I can't recall where I saw it or how well it was sourced, but I believe Hyzdu was let go when the Sox added relief picher prospect Edgar Martinez.

Just checked mlb.com and they have martinez and now Hyzdu so that's probably true.

Eric Van has been over at SoSH prominently mentioning Zink's splits after a change in his grip. Zink was just added to the AFL in what looks like a possible 40 man roster audition.

Zink would actually be a really good rule 5 pickup for some crappy team that could use an innings eater with an X% chance to be Wakefield.

Sox may think they have a little wiggle room with Pedroia theoretically pencilled into the 2B mix without having to be added to the 40 man roster until the end of spring training.

Just checked mlb.com and they have Martinez and not Hyzdu so that's probably true.

Live preview works better if you use it I guess.

I'm not sure Murphy or Moss would be at risk of being picked in rule 5. Pauley is the kind of player the current management group would pick in rule %, but how many other teams draft pitchers with bland stuff in rule 5?

Philly whats the advantage of adding Martinez now rather than prior to the december deadline?

He could have been a 6 yr FA. He was originally signed in 1998 with his first year in pro ball in 1999. This is pretty common with position to pitcher conversions. The player wastes 3-4 years trying to hit at all like a prospect. He then needs a couple years as a pitcher before you know if he really has much of an aptitude for it and all of a sudden he's a 6 yr FA with very little experience as a pitcher. Do you use a 40 man spot on him or risk losing him to FA or the rule 5 draft?

I saw some suggestions that they could have worked something out on the side that would have kept him in the organization, but now that I think about it that doesn't make much sense. I don't see what they could have offered to offset not being on the 40 man roster.

I guess they must have thought he would leave via minor league free agency and/or been picked in the rule 5 draft.

To me, it's a little bit of a strange decision. It'll be interesting to see if they do lose someone because of it.

Moss would not have that much appeal on a 25-man. He can't play CF, run or hit well enough righ now to be of any value on a MLB club. Similar players will be minor league FA. I don't feel he needs to be added. Most clubs will not even take a look at Zink. He is too much of an enigma to waste a roster spot for most clubs. I can't think of a club progressive enough and in full rebuilding mode. Murphy is questionable, but it looks like they will have room. His $1.5+ bonus gets him added and a good second half.

I'm assuming that Pedroia will take the other middle infield spot, which would allow for another roster spot to be used at least until he needs to be added. Can you place someone on the 15-day DL before the season starts? If so, that would result in not losing a player when we need to add him.

Also, does anyone know if Steven Andrade is Rule 5 eligible? He's been in the minors 5 years, isn't on Toronto's 40-man, and was claimed off waivers last winter. I know he's already 28 in Feb., but I can't find a better cheap/interesting flier on a bullpen arm. He was way too old, but he dominated the Eastern League this year. He would seem like a good fit for one of the extra two spots in Darren's scenario.

PLEASE bring back Mike Myers. The man is clearly useful.

I know he's "replacable" and all, but it's still annoying if we had to trade/sign/find another LOOGY through other means. We have one, let's stick with him.

Oh... forgot to ask. Which positions can Machado play, and does he play them well? Becuase if he's good defensively at multiple positions... I say we bring back Graff and trade Cora. Cora is a good player but we don't need that many defensive IF's. I'm sure Cora can bring back SOMETHING... like a C+ prospect or something

Is there a primer on the 40 man roster? If a player is dropped from the 40 man roster (is designated for assignment the term of art?) can another team get him? Does that team have to keep him on the 40 man roster?

Harville and Jeremi G have already refused assignment and are FAs, too.

Who else needs protection? I doubt Delgado will be selected (along with most other pitchers, he is being roughed up in the AFL), though maybe. I suppose Chris Turner might catch someone's eye, but it seems unlikely? I can't think of anyone else . . .

Bill Pecota he has to go through waivers unclaimed.

I wouldn't give Dustin the 2b job. I would bring in a vet, a Tony Graff type... hey why not Tony Graff, who would have value if not the starting 2b.

I don't want to put Dustin on the 40man before we are SURE he can handle the job, and I don't think anyone can be so certain.

Philly I think your right. Zink is a guy who might get rule 5'd, I'm still not sure if I would protect him or not.

I think Moss would certainly be taken if he wasn't on the 40 man.

Moss is a corner OF who had a sub 800 OPS in AA; is he really the kind of guy that gets taken in the rule 5?

Thanks for putting this together, MHS. I was looking for this exact thing just yesterday.

It seems like part of the solution for filling some roster gaps (CF, 1B, 4th OF) will have to come from trading a player or players already on the 40 man. One of the catchers (Shoppach or Mirabelli), Stern, one of the middle infielders (Cora, Machado) and Abe Alvarez seem like obvious choices.

Of course if Wells retires it changes things a bit. And the Manny trade...

Steve Andrade... whoah. Those k rates are sick. How has this guy never seen the majors? Was he pitching below his age level? Is he a Colter Bean type that the scouts just don't like?

Its funny Andrade's name keeps comming up. I was at a some type of pannel discusion last year, it might have been SABR in Cinn. I don't recall. But it was some kind of Stathead versus Scouts pannel. Anyway Andrade just got picked up by the Jays from the Angels and one of the Stathead mentioned to the scout that he really wished the team he worked for had a shot at picking up Andrade, but the Jays beat them to the punch. The scouts reaction was really funny. It was something like all "you stat guys are tha same, yeah his numbers are pretty but he only gets batters out by taking advantages of holes. Major league hitters don't have those kind of holes, and he doesn't have the stuff to challange them." Anyway the stat guy kind of shrugged it off, and I've been following Andrade since. Seen him pitch a few times and I certainly see where the scouts are comming from, but it would be nice to see him get challanaged.

Funny he can't get out of AA... I guess JP's scouts agree with the Angels scout.

btw: COlter Bean isn't good which is why scouts don't like him. His FB is staight and his breaking stuff is mediocre. The RedSox took him in the rule 5 2 years ago and had every chance to make the team, and couldnt get anyone out.

MHS,

You're thinking of the Baseball America Stats v. Scouts thingy, I think. Voros made some comment about "there's a certain player that you let go that we were very interested in." And the scout guy shot back somethinkg like "Yeah, yeah, Andrade. You all love Andrade..." It was pretty funny, I thought.

Could you elaborate on what you think of Bean? I know it's a stathead cliche, but if he's so lousy, how does he dominate AAA players year after year? Shouldn't they have figured him out, or is it the transient nature of the minors that allows him to trick a new crop of youngsters each year?

On the 40 man issue, I can't imagine anyone taking Murphy or Moss, but there's no one who I'd really rather protect. Same goes for Pauley. I am glad we protected Edgar, as I could see someone grabbing him and stashing him in the pen, hoping they had the 'next Santana.'

btw: COlter Bean isn't good which is why scouts don't like him. His FB is staight and his breaking stuff is mediocre. The RedSox took him in the rule 5 2 years ago and had every chance to make the team, and couldnt get anyone out.

Yeah, I remember that they picked him in the second round of the rule 5 (they took DiNardo in round one). I'm not so easily convinced based on a few bad innings in grapefruit league. Remember, that same year Cesar Crespo was playing like a young Nomar and he made the team.

So not only is Bean's fastball not fast, it's completely straight?

Yes straight as an arrow. Though in fairness he does command well.

The thing was, I really think the Sox wanted Bean to work out, stick it to the Yanks, Pen with tons of holes, closer by committee all that jazz (or am i mixing up my years). Even if he didn't have a good couple of appearences if he had shown good stuff he would have gotten a shot. He had NOTHING.

Darren - you might be right... why did I think it was some pannel. My god scotch does funny things to ones memory. I can almost picture hearing someone say it "Andrede ha ha ha ha".

Yes, that was the Stats vs Scouts debate that Andrade was part of.

I figured JP would give him a chance, but not letting him get out of even Double-A is a crime.

Anyway, I did some further digging -- Andrade was claimed by the Jays, then promptly waived again and went unclaimed (this surprises me). Does he have to be Rule Five eligible again (assuming the Jays don't add him to the 40-man) after clearing waivers last December (after last year's Rule 5), or is he forever exempt from the Rule Five since he had previously cleared waivers?

I don't think passing on a player or allowing him to pass through waivers makes a player exempt from rule 5.

As for getting out of AA, it's possible that Andrade will be eligible for the minor league portion of the rule 5 draft.

Wouldn't he also be eligible for the major league portion as well? Then, if passed on, eligible for the Triple-A part?

his numbers are pretty but he only gets batters out by taking advantages of holes.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that what pitchers are supposed to DO?

There was some Andrade discussion on an Angel's thread a little while back. I think he was due for a promotion at some point, but got hurt and missed the later part of the season. Still seems he should have started at AAA.

I like Pedroia, my guess is he hits .280 with 40 doubles, 10-15 homers, and more BB than K. He'll be better in real baseball than fantasy though, as he won't steal 5 bases.

I took a stopwatch to Bowie game this summer and clocked Dustin around 4.6 to first, looked like he was running hard.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that what pitchers are supposed to DO?

Yes. But that doesn't mean that the skill is transferable to the big leagues.

Let's say in rec-league basketball I can hit a lot of three-pointers. In the NBA the ball is the same, the basket is the same, the court is effectively the same. But I'd post up against people at least a foot taller than me, and with quicker reflexes than the people I'm used to playing. I wouldn't get any baskets. Zero.

If there were a much taller version of me, I might be able to score some points in the NBA. I might even do well there. But the rec-league 3-point stats would likely be the same.

In short, the stats don't tell the whole story. Even with good stats it's possible to see with your eyes alone that someone won't make it in the bigs.

Doesn't mean that this scout is right, or wrong, in this specific case.

Anyway the stat guy kind of shrugged it off, and I've been following Andrade since. Seen him pitch a few times and I certainly see where the scouts are comming from, but it would be nice to see him get challanaged.

Actually, I love examples like this because it's the scouts that are treating the player as a non-living pitching machine-like entity and not the statheads, the ones generally accused of this fault.

One of the best things to espouse upon minor leaguers is that excellent performance gets rewarded with additional opportunities.

When you start sending minor leaguers the message that certain players will never get a chance, no matter how they perform in actual games of baseball, you're weakening your player development system. You start to lose organizational players, many of whom act almost as player-coaches, to other organizations and you end up causing things like a top pitching prospect being more concerned about keeping the bite on his slider than in learning how to actually use pitches and get batters out.

Let's say in rec-league basketball I can hit a lot of three-pointers. In the NBA the ball is the same, the basket is the same, the court is effectively the same. But I'd post up against people at least a foot taller than me, and with quicker reflexes than the people I'm used to playing. I wouldn't get any baskets. Zero.

True, but there's a much larger difference between your rec-league and the NBA then AAA and MLB.

Does anybody else think Bradford deserves to be cut loose?

Also, I would NOT resign Myers, partly in order to make sure that DiNardo has a spot in that 'pen next year. Freshen things up out there with young power arms, a la LAAoA.

Timlin, I dunno. I guess you gotta re-sign him as an expression of gratitude for past service, but I'd be worried he has a high probability of being below average at his age and odometer reading.

And speaking of below average, I noticed from B-Ref (thanks, Sean!) that we had 5 prominents starters with ERA+ < 100: Wells (99), Arroyo (98), Clement (96), Miller (89), and Schill (77). Yikes. Plexiglass, please.

Dinardo is not a power arm, nor is he a LOOGY.

I don't see why you would cut loose Bradford unless he's hurt. He should be healthier next year, and he was still very effective against righties.

Dinardo is a Starting Pitcher. Using him in any other role would be a waste. ... IMHO.

I'd cut CB 'cause I don't like spending roster spots on ROOGYs or LOOGYs. And if you keep someone with such ridiculous platoon splits as Bradford around, you gotta have the antidote on hand, so there's two spots. I've gone on record elsewhere as saying I have a great fondness for submariners, but until CB figures out how to narrow that split, I'm voting with my head instead of my heart.

As to the proper characterization of DiNardo, I ain't gonna quibble, Rudy. He may not throw hard enough for you, but he's 26 and so likely to improve, and his major league record in 42.33 IP already shows a K/BB ratio > 2, and a K/9 ratio > 7.5. I want him in the 'pen instead of Myers, Delcarman instead of Bradford, and Papelbon instead of Timlin.

And if we believe Foulke is toast, all the money I save by having that Kiddie Kommittee (and maybe more) I shovel at B.J. Ryan.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

he's 26 and so likely to improve

25-26 seems to be around the spot where most pitchers peek, according to Jaffe. That doesn't mean he won't improve, but I take issue with the word "likely".

Just to be contrarian, let me ask these questions:

is BJ Ryan signficantly better than Billy Wagner?

is BJ Ryan likely to be a better buy than Billy Wagner?

'cause I like BJ a lot, but I suspect the better deal might be with Wags.

on the same topic -- OleP, I haven't been following the BJ saga in the Sun, but do you think his professed interest in pinstripes might just be the typical ploy to involve the MFY and thus drive up the price?

I'd cut CB 'cause I don't like spending roster spots on ROOGYs or LOOGYs. And if you keep someone with such ridiculous platoon splits as Bradford around, you gotta have the antidote on hand, so there's two spots.

If you don't need to pinch-hit often - and with the Boston lineup playing under AL rules, you don't - your roster can withstand this.

Really, the Sox bullpen can consist of 6-7 relievers. If we say 6, you get:

1 "closer"
2 "setup"
1 "long relief"
2 "situational"

With the first four, I think you need pitchers who (a) are great, and (b) don't have significant splits. They're facing an array of LHB and RHB, and they need to get several outs in the higher-leverage (or for the long reliever, higher-quantity) situations.

Whether the final two slots are better filled with two players whose OPS against L/R is 700/700, or with one who is 500/900 and another who is 900/500, I don't know. I could see arguments for either, but I'd tend to lean toward the latter, or maybe one of the former and one of the latter.

Let's face it... when we're getting down to the eleventh (or twelfth) pitcher, any usefulness is a good thing. And I think LOOGYs and ROOGYs can be useful <u>provided you already have an array of competent generalists in your pen</u>.

I actually like carrying situational relievers. Since Theo pretty much refuses to platoon, you don't need more than 13 position players. You may as wellget the platoon advantage somewhere, rather than no where.

Since when does Theo refuse to platoon? He's gone out of his way to find a caddy for Nixon each of the last two years.

I don't mind having one oogy on the roster, but I think you need to use him more than 37.3 IP that Myers got this year. That seems like a waste, particularly if there are two of them. If it comes down to a choice between a pure loogy like Myers, and some other lefty who's not as dominant against lefties but generally decent and durable, I'd take the latter.

Really, the Sox bullpen can consist of 6-7 relievers. If we say 6, you get:

1 "closer"
2 "setup"
1 "long relief"
2 "situational"

To elaborate a bit on my post above, those two situation guys are going to pitch very few innings. This year, Bradford threw 23.1 IP in half a season for Boston, while Myers threw 37.1 for the whole year. Those two slots, combined are going to throw less than 85 IP. That is really going to strain those other four guys.

Since when does Theo refuse to platoon?

Since Kapler went down.

After Kapler went down, it was not uncommon to see Millar in RF. Unfortunately, this meant another lefty at 1B. Theo also brought up Hyzdu, a perfect platoon-mate, who didn't get played by the manager.

Kevin - Agreed I should have said Tito, not Theo. In fact I don't have a clue why I said Theo... my bad entirely.

Since Theo pretty much refuses to platoon, you don't need more than 13 position players.

It's not so much that Tito refuses to platoon (and he does platoon for Nixon). It's that their regulars are (in theory) so good at getting on base that they don't need too many "situational hitters". The weaker your lineup, the more you want a good bat on the bench to enter the game in a high-leverage situation. Their lineup isn't weak, but their bullpen is.

If it comes down to a choice between a pure loogy like Myers, and some other lefty who's not as dominant against lefties but generally decent and durable, I'd take the latter.

And I'm saying if it comes down to that choice <u>for your 10th-12th pitcher</u>, finding someone who can manage a much higher workload doesn't really matter. It matters in April, when the starters aren't ready to carry a high workload; but the rest of the year it doesn't matter so much. A generalist in that spot in the rotation isn't getting the high-leverage innings; you have three pitchers doing that already. They're getting low-leverage, short-appearance innings - the 9th inning of a 10-2 game, for example.

With Myers they can have that, plus someone can also handle high-leverage situations against LHB at the level of a good closer. There's added value there.

And I'm saying if it comes down to that choice for your 10th-12th pitcher, finding someone who can manage a much higher workload doesn't really matter.

It does when you have injury prone starters, ones who are prone to go 3-4 innings occasionally, and ones that can only go 5-6 IP. I think that's the case with the Sox rotation.

Maybe I'm misreading you though. I think you are right that one of those guys being an oogy wouldn't kill you.

With Myers they can have that, plus someone can also handle high-leverage situations against LHB at the level of a good closer. There's added value there.

Myers, as deployed with the Red Sox, has performed as well as a mediocre middle reliever. Even against lefties the last two years, his numbers have been more setup man than closer (55.2 IP, 17 BB, 42 K, 3 HR).