Orioles messing with Gausman again what's new.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I guess these are called "stud pitching prospect" problems.

#SeveralTop100ProspectProblems

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CA-ORIOLE]

Not commenting on whether I think Gausman's treatment is correct or not, I would think Gausman's agent would be considering filing a complaint. I keep mentioning this treatment is highly unusual, perhaps unprecedented, and get no response..

I know opinions vary, but it wasn't that long ago that many were calling the Orioles idiots for even calling Gausman up in the first place and not letting him develop. Now they would obviously have a much better record if they had just called him up in the first place. Can't win with some of you I guess.

The treatment may be unusual, but in case you haven't noticed, DD "rosterabates" a lot. He does it because he sees it is an efficiency that helps us, and I think it does. I would guess he and Buck are discussing the roster and potential moves almost daily. He looks at the roster on a micro level and sees it as a way to leverage performance. Much more than I have ever seen, and likely more than any team out there.

Service time may very well be an issue with Gausman, but team performance is the overriding issue imo. Others have addressed this same point. Gausman's circumstances just make him more involved in the equation as a moveable asset. I'd say the Orioles think they can balance his development, individual performance, and team performance outside of the "standard" way of doing things.

You are welcome to criticize. No offense, but based on my observation thus far, I'll takes DD's/Bucks' management over your opinion that we'd be much better now if we had just unleashed Gausman earlier. I am definitely fine with "unusual" if it makes sense. For the most part, the strategies I have seen make sense to me.

[hoosiers]

If we can get an extra year out of Gausman and he can pitch the rest of the year why are you complaining? The team is trying to win games and stay competive in the future... Seems like DD knows what he is doing.

I am not complaining (and don't believe I've complained in his thread) - just discussing the unusual nature of the treatment and hoping KG is ok with it. The O's solution seems fairly unique if not creative (as most teams keep the player in the minors until the service time is no longer an issue), but it certainly plays with the spirit of the rules IMO and could also certainly result in some negative goodwill with the player/agent.

My biggest issue is that Gausman was not in the Opening Day rotation.

[flyhighbirds]

Roy Firestone is in the house. Yes

[Stotle]

In all of this talk about how this may be potential service time manipulation, any consideration of how quickly he's made it to the majors?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In what sense?

[BohKnowsBmore]

In what sense?

Just that it's not as though he's been down in our farm system forever. Granted, he was a college pitcher, but he has made it through the system pretty quickly. I just feel like that may alleviate some concern about him being angry or hold some sort of ill will regarding the organization possibly angling into an extra year of control.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stotle]

Just that it's not as though he's been down in our farm system forever. Granted, he was a college pitcher, but he has made it through the system pretty quickly. I just feel like that may alleviate some concern about him being angry or hold some sort of ill will regarding the organization possibly angling into an extra year of control.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the anger (frustration probably a better word) would be with the team using him as a major leaguer but not allowing him to accrue time while he does. Come up and pitch, great. But then he's not getting the service time accrued between starts, not to mention the other benefits of being on the 25-man (per diem, luxury hotels, comfortable travel, etc.).

[Can_of_corn]

No should they, in my opinion.

I was just using Schoop to show that the O's are not habitually trying to game the service time of their players.

[Stotle]

I was just using Schoop to show that the O's are not habitually trying to game the service time of their players.

Right -- but that "gaming" really only comes into play when you are approaching that point where you flip over to a full accrued year of service time. If Schoop isn't near that cutoff (I don't know if he is or not) then it doesn't matter. What would matter is what the team does when it looks like he is going to accrue that full year.

In any event, I don't disagree with your general point. Plus, it isn't like every team doesn't work to make sure they get an extra year of control. The folks that feel strongly about Baltimore doing Gausman dirty seem to think it's two issues: 1) not allowing him to just settle into a normal routine as part of the major league club, and 2) reaping the benefits of having him on the 25 man roster without allowing him to reap his rightful cut of those benefits (service time, comfort, and the perks).

[Can_of_corn]

Right -- but that "gaming" really only comes into play when you are approaching that point where you flip over to a full accrued year of service time. If Schoop isn't near that cutoff (I don't know if he is or not) then it doesn't matter. What would matter is what the team does when it looks like he is going to accrue that full year.

In any event, I don't disagree with your general point. Plus, it isn't like every team doesn't work to make sure they get an extra year of control. The folks that feel strongly about Baltimore doing Gausman dirty seem to think it's two issues: 1) not allowing him to just settle into a normal routine as part of the major league club, and 2) reaping the benefits of having him on the 25 man roster without allowing him to reap his rightful cut of those benefits (service time, comfort, and the perks).

Don't teams also game the system to avoid Super Two status? Jones for instance missed it by a day and it certainly seemed to me that the O's held Matt back until he was safely past the mark.

[Frobby]

Right -- but that "gaming" really only comes into play when you are approaching that point where you flip over to a full accrued year of service time. If Schoop isn't near that cutoff (I don't know if he is or not) then it doesn't matter. What would matter is what the team does when it looks like he is going to accrue that full year.

Schoop had 27 days of service time going into 2014. He's already accrued another 106 as of today. He will accrue a full year by the end of this season unless the O's ship him out for at least 38 days between now and the end of the season. To do that, they'd either need to (1) send him down in the next 10 days if they wanted to recall him when rosters expand, or (2) send him down by August 20 or so and not recall him in September. I think it's pretty unlikely they'll do either.

[Stotle]

Don't teams also game the system to avoid Super Two status? Jones for instance missed it by a day and it certainly seemed to me that the O's held Matt back until he was safely past the mark.

Sure. But, again, they aren't generally working to find ways to use pitchers regularly while shuttling them back to the minors when they don't need them. That's really the point, right?

[Stotle]

Schoop had 27 days of service time going into 2014. He's already accrued another 106 as of today. He will accrue a full year by the end of this season unless the O's ship him out for at least 38 days between now and the end of the season. To do that, they'd either need to (1) send him down in the next 10 days if they wanted to recall him when rosters expand, or (2) send him down by August 20 or so and not recall him in September. I think it's pretty unlikely they'll do either.

I agree with you. But you're a lawyer; you understand my point re: Schoop. He becomes a good example of not worrying about service time when he has accrued his year, and we aren't there yet. And that's really ancillary to the larger point relating to manipulation of a pitcher's service time (which I know you understand, as well).

[Can_of_corn]

Sure. But, again, they aren't generally working to find ways to use pitchers regularly while shuttling them back to the minors when they don't need them. That's really the point, right?

Dan is gaming the system in multiple ways. On one hand he is getting starts out of Gausman at the major league level while suppressing his service time. While he is doing that he is effectively working with an expanded roster since while Gasuman is in the minors the O's are replacing him with another player.

Just like when Norris and Gonzo were sent down. On one hand they were allowed to start on or near regular rest despite the all star break. On the other hand the O's had additional players at their disposal.

Two birds, one stone.

I am curious to see if this results in some minor tweaking of the rules.

[Stotle]

Dan is gaming the system in multiple ways. On one hand he is getting starts out of Gausman at the major league level while suppressing his service time. While he is doing that he is effectively working with an expanded roster since while Gasuman is in the minors the O's are replacing him with another player.

Just like when Norris and Gonzo were sent down. On one hand they were allowed to start on or near regular rest despite the all star break. On the other hand the O's had additional players at their disposal.

Two birds, one stone.

I am curious to see if this results in some minor tweaking of the rules.

I'm not arguing that Duquette is acting unethically. I'm simple stating why some people see it as screwing with/over Gausman. And I completely understand that viewpoint.

Look, Houston does "its own thing" without much thought to what the rest of the industry thinks. Houston, as a general matter, is NOT well liked by the industry (including agents and players). Making sound analytical decisions, divorced from the human element, may be a good way to find extra value. It is also likely to bring with it not-so-warm feelings from the folks who are essentially collateral damage.

Just stating a fact; not passing judgment.