Re: 25 man roster crunch
posted at 1/26/2013 5:19 PM EST
In response to MadMc44's comment:
What I meant was although a guy like Linares probably deserves to be on the 40 man roster more than Vazquez or Butler, he doesn't need to be to be protected, so he stays off and the 2 catchers remain.
In response to moonslav59's comment:
Many prospects do not need to be on the 40 man roster yet, so it's not all about having 5 catchers or 3 on the 40 man. It's about protecting the best 40 players who need to be on the 40 man of DFA'd.
In order to get someone off the 40, namely Butler and Vasquez for catchers, they have to be DFA'd, traded or get an outright release or perhaps be on the 60 day DL.
That's why I don't understand the fixation on Hassan or Mort---if someone picks them up--so be it, leave the spots open--you never know when someone is going to appear on the waiver wire.
I may be wrong but I think the 40 is a very important group---the extra 15 players are on call.
I agree that the 40 man is important, but it does not have to be totally balanced as long as we have players not on the 40 man that could be brought up if needed if no cheap replacement player is available.
Case in point, did we really need another OF'er on the 40 man roster last year after everyone got hurt? No, we picked up Podsednik who probably did better than any bottom of the 40 man roster could have been expected to do.
I'm really not at all worried about having only 13 non-catching position players on the 40 man roster. If Ben thinks Vazquez is better than the guys we let go when we signed those FAs, I'm fine with that, and besides, catcher srae harder to find and develop than most other nonpitching positions. D Ross is old and signed for only 2 years, Salty is a FA after this year, and Lava showed signs of not being what we had hoped last summer.