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 Dec 7, 2023 11:54:10 GMT -5
I think all nine players taken were ranked at some point this season. EDIT: Actually, I don't recall ranking Railin Perez this year. Salazar, Fitzgerald, Bell, and Hernández were all in the unofficial 72-80 range in our rough, aggregate ranking for EOS.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 7, 2023 11:57:40 GMT -5
Yeah, it’s splitting hairs at that point. The Mets clearly liked Ammons a little bit more than Slaten (hard to imagine the extra money was very much - prolly just rule 5 picking fee) and vice versa for the Sox. At that level of prospects, clubs just see different qualities that they like or think they have a fix for. I don't think the Mets like Ammons more than Slaten. They didn't want to draft Slaten. Boston had to have made this deal before the draft and they accepted a very small price to pick Slaten for Boston so another team wouldn't take him before Boston's chance to pick. This. Slaten would've cost way more than Ammons. The Rule 5 restrictions cut the price significantly. If you think he's good enough to stick all year but don't like the price too trade for him, this is the strategy to acquire him for much cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Dec 7, 2023 12:32:22 GMT -5
Red Sox lose Shane Drohan and Ryan Fernandez in the major league portion and Jose Ramirez, Johnfrank Salazar, Alexis Hernandez, Railin Perez, Ryan Miller, Ryan Fitzgerald, and Brock Bell in the minor league portion. Thanks vermont for leading us through another draft. You do great work and soxprospects is not making you available in any draft or trade.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Dec 7, 2023 15:10:28 GMT -5
Am I wromg that another way to look at this is having Mata and Slaten rather than Drohan? To protect Drohan someone else is unprotected, right? Or am I oversimplifying? There are two empty spots on the 40 man right now. Not really, those open 40-man spots belong to starting pitchers, a 2B, and a RH outfielder, so not only are there not 2 open spots, 2 DFAs, trades,… are coming. Think 4th dimensionally, as all you staff keep saying, “why add him to the 40 only to DFA him later…..”
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Dec 7, 2023 15:17:55 GMT -5
Yeah, it’s splitting hairs at that point. The Mets clearly liked Ammons a little bit more than Slaten (hard to imagine the extra money was very much - prolly just rule 5 picking fee) and vice versa for the Sox. At that level of prospects, clubs just see different qualities that they like or think they have a fix for. I don't think the Mets like Ammons more than Slaten. They didn't want to draft Slaten. Boston had to have made this deal before the draft and they accepted a very small price to pick Slaten for Boston so another team wouldn't take him before Boston's chance to pick. My thought exactly! The deal was prearranged. If the Mets had really like Slaten enough to pick him and keep him on their 26 for a whole year, they would not have traded him to the Red Sox that quick and easily! The Mets get roster filler and some money for their trouble.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 7, 2023 15:34:53 GMT -5
There are two empty spots on the 40 man right now. Not really, those open 40-man spots belong to starting pitchers, a 2B, and a RH outfielder, so not only are there not 2 open spots, 2 DFAs, trades,… are coming. Think 4th dimensionally, as all you staff keep saying, “why add him to the 40 only to DFA him later…..” I'm not talking about this as an abstraction. I'm saying that Drohan is/was good enough to use a 40-man spot on, promising enough that you may regret losing him, close enough to the majors that he's got a good chance to stick, and that there were not roster constraints that stood in the way of that. I'm not saying that you should just fill up the 40-man roster because there are slots, I'm saying that you should put Shane Drohan on the 40-man roster and not lose him in the Rule 5 draft.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 7, 2023 16:43:33 GMT -5
Not really, those open 40-man spots belong to starting pitchers, a 2B, and a RH outfielder, so not only are there not 2 open spots, 2 DFAs, trades,… are coming. Think 4th dimensionally, as all you staff keep saying, “why add him to the 40 only to DFA him later…..” I'm not talking about this as an abstraction. I'm saying that Drohan is/was good enough to use a 40-man spot on, promising enough that you may regret losing him, close enough to the majors that he's got a good chance to stick, and that there were not roster constraints that stood in the way of that. I'm not saying that you should just fill up the 40-man roster because there are slots, I'm saying that you should put Shane Drohan on the 40-man roster and not lose him in the Rule 5 draft. To wit, I'd rather have Drohan than, and would DFA to protect him: Open slot 1 Open slot 2 Walter Weiss Dalbec Llovera Jacques Maybe Mata That's at least 8 spots on the 40-man. If all are filled by different people come camp? Fine. That's why I pushed back on the initial "I'd rather have Drohan than Gillaspie" thing because it's not necessarily a 1v1 right now and Gillaspie was clearly getting DFA at some point. It's that they easily could have protected him because of the number of spots they have, in theory. We'll see if he comes back. I'm skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 7, 2023 16:49:49 GMT -5
I'm not talking about this as an abstraction. I'm saying that Drohan is/was good enough to use a 40-man spot on, promising enough that you may regret losing him, close enough to the majors that he's got a good chance to stick, and that there were not roster constraints that stood in the way of that. I'm not saying that you should just fill up the 40-man roster because there are slots, I'm saying that you should put Shane Drohan on the 40-man roster and not lose him in the Rule 5 draft. To wit, I'd rather have Drohan than, and would DFA to protect him: Open slot 1 Open slot 2 WalterWeiss Dalbec Llovera Jacques Maybe Mata That's at least 8 spots on the 40-man. If all are filled by different people come camp? Fine. That's why I pushed back on the initial "I'd rather have Drohan than Gillaspie" thing because it's not necessarily a 1v1 right now and Gillaspie was clearly getting DFA at some point. It's that they easily could have protected him because of the number of spots they have, in theory. We'll see if he comes back. I'm skeptical. Walter to me is the one that's making me think well you kept him but not Drohan? I'm no expert far from it but watching Walter in the MLB this year and reading his scouting report compared to Drohan they seem kind of similar but Drohan has more projectability and is just 24 vs 27. It really seems to me that it'd have made way more sense to DFA Walter and protect Drohan. And as you point out it didn't need to be an either or scenario. With 2 open 40 man slots as why not give one to Drohan. Worst comes to worst if you want his spot later you trade him somewhere for a lotto ticket, instead they now are very much at risk of losing him all together. If I had to bet I'd say the ChiSox do keep him on their roster long enough to retain him.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 7, 2023 17:16:29 GMT -5
It's not exactly Walter vs Drohan, it's Walter vs the difference between keeping Drohan 100% of the time vs 40% of the time. Nobody knew he was going to be selected. He wasn't really one of the hot names in the preview articles.
I don't know if I'd rather have Drohan either way. Walter performed significantly better last year. And for all the talk of Drohan's magical month in AA, he's never looked as good as Walter did in '21 and '22.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Dec 7, 2023 17:25:30 GMT -5
I'd much rather have Dalbec than Drohan. I know Dalbec can do one valuable thing at the MLB level - he can hit lefties. Above a 100 wRC+ in every single year and he's competent enough at fielding the infield corners. I don't know if Drohan can do anything valuable above AA.
Add: I know people will say you could make this same argument about having Dalbec over Casas one year ago or whatever, but obviously the caliber of prospect matters too.
|
|
|
Post by pappyman99 on Dec 7, 2023 17:47:44 GMT -5
It's not exactly Walter vs Drohan, it's Walter vs the difference between keeping Drohan 100% of the time vs 40% of the time. Nobody knew he was going to be selected. He wasn't really one of the hot names in the preview articles. I don't know if I'd rather have Drohan either way. Walter performed significantly better last year. And for all the talk of Drohan's magical month in AA, he's never looked as good as Walter did in '21 and '22. Yeah not sure why people like to ignore that drohan really hasn’t done anything other than 34 AA innings that everyone wants to really hang their hats on last year
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Dec 7, 2023 17:48:56 GMT -5
Not really, those open 40-man spots belong to starting pitchers, a 2B, and a RH outfielder, so not only are there not 2 open spots, 2 DFAs, trades,… are coming. Think 4th dimensionally, as all you staff keep saying, “why add him to the 40 only to DFA him later…..” I'm not talking about this as an abstraction. I'm saying that Drohan is/was good enough to use a 40-man spot on, promising enough that you may regret losing him, close enough to the majors that he's got a good chance to stick, and that there were not roster constraints that stood in the way of that. I'm not saying that you should just fill up the 40-man roster because there are slots, I'm saying that you should put Shane Drohan on the 40-man roster and not lose him in the Rule 5 draft. He absolutely did not show that in AAA last year, and the Red Sox brass obviously agree….
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Dec 7, 2023 17:57:25 GMT -5
I'm not talking about this as an abstraction. I'm saying that Drohan is/was good enough to use a 40-man spot on, promising enough that you may regret losing him, close enough to the majors that he's got a good chance to stick, and that there were not roster constraints that stood in the way of that. I'm not saying that you should just fill up the 40-man roster because there are slots, I'm saying that you should put Shane Drohan on the 40-man roster and not lose him in the Rule 5 draft. To wit, I'd rather have Drohan than, and would DFA to protect him: Open slot 1 Open slot 2 Walter Weiss Dalbec Llovera Jacques Maybe Mata That's at least 8 spots on the 40-man. If all are filled by different people come camp? Fine. That's why I pushed back on the initial "I'd rather have Drohan than Gillaspie" thing because it's not necessarily a 1v1 right now and Gillaspie was clearly getting DFA at some point. It's that they easily could have protected him because of the number of spots they have, in theory. We'll see if he comes back. I'm skeptical. The White Sox suck, so they may keep him, but pitching guru Breslow and the farm brass, obviously have a different opinion on how well Drohan projects against MLB competition considering he got his ass handed to him nearly every start in AAA last year. It is not a vacuum, the staff must either see other options they like better or they are confident they will get him back. Unless AAA last year was Drohan working on new stuff without regard to results, I do not see how he can stay on even the White Sox roster a full season. He was one of the worst AAA starters in all of AAA last year. I am also curious how Thaddeus Ward will perform this year. I presume he will be in AAA. His 28 walks in 35 innings was a little Darwinzonian last year. Maybe the Red Sox brass has decided to make their decision a little quicker instead of hanging on to prospects too long and allowing them to clog up the roster: Darwinzon, Seabold (only W and good start the entire season was against the Red Sox last year), Bazardo,…. I do not think not protecting Drohan was about not enough room on the roster as it is about his projection not being good enough to be an effective MLB starter or reliever. I was the first Drohan doubter that said he would not be protected last season, and no matter what he did in AA, it did not carry over to AAA.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Dec 7, 2023 18:08:03 GMT -5
I'm not talking about this as an abstraction. I'm saying that Drohan is/was good enough to use a 40-man spot on, promising enough that you may regret losing him, close enough to the majors that he's got a good chance to stick, and that there were not roster constraints that stood in the way of that. I'm not saying that you should just fill up the 40-man roster because there are slots, I'm saying that you should put Shane Drohan on the 40-man roster and not lose him in the Rule 5 draft. To wit, I'd rather have Drohan than, and would DFA to protect him: Open slot 1 Open slot 2 Walter Weiss Dalbec Llovera Jacques Maybe Mata That's at least 8 spots on the 40-man. If all are filled by different people come camp? Fine. That's why I pushed back on the initial "I'd rather have Drohan than Gillaspie" thing because it's not necessarily a 1v1 right now and Gillaspie was clearly getting DFA at some point. It's that they easily could have protected him because of the number of spots they have, in theory. We'll see if he comes back. I'm skeptical. I agree.I looked at our 40 man.I could easly chop off a bunch of them. I was not impressed with what Isaw when a couple of these guys got looks at the big league team. I have no idea how this will play out but I liked Bell and Blalock.Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 7, 2023 20:46:12 GMT -5
I don't think the Mets like Ammons more than Slaten. They didn't want to draft Slaten. Boston had to have made this deal before the draft and they accepted a very small price to pick Slaten for Boston so another team wouldn't take him before Boston's chance to pick. This. Slaten would've cost way more than Ammons. The Rule 5 restrictions cut the price significantly. If you think he's good enough to stick all year but don't like the price too trade for him, this is the strategy to acquire him for much cheaper. I don’t see it like this. Pre-draft buzz had Slaten as one of the buzziest arms available. My guess is that when he started falling, the Sox started calling teams that were next on the board, asking if they wanted to pick from a curated list of their prospects in exchange for picking Slaten for the Sox. I don’t think the deal was made before the draft because why would they make a deal with NYM at #8 if they really liked Slaten? Wouldn’t you deal for a higher pick pre-draft?
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,204
|
Post by cdj on Dec 7, 2023 20:50:45 GMT -5
This. Slaten would've cost way more than Ammons. The Rule 5 restrictions cut the price significantly. If you think he's good enough to stick all year but don't like the price too trade for him, this is the strategy to acquire him for much cheaper. I don’t see it like this. Pre-draft buzz had Slaten as one of the buzziest arms available. My guess is that when he started falling, the Sox started calling teams that were next on the board, asking if they wanted to pick from a curated list of their prospects in exchange for picking Slaten for the Sox. I don’t think the deal was made before the draft because why would they make a deal with NYM at #8 if they really liked Slaten? Wouldn’t you deal for a higher pick pre-draft? Fairly certain the announcement of Ammons being dealt came before the rule 5 draft. There was a separate thread for it then the rule 5 draft happened and it got looped into this thread
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 7, 2023 20:53:31 GMT -5
This. Slaten would've cost way more than Ammons. The Rule 5 restrictions cut the price significantly. If you think he's good enough to stick all year but don't like the price too trade for him, this is the strategy to acquire him for much cheaper. I don’t see it like this. Pre-draft buzz had Slaten as one of the buzziest arms available. My guess is that when he started falling, the Sox started calling teams that were next on the board, asking if they wanted to pick from a curated list of their prospects in exchange for picking Slaten for the Sox. I don’t think the deal was made before the draft because why would they make a deal with NYM at #8 if they really liked Slaten? Wouldn’t you deal for a higher pick pre-draft? The Rule 5 Draft happens WAY too fast for that to happen. It's not like the Rule 4 Draft with 5 minutes between picks. The entire MLB portion took about 5 minutes. They likely talked to teams and the Mets weren't going to take anyone, so they said take Slaten if he gets to you. They likely knew someone in the 9-11 range was going to take him if he was there.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Dec 7, 2023 20:56:06 GMT -5
I don’t see it like this. Pre-draft buzz had Slaten as one of the buzziest arms available. My guess is that when he started falling, the Sox started calling teams that were next on the board, asking if they wanted to pick from a curated list of their prospects in exchange for picking Slaten for the Sox. I don’t think the deal was made before the draft because why would they make a deal with NYM at #8 if they really liked Slaten? Wouldn’t you deal for a higher pick pre-draft? Fairly certain the announcement of Ammons being dealt came before the rule 5 draft. There was a separate thread for it then the rule 5 draft happened and it got looped into this thread It happened after the draft, but was unclear initially that it had to do with Slaten.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,204
|
Post by cdj on Dec 7, 2023 20:57:15 GMT -5
Fairly certain the announcement of Ammons being dealt came before the rule 5 draft. There was a separate thread for it then the rule 5 draft happened and it got looped into this thread It happened after the draft, but was unclear initially that it had to do with Slaten. Gotcha, I probably just read the threads in that order then lol
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Dec 7, 2023 21:05:30 GMT -5
Very displeased by how this was handled with the pre-draft decision making and how it played out. Not surprising that a new FO would value some current players less than the old regime, but losing this many players for nothing, topped off by a legitimate prospect like Drohan, doesn't seem like good business.
Slaten does sound intriguing and I'm glad to see the Sox pick him up.
|
|
|
Post by stanpapi on Dec 7, 2023 21:24:15 GMT -5
Given the % of Rule 5 players who return to their original club, Drohan and Fernandez will be back in Worchester by June. Neither are big league pitchers and IMO never will be.. well.. maybe Fernandez if he learns how to throw strikes.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 8, 2023 9:10:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 8, 2023 10:34:15 GMT -5
Good insights into the "pitching infrastructure" and how it operates.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Dec 8, 2023 13:35:00 GMT -5
Very displeased by how this was handled with the pre-draft decision making and how it played out. Not surprising that a new FO would value some current players less than the old regime, but losing this many players for nothing, topped off by a legitimate prospect like Drohan, doesn't seem like good business. Slaten does sound intriguing and I'm glad to see the Sox pick him up. Never thought the 38-man roster could get so crowded. Sounds like it's 40+38=78 spots A trade was called for. Those 7 players aren't coming back
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 8, 2023 13:56:08 GMT -5
A trade was called for. Those 7 players aren't coming back We're talking about A-ball backups and middle relievers who only some teams think are worth the $12,000 draft pick cost. Whatever trade value they have is so small as to not even be worth the FO's time trying to capture.
|
|
|