SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Nov 3, 2012 21:02:30 GMT -5
I am dissapointed by the news that the Brewers signed away Michael Olmsted. He had the type of numbers and success this year to get a deal done with the Sox. It appears that the Brewers like a number of posters on the boards thought highly of him... enough so to place him on the 40 man. Am I the only one pissed about this move? I feel like we dropped the ball on this one because we traded a lot of players for relief pitchers in recent times and Olmsted did not cost prospects... his eye popping minor league numbers make this so much more dissapointing. I wish him luck as he earned it after this season... but I think this was a big mistake to let him get away for nothing. m.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/177121731.html |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2012 21:21:23 GMT -5
Good for Papi, he deserved it.
By the way, did anyone see that the Brewers picked up Michael Olmsted? He pitched 59.1 innings in the Sox farm system this year. In Double-A he pitched 20 scoreless frames and struck out 31 guys for a great 14 K/9 rate. He throws 97. He is 6-7 and 245 lbs. One question: WHY DIDN'T THE RED SOX KEEP HIM??!!! He has potential to be a great relief pitcher, and sox pass on him, with the disaster in the 'pen this year. Just plain stupid. He has closer's stuff, and with Bailey imploding, who knows if he will ever be the good for the sox? Just a thought.
To end this on a bright note, again, good for Big Papi
|
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Nov 3, 2012 21:23:43 GMT -5
Could somebody on the boards with more knowledge than myself about arbitration and controlling minor leage players help explain why Olmsted wasn't protected? We have a guy like Atch who is old and still arb eligible... but somehow this kid was able to walk after a year. I am unsure how his time in Japan affects his eligiblity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2012 21:48:49 GMT -5
yes i am EXTREMELY ticked at this. Because the sox didn't add him to the 40-man, he became a free agent. There is no reason the sox shouldn't have added him to the 40-man. He pitched 59.1 innings in the Sox farm system this year. In Double-A he pitched 20 scoreless frames and struck out 31 guys for a great 14 K/9 rate. He throws 97. He is 6-7 and 245 lbs.
He has potential to be a bullpen ace. I have not idea why on earth they didn't hang on to him.
I agree patrmac04 on that it was stupid to trade prospects for relievers who bombed but they have this potential great player for nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Nov 3, 2012 22:01:29 GMT -5
Ok so since we didnt have him on the 40 man is why he could walk... duh. I am still super pissed though... he showed dominance at all levels this year and could have broken camp in the pen next year. I am just shaking my head on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by curll on Nov 3, 2012 22:04:07 GMT -5
Wow. That's -- that's just amazing.
Regardless of his performance going forward, it hard to imagine Dave Carpenter, Ryan Sweeney, Valencia, or Ciriaco deserving a 40-man spot more than Olmstead. It'll be fun to track Olmstead this season, at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 3, 2012 22:06:19 GMT -5
He'd been released already by the Cubs and was signed before last season as a minor league free agent. He apparently had a two-year deal and was a free agent. He left for the 40-man spot - I don't blame him.
Reports were conflicting on Olmsted. He'd be 94-96 with a plus slider one night and low-90s the next.
Best of luck to him, and it would've been nice to keep him around, but the Sox didn't have a ton of room on the 40, so I'm not terribly surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 3, 2012 22:08:17 GMT -5
Wow. That's -- that's just amazing. Regardless of his performance going forward, it hard to imagine Dave Carpenter, Ryan Sweeney, Valencia, or Ciriaco deserving a 40-man spot more than Olmstead. It'll be fun to track Olmstead this season, at least. Sure it is. All of those players have performed above Double-A. |
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Nov 3, 2012 22:10:40 GMT -5
Why the Red Sox didn't protect him is confusing. 25 yrs old, 6'7", 225 lbs & a big arm. Maybe they thought they had more time? I think they dropped the ball on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 3, 2012 22:16:28 GMT -5
(1) In 82.2 innings in the last two years, Scott Atchinson has a 2.71 FIP. He's probably not actually that good in terms of true talent level, but he should not be the reliever singled out as the reason Olmsted was not protected. For instance, David Carpenter, Sandy Rosario, Pedro Beato, Danny Valencia, Zach Stewart, etc. are much better scapegoats. (2) Michael Olmsted put up great stats, but (a) it was in AA, (b) he is 25 years old, and (c) his scouting reports were much less glowing than the results (see this post by Chris Mellen and another a few posts down from that). To quote Chris from that thread: Consistently throwing strikes at the minor league level typically leads to really good results, especially for a reliever. Keep in mind that relieving in the minors is usually structured. Most outings start with clean innings and are in essence 1-2 inning starts at full bore. The majority of the messes are self created, with high leverage outings fewer and further between.
I think Olmsted can make the majors, but the role is likely as an up-and-down arm. When it comes to relievers, there isn't much that sets him apart from the ones that typically go up and down from Triple-A, and maybe hold onto a spot as a guy early out of the chute for a stretch.
(3) I have the following right-handed relievers above or in the same range as Olmsted on my personal depth chart: Bailey, Aceves, Melancon, Bard, Tazawa, Atchinson, Mortensen, C. Carpenter, Wilson, Fields, Kurcz. Maybe some of those relievers have a lower ceiling (Atchinson, Mortensen), but those two also have much higher floors and have proven productive at the major-league level. Only Aceves and Bailey have less than three years of team control, and they're under team control through 2014. I'm not going to get too upset about losing my 12th best right-handed reliever. |
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 3, 2012 22:17:32 GMT -5
Soxfan, I think if you see all the scouting reports, he doesn't throw 97 very consistently. 97 one night, 92 the next. The Sox have a pretty good idea what they have - they scout there own players. If they really thought they had something, they would have made a stronger effort (or any effort) to sign him. That being said, I hope he succeeds. Good luck to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Nov 3, 2012 22:40:37 GMT -5
(1) In 82.2 innings in the last two years, Scott Atchinson has a 2.71 FIP. He's probably not actually that good in terms of true talent level, but he should not be the reliever singled out as the reason Olmsted was not protected. For instance, David Carpenter, Sandy Rosario, Pedro Beato, Danny Valencia, Zach Stewart, etc. are much better scapegoats. (2) Michael Olmsted put up great stats, but (a) it was in AA, (b) he is 25 years old, and (c) his scouting reports were much less glowing than the results (see this post by Chris Mellen and another a few posts down from that). To quote Chris from that thread: Consistently throwing strikes at the minor league level typically leads to really good results, especially for a reliever. Keep in mind that relieving in the minors is usually structured. Most outings start with clean innings and are in essence 1-2 inning starts at full bore. The majority of the messes are self created, with high leverage outings fewer and further between.
I think Olmsted can make the majors, but the role is likely as an up-and-down arm. When it comes to relievers, there isn't much that sets him apart from the ones that typically go up and down from Triple-A, and maybe hold onto a spot as a guy early out of the chute for a stretch.
(3) I have the following right-handed relievers above or in the same range as Olmsted on my personal depth chart: Bailey, Aceves, Melancon, Bard, Tazawa, Atchinson, Mortensen, C. Carpenter, Wilson, Fields, Kurcz. Maybe some of those relievers have a lower ceiling (Atchinson, Mortensen), but those two also have much higher floors and have proven productive at the major-league level. Only Aceves and Bailey have less than three years of team control, and they're under team control through 2014. I'm not going to get too upset about losing my 12th best right-handed reliever. I am not making Atch a scapegoat. I was using his age to question arbitration rules since mike spent time in japan before learning he wasn't on the 40. There is no scalegoat besides whomever didn't put Olmsted on the 40 man with three spots available. We managed to claim Sandy Rosario and add him to the 40 man a year older and worse numbers this year... so yeah I will be pissed because there is no reason he wasn't protected. How do you know he was the 12th best right hander? In all due respect, this is your opinion and not that of all on this board that considered him underrated. He ended the season with 20 scoreless innings after making the jump to AA. He had dominant numbers and was earning a chance to compete against higher levels of competition. If he has the same season against tougher competition next year he could be much more. Point of the matter is that he had potential and if nothing else could have hade trade value or a good to very good bullpen arm. More important... this could indicate the sox are still a bit dysfunctionally managed. |
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Nov 3, 2012 22:54:37 GMT -5
Now if we go out and sign Haren to fill a 40 man spot my anger will quickly dissipate.
:-D
|
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Nov 4, 2012 0:42:02 GMT -5
Farewell, sweet prince.
|
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 4, 2012 7:22:21 GMT -5
yes i am EXTREMELY ticked at this. Because the sox didn't add him to the 40-man, he became a free agent. There is no reason the sox shouldn't have added him to the 40-man. He pitched 59.1 innings in the Sox farm system this year. In Double-A he pitched 20 scoreless frames and struck out 31 guys for a great 14 K/9 rate. He throws 97. He is 6-7 and 245 lbs. He has potential to be a bullpen ace. I have not idea why on earth they didn't hang on to him. I agree patrmac04 on that it was stupid to trade prospects for relievers who bombed but they have this potential great player for nothing. You're imagining things. The player you're describing doesn't exist. Olmstead is listed by SoxProspects at 280 pounds. And he looks like this:  And, the SoxProspects scouting report calls him a low-90s thrower. Not saying the guy is without potential (the Brewers picked him up for a reason), but he's also a righty reliever without plus stuff. He's not the next Bard or Papelbon, he's the next Padilla or Albers, and those guys are easy to pick up on the cheap anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 4, 2012 7:28:41 GMT -5
The mention of Olmsted's age (25) as a negative in AA is a bit of a red-herring. He essentially did not pitch for a couple of years while recovering from an arm injury. Physically, as others have noted, he is a beast.
Certainly stats aren't everything and can be misleading...but 14ks/9...pardon me for saying....
Carpenter had poor control and nowhere near the 98-100 mph advertised. Mortensen has a good change but was otherwise unspectacular; to me Fields and Wilson are two peas...neither has been dominant. Melancon was a huge disappointment and I suspect will be gone. Who knows about Bard?? Atchinson
can't reasonably be expected to repeat.
I hope that we are not all looking back someday and saying "Damn"!
Fenway, I did not see your post before I made my comments. I have not seen Olmstead pitch. But newspaper write-ups from Portland and comments from season ticket holders put Olmsted at 94-97. Maybe, as Chris noted, this is not every time and maybe the gun was off. I am not sure what Olmsted's picture has to do with his performance or prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 4, 2012 7:31:22 GMT -5
Carpenter had poor control and nowhere near the 98-100 mph advertised.But clearly the buzz about Olstead throwing 97 (which is inconsistant with his actual scouting reports) is totally legit. |
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Nov 4, 2012 8:04:29 GMT -5
The mention of Olmsted's age (25) as a negative in AA is a bit of a red-herring. He essentially did not pitch for a couple of years while recovering from an arm injury. Physically, as others have noted, he is a beast. Certainly stats aren't everything and can be misleading...but 14ks/9...pardon me for saying.... Carpenter had poor control and nowhere near the 98-100 mph advertised. Mortensen has a good change but was otherwise unspectacular; to me Fields and Wilson are two peas...neither has been dominant. Melancon was a huge disappointment and I suspect will be gone. Who knows about Bard?? Atchinson can't reasonably be expected to repeat. I hope that we are not all looking back someday and saying "Damn"! Fenway, I did not see your post before I made my comments. I have not seen Olmstead pitch. But newspaper write-ups from Portland and comments from season ticket holders put Olmsted at 94-97. Maybe, as Chris noted, this is not every time and maybe the gun was off. I am not sure what Olmsted's picture has to do with his performance or prospects. You have my proxy on this. Sums up why I am irked by losing him quite well. This town needed El Guapo Blanco. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 4, 2012 11:35:49 GMT -5
Those of you who have been around the site for a bit know that I am all about stats. I will almost never post an assessment of a prospect without some reference to their minor league statistical profile. It should thus be telling that despite Olmsted's statistical dominance, I am not terribly upset that they chose not to keep him. Every few years there's a player in the system who puts up crazy numbers but is age-advanced for his league and has middling scouting reports and the board gets all excited about it. Take Chih-Hsien Chiang, for example. They almost always end up amounting to nothing.
Olmsted is a guy with a good fastball who was able to dominate the low minors statistically but does not jump off the page from a scouting perspective. Even if injuries delayed his development, he's still had years of development time more than the batters he was facing along with a fully filled-out frame. He has good fastball command with inconsistent velocity but no secondary pitches of note-- exactly the type of pitcher who mows through the low minors but struggles in AAA and MLB. If you want to trust (admittedly superb) minor league stats and snippets of puff pieces over scouting reports by Chris and Ian, that's your prerogative, but keep in mind that that is exactly what you'd be doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Nov 4, 2012 11:48:30 GMT -5
Those of you who have been around the site for a bit know that I am all about stats. I will almost never post an assessment of a prospect without some reference to their minor league statistical profile. It should thus be telling that despite Olmsted's statistical dominance, I am not terribly upset that they chose not to keep him. Every few years there's a player in the system who puts up crazy numbers but is age-advanced for his league and has middling scouting reports and the board gets all excited about it. Take Chih-Hsien Chiang, for example. They almost always end up amounting to nothing. Olmsted is a guy with a good fastball who was able to dominate the low minors statistically but does not jump off the page from a scouting perspective. Even if injuries delayed his development, he's still had years of development time more than the batters he was facing along with a fully filled-out frame. He has good fastball command with inconsistent velocity but no secondary pitches of note-- exactly the type of pitcher who mows through the low minors but struggles in AAA and MLB. If you want to trust (admittedly superb) minor league stats and snippets of puff pieces over scouting reports by Chris and Ian, that's your prerogative, but keep in mind that that is exactly what you'd be doing. This does make a lot of sense... but his 20 scoreless innings in AA wasn't low minors. His secondary stats didn't drop off and he maintained the same k rate @14 k/9. His numbers suggest that there is something that doesn't jump out to scouts that allows for his results. It was just enough to tease a stat head fan into wanting more. I think my main problem was that we had free space on the 40 at the time. He showed enough to have us want to see if he was for real next year with a full year in the high minors or a cup in the show. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 4, 2012 12:36:14 GMT -5
Look Speier (surprising, I know) sums it up well here: fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2012/11/04/red-sox-lose-reliever-michael-olmsted-amidst-40-man-roster-crunch/They'd liked to have kept him, but don't have the 40-man spots. Yeah, they have three open right now, but two will definitely be taken up by Ortiz and Webster, and another probably by Wilson, plus they may have to fit the likes of Vazquez, Fields, Hazelbaker if they want to protect them as well. Plus they'll have to cut guys lose as they add players to the MLB roster - they need at least one outfielder, might do something at short, and probably need a first baseman. There's at least three more guys on the 40-man that need to go. It's not like the Sox forgot to add him. They evaluated their roster situation and decided he wasn't worth a roster spot. They're going to be getting rid of other relievers who are on the 40-man as well - scrambling to protect Olmsted didn't make sense to them. It's not like he was so good he got a major league deal. The Brewers have 33 players on their 40-man right now, so they've got a much different situation. Here's a thought exercise: If the Sox had, say, traded him to Milwaukee, I'm sure we'd have been happier, right? Let me ask - what do you think they would have gotten? If it took Federowicz, Chiang, Fife, and Juan Rodriguez to get the corpse of Bedard and the Josh Fields lottery ticket. So that means one of those guys wasn't worth what Josh Fields was worth last year (which wasn't a ton). They'd have gotten, maybe, a C prospect in A-ball. So folks, are you that upset at losing a C prospect in A ball? By the way, next season's 40-man crew? Bogaerts, Brentz, Cecchini, Couch, De La Cruz, C. Hernandez, Jacobs, Ranaudo, Vinicio, Vitek, Workman |
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Nov 4, 2012 16:19:06 GMT -5
Speier did a good job with damage control and explaining why we lost Olmsted. Thank god we have at least one guy in the media who is rock solid.
Here is a thought exercise back for you. How many holes do the Red Sox have? This just seems like a waste...
We have had a glut of right handed relief pitching all year... who kept trading for more of them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 17:03:43 GMT -5
I don't post here much....but I want to thank the authors of this site for offering an informed analysis of the situation. In sports and politics many main stream media reports offer a knee jerk and uninformed evaluation of the situation. People then read these reports and call up a talk radio show or post on a message board to scream and criticize.
The knee jerk reaction is that the Red Sox let go a talented reliever who could throw in the high 90s with excellent minor league statistics.
The truth of the matter is not as simple; as scouting reports by Chris M. and Ian have shown. This was also coupled and supported by some very rational analysis by Chris and Jmei. Jmei put it best:
"If you want to trust (admittedly superb) minor league stats and snippets of puff pieces over scouting reports by Chris and Ian, that's your prerogative, but keep in mind that that is exactly what you'd be doing."
We as Sox fans are very fortunate that we have boots on the ground to get at the truth when the main stream media is full of puff pieces that don't give the full story. I want to applaud the staff of Sox prospects for providing insight on this story that I didn't see in any other outlet.
Bravo!
Now if we can just get such informed analysis about every other news event we'd be all set.
|
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 4, 2012 17:04:55 GMT -5
Regardless of his performance going forward, it hard to imagine Dave Carpenter, Ryan Sweeney, Valencia, or Ciriaco deserving a 40-man spot more than Olmstead. It'll be fun to track Olmstead this season, at least. Sure it is. All of those players have performed above Double-A. Performed what, exactly? add - The dude is huge. They shoulda kept him - the 40-man is full of players (non-prospects) who have the potential to perform at replacement level, if they pan out. Olmsted has better results and a bigger upside. Much bigger. HUGE! |
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Nov 4, 2012 17:11:48 GMT -5
Am I the only one who found myself thinking "meh" when I heard about this?
|
|
|
