Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 591: How Did Preller’s Padres Pull it Off?

Episode Date: December 22, 2014

Ben and Sam banter about John Smoltz’s Hall of Fame candidacy, then try to decipher how A.J. Preller’s Padres rebuilt in the blink of an eye.

But every day, every night time I find mystery achievements on my mind, on my mind. But every day, every night time I feel mystery achievements, you're so on read. Mr. Yachin and his story with Ben Lindberg of Grantland. Hi, Ben. Hello. 591. The centennials just don't even mean anything anymore. Once you get past 500, they just don't mean a thing. A thousand will mean something. Yeah, but that's not a centennial. That's on the line. Yeah, you're right.

Well, it's both. We used to have special guests on the hundreds. I just don't think we will this time. Probably not. Oh, yeah, I don't know. We had Grant and Jeff. They're not that special. They're special to us. That was for 500, though.

Yes. Yeah. How are you? I am great. Uh-huh. Yeah. Did you do anything this weekend? I read the new Stephen King book

it's a good weekend it's all I wanted yeah good I read the new baseball prospectus annual how was it it's a work in progress it's pretty good though it's good I think it's actually really good I think it's I

was thinking I'm half ashamed of everything i do in this world uh and i am unambiguously proud of the baseball prospectus annual last year's and also this year's it's like the one thing that i am uh i should have said unambivalently proud it's like the one thing that i'm unambivalently proud of. It's good. It's really good. Maybe that's because it's not a solo project. Maybe, but maybe it's just that it's really good. It's like it's a huge project and it turns out to have like every page there's something that I point to and think that's good that that's in there. Yeah, it was really good last year. Thanks.

I'm sure it will be really good again. I like your essay this year, by the way. Thank you. It's topical. That's right. Interesting. It's good. I'm glad you got to write it. I don't know if you'll get to write it next year. It'll be interesting to see if you'll be allowed to write it next year. I plan to. Good. Anything to talk about? Not really. I was just glancing at the Hall of Fame ballot collecting gizmo. How's that going? I was actually planning to look for it this morning at like 5.30 in the morning, and I got distracted. I didn't get to do it. Yeah, this is the baseball think factory thing where they collect all the ballots that have been published, and they total it up, and they see who would be in if the voting ended now, as far as we know. So only 45 full ballots in, which according to last year's numbers would be

about 8% of the vote. So I don't know whether this is a representative sample or not, but the surprise, there's really one surprise to me. The non-surprise is that pedro martinez is on every ballot i guess that would be it would be surprising if he were actually on every ballot in the end because no one is ever on every ballot but not surprising that pedro is on a ton of ballots that randy johnson is on a ton of ballots so far biggio and piazza would clear the 75% threshold by not a ton. But the surprising thing to me is John Smoltz at 88.9% of ballots. Well, of course, all of these are running too high. I think that there's an adjustment.

The public ballots tend to be more pro. There's a few players that tend to get underrepresented on public ballots, but for the most part, you have to adjust downward for all the public ballots. And particularly this early, you would regress anyway. And just knowing that, for instance, Pedro is not going to be on 100%, just knowing that, you have a sense that this is too high. So I would guess that Smoltz is going to be right around 75% or so. But that is surprising because John Smoltz does not stand out particularly against the Curt Schillings and Mike Messinas of the world. And yet those guys have really struggled to even get around 50%. And in the same way that Tom Glavin was a

no doubt first balloter, even though there's not necessarily a real distinction between him and Schilling and Mussina, but he's better than Smoltz too. I genuinely think that

they're getting elected as a trio. That he and Glavin and Maddox are there. I think Smoltz and Glavin get, you know, a hundred extra votes just for being associated with the other two. Yeah, maybe that's it. Because on this gizmo, Schilling is at 53% and Messina is at 42%. And both of them are clearly better pitchers than John Smoltz, right? There's no... I mean, Smoltz doesn't have even John Smoltz, right? There's no—

I mean, Smoltz doesn't have even—Smoltz doesn't even have the— I mean, there's not even a particularly old-school argument for him. It's not like he's got a super low ERA. It's not like he's got a great winning percentage. It's not like he's got a lot of wins. He's got saves. Right. I don't know whether the combination of wins and saves is sexier than,

I guess, I mean, what? He has like the same number of wins as Schilling basically, right? And on top of that, he has 150-something saves. So maybe, maybe that does it. Uh-huh. I don't know. What about Messina though? How many does Messina have?

I think Messina has slightly more let's see smoltz has 214. so if you give smoltz those three years back as a starter at the you know roughly 14 or 15 wins he was averaging at that point in his career uh then you only get to like 260, 250, 260. Yeah. I don't know. It's a weird one. Smoltz won a Cy Young, I guess, as a thing. Yeah. And Smoltz was, you know, he was good in the postseason, but so was Schilling.

I mean, Schilling was like a god in the postseason. Right. That's a weird one. I'll be interested to see if that holds up in the full balloting. So what do you think about this um strategic voting this idea that uh there's not enough ballot spots for your all the people that you think deserve to go and so you should vote strategically to make sure that you know like if Pedro doesn't need your vote for instance don't give a vote to Pedro. Instead, give it to Alan Trammell because Alan Trammell needs your vote.

Do you think that that's a legitimate way to vote, or should your 10 spots represent your 10 top spots? I haven't thought about it all that much, but I think, I mean, there are some guys who just have not turned in ballots as part protest, part strategic thing. Yeah, only. Yeah, like they reduce the size of the pool and therefore make it easier for guys to be elected theoretically, but it's also... Dude, John Smoltz lost more games than Mike Messina And he has 57 fewer wins Yeah I don't get it I don't know Messina

Was probably underappreciated in his own time So maybe it's not surprising But So the strategic voting Are we stipulating that it Makes sense strategically Like I haven't thought through All the implications because I haven't

paid that much attention to Hall of Fame voting this year. But are we stipulating that it makes sense as in it's more likely to get those guys in and we're just debating whether you should think that way? Or are we questioning whether it even works? No, no, no. I'm not questioning the efficacy of it. I'm just questioning whether, uh, I forget which philosopher it was that basically said that you should, you should, uh, act in the most moral way possible at all times, even if it's, um, you know, pointless that you should do it in instances of big and small that you should just always act. You should basically act, basically act ethically with the presumption that the rest of the world will too. And if the rest of the world is not going to,

and thus your ethical behavior becomes moot, that is not your concern. You should act ethically anyway. And I sort of feel like maybe there's an element of that here, that you should vote your 10 best on the presumption that the rest of the world will also do well and if the rest of the world does not well that is the rest of the world's problem it is not your job to necessarily anticipate the sins of others it's i guess it's maybe in a sense it's a pacifistic approach to life but uh by the way smoltz did win a cy young but but Mussina finished... Mussina got Cy Young votes nine times. Smoltz got Cy Young votes five times. And other than the one time that Smoltz won,

it's like his were like 7th, 6th, 4th, 3rd. Mussina had 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 2nd, 6th, 5th, 6th. So, I mean, other than one time that Smoltz won the Cy Young, it's not like there was any real critical consensus throughout his career that Smoltz was an elite pitcher any more than Mussina was. Yeah, I don't know. Coattail effect. So, back to your question.

You don't have to go back to that. I would, if I were voting right now, neither of us is eligible yet. Neither of us is eligible for a while yet. But if I were voting and I feared that someone I supported were in danger of falling off, I would probably vote that way. I'd vote for him rather than voting for someone I knew would get in with or without me. It's possible that you can change opinions to some extent with your vote. People will see that that guy's percentage is higher and maybe people vote in a pack to some extent and if they see tim raines climbing every year or something then they will be more likely to join the wave there are a lot of very deserving players who are not in the hall of fame and i don't think that the

hall of fame purports to be the comprehensive list of Hall of Fame worthy players. To me, you just can't be a perfectionist if you're voting. You just have to accept that this is not the perfect process that is not going to create the perfect group of Hall of Famers. And you vote because they've asked you to vote. And to me, it's implicit in the voting that you are going to tell them the 10 players that you think are best. That's what it is essentially measuring. It was never designed to be gamed. And I think when they ask you to vote,

they're asking you to pick your 10 guys. And clearly, some guys aren't going to make it. They're not going to make it no matter how hard you try. You're one out of 600, for one thing. But to me, you just have to accept, look, I mean, Larry Walker's not going to make it. It's not the end of the world. You know, just write a column about Larry Walker.

That's your part of history. Write a column about how great he is. That attitude would save us a lot of fights. By the way, you're only like what six years away seven years away yeah i'm voting yeah must be i don't know when did i get in 2011 december 2011 i think yeah that sounds right so i don't know seven years maybe pretty close who will you get to vote for so who's gonna retire close. Who will you get to vote for? So who's going to retire? You'll get to vote for all these people.

I was going to get to vote for Reigns, but now I think I'm not because they made that change where they didn't grandfather guys in with the new eligibility rules, whatever they are. So I don't know. I haven't looked. But who will be your great player? Like who will be your first ballot?

Who's likely to retire in two years? Ichiro could be. Could be. Probably not. Probably won't make it to you. Probably not. No. Oh, Ortiz could be your guy.

Sure, yeah. You won't vote for him, though? I would vote for Ortiz, by the way. I'm on record as saying, if we're going to have a big fight between stat heads and non-stat heads about Ortiz in seven years or eight years, I'm taking the non-stat head side. I'm on board.

Yeah, well, I don't know. Peak value, I wonder if his peak value gets him close. Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. Who else? Let's see. Sabathia could be retiring soon. Probably not.

There's no pitchers. I mean, we've already talked about how there's no pitchers. Tim Hudson. Right, exactly. There's no great pitchers out there who are going to retire in the next two years. Who are the great hitters that are out there? I'm blanking. I don't know.

Joe Morgan says there are no great teams anymore. Maybe there are no great players either. Maybe not. All right. Okay. Ben. Yes. Maybe not. All right. Ben. So the San Diego Padres did a whole bunch of things. First off, before we talk about the San Diego Padres, when we were talking about Josh Donaldson, the Josh Donaldson trade, I believe you offered, maybe in your piece even on Grantland, I believe you offered Derek Norris as an example of the player that billy bean would not trade yeah i i used him as like to illustrate the reasons why a player being wood and wouldn't trade

yeah or at least the reason why you would want to trade donaldson because he's like because he and Norris were at the same stage of service time or whatever, and yet Norris was much younger and not a super two and not going to be making as much money. And so, yes, I use that as an example of this is why it would make sense to trade Donaldson, but, yeah, being just trades everyone is the lesson now. Does, does, I felt like there was, there was still the possibility that we didn't see the A's whole off season and that they could reload. Like for instance, there was this brief moment where somebody managed to, to squeeze a Justin

Upton rumor to Justin Upton to Oakland rumor in front of my eyes. And I was like, oh, okay. So now it kind of makes more sense. He's not tearing down. He's clearing space for these additions that he's going to make. And obviously it was premature for me to talk about the A's being not very good next year. Is this the point of no return? Is trading Derek Norris the point where you just don't go back at this point? Probably. I think so. I don't know. I'm looking at the depth chart now.

And you can imagine them having a really good rotation. But the lineup is looking a little iffy at this point you just keep stripping away and stripping away and yeah it's it's getting getting pretty hard to envision now it's not like there are even a lot of impact players seemingly available anymore not that we've had any sense of who is actually available this offseason. It seems like everyone is. The answer, by the way, is Carlos Beltran. Carlos Beltran will be your first ballot Hall of Famer. Okay, that's a fun one.

That'll be a fun one for you. So if you were able to make a case for trading Donaldson in the circumstances they did, are you capable of making a case for trading Norris in the circumstances they did? No, not for the same reasons. case for trading Norris in the circumstances they did? No. No. Not for the same reasons. I don't know if there are, maybe there are other reasons, but I don't think the same

reasons work so well. I don't know. Are you able to? I don't know. I have trouble with prospect and non-prospect math. It's always possible that I'm undervaluing the prospects, but not really. No, it doesn't seem like there was any pressure to make this move. Anytime there's no pressure to make the move, you hope that

they'd be blown away. this continues Billy Beane's streak of making trades that didn't seem necessary and that don't seem like he had been blown away. So, again, I defer to him. What does it all mean? However, again, like all these moves, just imagine Kevin Towers making them. Right. And they look terrible.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to miss Kevin Towers. All right, so the Padres. It's supposed to be, well, the Padres came into this offseason with not a good team, with not a great farm system anymore. Okay, it was okay, but it was not the number two system in the game as it was a few years ago. It had basically produced a lot of duds and kind of withered and not really any known spending flexibility.

any known spending flexibility. And they've managed to do... Well, you mean because they just don't spend? Because they just don't spend, right. Yeah. And they've managed to add like four of the sexiest additions in the offseason, right? Myers, Kemp, Upton, and Norris.

And it makes me wonder whether we should be thinking of all teams as being this close to competing, not just because of the second wild card and parity in baseball and all that, but just because somehow you can add these four players in a week. Like those are four really good players. We had been led to believe that players were harder to get, that everybody's locked up to 15-year extensions, that nobody hits free agency, that once they do hit free agency,

there's so much cable contract money that prices are out of control, and that it's hard to spend money these days. And then here the Padres, the course of like 11 hours trade for four guys who are basically all considered all-star level or above. So are other teams just not trying to get these players? And they did it without even trading the players who are generally regarded as their top prospects.

They traded maybe one, arguably two of their top five, but probably not their top two, probably not their top three. They managed to do quite a bit. They gave away prospects in bulk, I guess, but this, as you said, didn't start out as the best system in baseball or anything, and they still managed to hold on to their best prospects, which doesn't seem like it should be possible unless you're a team that can take on tons of money,

and they are the opposite of that. Are you thinking Hedges, Renf money, and they are the opposite of that. Are you thinking Hedges, Renfro, and Liriano? Is that your – oh, Whistler, yeah. Yeah. I mean, not that my opinion on prospects means anything. I'm just going by what people who know about prospects say. But so that's impressive that they were able to do that. Not just that they were able to pry all these guys loose, but that they were able to do it without even giving up the top prizes that they had in the system.

So I don't know what that means. totally logical expected step to contention like the cubs who did just everything that we expected them to do that we've been expecting them to do for the last few years and the astros to a lesser extent signing some guys those were those were the predictable ones but then we've also seen the white socks and the padres move up the timetable, not even like by one year, but by like three years. I mean, coming into this offseason, when would we have said the Padres expected contention year was? Like there wasn't even really a groundswell building toward that yet, which is why when the matt kemp trade happened it seemed like it kind of came out of nowhere what does this team need matt kemp for little did we know that

they matt kemp was like the piece that completed the offense they just happened to acquire him before all the other pieces yeah like a week ago or maybe two weeks ago when the padres when aj preller said that he wanted to add add like a bat or something because he thought that they were going to make a run for second place. Yeah. And like that was just that was like 45 minutes of Twitter mockery. Like the idea that the Padres could possibly add enough to compete. And we can get to the question of whether they're good enough to compete now. to compete and we can get to the question of whether they're good enough to compete now but uh like it was like you know you sort of get the feeling that based on what we know about

how much teams are able to accomplish that they were going to go sign cory hart and trade for like kristen norfee or something i think kristen orfee is a free agent which would make it a really bad trade uh but and then everybody would mock them mock them for throwing a pittance at a huge problem. Or maybe they'd get Kemp, but still it wouldn't be enough. But then they went and did all these things. So how was it possible? Are you surprised? I guess I don't think I can ask you to tell me how it was possible without preparing you for this question.

But are you surprised that it was possible? Do you get the feeling that this is always possible to a team that desires it? Or was this a very particular set of circumstances that made it possible? And if so, can you identify any of those circumstances? Because it does seem like this seems like the sort of thing that other teams would want to do. Right, that's what I was going to say. If this were possible for other teams to do, then they would just do it. I mean, no one...

So did they overpay? Are we understating how much they overpaid? I mean, clearly nobody liked the Kemp move. Although it looks better in the context of this stuff. It looks worse in the context of his hit. it looks better in the context of this stuff. It looks worse in the context of his hit. It looks better in the context of all the other things. But let's stipulate the Kemp, maybe they overpaid in money. Although, like I said the night of, I don't think it's quite the disaster that it was made out to be that day but nobody's really saying that they like overpaid for

upton particularly or that they overpaid for myers particularly i mean myers it was it was sort of like holy cow i can't believe that the rays got so little for him right um and uh i don't feel like they overpaid for norris at all. That's another one that feels like a steal. Although maybe Norris, I don't know, maybe there's more questions about Norris' defense going forward than there would have been a few months ago. But still, so it doesn't feel like they overpaid. It doesn't feel like they went crazy.

It doesn't feel like they particularly mortgaged. And we haven't mentioned Will Middlebrooks, which seems like, I mean, it doesn't fit into the same category. But for a year of Ryan Hannigan, as much as we like Ryan Hannigan, it seems not bad. I don't like that move because we had an excellent scathing comment about Will Middlebrooks ready for the annual. And I stand by the assessment of it, but it no longer makes sense. I'm sure much of the Padres chapter must not have made sense in the immediate aftermath. I don't know how much of the Padres chapter is going to survive now. Maybe some of it will, so I don't want to reveal too much of the process

but the padres chapter was all about like it was explicitly about how the padres just blend in and how they're like the boringest franchise like they were they were clearly the most boring team like when that was a thing on on hang and Listen, right? Yeah, the one team they hadn't talked about. One pro sports team they didn't talk about in their history. Yeah. And now they have been the team that has been talked about maybe the most. I don't know if this sentence will survive in the second draft. And I apologize to Miles Ray if I'm stepping on it. But the Padres, as an organization, have managed to do what their aesthetically disastrous

camo alternate uniforms so blatantly failed to do. They've always been there, but you might have forgotten since they blend into the background so well. And it's like that's the thesis statement that lasted three and a half weeks. If only it had happened a couple weeks later you could have

handed it into the publisher and it wouldn't have been your problem anymore it's true um but anyway we'll be better this way so yeah um so i don't i'm trying to think of i mean it's possible that we just over under the Padres' farm system, I guess. It was regarded as one of the better ones a few years ago. Maybe it still is, and we just underrated it for some reason. Otherwise, it's kind of hard to see what about the Padres would make teams more willing to trade with them are they so non-threatening that no one's worried about trading the Padres their best player or something I don't know what it would be great great hypothesis I think I think I nailed it

on my first attempt I don't know Is it just that Should we How much would it take to conclude that Preller is just really good at trading Is it just way too premature To start Saying that as a possible narrative That Preller is just really good at

Talking people into trading in players I think so I think it is Although in fairness to that hypothesis, Myers and Norris were not known to be on the trading block at all, like zero. You didn't hear a rumor about them before you heard the trade. Right. Well, of course, maybe that's a function of those front offices, which just don't talk to anyone.

Maybe it is. But on the other hand, as we've talked about, the trade rumors don't get out necessarily because the front office mentions it. It's like if Tampa was shopping Will Myers, it would have gotten out because stupid, some other stupid GM would have mentioned it, when they called about Will Myers. And so there's no particular reason to think that you would even be able to get Will Myers or Derek Norris.

Like, it's inconceivable that either of those guys was available, let alone for meh packages. So, I mean, maybe AJ Preller, maybe you can at least give him credit for calling up and asking, hey, were you planning on shooting yourself in the foot today? If so, I like shooting people in the foot. I'd be willing to come do it. Maybe he just makes, I mean, I'll give him credit for those two. I will, until proven otherwise, I will give him credit for those two. Maybe he's just more willing to touch the untouchable.

Right. Like he's not worried about offending you. Right. Or being laughed off the phone. Right. Yeah. Maybe he calls people. He's like, I'm kind of new to this.

I don't want to. How does it work? Do I just throw a name out? They're like, well, you want to role play? Yeah, let's role play. I like Will Myers. Would it make sense to ask for Will Myers? Do people do that?

Yeah, this feels like a Portlandia character. That could be it. I'm watching The Good Wife and there's a lawyer who character I'm watching The Good Wife and there's a lawyer who uses that strategy to great effect what do you mean you're watching The Good Wife that's what I mean like at the moment you are not as we speak

but in my life like is this something that you started binging or something because I have two yeah like two weeks ago but in my life. Like, is this something that you started binging or something? Uh-huh. Because I have two. Oh, really? Yeah, like two weeks ago. Yeah, me too.

What are the odds? Pretty good. Pretty good that you and I would both start watching a seven-year-old network drama about Julianna Margulies in a law procedural that you and I would meet at the exact same time and start doing it?

I feel like it's growing in critical acclaim. People appreciate how they've managed to sustain a quality show despite having 23 episodes a season or whatever it is. It's true, yeah. We were New Yorker evangelized on it. episodes a season or whatever it is it's true yeah we were uh we were we were new yorker evangelized on it uh-huh yeah emily nussbaum wrote a very nice exactly that's happening and but she also wrote a very nice thing about the americans and uh and so my wife went to the library and got the good wife and i went to the library and got the americans and she won my wife

even though like i was like no she wrote a really nice review about this too. My wife's like, I've never heard of it. I don't want to. So we're doing The Good Wife. How far in are you? Four episodes into season two. Okay. Three episodes into season three.

Oh, okay. Yeah, but I'm not watching all of them. I watch them when I have time. She watches them all. I watch maybe half of them. I can't when I have time, she watches them all I watch maybe I can't do that, I can't dip in and out it's a problem because then my girlfriend and I

are both restricted to only watching when the other is available and it probably works better for a show like that which you can just watch an episode of and it will make some sense the thing though about the AJ Preller is a genius traitor hypothesis which you can just watch an episode of and it will make some sense. Yeah. The thing, though, about the AJ Preller is a genius traitor hypothesis,

besides the fact that we get fooled into this every offseason and have already, we've already, what? How many GMs have been anointed this offseason? Three? Zaidi, Han, and now Preller, at least three? Mm-hmm three so we get i mean we're we're idiots but but the problem with the the hypothesis anyway is that the kemp deal right i mean that doesn't really fit i suppose not i don't know like you I don't terribly dislike the Kemp deal in the context of all these other deals. But the other deals weren't made yet. And you have to figure that the Dodgers, you sort of feel like the Dodgers, I don't know, maybe not,

but you feel like maybe the Dodgers could have been negotiated downward on that one. Yeah, maybe. I mean, they gave up a fair amount of money. Kemp at $15 million a year is not unreasonable, although maybe with bad hips it is. I don't know. But yeah, that seems less like a steal and it doesn't fall into the category of a player who was not on the block. He was clearly someone that everyone was inquiring about. I don't have a hypothesis. It does... Is it interesting to you that they haven't signed? I mean, basically, for all intents and purposes, they haven't signed anybody, that this has been in all trade offseason? Have we seen a team reload this significantly via multiple trades before

without also dipping into the free agent market? Maybe the A's. Oh, yeah, the A's over the course of, yeah, years. That's true. It was the A's. That's interesting. It's an interesting comp. Just because it's the A's, the A's are inherently interesting.

Well, not just that, but because the Padres are a team that, just as the A's are a team that you would think would be hoarding prospects and hoping to develop them and get their six cheap years out of them, the Padres hypothetically would be the same. But they're trading prospects away. They're trading a lot of B-plus to C-plus prospects away, which was what the A's did too. Yeah, but it would be pretty tough for either of those teams to do it all via free agency without spending some exorbitant amount. So let's just get to the bottom line.

Are the Padres good? I'm out. So are the last, let's just get to the bottom line. Are the Padres good? I think right now I, I would be shocked if, if the Dodgers were not my favorite for the NL West heading into the season and any foreseeable future season,

I could, I could buy the Padres as a wildcard contender. I mean, I could buy the Padres as a wildcard contender. I'm kind of projecting a couple more moves into the future because it sort of seems like they have more moves to make now. Yonder Alonso at first. Right. Jed Jericho at second. Clint Barmas at short.

Solarte at third. Or Middlebrooks. Or Middlebrooks at third. Or Middlebrooks. Or Middlebrooks at third. Yeah, it seems unlikely that Amarista will be playing short or Solarte will be playing third or even Alonso playing first. I mean, they've got so many outfielders now that they almost have to play one of them at first, I would think. have to play one of them at first, I would think. They are seemingly sort of locked into a below-average defensive outfield,

I guess, or at least a defensive centerfield situation. They can survive that if they hit enough, but I don't know. I mean, if they trade a Seth Smith or someone, Carlos Quentin, someone like that, and get back a starter? Because right now... Well, they're not going to be able to trade Carlos Quentin for a starter, but they could trade Mabin for a starter. Right?

Mabin should have... Mabin seems to be some trade value. Mm-hmm. I would think. Probably, yeah. I mean, I would bet that there are a half dozen teams that would love to get their hands on Maverick, although it's only one year.

No, option, two years? Extension, I mean, two years maybe? Two years, I think two years. So I can see it. If they're able to get a shortstop somehow and play one of those outfielders at first and maybe just get a better back of the rotation guy. Because right now they're kind of counting on Brandon Morrow and or Josh Johnson possibly to stay healthy for once.

And so I don't know. I should also mention that it's kind of impressive that they managed to do what they did. I should also mention that it's kind of impressive that they managed to do what they did. Also, not even did they not trade their top prospects, but they didn't trade anyone from their rotation either, because both of those guys were considered trade candidates. Andrew Kashner and Ian Kennedy were involved in lots of rumors, and they didn't give up any of those guys either. So I could see them as potential rivals for the Giants and wildcard contenders if they round out the roster a little bit between now and spring training. I don't think I see it yet, but it's close enough that I applaud them.

Yeah, me too. At least it's, will you be more hesitant to talk about any team as out of it now? Now that we've seen the White Sox and the Padres do this. And the White Sox, I mean, theirs was not all via trade, but they did not have a great farm system or anything. They didn't seem like they were all that well positioned to do what they've done either. So it's pretty hard to point out any team that theoretically couldn't do what these teams did or that are in worse positions to do what these teams did.

So I guess that's encouraging for fans of bad teams. I agree. I think it puts pressure on bad teams. It does. It should put pressure on bad teams. And does it? Especially because it's not as though i mean it's like it's not like they this is not like the orioles in 19 in 2000 i don't

know what what year it was when they signed palmero and javi lopez and you know old guys for like they got will myers and derrick norris yeah They're guys with two years of service time. One of them won a Rookie of the Year award two years ago, and one of them was an All-Star last year. It's not like this is a short-term idiot rebuild. I don't know. If you looked at it closely, maybe it would be tilted too heavily to the present. Maybe it's not a smart move.

I don't know. But they got young foundational building blocks, theoretically. So those are the kind of guys that a team that was rebuilding would want. Even if they didn't get Kemp and Upton, think about how brilliant Myers and Norris would be on this. Just as acquisitions. Forget about going for it in 2015. Forget about Kemp and Upton.

Just getting those two for what they got would make Preller the hottest thing since 2010 Jack Zarensik. That's an encouraging comp for him. It's funny that you mentioned Jack Z, though, another GM with a scouting background, because I speculated in my email exchange with Jonah on Friday that maybe Preller's scouting background had something to do with all the activity. Like if you're a GM whose specialty is scouting, then maybe you're more confident than the typical GM that you can discern which players will make it and which players won't. And therefore you're more willing to give up prospects that you don't believe in or target other teams' prospects that you think might be

undervalued. And maybe just the fact that he took over this team and they aren't his prospects, he didn't draft them and develop them maybe he's not attached to them and therefore he was more willing to part with some of them rightly or wrongly is it interesting to you that i mean their their catcher shuffle is pretty intriguing because they they acquired four catchers and lost three if you count if you count hannigan in both groups, which you have to, cause they acquired him and then traded him.

They have like rebuilt two, two catching cores in one week or so. It's kind of incredible. And, and like everyone that they have traded or traded for is like a notable framer i don't know they they were a team that sort of lapped the field last year in in team framing and pretty much everyone that they have traded or acquired has been someone with that reputation and the stats to back it up like a lot of a lot of the good framers have changed teams this year, this winter.

Not just these guys, but Conger and Montero. And these guys, Rivera and Grandal and Hannigan and Cervelli. And every catcher who has moved somewhere this year, it seems like has been a framer. I don't know what to make of that, but could be significant. You know what I think you should make of it? There are so many catchers with good framing reputations. That's true. There's like 20 catchers.

I was looking at it the other day. I was counting. Who do I think has a good framer? Or if they don't have a good framing reputation, who could I easily make the case did if they got traded tomorrow? And it's like, Seuss, it's like 20 people. Like there are a lot of good framing catchers. I don't know what that means, Ben. I don't want to, I don't want to cast dispersions on the idea, but it does seem like it's a cheaper skill than it was a couple years ago it just seems like that yeah i've been planning to look into whether there's less of a spread or not

which could be indicative of more teams trying to acquire that or something but i haven't yet anyway all right so we did our thing we talked about the Padres which we didn't get to do Last week and we are Last year Last year yeah right So that's That's good I'm glad we got a Padres Podcast under our belts Okay

Alright so please We're doing a Wednesday show I guess Okay we're doing a Wednesday show so send guess. Yeah, sure. Okay. We're doing a Wednesday show, so send us some questions so we can answer them at podcast at baseballprospectus.com. Join the Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash effectively wild and rate and review and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes. support our sponsor by going to baseballreference.com subscribing to the play index using the coupon code BP and getting the discounted price of $30 on a one-year subscription