Word is Kelly, Rizzo and Reymond Fuentes are in the deal. If those are the only guys its a steal. Granted both Kelly and Rizzo will be very good players.
What does him having previously working for the Sox have anything to do with it? Do you really think he would just give the Sox his best player because he worked for them in the past? Its probably SD's best offer because again Gonzalez has a limited market. Kelly becomes the Padres best prospect and Rizzo probably would rank 2nd or 3rd with Fuentes absolutely making their top 10, maybe as high as #5. The Padres only have 3 legit prospects.
Damn, I should have stayed in bed......ughhhh....sorry this is Fred McGriff to the MAX type horrible trade. What the F is SD thinking???? Horrible. Sox made a HUGE improvement.
Nah its not that bad. Kelly and Rizzo are legit. Both will probably playing for SD by 2012. I'm just glad we got to keep Kalish and Iglesias. Remember the Padre assistant GM drafted all of these players so he know their potential.
I get if from your end, and even is those 3 slide into TOP 10 "PROSPECTS" for SD and thus double their talent pool IN THE MINORS from 3 legit to 6 legit.....they arent impacting the MLB club this season or maybe next. Its a crap shoot. Its a steal....plain and simple. Major props to Theo and Co. Darn I didnt want this day to be here without a fair price. Oh well...moving on!
San Diego won't be competing in 2011 anyway so there's no need to rush them. That's why they took minor leaguers to begin with.
Just saying in the NL WEST same was said about them going into 2010. The only thing making me feel slightly better is the Victor Martinez isnt in the lineup with him. P.S. Kelly is a former SS that switched to try pitching right? Not saying he isnt a good pitcher or can be, but he has only 1 year as Pitcher right now right? Would be my biggest fear if SD - again. Atleast they signed Aaron Harang....LOL...SD brass can sleep better now.
SD played way way way over their head last year. Kelly was drafted as a P/SS but the Sox always viewed him as a P. They only let him play SS to get him to sign since he was headed to U of Tenn to QB.
Silver lining on today......seems like Jeter is about to sign for $16M....with a 4th year mixed in somehow......as expected. FOX Sports' Ken Rosenthal has been told the Padres will "absolutely" trade closer Heath Bell.
Well, I kind of like the Sox, but this is a part of what makes MLB suck, there are maybe 8 teams who can pay to compete, and then there is everyone else. Saw it happen with: -Roberto Alomar -Joe Carter -Fred McGriff
Right, hmm, care to recount why Towers asked for much more than the ex Sox employee did? The pads got: -18 yr old centerfielder -#2 1st base prospect in the Sox organization -a pitcher who wants to play short stop? For the only marquee player the padres had? Why would anyone bother to come out to watch a triple A baseball team unless you were a fan of the team they were playing that day? The padres could not score runs in 2010, so they trade their only player who actually produced runs for some guys whom history explains more than likely won't make it in MLB? At least the monkey did not toss in Heath Bell for old times sake.
Nope what makes MLB suck is the WEALTHIEST Owners dont spend and invest and re-invest - instead they pocket it! Take a look at the Owners with the MOST MONEY and what cities they represent...they are ROBBING from the game and those cities. I would love a CAP but I also DEMAND a FLOOR for salary as well.
Yep, it will not be until stadiums in the markets without competitive teams look like ghost towns on opening day that anything will change and of course Selig being fired, then maybe MLB can gain some traction again, otherwise when 66% of your industry cannot compete chances are good your industry will not be around for very long.
But Pads, these are WEALTHY, WEALTHY Owners that refuse to invest. Heck MLB had to censure Marlins just last year to get them to resign their talent. KC, DET, PIT, all have the $$$$. They pocket it. Forbes does reports all the time. See this recent article on just dealing with C. Lee on the market. The Yanks, Sox, ATL, LAD, LAA, NYM get quick to judge reps or "buying" things when in fact so many other teams have the same if not more ASSETS to PUT A WINNER ON THE FIELD OF PLAY. http://blogs.forbes.com/mikeozanian...ve-more-money-than-yankees-to-sign-cliff-lee/ Several MLB Teams Have More Money Than Yankees To Sign Cliff Lee Richest Owners: Nationals - Theodore Lerner @ $3.2B bought team from MLB for $450M in 2006 Cubs - Sam Zell @ $3B Tribune Co. bought team in 1981, Zell took control of Tribune in 2007. Braves - John Malone @ $1.5B bought team from Ted Turner's Time Warner in 2007 Astors - Drayton McLane @ $1.4B bought team in 1992 Tigers - Michael Illitch @ $1.4B bought team in 1992 for $82M, also owns the NHL's Red Wings. Reds - Carl Linder @ $1.4B a fall from the #3 spot, was worth $2.2B at this time last year. Yankees - George Steinbrenner @ $1.3B Athletics - John Fisher @ $1.2B part owner since 2005, down from the #4 spot, worth $1.8K last year. Red Sox - John Henry @ $1.1B Rangers - Tom Hicks @ $1B bought team in 1998 from George W. Bush, also owns the NHL's Dallas Star.
To be fair BDH an owner's personal wealth does not mean they should pour money into a business model that does not have a return on their investment, when the Kroc's owned the Padres they spent millions more than the team made in revenues such a model does not make business sense. I know the Marlins took hits for not spending their 30 million dollar surplus but big picture, what does 30m buy in mlb today?
That's a cop out...always will be in my book. Investing WISELY shouldnt be a problem for these owners. The BUSINESS MODEL is built by an organization. Its not thrust on them by MLB (or any sport) you produce a product that fans will turn out for. Each of these cities and teams have had levels of success that put fannies in the seats...SD did last year. Sorry, dont buy a TOY if you dont plan to PLAY with it. Nope it always easier to claim POVERTY based on city - or fan base, instead of admitting as a BUSINESS MAN that owns a SPORT Franchise, you got out hustled, out worked, out classed, by those with less to work with ~ theoretically. Just saying, for these PRIDEFUL FOKS they sure claim UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD quite quickly when in fact FORBES consistently paints the accurate picture. Facts are Facts, some OWNERS arent TRYING TO WIN. They arent. If so, fine....keep it quiet and stop complaining. http://blogs.forbes.com/mikeozanian/2010/08/24/what-congress-needs-to-ask-bud-selig/ What Congress Needs To Ask Bud Selig
Caps lock does not make your point any more prescient, "if" your local convenience store was breaking even or even making a bit of money, should the owner then start giving away gasoline because "he's rich"? Hah! Notice "Rogers Communications" not "the Toronto Rogers Communications"? Those are merely parent companies who expect *gasp* the subsidiary to pay for it's own operations via it's own revenues. To me, you are offbase on that BDH, the real issue is embedded cost structures that mean 66% of the industry cannot effectively compete in the veteran portion of the "talent acquisition business" so there are de facto minor league teams parading as MLB franchises. The Gonzo trade is a great example of exactly that fact o' life, and the fans in San Diego know it.
http://blogs.forbes.com/mikeozanian...rek-jeter-like-joe-dimaggio-or-mickey-mantle/ Should The Yankees Pay Derek Jeter Like Joe DiMaggio, or Mickey Mantle? Just a fun way to look at this... 3yrs 16M would be nice....with 4th mixed in via Options or SERVICES or whatnot. Wait and see
Only using CAP LOCKS to focus on key words. If that local convience store was SUBSIDIZED by all the other stores that were working SMARTER then yes, it says sell or get with the program. All clubs have parent holding companies...these are business men for a reason. Invest wisely. Dont whine and complain when the NUMBERS do not support your argument. They are pocketing it and still complaining. Pocket it if you want, but zip your lip about unfair products on the field. 100% can effectively compete..its why teams get bought and sold and then suddenly they Win or Lose. No team WINS the same # of games every year. Nothing is guaranteed. No single team wins every year. Its about the product on the field. All else is a weak cop out cause the FACTS dont support the argument of small market vs big market when it comes to POCKETING the payouts.
Hah! the "subsidy" does not amount to enough money to sign a better than average position player or two and that is a cost structure problem. This Hoyer has effectively dismantled a 90 win team for a handful of used napkins. The one thing I do like is he has added speed to the organization Petco is a huge ball park (that like the Marlins, they hoodwinked the locals into paying for building) and speed is always cheaper than power to acquire and keep.
So now we should not only disregard the actual wealth of an owner, but we should disregard the luxury tax monies brought in by teams spending for their product on the field. Should we disregard the gate monies when the POOR teams host these WEALTHY teams? Sooner or later you run out of excuses as to WHY you really cant put a talented club on the field through investment. Fish or cut bait...and if all you want to do is FISH cheaply, then keep quiet. That's the embarrassment in my book.
Gates monies should most certainly be in that mix, allow me to point out: Padres drew 2.1 million last yr, good for 16th in MLB this with a season that featured them contending for the entire season, fans are turning in their fan cards as they know that yr's team would be broken up as they could not afford even the most minimal of contracts, why invest time and caring in such a team? And "the wealth of the owner" is a strawman, nothing more. Eh, when some more MLB teams go bankrupt, you will know why, it took the Rangers declaring bankruptcy and receiving loans from MLB before they could land a Cliff Lee, tell me again how this is a good thing?
Its a good thing cause the LIST IS SO LONG of Businessmen with their bankrolls just salivating over a chance to own their club and improve it. I dont see Nolan Ryan complaining over how he final acquired the club he wanted. As I said, you want a franchise that is happy in keeping the profits as FORBES has shown? Great, just dont be that owner and then whine about unfair playing field. Thats the injustice to the fan base. It may never change, so be it, but sooner rather than later the realization of tuning out these types of owners has occurred. Fellow owners dont take them seriously. Thats why they are treated as the farm system for other organizations. SD should be sad for this trade of AG, and probable trade of Bell. That is a fact.
Well at least monkey was comfy with the BoSox when he cut them a sweetheart deal. I'll say, but shouldn't he be more loyal to his current employers rather than his fmr (?) employers?
You're underselling the Red Sox prospects here and your past comments on them shows you know little about them (Kelly doesn't want to be a SS and Rizzo isn't the Sox 2nd best 1B prospect, he's their best 1B prospect and best hitting prospect). They're good players, also don't forget that Hoyer and Co drafted and signed these guys so they're familiar with them and probably like them more than most. Getting those 3 players plus a 4th for 1 year of Gonzalez is a good move for the Padres. The market for Gonzalez wasn't strong because you didn't have any of the big market teams in the mix. The Padres got a good return back. If anything blame Kevin Towers for not trading him back in 2009 when his value was highest because he had 2 years left on the contract or last year's Padres team who stayed in the race the whole year thus not giving them a chance to shop him around. You're making it sense like Hoyer just settled for the Sox deal because he used to work for them. That's not the case.
What? -The Red Sox are a big market team -Kelly has yet to have a sub 5.00 ERA -Anderson was the better first base prospect, but either way, we already had some of those. And a single A ball centerfielder. Hoyer got worked and if anything his knowledge of those "prospects" may have clouded his judgment. That Bosox employee has dismantled a 90 win team and has Cameron Maybin to show for it.
Ummm I'm aware the Red Sox are a big market team. I was saying the other big market teams (like the Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Cardinals, Dodgers, Angels, White Sox etc) already had a 1B, so that hurts Gonzalez trade value right away. ERA isn't the best stat to look at when judging pitchers, you fail to mention Kelly was the 2nd youngest pitcher in Double A and was in his 1st full year of being a full time pitcher. He has 3 plus pitches and generated a lot of swings and misses. Lars Anderson was not a better prospect than Rizzo was coming into this year and even if he was, Rizzo had a big year and passed by him in the depth chart. If the Sox traded Anderson over Rizzo I'd be doing back flips right now. Obviously Fuentes is far away from reaching the majors but he's still solid prospect. Sure there's risk there because he's so far away but he has a lot of room to reach his ceiling which is a plus defensive CFer, with plus range. The only negative is he has a weak arm. Look the Padres winning 90 games last year was a fluke, they weren't likely to repeat that again. Trading RPers (who were more products of Petco than being shut down guys) for someone like a Cameron Maybin talent is exactly what someone like Hoyer should be doing with the Padres. He was left with very little in the farm system and because the team can't go out and spend for free agents he needs to build from the ground up. The worst thing Hoyer could have done was think the team he had was good enough to win 90 games again, their line up even with Gonzalez was pathetic and their pitching staff benefited from their home ball park way too much. The bottom line is you can't judge the Adrian Gonzalez trade for 4 or 5 years, once Kelly and Rizzo come up and see what they can do in the majors.
Cubs or Astros, come to mind. Problem is, his stuff was not good enough to generate strikeouts consistently, his ERA was not so poor because he was wild, his ERA was so poor because hitters were killing him. You should be doing back flips anyway as Hoyer was Santa come to town early in Boston. For some perspective, Kevin Towers traded Jake Peavey to the Chisox, for 4 players two of which have already made an impact at the ML level while Peavy was still on the DL AND had the Sox pay his entire remaining salary for that season. Compared to this hatchet job? And you wonder why the charge is layed Hoyer looked out for the Red Sox's interest over his current employers' interests? There are 20 or 30 A ball or Pioneer League players who fit that exact description, dude will be lucky to be a September call up in 2013. Fluke or not, Hoyer gutted that team and replaced the players with..no one, it will be triple A baseball under his watch in San Diego. He is probably in over his head, but good thing he feathered his bed for a return to the BoSox. Utterly false, you can judge this trade by the results on the field in 2011, he weakened the team, more like took a 90 win team and turned into a 60 win team, at least the BoSox got theirs.
Derek Jeter wanted $24 million a year for six years. I repeat: a 36 year old baseball player who is basically a shadow of his former self wanted to be paid $24 million annually through 2016.
Jeter Deal Done! 3 yrs with 4th yr option Curry: Jeter deal is done Jack Curry says it’s finished. Derek Jeter and the Yankees have settled on a three-year deal, with a fourth year option that isn’t guaranteed. The deal is pending a physical, so it won’t become official just yet. Same for Mariano Rivera’s deal. He spoke to the Daily New and Newsday this afternoon, saying the negotiations were quick and smooth, and this might very well be the final contract of his career. yankees.lhblogs.com
Astros have Brett Wallace or Carlos Lee playing 1st base, plus the Astros are going up for sale soon so they won't have money to sign Gonzalez long term so it makes zero sense for them to trade players away for 1 year of Gonzalez since they wouldn't be able to afford an extension for him. The Red Sox have much better prospect than the Cubs do and any Cub package wouldn't be as good as what the Padres got from the Sox. 81 Ks in 95 innings for a 20 year old pitcher in an advance league is pretty good. You're just looking at numbers not his stuff or talent. He was a bit over his head in Double A because the Red Sox like to be aggressive with their prospects. Towers got a terrible return back for Peavy. He held out too long to trade him and ended up trading him when his value was way down at the deadline. If he traded him in the off season to the Braves he would have gotten a much much better return. And the players he got back from them? Clayton Richard is a product of Petco Park, he's a so-so pitcher, nothing special by any means. Just look at his away numbers. What have Adam Russell or Aaron Poreda done in the MLB? Nothing. Again you call it a hatchet job yet you know little to nothing on the Sox prospects. Read what Baseball America, Baseball P or even Keith Law at ESPN. Remember SD traded 1 year of Gonzalez for those players. 1 year. If Gonzalez had a longer contract, they'd get a better return. No your comment is utterly false, how can you judge this trade when the prospects might not even play a MLB game this year? I guess every trade ever made with prospects is a bad one then? It makes no sense. This trade isn't about the 2011 team, it's about the future of the franchise.
How so? A A Ball OF, a P with a 5.00 era, and good, not great first base prospect? The Cubs couldn't match that? And more to the point, that questions' genesis was your statement that "no major market teams were interested". It's a show me business and has been mentioned, statistically prospects bust out at a high rate, if he is struggling in the mid minors, why would he suddenly succeed? I glanced at his stats and he was over 5.00 both seasons.. What? Show me one other trade that involved a pitcher on the DL, and a salary pick up, for 4 prospects? Richards contributed last season, no need for the "oh, 3 yrs from now you can judge a trade" stuff. -I call it a hatchet job because that is all the profanity filter will allow. -Law is no longer working in MLB for a reason. -Have read the online versions as if you think about a good prospect should make steady progress through a farm system so even a 09 version of BA will have the player described fairly accurately. BTW, recall who said this: And the Bosox employ did far worse than that... Padres win 60 games, maybe, and this trade will be shown for what it is, as will Hoyer's work in SD.
Pads, SD got Aaron Harrang, and just a couple months after hiring former Dbacks manager A.J. Hinch, the Padres have hired his old boss, Josh Byrnes. Jump for joy, jump for joy!!!
I'm not going down with this ship BDH, that dolt Hoyer has also: Eckstein is gone as well, so no first baseman, no second basemen no shortstop, no role player (Hairston played 5 positions well). But hey, they added Cameron Maybin! Maybe Hoyer can petition to rejoin the Pacific Coast League?
