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

[forphase1]

5 hours ago, MijiT88 said:

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...

Eh, I'd rather get him cheap for his 26-30 seasons and then let someone else overpay for his 30+ seasons if they are so inclined.  Just because some teams foolishly overpay for those later years contracts, that doesn't mean the Orioles have to do so.  

[MijiT88]

10 hours ago, forphase1 said:

Eh, I'd rather get him cheap for his 26-30 seasons and then let someone else overpay for his 30+ seasons if they are so inclined.  Just because some teams foolishly overpay for those later years contracts, that doesn't mean the Orioles have to do so.  

While this is true and what usually happens with lower budget teams, it still is not good for the fans having a long-time player to get behind and root for, thus making it harder for a team to have a long term face of the franchise as well. Everything is connected but all depends on how you want to look at it. I would rather us sign AR long term early and pay him his worth in prime seasons than let him walk after because he wants to make money and we cant give him that. But hey maybe my pipe dreams of having another 10+ year Oriole is a thing of the past...

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, MijiT88 said:

While this is true and what usually happens with lower budget teams, it still is not good for the fans having a long-time player to get behind and root for, thus making it harder for a team to have a long term face of the franchise as well. Everything is connected but all depends on how you want to look at it. I would rather us sign AR long term early and pay him his worth in prime seasons than let him walk after because he wants to make money and we cant give him that. But hey maybe my pipe dreams of having another 10+ year Oriole is a thing of the past...

I think you have to ask if it’s smart to do it.

The bottom line is most players peak at 27 and start a decline after that.  How many declining seasons do you want to pay for?

There is sentimentality involved and I get that but to me, I don’t think you get into long term deals with a player paying them much beyond age 32 or so.  

[MijiT88]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

I think you have to ask if it’s smart to do it.

The bottom line is most players peak at 27 and start a decline after that.  How many declining seasons do you want to pay for?

There is sentimentality involved and I get that but to me, I don’t think you get into long term deals with a player paying them much beyond age 32 or so.  

If by saying players peak at 27 and decline thereafter, having team control through age 28-30 means that the team would cost effectively control an entire players career, at least the most important part of it. Again, I dont think this is fair to the players or to the fans that basically the only chance the teams have at adding long term talent to a team is via trade or overpaying for the back end of someone's career. Not an ideal way to build a long term team. It basically says that FA deals shouldn't be more than a 2-3 year deal based on this thinking.

And if you don't think long term deals should be after age 32, most first time FA that are looking for that long term deal are hitting the market at age 28 or so. If they hit the market earlier it would make more sense for teams to want to buy into that and easier for the players to get. Which I think would make all parties happier. 

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, MijiT88 said:

If by saying players peak at 27 and decline thereafter, having team control through age 28-30 means that the team would cost effectively control an entire players career, at least the most important part of it. Again, I dont think this is fair to the players or to the fans that basically the only chance the teams have at adding long term talent to a team is via trade or overpaying for the back end of someone's career. Not an ideal way to build a long term team. It basically says that FA deals shouldn't be more than a 2-3 year deal based on this thinking.

And if you don't think long term deals should be after age 32, most first time FA that are looking for that long term deal are hitting the market at age 28 or so. If they hit the market earlier it would make more sense for teams to want to buy into that and easier for the players to get. Which I think would make all parties happier. 

You seem to be moving the goal posts.

Are you trying to determine whats fair to teams, fans or players? 

For players, sure...the quicker they become FAs, the better.   

For teams and fans, the system we have now is easily better.

[Frobby]

This whole discussion of the decline phase starting after age 27 can be pretty misleading.   First, not every player ages the same way.   Second, there are plenty of players who, even though past their peak, are still better than the vast majority of players.  So, they are well worth having under contract even if you can’t expect them to replicate fully what they did previously.  

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Frobby said:

This whole discussion of the decline phase starting after age 27 can be pretty misleading.   First, not every player ages the same way.   Second, there are plenty of players who, even though past their peak, are still better than the vast majority of players.  So, they are well worth having under contract even if you can’t expect them to replicate fully what they did previously.  

Which is why I don’t say, get rid of players after age 27.  

[wildcard]

19 minutes ago, Frobby said:

This whole discussion of the decline phase starting after age 27 can be pretty misleading.   First, not every player ages the same way.   Second, there are plenty of players who, even though past their peak, are still better than the vast majority of players.  So, they are well worth having under contract even if you can’t expect them to replicate fully what they did previously.  

But is it worth paying declining players over 30 long term deals for higher money?  Short term deal - sure.  But long term ?????

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

But is it worth paying declining players over 30 long term deals for higher money?  Short term deal - sure.  But long term ?????

There’s no one size fits all answer here, and what in your mind is long term?

To me, any deal should balance risk and reward.  The chances of the player providing value in excess of the contract price should exceed the chances of the player underperforming the contract price, because the team is taking the risk.   

[forphase1]

2 hours ago, MijiT88 said:

While this is true and what usually happens with lower budget teams, it still is not good for the fans having a long-time player to get behind and root for, thus making it harder for a team to have a long term face of the franchise as well. Everything is connected but all depends on how you want to look at it. I would rather us sign AR long term early and pay him his worth in prime seasons than let him walk after because he wants to make money and we cant give him that. But hey maybe my pipe dreams of having another 10+ year Oriole is a thing of the past...

Growing up a Cal Ripken fan, I loved the fact he was a lifetime Oriole.  And sure, I miss the days of the Ripken, Gwynn, Schmidt, etc who spent their whole career with 1 team and became the face of the franchise.  But the game has changed a great deal and the decline in the early 30s is a fact of life.  You say it's not good for the fans, and I get that, but it's also not good for the franchise, and therefore their fans, to overpay for declining production.  Again, why sign AR long term early and pay his worth during prime seasons if that also means we are overpaying for the subsequent decline?  I'm not against signing a longer term extension, but only if the money makes sense.  If we have AR controlled for the next 6 years and it's going to be fairly inexpensive (pending new CBA etc), then we need to figure out a fair value for the subsequent couple of years where he is still producing at a good rate, and offer him an extension that makes sounds fiscal sense based on what we are going to pay w/o the extension versus with it.  I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to pay AR 'his worth in prime seasons' when we have him for a fraction of that price.  It'd be like going to a car dealer and saying 'I know you are asking 15k for that car, but I know it's real value is 25k, so I'm going to pay that instead.'  It's just not logical unless you can get additional years at a decent price.  Again, I'm not against an extension on the right terms.  But to say that if in 2023-2026 AR is the best catcher in the game and we should pay him accordingly just doesn't make financial sense.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

 And sure, I miss the days of the Ripken, Gwynn, Schmidt, etc who spent their whole career with 1 team and became the face of the franchise. 

Posey, Mauer and Molina all qualify. 

Someone like Trout has a pretty good chance, maybe a Strasburg. 

Hard for pitchers, most all of them have a least one season at the tail of their career with another team.

[forphase1]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Posey, Mauer and Molina all qualify. 

Someone like Trout has a pretty good chance, maybe a Strasburg. 

Hard for pitchers, most all of them have a least one season at the tail of their career with another team.

That's true.  It still happens, but certainly seems to be more rare than when I was a kid.  But I could be wrong, haven't really broken down numbers to see or anything, but my perception at least is that it's less frequently happening than it once was.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, forphase1 said:

That's true.  It still happens, but certainly seems to be more rare than when I was a kid.  But I could be wrong, haven't really broken down numbers to see or anything, but my perception at least is that it's less frequently happening than it once was.  

We'll always have Tillman.

[forphase1]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

This whole discussion of the decline phase starting after age 27 can be pretty misleading.   First, not every player ages the same way.   Second, there are plenty of players who, even though past their peak, are still better than the vast majority of players.  So, they are well worth having under contract even if you can’t expect them to replicate fully what they did previously.  

No doubt, and there are players that certainly buck the trend and have a much longer productive career.  It all needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  But the fact that the decline is real and certainly happens, and teams need to take that into account when deciding long term contracts and extensions.  I'd love for AR to still be a top 3-5 catcher at the age of 33, but statistically speaking that's against the odds of happening.  

[interloper]

6 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

No doubt, and there are players that certainly buck the trend and have a much longer productive career.  It all needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  But the fact that the decline is real and certainly happens, and teams need to take that into account when deciding long term contracts and extensions.  I'd love for AR to still be a top 3-5 catcher at the age of 33, but statistically speaking that's against the odds of happening.  

He could be a fantastic DH/fill-in 1B though, perhaps. If his bat is that legit. If his bat ends up more like Wieters+, though, then maybe he can just be a very solid backup defensive C with pop at the end of his career.