Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
January 31, 2006
Old Enough to be Your Padre

Tim Sullivan of Union-Tribune makes a good point about the age and skill of the 2006 Padres:

“The team's kind of built for this year,” Towers said. “There are some young players who are in the lineup, but it's not much different than San Francisco. It's a veteran ballclub. Once this year's over, hopefully we'll have some (more) of our younger players.”

With Sunday's signing of Mike Piazza, the Padres now have five players who hit at least 25 home runs in 2001, but no one who hit as many as 20 last year. This is not a trend line that suggests progress, and it raises some reasonable concerns about the team's direction. Unless Towers can work a trade for a time machine, he risks a resounding backfire.

It didn't work for the Giants last year. We'll see if the Padres can sprinkle in enough youngsters to make it work this season.


Posted by David Pinto at 03:27 PM | Team Evaluation | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Reminds me a bit of the 1998 Orioles. The personnel would have won the World Series in 1993. (Heck Joe Carter hit the winning HR didn't he?) But in 1998 they were falling apart.

Posted by: David Gerstman at January 31, 2006 05:01 PM

I think the Padres will be hardpressed to outperform the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2006. The Padres are too old with too many declining players who won't hit well in PETCO. Sure, they have Peavy going every five days, but it won't be enough.

Posted by: Benjamin Kabak at January 31, 2006 08:01 PM

It seems on paper that the Dodgers have certainly put themselves in position to win the NL West, but the same could have been said last season, when the Dodgers were the best team on paper and finished in 3rd place (or was it 4th). For some reason LA always seems to underperform - last year it was injuries, especially the ones to Drew and Gagne. And Drew id just an injury waiting to happen. Kent is old but still productive. Furcal was way overpaid and the Dodgers are going to be regretting that contract in about six months, I'll wager. Gagne and Garciaparra are huge question marks. I don't think Navarro or Izturis are ever going to hit enough to be good. Lofton is almost 40, and Muellar is 35, and both are moving from hitter's parks to a pitcher's park. The Dodgers farm system is the best in baseball, by a lot, but few, if any, of those players are going to be ready for 2006. The NL West is still the weakest division in baseball, and I think the Pads, Dodgers, Giants and D-Backs are equally poised to win it this year.

Posted by: david at January 31, 2006 09:35 PM

Actually, looking at the lineups of SD and LA side-by-side, I'm not even sure the Dodgers are better on paper. It breaks down like this:
(LA listed first)
C-Navarro vs. Piazza/Mirabelli - Navarro was allright in a limited number of ABs last year, and may eventually be good, but he's 22, never been a fulltime player, and his backup is Sandy Alomar or Russ Martin. Padres have the edge.
1B - Garciaparra vs. Klesko/Gonzalez. Garciapara is better but if he gets 350 ABs it will be a major upset. ANd god only knows how well he performs as a first baseman. Still, the Pads guys aren't too good. Advantage solidly to LA.
2B - Kent vs. Barfield. Kent by a mile, obviously.
3B - Mueller vs. Castilla. Probably a wash. Mueller a bit better offensively, and has a better OBP, Castillas a bit better defensively with more power.
SS - Izturis vs. Greene. Greene is better by a lot. Izturis has a career obp of 291 and seems to be in decline already.
RF - Drew vs. Giles. Giles is way better and doesn't get hurt nearly as much.
CF - Lofton vs. Cameron - Cameron's 7 years younger and better.
LF - Cruz/Werth vs. Roberts. Cruz is an enigma - his numbers always seem good but teams never seem to want to keep him. I'd give the slight edge to LA.
The Pads starting 5 - Peavy, Young, Williams, Hensley and Stauffer/Estes
LA- Penny, Perez, Lowe, Tomko and Seo/Houlton/Billingsley. Only one bona-fide ace in there, and I would take Young over Perez or Lowe. Otherwise the Dodgers are a little better in the back end, but certainly not by an overwhelming margin. The dodgers have a deeper bullpen(if Gagne is healthy) and the benches are even.
This is what happens when you get bored on a Tuesday night...

Posted by: david at February 1, 2006 12:42 AM

never take the dodgers as they have a history of lots of d.l players and they have the porno star at 2nd base. this team is going to mesh well. they needed vets last year and they have petco park which is way better than the crumbling dodgers stadium.

Posted by: Colin at February 1, 2006 02:08 AM

I think the Piazza signing was terrible for the Padres. He is so weak defensively at a defensive position and he looks to be steadily declining at the plate. Something tells me they're going to have to play Mirabelli a lot.

Posted by: ICallMasICM at February 1, 2006 08:44 AM

This is really two separate issues: First, the team's direction is into decline (or *further* into decline) with players like that. They might well do worse in 2006 than 2005. On the other hand, given that it's what the Giants did last year - and what the Giants apear intent on continuing to do - they might well stay ahead of the Giants, and if the D-Backs, Dodgers, and Rockies aren't doing much smarter and better, then that may be enough to win the division.

Still doesn't seem like a great, or even fulfilling strategy, though.

Posted by: Chris at February 1, 2006 11:26 AM

No, I would agree with you, it's not a great strategy. But when one-third of your payroll is committed to two players who aren't even projected to be regulars (Ryan Klesko and Chan Ho Park), you do what you can to survive, and try to stay one step ahead of the pack.

Posted by: david at February 1, 2006 07:15 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?