Nick Pivetta available - 3 years $13M AAV remaining

[ecleme22]

Since we need starter innings - He seems like a much better option than Mikolas, and the savings from Gray more than covers the AAV for 26, and the contract extends thru 28, so it still covers the years we need to fully compete in.

That's 3 boxes it would check. What would he cost in trade?

Please check your math, per baseball refer. It's close to $18 mill AAV



Year Age Tm Salary SrvTm Sources Notes/Other Sources

2026 33 San Diego Padres $19,750,000 7.166
2027 34 San Diego Padres $14,750,000 Pivetta may opt out of contract after 2026 World Series
2028 35 San Diego Padres $18,750,000 Pivetta may opt out of contract after 2027 World Series

Although that's NOT the final numbers. Per Cots it's much more complicated with the end result depending on his health
Nick Pivetta rhp
4 years/$55M (2025-28)

4 years/$55M (2025-28)
signed by San Diego as a free agent 2/12/25
$3M signing bonus
25:$1M, 26:$19M, 27:$14M player option, 28:$18M player option (if Pivatta exercises his 2027 player option)
2027 conditional club option: if, at an point in 2025 or 2026, Pivetta has a specified injury or related surgery and spends 130 or more consecutive days on the injured list in any season or one-year period, San Diego will have a $14M club option for 2027 (if Padres have the 2027 option but decline, Pivetta becomes a free agent)
2029 conditional club option: if, between July 1, 2026 and the end of the 2028 season, Pivetta has the specified injury or related surgery and spend 130 or more consecutive days on the injured list in any season or one-year period, San Diego will have a $5M club option for 2029

Ah so that's very complicated. Back end loaded like Gray's was, meaning SD might be willing to send cash. But even if not, he doesn't cost any more than we are saving on Mikolas.

I'd still be careful of sending prospects BUT, sometimes in a trade the receiving team can get a player to waive their opt-out, which would change the LT value by a lot.

You said: "BUT, sometimes in a trade the receiving team can get a player to waive their opt-out, which would change the LT value by a lot."

Okay, why would Pivetta do that? Please tell me why he would forgo control of his contract?

[hugeCardfan]

Since we need starter innings - He seems like a much better option than Mikolas, and the savings from Gray more than covers the AAV for 26, and the contract extends thru 28, so it still covers the years we need to fully compete in.

That's 3 boxes it would check. What would he cost in trade?

Bad idea.

1. It will cost you prospects.
2. NP can opt out after next year. (The Cards have no business trading prospects for one year rentals...)
3. NP isn't cheap.

No moves should be made right now to acquire short-term vets for prospects.

What if he cost Noot? SD wants to dump salary too, and we are starting out WAY WAY lower right now.

Why don't you pretend I'm the Padres GM. I have Nick Pivetta who placed 6th in Cy Young last year. Tell me why I want Lars Nootbaar instead? I'm in salary dump mode, I don't want your arb-eligible injury-prone outfielder... I want Josh Baez!!

LMAO.... Josh Baez quality prospect for one year guaranteed of Piveta. Good for a 2 second chuckle.

[CorneliusWolfe]

Pivetta has player opt outs after each of the next two seasons.

Due $20.5 million in 2026, $14 million in 2027, and $18 million in 2028.

If he has another good year, he definitely opts out after 2026.

I’m proud of you MM…you presented a good sensible reason why this move shouldn’t be considered instead of pushing the old hopeless tank narrative.

[mattmitchl44]

Pivetta has player opt outs after each of the next two seasons.

Due $20.5 million in 2026, $14 million in 2027, and $18 million in 2028.

If he has another good year, he definitely opts out after 2026.

I’m proud of you MM…you presented a good sensible reason why this move shouldn’t be considered instead of pushing the old hopeless tank narrative.

Now that they got the 13th pick in the 2026 draft, losing more games in 2026 for the 2027 draft may be profitable.

[ScotchMIrish]

He would be our opening day starter. The question is whether this is a rebuild or not. He is 32.

Donovan and Arenado for Pivetta and San Diego takes Arenado's contract? Maybe they throw in a prospect?

[CorneliusWolfe]

Pivetta has player opt outs after each of the next two seasons.

Due $20.5 million in 2026, $14 million in 2027, and $18 million in 2028.

If he has another good year, he definitely opts out after 2026.

I’m proud of you MM…you presented a good sensible reason why this move shouldn’t be considered instead of pushing the old hopeless tank narrative.

Now that they got the 13th pick in the 2026 draft, losing more games in 2026 for the 2027 draft may be profitable.

There he is. Lol

[rbirules]

He would be our opening day starter. The question is whether this is a rebuild or not. He is 32.

Donovan and Arenado for Pivetta and San Diego takes Arenado's contract? Maybe they throw in a prospect?

San Diego is considering moving him because they are trying to cut payroll. Taking a large contract back goes against that directive.

[ScotchMIrish]

He would be our opening day starter. The question is whether this is a rebuild or not. He is 32.

Donovan and Arenado for Pivetta and San Diego takes Arenado's contract? Maybe they throw in a prospect?

San Diego is considering moving him because they are trying to cut payroll. Taking a large contract back goes against that directive.

That's not happening then. Move along. Nothing to see here.

[ecleme22]

He would be our opening day starter. The question is whether this is a rebuild or not. He is 32.

Donovan and Arenado for Pivetta and San Diego takes Arenado's contract? Maybe they throw in a prospect?

San Diego is considering moving him because they are trying to cut payroll. Taking a large contract back goes against that directive.

That's not happening then. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Also, Bloom isn't interested in packaging NA with BD, thus decreasing the prospect return.

[mattmitchl44]

Pivetta has player opt outs after each of the next two seasons.

Due $20.5 million in 2026, $14 million in 2027, and $18 million in 2028.

If he has another good year, he definitely opts out after 2026.

I’m proud of you MM…you presented a good sensible reason why this move shouldn’t be considered instead of pushing the old hopeless tank narrative.

Now that they got the 13th pick in the 2026 draft, losing more games in 2026 for the 2027 draft may be profitable.

There he is. Lol

Sigh.

Again - I will not be disappointed if they DON'T lose 100 games, or 90 games.

I simply don't care how many games they win or lose in 2026.

[ScotchMIrish]

Pivetta has player opt outs after each of the next two seasons.

Due $20.5 million in 2026, $14 million in 2027, and $18 million in 2028.

If he has another good year, he definitely opts out after 2026.

I’m proud of you MM…you presented a good sensible reason why this move shouldn’t be considered instead of pushing the old hopeless tank narrative.

Now that they got the 13th pick in the 2026 draft, losing more games in 2026 for the 2027 draft may be profitable.

Doesn't necessarily work like that now with the lottery. Colorado lost 119 games and got the 10th pick. Giants were 81-81 and got #4. KC had a winning record and got #6.

[rbirules]

Pivetta has player opt outs after each of the next two seasons.

Due $20.5 million in 2026, $14 million in 2027, and $18 million in 2028.

If he has another good year, he definitely opts out after 2026.

I’m proud of you MM…you presented a good sensible reason why this move shouldn’t be considered instead of pushing the old hopeless tank narrative.

Now that they got the 13th pick in the 2026 draft, losing more games in 2026 for the 2027 draft may be profitable.

Doesn't necessarily work like that now with the lottery. Colorado lost 119 games and got the 10th pick. Giants were 81-81 and got #4. KC had a winning record and got #6.

It does work like that now, because there is a limit on how many times in a row you can get a lottery pick. That's why Colorado is picking 10th and the Nationals and Angels aren't picking in the top 5. Now that the Cardinals are picking 13th in 2026 they are eligible for a lottery pick in 2027, hence mattmitchl44's comment. If the Cardinals picked in the lottery in 2026 then they would be limited on how high their pick could be in 2027. That didn't happen so they have a chance to get a really high pick in 2027 if they don't do well in 2026.

[ScotchMIrish]

Pivetta has player opt outs after each of the next two seasons.

Due $20.5 million in 2026, $14 million in 2027, and $18 million in 2028.

If he has another good year, he definitely opts out after 2026.

I’m proud of you MM…you presented a good sensible reason why this move shouldn’t be considered instead of pushing the old hopeless tank narrative.

Now that they got the 13th pick in the 2026 draft, losing more games in 2026 for the 2027 draft may be profitable.

Doesn't necessarily work like that now with the lottery. Colorado lost 119 games and got the 10th pick. Giants were 81-81 and got #4. KC had a winning record and got #6.

It does work like that now, because there is a limit on how many times in a row you can get a lottery pick. That's why Colorado is picking 10th and the Nationals and Angels aren't picking in the top 5. Now that the Cardinals are picking 13th in 2026 they are eligible for a lottery pick in 2027, hence mattmitchl44's comment. If the Cardinals picked in the lottery in 2026 then they would be limited on how high their pick could be in 2027. That didn't happen so they have a chance to get a really high pick in 2027 if they don't do well in 2026.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

https://www.tankathon.com/mlb

According to this graph only White Sox, Giants and Pirates are ineligible among non-playoff teams in the next draft. Is that accurate?

[rbirules]

It does work like that now, because there is a limit on how many times in a row you can get a lottery pick. That's why Colorado is picking 10th and the Nationals and Angels aren't picking in the top 5. Now that the Cardinals are picking 13th in 2026 they are eligible for a lottery pick in 2027, hence mattmitchl44's comment. If the Cardinals picked in the lottery in 2026 then they would be limited on how high their pick could be in 2027. That didn't happen so they have a chance to get a really high pick in 2027 if they don't do well in 2026.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

https://www.tankathon.com/mlb

According to this graph only White Sox, Giants and Pirates are ineligible among non-playoff teams in the next draft. Is that accurate?

Sounds right. Large market teams (Chicago White Sox, San Francisco Giants) can't be in the lottery two years in a row (they are in it for 2026) and small market teams can't be in it three years in a row (Pittsburgh Pirates were in it in 2025 and now 2026).

[ScotchMIrish]

It does work like that now, because there is a limit on how many times in a row you can get a lottery pick. That's why Colorado is picking 10th and the Nationals and Angels aren't picking in the top 5. Now that the Cardinals are picking 13th in 2026 they are eligible for a lottery pick in 2027, hence mattmitchl44's comment. If the Cardinals picked in the lottery in 2026 then they would be limited on how high their pick could be in 2027. That didn't happen so they have a chance to get a really high pick in 2027 if they don't do well in 2026.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

https://www.tankathon.com/mlb

According to this graph only White Sox, Giants and Pirates are ineligible among non-playoff teams in the next draft. Is that accurate?

Sounds right. Large market teams (Chicago White Sox, San Francisco Giants) can't be in the lottery two years in a row (they are in it for 2026) and small market teams can't be in it three years in a row (Pittsburgh Pirates were in it in 2025 and now 2026).

I'm still confused. We are 8th in the lottery next season and then we can be in the lottery in 2027 but not 2028 because that would be three consecutive years?

[Carp4Cy]

Pivetta has player opt outs after each of the next two seasons.

Due $20.5 million in 2026, $14 million in 2027, and $18 million in 2028.

If he has another good year, he definitely opts out after 2026.

I’m proud of you MM…you presented a good sensible reason why this move shouldn’t be considered instead of pushing the old hopeless tank narrative.

Now that they got the 13th pick in the 2026 draft, losing more games in 2026 for the 2027 draft may be profitable.

There he is. Lol

Sigh.

Again - I will not be disappointed if they DON'T lose 100 games, or 90 games.

I simply don't care how many games they win or lose in 2026.

It might be moot if they change the draft rules again in the new CBA, which they probably will. Tanking is already a less effective strategy then some people think it is due to the measures already put in place and going forward it’ll continue to be even less useful.