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.
Left-handed reliever discussion
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 21, 2014 3:31:06 GMT -5
I think that it's been shown that lefties who are far below replacement level against righties are not worth a roster spot. As a general principle? Of course not. It obviously depends on who else you have, and it's not remotely the same as being worthless, period. Which makes them more important, not less. A pure LOOGY who is death on LHB can be incredibly valuable if none of your setup men handles lefties particularly well. When you take the LOOGY's numbers against LHB, versus the best available RH setup guy, and you add that to the typical split of an elite LH hitter, and you think about a game-on-the-line situation in the late innings, their value is obvious. There's a reason these guys keep their jobs. That's absolutely correct, and it's a factor in bullpen construction. Is it possible for you to respond to one of my posts without hallucinating? I mentioned Layne's AAA numbers as a suggestion that he might have a smaller true split than he has recorded in MLB. But the actual argument for Layne's value, which is rock solid, was based entirely on his 2014 MLB numbers, including the awful suckage against RHB. The fact is that his overall numbers were good. You seemed to have not noticed that I came to the same conclusion, except that there's no need to cut him when he has an option left and is a useful MLB pitcher. There will be strict LOOGYs who are inferior to Layne who will have MLB jobs. We have the luxury of stashing him in Pawtucket. To sum up: my analysis was dead-on, we agree that Layne doesn't deserve a roster spot, but you have such an obsession with you being right and me being wrong that even when you change my mind (before I looked at the splits, I thought Layne was one of the 12 best guys we had) and I simply call you out for ludicrously overstating your otherwise good case (of limited value to a team with a deep bullpen -> always worthless, as if anything in life were that free of nuance), you respond with total nonsense. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 21, 2014 3:43:26 GMT -5
A deadly LOOGY would be a more valuable 12th man in the pen than a mediocre setup guy. I dunno, while I agree with your last sentence as a retrospective point, I think the volatility of relievers makes it less valid as a matter of bullpen construction. You don't really know with any high degree of confidence who is going to be mediocre and who will be good in any particular year when it comes to non-elite set up guys, so you're limiting your options too much if you get a guy you're pretty sure can never be more than a LOOGY. You need lefties in the pen, but I think it might be a better use of the roster slots to get more guys who have a chance to be good over multiple batters than someone whom you have confidence can be a LOOGY. I was thinking about this at some point recently because it doesn't seem like the Sox really believe in the LOOGY, either in bullpen construction or usage. I admit to this being strictly an impression (I haven't investigated it), but I don't really remember the Sox bringing in a lefty for the one batter as a regular course of action ... maybe my impression is wrong because the Sox just happen to have had lights-out lefties who could also get righties out in Miller and (before last year) Breslow the last few years, or maybe I'm just flat wrong that they haven't used a guy in the true LOOGY role, but the research project is a little too daunting to me. The 2004 Red Sox traded for a guy who faced 28 RHB and allowed .360 / .429 / .640, and 38 LHB and allowed .200 / .263 / .257. They then let him go as a FA because he was, after all, just a LOOGY, and they preferred to build a roster with relievers who could do something other than get LHB batters out. Then, the next ST, they realized they didn't have that bullpen, and so they traded to get him back. In '05 he faced 49 RHB and allowed .385 / .510 / .641, but 102 LHB and allowed .158 / .198 / .211. Basically, that's the point I've been making: the best bullpens don't need them, but they can be really valuable if you don't have anyone else to do that job. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 21, 2014 17:26:39 GMT -5
I dunno, while I agree with your last sentence as a retrospective point, I think the volatility of relievers makes it less valid as a matter of bullpen construction. You don't really know with any high degree of confidence who is going to be mediocre and who will be good in any particular year when it comes to non-elite set up guys, so you're limiting your options too much if you get a guy you're pretty sure can never be more than a LOOGY. You need lefties in the pen, but I think it might be a better use of the roster slots to get more guys who have a chance to be good over multiple batters than someone whom you have confidence can be a LOOGY. I was thinking about this at some point recently because it doesn't seem like the Sox really believe in the LOOGY, either in bullpen construction or usage. I admit to this being strictly an impression (I haven't investigated it), but I don't really remember the Sox bringing in a lefty for the one batter as a regular course of action ... maybe my impression is wrong because the Sox just happen to have had lights-out lefties who could also get righties out in Miller and (before last year) Breslow the last few years, or maybe I'm just flat wrong that they haven't used a guy in the true LOOGY role, but the research project is a little too daunting to me. The 2004 Red Sox traded for a guy who faced 28 RHB and allowed .360 / .429 / .640, and 38 LHB and allowed .200 / .263 / .257. They then let him go as a FA because he was, after all, just a LOOGY, and they preferred to build a roster with relievers who could do something other than get LHB batters out. Then, the next ST, they realized they didn't have that bullpen, and so they traded to get him back. In '05 he faced 49 RHB and allowed .385 / .510 / .641, but 102 LHB and allowed .158 / .198 / .211. Basically, that's the point I've been making: the best bullpens don't need them, but they can be really valuable if you don't have anyone else to do that job. I think this is where this whole thing started. They let Myers go after 2004 because he really wasn't worth the roster spot. The argument was that there weren't enough spots where his skill could be used to make up for how little he was going to pitch and that in 04 it really hamstrung the bullpen. It's this idea that has Layne going through multiple organizations. Besides late in the season they were able to get him back at very minimal cost anyways. As it applies to Layne, I just think that the Myers trade shows you that if you need such a pitcher later in the season he will be available at minimal cost. The other choices for DFA are much harder to replace. Britton, who has a huge upside, and Butler who keeps the team from ever having to worry about pushing Blake Swihart. I think that if they really must have a second lefty in the pen who is a LOOGY, they can easily sign such a player to a minor league deal. They maybe able to do that with Layne himself. My hope is that he is the one to go and not Britton. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 21, 2014 17:50:25 GMT -5
Am I missing something? Drake Britton was terrible last year...in AAA. Why did people actually want to see him get the spot? Not saying I wanted Breslow back, just confused as to why people actually wanted Britton. Only thing I can say about this move is, good think relief pitching is so damn volatile. Mainly because Britton under-performed his talents for most of the year then turned it on near the end. He was a pretty damn good pitcher at the end. Like WMB, there's reason for hope because the tools are there. Worst case, he doesn't do well and we cut him. Much more to gain than to lose. Eh, I don't think Britton performed all that well to end the year. He threw 6.2 major league innings in which he put up a mediocre 5.4 K/9, 2.7 BB/9, and 4.50 xFIP. His fastball averaged a pretty mediocre 92.3 mph (which is about league-average for a reliever), and he got a below-average number of swinging strikes. He didn't give up any runs and only gave up 5 hits, but those aren't the metrics you want to use to evaluate a player in that small of a sample. Now, to be fair, he was pretty decent in a longer stretch in the majors in 2013, and he was much better in the minors that year as well. It's right to suggest that the same principle which suggests that signing Breslow is a good idea (i.e., that we shouldn't overexaggerate the most recent year of data) also supports the idea that Britton is worth keeping. So maybe you wait and see if you can clear another 40-man spot to avoid losing Britton. I'd dispute the idea that Britton has "huge upside," though. His velo is not that exceptional for a reliever, and he's never shown much command or a swing-and-miss secondary pitch. I'm pretty confident that Layne is the better present pitcher, and I'm not sure Britton's ceiling is much more than an averagish reliever. He's also out of options, and I certainly don't think he can stick the whole year on the active roster. I'd still much rather lose Britton than Butler or Layne or Spruill. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 21, 2014 18:45:03 GMT -5
Mainly because Britton under-performed his talents for most of the year then turned it on near the end. He was a pretty damn good pitcher at the end. Like WMB, there's reason for hope because the tools are there. Worst case, he doesn't do well and we cut him. Much more to gain than to lose. Eh, I don't think Britton performed all that well to end the year. He threw 6.2 major league innings in which he put up a mediocre 5.4 K/9, 2.7 BB/9, and 4.50 xFIP. His fastball averaged a pretty mediocre 92.3 mph (which is about league-average for a reliever), and he got a below-average number of swinging strikes. He didn't give up any runs and only gave up 5 hits, but those aren't the metrics you want to use to evaluate a player in that small of a sample. Now, to be fair, he was pretty decent in a longer stretch in the majors in 2013, and he was much better in the minors that year as well. It's right to suggest that the same principle which suggests that signing Breslow is a good idea (i.e., that we shouldn't overexaggerate the most recent year of data) also supports the idea that Britton is worth keeping. So maybe you wait and see if you can clear another 40-man spot to avoid losing Britton. I'd dispute the idea that Britton has "huge upside," though. His velo is not that exceptional for a reliever, and he's never shown much command or a swing-and-miss secondary pitch. I'm pretty confident that Layne is the better present pitcher, and I'm not sure Britton's ceiling is much more than an averagish reliever. He's also out of options, and I certainly don't think he can stick the whole year on the active roster. I'd still much rather lose Britton than Butler or Layne or Spruill. Call me crazy but I'd take a 25 year old lefty that can hit mid nineties over a 30 year old soft toss lefty. We'll have to agree to disagree here. LOL to using stats for 6.2 innings at the end of his season but I don't disagree with the option advantage Layne has. ADD: If we had a reasonable amount of lefty reliever candidates in the uppers, which we don't, I'd keep Scott over Layne as well. One more ADD: Let's also not forget that 2014 was really Britton's first as a reliever. 2013 he was mostly used as a starter in spite of what we saw in Boston. |
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265 
|
Post by TX on Dec 21, 2014 19:44:19 GMT -5
This is one of those signings where to me, there isn't a whole lot to get fired about about either way. The Sox needed another LHP for the bullpen, and on a quick look at Cots the other names out there on the FA market included Phil Coke, Joe Thatcher and Scott Downs (who had a similarly awful year last season, and is 5 years older than Breslow, so not a singing I would have been even "meh" about). If he goes back to being the (very rough math) 3.35 FIP pitcher he was his first season and a half in Boston, great. If he stinks through June, he's gone for very little monetary "risk". There also isn't a lot of opportunity risk here. Drake Britton just simply isn't ready to pitch in the major leagues. Sure, he looked fine in 7 games last season up in Boston, but minor league numbers count too - especially once taking familiarty of the hitters he's faced into account. In Pawtucket he had a 5.86ERA (from a 5.83FIP), and he also walked more batters per 9 (5.86) than he struck out (5.71). There is no universe where the Sox should have even remotely thought of depending of him as someone to break camp in the major leagues. For the record, I'm guessing that another outfielder packaged with another of the "Pawtucket depth" pitchers is the corresponding roster move, and hence why they're talking about not announcing it for over a week. Not that I'm a big Britton fan, after all he didn't do squat yesterday, but you're not being fair with him. Last year was his first being thrown into the bullpen, and I think a transitional year (or two) is warranted in such a situation. After he was called up - either because our FO thought he was then ready or just to see what they had - he did pretty well in limited opportunities. Not that that means much, but I don't think in any way should Britton's recent past be indicative of what he is going forward simply because he became something entirely different last year. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 21, 2014 19:45:10 GMT -5
They let Myers go after 2004 because he really wasn't worth the roster spot. The argument was that there weren't enough spots where his skill could be used to make up for how little he was going to pitch and that in 04 it really hamstrung the bullpen. It's this idea that has Layne going through multiple organizations. Besides late in the season they were able to get him back at very minimal cost anyways. As it applies to Layne, I just think that the Myers trade shows you that if you need such a pitcher later in the season he will be available at minimal cost. The other choices for DFA are much harder to replace. Britton, who has a huge upside, and Butler who keeps the team from ever having to worry about pushing Blake Swihart. I think that if they really must have a second lefty in the pen who is a LOOGY, they can easily sign such a player to a minor league deal. They maybe able to do that with Layne himself. My hope is that he is the one to go and not Britton. You've got the history backwards -- they picked him up late in 2004, let him sign with the Cardinals, then traded to get him back in ST of 2005. But it's true that the acquisition costs were low. I agree absolutely that you'd DFA Layne before Britton. But that's a false dichotomy -- there are other, better ways to clear a spot on the 40-man roster. A two-for-one for a LHR stud is what I'm hoping for, and Cafardo (yesterday or today) says that they're still hoping to add an impact bullpen arm. Meanwhile, having a deadly LOOGY at Pawtucket that you can call up and send down would have some value. There's usually a stretch or two where, because of injuries, the 12th bullpen spot is being occupied by guys shuttling up and down to AAA. It would be nice to have Layne as an option, e.g. for a series against a team with a lefty-heavy lineup. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 21, 2014 19:59:04 GMT -5
They let Myers go after 2004 because he really wasn't worth the roster spot. The argument was that there weren't enough spots where his skill could be used to make up for how little he was going to pitch and that in 04 it really hamstrung the bullpen. It's this idea that has Layne going through multiple organizations. Besides late in the season they were able to get him back at very minimal cost anyways. As it applies to Layne, I just think that the Myers trade shows you that if you need such a pitcher later in the season he will be available at minimal cost. The other choices for DFA are much harder to replace. Britton, who has a huge upside, and Butler who keeps the team from ever having to worry about pushing Blake Swihart. I think that if they really must have a second lefty in the pen who is a LOOGY, they can easily sign such a player to a minor league deal. They maybe able to do that with Layne himself. My hope is that he is the one to go and not Britton. You've got the history backwards -- they picked him up late in 2004, let him sign with the Cardinals, then traded to get him back in ST of 2005. But it's true that the acquisition costs were low. I agree absolutely that you'd DFA Layne before Britton. But that's a false dichotomy -- there are other, better ways to clear a spot on the 40-man roster. A two-for-one for a LHR stud is what I'm hoping for, and Cafardo (yesterday or today) says that they're still hoping to add an impact bullpen arm. Meanwhile, having a deadly LOOGY at Pawtucket that you can call up and send down would have some value. There's usually a stretch or two where, because of injuries, the 12th bullpen spot is being occupied by guys shuttling up and down to AAA. It would be nice to have Layne as an option, e.g. for a series against a team with a lefty-heavy lineup. Cherrington during the Hannigan presser [Tim Britton]: Cherington says he’ll “keep an eye open” to potential bullpen upgrades |
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 21, 2014 20:44:12 GMT -5
I dunno, while I agree with your last sentence as a retrospective point, I think the volatility of relievers makes it less valid as a matter of bullpen construction. You don't really know with any high degree of confidence who is going to be mediocre and who will be good in any particular year when it comes to non-elite set up guys, so you're limiting your options too much if you get a guy you're pretty sure can never be more than a LOOGY. You need lefties in the pen, but I think it might be a better use of the roster slots to get more guys who have a chance to be good over multiple batters than someone whom you have confidence can be a LOOGY. I was thinking about this at some point recently because it doesn't seem like the Sox really believe in the LOOGY, either in bullpen construction or usage. I admit to this being strictly an impression (I haven't investigated it), but I don't really remember the Sox bringing in a lefty for the one batter as a regular course of action ... maybe my impression is wrong because the Sox just happen to have had lights-out lefties who could also get righties out in Miller and (before last year) Breslow the last few years, or maybe I'm just flat wrong that they haven't used a guy in the true LOOGY role, but the research project is a little too daunting to me. The 2004 Red Sox traded for a guy who faced 28 RHB and allowed .360 / .429 / .640, and 38 LHB and allowed .200 / .263 / .257. They then let him go as a FA because he was, after all, just a LOOGY, and they preferred to build a roster with relievers who could do something other than get LHB batters out. Then, the next ST, they realized they didn't have that bullpen, and so they traded to get him back. In '05 he faced 49 RHB and allowed .385 / .510 / .641, but 102 LHB and allowed .158 / .198 / .211. Basically, that's the point I've been making: the best bullpens don't need them, but they can be really valuable if you don't have anyone else to do that job.That's cool. If the bullpen isn't good, it's better to get a guy who can reliably get *someone* out rather than a guy who can't really be relied on to get anyone out on a particular day. But, with a team like the Red Sox, they shouldn't spend the offseason getting a LOOGY in lieu of some guys who can have a chance of going an inning against batters from both sides ... so, you know, we agree. |
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Dec 21, 2014 21:28:28 GMT -5
What's the status with Burke Badenhop?
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 21, 2014 21:36:26 GMT -5
What's the status with Burke Badenhop? Free agent who would now be duplication (Varvaro). |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 21, 2014 22:02:40 GMT -5
Eh, I don't think Britton performed all that well to end the year. He threw 6.2 major league innings in which he put up a mediocre 5.4 K/9, 2.7 BB/9, and 4.50 xFIP. His fastball averaged a pretty mediocre 92.3 mph (which is about league-average for a reliever), and he got a below-average number of swinging strikes. He didn't give up any runs and only gave up 5 hits, but those aren't the metrics you want to use to evaluate a player in that small of a sample. Now, to be fair, he was pretty decent in a longer stretch in the majors in 2013, and he was much better in the minors that year as well. It's right to suggest that the same principle which suggests that signing Breslow is a good idea (i.e., that we shouldn't overexaggerate the most recent year of data) also supports the idea that Britton is worth keeping. So maybe you wait and see if you can clear another 40-man spot to avoid losing Britton. I'd dispute the idea that Britton has "huge upside," though. His velo is not that exceptional for a reliever, and he's never shown much command or a swing-and-miss secondary pitch. I'm pretty confident that Layne is the better present pitcher, and I'm not sure Britton's ceiling is much more than an averagish reliever. He's also out of options, and I certainly don't think he can stick the whole year on the active roster. I'd still much rather lose Britton than Butler or Layne or Spruill. Call me crazy but I'd take a 25 year old lefty that can hit mid nineties over a 30 year old soft toss lefty. We'll have to agree to disagree here. LOL to using stats for 6.2 innings at the end of his season but I don't disagree with the option advantage Layne has. ADD: If we had a reasonable amount of lefty reliever candidates in the uppers, which we don't, I'd keep Scott over Layne as well. One more ADD: Let's also not forget that 2014 was really Britton's first as a reliever. 2013 he was mostly used as a starter in spite of what we saw in Boston. I wouldn't call Layne a "soft-toss" lefty. He's basically 89-92 per Brooksbaseball. He does lean heavily on the slider at about 84-87. Compare that with Scott, who sits 86-88, gets crushed by lefty hitters (intense reverse split), and is only three months younger than Britton (and he's going to be 26, not 25, btw), and I think you're undervaluing Layne a bit here.. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 21, 2014 22:12:13 GMT -5
Eh, I don't think Britton performed all that well to end the year. He threw 6.2 major league innings in which he put up a mediocre 5.4 K/9, 2.7 BB/9, and 4.50 xFIP. His fastball averaged a pretty mediocre 92.3 mph (which is about league-average for a reliever), and he got a below-average number of swinging strikes. He didn't give up any runs and only gave up 5 hits, but those aren't the metrics you want to use to evaluate a player in that small of a sample. Now, to be fair, he was pretty decent in a longer stretch in the majors in 2013, and he was much better in the minors that year as well. It's right to suggest that the same principle which suggests that signing Breslow is a good idea (i.e., that we shouldn't overexaggerate the most recent year of data) also supports the idea that Britton is worth keeping. So maybe you wait and see if you can clear another 40-man spot to avoid losing Britton. I'd dispute the idea that Britton has "huge upside," though. His velo is not that exceptional for a reliever, and he's never shown much command or a swing-and-miss secondary pitch. I'm pretty confident that Layne is the better present pitcher, and I'm not sure Britton's ceiling is much more than an averagish reliever. He's also out of options, and I certainly don't think he can stick the whole year on the active roster. I'd still much rather lose Britton than Butler or Layne or Spruill. Call me crazy but I'd take a 25 year old lefty that can hit mid nineties over a 30 year old soft toss lefty. We'll have to agree to disagree here. LOL to using stats for 6.2 innings at the end of his season but I don't disagree with the option advantage Layne has. ADD: If we had a reasonable amount of lefty reliever candidates in the uppers, which we don't, I'd keep Scott over Layne as well. One more ADD: Let's also not forget that 2014 was really Britton's first as a reliever. 2013 he was mostly used as a starter in spite of what we saw in Boston. You're the one claiming that Britton was "pretty damn good" in his 6.1 inning MLB stint and using that to argue that he should stick on the roster. I'd much rather look at his 58.1 godawful Pawtucket innings from last year to conclude that we're probably not losing much. Also, I'll note that Layne averaged 90.0 mph last year on his fastball, which is not that far off from Britton's 92.3 mph, and there's a lot more to being a successful pitcher than just fastball velocity. |
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 21, 2014 22:35:06 GMT -5
Mainly because Britton under-performed his talents for most of the year then turned it on near the end. He was a pretty damn good pitcher at the end. Like WMB, there's reason for hope because the tools are there. Worst case, he doesn't do well and we cut him. Much more to gain than to lose. Eh, I don't think Britton performed all that well to end the year. He threw 6.2 major league innings in which he put up a mediocre 5.4 K/9, 2.7 BB/9, and 4.50 xFIP. His fastball averaged a pretty mediocre 92.3 mph (which is about league-average for a reliever), and he got a below-average number of swinging strikes. He didn't give up any runs and only gave up 5 hits, but those aren't the metrics you want to use to evaluate a player in that small of a sample. Now, to be fair, he was pretty decent in a longer stretch in the majors in 2013, and he was much better in the minors that year as well. It's right to suggest that the same principle which suggests that signing Breslow is a good idea (i.e., that we shouldn't overexaggerate the most recent year of data) also supports the idea that Britton is worth keeping. So maybe you wait and see if you can clear another 40-man spot to avoid losing Britton. I'd dispute the idea that Britton has "huge upside," though. His velo is not that exceptional for a reliever, and he's never shown much command or a swing-and-miss secondary pitch. I'm pretty confident that Layne is the better present pitcher, and I'm not sure Britton's ceiling is much more than an averagish reliever. He's also out of options, and I certainly don't think he can stick the whole year on the active roster. I'd still much rather lose Britton than Butler or Layne or Spruill. Whom the better present pitcher is is hardly relevant. It's snowing out and there are no games for you to not watch for several months  I jest. But in all seriousness this is a classic gambling problem. Do spend 5 dollars to get 5 dollars of value. Or do you spend the 5 dollars with a chance to get ten but also a chance to get zero. In Layne's case he's 30 years old and he's never going to be better than he is right now. Right now he's a very good AAA pitcher and lefty specialist who is not quite good enough to be a on a competitive major league roster. Britton could be worse than that but he has the talent to be a lot better than that too. Further, players like Layne are available on minor league deals. You might be able to sign Layne himself. The lesson is that if you live in a world where five dollars buys you nothing of value, you are always better off betting that 5 dollars for something better. That's the case here. You take the risk on the guy who might be worthless over the guy who is definitely worthless regardless of whom you think is better today. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 21, 2014 23:10:18 GMT -5
I could buy the above analysis, but you aren't taking into account the fact that Layne has options left and Britton doesn't. That's huge-- either guy would be the 12th pitcher on the roster and thus have a very precarious roster spot. I think there's something like a 5-10% chance that either guy spends the entire year on the active roster, and if that's the case, the guy with options is much more valuable than the guy who has to be DFAed if the team needs his roster spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 22, 2014 2:30:40 GMT -5
I could buy the above analysis, but you aren't taking into account the fact that Layne has options left and Britton doesn't. That's huge-- either guy would be the 12th pitcher on the roster and thus have a very precarious roster spot. I think there's something like a 5-10% chance that either guy spends the entire year on the active roster, and if that's the case, the guy with options is much more valuable than the guy who has to be DFAed if the team needs his roster spot. Actually it does. To keep both lefties going into the season, we can stash Layne at Pawtucket, which is not an option for Britton. If Britton pitches like 2014 you cut him and call up Layne, not much lost. If Britton pitches well enough to buy time, Robby Scott could easily enter the picture as well. If Britton pitches great, that's a big plus and we still would have Layne for in season call-ups. As outlined in another thread by eric, as far as lefties go, there isn't much out there that we'd get without giving up a king's ransom. The lower tier options don't seem like much of a gain over Layne / Britton. No question, Layne's option is huge. Let's not forget that Escobar is lefty and at this point is looking like the potential odd man out in the PawSox rotation which is a bit of a shame but, we're somewhat handcuffed by the volume of reasonable quality prospects we have. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 22, 2014 7:14:02 GMT -5
The issue is that we need a 40-man spot for Breslow, so we have to DFA someone. If neither is likely to clear waivers, you should DFA the guy who is likely to be gone by the start of the season anyways (Britton).
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 22, 2014 7:35:24 GMT -5
I find it difficult to believe that we would DFA either of the only two lefties remaining. I also find it difficult to believe that we wouldn't execute a two-fer before we need to add Breslow and that the two-fer would include either unless there was a lefty coming back. That's not a lot of lefties.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 22, 2014 8:50:20 GMT -5
They're not going to have more than two lefties on the active roster, so adding Breslow makes one of them expendable to an extent. I agree that ideally they can clear another spot, but if they can't, Britton is the guy that goes IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 22, 2014 10:40:25 GMT -5
They're not going to have more than two lefties on the active roster, so adding Breslow makes one of them expendable to an extent. I agree that ideally they can clear another spot, but if they can't, Britton is the guy that goes IMO. Agreed on the active roster but, Layne has an option. Unless there's another lefty around the corner I'm more inclined to think Breslow and Briton in Boston and Layne at Pawtucket. Don't take this out of context but it's the basic premise behind why I think there will be a move to accommodate 3 lefties on the 40 man. Question, of Britton, Breslow, Layne and Brentz, who is the LEAST likely to have an effect on Boston either in 2015 or in the future ? |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 22, 2014 21:22:03 GMT -5
They're not going to have more than two lefties on the active roster, so adding Breslow makes one of them expendable to an extent. I agree that ideally they can clear another spot, but if they can't, Britton is the guy that goes IMO. Agreed on the active roster but, Layne has an option. Unless there's another lefty around the corner I'm more inclined to think Breslow and Briton in Boston and Layne at Pawtucket. Don't take this out of context but it's the basic premise behind why I think there will be a move to accommodate 3 lefties on the 40 man. Question, of Britton, Breslow, Layne and Brentz, who is the LEAST likely to have an effect on Boston either in 2015 or in the future ? Actually, if they trade Craig in ST and Victorino gets hurt at some point (and if the sun continues to rise in the east), then Brentz is in MLB, platooning with Nava as the backup OFer. I think the 40-man roster guys furthest down the depth chart are Spruill and Hembree. There are four openings for RH setup men: Tazawa Varvaro Mujica Wright or Workman Spruill, Hembree, Barnes if he's needed, maybe Ranaudo, maybe Masterson or Kelly if one of the PawSox starters forces his way into the rotation I don't see a situation where you end up wishing you had kept both of those guys strictly for depth (assuming everyone ahead of them is kept, of course). You'd need to have at least 4 of the first 5 guys injured, and if that happened, you'd probably trade a prospect for someone more established. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 22, 2014 23:09:59 GMT -5
Agreed on the active roster but, Layne has an option. Unless there's another lefty around the corner I'm more inclined to think Breslow and Briton in Boston and Layne at Pawtucket. Don't take this out of context but it's the basic premise behind why I think there will be a move to accommodate 3 lefties on the 40 man. Question, of Britton, Breslow, Layne and Brentz, who is the LEAST likely to have an effect on Boston either in 2015 or in the future ? Actually, if they trade Craig in ST and Victorino gets hurt at some point (and if the sun continues to rise in the east), then Brentz is in MLB, platooning with Nava as the backup OFer. I think the 40-man roster guys furthest down the depth chart are Spruill and Hembree. There are four openings for RH setup men: Tazawa Varvaro Mujica Wright or Workman Spruill, Hembree, Barnes if he's needed, maybe Ranaudo, maybe Masterson or Kelly if one of the PawSox starters forces his way into the rotation I don't see a situation where you end up wishing you had kept both of those guys strictly for depth (assuming everyone ahead of them is kept, of course). You'd need to have at least 4 of the first 5 guys injured, and if that happened, you'd probably trade a prospect for someone more established. I should think that JBJ or Cecchini would be called before Brentz. I have him as 10th likely outfielder. Ramirez, Betts, Castillo, Victorino, Nava, Craig, Holt, JBJ, Cecchini, Brentz. All that being said, also agree about the righties, either way, it's still the same situation I was alluding to, a crowd vs a thin area. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 23, 2014 9:54:33 GMT -5
Depends what they need/want though, right? Also, with Cecchini, depends on how he's taking to the outfield. Early in the season especially, I doubt they'd call him up over Brentz if they need an outfielder.
If they want to call up a glove, it'd be JBJ first. If it's a bat, you go Brentz. If Betts and Castillo are healthy and, say, Ramirez and Nava go down, Brentz might be the play there to get some starts in left.
It also seems pretty unlikely that Craig is on the opening day roster at this point given the number of interested teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 26, 2014 21:13:12 GMT -5
We should know the counter move soooon
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 26, 2014 21:37:13 GMT -5
Depends what they need/want though, right? Also, with Cecchini, depends on how he's taking to the outfield. Early in the season especially, I doubt they'd call him up over Brentz if they need an outfielder. If they want to call up a glove, it'd be JBJ first. If it's a bat, you go Brentz. If Betts and Castillo are healthy and, say, Ramirez and Nava go down, Brentz might be the play there to get some starts in left. It also seems pretty unlikely that Craig is on the opening day roster at this point given the number of interested teams. I agree 100% with the concept of it being what they need. That being said, Holt can play the outfield and Cecchini becomes the bench third baseman / fifth outfielder with a left handed bat, something there aren't a lot of on the Sox. It also depends on how they are doing at Pawtucket. Who's more likely to be doing well Cecchini or Brentz ? It's not like Brentz has gold glove range and we're waiting for the bat to catch up to the glove. ADD: If we wait until spring to make a move AND if everybody is healthy, Victorino could be the one moved. If currently healthy, he's minimal risk because his contact is only one year. Castillo got us a nice return and there will be injuries to account for, hopefully on other teams besides the Sox. Craig would then become an 'option' as at least a platoon Napoli replacement in 2016 (with Nava). For a team going for it in 2015 with an outfield spot, a healthy Victorino might be more appealing than a healthy Craig, particularly if they need a versatile outfielder. (Thinking Nationals and Mariners and potentially the Reds). |
|
|
