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.Originally Posted by cinreds21
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.
Someone I know from another organization will likely recommend that they take Webb.
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.
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.
Just curious, why?
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.(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,
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
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?
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.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
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.
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.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote