Loading ...
A few weeks ago, the good folks over at The Platoon Advantage had a fantastic idea: A mock expansion draft, based on the premise that MLB should expand to 32 teams in the near future. They asked the other ESPN Sweet Spot blogs to participate, and we each filled the role of the General Manager of the team we cover. “The Common Man” at TPA drafted for the new Portland club, and Bill drafted for the third New York franchise. Edit: switch those guys. Bill had Portland.
The Rules
The rules were essentially identical to those from the 1997 MLB expansion draft. Each team could protect 15 players, initially. Anyone who was drafted (or signed as an amateur) in 2009 or 2010 is automatically exempted, as are high school signees from 2008 or later. The draft would actually occur this fall, so we didn’t have to protect pending free agents like Francisco Cordero or Jonny Gomes.
In the first round, each expansion team takes players until each existing MLB team has lost a player (and each expansion team has a 15-man roster). Each MLB team can then protect three more players, and a second round proceeds like the first. Before the third round, each team protects another 3 guys, but the expansion teams only take 5 players each — ending with 35 players on their roster. SPOILER ALERT: The Reds were one of the 10 teams to lose 3 players to the draft.
My Approach
First, I wanted to act as rationally as possible. For example, I left Scott Rolen (owed over $8M next year, when he’ll be 37) off the list, with the assumption that no expansion team would want him. And frankly, it wouldn’t kill the Reds to shed that contract, anyway. Walt Jocketty knows how Scott Rolen would react to that move. I don’t, but assume it would work out. Same went for Bronson Arroyo (owed $23.5M for what will be his age 35-36 seasons).
Where the Reds have clearly expressed an opinion/value on a player, I tried to respect that, both for a sense of realism, and because they employ a lot more scouts than I do. So I protected Jose Arredondo, simply because the Reds have carried him on their roster for two years, and I doubt they’d just let him get plucked away so quickly. Similarly, I didn’t protect Mike Leake in my first batch of 15, because the Reds seem surprisingly lukewarm on such a recent #1 pick.
First Round
I protected these 15 players (grouped by position):
Homer Bailey
Johnny Cueto
Travis Wood
Edinson Volquez
Aroldis Chapman
Bill Bray
Nick Masset
Ryan Hanigan
Devin Mesoraco
Joey Votto
Yonder Alonso
Todd Frazier
Brandon Phillips
Jay Bruce
Drew Stubbs
Volquez was the toughest decision here. I just don’t know what to do with him – and certainly would be in a different decision on him if this was really October. Personally, I’d let him go, but the Reds have always had more faith in him than I did, so I kept him.
Phillips is another tough case. If he’s extended between now and then, he’d obviously be protected. I considered leaving him unprotected (and actually did, in my first submission), but figured that even with one year left on his $12M contract, he would be attractive as a trading chip for an expansion team. Then I realized that the Reds could use him in a similar way, if they had the stones to trade him.
The Reds ended up losing Mike Leake to Portland at #15 of the first round. (SPOILER: Portland took all three Reds players). B.J. Upton was the David Nied of the draft.
In retrospect, I’m not thrilled at all with how I handled the first round. I was planning to protect Leake in Round 3, but he never got that far. I probably overvalued relievers — which is something I’m constantly accusing major league GMs of doing. I shouldn’t have protected Massett or Bray. At most, I’d have lost one relief pitcher, and could’ve protected one or two for the later rounds. But at the same time, Leake would’ve been the 5th starting pitcher protected, plus Chapman – and Arroyo’s still here.
The timing of the draft (I submitted my list on May 27) made it hard to avoid over emphasizing small samples. When I left Leake off my list, he had a 5.70 ERA, and had been demoted and jailed. Since then, he’s pitched 41 innings at a 2.85 ERA, allowing 38 hits, and had a 23:6 strikeout:walk ratio. So that move looks really dumb now.
Second Round
For some reason, I was reliever-obsessed, and protected two more in the second round:
Logan Ondrusek
Jose Arredondo
Chris Heisey
The Reds lost Juan Francisco (3rd pick of Round 2), which didn’t bother me one bit. I see him as a cross between Randall Simon and Wily Mo Pena.
Third Round
Protected:
Dave Sappelt
Zach Cozart
Chris Valaika (originally going to be Leake)
Portland took Sam LeCure with the 2nd pick of Round 3.
Looking back, I have to wonder if I screwed up. In some ways, LeCure is the classic expansion draft pitcher — decent performance, but low upside. But at the same time, is he less valuable than Ondrusek or Arredondo? My excuse is that Cordero will be gone next year, and Chapman better be in the rotation, so a pen full of young arms is important to the Reds.
We’ll all clearly have a better handle on Volquez, Arredondo, Leake, Ondrusek, Paul Janish (unprotected and undrafted), and LeCure in October. If the post-draft email dialogue is any indication, the other mock GMs all have similar second thoughts. And at least I didn’t lose a Hall of Famer.
As for the expansion drafters, I think TCM did a great job identifying talent in the organization. Of course, it all depends on what you want to do. Are you looking for all big-league-ready players, or would you be willing to take a flier on talent? Is there value in paying market rates for a veteran inning-eater like Arroyo? Leake was a good pick, and LeCure is good organizational depth in the third round. But I’d have been much more unhappy if they’d taken Cozart or Sappelt, instead of Francisco.
Click over to TPA to see the full draft lists, Keith Law’s draft grades, a realignment proposal, and links to other blogger GMs who are also kicking themselves this morning.
What do you think? Would you have protected Leake?
Wow, Chris, that’s really interesting.
Actually, I think you protected mostly the right guys, and without thinking about it carefully, I’d have protected Bray and Masset both. But I would definitely have protected Leake over Ryan Hanigan. Hanigan to me is just too easily replaceable. Not that I don’t like him, but if he hadn’t have had last year, he’d kind of be your typical good defensive, bad hitting catcher. If you have to have Hanigan, I would probably flip a coin between Bray and Masset, but I think Hanigan is the least valuable of Hanigan, Bray, Masset, Leake.
No question I would have protected Leake. The one you should have left unprotected was Alonso. Even if you were supposing what the Reds (Jocketty) would do, as long as they have Votto, there is no point in keeping Alonso. And I still see him as the next Brandon Larson
Is either Frazier or Alonso really all that important?
Frazier’s 25 already – so he’s running on the Chris Sabo timetable right now.
Alonso’s supposed to be a power hitter, but he’s not hitting for that much power right now, and he’s already 24.
Leake is younger and already has shown at least something at the big league level.
I would have done things exactly how you did, Chris, but I would have protected Leake over Frazier for the same reason Myles cited.
That’s why it’s so ludicrous when fans are always suggesting we trade Frazier, Alonso, Heisey and/or LeCure for some other team’s top player(s).
This was a great read.
Wow. Tough choices. I don’t envy you. (Okay, I do, because this exercise looks like a lot of fun.)
I definitely agree with your decision to protect Alonso. No, he will never play for the Reds, more than likely, but he has big trade value.
It’s funny how quickly our opinions change. I couldn’t believe you didn’t protect Leake until I read that you submitted the list a month ago, and then it made perfect sense
I am confused about Leake. The rules state that players drafted in 2009 and 2010 are exempt. As a 2009 draftee wouldn’t Leake be exempt?
The draftee exemptions only apply to minor leaguers. So Chapman and Leake had to be protected.
I had to protect Hanigan (IMO) because Hernandez is going to be a free agent – can’t have NO catchers.
@Chris Garber: I’d suggest that you can sign a player one step below Hanigan as a free agent right after losing him—if you lose him. I’d pull him back after round 1 if he doesn’t get selected. The draft happens during the offseason, right?
I’m not going to try to defend leaving Leake unprotected, other than to say things looked a lot different six weeks ago, and I’m still not sure what to do with seven starting pitchers.
Dave, I disagree with you about catchers. Check this out and look at the potential FA catchers:
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2001/04/potential-free-agents-for-2012.html
Hanigan at a controlled salary is a valuable asset.
@Chris Garber: Chris, it’s obvious, Gerald Laird!
Seriously, you bring up a really good point. I don’t know, I guess it comes down to, if you keep Leake and then trade him, would he bring you a catcher better than Hanigan?
Or, if this takes place in the offseason, I could also roll the dice and make Mesoraco my starter and someone like Laird, who’s really cheap, sucks as the backup but only plays about 30-40 games. But that does have risk.
Does anyone have any idea what the Reds plans are if the choice comes down to Mesoracco or Grandal? IS there going to be another of those Kearns/Pena situations where they won’t commit to either and both suffer for it before they’re traded away?
@Python Curtus: Well the Reds haven’t/won’t tip their hand on that decision…it’s one of (if not their biggest) best assets. You would think if Mesoraco performs well when he gets here, the job would be his. It’s always nice to be the first guy on the scene b/c the organization will have to take on the risk inherent with plugging in a new guy.
I’ve heard mixed reviews that say Grandal is the better fielder. Is either Grandal or Mesoraco athletic enough to play another position, say…a corner outfield spot? Maybe Mesoraco is a fall back guy to play first base? It would be nice to have an actual switch hitter in the lineup.
@Chris Garber: to clarify, the exemptions are like this:
- No need to protect 2010 draftees, period.
- No need to protect 2009 draftees *if they were 18 or younger at the time they were drafted*.
So Leake had to be protected because he went to college, not because he was in the big leagues. If Donovan Tate or Tyler Matzek (2009 draftees out of HS) had somehow made the majors already, they’d still have been ineligible for the expansion draft.
And for the record, I would have loved it if Hanigan had gone unprotected; I doubt I’d have taken him before Leake, but certainly would have considered it in the second round. Even if 2010 was partially a mirage, he’s always been a good hitter. Good defensive catchers with .360 OBPs are really hard to find.
@billtpa: Thanks for stopping by, Bill.
I’m not sure I interpreted the rule the same way you did — the 1997 criteria (linked above) said that I didn’t need to protect a guy “with no prior major league experience who have less than three years service if signed at age 19 or older…”
The first part of that is why I thought I had to protect him. If he hadn’t played in the bigs, I think he’s exempt under the second half.
Assuming this takes place in November 2011, doesn’t Mike Leake have less than 3 full years’ experience? Drafted in June 2009, he signed in mid August and didn’t play any pro ball. But even if he had, he would’ve played less than a full season. Add full seasons in 2010 and 2011, and his pro service time is less than < 3.
ALL THAT SAID, it looks like the other guys interpreted it the way you did — and I’m the one who dug up the 1997 link. It wasn’t the “official rule.” Dustin Ackley (at the time), Tony Sanchez, Grant Green… all 2009 college draftees w/o MLB experience, and all were protected.
I’m surprised you didn’t protect Sappelt till round 3, but of course he didn’t get taken, so maybe that’s a better indicator of what people think of him.
ESPN on Volquez: Any list of underrated players wouldn’t be complete without a list of overrated players, right? These three get way too much credit:
Edinson Volquez, Cincinnati Reds: His career has gone somewhat the way of Oliver Perez’s, meaning one exceptional season (2008) but nothing but disappointments in every other year. Even if you want to cut him a break due to August 2009 Tommy John surgery, the numbers simply aren’t there in 26 starts since his return: 11 quality starts (42.3 percent!), 5.10 ERA, 1.60 WHIP, 5.63 walks-per-nine ratio. He’s a WHIP-killer, never having registered a number beneath 1.33 in the category. Volquez has a 4.43 ERA and 4.84 walks-per-nine in four starts since his minor league “refresher” stint, so it’s not getting any better.
If you’re “cutting him a break” for the surgery, why cite the immediately-post-comeback stats?
The whole critique is spurious. “Nothing but disappointments in every other year” really means this:
2005: Age 21 – 3 starts
2006: Age 22 – 8 starts
2007: Age 23 – 6 starts (Career total to this point: 83 IP)
2008: One exceptional season
2009: 9 starts/45 IP, aforementioned TJ surgery, for which we’re cutting him a break
2010: Missed 4+ months. Probably came back too soon. 12 starts, 96 ERA+
2011: 14 starts – Nothing but disappointment
Note: I can’t stand Volquez, and hate defending him. But that ESPN paragraph is lousy.