Jump to content

Buck: "We're going to grind the heck out of the Rule 5 draft."


stef

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"When I first got here, I tried to get the OK on instructional league and mini-camp. Now, it's automatic. It's who we are. We're going to grind the heck out of the Rule 5 draft."

Why is this stirring the pot.

When he got here, instructional league and mini-camp needed approval, probably for budget reasons, now the team believes it is needed and automatically is doing this.

Good for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When I first got here, I tried to get the OK on instructional league and mini-camp. Now, it's automatic. It's who we are. We're going to grind the heck out of the Rule 5 draft."

Why is this stirring the pot.

When he got here, instructional league and mini-camp needed approval, probably for budget reasons, now the team believes it is needed and automatically is doing this.

Good for him.

Not the instructional league and mini-camps, the rule 5 draft. Some on the OH are not enamored with tying up a roster spot with a rule 5 player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the instructional league and mini-camps, the rule 5 draft. Some on the OH are not enamored with tying up a roster spot with a rule 5 player.

LOL, got ya.

I have mixed feelings on the rule 5 draft myself.

It works on occasion, like Flash, but in some cases, it wastes a darn bench spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're essentially 3-for-3 in the Rule 5 in the last 3 years.

Flaherty is obviously enormously useful and has been one of the only consistent playoff producers in both playoff years.

McFarland was better than 1st round pick Brian Matusz this year, for crying out loud.

Almanzar got injured and then we lost him, but then got back in a trade, and he's at least a halfway decent power bat placeholder in AAA.

Sorry Dan, disagree with you on Almanzar.

He wasn't ready for primetime, even if he had stayed healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Dan, disagree with you on Almanzar.

He wasn't ready for primetime, even if he had stayed healthy.

The Orioles got a free (25K is pretty much free in MLB dollars) good look at him, and apparently liked what they saw - hence the later trade for him. Jury is still out on what Almanzar turns into, but I don't see how anyone can say it was a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Orioles got a free (25K is pretty much free in MLB dollars) good look at him, and apparently liked what they saw - hence the later trade for him. Jury is still out on what Almanzar turns into, but I don't see how anyone can say it was a bad move.

No sir, not saying it was a bad move.

However, at this point, it's a non move, at least IMO.

Dan was pointing out successes in rule 5, and I dont consider this a success.

Yet.

He may very well be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sir, not saying it was a bad move.

However, at this point, it's a non move, at least IMO.

Dan was pointing out successes in rule 5, and I dont consider this a success.

Yet.

He may very well be.

Ultimately they had to trade for him. It doesn't count as a rule V success in my book even if he pans out (he won't pan out.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately they had to trade for him. It doesn't count as a rule V success in my book even if he pans out (he won't pan out.).

We would not have wanted to trade for him without the extended look. I disagree. I very much enjoyed watching him in Spring Training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...