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.
2017 Rule 5 Watch (Update: Beeks, Buttrey, Shepherd added)
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 8, 2017 9:59:14 GMT -5
There may be a chance that Ross Jr. gets non-tendered because of the injury. He'll be worth over 2 million in arbitration. That might not be worth it for the Sox to pick up. He didn't burn a year of service time, so he can't expect a raise from his $1.85M. But they might still non-tender him anyway. Sure he did. He didn't even burn an option. His only time optioned (that stuck) was 4/28 to 5/11. Perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that they optioned him and then realized he was hurt, so they had to rescind the option and place him on the MLB DL?
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Sept 8, 2017 10:40:19 GMT -5
The Sox can't realistically trade Price this off-season. I'd welcome a resigning of Fister for one year only. Anything beyond that, well good luck Fister and thanks for the second half this year. [br IMO, two primary goals dictate this offseason, both of which necessitate hanging on to as many high upside R5 eligible players as possible. 1. Save/create as much $$ as possible to begin extending the "kids" without losing draft picks under the CBT. 2. Add offense. With all the talented young redundancies, if this includes eating $$ to trade Price or Porcello or Castillo for prospects and save ($15-20M), so be it. If this includes letting such players go as MItch, Brockstar, Ross, Young, Rajai, Abad, Reed ($25-30M) to open roster spots and re-purpose cash, then so be it. I know Castillo is a better OF defender than Brentz, but power hitting Brentz as LF/1B/DH/PH and at .5M has more value (especially with Nunez/Lin backing up the OF) and releases $$ towards extending the kids. I know Mitch is a good ball player and value at a likely $6M, but Travis/Brentz at around 1.5M might be better. And adding Travis and Brentz to Devers and Nunez would improve the offense. Just saying this would be a good chance to open roster spots, improve offense, keep pitching strong, while opening roster spots to retain Brentz and others.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 8, 2017 12:15:19 GMT -5
[Ross] didn't burn a year of service time, so he can't expect a raise from his $1.85M. But they might still non-tender him anyway. I believe you're owed a raise in arbitration if you went to arbitration the previous year. It might not be much of a raise to like 2.05 million or something but still a raise. Either way I'm 99 percent sure he's getting non-tendered with the injury he suffered this year. No, there's nothing resembling hat rule. The reason guys always get a raise is that they're being compared to players with an extra year of service time. And in fact, based on the arbitration criteria, the Sox would succeed in arguing for a pay cut. He's coming off a season with no value, and "the length and consistency of his career contribution" has actually declined. Why on Earth would they want to tender Holt ? Because he was a 3.0 bWAR per 150 game player the three previous years, and that doesn't include the value of his versatility. If they non-tender him, he can make way more than the $2.0M he'll get in arbitration.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 8, 2017 12:24:49 GMT -5
He didn't burn a year of service time, so he can't expect a raise from his $1.85M. But they might still non-tender him anyway. Sure he did. He didn't even burn an option. His only time optioned (that stuck) was 4/28 to 5/11. Perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that they optioned him and then realized he was hurt, so they had to rescind the option and place him on the MLB DL? I swear I searched for "Ross" on the transaction page, read them all and took notes, and yet somehow missed that one (as I did when it happened and I was fulfilling the oath of my tagline). It's moot, because I think they'll still non-tender him. But it does mean that he's a year closer to FA, f he stays in the system. Oh, re trading Price and re-signing Fister -- see the trade forum for the argument that trading Price is perfectly doable and desirable. Folks who think Fister is a fluke need to read the FanGraphs article linked to in his thread. The short version is that over his last 7 starts he has been absolutely indistinguishable from his 2012-13 prime. Same delivery, same velocity, same results. They had a great scouting report on his AAA work, indicating a return from lost arm strength, then fixed a mechanical flaw.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 8, 2017 12:59:36 GMT -5
Revised take, with changes in red. Additions now in bold. At present they have 40 + 5 on the 60-day DL, but they also have 8 impending FA. SP (7): Sale, Pomeranz, Price, Porcello, Rodriguez, Wright, Johnson [Fister, FA] SP-O (4): Beeks, Velazquez, Elias, Owens RP (7): Kimbrel, Smith, Workman, Kelly, Barnes, Thornburg, Hembree [Reed, Abad, Boyer, FA] RP-O (4): Scott, Taylor, Maddox, Shepherd [Ross, non-tendered and re-signed]C (3): Vazquez, Leon, Swihart 1B/DH (1): H. Ramirez [Moreland, FA] 1B/DH-O (1): Travis INF (5): Pedroia, Bogaerts, Devers; Holt, Marrero [Nunez, FA; Rutledge DFA] INF-O (2): Hernandez, Lin OF (4): Betts, Bradley, Benintendi; Brentz [Young, Davis FA] OF-O (1): Castillo
That's 39. Offseason moves: Trade Price, re-sign Fister. Sign Hosmer or re-sign Moreland (-> 40). Sign or trade for a LH setup guy and trade Hembree. That still leaves you with 13 pitchers you want on the roster if healthy (14 including Thornburg), which is the usual number going into ST, and in the unlikely event you have to deal one at some point, you still have Scott as an MLB-caliber guy in Pawtucket. As a general rule, the 14th guy on your depth chart sees plenty of MLB action. Ross could bounce back and compete for that role as well; there should be room on the 40 for him after ST. Try to re-sign Nunez; if successful, trade or DFA Marrero. Note that this leaves you with 14 guys for the 13 position players. If you didn't sign Nunez, once everyone is healthy, you DFA Marrero and hope he sneaks through waivers. If you did sign Nunez, and everyone is healthy, it's much trickier, with Swihart, Holt, and Brentz all candidates to be moved in the short run. But I think holding onto your depth through ST is the smart thing to do. I have to ask...why would any team trade anything of value for a guy that's 5 minutes away from TJ surgery (or will need it sooner than later) who's locked in for another 5 years at $31 million/year? And I doubt Price hates Boston that much to the point where he'd punt $155 million he wouldn't get elsewhere because of the probability that no team would give his next five years anywhere near that. So Price might hate Boston but I very much doubt he opts out. And I wouldn't waste money on re-signing Nunez (who is a wonderful player, but has no positions open to him unless somebody else gets injured) or spend on Hosmer (who's a good player, but not somebody to give a huge contract to). I think there will be better hitters to spend $ on in the next offseason or two. And since this is about Rule 5 watch, I'll add that if the Sox need the roster spot I wouldn't hesitate to not protect Henry Owens. Unfortunately I think he's a lost cause at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 8, 2017 13:13:48 GMT -5
I can't see them protecting Castillo. If another team wants to bail them out of that contract to pick him in rule 5 to be a 4th OF, more power to them.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 8, 2017 13:24:15 GMT -5
Castillo's really interesting. If they don't add him then there's a good chance he'll be the best player (if not the best value) available in the Rule 5 draft, but he doesn't fit the Red Sox at all. A team like the Tigers, Giants, or White Sox should absolutely be interested. Skill set-wise he's absolutely the type who could go in Rule 5, because the downside there isn't so low, either - even if the bat falls flat again he's a good defensive fourth outfielder. If I'm Dombrowski, I'm actively trying to move him before the deadline for setting the roster.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 8, 2017 14:22:09 GMT -5
Well, he's the type of guy that usually gets picked in Rule 5, except that he comes with an $11M contract. For reference, he's the 7th-highest paid player in the organization, and the Red Sox are up against the cap. He'd be the 5th-highest paid player on the Tigers, the 9th-highest on the Giants, and the 2nd-highest (!!) on the White Sox. That adds risk to him that could keep him from getting picked.
That said, I back off of my prior statement a bit, because you make compelling points that he fits a good number of teams. That will be an interesting decision.
|
|
|
Post by aboynamedkimandrew on Sept 8, 2017 15:52:57 GMT -5
I could imagine a team drafting Castillo, giving him a test run in the exhibition season and deciding they want him but at a reduced rate. They could send him back and do a follow-up deal where the Sox take one of their bad contracts or provide a cash offset.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 8, 2017 18:31:31 GMT -5
I have to ask...why would any team trade anything of value for a guy that's 5 minutes away from TJ surgery (or will need it sooner than later) who's locked in for another 5 years at $31 million/year? And I doubt Price hates Boston that much to the point where he'd punt $155 million he wouldn't get elsewhere because of the probability that no team would give his next five years anywhere near that. So Price might hate Boston but I very much doubt he opts out. Read the post in the Trading Price thread in the Trade Forum. The idea is to include a boatload of money and get a couple of actual prospects back. And the opt-out has almost nothing to do with it. Castillo's really interesting. If they don't add him then there's a good chance he'll be the best player (if not the best value) available in the Rule 5 draft, but he doesn't fit the Red Sox at all. A team like the Tigers, Giants, or White Sox should absolutely be interested. Skill set-wise he's absolutely the type who could go in Rule 5, because the downside there isn't so low, either - even if the bat falls flat again he's a good defensive fourth outfielder. If I'm Dombrowski, I'm actively trying to move him before the deadline for setting the roster. So, if Chris Young were projected to hit LHP like he used to and were a plus defensive CF, he doesn't fit the team? I'm perplexed. Castillo would be a perfect 4th OFer for this team. He'd be overpaid in that role, but they're over the tax limit anyway, and why would we want to nickle-and-dime the bench when the best possible guy for a role is already here? And of course, as soon as there's a major OF injury, he's not overpaid at all.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 8, 2017 18:38:40 GMT -5
I have to ask...why would any team trade anything of value for a guy that's 5 minutes away from TJ surgery (or will need it sooner than later) who's locked in for another 5 years at $31 million/year? And I doubt Price hates Boston that much to the point where he'd punt $155 million he wouldn't get elsewhere because of the probability that no team would give his next five years anywhere near that. So Price might hate Boston but I very much doubt he opts out. Read the post in the Trading Price thread in the Trade Forum. The idea is to include a boatload of money and get a couple of actual prospects back. And the opt-out has almost nothing to do with it. Castillo's really interesting. If they don't add him then there's a good chance he'll be the best player (if not the best value) available in the Rule 5 draft, but he doesn't fit the Red Sox at all. A team like the Tigers, Giants, or White Sox should absolutely be interested. Skill set-wise he's absolutely the type who could go in Rule 5, because the downside there isn't so low, either - even if the bat falls flat again he's a good defensive fourth outfielder. If I'm Dombrowski, I'm actively trying to move him before the deadline for setting the roster. So, if Chris Young were projected to hit LHP like he used to and were a plus defensive CF, he doesn't fit the team? I'm perplexed. Castillo would be a perfect 4th OFer for this team. He'd be overpaid in that role, but they're over the tax limit anyway, and why would we want to nickle-and-dime the bench when the best possible guy for a role is already here? And of course, as soon as there's a major OF injury, he's not overpaid at all. Still can't see why a team would give up actual prospects for a guy, even heavily subsidized, who is a major risk for TJ surgery. I'd rather not see the Red Sox pay $10 million for a backup outfielder like Castillo. They're going to go over the luxury tax threshhold, but I'd just as soon see if they can get a backup CF who doesn't cost more than half that. Spending $10 million on a backup is kind of pricey. Rather see them spend big $ on top notch talent.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 8, 2017 20:32:55 GMT -5
I believe you're owed a raise in arbitration if you went to arbitration the previous year. It might not be much of a raise to like 2.05 million or something but still a raise. Either way I'm 99 percent sure he's getting non-tendered with the injury he suffered this year. No, there's nothing resembling hat rule. The reason guys always get a raise is that they're being compared to players with an extra year of service time. And in fact, based on the arbitration criteria, the Sox would succeed in arguing for a pay cut. He's coming off a season with no value, and "the length and consistency of his career contribution" has actually declined. Why on Earth would they want to tender Holt ? Because he was a 3.0 bWAR per 150 game player the three previous years, and that doesn't include the value of his versatility. If they non-tender him, he can make way more than the $2.0M he'll get in arbitration. for Holt fWAR shows him as .3 last year and -.8 this year, that's significantly different. No matter which WAR you use though, you are looking at a player declining. He also isn't passing the eye test anymore, it's been several years since he's been driving the ball. Being versatile is great but being below replacement level at multiple positions less great. ADD: If you look at 2015 splits, it's pretty much been a downhill slide for Brock since mid-season 2015. 1st half wOBA/wRC+: .349/119 2nd half wOBA/wRC+: .288/76
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 8, 2017 20:35:34 GMT -5
I definitely believe Holt is a non-tender candidate. He might bounce back, but I've seen tons of professional athletes look like a shell of their former selves after severe concussion problems (kinda like Holt does now). In fact I wouldn't be shocked if he retired.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 8, 2017 21:42:29 GMT -5
So, if Chris Young were projected to hit LHP like he used to and were a plus defensive CF, he doesn't fit the team? I'm perplexed. Castillo would be a perfect 4th OFer for this team. He'd be overpaid in that role, but they're over the tax limit anyway, and why would we want to nickle-and-dime the bench when the best possible guy for a role is already here? And of course, as soon as there's a major OF injury, he's not overpaid at all. I don't see Castillo hitting LHP anything close to what Young was projected to do. Castillo is overaggressive and tends to roll over pitches too often. He drove the ball far more frequently than he was the last two years, but he's a defense-first outfielder on a team where you're not going to sub defense for any of the outfielders. Just comparing him and Brentz - Castillo is the better player, but I'd say Brentz (at least as a type) is the player who would be a better fit for the team, because he's more of a complement. I know that you can't always have a backup outfielder who is a perfect complement to your starters, and I'd have no problem going into 2018 with him as the fourth outfielder. But as a defense-first player and a second-division starter in center field, there are several teams that need him more than the Red Sox do and for whom the $11M wouldn't or shouldn't be a problem. Given the current roster construction, my ideal would be a backup DH who I'd be comfortable as a 1B/DH/PH as well, and I just don't see Castillo there. I agree with you on Holt. It's not like he's so expensive and the roster so tight. He was worth 6.0 bWAR in 1300 PA from 2014 to 2016. And it's not like his struggles this year are inexplicable, he had a concussion, he tried to come back too fast, and he had lingering effects for months. Giving him the winter and seeing where he is in spring training seems worth it to me. As with every Rule 5 draft, I'm excited to see which Sox player the Orioles take and spend all season playing roster games to keep from having to return.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 8, 2017 23:10:42 GMT -5
So, if Chris Young were projected to hit LHP like he used to and were a plus defensive CF, he doesn't fit the team? I'm perplexed. Castillo would be a perfect 4th OFer for this team. He'd be overpaid in that role, but they're over the tax limit anyway, and why would we want to nickle-and-dime the bench when the best possible guy for a role is already here? And of course, as soon as there's a major OF injury, he's not overpaid at all. I don't see Castillo hitting LHP anything close to what Young was projected to do. Castillo is overaggressive and tends to roll over pitches too often. He drove the ball far more frequently than he was the last two years, but he's a defense-first outfielder on a team where you're not going to sub defense for any of the outfielders. Just comparing him and Brentz - Castillo is the better player, but I'd say Brentz (at least as a type) is the player who would be a better fit for the team, because he's more of a complement. I know that you can't always have a backup outfielder who is a perfect complement to your starters, and I'd have no problem going into 2018 with him as the fourth outfielder. But as a defense-first player and a second-division starter in center field, there are several teams that need him more than the Red Sox do and for whom the $11M wouldn't or shouldn't be a problem. Given the current roster construction, my ideal would be a backup DH who I'd be comfortable as a 1B/DH/PH as well, and I just don't see Castillo there. I agree with you on Holt. It's not like he's so expensive and the roster so tight. He was worth 6.0 bWAR in 1300 PA from 2014 to 2016. And it's not like his struggles this year are inexplicable, he had a concussion, he tried to come back too fast, and he had lingering effects for months. Giving him the winter and seeing where he is in spring training seems worth it to me. As with every Rule 5 draft, I'm excited to see which Sox player the Orioles take and spend all season playing roster games to keep from having to return.Rutledge.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 8, 2017 23:27:06 GMT -5
A few things that I have no idea how they will be resolved:
As of now, we will have 3 catchers with no options.
We have an excess of right handed relievers.
If we do sign Fister (who I doubt would take a 1 year deal), we have an excess of starting pitchers, Johnson and Elias (yeah I know) will be out of options and Beeks and Velasquez have options and are pretty much ready.
I think DD is more likely to trade for a first baseman than sign a free agent. Hosmer is good but doesn't fill the power need.
ADD: I also wonder if Price/Sox have considered off season stem cell injections. There seems to be a growing number of success stories including Pomeranz. I'm not a doctor so I have no idea if it's applicable to this case.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 9, 2017 0:04:56 GMT -5
A few things that I have no idea how they will be resolved: As of now, we will have 3 catchers with no options. We have an excess of right handed relievers. If we do sign Fister (who I doubt would take a 1 year deal), we have an excess of starting pitchers, Johnson and Elias (yeah I know) will be out of options and Beeks and Velasquez have options and are pretty much ready. I think DD is more likely to trade for a first baseman than sign a free agent. Hosmer is good but doesn't fill the power need. ADD: I also wonder if Price/Sox have considered off season stem cell injections. There seems to be a growing number of success stories including Pomeranz. I'm not a doctor so I have no idea if it's applicable to this case. As indicated in the breakdown, Elias is not out of options -- he didn't burn one this year. I've looked at the 1B trade market and there was no one who seemed worth going after. And re Holt, stop using fWAR. Looking at UZR tells you no more about defense than DRS does (according to the SABR committee that did the systems comparison for Rawlings), so it's demonstrably less accurate.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 9, 2017 9:49:29 GMT -5
So, if Chris Young were projected to hit LHP like he used to and were a plus defensive CF, he doesn't fit the team? I'm perplexed. Castillo would be a perfect 4th OFer for this team. He'd be overpaid in that role, but they're over the tax limit anyway, and why would we want to nickle-and-dime the bench when the best possible guy for a role is already here? And of course, as soon as there's a major OF injury, he's not overpaid at all. I don't see Castillo hitting LHP anything close to what Young was projected to do. Castillo is overaggressive and tends to roll over pitches too often. He drove the ball far more frequently than he was the last two years, but he's a defense-first outfielder on a team where you're not going to sub defense for any of the outfielders. Just comparing him and Brentz - Castillo is the better player, but I'd say Brentz (at least as a type) is the player who would be a better fit for the team, because he's more of a complement. I know that you can't always have a backup outfielder who is a perfect complement to your starters, and I'd have no problem going into 2018 with him as the fourth outfielder. But as a defense-first player and a second-division starter in center field, there are several teams that need him more than the Red Sox do and for whom the $11M wouldn't or shouldn't be a problem. Given the current roster construction, my ideal would be a backup DH who I'd be comfortable as a 1B/DH/PH as well, and I just don't see Castillo there. I agree with you on Holt. It's not like he's so expensive and the roster so tight. He was worth 6.0 bWAR in 1300 PA from 2014 to 2016. And it's not like his struggles this year are inexplicable, he had a concussion, he tried to come back too fast, and he had lingering effects for months. Giving him the winter and seeing where he is in spring training seems worth it to me. As with every Rule 5 draft, I'm excited to see which Sox player the Orioles take and spend all season playing roster games to keep from having to return. I can buy that argument that Brentz would be a better fit than Castillo for the bench. But if some team is willing to take Castillo in the Rule 5, they would also be willing to trade for him. If multiple teams are interested, you'll get something back in value. They can gauge trade interest in him now, so there's no excuse for not getting this right. Losing him in the Rule 5 would be the one mistake they could make. If there's trade interest, they have to weigh the return plus the $12M savings versus the value of having him in the system.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 9, 2017 20:14:16 GMT -5
If ther was a team interested in Castillo, I think they'd just trade for him rather than pick him in Rule 5. Why add the additional restriction of having to keep him on the major league roster all year when the Red Sox would probably give him to you for very little (or maybe even subsidize his salary for you) so long as you take on most/all of his salary?
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 10, 2017 7:05:48 GMT -5
If ther was a team interested in Castillo, I think they'd just trade for him rather than pick him in Rule 5. Why add the additional restriction of having to keep him on the major league roster all year when the Red Sox would probably give him to you for very little (or maybe even subsidize his salary for you) so long as you take on most/all of his salary? Very good point. If I understand things correctly, Castillo is NOT on the 40 man roster so his salary considerations do not count against the cap. His salary is too high for a 4th outfielder. So the sox do not want to bring him on the roster. If you trade him and eat any of his salary, that money then counts against the cap? But, what team wants to trade for an unproven outfielder making what he makes? Confusing situation.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Sept 11, 2017 22:59:14 GMT -5
If ther was a team interested in Castillo, I think they'd just trade for him rather than pick him in Rule 5. Why add the additional restriction of having to keep him on the major league roster all year when the Red Sox would probably give him to you for very little (or maybe even subsidize his salary for you) so long as you take on most/all of his salary? I assume if a team drafted castillo in rule 5 and he sucked, they could offer him back to the Red Sox, but Boston isn't obligated to take him and his salary back, right? Best case for that team he clears waivers easy and is outrighted, so I guess there's no reason to give anything of value for him unless Sox subsidize salary a lot. IOW no team is subject to roster restrictions with him. If he's good he stays and if he's bad, he clears easily.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2017 2:14:46 GMT -5
If ther was a team interested in Castillo, I think they'd just trade for him rather than pick him in Rule 5. Why add the additional restriction of having to keep him on the major league roster all year when the Red Sox would probably give him to you for very little (or maybe even subsidize his salary for you) so long as you take on most/all of his salary? I assume if a team drafted castillo in rule 5 and he sucked, they could offer him back to the Red Sox, but Boston isn't obligated to take him and his salary back, right? Best case for that team he clears waivers easy and is outrighted, so I guess there's no reason to give anything of value for him unless Sox subsidize salary a lot. IOW no team is subject to roster restrictions with him. If he's good he stays and if he's bad, he clears easily. If a team takes him in the Rule 5, and at some point decides he can't play after all (this would never be in ST, BTW, since ST performance has almost no predictive value), sure, he'll be outrighted, but then the team is stuck with his entire salary. Instead, you could offer excess prospects for him in exchange for some salary reduction. Now you have the flexibility of optioning him and recalling him, plus you're committed to less money. The value of the offered prospects would have to be equal to the requested salary relief, else the Sox would call your bluff and force you to go the Rule 5 route if you really thought he could play. Scouting reports thought he'd be a 2.0 - 2.5 WAR player and that's what he projects to be based on this year in AAA (with the obvious caveat that his prior struggles might still be relevant). No team would hesitate to pay a proven player that good $12M a year. I would keep that guy in the organization at least into ST. But we shall see.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 12, 2017 7:29:48 GMT -5
If ther was a team interested in Castillo, I think they'd just trade for him rather than pick him in Rule 5. Why add the additional restriction of having to keep him on the major league roster all year when the Red Sox would probably give him to you for very little (or maybe even subsidize his salary for you) so long as you take on most/all of his salary? Castillo's in a different position than other Rule 5 draftees, though, because there's not as much in question about how good he is. It's just not that hard to commit a roster spot to a player like Castillo. Also, it probably makes sense for a team to get in touch with the Giants or Phillies or White Sox and see if they can get that pick for less than the Red Sox would give up for Castillo. EDIT: We were talking all year about how Castillo's situation is unique in that he's clearly good enough to be a major leaguer but his salary and the Red Sox financial situation has kept him in the minor leagues. The Rule 5 eligibility adds another wrinkle to that.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 12, 2017 13:20:40 GMT -5
Kyle Martin has cleared waivers and been outrighted to Pawtucket.
Depending on roster construction I suppose there's a very, very slim, outside chance he's added again. But I'd say it's less likely than Haley or Shepherd.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 12, 2017 13:35:50 GMT -5
Given the glut of right-handed relievers on the 40-man roster and in the system generally (even after the trades at the trade deadline this year), I'm increasingly inclined to take my chances with Haley/Shepherd/Martin and leave them unprotected. I don't think any of them have realistic ceilings beyond middle reliever, and they're all behind guys like Taylor and Maddox who have better projections, higher ceilings and comparable option situations (and all of those guys are behind Kimbrel, Smith, Thornburg, Kelly, Barnes, Workman and (arguably) Hembree).
|
|
|