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 James Dunne on Sept 12, 2017 13:59:17 GMT -5
Yep. I'm not sure I'd have Taylor and Maddox ahead of Haley but I'll agree that's the consensus.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 12, 2017 14:46:41 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. If Martin cleared waivers, I have a hard time seeing him picked in Rule 5. If you claim him then you can option him, which you obviously can't do with a R5 guy. Only thing that'll change is how much space teams have on their 40-man roster, but again, if you didn't like him enough to claim him and option him, it seems to me you don't think he can stick on your 25-man roster either. I agree with jmei - the more I think about it, the more I think Beeks, probably Buttrey, and maybe Castillo are the only ones they add. I don't think Haley, while he pitched well, did well enough so that you feel that much better about him than last year. Shepherd is just kind of fungible, and it may just depend on the number of 40-man spots they have - if you have a spare one, why not, but they probably won't, especially if they decide to add Castillo.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2017 17:51:27 GMT -5
We've forgotten about this, I think. Teams routinely work to increase a player's versatility in order to increase the odds that he leaves them as a minor league free agent.
There is in fact a scenario where Brentz is the platoon 1B next year, if he can play there: where they sign Martinez to DH, re-sign Moreland to play 1B, and move Hanley (eating a chunk of his contract) rather than keeping him as Moreland's platoon partner and backup DH, a role he'd get 70 -80 starts in . I think the first is their goal, the second a likely accompanying move, and the third is a good idea if Brentz can play an adequate 1B.
I had also forgotten that he didn't introduce the top tap until after May 19. He hit .304 / .372 / .603 with the top tap. While his overall Davenport Tranlsation is an MLB average .260, with the toe tap it's about .300. Which is easily better than anyone on the team this year, and would rank about 20th in the AL. There's no way you simply let him go as an mlfa. At the very least, you protect him and trade him.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 12, 2017 20:53:29 GMT -5
I haven't forgotten about it. I've posted a couple times here and discussed on the podcast that is going up tonight that my guess is that they didn't think he looked good at 1B either. He didn't even play a game there for Pawtucket when guys like Ryan Court, Matt Dominguez, and Jantzen Witte were getting starts. Meanwhile, Blake Swihart was getting games at 1B almost immediately after he started getting work there. Speaks volumes in comparison, I think.
They're not going to protect him. If they thought enough of him to do that, they would have brought him up in September. (which brings us back to where we were a week ago, I know, let's not go there again)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 12, 2017 22:36:53 GMT -5
I haven't forgotten about it. I've posted a couple times here and discussed on the podcast that is going up tonight that my guess is that they didn't think he looked good at 1B either. He didn't even play a game there for Pawtucket when guys like Ryan Court, Matt Dominguez, and Jantzen Witte were getting starts. Meanwhile, Blake Swihart was getting games at 1B almost immediately after he started getting work there. Speaks volumes in comparison, I think. They're not going to protect him. If they thought enough of him to do that, they would have brought him up in September. (which brings us back to where we were a week ago, I know, let's not go there again) It did occur to me that he probably didn't look good at 1B. So, that's going to make them decide that his .300 MLE EqA is somehow really .255? We won't go there again, except to say that what you're predicting, if it happens, I'll call the single worst Red Sox personnel decision of the Theo-and-after era. Not because the ramifications are so large, but because the correct decision has zero cost. You're basically arguing that they don't believe there are even one or two MLB teams who would trade you a player for him. Tell me, what precisely is the downside of protecting him and trading him for whatever non-40-man roster types you can get? You end up with the same amount of guys on the roster going into free agency. To put it more clearly, you are arguing that he won't get an MLB contract if he's an mlfa. Because if you think he will get one, then you obviously protect him and then trade him, even if you think he has no role on the team in 2017 (and of course there are many scenarios where you do want to fill the 4th bench spot with a Chris Young successor).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 12, 2017 22:49:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I kind of rant on the Brentz thing in the pod that just went up. Agreed it doesn't make much sense.
That said, I'd say that adding Alex Hassan to the 40-man when both Josh Fields and Ryan Pressly were lost to Rule 5 (and the former seemed like a pretty obvious add) was pretty awful and might be worse. Fields was basically replacement level for the two years afterwards but seems to have found a groove with the Dodgers. Pressly, meanwhile, has 2.3 bWAR over the past five seasons and has become a nice middle relief arm for the Twins. Hassan played in 3 major league games in 2014 and I'm pretty sure he only got called up because Brentz was hurt (because that was pretty much the case every time the Red Sox needed an OF over a three-year period).
EDIT: Oh, that and the handling of Blake Swihart in 2016. I'd actually pick that to the extent it qualifies.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 13, 2017 9:09:56 GMT -5
We won't go there again, except to say that what you're predicting, if it happens, I'll call the single worst Red Sox personnel decision of the Theo-and-after era. Not because the ramifications are so large, but because the correct decision has zero cost. We can spin this off into another thread, but it's the Lackey trade. The Lackey trade was the worst. They traded a mid-rotation-to-better starter due to make like 85 cents the next season - one in which they planned to contend - for an expensive, broken hitter and a lottery ticket pitcher. That was nonsense in three ways: as a roster construction decision, as a value maximizing decision, and as a talent evaulation decision. And it because Cherington backed himself into a corner where he decided he needed to both a) trade Lackey, and b) get MLB talent in return. How many teams were in a position to trade MLB talent for a veteran? Just the Cardinals. Cherington came up with a process where he absolutely needed to trade a cheap, good pitcher to the St. Louis Cardinals, and started his negotiations from there. And, talk about large ramifications - the Red Sox finished in last place again in 2015, while Lackey posted a 5.7 bWAR for a team that won 100 games. They then let him go as a free agent and drafted Dylan Carlson with the comp pick. Not calling up Brentz in September was a similar level of nonsense, in that there is no rationale for it either in roster construction or talent evaluation and that it just is free value that they are leaving on the table, but without the same ramifications.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 13, 2017 9:49:27 GMT -5
High hosey the Pablo signing.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Sept 13, 2017 10:22:31 GMT -5
But James, have you seen Joe Kelly's stuff?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 15, 2017 11:36:36 GMT -5
So, speaking of Rule 5... I just realized that Rutledge was only active for 60 days this year. They're probably going to wind up offering him back to Colorado this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 15, 2017 12:05:08 GMT -5
So, speaking of Rule 5... I just realized that Rutledge was only active for 60 days this year. They're probably going to wind up offering him back to Colorado this offseason. I think I've forgotten Josh Rutledge more this year than I've ever forgotten about a player on the Red Sox 40-man roster in my entire baseball-watching life. This was at least the fifth time this year someone had posted something about him and I was like "oh yeah, they have Rutledge too!" EDIT: Off the topic of my creeping forgetfulness... Yes, I agree they offer him back. Hernandez, Lin, and Marrero have all passed him as infield depth, and there's probably going to be a mind to bring back Eduardo Nunez. He'd be a DFA or non-tender candidate if he'd passed that 90 days. EDIT2: I'd certainly want to protect any of the borderline adds over him. Especially considering roster construction, I'd prefer any of Brentz, Tavarez, Buttrey, Shepherd, or Haley.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Sept 15, 2017 12:20:44 GMT -5
So, speaking of Rule 5... I just realized that Rutledge was only active for 60 days this year. They're probably going to wind up offering him back to Colorado this offseason. Boring rules question: does Colorado still have a claim to him? He signed a minor league deal with them for the 2017 season, and is old enough for minor league free agency. So once he passes through waivers from the Sox, would he not again become a free agent?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 15, 2017 12:50:55 GMT -5
So, speaking of Rule 5... I just realized that Rutledge was only active for 60 days this year. They're probably going to wind up offering him back to Colorado this offseason. Boring rules question: does Colorado still have a claim to him? He signed a minor league deal with them for the 2017 season, and is old enough for minor league free agency. So once he passes through waivers from the Sox, would he not again become a free agent? Great question. I'd assume so? Obviously depends on what his minor league deal was, but presuming it was a one-year deal (safe), he'd be a MLFA, theoretically. Interesting. EDIT: I love The Cub Reporter. www.thecubreporter.com/mlb-rule-6-selected-player-draft-excluded-player So yeah, if they offer him back, he almost certainly will become a free agent.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 17, 2017 20:00:23 GMT -5
I moved some non-Rule-5 discussion to the interesting roster decisions thread. Let's keep this thread centered around the Rule 5 draft, Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 18, 2017 10:05:16 GMT -5
I moved some more Brock Holt-related discussion to the interest roster decisions thread. Let's keep this thread to Rule 5 discussion. Thanks.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 18, 2017 15:58:56 GMT -5
I moved some more Brock Holt-related discussion to the interest roster decisions thread. Let's keep this thread to Rule 5 discussion. Thanks. Actually, the Holt discussion was on topic, insofar as non-tendering him opens up a roster spot. A lot of the analysis in this thread annually has been of that ilk. So let me note that non-tendering him and signing him to a minor-league deal with an opt-out seems fairly likely, and that that will mean they can definitely protect Shepherd or Buttrey but probably not both.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 18, 2017 16:08:21 GMT -5
I acknowledge that the number of players you can/should protect in Rule 5 will depend, in part, on the number of open roster spots that you expect to have. But we have a separate "roster decisions" thread, and to the extent we can concentrate discussion of players on the existing 40-man roster in one thread (e.g., non-tendering Holt, trading Hanley or Price, re-signing Moreland, etc.), we should do so in that other thread. Let's keep this thread to discussion of whether players who are eligible for the Rule 5 draft should be added to the 40-man roster. If that requires you to consider whether it'd be better to add Shepherd to the 40-man as opposed to keeping Holt on it, that can happen in this thread, but none of the posts I moved meaningfully discussed any of the Rule 5 candidates but instead focused around the existing 40-man roster.
|
|
|
Post by jondrink on Oct 12, 2017 8:46:30 GMT -5
With a month to go it's going to be interesting now who gets dropped off the 40-man and who gets put on. Still early.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 12, 2017 17:53:23 GMT -5
With a month to go it's going to be interesting now who gets dropped off the 40-man and who gets put on. Still early. Well, you start with 40 + 5 guys on the 60-day DL - 8 free agents. That's 37. Josh Rutledge will certainly be offered back to Colorado or DFA'd. Robbie Ross seems likely to be non-tendered and re-signed to a ml deal, but that happens after the Rule 5 draft. That means they can protect up to 4 guys, but you also have to factor in who they might acquire in the off-season versus who they expect to trade away. I think you need to leave one spot ultimately open and maybe two. (My plan in the 2018 thread has them adding one.) If it's one net addition, Ross's non-tender will open up that spot. Jalen Beeks is the one 100% obvious addition. I still think that Bryce Brentz and Rusney Castillo are sure things as well. I strongly suspect that the only reason they didn't add Brentz in September is that JF told DDo that he wouldn't play ahead of Chris Young. Castillo won't be exposed to the draft, and there are lots of scenarios where he inherits the Chris Young role, if not right away, at some point in the season. Meanwhile, they'll be over the tax limit anyway, so the question is whether he's worth his salary plus the tax over the next few ears. They're paying him to be a 1.5 WAR player or a bit less and he looks like a solid 2.0 WAR guy right now. So I think the decision comes down to protecting Chandler Shepherd, Ty Buttrey, or neither (leaving room for two net additions, including a possible Rule 5 draftee of their own). I'm guessing Shepherd but not Buttrey.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Oct 12, 2017 18:43:57 GMT -5
Castillo won't be exposed to the draft, and there are lots of scenarios where he inherits the Chris Young role, if not right away, at some point in the season. Meanwhile, they'll be over the tax limit anyway, so the question is whether he's worth his salary plus the tax over the next few ears. They're paying him to be a 1.5 WAR player or a bit less and he looks like a solid 2.0 WAR guy right now. Why not, exactly? He had a solid season at AAA this year, but he's 30 years old, with three years left on his deal, at a salary almost double what Chris Young was making these last 2 years. His contract vs. level of play thus far has been such a negative that they had to stash him for the last 2 years. I just don't see a necessity to have him take up a 40 man spot over the winter, even if you think he'll be a solid backup contributor. If someone is really that eager to take that contract off your hands, is that a loss? If he survives the winter, he gets a NRI to try and show that he can be that 4th outfielder. Purchase his contract at the end of spring.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 12, 2017 19:53:05 GMT -5
I strongly suspect that the only reason they didn't add Brentz in September is that JF told DDo that he wouldn't play ahead of Chris Young. I got chastised for suggesting that in the manager thread. I believe that is also true, but of course we'll never have proof either way.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 12, 2017 21:13:37 GMT -5
I strongly suspect that the only reason they didn't add Brentz in September is that JF told DDo that he wouldn't play ahead of Chris Young. I got chastised for suggesting that in the manager thread. I believe that is also true, but of course we'll never have proof either way. We'll have proof of that within 5 days of the World Series actually.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Oct 12, 2017 21:30:22 GMT -5
Looking at the current 40 man, some easy subtractions are Hembree, Young, Abad, Boyer
Possible removals - Owens, Elias, Taylor, Fister, Reed, Davis
Additions from injury list - Wright, Hernandez, Thornburg; bye bye Rutledge and Ross
That means 10 come off, 3 go on - leaves 7 spots. Add Beeks, Brentz (or Barfield?), Ockimey, Chavis perhaps?
Just a finger in the wind right now of course....going to be lots of changes we can't even foresee at the moment
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 13, 2017 1:50:00 GMT -5
Castillo won't be exposed to the draft, and there are lots of scenarios where he inherits the Chris Young role, if not right away, at some point in the season. Meanwhile, they'll be over the tax limit anyway, so the question is whether he's worth his salary plus the tax over the next few ears. They're paying him to be a 1.5 WAR player or a bit less and he looks like a solid 2.0 WAR guy right now. Why not, exactly? He had a solid season at AAA this year, but he's 30 years old, with three years left on his deal, at a salary almost double what Chris Young was making these last 2 years. His contract vs. level of play thus far has been such a negative that they had to stash him for the last 2 years. I just don't see a necessity to have him take up a 40 man spot over the winter, even if you think he'll be a solid backup contributor. If someone is really that eager to take that contract off your hands, is that a loss? If he survives the winter, he gets a NRI to try and show that he can be that 4th outfielder. Purchase his contract at the end of spring. If you trust his MLE's, yes. Based on what he did in AAA this year, he's an average starting MLB CF, or a tick above. That's worth about $16M on the open market. Someone will certainly take him in the Rule 5, since they can return him and his remaining salary commitment at any point in the season. They're risking nothing to get a solid MLB starter at a below-market price. If he isn't returned, you've given away that guy and gotten nothing for him. Now, having a guy that good as your 4th OFer is a mark of a championship-caliber team. Paying a guy like that $12M a year, however, is something only the deepest-pocketed teams do, as a rule, and rarely if ever by design. If you were over the tax limit already and needed a 4th OF, you would obviously try to find someone cheaper, and any free agents who were like Castillo would be signing for about his price (more depending on the length of the track record) as a starter. So this is a very odd situation. If we protect him as we ought to, no one right now will gamble on trading for him, because it means trusting the MLE's. It's much easier to trust the MLE's when you already have the player and he represents a sunk cost! So the optimum strategy is to trust them, protect him, get him some MLB experience in 2018 to establish trade value, and then decide whether to keep him as the 4th OFer in 2019 and 2020 or trade him. He'll always have more value starting for someone else than coming off the bench for you, but, maybe the return in trade won't match the downgrade to the next available 4th OFer option.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 13, 2017 7:14:57 GMT -5
If we protect him as we ought to, no one right now will gamble on trading for him, because it means trusting the MLE's. It's much easier to trust the MLE's when you already have the player and he represents a sunk cost! So the optimum strategy is to trust them, protect him, get him some MLB experience in 2018 to establish trade value, and then decide whether to keep him as the 4th OFer in 2019 and 2020 or trade him. He'll always have more value starting for someone else than coming off the bench for you, but, maybe the return in trade won't match the downgrade to the next available 4th OFer option. I don't know that I agree with this bit, because Castillo also scouted quite well this year and his defense limits his downside. If a team got good reports and has a a San Francisco Giants-sized hole in center field they may (and should) consider trading for him. EDIT: Think of it this way - there is absolutely a sweet spot here, moreso than for any other player in the organization, to make a good value trade. If the Red Sox can get more value than 4th-OF Castillo and the acquiring team is giving up less value than starting-OF Castillo is worth, then a deal should work. For argument's sake, let's say Castillo is a 2.5 WAR player as a starter, but only a 1.5 WAR player in the role the Red Sox would be able to give him. If they can get the equivalent return of a 2.0 WAR expected value, then everybody wins. And those numbers aren't intended to be projections, just to show that there's absolutely a range where the Red Sox should consider trading him and another team should consider trading for him.
|
|
|