Tim Cooney Claimed

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
User avatar
Kincaid
Veteran Player
Posts: 654
Joined: June 15 09, 11:03 am

Re: Tim Cooney Claimed

Post by Kincaid »

Usually for drafted players, their age 23 season is the youngest they'd be left unprotected from the rule five draft, but it's based on how many years it's been since the player was signed, not age. So international prospects who are signed at 16 become eligible for the rule five draft significantly younger than players from the amateur draft (nearly all of whom are at least 18). Players who are 18 or younger when they sign have to wait an extra year, so teams get an extra year of control to develop high school draftees compared to college draftees, but that still leaves the 16-year-old international signees much younger than most rule five eligibles.

You can gamble that no one will put a 21-year-old prospect from the low-minors on an MLB roster for a full season, but it's a risk. That's how the Astros lost Johan Santana, for example.

Online
User avatar
MinorLeagueGuy
The Angst is Real
Posts: 18250
Joined: September 8 10, 2:57 pm

Re: Tim Cooney Claimed

Post by MinorLeagueGuy »

Awesome info, thanks.

jagtrader
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 10968
Joined: June 5 06, 10:01 am

Re: Tim Cooney Claimed

Post by jagtrader »

Rule 5 is an outdated concept that should be scrapped.

phins
Sobbing quietly during Fox programming
Posts: 10246
Joined: June 9 06, 3:51 pm

Re: Tim Cooney Claimed

Post by phins »

jagtrader wrote:Rule 5 is an outdated concept that should be scrapped.
In some ways I agree, but in reality it's one of the few rules that actually benefits minor league players, so I do not believe it should be scrapped. It is not uncommon for this type of player to get a real shot at achieving their lifelong dream of playing in the major leagues, rather than serving as org. depth for the previous team.

Cooney had obviously been passed on the org. depth chart by Reyes and Weaver. Add to it that Lyons, Gonzales and several others were in the fold as well, and Cooney has a much better chance to play for the Indians, which is the point of the rule.

jagtrader
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 10968
Joined: June 5 06, 10:01 am

Re: Tim Cooney Claimed

Post by jagtrader »

phins wrote:Cooney had obviously been passed on the org. depth chart by Reyes and Weaver. Add to it that Lyons, Gonzales and several others were in the fold as well, and Cooney has a much better chance to play for the Indians, which is the point of the rule.
I don't think that's true. It's a coin flip over which organization is a better opportunity. The rule usually just puts unprepared players on the 25-man roster, where they rot on the bench or perform terribly and lose a year of valuable development.

User avatar
Fan_In_NY
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 5184
Joined: April 18 06, 7:22 pm
Location: Birthplace of Baseball- Hoboken, NJ

Re: Tim Cooney Claimed

Post by Fan_In_NY »

Kincaid wrote:Usually for drafted players, their age 23 season is the youngest they'd be left unprotected from the rule five draft, but it's based on how many years it's been since the player was signed, not age. So international prospects who are signed at 16 become eligible for the rule five draft significantly younger than players from the amateur draft (nearly all of whom are at least 18). Players who are 18 or younger when they sign have to wait an extra year, so teams get an extra year of control to develop high school draftees compared to college draftees, but that still leaves the 16-year-old international signees much younger than most rule five eligibles.

You can gamble that no one will put a 21-year-old prospect from the low-minors on an MLB roster for a full season, but it's a risk. That's how the Astros lost Johan Santana, for example.
In the age of tanking, teams that have no interest in competing have no reason not to take projectional prospects from other organizations to give them a shot. If you aren't going to win, at least take an interesting arm, or a positional player with a 70+ tool and let it ride. You can always send them down the next year for more seasoning or if you end up being competitive and the Rule 5 player is taking up a valuable spot on the roster you can just return them.

User avatar
InvincibleCakeEater
GRB's obsessive compulsive baseball poster
Posts: 28034
Joined: October 12 07, 12:28 pm
Location: Raptured

Re: Tim Cooney Claimed

Post by InvincibleCakeEater »

Fan_In_NY wrote:
Kincaid wrote:Usually for drafted players, their age 23 season is the youngest they'd be left unprotected from the rule five draft, but it's based on how many years it's been since the player was signed, not age. So international prospects who are signed at 16 become eligible for the rule five draft significantly younger than players from the amateur draft (nearly all of whom are at least 18). Players who are 18 or younger when they sign have to wait an extra year, so teams get an extra year of control to develop high school draftees compared to college draftees, but that still leaves the 16-year-old international signees much younger than most rule five eligibles.

You can gamble that no one will put a 21-year-old prospect from the low-minors on an MLB roster for a full season, but it's a risk. That's how the Astros lost Johan Santana, for example.
In the age of tanking, teams that have no interest in competing have no reason not to take projectional prospects from other organizations to give them a shot. If you aren't going to win, at least take an interesting arm, or a positional player with a 70+ tool and let it ride. You can always send them down the next year for more seasoning or if you end up being competitive and the Rule 5 player is taking up a valuable spot on the roster you can just return them.
The Cards kept Bowman all year.

Post Reply