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 moonstone2 on Aug 18, 2014 2:28:16 GMT -5
Shaw is (now) an obvious player to protect, for me. Kid has 56 HR over the last three seasons and has shown potential to control the strike zone (significant stretches with BB>K). Every time you (I) think he's hit a ceiling he takes another step forward, and just had a killer July for Pawtucket. Shaw is a solid depth option (with options) at 1B-DH next season, and could complement Craig, for instance, in a platoon role in the future. Right now we have lots of Major League redundancy at OB-1B but who knows after the offseason? As an AL competitor, I would claim him if left unprotected and work him into my 1B-DH mix next season. As has been pointed out, many teams get weak DH production and of course most teams are looking to stretch a dollar. And if he does get taken, so what? It's not like he's ever going to be a major.league regular here. Look if you want a 1b in Pawtuckett to.be a depth option sign a minor league free agent, have Bryce Brentz do that, don't waste a roster spot. In the end this is a soon.to be 25 year old 1b/dh who has an obp under .330 in half a season of AAA. Let's stop slicing and dicing the data to pretend that he's a future Red Sox regular. The 40 man roster is for possible future Red Sox positional regulars not for plan D 1b types.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 18, 2014 2:30:13 GMT -5
While I agree with your assessment of Ramirez, I don't think his lack of AAA experience would factor into a team's R5 selection. The Sox lost Ryan Pressly to the Twins despite him never advancing past Portland, while Houston took Josh Fields after pitching just 13.2 innings for the PawSox. It depends on the pitcher. Josh Fields threw up to 97. The Twins thought Ryan Pressley could start one day. The same cannot be said of Ramirez. When you throw in the mid 80s you have to prove yourself at every level. So yes for him, his lack of AAA experience makes him less likely to be drafted snd lower on the protect list. Ramirez is not a mid-80s guy. He's 89-91 with great deception, plus command, and an above-average changeup. He almost certainly has the highest floor of any of that Celestino-Kurcz-etc. fringe reliever group, as he's pretty much a lock to at least be a solid 6th inning guy (those other guys struggle with control and command and might be Vilarreal-esque fringe guys). I also tend to think he has a higher ceiling than ya'll are suggesting. He could be an eighth inning guy if he improves his changeup and slider enough to be true swing-and-miss weapons. He already has the ability to limit walks and get ground balls.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 18, 2014 5:51:31 GMT -5
Of course, the reason no player like Shaw has been taken could be because such players are always protected. Exactly. A lot of the thinking on this topic is essentially circular. Under the new rules I don't think such a player has ever been taken. Changes in the draft, and the game such as 12 man staffs, revenue sharing, and the second wild card effect this. As for Eric's analysis, any analysis that seriously postulates that the Royals are going to replace Country Breakfast with a 25 year old platoon rule five guy.with a .325 OBP in half a AAA season can't be taken serously. Eric teams that see themselves as contenders, and these days that's most teams, want players with major league experience and track records. You just can't explain to you fans that you are replacing Nelson Cruz with Travis Shaw. This is incredibly circular thinking. What you're actually saying is that the Royals would never replace Cruz with a guy not worth protecting in the Rule 5 draft (like Travis Shaw). In other words, in order to argue that we shouldn't protect Shaw, you begin by assuming that he's not worth protecting. But of course, your general argument is laughably wrong. You might ask yourself who the player who has started all season in CF for the defending world champs is, and how much of an MLB track record he had. Teams replace veterans with top 20 prospects routinely. Were we to leave Shaw unprotected, some team needing a 1B or DH at the top of the draft would be all over him, and tell their fans that they were amazed that one of the few guys in AAA with legitimate power had been left unprotected, and they were looking forward to giving him a shot in ST for the open or weak position. And if he does get taken, so what? It's not like he's ever going to be a major.league regular here. Look if you want a 1b in Pawtuckett to.be a depth option sign a minor league free agent, have Bryce Brentz do that, don't waste a roster spot. In the end this is a soon.to be 25 year old 1b/dh who has an obp under .330 in half a season of AAA. Let's stop slicing and dicing the data to pretend that he's a future Red Sox regular. The 40 man roster is for possible future Red Sox positional regulars not for plan D 1b types. Now you're a) making arguments that have already been rebutted, and b) contradicting yourself at the same time. You create a nice little sandwich out of a an implication, then an assertion, of the crazy notion that we should only project players who project to be regulars for us (then why not leave Coyle unprotected?). The meat of this little sandwich, though, is the admission that we might want a AAA depth option at 1B and DH, only you repeat your earlier suggestion that we sign an mlfa. I already pointed out that you want a guy who has options who can be recalled and sent down at will, and you want a guy who will be better than an mlfa, so no sooner have you finished repeating that suggestion, you say we should have Brentz be that guy -- Brentz, who has never played an inning at 1B and whose crippling problem is that he struggles vs. RHP (.193 / .300 / .310 this year, versus .279 / .357 / .639 vs. LHP; the 3-year splits aren't quite as extreme but are still big). In terms of slicing and dicing data to identify possible upside, I'm reminded of past conversations about the likes of Derek Lowe, Bronson Arroyo et al. Mike Andrews can testify that I told him at a SABR meeting that he had Jed Lowrie ranked insanely low (something like 22) because I'd sliced and diced his 2006 season to remove the games he was playing with or recovering from a bum ankle, and found that he was still the same guy. A sustained stretch of play at a significantly higher level of performance is almost always an indication of potential upside. Look, no one is claiming that Shaw is a great prospect. All we're saying is two things: A) Should there be an injury next year to Ortiz or Napoli, he projects to be a significantly better replacement than anyone else currently in the organization, or anyone we could obtain for free. Note that Nava is not guaranteed to be here next year, and that if Betts takes over in CF and/or we sign Castillo, we may well be looking at a lineup where Ortiz is the only LHB. Another LHB in AAA who can be recalled an optioned at will, and who can actually do damage against RHP would obviously be a team asset. B) Because of the rather mind-boggling shortage of power hitting currently, Shaw would be one of the first players taken in the draft if left unprotected, and the reason that's not obvious is that guys like him are in fact never left unprotected. Repeat: the first-place Brewers have a guy who starts at 1B versus most RHP who is hitting .232 / .323 / .335. The other half of the platoon (Reynolds) hits HR but has a .296 OBP and just a .421 SA. And there are the other examples I cited earlier. (I will give you credit for simply ignoring this point rather than trying to rebut it with circular or obviously wrong arguments.) He's a 2015 team asset whom we would lose if unprotected. There's no rational argument against any part of that sentence.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 18, 2014 5:59:55 GMT -5
It depends on the pitcher. Josh Fields threw up to 97. The Twins thought Ryan Pressley could start one day. The same cannot be said of Ramirez. When you throw in the mid 80s you have to prove yourself at every level. So yes for him, his lack of AAA experience makes him less likely to be drafted snd lower on the protect list. Ramirez is not a mid-80s guy. He's 89-91 with great deception, plus command, and an above-average changeup. He almost certainly has the highest floor of any of that Celestino-Kurcz-etc. fringe reliever group, as he's pretty much a lock to at least be a solid 6th inning guy (those other guys struggle with control and command and might be Vilarreal-esque fringe guys). I also tend to think he has a higher ceiling than ya'll are suggesting. He could be an eighth inning guy if he improves his changeup and slider enough to be true swing-and-miss weapons. He already has the ability to limit walks and get ground balls. Good points, especially re the upside. I think I'll stop being contrarian and swap him with Kurcz in my depth chart. One point that no is making is that because of the loss of free agents, we could protect more guys than we have theoretical open slots for, and then free up space with a 2-for-1 or multiplayer trade. But we would have to know that trade was going to happen. It would be a shame to lose a guy like Ramirez and then deal 2 or 3 guys off the roster to get a Cole Hamels, and end up with free roster space. Whether this means that they'll move to obtain the missing top-of-rotation starter early, in November, is a good question. Certainly they have the cash to sign Lester quickly and the prospects to trade for anyone they want quickly: the question is whether they want to.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Aug 18, 2014 6:00:10 GMT -5
To me Shaw seems like a cheaper version of Mike Carp. Only difference is that he has never played the outfield. I do guess he is a better use of the 40 man than Britton or Lavarnway. His spot could be easily filled in free agency for a cheap price with a player that has a better track record. If the Sox are looking to contend next year then Shaw will be nowhere near the starting lineup.
I get he's okay but for three years the hype train has been in service on this board. We had a debate about Napoli and how the Sox shouldn't sign him because he would block Shaw. If Shaw pans out he's an average bench player. I have no problem wasting a 40 man spot on him, but let's have realistic expectations of the guy.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 18, 2014 6:34:26 GMT -5
Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you argue that prospects shouldn't be protected from the rule 5 draft because their MLB track record is not good enough?
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Aug 18, 2014 8:53:00 GMT -5
The 40 man roster is for possible future Red Sox positional regulars I have no idea what prompted this particular belief, as I have never heard a similar declaration before. The 40-man roster includes the 25-man, core ML-ready AAA depth, and prospects with value (potential Major Leaguers) the team does not want to risk losing for nothing. Shaw is both core depth & a prospect with value. The ML roster for next season is uncertain, but there is a significant chance Shaw would be the first callup if either Napoli (going on 33) or Ortiz (who will be 39!) hit the DL. And while Shaw is not young for a AAA prospect, he's not old either, and most importantly has continued to develop. The questions are: 1. How good is he now? [ML caliber vs RHP?] 2. Will he develop further? [Maybe?] 3. What will next year's roster look like? [No one knows? although it seems likely Napoli & Ortiz will remain in place]
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Aug 18, 2014 10:48:49 GMT -5
As long as we can agree that Eric's expectation that Shaw will be as good/better than Nava vs. RHP next year is crazy, I'm okay with adding Shaw as depth. If they get rid of the SP depth and guys like Hassan/Lavarnway, the room may be there for him.
If they don't and he's squeezed out, try to trade him. I really don't imagine him sticking in 2014. Nowhere has he torn up a new level immediately, and that'll be harder as a backup 1B in Milwaukee. Partly because of this, I don't imagine any scenario where Shaw becomes a productive MLBer in Boston. There are no growing pains allowed (this year excepted, apparently), but certainly not at 1B. I see him basically how I see David Murphy, or to a lesser extent, Brandon Moss. Might happen... but not here.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Aug 18, 2014 11:12:13 GMT -5
As long as we can agree that Eric's expectation that Shaw will may be as good/better than Nava vs. RHP next year is crazy,.... I see him basically how I see David Murphy, or to a lesser extent, Brandon Moss. Might happen... but not here. Murphy was a solid Major League outfielder from the day he was traded and given a shot by the Rangers. I like Nava, and I'm not sold on Shaw, but it's not impossible that Shaw>Nava vs RHP next year, although it's really beside the point as Shaw will almost certainly be in AAA. Nava will be 32 with a career .293 / .386 / .429 split and could decline. Shaw will be 25 with a .304 / .353 / .529 split at AAA and could improve.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Aug 18, 2014 11:20:35 GMT -5
As far as trades go, I just don't think teams are all that interested in giving up assests for players they can get for free in a few weeks. I wish the Red Sox would trade for more A ball lottery tickets, because roster filler for roster filler doesn't excite me, but it just doesn't happen.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 18, 2014 19:04:23 GMT -5
As long as we can agree that Eric's expectation that Shaw will may be as good/better than Nava vs. RHP next year is crazy,.... I see him basically how I see David Murphy, or to a lesser extent, Brandon Moss. Might happen... but not here. Murphy was a solid Major League outfielder from the day he was traded and given a shot by the Rangers. I like Nava, and I'm not sold on Shaw, but it's not impossible that Shaw>Nava vs RHP next year, although it's really beside the point as Shaw will almost certainly be in AAA. Nava will be 32 with a career .293 / .386 / .429 split and could decline. Shaw will be 25 with a .304 / .353 / .529 split at AAA and could improve. He's already declined from last year; even after adjusting for the decline in league offense, his K% is up 13%, BB% is down 3%, and his Hardness of Contact down 10% (HR/Contact down 60%, BABIP down 3%, XB% down 17%). If next year he declines half as much in each of his components, he's at .264 / .336 / .313 (that's just 3 extra SO, plus a loss of 2 each of singles, doubles, and homers). Not saying that will happen -- he may well hold steady or even recover a little power -- but just pointing out how easy it is for an apparently declining player to fall off the table. There's lots of room for Shaw to pass him, which is why I said it was a possibility (thanks for correcting that). (In terms of 2014 versus 2012, when we know he was playing hurt, only his K rate is better, by 9%. His walks are down 23% and his HOC is down 1% without the excuse of the hand injury.) And of course, all this discussion may be moot if Nava, as rumored, is dealt to ease up the looming logjam (e.g., Craig, Betts, Cespedes, with Bradley and Victorino on the bench). In which case it will be extra nice to have a LHB in AAA.
|
|
|
Post by 111soxfan111 on Aug 19, 2014 11:50:08 GMT -5
And if he does get taken, so what? It's not like he's ever going to be a major.league regular here. Look if you want a 1b in Pawtuckett to.be a depth option sign a minor league free agent, have Bryce Brentz do that, don't waste a roster spot. In the end this is a soon.to be 25 year old 1b/dh who has an obp under .330 in half a season of AAA. Let's stop slicing and dicing the data to pretend that he's a future Red Sox regular. The 40 man roster is for possible future Red Sox positional regulars not for plan D 1b types. Wait, what??? You use half a season of stats to imply he's bad at getting on base, ignoring it's his first exposure to AAA and the previous 1500 PAs with a +14% walk rate. Then you go on to accuse others of slicing and dicing the data to prove a point? Seriously? And what the hell is a "soon to be 25 year old" ... do you mean a 24yo? Phrases like this are the hallmark of an opinion out shopping for logic. You started out saying that Shaw doesn't have power, which is kind of silly. Then you move into ludicrous territory suggesting 40 man spots are only for future positional regulars. Shaw is a lock for a 40 man spot on any team absent an really crazy roster crunch. He has power and he has shown very good plate discipline at every level up to AAA. Yes, we could replace the current version of Shaw with a MLFA, but any team would rather have him as their AAA 1B because: a) he has upside and b) he can be shuttled back and forth. If his development stalls next year, when he's ACTUALLY 25, we might have a different discussion but if he puts up AAA numbers next year like his AA numbers this year, we're looking at a guy with serious value. In the interim, he looks MLB ready as the long side of a platoon and that means if he gets taken in R5 he's probably not coming back. It's a pretty easy decision.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 19, 2014 14:07:51 GMT -5
And if he does get taken, so what? It's not like he's ever going to be a major.league regular here. Look if you want a 1b in Pawtuckett to.be a depth option sign a minor league free agent, have Bryce Brentz do that, don't waste a roster spot. In the end this is a soon.to be 25 year old 1b/dh who has an obp under .330 in half a season of AAA. Let's stop slicing and dicing the data to pretend that he's a future Red Sox regular. The 40 man roster is for possible future Red Sox positional regulars not for plan D 1b types. Wait, what??? You use half a season of stats to imply he's bad at getting on base, ignoring it's his first exposure to AAA and the previous 1500 PAs with a +14% walk rate. Then you go on to accuse others of slicing and dicing the data to prove a point? Seriously? And what the hell is a "soon to be 25 year old" ... do you mean a 24yo? Phrases like this are the hallmark of an opinion out shopping for logic. You started out saying that Shaw doesn't have power, which is kind of silly. Then you move into ludicrous territory suggesting 40 man spots are only for future positional regulars. Shaw is a lock for a 40 man spot on any team absent an really crazy roster crunch. He has power and he has shown very good plate discipline at every level up to AAA. Yes, we could replace the current version of Shaw with a MLFA, but any team would rather have him as their AAA 1B because: a) he has upside and b) he can be shuttled back and forth. If his development stalls next year, when he's ACTUALLY 25, we might have a different discussion but if he puts up AAA numbers next year like his AA numbers this year, we're looking at a guy with serious value. In the interim, he looks MLB ready as the long side of a platoon and that means if he gets taken in R5 he's probably not coming back. It's a pretty easy decision. Without validating Moonstone's questionable logic, I do want to point out that Shaw's AAA k-rate (~20%) and iso (~.200) and this year are in line with his numbers from previous years. I'm sure his walk% will rebound, but we also have to remember that passivity will not do the job now that he's at a higher level, and more pitchers are throwing strikes. Plus, it's not like he's gotten unlucky in the BABIP department as he's currently over .320 ADD: I don't think putting him on the 40-man is a given, nor do I think he would be all that likely to stick at the MLB level. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him selected and go to ST for another organization though.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 19, 2014 14:53:04 GMT -5
Remember, Shaw got a major league invite to major league spring training as well as a spot in the team's Rookie Development program last winter. Between this sort-of anecdotal evidence that the team likes him and the solid statistical case for including him, I'd be pretty shocked if he was left off of the 40-man.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 19, 2014 14:57:34 GMT -5
I really can't see there being 40 guys we need more than Shaw.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 20, 2014 10:50:25 GMT -5
I don't find Gibson to be special enough to keep on the 40 man roster if he can't help the ML roster on day 1. Brock Holt wasn't on the ML roster on day 1 this year. I guess he wasn't special enough to be on the 40-man either.Gibson has all of his options left. A guy like that is insanely valuable when it comes to preserving all the other talent in need of protection on the 40-man (Escobar, Rodriguez, and others who likely won't be called upon by Boston until late in 2015). He fills reserve positions that would normally require 2 or even 3 players (MI, CM, OF), so you don't have to keep more limited and superfluous guys like Ryan Roberts, Jonathan Herrera or Kelly Johnson around over the course of a season, and you don't have to continuously DFA and add less flexible players to fill varying positions of need. This (bolded) type of idiocy is annoying; stop creating a strawman argument. Holt was ready to contribute on day 1; he had previous ML experience and COULD HAVE helped had he needed to. As I clearly stated; IF Gibson can't be counted on to help the ML team on day 1 then he doesn't need to be added. He doesn't need to be added precisely because he's not anything more than a AAAA super-sub. He's a replacement level player who can replace many positions; none of them well enough to warrant a permanent spot on the 25 man roster. There's marginal but not insane value in that type of player. However, IF he can help the ML roster on day one if necessary then drop Hassan and add Gibson. I personally believe that Gibson would go undrafted, or would be returned during spring training.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 20, 2014 14:05:53 GMT -5
I personally believe that Gibson would go undrafted, or would be returned during spring training. For the umpteenth time, he will be an mlfa. If we don't select him to the 40-man, he will certainly get an MLB deal, and that team will then have three option years of control. Starting this year. I trimmed your comments where you dismissed him as a replacement level player, which are both absurdly premature and completely at odds with his performance this year. Clay Davenport projects his peak as .274 / .357 / .380, which is a .261 EqA / TAv, which is just below average for a starting CF (.265) and considerably above average for a staring SS (.248). And that's combining a .256 projection from AA with a .286 from his 62 PA in AAA, so he hasn't exactly been exposed by the tougher level of play.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 20, 2014 15:25:44 GMT -5
Clay Davenport's Peak (Age-Adjusted) Translations, adjusted for best position (Betts and Holt at 2B, etc.). Basically, a measure of how good a season they've had.
.265 average MLB starter .260 average MLB player .230 nominal replacement level
Betts .322 as CF .316, as RF .306 Coyle .303 as 3B .297 Swihart .289 Blair .288 Holt .282 as 3B or CF .276 Gibson .275 as CF .261 Bogaert .266 Shaw .261 Almanz .261 as 1B .244 Marrero .260 Ramos .257 Hassan .256 Vazquez .255 DeLaCru .251 Cecchin .249 as LF .238 Brentz .248
JBJ and WMB are way below replacement level, as you no doubt know. Xander's number reminds you how young he is.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Aug 20, 2014 16:09:46 GMT -5
I personally believe that Gibson would go undrafted, or would be returned during spring training. For the umpteenth time, he will be an mlfa. If we don't select him to the 40-man, he will certainly get an MLB deal, and that team will then have three option years of control. Starting this year. You're right, Sox would be in a bidding war for Gibson. They may offer Gibson more $$$ than other teams, but doubtful they offer an immediate 40-man roster spot. (Gibson is valued now that he's a goner ...)
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 20, 2014 18:49:06 GMT -5
I disagree that he's of any real value. Even if he's a mlfa his value is org depth. As fun as those conversions are they don't take into account that in the minors you see organization guys and prospects. Blair, for one is a AA catcher who might one day get a cup of coffee in the bigs.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Aug 20, 2014 21:25:28 GMT -5
Remember, Shaw got a major league invite to major league spring training as well as a spot in the team's Rookie Development program last winter. Between this sort-of anecdotal evidence that the team likes him and the solid statistical case for including him, I'd be pretty shocked if he was left off of the 40-man. [b To be honest that doesn't mean jack nor should it. People want to misstate my argument to fit their own agenda. But in the end I don't hear anyone other than Eric Van trying to argue that Shaw will be a very valuable major league player next year or ever. Eric basically thinks that everuone in the organuzation who has hit for a week is a future star. The idea that he is going to be as good as Nava was last year is patently absurd and has no basis in reality. In the end. Shaw is an older mimor league player on the right of the defensive spectrum with a middling track record. Such players can be useful, and help a major league club but you don't go out of your way to protect someone like that. You can find guys who are as good or nearly as good as Travis Shaw all day long. The Red Sox signed Brandon Snyder in February last year to basically do the same job Shaw would do if he made the 40 man roster. To be a deserving of a roster spot a player has to at least deliver some marginal value to the major league club over another player who will do the same thing. Heck you could keep Lavarnway after he clears waivers, have him play 1b in Pawtickett and likely to.see little difference in the record of the major league club. Guys who throw 97 don't growv on trees like middl;ing older 1b do however. You have to at l;east try to keep players like that. But hey let's have the love fest for an up and down 1b continue. ;
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 21, 2014 2:51:47 GMT -5
People want to misstate my argument to fit their own agenda. You are kidding us, right? We're misstating your arguments? Except I've never said anything remotely like that, and essentially everyone is agreeing with me that he's worth protecting because he will be of clear marginal value to the team over the next three years. Yeah, and what I actually said was that there was a possibility that Nava would decline further from this year and that, next year, Shaw would therefore actually be the guy who would start instead of Ortiz or Napoli if either one were injured. I mean, why not claim that I said Shaw had X-Ray vision, could fly, and was not only dating Scarlett Johansson, but was promising to fix up selected forum members with up-and-coming starlets she had befriended? (With Scarlett's approval, of course.) That's as close to what I said as what you think I said. There's no love fest here at all. The "love fest" is a phantom you've constructed in your mind. Seriously, you seem to be so incapable of admitting you're wrong that you are a) unwilling to re-read what people have actually said, and b) have such a strong need to be correct that you immediately create comically distorted versions of their actual arguments, so that your take on the issue remains the more defensible one. People talk about creating "straw men" to argue against, but you're creating creatures so weak to argue against that a straw man could pummel them into submission one-handedly while checking their Facebook status on their straw cell phone. It is frankly a bit embarrassing to read. Re-read what people have actually said in this thread (and said, and said, over and over again), take a good look in the mirror, and ask yourself why the hell you can't remember what people are actually saying for longer than it takes to hit "reply." But please do not post on this topic again. You long ago lost the argument. Which, by the way, does not make you a less worthy contributor to this forum. Thank God, posters here don't have to be right all the time to be valuable contributors. The pity about this odd behavioral quirk is that, when not endlessly defending some position you're wrong about, your opinion is always worth considering, and you are often insightful (e.g., about the correct way to interpret stats). All the time you waste defending positions that others have already shown to be weak could be much more productively spent.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Aug 21, 2014 11:48:12 GMT -5
As reported on this site's Injury Report, Herrera is out for the year after elbow surgery. This can open up an extra spot to bring up one of these Rule 5 players after milb is finished. (Barnes, et al.)
Sox would recall Herrera and put him on the 60-day MLB DL. Costs them nothing, as they pay his $1.3M to JH whether he is on the milb DL or MLB DL. News article:
nesn.com/2014/08/red-soxs-jonathan-herrera-to-miss-rest-of-2014-season-with-elbow-injury/
"Win or lose, the (arb eligible) player is awarded a standard one-year MLB contract with no "minor league split" salary or incentive/performance bonuses. "
[Edit: I should add that putting Herrera on the MLB 60-day DL adds to his MLB service time. Which was 4 years, 1 day at season beginning. So this would be trivial and inconsequential to the Sox.]
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 21, 2014 18:18:19 GMT -5
Let's tone down some of the anger and antagonism.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 22, 2014 11:04:05 GMT -5
I'll tell you what really complicates this math: the tremendous uncertainty about what happens after the 40-man roster is set.
At one extreme, they could trade 2 or even 3 guys from the 40-man for Hamels or the equivalent, ditto for Heyward, re-sign Uehara and Ross, but not add a second SP because of how well the kids have pitched (which I think is very likely), and not add a LHR because Layne and sleeper Verdugo are filling the bill. In this scenario, you may well end up with 38 or 39 guys on the roster, and wish you could have done something differently, like protecting Ramirez and maybe Almanzar as well -- just because you had room.
At the other extreme, they make no major trades, and instead re-sign Lester, Uehara, and Ross; and Verdugo is good enough to keep on the roster but not good enough to be handed an MLB job, so they re-sign Miller as well. In that scenario, even after waiving or trading Britton, Lavarnway, and Butler, if you really want to protect Gibson, Blair, and Verdugo (which I do, as of right now, and you can swap in your own binkies, including keeping Butler), you are at 42 players. Well ... Herrera would be made expendable by Gibson, and they could deal Brentz or Hassan as redundant. And if the kid pitchers are so disappointing that they acquire a second starter, someone else has to go.
(I think that if we sign Castillo, it almost mandates moving Craig, Middlebrooks, Nava or someone else, so that's a wash.)
|
|
|