Forum
Forum Navigation
Rule 5 draft
#21 · December 7, 2020, 10:24 am
3finger, this is a really good & fair question. My personal answer as a guy who has suggested the multiplayer trades is: "kind of".
It’s an absolute fact that with the huge 2016 International & H.S. Draft class (Hudson Potts, Lawson, Thompson) there was no way Preller could protect all those guys from Rule 5. We have 39 guys on our roster, multiple FA needs like bench & SP, and: Potts, J. Rosario, Trammell, & Arias all were protected by their new teams. So no matter what, we would have lost some of them to Rule 5 if we didn't make trades. So Preller essentially HAD to trade some of these guys to get some "value" back. BUT since that was known, I think it's fair to say he/we may have gotten squeezed a little cumulatively.
No ”hindsight” allowed! I & most (Pads fans AND National sports writers) had no issue whatsoever with getting 2+ years cheap control of Clevenger + throw-ins of Greg Allen & Minors PTBNL for what we gave up. Hedges felt like addition by subtraction (and saved $). I liked Naylor, but sure seemed like he had worn out his welcome for whatever reason. Hope I’m right that Joey Cantillo (and Owen Miller) was a little overrated. Think Arias is a really good prospect, but utterly blocked by Tatis; more value in a short term TOR starter than long term backup INF. TJ surgery probably makes us lose deal no matter what, but what Quantrill becomes may be the key. If it’s “only” a good RP, no big loss, but if he develops into a good SP Cleveland probably wins the deal even with a healthy Clevenger.
The only deadline trade I was not 100% onboard with initially was the trade for Nola:
Trammell, France, Torrens, & Munoz for: Nola, A. Adams, & Altavilla. My main gripe was I liked Trammell who was the obvious Pham depth for 2021, and possible long term replacement 2022 on. Now that’s a big hole. BUT again it was Short term: + C who can hit >.200 and back of pen RP (Adams) healthy by playoffs in ’20 over long term potential of what Trammell (& Munoz) will become.
Potts & J. Rosario for Moreland I was OK with, but assumed we’d have Moreland in ’21. Depends on DH in NL outcome, but looks like the 2.5 MM we saved declining his option might buy a younger more versatile bench player anyway. One prospect too many for < ½ season of Moreland, but better than just losing the guy in Rule 5 I guess.
#22 · December 7, 2020, 10:28 am
I was Googling to see if any National "best available / most likely picked guys in Rule 5" lists yet, and found these 2 posts...
... we're not the only ones aware of Buddy Reed. RHP (Philly) Enyel De Los Santos getting mentioned a lot too.
https://motorcitybengals.com/2020/11/25/detroit-tigers-rule-5-2020-options/
And finally, one personal wish: OF Buddy Reed, traded to Oakland this past season, is ten pounds of joy in an eight-pound bag and I would love to see him in Seattle. Does he strike out too much? Yes. Would he be entirely overmatched by being thrown onto a big-league roster? Also yes. But I saw him play at the AFL a couple years ago and he was an absolute delight, the star of the dugout and a fan favorite, unceasingly kind and patient with kids and older fans alike. Reed is tooled-up and a terror on the basepaths but has trouble accessing those tools in game because of the contact issues and I just really hope he can figure it out somewhere.
#23 · December 7, 2020, 11:26 am
Not as a Rule 5 pick but I would like Reed back in the Padres minor league system ... seems an organizational asset and Padres do need that CF in AAA/AA.
Since he was not protected by OAK ... and they are wanting to remain playoff contenders in the AL West ... maybe another of the many deals between SD and OAK can get him back as part of a package ... maybe a DFA type RP to OAK in ST?
#24 · December 7, 2020, 12:28 pm
Another factor in the deadline trades is the Playoffs.
The idea of making these trades was to get to the World Series and if we had they would have all been deemed successes.
Of course the injuries to Lamet and Clevinger were our demise....you just can't predict that kind of thing.... and if they had stayed healthy "and if" we would have beat the Dodgers...anything after that wouldn't have changed the fact that those moves were good moves.
#25 · December 7, 2020, 1:36 pm
Quote from fenn68 on December 7, 2020, 11:26 amNot as a Rule 5 pick but I would like Reed back in the Padres minor league system ... seems an organizational asset and Padres do need that CF in AAA/AA.
Since he was not protected by OAK ... and they are wanting to remain playoff contenders in the AL West ... maybe another of the many deals between SD and OAK can get him back as part of a package ... maybe a DFA type RP to OAK in ST?
It would be so weird to "trade back" for him... but I think it's not unprecedented.
Could Pads do this before R5 & select him to roster, or was 11/20 the deadline to add guys to roster? If can't add him to 40-man, basically would have to gamble no one takes him in Rule 5, then do a trade after that. Would be much better for Pads if he was not R5/on roster (yet). Guerra for Reed AFTER R5 would be great; clear a roster spot. But it would be tempting to just take Buddy there if he fell to us in R5; costs "nothing" (1ooK). Worth mentioning that there are likely more "Buddy Reed types" NOT subject to R5, so not so much that it "has" to be Buddy as that Buddy stands out in the R5 draft b/c most position players available are 20-21 yr olds...
#26 · December 7, 2020, 2:36 pm
Not interested in using a roster slot for Reed ... like him as a minor league player but not on a ML roster of a contender at this point in his career. Actually see Allen a better 2021 option (Allen has actually hit at the ML level and still is only 27). If he could play INF ... he might be a push with Mateo but he does not.
As I suggested in the other topic ... the two open bench slots need an INF (or two) who can hit given the need for PH for the pitchers without the DH in 2021. Also, some ability to field for double switches providing some offense when a regular “rests” or is injured over 162 games. Reed just does not have the bat needed.
#27 · December 7, 2020, 10:40 pm
As much as the trades stung, especially given Moreland not having his option picked up and Clevinger having Tommy John, but what did we give up? The fact that Reed is Rule V eligible is an indication that it wasnt that much. I dont regret the Clevinger trade just like I dont regret the Pom for Espinoza trade. There's always a risk. The reward was great, but I dont know that we gave up anything that we will regret in five years the way the White Sox regret Tatis. Could Quantril, Trammel, or Aries turn out to be solid big leaguers? Sure. Do I think they would be an upgrade over what we have now? No
When it comes to the Rule V the question is if anyone has an upside that would be worth it to hide them on the bench for a year. That answer is a definite NO.
Really, if you are looking for a Rule V pick you are looking for either a) A pitcher you will hide in the pen that has BIG time stuff (probably control issues or coming off an injury) b) A speedy/defense INF or OF that could at least be a useful PR or defensive replacement.
The thing is the Padres have 30 bullpen arms and Guerra > anyof the Rule V eligible guys. And a light hitting speed guy the Padres already have in Mateo and Allen so why gamble on the unknown?
#28 · December 8, 2020, 10:12 am
b) A speedy/defense INF or OF that could at least be a useful PR or defensive replacement.
The thing is the Padres have 30 bullpen arms and Guerra > any of the Rule V eligible guys. And a light hitting speed guy the Padres already have in Mateo and Allen so why gamble on the unknown?
Agree completely on P's (& C) - No way in R5. Any pick unlikely anyway with late pick, tight roster, & multiple MLB needs, but:
OF (Reed) would compete with those guys for a spot. He's definitely a better defensive OF than Mateo (but no INF). More upside & future flexibility (options) than Greg Allen (but less experienced).
INF it's unlikely but not impossible anyone picked would stick. Pads specific situation: 1) MVP caliber 3B & SS are going to be on the field every day. NO backups beyond Mateo right now. The guy I proposed is a LH SS/2B/3B. Thoughts: this guy basically never starts; maybe 3? 5? games at 3B & SS to spell Machado & Tatis.... actually easier to "hide" him on your roster b/c he never needs to play 2) Since last offseason, Pads traded their consensus #: 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, & 22 prospects. Strong draft "backfills" four of these. R5 pick a way to cheaply "buy" a prospect. He either sticks or doesn't & Pads might be able to trade to keep him; happens pretty frequently. Goal is to add a top 30 prospect back into system cheap.
#29 · December 8, 2020, 11:19 am
Allen ... Mateo ... Reed ... not fit for ML consumption on a contender. For me that suggests the Padres have no ML quality players for bench roles.
#30 · December 9, 2020, 9:31 am
Quote from fenn68 on December 8, 2020, 11:19 amAllen ... Mateo ... Reed ... not fit for ML consumption on a contender. For me that suggests the Padres have no ML quality players for bench roles.
Problem solved! Brian O'Grady! Seriously, WAY better potential offensive option than any of these 3