Rule 5 Strategies

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, maybenxtyr said:

I'm not against the process, but I don't like the way they hold on to the players.

There is no reason for Flash to still be on the team. Same could have been said for TJ. 

You pick up a guy and try it out and be willing to cut bait when they inevitably fail.

Although T.J. has his lowest WHIP of his career this season  and performing adequately in his LH bullpen pitching for the Diamondbacks. 

[Beef Supreme]

1 hour ago, maybenxtyr said:

I'm not against the process, but I don't like the way they hold on to the players.

There is no reason for Flash to still be on the team. Same could have been said for TJ. 

You pick up a guy and try it out and be willing to cut bait when they inevitably fail.

Like Johan Santana inevitably failed? Dan Uggla? Darren O'Day?
I guess all players fail at the ends of their careers, but these and other Rule V picks have enjoyed many seasons of success. Not all are failures.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

Like Johan Santana inevitably failed? Dan Uggla? Darren O'Day?
I guess all players fail at the ends of their careers, but these and other Rule V picks have enjoyed many seasons of success. Not all are failures.

At least some of those (Santana for sure) fall under the old rule V restrictions.

You would have been better off referencing someone like DeShields.

[Ruzious]

I read a discussion the other day about the Braves having a big problem protecting only 40 players - because their system is so deep.  There might be an opportunity there to trade for a couple of their players who the Braves would otherwise need to protect.  Then again, I don't know what the O's situation will be.  

Braves really need an OFer to go with Inciarti (sp?) and Acuna, and they are loaded with pitching prospects.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Ruzious said:

I read a discussion the other day about the Braves having a big problem protecting only 40 players - because their system is so deep.  There might be an opportunity there to trade for a couple of their players who the Braves would otherwise need to protect.  Then again, I don't know what the O's situation will be.  

Braves really need an OFer to go with Inciarti (sp?) and Acuna, and they are loaded with pitching prospects.

Astros were in a similar situation recently.

 

[ReclaimTheCrown]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

They could have put him on their 40.

Sure. They couldve and in retrospect probably should've protected him, though I don't know their 40 man composition at the time. And clearly they gambled on the known injury. That said, there are a few reasons I'd be irked if I was the Tribe. If I recall correctly, the existing injury was described as a shoulder issue, but he was felled  for four months by what we called an elbow issue. (Originally cropped up in camp, but got a PRP in May, see https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/fantasy/baseball/news/orioles-anthony-santander-successfully-receives-elbow-treatment/amp/). Obviously different injuries happen, but just weird we stopped hearing about the shoulder. Also, we let him hit all during spring training (presumably to evaluate the bat, as that'd be the reason we want him), and only late in camp did we DL him to work on rehabbing whatever arm issue he had. Further, the issue ended up keeping him out, conveniently for us, until right about now when we could easily split his 90 day requirement over two seasons. I'm not saying there wasn't an injury (shoulder, elbow?) to be dealt with, but I'd just be a bit suspicious of all the timing. 

Look, I'm certainly glad the O's are where we are, because we are positioned to keep him long term and he looks like he could be a find. Moreover, I think most people suspected some fuzzy maneuvering was going to be done to keep Santander in orange. And I don't know that Cleveland has any real recourse here. But I think it'd be foolish to think they're not a little suspicious. And I wouldn't blame them. 

And to the poster regarding Hunter Harvey, that's a fine comp. I can't imagine he isn't on our 40 this offseason.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

 

Some here believe that what Baltimore did was unethical and that the rest of the league frowns upon their acquisition of the injured Santander. I disagree on both counts.

Exactly who said that?   It's a new one on me.

[Beef Supreme]

Just now, Frobby said:

Exactly who said that?   It's a new one on me.

From a different thread. Not naming names...

[Beef Supreme]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

At least some of those (Santana for sure) fall under the old rule V restrictions.

You would have been better off referencing someone like DeShields.

OK, but it's not like I went back to Roberto Clemente or Grover Cleveland Alexander.

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

OK, but it's not like I went back to Roberto Clemente or Grover Cleveland Alexander.

Didn't say otherwise. 

It wasn't a poor list at all.

[Beef Supreme]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Didn't say otherwise. 

It wasn't a poor list at all.

The 2006 CBA provided teams one additional year of protection before players could be exposed to the draft. O'Day (2008 by Mets) would meet the criterion as would Odubel Herrara and Ender Inciarte. Also, I think Josh Hamilton and Joakim Soria (both 2006) would qualify, though both had peculiar circumstances that affected their availability in the draft.
My point is that just because a player is  Rule V pick does not mean he is necessarily going to fail as an MLB player, even under the new rules. We agree that there have been more failures than successes amongst the draftees, but they are not doomed, imo. I am hopeful Santander will prove to be the best of the Orioles' picks of the past decade.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

The 2006 CBA provided teams one additional year of protection before players could be exposed to the draft. O'Day (2008 by Mets) would meet the criterion as would Odubel Herrara and Ender Inciarte. Also, I think Josh Hamilton and Joakim Soria (both 2006) would qualify, though both had peculiar circumstances that affected their availability in the draft.
My point is that just because a player is  Rule V pick does not mean he is necessarily going to fail as an MLB player, even under the new rules. We agree that there have been more failures than successes amongst the draftees, but they are not doomed, imo. I am hopeful Santander will prove to be the best of the Orioles' picks of the past decade.

I surrender!  I wasn't disagreeing with you in the first place.  I just felt your list of examples needed a little work.

[Beef Supreme]

18 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I surrender!  I wasn't disagreeing with you in the first place.  I just felt your list of examples needed a little work.

I understood you were not disagreeing with me. Your comment did prompt me to do a little more work. And I am glad I did. It helped my understanding, at least.

[maybenxtyr]

3 hours ago, tntoriole said:

Although T.J. has his lowest WHIP of his career this season  and performing adequately in his LH bullpen pitching for the Diamondbacks. 

We're you satisfied with his time in Baltimore though? I wasn't against him on the team, but  comes a point when the performance is  equal to the salary.

[maybenxtyr]

3 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

Like Johan Santana inevitably failed? Dan Uggla? Darren O'Day?
I guess all players fail at the ends of their careers, but these and other Rule V picks have enjoyed many seasons of success. Not all are failures.

Never said they were all failures. I should have said if they fail. Is that better? 

Flash has reached a point for Baltimore where it would be in their best interest to move on and find a cheaper utility player.