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.
Red Sox DFA Matt Barnes (1/30: traded for Richard Bleier)
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 24, 2023 19:54:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dirtywaterinla on Jan 24, 2023 19:57:06 GMT -5
Whoa, well this is damning.
|
|
|
Post by imposdrm67 on Jan 24, 2023 20:04:06 GMT -5
Unless there is a trade there is another DFA coming to make room for Adalberto Mondesi. Dalbec?
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jan 24, 2023 20:05:34 GMT -5
Unless there is a trade there is another DFA coming to make room for Adalberto Mondesi. Dalbec? Losing Taylor opens up the space for Mondesi
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 24, 2023 20:07:20 GMT -5
Also want to add - a lot of talk about Brasier in here (including from me), but the team also could keep adding to the bullpen and/or the infield (per Bloom's comments tonight and other reporting) and Brasier is probably the next reliever to go. He may not be on the roster either. Until the off-season ends I don't think we know for sure if this was really a choice of significance between the two. Personally I'm at a 50/50 that Brasier is still on the 40-man on opening day.
Ort, Kelly, German, Mills are in a different boat than Brasier and Barnes as they have options and team control.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Jan 24, 2023 21:28:55 GMT -5
Whoa, well this is damning. Barnes definatly a sticky stuff guy. Just fell off the map when it was banned. Couldn’t find a way to grip the ball without it.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jan 24, 2023 21:38:42 GMT -5
Shocking. Wow.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 24, 2023 21:54:47 GMT -5
Before I saw the graphs I was thinking, he was always a sticky-stuff creation and so he's never going back to what he was, and they knew that and of course none us did.
|
|
|
Post by jbuttah on Jan 24, 2023 23:12:44 GMT -5
Didn't MLB starting enforcing the sticky ban in 2021? The charts show that Barnes' spin rates started dropping 2018-19, which makes the extension even more ridiculous.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 24, 2023 23:27:23 GMT -5
Just because no one would ever claim him (and his contract) on waivers doesn't mean they can't trade him.
Once he clears waivers, he can go anywhere he wants to. But it would be a good move for a non-contender to acquire him before that happens, and hope he has some trade value at the deadline.
If I'm a a GM of a team that fits that description, I call the Sox and offer them something minor if they'll pay all but $700K of the salary. Maybe the Sox get more than one such call.
That's right, they may be able to wangle another PTBNL or Cash Considerations for him.
|
|
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Jan 24, 2023 23:35:10 GMT -5
Bloom licking his wounds from the Barnes extension and we all shook our heads about it and now comes the reckoning that his spin rate has declined dramatically so Bloom has to swallow his pride and do the right thing.
I never saw this coming, but those graphics are stunning to say the least. Will he be traded or does the 8 mill go back to the Sox for a chance to grab another decent free agent?
I wish the best for Matt and hope he catches on with a decent team in the NL.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 25, 2023 0:13:50 GMT -5
Those graphics are stunning and yet he was at his best in the first half of 2021, well after that spin rate decline began.
The graphics I look at (my apologies for not knowing how to copy and paste the baseballsavant graphics) are his velo on his 4-seamer before and after AC threw him in both ends of a double-header in Toronto in Aug 2021 and then again the next day. His velo and his results quickly went south after that. His velo didn't come back until the next summer but by then he was toast as a pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 25, 2023 9:46:16 GMT -5
If the Red Sox are only going to save 700k, wouldn't it have made more sense to DFA Brasier or Ort and try and get Barnes to have a good week and build up some value? What's the worst case? He gets DFA'd?
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 25, 2023 9:52:55 GMT -5
If the Red Sox are only going to save 700k, wouldn't it have made more sense to DFA Brasier or Ort and try and get Barnes to have a good week and build up some value? What's the worst case? He gets DFA'd? The worst case with Ort is they give up 6 years of cheap control for a viable reliever (with a 100 MPH fastball) - not saying Ort is a viable reliever right now, but that's the worst case and why you'd keep him over Barnes or Brasier I think (plus his options give the team more flexibility). Bloom said in his press conference re; Brasier that he projects better than Barnes. Also Barnes being bad and losing you games for a week and then DFA'ing him would also be bad, and a decent week isn't going to make anyone trade for him. ADD: I also think Eric's theory that they may keep one of the LHR NRIs on the roster, or add another lefty on an MLB deal, is plausible, in which case Brasier is probably the next reliever DFA'd (or possibly Ort if they really like Brasier's projections for some reason) so the Brasier/Barnes question might end up moot.
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Jan 25, 2023 10:04:55 GMT -5
Bloom licking his wounds from the Barnes extension and we all shook our heads about it and now comes the reckoning that his spin rate has declined dramatically so Bloom has to swallow his pride and do the right thing. I never saw this coming, but those graphics are stunning to say the least. Will he be traded or does the 8 mill go back to the Sox for a chance to grab another decent free agent? I wish the best for Matt and hope he catches on with a decent team in the NL. I'm not sure that's correct. If you look back, even on this board, the Barnes extension was praised more than panned in most instances when it was signed.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by shagworthy on Jan 25, 2023 10:11:56 GMT -5
Bloom got himself into trouble with the jeering crowd at Winter Weekend when he kept talking about making "bets" on players. Next year's event should be fun if Barnes spends October shoving for some team. Bloom (struggling to be heard over the heckling and derisive laughter): "We are going to the mat to win this year. We will not be a doormat. We look forward to rolling out the welcome mat for our fans..." Strange move, though. I would have thought Brasier represented job security for the other RPs. Going to the "Mat", just not Matt Barnes apparently... Not a fan of the move this early in the offseason. Braiser or Ort always seemed like the more logical DFA candidates, Brasier is not that much better and he's a moral hazard as well, Ort hasn't done anything, he's essentially another Robert Stock, his only calling card is he throws hard. I mean, it's not like Barnes is/was going to be the difference between contention and basement dwelling, so in the end, it's unremarkable, but someone is going to get a reliever with a pretty decent (albeit streaky) track record for damn cheap while the Sox will still be on the hook for his salary anyways, which is why this is a headscratcher for me. If you're going to have to pay him anyways why not see what you got for a few months in the beginning and then if he stinks, cut ties in June?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 25, 2023 10:26:06 GMT -5
People have brought up Ort so, so many times as someone to DFA, but it seems obvious they need a guy or two with options they can keep in AAA as depth when the inevitable injuries hit, right? Am I missing something there?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,440
|
Post by nomar on Jan 25, 2023 10:31:00 GMT -5
Relievers have weird career paths. You never know what could happen with Ort. I’m fine with rolling the dice on him (and Zack Kelly) over Barnes.
Nobody saw Schreiber coming. Who is to say that Kelly, German, or Ort can’t be next up?
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 25, 2023 10:43:27 GMT -5
If the Red Sox are only going to save 700k, wouldn't it have made more sense to DFA Brasier or Ort and try and get Barnes to have a good week and build up some value? What's the worst case? He gets DFA'd? The worst case with Ort is they give up 6 years of cheap control for a viable reliever (with a 100 MPH fastball) - not saying Ort is a viable reliever right now, but that's the worst case and why you'd keep him over Barnes or Brasier I think (plus his options give the team more flexibility). Bloom said in his press conference re; Brasier that he projects better than Barnes. Also Barnes being bad and losing you games for a week and then DFA'ing him would also be bad, and a decent week isn't going to make anyone trade for him. ADD: I also think Eric's theory that they may keep one of the LHR NRIs on the roster, or add another lefty on an MLB deal, is plausible, in which case Brasier is probably the next reliever DFA'd (or possibly Ort if they really like Brasier's projections for some reason) so the Brasier/Barnes question might end up moot. And that's fine on Ort, but Braiser is what he is. At the very least you could see if Barnes shows anything in ST that might be worth the gamble in low leverage situations. It's not like they would be putting him out there in a 1 run game in the 9th. Dalbec, Duran, and Winckowski are other guys I can think of off the top of my head that could have been on the DFA chopping block. Although with Dalbec I can see the value in positional insurance. Not that I'm advocating for Barnes to be here, just sometimes relievers get hot in SSS and maybe you find a GM willing to eat most of his remaining salary if he shows anything. In a season in which the goal is to stay under every penny is going to matter and now that Barnes is gone, there's no chance in saving anything off his contract other than the minimal.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 25, 2023 10:51:53 GMT -5
The worst case with Ort is they give up 6 years of cheap control for a viable reliever (with a 100 MPH fastball) - not saying Ort is a viable reliever right now, but that's the worst case and why you'd keep him over Barnes or Brasier I think (plus his options give the team more flexibility). Bloom said in his press conference re; Brasier that he projects better than Barnes. Also Barnes being bad and losing you games for a week and then DFA'ing him would also be bad, and a decent week isn't going to make anyone trade for him. ADD: I also think Eric's theory that they may keep one of the LHR NRIs on the roster, or add another lefty on an MLB deal, is plausible, in which case Brasier is probably the next reliever DFA'd (or possibly Ort if they really like Brasier's projections for some reason) so the Brasier/Barnes question might end up moot. And that's fine on Ort, but Braiser is what he is. At the very least you could see if Barnes shows anything in ST that might be worth the gamble in low leverage situations. It's not like they would be putting him out there in a 1 run game in the 9th. Dalbec, Duran, and Winckowski are other guys I can think of off the top of my head that could have been on the DFA chopping block. Although with Dalbec I can see the value in positional insurance. Not that I'm advocating for Barnes to be here, just sometimes relievers get hot in SSS and maybe you find a GM willing to eat most of his remaining salary if he shows anything. In a season in which the goal is to stay under every penny is going to matter and now that Barnes is gone, there's no chance in saving anything off his contract other than the minimal. I don’t buy the “sucker GM” approach. They clearly think a hot start is highly unlikely, so you risk an early blown game… demoralizing… in the hopes that someone erroneously thinks a few good innings are a comeback, even though they all have the deeper data. And I doubt even more they’d be able to trade him without eating most of the contract. So savings was never likely in the cards.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jan 25, 2023 11:04:18 GMT -5
It's always dangerous but just going off memory. At the tail end of last year Cora consistently was using Barnes and Brasier. Although the Sox were way out of contention people were still pulling their hair out every time Cora went to either of them. "Why is Cora doing this" was a common complaint. The best explanation is he was told to use them. The games meant nothing as far as the team contending and were a perfect opportunity to see what each of them had. Both had good and bad outings. The difference is Barnes when he was "good" looked like Houdini making an escape. Brasier when he was good was throwing strikes and sitting 98. When Brasier wasn't good he was sitting 98 but not throwing strikes. And wasn't he showing gradual improvement with his control-command? Seems to me Brasier had some eye opening legitimately strong outings while Barnes didn't really have any. Barnes was such a pitiable figure at that time it felt really good to see him not get bombed even if he was walking on thin ice and dodging bullets in his "good" innings.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 25, 2023 11:06:09 GMT -5
Relievers have weird career paths. You never know what could happen with Ort. I’m fine with rolling the dice on him (and Zack Kelly) over Barnes. Nobody saw Schreiber coming. Who is to say that Kelly, German, or Ort can’t be next up? see Koji, third man in line for closer in 2018...
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 25, 2023 11:16:32 GMT -5
The worst case with Ort is they give up 6 years of cheap control for a viable reliever (with a 100 MPH fastball) - not saying Ort is a viable reliever right now, but that's the worst case and why you'd keep him over Barnes or Brasier I think (plus his options give the team more flexibility). Bloom said in his press conference re; Brasier that he projects better than Barnes. Also Barnes being bad and losing you games for a week and then DFA'ing him would also be bad, and a decent week isn't going to make anyone trade for him. ADD: I also think Eric's theory that they may keep one of the LHR NRIs on the roster, or add another lefty on an MLB deal, is plausible, in which case Brasier is probably the next reliever DFA'd (or possibly Ort if they really like Brasier's projections for some reason) so the Brasier/Barnes question might end up moot. And that's fine on Ort, but Braiser is what he is. At the very least you could see if Barnes shows anything in ST that might be worth the gamble in low leverage situations. It's not like they would be putting him out there in a 1 run game in the 9th. Dalbec, Duran, and Winckowski are other guys I can think of off the top of my head that could have been on the DFA chopping block. Although with Dalbec I can see the value in positional insurance. Not that I'm advocating for Barnes to be here, just sometimes relievers get hot in SSS and maybe you find a GM willing to eat most of his remaining salary if he shows anything. In a season in which the goal is to stay under every penny is going to matter and now that Barnes is gone, there's no chance in saving anything off his contract other than the minimal. To each their own but I personally would have been upset if they DFA'd any of the bolded guys before Barnes. And I really don't agree that a good spring training would have meant any GM in baseball was going to take most of Barnes' remaining salary (if they weren't already).
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 25, 2023 12:43:04 GMT -5
And that's fine on Ort, but Braiser is what he is. At the very least you could see if Barnes shows anything in ST that might be worth the gamble in low leverage situations. It's not like they would be putting him out there in a 1 run game in the 9th. Dalbec, Duran, and Winckowski are other guys I can think of off the top of my head that could have been on the DFA chopping block. Although with Dalbec I can see the value in positional insurance. Not that I'm advocating for Barnes to be here, just sometimes relievers get hot in SSS and maybe you find a GM willing to eat most of his remaining salary if he shows anything. In a season in which the goal is to stay under every penny is going to matter and now that Barnes is gone, there's no chance in saving anything off his contract other than the minimal. To each their own but I personally would have been upset if they DFA'd any of the bolded guys before Barnes. And I really don't agree that a good spring training would have meant any GM in baseball was going to take most of Barnes' remaining salary (if they weren't already). I don't see what Duran offers at this point and they released Seabold before Barnes who I feel is very similar to Wink (maybe Wink has a better contract situation). Wink I think has zero potential and the new rules are only going to further hurt him. Dalbec is awful, but provides needed insurances. In regards to Barnes, is his spin rate something that can't be improved or fixed? Injuries tend to happen and I can see a team that's all in or an aggressive GM like Dombrowski seeing their 6th or 7th inning reliever go down and kick the tires on a 3 million dollar former closer (Red Sox eating half in this scenario) if he looks moderately decent with a strong fast ball. But, I'm also talking out of my rear with Barnes and this situation because I do not know if those numbers suggest he's permanently broken now. I don't know if there are examples of guys whose stuff falls off and then just comes back. My main concern is this was one guy whose contract helps you stay under if you're able to unload him. There's a lot of incentive bonuses on the team that will push them over and if they're surprisingly good (Chris Sale and Paxton stay mostly healthy and are good, Verdugo isn't the most average player of all time, Story comes back in June healthy and strong, Kluber and Justin Turner defy age) then it's going to be hard for them to add at the deadline and stay under. So that's really my concern. Silly question, but if Barnes is picked up by the White Sox on the minimal, and the Red Sox make a trade with LAA using a prospect like Yorke to get a guy, could the Red Sox attach Barnes remaining contract to the deal? I'm assuming they can, yes?
|
|
|
Post by oldfaithful2019 on Jan 25, 2023 12:56:00 GMT -5
To each their own but I personally would have been upset if they DFA'd any of the bolded guys before Barnes. And I really don't agree that a good spring training would have meant any GM in baseball was going to take most of Barnes' remaining salary (if they weren't already). I don't see what Duran offers at this point and they released Seabold before Barnes who I feel is very similar to Wink (maybe Wink has a better contract situation). Wink I think has zero potential and the new rules are only going to further hurt him. Dalbec is awful, but provides needed insurances. In regards to Barnes, is his spin rate something that can't be improved or fixed? Injuries tend to happen and I can see a team that's all in or an aggressive GM like Dombrowski seeing their 6th or 7th inning reliever go down and kick the tires on a 3 million dollar former closer (Red Sox eating half in this scenario) if he looks moderately decent with a strong fast ball. But, I'm also talking out of my rear with Barnes and this situation because I do not know if those numbers suggest he's permanently broken now. I don't know if there are examples of guys whose stuff falls off and then just comes back. My main concern is this was one guy whose contract helps you stay under if you're able to unload him. There's a lot of incentive bonuses on the team that will push them over and if they're surprisingly good (Chris Sale and Paxton stay mostly healthy and are good, Verdugo isn't the most average player of all time, Story comes back in June healthy and strong, Kluber and Justin Turner defy age) then it's going to be hard for them to add at the deadline and stay under. So that's really my concern. Silly question, but if Barnes is picked up by the White Sox on the minimal, and the Red Sox make a trade with LAA using a prospect like Yorke to get a guy, could the Red Sox attach Barnes remaining contract to the deal? I'm assuming they can, yes?The Sox could obtain cash considerations in a deal to help pay Barnes contract, but they will still be on the hook for his salary, less 700,000, for luxury tax purposes. I'm sure they will get offers before he is waived and he will be traded, allowing the Sox to unload a small portion of the salary.
|
|
|