Who should the Cubs protect for the Rule 5 Draft?

[SouthSideRyan]

Another Colvin late season push plus his "status" probably means he does get protected. Wonder who gets left out, as someone's going to get left out. Of the top names being discussed, I think a lot of them get plucked. The two with the least chance of getting plucked might be Clevenger/Papelbon, and I can envision a scenario where a team wants a lefty and gambles on Jeremy, or a team is looking for a young backup catcher. I can see a bad team plucking Clevenger/Castillo and hoping to develop them in the bigs.

 

So as of last year the Cubs had supposedly one of the worst farm systems in baseball but now they are in jeopardy of a lot of their players getting picked in the rule 5 draft? Seems to me that people here may be way overestimating the amount of value other teams will put on these mid level prospects.

 

It's not that people expect 6 guys to get taken, just that there are a lot of guys who have a chance at being drafted. Veal got drafted this past year and the system was in much worse shape than it is now.

[Illini Iceman]

Another Colvin late season push plus his "status" probably means he does get protected. Wonder who gets left out, as someone's going to get left out. Of the top names being discussed, I think a lot of them get plucked. The two with the least chance of getting plucked might be Clevenger/Papelbon, and I can envision a scenario where a team wants a lefty and gambles on Jeremy, or a team is looking for a young backup catcher. I can see a bad team plucking Clevenger/Castillo and hoping to develop them in the bigs.

 

So as of last year the Cubs had supposedly one of the worst farm systems in baseball but now they are in jeopardy of a lot of their players getting picked in the rule 5 draft? Seems to me that people here may be way overestimating the amount of value other teams will put on these mid level prospects.

 

It's not that people expect 6 guys to get taken, just that there are a lot of guys who have a chance at being drafted. Veal got drafted this past year and the system was in much worse shape than it is now.

 

I could see them losing another guy this year, but his exactly quote was:

 

Of the top names being discussed, I think a lot of them get plucked.

[toonsterwu]

Maybe I wasn't clear, or maybe you haven't read the thread - we were discussing the top names eligible for the Rule 5 draft, and I was saying that, of the top names being discussed, I think they would be plucked if they were unprotected (I thought that was fairly obvious from my statement, and that it didn't need to be spelled out, but my bad). What does a team's organizational ranking last year have to do with ... well, the Rule 5 draft coming up? There's no relevancy there. Actually, a few years back, I think it was Pittsburgh or KC had a lot of people plucked in the Rule 5 ... and their organizational ranking was horrible the year before.

 

We've seen some teams take middle relievers as Rule 5 picks. Would it be that inconceivable to see a team, searching for pitching help, pluck Blake Parker or Alessandro Maestri, both righties that have some late inning ability in them (late inning - not suggesting either has closing potential, more 7th/8th type). Witness, well, David Patton (and I believe, potential wise, Parker and Maestri have better late inning potential than Patton). Teams are always looking for lefties - John Gaub and Jeremy Papelbon are both having solid years and close to the bigs. Heck, Ed Campusano was picked. Another focus for teams is often on tough positions, such as catcher.

 

Again, we're talking about the Rule 5 draft. What that has to do with organizational rankings, I'm not sure. You do understand that most high level prospects, if not all, are protected, right? Meaning the cream of the crop is usually not there, and you have teams looking for a diamond in the rough (an Everth Cabrera/Joakim Soria type pick) or you have teams looking to fill a role with a mid-level prospect.

 

Again, let me finish on this - what exactly are you disagreeing with in my original point? You basically acknowledge my point in your response to SouthSideRyan by acknowledging that we have some guys that are likely to be plucked if they are unprotected ... which is exactly the same thing I said outside of spelling out the common sense point about said players needing to be available (unprotected) to be plucked away.

[Illini Iceman]

Maybe I wasn't clear, or maybe you haven't read the thread - we were discussing the top names eligible for the Rule 5 draft, and I was saying that, of the top names being discussed, I think they would be plucked if they were unprotected (I thought that was fairly obvious from my statement, and that it didn't need to be spelled out, but my bad). What does a team's organizational ranking last year have to do with ... well, the Rule 5 draft coming up? There's no relevancy there. Actually, a few years back, I think it was Pittsburgh or KC had a lot of people plucked in the Rule 5 ... and their organizational ranking was horrible the year before.

 

We've seen some teams take middle relievers as Rule 5 picks. Would it be that inconceivable to see a team, searching for pitching help, pluck Blake Parker or Alessandro Maestri, both righties that have some late inning ability in them (late inning - not suggesting either has closing potential, more 7th/8th type). Witness, well, David Patton (and I believe, potential wise, Parker and Maestri have better late inning potential than Patton). Teams are always looking for lefties - John Gaub and Jeremy Papelbon are both having solid years and close to the bigs. Heck, Ed Campusano was picked. Another focus for teams is often on tough positions, such as catcher.

 

Again, we're talking about the Rule 5 draft. What that has to do with organizational rankings, I'm not sure. You do understand that most high level prospects, if not all, are protected, right? Meaning the cream of the crop is usually not there, and you have teams looking for a diamond in the rough (an Everth Cabrera/Joakim Soria type pick) or you have teams looking to fill a role with a mid-level prospect.

 

Again, let me finish on this - what exactly are you disagreeing with in my original point? You basically acknowledge my point in your response to SouthSideRyan by acknowledging that we have some guys that are likely to be plucked if they are unprotected ... which is exactly the same thing I said outside of spelling out the common sense point about said players needing to be available (unprotected) to be plucked away.

 

I am saying that maybe because of your familiarity with the Cubs prospects you are assigning more value to them then most MLB teams would. I have no idea what the Cubs were thinking wasting their time and roster space on a guy like Patton who at best projects to be a set up guy. But just because Hendry did it doesn't mean that a lot of other teams are going to be looking to follow that model and draft similar guys out of the Cubs system to stick at the end of their bullpen for a year.

 

As for organizational ratings, it clealy is more an art than a science since it based on rather arbitrary rankings. However, if a team has a bunch a minor leaguers above and beyond their 40 man roster that other teams would covet enough to put on their active MLB rosters then that seems to me to indicate an organization with a pretty deep farm system.

[Guest]

As for organizational ratings, it clealy is more an art than a science since it based on rather arbitrary rankings. However, if a team has a bunch a minor leaguers above and beyond their 40 man roster that other teams would covet enough to put on their active MLB rosters then that seems to me to indicate an organization with a pretty deep farm system.

Not necessarily. There are actually several ways you can have a sucky system and still end up with prospects people may be interested in that you can't fit on your 40 man roster.

 

1) excessive depth at one position - you may have 3-4 catchers in the system that are ready to be backup catcher quality. Combine that with the starter and backup you have at the majors and there's no way in the world you'd carry 5-6 catchers on your 40 man roster. At least a couple of those guys would end up left off the roster.

 

2) poor roster management - you go into the offseason with only a couple slots available but 4-6 guys needing protection. They may be raw, they may have ceilings of backup players, etc., but they may be guys that people pluck in the draft.

 

3) low ceiling players in the system - Farm systems tend to get rated highly because there are potential impact players available within it. If your farm has depth of backup players and middle relievers but nobody with top end potential, it will be rated near the bottom in the league. However, it will still have players that teams may want for particular roles.

[craig]

Comments on a couple of topics:

 

1. I think we are overrating many of our guys. Sure, other orgs can make weird decisions. But I don't think there's all that much to worry about having Papelbon or Dolis getting picked, and I'm not sure that .210BA-Castillo or .630-OPS Clevenger are that likely to get drafted or to stick. I think there's a fair chance that if we rostered not a single one of our guys, that Gaub might be the only one to both get picked and to stick.

 

2. Losing a player isn't necessarily a big deal. If we lose Papelbon, or Castillo, there's a chance that Papelbon will someday blossom into Mark Guthrie, or that Castillo will someday emerge as a decent backup catcher. But how likely is it that we'll ever greatly regret losing somebody who's likely ceiling is to be a fringy guy who's never likely to be among the best 20 guys on a big-league roster?

 

3. We've got tons of space. Anybody the Cubs half like they can keep. Not only do we have like 3 open spots, and Cotts and Chad Fox, and Harden and Grabow perhaps ready to leave, but the roster is jammed with expendable fringers like Atkins, Mateo, Berg,,, Blanco, Scales, Fuld, Hoffpauir, and then there's Stevens and Samardz.... Management may choose the wrong guy to protect and the guy they expose might be the one who emerges from the field. But if they keep Mateo and Berg and Atkins and Caridad and Scales and Blanco on and leave Clevenger or Papelbon or Maestri off, I think it indicates how modestly the Cubs view the guy they expose.

 

4. On Colvin and the "one hot month". I think that one hot month can greatly influence our perception on guys who don't have that extended a track record. It can give a glimpse of what a guy's ceiling is and what he might look like if he was to figure out how to more consistently use the physical talents that he has.

[toonsterwu]

I am saying that maybe because of your familiarity with the Cubs prospects you are assigning more value to them then most MLB teams would. I have no idea what the Cubs were thinking wasting their time and roster space on a guy like Patton who at best projects to be a set up guy. But just because Hendry did it doesn't mean that a lot of other teams are going to be looking to follow that model and draft similar guys out of the Cubs system to stick at the end of their bullpen for a year.

 

Okay, if you follow the Rule 5 draft, you'll find that plenty of teams take guys to fill roles, either hoping for a middle reliever, a LOOGY, a long man, a 4th OF type. Not all teams do this, and many pass on the Rule 5, but some do. Again, I have in no place said any of the 6 names discussed were top prospects. What I have said is that they are guys that could fill roles, particularly Parker/Maestri/Gaub/Castillo. As noted, I think the two guys that would have the least chance to get plucked would be Papelbon/Clevenger.

[toonsterwu]

Comments on a couple of topics:

 

1. I think we are overrating many of our guys. Sure, other orgs can make weird decisions. But I don't think there's all that much to worry about having Papelbon or Dolis getting picked, and I'm not sure that .210BA-Castillo or .630-OPS Clevenger are that likely to get drafted or to stick. I think there's a fair chance that if we rostered not a single one of our guys, that Gaub might be the only one to both get picked and to stick.

 

2. Losing a player isn't necessarily a big deal. If we lose Papelbon, or Castillo, there's a chance that Papelbon will someday blossom into Mark Guthrie, or that Castillo will someday emerge as a decent backup catcher. But how likely is it that we'll ever greatly regret losing somebody who's likely ceiling is to be a fringy guy who's never likely to be among the best 20 guys on a big-league roster?

 

3. We've got tons of space. Anybody the Cubs half like they can keep. Not only do we have like 3 open spots, and Cotts and Chad Fox, and Harden and Grabow perhaps ready to leave, but the roster is jammed with expendable fringers like Atkins, Mateo, Berg,,, Blanco, Scales, Fuld, Hoffpauir, and then there's Stevens and Samardz.... Management may choose the wrong guy to protect and the guy they expose might be the one who emerges from the field. But if they keep Mateo and Berg and Atkins and Caridad and Scales and Blanco on and leave Clevenger or Papelbon or Maestri off, I think it indicates how modestly the Cubs view the guy they expose.

 

4. On Colvin and the "one hot month". I think that one hot month can greatly influence our perception on guys who don't have that extended a track record. It can give a glimpse of what a guy's ceiling is and what he might look like if he was to figure out how to more consistently use the physical talents that he has.

 

1. I think the chances of Papelbon getting picked are probably low, but he's coming off a real solid year, has some lineage, and I can easily envision a scenario where a team decides, hey, maybe he can be a LOOGY/rubber arm for us, the last pitcher on the bench type. I don't think Dolis gets picked, and I haven't suggested that he might, unless some team falls in love with a live arm. Clevenger's chances of getting picked probably aren't high either, although I could still envision a scenario where that happens. Castillo's bat isn't nearly as bad as his general line (adjusted slash lines are .276/.319/.431) and if his defense has improved, I think he'd get snatched, but that's me, and we're discussing hypotheticals.

 

2. Agreed. It isn't likely. I haven't suggested any of the names are top guys. Rather, I've consistently said that they are guys that could potentially fill roles.

 

3. I am expecting some maneuvering as well with the 40 man. Some of the moves were made geared towards this year. I'd also point out that I have not said that it would hurt to lose any of these guys. I think guys might get plucked, but that's a part of the process and you move on. These are simply guys that could fill a role in the bigs, with only Castillo really having some starting potential. Would it be disappointing to lose a guy? Perhaps, but maybe Hendry plucks another team's guy as well. It happens. I remember several years back when we lost, I think 6-8 guys in the Rule 5 draft.

 

4. I don't disagree with any of that. I was just being cynical on Colvin, as I think many Cubs fans are. To be fair to Colvin, his August has been a nice sign, as he's showing better discipline while really raking the ball. I think he could probably fill a role in the big leagues, and in all honesty, I'm fine with protecting him.

____________________________________________

 

Again, I think people are misreading my comments. I'm not suggesting any of the players that have been discussed in this thread are quality/top prospects. Far from it. Colvin's still a better prospect than most of the guys listed (I'd put Castillo ahead in a top prospects list ... and maybe that's it, well, that's the only guy ahead for me right now). Okay, I shouldn't have made a snide comment on Colvin. What I am saying is that there are guys that can fill roles, and teams are looking every which where to add talent, and what you see some teams doing with the Rule 5 draft is finding role players, situational relievers, bench guys. I do believe that there's a chance we'll lost some guys this year if we don't protect them, but it's a part of the process.

[Little Slide Rooter]

So from what I understand, of the eligible players, we can protect 5 from the draft. However, when September rolls around, if we were to add a few to the 40 man and call them up, would the no longer be eligible for the rule 5 and we could protect a few others in their place? Say Gaub and Parker are called up in September, and why not, would the no longer be rule 5 eligible?

[dew1679666265]

So from what I understand, of the eligible players, we can protect 5 from the draft. However, when September rolls around, if we were to add a few to the 40 man and call them up, would the no longer be eligible for the rule 5 and we could protect a few others in their place? Say Gaub and Parker are called up in September, and why not, would the no longer be rule 5 eligible?

 

Only players who are on the 40-man roster can be protected from the Rule 5 draft. If Gaub and Parker are called up in September, they'll also be placed on the 40-man and, thus, protected from the Rule 5 draft.

[CubColtPacer]

So from what I understand, of the eligible players, we can protect 5 from the draft. However, when September rolls around, if we were to add a few to the 40 man and call them up, would the no longer be eligible for the rule 5 and we could protect a few others in their place? Say Gaub and Parker are called up in September, and why not, would the no longer be rule 5 eligible?

 

You can protect anybody who you're willing to put on the 40 man roster. If Gaub and Parker were put on the 40 man in order to be called up in September, they would be protected. But that would also take 2 of the available spots on the 40 man for other players that might need to be protected before the rule 5 draft.

 

There's no separate list for Rule 5. At the time of the Rule 5 draft, anybody who's on the 40 man roster is protected. Anybody who hasn't had enough minor league experience is also protected. Everybody else who has been in the minors for long enough is eligible to be picked.

[Little Slide Rooter]

So from what I understand, of the eligible players, we can protect 5 from the draft. However, when September rolls around, if we were to add a few to the 40 man and call them up, would the no longer be eligible for the rule 5 and we could protect a few others in their place? Say Gaub and Parker are called up in September, and why not, would the no longer be rule 5 eligible?

 

You can protect anybody who you're willing to put on the 40 man roster. If Gaub and Parker were put on the 40 man in order to be called up in September, they would be protected. But that would also take 2 of the available spots on the 40 man for other players that might need to be protected before the rule 5 draft.

 

There's no separate list for Rule 5. At the time of the Rule 5 draft, anybody who's on the 40 man roster is protected. Anybody who hasn't had enough minor league experience is also protected. Everybody else who has been in the minors for long enough is eligible to be picked.

 

Keep in mind, by the time the draft rolls around, there will be others off the 40 man, such as Johnson, Heilman, Gregg, Chad Fox, Cotts, and hopefully Miles.

[biittner77]

Keep in mind, by the time the draft rolls around, there will be others off the 40 man, such as Johnson, Heilman, Gregg, Chad Fox, Cotts, and hopefully Miles.

 

That's true but those players will be replaced by somebody and will then be added to the 40 man. It may very well be that 2 of gaub, parker, maestri, papelbon might make the team. if they don't the guys from that list that got protected would have to be exposed to waivers which is a lot more risky than the rule 5 draft.

[Guest]

Today is the day to finalize 40-mans. I think the Cubs protect Castillo, Dolis, Gaub and Parker.

 

James Adduci, OF

Todd Blackford, RHP

Alberto Cabrera, RHP

Matt Camp, IF-OF

Russ Canzler, 1B

Marco Carrillo, RHP

Julio Castillo, RHP

Welington Castillo, C

Steve Clevenger, C-1B

Rafael Dolis, RHP

Arturo Florentino, RHP

John Gaub, LHP

Robert Hernandez, RHP

Dylan Johnston, RHP (ex-OF)

Blake Lalli, C-1B

Josh Lansford, RHP (ex-3B)

Alessandro Maestri, RHP

J. R. Mathes, LHP

Mario Mercedes, C

Matt Matulia, INF

Jonathan Mota, IF-OF

Billy Muldowney, RHP

Jake Muyco, RHP

Dionis Nunez, RHP

Jeremy Papelbon, LHP

Blake Parker, RHP

Andres Quezada, RHP (ex-OF)

Mark Reed, C

Gregory Reinhard, RHP

Chris Robinson, C

Jayson Ruhlman, LHP

Tomas Sanchez, RHP

Miguel Sierra, RHP

Alvaro Sosa, C

[JeffH]

More likely, Hendry, giddy from his brilliant signing of John Grabow, will forget to file the paperwork with MLB.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Today is the day to finalize 40-mans. I think the Cubs protect Castillo, Dolis, Gaub and Parker.

 

I agree with those picks. Of those unprotected, I could see teams plucking:

 

-Papelbon as a loogy, maybe by the Red Sox to keep the whole family together

-Robinson or Clevenger could interest teams as a backup catcher

-Adduci, Lalli, and Reinhard are also possibilities.

[scarey]

I only count 33 players on the 40 man roster.

 

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/team/roster_40man.jsp?c_id=chc

[CubColtPacer]

Cubs ended up adding 5 to the roster. Castillo, Gaub, Dolis, and Parker as mentioned above, and then they ended up protecting Adduci as well.

 

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091120&content_id=7696088&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

[SouthSideRyan]

Wow, shocked at Adduci.

[Outshined_One]

Wow, shocked at Adduci.

 

Callis spoke favorably about him in BA's Cubs prospects chat. I think he could be a workable 4th or 5th OF type.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Adduci over Clevenger? Rather, Adduci at all?

[Ben32]

Well Adduci is a very good player and I really like him. The cubs are just idiotic to add another outfielder. People wonder why they haven't won in over a hundred year its because they have idiots running the show like Hendry and Flieta. What are they gonna do with Adduci. They already have Fukudome, Fuld, Soriano, Colvin, Hoffpauir(Can Play outfield), and Jake Fox (who can also play outfield). They also have Bradley. Even if they get rid of him their gonna want another outfielder in return most likely. So all they did was waste a spot by putting Adduci on the roster in my opinion.

 

Parker, Gaub, and Dolis are good choices to put on the roster. They all had very nice seasons and are worth protecting.

 

Wellington Castillo boy don't get me started on this guy. I haven't liked him since they began comparing him to Yadier Molina. The guy is a horrible defender with stone hands. Yes he may throw out 40% of runners but that doesn't make him a good defensive catcher. Every year I look at final numbers defensively and every year Clevenger beats him in almost every category. Castillo had a horrible year hitting and everyone contributes that to him working on his defense BULL****. Clevenger began catching what almost 3 years ago and he never struggled that bad with his bat as a matter of fact I think his first year he hit in the 370's in Boise and finished in daytona hitting in the 320's. The following year he improved on his defense and still managed to hit over 300 in Daytona. So don't tell me improving his defense had to do with his offensive struggles. I maybe wrong but I think the Cubs made a big mistake by not protecting Clevenger I think he will be taken in the rule 5 draft by someone. The guy hits every year he may not hit for power but look at his RBI totals compared to Castillo's their similar and Clevenger doesn't hit nowhere near as many homer's as Castillo. Offense is about driving in runs and scoring them. Clevenger gives you both choices by getting on base alot and he drives in just as many runs then a guy who hits 11-15 homeruns.

[Tryptamine]

Is there any way Maestri gets through the rule five unclaimed?

[Ben32]

Maybe Maestri might slip through but you never know what other teams may have in mind for him. Cubs may see him as one thing and another team may view him as a rotation guy. Its really to hard to know who will slip through the draft

[Outshined_One]

Is there any way Maestri gets through the rule five unclaimed?

 

Yes. He wasn't all that great last season, posting bad BB numbers and mediocre HR numbers in AA. He could stick in low-end team's bullpen, but there will be better options out there.