40-man roster and Rule 5 protects

[Guest]

I don't understand the link between Theo's compensation and protecting players. If the Red Sox want Flaherty, why leave himm unprotected and risk letting him go and end up losing 2 players? I don't see why a player who has been protected can't be sent as compensation for Theo.

[Guest]

I don't understand the link between Theo's compensation and protecting players. If the Red Sox want Flaherty, why leave himm unprotected and risk letting him go and end up losing 2 players? I don't see why a player who has been protected can't be sent as compensation for Theo.

Yeah, I'm not getting that one, either.

[JeffH]

Jay Jackson is another guy that could get taken in the Rule 5. He may even be the most likely to get taken. I guess there's a chance Burke could get taken as well, but a team would have to be really creative to keep him. My guess is the Cubs think he'll make it through and he'll be rostered next year if he continues to show this much progress.

 

While not the highest upside of the unprotected guys, I think Flaherty is the most likely to be taken. His upside is as a utility infielder and he's basically major league ready right now.

 

I can see Flaherty not getting chosen - at a minimum, not sticking.

 

The consensus seems to be that he doesn't profile well defensively in the middle infield. If he's limited to corner infield and corner outfield, his struggles in AAA all of a sudden are a lot more bothersome.

 

I can easily see teams not having much interest in going out of their way to take up a 25-man roster spot with a corner guy who's not very likely to be a big offensive contributor anytime soon.

[davell]

There's 34 guys right now, with Hill likely to be gone soon. Kerry Wood replaces Hill and we're back to 34. Maybe they're saving a spot for Brett Jackson and/or Angel Guzman? That could be 36 right there. Leaving 4 spots to go to a !B, 3B, and a couple of pitchers.

[JeffH]

I don't understand the link between Theo's compensation and protecting players. If the Red Sox want Flaherty, why leave himm unprotected and risk letting him go and end up losing 2 players? I don't see why a player who has been protected can't be sent as compensation for Theo.

Yeah, I'm not getting that one, either.

 

The point is that, as a perennial contender, Boston isn't going to want to add players to their 40-man roster until they're very, very close to being able to contribute.

 

If they can "steal" an extra year before a player has to be rostered, that has value.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't understand the link between Theo's compensation and protecting players. If the Red Sox want Flaherty, why leave himm unprotected and risk letting him go and end up losing 2 players? I don't see why a player who has been protected can't be sent as compensation for Theo.

 

The Red Sox have a bit of a 40-man roster crunch. A player who has to be protected is significantly less valuable to them.

 

So Epstein says "Okay, you can have A or B."

 

Cherington says "We prefer A, but he's Rule 5 eligible and we don't have a spot for him. Can you wait until after the draft? If he clears, we'll take him, otherwise B will do."

[dew1679666265]

I can see Flaherty not getting chosen - at a minimum, not sticking.

 

The consensus seems to be that he doesn't profile well defensively in the middle infield. If he's limited to corner infield and corner outfield, his struggles in AAA all of a sudden are a lot more bothersome.

 

I can easily see teams not having much interest in going out of their way to take up a 25-man roster spot with a corner guy who's not very likely to be a big offensive contributor anytime soon.

 

He only played 49 games at AAA last year, so it's not like there's a real strong sample size from which to go on. Overall he's a guy with a .469 career minor league slugging percentage, was a first round pick, and has only had 3 years of minor league service time. The upside is there to get better and, at worst, he'd be a cheap bat off the bench for a team like the Royals, Pirates, or Astros looking to find cheap production. He doesn't have to be a big offensive contributor anytime soon to stash him on the bench for cheap production. He only doesn't have to be awful.

[Guest]

Official Press Release:

 

CHICAGO – The Chicago Cubs today selected the contracts of four players and added them to the 40-man roster: left-handed pitcher Jeff Beliveau from Double-A Tennessee, infielders Junior Lake and Josh Vitters from Tennessee and outfielder Matt Szczur from Single-A Daytona.

 

Additionally, the Cubs outrighted right-handed pitchers Esmailin Caridad and Kyle Smit and outfielder Lou Montañez off of the 40-man roster.

 

Chicago’s 40-man roster now stands at 34 players.

 

Beliveau, 24, was named the Cubs 2011 Minor League Pitcher of the Year after combining to go 6-2 with five saves and a 1.57 ERA (13 ER/74.1 IP) in 53 relief appearances between Single-A Daytona and Double-A Tennessee in 2011, his first-career stop at the Double-A level. The lefthander combined to strike out 89 batters and issue only 19 walks in 74.1 innings, an average of 10.8 strikeouts and only 2.3 walks per nine innings, and limited opponents to a .192 batting average against. He pitched for Team USA this Fall.

 

The 6-foot-1, 215-pound Beliveau began the season with Daytona, where he went 0-1 with two saves and a 0.52 ERA (1 ER/17.1 IP) in 12 relief outings to earn the promotion to Double-A. Beliveau went 6-1 with three saves and a 1.89 ERA (12 ER/57.0 IP) in 41 relief appearances to help the Smokies to the Southern League championship round. Originally selected by the Cubs in the 18th round of the 2008 Draft out of Florida Atlantic University, the Providence, R.I. native is 17-9 with 10 saves and a 2.69 ERA (81 ER/270.2 IP) in four pro seasons in the Cubs organization.

 

Lake, 21, combined to hit .279 (124-for-445) with 21 doubles, six triples, 12 home runs, 38 stolen bases, 80 runs scored and 51 RBI in 116 games between Daytona and Tennessee this season. The right-handed batter and thrower recorded 11 doubles, six home runs and 19 steals in Daytona and 10 doubles, six home runs and 19 steals with Tennessee. Lake began the season with Daytona, batting .315 (64-for-203) in 49 games to earn the promotion to Double-A, where he hit .248 (60-for-242) in 67 games. He is listed by Baseball America as the eighth-best prospect in the Cubs system.

 

The 6-foot-3, 215-pound shortstop was named a 2011 Arizona Fall League Rising Star, batting .296 (34-for-115) with eight doubles, three triples, five home runs and 18 stolen bases in 28 games. Originally signed by the Cubs as a non-drafted free agent on February 2, 2007, the San Pedro de Macoris, D.R. native is a career .267 hitter (452-for-1,693) in 476 games covering five professional seasons in the Cubs organization starting with the 2007 season.

 

Szczur, 22, batted .293 (131-for-447) with 22 doubles, three triples, 10 homers, 46 RBI, 75 runs and 24 stolen bases in 109 games for Single-A Peoria and Daytona, helping Daytona to the Florida State League Championship. The 6-foot-1, 195-pounder began the season by batting .314 (86-for-274) in 66 games for Peoria to earn a promotion to Daytona, where he completed his campaign by hitting .260 (45-for-173) in 43 games. He participated in the 2011 Futures Game and was a mid-season Midwest League All-Star. He is listed as the third-best prospect in the Cubs system by Baseball America.

 

Selected by Chicago in the fifth round of the 2010 Draft out of Villanova University, Szczur was a two-sport collegiate star and batted .347 (35-for-101) in 25 games in his first pro season in 2010. With Villanova in 2010, Szczur became the university’s first .400 hitter since 1997, batting .443 to earn First-Team All-Big East honors. On the football field, Szczur led the Wildcats to the quarterfinals of the Division I Football Championship in 2008, the national title in 2009 and the semifinals in 2010.

 

Vitters, 22, batted .283 (127-for-449) with 28 doubles, two triples, 14 home runs and 81 RBI in 129 games with Tennessee, his first full season at Double-A. The 6-foot-2, 200-pounder continued his year with a strong Arizona Fall League, batting .360 (26-for-100) with six doubles, four home runs and 17 RBI in 24 games. He is listed by Baseball America as the ninth-best prospect in the club’s minor league system.

 

Chicago’s first round pick in the 2007 Draft (third overall), Vitters is a career .277 hitter (429-for-1,547) with 95 doubles, 47 home runs and 229 RBI in 419 games covering five seasons in the Cubs organization. He is a native of Anaheim, CA.

[dew1679666265]

The point is that, as a perennial contender, Boston isn't going to want to add players to their 40-man roster until they're very, very close to being able to contribute.

 

If they can "steal" an extra year before a player has to be rostered, that has value.

 

If Theo is getting played so badly that he's taking the chance we lose a guy like Flaherty and somebody else if Flaherty is selected in compensation to Boston, then I'm questioning whether our brain trust is as much better than Hendry as I originally thought. That would be a simply awful bit of negotiating by Theo.

[CubColtPacer]

I don't understand the link between Theo's compensation and protecting players. If the Red Sox want Flaherty, why leave himm unprotected and risk letting him go and end up losing 2 players? I don't see why a player who has been protected can't be sent as compensation for Theo.

 

The Red Sox have a bit of a 40-man roster crunch. A player who has to be protected is significantly less valuable to them.

 

So Epstein says "Okay, you can have A or B."

 

Cherington says "We prefer A, but he's Rule 5 eligible and we don't have a spot for him. Can you wait until after the draft? If he clears, we'll take him, otherwise B will do."

 

But if A gets taken when otherwise the Cubs would have rostered him, suddenly they've lost A and B. Would they take that gamble just to pacify Boston?

[Vinestal]

Rhee is the only guy that really leaves me scratching my head. If we sign Cepedes and the 19 year old do we have to give the 19 yr old a major league contract? I forget his name, it was Jorge something wasn't it?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't understand the link between Theo's compensation and protecting players. If the Red Sox want Flaherty, why leave himm unprotected and risk letting him go and end up losing 2 players? I don't see why a player who has been protected can't be sent as compensation for Theo.

 

The Red Sox have a bit of a 40-man roster crunch. A player who has to be protected is significantly less valuable to them.

 

So Epstein says "Okay, you can have A or B."

 

Cherington says "We prefer A, but he's Rule 5 eligible and we don't have a spot for him. Can you wait until after the draft? If he clears, we'll take him, otherwise B will do."

 

But if A gets taken when otherwise the Cubs would have rostered him, suddenly they've lost A and B. Would they take that gamble just to pacify Boston?

 

If they are offering him to Boston, then presumably they don't like him enough to roster him.

[dew1679666265]

The Cubs were obviously more interested in the roster space than protecting those guys. We definitely protected the top four exposed prospects in my mind, but it seems we had space to protect a few more.

 

I'm sure Theo & Jed have a plan for those roster spots, but I'm very much wondering what those plans will be. It makes me wonder, though, if one or two Cubans could be given major league contracts this winter.

 

This is the only argument that really makes any sense that I've seen. After cutting Hill, bringing back Wood and rostering BJackson and Guzman, we'll be at 36 players. I think Theo is willing to take the chance that the questions surrounding Flaherty (lack of upside), Rhee (health, inexperience), and Antigua (reliever) will be enough for teams to not try to stash them so that we can leave 4 spots open to fill major league needs.

[CubColtPacer]

I don't understand the link between Theo's compensation and protecting players. If the Red Sox want Flaherty, why leave himm unprotected and risk letting him go and end up losing 2 players? I don't see why a player who has been protected can't be sent as compensation for Theo.

 

The Red Sox have a bit of a 40-man roster crunch. A player who has to be protected is significantly less valuable to them.

 

So Epstein says "Okay, you can have A or B."

 

Cherington says "We prefer A, but he's Rule 5 eligible and we don't have a spot for him. Can you wait until after the draft? If he clears, we'll take him, otherwise B will do."

 

But if A gets taken when otherwise the Cubs would have rostered him, suddenly they've lost A and B. Would they take that gamble just to pacify Boston?

 

If they are offering him to Boston, then presumably they don't like him enough to roster him.

 

Then not rostering that player suggests nothing about if they are being talked about with Boston which was the original point of discussion. It just says that the Cubs aren't interested in rostering them at this time-nothing more. Whether they are also being offered to Boston (and I agree that a non-rostered player is more valuable) is a separate matter.

[Guest]

Is there much precedent for guys who have never reached AA getting selected in Rule 5? Intuition tells me that if there is, it's guys with big stuff, and not guys like Rhee who have no bad pitches but no awesome ones(to speak nothing of his injury), and not guys like Antigua who have strong changeups but middling fastballs.

 

Flaherty is the one that I really don't get. They must really not like his defense anywhere but the corner and aren't sold on him improving much at his age. For as much as we lump him together with Lemahieu, I've never paid enough attention to the fact that Flaherty is a full 3 years older.

[dew1679666265]

If they are offering him to Boston, then presumably they don't like him enough to roster him.

 

That's a really poor use of assets, though. Even if they don't think that highly of Flaherty, Rhee, or Antigua, all three have to have much more trade value than simply giving them away in the Rule 5 or as compensation.

 

It's kind of like the Juan Pierre trade. The only player from that trade that really hurt to lose in the long run was Nolasco, but it doesn't make the trade ok. Theo not liking Flaherty, Rhee, or Antigua is fine, but giving away assets with value for no reason is not.

[Vinestal]

Is there much precedent for guys who have never reached AA getting selected in Rule 5? Intuition tells me that if there is, it's guys with big stuff, and not guys like Rhee who have no bad pitches but no awesome ones(to speak nothing of his injury), and not guys like Antigua who have strong changeups but middling fastballs.

 

Flaherty is the one that I really don't get. They must really not like his defense anywhere but the corner and aren't sold on him improving much at his age. For as much as we lump him together with Lemahieu, I've never paid enough attention to the fact that Flaherty is a full 3 years older.

I thought Rhee had his fastball back into the mid 90s and had a plus change at the end of the year. If what your saying is true then I guess I don't worry so much about him getting picked up.

[dew1679666265]

Is there much precedent for guys who have never reached AA getting selected in Rule 5? Intuition tells me that if there is, it's guys with big stuff, and not guys like Rhee who have no bad pitches but no awesome ones(to speak nothing of his injury), and not guys like Antigua who have strong changeups but middling fastballs.

 

David Patton's highest level was A+ when the Cubs selected him. When he went back to the minors, he went to AA, though. He had big stuff, though, so your he's in line with your intuition.

 

Flaherty is the one that I really don't get. They must really not like his defense anywhere but the corner and aren't sold on him improving much at his age. For as much as we lump him together with Lemahieu, I've never paid enough attention to the fact that Flaherty is a full 3 years older.

 

Or they think that Flaherty's issues and lack of upside are enough for another team either to not pick him or not keep him rostered long enough.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Is there much precedent for guys who have never reached AA getting selected in Rule 5? Intuition tells me that if there is, it's guys with big stuff, and not guys like Rhee who have no bad pitches but no awesome ones(to speak nothing of his injury), and not guys like Antigua who have strong changeups but middling fastballs.

 

David Patton's highest level was A+ when the Cubs selected him. When he went back to the minors, he went to AA, though. He had big stuff, though, so your he's in line with your intuition.

 

Flaherty is the one that I really don't get. They must really not like his defense anywhere but the corner and aren't sold on him improving much at his age. For as much as we lump him together with Lemahieu, I've never paid enough attention to the fact that Flaherty is a full 3 years older.

 

Or they think that Flaherty's issues and lack of upside are enough for another team either to not pick him or not keep him rostered long enough.

 

Maybe I'm over valuing Flaherty, and I'm not sure what all will be available in the Rule 5 but I could see him being selected early on, top 5-10.

[JeffH]

Rhee is the only guy that really leaves me scratching my head. If we sign Cepedes and the 19 year old do we have to give the 19 yr old a major league contract? I forget his name, it was Jorge something wasn't it?

 

Soler

[dew1679666265]

Maybe I'm over valuing Flaherty, and I'm not sure what all will be available in the Rule 5 but I could see him being selected early on, top 5-10.

 

I don't know when he'd be selected, but I do find it hard to believe that a team that will trade for Mark Teahen would not select Ryan Flaherty. It's certainly possible, I just don't really see much downside for a team like the Royals/Pirates/Astros to grab him and stash him on the roster.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If they were to select only 4, I like the choices, but for an organization thin on starting pitching, Jay and certainly Rhee should have been protected. I doubt that Rhee will be taken but I don't think it's a risk worth taking with all the open roster spots.

[bukie]

The Cubs were obviously more interested in the roster space than protecting those guys. We definitely protected the top four exposed prospects in my mind, but it seems we had space to protect a few more.

 

I'm sure Theo & Jed have a plan for those roster spots, but I'm very much wondering what those plans will be. It makes me wonder, though, if one or two Cubans could be given major league contracts this winter.

I haven't seen a recent picture of Cespedes. Does he count as one, or two Cubans? :)

Edited November 19, 2011 by bukie

[JeffH]

Maybe I'm over valuing Flaherty, and I'm not sure what all will be available in the Rule 5 but I could see him being selected early on, top 5-10.

 

I don't know when he'd be selected, but I do find it hard to believe that a team that will trade for Mark Teahen would not select Ryan Flaherty. It's certainly possible, I just don't really see much downside for a team like the Royals/Pirates/Astros to grab him and stash him on the roster.

 

Flaherty might get chosen, but there are guys every year for whom that argument fits and they don't get selected.

[bukie]

The other possibility is that Epstein/Hoyer/McLeod don't value those players as highly as the prior regime did.