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.
The 2013-2014 40-Man Roster (Post Peavy Deal)
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 8, 2013 4:24:11 GMT -5
Whatever Almanzar's EQA is, he's been pretty uninspiring for two months now. .256/.323/.352 with 2 home runs in 223 PA since 6/7. Since the start of July he's .235/.308/.303 in 133 PA. Brentz's line was at least relatively consistent throughout his season before he went down, if nothing else. However much he improved his prospect stock the first two months of the season, he's come back down the last two. If Almanzar is unable to pull out of this before the end of the year (making it a slump as opposed to turning back into a pumpkin), I'd be VERY surprised if he's protected. Given two players with roughly the same stats, the guy who was streaky is usually a much better prospect than the guy who was consistent. Or much better MLB breakout candidate, for that matter. Carlos Pena's 1037 OPS in 2007 was essentially the same season as his 802 OPS in 2005; the only difference was the going well / slumping ratio. (I called that breakout in advance, BTW.) Almanzar was hitting .287 / .347 / .511 on June 9, then hit .286 / .364 / .403 in his next 22 games to July 3. Walks up, power down, a typical result when teams stop throwing as many strikes to a player, and not really discouraging; his line at that point was .287 / .351 / .483. July 4 to July 31, .213 / .265 / .266. So far this month, .286 / .375 / .429. I'm pretty sure there was a year that Brandon Moss had a great first half and awful second half, and a bit later Josh Reddick did the opposite. I made a point of stressing that all we'd learned about either player was that they were streaky as hell, and opined that you shouldn't put any credence in the hot / cold sequence. Moss hadn't turned into a pumpkin and Reddick hadn't figured much out. I also said that (given his seemingly incurable streakiness) Moss struck me as the sort of guy who would kick around MLB as a bench player and have one really good year as a semi-regular. Almanzar needs to learn to limit his funks to two weeks (like Manny used to) rather than let them drag on for nearly a month. He's young enough to make that adjustment and even has a chance to have a bat that will play as a regular MLB 1B. I'm not saying that that upside is likely, but I definitely think it's there. Whereas I think the clock has nearly run out on Brentz as a potential MLB starter for other than a bad club. Unless they've misclassified a ton of ground balls past 3B as line drives, I don't see how the PBP data could skew a TotalZone-type defensive metric for infielders. You're counting assists and comparing it to ground ball hits to LF, with calculations to divide the blame for the latter between 3B and SS, and you're adjusting for the handedness of the batters and pitchers, and then you're comparing players to one another. I know I read a glowing report on his work ethic within the last year, one that was tied to his breakthrough last year. I don't think I really disagree with folks here about the odds of losing Almanzar in the Rule 5. I think he's somewhat likely to be picked if left unprotected and even likelier to be returned. But I think there will be plenty of room to protect him, and protect us against the worst-case scenario of losing a valuable trade chip because he gets some good coaching over the winter or in ST, impresses his new team enough to hang on to, and eventually learns to limit his slumps and becomes a good player.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 16:30:50 GMT -5
I think I understand what Eric is saying in a nutshell. Both Almanzar and Brentz are at best very fringy prospects at this point and have a long ways to go before they can be considered major league regulars. Eric just feels that Almanzar has a better chance to make those adjustments, and uses as his main argument Almanzar's "streakyness", so to speak.
Eric claims that streaky prospects are more likely to break out. In other words it's better to hit .350 for 2 weeks and .150 for two weeks than .250 for four weeks. Well why would that be true? Streaky players can be streaky because they have above average tools but lack consistency. Obviously you can't teach physical gifts, but coaching might be able to teach consistency.
If you look at Alamazar's scouting reports, that explanation seems to fit him to a tee. He's always had above average bat speed, a levered swing with power potential, and a projectable body. It was these gifts that earned him a $1.5M bonus in the first place.
Despite these gifts Almanzar hasn't developed into a top prospect because of rough swing mechanics. Though he's shown improvement, he hasn't developed enough consistency with his swing mechanics to make him a top prospect. If you are a team with enough 40 man room you might take a chance on Almanzar's physical gifts, and flashes of brilliance put him with your coaching staff and hope by the end of the spring you have something.
Brentz has a much larger problem. He can't hit breaking pitches. That's a harder problem to fix than inconsistent swing mechanics. In fact as those who bet on Brandon Wood found out, it probably can't be fixed.
Finally I disagree with Chris that major league teams use major league readiness as a deciding factor on Rule Five. Given the low cost of the pick, many teams are looking for lottery tickets, the next Dan Uggla, or Johann Santana, not the next John Trautwein. Guys that they might be able to work with over the spring and turn into valuable property. Who is more ready to help a major league team win on draft day probably isn't that important.
All Eric is saying is that Almazar is a better lottery ticket and therefor should be protected ahead of Brentz. Given Almanzar's superior tools, he may have a point.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 8, 2013 17:43:52 GMT -5
Finally I disagree with Chris that major league teams use major league readiness as a deciding factor on Rule Five. Given the low cost of the pick, many teams are looking for lottery tickets, the next Dan Uggla, or Johann Santana, not the next John Trautwein. Guys that they might be able to work with over the spring and turn into valuable property. Who is more ready to help a major league team win on draft day probably isn't that important. So, uh, who are these "many teams" willing to carry one or more "lottery tickets" on their 25-man active roster for a full season? Or are you saying that a "lottery ticket" player is one whose value will be immediately revealed once they get a chance at ST with a big league club?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 8, 2013 18:26:48 GMT -5
I don't like Brentz very much and I'm completely okay with someone preferring Almanzar, but I think it is a fairly safe bet that the Red Sox protect Brentz while it is less certain they will protect Almanzar.
And MLB teams most certainly do consider a player's readiness as one of the primary deciding factors in who to protect and select in the Rule 5 draft. Clearly if a player is talented enough than they will still protect them regardless of how ready they are, but there are very few teams willing to completely sacrifice a spot on the 25-man roster for the entire season. Most teams are looking for players that can perform in a bench role or out of the bullpen to a reasonably acceptable level right away or they won't keep them.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 8, 2013 18:33:37 GMT -5
Finally I disagree with Chris that major league teams use major league readiness as a deciding factor on Rule Five. Given the low cost of the pick, many teams are looking for lottery tickets, the next Dan Uggla, or Johann Santana, not the next John Trautwein. Guys that they might be able to work with over the spring and turn into valuable property. Who is more ready to help a major league team win on draft day probably isn't that important. Although I think most of your post makes sense (and put the way you do, I can certainly concede that Almanzar may be the better lottery ticket depending on your perspective, even if I don't necessarily feel that way), I just want to mention that the above wasn't what I meant. I meant that a team isn't going to draft a guy in Rule 5 if he isn't at least almost MLB-ready, because he needs to stay on the roster all season long (unless he suffers a season-ending injury of course, along the lines of Miguel Gonzalez). Thus, Almanzar's age relative to level, which is quite important in evaluating him as a prospect, doesn't carry nearly as much weight for a selecting team in R5, which needs to evaluate whether it can keep him on the roster all season. Almanzar's toolset would make it difficult to carry him in the majors for a season - developing (at best) plate approach, poor defense. Compare that with the likes of, say, Butler or Vazquez, who a bad team easily could have used as no-hit backup catchers for a year. Compared to Almanzar, I think Brentz could at least give a team what, say, Reddick has given Oakland at the plate for the past year-plus, albeit with far inferior defense. Not optimal, but a team like Houston would deal with it in order to get him into the system, whereas I feel that Almanzar is far enough away from being big-league ready that he wouldn't be able to even do that. Guys like Uggla and Santana don't get picked in rule 5 anymore because teams have an extra year of control now than they did then. That's why so many of the picks who do well are relievers - the guys with the biggest boom/bust potential that a team may be willing to leave unprotected. Since 2006 (the bumper crop that included Josh Hamilton and Joakim Soria, the only R5 draftee that has made any impact for the drafting team was Everth Cabrera, who wound up going back down to the minors for another year and a half after that first season and, frankly, might have only come back because of PEDs. I guess I lean towards the team protecting fewer guys than we would predict, if only because that seems to happen every year. I feel like we always toss around 5-6 names that the team could protect, and then 2-3 get protected, or similar. We'll see - like I said, I think the coming month will play into what happens with a guy like Almanzar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 21:33:01 GMT -5
Finally I disagree with Chris that major league teams use major league readiness as a deciding factor on Rule Five. Given the low cost of the pick, many teams are looking for lottery tickets, the next Dan Uggla, or Johann Santana, not the next John Trautwein. Guys that they might be able to work with over the spring and turn into valuable property. Who is more ready to help a major league team win on draft day probably isn't that important. So, uh, who are these "many teams" willing to carry one or more "lottery tickets" on their 25-man active roster for a full season? Or are you saying that a "lottery ticket" player is one whose value will be immediately revealed once they get a chance at ST with a big league club? The later, especially for a position player. I think that small market teams that are scouting oriented and who can't afford James Loney would probably be in the market for taking a chance on such a player. Twins, Marlins? Rays might even do something creative if they see something. If you draft Almanzar you are hoping that he wins a spot as an every day regular. You aren't looking to hide him for a year. Chris as usual very much liked your post as usual.....a couple of things though. #1 Uggla would have been still been eligible under current rules. He's the perfect example of a lottery pick. Was a 25 year old in AA with good though not great stats. Marlins fixed a loop in his swing. Example of the type of player teams are looking for. #2 They really don't have to keep the player on the roster the entire season. It's a 25K investment, if you bring the player in and they aren't as coachable as you thought cut them, NBD. #3 I would think that Almanzar will go to the AFL. That's where a lot of teams find R5 candidates. Probably where Twins found Pressley.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 21:40:14 GMT -5
I don't like Brentz very much and I'm completely okay with someone preferring Almanzar, but I think it is a fairly safe bet that the Red Sox protect Brentz while it is less certain they will protect Almanzar. And MLB teams most certainly do consider a player's readiness as one of the primary deciding factors in who to protect and select in the Rule 5 draft. Clearly if a player is talented enough than they will still protect them regardless of how ready they are, but there are very few teams willing to completely sacrifice a spot on the 25-man roster for the entire season. Most teams are looking for players that can perform in a bench role or out of the bullpen to a reasonably acceptable level right away or they won't keep them. More to Eric's point. Who is better equipped to help a major league team today and thus make a roster next spring? Brentz. Who is more likely to be playing every day in the majors in 2014 and beyond? Almanzar. I think it makes more sense for many teams to choose the later. That's all I am saying.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Aug 8, 2013 21:49:11 GMT -5
I don't like Brentz very much and I'm completely okay with someone preferring Almanzar, but I think it is a fairly safe bet that the Red Sox protect Brentz while it is less certain they will protect Almanzar. And MLB teams most certainly do consider a player's readiness as one of the primary deciding factors in who to protect and select in the Rule 5 draft. Clearly if a player is talented enough than they will still protect them regardless of how ready they are, but there are very few teams willing to completely sacrifice a spot on the 25-man roster for the entire season. Most teams are looking for players that can perform in a bench role or out of the bullpen to a reasonably acceptable level right away or they won't keep them. More to Eric's point. Who is better equipped to help a major league team today and thus make a roster next spring? Brentz. Who is more likely to be playing every day in the majors in 2014 and beyond? Almanzar. I think it makes more sense for many teams to choose the later. That's all I am saying. Is there a big market for backup DHs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 22:26:09 GMT -5
Not a back up DH if you can get his swing mechanics more consistent.
As far as chavope's comment about what the Red Sox will do, there is a lot that goes into that that we really don't know. Maybe they would prefer to spend the roster spot on a player they know they can bring up for a couple of weeks in case of an injury. What we do know about Brentz is that he's coming off of surgery and he doesn't have the tools that Almanzar has. I just think that there is a valid point to be made that he shouldn't be viewed as a lock because his skill set really isn't all that unique.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 9, 2013 11:12:23 GMT -5
I disagree that Almanzar has better tools than Brentz. Brentz has a tighter swing, and generates easy power with quick wrist action. He's also a better athlete than Almanzar, with FAR superior defensive insticts. If Brentz gets pushed out of a starting role, he could probably take to first base and be a better defender than Almanzar there on day one. Brentz's perfect world projection is Nelson Cruz with better defense, which is an All-Star. He probably won't get there, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him have a career like Dante Bichette or Ryan Ludwick (once he got the chance to play). And again, Brentz is a better defender than both of them.
Almanzar got a big signing bonus based on projected power and a cannon arm. The projected power hasn't shown up, and the arm strength has become useless because he's otherwise such a bad defender at third.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2013 12:25:29 GMT -5
There is no doubt that Brentz has comparable power to those players. But he won't make enough contact or take enough walks to access that power and become a valuable player. I'd say he has no chance of being an all-star, like Cruz and a minimal chance of becoming Bichette (non Colorodo version).
If you compare the players on a statistical basis, the main difference is that each had far superior plate discipline numbers than Brentz.
Age 24 stats:
Bichette: BB/K .31 Ludwick: BB/K .46 Cruz: BB/K .46 Brentz BB/K .25
According to the scouting reports I've read the reason why Brentz's BB/K is so low is that he has problems with breaking pitches. That's not going to get better in the majors where many pitchers have plus curves, and it probably can't be fixed either. Probably profiles best as an up and down guy.
As Eric said there is probably room to protect both guys as there are a bunch of ways to open up roster spots without doing damage to the organization.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,002
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 9, 2013 13:32:53 GMT -5
I disagree that Almanzar has better tools than Brentz. Brentz has a tighter swing, and generates easy power with quick wrist action. He's also a better athlete than Almanzar, with FAR superior defensive insticts. If Brentz gets pushed out of a starting role, he could probably take to first base and be a better defender than Almanzar there on day one. .... Wow, Brentz with better defensive instincts than Almanzar? Then why isn't the RH Brentz playing 3b? Or why wasn't he playing IF in college? Clearly Brentz is a better RF than Almanzar is a 3b, but 3b is hard. Yaz played LF like Nureyev, but was a brutal 3b and mediocre-to-poor 1b. We have no idea what Brentz would do with a groundball hit at him from 100 feet away.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 9, 2013 16:27:37 GMT -5
Neither can play third base. Brentz can play right field, and Almanzar can't.
Edit: There aren't a lot of defensive metrics that show defense in Yaz's day. TotalZone loves him, says he saved 48 runs there over the course of his career. I was really young when Yaz finished up, so the entirety that I've seen on video showed him to be just fine over there. I'd never heard anectodally of him being a poor first baseman until your post.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,002
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 9, 2013 19:22:29 GMT -5
Neither can play third base. Brentz can play right field, and Almanzar can't. Edit: There aren't a lot of defensive metrics that show defense in Yaz's day. TotalZone loves him, says he saved 48 runs there over the course of his career. I was really young when Yaz finished up, so the entirety that I've seen on video showed him to be just fine over there. I'd never heard anectodally of him being a poor first baseman until your post. Yaz was signed as a SS, but just wasn't good enough; some of that background helped him charge balls in left field with great results. He was an undersized first baseman, and was competent, but at his size he wasn't much of a target, and on throws in the dirt he would do this thing where he would swipe at the ball and sometimes get it, sometimes not. It's possible that that was more frustrating than statistically significant. There was some contemporary criticism, including one Globe column by someone that got everyone mad. It was good of him to be willing to fill in at 3b in 1973, but made 12 errors in 33 games. I know errors are usually not good statistics, but 12 in 33 games stands out; 3 in one game I think. Isn't it true that almost all the good fielding 1b are either LH, or former 3b like George Scott, Kevin Youkilis, Steve Garvey, Bagwell, Pujols, etc? Are there a lot of RH OF who became a good 1b? Don't all good young players play the IF until they are sent to the OF?
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 9, 2013 22:56:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Aug 9, 2013 23:35:49 GMT -5
Only assuming he's got the range for it.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 10, 2013 15:55:11 GMT -5
There's probably never been this much interesting and reasonable debate among people who essentially agree. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Almanzar, I think, is a guy 60% likely to be drafted and 90% likely to be returned. To be kept, he'd have to show enough to be replacement level as a backup 3B / 1B (Brandon Snyder, IOW) plus upside as a regular. If you have a roster squeeze, you obviously leave unprotected a guy with a 4% chance of being stolen from you. If you have one or more empty slots on the roster, you just as obviously protect that guy, given the caveat below. And I think the odds are pretty good that they'll have the empty slot. However ... if you're planning to sign free agents, you also have to have a list of who you intend to DFA or trade to make room for them. You don't want to add Almanzar to the 40-man and then have to DFA him. So this decision will depend on ... too many factors to consider right now. [Resisting urge to list them anyway!]
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Aug 11, 2013 0:05:00 GMT -5
To answer a question from earlier in this thread, according to a tweet from Nick Cafardo, Koji Uehara's 2014 option will vest with one more appearance. So barring something horrible happening, he will be with us at least one more year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 11, 2013 13:01:20 GMT -5
So this decision will depend on ... too many factors to consider right now. [Resisting urge to list them anyway!] Actually, there are are only a few things worth watching for the rest of the season, when it comes to how much room there will be on the 40-man: 1) The performance of Britton, Thornton, and Morales in the pen. If Britton establishes a role in next year's pen, they are likely to shed both Thornton and Morales. Britton struggling makes it likelier that they'll keep one for next year. If Thornton pitches well enough, they may pick up his option even if they intend to trade him. (Note that any guys kept who are intended trade fodder, while not necessarily helping the roster as of the Rule 5 draft, can create room on the eventual 40-man, allowing them to sign a catcher, and 1B or OF. That's the second set of math they need to do.) 2) The performance of Holt and (in September) Snyder off the bench. As I predicted, Snyder conveniently came down with an injury when they needed to recall Middlebrooks. If Holt thrives, he establishes himself as next year's backup MI; if he struggles, he becomes a DFA candidate (and they can try filling that spot with a FA signing or even non-roster types a la Ciriaco). Snyder is similar, although all he's trying to do is earn a spot on the roster through ST as backup in case of injury; if everyone is healthy, they can probably get him through waivers at the end of ST as teams are setting their rosters. But if he does nothing, he becomes a DFA candidate in November. 3) How Pawtucket uses Lavarnway when he gets sent down when Ross is activated. Do they use him as DH to get his bat in the lineup every day? That would be an indication that he'll be kept to fill that role next year.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 11, 2013 13:12:04 GMT -5
I don't think Matt Thornton is capable of doing anything over the next month to justify picking up his option for 5.5m. Morales salary this year is 1.49m. We offer him the minimum raise in arbitration and he has to accept it. Still under 2m. I don't think we'd release him unless he has arm trouble.
Do you think it's reasonable to have Xander as our backup ss/3b on the playoff roster? He might do something amazing to win a game. Pinch-hit for drew late in a game against a lefty or just get the start at 3b. We don't have a backup at 2b. But, Pedey isn't coming out unless he's injured. And, if he's injured. We can bring Holt in and DL Pedroia.
Farrell's lack of faith in Lavarnway surprises me. Must be something about him he doesn't like. He hits well enough to play vs lefties. But, often times he doesn't. Maybe he doesn't like how he calls a game. The only thing I can figure. Neither him or Salty can throw anyone out.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 11, 2013 13:35:56 GMT -5
1) The performance of Britton, Thornton, and Morales in the pen. If Britton establishes a role in next year's pen, they are likely to shed both Thornton and Morales. Britton struggling makes it likelier that they'll keep one for next year. If Thornton pitches well enough, they may pick up his option even if they intend to trade him. (Note that any guys kept who are intended trade fodder, while not necessarily helping the roster as of the Rule 5 draft, can create room on the eventual 40-man, allowing them to sign a catcher, and 1B or OF. That's the second set of math they need to do.) Disagree. I think (or hope) Thornton is gone no matter what. As for Morales, I think what happens with him depends more on Workman and the starting rotation than on Britton, because in my mind he is still a candidate for long relief or spot starts rather than just single-inning duty. But I don't really see a case for him losing his 40-man spot either way.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Aug 11, 2013 15:02:23 GMT -5
I hope we don't get rid of Morales. When he's healthy, he's shown good flashes as a long man and spot starter. Always thought of him like a lefty Aceves.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 12, 2013 14:13:30 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 27, 2013 0:38:49 GMT -5
It's been a long time since we looked at this, and we know a bit more now.
Current roster is 45.
FA (-6): Hanrahan, Saltalamacchia, Drew, Napoli, Ellsbury, Thornton (option declined) Non-tender (-1): Bailey Definite DFA (-3): Macdonald, Berry, Snyder (the latter two hopefully signed to ml deals) Probable DFA (-2): Beato (only healthy arm not recalled from AAA), Kalish (assuming no one claims him, if he's out for the year)
So now you're down to 33.
Definite additions (+3): Ranaudo, Cecchini, Brentz
Almost certain trade (-1): Dempster
Probable additions (+5): quality RH setup man, upside RHR to compete with Villareal for last spot in pen, catcher, first baseman, utility infielder (ideally one who could steal a base).
And that's 40. The optioned players would be Ranaudo, Webster, Workman (needs to go back to starting), Wright; Britton, De La Rosa (PawSox closer?), Wilson; Butler, Lavarnway, Vazquez; Cecchini, Holt (very useful since he has options left); Brentz, Hassan.
If they plan to trade Morales to open up a 25-man spot for Britton, that would free up a 40-man spot. If they plan on having Workman or Wright as a long reliever (which would also free up a spot in the PawSox rotation for De La Rosa), they might well not add the second reliever, and that would also free up a spot.
And if they freed up a spot or two, they could hang on to Beato or Kalish, or protect Michael Almanzar or Aaron Kurcz, or even Luis Diaz or Madison Younginer. (If they're going to protect a reliever who might help them in 2014, I don't see them opting for Hunztinger over Kurcz, and if they're going to protect one who didn't pitch above high-A, I don't see them opting for Price over Younginer.)
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 27, 2013 5:59:33 GMT -5
FYI, Kalish is supposed to be ready for ST.
|
|
|