Opening Day 25 man roster

[Bahama O's Fan]

16 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I'd say Smith replaces Alvarez.  Trumbo simply slots into DH, rather than RF, vs. RHP.

If Mancini makes the big club, he would be closer to being the Reimold replacement, he would DH vs. LHP, with Trumbo sliding back out to RF.

Okay, same difference, so is this an improved roster? Also, what is our payroll now?

[25 Nuggets]

2 hours ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

Okay, same difference, so is this an improved roster? Also, what is our payroll now?

I'd say it's a slightly better opening day roster that requires good overall health.

I concur with Number5 - get a RH OF that can play some D and send Mancini back to AAA to start the season.  That would be your Reimold replacement.

[Bahama O's Fan]

I could be wrong, but I think that's a huge improvement in starting pitching

[thezeroes]

9 hours ago, Number5 said:

I don't think this is correct.  He has to be on the 25 man roster all season, unless he is on the DL.

Exactly right.  To keep him he needs 90 days on the active roster for the year.  Like Rickard in 2016, it can be done prior to being placed on the DL.  Once acquiring the ninety days, a rule five player in the ensuing year is the property of the drafting team.

[oriolediehard]

My vote is to drop  Dariel Alvarez to make room on the 40 man roster for Trumbo. He has been tried in the O's line up and he couldn't hit ML pitching. He ain't all that great in AAA.

[Redskins Rick]

8 hours ago, 25 Nuggets said:

I'd say it's a slightly better opening day roster that requires good overall health.

I concur with Number5 - get a RH OF that can play some D and send Mancini back to AAA to start the season.  That would be your Reimold replacement.

DD has already come out and told the fanbase that there is nothing left for Mancini to learn at AAA.

[Number5]

2 hours ago, thezeroes said:

Exactly right.  To keep him he needs 90 days on the active roster for the year.  Like Rickard in 2016, it can be done prior to being placed on the DL.  Once acquiring the ninety days, a rule five player in the ensuing year is the property of the drafting team.

Again, I am pretty darn sure that he must be kept on the 25-man roster all season, with the exception of DL time.  The 90 days only matters relative to the amount of time on the DL.  If he is on the DL for a period of time that would not allow him to be active for at least 90 days, the Rule 5 restrictions carry forward to the following season, until the 90 days are met.  90 days, in and of itself, does not automatically make the player the team's property.  If he isn't disabled, he must remain on the active roster the entire season, even if he has accumulated more than 90 days.

[MDtransplant757]

1 hour ago, oriolediehard said:

My vote is to drop  Dariel Alvarez to make room on the 40 man roster for Trumbo. He has been tried in the O's line up and he couldn't hit ML pitching. He ain't all that great in AAA.

Apparently the O's might give him the Givens treatment and have him become a reliever. 

[sportsfan8703]

DD doesn't like to lose people 25 man roster

Tillman, Gausman, Bundy, Miley, Ubaldo

Britton, Brach, O'day, Givens, Hart, Drake(no options), Mcfarland(no options)

Castillo, Machado, Hardy, Schoop, Davis, Kim, Jones, Smith, Trumbo

Flaherty, Pena(no options), Rickard, Tavarez (rule 5)

I'd like to see us sign a vet OF, preferably RH, and another bullpen arm like Hunter/Worley, and a vet C.  We should have competition and depth at the back of the bullpen and the bench in ST.  Ideally I'd like to see these guys signed, or comparable players;

Bourn milb deal with ST invite.  Competition for Tavarez

Reimold milb deal with ST invite.  Depth in AAA

Hunter or Worley on a 1 year MLB deal.  Competition for Drake and Mac.  

Whatever vet C will take a milb deal with a ST invite.  

[thezeroes]

2 hours ago, Number5 said:

Again, I am pretty darn sure that he must be kept on the 25-man roster all season, with the exception of DL time.  The 90 days only matters relative to the amount of time on the DL.  If he is on the DL for a period of time that would not allow him to be active for at least 90 days, the Rule 5 restrictions carry forward to the following season, until the 90 days are met.  90 days, in and of itself, does not automatically make the player the team's property.  If he isn't disabled, he must remain on the active roster the entire season, even if he has accumulated more than 90 days.

Wow, I did not know that I needed to spell all that out.  I used Rickard of 2016 as the example of 1) getting his 90 Days, 2) being placed on the DL, 3) becoming the property of the Baltimore Orioles, 4) being able to be "Optioned" in over the next three years if needed.  Rickard can be optioned, DFA'd, placed on the DL again, kept in extended spring training, traded without waivers, and all the other pieces and parts that any player that gets drafted through the rule 4 draft and place on the Forty.  He made his 90 Days in 2016, he is the property of the Orioles for better or worse.

As a side note, Joey Rickard was placed on the "Sixty Day DL" and therefore did not count on the Forty man roster.  To say he has to stay on the Twenty-Five is not completely correct.

[Number5]

3 hours ago, thezeroes said:

Wow, I did not know that I needed to spell all that out.  I used Rickard of 2016 as the example of 1) getting his 90 Days, 2) being placed on the DL, 3) becoming the property of the Baltimore Orioles, 4) being able to be "Optioned" in over the next three years if needed.  Rickard can be optioned, DFA'd, placed on the DL again, kept in extended spring training, traded without waivers, and all the other pieces and parts that any player that gets drafted through the rule 4 draft and place on the Forty.  He made his 90 Days in 2016, he is the property of the Orioles for better or worse.

As a side note, Joey Rickard was placed on the "Sixty Day DL" and therefore did not count on the Forty man roster.  To say he has to stay on the Twenty-Five is not completely correct.

You are greatly over-complicating this and are putting entirely too much emphasis on the 90 days.  The 90 days only enters into it in the event of a DL stay.  No DL stay, 90 days has nothing to do with it, and the player must remain on the 25 man roster for the entire season.  In the event of a DL stay, the player must still spend the entirety of his non-DL time on the 25-man roster; and also must spend at least 90 days on the active 25-man roster, or the Rule 5 restrictions carry forward to the following season until the 90 day requirement is met.  In no case can the player be optioned while still under rule 5 restrictions, which includes the entire first season in all cases.  I am not at all talking about what can happen in following seasons after the rule 5 restrictions are no longer an issue, so I have no idea why you would bring that up.  You have repeatedly incorrectly stated that as long as the player is on the 25-man roster for 90 days, he becomes the team's property.  That is quite false, as a player can indeed spend 90 days on the 25-man roster and still be subject to rule 5, and certainly is in the great majority of cases.  You cannot option a Rule 5 player in the 91st day of the season.  And that is what I have been pointing out.

[thezeroes]

12 minutes ago, Number5 said:

You are greatly over-complicating this and are putting entirely too much emphasis on the 90 days.  The 90 days only enters into it in the event of a DL stay.  No DL stay, 90 days has nothing to do with it, and the player must remain on the 25 man roster for the entire season.  In the event of a DL stay, the player must still spend the entirety of his non-DL time on the 25-man roster; and also must spend at least 90 days on the active 25-man roster, or the Rule 5 restrictions carry forward to the following season until the 90 day requirement is met.  In no case can the player be optioned while still under rule 5 restrictions, which includes the entire first season in all cases.  I am not at all talking about what can happen in following seasons after the rule 5 restrictions are no longer an issue, so I have no idea why you would bring that up.  You have repeatedly incorrectly stated that as long as the player is on the 25-man roster for 90 days, he becomes the team's property.  That is quite false, as a player can indeed spend 90 days on the 25-man roster and still be subject to rule 5, and certainly is in the great majority of cases.  You cannot option a Rule 5 player in the 91st day of the season.  And that is what I have been pointing out.

Reread what I posted and get back to me.  Don't just read one line, read the entire entry.  Then reread the next response to you and finally reread the last response to you before this one. 

I accepted and acknowledge that a Rule 5 player needs to remain on the twenty-five for the entire year and then tried, in vain, to explain that with Rickard, the Orioles had circumvented the "Entire Season" rule.  It played into their hands that he was injured AFTER he had been on the ACTIVE TWENTY-FIVE MAN ROSTER for the required NINETY DAYS.  He was subsequently placed on the SIXTY DAY DISABLED LIST which is not the TWENTY-FIVE OR the FORTY MAN ROSTERS.  The exceptions to your dyed in the wool RULE of being on the TWENTY-FIVE became exempt.  If you are having trouble with this explanation as to why/what I posted then I feel I have tried to explain this thrice and I do believe the facts as I have just explained can be "LOOKED UP".

[Number5]

29 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

Reread what I posted and get back to me.  Don't just read one line, read the entire entry.  Then reread the next response to you and finally reread the last response to you before this one. 

I accepted and acknowledge that a Rule 5 player needs to remain on the twenty-five for the entire year and then tried, in vain, to explain that with Rickard, the Orioles had circumvented the "Entire Season" rule.  It played into their hands that he was injured AFTER he had been on the ACTIVE TWENTY-FIVE MAN ROSTER for the required NINETY DAYS.  He was subsequently placed on the SIXTY DAY DISABLED LIST which is not the TWENTY-FIVE OR the FORTY MAN ROSTERS.  The exceptions to your dyed in the wool RULE of being on the TWENTY-FIVE became exempt.  If you are having trouble with this explanation as to why/what I posted then I feel I have tried to explain this thrice and I do believe the facts as I have just explained can be "LOOKED UP".

Great, glad to see that you finally agree that you misspoke when you repeatedly stated that as long as the player was on the 25-man roster 90 days he becomes that team's property.  My statement that all non-DL time must be spent on the 25-man roster is absolutely correct, and your current attempt to somehow say that it is wrong because of 60-day DL exemption for the 40-man roster is quite irrelevant.  Time on the 60-day DL is, by definition, not non-DL time.  Why anyone would have the need to look that up is ludicrous.  I have never, not once, argued anything about Rickard's eligibility.  I was not addressing Rickard at all.  I was simply responding to your clearly incorrect assertion that all that is required is 90 days on the 25-man roster, which you have now acknowledged was incorrect.  There is zero need to reread anything other than your incorrect statements, which is what I emboldened in the quotes in my responses to you.  Here they are again to save you time :

He only needs to stay healthy and on the roster until the second week in July and he then can be optioned.

Once acquiring the ninety days, a rule five player in the ensuing year is the property of the drafting team.

No mistaking the meaning of your words.  And also no doubt that they are incorrect.

Thank you.

[Legend_Of_Joey]

11 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

DD doesn't like to lose people 25 man roster

Tillman, Gausman, Bundy, Miley, Ubaldo

Britton, Brach, O'day, Givens, Hart, Drake(no options), Mcfarland(no options)

Castillo, Machado, Hardy, Schoop, Davis, Kim, Jones, Smith, Trumbo

Flaherty, Pena(no options), Rickard, Tavarez (rule 5)

I'd like to see us sign a vet OF, preferably RH, and another bullpen arm like Hunter/Worley, and a vet C.  We should have competition and depth at the back of the bullpen and the bench in ST.  Ideally I'd like to see these guys signed, or comparable players;

Bourn milb deal with ST invite.  Competition for Tavarez

Reimold milb deal with ST invite.  Depth in AAA

Hunter or Worley on a 1 year MLB deal.  Competition for Drake and Mac.  

Whatever vet C will take a milb deal with a ST invite.  

 

So, what would you do with Joseph and if you sign a vet catcher (for whatever reason), what would you do with Pena?

[weams]

On 1/19/2017 at 10:59 PM, Number5 said:

I'd say Smith replaces Alvarez.  Trumbo simply slots into DH, rather than RF, vs. RHP.

If Mancini makes the big club, he would be closer to being the Reimold replacement, he would DH vs. LHP, with Trumbo sliding back out to RF.

Reimold was a fifth outfielder. Not just a bench player. Mancini can not replace that.