2010 40-man Roster Candidates
(This was originally set to post this afternoon. I’m torn about this. Part of me wants to talk about minor leaguers so I can stop thinking about Niehaus’ passing, and part of me wants to post nothing but Niehaus clips for a week. We’ll miss you, Dave).
Or, if you prefer, Rule 5 draft candidates…
JY did a great job of running down the rules and the process in last year’s preview, so I’ll stick with the twitter version: ’06 high-school draftees and international signings and ’07 college draftees who are NOT on the 40-man can be selected in the Rule 5 draft. Players who signed one-year minor league deals or who’ve been in the system for at least SIX years without being added to the 40 man become minor league free agents; that list is here.
Last year, Dave and JY discussed the fact that the M’s had room to store more marginal candidates on the 40 man. This year, it’s the same basic thing, only turned up to eleven. If you’re eligible in the Rule 5 draft this year, you’re probably bad, injured, or bad and injured. Last week, the M’s released Casey Kotchman and outrighted Chris Seddon. That brought the M’s “40 Man” roster stands to a lean 29. As a result, we may go deeper down the list of potential 40-man candidates this year. While some may see the turnover on the roster as a sign that the team has no ‘plan,’ I think it’s a good thing. The 2010 Mariners may not have been good at baseball, but they’re a useful reminder that for many, many players, short contracts are better than long ones. If we’re going to have awful baseball players, I’d prefer they be signed for one year and not four (at $12 million per).
With that, let’s take a look at the players who must be added to the roster to protect them from the Rule 5 draft. We’ll rank them in tiers – the absolute locks, the maybes and the darkhorse/slim chances.
The Locks:
1) Michael Pineda. Yeah. The huge righty’s 2010 was great no matter how you look at it: he stayed healthy, he dominated in the high minors, he was able to have success while maintaining extremely low walk rates, etc. Pineda is now unquestionably one of the top pitching prospects in the minor leagues.
2) Johermyn Chavez. The M’s acquired RF Chavez from Toronto in the Brandon Morrow trade, and although he had some upside, his contact problems made him one of a number of frustrating OF prospects in the system (led by Greg Halman). While aided by his home park, Chavez took a step forward in 2010 with a park-adjusted wOBA of .388. He’s currently enjoying a very successful stint in the Venezuelan Winter League. While he may not be likely to stick on an active roster (he doesn’t have speed that would allow a team to stash him as a pinch-runner/defensive replacement), he’s a near lock to be added to the 40-man roster.
3) Alex Liddi. The Italian 3B prospect showed that his eye-popping 2009 batting line wasn’t just a High Desert mirage by posting a .376 wOBA at 21 in AA. There’s no ‘special’ skill that stands out – no 30 HRs, no 15% walk rate, no plus contact skills – but the M’s have a guy who was successful in the high minors at a position of weakness for the org. While Matt Mangini took a step forward last year, he’s no lock to stick at 3B. While Liddi’s defense gets mixed reviews, he’s got a better chance to be an averageish defender than Tui or Mangini. In a year with a full 40-man, this’d be an interesting decision – like Chavez, I don’t know that he could stick on the active roster of another team – but with 11 open slots, I’d protect him without a second thought.
4) Mauricio Robles. Acquired from the Tigers for Jarrod Washburn, the converted OF had an up and down 2010. He’s got problems with command and stamina, but he’s got a (declining) shot to stick as a starter and could be effective as a LOOGY or middle reliever right now. The M’s decided to protect Dan Cortes last year despite so-so results because he had a special arm. Robles, when he’s on, is really tough to hit. Whatever his role, the arm’s too good to leave unprotected. He would stick easily as a power lefty – think Franklin Morales.
5) Carlos Triunfel. Let’s be clear: the results simply haven’t been there for Triunfel. He’s been hurt, he’s been young relative to his league peers, he’s…did I mention his age relative to league? Scouts don’t seem to be as breathless about him as they once did, but there’s still enough talent here to avoid losing him to Rule 5. Again, it’s an easier decision when the 40-man has so many open spots. He’s definitely looking more like Joel Guzman 2.0 as opposed to Hanley Ramirez 2.0, but there’s no harm in seeing what he can do another year removed from injury.
The Maybes:
1: Matt Lawson. Acquired in the Cliff Lee deal, the infielder made a nice first impression by hitting for a high .370s wOBA in West Tennessee, and has been playing some shortstop in the Arizona Fall League. His K rate’s a bit high for a guy without much power and who relies on walks and singles to add a lot of offensive value. Some see the upward trend as evidence that Lawson’s putting things together and could be a useful utility man soon. I’m worried that a guy who walks a decent amount without power and with some K’s may simply be taking advantage of AA pitchers’ poor command; Ezequiel Carrera did this in 2009 before crashing back to earth last season.
2: Josh Lueke. Oh boy, more Lueke discussion! On talent and on likelihood-to-stick in the Rule 5 draft, Lueke belongs in the ‘Lock’ grouping. No points for guessing why he’s slumming it with the Maybes.
3: Carlos Peguero. Started off the season amazingly strong – his April wOBA was over .500 – but ended up with a fairly routine Peguero season: nice ISO, poor contact, horrific K rates. On the plus side, his unintentional walk rate was around 10%, a career high. Without plus-plus defense, he’d be a tough guy to stash on an active roster, but I suppose the team could look at the power potential and give him a 40-man spot for the time being.
4: Mario Martinez. Signed for $600,000 from Venezuela, the M’s hoped to have an impact bat with good power and solid athleticism. What they appear to have is a good defender who’s overmatched in the midwest league. This is a marginal candidate even for the maybes, but some still like his tools, and as a decent defender, he could conceivably Ugueto his way onto some team, however unlikely that seems.
5: Yoervis Medina. After spending four (4) years in the Venezuelan Summer league, Medina finally moved north this year and had a brilliant season spread over three levels (including an Edward Paredes-style cup of coffee in Tacoma). He made BA’s list of the top 20 northwest league prospects, then excelled in a short stint in the pitcher-friendly midwest league. The K’s are nice, but he’s not young, he’s in the low minors and doesn’t have top-shelf stuff. Can’t imagine he’d be taken, but there’s always the minor league phase of the Rule 5 draft to think about.
The ~1% chance guys:
1: Edlando Seco. After spending three years in the VSL, he made it to Everett where he missed bats but displayed poor command. He played in Everett this year. Everett.
2: Kyle Parker. The UW product pitched for AA West Tennessee in 2009, but saw his Ks drop precipitously and his walks rise. Then he got hurt and missed all of 2010. I include him here largely because he’s basically the only guy left from the big 2006 draft. Morrow, Tillman, Butler, Mickolio, Souza, Orta, Bibens-Dirkx, Tyson Gillies all play for new orgs, while Doug Fister and Adam Moore are in the majors.
3: Jarret Grube. Grube was signed out of an independent league midway through 2010, and he signed a rare multi-year minor league contract with the M’s. He pitched in Tacoma briefly and then brought his pitch-to-contact game to West Tennessee for the balance of the year and then joined the Lara Cardenales in Venezuela for winter ball. Grube’s new in the org, so doesn’t fit the traditional Rule 5 criteria. But JY points out that the M’s once used a Rule 5 pick on a guy who’d just signed a minor league deal with another team: RA Dickey. Of course, Dickey had a developing knuckleball, so that was something a bit different. Grube’s a control guy with moderate success in AA and the Venezuelan Winter League, and there are 500+ minor league free agents currently available that don’t require the player to remain on the active roster. I can’t fathom anyone picking him over, oh, Scott Patterson, but who knows.
Comments
27 Responses to “2010 40-man Roster Candidates”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Lueke and Lawson should not be maybe’s people need to forgive and move on with Lueke……..Lawson looks fun to 🙂
And 29 people currently on the 40 man, they could protect most of these guys, though I don’t think half of these get Rule 5’d by anybody.
Shouldn’t David Winfree be a ~1% guy or better?
Thanks for the post Marc.
Thanks for the post, marc. Same mixed feelings, but I had the opportunity to honor Dave by going by Safeco and seeing the impromptu memorials.
I wonder if the M’s leave Lueke off the 40 man in order to tempt the other teams to take him. That would be the indecisive–dare I say cowardly?–way out, but there’s nothing in their handling of this that would indicate anything better.
The M’s have to put Lueke on the 40 man. If they’re not going to use him they have to trade him and not just let him go. It just wouldn’t make any sense to do that.
If they want to take a moral stand then they have to actually come out and make a statement about how it was a mistake to get him and that they don’t tolerate that kind of history with their players; that way they can at least get credit for their moral stand. If they’re not going to make a moral stand then they need to use the guy. Just letting him slink away doesn’t get them anything except future ridicule when he comes back to kick our butts.
Lueke is a goner. Even though i think he should stay because of his talent and i think he deserves a 2nd chance. Chuck and Howie will probaly just get rid of him for nothing.
The M’s need to put Lueke on the 40-man roster, the 25-man roster, into the games, and hand him the ball.
From what I saw of him in Tacoma, he’s the next J.J. Putz. Yes, he is that good. I don’t give a rip about any “moral stand.” I sure didn’t see it when they traded for Al Martin, who had an ongoing documented history of wife-beating, which to me at least is worse than Lueke’s one-night drunken incident.
Give him the ball and let him pitch, dammit. People should look at the story of “Jungle Jim” Rivera, who did four years in a military prison for rape, and had a distinguished major league career after that.
Does Wilhelmsen need to be protected? I’d assume maybe he hasn’t been with us long enough to have that be a problem, but since he’s older I’m not sure how the rules would apply to him.
We couldn’t figure that out because he didn’t make it into the media guide this year. He pitched one season with the Brewers when he was nineteen, but I don’t know how soon they released him after that. Then he came back, and was on the DL, and was released again at which point we picked him up. He might be eligible but it’s really hard to tell from where we stand how much actual service time he’s logged.
Niterunner – David Winfree is now a minor league free agent.
FYI, Jay and I collaborated a lot on this – who was eligible, who wasn’t, what do YOU think of X, etc.
At this point, if I had to bet, I’d say the M’s add Lueke. With 29 guys on the roster, leaving him off would be transparent and might bring MORE attention to it than quietly adding him. That’s not to say it’s a given he’d play here. They could add him and then trade him, but I think they just don’t take a PR hit by adding him to the 40 man in November.
Dumb question: Remind us how trades work as far as 40-man v. 25-man goes? Do they have to have someone on the 40-man roster in order to trade them?
And is there any value or need to mentally reserving one or two spaces on the 40-man for the sorts of one-off things you see in February? You know, “give X guy off the scrap heap an invite to spring training and if they wow us we can pick him up cheap”?
Those players who are to be traded but are not on 40-man rosters are those mysterious “players to be named later”.
There can be. I also think that the M’s will probably try to get one more guy in the Rule 5 draft in the winter, considering the space they have available and where they’re going to be picking.
Right – there are some reasons to have open spots on the roster. Rule 5’s one, kicking the tires on Nishioka’s another, waiting to see who becomes available in trade can be another.
“Those players who are to be traded but are not on 40-man rosters are those mysterious “players to be named later”.”
And at times, teams make trades like this to make room on their roster. An M’s example from a while ago: in 1/07, the M’s signed Chris Reitsma, Arthur Rhodes and Jeff Weaver. In early 2/07, they traded Yorman Bazardo (who WAS on the 40 man) for Jeff Frazier (who wasn’t). It was a nothing trade, and the particulars don’t matter. The point is that they made a trade to get something for a guy instead of just outrighting/releasing him.
I don’t want to rehash the arguments about where Lueke is the devil or not, but I don’t care if we trade him. We have a lot of good closer prospects so it’s not like he isn’t expendable. But what we can’t afford to do is flush valuable talent down the toilet. They can either play him or trade him for a player of equal talent, but they can’t just let him walk away.
If we put a bid on Nishioka does that mean we have to sign him to a 6 year deal? What if Franklins ready in 2-3 years in my opinion we should just get a stop gap and see what Franklin turns into first.
Is it ridiculous to think Pineda has a higher ceiling than Felix? Or is Felix really just a once-in-a-lifetime player and this idea is totally outlandish?
Felix is fairly close to the ceiling for any pitcher. So, yeah, it’s a little bit ridiculous.
On a related note, will Mumba Rivera ever become a free agent?
NOT IF WE RE-SIGN HIM.
Did you know that Dustin Ackley is hitting .500 over the last 10 days (34 AB’s)?
“The more you knoooooooooow”
Another reason not to place a guy on the 40-man roster who has little chance of being selected in the Rule 5 draft is delaying the use of his three options. If he is added to the 40-man roster, the team must burn an option that year. Most of these borderline guys are going to be farther away from the majors, so the team would defintely want to start using options as late as possible.
And while this does not appear to be a problem this year with so many open spots, the team has a better chance of keeping a borderline guy by exposing him to the Rule 5 draft than adding him to the 40-man with the idea that he would be dropped if someone better came along. Players removed from the 40-man roster must pass through waivers, and unlike Rule 5 draftees, a team that claims him can send him to the minors if he still has an option left.
Yea but you have to remember this is the AFL were devolopomental pitchers are pitching. Id be more impressed if he was putting these numbers up with the Rainiers.
xsacred,
No, you don’t absolutely need to sign him to a 6 year deal. Aki Iwamura’s deal with Tampa’s probably a good precedent – he signed a 3 year contract.
Wells,
Yeah, maybe a bit. At 19, Felix’s command wasn’t perfect, but his stuff was as good as anyone’s. Ever. Command? Not so much, but when talking about ‘potential’ stuff wins out. Pineda’s demonstrated great FB command, but his offspeed pitches just aren’t where Felix’s were.
Grizz,
Great point.
When is the deadline to set the 40-man roster?
It looks like last year it occurred on November 20, but I thought the owners and players agreed to move up most of the deadlines this year.
Put me in the “Lueke should get a chance at showing good citizenship and model behavior so that he can help this team” camp.
And thanks for the update on Kyle Parker, even if it’s not a promising one. I go to know him a couple of years ago. He’s a great guy, smart kid, and quasi-local product. And it was hard to get any news on his status with the team last year (except for when you or Jay indulged me). Thanks again.
Wanna see one of the most hilarious off-season plans ever?
http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ml-mariners&tid=39934