|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 15, 2024 19:08:34 GMT -8
In my opinion, given the options, they should explore selling to reduce payroll and get more balanced. I don't see them as a contender to win the World Series, the track record of inconsistency is pretty telling. That was why I didn't like the Soto trade. It traded away too much organizational talent for a rental. It made the team unbalanced. We got lucky to get King back for Soto from the Yankees, and long term Gore + Abrams + Wood will be worth more. Soto was not a rental. One of those other pieces eventually led to Dylan Cease, too. Vasquez is going to be a quality arm before long. It worked out for both teams.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 15, 2024 19:43:43 GMT -8
I know you said that you personally would sell and concentrate on 2025, but it came across to me as though you also are saying that teams will typically sell in the Padres situation. Maybe you should have said most teams sell, or something like that, because it seemed as though you were setting up a situation where the Padres are going to sell for 2025. Got it, though. In my opinion, given the options, they should explore selling to reduce payroll and get more balanced. I don't see them as a contender to win the World Series, the track record of inconsistency is pretty telling. I can ser where you're coming from, but I don't agree if all of the factors I have previously mentioned have been met. Also, I personally believe that if we do go for it this year, Preller will come through next year with his magic. I'm more bullish on Preller than other people on this board, but that's what makes the world go around.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 15, 2024 20:09:18 GMT -8
I know you said that you personally would sell and concentrate on 2025, but it came across to me as though you also are saying that teams will typically sell in the Padres situation. Maybe you should have said most teams sell, or something like that, because it seemed as though you were setting up a situation where the Padres are going to sell for 2025. Got it, though. In my opinion, given the options, they should explore selling to reduce payroll and get more balanced. I don't see them as a contender to win the World Series, the track record of inconsistency is pretty telling. You're probably right, if we go for it this year, we are going to be stuck rebuilding or at .500 next year. Trading some players for high impact prospects, or players that are in their first or second year in the league, makes sense to me. Still, if we went the other way and got Snell + another SP and a reliever, I think that we could contend for a WS. This next road trip will be critical in that sense, for Preller to make a decision.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 15, 2024 20:23:57 GMT -8
In my opinion, given the options, they should explore selling to reduce payroll and get more balanced. I don't see them as a contender to win the World Series, the track record of inconsistency is pretty telling. You're probably right, if we go for it this year, we are going to be stuck rebuilding or at .500 next year. Trading some players for high impact prospects, or players that are in their first or second year in the league, makes sense to me. Still, if we went the other way and got Snell + another SP and a reliever, I think that we could contend for a WS. This next road trip will be critical in that sense, for Preller to make a decision. The Giants aren't going to move Snell to a divisional team when his value is below zero right now. Plus, the Padres can't eat the money. And no, I don't think the next road trip matters a whole lot. That's how they got into this mess to begin with, with not selling off Snell and Hader last season.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 15, 2024 20:42:38 GMT -8
In my opinion, given the options, they should explore selling to reduce payroll and get more balanced. I don't see them as a contender to win the World Series, the track record of inconsistency is pretty telling. You're probably right, if we go for it this year, we are going to be stuck rebuilding or at .500 next year. Trading some players for high impact prospects, or players that are in their first or second year in the league, makes sense to me. Still, if we went the other way and got Snell + another SP and a reliever, I think that we could contend for a WS. This next road trip will be critical in that sense, for Preller to make a decision. It's a tough road trip with the Guardians and Orioles in it.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 15, 2024 21:59:40 GMT -8
You're probably right, if we go for it this year, we are going to be stuck rebuilding or at .500 next year. Trading some players for high impact prospects, or players that are in their first or second year in the league, makes sense to me. Still, if we went the other way and got Snell + another SP and a reliever, I think that we could contend for a WS. This next road trip will be critical in that sense, for Preller to make a decision. The Giants aren't going to move Snell to a divisional team when his value is below zero right now. Plus, the Padres can't eat the money. And no, I don't think the next road trip matters a whole lot. That's how they got into this mess to begin with, with not selling off Snell and Hader last season. We absolutely can eat the money. We would still be under the luxury tax cap this year, and next we will be over, so who cares? I don't agree that his value is zero either.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 15, 2024 22:04:42 GMT -8
The Giants aren't going to move Snell to a divisional team when his value is below zero right now. Plus, the Padres can't eat the money. And no, I don't think the next road trip matters a whole lot. That's how they got into this mess to begin with, with not selling off Snell and Hader last season. We absolutely can eat the money. We would still be under the luxury tax cap this year, and next we will be over, so who cares? I don't agree that his value is zero either. They absolutely would not be under the tax, he's still owed north of $14M for this season. He's also 0-3 with an ERA north of 6.00...so again, it makes zero sense for them to move him at all.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 15, 2024 22:39:35 GMT -8
We absolutely can eat the money. We would still be under the luxury tax cap this year, and next we will be over, so who cares? I don't agree that his value is zero either. They absolutely would not be under the tax, he's still owed north of $14M for this season. He's also 0-3 with an ERA north of 6.00...so again, it makes zero sense for them to move him at all. It looks like Snell is starting to hit his stride. He's pitched well in his last three games, and VERY well the last two.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 15, 2024 23:22:10 GMT -8
We absolutely can eat the money. We would still be under the luxury tax cap this year, and next we will be over, so who cares? I don't agree that his value is zero either. They absolutely would not be under the tax, he's still owed north of $14M for this season. He's also 0-3 with an ERA north of 6.00...so again, it makes zero sense for them to move him at all. Padres are estimated to be 27M under the tax cap this season, including all of Darvish's salary in that figure. You can add another 2-8M to that 27M figure for Darvish, putting us at 29-35M under the tax cap. www.spotrac.com/mlb/san-diego-padres/overview/_/year/2024
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 15, 2024 23:24:37 GMT -8
They absolutely would not be under the tax, he's still owed north of $14M for this season. He's also 0-3 with an ERA north of 6.00...so again, it makes zero sense for them to move him at all. It looks like Snell is starting to hit his stride. He's pitched well in his last three games, and VERY well the last two. Yeah, the great thing about trading for him now is that we don't care what his ERA is, or how he pitched in the first half of the season. Which is why he absolutely still has trade value - GM's understand that he had a late start to the season which impacted his performance in the first half of the season. Besides, Snell almost always has a bad start to the year and finishes strong.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 16, 2024 7:15:35 GMT -8
They absolutely would not be under the tax, he's still owed north of $14M for this season. He's also 0-3 with an ERA north of 6.00...so again, it makes zero sense for them to move him at all. Padres are estimated to be 27M under the tax cap this season, including all of Darvish's salary in that figure. You can add another 2-8M to that 27M figure for Darvish, putting us at 29-35M under the tax cap. www.spotrac.com/mlb/san-diego-padres/overview/_/year/2024That's not accurate. They have $8.9M under the tax with Darvish included, probably somewhere around $17M without him, but they have to account for him coming back.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 16, 2024 7:20:13 GMT -8
It looks like Snell is starting to hit his stride. He's pitched well in his last three games, and VERY well the last two. Yeah, the great thing about trading for him now is that we don't care what his ERA is, or how he pitched in the first half of the season. Which is why he absolutely still has trade value - GM's understand that he had a late start to the season which impacted his performance in the first half of the season. Besides, Snell almost always has a bad start to the year and finishes strong. He's not being traded. We can move on.
|
|
|
Post by junior on Jul 16, 2024 8:42:38 GMT -8
Yeah, the great thing about trading for him now is that we don't care what his ERA is, or how he pitched in the first half of the season. Which is why he absolutely still has trade value - GM's understand that he had a late start to the season which impacted his performance in the first half of the season. Besides, Snell almost always has a bad start to the year and finishes strong. He's not being traded. We can move on. I agree that Snell will finish the season in SF. Whether that extends to next year … but that's a completely different issue. The Padres did make a qualifying offer to him before he left last fall, and that paid off this past week in the draft. So there's that silver lining if people need one.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 16, 2024 8:46:25 GMT -8
He's not being traded. We can move on. I agree that Snell will finish the season in SF. Whether that extends to next year … but that's a completely different issue. The Padres did make a qualifying offer to him before he left last fall, and that paid off this past week in the draft. So there's that silver lining if people need one. There's no reason to opt out, given the year he's had.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 16, 2024 14:11:52 GMT -8
That was why I didn't like the Soto trade. It traded away too much organizational talent for a rental. It made the team unbalanced. We got lucky to get King back for Soto from the Yankees, and long term Gore + Abrams + Wood will be worth more. Soto was not a rental. One of those other pieces eventually led to Dylan Cease, too. Vasquez is going to be a quality arm before long. It worked out for both teams. The signing of Bogaerts essentially turned Soto into a rental. There was no way Soto was going to be retained by the club after last season.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 16, 2024 14:29:16 GMT -8
Soto was not a rental. One of those other pieces eventually led to Dylan Cease, too. Vasquez is going to be a quality arm before long. It worked out for both teams. The signing of Bogaerts essentially turned Soto into a rental. There was no way Soto was going to be retained by the club after last season. Bogaerts had no impact on retaining Soto.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 16, 2024 15:09:48 GMT -8
The signing of Bogaerts essentially turned Soto into a rental. There was no way Soto was going to be retained by the club after last season. Bogaerts had no impact on retaining Soto. Perhaps for one year. Not true long-term.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 16, 2024 15:16:44 GMT -8
Bogaerts had no impact on retaining Soto. Perhaps for one year. Not true long-term. No, it's true. When Soto was traded for, the goal was three postseason runs with him in the fold, with the idea to extend him if they could. When Seidler went and extended Machado, things got more complicated, but the goal was still to try and extend Soto. The sides couldn't get there on terms, Seidler's health battles became more prominent and when it was clear they wouldn't align on an extension, they did the responsible thing and offloaded salary because paying Soto $30M+ became untenable in the wake of Seidler's passing. Signing Bogaerts had no real impact. If anything, Machado's extension was more impactful.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 16, 2024 16:59:38 GMT -8
Profar rips a single to right. Good for him. He belongs.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 16, 2024 17:10:08 GMT -8
Perhaps for one year. Not true long-term. No, it's true. When Soto was traded for, the goal was three postseason runs with him in the fold, with the idea to extend him if they could. When Seidler went and extended Machado, things got more complicated, but the goal was still to try and extend Soto. The sides couldn't get there on terms, Seidler's health battles became more prominent and when it was clear they wouldn't align on an extension, they did the responsible thing and offloaded salary because paying Soto $30M+ became untenable in the wake of Seidler's passing. Signing Bogaerts had no real impact. If anything, Machado's extension was more impactful. I stand corrected. I thought Bogaerts signed after Machado did.
|
|