Roch: Holliday, Mayo, Kjerstad, Stowers, Norby, and Al Suarez optioned

[Bemorewins]

3 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Bingo. Think of Nevin like if we called up an extra lefty reliever if we began a series versus a lefty heavy hitting team. 

We wanted an analytic GM that would be like TB. Well we’re doing that. 

Why not use the 40 man roster? It’s winning, or trying to gain every little advantage. It’s why we can out perform our pythag, and the benefit of not being locked into big contracts for older players. 

Instead of operating like TB, would it be okay if we operated more like HOU? They are the championship model after all.

[HandsomeQuack]

Part of me wonders whether they would call up Jackson after the first two or three series. Otherwise, they seem primed to get Adley'd as far as service time goes.

And you know who operates like the Rays? The Dodgers.

[Bemorewins]

3 minutes ago, HandsomeQuack said:

Part of me wonders whether they would call up Jackson after the first two or three series. Otherwise, they seem primed to get Adley'd as far as service time goes.

And you know who operates like the Rays? The Dodgers.

Well, there is that spending part of the equation that is vastly different between the two.

[HandsomeQuack]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

Well, there is that spending part of the equation that is vastly different between the two.

Yes, and the Holliday decision has nothing to do with spending. Every club in the league would be weighing the service time options in the same way the Orioles are. Just because a team spends a lot doesn't mean they don't value a control year for the number 1 prospect in baseball.

[Bemorewins]

8 minutes ago, HandsomeQuack said:

Yes, and the Holliday decision has nothing to do with spending. Every club in the league would be weighing the service time options in the same way the Orioles are. Just because a team spends a lot doesn't mean they don't value a control year for the number 1 prospect in baseball.

I do not disagree with any of the bolded.

The first sentence, would probably be less of an issue with Holliday and others if we would make serious financial investments in the club's longer term future in the form of extensions.

I hope that changes under new ownership.

[HandsomeQuack]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

I do not disagree with any of the bolded.

The first sentence, would probably be less of an issue with Holliday and others if we would make serious financial investments in the club's longer term future in the form of extensions.

I hope that changes under new ownership.

It's not my money, I hope so too, I just don't see how that issue is relevant to this discussion.

[Bemorewins]

10 minutes ago, HandsomeQuack said:

It's not my money, I hope so too, I just don't see how that issue is relevant to this discussion.

If Holliday and/or Mayo or any of our young players that we deem future franchise cornerstones were extended, there would be no need to play these games of service time manipulation with each and every prospect. 

Of course, you cannot and don't want to extend all of your young players/prospects or even potential stars. But the fact that we have not extended any (like almost all other orgs even some of the cheapest in the game) is certainly something worth paying attention to IMO.

IMO, no matter how long we delay whoever/any/all prospects, it is critical for us to operate in a fashion that is more along the norm of most of MLB in this regard in order to keep the window of contention open as long as possible. Eventually you will run out of the yearly "specials"/potential superstar #1 type prospects (Jackson Holliday, Gunnar Henderson, Adley Rutchsman, Samuel Basallo, etc) and you will have to retain some of these guys over the long haul to keep the window of championship contention open. No?

[eddie83]

Jackson’s dad with his opinion. 
 

 

[LookinUp]

20 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I do not disagree with any of the bolded.

The first sentence, would probably be less of an issue with Holliday and others if we would make serious financial investments in the club's longer term future in the form of extensions.

I hope that changes under new ownership.

If we were just talking about Holliday, I'd agree. However, he comes after Adley, Gunnar, Rodriguez and Bradish. Following him are Mayo, Basallo and lord knows who else.

Long story short, they're not going to be able to pay all of these guys to stick around even if they have a large influx of money. I personally think what we're seeing is this org extending the competitive window as much as possible knowing that they won't be able to do it by paying guys big extensions.

[interloper]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

Jackson’s dad with his opinion. 
 

 

Reasonable, rational take. 

[HandsomeQuack]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

If Holliday and/or Mayo or any of our young players that we deem future franchise cornerstones were extended, there would be no need to play these games of service time manipulation with each and every prospect. 

Of course, you cannot and don't want to extend all of your young players/prospects or even potential stars. But the fact that we have not extended any (like almost all other orgs even some of the cheapest in the game) is certainly something worth paying attention to IMO.

IMO, no matter how long we delay whoever/any/all prospects, it is critical for us to operate in a fashion that is more along the norm of most of MLB in this regard in order to keep the window of contention open as long as possible. Eventually you will run out of the yearly "specials"/potential superstar #1 type prospects (Jackson Holliday, Gunnar Henderson, Adley Rutchsman, Samuel Basallo, etc) and you will have to retain some of these guys over the long haul to keep the window of championship contention open. No?

You would not catch me complaining if they extended any of the youngsters. But until that happens, service time is a consideration, and that is not exclusive to the self-proclaimed poverty franchises.

[forphase1]

29 minutes ago, HandsomeQuack said:

Yes, and the Holliday decision has nothing to do with spending. 

I disagree with this part.   I think control is part of it,  but CHEAP control is also a factor.   Plus when/if he's held down past the Super 2 cutoff, that'll be all about money.   I do think pure service time was the main reason,  but to act like financial considerations were not a factor isn't accurate I don't think.  I guess we will see just how big a factor depending on how long he's down.   

[Bemorewins]

2 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

If we were just talking about Holliday, I'd agree. However, he comes after Adley, Gunnar, Rodriguez and Bradish. Following him are Mayo, Basallo and lord knows who else.

Long story short, they're not going to be able to pay all of these guys to stick around even if they have a large influx of money. I personally think what we're seeing is this org extending the competitive window as much as possible knowing that they won't be able to do it by paying guys big extensions.

Yes I just stated/acknowledged this reality in my post above. Really no one/no org can.

However, I would hate for your last sentence to be true. Why would we not be able to do big extensions when teams like the Royals, Rays, Guardians, etc have?

If that is the case, the incoming ownership group will be no better than the last and none of this is sustainable of the long haul. If we are operating under a "no extension/no large contract" policy, then wouldn't it make some sense to "maximize" our potential within this competitive window? Because surely a team with Henderson and Rutchsman, even with Holliday, Mayo, and Basallo, will not be as good. Right?

Last thing, I wouldn't be as apt to give pitchers longer term extensions of position players given the level of risk due to injury. Almost all pitchers nowadays get hurt at some point. If there are limited dollars to go around, IMO the better investment is on the best/most impactful position players.

[HandsomeQuack]

3 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

I disagree with this part.   I think control is part of it,  but CHEAP control is also a factor.   Plus when/if he's held down past the Super 2 cutoff, that'll be all about money.   I do think pure service time was the main reason,  but to act like financial considerations were not a factor isn't accurate I don't think.  I guess we will see just how big a factor depending on how long he's down.   

My point was that a "rich" team would be weighing the same pros and cons with the Holliday situation that the Orioles are. That you are the Dodgers or Yankees doesn't mean that you assume that an extension is a fait accompli. But I agree, the way they handle the Super-2 deadline could be an indicator of how cheap they are feeling.

Of course, there is also the meta-game of top 2 in ROY, and trying to avoid that if at all possible, while also wanting him to be good. I don't know that they would hold him down just to hurt his chances at top 2 ROY, but if we get into that mid-to-late May, Super Two time of year, I think that will be a consideration as well.

[maybenxtyr]

I think most of us would have liked to have had Holliday from day 1.

 

I don't know that it's as much about service time as we think. They've been burned on the service time game already, and I don't know if they want to see it happen again. Every top tier prospect that they've called up have been up to stay. There's probably some legitimacy to wanting him to improve his K's vs LH pitching. 

 

Mayo, that's one that I don't really understand. He pretty much has checked all of the boxes that should warrant a spot on the 26. His case seems more like service time manipulation than anything.