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

[BohKnowsBmore]

11 hours ago, owknows said:

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.

It's also a pretty big deal if they're proposing extending him early.

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, Number5 said:

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.

 

 

And again, they keep the age 30 season, not 31.

[Tony-OH]

10 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

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. 

I agree with this 100%. Age and experience would come into the equation as well. Is a player ready for the bright lights and pressure of the big leagues? I agree that it would be a case by case basis as it should be for almost every decision in development of players. 

Personally I'm a big fan of age based free agency vs the six year mark. 

[Tony-OH]

17 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

Pretty clear from reading this that the players don't care about competition and fairness but making sure they make the most money they can for their constituents. 

They want big market teams to be able to spend whatever they want with as little competitive balance money because they know when big markets can spend, they will spend ludicrous money on players.

Basically neither side cares about the fans.

[DrungoHazewood]

18 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

Ugh.  That was the only thing I really cared about. 

[DrungoHazewood]

19 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

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.

I think what you're saying has merit and some players might be hurt by being called up into a reserve or relief role early.  But guy like Brooks and Palmer and others were routinely called up years before we'd call them up in the free agency era.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

18 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think what you're saying has merit and some players might be hurt by being called up into a reserve or relief role early.  But guy like Brooks and Palmer and others were routinely called up years before we'd call them up in the free agency era.

I’m not saying it makes sense today, but a lot of Orioles starting pitchers initially started their MLB career as a relief pitcher. McGregor, Flanagan, Storm Davis and Dennis Martinez all spent time as relief pitchers before becoming full time starters. 

[Tony-OH]

42 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Ugh.  That was the only thing I really cared about. 

Me too. It's frustrating to see how neither side really cares about fairness or getting rid of a system that can be so easily gamed at the young players and fans expense.

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

Pretty clear from reading this that the players don't care about competition and fairness but making sure they make the most money they can for their constituents. 

They want big market teams to be able to spend whatever they want with as little competitive balance money because they know when big markets can spend, they will spend ludicrous money on players.

Basically neither side cares about the fans.

Has anyone in the media -- which right now presumably is full of guys looking for something interesting to say -- asked anyone on the players' side (a) whether they consider the imbalance in teams' revenues/resources, especially in certain divisions, to be a problem, and  (2) what effect the union's proposals would have on competitive imbalance? (I guess they'd point to Tampa Bay.) I haven't seen any attempt to engage the union or any players in a discussion of that issue. I read about as much as I can stand on these negotiations, but maybe I missed it.

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Me too. It's frustrating to see how neither side really cares about fairness or getting rid of a system that can be so easily gamed at the young players and fans expense.

I think the frequency with which it happens is overstated.   Drungo hypothesizes that teams hold guys back not because they’re not ready, but because they want to get the player’s best 6+ years.   I certainly don’t think that teams going into a season hoping to be contenders do that.   They want their best 26 players on the roster.    Manny wasn’t ready to be his best offensive self in 2012, but the O’s brought him up because they were in the race and he could help them win.   They went with Schoop in 2014 for the same reason (he’d already had 27 days of service in 2013).   
I do think that non-contenders slow play their guys more, which of course makes sense from their perspective.   But most teams don’t go into a season thinking they are non-contenders.   

[Aristotelian]

22 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think the frequency with which it happens is overstated.   Drungo hypothesizes that teams hold guys back not because they’re not ready, but because they want to get the player’s best 6+ years.   I certainly don’t think that teams going into a season hoping to be contenders do that.   They want their best 26 players on the roster.    Manny wasn’t ready to be his best offensive self in 2012, but the O’s brought him up because they were in the race and he could help them win.   They went with Schoop in 2014 for the same reason (he’d already had 27 days of service in 2013).   
I do think that non-contenders slow play their guys more, which of course makes sense from their perspective.   But most teams don’t go into a season thinking they are non-contenders.   

Manny was called up in August. If the decision is between Opening Day and April 17 to gain an extra year of service time you do April 17 all day every day, whether you are contending or not. 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Manny was called up in August. If the decision is between Opening Day and April 17 to gain an extra year of service time you do April 17 all day every day, whether you are contending or not. 

I’m really discussing a different issue raised by Drungo, i.e., his concern that players are kept in the minors not for a couple of weeks, but months or years, so that the team will get their best 6+ years, not just the first 6+ years that they could have kept their head above water in the majors.   Taking Rutschman for example, one could argue that he could have played in the majors all last year and been better than any of Severino, Sisco or Wynns.   But the O’s would rather have his age 24-29 seasons than his age 23-28 seasons because his age 29 season will be better than his age 23 season.   That’s the hypothesis.   

[Aristotelian]

15 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m really discussing a different issue raised by Drungo, i.e., his concern that players are kept in the minors not for a couple of weeks, but months or years, so that the team will get their best 6+ years, not just the first 6+ years that they could have kept their head above water in the majors.   Taking Rutschman for example, one could argue that he could have played in the majors all last year and been better than any of Severino, Sisco or Wynns.   But the O’s would rather have his age 24-29 seasons than his age 23-28 seasons because his age 29 season will be better than his age 23 season.   That’s the hypothesis.   

I think having a competitive team certainly increases the pressure to bring up a player but I don't think it's the norm to bring up a player the second they might be the best option. 

[DrungoHazewood]

30 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m really discussing a different issue raised by Drungo, i.e., his concern that players are kept in the minors not for a couple of weeks, but months or years, so that the team will get their best 6+ years, not just the first 6+ years that they could have kept their head above water in the majors.   Taking Rutschman for example, one could argue that he could have played in the majors all last year and been better than any of Severino, Sisco or Wynns.   But the O’s would rather have his age 24-29 seasons than his age 23-28 seasons because his age 29 season will be better than his age 23 season.   That’s the hypothesis.   

Yea, that's pretty much it.  I look at the Orioles from before the free agency era and they were just handled very differently.  Has the game changed enough since then that these observations are not valid?  I don't know, maybe.  But maybe not.

Palmer was in the majors for good at 19 after a season in A ball that today would have gotten him sent to AA.

Brooks debuted at 18, got some time in the majors at 19, 20, was a regular at 21 even though he didn't hit.  Today he would have spent age 18 in a complex league, 19 in low A, 20 in high A, 21 in AA, 22 in AAA, and would be just getting to the majors at the point where he had 1000 PAs in real life.

Wally Bunker jumped from A ball to the majors at 18 and won 19 games at age 19, hurt his arm but ended up with a Chris Tillman-like career.  Today he would have spent his age 19 season in A or AA, and might well have hurt his arm before ever having significant time in the majors.

Milt Pappas pitched three minor league games between high school and being in the majors for good, and he won 209 games.  People laugh about ripping off the Reds in the Frank Robinson trade, but Milt Pappas won 110 games with the Orioles before he turned 27.  Today he wouldn't have had a chance to win a single major league game until he was 20, 21, 22.

Now... I don't want to exaggerate.  There were plenty of players in that era who spent 4, 5, 6 years in the minors.  But it was because it took that long for them to be better than somebody on the MLB team.  Not because they were afraid of giving up a good year at 28 or 29.

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I think having a competitive team certainly increases the pressure to bring up a player but I don't think it's the norm to bring up a player the second they might be the best option. 

Today, no.  But in the past it was dramatically more likely to call up a talented young player who hadn't spent X amount of time at each level.  You could call up someone and give them a shot without worrying that you just blew your chance at his really productive age 29 season.