Orioles messing with Gausman again what's new.

[weams]

Based on what? One day on the MLB roster equals one day of service time. You get MLB credit for each day on the 25 man as well as the day that you are assigned to a minor league roster.

There are 183 days of MLB play. A player accrues a full year of service time at 172 days. That means once a player spends more than 20 days on a MiLB roster they cannot earn a full year of service time for that season. For each accrued day of service time in previous seasons you would add a day to that "20" for control purposes. So if Gausman accrued 10 days of service time in 2013, he'd need to spend 30 in the minors in 2014 to make sure he did not go over that full year of service time in the aggregate.

Thank you. That make perfect sense.

[Stotle]

You know what. What am I telling you for? You are the expert. Explain it it to me. I am certain I got it confused with option status. Or one of the other rules that Dan Duquette and his band of octogenarian only seem to understand. I know I don't.

I wrote above the service time rules. There are additional rules as to timing of promotions (how much time a player has to stay on an MiLB roster before he is eligible to be promoted again) that might be playing into your thinking on the service time. There, I think Duquette & Co. used the injury rule to allow Gausman to come up before the 10 day waiting period was over once, and the double-header rule another time? Kind of foggy but that sounds right.

[weams]

I wrote above the service time rules. There are additional rules as to timing of promotions (how much time a player has to stay on an MiLB roster before he is eligible to be promoted again) that might be playing into your thinking on the service time. There, I think Duquette & Co. used the injury rule to allow Gausman to come up before the 10 day waiting period was over once, and the double-header rule another time? Kind of foggy but that sounds right.

Yep. Got it. Thanks. As i said, I got confused. And was typing not reading when you posted the clarification. Thank you.

[Frobby]

When they send him down and recall him within 20 days it doesn't game the system for service time evidently.

No. I was the one who said that, and I was wrong. If you are on the 40-man roster and are sent down for a total of less than 20 days for the season, the 20 days is reinstated. But Gausman has been down for much longer than 20 days. The length of any individual stint in the minors doesn't matter in that event.

[weams]

No. I was the one who said that, and I was wrong. If you are on the 40-man roster and are sent down for a total of less than 20 days for the season, the 20 days is reinstated. But Gausman has been down for much longer than 20 days. The length of any individual stint in the minors doesn't matter in that event.

I went off following the wag of my own tail on this

[weams]

No. I was the one who said that, and I was wrong. If you are on the 40-man roster and are sent down for a total of less than 20 days for the season, the 20 days is reinstated. But Gausman has been down for much longer than 20 days. The length of any individual stint in the minors doesn't matter in that event.

I am glad Kevin and Kevin's agent want to win as Orioles.

[Frobby]

I am glad Kevin and Kevin's agent want to win as Orioles.

I agree with Stotle's overall point of view -- the O's haven't sent Gausman to the minors several times solely for the purpose of trying to manipulate his service time, but it has been a factor in those decisions, and Gausman is probably aware of the ramifications. As things stand right now, Gausman will reach a full year of service time unless he is sent down to the minors one more time. That wouldn't have been the case if Jimenez hadn't gotten hurt and Gausman had stayed in the minors through at least July 16 as required after being sent down on July 6. That may have been a very costly rolled ankle for the Orioles in terms of Gausman's service time.

EDIT -- the bolded sentence is wrong. I miscounted, and the most Gausman will have accrued by the end of this year is 168 days, four days short of what he'd need to have a total of one year of service time. No need to send Gausman to the minors for service time reasons.

[weams]

I agree with Stotle's overall point of view -- the O's haven't sent Gausman to the minors several times solely for the purpose of trying to manipulate his service time, but it has been a factor in those decisions, and Gausman is probably aware of the ramifications. As things stand right now, Gausman will reach a full year of service time unless he is sent down to the minors one more time. That wouldn't have been the case if Jimenez hadn't gotten hurt and Gausman had stayed in the minors through at least July 16 as required after being sent down on July 6. That may have been a very costly rolled ankle for the Orioles in terms of Gausman's service time.

I can see that now.

[OFFNY]

I agree with Stotle's overall point of view -- the O's haven't sent Gausman to the minors several times solely for the purpose of trying to manipulate his service time, but it has been a factor in those decisions, and Gausman is probably aware of the ramifications. As things stand right now, Gausman will reach a full year of service time unless he is sent down to the minors one more time. That wouldn't have been the case if Jimenez hadn't gotten hurt and Gausman had stayed in the minors through at least July 16 as required after being sent down on July 6. That may have been a very costly rolled ankle for the Orioles in terms of Gausman's service time.

I remember in 2011, when the Orioles initially decided to send Zach Britton down to AAA before the start of the season, strictly because of the service time.

Britton actually said that he was flattered by it, because in his mindm it meant that the organization thought so highly of him that they wanted to keep him under team control for as long as possible, and that they (obviously) had plans for him many years down the road:

Britton on Being Sent Down

........ "It's flattering, that the organization feels that highly of me that they want me around for so long" ........

http://brittghiroli.mlblogs.com/2011/03/29/britton-on-being-sent-down/

We actually DID NOT send Britton down, because TWO of the starting pitchers that we had been counting on to start that (2011) season were injured.

We were trying to save up for the proverbial rainy day (by sending Britton down to AAA-Norfolk) ........ and then it started raining (with the injuries to two of the Orioles' starting pitchers.)

[mark_beckens]

I remember in 2011, when the Orioles initially decided to send Zach Britton down to AAA before the start of the season, strictly because of the service time.

Britton actually said that he was flattered by it, because in his mindm it meant that the organization thought so highly of him that they wanted to keep him under team control for as long as possible, and that they (obviously) had plans for him many years down the road:

Britton on Being Sent Down

........ "It's flattering, that the organization feels that highly of me that they want me around for so long" ........

http://brittghiroli.mlblogs.com/2011/03/29/britton-on-being-sent-down/

We actually DID NOT send Britton down, because TWO of the starting pitchers that we had been counting on to start that (2011) season were injured.

We were trying to save up for the proverbial rainy day (by sending Britton down to AAA-Norfolk) ........ and then it started raining (with the injuries to two of the Orioles' starting pitchers.)

Is old and memory isn't what it use to be. Didn't we have an "arguement" about whether Britton should make the team?

[OFFNY]

I remember in 2011, when the Orioles initially decided to send Zach Britton down to AAA before the start of the season, strictly because of the service time.

Britton actually said that he was flattered by it, because in his mindm it meant that the organization thought so highly of him that they wanted to keep him under team control for as long as possible, and that they (obviously) had plans for him many years down the road:

Britton on Being Sent Down

........ "It's flattering, that the organization feels that highly of me that they want me around for so long" ........

http://brittghiroli.mlblogs.com/2011/03/29/britton-on-being-sent-down/

We actually DID NOT send Britton down, because TWO of the starting pitchers that we had been counting on to start that (2011) season were injured.

We were trying to save up for the proverbial rainy day (by sending Britton down to AAA-Norfolk) ........ and then it started raining (with the injuries to two of the Orioles' starting pitchers.)

Is old and memory isn't what it use to be. Didn't we have an "argument" about whether Britton should make the team?

You and I, or the entire board ???

I remember the entire board debating it.

[hoosiers]

I agree with Stotle's overall point of view -- the O's haven't sent Gausman to the minors several times solely for the purpose of trying to manipulate his service time, but it has been a factor in those decisions, and Gausman is probably aware of the ramifications. As things stand right now, Gausman will reach a full year of service time unless he is sent down to the minors one more time. That wouldn't have been the case if Jimenez hadn't gotten hurt and Gausman had stayed in the minors through at least July 16 as required after being sent down on July 6. That may have been a very costly rolled ankle for the Orioles in terms of Gausman's service time.

Maybe if we had not signed Ubaldo and given the ball to Gausman all year, it would not be as "costly" as people think - extra service time to Gausman lost v contract/$ to Jimenez plus first round pick plus impact this half season on major league 2-l record. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum.

[Stotle]

So, not to be a pain in the butt engineer or anything, but I can't help myself. There is either a mistake in the explanation above or I'm confused.

183 - 172 = 11 so it would actually take only 12 days off the ML 25 man to accumulate less than a full year in a given season IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER RULE.

However, the rule that says, if a player accumulates less than 20 days off the 25 man roster in a given season, he shall receive credit for every day in that season overrides the math and makes it necessary for at least twenty days spent off the 25 man in a season to not get a full year credit.

So, based off the rule

183-20 = 163 days service time accrued in year X without getting the year credit. So, if a player spends the minimum 20 days down in a year for it to "count" against him, he will accrue 163 days.

So far, so good? To this point, Stotle's explanation and I are copacetic. However, assume player X now has 163 days. It now seems to me that this player could have been ON the 25 man roster for up to 8 days in prior season(s) and still not reach a year of service because

163+8=171<172 required for a year

In other words, if he had 8 days in the prior year, it doesn't become 8 + 20 days or 28 days he must be off in the current year. Only 20 is sufficient. Each day above 8 on the roster in a prior year does adds a day to the 20 days he must be off this year.

Have I got this right?

Well, for one I should point out (and should have clarified) that the MLB calendar year is not uniform. It's generally around 183 days, but that is not a standard.

Your reading is correct -- I was typing faster than my brain was thinking while trying to make the point that you can accrue a year of service time for control purposes outside of the year of control in a calendar year for purposes of the rule.

Days on 25 Man (Service Time For Year; Aggregate Service Time)

Scenario 1

8 (0.008; 0.008)

163 (0.163; 0.172)

Scenario 2

10 (0.008; 0.008)

163 (0.163; 1.001)

Scenario 3

8 (0.008; 0.008)

170 (1.000; 1.008)

Scenario 4

10 (0.010; 0.010)

161 (0.161; 0.171)

[Frobby]

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, Gausman has spent far more than 20 days off the major league roster in 2014, so the "20 day rule" will have no impact on him. He came into 2014 with 71 days of service time. Since then, he has accumulated:

1 day on May 14 (sent down the next day)

15 days on June 7-21

1 day on June 27 (called up as the 26th man for a doubleheader and then sent back down)

1 day on July 6 (sent down the next day)

Then, he was recalled on July 13 when Jimenez got hurt, and the clock is ticking again. There are 78 days between July 13 and the final day of the season (inclusive of the first and last day). So, if Gausman is not sent down again, he'll have 71 + 1 + 15 + 1 + 1 +78 = 168 days of service. Therefore, Gausman cannot accrue a full year of service time (which requires 172 days) by the time 2014 is completed.

In some earlier comments in this thread, I mistakenly said Gausman would need to be sent down one more time for the Orioles to avoid having him accrue a full year of service. I had forgotten that he had been sent down from June 21-26 when I wrote that. Those five days make the difference between accruing a full year and not. The O's have no need to send him back to the minors for service time reasons.

[Stotle]

Just to make sure we are all on the same page, Gausman has spent far more than 20 days off the major league roster in 2014, so the "20 day rule" will have no impact on him. He came into 2014 with 71 days of service time. Since then, he has accumulated:

1 day on May 14 (sent down the next day)

15 days on June 7-21

1 day on June 27 (called up as the 26th man for a doubleheader and then sent back down)

1 day on July 6 (sent down the next day)

Then, he was recalled on July 13 when Jimenez got hurt, and the clock is ticking again. There are 78 days between July 13 and the final day of the season (inclusive of the first and last day). So, if Gausman is not sent down again, he'll have 71 + 1 + 15 + 1 + 1 +78 = 168 days of service. Therefore, Gausman cannot accrue a full year of service time (which requires 172 days) by the time 2014 is completed.

In some earlier comments in this thread, I mistakenly said Gausman would need to be sent down one more time for the Orioles to avoid having him accrue a full year of service. I had forgotten that he had been sent down from June 21-26 when I wrote that. Those five days make the difference between accruing a full year and not. The O's have no need to send him back to the minors for service time reasons.

I haven't checked your numbers, but the math looks right to me.