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 Aug 22, 2014 12:37:46 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 her MLB service time. Which was 4 years, 1 day at season beginning. So this would be trivial and inconsequential to the Sox.]
There is no disabled list during the offseason, so this won't work.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 23, 2014 0:20:39 GMT -5
Coyle is an extremely interesting player, when he is not in the dl.
The rub is .... He is on the dl a ton.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Aug 23, 2014 1:01:12 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 her MLB service time. Which was 4 years, 1 day at season beginning. So this would be trivial and inconsequential to the Sox.]
There is no disabled list during the offseason, so this won't work.
It absolutely works. The extra roster spot made available by Herrera can go to Barnes-EdRod-Swihart-Shaw ... of the players that the Sox have made a decision is going on the roster in NOV. Let's them accelerate and give the player an MLB experience in Sept. Or somebody else, even. Like John Ely.
By the time Herrera comes off the DL at the end of Oct., free agents have been taken off.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 23, 2014 2:19:59 GMT -5
Coyle is an extremely interesting player, when he is not in the dl. The rub is .... He is on the dl a ton. He missed three weeks at the start of May this year, otherwise he's been OK. Perhaps of more concern is that he's had two awful slumps recently that have dragged his numbers down. He was 2/28 from July 7 to July 19, and after a week's return to form, is .170 / .264 / .255 in 53 PA since July 27. What that means is that a guy who was hitting .355 / .431 / .615 in 233 PA on July 6 has hit .194 / .266 / .296 in 109 PA since. That's such an extreme collapse that you question whether he lost some adjustment that he may have difficulty recovering and sustaining in the future, or whether there's a component of altered approach by the opposition in there. If he's going to be a trade chip, it would be nice for him to rake a bit for the last couple of weeks.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 23, 2014 6:08:47 GMT -5
Coyle is an extremely interesting player, when he is not in the dl. The rub is .... He is on the dl a ton. He missed three weeks at the start of May this year, otherwise he's been OK. Perhaps of more concern is that he's had two awful slumps recently that have dragged his numbers down. He was 2/28 from July 7 to July 19, and after a week's return to form, is .170 / .264 / .255 in 53 PA since July 27. What that means is that a guy who was hitting .355 / .431 / .615 in 233 PA on July 6 has hit .194 / .266 / .296 in 109 PA since. That's such an extreme collapse that you question whether he lost some adjustment that he may have difficulty recovering and sustaining in the future, or whether there's a component of altered approach by the opposition in there. If he's going to be a trade chip, it would be nice for him to rake a bit for the last couple of weeks. He also just got back from missing a couple weeks. I'd say injuries are a legit concern with him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 23, 2014 7:29:33 GMT -5
He missed three weeks at the start of May this year, otherwise he's been OK. Perhaps of more concern is that he's had two awful slumps recently that have dragged his numbers down. He was 2/28 from July 7 to July 19, and after a week's return to form, is .170 / .264 / .255 in 53 PA since July 27. What that means is that a guy who was hitting .355 / .431 / .615 in 233 PA on July 6 has hit .194 / .266 / .296 in 109 PA since. That's such an extreme collapse that you question whether he lost some adjustment that he may have difficulty recovering and sustaining in the future, or whether there's a component of altered approach by the opposition in there. If he's going to be a trade chip, it would be nice for him to rake a bit for the last couple of weeks. He also just got back from missing a couple weeks. I'd say injuries are a legit concern with him. Don't know how I forgot that! Especially since last week I was noting how prospect-free the SeaDogs lineup suddenly was, and looking at their DL. But in general, I'm skeptical of the "injury prone" tag, when it's not a pitcher with a history of arm trouble. Lowrie, for instance, has now gone almost two full seasons without missing more than 3 games in a row (which he did only once). Of course, if he's trade bait, then what matters is whether opposing GMs believe in it.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Aug 23, 2014 10:23:41 GMT -5
You have now resorted to personal attacks to make your point. As you are not a moderator, you have no business telling me which topics I can and cannnot post in. I would never request that you or anyone else not post in a topic.
You see I am not wrong. Travis Shaw was described by Baseball Prospectus as "potentially useful big league bat", who "probably won't hit enough to be a major league regular". One poster described him as Mike Carp who can't play the outfield. Such a players marginal value to the team is minimal at best and I don't see how you have shown otherwise. The Red Sox already who would provide similar value next year and can play the OF in Hassan and Brentz. If Ryan Lavarnway clears waivers they will have another who can even be an emergency catcher.
A deep roster with so many choices can't afford to protect a player with such little marginal value. Who exactly do you want to let go in his place? A younger OF, Ramos, with power potential? The utility guy Gibson who can play many positions for you whom you are more likely to lose entirely? The power reliever who throws 97 who finally seemed to start to put it together the year of his minor league free agency? The reliever who has a high chance of becoming a good 7th inning guy? With the signing of Castilio the Red Sox are going to have to take a chance by not protecting a player whom they would normally protect. For me a player who only plays 1B and probably can't hit enough to play that position on a regular basis is that player.
Finally a word on "winning" or "losing" the argument. I receive no money for posting here and obviously don't care if others agree with me or not. In fact I almost never post in situations where I agree with everyone else. What's the point? Further as I am sure you know evaluating the merits of an argument based upon how popular the argument is, is a logical fallacy. I am not posting here to win anything because quite honestly, there is nothing here to win.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 23, 2014 14:45:09 GMT -5
As far as coyle goes, slumps are a fact of life. As he gets more experience I suspect he will get better at overcoming those slumps.
Teams that think they will need a second baseman in two years should be very interested in him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 1, 2014 10:34:26 GMT -5
A possible strategy going forward:
When PawSox season ends: place Jonathan Herrera and Shane Victorino on 60-day DL; select potential mlfa's Ryan Verdugo and Derrik Gibson. If either guy is eventually DFA'd, it may well be after teams have set their rosters, and that increases the odds of re-signing them to minor league deals.
(You could also DFA Carlos Rivero and select potential mlfa Miguel Celestino, but I don't think it's worth the effort. If teams are so thin in the pen that they want to give an MLB deal to a hard-throwing guy who has, however, allowed a .271 TAv in AAA at age 24, let them. We certainly don't need to be hunting for low-probability upside bullpen guys when we don't have obvious roster room to protect all the higher-possibility ones.)
(You might, however, DFA Rivero and select Matt Barnes, just to get a look at him versus MLB hitters, with the idea being that he could be next April's 5th starter if Ranaudo is included in a big multi-player deal. That would depend on his innings limit, though.)
After WS: David Ross, Koji Uehara, and Burke Badenhop declared free agents. Craig Breslow's option declined, ditto. Victorino and Herrera activated (38).
The roster set:
Herrera, Ryan Lavarnway, Drake Britton, Dan Butler, and Carlos Rivero traded or DFA'd. (33). Herrera is rendered redundant by Gibson and by Weeks, whom you are converting in AAA from 2B to utility. Either Lavarnway or Butler is likely to clear waivers and be your AAA backup for next year.
Barnes, Eduardo Rodriguez, Aaron Kurcz [or Noe Ramirez if you prefer], Carson Blair, Blake Swihart, Sean Coyle, and Travis Shaw are selected (40). If Verdugo has already washed out, you can DFA him and protect both Kurcz and Ramirez. Folks who don't think Blair is worth protecting are going to have a hard time making that case.
Now, you are looking to re-sign Lester, Uehara, Miller, and Ross, or the equivalents. How do you make room?
1) Trade Brandon Workman. He's not ever going to start for us, and it's not clear he'd be a better option for the last spot in the pen than Wilson or Hembree. He has more value as someone else's 5th starter than to us.
2) Trade Will Middlebrooks, unfortunately selling low. You don't need to keep him on the bench to platoon with Holt if Holt is your 3B. And maybe Betts or an acquisition is.
3) As previously mentioned, you can now DFA Gibson and Verdugo with good chances of re-signing them. But much more likely, you've made a multi-player deal for Jason Heyward, or Cole Hamels or the equivalent (which would also mean you're not re-signing Lester), or a one-year rental of a #2 starter, or a 3B. Maybe even two such deals. And if such a trade can be pulled off in November, you might be able to protect everyone you really want to (which is to say, both Kurcz and Ramirez if Verdugo is worth keeping).
(The folks I haven't mentioned are the guys you just aren't worried about losing: Ramos, De La Cruz, Diaz, Couch, Scott, and mlfa Villareal. Feel free to disagree about the first four, though.)
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Sept 1, 2014 13:38:20 GMT -5
Great post, as always Eric (hopefully our gain isn't your health loss, if you check the correlation in studies of sleep to health). As stated earlier, I'd hate to lose Ramos given his high ceiling athleticism and inexperience (remember he was almost as hot as Mookie). Hell, I'd even consider protecting him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 1, 2014 14:28:10 GMT -5
Great post, as always Eric (hopefully our gain isn't your health loss, if you check the correlation in studies of sleep to health). As stated earlier, I'd hate to lose Ramos given his high ceiling athleticism and inexperience (remember he was almost as hot as Mookie). Hell, I'd even consider protecting him. Indeed, if they can make their big multi-player deals before rosters freeze for the draft, then they may find that they can protect Ramos, who is probably the one guy that could be taken as a flyer and then might stick, if he's had a great winter and made some kind of unexpected progress. Essentially, making those trade(s) earlier than later has the very small extra advantage of being able to buy an insurance policy on him (in addition to probably creating room for both Kurcz and Ramirez).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 1, 2014 16:19:47 GMT -5
In 2012, the sox DFA'ed 5 guys on 40-man day: Sandy Rosario, Danny Valencia, and Zach Stewart were traded (although they later got Rosario back on waivers before losing him again), and David Carpenter was claimed. Only Ivan De Jesus cleared.
So I don't think that strategy of adding guys to the roster now to delay their DFA really makes it any less likely that you'd lose those players.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Sept 1, 2014 16:24:07 GMT -5
Eric, if Gibson or Celestino (and many other free agents) is on the 40-man roster in NOV: they can be DFA'ed, go thru waivers, and then outrighted to minors (no permission required) and the Sox control them for one more year. With the possibility of adding them to back to 40-man and keeping them for 2016.
Sox rarely do this, for whatever reason. If they cannot resign them by Oct, they don't force the issue. Then again, some team could claim Gibson and try to outright them sometime before APril.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 1, 2014 16:59:48 GMT -5
They rarely do it because it's easier to get a guy onto your roster via a waiver claim than it is in Rule 5. If you select a player in Rule 5, he needs to stay on the active roster (25-man). If you claim a guy on waivers, he need only stay on your 40-man roster.
If a guy is in danger of being selected, then it makes more sense to leave him unprotected than it does to add him to the roster then DFA him.
EDIT: I guess your point was to keep them from MLFA. I think the point might be that if a player is worth a 40-man spot in order to do that, you should just keep them on the 40?
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Sept 1, 2014 18:02:29 GMT -5
If the Sox really WANT to keep Gibson: A. easiest solution is to resign him for 15 before October. to a minor league deal. Make him a good offer. B. If A fails, and they don't want him on the roster for 15, they can add him and then waive him in Nov. It negates his MLFA, and they can outright him if he clears.
Problem is, some other team can claim him and do the same thing. Outright him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 1, 2014 18:57:48 GMT -5
In 2012, the sox DFA'ed 5 guys on 40-man day: Sandy Rosario, Danny Valencia, and Zach Stewart were traded (although they later got Rosario back on waivers before losing him again), and David Carpenter was claimed. Only Ivan De Jesus cleared. So I don't think that strategy of adding guys to the roster now to delay their DFA really makes it any less likely that you'd lose those players. That's not the strategy I was trying to talk about, so let me explain more clearly! (It was merely implied in the plan, at best.) Adding them now rather than on 40-man day is just to get them some MLB PT. The strategy is that you're willing to DFA them in December or January, if you need to clear room because you've signed a FA. In that case, it's as if you never had them on the roster, but I believe that at that point, there would be less space on other clubs' 40-man rosters, and hence you have increased the odds of keeping them in the organization. Re the confusing panoply of other suggestions: mlfa's who are signed before the Rule 5 draft are eligible for the draft, so that is a way to keep a guy in the organization -- but we are talking about guys who are deemed 40-man roster worthy. They'd be crazy to sign that deal; they'd shop for an MLB contract. Adding them to the roster and then DFA'ing them is essentially the same as letting them go to ml free agency. The difference is, if you can pick the right time to waive them, you might increase their chances of clearing. Hence my strategy above. Waiving them before or on 40-man-roster day gains you nothing, I think.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Sept 1, 2014 19:48:24 GMT -5
So I don't think that strategy of adding guys to the roster now to delay their DFA really makes it any less likely that you'd lose those players. Adding them now rather than on 40-man day is just to get them some MLB PT. Adding them to the roster and then DFA'ing them is essentially the same as letting them go to ml free agency. No. Players that are outrightable do not become free agents if they clear waivers. Look up what it means to be outrightable.
Yes. Playing time is good.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 1, 2014 20:08:27 GMT -5
Adding them now rather than on 40-man day is just to get them some MLB PT. Adding them to the roster and then DFA'ing them is essentially the same as letting them go to ml free agency. No. Players that are outrightable do not become free agents if they clear waivers. Look up what it means to be outrightable.
You are assuming they are clearing waivers, which is the same thing as assuming that no one wants to give them an MLB contract as an mlfa, which is the entire thing of concern. If no one was going to be interested in signing them to an MLB contract, you'd just re-up them to minor league deals, like we did last year with Ryan Dent among others. -- If you allow a player to become an mlfa because you do not have a place for him on your 40-man roster, any MLB team can sign him to an MLB contract and put him on theirs. -- If you DFA a guy who was on your 40-man roster because you no longer have a place for him on it, any MLB team can claim him and put him on theirs. The only difference between the two is that the player gets to choose which organization he ends up with in the former scenario, while in the latter, he ends up with the worst team that placed a claim. From the point of view of the original team, they are absolutely identical: you lose the player. So the question then becomes, can we find a situation where it is tougher for teams to claim guys on waivers than it is to sign mlfa's to MLB deals? And the idea is that it is indeed tougher for teams to do that after they have made all their roster decisions.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Sept 2, 2014 8:21:46 GMT -5
If no one was going to be interested in signing them to an MLB contract, you'd just re-up them to minor league deals ..... And the idea is that it is indeed tougher for teams to do that after they have made all their roster decisions. No on the re-up. You assume the player is going to accept your re-up and not somebody else's similar offer. Solution: try to Sign them now, during September. But the player may have other ideas.
Yes, it is easier for other teams to sign a guy in November during free agency. Rosters are more crowded later. So the bottom line, if Sox want to keep Gibson, it is best to keep him as long as possible, rather than allow him to declare free agency at all.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 3, 2014 21:14:36 GMT -5
And why are we wanting to keep Gibson?
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Sept 3, 2014 23:18:42 GMT -5
And why are we wanting to keep Gibson? Gibson is the sentimental favorite among the Gibson fan club.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 3, 2014 23:38:52 GMT -5
And why are we wanting to keep Gibson? It looked like a no-brainer back on August 16th when he was hitting .313 / .352 / .521 at Pawtucket after his promotion. Then he finished the season 4 for his last 30, with a 3B, 1 BB, and 7 SO, and we acquired Weeks, who might be able to play a similar role next year. I'd still like to keep him around, but he certainly seems more expendable than he did a few weeks ago (especially as folks have noted that he seems to have lost a step in the last couple of years).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 4, 2014 8:11:31 GMT -5
Here's why I don't think Carson Blair gets protected: he's not MLB-ready, and so to get him on the 40-man, you pretty much have to assume that Blake Swihart, from Spring Training onwards, is the third catcher who gets called up if either of the MLB guys (Vazquez and [insert backup here]) get injured.
That seems like a bad idea-- Swihart seems like he has a fair bit of development left, at least in terms of his plate discipline, and making him the 3rd catcher as soon as next spring runs the risk of him being yo-yoed up and down and interrupting his development in order to fill MLB needs. It's tough to carry five catchers on the 40-man, so that's why I think you take your chances with Blair not sticking on a 25-man for all of 2015 (remember, although he's older, he hasn't had a ton of experience behind the plate and has all of 17 games in AA) and carry someone like Dan Butler instead.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 4, 2014 10:03:26 GMT -5
Here's why I don't think Carson Blair gets protected: he's not MLB-ready, and so to get him on the 40-man, you pretty much have to assume that Blake Swihart, from Spring Training onwards, is the third catcher who gets called up if either of the MLB guys (Vazquez and [insert backup here]) get injured. That seems like a bad idea-- Swihart seems like he has a fair bit of development left, at least in terms of his plate discipline, and making him the 3rd catcher as soon as next spring runs the risk of him being yo-yoed up and down and interrupting his development in order to fill MLB needs. It's tough to carry five catchers on the 40-man, so that's why I think you take your chances with Blair not sticking on a 25-man for all of 2015 (remember, although he's older, he hasn't had a ton of experience behind the plate and has all of 17 games in AA) and carry someone like Dan Butler instead. Cue Britney's biggest hit, as this mistake gets repeated ... Blair is an mlfa and doesn't need to stick on any roster. The team that either selects him to their roster (i.e., us) or signs him to an MLB deal as an mlfa then gets three years of option control. There's no way a catcher who hit as well as he did, at the levels he played, with his amateur pedigree (which I cite in lieu of scouting reports I haven't seen) has to settle for a minor league deal. He's good eough to want to keep in the organization. I agree with you about not using Swihart as the call-up guy for the first half of the season. But I like our chances of passing Butler through waivers, and probably Lavarnway as well. Given the frequency of catcher DL trips, as long as they have one competent receiver backing up Swihart at Pawtucket, I'm comfortable; if the guy has options left, so much the better.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 4, 2014 10:23:34 GMT -5
Eric, I'll make an avatar bet that Carson Blair doesn't get an MLB deal. I could kinda squint and see your argument on Gibson, who has the versatility a team could use off the bench. But Blair just isn't ready to help an MLB team yet. I like the way he's realized his power so I hope the Sox keep him, but I can't think of any teams where he'd be higher than 5th on the depth chart. I don't even think he'll get a NRI to spring training.
So here's the bet - Carson Blair gets a major league deal by spring training, I'll make him my avatar (quite happily, because that would be awesome for him). If he doesn't, you've gotta go for AJ Pierzynski.
|
|
|