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

[Tony-OH]

3 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.

I don't believe that's totally true. Sure, could Grayson Rodriguez have been a successful reliever last year at the major league level, sure. But do you want a guy getting 50 some innings pitching and inning or two when he needs to be developed as a starter?

Same thing with your back up catcher example. Do you want a guy getting 175 PAs a year as as a back up catcher when he's could get 500 PAs in AA or AAA? No, you don't because that slows their development.

Now I agree with you when it comes to changing the Free agency rules to something like an age based system, but that really only will affect the players who are truly able to play a role in the major leagues in the role expected.

What does that mean? That means AR would have been the starting catcher last year with the Orioles if it wasn't going to count against his six years. It means Grayson Rodriguez would have been pitching in the major leagues as a starter last year. But it would have been dumb to bring either of them up in some reliever or backup role.

So there is "more seasoning" aspect to players that would not be affected by a lack of six years of control in my opinion, but it would find guys up in the major leagues earlier once they are a better option than current options as long as the role is the one they are supposed to be in at the major league level.

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, NCRaven said:

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

That's not the question though. The only question is would you prefer to see two less weeks of Adley during that 24 year old season so you can have an entire 31 year old season. It would be silly to do anything otherwise under the current rules. I just hope they change the rules so it's more like half a season until it counts for a year.

[NCRaven]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

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.  

Math makes my head hurt.

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

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.  

But the extra full year might very well not happen.

Not many players stay a full 6+ years with the team they came up with.

 

[Sports Guy]

Adley should have been up by midseason last year.

As soon as mid August hit, the thought of bringing him up before gaining the extra service time should have been gone…unless the rules are changed.

No way do you bring him up, under the current rules, before you gain the extra year.

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

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.  

Sounds like the concept of age-based free agency got dropped during negotiations today.   https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33140500/mlb-players-association-plan-meet-again-tuesday-sides-make-progress-sources-say

[Ruzious]

22 hours ago, Pickles said:

You're not Cesar Chavez.

He does look more like Curt Flood.  

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

He does look more like Curt Flood.  

I don't think you've seen a recent picture.

If you have I'm getting that restraining order.

[owknows]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

But the extra full year might very well not happen.

Not many players stay a full 6+ years with the team they came up with.

 

If the Orioles make good on a conveyor belt model, and turn over their final year players routinely to restock the front of the conveyor belt.. I've got no problem with that.

let someone else pay for the decline years.

But the extra year (whether here or otherwise) is where the resale value is.

[wildcard]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Sounds like the concept of age-based free agency got dropped during negotiations today.   https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33140500/mlb-players-association-plan-meet-again-tuesday-sides-make-progress-sources-say

1. I am glad they are talking.

2. I am glad there seems to be some progress.

3.  I would like to believe there is some urgency to the finding an agreement.

[OriolesMagic83]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

Sounds like the concept of age-based free agency got dropped during negotiations today.   https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33140500/mlb-players-association-plan-meet-again-tuesday-sides-make-progress-sources-say

Dropping the request for age-based free agency, which would make some players eligible for free agency before the current six-year standard, helped set the stage for Tuesday's meeting. After requesting smaller-market teams receive $100 million less in revenue sharing in an earlier proposal, the union cut its ask to $30 million, according to sources.   Quote from the article. 

So the union wants less revenue sharing between the clubs.  I know the players can't see anything beyond what they earn next year, but anyone with a long term view can see that equalizing the playing field between large and small market teams will not only help small market teams but the sport as a whole.  No one in baseball seems to appreciate that the NFL became the #1 sport in America in large part because teams like Green Bay and Buffalo have just as good a chance of winning the Super Bowl as teams in NY and L.A.  In the union's dream world, NY and LA teams would have $500 million payrolls and teams like the A's and Tampa Bay would finish last every year.  MLB would basically become the English Premiere League.

[Number5]

5 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

But the extra full year might very well not happen.

Not many players stay a full 6+ years with the team they came up with.

 

Let's face it, for most players it doesn't really matter.   A higher percentage of those top prospects that having the extra year of control is of such importance to teams do stay the full 6+ years.  Those are the players we are talking about.  Even if they are involved in a trade, the extra year of control is reflected in that player's trade value.  It really isn't debatable that under the present rule giving up two weeks of the use of a top prospect at 24 for a full season at 31 is a no-brainer.

 

 

[spiritof66]

7 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

 .  .  .   But do you want a guy getting 50 some innings pitching and inning or two when he needs to be developed as a starter?

Same thing with your back up catcher example. Do you want a guy getting 175 PAs a year as as a back up catcher when he's could get 500 PAs in AA or AAA? 

.  .  .

 

I don't know the answer to either question, but I think it would vary from player to player. That pitcher might really succeed in a few ML relief performances, so that he could get in more than 50 innings, maybe start a couple of games, and help the team win more games as well as his own development. Same with the catcher -- maybe he shows he's the best catcher on the team and he earns 250-300 ABs and improves the defense, again improving the team.  Especially if you've got a bad major-league team, I think your questions are better answered by looking at the individual players, what they can do and still need to learn to do and where they should learn it,, rather than promoting or not promoting them according to some Grand Plan to Have a Good Team Someday, the time dimensions of which seem both loosely defined and subject to change. 

[Il BuonO]

On 1/23/2022 at 2:59 PM, 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.  

But he WAS good for a month!!!

[BohKnowsBmore]

13 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

But the extra full year might very well not happen.

Not many players stay a full 6+ years with the team they came up with.

 

And ~2 weeks of this season would be very minor risk should that not materialize.