Real quick....RHP Paul Byrd has been traded to the Boston Red Sox for a player to be named later or cash. The player to be named must be agreed upon on or before January 15, 2009.
Also, I have seen an unconfirmed report that the Indians have signed 22nd round pick UC Irvine's RHP pitcher Bryce Stowell to $725K bonus. Still awaiting confirmation on that, but if true, that is very good news.
From what I have heard, this is a deal more to clear his rotation spot so they can evaluate guys like Aaron Laffey and Zach Jackson in the rotation the rest of the way....maybe even Scott Lewis. With Byrd here, they wouldn't be able to do it unless they banished him the bully which would be a bush move. They give him a chance to win a WS with Boston, and they get a chance to spend the next six weeks evaluting another starter for next year.
Also, I have also heard they will use the cash savings or the cash they get from the Red Sox to sign three guys from this year's draft: Stowell (rumored to have signed already today), Zach Putnam and Trey Haley.
By the way, LHP David Huff WILL NOT be called up to fill Byrd's spot in the rotation. He is being shutdown at 145-150 innings. At 130 innings already and going a max of 5 innings a start at Buffalo, he has 3-4 starts left....which should time up just right with the end of their season.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Mid-day Update
Everything on this site is free, but for those interested in making any monetary contributions to help support the stability and growth of this site please click on the "Donate" button below.
18 comments:
Interesting on the Stowell rumor. I had his cell phone number from when I interviewed him for this site earlier in the summer but probably threw it away thinking I wouldn't be needing to contact players any more. I'll try to find it.
Regarding Byrd, the "or cash" part of this bothers me. Reading between the lines this generally implies a very weak player return, if any at all. Recent history of deals like this say that we never see a player or, if we get one, he is a very weak organizational guy. People will speculate, as they have already, that Coco Crisp was a PTBNL but he was never in a "PTBNL or cash" scenario. It does give the FO about 5 months for the fans to forget that we are owed a PTBNL, however.
If true (getting nothing substantial in return) this is a disappointing return for a guy who will clearly help the Red Sox down the stretch.
I am wondering how fans are liking Sabathia making the Brewers a playoff team and us getting so little back for him.
As I said in my articles, if you set your expectations low for what you can get for these guys you will get what you expect and be satisfied with it.
If we get zilch for Byrd it will be a waste to get rid of him especially if it is a salary dump and we are in such a zero balance situation with the budget that we had to dump Byrd to overpay for some of our draft choices.
I have heard some talk of bringing Huff up but that would be just plain silly since we could bring him up next year without burning an option for a guy who is not yet Rule 5 eligible this year. Why go down the same path as with Phillips, Guthrie and, yes, even the immortal Kaz Tadano where bringing him up for a few games really won't affect his overall 2009 performance? Yeah, maybe first game jitters would be out of the way but let's be real, it has no effect on how he will do in the majors over a full season.
In summary, probably just a non-effective use of resources by this FO only tempered by the fact that we won't know how ineffective until a long time from now.
From what I have heard, this is a deal more to clear his rotation spot so they can evaluate guys like Laffey and Jackson in the rotation the rest of the way....maybe even Scott Lewis. With Byrd here, they wouldn't be able to do it unless they banished him the bully which would be a bush move. They give him a chance to win a WS with Boston, and they get a chance to spend the next six weeks evaluting another starter for next year.
Also, I have also heard they will use the cash savings or the cash they get from the Red Sox to sign three guys from this year's draft: Stowell (rumored to have signed already today), Putnam and Haley.
By the way, Huff WILL NOT be called up. He is being shutdown at 145-150 innings. At 130 innings already and going a max of 5 innings a start at Buffalo, he has 3-4 starts left....which should time up just right with the end of their season.
I have not seen an official confirmation either but, if true, this should make Dennis happy. I am not as down on this draft as he is. I am already counting Hayley and Putnam in the fold. I am being greedy but if we somehow sign our 16th pick, as unlikely as it is, this class could have some serious high end potential.
Nobody really knows anything for sure on Byrd. But, in Boston, there is talk of four prospects of midlevel value, two of which would have to be protected on the 40 which may explain the date. I think I will wait until Shapiro gives us the details before speculating on the four.
A couple of thoughts:
1. We have not totally eliminated the possibility that Byrd will be a Type B free agent, especially if he keeps pitching well. If he is and we get nothing for him (i.e. cash)and Boston gets his use AND a draft choice out of this we better get something good back or this will be a travesty perpetrated in the name of being nice guys. How many times have we heard that excuse and what, exactly, has it bought us in terms of improving this team?
2. Evaluating Zach Jackson is a good idea for only one reason: to find out whether we will dump him off the 40-man roster after the season. But, really?!?! The guy has failed in two organizations at least. Will we really be able to tell anything about him in a month of garbage time games that multiple years of professional baseball haven't already told us? Can you say Ginter and Gonzalez? Saying that we gave away Byrd to evaluate Zach Jackson does not speak well about the thinking abilities of this FO.
3. Regarding using Byrd's salary, didn't we save a boatload on Sabathia's salary? Where did that money go? Why would we need to save money on Byrd's salary, too? Also, as I said above, are we so financially strapped that we have to sell off major league players to afford to sign draft picks we are overpaying for?
4. Regarding Kilted Fool's or Chuck's (not sure which) comments about the quality of the draft, guys like Haley and Putnam are overdrafts who we would have to overpay for. Not that they are worthless, just that we could have had them at lower draft slots and still had better picks at higher slots. Hey, I don't mind paying over slot and Stowell and Fedroff are good examples of overpaying using lower draft picks. But to sign Haley for first round money when he is apparently a third round talent who we wasted a second round pick on? That is just a crazy waste of money and, as I said, a big reason why people refer to the baseball draft as a crapshoot.
4. The January 15th date does work well with the Rule 5 date in December but, as Tony has said, we need to protect players this winter. Why would we take on a guy in January when our 40-man should be full of prospects in December. Wouldn't that mean we might have to DFA a prospect or major leaguer to complete this trade?
Shapiro now apparently has said not to expect much out of the player we would get.
So we do a salary dump, possibly help one of biggest competitors put some playoff money in their coffers by giving away to them a player who could help them make the playoffs, maybe give them an extra draft pick if Byrd turns out to be a Type B...and we get nothing back from it but an open roster slot, a few bucks and a pat on the back for being a nice bunch of guys....
...and fans of the Cleveland Indians are supposed to, in some way, be happy about a move that gives away assets to save some money?
When the biggest reasons proposed are that it gave us money to sign draft picks we should have already had money for (see CC's contract savings) AND it gave us a chance to see Zach Jackson fail in Cleveland like he has failed every place else?
Wow, if Cleveland fans fall for this they will fall for anything...but that may be the point, in actuality.
I like the bryd deal, he was a waste here at this point and there was zero chance he was going to be a B lvl FA, this way we can see what lewis and laffey can do. I dont get how you can bash putnam, when it happened you lauded the pick and was one of the few you liked. trust me I know how bad this team has draft my favorite stat is since this team draft Many Rameriz first round picks have hit a total of 4 HR's and 2 of those were CC's, but this draft seems to have a lot of high risk guys with potential witch in the general the indians had not drafted in awhile so I am very wait and see at this point
Lastly, I think after seeing the trades that went indians got max value for CC. We got a RHB which this team has needed for years, Bryson is a solid spec and the PTBl is the second biggest name in this deal. I am still pretty happy. If CC walks we get extra picks and what good is that we can afford to pay them and the track record isnt great
Basically, Putnam was a "name" in the 5th round. The more I heard about him after the draft the less I liked him.
Regarding Byrd being a 6th wheel here, absolutely. The point is we got nothing back for him. Small market teams just can't do that.
I in no way wanted Byrd to remain here until the end of the season. He may be a Type-B free agent, but even if he remained here the Indians were most likely set to move on and NOT offer him arbitration because the one year deal he'd get in arby would probably dwarf what he gets on the open market. This is also why I seriously doubt Boston offers him arby. So, I in no way am bothered by this issue.
Now, I do agree that the Indians may have just dumped him for nothing when in fact they could of maybe got something for him. Then again, I am willing to bet that Shapiro did not just dump him to Boston without exploring all trade options to get a prospect of value for him. I'm willing to bet that offers came up empty in that regard and that the only option really available was to keep Byrd the rest of the way or dump him and move on by looking at some of the younger guys in the rotation like Jackson, Laffey, and Lewis.
So, I just look at this deal and say one word....."Feh". I don't see how this is a collossal mistake though.
I have some thoughts as well. How can anyone condemn a team for not spending money on its draft and then turn around and criticize them as stupid for spending over slot?
I have seen both Chisenhall and Haley play. While I would have taken the player taken one pick later, Chisenhall has serious skills at the plate. I can see why he was on the radar for a couple of years. Haley has a real nice arm but has poor mechanics. It might take him a while but he could become a ML starter in time.
Anybody can criticize everything and eventually be right about something. The Indians have pulled off three trades that have been roundly criticized and clearly that criticism is proving incorrect. Anybody who criticizes a trade, like Byrd, without knowing the deal, is just speculating on rumors. Anyone who has not figured out that Westbrook can go back on the 60 DL after the draft or that a trade might free up players is overlooking the obvious.
Anyone can express an opinion! Thoughtful opinions are more valued than ranting. But it's a free country covered by the 1st amendment.
I am just going to wait and see on the bryd deal, if we reinvest the money then its a good deal and bryd was a waste who would not have tendered. People can bash the trades all they want but I liked all 3 deals, and according to BA today were they ranked the top prospects trade at the deadline we had the number 1 and 4. So I cant really argue with that haul, Laporta is now BAs number 7 spec in all of baseball. As far as casts off go you never know I mean Paul Bryd was a cast off by how many teams before he actually figured it and became a decent 4/5 pitcher, never ever hurts to have more arms
Dennis...I value your input to the site in regards to the draft, but, frankly, your whining and moaning has gotten more than a bit tiresome. You seem like some of the other malcontents.
First of all, as one poster said, I have really started to see that this draft was not even CLOSE to being as bad as Dennis made it out to be. Heck, a few really good bats and some very good power arms. Also, Dennis is wrong in saying that Haley and Putnam were overdrafts. They were both projected MUCH higher than they were chosen.
As for the Byrd move...big freaking deal! Getting cash to make it possible to sign some talented 2008 draft picks is better than getting a mid/lower level minor leaguer. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out!
Hi Tony,
Just to elaborate on how bad the Indians are at drafing players, it was just posted that five tribe prospects were named to the NYP all-star team. These included a 2006 draftee, Robbie Alcombrack, who was the leading vote getter. It also included Lonnie Chisenhall, our #1 this year, and Eric Berger, our 8th choice. Surprisingly, Brock Simpson, a FA signee, was also named as was Velasquez who came up thru the Dominican program. The Indians tied for the most prospects placed. Although we should congratulate these players, we should not overlook these unqualified voters who were stupid enough to elect these talentless wretches.
Indiansinkslinger,
There is a HUGE difference in spending money smartly on the draft and wasting money. This is not an equation.
If you spend $2 million on a prospect who is a "10" (see Tim Mehlville, a consensus to 10 pick) it doesn't equal the same thing if you spend $700,000 a piece on 3 prospects who are "4" or "5" prospects. Your chances of getting anything more than a Ben Francisco-type player are almost non-existent.
So, spending 3rd round money on Fedroff and maybe Putnam and, from the reports, first round money on Haley is ridiculous.
If you wanted to spend that kind of money draft Gillaspie, Mehlville, Crawford in the first three rounds as I have suggested or alluded to even before the draft. Yeah, all those guys may fade out, but they were all talents worthy of high bonuses, more worthy than Haley who was trashed by Baseball America in their draft preview.
You DO NOT get pats on the back when you draft badly and then overpay to sign players you overdrafted. That is just throwing good money after bad. So, no kudos if you sign these guys to outrageous (based on their talent) bonuses. It is better than nothing (i.e., not signing them) but, trust me, there are no Tim Lincecums in this group who, if they just gave the bonus they are paying Haley, would have most likely been a Cleveland Indian right now, based on reports at the time.
So, if you WANTED to sign high profile guys who dropped, do what the Red Sox and other teams did. Draft high profile guys up and down your draft, first and second day, and then used this windfall to sign them. We didn't do that and so now we are overpaying for mediocre prospects.
You commented:
"The Indians have pulled off three trades that have been roundly criticized and clearly that criticism is proving incorrect."
What trades and who criticized them all? I am on record and on this site as saying that the Indians got appropriate value for Type A free agent-to be Blake so I know you can't be talking about me or, in fact, anyone else I have read. Who were you talking about?
You also said:
"Anybody who criticizes a trade, like Byrd, without knowing the deal, is just speculating on rumors. Anyone who has not figured out that Westbrook can go back on the 60 DL after the draft or that a trade might free up players is overlooking the obvious."
You have me on that one. I always have heard that there is NO DL in the off-season and guys are only put on the DL once the season begins so, unless you know something that I don't know, I think you are wrong on this one.
Finally, you didn't address a number of things:
EVERYONE in the know is now saying we are getting cash. Still you say wait and see. Why?
It is easy to paint pictures where people criticize everything, even when it is not true.
Stoike,
Show me the consensus that Haley was projected higher. He was 126th in BA's list prior to the draft. Where was he selected.
Putnam I liked at the beginning. he was NOT an overdraft, you are correct. But look at his bonus if he signs. He was NO WAY a second round talent and that may be what it takes to sign him so, in essence, he was an overdraft.
This draft stinks. Every statistical measure of draft ratings shows it and a lot of statistical measures of the players selected are performing show it. Let's wait and see who makes the top 20 league prospects list for the guys we drafted if you want more evidence. You can make excuses but the draft stinks. Remember, it is NOT the draft we got, it is the draft we COULD have had based on available guys. Just because a guy you pick makes the majors doesn't mean he was the right guy selected. Should David Riske have been a first round pick just because he has had a long major league career? In my draft analysis article I showed how the Indians drafted many fewer less players in BA's top 200 than almost every team in baseball and, with Mirabelli's record, how can you cut him slack for going against the grain?
You know, if they had drafted like Boston did (13 players drafted from BA's top 200) I would be willing to accept giving up a major leaguer to get money to sign prospects. Heck, I have even proposed that before. But to say that the Indians made a good deal saving salary on Byrd with their draft? Doesn't make sense to me.
Simpson, BTW, was a draftee last year. He is a second year professional still playing in rookie ball. That will tell you something right there in comparing all-league teams to all prospect teams.
Regarding all-star teams, let's wait until the top 20 prospects for that league come out. I think most fans know that a minor league all-star team is the sign of both the talent in the league, the talent by position AND the age of the player compared to league average. This, of course, disappears when experts prepare top prospet teams for leagues. I'll wait and see how many Indians make that top 20 list for the NY-Penn League
dennis,
You should be in politics. Self promotion, revisionism and partial truths are the dominant themes of your ranting.
You treat BA as a bible when it suits your purposes but you do not quote their opinion of Indian drafts which is quite good. You also failed to note that all three trades received excellent reviews in BA.
Now let's get to some serious facts. Both Haley and Putnam were ranked as early 2nd round choices by John Sickels who is considered by those in the know to be far superior in his evaluations to BA. I thought as a self appointed "draft guru" you would be cognizant of this. Stoike hit the nail squarely on the head. You cannot admit you are wrong and try to cover that fact with hyperbole.
Now let's get to Byrd. It is a case of addition by subtraction. What they get is irrelevant! There was no point in keeping him and no team was willing to offer anything. If you are actually going to hold to your position that he was a valuable asset that should have received a high return, then I think you should seek help. The sooner they got rid of him, the better for the Indians future. Any thoughts you have to the contrary are wrong and should be reconsidered.
Reading BA and quoting is as gospel in not the stuff of gurus. It is the stuff of novices who read BA instead of seeing prospects themselves.
If you want to believe BA is better than Sickels it is because, repeatedly, BA doesn't meet your objectives. You constantly say that I treat BA as the bible. Well, first, I have done research to show how good they are and, second, I treat them not as the bible as you indicate but as a good source of information that determines a players' general position in the draft, not their EXACT position.
About Sickels the sweeping generalization of "people in the know" is hysterical. Who are these people and what do they know? Has Sickels been doing this for over 20 years? Does he have a staff of people? To say that one person, potentially, working by himself is far superior or even superior at all to a whole bunch of people who do this for a living and have for years is not what I would call reasonable. So you are tryng to tell me that one person is better at this than BA?
As far as seeing players making a difference, are you talking about you or Sickels? If you are talking about Sickels how many of these guys does he actually see during the year and what are his qualifications for making his analysis?
The only way the Byrd trade is irrelevant is that you want to make it that way. Your whole point is based on the concept that the innings for whoever they bring up has any relevance to the future of the Cleveland Indians. The problem is that you have no data to support that. These are garbage innings at the end of a garbage season where guys really are not playing for much. I mean, 60% of the teams in the AL Central are out of it and more than 50% of teams in the AL are out of it. How meaningful can innings against teams who are out of it and with expanded rosters mean? The fact is it means nothing more than a guy getting over the jitters of his first major league game. In no way does this REALLY help get a read on whether a guy can pitch in the majors for a whole season or even at the beginning of the season. Addition by subtraction? Please, that is almost as comical as that, without this money, they didn't have the resources to overpay draft choices who were mediocre talents.
Fact is that they got nothing for Byrd and you are just trying to spin that into a positive. It was just about saving a few dollars and the Indians set themselves up to waste that money by having a poor draft. I have provided data to show how poor it is and you, for the most part, have provided just hyperbole.
BTW, not knowing Sickels, WHEN did he rate Haley and Putnam higher and where were they rated?
dennis,
Your first paragraph doesn't make sense but I take it to mean that I believe that Sickels is superior to BA and that is true. The fact that you don't know about Sickels is hardly a surprise to me. He is a Bill James disciple (if you even know who that is) and has carried some of James' techniques forward. John's current book, "The Baseball Prospect Book 2008", is a must read and is clearly deeper and superior to the Baseball America Prospect handbook. BP isn't even in the running.
Baseball America is a nice little book which is the combined thoughts of several writers, most of whom view no games. None of these writers have the experience of Sickels, who does his own scouting as well as relying on others. Regurgitating Baseball America is hardly analysis or particularly difficult. Lower primates are now being trained to do similar tasks.
The real talent comes from seeing the players and picking up the development progress. At the high school level that is tough. Much is made of projection but that is really a dicey proposition. Yes, dennis, you probably figured it out by now. I used to be a scout many years ago. I still maintain contacts, including one close friend, who still scouts. We often get together at all-star games and some college games when he is on the west coast. I live within walking distance of Tony Gwynn stadium and close proximity to others.
So, Sickels sees them play and I see them play. He and I disagree on many occasions. As a matter of fact, I accused him of phoning in his Indians report this year.
Now, the real question, dennis. How many of the prospects that you pontificate upon have you seen?
Lower primate comment. Sweet. As is your history trying to make it personal. I will compare brain pans with you any day. But enough of flexing muscles.
We have established long ago that, unless you see guys on a consistent basis AND are a certified professional (i.e., someone who does more than read books by your annointed guru(s)) you can't and shouldn't have an opinion.
I have actually watched a lot of the guys I talk about on video but that is irrelevant, just as irrelevant as if I had seen them in person.
You still refuse to identify yourself making it hard to find out if you are blowing smoke or not.
So, KF or Chuck or Frank or whoever you are, who are you and what are your credentials as a scout, how many guys have you identified YOURSELF in HS who made it to the majors who were not top 5 draft prospects? Until you identify yourself, it is hard to give you any credibility. Heck, at least I do research to generate my opinions. You, well, it is obvious that you do none.
It would be interesting to see Sickels' prospect lists over the past few years compared to BA. Your characterization of BA actually made my day. I haven't had that good of a laugh in a long time.
You continue to amaze me. So, amaze me once more. Stop hiding behind your alias and identify yourself and give us your baseball scout resume so we can see if you have any expetise because, they trained monkeys to watch baseball games long before they trained them to read BA.
Post a Comment