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.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 2, 2014 18:37:21 GMT -5
Eric, Gibson on this site was last ranked in the top 20 4 years ago. One good month does not make someone worthy of a 40 man spot. There are prospects with higher upside worth keeping than him and that is not a disrespect to Gibson but pure fact. He has been in Portland for three straight years. Usually when that happens you aren't a prospect worth keeping for Rule 5. The players you think warrant a 40 man spot (Couch, Hernandez, Ramirez, Celestino, Gibson, etc., with Layne and Scott). None of them outside of Noe Ramirez should even sniff a 40 man spot this year. Jonathan, please tell me that: A) This is a response to the very first post of mine in this thread, at which time you hadn't read any of my subsequent posts where I explained the way I list potential Rule 5 guys with two months left in the season -- a methodology I believe is very different from the one you use at the end of the season, for the simple fact that guys routinely move up or down many notches here in that time span. and B) For some bizarre educational reason, you do not actually know what the word "possible" means. Because the players you claim I "think warrant a 40 man spot" were listed as "possible" additions in my first post, which actually means that I do not at present think they warrant a Rule 5 spot, which -- the last time I checked -- is the opposite of what you think I believe. If both of those things are not true (well, you know what I actually mean with "B," that you more or less didn't read that post carefully or think through what it means to list two guys as "probable additions" and then list a further group of players, which by dint of their exclusion from the probable group would mean they were ... hmm ... this is a toughie .... oh, improbable), I am going to have to finish and post the reply that I started a few days ago using 24 pt Comic Sans. (And that is not a joke!)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 26, 2014 13:43:32 GMT -5
A current take:
Assume that Ranaudo, Webster, Workman, and Wright are all in MLB next year; that Britton and Lavarnway, both out of options, are moved off the roster over the winter; and that Dan Butler is DFA'd.
Returning Optioned players Edwin Escobar Heath Hembree Tommy Layne Alex Wilson Garrin Cecchini Jonathan Herrera Bryce Brentz Alex Hassan
Definite Additions Matt Barnes Blake Swihart Sean Coyle Travis Shaw
That's 12 guys, leaving 3 open slots. That could be reduced to 2 if they go to ST with 13 expected MLB pitchers (with one of the aforementioned quartet being optioned if everyone is healthy), or increased to 4 if they DFA Wilson. (I don't think they would have added Layne to the roster if they had any plans to DFA him later. And Herrera will be very useful as a shuttle-rider.)
All Conceivable Additions, Alphabetically, No Probabilities Implied
Miguel Celestino Keith Couch Luis Diaz John Ely Chris Hernandez Aaron Kurcz Pete Ruiz Noe Ramirez Robby Scott Ryan Verdugo
Michael Almanzar Derrik Gibson Henry Ramos
|
|
badfishnbc
Veteran
Doing you all a favor and leaving through the gate in right field since 2012.
Posts: 410
|
Post by badfishnbc on Jul 28, 2014 10:34:57 GMT -5
Cafardo this weekend: I would... disagree... with more than a few of those names.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jul 28, 2014 10:44:37 GMT -5
I would give thought to letting one or two of the guys in their last option year to keep an extra guy just becoming Rule 5 eligible.
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Singer on Jul 28, 2014 10:54:01 GMT -5
Cafardo this weekend: I would... disagree... with more than a few of those names. The 4 highlighted are ones that should be protected with Barnes, Swihart and Coyle being the definite ones. Half of those players mentioned are not top prospects or org guys.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 28, 2014 10:54:44 GMT -5
Cafardo this weekend: I would... disagree... with more than a few of those names. List clearly done with little thought based on names he recognized from Spring Training (Meneses was in camp, Wilkerson played in many MLB games because he's very good defensively). Kind of embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 28, 2014 10:57:53 GMT -5
A current take: Assume that Ranaudo, Webster, Workman, and Wright are all in MLB next year; that Britton and Lavarnway, both out of options, are moved off the roster over the winter; and that Dan Butler is DFA'd. Returning Optioned playersEdwin Escobar Heath Hembree Tommy Layne Alex Wilson Garrin Cecchini Jonathan Herrera Bryce Brentz Alex Hassan Definite AdditionsMatt Barnes Blake Swihart Sean Coyle Travis Shaw That's 12 guys, leaving 3 open slots. That could be reduced to 2 if they go to ST with 13 expected MLB pitchers (with one of the aforementioned quartet being optioned if everyone is healthy), or increased to 4 if they DFA Wilson. (I don't think they would have added Layne to the roster if they had any plans to DFA him later. And Herrera will be very useful as a shuttle-rider.) All Conceivable Additions, Alphabetically, No Probabilities Implied
Miguel Celestino Keith Couch Luis Diaz Chris Hernandez Aaron Kurcz Noe Ramirez Robby Scott Ryan Verdugo Michael Almanzar Derrik Gibson Henry Ramos Not seeing anything at first glance that I disagree with much as far as your 40-man analysis goes, but I don't agree with your assumptions, particularly that all of those guys will be in Boston or that they'll DFA Butler. I'll take a crack at a projection once the trade deadline passes, unless I happen to get a chance sooner.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 29, 2014 6:43:30 GMT -5
Re Cafardo's list including Wilkerson, De La Cruz, and Meneses while omitting Shaw, Almanzar, Gibson, Ramos, Hernandez, Celestino, Diaz, and Scott (and Verdugo, but that's a tricky one that I initially forgot myself) ...
After some thought, I think the only possible explanation is that he typed that list off the top of the head without even bothering to look at the club rosters to see if he was forgetting anyone (or what kind of seasons they were having). And that he has an absolutely terrible memory. Because as lacking in knowledge of baseball as Cafardo is, I still can't imagine that he thinks Heiker Meneses is more likely to be drafted than Travis Shaw.
Chris's notion that he was remembering guys from ST (thus implying that he actually pays no attention to the minors during the regular season) is consistent with that. Embarrassing is putting it mildly. How much money are they paying him to not even bother looking at the Pawtucket and Portland rosters? And I frankly can't even wrap my ahead around the notion of a human being having that low a standard for the quality of their work.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 29, 2014 6:53:52 GMT -5
A current take: Assume that Ranaudo, Webster, Workman, and Wright are all in MLB next year; that Britton and Lavarnway, both out of options, are moved off the roster over the winter; and that Dan Butler is DFA'd. ... That's 12 guys, leaving 3 open slots. That could be reduced to 2 if they go to ST with 13 expected MLB pitchers (with one of the aforementioned quartet being optioned if everyone is healthy), or increased to 4 if they DFA Wilson. (I don't think they would have added Layne to the roster if they had any plans to DFA him later. And Herrera will be very useful as a shuttle-rider.) Not seeing anything at first glance that I disagree with much as far as your 40-man analysis goes, but I don't agree with your assumptions, particularly that all of those guys will be in Boston or that they'll DFA Butler. I'll take a crack at a projection once the trade deadline passes, unless I happen to get a chance sooner. If they make a big trade where they ship out multiple 40-man guys to get Jason Heyward or Giancarlo Stanton, then, sure, Butler can probably be kept. And you may well be right that 1 or 2 of the 4 pitchers is not in MLB next year (and in fact I mentioned the scenario where one of them TBD is optioned). But if they keep Butler and option one or two of the pitchers, then you're exposing all but one, or even all, of the possible additions. I would rather risk risk losing Butler on a waiver claim than risk losing the best 1 or 2 of Gibson, Hernandez, Ramirez, etc. in the Rule 5. I think Gibson, for instance, would be drafted and kept as someone's utility guy, and be much more valuable than Butler.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 29, 2014 7:47:50 GMT -5
Eric, I know you love Chris Hernandez probably more than anyone on the site, but he's regressed again. In his last seven outings over 32 innings he's struck out 24, walked 18, allowed 20 runs (17 earned)... He's not getting protected. And he's only getting taken in the Rule 5 if a scout somewhere whose GM trusts him really really liked him.
Other thoughts: There's probably an outside chance (<15%) that Brentz gets removed from the 40-man. There's probably also a non-zero chance at this point that Doubront is nontendered. I think it's more likely that he's dealt, and I would personally disagree with not tendring him, but I definitely don't see him on the roster next year. He badly needs a change of scenery - he had stagnated all season even before what's been a pretty embarrassing July on all levels.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 7:50:26 GMT -5
This is pretty impossible to figure out before Friday.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 29, 2014 8:43:27 GMT -5
This is pretty impossible to figure out before Friday. Yeah seriously a total nonsense article about this gets the thread revived right before the deadline? What a waste.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 29, 2014 9:31:41 GMT -5
This is pretty impossible to figure out before Friday. Managing the offseason 40-man situation is crucial heading into the trade deadline. The Red Sox moves in 2011, where they dealt with a looming roster crunch by dealing likely additions Federowicz, Chiang, and Fife, are absolutely indicative of that. Just because we don't know what the team is going to do, that doesn't mean it's not fun to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 9:34:27 GMT -5
This is pretty impossible to figure out before Friday. Managing the offseason 40-man situation is crucial heading into the trade deadline. The Red Sox moves in 2011, where they dealt with a looming roster crunch by dealing likely additions Federowicz, Chiang, and Fife, are absolutely indicative of that. Just because we don't know what the team is going to do, that doesn't mean it's not fun to discuss. Yeah I know. We should clear some space now, not turn it into a bad situation in November by acquiring too many guys who need spots. But it's still impossible to figure out right now. I wasn't saying it's crazy to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 29, 2014 10:11:44 GMT -5
Is Barnes a definite addition at this point? He's not really young enough for another team to grab him, leave him in the bullpen all year, and then still hope for progress at AAA in 2016, before calling him up in 2017. Unless he's ready to actually contribute next year, then he's doesn't have enough distant upside to be worth a roster spot.
I'm not saying that 3 could starts couldn't make him a definite addition by end of year, but currently, I don't think he's very attractive.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 10:14:20 GMT -5
Is Barnes a definite addition at this point? He's not really young enough for another team to grab him, leave him in the bullpen all year, and then still hope for progress at AAA in 2016, before calling him up in 2017. Unless he's ready to actually contribute next year, then he's doesn't have enough distant upside to be worth a roster spot. I'm not saying that 3 could starts couldn't make him a definite addition by end of year, but currently, I don't think he's very attractive. He'd easily get taken. Some teams can afford to let him try to figure it out in the majors. And he has pretty decent upside.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Jul 29, 2014 10:20:49 GMT -5
I see little need to keep Herrera on our 40-man roster. We already got Holt and Mookie. I say trade Herrera and keep Coyle. That will open up a spot.
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Singer on Jul 29, 2014 10:36:31 GMT -5
Is Barnes a definite addition at this point? He's not really young enough for another team to grab him, leave him in the bullpen all year, and then still hope for progress at AAA in 2016, before calling him up in 2017. Unless he's ready to actually contribute next year, then he's doesn't have enough distant upside to be worth a roster spot. I'm not saying that 3 could starts couldn't make him a definite addition by end of year, but currently, I don't think he's very attractive. He is a first round draft pick that 24 years old and in Triple A. He'd be scooped up with the number 1 pick in the rule 5 draft. He is a lock to get protected.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jul 29, 2014 11:01:56 GMT -5
I see little need to keep Herrera on our 40-man roster. We already got Holt and Mookie. I say trade Herrera and keep Coyle. That will open up a spot. I agree - between Holt, Betts, Marrero, and any AAA vet for depth, Herrera's a fungible asset at best. But Herrera's remaining options give a certain amount of flexibility with the left side of the infield still in flux, so I guess he probably sticks around.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 29, 2014 11:16:13 GMT -5
I see little need to keep Herrera on our 40-man roster. We already got Holt and Mookie. I say trade Herrera and keep Coyle. That will open up a spot. I agree - between Holt, Betts, Marrero, and any AAA vet for depth, Herrera's a fungible asset at best. But Herrera's remaining options give a certain amount of flexibility with the left side of the infield still in flux, so I guess he probably sticks around. I also agree and wouldn't be surprised to see him thrown into a larger deal this week.
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Singer on Jul 29, 2014 11:32:40 GMT -5
I agree - between Holt, Betts, Marrero, and any AAA vet for depth, Herrera's a fungible asset at best. But Herrera's remaining options give a certain amount of flexibility with the left side of the infield still in flux, so I guess he probably sticks around. I also agree and wouldn't be surprised to see him thrown into a larger deal this week.The new Nick Punto.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2014 11:48:20 GMT -5
I'm sure he doesn't want to stick around and be our AAA shuttle, used only in cases of emergency. He probably belongs in the majors somewhere.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 29, 2014 21:57:05 GMT -5
Eric, I know you love Chris Hernandez probably more than anyone on the site, but he's regressed again. In his last seven outings over 32 innings he's struck out 24, walked 18, allowed 20 runs (17 earned)... He's not getting protected. And he's only getting taken in the Rule 5 if a scout somewhere whose GM trusts him really really liked him. Other thoughts: There's probably an outside chance (<15%) that Brentz gets removed from the 40-man. There's probably also a non-zero chance at this point that Doubront is nontendered. I think it's more likely that he's dealt, and I would personally disagree with not tendring him, but I definitely don't see him on the roster next year. He badly needs a change of scenery - he had stagnated all season even before what's been a pretty embarrassing July on all levels. I think that any pitcher who has had a stretch of dominance in AAA is very likely to be drafted by somebody. It costs essentially nothing to take a look at him in ST and see if you can figure out what he was doing right, if there indeed was something. Now, due to his regression I agree with you that protecting him is a luxury, and failing to protect him is something we're unlikely to regret even in the abstract, and very unlikely to regret given the pitching depth ahead of him. But I think it's very important to point out that the reason why so few Rule 5 guys prove to be important is that most teams do have room to protect guys as luxuries, as insurance against very small probabilities of loss. For instance, I don't think there's any chance we protect Henry Ramos, there simply isn't room. I think there's a decent chance he'll get drafted, and if he does, he'll almost certainly come back a la Almanzar. There's maybe a 5% chance that he figures out something over the winter or next ST and sticks after getting drafted. The thing is, most clubs can afford to protect (anywhere from most to all of their) guys that fit that description (as we once did with Argenis Diaz, for instance). Every guy on my list above is, I think, a player that could be protected by a thin-system club that found itself with an open spot and wanted to reduce a 5% chance (or less!) of a significant loss to 0%. Ditto for the potential mlfa's -- I think Celestino and Ruiz both have some chance of landing an MLB deal, as Olmsted did, and there are therefore probably teams that are so thin that adding them to the winter roster would make sense. BTW, the dark horse to make this a difficult decision, and a guy we should be watching, is Verdugo. OH, re Doubront -- you're probably right, but the charm of this method is that we don't have to worry about the 25 man roster; all we try to do is identify who the 15 optioned players will be. So Doubront doesn't affect the calculus at all.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 30, 2014 11:07:28 GMT -5
I'm sure he doesn't want to stick around and be our AAA shuttle, used only in cases of emergency. He probably belongs in the majors somewhere. Why does it matter what he wants? He has options and is arb eligible/under team control. I think he should be kept, but I'm like BC, a depth-hoarder. Happy to see him go in a trade though. Jerry Crasnick ?@jcrasnick 2m #Royals have backed off Jonny Gomes because they want a bat that can play RF. He doesn't fit that description. Bummer! What if we only want a C- prospect in return? An autographed bat? A bag of balls? OK, a single shrink-wrapped MLB ready baseball.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 30, 2014 11:11:00 GMT -5
I'm sure he doesn't want to stick around and be our AAA shuttle, used only in cases of emergency. He probably belongs in the majors somewhere. Why does it matter what he wants? He has options and is arb eligible/under team control. I think he should be kept, but I'm like BC, a depth-hoarder. Happy to see him go in a trade though. Jerry Crasnick ?@jcrasnick 2m #Royals have backed off Jonny Gomes because they want a bat that can play RF. He doesn't fit that description. Bummer! What if we only want a C- prospect in return? An autographed bat? A bag of balls? OK, a single shrink-wrapped MLB ready baseball. It matters if he's disgruntled about it.
|
|
|