Orioles Lose Zach Pop and Grey Fenter in Rule Five

[BohKnowsBmore]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think what you have already spent on a player should be a consideration.

The issue I have with not protecting Pop is that I think Pop is a lot more likely to be an asset going forward than the players that were added.

But I don't think it's a move that going to have an outsized impact on the team.

While sunk costs should largely be ignored in general as it pertains to forward-looking decision-making, it's worth noting that draft capital, money, effort, and coaching investments are often positively correlated with perceived upside/potential. So a criticism that teams constantly give former top picks tons of chances that a 40th rounder wouldn't get, for example, are much more complicated than team simply being enamored with draft slot.

[wildcard]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think what you have already spent on a player should be a consideration.

The issue I have with not protecting Pop is that I think Pop is a lot more likely to be an asset going forward than the players that were added.

But I don't think it's a move that going to have an outsized impact on the team.

25 year old Connor Greene is throwing 97 this spring and Elias picked him up for nothing.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

25 year old Connor Greene is throwing 97 this spring and Elias picked him up for nothing.

And?

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 hour ago, MCO'sFan said:

No doubt and he is not a lock to reach his potential. I think the reason he was left off was ME was counting on him being passed over due to the TJ. It was two years ago and it was a silly gamble in MHO. It is not the end of the world as the O's are loaded with the relief pitcher prospect types. Just an unforced error in my opinion. They had a bit of a roster crunch this past offseason but it was nothing like the (good) problems that is coming during the next few offseasons. 

Not to quibble too much over wording, but I'd say it's more of a calculated low level risk (which doesn't always work out, but you accept it with the idea that making calculated risks will be to the club's net benefit in aggregate) than an "unforced error." 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

While sunk costs should largely be ignored in general as it pertains to forward-looking decision-making, it's worth noting that draft capital, money, effort, and coaching investments are often positively correlated with perceived upside/potential. So a criticism that teams constantly give former top picks tons of chances that a 40th rounder wouldn't get, for example, are much more complicated than team simply being enamored with draft slot.

Right but that doesn't mean you give a player more consideration because of the capital, just that the reason you spent the capital might still be a factor. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Right but that doesn't mean you give a player more consideration because of the capital, just that the reason you spent the capital might still be a factor. 

Yes

[NCRaven]

37 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And?

I think he's saying...

And, the Zach Pops of the world can be replaced by waiver wire pickups.  He's probably right.

[BRobinsonfan]

41 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Right but that doesn't mean you give a player more consideration because of the capital, just that the reason you spent the capital might still be a factor. 

Why am I suddenly thinking of Chris Davis?

[jabba72]

Not to mention Felix Bautista our 45th ranked prospect according to Fangraphs throws 100mph. 

[MCO'sFan]

2 hours ago, wildcard said:

I agree that Elias probably did not protect Pop because he thought he may not be picked with the TJ surgery and the layoff.   But I also think another factor was that he is a one inning reliever.  Elias picked two starters in the Rule 5 draft because he is looking for length.    Also in December Pop said he was throwing 92-93  nineteen months again the  surgery.    He may improve from that if he can get back to what he was before the surgery but its a gamble.  92-93 is pretty easy to find in a reliever.

The fact that you make lucid and intelligent points here undermines the emotional and irrational posts I made... stop it! 

[MCO'sFan]

1 hour ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Not to quibble too much over wording, but I'd say it's more of a calculated low level risk (which doesn't always work out, but you accept it with the idea that making calculated risks will be to the club's net benefit in aggregate) than an "unforced error." 

While everything you said is true and I don't want to exaggerate Pop's potential or how easy or difficult he may be to replace. My original point was that he could have protected him and still achieved his other "goals." There are  still have guys on the 40 man that I think should have been cut loose before having to make the calculated low level risk (to use you words) that's why I used the phrase unforced error. There is something to be said for flexibility with the 40 man so I get that it doesn't hurt to have a guy or two that are easily to let go. I just value Pop's potential as a late inning reliever over other guys still on the 40 man at the time of the R5D

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, wildcard said:

I agree that Elias probably did not protect Pop because he thought he may not be picked with the TJ surgery and the layoff.   But I also think another factor was that he is a one inning reliever.  Elias picked two starters in the Rule 5 draft because he is looking for length.    Also in December Pop said he was throwing 92-93  nineteen months again the  surgery.    He may improve from that if he can get back to what he was before the surgery but its a gamble.  92-93 is pretty easy to find in a reliever.

Considering he was sitting 95-97 before the injury, that's not good that long after the surgery. It certainly may have led to him being made available. The fact that he hasn't pitched at all also is some indication that not everything is right with him.

[MCO'sFan]

1 hour ago, NCRaven said:

I think he's saying...

And, the Zach Pops of the world can be replaced by waiver wire pickups.  He's probably right.

You certainly may be right but I value his potential higher than that. If he stays 92-93 and doesn't develop then you are correct.

[MCO'sFan]

2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Considering he was sitting 95-97 before the injury, that's not good that long after the surgery. It certainly may have led to him being made available. The fact that he hasn't pitched at all also is some indication that not everything is right with him.

He hasn't pitched in games since the TJ and It will be interesting to see if the velo comes back assuming he's healthy. I want to see where he is at after building up arm strength by pitching competitive innings and being in a competitive environment. As most on the board know game velo and pen velo can differ significantly for a lot of guys. 

[interloper]

On 3/11/2021 at 9:45 AM, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think what you have already spent on a player should be a consideration.

The issue I have with not protecting Pop is that I think Pop is a lot more likely to be an asset going forward than the players that were added.

But I don't think it's a move that going to have an outsized impact on the team.

No, I agree. I guess I was thinking less monetary spending and more just, you drafted and developed this guy and you've done everything you can to get him healthy and effective. Ultimately, if Pop's velocity wasn't there as some folks are reporting, then he's much less useful. Not that I think Ashton Goudeau is a great use of a roster spot...