Scott Boras doing his thing.
The master Manipulator attempting to help create the market.

Hype!

I would not mind getting up at 10:00 every morning.

The thought of Scott Boras naked-wrestling with a large Armenian in a hotel also would make me laugh.

Wonder if that is anywhere near grammatically correct.

I am sure there are others that could.

Heyman still thinks the Dodgers are in the Peavy sweepstakes. Bleh.

I don't mind Lopez as much, as he should cheap and productive enough to hold down the second until Triunfel arrives.

1. The Padres are a small market team.

Okay, I don't get this point at all. Does that mean we're supposed to set the bar really low for the Padres? Is it an excuse for bad management? There are plenty of examples of teams that build their teams well and finish with good records despite being in small markets.

2. They had a moribund farm system at the time DePo joined them.

Yes, they had a moribund farm system because of a draft philosophy that happens to be the same as DePo's draft philosophy. Their drafts are still bad, and that is despite getting a lot of extras picks. There is a reason why DePo was recruited to San Diego's front office: he is on the same page as the people who have been running things there for a good while.

3. WRT to Peavy, what do you expect them to do?

I didn't say that selling off Peavy was wrong. I said it is going to be why the 2009 Padres will be even worse than the 2008 Padres. I understand WHY Peavy has to be sold off, but as with Beane's recent fire sale of major league assets, it has to be said that acknowledging that the right thing is being done does not preclude criticism for things having gotten so bad that a good player had to be sold just to fill up gaps in the farm system. The gaps the Padres have wouldn't exist if they were doing a good job with scouting, drafting, and player development -- things that cost so little that even a small market team should be able to do them, and as Moneyball told us, things that a small market team depends on more than a big market team.

4. The Padres' 2008 was foreseeable.

Yes. I agree completely. I don't see how you are contradicting me here. Bad management decisions made it clear in the off-season that the Padres were not going to be good in 2008, and I recall Regfairfield devoting an article to that subject at TrueBlueLA last off-season.

email me at carljmiller at yahoo dot com if you want to get more info

So which team does he think Manny didn't help: Boston, Cleveland, or L.A.?

I like to hear that.

1. The Padres are a small market team.

That is, they have much less room for error than larger market teams.

*2. They had a moribund farm system at the time DePo joined them.

Yes, they had a moribund farm system because of a draft philosophy that happens to be the same as DePo's draft philosophy.*

Show where DePodesta was responsible for the Matt Bush fiasco. Winning also hurts them, and the players acquired from their stockpiled sandwich picks are far too new to really make much comment on. Further, I fail to see how poor drafts are Paul DePodesta's fault; he's not running the draft.

As for the Padres 2008 season being predictable, you damn them without really looking at what they could have done differently. Bradley goes -- I get that, he's burned bridges with every organization he's been with. The rest was really a consequence of declines; what were the Padres supposed to do to prevent Chris Young from turning into a pumpkin? You make it sound like the Padres stink because Paul DePodesta did or didn't do things that would have resulted in more wins than they otherwise ended up with. And frankly, I don't see any justification for that whatsoever, especially considering the corner they were in to begin with, and how limited DePodesta's influence likely is in that front office. It only gets worse with the Moores divorce and the resulting fractional sale of the team.

Can't he just deliver the message in person...?

And I don't really disagree with what you say about personally "blaming" DePo for San Diego's problems, because as you say he is not the man in charge, whether it be the big club or just the draft. But I think the point has to be appreciated that men like Towers and Alderson are men very much of the same school of thought as DePo -- they are not "Colletties." Ultimately, what I wrote that you replied in the last thread was meant to be interpreted in a context, and that context was addressing Paul Scott and his comments about the Dodgers. Paul has soured on the Dodgers because he doesn't like that DePo got fired and replaced with "the idiot." My position is that there is absolutely no way that I would trade the Dodgers' current FO for the Padres' FO. Logan White is just that important, even if he isn't the GM in his team's front office. His finger prints are all over what was good about the Dodgers for the last three years.

gawd, i miss those days.

Beacause of THIS: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story

My friend is absolutely livid. He can't get home! I won't go into detail but his opinion on several things soured.

http://tinyurl.com/66omoh

I do believe "The Drive" was in Cleveland, and "The Fumble" was at Mile High.

He settled for a meal at "El Cholo." They have the Browns/Broncos game.

Maybe, but isn't this a false choice? The problem here is that not only are there structural differences between the teams because of market size, but there's reasonable evidence that Colletti, whatever his other mistakes, at least knew he had a good head of scouting. Colletti's other mistakes were pretty numerous, starting with his inability to tell good players from bad, and especially his free agency busts. Maybe you could say that the Padres don't have the luxury of screwing up such deals because they don't have the cash; fair enough. But why the pointless trade for Greg Maddux midseason? And moreover, if the Dodgers' FO is so smart, why is it that they're so damned cheap when handing out money to amateurs? Ned just is not a good judge of talent, is too averse to the risks of young players, and consistently underestimates the risks of older players.

This is a misdirection; he didn't say he wanted Kevin Towers. He was upset at DePodesta leaving, and being roughly treated on his way out the door. (I agree with him, by the way.) The Dodgers were better with DePodesta, who took intelligent risks. His only real downside was press relations.

And Tommy Davis made an appearance that month!

I don't believe being smart or not has anything to do with that, because I don't believe our FO has any other options. In all MLB organizations, ownership sets the budget for spending on amateur talent, just like it sets the payroll for the MLB roster, and an FO has to work within that. In short, blame McCourt. (Hey! That has a great ring to it!) After the draft this year, the Padres spent $5 million on signing Latin American amateurs. I don't think the Dodgers spent as much as $100,000 on Latin American amateurs during the same period. Who is supposed to be the small market team, and who is the big market team? If you believe the people who work for McCourt are happy about that, I have a bridge to sell you. But what are those employees supposed to do when McCourt is pinching pennies? Quit?

"Ned just is not a good judge of talent, is too averse to the risks of young players, and consistently underestimates the risks of older players."

I agree with that, which is why I said in my reply to Paul Scott that I don't like Ned. And I have said often enough that I want Logan White to be promoted to GM. As for Towers as a GM, he has made some good trades, but he has also made some really dumb commitments to the sort of older, declining players Ned likes. And worst of all as far as I'm concerned: Towers fired Logan White when White worked for the Padres' organization.:)

I would've challenged that TD, too, though it was a good call. I really thought they'd stopped him.

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/030078.php

Er, no, I hope he's better than that actually.

64 Who's Jeff Kent? Was he our 2B once?

Okay, too much time left on the clock. That's it, I can't take it... {change channels}

I go and check, and of course, I am.

74 - Oh man! Uhh... sorry. I'm going against Eddie Royal this week, but I'll take that, too.

Did you see Marshall on the post-game show? Turned out he was going to do a bit of a Rule 5 violation, well not really - had a glove he painted black and white to show how the nation has come along way in race relations. Stokely told him to put it back just in case they could flag him for celebrating. That was pretty cool (and probably wise to hold on to it).

Nice to have a 40 spot before Sunday even begins.

Here is a short video of a man flipping channels on a TV. Can you identify when this Cubs game was played in this clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs6Ltu2srSc&feature=related

I believe the game was from May 5, 2008.

---

I don't know who is pulling the strings with the Manny negotiation, but the organization as a whole is once again showing its true colors.

If the Dodgers play hanky panky with Boras and then go out and overpay more old mediocre players, I will be livid.

>> DANA POINT, Calif. — The San Diego Padres anticipate trading ace Jake Peavy this month to the Chicago Cubs, Atlanta Braves or Los Angeles Dodgers, Padres general manager Kevin Towers said Thursday. <<

## "Jake's preference is to stay in the National League, and preferably out West because he moved his family (from Alabama) to San Diego," said Axelrod, briefed Wednesday by Towers ##

http://tinyurl.com/5qfbuc

Wasn't there a show about that?

74, I'm facing Cutler in my league too. Ugh. At least I'm facing Braylon Edwards though, he only put up a two.

I think the FO will surprise you guys and sign one of Manny or CC. Actually I'm probably more just desperate that they do. (Please Ned please!)

A 12.5ish percent raise in salary for a 36-year old designated hitter (who will turn 37 early in the 2009 season) doesn't seem insulting to me.

Ethier/Kershaw/Elbert for Peavy might get it done.

We should just enjoy what he gave us, the Dodgers never intended on signing him, as there is no fit for an aging slugger who is really a DH in our league. Manny looked great for two months, he won't look so great in the future playing LF. Those knee problems didn't just go away, he played through them for the contract. He won't do that again.

I know, I've had this fantasy before!

And, I can do without Manny, easily.

Do I have to?