Surprised Oliveros didn't get protected (based on what we saw in 2012 - looked like he had absolutely nasty stuff), hoe he doesn't get snapped up.

Surprised Oliveras didn't get protected (based on what we saw in 2012 - looked like he had absolutely nasty stuff), hoe he doesn't get snapped up.

Relievers like Atcher are a dime a dozen. Fryer is basically a better hitting version of Butera, who proved his worth on the trade market last year.

 

First, generalizing from that fleecing of the Dodgers is not a good idea. The Dodgers have Clayton Kershaw and are also willing to spend about 80 million bucks on pitchers if need be. The value of Sulbaran diminishes in such a situation.

 

Two, clearly Fryer didn't have to be signed to such a dumb two-way contract and would have passed through waivers. There is no reason to then lose the *next guy* in the bullpen who have started in AAA when Eric Fryer is the reason.

Polanco of Achter? What? Who said that was the actual choice? Eric Fryer vs. Achter. There you go. Breathe with me.

I used to get all upset about this stuff, but generally speaking, they get it right... at least from the sense of actually losing players. Who is the last player they didn't protect that they actually lost to the other team? (I'm sure there have been, I just can't think of it)

 

The report on Achter is right, though I think earlier in the year, he was closer to 92-93 with four pitches. I can't really argue with any of these picks.

 

Given what you have said about Achter in the past, I am really surprised that you are so completely flippant about this! Seriously. Does every Twins decision become a good one instantaneously in your view?

I don't know that Achter has MLB stuff, but I just don't like protecting all these late 20's AAAA players. This team is rebuilding, are Albers, Johnson, Mastroianni, Colabello, Presley and Fryer really the kind of players this team needs to be protecting?

 

A thought on Wimmers and Oliveros. Are the Twins rolling the dice on these two knowing it's unlikely a year removed from TJ surgery neither will likely be able to pitch a full season and stay on a 40-man? I'm not sure I like that gamble for if they get placed on a season ending DL I believe the buyer gets to retain their services the following year and gets another attempt to keep them on the roster. If I was a devious GM I might do just that and see if the player is agreeable to the arrangement. They should be as, a full season on the MLB DL would help with service time and he would get his MLB salary as opposed to riding buses another season in AAA.

I don't know that Achter has MLB stuff, but I just don't like protecting all these late 20's AAAA players. This team is rebuilding, are Albers, Johnson, Mastroianni, Colabello, Presley and Fryer really the kind of players this team needs to be protecting?

 

A thought on Wimmers and Oliveros. Are the Twins rolling the dice on these two knowing it's unlikely a year removed from TJ surgery neither will likely be able to pitch a full season and stay on a 40-man? I'm not sure I like that gamble for if they get placed on a season ending DL I believe the buyer gets to retain their services the following year and gets another attempt to keep them on the roster. If I was a devious GM I might do just that and see if the player is agreeable to the arrangement. They should be as, a full season on the MLB DL would help with service time and he would get his MLB salary as opposed to riding buses another season in AAA.

 

Of course a bunch of marginal AAAA players are not worth protecting. Wimmers and Oliveros probably are, certainly. Albers, Fryer, and Colabello wouldn't be claimed by anybody on the waiver wire at the moment. And either Mastro or Presley should be gone anyway. It's befuddling how they want to protect marginal players and not protect more prospects.

 

It is also strange how people mourning the loss of Duke Welker aren't more bothered by this Achter situation. I didn't care about Welker in part because of Achter's ability to fill in as the next guy in the bullpen. I hope I am wrong and he doesn't get selected.

He was the most likely guy to be added!

Well, the likeliness-radar obviously needs to realign it's gimbals.

Of course a bunch of marginal AAAA players are not worth protecting. Wimmers and Oliveros probably are, certainly. Albers, Fryer, and Colabello wouldn't be claimed by anybody on the waiver wire at the moment. And either Mastro or Presley should be gone anyway. It's befuddling how they want to protect marginal players and not protect more prospects.

 

It is also strange how people mourning the loss of Duke Welker aren't more bothered by this Achter situation. I didn't care about Welker in part because of Achter's ability to fill in as the next guy in the bullpen. I hope I am wrong and he doesn't get selected.

Decisions are made somehow. Perhaps by seeing the player and assessing their skills they can make a better informed decision than by reading a sheet of statistics off the internet.

I have a questions: Isn't it just the players who get added to the 40 man on Wednesday can’t be removed until at least spring training?

 

So you need to have player like Albers, Fryer and Colabello on your 40 man roster that will clear waivers and remain in your system and allow you to make moves before spring training. If someone is picked during the draft they have to stay on major league team for the year, if you drop someone from your 40 man roster after the draft team just need to put them on their 40 man roster.

I don't know that Achter has MLB stuff, but I just don't like protecting all these late 20's AAAA players. This team is rebuilding, are Albers, Johnson, Mastroianni, Colabello, Presley and Fryer really the kind of players this team needs to be protecting?

 

A thought on Wimmers and Oliveros. Are the Twins rolling the dice on these two knowing it's unlikely a year removed from TJ surgery neither will likely be able to pitch a full season and stay on a 40-man? I'm not sure I like that gamble for if they get placed on a season ending DL I believe the buyer gets to retain their services the following year and gets another attempt to keep them on the roster. If I was a devious GM I might do just that and see if the player is agreeable to the arrangement. They should be as, a full season on the MLB DL would help with service time and he would get his MLB salary as opposed to riding buses another season in AAA.

 

The Twins claimed Alejandro Machado in the Rule 5 and kept him on the 25-man roster all season, albeit disabled, during 2007 and when the other team didn't want him back kept him in the system the next year. He's the only player in the Twins Media Guide listed on the all-time roster that never batted or played in a game for the major league team.

I have a question. Would somebody be willing to start a thread...or two threads one that shows a listing of all the twins unprotected in the Rule 5 draft and then a list of probables the twins might select or should select in the Rule 5 draft. I realize the second is hardly feasible but would love to see somebodys perspectives anyway

I have a question. Would somebody be willing to start a thread...or two threads one that shows a listing of all the twins unprotected in the Rule 5 draft and then a list of probables the twins might select or should select in the Rule 5 draft. I realize the second is hardly feasible but would love to see somebodys perspectives anyway

 

I'm sure Baseball America and other sites will do nice Rule 5 draft previews, usually closer to the date of the draft, and they will get linked here. As you mention, the list of potential picks is quite voluminous.

I have a question. Would somebody be willing to start a thread...or two threads one that shows a listing of all the twins unprotected in the Rule 5 draft and then a list of probables the twins might select or should select in the Rule 5 draft. I realize the second is hardly feasible but would love to see somebodys perspectives anyway

 

I'm wating for Fangraphs, BA or MLBTR to make the second list. Well not exactly your second list, I don't want a list of just the guys the Twins would target, that would mostly consist of swingmen with a low K%. But I am waiting for a list of the players left unprotected with high ceilings.

The Twins claimed Alejandro Machado in the Rule 5 and kept him on the 25-man roster all season, albeit disabled, during 2007 and when the other team didn't want him back kept him in the system the next year.

 

I'm pretty sure that once he stays on the 25-man for a year (even on the DL) there is no obligation to offer him back.

I'm pretty sure that once he stays on the 25-man for a year (even on the DL) there is no obligation to offer him back.

Nope, I believe the rule was changed a few years back because teams were stashing Rule 5 players on the DL. I don't know the exact rule but it is something like 150 days active when rosters are limited to 25 players.

Nope, I believe the rule was changed a few years back because teams were stashing Rule 5 players on the DL. I don't know the exact rule but it is something like 150 days active when rosters are limited to 25 players.

 

Learn something new every day. Was the change before or after 2007? (Just in case someone knows without looking - I'm not totally helpless and will try to find it too.)

I'm wating for Fangraphs, BA or MLBTR to make the second list. Well not exactly your second list, I don't want a list of just the guys the Twins would target, that would mostly consist of swingmen with a low K%. But I am waiting for a list of the players left unprotected with high ceilings.

 

Here is BA's list

Phillies Brody Colvin is a very intriguing possibility if the Twins can fix him. Just 23 next season and twice a top 100 prospect

I thnk the Twins will use there last spot and pick someone off the wavier wire instead. Maybe another Florimon move, where they pick and wave.

Nope, I believe the rule was changed a few years back because teams were stashing Rule 5 players on the DL. I don't know the exact rule but it is something like 150 days active when rosters are limited to 25 players.

 

I believe they are required to be active for at least 90 days, or about half the season. If they don't get that in the first season due to injury, it can carry over into the next season - same stipulation that they remain on the 25-man roster or they go back to their original team. In the second season, then, they are able to be optioned once the 90-day minimum is fulfilled.

I believe they are required to be active for at least 90 days, or about half the season. If they don't get that in the first season due to injury, it can carry over into the next season - same stipulation that they remain on the 25-man roster or they go back to their original team. In the second season, then, they are able to be optioned once the 90-day minimum is fulfilled.

I checked mlb.com and my most trusted source (Wikipedia) and confirmed that you are absolutely correct.