Forum
Forum Navigation
Around the League...non Padres
#91 · December 27, 2018, 2:29 pm
Since we really don't know what a TB was asking beyond including Paddack or Patino ... hard to conclude Preller would not trade them .. but just not in the package TB was asking for. We really don't know how Preller valued Archer ... so getting him may not have been a priority worth price before trying to get Patino / Paddack added.
I would value both of them more than just secondary pieces in any deal .. they are both Top 100 prospects.
I have heard that Preller would deal Paddack (has a high value on his upside) but only in ... what he considers ... for a major piece he wants. Guessing Archer or Stroman are not that (especially if more had to be included in. a deal).
========
From a more global perspective did hear a discussion that the new young GM ... who are more analytical based ... seem to be taking similar approaches in making deals. Set a value based on their analytics for each of their own trade pieces and trade targets and negotiate to deal equal or lesser pieces for the trade target but if they can't achieve at match they will walk away and not "overpay". Since all teams have different analytical models, not coming up with matches is not surprising. Sort of kills the emotional knee-jerk deals.
Think what we are seeing in Preller is him trying to be an opportunist. Ask about everyone's availability .... check the asking price vs. what your trade chips are worth to you .... walk away if the deal does not fit ... make the deal IF the price is right. When a club just lost 96 games ... not all that sure that going all in on one or two high end pieces will make the winners but if he can get them under HIS value make the deal.
====
I have held for some time the "prospect value" is not the same as "trade value" which is normally lower since the team dealing has to actually give up talent and assumes risk of the prospect not developing.
#92 · December 27, 2018, 5:56 pm
I do take Acee with a grain or two of salt, but here’s that article. In the piece Acee says “Those were with the Tampa Bay Rays regarding starting pitcher Chris Archer, and the Padres rejected name after name the Rays dropped in myriad combinations.
Ultimately, the Rays were focused on right-handed pitching prospects Chris Paddack and Luis Patino, and they also wanted catcher Austin Hedges and right fielder Hunter Renfroe from the major league roster.”
I thought the part where Acee says the Padres turned down name after name in a myriad of combinations was interesting because it goes along with what I heard from (I believe Rob Neyer) a podcast where a guest said the Padres believe their system can produce multiple impact/star level players beyond the often talked about Gore and Tatis Jr. They didn’t say how many or who. My guess is Preller has 5-7 prospects that he believes have star level ceilings that he pretty much won’t move. If teams insist on those guys a deal isn’t happening.
#93 · December 28, 2018, 8:08 am
I would be on Preller's side of rejecting a deal of Hedges - Renfroe - Paddack or Patino ... not sure that I would have even gone Hedges - Renfroe (and I have been willing to deal them without a major problem).
It is the valuation of Archer that ... in my view ... was over rated.
Sure in 2013-15 he was elite (ERA: 3.22 - 3.33 - 3.23) but he has regressed for 2016 - Aug 2018 (ERA: 4.02 - 4.07 - 4.31) ... that is nearly 3 years of 4.00+ ERA which is enough time to doubt his return to elite status at age 30.
Now he did get dealt to a contender at the trade deadline (PITT) that would have had more incentive in a pennant run ... gave up prospects in Glasgow (P), Meadows (OF), and a PTNL. In Pitt Archer delivered a 4.30 ERA.
In retrospect ... Hedges may be of more value to the Padres by himself that a 4.00+ Archer considering the Padres would be left with Mejia who is still developing defensive (and offensive) skills for the ML level.
#94 · December 30, 2018, 7:19 am
A few posts back I commented on the "new" GM who base their player valuations on their own analytics and stick to those in considering trades ... with each GM having different models trades are harder to make.
Heard a discussion as a corollary to that ... impact on FA. The valuations seem to be lowering (except for the "elite" FA) the FA contracts to fewer years / lower salaries ... especially to older players and players that seem interchangeable at the margin. Agents / players are not on the same page so signings are getting delayed even more while more players remain unsigned. Seems more than in the past the "value" of younger players with under 6 years control is more appreciated (cost, health) thus pushing more older players (more expensive) into FA creating a much bigger pool pushing down their cost to sign ... IF anyone wants to sign them.
This approach may be pushing even more FA as we go forward ... new FA after 6 years plus players signing 1-2 years deals returning to the market vs. the past where the got longer deals. Sure looking as though baseball is moving more to a buyer's market.
#95 · December 31, 2018, 12:04 pm
Quote from fenn68 on December 30, 2018, 7:19 amA few posts back I commented on the "new" GM who base their player valuations on their own analytics and stick to those in considering trades ... with each GM having different models trades are harder to make.
Heard a discussion as a corollary to that ... impact on FA. The valuations seem to be lowering (except for the "elite" FA) the FA contracts to fewer years / lower salaries ... especially to older players and players that seem interchangeable at the margin. Agents / players are not on the same page so signings are getting delayed even more while more players remain unsigned. Seems more than in the past the "value" of younger players with under 6 years control is more appreciated (cost, health) thus pushing more older players (more expensive) into FA creating a much bigger pool pushing down their cost to sign ... IF anyone wants to sign them.
This approach may be pushing even more FA as we go forward ... new FA after 6 years plus players signing 1-2 years deals returning to the market vs. the past where the got longer deals. Sure looking as though baseball is moving more to a buyer's market.
Good analysis. This is overdue. What 8-10 year deal has EVER worked out with no regrets for the signing team? Players increasingly getting opt outs, partial no trades... it's time for teams to push back. Look how insane still very good Greinke's deal looks now, etc etc
#96 · December 31, 2018, 12:13 pm
This is one of the reasons I dont understand why teams back load instead of front load contracts. IMO its gets closer to paying a player for what he is doing instead of what he has done and wont be able to do down the road. As I mentioned for Keuchel, I would give him his 5 year contract as long as the big money was in the front side of the contract for two reasons. One, luxury taxes get higher ( not that we will ever push that envolope ) but some teams will and as Keuchel gets older and we are ready to replace him with better, younger, cheaper guys; it will be easier to trade him if is AAV is lower as he gets less effective.
#97 · December 31, 2018, 4:27 pm
Quote from Booster SD on December 31, 2018, 12:13 pmThis is one of the reasons I dont understand why teams back load instead of front load contracts. IMO its gets closer to paying a player for what he is doing instead of what he has done and wont be able to do down the road. As I mentioned for Keuchel, I would give him his 5 year contract as long as the big money was in the front side of the contract for two reasons. One, luxury taxes get higher ( not that we will ever push that envolope ) but some teams will and as Keuchel gets older and we are ready to replace him with better, younger, cheaper guys; it will be easier to trade him if is AAV is lower as he gets less effective.
Luxury tax is not an issue here since as I recall it is calculated on the AAV of the deal being applied to each year (just to avoid this kind of manipulation).
I agree with the front load logic to a degree (certainly for trade flexibly later) but not that easy once the financial folks get involved. Normally the players would love a front loaded deal (sometimes that is handled though an up front signing bonus). From a team perspective ... often constrained by the current budget (most teams do have limits) and if they front load Player A by a lot ... less to sign Player B to make the team competitive. Of course, the GM is worried about his short run performance effecting his job status ... so financial flexibility 6 years from now may be a benefit to his successor but not him.
On the financial front ... base line thinking is always take the money early as the payee BUT the payor always wants to pay later. Time value of money .... $10MM today is "worth more" than $10MM in 5 years since the one with the money in hand can earn profit on that in those 5 years. So the financial folks basically take something like $10MM/yr for 5 years and if they front load it the contract plays out for less than $50MM since the payee earns on the front load. Back load and the player's contract is greater that $50MM since the payor earns on the back load. Always mathematically workable but always highly debatable.
All factors but maximizing the CURRENT financial flexibility is likely the most critical ... since winning now keeps everyone employed.
MrPadre19 has reacted to this post.
MrPadre19
#98 · December 31, 2018, 7:49 pm
So this domino has fallen.....where does this lead to for the Padres if anything
https://www.mlb.com/news/yusei-kikuchi-reportedly-signing-with-mariners/c-302277548?tid=282421090
#99 · January 4, 2019, 8:36 am
Mets signed OF Rymer Liriano to a minor league contract with an invitation to spring training.
Liriano spent the 2018 season with the Angels and Brewers' organizations; joining Milwaukee after he opted out of his contract with the Angels in July. He hit 20 homers with an .814 OPS for the two Triple-A clubs, and he also stole 11 bases in 20 attempts. He has 59 games of MLB experience under his belt, but he's struggled with a line of .220/.293/.287 in cups of coffee with the Padres and White Sox. Once considered among the more talented outfield prospects in baseball, Liriano now projects as organizational depth that will likely spend most -- if not all -- of the year in the minors.
#100 · January 4, 2019, 8:40 am
Was one of my favorite "can't miss" prospects we've ever had.
He and Kellen Kulbacki
Damn injuries!
Both shoulders too if I recall correctly