Dodgers Should Know When To Walk Away, Know When To Run From Padilla

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 10:18 AM PST in News Comment 83 comments

More photos » David J. Phillip - AP

Vicente Padilla back for 2010? No thanks.

I don't know what Vicente Padilla news was more troubling yesterday: that he was accidentally shot yesterday in a hunting accident, or that the Dodgers want him back. Look, don't get me wrong, Padilla pitched wonderfully for the Dodgers -- well, at least until Game 5 of the NLCS. Including the playoffs, Padilla pitched much better for the Dodgers than he did at any point with the Rangers:

Team	Years	G	IP	HR/9	BB/9	K/9	ERA	FIP	WHIP	ERA+
Rangers	2006-2009	103	599.1	1.13	3.41	6.20	4.90	4.75	1.475	92
Dodgers	2009	11	56.2	1.11	2.54	8.10	3.34	3.80	1.129	125

Padilla's strikeout rate had plummeted the past few years with the Rangers, from 6.7 in 2007 to 5.9, to 4.9. Then it spiked with the Dodgers to 8.1. Is the difference between the two leagues really that great? Bringing Padilla back smacks of Jose Lima all over again. After 2004, the arbitration rules were different and actually helped prevent Lima's return after his out-of-nowhere performance. Bringing Lima back wasn't a good idea then -- he wasn't good for four years prior to joining the Dodgers, and his final 36 starts after leaving produced a 7.26 ERA, suggesting his performance in LA was a fluke -- and bringing back Padilla for 2010 isn't a good idea now.

Before we get swayed by 11 games, we should remember that upon his release by Texas, his Ranger teammates openly applauded their general manager for getting rid of Padilla. They hated him. Did Padilla's attitude change with his move to the Dodgers? Sure it did! He was on his best behavior because he was on a contract drive. Using the Manny Ramirez Principle, the Dodgers should only bring someone with a checkered past back if his two months with the club produced Hall of Fame-type numbers. Padilla was good, but he wasn't that good.

As for yesterday's shooting, that really doesn't concern me, at least for now. Padilla seems to be fine, according to his agent, so there aren't health concerns. This doesn't appear to be another Plaxico Burress situation, at least on the surface, so there aren't likely to be any legal concerns.

For what it's worth, the 2010 Bill James Handbook projects Padilla in 2010 to have a 4.66 ERA and 4.73 FIP. We know the Dodgers will likely sign at least one starting pitcher this offseason. Unless the offer is a one-year contract for a few million bucks, perhaps with some incentives built in, the Dodgers should stay away from the Vicente Padilla sweepstakes. Otherwise, he is a bad gamble.

0 recs | Comment 83 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

What about Garland?

I would think between the 2 of them we would rather have Garland. Decline his option, he gets 2.5 mil from Arz then look to sign him for 5 mil or so a year maybe for 2 years, giving our young arms in the minors a little more time to develop. 2012 starters Kershaw, Bills, Elbert, Winthrow and ?.

by MammothDodger on Nov 4, 2009 10:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I’m curious, why do you think Garland is better than Padilla?

I don’t really want either back, but at least when Padilla is “on” he is striking people out. Padilla in 2009 posted 5.9K/9, even with a horrendous K rate in Texas. Garland’s best year was 2005 and his K/9 was 4.7.

by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not that Garland is better or worse

I just think he is far less likely to implode and then possibly explode. As a back end to the rotation #4 or 5, I think garland would be a better fit and eat up more innings over the whole season. Also I think he could be got cheaper than Padilla.
2010 rotation:
Kershaw
Bills
Kuroda
Garland
Elbert/Haeger

by MammothDodger on Nov 4, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ya, your point about buying him out and then re-signing him is the key. Picking up the option would be way too much for his services. If you were able to get him on a favorable 1 year deal, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ya, your point about buying him out and then re-signing him is the key. Picking up the option would be way too much for his services

I agree

by MammothDodger on Nov 4, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Amen to this

I would love to bring Wolf back

by robotmadeofnails on Nov 4, 2009 10:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

He's due for a big(ger) pay day

and probably multiple years. Worth it with his age/injury history?

by LA Taco on Nov 4, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am not so sure after his subpar

postseason. But some desperate team might give him three years.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I would take Padilla as a number 4 SP

But I would prefer Wolf (Kuroda in my opinion a #5 option with a new #3 needed). No question he has some good stuff. Having guys that are capable of shutting down another team in the playoffs are good to have. His lifetime numbers show he is never going to be that consistent, but I think good enough to be a 3 or 4 in a playoff rotation. I agree that any contract would have to be short short short term and specifically prohibit the handling of guns, machetes, or long knives (like three months?). OK I would give him a year.

I think we are really talking hypotheticals until we see what the budget is for player salaries. I’m pretty convinced its less than what we paid last year, which would mean we let all our current free agents walk and pay arbitration for the young guys.

by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 10:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Kuroda

is not a #5. Injuries are his problem, IMO

by LA Taco on Nov 4, 2009 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, but disagree

He is probably a #2 healthy and a #8 busted up. So I took the average assuming he’s busted up 50% of the time.

by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We will never see the budget for player salaries

the Dodgers have no reason to make that information public.

by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Check the sidebar

These guys do a good job of tracking the info down ipso facto

by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you know what a budget is?

The teams budget is what they are allocating towards spending on players. Sure we can estimate what the arb raises are, but the team will be the one who drafts a budget which will govern the free agent spending.

Eric does an excellent job of letting of us know what the payroll is, but he can’t possibly tell us how much the McCourts are budgeting for new acquisitions.

by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I know almost EXACTLY what the budget was for 2008

For 2009:

I think we are really talking hypotheticals until we see what the budget is for player salaries.

by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL this is too much for me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3DpCXzSqC0&feature=related

Hilarious

thanks for the link

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I WANT VICENTE PADILLA TO BE PART OF THE DODGERS!

Now when you read that, did it make your stomach cringe? Yeah, yeah, I know, it made mine cringe too…

by Julio Nievas on Nov 4, 2009 11:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Distribution of playoff innings by the Dodger pitching staff in 2009:
Padilla 17.1
Kershaw 13.1
Wolf 9.0
Broxton 6.2
Kuo 5.0
Belisario 4.2
Sherrill 4.1
Billingsley 3.1
Troncoso 3.0
Kuroda 1.1
Weaver 1.1
Elbert 0.1

Something doesn’t feel right about that.

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If Bills was the Bills from the second half

we might still be playing right now… and/or the talk of the need for an “ace” would be non-existent.

by LA Taco on Nov 4, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

And I think you meant Bills from the first half.

by Julio Nievas on Nov 4, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

2nd half Bills would have done just as well as 1st half Bills or Kuroda

Considering they got O run support.

by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

hehe yeah 1st half bills was awesome, that’s what I meant.

by LA Taco on Nov 4, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

we would have won the WS in 5 games :)

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps Billingsley should have been allowed to pitch

over an injured starter who missed significant time all year, including the NLCS.

by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

On a different point

This is an actual quote from another blog I frequent.

I stated before and I’ll state it again, when I look at their eyes in the 4th quarter (you can rewatch the tape if you have TIVO) as the camera pans through the players you can see the fear.

I’ve been doing my best to argue this point, but my points are barely even landing.

Did I mention how much I enjoy True Blue LA?

by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 12:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I tried to help

we got run out of town. Current body language does not foretell future production.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen

by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Current body language does not foretell future production

I would buy a shirt with that on it. :)

Case in point: Jeff Weaver, who has awful body language on the mound, yet was quite (surprisingly) successful this year

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I used Mickey Rivers

in my example knowing that maybe 5% of ClipNation would know who I was talking about.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen

by Phil Gurnee on Nov 4, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Your efforts were much appreciated by me

I had told myself I would let it go, then I saw this gem above and I threw my hat back into the ring.

by Michael White on Nov 4, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Awh man!

You can’t win ’em all mwhite

by Julio Nievas on Nov 4, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

BTW

What’s your real name?

by Julio Nievas on Nov 4, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Phinneas Q. Rappaport III

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t walk away from Padilla, Run Instead

Relax and think about What Would Jack Bauer Do?

by Sordid on Nov 4, 2009 12:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Especially if has a piece in his hand.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Nov 4, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

RT @nyp_joelsherman: GM 6 lineup: jeter, damon, teix, a-rod, matsui, posada, cano, swisher, gardner

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 1:25 PM PST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

RT @philaphillies: Tonights Lineup: Jroll, Victorino, Utley, Howard, Werth, Ibanez, Feliz, Francisco and Ruiz. Ibanez will DH.

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 1:29 PM PST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

True Blue LA beat the Dodgers

in getting the Bill James projections. :)

October 24: http://www.truebluela.com/2009/10/24/1099240/a-look-toward-2010-the-offense
October 25: http://www.truebluela.com/2009/10/25/1099482/a-look-toward-2010-the-pitching

Today: http://insidethedodgers.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/11/for_all_you_bill_james_enthusi.html

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 1:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

You have to feel good when you beat a major network in the internet

V-I-C-T-O-R-Y

by Julio Nievas on Nov 4, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My biggest problem with signing Padilla

is that it almost guarantees that we’re not going after Lackey, Webb, or even Halladay.

We’ve got a really solid 2, 3, and 4 in Kershaw, Bills, and Kuroda – would love to have somebody that can go into any situation and dominate as that #1 guy. for years the Dodgers had the pitching and not the offense, and now its the other way around. can’t we get it all worked out at once?

by bearface on Nov 4, 2009 2:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I agree on principle

that an ace would be nice (and I am a Lackey fan)…

but, I have a hard time reconciling that a team that led the majors in ERA+ (122) while putting up a 100 OPS+ would need more help on pitching than offense.

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I like Lackey but not for a Sabathia or even Burnett type of deal

Relax and think about What Would Jack Bauer Do?

by Sordid on Nov 4, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I expect Lackey to get a Burnett type deal (5/$82.5). And I wouldn’t be opposed to him becoming a Dodger at that price (even though there is almost zero chance that will happen)

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

LAA has no interest in re-signing him?

by delias man on Nov 4, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's usually a red flag, right?

What Would Jack Bauer Do?

by Sordid on Nov 4, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They might…I have no idea

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be down at that price as well...

but yeah, since it will require more than a 3 year deal, it isn’t happening.

by uclatroy on Nov 4, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Precisely because the offense is good but not stellar.

Is why we need improvement in pitching.

I don’t think there is much that could be done with the pen, so starting pitching is what would improve the team the most.

Now if you added A Rod at third, Pujols at 1st, and Utley at second, I might go along with the pitching is good enough.

by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and then add CC

and we would be the Yankees!

by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

improvements

we saw what furcal and loney were made of towards the end of the season this year. and I’m expecting more of the same from Ethier and Kemp, but with less K’s.
I’m not a stats guy, but I’m fairly certain that its statistically impossible for Martin to hit any worse in 2010 than he did this year. Blake wants to go out on a high note. Manny does too. My point, is that our offense should improve this year.

When I look at what guys like Lee, Pedro, Sabbathia, and Burnett have brought to those teams, its hard to argue the value of a big time pitcher.

After seeing Lackey go into Yankee Stadium in the post-season and hold that monsterous team to only 2 runs, I can’t imagine what he could do in the NL.

by bearface on Nov 4, 2009 2:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I too would like to see them sign Lackey.

I feel it would be easier to get another excellent pitcher, and then worry about getting more hitting during the season through a trade. Plus, I can see the offense improving to the point of not exactly needing another hitter.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re just tempting the baseball gods with the comment that “Martin to hit any worse in 2010 than he did this year” :)

What Would Jack Bauer Do?

by Sordid on Nov 4, 2009 2:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

dylanohernandez

Vicente Padilla was accidentally shot by his bodyguard at a shooting range, spokesperson for the Nicaraguan national police told The Times.

by Julio Nievas on Nov 4, 2009 2:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Worst. Bodyguard. Ever.

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What in the fuck were they doing?

This story sounds like bullshit.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know, but I bet it is a good story

and involves copious amounts of alcohol, drugs, women, guns, or all of the above.

by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And grown men slapping each other in the face while

doing big rails of coke and laughing uncontrollably.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I vote for no more "bodyguard" posts this off season

First jamie boinking fuller than padilla getting shot by his, what the hell is going on?

by MammothDodger on Nov 4, 2009 3:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well in first case he may have just been being thorough,

but in the second, that does seem like a bodyguard fail.

by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I had a question in a previous thread that went

unanswered. It went like this; If a guy like Mark Cuban wants to buy the Dodgers, is there any kind of conflict interest legally that would keep him from buying the team since he owns the Mavericks and the Lakers play in LA? I don’t think so, but I wasn’t certain.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 3:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

no legal conflict

years ago, back when Jack Kent Cooke sold the Lakers to buy the Redskins the NFL had a no cross ownership clause, but now I do not think that is even still in play.

The buyer just has to pass muster with the other owners. Somebody may correct me but in MLB I think it is 75% of the owners so if 8 owners vote no you do not get in the club of MLB owners.

by MammothDodger on Nov 4, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks MD.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think there is a rule preventing it

From 1998-2005, a holding company called “YankeeNets” was formed that owned both the Yanks and Nets (and the YES Network). As far as I know there was no opposition from the NBA that the Nets’ owner owned a team in New York, where the Knicks are.

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I also forgot about Paul Allen, who owns the Blazers and Seahawks.

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the truth. I was trying to think of some guys like that.

But couldn’t.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This page was a start for me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_team_owners

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks.

I am perusing its annals right now.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of payroll

Every once in a while I like to glance over at Cot’s Baseball Contracts, to look at just how large the Yankees’ payroll is.

The Yankees in 2009 had nine players make $13 million or more. Their payroll was roughly $213 million this season.

In 2010, the Yankees already have $161,350,000 committed to just 10 players.

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 3:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Sometimes I think it must be great to be a Yankees fan.

Kinda like the Big Rock Candy Mountain over there in Yankeeland.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if the Yankees will ever have a losing season or even .500%

season again in this day and age?

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There was a time when Pittsburgh and Cincinatti battled for NL supremacy

As improbably as that may now seem.

I think history has taught us that the answer is yes.

by Cool Dudes on Nov 4, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And once upon a time France was a military power :)

What Would Jack Bauer Do?

by Sordid on Nov 4, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

once the famed Lavalliere Line broke down, the Pirates were toast. :)

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It would take a lot of injuries, which is prone to happen as their roster skews older. If they don’t produce via the draft, going to the FA well for every position is a disaster-filled plan.

Once Rivera retires, they go back to the land of mere mortals in the closer role, then Posada gets older, Jeter gets older…I’m not saying it can’t happen, but if they get some bad luck it could happen sooner than you think.

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The mid-late 80's were not that long ago were they?

Were they?

by delias man on Nov 4, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fun fact about the 1980s

Despite only making the playoffs one time (1981 WS loss to Jay Johnstone, et al), the Yankees had the best record in the 1980s, 854-708 (.547). The Dodgers were second at 825-741 (.527).

Crazy balance that decade.

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They consistently were around 10-15 games over .500 that whole time? .

Wow.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

under .500 twice (1982, 79-83; and 1989, 74-87).

From ’83 to ’86, they had 365 wins, but never finished higher than 2nd.

The 1985 team was awesome, with Rickey and Mattingly and Winfield, et al. 97 wins, but the Jays had 99.

by Eric Stephen on Nov 4, 2009 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Finally just raid the article from the LA Times

on how much the McCourts pay themselves (their right IMO, I have no problem with that) and how LA has given out the least total money the past few years in signing bonuses (big problem with that).

by oshea2002 on Nov 4, 2009 3:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

But even when A-Rod and Jeter and

Riviera retire, they will still have all that money to pay free agents. And it seems despite what everyone says, their farm system still provides some pretty good players. But I do agree that Rivera and Jeter are kind fo the linch pin for that team for now.

by Ian Capilouto on Nov 4, 2009 4:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs