Fan Graphs: Getting the Extra Year of Team Control is Good and Proper Business (Schoop)

[weams]

The CBA does not give players the right to free agency after six years of team control. It gives him free agency after at least six years of team control, and that has developed into an accepted minimum of seven actual years for almost every player in baseball. There are very likely better ways to codify this so that teams wouldn?t have to option out top prospects for a few weeks at the beginning of their first year, but the first step to modifying the rules would be to accept that the window of team control is, in all practicality, actually seven years.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-myth-of-six-years-of-team-control/

[weams]

Much has been said about Schoop's clock being started here. Dave Cameron explains why and how EVERYONE does it.

Our old friend disagrees. His spectacular argument is...

http://eutawstreetreport.com/os-shouldnt-repeat-wieters-mistake-with-schoop/

He didn’t slow down during Spring Training either, posting a .333/.395/.513/.908 line.

So what did the Orioles do? Surely this player would start the season after putting up those type of numbers. After all, what was left for him in AAA?

Well, that player was of course was Matt Wieters, and once the Orioles sent him back down to AAA, they never saw that player again…the one who had those other-worldly numbers in 2008.

The Orioles had their reasons for sending him down: Scott Boras was and still is Wieters’ agent, and the Orioles figured they wanted him for more than just the six years they would have him before free agency. Andy MacPhail decided it was better to have that control than to see what Wieters could do at the MLB level immediately. Also, the team wasn’t going to win anything that year, so it made sense to them at that time to give him some more seasoning at AAA.

However the fact remains that sending Wieters to AAA to start the season derailed his track to the majors and he’s still not the same player. The Orioles do have the service time for next season, but I think they’d trade it to get anything close to the Matt Wieters that tore up AA in 2008 for this upcoming season (or for the previous several, for that matter).

Bless him if he really believe that.

[weams]

Teams can choose to forfeit one of those years of team control in exchange for a few extra weeks of production up front, but that’s simply not a good trade-off for big league teams to make, which is why almost no one does it. If the MLBPA wants to negotiate an end to service time manipulation in the next CBA, it will almost certainly have to agree to codify the seventh year of team control in order to do so. Because that seventh year of control already exists, for all intents and purposes.

Only guys like Ruben Amaro and JackZ ingnore this.

[Redskins Rick]

Only guys like Ruben Amaro and JackZ ingnore this.

Lord knows how he kept his job this long, surely, he has to be running out of rope in Philly.

[weams]

Much has been said about Schoop's clock being started here. Dave Cameron explains why and how EVERYONE does it.

Making a case for Schoop starting with the Orioles is a valid stance. Making the case that it must be done because look what keeping Matt in AAA for a bit did to him is pure wackiness.

[33rdst]

Really, this is a no brainier. Relinquishing the extra year for a few weeks of potential offense would be irresponsible IMO. The O's should be more concerned about whether their pitching staff is ready. They have plenty of offense right now. Schoop's bat could be a huge bonus when he comes up in June. We can wait.

[weams]

I respect the opinions of many people that feel that Schoop is ready and we have the perfect timing to use his skills at the MLB level. I have no time for someone who is making fake arguments to will him onto the roster. Sorry.

[Aristotelian]

I agree, you have to think rationally and long term. Ironically, the better he does, the more we want to maximize his time before free agency. If he starts immediately we only get him for six years. If we can wait til the end of May, we get him for nearly a whole extra year at the same cost. Tampa did the same with Wil Myers, Houston is doing the same with George Springer. It will be the same for every hot prospect for eternity.

Flaherty is better-than-replacement from his defense alone. The small difference between him and Schoop for two months is not going to be worth a full extra year of Schoop in his prime. If Schoop is still mashing AAA, we will see him in June and he will get his chance.

[weams]

Wieters stinks because ANDY MACPHAIL made him go to the minors for a few weeks. And the extra year means nothing!

Wow.

[glenn__davis]

Well, Trea's "logic" is obviously as ridiculous as ever.

But putting that aside, I will continue to argue against the "one size fits all" approach that some take to this. If you are a rebuilding team, than absolutely I agree with it. But if you are expecting to be in a dogfight to the end, as the Orioles certainly expect themselves to be, then you need to have your best 25-man roster up for the entire season. If that includes Schoop, so be it.

Now maybe they feel he's not that guy right now, and I'd certainly be OK with it.

But he shouldn't be left off of the team for service time issues. 5-6 years is an enternity in baseball. Who knows what his fortunes or the team's fortunes will look like in that time.

[Aristotelian]

And yeah, that article is insane. Wieters is a case in point. The last thing we would want to trade is a few months of Wieters in 2009 to have him going up for free agency a year early.

[theobird]

Really, this is a no brainier. Relinquishing the extra year for a few weeks of potential offense would be irresponsible IMO. The O's should be more concerned about whether their pitching staff is ready. They have plenty of offense right now. Schoop's bat could be a huge bonus when he comes up in June. We can wait.

We have to wait, anything else is just stupidity. Jon Schoop is a long term piece for this team. Giving up a full year of control for just a few weeks is not an option.

[weams]

See this I can see

Slade on March 25, 2014 at 12:12 am said:

Pretty sure Wieters disappointment as a hitter has absolutely nothing to do with the O’s keeping him down two extra months in 2009. Hitting AA and Spring Training pitching doesn’t guarantee major league success for anyone no matter how well they do it. Also, I’m pretty happy about having Wieters around another year after this.

However, I do agree with you on Schoop. This team is a contender now, unlike in 2009, and Schoop appears to be our best option to start at second base.

REPLY ↓

[weams]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Someone is suggesting Wieters didn't become a superstar because he was sent down to Norfolk for two months. Ridiculous!

I cannot believe they featured that article! Oh well. Fun. Something to talk about.

[Can_of_corn]

Is that guy JTrea?

Yes, yes it is.