Who are the starting pitcher candidates for the last two rotation spots?

[wildcard]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

The idea of manipulating service times on guys that don't project to be "special players" is just silly.  Is it really going to impact the franchise if Diaz is under control until 2026 instead of 2025?

It could.

[Moose Milligan]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The idea of manipulating service times on guys that don't project to be "special players" is just silly.  Is it really going to impact the franchise if Diaz is under control until 2026 instead of 2025?

We agree.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

It could.

Sure it could.  But it is frankly unlikely and the team will have chances to extend him if they decide he is an integral part going forward.

 

[ChosenOne21]

When the cost is leaving someone in the minors for 3 weeks it seems silly not to do it

[interloper]

Well Hess also referred to Mr. Elias as "Mike" in the Melewski article, so I guess he's out of the running. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

When the cost is leaving someone in the minors for 3 weeks it seems silly not to do it

Lots of folks wanted to send Schoop down to get the extra year, how did that turn out?

You send a guy down for an extra three weeks and he's a super two.  How many guys do you want to pay arb 4 prices for?

If you think they are a keeper you lock them up early.  That's the smart way to do it.

 

[Can_of_corn]

32 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

When the cost is leaving someone in the minors for 3 weeks it seems silly not to do it

Does anyone have any actual examples of a team that weakened itself to a measurable degree because they didn't manipulate a player's service time? 

I can't think of any.

[ChosenOne21]

27 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Lots of folks wanted to send Schoop down to get the extra year, how did that turn out?

You send a guy down for an extra three weeks and he's a super two.  How many guys do you want to pay arb 4 prices for?

If you think they are a keeper you lock them up early.  That's the smart way to do it.

 

We might have been able to get more in trade for him at the time if he had an extra year of control. It's not like when he first came up he crushed MLB pitching either. I'll bet he was worth negative WAR for the first three weeks of the season

As for the super two issue, if he's not worth arb 4 prices you trade or non-tender him. Either way you got the player for 6 years if I understand the process correctly

I'm not saying send down every utility infielder and mop-up reliever for three weeks, but I see no reason not to do it with most 50 FV players and maybe some 45s

I do agree it's best to lock people up early. I would love to see us follow teams like the Indians in that regard. That said, in most cases you can't really know if a player is amenable to a long-term contract when you're making the first service time decision

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

We might have been able to get more in trade for him at the time if he had an extra year of control. It's not like when he first came up he crushed MLB pitching either. I'll bet he was worth negative WAR for the first three weeks of the season

As for the super two issue, if he's not worth arb 4 prices you trade or non-tender him. Either way you got the player for 6 years if I understand the process correctly

I'm not saying send down every utility infielder and mop-up reliever for three weeks, but I see no reason not to do it with most 50 FV players and maybe some 45s

I do agree it's best to lock people up early. I would love to see us follow teams like the Indians in that regard. That said, in most cases you can't really know if a player is amenable to a long-term contract when you're making the first service time decision

You can't ask him and his agent?

As for a hypothetical improved return for Schoop.  Sure, maybe.  The odds of the additional return actually contributing on the ML level?  Very small.

[ChosenOne21]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

You can't ask him and his agent?

As for a hypothetical improved return for Schoop.  Sure, maybe.  The odds of the additional return actually contributing on the ML level?  Very small.

How many players signed a long-term MLB extension before they played in the MLB? I doubt agents are going to give you a clear-cut answer in most cases so it's probably best to hedge your bets. Besides, don't you want to see if the guy can actually play in MLB for a few years before you guarantee him millions of dollars?

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

How many players signed a long-term MLB extension before they played in the MLB? I doubt agents are going to give you a clear-cut answer in most cases so it's probably best to hedge your bets. Besides, don't you want to see if the guy can actually play in MLB for a few years before you guarantee him millions of dollars?

Huh?

Who said anything about actually signing them before they played? 

You talk to them about the possibility to gauge their interest.  

You said "you can't really know if a player is amenable to a long-term contract".  You can ask them.  Why would the agent/player not be forthright?  What is their gain? 

And no I don't want to see a guy play for a "few years".  Not if I'm already confident about the player.  Signing a guy during year one is a LOT cheaper than signing a guy that is about to hit arbitration.  Year one deals generally have safeguards in place that minimize damage to the team if a player busts.

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sure it could.  But it is frankly unlikely and the team will have chances to extend him if they decide he is an integral part going forward.

 

If Elias follows the Astros plan then the O's have a contending team 2022 and a World Series Champion by 2024.  Keeping Diaz and McKenna until 2026 extends the years of  being in the playoffs.     Its important.  But they have to keep both players in the minors until  May of 2020;

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, wildcard said:

If Elias follows the Astros plan then the O's have a contending team 2022 and a World Series Champion by 2024.  Keeping Diaz and McKenna until 2026 extends the years of  being in the playoffs.     Its important.  But they have to keep both players in the minors until  May of 2020;

If Elias follows the Atros' plan we are doomed.

You can't chase after what another team did five years ago.

Elias is going to make a whole plan just for the Orioles.

 

The whole idea of an additional year of control for Diaz and McKenna somehow being the key to extending playoff contention is laughable.  This isn't Vlad Jr we are talking about.  If things are working correctly replacements will be ready when the time comes.  If things aren't working correctly we have other things to worry about.

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

If Elias follows the Atros' plan we are doomed.

You can't chase after what another team did five years ago.

Elias is going to make a whole plan just for the Orioles.

 

The whole idea of an additional year of control for Diaz and McKenna somehow being the key to extending playoff contention is laughable.  This isn't Vlad Jr we are talking about.  If things are working correctly replacements will be ready when the time comes.  If things aren't working correctly we have other things to worry about.

CoC, I usually find myself at opposite sides in most of your viewpoints it seams, but I find myself in total agreement with you, here.

So Billy Beane did moneyball.

What shall we call this new phase of Oriole life? Birdball?

[ChosenOne21]

52 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Huh?

Who said anything about actually signing them before they played? 

You talk to them about the possibility to gauge their interest.  

You said "you can't really know if a player is amenable to a long-term contract".  You can ask them.  Why would the agent/player not be forthright?  What is their gain? 

And no I don't want to see a guy play for a "few years".  Not if I'm already confident about the player.  Signing a guy during year one is a LOT cheaper than signing a guy that is about to hit arbitration.  Year one deals generally have safeguards in place that minimize damage to the team if a player busts.

My point is you have to make a decision on the service time clock before you see what the player looks like in MLB. If a player's agent says he's "open to the possibility" of a long-term contract, or some other "agent speak," are you going to risk an extra year of control on that player because they might sign a contract at some point? You can play service time games and negotiate a long-term contract. If anything, the extra year of team control gives you leverage because that's potentially one more year that player is away from a huge FA payday.

If you have a special player like Manny Machado, sure, the sooner you sign them the better. But we see very few players with one or two years of service time sign long-term deals. Either that's because most of MLB feels it's not worth it or most players don't think it's worth it. Sure, maybe most MLB teams are wrong and you should sign as many average or better regulars to long-term deals as soon as possible, but for whatever reason we aren't seeing it which makes me question whether A) the players are interested and B) if the baseball brain trusts think it's wise in most cases

It's not that I don't believe agents will be forthright, it's that in a negotiation for millions of dollars, everyone is going to play their cards close to the vest to try to get as much out of the other side as possible. I'm sure most every agent is amenable to signing their pre-FA players to long-term deals for the right amount of money. But I expect them to be cagey about what that is so as to maximize what the team will put on the table. By the time both sides are getting a feel for what they can get, it might be in the player's best interest to test free agency.

I dunno, I'm speculating about a lot of this. I could be wrong--I'm far from an expert in contract negotiations