Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 10:07:38 GMT -8
Mark Kotsay (LOL)
Matt Palmer (former Angels mopup man/spot 5th starter)
John Baker
Huston Street
Barring any unforseen expenditures (not expected), this ballclub will lose 100 games. No doubt in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 7, 2011 10:10:13 GMT -8
The Padres suck. They are a joke. When did Frank McCourt buy the Padres?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 11:00:44 GMT -8
The Padres suck. They are a joke. When did Frank McCourt buy the Padres? Hey, at least Frank the Tank had a respectable payroll (even for the LA market), and a few postseason trips in 7 years. He was looking good until it was revealed he was using the franchise as an ATM. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 8, 2011 15:05:10 GMT -8
Mark Kotsay (LOL) Matt Palmer (former Angels mopup man/spot 5th starter) John Baker Huston Street Barring any unforseen expenditures (not expected), this ballclub will lose 100 games. No doubt in my mind. Unforseen? Let's see. The Padres have stated payroll will begin with a "5" and it currently begins with a "3". I think it is pretty easy to "for see" some more moves. The list of players above only contains one that was acquired to play a pivotal role next year. That is Houston Street. And that was a very good acquisition. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 8, 2011 21:21:34 GMT -8
Mark Kotsay (LOL) Matt Palmer (former Angels mopup man/spot 5th starter) John Baker Huston Street Barring any unforseen expenditures (not expected), this ballclub will lose 100 games. No doubt in my mind. Unforseen? Let's see. The Padres have stated payroll will begin with a "5" and it currently begins with a "3". I think it is pretty easy to "for see" some more moves. The payroll should start with a 7, not a 5. Even with the payroll starting with a 7 the Pads would still be in the middle of the pack payroll wise. Look at what the Angels just did. That's a team that has a SERIOUS commitment to winning a World Series. Not just a commitment to fielding a team. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 9, 2011 13:34:45 GMT -8
The payroll should start with a 7, not a 5. Even with the payroll starting with a 7 the Pads would still be in the middle of the pack payroll wise. Look at what the Angels just did. That's a team that has a SERIOUS commitment to winning a World Series. Not just a commitment to fielding a team. That would be nice. How do we get an owner like that? Sign me up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 15:49:20 GMT -8
Mark Kotsay (LOL) Matt Palmer (former Angels mopup man/spot 5th starter) John Baker Huston Street Barring any unforseen expenditures (not expected), this ballclub will lose 100 games. No doubt in my mind. Unforseen? Let's see. The Padres have stated payroll will begin with a "5" and it currently begins with a "3". I think it is pretty easy to "for see" some more moves. The list of players above only contains one that was acquired to play a pivotal role next year. That is Houston Street. And that was a very good acquisition. You think the Padres will end up spending/taking on salary in the range of $20M this off-season? You're nuts!! I don't know where the payroll is NOW...or will it might be on April 1. But I know that they're not spending $20M this off-season. Let's see where it is in April. This team sucks! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 15:52:04 GMT -8
The payroll should start with a 7, not a 5. Even with the payroll starting with a 7 the Pads would still be in the middle of the pack payroll wise. Look at what the Angels just did. That's a team that has a SERIOUS commitment to winning a World Series. Not just a commitment to fielding a team. That would be nice. How do we get an owner like that? Sign me up. A) He had his own money and didn't have to buy a team using installment payments like Moorad. B) To be fair, Moreno has the Los Angeles market so you can't expect SD to keep up with them.....if Erik is being fair. C) TV deal. New Angels deal is worth $3B over 20 years. That is HUGE. At the end of the day.....there's no good reason the Padres can't support a $70M payroll (half of the Angels). NO good reason. Hell, even the Cleveland f****** Indians are supposed to be there this year and they draw 15,000 a game. The Minnesota Twins are at $100M! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 15:53:25 GMT -8
Bill,
Street is okay. Not great. Not worth $8M.
Let's make a bet. I say Street's ERA will be north of 3 this year. If it's 3.01 I win.
Loser donates $50 to the Aztec Club.
|
|
|
|
Post by azson on Dec 9, 2011 15:53:46 GMT -8
Between the Chargers and Pads, UGH...thank GOD for the Aztecs! :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 9, 2011 16:25:29 GMT -8
Bill, Street is okay. Not great. Not worth $8M. Let's make a bet. I say Street's ERA will be north of 3 this year. If it's 3.01 I win. Loser donates $50 to the Aztec Club. $8 million is his $7.5 salary plus the $0.5 buy out next year. But you leave off the $1 the Rockies have added to the deal. So it is really $7 million. I think that is about right for his value. That is $0.5 below what Bell got last year. I think he will have a similar year. I will not bet. But I think Bell's 43 saves in 48 chances is close to what Street will do. Street saved 90% of his road games with a 2.01 ERA. If he can do that again (no reason why not), and he should be better at Petco, He could be very special. Heath Bell is 34. His K Rate last year was the lowest of his career. It could just be a fluke. But why take the chance on a 3 year deal? I would not trade Street (1 year $7) and 2 draft picks, for Bell (3 year $27) and a player to be named later. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 16:57:52 GMT -8
At the end of the day, I can accept losing Bell. It was probably a wise decision.
I would rather they move Gregerson to closer and signed two bullpen arms for the $8M.
We'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 9, 2011 21:43:00 GMT -8
The payroll should start with a 7, not a 5. Even with the payroll starting with a 7 the Pads would still be in the middle of the pack payroll wise. Look at what the Angels just did. That's a team that has a SERIOUS commitment to winning a World Series. Not just a commitment to fielding a team. That would be nice. How do we get an owner like that? Sign me up. Ummmm... A MAJORITY of owners in MLB are like that. At least a majority will spend a decent amount of money to field a legitimate World Series contender. It doesn't always work out, but it's a lot easier when you're spending at least average money on payroll rather than bottom of the league money on payroll. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 9, 2011 21:48:47 GMT -8
B) To be fair, Moreno has the Los Angeles market so you can't expect SD to keep up with them.....if Erik is being fair. I don't expect the Padres to spend L.A. money - but at least TRY TO COMPETE! The Padres are spending, "We want to win, but not if it's going to cost us money," money. EXACTLY. The Padres - if they really wanted to - could have an $80 Million payroll and make a profit. Think about how attendance would improve if there were a couple name players out there and the team were legitimately competing for a World Series title! Merchandise sales and all that ancillary stuff would go through the roof! Padres ownership thinks small time - like a minor league team. It's a joke. A bad one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2011 17:11:51 GMT -8
Yes, I agree with you man.
Bill and Ryan are good guys, but the next time they criticize a SINGLE move of Padres ownership (and this goes back to Moores), will be the first time. I'm not kidding.
I base that off of five years of reading their posts on different Aztec boards.
You can be a huge fan and still be objective. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 11, 2011 19:13:51 GMT -8
You're totally wrong Josh, I was very critical of Moores. Hated him as an owner. I think the slow transfer is slowing down the growth of the current team as well, but hopefully that will take care of itself. But I was no fan of John Moores.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 19, 2011 15:42:43 GMT -8
Yes, I agree with you man. Bill and Ryan are good guys, but the next time they criticize a SINGLE move of Padres ownership (and this goes back to Moores), will be the first time. I'm not kidding. I base that off of five years of reading their posts on different Aztec boards. You can be a huge fan and still be objective. Just sayin'. I am looking for a move to criticize. When I find it I will let you know. I tend to have more grey areas with moves. So there is less I support 100% and likewise less I am critical of. There are usually tradeoffs. If a move isn't equal in players but saves money, we have to consider the opportunity costs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2011 20:19:03 GMT -8
You're totally wrong Josh, I was very critical of Moores. Hated him as an owner. I think the slow transfer is slowing down the growth of the current team as well, but hopefully that will take care of itself. But I was no fan of John Moores. Slow transfer??? This is beyond slow. John Moores is using his divorce, the ridiculous sale agreement and the fans to actually make money on the Padres without having to put any back into them. I believe Moorad is riding the wave as well. Padre Fans have been taken for a ride  I have been a Padre Fan since the early 70's and I'm about to jump ship. And, it's not because the team sucks, it's because the owners do >: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2011 21:13:44 GMT -8
Yes, I agree with you man. Bill and Ryan are good guys, but the next time they criticize a SINGLE move of Padres ownership (and this goes back to Moores), will be the first time. I'm not kidding. I base that off of five years of reading their posts on different Aztec boards. You can be a huge fan and still be objective. Just sayin'. I am looking for a move to criticize. When I find it I will let you know. I tend to have more grey areas with moves. So there is less I support 100% and likewise less I am critical of. There are usually tradeoffs. If a move isn't equal in players but saves money, we have to consider the opportunity costs. So when this team loses 100 games what will you say then? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 3, 2012 10:37:20 GMT -8
I am looking for a move to criticize. When I find it I will let you know. I tend to have more grey areas with moves. So there is less I support 100% and likewise less I am critical of. There are usually tradeoffs. If a move isn't equal in players but saves money, we have to consider the opportunity costs. So when this team loses 100 games what will you say then? I will say, "why are you counting spring training games?". |
|
