You can't help but wonder if he hadn't gotten hurt if he'd be in the Sox starting lineup right now. Hurry back and start raking again Eloy.

2 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

You can't help but wonder if he hadn't gotten hurt if he'd be in the Sox starting lineup right now. Hurry back and start raking again Eloy.

He wasn't hitting well enough at Charlotte to force that rapid of a callup. 

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

He wasn't hitting well enough at Charlotte to force that rapid of a callup. 

.293 AVG, .383 OBP, .463 SLG - granted, only 47 PA so a very small sample size, but he seemed to be doing just fine to me. 

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

That is fun to watch. 

28 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

.293 AVG, .383 OBP, .463 SLG - granted, only 47 PA so a very small sample size, but he seemed to be doing just fine to me. 

That's fine but that's not called up after 4 weeks. Give me a .950 OPS and I'll call him up after 4 weeks.

1 hour ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

You can't help but wonder if he hadn't gotten hurt if he'd be in the Sox starting lineup right now. Hurry back and start raking again Eloy.

But, why? 

I hope he stays down until super 2 deadline next year

7 hours ago, Hot FiRe said:

I hope he stays down until super 2 deadline next year

This is a huge problem for baseball right now.  Deserving players are kept down to game the system.  The next CBA should adopt something similar to hockey -- a fixed number of years of control, say 8, maybe 10 if you sign as a 16 year old, and it accrues the same minors or majors.  

2 hours ago, Timmy U said:

This is a huge problem for baseball right now.  Deserving players are kept down to game the system.  The next CBA should adopt something similar to hockey -- a fixed number of years of control, say 8, maybe 10 if you sign as a 16 year old, and it accrues the same minors or majors.  

I think they should do a strict age thing similar to the NHL. In the NHL, exceptional players(those who are in the NHL as a teenager) are granted UFA if their contract expires after age 25(if in the league as an 18 year old)  or 26(if in the league as a 19 year old) . If not, if a player's contract expires after age 27, the player is a UFA. It is super unlikely that a player gets to MLB in baseball, so the control should be based on when the player reaches the majors as well. If a player reaches the Majors at age 20 or 21, the team gets a 5 year ELC so to speak with the first year at league minimum, the second at twice league minimum and years 3-5 at ARB. If a player enters MLB at age 22-25  the player gets a 4 year ELC where the first year is at league minimum, and years 2-4 are ARB years. In this case, all players will reach FA  or be re-signed by their teams in their 20s. If a player has not reached MLB by age 26 they are granted MiLB FA, and are free to seek employment with a team that is willing to give them a 25 man roster spot, if deserving. Players that reach MLB at age 26 or older get a 2 year ELC with 1st year at MLB minimum and 2nd as ARB,  In this case, most MLB regulars will reach FA between age 25-28, with most in the 27-28 Year old range.All of the age brackets are as of Opening Day.

Another idea is in ordeer to entice players to stay with their clubs, there could be a maximum amount of money that could be awarded in arbitration. Players would have to take a huge financial risk to get that payday in FA. Something like, you have two options as a player: You could sign a long-term deal when your cheap years are up, or you opt into  the "established player under team control contract" ( if you want to bet on yourself) However, if you opt into that, the deal is a 3 year, non-guaranteed  27M contract broken down into the following structure: Year 1: 6M Year 2: 9M Year 3: 12M. Years 2and 3 are team options as well, so if the team deems a player unworthy at that dollar amount, that team releases the player from their ELC at that point and becomes a UFA. At the end of year two if a player and their current club agree on an extension, they can replace the 12M amount with a higher dollar amount as year one of the new contract, as per team and player agreement. This would keep pitchers put fairly regularly, and hitters would be more likely to move around via FA. 

Either way you slice it, I think it is a better deal for players and teams, as teams know they're getting at least 2-3 prime seasons from a high dollar FA, and players get paid more quickly. 

 

Edited July 14, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

11 hours ago, Hot FiRe said:

I hope he stays down until super 2 deadline next year

This is a ridiculous stance for a fan to take. You aren’t paying him his arbitration salaries. Ownership is paying him. Why should you care? All it does is deprive you of seeing a good player.

Pros of artificially holding down deserving player until after Super 2 deadline:

1. Reinsdorf saves money on one less year of arbitration

 

Cons:

1. Deserving player realizes cheap team is manipulating him and isn’t willing to sign extension with team before free agency.

2. Fans don’t get to see good player on field for 2 months. 

3. Player loses at least two months of MLB experience, which could be useful in getting him acclimated to the big leagues, thus potentially slowing down time until contention.

4. Fans realize that a team with no salary obligations that is still cheap enough to hold a deserving player down to avoid an extra year of arbitration is probably not going to be willing to spend the necessary money to build a consistent winner, whether that means trades for highly paid players, contract extensions for deserving home grown players, or outside free agents. 

 

Other than that, I think the idea to hold him down in AAA for nearly another full season is brilliant.

 

19 minutes ago, Butter Parque said:

This is a ridiculous stance for a fan to take. You aren’t paying him his arbitration salaries. Ownership is paying him. Why should you care? All it does is deprive you of seeing a good player.

Pros of artificially holding down deserving player until after Super 2 deadline:

1. Reinsdorf saves money on one less year of arbitration

 

Cons:

1. Deserving player realizes cheap team is manipulating him and isn’t willing to sign extension with team before free agency.

2. Fans don’t get to see good player on field for 2 months. 

3. Player loses at least two months of MLB experience, which could be useful in getting him acclimated to the big leagues, thus potentially slowing down time until contention.

4. Fans realize that a team with no salary obligations that is still cheap enough to hold a deserving player down to avoid an extra year of arbitration is probably not going to be willing to spend the necessary money to build a consistent winner, whether that means trades for highly paid players, contract extensions for deserving home grown players, or outside free agents. 

 

Other than that, I think the idea to hold him down in AAA for nearly another full season is brilliant.

 

Some of us live in a place called "reality," where practical decisions are made based on things called "resources."

27 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

Some of us live in a place called "reality," where practical decisions are made based on things called "resources."

Well then your reality is artificial because you don't have a clue about this team's resources. You can pretend that you do on message boards, but you don't. 

A team with ZERO payroll obligations that's fretting about an extra year of arbitration down the road for its potential BEST player is not a team that is committed to spending down the road to win. 

Edited July 14, 20187 yr by Butter Parque

48 minutes ago, Butter Parque said:

This is a ridiculous stance for a fan to take. You aren’t paying him his arbitration salaries. Ownership is paying him. Why should you care? All it does is deprive you of seeing a good player.

Pros of artificially holding down deserving player until after Super 2 deadline:

1. Reinsdorf saves money on one less year of arbitration

 

Cons:

1. Deserving player realizes cheap team is manipulating him and isn’t willing to sign extension with team before free agency.

2. Fans don’t get to see good player on field for 2 months. 

3. Player loses at least two months of MLB experience, which could be useful in getting him acclimated to the big leagues, thus potentially slowing down time until contention.

4. Fans realize that a team with no salary obligations that is still cheap enough to hold a deserving player down to avoid an extra year of arbitration is probably not going to be willing to spend the necessary money to build a consistent winner, whether that means trades for highly paid players, contract extensions for deserving home grown players, or outside free agents. 

 

Other than that, I think the idea to hold him down in AAA for nearly another full season is brilliant.

 

See Cubs, Kris Bryant.  Of course, their fans had a lot more faith in the proven success of Epstein.

28 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

See Cubs, Kris Bryant.  Of course, their fans had a lot more faith in the proven success of Epstein.

No one is arguing that it can't or hasn't been done presently and in the past.

For a fan to ROOT for this to happen is staggeringly stupid. 

The team isn't going to be paying ANYONE for a while. We're talking about payrolls from 2021-2024. Who is this organization shelling money out to in the meantime? And all holding the player down does is protect Reinsdorf, KW, and Hahn in the event their rebuild is an utter failure and they cannot increase ticket sales (revenue) during that period. 

I'm not going to root for them to hold a good player down until sometime in June of next season so that said player can't receive an extra year of arbitration. 

Edited July 14, 20187 yr by Butter Parque

19 minutes ago, Butter Parque said:

Well then your reality is artificial because you don't have a clue about this team's resources. You can pretend that you do on message boards, but you don't. 

A team with ZERO payroll obligations that's fretting about an extra year of arbitration down the road for its potential BEST player is not a team that is committed to spending down the road to win. 

It should be based on what is best for the player, not the fans or financials.  If a player is ready to move up, then trying to save money for a business making millions is dumb. But bringing a player up who is not ready to sell tickets is also dumb. 

I remember when the Red Sox brought up Benintendi and Moncada from AA during a pennant run.   Benintendi played well and still is and Moncada struggled and was even booed. One player was ready and one was not. It is not an exact science but mistakes can set a player's development back and good decisions can accelerate a player's development 

13 hours ago, Hot FiRe said:

I hope he stays down until super 2 deadline next year

Who cares about the super 2 deadline, call him in mid to late April.

1 hour ago, TaylorStSox said:

Some of us live in a place called "reality," where practical decisions are made based on things called "resources."

We also have practically zero dollars in long-term payroll commitments, so losing several months of development to save some money years from now seems a very poor decision IMO.

1 hour ago, Butter Parque said:

Well then your reality is artificial because you don't have a clue about this team's resources. You can pretend that you do on message boards, but you don't. 

A team with ZERO payroll obligations that's fretting about an extra year of arbitration down the road for its potential BEST player is not a team that is committed to spending down the road to win. 

100% agree.  We also have young assets at the major league level that have declining control, which must be taken into consideration as well.

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

See Cubs, Kris Bryant.  Of course, their fans had a lot more faith in the proven success of Epstein.

The Cubs didn’t wait until the Super 2 deadline to call up Bryant.

2 hours ago, Butter Parque said:

Well then your reality is artificial because you don't have a clue about this team's resources. You can pretend that you do on message boards, but you don't. 

A team with ZERO payroll obligations that's fretting about an extra year of arbitration down the road for its potential BEST player is not a team that is committed to spending down the road to win. 

Considering individual contracts are creeping up into the area of 1/3rd of a franchise's total value, I'm not going to tell them how to spend their money. If the product doesn't satisfy me, I have the choice to not buy it. Baseball isn't a right, utility or commodity. It's entertainment that I voluntarily buy. 

17 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

I think we all could use Eloy returning and going on a tear for about a month. Restore our great feelings about the rebuild, which has been bruised a bit with all these injuries.

6 minutes ago, Sarava said:

I think we all could use Eloy returning and going on a tear for about a month. Restore our great feelings about the rebuild, which has been bruised a bit with all these injuries.

One really good month of Eloy at AAA, call him up in September, and he's here to stay. That's the best case scenario right now. Hopefully the same with Kopech/Stephens.

Edited July 14, 20187 yr by Scoots

16 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

Considering individual contracts are creeping up into the area of 1/3rd of a franchise's total value, I'm not going to tell them how to spend their money. If the product doesn't satisfy me, I have the choice to not buy it. Baseball isn't a right, utility or commodity. It's entertainment that I voluntarily buy. 

You can’t have it both ways. 

You said you “hope” he stays down until after the Super 2 deadline. Why?

You don’t want to tell a team how to spend its money, but instead you hope the team doesn’t spend its money on someone who is potentially its best player down the road. 

Like you said, baseball is entertainment. Hoping that a billionaire keeps money in his pocket at the potential expense of a good young player (and the team’s contention window) seems like a weird way to be entertained. 

Edited July 14, 20187 yr by Butter Parque

1 minute ago, Butter Parque said:

You can’t have it both ways. 

You said you “hope” he stays down until after the Super 2 deadline. Why?

You don’t want to tell a team how to spend its money, but instead you hope the team doesn’t spend its money on someone who is potentially its best player down the road. 

Like you said, baseball is entertainment. Hoping that a billionaire keeps money in his pocket at the potential expense of a good young player (and the team’s contention window) seems like a weird way to be entertained. 

I never said I "hope" the team does anything. I think you're confused.