Is Santander the best of the Rule 5’s?

[AceKing]

2 hours ago, TheThinkingOriole said:

It's more of a philosophy of trying to find a diamond in the rough. The team did it during the great years of 2011-2016 along with 2017 and 2018 when there was an expectation of contending.

Doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.  And if Santander and someother AAAA guys were our big get.....still not convinced it is the correct strategy to Win.

[Moose Milligan]

13 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

Moose, I don't disagree but the rule 5 usually has lower expectations anyway. The players aren't typically ready to be at the majors. They are taken from the rich and the poor tries to hold onto them as away to improve the talent base. Most are returned to the minors for more seasoning the following season.

So far at 22, which is still young for a major leaguer by most standards. Santander has a .280 BA, 5 HR, 20ish RBI, and an OPS of .750 in 150ish ABs. I think it's safe to assume he can continue to improve some more into his late 20s. 

If he ends up with a .280-.290 AVG, and a .340-.350 OBP, has 20-25 HRs , 100ish RBI, and a .800 OPS I think everyone would agree that he was a nice find. 

And basically picked up by the Orioles for a bare minimum expense

Thoughts?

Well if it's a low bar, what are we talking about here?

I agree that Santander is looking like he could be a nice pickup.  I just think the rule is inherently silly.  I get it that it's "Robin Hood-ing" and allowing teams to improve their talent base, but the fact that they have to stay on the ML roster for an entire season is dumb.  Forcing a team to keep a player on the ML roster who, as you said, isn't typically ready doesn't do anyone any favors.  It doesn't do the ML team any favors, it doesn't do the player any favors.  I'd argue that the player who typically isn't ready is going to be most likely the 25th man on a team and not get a lot of playing time and that his time would be better off in AA or AAA.  The team acquiring that player possibly improves its talent level on a system wide basis and the player gets more playing time, getting the seasoning that you mentioned that they inevitably need.

I'd further amend the stupid rule so that if a player isn't called up by a certain time, then he can be offered back to his original team.  That rule would move him to the front of the line when a team has to dip into the minors to bring someone up but doesn't force the team to keep the player on the 25 man. 

As I said, I think the rule is inherently silly.  You said yourself that the Rule 5 has lower expectations anyway and that most of them are returned to the minors for more seasoning the following season.  SO WHY #$%^ DO YOU FORCE A TEAM TO KEEP THEM ON THE 25 MAN ROSTER FOR A WHOLE SEASON?  Mind you, I'm not yelling at you @Roll Tide, it's just that this has never made any sense.  

 

[LA2]

Homer, triple, and two singles today while playing both CF and RF. Has his time come?

[LA2]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well if it's a low bar, what are we talking about here?

I agree that Santander is looking like he could be a nice pickup.  I just think the rule is inherently silly.  I get it that it's "Robin Hood-ing" and allowing teams to improve their talent base, but the fact that they have to stay on the ML roster for an entire season is dumb.  Forcing a team to keep a player on the ML roster who, as you said, isn't typically ready doesn't do anyone any favors.  It doesn't do the ML team any favors, it doesn't do the player any favors.  I'd argue that the player who typically isn't ready is going to be most likely the 25th man on a team and not get a lot of playing time and that his time would be better off in AA or AAA.  The team acquiring that player possibly improves its talent level on a system wide basis and the player gets more playing time, getting the seasoning that you mentioned that they inevitably need.

I'd further amend the stupid rule so that if a player isn't called up by a certain time, then he can be offered back to his original team.  That rule would move him to the front of the line when a team has to dip into the minors to bring someone up but doesn't force the team to keep the player on the 25 man. 

As I said, I think the rule is inherently silly.  You said yourself that the Rule 5 has lower expectations anyway and that most of them are returned to the minors for more seasoning the following season.  SO WHY #$%^ DO YOU FORCE A TEAM TO KEEP THEM ON THE 25 MAN ROSTER FOR A WHOLE SEASON?  Mind you, I'm not yelling at you @Roll Tide, it's just that this has never made any sense.  

 

i think reducing the season-long active roster requirement is a very good idea. But the first-in-line suggestion is too inflexible: what if the Rule-5 player doesn't play the position the team suddenly needs at that point?

[fansince1988]

Jay Gibbons was a Rule V if I'm not mistaken.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gibboja01.shtml

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, LA2 said:

i think reducing the season-long active roster requirement is a very good idea. But the first-in-line suggestion is too inflexible: what if the Rule-5 player doesn't play the position the team suddenly needs at that point?

I wasn't clear, maybe it moves them to near the front of the line.  It'd push them to the top of the list of players that could be considered for a call up.  So for example if you're a Rule 5 player that's a pitcher and are acquired...sent to the minors....and the ML team needs to make a call up, you might not be first in line but the ML team is more inclined to give you a look because after a certain amount of time you could be offered back.  At some point during the season you're probably getting a call up when someone goes down with an injury or is sent down for poor performance, etc.  

My main gripe is the season-long active roster requirement.  It's dumb and no one can convince me otherwise.

 

[atomic]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well if it's a low bar, what are we talking about here?

I agree that Santander is looking like he could be a nice pickup.  I just think the rule is inherently silly.  I get it that it's "Robin Hood-ing" and allowing teams to improve their talent base, but the fact that they have to stay on the ML roster for an entire season is dumb.  Forcing a team to keep a player on the ML roster who, as you said, isn't typically ready doesn't do anyone any favors.  It doesn't do the ML team any favors, it doesn't do the player any favors.  I'd argue that the player who typically isn't ready is going to be most likely the 25th man on a team and not get a lot of playing time and that his time would be better off in AA or AAA.  The team acquiring that player possibly improves its talent level on a system wide basis and the player gets more playing time, getting the seasoning that you mentioned that they inevitably need.

I'd further amend the stupid rule so that if a player isn't called up by a certain time, then he can be offered back to his original team.  That rule would move him to the front of the line when a team has to dip into the minors to bring someone up but doesn't force the team to keep the player on the 25 man. 

As I said, I think the rule is inherently silly.  You said yourself that the Rule 5 has lower expectations anyway and that most of them are returned to the minors for more seasoning the following season.  SO WHY #$%^ DO YOU FORCE A TEAM TO KEEP THEM ON THE 25 MAN ROSTER FOR A WHOLE SEASON?  Mind you, I'm not yelling at you @Roll Tide, it's just that this has never made any sense.  

 

The rule isn’t there for a teams benefit, it is there so teams don’t stash quality players in the minor leagues. And it does work as teams would trade guys who are ready but whom they don’t have 40 man space for instead of getting them selected in the rule 5 draft.

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well if it's a low bar, what are we talking about here?

I agree that Santander is looking like he could be a nice pickup.  I just think the rule is inherently silly.  I get it that it's "Robin Hood-ing" and allowing teams to improve their talent base, but the fact that they have to stay on the ML roster for an entire season is dumb.  Forcing a team to keep a player on the ML roster who, as you said, isn't typically ready doesn't do anyone any favors.  It doesn't do the ML team any favors, it doesn't do the player any favors.  I'd argue that the player who typically isn't ready is going to be most likely the 25th man on a team and not get a lot of playing time and that his time would be better off in AA or AAA.  The team acquiring that player possibly improves its talent level on a system wide basis and the player gets more playing time, getting the seasoning that you mentioned that they inevitably need.

I'd further amend the stupid rule so that if a player isn't called up by a certain time, then he can be offered back to his original team.  That rule would move him to the front of the line when a team has to dip into the minors to bring someone up but doesn't force the team to keep the player on the 25 man. 

As I said, I think the rule is inherently silly.  You said yourself that the Rule 5 has lower expectations anyway and that most of them are returned to the minors for more seasoning the following season.  SO WHY #$%^ DO YOU FORCE A TEAM TO KEEP THEM ON THE 25 MAN ROSTER FOR A WHOLE SEASON?  Mind you, I'm not yelling at you @Roll Tide, it's just that this has never made any sense.  

 

You really won't get any argument from me. I think the player should have to spend 60 days on the active roster. Once he achieves that you should be able to option him to your own minor league system.

[atomic]

2 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

You really won't get any argument from me. I think the player should have to spend 60 days on the active roster. Once he achieves that you should be able to option him to your own minor league system.

Defeats the whole point of the rule 5.  You could just change it to have to put the player on your 40 man roster.

[sylvester]

22 hours ago, Philip said:

1) It’s not that simple I don’t think. In order to train them I think they would have to put him on waivers first which would make him available to every team

We don’t have a replacement for him, and it would be a terrible move to dump your best defender because he’s not hitting, especially when at least two players are hitting worse.

My comment was a proposal to rule 5 change.  Ideas to rule 5 picks in the future to be address by MLB, I used Martin as an example.

[Can_of_corn]

32 minutes ago, sylvester said:

My comment was a proposal to rule 5 change.  Ideas to rule 5 picks in the future to be address by MLB, I used Martin as an example.

Why would they consider it an issue worth addressing?

[Aristotelian]

Last night was first time I watched him in CF. There was one play on a shallow fly ball right in front of him where the runner did a hesitation move around second, then burned for third. Throw was weak and runner made third easily. Announcers commented that he got diqued.

[Enjoy Terror]

15 hours ago, AceKing said:

Doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.  And if Santander and someother AAAA guys were our big get.....still not convinced it is the correct strategy to Win.

I was going to challenge and say “we aren’t the only team plucking out Rule 5 picks”, but looking at it... only bad teams that aren't competitive made selections last year.

https://www.mlb.com/news/2018-rule-5-draft-results-c301780782

[Philip]

2 hours ago, sylvester said:

My comment was a proposal to rule 5 change.  Ideas to rule 5 picks in the future to be address by MLB, I used Martin as an example.

I must’ve missed your comment, because I’m not sure what rule change you are proposing. I think the checks and balances of the current rules are good, although I would certainly consider changes that might make it better.

[Tony-OH]

On 7/20/2019 at 10:06 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

Tell that to all the metrics.

You know, it really is weird how his defensive metrics doesn't like Martin yet he passes the eyeball scouting tests. I'm really waiting on statcast to release infield defense metrics to the public to see why. I agree though, the metrics we have now put him below average but at the same time, he's a guy I'd be fine with playing SS everyday if he could OPS .680-.700.