Thursday, December 6, 2007

Tim Lahey, newest Cub

In the Rule V draft, Tampa Bay used the first pick to grab Tim Lahey from the Minnesota Twins organization. After that, they sold Lahey to the Cubs. Lahey had some success in AA, getting 14 saves at New Britain. His statistics are not eye-popping, so I can understand why he was not on the 40-man roster. Also, he was a catcher in his college days back at Princeton, but the Twins moved him to pitching.

For those of you not familiar with Rule 5, a team pays $50,000 to take any player not on a 40-man roster and have him to keep. The only stipulation is that if at any team that team tries to send him to the minors during his first year, they must offer to give him back to his old team for just $25,000. IN this way, bad teams can keep good teams from hogging all the talent.

But it is rare that any team uses it; the last Cub (and only Cub) I remembered acquired in this way was Jose Nunez in 1990. Back in the 1980s, the Blue Jays had success with this manuever, using it to get Jorge Bell and Kelly Gruber. The Cubs actually lost a player this wayl Kansas City took single-A lefty starter Andrew Sisco in the Rule 5 draft, and stuck him in their bullpen. He pitched well, and now he is with the White Sox. This was back in 2005.

One thing this team has a lot of is right-handed relievers. But they really wanted Lahey; otherwise, they would not have paid Tampa to draft and sell him. Maybe with his background as a catcher, and his Princeton pedigree, the Cubs think he will "get it" more quickly than most young pitchers. They may be right. If he is impressive in the spring, he can join Wood, Howry, Marmol, and Wuertz as right-handed bullpen options. If everyone in that group is healthy, Wuertz may be dealt somewhere he is needed more.

But neither Sisco nor Nunez succeeded long-term; Sisco is now back in AAA, re-learning to start. His Royals stint put his career in reverse. Nunez never really pitched in the big leagues again, except briefly. The Rule 5 draft is a dangerous thing for a prospect.

No comments: