Quote from 84padres on October 8, 2019, 6:11 am

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 7, 2019, 10:08 am

FENN, just have to agree to disagree on Espinoza/Avila...  I MIGHT agree that a MLB team that wants to be good NOW could even hold onto an Espinoza as you propose... if we didn't have a massive wave of Intl guys we're going to have to protect next year also.  The same problem is going to recur next offseason, but then these guys are closer to contributing, and more likely to be claimed.

Can't protect even an elite potential talent that is SO high risk for a possible MLB contribution in 3 years.

BTW I am assuming that any chance of Espinoza being a SP is gone just due to back to back TJ; assuming he is 100% RP track now (which could progress more quickly to MLB)

I would almost bet that the Tigers with the fist pick of rule 5 will pick a player from us and have no problem carrying him the whole year . They had like 3 major league players on their whole 25 man roster this year and have nothing in the minors except 2 or 3 pitchers

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 8, 2019, 7:02 am

Quote from 84padres on October 8, 2019, 6:11 am

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 7, 2019, 10:08 am

FENN, just have to agree to disagree on Espinoza/Avila...  I MIGHT agree that a MLB team that wants to be good NOW could even hold onto an Espinoza as you propose... if we didn't have a massive wave of Intl guys we're going to have to protect next year also.  The same problem is going to recur next offseason, but then these guys are closer to contributing, and more likely to be claimed.

Can't protect even an elite potential talent that is SO high risk for a possible MLB contribution in 3 years.

BTW I am assuming that any chance of Espinoza being a SP is gone just due to back to back TJ; assuming he is 100% RP track now (which could progress more quickly to MLB)

I would almost bet that the Tigers with the fist pick of rule 5 will pick a player from us and have no problem carrying him the whole year . They had like 3 major league players on their whole 25 man roster this year and have nothing in the minors except 2 or 3 pitchers

I don't know about 1st pick, but I would be surprised if we don't lose 1 or more guys to Rule 5 this year.  Too many borderline guys to protect them all, and 26 man roster will encourage teams to make selections.

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 8, 2019, 7:06 am

Never completely sure on how the international signings are treated but as I recall the big 2016 signing class did not start playing until 2017 and I think that is when their clock starts meaning they would not be Rule 5 eligible until the winter of 2021. (Correct me if I am wrong)

That's what I thought!  2021.  But all the guys from Cuba were eligible this year just 4 years after signing?

It would make a big difference if that big Intl class had another year to develop; which they should since didn't play at all in 2016?

Quote from fenn68 on October 8, 2019, 7:10 am

Detroit - Baltimore - KC - Miami all lost more than 100 games they (and some other teams with losing records) will select and keep Rule 5 players with the new 26 man rosters.

At the same time they may be even more active with waiver claims ... especially with players who have minor league options who they don't have to carry on the 26 man but may have some ML upside.

I could see those teams being active on both fronts .... and Padres are in a good position to lose DFA players as well as Rule 5.

Not sure all of the Rule 5 eligible prospects this winter with the Padres but off the top of my head the ones who have not already been put on the 40 man include Ona, Cordoba, E.Rosario, E.Ruiz, Henry .... that group does beg the question are they worth protecting (vs the next DFA after dropping the first 11 to get 40) ... they will not impact the Padres in 2020 or maybe even 2021 (if they ever do ... are any really high ceiling?).

If the Padres want to contend in 2020-21 are they better off keeping even marginal ML ready players to use as emergency filler than bodies that will provide no near term value? Then if the call is among players who are not expected to play in the ML during that period ... is "high ceiling"  the more important factor ... is the probability of losing a player via a waiver claim (greater probability) vs a Rule 5 going to convince them not to expose a prospect to waivers?

Padres may look at the vast number of prospects who do not have to be protected (e.g. Trammell, Arias, Edwards, et. al.) and see them as better and arriving about the same time as the prospects that need protection .... so maybe taking the risk of losing them via Rule 5 is not that impactful in the short or long run ... take the risk that some other team selects and keeps them. Maybe not that big a loss.

 

Quote from Henry Silvestre on October 8, 2019, 8:53 am

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 8, 2019, 7:06 am

Never completely sure on how the international signings are treated but as I recall the big 2016 signing class did not start playing until 2017 and I think that is when their clock starts meaning they would not be Rule 5 eligible until the winter of 2021. (Correct me if I am wrong)

That's what I thought!  2021.  But all the guys from Cuba were eligible this year just 4 years after signing?

It would make a big difference if that big Intl class had another year to develop; which they should since didn't play at all in 2016?

Drafted players = 5yrs... International players = 6yrs .. as far as the time to be on the 40 or be exposed

 

Quote from Henry Silvestre on October 8, 2019, 8:56 am

Also isnt there a limit (i believe 2 or 3 max) to the amount of players a team can lose to Rule V in the mlb portion of it?

and doesnt a team get to pull 1 Rule V guy back when a Rule V dude is seelected... I think I remember something along those lines, but havent read anything in like 5-6 yrs so maybe way off

Quote from fenn68 on October 8, 2019, 10:15 am

Quote from Henry Silvestre on October 8, 2019, 8:56 am

Also isnt there a limit (i believe 2 or 3 max) to the amount of players a team can lose to Rule V in the mlb portion of it?

and doesnt a team get to pull 1 Rule V guy back when a Rule V dude is seelected... I think I remember something along those lines, but havent read anything in like 5-6 yrs so maybe way off

No limit ... they keep going (if someone wants them and has 40 man roster room to add them) ... but teams will also have to have 26 man roster space at the start of the season in order to keep them. Then add the $100K price tag (only 1/2 back if returned and the losing team wants them back) ... might limit over selecting too many especially from the lower ranks of the minors.

It should be telling to see how rosters sit after November 20th ... and which teams have left open spots / how many.

Question is how many will follow the Preller lead and take (and keep) 3 Rule 5 in one year? Jury is still out on the ML success forecast for Cordoba, Diaz, and Torrens ... what 3 years after selection?

Quote from fenn68 on October 8, 2019, 10:17 am

The only area I can recall limits on players lost and the pull back eligible players for selection was in expansion drafts ... think in all sports.

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 10, 2019, 9:08 am

Yeah, even with the expansion to 26-man rosters, and some truly atrocious teams out there, picking 3 guys in Rule 5 let alone keeping them all year is DEFINITELY the exception, not the rule.  The restriction on not being able to option them to Minors all season is just too tough to overcome.  And as Diaz, Torrens, & Cordoba have shown; even when clearly talented, it's tough to "hold" those 40 man spots for another 1-3 development years before "arriving".

I was thinking the Pads made 3 selections another year, and when I dug back in time, I was surprised to find out it was technically FOUR in the 2015-2016 offseason.  They traded for Perdomo & Jabari Blash 🙂 who were Rule 5's picked by other teams, AND picked 2 more guys, both of whom got returned!