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

[Frobby]

21 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

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.

I think free agency isn’t the only factor in play.   Compare age of debuts between 1965 and 1975 (both pre-FA):

18: 8 in ‘65, 0 in ‘75

19: 15 in ‘65, 1 in ‘75

20: 12 in ‘65, 6 in ‘75

21: 16 in ‘65, 20 in ‘75

22: 17 in ‘65, 33 in ‘75

23+: 49 in ‘65, 70 in ‘75

Pretty dramatic difference.   Free agency doesn’t explain that, but I suspect a detailed look at the rules and economics at the time would.   

[MijiT88]

This can spark a whole debate on its own but I do think that it is crazy that teams can have players under cheap contract until their age 29-31 season. Its not good for the sport or the players or the teams, IMO. This is why the huge paydays come and end up being a big overpay at the tail end of the deals. I am just going to leave it at that but its my thoughts on it.

[forphase1]

14 hours ago, MijiT88 said:

This can spark a whole debate on its own but I do think that it is crazy that teams can have players under cheap contract until their age 29-31 season. Its not good for the sport or the players or the teams, IMO. This is why the huge paydays come and end up being a big overpay at the tail end of the deals. I am just going to leave it at that but its my thoughts on it.

I can see how it's not good for the players from a career earning standpoint, but how is it not good from the team perspective to have control of cost controlled players during some of their highest peak performance years?

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

I can see how it's not good for the players from a career earning standpoint, but how is it not good from the team perspective to have control of cost controlled players during some of their highest peak performance years?

Going beyond this, how is not good for the sport that your favorite team can keep your favorite players for several years.  This is the case in all sports, so why should MLB be different?  

[Frobby]

12 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

I can see how it's not good for the players from a career earning standpoint, but how is it not good from the team perspective to have control of cost controlled players during some of their highest peak performance years?

As a fan of the sport (as opposed to being a fan of a team), what I want is to see the best players play.   That cuts both ways.   I don’t want to see veterans cut in favor of younger players who are not ready to be as good, just because the young guys are cheaper than the older guys.  And, I don’t want to see young guys held back because teams are hoarding their best years, when they already are better than the guys they’d be replacing.   The best players should play, period.

Now, that is easy to say, harder to do in a structure where your pay system depends on tenure.   

[Tony-OH]

18 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

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.

Let's not gloss over those first 1000 PAs that Brooks got in the majors instead of the minors were pretty bad. so an argument could be made he would have better served developing his bat more in the minors leagues if those Orioles teams were actually competitive. If those late 50s Orioles teams were better, I imagine Brooks would have spent more of that time in the minors vs slashing .249/.296/.336/.631 (77 OPS+) at the major league level through his first 1033 PAs.

Honestly, I don't think this issue is black and white. It's really heavily player and team dependent even if the six years of control was not a thing. I do think most players would get "cups of coffee" or maybe even earlier chances if injuries occurred at the major league level and they were the next best player available, but I do still think players would be developed in the minors based on their particular readiness. 

We all know Rutschman spent all of last year in the minors because of the six years of control. It makes total sense to keep a guy in the minors and not start his clock while the team is in dead last vs hopefully getting a 29-year old season when the team could potentially be good. It would be silly and gross mismanagement of resources if Rutschman would have been promoted last year under the current system.

Now, if FA was aged based (say 28), then it would have been 100% silly to KEEP Rutschman in the minors last year as he obviously would have been better than anyone the Orioles had at catcher last season.

 

[BohKnowsBmore]

20 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think free agency isn’t the only factor in play.   Compare age of debuts between 1965 and 1975 (both pre-FA):

18: 8 in ‘65, 0 in ‘75

19: 15 in ‘65, 1 in ‘75

20: 12 in ‘65, 6 in ‘75

21: 16 in ‘65, 20 in ‘75

22: 17 in ‘65, 33 in ‘75

23+: 49 in ‘65, 70 in ‘75

Pretty dramatic difference.   Free agency doesn’t explain that, but I suspect a detailed look at the rules and economics at the time would.   

I would posit that the overall competitive landscape of the game explains some of it as well. Would break this into two buckets, which likely require much deeper investigation:

1) Professionalization of the game and tightening of talent gaps - as sports mature, gaps between the best and worst players tend to draw in closer together as best practices, training methods, etc. become widely disbursed and level playing field to some degree. I think baseball as a sport was probably still not fully mature in 1965, with some MLB players working offseason jobs, etc. As this process continues, a super talented player being obviously head and shoulders above his peers (and comparable to MLB opponents) at age-18 becomes less likely

2) Impact of college baseball - First college world series was in 1947, so probably fair to say the collegiate game was still in growth mode less than 20 years later (1965). Could be that a greater share of players who made their debuts came from the college talent pool in 1975 relative to 1965, which would have the effect of pushing debut ages later

[MijiT88]

7 hours ago, forphase1 said:

I can see how it's not good for the players from a career earning standpoint, but how is it not good from the team perspective to have control of cost controlled players during some of their highest peak performance years?

Cost controlled players at their prime means you will be overpaying them later in their career after extensions. How many long term deals work out for the team? Barely any would be the answer. Paying a player the amount they are worth when they are worth it is definitely a better strategy id rather pay AR his worth for age 26-30 rather than try and make up for it after with an extension...

[MijiT88]

7 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Going beyond this, how is not good for the sport that your favorite team can keep your favorite players for several years.  This is the case in all sports, so why should MLB be different?  

It could still be the case but 6 years is longer than any other sport. NFL players become RFA after 3 years and UFA after 4 unless they are a first round pick then it could be 5 if the team takes the option. NBA has a 4 year deal with 5th year QO. NHL has a 3 year contract once the player gets to the NHL if under 21 over 21 is 2 years. MLB has by far the most service time before hitting FA of any sport. We can still have good long term players even if they dont have 6 years under control. And that is only once they get to the MLB. MLB is different in the wrong direction IMO.

[Frobby]

25 minutes ago, MijiT88 said:

It could still be the case but 6 years is longer than any other sport. NFL players become RFA after 3 years and UFA after 4 unless they are a first round pick then it could be 5 if the team takes the option. NBA has a 4 year deal with 5th year QO. NHL has a 3 year contract once the player gets to the NHL if under 21 over 21 is 2 years. MLB has by far the most service time before hitting FA of any sport. We can still have good long term players even if they dont have 6 years under control. And that is only once they get to the MLB. MLB is different in the wrong direction IMO.

Baseball has to develop guys in the minors, the others don’t.  

[Sports Guy]

42 minutes ago, MijiT88 said:

It could still be the case but 6 years is longer than any other sport. NFL players become RFA after 3 years and UFA after 4 unless they are a first round pick then it could be 5 if the team takes the option. NBA has a 4 year deal with 5th year QO. NHL has a 3 year contract once the player gets to the NHL if under 21 over 21 is 2 years. MLB has by far the most service time before hitting FA of any sport. We can still have good long term players even if they dont have 6 years under control. And that is only once they get to the MLB. MLB is different in the wrong direction IMO.

But as an RFA, you can place a high tender on them.  You also have the Franchise tag which can be used multiple times.  
 

NBa is 5 years but it also greatly incentivizes players staying which basically makes most players stay for past the 5 years.

[OriolesMagic83]

5 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

I would posit that the overall competitive landscape of the game explains some of it as well. Would break this into two buckets, which likely require much deeper investigation:

1) Professionalization of the game and tightening of talent gaps - as sports mature, gaps between the best and worst players tend to draw in closer together as best practices, training methods, etc. become widely disbursed and level playing field to some degree. I think baseball as a sport was probably still not fully mature in 1965, with some MLB players working offseason jobs, etc. As this process continues, a super talented player being obviously head and shoulders above his peers (and comparable to MLB opponents) at age-18 becomes less likely

2) Impact of college baseball - First college world series was in 1947, so probably fair to say the collegiate game was still in growth mode less than 20 years later (1965). Could be that a greater share of players who made their debuts came from the college talent pool in 1975 relative to 1965, which would have the effect of pushing debut ages later

Was the bonus baby system still in effect in 1965, or did it end with the draft?  I know there were quite a few bonus babies who had to go directly to the majors when it was in effect.  It seemed like it really hurt the development of some of the top players.

[MijiT88]

34 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Baseball has to develop guys in the minors, the others don’t.  

NHL does, and others develop players in other ways. and remember 6 years is once they hit the majors. A highschooler can get drafted at 18 play 5 years in the minors and then 6 in the majors, that is over a decade of team control. That is a very long time. Baseball is very different than other sports but I always have and always will think that the sport would be better off if players hit free agency sooner.

[panick]

1 hour ago, MijiT88 said:

NHL does, and others develop players in other ways. and remember 6 years is once they hit the majors. A highschooler can get drafted at 18 play 5 years in the minors and then 6 in the majors, that is over a decade of team control. That is a very long time. Baseball is very different than other sports but I always have and always will think that the sport would be better off if players hit free agency sooner.

Are you an agent?

[HowAboutThat]

They are called owners because they are in charge. It is impossible for labor and ownership to ever be completely equal. The owners are going to win, we can only hope that what they win is worthwhile. Meanwhile labor is being incredibly selfish in that they are not the least bit interested in the pro players who really need help, and that is the minor leaguers, who are not even allowed to join MLBPA.

ridiculous.