Mar 28, 2011, 3:22 PM EDT
Rule 5 pick Scott Diamond wasn’t going to make the Twins, but rather than having to offer him back to the Braves as per the draft’s requirements the two sides have worked out a trade.
Minnesota will be able to keep Diamond and can now send him to the minors as if he weren’t acquired in the Rule 5 draft, but the price was a remarkably steep one, as the Braves receive 2009 second-round pick Billy Bullock in exchange.
I ranked Bullock as the 10th-best prospect in the Twins’ farm system, whereas I had Diamond ranked 36th on the same list, so this deal is a head-scratcher. Bullock was the 70th overall pick just two years ago and is a reliever with a mid-90s fastball who’s racked up 150 strikeouts in 108 innings.
He has control issues, but projects as a potential late-inning reliever. To trade him for someone with mid-rotation starter upside who was left off the 40-man roster and available to any team in the Rule 5 draft is odd enough, but to make that trade when the Twins could have simply kept Diamond around for nothing as a long reliever or mop-up man is doubly confusing.
Helluva move by the Braves though, picking up a high-upside reliever prospect for a guy they didn’t even protect from the Rule 5 draft three months ago.
- The Cubs to announce the hiring of Joe Maddon on Monday 38
- Cubs fire manager Rick Renteria, clear way for Joe Maddon 69
- HardballTalk’s Top 150 Free Agents for 2015 24
- Joe Maddon’s pursuit of the Cubs job called “a classless act” by some in the game 121
- Kevin Youkilis opts for retirement at age 35 31
- 10 nominees for Hall of Fame’s Veterans Committee announced 108
- Bochy’s championship resume ranks among game’s best 19
- Alex Gordon would have been a dead duck had he tried to score 83
- A veteran says enough is enough when it comes to tributes for the soldiers (282)
- Jose Canseco shot his middle finger off (148)
- Oscar Taveras dies after car accident in the Dominican Republic (140)
- Joe Maddon’s pursuit of the Cubs job called “a classless act” by some in the game (122)
- Fox’s World Series broadcast gets a low grade from The New York Times (110)