Quote from Randy Manese on December 11, 2020, 12:28 am

The trend continued from 2012 to 2014 although we got lucky with Fried (#7), only to have him undergo TJ surgery in early 2014, and Trea Turner (#13); in the middle of these years was Renfroe (also #13) who is not in the same class as the others.  While the Padres haven't drafted some of these top guys, they did get Machado (#3), Pomeranz (#5) and Grandal (#12) from the 2009 draft in FA/trades as well as Naylor (#12) and Grisham (#15) from the 2015 draft where the Padres had no #1 pick.

The point is you build your team whatever way you think you can to be competitive and that's very hard to do in the NL West with the money-rich Dodgers and previously penny pinching management.  Also realize that a huge percentage of players drafted or international players signed NEVER make it even to AAA, much less the majors.   Some trades work out fine but some don't; some FA signings work out fine and some don't.  Would I rather pay a 37 year old Joey Votto 25M for the next 3 years of a 30 year old Myers?  Enjoy last year and look ahead to the future because that next wave of talent is coming - just need a little bit of patience.  Gore, Abrams and Campusano very soon.  Patino and Morejon come back much better next year.   Only caveat - got to be healthy!

Quote from hoffy51 on December 11, 2020, 3:03 am

Patience. That is exactly my point. Amen

Quote from MrPadre19 on December 11, 2020, 3:48 am

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 10, 2020, 5:09 pm

.... this belongs on the 2021 schedule thread but follow up to last post:

Anyone else selfishly wanting a < 162 game schedule?  I sure am .... REALLY benefits the Pads young SP's IP limitations to have a season where you know they "only" have to cover, for example 25 starts each vs 32.  A 120-130 game schedule would fit into the Padres wheelhouse so well that they could entertain not acquiring a SP at all.  IMO every game shorter the season is increases the chances we could catch LAD despite our SP limitations.

Problem is the timing; won't know actual season length until later, but clock ticking now on Sugano.  Never know when there will be a run on other FA SP taking viable options off the table.

But my overriding point is:  do we really want to trade cheap controllable pitching to plug a 1 year hole in a weird, possibly shortened season followed by another year of highly possible < 162 games due to lockout or strike?  Yes, don't pay the FA for the games not played... but why pay them at all to cover a smaller # of games.   Hmmm.... anyone thought about why the SP contracts might be so high?   Teams anticipating not "really" having to pay the whole amount in those 1-2 yr deals?  Just saying....

I keep seeing this “one year hole”.

I haven’t seen anyone proposing to trade our top prospects for a 1 year rental.

The only players we’ve discussed are controlled for 2-3 seasons.

There’s an enormous difference between trading day Patiño for a one year rental to try to win it all and including him in a deal for a guy like Hendricks or Gray.

I look at it this way.....if Patiño stays a Padre and gives us three great seasons that all get us into the playoffs he would be a successful prospect.

So if he were traded for a “proven” ML Starter who gives us the same it would also be considered a success.

Of course Patiño “could” turn into a 6-8 year All Star.....but he could also turn into a decent BP arm.

Does anyone think a guy like Hendricks or Carrasco would suddenly not be a TOR starter the next 2-3 seasons?

It’s the “unproven vs. proven” that’s the reason these deals are even discussed.

 

Quote from fenn68 on December 11, 2020, 6:25 am

I am more of the camp that says “It depends”.

Have to weigh the specific prospect (e.g. easier to give a Marcano vs. a Gore) ... all prospects are not created equal.

Have to weigh the quality of the return (e.g. one year of Lynn is worth less than two years of Carrasco)

Have to weigh (and this is maybe the most important) will this trade get you to the World Series? Losing better is not really an objective and giving up the future chance for a World Series is not ideal. Basically, make the prospect deal only when you really believe the move takes you over the top.

For me, I don’t see the 2021 Padres even a slam dunk for a one game play in Wild Card (current format), very little chance of the NL West title, and even a long shot to beat the LAD if in the playoffs ... and one TOR arm is not enough. See a much better chance of winning it all in a few years (as ... if ... the prospects develop and arrive). So, NOW not seeing dealing “elite” prospects for creating a team that “loses better”.

At the trade deadline IF the current roster is delivering a legit challenger ... make deals then, if necessary.

Just to be cautious but a lot has to come together for the Padres to achieve their 2020 success over a 162 games slate. Virtually all the offense had career years (but only over 60 games) ... they are not all going to be that good in 2021. SP has to see if Lamet is healthy .. Paddack can rebound .. plus sort out the other two slots from arms that have not pitched full seasons. RHRP ... in my mind ... is insufficient for a legit contender with only Pagan a ML track record. That is a lot of “questions” that dealing for one TOR rotation can’t overcome.

For now go the FA route

Quote from MrPadre19 on December 11, 2020, 10:46 am

The guys we’ve been discussing are under control for 3 years basically.

So a trade for one of those guys solves the 2021 hole at the top of the rotation and also would factor in “in a couple years” when we should be even more suited to challenge LA.

 

Quote from BoosterSD on December 11, 2020, 12:32 pm

Quote from fenn68 on December 11, 2020, 6:25 am

For me, I don’t see the 2021 Padres even a slam dunk for a one game play in Wild Card (current format), very little chance of the NL West title, and even a long shot to beat the LAD if in the playoffs ... and one TOR arm is not enough. See a much better chance of winning it all in a few years (as ... if ... the prospects develop and arrive). So, NOW not seeing dealing “elite” prospects for creating a team that “loses better”.

At the trade deadline IF the current roster is delivering a legit challenger ... make deals then, if necessary.

What it really boils down to IMO, is Lamet! Is he really healthy?? If he is, and we can replace the one season of Clevinger being out with Carrasco, Hendircks, or Gray, then we are pretty much right were we where in the prime of 2020. Plus then in 2022, you have a rotation of Clevinger, Lamet, 1 of the 3 trade pieces, and then a more prepard Gore, Weathers, Morejon, Lawson, or other prospects.

I actually believe that if we had a healthy Lamet and Clevinger against the Dodgers, we fully give them a run for their money. If we didnt win, I think it would have gone 7 games. With them both healthy, our bullpen is in a much better position. I think that with a Carrasco, Hendricks, or Gray this season we are still the second best team in the NL.

You can choose to look at the performance of Myers, Hosmer, Grisham, and Cronenworth as a blip. While I and others prefer to look at it as them, with better coaching and different approach, making adjustments that will carry into the future for Hosmer and Myers. And choose to look at Grisham and Cronenworth finally getting a chance to play on a daily basis. I guess that 2021 will truly tell.

I for one, would rather see a Carrasco for 2021, 2022, and 2023 in the starting rotation over Luchessi and his barely average ML production, and make sure that you have a reason to make a push at the trade deadline. Even if that includes shipping out Patino (not Gore) who may very well become a bullpen arm.

But this whole thread is why baseball is sooo much fun! Discussions like this.

Quote from hoffy51 on December 11, 2020, 12:36 pm

For me, I would like to see the Padres let Patino, Morejon, Weathers and Gore have a shot at starting in 2021. Rotate them so we don't overload them, build up their innings, and let's see what we've got so we don't have to go into next offseason guessing.

That would be Lament, Davies, Paddock, Lucchesi, Patino, Morejon, Weathers and Gore. I don't view this as "giving up on the season," because I think they would improve over the course of the season as they get more experience. I think they have better "stuff" than anyone they could sign outside of Trevor Bauer.

Then in 2022 we would have Clevinger added to this group, plus maybe Lawson, who was pitching very well in AA before he had to have surgery. Just sayin . . .

Quote from fenn68 on December 11, 2020, 12:52 pm

Yep. Would NOT even consider a less than three year player (if the price was a top prospect). Would do a one or two year guy IF the price was prospects with low ceilings.

I have to put into the equation my questioning of the Padres to be World Series contenders in 2021 and the concern that 2022 will be altered by a work stoppage. Trade for a three year controlled player and maybe only get impact in one year (2023)? Now if I am using someone like Baez / Wilcox for the deal for a TOP piece ... probably do the deal. If I have to use Gore ... probably not given the 6 years control of an elite prospect  and also be up and productive by 2023 then have years of low cost control going forward.

Yes, Gore could flame out ... but the trade target could end up with TJ (see Clevinger).

Looking at all the moving parts .... Nola, Hosmer, Cronenworth, Tatis, Machado, and Grisham will still be here and (hopefully) Abrams and Campusano for the position players. However, the DH should be here and Pham / Myers gone ... should some consideration for holding some trade chips to fill LF/RF/DH?

Meanwhile the Padres have pitching prospects but as of now only Lamet and Paddack (and Lucchesi) will be around in 2023. Do they need to keep those top prospects to complete the 2023 staff (not knowing who will succeed and who will fail)?

In a sense, it almost too soon to make a big trade move not knowing the critical needs when really a contender. Quality pitchers and hitters hit the market every year ... so no real urgency to swoop in on this years crop.

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 11, 2020, 1:43 pm

Quote from MrPadre19 on December 11, 2020, 10:46 am

The guys we’ve been discussing are under control for 3 years basically.

So a trade for one of those guys solves the 2021 hole at the top of the rotation and also would factor in “in a couple years” when we should be even more suited to challenge LA.

Previous post:  I haven’t seen anyone proposing to trade our top prospects for a 1 year rental.

San Diego WAS (Rosenthal & Stark) in on Lance Lynn for his 1 year @ 8 MM.  Our equivalent cost to get him would have been Morejon or Weathers and a non-top 30 prospect.

The 3 year guys we're talking about here would cost about what Clevinger did, but with a 0% chance of a deal without including a MLB.com Top 100 prospect.  So who are you willing to give up:  Gore, Adams, Patino, Campusano?  Sounds like Patino.  OK... that's not all.  Probably Lucchesi to backfill MLB IP immediately, PLUS another 1-2 good prospects.

That's to get 3 year control pitchers all in 10-12 MM AAV territory.   WHY not just sign Sugano (or Tanaka, Odorrizzi) to a similar deal AAV and NOT have to trade all that talent/depth to wind up in the same place $ wise on payroll?

With Clevinger, it was completely different.  Dire mid-season need to help ensure making playoffs for first time in 14 years.  On heels of MANY other team improving moves; last move to make us a legit 2020 WS contender.  Biggest difference:  Clevinger was instead of spending 20-30 MM AAV on the FA SP class in the 2020 offseason.... he represents HUGE $$ savings.  That would not be true for these trade options relative to the FA's currently available.  Now obviously the trade guys might be better players; but not compelling differences there I don't think.