Major League Baseball’s 30-day suspension of Padres general manager A.J. Preller for a failure to disclose medical information in the Drew Pomeranz/Anderson Espinoza trade has led to controversy both around the league and in San Diego’s front office. According to ESPN’s Buster Olney (subscription required), “there is a split of opinion” within Padres upper management about Preller. Owner Peter Seidler and team president/CEO Mike Dee both strongly support Preller, while executive chairman Ron Fowler supports Preller publicly but is “asking hard questions about him behind the scenes.”
Questions arose about Preller’s job security in the wake of the suspension, though a club official told USA Today’s Bob Nightengale that Preller wouldn’t face any further punishment from the Padres, nor was he in danger of being fired. Nonetheless, it isn’t surprising that the Padres are taking some degree of self-analysis of their baseball operations department, given how (as Olney puts it), “this situation has caused enormous tension and concern” within the club.
Fowler made headlines earlier this summer when he described the Padres’ play as “very embarrassing” during a radio interview. Fowler took responsibility on behalf of management for the Padres’ struggles in recent years, assigning a share of the blame to Preller while also praising him at the same time. “I don’t think there’s a brighter GM out there. I don’t think anyone works harder, but the results are not there, and I think A.J. would be the first one to tell you that,” Fowler said.
It would be unusual for a team to fire a GM after slightly more than two years on the job, though it could be argued that little has been normal about Preller’s entire tenure in San Diego, ranging from the payroll splurge in the 2014-15 offseason, to the lack of movement at the 2015 trade deadline to his current suspension. As Fowler noted during his interview, however, Preller was hired in part because of his ability to acquire young talent — the Padres had a wide array of picks in last June’s amateur draft and they have already far exceeded their international spending limits to land several highly-touted names from this year’s international class.
Of course, it was the acquisition of Espinoza (one of the game’s top pitching prospects) that eventually led to Preller’s suspension. Several executives and evaluators from around baseball, however, tell Olney that the punishment was insufficient. One evaluator said that despite the controversy, Preller still “won” because at the end of the day, Espinoza is still a Padre. As both Olney and Fangraphs’ Dave Cameron observed, there appears to be little explanation for the Padres’ system of internal medical records for their own use and separate records to be shared with other teams unless there was some intentional gamesmanship at play. “The Padres basically got told to stop reaching into the cookie jar while being allowed to continue eating the cookie they were already holding,” Cameron writes.
He is untouchable, like Billy Beane.
Untouchable? He screwed the organization and has them backed into a corner. What team out there will want to deal with the Padres? They are behind the 8 ball as long as he continues to be the gm
What team? Pretty much EVERY team come 2017 that thinks a player the padres have can help them compete for a ws next year.
The padres do have attractive pieces in buchter hand solarte at the mlb level and have done a great job of refilling the minors with talent. If they QO jay he could become and attractive piece too next year.
Not to mention they have stock piled talent in the OF and have jankowski margot renfoe dickerson nick torress who are MLB ready- torres might need some more time. But thats 5 guys for 3 spots. Im sure some team would love to try to pry away some of the talent SD has amassed in the OF.
Its funny peoplw think this will hurt the padres in trades. No- it wont esp if its a sellers market like this year was.
He has to.be fired most other gms will be leery about dealing with him
How ITH did he think that wouldn’t come out? Bit short in the common sense department.
The anti-inflammatory medication he was taking, was it prescribed or just over the counter? What if he was just taking Advil?
Doesn’t matter. The team doctors are supposed to approve anything they take
The more I read on this story, the more dissatisfied I have become with the journalism being displayed by MLB writers. Almost all of the sources cited are unnamed and anonymous. Further, many of the writers, in particular, Buster Olney, continue to display a personal dislike of A.J. Preller that shines through in their writing. Perhaps it is warranted, I don’t know, but it makes it difficult to consider these articles as objective and independent pieces.
Further, based upon the punishment levied by MLB, it appears that they do not consider this matter as serious a violation as the Boston front office or the MLB writers that seem to be covering the issue.
Here are some reasons why I think that might be the case:
1. In a piece by Even Drellich of the Boston Herald on September 11, 2016, when asked to explain how the exchange of medical information generally works, Dombrowski noted “there are no rules.”
So we start from the proposition that there are no written rules. He goes on to say there are guidelines, but no written rules.
Then, in that same piece, Dombrowski goes on record saying “There’s a guy comes in, ices his toe, his baby toe because he stubbed it that day, that wouldn’t necessarily be on a medical injury report…That might be on a treatment report. I wouldn’t anticipate getting all the treatment reports (from another club). But you anticipate getting all the medical reports. There’s a difference between the two.”
Here are some follow up questions I would want asked: The primary allegation against the Padres is that they were keeping two sets of medical reports on their players, are you saying that it is the custom and practice of every MLB club to keep two records, a “medical injury report” and a “training report?” If so, did the Padres deviate from this practice here? If not, is it your chief complaint that something you would have expected to be in the “medical injury report,” was only in the “training report,” which you did not receive?
2. In tweet by Ken Rosenthal on September 15, 2016, Rosenthal states (once again, anonymous sources), “Sources: Pomeranz and other players traded by Padres were taking oral medications that SD did not disclose.”
Follow up questions: Was this the only thing that was failed to disclose? If so, I am left to speculate that the medications were for one of three things: (1) Pain; (2) inflammation; (3) mental health. When do medications for the ordinary wear and tear of a 162 game season require being elevated from the “training report,” to the “medical injury report?” Do teams ordinarily disclose mental health conditions in “medical injury reports?”
3. Lastly, in a piece by Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe dated September 16, 2016 (once again, anonymous sources), Cafardo writes, “[t]he Red Sox, according to a major league source, found the missing info when they conducted their own MRI on Pomeranz’s shoulder and elbow and found what the Padres had been hiding.” “By that time, the Red Sox had little recourse but to go through with the deal because they needed a starting pitcher.”
Follow up questions: Are you saying that the Red Sox conducted an MRI before consummating the trade? That they discovered an issue, significant enough to think it should be noted, but not significant enough to not want to proceed with the trade? And knowing this information, still proceeded with the trade?
If that’s true, it’s hard to feel bad for Boston here.
Best reply I have seen here in quite a while – certainly superior as well to most posts here and on fangraphs. I stopped espn years ago and don’t miss their biased “journalism” one bit. Well done Paul.
That was excellent, Paul. Thank you for that.
Totally agree. This is nothing compared to what the Cardinals did with the felony hacking, and how the Red Sox messed with the draft. Yet the Padres are taking what seems like excessive heat around baseball.
I’m sure if I was a biased writer, I would have no problem writing articles and making up, or exaggerating things.
Excellent post Paul. You are exactly right by pointing out how there is so much we don’t know, and that these important questions are somehow not being asked by anyone.
Thank you. At least I’m not the only one that feels this way..
That was a very insightful post Paul, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you’re saying. It definitely seems like the Padres are taking a lot of flack when, like others have stated, there are other teams out there who have done things that are just as bad, if not worse. There are things going on behind closed doors that we as fans just don’t know the full extent about, and reporters can only infer upon through various sources. I feel like there needs to be a little more digging done on this matter before just labeling Preller and the Padres as the “worst GM/team” in the league, like some have been stating.
Oh c’mon guys – don’t put your torches out so fast. Best to burn ’em first, then be reasonable later.
Paulnewman (can I call you Butch?) –
To your last point, I think the MRI was done after Pomerantz arrived; ie after the trade was concluded. I think what Cafardo meant by “going through” is that BOS felt that if they asked the Commissioner’s office to reverse the trade, they would not be able to acquire another starter before the deadline, so accepting the damaged goods was their best option.
I’m not certain of that, but that’s the impression I got.
One thing I don’t get is.. if Pomeranz is that damaged why not trade back? Perhaps they wanted him still but to get Espinoza back? Pomeranz is no Colin Rea and has made quite a few starts. They traded aftet all star break so had weeks
I don’t think he’s “damaged”… I think the MRI showed potential weakness that COULD result in some sort of shoulder injury down the road, which the Padres had been managing. I think they still like Pomerantz as a longer term acquisition, which is why they’re okay keeping the player. But Pom was acquired primarily to fill a very specific immediate need – a guy who could give them 10 quality starts or so in Aug/Sept. And the negotiation is different when Pom is someone who could break down because of a structural issue before the end of the year vs if he’s clean. The former introduces a risk factor in the deal that affects the price you pay – and hiding that, and thereby exposing their team’s 2016 season to undisclosed risk, is what the Sox are angry about.
There are so many reasons to fire that idiot
No there aren’t
Chris Paddack– anyone remember that?
The gm in Houston got away with that behavior for three years so he has atleast one more
Your name says a lot about how LITTLE you know about baseball. You have NO credibility
While Luhnow has done some good, he has made many ill-informed decisions and with draft position as good as he had, it wasnt exceptionally difficult to make some of the decisions he made. Not totally dissing him, but he’s not that great.
Name ONE GM that hasn’t made bad drafts/trades before? That guy that posted above is an idiot if he thinks Luhnow has done a bad job.
There seems to be a scarcity of real information about what exactly Preller did wrong (as opposed to just being slick and untrustworthy) and why, if he was a serial cheater, and several other teams complained, what was it about Boston’s issue that made MLB decide to take notice. What was “different” about the Pomeranz trade? Severity of injury? Something Pomeranz said to the Red Sox after he got there? Is it Pomeranz’s performance? Wouldn’t the “two sets of books” have applied to every team’s complaints (apparently there were 3 or 4 others).
*We know it was about the Pomeranz trade because the MLB statement said so.
*The Red Sox were the only ones who made a formal complaint, so no other teams are involved.
*We don’t know what was done wrong because the MLB statement did’t say what the suspension is for.
*We know Preller was suspended as the GM and VP of baseball operations for the team.
*We DON’T know if Preller ordered the dual records, Olney’s report didn’t mention any names, just “front office people”.
*That’s all I got out of this episode, only Commissioner Manfred has all the results of the investigation, and everybody else (except the principal actors involved) is guessing.
*My guess: Manfred is leaving it to the Padres ownership to make internal changes later, quietly. The owners are his bosses.
If I were owner of the team, I’d fire Preller. He hasn’t done anything to really advance the team during his tenure, so why pretend like you buy into his “no malice intended” lies?
I will always like Preller. He took a stagnant Padres organization, tried something, it didnt work, so he ate it and did what he could to restock the system. He didnt break any written rules.
There are many smart and ethical people ready for a chance to be a GM.
I think the Sox whole issue is about dolling out punishment from the league… The punishment they received and the slap on the wrist the Padres received … Apples and oranges guys