So, let me understand this. Cherington trades away our major league ball players for a bunch of prospects that are going to be key integral parts of our future. In fact, he accumulates so many prospects that he is now endanger of losing them in the rule 5 draft. But no other GM in the league would be willing to trade for the players that Cherington traded for, but they are willing to select them in the rule 5 draft.
Maybe once the other team selects Cheringtons prospects, we could trade another one of our majoe league ball players to get them back?
Rule 5 Draft Will Present Difficult Choices for Pirates
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
Rule 5 Draft Will Present Difficult Choices for Pirates
3D262B2A232F204E0 wrote: So, let me understand this. Cherington trades away our major league ball players for a bunch of prospects that are going to be key integral parts of our future. In fact, he accumulates so many prospects that he is now endanger of losing them in the rule 5 draft. But no other GM in the league would be willing to trade for the players that Cherington traded for, but they are willing to select them in the rule 5 draft.
Maybe once the other team selects Cheringtons prospects, we could trade another one of our majoe league ball players to get them back?
When you said, "package 2 or 3 of those suspects" I thought you were referring to the players they would let go to add more prospects to the 40 man roster prior to the rule 5 draft. I guess we were supposed to know that by "suspects" you were referring to the prospects they hope will be part of the team's future.
NH followed your plan and TB is really enjoying Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. So if they trade prospects, they better make sure they get good enough players in return. There is also the timing issue. If they think they could legitimately contend in 2 years, then they better receive players in trades who will be around at that time, so contract status matters. SF traded "suspects" Reynolds and Crick for veteran Cutch who was a FA the next year. They probably wish they hadn't traded Reynolds. So trading prospects for a veteran is doable but you better get the right players in return and they better be around a few years.
Maybe once the other team selects Cheringtons prospects, we could trade another one of our majoe league ball players to get them back?
When you said, "package 2 or 3 of those suspects" I thought you were referring to the players they would let go to add more prospects to the 40 man roster prior to the rule 5 draft. I guess we were supposed to know that by "suspects" you were referring to the prospects they hope will be part of the team's future.
NH followed your plan and TB is really enjoying Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. So if they trade prospects, they better make sure they get good enough players in return. There is also the timing issue. If they think they could legitimately contend in 2 years, then they better receive players in trades who will be around at that time, so contract status matters. SF traded "suspects" Reynolds and Crick for veteran Cutch who was a FA the next year. They probably wish they hadn't traded Reynolds. So trading prospects for a veteran is doable but you better get the right players in return and they better be around a few years.
Rule 5 Draft Will Present Difficult Choices for Pirates
436E63727564733330010 wrote: So, let me understand this. Cherington trades away our major league ball players for a bunch of prospects that are going to be key integral parts of our future. In fact, he accumulates so many prospects that he is now endanger of losing them in the rule 5 draft. But no other GM in the league would be willing to trade for the players that Cherington traded for, but they are willing to select them in the rule 5 draft.
Maybe once the other team selects Cheringtons prospects, we could trade another one of our majoe league ball players to get them back?
When you said, "package 2 or 3 of those suspects" I thought you were referring to the players they would let go to add more prospects to the 40 man roster prior to the rule 5 draft. I guess we were supposed to know that by "suspects" you were referring to the prospects they hope will be part of the team's future.
NH followed your plan and TB is really enjoying Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. So if they trade prospects, they better make sure they get good enough players in return. There is also the timing issue. If they think they could legitimately contend in 2 years, then they better receive players in trades who will be around at that time, so contract status matters. SF traded "suspects" Reynolds and Crick for veteran Cutch who was a FA the next year. They probably wish they hadn't traded Reynolds. So trading prospects for a veteran is doable but you better get the right players in return and they better be around a few years.
______
No matter who you get in return or how long they are around, it is better than losing them in the rule 5 draft.
Maybe once the other team selects Cheringtons prospects, we could trade another one of our majoe league ball players to get them back?
When you said, "package 2 or 3 of those suspects" I thought you were referring to the players they would let go to add more prospects to the 40 man roster prior to the rule 5 draft. I guess we were supposed to know that by "suspects" you were referring to the prospects they hope will be part of the team's future.
NH followed your plan and TB is really enjoying Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. So if they trade prospects, they better make sure they get good enough players in return. There is also the timing issue. If they think they could legitimately contend in 2 years, then they better receive players in trades who will be around at that time, so contract status matters. SF traded "suspects" Reynolds and Crick for veteran Cutch who was a FA the next year. They probably wish they hadn't traded Reynolds. So trading prospects for a veteran is doable but you better get the right players in return and they better be around a few years.
______
No matter who you get in return or how long they are around, it is better than losing them in the rule 5 draft.
Rule 5 Draft Will Present Difficult Choices for Pirates
3C272A2B222E214F0 wrote: So, let me understand this. Cherington trades away our major league ball players for a bunch of prospects that are going to be key integral parts of our future. In fact, he accumulates so many prospects that he is now endanger of losing them in the rule 5 draft. But no other GM in the league would be willing to trade for the players that Cherington traded for, but they are willing to select them in the rule 5 draft.
Maybe once the other team selects Cheringtons prospects, we could trade another one of our majoe league ball players to get them back?
When you said, "package 2 or 3 of those suspects" I thought you were referring to the players they would let go to add more prospects to the 40 man roster prior to the rule 5 draft. I guess we were supposed to know that by "suspects" you were referring to the prospects they hope will be part of the team's future.
NH followed your plan and TB is really enjoying Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. So if they trade prospects, they better make sure they get good enough players in return. There is also the timing issue. If they think they could legitimately contend in 2 years, then they better receive players in trades who will be around at that time, so contract status matters. SF traded "suspects" Reynolds and Crick for veteran Cutch who was a FA the next year. They probably wish they hadn't traded Reynolds. So trading prospects for a veteran is doable but you better get the right players in return and they better be around a few years.
______
No matter who you get in return or how long they are around, it is better than losing them in the rule 5 draft.
I think it is okay to risk losing someone who is borderline in Rule 5 draft. Most are returned. I don't think the Indians are worried about Tom and doubt if Soriano and Oviedo's clubs are worried about them being gone either.
Maybe once the other team selects Cheringtons prospects, we could trade another one of our majoe league ball players to get them back?
When you said, "package 2 or 3 of those suspects" I thought you were referring to the players they would let go to add more prospects to the 40 man roster prior to the rule 5 draft. I guess we were supposed to know that by "suspects" you were referring to the prospects they hope will be part of the team's future.
NH followed your plan and TB is really enjoying Meadows, Glasnow and Baz. So if they trade prospects, they better make sure they get good enough players in return. There is also the timing issue. If they think they could legitimately contend in 2 years, then they better receive players in trades who will be around at that time, so contract status matters. SF traded "suspects" Reynolds and Crick for veteran Cutch who was a FA the next year. They probably wish they hadn't traded Reynolds. So trading prospects for a veteran is doable but you better get the right players in return and they better be around a few years.
______
No matter who you get in return or how long they are around, it is better than losing them in the rule 5 draft.
I think it is okay to risk losing someone who is borderline in Rule 5 draft. Most are returned. I don't think the Indians are worried about Tom and doubt if Soriano and Oviedo's clubs are worried about them being gone either.
Rule 5 Draft Will Present Difficult Choices for Pirates
And down the thread hijacking rabbit hole we go.
So much for a good group conversation.
I believe I'll just refrain from posting from here on out - no sense trying to get involved in a conversation.
So much for a good group conversation.
I believe I'll just refrain from posting from here on out - no sense trying to get involved in a conversation.
Rule 5 Draft Will Present Difficult Choices for Pirates
436562777E7265737B100 wrote: I was starting to make my own 40 man list, but the question I have (I'm sure the answer is out there in 5-10 minutes of researching, but hey, why not just ask?) is who will actually be eligible to be in the Rule 5 draft?
Some of the names I saw that should be protected, I don't think have to be yet.
Some names that could go, and wouldn't be missed because an exact replication of performance is waiting on a DFA list coming to a city near you:
Brubaker
Cahill
Crowe
De Jong
E. De Los Santos
Howard
M. Keller
K. Keller
Kranick
Mears
Miller
Oviedo
Ponce
Soriano
Underwood
T. Davis
Perez
Newman
Park
Tucker
Evans
Oliva
I know I just chopped off more than half of the 40 man, and 3 guys I'd love them to keep, Tsutsugo/Shreve/Difo, could end up singing elsewhere. I would keep Moran, Kuhl, and Brault.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if the 40 man heading to ST is 15-25 different names than today.
Surgn, players better than these guys do not, in several cases, realistically exist, especially at the controllable costs they present. Brubaker, Crowe and Mitch Keller are all young, have had some good MLB starts, and should improve. At the very least, they should be useful in a MLB bullpen (where all failed starters go). We kept Oviedo on the roster all year. Now that we've completed the Rule 5 requirement, we should stick him in the AA or AAA rotation and let him develop.
Newman will be a finalist this season for the Gold Glove at SS. Tucker's speed and versatile defense make him useful on the bench, and I'd give him one more chance to hit MLB pitching.
Our lists are otherwise very similar. Can't give you much of an argument about which mediocre relief pitcher to keep and which to cut. But I think that remaining options should weigh into the decision. I firmly believe that our team needs to keep a 5-man bench, which means that we need to move to a 13-man staff.
We need to have 3-4 pitchers who can move back and forth from AAA to the roster. This has always been my beef with optionless Underwood.
I had a handle on the options before we made so many acquisitions. I don't know the situation on several of the new guys. But I can tell you that, per Pittsburgh Baseball Network, anyone I mentioned in that section is, in fact, Rule 5 eligible. it's also true that there are many more that I did not mention.
Thanks for the feedback!
Some of the names I saw that should be protected, I don't think have to be yet.
Some names that could go, and wouldn't be missed because an exact replication of performance is waiting on a DFA list coming to a city near you:
Brubaker
Cahill
Crowe
De Jong
E. De Los Santos
Howard
M. Keller
K. Keller
Kranick
Mears
Miller
Oviedo
Ponce
Soriano
Underwood
T. Davis
Perez
Newman
Park
Tucker
Evans
Oliva
I know I just chopped off more than half of the 40 man, and 3 guys I'd love them to keep, Tsutsugo/Shreve/Difo, could end up singing elsewhere. I would keep Moran, Kuhl, and Brault.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if the 40 man heading to ST is 15-25 different names than today.
Surgn, players better than these guys do not, in several cases, realistically exist, especially at the controllable costs they present. Brubaker, Crowe and Mitch Keller are all young, have had some good MLB starts, and should improve. At the very least, they should be useful in a MLB bullpen (where all failed starters go). We kept Oviedo on the roster all year. Now that we've completed the Rule 5 requirement, we should stick him in the AA or AAA rotation and let him develop.
Newman will be a finalist this season for the Gold Glove at SS. Tucker's speed and versatile defense make him useful on the bench, and I'd give him one more chance to hit MLB pitching.
Our lists are otherwise very similar. Can't give you much of an argument about which mediocre relief pitcher to keep and which to cut. But I think that remaining options should weigh into the decision. I firmly believe that our team needs to keep a 5-man bench, which means that we need to move to a 13-man staff.
We need to have 3-4 pitchers who can move back and forth from AAA to the roster. This has always been my beef with optionless Underwood.
I had a handle on the options before we made so many acquisitions. I don't know the situation on several of the new guys. But I can tell you that, per Pittsburgh Baseball Network, anyone I mentioned in that section is, in fact, Rule 5 eligible. it's also true that there are many more that I did not mention.
Thanks for the feedback!
Rule 5 Draft Will Present Difficult Choices for Pirates
35140108300912011405600 wrote: Peters over Howard or Banda.
Overton over Underwood.
I think we need to find a way to keep Diego Castillo, we'll lose him, he's close to ready. Not sure we should keep both Park and Tucker, so Park goes to keep Castillo.
Sign Gamel and Tsutsugo. DH is coming and Tsutsugo sure fits there.
I've changed my mind more than once about which fringe lefty to keep and which to let go, so no argument here about Peters.
Overton over Underwood.
I think we need to find a way to keep Diego Castillo, we'll lose him, he's close to ready. Not sure we should keep both Park and Tucker, so Park goes to keep Castillo.
Sign Gamel and Tsutsugo. DH is coming and Tsutsugo sure fits there.
I've changed my mind more than once about which fringe lefty to keep and which to let go, so no argument here about Peters.
Rule 5 Draft Will Present Difficult Choices for Pirates
75545C755E56310 wrote: Great thread starter SyrBucco. OBN can usually count on you to start something great.
I do agree with Bobster though with letting Kuhl & Brault go. It is a shame that they have not worked out as expected. The only suggestion I have is about Bobster's recommendation of trading Moran for whatever we can get. Do you think that we can get someone to replace Robby Inkmadipshit as the on-field reporter and soft question asker right after the game? I am serious!
Thanks for the kind words, Possum. Especially with the DH on the horizon, this is no time to get rid of Moran. You just don't throw away one of your better hitters until you an improvement in hand!
I do agree with Bobster though with letting Kuhl & Brault go. It is a shame that they have not worked out as expected. The only suggestion I have is about Bobster's recommendation of trading Moran for whatever we can get. Do you think that we can get someone to replace Robby Inkmadipshit as the on-field reporter and soft question asker right after the game? I am serious!
Thanks for the kind words, Possum. Especially with the DH on the horizon, this is no time to get rid of Moran. You just don't throw away one of your better hitters until you an improvement in hand!
Rule 5 Draft Will Present Difficult Choices for Pirates
52796E61180 wrote: Good post to start the conversation.
I've always liked Gamel. Would like to see him stay.
I'd move Moran regardless whether Yoshi resigns, and throw a few bucks on a 2 year deal to someone like CJ Cron to hold down 1st until Martin is ready. I'd let Tucker go.
Howard, Underwood, Kranick, Brault, Mears, and Kuhl could all move on and I don't think they would be missed, but I would hang on to Peters and Shreve. Peters could alway go to the pen and give you a lefty to help balance the relief staff.
Javy, Kranick and Mears are young, should improve, and have remaining options. I'll admit that I just plain like Steve Brault, and he has his moments. I've read several posts referring to Kuhl having a bad attitude. I haven't seen it, and I wonder where it comes from. I still think he he may be a good reliever. He's probably a failed starter.
I'd like to hang on to Shreve (and Gamel and Tsutsugo) but he's a FA so we probably can't control that. I wouldn't overpay for a relief pitcher when we have more glaring needs elsewhere.
I've always liked Gamel. Would like to see him stay.
I'd move Moran regardless whether Yoshi resigns, and throw a few bucks on a 2 year deal to someone like CJ Cron to hold down 1st until Martin is ready. I'd let Tucker go.
Howard, Underwood, Kranick, Brault, Mears, and Kuhl could all move on and I don't think they would be missed, but I would hang on to Peters and Shreve. Peters could alway go to the pen and give you a lefty to help balance the relief staff.
Javy, Kranick and Mears are young, should improve, and have remaining options. I'll admit that I just plain like Steve Brault, and he has his moments. I've read several posts referring to Kuhl having a bad attitude. I haven't seen it, and I wonder where it comes from. I still think he he may be a good reliever. He's probably a failed starter.
I'd like to hang on to Shreve (and Gamel and Tsutsugo) but he's a FA so we probably can't control that. I wouldn't overpay for a relief pitcher when we have more glaring needs elsewhere.
-
Bobster21
Rule 5 Draft Will Present Difficult Choices for Pirates
If the NL adopts the DH (gasp!) I would keep Moran even if they can sign Tsutsugo. I heard a podcast discussing Yoshi and they speculated he may benefit from signing a modest 1 year deal to show (hopefully) that his Pirates stats are not a fluke (considering his awful stats with TB and LA) before anyone offers big money. That sounds reasonable.