2025 Rule 5 Thread

[almagest]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Again, I think this goes back to the OP.  It is so hard to find gold in the Rule 5, that just by the sheer volume of what we have seen the past few years of picks, it is hard to see anything other than a major talent gap in the Sox system vs the rest of baseball.

People are encouraged we got some pretty solid, potentially projectable value out of a rule 5 pick, and a waiver claim from a rule 5 pick that didn't work out. Hopefully that bodes well for their talent selection and development in the future, even if rule 5 claims are a total crap shoot and they never hit on another one.

I also don't see how this indicates a major talent gap in the Sox system. They were a top 7? system that's now middle of the pack because they just promoted a bunch of talent to the majors. I'll give you a major lack of talent in the majors pre-promotions, because we all know the Sox are an objectively terrible team. The hope is that we're moving in the right direction.

[almagest]

27 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Johan Santana had a WAR of zero his rookie year, which was 11th on their team. If it was the same as Shane Smith's that year, he'd have been their 4th best pitcher.

You can really tell a Getz apologists by how defensive they get when you make a basic joke about building your team through the Rule 5 draft. 

Yeah, and an fWAR of zero wouldn't have led the 2025 White Sox either. Once Santana figured it out he led the 2002 Twins with an fWAR of 3.4 (which is not some insurmountable ace-like number), so by your own standards that 2002 team was terrible, because a rule 5 guy was their best pitcher. Probably even worse than the Sox, because it was three years after he was picked. If Shane Smith is leading the Sox staff with a 3.something fWAR in two years you guys are gonna have an absolute FIT.

Edited 22 hours ago by almagest

[Timmy U]

The fact that the Sox have had to get so many guys from the Rule 5 draft may point to problems while Getz was farm director, but it also underlines how low the org was when he took over. He inherited almost zero talent in the majors or minors. This rebuild was always gonna be super painful no matter who they put in charge.

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, almagest said:

People are encouraged we got some pretty solid, potentially projectable value out of a rule 5 pick, and a waiver claim from a rule 5 pick that didn't work out. Hopefully that bodes well for their talent selection and development in the future, even if rule 5 claims are a total crap shoot and they never hit on another one.

I also don't see how this indicates a major talent gap in the Sox system. They were a top 7? system that's now middle of the pack because they just promoted a bunch of talent to the majors. I'll give you a major lack of talent in the majors pre-promotions, because we all know the Sox are an objectively terrible team. The hope is that we're moving in the right direction.

I am encouraged that we have been able to improve things coming in from the outside for sure.  I was just hoping for more of that same thing from guys on the inside.  

But I think when 10% of your roster is Rule 5 picks, that makes the point as to how many players are out there to vastly improve it.

[almagest]

10 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I am encouraged that we have been able to improve things coming in from the outside for sure.  I was just hoping for more of that same thing from guys on the inside.  

But I think when 10% of your roster is Rule 5 picks, that makes the point as to how many players are out there to vastly improve it.

We've got some of that on the offensive side. Montgomery and Teel look like potential fixtures. Quero and Meidroth came up and showed some promise. Sosa looked pretty solid for a guy who swings at everything. Baldwin could be a nice bench piece. They've got some potential reinforcements coming from the minors and the draft, too - they might still lack that big time, Bobby Witt Jr. type, but maybe that's Cholowsky.

The pitching landscape is rougher, but there's still a lot of guys to work through. One or two of the current starters (Smith? Burke?) could end up being long term answers, there's still hope with Smith and Schultz, Oppor looks like a potential dude, there's some other positive pieces throughout their top 30 as well.

I feel better about their system now than I did in 2019, for sure. They had more top flight talent then, but absolutely nothing behind it. If they can add/develop some of that top flight talent then I'll really be encouraged.

Edited 22 hours ago by almagest

[ChiSoxFanMike]

I just don’t know how they are going to navigate having both Paez and Alberto on the roster together. They are both so raw and inexperienced. If one of them sticks throughout the season, I’d consider that a win.

[southsider2k5]

6 minutes ago, almagest said:

We've got some of that on the offensive side. Montgomery and Teel look like potential fixtures. Quero and Meidroth came up and showed some promise. Sosa looked pretty solid for a guy who swings at everything. Baldwin could be a nice bench piece. They've got some potential reinforcements coming from the minors and the draft, too - they might still lack that big time, Bobby Witt Jr. type, but maybe that's Cholowsky.

The pitching landscape is rougher, but there's still a lot of guys to work through. One or two of the current starters (Smith? Burke?) could end up being long term answers, there's still hope with Smith and Schultz, Oppor looks like a potential dude, there's some other positive pieces throughout their top 30 as well.

I feel better about their system now than I did in 2019, for sure. They had more top flight talent then, but absolutely nothing behind it. If they can add/develop some of that top flight talent then I'll really be encouraged.

Teel and Meidroth both came from the outside as well.

[almagest]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Teel and Meidroth both came from the outside as well.

Yeah, fair, and neither of them spent much time in the minors here. I'll call that "talent evaluation" then. 

[Chicago White Sox]

49 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

We all knew Crochet was going to be traded and they had no intention of keeping him, so I don’t see him counting.  Also, durability is a thing.  I realize pitchers get hurt a lot but the Sox had so many pitcher injuries and surgeries that you have to wonder if it was truly fluky.

The org acquired and developed Crochet into a starter but decided to trade him for three positional prospects.  The org acquired and developed Cease and then decided to trade him for a top 100 prospect in Thorpe who would have been part of our rotation if not for TJS.  The org acquired and developed Lucas Giolito and then decided to trade him for top 3 org prospect in Ky Bush (and Quero) who would have likely been in the rotation mix if not for TJS.  The org selected Mason Adams in the 13th round and turned him into a legitimate SP option for last year if not for TJS surgery.  If you look at the data, the amount of TJS’s that impacted our org last year is a major outlier.  If self-inflicted, then our front office has done something truly unprecedented and we should see another wave of injuries this year.  Candidly, I think it was just bad luck just as the years & years of good fortune under Herm Schneider was partially good luck driven.

I also don’t blame Getz for not having the budget to go out and sign veteran FAs better than Martin Perez (who also got injured, but admittedly also is old).  At the end of the day, there is plenty to rip Getz for, but just don’t believe Shane Smith being our best SP last year is one of them.  He is the dude whose front office went out and actually identified Smith as the best talent available in the Rule 5 draft and successfully turned him into a quality SP.  If anything, the Brewers should be ridiculed for not protecting one of their best 26 players.

[WestEddy]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

I wish you could do this once without resulting to insults, but here we are.

Quite literally the teams that lost these players didn't think enough of them to put them on to their 40 man rosters.  That is an absolute factor.  No Baghdad Bob needed here.  If they the only reason they didn't get protected is because they thought 29 other teams wouldn't think enough of them to pick them, then yes, they are making a judgement call that they aren't good enough to be rostered over other players they already have on their 40, even with the chance at getting picked.

Can you define this scouting term "didn't think enough of them"? It feels like you want to say something else, but you know this phrasing will get more of a reaction.  

[Autumn Dreamin]

14 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I think the point the OP was getting at is that out our 40 current man roster, 4 of them weren't good enough for the other teams 40 man rosters, including the fact that Smith and Vasil both were still good enough to make it through a full season with the White Sox. We couldn't even be bothered to protect a ton of eligible players, and only one of them was good enough to attract the attention of another franchise during the same time period.

For my sense the "embarrassment" wouldn't be with finding other better players from other rosters, it is that the talent gap on the roster is so wide, that we keep finding the sheer amount of players who weren't good enough to be on other rosters, but are still able to replace much worse players on the Sox roster, and vastly improve it.  That just screams lack of depth on our 40, at least to me.  The historic returns on the Rule 5 are so minimal. 

I think it's very silly and in some contexts a bit dishonest to pretend that 40 man roster management consists of just writing down your 40 best players and walking away.  Many (most?) teams don’t have full 40’s right now, and it’s not because every org only has ~37 valuable players and regards all of their eligible but unrostered prospects as org detritus.

Plenty of players who don't get taken in the Rule 5 would absolutely get snapped up if available in a trade or on waivers where they don't come with Rule 5 restrictions. Part of the reason they don't get protected is to reduce the risk of needing to waive/option them or someone else later. The question for Rule 5 protection isn't simply "is this a good enough player to keep in my org?" There's a finite number of 40 man spots, everyone in the league knows exactly how many there are, and using one for Rule 5 protection early in the offseason involves a long list of competing considerations.

What is the risk of another team committing a season-long roster spot to this player (as you said, very low) historically? In contrast, what is the chance that protecting them forces a riskier move when managing my roster later? Is Player A more or less likely to be claimed in the Rule 5 (where they can't be optioned) than Player B (who can be optioned) is on waivers? With my current 40 man balance, do I need rostered depth more in some places than others? Is this player's route to my opening day 26 more likely to be blocked, forcing an option year on my end that lowers their future control/value? And so on.

Most means of player acquisition are about value mismatches. Improving the Sox roster will inherently require acquiring players that have more value here than where they are coming from, but a player's value on your roster compared to their value on another is influenced by all sorts of things other than "they didn't think the player was good enough." Also, sometimes teams are just wrong in their evaluations entirely (and the wrong team isn't always the Sox!)

Garrett Whitlock (2.4 WAR last season) pitched in the playoffs for Boston in the same year they picked him up in the Rule 5 draft, and I doubt any fans watching were embarrassed by it. I similarly doubt they were sad about fellow Rule 5 pick Justin Slaten leading their bullpen in ERA in his first year there. Both guys are still rostered, not because Boston has had years of  a desolate farm with no depth, but because they successfully found value where those guys' original teams didn't and found money spends just as well.

I don't think they (or anyone really) should feel bad for getting "too much" Rule 5 production. If anything, they should get bonus points because it freed them up to spend more capital in other ways, like grabbing Crochet. 

[WestEddy]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Crazy or hilarious. Depends on how you look at it! 

Yes, the Sox are so good at scouting and coaching that they needed another teams castaway to lead them. 

Smith wasn't a castaway. I'm confused. Are you now claiming that identifying Shane Smith was a scouting failure?

That's just dumb. 

[WestEddy]

xo

Edited 21 hours ago by WestEddy

[Dick Allen]

7 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

That's the guy who declared he was unimpressed with Getz because he wasn't coming up with unique, new ways to acquire and develop talent. So this front office thinks they may have found a wrinkle in taking guys in the Rule 5, and this guy is making fun of everyone because we're not smart enough to be ashamed by that. 2 funny. 

Coming from a guy who said Seby Zavala a guy who has the same career bWAR as me ,was a Getz win, while at the same time saying Getz had nothing to do with any other prospect failure is pretty funny. Now you think the rule 5 is a solid way to build a team.? I’m sure you are kidding.

[caulfield12]

20 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Smith wasn't a castaway. I'm confused. Are you now claiming that identifying Shane Smith was a scouting failure?

That's just dumb. 

More pointing fingers at minor league depth/talent and obviously a litany of  injuries.

One of those is certainly a more controllable factor.

 

A castaway in the sense that Milwaukee mistakenly left him unprotected.  Not too much to apologize for when they advanced to the NLCS.

Edited 21 hours ago by caulfield12

[WestEddy]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

Coming from a guy who said Seby Zavala a guy who has the same career bWAR as me ,was a Getz win, while at the same time saying Getz had nothing to do with any other prospect failure is pretty funny. Now you think the rule 5 is a solid way to build a team.? I’m sure you are kidding.

I said Zavala was an example of a guy who was a poor defensive catcher being developed into a good defensive catcher. I suppose you're saying that developing players is now a bad thing. 

[Dick Allen]

6 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

I said Zavala was an example of a guy who was a poor defensive catcher being developed into a good defensive catcher. I suppose you're saying that developing players is now a bad thing. 

When you develop a 0.0 WAR player and call that developing a player, you need different people developing players. But of course I find 100+ loss seasons failure.

Edited 21 hours ago by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

10 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

I said Zavala was an example of a guy who was a poor defensive catcher being developed into a good defensive catcher. I suppose you're saying that developing players is now a bad thing. 

Who gets the blame for Vaughn, Sheets, Burger (proposed move to 2B) at the corners...for the last twenty years, it's a repeating litany of guys playing out of position due to lack of minor league replacements/budgetary restraints.

For example, no viable CFer behind Luis Robert the last two seasons.

Think of all the "castaway" outfielders from other organizations thrown haphazardly into the outfield.

Now they can't find a legit 1B/DH.

 

Im guessing you will respond with the five bottom players on the Yankees.

Edited 20 hours ago by caulfield12

[WhiteSox2023]

15 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

When you develop a 0.0 WAR player and call that developing a player, you need different people developing players. But of course I find 100+ loss seasons failure.

I still don’t understand what the Sox supposedly developed with Zavala.  He was a much better hitter in the minors (.762 OPS) than he has been in the majors (.613 OPS) so it definitely wasn’t his bat that they developed.  Also, is there a way to prove that Zavala didn’t have his own defensive skills at catcher to begin with?

He is a bad backup catcher at best and more suited as organizational depth at catcher in AAA.  If that is who anyone wants to claim that the Sox developed, that’s a sad state of affairs.

Edited 20 hours ago by WhiteSox2023

[poppysox]

4 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Well, durability is an important pitcher attribute as well.  That’s why this Jedixson Paez pick is interesting.  He doesn’t walk anyone and his best pitch is a changeup.  I read that he usually sits at 91/92 but has gotten it up to 94.  Sounds like he could have a better fastball than Drew Thorpe if the Sox can squeeze a bit more out of it, but it shouldn’t be at the risk of messing up his arm.

Releivers who come in and don't walk the first two batters they face are very welcome IMO.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

6 hours ago, Nardiwashere said:

What am I missing?  Soxtalk is now mad at the team because Shane Smith was good?  

In a nutshell yes. Before it was the Sox scouting sucks so u get a scouting and some development wins in an afterthought draft that hardly ever produces talent but since youre still so pissed off and embarassed about 2024  you have to find another reason to be embarassed rather than acknowledge that things could be looking up. 

That is some unique reasoning to hate your favorite baseball team that you won't find anywhere else but Toxtalk or maybe from Cubs fans . 

[WestEddy]

32 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

When you develop a 0.0 WAR player and call that developing a player, you need different people developing players. But of course I find 100+ loss seasons failure.

Yeah, you don't seem to be able to participate in this convo without playing games, so don't start it. 

[WestEddy]

20 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

I still don’t understand what the Sox supposedly developed with Zavala.  He was a much better hitter in the minors (.762 OPS) than he has been in the majors (.613 OPS) so it definitely wasn’t his bat that they developed.  Also, is there a way to prove that Zavala didn’t have his own defensive skills at catcher to begin with?

He is a bad backup catcher at best and more suited as organizational depth at catcher in AAA.  If that is who anyone wants to claim that the Sox developed, that’s a sad state of affairs.

Oh stop. Then player development doesn't exist, because the players all had the talent, so the White Sox are exactly even with the rest of the league. 

[caulfield12]

4 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

In a nutshell yes. Before it was the Sox scouting sucks so u get a scouting and some development wins in an afterthought draft that hardly ever produces talent but since youre still so pissed off and embarassed about 2024  you have to find another reason to be embarassed rather than acknowledge that things could be looking up. 

That is some unique reasoning to hate your favorite baseball team that you won't find anywhere else but Toxtalk or maybe from Cubs fans . 

Try NY Boston Philly boards lol.

Cardinals and Twins boards recently.

I remember living in Georgia in the 90s and fans didn't go to Braves' games because they believed they weren't good enough to win in their seemingly inevitable post seasons or because of a downtown stadium located in a reputed "dangerous" area.

It's all relative to expectations.

[caulfield12]

2 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Yeah, you don't seem to be able to participate in this convo without playing games, so don't start it. 

Why does this come off like the Sopranos or DeNiro vs. Costner in The Untouchables?  Only missing the menacing baseball bat hovering over the table...