Jump to content

This is A Mess (Mega RANT Thread)


eddie83

Recommended Posts

I know it is done but the reward at the end of the day doesn't seem to compare to the risk/complications of having to keep a player on the 25 man roster.

As for talent all I am saying is minor league free agents is an easier way to fill voids in an organization. Even Joey Bats who was a rule 5 didn't make it in the organization that drafted him. If others have a list of rule 5 guys that have performed with that team for multiple years my opinion could be persuaded. Just can't recall too many examples of what I would consider an impact type player.

You dont get impact players from the Rule 5 draft. You can get decent role players. And every team needs role players.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
You dont get impact players from the Rule 5 draft. You can get decent role players. And every team needs role players.

Not usually, and not as often since they tweaked the eligibility requirements a few years back. But Roberto Clemente was a Rule 5 pick. So were Johan Santana, Paul Blair, Darrell Evans, Jose Bautista, Josh Hamilton, Bobby Bonilla, Dan Uggla...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont get impact players from the Rule 5 draft. You can get decent role players. And every team needs role players.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Well if I'm looking at it from that way I want no part of the rule 5. Personally I think of it as a chance to get a young player in your organization that hopefully will develop into at least a regular on a major league roster. We have 2 players Flaherty and McFaraland that have been on the 25 man roster more than they haven't been since we drafted them. Are they cheap and serviceable, YES. Could they be replaced by another player just bouncing around every year, I think so. Just don't see the point of drafting a player unless they have a better high side than these 2 have shown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which gets us back to the main problem, drafting and development of players. We can go round and round with all of the moves that should or shouldn't be made but it really comes down to this. It's amazing how we constantly get back to this.

It's the primary reason why the whole "Would you rather a team win or build a good farm system" dichotomy is so misguided. It's also why a lucky playoff run in 2012 may prove to be quite damaging over the long haul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drungo, of those guys how many succeeded with the team that drafted them? I know Bautista wasn't but not sure after that.

It's wholly irrelevant. They were all grabbed under a system that no longer exists. It's pointless and a bit misleading to even involve them in a conversation about recent Rule 5 strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also why a lucky playoff run in 2012 may prove to be quite damaging over the long haul.

Damaging if you don't count the enjoyable baseball played from 2013-today as a reward by itself. If you gave me a choice between winning a lot of games in 2013-present and having a highly functional farm system I'll take the wins and the prospect of fixing what's wrong down the road. Do know what's vastly more damaging than a miracle 2012? Losing every year from 1998-2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's wholly irrelevant. They were all grabbed under a system that no longer exists. It's pointless and a bit misleading to even involve them in a conversation about recent Rule 5 strategies.

No longer exists? Didn't they just tweak the rules about eligibility? Was there some larger change I'm not fully aware of? Sorry for once again being pointless and misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damaging if you don't count the enjoyable baseball played from 2013-today as a reward by itself. If you gave me a choice between winning a lot of games in 2013-present and having a highly functional farm system I'll take the wins and the prospect of fixing what's wrong down the road. Do know what's vastly more damaging than a miracle 2012? Losing every year from 1998-2011.

I agree, it's a very easy decision when you pretend that the only potential courses of action are exactly what the Orioles have done and losing in embarrassing fashion from 2012-2014. Strawmen and loaded decks always make decisions easy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No longer exists? Didn't they just tweak the rules about eligibility? Was there some larger change I'm not fully aware of? Sorry for once again being pointless and misleading.

The eligibility requirements are the whole game, sir. The type of players you listed no longer find their way to eligibility for the Rule 5. I am sure you know this -- I'm not sure why you are using those players as some sort of support for the Rule 5 having potentially huge payouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, it's a very easy decision when you pretend that the only potential courses of action are exactly what the Orioles have done and losing in embarrassing fashion from 2012-2014. Strawmen and loaded decks always make decisions easy...

I'm not sure what you want here? You want me to say I'd rather the Orioles have built a strong farm system and be better set up for the next several years? Yes, of course I want that. All of us do. But what frustrates the hell out of me is the idea that we shouldn't accept anything except unconditional success. Winning without setting up the future with an obvious and well-vetted plan is mostly a failure. Heck, a lot of the time I feel like when I'm arguing with you that winning is almost irrelevant - if you build the talent factory of course eventually you'll win, and if you don't build it right then winning is kind of dumb luck that barely even counts as winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eligibility requirements are the whole game, sir. The type of players you listed no longer find their way to eligibility for the Rule 5. I am sure you know this -- I'm not sure why you are using those players as some sort of support for the Rule 5 having potentially huge payouts.

You read too much into everything. I'm not some faux-Oracle always giving forth supremely well-researched evidence to support my (usually devious, anti-Stotle) positions. All I know is that there are very good players, and one HOFer, who were once Rule 5ers, and that sometime a few years ago they tweaked the eligibility requirements. If that now means that there were never be another impact player come out of the Rule 5 then I've learned something today. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you want here? You want me to say I'd rather the Orioles have built a strong farm system and be better set up for the next several years? Yes, of course I want that. All of us do. But what frustrates the hell out of me is the idea that we shouldn't accept anything except unconditional success. Winning without setting up the future with an obvious and well-vetted plan is mostly a failure. Heck, a lot of the time I feel like when I'm arguing with you that winning is almost irrelevant - if you build the talent factory of course eventually you'll win, and if you don't build it right then winning is kind of dumb luck that barely even counts as winning.

I think you are creating that paradigm yourself. My being critical of aspects of how a team is run doesn't come close to "demanding unconditional success." I have no issue with winning at the expense of a sustainable process, but I'm not sure why winning means I'm no longer permitted to point out why I believe a particular process is unsustainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You read too much into everything. I'm not some faux-Oracle always giving forth supremely well-researched evidence to support my (usually devious, anti-Stotle) positions. All I know is that there are very good players, and one HOFer, who were once Rule 5ers, and that sometime a few years ago they tweaked the eligibility requirements. If that now means that there were never be another impact player come out of the Rule 5 then I've learned something today. Thank you.

The eligibility revisions went into effect almost a decade ago, which is why your examples are dated. I don't think you are anti-Stotle at all, or devious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you want here? You want me to say I'd rather the Orioles have built a strong farm system and be better set up for the next several years? Yes, of course I want that. All of us do. But what frustrates the hell out of me is the idea that we shouldn't accept anything except unconditional success. Winning without setting up the future with an obvious and well-vetted plan is mostly a failure. Heck, a lot of the time I feel like when I'm arguing with you that winning is almost irrelevant - if you build the talent factory of course eventually you'll win, and if you don't build it right then winning is kind of dumb luck that barely even counts as winning.

Personally I think this is brilliantly said and very true.

Am I upset the O's let an opportunity slip through their fingers to take that next step and build on next year? Yea a little, but what concerns me far more is the fact that our farm system is just not good. You cannot be a cost conscious organization and win if you cannot develop talent. What allows the TB Rays to not have to spend and be competitive is that they have a as you put it "talent factory" down there. Right now the Yankees and Boston comparative to us are also talent factories. Both are now ranked top ten farm systems. Even the Jays are ranked ahead of us after they supposedly gave up the farm. We would be lucky to see maybe 3 or 4 of our top ten prospects even register in their top 10.

I guess what I am concerned about is this. If we are going to be cost conscious in our approach to landing talent, that is fine but you better be churning out the talent in the minors. If your not willing to buy that talent and your not developing it, I don't care how much we trust DD to find diamonds in the rough, its not gonna work. Its worked till now because there has been enough solid core players. It also worked cause we traded prospects to supplement that core when what we threw against the wall did not stick. If Davis, Chen and O'Day walk and we do little to replace them in the FA market this team is in real trouble. We do not have the answers in the minors.

I am ok with taking a hit for few years if means we can build that talent factory. I just wonder why it is that here we are again looking at a farm system that comparative to most other MLB teams is pretty poor again. Till we fix that, we are going to struggle in this division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...