Schoop - The Blessing.

[Roll Tide]

I'd try to swap Hardy for a good LF.

Manny-Flash-Schoop-Davis (Lombard)

Matt (Clev)

Cruz

HardyTrade-Jones-Markakis (Young,Lough)

I'm guessing he's fine this season....but do you think Schoop's glove/body size will play long term at 2B?

[mark_beckens]

No, in the long run is more important that the team is committed to winning and winning now. 7 years of his control is more important for financial reasons and that's pretty stupid for a team that hasn't won a championship in 30+ years.

They just signed Cruz and Jimenez costing us our top two draft picks. I think it would be stupid to do that then worry about Schoop's service clock. If we're going for it you don't hold back on anything now.

[BohKnowsBmore]

No, in the long run is more important that the team is committed to winning and winning now. 7 years of his control is more important for financial reasons and that's pretty stupid for a team that hasn't won a championship in 30+ years.

What do you think the difference in games won for this team is with 1/2 a season of first MLB season Schoop vs. Lombo/Flaherty?

[mark_beckens]

What do you think the difference in games won for this team is with 1/2 a season of first MLB season Schoop vs. Lombo/Flaherty?

1 game could be the difference between making the playoffs and not.

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 game could be the difference between making the playoffs and not.

It certainly could be, but on that note, as much as I love Schoop, he's far from a finished product. His defense was a large reason we lost the Tillman start vs. Toronto.

[Roll Tide]

What do you think the difference in games won for this team is with 1/2 a season of first MLB season Schoop vs. Lombo/Flaherty?

I'm not a stats guy ... And Lombardozzi wasn't here too watch. With that said Flaherty looked like an awful easy out a whole lot last season. I think we need to be reserved with expectations for Schoop. It's easy to be super excited tonight. But he is going to have some struggles and even with his hot last couple of games he's going to have trouble sticking around if he's striking out a third of the time. Enjoy it guys ....but let's not get crazy!

[BohKnowsBmore]

I'm not a stats guy ... And Lombardozzi wasn't here too watch. With that said Flaherty looked like an awful easy out a whole lot last season. I think we need to be reserved with expectations for Schoop. It's easy to be super excited tonight. But he is going to have some struggles and even with his hot last couple of games he's going to have trouble sticking around if he's striking out a third of the time. Enjoy it guys ....but let's not get crazy!

Always hard to say on the internet (not sure who you're directing that comment at exactly), but my point was that I'm not sure there's some massive spread between the two scenarios, especially considering that Schoop is still a bit raw at this point. While it's easy to say that an extra year of team control over Schoop is a financial concern that we shouldn't prioritize over competing this year, controllable assets is a part of a mid-market team like the O's being able to field a strong on-field product. An extra year of cost control may factor in to the math of extending a Davis or Wieters.

[mark_beckens]

It certainly could be, but on that note, as much as I love Schoop, he's far from a finished product. His defense was a large reason we lost the Tillman start vs. Toronto.

He's had 2 errors, both in one game. When Manny comes back he won't be playing much 3rd. You're putting way too much into one game.

I would also say our offense not scoring was a bigger factor then Schoop's 2 errors!

[BohKnowsBmore]

He's had 2 errors, both in one game. When Manny comes back he won't be playing much 3rd. You're putting way too much into one game.

Where do you pick up that I'm putting too much into one game?!?!?! I never said that was the end of my thoughts on Schoop. I'm actually trying to make the opposite point... It's incredibly difficult at this point to say with any bit of certainty what gives us a better chance to win or if the spread between the options is great enough to forfeit a year of Schoop in his prime.

[Roll Tide]

Always hard to say on the internet (not sure who you're directing that comment at exactly), but my point was that I'm not sure there's some massive spread between the two scenarios, especially considering that Schoop is still a bit raw at this point. While it's easy to say that an extra year of team control over Schoop is a financial concern that we shouldn't prioritize over competing this year, controllable assets is a part of a mid-market team like the O's being able to field a strong on-field product. An extra year of cost control may factor in to the math of extending a Davis or Wieters.

Good points ... I was adding a thought to your question. And it might be better for the long term for him to go out for a while. Hard to do it while he's going good though. As a team that hasn't sniffed the World Series in ages and the pennant since the late 90s the team might press hard on the pedal.

[mark_beckens]

Where do you pick up that I'm putting too much into one game?!?!?! I never said that was the end of my thoughts on Schoop. I'm actually trying to make the opposite point... It's incredibly difficult at this point to say with any bit of certainty what gives us a better chance to win or if the spread between the options is great enough to forfeit a year of Schoop in his prime.

His defense was a large reason we lost the Tillman start vs. Toronto.

This would be why! Did you forget you said it?

[BohKnowsBmore]

This would be why! Did you forget you said it?

Yes, and that was in response to you saying one game could be the difference between us making the playoffs and not (do you forget saying it?). The point is that there is no guarantee that he, being an unfinished product in his first ML season, nets us one game over other options available over the course of ~1/2 season. I was simply illustrating this idea through the fact that he may have already cost us one game at this point. The natural counter point to that is that he may have been a major part of us winning a game in that Yankees series. Overall, the idea is that he has dramatic highs and dramatic lows, much like any young player is expected to.

For the record, I'm incredibly excited about Schoop's potential, I'm just not of the mind that it is stupid to throw away a year of cost control when A) I don't foresee the difference between him and Lombo/Flash for ~1/2 the season being the difference between us making the playoffs and not, and B) I expect him to be in Bmore for the playoff push and the playoffs (should we make it).

[mark_beckens]

Yes, and that was in response to you saying one game could be the difference between us making the playoffs and not (do you forget saying it?). The point is that there is no guarantee that he, being an unfinished product in his first ML season, nets us one game over other options available over the course of ~1/2 season. I was simply illustrating this idea through the fact that he may have already cost us one game at this point. The natural counter point to that is that he may have been a major part of us winning a game in that Yankees series. Overall, the idea is that he has dramatic highs and dramatic lows, much like any young player is expected to.

For the record, I'm incredibly excited about Schoop's potential, I'm just not of the mind that it is stupid to throw away a year of cost control when A) I don't foresee the difference between him and Lombo/Flash for ~1/2 the season being the difference between us making the playoffs and not, and B) I expect him to be in Bmore for the playoff push and the playoffs (should we make it).

You're the one saying he should be sent down to save his service clock. I'm saying if we are "all in" you don't worry about that because one game can cost us the playoffs. If he is better then Flaherty and or Lombo he should be on the team and playing regardless of what it costs us 5-6 years from now.

Then you said his defense cost us a game. Hence my comment you're putting too much into one game. He didn't cost us that game, he helped, but the offense not scoring certainly didn't help us win.

[BohKnowsBmore]

You're the one saying he should be sent down to save his service clock. I'm saying if we are "all in" you don't worry about that because one game can cost us the playoffs. If he is better then Flaherty and or Lombo he should be on the team and playing regardless of what it costs us 5-6 years from now.

Then you said he cost us a game. Hence my comment you're putting too much into one game. He didn't cost us that game, he helped, but the offense not scoring certainly didn't help us win.

As for the bolded, I don't dispute that...

If there is something like ~1 game difference in the standings between Schoop and Flash/Lombo, I certainly think you keep the extra season of control. Especially considering it's tough to be certain that Schoop will give you better production or be more conducive to winning over that stretch of games. You say that you should be all in in our position, but isn't part of that saying that we aren't going to have guys "figure it out" at the big club?

As someone who was so quick to remind me of what I said earlier, you seem to forget easily. I didn't say he cost us the game. This is what I said:

His defense was a large reason we lost the Tillman start vs. Toronto.

No win is on one player nor is any loss. The point was that he is going to have some growing pains, thus it is no slam dunk that Schoop in the lineup everyday equals more wins in 2014, thus I don't think service time goes out the window at this point.

Now, if Schoop looks like an all-star in the period before Manny comes back, then this discussion becomes moot and I think he will/should stay up at the big club. If he continues to be up and down, then I think the team is best served sending him down for ~1/2 season to play every day, work on a few things, protect his clock, and come up for the stretch run and playoffs.

[mark_beckens]

As for the bolded, I don't dispute that...

If there is something like ~1 game difference in the standings between Schoop and Flash/Lombo, I certainly think you keep the extra season of control. Especially considering it's tough to be certain that Schoop will give you better production or be more conducive to winning over that stretch of games. You say that you should be all in in our position, but isn't part of that saying that we aren't going to have guys "figure it out" at the big club?

As someone who was so quick to remind me of what I said earlier, you seem to forget easily. I didn't say he cost us the game. This is what I said:

No win is on one player nor is any loss. The point was that he is going to have some growing pains, thus it is no slam dunk that Schoop in the lineup everyday equals more wins in 2014, thus I don't think service time goes out the window at this point.

Now, if Schoop looks like an all-star in the period before Manny comes back, then this discussion becomes moot and I think he will/should stay up at the big club. If he continues to be up and down, then I think the team is best served sending him down for ~1/2 season to play every day, work on a few things, protect his clock, and come up for the stretch run and playoffs.

I give up! You win! You're making my head hurt. You argue we don't know what Schoop will produce because he's unknown. Last I knew Flaherty and Lombo are not known commodities. I wish I could tell you now how many games we would win playing Schoop, or Lombo or Fhalerty at 2nd. There is NO WAY for me or you or anyone else to know that.

My point is, if when Manny comes back and Schoop has shown, has earned the right to play everyday at 2nd. He shouldn't be sent down because of his service clock. This team is in win now mode based on it's signing of Cruz and Ubaldo. You don't then say we are playing for the future and POSSIBLY cost the team wins and a playoff spot when that is what you are playing for.

I am glad to see you agree that in a team game, one player can not win or lose a game. There are many plays during a game that can change the outcome. They all, together, lead to the final outcome. Changing any one or more of them can change said outcome!

For example, if Schoop doesn't commit those errors, do we win the game? Would the outcome had been a victory without changing anything else?