Quote from fenn68 on December 29, 2019, 9:53 am

Clearly a lot has to do with the development on the near term internal prospects during 2020 but Padres could be will positioned for the trade deadline as a "seller" of short term ML assets: Pham, Margot, Profar, Garcia, Hedges, Yates, Strahm, Perdomo, Richards, Davies. The development of Trammell, Grisham, Cordero, Naylor, Cronenworth, Miller, Quiroz, Torrens, and the mass of SP all / some potentially could push their way into ML roles allowing for cleaning house from incumbents with short term control.

Consider it potential to add some higher ceiling / longer control ML options while cleaning out the 40 man roster to make room for next winter's need to add some high ceiling prospects for protection from the Rule 5. If this plays out well the return for these veterans should be some non-roster prospects to stock the next wave in 3-5 years. Keep the prospect flow coming.

Part of the Preller multi-track view of roster building for the near term and the long haul ... veterans come (and go) ... prospects go (and get added) ... hopefully the net is a plus now and in the future.

Not so much if the Padres are in legit contention in July but then just defer the concept until next winter .. only losing Profar, Richards, and Yates to FA.

Quote from fenn68 on December 29, 2019, 10:23 am

Side bar on any deal with Cleveland (Padres or others).

There may be an under the radar consideration that the Indians are dealing with (or strategizing around) ... one that magnifies the need to win in 2020-21 while they can with the elite players.

In 2023 the stadium lease ends ... their TV deal ends. Their attendance has be just OK even while contending. They have a poor farm system.

A winning team does a lot in getting a better stadium lease and a better TV deal that benefits a financially constrained franchise over the long haul.

Then there is the ultimate leverage strategy ... a winning team becomes a more attractive target for another city to move the Indians.  No lease to get out of / no TV contract to get out of ... don't rule that out with the franchise getting to a better market (attendance, favorable lease, enhanced TV deal) ... MLB would both like and dislike that option.

Montreal ... Nashville ... N. Carolina (somewhere) ... San Antonio ... Portland are all potential markets that could be stronger than Cleveland and with Oakland apparently getting close to settling their ballpark situation and TB being locked down by the local governments with the ballpark lease ... Cleveland may be the best current option for getting a MLB franchise short of expansion (which MLB seems to be reluctant to pursue in the near term).

So from that perspective Cleveland's current trade motivation has to be how to win now, near term and deals for distant prospects make little sense.

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 29, 2019, 11:38 am

Quote from MrPadre19 on December 29, 2019, 4:49 am

I think the reason we haven’t made a huge deal is because Preller is going into all negotiations with the mind set that our #6-#10 prospects are the same as almost every other teams #1-#5.

So don’t ask about Gore/Patino/Abrams/Trammell/Campusano and start from there.

Fair or not that may be why nothings happened.

I’m starting to think I’d rather trade Patino than even Campusano.

Better chance some of our other SP prospects pan out than other Catchers and a future Catching tandem of Camp/Mejia intrigues me.

Guys like Campusano are rare.

 

 

 

This is true for maybe the 5-8 teams with the very worst farms, but is misleading... most teams have at least 1 top 100 prospect, a few even more than we do.  And these guys ARE the currency for elite level MLB players.   It's OK to say guys "X, Y, Z, etc are no touch", but if that extends to ALL of our top 100 prospects, there's no point even approaching teams to talk about guys like Merrifield or Clevinger.

I don't totally agree with MLB.com's overly narrow "overall" player grades, but they are instructive.  Pads have 1 "65" (Gore), 4 "55"... but only 3 "50" grade guys (Morejon, Weathers, Baez).  MOST other teams have more "50" grade players than we do.  Where we might be deepest in MLB is "45" grade guys.... #11 -30 (still counting X. Edwards in top 10) and maybe beyond that; almost all other teams have "40" grade guys at tail end of top 30.

So my big point is:  If our top 3 guys are even close to untouchable, our NEXT 10 (#4-14 incl X. Edwards already gone) are not THAT exceptional:  No top 50, 2 guys 50-100 MLB range, 3 guys "50" grade, 5 guys "45" grade maybe some pushing a "50" like Olivares....  This is what majority of other systems look like in their top 10.   In other words, since we are relying on the top 3 guys in our system to contribute & don't have the luxury of an elite team like LAD of possibly trading our very top guys, we are actually an "Average" system  for trading purposes.  Very deep, so more guys should (hopefully) rise up like Campusano last year, but our overall system rank to me next year this time speculating about #12-15 overall.

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 29, 2019, 11:44 am

From Cleveland's view ... they want immediate impact while they still have Lindor, Santana, Ramirez and a strong SP staff. Patino does not fill that need.

This is exactly why I included Lamet...  can make the arugment his lesser control but obvious upside & MLB ready "now" that he could match or potentially even exceed what Clevinger provides, but with additional strong pieces that might fit Clevland better than SD like Naylor...  maybe could even "downgrade" from Patino to Morejon or Baez in this deal (with Lamet)?

Quote from MrPadre19 on December 29, 2019, 11:53 am

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 29, 2019, 11:38 am

Quote from MrPadre19 on December 29, 2019, 4:49 am

I think the reason we haven’t made a huge deal is because Preller is going into all negotiations with the mind set that our #6-#10 prospects are the same as almost every other teams #1-#5.

So don’t ask about Gore/Patino/Abrams/Trammell/Campusano and start from there.

Fair or not that may be why nothings happened.

I’m starting to think I’d rather trade Patino than even Campusano.

Better chance some of our other SP prospects pan out than other Catchers and a future Catching tandem of Camp/Mejia intrigues me.

Guys like Campusano are rare.

 

 

 

This is true for maybe the 5-8 teams with the very worst farms, but is misleading... most teams have at least 1 top 100 prospect, a few even more than we do.  And these guys ARE the currency for elite level MLB players.   It's OK to say guys "X, Y, Z, etc are no touch", but if that extends to ALL of our top 100 prospects, there's no point even approaching teams to talk about guys like Merrifield or Clevinger.

I don't totally agree with MLB.com's overly narrow "overall" player grades, but they are instructive.  Pads have 1 "65" (Gore), 4 "55"... but only 3 "50" grade guys (Morejon, Weathers, Baez).  MOST other teams have more "50" grade players than we do.  Where we might be deepest in MLB is "45" grade guys.... #11 -30 (still counting X. Edwards in top 10) and maybe beyond that; almost all other teams have "40" grade guys at tail end of top 30.

So my big point is:  If our top 3 guys are even close to untouchable, our NEXT 10 (#4-14 incl X. Edwards already gone) are not THAT exceptional:  No top 50, 2 guys 50-100 MLB range, 3 guys "50" grade, 5 guys "45" grade maybe some pushing a "50" like Olivares....  This is what majority of other systems look like in their top 10.   In other words, since we are relying on the top 3 guys in our system to contribute & don't have the luxury of an elite team like LAD of possibly trading our very top guys, we are actually an "Average" system  for trading purposes.  Very deep, so more guys should (hopefully) rise up like Campusano last year, but our overall system rank to me next year this time speculating about #12-15 overall.

I didn’t say it was a legit strategy.....just that it’s one Preller may be employing.

Plus there is still reason to talk about Clevinger etc. because we have guys like Lucchesi,Quantrill,Morejon,Franchy,Naylor,and Baez who aren’t prospects anymore.Just because they graduated or aren’t “top 5” doesn’t make them worthless.

But I’m fine standing pat.....cause next year I see Arias,Cantillo,Head and Omar Cruz....among others making a move up the prospect rankings.

 

Quote from fenn68 on December 29, 2019, 12:03 pm

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 29, 2019, 11:44 am

From Cleveland's view ... they want immediate impact while they still have Lindor, Santana, Ramirez and a strong SP staff. Patino does not fill that need.

This is exactly why I included Lamet...  can make the arugment his lesser control but obvious upside & MLB ready "now" that he could match or potentially even exceed what Clevinger provides, but with additional strong pieces that might fit Clevland better than SD like Naylor...  maybe could even "downgrade" from Patino to Morejon or Baez in this deal (with Lamet)?

Although agree the Lamet maybe be more appealing to Cleveland than waiting for Patino ... he is still a pitcher and that is not helping them more than keeping Clevenger. Naylor is a non factor (they have Reyes as the DH and Santana at 1B ... both more productive now than Naylor). Now if the Padres lead with Tatis .... but not going to happen. Padres just don't have that major ML impact bat to deal to entice the Indians.

If anything the Padres should be trying to trade for more offensive firepower.

Quote from JasonE135 on December 29, 2019, 12:58 pm

Everybody always want the newest shiny toy. This year that is Clevinger. Why? Well, the guy has wicked stuff. He throws 93-98 with movement, has great breaking pitches, has good control and has shown an ERA right around 3.00. Teams should be willing to sell their soul for a guy like that, right?

I heard about a guy like that 2 years ago. Roughly the same age Clevinger is now. Throwing 93-98, touching 100, with great movement. Highest spin breaking balls in the game. IN THE GAME. Plus control and a lifetime ERA just a little over 3.00. The things we could do with a pitcher like that!!! Where is he now? Oh, right. He pitches for the Padres. His name is Garrett Richards.

Did he get old and lose his stuff? No, he had TJ surgery. I have heard that people occasionally come back well from that.

I wouldn’t pay a king’s ransom for Clevinger. This Padres team will be built on pitching. We cannot do that if we are trading multiple top pitchers in 3 for 1 trades. I have seen hundreds of these types of trades proposed. These are the types of trades made by large market teams like the Yankees when they are 1 player away. Does anyone truly think we are 1 player away?

 

Quote from onlypads on December 29, 2019, 1:21 pm

Quote from fenn68 on December 29, 2019, 12:03 pm

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 29, 2019, 11:44 am

From Cleveland's view ... they want immediate impact while they still have Lindor, Santana, Ramirez and a strong SP staff. Patino does not fill that need.

This is exactly why I included Lamet...  can make the arugment his lesser control but obvious upside & MLB ready "now" that he could match or potentially even exceed what Clevinger provides, but with additional strong pieces that might fit Clevland better than SD like Naylor...  maybe could even "downgrade" from Patino to Morejon or Baez in this deal (with Lamet)?

Although agree the Lamet maybe be more appealing to Cleveland than waiting for Patino ... he is still a pitcher and that is not helping them more than keeping Clevenger. Naylor is a non factor (they have Reyes as the DH and Santana at 1B ... both more productive now than Naylor). Now if the Padres lead with Tatis .... but not going to happen. Padres just don't have that major ML impact bat to deal to entice the Indians.

If anything the Padres should be trying to trade for more offensive firepower.

Okay, but they aren't trading Lindor and Clev if their top priority is to field the best possible team this upcoming year.

Cleveland wants to compete and fill gaps (which may result in improvement) sure, but they also want payroll friendly control. They will not trade Clev and in return expect to get Clev, or Clev +. Rather, a trade for Clev will result in very different type of return.  Otherwise, the trade would not materialize in the first place. My point is this, if they sell Clev, no buyer need give up the Clev analog -- that wouldn't be a logical transaction.

I am just not giving up BOTH Patino and Lamet in that trade. If we go Lamet, which I wouldnt advise, I sure as heck am not including Patino. A 4 or 6 for 1 could very well be what the Indians are seeking given the somewhat unusual rumors.

Quote from onlypads on December 29, 2019, 1:22 pm

Ignore this. Sorry, created a duplicate message somehow.