http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...8&fext=.jsp

 

11/20/08 4:15 PM EST

Florida Marlins add four to 40-man roster

Brett Hayes, Chris Leroux, Dallas Trahern, Tim Wood selected to 40-man

 

MIAMI -- The Florida Marlins today announced that they have added four players to their 40-man roster, selecting the contracts of catcher Brett Hayes and right-handed pitchers Chris Leroux, Dallas Trahern and Tim Wood. The announcement was made by Marlins' President of Baseball Operations, Admin Beinfest. The Marlins 40-man roster now stands at 40 players.

 

Hayes, 24, was selected by the Marlins with the 79th overall pick in the 2005 First-Year Player Draft, in the compensation round following the second round. He split the 2008 season between Double-A Carolina and Triple-A Albuquerque, batting .256 (76x297) with 11 home runs and 35 RBI in 91 games overall. Hayes was born in Pasadena, CA and attended the University of Nevada-Reno.

 

Leroux, 24, was the Marlins' seventh-round selection in the 2005 First-Year Player Draft out of Winthrop University in South Carolina. He was 6-7, 3.65 with one save in 57 relief appearances with Single-A Jupiter in 2008, striking out 78 in 74 innings. He is a native of Montreal, Canada.

 

Trahern, who turns 23 on Nov. 29, was acquired by the Marlins in an eight-player trade with Detroit, Dec. 5, 2007. He made 21 starts with Albuquerque in 2008 and one with Jupiter. He was 5-11, 6.16 with Albuquerque a year after going 12-6, 3.87 with Double-A Erie. A Kansas native, Trahern was selected by Detroit in the 34th round of the 2004 First-Year Player Draft.

 

Wood, 26, was the Marlins' 44th-round pick in the 2002 First-Year Player Draft out of Pima CC in Arizona. He spent the majority of 2008 with Jupiter, going 5-2, 1.80 with one save in 27 games, one start. He also made 12 appearances with Double-A Carolina, going 2-1, 5.75. Wood, who is currently pitching for Mesa in the Arizona Fall League, was born in Tucson, AZ.

Oh man, I thought "Wood" was Jason Wood... my heart skipped a beat

So this is who we were making room for when we put Rabelo on waivers?

Lame, very lame - I was expecting an interesting signing or trade.

I am throughly confused at how this works. I think this means Allison, Burns, Marceaux, and Mobley are unprotected.

 

I mean, not the end of the world on the first three, but Mobley is pretty good if they actually left him unprotected.

I'm sure Nny will sort it out but they all may not have the requisite service time to need protection in the Rule 5.

Man, I didn't realize Wood was so old.

I'm sure Nny will sort it out but they all may not have the requisite service time to need protection in the Rule 5.

 

 

I don't know Rule V

I'm sure Nny will sort it out but they all may not have the requisite service time to need protection in the Rule 5.

 

 

I don't know Rule V

Liar, you know all!

Options

An option (optional assignment) allows a club to move a player on its 40-man roster to and from the minor leagues without exposing him to the other 29 teams.

 

After 4 or 5 years as a professional, a player must be added to his club?s 40-man roster or exposed to the 29 other clubs in the Rule 5 draft. (A club has 5 years to evaluate a player who signs his first pro contract at 18 years old or younger, but only 4 years to decide on a player who signs at age 19.) For purposes of calculating years as a pro, the counting begins the day a player signs his first pro contract, not the season he begins to play.

 

When a player is added to the 40-man roster, his club has three ?options,? or three separate seasons during which the club may to move him to and from the minor leagues without exposing him to other clubs. A player on the 40-man roster playing in the minors is on optional assignment, and within an option season, there is no limit on the number of times a club may demote and recall a player. However, a player optioned to the minor leagues may not be recalled for at least 10 days, unless the club places a Major League player on the disabled list during the 10-day window.

 

After three options are exhausted, the player is out of options. Beginning with the next season, he must clear waivers before he may be sent to the minors again. See Waivers. Additionally, a player with 5 years of Major League service may not be sent to the minor leagues on an optional assignment without his consent.

 

Let's do it methodically.

 

Summer 2004 draftees to now is 4 1/2 years, which basically means the 2009 season is their 5th year.

-All players drafted 2004 and prior have to be on the 40 man to be protected, regardless if they were 18 or 19+ when drafted.

 

This opened up not much from the 2004 class. We had a really bad draft, and the two best players (Tankeresly, Carroll) were already protected. Chris Mobley destroyed Carolina this year, and the Marlins opted not to keep him. Greg Burns is also available in the Rule V now, which is the only guy I see that has even a semblance of a chance to be a MLB player.

 

One more notable, we didn't draft Dallas Trahern (2004), but he obviously fits into the same category.

 

Other players from pre-2004 drafts were Tim Wood (drafted 2002), who emerged this year, and Jeff Allison (drafted 2003), who is back from crack.

 

Summer 2005 draftees to now is 3 1/2 years, which basically means the 2009 season is their 4th year.

-Players drafted 19+ in age (i.e. College players) are eligible for the Rule V draft.

 

As for the 2005 class, this opened up the college players. Jacob Marceaux, Bryan Harvey, Brett Hayes, Gaby Sanchez, and Chris Leroux. G. Sanchez was already on it and was a no-brainer. The organization must like Hayes over Rabelo, and feel Leroux is a late bloomer (he has a big arm, but really low level of competition).

 

This basically says, we could lose Chris Mobley, Jacob Marceaux, Gregg Burns, or Jeff Allison. No one else is really a prospect not protected on the 40 man, or to young to qualify.

I'd also like to show how screwed we are next year, all of these players will have to be added to the 40 man, in addition to what we already have:

 

2005 High School Draftees - Thompson, West, Winters, Morrison

2006 19+/College Draftees- Sinkbiel, Coghlan, Cousins, Raynor, G. Taylor, Ceda

 

That's 10 legitimate guys. 40 man hell next year!

Lou, do you think anyone will want those guys, since they will have to be put on their 25 man rosters?

I don't know the answer with any certainty but it seems to me in MLB lingo 5 years means five full years (as in 5 years and one day) and the Rule 5 is before the start of the 2009 season so they are still in their fourth year not fifth.

 

Somewhere in the CBA has to be a glossary that defines words like "year" and "season" and how the clock works. But I'm pretty sure the end of the fourth season of play does no mean a player is in his fifth season of ballplaying when the next season hasn't begun.

Lou, do you think anyone will want those guys, since they will have to be put on their 25 man rosters?

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't take a flyer on Mobley. 58 IP in Carolina, 70 K, 16 BB, 2.55 GB/FB, .224 BAA, 4 HR, solid BABIP peripherals so it wasn't a fluke. That is a really really good season. He just doesn't top out at 95mph, so Beinfest opted to protect every guy with a plus fastball in the system versus a guy who pitches. Maybe he doesn't project to be awesome like Ceda, Tucker, or Vanden Hurk, but I mean, why not protect him? We really had to protect a single A Leroux or Brett Hayes who no one would touch at all?

 

Marceaux is a little more dubious. He had good peripherals (.222 BAA, 45K/59 IP, 1.85 GB/FB), but he still walked over 40 guys and wasn't consistent. Allison would be a Josh Hamilton wild card situation. Is he just going to be gangbusters awesome and skip AA-AAA and show up great? It may be worth a $50k risk to a rich franchise. Burns, no one will touch.

 

I'd imagine we lose an arm or two. It really doesn't effect the bottom line to much, but it's always annoying when you lose a guy for nothing.

I don't know the answer with any certainty but it seems to me in MLB lingo 5 years means five full years (as in 5 years and one day) and the Rule 5 is before the start of the 2009 season so they are still in their fourth year not fifth.

 

I'm sure somewhere in the CBA is a glossary that defines words like "year" and "season" and how the clock works. But I'm pretty sure the end of the fourth season of play does no mean a player is in his fifth season of ballplaying when the next season hasn't begun.

They wouldn't have protected Leroux and Hayes, college 2005 draft picks, if my interpretation wasn't correct. Why the hell would they protect two fringe fringe players if they didn't have to? Doesn't make any sense.

 

It has to be full 2004 class, 19+ 2005 class, that is opened up to the Rule V this year.

(It's the Rule 5 not the Rule V as an aside and) I'm not saying you're wrong but it's general practice when a number of years is used in a contract, for example a five year employment contract (in the corporate world) doesn't mean more than four, it means five full years.

 

I find it hard to believe that lawyers on both sides drawing up the BA and CBA are going to step outside their normal definitions to write these deals. What that does is cause ambiguity and that's the last thing either party wants. When does four become five? When is five, five?

 

But like I said there may a glossary that's attached that defines words like this. I say that because we have (not you and I but on this board generally) this argument every year and it seems to me in a year previous I found said glossary when I was researching Rule 5.

 

None of which means you're wrong because I don't have an inclination to pour of a hundred pages of legalese again to get to the truth, so we'll probably have to wait until we get closer to the draft to know for sure. I also don't know what constitutes a start date, whether the short summer leagues in Upper State New York are considered a season or not, etc.

 

And why those two players I couldn't say. BTW I agree with you on Mobley. He was something of a machine last season in Carolina.

I found it quickly, or rather a reference to it.

 

It is the number of drafts after the day they were drafted. The "year" refers to the time between their first draft and the next amateur draft. If you were for example drafted in the 2006 amateur draft your anniversary date is the 2007 amateur draft.

 

I'm surprised it's not when they signed but it doesn't look that way. It may be because in exposing themselves to the draft in effect makes them professional ballplayers on that day.

 

edit: So if a player was drafted in the 2006 draft only the 2007 and 2008 drafts have occurred and that would translate to two years as used above.

Yea, I hear you, but it literally has to be this interpretation. It would be insane if not. We'd be looking at massive 40 man turnover every June/July as 4th/5th year players who were signed a month or so after the draft clear a full calendar year from "the exact start of the contract." That would be the plain reading of the rule from Cots.

 

A massive waiver vortex would result every trade deadline and that would be insane for front offices to deal with during the year. I can't agree I'm surprised with the rule. Players would become eligible at various dates for the 40 man. That would be crazy, plus it would diminish the Rule V Draft as the best players being optioned would be waiver claims in July/August. These types of roster decisions have to be made in the offseason.

 

I'm basically positive it's all 2004 and prior drafts, 2005 players drafted 19+, as eligible players for the Rule V not on the 40 man. It fits the rule and strategically what we did. We protected Leroux and Hayes, but not substantially more valuable property from the 2005 draft with Morrison or West. That has to be the 18/19 year old distinction we've talked about before. Likewise, for the 2004 player phase, Trahern fits that rule as an 18 year old draftee now eligible, when he was not like 19 year old players were last year.

 

This makes sense to me procedurally now.

 

But not protecting Mobley doesn't make any sense.

I don't see why Leroux is being added to the 40-man, his numbers are not that impressive, and he's only reached High-A.

The anniversary date does *not* make them free agents in June/July, it is the clock that controls Rule 5 draft eligibility and nothing else.

 

You're painting with too wide a brush.

[This basically says, we could lose Chris Mobley, Jacob Marceaux, Gregg Burns, or Jeff Allison. No one else is really a prospect not protected on the 40 man, or to young to qualify.

Depending on when Doolittle signed, which I cannot figure out, he may be added to this list. He didn't play in 2006 (injured), but he could fall into the 19+ exception to the Rule V draft. I would lean yes that we signed him out of College and he was hurt so he's probably available. Just trying to be thorough.

Wow, I can't believe that we actually cared to make room for any of these scrubs.

I'd also like to show how screwed we are next year, all of these players will have to be added to the 40 man, in addition to what we already have:

 

2005 High School Draftees - Thompson, West, Winters, Morrison

2006 19+/College Draftees- Sinkbiel, Coghlan, Cousins, Raynor, G. Taylor, Ceda

 

That's 10 legitimate guys. 40 man hell next year!

 

It still looks like a problem, but I have to feel like Cantu/Uggla/Amezaga are gone by next year. At least that opens up 3 spots. Of course, signing Pavano would eliminate another I guess.

And hopefully the bullpen will sort itself out so we'll have a better idea which arms to hang on to there.....

If Rabelo clears waivers, does that impact this at all?

If Rabelo clears waivers, does that impact this at all?

 

Rabelo's spot on the 40 man roster has already been filled. The only question whether he remains in the Marlins organization or not.

If Rabelo clears waivers, does that impact this at all?

No. He will be assigned to AAA, just like De Aza or Owens. If he is called back, then he has to go back onto the 40 man.