Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Article: Rule 5 Addition Discussion

stephen gonsalves lewin diaz zack littell john curtiss jake reed
  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#81 Sconnie

Sconnie

    From the "right" side of the St Croix

  • Members
  • 3,413 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 02 August 2017 - 06:35 PM

That would be terrible business analysis. The money is gone any way you slice it, and frankly, we already know that it was an expensive mistake. Literally the only consideration should be whether you think Hughes will provide more value over the life of his contract than the last guy added to the 40-man this offseason will provide over the life of his.

The idea that either will add any value at all is, to be perfectly fair, quite speculative.

whoever said it was "good"? People do lots of things, including buy whole sports franchises for bad reasons.

#82 twinstalker

twinstalker

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 218 posts

Posted 02 August 2017 - 10:19 PM

Yeah, a few points.

 

1) Pohlads have made horrible business decision after horrible business decision.  The saving grace is that Falvine probably doesn't care about Jim Pohlad losing a few dollars.  I'm not sure I understand the insurance thing, though, if in fact it's true what someone said.  If Hughes salary is fully insured if he can't play, and you know he can't play, then it is a really good move to keep him on the 40 in the offseason, 60-day DL him in the season, and start spending the 26 million or whatever to help your team.

 

2) Someone mentioned the Twins might trade some of these candidates for a player before the Rule V.  Trust me, that kind of trade doesn't happen because other teams are trying to pare down their lists, too.

 

3)  Comparison of Diaz to Kepler regarding protecting against Rule V:  ugh.  Kepler was always more highly thought of than Diaz.  But even if they were the same, Kepler could play all three OF positions and 1B.

 

4)  Gimenez is a definite drop but will likely be in spring training next year.  Slegers is a definite no-keep unless they just have no one else, really, to keep.  Keep in mind this team will likely be adding MLB bodies.  Falvine understands the organization now and will add where appropriate.


#83 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 03 August 2017 - 12:01 AM

 

whoever said it was "good"? 

 

Well. I, for one, did not. 

 

So there's that.

  • Sconnie likes this

#84 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 12,628 posts

Posted 03 August 2017 - 07:01 AM

I may be wrong about this because I don't fully understand the rule 5 eligibility parameters, but doesn't Diaz have another year before he needs to be added?

According to his MiLB page, he signed in November of 2013, so wouldn't that put him in the same boat as Palacios and Arraez?


Seth Stohs, any clarification here? Lewin Diaz indeed did not play pro ball in 2013, and his MLB page lists a signing date in November 2013, which seems consistent with that. That would mean he would not be Rule 5 eligible until after the 2018 season. Did he agree to a deal earlier, but it wasn't official until later?
  • diehardtwinsfan and Cory Engelhardt like this

#85 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,673 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 02:50 PM

 

I totally get that he would be in way, way over his head but how much do rule 5 guys play anyway?  We limped along with Haley most of this year and he barely played.  If you are a rebuilding team I don't know why you wouldn't consider it.

 

I will say most of the position players taken have been above A ball and SS, CF or Catchers.  I guess there must be more that goes into it than just grabbing a good prospect.

 

Haley was able to be stashed as a DL guy until they returned him. Not exactly apples to apples.

Co-Editor at CallToThePen.com, covering Twins, Braves, minor leagues, and all other baseball!

 


#86 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,673 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 02:53 PM

 

Yeah, a few points.

 

1) Pohlads have made horrible business decision after horrible business decision.  The saving grace is that Falvine probably doesn't care about Jim Pohlad losing a few dollars.  I'm not sure I understand the insurance thing, though, if in fact it's true what someone said.  If Hughes salary is fully insured if he can't play, and you know he can't play, then it is a really good move to keep him on the 40 in the offseason, 60-day DL him in the season, and start spending the 26 million or whatever to help your team.

 

2) Someone mentioned the Twins might trade some of these candidates for a player before the Rule V.  Trust me, that kind of trade doesn't happen because other teams are trying to pare down their lists, too.

 

3)  Comparison of Diaz to Kepler regarding protecting against Rule V:  ugh.  Kepler was always more highly thought of than Diaz.  But even if they were the same, Kepler could play all three OF positions and 1B.

 

4)  Gimenez is a definite drop but will likely be in spring training next year.  Slegers is a definite no-keep unless they just have no one else, really, to keep.  Keep in mind this team will likely be adding MLB bodies.  Falvine understands the organization now and will add where appropriate.

 

Those sorts of trades happen all the time. Heck, the PTBNL with the Braves/Mariners trade that involved Alex Jackson was based on a guy who was Rule 5 eligible or the deal would have been finalized ahead of time. I would wager 3-4 such trades happen every year.

Co-Editor at CallToThePen.com, covering Twins, Braves, minor leagues, and all other baseball!

 


#87 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 02:54 PM

 

Haley was able to be stashed as a DL guy until they returned him. Not exactly apples to apples.

 

Yeah I pretty much lost this argument big time already.:)


#88 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,673 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 02:55 PM

 

I definitely agree... but I've been getting literally dozens of requests for this information, so I was happy to do the research. The list of names won't change much. Maybe a couple will be let go or will be called up. If they are, then they'll be part of the discussion later for whether or not to keep them on the 40-man. 

 

I'm glad you did the research and posted this. I cited it in an article I did for Puckett's Pond and credited your list here.

Co-Editor at CallToThePen.com, covering Twins, Braves, minor leagues, and all other baseball!

 


#89 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,673 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 02:56 PM

 

It looks like somewhere around 7 or 8 of our top 30 prospects have come into the organization in the last year (since Falvine). Anyone know whether that is typical turnover in the prospect pipeline? Are the evaluators just enamored with the shiny new toys? Or have these guys legitimately upgraded and replaced 25% of our prospect pipeline? And they haven't really jettisoned any significant prospects, so theoretically, the other 7 or 8 that used to be in the system are still there from 30-40.

 

Four of those (Enlow, Leach, Rooker, Lewis) are draft picks from June, so that's not surprising, especially with the #1 pick.

Co-Editor at CallToThePen.com, covering Twins, Braves, minor leagues, and all other baseball!

 


#90 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Minnesota Twins

  • Members
  • 2,893 posts

Posted 04 October 2017 - 08:19 AM

So, if I am understanding the skinny regarding Burdi correctly, he has to be on an active MLB roster for at least 90 days or be offered back. In that case, I think he’s a definite no add. He would have to be pitching at the MLB level by early July. And even then not have a setback after that. No way that happens IMO.

Edited by yarnivek1972, 04 October 2017 - 08:19 AM.


#91 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 12,628 posts

Posted 04 October 2017 - 11:18 AM

 

So, if I am understanding the skinny regarding Burdi correctly, he has to be on an active MLB roster for at least 90 days or be offered back. In that case, I think he’s a definite no add. He would have to be pitching at the MLB level by early July. And even then not have a setback after that. No way that happens IMO.

It's not limited to 2018.  So he could be activated on August 1st, accumulate ~60 days, then stay active for ~30 more days to begin 2019 to meet the requirement.

 

The 90 days also do not have to be continuous. A team could have him active for a month, then DL/rehab him again for a month, and then re-activate him for ~60 days to meet the requirement.


#92 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,673 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 08:49 PM

 

So, if I am understanding the skinny regarding Burdi correctly, he has to be on an active MLB roster for at least 90 days or be offered back. In that case, I think he’s a definite no add. He would have to be pitching at the MLB level by early July. And even then not have a setback after that. No way that happens IMO.

 

Braves still have a Rule 5 guy who is arbitration eligible this year. He'll have to be on the team through May next year to finally fulfill his Rule 5 from 2014.

Co-Editor at CallToThePen.com, covering Twins, Braves, minor leagues, and all other baseball!

 


#93 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 12,628 posts

Posted 11 October 2017 - 08:48 AM

 

Braves still have a Rule 5 guy who is arbitration eligible this year. He'll have to be on the team through May next year to finally fulfill his Rule 5 from 2014.

Wow, Dan Winkler.  2 full years MLB service time already, but still less than 90 days active.  He spent about 2 months on rehab assignments last summer alone, so there is definitely some flexibility to get minor league time for these surgery cases.

 

Winkler was actually pretty effective at the end of last year, and his leverage index suggests it wasn't mop-up work either.

 

https://www.baseball...winklda01.shtml


#94 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,673 posts

Posted 12 October 2017 - 11:40 AM

 

Wow, Dan Winkler.  2 full years MLB service time already, but still less than 90 days active.  He spent about 2 months on rehab assignments last summer alone, so there is definitely some flexibility to get minor league time for these surgery cases.

 

Winkler was actually pretty effective at the end of last year, and his leverage index suggests it wasn't mop-up work either.

 

https://www.baseball...winklda01.shtml

 

Yep, and he's been pitching fairly major spots along the way. His broken arm was the most brutal part of it. He came back from TJS and in an early-season game had a Dave Dravecky moment that simply made your stomach turn over - that's why they were granted longer rehab time for him in the minor leagues as well.

 

He'll be a back end guy for them in 2018.

 

Point being that the Braves picked him knowing he was headed to TJS and have held on through all this other stuff. Burdi very well could go.

Co-Editor at CallToThePen.com, covering Twins, Braves, minor leagues, and all other baseball!

 




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: stephen gonsalves, lewin diaz, zack littell, john curtiss, jake reed