Should Adley Rutschman play in the majors in 2021?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, interloper said:

I don't understand the rush. The guy has barely picked up a wooden bat in the minors yet. 130 AB split between rookie and A-ball that tells us almost as much as if he had 0 ABs. I mean it's an absolutely meaningless amount of AB, especially considering it was split between levels and he was sick part of that year and then sat out all of last year. 

It sure sounds like he's a ML-ready prospect or whatever, but can we get him through a year of AA first? Bring him up in 2022 if he destroys the league, but anyone who is not fully expecting him to slightly disappoint the frankly outrageous expectations this year isn't really doing it right IMO. 

He's 23.  That's the rush.

[interloper]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

He's 23.  That's the rush.

And in age 21 and 22 he barely played any baseball, so if you're worried about wear and tear there really hasn't been any. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, interloper said:

And in age 21 and 22 he barely played any baseball, so if you're worried about wear and tear there really hasn't been any. 

I'm not worried about wear and tear.

I'm worried that he's 23 and that it looks like the O's might delay his future earnings by another year so they can gain an advantage.

[interloper]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not worried about wear and tear.

I'm worried that he's 23 and that it looks like the O's might delay his future earnings by another year so they can gain an advantage.

What about him being 23 worries you? I'm just saying they should delay him if he's got a full year of AA and he can't hit or something. Just let him get acclimated to professional ball a little. If he's murdering the league in August and Sevvy can be traded (or DFA'd if he's not having a good year), then I'm not against bringing him up.

But all we have to go on right now is college numbers and 130 AB from TWO years ago. The guy might just be another Sisco or Wieters, we have no idea. That's not LIKELY, but come on it's 130 AB and if you don't count last spring, he hasn't played professional baseball in almost 2 full calendar years. Let me get like 300-400 AB of development here at LEAST. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, interloper said:

What about him being 23 worries you? I'm just saying they should delay him if he's got a full year of AA and he can't hit or something. Just let him get acclimated to professional ball a little. If he's murdering the league in August and Sevvy can be traded (or DFA'd if he's not having a good year), then I'm not against bringing him up.

But all we have to go on right now is college numbers and 130 AB from TWO years ago. The guy might just be another Sisco or Wieters, we have no idea. That's not LIKELY, but come on it's 130 AB and if you don't count last spring, he hasn't played professional baseball in almost 2 full calendar years. Let me get like 300-400 AB of development here at LEAST. 

First off age is age, regardless of wear.

Secondly I don't agree with teams potentially costing players huge sums of money by holding them in the minors when it isn't beneficial to their development.

AR hitting free agency at 29 probably gets a much different contract than AR hitting free agency at 31.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The question, to me, isn't if they would have fared better initially.  It's if more time in the minors would have been beneficial overall?  Was being in the majors in 2012 an advantage or disadvantage for Machado's overall career?  I'd say it was an advantage.

You specifically asked about their bats 

But in Manny's case, a case can definitely be made that it was beneficial overall, but only because he likely would not have been shifted to 3B until much later in his career, and as we saw, he was a pretty good SS but a genuinely great 3B.

In Schoop's case though, I think it is a lot murkier.

[interloper]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

First off age is age, regardless of wear.

Secondly I don't agree with teams potentially costing players huge sums of money by holding them in the minors when it isn't beneficial to their development.

AR hitting free agency at 29 probably gets a much different contract than AR hitting free agency at 31.

I don't disagree with you about any of that, other than "when it isn't beneficial to their development". I think you can absolutely make that case when he's crushing in Bowie and Elias decides to hold him back for service time. I don't know that you can make that case right now though, when all we have to go on is the fact that he was the #1 pick. I think we all hope he's the kind of player that doesn't even really need time in the minors. I'm just not ready to say that yet is all. 

[DrungoHazewood]

26 minutes ago, interloper said:

What about him being 23 worries you? I'm just saying they should delay him if he's got a full year of AA and he can't hit or something. Just let him get acclimated to professional ball a little. If he's murdering the league in August and Sevvy can be traded (or DFA'd if he's not having a good year), then I'm not against bringing him up.

But all we have to go on right now is college numbers and 130 AB from TWO years ago. The guy might just be another Sisco or Wieters, we have no idea. That's not LIKELY, but come on it's 130 AB and if you don't count last spring, he hasn't played professional baseball in almost 2 full calendar years. Let me get like 300-400 AB of development here at LEAST. 

An average player peaks at 27.  It wouldn't be that unusual if an individual peaks several years before or after that.  Nick Markakis had his best season at 24.  If they don't even let Rutschman get to the majors until 24 because of service time and contention windows and whatever, it's possible they're missing out on part of his peak in exchange for seasons in his 30s when he might be in steep decline.

[interloper]

7 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

An average player peaks at 27.  It wouldn't be that unusual if an individual peaks several years before or after that.  Nick Markakis had his best season at 24.  If they don't even let Rutschman get to the majors until 24 because of service time and contention windows and whatever, it's possible they're missing out on part of his peak in exchange for seasons in his 30s when he might be in steep decline.

That's all fine, but ... we know nothing about him! I guess he'd be no worse than our current catchers (we assume), but I'm not advocating holding him back for the lols or for service time. I'm just saying most prospects aren't called up by 23 anyway, especially with essentially zero minor league time to determine if they are in fact ready for the major leagues. 

By that logic, we should be promoting any prospect with upside by age 22 no matter what. But we don't do that because that's silly. We are saying this about Adley because we are assuming he's insanely good. Which is fair. What I am saying is that I am skeptical that he is as insanely good as we assume, and I want to see him burn down AA for a bit to convince me.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

That's all fine, but ... we know nothing about him! I guess he'd be no worse than our current catchers (we assume), but I'm not advocating holding him back for the lols or for service time. I'm just saying most prospects aren't called up by 23 anyway, especially with essentially zero minor league time to determine if they are in fact ready for the major leagues. 

By that logic, we should be promoting any prospect with upside by age 22 no matter what. But we don't do that because that's silly. We are saying this about Adley because we are assuming he's insanely good. Which is fair. What I am saying is that I am skeptical that he is as insanely good as we assume, and I want to see him burn down AA for a bit to convince me.

We know nothing about him.

The Orioles should have a pretty solid collection of data.

 

[Aglets]

20 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

An average player peaks at 27.  It wouldn't be that unusual if an individual peaks several years before or after that.  Nick Markakis had his best season at 24.  If they don't even let Rutschman get to the majors until 24 because of service time and contention windows and whatever, it's possible they're missing out on part of his peak in exchange for seasons in his 30s when he might be in steep decline.

This is a really good point.  If you "delay" his debut by a year, it is indeed possible you will be swapping out a year of Adley in his early 20s for a year in his early 30s where he is in decline.

So I guess it comes down to what do you think is better for the Orioles?   Playing him in the majors at 23 when the team isn't even trying to be competitive?  Or keeping him around for more years on the back-end where we hope to have a great pipeline in place and a perpetually competitive team?  Is there a realistic chance a 31 year old Adley can still help that team?  I think so.

The Orioles main priority is to make the moves that will help the team win as many championships as possible.   Yes they also want to do what is best to help all of their players reach their maximum potential.  Those goals are almost always in alignment.

Occasionally, an argument can be made that they are not.  I can see that for AR that may be such a time.

So what should they do?  Put the best interests of the player before the best interests of the team?

I don't think so.  I understand the moral argument against it but I don't think a rationally operating front office should think that way.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Aglets said:

This is a really good point.  If you "delay" his debut by a year, it is indeed possible you will be swapping out a year of Adley in his early 20s for a year in his early 30s where he is in decline.

So I guess it comes down to what do you think is better for the Orioles?   Playing him in the majors at 23 when the team isn't even trying to be competitive?  Or keeping him around for more years on the back-end where we hope to have a great pipeline in place and a perpetually competitive team?  Is there a realistic chance a 31 year old Adley can still help that team?  I think so.

The Orioles main priority is to make the moves that will help the team win as many championships as possible.   Yes they also want to do what is best to help all of their players reach their maximum potential.  Those goals are almost always in alignment.

Occasionally, an argument can be made that they are not.  I can see that for AR that may be such a time.

So what should they do?  Put the best interests of the player before the best interests of the team?

I don't think so.  I understand the moral argument against it but I don't think a rationally operating front office should think that way.

Right, but the question is "should".  That, to me, opens up the moral argument.

[DrungoHazewood]

14 minutes ago, interloper said:

That's all fine, but ... we know nothing about him! I guess he'd be no worse than our current catchers (we assume), but I'm not advocating holding him back for the lols or for service time. I'm just saying most prospects aren't called up by 23 anyway, especially with essentially zero minor league time to determine if they are in fact ready for the major leagues. 

By that logic, we should be promoting any prospect with upside by age 22 no matter what. But we don't do that because that's silly. We are saying this about Adley because we are assuming he's insanely good. Which is fair. What I am saying is that I am skeptical that he is as insanely good as we assume, and I want to see him burn down AA for a bit to convince me.

By far the biggest reasons for players not debuting by 23 are service time and tradition.   With service time being #1. 

If all players became free agents at a set age instead of after X years of service time, almost all top prospects would be in the majors at 19, 20, 21.  Many, many players would spend little or no time in the minors.  Someone like Rutschman would go straight from college to the O's almost immediately, with his playing time and role determined by how quickly he adapts to the majors.

Because there's a six-year clock teams want to be as sure as they can that players are productive throughout that six years.  If instead there was a set age teams would want to maximize MLB value, which would mean getting them up as soon as possible even if they were in a backup or bullpen role.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, Aglets said:

This is a really good point.  If you "delay" his debut by a year, it is indeed possible you will be swapping out a year of Adley in his early 20s for a year in his early 30s where he is in decline.

So I guess it comes down to what do you think is better for the Orioles?   Playing him in the majors at 23 when the team isn't even trying to be competitive?  Or keeping him around for more years on the back-end where we hope to have a great pipeline in place and a perpetually competitive team?  Is there a realistic chance a 31 year old Adley can still help that team?  I think so.

The Orioles main priority is to make the moves that will help the team win as many championships as possible.   Yes they also want to do what is best to help all of their players reach their maximum potential.  Those goals are almost always in alignment.

Occasionally, an argument can be made that they are not.  I can see that for AR that may be such a time.

So what should they do?  Put the best interests of the player before the best interests of the team?

I don't think so.  I understand the moral argument against it but I don't think a rationally operating front office should think that way.

I think you can make the case that getting Rutschman at bats against MLB pitching now, so that he's fully adjusted and approaching peak when the O's should be in contention will add as many or more theoretical championships and playoff appearances as delaying his debut and having an extra year at 31.

[Aglets]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Right, but the question is "should".  That, to me, opens up the moral argument.

They "should" do what's in the best interest of the team.