Will Jacob Nottingham be on our Opening Day roster?

[Ohfan67]

Not sure if this has been proposed, but one way to deal with the situation would be for players to be arbitration eligible the second they walk on the ML field, keep the same number of years of team control, but get rid of the goofy gimmick that makes a few weeks at the start of the season matter in terms of service time. That would drive up the salaries of the good young players but allow teams to have some predictability/longer return on investment. No proposal is going to totally solve all the related problems, but keeping it simple would help. Paying young players for their performance is incredibly fair and would provoke less angst about a delay in making tons of cash. 

 

But back to Nottingham. I don't think he's on the opening day roster (whenever that opening day finally happens). I think Rutschman is the opening day catcher and there's a more experienced backup (more experienced than Nottingham). If Nottingham looks great in spring training (which is likely to be late and shorter than normal IMO), then maybe he's on the opening day roster. 

[Sports Guy]

Let’s use Keegin Akin.

Akin was 21 and out of college when he was signed/drafted.  He went to short season ball.  Now, maybe he would have still started in that league. Maybe he also has a full season in A ball in 2017.  But what about 2018?

He was 23 that year and had a very good year in AA.  Walk rate a little high but livable.  Would they have moved him to AAA sooner?  If I had to guess, with the rule change I’m discussing, Akin would have been in the majors in 2019, a year earlier.  I think that would be the norm for most of these guys.  They would see the majors a year earlier.  He was 24 in 2019 and came off a very solid year and was actually pitching decently in a league that was an extreme hitters league that season.  He very well could have seen AAA time in 2018 and gotten 10+ ML starts in 2019, on a team that was terrible.  
 

I think there are lots of guys you can say this about..but again, you can also say they needed more time, which is why there is no evidence of this.  
 

I just think it’s common sense that if teams can’t manipulate these guys and bring them up whenever, with no consequences, that they will change how they do it and players will come up earlier.  It’s not a development thing for some/ a lot of these guys.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

It won’t effect most because most don’t get that far to matter.

Im talking about effecting those that actually make the majors.

So, you think teams would just keep guys down and wait for them to turn 24ish (going back to your average age) knowing that they will lose them (or at least could lose them) in just 4 years?

Even among those who reach the majors, most have careers short of 5 years.   For example, 257 players debuted in 2016.   Of those, only 120 played in a major league game in 2021.   And even among those 120, I’m sure many of them have been up and down to the minors numerous times.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Even among those who reach the majors, most have careers short of 5 years.   For example, 257 players debuted in 2016.   Of those, only 120 played in a major league game in 2021.   And even among those 120, I’m sure many of them have been up and down to the minors numerous times.

Ok..but that doesn’t change anything im saying.

This conversation is about what the players want.  The players want guys to become FAs sooner so that they can maximize the money they make.  

One way to make them FAs sooner is doing something like I’m proposing.  Teams will definitely operate differently if they know a guy is only going to be with their organization for a designated number of years.  Right now, you can basically keep a player for 10-12 years if you want.  Most players are well past their primes at that point, thus the change in the system the players are hoping to get.

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Ok..but that doesn’t change anything im saying.

This conversation is about what the players want.  The players want guys to become FAs sooner so that they can maximize the money they make.  

One way to make them FAs sooner is doing something like I’m proposing.  Teams will definitely operate differently if they know a guy is only going to be with their organization for a designated number of years.  Right now, you can basically keep a player for 10-12 years if you want.  Most players are well past their primes at that point, thus the change in the system the players are hoping to get.

Well, you said service time manipulation affects almost all players.   I think the data disproves that.   I don’t think many players get held back for service time reasons, and thus changing the rules about free agent eligibility won’t affect when most of them debut.   Obviously, there will be exceptions.   

[Sports Guy]

20 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well, you said service time manipulation affects almost all players.   I think the data disproves that.   I don’t think many players get held back for service time reasons, and thus changing the rules about free agent eligibility won’t affect when most of them debut.   Obviously, there will be exceptions.   

I disagree..the data doesn’t disprove anything because we don’t have data where rules are different.

Lets put this another way.  Say they go with the age 28 thing.

And let’s say that over the next 5-10 years, that the average age for a ML debut drops to 23-23.5.  What will you then believe of the impact of the new rule?  
 

You don’t have a data set where players were held back more than they should because there is no proof that players have been held back.  

[Aristotelian]

19 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Ok..but that doesn’t change anything im saying.

This conversation is about what the players want.  The players want guys to become FAs sooner so that they can maximize the money they make.  

One way to make them FAs sooner is doing something like I’m proposing.  Teams will definitely operate differently if they know a guy is only going to be with their organization for a designated number of years.  Right now, you can basically keep a player for 10-12 years if you want.  Most players are well past their primes at that point, thus the change in the system the players are hoping to get.

I think you are talking past each other because there are really two related but different conversations. "Service time manipulation" is generally referring to the small group of players that are promoted the day after the team gets an extra year. That is because of how they currently calculate service time, leaving it open to manipulation. 

You're talking about the overall length of control in addition to how it is calculated. Yes, the players definitely want to hit free agency sooner, and teams would behave differently with a lower limit, I think we would all agree with that. 

[RZNJ]

59 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Let’s use Keegin Akin.

Akin was 21 and out of college when he was signed/drafted.  He went to short season ball.  Now, maybe he would have still started in that league. Maybe he also has a full season in A ball in 2017.  But what about 2018?

He was 23 that year and had a very good year in AA.  Walk rate a little high but livable.  Would they have moved him to AAA sooner?  If I had to guess, with the rule change I’m discussing, Akin would have been in the majors in 2019, a year earlier.  I think that would be the norm for most of these guys.  They would see the majors a year earlier.  He was 24 in 2019 and came off a very solid year and was actually pitching decently in a league that was an extreme hitters league that season.  He very well could have seen AAA time in 2018 and gotten 10+ ML starts in 2019, on a team that was terrible.  
 

I think there are lots of guys you can say this about..but again, you can also say they needed more time, which is why there is no evidence of this.  
 

I just think it’s common sense that if teams can’t manipulate these guys and bring them up whenever, with no consequences, that they will change how they do it and players will come up earlier.  It’s not a development thing for some/ a lot of these guys.

61 walks in 112 innings and a 4.73 ERA and you are arguing they slow promoted Akin because of service time manipulation?    Might they have promoted him in September if there were not service time ramifications?   Maybe, but it's doubtful he would have started the next season in the majors so I think that would have more to do with burning options than service time manipulation.

[Sports Guy]

13 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I think you are talking past each other because there are really two related but different conversations. "Service time manipulation" is generally referring to the small group of players that are promoted the day after the team gets an extra year. That is because of how they currently calculate service time, leaving it open to manipulation. 

You're talking about the overall length of control in addition to how it is calculated. Yes, the players definitely want to hit free agency sooner, and teams would behave differently with a lower limit, I think we would all agree with that. 

Yes but service time manipulation isn’t just that definition.  It’s also holding a guy back more than you need to.

We all agree that Adley should have been up in 2021 if you judge him On talent, if he’s ready, etc…

If the Os were a winning team and needed a catcher, he would have been up…ala Manny in 2012.

But since they could, without any penalty, keep him down and presumably have him for another year of when the team is good, they kept him down.  They didn’t leave him down for development reasons.  They left him down because the consequences aren’t there.

Put consequences there and teams won’t do that to these players and thus, they won’t manipulate when they can become a FA.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

61 walks in 112 innings and a 4.73 ERA and you are arguing they slow promoted Akin because of service time manipulation?    Might they have promoted him in September if there were not service time ramifications?   Maybe, but it's doubtful he would have started the next season in the majors so I think that would have more to do with burning options than service time manipulation.

I think he ends 2018 in AAA and has a good chance to see a lot of ML time in 2019 if the rules were different.

Again, you can’t prove this..which is part of my point about Frobbys data.  We won’t be able to prove anything without the other set of variables, which we may never get, who knows.

But I think it’s pretty safe to say that if the 28 y/o Rule (or something similar) occurs, guys will spend less time in the minors (at least the actual MLers will).

[Aristotelian]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes but service time manipulation isn’t just that definition.  It’s also holding a guy back more than you need to.

We all agree that Adley should have been up in 2021 if you judge him On talent, if he’s ready, etc…

If the Os were a winning team and needed a catcher, he would have been up…ala Manny in 2012.

But since they could, without any penalty, keep him down and presumably have him for another year of when the team is good, they kept him down.  They didn’t leave him down for development reasons.  They left him down because the consequences aren’t there.

Put consequences there and teams won’t do that to these players and thus, they won’t manipulate when they can become a FA.

I am not going to get into a semantic argument with you, but I don't think what you are talking about is service time manipulation.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would have started Adley on opening day in 2021 with nothing but a handful of low minors AB's unless we did something like the NBA and basically abolished the minors. 

[Frobby]

15 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I think you are talking past each other because there are really two related but different conversations. "Service time manipulation" is generally referring to the small group of players that are promoted the day after the team gets an extra year. That is because of how they currently calculate service time, leaving it open to manipulation. 

You're talking about the overall length of control in addition to how it is calculated. Yes, the players definitely want to hit free agency sooner, and teams would behave differently with a lower limit, I think we would all agree with that. 

I’m skeptical that teams make decisions about when to bring up the Keegan Akins of the world based on service time or when they will become free agents.   I think they use their judgment about how to put them in the best position to succeed in the majors, and based on the needs of the major league team at a given point in time.   

Now, a guy like Adley Rutschman is a different story, but there aren’t many players like that.   There’s a lot more Akins than there are Rutschmans.
 

 

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think he ends 2018 in AAA and has a good chance to see a lot of ML time in 2019 if the rules were different.

Again, you can’t prove this..which is part of my point about Frobbys data.  We won’t be able to prove anything without the other set of variables, which we may never get, who knows.

But I think it’s pretty safe to say that if the 28 y/o Rule (or something similar) occurs, guys will spend less time in the minors (at least the actual MLers will).

We won’t find out, because age 28 will never fly with the owners.   

What wouldn’t surprise me is a rule that says 6+ years of service or age 29/29.5, whichever the player reaches first.   That keeps teams from delaying FA into a player’s 30’s.
 

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Let’s use Keegin Akin.

Akin was 21 and out of college when he was signed/drafted.  He went to short season ball.  Now, maybe he would have still started in that league. Maybe he also has a full season in A ball in 2017.  But what about 2018?

He was 23 that year and had a very good year in AA.  Walk rate a little high but livable.  Would they have moved him to AAA sooner?  If I had to guess, with the rule change I’m discussing, Akin would have been in the majors in 2019, a year earlier.  I think that would be the norm for most of these guys.  They would see the majors a year earlier.  He was 24 in 2019 and came off a very solid year and was actually pitching decently in a league that was an extreme hitters league that season.  He very well could have seen AAA time in 2018 and gotten 10+ ML starts in 2019, on a team that was terrible.  
 

I think there are lots of guys you can say this about..but again, you can also say they needed more time, which is why there is no evidence of this.  
 

I just think it’s common sense that if teams can’t manipulate these guys and bring them up whenever, with no consequences, that they will change how they do it and players will come up earlier.  It’s not a development thing for some/ a lot of these guys.

The O's have been trying to get Akin to improve his off speed pitches since at least 2018.   He basically can control a fastball and not much else on a consistent basis.   It doesn't matter when he would have been promoted to the majors because he will have little success has a starter in the majors until he can control more than a fastball.  So I don't think Akin is a good example to prove your point.

[RZNJ]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think he ends 2018 in AAA and has a good chance to see a lot of ML time in 2019 if the rules were different.

Again, you can’t prove this..which is part of my point about Frobbys data.  We won’t be able to prove anything without the other set of variables, which we may never get, who knows.

But I think it’s pretty safe to say that if the 28 y/o Rule (or something similar) occurs, guys will spend less time in the minors (at least the actual MLers will).

Maybe but you are also forgetting another reason guys aren't prematurely promoted to the majors.  Options.