Quote from MrPadre19 on December 27, 2020, 10:21 am

I’m not sure I’d like to give up 5 years of Morejon for 2 years of Musgrove.

If you remove the shortened 2020 season his numbers are about the same as Lucchesis’

 

Quote from Randy Manese on December 27, 2020, 10:42 am

Brian, I made my arguments for a Musgrove trade about a week ago on the Off Season thread.  Only difference is I had Mejia going to Pirates vice Lucchesi.  I understand the hesitation of others to trade Morejon but the reality is that despite his great tools, you have to wonder if he'll ever be healthy enough to go 100 innings much less 150-175.  Padres paid a huge price to sign Morejon but does a pitcher who has trouble staying healthy in his teens and early 20's, all of sudden gets healthy as he gets older.  Espinoza was never injured before 2 TJ's and we've basically got nothing in the 4 years we've had him - Morejon seems even more of a risk because of his time on the IL already.  For that reason only, I'd trade Morejon and let another team take that risk.

I do like Sugano.  Not sure we can compete with the Mets for him but he's a lot better as a high mid-rotation starter than Arihara will ever be.  If Sugano goes elsewhere, want to keep my other trade chips and roll the dice on someone like Paxton, Kluber, etc.  The market for these injury-plagued guys probably won't emerge until mid to late January.  Still think we should wait out the market for the FA piece.   What if we got the Cardinals' "legacy pieces" at a reasonable cost, i.e., Wainwright and Molina?  Just buying time for our top prospects to blossom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote from fenn68 on December 27, 2020, 10:44 am

Paxton (at $10MM) and Happ ($5MM) on 1 year deals = $15MM. However, doubt they can sign Paxton for $10MM/1 year ... more like $30MM/2 years (AAV $15MM). Happ on a 1 year deal is likely ... but maybe more than $5MM by a couple of million.

Paxton give some proven upside in pressure situations ... LHP for SP balance ... just take the risk on his ability to pitch through the season. Happ ... LHP ... stays healthy and pitches innings plus when on ... good even at age 38.

Plus focusing in on the FA ... preserves all the prospects to be sure they keep the right ones giving them a year in the minors to further develop. The with a one year and a two year contract ... naturally clears out the blocks of the prospects in 2022 and 2023.

 

Quote from MrPadre19 on December 27, 2020, 11:29 am

I have no issue trading Morejon.....I’d just prefer he be part of a package for a better starter than Musgrove.

I’d just as soon keep the lefty Lucchesi...unless we add a starter who is at least better or equal to Davies.

Maybe Musgrove is about to be much better than he’s ever been.....but if not we could sign the same quality starter without having to give up Morejon.
BTW....Morejon doesn’t “have” to be a starter to hold good value for the next five years.

He could do that just pitching the 7th or 8th innings.

 

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 27, 2020, 11:43 am

Quote from MrPadre19 on December 27, 2020, 10:21 am

I’m not sure I’d like to give up 5 years of Morejon for 2 years of Musgrove.

If you remove the shortened 2020 season his numbers are about the same as Lucchesis’

 

This is true, but Musgrove was one of the best SP's in MLB in Sept 2020.  Joey was at Alt site, left off playoff pool altogether (some of that was bullpen vs SP usage of young guys).  Musgrove is way > Luchessi.  BUT a team in Pitt's situation a player of Joey's experience but cheap control may have more trade appeal (i.e. "value")  than most other teams.

Quote from fenn68 on December 27, 2020, 11:52 am

Not that I would not take Musgrove ... just not give all that much. Only 2 years control ($4MMish) .... career ERA 4.33 (over rides one good month) and only in 2018 did he pitch over 115 innings (and that year he had one of his worst ERAs at 4.40.)

We will see what PITT can get for him (and has contact) .... but betting whoever deals for him gets him for a couple of distant prospects (similar to the recent Josh Bell deal).

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 27, 2020, 12:18 pm

Something that jumped out at me doing this was how much $ is projected to go to FA SP just in 2021.     Not counting guys who have already signed & taken Q.O.'s, the # is in the 140-150 MM range just for FA's. And the projections may be low.  If all of: Darvish, Snell, Gray, & Carrasco were traded, the # would go to or> 200 MM!  PLUS after Bauer, the next 6 biggest FA contract projections are all position players (Realmuto, Springer, Ozuna, LeMahieu, Ha-Seong Kim, & Gregorius).

So what I'm wondering is, even though "everyone" needs SP, is there a point in this weird  "budgets massively constrained" offseason where the market kind of freezes?  There are 14 FA's.  6 "mentioned" Trade candidates, likely more.  Not EVERY team is looking to add SP in the > 8 MM range; trade candidate SP teams are going to spend less, not more or even equal on SP; hence trading out the salary.

Doesn't the game of musical chairs have to swing back to the buyers' favor at some point?

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 27, 2020, 12:37 pm

LOL.  Fenn & Mr. P, we may have to agree to disagree on Musgrove.  Can't argue simultaneously that Lucchesi has some significant "value" at least in $ just b/c he's cheap (he does!) even though he did NOT have Musgrove's September, but that Musgrove is only worth a "couple of distant prospects".

I will admit that a lot of my fixation on Musgrove is that Lucchesi & Javy Guerra are perfect trade fits for Pittsburgh, so when I had that thought it did lead me to "how much more would it take"?  I decided a very good, but < a top 100 prospect.  In MY mind, Morejon still is top 100, but most have graduated him, and the durability/RP risk would put him near the bottom any top 100 list.

Bell  & Musgrove both have 2 years control in Arb; but Bell at a higher starting salary & 1B a way lower premium than SP, so Musgrove will cost much > Bell in trade.  Most likely outcome is Pitt does not trade Musgrove.

 

Quote from fenn68 on December 27, 2020, 12:51 pm

Part of the “slow play” from the potential buyers .... especially if they don’t see the difference between player A and player B that big a difference (we may but they may not) to justify that big price ask now. If the buyers are reduced ... the sellers may have to come down in price (FA or trades).

Buyers DON’T have to buy and sellers don’t have to make trades .... but FA do really want to sign at some point. Who blinks first ... have to think buyers will wait on the FA to panic and coming down in ask ... that takes some buyers out of the market and puts more pressure on the remaining FA and teams that would actually want to trade a SP (to shed payroll).

Over the past couple of years the FA who sign early seem to do the best (generally speaking) ... wonder if the holds in this environment and pushes the FA to be “reasonable’? Also, if a team is really motivated to shed payroll as their first objective ... maybe the take the low ball offer before the market dries up?

Darvish / Cubs come to mind ($60MM/3 years) ... older than most names being tossed around (at lower prices) ... and, yes, a very good short 2020 but not $20MM AAV compelling in recent years. We will see if they can (will) hold for a big return or be satisfied with a middling return to shed payroll? And when they break?