The Future Rotation thread

[davell]

I was thinking maybe we'd take a flyer on Madson or maybe a Matt Capps, JJ Putz, Broxton type. My guess is at least one of those guys winds up with a one year deal.

[dew1679666265]

I was thinking maybe we'd take a flyer on Madson or maybe a Matt Capps, JJ Putz, Broxton type. My guess is at least one of those guys winds up with a one year deal.

 

I could see that I guess.

[pitchcs]

I'm all for an offseason approach like last with more volume. I really think they'll add 1-2 bullpen arms, even if they cost a little. Certainly a SP or two like Maholm.

 

Where in the field though? 3B and OF are only options I see.

 

Not sure I see a point in spending anything on bullpen arms if we plan to tank another season or two. It's questionable enough when you're trying to win games.

 

 

But it's a part of the team that is very very weak and we have money to spend. If they could get 2 decent relievers for $5-7 million, I'd be fine with that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well, Travis Wood does suck after all :( Where are all the pitchers going to come from?

[davell]

I really hope we add a young guy thru trade, but I think our bait almost has to be Barney, Vitters, and/or Brett. The rest of our guys are too far away or too important to our future. Maybe we could find a team willing to trade minor leaguers? At any rate, if we figure Shark, Garza, and Wood as 3 of our 5, a guy we trade for, and maybe a Marcum, McCarthy type gives us a solid rotation. I'd love a rotation of Shark, Garza, Brett Anderson(Barney and Vitters?), one of Marcum or McCarthy, and Wood. If we deal Barney, go get Scutaro or Kelly Johnson to replace him shortterm, until Torreyes is ready.

[dew1679666265]

But it's a part of the team that is very very weak and we have money to spend. If they could get 2 decent relievers for $5-7 million, I'd be fine with that.

 

I guess I just don't see the point given what it appears the Theo regime's plan is. If they decide to actually go with the "parallel fronts" this offseason and start adding mid-long term talent to the ML roster (i.e. Upton/Anibal/Marcum/Liriano types) along with rebuilding the minors, then I don't necessarily have a problem with patching the pen a little.

 

But if they decide to continue tanking next season, then you're really just wasting money by signing bullpen arms (unless you can do what davell suggested and grab a rebound closer on a 1-year deal who you could trade).

[dew1679666265]

I really hope we add a young guy thru trade, but I think our bait almost has to be Barney, Vitters, and/or Brett. The rest of our guys are too far away or too important to our future. Maybe we could find a team willing to trade minor leaguers? At any rate, if we figure Shark, Garza, and Wood as 3 of our 5, a guy we trade for, and maybe a Marcum, McCarthy type gives us a solid rotation. I'd love a rotation of Shark, Garza, Brett Anderson(Barney and Vitters?), one of Marcum or McCarthy, and Wood. If we deal Barney, go get Scutaro or Kelly Johnson to replace him shortterm, until Torreyes is ready.

 

If we go that route, I'd look very hard at Stephen Drew.

[davell]

I'd like that a lot, but is he willing to move off SS?

[dew1679666265]

I'd like that a lot, but is he willing to move off SS?

 

Good question. I'd be willing to pay him extra to make the move in hopes that it wouldn't become an issue, though.

[pitchcs]

But it's a part of the team that is very very weak and we have money to spend. If they could get 2 decent relievers for $5-7 million, I'd be fine with that.

 

I guess I just don't see the point given what it appears the Theo regime's plan is. If they decide to actually go with the "parallel fronts" this offseason and start adding mid-long term talent to the ML roster (i.e. Upton/Anibal/Marcum/Liriano types) along with rebuilding the minors, then I don't necessarily have a problem with patching the pen a little.

 

But if they decide to continue tanking next season, then you're really just wasting money by signing bullpen arms (unless you can do what davell suggested and grab a rebound closer on a 1-year deal who you could trade).

 

I just really don't think it's their intention to tank the team. Of course, hopefully, they would try to sign relievers with value when/if they fall out of contention.

[toonsterwu]

Well, Travis Wood does suck after all :( Where are all the pitchers going to come from?

 

This is a bit odd with me coming to Wood's defense (a very, very mild defense), as I never thought he was anything more than an end of the rotation arm (and I thought he was over-hyped by some on this board). But ... he's a young arm trying to figure it out. I think he has better potential than a Brooks Raley type, although I still wonder if he might be more of a Sean Marshall, a lefty that is better off in the pen.

 

That said, at the end of the day, young arms tend to struggle as they try to figure things out. He's shown enough flashes that I'm fine with penciling him in as a starter for next year (although only Garza/Shark should be guaranteed spots, assuming they are here).

[Little Slide Rooter]

I'd like that a lot, but is he willing to move off SS?

 

Good question. I'd be willing to pay him extra to make the move in hopes that it wouldn't become an issue, though.

 

After the past two seasons, he's not exactly in a place where he has a ton of leverage. However, chances are he'll end up accepting a 1 year, incentive heavy deal as a gamble in himself, in which case someone is likely to pick him up as a SS for max value.

[dew1679666265]

After the past two seasons, he's not exactly in a place where he has a ton of leverage. However, chances are he'll end up accepting a 1 year, incentive heavy deal as a gamble in himself, in which case someone is likely to pick him up as a SS for max value.

 

Yeah, he definitely doesn't have a ton of value, but there will be a team (or probably more) willing to sign him as a SS and he probably prefers to play short. That's why I said I'd be willing to give him more money than his best SS offer.

[dew1679666265]

I just really don't think it's their intention to tank the team. Of course, hopefully, they would try to sign relievers with value when/if they fall out of contention.

 

Ok, from that perspective adding a bullpen arm or two makes more sense. I'm used to just assuming 2013 and probably 2014 will be forfeit seasons, so I was responding to your post from that perspective.

 

I also have trouble believing they'll tank another season (or two), but I also didn't believe they'd intentionally tank one, so who knows.

[Little Slide Rooter]

After the past two seasons, he's not exactly in a place where he has a ton of leverage. However, chances are he'll end up accepting a 1 year, incentive heavy deal as a gamble in himself, in which case someone is likely to pick him up as a SS for max value.

 

Yeah, he definitely doesn't have a ton of value, but there will be a team (or probably more) willing to sign him as a SS and he probably prefers to play short. That's why I said I'd be willing to give him more money than his best SS offer.

 

Assuming he were taking one of those one year deals in hopes of building up his value, I'd think that he'd be more inclined to take less money to play short in order to maximize his porential value for future years.

[dew1679666265]

Assuming he were taking one of those one year deals in hopes of building up his value, I'd think that he'd be more inclined to take less money to play short in order to maximize his porential value for future years.

 

Very possible. I'd still make the offer in hopes that we could get him and then go from there.

[Backtobanks]

From MLBTR:

 

Edinson Volquez On Waivers

 

By Ben Nicholson-Smith [August 22 at 3:32pm CST]

 

The Padres have placed right-hander Edinson Volquez on waivers, Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe reports (on Twitter). Volquez drew interest leading up to the non-waiver trade deadline, so it would be surprising if he goes unclaimed.

 

Teams routinely place players on waivers, even if they don't plan on trading them, so this is not an indication that the Padres intend to move Volquez. If he goes unclaimed, the Padres will be able to complete a trade just as easily as they could have before the current waiver period began three weeks ago.

 

If a team claims Volquez, the Padres will have three choices. They can let him (and his contract) go to the claiming team, they can complete a trade with the claiming team, or they can pull him back off of waivers. National League teams will have claiming priority on Volquez.

 

Volquez earns $2.24MM this year and is under team control through 2013 as an arbitration eligible player. The 29-year-old has a 4.18 ERA with 8.7 K/9 and 5.4 BB/9 in 148 2/3 innings over the course of 26 starts.

 

Might be worth making a claim and getting him in a trade. Can't be worse than Volstad/Coleman/etc.

[Clem Fandango]

Might be worth making a claim and getting him in a trade. Can't be worse than Volstad/Coleman/etc.

 

Volquez would be a hollow acquisition. Someone to acquire for the sake of acquiring him without providing any sort of major positive repercussions on the team's chances for success in the future.

[Backtobanks]

Might be worth making a claim and getting him in a trade. Can't be worse than Volstad/Coleman/etc.

 

Volquez would be a hollow acquisition. Someone to acquire for the sake of acquiring him without providing any sort of major positive repercussions on the team's chances for success in the future.

 

The FO does have to field a team in 2013. The rotation filler that we've used since the trade deadline certainly doesn't inspire confidence for 2013 or the future. Of course all of this is based on getting Volquez cheaply.

[Guest]

Volquez is 29, hasn't had an ERA+ above 100 since George Bush was president, and just got released by the PADRES, who are giving starts to Jason Marquis, Ross Ohlendorf, and Eric Stults.

[Clem Fandango]

Might be worth making a claim and getting him in a trade. Can't be worse than Volstad/Coleman/etc.

 

Volquez would be a hollow acquisition. Someone to acquire for the sake of acquiring him without providing any sort of major positive repercussions on the team's chances for success in the future.

 

The FO does have to field a team in 2013. The rotation filler that we've used since the trade deadline certainly doesn't inspire confidence for 2013 or the future. Of course all of this is based on getting Volquez cheaply.

 

We're not going to contend in 2013. Volquez is a FA after 2013. If they wanted to actually contend while pinching pennies they'd try and pick up guys like McCarthy or Jackson and the like on a 2-3 years deals. Volquez is a terrible pitcher. In fact I'm fairly confident we have one pitcher somewhere who can be as equally as effective as he can that will cost us nothing. If we're going to dumpster dive I'd rather it be for someone with a little more upside than a guy who, if you ignore his one breakout year, has a combined ERA+ of 78. There are better options on the scrap heap to pick up in FA after the year is over to fill out the rotation rather than trading away pieces, no matter how insignificant they may be, for Edinson Volquez.

[SouthSideRyan]

Volquez is 29, hasn't had an ERA+ above 100 since George Bush was president, and just got released by the PADRES, who are giving starts to Jason Marquis, Ross Ohlendorf, and Eric Stults.

 

Placed on waivers, not released.

[Guest]

Yeah, they don't want him any more is the gist.

[Cubs Fan Dan]

I would love to land Lester and build aroud he Shark and Garza. Still confused as to where Boston feels they are at as an organization though.

[XZero771679666304]

I would love to land Lester and build aroud he Shark and Garza. Still confused as to where Boston feels they are at as an organization though.

 

Yeah, they're an odd case, and it's hard to get a read on wht they're trying to do. I get the impression there is some sort of disconnect/power struggle between elements in the FO. I'm thinking the noise about Lucchino's increasingly heavy handed meddling may be true.