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 Chris Hatfield on Sept 21, 2014 13:52:57 GMT -5
I'd keep Ramos ahead of any or perhaps all of the "possible trims" category- love his upside, particularly head to head against Hassan or even Brentz Remember, the point isn't necessarily how much you like him. The point is whether you need to protect him. I would be very surprised if the Red Sox lost Ramos in Rule 5 this year. He's just not the kind of player that can stick on a roster all season long.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Sept 22, 2014 11:40:41 GMT -5
I hope you're right Chris. I don't have the same knowledge that you do for Ramos' likelyhood of being snatched. Eric seems to feel it may be a possibility. Based upon his youth, athleticism, still unestablished ceiling, versus the more cemented limitions of Hassan and Brentz I'd far rather have them be high risk Rule 5 losses than him become a lower risk (say 33% loss). Even if it took losing one of Wilson, Hembree, Kurtz, I'd look into it given the lack of high ceiling outfielders we have- I almost consider him on a par with Coyle.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 22, 2014 14:24:14 GMT -5
I hope you're right Chris. I don't have the same knowledge that you do for Ramos' likelyhood of being snatched. Eric seems to feel it may be a possibility. Based upon his youth, athleticism, still unestablished ceiling, versus the more cemented limitions of Hassan and Brentz I'd far rather have them be high risk Rule 5 losses than him become a lower risk (say 33% loss). Even if it took losing one of Wilson, Hembree, Kurtz, I'd look into it given the lack of high ceiling outfielders we have- I almost consider him on a par with Coyle. But another thing to remember is that to remove a player from the 40-man, you must expose them to waivers. So the balance is weighing the chances of losing Brentz or Hassan to waivers versus losing Ramos in Rule 5. If you put one of those guys on waivers, they're gone - they just need to be on the claiming team's 40-man roster. If you expose Ramos to Rule 5, a selecting team needs to keep him on the 25-man roster all season. As Ian said on the podcast we'll be releasing tomorrow, the kinds of raw outfielders who can stick in Rule 5 are ones like Adam Stern who can justify a roster spot by providing speed and defense. That's not Ramos.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 22, 2014 18:37:46 GMT -5
I hope you're right Chris. I don't have the same knowledge that you do for Ramos' likelihood of being snatched. Eric seems to feel it may be a possibility. I think there's some chance he'll be drafted, but a very, very small chance he'll be kept. Which is all you're actually worried about. That Ramos missed most of the season makes him a particularly bad candidate to be stashed for a year on an MLB bench, gathering dust. He needs regular PT. If he'd put up those numbers over a full season, he would be somewhat likelier to be drafted. But either way he would really have to knock people out with his tools and upside in ST -- he'd have to have taken some kind of step forward in the off-season. I can see some club investing 50K to see if that has happened, but they are unlikely to win that lottery.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 28, 2014 20:39:02 GMT -5
Changes of thought since my last take:
1) Cecchini looks good enough, and Weeks good enough as a backup MI, that I'm no longer conceding that we acquire a 3B (and no longer wanting to DFA Weeks). I'm perfectly comfortable trying Betts, Castillo, and Cespedes at 3B in ST just for the hell of it, then using Holt as a placeholder for Cecchini or a revitalized WMB, and Weeks as the reserve MI (and as placeholder for Holt). Furthermore, as implied, that opens a spot for WMB to go to Pawtucket and play full-time, mostly at DH, in an effort to win the job back; that makes more sense that dumping him at the nadir of his value.
2) I now have Webster and Barnes competing for the 5th starter spot, with both Wright and Workman in the MLB pen, and that probably means that there's no room to take Britton into ST and let him compete for the roster spot that you expect to be opened by the inevitable pitching injury (if everyone is healthy, Workman starts in AAA again).
3) It no longer makes sense to me to trade either Wilson or Hembree in order to protect both Kurcz and Ramirez.
So here's the current proposed plan:
End of season: Burke Badenhop, Craig Breslow, Koji Uehara, and David Ross file for free agency; Shane Victorino activated from 60-day DL (37)
Before rosters are set: Try to trade Drake Britton for someone of value who is not 40-man eligible. That should be doable.
Roster set: Select Eduardo Rodriguez, Blake Swihart, Sean Coyle, and Travis Shaw. DFA Carlos Rivero. If you have succeeded in trading Britton, also protect Aaron Kurcz (or Noe Ramirez if you prefer). (40)
Now you'll want to add the following players:
Jon Lester or Cole Hamels Koji Uehara Andrew Miller or another LHR An upside reliever a la Badenhop David Ross or another backup C
As you add guys, you try to pass Ryan Lavarnway, Jonathan Herrera, and Dan Butler through waivers to Pawtucket (in that order).
That still leaves you with 42, so the way you clear the final two roster spots is to trade Anthony Ranaudo, who has no role on the club next year, and either Bryce Brentz (selling high) or Alex Hassan.
(Note that you could DFA Lavarnway before rosters are set and hold on to Britton until after, planning to use him as part of a trade.)
I do want to trade Cespedes plus prospects for Heyward*, but I wouldn't want to include in that trade anyone who is expected to be on the 40-man on options (Escobar, Bradley, and a bunch of folks already mentioned). So even if they made such a deal before rosters were set, I don't see it alleviating the squeeze and allowing them to either protect both Kurcz and Ramirez, or to select Blair if they can't strike a deal where he signs as an mlfa after the Rule 5 draft.
However, if they made a Hamels trade before rosters were set, it would probably include some projected optioned guys and would allow them to protect the extra player or two. Edit: And if the deal is made afterwards, they can of course hang on to some combination of Butler, Herrera, Lavarnway / Britton. That's why you don't DFA them for the roster set.
*In my dreams, that's Cespedes, Ranaudo, Brentz, and Britton for Heyward and a low-minors guy, which solves the roster problem neatly. That is dependent, of course, on the Braves not viewing the gap between Heyward and Cespedes for just one season as being so large that it requires an elite prospect in return -- a position which I think is quite defensible.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 28, 2014 21:11:13 GMT -5
That all... seems perfectly sensible to me, actually.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 28, 2014 22:21:04 GMT -5
I have no problem trading cespedes, he is not a prototypical sox type player. Plus he is not position versatile.
I also have no problem trading ranaudo. He is a fly ball pitcher and needs to play in a pitcher park like San Diego.
If I am prying a left handed bat out of Atlanta, why not shoot for freeman? Atlanta has holes and needs pitching and a second baseman. We have the ability to accommodate.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 6, 2014 22:28:51 GMT -5
Given Kiley McDaniel's seeming confirmation of BA's report that Jason Garcia is up to 100 mph, he's a potential Rule 5 pick now.
Given how far away he is, there's almost no way you can justify using a 40-man spot on him, but I wouldn't be surprised if a team that has room on its 40 takes a flyer and brings him into camp.
(To explain that thinking a bit more - adding him to the 40, if you're the Sox, means you almost have to be sure that he'll be fast-tracked up the ladder, because he's clogging up that spot for a while otherwise. If you're the drafting team, if you don't want him, you give him back and you gave up next to nothing. Opportunity cost in this case is much different.)
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 6, 2014 23:45:36 GMT -5
Under the assumption that priority would go to the teams with the worst record, the Sox could very well be in an opposite position where they are looking to take a flyer on a bullpen piece for the exact reasons Chris stated above for Garcia for the other teams.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 7, 2014 6:01:26 GMT -5
Given Kiley McDaniel's seeming confirmation of BA's report that Jason Garcia is up to 100 mph, he's a potential Rule 5 pick now. Given how far away he is, there's almost no way you can justify using a 40-man spot on him, but I wouldn't be surprised if a team that has room on its 40 takes a flyer and brings him into camp. (To explain that thinking a bit more - adding him to the 40, if you're the Sox, means you almost have to be sure that he'll be fast-tracked up the ladder, because he's clogging up that spot for a while otherwise. If you're the drafting team, if you don't want him, you give him back and you gave up next to nothing. Opportunity cost in this case is much different.) Damn. Hard to believe Garcia is Rule 5 eligible already. Doesn't feel like he's been in the system that long (even considering the TJ)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 7, 2014 8:58:48 GMT -5
I wish pitchers with TJ could get another year or another option.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 7, 2014 9:22:36 GMT -5
Under the assumption that priority would go to the teams with the worst record, the Sox could very well be in an opposite position where they are looking to take a flyer on a bullpen piece for the exact reasons Chris stated above for Garcia for the other teams. Well, maybe. I think it has more to do with whether the drafting team thinks it'll be competing that season. Teams that know they don't likely have a shot are probably more willing to take a gamble on the Joakim Sorias of the world. Roster composition also plays a part. If a projected member of the bullpen could easily be optioned (Tommy Layne or Alex Wilson?), then that also allows you to take a shot. Worth noting that in 2012 the Sox basically passed from the same spot, selecting Jeff Koburnus and immediately trading him for Justin Henry.
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Oct 20, 2014 21:54:33 GMT -5
Question for those who have a better understanding of the intricacies of the 40 man roster than I do. Given that Noe Ramirez seems to have a good chance of getting picked in the Rule 5 draft, what are the possibilities of what the Sox will do with him? What's the likelihood they try to work out a trade before the Rule 5? Is there any chance he'd get put on the 40 man? My sense is the most likely scenario is that they don't do anything--if he gets picked, no huge loss, if he doesn't, he starts in Pawtucket and maybe gets called up if he's successful and they've got a spot in Boston. Accurate?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 21, 2014 17:24:13 GMT -5
Question for those who have a better understanding of the intricacies of the 40 man roster than I do. Given that Noe Ramirez seems to have a good chance of getting picked in the Rule 5 draft, what are the possibilities of what the Sox will do with him? What's the likelihood they try to work out a trade before the Rule 5? Is there any chance he'd get put on the 40 man? My sense is the most likely scenario is that they don't do anything--if he gets picked, no huge loss, if he doesn't, he starts in Pawtucket and maybe gets called up if he's successful and they've got a spot in Boston. Accurate? I have said this before, but I think he passes through. Teams like to use the Rule Five Draft for lottery tickets. The cost of hidding a player for a year is so high that you want someone whiom at the very least might one day close for you. This especially true of the few teams that don't have much hope of competing in 2015 like theTwins. Ramirez will likely never close or start Ramirez might do well for a team that will compete but may need ab extra guy in the pen. Yet teams like that are going to be hesitant tp guarantee a spot to someone with so little experience. Now there are teams, like the A's who would love to have Ramirez if they could option him. I suspect that there are some teams that will try to trade for him. I would reject these offers and try tp get him through the draft. Guys like Ramirez are never given spots in the majors. They end up in the majors because they are pitching well during a rash of injuries and get their chance. Ramirez will eventually get his chance and when he does I think he'll stick and have a nice little career. But he's not going to be handed a major league role until he proves he can get people out in the majors. Picking him in the draft makes no sense unless you are doing just that.
|
|
|
Post by brockholtsuperstar on Oct 22, 2014 12:35:57 GMT -5
One team I wouldn't be surprised to see take a chance on him is the Rockies, seeing as this is a team who gave 16 appearances to Chris Martin. But then again they may not want to keep Ramirez for an entire year.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 22, 2014 17:35:22 GMT -5
One team I wouldn't be surprised to see take a chance on him is the Rockies, seeing as this is a team who gave 16 appearances to Chris Martin. But then again they may not want to keep Ramirez for an entire year. That"s really it. There are tons of teams that would love to have a guy like that if they could option him. Clearing a spot for him for an entire year is another matter. If you can command two solid average pitches.....you will have a career in the majors eventually. It's just that the guys with premium stuff are going first.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 2, 2014 3:20:05 GMT -5
So the crunch is staring us in the face now, brought on by re-signing Uehara in the exclusive negotiating period, and by the emergence of Jason Garcia in instructs.
The more I read about Garcia's breakthrough, the more I think he needs to be protected.
A guy who at times sits 95-98, touches 100, and has OK command? The fact that he's the only prospect that fits that description in a system as strong as ours tells you how rare that it. He absolutely gets taken, and probably he sticks. You can use him in low leverage and not even cost him development time, nor cost your team wins, even if he gets hit hard. A year or two later, you may well have yourselves an elite setup guy.
So, once Ross and Badenhop declare for free agency, we'll be at 38.
Carlos Rivero will be DAF'd.
You need to add Eduardo Rodriguez, Blake Swihart, and Sean Coyle. That's 40.
But you'd really like to add Travis Shaw and Garcia, and in a perfect world, Aaron Kurcz and Noe Ramirez, too.
Ryan Lavarnway is one obvious guy to move off the roster. Jonathan Herrera, Dan Butler, and Drake Britton are other candidates. Moving Britton simply to make room for Kurcz or Ramirez doesn't make sense, though, although eventually including him as sweetener in a multi-player deal does.
The way I read the tea leaves, the team seems likelier to fill the 3 to 6 holes in the roster (one or two SP, one or two relievers, a backup catcher, probably a 3B) via trade than by free agency. Ranaudo and Brentz are two guys that have some trade value and don't have a non-redundant role for next year, and if you can trade Cespedes for Heyward, you can add Nava to that list. Given how well all of the Pawtucket starters (plus De La Rosa and Kelly) project as relievers, they also certainly have a surplus of AAA relievers and could painlessly deal Alex Wilson or Heath Hembree, and maybe both. (I don't like the idea of selling low on Escobar.)
I think it's going to be hard for them to protect Kurcz or Ramirez without running a serious risk of having to later jettison someone worth keeping. If they do protect one, it may indicate that they expect to make a multi-player trade involving someone not already mentioned. The likeliest possibility, to me, would be Webster as part of a deal for a SP (I'd hate to give up Rodriguez, Owens, Barnes, or the probably underrated Johnson, and I bet so would you). Everyone else seems worth keeping as a potential 2015 contributor or because their stock is low.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 2, 2014 16:07:02 GMT -5
As usual makes sense Eric. Unless he gets a velocity bump to his first half 2013 I don't see ceiling to Ranuado, but still do with Webster and would be concerned trading him.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 2, 2014 21:16:14 GMT -5
I was hoping we could find room for shaw on the 40, but i do not think the numbers work.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 2, 2014 21:21:15 GMT -5
There would be a certain poetry in removing Britton from the 40-man roster to make room for Garcia, as the Red Sox are in their current position with Britton because they added him far before he was ready to contribute, eating up his options. I wouldn't like to lose Garcia, just like I didn't want to lose Ryan Pressly two years ago. But the best thing for the organization is to just be patient. If another team scoops him up then so be it. The chances the Red Sox will regret losing Garcia goes down significantly if he loses much-needed development time by sitting in a major league bullpen and facing hitters that he's not ready to pitch to.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 3, 2014 0:22:06 GMT -5
I can not quite figure out Britton. I am hoping he comes to camp in February and wins the lefty spot vacated by Breslow.
I like britton's stuff when he is on. But when he is not, look out, it gets ugly early, especially when the fastball flattens out.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 3, 2014 7:33:49 GMT -5
Not a big fan of Britton. To me he is not overpowering and does not have the control/command to be consistently effective. He appears to be something like an Alex Wilson from the left side.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 18, 2014 11:28:49 GMT -5
Reserve list deadline is Thursday.
The DFA and loss of Hassan created a fifth spot on the 40.
Swihart and Rodriguez will be protected. I think Coyle and Shaw are near-certain. Did they just create a spot for one more, or are they opening a spot so they can be flexible should another team cut someone loose in the next day or two/if some team wants to pay them to select a guy for them (see Marwin Gonzalez in 2011 and Jeff Koburnus in 2012)?
Candidates for the fifth spot would be Celestino, Couch, L. Diaz, J. Garcia, Kurcz, N. Ramirez, H. Ramos, and Scott. I don't think Garcia (too far away, RP projection) or Scott (fringy stuff, super-heavy reverse splits work against his left-handedness being a virtue) are serious contenders. I don't see them losing Hassan to make a spot for a reliever, which gets rid of all the other pitchers, honestly. I also don't see them losing Hassan to make a spot for Ramos, but it seems like that might be the likeliest case, if any are protected? I don't see any of them being likely, personally, but who knows?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 18, 2014 11:38:36 GMT -5
They also need spots for any free agents signed, obviously, so I wouldn't just assume they opened up a spot to protect someone else. Not say you were Chris, just saying in general. Maybe they dumped Hassan to do him a favor of sticking with a team before the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 18, 2014 14:56:15 GMT -5
They also need spots for any free agents signed, obviously, so I wouldn't just assume they opened up a spot to protect someone else. Not say you were Chris, just saying in general. Maybe they dumped Hassan to do him a favor of sticking with a team before the deadline. First part is a fair point, but you're probably better off trying to pass him through after Rule 5 if you just need the spot for a free agent. As for doing him a favor, there's no chance of that. If they were trying to do him a favor, they'd have traded him into a better situation for cash rather than trying to pass him through waivers to be claimed by some random team.
|
|
|