No problem.  The expiration date on my Thompson 40-man roster spot rant has passed, yet I can't resist posting it again and again.

 

Oh, completely with you there. He should have been taken off the 40 man months before he actually was.

Professionally speaking, there is nothing special about Robinson to afford him a spot on the 40 man. I don't know that a 4th/5th OF who can actually play and hit above the Mendoza is truly a "dime a dozen", but they sure are easier to find than a lot of positions. I could have seen keeping him if the team really was unsure about Buxton beginning the season in AAA, but there's just too much fodder taking up spots now as is.

 

On topic but a very different question...could the Twins simply remove someone like, say, Nolasco from the 40 man? I confess to not knowing enough about certain parameters within the rules, but if a team just decided to remove him, he could obviously be claimed and the Twins are off the hook for his remaining contract terms. Of course, this would almost assuredly not happen. 

 

Now, I know it's not as simply as just removing him. But in theory, even being the veteran he is, and under contract, you aren't forced to keep him. But does said contract require him to be kept on the 40? Could he be optioned to Rochester? Would he instead have to pass through waivers? I'm just curious as to the details of a veteran player in his situation that might not fit in any longer.

On topic but a very different question...could the Twins simply remove someone like, say, Nolasco from the 40 man?

Sure. It's called releasing a player.

 

More seriously, Nolasco has the right to refuse a minor league assignment. I think that right accrues after 5 years in the majors. So sure, you can remove him from the 40 man, and perhaps hope that someone takes him off your balance-sheet by claiming him on the waivers that were necessary to do that, but then you have to put him right back on and add him to the active roster again. Unless you've actually released him, but then you still owe him his dough.

 

I wouldn't have wanted Thompson anywhere near the mound in September.  

I don't think he wanted Thompson pitching instead of sitting at home.  He wanted him off the 40-man back then so that someone who was possibly useful could have been added.

 

Sure. It's called releasing a player.

 

More seriously, Nolasco has the right to refuse a minor league assignment. I think that right accrues after 5 years in the majors. So sure, you can remove him from the 40 man, and perhaps hope that someone takes him off your balance-sheet by claiming him on the waivers that were necessary to do that, but then you have to put him right back on and add him to the active roster again. Unless you've actually released him, but then you still owe him his dough.

I would add that nobody in their right mind would take him off our balance sheet.  They would wait until he was a free agent, sign him for the minimum and let the Twins pay the difference.  There is the risk [for the team waiting - edited to clarify] he could sign with someone else instead, but how much of a risk is that? 

 

The question for the Twins is "If you could have him for free, would you give him a roster spot."  If not, you release him.  It's a tough call, but the money doesn't matter because it's already spent.

 

Edited October 27, 201511 yr by gil4

 

Sure. It's called releasing a player.

 

More seriously, Nolasco has the right to refuse a minor league assignment. I think that right accrues after 5 years in the majors. So sure, you can remove him from the 40 man, and perhaps hope that someone takes him off your balance-sheet by claiming him on the waivers that were necessary to do that, but then you have to put him right back on and add him to the active roster again. Unless you've actually released him, but then you still owe him his dough.

Well, I meant other than a straight release of the player, but that's what I was thinking, couldn't remember the particulars. Otherwise you could just "remove" any number of players off the 40 to protect other players. Too bad you can't get sneaky like that.  LOL

Edited October 27, 201511 yr by DocBauer

 

The question for the Twins is "If you could have him for free, would you give him a roster spot."  If not, you release him.  It's a tough call, but the money doesn't matter because it's already spent.

 

And objectively speaking, I think the answer to that question is yes.

 

If Ricky Nolasco had bombed with another club on an ugly contract the last two years and the Twins had the chance to sign him to a veteran minimum contract, most folks here would be demanding they get him as a low risk flier with a chance at being somewhat useful.

 

Again, I want to stress the word objectively as this is coming from a guy who has no interest in starting pitchers over 30 and would gladly cut bait on any and all of them if it meant rotation spots for May, Duffey and Berrios.

 

And objectively speaking, I think the answer to that question is yes.

 

I agree, but that answer might change toward the end of spring training (or in June, if he still hasn't shown signs of life.)

nick loves him some youth*

 

*man, that could be taken out of context!

While Thompson provided no value to the Twins, there wasn't any reason to remove him from the 40-man roster. There just weren't any good options in the Twins' system. There is no point to making such a move until it needs to be made.

Well, I meant other than a straight release of the player,

Perhaps that's why I put a smiley face icon next to that part of my reply, I can't remember for sure.^*

 

but that's what I was thinking, couldn't remember the particulars. Otherwise you could just "remove" any number of players off the 40 to protect other players. Too bad you can't get sneaky like that.  LOL

The geniuses at MLB have thought of everything.

 

^*

 

Back to the subject of this thread, I am glad we waited until now to outright Thompson, him sitting at home on the 40-man roster was of great help during our September push for the postseason...

Apropos of absolutely nothing, the Royals added a player to their 40-man roster yesterday. As in, Oct. 26 yesterday. 20-yr-old rookie Raul Mondesi. If he plays in the series, it will be his MLB debut.

 

The Royals apparently have not thoroughly thought out how that transaction might affect their 2021-2022 seasons.

Edited October 27, 201511 yr by Hosken Bombo Disco

 

Perhaps that's why I put a smiley face icon next to that part of my reply, I can't remember for sure.^*

 

The geniuses at MLB have thought of everything.

 

^*

Haven't they though? Just ruining everything for us free thinking types.  lol

Apropos of absolutely nothing, the Royals added a player to their 40-man roster yesterday. As in, Oct. 26 yesterday. 20-yr-old rookie Raul Mondesi. If he plays in the series, it will be his MLB debut.

 

The Royals apparently have not thoroughly thought out how that transaction might affect their 2021-2022 seasons.

I wonder if Mondesi had to be added this winter anyway, for Rule 5 protection? Still weird to drop Gore, he's a good pinch runner. Not sure what Mondesi brings to the table right now.

[geek]How does this move affect Mondesi's service time?[/geek]

 

[geek]How does this move affect Mondesi's service time?[/geek]

You don't get service time in the postseason.

 

I haven't confirmed anywhere yet, but since Mondesi was signed before the end of the minor league season in August 2011, I think he would have been eligible for Rule 5 this year had he not been added to the 40-man.  (I guess Royals blogs have more important things to discuss right now though )

 

Still not sure how he's more useful than Gore.  Dude is about as close as you can get to an automatic steal.

My reason for mentioning KC and Mondesi was simply to point out that KC is willing to do something extraordinarily out-of-the-box, if they think it can improve their chances.

 

 

Still not sure how he's more useful than Gore.  Dude is about as close as you can get to an automatic steal.

 

It sure is odd, though to me,in this case the motivations are less surprising than the willingness to make the decision itself.

 

Mondesi is a switch hitter, but no way they bring him up for his bat.  They must have wanted more than Colon as a backup infielder.  Aside from Gore, they already had Dyson and Orlando as OF options.

 

They must have wanted more than Colon as a backup infielder.

With Zobrist-Escobar-Moustakas starting, I am not sure why.  If any of them get injured, you can make a mid-series replacement and add Mondesi then.

 

Otherwise, you're not going to remove any of them when healthy, except maybe for a pinch runner in exceptional circumstances... which is why you carry Gore, who looks like the king of pinch running in exceptional circumstances right now.

 

I love pinch runners in the playoffs (Jarvis Brown!) but I guess it probably won't matter much either way.

With Zobrist-Escobar-Moustakas starting, I am not sure why.  If any of them get injured, you can make a mid-series replacement and add Mondesi then.

 

Otherwise, you're not going to remove any of them when healthy, except maybe for a pinch runner in exceptional circumstances... which is why you carry Gore, who looks like the king of pinch running in exceptional circumstances right now.

 

I love pinch runners in the playoffs (Jarvis Brown!) but I guess it probably won't matter much either way.

They still have Dyson.

 

They still have Dyson.

Yeah, they still have Dyson, he's a pretty good pinch runner.  But he probably also profiles as a worthy defensive replacement for Rios too.  (Heck, given the season Rios has had, Dyson has a case for starting over him.)

 

And if you start Dyson, or insert him for defense in the late innings, it would still be nice to have Gore available if Perez or Morales reach base with an absolutely critical run.

Dyson is also a viable pinch-hitting option once the series moves to NY.

Edited October 28, 201511 yr by spycake

I heard Zobrist's wife is very nearly due to give birth, and there are no leave exceptions during the postseason, so that explains the extra infielder Mondesi.

I thought I read that Zobrist will stay with the team.....which I would never do, but everyone is different.

Sounds like Zobrist wouldn't leave the team, but with quite a few conditions:

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25356799/heres-ben-zobrists-world-series-plan-if-wife-goes-into-labor

 

Personally, in that unlikely event, I'd just start Colon in his place, and roll with zero backup infielders.  If a second unlikely event occurred and an infielder got hurt during Zobrist's absence, I'd think Alex Gordon could shift back to the infield for emergency duty for the remainder of that game, and the injured player could be replaced on the roster following the game.

 

Will be moot if the Mets don't get their act together -- they've done practically nothing at the plate since Gordon's game tying HR in game 1.