Jump to content
Sorry for the server instability, we're seeing some growing pains while migrating to a new platform. We will resolve this as soon as possible, thank you for your patience. ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

No Twins Players Drafted in Rule 5 - Twins pass on their pick


Vanimal46
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, MABB1959 said:

I have no idea how this works but why would the Twins pass on the MLB phase?

Because almost no rule 5 players turn into major leaguers. If you pick someone you have to keep them on your major league roster the entire season or give them back to the team they were on (there's some trades that happen and such, but that's the basic situation). There's almost no players another team won't put on their 40 man who are capable of really sticking on a major league roster. Especially if the Twins are trying to contend. Being forced to keep a player on your 26 man roster all season when he likely isn't helping you win games is not ideal for a team trying to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per usual, the rule 5 is much ado about nothing. Still, I'm a little surprised nobody selected someone from the Twins. With the 26 man roster, I felt Sisk was an almost guaranteed pick by someone as a LH BP stash option. Laweryson was just behind him, IMO, a possible swing man that might turn out to be a "Jax" convert. I was also a bit worried about Severino as a "not yet ready" infielder who took a step forward in 2022 and might be another stash option for a rebuilding team. And while too old to be considered a real prospect, I thought Hellman might be of interest to a number of teams as a 26th man with pop and speed and position flexibility. 

The future of all 4 of these guys isn't exactly exciting, but I can see all of them being part of the Saints roster in 2023, with the potential to "help" the Twins at some point. 

Headrick just might pass Sisk soon as a BP option, but you can't deny what he did at 2 levels in 2022. He and Laweryson might end up as good middle men at the ML level. I'm still a little intrigued by Hellman as a late blooming super-utility guy similar to Gordon, but from the RH side. And while Severino has to prove the growth he showed in 2022 will continue, and he's obviously behind Lewis, Lee, and Julien, potential remains. 

A couple of these guys probably should have gotten a cup of coffee late in 2022 when the Twins were scrambling for healthy bodies. But I'm happy they are all back to help fill out the ST Paul roster. 

As for the Twins selection of Smith in the milb phase, I'm a little confused from the Giant's perspective. He was a 7th round pick in 2019, which is fairly high. He's a big kid at 6' 4"" and 215lbs, and I'm guessing there is some RH power there. And while that power hasn't manifested itself yet, he's only played 3yrs due to covid in 2020.

After a 5 game introduction to pro ball at the rookie level in 2019, he went to low A ball and had a slash line of .307/ .372/ .454/ .826 with 13 XB hits in 43 games. Skip forward past 2020 to 2021 and at 2 levels, mostly A+, his slash line was .290/ .353/ .476/ .829 with 32 XB in 84 games. The wheels came off in 2022 split between 24 games at A+ and 75 games at AA. I guess the Giant's saw something they didn't like and soured on him, didn't have room to protect him, or just felt no-one would be interested enough to grab him. Still, only 24yo and 2 good seasons and a fairly high pick, I'm a little surprised he was there to snag. I'm sure he's destined to repeat AA in 2023, and he's probably a long shot after his poor 2022, but he might prove interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Because almost no rule 5 players turn into major leaguers. If you pick someone you have to keep them on your major league roster the entire season or give them back to the team they were on (there's some trades that happen and such, but that's the basic situation). There's almost no players another team won't put on their 40 man who are capable of really sticking on a major league roster. Especially if the Twins are trying to contend. Being forced to keep a player on your 26 man roster all season when he likely isn't helping you win games is not ideal for a team trying to win.

Thanks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DocBauer said:

A couple of these guys probably should have gotten a cup of coffee late in 2022 when the Twins were scrambling for healthy bodies.

Great post Doc except I do disagree with this one statement. The Twins were absolutely brilliant not to bring these guys up. This eliminated a 40 man roster crunch and they still have them ready in the minors next year when a spot opens up with the Twins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Because almost no rule 5 players turn into major leaguers. If you pick someone you have to keep them on your major league roster the entire season or give them back to the team they were on (there's some trades that happen and such, but that's the basic situation). There's almost no players another team won't put on their 40 man who are capable of really sticking on a major league roster. Especially if the Twins are trying to contend. Being forced to keep a player on your 26 man roster all season when he likely isn't helping you win games is not ideal for a team trying to win.

Johan Santana

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MABB1959 said:

I have no idea how this works but why would the Twins pass on the MLB phase?

They only have one open spot. They got offers out to Correa and Vazquez, and have talked with Rodon and presumably other starters and relievers. And while they have a few guys on the 40-man roster that they could drop, or trade, maybe they didn't see anyone worth losing someone else over.

I tweeted a couple of days ago that if Antoine Kelly Jr was available, I'd take him... or Gus Varland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

"Almost" was a pretty key word in my post. There have been some, yes. But he was also not useful his rookie year for the Twins which was the other main point in my post.

How bad would a pitcher have to be to be worse than the last guy on our staff at any given time? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

How bad would a pitcher have to be to be worse than the last guy on our staff at any given time? 

Go look at the arms available in the rule 5. That's the answer.

Edited to add: Don't undersell how important it is for the team to be able to remove the last guy on the staff at any given time. Being forced to keep an almost unusable guy on the 26 man for an entire season is not nothing. It's a very big deal. Especially with how pitching staffs are used these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

How bad would a pitcher have to be to be worse than the last guy on our staff at any given time? 

According to MLB.com's rankings, the #1 pick in the rule 5 by the Nationals, who have a terrible system, became their 13th best prospect. They're now forced to carry their 13th best prospect on their MLB team all season.

6 others are in the 20s in their systems. These simply aren't great players. They're mostly guys in their mid-20s who haven't made the majors by now. There's usually a reason why a 25/26 year old hasn't made the majors. That reason is usually that they simply aren't good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been surprised not to find any news on the site relating to the Rule 5 draft. This site lists all of the picks:

https://www.mlb.com/news/rule-5-draft-results-2022

It appears that the Twins neither picked nor lost anyone in the major-league phase. In the minor-league phase they picked up 4:

OF Armani Smith (SF)
SS Yohander Martinez (HOU)
INF Yoyner Fajardo (PIT)
RHP Seth Nordlin (TEX)

They lost 2 in the minor-league phase:

Guardians -- RHP Bradley Hanner (MIN)
Cardinals -- RHP Ryan Shreve (MIN)

Other than the fact that Cleveland will turn Hanner into a Cy Young candidate (just because they always do), can anyone fill me in on any of these players? TIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, PDX Twin said:

I've been surprised not to find any news on the site relating to the Rule 5 draft. This site lists all of the picks:

https://www.mlb.com/news/rule-5-draft-results-2022

It appears that the Twins neither picked nor lost anyone in the major-league phase. In the minor-league phase they picked up 4:

OF Armani Smith (SF)
SS Yohander Martinez (HOU)
INF Yoyner Fajardo (PIT)
RHP Seth Nordlin (TEX)

They lost 2 in the minor-league phase:

Guardians -- RHP Bradley Hanner (MIN)
Cardinals -- RHP Ryan Shreve (MIN)

Other than the fact that Cleveland will turn Hanner into a Cy Young candidate (just because they always do), can anyone fill me in on any of these players? TIA.

I merged this with the thread that was started by van.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, PDX Twin said:

I've been surprised not to find any news on the site relating to the Rule 5 draft. This site lists all of the picks:

https://www.mlb.com/news/rule-5-draft-results-2022

It appears that the Twins neither picked nor lost anyone in the major-league phase. In the minor-league phase they picked up 4:

OF Armani Smith (SF)
SS Yohander Martinez (HOU)
INF Yoyner Fajardo (PIT)
RHP Seth Nordlin (TEX)

They lost 2 in the minor-league phase:

Guardians -- RHP Bradley Hanner (MIN)
Cardinals -- RHP Ryan Shreve (MIN)

Other than the fact that Cleveland will turn Hanner into a Cy Young candidate (just because they always do), can anyone fill me in on any of these players? TIA.

Shreve was in the Arizona Fall League this year.  Worked in relief.  Played at A+ last year.

AFL Stats:

image.png.fec8a37f38b9a2496971f9fa3de8f740.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

According to MLB.com's rankings, the #1 pick in the rule 5 by the Nationals, who have a terrible system, became their 13th best prospect. They're now forced to carry their 13th best prospect on their MLB team all season.

6 others are in the 20s in their systems. These simply aren't great players. They're mostly guys in their mid-20s who haven't made the majors by now. There's usually a reason why a 25/26 year old hasn't made the majors. That reason is usually that they simply aren't good enough.

Still worth a shot.  You never know when you're gonna grab the next Santana or Pressly.  Cost is minimal.  You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

According to MLB.com's rankings, the #1 pick in the rule 5 by the Nationals, who have a terrible system, became their 13th best prospect. They're now forced to carry their 13th best prospect on their MLB team all season.

6 others are in the 20s in their systems. These simply aren't great players. They're mostly guys in their mid-20s who haven't made the majors by now. There's usually a reason why a 25/26 year old hasn't made the majors. That reason is usually that they simply aren't good enough.

And yet Twins fans on this site spend the entire month of November fretting about which guys we're gonna lose to this draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

Still worth a shot.  You never know when you're gonna grab the next Santana or Pressly.  Cost is minimal.  You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

 

It's just not that simple. The Twins currently have 39 guys on the 40-man roster. Picking someone in the rule 5 would've put them at 40. They can't cut that guy (I mean they can send him back, but what was the point then?) so when they sign another catcher they have to cut someone else. Who you cutting? I assume they'll want to carry 3 catchers on the 40-man, so who you cutting for the other catcher they sign? I think we'd all like to see them grab a bullpen arm. Who you cutting for that guy? Right handed OF bat? Who you cutting for him? Correa? Who you cutting if they can sign him? The rule 5 guy would be the worst player on the 40-man roster and he can't be cut. 

It's not just grabbing a guy and crossing your fingers they're the next Santana or Pressly. There are numerous other dominoes that fall if they pick someone in the rule 5. The Twins are already set to have to waive multiple guys from the 40-man in order to grab actual MLB players. The cost of taking someone in the Rule 5 is far greater than what you're suggesting.

Pick a name that was available in the Rule 5 and tell me how many current 40-man guys you'd cut in order to keep that guy on the 26-man all season. Try doing the actual exercise of making that decision and see if it's as simple as you're suggesting.

27 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

And yet Twins fans on this site spend the entire month of November fretting about which guys we're gonna lose to this draft.

And I point out in all of those threads that they're fretting about nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

It's just not that simple. The Twins currently have 39 guys on the 40-man roster. Picking someone in the rule 5 would've put them at 40. They can't cut that guy (I mean they can send him back, but what was the point then?) so when they sign another catcher they have to cut someone else. Who you cutting? I assume they'll want to carry 3 catchers on the 40-man, so who you cutting for the other catcher they sign? I think we'd all like to see them grab a bullpen arm. Who you cutting for that guy? Right handed OF bat? Who you cutting for him? Correa? Who you cutting if they can sign him? The rule 5 guy would be the worst player on the 40-man roster and he can't be cut. 

It's not just grabbing a guy and crossing your fingers they're the next Santana or Pressly. There are numerous other dominoes that fall if they pick someone in the rule 5. The Twins are already set to have to waive multiple guys from the 40-man in order to grab actual MLB players. The cost of taking someone in the Rule 5 is far greater than what you're suggesting.

Pick a name that was available in the Rule 5 and tell me how many current 40-man guys you'd cut in order to keep that guy on the 26-man all season. Try doing the actual exercise of making that decision and see if it's as simple as you're suggesting.

And I point out in all of those threads that they're fretting about nothing.

Not my job to make those decisions.  But I can tell you one thing for certain.  There are guys on the current 40 man, probably a hand full of them who we'll look back a year from now and wonder why the hell  they were  there.  That's the job of the guys who get paid to do this.  They should be able to do it.  Besides, as you and others are want to point out, it's probably not that big a deal who is on or not on the 40 man, I mean nobody's taking the guys who aren't anyway.  Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Not my job to make those decisions.  But I can tell you one thing for certain.  There are guys on the current 40 man, probably a hand full of them who we'll look back a year from now and wonder why the hell  they were  there.  That's the job of the guys who get paid to do this.  They should be able to do it.  Besides, as you and others are want to point out, it's probably not that big a deal who is on or not on the 40 man, I mean nobody's taking the guys who aren't anyway.  Right?

Yes, there are guys on the 40-man who many of us currently question why they're there (Emilio Pagan is exhibit A), but that isn't the point. Your argument has been that they should've taken someone in the rule 5. Don't back out with "not my job to make those decisions." They made the decision and you argued it was wrong. You said it was worth a shot to just grab someone in the extremely off chance they're the next Santana or Pressly (Side note: Santana didn't become a full time starter for 5 seasons after he was drafted and after a pedestrian rookie season Pressly actually threw more than twice as many innings in AAA than he did in the majors his second year with the Twins. So their successes were most certainly not instant.)

If you think, as you argued, that their decision to not draft anyone in the rule 5 is wrong then you should be able to point to a few guys you think were worth it and who all you're willing to waive for those guys. The Twins have made their decision. They didn't see anyone available who was so much better than what they have that they were worthy of trying to carry for a season. They already know they'll have to waive or trade current 40 man guys for established big leaguers and felt it wasn't worth being forced to carry a rule 5 guy. You said that decision was wrong and they should've taken a shot cuz there was no real risk in it and "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take." If their decision is wrong you should be able to state why beyond naming 2 rule 5 picks in the last 25 years that worked out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Yes, there are guys on the 40-man who many of us currently question why they're there (Emilio Pagan is exhibit A), but that isn't the point. Your argument has been that they should've taken someone in the rule 5. Don't back out with "not my job to make those decisions." They made the decision and you argued it was wrong. You said it was worth a shot to just grab someone in the extremely off chance they're the next Santana or Pressly (Side note: Santana didn't become a full time starter for 5 seasons after he was drafted and after a pedestrian rookie season Pressly actually threw more than twice as many innings in AAA than he did in the majors his second year with the Twins. So their successes were most certainly not instant.)

If you think, as you argued, that their decision to not draft anyone in the rule 5 is wrong then you should be able to point to a few guys you think were worth it and who all you're willing to waive for those guys. The Twins have made their decision. They didn't see anyone available who was so much better than what they have that they were worthy of trying to carry for a season. They already know they'll have to waive or trade current 40 man guys for established big leaguers and felt it wasn't worth being forced to carry a rule 5 guy. You said that decision was wrong and they should've taken a shot cuz there was no real risk in it and "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take." If their decision is wrong you should be able to state why beyond naming 2 rule 5 picks in the last 25 years that worked out. 

Just because "they didn't see anyone" doesn't mean "they" are right.  You keep saying we'd have to waive guys to make Rule 5 picks.  Not true at all.  Just need to take them off the 40 man.  Or not add them to the 40 man.  Again, shouldn't be a problem.  Unless our fringe guys are so much better than other teams' fringe guys that ours will get taken and theirs ain't worth taking.  IF that were the case, we'd be celebrating another World Series win or ten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...