Quote from MrPadre19 on December 16, 2019, 11:38 am

At this point if we aren't adding Ryu or Kuechel I'd just as soon sign Dickerson and call it an offseason.

Give Dickerson Kinslers roster spot.

Keep trying to move Myers and Hedges but if not successful then lets roll!

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 16, 2019, 11:39 am

Maybe I'm mis-reading this, but it sure sounds like consensus on these boards is that Pads should have traded for Kluber given the cost ("Margot + Munoz"), but that no one was too thrilled about getting Bumgarner.  I don't understand this?!

Bumgarner:     30 y.o.         5 years Control   AAV (<) 17 MM (deferred $) Cost to get:  Myers + Lucchesi (or Q): for $, QO draft pick

Kluber:            33+ y.o. (1 or) 2 yrs Control  Net AAV   ~15 MM             Cost to get:  Margot + Munoz + Myers + Lucchesi (or Q)

Yes, this assumes that Pads "can't" just take payroll to 155 MM... but I think that's a pretty safe assumption.  Moot point really, since "cost" to acquire Bumgarner would be nothing if we could really go to 155.  It's why I've argued for a FA SP all year:  Partly b/c there are (were) a lot of good ones, but also b/c it wasn't very hard to forsee that if Pads were going to sign/trade for ANY player with 8-figure AAV, they would have to trade Myers + ? to clear the $$ to do so with payroll obligations/limitations.   So if we Trade for a "big" (8-figure+) SP or any other player, we would actually have to make 2 trades to do it.

1st phase of offseason (complete):   Preller decided better bang for buck spreading 20-22 MM NET across 6 guys via FA & Trade (Pomeranz minus Stammen?, Pham minus Renfroe, Davies minus Lauer, Profar & Croneneworth minus Urias, Grisham) than sinking it all into one major FA (SP).

2nd phase of offseason (ongoing):  Preller "current" price shops ALL trade in/out possibilities.  Adopts "wait & see" posture to see if price falls/rises favorably for any of the possible moves.  Oversimplifying slightly, but basically:  Any 8-figure AAV trade/FA acquired requires a trade of Myers + ? to clear that $$, but any "only" 7-figure AAV trade/FA acquired might be able to squeeze into payroll without HAVING to trade Myers.

 

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 16, 2019, 11:40 am

Quote from BoosterSD on December 16, 2019, 10:56 am

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 16, 2019, 9:18 am

Trade 2

LAA sends Marsh (can be replacement for Marte or Pham in 2 years, or if Grisham struggles can be RF with Marte moving to CF) + Bedrossian RP

SDP sends Hedges + Kinsler + Luchessi + Perdomo

The only issue I can see in this trade, is that I think I read somewhere that LAA was not willing to put Marsh in a trade for Kluber.....so are they willing to do this trade with SD. In addition, I think that LAA would want Quantrill over Luchessi. And with LAA just signing Rendon, and trying to win this year, I dont think they will include Bedrossian as well.

I think it would be Hedges, Kinsler, Quantrill, and Perdomo for Marsh.

Do you still do that deal?

I probably would -- Marsh is #74...(Fangraphs) overall and #2 LAA prospect --almost MLB ready-- Hedges (has lots of value for LAA not so much for us) + Kinsler are salary dumps ($7mil combined) with little value to us so its basically Q (not a top 100 anymore + Perdomo (a rule V pickup) for a guy, MARSH, who can be a fixture in the OF in a yr or 2..

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 16, 2019, 11:46 am

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 16, 2019, 11:39 am

Maybe I'm mis-reading this, but it sure sounds like consensus on these boards is that Pads should have traded for Kluber given the cost ("Margot + Munoz"), but that no one was too thrilled about getting Bumgarner.  I don't understand this?!

Bumgarner:     30 y.o.         5 years Control   AAV (<) 17 MM (deferred $) Cost to get:  Myers + Lucchesi (or Q): for $, QO draft pick

Kluber:            33+ y.o. (1 or) 2 yrs Control  Net AAV   ~15 MM             Cost to get:  Margot + Munoz + Myers + Lucchesi (or Q)

Yes, this assumes that Pads "can't" just take payroll to 155 MM... but I think that's a pretty safe assumption.  Moot point really, since "cost" to acquire Bumgarner would be nothing if we could really go to 155.  It's why I've argued for a FA SP all year:  Partly b/c there are (were) a lot of good ones, but also b/c it wasn't very hard to forsee that if Pads were going to sign/trade for ANY player with 8-figure AAV, they would have to trade Myers + ? to clear the $$ to do so with payroll obligations/limitations.   So if we Trade for a "big" (8-figure+) SP or any other player, we would actually have to make 2 trades to do it.

1st phase of offseason (complete):   Preller decided better bang for buck spreading 20-22 MM NET across 6 guys via FA & Trade (Pomeranz minus Stammen?, Pham minus Renfroe, Davies minus Lauer, Profar & Croneneworth minus Urias, Grisham) than sinking it all into one major FA (SP).

2nd phase of offseason (ongoing):  Preller "current" price shops ALL trade in/out possibilities.  Adopts "wait & see" posture to see if price falls/rises favorably for any of the possible moves.  Oversimplifying slightly, but basically:  Any 8-figure AAV trade/FA acquired requires a trade of Myers + ? to clear that $$, but any "only" 7-figure AAV trade/FA acquired might be able to squeeze into payroll without HAVING to trade Myers.

 

Honestly Kubler 2yrs of control fits better than MadBum 5--- I could see Gore (2021) replacing Richards and Patino (2022) replacing Kubler.. an aging Madbum would be taking a spot away from this progression... I also think a healthy Kubler > than a healthy MadBum ..although the later has that red ass I like (but so does Paddack).. To me the only 3+ yr SP we should be adding is someone like Clevenger that can be here long term and is MLB proven borderline ACE.. Guys like Ryu 2+1, Keuchel 2+1, Kubler 2 (no longer available) make sense to me-- MadBum 5yrs maybe makes sense for AZ atm, but not to us.

Quote from JasonE135 on December 16, 2019, 11:48 am

Quote from BoosterSD on December 16, 2019, 10:56 am

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 16, 2019, 9:18 am

Trade 2

LAA sends Marsh (can be replacement for Marte or Pham in 2 years, or if Grisham struggles can be RF with Marte moving to CF) + Bedrossian RP

SDP sends Hedges + Kinsler + Luchessi + Perdomo

The only issue I can see in this trade, is that I think I read somewhere that LAA was not willing to put Marsh in a trade for Kluber.....so are they willing to do this trade with SD. In addition, I think that LAA would want Quantrill over Luchessi. And with LAA just signing Rendon, and trying to win this year, I dont think they will include Bedrossian as well.

I think it would be Hedges, Kinsler, Quantrill, and Perdomo for Marsh.

Do you still do that deal?

Cleveland asked for Marsh and another top 10 prospect from LAA. Obviously the answer was no, which I can understand.

I have to agree with Booster here, except I think we would have to take out Kinsler. There is no way LA is going to take on Kinsler while losing their #2 prospect.

I think Hedges and Quantrill MAY get us Marsh-on his own. There is not enough added value there(in the Angels eyes) to also include Bedrosian for Perdomo. Remember, there were many on here that were willing to leave Perdomo off the 40 man roster a month or two ago. He has very little value.

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 16, 2019, 12:00 pm

Quote from JasonE135 on December 16, 2019, 11:48 am

Quote from BoosterSD on December 16, 2019, 10:56 am

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 16, 2019, 9:18 am

Trade 2

LAA sends Marsh (can be replacement for Marte or Pham in 2 years, or if Grisham struggles can be RF with Marte moving to CF) + Bedrossian RP

SDP sends Hedges + Kinsler + Luchessi + Perdomo

The only issue I can see in this trade, is that I think I read somewhere that LAA was not willing to put Marsh in a trade for Kluber.....so are they willing to do this trade with SD. In addition, I think that LAA would want Quantrill over Luchessi. And with LAA just signing Rendon, and trying to win this year, I dont think they will include Bedrossian as well.

I think it would be Hedges, Kinsler, Quantrill, and Perdomo for Marsh.

Do you still do that deal?

Cleveland asked for Marsh and another top 10 prospect from LAA. Obviously the answer was no, which I can understand.

I have to agree with Booster here, except I think we would have to take out Kinsler. There is no way LA is going to take on Kinsler while losing their #2 prospect.

I think Hedges and Quantrill MAY get us Marsh-on his own. There is not enough added value there(in the Angels eyes) to also include Bedrosian for Perdomo. Remember, there were many on here that were willing to leave Perdomo off the 40 man roster a month or two ago. He has very little value.

there were 350+ RP's used (my number may low) in the mlb in 2019-- I bet you Perdomo was top 100-120--- so he has value... not elite top 50 reliever in the game type value -- but yeah value as better than 2/3 of the other relievers-- while some here were keeping him off the 40, Obviously SDP felt a lot different and are whilling to pay him his arb 1 increase $$ salary cause they value him, especially with new 3 batter face minimums and Starter roles for BP arms, where multiple inning guys are gaining more and more value

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 16, 2019, 12:03 pm

Quote from fenn68 on December 16, 2019, 7:39 am

A lot of names have been debated as potential upgrades to the offense ... no idea of any of them being truly available and at what cost ... did a 3 YEAR comparison to put some performance into the discussion .... using wRC+/OBP:

133/391 ... Nimmo (27) ... 3 years control ... $1.7MM, Arb, Arb .... injury history (risk)

128/351 ... Haniger (30) ... 3 years control ... $3.0MM, Arb, Arb .... injured 2019

115/349 ... Contreras (27) ... 3 years control ... $4.5MM, Arb, Arb ... catcher probably limited shared role

112/348 ... Merrifield (31) ... 4 years control ... $5.0 - 6.750 - 2.750 - 10.5 (option) ... 2B or OF

110/334 ... Marte (31) ... 2 years control ... $11.5 - 12.5 (option)

108/354 ... Benintendi (25) ... 3 years control ... $4.9 - Arb - Arb

=====

Looking at this ... Marte is NOT looking as appealing given only 2 years control, contract cost, and the prospects needed to acquire. Add that he has been declining defensively and now more suited to a corner OF slot.

On the opposite side ... if willing to accept the injury / recovery risk ... either Nimmo or Haniger could provide the best upgrade to the offense with longer control and lower contract cost.

A plus for Merrifield beyond the great contract for his performance is that he has experience at 2B and OF. Plus seems to remain healthy.

====

Note that there is not a really good CF option (defensively) but maybe that is not a major consideration to get a major upgrade to the offense.

This is a helpful post to put all these guys side by side.  In a "vacuum" (i.e. no payroll constraint), Marte would have the advantage of costing less in trade than any of the others due to less control & higher $$ owed...  but that's NOT true for the Padres specifically, b/c unlike any of the other trade candidates, we ALSO have to trade Myers to clear enough payroll (and the field position) for him.  MIGHT "just" be able to trade Myers alone for close to Marte's $ (8-9 MM AAV?), which might not preclude a deal, but if have to include any prospect/s to do so, it increases the cost to us of trading for Marte.

Merrifield, Haniger, etc. can "fit" into payroll by just attaching a prospect to Kinsler, etc without HAVING to trade Myers.

 

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 16, 2019, 12:09 pm

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 16, 2019, 12:03 pm

Quote from fenn68 on December 16, 2019, 7:39 am

A lot of names have been debated as potential upgrades to the offense ... no idea of any of them being truly available and at what cost ... did a 3 YEAR comparison to put some performance into the discussion .... using wRC+/OBP:

133/391 ... Nimmo (27) ... 3 years control ... $1.7MM, Arb, Arb .... injury history (risk)

128/351 ... Haniger (30) ... 3 years control ... $3.0MM, Arb, Arb .... injured 2019

115/349 ... Contreras (27) ... 3 years control ... $4.5MM, Arb, Arb ... catcher probably limited shared role

112/348 ... Merrifield (31) ... 4 years control ... $5.0 - 6.750 - 2.750 - 10.5 (option) ... 2B or OF

110/334 ... Marte (31) ... 2 years control ... $11.5 - 12.5 (option)

108/354 ... Benintendi (25) ... 3 years control ... $4.9 - Arb - Arb

=====

Looking at this ... Marte is NOT looking as appealing given only 2 years control, contract cost, and the prospects needed to acquire. Add that he has been declining defensively and now more suited to a corner OF slot.

On the opposite side ... if willing to accept the injury / recovery risk ... either Nimmo or Haniger could provide the best upgrade to the offense with longer control and lower contract cost.

A plus for Merrifield beyond the great contract for his performance is that he has experience at 2B and OF. Plus seems to remain healthy.

====

Note that there is not a really good CF option (defensively) but maybe that is not a major consideration to get a major upgrade to the offense.

This is a helpful post to put all these guys side by side.  In a "vacuum" (i.e. no payroll constraint), Marte would have the advantage of costing less in trade than any of the others due to less control & higher $$ owed...  but that's NOT true for the Padres specifically, b/c unlike any of the other trade candidates, we ALSO have to trade Myers to clear enough payroll (and the field position) for him.  MIGHT "just" be able to trade Myers alone for close to Marte's $ (8-9 MM AAV?), which might not preclude a deal, but if have to include any prospect/s to do so, it increases the cost to us of trading for Marte.

Merrifield, Haniger, etc. can "fit" into payroll by just attaching a prospect to Kinsler, etc without HAVING to trade Myers.

 

yup-- that double prospect cost to acquire a heftier $$ player  (and) dump (Myers) is too much... Why a smaller (Whit/Nimo/Haniger/Clevenger) type add or 2 While costly (prospect wise) could be greater than a Marte/Lindor type add (which would costs us a lot prospect wise (ok) BUT also MORE prospects to rid ourselves of Myers)

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 16, 2019, 12:12 pm

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 16, 2019, 12:00 pm

Quote from JasonE135 on December 16, 2019, 11:48 am

Quote from BoosterSD on December 16, 2019, 10:56 am

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 16, 2019, 9:18 am

Trade 2

LAA sends Marsh (can be replacement for Marte or Pham in 2 years, or if Grisham struggles can be RF with Marte moving to CF) + Bedrossian RP

SDP sends Hedges + Kinsler + Luchessi + Perdomo

The only issue I can see in this trade, is that I think I read somewhere that LAA was not willing to put Marsh in a trade for Kluber.....so are they willing to do this trade with SD. In addition, I think that LAA would want Quantrill over Luchessi. And with LAA just signing Rendon, and trying to win this year, I dont think they will include Bedrossian as well.

I think it would be Hedges, Kinsler, Quantrill, and Perdomo for Marsh.

Do you still do that deal?

Cleveland asked for Marsh and another top 10 prospect from LAA. Obviously the answer was no, which I can understand.

I have to agree with Booster here, except I think we would have to take out Kinsler. There is no way LA is going to take on Kinsler while losing their #2 prospect.

I think Hedges and Quantrill MAY get us Marsh-on his own. There is not enough added value there(in the Angels eyes) to also include Bedrosian for Perdomo. Remember, there were many on here that were willing to leave Perdomo off the 40 man roster a month or two ago. He has very little value.

there were 350+ RP's used (my number may low) in the mlb in 2019-- I bet you Perdomo was top 100-120--- so he has value... not elite top 50 reliever in the game type value -- but yeah value as better than 2/3 of the other relievers-- while some here were keeping him off the 40, Obviously SDP felt a lot different and are whilling to pay him his arb 1 increase $$ salary cause they value him, especially with new 3 batter face minimums and Starter roles for BP arms, where multiple inning guys are gaining more and more value

Yeah, a 1 MM salary is < 500 K  over the minimum salary guy that would take his place; basically nothing for a guy with his SP experience even as just a depth option if that's what he winds up.  Has 1 option left.