40 man roster and the Rule 5
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 20, 2008 9:05 AM CST
63 comments
Today is the deadline for adding players to the 40 man roster for the purpose of protecting them from the Rule 5 draft.
My guess would be that Jose Vallejo and John Mayberry, Jr., are the only guys added. If there's a third, I'd guess it would be Omar Poveda, but he seems like a longshot for someone to want to carry in the pen all season.
I seem to be in the minority on this, but I just don't see why Pedro Strop would be added, since the Rangers could have just given him a major league deal in the first place, or claimed him on waivers in September, if they were willing to use a 40 man roster spot on him.
0 recs |
63 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
fwiw
I believe Vallejo, Mayberry and Strop get added. I give it a 10% chance that Poveda gets added at the expense of Loe or Littleton. I also give it a 40% chance that Poveda gets taken in the draft.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
by RangerMad on Nov 20, 2008 9:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Strop:
Like Scott Lucas pointed out yesterday, the fact that the claiming team would be able to stash him on the 60 day DL to start the season works against us. I think Strop should be protected, since we can obviously do the same thing – stash him on the 60 at the start of ’09 (perhaps making room for a backup catcher on the roster if one is needed).
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
by lonestarJon on Nov 20, 2008 9:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
strop
once i saw this line of thinking it all made sense. a team could easily stash him and decide into the season if he’s worth putting in the bullpen for the year. I could see a team that doesnt have a set bullpen or hopes of contending doing this.
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
by rentz on Nov 20, 2008 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Question
Could we add him to the 40 and put him on the 60 day DL on the same day, protecting him while still being able to add yet another player to protect him?
by venturafearsnolan on Nov 20, 2008 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
Can’t use the 60 until mid-March.
by Jamey Newberg on Nov 20, 2008 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But
I thought Diamond was on the 60 Day all last winter?
by FuturePants on Nov 20, 2008 11:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
He was added to the 40 a year ago today.
by Jamey Newberg on Nov 20, 2008 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
COME ON JAMEY!!!
get it right ;)
"Fielding isn't that important" - Save Us 11/11/08
by Haeger Champ on Nov 20, 2008 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hopefully
we will see a good trade today.
In memory of Ulysses Simpson Grant Stoner. RIP Lil Stoner.
by tricer on Nov 20, 2008 9:57 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
You know, someone needs to start posting this in a morning thread every day this offseason
Until we actually do see a good trade.
I volunteer to be one of those someones.
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
by lonestarJon on Nov 20, 2008 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Poveda
I think he has to be added. Why wouldn’t a team like the Pirates/Mariners take a shot at him?
It’s not going to kill either of those teams’ nonexistent chance at the playoffs by letting Poveda get hit around in the majors for a year as a reliever…
by jcir454 on Nov 20, 2008 9:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Strop
Why add him to the 40 man roster earlier when you can just wait until now? I don’t understand why the Rangers would have forced their hand early.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 20, 2008 10:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand this argument
If you are pushing hot and heavy to sign a guy, and you’re going to add him to the 40 man roster anyway in a few weeks, why would you not sign him to a major league deal in the first place?
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 20, 2008 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Risk
Is there really any risk or added cost to signing him to a minor league deal and waiting a few weeks to make the decision? My thoughts are why not sign him to a minor league deal if you can. This way you are able to take your time making the decision and not force yourself to commit to a player. A lot of things can happen in a couple weeks, especially around this time of year.
"You taste like a burger. I don't like you anymore."
by Heebs on Nov 20, 2008 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's how I see it
If there is no reason to add him then as opposed to a few weeks later, then why not wait the few weeks.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 20, 2008 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because someone else...
…might give him a major league deal, and he’ll sign with them instead.
Again, what’s the point?
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 20, 2008 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, this is my lack of knowledge of the rules...
But please shed some light on this situation for me. I’ll chaulk it up to a lack of knowledge.
If Strop signs with us on a minor league contract, is he free to negotiate with other teams? To be more clear, can other teams approach him and offer him a major league deal while he is signed under a minor league deal with the Rangers? My understanding is no to both.
Now, who knows how the original negotations went, I don’t. I do know that other teams must NOT have offered him a major league deal because he chose to sign with the Rangers instead. I don’t know if the club knew that or what, but it appears they had no trouble signing him to a minor league deal.
Either they were only interested in his services enough to give him a minor league deal and not, at that time, willing to give him a roster spot on the 40 or they knew that he was not being offered a major league deal (which is hard for me to imagine they would know that for certain) and chose to take the low risk route. The can examine the roster for a few weeks and allow for some flexibility with possible trades or signings. If nothing happens, they can put him on the roster.
I guess I just need to know when you say “someone else might give him a major league deal” what time frame you are referring to.
"You taste like a burger. I don't like you anymore."
by Heebs on Nov 20, 2008 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No
But if you are negotiating with him, and he’s a priority for you, and you are willing to moneywhip him on a minor league deal to get him, and you are willing to give him a major league deal anyway, why not just sign him to a major league deal in the first place instead of jacking around with a minor league deal and then adding him a few weeks later?
That’s what I don’t get about the “why not sign him to a minor league contract and add him later” argument. It doesn’t make sense.
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 20, 2008 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it allows for some contingincies
who knows how many deals JD has up in the air.
In memory of Ulysses Simpson Grant Stoner. RIP Lil Stoner.
by tricer on Nov 20, 2008 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It leaves that 40 man spot available
It also leaves Strop available to be traded without the other team worrying right away about making room on the 40 man roster for him.
And apparently, the Rangers have made it clear to him that they wanted him and I’m guessing saw a great future for him here. Wasn’t it Thad Levine who Strop and his agent said really showed how much Texas wanted him? My guess is that he told them that he was likely to be put on the 40 man roster at a later date to help with some extra time for the Rangers.
I just still don’t see the good in offering him a Major League deal right away when there really didn’t seem to be a huge market for him at the time.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 20, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think...
…you can trade a player you’ve signed as a free agent without that player’s consent until May or June, even if it is a minor league deal.
And if there’s not enough of a market for someone to offer him a major league deal, then why put him on the 40 man roster now? I mean, if someone likes him enough to draft him in the Rule 5 draft and carry him on their roster all season, they presumably would like him enough to offer him a major league deal in the first place.
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 20, 2008 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One thought
If he gets claimed the Rangers can still trade him to that team, right?
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Nov 20, 2008 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sort of, but not really
What teams sometimes due is return a player, but then trade for him after he clears waivers, so they can keep him in the organization but not on the 25 man roster all season.
However, if another team claims him on waivers, they get him and can keep him (per the 25 man roster rule). That’s what happened with Jose Morban, who was drafted by Minnesota, was put on waivers so he’d go back to Texas, and then claimed by Baltimore.
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 20, 2008 2:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
contingencies
Well I don’t know, but I suppose that JD was probably in the middle of several negotiations and the flexibility for that roster spot that Strop would have required could have been a benefit if some of those proposed deals ended up happening.
In memory of Ulysses Simpson Grant Stoner. RIP Lil Stoner.
by tricer on Nov 20, 2008 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What's the advantage of keeping Loe/Littleton
Over Poveda?
by hiafex on Nov 20, 2008 10:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Rule 5
It was mentioned in the newberg mailing that the rangers could leave off poveda and then trade him before the rule 5 and he’s another teams problem.
My question is if that happens I assume the other team can then add him to the 40 and protect him even though the deadline for that had passed?
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
by rentz on Nov 20, 2008 10:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
good question
i dont know much about the rule 5 program, but is it so that after today there is no possibility of making changes to the 40 until after the draft? like if one of our players was paralyzed in a motorcycle accident we wouldnt be able to promote poveda to that extra spot? maybe if someone has a link to an article that explains the thing in great detail that would help
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Nov 20, 2008 10:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
My question is if that happens I assume the other team can then add him to the 40 and protect him even though the deadline for that had passed?
No.
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 20, 2008 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we can assume JD’s worked the phones on Poveda, at least with Theo.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Nov 20, 2008 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Strop
is it possible that the reason the Rangers gave him such a high dollar contract (as far as minor league FAs go) because it might give teams a reason to not take him in the draft? It seems like his salary is much more substantial to take on than the usual Rule V pick.
Also, is it completely unheard of to move Cat off the 40 during the offseason, with an invite to spring training and knowing that no other team would claim him, similar to what the Nationals just did with Dmitri Young?
by clark on Nov 20, 2008 11:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
as a Rule V
pick he would be paid league minimum, since he has to be on the 25, and that’s around 390K. So his 90K minor league deal shouldn’t be a factor.
But I may be wrong.
by BHill on Nov 20, 2008 11:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
oh is that all it was
I was thinking 900k. obviously there is a big difference there. nevermind, then.
by clark on Nov 20, 2008 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i wish my employer
would make that “extra zero” mistake for our 09 budget.
"Fielding isn't that important" - Save Us 11/11/08
by Haeger Champ on Nov 20, 2008 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Pedro
Thanks for stopping by, been real FUN.
DSheppard Winner of the 2008 Game Day Thread Graphics Award
Gossamer 1st Runner Up
Honorable Mention:
TxStCa, Rodney, LSJ, Baseballs Girlfriend, CMKelly29, Ghtd36, Chase Irwin,
Rangers85
by LAMuscleFag on Nov 20, 2008 11:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
thanks for...
Stroping by. (Insert Norm laugh, here).
"Fielding isn't that important" - Save Us 11/11/08
by Haeger Champ on Nov 20, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well played sir!
DSheppard Winner of the 2008 Game Day Thread Graphics Award
Gossamer 1st Runner Up
Honorable Mention:
TxStCa, Rodney, LSJ, Baseballs Girlfriend, CMKelly29, Ghtd36, Chase Irwin,
Rangers85
by LAMuscleFag on Nov 20, 2008 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Question on Frank Catalanotto...
I left this on the Dallas Morning News Blog, but thought I’d leave it here to see what others think:
Is there any reason the Rangers shouldn’t release Frank Catalanotto? He’s a defensive liability anywhere he plays, has next to no trade value despite having only a year left on his contract, and even if the Rangers are going to be competitive in 2009, Catalanotto, at 35 years of age come next April, represents, at best, a marginal uprgrade offensively over Brandon Boggs or David Murphy.
At first base, Texas has Chris Davis starting, with designated hitter Hank Blalock as the likely backup. They could also use Jarrod Saltalamacchia or Max Ramirez there. And if Texas plans on adding John Mayberry Jr. to the 40-Man Roster, the former Stanford Cardinals first baseman could fill in if Texas finds itself in a pinch.
In the outfield, Josh Hamilton is better offensively and defensively then Catalanotto. Marlon Byrd has been better than Catalanotto offensively and defensively each of the last two years. Nelson Cruz and Murphy are both, at the very least comparable to Catalanotto offensively, and are both far better defensively. Boggs is better than Catalanotto defensively, and, in my opinion, could develop into the better offensive player as early as this coming season. And, again assuming Mayberry is added to the 40-Man Roster, the Rangers could also call him up if help is needed in the outfield.
So, are the Rangers going to keep Catalanotto as a backup Designated Hitter?
I used to believe that violence never solved any problem. That was unitl I got acquitted of murdering my pregnant mistress.
by YourNameHere on Nov 20, 2008 12:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Cat
I’m not sure he even catches on anywhere if he’s released. If Kenny Lofton can go a whole year without being added (granted he is significantly older, but still had a certain skill set), I think Cat’s likely to be unemployed if the Rangers’ cut him.
"Fielding isn't that important" - Save Us 11/11/08
by Haeger Champ on Nov 20, 2008 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Roving batting instructor
He’s smart enough, and if nothing else can teach strike zone principles and awareness.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Nov 20, 2008 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Seems like a possibility...
Although I don’t know the entire situation with the Rangers, it seems that someone like Frank Catalanotto, who wasn’t exactly the most physically blessed (i.e. – limited speed and power), could make for a good coach. For coaches, I tend to prefer the guys who didn’t have it the easiest but still managed to succeed, as they are the guys least likely to take for granted all the steps required to become a professional baseball player.
The only caveat I see for Catalanotto the hitting coach or batting instructor is that he’s rarely used against lefthanded pitcher. It seems like it’d be hard to explain why a guy that needed to be protected against certain pitchers should be instructing guys to prepare against all types of pitchers. But even after that, I still wouldn’t Catalanotto as someone who could become a successful hitting coach or battting instructor.
I used to believe that violence never solved any problem. That was unitl I got acquitted of murdering my pregnant mistress.
by YourNameHere on Nov 20, 2008 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I could see that
on skills and temperament he seems like a good candidate for a coach.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Nov 20, 2008 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the problem is
that the Rangers have too much respect to just flat out release Cat. Remember how this team kept Sosa around when he was being a good team player. They also probably still hope he can get some trade value this season and they can move his contract without having to to just take the whole thing on.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 20, 2008 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sosa and Cat
are vastly different situations
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Nov 20, 2008 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He'd be a pretty much wasted roster spot.
How many platoon hitting, no defense playing players can this team have?
Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.
"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky
by DJCahill on Nov 20, 2008 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Seems like a terrible reason to keep a guy...
Like I said, there are just so many other guys that can cover for Frank Catalanotto. If Catalanotto was a better player and the Rangers had a good shot at competing in 2009, I could see him being kept around. The thing is that Texas probably isn’t in that good a situation and guys like Chris Davis, David Murphy, Brandon Boggs, Nelson Cruz, Jarrod Saltalamacchia and Max Ramirez could use the plate appearances to further their development. And on top of that, there’s a chance— a pretty decent one in my opinion— that all of those guys could be hitting better than Catalanotto next year.
In the outfield, Murphy, Cruz and Boggs are all better defensively that Catalanotto. I’m not sure how Davis could handle a corner outfield spot, but at first base he’s at least comparable to Catalanotto. If the Rangers bring up John Mayberry, he’s supposedly a better defensive outfielder than Catalonotto. And if Catalanotto is a better defensive first baseman than Saltalamacchia and Ramirez, I think the offensive potential of either of the two catchers mitigates Catalanotto’s advantage.
On top of that, Catalanotto is almost never used against lefthanded pitching.
The only way that the Rangers will be able to get anything for Catalanotto is by taking away at-bats from a lot of younger guys. If they do that, after losing someone like Pedro Strop or Omar Poveda, and then only get a return comparable to what Texas got for Eddie Guardado in dealing Catalanotto, it won’t be pretty.
I used to believe that violence never solved any problem. That was unitl I got acquitted of murdering my pregnant mistress.
by YourNameHere on Nov 20, 2008 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its a pretty bad reason
but one I guess that is harder to ignore if you are the one responsible for releasing him.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 20, 2008 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What's even worse
than releasing a guy with money on his contract, is releasing a guy who comes back and makes everyone question why you released him.
People are going to ask why they gave such a limited player a longterm contract whether you keep or release Cat.
Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.
"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky
by DJCahill on Nov 20, 2008 4:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ibanez
Read on Stark’s latest column that the Rangers are interested in Ibanez if they don’t resign Bradley. He also lists the Rangers a one of 6 teams with closer vacancies vying for 15 possible closers.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
by DerekSTheRed on Nov 20, 2008 12:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Mayberry
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see why adding Mayberry is necessary. Is there really a team out there who is going to stash him on their bench all year? Can’t his production be had for the ML minimum from a dozen guys out there who won’t limit a club’s flexibility?
I’m looking at Rule 5 draft results for the past few years… lots of pitchers taken, only two OFs last year (Barton by Cards, Garrett Guzman by Nats… and he was then traded to the Nats and put in the minors). Previous year some guy named Hamilton… but there were certainly extenuating circumstances.
All in all, it seems like exposing a P to save a corner OF is crazy. And I have nothing against JMJ.
by Oddibee on Nov 20, 2008 12:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
some team(s) might perceive him as still being able to play 1B like he did at Stanford where he was a plus defender so he has some OF-1B versatility going for him. Don’t teams trawl the Rule V for multi-position backup-types e.g. Marshall MacDougall, Jason Smith, Tony Blanco etc.?
"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps."
- Emo Phillips
by Rangerchick on Nov 20, 2008 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
not so much
You hit on a few of the examples where they have — but all of those are\were middle INF types, all glove and\or speed, no bat. You usually see young pitchers or middle infielders.
I just can’t help but think there has to be three or four COF prospects better than JMJ who will be unprotected. So now having challenged myself, I’ll go see if I can come up with a few…
by Oddibee on Nov 20, 2008 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
looking forward to seeing the results.
"Fielding isn't that important" - Save Us 11/11/08
by Haeger Champ on Nov 20, 2008 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
After 20 minutes of googling
It’s just too early to tell. There seem to be a few out there, but it is hard to find complete lists of eligibles quite yet. I guess after everyone makes their decisions we’ll be able to see who the COF prospects are. There are a couple out there I found… but analysts seem to be split on whether or not they’ll be protected.
how’s that for a copout?
by Oddibee on Nov 20, 2008 2:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
not bad at all...
thanks for trying.
Is it pretty unlikely the Rangers would make any Rule 5 picks!
OH GEEZ! MAYBERRY TRADED. See ya!
"Fielding isn't that important" - Save Us 11/11/08
by Haeger Champ on Nov 20, 2008 5:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
Can’t his production be had for the ML minimum from a dozen guys out there who won’t limit a club’s flexibility?
Sure. But you don’t grab a Rule 5 guy because of his immediate production, generally. You grab him because you are willing to live with the lack of flexibility to get someone you think is a decent prospect in the organization.
by Adam J. Morris on Nov 20, 2008 2:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
While I think it would be dumb for some team to take JMJ, there are two things working against the Rangers — 1. Barton did pretty well in STL last year, and 2. The Giants only have five OFs on their roster (and JMJ would probably hit 5th for them next year).
The Rangers have to look at that… so I guess I won’t get too worked up if they protect JMJ (especially if they’ve opened a spot by exporting Kam).
Sure would be nice if they just traded JMJ for Lincecum….
by Oddibee on Nov 20, 2008 1:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Lincecum comment was sarcasm
the board just edited out my /sarcasm tag….
by Oddibee on Nov 20, 2008 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
