12/21/24
May 14, 2010
Stephen Strasburg Throws 6 No-Hit Innings in Triple A: Stephen Strasburg threw six no-hit innings for the Triple A Syracuse Chiefs Wednesday night, inching closer to his major league debut for the Washington Nationals. How good is he? "Since I was 5 years old I've played this game (and) I've never seen anything like this -- nothing close," Curt Schilling wrote for ESPN. "Not at that age, that polished."
And why isn't he on the Nationals roster?
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 11:12 AM on May 14, 2010
And why isn't he on the Nationals roster?
Delaying his free agency for an extra year. It's despicable, but the best business move for the Nationals. When he comes up (say, mid-June), he'll be here to stay.
posted by grum@work at 11:29 AM on May 14, 2010
The Nationals aren't half bad this season. With Strasburg, they might just be a contender.
posted by bender at 12:00 PM on May 14, 2010
I don't think it's despicable for the Nats to use the rules of the collective bargaining agreement to delay Strasburg's debut until June 4 so they can save $20 million and delay his free agency by a year. Players use the rules to maximize their income too. The delay gives him a little time in the minors to get ready for the Major Leagues and gives the Nats an extra year to figure out how to afford him.
posted by rcade at 12:09 PM on May 14, 2010
Players use the rules to maximize their income too.
What's a comparable trick for a player? No player gets leverage until after the first contract. I don't know that this practice is despicable, but it's a bit more smelly in this case where the Nats are actually competitive. Their pitching is their weakest point; how much better would their record be if he were pitching every 5th day and their 5th starter were in the 'pen?
posted by yerfatma at 12:15 PM on May 14, 2010
What's a comparable trick for a player?
I'm not a big fan of delaying service time, but the Players' Association agreed to the rules. The next time the collective bargaining agreement is up, the players could probably put an end to it if they agreed to some other concession.
posted by drezdn at 01:34 PM on May 14, 2010
I admit that I'm not familiar with all the tricks either side has at their disposal, but is it not fair to assume that Strasburg and Boras would have expected the Nationals to do this when they signed the contract?
posted by bender at 01:34 PM on May 14, 2010
One word of warning for the teams that delay service time. The Brewers did it to Ryan Braun in 2007. The team ended up losing the division by two games that season. If they would have brought him up earlier, maybe, just maybe they would have made the playoffs.
posted by drezdn at 01:38 PM on May 14, 2010
What's a comparable trick for a player? No player gets leverage until after the first contract.
Arbitration for that first contract.
Even though they aren't free agents, young players can put the teams through arbitration after a certain time period.
(1) Players with at least 3 but less than 6 years of service in Major League Baseball;
(2) The top 17 percent of players with at least 2 but less than 3 years of Major League service. These are known as "Super 2" players. To qualify as a Super 2, a player must have accumulated at least 86 days of service in the previous year. Historically, the cutoff point for Super 2 status is 2 years, 128 days of service, though the requirement has been as high as 2 years, 140 days in years past.
(Read more at Suite101: How Baseball Arbitration Works: MLB Rules Governing the Eligibility and Process of Arbitration)
I'm pretty sure that MLB owners would trade killing arbitration for killing the "service time clock" trick.
posted by grum@work at 02:13 PM on May 14, 2010
I don't know that this practice is despicable, but it's a bit more smelly in this case where the Nats are actually competitive. Their pitching is their weakest point; how much better would their record be if he were pitching every 5th day and their 5th starter were in the 'pen?
Yeah, that is what bothers me about it. The Nats could be better. Would the perennially great teams try to save some dough or win? The Nats are supposed to be proving themselves in DC.
posted by bperk at 02:13 PM on May 14, 2010
The perennially great teams have never been known for their thriftiness anyways.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:56 PM on May 14, 2010
The Nats are 20-15 without Strasburg and one game out of the division lead. That's good enough to be proving themselves.
How much better could they hope to be with him in April and May, versus how much better they will be with him for an entire season? Teams that rush pitching phenoms to the Majors usually end up regretting it.
posted by rcade at 02:57 PM on May 14, 2010
How much better could they hope to be with him in April and May
You tell me.
John Lannan, 7 starts, 6.51 Craig Stammen, 7 starts, 5.84 Jason Marquis, 3 starts, 20.52
posted by yerfatma at 03:38 PM on May 14, 2010
I fail to see how it's despicable under current team salaries. If Strasburg is anywhere near as dominant on the ML level the nationals will never be able to afford him once he's eligible. I can't blame them at all for trying to keep him as long as possible.
A whole year in exchange for the next few months? Yep, I'll take that deal.
Would the perennially great teams try to save some dough or win?
The Red Sox are always aware of playing time and major leagues service when it comes to their young players, so yes, they try to keep players under their control as long as possible.
Not to mention that by comparing perennially great teams with the nationals you're comparing teams with salaries generally 130 million to 200 million with a team that spends 61 million.
posted by justgary at 04:00 PM on May 14, 2010
The Red Sox are always aware of playing time and major leagues service when it comes to their young players, so yes, they try to keep players under their control as long as possible.
Everybody does that, but can you point to an example of the Red Sox not promoting someone just because of playing time? It's not quite fair because they haven't had a ton of holes recently, but if anything, they've been too ready to push pitchers up, Abe Alvarez in 2004, Papelbon in 2004 and '05, Buchholz, Bowden, etc. They have a different approach to keeping players under cost control, though their wealth . . . affords them that luxury.
That the MLBPA agreed to the rule doesn't make it right: players already in the union have a vested interest in an incentive that keeps other workers out of the market.
posted by yerfatma at 04:32 PM on May 14, 2010
but can you point to an example of the Red Sox not promoting someone just because of playing time
No. But that's because of my second point:
Not to mention that by comparing perennially great teams with the nationals you're comparing teams with salaries generally 130 million to 200 million with a team that spends 61 million.
And you said basically the same thing:
their wealth . . . affords them that luxury.
So I don't find much value in pointing out that 'perennially great' teams don't do this when the reason is so obvious. It's just another advantage that the salary disparity affords certain teams. Complaining about this in my mind is missing the big picture.
posted by justgary at 04:49 PM on May 14, 2010
That the MLBPA agreed to the rule doesn't make it right ...
Why not? The CBA was negotiated ferociously. Both sides hammered on the deal and this was one of its terms.
Also, at what point in the year would the Nats be in a position to determine they were good enough to need Strasburg earlier than June? Can they know that two weeks in? Four? June is not a long way into the season.
posted by rcade at 04:59 PM on May 14, 2010
Why not?
See the part after the colon. I would think you, of all people, would know the value of a colon.
what point in the year would the Nats be in a position to determine they were good enough to need Strasburg earlier than June?
I'd guess October 1st. Sucks to find out that way though.
posted by yerfatma at 05:29 PM on May 14, 2010
Yeah, Curt Schilling. He never exaggerates.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:51 PM on May 14, 2010
For the good of the country, perhaps the Nats can wait to bring him up to the big club until Congress and the Supreme Court are in recess.
To avoid possibly slowing down the wheels of government every fifth day, with all hands feeling compelled to be at the ballpark for Strasburg's starts.