What About Buying?

[GaryPeters71]

Jon Heyman speculates who Red Sox may look to acquire:
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/25237854/inside-baseball-wish-lists-for-23-would-be-buyers-more-mlb-notes
 
Overview: They were right to hold off on a sale as they've worked their way back into striking distance (or at least close) in a division where there's no standout to date. There's little doubt where the weakness lies at present. While the rotation is only serviceable, there's a "glaring" need in the pen, one Red Sox person conceded.
 
Needs: Pen.
 
Possible Targets: Grilli, Axford, Rodriguez, Ziegler, Papelbon, Benoit.

 

[Laser Show]

Bertrand & Jones are talking about a Buster Olney podcast right now where Olney said something to the effect of: "the Red Sox are becoming more open to the idea of a rental like Johnny Cueto"

 

[Rasputin]

I have no interest in them spending significant assets to buy in an attempt to garner a WC spot. And short of a sweep of the Yankees this weekend combined with big losses by the rest of the division, I don't see a reliable expectation to contend for the division. Not that far out but too many teams to leap over in either race and the WC gets you one game. So I don't think they should be doing anything other than dipping toes in the water for a cpl more weeks.

Ride out the month. If you're in a legit spot to contend make a trade for a 1B or some bullpen pieces. Otherwise, call it a day.

I don't think anyone is talking about trading before the deadline.

I also think people trot out the "too many teams" argument too often. If you're six out and not playing well, climbing over a lot of teams is important.

If you're three back, playing well, and still find yourself having four teams to climb over, the number of teams you have to climb over is irrelevant.

At least, at the deadline it is. With two weeks left when everyone is playing divisional games so someone ahead of you is guaranteed to win every day it's a problem.

And the notion that we have to sweep the Yankees is ridiculous. I'm not even sure we "have" to win the series, though getting swept would certainly be a kick in the balls.

But winning the series, gaining one game on the Yankees, even if we gain nothing against anyone else, puts us four and a half back with four teams to climb over and fourteen games before the deadline.

Do you really think the difference between four and a half out and got teams and two and a half out and two or three teams is going to be the difference between having a shot and not?

 

[Reverend]

I'm not eager to sell or buy, really.

They have the three hardest fielding positions locked up on pre-FA money, plus Pedroia on a team friendly deal plus Holt who can fill in any gaps as injury/slump insurance, all up to 2020 or beyond, and people want to blow up that core?

Fuck 2015--I'm enjoying watching Bogaerts and Betts learn to be big league hitters. Come 2017-2019, injuries aside, they could have an insane amount of production from a bunch of guys earning relatively peanuts, leaving cash to fill out the rest of the roster.

I can't remember the last time the team had so much cost controlled talent. I think that has to be the focus here.

 

[ALiveH]

Of course the number of teams you have to jump over is very relevant.  We are behind 4 teams in the AL East at least some of whom will be buyers.  So, ceteris paribus, our chances of winning the AL East today is less than 1 / 5 .  If it's significantly better than that there is a burden of proof to show that.  Just saying "we're playing well" is not really sufficient - teams go on hot streaks & cold streaks and a short-term streak timed right before the deadline can easily induce false hope that leads to a bad decision that makes the team weaker for multiple years.  We can reassess at the deadline and if the team continues to play well & has jumped over some teams in the standings, then the picture changes from a probability & performance sustainability perspective.
 
If the trade deadline were tomorrow, I'm in the middle & see no compelling reason to be an aggressive buyer or seller - just look to pick off dumb GMs.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Of course the number of teams you have to jump over is very relevant.  We are behind 4 teams in the AL East at least some of whom will be buyers.  So, ceteris paribus, our chances of winning the AL East today is less than 1 / 5 .  If it's significantly better than that there is a burden of proof to show that.  Just saying "we're playing well" is not really sufficient - teams go on hot streaks & cold streaks and a short-term streak timed right before the deadline can easily induce false hope that leads to a bad decision that makes the team weaker for multiple years.  We can reassess at the deadline and if the team continues to play well & has jumped over some teams in the standings, then the picture changes from a probability & performance sustainability perspective.
 
If the trade deadline were tomorrow, I'm in the middle & see no compelling reason to be an aggressive buyer or seller - just look to pick off dumb GMs.

 
Other than Ruben Amaro, who are these "dumb GMs?" It isn't 2005 anymore.

 

[smastroyin]

I think everyone can agree that waiting another two weeks unless something great drops in their laps is good prudence.

But if they are within 4 games going into the 30th I really think they will try to make an improvement. The moves to this point show they do value 2015. At least at this point they probably would be doing veteran changes not burying the young guys.

The point about the ease at which they should be able to upgrade 1b, for instance, is going to be hard to ignore if current trends continue.

 

[j44thor]

I would buy hard on Aroldis Chapman.  He has another year of control and has the stuff to be the long-term relief ace for another 5yrs.  Long after Koji has either retired or finally lost effectiveness.
 
As it stands the bullpen is going to wear out come September.  Put another relief ace in there and it will turn a weakness into a strength.  

 

[ALiveH]

The D-backs and Rays made dumb moves at the deadline last year IMHO, even though their GMs may not necessarily be dumb.  There are always at least a few GMs that are motivated to do moves for reasons other than value-maximization.

 

[Reverend]

Other than Ruben Amaro, who are these "dumb GMs?" It isn't 2005 anymore.

Right--there seems to be a fixation on trying to " rip someone off" like this is mid '80s baseball card trading. The key is deals that can benefit both teams due to them differently situated, either with respect to needs and resources or with respect to being in contention or not.

Sellers are usually teams with guys who are producing with few years left on the contract, so if the team is out of contention, might as well get what you can. Rentals, for example. The thing is, none of the Red Sox guys who fit that contract model (I.e. short years) are producing much, so it's hard to see them as sellers. But that doesn't make them buyers simply because they are not sellers.

 

[Reverend]

The point about the ease at which they should be able to upgrade 1b, for instance, is going to be hard to ignore if current trends continue.

Agree--I think this the key to any action we see from them. That is to say, they are sufficiently bad at positions where it's not hard to find production that they can improve substantially without making a big splash but just replacing the suck.

And like others, I reasly like Napoli. But it is what it is.

 

[Rasputin]

Of course the number of teams you have to jump over is very relevant.

If you can jump from last to first with a good weekend when there are 50+ games to play including multiple series against everyone in front of you then no, is not particularly important.

It's the difference between having a 19% chance of winning and 1.9% chance of winning. Both are less than 20, yet they're radically different.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Bertrand & Jones are talking about a Buster Olney podcast right now where Olney said something to the effect of: "the Red Sox are becoming more open to the idea of a rental like Johnny Cueto"

 
I listened to Olney this morning and he and Bob Nightengale were also saying Kimbrel might be a fit for the Sox, as the Padres turn into sellers.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Don't forget the Orioles rental of Miller - and giving up Rodriguez. What Red Sox fan would want to mimic that approach?
 
As for the future outfield, the Red Sox are very close to having 2 spots open with possible candidates being Castillo, Margot and Bradley - that's not even close to a surplus.
 
Agree with everyone who cautions getting all jazzed about a good streak in July (combined with a bad streak by the rest of the AL East) because the opposite can just as easily happen in August. Instead, we should take a sober look at the current talent of the team and make an assessment whether or not this group is a Cardinal-esque collection of elite performers or a work in progress that precurses a great future.
 
There's no magic bullet that elevates the 2015 Red Sox into elite-dom. A rental of Cueto (without giving up anything of too much value, meaning another team will rent him) doesn't catapult the Red Sox into the World Series, particularly considering other teams (Yankees, Blue Jays...Astros, etc.) are in a much more compelling position to improve starting pitching, regardless of who gets Cueto (accepting the fact that there are more pitchers out there than just Johnny). And what's the point of renting an elite starter if the bullpen remains non-competitive with at least 2 pitchers who can't make it past the 6th (Miley, Porcello) and one (Rodriguez) who may hit a wall?
 
Yes, I'm picking out the negatives - but only doing so because assuming positives regardless of recent past performance (April-May-June) is a dangerous approach.
 
Keep the kids and reassess over the winter. Finishing a game out of the playoffs, or even getting in and losing a one-and-done wild card game is, to me, no worse than finishing last. I'd rather enjoy watching this team rise and fall on the merits and incrementally improve in any way possible that doesn't involve mortgaging the future. 

 

[Brianish]

I'm all for buying, as long as they're distinguishing buying from renting. Giving up prospects for someone like Cueto puts way too many eggs in this year's basket. Do they have a better chance than we did two weeks ago? Yes. Is is still a long shot? Also yes. I'd be thrilled if they could bring in someone like Tyson Ross, say. But then the question becomes whether they can get a player like that without giving up someone they're counting on the contribute next season. I'd be surprised if a worthwhile long term player could be had without giving up someone from the ML roster. Maybe they can find another GM who thinks really highly of Bradley or Owens or Margot. Maybe not. 

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 

 
I listened to Olney this morning and he and Bob Nightengale were also saying Kimbrel might be a fit for the Sox, as the Padres turn into sellers.

 
Hm. Braves got a pretty legit-looking starter and got rid of their worst contract as part of the previous trade. But he hasn't had a typical Kimbrel season, so maybe the cost has gone down since then. 

 

[Otis Foster]

I would buy hard on Aroldis Chapman.  He has another year of control and has the stuff to be the long-term relief ace for another 5yrs.  Long after Koji has either retired or finally lost effectiveness.
 
As it stands the bullpen is going to wear out come September.  Put another relief ace in there and it will turn a weakness into a strength.  

 
Well put. 
 
I can't see spending assets elsewhere while the BP hangs by a thread. If Tazawa goes down, they're screwed. Ogando, Ross, etc. don't inspire any confidence. For starters. Porcello is an unknown, and only Buchholz has shown an ability to get deep into a game.
 
They're one and done in the post-season unless they correct that. If they do, they can think about other possibilities. 
 
(I avoid reading MFY box scores when Miller has pitched.)

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

Everyone wants Chapman, the problem is what would you be willing to give up for him?  Devers?  Margot?  I could see the Reds asking for Devers or Margot along with something else.

 

[j44thor]

If you acquire Chapman, assuming you move Uehara to a set up role? Is that a role that he can thrive in (warming quickly, getting up frequently, able to pitch back to back often, entering mid-inning) at his age? 
 
Chapman is a stud, obviously, and the team needs some help in the pen but I don't think they need to spend the resources necessary to get the best guy available. The closer is fine...they just need another good arm.

I would keep Koji as the closer but never use him on back to back days or two out of three days.  Basically treat him with kid gloves the rest of the season to keep him fresh and give Chapman plenty of save opps as well.
 
Yes I would give up a Margot or Devers for Chapman since he is under control for at least another season and gives you a chance at extending him and if not getting compensation for him either via trade next season or when you qualify him and he signs elsewhere.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I also think people trot out the "too many teams" argument too often. If you're six out and not playing well, climbing over a lot of teams is important.

If you're three back, playing well, and still find yourself having four teams to climb over, the number of teams you have to climb over is irrelevant.

 
I think people are still trotting this out because we haven't quite acclimated to the dizzying ascent over the past few weeks. When we were 10 games out and everybody else was clustered within 3-4 games of the top, the number of teams seemed relevant because we would have to be a lot better than several teams the rest of the way. That seemed improbable, and it was. But to a large extent, it has already happened. Since June 20, we've gained 3.5 games on the O's and Yankees, 4.5 on the Jays, and an astounding 9 games on the Rays. Gaining that much ground on four teams in less than three weeks wasn't likely. But unlikely things happen.

 

[Rasputin]

 
I think people are still trotting this out because we haven't quite acclimated to the dizzying ascent over the past few weeks. When we were 10 games out and everybody else was clustered within 3-4 games of the top, the number of teams seemed relevant because we would have to be a lot better than several teams the rest of the way. That seemed improbable, and it was. But to a large extent, it has already happened. Since June 20, we've gained 3.5 games on the O's and Yankees, 4.5 on the Jays, and an astounding 9 games on the Rays. Gaining that much ground on four teams in less than three weeks wasn't likely. But unlikely things happen.

 
I think you're absolutely right.
 
Baseball reference lists a total number of games back a team is behind all the teams ahead of them. The Sox currently stand at 11. At the end of the 7 game losing streak, that number was 30. In the three plus weeks since that losing streak, the Sox have made up almost two thirds of the total games back. That's not something anyone would have predicted, but it happened. We've got 17 more games before the deadline. If we can just gain two or three games on the field--even if we don't move up any spots--then this division is as close to a complete tossup as, well, maybe as any division ever.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

I would keep Koji as the closer but never use him on back to back days or two out of three days.  Basically treat him with kid gloves the rest of the season to keep him fresh and give Chapman plenty of save opps as well.
 
Yes I would give up a Margot or Devers for Chapman since he is under control for at least another season and gives you a chance at extending him and if not getting compensation for him either via trade next season or when you qualify him and he signs elsewhere.

You can upgrade the bullpen without trading for Chapman, though, and without giving up a Margot or a Devers in the process. Why not just go for a guy like Benoit instead?

 

[Rasputin]

Seems like this series is pretty darn important. Sweep and you're suddenly 2.5 out and in the thick of it. Get swept and you're 9 back in the loss column.

Sweep = buy, Swept = sell...in between = wait and see.

 
I don't give a shit about the loss column. It's no more important than the win column.
 
But the overall point is dead on balls accurate. I don't think anyone is really talking about trading before the deadline, but if we were to sweep this series, we'd have to really go in the tank in the other two weeks of games to not be in the position to add. Hell, if we sweep, it's possible we're in second place at the break. It's remarkably unlikely,but the mere fact that it's a hypothetical possibility is pretty astonishing.

 

[CSteinhardt]

I also think people trot out the "too many teams" argument too often. If you're six out and not playing well, climbing over a lot of teams is important.

If you're three back, playing well, and still find yourself having four teams to climb over, the number of teams you have to climb over is irrelevant.

 
It's really not about the number of teams, but rather about projecting how many wins it's going to take to make the playoffs/win the division/etc.
 
For example, you'd clearly rather be 1 game out behind 4 teams tied for first than 5 games out, in second with three teams a game back of you.  The issue with having a bunch of teams in front of you is mainly that you'd expect at least some of them to play well, and depending upon the schedule, if they're all playing each other it's even more likely that will happen.
 
The bottom line is really this: if you're thinking about whether to buy, sell, or hold, you need to ask three questions [I'll include my answers, but maybe this would make a good poll]:
 
1) How will this team end up doing as presently constructed? [84-78]
 
2) What will it take to make the playoffs / win the division? [87 wins for both, I think]
 
3) What would it take to bridge that gap, and how much would it cost? [Trading for an improved 1B, which would cost probably a B level prospect and taking on salary, is worth a couple of wins.  Beyond that, it would seem to get expensive to do much better than calling up talent from AAA.]
 
In that sense, I don't think the upcoming series is much more critical because of the opponent -- it's important mainly because we're right on the cusp of whether buying makes sense.  The difference between sweeping and getting swept is probably about 3 games in our season projection, as it always is, and there are enough teams in the mix that the number of wins to take the division won't change much -- probably I'd still pick 87 if we sweep, while if we get swept maybe that rises to 88?  But we're so close to the line that those few games matter a great deal as far as decision-making.  If you think this is a 82-80 team, and we need to buy our way up to 88 wins, you'd decide it shouldn't be attempted, while if you think this is a 85-77 team you'd buy at least a 1B, and perhaps an extra arm as well.  
 
How does everybody else answer these three questions?

 

[CaptainLaddie]

I would buy hard on Aroldis Chapman.  He has another year of control and has the stuff to be the long-term relief ace for another 5yrs.  Long after Koji has either retired or finally lost effectiveness.
 
As it stands the bullpen is going to wear out come September.  Put another relief ace in there and it will turn a weakness into a strength.  

 

I'd like a handjob from a 1994-era Christie Turlington, but that's not happening either.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Hope I did not jinx Clay by pointing out his durability issues.   In any event, I have to think the diagnosis of his injury will go a long way to determining if the they are buyers or sellers.  Before the injury I felt buying was the way to go.  If its something thats going to keep him out most of the remainder of the year, I (they) might need to rethink that.  

 

[Humphrey]

Hope I did not jinx Clay by pointing out his durability issues.   In any event, I have to think the diagnosis of his injury will go a long way to determining if the they are buyers or sellers.  Before the injury I felt buying was the way to go.  If its something thats going to keep him out most of the remainder of the year, I (they) might need to rethink that.  

You go looking for a starter....one you know is going to be here in 2016.  

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Yes I would give up a Margot or Devers for Chapman since he is under control for at least another season and gives you a chance at extending him and if not getting compensation for him either via trade next season or when you qualify him and he signs elsewhere.

This is insane. The idea of giving up either of these two for a year and a half of relief pitching makes me cringe.

Margot is, with Owens, one of the only two real centerpiece prospects the Sox have to offer who aren't already playing for the Old Towne Team.

Devers is putting up a .300 average in full season A-ball at an age when (if American) he is either just drafted as a high school grad (like Cecchini) or the summer after his freshman year at college.

Just say no. Wait on both.

 

[Rasputin]

I don't really consider Owens a centerpiece prospect. He looks like his ceiling is a mid range starter and he's having trouble mastering the control that's going to let him hit his ceiling. I think there's a decent chance he's a pretty effective reliever for the big club possibly starting as soon as September.
 
Also, if this elbow soreness is more something than nothing, then we can just pack it in, sell off a few spare parts, and make reservations for Fort Myers.

 

[Sampo Gida]

You go looking for a starter....one you know is going to be here in 2016.  

 
Could do that, but the price seems higher at the deadline than in the offseason. 

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

 
And if they went out and got a "proven" ace for the front of the rotation, let's say Hamels for the sake of argument, he comes with a guarantee of good healthy for the remainder of his deal?  Whether the player has a track record or not, injury isn't predictable.  Track record is indicative of nothing.  While not an elite pitcher, the Red Sox acquired Matt Clement following seven straight seasons in which he made 30 starts and had stayed off the disabled list.  15 months into that deal, his career was over due to a shredded shoulder.
 
Point is, they have and can keep Buchholz for reasonable money for the next 2.5 years.  There's nothing wrong with counting him as an asset, and a great asset, to the rotation going forward.

How you feeling about counting Clay as a great asset going forward right now?

 

[MikeM]

How you feeling about counting Clay as a great asset going forward right now?

 
He's still fine as an asset.
 
Borderline silly to even suggest him capable of pitching a full season, and certainly does not negate the need to go top of the rotation shopping....but he is an asset. 

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

 
He's still fine as an asset.
 
Borderline silly to even suggest him capable of pitching a full season, and certainly does not negate the need to go top of the rotation shopping....but he is an asset. 

Yup, he's an asset. Wally is an asset too. So is the 30 yo guy at AA. Definitions and all...

So really the point is whether he's a "great" asset or one you should make any plans around or bank any confidence on. Whether he lends to the rotation being "golden" next year or not. Which was the context of the discussion.

My argument is that he is not. Tonight's development was a prime example of the roots of my doubt. Not only does his injury status raise doubt about his value this year and next year if it's TJ, but it also now puts them in a bind on whether to buy, sell or stand pat. Spending assets to replace him gets them back to where they were yesterday. And yesterday we were debating how many assets should be spent. Now double it.

I'm sure many will disagree, but I think that just sealed the deal for me. Don't spend anything. Ride it out and hope for he best, but keep your chips and don't touch a top 20 in the org trying to salvage this. At the very least never rely on Clay Buchholz for anything and don't make plans based on him being good for 180+ innings. Ever.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Yup, he's an asset. Wally is an asset too. So is the 30 yo guy at AA. Definitions and all...

So really the point is whether he's a "great" asset or one you should make any plans around or bank any confidence on. Whether he lends to the rotation being "golden" next year or not. Which was the context of the discussion.

My argument is that he is not. Tonight's development was a prime example of the roots of my doubt. Not only does his injury status raise doubt about his value this year and next year if it's TJ, but it also now puts them in a bind on whether to buy, sell or stand pat. Spending assets to replace him gets them back to where they were yesterday. And yesterday we were debating how many assets should be spent. Now double it.

I'm sure many will disagree, but I think that just sealed the deal for me. Don't spend anything. Ride it out and hope for he best, but keep your chips and don't touch a top 20 in the org trying to salvage this. At the very least never rely on Clay Buchholz for anything and don't make plans based on him being good for 180+ innings. Ever.

 
On the bright side; if Clay is shut down for the year, there'll be no excuse to keep Sandy Leon on the roster. :q:

 

[benhogan]

If we win the next two games and Clay is fine, we should be BUYERS.
 
BUT if Clay is out for a month or more OR we lose the next two games, we should be aggressive SELLERS
 
With so many teams in the mix now its not a bad time to be selling off assets and giving Brian Johnson a shot and eventually Owens or Wright some starts down the road.
 
Try to fix Porcello, Kelly with an eye towards next season.
 
Deal Miley, with his recent improvement, maybe he fetches something useful.
 
Make Masterson a RH relief specialist, while trying to unload him, Breslow, Napoli, Victorino (on a subsidized basis) to any team that will take them.
 
Get Castillo back up here and see what we have.  Maybe see if Craig has any chance of being a Major League hitter again.  Give JBJ another look.
 
Heck if we are out of it (Clay has TJ & Yanks sweep) get Hanley a 1B glove and have him start taking grounders there. Let Butter work his magic.
 
Win or lose,  there is actually a lot of moving parts to watch for.

 

[grimshaw]

I'd like to throw Scott Van Slyke out there as a stop gap at 1B and platoon mate for Papi.  Dude mashes lefties, and can also play all three OF spots.  The Dodgers have a logjam with Crawford coming back (most likely before the break), as well as trying to find at bats for Guerrero with Turner taking over at 3B.

i don't think it would take a ton to fetch him.

 

[Manramsclan]

 
I listened to Olney this morning and he and Bob Nightengale were also saying Kimbrel might be a fit for the Sox, as the Padres turn into sellers.

 
 
Interestingly, Olney, Karl Ravech and Justin Havens (A Baseball Tonight producer) were all in agreement that the Red Sox should be buyers with Havens adding "They are the most talented team in the AL East." I was surprised to hear this unanimous positive outlook especially since Buster has been all over the place with his assessment of the Sox.  
 
Even in the rosiest of scenarios, I see no benefit to dealing the depth of the farm for anyone other than a Sonny Gray or Chris Sale neither of whom are likely to be available.  This team is a hold.  See if they can right the ship with what they have, assess during the offseason when some money comes off the books (Victorino, Nap) and get ready to jump in that FA starter market.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

Interestingly, Olney, Karl Ravech and Justin Havens (A Baseball Tonight producer) were all in agreement that the Red Sox should be buyers with Havens adding "They are the most talented team in the AL East." I was surprised to hear this unanimous positive outlook especially since Buster has been all over the place with his assessment of the Sox.  
 
Even in the rosiest of scenarios, I see no benefit to dealing the depth of the farm for anyone other than a Sonny Gray or Chris Sale neither of whom are likely to be available.  This team is a hold.  See if they can right the ship with what they have, assess during the offseason when some money comes off the books (Victorino, Nap) and get ready to jump in that FA starter market.
 

 
Interesting.  The Red Sox are the most talented AL East team from the vantage point of organizational depth (and maybe that is what they meant?).  They don't have the most talented 25-man roster, however.  As much as I hate to admit it, the Yankees have a few things going on, two excellent players at the top of the order, they are getting big years out of Teix and A-Rod, and they have better starting pitching and bullpen than the Red Sox (although, I don't like the Yankees starting staff either).  The Yankees might want to give up a prospect this year for a top trade market SP and attempt a deep run in October.
 
I agree with you regarding the Red Sox's strategy: it doesn't make sense to trade a top prospect for a SP upgrade who probably won't make a difference in a small two month window.  The Red Sox are better off keeping their prospects and building a better pitching staff in the off-season.  Gray and Sale would be exceptions to that, but aren't likely to be available.

 

[jscola85]

I'd be a buyer for for pieces that can help the team beyond just this year.  For example, if the opportunity arises to acquire a starting pitcher like Tyson Ross or Sonny Gray, you do it - they can help the team now but are controllable players at a position (starting pitcher) that the team needs help with even in the long run.  Same goes for 1B - there's no prospect knocking on the door at that position, so if an interesting piece can be acquired to help now and in the future, the team should pursue them.

 

[NDame616]

I think we need to cool the Gray/Sale pipe dream. Not only would they never be available, but the conversations probably start with 2 of 3 of the group Xander/Betts/Edro.

Of course we would want Sale or Gray if the price is right and if they're on the market. I'd also be interested in Harper and Trout.

 

[GaryPeters71]

 
The Padres' Tyson Ross fits the mold of a young (28) and rising starting pitcher the team can control long-term. Pitched 195 innings last year and on pace for around 200 this year. 110 Ks in 100 innings to-date this season.
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rossty01.shtml

 

[DanoooME]

And 4.5 BB/9.  Unless I could get him cheap, I'd pass.  His HR rate is ridiculously low this season as well (0.2 HR/9 vs. career 0.6 in tough hitters' parks).

 

[Manramsclan]

I think we need to cool the Gray/Sale pipe dream. Not only would they never be available, but the conversations probably start with 2 of 3 of the group Xander/Betts/Edro.

Of course we would want Sale or Gray if the price is right and if they're on the market. I'd also be interested in Harper and Trout.

 
That was the whole point of both posts: they aren't available. 
 
Spending depth for a marginal upgrade doesn't make sense for this team as currently constructed.

 

[jscola85]

And 4.5 BB/9.  Unless I could get him cheap, I'd pass.  His HR rate is ridiculously low this season as well (0.2 HR/9 vs. career 0.6 in tough hitters' parks).

 
His road FIP for his career is 3.58, which is pretty darn good.  Maybe not elite but equivalent to a James Shields type.  I'd be totally happy to acquire a 28 year old, controllable pitcher with a mid-3's ERA/FIP who can reliably toss 200 innings a year.

EDIT - also, part of his low HR/9 is his great GB%.  He's at 56% for his career (not shabby) but is at an elite 63% this season.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
Other than Ruben Amaro, who are these "dumb GMs?" It isn't 2005 anymore.

 
I think I take this remark back. AJ Preller might be a dumb GM.

 

[jscola85]

Well, if the Padres need to do a firesale, there's definitely some interesting pieces on that team still.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

Spending depth for a marginal upgrade doesn't make sense for this team as currently constructed.
 

 
Nor does it make sense for the Red Sox to trade a top prospect for a rental, e.g., Cueto.  But it does make sense for teams like the Royals, Yankees, Pirates, and Cubs to do that.