Noah's Arc: Song back, assigned to GVL.

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
15,255
I mean, I care a bit because it's an interesting story. It would be cool if we got him back & didn't have to put him on the 40.

But I'd rate...

Perales
Monegro
Drohan
Wikelman
Dobbins
Murphy
Walter
Mata
Bastardo
Rogers
Rodriguez-Cruz
Coffey
Van Belle
Encarnacion
Rodriguez
Blalock
Paez
Gambrell

...as at least comparable starting pitching prospects at the moment in approximately that order.
 

BigJay

New Member
Jul 22, 2022
86
I mean, I care a bit because it's an interesting story. It would be cool if we got him back & didn't have to put him on the 40.
But if we get him back and don't put him on the 40 man, isn't he eligible for the draft again?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
But if we get him back and don't put him on the 40 man, isn't he eligible for the draft again?
Yes. But if they get him back, isn't that suggestive that he's not ready for the big leagues and needs more time to develop? That probably won't change by the end of the season.

Also, part of the return process involves the player going on waivers, so every team in the league will get a crack at him should the Phillies decide to cut bait. If he clears waivers and is returned to the Sox, stands to reason it would be pretty safe to leave him exposed to the draft again this winter.
 

MonstahsInLeft

Member
SoSH Member
With the Phillies solidly in the playoff hunt it’s a lot harder to see them carrying him on their roster as long as they need to.

The SP guys seem pretty convinced that a team like the A’s or KC would scoop him up on waivers before he got back to the Sox though.

Makes sense that they’d be able to roster him better than the Phillies, but I don’t claim to know all the ins and outs of the process.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,696
If Song somehow did make it back to the Red Sox, don't they have to put him back on the 40-man roster? Is he even worth that spot right now, given that the team has some difficult roster management decisions coming up this offseason?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
If Song somehow did make it back to the Red Sox, don't they have to put him back on the 40-man roster? Is he even worth that spot right now, given that the team has some difficult roster management decisions coming up this offseason?
They are the only team that would not have to put him on the 40-man right now. He "got away" because they didn't put him on the 40-man, so it wouldn't make sense that they be forced to do so because another team decided to try him there.
 

deythur

New Member
If I understand the rule correctly if the Phils see enough in him but not enough to keep him active right now they could make a trade with the Sox and acquire his full rights and then can do what they want with him. They have been rumored to be looking for an outfield bat as well. Maybe a package of Duvall and Song's rights would get us a bigger bag of balls and an extra lottery ticket.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,121
Newton
That’s assuming the Sox and Dombrowski want to do business together? Seems silly I know but appeared there were some hard feelings last year.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,220
With the Phillies solidly in the playoff hunt it’s a lot harder to see them carrying him on their roster as long as they need to.

The SP guys seem pretty convinced that a team like the A’s or KC would scoop him up on waivers before he got back to the Sox though.

Makes sense that they’d be able to roster him better than the Phillies, but I don’t claim to know all the ins and outs of the process.
I think I disagree with them. Maybe a bottom feeder would roster him for the remainder of the season, but unless he takes a big step forward I don't think he's really interesting enough to keep a 40 man spot into the offseason. His stuff isn't what it was in 2019. I suspect they could find a more interesting arm in the draft than Song.
 

MonstahsInLeft

Member
SoSH Member
I think I disagree with them. Maybe a bottom feeder would roster him for the remainder of the season, but unless he takes a big step forward I don't think he's really interesting enough to keep a 40 man spot into the offseason. His stuff isn't what it was in 2019. I suspect they could find a more interesting arm in the draft than Song.
I definitely like your scenario better! I wonder with the 2020 COVID year if there's just a general 40-man crunch approaching for many teams. The Sox certainly have one.

Like many others on this board I'm probably a bit irrationally attached to Song (and in my case have an extra Navy/Pensacola connection). Even if he doesn't turn into a starting pitching stud though it'd be a great story to see him succeed as a Red Sox.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,121
Newton
More from The Athletic here (this was posted last Friday):
Song time?
The Phillies have a week to make a decision on Noah Song, their storybook Rule 5 draft pick who is attempting to reach the majors after four years without baseball while he served in the Navy. He must be activated from his minor-league rehab assignment by July 28. This is why the Phillies will push Song, 26, to Triple-A Lehigh Valley despite two so-so appearances in Double A. They need to see the right-hander face more experienced hitters.

While the Phillies would love to keep Song, who was considered a good prospect years ago while in the Boston organization, it’s going to be a huge challenge. Thomson offered a diplomatic answer Thursday when asked if he could imagine carrying someone like Song as the last man in the bullpen of a contending team.

“I don’t know,” Thomson said.

The Phillies, at the very least, need to know Song can pitch two innings at a time for them if he’s to be a mop-up man in the majors. He has yet to do that in six minor-league games. The goal is for him to pitch two innings Saturday at Triple A. He allowed two runs on two hits with a walk and two strikeouts in 1 2/3 innings his last time on the mound at Double A. In that outing, Song’s fastball averaged 90.8 mph, according to Statcast data from a major-league source.

“It’s been OK,” Thomson said. “You know? He had one really good game and a couple of OKs, you know. So we’ll see.”

Earlier this month, Song flashed a 96 mph fastball and pitched closer to 93-94 mph. That’s an easier profile to “hide” as the last man in a big-league bullpen. He has flashed a decent curveball. But, if Song is pitching closer to 90 mph and not throwing enough strikes, it is risky.

It’s a high bar for Song, who went so long without baseball, to clear.

“I would say we don’t have any expectations at this point,” Phillies president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski said Wednesday. “He’s a consideration (to be promoted to the majors), but I don’t know where that’s going to take us yet. I think it’s very dependent on how he throws over the next 10-day period.”

Dombrowski, no doubt, would like to pull one over on his former employer, the Red Sox. If the Phillies think Song could regain more form with time and perhaps emerge as a rotation option for 2024, they will at least try to carry him in the majors now.

It’s also possible the circumstances prevent it. The Phillies could look to trade Song, whose Rule 5 stipulations would still be enforced, to a team better equipped to roster him right now.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
I am surprised that if his velocity is so far down that they can't legitimately put him back on the IL
They probably can. I think the concern at this point for the Phillies is being able to get him enough time on the big league roster to meet the Rule 5 requirements and keep him long term. I imagine they'd prefer to not be forced to carry him on the 26-man for a portion of next season too, though they may decide that that would be the better course of action.

Of course, they'd also need Song to go along with shutting back down again. He might feel fine and believe he just needs to keep throwing to build back up.
 

Diamond Don Aase

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 16, 2001
1,099
Merrimack Valley
To be honest, a Song trade as @deythur suggested benefits both clubs, although I think that they can get more for Duvall.
As The Athletic article posted by @Van Everyman mentions, a trade would not relieve the Red Sox of Song’s Rule 5 roster stipulations. The Red Sox, like any team to claim or trade for Song, would still have to carry Song on the major-league roster for at least 90 days this season.

The only way for the Red Sox to send Song to the minor leagues would be if he was offered back to Boston (in exchange for $50K, half of what the Red Sox received when the Phillies selected Song) by his current team after completely clearing waivers.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,342
As The Athletic article posted by @Van Everyman mentions, a trade would not relieve the Red Sox of Song’s Rule 5 roster stipulations. The Red Sox, like any team to claim or trade for Song, would still have to carry Song on the major-league roster for at least 90 days this season.

The only way for the Red Sox to send Song to the minor leagues would be if he was offered back to Boston (in exchange for $50K, half of what the Red Sox received when the Phillies selected Song) by his current team after completely clearing waivers.
The trade would be for the Phillies to keep Song and not have to stick him on their major league roster or offer him back, not to send him back to Boston.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
As The Athletic article posted by @Van Everyman mentions, a trade would not relieve the Red Sox of Song’s Rule 5 roster stipulations. The Red Sox, like any team to claim or trade for Song, would still have to carry Song on the major-league roster for at least 90 days this season.

The only way for the Red Sox to send Song to the minor leagues would be if he was offered back to Boston (in exchange for $50K, half of what the Red Sox received when the Phillies selected Song) by his current team after completely clearing waivers.
I think the idea that is being floated is that the Phillies could trade the Sox something in exchange for "full rights" to Song, which I believe is allowed. Basically, the Phillies would have to arrange a transaction with the Sox in which they would get back full rights to him, which means they would not have to carry him on their major league roster for 90 days. Some people are suggesting a sort of combo trade---the Sox trade the Phillies a surplus outfielder and the full rights to Song in exchange for something else, like a lottery ticket. This way the Sox would get to juice up their return from the trade of an outfielder (such as Duvall).
 

Diamond Don Aase

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 16, 2001
1,099
Merrimack Valley
The trade would be for the Phillies to keep Song and not have to stick him on their major league roster or offer him back, not to send him back to Boston.
Such a trade would still require Song to completely clear waivers. The Red Sox have no control over Song unless the Phillies offer him back after he clears waivers. Even if the Red Sox claimed Song off waivers, the major-league roster stipulations would still apply until Song completely clears waivers.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
I think the idea that is being floated is that the Phillies could trade the Sox something in exchange for "full rights" to Song, which I believe is allowed. Basically, the Phillies would have to arrange a transaction with the Sox in which they would get back full rights to him, which means they would not have to carry him on their major league roster for 90 days. Some people are suggesting a sort of combo trade---the Sox trade the Phillies a surplus outfielder and the full rights to Song in exchange for something else, like a lottery ticket. This way the Sox would get to juice up their return from the trade of an outfielder (such as Duvall).
Is such a trade possible without the Sox reacquiring Song first (at least on paper)? As far as I can tell, the Sox currently have no rights to Song and thus can't really trade him officially. I would think the only thing they can do is promise they'll refuse to accept if the Phillies offer him back, but that still would require the Phillies to expose him to waivers and potentially lose him that way.
 

deythur

New Member
Is such a trade possible without the Sox reacquiring Song first (at least on paper)? As far as I can tell, the Sox currently have no rights to Song and thus can't really trade him officially. I would think the only thing they can do is promise they'll refuse to accept if the Phillies offer him back, but that still would require the Phillies to expose him to waivers and potentially lose him that way.
Here is what it says on MLB.com:

Clubs may trade a player selected in the Rule 5 Draft, but the same restrictions apply to the player's new organization. However, a club may also work out a trade with the Rule 5 pick's original club to acquire his full rights, thereby allowing him to be optioned to the Minors under traditional circumstances.

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/rule-5-draft

Its a little vague but this is where my idea of trading his rights came from. If im interpreting this wrong, that's my bad.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,563
Such a trade would still require Song to completely clear waivers. The Red Sox have no control over Song unless the Phillies offer him back after he clears waivers. Even if the Red Sox claimed Song off waivers, the major-league roster stipulations would still apply until Song completely clears waivers.
Players only pass through waivers if they're removed from a team's 40 man roster... it's just confusing in the case of Rule 5 players because they can't be demoted from the 26-man roster without also be removed from the 40 man roster.

Rule 5 selections get traded (1) immediately after getting drafted, (2) during the season and even (3) traded to the drafting team they are already with from the team they were drafted from in exchange for full rights (wish I could think of a real world example, but it's not uncommon). None of those involve the player passing through waivers unless the acquiring team in the first two scenarios wishes to option them. In the third scenario, the point of the trade is so the acquiring team can option them.
 

Diamond Don Aase

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 16, 2001
1,099
Merrimack Valley
Rule 5 selections get traded (1) immediately after getting drafted, (2) during the season and even (3) traded to the drafting team they are already with from the team they were drafted from in exchange for full rights (wish I could think of a real world example, but it's not uncommon).
I can find four 21st-century examples of Rule 5 draftees that were traded from their original club to the drafting club. Each of the three most recent examples I could find— Scott Diamond (2010 draft), R.A. Dickey (2008 draft), and Evan Meek (2007 draft)— were traded only after being offered to their original clubs. According to MLB rules 5(g)(1)(B) and 5(g)(1)(C), a player can only be offered to their original club (C) if outright assignment waivers have first been granted (B). The least recent example, Willy Taveras (2003 draft), spent most of the 2004 season in the Astros’ minor leagues but I can find no record of a corresponding transaction between Taveras’s original Cleveland club and the drafting Houston club.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,563
MAJORLEAGUERULES MLR5(g):
(1) RESTRICTIONS. From the date of selection to the close of the subsequent Major League championship season, no player selected in the Major League phase of the Rule 5 Selection Meeting shall be released or directed to perform for or otherwise transferred to any Minor League Club until:
  • (A) the player has received a 15-day trial period during spring training and/or the championship season of the year following the player’s selection;
  • (B) Outright Assignment waivers have first been granted on the player’s contract in accordance with Rule 8 (Major League Waivers) (see, e.g., Rule 8(d)(3) (Restrictions on Waiver Requests)); and
  • (C) outright assignment of the player has then been offered to and rejected by the Major League Club from which the player’s contract was selected.
5(g)(1) specifically addresses releasing or transferring the selected player's contract to one of the selecting team's minor league affiliates. It does not address trades. All 5(g)(1)(C) is saying is that if the selecting team has decided not to keep the player on their active roster, he must be placed on outright waivers before the team can possibly assign him to the minors. If he's passed through unclaimed and the club he had been selected from also says "thanks, but we don't want him back". then the selecting team has his rights free and clear and can reassign him within their system.

In other words, if the Phillies decided not to keep Noah Song on the 26-man roster, they place him on waivers. If no other team claimed him, he'd be offered back to Boston. If Boston declined to take him back, then the Phillies would be free to do what they want with him free of any other rules of the draft.

It doesn't address trading the player. Trading a player doesn't require placing him on waivers. It's only that the Rule 5 requirements are still attached and traded with the player... unless he's traded back to the team he's been selected from (which would end the player's Rule 5 journey), but I don't recall ever hearing of that scenario happening.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,615
Back in the 20th Century, I am pretty sure the Sox brought in John Trautwein on a Rule 5 claim. After spending about 2/3 of the season on the major league roster and pitching very sparingly, the Sox made a trade with his original team.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
Back in the 20th Century, I am pretty sure the Sox brought in John Trautwein on a Rule 5 claim. After spending about 2/3 of the season on the major league roster and pitching very sparingly, the Sox made a trade with his original team.
Yes. Trautwein was given back to the Expos and then traded to the Red Sox on the same day. Interestingly, after the trade, he never appeared in a major league game again.

trautwein.jpg
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
846
(B)Austin Texas
Would you want to add this Minor Leager and this line to your big club bullpen when you're in a playoff race?

IP: 11, ERA: 7.36, WHIP: 2.09, K: 16

By the way, is there a gentleman's agreement to not claim a Rule 5 player going thru waivers on return to his original club? Anyone recall a team claiming a Rule 5 returnee?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,317
Would you want to add this Minor Leager and this line to your big club bullpen when you're in a playoff race?

IP: 11, ERA: 7.36, WHIP: 2.09, K: 16

By the way, is there a gentleman's agreement to not claim a Rule 5 player going thru waivers on return to his original club? Anyone recall a team claiming a Rule 5 returnee?
Well, it seems very unlikely that a contender would add him. Maybe a team like the A’s or Tigers or Royals? Even then, I’m skeptical. It’s not like Song is young.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
15,255
Well, it seems very unlikely that a contender would add him. Maybe a team like the A’s or Tigers or Royals? Even then, I’m skeptical. It’s not like Song is young.
He's not young... but he has a # of cost-controlled years ahead of him.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
Would you want to add this Minor Leager and this line to your big club bullpen when you're in a playoff race?

IP: 11, ERA: 7.36, WHIP: 2.09, K: 16

By the way, is there a gentleman's agreement to not claim a Rule 5 player going thru waivers on return to his original club? Anyone recall a team claiming a Rule 5 returnee?
No gentleman's agreement. Typically players who don't stick with the team that drafted them are clearly not ready for prime time, so the vast majority make it back to their original teams as a result. Looking back through the last decade or so of draftees, there are only a couple that were claimed on waivers but a bunch that were sent back to their original team only to be traded back to the drafting team. My guess is it's those types of players (keepers if you will) that get claimed by other teams. I have my doubts that Song is one of those.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,317
He's not young... but he has a # of cost-controlled years ahead of him.
Sure, but that’s true of any pitcher with little to no service time. I’m just not sure what the upside with Song is. He’s missed so much development time. He’s 26, and has thrown 28 professional innings in 5 years.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
15,255
Sure, but that’s true of any pitcher with little to no service time. I’m just not sure what the upside with Song is. He’s missed so much development time. He’s 26, and has thrown 28 professional innings in 5 years.
That's why he would have more upside than most 26 y/o pitchers.

I just don't think there are that are enough other people in those organizations with higher upside that it's not worth the flyer.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,220
That's why he would have more upside than most 26 y/o pitchers.

I just don't think there are that are enough other people in those organizations with higher upside that it's not worth the flyer.
Maybe they keep him for the season, but unless there is tangible progress I have a hard time believing they couldn't find someone more interesting in the Rule 5 draft with his 40 man slot. I think he ends up getting returned sooner or later.
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
367
That's why he would have more upside than most 26 y/o pitchers.

I just don't think there are that are enough other people in those organizations with higher upside that it's not worth the flyer.
So glad the Phillies DFA'd him! I'd love to see him in a Red Sox uniform, sooner than later!
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,696
I asked this a few days ago - even if Song does make it back to the Sox, given the current state of the farm system, does he even rate a 40-man spot right now? We already have some pretty good prospects who are likely to be exposed to this winter's Rule 5 draft unless Bloom can use them as trade fodder.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
15,255
I asked this a few days ago - even if Song does make it back to the Sox, given the current state of the farm system, does he even rate a 40-man spot right now? We already have some pretty good prospects who are likely to be exposed to this winter's Rule 5 draft unless Bloom can use them as trade fodder.
He doesn't.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,119
The Red Sox are the only team that doesn’t require a 40 man spot for Song.

That being said I’d be shocked if a bottom tier team doesn’t add him very quickly.