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

[geschinger]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Padres seem to.  Giants.  Dodgers.

Blatant service time manipulation isn't that common.

 

I think it's more common than you think

Brutal example of service time manipulation by the Dodgers with Matt Beatty.  Sent down in 2021 for just enough time to miss arbitration by one day.  

Giants engaged in service time manipulation with Joey Bart

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, geschinger said:

I think it's more common than you think

Brutal example of service time manipulation by the Dodgers with Matt Beatty.  Sent down in 2021 for just enough time to miss arbitration by one day.  

Giants engaged in service time manipulation with Joey Bart

I think Mr Bart has shown legitimate issues with his game.  He was drafted in 2018 and was in the majors in 2020.

[Hallas]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

That seriously does bother me.

It isn't right.

We wouldn't accept it in any other field of endeavor.

But if you want to defend the poor, defenseless current billionaires....

The amount of money involved doesn't really factor into why it doesn't bother me.  Service time manipulation is an edge case baked into the previous CBA, and it was concerning enough that the MLBPA fought for (and received) several concessions to make service time manipulation less consequential for highest performing rookies.  The current state of service time and its potential for manipulation should have been well understood by the players when they were at the bargaining table.  If this was not acceptable to the players then they should have fought harder for more concessions.  It would have likely meant giving up other concessions in exchange, but that's how bargaining works, right?

Edited August 9, 2022 by Hallas

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Hallas said:

The amount of money involved doesn't really factor into why it doesn't bother me.  Service time manipulation is an edge case baked into their CBA, and it was concerning enough that the MLBPA fought for (and received) several concessions to make service time manipulation less consequential for highest performing rookies.  The current state of service time and its potential for manipulation should have been well understood by the players when they were at the bargaining table.  If this was not acceptable to the players then they should have fought harder for more concessions.  It would have likely meant giving up other concessions in exchange, but that's how bargaining works, right?

Are the players that are being impacted part of the bargaining process?

[Hallas]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Are the players that are being impacted part of the bargaining process?

How do you include people who aren't part of the union yet in the bargaining process?  If a teaching student graduates this year and gets a job for a union teaching job, she/he is under the previous collectively-bargained agreement.  Maybe it's unfair but there's no fair way to include them either.  It was concerning enough to current players that they fought to at least throw rookies a bone when it comes to pay disparity and service time manipulation.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Hallas

[geschinger]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think Mr Bart has shown legitimate issues with his game.  He was drafted in 2018 and was in the majors in 2020.

It's why he hasn't stuck, not why he was held down in 2020.   

There was a post where an analyis of debuts was done in May of 2019 for that season.

41 debuts before the cutoff - 4 top 100 prospects  (presumably on opening day roster as debut was opening week)

After opening week, zero top 100 prospects brought up before the service time cutoff.

After the service time cutoff and the time of the post in May of 2019 there were another 45 debuts including 10 top 100 prospects. 

Service time manipulation is common.  

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, geschinger said:

It's why he hasn't stuck, not why he was held down in 2020.   

There was a post where an analyis of debuts was done in May of 2019 for that season.

41 debuts before the cutoff - 4 top 100 prospects  (presumably on opening day roster as debut was opening week)

After opening week, zero top 100 prospects brought up before the service time cutoff.

After the service time cutoff and the time of the post in May of 2019 there were another 45 debuts including 10 top 100 prospects. 

Service time manipulation is common.  

Bart had 22 games, in total, over A+ ball before the 2020 season.

[geschinger]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Bart had 22 games, in total, over A+ ball before the 2020 season.

And he still had only 22 games in total, over A+ ball when he made his debut after the Giants guaranteed he wouldn't qualify for a full year of service time.   

[Can_of_corn]

35 minutes ago, geschinger said:

And he still had only 22 games in total, over A+ ball when he made his debut after the Giants guaranteed he wouldn't qualify for a full year of service time.   

He couldn't accumulate more minor league games in 2020 now could he?

I can see a reasonable argument for why he didn't make the team out of what constituted spring training in 2020. It was a bit of an odd time.

 

Edited August 9, 2022 by Can_of_corn

[geschinger]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

He couldn't accumulate more minor league games in 2020 now could he?

I can see a reasonable argument for why he didn't make the team out of what constituted spring training in 2020. It was a bit of an odd time.

Fair enough. But just curious - if you see a reasonable arguement for Bart not making the team, why not for Mountcastle as well?  The only position available early on was in the OF and he's a guy that over 5 years of MiLB had accumulated only 221 innings in the OF.  If they concluded he needed time and reps in camp before he was ready, why would that not be a reasonable arguement?

[btdart20]

6 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Tony mentions that this year is house money for Elias and I agree…but when you think about it, the arrogance of that thought is crazy.

You never know when you will have chances to win.  The Orioles could look great on paper next year and have bad luck and not be as good.

Not to mention, the potential revenue you gain by making the playoffs.

I don’t see how you don’t go for this.  I have been someone who hasn’t been a believer in this team but the reality is they are right there and showing no signs of slowing down.

You can’t assume these chances will just readily be there.  Dan Marino talked about how he thought he was going to go to Super Bowls all the time after going early in his career..he never went again.

 

Nah.  Not arrogance IMO.  It’s evidence “the plan” is working.  It’s a checkpoint on the product development roadmap.

Elias sees the potential regression.  That’s probably part of the deadline decision.  Keep stacking talent and we won’t be left with one arm that can get hurt.  Isn’t that part of the fan base complaining?  Means gets hurt and then what?  He also sees good progression for next year to in certain areas.  Which is why he’s started talking about spending in the off season.

This year is house money for the experience.  That does not mean treat the hard earned assets like chips on the roulette table. Elias isn’t a gambler.  Risk is bad.  He’s an asset manager.  He wants to hedge as much risk out of the equation as possible.

The moral behind the Dan Marino parable isn’t carpe diem.  Did Marino have a team around him ever?  Duper and Clayton for a few years but nothing else.  I know he’s hated in Baltimore, but Tom Brady was a nobody backup for years in college.  Drafted like a nobody too.  Brady worked his tail off and sacrificed money so the team could sign better players around him.  Brady and Beezelbub could win in a few different ways depending on the build of the team over the years.  Running, throwing short, deep jump balls, defense, (cheating)….  Brady checked his ego at the door.  Sacrifice, personnel, and focus on the right metrics builds a system.  

If the team focuses on the golden arm who breaks the piggy bank, well… Dan Marino became the highest paid player in the NFL in 1991 and never got back to the Super Bowl.  More complete teams like Denver and Buffalo were also better in the AFC.  The message of Marino is a double edged sword.  The system has to be bigger than one player.  Too much risk… And risk is bad.

[Il BuonO]

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

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

Do you want them meddling?

Does it matter? Never stopped the old man in the past.

Of course, no one wants ownership meddling, but the reality may be different. And that’s what I had complained about for years with PA, and now it’s purely speculation as to whether Elias is “on board” with the plan. There’s no way to know. What’s his choice, to quit? Say no, I’m doing it my way? Elias goes along to get along until ownership can be made to see that the difference he’s made with the development of the facility in  the DR and his drafting, not to mention his waiver claims, have turned them into a competitive team and it’s now time to move.

They need to supplement with FA and that doesn’t mean handing out ridiculous contracts to one or two guys for ridiculous money. A key signing of a FA pitcher might put them over the top. 

Ownership should note that things have changed and act accordingly. The time is now. 

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Fair enough. But just curious - if you see a reasonable arguement for Bart not making the team, why not for Mountcastle as well?  The only position available early on was in the OF and he's a guy that over 5 years of MiLB had accumulated only 221 innings in the OF.  If they concluded he needed time and reps in camp before he was ready, why would that not be a reasonable arguement?

Because they didn't call him up when rosters expanded in 2019.

Would have been the best time to get him more innings in the OF.

[Sports Guy]

47 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Nah.  Not arrogance IMO.  It’s evidence “the plan” is working.  It’s a checkpoint on the product development roadmap.

Elias sees the potential regression.  That’s probably part of the deadline decision.  Keep stacking talent and we won’t be left with one arm that can get hurt.  Isn’t that part of the fan base complaining?  Means gets hurt and then what?  He also sees good progression for next year to in certain areas.  Which is why he’s started talking about spending in the off season.

This year is house money for the experience.  That does not mean treat the hard earned assets like chips on the roulette table. Elias isn’t a gambler.  Risk is bad.  He’s an asset manager.  He wants to hedge as much risk out of the equation as possible.

The moral behind the Dan Marino parable isn’t carpe diem.  Did Marino have a team around him ever?  Duper and Clayton for a few years but nothing else.  I know he’s hated in Baltimore, but Tom Brady was a nobody backup for years in college.  Drafted like a nobody too.  Brady worked his tail off and sacrificed money so the team could sign better players around him.  Brady and Beezelbub could win in a few different ways depending on the build of the team over the years.  Running, throwing short, deep jump balls, defense, (cheating)….  Brady checked his ego at the door.  Sacrifice, personnel, and focus on the right metrics builds a system.  

If the team focuses on the golden arm who breaks the piggy bank, well… Dan Marino became the highest paid player in the NFL in 1991 and never got back to the Super Bowl.  More complete teams like Denver and Buffalo were also better in the AFC.  The message of Marino is a double edged sword.  The system has to be bigger than one player.  Too much risk… And risk is bad.

This post reeks of assumptions.

[geschinger]

19 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because they didn't call him up when rosters expanded in 2019.

Would have been the best time to get him more innings in the OF.

If they didn't think he was ready defensively going into 2020 to play in the OF in MLB games he would  not have ready in September 2019.  Bottom line, while I don't think the Orioles were at all thinking about a 7th year I do think there was some element of manipulation.  Making sure they got 2023 as a pre-arb year is a obviously beneficial to the org and I expect he's replaced by the end of 2024 in any case.  

I think Bart is no different than the 10 top 100 prospects from 2019 who debuted shortly after the service time dealine - clear examples of the service manipulation that is so common across the game.   Those guys didn't magically become ready so soon after the deadline.  Unless we have a scenario like Kelenic where the Mariners allegedly told him if he signed an extension he'd be brought up at the end of 2020 and when he didn't they played the service time game w/him the next year, there is plausible spin that teams can apply to just about any of these individual players.  We're all smart enough to know the real reason is service time manipulation.