Quote from Henry Silvestre on January 1, 2020, 10:35 am

Quote from fenn68 on January 1, 2020, 9:32 am

Always nice when a national media type has something positive to say about the Padres' future. In this case Anthony Castrovince who writes for MLB.com and appears on MLB Network ... out of Cleveland as I recall. Two items in his "predictions" for 2020:

1. one of his breakout candidates is ... Lamet! Great to see someone outside of SD who actually knows who Lamet is AND thinks he is good.
2. (I like this one) ... Padres fail to get the 2nd Wild card because of a 3 way tie breaker with the Brewers and Phillies (Phillies get the spot). Just someone thinking the Padres will be in a tiebreaker scenario at the end of the season is a ray of hope.

Right or wrong ... just a national type being positive about the Padres is sort of a win.

is there such thing as a tie breaker or would there be a #163 game or #164 in case of a tie?

 

Quote from Henry Silvestre on January 1, 2020, 10:38 am

Quote from Henry Silvestre on January 1, 2020, 10:35 am

Quote from fenn68 on January 1, 2020, 9:32 am

Always nice when a national media type has something positive to say about the Padres' future. In this case Anthony Castrovince who writes for MLB.com and appears on MLB Network ... out of Cleveland as I recall. Two items in his "predictions" for 2020:

1. one of his breakout candidates is ... Lamet! Great to see someone outside of SD who actually knows who Lamet is AND thinks he is good.
2. (I like this one) ... Padres fail to get the 2nd Wild card because of a 3 way tie breaker with the Brewers and Phillies (Phillies get the spot). Just someone thinking the Padres will be in a tiebreaker scenario at the end of the season is a ray of hope.

Right or wrong ... just a national type being positive about the Padres is sort of a win.

is there such thing as a tie breaker or would there be a #163 game or #164 in case of a tie?

 

like when we played the Rockies,,, ouch!

Quote from Henry Silvestre on January 1, 2020, 10:41 am

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 31, 2019, 10:28 am

Several people have commented about not relying on Lamet and Richards for full seasons this year. We can’t. They are both in their first year back from Tommy John. They should be on innings restrictions like Paddack was last year. Fortunately, we have Patino and Gore who should be ready to make their ML debuts later in the year.

Last sentence is true... but they are also going to be strictly limited to around 150 IP... 4 of our top 5 ultimate potential SP are innings limited in 2020.  Next best Morejon might be limited to 100.  It's the next group of guys = "BOR" where there's no innings limitations....

Morejon and 100 innings isan oximoron,,, LOL,,,, He cant even pitch 70... I know he is a very talented young man, but if there is someone I would include in almost every trade proposal for an upgrade it would be MOREJON

Quote from Henry Silvestre on January 1, 2020, 10:45 am

Just realized the TRADE market has been very quiet this offseason-- Padres (Pham trade and Profar trade) and Whitesox (MAzara trade) have been like the 3 notable trades made this offseason-- I expect action to pick up a lot over the next 2 weeks as P options have dried up in FA-- and position FA are very meh...

Quote from fenn68 on January 1, 2020, 11:23 am

Quote from Henry Silvestre on January 1, 2020, 10:45 am

Just realized the TRADE market has been very quiet this offseason-- Padres (Pham trade and Profar trade) and Whitesox (MAzara trade) have been like the 3 notable trades made this offseason-- I expect action to pick up a lot over the next 2 weeks as P options have dried up in FA-- and position FA are very meh...

All the focus has been on signing the big time FA in contrast to the prior two winters when FA signings just lagged. A lot of payroll space has already been eaten up.

Going forward .... we will see. Sellers (if they don’t have to trade a player) likely now will make the ask much higher. Buyers (if they are at all reasonably comfortable with their rosters vs their top contenders for the playoffs) may not be all the eager to “over pay”.

At this point real buyers of established talent are legit contenders and real sellers (if any) are probably not thinking of contending this year ... unless Boston and the Cubs hold to their reported desire to drop payroll.

Teams could wait to see what they have in ST first ... maybe wait until the trade deadline before taking the next move. Given the shortage of real quality SP and the high value on prospects these days ... could see a stalemate between buyers and sellers.

Quote from fenn68 on January 1, 2020, 11:32 am

Quote from Henry Silvestre on January 1, 2020, 10:35 am

Quote from fenn68 on January 1, 2020, 9:32 am

Always nice when a national media type has something positive to say about the Padres' future. In this case Anthony Castrovince who writes for MLB.com and appears on MLB Network ... out of Cleveland as I recall. Two items in his "predictions" for 2020:

1. one of his breakout candidates is ... Lamet! Great to see someone outside of SD who actually knows who Lamet is AND thinks he is good.
2. (I like this one) ... Padres fail to get the 2nd Wild card because of a 3 way tie breaker with the Brewers and Phillies (Phillies get the spot). Just someone thinking the Padres will be in a tiebreaker scenario at the end of the season is a ray of hope.

Right or wrong ... just a national type being positive about the Padres is sort of a win.

is there such thing as a tie breaker or would there be a #163 game or #164 in case of a tie?

 

Not sure how they would handle a 3-way tie. 2-way was easy ... just play one game play in. Not sure there is the time (given TV scheduling) for team 1 to play both team 2 and 3 plus team 2 playing team 3 .... that is 3 additional games and still could end up with all 3 teams at 1-1 .. still requiring a tie-breaker methodology.

MLB probably has thought through this ... and hopefully they have “fair” tie break criteria based on winning games vs. some abstract analytics (like run differential).

Quote from 3fingersplit on January 1, 2020, 12:09 pm

Tie Breaker is very simple...3 teams

each team draws a designation....A,B or C

A and B play...winner gets a WC spot

C plays host to loser of A and B....winner gets WC spot

 

2 Teams....play in game

MLB also has criteria ....best record in division if not division winner, Head to Head, Common Opponent

Over the course of 162 games it becomes very easy to determine a tie breaker

Quote from fenn68 on January 1, 2020, 12:51 pm

Quote from 3fingersplit on January 1, 2020, 12:09 pm

Tie Breaker is very simple...3 teams

each team draws a designation....A,B or C

A and B play...winner gets a WC spot

C plays host to loser of A and B....winner gets WC spot

 

2 Teams....play in game

MLB also has criteria ....best record in division if not division winner, Head to Head, Common Opponent

Over the course of 162 games it becomes very easy to determine a tie breaker

That 3 team tie assumes tie for both WC slots but if WC slot #1 is won outright ... then 3 teams for only the final 1 WC slot requires a different approach  ... that was scenario for Castrovince.

I can see that criteria working to get 1 out of three and just avoid the play in game.

Quote from MrPadre19 on January 3, 2020, 12:16 pm

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/01/oscar-colas-to-seek-mlb-deal.html

 

Well,we've got another player to dream about.

Another Ohtani?