Quote from BoosterSD on December 12, 2019, 9:22 am

Trevor Megill selected at #16 in the 1st round of Rule 5 draft by CHC.

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 12, 2019, 9:52 am

We drafted Big Red. Brady Feigl LHP 17-7 3.23 career in minors 28 yr old sits 91-92 touches 94.. 50 Fastball 45 Slider 50 changeup 50 control 40 overall ..stricktly a BP arm.. Nice emergency insurance at AAA.. Pads took him in Minor leafue part of the rule V so no need for 40 man eoster spot

Quote from fenn68 on December 12, 2019, 9:55 am

Padres got it right on their Rule 5 protects .. only McGill selected.

Sort of highlights we as fans are poor judge of the internal prospects at are on the “fringe”.

More importantly from the bigger perspective only a few teams had full rosters yet most of the teams with open spots passed. I guess that 26 man on the roster was not that game changer.

Personnally, time to scrap the Rule 5 and allow the 40 man roster be focused on players that may actually benefit the current season rather than protecting future value.

Quote from TatisJr on December 12, 2019, 11:19 am

I was right about Buddy being a PTBNL, he’s going to the A’s. I hope he figures things out over there. There were a couple of years I thought he’d be the CF of the future. With Grisham, TT, Head, etc in the fold and Buddy’s lack of development, I figured this was coming. He seemed like a great kid, wish him well in Oakland.

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 12, 2019, 10:22 pm

Quote from fenn68 on December 12, 2019, 9:55 am

Padres got it right on their Rule 5 protects .. only McGill selected.

Sort of highlights we as fans are poor judge of the internal prospects at are on the “fringe”.

More importantly from the bigger perspective only a few teams had full rosters yet most of the teams with open spots passed. I guess that 26 man on the roster was not that game changer.

Personnally, time to scrap the Rule 5 and allow the 40 man roster be focused on players that may actually benefit the current season rather than protecting future value.

I think only 6 teams incl Pads had full 40-man roster.  I was very surprised only 11 total chosen in MLB part, especially with a good # of TERRIBLE teams...  really thought with the new 26-man roster, it would approach 20 taken.

Rule 5's concept of unlocking guys who might be MLB worthy but are trapped in minors for whatever reason is a good one I'm sure union likes, but it's WAY too restrictive for the guy to have to be in MLB all year; and it's detrimental to continued development of the player.  Should be something like:  On O.D. roster, through end of April or May, then a minimum amount of service time total like 1/2 or 3/4 year or else returned (i.e. SOME freedom to option down; but more restrictive than a "typical" team controlled player).

Quote from fenn68 on December 13, 2019, 5:26 am

Keep in mind there is “6 year minor league FA” if not on the 40 man without restriction ... so “trapped” minor leaguers have an escape route.

The Union represents the current ML players ... so would think they would want more of the 40 man roster slots freed up for their current members more than worrying about minor league players. The Rule 5 “hurts” veteran players.

If they wanted they could drop the Rule 5 and just lower the minor league FA threshold to 5 “full years” from 6 “full years” (“full years” means the signing year does not count since it is a partial year). That would extend control of HS prospects by 1 year and college players by 2 years vs. Rule 5 while reducing 1 year from the current FA rule.

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 13, 2019, 5:54 am

11 is actually a big Rule V draft.. Normally is like 5-7...

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 13, 2019, 7:37 am

Quote from Henry Silvestre on December 13, 2019, 5:54 am

11 is actually a big Rule V draft.. Normally is like 5-7...

No, last year was higher.  Think the "5-7" is guys who stuck on the roster of team that selected them; roughly half of the guys picked wind up back with their original organization.

Quote from Brian Connelly on December 13, 2019, 8:19 am

Quote from fenn68 on December 13, 2019, 5:26 am

Keep in mind there is “6 year minor league FA” if not on the 40 man without restriction ... so “trapped” minor leaguers have an escape route.

The Union represents the current ML players ... so would think they would want more of the 40 man roster slots freed up for their current members more than worrying about minor league players. The Rule 5 “hurts” veteran players.

If they wanted they could drop the Rule 5 and just lower the minor league FA threshold to 5 “full years” from 6 “full years” (“full years” means the signing year does not count since it is a partial year). That would extend control of HS prospects by 1 year and college players by 2 years vs. Rule 5 while reducing 1 year from the current FA rule.

This is a pretty good idea, but given the choice, I'd rather risk losing an occasional guy from a strong Farm in current system vs. losing ALL my guys in Minors 1 year earlier as FA that don't even have to get Majors deals to move elsewhere; another team can just stash them in their system.    For example, this year:  Gettys, Jason Vosler, Jean Cosme, Travis Radke, Kyle McGrath, Allen Cordoba, Hansel Rodriguez, & Ruddy Giron would all be Minors FA now vs. next year, when this list will likely be shorter as some will get cut, traded, or maybe even make it on to 40-man.  Nothing earth shattering, but a lot of good system depth.  There would be tons more player movement (in upper minors), but little benefit to the teams; just even more "hole plugging" than happens already.  Players might get a little more $ sooner as Minors FA.

The biggest single flaw with Rule 5 is that it's not a level playing field for International Signees or their teams.  By not accounting for the fact that those guys are only 16 when signing, and don't even begin playing until the following year, teams are forced to protect guys like Javier Guerra & Espinoza way before they're MLB ready.  This DOES take 40-man spots away from "ready now" albeit marginal guys, AND hurts the careers of the young Intl guys by burning some of their options earlier than most other players.   Actually, if MLB fixed this one thing, Rule 5 draft might just "obsolete itself":  maybe the roster spots that would open up from this change would go to the "on the bubble" guys who get selected in R5.  If this caused # of selections made to decrease down to 5-6 for a year or 2, maybe MLB would just get rid of the Major League phase.