Jump to content

Terry Doyle taken by Twins in Rule V


southsider2k5

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 09:16 AM)
But its OK, we protected f***ing Duente Heath. And not Doyle.

 

Everyone else can b**** about the return for Santos, but to me, THIS was a f***-up. Can someone, anyone, tell me why Duente Heath was worth a 40-man slot, while Terry Doyle was not?

 

Especially with the Sox sitting at 36 on the 40-man. I just don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 09:18 AM)
Let me guess:

 

1) Sometime in the past year, Keith Law talked about how overrated Doyle is.

 

2) Sometime in the next couple days, Keith Law will talk about how awesome Doyle is and how dumb the Sox were to leave him unprotected.

 

I don't think there's ever been a White Sox move Keith Law liked. He's already poo pooed the Santos - Molina trade. To hell with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 09:16 AM)
But its OK, we protected f***ing Duente Heath. And not Doyle.

 

Everyone else can b**** about the return for Santos, but to me, THIS was a f***-up. Can someone, anyone, tell me why Duente Heath was worth a 40-man slot, while Terry Doyle was not?

This is nonsense in a rebuilding mode and spots open on 40 man available to leave him out there to be picked #2 overall by the Twins shows me mangement just does not get it. Keeping Doyle allows Sox to let Danks or Floyd go and absorb the blow more.

Edited by Soxfest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 09:41 AM)
This is nonsense in a rebuilding mode and spots open on 40 man available to leave him out there to be picked #2 overall by the Twins shows me mangement just does not get it.

Rudderless ship, drifting into the cellar gently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (rowand's rowdies @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 12:51 PM)
Gio Gonzalez

Daniel Hudson

David Holmberg

Faustino De Los Santos

 

Need I continue?

He's referencing the fact that everyone (myself included) has been lamenting the status of our minor leagues as barren and disgraceful. Yet, in our barren, disgraceful farm system, Doyle isn't even in the top 10 on any list I've seen, so losing him should upset nobody.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't adding/removing people from the 40-man affect how much they get paid? If so, why would you use up a transaction on a guy who is waaaaay down your pecking order on the off chance that they might get drafted? If there is no way in which messing with the 40-man affects anything, then yes, it is really stupid to leave any roster spots open before the Rule V draft. There has to be some sort of consequence to adding people right before the Rule V and then dropping them from the 40-man immediately after, right?

 

I could be totally wrong on that. Either way, care little about the loss of some pitcher who could not even crack our terrible Top 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 10:05 AM)
He's referencing the fact that everyone (myself included) has been lamenting the status of our minor leagues as barren and disgraceful. Yet, in our barren, disgraceful farm system, Doyle isn't even in the top 10 on any list I've seen, so losing him should upset nobody.

You are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't adding/removing people from the 40-man affect how much they get paid?

 

There has to be some sort of consequence to adding people right before the Rule V and then dropping them from the 40-man immediately after, right?

 

I could be totally wrong on that. Either way, care little about the loss of some pitcher who could not even crack our terrible Top 10.

 

If there is an effect on their pay, it isn't enough to affect any decisions about adding them to the 40.

 

The main consequences of adding a player to the 40 is that you start their option years. Somebody added to the 40 right now can only play in the minors through 2014. Also, once you're added to the 40 you can't be removed without being placed on waivers, at which point any team can claim him. Then the claiming team only has to keep him on their 40 and not in the majors. By leaving him open to the Rule V draft, the team taking him has to keep him on the majors roster the entire season to keep him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 11:05 AM)
He's referencing the fact that everyone (myself included) has been lamenting the status of our minor leagues as barren and disgraceful. Yet, in our barren, disgraceful farm system, Doyle isn't even in the top 10 on any list I've seen, so losing him should upset nobody.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't adding/removing people from the 40-man affect how much they get paid? If so, why would you use up a transaction on a guy who is waaaaay down your pecking order on the off chance that they might get drafted? If there is no way in which messing with the 40-man affects anything, then yes, it is really stupid to leave any roster spots open before the Rule V draft. There has to be some sort of consequence to adding people right before the Rule V and then dropping them from the 40-man immediately after, right?

 

I could be totally wrong on that. Either way, care little about the loss of some pitcher who could not even crack our terrible Top 10.

They still sent Doyle to the AFL, where he excelled. That is what made some, including myownself, to think that he was worth protecting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...