Didn't Alex Fernandez bolt from the White Sox in part due to his belief the team held him back in the minors to postpone his arbitration and free agency eligibility?

Edit: I thought I had heard this, but given that Fernandez was drafted by the Sox in the June 1990 draft and made his debut later that year after just 6 starts in the minors, it's likely incorrect.

I don’t mean to disparage Mr. Aybar, who I’m sure is a fine young man

Bad guess.

Every month that goes by with Aybar in the line-up will cost the Rays a minimum of one win in the standings, and that’s if Longoria comes in at the low end of his projected performance.

Yep, that three months of Aybar could be the difference between 9 games out of first and 12 games out of first.

If Longoria remaining on the roster right now is the difference between Rays fans seeing the white hot light that their club has lit at the end of the tunnel and feeling the same old continuing hopeless desperation then I say their fans aren't really paying attention anyway. So screw 'em.

Considering that the Rays have established a track record of signing good young players long-term early, plus there's a pretty good chance that Longoria will be up early enough anyway that he'll be a Super-2 and therefore not save all that much money anyway, it really doesn't follow logic that it's purely a money move. Say I'm drinking the kool-aid, whatever, but it seems to me to be pretty unlikely that it's about that extra year before free agency. Nice bonus to it, sure but they may not feel that it's the optimal thing at this point; after all, wasn't Alex Gordon a sure thing to succeed last year starting the season in the majors? Longoria does have some AAA experience, which Gordon lacked completely, but another month may well do him some good.

What is the proper risk premium to use to discount the value of Longoria's 2014 season? If we know that and can accurately project the growth in player salaries, we can figure out how much money the Rays save by delaying Longoria's arb/free agency.

A) Aybar is not a fine young man;
B) Longoria is not a 6 win improvement on Aybar.

That is all.

There is also the chance that Aybar could play well enough that the Rays could get something of value in return by trade (by something of value, someone like Dan Wheeler), when they do activate Eva.

Aybar at least was/is a prospect, right? though he seems to have chosen the Josh Hamilton career model. What if he has straightened out and plays well, or at least as well as Longoria would have? I'm not predicting that in the slightest, just wondering. At least it's not like they are demoting Longoria in favor of Geoff Blum or somebody.

Pecota has Aybar at .253/.324/.378
and Eva at .267/.339/.460 (Aybar's 90th % is .286/.360/.446)

but really, given Aybar's recent issues and playing time (or lack thereof) his projection (in any system) is sheer speculation-

6-7 years ago, Aybar was one of my favorite Dodger prospects. He didn't develop the way I'd hoped (and then has the other problems) but he certainly could produce for the Rays. We're not talking about a guy who is certainly going to be at replacement level.

Given it is just Longoria's third pro season (31 games at AAA) a month in the minors shouldn't hurt him. If I was running Tampa Bay and knew that the fans would go nuts if we just cracked 500 I'd leave him down too. The money saved by shifting him a year for free agency and possibly a year for arbitration could add up to over $10 million easily. No one running a MLB team would toss away $10+ million just to shift from a team that might win 75 games to a team that might win 81 (well, in the NL central it might get you into the playoffs but outside of that). Also, if the Rays have trouble affording him for free agency then losing a month today could give them a full year of Longoria at a point when they could be contenders (6-7 years from now) or at least at the Blue Jay level (ie: in eyeshot but not really).

Edit: I thought I had heard this, but given that Fernandez was drafted by the Sox in the June 1990 draft and made his debut later that year after just 6 starts in the minors, it's likely incorrect.

Frank Thomas dominated during 1990 spring training, but then he was sent down and didn't make his MLB debut until August, in the same game as Fernandez. Thomas didn't bolt the Sox until they made him leave, but I remember hearing that he was upset that the August call-up didn't give him a chance to win ROTY. Maybe these two were somehow mixed up in your mind.

Also, if the Rays have trouble affording him for free agency then losing a month today could give them a full year of Longoria at a point when they could be contenders

I think this is the key. They could easily come to a point where they can't really afford Longoria, but can bear it for one extra year, if they are in contention. Or, if they haven't been able to sign him long term, and are not contenders in 5 years, we've seen from Bedard/Santana how much that extra year of control buys you in a trade.

Given that he could probably use the extra month or 2 in AAA (and someone else owns him in my fantasy league) I think it's the right move.

The Frank Thomas case was idiotic. He was quite clearly the best hitter in baseball from the minute he signed a pro contract.

Yeah, I think the real issue here (and in the Bruce case) is not just that keeping them in the minors for a month saves money, but that keeping them in the minors for a month keeps them on your team for a year. Say the Rays would happily sign Eva as a FA. Even so, there's not much more than a 1/30 chance that he stays around. Now say he wins his arb case in his 7th year, so you have to pay about what he'd be worth as a FA. If the Rays did want to sign him, then they get one year at a rate they're willing to pay. Now, say delaying his debut makes him angry enough that he won't sign with the Rays when he's a FA. You're getting 1 year at a rate you're willing to pay at the cost of a 1/30 shot at getting 7 years at a rate you're willing to pay (if you'd signed him as a FA.) This sounds like a good idea to me. And after he leaves they'll still have the money to take a 1/30 shot at any other FA that strikes their interest.

Now, if the Rays wouldn't happily sign him as a FA, after his 6th year you either trade him or release him. If you have to release him the only cost is not having him on your team for one month. (Otherwise you still got 6 years of cost controlled production out of him.)

The only time I can see it being a bad idea to delay a player's arb/FA clock is if you really expect to be in contention, and expect that every win will make a difference. That's not the case with the Rays with Eva, and it's not the case with the Reds and Bruce. So keep them in the minors for a month and have them on the team in 2014.

The Frank Thomas case was idiotic. He was quite clearly the best hitter in baseball from the minute he signed a pro contract.

In the White Sox's defense, you simply can't keep Carlos Martinez out of the lineup.

I don't like this move. It's similar to the Bruce move, and I can understand the reasoning.

The difference is I don't see the Reds taking an immediate step back by playing Patterson. He can't hit like Bruce, but makes up some of the value with speed and defense. Aybar is, at least in my opinion, a step down from Longoria both hitting and fielding. And Longoria is a more polished hitter than Bruce.

I don't like this move. It's similar to the Bruce move, and I can understand the reasoning.

Actually I think the motives of the two teams are quite different

Rays: -They don't think Aybar is better than Longoria, they are doing it to save money and delay his arb and FA eligibility.

Reds: Dusty thinks Patterson is better than Bruce and both Dusty and Krivsky see winning as many games in 2008 as an imperative. (Krivsky becasue he may be feeling his job is in jeopardy)

The Frank Thomas case was idiotic. He was quite clearly the best hitter in baseball from the minute he signed a pro contract.

Consider this statement challanged. I saw Frank Thomas play A LOT during the 1988 Cape Cod League season. Considering he signed his first pro contract about a year after I saw him play, there was NO WAY in one year he was the best hitter in baseball at the time he signed his first contract. He wasn't even the best hitting first baseman on the Orleans club in 88. That honor belonged to J.T. Snow, and while Snow had an advanced bat no one would ever confuse him for the best hitter in baseball.

Thomas clearly improved leaps and bounds by Spring '90. but not so much that in less than 1 year (summer 88 to summer 89) year he went from being worse than JT Snow ot the best hitter in the game.

I don't know, from a dollars and sense perspective, the deal makes sense. But it basically takes a few million dollars out of Longoria's pocket. Maybe that's water under the bridge three or four years from now if they try to lock him up, or maybe it helps burn the bridge and ensures he's heading out of town. It seems like a lot of people are already writing off any chance of extending him past his arbitration years.

Does anyone know the history of how well this move works out, when a top prospect is held back? It doesn't seem like something the rebuilding Indians did in the mid '90s, or even the cost-conscious late '90s A's.

Consider this statement challanged. I saw Frank Thomas play A LOT during the 1988 Cape Cod League season. Considering he signed his first pro contract about a year after I saw him play, there was NO WAY in one year he was the best hitter in baseball at the time he signed his first contract. He wasn't even the best hitting first baseman on the Orleans club in 88. That honor belonged to J.T. Snow

Well all this does for me is establish that you sir are no scout.

Maybe, just maybe, Thomas was having trouble adjusting to wooden bats, but considering that prior to being signed a pro Thomas handily outhit Snow in college and after 1988 handily outhit him each and every year as a pro, I'd have to say your inability to see that Thomas was a better hitter than Snow merely says that you don;t know what to look for.

Say I'm drinking the kool-aid, whatever, but it seems to me to be pretty unlikely that it's about that extra year before free agency. Nice bonus to it, sure but they may not feel that it's the optimal thing at this point; after all, wasn't Alex Gordon a sure thing to succeed last year starting the season in the majors? Longoria does have some AAA experience, which Gordon lacked completely, but another month may well do him some good.

The dollars are big factor, but I think Alex Gordon's failure to hit the ground running last year also factored into their decision. Gordon hit a healthy 317/419/556 in spring training 2007 before posting a 173/316/296 April and a 232/321/358 first half.

If Dayton Moore could do it all over again, he probably would have let Gordon mash AAA pitching until June and then call him up. That approach certainly worked well for Ryan Braun and Billy Butler last year.

It seems like a lot of people are already writing off any chance of extending him past his arbitration years.

If Tampa Bay locks up Longoria past arbitration, it'll be in an early buyout of arb + some FA years, when he has incentive to sign at a discount to ensure his financial future. If Longoria reaches FA, I'd say there's about zero chance they win the subsequent bidding war.

I agree about the bidding war. I have to think, though that he'd be less inclined to sign a long-term deal with Tampa Bay, arb buyout or not, if he feels cheated by the team. Or if he does look to sign long term, it seems there'd be a good chance he'd want to get back the money Tampa Bay is trying to save right now.

Does anyone know the history of how well this move works out, when a top prospect is held back? It doesn't seem like something the rebuilding Indians did in the mid '90s, or even the cost-conscious late '90s A's.

I don't know how well it works, but I know that every time a kid was brought up by a small market team for the past three seasons or so, people have been ######## about service time and clocks. And, now that teams are starting to catch on and playing games with service time, those same people are ######## about holding kids back.

At the end of the day, 5 or 6 years from now, I don't think any kid is going to hold a month or two against a team that is going to pay them countless millions of dollars. I think they'll just look at the bottom line.

Exactly, they'll look at the bottom line. So let's say the Rays hold Longoria back when he's 22, so they get an extra year out of him. That means Longoria's still going to be under team control for his age 28 season, as opposed to him being a free agent after age 27, right? And maybe he looks at the bottom line and wonders how much the Rays cost him by milking an extra year out of him.

This year Teixeira's set to make $12.5 during his age 28 season. How much would he be making this year if he'd been a free agent? If it all comes down to dollars and cents, that's how Longoria's going to be looking at it if he's under team control for his age 28 season. It's easy to say he'll get his payday during his age 29 season, but he'd be getting that anyways.

Anyways, that's making a bunch of assumptions, namely that he'll turn out to be good enough to merit this kind of talk six years from now.

And maybe he looks at the bottom line and wonders how much the Rays cost him by milking an extra year out of him.

No, he'll have enough negotiating just looking at the future. He'd have to be really petty to be like that, and if he is, do you really want him then?

This whole discussion is about being petty, really. It would seem this isn't a baseball decision by the Rays, in which case they're looking at the bottom line. I'm saying, what if Longoria does the same? Or is even frustrated enough that the team put their financial concerns over his career?

But I don't know about how petty it would be. Looking at Teixeira (who was not held back, but is convenient as an age comparison) he's probably lost $8 million this year alone because he's under team control. I think a lot of people would say $8 million is a good reason to be petty, especially if he sees it as the difference between what he's worth and what he's paid.

Anyways, that's making a bunch of assumptions, namely that he'll turn out to be good enough to merit this kind of talk six years from now.

Right. But if he isn't, the Devil Rays aren't accomplishing anything anyway.

The rule should be that if the player is currently the best you have at the position, he plays. If the Reds felt that for the moment Patterson was the better option in CF than Bruce, than I guess they can send him down. But you're going to have to look long and hard to find someone who doesn't think Longoria is the best third base option for the Rays. Longoria does not sound like he's particularly enamored of the decision. I don't think you become a great Major League hitter in AAA. You can become a good one, certainly, but otherwise the Rays could just leave Longoria in AA until he's 25 and then get all the best years of his career.

Also if teams continue to do this, I don't think this situation will survive the next CBA.

Also if teams continue to do this, I don't think this situation will survive the next CBA.

I think it's already become enough of an issue that the next CBA will address it.

The White Sox demoted Josh Fields to Charlotte today. Was that expected?

The White Sox demoted Josh Fields to Charlotte today. Was that expected?

Yeah, because they can't send Crede down and Fields suffers because of it.

Fields, ironically, is a terrible fielder and a healthy Crede might be the better player, but Crede is not enough better to justify the difference in salaries which is why the Sox have been looking to move him.

Also if teams continue to do this, I don't think this situation will survive the next CBA.

I don't see how it is realistically resolved in the CBA. How can anyone tell a team who they have to play, or have on their roster?

I don't see how it is realistically resolved in the CBA. How can anyone tell a team who they have to play, or have on their roster?

Right. All they have to do is point to Alex Gordon last year, and argue that this is a baseball move - a month or two more seasoning to get him fully ready is needed to make it more likely that he'll hit the ground running.

I don't see how it is realistically resolved in the CBA. How can anyone tell a team who they have to play, or have on their roster?


It would most likely involve lowering the roster time thresholds for counting as a "season played" towards super 2 and FA eligibility, I would assume.

In the White Sox's defense, you simply can't keep Carlos Martinez out of the lineup.

Pretty hard to keep him IN any lineup these days...

The Frank Thomas case was idiotic. He was quite clearly the best hitter in baseball from the minute he signed a pro contract.

In the White Sox's defense, you simply can't keep Carlos Martinez out of the lineup.

Did that decision cost the WS a shot at post season glory in the miracle season of 1990? True, they finished 9 games back, but what would 162 games of Frank Thomas, compared to 60 games of Frank Thomas and 100 (well, 92) games of Carlos Martinez be worth offensively?

Well, Frank created 49 runs in his 60 games. At that pace (and it wasn't a flukey partial season. He hit as well or better every full year after 1990 till 1998. Pace is legit here.), he would have created 83 runs in the missing 100 games. Carlos Martinez created 19 runs in his 92 games, a difference of 64 runs. Not quite the standard 10 runs per win to make up 9 wins, but then the Sox were overly efficient that year, winning 94 when pythag said they should have won 87.

However, the Sox had a .585 W% when Frank debuted, and finished the year at .580, so in that sense he added nothing. But then maybe with Frank from opening day, they would have been better than .585 on Aug 2.

At any rate, the Sox sure had their scouting groove on in the late 80's, as their top picks from 1987-1990 were Jack McDowell, Robin Ventura, Frank Thomas, and Alex Fernandez.

I don't see how it is realistically resolved in the CBA. How can anyone tell a team who they have to play, or have on their roster?

They don't. They just would deal with the weird incentives that cause a team to send down their best player at a position just to postpone the FA clock.

Maybe, just maybe, Thomas was having trouble adjusting to wooden bats, but considering that prior to being signed a pro Thomas handily outhit Snow in college and after 1988 handily outhit him each and every year as a pro, I'd have to say your inability to see that Thomas was a better hitter than Snow merely says that you don't know what to look for.

This made me look up Thomas' pre-Sox numbers.

Auburn 1987 -- .359/.459/.718 in 209 ABs
Auburn 1988 -- .385/.501/.648 in 182 ABs
Auburn 1989 -- .403/.559/.801 in 206 ABs
GCL Rk 1989 -- .365/.470/.519 in 52 ABs
FLD A+ 1989 -- .277/.386/.399 in 189 ABs
BRM AA 1990 -- .323/.487/.581 in 352 ABs

I'm inclined to think the Big Hurt was ready to hit big league pitching as a teenager.

They don't. They just would deal with the weird incentives that cause a team to send down their best player at a position just to postpone the FA clock.

But practically, what could they do? If you lower the threshhold to 5.5 or 5.8 yrs, the teams can still game that threshhold.
I don't see what you can do here that wouldn't cripple lower payroll teams.

I also think that, given the propensity of teams to sign their young stars to arbitration buyout contracts, this point is moot except for 1) players who really want to play out their FA years to max earnings, w/o regard to risk (i.e. Boras clients) or 2) real tweener guys, who are good enough for the team to care about the extra year of control, but not good enough to sign long term.