Rule 5 Eligibles - Latest: Your List of Brewers for 2006

[Cyanogen5]

Hey guys, I was just searching for that handy little link showing service time for Brewers minor leaguers so I could try to determine who needed to be added to the 40-man this winter, but I was unable to find it. Does anyone have that link saved? Is it still active? I would appreciate the help. Thanks.

[Mass Haas]

I can't imagine what link you're thinking of, Cy, other than the Player Index.

 

I do know that by mid-October each year we publish the list of all the Rule 5 eligibles (it wouldn't include any of the potential free agents listed who are technically still Brewers until October 15th).

 

"And That" and I usually compare notes on that and present the thread, and I'll make it a point to have the list available within the next week or so (I'll be away for three days this weekend in New Hampshire for a post Link Report season getaway...)

[thumperden]

Mass, are you going to MASSHAASCHUSETTS? Good for you, and enjoy your much needed getaway. Thanks for doing that voodoo that you do so well.

[Cyanogen5]

Last year when we had the debate over whether Dillard was rule-5 eligible or not, someone (I believe it was Colby, but I could be wrong) gave a link a page they had set up to show the service time of every player in the system. It was only partially completed at the time, and I saved the link in my favorites at work...but now I have a new job and I don't have it any more. It was cool because you could sort by player, or arrange them in order of service time to set the cutoff for who needed to be protected...the service time even went out to 3 decimal places. I am sure I am not dreaming...but maybe it was just a temporary thing. Anyway, I look forward to your list when it comes out. Enjoy your trip.

[Cyanogen5]

OK, I found a copy I had made of the webpage I am talking about. None of the numbers are changed from last year, so disregard the service time column. I will look when I get home to see if the link is on my home computer, and whether it is still active or not. I pasted the players who, according to last years info, would need to be protected for this years rule-5. I am not guaranteeing this to be a comprehensive list...just some info I remember seeing.

 

 Player Years Needed Service Time Needs Protection By Chavez, Ozzie 4 6.309703 2002 Johnson, Kade 3 5.9589043 2002 Barnwell, Chris 3 4.432991 2003 Eure, Jeff 3 4.4549084 2003 Gemoll, Brandon 3 4.432991 2003 Saenz, Chris 3 4.427511 2003 Alliston, Josh 3 3.4603882 2004 Ballouli, Khalid 3 3.4384704 2004 Bibbs, Kennard 3 3.4603882 2004 Crabbe, Callix 3 3.4466894 2004 Hall, Bo 3 3.4384704 2004 Laureano, Wilfredo 4 4.5371003 2004 Rodriguez, Guilder 4 4.509703 2004 Vanden Berg, John 3 3.4603882 2004 Anderson, Drew 3 2.4631279 2005 Beresford, Simon 3 2.490525 2005 Corporan, Carlos 3 2.460388 2005 Corredor, Nestor 4 3.6657534 2005 Deevers, Robby 3 2.460388 2005 Durost, Kenny 3 2.452169 2005 Gwynn, Jr, Tony 3 2.4220319 2005 Heether, Adam 3 2.4494293 2005 Iribarren, Hernan 4 3.6575341 2005 Kloosterman, Greg 3 2.4549084 2005 Lewis, Will 3 2.460388 2005 Lluberes, Rafael 4 3.7068493 2005 Martin, Forrest 3 2.460388 2005 Montalbo, Brian 3 2.452169 2005 Murray, Josh 4 3.400114 2005 Palmisano, Lou 3 2.4658675 2005 Parra, Manny 2005 Rottino, Vinny 3 2.7917807 2005 Septimo, Agustin 4 3.8849316 2005 Slack, Nick 3 2.460388 2005 Stetter, Mitch 3 2.4631279 2005 Trofholz, Terry 3 2.4631279 2005 Vilanueva, Carlos 2005 Walker, Edwin 4 3.4603882 2005 Arias, Victor 3 1.9232875 2006 Baker, Josh 3 1.4466895 2006 Bernal, Luis 3 1.4384704 2006 Blevins, Clay 3 1.4823059 2006 Brady, Josh 3 1.2987442 2006 Breshears, Richard 3 1.3891551 2006 De La Cruz, Carlos 3 1.7561643 2006 De La Rosa, Anderson 4 2.23847 2006 DeCarlo, Derek 3 1.3864155 2006 Dillard, Tim 4 2.490525 2006 Escobar, Alcides 4 2.369977 2006 Fermaint, Charlie 4 2.460388 2006 Fermin, Jorge 4 2.0356164 2006 Festa, Tony 3 1.4384704 2006 Hawk, Tommy 4 2.452169 2006 Labasta, William 4 2.0164382 2006 Malave, Ronny 4 2.4329908 2006 Mannon, Adam 4 2.490525 2006 Marion, Ryan 4 2.4247715 2006 Morrison, Tyler 4 2.452169 2006 Opdyke, Bryan 4 2.4247715 2006 Parejo, Freddy 4 2.9917808 2006 Rasheed, Hasan 3 1.4877853 2006 Richardson, Grant 3 1.4466895 2006 Sollmann, Steve 3 1.4384704 2006 Stanczyk, Ben 3 1.3124429 2006 Theodorakos, Jared 3 1.4740866 2006 Wahpepah, Josh 3 1.4384704 2006 Wooley, Robbie 4 2.3562784 2006 

 

On another note, I finally figured out how to post a table using codes...I wish someone should have told me that tabs were evil!!!

[Brian the Automator]

Here's the link you're referring to:

 

www.brewerfan.net/ViewRule5DraftProtection.action

 

I believe there were some minor problems with its accuracy based on the data we have available, but it's a good starting point.

[Cyanogen5]

Thanks Brian. It has now been saved in my favorites here at home where it wont (shouldn't) get lost.

[bork]

Not too much to worry about this year, but there will be some tough decisions next year.

[colbyjack]

It seems Tim Dillard, Charlie Fermaint and Alcides Escobar are the primary names that need to be protected this offseason, and I'm not even sure if the Brewers would protect Escobar given his lack of offense this past year (but teams do take plenty of high potential risks in the Rule 5 draft). Lou Palmisano wasn't protected a year ago, and given the organizational need for catching, he might just be added to the roster in fear of losing him. Ben Stanczyk is a longshot.

[pogokat]

I would think Dillard is a lock and Fermaint is very close---speed and defense would help him survive for a year as a bench player..

 

Palmisano isn't going to be taken, but if the brewers are counting on him to be the primary catcher in AAA next year, then he's most likely going to wind up on the 40 man at some point any way...

 

That's about it for now...

[dadofandrew]

Escobar will be added, he would fit in nicely as a PR somewhere to be hidden like E. Cruz was.

[Mass Haas]

The Brewers now have much more flexibility in their 40-man roster for this offseason, as players like Alcides Escobar and Charlie Fermaint now don't have to be added until next year.

 

This also means you may as well protect the likes of Lou Palmisano and Tim Dillard, who were exposed last year by not being on the 40-man. Also a better chance a reliever like Steve Bray may be added to the 40-man prior to this year's Rule 5.

 

This year's Rule 5 draft should be minimal in activity, as it will be easier for all clubs to find spots for those worthy of 40-man slots.

 

Baseball America:

 

www.baseballamerica.com/t...62720.html

 

The major league portion of the Rule 5 draft will be affected by giving teams one extra year to protect players from it.

 

Rather than teams being allowed three years (for players signed at age 19 or older) or four years (for players 18 and younger) before leaving them off the 40-man roster subjects them to the Rule 5 draft, those periods have been lengthened to four and five. Ownership considered this a significant boost in their efforts to operate their minor league systems more effectively.

 

"It gives the clubs more flexibility with their roster," said MacPhail, who added that the cost to select a player ($50,000) or get him back from the selecting club ($25,000) remain the same.

 

"Anytime you can give them more tools to operate as efficiently as they possibly can is something we strive to do," he continued. "There are a lot of kids at that stage where you?re just not quite sure whether you want to get that clock ticking--the last thing you want to do is take a talented 22-year-old kid who?s not ready and you develop him for somebody else. Or often you?ll see guys taken out of A-ball who aren?t close but they get plucked out of the Midwest League. You try to let the developing clubs get as much time as they possibly can to make the best decisions they can."

 

This rule applies to this current offseason, meaning that many minor league players who had expected to either be placed on the 40-man roster or be subject to the Rule 5 draft will have to wait another year. The union did negotiate a higher minimum salary for 40-man roster players optioned to the minor leagues ($60,000 next year), but acknowledged that this was a significant concession to ownership.

 

"That was one of the major things we had to give up, no question about it--to me it was the worst thing we had to give up," said Diamondbacks infielder Craig Counsell, a player representative to the union negotiating team. "Some players, especially immediately, are going to be hurt by that--this year. But in the end, you have to give up something to get something."

[paul253]

wasnt sure this was the best place for this, but i wanted to ask about the changes, or lack there of, for the amateur draft. Why did they still not allow teams to trade draft picks? And are they ever going to institute a true world wide draft? How are teams like KC or Tampa Bay ever really compete when the best Japanese, Cuban, Domincan, etc, are all free agents? Was this just a battle the owners didnt want to fight right now, or are they really not interested in these issues?

[pogokat]

I think trading picks is a bad idea...

 

It opens up the possibility of more cheap skatery than is already present...

 

besides, how would you like to see the yankees (or bo sox) win the world series, then draft first the next year...it would be sickening...

[paul253]

besides, how would you like to see the yankees (or bo sox) win the world series, then draft first the next year...it would be sickening...

 

I think its just as sickening to see them make the playoffs 9 years in a row and still get an equal shot at signing this new Japanese pitcher. Beside, if the Yankees could trade their first round pick, do you think they would ever actually keep it? I think what would be more likely would be say a prospect for a draft pick trade. For instance, we might not think Dave Krynzel is going to go anywhere within our organization, but dont want to just dump him for nothing. Florida, however, may be willing to give him a look. The way it is now, florida isnt going to give up anyone other than a low level half prospect to get him. However, if you could trade picks, maybe they'd give us a 6th rounder or something. They get someone who still has some tools, we get a relatively high draft pick to try to cut the loss.....win-win

[pogokat]

I just don't think draft picks after the first 3 rounds are valuable enough to be dealt for anything substancial...

 

your krynzel example is a good idea, but it shows why trading picks would be less than great...krynzel is still worth a good deal more than a sixth round pick, and i doubt that many teams would give up anything more than a 28 year old low a reliever for anything other than a very high pick...

 

i think the concern with trading picks is that the teams wouldn't "trade" them so much as they would "sell" them...

 

I could see the marlins dumping their first and second round picks on the Yankees just to save cash...

[colbyjack]

The changes they did make to the draft shouldn't be overlooked. It's not easy making changes to the draft, basically because neither the players nor the owners care that much about it. I don't think you will ever see a world-wide draft, as I've read comments that it would just be too hard to coordinate. Plus, how to you handle a situation like the posting process in Japan? Do teams draft based on the ability to negotiate with a player that is available via the posting process, or would you have to wait for that player to become a free agent entirely, which I don't believe happens until they are closer to 30 years old?

 

I'm also not a big fan of trading draft picks. Maybe if you had a standarized slotting system, but as pogo alluded to, each team approaches the draft differently, and may not put as much value on those draft picks. Some people may respond by saying "who cares?," but I personally think it would cheapen the overall importance of the draft.

[clancyphile]

I like the idea.

 

The way I see it, it could help - particularly in the Brewers' case. The Brewers might see players willing to go to college rather than sign with them in a lower round, but if the Brewers could deal a second-round pick for Tampa Bay's third, fifth, seventh, eighth, and tenth-round picks, they could get more prospects than they otherwise could.

[dadofandrew]

Clancy, but we only have a few roster spots to fill each year. Few teams have more than 20 spots open each year.

 

I'd love to add another team for everyone, but that doesn't seem likely.

[mothershipconnection]

The Rule V this year will likely suck, as anyone who would be a first-time candidate will not be protected by the rule change.

[paul253]

Clancy, but we only have a few roster spots to fill each year. Few teams have more than 20 spots open each year.

 

yeah but you can fill them with extra picks in the 1st 2nd and 3rd rounds instead of picks from the 26th, 27th, and 28th rounds.

[clancyphile]

Quote:

---

Clancy, but we only have a few roster spots to fill each year. Few teams have more than 20 spots open each year.

---

 

Would you rather have more of those filled from the first ten rounds, or go for lucky breaks later in the draft?

[endaround]

Making draft picks tradeable makes them more valuable. You can avoid players falling for singability reasons.

[mothershipconnection]

but we only have a few roster spots to fill each year. Few teams have more than 20 spots open each year.

It'd work, though, as you'd have more players in higher rounds and essentially "pass" in later rounds by taking guys who you know won't sign.

 

I could see the marlins dumping their first and second round picks on the Yankees just to save cash...

I doubt it'd happen, as they could just as easily flip them to low-budget teams who value picks and have a bunch of young talent to deal. I'd bet the A's and Twins would make a lot of trades for picks.

[pogokat]

Couldn't you see the yankees giving up like 15 picks for the first one though???

 

teams that dont care about their farm system would dump all their assets into the early rounds....

 

If the MLB draft were under 10 rounds like football and baseball, it would make more sense...but with 40 rounds, it could ruin parity completely...

 

i'm not sure who would come out on top, but i think it would drive the market in a totally new direction