BigbadB

1.2m salary last year and lousy stats. 1.5ish WHIP and an ERA over 5.00 Hmmm..has the potential to be that guy in the bullpen who makes me use obscenities and utter the names of religious figures in a blasphemous way a lot. True. But, his previous year stats ('05-'07) make him look pretty good. His walk rate doubled last year, which is pretty scary.

1.2m salary last year and lousy stats. 1.5ish WHIP and an ERA over 5.00

need anything else? Gracias again.

Gracias.

This is a no brainer, IMO. I wonder what kind of pitching will need to be included? Rich Hill? Vizcaino? How much is Heilman due to make this year?

What did Seattle give up to get Heilman?

I've never liked the rating system. A better system might be where a player ranks among their own roster when the season ends. In other words, how much is the team that is losing that player affected by the loss of said player. Service time with that team could also be factored in. Looking at Sabathia as an example, would Milwaukee have traded for Sabathia knowing that they wouldn't get compensation for him if he left at season's end? An argument can be made that he ended up being their best player even in a short season role with the team. But, his lack of service time with that team would negate draft pick compensation. MLB or Elias could go in at the end of each season and rank each player on the roster 1-25 (free agent or not). Players who are in the top 5 would receive draft pick compensation similar to the current "A" picks. Players who are in the 6-10 range would be "B" players where teams get compensation based on the current "B" picks. Everyone below that would get nothing. In this case, Juan Cruz would probably not be an "A". Webb, Haren, C. Jackson, Drew and Young would be a top 5 example. Randy Johnson, Adam Dunn, Hudson, Lyon and Reynolds would probably fall into the 6-10 range, making Cruz a non draft pick compensation signing. I don't know. Maybe something like that wouldn't work either. I just hate the current ranking system.

This became more true when they made the move to Petco. Qualcomm got decent enough attendance even when the team sucked. You're always complaining about Petco, but man, I like that place. Wasn't part of the point of Petco to build a little smaller stadium, because the Murph was a huge stale football stadium? From 1990-2003 they were getting between 1.7m-2.5m, with yearly declines from 98-03, closing at just 2.0 million. They've gone up and down in Petco, and had 2.4 million this past year, the low. But my guess is the revenue from the new stadium is much better than what they were getting in the old place. 2.0 million at Petco is worth more than 2.0 at the Murph. I'm not complaining at all about Petco. Reread my post. I like the park. There are great seats all over the stadium. It is a nice park. I personally don't like the non smoking thing, but my post wasn't about me. It's about the biggest percentage of Padres fans I know. They were very comfortable with tailgating before games. The convenience of Qualcomm's location made it a decent ride no matter what part of the county you lived in. The price was always better at Qualcomm. Petco's location downtown is a major pain in the ass. Whether they are coming from Encinitas, Oceanside, Escondido, Poway, El Cajon or Eastlake, the drive is a good half an hour just to get to the ramps that lead downtown. Then you hit the parking lot, which are all the roads leading down to the park. Then you pay $20-$30 for a parking place wherever you can find a spot to park. You are battling all the other people who come downtown to eat dinner, see a show, etc..... Tailgating isn't allowed. Me? I could care less about tailgating. But, that's what people did when they got off work, rather than drive all the way home. What I've been saying about the Padres needing to field a competitive team is exactly that. If they don't, their attendance will suffer like they've never seen it suffer before. I may end up being wrong, but I suppose we will see this year. Last year's offseason is too hard to gauge, since they were coming off a winning season and lost out on a playoff spot to Colorado in a one game playoff. If fans knew how quickly they would hit rock bottom, their season ticket sales would have taken a huge hit last year. This is the year we will see the full effect of being a sucky team. I'd be happy to make a friendly wager with you that Petco's attendance will be worse than any season they put up of the year's you listed at Qualcomm.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/17/1s17padres221147-season-ticket-sales-plunge/?uniontrib This became more true when they made the move to Petco. Qualcomm got decent enough attendance even when the team sucked.

How many people could possibly be deciding on whether or not they renew/buy seasons tickets based on whether or not Peavy returns? Considering how much talk there has been of a Peavy trade, wouldn't the people most likely to ditch if Peavy is gone have already decided not to buy? Peavy isn't the only factor. The economy by itself is probably going to be a huge factor in what will likely be a huge dropoff in season ticket sales. I've been suggesting ever since the Padres opened up the ballpark downtown that they can no longer play the fire sale game they've played in the past. The ease of access to Qualcomm, the ability to tailgate, the cheaper ticket prices, etc... made it where people didn't mind going to a game as much at Qualcomm. Petco is a whole new ballgame. Difficulty in getting downtown for a game, no tailgaiting and higher ticket prices will not bring people out to see a horrible product on the field. Maybe season ticket sales won't depend on whether Peavy is a Padre or not. I'm just speculating. But, when your starting rotation is Chris Young and a whole bunch of guys Padres fans have never heard of, I think it can definitely hurt more than help.

I'm still confused by that one, as well. You have an everyday dependable guy who can play just about any position, and you essentially replace him with a more expensive RF who you know you can count on for at least 20 games in the outfield. I understand that DeRosa won't be as good as he was last year. However, he was a nice insurance policy in the event Bradley is in the doctor's office more often than he is on the field. Anything close to what DeRosa did last year would have made him a Type A that someone would have given up the picks to sign. That trade is just.......weird.

I still believe the trade will happen. But, I am starting to believe it will be closer to opening day. I have a whole bunch of my own theories that make a little bit of sense about why this is taking so long. 1. Moorad did purchase the team, but he isn't actually going to assume control of the team for 4 years. My theory to this is that Moorad was brought in now because Moores needed shut up money for his wife. She is getting half of his worth when the divorce becomes final. Moorads money essentially buys out her half and Moores gets to keep his half for the next 4 years. This could also explain why the sale went so smoothly and quickly. 2. Season ticket sales. When Peavy gets traded, season ticket sales will drop dramatically. The Hoffman and Greene deals alone don't sound like fire sale in the eyes of Padres fans. Hoffman wasn't nearly as loved as he has been in the past. He's blown a lot of saves over the last few years. Greene wasn't loved so much anymore, either. Peavy and Adrian Gonzalez are the only two guys who Padres fans view as top notch talent. Keeping them gives them a bit of hope. The earlier in the offseason Peavy gets traded, the harder the hit will be to season ticket sales. 3. Moores set an '09 budget of 40m, and Towers had only one objective this offseason, and that was to meet that requirement. I don't think either Towers or Alderson, or even Moores, for that matter, really want to trade Peavy. It's just that they are forced to do so to meet the budget requirement on team payroll. 4. I've been convinced that a deal was in place even as far back as December. I'm sure it wasn't set in stone, but San Diego is forced to satisfy Peavy in where he is willing to be traded, and Chicago is willing to trade the value San Diego wants to make it happen. 5. Everything Hendry has done this offseason appears as though he had Peavy in mind. It's just too coincidental that all these moves were made in hopes that he can renew trade talks with San Diego. I just can't imagine any GM making all these moves unless he already had some sort of agreement with the opposing GM to make a trade for Peavy. It would be a horrible way to do your job.

I included all of that in my post. Although, the luxury boxes was calculated into the average cost of a ticket. Maybe I'm way off on the average cost of a ticket? Clearly, Cubs brass feel like they can afford a $140m salary, so it must workout in the long run. But, I would have to imagine that's at the very top end of what they can afford and still turn a profit.

My point is that at some point, the average fan (family) can't afford to go to games as often, which in turn decreases demand. I'm curious how this team actually turns a profit with the payroll where it is now. I'd be awful nervous to spend 900m for a team during this economic envirnonment. Just doing some quick math, with 40,000 people going through the turnstyles at an average of $40 a ticket for 81 games, I calculate a little more than 129m in revenue. Sure, there are other means of income, and I'm probably not privvy to most, like merchandising. But, there are tons of other expenses in running a major league baseball franchise as well, like staffing, travel, equipment, meds, player per diems, taxes, farm systems, payroll/accounting, insurance, etc.... Is $40 a ticket way below the average price for a ticket to Wrigley? What other means of income do they generate outside of ticket sales? Vending services, parking, rooftops, advertising, merchandising, tv? If $40 a ticket is about the average cost of a ticket, I would hate to have a team payroll that is more than what tickets generate. But, I suppose I had several billion dollars, maybe it wouldn't matter. I would think the ideal situation would be to have a successful team that wins year after year with a median team salary. Being at the very top end of what you can afford makes it hard to go out and get the player you really, really want when he becomes available. Yes, you can just keep raising ticket prices, but at some point, you are alienating the biggest percentage of your fan base, which is the guy who has very little expendable income.

It sounded like the Padres got a bit ridiculous with the demands during the winter meetings, which basically ended the discussion for the time being. Moorad did step up to the plate to purchase the Padres. However, everything I've read stated he won't take complete control of the team for about 4 years. What I speculate from this is that Moorad's money right now is just to make Moores soon-to-be ex-wife go away, and that Moores still wants his payroll to be reduced to 40m. There has to be a lot of pressure on Towers at the moment. Moores isn't the one who gave Peavy the NTC. I'm pretty certain Towers would have been the one to do that. If Towers can't move Peavy, thus failing at reducing payroll to where Moores wants it, his job could be in jeopardy. Everything else I read is just posturing, IMO.

Nice try, but I already warned Bukie that I'm the only one who makes fair trades in this league. :D

I sent him a quick reference PM. Are you able to give him access to this forum, Juan?

I have no problem with that. They can keep raising ticket prices if they keep raising payroll. How many tickets are you purchasing to see a game? Family of 4? 5?

Find me an owner or potential owner who doesn't have the same thing tattooed on their forehead. No kidding. Here is a quote that Wrigley Rat found on the Padres signing of Henry Blanco. Granted, this is a GM talking instead of an owner, but how can you honestly say something like this with a straight face? I mean, that's great. If Blanco can still be playing ball in his mid 40's when the Padres might once again be a playoff caliber team, I guess this is a great signing.

It really isn't about throwing money at the team year in and year out. From a realistic standpoint, increasing payroll every year could end up being the organization's downfall. The fans are the ones who absorb team salary. Ricketts is going to be in a tough place. How many years will it take for him to see a profit on his investment if nearly all the money he receives from ticket sales goes directly to the roster? Where this team needs to get better is in player drafting, signing and development. Fine, win with a 150m payroll this year once you add Peavy and maybe make a deadline trade, but somewhere down the road, they should be able to field a strong team with a payroll around 100-125m while the owner actually makes a decent profit. A win/win situation for everyone.

It's become a very respectable site, and there is potential for them to be even better.

It never stops being funny, even though the joke is now more than a year old. It would probably be even funnier if you responded to every one of my posts with that exact same post. Keep up the good work!

Yeah, that guy sure pulled the wool over on us poor NSBB people. This multipage thread that was just started a few hours ago has been super busy spreading this glorified gossip columnists satire all over the world sure fell right into the author's master plan. Oh wait, it's a one page thread with a small handful of posts and it's more than 10 days old? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ I applaud the outstanding effort, however. Pulitzer prize winner, indeed. May I be the first to stand up and =D> Afterall, we just got Punk'd.

So a small portion of the audience (people who pay very close attention to the Cubs, and are therefore far more likely to be interested in watching an ASG in the first place) had an increased interest in watching this year. But that doesn't mean having home field advantage determined by this game has increased interest in the game. It's a stupid gimmick game that draws little interest and should have no baring on anything. i agree that it's a terrible way to determine HFA. but to suggest that a "small portion of the audience" had an increased interest seems silly. think about it. fans of every team in contention at the ASB (which is probably 75% of the teams) have a vested interest in seeing one league win. would i have watched all 13 innings (or whatever it was) last year if the end result meant nothing? no. but knowing that it was going to hopefully have an effect on the cubs, i stayed up watching. i think a lot of people did the same thing. certainly enough to say that there was increased interest. Others said the Cubs being in the race made it more interesting to people on this board, people who already spend an inordinate amount of time following baseball and the Cubs. That's a small minority of the overall television viewing audience. But the HFA story is years old. Why would it suddenly increase interest this year? I explained it already. Geovany Soto. Did Josh Hamilton's HR barrage in the derby generate the increased audience?

Geovany Soto