The road to acquiring Fernando Tatis Jr.

[Dirtywater433]

I think he's gettable this year realistically for the first time since in a Padres uniform-

https://www.essentiallysports.com/mlb-baseball-news-padres-in-trouble-as-insider-reveals-worrying-reason-behind-potential-fernando-tatis-jr-trade/

“Well, they got somebody’s money, backloaded contracts. Who are they’ve lost money to in the last few years? When you talk to GMS around the land, they say these guys are in big-time trouble. They’re losing money even though they’re back in the place. So you can’t trade many… Machado, you can’t trade Xando Bogarts Tatia’s contract as big as it is. It’s actually movable,”

 

The Sox are the team who makes the most sense, despite having too many outfielders. The Padres can probably help the Sox out with that. My proposal-

Wilyer Abreu, Kristian Campbell, Bryan Bello, maybe a prospect for Tatis.

The Padres save 17 million AAV. The Sox take that on. The Padres get starting pitching, which they're desperate for. They need a outfielder desperately. Wilyer fills that. Campbell gets them younger, gives them some upside. Maybe another prospect to sweeten the pot, helps.

The Sox can turn around and trade Duran for pitching to replace Bello. Maybe for someone with more upside. (Cole Ragans).

[notin]

Per BTV, a deal of Tatis for Abreu, Campbell, Bello and Romero for Tatis is fair.   As is a deal for Duran, Abreu and Harrison.

But SD might be looking for more than just “fair” in a trade of Tatis…

[moonslav59]

I think the rule is the AAV is recalculated after a trade, so the hit on BOS would be $32M ($286M/9)

I'd rather we trade for KMarte ($19.5M AAV) or sign Alonso.

[notin]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

I think the rule is the AAV is recalculated after a trade, so the hit on BOS would be $32M ($286M/9)

I'd rather we trade for KMarte ($19.5M AAV) or sign Alonso.

Minus the AAVs for Duran, Bello, Campbell, whoever goes the other way.

But it’s all a pipe dream, since it’s unlikely SD trades him …

[mvp 78]

27 minutes ago, notin said:

Minus the AAVs for Duran, Bello, Campbell, whoever goes the other way.

But it’s all a pipe dream, since it’s unlikely SD trades him …

But they need an OFer so of course they have to trade for Duran. They are desperate. 

[notin]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

But they need an OFer so of course they have to trade for Duran. They are desperate. 

I think they prioritize moving Cronenworth, Musgrove, and Darvish. Bogaerts might top their list, but moving him is far, far less likely…

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, notin said:

I think they prioritize moving Cronenworth, Musgrove, and Darvish. Bogaerts might top their list, but moving him is far, far less likely…

How hungry are they to eat a sizeable portion of that Xander contract? Send him to SF? 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

15 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

How hungry are they to eat a sizeable portion of that Xander contract? Send him to SF? 

Guy Ants already got a first baseman/DH!

[notin]

23 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

How hungry are they to eat a sizeable portion of that Xander contract? Send him to SF? 

Probably not quite “settle for Arby’s” level of hunger.  But I would guess at a minimum , Theyre well into the Applebee’s level…

[mvp 78]

10 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Guy Ants already got a first baseman/DH!

Xander will have a decent MIF glove for the next 4-5 years. 

[Hugh2]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Per BTV, a deal of Tatis for Abreu, Campbell, Bello and Romero for Tatis is fair.   As is a deal for Duran, Abreu and Harrison.

But SD might be looking for more than just “fair” in a trade of Tatis…

Is SD willing to DFA 3 guys to make room on their 40 man? So its not just how valuable Campbell/Abreu/Bello/Romero are, it's how much more valuable they are than those guys as well. 

This is often the problem with 4-1 deals in which every player has to be added to a 40 man. 

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

How hungry are they to eat a sizeable portion of that Xander contract? Send him to SF? 

I would imagine it comes down what you mean by sizeable. 50% is  a lot to swallow, but theyd prob happily chop 20% off to move him.

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I would imagine it comes down what you mean by sizeable. 50% is  a lot to swallow, but theyd prob happily chop 20% off to move him.

That's not going to get it done. He's a Pad for life if they won't eat 50%.

[Hugh2]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

I would imagine it comes down what you mean by sizeable. 50% is  a lot to swallow, but theyd prob happily chop 20% off to move him.

Bogaerts is staying, and as much as I loved him, he's going to go down in history as one of the worse contracts in history.  If we took him back and SD ate half his money it would be the worse contract in our history.  It's literally so far in the red there's room for him to be two teams worse contracts ever. 

[Hugh2]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

That's not going to get it done. He's a Pad for life if they won't eat 50%.

I'm not even sure I want him if they eat half the money. Bogaerts will be 34 next year coming off a 2.o WAR compaign. How much war does he have left in his career 8-10? maybe.  

He's already declining, and guys hit the wall between 30-35.  He's already hit the wall so he will probably be a negative WAR player in about 1-3 years.  

Per my last comment that I"m guessing you just liked as I got a notification as I'm writing this, there's room for this to be two teams worse contracts. 

.

ADD: that was a different thread. But you did like it! lol

[drewski6]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

That's not going to get it done. He's a Pad for life if they won't eat 50%.

Considering Id happily take him at 50%, I think they wont have to eat quite that much. 20% knocks him below the QO I believe, and worse players are getting the QO. But Im not ignorant that regarding the QO, those always include a premium due to only being 1 yr and all the players are chasing years right now, so that premium is steep , so its not apples-for-apples.

But 50%, we talking X at 12.5?  Thats borderline utility infielder money (sorry) and I have no doubts hed be an above average 3b on both sides of the ball here.

[drewski6]

3 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I'm not even sure I want him if they eat half the money. Bogaerts will be 34 next year coming off a 2.o WAR compaign. How much war does he have left in his career 8-10? maybe.  

He's already declining, and guys hit the wall between 30-35.  He's already hit the wall so he will probably be a negative WAR player in about 1-3 years.  

Per my last comment that I"m guessing you just liked as I got a notification as I'm writing this, there's room for this to be two teams worse contracts. 

.

ADD: that was a different thread. But you did like it! lol

20m is the going rate for a 2.0 WAR MI, and I think he would resurge here a bit.  Not all the way back, obvs, but enough to be a 3 WAR infielder w positional versatility which is a bargain at 12.5M.

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Per my last comment that I"m guessing you just liked as I got a notification as I'm writing this...

A little presumptuous! 

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Considering Id happily take him at 50%, I think they wont have to eat quite that much. 20% knocks him below the QO I believe, and worse players are getting the QO. But Im not ignorant that regarding the QO, those always include a premium due to only being 1 yr and all the players are chasing years right now, so that premium is steep , so its not apples-for-apples.

But 50%, we talking X at 12.5?  Thats borderline utility infielder money (sorry) and I have no doubts hed be an above average 3b on both sides of the ball here.

That's 12.5M for 8 years! Those last 3 are a write off at least. He's going to have to be a 2.5 fWAR guy every year for the next 5 years for even 50% of the contract to work out. Not a given! 

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

20m is the going rate for a 2.0 WAR MI, and I think he would resurge here a bit.  Not all the way back, obvs, but enough to be a 3 WAR infielder w positional versatility which is a bargain at 12.5M.

He's a 2/3 WAR guy today. The problem is that he won't be in a few years. The problem is the sheer length of the deal, not what he's currently being paid. 

[Hugh2]

9 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

20m is the going rate for a 2.0 WAR MI, and I think he would resurge here a bit.  Not all the way back, obvs, but enough to be a 3 WAR infielder w positional versatility which is a bargain at 12.5M.

I'd say the going rate for 2 WAR is more like $15 million, that might go up to $18 million this year. 

Still, that might be a baseline for Bogaerts, who is in a serious decline, so is he going to put up 2 WAR at least every year? he's under contract for EIGHT MORE YEARS! he could easily be a negative WAR player for the majority of that. 

I wanted to Bogaerts to stay.....but that ship has long sailed away. 

[Larry Cook]

Cole ragans is rumored to have a rotator cuff injury! Maybe we pass on both trades for now 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JoeBrady]

3 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

I'd say the going rate for 2 WAR is more like $15 million, that might go up to $18 million this year. 

Still, that might be a baseline for Bogaerts, who is in a serious decline, so is he going to put up 2 WAR at least every year? he's under contract for EIGHT MORE YEARS! he could easily be a negative WAR player for the majority of that. 

I wanted to Bogaerts to stay.....but that ship has long sailed away. 

We already have a 2-WAR MI in Romy, and he did that in only 315 ABs.  And Romy & Hamilton combined for 3 WAR in only 492 ABs.  And for only $23,000,000 less than X makes.  FWIW, I wanted him back also.  But even the $156M/6 I was thinking about at the time, seemed problematic.