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

"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."

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2014/10/showalter-on-duquette-hiring-the-timing-was-right-with-everybody.html

Buck, stirring the pot!

Ugh. I'm ready for more Orioles baseball already. It's going to be a long offseason.

"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."

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2014/10/showalter-on-duquette-hiring-the-timing-was-right-with-everybody.html

Buck, stirring the pot!

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.

"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.

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.

With the roster the way it is constructed, it would make sense to take a chance on a pitcher. There is a spot or two open in the bullpen.

With the roster the way it is constructed, it would make sense to take a chance on a pitcher. There is a spot or two open in the bullpen.

But it would be the equivalent of adding someone out of options. You need a couple guys in the pen you can send down for fresh arms.

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.

Sorry Dan, disagree with you on Almanzar.

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

Fortunately, his "injury" wasn't severe.

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.

There are several good players in the Houston organization that they will lose because their organization is bottom heavy.

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.

There are several good players in the Houston organization that they will lose because their organization is bottom heavy.

and their FO is clueless on.

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.).

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.