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.
Dempster will not pitch in 2014
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 16, 2014 13:01:27 GMT -5
Finding out if Workman is better than Dempster is a $13M gamble I'm willing to take. Again, with Buchholz and Peavy on the staff, we were going to find that out anyway. Now the Red Sox will have to lean on the Allan Websters of the world as well. As far as the $13m goes, we'll see if they find any place worthwhile to spend it. I'd be happy with bringing Drew back but who knows if they actually want to do that. It's not just the Websters of the world, but Workman, Barnes, Ranaudo, perhaps De la Rosa, Hinajosa... it's a veritable conga line from Pawtucket. There's no shortage of guys to plug in and pull out if they can't deliver. They've got options that might very well be filling spots on the 25-man for many a second-division club. They're loaded.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 16, 2014 13:09:29 GMT -5
Finding out if Workman is better than Dempster is a $13M gamble I'm willing to take. Again, with Buchholz and Peavy on the staff, we were going to find that out anyway. Now the Red Sox will have to lean on the Allan Websters of the world as well. As far as the $13m goes, we'll see if they find any place worthwhile to spend it. I'd be happy with bringing Drew back but who knows if they actually want to do that. Would you have been upset or surprised if they traded Dempster?
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Feb 16, 2014 13:19:36 GMT -5
This is great news really.Workman slides right into the spot Dempster was likely to take up at a much, much cheaper cost. Loss of pitching depth is never great news. It's by no means clear that Workman is capable of handling that job, and even if he is, the Sox are still going to have that much less depth to fill in for the inevitable Buchholz/Peavey injuries. Vehemently disagree. Paying Ryan Dempster $13 million to be the 6th starter was just not an option. Not to mention I think any of our pitchers in Triple A could easily replace his -0.2 WAR. A committee of pitchers signed off the streets could likely produce at a similar level for a fraction of the cost. The one thing Dempster was, was someone who would be out there every 5 days. He wouldn't give you anything else, but he would be out there. The Red Sox have the depth in the minors to replace that availability and odds are the replacements will offer more than just being out there.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Feb 16, 2014 13:21:06 GMT -5
Finding out if Workman is better than Dempster is a $13M gamble I'm willing to take. Again, with Buchholz and Peavy on the staff, we were going to find that out anyway. Now the Red Sox will have to lean on the Allan Websters of the world as well. As far as the $13m goes, we'll see if they find any place worthwhile to spend it. I'd be happy with bringing Drew back but who knows if they actually want to do that. I get where you're coming from, but I think you're overstating it. Sure - in a vacuum any team is better with more pitching depth. Every team in the league would be better with any above-replacement level player. But given the fact that Dempster would also take a 25-man spot that could be filled by someone else and a 40-man spot that could be filled by someone else and the fact that he is not likely to be better than many of the options behind him (all of whom have options, which adds significantly to roster flexibility) leads me to be pretty excited that they were able to she his entire salary. While that $13M may not be used right away, it could be used at the trade deadline for a team looking to dump salary. Potentially it could return prospects or give them the flexibility to take on enough salary that they don't have to give up as many prospects in a deal.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 16, 2014 13:24:36 GMT -5
FYI His daughter has DiGeorge syndrome.. So….
|
|
wb93
Rookie
Posts: 36
|
Post by wb93 on Feb 16, 2014 13:25:37 GMT -5
This is great news really.Workman slides right into the spot Dempster was likely to take up at a much, much cheaper cost. Loss of pitching depth is never great news. It's by no means clear that Workman is capable of handling that job, and even if he is, the Sox are still going to have that much less depth to fill in for the inevitable Buchholz/Peavey injuries. I disagree it's GREAT news if you are overpaying for that depth. I welcome replacing a $13.5M sixth starter with league minimum salary. How many starts/innings a year does the sixth starter pitch? There are other valuable ways to redeploy $13M. And I think giving ML opportunities to the young talent is a healthy thing for the system. You don't want the boys at Pawtucket feel like there is no chance to earn a promotion. I wish him good luck and health. But this will be good for the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 16, 2014 13:46:21 GMT -5
I wonder if they would've been more active for Tanaka if they knew 3 weeks ago they were going to lose Dempster and his salary?
I agree with those who say Workman can replace Dempster's 2013 production. Will be interesting to watch how they play this going forward, though. Nice to suddenly have all that Luxury Tax space, regardless.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 16, 2014 13:54:12 GMT -5
Dempster has been trending downwards, apparently has neck issues and he's 37; it's not clear he could do what he's done in the past so he's a risk just like the others. Plus, his salary is large and he clogs the roster in a role he wouldn't get much use. It sounds great in theory to have Dempster ready to go in May or June when an injury pops up, but unless that injury comes early it's a bit much to ask Dempster to be able to go out and pitch 5-6 innings after sitting around inactive. I'd much rather give a AAA starter those innings.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Feb 16, 2014 13:56:55 GMT -5
Best wishes and good health to Dempster and his family. Even though he was paid inline with a 3/4 starter, he did his part last year. He may have only got 8 wins, but we won 17 of the 29 games he started. That's better than expected from a 5 starter. I don't think it will be necessary this year, but recall that Byrd came out of semi-retirement in 09 when there was a dire need.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 16, 2014 14:01:30 GMT -5
Again, with Buchholz and Peavy on the staff, we were going to find that out anyway. Now the Red Sox will have to lean on the Allan Websters of the world as well. As far as the $13m goes, we'll see if they find any place worthwhile to spend it. I'd be happy with bringing Drew back but who knows if they actually want to do that. I get where you're coming from, but I think you're overstating it. Sure - in a vacuum any team is better with more pitching depth. Every team in the league would be better with any above-replacement level player. But given the fact that Dempster would also take a 25-man spot that could be filled by someone else and a 40-man spot that could be filled by someone else and the fact that he is not likely to be better than many of the options behind him (all of whom have options, which adds significantly to roster flexibility) leads me to be pretty excited that they were able to she his entire salary. While that $13M may not be used right away, it could be used at the trade deadline for a team looking to dump salary. Potentially it could return prospects or give them the flexibility to take on enough salary that they don't have to give up as many prospects in a deal. Keep in mind that I'm responding to the notion that this is "great news". I don't think that's true. Dempster doesn't really punch a hole in the universe either way, but I do see his loss as a negative, if only a small one. It's not going to make or break the Red Sox season and there's a chance that the Red Sox will be better for it, but if I had the choice, I'd rather go into the season with a healthy Dempster.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 16, 2014 14:05:24 GMT -5
I wonder if they would've been more active for Tanaka if they knew 3 weeks ago they were going to lose Dempster and his salary? I agree with those who say Workman can replace Dempster's 2013 production. Will be interesting to watch how they play this going forward, though. Nice to suddenly have all that Luxury Tax space, regardless. Based on the articles it seems that the Red Sox have known this was a possibility, if not a likelihood, for quite a while. Outbidding the Yankees for a player they don't need as badly was likely not the best long-term move. Plus, next year's FA crop of pitchers is strong (for now) and there is plenty of talented near-MLB ready depth in the minors. espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/10465461/ryan-dempster-boston-red-sox-says-not-play-2014I do like the thought of Dempster coming back later in the season - but not as an early replacement for an injured pitcher (there is enough depth - for now - to take care of that). It would be good to have him as an option for Aug/Sept/Oct rather than trading a prospect for a replacement level reliever. This would also be easier for Dempster to prepare for his role after the layoff - as opposed to coming back as a starter.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 16, 2014 14:29:34 GMT -5
A committee of pitchers signed off the streets could likely produce at a similar level for a fraction of the cost. Seriously, dude? I strongly disagree with the idea that Dempster was somehow useless to the 2014 Red Sox or that he was a bad or replacement-level pitcher in 2013. By advanced metrics, which are far more predictive than ERA, he was pretty solid, with an xFIP of 4.21 and a SIERA of 4.26 that are both well above replacement-level (the league-average AL starter had a 3.98 xFIP and a 4.09 SIERA). As recently as mid-June, Dempster was rocking a 3.84 xFIP/3.76 SIERA, and he gave them 110.1 IP of 4.24 ERA/4.14 xFIP ball in the first half. By fWAR, which includes league and park adjustments, he was a 1.3 win player last year despite an inflated home run rate, which is more likely than not to regress next year. While the Red Sox do have admirable depth, very few of those pitchers are likely to be as good as Dempster projected to be. Workman is a nice piece to have, but extrapolating on the basis of three good major-league starts and a handful of good relief innings is dangerous. Maybe Workman is better than Dempster (Steamer thinks he is, Oliver and PECOTA do not), but even if so, it's likely that the Red Sox will need both Dempster and Workman over the course of a long season (as fenway pointed out above, there are a fair number of injury risks in the Red Sox rotation). Webster and De La Rosa are Jekyll and Hyde, Barnes and Ranaudo probably aren't MLB ready, and who knows what you'll get out of Hinojosa or Wright. There are names there, but uncertain ones, and there's a reason risk is priced negatively. In light of the above, Dempster certainly added depth value to the 2014 Red Sox, and I'm not sure why it's even an argument. That said, what is up for debate is whether Dempster's depth value was worth his $13.25m salary. At this juncture of the offseason, the only value that salary flexibility offers is in terms of a potential trade deadline acquisition, which is a nice chip but not one that is certain to get played. I also don't think the roster spot it opens up matters much-- there aren't any out-of-options players that this helps open a 25-man spot for or NRIs that are likely to make the roster than this helps open a 40-man spot for (maybe Mijares or Hill, but if they make the Opening Day roster, someone's probably starting on the 60-day DL). So this move trades some salary flexibility for a little diminished depth, which is probably beneficial overall, but it's far from anything to celebrate.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 16, 2014 14:33:27 GMT -5
I'd like to turn the discussion into options that the Red Sox have given this news. There are three issues at play here. The use of the money that Dempster has forfeited, the use of the 40 man roster slot, and the use of the 25 man roster slot. For the purposes of the discussion I will attach a list of remaining free agents at the end of this post. I am also not going to discuss the most obvious use for the money which would be the signing of Stephen Drew which has it's own thread. One name that you won't find on that list is Cuban defector Raciel Iglesias. He's not going to require $13M, but he's the one guy that you could sign to a major league deal but still stash at Pawtucket if need be. The Red Sox were purported to have interest earlier in the winter. As far as the 25 man roster goes, since Workman has options, they do not have to include him on the roster to start the season. They could start the year with 11 pitchers as opposed to 12 and keep another position player. If they do blow out their bullpen, Workman is a phone call away. Could this open the door to a part time role for Grady Sizemore? You can bet that there will also be other opportunities to get players that other teams don't want and the Red Sox could use through the waiver wire process and opportunities to sign other players. But there is no way that I would offer a major league deal to Ryan Madson. www.baseball-reference.com/friv/2013-free-agents.shtml
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 16, 2014 14:47:50 GMT -5
FYI His daughter has DiGeorge syndrome.. So…. Thank you for tracking this down. This is serious stuff. The deletion of a portion of one of the chromosomes has all kinds of potential side effects. Answers a lot of questions about why and why now.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Feb 16, 2014 14:52:41 GMT -5
it would have been nice if we could have traded him away and actually gotten something for him, but we couldn't have gotten much anyway, and I think this actually improves the team, because I would rather have whoever happens to be pitching the best in the minors as a spot starter, and I think he would not have been very good in the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 16, 2014 14:54:58 GMT -5
A committee of pitchers signed off the streets could likely produce at a similar level for a fraction of the cost. Seriously, dude? I strongly disagree with the idea that Dempster was somehow useless to the 2014 Red Sox or that he was a bad or replacement-level pitcher in 2013. By advanced metrics, which are far more predictive than ERA, he was pretty solid, with an xFIP of 4.21 and a SIERA of 4.26 that are both well above replacement-level (the league-average AL starter had a 3.98 xFIP and a 4.09 SIERA). As recently as mid-June, Dempster was rocking a 3.84 xFIP/3.76 SIERA, and he gave them 110.1 IP of 4.24 ERA/4.14 xFIP ball in the first half. By fWAR, which includes league and park adjustments, he was a 1.3 win player last year despite an inflated home run rate, which is more likely than not to regress next year. While the Red Sox do have admirable depth, very few of those pitchers are likely to be as good as Dempster projected to be. Workman is a nice piece to have, but extrapolating on the basis of three good major-league starts and a handful of good relief innings is dangerous. Maybe Workman is better than Dempster (Steamer thinks he is, Oliver and PECOTA do not), but even if so, it's likely that the Red Sox will need both Dempster and Workman over the course of a long season (as fenway pointed out above, there are a fair number of injury risks in the Red Sox rotation). Webster and De La Rosa are Jekyll and Hyde, Barnes and Ranaudo probably aren't MLB ready, and who knows what you'll get out of Hinojosa or Wright. There are names there, but uncertain ones, and there's a reason risk is priced negatively. Not that it's surprising given that this is a prospect site, but the consistent bias on these forums seems to be that any major leaguer who's even slightly below average should immediately be replaced with an untested minor leaguer who will surely outperform him. There's this incredible eagerness to show guys like Dempster and Drew the door, as if there's no chance whatsoever that Workman can't handle 30 major league starts or Middlebrooks won't repeat his 2013 performance. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I'm rarely sold on a player's ability to do a job until he's actually done it.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Feb 16, 2014 15:06:15 GMT -5
I feel terrible for Ryan Dempster, but I'm elated for the Sox going forth. The extra $13 mill is great. What I'm exciting about is the movement of that darn road block in AAA and below. I wasn't really pleased with innings going to a Dempster this year when we had guys like Webster and Workman getting VERY close to being rotation ready. There is so much potential at AAA and with Owens in AA that I was somewhat worried about them having their progress delayed. Dempster is a great teammate and human being, but he was about to be grossly overpaid for 2014. I admire his decision. Wow....it has to be extremely difficult to walk away from $13 mill +. But some things do take precedence.
His decision gives us tons of flexibility for adding a player or two later. I hope we don't waiver and make a poor decision at this moment and sign Drew who would retard Xander's development. I have always seen this year as one to set up 2015 and beyond. Bogie at short, Middlebrooks at 3rd, and Bradley in center is awesome, and if we can acclimate starters like Workman and Webster in the majors this season.....I am ecstatic!
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 16, 2014 15:06:34 GMT -5
The issue, and it's not a small one given that the team is bumping up against the cap, is just the one that jmei mentions: he's probably worth more than the possible replacements, but is he worth what they would be paying him?
It adds risk, there's no doubt about it. The guy was quite dependable in that you knew almost precisely what you were getting every start. But reading about what he and his family are facing, the decision is entirely understandable. He's gone, so what are the best options at this point?
The team does have a few of them on hand. Moonstone lists other possibilities as well, and they do have some salary flex now. I think they'll shuffle through in-house resources if they do run into trouble with the starting five, but I also think they'll be ready to make a move if it comes to that.
They have options, both money and warm bodies. That seems to be a hallmark of this front office.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 16, 2014 15:12:30 GMT -5
Seriously, dude? I strongly disagree with the idea that Dempster was somehow useless to the 2014 Red Sox or that he was a bad or replacement-level pitcher in 2013. By advanced metrics, which are far more predictive than ERA, he was pretty solid, with an xFIP of 4.21 and a SIERA of 4.26 that are both well above replacement-level (the league-average AL starter had a 3.98 xFIP and a 4.09 SIERA). As recently as mid-June, Dempster was rocking a 3.84 xFIP/3.76 SIERA, and he gave them 110.1 IP of 4.24 ERA/4.14 xFIP ball in the first half. By fWAR, which includes league and park adjustments, he was a 1.3 win player last year despite an inflated home run rate, which is more likely than not to regress next year. While the Red Sox do have admirable depth, very few of those pitchers are likely to be as good as Dempster projected to be. Workman is a nice piece to have, but extrapolating on the basis of three good major-league starts and a handful of good relief innings is dangerous. Maybe Workman is better than Dempster (Steamer thinks he is, Oliver and PECOTA do not), but even if so, it's likely that the Red Sox will need both Dempster and Workman over the course of a long season (as fenway pointed out above, there are a fair number of injury risks in the Red Sox rotation). Webster and De La Rosa are Jekyll and Hyde, Barnes and Ranaudo probably aren't MLB ready, and who knows what you'll get out of Hinojosa or Wright. There are names there, but uncertain ones, and there's a reason risk is priced negatively. Not that it's surprising given that this is a prospect site, but the consistent bias on these forums seems to be that any major leaguer who's even slightly below average should immediately be replaced with an untested minor leaguer who will surely outperform him. There's this incredible eagerness to show guys like Dempster and Drew the door, as if there's no chance whatsoever that Workman can't handle 30 major league starts or Middlebrooks won't repeat his 2013 performance. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I'm rarely sold on a player's ability to do a job until he's actually done it. So then you would be in favor of eliminating The Rookie Of The Year award ? It's catch-22.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Feb 16, 2014 15:13:08 GMT -5
Sure but there are two problems with this. The big thing is cost. The Red Sox like every other team have a limited budget and are bumping up against the luxury tax threshold. Sure Dempster may have a better track record than Workman, but is that track record worth $13M?
The second which we've gone over in the past, is that to be successful, you eventually have to give major league chances to players who haven't performed at the major league level before. Teams that block their minor league talent with mediocre but more proven veteran players often end up regretting it years later. If you don't give that talent a chance, it stagnates and you are left with nothing.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 16, 2014 15:21:10 GMT -5
So then you would be in favor of eliminating The Rookie Of The Year award ? It's catch-22. No I'll be happy to watch Xander Bogaerts go out and win it next year. But Workman ain't no Xander Bogaerts.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 16, 2014 15:21:17 GMT -5
Seriously, dude? I strongly disagree with the idea that Dempster was somehow useless to the 2014 Red Sox or that he was a bad or replacement-level pitcher in 2013. By advanced metrics, which are far more predictive than ERA, he was pretty solid, with an xFIP of 4.21 and a SIERA of 4.26 that are both well above replacement-level (the league-average AL starter had a 3.98 xFIP and a 4.09 SIERA). As recently as mid-June, Dempster was rocking a 3.84 xFIP/3.76 SIERA, and he gave them 110.1 IP of 4.24 ERA/4.14 xFIP ball in the first half. By fWAR, which includes league and park adjustments, he was a 1.3 win player last year despite an inflated home run rate, which is more likely than not to regress next year. While the Red Sox do have admirable depth, very few of those pitchers are likely to be as good as Dempster projected to be. Workman is a nice piece to have, but extrapolating on the basis of three good major-league starts and a handful of good relief innings is dangerous. Maybe Workman is better than Dempster (Steamer thinks he is, Oliver and PECOTA do not), but even if so, it's likely that the Red Sox will need both Dempster and Workman over the course of a long season (as fenway pointed out above, there are a fair number of injury risks in the Red Sox rotation). Webster and De La Rosa are Jekyll and Hyde, Barnes and Ranaudo probably aren't MLB ready, and who knows what you'll get out of Hinojosa or Wright. There are names there, but uncertain ones, and there's a reason risk is priced negatively. Not that it's surprising given that this is a prospect site, but the consistent bias on these forums seems to be that any major leaguer who's even slightly below average should immediately be replaced with an untested minor leaguer who will surely outperform him. There's this incredible eagerness to show guys like Dempster and Drew the door, as if there's no chance whatsoever that Workman can't handle 30 major league starts or Middlebrooks won't repeat his 2013 performance. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I'm rarely sold on a player's ability to do a job until he's actually done it. I'd say the chances are pretty high that one of or a combination of Workman, Ranaudo, Barnes, RDLR, Webster, Hinojosa, and maybe even Owens could provide more value to the Red Sox than Dempster given that there are so many of them. What's the point of prospects if they never have a chance to play? There is also no guarantee that a 37 year old declining pitcher would be able to match his mediocre performance of last season.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 16, 2014 15:25:07 GMT -5
What does the rookie of the year award have to do with anything? All he said is he's not "sold" on a players ability to do his job until he does it. The ROY award has nothing to do with it. He's not adverse to young players; just don't anoint a guy like Workman as a sure thing. Workman could just as easily turn into a AAAA guy as he could a late inning reliever or dependable starter.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 16, 2014 15:26:51 GMT -5
What does the rookie of the year award have to do with anything? All he said is he's not "sold" on a players ability to do his job until he does it. The ROY award has nothing to do with it. He's not adverse to young players; just don't anoint a guy like Workman as a sure thing. Workman could just as easily turn into a AAAA guy as he could a late inning reliever or dependable starter. So could Dempster.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 16, 2014 15:27:15 GMT -5
What does the rookie of the year award have to do with anything? All he said is he's not "sold" on a players ability to do his job until he does it. The ROY award has nothing to do with it. He's not adverse to young players; just don't anoint a guy like Workman as a sure thing. Workman could just as easily turn into a AAAA guy as he could a late inning reliever or dependable starter. It's also not like Workman wasn't going to get his chances in the rotation if Dempster had been healthy. Just about every team uses it's 6th starter and the Red Sox will probably use theirs more than most this year. And if Dempster sucks and Workman sparkles, then you give Workman the job full time at that point. The more guys you have competing for the fifth starter job, the better your chances of having a competent fifth starter are.
|
|
|