Quote from hoffy51 on December 10, 2020, 6:16 am

It has been interesting to me to see all the speculation on this board regarding the trading away of some of our top  "up-and-comers." Such names as Gore, Morejon, Weathers, Patino, and Campusano have been mentioned at some point or another. It seems to me, as a Padre fan, that we have longed for a great farm system and successful drafting (which we now have). And I seem to remember, after Clevinger got hurt, that A. J. Preller said that they were not going to approach the 2021 season any differently than before Clevinger's injury. I highly doubt that the Padres would have considered trading away our top prospects before Clevinger's injury, so I doubt that they are entertaining doing that now.

While I endorse signing a free agent pitcher, is is disheartening to me to see so many Padre faithful focused on just this upcoming season. Preller has always talked about sustainable success. IMHO the only way we are going to beat the Dodgers, win the division, and win a world series is with superior pitching. Therefore, trading away the likes on Gore, Morejon, Weathers or Patino, so that we can challenge for a wild card spot this year is shortsighted.

In addition, in a year or two, when our young hitters like Campusano, Abrams, Marcano, Head, Hassell and Ona arrive on the scene, our young pitching would be gone, or at the very least diminished. I say stay on course, and stick to the long term plan. IMHO we cannot trade away these long-term valuable assets for short-term gains. Young controllable starting pitching is the gold standard for major league baseball today. I would not trade away my gold for some silver.

Quote from fenn68 on December 10, 2020, 7:34 am

At the core agree that NOT trading top prospects for short term results should be the plan. But there is some judgement the Padres have to make ... 1. Do they see player X as a real “top prospect” or just a “prospect” after working with him for years and see the limitations in his development to elite status, then weigh that internal view of potential against 2) the short AND longer term value of the trade target.

So, would not give up a top prospect for a one done (e.g. Lynn) in a year that that add is not going to topple the LAD ... but would be more flexible if the return was 3 years control over a top line player (e.g. Gray / Hendricks). 3 years of a proven ML All-Star vs the potential at some point with then only 6 years control may be the good trade-off.

I add that I have a distinction between and “elite” prospect (one that projects to an All-Star / long term regular with high probability) vs. a “top” prospect (one that projects to a quality ML player with high probability).  Not interested in dealing “elite” prospects but could be motivated to deal “top” prospects in the right deal. Then there are the “prospects” but longer shots to make an impact but are still desirable ... they become trade chips (e.g. Potts).

Remember the status is how the Padres NOW view the player .... so maybe a Trammell in 2019 is not the Trammell of 2020 after a year of observation?

Quote from fenn68 on December 10, 2020, 7:47 am

The Carrasco - Hendricks - Gray evaluation is really a buyer‘s preference and rests a lot on which stats a team likes and clearly scouting. They are all pretty equal options and really hard to project the differences into 2021. Plus similar in age and salary.

If pretty equal ... pursue all three and take the best deal ... don’t chase one and over pay.

Of course, if free ... take three!

Quote from MrPadre19 on December 10, 2020, 7:54 am

I don't think many of us "want" to trade top prospects it's more just speculating what "might" happen or "could" happen if AJ wants to upgrade the rotation right now.While we have always liked building up the farm and love having top prospects,we haven't always had a team that was this close to winning it all.

Priorities can change when you have an offense like we do and are perceived to have "just a couple holes".

 

 

Quote from fenn68 on December 10, 2020, 8:19 am

Preller from day one maintained that building a deep farm system with desirable prospects serves two purposes ... one, feeding the parent club with talent AND two, providing assets to trade to improve the parent club.

So a bit of “it depends” on how the parent club is viewed as to needs to win now and in the future. Trading “good” prospects in the years when losing 90+ games ... not ideal. Trading “good” prospects if that really improves the playoff status ... more logical.

======

I note that I see a difference between improving playoff status vs. legitimately moving to a challenge position ... and that impacts the extend I would move prospects for veterans.

Since, don’t see one move for the Padres moving them past the LAD in 2021 (too many potential holes) ... would work on the edges to fix those holes first and see how 2021 plays then maybe at the trade deadline make the big move if clear making the wild card slot. Exception if a multi year asset is available at a bargain (in the Padres thinking) price. More focus on the build for 2022 and 2023 beyond 2021.

 

Quote from 3fingersplit on December 10, 2020, 8:51 am

Do Not Trade your Young Pitching Away....How nice would it be to have Max Fried back.....stupid trade back then and looks worse today.

That's one of the differences between the Padres and Dodgers....we trade our pitching away and they develope and keep theirs.

Quote from hoffy51 on December 10, 2020, 9:40 am

Quote from 3fingersplit on December 10, 2020, 8:51 am

Do Not Trade your Young Pitching Away....How nice would it be to have Max Fried back.....stupid trade back then and looks worse today.

That's one of the differences between the Padres and Dodgers....we trade our pitching away and they develope and keep theirs.

Amen

Quote from BoosterSD on December 10, 2020, 10:13 am

Quote from hoffy51 on December 10, 2020, 9:40 am

Quote from 3fingersplit on December 10, 2020, 8:51 am

Do Not Trade your Young Pitching Away....How nice would it be to have Max Fried back.....stupid trade back then and looks worse today.

That's one of the differences between the Padres and Dodgers....we trade our pitching away and they develope and keep theirs.

Amen

Prospects are cool, parades are cooler!

Great line from Casey Stern(?) on MLB on XM. I dont really care about the name on the back of the jersey, as long as I see a parade through downtown SD, holding a trophy.

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 10, 2020, 11:46 am

Quote from hoffy51 on December 10, 2020, 9:40 am

Quote from 3fingersplit on December 10, 2020, 8:51 am

Do Not Trade your Young Pitching Away....How nice would it be to have Max Fried back.....stupid trade back then and looks worse today.

That's one of the differences between the Padres and Dodgers....we trade our pitching away and they develope and keep theirs.

Amen

I agree.  You can only go to this well so many times.  We just did last year with Quantrill in Clevinger deal.  The time for this type of trade is at the deadline when you're making that big move for a frontline guy... like last season!

At least with Quantrill you can say "I'm trading 5+ years of a guy who MIGHT become a #3 / #4 SP for 2+ years of a guy who is a #1/#2 SP".  The Fried deal was the exact example of what not to do:  trade a 5-6 year potentially ELITE future asset who could (has) become  a #1/#2 SP --that you aren't going to be able to replace-- for a 1 year name signing + a comp pick.

I think the combo of making playoffs for first time in forever and Preller's deadline trading frenzy have given everyone an unrealistic view that: 1) "Preller should just make another trade", and 2) an "ostrich" outlook that's not being honest about the gap that exists between SD (with Clev out) & the LAD.

If it were Machado who went down for the year with TJ instead of Clev, would we all be pounding the table to spend all our available $ to sign Justin Turner for 1 year to backfill the hole?  NO!  Zero $ for all the other needs.  Tatis is more similar to Clev in the sense that you can't replace his WAR at his salary; so would we trade a top 100 prospect to fill the hole for a year if he went down? NO!  With Clevinger, the trade idea is even worse, b/c you're giving up future assets AND you're not saving significant $/year over a similar FA.

We don't give up in 2021, but the right solution is to hold onto your trade ammo and band aid your way through.  Should not risk anything that would make us worse in 2022 for 2021... until maybe at the deadline.  If going to "stretch" somewhere, it should be "just" to spend more $... hence my defer $ to Machado to sign Sugano idea.  Not trading elite assets.