43 replies to this topic

[Pedro Cerrano]

They have to be on the 25-man roster for the entire season. They have to be active (not on DL), for a minimum of 90 days before their rights are fully acquired. Araujo was on the roster all year last year, but on the DL for all but 73 days, so he had 17 days left to go before we get his rights and can send him down without having to offer him back to the Cubs.

So wait. Basically you have to play a man down if you have a rule 5 guy on your team that is on the DL? How did I not know this?

[Mackus]

So wait. Basically you have to play a man down if you have a rule 5 guy on your team that is on the DL? How did I not know this?

 

No, you can replace them.  The 25-man roster includes your active 25 for that day plus anyone on the DL (and anyone on paternity, bereavement, or other approved leave).

 

When you're put on the DL, you're still on the 25-man roster.  You're just not active.  When you're selected in the Rule 5 draft, you must stay on the 25-man roster, there is no ability to be optioned to the minors.  Until you last for one full season on the 25-man roster, at least 90 days of which must be active, not on the DL.  Araujo was on the 25-man roster all of last season, but he was only active (i.e. not on the DL) for 73 days.  Exactly like what happened with Santander the previous season, just with a different number of active days.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Damn I always thought the 25 man roster was the 25 you went to war with and that’s it. I didn’t know there was a “DL” section of the 25 man or whatever.

[Mackus]

Damn I always thought the 25 man roster was the 25 you went to war with and that’s it. I didn’t know there was a “DL” section of the 25 man or whatever.

 

I think you're overthinking this.  The you replace guys on the roster when they go on the DL, but you aren't optioning or outrighting the person who's on the DL, they are still on the roster as well.  They are just on the DL.

[McNulty]

I think you're overthinking this.  The you replace guys on the roster when they go on the DL, but you aren't optioning or outrighting the person who's on the DL, they are still on the roster as well.  They are just on the DL.

 

Until the 60 day, yes?

[Mackus]

Until the 60 day, yes?

 

The 10-day DL is to the 25-man roster as the 60-day DL is to the 40-man roster.

 

The team does not have to count a guy on the 10-day DL against their 25-man roster even when the player has not been optioned off the 25-man roster.  

 

Similarly, the team does not have to count a guy on the 60-day DL against their 40-man roster even when the player has not been outrighted off the 40-man roster.

[Mike B]

I am a little surprised that they DFA's Pedro this close to the day he could have been optioned, but I like the way they are making decisions.

 

Too many time in the last 5 years, we have agonized, over players who, really do not matter in the big scheme of things.  I guess they feel Pedro fit into that category.

[BobPhelan]

Even if we waited the extra 11 days and optioned him down he would still be taking up a 40 man roster spot and he doesn't appear to be particularly close to major league ready. That plus the thin pitching staff with Cobb getting a late start and a bullpen game every five days might've been too much to carry his dead weight even if it was just a week and a half.

[Mike B]

Even if we waited the extra 11 days and optioned him down he would still be taking up a 40 man roster spot and he doesn't appear to be particularly close to major league ready. That plus the thin pitching staff with Cobb getting a late start and a bullpen game every five days might've been too much to carry his dead weight even if it was just a week and a half.

Yea,  I think your right, but I think in the past, we would have seen them wait the 11 days.  

[Mackus]

I guess it's good to admit a mistake and move on, but I struggle with how they could think he was worth rostering for 17 days a week ago but not worth rostering for 10 days today? Nothing has changed since before Opening Day besides his one bad appearance.

[SportsGuy]

Cutting him makes no sense.

[jsaghy02]

I also don't understand this move.  If you felt that he was a lost cause, then he shouldn't have even made the trip north.  If you felt you needed an extra arm for a day, option someone else, even a position player if necessary, until his Rule 5 status expired.

 

Just seems like a very short-sighted decision, especially when they took the "long-term view" in removing Hess on Monday night (which made total sense, by the way, even if I wouldn't have had the guts to do it).

[You Play to Win the Game]

Cutting him makes no sense.

Why? They obviously don't see anything there. No harm. If they end up being wrong, so be it. This is obviously a case of determining he doesn't have what it takes to contribute.

[Mackus]

Why? They obviously don't see anything there. No harm. If they end up being wrong, so be it. This is obviously a case of determining he doesn't have what it takes to contribute.

But they didn't decide that a week prior. That's what is inconsistent and bewildering. Nothing happened in the interim that explains such a dramatic shift, IMO.

If this happened a year ago, there would be lots of wondering about it being a power play between Buck and Dan. Something petty like that, unrelated to baseball and projection of the player, is the only explanation that covers both the decision to roster him originally and then to cut him after one bad appearance in a week.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I'll let Pedro take care of the appropriate response to your post Mackus.

[weird-O]

But they didn't decide that a week prior. That's what is inconsistent and bewildering. Nothing happened in the interim that explains such a dramatic shift, IMO.

If this happened a year ago, there would be lots of wondering about it being a power play between Buck and Dan. Something petty like that, unrelated to baseball and projection of the player, is the only explanation that covers both the decision to roster him originally and then to cut him after one bad appearance in a week.

I'm not sure if this helps explain this move. But Connolly wrote that he was on the bubble all spring. They didn't really think he was MLB worthy, but an arm is an arm. And they could keep him without any real crowded roster issues. But that bad outing was pretty much the last straw. From how he described it, they had the scissors in hand, and were going to let his performance decide when to cut. In my estimation, If he had a few good outings, he may have changed their mind, or bought some leeway. Instead, he made it easy to let him go. 

[Mackus]

I think your conclusion is probably correct, Ricker. More than probably, really, it's highly likely. Would've made some sense if they cut him before the season if that's how low they thought of him.

[SportsGuy]

Why? They obviously don't see anything there. No harm. If they end up being wrong, so be it. This is obviously a case of determining he doesn't have what it takes to contribute.

I’m sure they don’t think anything is there...but why keep him around then? Since you decided to bring him north, you had to have seen something you liked. For another 10 days or so, there’s no logic behind cutting him now...unless something is going on that we don’t know about (PeD suspension coming?)

[Mackus]

It's also possible there is some roster magic they can do and manage to keep him anyways. I'm pretty sure his days on DFA before assignment count as service days, so maybe they actually count towards his 90 days and then they have some plan to get the last few days. I can't think of how they'd pull that off, but maybe they've got something tricksy planned.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Gave the Cubs 750k in intl slot $ to keep his rights