Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Network Bar & Login
Section Navigation
Main Blog Content
Secondary Sidebar: Links to Recent Stories, FanPosts and FanShots
Masthead

Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Rule 5 losses.

by exileincincy on Dec 7, 2006 9:28 AM EST

Goleski to the A's; Warden to the Phils. Poor roster management regarding Goleski in my opinion. How do you keep a guy like Sikorski on the 40 man and expose Goleski. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Rule 5 losses.

I was afraid of that. I'd keep Sikorski on the 40 over Mike Rouse anyday - not sure I understand protecting him with Luna/Inglett already in the fold.

by Thommy on Dec 7, 2006 9:42 AM EST reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

Yeah, i've got to back your point about Rouse, don't see how keeping Inglet, Luna, and him over Goleski makes any sense, unless they were really down on Goleski or didn't think anyone would pick him up. Those A's are a sneaky bunch though.

by hans on Dec 7, 2006 10:48 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

I'd be surprised if Goleski is able to stick on the A's roster all season. Maybe they'll try to work out a trade.

by APV on Dec 7, 2006 9:53 AM EST reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

Sikorski is the one I don't understand does anyone think he will make our bullpen next year?
I could also see Michael Aubrey being left off he 25 and hasn't played a full season yet.

Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Dec 7, 2006 12:37 PM EST reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

Pitching is always at a premium, so I can almost excuse protecting Sikorski. Rouse is the one I don't get (I'm with you Thommy). Why we have Luna, Inglett and Rouse on the 40 man is beyond me.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Dec 7, 2006 12:46 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

I am very dissapointed in not protecting Goleski. The Tribe said it came down to Ben francisco or Goleski on the roster, but why can't they both make it. I agree that if you were going to leave someone off the roster it should be Rouse. He will not contribute to the major league team this year or next. That cannot be said for a corner outfield. We supposedly have all this talen at OF in the minors but when was the last time they have done anything at the big league level, Sizemore came from Montreal and Taveras is in Houston now. They said Francisco can play all OF spots and is more versatile than Goleski, don't we already have that versatile OF on our team, its every OF on our roster. Yet, baseball america ranked Goleski our top power and throwing OF prospect. We have a big need for Right handed power bat and a solid arm would go nice with that, not another Gutz. I wasn't as worried because I thought he wouldn't stay on TB roster all year but then he was traded to Oakland who needs a 3rd or 4th OF since Payton not resigning and Oakland GM says they wanted to draft him 3 years ago. He fits well in Oakland, hopefully he returns but I'm driving the salt truck for now.

by erdygerdy on Dec 7, 2006 1:32 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

Sorry to lose Goleski, and I don't understand the thinking either on leaving him unprotected. But I think Warden is more likely to stick at the big league level right away than Goleski, so it'll be interesting watching Goleski's spring training.

If Goleski doesn't make it and the A's have to send him back, does Tampa get to keep their $100,000 anyway? I think the rule says $25,000 is the value of a rule 5 guy, so I think the D-Rays get $75K from Billy just for playing along...

by MTF on Dec 7, 2006 1:24 PM EST reply actions

Rouse over Goleski?!?

I've been so pissed off about the decision to keep Mike Rouse over Ryan Goleski that, after my darkest suspicions came true, I had no choice but to finally get a username for this site just so I could spout off on this and allow me to go on and be productive the rest of the day. The cash-strapped A's pay $100K for the rights to Goleski and we think he's coming back?

Once again, we lose a good talent because the front-office has a bug up their a** to keep a weak-hitting, left-handed utility infielder (Rouse, Ramon Vazquez) over someone with actual talent (Goleski, Brandon Phillips). How do you not protect a guy who goes .306/.391/.557 with 27 HR? I don't care if he's 25. The decision to keep him over Mike Rouse is ridiculous.

I'm this close to losing my "Shappie" status. A ridiculous oversight.

by peyton46 @ Let's Go Tribe! on Dec 7, 2006 2:12 PM EST reply actions

Re: Rouse over Goleski?!?

I'm in no way trying to justify Mike Rouse's placement on the 40-man roster, but I still think it's unlikely Goleski can stick for an entire season on the A's active roster.

As recently as 2005, Goleski showed difficulty adjusting to an advancement to a higher pitching level (with a .212/.276/.382 line in Kinston, with 134 Ks). I have doubts about his ability in the short-term (i.e. this season) to adjust to MLB pitching. He's also not the typical Rule 5 pick, a defensive middle-infielder or middle relief guy, who can be stashed on the bench and still serve some limited function.

by APV on Dec 7, 2006 2:21 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rouse over Goleski?!?

I should add, the A's are a competitive team in a competitive division. They're not a rebuilding year, where they can afford to just waste a roster spot on someone in order to keep him down the line.

by APV on Dec 7, 2006 2:22 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rouse over Goleski?!?

If the A's add Cliff Floyd for LF, my money is on Goleski in LF vs. LHP, with Bobby Kielty getting non-tendered or traded. No reason to keep a $2-3 million dollar a year 30 year old Kielty over a league minimum 25 year old Goleski.

by athleticsfan4ever @ Let's Go Tribe! on Dec 7, 2006 3:00 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rouse over Goleski?!?

I have doubts Goleski could perform at, or even near, replacement level, though.

by APV on Dec 7, 2006 6:03 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

What if the Indians sign another FA (presuming no other moves are made)? They have to release a guy from the 40-man (or is there another option?). Either way, you have to figure Rouse is that man.

by Brick. on Dec 7, 2006 2:30 PM EST reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

That's a fair point. The 40 man doesn't exist in a vacuum and if we sign or trade for anyone at this point, we have to be taking someone off of the roster.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Dec 7, 2006 2:43 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

Perhaps I've jumped the gun a little bit. When I originally saw Rouse's name listed instead of Goleski, I hadn't planned on the Indians signing five free agents (I figured they'd pick up a bat and three relievers). Obviously an additional signing would force someone off the island, and Rouse would be the obvious (I hope) victim. Perhaps I'll hold on to my "shappie" label a bit longer.

That said, this development is still disappointing, even if I don't expect Goleski to put up any type of numbers in Oakland (that BB/K ratio doesn't speak to a smooth transition). However, there is a huge opening for a right-handed outfield bat in Oakland considering Dan Johnson's and Mark Kotsay's problems against lefties and the probability that Jay Payton signs elsewhere. We'll see. With the Indians' depth in the outfield at the upper levels, I would love to see the two squads just make a deal for Goleski and spare the spring-training drama. With those Garko-Duchscherer rumors still faintly floating around the internet...

Whatever the outcome, the Rule V Draft made me sign up for this forum, so perhaps all is for naught. Hopefully I can make a contribution...

by peyton46 @ Let's Go Tribe! on Dec 7, 2006 3:02 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

You guys are missing the big picture here.

We're going to need a couple more roster spots at some point. Rouse and Sikorski and Aubrey are expendable.

If you put Goleski on the 40-man, then if you have to remove him later, he's exposed to waivers ... and gone forever. If you risk him being drafted via Rule 5, you probably get him back. It really is that simple.

Not to mention, maybe you've noticed, we have like eight players of equal or better talent and exact same skill set as Goleski.

by Jay on Dec 7, 2006 3:00 PM EST reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

"...If you put Goleski on the 40-man, then if you have to remove him later, he's exposed to waivers ... and gone forever..."

This is what I was getting at.

by Brick. on Dec 7, 2006 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

The only reason I'd hesitate to agree with you, Jay, is that of our positional prospect, Goleski has more power than most...a skill we do lack. But generally I think you are right.

by APV on Dec 7, 2006 6:05 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

I think it's curious that we can't keep Goleski on our 40 - yet the A's think enough of him to keep him on thier 25.

I understand we'd lose him if we took him off the 40 - I just think that he's good enough to keep there w/o a need to remove him (until something better came along, of course.)

by Thommy on Dec 8, 2006 12:19 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

The A's aren't committed to keeping him on the 25. And leaving him off our 40, we still had a chance to keep him. They have nothing to lose on this, unlike us.

People who are either more advanced or more talented than Goleski, or both, with similar or better skills:

Choo
Gutierrez
Francisco
Crowe
Barton
Drennen

So we have six corner OF on the 40-man roster (1-2-3 above plus Michaels and Dellucci and Snyder). Among corner OF not on the 40-man, Goleski was, at best, the fourth-best prospect and third on the big-league depth chart.

He was clearly not an important person to this organization, it's that simple.

by Jay on Dec 9, 2006 2:41 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

Josh Hamilton to the Cubs who was then flipped to the Reds. If this kid can keep his nose clean, I think he might develope into something.

by Brandini on Dec 7, 2006 3:01 PM EST reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

From Baseball America:

"We'll see what happens," a scout from an American League club said. "They're already carrying six outfielders, and (Goleski) is a guy with a lot of question marks. The track record is good, but (2005) still bothers me a little bit. We're basically talking about a good half a year in Double-A. What happens when this guy faces real breaking balls?"

by Jay on Dec 7, 2006 3:02 PM EST reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

Not to mention if they offer him back to us, we then have to put him on our 40, no?

Maybe Beane was forcing the issue to make us free Rouse again (he was originally an A).

Some GMs are pretty sneaky that way. Or I could just be crazy.

by talonk on Dec 7, 2006 4:07 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

Nate Silver wrote that Goleski "has a 1 in 20 chance of turning into Marcus Thames". His 2007 MLB PECOTA projection is less than a 700 OPS.

by cheech99 on Dec 7, 2006 5:27 PM EST reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

Link.

"PECOTA has Rule 5 draft #1 pick Ryan Goleski projected at a .235/.298/.376 line next year."

by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Dec 7, 2006 5:59 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Rule 5 losses.

That projection only means one thing. If Oakland is willing to sit on him doing that (which they might) for the roster spot, we have lost him. If not, we get him offered back to us.

by talonk on Dec 7, 2006 7:04 PM EST up reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

User Tools

Constantly updated Indians news, lots of in-depth analysis, live in-game discussions — and more fanatical and thoughtful Indians fans than every other web site combined.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

3444ant_black_small

Mainstreetfan's predictions

by APV 2 days ago

0 comments | 4 recs

Topps1978-332f_small

Indians by the Numbers — #37

by talonk 4 days ago

2 comments | 1 recs

Draft_lens6670022module54040272photo_1251768414louissockalexisicon4b_small

Five Russian Poets Contemplate Taking In A Ballgame

by YoDaddyWags 4 days ago

5 comments | 4 recs

Indians70sicon_small

Youkilis for Pure Rage

by DixonCayne 5 days ago

22 comments

Avatard_new_small

Indians by the Numbers — #36

by emd2k3 13 days ago

3 comments | 1 recs

Topps1978-332f_small

Historical Timeline

by talonk 21 days ago

9 comments

427px-nap_lajoie_1913_small

Pick 6 Discussion

by Ryan 24 days ago

61 comments | 1 recs

Topps1978-332f_small

Indians by the Numbers — #35

by talonk 25 days ago

2 comments | 1 recs

Avatard_new_small

Indians by the Numbers — #34

by emd2k3 29 days ago

5 comments | 2 recs

Indians 2012 Player At Bat Music

by aparks87 about 1 month ago

17 comments

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Recent Posts

Featured Stories

3444ant_black_small

The Indians need Grady Sizemore

by APV 8 months ago

22 comments | 3 recs

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small

Andy Marte Buys Plain Dealer Advertisement To Thank Fans

by afh4 over 1 year ago

32 comments | 17 recs

Dosequisman_small

Fire Everyone! - Mark Shapiro

by Jay over 2 years ago

623 comments | 11 recs

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small

What Cliff Lee's Not Reading

by afh4 almost 3 years ago

28 comments | 15 recs

3444ant_black_small

Trade Profile: Justin Masterson

by APV almost 3 years ago

75 comments

Yahoo_full_count