Emaus Rule 5'd by Mets; Jays select no one in ML portion

Post #1 » by **Schad** » Thu Dec 9, 2010 6:59 pm

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/12/2 ... sults.html

We had room on the 40-man, so the decision to leave him unprotected is slightly puzzling. The Mets happen to be JP's current club, so there's an obvious connection there...now it's a question of whether they opt to keep him on the 25-man roster or ship him back to us at some point, but as a solid hitter who can (kinda) play two infield positions, he's really an optimal National League bench player.

The Jays didn't select anyone, which isn't entirely surprising, though I had thought that they might target a reliever (if the Rule 5 draft is good for anything, it's picking up AAAA relievers on the cheap and hoping that they hit paydirt). We did take a couple players in the AAA and AA portions (while losing no one), though: Ivan Contreras, a 23 year old utility guy from the Angels (AAA phase) whose primary talent seems to be his ability to play just about anywhere, and Roan Salas, a 20 year old 1B/2B from Tampa (AA phase) who beasted in the Venezuelan Summer League in '09 but couldn't find his way on to a stateside affiliate, and is now with his third team. I like the latter choice...he's almost assuredly not ready to jump from the VZL to AA, but it's a nice little flier.

raptorforlife88 · Post #2 » by **raptorforlife88** » Thu Dec 9, 2010 7:59 pm

Numbers aren't inflated by the league either.

.702 OPS, so he was outperforming the league by a ton in both years.

LBJSeizedMyID · Post #3 » by **LBJSeizedMyID** » Thu Dec 9, 2010 8:13 pm

Surprised that they left him unprotected as well, and you'd have to think the Mets make room for him as at least a bench player.

silverhill27 · Post #4 » by **silverhill27** » Thu Dec 9, 2010 10:35 pm

He was out of options so unless he made the team, we would have lost him anyways.

Edit: Nvm that was Loewen

Post #5 » by **Schad** » Thu Dec 9, 2010 10:42 pm

silverhill27 wrote:He was out of options so unless he made the team, we would have lost him anyways.

Emaus wasn't out of options...you only lose option years once you've been placed on the 40-man, and that hadn't happened with him.

silverhill27 · Post #6 » by **silverhill27** » Thu Dec 9, 2010 10:46 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:Emaus wasn't out of options...you only lose option years once you've been placed on the 40-man, and that hadn't happened with him.

Yeah, I misread Wilner's blog, it was Loewen who was out of options.

http://blog.rogersbroadcasting.com/mike ... 3-tidbits/