STLtoday.com

ecleme22 wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 16:19 pm

C-Unit wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 16:06 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 15:44 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 11:41 am

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 10:47 am 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!!

Exactly.

If Sonny Gray can get a decent haul with only 1 year remaining and a lot older, I'm guessing NP doesn't our problem child.

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 11:29 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:17 am

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:11 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 08:59 am 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?

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 12:18 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 11:29 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:17 am

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:11 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 08:59 am 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?

Sorry my verb choice was bad and confusing. You can't win a lottery (i.e. get to move up in the draft) two years in a row if you are in a large market, or three years in a row if you are a small market. If you are eligible for the lottery but don't win then you can win the next year if a large market team (or for a small market team not winning would reset the counter on winning three years in a row). The Cardinals can win a lottery next year to move up in the draft (how high depends on how other teams do in the lottery) since they didn't win this year. The Cardinals won a lottery pick in 2025 (moving up from 13th to 5th) so if they did so for the 2026 draft (even moving up just a few spots) they would be ineligible to do so for the 2027 draft (which would be three years in a row).

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:03 pm

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 12:18 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 11:29 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:17 am

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:11 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 08:59 am 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?

Sorry my verb choice was bad and confusing. You can't win a lottery (i.e. get to move up in the draft) two years in a row if you are in a large market, or three years in a row if you are a small market. If you are eligible for the lottery but don't win then you can win the next year if a large market team (or for a small market team not winning would reset the counter on winning three years in a row). The Cardinals can win a lottery next year to move up in the draft (how high depends on how other teams do in the lottery) since they didn't win this year. The Cardinals won a lottery pick in 2025 (moving up from 13th to 5th) so if they did so for the 2026 draft (even moving up just a few spots) they would be ineligible to do so for the 2027 draft (which would be three years in a row).

Thanks for the clarification. In that case we shouldn't dump just to gain percentage points in the lottery. Colorado losing 119 games the getting the 10 pick is an example. I understand the reason for this but it hasn't prevented dumping and has served to reduce small and mid market team chances of getting good draft picks. Colorado obvious needs a top draft pick more than San Francisco.

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:08 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:03 pm

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 12:18 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 11:29 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:17 am

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:11 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 08:59 am 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?

Sorry my verb choice was bad and confusing. You can't win a lottery (i.e. get to move up in the draft) two years in a row if you are in a large market, or three years in a row if you are a small market. If you are eligible for the lottery but don't win then you can win the next year if a large market team (or for a small market team not winning would reset the counter on winning three years in a row). The Cardinals can win a lottery next year to move up in the draft (how high depends on how other teams do in the lottery) since they didn't win this year. The Cardinals won a lottery pick in 2025 (moving up from 13th to 5th) so if they did so for the 2026 draft (even moving up just a few spots) they would be ineligible to do so for the 2027 draft (which would be three years in a row).

Thanks for the clarification. In that case we shouldn't dump just to gain percentage points in the lottery. Colorado losing 119 games the getting the 10 pick is an example. I understand the reason for this but it hasn't prevented dumping and has served to reduce small and mid market team chances of getting good draft picks. Colorado obvious needs a top draft pick more than San Francisco.

Colorado needs to draft better, develop what they have and be willing to spend on quality. Their record is their owners fault for just doing the abolute minimum because visiting fans will still buy tickets regardless of how bad the home team is. We need a salary floor.

Ethan was quite possibly the top talent in last year's draft, but if the Rocks don't change their business practices, he will be just another tragic waste of talent as long as he remains with this org.

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:13 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:08 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:03 pm

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 12:18 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 11:29 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:17 am

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:11 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 08:59 am 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?

Sorry my verb choice was bad and confusing. You can't win a lottery (i.e. get to move up in the draft) two years in a row if you are in a large market, or three years in a row if you are a small market. If you are eligible for the lottery but don't win then you can win the next year if a large market team (or for a small market team not winning would reset the counter on winning three years in a row). The Cardinals can win a lottery next year to move up in the draft (how high depends on how other teams do in the lottery) since they didn't win this year. The Cardinals won a lottery pick in 2025 (moving up from 13th to 5th) so if they did so for the 2026 draft (even moving up just a few spots) they would be ineligible to do so for the 2027 draft (which would be three years in a row).

Thanks for the clarification. In that case we shouldn't dump just to gain percentage points in the lottery. Colorado losing 119 games the getting the 10 pick is an example. I understand the reason for this but it hasn't prevented dumping and has served to reduce small and mid market team chances of getting good draft picks. Colorado obvious needs a top draft pick more than San Francisco.

Colorado needs to draft better, develop what they have and be willing to spend on quality. Their record is their owners fault for just doing the abolute minimum because visiting fans will still buy tickets regardless of how bad the home team is. We need a salary floor.

Ethan was quite possibly the top talent in last year's draft, but if the Rocks don't change their business practices, he will be just another tragic waste of talent as long as he remains with this org.

If the goal is parity the lousiest team shouldn't be drafting 10th.

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 17:53 pm

HorseTrader wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 17:23 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 10:47 am 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.

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:25 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:13 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:08 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:03 pm

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 12:18 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 11:29 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:17 am

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:11 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 08:59 am 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?

Sorry my verb choice was bad and confusing. You can't win a lottery (i.e. get to move up in the draft) two years in a row if you are in a large market, or three years in a row if you are a small market. If you are eligible for the lottery but don't win then you can win the next year if a large market team (or for a small market team not winning would reset the counter on winning three years in a row). The Cardinals can win a lottery next year to move up in the draft (how high depends on how other teams do in the lottery) since they didn't win this year. The Cardinals won a lottery pick in 2025 (moving up from 13th to 5th) so if they did so for the 2026 draft (even moving up just a few spots) they would be ineligible to do so for the 2027 draft (which would be three years in a row).

Thanks for the clarification. In that case we shouldn't dump just to gain percentage points in the lottery. Colorado losing 119 games the getting the 10 pick is an example. I understand the reason for this but it hasn't prevented dumping and has served to reduce small and mid market team chances of getting good draft picks. Colorado obvious needs a top draft pick more than San Francisco.

Colorado needs to draft better, develop what they have and be willing to spend on quality. Their record is their owners fault for just doing the abolute minimum because visiting fans will still buy tickets regardless of how bad the home team is. We need a salary floor.

Ethan was quite possibly the top talent in last year's draft, but if the Rocks don't change their business practices, he will be just another tragic waste of talent as long as he remains with this org.

If the goal is parity the lousiest team shouldn't be drafting 10th.

that's not exactly the goal, in isolation. The goal should be quality and competition, so a penalty for not trying and perrenially tanking makes sense. But there should be other measures as well. I'm not against contraction or relegation of the worst performing franchises. Makes more talent available to the next 10 teams up that ladder that do kinda want to give a (bleep)...

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 15:58 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:25 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:13 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:08 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:03 pm

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 12:18 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 11:29 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:17 am

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:11 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 08:59 am 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?

Sorry my verb choice was bad and confusing. You can't win a lottery (i.e. get to move up in the draft) two years in a row if you are in a large market, or three years in a row if you are a small market. If you are eligible for the lottery but don't win then you can win the next year if a large market team (or for a small market team not winning would reset the counter on winning three years in a row). The Cardinals can win a lottery next year to move up in the draft (how high depends on how other teams do in the lottery) since they didn't win this year. The Cardinals won a lottery pick in 2025 (moving up from 13th to 5th) so if they did so for the 2026 draft (even moving up just a few spots) they would be ineligible to do so for the 2027 draft (which would be three years in a row).

Thanks for the clarification. In that case we shouldn't dump just to gain percentage points in the lottery. Colorado losing 119 games the getting the 10 pick is an example. I understand the reason for this but it hasn't prevented dumping and has served to reduce small and mid market team chances of getting good draft picks. Colorado obvious needs a top draft pick more than San Francisco.

Colorado needs to draft better, develop what they have and be willing to spend on quality. Their record is their owners fault for just doing the abolute minimum because visiting fans will still buy tickets regardless of how bad the home team is. We need a salary floor.

Ethan was quite possibly the top talent in last year's draft, but if the Rocks don't change their business practices, he will be just another tragic waste of talent as long as he remains with this org.

If the goal is parity the lousiest team shouldn't be drafting 10th.

that's not exactly the goal, in isolation. The goal should be quality and competition, so a penalty for not trying and perrenially tanking makes sense. But there should be other measures as well. I'm not against contraction or relegation of the worst performing franchises. Makes more talent available to the next 10 teams up that ladder that do kinda want to give a (bleep)...

Whales vs minnows. We just had a world series with the #1 payroll team playing the #1 payroll team. When was the last time the 2 lowest payroll teams played in the world series?

MLB needs to fix this.

HorseTrader wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 15:35 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 17:53 pm

HorseTrader wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 17:23 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025 10:47 am 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.

Arenado for Pivetta, Arenado plays 1st for the Padres?????

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 16:23 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 15:58 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:25 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:13 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:08 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:03 pm

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 12:18 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 11:29 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:17 am

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:11 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 08:59 am 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?

Sorry my verb choice was bad and confusing. You can't win a lottery (i.e. get to move up in the draft) two years in a row if you are in a large market, or three years in a row if you are a small market. If you are eligible for the lottery but don't win then you can win the next year if a large market team (or for a small market team not winning would reset the counter on winning three years in a row). The Cardinals can win a lottery next year to move up in the draft (how high depends on how other teams do in the lottery) since they didn't win this year. The Cardinals won a lottery pick in 2025 (moving up from 13th to 5th) so if they did so for the 2026 draft (even moving up just a few spots) they would be ineligible to do so for the 2027 draft (which would be three years in a row).

Thanks for the clarification. In that case we shouldn't dump just to gain percentage points in the lottery. Colorado losing 119 games the getting the 10 pick is an example. I understand the reason for this but it hasn't prevented dumping and has served to reduce small and mid market team chances of getting good draft picks. Colorado obvious needs a top draft pick more than San Francisco.

Colorado needs to draft better, develop what they have and be willing to spend on quality. Their record is their owners fault for just doing the abolute minimum because visiting fans will still buy tickets regardless of how bad the home team is. We need a salary floor.

Ethan was quite possibly the top talent in last year's draft, but if the Rocks don't change their business practices, he will be just another tragic waste of talent as long as he remains with this org.

If the goal is parity the lousiest team shouldn't be drafting 10th.

that's not exactly the goal, in isolation. The goal should be quality and competition, so a penalty for not trying and perrenially tanking makes sense. But there should be other measures as well. I'm not against contraction or relegation of the worst performing franchises. Makes more talent available to the next 10 teams up that ladder that do kinda want to give a (bleep)...

Whales vs minnows. We just had a world series with the #1 payroll team playing the #1 payroll team. When was the last time the 2 lowest payroll teams played in the world series?

MLB needs to fix this.

I agree with that. Instituting a salary floor to force the bad owners to either invest in talent or sell their teams would be a start. A salary cap (depending on where its set) can help some. But a draft order that incentivizes poorly run teams to just go cheap and lose more games to try to capitalize on more cheap talent is actually bad for the game. Colorado and the White Sox are proof of this.

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 18:47 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 16:23 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 15:58 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:25 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:13 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:08 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:03 pm

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 12:18 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 11:29 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:17 am

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:11 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 08:59 am 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?

Sorry my verb choice was bad and confusing. You can't win a lottery (i.e. get to move up in the draft) two years in a row if you are in a large market, or three years in a row if you are a small market. If you are eligible for the lottery but don't win then you can win the next year if a large market team (or for a small market team not winning would reset the counter on winning three years in a row). The Cardinals can win a lottery next year to move up in the draft (how high depends on how other teams do in the lottery) since they didn't win this year. The Cardinals won a lottery pick in 2025 (moving up from 13th to 5th) so if they did so for the 2026 draft (even moving up just a few spots) they would be ineligible to do so for the 2027 draft (which would be three years in a row).

Thanks for the clarification. In that case we shouldn't dump just to gain percentage points in the lottery. Colorado losing 119 games the getting the 10 pick is an example. I understand the reason for this but it hasn't prevented dumping and has served to reduce small and mid market team chances of getting good draft picks. Colorado obvious needs a top draft pick more than San Francisco.

Colorado needs to draft better, develop what they have and be willing to spend on quality. Their record is their owners fault for just doing the abolute minimum because visiting fans will still buy tickets regardless of how bad the home team is. We need a salary floor.

Ethan was quite possibly the top talent in last year's draft, but if the Rocks don't change their business practices, he will be just another tragic waste of talent as long as he remains with this org.

If the goal is parity the lousiest team shouldn't be drafting 10th.

that's not exactly the goal, in isolation. The goal should be quality and competition, so a penalty for not trying and perrenially tanking makes sense. But there should be other measures as well. I'm not against contraction or relegation of the worst performing franchises. Makes more talent available to the next 10 teams up that ladder that do kinda want to give a (bleep)...

Whales vs minnows. We just had a world series with the #1 payroll team playing the #1 payroll team. When was the last time the 2 lowest payroll teams played in the world series?

MLB needs to fix this.

I agree with that. Instituting a salary floor to force the bad owners to either invest in talent or sell their teams would be a start. A salary cap (depending on where its set) can help some. But a draft order that incentivizes poorly run teams to just go cheap and lose more games to try to capitalize on more cheap talent is actually bad for the game. Colorado and the White Sox are proof of this.

They aren't poorly run so much as they are poor. They don't have the money to compete. The fans know it and attendance is poor. Poor attendance impacts revenue. They lose. Pirates had high draft picks for decades but they couldn't afford to keep their best players and it was a constant rebuild.

Messing with their draft picks guarantees then can't compete.

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 22:00 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 18:47 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 16:23 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 15:58 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:25 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:13 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:08 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 13:03 pm

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 12:18 pm

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 11:29 am

rbirules wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:17 am

ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025 09:11 am

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?

Sorry my verb choice was bad and confusing. You can't win a lottery (i.e. get to move up in the draft) two years in a row if you are in a large market, or three years in a row if you are a small market. If you are eligible for the lottery but don't win then you can win the next year if a large market team (or for a small market team not winning would reset the counter on winning three years in a row). The Cardinals can win a lottery next year to move up in the draft (how high depends on how other teams do in the lottery) since they didn't win this year. The Cardinals won a lottery pick in 2025 (moving up from 13th to 5th) so if they did so for the 2026 draft (even moving up just a few spots) they would be ineligible to do so for the 2027 draft (which would be three years in a row).

Thanks for the clarification. In that case we shouldn't dump just to gain percentage points in the lottery. Colorado losing 119 games the getting the 10 pick is an example. I understand the reason for this but it hasn't prevented dumping and has served to reduce small and mid market team chances of getting good draft picks. Colorado obvious needs a top draft pick more than San Francisco.

Colorado needs to draft better, develop what they have and be willing to spend on quality. Their record is their owners fault for just doing the abolute minimum because visiting fans will still buy tickets regardless of how bad the home team is. We need a salary floor.

Ethan was quite possibly the top talent in last year's draft, but if the Rocks don't change their business practices, he will be just another tragic waste of talent as long as he remains with this org.

If the goal is parity the lousiest team shouldn't be drafting 10th.

that's not exactly the goal, in isolation. The goal should be quality and competition, so a penalty for not trying and perrenially tanking makes sense. But there should be other measures as well. I'm not against contraction or relegation of the worst performing franchises. Makes more talent available to the next 10 teams up that ladder that do kinda want to give a (bleep)...

Whales vs minnows. We just had a world series with the #1 payroll team playing the #1 payroll team. When was the last time the 2 lowest payroll teams played in the world series?

MLB needs to fix this.

I agree with that. Instituting a salary floor to force the bad owners to either invest in talent or sell their teams would be a start. A salary cap (depending on where its set) can help some. But a draft order that incentivizes poorly run teams to just go cheap and lose more games to try to capitalize on more cheap talent is actually bad for the game. Colorado and the White Sox are proof of this.

They aren't poorly run so much as they are poor. They don't have the money to compete. The fans know it and attendance is poor. Poor attendance impacts revenue. They lose. Pirates had high draft picks for decades but they couldn't afford to keep their best players and it was a constant rebuild.

Messing with their draft picks guarantees then can't compete.

The Rockies aren’t poor. The average 30,000 fans a game. They just have a greedy owner.

I’d rather do some kind of revenue sharing to help the small market teams than keep giving them high draft picks to incentivize tanking by teams that don’t need to not spend