Will Jacob Nottingham be on our Opening Day roster?

[NCRaven]

If they cut arbitration to two years for all, not just Super 2s, and free agency to five years, that would go a long way toward helping the players.  Give the owners the expanded playoffs (which I hate) to pay for it.

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

 

Why 5 years then?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, RZNJ said:

 

Why 5 years then?

Seems like a fair compromise to me.  I do think owners deserve some measure of cost controlled performance and I don't think total freedom would work out better for players than what I'm suggesting.

[RZNJ]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Seems like a fair compromise to me.  I do think owners deserve some measure of cost controlled performance and I don't think total freedom would work out better for players than what I'm suggesting.

Total freedom would be better for owners then?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Total freedom would be better for owners then?

I don't know, but I think it would be.

[RZNJ]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I don't know, but I think it would be.

Then they don't really need the 5 years of cost controlled performance.   It can't be both.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Then they don't really need the 5 years of cost controlled performance.   It can't be both.

I didn't say they needed it.  I said I thought it would be a fair compromise.

Fair to the players, owners and fans.

[RZNJ]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I didn't say they needed it.  I said I thought it would be a fair compromise.

Fair to the players, owners and fans.

Right.  But you said the Owners deserved the 5 years of control and suggested the players would be better off with the 5 years of control than the total free agency.  So if total free agency was actually better for the owners, as you think, do you think the players would be against that?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, RZNJ said:

Right.  But you said the Owners deserved the 5 years of control and suggested the players would be better off with the 5 years of control than the total free agency.  So if total free agency was actually better for the owners, as you think, do you think the players would be against that?

Ahh I see your disconnect (I'm being nice and assuming it's a disconnect and not you just actively trying to make me look bad).

I said:

Owners deserve....

I don't think total freedom for players...

And you took that to mean:

Total freedom would be better for owners.

That's the problem your having.

I think total freedom would be worse for players, owners and fans.  Just because I think it would be worse for players doesn't mean it would automatically better for owners.  I think the amount of instability such a change would cause would make it a bad deal for all parties.  Some degree of structure has shown to be beneficial in sports leagues.

[RZNJ]

36 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Ahh I see your disconnect (I'm being nice and assuming it's a disconnect and not you just actively trying to make me look bad).

I said:

Owners deserve....

I don't think total freedom for players...

And you took that to mean:

Total freedom would be better for owners.

That's the problem your having.

I think total freedom would be worse for players, owners and fans.  Just because I think it would be worse for players doesn't mean it would automatically better for owners.  I think the amount of instability such a change would cause would make it a bad deal for all parties.  Some degree of structure has shown to be beneficial in sports leagues.

Well you earlier argued that college players who very often play just 3 years certainly didn't hurt the game or fandom.  Just wondering what your arbitrary cutoff is for stability and structure. I guess it's 5 years.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Well you earlier argued that college players who very often play just 3 years certainly didn't hurt the game or fandom.  Just wondering what your arbitrary cutoff is for stability and structure. I guess it's 5 years.

Yep, it sure is arbitrary.  Turns out I'm not actually an expert in the field and I have not paid for an extensive study to predict future ramifications of various courses of action.  You done found me out!

I hope you found spending this time trying to gotcha me for something was time well spent.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

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?

Wieters?

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

Wieters?

He accepted the qualifying offer the season after team control was exhausted.

[Frobby]

I’m not going to generalize to all fans.   I know what I like.   I like having players play for my team for a long time and sticking with them.   

College is college, but I’ll tell you I liked college basketball WAY better when the players stayed for four years.   
 

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

He accepted the qualifying offer the season after team control was exhausted.

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.