McGregor on Rutschman: "They're throwing it (fastballs) by him right now"

[eddie83]

I think it could come down to number of years under team control from the moment you sign, not by age. Assuming for sake of argument 18 for HS and 21 college.  
 

Perhaps 10 years for a high school player and 8 for college. You get drafted at 18 you are a FA at 28 or 6 years of service, whichever come first. College would be FA at age 29 or 6 years of service. As example Mountcastle will not be eligible as a FA until his age 30 season. He turns 24 this year. Under the 10 years from where you are drafted he would be eligible after 2024 so he would be entering age 28 season. 

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

How about FA at 6 years of service time or age 29?

I think you don’t want to do anything to to discourage players from not going to college or for that matter discourage not signing out of high school. 

 

11 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

I'd love to see the new collective bargain agreement be that you control a player your draft or sign until they are 26 years old if out of high school, and 27 years old out of college with unlimited options. It would be like the old days with players debuting at 19-years old. This way every players has an opportunity to become a free agent when they hit their prime years (27-31).

 I don’t think too many players are capable of playing at 19. Yes, there are some LeBron types in baseball but not many. The majority of real young players are International for a variety of reasons. 
 

I also think and granted this is an Orioles bias this would lead to more competitive unbalance. I want to see players make more early on either via earlier arbitration or mandatory pay increases. 

[eddie83]

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think it could be how long you are in the organization.  For example, if you are drafted out of college, they have you for 7 years(combined MiL and ML time) before free agency.

For HS and Intl FA, it’s 10 years.

Something along those lines.

Well... you beat me to it. 
 

I was also including the year drafted as counting as one year. In future how they handle rookie ball will be something to follow. With the draft being later and later and no more A ball half season that changes things. 
 

We will see more fall instructs?  A later rookie ball season ? Big difference from a college drafted player and high school.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

I don’t think too many players are capable of playing at 19. Yes, there are some LeBron types in baseball but not many. The majority of real young players are International for a variety of reasons.

Remember that the definition of "capable of playing" has been very skewed in the free agency era by the necessity of maximizing returns during the player's six years under team control.  If you have a 19-year-old that you know will be all yours until he's 28 you don't care so much if he's near his peak.  You care that he's better than the 26th guy on the roster.  Sure, there's some developmental concerns.  But I've long thought that much of what's called development is actually messing around in the minors until you're ready to start the clock.  Players aren't learning to hit MLB sliders and all the other things they need to do by playing a full year in AA at 22.  Instead they're marking time, physically maturing, etc until the team thinks they're ready to step into a starting job and fully contribute.

In 1965 the Orioles put Jim Palmer in the Majors at the age of 19 following an age 18 season in A ball where he walked a batter an inning. Why were they comfortable doing this?  Because there was no such thing as six years of team control, they had him as long as they wanted him (or so they thought at the time).  There was almost no financial impact to putting him in the majors at 19 despite probably not being completely ready to start every 4th day.

If all high school draftees were free agents at 28 many, many more of them would come to the majors earlier than today.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

I also think and granted this is an Orioles bias this would lead to more competitive unbalance. I want to see players make more early on either via earlier arbitration or mandatory pay increases. 

I think it could lead to more competitive balance.  Who are the teams trying to eek out every last dollar of value from prospects by holding them back?  Small market teams.  The Yanks don't usually play these games because the money the Orioles and Pirates and others are trying to save is a rounding error in their budget.

What's a more competitive Orioles team, the one with a random waiver wire guy as the backup catcher, or Adley Rutschman as the backup instead of spending 125 games at Bowie?

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Promotions would come earlier for the better players so you wouldn't be losing that much control.  I don't think it matters a lot if marginal players become free agents after three years, those guys don't stay with teams for six years anyway.

Thought I would add some data points into the discussion:

Year	Debuts	Median	70th	< 21	< 22
					
1950	105	23.307	25.166	18	29
1960	104	23.221	24.194	15	25
1970	140	23.182	23.182	15	32
1980	145	23.294	23.247	11	24
1990	169	24.129	23.345	6	20
2000	204	24.258	23.284	1	18
2010	203	24.233	23.341	6	13
2019	261	24.287	23.321	5	16

The column "70th" is the age of the 70th-youngest player.   I wanted to provided that in addition to the median, because it occurred to me that as MLB got bigger, the talent might be stretched thin a bit more.

Some factors worth noting:

* From 1947 to 1965, a team signing a player to a bonus exceeding $4,000 had to keep that player on the major league roster for two years or the rights to the player would be lost.    

* The draft was instituted in 1965 and the "bonus baby rule" ended

* MLB increased from 16 teams in 1960 to 24 teams by 1970.

* Free agency began in earnest in 1976

* MLB increased from 24 teams in 1970 to 26 teams by 1980

* MLB increased from 24 teams in 1980 to 26 teams by 1990

* MLB increased from 26 teams in 1990 to 30 teams by 2000

I think there's a lot of ways the data on the chart could be interpreted in light of changes in the size of the league, size of the US population, prevalence of foreign players, and changes in the rules of how players are selected and for how long they are controlled.   It's pretty clear, however, that the number of players reaching the majors at under 22 has decreased a lot since free agency started.    

 

 

 

 

[LTO's]

Did people really think Witt Jr. would break camp with the team? He had essentially one hot week and according to baseball ref the pitching he faced was on average worse than AA quality. He had a sub .700 OPS in rookie ball in his last full season and he was very old for a HS draft pick. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Thought I would add some data points into the discussion:

Year	Debuts	Median	70th	< 21	< 22
					
1950	105	23.307	25.166	18	29
1960	104	23.221	24.194	15	25
1970	140	23.182	23.182	15	32
1980	145	23.294	23.247	11	24
1990	169	24.129	23.345	6	20
2000	204	24.258	23.284	1	18
2010	203	24.233	23.341	6	13
2019	261	24.287	23.321	5	16

The column "70th" is the age of the 70th-youngest player.   I wanted to provided that in addition to the median, because it occurred to me that as MLB got bigger, the talent might be stretched thin a bit more.

Some factors worth noting:

* From 1947 to 1965, a team signing a player to a bonus exceeding $4,000 had to keep that player on the major league roster for two years or the rights to the player would be lost.    

* The draft was instituted in 1965 and the "bonus baby rule" ended

* MLB increased from 16 teams in 1960 to 24 teams by 1970.

* Free agency began in earnest in 1976

* MLB increased from 24 teams in 1970 to 26 teams by 1980

* MLB increased from 24 teams in 1980 to 26 teams by 1990

* MLB increased from 26 teams in 1990 to 30 teams by 2000

I think there's a lot of ways the data on the chart could be interpreted in light of changes in the size of the league, size of the US population, prevalence of foreign players, and changes in the rules of how players are selected and for how long they are controlled.   It's pretty clear, however, that the number of players reaching the majors at under 22 has decreased a lot since free agency started.   

I think that one contributing factor is that the size of the talent pool has outpaced expansion (there's only been one expansion in the last 25 years when the US population has increased by about 20%, and other pipelines like Asia have ramped up), so fewer young/old players are good enough to play in the majors under the current free agency system.  The more difficult a league, in general, the fewer teenagers and 35+ players who can compete.  If you look at 19th century baseball you see 18, 19 year olds pitching 500 innings in a season, and Cap Anson hit .330 at the age of 44.

[BohKnowsBmore]

54 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think that one contributing factor is that the size of the talent pool has outpaced expansion (there's only been one expansion in the last 25 years when the US population has increased by about 20%, and other pipelines like Asia have ramped up), so fewer young/old players are good enough to play in the majors under the current free agency system.  The more difficult a league, in general, the fewer teenagers and 35+ players who can compete.  If you look at 19th century baseball you see 18, 19 year olds pitching 500 innings in a season, and Cap Anson hit .330 at the age of 44.

That must have been wild to watch live!

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

That must have been wild to watch live!

If I got a time machine the first place I'd go would be Union Park in Baltimore circa 1894.  So many questions about little details that are almost impossible to figure out without motion pictures, and even the stills are hard to come by and almost never of action.  Clearly the 500 innings were because they were pitching in ways far less destructive to arms than a modern pitcher, but how did that look in reality?

But not so much of a fan of sitting in the Baltimore summer heat in day games in a bowler hat and a suit. I'm definitely paying the extra 75 cents to sit under cover.  Don't know if Von Der Horst's beer is going to be either cold, or any good to modern taste buds.

[eddie83]

6 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Remember that the definition of "capable of playing" has been very skewed in the free agency era by the necessity of maximizing returns during the player's six years under team control.  If you have a 19-year-old that you know will be all yours until he's 28 you don't care so much if he's near his peak.  You care that he's better than the 26th guy on the roster.  Sure, there's some developmental concerns.  But I've long thought that much of what's called development is actually messing around in the minors until you're ready to start the clock.  Players aren't learning to hit MLB sliders and all the other things they need to do by playing a full year in AA at 22.  Instead they're marking time, physically maturing, etc until the team thinks they're ready to step into a starting job and fully contribute.

In 1965 the Orioles put Jim Palmer in the Majors at the age of 19 following an age 18 season in A ball where he walked a batter an inning. Why were they comfortable doing this?  Because there was no such thing as six years of team control, they had him as long as they wanted him (or so they thought at the time).  There was almost no financial impact to putting him in the majors at 19 despite probably not being completely ready to start every 4th day.

If all high school draftees were free agents at 28 many, many more of them would come to the majors earlier than today.

Rutschman with an aluminum bat had modest numbers in college his freshman year. He was 19. 
 

I agree the elite of the elite would be up earlier but how many are we talking about? 

 Clearly like what the Cubs did with Bryant and to a lesser extent the Orioles and Mountcastle, teams have been taking advantage of service time, not saying that. I still think the  minors serve a purpose  

 

[eddie83]

4 hours ago, LTO's said:

Did people really think Witt Jr. would break camp with the team? He had essentially one hot week and according to baseball ref the pitching he faced was on average worse than AA quality. He had a sub .700 OPS in rookie ball in his last full season and he was very old for a HS draft pick. 

It was typical media BS. 

[eddie83]

6 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think it could lead to more competitive balance.  Who are the teams trying to eek out every last dollar of value from prospects by holding them back?  Small market teams.  The Yanks don't usually play these games because the money the Orioles and Pirates and others are trying to save is a rounding error in their budget.

What's a more competitive Orioles team, the one with a random waiver wire guy as the backup catcher, or Adley Rutschman as the backup instead of spending 125 games at Bowie?

Why would you want Adley being a backup instead of playing everyday? What is better for him? Playing in the minors is not worthless. How many wins does a backup catcher add? We are talking on the margins here. 
 

I have seen this in high school sports from time to time. A 9th or 10th grader is put on varsity and they don’t get consistent playing time. Sometimes decisions are made out of necessity, I get that. I get it once the JV year is over or in the playoffs. I’ve seen players hardly ever play though. 
 

In general I think the service time games usually come down to one year gained. This whole conversation really comes down to how long a team has a player. Years 26-28 would be a lot more valuable than 19-22 in general. There are less Manny’s and Harpers than vice versa. Once again you can keep the rule saying 6 years still equals FA. If players are eligible to be gone by say age 26 that is not a benefit to small and mid market teams. 

[DrungoHazewood]

26 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Rutschman with an aluminum bat had modest numbers in college his freshman year. He was 19. 
 

I agree the elite of the elite would be up earlier but how many are we talking about? 

 Clearly like what the Cubs did with Bryant and to a lesser extent the Orioles and Mountcastle, teams have been taking advantage of service time, not saying that. I still think the  minors serve a purpose  

 

Yes, the minors will still serve a purpose.  But prior to free agency there was no expectation that every prospect should spend a year (or at least significant time) at every level.  Brooks was in the majors at 18.  Al Kaline and Mel Ott and many others were up as teenagers.  Boog was up at 19. 

[DrungoHazewood]

14 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Why would you want Adley being a backup instead of playing everyday? What is better for him? Playing in the minors is not worthless.

How many times does Rutschman get to face top MLB pitchers in AA?  How often does he get to catch MLB pitchers at Bowie or Norfolk?  How much longer will his transition period be in the majors if he's rarely faced an Aroldis Chapman or a Zack Britton or a Clayton Kershaw until he's 24 or 25?

[NCRaven]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

How much longer will his transition period be in the majors if he's rarely faced an Aroldis Chapman or a Zack Britton or a Clayton Kershaw until he's 24 or 25?

It still makes me sad that any Oriole batter will have to face Britton.