Miguel Tejada is not a good player anymore.  He doesn’t hit that well, and he doesn’t field that well.  But the San Diego Padres did not give up much to get him, as Wynn Pelzer looks unlikely to become anything more than a middle reliever.

Tejada provides some depth in the infield, and looks to be a slight marginal upgrade.  But hey, when you’re in the playoff hunt in late July, a slight marginal upgrade could make the difference in the end.

by Daniel Gettinger

In order to clear a roster spot for Matt Stairs, the San Diego Padres had to drop a player from the 40-man roster. The odd-man out was outfielder Chad Huffman.  Although the Padres were hoping Huffman would go unclaimed, the New York Yankees stepped in and claimed him.

On his blog, Paul DePodesta wrote:

We lost the player. And, he’s a pretty good one. Chad was a 2nd round pick in 2006 out of TCU and has been a successful minor league hitter throughout his pro career, posting an OPS over .800 in each season. While crushing lefties early in his career, Chad had his most successful year yet against RHP during his first season in AAA in 2009. He always controlled the strike zone and also hit for some power - a combination we like. We think he’ll be a good Major League hitter.

Huffman might turn out to be a decent major league hitter, but he is unlikely to become a good major league player.  As Rob Neyer wrote: “Without good speed or defense, it will be an upset if he’s ever more than a fifth outfielder.”

I might also add that while Huffman’s bat is okay, it is nothing special.  As a 24 year old, he had a 830 OPS in AAA.  For a corner outfielder who plays mediocre defense, those batting stats would barely cut it in the majors, let alone AAA.  At 24 and not yet in the major leagues, he can hardly be considered a young prospect.

That said, Matt Stairs is nothing special either.  He gives the Padres a bit of lefty power off the bench, but has almost no defensive value.  He is essentially just a pinch hitter/interleague DH/”clubhouse presence.”

Should the Padres have kept Huffman rather than Stairs?  Maybe.  But I’m somewhat indifferent.  Huffman is unlikely to become a quality major league player.  Losing players like Huffman are no big deal.  He projects as a replacement level player, and by definition, replacement level players are freely available talent.

by Daniel Gettinger

Question of the week: Spring Training has barely begun, and already the Adrian Gonzalez trade rumors are in full swing. What are the odds that Gonzalez makes it through the entire 2010 season as a member of the Padres?

My response:

The San Diego Padres are very likely to trade Adrian Gonzalez. Gonzalez is a good player, paid like a mediocre player, and not at all overrated. Which is exactly why the Padres should trade him. As he is in the prime of his career, and his contract only runs through 2011, Gonzalez provides optimal value to a team built to compete over the next two seasons. The Padres are not such a team. They are most likely to compete from 2011-20??. Gonzalez will fetch a package of good, young players. Trading him will greatly accelerate the rebuilding process.

by Daniel Gettinger

The St. Louis Cardinals have reportedly signed second baseman Felipe Lopez.  According to MLB Trade Rumors, the deal is for one year at a base salary of $1MM, plus some “easily attainable performance bonuses that could be worth up to $1.2MM.”  In all, the deal looks like it will be worth no more than $2.2MM.

David Eckstein is the San Diego Padres presumed second baseman.  He is a terrible player.  His fielding and batting are both below average.  Essentially, Eckstein is a replacement level player at this point in his career.

Felipe Lopez is a pretty solid player.  He was excellent last season, posting a WAR of 4.6, but regression should be expected.  2009 was a career year for him, and constituted a significant improvement upon his 2008 and 2007 seasons in which he posted WAR’s below 1.0.  The projection systems see Lopez as approximately a 2.0-2.5 WAR player in 2010, but it should be noted that the variance around Lopez’s expected WAR is probably larger than for most players.

Even though Lopez’s 2010 performance is somewhat uncertain, he would have been a great signing for the Padres.  Lets assume the Padres could have signed him for $3MM guaranteed–a significant raise over what the Cardinals will be paying him.  Even at a 1.0 WAR season–well below Lopez’s expected WAR–the signing would be a value relative to the $3.5MM/win players have been signing for this off-season.  A 2.0 WAR season–the lower end of his expected performance range–would place the Lopez signing at $1.75MM/win, an absolute steal.

Because David Eckstein is so bad, Lopez would have been a large marginal improvement.  Given the low risk of the signing, the Padres should have inked him to a one-year deal.  That the club did not take advantage of an opportunity to improve the team at such a low expense is somewhat puzzling.

by Daniel Gettigner

This week I was asked whether the San Diego Padres should sign Braden Looper.  My response was “no”:

Braden Looper may have won fourteen games in 2009, but he was not any good. He struck out very few batters (4.6 K/9), while allowing a lot of homeruns (1.8 HR/9). Looper is very hittable, and does not project to be much better than replacement level going forward. The Padres may not have an ace on staff, but they do have an abundance of players who are near league-average pitchers. The players currently under consideration for the back-end of the Padres rotation are cheaper, younger, and just as good as Braden Looper.

Steve Adler, from Friarhood, also chimed in.

by Daniel Gettinger

Generally speaking, I like what the Padres have done this winter.  The team has paid cheaply for upgrades at starting pitcher and a few bench slots.  The Padres also got better by trading Kevin Kouzmanoff for Scott Hairston and Aaron Cunningham, allowing Chase Headley to slide over to his natural third-base position and pushing Kyle Blanks to the much less demanding (at least in Petco) left-field slot.

That said, in retrospect, I would have handled the second base position differently.  I would have forgone signing David Eckstein and Yorvit Torrealba.  I would have used the savings to ink Orlando Hudson to a one-year contract.

The Padres will pay David Eckstein $1MM in 2010.  Torrealba will receive $1.25MM.  Although both may be worth slightly more than his salary, neither are different makers.  Orlando Hudson is due to earn $5MM on a one-year contract from the Twins.

According to Websoulsurfer, the Padres current payroll (which includes Eckstein and Torrealba) stands at approximately $38MM.  In December, Padres CEO Jeff Moorad said the Padres 2010 payroll would “start with a four.”  That suggests the Padres currently have at least $2MM to spend on payroll.

The following chart shows the salary and projected WAR for Torrealba and Eckstein, as well as Orlando Hudson.

Had the Padres not signed Eckstein or Torrealba, they would have had $4.25MM to play with ($2.25MM in saved salary plus the $2MM the team currently has to spend).  At that point, spending an extra $0.75MM to sign Hudson may have been approved.

Lets assume the Padres end up spending $40.075MM on their 2010 payroll.  The Padres three primary signings this season-Eckstein, Jerry Hairston and Torrealba-signed for an expected $3.36MM/win.  To reach $40.075MM, the Padres will need to spend an additional $2.075MM.  At $3.36MM/win, the Padres could expect to add 0.62 wins with their leftover funds.  0.62 plus the expected contributions of Eckstein and Torrealba totals 1.42 wins.

If the Padres had instead signed Hudson, their expected WAR would have been 2.5 for the same amount of spending.  Sure the Padres would have been a bit thinner at catcher, but under this calculation I am valuing Dusty Ryan at replacement level and the team still comes out 1.08 wins ahead.

Even if the Padres were unable to sign Hudson, they could have reached out to Felipe Lopez who is still a free agent.  It is unlikely Lopez will sign for more money than Hudson, and he provides similar expected value.  I prefer Hudson because his performance has been more consistent year-to-year than Lopez, but that extra risk is likely to result in a slightly lower salary for Lopez.

By re-signing David Eckstein, the Padres limited their options immensely.  They locked themselves in at second base with a pretty mediocre player.  This prevented the Padres from taking advantage of potential bargains at the position.  As a result, the team ended up spending much of their remaining funds on bench upgrades.  However, if Eckstein was not re-signed, the Padres could have forgone signing Yorvit Torrealba as well as whatever marginal upgrades they end up making with their remaining funds.  In return, they could have signed a quality player like Orlando Hudson (or Felipe Lopez) at a lower rate per win.

Edit: I realize Towers was the GM when Eckstein was signed.  I am not blaming Hoyer. I was merely suggesting that if we could “play” the off-season again, this is what I would do.

by Myron Logan

On Friday, Jed Hoyer and the Padres signed veteran catcher Yorvit Torrealba to a one year, $1.25 million deal, with a mutual option in 2011.

Assuming $3.5 million per win, the Padres are paying Torrealba like a .3-.4 WAR player. That is probably a slight bargain for Torrealba, who, as a part time catcher, has averaged about .8 WAR a year over the last three years.

While the contract is fine and Torreabla actually adds something at catcher for the Pads, he’s obviously by no means a difference maker.  He’ll be 32 years old and his wOBA has hovered around .300 in hitter-friendly Colorado. He hits the ball on the ground a lot — about 55% of the time — which might help to ease the transition to Petco, though generally is not a good sign for a slow-moving catcher.

What has to be applauded about the deal, though, is that rather than overpaying for a veteran catcher, Hoyer and company, if anything, underpaid on the free agent market. You could argue, like I have before, that they would have been better off going with someone making the minimum, and putting the $1.25M to use elsewhere. But, if it’s going to be spent on this year’s roster, at least it is being spent effectively.

by Myron Logan

Daniel analyzed the Jon Garland signing earlier, concluding:

Expected to perform at a $7MM level for only $5.3MM, Garland provides surplus value, at a position of need.  Not a bad signing.

Daniel is of course spot-on, and his approach to evaluating the deal is precisely how I would have looked at it. However, consider the question Aaron asked in today’s chat:

Why do you guys always use WAR as a universal stat. Aren’t wins worth more or less to different teams?

He makes a great point. A marginal win has a different value for each franchise. It is something that I’ve talked about along time ago, but neglected all too often. Let’s just consider one aspect; the team’s placement on the win curve. And just for the purposes of this post, let’s say the Padres were projected to win 79 games before acquiring Jon Garland. If you look at the chart in that linked post — Nate Silver’s wonderful research –a projected 79 win team has about a 12% chance of making the playoffs.

If we say that Garland’s addition adds two wins to the Padres projection, now they are an 81 win team. That increases their playoff chances by 6% — to a whopping 18%. If a playoff berth is worth $30 million — again, according to Silver, though obviously that figure is dated — Garland gets a $1.8 million playoff bonus. Now, are those two extra wins that he’s adding worth that remaining $3.5 million — the difference between Garland’s salary and the playoff bonus — without consider their impact on San Diego’s playoff chances.

Though Garland’s deal may have been a relative bargain, even in this year’s free agent market, the Padres are still paying a premium for his services. Due to his free agent status, and the fact that all teams can bid on him, his salary gets a major bump. Would the $5.3M the Padres gave Garland be better utilized on, say, locking up young players currently on the roster, future draft pick signing bonuses, international signings, and improving the scouting, player development, and analysis departments?

I don’t know the answer, but I think that consideration is definitely warranted. It is tough to criticize the Padres when they actually do spend money, putting them into a classic “damned if ya do, damned if ya don’t” situation. That said, their payroll sat at a mere $33 million before Garland’s acquisition, clearly showing that they are not necessarily trying to compete this season. Does it make sense to spend 13% of the payroll on one player, one player who likely is not going to change the season’s ultimate fate? Should they even be competing on the free agent market at this point?

Seriously, I ask questions because I don’t know the answers. $5.3 million is not going to cripple the franchise, but I’m just wondering if it could have been better spent elsewhere.

by Daniel Gettinger

Pitcher Jon Garland and the Padres have agreed to what is essentially a one-year deal worth $5.3MM guaranteed.   (Note: There is actually a mutual option for a second year at $6.75MM with a $600K buyout).

Garland has been consistently durable and has posted consistently average performances throughout his career.  He is a low strikeout guy, who gets away with a lack of stuff by minimizing his walks and homeruns allowed. Since 2002 Garland has thrown no fewer than 191 innings in any season, while posting WARs between 2 and 4.

The projections that are out are pretty much in agreement on Garland.  He is expected to produce a FIP around 4.5 in about 190 innings.  That is solid, valuable performance, and worth approximately 2 wins ($7MM) above replacement.

Garland takes the place of the Padres previously unnamed fifth starter.  Instead of running Stauffer, LeBlanc, or some other replacement type player currently in the Padres system, the Padres can throw Garland. If someone else in the system steps up, the team will probably be able to deal Garland to a different team.

Expected to perform at a $7MM level for only $5.3MM, Garland provides surplus value, at a position of need.  Not a bad signing.

by Daniel Gettinger

Replacement level player.  Replacement level contract.  Enough said.