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.
Dan Butler traded to Nats for LHP Danny Rosenbaum
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 14, 2015 16:44:52 GMT -5
I don't see how they could have. The only way to keep him would have been cutting Britton which they don't want to do and I think we've hashed through as to why. Don't forget by the time we get around to actually throwing baseballs around that mean something the Sox are likely going to need at least one more spot. Or they could've traded two to four other guys for a #1/1a starter.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 14, 2015 16:55:09 GMT -5
I don't see how they could have. The only way to keep him would have been cutting Britton which they don't want to do and I think we've hashed through as to why. Don't forget by the time we get around to actually throwing baseballs around that mean something the Sox are likely going to need at least one more spot. Or they could've traded two to four other guys for a #1/1a starter. Oh sure that simple! Here's an idea for you. Once Ryan Lavarnway, who went to Yale, clears waivers on Tuesday the Orioles outright him and trade him to the Red Sox for Rosenbaum. By the way did I mention that Lavarnway went to Yale?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 14, 2015 17:01:06 GMT -5
I've said this before, but I don't think they have to have a certain number of lefties in the pen, and would rather fill those spots with better righties. They probably need a matchup lefty (read: Layne) in the 6th/7th innings, but all of Uehara, Tazawa, and Mujica are very good versus lefties, and if it's a question of, say, Breslow versus Wright for the last spot in the bullpen, I might prefer Wright. I certainly think for $2m guaranteed plus incentives, they probably could have signed a better reliever than Breslow (for instance, I doubt Neil Cotts or Joe Thatcher sign for much more than that).
I think Butler is quite a bit better than Luke Montz, but I've always been a big fan of Butler's. I'll note that Steamer projects Butler to be a 1.4 win/450 PA player, and while I think he's probably worse than that, a one win catcher is a pretty valuable injury backup at a position that is particularly vulnerable to injury (due to concussions, tipped balls, etc).
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jan 14, 2015 17:06:53 GMT -5
In a vaccum, I don't mind this move, but we are pitching-rich (especially the replacement level kind) and we were at the right number of catchers before jettisoning a valuable depth piece. Now the Sox are short just about one Butler-type catcher; ie. a replacement level, MLB ready guy.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 14, 2015 17:10:14 GMT -5
I don't see how they could have. The only way to keep him would have been cutting Britton which they don't want to do and I think we've hashed through as to why. Don't forget by the time we get around to actually throwing baseballs around that mean something the Sox are likely going to need at least one more spot. Or they could've traded two to four other guys for a #1/1a starter. Sup Guidas? Could you tell us who that #1 is and which 4 players they should move? Since it is so simple you know.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 14, 2015 17:12:24 GMT -5
Or they could've traded two to four other guys for a #1/1a starter. Oh sure that simple! Here's an idea for you. Once Ryan Lavarnway, who went to Yale, clears waivers on Tuesday the Orioles outright him and trade him to the Red Sox for Rosenbaum. By the way did I mention that Lavarnway went to Yale? Sure, but you shouldn't rip on him for going to some safety school in New Haven.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 14, 2015 17:21:55 GMT -5
Or they could've traded two to four other guys for a #1/1a starter. Sup Guidas? Could you tell us who that #1 is and which 4 players they should move? Since it is so simple you know. Sure - I think I've been pretty clear that I would trade for Hamels or Zimmerman or Price from the pool of Owens, Kelly, Barnes/Ranaudo/Johnson et al, Cecchini, Marrero, Coyle, Margot, and Devers, basically Kelly plus anyone from the minor league rosters not named Swihart (as much as I hate moving Margot). And even then if Ruben said, "OK gimme Swihart, Barnes and Colye for Hamels" I would probably think very long and hard about it. For the one year rentals the cost would likely be two players, though one would more than likely be Owens or Kelly. I'm guessing it takes 3 or 4 of those guys to get Hamels but, as I've said you could get creative and only part with two if they agree to take back Papelbon as well. Just so we're clear.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 14, 2015 17:45:28 GMT -5
Ok that sounds reasonable.
The thing is that from almost every source out there the Phillies want Mookie Betts or Swihart if not both. The Red Sox are not moving Mookie, I hope, and rightly so. I would agree that if it was a package headlined by Swihart I would think about it. But I'd most probably say no. If the Red Sox were in that position it's not unreasonable if they say no.
The thing also is that the Red Sox can't just trade for someone alone. The other team has to be willing as well. We don't know what the Nationals are looking for. They have a black hole at 2nd base for all we care they are asking for Mookie or they'll just keep him. They have a good team, 2015 is very valuable to them.
The Tigers are another team that are in for 2015. Can't see why they would trade their best starter for prospects unless they resign Scherzer, but until that happen I don't see it.
I just hope people realize the Red Sox can't go "oh gee I have these 2-4 guys, give me such and such." They are dealing with other teams that have their own opinions and can say no.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 14, 2015 17:52:19 GMT -5
Just click the Force Trade button in Commissioner mode.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 15, 2015 11:10:18 GMT -5
I think there's some value to things such as making the manager comfortable. Sure it makes logical sense to have 7 best relievers you can find as opposed to five righties and two lefties. But if the manager wants to have two lefties, that needs to be given some weight, not undue weight, but weight.
Farrell has been very public about wanting two lefties in his bullpen and right now, he has three real options that are all very iffy. If you cut one of them, you probably won't have two reliable lefties in the pen come April and you might end up with none. I know that you are going to say that they could easily go with Escobar, Hernandez, or Hoffman. The problem is that those three players have a combined two innings of major league experience.
Is that really worth it to keep the AAA backup catcher?
The more I think about it, the signing of Hanrhan and Montz made Butler kinda superfluous.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 15, 2015 11:45:27 GMT -5
I did a quick google search, and Cherington did note back in November that they preferred to have at least two lefties in the bullpen, so I'll concede that point. If they're going to commit real dollars and (essentially) guarantee a bullpen spot to a FA lefty, I still would have preferred someone with a lower risk profile than Breslow. The "his arm wore down because of overuse in 2013" is an easy narrative, but there's no guarantee that an offseason of rest is enough to get him back to his 2011-2013 form, and he's at the age where players just drop off a cliff (see Matt Thornton). If they're high on Montz, maybe the dropoff is small enough that they're comfortable moving Butler. But Montz is generally regarded as a below-average defensive catcher, and though he's got decent pop, I'm not a big fan of the overall package. He's also out of options, so he can't be shuttled back and forth. I really do value that third catcher quite a bit since I put a huge emphasis on depth and am very opposed to calling up Swihart before he's ready.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 15, 2015 12:06:12 GMT -5
I did a quick google search, and Cherington did note back in November that they preferred to have at least two lefties in the bullpen, so I'll concede that point. If they're going to commit real dollars and (essentially) guarantee a bullpen spot to a FA lefty, I still would have preferred someone with a lower risk profile than Breslow. The "his arm wore down because of overuse in 2013" is an easy narrative, but there's no guarantee that an offseason of rest is enough to get him back to his 2011-2013 form, and he's at the age where players just drop off a cliff (see Matt Thornton). If they're high on Montz, maybe the dropoff is small enough that they're comfortable moving Butler. But Montz is generally regarded as a below-average defensive catcher, and though he's got decent pop, I'm not a big fan of the overall package. He's also out of options, so he can't be shuttled back and forth. I really do value that third catcher quite a bit since I put a huge emphasis on depth and am very opposed to calling up Swihart before he's ready. I've pretty consistently said I felt the same. I would have preferred that we DFA someone like Sprull which ultimately is the equivalent of keeping Butler over Miles Smith (convoluted logic I know), or trading someone like Brentz who's pretty much locked out for a lottery ticket. There is another way to look at it now though. In effect, we've converted Butler and a million pesos into Breslow and Rosenbaum who could hypothetically have a 6 year future after 2015 if he's worth 40 manning him later in the season.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 15, 2015 12:40:43 GMT -5
Regarding Montz: I'm fine with an offense-first short-term backup catcher behind a defenive ace like Vazquez or Hanigan. To me he's like if Lavarnway still had his pop, and he doesn't take up a 40-man spot. If they need him in the majors for a month, he gets what, 4-6 starts which Farrell will get to pick and choose?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 15, 2015 14:35:02 GMT -5
Swihart should be ready by mid-season if need be and even so. I really don't see the harm in calling him up for a week if someone is on the disabled list. I doubt Rome will fall if he has to catch a major league game or two before the microwave goes "ding".
Butler has been on the 40 man roster now and in AAA for two seasons. In that time he has played a grand total of seven major league games. That includes 4 games in which he was the September call up. The Red Sox strengthened their catching by jettisoning Ross and acquiring Hanrahan since then. How much depth do you really need?
Matt Thornton didn't fall off a cliff, he had a 1.75 ERA last year.
Look just because you deem something to be an "easy narrative" doesn't mean it's false. In fact Occam's Razor theory tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. In this case it's a simple explanation of the facts. There have been plenty of left handed relievers who were successful into their late 30s. When such players permanently "fall off the cliff" as you say it's usually due to a serious underlying injury. There is no evidence that Breslow has such an injury. There is certainly no evidence that left handed pitchers tend to inexplicably fall off cliffs at age 33 as you claim.
In any case, ALL of the veteran free agent options are/were in their mid 30s and all carry a great deal of risk. Neal Cotts for instance showed a steep fall off in numbers in his second year back from Tommy John. If you wanted a better option than Breslow, you were going to have to give up a player better than Dan Butler.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 15, 2015 14:40:14 GMT -5
Regarding Montz: I'm fine with an offense-first short-term backup catcher behind a defenive ace like Vazquez or Hanigan. To me he's like if Lavarnway still had his pop, and he doesn't take up a 40-man spot. If they need him in the majors for a month, he gets what, 4-6 starts which Farrell will get to pick and choose? Exactly you don't wring your hands over a player who is unlikely to catch even 10% of the total innings behind the plate this year. I'm not exactly alarmed that we downgraded our backup catcher defense at AAA.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 15, 2015 16:26:59 GMT -5
Look just because you deem something to be an "easy narrative" doesn't mean it's false. In fact Occam's Razor theory tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. In this case it's a simple explanation of the facts. There have been plenty of left handed relievers who were successful into their late 30s. When such players permanently "fall off the cliff" as you say it's usually due to a serious underlying injury. There is no evidence that Breslow has such an injury. There is certainly no evidence that left handed pitchers tend to inexplicably fall off cliffs at age 33 as you claim. In any case, ALL of the veteran free agent options are/were in their mid 30s and all carry a great deal of risk. Neal Cotts for instance showed a steep fall off in numbers in his second year back from Tommy John. If you wanted a better option than Breslow, you were going to have to give up a player better than Dan Butler. I don't disagree with the narrative that the overuse caused the decline, I disagree with the narrative that he's certain to regress to something similar to his old form just because he's getting a full offseason's rest. Typically, when relievers lose 1.5 mph off their fastball as they approach their mid-30s, they struggle to get it back and their on-field performance continues to decline. There's a much higher degree of risk when you're signing a guy coming off the second-worst season of any qualified reliever in the league than with Cotts or Thatcher, who should sign for similar dollars.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonstah on Jan 15, 2015 17:45:02 GMT -5
Rosenbaum is nothing more than a guy to fill out the AAA rotation. Doubt he ever cracks the majors.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 15, 2015 17:57:12 GMT -5
Logical fallacy #1 - Strawman There is no narrative that anyone is certain to do anything. Just that the underlying cause of his stuggles last year was likely temporary. It's not just rest either. Not having a full off-season due to fatigue from the World Series caused Breslow to greatly shorten his normal off-season workout schedule. Doing so would be considered an underlying cause. If the underlying cause of any problem is erased, then by logic the problem should be solved and the mean should prevail. Logical Fallacy #2 Post hoc, ergo propter hoc- Your assumption here is that players approaching their mid 30s causes a pitcher who has lost their velocity to struggle to get it back. However there is the confounding variables of injuries. I would imagine that serious injuries are more prevalent among pitchers in their 30s who lose velocity and pitchers with serious injuries are more likely to struggle to regain their velocity. All of the evidence suggests that the reason for Breslow's performance a year ago was exactly what he's claiming it is. Really? Thatcher is a soft-tosser who has spend most of his career in pitchers parks in the NL. In his first exposure to the AL he was bombed. He's only once broken 40 innings whereas Breslow has broken 50 inning seven times. He might not even get a major league deal. Cotts is closer but look at his chart: www.brooksbaseball.net/velo.php?player=425840&b_hand=-1&gFilt=allmlb&pFilt=FA|SI|FC|CU|SL|CS|KN|CH|FS|SB&time=month&minmax=std&var=mph&s_type=2&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=01/15/2015As the season went on the decrease in velocity from the similar period a year earlier increased. He's older than Breslow and doesn't have nearly the track record. So no there wasn't a player available for similar dollars who is a better bet.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 15, 2015 23:54:48 GMT -5
Just that the underlying cause of his stuggles last year was likely temporary. It's not just rest either. Not having a full off-season due to fatigue from the World Series caused Breslow to greatly shorten his normal off-season workout schedule. Doing so would be considered an underlying cause. If the underlying cause of any problem is erased, then by logic the problem should be solved and the mean should prevail. Some damage is permanent. One season of rest will not necessarily cure a season of abuse. The same argument is made with Allen Craig, and I don't quite buy that one, either. They'll both likely regress positively somewhat, but if the underlying skills (velocity, bat speed) have eroded due to a combination of age and wear-and-tear (Breslow) or an injury that didn't heal right (Craig), there's a good chance they won't be close to the same guy. Your assumption here is that players approaching their mid 30s causes a pitcher who has lost their velocity to struggle to get it back. However there is the confounding variables of injuries. I would imagine that serious injuries are more prevalent among pitchers in their 30s who lose velocity and pitchers with serious injuries are more likely to struggle to regain their velocity. There are a ton of pitchers who lose velocity as they age without experiencing an acute injury. Think Tim Lincecum, Justin Verlander, Ubaldo Jimenez, etc. The relationship between advancing age and velo loss is unquestionably clear, and it's tough to claim that it's explained by injuries alone (note that the above chart only includes qualified pitchers, so pitchers who miss a significant amount of time due to injury are excluded). Thatcher threw all of 6.1 innings in the AL last year, which is just about an impossibly small sample to try and evaluate him in. He has 238 major-league innings, in which he has a 3.40 ERA, 3.21 FIP and a 3.61 xFIP, which is a very good track record (he's spent most of that time pitching in Petco, but a park-adjusted 90 ERA- and an 85 FIP- is still pretty good). Cotts is all of five months older than Breslow, and he has a much, much better recent track record since he returned to the majors in 2013. While it's not the end-all be-all, I'll note that Steamer projects Thatcher (3.75 ERA, 3.99 FIP) and Cotts (3.09 ERA, 3.48 FIP) much better than Breslow (4.30 ERA, 4.57 FIP).
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 16, 2015 8:38:50 GMT -5
At this point, the arguments are pretty exhausted. Why don't people just give a baseline of what they think will happen, then we can check back?
Moonstone2 - why don't you fill in the blanks for what you expect for Breslow: IP ______ FIP (or ERA or whatever per-IP-based measurement of success you'd prefer) _____
Then jmei can say if he is over/under, and we can check back in Oct.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 16, 2015 12:44:50 GMT -5
There are no reports of damage to Breslow's arm. Just fatigue which can be cured through rest and a normal workout regimen. There is of course the possibility that there is arm damage, that isn't known, but remember he was signed by the team that gave him his exit physical.
Jmei I would appreciate it if you would respond to the arguments I actually made as opposed to creating more strawmen.
No one is denying the relationship between age and a loss of velocity. However it is a logical fallacy to assume as you are that because two things are related that one caused the other. It is likely that there is at least one other variable that has a strong relationship with both velocity loss and advancing age.
He only pitched that few innings because he couldn't get anyone out. 14 of the 35 batters he faced with the Angels, 40%, reached base.
I tell you this all the time but you never listen. Even in small sample sizes large fluctuations from the expected outcome can be evaluated. Or are you the guy who stands up after a guy gives up ten rockets in a row and screams DON'T TAKE HIM OUT....SMALL SAMPLE SIZE?
So yes when your ERA quadurples in a 35 BF sample....it's not too small a sample to evaluate.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 16, 2015 13:04:00 GMT -5
No one is denying the relationship between age and a loss of velocity. However it is a logical fallacy to assume as you are that because two things are related that one caused the other. It is likely that there is at least one other variable that has a strong relationship with both velocity loss and advancing age. Now you're arguing for the sake of arguing once again. Even if there is a third variable (injury risk) that correlates positively with increasing age and correlates negatively with velocity....the fact that Breslow is older this year (and not younger), makes him more risky and not less.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 16, 2015 13:49:12 GMT -5
No one is denying the relationship between age and a loss of velocity. However it is a logical fallacy to assume as you are that because two things are related that one caused the other. It is likely that there is at least one other variable that has a strong relationship with both velocity loss and advancing age. Now you're arguing for the sake of arguing once again. Even if there is a third variable (injury risk) that correlates positively with increasing age and correlates negatively with velocity....the fact that Breslow is older this year (and not younger), makes him more risky and not less. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, you are misunderstanding the logical fallacy. In the following example X = age, Y = risk and Z = the third variable. That X correlates with Y this does not mean that X is an independent variable of Y. This is because Z is actually an independent variable, a confounding factor. Because X is an independent variable of Z. Hence if X rises and Z does not we should expect Y to remain the same because Z and not X causes Y. Your statement is incorrect. An increase in Breslow's age does not make him more risky, that would be depend on the change in the third variable Z. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 16, 2015 14:03:17 GMT -5
An increase in Breslow's age does not make him more risky joshv02 is right, there's nothing left to say. We'll see how Breslow performs. I'd be thrilled if he was as good as he was in 2013, but I'm skeptical that it happens.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2015 14:18:03 GMT -5
The whole thing is, it doesn't matter much. Breslow is just depth that can be discarded if he's not worth a roster spot, like Capuano last year.
I'm actually optimistic about it after hearing his comments about how he never felt right all year because he couldn't throw last winter due to shoulder soreness. He was never able to build up the strength he needed. He said he feels great this winter.
|
|
|