Is Ciriaco worth 1.24m?

I had Ciriaco on my first two teams--As a rookie I was drawn to his card for a good all around 5 position Utility man that can PR (don't count CF--I had to play him there 2 games due to multiple injuries and would rather had one of the corner OFs moved to center)--He didn't come close to his numbers on either team. Desmond missed 40 games due to injury and Ciriaco was a blessing even though he only hit .215---hit .239 with second team--both seasons around 200 ab's--covering Chisenhall on 2nd team.

Bottom line is-- his Obpct was atrocious, HAL didn't pinch run him much--I guess he was being saved to pinch hit--which he did more of that I would have liked.

My feeling now is that the money may be better spent by getting a lower priced sub--so who is the best all around sub??

I think you will find that many vets feel that $1.24 million is just too much to spend on any player that is "on the bench", for injury substitutions, for an $80 million cap team (or lower).

The only exception to this might be if you have multiple starters with high injury probabilities. And again, most vets would argue that it isn't a good idea to build a team around starters with high injury probabilities. An exception, in my mind, is platoon players who only start against LHP - in this situation, sometimes you can get away with a platoon vs LHP starter with higher injury probabilities, especially if your division rivals don't have many lefy pitchers. (The idea is that the likely number of missed starts vs. LHP decreases since the "injury lost games" are mostly vs. RHP, and therefore don't matter). But even so, I wouldn't have an injury replacement with a salary as high as $1.24 million, most of the time.

Basically, keep your injury subs with low salaries, so that you don't end up with $ sitting on the bench for too many games, and therefore wasted.

As for Ciriaco as a starter - you get what you pay for. I have found that in some situations he is good value as a starter for his low salary - it depends on the overall situation. He could be a good cheap 2b/ss in a non-homerun park like Fenway, Target, Kauffman, or maybe especially Petco. I would use him as a cheap 2b or ss, but not at 3b due to his high error rating there. But not as an injury sub. Too many dollars.

If you are going to use Longoria you have to plan for him missing some time. I am using Ciriaco as his backup at 3B which is working out fine. When you use starting players with an injury rate as high as Longoria's you have to have a backkup that doesn't completely suck. Longoria seems to rake when in the lineup so to me is worth the time he will miss.

In another league where I live drafted a team I was hoping to get Starlin Castro for DH in Marlins Park. Catro was picked before I drafted him and by then I was out of cash to get a higher priced player so ended up with Ciriaco as my full time DH. He is leading the team in doubles and is hitting .315.

IMO Only way to justify the cost for a bench player is to go with smaller roster so the trade off is the cost of 2 bench players vs him.

I like what LM Bombers wrote!......................... I have no problems going against traditional on-line SOM roster construction thinking and spending more on my backups, I always do. There is a positive tradeoff to having players plug holes and play roles. You are actually maximizing your money more so if you do not have four or five .50 million dollar players who never play or contribute in anyway.

On my first on-line team I had Longoria and Chisenhall at 3B--shouldn't have carried both I realize--but Ciriaco was there mostly to back them, and then 2B,SS,LF,RF--ended up playing a lot SS that season for Desmond---I just Drafted a PC2013 team and intentionally didn't go for Ciriaco but wish I did--he should be better that the two seasons I had him--and 200-300 AB off bench probably average.

On the other team he covered for Chisenhall, Plouffe and was needed--I drafted him to start at 2b, but ended up with a 3 way platoon of Fontenot, Zobrist, Snider at 2B,RF--they were scoring a lot so I left Fontenot in even with the high E rating--that team won the division.

I seem to get a lot of 15 game injuries to my 1 inj. rated players with the 7 teams I have fielded--and Ciriaco can be an asset if you get stuck with three or four 15 game injuries in a season--he can even cover DH (or DH for that matter).

After reading the replies--as a sub, I just think it depends on the breaks--if your team goes with few injuries its wasted insurance money, if your have a few bad breaks he can cover.

I like what LM Bombers wrote! I have no problems going against traditional on-line SOM roster construction thinking and spending more on my backups, I always do.

LM did not say he was going against traditional SOMO thinking. He has a more expensive backup because he has a high injury player he knows he has to fill in for. I agree with the previous that you are usually better of spending the least amount on backups you can. However, if you know a guy will hit the DL early and often, there is nothing wrong with(and probably a lot right with) spending more on a replacement who will play, especially if he can also back-up at additional positions.

In a no-DH league, I can see platooning him at SS in a hitter's park, with a good fielder in the other half of the platoon who could be set to late-inning replacement; he'd be useful for flexibility in double-switches, minimizing his fielding innings at other positions. Otherwise, I don't like his card -- low 30s OB chances (granted, all hits, so RBIs -- and can then steal) but the lousy fielding (except maybe at SS) would tend to neutralize him. But an interesting experiment as a platoon SS in a no-DH hitter's park.