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 James Dunne on Jul 30, 2014 13:48:28 GMT -5
Disgruntled taxi squad ballplayers soon find themselves as disgruntled minor league free agents or even disgruntled independent league ballplayers. Part of the job is staying focused despite spotty playing time and a roster spot that is always up for grab. There's nothing Herrera has to be disgruntled about, and speculating that he is without evidence is a discredit to him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2014 7:18:30 GMT -5
The thing is, most clubs can afford to protect (anywhere from most to all of their) guys that fit that description (as we once did with Argenis Diaz, for instance). Every guy on my list above is, I think, a player that could be protected by a thin-system club that found itself with an open spot and wanted to reduce a 5% chance (or less!) of a significant loss to 0%. Ditto for the potential mlfa's -- I think Celestino and Ruiz both have some chance of landing an MLB deal, as Olmsted did, and there are therefore probably teams that are so thin that adding them to the winter roster would make sense. There's a cost to that, though-- you tie up a 40-man spot on a marginal player who probably isn't ready for MLB action in 2015. I think you're grossly undervaluing that cost. For one thing, the fact that he's marginal and unlikely to be a real MLB depth option next year means means he's high up on the list of guys who are at risk of getting DFAed when they need a 40-man spot (which they inevitably will). That's the worst possible outcome-- to protect a guy that probably wouldn't have gotten taken/stuck in Rule 5 in the first place, tie up a 40-man spot all winter, but then have to DFA him and watch him get claimed by a team who can now option him rather than keeping him on the roster like they would with a R5 guy. And I think the odds of a guy like that getting DFAed and subsequently claimed is way higher than the 5% chance that he'd get taken/stick in R5. As such, protecting a guy like that doesn't actually make it more likely that you get to keep him-- it actually increases the risk that you lose him, because there's a substantial chance that you have to put him on waivers at some point. Plus, even if you do manage to avoid having to DFA him, keeping a guy like that on the 40-man still means you have one fewer spot to play with in terms of a free agent signing or a trade or even just claiming an interesting guy off waivers. That has a real opportunity cost, too.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxmarc on Jul 31, 2014 20:02:18 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me the major prospects the Sox must add to the 40 man this offseason? I believe Sean Coyle is one.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 31, 2014 20:07:26 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me the major prospects the Sox must add to the 40 man this offseason? I believe Sean Coyle is one. I merged your question in with this thread. Look back and you'll see the discussion of who needs to be added.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jul 31, 2014 20:35:19 GMT -5
Plus newly acquired Eduardo Rodriguez(?)
I'd guess Barnes, Coyle, Swihart, Rodriguez, and Shaw (based on great strides this season)
Tommy Layne has already been added to the 40-man.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 1, 2014 3:11:32 GMT -5
The thing is, most clubs can afford to protect (anywhere from most to all of their) guys that fit that description (as we once did with Argenis Diaz, for instance). Every guy on my list above is, I think, a player that could be protected by a thin-system club that found itself with an open spot and wanted to reduce a 5% chance (or less!) of a significant loss to 0%. Ditto for the potential mlfa's -- I think Celestino and Ruiz both have some chance of landing an MLB deal, as Olmsted did, and there are therefore probably teams that are so thin that adding them to the winter roster would make sense. There's a cost to that, though-- you tie up a 40-man spot on a marginal player who probably isn't ready for MLB action in 2015. I think you're grossly undervaluing that cost. For one thing, the fact that he's marginal and unlikely to be a real MLB depth option next year means means he's high up on the list of guys who are at risk of getting DFAed when they need a 40-man spot (which they inevitably will). That's the worst possible outcome-- to protect a guy that probably wouldn't have gotten taken/stuck in Rule 5 in the first place, tie up a 40-man spot all winter, but then have to DFA him and watch him get claimed by a team who can now option him rather than keeping him on the roster like they would with a R5 guy. And I think the odds of a guy like that getting DFAed and subsequently claimed is way higher than the 5% chance that he'd get taken/stick in R5. As such, protecting a guy like that doesn't actually make it more likely that you get to keep him-- it actually increases the risk that you lose him, because there's a substantial chance that you have to put him on waivers at some point. Plus, even if you do manage to avoid having to DFA him, keeping a guy like that on the 40-man still means you have one fewer spot to play with in terms of a free agent signing or a trade or even just claiming an interesting guy off waivers. That has a real opportunity cost, too. I completely agree with all of this. We're talking about two different things. You're talking about our actual situation as a deep organization with plenty of real prospects in the pipeline. But we've been spoiled here. If there's an AngelsProspects.com, no one is suggesting they go from listing 60 to 75 prospects in their meta-forum. I was talking about the way many clubs, those with thin systems, handle the Rule 5 protection logic. They look down the road and no log jam is in sight, so they protect marginal guys with high upsides, with little risk, and that has contributed to the decline in Johan Santana-level finds. The funny thing is that I'm one of the few guys here who was always opposed to adding Butler to the 40, and you've explained why that might have not been a good idea. The possible saving grace is that he's fallen so far that he may well clear waivers.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 1, 2014 3:32:27 GMT -5
This is pretty impossible to figure out before Friday. All that actually happened was that Eduardo Rodriguez got added to the "definite additions" list, reducing any speculated-on open slots number by one. At this point I don't see how we can add (mlfa) Verdugo and protect both Gibson and Ramirez, and I think there's a chance we may want to do all of that. So it's looking a little squeezy right now.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 1, 2014 14:56:25 GMT -5
Where we stand after the trade deadline:
There are currently 38 players on the 40-man roster and one on the 60-day DL. Five are either free agents (Johnson, Badenhop, Uehara, Ross) or have team options for 2015 (Breslow). That leaves 34 players on the 40-man roster who are signed or controlled for 2015:
Currently on 25-man roster and signed/controlled for 2015 (34):
SPs: Buchholz, Kelly, De La Rosa, Workman, Webster, E.Escobar, Ranaudo, Wright RPs: Tazawa, Mujica, Hembree, Layne, Britton, Wilson PPs: Cespedes, Pedroia, Napoli, Ortiz, Bradley, Jr., Victorino, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts,C.Vazquez, Craig, Nava, Holt, Betts, Cecchini, Hassan, Brentz, Lavarnway, Carp, Herrera, Butler
+ Expected to get QO (1):
Uehara
+ Expected to re-sign (1):
Ross
- No options, will likely be DFA'd (3):
Lavarnway Britton Carp
Without further moves, that leaves seven spots left on the 40-man roster. However, there will likely need to be three spots on the 25-man roster for free agent pitchers. Therefore, I would expect the following moves:
+ Free-agent pitchers (3):
1 starter (to join Buchholz, Kelly, Webster, De La Rosa) 2 relievers (to join Uehara, Tazawa, Mujica, Workman, Layne)
- Optionable, but will likely be DFA'd (3):
Wilson Herrera Butler
That leaves seven spots on the 40-man roster (blue FA re-signing, red AAA).
SPs (8): [FA], Buchholz, Kelly, Webster, De La Rosa, E.Escobar, Ranaudo, Wright
RPs (8): Uehara, Tazawa, Mujica, Workman, Layne, [FA RHRP], [FA LHRP], Hembree PPs (17): Cespedes, Pedroia, Napoli, Ortiz, Bradley, Jr., Victorino, Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, C.Vazquez, Craig, Nava, Holt, Ross, Betts, Cecchini, Hassan, Brentz
I would be inclined to add the following six players:
Swihart (C, #2 prospect) E.Rodriguez (P, just acquired by trade) Barnes (P, #11 prospect) Coyle (INF, #12 prospect) L.Diaz (P, #18 prospect) Shaw (1B, #19 prospect)
It seems to me that the final spot would be chosen among these relievers:
N.Ramirez (#25 prospect) Couch (#31 prospect) Celestino (#40 prospect) (MLFA if not added) Kurcz (#44 prospect) Scott (#55 prospect) Ely (MLFA if not added) Hernandez
I'd probably take my chances with Kurcz (control) and Scott (too under-the-radar) and put Ramirez on the 40-man and risk losing the others. I like Ely and Celestino and those would be my tougher omissions. Given that the Red Sox have three open 40-man spots, I wonder whether Ely and Celestino could get auditions late in the season and then get DFA'd later.
with the following players on the outside, looking in:
H.Ramos (#26 prospect) De La Cruz (#45 prospect) Gibson (MLFA if not added)
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 1, 2014 16:17:33 GMT -5
I suspect the Sox will weed out a couple of RPs and maybe one or two of the AAA starters during the rest of the season. The impression that Cherington gives is that the Sox are going to acquire more pitchers in the off-season. Thus, by the end of the season, some of those on the 40-man roster may not be there anymore.
The one player who you have on the outside who I think the Sox will protect is Ramos. He was doing very well when he got hurt, and the system is not very deep in good outfielders.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 1, 2014 16:32:37 GMT -5
I think Brentz vs. Hassan vs. Ramos will be interesting.
Hassan is having a huge second half.
Since June 8 (after being optioned from Boston to Pawtucket):
42G, 51/148, 16-2B, 3B, 5HR, 42/26 K/BB, .345/.443/.568/1.011
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 1, 2014 16:47:18 GMT -5
Brentz and Hassan all of a sudden look like they're a million miles away from the majors.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 1, 2014 17:04:04 GMT -5
Brentz and Hassan all of a sudden look like they're a million miles away from the majors. Brentz does, sure. My opinion of Hassan is probably higher than it's ever been, though. His big season last year was impressive, but the way he started poorly and made adjustments since his short Boston stint has really impressed me. I think he'll have a decent career in the majors now as a fourth outfielder/temporary starter, and I didn't think that at this time last year.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 1, 2014 20:10:47 GMT -5
I still think the sox are going to sign sherzer and unload a bunch of pitchers for a left handed power bat.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 1, 2014 20:16:12 GMT -5
I will just piggyback on Amfox's analysis. Some quick thoughts:
1) I can't see a situation in which all six of Cespedes, Craig, Bradley, Betts, Nava, and Victorino are on the roster next season. The question is just whether they make the moves that remove one or two (or more?) from the 40-man before or after the Rule 5 draft. It seems like Victorino would be one odd man out, at least.
2) I also can't see a situation in which all of the MLB/upper-minors starters are on the roster. For 40-man purposes, that's Kelly/RDLR/Workman/Webster/Ranaudo/Wright/Barnes/Escobar/Rodriguez. Again, I think this is a matter of whether the deal in which one or more is shipped out happens before or after Rule 5.
3) I'm lower on Diaz than the site rankings have him, and think he could be left unprotected. I wouldn't be surprised if they do protect him though.
I think that, given the immense uncertainty of who presently on the 40 (or who will need to be on the 40) will be dealt makes it very difficult to figure out who gets protected. I know I've said for like a year and a half now that some of those upper minors pitchers will be dealt, but given that the org ADDED to that surplus at the deadline, plus created another unsustainable surplus in the MLB outfield, makes me think that something's going to go down, and it'll depend in large part on what guys do these final two months of auditioning.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Aug 1, 2014 20:30:16 GMT -5
This makes tons of sense Chris and another reason I made a post on another thread regarding attempting to move Nava, as he is a copy of Craig in many ways and really not of many uses. Holt can also be added really to that OF mix, as well as the IF mix. The OF situation has became really crowded all of a sudden.
Issue with Victorino is that 13m for next season and he's been hurt for 3/4 of the season so far, how can the team move him and not pay for him? If the team could somehow move him and direct that money towards a 5y 75-85m extension at Cespedes? It would be tremendous.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Aug 1, 2014 21:50:42 GMT -5
I would add Mike Napoli.and Holt to Chris' gang of six. The Sox need two veteran pitchers and probably will need a 3b too. Obviously the Sox are looking to do quantity for quality deals.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 1, 2014 23:37:08 GMT -5
I would add Mike Napoli.and Holt to Chris' gang of six. The Sox need two veteran pitchers and probably will need a 3b too. Obviously the Sox are looking to do quantity for quality deals. Yeah, I guess I can buy that. There really isn't a place for Holt right now with that group, but the thing is, Holt can get some run at third (especially if WMB's two-month audition here goes poorly), and at short if Xander needs a breather. He's enough of a swiss army knife that he can find his way into the lineup. Those other guys, not so much. I get why he gets mentioned in your post though, and I get where you're coming from. As for Napoli, he's basically only there because Craig could (should?) play 1B, so it seems weird for me to lump him in, but that said, Craig playing 1B is one outcome. The thing is, I think Craig is enough of a project that they'd never get rid of Napoli and put themselves in a position where Craig has to be counted on to produce like a 1B. I think this belies my lack of faith that Travis Shaw is good enough to be this team's first baseman. Perhaps I should put it more succinctly like this: I don't think Craig can be Plan A at first base. I'd rather him be Plan B, and Plan A elsewhere where he can be more readily replaced. If Craig rediscovers himself over these next couple months, then I'd feel more comfortable putting Napoli in that group. So again, I see your point completely.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 2, 2014 2:07:09 GMT -5
I want to suggest again that we don't have to think about the 25-man roster to do this. That way lies madness!
For all the pitchers on the cusp of MLB, just answer the question: do you see this guy pitching at Pawtucket next year, which is to say, being on option? No need to speculate on whether he's on our 25-man roster or traded, which involves tricky estimations of how many FA pitchers we need to sign and how many young guys we an afford to carry. It's much easier to just look at a guy like Ranaudo and say, given his success this year in AAA, it's hard to imagine him spending next year at Pawtucket. He'll either be on our staff, or traded and be on someone else's.
I think this will also be true of the three W's. Escobar and Hembree, however, look like me to be guys who will be on option.
Do this sort of analysis for every guy on the 40 man roster who is in the minors or has options left. Is he in MLB, is he optioned, or is he waived off the roster? That tells you the number of open slots: 15 less the guys you think will be optioned.
I think that figuring out who to protect is actually easier. Since the number of slots is always going to be up in the air somewhat, you want to have a list of necessary additions, and then a few more desirable ones ranked in order.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 2, 2014 2:27:54 GMT -5
I would be inclined to add the following six players: Swihart (C, #2 prospect) E.Rodriguez (P, just acquired by trade) Barnes (P, #11 prospect) Coyle (INF, #12 prospect) L.Diaz (P, #18 prospect) Shaw (1B, #19 prospect) It seems to me that the final spot would be chosen among these relievers: N.Ramirez (#25 prospect) Couch (#31 prospect) Celestino (#40 prospect) (MLFA if not added) Kurcz (#44 prospect) Scott (#55 prospect) Ely (MLFA if not added) Hernandez I'd probably take my chances with Kurcz (control) and Scott (too under-the-radar) and put Ramirez on the 40-man and risk losing the others. I like Ely and Celestino and those would be my tougher omissions. Given that the Red Sox have three open 40-man spots, I wonder whether Ely and Celestino could get auditions late in the season and then get DFA'd later. with the following players on the outside, looking in: H.Ramos (#26 prospect) De La Cruz (#45 prospect) Gibson (MLFA if not added) I agree with Chris that Diaz should be in the second group (and ranked more like #24). He hasn't been so good that he projects to be able to help an MLB club next year, nor is he a good enough prospect that you'd waste a roster spot on him for a year while just using him in a mop-up role. In terms of players to consider, your list is similar to mine. The differences: John Ely -- should definitely have been on my list, and I've added him. Ryan Verdugo -- should definitely be on yours. In fact, he's (very tentatively) near the top of mine. Michael Almanzar -- ditto. Pete Ruiz -- I added him late, but he'd be the last guy on the list if you ranked them, so there's really no disagreement. Keury De La Cruz -- I don't think he's a top 80 prospect in this system (following up a .297 OBP with .281, an an Iso of .101 with .089, while playing ordinary defense in an outfield corner); he really needn't be in this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Aug 2, 2014 5:18:27 GMT -5
Couch, age 25, average stats Celestino, age 25 Gibson, age 25 Ramos, 48 games Ruiz, age 27, 20 IP Almanzar, 38 games Ely, age 28
I can see why these guys are being discussed, yet: l. If one of them belongs in the majors next spring, bring them up this September or 2. Trade them to the Cubs for the post-Rule5 PTBNL. 3. Whatever player gets drafted, say Gibson, he serves as protection and will have prevented the others, say Ramos, from being drafted by that same team. 4. If one of them sticks and is lost, give it 24 months and the Sox can claim them off waivers. 5. There will likely be some player significantly better that the Sox can draft in the Rule 5.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Aug 2, 2014 8:24:05 GMT -5
Isn't the post Rule 5 PTBNL coming OUR way from the Cubs?
Another poor outing from Britton last night. His spot on the 40 man is in serious jeopardy.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 2, 2014 8:30:26 GMT -5
So, it sounds like there is some consensus that there are two open spots and the following possibilities to fill them (with new prospect rankings):
Pitchers (AA)
L.Diaz (#21 prospect) - 22YO in AA, plus FB (touches 94+), two other pitches, projects as a reliever
N.Ramirez (#28 prospect) - 24YO in AA, three average pitches but deceptive delivery, command-and-control guy, would think he'll get an AAA audition and perhaps the AFL to make his case, he'd be one of my picks right now
Kurcz (#45 prospect) - 23YO in AA, coming back from TJ, plus FB, average command, too many walks, might be 3rd guy on list
Couch (#36 prospect) - 24YO in AA, three average pitches, groundball pitcher, cannot see him getting picked
Scott (#55 prospect) - 24YO in AA, below-average FB, deception, cannot see him getting picked
Pitchers (AAA, all but Hernandez are MLFA if not added)
Celestino (#43 prospect) - 24YO in AAA, plus-plus fastball, secondary pitches still need work, I think he's auditioning for a spot over the next month
Ely - 28YO in AAA, was an excellent AAA prospect before getting hurt, coming back from TJ, upside potential, question is whether the Red Sox protect him, my guess is not and hope he comes back to AAA next year
Verdugo - 27YO in AAA, midseason pickup from KC, could get audition as lefty bullpen guy this year, three average pitches, looks more like AAAA to me
Ruiz - 26YO in AA, I added him to the list but I don't see him being protected, someone will take him as a MLFA and plug him into AAA next year
Hernandez - 25YO in AAA, been valuable swingman, pitchability guy but walks too many for my taste, I don't see him being protected especially given that the Red Sox control his rights unless he is taken in the Rule 5 draft
Position players (AA)
H.Ramos (#29 prospect) - 22YO in AA, been injured this year, I think the Red Sox will shelter him for the rest of the year and hope no one takes him in the Rule 5 draft, still in their plans though
Almanzar (#46 prospect) (MLFA if not added) - he's 23YO in AA, doesn't look to have improved over last year, been passed by Coyle, don't see him being protected
De La Cruz (#47 prospect) - 22YO in AA, has regressed, no chance he's protected
Gibson (#54 prospect) (MLFA if not added) - having a career year at age 24 in AAA and has some provenance, but if the Red Sox believed in him, he would have been promoted permanently to AAA, cannot see him being protected
***
Personally, I think it is Diaz, Ramirez, Kurcz, Celestino, Ely and Verdugo for the last two spots (obviously, there could be more or less spots due to moves between now and December).
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Aug 2, 2014 10:14:24 GMT -5
Isn't the post Rule 5 PTBNL coming OUR way from the Cubs? . Yep. But if the Cubs think Celestino, Couch, Ruiz or Ely belong on their 40-man roster, I am sure we would trade with them for another PTBNL. Maybe even somebody who is not Rule 5 eligible until 2015. Did anyone do the Rule 5 analysis for the Cubs?
|
|
|
Post by coke0myfavdrink on Aug 2, 2014 13:18:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Aug 2, 2014 20:13:41 GMT -5
Good point though it's odd to think of a LF being easier to replace than a 1B. I figure that realistically the Sox need a 3B and two veteran starters unless some of the rookies and/or Middlebrooks step it up. Trading Napoli is one way you get there, though you are right Craig better work out if you do that.
It seems logical that the Rangers would want to deal Adrian Beltre with them having both Profar and Odor. You can't trade Napoli straight up for Beltre but you might be able to get a 3rd team in there.
|
|
|