Quote from LynchMob on February 15, 2021, 10:48 am

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/padres/story/2021-02-12/padres-non-roster-invitees-spring-training

The Padres’ 33 nonroster invitees

• RHP (15): Pedro Avila, Nick Burdi, Nabil Crismatt, Miguel Diaz, Mason Fox, Chase Johnson, Reiss Knehr, Justin Lange, Parker Markel, Evan Miller, Jacob Nix, Aaron Northcraft, Jacob Rhame, Dauris Valdez, Steven Wilson.
• LHP (8): Daniel Camarena, Ethan Elliott, Brady Feigl, MacKenzie Gore, Jagger Haynes, Aaron Leasher, Nick Ramirez, James Reeves.
• C (2): Juan Fernandez, Webster Rivas.
• INF (6): CJ Abrams, Ivan Castillo, Pedro Florimon, Gosuke Katoh, Eguy Rosario, Nick Tanielu.
• OF (2): Robert Hassell III, Joshua Mears.

Quote from MrPadre19 on February 15, 2021, 1:40 pm

Quote from Brian Connelly on February 11, 2021, 8:53 am

I just don't see how more playoff spots to have a shot at would mean less spending to try and get them.

The thought is that a team likely to make playoffs anyway doesn't have as much motivation to add that "1 more guy" to put them "over the top".  If likely to get in, easier to justify standing pat financially, since spending more $ just results in the same outcome as spending less.

Not saying I agree with that logic, but that's the argument..

But the Teams on the verge of making the Playoffs will..... and adding 2 more spots would likely add 4-5 more teams who may have a shot at those two additional spots.

 

Quote from BoosterSD on February 15, 2021, 2:23 pm

Quote from MrPadre19 on February 15, 2021, 1:40 pm

Quote from Brian Connelly on February 11, 2021, 8:53 am

I just don't see how more playoff spots to have a shot at would mean less spending to try and get them.

The thought is that a team likely to make playoffs anyway doesn't have as much motivation to add that "1 more guy" to put them "over the top".  If likely to get in, easier to justify standing pat financially, since spending more $ just results in the same outcome as spending less.

Not saying I agree with that logic, but that's the argument..

But the Teams on the verge of making the Playoffs will..... and adding 2 more spots would likely add 4-5 more teams who may have a shot at those two additional spots.

 

Perfect example has to be AZ. According to Steve Phillips and CJ Nitkowski, they both think that AZ has the outside chance of making the playoffs, as the 2nd wild card team. However, they would be competing with the Mets, SF, and the 2nd and 3rd place team from the NL Central to get a one game playoff against SD, in SD, against Darvish, Snell, or Lamet??? Why would you add extra monies for that situation? Its basically a no win scenario.

However, if there 3 wild card teams, and its a 3 game set, you could see teams like AZ adding some additional monies, because the odds are better in a 3 game versus a 1 game play in. And then being in the 2nd round, in a 5 game series.

The MLBPA is way off base in their perception on this issue. Just proves that IMO, Tony Clark is way over his head in this position.

Quote from fenn68 on February 15, 2021, 2:48 pm

Quote from BoosterSD on February 15, 2021, 2:23 pm

Quote from MrPadre19 on February 15, 2021, 1:40 pm

Quote from Brian Connelly on February 11, 2021, 8:53 am

I just don't see how more playoff spots to have a shot at would mean less spending to try and get them.

The thought is that a team likely to make playoffs anyway doesn't have as much motivation to add that "1 more guy" to put them "over the top".  If likely to get in, easier to justify standing pat financially, since spending more $ just results in the same outcome as spending less.

Not saying I agree with that logic, but that's the argument..

But the Teams on the verge of making the Playoffs will..... and adding 2 more spots would likely add 4-5 more teams who may have a shot at those two additional spots.

 

Perfect example has to be AZ. According to Steve Phillips and CJ Nitkowski, they both think that AZ has the outside chance of making the playoffs, as the 2nd wild card team. However, they would be competing with the Mets, SF, and the 2nd and 3rd place team from the NL Central to get a one game playoff against SD, in SD, against Darvish, Snell, or Lamet??? Why would you add extra monies for that situation? Its basically a no win scenario.

However, if there 3 wild card teams, and its a 3 game set, you could see teams like AZ adding some additional monies, because the odds are better in a 3 game versus a 1 game play in. And then being in the 2nd round, in a 5 game series.

The MLBPA is way off base in their perception on this issue. Just proves that IMO, Tony Clark is way over his head in this position.

Somewhat academic for 2021 ... not that many "game changer" FA still on the market for those on the bubble teams and the bodies that are FA will not command big bucks ... so not much incremental money in the aggregate.

Trades do nothing except change the same money from team A to team B ... and depending who is bumped from team B and how team A replaces the player ... actually the aggregate could remain the same.

The vast majority of new economic value (money) from 2021 expanded playoffs accrues to the owners ... stemming from TV that flows to them.

Yes, players get a bit more ... but a bit like Marie Antonette saying let the peasants eat bread while she is dining on pheasant at the royal court. Albeit rich peasants in this case but still the workers demanding a "fair share" for the labors. REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CBA negotiation this winter and the "fair share" demand will be front and center.

Owners will want an expanded playoff ... union will agree IF they get a share of the TV revenues (or economic equivalent in some other concession) ... e.g. arbitration after 2 years (v 3 years) or FA after 5 years (v 6 years) or major increase in league minimum salaries or payroll floor / no luxury tax or ....... all of the above and more.

Basically both sides turn every issue into a money value and do negotiated trade offs until both sides believe the win in the aggregate.

Quote from MrPadre19 on February 19, 2021, 12:08 pm

This is a good read....by Snell.

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/posts/blake-snell-baseball-mlb-tampa-bay-san-diego-padres

 

Quote from LynchMob on February 20, 2021, 9:16 am

https://www.mlb.com/padres/news/padres-2021-spring-training-faq

What's the projected Opening Day lineup?
Let's say the D-backs go with righty Zac Gallen over lefty Madison Bumgarner. Here's what the Padres’ lineup might look like:

1. Trent Grisham, CF
2. Fernando Tatis Jr., SS
3. Manny Machado, 3B
4. Eric Hosmer, 1B
5. Wil Myers, RF
6. Tommy Pham, LF
7. Jake Cronenworth, 2B
8. Austin Nola, C
9. Dinelson Lamet, P

What's the projected Opening Day rotation?

1. Dinelson Lamet
2. Yu Darvish
3. Blake Snell
4. Joe Musgrove
5. Chris Paddack

That's with the caveat that it's very possible the Padres open the season with a six-man staff to alleviate the workload on those five starters. In building back up to a 162-game season, some in the organization feel an early-season six-man rotation might be prudent.

In that case, lefty Adrian Morejon could slot into the No. 6 spot with the expectation that he'd go four or five innings, before handing the ball over to the bullpen.

Quote from fenn68 on February 20, 2021, 10:28 am

SP sequence may be up for strategic juggling IF:

1. Padres are confident in at least making the Wild Card (but it is a one game play in)
2. Winning the NL West gets them into the payoffs but avoids a one game elimination game
3. LAD are the NL West threat to take the NL West
4. Padres play the LAD: April 16-17-18 and April 22-23-24-25 .... that is 7 of the 19 match-ups for the season and critical in position against the LAD ... lose to LA and going hard to dig out of the Wild Card slot.

With that backdrop ... should the Padres sequence their SP rotation to insure that Lamet, Darvish, and Snell make 6 of those 7 starts? Between those two series is MILW (played in SD) and prior to the first series are home with AZ and SF then on the road vs TEX and PITT ... all those should be winnable with use of any of the SP.

Quote from MrPadre19 on February 20, 2021, 2:40 pm

Am I the only one who thinks with this stacked lineup Hosmer has no business hitting 4th?

Even against RH?

He sure seems like a 6th hitter in this line up.

I know everyone wants Tatis hitting 2nd but I think he should hit 3rd.

Grisham

Pham

Tatis

Machado

Myers

Hosmer against RH

With Nola 6th and Hosmer 7th against LH or Hoz resting against LH.
Probably won’t happen but having Grish and Pham and their On Base abilities ahead of FTJ and MM sure seems like the best way to score more runs to me.

 

Quote from fenn68 on February 20, 2021, 5:24 pm

Quote from MrPadre19 on February 20, 2021, 2:40 pm

Am I the only one who thinks with this stacked lineup Hosmer has no business hitting 4th?

Even against RH?

He sure seems like a 6th hitter in this line up.

I know everyone wants Tatis hitting 2nd but I think he should hit 3rd.

Grisham

Pham

Tatis

Machado

Myers

Hosmer against RH

With Nola 6th and Hosmer 7th against LH or Hoz resting against LH.
Probably won’t happen but having Grish and Pham and their On Base abilities ahead of FTJ and MM sure seems like the best way to score more runs to me.

 

Well Hosmer has the rep of being a good RBI man against RHP and combined that with the current thinking that separating LHH with two RHH effectively blunts the effectiveness LHRP ... who now have to pitch to three batters.

Against RHP that line-up makes sense ... Grisham leading off will get better pitches with  Tatis and Machado behind him (and he has a good eye). If they choose to walk Hosmer (or use a LHRP) they have to worry about Pham then Myers. Then go left with Cronenworth and right with Nola (or left with Caratini and right with Kim). The other option is flip Tatis and Grisham (#1/#2), Pham and Hosmer (#4/#5), and Nola and Cronenworth (#7/#8) ... still keeping the two RHH splits.

Would guess vs LHP we see Hosmer down to 5th and Grisham to 8th with Kim inserted depending on how he shows. Could go with Kim to lead-off and Pham to #4.

I think the other debate is whether they want Tatis leading off ... a mega disruptor on the base paths who can hit the HR to change the game in the 1st .... or go with Grisham who is good at working the count ... get on base ... and set up better pitches to Tatis for RBI potential.