PDA

View Full Version : Reds purchase the contract of six



cinreds21
11-18-2011, 03:21 PM
Some surprises.
johnfayman John Fay
#Reds added to the 40-man: IF Didi Gregorius, RHP Kyle Lotzkar, IF Donald Lutz, IF Henry Rodriguez, IF Neftali Soto and RHP Pedro Villarreal

JaxRed
11-18-2011, 03:28 PM
Lutz to me is the biggest surprise.

Scrap Irony
11-18-2011, 03:36 PM
He's got serious power and high upside.

That got Tony Blanco taken years ago by the Nats.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-18-2011, 03:44 PM
I didn't realize that Lutz was eligible for the Rule V.

Kc61
11-18-2011, 03:47 PM
What important guys have been exposed to Rule V, as of today? Anyone know?

dougdirt
11-18-2011, 03:52 PM
What important guys have been exposed to Rule V, as of today? Anyone know?

I was surprised by Ravin. I think he could get taken. As a starter this year he was sitting 94-95 and he has a good breaking ball. Easily someone you could stash in the bullpen and hope to find some consistency. He is one of those guys who when he is on, can flat out dominate, but when he is off, gets shelled.

lollipopcurve
11-18-2011, 03:53 PM
The flood of position players continues.

Spitball
11-18-2011, 03:55 PM
This was posted on the MLB Trade Rumors site, and when I clicked on Henry Rodriguez's name, I got this: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rodrihe02.shtml

Surely, the Reds didn't add this guy.

dougdirt
11-18-2011, 03:58 PM
This was posted on the MLB Trade Rumors site, and when I clicked on Henry Rodriguez's name, I got this: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rodrihe02.shtml

Surely, the Reds didn't add this guy.

This guy:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=rodrig003hen

BuckeyeRedleg
11-18-2011, 03:59 PM
Including Cozart (and I'm not sure he needs to be included if he's on the 60-day DL) and not including Hernandez, Renteria, Cordero, and Willis that puts them at 40.

Does that mean Hernandez and Cordero will not be brought back?

lollipopcurve
11-18-2011, 04:05 PM
Does that mean Hernandez and Cordero will not be brought back?

Not necessarily. They can always drop someone to make room for someone. (Still some fringe guys on the roster, IMO -- Negron, Janish, Fisher, Horst, Jordan Smith.)

Kc61
11-18-2011, 04:05 PM
Including Cozart (and I'm not sure he needs to be included if he's on the 60-day DL) and not including Hernandez, Renteria, Cordero, and Willis that puts them at 40.

Does that mean Hernandez and Cordero will not be brought back?

Probably means they are free agents and don't have to be protected at this point.

redsmetz
11-18-2011, 04:27 PM
Including Cozart (and I'm not sure he needs to be included if he's on the 60-day DL) and not including Hernandez, Renteria, Cordero, and Willis that puts them at 40.

Does that mean Hernandez and Cordero will not be brought back?

Everyone on the 60 day DL was put back on the 40 man roster at the season's end, so Cozart is included. This does put them at 40 (according to Sheldon). It doesn't mean they won't bring Hernandez or Cordero back, but if they do, they'll have to find roster space for them. The same is true of anyone coming as a free agent etc. There could be trades that will free up some slots. For example, I'd be very surprised to see Paul Janish still be with the club at the beginning of the season.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-18-2011, 04:31 PM
Not necessarily. They can always drop someone to make room for someone. (Still some fringe guys on the roster, IMO -- Negron, Janish, Fisher, Horst, Jordan Smith.)

Good point.

cinreds21
11-18-2011, 04:50 PM
Didi told me he wasn't eligible for the Rule V Draft this year. I still don't know how he was. He didn't sign until late 2007? Oh well. Surprised that Ravin was left off for sure and still kinda surprised that Webb wasn't added and Villarreal was.

dougdirt
11-18-2011, 05:13 PM
Didi told me he wasn't eligible for the Rule V Draft this year. I still don't know how he was. He didn't sign until late 2007? Oh well. Surprised that Ravin was left off for sure and still kinda surprised that Webb wasn't added and Villarreal was.

I wonder if the new CBA has some rules in it that make a change that tell why Didi was added? It is the only reason I can think of. The Reds have told John Fay that all of the players WERE eligible, so there must have been some rule that we didn't know about.

mace
11-18-2011, 05:36 PM
Webb surprises me more than Ravin. Seems like he's much closer and more likely to be selected. Maybe he hurt his stock in the AFL.

dougdirt
11-18-2011, 05:39 PM
Webb surprises me more than Ravin. Seems like he's much closer and more likely to be selected. Maybe he hurt his stock in the AFL.

Disagree. If you solely look at the numbers, sure. But when you look at the stuff and the ability of each when they are on top of their game, it isn't even close.

Another guy I wouldn't be surprised by if he were taken away would be Scott Carroll. His numbers weren't good in AAA this year, but prior to this year his numbers have been good. He has a sinker in the 88-92 range and has touched 95 as a starter. Toss him in the bullpen and his velocity could go up a tad and let him concentrate on one breaking ball (he throws two currently as a starter) and he could be something of value to a team this season.

cinreds21
11-18-2011, 06:55 PM
Webb surprises me more than Ravin. Seems like he's much closer and more likely to be selected. Maybe he hurt his stock in the AFL.

Someone I know from another organization will likely recommend that they take Webb.

cinreds21
11-18-2011, 07:43 PM
And Doug, Gregorius' case still baffles me. It may be the new CBA. Because he didn't sign until late 2007 (after the season) and played his first season in 2008 at 18-years-old. I have sent an e-mail and find out why he was added.

dougdirt
11-18-2011, 07:48 PM
And Doug, Gregorius' case still baffles me. It may be the new CBA. Because he didn't sign until late 2007 (after the season) and played his first season in 2008 at 18-years-old. I have sent an e-mail and find out why he was added.

I wonder if it's one of those weird rules where since he signed while a season was still going on with more than two weeks left, that he qualified? I don't really know what it could be. He signed August 6th, 2007 at age 17. I am with you, the rules right now, as far as we know, suggest he shouldn't have been eligible.

Cooper
11-19-2011, 11:25 AM
All things being equal --seems like you would protect a pitcher way before you protected a position player.

I don't have much faith in Webb.

I can't find stats--wasn't Villareal's BABIP high?

I think there are a number of reasons rule 5 guys do not get picked as often as they used to:

1. more specialization in terms of bullpen use.

2. more innnings spread out over the whole of the bullpen.

3. No one can afford to carry a position player cause they need 13 pitchers on staff...or 14 ...or 15.

Heck, i think you could expose a position player and be pretty certain that no team would take him based on their being no roster spots open to carry a position player.

muddie
11-19-2011, 11:34 AM
I don't have much faith in Webb.

Just curious, why?

Brutus
11-19-2011, 11:55 AM
I wonder if it's one of those weird rules where since he signed while a season was still going on with more than two weeks left, that he qualified? I don't really know what it could be. He signed August 6th, 2007 at age 17. I am with you, the rules right now, as far as we know, suggest he shouldn't have been eligible.

He should be eligible. If he signed Aug. 6, 2007, then this would be his 5th Rule 5 draft. That means he's eligible.

Here is the way the rule reads from the MLR 5(c)(1)(A):


(A)if 18 years of age or under on the June 5 immediately preceding the player's signing, the player shall be subject to selection at the fifth Rule 5 Selection Meeting that follows the signing date of the player's first Major or Minor League contract, unless Rule 5(c)(1)(C) applies;

(C) if the signing date of a player’s first Major or Minor League contract is between

(i) the conclusion of the championship season for the Major or Minor League Club to which the player is assigned on such contract and
(ii) the next Rule 5 Selection Meeting,

So on June 5, he was 17 years old and he signed prior to the conclusion of the season. Thereby if we count Rule 5 drafts (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011), this would be his 5th and thus eligible.

Cooper
11-19-2011, 12:55 PM
Muddie - i should have a better answer than this...it just bothered me that he had to go to:

1. go to the bullpen to turn it around.

2. that his age is old for double AA.

3. that it was a repeat year for double AA.

4. in total the year was no better than the year before...he made no gains.

why would a team be impressed by that?

mth123
11-19-2011, 01:07 PM
Not sure the Reds are in much danger of losing anybody who will hurt. Danny Dorn is the guy we always name, but he's not going to play here or bring anything in trade. I hope soembody takes him and gives him a shot. Daryl Thompson might be the guy who is lost with the best chance to establish himself. He can be hidden as a long reliever and one of those rotating 5th starter types. A team like the Pirates wouldn't have much to lose trying that.

cinreds21
11-19-2011, 07:45 PM
Doug, here is the response I got from someone within the Reds organization:

"Gregorius is eligible because he signed during the 2007 season. While a 2008 contract would affect his free agency year, it has no bearing on his Rule V status."

So basically what Brutus explained a few posts up.

dougdirt
11-20-2011, 12:11 AM
He should be eligible. If he signed Aug. 6, 2007, then this would be his 5th Rule 5 draft. That means he's eligible.

Here is the way the rule reads from the MLR 5(c)(1)(A):



So on June 5, he was 17 years old and he signed prior to the conclusion of the season. Thereby if we count Rule 5 drafts (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011), this would be his 5th and thus eligible.

Thanks for the explanation. For some reason I thought that you had to play during the season if you were over the age of 16. No clue where that came from though.

cinreds21
11-20-2011, 12:51 AM
Thanks for the explanation. For some reason I thought that you had to play during the season if you were over the age of 16. No clue where that came from though.

You're not the only one. I always understood it dealt with games played to count as a full "year" or whatever.

Brutus
11-20-2011, 04:32 AM
Thanks for the explanation. For some reason I thought that you had to play during the season if you were over the age of 16. No clue where that came from though.


You're not the only one. I always understood it dealt with games played to count as a full "year" or whatever.

You guys are correct when it comes to counting seasons as a professional (when determining whether a fourth option year applies).

They definitely need to streamline things. That season counts toward Rule 5 eligibility and would now count toward minor league free agency, though it would not have counted toward determining fourth option-year eligibility if he had reached the majors sooner.

camisadelgolf
11-20-2011, 09:31 AM
I tried to tell you guys. :)

dougdirt
11-20-2011, 01:29 PM
I tried to tell you guys. :)

Well you should have yelled it louder. Jeeze! :laugh: