Article: Rule 5 Addition Discussion

[Seth Stohs]

 

This is about 3.5 months premature     Lots of transactions until then and I suspect that some of the names in the list will not be with the Twins. 

 

BA called Gabriel Moya "arguably the most dominant reliever in the minors".  To me he is automatic.   Reed is kinda of a borderline guy.  I'd put him behind Burdi and Bard at this point.  And behind Curtiss and Moya.   The previous administration loved him, but the decision makers will be different by then.

Have to factor the upcoming changes in the FO, as well.   That's why I am thinking that it is way too early to even think about this.

 

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. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Wasn't there a story confirming that they have insurance on Hughes? Wouldn't Pohlad be saving money if he retired due to injury? I'd kind of think this is the most likely scenario at this point.....

I think that was speculation rather than confirmed. Insurance is pretty expensive for pitchers, I imagine. Who knows what they have and what it covers and to what extent.

 

Also, if he officially retired, he wouldn't get any more salary (the Gil Meche situation). He might have to stay on the roster for the Twins to collect insurance? Not sure how a buyout would work either.

 

I suppose if things don't improve, we'll be hearing about these details, but I suspect it might wait until next year.

[Tuba]

Just glancing at wikipedia it looks like 1B are hardly ever taken in the Rule 5 draft. Only 2 in ten years or so? Both eventually returned/traded. 

[Rcrose29]

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.

[drjim]

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.

That's probably relatively typlical.

 

The system is better, but that was pretty much inevitable since there was going to be a lull in graduations and they had the #1 pick.

 

Not sure if they deserve credit for new developmental practices as of yet.

[maxisagod]

The one thing that is hardly mentioned is the fact the Twins do have to field a 25 man team. The rest of the guys are call ups during next season, if they're ready. So give and take free agents and and 60 man DL, that leaves 15 guys who are not ready for the Twins on your 40 man. Most people's lists have them adding a lot of P (which I agree with), but you still need position players as well.

Currently The Twins only have 4 position players who are not on the 25 man roster. If you're not adding any position players, I don’t think the Twins should be dropping Vargas, Palka, Vielma, and Garver and replacing them for “not ready for prime time” pitchers. You’d only drop these guys if they sign or trade for position players.

 

I agree with other posters that a low A 1B like Diaz is not getting selected, plus no reason to start burning his options this quickly. Stewart, Rodriguez, Thrope, and Moya are also givens to get added IMO along with the top 4 of Seth’s list.

[jsteve96]

The twins should be able to add about 9. My order would go

 

1 Gonsalves

2 Littell

3 Curtiss

4Thorpe

5 stewart

6 Moya

7 Reed

8 Burdi

9 Slegers

10 Diaz

 

Unless Diaz explodes I think he's the first one to be left off. Clay also could be borderline, I could see a team drafting him as a Loogy. Luke Bard is interesting too.

[beckmt]

 

The twins should be able to add about 9. My order would go 1 Gonsalves 2 Littell 3 Curtiss 4Thorpe 5 stewart 6 Moya 7 Reed 8 Burdi 9 Slegers 10 Diaz Unless Diaz explodes I think he's the first one to be left off. Clay also could be borderline, I could see a team drafting him as a Loogy. Luke Bard is interesting too.

 

Would not add Reed, Slegers, Diaz.  I would add Bard.  I of course do not get to see the scouting reports. 

Expect that Palka, Vielma, and Vargas will be removed and I hope Gibson will be.  We know what he has and he needs a reboot elsewhere.

This could all change with trades now and early in the offseason.

[SarasotaBill]

 

This is about 3.5 months premature     Lots of transactions until then and I suspect that some of the names in the list will not be with the Twins. 

 

BA called Gabriel Moya "arguably the most dominant reliever in the minors".  To me he is automatic.   Reed is kinda of a borderline guy.  I'd put him behind Burdi and Bard at this point.  And behind Curtiss and Moya.   The previous administration loved him, but the decision makers will be different by then.

Have to factor the upcoming changes in the FO, as well.   That's why I am thinking that it is way too early to even think about this.

The projected 40 man roster in the off season influences who gets called up or not.

 

For example, Slegers may not be called up because they don't plan to put him on the 40.  

[Thrylos]

 

The projected 40 man roster in the off season influences who gets called up or not.

 

For example, Slegers may not be called up because they don't plan to put him on the 40.  

 

Nope.  The existing 40-man by the end of August (during the season) influences that, because someone needs to be on that roster by 8/31 to be called in September.

 

Trades also need to be taken into consideration.  Let's say that the Twins fully plan to protect Gonsalves, Stewart, and Curtiss (just throwing names out there) .  However, they work a trade with (let's say) Tampa and all 3 are included in a trade for (let's say) Archer.  They do not need to be protected.  And even if they were planning to protect them, for sure they would not need to do that in August so they can pitch in September...

[SarasotaBill]

 

Nope.  The existing 40-man by the end of August (during the season) influences that, because someone needs to be on that roster by 8/31 to be called in September.

 

Trades also need to be taken into consideration.  Let's say that the Twins fully plan to protect Gonsalves, Stewart, and Curtiss (just throwing names out there) .  However, they work a trade with (let's say) Tampa and all 3 are included in a trade for (let's say) Archer.  They do not need to be protected.  And even if they were planning to protect them, for sure they would not need to do that in August so they can pitch in September...

My understanding is a player needs to be on the 40 to play in MLB.

 

Falvey must plan today with the off season, next season, and the next off season in mind. Things change but he has to have a plan (it might include making a trade for a Ace).

 

If you only plan for today then you will need to remove players off the 40 which then exposes them to the Padres or other weak team 40 man roster. There's a reason Falvey has brought up non-prospect players as fill-ins.  

 

[Rosterman]

Yes, you do bring up some non-prospects as fill-ins, if the need arises.

 

I'm looking at the 40-man. I see the following basically leaving because they should be free agents: Belisle, Gee, Perkins, Santiago, Gimenez, Adrianiza and Colon.

 

I would not offer arbitration to Boshers, Gibson, Escobar, Grossman or Vargas at this point.

 

You can also cut O'Rourke, Turley, Recker and possibly Vielma and Palka. I am on the bubble on what to do with Polanco, as well as the longterm situations of Chargois and Hughes. If you can move Hughes off the 40-man, which you should be able to do by adding him back on at the end of his 60-day DL in September - and send him to the minors (and thru waivers) like you did Blackburn, do so at this point. You still are on the hook for his salary. But he's not eating a roster spot.

 

That's a heck of a lot of players that I don't see playing with the Twins come spring of 2018.

 

Added back in, somehow, before the season ends for a looksee would be names like: Park, Slegers, Hurlbut, Rucisnki, maybe Baxendale and Melville. Do you care about Matt Hague? Also, make sure you do look at Palka and Vielma before jettisoning them, if you wish. Looks like names like Wimmers, Tonkin and Heston would be ignored.

 

Many of the above, by giving them a shot with the Twins, then possibly removing them from the 40-man, would still give them enough of a big league taste to maybe resign if the Twins want them for minor league depth. But I don't see any of them as givens for roster spots.

 

The only other pitcher I would possibly add before seasons end would be Jake Reed. Get him some innings going into next season in the majors.

 

Many of the names to drop from the roster should happen during the waiver wire time in August. you shed the spot to add a prospect. YTou still have a better job at revisiting the player in the of-season without having to face arbitration or staying with the max 20% salary cut that you would if they stayed with the organization. Sadly, I don't see many of the names (or free agents) having fights over their signability with another team and most would probably not end up on a 40-man themselves.

 

(Exceptions: Escobar, possibly Grossman, Polanco will be given a flyer...but being out of options hurts him so bad).

 

Which kinda says a sad case for the current state of the Minnesota Twins.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If you can move Hughes off the 40-man, which you should be able to do by adding him back on at the end of his 60-day DL in September - and send him to the minors (and thru waivers) like you did Blackburn, do so at this point.

We can't do that with Hughes.  With 5+ years service time, he has the right to refuse any outright assignment.  So you can expect him stay on the 40-man roster barring release, trade, or retirement. (Blackburn was 16 days shy of 5 years service when we outrighted him.)

[darin617]

I think this is the case for every team in the league. People rate their minor league talent way higher than what they are. Take the Twins since they are our team. Of all the players that need to be protected, how many would actually be able to stay on an active roster all season? I guess the gray area would be if a team goes crazy like San Diego and has 3 rule 5 players on their team again.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think this is the case for every team in the league. People rate their minor league talent way higher than what they are. Take the Twins since they are our team. Of all the players that need to be protected, how many would actually be able to stay on an active roster all season? I guess the gray area would be if a team goes crazy like San Diego and has 3 rule 5 players on their team again.

 

The only team that might "tank" next year is the White Sox....but I have my doubts.

[70charger]

 

agreed, but I have doubts that Pohlad could be convinced of that argument. Cutting him means there's no chance of recuperating any of that value. Maybe the odds are low, but not impossible

 

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.

[jsteve96]

 

Would not add Reed, Slegers, Diaz.  I would add Bard.

gotta add slegers, easily would be taken and has been good in AAA. worth giving 6-8 starts before the end of the season then decide maybe if he should stay on it

[Mr. Brooks]

gotta add slegers, easily would be taken and has been good in AAA. worth giving 6-8 starts before the end of the season then decide maybe if he should stay on it

I don't think Slegers would be taken.

Every team already has a Slegers or two at AAA.

[twins_89]

Starting with the current 40 man roster (and guys on DL) I would break down the roster as follows:

 

Pitchers returning (15): Berrios, Busenitz, Chargois. Duffey, Enns, Hildenberger, Hughes, Jorge, May, Mejia, Pressly, Rogers, Romero, Rosario, Santana

 

Position players returning (11): Castro, Garver, Dozier, Escobar, Mauer, Polanco, Sano, Buxton, Granite, Kepler, Rosario

 

Borderline players (7): Gibson, O'Rourke, Adrianza, Vielma, Palka, Grossman, Vargas 

 

Gone (9): Belisle, Boshers, Colon, Gee, Perkins, Santiago, Turley, Gimenez, Recker

 

 

That would make 26 solid roster spots and I'm guessing 2 or 3 from the borderline list (one of Adrianza/Vielma and one or two of Grossman/Vargas/Palka). That would leave 11-12 spots for rule 5 eligible players. My guess at who gets added:

 

Rule 5 players added to roster (11): Gonsalves, Stewart, Diaz, Thorpe, Littell, Curtis, Reed, Burdi, Moya, Sledgers, Bard

 

 

I also expect to see Moya, Sledger, Bard, and Melotakis up this season and their performance will have an impact on the last roster spots for next season.

[Thrylos]

 

Yes, you do bring up some non-prospects as fill-ins, if the need arises.

 

I'm looking at the 40-man. I see the following basically leaving because they should be free agents: Belisle, Gee, Perkins, Santiago, Gimenez, Adrianiza and Colon.

 

I would not offer arbitration to Boshers, Gibson, Escobar, Grossman or Vargas at this point.

 

 

 

Logistics:

 

Adrianza and Gimenez are not FA.  Both are arbitration eligible.  Gimenez will be a FA in 2019, Adrianza in 2021.  

 

Boshers and Vargas will not be Arbitration eligible until after next season.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

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.

[twinstalker]

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.

[70charger]

 

whoever said it was "good"? 

 

Well. I, for one, did not. 

 

So there's that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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?

[biggentleben]

 

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.

[biggentleben]

 

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.

[Dman]

 

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. 

[biggentleben]

 

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.

[biggentleben]

 

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.

[yarnivek1972]

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 October 4, 2017 by yarnivek1972