Comparing 40-Man Candidates Lists
by Jon ~ November 18th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
The deadline to add minor leaguers to the 40-man roster in order to protect them for the upcoming Rule 5 draft is the 20th, and Jay Yencich posted his candidates to be added over at USS Mariner earlier today. I posted my candidates back on October 31st, so as a way of (re)bringing your attention to the matter I thought we’d compare and discuss.
Yencich’s candidates include OF Ezequiel Carrera, RHP Dan Cortes, RHP Ricky Orta, LHP Edward Paredes, OF Carlos Peguero, C Travis Scott and RHP Anthony Varvaro. He adds that he thinks the first five names (Carrera through Peguero) have the best chance of being added.
There was obviously some overlap on our lists as I also pegged Carrera, Varvaro and Orta as strong candidates to be added. Let’s talk about the discrepancies.
Cortes was simply a miss by me. I forgot to check out his situation, probably because he wasn’t part of the 2009 Seattle Mariners media guide that I was using as my primary reference. He is definitely a guy worth protecting as some team– especially a rebuilding team– could get by stashing him in the bullpen for a season before allowing him to continue his development the next season a la the Twins and Johan Santana.
Paredes is a guy that I had on my original draft, but decided to cut him at the last minute for whatever reason. He’s somewhat comparable to Jose Lugo, one of Seattle’s 2009 Rule 5 picks. Paredes doesn’t have much high-minors experience but he throws left handed and can get lefties out, which is enough to give him a good shot at a big league career as a LOOGY. You may recall that Lugo was one of the last cuts for the Mariners last spring, and I can see Paredes finding himself in a similar situation if he goes unprotected. He’s worth adding if there’s room, but I’d have a hard time keeping him over any the right handed relievers that appeared on both lists.
Cortes and Paredes I can concede– good calls by Yencich. I disagree with the inclusions of Peguero and Scott (though they were also on my original draft).
Considering Yencich’s own description of Peguero, I can’t imagine why he’d get any consideration. Lefty power to go along with tons of strikeouts and very few walks. He’s repeated the California League but his 2009 home/away splits show that he still hasn’t figured the league out. Yencich is also, in my opinion, very generous with his defensive appraisal. Most scouting reports that I can recall list him as a future DH or 1B rather than an OF. I haven’t seen him play defense, but he is big and slow in the batting video I’ve seen of him and I can’t imagine he’d be able to hold his own out there in today’s game. But whether or not Peguero has a future in the big leagues is beside the point. Who is going to take this guy and keep them on their active roster for an entire season? He brings zero value to big league teams. He can’t hit, he can’t pinch run, he can’t be considered a late inning defensive substitution– what do big league teams do with this guy? I don’t see him going anywhere. Maybe he’s picked, but he’d almost certainly be returned.
Scott is another guy that I have a hard time seeing get picked, though I did give him some thought. He had some intriguing numbers in High Desert this past season, but he’ll be 25 next season, has played at the level for three years now and has dealt with some health problems. Is there a team out there willing to give a backup catcher position to someone who has yet to step foot on a AA field? It’s not quite like giving the 4th outfielder spot or long reliever position to someone, the backup catcher is going to be starting on a semi regular basis. I can’t see any team giving Scott that job next season. Last year there were two catchers taken in the Rule 5. Neither Lou Palmisano nor James Skelton made their new clubs. Palmisano was offered back, the offer was declined, was assigned to the minors, declined the assignment and became a free agent. A trade was worked out to keep Skelton with his new team in the minor leagues. Also, for what it’s worth, Prospect Insider’s Jason Churchill recently opined that Scott’s “absolute ceiling is as an emergency guy.”
Now for the players I had but Yencich didn’t include. I included Michael Pineda and JC Ramirez in my list. These two players were mentioned (along with Alex Liddi) in Yencich’s intro as players who signed “contracts in ’05, but for the ’06 season.” No, they didn’t play in 2005, but my understanding was that it didn’t matter. Cot’s Baseball Contract’s transaction glossary, which isn’t official by any means but is typically pretty reliable, states:
After 4 or 5 years as a professional, a player must be added to his club’s 40-man roster or exposed to the 29 other clubs in the Rule 5 draft. (A club has 5 years to evaluate a player who signs his first pro contract at 18 years old or younger, but only 4 years to decide on a player who signs at age 19.) For purposes of calculating years as a pro, the counting begins the day a player signs his first pro contract, not the season he begins to play.
Pineda is an odd case because he signed in December, but Ramirez signed on July 2nd. I think he’s eligible, but we’ll find out soon enough.
13 Responses to Comparing 40-Man Candidates Lists
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don't yet have an account, please register here and join the discussion. Registration takes only a few seconds!
mikey
November 18th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Carrera, Cortes, Orta, and Paredes appear to be the best bets. Cortes, Orta, or Paredes could be hidden in the bullpen if they went unprotected.
Pineda shouldn’t be eligible. It’s not logical to have a team make a decision on Nov. 20 for the Rule 5 on a player signed after Nov. 20.
MarinerMan6
November 18th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
remove Sweeney, Batista, Beltre, Chavez, Bedard, Josh Wilson, and possibly Robert Manuel and Feirabend (hasn’t thrown since ST ’09). Plus I think you could argue to remove Halman but I don’t think the M’s will. Reasonably the M’s could have 8 spots open (I’m counting on Branyan resigning)
With regards to Peguero, I saw him play a few games against Inland Empire this year and he is not a prospect. He was routinely BEHIND 85-86 mph fastballs with a huge uppercut. He doesn’t walk and he only DH’d when I saw him. To be honest he was one of the worst regulars on the squad.
I also saw Scott and I thought he was decent. Although he is really old for the league and probably won’t be picked up. However, the M’s all of a sudden have no minor league depth at catcher so you may not want to lose him. I expect him to be in AA and I have no idea who will catch in AAA (maybe Jamie Burke again??).
Jon Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
No reason to remove Halman. He would get picked up in a heartbeat, and while he’s a frustrating prospect, he is still very young and has plenty of time to figure it out. It’s not unheard of players with similar approaches to put together successful careers. Alfonso Soriano, Bo Jackson, Juan Gonzalez… Rare, but no need to give up on him now.
I don’t view Peguero as a prospect either. He doesn’t make it past AA without some major changes.
The catching depth is troubling. With Moore in the majors, Seattle’s minor league catching depth is made up of a couple fringy guys that are old for their level in A-ball (Scott, Howell, Johnson– off the top of my head) and a couple of teenagers in Baron and Choi.
No telling who the AAA catcher will be. Tons of high minors minor league free agent catchers this year, so it could be anyone. Like… Rene Rivera!
harrison
November 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
My question, (in regards to the 40-man roster) do teams remove free-agents from their 40-man roster?
I would think that once a player files for free-agent status that would remove him for any teams 40-man roster.
Froming reading Baseball America the Mariners had 36 free roster slots (37 after Wilson) does that inlcude Branyan, Bedard and all the others?
I just got really confused on this…
Jon Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Those guys will be dropped of the published lists on the 20th when unrestricted free agency opens up. I’m not sure when the players are officially dropped from the roster, but what does it matter? If the team needed a roster spot for (say) a waiver claim, they’re not going to let a pending FA get in their way.
StandinPat
November 18th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Current 36 includes potential FA’s as they are still technically on our roster. You can always just got to MLB.com and count em up if you aren’t sure, keep in mind players on the 60 day DL don’t count against your total, but have to come off eventually.
My count puts us at 33 for a realistic count, FA’s leaving and 60 day DL’rs getting put back on.
eastcoastmariner
November 18th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I like Carerra, Cortes, Vavaro, and Orta to be added, and Ramirez if he is eligible. In my opinion, Peguero and Scott dont stand a chance
Taylor H
November 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Nice work as always, Jon.
Would you consider doing an inter-blog round-table discussion with Griffin, Harrison, and I, after Z’s made a few moves? Just a thought.
Jon Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Anytime.
Jay Yencich
November 18th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I’m not sure if Cots has it right, but it’s one of those things where I guess we’ll see. Obviously, if we look up Friday evening and Pineda and Ramirez are both added, I’ll gladly concede. The specific language of it is something I’ve been trying to pick apart for years.
For my own part, I’d like to say that I don’t think Scott will be added either, but left him on there with the basic idea in mind that teams could use catching, he’s left-handed, and might hit a bit. His defensive reputation has never been glowing.
As for Peguero, I think he was tagged with a bad defensive reputation early on because he was used almost exclusively as a DH in one of his first few seasons. The rumor spread that he was awful and they were trying to hide him, when the reality was just that he had surgery in his throwing arm, bone chips I think it was, and they couldn’t run him out there. His arm isn’t bad though, and while he is strictly a corner guy, he ran a 2.38 RF in right field, which is the best of any qualifying right fielder in the league by a wide margin. In fact, no one who played more than twenty games on the position scored higher. There are obviously flaws in the methodology, and I’m not trying to argue he’s an asset by any means, but at the very least he is not a liability, and the insinuation that he is was an unsubstantiated viewpoint that got wholly out of control.
It’s true that he’s not a likely defensive replacement or pinch-runner though, and that the bulk of his value lies in his ability to hit for power, while there remain questions as to whether or not he’ll hit at all.
Jon Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Thanks for the intel RE: Peguero’s defense. I was surprised to find (just now) that he ran a positive TotalZone in 2009 as well. As mentioned, range factor and TZ are both flawed, but they’re all we’ve got beyond the scouting reports and perception.
mikey
November 21st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Pineda wasn’t added so he wasn’t eligible. It would be nice to know whether or not Liddi was eligible for the Rule 5.
Jon Reply:
November 21st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I think is it, but I can’t see anyone taking him, or at the very least keeping him.