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.

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:51 am

I can see Brown going to the Mariners. They could easily stash him on their roster with the DH in play as well.


I'm not sure this 'sreams' a trade of one of the catchers......could possibly mean Garko is on the move and Victor is moving full time to 1B......doubtful, but possible....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MickS » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:12 am

How many teams actually left roster spots open? Does anybody have a list?
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:36 am

MickS wrote:How many teams actually left roster spots open? Does anybody have a list?


Unless someone else does it, if I have time I may go through the 40-mans for all the teams sometime in the next few days and verify. Busy day yesterday and I'm whooped!
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby dazindiansfanuk » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:16 am

D'Backs = 39

Braves = 37

Orioles = 40

Red Sox = 37

Cubs = 36

White Sox = 37

Reds = 37

Rockies = 40

Tigers = 38

Marlins = 40

Astros = 34

Royals = 40

Angels = 36

Dodgers = 38

Brewers = 35

Twins = 39

Mets = 34

Yankees = 40

A's = 39

Phillies = 36

Pirates = 40 (there goes the Brown to Pirates idea).

Cards = 37

Padres = 37

Giants = 37

Mariners = 37

Rays = 39

Rangers = 40

Jays = 40

Nationals = 39
dazindiansfanuk
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby MickS » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:33 am

So only 8 teams enter the draft with full rosters. I'm a little surprised. I think we better be prepared to lose three, maybe four, players. How is it that a team with a deep farm system like the BoSox can get away with only 37? Does this say anything about our roster management practices? Do we hold onto prospects too long? Just asking, not whining.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:48 am

MickS wrote:So only 8 teams enter the draft with full rosters. I'm a little surprised. I think we better be prepared to lose three, maybe four, players. How is it that a team with a deep farm system like the BoSox can get away with only 37? Does this say anything about our roster management practices? Do we hold onto prospects too long? Just asking, not whining.


Do note, that in the next three weeks these teams will likely add players via FA or trade. The deadline is just when teams can internally add minor leaguers for roster protection.

Also, teams at 40 now can dump a guy before the Rule 5.

BTW, thanks Daz for doing the legwork on the 40's for other teams.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:53 am

We could lose 3 or 4....but no way would all of them stick with ML teams. Could see Brown, Head, Hermann, and possibly Lofgren taken. But only Brown would likely stick with a team for the whole 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 toledobuck » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:06 pm

I think Newsom and Wagner have shots of getting selected as well. Newsom actually could stick in a ML bullpen with his unique pitching style that probably contrasts a lot with other clubs current relief corps.
toledobuck
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:07 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Duane Kuiper » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:11 pm

I'd be surprised if more than 2 are taken. The ones left off aren't that good.

My guess is only one.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:22 pm

Yeah, there are certainly some guys who could be taken.......but I think in the end two at most are selected and one possibly sticks.

We typically tend to get overly worked up on who we lose in the Rule 5.....but that is fandom for you.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:50 pm

I agree, I think 2 is much more likely. Forgot about Newsom, I think he'll likely get taken as well.....not sure if he'll stick though. Could though. Would be kind of funny if the Red Sox took him but don't think they would.
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 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:10 pm

FYI, Barton was selected by St. Louis who dumped So Taguchi, their 4th/5th outfielder in 2007, from their 40 at the last minute just to select Barton in the 2007 Rule 5.

Bottom line: What the rosters are right now is of no significance but thanks, Daz, as it puts into perspective what teams can be players and what teams will have to do some maneuvering to become players in the Rule 5.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby dnosco » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:13 pm

One point here: some will say that losing guys in the Rule 5 is the off-shoot of having a good and/or deep farm system.

I have repeatedly said that losing players in the Rule 5 is also and maybe mainly the most pure form of player development decisions, i.e., how your GM wants his 40-man roster to look without any extenuating circumstances like injuries, etc. that come up during the summer. Analogous to this are DFA decisions in the off-season. It is all on the GM and his staff. Guys being lost by either route are lost assets and this should be avoided where possible.

I also have some trouble with the "Barton-isn't-a-great-loss" argument. It falls in the same category as what people were saying about Brandon Phillips when we essentially gave him away.

Brandon Phillips will never be a major league regular

oops!

Brandon Phillips will never have a long career

oops!

Brandon Phillips will never be a star

oops!

The point here is that Barton was our 5th best prospect one year and maybe early teens the year we lost him. He can play all the OF positions, has some power and speed and a tick below average arm for a RFer as I remember. He is smart, athletic and has had success. To discount him because his numbers were not great in the first year really doesn't do justice to what Rule 5 hitters do in their first year with their team. I would say, especially after listening to the Cardinals' announcers raving about the guy (I know one of them and he said good things off the mike, as well) that Barton's downside is as a solid ML LFer very much like Ben Francisco but with more SBs. The guy will most likely be a solid major league regular and, instead of minimizing him, we should give him his due. Also saying that he wasn't a big loss because we had others like him is not appropriate. So, since we have other outfielders we could afford to DFA Ben Francisco? I mean, he only hit .266, showed only a modicum of power and didn't run a lick and was mostly a LFer, what would be the loss?
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby dazindiansfanuk » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:20 pm

dnosco wrote:The point here is that Barton was our 5th best prospect one year


According to Baseball America..... and BAs individual team top 10s are prejudice! :s_rofl
dazindiansfanuk
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:21 pm

dnosco wrote:Brandon Phillips will never be a star

oops!

The point here is that Barton was our 5th best prospect one year and maybe early teens the year we lost him. He can play all the OF positions, has some power and speed and a tick below average arm for a RFer as I remember. He is smart, athletic and has had success. To discount him because his numbers were not great in the first year really doesn't do justice to what Rule 5 hitters do in their first year with their team. I would say, especially after listening to the Cardinals' announcers raving about the guy (I know one of them and he said good things off the mike, as well) that Barton's downside is as a solid ML LFer very much like Ben Francisco but with more SBs. The guy will most likely be a solid major league regular and, instead of minimizing him, we should give him his due. Also saying that he wasn't a big loss because we had others like him is not appropriate. So, since we have other outfielders we could afford to DFA Ben Francisco? I mean, he only hit .266, showed only a modicum of power and didn't run a lick and was mostly a LFer, what would be the loss?



Have to disagree with Phillips being a 'star'. Wouldn't call any player that has an OPS+ under 100 a star......he's an average offensive 2B.....would love to have him, but not a star by any means.


I agree with a lot of the Barton vs. Francisco comparison. though Francisco has showed as much speed in the minors. 2007 saw Francisco have 22 SBs and Barton with 21. Neither ran at all last year in the majors (Barton had 3, Francisco had 4). Don't see either being a 20 SB guy at the ML level (don't see either getting on base or playing enough).....

Do agree that it wasn't a 'no big deal' type of loss though. We'd be a better organization with Barton in it.
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 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:12 pm

If Barton or any other Rule 5er or DFA guy becomes a legit ML starter and productive, like a Brandon Phillips or Jeremy Guthrie, the point has merit. But, if these guys become 4th outfielders, utlity players, and long men in the bully? Feh. Who the eff cares.

At this moment Phillips falls into the former and Barton into the latter.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby dazindiansfanuk » Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:36 pm

"We're probably going to have to take a couple guys off [the 40-man, eventually]," general manager Mark Shapiro said Friday. "We're going to need multiple spots to conduct our offseason business."


http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/news/a ... p&c_id=cle
dazindiansfanuk
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:59 pm

Looks like they are saving the Marte, Mujica, and Aubrey bullets for those multiple moves.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles

Postby npc29 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:30 pm

Better be some lethal bullets.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Previous

Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron