Young's average FB velocity in 2007 was 88.7. Are we at the point in camp where he should be there? There are three weeks left in camp. It's been long, too long, but guys are still throwing just three innings max mostly and I don't think we should expect full arm strength until they start going at least five.

As mentioned in the post, Mark Worrell's delivery.

White Sox right-hander Jon Link, acquired from San Diego in 2007 for utility man Rob Mackowiak (by the way, the idea of giving up anything of value for Mackowiak confuses me profoundly)...

Not sure why this is so confusing. Mackowiak hit .290/.365 and .278/354 in his 1 1/2 seasons with the White Sox with some power (.400+ SLG). Plus, he was hot in the month before the trade, hitting .403/.461/.687 in the month before the deal (76 PAs).

He suffered a sports hernia shortly after joining the Padres, and it pretty much ended his career.

So the Padres acquired a useful player for a 23-year-old A-ball reliever who didn't have enormously amazing stuff or peripherals. Then they had some bad luck.

What's the source for the profound confusion again?

Well, he's a 33 year old outfielder who went 90/91 OPS+ in his only two full years as a regular, in his prime, then went 96 and 89 in 250-300 AB seasons, and last year put up a 23 OPS+ in 50-odd at bats. He's statistically significantly below average range in the OF for his entire career with no good momentum there. He does seem to be good for 8-10 baserunner kills a year even in limited time.

So a 33 year old guy who can play all three OF positions but not all that well by traditional measures, hits markedly below average leaguewide much less adjusting for position, doesn't really steal bases, is completely useless against LHP, and has a good arm in the OF. That pretty much defines replacement level to me. I can see the confusion.

1. He was 31 at the time.
2. He was a supersub -- Ozzie just didn't play him in the infield because of the hole in center field, and second and third base were taken care of.
3. He had OPS+ of 96 and 100 at the time of the trade.

For the life of me, I'm profoundly confused how an oldish, OK A-ball reliever is somehow a massive overpay. Especially since Mackowiak wasn't a half-season rental (he would've been worth his option if he didn't suffer the hernia).

Of course the "profound confusion" part is hyperbole, the main thrust is the "anything of value" part. With a gun to my head, I'd be much more comfortable calling Mackowiak a basically completely fungible and freely replaceable commodity than I would ascribing him any value significantly over zero.

My bad on the age thing, I missed that he was discussing the 2007 trade.

I wouldn't be bent out of shape if it were hyperbole. But that's just shoddy analysis.

The Padres were in a pennant race and had gaping holes in left field and second base, and Mackowiak would've given them something at either spot. So I just don't get how Link, who had two below-average years as a reliever in low-A and A-ball before finally showing something in High-A ball at age 23, is considered a more valuable commodity for the immediate and inexpensive help.

Unless Law predicted the sports hernia before it happened. Then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

As a Padres fan in SD, I agree with PH. At the time, Towers was trying to plug holes on a team that looked playoff-bound. Mackowiak was a useful part-time guy. NOW, with the Padres short of everything and needing any C-level propsect they can find, and with Mackowiak hurt and gone, it looks bad. But THEN, the Padres could have made the playoffs as easily as not; that was the team that lost the last two games in MIL and the extra-inning playoff game in Colorado. Had the Mets not pulled an all-time fold-up, Trevor Hoffman's Waterloo would have been a slightly bigger story. If the Padres had gotten in, the Rockies are not in, and maybe the Padres get lucky and go to the Series.

I have never heard a Padres fan mention that trade. People are mad at Moores, and they are tired of Towers' bad drafting. The Mackowiak deal is not an issue in any way.

Maybe I'm speaking too much for Keith here, but I see his point as basically the entire point behind the notion of replacement player/AAAA guy theorem that we all know so well. It's not necessarily that Mackowiak provides zero value, it's that there is no reason you shouldn't be able to find that same, roughly equivalent value, for free. And if you can do that, why would you give up an apple core, a '52 Mantle card, or an alive pitcher for him?

Of course the "profound confusion" part is hyperbole, the main thrust is the "anything of value" part. With a gun to my head, I'd be much more comfortable calling Mackowiak a basically completely fungible and freely replaceable commodity than I would ascribing him any value significantly over zero.

I think this site tends to underrate "completely fungible and freely replaceable commodities" particularly mid-season in a pennant race. You can't just sign guys off the street and have them produce like Mackowiak did. Either you have to look in-house, or on the waiver wire. Mid-season, its easy to see how those two options may not look that great and a GM may want to seek a more proven commodity with his team in a pennant race.

Maybe I'm speaking too much for Keith here, but I see his point as basically the entire point behind the notion of replacement player/AAAA guy theorem that we all know so well. It's not necessarily that Mackowiak provides zero value, it's that there is no reason you shouldn't be able to find that same, roughly equivalent value, for free. And if you can do that, why would you give up an apple core, a '52 Mantle card, or an alive pitcher for him?

Since when is an above-average OBP at a middle-infield position AAAA/replacement level? If that's the case, then MLB is Lake Wobegon.

I know what you mean, and I'm not sure I disagree, but to be pedantic, one can't technically underrate completely fungible/freely replaceable commodities. I could be misapplying the term to Mackowiak, of course.

To stop with that mess, I still think he's closer to that than not. And you don't have to sign guys off the street, of course. That's why you have AAA.

So a 33 year old guy who can play all three OF positions but not all that well by traditional measures, hits markedly below average leaguewide much less adjusting for position, doesn't really steal bases, is completely useless against LHP, and has a good arm in the OF. That pretty much defines ...

.. a padre bat.