Post-Gazette beat writers Dejan Kovacevic and Chuck Finder blog about the Pittsburgh Baseball Club.
Register to comment Guide to commenting
First....
Biz noted yesterday all the potential issues the bucs may have with the 40 man this year, what with Gorkys et al having to be protected.
Who do you think will be left off 40 man, that needs to be protected for Rule V, or contrary, who will the Pirates lose ( trade, or outright or lost in draft?)
Thanks
Doc-I don't see it as that much of a problem..So, Dumatrait ,Bix,Sues,and maybe Pearce and/or Moss.
Doc--I'm not ready to participate fully, but one question I have is if they will protect Pearce. I think they would Probably lose him if they don't protect him, but I haven't concluded yet that would be a bad thing.
Pearce i hear is a wonderful human being. People genuinely and deservedly like him. Seriously. Glad to hear it. it should serve him well in his next profession.
In order for us to possibly draft a player.....we need to have an open spot.So we need to be at 38 or 39 on our roster.If you think the regime is not drooling then you are cccrazy.Pitchers with a downward plane are fair game.
Arriba - Forgive me if someone else already asked and I missed ... Who is the girl in your avatar?
Cruz and Bixler should be left off the roster. If any of the other 29 clubs want to make space then...fantastic. There will be, if not already, more qualified players available via the Rule 5 or through minor league free agency to add to the Pirates roster unless a multiplayer trade happens. Both immortalize the typical baseball card you got in every pack as a filler....back in the day.
That's Jodie Sweetin all growed up. She played Stephanie on Full House, and had the signature phrase I quoted yesterday--"How Rude!"
I asked FC if they were done with the Bixler and Pearce experiment. He said no. I would be shocked if these two were removed from the 40 man.
Irate--when FC answered your question that way, did anyone throw any pizza at him?
I wouldn't worry about keeping Claggett, Jackson, Sues, Bixler, A. Diaz, Cruz. Pearce and Walker could go as well.
Right now they have 36 guys on their 40-man roster. They have two guys on the 60-Day DL who need to be moved over, so that makes 38. They'll definitely protect Gorkys Hernandez and Brad Lincoln. That means tough decisions on Bryan Morris (the supposed centerpiece of the Jason Bay deal), Shelby Ford (who took a big step backward last year and was ultimately demoted) and some other less noteworthy guys. My guess is they'll protect Morris. Odds are no one would take him, but the FO can't risk losing him based on how poorly the Jason Bay trade has looked to this point. That means someone else will need to come off the 40-man roster. Guys in danger of being dropped, I'd guess, would be Anthony Claggett, Brian Bixler, light-hitting Luis Cruz or, dare I say, Steven Pearce.
No pizza was thrown, but that was the point that I started to have doubts about this FO. If everyone else except these guys can see we are wasting time with these 2, why can't they see it.
FC seemed amazed that Bixler still couldn't hit at the end of the season. He said he went to the minors and did not complain and he had the right mindset going down.
Mindset does not translate into production if the tools are not there. Bixler and Pearce are triple A players. Maybe they are Quad A players like JVB.
Irate--believe me, I hear you. I understand the emphasis on being "team players" and not bucking the FO, but if that is MORE important to the exclusion of producing on the field, that is definitely a big problem in their approach.
The Bucs will definitely protect Morris. No doubt about it. His stock has dropped a lot but there is still a chance he becomes a good 3rd or 4th starter which is worth quite a bit.
I don't believe Shelby Ford is worth very much at this point. I probably wouldn't protect him.
Deacon--whoa, buddy, slow down, they don't have to knock everybody off the 40 man. ;-) I agree that there is no way Morris isn't protected.
There is no need to protect Shelby Ford. He is not on the 40 man roster.
....Brian Morris is not in limbo eitherl
Atari--you mean Morris doesn't have enough time to have to be protected?
Atari, I think you're confused. We know Ford is not on the 40-man roster, we were simply saying that if he is not added to the 40-man, he will be eligible for the Rule 5 draft. The same is true of Bryan Morris. He was drafted out of College in '06.
The following lists are courtesy of Tim, at buccofans.com.
The following players have been eligible for past Rule 5 drafts, and are eligible for the 2009 Rule 5 draft.
Jason Davis
Corey Hamman
Jorge Julio
Bobby Livingston
Jean Machi
Juan Mateo
Jeremy Powell
Ty Taubenheim
Erik Kratz
Hector Gimenez
Pedro Lopez
Chris Barnwell
Tagg Bozied
Larry Broadway
Brian Myrow
Jeff Salazar
Dustin Molleken
Kyle Bloom
Derek Hankins
Lincoln Holdzkom
Scott Nestor
Moises Robles
Miguel Perez
Milver Reyes
Ray Chang
Angel R. Gonzalez
Eddie Prasch
Jeff Corsaletti
Jason Delaney
Jonel Pacheco
Jamie Romak
Ciro Rosero
Rafael De Los Santos
Adenson Chourio
Greg Picart
Brett Willemburg
Justin Byler
Bradley Clapp
The following players will be eligible for the first time for the 2009 Rule 5 draft. Any player left off the Pirates' 40-man roster after November 20th, 2009 are at risk of being selected by another team:
Brad Lincoln
Michael Crotta
Michael Dubee
Tyler Herron
Jared Hughes
Miles Durham
Shelby Ford
Jim Negrych
Gorkys Hernandez
R.J. Rodriguez
Ramon Aguero
Matt McSwain
Bryan Morris
Kris Watts
Jose De Los Santos
Kent Sakamoto
Jared Keel
Alex Presley
Casey Erickson
Melkin Laureano
Wilson Ortiz
Michael Felix
Ricardo Paulino
Deybis Benitez
Carlos Silva
Gerardo Esparza
Andres Santos
Henry Henry
Arriba Wilver wrote re: Morning baseball talk, 11-7-09
on Sat, Nov 7 2009 2:31 AM
Yes. He would be on the 40 man roster if his time was due. I believe that the Pirate organization has a few years more control over a 21-year old.
Folks, you are right....I learned a valuable lesson today.
While the Phillies are exercising their $9 million option on Lee, and Manny is exercising his $20 million option on himself, the Pirates are exercising their option on an infield coach who will not be in uniform. Is exercising an option on a coach rather than on your best players a little known double secret strategy that Moneyball teams utilize to deceive the real teams into having a false sense of security?
And speaking of Perry Hill, again on the Madden/DK interview--I missed the first part, but I did hear DK saying that Hill genuinely believed that the Pirates had assured him that there would be no wholesale getting rid of players and that he was motivated by wanting to work with players that had a chance at winning gold gloves and that was the reason Hill didn't want to stay. It seems to me that FC's surgical rebuttal at the time that Hill had not been promised that any "particular player" would not be traded, coupled with the admission that dealing McLouth was not planned at the beginning of the season and if you believe that the offers to JW and Freddy were legit, that all would tend to support that he was given that assurance. And I am not saying it was a lie, in fact I think they did honestly give him that assurance. If that is in fact true, then I think if the FO had any class they would not have exercised his option and would have allowed him to coach for another team in 2010. (I'm ducking already) Srsly, if he worked for another team next year, would that prevent the Bucs from winning the WS or reaching .500 next year? (Not exercising the option would also have spared CF and us the neverending clarifications.)
Watching Spurs and Trailblazers replay at 2:20 a.m. and have finally come to the conclusion, after all these years, that I would rather watch the Colgate-Lehigh football game than pro basketball.
When we talk about this who should or should not be protected the kicker to the conversation is who is worth the chance to someone to take and keep on the major league roster for the complete year?
Sometimes take a peek at a guy thinking if he looks like a keeper then maybe we keep him past ST.
There lies the hard decision, giving up a major league spot on a hunch.
Think about it this way : Pearce and Bixler for example were not able to be on our big league roster for a full year and we had a very bad record. List some teams that have a weak enough roster to want to give a spot to either of those two remembering that pearce only was here as long as he was because they wanted to give him the full shot.
You put Gorky and that pitcher on the roster and who else do we have that is in line that other teams will hold a spot on their roster for?
Arriba, I think that not exercising Hill's option would have been the honorable move.
Hoever, others believe that Huntingon not exercising Hill's option would not have been the best business move.
And I can certainly see their side of it.
Sometimes, the best business move is not the most honorable one. Sometimes, ruthlessness is the best course of action.
It's always preferable to combine honor with sound business. But it don't always work out that way.
Sometimes I just scratch my head with the way some of us keep going back to old conversations, my thought being what POH said yesterday : paraphrasing, just give it up and move on.
It was posted here with date that the FO said no one was untouchable well before the FO could have secretley said to Perry gone over the Hill ,ssh, except the guys you want to add to your gold glove showcase.
Just silly.
HEAR YE HEAR YE
Next gathering Special Guest
Lou DePaoli
Executive Vice president and Director of Media Marketing
Date: December 5th.
Complete information to follow
Henry Henry.
Gotta love it.
How about an all-time unfortunate name team?
The Steelers used to have a player named Dick Shiner.
Irate, I think you are mixing a little apples and oranges, you asked like you said and Fc replied they have not given up on them.
He did not say the experiment was not over. I took it to mean we will see what we see.
I saw no answer that there were plans to give the two of them the same chance for as long as they were given the chance this year to make a point.
""When we talk about this who should or should not be protected the kicker to the conversation is who is worth the chance to someone to take and keep on the major league roster for the complete year?
There lies the hard decision, giving up a major league spot on a hunch.""
Well, Joe, a guy that might be intriguing to other team's GMs, as a Rule 5 pick-up, is Jim Negrych.
He's a guy who could maybe benefit from a year on an MLB bench.
--That would give him the extra time he needs to completely heal from his hematoma.
--It would give him a full year of side work, with an MLB infield coach. Plus a very good seat to observe just what improvements he needs to make, to become a competent MLB fielder.
--Remember, this is a guy who hit .370, with a .448 OBP, in Lynchburg, in 2008. And who had a .366 OBP in Altoona, this last season, before he got hurt. So, he could probably hold his own in 2010 as an occasional MLB pinch-hitter, in the right spots.
--And, at the end of the 2010 season, Negrych will be a 25 year old, who, after some seasoning in AAA for the first part of the 2011 season, could wind up helping a team for real, rater that year.
Now, Huntington has bigger fish to get protected on the 40 man roster, than Negrych. So, he'll probably go unprotected.
And if I were an MLB GM, I'd be giving Negrych some serious consideration, as a Rule 5 pick.
Joe, I hope that last post passes your muster as "new conversation". :-)))
Moose, that is the kind of guy I was thinking about, I do not keep up directly with the lower rosters but your point is the kind of thought I was wondering about.
you are right he might just be one that others might take a shot on. I jsut do not think Bixler or even pearce have shown enough with the amount of time on the roster to be overly worried about, what do you think about those two.
Hey I do not get into that old conversation stuff too much just get a bit tired of the FO money ranting and going back to conversations that have been disproved much like a kid playing hide and seek. The baby actually thinks you have disappeared when you cover your face.
point being since it has been a day that we are to forget the documneted history and start some perry gone over the hill because of a trade crybaby story
Morning Links
Pittsburgh Pirates trim fat on 40-man roster, reassign three more players
www.examiner.com/x-6781-Pittsburgh-Pirates-Examiner~y2009m11d6-Pittsburgh-Pirates-trim-fat-on-40man-roster-reassign-three-more-players
Lackey, Holliday, Bay highlight first day of free agent filings
www.modbee.com/.../922190.html
THE OFFICIALLY UNOFFICIAL PBC BLOGS AND MLB LINKS:
Bucs Dugout-Virgil Vasquez, Eric Hacker, Steve Lerud Booted From 40-man
www.bucsdugout.com/.../virgil-vasquez-eric-hacker-steve
WhyGavs-Hermida musings and minor league miscellanea
whygavs.com/.../hermida-musings-and-minor-league-miscellania.html
Sandlot Swashbucklers-AFL: Veal Wins His Third For Scorpions
mvn.com/.../afl-veal-wins-his-third-for-scorpions.html
Sandlot Swashbucklers--Three More Off Pirates’ 40-Man
mvn.com/.../four-more-off-pirates-40-man.html
Sandlot Swashbucklers--Noris, Cruz, Walker, and Bixler All Hitting
mvn.com/.../noris-cruz-walker-and-bixler-all-hitting.html
Pittsburgh Lumber Company--Quick update using tRA*
mvn.com/.../quick-update-using-tra.html
Raise the Jolly Roger-News and Notes
raisethejollyroger.com/.../news-and-notes-2
Hyzdu Headquarters-40 Man Shuffling
hyzduhq.blogspot.com/.../40-man-shuffling.html
The Green Weenie--It's Time for the Curly Shuffle
oldbucs.blogspot.com/.../its-time-for-curly-shuffle.html
MLB Transactions
www.cbssports.com/.../transactions
Bucco Fans Wiki--Links to all type of roster info
buccofans.wikispaces.com
FanHuddle--Pirates 2009 Season Review: Lastings Milledge
fanhuddle.com/.../pirates-2009-season-review-lastings-milledge
Pirate Winter League Stats
mlb.mlb.com/.../org.jsp
VOTE--This Year in Baseball Awards
mlb.mlb.com/.../index.jsp
Maybe it is time for one of the stat types to please post how one in the minors becomes eligible to picked in the rule five draft, i.e. how many years of service, etc., etc.
Joe - here's the short answer. I'll post a more detailed description in a minute
---
Selection eligibility
Players are eligible for selection in the Rule 5 draft who are not on their major league organization's forty man roster and:
- were signed at age 19 or older and have been in the organization for four years; or
- were signed at age 18 or younger and have been in the organization for five years.
and here's the get-a-like overkill somebody-make-drew-stop answer:
As in the amateur draft, the selection order of the teams is based on each team's win-loss record from the prior regular season, each round starting with the team with the worst record and proceeding in order to the team with the best record. Any player selected under Rule 5 is immediately added to his new team's 40-man roster; thus, teams who do not have an available roster spot may not participate in the Rule 5 draft. Players who are not currently on their team's 40-man roster are eligible to be selected in the Rule 5 draft, but only after a standard exemption period has elapsed. See Selection eligibility below.
If chosen in the Rule 5 draft, a player must be kept on the selecting team's 25-man major league roster for the entire season after the draft—he may not be optioned or designated to the minors. The selecting team may, at any time, waive the Rule 5 draftee. If a Rule 5 draftee clears waivers by not signing with a new MLB team, he must be offered back to the original team, effectively canceling the Rule 5 draft choice. Once a Rule 5 draftee spends an entire season on his new team's 25-man roster, his status reverts to normal and he may be optioned or designated for assignment.
To prevent the abuse of the Rule 5 draft, the rule also states that the draftee must be active for at least 90 days. This keeps teams from drafting players, then placing them on the disabled list for the majority of the season. For example, if a Rule 5 draftee was only active for 67 days in his first season with his new club, he must be active for an additional 23 games in his second season to satisfy the Rule 5 requirements.
Any player chosen in the Rule 5 draft may be traded to any team while under the Rule 5 restrictions, but the restrictions transfer to the new team. If the new team does not want to keep the player on its 25-man roster for the season, he must be offered back to the team of which he was a member when chosen in the draft.
The exemption periods were extended by one year in October 2006 as part of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. The change took effect immediately, exempting many players from the 2006 Rule 5 draft even though they had been signed in some cases more than four years before the new agreement came into effect. Prior to the rule change, players were exempt from the first two or three Rule 5 drafts held after their signing (regardless of the year they were drafted), rather than from the first three or four Rule 5 drafts after their signing.
Cost and example
To prevent excessive turnover in the minor league levels, each draftee costs $50,000. If the draftee does not stay on the selecting team's 25-man (major league) roster all season, the player must be offered back to his original team at half-price. Organizations may also draft players from AA or lower to play for their AAA affiliates (for $12,000) and may draft players from A teams or lower to play for their AA affiliates (for $4,000).
The Rule 5 draft has opened opportunities for teams to take other teams' top prospects who may not be ready for the major leagues. A prominent recent example is Johan Santana, who was chosen in the 1999 Rule 5 draft by the Florida Marlins when the Houston Astros declined to put him on their 40-man roster. After the Marlins traded Santana to the Minnesota Twins for minor leaguer Jared Camp, the Twins kept him on their roster for the 2000 season, despite the pitcher's subpar performance that season (6.49 earned run average) which was unsurprising given his youth and inexperience.
Having kept Santana in the major leagues for all of the 2000 season, the Twins subsequently had the right to option him to their minor league system. By 2002, the more fully developed Santana had returned to the major leagues and established himself as an above-average pitcher. Since 2004, Santana has won two Cy Young awards. Had he not been chosen in the Rule 5 draft, Santana likely would not have made his major league debut until the 2001 or the 2002 season with the Astros.
Notable Rule 5 draftees:
Hall of Famers:
Roberto Clemente
All Stars:
George Bell
Paul Blair
Bobby Bonilla
Jody Davis
Darrell Evans
Kelly Gruber
Josh Hamilton
Willie Hernández
Dave Hollins
John Hudek Selected in minor league portion.
Dave May
Mike Morgan
Jeff Nelson
Scott Podsednik Selected in minor league portion.
Bip Roberts
Johan Santana
Joakim Soria
Manny Trillo Selected in minor league portion.
Derrick Turnbow
Dan Uggla
Shane Victorino (twice)
Drew, put the coffee down and slowly step away from your keyboard.
Or put the Mrs.' avatar back up. your choice.
From Doc:
"Who do you think will be left off 40 man, that needs to be protected for Rule V, or contrary, who will the Pirates lose ( trade, or outright or lost in draft?)"
This team lost 99 games. What possible difference can it make? ! ! !
Demercrat - your wish is my command.
wait for it.
@WhiTNeY - "This team lost 99 games. What possible difference can it make? ! ! !"
With less (but some) attitude, Dejan posted an answer to a Q re how hard it would be to choose be to remove "talent" from our 40-man, and his response was something like, "have you seen our 40-man roster?"
Looking at the 40-man, hooo boy.
Said another way, there are PLENTY that the pirates MAYBE havent given up on and would LIKE to keep but wouldnt lose any sleep over if they did. So...if they needed the room, they could move Pearce, Bix and about 4-5 others, lose one and say oh well, or not lose them and put them back at AAA no harm no foul no future.
i suspect they WONT move 4-5 off because, really, what's the point? They already have 2 openings and their not suddenly gonna trade for or pick 17 new players...but can they do that?? (waiddaminit...was THAT attitude??)
So Frank could have said Not Giving Up On drew At SS but still move that loser off the 40 and see what happens.
Thank you Drew.
Irate
>>I asked FC if they were done with the Bixler and Pearce experiment. He said no. I would be shocked if these two were removed from the 40 man.<<<
I wouldn't put too much stock in FC's response to your question about Bix and Pearce.
He is not going to divulge his intentions on those two in a public forum.
I do agree that, if they are not traded, they will remain on the 40 man.
Look at it this way, if those two were left unprotected by another organization, wouldn't they be just the type of low risk, high reward players, that Opie has been bringing in via Free Agency and the Rule 5.
Drew
It looks as if you will be our eyes and ears for the new Bradenton "Older" Bucs this year.
Morning mates, good tidings
Drew, we have to choose someone in Rule 5, we have the second pick, heck, its tradition now....
The roster is at 36, we got two to come off the 60 day DL, gotta add 3, then another spot for the Rule 5 pick
I dunno, just thought it would be something "new" to talk about, since people get upset if there is talk about old stuff
But mind you, I'm still ticked about the Ramirez trade and will be so till the day I die ; }
Demster...wha wha what happened???
Cave...i don't know about eyes and ears but you-know-who might suggest other body parts to describe me. (hint re: who: she lives in my house, axe murderer, witchlike powers)
Biz, nothing will ever tick me off like Littlefield's last draft choice. nothing.
don't mind the new discussion at all. not sure who they might pick or IF they'll pick, but they currently have room. Even with the disabled guys, 2 spots available. And as noted with sarcasm above, plenty of additional guys who could come off the 40 and not have a detrimental effect.
ps...to those who look at 40 man and wonder Where's The Beef, see post above re eligibility rules. anyone PBC traded or drafted for either without the necessary time in does not need to go on 40. some on 40 still represents the Littlefield Golden Era. (Or should we call that the Famous Blue Period?)
Now if you look at the list current management obtained who do not need to be on 40 and are still disheartened, that's fair game criticism if you believe they did not bring value. But to be fair, if they are not yet eligible for 40, the 40 may not be too impressive (which it's not).
Biz
Last year we essentially "traded" Bellisario for Veal in the Rule 5 proceedings.
The Rule 5 is on the last day of the winter meetings. We could see a notable change in our roster by then as far as roster space is concerned.
It all comes down to talent evaluation.
So far, this group's overall track record is spotty at best.
where's arriba when i NEEEED him. we could have dueling avatars.
Then we could have a young elvis-old elvis asylum vote, winner gets a US stamp.
i'm agnostic to the rule 5 draft. i think there are usually better ways to get talent without the negative aspects of it, but i recognize for all the wasted picks there's the occasional clemente, bonilla, santana, victorino (twice) etc.
Cave - I forgot about Bellisario, probably on purpose
Isn't there a GM meeting next week? I thought I read something about it. But you are right, there could be plenty of changes between now and December
Did anyone mention that Austin Kearns was non-tendered? I hope we stay away from that type of player
Interesting info in this link
www.sabernomics.com/.../hot-stove-myths
Biz, as expected, looks like it's gonna turn into a buyer's market. There will be others becoming or making themselves available.
Despite Dejan's read of Neal's position (Neal seems to think they have internal options), i'd be sorely disappointed if PBC doesnt take advantage. Not (just) because it could make them a better team, but rather because getting talent AT VALUE PRICES is EXACTLY what a lower revenue oakland-minnesota-model team SHOULD be doing. I think, for instance, the sometime missed point of Money Ball is...it's not about getting players who walk a lot or not drafting 18 yr olds. These are TACTICS. The underlying STRATEGY is: teams with limited resources have to get players who are UNDERVALUED.
Neal, you listening? EXCESS FAs = BUYERS MARKET = UNDERVALUED. Now go forth and MULTIPLY.
just thought i'd point that out and raise my blood pressure. Not at you Bizzy, not at you.
Here is my guess on Bixler: they are afraid to give up on a younger guy that plays a position that they are thin at. He seems to do really well at AAA which saves Bixler at this point. I don't like him (as a player) and I think he has been given plenty of chances, but I can see where a team would be hesitant to give the guy up and then the 'light' comes on for him. Some AL team could take him and have him as the defensive replacement --even though he has even struggled in the field at times.
If I had a vote I would wish they don't take a Rule 5 guy. We are at the point where we've built up the minors pretty good and we need 25 guys who can contribute. I am really high on Veal but they didn't even seem to use him in games that were blowouts (when he wasn't on the DL for a hang nail). Meek certainly worked out. But only want a player that can at least contribute.
ps...not suggesting that they bid on guys over their head. Just saying if they see someone that by their "vaunted player value system" they place a value as a $3 M a year guy and if it's a position they could use, and as ST approaches, many remaining FAs and he's still available at maybe $2 M, THAT'S value. They're not gonna chase the $10 M guys, even if they can be had for $9 M, and certainly at this point i dont want them to.
The MLB transactions link in te morning blog links tells that Kearns and others have been non-tendered and are now FAs
TC - i would also vote that way, but my vote is very weak. in other words, i personally wouldnt be too torn up about it if they did or didnt draft a rule 5 guy.
i WOULD be pretty torn up if they start with Moss in OF or Pearce at 1B. maybe that's just me.
"N.M.M-D."
Out for a bit. Carry on.
Drew, doesn't venting just make you feel better? Its good to get stuff out.
The only trouble with picking someone or a few up is would they be willing to come here? I don't think our FOs record regarding player relationships is too well thought of, but thats just a guess on my part, I still can't get the fingershaking at Sano's agent out of my head. And JW and Freddie didn't seem to have the warmest send off
Thunder, I thought about that aspect of the Rule 5 too, a wasted roster spot, I kinda think that having Veal on the roster and not being able or willing to use him hurt the bullpen pretty significantly, not as much as some of the injuries, but you are always playing a man short.
And Bix, yeah, a sad state, but who else is there to play SS?
There is alot of competition for those "undervalued" players.
Just because something is cheap(buyers market) doesn't necessarily mean it has value.
Of the list provided, I'd protect:
Bloom,
Lincoln,
Ford,
Gorkys Hernandez(ugh)
Morris
Aguerro.
Dubee or Herren would be next.
I think Bloom is a better pitcher this year than last, when he was picked and returned.
It is often easy to hide a pitcher for a year ( see Veal)
Lefties are always a premium.
Of course protecting 6, or even 5, means more cuts to the 40 man, especially if the Pirates wish to pick up someone.
I'd look for the Pirates to trade SOMEONE from my list or the 40 man roster for prospects, to eliminate losing something valuable without anything in return
I am sure the Bucs have a player or two that they are hoping comes available in the rule 5 draft. When you have success like they did with Meek and possibly Veal, they probably would like to keep that success going.
The really hard part about this rule 5 situation is that the Bucs are in, is giving up a roster spot on the 25 man roster. Teams like the Yankees and Boston do not have room for this type of player, the Bucs are moving into the the same situation as far as being able to sacrifice a spot on the roster, maby even more so for the Bucs because they need to start winning and they need all the talent they can find.
Bixler, Cruz and Pierce are organizational depth players and are not likely to be removed from the 40 man roster, they are necessary backup players that we have to have, we don't have much in the way of depth yet at the AAA level ready to help the major league team next year if they need someone.
I would suspect these players probably have another year with this organization if they are not traded.
These types of players are usually traded, not lost in the rule 5 draft. Sometimes throw-ins on trades.
I see there are folks not sure about Bix.
Bix 98 AB 28K .255 BA .336 OBP .306 SLG%
Tabata 82 9 .366 .418 ..500
Walker 74 16 .270 .357 .541
Neil has 4 HRs and no one else has more than one.Neil also has 8 2B which is 2 better than anyone else.Bix is still striking out too much.R Diaz is at .370.
Every now and then I see someone mentioning Walker in a trade.Why?He just turned 24 2 months ago.Bix is 27.Time to turn the page on him
Walker,Robinson Diaz and Tabata are doing well.
Maz, Tabats is turning it on, isn't he? Other than Veal, any of our pitchers showing their stuff?
leadoff, maybe we trade Robinson Diaz? He's out of options so he either makes it, replaces JJ or is lost, I'd bet
If I am looking at Rule 5 protection I go at this way
1st--who do we definitely want to protect who we think other teams might take--Lincoln and Hernandez fit here
Then who that we think other teams might take
Then who we want to keep but don't think anyone will take
Finally, who do we not care about losing
Always a gamble and usually it only low teams who take a real gamble. Not likely the Yanks, Red Sox, Phillies and such teams will waste a roster spot on a Rule 5 pick unless it someone they think is ready to contribute now.
Any team taking a pick has to have a roster spot open. The better your farm system the harder it is keep everyone you want.
maybe we trade Robinson Diaz? He's out of options so he either makes it, replaces JJ or is lost, I'd bet
____________________________
He could make it, don't forget trading Doumit is not out of the question. They need a power hitting corner outfielder or power hitting 1st basemen more than they need a catcher right now.
"Sometimes, the best business move is not the most honorable one. Sometimes, ruthlessness is the best course of action. "
I don't think holding Hill to his contract was ruthless.
"It's always preferable to combine honor with sound business. "
Sound business is honorable quite often.
I read somewhere that the most popular guy among most teams' fan base is the backup "defensive" catcher. This is the guy who can't hit worth a lick and yet fans insist that he brings so much to the pitching staff that that team would be better off if he would play more regularly.
Problem is, there's absolutely no data to support the notion that certain catchers make a measurable difference in how well pitchers throw the ball.
On the Pirates, with Doumit being injury prone, this has been taken to an extreme.
Unless you believe that Doumit will for sure not perform any better than he did this year, then replacing Doumit with Jaramillo full time is a huge step down.
Jaramillo is a very poor hitter. He was a below average hittier in the minors, and he is a poor hitter in the majors. wOBA = .297 is a bad hitter that creates a hole in the lineup and seriously cuts down the number of runs the Pirates can score from the bottom of the order.
When healthy, Doumit is an above average hitter, and although I wouldn't count on him hitting .367 wOBA like 2008, wOBA .330 - .350 is certainly likely.
If you trade Doumit, what power hitting corner OF are you going to get for him? Is anyone going to trade a sure fire above average corner outfielder for Doumit?
The answer is no. The most you're going to get for Doumit is a league average corner outfielder or one with upside but issues. In other words, exactly the same kind of guys that you can get by not trading Doumit and picking them up through free agency.
Let's say you did trade Doumit for a league average hitter. That would drop team wOBA by 40-50 points with Jaramillo playing in Doumit's place, and would raise team wOBA 40-50 points with the new league average outfielder playing in Moss's place.
In other words, you didn't improve the team at all.
Plus, since there's no hope of picking up a good hitting catcher in free agency, we're stuck with below average at that position until Tony Sanchez arrives in 2 years at the earliest.
On the other hand, guys that are league average corner outfielders or who could become that or better are readily available in free agency. And in addition, one of our top hitting prospects is a corner outfielder that is almost surely going to be called up to the Pirates two months into the season.
So that is why I would be incredibly surprised if Doumit were traded for an outfielder this off-season. You're trading someone MUCH more valuable than Jesse Chavez to get the same value of player as we just got by trading Chavez.
And even then there are a lot of people who think we gave up too much! Yikes.
Ants moving to afternoon
============================================