Henderson, Hall, Westburg, and Stowers - Potential unintended consequence of the new service time rules?

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Ideally no, but the rule changes were made because the logic of making decisions to maximize control for a player of his caliber made it the rational choice.  The new rules change that calculus.  I would have loved to have seen Adley up last year but I cannot blame Elias for being rational in his decision making.

I can.

Not having Adley in the majors last year could have backfired on Elias in a number of ways.

Just think if his acclimation period had been last season instead of this year. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I blame Angelos.  The team is winning this year by accident, not because they were expecting it.

If he had gone to Elias and said, starting in 2022, we are opening the checkbook and trying to win, I think Adley is up in 2021.  But since they were still good with not winning, they valued the service time higher.

Just don’t tell me that they did because Adley wasn’t ready.  That’s bs.

I think Elias was 100% on board with the process.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Can_of_corn

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I thin Elias was 100% on board with the process.

He very well may have been..but when ownership is telling you that winning isn’t a priority yet, I think it’s easier to be on board with that type of decision making.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He very well may have been..but when ownership is telling you that winning isn’t a priority yet, I think it’s easier to be on board with that type of decision making.

I don't want ownership overriding the GM's established gameplan.

Do you want them meddling?

[geschinger]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I can.

Not having Adley in the majors last year could have backfired on Elias in a number of ways.

Just think if his acclimation period had been last season instead of this year. 

Of course, but if you are making decisions based on odds of outcomes the rational decision before the new CBA was to play the service time game.  Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work out. 

I'd be nervous about a GM whose decision making was based on rolling the dice and hoping to hit on something that has a 10% or 20% outcome at the expense of a decision with an 80% outcome.  

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't want ownership overriding the GM's established gameplan.

Do you want them meddling?

No..but that doesn’t mean they don’t.  And really, this isn’t meddling.  I don’t believe John Angelos said, you can’t call him up.  But when they set your expectations so low, you can easily come up with the conclusion of waiting.

I think it’s the wrong conclusion but it’s logical to go there, whether you agree with it or not.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, geschinger said:

Of course, but if you are making decisions based on odds of outcomes the rational decision before the new CBA was to play the service time game.  Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work out. 

I'd be nervous about a GM whose decision making was based on rolling the dice and hoping to hit on something that has a 10% or 20% outcome at the expense of a decision with an 80% outcome.  

Plenty, in fact most, players don't have their service time manipulated.  It is by no means a requirement for teams to act in such a fashion.

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

No..but that doesn’t mean they don’t.  And really, this isn’t meddling.  I don’t believe John Angelos said, you can’t call him up.  But when they set your expectations so low, you can easily come up with the conclusion of waiting.

I think it’s the wrong conclusion but it’s logical to go there, whether you agree with it or not.

I think that owners telling GMs to spend money doesn't generally end well.

And I do think it's meddling.

[geschinger]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think that owners telling GMs to spend money doesn't generally end well.

And I do think it's meddling.

Seems like that's a recipe for Chris Davis type scenarios.

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Seems like that's a recipe for Chris Davis type scenarios.

Or a Pujols/Hamilton situation.

[geschinger]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Plenty, in fact most, players don't have their service time manipulated.  It is by no means a requirement for teams to act in such a fashion.

Of course, most players aren't good enough prospects for that to matter.  And of course not a requirement any more than it's a not a requirement for teams to act rationally in other areas like FA. If it wasn't an issue - that the incentives made playing the service time game the smart approach -  a new system would not have been needed in the CBA to change that incentive structure. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Of course, most players aren't good enough prospects for that to matter.  And of course not a requirement any more than it's a not a requirement for teams to act rationally in other areas like FA. If it wasn't an issue - that the incentives made playing the service time game the smart approach -  a new system would not have been needed in the CBA to change that incentive structure. 

It's not a requirement for even really good prospects.

[geschinger]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's not a requirement for even really good prospects.

Rational decision making is not a requirment in any aspect of MLB operations.

Edited August 9, 2022 by geschinger

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Rational decision making is not a requirment in any aspect of MLB operations.

Are you saying that the only rational decision is to game service time?

That's what it sounds like.

[NCRaven]

Just an FYI, the active roster has been 26 for a few years and the roster expansion in September is 2 players (saw a few references to 25 man rosters early in this thread).  For the two player expansion, is it limited to one pitcher?  Thought I heard/saw that somewhere.