Schoop, Service Time, and a Lesson on our Young Guys

[atomic]

9 hours ago, Legend_Of_Joey said:

I'm not too keen on picking up Schoop. Nothing against him, but I would rather see what Nunez can do at 3rd over a whole season, with either Villsr at short and Valera/Wilkerson at second, or Villar at second and a free agent/Rule 5 at short with Wilkerson as a super utility.

Schoop has a career .294 OBP and didn't come to Fanfest 2 of the last 3 seasons.  Struggled terribly last season.  I see no reason to bring him back. Nunez probably puts up similar numbers to Schoop.  Time to move on from Schoop.  If people don't want Jones back who was always trying to help the club and the community. I don't know why you would ever want Schoop back. 

[Frobby]

18 minutes ago, CallMeBrooksie said:

They don't have to try and fill seats by paying a so-so player $10 million (yes, he'll make close to $10 million next year in arbitration if you pick up his contract). They didn't in Houston, and they shouldn't  do so in Baltimore, either. If that means that the Yard is empty, then so be it.

$10 million to Schoop is potentially $10 million they don't have to pour into an already massively under-funded international scouting and development program. There is a ton of work and investment to do across the player development landscape. That's where the money needs to go.

Besides that, I just don't think Schoop is good. He's certainly nothing special. I don't see the upside other than tugging at the heart-strings of several of the fans here who fell in love with him.

I don’t understand why we’re even discussing “picking up his contract.”    Nobody is going to do that.    He’ll be non-tendered and some team will sign him for good money, but not $10 mm for a season.   I seriously doubt it will be  us.

Meanwhile, here’s a reminder that a year ago, a lot of posters were willing to offer Schoop 6/$90 mm or more.   What a difference a year makes.   

 

[atomic]

42 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think there is one other rule, and possibly two:

3.   Don’t spend significant money on players who aren’t likely to be part of your next contending team if that money can be better spent on other things now or later.

And arguably....

4.   Don’t acquire players who might move you down from no. 1-2 in the draft until you are ready to put a winning team on the field.   

Schoop isn't going to make us a better team.  So you don't have to worry about #4

[wildbillhiccup]

36 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think there is one other rule, and possibly two:

3.   Don’t spend significant money on players who aren’t likely to be part of your next contending team if that money can be better spent on other things now or later.

And arguably....

4.   Don’t acquire players who might move you down from no. 1-2 in the draft until you are ready to put a winning team on the field.   

I agree with point 3 (if they truly are on some type of budget), but not point 4. I understand the philosophy of not trying to be middling, but could never condone legitimately tanking just for a higher draft pick. Yes it happens, but it's still wrong. 

[atomic]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t understand why we’re even discussing “picking up his contract.”    Nobody is going to do that.    He’ll be non-tendered and some team will sign him for good money, but not $10 mm for a season.   I seriously doubt it will be  us.

Meanwhile, here’s a reminder that a year ago, a lot of posters were willing to offer Schoop 6/$90 mm or more.   What a difference a year makes.   



 

I have always been against offering Schoop a big contract. I don't really understand the love for Schoop.  Guys like Schoop are the reason we were so bad.  Guys who can't get on base and strike out all the time while swinging for the fences on every at bat.  I think Schoop will struggle to get a decent deal.  Team realize guys like Schoop don't help them win games.  

[CallMeBrooksie]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t understand why we’re even discussing “picking up his contract.”    Nobody is going to do that.    He’ll be non-tendered and some team will sign him for good money, but not $10 mm for a season.   I seriously doubt it will be  us.

I was replying to another poster who said they'd be willing to do just that. My comments were in reaction to this:

11 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

 I'd also be fine just picking up the remainder of his contract.

And what a difference a year makes indeed. He was bad last year. Not what you like to see from a 26 year old in his 5th season approaching the end of his deal, and it reinforced all of the negative parts of his game that many felt he had progressed in the year prior.

[LookinUp]

Pro's to acquiring Schoop:
1. Could potentially be flipped for prospects.
2. Could net a compensatory pick if allowed to leave as a FA.
3. Could actually contribute to a contending O's team if the rebuild goes faster than expected.
4. He could give casual fans a familiar face to root for. I claim this as more of an intangible "pro" than anything that can tangibly affect ticket sales or game viewership.

Con's to acquiring Schoop:
1. He costs real money, taking resources away from the infrastructure the team needs to build.
2. He could improve us in the short run to the point we lose a spot or two in future draft orders. 

My question about Elias is does he value a plan where he signs talent to fill the major league team that he hopes to flip for prospects more than he values a true bare bones approach and building from the ground up. I think the answer depends on actual resources. A team with more would likely sign a guy like Schoop and hope to flip him. I'm not sure the O's are in a position to do both that and building up a world class scouting and player development apparatus. 

[wildcard]

Its not the multi year contract that will keep the O's from signing Schoop.  At 27 the O's could re-sign Schoop  for three years.  Its the money.   Jonathan would have to fall to a 5m/yr  player for the O's to be interest IMO.    They got rid of Gausman who is projected to make almost 10m,  O'Day at 9m and Schoop projected to make 10m.    All part of the cut down in the payroll.    Part of the rebuild.    I don't see that changing.

Schoop at 3B and Nunez as a bench player or sending him back to AAA wouldn't stop the O's from making the move.   But spending over 6m/yr on any player seems count-rebuild right now.  JMO.

 

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, atomic said:

I have always been against offering Schoop a big contract. I don't really understand the love for Schoop.  Guys like Schoop are the reason we were so bad.  Guys who can't get on base and strike out all the time while swinging for the fences on every at bat.  I think Schoop will struggle to get a decent deal.  Team realize guys like Schoop don't help them win games.  

That’s interesting, because it seems to me that the Orioles won the AL East and a wild card spot with Schoop starting at 2B.   He’s been worth 11.5 rWAR in his career.  I’d say he helped his team win games.   

That said, Schoop’s 2018 season put a huge dent in his value.   He had looked like a player who was coming into his own in 2017, then went and had his worst offensive season since his rookie year.    Signing him to a long term deal is clearly risky.

 

 

[atomic]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

That’s interesting, because it seems to me that the Orioles won the AL East and a wild card spot with Schoop starting at 2B.   He’s been worth 11.5 rWAR in his career.  I’d say he helped his team win games.   

 That said, Schoop’s 2018 season put a huge dent in his value.   He had looked like a player who was coming into his own in 2017, then went and had his worst offensive season since his rookie year.    Signing him to a long term deal is clearly risky.

  

 

Faulty argument alert!  I said he doesn't help the team win games. I didn't say he prevented the team from winning games.    The Red Sox won plenty of games but I don't think their catchers helped them win that many games.  I don't believe WAR is the end all of player value worth.  And Schoop got 5.2 of his WAR in one season. More of a 1.5 WAR type of guy.   I bet the new management does't grade Schoop highly with their analytics.  

[wildcard]

If Schoop becomes the next Nelson Cruz and is available on at 1/5m then I could see the O's signing him.

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, atomic said:

Faulty argument alert!  I said he doesn't help the team win games. I didn't say he prevented the team from winning games.    The Red Sox won plenty of games but I don't think their catchers helped them win that many games.  I don't believe WAR is the end all of player value worth.  And Schoop got 5.2 of his WAR in one season. More of a 1.5 WAR type of guy.   I bet the new management does't grade Schoop highly with their analytics.  

OK, I agree with you that WAR shouldn’t be the sole measure of whether a player helps his team win games.  I’ll say this — I think publicly available advanced stats do a very good job of measuring offensive contributions.    I think the kind of analytics Elias & Co. will bring to the table won’t be adding that much with respect to measuring past offensive performance.   They will have more to do with helping players to adjust their games, measuring future potential for a player, evaluating defense, optimizing lineups and playing time, and things like that.   

[interloper]

30 minutes ago, wildcard said:

If Schoop becomes the next Nelson Cruz and is available on at 1/5m then I could see the O's signing him.

Sure, but only then. Some team is going to go nuts and sign him to a 2 or 3-year deal I think.

[wildbillhiccup]

I guess the true litmus test is to ask ourselves if we'd even be mentioning Schoop as a possible free agent target if he didn't have prior ties to the organization. I'm thinking probably not. 

[interloper]

23 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I guess the true litmus test is to ask ourselves if we'd even be mentioning Schoop as a possible free agent target if he didn't have prior ties to the organization. I'm thinking probably not. 

Yeah - we'd most likely be happy with Villar and prioritizing finding a SS.