Dan talking "offers and physicals" with a RF target

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, backwardsk said:

Yes.  Wouldn't you rather have three more years of Schoop right now?

Sure, we could more back from him in a trade!

[backwardsk]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

O's should extend Schoop.   Then they will have 5 more years of Schoop.

Would it be easier or harder to extend him if he was a year further away from free agency?

[wildcard]

Just now, backwardsk said:

Would it be easier or harder to extend him if he was a year further away from free agency.

I doubt if it matters.   If they put the right package in front of him he will probably sign.

[backwardsk]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sure, we could more back from him in a trade!

You could get more in a trade, have a better chance of extending him, or keep him longer.  It's all around better to have that extra year.  They need to that with both Hays and Sisco this season.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, backwardsk said:

Would it be easier or harder to extend him if he was a year further away from free agency?

Would have been easier to extend him before he sold a share of his future earnings.

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, backwardsk said:

You could get more in a trade, have a better chance of extending him, or keep him longer.  It's all around better to have that extra year.  They need to that with both Hays and Sisco this season.

No, they need to sign them to long term, team friendly, deals.

You do that you don't need to play service time games.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, backwardsk said:

Even if they fail to get an OFer, keeping Hays down until they get an extra year is the right move.  Imagine how better off they'd be if they had that extra year of Schoop.

We’ve routinely messed that up.   

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

No, they need to sign them to long term, team friendly, deals.

You do that you don't need to play service time games.

Not many players get signed to long term deals before they prove they are capable major leaguers.   

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Not many players get signed to long term deals before they prove they are capable major leaguers.   

I'm not sure what your point is.

The game has been trending toward locking up young talent for some time now.

You could lock up an entire young outfield for less risk than the Davis contract.

[MurphDogg]

2 hours ago, wildcard said:

Dyson made 2.8m last year with Seattle.

Due to arbitration. And there is plenty of evidence that arbitration undervalues defense. Regardless, Manny Machado is making $16 million this coming season in his final year of arbitration, and he won't be making only 7 percent more the following year as a free agent.

[backwardsk]

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

No, they need to sign them to long term, team friendly, deals.

You do that you don't need to play service time games.

The team doesn't have control whether or not the player accepts the offer.  They do control when they call guys up.  When guys are making 8 figures in the last year or two of arbitration, there's even less incentive to extend.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, backwardsk said:

The team doesn't have control whether or not the player accepts the offer.  They do control when they call guys up.  When guys are making 8 figures in the last year or two of arbitration, there's even less incentive to extend.

Well sure, of course I would look into manipulating service time if they are not willing to extend.

But I'd rather extend them than deal with a super 2.

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not sure what your point is.

The game has been trending toward locking up young talent for some time now.

You could lock up an entire young outfield for less risk than the Davis contract.

My point is that the decision about whether to lock up a young player usually comes after the decision about (to put it bluntly) whether to play service time games with that player.     And playing the service time game improves the team’s bargaining position in negotiating a long term deal.    

As you know, I’m in favor of signing younger players to long term deals early in their tenure.    

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

My point is that the decision about whether to lock up a young player usually comes after the decision about (to put it bluntly) whether to play service time games with that player.     And playing the service time game improves the team’s bargaining position in negotiating a long term deal.    

As you know, I’m in favor of signing younger players to long term deals early in their tenure.    

Usually but it doesn't have to be.  There have been cases, Longoria being the most noteworthy.

[MurphDogg]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Usually but it doesn't have to be.  There have been cases, Longoria being the most noteworthy.

Longoria's contract was a direct result of service time games. Longoria was sent down at the beginning of the season, and called up the day after the framework of his contract was agreed to, the day after his free agency eligibility was pushed back a year.