Will Jacob Nottingham be on our Opening Day roster?

[Pickles]

24 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

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.

 

Right.  It actually addresses the issue at hand- if that issue is getting guys to the MLs sooner.

But it's a real can of worms.  And if we're worried about "fairness" how "fair" is to punish college players in the drafting process, which is what would inevitably occur?

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Right.  It actually addresses the issue at hand- if that issue is getting guys to the MLs sooner.

But it's a real can of worms.  And if we're worried about "fairness" how "fair" is to punish college players in the drafting process, which is what would inevitably occur?

Well I think the rules need to be separate for intl and HS kids.

Maybe make it age 26 for them.

Or instead of an age, it’s time from the day they are signed.  Like say it’s 8 years from the day you sign.  Something like that.

But I can see them just giving a blanket age policy across the board.

I don’t think that’s hurts the college that much, if at all.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Well I think the rules need to be separate for intl and HS kids.

Maybe make it age 26 for them.

Or instead of an age, it’s time from the day they are signed.  Like say it’s 8 years from the day you sign.  Something like that.

But I can see them just giving a blanket age policy across the board.

I don’t think that’s hurts the college that much, if at all.

Ok, as long as rules were different for HS kids, College Kids, and INTL kids you could avoid devaluing any of them.

But a hard and fast 28 year old FA route, would certainly devalue college kids in the drafting process.

A set number of years of team control after amateur acquisition would make a lot of sense- but only if it could be flexible enough to account for the different classes of amateur talent.

So maybe drafted out of high school team has your rights for 10 years.

Drafted out of college team has your rights 7/8 years.

Signed as an INTL FA team has your rights for 12 years.

Something like that.

But as always, be aware of unintended consequences.  I think we'd see a lot more guys follow the Harper path, and a real burgeoning community college baseball scene.

[Frobby]

It’s never going to be 28.   We’ve been through this a few times.   The major league median debut is at 24+, and it’s never been lower than 22+ even before FA existed.   The number of actual years of team control would drop dramatically if the threshold were set at 28, even assuming that teams would push players to the majors faster if that were the rule.  

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s never going to be 28.   We’ve been through this a few times.   The major league median debut is at 24+, and it’s never been lower than 22+ even before FA existed.   The number of actual years of team control would drop dramatically if the threshold were set at 28, even assuming that teams would push players to the majors faster if that were the rule.  

Well if they set an age, I can’t imagine it being older since this is a big issue.  Much older and you have the same system you have now.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

It’s never going to be 28.   We’ve been through this a few times.   The major league median debut is at 24+, and it’s never been lower than 22+ even before FA existed.   The number of actual years of team control would drop dramatically if the threshold were set at 28, even assuming that teams would push players to the majors faster if that were the rule.  

Tying it to age also messes up the amateur talent markets something fierce.

Giving the clubs control for a certain number of years over differing class of amateur talent, is the solution.

The solution to the "problem" of AR debuting 4/19 instead of 4/1.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Well if they set an age, I can’t imagine it being older since this is a big issue.  Much older and you have the same system you have now.

I just went back and reminded myself of the data I collected.   The median player debuts at 24.5 and it’s never been lower than 23.5 at any time from 1950 to now.   

Now, as a practical matter, the majority of players are out of MLB before reaching 6 years of service time, and if I had to guess, the ones who do reach it probably debuted at an earlier median  age than the player population as a whole, since age at debut tends to correlate with quality of the player.   But I’d still be pretty sure that 28 would be too early a cutoff.   
 

[Frobby]

22 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Tying it to age also messes up the amateur talent markets something fierce.

Giving the clubs control for a certain number of years over differing class of amateur talent, is the solution.

The solution to the "problem" of AR debuting 4/19 instead of 4/1.

Interesting to think how setting an age limit would fit with the fact that some families choose to hold their kids back a year in school so that they’ll be better able to compete in sports.   So you could have two kids drafted out of HS the same year, one a full year or more younger than the other, and the older kid gets to be a FA a year sooner even though drafted at the same time.  I guess no matter what you do, there will be some anomalies.  

[Sports Guy]

30 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I just went back and reminded myself of the data I collected.   The median player debuts at 24.5 and it’s never been lower than 23.5 at any time from 1950 to now.   

Now, as a practical matter, the majority of players are out of MLB before reaching 6 years of service time, and if I had to guess, the ones who do reach it probably debuted at an earlier median  age than the player population as a whole, since age at debut tends to correlate with quality of the player.   But I’d still be pretty sure that 28 would be too early a cutoff.   
 

The debut age means nothing.  It’s just when the player becomes a FA.

That’s the issue that needs to be addressed.

If you have it 29 or 30, it really changes nothing from Where things are now.

[Pickles]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Interesting to think how setting an age limit would fit with the fact that some families choose to hold their kids back a year in school so that they’ll be better able to compete in sports.   So you could have two kids drafted out of HS the same year, one a full year or more younger than the other, and the older kid gets to be a FA a year sooner even though drafted at the same time.  I guess no matter what you do, there will be some anomalies.  

Your last sentence has been my point all along: No matter what you do there will be "manipulation."

Throwing out the current system, and introducing a new system, with frankly more opportunities for manipulation, doesn't seem worth it to me.  Again, the "problem" is that prospects like Rutschman and Bryant spend a few more weeks in the MiLs isn't really a "problem."

The system I laid out above with teams maintaining control for a certain number of years is likewise rife with opportunities for manipulation.  In this case, by the players.  What's stopping guys from spending a season at a community college, being classified as a college guy, and then getting to FA earlier?  Nothing.

You also made a point obliquely.  The only guys these manipulations affect are the very cream of the crop: Or exactly the guys who are going to make a killing in FA anyway- and have made millions in bonuses already (in most cases.)

I guess I just don't see the point.  And I believe the only reason it has gotten so much traction here is because it gives some a cudgel to hammer the O's FO with over Rutschman and the "rebuild."

 

 

[Can_of_corn]

5 hours ago, Pickles said:

Your last sentence has been my point all along: No matter what you do there will be "manipulation."

Throwing out the current system, and introducing a new system, with frankly more opportunities for manipulation, doesn't seem worth it to me.  Again, the "problem" is that prospects like Rutschman and Bryant spend a few more weeks in the MiLs isn't really a "problem."

The system I laid out above with teams maintaining control for a certain number of years is likewise rife with opportunities for manipulation.  In this case, by the players.  What's stopping guys from spending a season at a community college, being classified as a college guy, and then getting to FA earlier?  Nothing.

You also made a point obliquely.  The only guys these manipulations affect are the very cream of the crop: Or exactly the guys who are going to make a killing in FA anyway- and have made millions in bonuses already (in most cases.)

I guess I just don't see the point.  And I believe the only reason it has gotten so much traction here is because it gives some a cudgel to hammer the O's FO with over Rutschman and the "rebuild."

 

 

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.

[RZNJ]

49 minutes 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.

Are you for total free agency?   Any player not under contract from the time they are rookies and forward can negotiate a contract with any team?  So, you'd have to sign every rookie to a multi year contract or risk losing them to another team after their rookie year.

Let's take it a step further.  Do you believe in the amateur draft?

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Are you for total free agency?   Any player not under contract from the time they are rookies and forward can negotiate a contract with any team?  So, you'd have to sign every rookie to a multi year contract or risk losing them to another team after their rookie year.

Let's take it a step further.  Do you believe in the amateur draft?

I'm fine with the draft.  I'd probably cut the free agency requirement to five years and implement my idea about service time.

I think service manipulation is an abuse of the system and against the spirit of the CBA. 

I'm certainly more pro player than I am owner.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm fine with the draft.  I'd probably cut the free agency requirement to five years and implement my idea about service time.

I think service manipulation is an abuse of the system and against the spirit of the CBA. 

I'm certainly more pro player than I am owner.

But what about pro fan?   From a fan’s POV, having your favorite players disappear via free agency sucks, and the earlier it happens, the more it sucks.  And if you root for a team that is at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to signing free agents because of market size, it sucks even more.    

I’m definitely not in favor of reducing the time to FA from 6 years to 5.   I do favor looking at ways of curbing abuses.   
 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

But what about pro fan?   From a fan’s POV, having your favorite players disappear via free agency sucks, and the earlier it happens, the more it sucks.  And if you root for a team that is at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to signing free agents because of market size, it sucks even more.    

I’m definitely not in favor of reducing the time to FA from 6 years to 5.   I do favor looking at ways of curbing abuses.   
 

Fans of college sports don't seem to have a problem.  What is the average length of an NFL career?  Guys in the NBA move constantly they seem to be doing OK.

You've done the research how many guys even hit free agency after exhausting team control?  Who was the last Oriole that applied to?

The last Oriole "Favorite player" I remember losing to free agency was Mussina, who this wouldn't apply to.