O's players that have nothing more to prove at AAA.

[Pickles]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Way to totally F up what I said, not that I expect you to actually represent me properly.  
 

What I said was that if they sign a few short term deals that don’t work out that the money won’t hurt them..and it won’t.  
 

I assume you understand simple math and player contracts.  It’s not hard to figure out what the payroll is going to be over the next 3-5 years with the players we think will be here.

If we pissed away 15M on a player who fails, it won’t hurt the team.   The payroll will be so low and the players on the team will be so inexpensive that it won’t matter.

This isn’t a difficult concept to figure out.

I put together multiple teams that wouldn’t cost more than 70M right now and long term would be very cheap and have plenty of payroll to add and I’m doing that while not mortgaging any future or losing any long term flexibility.  
 

It’s not hard to do.  In fact, it’s the exact thing Elias is aiming to accomplish.  Literally nothing different than what I’m saying…except I think they should start now and he wants to keep waiting…or should I say ownership wants to keep waiting.  

Then what have you been bitching about all this time?

Nobody can "represent" what you say, because you change what you say to fit what ever temporal argument you happen to be trying to make.

[forphase1]

40 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I wasn't asking you to apologize for your selfishness.  I just wanted you to acknowledge it. 

So now we know at least one guy "wants to see guys get jammed up in AAA just because of service time constraints."

You know at least 2.  I don't lose a bit of sleep over players being held down for teams to control their rights longer.  As long as it's part of the rules,  the Orioles should take advantage of it.   And I agree that I don't want to see the rules changed to allow players like AR to hit free agency quicker.  Call me selfish if you want,  but for me the team/organization comes first,  the players individually a distant 2nd.  

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Pickles said:

Then what have you been bitching about all this time?

Nobody can "represent" what you say, because you change what you say to fit what ever temporal argument you happen to be trying to make.

I haven’t changed one thing.  You just choose to push some bs narrative because you have an issue with me.  I don’t really care about that but it’s your (and others) inability to comprehend what I’m saying.

Im simply saying the timeline should be now to get better.  People can disagree and that’s fine but that doesn’t change what I have said.0

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Jagwar said:

I'd have a more optimistic outlook towards McKenna if he had a .750 OPS (even .700). I'm just not sure his defense can make up for a sub-600 OPS

It can’t.  Hopefully his offense will improve.

[HowAboutThat]

15 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

The Orioles could unquestionably be a far better team in 2022 while still having the long term plan in tact. 

I say that constantly but get a lot of push back. I don’t think we need to sign a single major long-term free agent contract, and I do think we have enough surplus in some areas that we can trade for a “now” player or two.

We need to stop striving for a top five draft pick and start going for a bottom five draft pick.

[Big Mac]

19 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

The idea that you are still riding that “Baumann was good for a month” train despite the info that has been given to you is astonishing.

He wasn’t good that month.  He just didn’t give up a lot of runs.  

His walks were a little high but otherwise the peripheral numbers are strong.  It's more than fair to say he was good that month in AAA. 

[HowAboutThat]

Baumann Will get a chance. Let’s see how he does. I think it is reasonable to say that almost everybody will get a chance certainly, almost everybody should get a chance. What I am interested in is how many guys will get too much of a chance, how many guys will get too little of a chance, and who will be a surprises, either good or bad?

[DrungoHazewood]

17 hours ago, MijiT88 said:

I am not saying anything about us doing it or not. I just think the fact that teams will hold someone in AAA for the first month or so of the season to get more service time is not good for the sport, IMO. I am not saying or accusing any abuse but I just think it is a change that would generate a lot of excitement, especially in Baltimore.

 

17 hours ago, Pickles said:

Do you think if he's up 4/17, instead of 4/1, there won't be any accompanying excitement?  

To me the little games of occasionally holding someone back for three weeks or six weeks or whatever are less important than the larger problem of holding players back in general so that you can attempt to maximize the six years you have them on the team.  Under the prior CBA, and every CBA for decades, teams have players spend years and years in the minors so that they're ready to be near-peak for as much of their six year window as possible.  So if a player is likely to be productive but not great now, but might be great later teams will say they have a lot of development left in AA or AAA and we don't get to see them in the majors.

If all players were made free agents at 28, for example, you could call up a pitcher at 20 or 21 and have them play a role in the bullpen, or have them spot start.  Or start them against lesser opponents and otherwise pitch relief.  You wouldn't feel this need to have them stay in the minors until everything is 100% polished because service time means nothing.  You could call up an 18- or 19-year-old in September to get him innings against real major leaguers without worrying about starting a clock.  The Orioles could have gotten Rutschman 150 MLB at bats by now and wouldn't be wringing their hands about losing a year when he's 29.  Your backup catcher could be a 21-year-old prospect who's not ready to play every day as a starter in the majors but is a real prospect, and even then could outhit whatever .600 OPSing 32-year-old journeyman you'd otherwise stick there.

Most of what they mean by "he needs more seasoning in the minors" isn't that he's not good enough to fill some kind of role in the majors.  It's that their entire mindset is to maximize his six year window. 

Doesn't have to be that way.

[NCRaven]

I would prefer a full season of Adley at 24 over a possible season at 31.

[Sports Guy]

2 hours ago, Big Mac said:

His walks were a little high but otherwise the peripheral numbers are strong.  It's more than fair to say he was good that month in AAA. 

His stuff was poor though.  So while he got Ks and limited runs, it was in a SSS and that same stuff got lit up in the majors.

[Big Mac]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

His stuff was poor though.  So while he got Ks and limited runs, it was in a SSS and that same stuff got lit up in the majors.

His stuff was poor in the majors...I am not so sure it was the same stuff he was throwing in AAA.  I think something may have happened to him (dead arm, fatigue, etc.).  It may have been the same stuff, I just didn't see enough of his AAA starts to make that assessment.  Maybe you did and that was your takeaway. 

I will say I highly doubt he could have put up those numbers in AAA with the stuff I saw in the majors...

[Sports Guy]

23 minutes ago, Big Mac said:

His stuff was poor in the majors...I am not so sure it was the same stuff he was throwing in AAA.  I think something may have happened to him (dead arm, fatigue, etc.).  It may have been the same stuff, I just didn't see enough of his AAA starts to make that assessment.  Maybe you did and that was your takeaway. 

I will say I highly doubt he could have put up those numbers in AAA with the stuff I saw in the majors...

Tony said he watched his starts and showed the same poor stuff.

It was only 27 innings over 6 outings.  In a SSS, numbers can always look good or bad no matter what stuff you are throwing.

[Big Mac]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Tony said watched his starts and showed the same poor stuff.

It was only 27 innings over 6 outings.  In a SSS, numbers can always look good or bad no matter what stuff you are throwing.

If Tony saw it good enough for me then. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, NCRaven said:

I would prefer a full season of Adley at 24 over a possible season at 31.

The 7th season would be age 30, not 31.   And from a fan perspective, I’d prefer an extra full year at age 30 to two extra weeks at age 24.  That’s the trade-off under the current rules.  

[jamalshw]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

To me the little games of occasionally holding someone back for three weeks or six weeks or whatever are less important than the larger problem of holding players back in general so that you can attempt to maximize the six years you have them on the team.  Under the prior CBA, and every CBA for decades, teams have players spend years and years in the minors so that they're ready to be near-peak for as much of their six year window as possible.  So if a player is likely to be productive but not great now, but might be great later teams will say they have a lot of development left in AA or AAA and we don't get to see them in the majors.

If all players were made free agents at 28, for example, you could call up a pitcher at 20 or 21 and have them play a role in the bullpen, or have them spot start.  Or start them against lesser opponents and otherwise pitch relief.  You wouldn't feel this need to have them stay in the minors until everything is 100% polished because service time means nothing.  You could call up an 18- or 19-year-old in September to get him innings against real major leaguers without worrying about starting a clock.  The Orioles could have gotten Rutschman 150 MLB at bats by now and wouldn't be wringing their hands about losing a year when he's 29.  Your backup catcher could be a 21-year-old prospect who's not ready to play every day as a starter in the majors but is a real prospect, and even then could outhit whatever .600 OPSing 32-year-old journeyman you'd otherwise stick there.

Most of what they mean by "he needs more seasoning in the minors" isn't that he's not good enough to fill some kind of role in the majors.  It's that their entire mindset is to maximize his six year window. 

Doesn't have to be that way.

While I agree from a fan perspective, I would love to see guys sooner even if they're not at their peak performance quite yet...but, I'm not sure the union would go for an age out option because, as you say, it would encourage the younger player to be a role player early in his career which then impacts the middle relief market as 20 years come up and take those roles while they're being groomed and/or the fringe major leaguers (the back-up catchers, utility infielders, 4th OFers, etc.) And while it gets players to the big leagues earlier (and gets fans a chance to see the will-be good players before they're ready to step in and be Fernando Tatis Jr. on day one), it may inadvertently prioritize the soon-to-be-but-not-yet union members over the current union members. And as for the elite young guys, it hurts them, too, as guys like Machado have to wait a couple extra years before becoming free agents and getting their big payday which may impact the chances of said player getting a 10-year deal. 

As a fan, I would love a world like you describe because we would have seen Rutschman in 2021 and would likely see everyone a year or two sooner. I think teams would be on board as well (which is probably why the proposed the idea of an age based free-agency in one of their proposals) because it would potentially allow them to further shrink the minors because you are finishing the development process at the Majors and no longer looking to maximize the 6-7 years in the Majors, but instead maximize the time before 28 (or whatever the number). It also would allow teams to have eight or even nine years of the best players rather than 6-7.