Quote from Brian Connelly on November 15, 2020, 10:31 am

To me Tirso Ornelas is the "bubble" do you or don't you guy, but could also be other/s that did well in the Instructional League.  He's nowhere near ready but system lacks his corner OF bat profile @ upper levels.  All 3 guys + Anderson Espinoza would be 40-man "roster cloggers"; not ideal on a World Series contender... think how LAD are ALWAYS shuttling guys up/down as depth over full season.

BUT Pads might protect more than we think with at least some bad teams more likely than normal to employ Pads methods of 4-5 years ago of multiple picks to build out a cheap bad roster but increase their talent base.   I'd be very surprised if we don't lose at least one player to Rule 5.  "The circle is now complete"..."

Quote from fenn68 on November 15, 2020, 11:15 am

There is one approach a lot of teams employ on releasing players .... don’t unless you have to! Maybe due to a cost avoidance (option date, non-tender date), maybe to make roster room for Rule 5 protection, signing a FA, roster add from a trade .... but since keeping names on the roster during the winter is not costing anything ... no hurry.

Just having them “available” is some minor insurance from another player getting an off-season injury, a player to potentially serve as the “last player” in a multi-player deal, etc ... an empty roster slot has no value when the team can create that spot as soon as needed.

I guess the exceptions may be for a player they really don’t want (off field issues?) or a veteran player they don’t see a future but freeing them allow them to seek new employment in the off-season (rare).

Quote from fenn68 on November 15, 2020, 11:27 am

On non-tenders, as I understand it, the player becomes an immediate FA and can sign with any team ... at any contract amount without reference to any arbitration considerations. So, if non-tendered, a player like Pham can sign with a team for $1MM if that is the best offer for 2021. (Note that Padres could only offer him a contract at ... I think ... at 80% of 2020 ... about $6.5MM ... which he would reject and go to arbitration and settle at his number). FA after 2021 ... so that is that.

Slightly different for players with more than one remaining control year (e.g. Perdomo) ... still a FA that can sign for any amount without regard to arbitration considerations BUT next winter while still under the 6 year control rules goes back into arbitration (unless signed a mult-year deal).

Think I have that right ... basically clears the path for the non-tendered player to get signed by someone on the best contract (free market bidding).

Quote from fenn68 on November 15, 2020, 12:09 pm

Preller has to do a lot of forecasting in structuring the roster at each stage. Wonder how much he includes the probably that at least two of the RP without options will be DFA after ST? Does he do a “pre-emptive” strike and DFA them early (e.g. Guerra or Williams) while preserving players with minor league options and potentially thinking at this point claiming fringe players without options is less likely that claiming a player with options. He does have a lot more flexibility with all the pitching options in house.

Might not be the same for the limited position players without options ... Allen, Garcia, or Mateo. Probably have to be sure a 26 man roster replacement is in place.

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on November 16, 2020, 8:03 am

With all the RP's, part of the reason is it's a near certainty someone gets injured like last year (Wingenter & J. Castillo).   So instead of being forced to make a trade to backfill (Tim Hill) you already have the depth.  If you trade a guy out this early, diminishes the depth, and no way to predict who ends up on IL when.

Guerra is kind of a special case.  Elite upside, but far from it presently & forced to figure it out in MLB with no options.   He's really a better fit on a non-contender where he can pitch in higher leverage situations sometimes & consistently work; not as the "last guy in pen" working sporadically on a good Padres team.

Have to believe 2 years of minimum $ control, 5 total with his obvious upside gives him SOME trade value; a decent top 30 prospect.

Quote from Brian Connelly on November 16, 2020, 8:15 am

Quote from fenn68 on November 15, 2020, 11:15 am

There is one approach a lot of teams employ on releasing players .... don’t unless you have to! Maybe due to a cost avoidance (option date, non-tender date), maybe to make roster room for Rule 5 protection, signing a FA, roster add from a trade .... but since keeping names on the roster during the winter is not costing anything ... no hurry.

Just having them “available” is some minor insurance from another player getting an off-season injury, a player to potentially serve as the “last player” in a multi-player deal, etc ... an empty roster slot has no value when the team can create that spot as soon as needed.

I guess the exceptions may be for a player they really don’t want (off field issues?) or a veteran player they don’t see a future but freeing them allow them to seek new employment in the off-season (rare).

You're right, and this is always true in season, even when everyone knows who will get DFA next (ex. Abraham Almonte end of season).    But say Padres only plan to protect 2 prospects.  They don't HAVE to non-tender anyone they 100% plan to until 12/3.  But wouldn't it be more strategic to do so BEFORE the Rule 5 draft?  Only talking about the 100% certainty guys (Perdomo, Wingenter).

Why "telegraph" to the league that you're only going to protect 2 (at most) guys.  I get it's not the most "actionable" information ever since every other team is working with the same roster deadlines, but at least creates some speculation as to how many will be vs. "well, I guess it's only..."

I guess my overriding point is we're talking about a 12 day difference in when to make an inevitable move/s with injured players who will be out all of 2021.  Don't see the point/value in waiting.  Guys who are $ decisions are a different story; FA could sign, league could decide about DH in NL, etc.  I.e. something "could develop" that alters teams plans in that time.

Quote from fenn68 on November 16, 2020, 9:07 am

Quote from Brian Connelly on November 16, 2020, 8:03 am

With all the RP's, part of the reason is it's a near certainty someone gets injured like last year (Wingenter & J. Castillo).   So instead of being forced to make a trade to backfill (Tim Hill) you already have the depth.  If you trade a guy out this early, diminishes the depth, and no way to predict who ends up on IL when.

Guerra is kind of a special case.  Elite upside, but far from it presently & forced to figure it out in MLB with no options.   He's really a better fit on a non-contender where he can pitch in higher leverage situations sometimes & consistently work; not as the "last guy in pen" working sporadically on a good Padres team.

Have to believe 2 years of minimum $ control, 5 total with his obvious upside gives him SOME trade value; a decent top 30 prospect.

Doubt Guerra has any trade value ... with no minor league options .... very poor ML showing ... and very worrisome "undisclosed" reason for the IL.

Unless some team that had scouts seeing him in the minors (and saw something) with 40 man roster space for him wanted to claim him off waivers with the real idea THEY could get him through waivers in the spring and retain his rights .... good chance if the Padres put him on waivers he would clear. Yeh, he throws 100MPH ... but does not almost everyone these days?

IF the Padres want to retain him (actually not sure with the IL departure) .... a well timed DFA would be called for. Arguably that would be after ST when all teams are cutting down to the 26 and may not be as eager to take that "look - see" and bumping someone they have worked with all spring.

Quote from fenn68 on November 16, 2020, 9:39 am

Have to start with who the Padres want to protect and make room for that number. Then layer in IF they even want to  select in the Rule 5 .... probably after seeing the unprotected player lists from other teams. IF they see a potential selection that interests them ... they can DFA someone anytime up to the Draft to make room for a selection. Can"t protect more after Friday but always can delete as needed.

The non-tender date sitting in-between is maybe harder one to judge as to IF any of the current 40 man get non-tendered. The "cost to retain" Garcia, Perdomo, or Wingenter is not all that much in the big picture but as of now there is no replacement for Garcia as the LHH PH ... and Perdomo / Wingenter have longer control where a rebound for TJ still could have value for the team or in a trade (they made the roster because they had some desirable skills).

As it stands, some teams have more open spots than SD ... until Friday when the protected group is added no idea the open spots for Rule 5 selections and the new slots that will open before Dec 10. Teams have to make their protection calls based on how the view the probability of the player getting selected expecting that enough vacant slots across MLB will exist. SD having an "extra" open spot now will not change other teams strategy on players protected.

Preller is also likely working the trade phones (either adding or deleting) before the non-tender date ... that may factor in.

Roll all these together and as usual it is a money call (vs player future value) ... zero value in an empty roster slot, so the call is really the cost of the body filling it being more than they value the asset or less than the replacement if equal value.

 

Quote from MrPadre19 on November 17, 2020, 7:47 am

No one(I don't think) has mentioned the option of extending Davies.

Considering our current situation(Clevinger/Lamet) why not?

Davies is a solid #3 and not a likely TJ candidate.

IMO that is just as valuable as an injury risk Starter with better "stuff".

With availability being on the best abilities I would think if he has another good start to 2021 this should be considered.

Unless they are 100% confident in Gaore/Patino/Morejon for 2022.