35 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

If you wanted Machado to be an Oriole for life, this (going all in on a lifetime type contract) is what should have happened after '13 (and maybe even '12). 

 

ESPN: https://www.espn.com...an-diego-padres

 

Schoenfield: I think there's a lesson to be learned here for all organizations, big-market or small-market: The Padres didn't mess around with Tatis' service time in 2019 as he made the Opening Day roster. They could have easily have kept him in Triple-A for a couple of weeks to preserve another season of team control. Maybe that gesture helped them lock up Tatis with this contract.

 

 

Interesting thought there. I generally hate the service time manipulation bs we see each year, even with understanding why.  (For example, the Orioles will be more interesting in June when Diaz ascends.. with the Orioles primarily holding him back imo to get that additional year of control.) 

I still feel like for the most part if you like players well enough, and you'd otherwise bring them up..  I'd rather see you bring them up. Can always buy out the arb years, and add on a year or two like Longoria years ago if you like the player well enough. 

[Mackus]

I think any good will benefits of ignoring service time would be balanced out by the financial advantage you could throw at the guy later if you did manipulate service time.

 

Meaning, if you bring a prospect up to start the year, you've got 3 pre-arb and 3 arb years before free agency.  If you play games, you've got 2.75 pre-arb and 4 arb years or 3.5 pre arb and 3 arb years.  In either case where you manipulate service, you get that 7th year for either ARB3 or ARB4 rates, compared to FA rates.  So if you extend them, that 7th year is at maybe 75-80% of FA values.  For a stud like Machado or Tatis, you're talking being able to pay them $25M as ARB3/ARB4 instead of $30M as a FA.

 

So...don't play games and you have to buy out a $30M year or do play games and you only have to buy out a $25M year.  Maybe if you don't play games they give you a discount and you only pay $28M.  If you did play games, they hold it against you and make you overpay so you give them $28M.

 

I don't think playing service time games would be the deciding factor for whether a player is willing to extend or not.  Plenty of guys who were manipulated signed deals.  And others who weren't did not.  All about what the player wants and less about any grudges held against the team for doing things that everybody in the sport completely understands.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I don't think playing service time games would be the deciding factor for whether a player is willing to extend or not.  Plenty of guys who were manipulated signed deals.  And others who weren't did not.  All about what the player wants and less about any grudges held against the team for doing things that everybody in the sport completely understands.

This is probably very fair. 

Beyond whether it would help with an extension or not... I just started think about the manipulation etc and started thinking Rutschman. 

My expectation is that he's the O's starting catcher by late May / early June '22.   But if they go to camp next year and he's the best option, I hate the idea of sending him back for two months just to get the additional year.  

And yes, having him for that additional year in his prime matters more than having him in '22, but still.

I just think if you (the team) likes the player well enough you are going to want him later, go to him early enough where he's staring at those years of control, and buy out the arb years, while tacking on the year or two of FA. 

 

[Mackus]

You only need to send him down 3 weeks to get the additional year. Two months (or more) is to try to prevent him from being a Super Two.

I'm with you on the Super Two part. I think unless you've got legit WS aspirations that it's hard to make a case for April 1-20 in Year 1 being more valuable than all of Year 7. So get the extra year.

[BSLChrisStoner]

You only need to send him down 3 weeks to get the additional year. Two months (or more) is to try to prevent him from being a Super Two.

I'm with you on the Super Two part. I think unless you've got legit WS aspirations that it's hard to make a case for April 1-20 in Year 1 being more valuable than all of Year 7. So get the extra year.

It's not a winnable argument to argue against keeping him in the Majors for 3 weeks vs. sending him to the Minors to get Year 7.  Can't be argued. 

But that's something that should be fixed in the next CBA because it's not good for the overall product. 

(And good point about the extra time being about Super 2.)

[Mike B]

All good points here.  I really hope, we see the Orioles do something like this, the next time they get a generational talent.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Yes, address it in the CBA. Currently its a necessary evil. Even Super 2 status is relevant for a small market non contending franchise like the Os.

[dude]

Any time you create a line, people are going to consider how to exploit the line.  

 

There is never satisfaction where the line is, someone will always want to try and exploit it for their advantage.

[Mackus]

I wonder how teams would change development if players reached free agency after their Age 28 season no matter when they were drafted or debuted or how much service time they accrue.

 

Or you could do it 8 years after draft for college guys, 10 for High School guys, and 12 years after signing for international FAs.  

[Mike in STL]

I wonder how teams would change development if players reached free agency after their Age 28 season no matter when they were drafted or debuted or how much service time they accrue.

Or you could do it 8 years after draft for college guys, 10 for High School guys, and 12 years after signing for international FAs.

I’ve been saying something similar for a while now. Kris Bryant losing his case against service time manipulation sets an awful precedent.

In your scenario guys will be FA eligible around age 28, roughly. I think that’s fair. But currently teams can manipulate how they handle players, especially teams that are “not ready to win”, and they can hold their FA eligibility until age 30, or more. Owners would much rather want to pay what a 30 year old is worth rather than what a 28 year old is worth.

I think had there been minor league ball last year, a full regular season, we don’t see Mountcastle until maybe a cup of coffee at the end. But it probably benefited the O’s to continue his development in real time, rather than sit on his butt for a year. COVID may actually have helped young players on the cusp league wide in that regard.

[JeremyStrain]

If you wanted Machado to be an Oriole for life, this (going all in on a lifetime type contract) is what should have happened after '13 (and maybe even '12).

ESPN: https://www.espn.com...an-diego-padres

Schoenfield: I think there's a lesson to be learned here for all organizations, big-market or small-market: The Padres didn't mess around with Tatis' service time in 2019 as he made the Opening Day roster. They could have easily have kept him in Triple-A for a couple of weeks to preserve another season of team control. Maybe that gesture helped them lock up Tatis with this contract.


Interesting thought there. I generally hate the service time manipulation bs we see each year, even with understanding why. (For example, the Orioles will be more interesting in June when Diaz ascends.. with the Orioles primarily holding him back imo to get that additional year of control.)

I still feel like for the most part if you like players well enough, and you'd otherwise bring them up.. I'd rather see you bring them up. Can always buy out the arb years, and add on a year or two like Longoria years ago if you like the player well enough.

Your point is valid but your example probably isn’t. Diaz is about half a throw away from being a bust as a prospect. Unless he made some huge steps last year with instructional, he didn’t look like he’s going to crack anything above the other guys we have. I wouldn’t take him over Hays, Mountcastle, Stewart or Kjerstad.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Your point is valid but your example probably isn’t. Diaz is about half a throw away from being a bust as a prospect. Unless he made some huge steps last year with instructional, he didn’t look like he’s going to crack anything above the other guys we have. I wouldn’t take him over Hays, Mountcastle, Stewart or Kjerstad.

Well, I don't agree with your sentiment about Diaz... but that's not really the point. 

He could totally be a bust, but the primary reason he isn't going to be the starting LF to begin '21 is that the O's want the additional year of control. 

Mancini is already at 1st. 

 

Mountcastle begins the year in LF. 

Stewart begins the year at DH. 

 

By June 1st, I expect Diaz will take over LF, and either Stewart is out of a job (Mountcastle to DH)... or Mancini has been traded, and 1st / DH is split with Mountcastle and Stewart.

 

 

And while Krjestad is an advanced college bat who should move quickly... he's not debuting before May '22 at the absolute earliest.

 

 

Diaz is actually a good example of what I'm talking about overall and why CBA changes are needed. 
He's a good not great prospect, and playing with service time is still an issue that has to be thought about.

[Mackus]

Last we saw Diaz he had an 800 OPS in AA as a 22 y/o.  That's pretty solid.  No idea what he did last year at the instructionals.

 

I think it'd be reasonable to start him at MLB this year if he has a strong spring but it's also completely reasonable to have him continue playing in the minors without it being a clear service time manipulation.  He certainly hasn't bust down the door like Mountcastle did.  That was clearly service time gaming last year.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Last we saw Diaz he had an 800 OPS in AA as a 22 y/o.  That's pretty solid.  No idea what he did last year at the instructionals.

 

I think it'd be reasonable to start him at MLB this year if he has a strong spring but it's also completely reasonable to have him continue playing in the minors without it being a clear service time manipulation.  He certainly hasn't bust down the door like Mountcastle did.  That was clearly service time gaming last year.

 

He looked great in the instructionals by all accounts, but it's fine to discount that. 
It's also fine to say he should have done more at AA (though he was hampered most of '19 with leg issues). 

It's also fine to say no issue with him getting some ab's at AAA, and earning his way up. 

What sucks is that due to the existing rules, he can't really go to camp and compete for a job. The service time makes it easy to send him down. 

 

And if I'm right that he ascends pretty quickly after the O's get that additional control, I think that will be telling. 

[Russ]

They should change ARB1 to RFA and make MiLFA after 5 years. Keeps players either advancing through the system or moving out.

[Mackus]

I think Jeremy's "half a throw away from being a bust" evaluation is hard to support.

[JeremyStrain]

Well, I don't agree with your sentiment about Diaz... but that's not really the point. 

He could totally be a bust, but the primary reason he isn't going to be the starting LF to begin '21 is that the O's want the additional year of control. 

Mancini is already at 1st. 

 

Mountcastle begins the year in LF. 

Stewart begins the year at DH. 

 

By June 1st, I expect Diaz will take over LF, and either Stewart is out of a job (Mountcastle to DH)... or Mancini has been traded, and 1st / DH is split with Mountcastle and Stewart.

 

 

And while Krjestad is an advanced college bat who should move quickly... he's not debuting before May '22 at the absolute earliest.

 

 

Diaz is actually a good example of what I'm talking about overall and why CBA changes are needed. 
He's a good not great prospect, and playing with service time is still an issue that has to be thought about.

You manipulate service time to try to keep guys you feel like are elite prospects. You don't do that with guys that are middle of the pack or so-so. If Diaz is going to get a spot he's going to have to earn it, and he's got to outplay others to get it. I'm not moving a SINGLE person out of his way unless he just tears the cover off the ball and forces his way on the team.

 

The few things of him I saw after we got him weren't in the slightest impressive, and I suspect there's a reason LA was happy to send him in this deal.

 

The emotional component of wanting him to be a stud because he's the main piece we got back for Manny, which makes that look even worse if he doesn't pan out is real. Because of last year you have to pause a little bit before you write him off, but I'm completely comfortable with saying this year is make or break for him and you don't HAND him anything. He either works for it, or he doesn't, but I have a feeling that desire and work ethic is what it's going to come down to.

 

Obviously, it's subjective, and sometimes you miss when you throw out a bold statement like this, but it's what I see and how I feel. No right or wrong until they either do or don't.

[Ravens2006]

I get the whole "bank a future year of control" thing in theory.  Sure.

 

What's BEYOND EXHAUSTING to me is the idea that it's the only right way to handle a guy, and frankly, every guy.  Maybe folks are saying it is, or they're not.  I won't debate it.  But the same sort of excuse has been used for years and years and years in this organization to justify keeping a prospect down a little longer.  Granted, they haven't produced much anyway.

 

But it also plays back in to the overall problem (I have) with the supposed acceptability of not having ANY interest in winning more major league games NOW.  

 

Call me crazy, or stupid, or both... but I sorta don't care about "what might be" 6 versus 7 years from now.  On the flip side... I think there's always a case to be made for determining whether a guy is going to click at the major league level sooner rather than later... allowing you to make those keep vs. eject decisions sooner too.  And the sooner you start to win more, give fans signs of improvement / excitement at Oriole Park (not Norfolk or Bowie), the sooner you start to sell more tickets and get more people tuning in.

 

Selfishly, I sort of stop holding out major hope in guys becoming upper tier / special players if they aren't showing it at the major league level to some degree (consistently) before they're 24 / 25 years old.  A Longoria was doing it well in the majors at age 22, and the no money / no fans Rays managed to keep him in uniform for 10 seasons.  Machado was up earlier, and the Orioles only managed to keep him here for parts of 7 seasons, before trading him for, in my mind, way too little return. 

 

John Means has flashed very nicely overall so far in the majors, but he's logged about 1.5 seasons and he's 28 years old pretty soon.  That's not really "prospect" to me, that's "He needs to do it now anyway, or it's not happening".  In his one full season, he posted a 2.50 pre-AS break, and a 4.85 post-AS break.  Stewart is 27 and his parts-of-3-seasons major league numbers are not impressive.  If Diaz isn't showing some consistent plus production in the majors this year, we'll go in to '22 with a guy who's about 25.5 and still no decent ML track record.  He'll be about 24.5 this year by opening day... again... not "old" but very quickly leaving that "young, big upside prospect" zone too.

 

A well-run club will find talent, develop talent, promote talent, and compete.  A well-run Orioles club should be able to do that, and also see a significant financial windfall from ticket sales and TV / ad-related revenue, because of their RSN and larger market area arrangements.  

 

I'll remain pessimistic that continuing to kick the can down the road is the hallmark of an undeniably rising well-run club.  It would be nice to see them do more to improve the major league regular season game product as soon as possible at all times, and doing so doesn't have to mean they are jeopardizing the future at the same time.

[Mackus]

Stewart and Means are not and never were prospects (at least not after Stewart flopped early on being a slightly older college pick).  They aren't the guys people are talking about manipulating.  Means was a nobody who broke out.  Stewart was a prospect, flopped and became a nobody, and now perhaps is breaking out a little (I'm not a believer, personally).

 

And the manipulation if you're only after service time is very minor.  It's 3 weeks.  Would you worry about the player's development or the team's ability to evaluate if that same prospect got hurt and missed 3 weeks?  

[BSLChrisStoner]

You manipulate service time to try to keep guys you feel like are elite prospects. 

If service time was only a consideration for elite prospects, it would be easier to swallow.  But imo, it's not. 

I have no idea what Diaz is going be or not.  I think there is plenty to like.  
No real issue with him going and having to earn his way up.  I just think earning his way up, isn't what is going to keep him down to start the year.