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 remember04 on Nov 4, 2012 17:21:48 GMT -5
Am I the only one who found myself thinking "meh" when I heard about this? I'm kind of with you in that I wish we had kept him but to me its no big loss yet. Let him go out there and prove we made a mistake by letting him go then depending on what we have I may be upset. I'm rooting for the kid/guy. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 4, 2012 17:25:17 GMT -5
Am I the only one who found myself thinking "meh" when I heard about this? No. |
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Nov 4, 2012 17:52:06 GMT -5
Am I the only one who found myself thinking "meh" when I heard about this? No, I don't get the outrage. We have plenty of right hand releivers. Sure I would have liked to keep him. But it's understandable why he wasn't put on the 40 man. |
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,840
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 4, 2012 17:54:10 GMT -5
Am I the only one who found myself thinking "meh" when I heard about this? No, I don't get the outrage. We have plenty of right hand releivers. Sure I would have liked to keep him. But it's understandable why he wasn't put on the 40 man. I agree. There are some even tougher decisions to be made coming up. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 4, 2012 18:00:06 GMT -5
What happened is that the Red Sox gambled that Olmsted wouldn't be able to find a major league deal out there and that he would re-sign in Boston (and that even if he was taken in Rule 5, he wouldn't last the year on a ML roster and would be returned). Yes, they have lots of riff-raff on the roster, but also lots of holes on the roster (another SP, a 1B) and lots of players I'd rather protect from Rule 5 (Webster, Wilson, Vazquez, etc.). If they added him back in September, they'd have to DFA him sometime before spring training anyways. They gambled and lost, but it doesn't mean it was a bad gamble in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 4, 2012 18:03:43 GMT -5
What happened is that the Red Sox gambled that Olmsted wouldn't be able to find a major league deal out there and that he would re-sign in Boston (and that even if he was taken in Rule 5, he wouldn't last the year on a ML roster and would be returned). Yes, they have lots of riff-raff on the roster, but also lots of holes on the roster (another SP, a 1B) and lots of players I'd rather protect from Rule 5 (Webster, Wilson, Vazquez, etc.). If they added him back in September, they'd have to DFA him sometime before spring training anyways. They gambled and lost, but it doesn't mean it was a bad gamble in the first place. Concur, except I think the plan would've been to just wait until after Rule 5 to sign him to avoid that headache. |
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Nov 4, 2012 18:10:39 GMT -5
patrmac, You are not the only one disappointed by the loss of Olmstead. There are different opinions on this board as to how well he will do in the majors next year but his performance in the minors this year was exceptional.I wish the Sox had used Sept to see how he would do. I wouldn't be surprised if he outperformed many in the Sox bullpen next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 4, 2012 21:28:53 GMT -5
Yes, they have lots of riff-raff on the roster, but also lots of holes on the roster (another SP, a 1B) and lots of players I'd rather protect from Rule 5 (Webster, Wilson, Vazquez, etc.). If they added him back in September, they'd have to DFA him sometime before spring training anyways. There's lots of riff-raff I would have rather seen go first. Of course it's a matter of preference & priority & the Sox made their choice. My proposed 40-man roster has 4 open spots for riff-raff after protecting Olmsted +5, so no, there is not a real roster crunch this winter in my opinion, and they would not have had to DFA him. By the way, next season's 40-man crew? Bogaerts, Brentz, Cecchini, Couch, De La Cruz, C. Hernandez, Jacobs, Ranaudo, Vinicio, Vitek, Workman Lot of water under the bridge between now and then. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 4, 2012 22:14:06 GMT -5
Current 40-man roster is at 39, including Ortiz. You scenario (protecting 6, 4 open spots) would require losing 9 players off the 40-man roster. The four easy ones are D. Carpenter, Rosario, Beato, Valencia. Then you have the two semi-prospects (Pimentel and Britton) and I count five borderline roster players (Ciriaco, Stewart, Gomez, Nava, Sweeney). I have a hard time only keeping two out of that list at this early juncture of the offseason when some of those players might end up as valuable bench players or minor league depth (for instance, I'd want to keep Nava, Sweeney, and Britton at least). You might also think about cutting some of the more marginal relievers (Aceves, Mortensen, Atchinson), but I think all those players are clearly better present players than Olmsted is, and their higher floor offsets any lower ceiling. But reasonable minds might disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 4, 2012 22:38:37 GMT -5
Current 40-man roster is at 39, including Ortiz. All they would have needed is one spot immediately, which was available. Then there are a host of potential trade/non-tender/etc victims (depending on their value) over the next couple weeks, including players like Saltalamacchia. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 5, 2012 13:43:05 GMT -5
I think the Sox could have sacrificed somebody else other than Olmsted. If the roster crunch then bumped him out, then that would have been preferable to me instead of losing him while guys like David Carpenter, Danny Valencia, Rosario, etc. invade the roster.
The Sox have Tazawa and Bailey as definites among the righties, and Melancon, Atchison, and Aceves (if they don't non-tender him) as probables (I have my doubts about Bard ever coming back anywhere near the way he used to be). I don't see why somebody putting up the numbers that Olmsted did doesn't at least deserve a chance to be a callup if/when injuries hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 5, 2012 15:55:56 GMT -5
Current 40-man roster is at 39, including Ortiz. All they would have needed is one spot immediately, which was available. Then there are a host of potential trade/non-tender/etc victims (depending on their value) over the next couple weeks, including players like Saltalamacchia. Yeah, but if they looked down the line and figured out that Olmsted was going to be DFAed by January anyways, adding him now just delays the inevitable, especially if they scouted him and decided his numbers weren't close to sustainable at higher levels. |
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 5, 2012 18:43:47 GMT -5
Those of you who have been around the site for a bit know that I am all about stats. I will almost never post an assessment of a prospect without some reference to their minor league statistical profile. It should thus be telling that despite Olmsted's statistical dominance, I am not terribly upset that they chose not to keep him. Every few years there's a player in the system who puts up crazy numbers but is age-advanced for his league and has middling scouting reports and the board gets all excited about it. Take Chih-Hsien Chiang, for example. They almost always end up amounting to nothing. Olmsted is a guy with a good fastball who was able to dominate the low minors statistically but does not jump off the page from a scouting perspective. Even if injuries delayed his development, he's still had years of development time more than the batters he was facing along with a fully filled-out frame. He has good fastball command with inconsistent velocity but no secondary pitches of note-- exactly the type of pitcher who mows through the low minors but struggles in AAA and MLB. If you want to trust (admittedly superb) minor league stats and snippets of puff pieces over scouting reports by Chris and Ian, that's your prerogative, but keep in mind that that is exactly what you'd be doing. Don't know about the "puff piece" part but below is a snippet from the Portland Press Herald article 8/27/2012 inclusive of quotesfrom Kevin Boles, the Portland Sea Dogs team manager. Whether or not Olmsted has inconsistent velocity from high to low 90s, Soxprospects scouting report pegs him firmly in the low 90s. That assessment is disparate from other, including eye-witness season ticket-holder, reports. Snippet as follows: Somebody is going to want a reliever who throws strikes with a 97 mph fastball and tight slider.
"Two power pitches," Sea Dogs Manager Kevin Boles said. "When he's right, he works ahead in the count.
"This kid has a chance to pitch in the big leagues. It's a different route, where he's come from, but this is definitely a major-league quality arm." All teams are generally pretty savvy about their personnel. But sometimes they are wrong on their evals. Reddick may turn out to be such a guy as did Crawford, Lackey, Gonzo and others. Clearly Papi was too altho to the good. I think that the proponents of Olmsted would liked to have given this guy a chance over some others on the 40 man who look to be, on the surface, less than stellar. As with most disputed matters here, time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Mellen on Nov 5, 2012 22:14:03 GMT -5
Ian Cundall wrote on September 4, 2012. Again, this is the pattern we saw and heard from sources throughout the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by welovewally on Nov 7, 2012 1:22:05 GMT -5
Management probably thought nobody would be willing to sign him to a 40 Man Roster & took the chance with hopes of resigning him to a Minor League deal. Roll of the dice came up craps.
|
|
Jon Meoli
Veteran
Senior Columnist
Posts: 253
|
Post by Jon Meoli on Nov 7, 2012 22:24:04 GMT -5
Chris and Ian don't need me to back them up, but having had five or six looks at Olmstead this year I can tell you that no two were the same and that wouldn't fly in a big league pen. I'm a reporter, and as such, I love a good story. There are very few guys with better stories than Olmstead, but this is just one of those cost of doing business situations. He told me he would have loved to be back, but you simply can't blame Olmstead for taking the deal and definitely can't blame the Sox for letting him go given the 40-man situation and what appears to be a legit market for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by massbrew on Feb 21, 2013 15:36:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Feb 21, 2013 15:51:56 GMT -5
That Olmsted will have a sub-2.00 ERA at the end of the season playing for the Brewers will be no surprise. What a waste of resources.
|
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Feb 22, 2013 9:05:43 GMT -5
Current 40-man roster is at 39, including Ortiz. You scenario (protecting 6, 4 open spots) would require losing 9 players off the 40-man roster. The four easy ones are D. Carpenter, Rosario, Beato, Valencia. Then you have the two semi-prospects (Pimentel and Britton) and I count five borderline roster players (Ciriaco, Stewart, Gomez, Nava, Sweeney). I have a hard time only keeping two out of that list at this early juncture of the offseason when some of those players might end up as valuable bench players or minor league depth (for instance, I'd want to keep Nava, Sweeney, and Britton at least). You might also think about cutting some of the more marginal relievers (Aceves, Mortensen, Atchinson), but I think all those players are clearly better present players than Olmsted is, and their higher floor offsets any lower ceiling. But reasonable minds might disagree. FYI, Zach Stewart was DFAd last month by Pittsburgh. Picked up by his old team, CWS. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 22, 2013 9:31:47 GMT -5
That Olmsted will have a sub-2.00 ERA at the end of the season playing for the Brewers will be no surprise. What a waste of resources. I'll take that bet. Loser gets Bryce Cox as their avatar? |
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Feb 22, 2013 9:32:41 GMT -5
Stewart was then waived again, cleared, and outrighted to AAA,
|
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Feb 22, 2013 10:49:54 GMT -5
Chris and Ian don't need me to back them up, but having had five or six looks at Olmstead this year I can tell you that no two were the same and that wouldn't fly in a big league pen. I'm a reporter, and as such, I love a good story. There are very few guys with better stories than Olmstead, but this is just one of those cost of doing business situations. He told me he would have loved to be back, but you simply can't blame Olmstead for taking the deal and definitely can't blame the Sox for letting him go given the 40-man situation and what appears to be a legit market for him. Probably so. As to varied velocity, Olmsted would not have had to pitch every day for the Sox. I hope the guy does well particularly given his struggle. Aceves, Bard & Breslow present some pen question marks for varying reasons. I thought Olmsted would have been the keeper vis a vis Alex Wilson. |
|
|
|
Post by tns on Feb 22, 2013 13:49:46 GMT -5
Chris and Ian don't need me to back them up, but having had five or six looks at Olmstead this year I can tell you that no two were the same and that wouldn't fly in a big league pen. I'm a reporter, and as such, I love a good story. There are very few guys with better stories than Olmstead, but this is just one of those cost of doing business situations. He told me he would have loved to be back, but you simply can't blame Olmstead for taking the deal and definitely can't blame the Sox for letting him go given the 40-man situation and what appears to be a legit market for him. Probably so. As to varied velocity, Olmsted would not have had to pitch every day for the Sox. I hope the guy does well particularly given his struggle. Aceves, Bard & Breslow present some pen question marks for varying reasons. I thought Olmsted would have been the keeper vis a vis Alex Wilson. The worry from inconsistent velocity wouldn't be about him not being able to pitch everyday but the question of what kind of stuff he's going to have on any given day. |
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Feb 22, 2013 14:53:24 GMT -5
That Olmsted will have a sub-2.00 ERA at the end of the season playing for the Brewers will be no surprise. What a waste of resources. I'll take that bet. Loser gets Bryce Cox as their avatar? Sounds good to me, even if I risk losing my current Mike Olmsted avatar. |
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Feb 22, 2013 16:15:41 GMT -5
Probably so. As to varied velocity, Olmsted would not have had to pitch every day for the Sox. I hope the guy does well particularly given his struggle. Aceves, Bard & Breslow present some pen question marks for varying reasons. I thought Olmsted would have been the keeper vis a vis Alex Wilson. The worry from inconsistent velocity wouldn't be about him not being able to pitch everyday but the question of what kind of stuff he's going to have on any given day. Surely all pitchers vary in stuff day to day. But people here (I believe scouts) have commented that Olmsted's stuff declines in back-to-back outings. I have never seen him pitch several days in a row. When I have watched him, he was consistently 95-96. |
|
|
