RSS Twitter Facebook YouTube
Expand Menu

Rule V Eligibility

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

Rule V Eligibility

Postby npc29 » Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:05 pm

I'm a little obsessive about keeping track of all sorts of info with charts, and one chart that I'd like to add to my "arsenal" per say is a Rule V one.

I've already finished it somewhat, but I'm having trouble finding clarification, so maybe Tony or someone here knows the answer to this question.

Joanniel Montero, Kelvin De La Cruz and Hector Rondon are all guys i've got listed being signed in or around 2004, which would mean they are rule V eligible this year for the first time.

Now I think I've seen it mentioned that De La Cruz was signed after a certain date, so he isn't Rule V eligible to next year? If that's true, are Montero and Rondon in the same boat?

Anyway, I'll share the chart if it's resourceful to everyone.. I want to clear up all the errors that it might have though.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am

Rondon (signed 8/3/2004) and Montero (signed 6/24/2004) are both eligible.

De La Cruz signed 12/8/2004. It was five days before the Rule 5 Draft that year, but my understanding is he signed a 2005 contract and since he did not play or sign during the 2004 season it doesn't count. I am still awaiting clarification on that.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby npc29 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:13 am

Ah, Thanks Tony.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:59 pm

And another person raises his hand with one of the questions I tend to ask. :lol:

Tony,
I feel that the number of followers I have is growing.
We should talk about building a 'living document' that people can use for referencing Rule 5 draft eligiblity.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:47 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:And another person raises his hand with one of the questions I tend to ask. :lol:

Tony,
I feel that the number of followers I have is growing.
We should talk about building a 'living document' that people can use for referencing Rule 5 draft eligiblity.


Yes, that is a goal this offseason.....to develop a Rule 5 FAQ that puts a lot of these question marks to rest. I thought you were spearheading this? ;)

Definitely will help, and once complete house it on the site for general reference.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:59 pm

Mis-communication I guess.
I was working on the Rule 5 FAQ but I had tabled my much of my work on the 'living document list' of those eligible (going forward each year - 2008, 2009, 2010, etc). Any listing from the Tribe after the season will do wonders to tighten up the listing and correct any errors on what I have.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:05 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:Mis-communication I guess.
I was working on the Rule 5 FAQ but I had tabled my much of my work on the 'living document list' of those eligible (going forward each year - 2008, 2009, 2010, etc). Any listing from the Tribe after the season will do wonders to tighten up the listing and correct any errors on what I have.


Do note, we'll have a separate listing for the actual player list for 2008 Rule 5 eligibles.

The FAQ I am talking about is something that is timeless and answers all questions Rule 5 related.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:13 pm

Consigliere wrote:[Do note, we'll have a separate listing for the actual player list for 2008 Rule 5 eligibles.

The FAQ I am talking about is something that is timeless and answers all questions Rule 5 related.


And I thought that is what you meant (it's in the works).
I'm proposing that in addition to that FAQ, we work on a listing that shows players that are eligible not only this season (2008), but also projects players draft eligibility going out a couple of seasons. Just a thought on my part.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Jake Taylor » Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:29 pm

I've been wondering over the past couple weeks what kind of roster moves we would be making to put players on the 40-man roster to protect them from the Rule V draft. I speculated Snyder and Santos would both be removed from the 40-man, and they both were indeed removed.

Listing all the players eligible for the draft would be a great addition to the site. The site is great already reading about the minor league events, and it's something I've become avid about over the past couple of years.

I expect a few other players to not be on the 40-man next year to be... Fasano, Donnelley, Rincon, Slocum, and potentially Mastny, Dellucci, or Bullington.

With all the players we need to add to the 40-man, it makes me nervous we may be losing a player with a good deal of versatility in the like of Chris Gimenez.
Jake Taylor
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:19 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby npc29 » Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:11 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:
Consigliere wrote:[Do note, we'll have a separate listing for the actual player list for 2008 Rule 5 eligibles.

The FAQ I am talking about is something that is timeless and answers all questions Rule 5 related.


And I thought that is what you meant (it's in the works).
I'm proposing that in addition to that FAQ, we work on a listing that shows players that are eligible not only this season (2008), but also projects players draft eligibility going out a couple of seasons. Just a thought on my part.


That's sort of what I was doing with a spreadsheet.. Thinking along those lines, because I like to have the reference. Which is why I asked the question about the three International signings this year.

I'll tidy what I did up and upload it, see if what I did is what you were getting at..
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:14 am

Guys, this is on my to-do list this offseason and something I plan to work on right outta the gates while I am also putting together my prospect rankings. If anyone has anything already sort of written up as far as a FAQ goes, let me know and we can work from there. Otherwise, I will start the FAQ and get all the basics in there and then I'll open the floor here for anything we may be missing. The goal here is to make this the most comprehensive Rule 5 FAQ out there that answers everything. No more unknowns.

The big one I plan to topple is eligibility.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby MadThinker88 » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:23 am

I'll be sending you some items for the FAQ and my older list concept during this weekend.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby osueddy » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:26 pm

Will the Indians have to roster Rondon since he is eligible?
osueddy
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:08 pm
Location: Carrollton, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby MadThinker88 » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:42 pm

osueddy wrote:Will the Indians have to roster Rondon since he is eligible?

Don't you mean: Will they roster him......??

I believe they should and will but time will tell. I'm sure each fan has a different opinion on every player that must be considered.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:00 pm

Rondon is eligible.

But I don't think he is a slam dunk to be rostered.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:13 pm

TL,
Check your email. Sent items for you to review and possibly post.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:30 pm

I'm away from my personal account at the moment, but will check later tonight.

With my minor league FA listing done and my Tony Awards set to post tomorrow, I can finally dive into the Rule 5 stuff this weekend. Also, start my 2009 prospect rankings.

Thanks man.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby PronkDH48 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:15 pm

I guess with our pitching depth this is gonna have to happen but it'd be a bummer to lose either of these guys. I'm still kind of bummed that we didn't roster Barton last year.
PronkDH48
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:36 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby toledobuck » Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:43 am

There is no way that Rondon does not get rostered onto the 40.
toledobuck
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:07 am

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby npc29 » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:42 pm

There are 62 players on that Rule 5-eligible list. Some of the more notable names are Jordan Brown, T.J. Burton, Crowe, Chris Gimenez, Chuck Lofgren, Carlos Santana and Jeff Stevens.

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/news/a ... p&c_id=cle

I've counted 29 that are of some importance.. That leaves about 33 more..
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby timdav » Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:01 pm

Here's hoping I get this correct. I *believe* what I'm about to say is accurate:

Rule 5 Eligibility for signed players................

1. If a player is age 17 or younger a day before the June draft day, he gets 4 years of US-based minor league experience before he must be protected on the 40 man roster prior to the Rule 5 draft.

2. If a player is age 18 or older on the June draft day, he gets 3 years of US-based minor league experience before he must be protected on the 40 man roster prior to the Rule 5 draft.

So, experience in the Dominican Summer league, or other non-US summer leagues, or even in the independent leagues does NOT count as experience toward the ticking rule-5 clock.

I'm pretty sure I got it right.

Tim
Akron
timdav
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:30 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby npc29 » Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:06 pm

yeah that is correct and the way I've figured out Rule V to this point.. There could be more rules but those are the basics I believe.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:38 pm

Time in the Dominican leagues counts. Eligibility is all based on when they sign. Here is it straight from the CBA:

• If 18 years old or younger on the June 5 preceding the player's original signing date, the player is subject to selection at the fifth Rule 5 Draft following the effective season of the player's original contract;
• If 19 years old or older on the June 5 preceding the player's original signing date, the player is subject to selection at the fourth Rule 5 Draft following the effective season of the player's original contract;
• If a player is released and re-signed by the same club within one year, that player's Rule 5 eligibility is based on his original contract with that club;
• Any player who has previously been subject to a Rule 5 Draft is subject to all subsequent Rule 5 drafts.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:27 pm

I didn't think that either Rondon or de la Cruz were eligible thanks to the rule change, but could be wrong. Rondon only has 3 years in pro ball. Same with de la Cruz. Didn't think that all those Dominican years counted....but you very well could be right (got a link/source for that?).


Tribe already opened up 2 spots with Snyder and Santos being designated. Fasano, Rincon, and Donnelly will be free agents and open up 3 more spots (5 total).

One spot has to be taken by westbrook who has to be put back on the 40 man (was on the 60day dl, so wasn't on it). Down to 4 open spots.

There could be trades that open up some more spots. But if none, then I'd say Santana, Crowe, Brown, and Stevens would be my first 4 choices.....Lofgren was so bad this year can't see anyone taking him and keeping him for the whole year at the big league level. Gimenez could be taken, but isn't as important as the other 4.

Bullington will likely be non-tendered to make another opening (could be used on Ginemez). Possibly Slocum as well.


In any case, Tribe has lots of decisions coming up....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby npc29 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:04 pm

I think we should cut the cord on Slocum, but after he got injured, the Indians said they expected to see him healthy at the start of spring training, bah.

We don't immediately have to add Westbrook back to the 40 man,, if he's gonna miss the entire first half of the year, just leave him on and cross that road when they get to it.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:44 pm

Rondon and De La are eligible. I'll have the list up here on the message board tonight or tomorrow and then post it on the site likely Monday. DSL ball counts. It is not how many seasons the player plays that determines eligibilty, it simply how many Rule 5 Drafts have occurred since they signed. Rondon was signed in 2004.....so 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and now 2008 Rule 5 is the fifth since signing. hence his eligibilty.

This is the common misconception to the rule. People always think it is based on seasons played stateside (I used to think so too). This is why so many young 20-21 year old Latin players are eligible so soon, because they sign at 16-17 and play 1-3 years in the DSL or VSL before getting just 2-3 years stateside, if that.

I'll have the Rule 5 FAQ on the site as well on Friday.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby petes999 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:26 pm

I was worried that De La Cruz would be eligible .... he was signed like a week before the Rule 5 draft in 2004 (04,05,06,07 and now 08 is his 5th draft). To bad we didn't wait. The question is do we protect him and Rondon?

I would definitely protect Rondon and most likely De La Cruz. Kelvin may not be protected just due to some troubles at high-a after his promotion. Yet, if he is as good as people are projecting (a lefty Carmona) you definitely protect him. Some may laugh at this because they are just in high-A. Yet, if you look at two high profile rule-5 pitchers like Santana who was drafted after just 1 year at high A with a 4.67 ERA and Soria after he had just 16.2 innings of minor league ball, you can't take a chance.

Rule 5 is ripe for this type of chance because they can be stashed as the 6th or 7th reliever and sent back down to the minors the following year to develop their secondary stuff to be a starter. What does a Washington or Seattle have to loss by taking a potential #2/#3 starter and seeing if they can keep them stashed away in a year they have no chance. The question is do we want to take a 50/50 shot that we lose (were player is drafted and kept for year) like a Hermann, Giminez or Head who can make it to the bigs yet probably will not be a star or take a 10 percent chance of losing a Rondon, De La Cruz or Lofgren type that could make it big.

Note, a month ago, I would have protected a Lofgren, yet after his recent AFL experience, I think we can leave him off due to being too damaged ...

Yet, I rather protect a top 15 talent (where I put Rondon and De La Cruz) than a 16-25 talent in a Head or others. We don't have too many stars in our system (until this year). We need to keep those that can be stars at the expense of depth players even like Giminez (hate to say that). Yet, who would you rather have in 3 years? A potential Carmona type pitcher over a Byrd or Giminez/Head over a Carrol? I would be sick if we lost a Carmona type where I hated to lose Barton and/or even a Luke Scott (even though we traded him away after he was taken) yet it doesn't make me sick.
petes999
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby npc29 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:19 pm

I think we should protect all the top flight talent that needs protecting.. If a guy like Head projects to be nothing more than a backup, there really is no use in protecting him if there is a chance someone like De La Cruz can be selected and stashed away.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:58 pm

I haven't broken down the list yet on who and who not to protect, but at first look I do NOT protect De La. Even if he is selected, there is almost no chance he sticks with a team. Just nowhere close to major league ready. He has only had success at Low-A. Protecting a guy who will start in High-A next year is a prime example of how you birn unnecessary options on the guy (High-A in 2009 for option #1, Double-A in 2010 for option #2, and Triple-A/bigs in 2011 for option #3....leaving absolutely no flexibility after that).

I am not even 100% sold on Rondon being rostered.

If they are so be it, but I need to break this all down. I'll post the eligible list later tonight or tomorrow once I re-check to make sure everything is correct.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Duane Kuiper » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:42 pm

npc29 wrote:We don't immediately have to add Westbrook back to the 40 man,, if he's gonna miss the entire first half of the year, just leave him on and cross that road when they get to it.

There's no DL during the offseason, so Westbrook has to be on the 40 man roster.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:20 pm

Consigliere wrote:I haven't broken down the list yet on who and who not to protect, but at first look I do NOT protect De La. Even if he is selected, there is almost no chance he sticks with a team. Just nowhere close to major league ready. He has only had success at Low-A. Protecting a guy who will start in High-A next year is a prime example of how you birn unnecessary options on the guy (High-A in 2009 for option #1, Double-A in 2010 for option #2, and Triple-A/bigs in 2011 for option #3....leaving absolutely no flexibility after that).

I am not even 100% sold on Rondon being rostered.

If they are so be it, but I need to break this all down. I'll post the eligible list later tonight or tomorrow once I re-check to make sure everything is correct.


While Tony brings up some valid concerns, I respectfully disagree with his position. I do not see Brian Slocum, Tom Mastny or Eddie Mujica being important enough to the Tribe's plans in 2009 or beyond to warrent being kept over the 'promise' of players further down in the minors.

Players like Rondon and de la Cruz (dam, I really had hoped he wasn't up for Rule 5 this year) are the ones that will either be the valuable trading chips or ones stepping into the spots held by Lee and Westbrook come 2 years from today.

The only way for a mid/ small market team to maintain a competitive position it to keep restocking and filling needs that appear FROM WITHIN. That means a minor league system that keeps talent coming in waves. Time will tell if the Tribe has taken the necessary steps to have the necessary talent waves coming thru.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:23 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:While Tony brings up some valid concerns, I respectfully disagree with his position. I do not see Brian Slocum, Tom Mastny or Eddie Mujica being important enough to the Tribe's plans in 2009 or beyond to warrent being kept over the 'promise' of players further down in the minors.


But I would rather roster a Jordan Brown, Chris Gimenez, and Jeff Stevens instead if they are replacing those guys. By the way, I see no way Masnty and Mujica being removed from the roster. Slocum most definitely will.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby jellis » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:23 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:
Consigliere wrote:I haven't broken down the list yet on who and who not to protect, but at first look I do NOT protect De La. Even if he is selected, there is almost no chance he sticks with a team. Just nowhere close to major league ready. He has only had success at Low-A. Protecting a guy who will start in High-A next year is a prime example of how you birn unnecessary options on the guy (High-A in 2009 for option #1, Double-A in 2010 for option #2, and Triple-A/bigs in 2011 for option #3....leaving absolutely no flexibility after that).

I am not even 100% sold on Rondon being rostered.

If they are so be it, but I need to break this all down. I'll post the eligible list later tonight or tomorrow once I re-check to make sure everything is correct.


While Tony brings up some valid concerns, I respectfully disagree with his position. I do not see Brian Slocum, Tom Mastny or Eddie Mujica being important enough to the Tribe's plans in 2009 or beyond to warrent being kept over the 'promise' of players further down in the minors.

Players like Rondon and de la Cruz (dam, I really had hoped he wasn't up for Rule 5 this year) are the ones that will either be the valuable trading chips or ones stepping into the spots held by Lee and Westbrook come 2 years from today.

The only way for a mid/ small market team to maintain a competitive position it to keep restocking and filling needs that appear FROM WITHIN. That means a minor league system that keeps talent coming in waves. Time will tell if the Tribe has taken the necessary steps to have the necessary talent waves coming thru.


like all fans we are over valuing our specs, Rondon and De la cruz are guys who project as third starters you dont protect them at this point and every team have similar talents for the most part in there minors. These are not guys who make the top 100 spec sin the game actually I doubt either would make the top 150 maybe the top 200 specs.
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby jellis » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:33 pm

Consigliere wrote:
MadThinker88 wrote:While Tony brings up some valid concerns, I respectfully disagree with his position. I do not see Brian Slocum, Tom Mastny or Eddie Mujica being important enough to the Tribe's plans in 2009 or beyond to warrent being kept over the 'promise' of players further down in the minors.


But I would rather roster a Jordan Brown, Chris Gimenez, and Jeff Stevens instead if they are replacing those guys. By the way, I see no way Masnty and Mujica being removed from the roster. Slocum most definitely will.


I couldnt agree more
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:47 pm

Does anyone recall how Johan Santana was viewed going into the Rule 5 draft when he was taken???
I highly doubt Houston or others felt he was a FOR/ #1 starter. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been exposed to being selected by another team (and then dealt to the Twins).

To buy time during that season the Twins used Johan as a loogy/ mop up guy for a year before having him go back to the minors to finish his development.

I am not trying to compare Rondon or de la Cruz to Johan. Just pointing out an aspect to consider.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:26 pm

At this point, I roster guys who are knocking on the big league door first. Guys who are already in Triple-A or who will be in Triple-A next year who have talent and have value. Guys like Gimenez, Brown, Crowe, Herrmann, Santana and Stevens. After those six, I consider my bubble list of Head, Edell, Newsom, and Wagner and weigh them against Rondon/De La and how many spots (if any) are left to fill.

Most likely Rondon will be (and should be) rostered. But he would be the 7th guy after those first six I mentioned. He throws mid 90s, showcased in the Futures Game, is young and very projectable, and so on. De La though I think you don't roster.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:39 am

I agree, no way do Mastny or Mujica get removed from the roster (unless traded obviously). Slocum is likely.....and Bullington seems an almost certainty. JD Martin is another that could go, though he improved this year.


Since Rondon is eligible, he definately has to get rostered. He could stick with a club all year. Cruz I doubt.....though it's possible.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Duane Kuiper » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:10 am

Consigliere wrote:But I would rather roster a Jordan Brown, Chris Gimenez, and Jeff Stevens instead if they are replacing those guys. By the way, I see no way Masnty and Mujica being removed from the roster. Slocum most definitely will.

Mujica is out of options. I see no reason that he should be on a ML roster after how he has performed in the ML.

I'd rather keep a JD Martin if the choice is between the two, who has some promise, over a guy like Mujica. This is Jason Davis over again (keep a player far past the time when it is seen that he isn't a ML player).

Here is what batters did against Mujica in the 2nd half.
.341 .374 .538 .912
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Duane Kuiper » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:24 am

The 40 man roster right now is at 36 if you take off Elarton, Fasano, Rincon and Donnelly.

Slocum should be dropped (out of options). That's 35.

Guys that could be removed are

Bullington (but resigned to a minor league contract)
Aubrey (out of options. Do they keep him on the 25 man roster out of ST? I doubt it.)
Mujica (out of options. Shouldn't be on a ML roster. Maybe he clears waivers and gets resigned to AAA.)

That's 32.

They will need a couple of spots for winter pickups. That's 34.

That gives them room to roster 6 prospects.

And if they need another spot then dump Dellucci.
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:35 am

Just because Mujica is out of minor league options doesn't mean he should be removed from the 40-man roster....and after what Shapiro did with Andy Marte, I see us hanging onto Mujica (Shapiro will probably say he doesn't want to have another Guthrie situation this time).

I could also see Mujica dangled as a trade chip.

Dellucci won't just be cut, though possibly traded. He did have over 10 HRs and around 50 RBIs as a bench player. $4M isn't outrageous for that kind of production off the bench.



And the Tribe can cross the bridge of having to add some players this winter when they come to it. They can always drop players after the Rule-V draft or make trades that open up more spots.

I agree with Elarton, Rincon, Donnelly, and Fasano being removed before the Rule V draft (though can see both Fasano and Donnelly being brought back on NRI contracts with clauses that they make the ML club or become free agents).


I think there's a shot they keep Aubrey on the 25 man roster of of camp. As things stand now...Carroll, Shoppach, Gut/Fran/Choo, Dellucci, Marte and Aubrey are fighting for 4 bench spots. 1 will go to a catcher (be it Shoppach or someone else if he's traded). 1 will go to Dellucci (don't think he'll be moved, but possible). 1 will go to Carroll.

That leaves 1 opening.....right now it's Gut/Francisco/Choo's spot (whichever one isn't in the starting lineup). But I really see one of those 3 being traded this winter. Hard to carry 5 OFers when none are being used as the DH. IF that happens, then do you keep Aubrey or Marte as the 4th bench player?


In any case....Tribe won't cut Aubrey. He's got some trade value (not a lot, but in a package). I'd see JD Martin getting cut before him (though doubt he does either).
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby MadThinker88 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:35 am

Duane Kuiper wrote:The 40 man roster right now is at 36 if you take off Elarton, Fasano, Rincon and Donnelly.

Slocum should be dropped (out of options). That's 35.

Guys that could be removed are

Bullington (but resigned to a minor league contract)
Aubrey (out of options. Do they keep him on the 25 man roster out of ST? I doubt it.)
Mujica (out of options. Shouldn't be on a ML roster. Maybe he clears waivers and gets resigned to AAA.)

That's 32.

They will need a couple of spots for winter pickups. That's 34.

That gives them room to roster 6 prospects.

And if they need another spot then dump Dellucci.


Good walk thru DK. Still holding onto Mastny?? That's another slot that can get used for an eligible player to get protected.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:37 am

Mastny is out of options as well....but don't think he's cut either.

He was on the 2007 team the whole year (one of only 3 relivers to do that, Betancourt and Borowski were the other two). Has too much value to just let go, though wouldn't rule out a trade.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby MadThinker88 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 am

Hermie13 wrote:I'd see JD Martin getting cut before him (though doubt he does either).

JD Martin isn't on the 40 man at this point. He was removed a couple seasons back during continued health issues. Either JD gets added or he can go minor league free agent to another team
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby toledobuck » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:39 am

My take on the 40 man and rule 5:

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....
Last edited by toledobuck on Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
toledobuck
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:07 am

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:06 pm

Good call on Martin (not sure how I missed that). Will be interesting if he gets added or left off. Did pitch well after getting moved to the pen.


And if he did get added....how does that affect his minor league options since he already was on the 40-man roster? I'm assuming he doesn't get 3 more years.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:18 pm

Heard a rumor the Indians are trying to get a fourth option year for Aubrey.

This would be sorta like how Tony Sipp is most likely to get a 4th option year because he spent all this season rehabbing and spent less than 90 days on the active roster in an injured season. This special fourth year option given for medical reasons has been given out in the past, most recently to the Indians in 2006 when Brian Tallet, Andrew Brown and Jason Stanford all received fourth year options because of medical issues in the past.

Not sure I would bother with it though due to the logjam at 1B and many more in the system moving up.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:27 pm

It'd be a nice move though. Aubrey would play 1B or DH then at AAA making that lineup even better. Would also be a nice trade chip during the season if he can show he's able to continue to stay healthy. He does have a career .295 BA, .362 OBP, and .841 OPS in the minors. Doesn't have the monster HR totals you'd like to see in a 1B but has 231 RBIs in 340 games....not great, but not too shabby either....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby jellis » Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:08 pm

Hermie13 wrote:It'd be a nice move though. Aubrey would play 1B or DH then at AAA making that lineup even better. Would also be a nice trade chip during the season if he can show he's able to continue to stay healthy. He does have a career .295 BA, .362 OBP, and .841 OPS in the minors. Doesn't have the monster HR totals you'd like to see in a 1B but has 231 RBIs in 340 games....not great, but not too shabby either....


here's where you and I are going to fundamentally disagree, I think your are over valuing trade value. Guys like Carrol and Aubrey are nice FA's when you don't have to give up anything other than cash, but not people that anyone wants in a deal. They are the equivalent of Zach Jackson or lee Stevens. Aubrey plays power positions and has little to no power and really has proven nothing in his time in the minors a 362 OBP frankly is mediocre and with his lack of power he better over an OBP well over 380 to be a starting first basemen. Hes behind Brown and I feel Head at this point and when you add in the injury history no one is going to call the Indians and say we want Micheal Aubrey. Its the same deal with Carroll, we got him for free for a reason cause he had little trade value cause hes a bench player. You cant trade a lot of lesser guys and get anything thats what the phil's trade to do to get CC and they failed for the same reason.

if we want a Street, Ryan. Cain or the like its going to cost a Huff or Hodges or such. We could get matt Cain but it will cost Laporta. I would be shocked if Jockety even considered trading Harang, you never sell low on a 1 or 2 type pitcher, but if he did sell it would cost shoppach, huff, either sipp or melon.
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:01 am

Aubrey has more trade value because he's still considered a prospect. scouts still love his approach to the plate and is a Lyle Overbay type 1B, not a ton of power but has had a nice ML career. If you take his RBI total over 162 games....it comes to 110. The guy does hit when it counts and gets the base hits you want that'll drive in runs (a lot like Garko but lefthanded and better D). Not saying you're gonna trade Aubrey straight up for anything spectacular but as a seconardy player, he holds value.


I was thinking more of Shoppach, Laffey/S. Lewis, Francisco, and Mastny for Harang. Cincy needs a power righthanded bat and catcher (Shoppach), a LFer (Francisco), and lefty in the rotation as they have all righties right now (Laffey/Lewis), and Mastny is a throw in reliever that would help some in mop-up duty for them. Even trading Harang, the Reds would have a rotation of Volquez, Arroyo, Cueto, Laffey/Lewis, Owings/Bailey......not terrible especially for the increased offense they'd get....and hte money they'd save to throw at other areas....like possibly a Beltre addition at 3B to improve D....

Also, we won't have to give up top prospects for Street (Cain definately, though I think we could get a deal done without LaPorta). Street's value is way down. Only way I include top prospects in the deal is if they include Duchscherer. Even though he's got the injure history, he's still a great pitcher when on the mound. Could fill in the #3 spot in the rotation and if all else fails, is one heck of a reliever (All-Star setup man a few years ago). Only got 1 year left before free agency so Beane may look to move him.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Rule V Eligibility

Postby Duane Kuiper » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:29 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Mastny is out of options as well....but don't think he's cut either.

He was on the 2007 team the whole year (one of only 3 relivers to do that, Betancourt and Borowski were the other two). Has too much value to just let go, though wouldn't rule out a trade.

Mastny still has one option left because of what you said about 07.

http://www.theclevelandfan.com/teamContractDetail.php?theme=indians&season=2009
Duane Kuiper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:51 am

Next

Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron