PDA

View Full Version : Keith Law and his thoughts on Kyle Gibson PART DEUX



AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS
11-15-2012, 01:07 PM
Here is a piece from KLAWs Chat today.

At what point in 2013 do you think it is reasonable for Kyle Gibson to be in the Twins rotation?
Klaw (1:35 PM)

As soon as he's built up the durability. Stuff is ready now.

Seth Stohs
11-15-2012, 01:11 PM
Absolutely correct.

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS
11-15-2012, 01:17 PM
Just gets me all giddy with excitement

Jim Crikket
11-15-2012, 01:27 PM
Encouraging. Then again, the standard for stuff being ready enough now to warrant consideration for a spot in the Twins rotation is... well... not high.

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS
11-15-2012, 01:38 PM
Encouraging. Then again, the standard for stuff being ready enough now to warrant consideration for a spot in the Twins rotation is... well... not high.

Now youre just being A DEBBIE DOWNER. Keith Law obviously thinks Gibsons Stuff is Major Leaugue ready...not just twins ready.

Brock Beauchamp
11-15-2012, 01:42 PM
Now all the front office needs to do is uncover a breakthrough in cloning technology.

Jim Crikket
11-15-2012, 01:47 PM
Well then maybe the questioner should have specifically asked Keith when he thought Gibson would be "Major League ready" instead of when it would be reasonable to expect him to be in the Twins rotation! :)

Seriously, though... I wonder about the "built up durability" thing and what he means by that. I'm not even sure how one goes about building up durability. Stamina? sure. It could be that he's referring to the choice the Twins will have to make about just how they decide to utilize Gibson's ~150 innings. I'm certainly curious to find out the answer to that myself.

nicksaviking
11-15-2012, 01:53 PM
Now all the front office needs to do is uncover a breakthrough in cloning technology.

While I'm looking forward to seeing him pitch, I'm not entirely sure having 5 Gibson's gives the Twins a top 15 rotation. Now if we make sure to snag Verlander's sweaty jock out of the visitors locker room to throw in our cloning machine.....

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS
11-15-2012, 02:01 PM
Well then maybe the questioner should have specifically asked Keith when he thought Gibson would be "Major League ready" instead of when it would be reasonable to expect him to be in the Twins rotation! :)

Seriously, though... I wonder about the "built up durability" thing and what he means by that. I'm not even sure how one goes about building up durability. Stamina? sure. It could be that he's referring to the choice the Twins will have to make about just how they decide to utilize Gibson's ~150 innings. I'm certainly curious to find out the answer to that myself.

i figured that it was bulding up his Stamina, which isnt easy to do. Have the Twins come out and said how many innings they plan on giving Gibson this year?

Winston Smith
11-15-2012, 02:02 PM
I don't think it's being a debbie downer to expect a player to prove something before going all lady gaga over them.

My hope is he gives us a nice Brad Radke type career. However it wouldn't surprise me if he fizzles out.

You still have to prove it on the field!

Jim Crikket
11-15-2012, 02:09 PM
I thought I read somewhere that they were looking at about 150 innings out of him, but I don't remember where that came from. There's not a lot of point in trying to push him much higher than that. I just would hope they'd be smarter about how the ration out his limited innings than the Nationals were with their guy this year.

I also agree with Winston that enthusiasm should be tempered until we see results on a Big League field. I've had big hopes for Liam Hendriks, too, and those have certainly not yet been realized (though I haven't totally given up on him yet).

Riverbrian
11-15-2012, 02:48 PM
I'm slotting him in at #2 Opening day for the time being... I'll buy a Gibson jersey in full support.

Dilligaf69
11-15-2012, 04:48 PM
Late May...early June...should be the goal. That could take him thru the season.

Kwak
11-15-2012, 05:41 PM
"...built up his durability." Isn't that true for all starting pitchers?--and isn't that what training and Spring Training Camp are designed to accomplish? If Gibson's stuff is "ready"--start him. Many 1st timers stumble,--so what he has "three options" to the minors so there should be no problem. How many innings to pitch this year? I can't say, but he could be shut down if that was deemed the right course of action--it is incredible to think the Twins will be leading the AL in Wins like the Nationals led the NL this past season.

raindog
11-15-2012, 06:00 PM
I fully expect Gibson to be in the opening day rotation. He'll be solid as long as his healthy. That's the only question mark in my mind. I also expect Wimmers to rebound. That would be huge, as we would at least have three solid starters.

John Bonnes
11-15-2012, 08:11 PM
Now all the front office needs to do is uncover a breakthrough in cloning technology.

Actually, I'd giddy that they had a minor breakthrough in how to get their guys through a Tommy John recovery in any kind of expedient fashion. FWIW, Gibson seems to be light-years (or at least light-months) ahead of where Liriano was when he went through it a couple of years ago.

Seth Stohs
11-15-2012, 08:31 PM
Now all the front office needs to do is uncover a breakthrough in cloning technology.

Actually, I'd giddy that they had a minor breakthrough in how to get their guys through a Tommy John recovery in any kind of expedient fashion. FWIW, Gibson seems to be light-years (or at least light-months) ahead of where Liriano was when he went through it a couple of years ago.

Based on?? Gibson predictably didn't exactly pitch well in the AFL...5.40 ERA, I believe. Most encouraging is his velocity and his OK control. Obviously I think he'll be just fine.

The Greatest Poster Alive
11-15-2012, 10:04 PM
AFL was encouraging... not because he produced a dominating stat line, but because he got some work in, and will help accelerate his path to recovery. If Gibson is healthy enough for a rotation spot out of spring training that would really improve this rotation that has nobody owning a spot. (Diamond is the only guy on this roster i'd put money on being in the rotation right now)

lecroy24fan
11-15-2012, 10:22 PM
I'd slot him in as the 5th starter if possible and push his turn back when possible. This would limit innings.

glunn
11-16-2012, 12:39 AM
Since the Twins are unlikely to contend next year, I would hope that they start him in Rochester where there is a lot less pressure. If he can perform there, then maybe Deduno gets sent down. :D

Seth Stohs
11-16-2012, 02:09 AM
Since the Twins are unlikely to contend next year, I would hope that they start him in Rochester where there is a lot less pressure. If he can perform there, then maybe Deduno gets sent down. :D

It won't be Deduno since he's already off the 40 man roster. He would have to make an incredibly strong case.

Don't get me wrong. Gibson's AFL performance was very solid considering the hitter friendliness of the league and the most important thing for him was eating innings. If I'm correct, I think Liriano pitched in the Dominican League right after the New Year for a little bit and dominated.

Cody Christie
11-16-2012, 06:35 AM
Good to know his stuff is ready but the Twins are still aren't going to throw him into the rotation at the beginning of the year. He will start in the bullpen or in Rochester.

mike wants wins
11-16-2012, 08:14 AM
Why not in the bullpen in Minnesota? How is pitching in the minors less stressful?

gunnarthor
11-16-2012, 08:20 AM
Why not in the bullpen in Minnesota? How is pitching in the minors less stressful?

Yeah, this is what I want. Get him used to the majors like they did with Santana and Liriano. They can move him into the rotation in June and still limit him to 130 or so innings.

Linus
11-16-2012, 08:27 AM
If I'm the Twins, I start him in Rochester for two reasons: they want to limit his innings, and to not start the clock on his service time. Bring him up in June or whatever the timeframe is and we get an extra year of control, which could be huge if he turns out to be a quality MLB starter.

gunnarthor
11-16-2012, 10:03 AM
If I'm the Twins, I start him in Rochester for two reasons: they want to limit his innings, and to not start the clock on his service time. Bring him up in June or whatever the timeframe is and we get an extra year of control, which could be huge if he turns out to be a quality MLB starter.

Two things,
1) The Twins will still count his AAA innings. He'll be on a 130-150 inning limit and it won't matter where he throws those innings.
2) He's 25. We'll have control of him through his age 31 season, no matter what.

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 10:21 AM
I don't think it matters whether he starts in Rochester or Minnesota but I'd prefer Rochester. If he starts there, that means the Twins have actually picked up some arms this offseason and won't have to rely on Kyle out of the gate. Plus, it will allow him to build up more arm strength/control in a setting where the pressure will undoubtedly be lower.

Either way, being disappointed one way or the other is premature. Kyle still has several months of rehab and innings in ST before the Twins need to make this decision.

TwinsFanInPhilly
11-16-2012, 11:03 AM
Good to know his stuff is ready but the Twins are still aren't going to throw him into the rotation at the beginning of the year. He will start in the bullpen or in Rochester.

Is this fact or speculation/opinion?

ALessKosherScott
11-16-2012, 11:12 AM
Now all the front office needs to do is uncover a breakthrough in cloning technology.

They did about five years ago, but sadly it only works with Carlos Silva.

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS
11-16-2012, 11:26 AM
Now all the front office needs to do is uncover a breakthrough in cloning technology.

They did about five years ago, but sadly it only works with Carlos Silva.

This seriously made my day. Priceless.

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 11:29 AM
Now all the front office needs to do is uncover a breakthrough in cloning technology.

They did about five years ago, but sadly it only works with Carlos Silva.

Fantastic.

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 12:41 PM
If I'm the Twins, I start him in Rochester for two reasons: they want to limit his innings, and to not start the clock on his service time. Bring him up in June or whatever the timeframe is and we get an extra year of control, which could be huge if he turns out to be a quality MLB starter.

Two things,
1) The Twins will still count his AAA innings. He'll be on a 130-150 inning limit and it won't matter where he throws those innings.
2) He's 25. We'll have control of him through his age 31 season, no matter what.

I believe that's another reason the Twins are, IN MY OPINION, a bit slow to promote...wait till they are 24, 25 (or older), you get all their prime years...it's a business thing.

gunnarthor
11-16-2012, 02:04 PM
If I'm the Twins, I start him in Rochester for two reasons: they want to limit his innings, and to not start the clock on his service time. Bring him up in June or whatever the timeframe is and we get an extra year of control, which could be huge if he turns out to be a quality MLB starter.

Two things,
1) The Twins will still count his AAA innings. He'll be on a 130-150 inning limit and it won't matter where he throws those innings.
2) He's 25. We'll have control of him through his age 31 season, no matter what.

I believe that's another reason the Twins are, IN MY OPINION, a bit slow to promote...wait till they are 24, 25 (or older), you get all their prime years...it's a business thing.

Maybe. But in fairness to the Twins, Gibson would've been called up at 23 if he hadn't needed TJ surgery.

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 02:10 PM
Maybe. But in fairness to the Twins, Gibson would've been called up at 23 if he hadn't needed TJ surgery..

Probably...but out of pure necessity (like they did with Revere)...not because it was the ideal time to do so. Gibson's numbers weren't overwhelming though. On the bright side, the old reliable excuse of defense not being up to par as an excuse to keep a player down is harder to use for pitchers. Garza was another that flew up...but then got in hot water cause he was a strikeout pitcher and he didn't want to conform to the pitching style we have :-)

There are some people who are always eager to give the Twins management the benefit of the doubt...not saying you are one, but there are some that just purely find a way to defend team's management to the bitter end. How can anyone not see that there's obviously something wrong with the drafting, development and philosophy of pitching we have (the philosophy being what drives the type we've drafted and how we've developed them)

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 02:25 PM
There are some people who are always eager to give the Twins management the benefit of the doubt...not saying you are one, but there are some that just purely find a way to defend team's management to the bitter end. How can anyone not see that there's obviously something wrong with the drafting, development and philosophy of pitching we have (the philosophy being what drives the type we've drafted and how we've developed them)

Who on Twins Daily defends the Twins' drafting and development of pitching? I sure haven't seen 'em.

gunnarthor
11-16-2012, 02:26 PM
There are some people who are always eager to give the Twins management the benefit of the doubt...not saying you are one, but there are some that just purely find a way to defend team's management to the bitter end. How can anyone not see that there's obviously something wrong with the drafting, development and philosophy of pitching we have (the philosophy being what drives the type we've drafted and how we've developed them)

Clearly, the team did something right. Jim Callis of BA ranked the Twins minor league system the 3rd best of the 2000s. No one is perfect but I'm more of the cyclical camp than anything else. You draft low every year and ownership puts financial muzzles in place, it'll eventually affect you.

As to pitching, the team did change course when Deron Johnson took over the drafts. He drafted a lot of hard throwers where Radcliffe might have drafted focusing more on control guys. It's still open to see whether that change was good. However, the idea that the Twins are scared of strike out pitchers is absurdly stupid.

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 02:38 PM
As to pitching, the team did change course when Deron Johnson took over the drafts. He drafted a lot of hard throwers where Radcliffe might have drafted focusing more on control guys. It's still open to see whether that change was good. However, the idea that the Twins are scared of strike out pitchers is absurdly stupid.

I don't remember saying anything about them being scared of strikeout pitchers. I find it absurdly stupid you read what I wrote and thought that's what I said.

I will say this though. Strikeout pitchers are more expensive to draft and keep if they work out...pitch to contact guys are, for the most part, less expensive...and you need to have strong defenders behind them...say, glove first guys in the middle infield...the inexpensive type of middle IFs...The kind of players a team under a budget would target.

And the team did do something right in the early part of the 2000s...that's nice...that was then. I'm referring to now...

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 02:40 PM
There are some people who are always eager to give the Twins management the benefit of the doubt...not saying you are one, but there are some that just purely find a way to defend team's management to the bitter end. How can anyone not see that there's obviously something wrong with the drafting, development and philosophy of pitching we have (the philosophy being what drives the type we've drafted and how we've developed them)

Who on Twins Daily defends the Twins' drafting and development of pitching? I sure haven't seen 'em.

See the post right below yours

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 02:56 PM
There are some people who are always eager to give the Twins management the benefit of the doubt...not saying you are one, but there are some that just purely find a way to defend team's management to the bitter end. How can anyone not see that there's obviously something wrong with the drafting, development and philosophy of pitching we have (the philosophy being what drives the type we've drafted and how we've developed them)

Who on Twins Daily defends the Twins' drafting and development of pitching? I sure haven't seen 'em.

See the post right below yours

Yeah, I don't see him defending anything there... Just stating that low draft picks and finances may have had something to do with the Twins' current woes.

And he's right in one regard: repeating that the Twins hate strikeout pitchers is absurd.

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 02:57 PM
And he's right in one regard: repeating that the Twins hate strikeout pitchers is absurd.

He didn't say hate. And I didn't say hate either. I said financially it makes more sense not to get them..and I explained why.

and this isn't defending them? 'Clearly, the team did something right. Jim Callis of BA ranked the Twins minor league system the 3rd best of the 2000s.'

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 02:57 PM
As to pitching, the team did change course when Deron Johnson took over the drafts. He drafted a lot of hard throwers where Radcliffe might have drafted focusing more on control guys. It's still open to see whether that change was good. However, the idea that the Twins are scared of strike out pitchers is absurdly stupid.

I don't remember saying anything about them being scared of strikeout pitchers. I find it absurdly stupid you read what I wrote and thought that's what I said.

But... but... you just said:


...but then got in hot water cause he was a strikeout pitcher and he didn't want to conform to the pitching style we have.

So they're not "scared" of them, they don't "hate" them, they just draft them and then try to change them?

Does not compute.

Also, Matt Garza is not a strikeout pitcher unless you consider Scott Baker a strikeout pitcher as well.

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 03:05 PM
anyway, we aren't getting anywhere...when stupid comes out, it's obvious minds are closed to other people's points of view...

Clearly the team does like and value strikeout pitchers, seeing how many we've had in the system, over the years, on the major league team...

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 03:11 PM
Clearly the team does like and value strikeout pitchers, seeing how many we've had in the system, over the years, on the major league team...

Johan Santana, Francisco Liriano, Scott Baker, and Matt Garza say "hi".

The bottom line is that the Twins have done a bad job of scouting hard-throwers and when combined with their bottom 15 picks through most of the 2000s, they've come up woefully short on arms. It's possible that they don't value hard-throwers as much as other teams but they certainly don't hate them.

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 03:31 PM
Clearly the team does like and value strikeout pitchers, seeing how many we've had in the system, over the years, on the major league team...

Johan Santana, Francisco Liriano, Scott Baker, and Matt Garza say "hi".

The bottom line is that the Twins have done a bad job of scouting hard-throwers and when combined with their bottom 15 picks through most of the 2000s, they've come up woefully short on arms. It's possible that they don't value hard-throwers as much as other teams but they certainly don't hate them.

Two of those (Santana and Liriano) weren't part of the draft and weren't originally ours. How much did we develop those two before they were in the majors? How much did we pay to draft those two. One of those two was too expensive to keep so we got rid of him.

Garza got shipped off cause he wouldn't listen to how they wanted him to pitch.

Then there's Baker...

ThePuck
11-16-2012, 03:34 PM
but again, we aren't getting anywhere...you guys are more than entitled to believe what you want...even Terry Ryan said that everyone wanted them to draft power arms so they went that way this year...seems to me that means they weren't really doing that before but have now decided, hey, that might be an idea worth exploring. I'm sure that's a stupid thing to think too...I'm just generally stupid...

Brock Beauchamp
11-16-2012, 03:41 PM
but again, we aren't getting anywhere...you guys are more than entitled to believe what you want...even Terry Ryan said that everyone wanted them to draft power arms so they went that way this year...seems to me that means they weren't really doing that before but have now decided, hey, that might be an idea worth exploring. I'm sure that's a stupid thing to think too...I'm just generally stupid...

They drafted Shooter Hunt.

Again, the Twins may not place as high a priority on power arms as some other teams but you act as I'd they consciously avoid them. That is simply not the case.

gunnarthor
11-16-2012, 04:00 PM
Clearly the team does like and value strikeout pitchers, seeing how many we've had in the system, over the years, on the major league team...

Johan Santana, Francisco Liriano, Scott Baker, and Matt Garza say "hi".

The bottom line is that the Twins have done a bad job of scouting hard-throwers and when combined with their bottom 15 picks through most of the 2000s, they've come up woefully short on arms. It's possible that they don't value hard-throwers as much as other teams but they certainly don't hate them.

Two of those (Santana and Liriano) weren't part of the draft and weren't originally ours. How much did we develop those two before they were in the majors? How much did we pay to draft those two. One of those two was too expensive to keep so we got rid of him.

Garza got shipped off cause he wouldn't listen to how they wanted him to pitch.

Then there's Baker...

Garza was shipped off b/c TB wouldn't take Slowey. Liriano had only pitched .2ip at A+ when we got him. Santana had even less experience. (Neither were drafted, not sure what you were getting at there). I think the Twins should get the majority of the credit for developing them. Santana still credits Cueller for teaching him his change up. Santana did sign an extension with us that bought out one of his FA years. I'm just not sure what the problem here is. The Twins have drafted a number of guys that could be called power guys when Radcliff was running things - Durbin, Hunt, Garza. And Johnson has gone even farther after those types. Radcliff also had a lot of success drafting control guys that other teams seemed to ignore. Shouldn't we be happy that the Twins found a market inefficiency and got a lot of success out of it?

Kwak
11-16-2012, 04:48 PM
Hmm. I thought this thread was about Gibson. I fail to see the value in Gibson as a relief pitcher--he was drafted and developed (and paid?) to be a starting pitcher, at which Gibson has yet to fail. Shorten his innings? Easy enough--Shut him down! There was a previous thread (forgot by who?) about Gibson first proving his viability (is that the same as stamina?) before inserting him into the rotation. So, establish a training program now and carry it through ST and into the rotation he goes. So far, I don't see five starting pitchers ahead of him in the depth chart--and I don't expect that there will be five come April.

John Bonnes
11-16-2012, 04:51 PM
WE had a pretty good story on this site on this:

http://www.twinsdaily.com/content.php?526-A-History-Lesson-Twins-Pitching-Draft-Edition

For some reason, the Twins went away spending high picks on pitchers in 2006 and 2007, had a couple of clunkers in 2008 and have had injuries to their top piicks in 2009 and 2010. Prior to that they were on a roll with pitchers, but I don't know if a change in philosophy is really the culprit. They just haven't done as well. Some of that might be on the new draft guy, but some is just on not taking guys in 2006 and 2007.