If Tucker has a decent spring, I think they have to just put him on the roster, and do a 4-man rotation between DH/LF/RF with Tucker, White, Brantley and Reddick for a month or two. It's time to let him sink or swim and see what happens. Give him some certainty and maximize his opportunity to succeed.
Barring multiple injuries there’s almost no chance Tucker makes the opening day roster. Keeping him in AAA for a few weeks will secure an additional year of control and there’s no way he could provide enough difference in value in April/May to justify giving that up in addition to losing a player like Kemp or Marisnick.
They likely don’t view both Kemp and Jake as long term Astros anyway, and who knows what service time will mean once Tucker gets there, we will be in a new CBA and no guarantee current players stay under the current system, that will all be collectively bargained Plus, we are one year out of a championship and a legit shot at another I have to believe if Tucker has a big spring he opens the year in the bigs
Giving teams 11-12 years of control before you can hit FA is a big part of the problem for most players. You look at a guy like Tyler White and he has basically zero chance of ever making big dollars because of how old he was when he came up. I think they should fight for a system that limits the years of total control regardless of service time so they aren't left in the minors to put off arbitration and free agency. It won't solve 100% of the current issues, but would be greatly beneficial for players.
They already delayed his service time last year - at some point, I think maximizing his chance of success and getting him to the majors has to take priority. Him sitting in AAA pointlessly and hoping for an injury or something to free up a playing opportunity doesn't really help him at this point (if they think he's MLB-ready).
I don’t think it’s the control. It’s the low pay while under control. The years of control are necessary to give teams incentive to develop players (otherwise a guy like White would have had to work his way up through independent leagues). IF guys are making closer to their actual value while under control they’d be perfectly happy. For me, free agency shouldn’t necessarily be about players cashing in. It should be about the freedom to play where and for whom they want. Pay should be based on production, not service time.
Any system that would give White a decent shot at a big pay day would get killed by the ownership. Owners may agree to something that prevents monkeying with a year or so of service, but it isn't like Astros monkeyed around with his service time. He made the Astros opening day roster in 2016. Rookie making an opening day roster is not a vote of confidence. Anything significant such that White could get a big pay day would require a significant concession by the union (e.g., receive an overall smaller percentage of baseball revenue for less club control). Guys that don't force their way onto an MLB roster permanently until they are 27 are always going to have a tough time getting a big pay day. Getting more money while under control is much more likely.
Control is part of the low pay, and that now exists in every major sport. Baseball is the only one though where most players have to wait until they are in their 30s to become free agents.
Don't focus too much on my bringing up White. I bring him up because he has such a long shot of even getting paid decently in arbitration because he'll be passed his prime by the time he gets there. Players like him deserve a chance to pick their destination before they are past their prime. That really bothers me. Then there are guys like Springer, Kris Bryant, and many others that had their service time toyed with which will leave them a year older when they actually hit free agency.
If players want more control over where they play, they can offer the owners a concession. What do owners want? Money and wins. As losing control years hurts some teams' ability to win, the players need to offer money (or be prepared for a long work stoppage as I don't see a reason for owners to cave). On Bryant and Springer specifically, MLBPA agreed to past CBAs knowing full well that the CBAs had no enforceable way to prevent monkeying with service time. Bryant and Springer were never hitting free agency a year earlier. If the MLBPA wants the monkeying to stop, they need to offer a concession to the owners. For all intents and purposes, the CBA basically says, "Owners aren't allowed to manipulate service time. However, if an owner does manipulate service time, the penalty is that player can tweet about the injustice." If players want a change that will hurt an owner or a group of owners, the owners are going to want a commiserate amount of money going from the players to that owner or group of owners to maintain some parity between the teams. On a side note: It is the MLBPA responsibility to protect all MLB players and not the owners. It is the MLBPA that has thrown some players under the bus to ensure veterans, who historically and currently control the MLBPA, can make more money. In other words, these souls constitute the most evil of all sinners —the traitors (i.e., MLBPA and those in control of the MLBPA) to their benefactors.
Players are going to put themselves in a position to get earlier free agency granted (or higher arbitration year-to-year deals). This really only benefits the young budding stars who don't want to wait till their late 20's/early 30's to hit free agency. At the same time, if teams want to penny pinch and don't want to pay competitive dollars to build a competitive team, they do not get to hold on to a player for their full arbitration years only to trade them for prospects and start the cycle all over again. Teams that want to consistently stick with cheap players will soon find absolutely zero chances of contending if they don't guarantee bigger money to their homegrown products... and younger players stuck in siberia will either see the money earlier from the team that drafted them, or get a chance to hit the open market during their true prime years.
You don't that some of the lack of parity right now is intentional on the part of some teams' owners decisions to not spend money on a team that has a slim chance to win? I agree that the owners have no reason to do any of what has currently been suggested... unless they simply want to avoid a stalemate. Salaries are at an extremely reasonable rate (both in terms of years offered and total dollar amounts), and profits are through the roof for basically all teams thanks to internet deals, revenue sharing, and local media deals. Cities even have accepted the sucking strategy, with more than enough of common knowledge regarding farm systems, prospects, what WAR is, etc.
if anyone has any time this is a great watch as a baseball fanatic i seriously hope mlb pivots to a newer model. hes 110% spot on with everything
Great video. I also 100% agree. I have said for years what Arod said about direct digital access to the team. There is no reason why I shouldn’t be able to able to pay xyz to MLB and have complete access to go watch the entire game wherever I live or watch something like a 10 min recap where Alex Bregman and Garrett Cole do commentary from their clubhouse chair about pivotal moments of the game and what they where thinking. Hell golf even does that post round.
I think it was intentional that a lot of teams tried to win from 2012 to 2016 knowing that the price would be a rebuild. A lot of teams made mistakes trying to win from ~2012-~2016. Teams are still spending overall 53-57% of baseball revenue on players because of those mistakes. Club controlled player salaries have been suppressed too much causing free agent prices to escalate to the point that it is hard to significantly improve a team with money in free agency. Astros, Yankees, Red Sox, Indians, Dodgers, Braves, Padres, and Rays have smartly cornered the market on club controlled talent and starved the rest of the league. Astros are projected to have 14 more wins than the As. I think WAR is likely to settle in around $8M/WAR (which is significantly less than the 9-10M Fangraphs expected). So basically Astros have about $132 million dollar edge on the As in talent. I don't think As can afford adding $120M in salary in free agency. Indians have about a $64M edge on the Twins. Yankees/Red Sox have about $160M on the Blue Jays. Dodgers have about a $156M edge on the Rockies. NLC and NLE seem more active this offseason as there is a lot more parity there. For the majority of the league, increasing their spending an additional $50 million dollars would not make them strong contenders for the division. The Twins could drop $600M on Harper and Machado and still would likely not win division over Indians.
I'm still waiting for Tucker to do one impressive thing in the bigs. Or even to have an impressive attitude. I know he didn't get much time up from the minors last year, but to say I was underwhelmed would be putting it mildly. Since personnel conversations constantly revolve around this guy, I really hope the front office is applying the right amount of emphasis and not too much on him. I'd hate to miss out on other important opportunities if he turns out to be a dud.
