Rutschman to Norfolk

[Sports Guy]

49 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Ahh, but that's not what you said.   You said there is absolutely no reason besides service time to keep him down right now.   And I gave a legitimate reason.    <---Is what I would say if I was the kind of person who liked to nitpick the semantics of every post on the message board that disagrees with me to prove that I am right.   But that's not my style.   I'll make my point and as long as I think it is understood I won't worry about getting into a never ending pissing contest with people who disagree with me.  

Well, I don’t see it as a legit reason anyway. It’s an excuse but not a legit reason.  
 

And when I say that, I mean that in the context of bringing him Up 4-6 weeks ago, not right now.

Worrying about something that may not happen doesnt trump the idea of legit ML learning time.

[waroriole]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

That average debut time would go way down if they had control of a player until the age of 27 or 28. Besides, good organizations would buy out those prime years for the best talent. Plus, I think it would add more excitement to the game if some really good going into their prime players were available each year.

Right now, the system is broke. In theory you could own the rights to an 18 year old kid until he is 31 years old before he would ever be eligible for free agency (four year before needing to go on the 40-man, 3 option yeas, and then six years of major league time). 

Why should it matter if they are in the majors or minors leagues when it comes to becoming a free agent? Make it age specific for free agency and maybe guys will get promoted quicker and play a role in the majors quicker and the game will improve. 

Instead of making it an age deadline, I’d rather see it be that the team has 8-9 years of control after the draft. Maybe an extra year or two for HS kids. They can be used for player development in the minors or they can help out the ML team. 

[Gentile4]

50 minutes ago, waroriole said:

Instead of making it an age deadline, I’d rather see it be that the team has 8-9 years of control after the draft. Maybe an extra year or two for HS kids. They can be used for player development in the minors or they can help out the ML team. 

I like this. My only addition would be that HS kids don't get anything extra.  If a team drafts a HS player, then they're essentially giving away several years of control. Teams can still draft HS players, but they better be close to ML ready.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Gentile4 said:

I like this. My only addition would be that HS kids don't get anything extra.  If a team drafts a HS player, then they're essentially giving away several years of control. Teams can still draft HS players, but they better be close to ML ready.

And International signees? 

 

[waroriole]

30 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And International signees? 

 

Maybe once they come to a US based minor league team, the click starts. 

[Ripken]

I wanted him in Baltimore on opening day.  He's going to learn wherever he plays, and our catchers suck something awful, so it sure seems like service time manipulation to me.  The 40-man argument is a poor one since no one of any consequence would be lost if AR was added to the 40.

 

[Jagwar]

12 hours ago, Ruzious said:

Say he OPS's 1.400 in AAA; still don't bring him up?  You don't think that sets a bad example?  

No I don't. Because the overarching goal should be consistent long term strength and success of the O's franchise. That means holding onto your best players for as long as possible. Bringing AR up at the end of 2021 for a smidgen of games on a horrible team does not align with that goal. I personally would rather wait until next April to bring him up. I want AR in an O's uniform as long as possible, preferably on teams that don't suck.  

[Jagwar]

23 hours ago, accinfo said:

You know that is probably the correct business decision but as a fan I don't give a hoot about service time.  I want to see the best baseball players playing on the major league team.  This is probably especially the correct decision given the fact that there is going to be a new CBA but again as a fan I don't care.  I think the system is broken.  

I get that and I respect your insight. But I would rather see AR playing in an O's uniform in 2027 on a strong O's team than in September 2021 on a last place team. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Jagwar said:

I get that and I respect your insight. But I would rather see AR playing in an O's uniform in 2027 on a strong O's team than in September 2021 on a last place team. 

Then you extend him.

How did that seventh year of Wieters work out?

[Jagwar]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Then you extend him.

How did that seventh year of Wieters work out?

Fair point. Really hoping that AR is not Wieters 2.0, but isn't that a typical risk with high draft choices?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Jagwar said:

Fair point. Really hoping that AR is not Wieters 2.0, but isn't that a typical risk with high draft choices?

One of my main views on gaming service time is that something generally happens to make that seventh year of lessened importance.  They end up not being as good as hoped, get hurt, traded, too expensive...

The odds of player X having an impactful year on a contending team in year 7 just isn't that good.

[Jagwar]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

One of my main views on gaming service time is that something generally happens to make that seventh year of lessened importance.  They end up not being as good as hoped, get hurt, traded, too expensive...

The odds of player X having an impactful year on a contending team in year 7 just isn't that good.

Another fair point. But I just as easily could have typed "The odds of player X having an impactful year on a non-contending team in year 1 just isn't that good. 

[Frobby]

11 hours ago, Jagwar said:

I get that and I respect your insight. But I would rather see AR playing in an O's uniform in 2027 on a strong O's team than in September 2021 on a last place team. 

You don’t need to choose between those.  We could bring up Rutschman tomorrow and he’d still be under team control in 2027, barring unforeseen changes in the CBA.   2028 is a different story.   

[Gentile4]

15 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

And International signees? 

 

Same. Why should a 16 year old international player be any different than a US kid? 

[maybenxtyr]

1 hour ago, Gentile4 said:

Same. Why should a 16 year old international player be any different than a US kid? 

Well, I don't think a 16 year old US kid is eligible to sign.