Interesting. I remember Ben being high on him before. Could be another decent depth piece if he makes the team.
"just when I thought I was out. They pulled me back in"Rutledge declined being assigned to AAA Pawtucket and signed a minor league deal with the Rockies a couple weeks ago. I guess that's one way to get on the 25-man roster!
Wouldn't this acquisition just fall under the asset accumulation department? Not sure that there is a lot to lose here aside from the $50k, which I would hope they are not worried about. I guess you could add that he is currently taking up a 40 man spot, but I doubt they would let that get in the way of any other significant moves.Am I the only person wondering if this means Holt is being moved (maybe along with one of the SPs)? Holt and Rutledge on the same roster doesn't make much sense to me, unless you're thinking of Holt as primarily a backup outfielder.
Basically, I'm baffled. I mean, is there anything Rutledge is actually good at? Why would we tie ourselves to keeping him on the 25-man all year?
Yep. I had been hoping we would get a Rutledge type player who was a little better than Rutledge, but this plus Moreland is in line with the same overall plan for platoonable depth at the corners.I think Rutledge is going to be a utility payer who can be the weak side of a platoon at third base against tough lefties.
Based on how the roster shapes up now, if it isn't Rutledge, the last guy on the bench is most likely Hernandez, so I don't see where adding Rutledge changes the equation on Holt at all. In fact, Rutledge being a RHH gives them more flexibility on the bench.Am I the only person wondering if this means Holt is being moved (maybe along with one of the SPs)? Holt and Rutledge on the same roster doesn't make much sense to me, unless you're thinking of Holt as primarily a backup outfielder.
Basically, I'm baffled. I mean, is there anything Rutledge is actually good at? Why would we tie ourselves to keeping him on the 25-man all year?
It's too small a move to draw any conclusions about Holt's future. Yes, Rutledge is an additional alternative to fill Holt's spot in case of a trade, but he's also an additional option to fill the hole if Holt gets hurt. Given the modest cost, injury insurance alone is sufficient to justify the move.Am I the only person wondering if this means Holt is being moved (maybe along with one of the SPs)? Holt and Rutledge on the same roster doesn't make much sense to me, unless you're thinking of Holt as primarily a backup outfielder.
Basically, I'm baffled. I mean, is there anything Rutledge is actually good at? Why would we tie ourselves to keeping him on the 25-man all year?
We're making a mockery of his career. Someone call Lou Merloni."just when I thought I was out. They pulled me back in"
This quote sums up Josh Rutledge and his Red Sox tenure
Are we tying ourselves to keeping him on the 25 man roster all year? As mentioned earlier, we can send him down after offering him back to the Rockies for $25K. We can also trade him to a team that might want him who perhaps wasn't able to add a player in the Rule 5 draft for whatever reasons.Am I the only person wondering if this means Holt is being moved (maybe along with one of the SPs)? Holt and Rutledge on the same roster doesn't make much sense to me, unless you're thinking of Holt as primarily a backup outfielder.
Basically, I'm baffled. I mean, is there anything Rutledge is actually good at? Why would we tie ourselves to keeping him on the 25-man all year?
Holt, Rutledge, and Hernandez won't all be on this team at the same time in 2016. He cost $50,000 today to give the team some options. That spot on the 40 man roster wasn't doing anyone any good being empty. And if something better comes up you can let him (or someone else) go and it only cost you $50K.I don't mean to be a downer on Josh's thread, but in what universe is he better than Marco Hernandez?
In what planet isn't he? At the least, they are the same player. Josh has over 1000 career PA in the major league level with an OPS comparable to Marco Hernandez's career minor league OPS. They put up basically the same numbers last year in the majors. Plus Josh hits right handed which fits the team better.I don't mean to be a downer on Josh's thread, but in what universe is he better than Marco Hernandez?
A reasonable ask, since Rutledge is a replacement-level player. He's bad at hitting and worse at fielding. He's basically Nick Green redux.Yep. I had been hoping we would get a Rutledge type player who was a little better than Rutledge
Isn't that Holt, though? 3b might be Holt's worst defensive position, but he's adequate there, and he's a below average but adequate bat, and he has no platoon split during his career.I'm fine with the move in itself, but I'm also really hoping that this isn't DD's primary backup plan to the possibility Pablo doesn't bounce back.
In that everyone is right-handed?Plus Josh hits right handed which fits the team better.
I'm guessing he or Marco would see the majority of their time at 3b.In that everyone is right-handed?
In that our other two 3b both hit lefty.In that everyone is right-handed?
The case for Hernandez over Rutledge is if you believe that Hernandez can play credibly at shortstop and Rutledge can't. We do need someone on the roster who can play there behind Bogaerts. (Which might well be Holt.)In what planet isn't he? At the least, they are the same player. Josh has over 1000 career PA in the major league level with an OPS comparable to Marco Hernandez's career minor league OPS. They put up basically the same numbers last year in the majors. Plus Josh hits right handed which fits the team better.
Yes, Farrell needs to give Xander and Dustin more days off than he did in 2016, so Holt should play more IF than OF in the coming season.The case for Hernandez over Rutledge is if you believe that Hernandez can play credibly at shortstop and Rutledge can't. We do need someone on the roster who can play there behind Bogaerts. (Which might well be Holt.)
Yeah, I just made a post defending Marrero's roster spot so that is a valid point. I don't think they view Marco as a SS though and most scouting reports see him as more of a 2b. Of course, Brock Holt isn't a SS either and that didn't stop him from getting some time there the last 2 years.The case for Hernandez over Rutledge is if you believe that Hernandez can play credibly at shortstop and Rutledge can't. We do need someone on the roster who can play there behind Bogaerts. (Which might well be Holt.)
If Marco were a *good* shortstop who had a solid chance to post a 100 OPS+, we wouldn't have gotten him in exchange for the last gasps of Felix Doubront's career. All three of these guys can hit enough that if they could play the position well they would be competing for starting roles. We have to figure out which of them are tolerable for a ten day DL stint when Xander fouls a ball of his foot and needs to wait for the swelling to reside.Yeah, I just made a post defending Marrero's roster spot so that is a valid point. I don't think they view Marco as a SS though and most scouting reports see him as more of a 2b. Of course, Brock Holt isn't a SS either and that didn't stop him from getting some time there the last 2 years.
Who is the third? Marrero? His problem is the reverse which is why I think he'd be the most likely to stick. They wouldn't want to sacrifice defense at SS for 2 months. Unless you mean Rutledge.If Marco were a *good* shortstop who had a solid chance to post a 100 OPS+, we wouldn't have gotten him in exchange for the last gasps of Felix Doubront's career. All three of these guys can hit enough that if they could play the position well they would be competing for starting roles. We have to figure out which of them are tolerable for a ten day DL stint when Xander fouls a ball of his foot and needs to wait for the swelling to reside.
I think that's probably Marco, of the three. He's the only one who played more SS than 2B or 3B at all levels in the minors, which is one shorthand.
To the contrary, I'd say it shows he isn't counting on anything from Panda.I'm fine with the move in itself, but I'm also really hoping that this isn't DD's primary backup plan to the possibility Pablo doesn't bounce back.
I mean i guess, but that is a lot of games you are left asking out of Brock Holt at third if the Panda situation goes belly up early.To the contrary, I'd say it shows he isn't counting on anything from Panda.
If DD had Panda locked into the 3B spot, Holt would be the utility infielder, with Hernandez stashed in Pawtucket; Rutledge would be superfluous unless two of the three guys ahead of him got hurt before Opening Day. But if it's not a sure thing that Panda will be on the Opening Day roster, there's the potential for both Holt (as the starting 3B) and either Hernandez or Rutledge (as the UI) to make the 25-man, and the deal makes a lot of sense, at least as injury insurance.
Holt is the third. Sorry if I wasn't clear.Who is the third? Marrero? His problem is the reverse which is why I think he'd be the most likely to stick. They wouldn't want to sacrifice defense at SS for 2 months. Unless you mean Rutledge.
Holt is likely to put up a 700 OPS with fringe-average D at 3B. You won't do materially better than that without trading prospects or handing out a multi-year contract, neither of which DD will (or should) do before seeing what he's got in Panda.I mean i guess, but that is a lot of games you are left asking out of Brock Holt at third if the Panda situation goes belly up early.
Plus it is then just kind of hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that going out and filling that final bench spot with a guy like Plouffe isn't the much better approach to begin with.
Plouffe works and likely raises that ops in either scenario though, and might be had on a 1 year deal that is going to be a lot less then the current $13m we are projected to pay Buchholz to come out of the bullpen. Plus he's the only guy in the backup plan equation there that actually has any extensive experience playing 3B on a full time basis.Holt is likely to put up a 700 OPS with fringe-average D at 3B. You won't do materially better than that without trading prospects or handing out a multi-year contract, neither of which DD will (or should) do before seeing what he's got in Panda.
I agree that Plouffe will only get a one-year deal. I disagree that he's better than Holt. And at this point in his career, I don't think you can throw Plouffe in the field at SS or 2B even on a stopgap basis, which I think is a requirement for anyone who would replace Holt.Plouffe works and likely raises that ops in either scenario though, and might be had on a 1 year deal that is going to be a lot less then the current $13m we are projected to pay Buchholz to come out of the bullpen. Plus he's the only guy in the backup plan equation there that actually has any extensive experience playing 3B on a full time basis.
Just failing to see why we wouldn't want to go that route if we could is all.
Plouffe wouldn't be replacing Holt in either scenario. He'd be making the 25 man roster over the likes of Rutledge or Hernandez.I agree that Plouffe will only get a one-year deal. I disagree that he's better than Holt. And at this point in his career, I don't think you can throw Plouffe in the field at SS or 2B even on a stopgap basis, which I think is a requirement for anyone who would replace Holt.
I thought the new CBA doubled the amounts to $100k and $50k. Not that that makes much difference in the overall scheme of things - if there's a chance of adding 1/4 of a win with his presence that's all chump change.Better than that. Sox pay $50K to select him, if he doesn't stick in the bigs they have to offer him back for $25K. If the Rox don't want him we don't get the money, though
I'd agree that absent the 3B situation, he's not an overall compelling piece - we have plenty of regulars who will hit LHP. (Basically everyone but JBJ.) http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp?c_id=bos#elem=[object+Object]&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&game_type='R'&season=2016&season_type=ANY&league_code='MLB'§ionType=sp&statType=hitting&page=1&ts=1481573308290&playerType=ALL&timeframe=&last_x_days=&split=vl&sortColumn=ops&sortOrder='desc'&extended=0All of this talk about Rutledge as a "short-term bench bat" or a "RH bat perhaps to handle 3rd vs. LHSP" seems predicated on the assumption that he actually hits LHP well. In fact, his career split vs. LHP is only modestly higher than Sandoval's, .721 to .673. Granted, it's been a while since Sandoval hit LHP even that well, but still, that's not a large advantage, and it essentially disappears when you compare him to Holt (.709 career). And for that matter, Marco Hernandez showed fairly modest platoon splits in AA/AAA.
Rutledge isn't really a "bat" of any kind. (Nor, for that matter, a "glove" of any kind.) It's good that he costs so little, but a cheap thing you don't need is still a thing you don't need. If the point was to acquire a backup 3B who hits LHP well, we still don't have that. If the point was to acquire cheap redundancy in the utility IF slot, we already had that.
In the world were Hernandez still has options and both are the definition of MI rotation fodder? I mean, optioning Hernandez and going with Rutledge only extends the period of control over Hernandez and Marco could easily take the job away fro Rutledge in ST, with strong early play in AAA, etc.. Low cost pocketing of assets.I don't mean to be a downer on Josh's thread, but in what universe is he better than Marco Hernandez?
A little digging into those splits gives a more vivid picture however:All of this talk about Rutledge as a "short-term bench bat" or a "RH bat perhaps to handle 3rd vs. LHSP" seems predicated on the assumption that he actually hits LHP well. In fact, his career split vs. LHP is only modestly higher than Sandoval's, .721 to .673. Granted, it's been a while since Sandoval hit LHP even that well, but still, that's not a large advantage, and it essentially disappears when you compare him to Holt (.709 career). And for that matter, Marco Hernandez showed fairly modest platoon splits in AA/AAA.
Since Holt can move into an OF role as needed while Hernandez still has options I can see the argument for wanting more utility IF redundancy. Also, Hernandez was a non-prospect when acquired for Doubront then suddenly found his bat after the trade and a promotion to AA in 2015. That stuck around in 2016, but he's still somewhat limited on his AAA and ML exposure. There is potentially real value in pushing his control years to more align with the end of Brock Star's cost controlled years instead of burying Hernandez as the 25th man.Rutledge isn't really a "bat" of any kind. (Nor, for that matter, a "glove" of any kind.) It's good that he costs so little, but a cheap thing you don't need is still a thing you don't need. If the point was to acquire a backup 3B who hits LHP well, we still don't have that. If the point was to acquire cheap redundancy in the utility IF slot, we already had that.
Aaron Hill is a free agent. Sandoval, Holt, Rutledge/Marco would be the 3B depth right now.What's our depth at 3B anyway? Sandoval - Holt - Rutledge/Marco - Aaron Hill?