BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Baseball America: Rule 5 Draft

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Baseball America: Rule 5 Draft

This Year’s Picks or “How the Mets Let Their First Good Catching Prospect Since John Stearns Slip Away for $50K”

9:03 a.m.: Bombshell time! After Goleski and Joakim Soria go 1-2, the Cubs and Tim Wilken drop the biggest name in the Rule 5 in years, selecting Josh Hamilton off the Devil Rays’ roster. Hamilton, of course, was the No. 1 overall pick in the 1999 draft but has battled injuries and drug problems since 2001, his only full season in the minors.

Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: December 07, 2006 at 04:35 PM | 124 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: general

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

101. Walt Davis Posted: December 07, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#2254630)

Add Willie Hernandez to the Rule V success story list.

I asked this in the 1980 Cubs thread (and I should go look to see if there have been any responses) but Hernandez might have had the greatest "Rule V season" of all-time. In that first year, he threw 110 IP of (mostly) relief with an ERA+ of 145 at age 22. Anybody done better?

102. Sam M. Posted: December 07, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2254641)

The Nats also waste one of his pre-arb years on absolutely nothing, so even if Flores does develop (a huge if) they still get less value than they would just trading for him.

Good point. Another reason, besides wanting Flores to have a year playing and developing, that the Nats have good reason to swing a deal with the Mets to allow them to keep Flores and send him down. The Mets may get something back out of it, but if the Nats value Flores enough (and they probably do), the Mets won't get him back.

103. Russlan will never be fond of Jason Bay Posted: December 07, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2254642)

Everyone on the DL has to be activated in the off-season.

In an attempt to put 2 and 2 together, does this mean that the Mets are likely to keep Zambrano? The Mets wouldn't risk losing Flores if they were going to nontender or release Zambrano days later?

104. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 07, 2006 at 10:07 PM (#2254651)

Aquilino Lopez was close, 74 innings at 138.

Maybe Uggla?

105. J. Cross Posted: December 07, 2006 at 10:18 PM (#2254668)

The Mets do benefit from one of the teams in their division making a move that hurts their chances (if only slightly) this season. I don't think the Mets should offer a deal for him. If the Nats want to hold a guy who doesn't have experience above A ball on their roster, they can do that.

106. Sam M. Posted: December 07, 2006 at 10:21 PM (#2254671)

I don't think the Mets should offer a deal for him. If the Nats want to hold a guy who doesn't have experience above A ball on their roster, they can do that.

That's pretty short-sighted. We don't benefit relative to the Phillies and Braves if the Nats suck more because of a short roster. We DO benefit relative to the Phillies and Braves if we get something moderately useful in exchange for Flores.

But only if it's moderately useful. Otherwise, tell Kasten to enjoy his 24-man roster.

107. J. Cross Posted: December 07, 2006 at 10:24 PM (#2254676)

Sure, but we do benefit relative to the D-Backs, Padres, Dodgers, Astros, Cards and other teams.

An organization might benefit if their known not to negotiate when their players are taken in the Rule 5. Game theory, Sam.

108. J. Cross Posted: December 07, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#2254683)

they're known... I hate that.

109. Proo Posted: December 07, 2006 at 10:31 PM (#2254685)

Since nobody else has answered, Joakim is typically pronounced "YO-ah-keem".

110. Raskolnikov Posted: December 07, 2006 at 10:39 PM (#2254692)

Except that since it's the Mets that screwed up here, they should take any opportunity they can to get him back within reasonable limits. Cross, this doesn't hurt the Nationals much at all. There's even a small chance that Flores can be slightly below average this year.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Unless Omar pulls off a couple of brilliant moves, there's no way to make up for this idiocy.

111. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: December 07, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#2254742)

Raskolnikov, Post 86: But is it even worth the stress thinking about possibly losing Flores?

Raskolnikov, Post 110: Stupid, stupid, stupid. Unless Omar pulls off a couple of brilliant moves, there's no way to make up for this idiocy.

Hey, you answered your own question! ;-)

112. j. badger Posted: December 07, 2006 at 11:28 PM (#2254747)

Do the Mets even have 40 players on the 40-man roster? I only count 38 on the roster at mlb.com. This includes Burgos so is presumably up to date. If this is right it makes the move even more Pirates-esque...

113. Shalimar Posted: December 08, 2006 at 12:10 AM (#2254797)

Off-topic, but this seems like a good place to get an answer on a rules question: If Jake Peavy gets traded this off-season, in the middle of a multi-season contract, can he declare himself a free agent after the 2007 season and void the rest of his contract (ala Jeff Shaw and others)? I know that is the normal rule, but I can't remember a similar situation where a team signs a player to a contract that goes beyond their arb years but then trades them before the arb years are over.

114. Shalimar Posted: December 08, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#2254798)

Off-topic, but this seems like a good place to get an answer on a rules question: If Jake Peavy gets traded this off-season, in the middle of a long-term contract, can he declare himself a free agent after the 2007 season and void the rest of his contract (ala Jeff Shaw and others)? I know that is the normal rule, but I can't remember a similar situation where a team signs a player to a contract that goes beyond their arb years but then trades them before the arb years are over.

115. J. Cross Posted: December 08, 2006 at 01:36 AM (#2254897)

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Unless Omar pulls off a couple of brilliant moves, there's no way to make up for this idiocy.

I think you're overestimating the chances that Flores becomes a major league player. Personally, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this.

116. Shalimar Posted: December 08, 2006 at 01:42 AM (#2254906)

Maybe not so good a place, damn this thread died quick.

117. billyshears Posted: December 08, 2006 at 02:02 AM (#2254938)

Flores needs to be playing in the minors next year, not rotting on a bench as a third catcher.

I think this was a really stupid move, but it hurts Flores the most. I felt the same way when the Mets foolishy let Enrique Cruz get away in the Rule 5 draft (though Flores is a much better prospect than Cruz was). Flores is talented but his SLG and OPS mask his high strikeout totals which indicate a problem with making contact/pitch recognition. Spending a year and intermittenly facing major league pitchers isn't going to help him. Like the Brewers with Cruz, the only thing the Nationals will accomplish with this pick is significantly dimishing the chances of Flores having a successful major league career.

118. Social media assassin (Templeusox) Posted: December 08, 2006 at 02:05 AM (#2254941)

I don't understand why the Nationals should care if this reduces Flores' chance to be a good major leaguer.

If the options are:

20% chance of being a good major leaguer for the Nats

or

50% chance of being a good major leaguer for the Mets

it seems like a no-brainer that the risk is worth the reward. Worst comes to worst they keep a prospect away from a competitor.

119. billyshears Posted: December 08, 2006 at 03:06 AM (#2254984)

I don't understand why the Nationals should care if this reduces Flores' chance to be a good major leaguer.

Well they don't really - that's why they picked him. But it still sucks for Flores.

120. Social media assassin (Templeusox) Posted: December 08, 2006 at 03:12 AM (#2254989)

Doesn't suck that much. The major league minimum ain't half bad when you're coming from the minors.

121. ian Posted: December 08, 2006 at 03:13 AM (#2254992)

The Cubs left 24 year old LHP Edward Campusano unprotected -- he was drafted by the Brewers with the 7th pick of the 1st round, and then traded to the Tigers for cash.

He's a reliever, here are his stats:
A+: 29.2 IP, 1.21 ERA, 14.26 K/9, 0.84 WHIP
AA: 25.2 IP, 1.75 ERA, 11.92 K/9, 1.17 WHIP

He's had some elbow issues but is supposed to come with a 92-93 mph plus fastball and a plus-plus slider. Why would the Cubs give up on him?? He should be at least a good LOOGY this year for the Tigers.

122. Darren

Posted: December 08, 2006 at 04:38 AM (#2255103)

Can someone please confirm for me whether Dan Smith was available? He's a 6'5 lefty who had some very nice numbers at AA this year? Why wouldn't someone take a flyer on him?

123. Walt Davis Posted: December 08, 2006 at 06:23 AM (#2255245)

The Cubs left 24 year old LHP Edward Campusano unprotected

And ZIPS projects him to a 4.11 ERA. Idiot Cubs.

On the bright side, after the Cubs trade Jones, they won't have any lefties for Campusano to mow down. :-)

124. bibigon Posted: December 08, 2006 at 06:45 AM (#2255265)

Doesn't suck that much. The major league minimum ain't half bad when you're coming from the minors.

That's an interesting question - have Flores' expected earnings increased, or decreased because of this?

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Baseball America: Rule 5 Draft

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics