RSS Twitter Facebook YouTube
Expand Menu

2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Talk shop about the various prospects and teams that make up the Cleveland Indians organization.

2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:29 pm

I will be posting this on my site late tonight for a Monday posting, but putting here first for those on the forum to see. No surprises. Note, this is an unofficial listing, but this 62 player list is considered correct as I have passed this around to a few in the know. Note that the minor league free agents are included as they can be selected if the team resigns them to a non-rostered minor league deal before the draft.

I also have the Rule 5 eligibles done through 2012. I will post those this week as well and all of this will be stored for quick link reference in the resource section.

PITCHERS (20):
Arias, Carlos
De La Cruz, Kelvin
Dixon, Kevin
Edell, Ryan
Finocchi, Michael
Herrmann, Frank
Jimenez, Jose
Lofgren, Chuck
Martinez, Anillins
Mendez, Sandy
Montero, Joanniel
Ness, Joe
Newsom, Randy
Nottingham, Shawn
Riera, Jorge
Roehl, Scott
Rondon, Hector
Smith, Carlton
Stevens, Jeff
Wagner, Neil

CATCHERS (4):
Castillo, Alex
Gimenez, Chris
Martinez, Richard
Santana, Carlos

INFIELDERS (9):
Aponte, Juan
Arnal, Cristo
Brown, Jordan
Head, Jerad
Head, Stephen
Infante, Jansy
Pinckney, Brandon
Romero, Niuman
Velasquez, Isaias

OUTFIELDERS (8):
Constanza, Jose
Crowe, Trevor
Cumberbatch, Cirilo
Denham, Jason
Goleski, Ryan
Montero, Lucas
Rodriguez, Angel
Valdes, Juan

MLFAs (21):
Burton, T.J. (RHP)
Buzachero, Eddie (RHP)
Camacaro, Armando ©
Cannizaro, Andy (INF)
Chaves, Brandon (INF)
Cooper, Jason (OF)
Espino, Damaso ©
Ginter, Matt (RHP)
Gonzalez, Andy (INF)
Haad, Yamid ©
Halama, John (LHP)
Harris, Jeff (RHP)
Lara, Juan (LHP)
Larrison, Preston (RHP)
Linden, Todd (OF)
Martin, J.D. (RHP)
Panther, Nathan
Sardinha, Bronson (OF)
Slocum, Brian (RHP)
Weaver, Jeff (RHP)
Whitney, Matt (1B)
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MadThinker88 » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:38 pm

Nice work on the listing. :s_thumbsup

I was surprised by a few name on the R5 eligible listing: Montero, Lucas and Velasquez, Isaias.
Thought each had a few more years. Oh well.

I was hoping (more like praying) that Kelvin de la Cruz and Neil Wagner weren't up this year but it is what it is.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:52 pm

Yeah, believe it or not Lucas Montero signed almost five years ago (Jan 2004) and Velasquez signed four years ago (Aug 2004). This is just what happens when these Latin kids are signed at 17. They come up for Rule 5 so quickly. I wouldn't worry about losing either one of them this year though. I like Montero....but he has barely played above Low-A. Velasquez hasn't even played full-season A yet.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MadThinker88 » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:02 pm

To clarify: I was just surprised that Lucas and Isaias were a ble to be drafted this year, not suggesting we need to protect either of them this year.

Getting the 'future eligible' listings posted will go a long way to keeping me and other fans properly informed and reduce the number of surprises at this time of the season.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:24 pm

Widdling it down to the important guys, here are the ones I think only get consideration for a roster spot:

Locks (100%):
Brown, Jordan
Crowe, Trevor
Santana, Carlos
Stevens, Jeff

Self explanatory. Stevens is big league ready and can contribute now and be an impact reliever and takes Santos' spot on the roster. Santana is the heir apparant to Vic and will be at Double-A next year and will take Fasano's spot when he is officially off. Crowe takes Snyder's spot on the roster. Brown is on as well because of his hitting ability.

Probables (75%):
Gimenez, Chris
Martin, J.D. (RHP)
Rondon, Hector

Gimenez to me is almost a lock. Very versatile, catches, big power, good approach, excellent character. To me, if they roster only six players it comes down to Martin and Rondon. Rondon likely wins out.....if they roster seven then JD is in.

Questionables (50%):
De La Cruz, Kelvin
Edell, Ryan
Head, Stephen
Herrmann, Frank
Lofgren, Chuck
Newsom, Randy
Wagner, Neil

I think the Indians don't roster De La. He is a very good prospect, but still way too green to start his option clock. His entire set of options will be spent on development. I don't think a team selects him if unprotected. Head's flexibility to play 1B and any corner OF position well I think could see him selected in the draft. Good pop, excellent defender, athletic. We won't protect him, but I think he is someone who could be gonzo. Edell is a good lefty, and while I think it is doubtful we protect him, he is another good chance to go. Herrmann is a good 4th/5th starter candidate and can pitch in the big leagues right now. I think if anyone gets rostered from this group by the Indians, it will be him. I am almost certain he'll be gone if left unprotected. Would make a good #4/5 guy on a crappy team that can stash him all year. Through all Lofgren's troubles, he is still considered valuable and someone may make a $50K gamble on him. Newsom and Wagner are completely different RH relievers, but both have value. Really, these guys are probably the guys we'll be arguing about from Nove 20th to Dec 11th as the most likely to be drafted.

Doubtfuls (25%):
Dixon, Kevin
Romero, Niuman
Montero, Lucas

Dixon is probably at best a 5th starter in the bigs. Good size, durable, and someone may take a shot on him, but we just have too many more valuable pitchers to protect. Romero is interesting and is a MLFA so could be lost, but up until this year he was a nobody and in the end is only a utility guy so no loss if he signs elsewhere. Montero has barely played above Low-A....so doubtful he gets picked. Nice power/speed combo though.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MadThinker88 » Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:25 pm

Good job Tony although I disagree with a few of your decisions/ choices.
I'll try to put together a posting listing out my ideas.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MickS » Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:46 pm

Kind of depressing. There are almost a dozen guys on that list that are worthy of protection. Half of them, of course, can't be and probably will be lost. What is the record for number of players lost in a single off-season to Rule 5? Whatever it is, we might break it this year..
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby jellis » Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:55 pm

MickS wrote:Kind of depressing. There are almost a dozen guys on that list that are worthy of protection. Half of them, of course, can't be and probably will be lost. What is the record for number of players lost in a single off-season to Rule 5? Whatever it is, we might break it this year..



every team feels this way if we lose more than 3 guys I will be shocked trust me its not as bad as everyone thinks its a lot harder to make a 25 man roster than you think
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:06 pm

Yeah, I'd be shocked if in the end we lose 1-2 guys assuming we protect 7 guys on this list.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Duane Kuiper » Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:11 pm

Yea I mostly agree with your list Tony.

I doubt Herrmann will be selected. Same for Lofgren.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MickS » Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:55 pm

What I distrust is our tendency to hang onto marginal veterans (their mediocrity is well known) as opposed to unproven youngsters (you don't know what you have but there's always poitential upside). I'm talking, of course, about the Dellucci's and Mastny's on the roster. I really would prefer to retain Head at the expense of Dellucci and Martin at the expense of Mastny to name a couple of examples. I'm hoping for at least one multi-player deal off the roster that woluld free up a couple more spots.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby jellis » Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:31 pm

mastny is still valuable, he has pitched decent when hes not been jerked around, I think I would rather keep a known guy over the injury prone unproven martin. I doubt martin would get selected especially since hes slated to become a FA. I will say this if gimenez is not added to the 40 man he is as good as gone. Just cause hes strike out numbers I think Rondon would make a team in the back of the pen, but other than that I don't see a lot of guys who would crack a 25 man roster next year
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MickS » Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:45 pm

jellis wrote:mastny is still valuable, he has pitched decent when hes not been jerked around, I think I would rather keep a known guy over the injury prone unproven martin. I doubt martin would get selected especially since hes slated to become a FA. I will say this if gimenez is not added to the 40 man he is as good as gone. Just cause hes strike out numbers I think Rondon would make a team in the back of the pen, but other than that I don't see a lot of guys who would crack a 25 man roster next year


If Martin is selected, then that means he's rostered and no longer a free agent. Moot point. I think Giminez is a no brainer especially since a back-up C would be needed if Shoppach is dealt. Of the "bubble" guys, Hermann, Edell and Head I'd most hate to lose. I don't list De La because I really don't think he's ready and is, therefore, low risk. I could be wrong though. A bottom feeder like the Nats can afford to waste a roster spot for an entire season.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:19 pm

We lost Barton this year....but he really looks like nothing more than a 4th OFer.

The others we got back (Whitney for example).

I don't see any guys getting taken and turning into a Dan Uggla or Johan Santana so I'm not too worried.


Though I think Newsom will get taken and stick on a team if not protected. A bad team like the Nats, Mariners, or Pirates could use him in their pens and hide him up there all year....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MadThinker88 » Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:48 pm

Ok, here are my thoughts on the players needing protection. First I have to determine how many openings I have on the 40 man roster. As of today (10/27) the roster has 36 people on it with Westbrook and Elarton not being counted as they are on the 60 day DL. When the DL is cleared out I only add Westbrook to the roster, bringing the roster count up to 37 and having 3 spots available to give out for roster protection.

From there I remove/drop the following 5 players: Sal Fasano, Brendan Donnelly, Juan Rincon, Tom Mastny and Edward Mujica. Some of these players will be automatically removed as they file for free agency after the World Series is concluded. This gives me 8 spots to give out for roster protection. I do not set aside any spots for possible free agent signings. I could always create another spot for a free agent by making a roster move at that time with Andy Marte or Mike Aubrey or David Dellucci.

Now onto my choices for the 8 spots:
MT88 Locks (100%):
Crowe, Trevor (OF)
Santana, Carlos (C )
Stevens, Jeff (RHP)
Rondon, Hector (RHP)
De La Cruz, Kelvin (LHP)

Crowe makes it as he is technically closer to the big leagues then Michael Brantley or Matt Laporta. Crowe is likely the 1st outfield called up if there is a need in Cleveland during 2009 for some reason. He might even make the club out of spring training depending up what other moves are made. Santana slides into Sal’s spot on the roster and is self-explanatory. Stevens is a no-brainer for multiple reasons. Rondon (slated to start 09 in AA) is one of those arms that will likely by counted up to fill a rotation need during 2010. De La Cruz is added IMHO due to his potential. With great upside and a ton a movement on his pitches (please remember his nickname is “the lefty Carmona”), he brings a different aspect then the other lefty starters on this team. As a lefty he is an easy draft target as he could serve as a 3rd bullpen lefty for the drafting team to stash for the year. While behind Rondon in development, I look for De La Cruz to play most of the season in Kinston but to get a call to Akron come mid to late July 09 if he is doing well. De La Cruz could be the other big internal option for the rotation come mid 2010 or 2011. Between Rondon and De La Cruz I have 2 future starters (1 from each side) and I protect them.

MT88 Probables (75%):
Brown, Jordan (1B/OF)
Martin, J.D. (RHP)
Gimenez, Chris (C/Utility)

Brown won back-to-back minor league MVP awards before 2008 so I find it hard to believe he has completely lost the ability to hit. I am unsure if he can still play the OF with the injuries of last season. Martin gets re-added to the roster, becoming a 2nd long-man option (to Zach Jackson) and filling part of the void left by the departures of Donnelly/ Rincon/ Mastny/ Mujica. Gimenez is very versatile and would normally get a catching slot but it is hard to set aside 4 slots for catchers, let alone 5. He might be the odd man out if Shoppach or Toregas is not moved before the roster deadline in mid-November. Personally I prefer Gimenez to Toregas on the roster if kept to 4 names, but I realize I’m in the minority on that one.

If Gimenez was not added, I have a slot I could use on one of the players below or keep open for possibly taking a player during the draft.

MT88 Questionables (50%):
Herrmann, Frank
Lofgren, Chuck

Each player here (or below) has something to offer and has the potential risk of making the Tribe regret not protecting them. Lofgren’s performance issues this season have a silver-lining, it made it easier to not protect him and run the risk of losing him. Herrmann can be a depth starter this season and being right-handed and generally durable would be helpful.

MT88 Doubtfuls (25%):
Newsom, Randy
Wagner, Neil
Edell, Ryan
Head, Stephen
Dixon, Kevin
Romero, Niuman
Montero, Lucas
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:07 pm

Indians are not protecting eight players. Probably six max.

And they are not DFAing both Mujica and Mastny. Both are likely to remain, but if one is removed it is Mujica.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby dnosco » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:06 pm

LOCKS TO BE ADDED:

De La Cruz, Kelvin - He throws too hard to be left unprotected (See Joakim Soria and Johan Santana). If left unprotected some team may take a chance on him as a reliever. DON'T leave him unprotected.
Jeff Stevens - He would surely be picked and, unless injured or he goes Lofgren on us, will be in CLE in 2009
Hector Rondon
Carkis Santana
Trevor Crowe - This may be a non-issue because I think he will be traded before then but, if I had to choose between all the guys on the "Could but probably won't be protected" list for current value AND upside down the road, I think Crowe wins out.

COULD BUT PROBABLY WON'T BE PROTECTED:
Frank Hermann - He just looks like the typical 4A guy right now, getting some ML time but not a lot.
Chris Giminez - It would take removing Wyatt Toregas from the roster for this to happen and that ain't gonna happen in Cleveland, given their recent history and philosophy re: the Rule 5.
Jordan Brown - Big upset here! While I love the guy and think that 2008 was a blip, even if you just consider his 2006 and 2007 numbers and the decline in power as he is moving up: he is Sean Casey at the upside and Doug Mientkewicz at the downside and, unless they have a free spot they don't intend to use in 2009, I don't see them protecting him.
Stephen Head - Color him Matt Whitney of 2008/9. He might get picked but would almost never be able to stick in the majors yet, even on a bad team. If picked he would be coming back to us by April.
JD Martin - Doesn't have the steam Stevens has so I think he will and should sneak through if we don't protect him AND we re-sign him. Protecting him over De La Cruz would be crazy, IMHO. Martin does not throw hard enough to be a reliever and soft-tossing righties are not very valuable so I think he easily skates through the Rule 5.

REMOTE POSSIBILITIES
Dixon, Kevin
Edell, Ryan
Lofgren, Chuck
Newsom, Randy
Nottingham, Shawn
Roehl, Scott
Smith, Carlton
Wagner, Neil
Head, Jerad
Constanza, Jose
Brian Slocum

As far as the MiL free agents, here are the guys, IMHO, who we will re-sign and would be Rule 5 eligible since we probably won't protect any of them on the roster

Martin, J.D. (RHP)
Romero, Niuman (INF)
Slocum, Brian (RHP)

I think Burton, Cooper and Buzachero will sign elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if Whitney signs somewhere else, as well, but I hope we get him back for one more shot. He might see what I see, however, and that is that PT in Buffalo next year would be hard to find next year and he would be better off starting fresh somewhere else.

Rule 5 Analysis: I think we, again this year, lose some guys to the Rule 5. I mean, even if you substitute Brown for Crowe you still have 5 guys you have to protect on the roster who, for the most part except for Stevens, probably won't have a big impact in Cleveland next year. Having to protect Santana, De La Cruz and Rondon, plus current rosterees like Toregas and maybe Sipp, none of whom may get out of AA next year, really hurts our flexibility to protect guys who are closer to the majors like Brown, Giminez, Crowe and others. We have shown time and again that we would rather take the chance of losing prospects than to expose veterans or prospects (e.g., Aubrey) to waivers. While I like that logic I think that, despite Tony's admonitions that we better not lose any more guys in the Rule 5, we will definitely get a handful drafted and a couple may stick. Maybe even guys we didn't expect like relievers like Roehl or Wagner.

BTW, for those who say this is what you should expect when you have a loaded farm system, I think that is bunk. This is what you have to expect from a FO that doesn't value prospects enough, values veteran relievers TOO much and would rather risk losing a prospect to the Rule 5 rather than exposing one to waivers.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby endlesssleeper » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:57 pm

sure this was a mistake, but gotta love "carkis" santana.
endlesssleeper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:37 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby jellis » Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:58 pm

endlesssleeper wrote:sure this was a mistake, but gotta love "carkis" santana.



its his street name
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby npc29 » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:51 am

I smell a nickname
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby toledobuck » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:46 am

Dennis-

The Tribe will be able to protect 6 players currently not on the 40 this year. You only have five getting protected.

Guys taken off the 40 (6): Bullington, Donnelly, Elarton, Rincon, Slocum, Fasano

Guys added to the 40: Santana, Stevens, Brown, Crowe, Rondon, Giminez or De La Cruz

I trust Shap's decision on who to roster between Giminez or De La Cruz. They have orchestrated the rule 5 quite well the past couple years. Rostering Giminez may also be determined on the Tribe's plans of trading Shoppach this offseason or not. We cannot risk losing De La Cruz but the odds of him sticking on a major league roster with zero experience above A ball is not very high.

Next in line that may get consideration for the 40 but will likely be left off would be: JD Martin, Hermann, Head, Lofgren, Wagner, Newsome & Montero.

Our most pressing risk is losing one of Giminez or De La Cruz. De La Cruz presents much more long term value but the risk of him getting picked is less than with Giminez. We'll see what happens....
toledobuck
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:07 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:19 pm

Once again, Elarton isn't on the 40-man. So him being cut/released doesn't have anything to do with adding guys to the 40-man roster.

You also have to add Westbrook. So if you want to add 6 other guys, you have to create 7 spots on the 40 man somehow. They've created 4 by moving Snyder, Santos, Bullington, and Slocum off. Fasano, Rincon, and Donnelly will be the other 3. Will be interesting if they make another move to open up 1 or 2 more spots. Protecting 6 guys sounds like enough to me....but we'll see....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby dnosco » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:15 am

I am not so sure that Donnelly AND Rincon come off. Mujica in a pinch but, the way he pitched at the end of the year I doubt it. Donnelly is the classic Shapiro pick up. Unfortunately, contractually, the probably had to add him to the roster to keep him and my guess is Donnelly would almost certainly bolt or get picked up if we waived him.

Nope, I see the us having only 5 spots or so as they won't fill the entire 40 man so I don't think it is as easy as counting 40 noses and saying we are done. Their philosophy is that it is much harder to get someone through waivers than it is to lose a guy for good due to the Rule 5 so a guy won't be added to take up that 40th and most expendable spot, especially when we plan to be active in the FA and trade market meaning that we may have to add more veterans to the roster which could mean exposing the rookies we have just added to waivers before they go their first ST as a rostered played.

Carkis, now that was an interesting typo!
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:45 am

Donnelley has less than six years service time, amazingly. So, yes, he could very well be kept on the roster and the Indians workout a pre-arbitration deal.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:29 am

Or we could sign Donnelly to a minor league deal with a ST invite. Put a clause in the deal that says if he doesn't make the team he's a free agent and can sign anywhere. This is done a lot with MLers coming off injury and keeps them off the 40 man roster. Can see the same type of deal getting struck with Fasano...
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:55 am

I see such a deal with Fasano.

Not sure about Donnelly. He's arbitration eligible and lkely would not agree to a minor league deal with the Indians until they remove him from the 40-man roster or decline arbitration because he is due to get a lot more in arbitration than as a free agent.

If either scenario plays out where the Indians dump him from the roster, I don't see him coming back in any way.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:17 am

Is he really due that much in arbitration though? He only got about the league mininum this year......in arbitration his raise wouldn't be that much. Plus for us to take him off the 40-man, wouldn't he be inelible for arbitration....we'd be basically non-tendering him then.....

Like you said, he'd get more in arbitration than in free agency, so a special deal could get worked out. Tribe did take him on when we knew he'd be recovering from TJ surgery for most of the year. May have some loyalty at the ripe old age of 37.....
Last edited by Hermie13 on Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:23 am

If we remove him from the roster he becomes a free agent, so yes he is no longer arb eligible.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Duane Kuiper » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:02 pm

A team can't sign a player they non-tendered, correct?

So either they pay him his arb money or he is gone.

But in that case they don't get to use his 40 man roster spot.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:15 pm

I thought you could sign a guy you non-tendered? Cause I thought the Nationals were talking about doing that with Chad Cordero this winter.....


I thought they changed that rule that you couldn't sign a guy til May if you didn't offer arbitration......but I could be mistaken again...
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Duane Kuiper » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:39 pm

You're correct. I forgot about the rule change.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby npc29 » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:13 pm

Donnelly is arbitration eligible. But I think I remember hearing that the Indians and him worked out an agreement where that wouldn't go down. I'm not sure where I heard that, or if I heard that right, but I do remember someone mentioning it, maybe Al talking to Brendan in pre-game or Underwood mentioning on air. Who knows, I don't even know if they could do that or if it's possible.

Edit: Okay just reading the entire topic, looks like it is possible. So yeah, I think I remember hearing that they'd let Donnelly search for other opportunities when the season ends.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Duane Kuiper » Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:11 am

Tony, your Rule 5 article is up on the Baseball Think Factory website. And Keith Law responded with a question.
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/fil ... s_protect/

Congrats.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MadThinker88 » Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:35 am

:s_coffee
I feel better that someone else (Keith Law) believes Rondon should be a lock. :s_smile
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby jellis » Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:07 pm

to me here is the big issue, if we ever want to take a player off the 40 man he has to clear waivers right?

At some point this year Laporta and Huff will have to be added along with maybe a Hodges, Brantley, or any other player is added some one will have to be taken off.

So isnt that an even bigger issue that this team needs to make some decisions or trades fast at this point because we are very handicapped by the number of players who are under developed in the minors. I say this because most teams dont have this many players they have to worry about below AA
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MadThinker88 » Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:16 pm

One thing to remember, Jake Westbrook will head back onto the 60 day DL once the disabled lists are activated at the end of spring training. His going onto that list will create another roster slot on the 40 man until Jake is done rehabbing and ready to return to the Tribe.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:06 am

Some of these names on the 2008 eligibles may not be eligible after all. The problem with an unofficial list like I have is knowing what college players signed a 2005 or a 2006 contract, and what high school or latin free agents signed a 2004 or 2005 contract. There is no published literature from the Indians that indicates what kind of contract was signed, just when they signed. Which is HUGE.

Talked to Neil Wagner. He signed a 2006 contract, which if so, means he is not Rule 5 eligible. Supposedly Herrmann also signed a 2006 contract, but I haven't talked to him and verified yet. Basically, anyone who did not pitch in their signing year is in question, and makes this a painful process!

I'll talk about this more tomorrow or on Monday and hopefully have an update. But this could also mean a Rondon or De La are NOT eligible this year because Rondon signed August 2004 and did not pitch until 2005 and obviously De La signed December 2004 and did not pitch until 2005. If both signed 2005 contracts, then they should NOT be eligible. At least that is how I understand it. Good news for us.

The hard and near impossible part of all this is verifying the start year of the contract......
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Jake Taylor » Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:34 pm

Not having to roster Rondon, De La Cruz, and potentially Santana and Herrmann could be HUGE for us. Opening up another 2-4 spots would almost ensure the addition of Lofgren to the 40-man, and his rebound season could hopefully begin on a high note. Earlier when I saw the list of the Questionables to roster (50% range), I saw a potential of 2-4 guys who I thought could get grabbed out of our system. There's a good chance that we could limit that to 1-2 players with this new information.

Let's hope this rings true... keep us updated!
Jake Taylor
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:19 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:22 am

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/pr ... 65719.html

Players who are 16 years old are eligible to sign with major league teams during the international signing period, which lasts from July 2 to Aug. 31. Players who turn 16 years old during the international signing period are eligible to sign with teams on their birthdays.

Players signed during the international signing period are not eligible to play that same year, so their first professional season comes the following calendar year. For example, a player signed during the 2007 international signing period would have his first professional season be the 2008 season.


Going by this, Rondon and Santana both signed in August 2004 during the International Signing Period, and De La Cruz was after it......so all three are NOT eligible for the Rule 5 this year. Wow, this changes things big time with Rondon and Santana not being up for roster protection. It very well may be Stevens, Lofgren, Gimenez, Jordan Brown, Crowe and now Stephen Head or Randy Newsom or Ryan Edell for a 6th spot.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby dnosco » Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:57 am

Consigliere wrote:http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/international-affairs/2008/265719.html

Players who are 16 years old are eligible to sign with major league teams during the international signing period, which lasts from July 2 to Aug. 31. Players who turn 16 years old during the international signing period are eligible to sign with teams on their birthdays.

Players signed during the international signing period are not eligible to play that same year, so their first professional season comes the following calendar year. For example, a player signed during the 2007 international signing period would have his first professional season be the 2008 season.


Going by this, Rondon and Santana both signed in August 2004 during the International Signing Period, and De La Cruz was after it......so all three are NOT eligible for the Rule 5 this year. Wow, this changes things big time with Rondon and Santana not being up for roster protection. It very well may be Stevens, Lofgren, Gimenez, Jordan Brown, Crowe and now Stephen Head or Randy Newsom or Ryan Edell for a 6th spot.


According to the ML baseball official I talked to last year and again this year, any player signed in time that he COULD have played during his club's minor league season would be considered to have played the year he signed. The guy said that this is a little soft of a rule, implying that it could be different for different guys. This rule applies to whoever (drafted, NDFA, international signing) is signed. Any player signed AFTER that period was considered to have signed for the next year. There is no grandfathering of players, that is, this interpretation comes from the current collective bargaining agreement and players signed before this agreement still are bound by the rules of this agreement. The only way I can see this playing out the way BA describes is because the DSL and VSL end their seasons early and if these guys signed after that season OR as BA said, there is some unwritten rule that allows Latin guys to be waived from the above rule even if they are signed during the DSL or VSL seasons. Have never heard of that and didn't seem to be the way the ML offices guy spelled it out to me but, who knows.

Also, regarding Wagner, it always was the case that a guy's clock only started when he signed so D&F guys had their clock start when they were signed.

Regarding the whole list, that makes me feel better. Also, it makes me more convinced that the Indians have a plan for JD Martin, i.e., signing him after the Rule 5 draft.

BTW, signing BEFORE the Rule 5 DOES make him eligible for that draft, see Lino Urdanetta who the Indians signed a few years ago.

Clearly De La Cruz will not be eligible. Rondon and Santana? I might call the ML offices in NY and get a clarification. It only takes a few minutes.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby npc29 » Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:48 am

That'd be good if De La Cruz isn't eligible, even better if Rondon and Santana aren't as well. The rules are quite confusing. The choice of Randy Newsome and Stphen Head is a whole lot easier to make than Kelvin De La Cruz or Hector Rondon.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Jake Taylor » Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:25 pm

With the new information that has surfaced (hoping it's indeed correct), I feel much more comfortable about this Rule 5 Draft.

Still assuming we roster six players...
Crowe, Gimenez, Stevens, and Brown should be locks.

Then any two of the following should fill up the other spots...
Lofgren, Herrmann, Newsom, and Head.

If Herrmann joins the ranks not needing to be rostered, we only may potentially lose one of the aforementioned players, if any.

My personal choices would be Crowe, Gimenez, Stevens, Brown, Lofgren, and Herrmann. Then, replace Herrmann with Head if he doesn't need to be rostered.
Jake Taylor
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:19 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:25 pm

Spoke to three agents today....and it appears how I originally had it is correct. As they understand it, the "future contract" loophole teams threw in for guys signed was abolished with the new CBA. Again, this is how they understand it and they are not 100% on it either. MADDENING. So, they think guys like Wagner, Herrmann and others ARE eligible.

I will try and get in touch with someone in ML baseball later. Been a hectic day in the household.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:32 pm

hmmm....when you say 'abolished' does that mean that there no grandfather clause for guys signed before the new CBA? Seems like they would be but the agents would know more.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby jellis » Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:48 pm

so what does this mean for the big names like rondon, de la cruz, sanatana etc.
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Jake Taylor » Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:24 pm

Tribe needs to man up and just mention who is eligible for this draft and stop this madness. I was getting really excited that we were going to be able to cover all but one or two who could get plucked out of our system. If it goes back to the original list, there's three or four names I'd cringe over losing.

Losing a guy like De La Cruz or even Frank Herrmann or Stephen Head with David Dellucci on our roster would just drive me crazy.
Jake Taylor
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:19 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:46 pm

Hermie13 wrote:hmmm....when you say 'abolished' does that mean that there no grandfather clause for guys signed before the new CBA? Seems like they would be but the agents would know more.....


There is no grandfathering. When the new CBA took affect, it was in effect for everyone. Remember, prior to the CBA change in 2006 there were a lot of 3rd year 19 year old signees and 3th year under 19 signees who were up for 2006 Rule 5 but after the new CBA they were not eligible since the new rule went into effect immediately and no one was grandfathered.

I put in some e-mails to MLB tonight so we will see. Will try calling possibly tomorrow afternoon depending where it goes.

The best solution to all this will likely be to see who the Indians roster. If the Indians roster or don't roster Santana we'll know how this rule works. There is no way if Santana is Rule 5 eligible that they would not roster him. If they roster him, we'll know the future contract for Intenrational Signing Period signees was abolishes. If they don't roster him, we'll know it is still in effect.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby dnosco » Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:07 am

Consigliere wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:hmmm....when you say 'abolished' does that mean that there no grandfather clause for guys signed before the new CBA? Seems like they would be but the agents would know more.....


There is no grandfathering. When the new CBA took affect, it was in effect for everyone. Remember, prior to the CBA change in 2006 there were a lot of 3rd year 19 year old signees and 3th year under 19 signees who were up for 2006 Rule 5 but after the new CBA they were not eligible since the new rule went into effect immediately and no one was grandfathered.

I put in some e-mails to MLB tonight so we will see. Will try calling possibly tomorrow afternoon depending where it goes.

The best solution to all this will likely be to see who the Indians roster. If the Indians roster or don't roster Santana we'll know how this rule works. There is no way if Santana is Rule 5 eligible that they would not roster him. If they roster him, we'll know the future contract for Intenrational Signing Period signees was abolishes. If they don't roster him, we'll know it is still in effect.


Didn't I just say all of this above about the late signing disappearing with the new CBA and that there was no grandfathering?
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:24 am

You also said that De La Cruz is clearly not eligible which seems to contridict it....so wasn't sure. Also, owners tend to bend rules to get the most of out deals. I could see them wanting to grandfather in players to avoid the Rule 5 draft and not grandfathering in players for the 3/4 rule to also avoid the draft.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby petes999 » Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:25 pm

I think the issue with De La Cruz not being eligible for Rule 5 draft is that he was signed a few days before that year's rule 5 draft (after the season ended), thus buying him an extra year. Rondon and Santana were signed during the season and thus eligible to play (even though they didn't).
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Next

Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest