with farm system depth, types of transaction will begin to change

[princeton]

last season, the Reds had a very fluid roster because they had a lot of open spots. Partly this was due to the absence of a deep crop of older prospects. Joey Votto was the only significant add from the farm. At year's end, the Reds also added Tyler Pelland, Ramon Ramirez, Daryl Thompson, Craig Tatum, Paul Janish, and Chris Dickerson-- none of whom were really guys that we would have hated to lose, but the drafts of 2002-4 were poor, so there wasn't a lot to add and as a result, we had the roster spots. We also added several waiver claims.

Things'll begin to change this season. There will be less roster flexibility. Instead of just adding a Joey Votto, the 2008 Reds will add Jay Bruce and Johnny Cueto and Matt Maloney, with Adam Rosales as a possibility as well. By year's end, the Reds might feel like protecting Sam Lecure and Carlos Fisher from Rule V, possibly Sean Henry as well. Also, I don't have the signing dates of Pedro Viola and Juan Francisco-- they might be eligible by end of season.

A roster crunch can make a team do funny things. For instance, one of the great values of Daniel Herrera, who was acquired in the Josh Hamilton deal, is that he doesn't have to go on a 40 man roster for another couple of years. Even if he kicks butt in 2007 and the Reds need a lefty, they may choose to keep him down. Ditto for other relievers like Lutz and Roenicke. Daniel Dorn is another player that might have value to the Reds this year, but might stay down because he doesn't have to be protected until end of 2009.

but the 2008 roster won't be terribly hard to manage, because there remain a lot of filler players still on roster, who are easily dropped. It'll just be harder to manage than in the past. The real crunch hits in 2009, which is like the beginning of the Baby Boom for the Reds because the 2006 draft seems to have nice depth. The 2007 draft is tough to assess, but at this time seems like more of the same: great depth. Depth can be a problem as you lose players to other organizations as you try to option them off the 40 man roster, or lose players to Rule V.

To address this, there will need to be trades in which we clear up spots on the 40 man rather than lose a guy to waivers for $10,000, or in which we throw in several prospects rather than risk their loss in Rule V for $50,000, or in which we deal for prospects like Herrerra who were more recent draftees that don't have to be protected for quite a while. Jose Castro is another good example of this-- as a young 2005 draftee, he doesn't have to be protected until late 2009, which gives him more value than a comparable player with an earlier draft date. We'll also be likely to avoid Rule V altogether in future seasons.

it won't be business as usual, will at times be painful and should lead to some moves that will spark some interesting threads. Krivsky strikes me as a GM that could be quite good at managing deep rosters-- but we'll see how he does.

[chicoruiz]

I've always thought it would be a good idea to include this kind of stuff on a roster page. Lots of sites list when and how a player was acquired, but the year in which he'll have to be protected would seem to be at least as germaine*.









* My favorite member of the Jackson 5.

[lollipopcurve]

last season, the Reds had a very fluid roster because they had a lot of open spots. Partly this was due to the absence of a deep crop of older prospects. Joey Votto was the only significant add from the farm. At year's end, the Reds also added Tyler Pelland, Ramon Ramirez, Daryl Thompson, Craig Tatum, Paul Janish, and Chris Dickerson-- none of whom were really guys that we would have hated to lose, but the drafts of 2002-4 were poor, so there wasn't a lot to add and as a result, we had the roster spots. We also added several waiver claims.

Things'll begin to change this season. There will be less roster flexibility. Instead of just adding a Joey Votto, the 2008 Reds will add Jay Bruce and Johnny Cueto and Matt Maloney, with Adam Rosales as a possibility as well. By year's end, the Reds might feel like protecting Sam Lecure and Carlos Fisher from Rule V, possibly Sean Henry as well. Also, I don't have the signing dates of Pedro Viola and Juan Francisco-- they might be eligible by end of season.

A roster crunch can make a team do funny things. For instance, one of the great values of Daniel Herrera, who was acquired in the Josh Hamilton deal, is that he doesn't have to go on a 40 man roster for another couple of years. Even if he kicks butt in 2007 and the Reds need a lefty, they may choose to keep him down. Ditto for other relievers like Lutz and Roenicke. Daniel Dorn is another player that might have value to the Reds this year, but might stay down because he doesn't have to be protected until end of 2009.

this crunch will only get tougher in 2009. The 2006 draft doesn't seem as high end, but has nice depth. The 2007 draft is tough to assess, but at this time seems like more of the same: great depth. Depth is great, but also can be a problem as you lose players to other organizations as you try to option them off the 40 man roster, or lose players to Rule V.

To address this, there will need to be trades in which we clear up spots on the 40 man rather than lose a guy to waivers for $10,000, or in which we throw in several prospects rather than risk their loss in Rule V for $50,000, or in which we deal for prospects like Herrerra who were more recent draftees that don't have to be protected for quite a while. Jose Castro is another good example of this-- as a young 2005 draftee, he doesn't have to be protected until late 2009, which gives him more value than a comparable player with an earlier draft date. We'll also be likely to avoid Rule V altogether in future seasons.

it won't be business as usual, will at times be painful and should lead to some moves that will spark some interesting threads. Krivsky strikes me as a GM that could be quite good at managing deep rosters-- but we'll see how he does.

Nice post. One of the first things Krivsky said the team needed to do was get younger throughout the system. We've definitely seen a lot of progress on that front in the minor leagues (especially at the AA and AAA levels). The 25-man major league roster will generally be a mix of younger players with some long-established guys, but I think the 40-man will continue to get younger, too.

[princeton]

Juan Francisco seems to have signed very young in 2004, which would mean that he'd have to be protected at end of this season without risk of loss

I found sketchy info that Pedro Viola signed in 2005 but was old (22) meaning that he'd also have to be protected at end of this season unless the Reds want to risk his loss.

[RedsManRick]

Good insight princeton. I agree that the current state of the farm system, with a glut of good but not great prospects in the middle, begs for a trade in which we move a number of guys for a major league upgrade. It will be interesting to see how the 40 man evolves over the next year.

[redsmetz]

Good insight princeton. I agree that the current state of the farm system, with a glut of good but not great prospects in the middle begs for a trade in which we move a number of guys for a major league upgrade. It will be interesting to see how the 40 man evolves over the next year.

We may find out sooner than we think. A move will have to be made to add Affeldt. Likewise, if we end up making a move for Aardsma, room would have to be made on the 40 man roster.

And I think we can say that the Reds won't stand pat. When there are opportunities to add depth, we haven't been shy, IMO, to make a waiver pickup, trade for a guy whose been DFA'd, etc.

In some ways, it's a nice place to be, no?

[Kc61]

What does this mean?

More one-year contracts enabling the Reds to jettison veterans and protect more kids.

Tougher decisions on picking up veteran player options. Would Hatteberg have been picked up if it meant a good kid would get exposed to the market?

Probably a couple of trades of quantity in exchange for quality. Perhaps multiple kids for veterans.

Perhaps more drafting of very young players who have time before the 40-man roster is an issue.

[LincolnparkRed]

Depth is a good thing to have, but I would be hesistant to let Dusty keep the Castro's of the world in Cincy at the expense of guys we might actually lose to other teams that never saw the majors because of our managers propensity to take the mediocre player I know over the young kid who might be great.

[redsmetz]

Depth is a good thing to have, but I would be hesistant to let Dusty keep the Castro's of the world in Cincy at the expense of guys we might actually lose to other teams that never saw the majors because of our managers propensity to take the mediocre player I know over the young kid who might be great.

How is it Dusty's call? It would seem to me that the present roster construction is primarily at this point, the FO's work. I doubt that Castro will see any time in Spring Training - that while the word is he's progressing, but I think it still takes longer to come back from his surgery than Castro is saying. The key question viz his roster spot is when can players go back on the 60 day DL (and I'm guessing not until the close of Spring Training).

But that said, I don't think Dusty's got any strong say than what WK decides.

[princeton]

Depth is a good thing to have, but I would be hesistant to let Dusty keep the Castro's of the world in Cincy at the expense of guys we might actually lose to other teams that never saw the majors because of our managers propensity to take the mediocre player I know over the young kid who might be great.

you do need 25 of those spots for the major league team. There will be tough choices.

if Gonzalez needs a backup and Keppy's glove doesn't measure up, then it's between Castro (vet that can't hit) and Janish (suspect that might hit even less than Castro)

[LoganBuck]

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't the roster crunch now occur in 2010 because of the change to the Rule 5 rules?

[princeton]

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't the roster crunch now occur in 2010 because of the change to the Rule 5 rules?

without the new rules, the effects of the Baby Boom would be felt in 2008 not 2009.

[LoganBuck]

2006 year 1
2007 year 2
2008 year 3
2009 year 4
2010 year 5 must be on 40 man roster 12/2009 if collegiate draft pick from 2006
2011 year 6
2012 year 7 must be on 40 man roster 12/2011 if high school draft pick from 2006

Is this schedule correct. It was my understanding that they had 4 full years before they must be added if they came from college.

[princeton]

2006 year 1
2007 year 2
2008 year 3
2009 year 4
2010 year 5 must be on 40 man roster 12/2009 if collegiate draft pick from 2006
2011 year 6
2012 year 7 must be on 40 man roster 12/2011 if high school draft pick from 2006

Is this schedule correct. It was my understanding that they had 4 full years before they must be added if they came from college.

edit-- misread your first post

yes, this is correct. 12/2009 is the Baby Boom.