Jump to content

Other teams’ discards. Any ideas?


Philip

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Richmond Bird 9 said:

Question: The O's have first chance in the AL and the Marlins have it in the NL. Could The O's ask the Marlins to claim a player and then trade intl slot money to the Marlins for that player?

To me it would be the same thing that we did with Phl in the rule 5 draft and we got Jackson.

The difference is, the Marlins’ 40-man roster presumably is currently full, so they can’t claim someone without DFAing somebody on their roster.    During the Rule 5 draft, the Phillies had openinings on their 40-man and didn’t need to DFA anyone to pick Jackson.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As near as I can tell, the only guys who would actually be designated, would be guys who were out of options, or who are aging veterans who were signed as nonroster invitees, in which case they would have the same problems with us. But there may be some solid veterans who have opt outs And who would rather start on a bad team then be in the minors for a good team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Rene88 said:

It’s kind of funny that the Red Sox, who won the World Series, are talking about players that might be available on the waiver wire. If Nick Vincent Gets dumped, we should certainly jump on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless they are a significant upgrade somewhere, I don't see there being much waiver wire claims.

As mentioned, pitching would be about it, but it would have to be a starter. Everywhere else, I think they will run with what they have unless the player has options and provides something (Dwight Smith as a project, for example.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Legend_Of_Joey said:

Unless they are a significant upgrade somewhere, I don't see there being much waiver wire claims.

As mentioned, pitching would be about it, but it would have to be a starter. Everywhere else, I think they will run with what they have unless the player has options and provides something (Dwight Smith as a project, for example.)

I would say most on this list are better than our 39th and 40th guys:

 

https://www.overthemonster.com/2019/3/15/18266936/red-sox-bullpen-depth-40-man-roster-waivers-free-agency

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Posts

    • Just to close the loop on the ball that Mullins couldn't quite catch on Tuesday in St. Louis, Statcast rated it a 20% probability catch.
    • Thanks, new one for the favorites list.
    • I’d written Wells off after the last report about his elbow. If he can get healthy, having him back as a RP would be a huge boost. 
    • Who should’ve have gotten? A lot of the available options are either not performing or injured. 
    • Comparing Hunt and Handley there are 'pieces' that can be pulled from both as positives and negatives.  Two different style catchers for sure and two very different paths. Age:  Handley is 8 months older than Hunt.  3/10/98 vs. 11/10/98 Draft:  Hunt got $1.6M out of HS.  Handley went to Stanford and got $250K.  Hunt is now in his 4th professional organization.  Drafted by SDP (6/17), traded to TBR (12/20), traded to SEA (11/23), traded to BAL (5/24).  Handley drafted by BAL in 2019.  Only other catcher still in the BAL system since his draft is Adley.   Value becomes perspective. Size:  Hunt is 6'4" 215# while Handley is 5'10" 205#.  Both players are hit/throw R/R.  Hunt has the projectable size over Handley without a doubt. For the comparisons below, I am going to 'trim' the statistics to 2021 and later.  Handley was in college and short season in '19.  Hunt was in rookie, short season and low A thru '19.  These are development years for both and not really comparable (my opinion) as it waters down the 'same' timeframes/levels.  I have done my best to equally balance the data for an neutral comparison. Since 2021, both players have been in High A and above.  Hunt has played 248 Games with 989 PA.   Handley has played 245 Games with 958 PA. A+ Games:  Hunt 59, Handley 60 AA Games:  Hunt 135, Handley 82 AAA Games:  Hunt 54, Handley 103 SPEED:  Hunt has  a total of 5 SB.  1 in A+ and 4 in AA.   Handley has a total of 30 SB.  12 in A+, 7 in AA, 11 in AAA.   BB Rate:  Hunt 7.9% in AA and 6.6% in AAA.  Handley 11.7% in AA and 14% in AAA.   K Rate:  Hunt 25.6% in AA & 15.6% in AAA.  Handley 22.2% in AA and 17% in AAA HITTING:  In AA, Hunt was .232/.310/.364/.674 and Handley was .237/.351/.423/.774.  AAA is a bit different but sample set isn't quite the same.  Hunt .275/.340/.524/.863 and Handley was .243/.373/.362/.735.   DEFENSE:  Hunt has caught 220 games (1904.1 innings).  Handley has caught 212 games (1805 innings).  Hunt has caught 56 of 252 runners (22%).  Handley has caught 81 of 198 runners (41%).  But since the new pick off rules, etc.  In AAA, Hunt has caught 5 of 35 (14%) and Handley has caught 17 of 50 (34%).  Passed Balls are Hunt 17 and Handley 18. Overall, it is my opinion, that Hunt's ranking in Seattle's system doesn't push him over Handley in the O's system.  Handley has more experience with the O's staff and AAA ball in general.  Stats between PCL and IL are not created equal.   Biggest advantage Hunt has is physical size and already coming in on O's 40 man roster.  Outside of this... pending no injuries at MLB level, the Tide are playing Braves (Gwinnett) next week and Yankees (Scranton) the following week.  Seeing when Hunt comes in and how the O's divide playing time as Handley was getting 4/6 games per week will show a lot.  How Hunt/Handley are taking the competition and how the O's are setting up the comparable game time.  Will they be doing a 50/50 catching split or giving one or the other more time at C?  With our other prospects, we do not have a lot of DH time available and neither Hunt or Handley play 1B.       
    • Statcast rates the Nootbar catch of Stowers' liner that turned into a double play as a 95% probability catch.   Really?   I absolutely do not believe that ball is caught 19 times out of 20.  
    • I’ve been seeing this notion relentlessly over the last couple days — not from you, necessarily, as there’s another poster for whom “we can’t win a WS with X players” has basically become a catchphrase.  But it just seems like folks are so vastly overrating the quality of “World Series Teams™️.” They are not perfect teams or rosters. For example, the Rangers won the World Series just last year with a trash pile of a bullpen.    Brock Burke - 59.2 IP, 4.37 ERA, 4.90 FIP Will Smith - 57.1 IP, 4.40 ERA, 3.36 FIP José Leclerc - 57.0 IP, 2.68 ERA, 3.16 FIP Josh Sborz - 52.1 IP, 5.50 ERA, 3.75 FIP Grant Anderson - 35.2 IP, 5.05 ERA, 4.66 FIP Jonathan Hernandez - 31.2 IP, 5.40 ERA, 4.55 FIP Martin Perez - 33.1 IP, 2.70 ERA, 3.98 FIP Aroldis Chapman - 29.0 IP, 3.72 ERA, 3.36 FIP Overall, their bullpen had a 4.77 ERA (24th in MLB) and a 4.45 FIP (22nd in MLB). They won the World Series with that group. Bradford kicked over from the rotation to lend a few innings, but it was mostly LeClerc, Sborz, and Chapman carrying them. And while we’re at it, you know whose bullpen was almost as bad as TEX’s? Arizona’s. Anyway, I say all that just to object to the general concept that we “can’t win” with something we have now (or without something we lack now). That we can’t win with Kremer as our SP4 or Hays/Mullins/Mateo as starters or with a bullpen anchored by Kimbrel/Cano/Coulombe. Yes, we can. Other teams have done it with worse, in each of those departments.   Obviously, it increases our chances of winning if we get better in these areas. And I agree with you that the bullpen is the biggest area of present need, so I will join you in hoping that they make a significant addition there. I just don’t think we need to succumb to hopelessness and despair if we don’t see any major personnel changes there between now and October. The one thing I’ll add is that I think the results in the playoffs tend to be heavily driven by your top 12ish players. Some combination of (approximately) your top 6 hitters, top 3 SPs, and top 3 RPs. I think what the 2024 team needs is enhancement of the top half of the roster — I feel like our depth is fine and more than sufficient to get us through 162, even in the bullpen. But if we’re going to make additions, I’d like to see someone who can slot into that “top 12.” Which means a high-end closer type, rather than a couple additions to the middle of the bullpen. A reliever version of the Burnes deal.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...