- This topic has 131 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am starting this so we can share our thoughts on our moves prior to the Rule 5 protection deadline. Teams have to shed players from their 60 day DL, and add protect elgible players by November 19th, with actual Rule 5 draft occurring on December 9th.
For me only Pacheco and Delvin Pérez are must protects. They are the 2 that have the best chance of sticking with another team. Maybe Donovan if he is ready.
Perez, Donovan and Plummer would be my first 3. I’m not sure about the pitchers.
If Plummer shows he is ready for the majors, could that open a trade of Bader in a package for an upgrade somewhere? Maybe a starting pitcher.
I stink at figuring out the 40 man but here is an attempt.
Assume we are starting with 40 right now, so it is full.
Guys on 60 DL who will need to be added at some point: Helsley, Hicks, Fernandez, Newsome.
Guys on 40 man now who will or could readily come off (I am not saying we should cut them, only that we could without dismantling a core group) : LeBlanc, J Miller, A Miller, L Garcia, Kim, McFarland, DeJong, J Rondon, Carpenter, Lester, Happ, A Rondon, Quezada, Zeuch, Waddell, A Sanchez, J Williams, Dean.
40+4-18= 26
So That leaves 14 slots from which we can add back guys from my list of cuts and/or MiLB guys we want to protect. We probably will acquire one or more this winter to add, and possibly off load one or two not on my cut list, so it would be best to have a couple slots open. (Of course, I might have totally forgot about someone.)
I see our roster at 36 or 37 after Rule 5 adjustments and resigning Garcia and McFarland. And probably 37 or 38 if we sign a free agent, but because of CBA negotiations, and our propensity for low hanging fruit, any free agent signing will likely be in early 2022.
I believe that website has Pacheco’s R5 status wrong. Since he signed after the 2017 season ended his R5 eligibility shouldn’t be until 2022.
The players that I feel need to be protected are:
Donovan
Plummer
Baker
Walsh
Pacheco (I think he is Rule 5 eligible?)
RobertsonProbably these:
Dennis Ortega
Mendoza
Capel
Warner
Delvin Perez
ParsonsThen you have to add any free agents coming back or any new free agents or trades. Not sure all of my choices would be taken by another team, but we got burned before by San Diego taking a potential prospect we thought we could leave off the 40 man. A few other intriguing names I see would be J. Rodriguez, Coulter, C Jones, Torres and Escobar. Again, not sure they would stay on someone’s roster for the whole year, but…
I am sure the Cards will promote several AA players up to AAA to protect them from the minor league portion of the draft. It will be an interesting couple of weeks coming up to see who will stay and who will go! I think the 40 man has to be set by Nov. 19, but not sure on that date.That’s some of the names I think the Cards need to protect, but they have a lot better grip on talent and potential.
Decisions on the 40 man roster need to be concluded by Dec. 1, not Nov. 19. Just saw that posted here:
https://www.mlb.com/cardinals/news/cardinals-2021-offseason-faq
Well pretty simple really. Cardinals should try to protect the players they have an actual plan for. The other players should just be left alone. Maybe a team that has an actual plan for them will take them.
Good point, 1982. Also, that supposed mistake taken by the Padres had a .579 OPS in his required year in the majors and never came back. So how were the Cardinals burned exactly?
The Rule 5 protection date in the MLB article linked to above is incorrect. November 19 is right. December 1 is not. Surprising the “official” site got that wrong…
I agree with you Brian about the SS taken by San Diego in the Rule 5 draft that didn’t pan out for them. At the time tho, many Cardinal fans were up in arms!
And thanks for the clarification about the correct date for the deadline to declare for the 40 man roster. I thought I had read that November date but saw the article on MLB and “assumed” it must be true! After all, it was on the internet!
You bet many fans were upset at the time Cordoba was lost in the Rule 5. Most of them didn’t even know who he was, as he played at Johnson City. Some just love to complain.
Who knows who to believe about anything anymore!
We know it was only Johnson City, but here was Cordoba’s slash when he was there –
.362/.427/.495/.922.No wonder some fans lamented that loss at the time.
Because rookie ball is so relevant to MLB… That jump is simply too big for any prospective Rule 5 player.
Time has proven the negative fan reactions were unnecessary.
The only legitimate argument about Cordoba is that if had been kept in our system and allowed to properly develop he might have turned into a good MLB player. We will never know. I would say that San Diego did him a big disservice and I can’t blame the Cardinals for not protecting someone that low in the system. He did have a decent year in AA this year. Maybe he will make it back.
Always pulling for the player, especially against those odds. The only reason I commented in the first place was the original poster’s choice of words – that the Cardinals were “burned” by the loss of Cordoba. I don’t agree with that characterization, though it seems a common opinion.
IMO, if anyone was burned it was the player himself and maybe the Padres for wasting an MLB roster spot for the entire 2017 season. All the Cards lost was one of many lottery tickets four or five years in the future.
When put through outright waivers in late 2018, Cordoba went unclaimed. The Cardinals could have claimed him back to correct their “mistake,” but they had no intention of burning a 40-man spot on him. No other organization did, either.
Going back to 1982’s point, protect the guys you have plans for. Sometimes it works better for all if a guy goes elsewhere.
I predict there are going to be more cries this winter that the organization is clueless when fan favorites are not protected who have no clear role with the Cardinals going forward. The actual protected list will be short, I bet.
Cordoba being drafted actually gave him MLB service time, but I have always wondered how he would have developed if not drafted. Surely he would have been more ready. We will never know.
Some of us who follow the minors at all levels were disappointed at the loss of Córdoba. Looking at what happened to him since then and making any judgements on that is hindsight. Monday morning quarterbacking. But it would have been interesting to see how he would have developed in the Cardinal system if he had been allowed to follow the normal path.
In reference to 64’s list I dont think Plummer, Robertson, Baker or Walsh have enough projected upside that a team would stash them for a year on their 26 man roster. And they certainly dont seem ready to make an immediate impact
I think Walsh is the closest in 64s group to being drafted by another team. He’s a useful power reliever that could be kept on a bad team all year. That being said, his AFL stint has not nearly matched his smaller sample size of pretty dominant relief in 2021.
IMO, I’d protect Donovan and Walsh, and possibly Pacheco.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.