Will Jacob Nottingham be on our Opening Day roster?

[Pickles]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Can someone else explain it to him?  I've got to log off.

Yeah take a break.  Come back and someone will explain it to you.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, sportsfan8703 said:

At this point in our rebuild I hope they keep service time manipulation. I want 6.5 seasons from all of our young guys. 

Now, you're starting to get it.

We're not talking about 6 vs 7 years.

We're talking about the difference between 6 and 6.5.  And really 99% of the time it's the difference between 6 and 6.2.

Such a rule change might get guys to FA quicker.  It won't get them to the MLs any faster.  I can see scenarios where it will actually slow it.  So doesn't that defeat the whole point?

[Pickles]

Or am I missing the point of the proposed rule change?

If it's to get guys to FA sooner, then yeah, it will do that.

If it's to get guys to the MLs faster, then yeah, it really won't do that.

[waroriole]

11 minutes ago, Pickles said:

If you change the rules to make any day on the roster a full service season, then guys like Wieters and AR will be called up like two weeks earlier.

That's the whole point.  The manipulation will still take place; the date will just change.  And it won't add more than a month or so to a guy's ML experience.  

When do you think teams will call up players if this rule is changed?

[Pickles]

Just now, waroriole said:

When do you think teams will call up players if this rule is changed?

A guy like Rutschman will be two weeks different.  As I've laid out.

Do you disagree with that?

Maybe a guy like Franco you could argue would be like 3 months different.  But that move was made with arbitration in mind.  Do you plan on overhauling the entire arbitration system too?

[waroriole]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

A guy like Rutschman will be two weeks different.  As I've laid out.

Do you disagree with that?

Maybe a guy like Franco you could argue would be like 3 months different.  But that move was made with arbitration in mind.  Do you plan on overhauling the entire arbitration system too?

He’ll be two weeks later in arriving, but he’ll be a FA a year sooner. That’s the point. 

[sportsfan8703]

8 minutes ago, waroriole said:

He’ll be two weeks later in arriving, but he’ll be a FA a year sooner. That’s the point. 

I don’t think the current players are in a race to promote prospects that will take their jobs. I could see expanded playoffs being negotiated for a salary floor and that’s it. Maybe an NL DH, but that would create more jobs and “hurt” the owners in the NL. 
 

Best case scenario for us is that they keep the service time rules the way they are. Institute a NL DH and an international draft, and expand the playoffs. 

[Pickles]

1 hour ago, waroriole said:

He’ll be two weeks later in arriving, but he’ll be a FA a year sooner. That’s the point. 

Again, I thought the whole point was bemoaning that worthy guys were wasting time in the MiLs.  Not that they should be free agents sooner.

The first point I can care about.  The second one not so much.

[Frobby]

54 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Or am I missing the point of the proposed rule change?

If it's to get guys to FA sooner, then yeah, it will do that.

If it's to get guys to the MLs faster, then yeah, it really won't do that.

It’s the former.   It will stop teams from getting 6.171 years out of a player before he becomes a free agent.   But I think Corn’s proposal is silly and far too extreme for the owners to accept.  

How would this be?

1.   Players become free agents after 5.081 years of service.   
2.   No more Super 2.   
3.   Dramatically raise the minimum salary for players with more than 2.00 years of service and less than 3.00.  Say, $1.25 mm.

With this, teams wouldn’t have much incentive to game service time.   No team is going to keep a ready player down a full half season to try to gain another year of service time, because it would materially hurt team’s chances of competing and cost the player a half year or more of major league experience.  If they do, they’re still going to be paying that player $1.25 mm in his third full year.   

 

[Sports Guy]

The way you get rid of the service time manipulation is by age or something like amount of years within an organization.

If basically a player is a FA after their age 28 season that is what changes things.

[Pickles]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

It’s the former.   It will stop teams from getting 6.171 years out of a player before he becomes a free agent.   But I think Corn’s proposal is silly and far too extreme for the owners to accept.  

How would this be?

1.   Players become free agents after 5.081 years of service.   
2.   No more Super 2.   
3.   Dramatically raise the minimum salary for players with more than 2.00 years of service and less than 3.00.  Say, $1.25 mm.

With this, teams wouldn’t have much incentive to game service time.   No team is going to keep a ready player down a full half season to try to gain another year of service time, because it would materially hurt team’s chances of competing and cost the player a half year or more of major league experience.  If they do, they’re still going to be paying that player $1.25 mm in his third full year.   

 

Ok, so I guess I was speaking at cross purposes, and confused as to what the point of the proposed changes were.

Again, if it's to get guys to FA earlier then it would do that.  But, honestly, as a fan of a "poorer" team that really isn't something I'm rooting for.

If it's to get guys to the MLs earlier, it wouldn't really accomplish much of that- in fact, I see scenarios in which it slows guys down.

[Pickles]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

The way you get rid of the service time manipulation is by age or something like amount of years within an organization.

If basically a player is a FA after their age 28 season that is what changes things.

This I agree with.  It would solve service time manipulation  but this would radically change the valuation of amateur talent.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Ok, so I guess I was speaking at cross purposes, and confused as to what the point of the proposed changes were.

Again, if it's to get guys to FA earlier then it would do that.  But, honestly, as a fan of a "poorer" team that really isn't something I'm rooting for.

I think the way I’d phrase it is the goal is to create a system that ends the practice of artificially delaying a player’s debut by a few weeks or months in order to gain an extra year of service time.   That isn’t fair to the player.   And I agree the current rule probably helps the poorer teams who can’t afford a lot of free agents more than those who can.  

[Pickles]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think the way I’d phrase it is the goal is to create a system that ends the practice of artificially delaying a player’s debut by a few weeks or months in order to gain an extra year of service time.   That isn’t fair to the player.   And I agree the current rule probably helps the poorer teams who can’t afford a lot of free agents more than those who can.  

I guess I just don't think it's that big of a deal.  It affects like one prospect every few years and it would get them to the MLs a few weeks earlier.  I don't see the purpose of overhauling the entire system so that Kris Bryant can get to the MLs two weeks earlier, and to FA a season earlier.

I don't care about the FA aspect of it.  No, it isn't fair, but I can't cry much for these guys.

 

[Sports Guy]

29 minutes ago, Pickles said:

This I agree with.  It would solve service time manipulation  but this would radically change the valuation of amateur talent.

I guess but really what it is does is stop holding players back when you don’t need to…or it stops them from going to levels that they shouldn’t be at.