|
Post by azson on Aug 25, 2021 9:05:16 GMT -8
If they'd shown more signs of life than one inspired game in the last week I'd agree with you, but at this point having hope just feels pointless/like delaying the inevitable. I hear ya. Life as a Padre SD Sports' fan, unfortunately. FIFY
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 25, 2021 9:22:55 GMT -8
I admire the fact that you still consider this an extremely important series, as if there were any chance in HEdoublehockeystick we can catch them. Every series is extremely important now. Every GAME is extremely important now.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 25, 2021 10:40:18 GMT -8
Good starting pitching comes in different iterations. Good grief😲😲😲 The bullpen was tremendous last night through 6 innings. Pagan had probably his best outing all year. The offense unfortunately laid another egg.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 25, 2021 11:42:34 GMT -8
The bullpen was tremendous last night through 6 innings. Pagan had probably his best outing all year. The offense unfortunately laid another egg. Pagan was spectacular, no doubt. What was it 8 straight strikes, including 2 punch outs to start? Yikes. The only curious move was Camarena vs. Hill, although Hill's been a crapshoot of late. But hard to fault pitching, and thought all of Tingler's moves were defensable. Just think how things may have changed if Manny's ball is 1 foot farther? Could have been a completely different outcome.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 25, 2021 12:06:39 GMT -8
The bullpen was tremendous last night through 6 innings. Pagan had probably his best outing all year. The offense unfortunately laid another egg. Pagan was spectacular, no doubt. What was it 8 straight strikes, including 2 punch outs to start? Yikes. The only curious move was Camarena vs. Hill, although Hill's been a crapshoot of late. But hard to fault pitching, and thought all of Tingler's moves were defensable. Just think how things may have changed if Manny's ball is 1 foot farther? Could have been a completely different outcome. Game of inches. I think Hill is so far above his previous usage rates that you're going to see some of his stuff flatten out.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 25, 2021 12:09:36 GMT -8
Pagan was spectacular, no doubt. What was it 8 straight strikes, including 2 punch outs to start? Yikes. The only curious move was Camarena vs. Hill, although Hill's been a crapshoot of late. But hard to fault pitching, and thought all of Tingler's moves were defensable. Just think how things may have changed if Manny's ball is 1 foot farther? Could have been a completely different outcome. Game of inches. I think Hill is so far above his previous usage rates that you're going to see some of his stuff flatten out. IMO he shouldn't have cut his hair!! Hasn't been the same. : )
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Aug 25, 2021 12:10:57 GMT -8
Pagan was spectacular, no doubt. What was it 8 straight strikes, including 2 punch outs to start? Yikes. The only curious move was Camarena vs. Hill, although Hill's been a crapshoot of late. But hard to fault pitching, and thought all of Tingler's moves were defensable. Just think how things may have changed if Manny's ball is 1 foot farther? Could have been a completely different outcome. Game of inches. I think Hill is so far above his previous usage rates that you're going to see some of his stuff flatten out. This, right here, is exactly why adding a back of the rotation arm at the deadline would have helped.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 25, 2021 12:27:58 GMT -8
I hear ya. Life as a Padre SD Sports' fan, unfortunately. FIFY There ya go. That's more appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 25, 2021 12:46:25 GMT -8
Game of inches. I think Hill is so far above his previous usage rates that you're going to see some of his stuff flatten out. This, right here, is exactly why adding a back of the rotation arm at the deadline would have helped. No.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Aug 25, 2021 12:54:32 GMT -8
People can read this morning's paper to find out one reporter's take on a back of the rotation arm … given those available at the deadline. It didn't get done, though, so it's moot.
They'll live and die with what they have at this point. As it looks more and more like they won't live to see a postseason game, perhaps some pf those arms will end up throwing for another team next season.
There will be changes. There always are. Rothschild was just the first…
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 25, 2021 14:22:48 GMT -8
Game of inches. I think Hill is so far above his previous usage rates that you're going to see some of his stuff flatten out. This, right here, is exactly why adding a back of the rotation arm at the deadline would have helped. Adding Hudson should have, in theory, lessened the burden on Hill & others, especially with Pomeranz now back (at the time). Plus, at the time of the trading deadline Darvish & Paddack were in the rotation & Weathers was pitching OK, albeit not going deep. The trading deadline is when he really started to fall apart, but hard to forecast that & quite the opposite. If you have a kid like Weathers doing pretty well you have to weigh moving him out of the rotation for that new guy, especially knowing that moving forward there were going to be more off days he wouldn't be needed (in theory). I'm not saying you don't add a solid innings eater like a Berrios or Gibson, but I also don't think it's as cut & dry as some portray. It's a no brainer if you can predict injuries and/or don't think Snell bounces back, or don't think Paddack or Weathers ever go 5+ consistently. But Snell's been the only part of that equation that has worked out. The part we all don't know is the price to add that type of player - what were they asking? Everything's a lot clearer when you don't know the tradeoff, and you know how things turned out IMO.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Aug 25, 2021 15:06:50 GMT -8
This, right here, is exactly why adding a back of the rotation arm at the deadline would have helped. Adding Hudson should have, in theory, lessened the burden on Hill & others, especially with Pomeranz now back (at the time). Plus, at the time of the trading deadline Darvish & Paddack were in the rotation & Weathers was pitching OK, albeit not going deep. The trading deadline is when he really started to fall apart, but hard to forecast that & quite the opposite. If you have a kid like Weathers doing pretty well you have to weigh moving him out of the rotation for that new guy, especially knowing that moving forward there were going to be more off days he wouldn't be needed (in theory). I'm not saying you don't add a solid innings eater like a Berrios or Gibson, but I also don't think it's as cut & dry as some portray. It's a no brainer if you can predict injuries and/or don't think Snell bounces back, or don't think Paddack or Weathers ever go 5+ consistently. But Snell's been the only part of that equation that has worked out. The part we all don't know is the price to add that type of player - what were they asking? Everything's a lot clearer when you don't know the tradeoff, and you know how things turned out IMO. Good point re. the price - we know it was high for Scherzer, but we don't know what it would have been for a (decent) starter. What I don't like is that Ryan can't acknowledge (even in hindsight) that it was a good move to add a back of the rotation guy. It's the same thing with the Hosmer argument that Ryan has perpetuated fwiw, there is no recognition of the other perspective, just "you're wrong"
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 25, 2021 15:11:48 GMT -8
This, right here, is exactly why adding a back of the rotation arm at the deadline would have helped. Adding Hudson should have, in theory, lessened the burden on Hill & others, especially with Pomeranz now back (at the time). Plus, at the time of the trading deadline Darvish & Paddack were in the rotation & Weathers was pitching OK, albeit not going deep. The trading deadline is when he really started to fall apart, but hard to forecast that & quite the opposite. If you have a kid like Weathers doing pretty well you have to weigh moving him out of the rotation for that new guy, especially knowing that moving forward there were going to be more off days he wouldn't be needed (in theory). I'm not saying you don't add a solid innings eater like a Berrios or Gibson, but I also don't think it's as cut & dry as some portray. It's a no brainer if you can predict injuries and/or don't think Snell bounces back, or don't think Paddack or Weathers ever go 5+ consistently. But Snell's been the only part of that equation that has worked out. The part we all don't know is the price to add that type of player - what were they asking? Everything's a lot clearer when you don't know the tradeoff, and you know how things turned out IMO. Considering what Berrios cost (two top 100, closer to top 50 prospects), the equivalent would have been something like Campusano/Gore or Campusano/Hassell, as Abrams wasn't even on the table. That's a ridiculous price to pay for a season and two months of Berrios. Berrios has an ERA just under 5 since the deadline and was shelled last night for the second time in his last three starts. Paddack being hurt a couple hours after the deadline and Darvish going down the week after is something you just can't really project.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 25, 2021 16:12:31 GMT -8
Adding Hudson should have, in theory, lessened the burden on Hill & others, especially with Pomeranz now back (at the time). Plus, at the time of the trading deadline Darvish & Paddack were in the rotation & Weathers was pitching OK, albeit not going deep. The trading deadline is when he really started to fall apart, but hard to forecast that & quite the opposite. If you have a kid like Weathers doing pretty well you have to weigh moving him out of the rotation for that new guy, especially knowing that moving forward there were going to be more off days he wouldn't be needed (in theory). I'm not saying you don't add a solid innings eater like a Berrios or Gibson, but I also don't think it's as cut & dry as some portray. It's a no brainer if you can predict injuries and/or don't think Snell bounces back, or don't think Paddack or Weathers ever go 5+ consistently. But Snell's been the only part of that equation that has worked out. The part we all don't know is the price to add that type of player - what were they asking? Everything's a lot clearer when you don't know the tradeoff, and you know how things turned out IMO. Good point re. the price - we know it was high for Scherzer, but we don't know what it would have been for a (decent) starter. What I don't like is that Ryan can't acknowledge (even in hindsight) that it was a good move to add a back of the rotation guy. It's the same thing with the Hosmer argument that Ryan has perpetuated fwiw, there is no recognition of the other perspective, just "you're wrong" Scherzer wasn't even a possibility according to reports - he was dead set on being a Dodger. And again, I'd only be up for adding a back of the rotation guy if the price is right, especially at that time when things weren't quite as dire as they were a week later. If it's one of our top 4 prospects - no thanks. If it was a lower tier prospect, sure, but we don't know if that's the case? At least I don't. I haven't analyzed what Toronto gave up for Berrios so can't really judge? You also have to weigh all that against who you want in your rotation, and if they preferred Weathers or Snell or Paddack at the time, all being healthy, or a Berrios minus a good prospect then its much less attractive. Bottom line - I don't blame Preller for not doing the deal if it meant losing someone that we want to be a piece of this team in 2 years at the trading deadline, given all were (in theory) healthy. If the trading deadline was a week later, and it didn't involve the top 4, then I'd be much more disappointed with his decision.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Aug 25, 2021 17:01:37 GMT -8
Bottom line - spending north of $180MM on salaries this year put them in The Top Ten, but unless the team turns their play around radically over the next 5 weeks that looks like the only bragging right they'll have purchased for 2021.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Sept 14, 2021 19:21:18 GMT -8
Since the Larry ouster, Padres pitching has sunk even further. We could blame all of that on Larry, sure. But I really think it's something else - the injury bug is real, but my question is why are there so many injury prone pitchers on the staff? Who's going out and getting all these guys? AJ Preller?. Doesn't seem like it'd be anyone else…
The current pitching ills and the inability to call on anyone in the organization is pretty glaring. Taking in a DFA'd Ross Detwiler, while necessary because there is literally no one else, shows where the organization is failing right now.
Where's the beef?
Where's the pitching?
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 16, 2021 12:57:43 GMT -8
Adding Hudson should have, in theory, lessened the burden on Hill & others, especially with Pomeranz now back (at the time). Plus, at the time of the trading deadline Darvish & Paddack were in the rotation & Weathers was pitching OK, albeit not going deep. The trading deadline is when he really started to fall apart, but hard to forecast that & quite the opposite. If you have a kid like Weathers doing pretty well you have to weigh moving him out of the rotation for that new guy, especially knowing that moving forward there were going to be more off days he wouldn't be needed (in theory). I'm not saying you don't add a solid innings eater like a Berrios or Gibson, but I also don't think it's as cut & dry as some portray. It's a no brainer if you can predict injuries and/or don't think Snell bounces back, or don't think Paddack or Weathers ever go 5+ consistently. But Snell's been the only part of that equation that has worked out. The part we all don't know is the price to add that type of player - what were they asking? Everything's a lot clearer when you don't know the tradeoff, and you know how things turned out IMO. Good point re. the price - we know it was high for Scherzer, but we don't know what it would have been for a (decent) starter. What I don't like is that Ryan can't acknowledge (even in hindsight) that it was a good move to add a back of the rotation guy. It's the same thing with the Hosmer argument that Ryan has perpetuated fwiw, there is no recognition of the other perspective, just "you're wrong" I didn't see this until now, but we do know what the prices were for the majority of these arms and it's absolutely clear that not paying them was the right move. Happ? Terrible. Lester? Same. Heaney? Ditto. Maeda? Tommy John (and the price was astronomical - They wanted a top 100 guy plus more) - I don't believe in using hindsight to justify opinions because GM's don't get the same benefit of the doubt. All you can do is proceed with the information you have available. Unless they knew Darvish, Paddack and Snell would all be hurt within a handful of weeks? And at that point, what good is a backend arm going to do? Preller played it right. As tough of a pill as that is to swallow, you're not raising or adjusting the ceiling of the team if your top 3 arms aren't going to perform to expectations, which is exactly what Preller said at the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Sept 16, 2021 15:37:07 GMT -8
Not having a line of pitching succession in the minors is a consequence of questionable player selection as well as a fairly clear lack of player development. Both are fair game for criticism.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Sept 16, 2021 15:42:46 GMT -8
Not having a line of pitching succession in the minors is a consequence of questionable player selection as well as a fairly clear lack of player development. Both are fair game for criticism. They've used 31 pitchers this year and have more than a dozen on the IL. How many arms do you think are just available at their disposal?
|
|
|
Post by junior on Sept 16, 2021 16:20:35 GMT -8
How many of those 31 pitchers you write of are actually any good?
Quantity ≠ Quality
But I'm pretty sure you know that already.
|
|