SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 15, 2021 17:06:31 GMT -5
Ward is interesting. If they expect he'll get taken in the Rule 5, then I wonder if putting him on the 60 day IL and starting his service clock is the least bad option. I dunno about Frank German. The Yankees giving him away alongside Ottavino's reasonable contract does not make it seem like he's highly valued around the league, and I would think his stock has dropped sharply since then. I hope they put him in the pen and give him a chance to impress before the roster crunch. There is no IL in the offseason, so that won't work with Ward. Good idea otherwise though. German has been much better after a rough first month (since June 1: 30.0-34-14-14-7-27 after a 17.0-23-26-16-12-9 in May) and honestly, I'm punting on May for most guys this season). He's also been a little snakebit by that Portland defense, although that's been better since that first month as well. That said, it felt weird to put him in the same category as Winckowski as I'm similar to where others are - he's close to pushing into that "Certain" category, but I didn't want to put him in that group yet. German is somewhere between Winck and that next group. I don't agree with the "they traded him to get rid of Ottavino's contract, therefore he's not valued" reasoning. There are only so many teams in baseball that are in a position to add an $8M reliever in order to get a prospect. Everything just kind of needed to line up in that the team (1) was interested (2) wanted to pay him and (3) could use the player as well. Hence the first Sox-Yankees trade in recent memory. Meanwhile, unloading the $8M was important for the Yankees, so you can't assume it's a nothing player they gave up.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 15, 2021 17:15:10 GMT -5
Just checked the roster rules and players not on the 40-man can be traded after the deadline, up until a week before the end of the season.
If Ort still looks good and they have sufficient bullpen depth (which seems likely), he'd be a prime candidate for a post-deadline deal. I think he has more value that way then in squeezing him into the current roster, when it's quite possible that (when everyone is healthy) Brasier, Rios, and Valdez will be available for a call-up, not tot mention Seabold and Bazardo. That's what happens if either Workman or Brice can become trusted in mid-high leverage.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 15, 2021 17:15:53 GMT -5
Just checked the roster rules and players not on the 40-man can be traded after the deadline, up until a week before the end of the season. If Ort still looks good and they have sufficient bullpen depth (which seems likely), he'd be a prime candidate for a post-deadline deal. I think he has more value that way then in squeezing him into the current roster, when it's quite possible that (when everyone is healthy) Brasier, Rios, and Valdez will be available for a call-up, not tot mention Seabold and Bazardo. That's what happens if either Workman or Brice can become trusted in mid-high leverage.
Aren't such players ineligible for the postseason though? I don't think they even get the "replacing someone on the IL" exception.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Jul 15, 2021 23:32:48 GMT -5
With only 14 non-active roster spots instead of 15 going forward, I think we're going to see more talent in the rule 5 draft going forward. That's one less spot that they'll be able to use for either major league depth or rule 5 protection.
I wonder if in the next CBA negotiations if they'll ask to add one more year before adding someone to the 40-man. I'd imagine the MLBPA would be open to that if they were able to make some headway on cleaning up the Kris Bryant service time manipulation.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 16, 2021 1:40:09 GMT -5
Just checked the roster rules and players not on the 40-man can be traded after the deadline, up until a week before the end of the season. If Ort still looks good and they have sufficient bullpen depth (which seems likely), he'd be a prime candidate for a post-deadline deal. I think he has more value that way then in squeezing him into the current roster, when it's quite possible that (when everyone is healthy) Brasier, Rios, and Valdez will be available for a call-up, not tot mention Seabold and Bazardo. That's what happens if either Workman or Brice can become trusted in mid-high leverage.
Aren't such players ineligible for the postseason though? I don't think they even get the "replacing someone on the IL" exception. August 31 remains the post-season eligibility cutoff. So July 31 to August 31 is a period where a team can trade for a guy like Ort and use him in the post-season as well. Guys traded in the first three weeks of September would be AAA veterans obtained to fill a hole due to a rash of injuries, since any older roster hole would have been filled by the end of August.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 16, 2021 8:43:11 GMT -5
Right. Had the calendar jumbled in my head.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 17, 2021 17:39:07 GMT -5
Seems like Plawecki, while fungible (popular word on this site) as a back up catcher, could likely be included in a deadline deal, as the team seems to like the cut of Wong's jib.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 17, 2021 17:43:38 GMT -5
Seems like Plawecki, while fungible (popular word on this site) as a back up catcher, could likely be included in a deadline deal, as the team seems to like the cut of Wong's jib. While not impossible I'd think the best scenario would be to send wong back to triple a for more consistent playing time for his progression. Also trading plawecki would leave them with basically no backup in case of injury.
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Jul 17, 2021 17:56:22 GMT -5
Seems like Plawecki, while fungible (popular word on this site) as a back up catcher, could likely be included in a deadline deal, as the team seems to like the cut of Wong's jib. Why am I not surprised that “Cut of Wong’s jib” is the preferred nomenclature from “Underwater Johnson?”
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 17, 2021 18:02:24 GMT -5
Seems like Plawecki, while fungible (popular word on this site) as a back up catcher, could likely be included in a deadline deal, as the team seems to like the cut of Wong's jib. They aren't going to cut their catcher depth though.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 17, 2021 18:03:49 GMT -5
A question about timing: Is there any benefit in delaying the re-signing of players who are either free agents or have club options? The season ends in late October, the deadline for setting the 40-man roster is 11/20, and the Rule 5 draft takes place on 12/2. What's keeping you from holding spots open until after the Rule 5 draft if you have a handshake deal with a guy who will definitely be coming back (e.g. E-Rod, Vazquez)?
Even without a handshake deal, guys like Perez or Richards might have their club options rejected and then eventually re-sign with the Red Sox under different terms, which is exactly what happened with Perez last off-season.
Also, JD Martinez will probably not exercise his player option for 2022. His agent famously likes to drag his clients' negotiations late into the off-season -- certainly past early December -- so that spot will almost certainly be open on 12/2, whether or not JD eventually reclaims it.
By opening spots in this way, you can either, a) protect more kids, or 2) draft other teams' kids.
But what do you do when you want to add E-Rod or Vazquez or JDM back after re-signing them? You either have to DFA one of the extra kids you just protected or maybe you didn't draft as many other teams' kids as you had hoped to. But you've given yourself a little breathing room, either way.
Is there something I'm missing? Is this common practice already? The Sox have ten guys by my count who will either be FAs, have club options, or are named Julio Daniel and have a player option. Would this strategy relieve some of the impending crunch?
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 17, 2021 18:21:18 GMT -5
Seems like Plawecki, while fungible (popular word on this site) as a back up catcher, could likely be included in a deadline deal, as the team seems to like the cut of Wong's jib. They aren't going to cut their catcher depth though. Wong K'd almost 50% of AB's in sss stint here. They're not going to trade Plaweki. He is SO valuable. Experienced, competent backup that can be relied upon if CVaz gets injured. If you trade and Plaweki and CVaz gets hurt in Aug or Sept, you're kind of screwed relying on Wong in the playoffs. I mean, I like his potential, but that's beyond his pay grade at this stage of his career
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 17, 2021 18:26:20 GMT -5
A question about timing: Is there any benefit in delaying the re-signing of players who are either free agents or have club options? The season ends in late October, the deadline for setting the 40-man roster is 11/20, and the Rule 5 draft takes place on 12/2. What's keeping you from holding spots open until after the Rule 5 draft if you have a handshake deal with a guy who will definitely be coming back (e.g. E-Rod, Vazquez)? Even without a handshake deal, guys like Perez or Richards might have their club options rejected and then eventually re-sign with the Red Sox under different terms, which is exactly what happened with Perez last off-season. Also, JD Martinez will probably not exercise his player option for 2022. His agent famously likes to drag his clients' negotiations late into the off-season -- certainly past early December -- so that spot will almost certainly be open on 12/2, whether or not JD eventually reclaims it. By opening spots in this way, you can either, a) protect more kids, or 2) draft other teams' kids. But what do you do when you want to add E-Rod or Vazquez or JDM back after re-signing them? You either have to DFA one of the extra kids you just protected or maybe you didn't draft as many other teams' kids as you had hoped to. But you've given yourself a little breathing room, either way. Is there something I'm missing? Is this common practice already? The Sox have ten guys by my count who will either be FAs, have club options, or are named Julio Daniel and have a player option. Would this strategy relieve some of the impending crunch? You answered your own question. You still have to eventually add those free agents to the 40-man roster, so all it does is kick the can down the road for a few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Jul 17, 2021 18:28:39 GMT -5
I could see them moving Plawecki in the offseason if he ends the year with good numbers and they feel good about Wong. I don't see that move happening before then.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 17, 2021 18:38:30 GMT -5
I don’t see Bloom voluntarily trading away MLB or the first layer of AAA depth (unless it’s for an upgrade on the MLB roster). Just doesn’t seem to jibe with his philosophy to trade players mid season who are one injury from being called up. Those sorts of roster machinations seem more likely to occur in the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by jbsox on Jul 18, 2021 9:12:13 GMT -5
My amateurish try at the 40 man roster moves with them more likely to occur off-season than in season.
Leave off
11 Traded or not resigned
Richards (replaced by Whitlock in the rotation) Perez (replaced by Houck in the rotation) Andreise Valdez Workman Rios Plawecki (Wong or Hernandez take back up role) Chavis Gonzalez Santana Wilson
11 Added on
Bazardo Bello Cottam Downs Feltman German Jimenez Winckowski Scherff Ward Ort
Maybe Crawford, Castellanos, and Grandberg etc eligible for the rule 5 ( maybe some pass through the rule 5 draft) are trade pieces to go along with Wilson, Chavis, Plawecki, and Valdez. Maybe you can float the idea of eating some salary picking up the option of Perez and Richards to include in a trade if they hold up value the 2nd half of the season. Hopefully a combination of these guys can get an interesting low level prospects than a rule 5 guy/40 man prospects in return due to our crunch, but I don’t know the likelihood of how many of these guys other teams will want on their 40 man.
Arauz, Rosario, and Potts are a dilemma to me. Still very young maybe give them another year to see if they improve, and say if we trade Chavis and Wilson we may need them for depth. Maybe you could also include any of them in the group above for trade pieces.
Find a way to keep Reed and Mieses:)
I left Braiser off, but maybe see if he can do anything the rest of the season, and revisit.
Some thoughts. We would still have 6 starting pitchers Sale, Pivetta, Eovaldi, a re-signed Erod hopefully to start the year if you put Houck and Whitlock in the rotation. Maybe you start off with Houck and Whitlock piggybacking each other, 6 man rotation at times, and we have been lucky this year with injuries which doesn’t always happen so it would be good to have them all.
It seems like the trio of Wong, Hernandez, and even Cottam have at least the potential of being a back up like Plawecki. Maybe roll the dice one of the 3 can be the backup next year.
Re-sign Erod, Ottavino or an equivalent, extend Devers and X, and maybe look into extending Vasquez and even Eovaldi a year or 2.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 18, 2021 10:12:46 GMT -5
I ‘m so happy Scherff is finding his groove.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 18, 2021 12:34:51 GMT -5
They aren't going to cut their catcher depth though. Wong K'd almost 50% of AB's in sss stint here. They're not going to trade Plaweki. He is SO valuable. Experienced, competent backup that can be relied upon if CVaz gets injured. If you trade and Plaweki and CVaz gets hurt in Aug or Sept, you're kind of screwed relying on Wong in the playoffs. I mean, I like his potential, but that's beyond his pay grade at this stage of his career I guess I don't see as much value in Plawecki as others do. I haven't heard pitchers rave about pitching to him like they used to about Sandy Leon and they already are about Wong. Christian Vazquez has caught the most innings of any catcher in the majors this season, so there is clearly no starter in the rotation who has asked for Plawecki to be his "personal" catcher. He had a nice fluky year at the plate last year but shouldn't be expected to repeat it (and he hasn't, through a similar number of PAs).
To me the only reason you don't trade Plawecki is because you want Wong to catch more often in AAA although everyone seemed to agree that (despite his 50% K rate), Wong's time filling in for Plawecki last month was a great experience for him. If he's your catcher of the future (Vazquez's current contract has a club option for 2022 but my guess is they extend him through 2023), I would think there's more that he can learn being on the big league roster around big league pitchers and coaches than he can in AAA catching guys who, for the most part, are unlikely to ever make it to Boston.
One indication of the current market for backup catchers is that Chris Herrmann has apparently not exercised his mid-season opt-out, meaning his agent has not found any big league takers. Veterans who are currently unemployed (and likely refusing minor league work) include Tyler Flowers and Matt Wieters, both 35. So there seems to be a pretty good chance that even if they DFAed Plawecki tomorrow to address a sudden 40-man crunch, he'd pass through waivers and join Herrmann in Worcester. My feeling is that Chaim and AC would be comfortable with Wong being the least-used back up catcher in MLB if it came to that. In the event of an injury to Vazquez, it doesn't appear that there would be a shortage of options.
So, back to my previous point, if Plawecki fits as part of deal to land a big fish, I don't hesitate to include him.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 18, 2021 13:17:29 GMT -5
I think your post is one long argument for why he doesn't have any trade value, no?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 18, 2021 13:57:12 GMT -5
Wong K'd almost 50% of AB's in sss stint here. They're not going to trade Plaweki. He is SO valuable. Experienced, competent backup that can be relied upon if CVaz gets injured. If you trade and Plaweki and CVaz gets hurt in Aug or Sept, you're kind of screwed relying on Wong in the playoffs. I mean, I like his potential, but that's beyond his pay grade at this stage of his career I guess I don't see as much value in Plawecki as others do. I haven't heard pitchers rave about pitching to him like they used to about Sandy Leon and they already are about Wong. Christian Vazquez has caught the most innings of any catcher in the majors this season, so there is clearly no starter in the rotation who has asked for Plawecki to be his "personal" catcher. He had a nice fluky year at the plate last year but shouldn't be expected to repeat it (and he hasn't, through a similar number of PAs).
To me the only reason you don't trade Plawecki is because you want Wong to catch more often in AAA although everyone seemed to agree that (despite his 50% K rate), Wong's time filling in for Plawecki last month was a great experience for him. If he's your catcher of the future (Vazquez's current contract has a club option for 2022 but my guess is they extend him through 2023), I would think there's more that he can learn being on the big league roster around big league pitchers and coaches than he can in AAA catching guys who, for the most part, are unlikely to ever make it to Boston.
One indication of the current market for backup catchers is that Chris Herrmann has apparently not exercised his mid-season opt-out, meaning his agent has not found any big league takers. Veterans who are currently unemployed (and likely refusing minor league work) include Tyler Flowers and Matt Wieters, both 35. So there seems to be a pretty good chance that even if they DFAed Plawecki tomorrow to address a sudden 40-man crunch, he'd pass through waivers and join Herrmann in Worcester. My feeling is that Chaim and AC would be comfortable with Wong being the least-used back up catcher in MLB if it came to that. In the event of an injury to Vazquez, it doesn't appear that there would be a shortage of options.
So, back to my previous point, if Plawecki fits as part of deal to land a big fish, I don't hesitate to include him.
The main reason you never trade one of your top 3 catchers is in case one of them gets hurt. We're not going into the playoffs with Connor Wong as the only catcher if Vazquez gets hurt.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 19, 2021 10:22:13 GMT -5
I mean, in the hypothetical where some team demands Kevin Plawecki as the main piece in a key trade, you trade Kevin Plawecki and then find a new backup catcher. But Plawecki is not the difference-maker in any trade for a player the Red Sox need, so it's kind of moot. And that's no disresepct to Plawecki, he's a decent enough backup.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 20, 2021 9:34:40 GMT -5
I guess I don't see as much value in Plawecki as others do. I haven't heard pitchers rave about pitching to him like they used to about Sandy Leon and they already are about Wong. Christian Vazquez has caught the most innings of any catcher in the majors this season, so there is clearly no starter in the rotation who has asked for Plawecki to be his "personal" catcher. He had a nice fluky year at the plate last year but shouldn't be expected to repeat it (and he hasn't, through a similar number of PAs).
To me the only reason you don't trade Plawecki is because you want Wong to catch more often in AAA although everyone seemed to agree that (despite his 50% K rate), Wong's time filling in for Plawecki last month was a great experience for him. If he's your catcher of the future (Vazquez's current contract has a club option for 2022 but my guess is they extend him through 2023), I would think there's more that he can learn being on the big league roster around big league pitchers and coaches than he can in AAA catching guys who, for the most part, are unlikely to ever make it to Boston.
One indication of the current market for backup catchers is that Chris Herrmann has apparently not exercised his mid-season opt-out, meaning his agent has not found any big league takers. Veterans who are currently unemployed (and likely refusing minor league work) include Tyler Flowers and Matt Wieters, both 35. So there seems to be a pretty good chance that even if they DFAed Plawecki tomorrow to address a sudden 40-man crunch, he'd pass through waivers and join Herrmann in Worcester. My feeling is that Chaim and AC would be comfortable with Wong being the least-used back up catcher in MLB if it came to that. In the event of an injury to Vazquez, it doesn't appear that there would be a shortage of options.
So, back to my previous point, if Plawecki fits as part of deal to land a big fish, I don't hesitate to include him.
The main reason you never trade one of your top 3 catchers is in case one of them gets hurt. We're not going into the playoffs with Connor Wong as the only catcher if Vazquez gets hurt. You promote Herrmann or sign Flowers or Wieters. Those are hardly steep drop-offs from Plawecki. The point is that there are guys out there with similar skill sets to Plawecki, which goes to Chris's point that this is what makes his trade value low. I like Plawecki, I just said "if [he] fits as part of a deal," not that I think he's a centerpiece or anything like that; just if the other team likes the idea of control of Plawecki through 2022 and asks Chaim to include him. The risk is that Vazquez gets hurt badly in the next three months (and he's not what anyone would call "injury prone") and you have to survive with Herrmann instead of Plawecki; the reward is that you seal the deadline deal that you think gives your team the biggest boost.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jul 20, 2021 9:37:46 GMT -5
Well, I think everyone will agree that Kevin Plawecki is not untouchable if the right deal comes along.
|
|
|
Post by 1980bornsoxfan on Jul 20, 2021 9:57:35 GMT -5
Bloom interview by Chad Jennings from Athletic on how he approaches the Deadline.
“You certainly have what appears to be an upcoming 40-man roster crunch. The Yankees had one last winter, and it basically cost them Garrett Whitlock. That has to play a role in what you’re looking to do, right?”
“Yeah. I think it would be silly of us not to factor that in. If you are in a position where you have a lot of guys who are either on the 40-man or will need to be on the 40-man, something’s got to give eventually, and we have to factor that in when we’re evaluating those guys.”
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 20, 2021 10:07:49 GMT -5
The main reason you never trade one of your top 3 catchers is in case one of them gets hurt. We're not going into the playoffs with Connor Wong as the only catcher if Vazquez gets hurt. You promote Herrmann or sign Flowers or Wieters. Those are hardly steep drop-offs from Plawecki. The point is that there are guys out there with similar skill sets to Plawecki, which goes to Chris's point that this is what makes his trade value low. I like Plawecki, I just said "if [he] fits as part of a deal," not that I think he's a centerpiece or anything like that; just if the other team likes the idea of control of Plawecki through 2022 and asks Chaim to include him. The risk is that Vazquez gets hurt badly in the next three months (and he's not what anyone would call "injury prone") and you have to survive with Herrmann instead of Plawecki; the reward is that you seal the deadline deal that you think gives your team the biggest boost. Okay but if a team can just go sign flowers or weiters without a steep drop-off from plawecki why would anyone trade anything of value for plawecki?
|
|
|