Will Jacob Nottingham be on our Opening Day roster?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I misunderstood your point.  I thought you were looking for players who started in the O’s org and were still with the team when their six years of service were up, as opposed to players who were DFA or traded away before they got to FA.   Of course you’ve got guys like Manny, traded away at the last possible time before becoming a free agent.   

Manny hypothetical.

On opening day 2018 the O's announce an extension with Machado that is identical to the contract he signed with the Padres except that it doesn't have a no trade clause (I don't know what no trade protection his actual contract has).  2018 still happens.

Do you, as a fan, hope they trade Machado or build around him? 

 

 

[HowAboutThat]

There are reasonable solutions to this problem. The problem is that neither side wants a reasonable solution, they want what they want, and damn anything else.

However, Sports Guy is generally correct that age should be the factor. Draft a guy at 21-22, knowing he’s going to be a FA after his age 28 season, regardless of when you bring him up, will get a lot of guys into the system faster. Not only that but reaching FA by 28 will give the kids time for a large contract because they still have good years before the decline.
For the high school kids, who are still developing, you’ve got some more leeway, and perhaps a different time line, because after all, they are still kids.

For the international 16-year olds, a different set of rules to accommodate the education, culture and language issues.

The Orioles and other small organizations can ameliorate any potential problems by doing what they should be doing anyway, which is trade guys at peak value and restock the pipeline. All due respect to Frobby, the team isn’t one guy, the team is the team, and guys, even famous guys, come and go. This isn’t ARs team, it wasn’t Manny’s team or Brooks’. If anything it was Earl’s team, or Buck’s team.

My only hope is that a good agreement will be reached, without too much stupidity, and my only fear is that that will not happen.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Philip

[Frobby]

48 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Manny hypothetical.

On opening day 2018 the O's announce an extension with Machado that is identical to the contract he signed with the Padres except that it doesn't have a no trade clause (I don't know what no trade protection his actual contract has).  2018 still happens.

Do you, as a fan, hope they trade Machado or build around him? 

I’m wondering how we got so far afield from whether Jacob Nottingham will be on the Opening Day roster.   Talk about a hijacked thread!

But, the question is a great one.   On the one hand, after 2018 I wouldn’t have been inclined to sign Manny back because roughly $100 mm of that would be wasted on losing seasons, given the suddenly sorry state of the team.   On the other hand, if he was under that contract, he’d be young enough to build around and be a centerpiece for the next winning team.   So, I’d be very torn.  I’d probably want to at least shop him and understand what the trade alternative would bring.   

[Pickles]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Apart from the fact that I was vocal in my estimation that they were also gaming Mountcastle's clock? 

I still see no reason that Mountcastle (coming off a AAA MVP) shouldn't have been a September callup in 2019.

Of course you still refuse to acknowledge the actual issue being discussed.  NO ONE cares that Rutschman or Bryant spend a few weeks in the minors.  We care that those two weeks delays their free agency by a year.  It might make a huge difference in Rutschman's career earnings if he's 30 or 31 when he hits free agency.

I also despise the whole idea that "these guys are going to make a killing in FA anyway".  What they may or may not make later doesn't make it right. It's just a terrible mindset that screams of sour grapes.

Oh, because I don't care about the bolded at all.  Particularly when the "solutions" to the "problem" lead to more opportunities for mischief- as has been laid out quite well.

And to be clear, you're compulsive need to be quite "vocal" in these matters doesn't mean you're Cesar Chavez; it just means you're compulsive.  

[wildcard]

I could see a few changes coming:

FA after 6 years of service time or age 29.

Up in the minimum salary to 800k for the first, 900k after 1 year of service time and 1m after two years of service time.

Changing the arbitration algorithm to reflect WAR instead of years of service time. But this would mean if a player during his arbitration years has a bad year his salary could go down the next season.  I think the owners could accept  paying for actual performance after three years.  

[Sports Guy]

9 hours ago, Pickles said:

Oh, because I don't care about the bolded at all.  Particularly when the "solutions" to the "problem" lead to more opportunities for mischief- as has been laid out quite well.

And to be clear, you're compulsive need to be quite "vocal" in these matters doesn't mean you're Cesar Chavez; it just means you're compulsive.  

You may not care about it but that is the crux of the issue for the players.  They, rightfully so, don’t feel the system should be gamed so that a player can lose a year of FA.  

[Pickles]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

You may not care about it but that is the crux of the issue for the players.  They, rightfully so, don’t feel the system should be gamed so that a player can lose a year of FA.  

How many players?  I haven't heard some broad groundswell from the players about this issue.  I haven't heard it- except for here- mentioned as some big contention in the collective bargaining going on now.  

How arbitration is allotted and determined is a much, much larger issue.

I repeat, the manipulation that goes on affects very few players and those players are among the best compensated in the game.

The union would be foolish to prioritize those players at the expense of the other couple hundred of players it represents.

[Sports Guy]

48 minutes ago, Pickles said:

How many players?  I haven't heard some broad groundswell from the players about this issue.  I haven't heard it- except for here- mentioned as some big contention in the collective bargaining going on now.  

How arbitration is allotted and determined is a much, much larger issue.

I repeat, the manipulation that goes on affects very few players and those players are among the best compensated in the game.

The union would be foolish to prioritize those players at the expense of the other couple hundred of players it represents.

The biggest issue for the players, or at least one of the biggest, is that a majority of the players are getting squeezed out and aren’t able to find takers for their salaries.

The thought is that a lot of these guys are hitting free agency too late into their careers and it’s hurting their earnings potential.

The groundswell is more of the idea of needing to fix a system that causes this and part of that issue is service time.  Allowing guys to get to free agency sooner should allow these guys to get paid earlier.  Even just 2 years is a massive difference.

You are so focused on the idea that this doesn’t effect many players but you are ignoring the bigger picture…and the bigger picture is that they want guys to become free agents sooner.  Service timE manipulation is part of this and, btw, just the idea of holding guys back is part of it.

It doesn’t have to be the blatant, call up a guy in late April to get the extra year.  It’s the general overall point of keeping guys in the minors too long overall.  It’s not necessary for so many players but service time is the Main reason it’s being done.

[Absltgreek]

1 hour ago, Pickles said:

How many players?  I haven't heard some broad groundswell from the players about this issue.  I haven't heard it- except for here- mentioned as some big contention in the collective bargaining going on now.  

How arbitration is allotted and determined is a much, much larger issue.

I repeat, the manipulation that goes on affects very few players and those players are among the best compensated in the game.

The union would be foolish to prioritize those players at the expense of the other couple hundred of players it represents.

How have you "not heard the groundswell"? Service time manipulation has been a loud/major topic for years now around the league. That's not to take one side or another, but to deny this is a major issue and has been, is naive.

[Pickles]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

The biggest issue for the players, or at least one of the biggest, is that a majority of the players are getting squeezed out and aren’t able to find takers for their salaries.

The thought is that a lot of these guys are hitting free agency too late into their careers and it’s hurting their earnings potential.

The groundswell is more of the idea of needing to fix a system that causes this and part of that issue is service time.  Allowing guys to get to free agency sooner should allow these guys to get paid earlier.  Even just 2 years is a massive difference.

You are so focused on the idea that this doesn’t effect many players but you are ignoring the bigger picture…and the bigger picture is that they want guys to become free agents sooner.  Service timE manipulation is part of this and, btw, just the idea of holding guys back is part of it.

It doesn’t have to be the blatant, call up a guy in late April to get the extra year.  It’s the general overall point of keeping guys in the minors too long overall.  It’s not necessary for so many players but service time is the Main reason it’s being done.

Again, I think these are two separate issue.

Getting guys to FA earlier should obviously be a major goal of the Union.  I understand that.

You can do that by lowering club control over players.
 

That's a different issue that service time manipulation.  Because, again, that doesn't affect many players.  Frobby's provided the numbers: There's no evidence that there is widespread slowrolling guys through the MiLs.  It just isn't happening, except in extremely rare cases.

[Pickles]

40 minutes ago, Absltgreek said:

How have you "not heard the groundswell"? Service time manipulation has been a loud/major topic for years now around the league. That's not to take one side or another, but to deny this is a major issue and has been, is naive.

Writers write about it.  Some.  Kris Bryant was angry enough to file a grievance.  

But this is not a major issue for the Union.  Because the Union- smart guys that they are- realize any arbitrary system will lead to certain manipulations.

[Aristotelian]

Is the problem the manipulation aspect or the length of the clock? Let teams keep control through 30 or 31 and they will have no disincentive against promoting players based on performance. Somehow I don't think the players will go for that. You could set the age lower but that will impact small market teams that have invested a lot in these guys. I think they offered 29.5 but the players rejected it. Of course salary cap is verboten but that would help the small market teams agree to a lower number. 

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Again, I think these are two separate issue.

Getting guys to FA earlier should obviously be a major goal of the Union.  I understand that.

You can do that by lowering club control over players.
 

That's a different issue that service time manipulation.  Because, again, that doesn't affect many players.  Frobby's provided the numbers: There's no evidence that there is widespread slowrolling guys through the MiLs.  It just isn't happening, except in extremely rare cases.

Ok you can think that but you are not correct.

It all falls under the same umbrella.  It’s all part of the “how do we get guys to free agency sooner” narrative/argument.
 

Service time manipulation effects Almost every player…it just doesn’t always effect them in the extreme examples you are searching for.  But players are kept in the minors too long pretty frequently.  This is because of service time, not development.  You better believe if they changed the rules, all of a sudden the development of these guys would change.

[Frobby]

18 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Service time manipulation effects Almost every player

How so?   I don’t think it affects many players at all.  

[Pickles]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

How so?   I don’t think it affects many players at all.  

You have provided the evidence yourself.

There is no slowrolling of players through the MiLs to game their service time.

It happens in extremely rare and unique circumstances.