When should the O’s call up Rutschman?

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think they should send him back down to the GCL once their season starts so he can be properly dominant there.

You have been extra salty lately. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

You have been extra salty lately. 

It isn't that I'm annoyed by the way Elias is going things, although I do think it's going to bite him with the next CBA it's the way the fans are agreeing with it.

Holding this kid back is very possibly impacting his career, both from a legacy standpoint, and financially, in a substantial way.  Yet folks are in favor of it. 

It's bewildering to me.  How would you feel if your employer was conspiring to impede your advancement in your chosen field?

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

23 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

It wasn’t a football town in the early 80’s. The Colts were a joke and the Orioles owned the town. 
 

I mean is St Louis a great baseball town or is it due to always being good? I’m sure it’s both but you get my point.  Since 1998 this team except for a 5 year stretch has been terrible. That 5 year run TV ratings were high and attendance was over 2M every year.  
 

You can’t put a bad product out for that long and blame the fans for anything. And yes I realize that during the Orioles peak the Colts did own the town.  

Baltimore is only owned by the Ravens today because the Orioles have been bad the last twenty years, while the Ravens have been a perennial playoff team. The Ravens were second fiddle to the Orioles until 2000, and thanks to ownership the Orioles have been looking up ever since. 

The Orioles made themselves irrelevant to Baltimore sports fandom, when they could have had close to equal footing with the Ravens. 

[Sports Guy]

I just don't understand anyone voting for OD of 2022.  If your argument is that you don't bring him up this year because you want to save his service time for when they are winning (hopefully), why would you then bring him up on OD and not gain that extra year?

Remember, if we called him up today or on OD next year, the service time in terms of how long we can keep him is the exact same.

Same thing with those who want to wait until Sept.  Why are we waiting until then?  At that point, why wouldn't you just wait and get the extra year?

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

I just don't understand anyone voting for OD of 2022.  If your argument is that you don't bring him up this year because you want to save his service time for when they are winning (hopefully), why would you then bring him up on OD and not gain that extra year?

Remember, if we called him up today or on OD next year, the service time in terms of how long we can keep him is the exact same.

Same thing with those who want to wait until Sept.  Why are we waiting until then?  At that point, why wouldn't you just wait and get the extra year?

 

They are probably betting on changes in the CBA.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It isn't that I'm annoyed by the way Elias is going things, although I do think it's going to bite him with the next CBA it's the way the fans are agreeing with it.

Holding this kid back is very possibly impacting his career, both from a legacy standpoint, and financially, in a substantial way.  Yet folks are in favor of it. 

It's bewildering to me.  How would you feel if your employer was conspiring to impede your advancement in your chosen field?

I know you don't like it but gaining the extra year of service time for certain guys should happen.

That being said, once you get past that, I don't get he logic either.

And yes, fans just go with this.  Its the same thing with rebuilding.  Teams have fooled the fan base that you need to wait 5 years until you can be good. The idea that fans don't see this as a boldface lie is astounding to me.  But they go right with all the cliches and kiss the ring and act as if this is what you must do.

I don't get it.  

[Can_of_corn]

I'm OK with someone like was done with Wieters.  He hadn't played any AAA ball and it was just the seventh year of control and a relatively minor amount of money. 

But to hold Adley back an entire year to me is reprehensible and folks would be condemning it if he worked in any other field of endeavor.

Then you get someone like Mountcastle who shouldn't have been a target for manipulation in the first place.

[LTO's]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It isn't that I'm annoyed by the way Elias is going things, although I do think it's going to bite him with the next CBA it's the way the fans are agreeing with it.

Holding this kid back is very possibly impacting his career, both from a legacy standpoint, and financially, in a substantial way.  Yet folks are in favor of it. 

It's bewildering to me.  How would you feel if your employer was conspiring to impede your advancement in your chosen field?

Just a heads up, if you are concerned with unethical labor practices you should probably not watch literally any sport. Even the concept of a draft is inherently exploitative. Adley Rutschman was worth more money than he got as a bonus when the O's drafted him. For the most part, I think everyone agrees with you that the current system is not kind to players and something needs to change. I just don't understand how Rutschman is the example you are using to demonize the current FO. No matter what you say, the kid has played in 25 games above low-A ball. BA in their most recent prospect sheet noted that Adley, like a lot of players, was rusty in the ST backfields. In no way is it outlandish to have him get some meaningful reps in AA before moving up. 

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, LTO's said:

Just a heads up, if you are concerned with unethical labor practices you should probably not watch literally any sport. Even the concept of a draft is inherently exploitative. Adley Rutschman was worth more money than he got as a bonus when the O's drafted him. For the most part, I think everyone agrees with you that the current system is not kind to players and something needs to change. I just don't understand how Rutschman is the example you are using to demonize the current FO. No matter what you say, the kid has played in 25 games above low-A ball. BA in their most recent prospect sheet noted that Adley, like a lot of players, was rusty in the ST backfields. In no way is it outlandish to have him get some meaningful reps in AA before moving up. 

It is outlandish to hold him down in the minors until next year.

[wildcard]

22 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It isn't that I'm annoyed by the way Elias is going things, although I do think it's going to bite him with the next CBA it's the way the fans are agreeing with it.

Holding this kid back is very possibly impacting his career, both from a legacy standpoint, and financially, in a substantial way.  Yet folks are in favor of it. 

It's bewildering to me.  How would you feel if your employer was conspiring to impede your advancement in your chosen field?

There were only 60 games last year.   They have to cover 162 this year.    Matt Harvey will not be here after July by trade or DFA.   Same could be true for Valdez, Armstrong and Sulser.   They are spreading the workload out.

[forphase1]

18 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It isn't that I'm annoyed by the way Elias is going things, although I do think it's going to bite him with the next CBA it's the way the fans are agreeing with it.

Holding this kid back is very possibly impacting his career, both from a legacy standpoint, and financially, in a substantial way.  Yet folks are in favor of it. 

It's bewildering to me.  How would you feel if your employer was conspiring to impede your advancement in your chosen field?

I can't speak for anyone else of course,  but I've always cared more about the team than the individual players.  Yes,  Cal was my childhood hero, but I was an Orioles fan,  not just a Cal fan.  When Mussina and others I once loved left the Orioles, my interest in their career also largely left.  Point being I want what is best for the team/franchise done,  even if it's at the expense of the players to a degree.  Yes, holding Adley back will likely end up costing him some money,  but I'm ok with that if it allows the team to control his rights an extra year.   Maybe that makes me a bad person to care more about the team I follow than the individual players,  but players come and go,  and are,  at least to a point,  replaceable.  I'm sure many won't agree with this,  but it's at least why I'm in favor of the time manipulation.  I'd be happy to see that eliminated in the next CBA, but as long as it's part of the rules the Os should take advantage of it. 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, LTO's said:

Just a heads up, if you are concerned with unethical labor practices you should probably not watch literally any sport. Even the concept of a draft is inherently exploitative. Adley Rutschman was worth more money than he got as a bonus when the O's drafted him. For the most part, I think everyone agrees with you that the current system is not kind to players and something needs to change. I just don't understand how Rutschman is the example you are using to demonize the current FO. No matter what you say, the kid has played in 25 games above low-A ball. BA in their most recent prospect sheet noted that Adley, like a lot of players, was rusty in the ST backfields. In no way is it outlandish to have him get some meaningful reps in AA before moving up. 

Gosh, and here I thought I was very vocal in my disagreement in how they gamed Mountcastle's clock.  I also remember posting positive things about how the Padres handled Tatis.  I have also been very outspoken in my dislike of the proposed International draft.

So this isn't something new for me, it is just the latest example.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

I can't speak for anyone else of course,  but I've always cared more about the team than the individual players.  Yes,  Cal was my childhood hero, but I was an Orioles fan,  not just a Cal fan.  When Mussina and others I once loved left the Orioles, my interest in their career also largely left.  Point being I want what is best for the team/franchise done,  even if it's at the expense of the players to a degree.  Yes, holding Adley back will likely end up costing him some money,  but I'm ok with that if it allows the team to control his rights an extra year.   Maybe that makes me a bad person to care more about the team I follow than the individual players,  but players come and go,  and are,  at least to a point,  replaceable.  I'm sure many won't agree with this,  but it's at least why I'm in favor of the time manipulation.  I'd be happy to see that eliminated in the next CBA, but as long as it's part of the rules the Os should take advantage of it. 

So would you be OK with it if it was done to you, for the betterment of the company you work for?

[forphase1]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

So would you be OK with it if it was done to you, for the betterment of the company you work for?

I never said that.   And no I probably wouldn't be if I was the target.  But I'm not.    I'm not saying Adley should be tickled that this is taking place.   But I am saying I put the concerns of the team ahead of the players,  usually, and that's why this fan is ok with the time manipulation game. 

 

Same as with college sports.  I absolutely loathe all this recent transferring crap.   Sure it's better for the players,  but often harmful to the school I follow,  thus I'm against it.   I'm sure if I were a player,  I'd want the freedom to transfer at all with no penalty.  But I'm not,  I'm a fan,  and want what's best for my school first,  the players 2nd.

[Aristotelian]

28 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It isn't that I'm annoyed by the way Elias is going things, although I do think it's going to bite him with the next CBA it's the way the fans are agreeing with it.

Holding this kid back is very possibly impacting his career, both from a legacy standpoint, and financially, in a substantial way.  Yet folks are in favor of it. 

It's bewildering to me.  How would you feel if your employer was conspiring to impede your advancement in your chosen field?

The rules are set by the CBA. MLBPA and Rutschman by extension agreed to those rules when he signed up to play professional baseball. It is not "conspiring", it is doing what's best for the team as incentivized by the CBA. Every team does it and the Orioles would be foolish not to.

I would fully support changing the CBA to take away the incentive to or even punish teams somehow for holding players back. Within the current system, I would rather have Rutschman for 7 years than 6 years. 

I understand my employer will promote me when it is in their interest to do so, performance being one factor but not the only factor because it's not about me.