Orvella was outrighted to Durham. He is no longer on the 40 man roster which is now down to...

Orvella was outrighted to Durham. He is no longer on the 40 man roster which is now down to 38.

Does that presage an announcement of a deal which required a roster spot to open up?

about 3 years ago bobr 9 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'm not sure about the roster spot needing to be opened precursoring a deal

Most of the Rays’ big trade candidates are already on the roster: Edwin, Sonny, Niemann, Nando, Ruggiano, Barty/Brignac.

Unless a deal is primarily involving a guy like Hellickson or some prospects who are further away, or is a huge deal in which multiple guys who would need to be placed on the 40-man are being received, I dont see why the roster would be an issue. Unless there’s some plans to pick from the Rule 5 as well.

Dude. This.

by Blicks on Dec 8, 2008 10:56 PM EST reply actions

Per Cots

December 8, 2008
Deadline (5 p.m. EST) to outright a player off the 40-man roster prior to the Rule 5 Draft.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 8, 2008 10:59 PM EST up reply actions

Free agents?

Free agents need a home too.

And I can’t imagine the rule 5 has anything to do with this since there was already an open spot and the Rays are not likely to get ANY players in the draft at #30 (or whatever pick they have) much less two players. But I suppose it is possible.

by Raymond's Evil Twin Brother on Dec 8, 2008 11:19 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah forgot about FAs.

although its unlikely one signs this early, since the Rays will probably wait it out.

Agreed that its really unlikely that the Rays find someone nice in the Rule 5 that late in the draft.

Dude. This.

by Blicks on Dec 8, 2008 11:22 PM EST up reply actions

My question is

there’s now 2 open roster spots. Why keep Orvella until now rather than doing this sooner and protecting Morlan from Rule 5?

I understand they may want 2 spots open, 1 for Rule 5 draft, 1 for a near term FA. Then they could DFA Ryu or Gomes if they needed spots.

This reminds me a bit of them keeping Travis Harper(?) while not protecting Hamilton, then DFA’ing him the day after the draft.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Dec 9, 2008 6:15 PM EST reply actions

If the Rays pick up a guy in Rule 5 AND sign a FA

they would have to outright Morlan. Or, if they sign two free agents, assuming trades keep the remainder of the roster at the same number.

An outright/exposure to waivers is MUCH riskier in terms of losing Morlan than leaving him off the 40 man for Rule 5, because if someone picks Morlan in the Rule 5, he has to go on their 25 man roster. Which, for a guy who isn’t MLB ready, isn’t that easy to do. That’s not the case with outrights, as teams can just send a claimed player into their minor league system.

Dude. This.

by Blicks on Dec 9, 2008 7:55 PM EST up reply actions

That's all obvious - I know the rules.

They wouldn’t have to outright Morlan – as I said in my comment, they could DFA Ryu or Gomes (who may very well be non-tendered the day after the 5 draft) as alternatives when they need a spot. Is there someone better than Morlan the Rays plan to claim in the Rule 5? You think either of those guys offer more upside than Morlan? Since they’re likely to drop one or both of those anyway, why not just protect and keep Morlan. Guess who’s at the top of many Rule 5 draft target lists?

And how far away is Morlan after all? He had some health issues this year, and still performed decently in AA. That’s not so far from the bigs – and relievers are just about the easiest guys to bury on a roster all year, especially for teams with limited prospects for success. You don’t think the Pirates or Royals aren’t sizing him up big time? 2 teams desperate for righty relievers – both of who have a proclivity for carrying not quite ready relievers. Who stuck last year – 2 relievers and an OF.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Dec 10, 2008 2:52 AM EST up reply actions