Comments on: A Bad Gamble: Luis Perdomo

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:47:40 +0000

Thanks, Sleepy. So what you’re saying is that in all those other cases, the guy DID pass waivers before the deal was arranged? I thought there were alternative mechanisms — send him back where he came from but with a deal to bring him back, for example.

By: SleepyCA

SleepyCA — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:56:54 +0000

Grunt,

In order to work out a deal, he had to go through waivers first. It’s the process. The player’s rights as a Rule 5 draftee trump those of the teams, so they can’t just trade him and demote him without giving other teams the chance to claim him.

By: Gruntosaurus

Gruntosaurus — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:59:05 +0000

Just the fact that San Fran did waive him, rather than try to work something out, speaks volumes to me. We can complain that all we have for Reyes is $50k in the team’s pocket, but SF is OUT $50k for absolutely zero gain except someone throwing batting practice in spring training.

There are enough alternatives to returning a Rule 5 guy that something could have been arranged if they thought he was worth stashing at AAA. Rule 5 “trades” where the drafting team keeps the draftee in the minors, sending some piddling prospect to the team he was drafted from, happen all the time. That SF didn’t do that tells me that this is nothing to lose any sleep over. (The question of why the front office wasn’t able to get anything more valuable than Perdomo for Reyes … well, that question is still in play, although I think it has as much to do with TLR shooting off his mouth as with an error by Mo.)

By: sshanec

sshanec — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:26:16 +0000

I say let the Pads give him some major league experience. If he sticks, it’s our loss. But if he bombs out maybe it will be a motivator for him once he gets retruned to the Cards.

BTW, Jim Callis has a good comment about Wallace over at Ask BA.

By: arch support

arch support — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:50:06 +0000

While not excusing the decision making process of the front office (which I don’t find much fault with anyway….you can’t do everything right all the time, especially in baseball), I would be surprised if Perdomo stuck with the Pads all season.

I know they’ve got so little talent on their staff that he could hide in the back of the bullpen all year. But given the reports I’ve heard of his spring (small sample size of course), the Padres would have to reeeeeaaalllllyyyy want to keep someone who, right now, is sub-replacement level.

I don’t know what San Diego’s right-handed relief looks like in the minors, but I imagine they’ve got enough there that suffering through a 7.00 ERA for 35 innings this year won’t be that palatable, even considering their projected last place finish.

Long story short, I don’t chalk this up as a loss for the front office yet.

By: Liam

Liam — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:40:40 +0000

If there’s a team Perdomo could stick with, it’s the Padres. What’s most surprising is that Gregerson wasn’t sent down to accomodate Luis.

By: TB

TB — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:12:27 +0000

Does Perdomo have to stay on the Padres 25 man roster all season?

By: Wade

Wade — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:55:31 +0000

Thanks guys! Great read.

By: azruavatar

azruavatar — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:07:43 +0000

http://thecardinalnation.com/2009/02/04/cards-2009-rule5-draft-part2/

By: Swirls AEPi

Swirls AEPi — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:03:00 +0000

Wade,

Brian Walton compiled a list a month or two ago of everyone that would be Rule V eligible next offseason. It’s available from his blog, “The Cardinal Nation.” The link to his blog is on the left hand side of this blog. Someone else may have already bookmarked the index (he said he’d update it after changes were made to the 40 man roster), so they could possibly just list it here for you.