Quote from MrPadre19 on July 31, 2018, 7:19 pm

I tend to agree Booster.

Mejia/Allen would be just fine as our Catchers.

Renfroe is a platoon OF at this point.Paddack  and Patino would be losses for sure but what are the chances either one becomes as good as Archer?

5-10% at best?

Quote from Booster SD on July 31, 2018, 8:12 pm

Quote from David Nevin on July 31, 2018, 7:19 pm

I tend to agree Booster.

Mejia/Allen would be just fine as our Catchers.

Renfroe is a platoon OF at this point.Paddack  and Patino would be losses for sure but what are the chances either one becomes as good as Archer?

5-10% at best?

I think you would need a defensive type catcher over a Mejia/Allen combination, so Mejia and a Mathis type would probably be a better situation. Allen and Naylor I think are both in the same category, we either need the DH in the NL or they need a position or team change at some point.

Quote from Cptjack on July 31, 2018, 11:58 pm

Quote from Booster SD on July 31, 2018, 6:06 pm

Just to play Devils Advocate, who exactly in the above trade scenario are we overly concerned about losing. A catcher who struggles to hit .230 and power is sporadic, an RF almost all on here wanted to get rid of because he can neither hit or field, or an 18 yo pitcher who could flame out before Archers contract would even expire. Sure, Paddock I think is close and IMO the one that would hurt the most. But Hedges would immediately be replaced by Mejia, Renfroe by Reyes, and Archer would be the ace of our staff, pushing every one else down a spot.

For Archer? Everybody.

 

Quote from David Nevin on July 31, 2018, 7:19 pm

what are the chances either one becomes as good as Archer?

5-10% at best?

Archer has to stay healthy, his performance has to stay at the minimum flat (declining the last 3 years), and he'd have to maintain that performance into our window of opportunity. 50/50 on TJ/TOS. So the odds for Paddack/Patino outperforming him are 30-60%. Given Paddack's relative dominance and proximity to the ML much closer to the 60 than the 30.

Quote from MrPadre19 on August 1, 2018, 4:17 am

Unless you consider the Padres haven’t developed a pitcher better than Archer in over 40 years.

You could argue Peavy.....but the point remains.

How many pitching prospects have we had in those 40 years who have faded as they reached the major leagues?

Hundreds.

I hope Paddack,Gore,Morejon,Baez,Espinoza,Allen,Patino,Nix et al buck the trend,but to say Paddack has a 50% chance of being a top of the rotation Starter is to throw out my entire lifetime of prospect history.

 

Quote from MrPadre19 on August 1, 2018, 4:25 am

You’re also ruling out the possibility of Paddack getting hurt.......again.

I was ridiculed here for saying we should have got more than Anderson Espinoza in the Pomeranz trade.

A LH All Star “major league” Starter.

The chances of “any” 17 year old pitcher ever even reaching the majors is so small it’s ridiculous.

The chances of that same teenager becoming a major league all star is even more ridiculously small.

Here we are 2 full years later and the kid has thrown a total of 32 A ball innings for us.

#1-#3 Major League Starters are extremely hard to find and even harder to develop.

If anyone knows this it's Padre fans.

 

Quote from fenn68 on August 1, 2018, 7:31 am

I am glad the Padres whiffed on an Archer deal. Frankly I saw it (no matter which decent prospect was sent to TB) as a recycle of the Myers trade that would not lead the Padres out of losing but fostered a perpetual on-going  criticism "we got this bum but could have had Trea Turner" to "we got this bum but could have had ... insert whatever prospect sent".

Getting a soon to be 30 year old Archer at $27.8MM for 3 years would not do much to make the Padres a winner during that period ... maybe they would be just as bad depending on who would have been dealt and their replacement pieces. Basically the Padres have too many holes to fill (especially hitting) and too few prospects (given any reasonable failure rate) to give up multiple prospects for one short term player who is a pitcher.

No guarantee on any prospect but at least a decent quality / quantity mix of pitchers near term which could fill the pitching need but no hitters for positions of need except Tatis and Urias (and that assumes they develop ... maybe 2020 before any real impact) and still no 3B / RF.

TB is currently 54-53 (winning record) and 7th best in the AL .... 10th in MLB with a .724 OPS (they can hit) .... and Archer is 3-5 with a 4.31 ERA ... yet they wanted to trade him for near term prospects.

SD is currently 42-68 (losing record) and worst in the NL .... 29th in MLB with a .658 OPS (they cannot hit) .... don't see how putting Archer on this Padres team for the next 3 years (or until they re-deal him) at the expense of losing prospects helps at all.

Would rather see the $27.8MM over 3 years deployed more strategically on hitting upgrades via FA or trade adds.

Padres are still on track to be bad in 2019 (maybe even worse) and 2020 is not looking all that promising yet ... why go from really bad to just a little less bad and "pay" to do that? Make this kind of move only after there is a clear expectation of contending soon.

Quote from MrPadre19 on August 1, 2018, 8:13 am

I'm fine with "whiffing" on Archer as well...but I'm sure there's more to our attempt at acquiring him then just the number of wins Archer would have added over the next 3 seasons.

By the way....for $9 mil a season we aren't going to get the answer to our offensive woes either.

We certainly won't be getting a better Starter than Archer.

Without knowing what the "actual" offer was it's kind of hard to be happy we whiffed.

I trust Preller knows which prospects he will be needing to help win in the next 3 seasons and which ones he can afford to trade.

I truly think Preller understands he's gonna have to trade some of these guys soon no matter what or their value will start droping.

A guy like Naylor for instance is not likely to "gain" value when he hits the hitters paradise in AAA and is a year older.

 

 

Quote from sportwarrior on August 1, 2018, 10:19 am

lol you could "argue" that Peavy was better? Seriously? Peavy was CLEARLY a better pitcher than Archer while he was with the Padres and it's not even close.

I'm not sure who you think Archer is. He's got a ton of strike outs, sure, but the dude has a middling track record overall and gives up a ton of dingers. He's got a career ERA+ of 106 and hasn't been legitimately good since 2015. Why, exactly, would he be a half run or a whole run better in San Diego?

Quote from MrPadre19 on August 1, 2018, 10:43 am

#1 Archer is still pitching and you have to compare their careers......you can't just count Peavy in S.D.

Second...why wouldn't he be better in the NL and Petco versus the AL(with the DH) and out of the AL East?

Are you suggesting the DH makes no difference?

Or are you suggesting the offenses in the AL East aren't any better than those in the NL West...especially over the last 4-5 seasons?

The top "four" teams in runs scored this season are all AL teams and 2 of the top 3 are in Archers Division.

The top "five" teams in homeruns this season are all in the AL and two are in the Rays division.

Only "two" of the top "twenty" teams in OBP are in the NL West and they are 10th and 11th.

Lsstly...even if it is obvious that Peavy was better than Archer is now(juries still out IMO) are you really saying that my point isn't valid because of ONE pitcher in 40 seasons?