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

[forphase1]

1 hour 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. 

Not fair to the players, eh maybe, but I get the idea.  Not fair to the fans, I don't know.  Was it fair to the fans that we had Davis under contract for all his declining years?  You keep talking about a long term team, but in reality a team is never long term, or if it tries to be long term they end up with an over priced and underperforming team as they gave too much money and too many years to aging vets instead of refreshing the team with new blood.  And yeah, I would say that a FA deal shouldn't be more than 3-4 years, unless you are getting a heck of a bargain.  Say AR becomes a FA at 30 years old.  Signing him for years 31-34 may make sense.  But longer than that you really run the risk of diminishing returns.  Not too many catchers are very good at 35, though of course he could be a first baseman or DH at that time, who knows.  Again, it's a case by case basis but the number of longer term deals that end up being good deal from the team perspective are few in the grand scheme of things.

[forphase1]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

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. 

Sure, if the bat is special enough he could certainly be a great DH/1B.  As you noted he could maybe be a solid backup at the end of his career if the bat isn't super.  But how much should a team pay for a solid backup defensive C with pop?  It's one thing to sign a guy like that for a 1-2 year deal at a few million per.  It's another thing if that guy is on the tail end of an 8 year deal costing 25M a season.  

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, interloper said:

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. 

Or you take the L and pay him to go away.

I don't think the O's can build a contender without accepting risks and some of them won't pan out.  Maybe he's Wieters and the last couple of years are painful, that in and of itself won't tank the franchise.

[Aristotelian]

22 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Not fair to the players, eh maybe, but I get the idea.  Not fair to the fans, I don't know.  Was it fair to the fans that we had Davis under contract for all his declining years?  You keep talking about a long term team, but in reality a team is never long term, or if it tries to be long term they end up with an over priced and underperforming team as they gave too much money and too many years to aging vets instead of refreshing the team with new blood.  And yeah, I would say that a FA deal shouldn't be more than 3-4 years, unless you are getting a heck of a bargain.  Say AR becomes a FA at 30 years old.  Signing him for years 31-34 may make sense.  But longer than that you really run the risk of diminishing returns.  Not too many catchers are very good at 35, though of course he could be a first baseman or DH at that time, who knows.  Again, it's a case by case basis but the number of longer term deals that end up being good deal from the team perspective are few in the grand scheme of things.

Some teams with deep pockets will knowingly overpay for the bad years in order to get the good years. Of course, the Davis deal was terrible no matter how you look at it. 

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Some teams with deep pockets will knowingly overpay for the bad years in order to get the good years. Of course, the Davis deal was terrible no matter how you look at it. 

You can just look at it as the Orioles really, really, really overpaying for June of 2016.

[DrungoHazewood]

26 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Sure, if the bat is special enough he could certainly be a great DH/1B.  As you noted he could maybe be a solid backup at the end of his career if the bat isn't super.  But how much should a team pay for a solid backup defensive C with pop?  It's one thing to sign a guy like that for a 1-2 year deal at a few million per.  It's another thing if that guy is on the tail end of an 8 year deal costing 25M a season.  

Or maybe inflation goes crazy and we've locked him into 2022 rates, so his $25M in 2030 is below the league-average salary.

[forphase1]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Or maybe inflation goes crazy and we've locked him into 2022 rates, so his $25M in 2030 is below the league-average salary.

The way prices are increasing, that's certainly possible!  Sad, but possible!

[DrungoHazewood]

31 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Not too many catchers are very good at 35, though of course he could be a first baseman or DH at that time, who knows.  Again, it's a case by case basis but the number of longer term deals that end up being good deal from the team perspective are few in the grand scheme of things.

I've looked at this before, and I think the idea of catchers moving to another position in mid-career to keep healthy and hit much better is almost a total myth.  It's rare.

Bench moved to third his last couple years and those are his worst two years. Fisk tried to move to the outfield, didn't even last a season.  Berra spent a few years playing some outfield so Elston Howard could finally play, but he was 36 and it was kind of meh.  Piazza tried to play first at 35, again, meh, went back to catching.  I guess you can say it worked for a couple years for Joe Torre.  Mauer played first for five years, one of which was anything like Joe Mauer.  Ted Simmons became mostly a DH when he was old and no good.

Brian Downing had a whole second career as a LF/DH after moving out from behind the plate, but he also had a remarkable and somewhat suspicious transformation into a body builder at almost the same moment. Victor Martinez probably extended his career by DHing.

Anyway, I wouldn't count on Rutschman gaining value by moving to another position.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I've looked at this before, and I think the idea of catchers moving to another position in mid-career to keep healthy and hit much better is almost a total myth.  It's rare.

Bench moved to third his last couple years and those are his worst two years. Fisk tried to move to the outfield, didn't even last a season.  Berra spent a few years playing some outfield so Elston Howard could finally play, but he was 36 and it was kind of meh.  Piazza tried to play first at 35, again, meh, went back to catching.  I guess you can say it worked for a couple years for Joe Torre.  Mauer played first for five years, one of which was anything like Joe Mauer.  Ted Simmons became mostly a DH when he was old and no good.

Brian Downing had a whole second career as a LF/DH after moving out from behind the plate, but he also had a remarkable and somewhat suspicious transformation into a body builder at almost the same moment. Victor Martinez probably extended his career by DHing.

Anyway, I wouldn't count on Rutschman gaining value by moving to another position.

Could do a Biggio and move him off at 26. 

[LookinUp]

Re: the opening post, I disagree with this idea that those guys have nothing left to prove in AAA. That idea makes assumptions based on SSS and without any knowledge of what the O's think does or doesn't need to be improved.

I'm not arguing that several of those guys couldn't help the O's on opening day. I'm sure they could. But if the O's want Bradish to put extra work in on a secondary pitch or actually want to see if McKenna can hit AAA over a larger sample (likely they'd actually care less about his stats and instead want to see if he can implement swing adjustments that would indicate higher probability of ML success), that would make sense to me.

I just think it's a naïve OP in the context that it's in. 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Some teams with deep pockets will knowingly overpay for the bad years in order to get the good years. Of course, the Davis deal was terrible no matter how you look at it. 

You only overpay for the bad years if you think you’ll have surplus in the good years that will compensate for it.   If you’re wrong, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.   But that’s the test.   

[justD]

2 hours ago, forphase1 said:

The way prices are increasing, that's certainly possible!  Sad, but possible!

Player salaries have had little to do with the US economy’s inflation rate, in the years I’ve been paying attention at all. It’s mostly determined by what the current market is for players and what other teams are willing to offer.

Also, because of this it’s fine to say “offering more than 3-4 years is foolish” when it may be that in a given year, other organizations you’re bidding against are offering 6-7 and this is the only way you’re able to sign them. Larger market teams often have less risk doing so, as they can better absorb the cost of those bad years at the end of a contract, but sometimes you have to take the risk anyway.  

Of course, bidding against yourself is never smart, but…

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

Re: the opening post, I disagree with this idea that those guys have nothing left to prove in AAA. That idea makes assumptions based on SSS and without any knowledge of what the O's think does or doesn't need to be improved.

I'm not arguing that several of those guys couldn't help the O's on opening day. I'm sure they could. But if the O's want Bradish to put extra work in on a secondary pitch or actually want to see if McKenna can hit AAA over a larger sample (likely they'd actually care less about his stats and instead want to see if he can implement swing adjustments that would indicate higher probability of ML success), that would make sense to me.

I just think it's a naïve OP in the context that it's in. 

First of all, thanks for steering this thread back on topic.  

But anyway, I don’t think wildcard was saying that these players could get no benefit from spending more time in AAA.   He was more saying, if any of these players made the roster or got called up, you wouldn’t necessarily feel it was a mistake because the player needed more time in AAA.   At least, that’s my read.   
 

[SteveA]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Could do a Biggio and move him off at 26. 

So during his final year at AAA?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

So during his final year at AAA?

Maybe, if learning a new position doesn't cause a delay.