Comments on: 40-Man Roster Moves & Minor League Signings

By: Ryan Sullivan

Ryan Sullivan — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:42:54 +0000

Brian-

Is it of any consequence that we added those 4 players to the 40 man roster? I would think taking flyers in the Rule 5 draft, even after the weakening from the new CBA, would be a better use of a 40 man spot-

By: Brian J Oliver

Brian J Oliver — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:20:02 +0000

Honestly? No. The Rule 5 guys out there this year are the same ones that were out there last year and the Nationals didn’t see anyone of value there. Outside of Dan Uggla, it was a weaker class.

By: Ryan Sullivan

Ryan Sullivan — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:51:59 +0000

Brian-

I'm sure you are right, but for my thinking, we might as well take a flyer or two in the rule 5 on younger players as opposed to taking Restovich or Hanrahan and such, whom are both more known.

It just seems if you are going to win 60 games either way, you might as well go with youth and hope you strike gold, like with Uggla- guess just my 2 cents

By: Brian J Oliver

Brian J Oliver — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:00:51 +0000

Though remember, Rule 5 guys have to be kept on the 25-man roster while Restovich, Hanrahan, etc can be optioned to the minors

By: Ryan Sullivan

Ryan Sullivan — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:41:20 +0000

Obviously it is early, but would Restovich be a good platoon partner for either Church or Casto at a corner OF position? I would assume that is the plan…