Here it is, the day after the trade deadline, and my first reaction was “huh?” So, the Padres’ front office brass did not end up trading trade Heath Bell? Instead they capitalized on selling high with Mike Adams for more pitching. Yes, that's right, more pitching. The Padres sent arguably the best NL reliever to the Texas Rangers for two minor league starting pitchers, Robert Erlin and Joe Wieland, who are both top prospects. Erlin, the consensus overall prospect around baseball, ranks #34 overall according to Baseball America, while Wieland (22^nd in the Rangers deep farm system) could easily crack the Top 100-prospect list entering next year and, ironically enough, threw a no hitter against the Padres AA-San Antonio affiliate last Friday.  So the Padres were telling teams they wanted a "homerun" if they were to deal Mike Adams, and that they wanted two Top 100 prospects. Well, they probably did exactly that—I would be very surprised if Wieland does not crack the top 100-prospect list. So, the Padres made out with a good return on this trade.

The other obvious aspect of this year’s trading deadline is that the Padres kept Heath Bell. In my opinion, and from reading several sources and watching all the rumors from a myriad of sites, there just was not enough value being offered in return for Bell, such as one report on MLBtraderumors.com , which had only Wieland coming back to the Padres for Heath. From the beginning, the Padres were in a great position—they had two top relief pitchers while most teams in contention were looking for relief help.  They didn't have to deal Heath Bell for anything less than true value because Heath has made it clear he wants a multi-year contract and has been adamant about signing a 3-year deal.

Some people are concerned Bell would accept arbitration, resulting in the Padres having to pay sky-high for their closer and then would not receive their two first-round compensation picks. Do the Padres really not have any idea of what Bell is going to do? Would Bell seriously go against what he's been saying just to up his salary for one year as opposed to what he has said he wants, a 3-year deal? My knee jerk reaction would be no. However, recent statements by Bell would suggest otherwise. Bill Center of the Union Tribune in a recent story asked Bell if he would accept arbitration. 

"If I don't have a multi-year deal and they offer me arbitration, I will accept arbitration," said Bell. "My wife and I talked about all the scenarios last night ... There is no downside to me accepting arbitration and the family staying in San Diego for at least another year. My kids love it here. My family is happy here. And I'm in a position where I can make some decisions right now ... The ball is in my court. I want to stay in San Diego. And I want to win here."

In my opinion, Hoyer was very strategic in his demands. He made it clear it would take a "haul" to obtain Mike Adams, and while doing so he shopped Heath to a plethora of teams in hopes someone would come in and overpay big time. Well, that didn't happen. Are you surprised a team wouldn't cave to those very high demands for a closer who (while one of the best in baseball) is a rental player with his career peripherals down...while also having to give up top-tier talent?

Was Jed Hoyer asking for the moon and got in over his head? Maybe he did, but maybe that's not such a bad idea. I opined yesterday before the deadline was over: that if Hoyer had any reservations on Bell accepting arbitration, the Padres would try their darndest to work out an extreme “San Diego discount” with the popular closer, in hopes of not only being snubbed out regarding the compensation picks, and with some concern regarding appeasing the San Diego the fan base.

Dan Hayes via twitter quoted owner Jeff Moorad's comments on XX1090 sports radio. Padres don't mind if Bell accepts arbitration.  "In some ways [it's] even preferable from our point of view ... We certainly don’t mind going to year-to-year, though we are willing to guarantee a couple of years with him."

 Was Hoyer in a lose-lose situation with the fan base?  Consider that Bell has practically begged San Diego to stay, making it very clear he it was never about the money. Yesterday, and really for months when you consider all the trade rumors, we heard many fans on Twitter, throughout the bloggingsphere, on Facebook, and basically any social networking platform talking about how we need to keep Bell or we need to make a trade.  If you’re Hoyer, pick your poison—you trade yet another star closer after the team has dealt super star slugger Adrian, and after the former regime dealt poorly with former Cy Young award winner Jake Peavy and future HOF Trevor Hoffman. Some of that responsibility obviously falls on the former regime, but nonetheless could affect the way the front office handles their business to some degree.

So, keep Bell and the fans will be disappointed because we could receive a top prospect (who may or may not pan out), who would come to San Diego with hopes of their talent translating into the next Roberto Alomar or Dave Winfield...or, trade him and be criticized for dealing another Padre player, let alone one of the most popular players in all of baseball?  Either way, the Padres fan base was not going to be satisfied with dealing away Heath Bell solely because of the return.

Jed Hoyer said yesterday during the Padres’ telecast that the best offer they had received for Bell was from the same team, Texas, with whom they ended up negotiating the Mike Adams trade. So I believe it's safe to assume they were not going to receive top talent for Bell.  With that said, why move a popular player, money issues again? The Padres already have the second-lowest payroll in baseball, and have been adamant about raising, not decreasing, it.

Another aspect is, of course, will the casual fan really be drawn to games after the Padres reload and deal all their players? Petco Park in my opinion is already boring because of the way it plays. If it doesn't make sense from a baseball and public relations standpoint, plus if you have a safety net of possible first round compensation picks or the possibility to re-sign one of the better, more popular closers in the game at an extreme discount (who is only a year older than somewhat injury-riddled Adams), why settle for anything less than what you believe as a front office can improve the team? Given the owners' recent comments in the aftermath of the trade deadline, I could easily see the Padres in a similar scenario next year.

While I am happy with the value of the Mike Adams trade, I am very disappointed the Padres did not use this opportunity to capitalize on bringing back offensive-minded players that the Padres feel can flourish in Petco Park. The Padres already had pitching depth, now they desperately need some offense. Does that mean the Padres feel comfortable about their internal offensive options? Now, the Padres could still deal from their strength during the off-season (pitching) and continue to view and assess players they like, in hopes of finding an ideal offensive player in another trade, as opposed to making a bad trade at the last minute for a player that they do not necessarily love.

I believe Hoyer made the right decisions considering all the intangibles. This team has shown that they have had a plan all along with the new regime, and I do not expect the Padres to abort their philosophy now just to appease the fan base. However, at some point, the front office needs to understand that pitching, speed and defense (while awesome and fun), will not bring fans in droves to Petco Park.  Give me some offense.