The Official 'Who Do We Protect from the Rule Five Draft?' Thread

[mace]

Miguel Rojas seems like a tough call. Obviously he's a good prospect that they don't want to lose. But he's so far from the majors, it seems unlikely that any team would save him a spot on the big-league roster. So is it safe enough to leave him unprotected?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mace

Miguel Rojas seems like a tough call. Obviously he's a good prospect that they don't want to lose. But he's so far from the majors, it seems unlikely that any team would save him a spot on the big-league roster. So is it safe enough to leave him unprotected?

Absolutely. I wouldn't protect him at all. If someone takes him, he will be back soon enough.

[mth123]

nm

[lollipopcurve]

Absolutely. I wouldn't protect him at all. If someone takes him, he will be back soon enough.

If he's truly a plus-plus defensive SS, a team with no aspirations to contend could hide him for a year, easily. I'd say if the Reds look at Rojas as a possible SS of the future, they should protect him. It's not like the 40-man will be busting with unreplaceable talent.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

If he's truly a plus-plus defensive SS, a team with no aspirations to contend could hide him for a year, easily. I'd say if the Reds look at Rojas as a possible SS of the future, they should protect him. It's not like the 40-man will be busting with unreplaceable talent.

While he truly is a very good defender, I just can't see a team hiding him on a roster for a full year after a season in Low A. There will be plenty of talent available that can actually help you this season that I just can't see needing to grasp at the hope that a slick fielder might develop a bat enough for the majors in 3 years.

[lollipopcurve]

There will be plenty of talent available that can actually help you this season that I just can't see needing to grasp at the hope that a slick fielder might develop a bat enough for the majors in 3 years.

Yeah, if Rojas is as much a longshot as you make him out to be, I could see exposing him. But SS is a difficult position to fill, and having some depth at that spot makes sense. It is not difficult to stash a utility INF because he's really only needed for defense, which Rojas could provide -- it doesn't matter if he's played in low A only if the defense is major league quality.

If he gets taken, the organization has no SS behind Cozart except Valor, who's 4 years younger than Rojas. Consider how many relievers and platoon type corner OFs you'd protect ahead of Rojas. Why? You can make a pretty good run at depth in those areas with minor league deals just before ST. And who cares about the timeline? That's partly what the 40-man is about -- making sure you can hold onto some prospects who aren't ready yet. Again, SS is a key position -- and if Rojas has a shot to be the best SS in the organization, they almost have to protect him.

[Scrap Irony]

Agree with lollipop. It depends on what the Reds think of him. If he's merely serviceable, he shouldn't be protected at all. if they think he's a likely future starter, he should.

Either way, I think we're going to see who the Reds really value this off-season and I'm guessing some of those protected (or unprotected) will suprise.

[joshnky]

Originally Posted by Slyder

What about a backup catcher if we can fenagle the roster to open up a spot without endangering someone we want to keep?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that this position is so difficult to fill by every team that any catching prospect worth a grain of salt will be protected.

[HokieRed]

Having watched this Rule 5 draft pretty closely the last several years, I agree with Doug that there would be little chance Rojas will be taken. It's 90% about pitching; teams are looking for arms. Maybe another way to put it is that everybody's already got a Rojas in their system. The tough call might be between him and Valaika, who's farther along, likely a better hitter, but probably not going to be a ML SS. I also doubt Valaika would be taken and while one of back up catchers might be, I'd not protect any of them at the expense of the arms.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by joshnky

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that this position is so difficult to fill by every team that any catching prospect worth a grain of salt will be protected.

That's generally how it works (see: Craig Tatum). You'll often see catchers with an OPS of ~.800 in high-A or a ~.700 in AAA left unprotected (especially if their defense is nothing special), but generally, if you're a young catcher with an OPS in the mid-.700s, you can count on being put on the 40-man roster. Denove set career highs in pretty much every major category this year, so it will be interesting to see whether the Reds think he's a one-year wonder or turned a corner in his development.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by joshnky

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that this position is so difficult to fill by every team that any catching prospect worth a grain of salt will be protected.

Well Skelton last year was left unprotected by Detroit and I think he's worth more than a grain of salt, I believe he did get taken also but dealt back to Detroit IIRC.

[cincyinco]

Have to agree with Doug.

Rojas might get picked up, but I have a hard time seeing how he sticks on a ML roster for a full season. I am almost certain he would be offered back to the reds.

I'd take that gamble, leave him off.

[JaxRed]

I think there is no chance Rojas gets taken or protected. Anyone know about Denove's defense? Tatum is never gonna hit. If Denove plays good defense I can see swapping them on the 40.

[redsof72]

I could be wrong, but I don't think Rojas has to be protected for one more year. If I am wrong, I don't think they will protect him.

We know they have made their mind up to protect Viola. By calling him up, they basically commited to protecting him. No way will they outright him. If it far more likely that you lose a player (with options) by outrighting him than by trying to sneak him through the Rule V.

Tavaras is the wildcard. Can't see them DFA-ing him with a $4 million bill in 2010. My guess is they either start the year with him or try to find a player on another team with a similarly bad contract that might have some value to the Reds (platoon catcher type maybe?) and they trade one bad contract for another. That seems to be the trend right now (ie: rumors of Milton Bradley for Oliver Perez deal). Either way, that spot on the 40-man is taken.

Here is my guess: Among players currently on the 40-man, they outright Thompson, LeCure, Wilkin Castillo, Richar, and either Rosales or Sutton and assuming they clear waivers, they bring them to all back to camp as non-roster players in 2010.

They DFA Lincoln, Barker, Miller, and McDonald and if all of those players clear waivers, they re-sign them to minor league deals and let them compete for jobs in 2010. They do not pick up the option on Hernandez. They pick one between Lehr and Wells and DFA the other and try to re-sign him to a minor league deal if he clears. That should leave seven spots.

There will be a lot of disagreement even within the organization about what to do with those seven spots. There will be support among some minor league managers/coaches to protect any combination involving 12-14 minor leaguers. WJ will have to come to a consensus on the minor leaguers, and then make decisions on guys like Wells, Lehr, Sutton, Rosales, and Miller. I can tell you from personal discussions with Reds minor league instructors that there are a lot of mixed opinions on some of these guys. Guys like Dorn and Watson have some supporters and some detractors.

I think they add:

Wood
Del Rosario
Ondrusek
Valiquette
J. Smith
Valaika
Heisey

If they can do all that, and don't lose anyone in the Rule V, then they don't lose anyone that they want to keep.

The weakness of the roster I just created is that it includes only two catchers on the 40-man, so they would be a little exposed if they can't get Miller and Castillo back.

[camisadelgolf]

I just checked it out--you're right about Rojas in that he doesn't yet need to be protected.

Regarding your list, do you think it's a good idea to leave off Dorn and/or Watson?