Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store

Recent Blogs


Photo

Terry Doyle: bad mistake or is the Rule 5 draft overrated?

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Twins Daily Admin

Twins Daily Admin

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 202 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 10:11 PM

Here's the thing: Terry Doyle wasn't just another rule 5 guy. He was the 2nd one picked. That (hopefully) wont happen again or some time. So how come, with all those available names (and all the Twins apparent needs) the Twins couldn't find a guy worth keeping? Is the Rule 5 that weak now, or was the scouing that bad? Or both?

#2 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 7,583 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 10:44 PM

First and foremost, since they changed the rules, fewer people get through the cracks. Here are the #2 Rule 5 Picks in recent years: 2010 (Jose Flores-returned), 2009 (John Raynor-returned), 2008 (Reegie Corona-returned), 2007 (Evan Meek-returned, but then retained), 2006 (Joakim Soria-he was pretty good), 2005 (Luis Gonzales-UT IF/OF for half a year), 2004 (Andrew Sisco-kept), 2003 (Rich Thompson-traded), 2002 (Hector Luna-returned), 2001 (Luis Ugueto), 2000 (Brandon Knight-returned), 1999 (Johan Santana-TRADED-but he turned out pretty good). Not certain there should have been much expectation. #1 picks don't stay with the selecting team.

#3 Harrison Greeley III

Harrison Greeley III

    Member

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:17 AM

Neither. It should be noted only 12 teams bothered with the Rule 5 draft. If a team has a scout or two that has a beat on someone undervalued in another system, this is a really nice low leverage way to take a chance on that player. Giving a guy a good shot to make the team and then sending him back after a couple of weeks of not missing bats is not a 'bad mistake' at all. It's a calculated low risk, high potential reward scenario.

#4 UCLA_YANKEE_COLA

UCLA_YANKEE_COLA

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:35 AM

Yeah, getting anyone through the Rule V that makes any difference is so rare I just completely ignore it.

#5 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,767 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:07 AM

The problem I had with this is that there were plenty of power arms available for this pick and the Twins did their usual and went for a soft tosser. Obviously, with any rule 5 selection, the odds of keeping the guy are low, but if you are going to get someone, go for someone that could have a longer term impact. I have no problems trying it, but in terms of finding someone who can stick, I would think a power arm that could notch some Ks in a lower level situation would be ideal, especially for a pen lacking those kind of arms. That's true whether we are competing or not. Even if we have another 99 loss season, you still get a guy that you think can develop into something decent, not a mediocre at best player.

#6 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,842 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:22 AM

The problem I had with this is that there were plenty of power arms available for this pick and the Twins did their usual and went for a soft tosser. Obviously, with any rule 5 selection, the odds of keeping the guy are low, but if you are going to get someone, go for someone that could have a longer term impact.

I have no problems trying it, but in terms of finding someone who can stick, I would think a power arm that could notch some Ks in a lower level situation would be ideal, especially for a pen lacking those kind of arms. That's true whether we are competing or not. Even if we have another 99 loss season, you still get a guy that you think can develop into something decent, not a mediocre at best player.


I think the Twins actually had a flame thrower available for other teams to pick (Solimon?) but they all passed. The Twins don't have a lot of starting pitcher depth right now. Doyle could have given them one more guy. It didn't work out but it made sense. I don't think anyone expects anyone taken in the Rule V draft to become a Santana anymore. The rule changed. If you can get a serviceable back end starter, like Diamond, that's probably about as good as you'll get nowadays.

#7 Harrison Greeley III

Harrison Greeley III

    Member

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:14 AM

The problem I had with this is that there were plenty of power arms available for this pick and the Twins did their usual and went for a soft tosser. Obviously, with any rule 5 selection, the odds of keeping the guy are low, but if you are going to get someone, go for someone that could have a longer term impact.

I have no problems trying it, but in terms of finding someone who can stick, I would think a power arm that could notch some Ks in a lower level situation would be ideal, especially for a pen lacking those kind of arms. That's true whether we are competing or not. Even if we have another 99 loss season, you still get a guy that you think can develop into something decent, not a mediocre at best player.


The problem is that a flame thrower who isn't protected on a 40 man roster is most likely a flamethrower who is trying to figure out how to throw strikes. That makes a potentially painful proposition with the idea that he's got to stay on the roster the whole year.

#8 Ultima Ratio

Ultima Ratio

    Super Friend

  • Members
  • 1,749 posts
  • LocationAt my computer

Posted 26 March 2012 - 01:43 PM

Just looking at what it takes to be rule 5 pick (left off of another teams 40 man) means that MUCH more often than not, the player with not make the 25 man of his 'new' team (especially for the duration of the season) unless that team is rebuilding and doesn't care how inept the player is this year, or if the player can be hidden -- to long relief/low stress situations -- which means that most rule 5s are pitchers (I'd guess without looking this up). For a rule 5 to have already been left off the 40 man of another team, yet serendipitously make and contribute to another team's MLB club is rare, very rare (again unless the the above rebuilding/hiding scenario is at work. Therefore, I suppert the thesis that keeping a rule 5 is high risk/reward if trying to be competitive that year, so furthermore, the rule 5 is generally overrated.
Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

#9 Harrison Greeley III

Harrison Greeley III

    Member

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 01:51 PM

....so furthermore, the rule 5 is generally overrated.


How can a draft that is ignored by all but 12 teams possibly be overrated?

#10 Adam

Adam

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:26 PM

I think it's nearly impossible to find players who have a sustained track record of striking people out while limiting walks in the Rule 5 draft, because those players are already protected by their current teams. The Twins have added several power arms who can't throw strikes to their system over the last several years (Lester Oliveros, Jim Hoey, and Juan Morillo come to mind) via trades and waiver claims. None of these guys have amounted to much, and Oliveros is the only one still with the organization. Terry Doyle posted a good ERA in the Arizona Fall League in a small sample size, and the Twins took a shot on him based on that. ERA isn't the best thing to use to evaluate pitchers, but unfortunately whatever evaluations an organization makes for taking a player in the Rule 5 draft almost need to be based on a small sample of data.

#11 minn55441

minn55441

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 517 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:30 PM

I agree, it was worth a shot. I think the strategy is to find a player that may benefit from new or different coaching. Some guys just need a new environment. Some times a coach or instructor within an organization can make it click for that player. Just because it didn't work for us this time around, doesn't mean it wasn't worth the try. As others have pointed out it has really turned into a long shot to find that diamond in the rough, but that is what baseball is all about.

#12 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,755 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:58 PM

It is worth a shot. Just ask the Yankees, Mariners and Cubs about their Rule V pitcher they took and are still with the club. All three are looking like they'll stick and everyone of them had a K/9 rate of 9.0 or better last year in the minors. If you're cureious, their names are Cesar Cabral, Lucas Luetge, and Lendy Castillo. Terry Doyle had a K/9 rate of 6.3 and is long gone. I'm not trying to be a negative voice here, but the Twins absolutely have to change their philosophy on what makes a pither useful. Getting 9 of your 27 outs without the other team putting the ball in play dramatically increases your chance of winning.

#13 Troy Larson

Troy Larson

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:48 PM

I think that the Rule 5 Draft can hamper your roster. If a team wants to keep the player that they'd acquired in the draft, you've to have that player on the big league roster. The only way a team can keep a player that they'd acquired in the minors if they can work out a trade like in the case of Scott Diamond last year. In the end, I think the Rule 5 draft is some what over rated. At the same time, you can get lucky and land a good player. Chances are that the player you got would need to play in the minors. Therefore, having him on the big league club is rushing that player's development.

#14 jeffk

jeffk

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:00 PM

If there is one baseline conclusion from modern baseball data analysis, it's that as player value increases the number of players of that value decreases precipitously; or to put it the other way if you go down the skill level axis far enough the number of players of that level become infinite. This is the concept behind "replacement level". To me what this means is if you're picking a player, you'd rather have the guy who has a 5% chance of being better than replacement level and a 95% chance of being a total bust than the guy who has the 100% chance of being replacement level but nothing better. The problem is the Twins usually seem to pick the latter. To their credit, there have been a couple of non-roster invitees this Spring training that maybe fall into the former category, like Burroughs.

#15 Neinstein

Neinstein

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 170 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:05 PM

We've seen time and again players going to different organizations and becoming better players. Sometimes all it takes is a different approach to their development. I think that most teams consider this when they're drafting. You have an idea of how other organizations handle their pitchers and you draft accordingly. You end up taking a small risk on a gamble that your personnel can turn things around for the draftee. As far as Doyle being a bad idea, there's something to be said about the way the rest of the 2012 draft went down. Luetge, Cabral and Castillo were all taken after Doyle.
"You teach me baseball and I'll teach you relativity. No, we must not. You will learn about relativity faster than I learn baseball." [SIZE=2]​Albert Einstein[/SIZE]

#16 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,767 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:45 PM

The problem is that a flame thrower who isn't protected on a 40 man roster is most likely a flamethrower who is trying to figure out how to throw strikes. That makes a potentially painful proposition with the idea that he's got to stay on the roster the whole year.


I didn't say it was easy... then again, grab a starter and hope that he can play a year out of the pen and be servicable.

#17 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,767 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:46 PM

How can a draft that is ignored by all but 12 teams possibly be overrated?


See Santana, Johan.

#18 jorgenswest

jorgenswest

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:55 PM

The rule 5 draft rules changed in 2006. Santana would not have been available had those rules been in effect when he was selected. The likelihood of any selection being successful (whether kept or not) is very low. The pool of players is much smaller. I would suggest that the Twins made the mistake in keeping Diamond and they made the correct move my returning Doyle.

#19 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,842 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:13 PM

It is worth a shot. Just ask the Yankees, Mariners and Cubs about their Rule V pitcher they took and are still with the club. All three are looking like they'll stick and everyone of them had a K/9 rate of 9.0 or better last year in the minors. If you're cureious, their names are Cesar Cabral, Lucas Luetge, and Lendy Castillo. Terry Doyle had a K/9 rate of 6.3 and is long gone. I'm not trying to be a negative voice here, but the Twins absolutely have to change their philosophy on what makes a pither useful. Getting 9 of your 27 outs without the other team putting the ball in play dramatically increases your chance of winning.


It's not a lock that any of those three will make the team yet. Cabral was taken twice in the rule v draft so he'll be a free agent if he doesn't stick as a LOOGY. Baseball America said of him "Cabral keeps getting picked because he could be a useful left-on-left reliever with some history of success in the minors. He's been effective in the Dominican Winter League (1-0, 0.87). Cabral sinks his average (88-91) mph fastball that touches 93 mph, he has a decent changeup and throws a fringy slider."
Luetge "doesn't really have a plus pitch, but his tick below-average fastball and average secondary stuff allows him to compete because he throws strikes." Sounds like a Twins type pitcher to me.
Castillo "is a long way from a polished pitcher, but he has touched 96 mph and he has shown the makings of a solid breaking ball." Castillo is like Twins pitcher Manuel Soliman, a converted infielder learning to pitch.

The Twins have had remarkable success with the strike throwing, no walk type pitchers. Taking a chance on a guy like Doyle made sense.

#20 Harrison Greeley III

Harrison Greeley III

    Member

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:53 AM

See Santana, Johan.


Point being?

#21 Gernzy

Gernzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 442 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:43 AM

Johan Santana was the biggest Rule 5 steal of all time. It rarely happens that a great player comes out of this draft.
I bent my wookie...

#22 Harrison Greeley III

Harrison Greeley III

    Member

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 03:50 PM

Yep, I get that. I just don't understand why Johan Santana that makes the Rule 5 draft "over-rated." Nobody participates in this draft and looking at this thread, and half the participants didn't even know how it worked until they did some googling. And that's fine. But my definition of "Over-rated" involves some sort of respect or high regard. I think 'mostly irrelevant' is a more accurate description.

#23 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 7,583 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:00 PM

Johan Santana was the biggest Rule 5 steal of all time. It rarely happens that a great player comes out of this draft.


Roberto Clemente was pretty solid too!!

#24 MrHockey

MrHockey

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:12 PM

A power arm like Jim Hoey?

#25 shawntheroad

shawntheroad

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:01 PM

I like the rule 5 draft. Sure, they usually don't pan out, but Doyle cost $25000 for a try. It didn't work out and he goes back to the rival. Big Deal! There is no risk, but a slight chance at reward. The only downside is when the team keeps a guy like Diamond and let's a guy like Bullock go. And even that is probably not a big deal.

#26 lecroy24fan

lecroy24fan

    Member

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:22 PM

Shane Mack wasn't a bad move either.