Padres, Rays, Nationals Agree To Three-Team Trade

[Mattionals]

Is it that much worse than Desmond for Miller (notwithstanding Steamer600)

I think the "control" argument is somewhat invalid if you get back a cost controlled replacement level player for a one year rental.  Miller is highly thought after by the Mariners.  I would give Desmond for Miller at this point (fills a need for a while, 2B) but the M's won't go for it and that opens a hole at SS.  Fister for Miller might work out.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Couple of thoughts here:

- Scouts and media can say we have good corner OF depth but I say otherwise. Werth looked pretty lost in the playoffs, and as much I hate critiquing someone on their age, 35 is around the time your hand-eye reaction starts to get slower. Harper is the real deal, but how long for us? Guys like Hood and Goodwin are floating out there but none of them have any major league experience. Souza's MLB experience is limited but at least he showed promise.
- 1B Depth: Zimmerman is going into his first season as a 1B with no real discernible back-up as far as we know(Tyler Moore is out of options). Zimmerman is also oft-injured. Put the pieces together.
SS: Is Trea Turner just a contingency plan or an ear-marked future starter. Most would probably say the former but Ian Desmond may think otherwise. A lot of teams are going to come knocking and will promise him no other prospects are going to take his spot. As a prospect, Turner's numbers look pretty good, but Desmond was also raking big-time in the minors before he got finally called up too.

So overall, Rizzo got rid of a guy who was good OF (he played all three positions last year) and 1B depth, a fan favorite and someone who had at least a little success in the majors for an IF prospect whose very existence isolates the Infielder we need to help win the WS this year(which very well could be his last year here).

Werth got i think 21 plate appearances in the playoff series and had around 600 or so in the regular season.  Expecting him to show signs of decline at age 36 is not unreasonable, but judging him off 20 or so PAs when you have a much larger body of work at age 35 (and 34) that suggest he's still a high level ballplayer I think is mistaken.

What this deal does is it opens a path to the roster for Moore, who can back up first and play left.   Maybe that can be upgraded, but he is a depth piece that fills a role. 

[RD]

I wouldn't worry too much about the OF/1B depth. There's still plenty of time to add bodies there for depth. Not many teams have starting caliber outfielders or 1st baseman sitting on the bench, especially in the NL. Right now, we have McLouth, Frandsen, and Kobernus who can play in a pinch. Moore also. At 1b, Moore and Frandsen can back play for a few games.

We're actually in pretty good shape in the OF. We have one of our top prospects that is borderline MLB ready in Taylor. That gives you options. If an OF gets hurt and goes on the DL, he gets the call. If Zimmerman gets hurt and is out awhile, you call on Moore. If he's not cutting it, you may be able to reach tk Skole for a couple weeks. Looking even further, if the OF is healthy, you could move Werth to first and put Taylor in his spot.

Multuple injuries can happen at the same time but nobody has multiple starting caliber players on the bench. That's wh3n you make a move. And as a result of this trade, the depth in our organization has gotten a little better.

[Ray D]

Usually a team will draw up a list of players that can be selected as the PTBNL. They can include Turner's name on the list and not violate the rule.

Right, I get that.  The two teams agree to a list, and ONE of the two teams gets to choose one at some specified date.  BUT it could be either team that gets to choose, that's part of the agreement.  In other words, it could be the Padres that get to choose. We don't know otherwise at this point, do we?  Or, it could be that the Nats get to choose, and by that time the Nats like someone else on the list better.

[blue911]

Right, I get that.  The two teams agree to a list, and ONE of the two teams gets to choose one at some specified date.  BUT it could be either team that gets to choose, that's part of the agreement.  In other words, it could be the Padres that get to choose. We don't know otherwise at this point, do we?  Or, it could be that the Nats get to choose, and by that time the Nats like someone else on the list better.

What they are trading is the right to choose. Why would you make a trade for "whatever"?

[Ray D]

I'm saying that in some PTBNL deals, Team A sends Player X to Team B and in return Team B lists Player Y, Player Z, and Player W, and says, we will give you one of these on <some date> and WE will pick which one.

[blue911]

I'm saying that in some PTBNL deals, Team A sends Player X to Team B and in return Team B lists Player Y, Player Z, and Player W, and says, we will give you one of these on <some date> and WE will pick which one.

Sure that can happen and does but that isn't the case here.

[UMDNats]

[Mattionals]

I'm saying that in some PTBNL deals, Team A sends Player X to Team B and in return Team B lists Player Y, Player Z, and Player W, and says, we will give you one of these on <some date> and WE will pick which one.

I don't think any GM will make a trade for a PTBNL and the trading team gets to pick who that is off a list.  Why not put Erik Fedde and PC on a list and submit it to another team for a trade.  In this case we assume PC signed in June 2014.  Now when the other team says "OK, send us Fedde and Rizzo goes, nah you'll get PC instead, suckers" and the return was Ben Zobrist, don't you think that everyone would have a problem with that?

[blue911]

I don't think any GM will make a trade for a PTBNL and the trading team gets to pick who that is off a list.  Why not put Erik Fedde and PC on a list and submit it to another team for a trade.  In this case we assume PC signed in June 2014.  Now when the other team says "OK, send us Fedde and Rizzo goes, nah you'll get PC instead, suckers" and the return was Ben Zobrist, don't you think that everyone would have a problem with that?

That isn't quite how it works.

[Mattionals]

That isn't quite how it works.

From wikipedia.

"The deal must close within six months of the conclusion of the rest of the trade. If the teams can't agree on who the player will be, then they will agree on a price to be paid instead of a player. "

So if in six months, the team can't come up with an agreement on the PTBNL, the Nats would owe the Rays money in the PC for Zobrist situation, or trade Zobrist back to Tampa.

[Ray D]

I don't think any GM will make a trade for a PTBNL and the trading team gets to pick who that is off a list.

Well let's just take an extreme case for absurdity sake. Suppose we agree to trade Span to the Angels for a player to be named later, and the list is Trout and Pujols.  But the Angels get to  choose.   Rizzo would probably go along with that deal.   Absurd example of course but I'm just illustrating that such a deal could be structured such that the trading team gets to pick.

[HalfSmokes]

I could see it structured that way when it's really a case of trading something for nothing (i.e. we just want to unload this contract for a good player we can't afford) so well take a list of three players and you pick the worst at the end of the year

[blue911]

Baseball America suggests that Turner may be kept in extended Spring Training as one scenario.

[PC]

Baseball America suggests that Turner may be kept in extended Spring Training as one scenario.

That's what happened the last time a team traded a player like this, a year or so ago.  I can't remember the team or the player.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Baseball America suggests that Turner may be kept in extended Spring Training as one scenario.

makes sense. 

Could an arrangement be made where SD assigns him to Potomac or Harrisburg?  Affiliates have agreements with particular teams, but do they ever allow for a player in the regular organization to nevertheless play for them?

[Salamander Man]

Bryce Harper will be injured because Bryce Harper is always injured.   Jayson Werth will be 36 this year and he looked 56 in the NLDS and he hasn't gotten any younger since then.  We traded away a quality major league ready player that would play for them and got back in return two low level prospects who, optimistically won't be ready for two or three years. That's ignoring all of the low level prospects who flame out long before they get to the majors.

Michael Taylor is an option before Souza. 

[Salamander Man]

Desmond will be gone after this season.  Tuner won't be ready for YEARS, assuming he's ever ready.  There's a reason why Desmond is going to get $125m.  The market for shortstops is TERRIBLE.   All the rentals we'll get to fill in for Desmond after next season will stink...and we still need a second baseman, RIGHT NOW and for the future.

Turner will be an everyday SS at worst July, 2016

[PC]

Turner will be an everyday SS at worst July, 2016

Or 2nd baseman.  He actually profiles better at second.

[PC]

Michael Taylor is an option before Souza. 

Not that it matters but Souza was ahead of Taylor.

[whytev]

I'm guessing there were talks with TB prior to this for Zobrist and Rizzo knew they wanted Ott and Souza and maybe something else but did not want to give Souza and Ott for a one year guy. He may have said to TB that if you can get a quality MI prospect and some pitching, let's talk about the International League MVP and the guy low in our system that you are fascinated with. 

TB is rolling the dice on Souza as a backfill for Myers and hoping that, if he's close, the rest of the deal is a win for them.

I'm going to guess Souza starts next year in Durham, tears up the IL, then gets a July promotion if TB is near .500 or better.

No need for more than a year of Stephen Drew right now.  I think 2016 MI is already close to taken care between Turner, Difo, and Renda/Kobernus/Espinosa.

That 2016 scenario is best case. I'm into Drew on a one year with an option.

I say Jr. starts on opening day. They don't have the depth. He'll rake in spring training and start in right/bat 6th or 7th on opening day. That's his job to hit himself out of at this point.

[Mattionals]

Not that it matters but Souza was ahead of Taylor.

Taylor was ranked by BA as the team's number 2 prospect behind Giolito.  Souza was #5.

I'm guessing the new BA ranks would be:

1.  Lucas Giolito - RHP
2.  Trea Turner - SS
3.  Joe Ross - RHP
4.  Michael Taylor - CF
5.  Reynaldo Lopez - RHP
6.  Erick Fedde - RHP
7.  A.J. Cole - RHP
8.  Wilmer Difo - 2B
9.  Drew Ward - 3B
10. Brian Goodwin - CF

System is starting to look really strong again.

[PC]

Taylor was ranked by BA as the team's number 2 prospect behind Giolito.  Souza was #5.

Souza was ahead of Taylor on the depth chart.

[whytev]

Unique situation so it'll be hard to get a definitive answer. I would imagine we'll have a scout tail Turner everywhere he goes. I don't know if he'll be allowed to have contact or if his advice will be passed along.

I wouldnt be too worried about how SD handles him. Most minor league managers are about developing players. They won't sabotage a kids future to screw another team over. Especially a talent like Turner who will help the team win games. These guys want the players to develop and reach the bigs.  And all know the game of baseball. Just because you coached a guy in A ball doesnt mean hell reach the bigs with that organization. Trades of minor leaguers is too common. Any coach that sabotage a kids future won't have a job long and other teams won't consider hiring him.

That and they still want to win games. I mean if you have an asset that is gonna rip bags and rake for 2 months, let him. It helps you in the standings.

[whytev]

Serious question - how much turnover has there been in the Padres FO the past two years (i.e. since the team was sold)?  I'm just curious if they're really in "win something" mode or if there's something potentially wrong (physically) with the guys they're trading.  I mean, I go to San Diego pretty frequently and while sports there are an afterthought, everyone is tired of the Padres being in permanent 2009 Nats mode.  I'm just curious if this is a James Shields to the Royals moment for them or if there's something potentially wrong with Ross or Turner.

New owners and new manager want to inspire fans to get excited and buy some tickets. That's why they went after Sandoval and Kemp. It's no coincidence those are guys from more popular teams in their state/league/division.

They aren't necessarily long-term baseball moves. They're get people exited moves.