Added to the 40: Santana, Crowe, Gimenez, Stevens, Rondon

Among the Rule 5 unprotected: Brown, Lofgren, Burton, Newsom and Herrmann.

And we can start getting ready for the agony of Rondon being out of options in 2012.

about 3 years ago Jay 35 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good choices

by Roger Dorn on Nov 20, 2008 10:25 PM EST reply actions

So does that leave any obvious vulnerable players? I seem to recall Core and Stevens were the big two.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Nov 20, 2008 10:36 PM EST reply actions

Core? Who the hell is Core?

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Nov 20, 2008 10:36 PM EST up reply actions

that’s Jhonny’s nickname.

by Brick. on Nov 20, 2008 10:38 PM EST up reply actions

Jordan Brown is probably the first name to come to mind. But as I’ve said before, there is zero reason to have both Michael Aubrey and Jordan Brown on the 40-man. It’s a safer bet to leave Aubrey on and expose Brown, then to put Brown on and send Aubrey through waivers.

by APV on Nov 20, 2008 10:56 PM EST up reply actions

perfect!

by Brick. on Nov 20, 2008 10:37 PM EST reply actions

so, lofgren and brow dingle dangle. i could see both getting snagged, but i have a hard time seeing either make it all year on an mlb roster.

by Brick. on Nov 20, 2008 10:41 PM EST reply actions

I could see Lofgren pick up as the last spot in someones bullpen

Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Nov 20, 2008 11:46 PM EST up reply actions

me too. I’ll bet he gets snagged by a below-500-in-08 team.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Nov 21, 2008 5:51 PM EST up reply actions

Actually, I could see Brown batting cleanup for some awful National League team like the Pirates or Nationals. And if that seems like a stretch to you, then you haven’t seen an NL game in the past several years. Jason Michaels batted cleanup for the Pirates at one point last year.

by Jay on Nov 21, 2008 12:31 AM EST up reply actions

Barring a substantial move this winter, there’s no excuse for Jordan Brown not to be starting at first base in 2009 for the Baltimore Orioles, Seattle Mariners, or the Florida Marlins.

by xrickx on Nov 21, 2008 1:30 AM EST up reply actions

Plus there’s the Neil Huntington connection. I could definitely see him getting picked by the Pirates.

by Ryan on Nov 21, 2008 7:29 AM EST up reply actions

And that’s fine. In my limited looks at Brown last year, he wasn’t all that special. I predict 4A player … and I think the FO does too.

by n69hawk on Nov 21, 2008 9:15 AM EST up reply actions

4A = National League.

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Nov 21, 2008 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I think that meme is starting to lose it’s punch.

Did you notice a disparity between the AL MVP list and the NL MVP list? I did.

by Toxicadam on Nov 21, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions

It still seems that teams overall are more competitive.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 21, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions

If you got to hit off of those pitcher, you’d put up those numbers in the NL too.

by xrickx on Nov 21, 2008 12:56 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly right. That disparity actually says more about the overall strength of the AL. It’s tougher to put up ridiculous numbers against good competition. Many records occur shortly after expansion, for example.

by Peter Bendix on Nov 21, 2008 1:09 PM EST up reply actions

I quite agree. AL pitching has just gotten much stronger — by necessity.

Not to mention, the quality of the top few players doesn’t say all that much about the quality of the league.

Not to mention, the lack of notable outlier seasons on one year’s leaderboard doesn’t say all that much about the quality of the top few players.

by Jay on Nov 21, 2008 11:46 PM EST up reply actions

KDLC is safe, right?

Is Brown not on? I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets picked?

by afh4 on Nov 20, 2008 10:56 PM EST reply actions

I think Lastoria had something about KDLC not being eligible for the rule 5 draft yet because of when he signed, so he’s ok. I think Brown will get picked, but I also think he’s not a huge loss.

DISCLAIMER: I may be bitter.

by zempf on Nov 21, 2008 9:29 AM EST up reply actions

Agree. And I think it’s a sign of this board’s reasonableness and knowledge that no one is flipping out over Brown.

Anyway, I would guess that Lofgren would not be picked. A full season, plus a fall league, showing that he’s nowhere near figuring out his mechanical issues. He was a good prospect, but not one with Randy Johnson stuff. I think he’ll be passed up.

by dgcambridge on Nov 21, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions

OMGICBWAPBWTFHIG!

I mean, um, reasonableness and knowledge. Yes.

by Logodaedalus on Nov 21, 2008 1:00 PM EST up reply actions

O M G I CAN’T BELIEVE WE ALMOST PICKED BROWN… W T F HE IS GOOD?

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Nov 21, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions

“Aren’t protecting”, but good job.

by Logodaedalus on Nov 21, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions

I almost didn’t catch the WTF. I got the last three? Wow.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Nov 21, 2008 6:31 PM EST up reply actions

I had in mind “great”, but same idea.

by Logodaedalus on Nov 21, 2008 7:41 PM EST up reply actions

I suppose I could see someone taking a flyer on Lofgren, but they’d have to see immediate and dramatic changes in ST for him to even make it through the last week of March with another club. He has been TERRIBLE and getting worse.

by APV on Nov 21, 2008 1:04 PM EST up reply actions

Can someone explain to me the logic of not including 40 players on the 40 man roster, and then if/when we sign/trade a new player, dropping that 40th guy back off? Would that make the 40th man a FA, avalable to sign anywhere? I’m assuming there has to be something negative associated with placing a player on the 40 man and then kicking him back off, just curious as to the answer.

by millionairesrow on Nov 21, 2008 8:55 AM EST reply actions

I believe that when you remove a player from the 40-man, you must place him on waivers, thus exposing him to every other team in baseball. If he clears waivers, you can “outright” him to the minors. However, every player can only be outrighted once in his career – after that, he has the right to refuse the assignment and become a free agent, either immediately or after the season.

Furthermore, if a player has at least five years of service time, he has the right to refuse the outright assignment, even if it was the first time he was outrighted.

However, the key is that the player would have to go through waivers. If the team is reasonably sure that they are going to add a player or two to their roster via free agency or a trade, it makes sense to leave a spot or two open. Adding a player and then removing him is acknowledging to every other team that is someone that the Indians thought was worthy of a 40-man spot.

I suppose it’s a risk they could take, assuming that they were resigned to losing the player in the rule V draft anyway. But it seems like an unnecessary risk – might as well leave the guy off the roster, and if he isn’t taken then you haven’t wasted an outright.

I don’t know if that entirely answers your question, but I hope it helps.

by Peter Bendix on Nov 21, 2008 10:34 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks.

by millionairesrow on Nov 21, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions

Indians Prospect Insider speculates that that’s exactly what’s going to happen — the fact that a spot was left open means a signing or some other roster move is basically set, much as last year, when they left a spot open for Masa. Sounds logical to me.

by peter m on Nov 21, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions