Forum
Forum Navigation
Trade Possibilities
#71 · June 9, 2018, 11:36 pm
Had him at 10/300 before the season. He's playing himself into the 10-350 range. Now is it because he's 25 and uninjured, or because he's in his walk year. Pay big money for position players in FA, trade big prospects for pitching. Because apparently, MLB will just undo the trade if the pitcher gets hurts.
#72 · June 10, 2018, 5:47 am
Here's our Rule 5 crunch for the off season...it shows we have to make some moves or lose some quality players
Chris Paddack, Anderson Espinoza, Trey Wingenter, Pedro Avila, Austin Allen, Michael Gettys, Brett Kennedy and Urias
#73 · June 10, 2018, 8:40 am
Espinoza and Avila are not Rule 5 eligible. Their first contracts, like every other member of the 2014 J2 class, was for the 2015 season.
#74 · June 10, 2018, 8:42 am
Quote from Henry Silvestre on June 9, 2018, 5:53 pmQuote from WindsorUK on June 9, 2018, 4:30 pmAnyone interested in Manny Machado? Or are the numbers( prospects to get him and AAS) just too ridiculous for us?
He can probably be had for a decent top 10 (not 5) Padres prospect and maybe 2 or 3 other top 12-25 guys...but only way this makes sense is to go all in and get an extension signed as a condition to the trade....what number does Machado say ok and doesn't test $300 mil for 10-12....$350? More...
Would Myers + Naylor + Nix + Maton + GALVIS net us Machado (with a pre arranged extension upon making his way to SD)... Acquiring him means $$$ will be tied up between Hosmer and him and the club will look for their young guys to progress...I thought about this the other day..a generational talent like Machado would be awesome to acquire ..we probably would only have enough $$ to bring on one solid #2 SP to anchor the P rotation and would need the kids and some bargains (think Ross..Lyles types) to all work simultaneously to make it work...
There is absolutely nothing anywhere in this post that makes even the slightest bit of sense.
dvmin98 has reacted to this post.
dvmin98
#75 · June 10, 2018, 8:44 am
Quote from WindsorUK on June 9, 2018, 4:30 pmAnyone interested in Manny Machado? Or are the numbers( prospects to get him and AAS) just too ridiculous for us?
The only teams that will be looking at trading for Machado are contending teams. Therefore, the Padres will not be looking at trading for Manny Machado.
#76 · June 10, 2018, 5:02 pm
I thought Machado made it pretty clear that he will not sign any new contract as part of a trade this season .... he wants (and will) test the FA market to get some big money teams battling over him (think Philadelphia who has cleared deck of payroll and Atlanta already contending with a very low payroll). Add that the Orioles ownership is "unusual" in their approach and might just sit on him and take the draft pick if the deal is not a blockbuster (even for only 2 months of service).
Beyond that ... for a team like the Padres .... making any 10+ year commitment at $30MM+ per season makes no sense to even consider it .... even if they were current contenders (and they are not) ...l
#77 · June 10, 2018, 5:16 pm
Good chance the Padres make no trades this summer ... Hand, Yates, and Stammen probably have a market but none are going to be FA after the season and guessing Preller is not going to settle for a package of nondescript A ball payers (likely what the offers will be).
At some point (maybe starting now) .... the Padres need to preserve some of their better bodies for the coming years as the prospects arrive (Tatis, et. al) to form a complete team and not just build a strong lower minors.
Ross will be the interesting one as a FA after the season. A lot of teams would want to add an effective starter but most will not even consider moving a top prospect for a 2 month rental. Would Preller be better served with QO / draft pick approach than just an A ball mid-range prospect? Actually would the Padres be better served for the next year (or two) ... before the top prospect arms arrive (and begin producing) .... try to sign Ross to an extension? Of course Ross may have something to say about that option.
I just would not hold my breath for any deal that yields a return of a major prospect ... near term.
#78 · June 10, 2018, 5:18 pm
Quote from dvmin98 on June 10, 2018, 5:47 amHere's our Rule 5 crunch for the off season...it shows we have to make some moves or lose some quality players
Chris Paddack, Anderson Espinoza, Trey Wingenter, Pedro Avila, Austin Allen, Michael Gettys, Brett Kennedy and Urias
If you look at the current 40 man / and 60 day DL ... might not be all that hard to make the required room via FA and DFA.
#79 · June 10, 2018, 10:56 pm
Quote from fenn68 on June 10, 2018, 5:16 pmGood chance the Padres make no trades this summer ... Hand, Yates, and Stammen probably have a market but none are going to be FA after the season and guessing Preller is not going to settle for a package of nondescript A ball payers (likely what the offers will be).
At some point (maybe starting now) .... the Padres need to preserve some of their better bodies for the coming years as the prospects arrive (Tatis, et. al) to form a complete team and not just build a strong lower minors.
I would be shocked if Hand, Yates, and Stammen would feature returns of nondescript A-ballers. Particularly Hand and Stammen who I am expecting 3 top 100 types from. As for Yates you package him with Pirela and hope to get a top 100 back. The subcategory of bullpen arm should be immune to the idea of roster preservation. The year to year deviation is enough that you simple maximize value by dealing them at their hottest.
As for the 40man crunch the Padres are in no trouble there.
#80 · June 11, 2018, 4:33 am
Quote from Cptjack on June 10, 2018, 10:56 pmQuote from fenn68 on June 10, 2018, 5:16 pmGood chance the Padres make no trades this summer ... Hand, Yates, and Stammen probably have a market but none are going to be FA after the season and guessing Preller is not going to settle for a package of nondescript A ball payers (likely what the offers will be).
At some point (maybe starting now) .... the Padres need to preserve some of their better bodies for the coming years as the prospects arrive (Tatis, et. al) to form a complete team and not just build a strong lower minors.
I would be shocked if Hand, Yates, and Stammen would feature returns of nondescript A-ballers. Particularly Hand and Stammen who I am expecting 3 top 100 types from. As for Yates you package him with Pirela and hope to get a top 100 back. The subcategory of bullpen arm should be immune to the idea of roster preservation. The year to year deviation is enough that you simple maximize value by dealing them at their hottest.
As for the 40man crunch the Padres are in no trouble there.
Preller would be holding out for that type of return. However when I look at the MLB Top 100 and eliminate all the prospects controlled by teams that are not likely to be contenders at the deadline (therefore not likely trade partners) ... the list shrinks dramatically. Then a lot depends (assuming the contender is willing to deal a Top 100 ... no team has that many) as to whether a RP of the Hand, Stammen, Yates variety would be their top priority. Also, their should be some other effective ML RP on the market so other teams will have choices. Add that MLB teams seem to be adding value to top prospects for internal use over FA / trades.
Will there be teams calling ... absolutely. Will Preller sell below a major return when he can keep them (at a low cost) for next year ... no. He more likely will hold to market them in the winter to non-contenders and/or contenders that failed due to the pen (or lost a key RP).
A lot of shifting in the next 5-6 weeks ... just not seeing the potential match for the mega return.
Side ... not sure I even "like" all the Top 100 as a future value for the Padres while given Preller's track record (e.g. Tatis, Paddack, Ruiz) I would have confidence that if Preller dealt for a A ball / rookie ball non-Top 100 prospect he could come out well in the deal ... even better than a Top 100 prospect. I just am not sure a trading partner even at that level will emerge ... but might.