Forum
Forum Navigation
Minor League Discussion
#1091 · October 5, 2019, 9:00 am
Espinosa (very likely to be on the 40 man) and Avila (toss-up) set-up some interesting choices ... Padres could do what they chose not to do in 2019 and put them on the 60 day IL off the ML roster in mid-March ... opening up 2 roster slot for any deserving non-roster player.
Sigh. Disagree. Esp re: Espinoza. Avila's a tougher call, but they need to DFA both...
Timing is everything. Espinoza was a top 20 MLB prospect when we acquired him. Now he's the #29 prospect in the Pads system. He'll hit 12 months post his 2nd TJ surgery 1 month into the MLB season... where there is near zero chance he will play with tighter callup rules. The time to "risk" him going off the 40-man is NOW not next offseason when he may be rising but in a crowded field of guys we have to protect. The tight 40-man roster going into ST BEFORE guys can be put on 60-day is also prohibitive; blocks 2 spots this tight roster will need before then. But more importantly, have to look forward a little to 12 months from now... even tighter roster.
Also have to pay those 60-day guys MLB salary all year and accrue service time.
#1092 · October 5, 2019, 10:05 am
I start with not seeing this winter's 40 man choices as difficult ... actually am OK with DFA that would go below 40. I will worry about next winter when it a decision point. Add that anyone they keep around now they can DFA later so not really hamstring the 2020 roster options.
For me Espinosa is still the "high ceiling play" ... he was a Top 100 for a reason (dropped due to not playing not potential) and is still young (21) ... and given the success in recovery from TJ from "older" players (Paddack, Lamet) ... he is kept until he shows he can't recover. He will not be a ML asset in 2020 or 2021 but still has that illusive upside to be elite ML quality in 2022.
So, for me a bit of a roster strategy play to keep him. He has two minor league option years remaining ... so could navigate 2020 more in the rehab mode and then 2021 setting up ML in 2022 (that route saves maybe $500K but burns minor league option years and consumes a 40 man roster spot). The alternative plan would be the ML 60 day IL ... cost $500K and one year of service time but allows for that second option year being deployed in 2022 if extra development time is needed and retains 5 years of control on a blue chip prospect. In the latter scenario, worst case he is in the ML in 2023 at age 24.
If he does not recover or is just ineffective ... easy to DFA at any time. What is better in the long run for the Padres ... paying $500K / losing one control year but not being forced into a ML/DFA decision after 2022 or saving $500K / retaining that control year but having to make a ML/DFA call a year sooner.
As for Avila ... never had the upside (or ranking) of Espinosa and is 2 years older ... but I would consider the same strategy for him ... but Espinosa preserved first.
#1093 · October 7, 2019, 10:08 am
FENN, just have to agree to disagree on Espinoza/Avila... I MIGHT agree that a MLB team that wants to be good NOW could even hold onto an Espinoza as you propose... if we didn't have a massive wave of Intl guys we're going to have to protect next year also. The same problem is going to recur next offseason, but then these guys are closer to contributing, and more likely to be claimed.
Can't protect even an elite potential talent that is SO high risk for a possible MLB contribution in 3 years.
BTW I am assuming that any chance of Espinoza being a SP is gone just due to back to back TJ; assuming he is 100% RP track now (which could progress more quickly to MLB)
#1094 · October 7, 2019, 10:56 am
I agree Espinoza must be saved.
#1095 · October 7, 2019, 12:59 pm
Quote from Brian Connelly on October 7, 2019, 10:08 amFENN, just have to agree to disagree on Espinoza/Avila... I MIGHT agree that a MLB team that wants to be good NOW could even hold onto an Espinoza as you propose... if we didn't have a massive wave of Intl guys we're going to have to protect next year also. The same problem is going to recur next offseason, but then these guys are closer to contributing, and more likely to be claimed.
Can't protect even an elite potential talent that is SO high risk for a possible MLB contribution in 3 years.
BTW I am assuming that any chance of Espinoza being a SP is gone just due to back to back TJ; assuming he is 100% RP track now (which could progress more quickly to MLB)
Protecting Espinosa or Avila in November of 2019 should only be an issue with who they are not protecting (or DFAing) in November of 2019.
If a better roster option materializes anytime after .... then they get DFA ... no harm no foul. They would be in the same who is more valuable to protect debate in November of 2020. Espinosa may have made a major recovery and the new wave of prospects may tank ... or visa versa.
This is one of those cases that the decisions are based in the current options.
#1096 · October 7, 2019, 1:04 pm
At this point we have to either protect Espinoza or at least get something in return for him......which right now wouldn't be much and would
only be based on projection.
I was very vocal back when we traded for this 17 year old that I didn't like the idea and for this very reason.
Yes he had tremendous upside and was highly rated but I felt it was just too risky "only" getting one arm so far away.
Pomeranz at the time was an All Star LH starter and I wanted either multiple players or someone closer to the majors.
BTW...at the time of this trade the Sox also had Devers,Benintendi,Moncada and Kopech in their system.We weren't getting Moncada but the others?
#1097 · October 7, 2019, 1:35 pm
Quote from David Nevin on October 7, 2019, 1:04 pmAt this point we have to either protect Espinoza or at least get something in return for him......which right now wouldn't be much and would
only be based on projection.
I was very vocal back when we traded for this 17 year old that I didn't like the idea and for this very reason.Yes he had tremendous upside and was highly rated but I felt it was just too risky "only" getting one arm so far away.
Pomeranz at the time was an All Star LH starter and I wanted either multiple players or someone closer to the majors.
BTW...at the time of this trade the Sox also had Devers,Benintendi,Moncada and Kopech in their system.We weren't getting Moncada but the others?
Of course you are right, but hindsight is always 20/20. Yes, if we had gotten Devers we would have gotten even better production out of our 3B, he would be the LHH our lineup needs for balance, and he would be practically free at this point. We would also have $300 million to spend on other free agents right now. Of course if we had gotten Kopech we would be in somewhat close to the same situation we are in now. Nobody could have predicted any of that at the time. At the time Espinoza was one of the top prospects in baseball. Oh well.
#1098 · October 7, 2019, 2:31 pm
isnt there a rule that a player cant be on the DL more than 71 days (Rule V) for any season.. so if Espinoza is claimed he has to be on the active MLB 26 man roster for 91 days.. who is going to carry a P for 91 days without getting innings out of them.. (remember the 26th spot HAS to be used on a POSITION player, per MLB rules)
#1099 · October 7, 2019, 2:32 pm
Found it:
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 injured list for the majority of the season.
#1100 · October 7, 2019, 3:33 pm
That is only an issue for Rule 5 selections and neither Espinosa nor Avila would be rule 5 ... they would be pure waiver claims placed on the claiming teams’ 40 man now and ... if desired ... shifted to the 60 day IL for the full season OR since both have minor league options just optioned and sit on the minor league IL.
Basically the claiming team would have the same set of strategies that the Padres have if they retained them.