Remove this ad

#21 [url]

Apr 6 15 9:27 AM

I look at the Kimbrel thing and the Pads bullpen this way. Kimbrel is good but bullpens are very inconsistent and touchy. Change one thing and the whole thing can come crumbling down. Closers get figured out and become gas cans. I think overall the pads bullpen is very good and will probably be good for the season, but it doesnt take much for that to fall apart. Put in the wrong catcher calling bad pitches, poor defense and once great closers look like mediocre soft tossers.

Remove this ad

#22 [url]

Apr 6 15 10:14 AM

I really can't believe that Peter O'Malley cashed out by selling the Dodgers to Rupert Murdoch, thereby sending the franchise into an ownership tailspin only to later lead a team of investors to purchase the Padres and bankroll them in an attempt to topple the Dodgers - the team his family owned for nearly 50 years. What horseshit.

#23 [url]

Apr 6 15 10:27 AM

Doppel Von Guggenheim wrote:
I really can't believe that Peter O'Malley cashed out by selling the Dodgers to Rupert Murdoch, thereby sending the franchise into an ownership tailspin only to later lead a team of investors to purchase the Padres and bankroll them in an attempt to topple the Dodgers - the team his family owned for nearly 50 years. What horseshit.

Simple:  

#24 [url]

Apr 6 15 10:33 AM

beefchopper wrote:
Doppel Von Guggenheim wrote:
I really can't believe that Peter O'Malley cashed out by selling the Dodgers to Rupert Murdoch, thereby sending the franchise into an ownership tailspin only to later lead a team of investors to purchase the Padres and bankroll them in an attempt to topple the Dodgers - the team his family owned for nearly 50 years. What horseshit.

Simple:  
The Godfather is the perfect reference!!!  Don't EVER take sides against the family.


#25 [url]

Apr 6 15 1:11 PM

Kansas City showed the value of turning a game into a six inning affair.

To me, Ethier has more upside remaining than Quentin and/or Maybin.

The bad contracts are not nearly as big an issue to a cash rich organization like the Dodgers.

Kimbrel and Jansen (pick your order) would have alleviated a lot of questions in our pen.

I go back to the text received last night. The Dodgers got rid of their outfield logjam by trading Kemp, and SD did the same by trading their #4 and #5 OF's.

#26 [url]

Apr 6 15 1:26 PM

grabarkewitz wrote:
monsooner wrote:
Matthew wrote:
@JonHeymanCBS: dodgers at some point had kimbrel talks, but it may have come awhile back. couldnt find a prospect match.
That pretty much ticks me off.

Why?  We had no match for the Braves on this deal because we were not going to take on one of the worst contracts in history to crowd an already bad situation in our outfield.    The only way this deal worked was for the Padres to take Upton the Elder and his whole salary.   Their willingness to have two of the worst contracts in the game in their outfield (they owe Kemp and Upton a combined $120 million over the length of their contracts and even with a decent tv deal, they will be hurting down the road).   Plus, Preller has pretty much raped his farm system as he has given up seven of his top eleven prospects and his farm system is now Austin Hedges and little else.  Just think if our front office had made a similar deal - it would be us getting Kimbrel (and his contract), Melvin Upton (owed close to $50 million) for our number one prospect, a teenage power bat and two short term contracts in the $7 - $8 million range per year.    Just for the exercise, I am thinking we would have to send them Urias, Verdugo, Uribe and Guerrero to make this happen.   So, we take on a very bad contract,  create a massive hole at third base with Olivera still sunning himself on the beach in the Dominican for the luxury of having two top flight closers making a combined $20 million per year.   

Just because we have the money doesn't mean we can spend recklessly.   We still have to be fiscally responsible.    Sitting a combined $100 million on the bench in two outfielders is not responsible, dropping $8 million plus on a set up man who is arbitration eligible is not responsible and giving up young controllable players while taking on massive money when you don't need to is foolish to say the least.  Look, I get the initial reactions.   Kimbrel is a nice piece for them but he is still just a closer and his only value is at the end of the game.   While having him does shorten the game for the Padres, he still needs a lead to have any value.    For all of the wonks who are genuflecting at AJ Preller, keep this in mind, you still have to score runs, catch the ball and get to the ninth with a lead.   Like I said last night, the Padres have just addressed a strength and still have the same weaknesses that they had yesterday morning.   Let the Giants worry because this hurts them more than us.   We win this division going away and the Padres only hope is getting one of the wild card bids, so their real competition is the Giants, Pirates, Brewers, Marlins and maybe even the Cubs (but I do not buy into them being anything more than a 75-78 win team).  Let those teams stress over the Padres, they are likely a one year wonder and will be in the same morass they were in prior to this winter, just more expensive.  

My disappointment isn't so much about losing out on Kimbrel, but what that statement represents.  I've been vocal about the lack of what I consider to be "proper" attention paid to a bullpen that cost us the championship last year.  So that's all I mean.

#27 [url]

Apr 6 15 1:32 PM

monsooner wrote:
grabarkewitz wrote:
monsooner wrote:
That pretty much ticks me off.

Why?  We had no match for the Braves on this deal because we were not going to take on one of the worst contracts in history to crowd an already bad situation in our outfield.    The only way this deal worked was for the Padres to take Upton the Elder and his whole salary.   Their willingness to have two of the worst contracts in the game in their outfield (they owe Kemp and Upton a combined $120 million over the length of their contracts and even with a decent tv deal, they will be hurting down the road).   Plus, Preller has pretty much raped his farm system as he has given up seven of his top eleven prospects and his farm system is now Austin Hedges and little else.  Just think if our front office had made a similar deal - it would be us getting Kimbrel (and his contract), Melvin Upton (owed close to $50 million) for our number one prospect, a teenage power bat and two short term contracts in the $7 - $8 million range per year.    Just for the exercise, I am thinking we would have to send them Urias, Verdugo, Uribe and Guerrero to make this happen.   So, we take on a very bad contract,  create a massive hole at third base with Olivera still sunning himself on the beach in the Dominican for the luxury of having two top flight closers making a combined $20 million per year.   

Just because we have the money doesn't mean we can spend recklessly.   We still have to be fiscally responsible.    Sitting a combined $100 million on the bench in two outfielders is not responsible, dropping $8 million plus on a set up man who is arbitration eligible is not responsible and giving up young controllable players while taking on massive money when you don't need to is foolish to say the least.  Look, I get the initial reactions.   Kimbrel is a nice piece for them but he is still just a closer and his only value is at the end of the game.   While having him does shorten the game for the Padres, he still needs a lead to have any value.    For all of the wonks who are genuflecting at AJ Preller, keep this in mind, you still have to score runs, catch the ball and get to the ninth with a lead.   Like I said last night, the Padres have just addressed a strength and still have the same weaknesses that they had yesterday morning.   Let the Giants worry because this hurts them more than us.   We win this division going away and the Padres only hope is getting one of the wild card bids, so their real competition is the Giants, Pirates, Brewers, Marlins and maybe even the Cubs (but I do not buy into them being anything more than a 75-78 win team).  Let those teams stress over the Padres, they are likely a one year wonder and will be in the same morass they were in prior to this winter, just more expensive.  

My disappointment isn't so much about losing out on Kimbrel, but what that statement represents.  I've been vocal about the lack of what I consider to be "proper" attention paid to a bullpen that cost us the championship last year.  So that's all I mean.

I am thinking that if we need to make an addition, we can do it during the season.   I would think that our front office will let these guys give it a go for an undisclosed period of time before making moves that might prove rash.    

#28 [url]

Apr 6 15 1:52 PM

grabarkewitz wrote:
monsooner wrote:
grabarkewitz wrote:
Why?  We had no match for the Braves on this deal because we were not going to take on one of the worst contracts in history to crowd an already bad situation in our outfield.    The only way this deal worked was for the Padres to take Upton the Elder and his whole salary.   Their willingness to have two of the worst contracts in the game in their outfield (they owe Kemp and Upton a combined $120 million over the length of their contracts and even with a decent tv deal, they will be hurting down the road).   Plus, Preller has pretty much raped his farm system as he has given up seven of his top eleven prospects and his farm system is now Austin Hedges and little else.  Just think if our front office had made a similar deal - it would be us getting Kimbrel (and his contract), Melvin Upton (owed close to $50 million) for our number one prospect, a teenage power bat and two short term contracts in the $7 - $8 million range per year.    Just for the exercise, I am thinking we would have to send them Urias, Verdugo, Uribe and Guerrero to make this happen.   So, we take on a very bad contract,  create a massive hole at third base with Olivera still sunning himself on the beach in the Dominican for the luxury of having two top flight closers making a combined $20 million per year.   

Just because we have the money doesn't mean we can spend recklessly.   We still have to be fiscally responsible.    Sitting a combined $100 million on the bench in two outfielders is not responsible, dropping $8 million plus on a set up man who is arbitration eligible is not responsible and giving up young controllable players while taking on massive money when you don't need to is foolish to say the least.  Look, I get the initial reactions.   Kimbrel is a nice piece for them but he is still just a closer and his only value is at the end of the game.   While having him does shorten the game for the Padres, he still needs a lead to have any value.    For all of the wonks who are genuflecting at AJ Preller, keep this in mind, you still have to score runs, catch the ball and get to the ninth with a lead.   Like I said last night, the Padres have just addressed a strength and still have the same weaknesses that they had yesterday morning.   Let the Giants worry because this hurts them more than us.   We win this division going away and the Padres only hope is getting one of the wild card bids, so their real competition is the Giants, Pirates, Brewers, Marlins and maybe even the Cubs (but I do not buy into them being anything more than a 75-78 win team).  Let those teams stress over the Padres, they are likely a one year wonder and will be in the same morass they were in prior to this winter, just more expensive.  

My disappointment isn't so much about losing out on Kimbrel, but what that statement represents.  I've been vocal about the lack of what I consider to be "proper" attention paid to a bullpen that cost us the championship last year.  So that's all I mean.

I am thinking that if we need to make an addition, we can do it during the season.   I would think that our front office will let these guys give it a go for an undisclosed period of time before making moves that might prove rash.    


Yeah, I said pretty much the same thing at the end of my predictions post a couple hours ago.  I have to believe the FO will make a trade or two to firm it up for the stretch.  At least, I *want* to believe that.

#29 [url]

Apr 6 15 1:56 PM

monsooner wrote:
grabarkewitz wrote:
monsooner wrote:
My disappointment isn't so much about losing out on Kimbrel, but what that statement represents.  I've been vocal about the lack of what I consider to be "proper" attention paid to a bullpen that cost us the championship last year.  So that's all I mean.

I am thinking that if we need to make an addition, we can do it during the season.   I would think that our front office will let these guys give it a go for an undisclosed period of time before making moves that might prove rash.    


Yeah, I said pretty much the same thing at the end of my predictions post a couple hours ago.  I have to believe the FO will make a trade or two to firm it up for the stretch.  At least, I *want* to believe that.
For all we know those players we add are already in the organization.   Kids like Liberatore or Rowan could be difference makers in the pen and I think Olivera will be something special when he gets here.  

#30 [url]

Apr 6 15 2:00 PM

WildHare wrote:
I go back to the text received last night. The Dodgers got rid of their outfield logjam by trading Kemp, and SD did the same by trading their #4 and #5 OF's.

That's the kind of incomplete (or dishonest) rationalization that annoys people.

The Dodgers addressed a logjam by trading Kemp -- to make room for one of the best prospects in the game -- while clearing tens of millions in salary that could be spent to fill actual holes.

The Padres addressed a logjam by trading two worthless outfielders for one worthless outfielder who's worthlessness is greater than the other two put together -- to add another great reliever -- while *adding* 50 million in salary without filling any actual holes.

Can't we agree that there is kind of a difference?

Can't we also agree that nobody wants to see Julio Urias traded for a relief pitcher, even if it's Greg Kimbrel?  If that would have been the price I am happy to let him go to SD.

Remove this ad

#31 [url]

Apr 6 15 2:03 PM

DSinSoCal wrote:
WildHare wrote:
I go back to the text received last night. The Dodgers got rid of their outfield logjam by trading Kemp, and SD did the same by trading their #4 and #5 OF's.

That's the kind of incomplete (or dishonest) rationalization that annoys people.

The Dodgers addressed a logjam by trading Kemp -- to make room for one of the best prospects in the game -- while clearing tens of millions in salary that could be spent to fill actual holes.

The Padres addressed a logjam by trading two worthless outfielders for one worthless outfielder who's worthlessness is greater than the other two put together -- to add another great reliever -- while *adding* 50 million in salary without filling any actual holes.

Can't we agree that there is kind of a difference?

Can't we also agree that nobody wants to see Julio Urias traded for a relief pitcher, even if it's Greg Kimbrel?  If that would have been the price I am happy to let him go to SD.
This.   The Padres didn't address a weakness, they dropped huge coin to improve what was already very good.   In two years, we will have Urias, youth and financial stability while the Padres will be an old team with no farm system and a lot of bad contracts.   It is always about the long haul.  

#33 [url]

Apr 6 15 4:21 PM

Did the Red Sox just give $82.5 million over four years to Rick Porcello? Wow, that sounds stupid on so many levels. The guy is a three on his best day and even then he isn't a great three. Didn't they also give Wade Miley (SVS' favorite pitcher) some kind of huge contract extension? Looks like Cherrington didn't learn from the stupid contracts given to AGon, Beckett, Crawford, etc..... I wonder if he realizes that Ned is no longer a GM unless some owner loses his ever lovin' mind and hires him to be a GM.

#34 [url]

Apr 6 15 4:23 PM

That was fast:

@BillShaikin: Peavy (back) out for #SFGiants' second game, Cain (forearm tightness) out for third game. Thirty-something, injury-prone rotation.

#35 [url]

Apr 6 15 5:47 PM

Matthew wrote:
That was fast:

@BillShaikin: Peavy (back) out for #SFGiants' second game, Cain (forearm tightness) out for third game. Thirty-something, injury-prone rotation.

I guess they'll just have to let Bumgarner pitch every game.

#36 [url]

Apr 6 15 5:56 PM

Matthew wrote:
That was fast:

@BillShaikin: Peavy (back) out for #SFGiants' second game, Cain (forearm tightness) out for third game. Thirty-something, injury-prone rotation.

I was going to say the same thing.   Forearm tightness is usually the precursor to a UCL tear and eighteen months of rehab and Peavy's back is bad and he looked like crap last week versus Oakland.  Suddenly, you are looking at Bumgarner and not much else.     Sally the Lesbian Truck Driver has no fastball left, Hudson is old and can't keep his sinker down, then you get Vogelshit and Petit, both who could be exposed badly as starters.   Add in no minor league depth and suddenly the wild card looks like a huge reach.    If Bum's shoulder or elbow starts to creak with overwork, this team could be as bad as the Rox and Snakes.  

#37 [url]

Apr 6 15 6:23 PM

grabarkewitz wrote:
Matthew wrote:
That was fast:

@BillShaikin: Peavy (back) out for #SFGiants' second game, Cain (forearm tightness) out for third game. Thirty-something, injury-prone rotation.

I was going to say the same thing.   Forearm tightness is usually the precursor to a UCL tear and eighteen months of rehab and Peavy's back is bad and he looked like crap last week versus Oakland.  Suddenly, you are looking at Bumgarner and not much else.     Sally the Lesbian Truck Driver has no fastball left, Hudson is old and can't keep his sinker down, then you get Vogelshit and Petit, both who could be exposed badly as starters.   Add in no minor league depth and suddenly the wild card looks like a huge reach.    If Bum's shoulder or elbow starts to creak with overwork, this team could be as bad as the Rox and Snakes.  

SF could be in trouble but I could just as easily see them trading Susac and maybe Crick for Hamels before long.  Find a way to bundle Utley and they aren't too far off from being the usual Giants.

I'd like to veer though.  It's only one game but there's an energy that didn't seem to be there the last couple of years.  Watching the team today it looked like they did enough to win.  In prior years it seemed like they tried to do just enough not to lose.  Slight difference, but something that more resembles the (gulp) Cardinals of recent years.  

Finally, on Kemp, it was great to see his return, not so great to see him do what he does when he's healthy.  What he does over the life of the contract is anybody's guess.  Again, it's only one game but Pederson did as much today to put his team in position for victory as Matt did for his team.  If the Dodgers can get similar overall production (including defense) from Pederson than they could have out of Kemp while shifting $75,000,000 of liabilities of the books (Hector Olivera $-wise), upgrade catching, and pitching depth/functionality then this FO is smarter than the already overhyped praise they get.

Its going to be 1 exciting season.

#38 [url]

Apr 6 15 6:32 PM

DSinSoCal wrote:
WildHare wrote:
I go back to the text received last night. The Dodgers got rid of their outfield logjam by trading Kemp, and SD did the same by trading their #4 and #5 OF's.

That's the kind of incomplete (or dishonest) rationalization that annoys people.

The Dodgers addressed a logjam by trading Kemp -- to make room for one of the best prospects in the game -- while clearing tens of millions in salary that could be spent to fill actual holes.

The Padres addressed a logjam by trading two worthless outfielders for one worthless outfielder who's worthlessness is greater than the other two put together -- to add another great reliever -- while *adding* 50 million in salary without filling any actual holes.

Can't we agree that there is kind of a difference?

Can't we also agree that nobody wants to see Julio Urias traded for a relief pitcher, even if it's Greg Kimbrel?  If that would have been the price I am happy to let him go to SD.
Greg?  We're not talking about Kevin Gregg.  We're talking about one of the top two relievers on the planet in Craig Kimbrel.  We're also talking about the guy who should have been hands down MVP over TestostoRyan Braun a few years ago.  To have Kemp and CG, I'd gladly take BJ/Melvin Upton's contract and pay him to visit Hawaii during their off season (summer).   The millions SD is spending on Kimbrel/Upton is what we're paying them to take Kemp.  Wow!

Nobody other than you mentioned Urias.  Atlanta took two marginal outfielders and SD's fourth rated prospect, which would equate to about our #12.  

Just saying, I'd take an outfield of Pederson, Puig, and Kemp with Kimbrel.  You'll probably scoff at Kimbrel and Jansen, but that's my idea of a dream 8/9 inning tandem in either order.  It's even better than Benoit/Craig.





#40 [url]

Apr 6 15 8:33 PM

That's what happens when I have two kids yapping in my ear while I'm trying to type and can't hear myself think. But I could have called him Chris Kimbrel and it wouldn't have materially change the point. He's a great reliever, but he's not worth our top pitching prospect. Wisler was SD's top pitching prospect (#1 or #2 overall on most lists - not #4). If you think Atlanta would have preferred Grant Holmes, Alex Verdugo or Chris Anderson then we'll simply have to disagree.

You can harken back to the glory days of the old Matt Kemp if you like but, again, it's an incomplete (or dishonest) analysis to completely ignore 2012, 2013 and 2014 in the process. Of course there is a chance that Kemp might be that kind of offensive player again (no chance in hell he'll ever be good defensively, and his days as a base stealer appear to be over), but he'd have to be for the Dodgers to have gotten value out of that contract. And what are the honest odds of him being that player over the next 5 years?

I would have liked to keep him too, but the Dodgers had very good reason to trade him. They made room for a top prospect who could very well be just good offensively and will most certainly provide more value on the bases and in the field; and they moved that money around to significantly upgrade several other positions.

The Dodgers sent $32 million to SD to cover Kemp's contract. SD now owes Kimbrel and Upton $80 million. You need to find something else to "wow" about because those two numbers aren't remotely the same thing.

I'd love an outfield of Pederson, Puig and Kemp too (provided Kemp was willing to play LF without hinting at wanting a trade through his agent) but life doesn't work in a vacuum. Unfortunately, Kemp in Dodger blue means Pederson doesn't make the team. It also means we likely have to go without all the upgrades at CA, 2B, SS, and our Cuban defector. You have to take the totality of the situation into account.

I'd also love to have Kimbrel and Jansen in the bullpen -- in a fantasy league -- but what do you do when Jansen comes back and wants his role back? Do you end up creating problems of discontent in your bullpen as a result? And like I said, if Atlanta is asking for your best pitching prospect in return, do you do it?

Being upset at the Dodgers front office for not acquiring Kimbrel when the price was a top pitching prospect and agreeing to take on *another* ridiculously overpriced, worthless outfielder is a special kind of confusing to me.

Remove this ad

Quick Reply

bbcode help