trade for john raynor; with poll
by karreemofwhite on Mar 7, 2010 11:59 AM EST
Email
Print
we need to make room
i found this article today;
FOX SPORTS' Ken Rosenthal is reporting that the Marlins offered Hank Blalock a minor league deal several weeks ago, and are waiting to hear from him. The Marlins are certainly in the market for a left-handed bat and while the team isn't solely focused on Blalock, they would love to add him on a bargain deal.
i thought with our abundance of left hand bats, we could afford to send one of our spring training non winners of position, to the marlins. moss wound be my choice. that way we could send jr to aaa, if he does not make the team. hate to lose the spot on the 25. i'd like to hold the kid.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The results of this poll really surprise me. You all realize that Raynor is only 3.5 months younger than Moss and has never played above AAA, right? He was 25 in his lone AAA season, and he sucked. His two good years, in ‘07 and ’08, he was 23 and 24 in hi A and AA, respectively. There’s a reason the Marlins didn’t protect him from the Rule 5 draft; it’s because he’s not very good. In particular, there’s no way he’s better than Moss, who’s got a formidable lead in the poll right now. I’d much rather have the guy (Moss) who was hitting well in AAA as a 23- and 24-year-old and who, when he sucked at the age of 25, at least did it at the ML level.
You overstate your case, IMO.
Raynor was 24 in AA because he was a 22-year-old college senior when drafted. He’s moved up as rapidly as one could expect, given that circumstance. Also, the Marlins like him a fair bit, but had several other outfielders also becoming R5 eligible this year, and as such he was left off. There’s no denying that his 2009 was disappointing, but given that he was coming back from a broken hand, it’s possible that the injury dragged down his offensive performance.
Moss is not a bad player to have on hand (the case against him is often overstated as well), but it’s not strange or unreasonable to prefer Raynor, particularly given the requirements of the job for which they are competing (backup CF).
As an aside, the one I view as most expendable out of the listed options is Young. He’s the only one who’s not a plus defender, and I think he also has the lowest offensive upside of the group.
Actually, scratch that.
I misread Brandon Jones as Garrett.
Brandon Jones doesn’t really do anything well, other than look good in a uniform.
Fair enough, perhaps saying “he’s not very good” is overstating the case against Raynor a bit. Nonetheless, spending his first two seasons in SS and lo A just isn’t very impressive for a 22-/23-year-old. AA as a 24-year-old with a season-and-a-half of pro ball experience is not impressive either. The above-.400 BAbips in A and AA give pause as well. Saying that the Marlins couldn’t protect him because they needed the roster space for the likes of Scott Cousins is just another way of saying that they didn’t protect him because he’s not that good, as far as I’m concerned.
But the critical thing is that there’s just no reason to be trading for players like Raynor. He’s a great Rule 5 pick, but if he can’t stick with the ballclub there’s no reason to be making a trade to hold onto him. And there’s no reason to keep him on the ballclub. Backup CF is covered, as Church can play adequately there (as can Moss and even Milledge in a pinch). If you desperately need to hold onto him, you should be trading other rule-5-type organizational filler, not guys like Moss, D Young, or Walker, who are all better and more valuable.
Speed is one of the main things that drives hitters' BABIP...
…so Raynor’s BABIPs shouldn’t really be a concern, as he has elite-level foot speed. He’s been putting up high BABIPs because he’s generating greater-than-average numbers of infield hits, just like Ichiro and Chone Figgins and such.
Raynor spent his first season in advanced rookie ball because that’s what almost all players do once they’ve signed. He spent his second season in the Sally league because he was a 9th-round choice in the draft, and as such the team had no real reason at that point to push him particularly aggressively. You are picking very, very small nits here.
A .400 BABIP is an awful lot to expect of anyone, though. The CHONE projection of .345 seems better as far as what to expect in the MLB with better fielders and such.
Overall, I tend to agree with those not excited with Raynor even compared to the other 25th man options this year
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 8, 2010 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
Well, for his minor league career...
…it’s .375 (not .400). He probably wasn’t as good as he looked in 2007 or 2008, but neither was he probably as bad as he looked in 2009, so the career figure is likely somewhere near his true level of talent. Apply some regression to account for the promotion to MLB, and you’re there.
I’m not picking nits, Vlad. I’m not saying they had to push him faster, I’m just saying that his age and experience relative to the league were far from impressive and despite the reasons for it, that should be taken heavily into consideration. And +1 to Adam Reynolds.
I think you're overstating the importance of it, however.
If he had struggled in A-ball and then torn up the league as a level repeater, that would be a big red flag. But what we have here is just a guy who was older than the competition due to circumstances beyond his control, who’s hit everywhere he’s gone (except for one season when he was coming back from a broken wrist). It’s fine to be skeptical because of the age thing, or to say that you want to defer judgment because of the age thing, but to say flat-out that he’s “not very good” or “just isn’t very impressive” almost solely due to the age thing is to overplay your hand.
Fair enough. I admit he has some potential, and if the phrase “not very good” or “not impressive” seems unfair, I’ll retract it. However, I maintain that we have every reason to believe that he’s worse than Moss, Young, and Walker, and a good argument could be made that he’s worse than Brandon Jones, who also hit well at lo A and AA, but also hit okay at AAA, all of which he’s done with better ARL than Raynor. Whether you think he’s “not very good” or “maybe okay,” there’s no reason to be trading better not-very-good players for the right to let him spend another year in AAA.
Since we are probably going to lose Moss anyway, why not trade him for Raynor? If we cut him the Marlins will have a shot to sign him as he will have to clear waivers.
He is better than Raynor, so if we’re going to trade him instead of keeping him, we should trade him for something better than Raynor. Raynor is just not that good.
But there’s no reason not to keep Moss in the first place. He’s better than Delwyn Young and Ramon Vazquez, so he should definitely be on the 25-man roster this year. (That’s my opinion of what should happen, not my opinion of what the Pirates will do.)
I should say what I actually want to have happen...
I think the Pirates should carry one pitcher less for a month or so and put Raynor on the roster. They can evaluate him during that time and if he’s worth keeping, then they can work something out with the Marlins. I don’t think the Marlins are going to want anyone on our 40 man without options, so I don’t think a trade for Moss is going to be necessary or even an option.
I would guess it would be someone else in the org that has options that the Marlins can send to the minors.
i agree but if blalock is interesting to them
moss could be had at much less. i would love to unload vazquez, but left he and pearce off,since they are rh.
by karreemofwhite on Mar 8, 2010 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, Moss is just like Blalock without the history of success and HRs.
About the only way Moss is like Blalock is that they both sucked at BA and OBP last year. Blalock, however, managed to hit 25 HRs, whereas Moss managed only 7. Blalock still managed a .459 SLG despite sucking as bad as he did, whereas Moss had a .364 SLG.
And Blalock can only manage a minor league deal this year. That should probably tell us that if Moss is DFA’d he probably will clear waivers. Who would be willing to carry him on the 25 man roster this year?
lol
i guess blalocks injury past should count against him. i think the rays have the edge on him anyway. that still leaves florida short of lefties. plus i’m not blessed enough to debate you mark. i’m no statistician, just a casual fan who loves the bucs. i’m learning though, i pay attention to your posts.
by karreemofwhite on Mar 8, 2010 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, Moss is better defensively for sure. I don’t know enough about the Marlins to know whether they need a fourth OF or not. Blalock is pretty much 1B and PH only now.
I do think the fact that Moss can’t be sent to the minors without clearing waivers is a pretty big deal. That’s the practical difference between Blalock and Moss besides the difference in position. Florida wasn’t giving Blalock an MLB deal. If he didn’t make the club out of ST, he could be stashed in the minors until there was an injury, etc. Moss cannot be. So, you’d have to be pretty sure Moss was going to stick on your 25 man roster to make a trade for him at this point.
I don’t think Moss would make it through waivers. Just scanning the depth charts, I’d bet that one of Houston, Milwaukee, St. Louis, San Fran, Atlanta, Florida, or Philadelphia would claim him. He might not make it through a whole year with any of those teams, but he wouldn’t be ours anymore.
He might or might not.
Might depend on when they do it. The last week of ST is a good time to try, probably the best time remaining (the time just before the Rule 5 deadline is the best, period).
I voted "Other"
I just haven’t seen enough of Raynor yet to know if he really has any sort of long term fit with the team. It’s great that he has good speed and defense, but we already have that pretty well covered. On the other hand, if Moss can realize his potential he offers something different to the team than do most of the other options: power. Moss’ defense is good too, so it’s not like it’s a complete trade-off.
I’m not saying that I think Moss should even make the team, just that it’s way too early for me to make any sort of educated assessment.
off topic but
why would we not sign blalock to a minor league deal? like are you kidding me? clement could be total garbage and if that happens id much rather have blalock in our lineup then church.
Because Blalock is awful.
He can’t run, he can’t field anywhere but first base, he can’t stay healthy, and he’s helpless against LHB. His 2010 CHONE is a .254/.308/.449 line (-3 hitting, -2 fielding), which puts him in the same general neighborhood as guys like Kevin Barker and Dmitri Young.
The last time he managed a full season where he hit like a competent everyday corner player was 2004. There’s a lot of water under the bridge since then…
Or, to put it another way: Ryan Church’s worst season by far was 2009, when he put up a 92 OPS+. It’s 14 points below his second-worst season, and it’s also the only really bad year he’s ever had. Out of Blalock’s last five years, he’s had two where he was under that 92 OPS+, and a third where he put up a 93.
That’s my reaction to people who wanted to sign Blalock: “Are you kidding me?”. No good season since 2004 says it all. That’s even longer ago than Bobby Crosby’s last good season in 2005, and Blalock doesn’t play any premium positions obviously.
by Adam Reynolds on Mar 9, 2010 5:27 AM EST up reply actions
walker
Moss HAS to stay ,being that we traded jason bay for him
jones- stays I think he has an option left.
young- stays , hit well in a part time pinch hit roll last year.
walker- could be the guy ,has no real position , but I would try to trade someone else. Maybe one of those many relievers we have in camp.
Jones does have one option left.
The “many relievers we have in camp” aren’t on the 40-man roster (unless you’re talking about someone like Uviedo or Aguero), so trading them wouldn’t do much to alleviate the roster situation.
um
I thought this was about trading someone to the marlins so we could keep raynor and send him down. Also we have many of cuts on our 40 man roster still. PS When and if we get better were going to have to make a lot of cuts to our 40 man roster.
I didn't want to have to go into the procedure of all this...
…but I guess I must.
If we’re going to trade for Raynor’s rights, the first step is to send him through waivers, which removes him from our 40-man roster. If he’s not claimed by another team, then at that point the Marlins have the opportunity to buy him back from us. This is the point at which a trade would be made: they would decline to exercise that option, in exchange for considerations of some type (cash and/or players). We would then give Raynor an outright assignment to AAA.
The only scenario under which trading for him would make sense is if he’s unable to make the 25-man roster. This is a possibility in that we likely have two reserve outfielders (Young and Moss) who are out of options, plus Raynor, who can’t be sent down, fighting for one roster spot. As such, I think the idea of the thread’s proposal was to trade Moss (or Young) to the Marlins for Raynor’s rights, thus clearing out two necessary roster spots (one from the traded player, and one from Raynor, who’d go off the 40-man as a result of the move), leaving us with one outfield reserve for the one remaining bench job.
Thus, trading a pitcher (which is impractical for several other reasons, which I can explicate if necessary) would still leave us with two outfielders for one spot on the 25-man roster, and would not solve the issue at hand.
i think it like the capps situation
nobody is willing to give up anything because they can just sit back and wait to pluck them. i think we could add pearce to this list. moss can’t hit, young can’t field pearce is wishey washey.
by karreemofwhite on Mar 9, 2010 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
But Pearce has an option left.
So they can hold him at AAA for 2010 and re-evaluate later on him. Whereas the others require an immediate decision.
thanks vlad
i didn’t know we had to put him on waivers first. if another team claimed him would they then assume rule 5 status and have to keep him on their 25 man? and yes you got my implication. b jones and raynor have options so i’d like to get somemore time to watch. while clearing the roster for more urgent time clocks.
by karreemofwhite on Mar 9, 2010 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
That's how it would work, yes.
That’s why Jose Bautista kept bouncing around on the year when he was a Rule 5 pick. Every time the team holding him waived him, he got claimed by somebody else.
he will clear waivers
Because the same rules apply for a team that claims him,must stay on the 25 man roster. Than you work out a deal for him ,it can be anyone the marlins like and we are willing to give up. The marlins have a log jam in the outfield ,that is why raynor was a rule 5 in the first place . Also he is an 4th or 5th outfielder if he can’t the 25 man roster ,he goes back to the marlin for 25k.
I don't know that it's a given that he'd go unclaimed.
Rule 5 picks get claimed sometimes (as with my Bautista example above), and Raynor’s speed and D make him easy to hide on the bench.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
