is no one in need of starting pitchers

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    is no one in need of starting pitchers

    can't believe w/less than a week 2go till P&C's

    Santana   Jimenez morales & drew to a lesser extent R still out there

    shows U how little I know

    I thought 4 sure once tanaka was overpaid signed

    the market would speed up 4 theses SP's

    their prices have come down

    on their own ? or is there some C involved


    how long B4 collusion enters their agents mind


    players must hate this comp pick stuff

    question is

    R the teams loving getting that comp pick

    more than hating giving up one up

    or R we talking about a different set of teams for the most part

    heard some agents mumbling about the comp picks

    but nothing from management other than not wanting 2 do it

    while this is better than a few yrs ago when type B players were getting squeezed

    and while no one will feel 2 bad 4 a guy who turned down 14 mill 4 a yr

     

    does something need 2 B changed

     

    how much is this about the losing pick

    vs losing the 1st round pool money. If the teams

    lost the pick but not the pool money would there be more movement

     





     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    can't believe w/less than a week 2go till P&C's

    Santana   Jimenez morales & drew to a lesser extent R still out there

    shows U how little I know

    I thought 4 sure once tanaka was overpaid signed

    the market would speed up 4 theses SP's

    their prices have come down

    on their own ? or is there some C involved


    how long B4 collusion enters their agents mind


    players must hate this comp pick stuff

    question is

    R the teams loving getting that comp pick

    more than hating giving up one up

    or R we talking about a different set of teams for the most part

    heard some agents mumbling about the comp picks

    but nothing from management other than not wanting 2 do it

    while this is better than a few yrs ago when type B players were getting squeezed

    and while no one will feel 2 bad 4 a guy who turned down 14 mill 4 a yr

     

    does something need 2 B changed

     

    how much is this about the losing pick

    vs losing the 1st round pool money. If the teams

    lost the pick but not the pool money would there be more movement

     





    [/QUOTE]


    Good idea.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    not my idea roy but I agree

     

    LOL after typing all that I C this

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ervin Santana Progressing Toward Deal By Charlie Wilmoth [February 9 at 9:20pm CST]

    Free agent starting pitcher Ervin Santana seems to finally be heading toward a deal, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports writes. The Blue Jays and the Orioles have both been in touch with Santana. Chris Cotillo of MLB Daily Dish, meanwhile, tweets that the Orioles will strongly pursue Santana or Ubaldo Jimenez this week.

    Santana, of course, is coming off a strong 2013 season in which he posted a 3.24 ERA, 6.9 K/9 and 2.2 BB/9 in 211 innings with the Royals. His path to a new team has been blocked, however, first by the uncertainty regarding Masahiro Tanaka's destination, and now by the fact that the team that signs him will have to forfeit a draft pick. As Rosenthal points out, the Jays' No. 9 and No. 11 picks are protected, which means they would only have to forfeit their No. 49 overall pick. The Orioles would lose their top draft choice, at No. 17.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    Once these guys get signed, Ben's phone will be ringing off the hook.

    Dempster or Peavy will likely be dealt by opening day.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Once these guys get signed, Ben's phone will be ringing off the hook.

    Dempster or Peavy will likely be dealt by opening day.

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't think there is any real market for Dempster, given his contract. Peavy could probably be dealt, but he would not bring back anyone of the caliber of Iglesias.  The best strategy might be to keep Peavy and basically give away Dempster , while trying to not eat too much of his contract.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    i think given some of the contracts that have been handed out this winter, dempsters deal is not all that outrageous. arroyo just got 2 yrs at what 11.5 or 12 and is not exactly young. look at what colon got he is older than dempster. im not saying dempster will have high value, but he is certainly tradeable. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    how much is this about the losing pick

    vs losing the 1st round pool money. If the teams

    lost the pick but not the pool money would there be more movement

     [/QUOTE]

    You are not alone in believing the "pool money" has some kind of huge EXTRA impact in the draft compensation. A lot of baseball writers have mentioned its importance too. I believe you are all mistaken in its importance however.

     

    First, of course the bonus money is important. You have to pay the first round pick you sign something or they won't sign. If you use the first round pick on a player and pay him 100 bucks and then use the 1.8 million on a player later in the draft, then of course its the money and not the pick that has value. However, who does that and what kind of player would you get for 100 bucks?

    The reality is that teams that draft late first round picks pay those players "slot" or near slot 95% of the time. Pay slot and then POOF, their goes that valuable pool money everybody loves to talk about. The pick is the money and the money is the pick. For some reason, very smart people don't seem to comprehend this basic fact.

    Now, their is two potential extra values to the pool money that are real. First, you can spend up to 5% more on all your pool money without a penalty. So you can use an extra 90,000 dollars on players later in the draft if you had 1,800,000 dollars of extra pool money. That is real extra value because of the extrra pool monery. But 90,000 grand is kind of chump change when talking about 4, 6, 8 million dollar pools. Last season for example the Red Sox did not even use all their 5% extra money. I believe they sat on a few hundred grand, more then this extra value I am talking about right here. Last year it would have had zero value.

     

    The second real potential value with the pool money is that you have the option of going under slot with the pick and using the money later. Versatility so to speak. However, it is rarely done with late first round picks and as the old saying goes, you likely get what you pay for anyway. One example is the Red Sox going under slot for Pat Light, a player rated between 50 and 80 by most people at the time. How did that work out?

     

    Thiis season, guess how many teams between the 12th and 40th picks payed more then 205 thousand under slot..... NONE!

    I don't really think the versatility to go under slot is very valuable at all. Nor is the option of paying an extra 90 grand if you wish.

    The value of the compensation[30th pick plus pool money] is getting a player who is ranked about 30th and paying pretty much slot. That is what almost every team will do, including the Red Sox. The pick and the money are basically the same thing when all is said and done. The tiny extra values are not worth mentioning.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from charliedarling. Show charliedarling's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    I would think that there will be very little thoughts of Peavy and/or Dempster by other teams until maybe late in spring training.

    Both guys have high dollar contracts and are certainly on the downside of their careers.

    At the end of spring training and these guys show that they are both healthy and productive a team that has had their pitching plans already blown up by injuries may become interested.

    Trading either is likely to only bring some salary cap relief as I doubt that any top prospects will be obtained for either guy.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    Zac,

    Not sure that collusion is at play, more so it's the long term value of the draft pick v the cost of aquisiton and expected production from the free agent acquired. 

    Moving forward, MLB & the players association should probably look at negotiating a tiered draft pick compensation for players, based on a grading scale. 

    #1 round pick for players that grade out as impact players/All Star level...

    #2 round pick for players that grade out as solid proven big league starters (or teams with protected first round picks).

    Of the players left on the board...

    Santana is probably the best of the group and well worth a late first round/supplemental draft pick, my guess is he'll get signed now that the market is established. I thought your Yanks would sign him...

    Drew is probably the next best available based on expected return, good glove, solid hitter and good clubhouse guy...

    Cruz is close to Drew in terms of expected return, but is not a very good defensive OF. I wonder him much his ped suspension is effecting his value? 

    Jimenez track record is one of inconsistency, due to that, his value to teams in need of a proven starter makes him a risk reward candidate. Not sure i would sign him to a multi year deal, and forfeit a pick...

    Morales is a one dimensional player, so his market is pretty much restricted to AL clubs. Not sure i would forfiet a number one pick, for a decent hitting DH, let alone sign him to a multi year deal. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Once these guys get signed, Ben's phone will be ringing off the hook.

    Dempster or Peavy will likely be dealt by opening day.

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't think there is any real market for Dempster, given his contract. Peavy could probably be dealt, but he would not bring back anyone of the caliber of Iglesias.  The best strategy might be to keep Peavy and basically give away Dempster , while trying to not eat too much of his contract.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is always someone willing to overspend on a 1 year deal for an innings eater.  I'm sure someone would want to sign a guy to a 1 year 13 million dollar contract that doesn't cost them a draft pick then re-asses their pitching situation later on.  Although you are correct in that it would mostly be a contract dump.  Which I would take at this point, it would open up a hole in the bullpen for one of the MLB ready younger arms and we might even get something useful back in return. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    i think given some of the contracts that have been handed out this winter, dempsters deal is not all that outrageous. arroyo just got 2 yrs at what 11.5 or 12 and is not exactly young. look at what colon got he is older than dempster. im not saying dempster will have high value, but he is certainly tradeable. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    greetings  BMav


    You are not alone in believing the "pool money" has some kind of huge EXTRA impact in the draft compensation. A lot of baseball writers have mentioned its importance too. I believe you are all mistaken in its importance however.

     

    The reality is that teams that draft late first round picks pay those players "slot" or near slot 95% of the time. Pay slot and then POOF, their goes that valuable pool money everybody loves to talk about. The pick is the money and the money is the pick. For some reason, very smart people don't seem to comprehend this basic fact.

     

    that was my initial line of thinking

    but the more I read the more I thought I was missing something

    thanks for the great info

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    GM BT

    Moving forward, MLB & the players association should probably look at negotiating a tiered draft pick compensation for players, based on a grading scale. 

    #1 round pick for players that grade out as impact players/All Star level...

    #2 round pick for players that grade out as solid proven big league starters (or teams with protected first round picks).

    not sure what U mean

    sounds a tad 2 much like the old system type A & type B players

    where older / vteks and BP guys were getting squeezed

     

    Of the players left on the board...

    Santana is probably the best of the group and well worth a late first round/supplemental draft pick, my guess is he'll get signed now that the market is established. I thought your Yanks would sign him...

    while I agree he is probably the best / safest of the group

    considering his fly balls history I was hoping 4 jiminez more

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Once these guys get signed, Ben's phone will be ringing off the hook.

    Dempster or Peavy will likely be dealt by opening day.

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't think there is any real market for Dempster, given his contract. Peavy could probably be dealt, but he would not bring back anyone of the caliber of Iglesias.  The best strategy might be to keep Peavy and basically give away Dempster , while trying to not eat too much of his contract.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree, we shouldn't expect anything in return for Dempster. The gain would come from increased roster budget flexibility and a player or two picked up after a trade is made.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    BMAV - 

    Good post.  People always talk about going under slot.  It seems like more often than not they go over slot and use the later rounds to go under slot.

    from rounds 5 on teams give out a lot of contracts less than 100,000 dollars to increase the amount of money the spend in the earlier rounds.  and/or they use that money to try and sign a guy they get further down in the draft.

    Some years we end up having enough to sign a guy like Ryan Boldt, this year obviously we did not.  Although I don't think anyone expected him to sign, I was however surprised we left close to a million on the table (Ibelieve it might have been more actually if you throw in the 5%) and didn't work anything out with either Sheffield or Zammareli.

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    i think given some of the contracts that have been handed out this winter, dempsters deal is not all that outrageous. arroyo just got 2 yrs at what 11.5 or 12 and is not exactly young. look at what colon got he is older than dempster. im not saying dempster will have high value, but he is certainly tradeable. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Arroyo is the same age as Dempster.

    WAR from 2011-2013:

    Dempster 6.9 $13.25M/1

    Arroyo      1.7  $23.5M/2

    (Wandy Rodrigues 3 year WAR 3.9 got $13M/1)

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:

    i think given some of the contracts that have been handed out this winter, dempsters deal is not all that outrageous. arroyo just got 2 yrs at what 11.5 or 12 and is not exactly young. look at what colon got he is older than dempster. im not saying dempster will have high value, but he is certainly tradeable. 

    Arroyo is the same age as Dempster.

    WAR from 2011-2013:

    Dempster 6.9 $13.25M/1

    Arroyo      1.7  $23.5M/2

    (Wandy Rodrigues 3 year WAR 3.9 got $13M/1)

     

    To be fair, Wandy Rodriguez signed that contract in January 2011 coming of four seasons of 3.5, 3.6, 2.6 and 2.6 WAR.

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2586&position=P

    If the Pittsburgh Pirates re-sign A.J. Burnett, Wandy Rodriguez becomes a trade candidate because the Astros are paying $5.5 million of his $13 million salary in the final year of the lefthander's contract. The 2014 option was a player option exercised by Rodriguez, not a team option.

    https://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league-central/pittsburgh-pirates/

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    To be fair, Wandy Rodriguez signed that contract in January 2011 coming of four seasons of 3.5, 3.6, 2.6 and 2.6 WAR.

    True, but it was a team option for $13M with a $2.5M buyout, so his cost could be viewed at about $10.5M.

    Cots says it was a club option.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    To be fair, Wandy Rodriguez signed that contract in January 2011 coming of four seasons of 3.5, 3.6, 2.6 and 2.6 WAR.

    True, but it was a team option for $13M with a $2.5M buyout, so his cost could be viewed at about $10.5M.

    Cots says it was a club option.


    Cot's entry for Wandy Rodriguez reads: "option becomes player option with trade" so the option coverted to a player option when Houston traded the lefthander to Pittsburgh.

    https://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league-central/pittsburgh-pirates/

    MLB Trade Rumors reported on November 1 that Rodriguez had exercised the player option:

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/wandy-rodriguez-exercises-player-option.html

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    To be fair, Wandy Rodriguez signed that contract in January 2011 coming of four seasons of 3.5, 3.6, 2.6 and 2.6 WAR.

    True, but it was a team option for $13M with a $2.5M buyout, so his cost could be viewed at about $10.5M.

    Cots says it was a club option.


    Cot's entry for Wandy Rodriguez reads: "option becomes player option with trade" so the option coverted to a player option when Houston traded the lefthander to Pittsburgh.

    https://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league-central/pittsburgh-pirates/

    MLB Trade Rumors reported on November 1 that Rodriguez had exercised the player option:

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/wandy-rodriguez-exercises-player-option.html

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks, hill. I stand corrected.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    The RS will deal NO pitcher until they have to. People are constantly talking of trading Peavey or Dempster???? Has not the past few years taught you anything about SP and the need for it during the season.

    The RS used 11 SP last year 7 of which started 44 games that is 25% of the games. Four others picked up the other 75%. There is a need for SP now and through out the season.

    I do believe this list of 11 is stronger with Dempster and Peavey than without.

    Lester, Bucholz, Lackey, Dempster, Peavey, Workman, Doubrant, Tazawa, Koji, Mujica, Breslowand Miller. With Britton, De La Rosa, Wright, Wilson, Webster, and others pitching in AAA getting a lot of innings and experience.

    Now I know many want the kids or something they believe will help the team. However what happens if one of Lester, Clay or Lackey go down? IMHO I'd rather Peavey or Dempster who have handled the pressure than a rookie who has not.

    If there comes a time that a team comes calling because they need that SP and are willing to give up some real decent minor leaguers then you make a move but not until then and especially not now.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The RS will deal NO pitcher until they have to. People are constantly talking of trading Peavey or Dempster???? Has not the past few years taught you anything about SP and the need for it during the season.

    The RS used 11 SP last year 7 of which started 44 games that is 25% of the games. Four others picked up the other 75%. There is a need for SP now and through out the season.

    I do believe this list of 11 is stronger with Dempster and Peavey than without.

    Lester, Bucholz, Lackey, Dempster, Peavey, Workman, Doubrant, Tazawa, Koji, Mujica, Breslowand Miller. With Britton, De La Rosa, Wright, Wilson, Webster, and others pitching in AAA getting a lot of innings and experience.

    Now I know many want the kids or something they believe will help the team. However what happens if one of Lester, Clay or Lackey go down? IMHO I'd rather Peavey or Dempster who have handled the pressure than a rookie who has not.

    If there comes a time that a team comes calling because they need that SP and are willing to give up some real decent minor leaguers then you make a move but not until then and especially not now.

    [/QUOTE]

    I understand the worry about pitching depth. I don't take the issue lightly. Our recent past is full of seasons with 9-13 pitchers used as starters.  That being said, I am still for trading Dempster, and here is why:

    1) The $8-11M saved gives us the budget flexibility to fill some holes that are likely to arise over the long season.

    2) Paying $13.25M for a 6th starter/long man is not good baseball budget management.

    3) We have a number of SP'er that I believe are as good as Dempster right now, and a few others that could be as good as the 2013 Dempster was.

    Besides the starting 5 of Lester, Buch, lackey, Peavy and Doubie,

    we have these guys:

    Workman, Britton, de la Rosa, Webster, Wright, Ely, Hinojosa and Ely

     

    We also have some fast rising prospects that could be ready this year:

    Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, Pena, Couch, Hernandez or Kehrt.

     

    That's 15 starters beyond our top 5!  That is still as deep or deeper than just about every team in MLB... in ML ready SP depth.

    It's hard to admit that at least 7 guys are all very close to the skill level of the 37 year old Dempster: Workman, Britton, de la Rosa, Webster, Ranaudo, Barnes and Owens. 

    If we have to go beyond these 12, then a case may be made that trading Dempster kept us from winning, but even then one of the others may rise to the occasion and do better than the 2014 Dempster anyways...like Wright or Hinojosa.

     

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    I agree Moon but with one caveat

    NOT until they are in the drivers seat on any deal. That is definetly not now but very well maybe on March 15th when some teams sit back and say we have to fix our SP.

    I also believe that some teams will want two of the pitchers we have one of Dempster/Peavey and a kid as well. Which should net a better prospect or two.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: is no one in need of starting pitchers

    I understand trusting experience over youth.  But think of it this way, If it is game 7 of the world series and we are down by 1 run.  The bases are loaded with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth and you have Xander Bogaerts facing Ryan Dempster.......who would you have more faith in at this point?

    I understand I'm comparing a hitter to a pitcher but the point is not all youth are created equal jus tlike not all veterans are.  Yes you can be a rookie, but you can also be rookie of the year. 

    Look at how much youth the Cardinals had in their pitching staff and it took them all the way to game 6 of the world series. 

    In the past we have not had this huge wave of depth in Triple A ready to come up, rather we've been more used to the 40 year old minor leaguers and the retreads looking for another shot.

    If Lester or Buccholz go down, I'd almost rather see what Webster/Barnes/Ranaudo can do than plug Dempster into the rotation although I'm sure Ryan will get first dibs at the spot. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share