PDA

View Full Version : Who needs to be put on the 40-man or be exposed to the Rule V draft?



twinstalker
08-15-2012, 11:41 AM
I couldn't find an easy resource for this. 18 yr olds and younger at time of signing need to be added after five seasons (including the signing year season), 19 yrs old and older after four seasons.

Aaron Hicks and probably all high schoolers drafted in 2008 have to be added to the 40. This includes BJ Hermsen, Kolten Wong (oh, wait), and George Springer (oh, wait). Ok, I'm being unfair here. Lots of players don't sign with teams. So Hicks and Hermsen...

And college players in 2009: Kyle Gibson, Chris Herrmann, and Dakota Watts (?). Matt Bashore and Billy Bullock and Ben Tootle will not have to be added, unfortunately.

Anybody else who we'd be afraid to lose?





Side note while perusing the drafts (and probably worth a separate post): here are the non-first picks by the Twins who were drafted in the top five rounds.

2006: Joe Benson, Tyler Robertson, Whit Robbins, Garrett Olson, Devin Shepherd
2007: Danny Rams, Angel Morales, Reggie Williams, Nate Striz (not signed)
2008: Carlos Gutierrez, Shooter Hunt, Tyler Ladendorf, Bobby Lanigan, Danny Ortiz, Nick Romero
2009: Matt Bashore, Billy Bullock (given away), Ben Tootle, Derek McCallum, Tobias Streich
2010: Niko Goodrum, Pat Dean, Eddie Rosario (heh, they hit), Nate Roberts

The jury is out on the 2011 picks and actually some of the 2006 picks (Benson, Robertson). But it's looking very likely that the Twins are going to get exactly one decent player (Rosario) out of this group 2006-2010, a five year period with 24 players the Twins chose in the first five round after their first picks (Parmelee, Revere, Hicks, Gibson, Wimmers).

My first thought is that this is pretty bad drafting, though Rosario can himself bring it into the mediocre range by being the strong player I think he'll be. It would be interesting to see how other teams did here. I'm going to look at one or two teams who are not top salary teams and see what they did.

Cincinatti
2006: Sean Watson, Chris Valaika, Justin Reed, Josh Ravin
2007: Todd Frazier (slugging over .500), Kyle Lotzkar, Zack Cozart (starting shortstop), Scott Carroll, Neftali Soto
2008: Zach Stewart (AAA good, MLB bad), Tyler Cline, Clayton Shunick
2009: Brad Boxberger, Billy Hamilton (top 50 prospect), Donny Joseph (dominant AA-AAA reliever), Mark Fleury, Daniel Tuttle
2010: Ryan Lamarre, Devin Lohman, Brodie Greene, Wes Mugarian

Hmmm...it would be interesting to look at all the teams, but I suspect the Twins have really underachieved in this somewhat crucial area of the draft.

twinswon1991
08-15-2012, 12:11 PM
Terry Ryan, Johnson and all the scouts are guilty of terrible drafting since Mauer. This is the major reasn the Twins have been terrible for 2 years and the outlook is bad going forward. You cant overcome a complete lack of minor league talent in just a year or two. Why TR didnt cash in assets like Span, Willy and others for minor league talent show he doesnt understand the need to build thru the minor leagues. We can only hope TR retires in the offseason so the Twins can bring in a Luhnow or Epstein type mind who knows how to build a winner in modern day baseball.

Thrylos
08-15-2012, 01:30 PM
I think that this (http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?902-Minnesota-Twins-Roster-Payroll-2012)has all the information to answer the question on the title

twinstalker
08-16-2012, 02:10 AM
Wow, thanks for the link. Sorry I didn't see this.

Cap'n Piranha
08-16-2012, 07:40 AM
Matt Bashore and Billy Bullock and Ben Tootle will not have to be added, unfortunately.

Seeing as how Billy Bullock is the reason we have Scott Diamond, I'm perfectly happy we don't have to add him to the 40 man. Unless you would rather have a AA reliever with approximately a 1:1 K/BB ratio, and close to a 2 WHIP over a MLB starter with approximately a 4:1 K/BB ratio, a 1.19 WHIP, and a 2.97 ERA. If you really feel that way, I'm going to go ahead and ignore any baseball-related opinion you have in the future.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-16-2012, 11:08 AM
LOL the amount of butt hurt that happened over trading Billy Bullock perhaps was only matched by the amount when Eduardo Morlan was included in the Garza deal. It's funny how some people can be completely blinded by all other stats when they see a nice k/rate. Who cares that he walks 7 guys per 9 innings, he doesn't pitch to contact!!!1!

greengoblinrulz
08-16-2012, 11:36 AM
Bullock was finally promoted to AAA this yr for ATL
14gm 20.1IP 33h (.355BAA) 25er (11.07ERA) 26k 23bb

His control certainly took a dive when he left the Twins organization
W/MN
91gms 107.2IP 101h 38er (3.18ERA) 150k 56bb
w/ATL
85gms 102.2IP 97h 65er (5.70ERA) 123k 85bb

Probably being a 3rd round pick, but Bullocks first 2 yrs in MN really looks alot like Corey Williams stats. Maybe we can flip him for a starter also.

Nick Nelson
08-16-2012, 11:43 AM
Seeing as how Billy Bullock is the reason we have Scott Diamond, I'm perfectly happy we don't have to add him to the 40 man.
This really isn't true. The reason the Twins have Diamond is because they acquired him in the Rule 5 draft. The reason they were able to keep him is because they decided to trade Bullock rather than simply keeping Diamond on the MLB roster and giving up nothing, which was a questionable decision regardless of how Bullock panned out.

greengoblinrulz
08-16-2012, 11:44 AM
I think most people were a lil surprised that MN cut Matt Bashore this spring....signed w/NYY
High A (FSL) 5gms..all relief 10IP 13h 4er (3.60ERA) 7k 7bb
Sent back to Low A
11gm..all starts 50IP 38h (.210BAA) 21ER (3.78ERA) 42k 26bb...not great but start on 7/22 2.1IP 7h 10er 1k 3bb. Pretty good 2.10 ERA in those other 10 starts. Of course, he is 24 & still in Low A.
If they hadnt waived him, LaVelle Neal would still be touting him as one of the top pitching prospects :confused:

Cap'n Piranha
08-16-2012, 12:31 PM
Seeing as how Billy Bullock is the reason we have Scott Diamond, I'm perfectly happy we don't have to add him to the 40 man.
This really isn't true. The reason the Twins have Diamond is because they acquired him in the Rule 5 draft. The reason they were able to keep him is because they decided to trade Bullock rather than simply keeping Diamond on the MLB roster and giving up nothing, which was a questionable decision regardless of how Bullock panned out.

Sure, we acquired him in the rule 5 draft, and kept him because of the trade. But this was also prior to 2011, when the Twins honsetly thought they'd be competing for another AL Central title, and Diamond wasn't really showing the ability to be a major league ready pitcher. Had we taken Diamond prior to this year, when the expectations were to lose 90+ games, I would've agreed that we should let Diamond pitch out of the bullpen. At the end of the day, Scott Diamond is a valuable piece moving forward, and Bily Bullock is not; the two will always be tied to each other.

Rosterman
08-16-2012, 12:36 PM
What it shows is that we may be paying out waaaay too much in drafting players that will never reach he majors, or not even start in the majors. Out of the 40 or so drafted each year, 30% usually don't sign, another dozen are cut before they reach high-A ball. Most major league teams work in ONE player a year in a starting role, and ONE pitcher a year, if lucky, in the bullpen (who may be a starter). Another 3-5 may come up to the bigs for a temporary cup-of-coffee and may hang in the system for another year or three. Another 1-2 each year are groomed to become regulars. Even when trading for chips, you never know...but you can pick up another's team million dollar onus baby for a vet easily. And then you have Rule 5, 40-man roster adds which come with a waiver price if you decide to send them back to the minors...there are players out there to look at who are the 26th-28th players on the major league roster but in the minors, or the 41st-45th guys who aren't quite major league ready and not Rule 5 ready either (which Bullock was.....would we be adding him this year to the Twins roster, or risk losing him in the Rule 5). Being a GM is a tough job, you have to juggle so many players and POTENTIAL. And that potential changes every year from level to level.

kab21
08-16-2012, 12:45 PM
ugh... The draft costs one Carl pavano a year. Not investing in the draft is the worst idea ever.

70charger
08-18-2012, 03:15 PM
ugh... The draft costs one Carl pavano a year. Not investing in the draft is the worst idea ever.

Yep. Perspective.

Unless you're the Yankees, you're not winning with free agency. Free agency adds a piece here and there to talent you developed. The miss rate is huge, but not investing in it means languishing.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-18-2012, 11:54 PM
Seeing as how Billy Bullock is the reason we have Scott Diamond, I'm perfectly happy we don't have to add him to the 40 man.
This really isn't true. The reason the Twins have Diamond is because they acquired him in the Rule 5 draft. The reason they were able to keep him is because they decided to trade Bullock rather than simply keeping Diamond on the MLB roster and giving up nothing, which was a questionable decision regardless of how Bullock panned out.

Please, Bullock was never anything special, people just got way to excited since he was able to strike guys out, even before the Twins traded him his numbers weren't that great and he was walking to many people.

Having Diamond as the mop up guy on the 2011 Twins probably hurts his development more than anything, I'm glad he was able to make starts in AAA last year, hard to argue with the results he has put on the field this year.

Frankly, I wonder if we should have just tried to trade a player for Santana back in the day instead of having him waste an entire team controllable year by having him in the majors as the mop up guy before he was ever ready.

Rosterman
08-19-2012, 12:10 AM
It probably wouldn't have happened to Santana. That was one of those gambles...a player that shuld've never been in the majors, but someone saw something.

greengoblinrulz
08-19-2012, 08:48 PM
what about Ft Myers reliever Michael Tonkin, who is up for RULE V.
89K .207BAA 2.08ERA in 65innings.
Sure he would be protected in the minor league portion, but would a HOU/SD type take that type of longshot ??

Seth Stohs
08-19-2012, 09:00 PM
Tonkin certainly has to be considered. There are a lot of intriguing situations on players who are Rule 5 eligible. There are the easy choices like Hicks, Gibson and Herrmann... and then there is Hermsen. Other interesting names include Pugh, Watts. There are just a lot of very interesting names, but then it comes down to how many come off the 40 man roster and how many sports they want to leave open.

greengoblinrulz
08-19-2012, 09:13 PM
Tonkin certainly has to be considered. There are a lot of intriguing situations on players who are Rule 5 eligible. There are the easy choices like Hicks, Gibson and Herrmann... and then there is Hermsen. Other interesting names include Pugh, Watts. There are just a lot of very interesting names, but then it comes down to how many come off the 40 man roster and how many sports they want to leave open.
Ive also mentioned Josmil Pinto, who is actually a FA if not added. His case is unique as there arent many teams that protect 3, let alone 4 catchers like MN will. Is possibly losing him to a team that he has a better chance to move up the ranks worth protecting 5 catchers....or would MN get rid of Drew Butera??
Wonder how much 'cat & mouse' negotiating there will be between MN & Josmil reps.
There just arent many solid catching options (at minor league levels) around to risk losing one IMO.
I would probably take a chance on Pugh/Watts....but they are definately in the conversation as MN cannot afford to lose many hard throwers.

Nick Nelson
08-20-2012, 12:37 AM
Tonkin certainly has to be considered. There are a lot of intriguing situations on players who are Rule 5 eligible. There are the easy choices like Hicks, Gibson and Herrmann... and then there is Hermsen. Other interesting names include Pugh, Watts. There are just a lot of very interesting names, but then it comes down to how many come off the 40 man roster and how many sports they want to leave open.

On the plus side, there are a lot of spots that could potentially become open. Just taking a quick gander at the 40-man, there are many candidates: De Vries, Fien, Gray, Manship, Pavano, Perdomo, Nishioka, Carson, etc. Strengthening the bottom half of their 40-man should be a focus for the Twins; it's much less daunting than focusing on the top half and solid depth is the hallmark of a healthy organization.