The 2018 Rule 5 Draft

andyb 2018-11-20 16:41:27 UTC #21

I was thinking Pujols too and the article was a little dismissive of his ability to stick. He did have a month in AA where he was decent (792 OPS) and I think he is still seen as good defensively. He and Gamboa are pretty close IMO for protection decisions.

David_Criss 2018-11-20 16:52:31 UTC #22

We are talking about the Major League Rule V draft, right?

The only four names on that list I think would get claimed are Leftwich, Gilbert, Eishelman and Medina. As has been stated no brainer on Medina. Gilbert has decent numbers as a left handed relief pitcher not to get claimed by someone as a gamble. With teams needing pitching and because of his 2017 campaign, some team may take a gamble on Tom Eshelman, but I don't think it is the end of the world if the Phillies lose him.

I can't imagine Gamboa, Brito or Gomez are even on any teams watch list.

The three questions marks I think are Grullon, Gilbert and Pujols, who only has 26 games above A ball but lots of upside, but is it enough to eat up a 25-man roster spot all summer?

So if 40-man spots are precious then I am only going with Medina, Gilbert and Leftwich.

andyb 2018-11-20 17:05:51 UTC #23

The issue with those pitchers are they do not really have high end stuff. They are all pretty replaceable so even if they got drafted (like Hoby Milner last year) it would either be no great loss or they would not stick. Garcia is the one guy in the group outside of Medina who can throw in the mid 90s which is why he is on some protection lists. Eshelman to me is just another low ceiling replaceable guy - not quite as good as Lively whom we just let go. Gilbert is a little interesting because he is left-handed, but also seems pretty replaceable to me.

zambonir 2018-11-20 19:38:46 UTC #24

Milner was two years ago even. He came back during the 2017 season, made the team out of ST last year, didn't stick, eventually got DFA'ed (I think traded if memory serves).

It would be a shame for Eshelman to get picked (for his sake, I mean). Seems a stretch though. He'd probably end up like Oberholtzer (who wasn't Rule V but had no options), not good enough to crack a rotation and not an effective bullpen piece. Saying the Phillies can't really afford to lose him (as Winkelman did) isn't true I don't think. He got passed by just about every guy who was behind him (whether in AAA, AA or another organization) last year. He is not going to make the Giles trade look any better or worse at this point.

julio 2018-11-20 20:08:11 UTC #25

Actually, the Rule 5 draft. I'm not sure where the idea that this thing has a roman numeral came from. There are about 60 Major League Rules - they're not numbered in roman numerals.

David_Criss 2018-11-20 20:17:19 UTC #26

Question for those smarter than me. If one of these players is claimed and then in Spring Training returned to the Phillies because they wont make the 25-man cut, do the Phillies have to put him on the 40-man when receiving him back?

Squire 2018-11-20 20:25:57 UTC #27

Nope.

Austinfan 2018-11-20 22:30:46 UTC #28

Garcia and Leftwich are the two most likely to get picked up b/c they could work in the back end of a bullpen.
McGarry is also a possibility but I think Leftwich has better stuff.
Gilbert is behind Singer and some other lefties in terms of stuff.

Squire 2018-11-20 22:43:49 UTC #29

Our old friend INF Engelb Vielma is available

Squire 2018-11-20 22:51:20 UTC #30

Phillies Added 3:

RHP Adonis Medina
SS Arquimedes Gamboa
RHP Edgar Garcia

allentown 2018-11-21 00:06:50 UTC #31

So, who are we actually likely to lose? I think Pujols and Leftwich.

nycphils 2018-11-21 00:58:43 UTC #32

Good that Gamboa was protected. He is the Tocci of the IF - lacks the playable strength to be a good hitter, but maybe it comes with age.

Surprised about Grullon.

zambonir 2018-11-21 01:47:09 UTC #33

Gotta to be hard to stash a really green back-up catcher (or light-hitting third catcher - which he'd surely be with a two level jump) on a major league roster these days.

Austinfan 2018-11-21 01:54:35 UTC #34

Yeah, but why do they need to perserve those 40 man roster spaces now?
It's not like they should be major players in the Rule 5 draft.

baseballoldie 2018-11-21 01:56:53 UTC #35

For the 3 free agents they are going to sign.

allentown 2018-11-21 02:04:24 UTC #36

Because if they add players to the 40-man and then remove them they're far more likely to lose them, since they won't ever need to be added to a 25-man roster.

zambonir 2018-11-21 02:11:52 UTC #37

Yup, they need options. For free agents, for trades, and you never know with the draft.

It's a simple valuation really, someone like Luis Garcia or Altherr still has more value - whether to the Phillies or as a modest trade chip - than a prospect they probably aren't going to lose anyway. And if they'd added a youngster and then had to remove him, he'd probably be more likely to get claimed than taken as a Rule 5.

julio 2018-11-21 03:59:58 UTC #38

More digging/stuff on Bour:

Per Salisbury, Bour is still on the roster:

Salisbury wrote:

The additions left the Phillies’ 40-man roster at 38. Justin Bour remains on the roster even though multiple sources say he has cleared waivers.

Salisbury reported last Wednesday that the Phils has asked waivers on Bour. Per ML Rule 10:

If that request was submitted before 2 pm on Wednesday, the claiming period would have expired at 1 pm on Friday last.
If that request was submitted after 2 pm, the claiming period would have expired at 1 pm yesterday (Monday).
Salisbury now reports that Bourn has cleared waivers (per multiple sources).

Under Rule 10, the waiver expires seven days from the time the waiver was granted (either last Friday or yesterday-Monday afternoon), at 1 pm EST. But the Phillies aren't required to outright Bour, even though they apparently got him through outright waivers. They could just choose to let the waiver expire. I don't see why they would go through such a process, though; but there may be some reason why they're delaying actually outrighting him. Again, though, I don't see why - given that no club was willing to submit a waiver claim (and take Bour's contract essentially for free), I can't imagine he can be traded - nobody's going to give value for something they didn't want for free.

I earlier wrote:

Upon further reading, this isn't the only relevant part of the CBA. Notwithstanding what Article XIX (above) says, Article XX.D says that any player with three years service time can elect free agency in lieu of accepting an outright assignment, as can any player who is outrighted more than one time.

I'm not certain, but it seems to me that the way these clauses work together is that a player with three years service time can elect free agency instead of an outright assignment; a player with five years service time can also refuse the outright assignment without electing free agency - e.g., without terminating his current contract. Such a refusal might lead to the player's release - but he'd likely still be getting paid.

In any event, all this means that Bour can elect free agency rather than accept an outright assignment - and likely will.

When the Phils get around to outrighting him, that is!

tom81 2018-11-21 04:34:34 UTC #39

A possible fit may be a trade of Bour back to the fish for Derek Dietrich who they just designated for assignment. Dietrich kind of fits our profile, a decent left handed bat who plays multiple positions and none of them all that well. Bet the fish should do it if we ate some of Bour’s salary.

zambonir 2018-11-21 05:02:27 UTC #40

Well, they have until 11/30 to offer him arbitration. Couldn't they just agree to a new (i.e. cheaper) contract prior to arbitration, if they actually wanted him and he didn't think he could do better? Seems unlikely they truly have a spot for him on the bench at almost any price though.

It is ironic that it seems the Marlins actually do need Bour though if they are short on lefty bats why bail on Dietrich too?