Newly signed Royals prospects
Looks like the Royals picked up a couple new faces. Reynaldo Rodriguez, 1b and Adam Frost, SS from the Independent League.
22 days ago
RoyallyJeff
31 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
They used the BA top 10 list as their shopping list - taking #1 & 2.
by RoyallyJeff on Oct 29, 2009 12:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
more impossible to understand moves from this FO
I just wish I could understand their process
by royalsreview on Oct 29, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm thinking the process is sound
They are just schizophrenic in nature, and multiple ideas that contradict themselves are how they choose to move forward.
by AxDxMx on Oct 29, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
keep them away from flourecent lights
insanity wolf seems to lead this ship of fail
Sponsoring a glorious game for Will Ebner against CU, buy drinking heavily starting.....now.
by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Oct 29, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm not following you
they pick the top two guys, and that’s bad somehow? were they not supposed to go after them for some reason?
"He once had an awkward moment, just to see what it felt like - He is the most interesting man in the world"
by Home Run Tony Cogan on Oct 29, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah..i dont get that either....
these guys probably will be nothing…but they cost nothing,so whats the harm
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Oct 30, 2009 2:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they are saying these are good moves
but they definitely don’t fit the modus operandi of this GM.
by AxDxMx on Oct 30, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
they act like what they do is rocket science or some esoteric process no common fan can get
my point is that their mysterious process is easy to understand… its about as mainstream as it gets
by royalsreview on Oct 30, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plumbing the independent leagues
Nice. This organization needs to find talent wherever it can. The reports that Rodriguez had also been acquired by the Red Sox gives me 1) reason to believe that he actually has upside, and 2) reason to believe that someone in the front office really messed up (No!!!) and this guy will not actually be in the organization and will turn into a fine ballplayer for someone else.
The Kansas City Royals—Crushing Our Optimism since 1994.
If you look closely, it really says "CentralChamps2012."
by CentralChamps2009 on Oct 29, 2009 12:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You beat me to it.
Sorry for the double post.
by Dadunca on Oct 29, 2009 12:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Very Good
we need to look under every rock we can for talent.
One of last year’s top independent league prospects, Clay Zavada had a good year at the big league level for the D-backs as well as rocking a Rollie Fingers look (the two guys we signed are younger and farther away—so don’t expect to see them with the big club next year):
by nwroyal on Oct 29, 2009 2:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm confused
How could the Sox purchase his contract and we sign him as a free agent? Which report is true?
by AxDxMx on Oct 29, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
CONTROVERSY
The damned Red Sox own the rights to Rodriguez. That is bullshit.
"I'll take some Coco with that please"
by RoyalJHWKR on Oct 29, 2009 4:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Remember remember
the 29th of October
by NotAHippie on Oct 29, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
scratch Rodriguez
we didn’t get him—The Red Sox purchased his contract from the indy league. It sounds like the Royals were trying to sign him as a FA—so the Sox thing takes precedence.
by nwroyal on Oct 29, 2009 4:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Royals Shall Have Their Revenge In the Rule 5 Draft!
It beats paying $4 million to Mike Jacobs.
by Gopherballs on Oct 29, 2009 5:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if they're even going to protect Kila
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by devil_fingers on Oct 29, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kila is already on the 40-man roster, so the Royals would have to DFA him first
If ever there was a team that should not lose anybody to the Rule 5 draft, it is this Royals team. Deadwood already occupies at least a dozen of the 40-man slots, and there are few prospects with the requisite service time worth protecting.
I think for this year’s Rule 5 draft, 2006 college draftees and 2005 high school age draftees or signees (e.g., virtually all international free agents signed in 2005) become eligible. Jeff Bianchi and maybe Blake Wood are the only two that come to mind.
by Gopherballs on Oct 29, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I correct in thinking that even if prospects have reached the requisite age for being eligible,
they have to have had a certain number of years with their current organization before they are eligible to be taken in the Rule 5? Or did I just pull that one out of my butt?
by AxDxMx on Oct 29, 2009 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it goes strictly by number of years after the player signs per the CBA
The age at which a player signed determine how long a team may protect him.
If a player was age 18 or younger when he first signed with an MLB team, the team has five years (from the date of signing) before it must place him on the 40-man roster to protect him from the Rule 5 draft. This applies to almost all players signed as high school draftees or international free agents.
If the player was age 19 or older when he first signed, the team only has four years before it must protect him. This mainly applies to college players.
by Gopherballs on Oct 29, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blake Wood
Manuel Pina
Chris Disco Hayes
Jeff Bianchi
Jordan Parraz
Chris Lubanski
Kurt Mertins
Chris Nicoll
Everett Teaford
Juan Abreu
Nick Van Stratten
Brian McFall
Nick Francis
Jose Duarte
Jarrod Dyson
Marc Maddox
Chris McConnell
Gilbert De La Vera
Eduardo Paulino
Wood, Bianchi, Parraz are no brainers. not sure after that.
baseball rules.
by doublestix on Oct 29, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There we go!
Pina might be a candidate because the team thought enough of him to trade value for him — plus as a catcher, he could be stashed as a backup without causing roster problems.
Abreu’s strikeout numbers might attract some attention, but there likely would be many better high strikeout/high walks arms available.
Nicoll is probably safe due to the Rule 5 draft favoring pitchers with good stuff, but his prior results might get him some consideration.
This should be a much different conversation in two years.
by Gopherballs on Oct 29, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed on all accounts
Abreu might get a look because he throws hard and gets the strikeouts, but i don’t think he’d stick on a ML roster an entire season.
Dyson also might be a candidate. good defense…not much of a bat. probably a long shot though that he’s added, let alone be picked.
baseball rules.
by doublestix on Oct 29, 2009 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's actually what I was asking about
Is there a clause that the player has to have been with his current team for a period of time before he is Rule 5 eligible? Pina is the perfect example of that. The Royals just acquired him, but he would be eligible?
Players are eligible for selection in the Rule 5 draft who are not on their major league organization’s forty man roster and:
- were signed at age 19 or older and have been in the organization for four years; or
- were signed at age 18 or younger and have been in the organization for five years.
Pina fails the part about being in the organization for 4 or 5 years. So is he eligible?
by AxDxMx on Oct 30, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, there is no requirement that player has to spend time with a particular organization
The player needs to be protected 4 or 5 years after the year in which he first signed with any MLB team, regardless of how many organizations for which he plays in the interim. So in Pina’s case, his time with the Rangers essentially “counts,” and the Royals must protect him because it has been 5 years since he first signed with any MLB team.
I am not sure what you are quoting, but I think it just used simplified language to explain a complex concept, and in doing so included a minor inaccuracy (“have been in the organization for four [or five] years”). In most cases, this will be true simply because relatively speaking, prospects do not change organizations very often, so the team that signed him is usually the team that will need to protect him 4 or 5 years later. But to be accurate, it should read “and the signing occurred four or more years ago” or something like that.
by Gopherballs on Oct 30, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The MLB rule book isn't on the internet
So I went with a secondary source in Wikipedia, but I’ve seen that exact quote other places.
I actually think giving a 1 or 2 year exemption to a newly acquiring club would make a lot of sense, as the rule was designed so that teams could not hoard talent in the minor leagues (or so I’ve been misinformed).
by AxDxMx on Oct 30, 2009 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nicoll and De La Vera
could end up in the Royals bullpen someday and Bianchi and Mertins maybe in the infield. Parraz, and Paulino could possibly make it. The rest I doubt would be able to stay on a major league roster for a full season.
by grudz96 on Oct 30, 2009 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
