SB Nation - Login for mobile commenting

Bleed Cubbie Blue

Cubs Acquire RHP David Patton

Maybe the Reds paid the Cubs back for the Josh Hamilton favor.

OK, that's probably a little over the top. But in an example of how this sort of thing works ("you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"), the Reds drafted David Patton, a 24-year-old righthanded reliever, from the Colorado Rockies' Triple-A team at Colorado Springs.

The Reds then dealt him to the Cubs for "a cash consideration". As for any Rule 5 draftee, I believe he'll have to stay on the 25-man roster all year or be returned to the Rockies (someone please confirm this for me).

It's a low-risk move; Patton had 87 K in 50 innings at High-A Modesto in the California League. He was added to the 40-man roster, which now stands at 37 (I'd expect Nate Spears, who wasn't taken in the Rule 5 draft, to be added to the 40-man soon). Patton made nine appearances in the Arizona Fall League with an unsightly 9.24 ERA, allowing 22 hits in 12.2 innings.

0 recs  |  49 comments

Comments

dump him back

to the Reds

Why would they add Spears to the 40 man roster now?

Won’t they wait ’til Sprint Training and only add him if he makes the team?

Isn’t the only reason to add a minor league player to the 40 man roster in the off season is to protect them from the rule 5 draft?

True, I guess.

Why leave the three open spaces, though?

That is what I don't get.

Maybe they wanted the roster flexibility?

Once you add a player, it’s difficult to sneak them through waivers. Also, I believe you can only outright a player once. If you do so the second time, I think they can become a free agent.

because the off season isn't over

Who knows what will happen, but there is no benefit to adding Spears now versus adding him any time during this season.

Al,

You don’t want to add someone to the 40-man until you have to. By taking the chance on leaving him exposed in Rule 5, Hendry “bought” another year for him in which none of his options will be burned — unless they need him, call him up, then send him down again.

Open spaces on the 40 isn’t a bad thing, it’s actually a great thing. One or two spots might go to FAs and the other can be left open until a need arises.

True.

Presuming Spears has a chance to make the ML team in spring training — and I think he does — they took a real chance leaving him off.

However, now that he’s still a Cub, I expect him to get a spring training invite, at the very least.

If the Cubs trade

a middle infielder, I think Spears will be on the roster when we break camp in April. Otherwise, he’s in Iowa.

this

is an example of how slow the offseason has been when a Rule 5 draftee gets his own entire blog

Well, it's actual real news instead of rumors.
I'm assuming you mean...

…“his own entire blog POST.” That said, if Patton does have a blog, I’ll certainly check it out. It’s not like there’s much else goin’ on.

You mean, you haven't read

his blog?

Oh…maybe…wrong guy….

That's a good example of a blog...

…that appears to be about nothing whatsoever.

again

this offseason is so boring that my exclusion of the term “post” needed to be addressed

all things considered, thank you, i will remember the correct terminology for my future additions to blog POSTS

This isn't a post. It's a comment.
Low-risk move

I agree. I don’t see Patton making the club, but he is a low-risk option that won’t cost the Cubs much in the long run. Not sure how all this works, but it will be interesting to see what the Cubs do with the last two roster spots. Al, I know you think Spears will be added. Wondering if they are keeping them open for trade/FA flexibility?

Possibly...

… but that’s a lot of open spots. Most teams don’t have more than one.

That's what I can't figure out.

Why keep so many spots open? Does it benefit them in any way? All I can think of is that they were open to see if anyone caught their attention today. Now that the Rule 5 is over they can fill those spots, as you suggested, with players such as Spears.

We'll see if that happens.
If they sign a Free Agent

Such as Abreu or Rollins etc, they would not have to make a move to open up a spot on the 40 man roster. That might be another reason that they kept some spots open.

How come no post

about Donald Veal being drafted from us?

It's being covered in the Rule 5 draft FanPost.
Did not see that

Thanks

It's mentioned...

here. And I guess this answers my question about whether anyone “tried the Veal.” The Pirates did.

FWIW...

… the Pirates once had a pitcher named Bob Veale.

...and he was delicious...

Hey, with his career numbers, he’s be pulling in $12-15M a year now…

Where did you get that he was playing at AAA?

He’s played A+ ball at Modesto for the Rockies. He’s never played AAA ball before.

Kind of a low prospect. His numbers aren’t that bad, with a 3.43 FIP and .353 BABIP; but at 24, he shouldn’t still be playing at A+

His numbers remind me of the numbers Ceda put up in A ball.
He was drafted off the AAA roster...

according to the official press release:

The Chicago Cubs today acquired right-handed pitcher David Patton from the Cincinnati Reds for a cash consideration. Earlier in the day, Patton was selected by Cincinnati in the Major League phase (first round, eighth overall) of the 2008 Rule 5 Draft from the Colorado Rockies Triple-A Colorado Springs roster.

I did not at any time in the post say that he PLAYED Triple-A ball.

I guess when you say that he's
from the Colorado Rockies’ Triple-A team at Colorado Springs

I should take it that he’s never played there before, ever.

Well, I should have said "roster".

Sorry for the confusion.

So they have to keep a kid whos never been above A ball on the 25 man roster all year?

seems like stretch

Seems like a situation where the Cubs

could send Cincinnati (or Colorado, I’m not sure which one it would go to) a minor leaguer or cash to keep him should they send him down.

It'd go to the Rockies.

That’s where Patton returns if he doesn’t make the team.

Same thing happened last year, when the Rays drafted Tim Lahey and sent him to the Cubs. Lahey went back to Minnesota, not Tampa.

That's what I figured the more I thought about it

Cincinnati did nothing more than make the pick for the Cubs.

So they can keep this kid in the minors provided they send someone to Colorado?
Yes.

They can’t just “send someone”, they have to make a trade. But it can be done.

Either a player

or the ever popular “cash considerations.” Either way, they would have to agree upon the player or amount with Colorado.

Only if he clears waivers first.
AFL stats

are close to worthless, IMO. So that doesn’t bother me.

I do like that he pitched well last season in the notorious hitter-friendly Cal League.

Patton, Peavy, what's the difference?
About 18 wins

And a (given health) likely lock back into the playoffs.

Thanks for the laugh

I needed that.

One e, a, v, and a why
Rule V rules

When a team selects a player in the Rule V draft they “buy him” from his former team for $50,000. If they choose to try to option the player in question, the season following the draft, they must first offer him back to his former club for $25,000. Of course the former club does not have to take the player back, In 2010 Patton will be able to be recalled and optioned like any other player. A perfect example of this happened last season. The Reds left left handed relief pitcher Carlos Guevara unprotected, Florida drafted him and traded him to San Diego (much like the Patton deal this year), Guevara was pretty terrible in his stint with the Padres. The Padres decided he was not worth the roster spot, and offered him back to Cincinnati for $25K. The Reds declined and the Padres optioned (or sent him outright) to AAA.

A Couple of Things...

… first, it’s Rule 5, not Rule V, right?

…second, the player has to clear waivers before they can option back to AAA.

This happened last year with the Cubs and Lahey. We thought that Lahey could be the PTBNL in the Craig Monroe deal last November. The Rays selected him from the Twins, traded him to us for cash ($500K, I believe), offered him back to the Twins, but the Phils claimed him.

What's the difference between writing "Rule 5" and "Rule V"?

They mean the same thing…

Officially, it's Rule "5".

They go by numbers, not Roman numerals.

zzz.....

zzzz….prefer rumors…..zzz…..

You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.