40-Man Roster Management

by sjohnson125 on Mar 19, 2010 7:45 PM EDT

I managed to stumble across the Mets' 40-man roster on Mets.com and noticed something that seemed off to me: the Mets have 5 catchers on the 40-man roster. I quickly looked at all 30 teams to see if this was abnormal. (For the purposes of this, I am assuming that MLB.com's 40-man rosters are accurate.)

2 Catchers (10)

Baltimore
Cincinnati
Detroit
Houston
New York (A)
Oakland
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Seattle
Toronto

3 Catchers (12)

Arizona
Atlanta
Chicago (A)
Chicago (N)
Colorado
Florida
Kansas City
Milwaukee
San Diego
San Francisco
Texas
Washington

4 Catchers (7)

Boston
Cleveland
Los Angeles (A)
Los Angeles (N)
Minnesota
St. Louis
Tampa Bay

5 Catchers (1)

New York (N)

The Mets are the only team with 5 catchers on the current 40-man roster. This suggests to me that this is bad practice--if it were a good idea to carry so many catchers on the 40-man, you would think that other teams would do it, as well.

This is a minor point, I suppose, but the Mets have had serious issues with 40-man roster management in the past (see: Jesus Flores in Washington). The Mets have Rod Barajas, Henry Blanco, Chris Coste, Omir Santos, and Josh Thole on the 40-man. Barajas and Blanco will likely make the big league club. Thole is a prospect and a candidate to be starting in 2011. Coste was brought in specifically to mentor Thole. This leaves Santos as the odd-man out.

The way I see it, the Mets have two options:

1. Trade Santos.
2. Continue to have a disproportionate number of catchers on the 40-man roster.

Even if the haul isn't worth much, I think you are better off with the additional slot on the 40-man than a catcher who is at least 4th on a reasonable depth chart, and is preventing you from using the slot on a player at a position of need. Middle infield, anyone?

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It seems sort of a foregone conclusion to me that Santos will be traded soon.

by njk237 on Mar 19, 2010 7:53 PM EDT reply actions

I agreed, until Rubin's piece today...

Roster analysis

“As for the bevy of catchers, Omir Santos doesn’t necessarily have to be traded.”

by sjohnson125 on Mar 19, 2010 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Adam Rubin lobby for backup catcher job in Buffalo?

"Relax, all right? Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring; besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls. It's more democratic."
- CRASH DAVIS

by nrmax88 on Mar 21, 2010 6:25 AM EDT up reply actions

Don't worry, someone will get hurt soon enough at which point he should be released.

But Omar is probably going to keep him to polish his shoes. Or something.

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Mar 19, 2010 8:07 PM EDT reply actions

Meh

The way things worked out, I’d guess either Santos gets traded or Coste gets DFA’d before opening day.

Who cares how bad the Bay deal will look in 2013, the world is going to end in 2012 anyway

by Stephen Schmidt on Mar 19, 2010 9:46 PM EDT reply actions

We're trailblazers.

Santos has been doing reasonably well in Spring Training. That’s both a good thing and a bad thing.

The Good- He “artificially” inflates his value. Yes, batting .3something with 2 home runs in a handful of games in Spring Training isn’t indicative of a monster season or anything, but, it looks better than hitting below the mendoza line. We (and other scouts, I’d assume) basically know what we’re going to get out of Santos if he played an entire season. If a good Spring Training can convince others that he’s likely to do a little better than what we expect out of him, and as such, can net a slightly better return package in a trade, that’s great.

The Bad- In “convincing” people that they can expect more out of him because of a good Spring Training, Omar gets convinced, and keeps Santos on the roster, and makes him the back-up catcher. I don’t think this is very likely to happen, but when you’re dealing with Omar, and the Mets front office, anything is possible.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Mar 19, 2010 11:16 PM EDT reply actions

I guess the good news

is that if someone needs to be added to the 40-man roster the Mets could jettison (or trade) Santos or Coste without it having any deleterious effect on anything. Now, if they lost a useful prospect due to their glut of protected backstops, that’d be a pity.

by Eric Simon on Mar 20, 2010 12:55 PM EDT reply actions

santos is going to be traded

whether its soon or just until some team realizes that their incumbent backup catcher is terrible, which shouldn’t be too long. he’s going to be gone so i don’t see this as a big deal at all.

by Rob Castellano on Mar 21, 2010 9:33 PM EDT reply actions