Whatever he's owed in 2009, it's probably a hell of a lot more than San Diego wants to pay for him. He's not going to get cheaper. They aren't going to contend, so they'd be probably wanting to tack him on to any Peavy deal, much like Willis was dealt with Cabrera. Greene signed a 2Y/11M deal prior to last season. ESPN has his salary at 4.5M for last year. Bonuses may affect it in some way, but ~6M seems like a safe guess. Khalil was awful last year and will be a free agent after this season. You nailed it, he's a worse version of Dontrelle to Peavy's Cabrera. 6.5M for 2009 Guess how much he was worth in 2008? $1,905,581.89 Yeah, he probably has negative value in the market.

Can we get a few things straight here? 1) Shark is NOT getting traded. His NTC is not one of those "give me a NTC so I can get a sweatener when you trade me to one of the teams I wouldn't mind playing for". STOP CREATING TRADE SCENARIOS INCLUDING HIM. 2) The Padres will NOT be taking back salary. They aren't taking Lee, they aren't trading AGonz for nothing short of 3x what they could get for Peavy. And of course, Soto isn't getting traded, but I know people aren't really suggesting trade scenarios involving him, just suggesting something of possibly comparable value.

He stole about 3x as many bases as he averaged over those many PAs. He also hit about 1/3 the amount of HRs. What he meant was that without the padres terrible arms behind the plate he wouldn't have stolen as many bases and people wouldn't be talking about Holliday being such a "speed threat".

Does he think hes writing an article for a video game audience? Seriously, that might be the most [expletive] trade proposal that has been published...thats quite an accomplishment.

2 words... colorado springs i know he hit better on the road this year, but still his #s need to be taken in context. 2007 mle was 265/330/421/751 2008 mle was 254/365/391/758 Lets trade Lee and replace him with Koshansky! Screw Roberts, lets go after Nix! Both of those guys out OPSed Smith this year. That said, if we are really cash strapped, he wouldnt be a bad guy for the meaty part of a platoon in RF, he did have some pretty big splits. Of course we could always just use Hoff.

The pen will be fine? You're taking Marmol out of the most valuable role for the team and you're losing Wood. Who'd be the primary set up man? The highly inconsistent Samardzija? Bring back Bob Howry? I wish they were more worried when they were giving Soriano 8 year contracts. My thoughts are that we need a guy. Without Wood, we still need a guy to be at the back end of our bullpen. Regardless of whether you are deploying Marmol as the closer or using him in higher leverage situations that aren't the nineth, the bullpen, without Wood is down one good arm. Now, I think the issue is that the Cubs are concerned as to whether or not Wood is that guy. This is most certainly a defensible position. Wood is a guy a year ago that nearly quit because his shoulder was so screwed up. Then one day, miraculously, it was better. With no rhyme or reason his shoulder didn't hurt anymore. You have to take the position that anything you got from Wood this year was gravy. Hes pitching on borrowed time. Just as easily as his shoulder miraculously one day went from terrible to functional, the opposite can happen. We are fortunate that it didn't happen this year and of course, the more time Wood puts the bum shoulder behind him, the more we can put creedence into the idea that he's healed, but the fact remains that he is one very normal bullpen pitch away from being done and those chances are one thousand fold more for Wood than the average pitcher. Conversely, it all depends on years and money. If Wood is willing to take a discount (which I contended he DID NOT do last offseason), then maybe that risk will be worth it. Additionally, you need to look at who his possible replacements could be and how much they would cost to see if the risk is worth it. Those will ultimately be the questions the cubs will have to ask themselves. I disagree with you on the fact that Wood did not take a discount. He has given a home team discount for years. Reason why is this. At the Cub convention Hendry mentioned that he wished they were all like Kerry Wood. Basically he told the Cubs to pay him what he was worth and left it at that. After 2003 he had a shot at filing for free agency and instead signed with the Cubs for something like $36 million when he could easily have garnered $50 million on the open market. He contended that the Cubs were the team that gave him a chance and he was loyal to them to stick around. I would not want to lose Wood; not only for what he does on the mound but what he does in the clubhouse. Perhaps two years with a mutual option for a third year and a buyout clause. Hendry and Wood will find a way to get it done. I'm not talking about his 2004-2007 deal (and he couldn't have filed for FA after 2003 anyway, 2004 was his last year of arbi). Wood most definitely did not take a discount to sign with us last year. Reports were that he had 2 yr 5-6M offers from Boston, Texas, and Milwaukee, but decided to return to the cubs for 1 yr 4.2M with 3.45M in bonuses. It was never reported what the bonuses were for the other deals he had on the table, but even just based on the guaranteed money, the Cubs were offering him a much better deal. Sure, we may have offered him what we thought he was worth, but that figure was more than anyone else offered him. I don't mean to say Kerry's a bad guy or anything, but the notion that he turned down better deals to sign with us last year is just plain wrong.

I wouldn't call the Braves officially out. And the Astros didn't say anything but they don't have anywhere close to the players to make the deal without totally flushing their team down the crapper.

I don't see how this follows. Whether or not Wood at three years is a good idea is dependant largely on how well you expect Wood to perform, what you can replace him with and what you can do with that money otherwise. (If anything, bad contracts make it less feasible to retain Wood, because you have less salary flexibility.) As for the closer role - I think I saw someone refer to it as "useless" or somesuch. It's overrated, but far from useless. I think that's a case of the pendulum swinging too far in a reaction against conventional wisdom. I agree that bad contracts hinder team flexibility, but I would rather risk being hampered by a Wood deal than a Marquis deal. But thats besides the point...we already ARE hampered by the Marquis deal. You cant just pretend like its not there.