The Padres have never won a World Series. They have won two pennants, and five Western Division titles-all since 1984; but no championships. I often hear fans lament the fact that the Padres have never won a title. The most frequent complaint is not that the Padres have not won the Series, but rather that the team, and ownership in particular does not care about winning it all.
John Moores, the Padres owner, has done little to extinguish the fan’s anger. In March, when asked whether his goal was to win a World Series this year, he responded that: “The goal is to play meaningful games in September” (San Diego Union Tribune). Based on similar statements issued in years past by Moores and high ranking club officials such as Sandy Alderson, I believe it is safe to assume that the goal of the Padres is to be consistently competitive.
One mistake many fans make is that they assume there is a fundamental difference between striving to be competitive, and attempting to win a world series. Due to the random nature of the baseball playoffs, I am not so sure that this difference exists. Once a team qualifies for the playoffs, anything can happen (and as the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals can attest-it is often good things that do happen). Admittedly, although randomness is a huge factor due to the small sample of the post-season, the best teams in the playoffs still have a higher probability of winning the World Series, than the worst teams in the playoffs.
My biggest issue with striving to win the World Series in any given year is that sacrifices must be made in future years. To acquire that big-bat at the trading deadline, top prospects must be surrendered, or a terrible contract must be assumed. Basically, the team is forced to swap future success for an increased probability of winning a World Series in the current year. The marginal increase in the probability of winning the title is often not large enough to overcome the costs.
Unlike many fans, I do not think the mission of the Padres should be to maximize the number of World Series they can win. Instead, I actually agree with John Moores and would prefer that the team attempt to maximize the number of meaningful September games it plays for two reasons. First, for a smaller market team like the Padres, it does not make sense to trade top young talent to try and make a huge splash in a given year. The team’s best strategy is to remain consistently competitive and qualify for as many playoff births as possible. In doing so, the team will probably win more championships in the long-run, than if it went “all-in” one year, leaving itself with “no chips” to play for the next five years. Second, I personally do not care too much about winning the World Series. What I actually care about is that the possibility of winning the World Series exists throughout the season. As all Padres fans have been reminded of this year, it is much more fun to root for a team that is eliminated on game 163 rather than game 63. Would I rather see the Padres win a World Series than not? Of course. But in general, I am content with the team being “consistently competitive.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
First off all I like the Depodesta like blog. The Padres have not had top young talent in a very long time. Only recently have Fuson and Gayton begun to draft well. I agree that teams should not "rent" players as it usually has not benefited the team (Montreal with Colon). However I think it works both ways.
While the Linebrink trade gave the padres some great prospects that should benefit the padres for years to come (Garrison, Inman), trading linebrink almost certainly cost them a game or two in the last two months. So while the padres essentially gave themselves a better opportunity to be "competitive" in the future.
I feel they cost themselves a playoff spot and a chance at a world series last year. And when you were as close as they were last year, its foolish to give away an important part of your team and bullpen when it doesnt cost you anything. Also, I dont have a problem with a franchise making it their goal to be to win it all every year. If the Chargers owner said that he just wanted a "competitive" game against new england in the playoffs then fans would and should be upset with that. But overall good article.
Also, Linebrink was an important member of the clubhouse as many padres including Hoffman were very vocal about the move. Therefore I am confident in saying that the trade of linebrink cost them a playoff spot and you dont decrease your probability for two players who may or may not have the opportunity to turn our floundering team into a "competitive" one in the near future.
Kevin-I am not so sure that trading Linebrink cost them a playoff spot. Linebrink threw 25 innings for Mil in 2007. He had a 3.55 ERA, 25 SO and 11 BB. Joe Thatcher whom the Padres acquired in the deal, threw 21 innings for a 1.29 ERA. He had 16 SO and 6 BB. I know I have not accounted for park effects, but it appears that Thatcher was actually better than Linebrink after the trade.
I agree with you completely. And hopefully next year will see a return to meaningful September games
Post a Comment