Jose Tabata: Older than we thought?
by WTM on Sep 16, 2008 7:06 AM EDT
Email
PrintHere's a potentially disturbing item: Dejan reports in the Notebook today that the Pirates are thinking of putting Tabata on the 40-man roster this off-season to protect him from the Rule 5 draft. Tabata was signed four years ago, supposedly at age 16. Players who sign at 18 or under aren't eligible until after five years. Either Dejan has it wrong or was misinformed, or Tabata is older than the public has been led to believe. To be eligible for the draft, he'd have to have been at least 19 when he signed, which would make him 23 now. All the hype about him has been based on the fact that he was always very young for the levels he played at. If he's 20, he's a blue chip prospect. If he's 23, he's nothing special.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
There you go again
You damn kids and your blogs, piggybacking off the work of the mainstream media to question authority, attack… stuff, be rude and irresponsible, and … question things and make people unhappy with your negative… things.
Yeah, that's odd.
Could just be sloppy sentence construction. If you parse what he’s saying strictly, he never actually says that Tabata needs to be protected, just that he and Walker and Meek are being added to the roster before the deadline. I agree that it’d be weird to add Tabata early, though, especially if they aren’t adding McCutchen early, too.
How early in 2004 did Tabata sign? Did he play in the DSL or VSL in 2004 after signing?
Well . . .
The Pirates are planning to add three prospects — third baseman Neil Walker, outfielder Jose Tabata and, in all likelihood, reliever Evan Meek — to the 40-man roster this winter to protect them from the Rule 5 draft.
Seems to me he’s saying Tabata needs to be protected. Could be the Pirates are thinking of putting him on the roster and Dejan is just assuming he needs to be protected, but why would they do that?
Dunno.
Maybe they really liked what they saw in Altoona, and they think he can make the big club in ’09? Seems like a stretch to me, but I guess stranger things have happened.
I hate to think ill of the front office, but it’s also possible that they saw the 2004 signing date and just assumed that he’s got five years under his belt.
I am sure that they will not add him to the 40-man roster
this fall unless he needs to be protected. There would be no point to that at all and it would cost an option year in 2009. If they think he might make the beg-league roster next season, they will wait until he actually does that to add him.
Yeah, that's true
If they were adding him because they thought he was ready, they’d probably just bring him up now, to let him get his feet wet.
The rules can be complicated-
wasn`t just about everyone confused earlier this year about whether or not Ian Snell had an option remaining?
I know this is a different issue, but it`s got to be hard for even experienced front office personnel to stay on top of everything related to roster movements etc.
By the way, WTM, I really like the updates on your site. Great work!
Shoot DK an e-mail, WTM.
He’ll get back with you pretty quick if he hasn’t already.
by ElliottBayBucco on Sep 16, 2008 1:41 PM EDT reply actions
How was the BA chat about the Gulf Coast League?
by ElliottBayBucco on Sep 16, 2008 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Zzzzzzzzzz
At least if you’re a Pirates’ fan.
The only Pirate question answered was on Cunningham. He was #20 because he’s not fully recovered from the knee injury but he looks like a steal at rd. 18. One of the “top pure hitters in the league,” can hit for avg. and power. Even bigger steal if he can stay at short.
If he really isn't fully recovered yet...
…and he still hit like he did, he could be an absolute monster.
I’ve been wondering what exactly happened with this guy. BA didn’t even mention him among the top prospects from his state, but he was very highly regarded there and had a scholarship to AZ State. A guy headed to a program like that usually merits some mention. I suppose the knee could still blow out, but this looks like the sort of coup the Pirates never used to score, in a way even more impressive than signing Grossman et al.
From Dejan via his blog:
In the blogosphere, Wilbur Miller asks in a Bucs Dugout fanpost about the Pirates including Jose Tabata on the list of 40-man must-protects that I listed in the Notebook yesterday. OK, here is the explanation as it relates to Tabata: Rule 5 eligibility is based on the player’s age on the June 5 preceding his signing. If he is 18 or younger on that June 5, he is eligible after the fifth professional season. One new addition to the rule book is that, if the player’s initial assignment to a team comes when that team’s season already started, that season counts. In Tabata’s case, then, he was actually 15 when he signed (not really, but within these weird rules, yes, because his birthday actually is in August) and his first professional action came in the Dominican Summer League, which now counts. Got all that?
by ElliottBayBucco on Sep 17, 2008 1:50 AM EDT reply actions
Pretty crazy
It looks like he signed in 2004, not 2005 as listed anywhere I’ve seen, and then played in the DSL in 2004. He turned 16 on Aug. 12, 2004, so that was the earliest he could have signed. The DSL season ends about a week after that. He must have signed on his birthday or within a couple days of it, then gone straight to the DSL and played a few games.
The Yankees have done some bonehead stuff with their Latin American signings. This wasn’t on a level with giving Wily Mo Pena a major league deal, but it was pretty goofy.
Good news then
no one is saying he is not 19, just that he has already completed 5 professional season by that age.
He is, but isn't
He’s 20 now, but 2008 was his “age 19 season” by baseball standards.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
