2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
119 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
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....
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: 6468
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
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
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!
-

TonyIBI - MLB Rookie
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
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
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
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
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.
-

TonyIBI - MLB Rookie
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
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: 6468
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
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: 251
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:07 am
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
I'd be surprised if more than 2 are taken. The ones left off aren't that good.
My guess is only one.
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
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.
We typically tend to get overly worked up on who we lose in the Rule 5.....but that is fandom for you.
-

TonyIBI - MLB Rookie
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
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: 6468
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
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.
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
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?
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
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!

- dazindiansfanuk
- Double-A Hot Shot
- Posts: 1854
- Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:51 pm
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
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: 6468
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
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.
At this moment Phillips falls into the former and Barton into the latter.
-

TonyIBI - MLB Rookie
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
"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
Looks like they are saving the Marte, Mujica, and Aubrey bullets for those multiple moves.
-

TonyIBI - MLB Rookie
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm
Re: 2008 Indians Rule 5 Eligibles
Better be some lethal bullets.
- npc29
- Single-A Phenom
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
- Location: Kent, OH
119 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Indians Prospect Talk
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




