McFarland Released

[thezeroes]

9 hours ago, Frobby said:

Here's how I think of it.  Michael Bourn is on a contract that pays him $200 k if he's in the minors (which is way over the MiL standard contract for a guy not on the 40-man roster) and $2 mm plus heavy incentives if he's on the major league roster (way above the major league minimum).    To me, that's obviously a split contract.   

For a player that is not arbitration-eligible, he has no leverage and the CBA basically specifies what the player makes if he's in the minors and what he makes when he's in the majors.   Some teams choose to pay their better players more than the minimum; usually, that's for players who are clearly not going back to the minors unless something goes very, very wrong.    I don't think of these CBA-specified arrangements with non-arbitration eligible players as being split contracts because there's no real negotiation that goes on, though the salaries certainly are different depending if they're in the majors or the minors.

Once a player is arbitration eligible, I believe they get their agreed salary whether they're in the majors or the minors, so long as they're not released before the season (hence, the  release of McFarland).     So that's not a split contract.     

That is how I read/see it.

[webbrick2010]

On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 10:19 AM, wildcard said:

But why is the farm system weak?  It because Dan has a win now approach that has pulled the O's out of 14 years of losing.   He used minor leaguers as trading chip for major league help.   Sometime successfully, sometime not.  But overall it has worked.

Then Dan uses the Rule 5 draft, foreign players like Chen and Kim, and late off season FAs to make up for what the farm system doesn't produce.  Unconventional but it works.

He is going out of a limb this year.  He is going old.  Trading for Smith 34, and trying out Bourn 34, and Gentry 33, and Ondrusek 32.   Dan has resisted going old for the most part over the past 5 years. Cruz was the exception.  Mid 30 guys are mostly in decline.   Thinking they will produce like their track record or better may not be wise.  The O's did that in the past with bad results.   I don't know how many of these guys stay but I hope its few.

Certainly a better farm system would be a great thing to have but I think we have to ask ourselves - would the O's have won without Dan's win now approach?  Who we rather lose more games but have a a better farm system? 

Who did Dan bring in with his win now approach that helped them win

Feldman NO, Parra NO, Miley NO, Snider NO,

He has given away tons of talent what has he added that has actually made a difference?

[wildcard]

26 minutes ago, webbrick2010 said:

Who did Dan bring in with his win now approach that helped them win

Feldman NO, Parra NO, Miley NO, Snider NO,

He has given away tons of talent what has he added that has actually made a difference?

Cruz, Chen, Hammel, McLouth, Miguel Gonzalez, Bud Norris, Brach, Pedro Alvarez, Kim, Rickard, Castillo, Smith, Worley.  Its a little too early to count out Miley.

[Redskins Rick]

8 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Cruz, Chen, Hammel, McLouth, Miguel Gonzalez, Bud Norris, Brach, Pedro Alvarez, Kim, Rickard, Castillo, Smith, Worley.  Its a little too early to count out Miley.

I agree, Miley was two different pitchers last season, and hopefully, he brings the better one this season.

[Frobby]

15 minutes ago, webbrick2010 said:

Who did Dan bring in with his win now approach that helped them win

Feldman NO, Parra NO, Miley NO, Snider NO,

He has given away tons of talent what has he added that has actually made a difference?

I assume we're limiting ourselves to trades of Orioles minor league players for major league players.   I think you could argue that the following players helped us make the playoffs, or made the playoff-bound 2014 Orioles a better team:

• Jim Thome
• Bud Norris
• Brad Brach
• Andrew Miller
• Michael Bourn
• Steve Pearce (2016 trade for Jonah Heim)

The Brach deal is one where we got a long-term contributor and the minor leaguer we gave up ended up having no value.     The Miller deal was one where we got a high-impact short-term player but gave up a valuable long-term asset in exchange (though I didn't favor this trade).   Norris made a good contribution to the team in one of the three years he was here, and was an important part of the 2014 rotation; we're still waiting to find out if Josh Hader or the player selected with the comp pick we gave up will have any impact in the majors.    Thome, Bourn and Pearce all made modest contributions for a short period and it remains to be seen if any of the players we gave up in those deals ever become major leaguers and have any impact.

 

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I agree, Miley was two different pitchers last season, and hopefully, he brings the better one this season.

I agree the jury's still out on Miley.

[LookitsPuck]

Generally speaking our Rule V guys have been...largely disappointing. 

Rule V picks since 2011

2011: Ryan Flaherty - 1.8 WAR over 5 seasons (~0.4 WAR/year). 

2012: TJ McFarland - 0.0 WAR over 4 seasons

2013: Michael Almanzar - hasn't played a game in the majors

2014: Logan Verrett - Garcia selected over Verrett

2014: Jason Garcia - -0.1 WAR (1 season)

2015: Joey Rickard - -0.5 WAR (1 season)

So we're talking cumulative 1.2 WAR. And every single season they clog up a roster spot. Would we better off putting that money towards actual major league ballplayers instead of being forced to use guys like McFarland and Garcia while clogging up a roster spot? It gives the team zero flexibility during the season.

[Number5]

3 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

Generally speaking our Rule V guys have been...largely disappointing. 

Rule V picks since 2011

2011: Ryan Flaherty - 1.8 WAR over 5 seasons (~0.4 WAR/year). 

2012: TJ McFarland - 0.0 WAR over 4 seasons

2013: Michael Almanzar - hasn't played a game in the majors

2014: Logan Verrett - Garcia selected over Verrett

2014: Jason Garcia - -0.1 WAR (1 season)

2015: Joey Rickard - -0.5 WAR (1 season)

So we're talking cumulative 1.2 WAR. And every single season they clog up a roster spot. Would we better off putting that money towards actual major league ballplayers instead of being forced to use guys like McFarland and Garcia while clogging up a roster spot? It gives the team zero flexibility during the season.

These two statements do not match up.

I'm not sure what you are expecting out of the Rule 5 Draft, but it is hard to call these results disappointing, considering the cost paid to acquire these players.

[Frobby]

I guess the question is, how much value do you expect to get from the 25th spot on your roster?    Last year we had Joseph (-1.0 WAR) and Reimold (-0.4 WAR) on the roster virtually all year, and gave 187 innings to pitchers with a negative WAR.    In 2015, Reimold, Parmelee, De Aza, Pearce and Parra all had negative WAR.   I don't know that you do worse by taking a Rule 5 pick if you think you see some long term potential.   I will grant you, the Rule 5 draft hasn't netted us a ton, but I don't think it has hurt us, either.

[oriolediehard]

Why was McFarland released when he had options after clearing wavers?

Maybe they should have released Oliver Drake instead?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, oriolediehard said:

Why was McFarland released when he had options after clearing wavers?

Maybe they should have released Oliver Drake instead?

The move allows the Orioles to recoup a portion of his 2017 salary.

[weams]

10 hours ago, RZNJ said:

The question is could we have gotten similar players in those positions, gotten similar results, and had more roster flexibility.    I think the answer to that question is "yes".

I think the answer there is that money comes into play on those 22,23,24,25 slots on the roster.  I think the team is poor. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, weams said:

I think the answer there is that money comes into play on those 22,23,24,25 slots on the roster.  I think the team is poor. 

I think the team spends all the money it has to spend.  Kinda like your old buddy that made decent money but was still always broke by the Monday after payday.

[Frobby]

12 minutes ago, weams said:

I think the answer there is that money comes into play on those 22,23,24,25 slots on the roster.  I think the team is poor. 

 

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the team spends all the money it has to spend.  Kinda like your old buddy that made decent money but was still always broke by the Monday after payday.

Seems to me that Angelos is willing to spend to keep a competitive team competitive.     When they're not competitive, he doesn't like spending money to try to move from bad to mediocre.   Frankly, it makes a lot of sense to me.    But I don't see the team as "poor" from a financial standpoint.    

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

Seems to me that Angelos is willing to spend to keep a competitive team competitive.     When they're not competitive, he doesn't like spending money to try to move from bad to mediocre.   Frankly, it makes a lot of sense to me.    But I don't see the team as "poor" from a financial standpoint.    

What team did you watch during the early years of the millennium?