PDA

View Full Version : Lots of good reports about Kyle Gibson...



John Bonnes
02-24-2013, 08:01 PM
Mauer was impressed by him today and Ron Gardenhire said he had fun watching Gibson on the mound. Then he had a little fun himself....


"He's got a good angle. The ball comes out of his hand really nice," Gardenhire said. "We're not going to let him pitch any more this spring, just to be safe. Just kidding. He looks pretty good."

It will be interesting, with a 130ish inning limit, if the Twins will feel comfortable putting him in the rotation when they break camp.

http://www.foxsportsnorth.com/02/24/13/Mauer-has-high-praise-for-Gibson-in-Twin/landing_twins.html

Brad Swanson
02-24-2013, 08:05 PM
I read that he hit 96 with his fastball too. My hopes are very high right now.

stringer bell
02-24-2013, 08:20 PM
I've heard a lot of people say that his ceiling is being a solid #2. I think he might have the ability to be an ace. I certainly believe he has the makeup and poise to be very good.

beckmt
02-24-2013, 09:56 PM
Gibson had a good first start. Will be nice to see him on the road as a starter against a good teams best players.

Nick Nelson
02-24-2013, 10:33 PM
I read that he hit 96 with his fastball too. My hopes are very high right now.

I've been to many spring training games at Hammond, and I would put no stock into that reading. Last time I was there, they had Duensing registering at 96.

Having said that, the pitch was probably somewhere in that neighborhood, and that's a good sign. Gibson should be quite nasty if he's sitting in the mid-90s.

Parker Hageman
02-24-2013, 11:13 PM
I've been to many spring training games at Hammond, and I would put no stock into that reading.

I've heard Hammond runs a bit hot however reports from the AZ Fall League this year also had Gibson touching 96 a few times -- pitch F/X says the same. Could be fluky too but I don't think it is inconceivable that he got up there.

Seth Stohs
02-25-2013, 12:51 AM
My assumption is that the 96 that he struck someone out with was probably 94 which is more than enough... especially when his slider is coming in at 88-89 mph (which may be 86-87). That's some nasty stuff, and he also has a good changeup and a slower curveball. His stuff doesn't mean a lot of strikeouts necessarily, but he should get a lot of groundouts.

PseudoSABR
02-25-2013, 01:40 AM
Oh, wouldn't it just be awesome, if Gibson turned out to be special. God, we Twin fans need something to rally around.

glunn
02-25-2013, 02:09 AM
Oh, wouldn't it just be awesome, if Gibson turned out to be special. God, we Twin fans need something to rally around.

Amen. I believe that we may have to be patient during his rookie season, but that the upside could be amazing.

mike wants wins
02-25-2013, 08:31 AM
Would be great if he made the rotation....if he's one of the 5 best, he should be up here. But we've had that conversation over and over.....I'm just glad he appears healthy and effective.

diehardtwinsfan
02-25-2013, 08:48 PM
with that inning limit, and the fact that his clock hasn't started yet, I kind of wonder if he stays in EST and takes it easy for a month or two (or pitches out of Rochester's pen) before moving to the rotation.

3up3down
02-25-2013, 09:15 PM
I have been in ft myers & have been watching live BP & games, Gibson looked great, his stuff is above avg & his mound presence is very good. I liked what I saw from Worley, Wood,& Walters looked good.. Same ole from Deduno, good stuff but has no idea where it's going. I have never liked Hendricks mound presence & i saw him shake his arm & flex his elbow after the run scoring double, what was odd was no one came out to see about him, if that had been pelfrey they would have been coaches & trainers sprinting to the mound. Palfrey has looked really good in his pens, anxious to see him tomorrow.

Brad Swanson
02-25-2013, 09:51 PM
I have been in ft myers & have been watching live BP & games, Gibson looked great, his stuff is above avg & his mound presence is very good. I liked what I saw from Worley, Wood,& Walters looked good.. Same ole from Deduno, good stuff but has no idea where it's going. I have never liked Hendricks mound presence & i saw him shake his arm & flex his elbow after the run scoring double, what was odd was no one came out to see about him, if that had been pelfrey they would have been coaches & trainers sprinting to the mound. Palfrey has looked really good in his pens, anxious to see him tomorrow.

Oh my goodness, I totally read that last sentence wrong the first time. Major meaning change.

mike wants wins
02-26-2013, 08:28 AM
He is 25...arms are only good for a limited number of years. The clock is ticking the way of pitch him, not sit him.

Brad Swanson
02-26-2013, 08:45 AM
I'm not sure I agree that arms are only good for a limited number of years. I do believe that arms might have a certain number of pitches in them though. In which case, limiting his innings makes sense. I mean, I'm 30 now, but I don't think I am in any danger of tearing my rotator cuff or blowing out my elbow. If he throws 200 innings for the Twins in a lost season and then gets hurt next year, I'd be much more upset than if he throws 130 innings at AAA.

Brock Beauchamp
02-26-2013, 09:43 AM
He is 25...arms are only good for a limited number of years. The clock is ticking the way of pitch him, not sit him.

Which I might agree with if Gibson wasn't on such a strict innings limit anyway. His ability to influence the outcome of the 2013 season is marginal no matter how well he pitches. I don't see any problems with putting him in AAA and letting him pitch 4-5 inning games for awhile, something the team can't really let him do in Minnesota.

nicksaviking
02-26-2013, 10:30 AM
I don't see any problems with putting him in AAA and letting him pitch 4-5 inning games for awhile, something the team can't really let him do in Minnesota.

You must not have watched much Twins baseball last year. Either that or you've already purged it from your memory Men in Black style.

roger
02-26-2013, 10:37 AM
I've been to many spring training games at Hammond, and I would put no stock into that reading. Last time I was there, they had Duensing registering at 96.

Having said that, the pitch was probably somewhere in that neighborhood, and that's a good sign. Gibson should be quite nasty if he's sitting in the mid-90s.

I read several reports that talked about the Hammond Stadium gun, that also mentioned that a scout had him top out at 95. Have also read in several places that Gibson will not be in the bullpen, in Minnesota, Rochester, or elsewhere. The reasoning given was that he has never been a reliever in his life. I don't have a clue whether he will begin his career with the Twins or somehow limiting innings in either Rochester or EST. It seems to make a lot of sense, however, if he is going to be limited and miss a month, it makes a lot more sense that it be April rather than September...thus, adding another year to his team control.

Steve Penz
02-26-2013, 10:53 AM
Which I might agree with if Gibson wasn't on such a strict innings limit anyway. His ability to influence the outcome of the 2013 season is marginal no matter how well he pitches. I don't see any problems with putting him in AAA and letting him pitch 4-5 inning games for awhile, something the team can't really let him do in Minnesota.

I agree completely. I understand that we are anxious but there is no way that his effect on the Twins from opening day to Mid May weighs more than having him for another year of team control. My apologies because the topic is beat to death...I could not help it.

3up3down
02-26-2013, 10:55 AM
swanson, i see that now, thats pretty funny......i should say pelfrey has looked good throwing his bull pens & i am anxious to see him pitch today.. that sounds much better..

Nick Nelson
02-26-2013, 11:52 AM
I think people need to move past the idea that Gibson is going to start the season pitching in the bullpen, or being limited to four-inning starts, so that he'll be available in September. He'll either open the campaign in the Minnesota rotation or the Rochester rotation and while they might be a little more apt to pull him after 90 pitches instead of 100 his usage will be fairly normal. The Twins want to build up his strength and get him back into a normal starting routine -- that is their goal with him this year.

Frankly, I'm not sure why people are so obsessed with having him available at the end of the year anyway. They're not going to be playing in October, and regular season results matter as just much in April as September. Considering the club's stated resolve to get off to a better start this season, I'm guessing the Twins would prefer to have him helping them early anyway. I'm sure they're hoping that other options will emerge (Meyer? May?) to replace him late in the year.

Teflon
02-26-2013, 12:28 PM
I read that he hit 96 with his fastball too. My hopes are very high right now.

In a related note, the Twins announced they have become the first MLB team to convert to KPH on their JUGS guns.

Brock Beauchamp
02-26-2013, 12:34 PM
You must not have watched much Twins baseball last year. Either that or you've already purged it from your memory Men in Black style.

Actually, I was keeping that very much in mind. The team can't afford to pull an effective Gibson after 4-5 innings the day after Correia goes 2 1/3 and gives up 18 runs.

Brock Beauchamp
02-26-2013, 12:36 PM
I think people need to move past the idea that Gibson is going to start the season pitching in the bullpen, or being limited to four-inning starts, so that he'll be available in September. He'll either open the campaign in the Minnesota rotation or the Rochester rotation and while they might be a little more apt to pull him after 90 pitches instead of 100 his usage will be fairly normal. The Twins want to build up his strength and get him back into a normal starting routine -- that is their goal with him this year.

Frankly, I'm not sure why people are so obsessed with having him available at the end of the year anyway. They're not going to be playing in October, and regular season results matter as just much in April as September. Considering the club's stated resolve to get off to a better start this season, I'm guessing the Twins would prefer to have him helping them early anyway. I'm sure they're hoping that other options will emerge (Meyer? May?) to replace him late in the year.

I can't speak for everyone but I think there's nearly a zero percent chance Gibson will be available in September. I only advocate 4-5 inning starts in Rochester to build up arm strength and ease him into a season, not to preserve him for September. Plus, limited innings in Rochester hopefully means more innings in Minnesota, all the while keeping his service time down (probably not an issue anyway) and giving him valuable AAA innings (many seem to ignore that Gibson doesn't have much experience in the high minors).

drjim
02-26-2013, 01:27 PM
I can't speak for everyone but I think there's nearly a zero percent chance Gibson will be available in September. I only advocate 4-5 inning starts in Rochester to build up arm strength and ease him into a season, not to preserve him for September. Plus, limited innings in Rochester hopefully means more innings in Minnesota, all the while keeping his service time down (probably not an issue anyway) and giving him valuable AAA innings (many seem to ignore that Gibson doesn't have much experience in the high minors).

I just don't see the point of Rochester if he is ready to go. He is 20 months from surgery he doesn't need to be babied at the beginning of the year. Yes he needs to be protected from a big jump in innings over the entire season but worry about that later.

He has limited innings no need to waste them in AAA. He might have a DL stint or they can get creative in skipping starts or extra rest to extend him through the season. If he is good in spring training let him start with the Twins.

Brad Swanson
02-26-2013, 01:42 PM
In a related note, the Twins announced they have become the first MLB team to convert to KPH on their JUGS guns.

Does this statement insinuate that Gibson only throws 60 MPH? That seems low.

Shane Wahl
02-26-2013, 01:58 PM
I would like to see him pitch for the entire season. I am not at all sure what is so crazy about that. This would mean pitching April through September and this can be done while keeping him under 150 innings.

ashburyjohn
02-26-2013, 02:19 PM
(many seem to ignore that Gibson doesn't have much experience in the high minors).

I don't ignore it. His AAA numbers pre-surgery weren't all that good. He was young, and arguably his ligament was an issue before completely blowing out. But unless he totally stakes a claim to a rotation spot in spring training, I'm fine with letting him do some final polishing in Rochester. That also does the relationship with our farm team some good, an aspect that can not drive all decisions but also can not be ignored.

birdwatcher
02-26-2013, 02:27 PM
A careful reading of comments from Twins staff makes it pretty clear that they're going with an eye test regarding Gibson, and will limit him if they see signs that it's required. They have not pre-determined an innings limit. However, they have anticipated that Gibson may start to wear down at some point.

I expect Gibson to start 31 games and pitch over 170 innings, with an ERA of 2.89, winning 16 games and winning ROY honors.

Kidding.

Twins Twerp
02-26-2013, 03:50 PM
Start him out for the first month in Rochester. Build up stamina as well as save a year of service. Wait until May to bring him up, that is only a month and we will get another year of service. This is an easy one. If he pitches the way we think he can pitch, an extra month for another year in his prime at a low salary is vital. Who knows if we will be able to or even want to sign him past his arbitration years, he will be 29 years old at the back half of his prime.

ThePuck
02-26-2013, 04:35 PM
We are already going to get ALL of Gibson's prime years...he's 25 right now, if the Twins chose to, they can have till he's 30 (even if he heads North right away) won't be able to pitch for anyone else till he's 31.

mike wants wins
02-26-2013, 04:39 PM
Correct...service years are not an issue.

diehardtwinsfan
02-26-2013, 08:42 PM
I don't ignore it. His AAA numbers pre-surgery weren't all that good. He was young, and arguably his ligament was an issue before completely blowing out. But unless he totally stakes a claim to a rotation spot in spring training, I'm fine with letting him do some final polishing in Rochester. That also does the relationship with our farm team some good, an aspect that can not drive all decisions but also can not be ignored.

His peripherals were actually fairly good, though there was a very noticable drop the last few starts before the diagnosis that skewed the stats a bit. I do agree that he could use some time to season. The Twins will end up with an extra year of time too, which certainly won't make them complain.

Oxtung
02-27-2013, 12:48 AM
Correct...service years are not an issue.

Because no pitchers are good after their 30 year old seasons.

PseudoSABR
02-27-2013, 01:08 AM
We are already going to get ALL of Gibson's prime years...he's 25 right now, if the Twins chose to, they can have till he's 30 (even if he heads North right away) won't be able to pitch for anyone else till he's 31.Why is having him, or the option of having him, at age 32 necessarily a bad thing? While players may digress in their thirties, they might still be valuable players, especially if they are arb eligible.

We'll see what the Twins do, but I don't see how gaining an extra year of player control isn't the best outcome (esp. if they really believe in punting the 2013 season).

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 07:29 AM
Why is having him, or the option of having him, at age 32 necessarily a bad thing? While players may digress in their thirties, they might still be valuable players, especially if they are arb eligible.

We'll see what the Twins do, but I don't see how gaining an extra year of player control isn't the best outcome (esp. if they really believe in punting the 2013 season).

Yep. This. People seem to believe that just because a player is over 30, an extra year of control is worthless. How does that make sense? It takes all of three weeks in the minors to get that extra year of control. Three friggin' weeks.

Now, it's certainly not as important to manage Gibson's clock as it is, say, Miguel Sano. No one is arguing that. But to state that service time doesn't matter at all is foolish. Of course it does. Any time you can retain a Major League starter for less money and/or additional years, you're doing something right.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 07:30 AM
We are already going to get ALL of Gibson's prime years...he's 25 right now, if the Twins chose to, they can have till he's 30 (even if he heads North right away) won't be able to pitch for anyone else till he's 31.

Yeah, it would be really horrible if Tampa had another year of control of James Shields. I mean, what would they do with that?

drjim
02-27-2013, 07:56 AM
Yeah, it would be really horrible if Tampa had another year of control of James Shields. I mean, what would they do with that?

Tampa got that control by signing an extension well before free agency. Exactly what the Twins should do with Gibson if he is healthy and effective and rendering these service time machinations moot. If he's ready start him with the Twins.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 08:07 AM
Tampa got that control by signing an extension well before free agency. Exactly what the Twins should do with Gibson if he is healthy and effective and rendering these service time machinations moot. If he's ready start him with the Twins.

My point is that some players are still extremely effective into their early 30s. Discounting an age 31 season as worthless is fool-hardy, especially if you're sacrificing it for three weeks of playing time in a lost season for a player who won't be with the team for 162 games.

mike wants wins
02-27-2013, 09:08 AM
Not worthless, but not worth as much as having him pitch in the majors, so fans do not have to watch AAA starters at MLB prices. That said, if they held him back for three weeks, fine. But when they hold him back for 3 months, that will be an issue.

Shane Wahl
02-27-2013, 09:28 AM
They are not going to hold him back three months. On the other hand I think that having to shut him down at the end of August is pretty dumb and not the right way to end the season when looking forward to 2014.

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 09:30 AM
Why is having him, or the option of having him, at age 32 necessarily a bad thing? While players may digress in their thirties, they might still be valuable players, especially if they are arb eligible.

We'll see what the Twins do, but I don't see how gaining an extra year of player control isn't the best outcome (esp. if they really believe in punting the 2013 season).

Never said it was. The person I was responding to was talking about 'prime years'. Though it probably would have been easier for you to know that if I had actually quoted the guy. so my bad :-)

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 09:37 AM
Yeah, it would be really horrible if Tampa had another year of control of James Shields. I mean, what would they do with that?

I'm not sure why I get the sarcasm by simply pointing out his prime years, but in your scenario I imagine the extremely pitching rich Rays would have traded him anyway...

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 09:40 AM
My point is that some players are still extremely effective into their early 30s. Discounting an age 31 season as worthless is fool-hardy, especially if you're sacrificing it for three weeks of playing time in a lost season for a player who won't be with the team for 162 games.

Who was discounting an age 31 season?

Steve Lein
02-27-2013, 09:56 AM
Any time you can retain a Major League starter for less money and/or additional years, you're doing something right.

If you are retaining a "Major League starter for less money and/or additional years" through the arbitration/team-control process, that means that player isn't doing as well as you want as an MLB player. Arbitration does not keep salary down for good players, it inflates it rather rapidly (Look at Buster Posey, he is "Super 2," and his 1st year of arbitration eligibility got himself $8MIL, up from about 615K). I still feel the "team control" stuff that is always brought up is the dumbest argument anywhere on this site.

If a player is good enough, those 5th or 6th years of "team control" aren't ever going to factor in, they will get an extension (or they'll get traded because the price is too high). There are numerous examples of Twins players where this has happened. You can also look at the players who do make it to that 5th or 6th year of "team control." You will notice that they are middling players that you hope will come around and show they deserve a longer-term commitment.

The Twins, as far as I can tell, only have 2 players with contracts through Arbitration for this season, and their names are Brian Duensing and Drew Butera. A middle-reliever and backup-backup-catcher. Not exactly key pieces for the future.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 10:58 AM
If you are retaining a "Major League starter for less money and/or additional years" through the arbitration/team-control process, that means that player isn't doing as well as you want as an MLB player. Arbitration does not keep salary down for good players, it inflates it rather rapidly (Look at Buster Posey, he is "Super 2," and his 1st year of arbitration eligibility got himself $8MIL, up from about 615K). I still feel the "team control" stuff that is always brought up is the dumbest argument anywhere on this site.

If a player is good enough, those 5th or 6th years of "team control" aren't ever going to factor in, they will get an extension (or they'll get traded because the price is too high). There are numerous examples of Twins players where this has happened. You can also look at the players who do make it to that 5th or 6th year of "team control." You will notice that they are middling players that you hope will come around and show they deserve a longer-term commitment.

The Twins, as far as I can tell, only have 2 players with contracts through Arbitration for this season, and their names are Brian Duensing and Drew Butera. A middle-reliever and backup-backup-catcher. Not exactly key pieces for the future.

You can't honestly tell me with a straight face that having an extra year of control over a player isn't important. Some players will test the free agency market no matter what you offer. They'll get a 3-5 year deal that extends far beyond their prime years for doing it, too. And you don't believe that a player's team control influences whether they sign through their arbitration years? If you have three years of team control left, signing a four year deal might make sense. If you have two years of team control, why would you sign that four year deal that buys out two prime years of your career that might seriously hurt your chances to sign a 4-6 year deal afterward?

Plus, you get them for one more year. Not the 2-3 it may require to sign them beyond arbitration. One year. If the player flounders or gets injured (particularly important in the case of pitching), you can jettison the pitcher with little harm done to the franchise.

And while arbitration in year 5-6 may not give you big discounts, it still gives you a sizable chunk of money to use on other players (depending on the player in years 5-6 of arb, they may only get 80% of their open market value... a $10m player saves you $2m in that situation).

But mostly, it's about the years. The team gets an extra year of control over the player. Some players, it doesn't matter. They may sign an extension.

But if that player is going to test the free agent waters (basically, any Boras client), that one year of control is extremely valuable.

And in the case of Gibson, he can't pitch the entire season anyway. What's the harm in letting him shake off a bit of rust in Rochester? No matter how well he pitches in 2013, his impact on the team will be marginal because he won't make more than 20 or so starts.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 11:10 AM
To ground my point, you need to look no further than Joe Mauer to see the importantance of cost-controlled years. The team had to sign him after the 2009 season, which increasingly appears to be a career year.

Now what if the team had that extra year of control over him and was allowed to re-sign him after the 2010 season? Over the course of that contract, they probably would have saved $20m. He's not a $180m player if you sign him after the 2010 season.

Kwak
02-27-2013, 11:21 AM
I just don't see the point of Rochester if he is ready to go. He is 20 months from surgery he doesn't need to be babied at the beginning of the year. Yes he needs to be protected from a big jump in innings over the entire season but worry about that later.

He has limited innings no need to waste them in AAA. He might have a DL stint or they can get creative in skipping starts or extra rest to extend him through the season. If he is good in spring training let him start with the Twins.

Absolutely! I was going to post this myself! Valuable innings in AAA? Baloney! That's where failures reside, scratching clawing, whatever to get another chance. A young up-and-comer might be sent there for a couple of weeks to show him that he never wants to be in AAA--so don't fail when promoted to the ML parent club.
:s-instagib:

Nick Nelson
02-27-2013, 11:40 AM
Yeah, it would be really horrible if Tampa had another year of control of James Shields. I mean, what would they do with that?

Yeah, sucks that they got nothing back for him in trade since he only had one year left on his deal.

Here are some players I can think of that the Twins have lost in recent years because they became free agents after their arbitration ran out: Francisco Liriano, Alexi Casilla… ? This team control thing is a manufactured issue with little real-life relevance. If the player turns out to be good, by the time he’s approaching free agency he will either be extended or traded for good value. This happens every time. Fretting about what age he’s going to be when he’s hypothetically eligible for FA is pointless.

People can continue making this argument indefinitely. By the same reasoning, why call Gibson up in three weeks when you could wait three months and extend your team control for half a year? Why not wait the whole season and extend by it by a full year? At some point, they just need to get these kids in the majors and learning the ropes. Delaying the process for distant financial gains would be a frustrating sign that the Twins aren’t especially urgent about this rebuild.


To ground my point, you need to look no further than Joe Mauer to see the importantance of cost-controlled years. The team had to sign him after the 2009 season, which increasingly appears to be a career year.

Now what if the team had that extra year of control over him and was allowed to re-sign him after the 2010 season? Over the course of that contract, they probably would have saved $20m. He's not a $180m player if you sign him after the 2010 season.

I don’t see how this is relevant to the point at hand. Mauer had already signed one contract extension before this one that bought out his first year of free agency. Had that deal not been inked '09 would have been the last year on his contract and he'd have probably been re-signed before that season took place.

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 11:43 AM
I don’t see how this is relevant to the point at hand. Mauer had already signed one contract extension before this one that bought out his first year of free agency. Had that deal not been inked '09 would have been the last year on his contract and he'd have probably been re-signed before that season took place.

Remember his really bad 2010? When he was a silver slugging, gold glove wearing all star with a 140 OPS as a catcher finishing 8th in MVP voting? :-)

All those great seasons before, along with that one, would have dropped his price tag a good 3-4M a year...it being only his 3rd best season at the time and all :-)

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 12:02 PM
Yeah, sucks that they got nothing back for him in trade since he only had one year left on his deal.

Here are some players I can think of that the Twins have lost in recent years because they became free agents after their arbitration ran out: Francisco Liriano, Alexi Casilla… ? This team control thing is a manufactured issue with little real-life relevance. If the player turns out to be good, by the time he’s approaching free agency he will either be extended or traded for good value. This happens every time. Fretting about what age he’s going to be when he’s hypothetically eligible for FA is pointless.

People can continue making this argument indefinitely. By the same reasoning, why call Gibson up in three weeks when you could wait three months and extend your team control for half a year? Why not wait the whole season and extend by it by a full year? At some point, they just need to get these kids in the majors and learning the ropes. Delaying the process for distant financial gains would be a frustrating sign that the Twins aren’t especially urgent about this rebuild.

And my point is that if you have one more year of team control, you extend that "buy out time" by another year, as well. It shouldn't be the only driving force in deciding whether a player is going to join the ML franchise but it should be a consideration, particularly in a case like Gibson where he can't pitch more than 2/3rds of a season anyway.

And do you know why this is a "manufactured" situation? Because the Twins already employ this strategy. Outside of Joe Mauer, is there a player on the Twins who didn't see their service time extended by a year by shuffling them from the minors mid-season? Justin Morneau, Denard Span, Jason Kubel, Johan Santana, etc... All guys who started their seasons in the minors before getting a call up.


I don’t see how this is relevant to the point at hand. Mauer had already signed one contract extension before this one that bought out his first year of free agency. Had that deal not been inked '09 would have been the last year on his contract and he'd have probably been re-signed before that season took place.

And if Mauer had one more year of controlled service time, chances are that buy out would have been extended through 2011. One more year of flexibility would have been nice. Why would a team buy out a guy only through his arbitration years? It doesn't make sense for either side.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 12:03 PM
Remember his really bad 2010? When he was a silver slugging, gold glove wearing all star with a 140 OPS as a catcher finishing 8th in MVP voting? :-)

All those great seasons before, along with that one, would have dropped his price tag a good 3-4M a year...it being only his 3rd best season at the time and all :-)

Yes, let's just ignore that 2009 Joe Mauer was "the best player in baseball" and that 2010 Joe Mauer was "an extremely good player".

No, that wouldn't affect anything.

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 12:06 PM
Yes, let's just ignore that 2009 Joe Mauer was "the best player in baseball" and that 2010 Joe Mauer was "an extremely good player".

No, that wouldn't affect anything.

I doubt the Twins were stupid enough to believe one year like 2009 in his career was gonna turn into his norm.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 12:09 PM
I doubt the Twins were stupid enough to believe one year like 2009 in his career was gonna turn into his norm.

The Twins don't dictate market value. The market dictates value and after the 2009 season, Mauer's value was the highest it had ever been. The agent negotiates based on perceived value and the team has to work with that number or an agreement will not be reached.

Kwak
02-27-2013, 12:13 PM
To ground my point, you need to look no further than Joe Mauer to see the importantance of cost-controlled years. The team had to sign him after the 2009 season, which increasingly appears to be a career year.

Now what if the team had that extra year of control over him and was allowed to re-sign him after the 2010 season? Over the course of that contract, they probably would have saved $20m. He's not a $180m player if you sign him after the 2010 season.

Mauer signed his 8-year contract extention December 2010.
AJ was traded between the '03 and '04 season (specifically to "unblock" the Catcher position for Mauer). The Twins were a good team and were favored to win the division for '04--but not overwhelming favorites. "Holding back" Mauer for "that extra year" of service would jeopardize the '04 season by requiring the Twins to play two 2nd string-catchers until it "was safe" to promote him to the Twins. Recall that the '03 Twins had to come from behind (about 7.5 games I think) after the ASB, so starting off slowly in '04 could well cost the playoffs.

The Gibson and Mauer scenarios are quite different. But playing Gibson early with the Twins, then optioning him to Rochester midseason for the purpose of shutting him down, accomplishes the same goal of service time reduction (that "control" thing) as does pitching in Rochester. It also exposes Gibson to MLB and serves to determine whether "he belongs up here" or not. Pitching in Rochester does not determine whether Gibson (or anybody else for that matter) belongs with the Twins or will be yet another failed prospect. Time to find out.

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 12:16 PM
Mauer signed his 8-year contract extention December 2010.
AJ was traded between the '03 and '04 season (specifically to "unblock" the Catcher position for Mauer). The Twins were a good team and were favored to win the division for '04--but not overwhelming favorites. "Holding back" Mauer for "that extra year" of service would jeopardize the '04 season by requiring the Twins to play two 2nd string-catchers until it "was safe" to promote him to the Twins. Recall that the '03 Twins had to come from behind (about 7.5 games I think) after the ASB, so starting off slowly in '04 could well cost the playoffs.

The Gibson and Mauer scenarios are quite different. But playing Gibson early with the Twins, then optioning him to Rochester midseason for the purpose of shutting him down, accomplishes the same goal of service time reduction (that "control" thing) as does pitching in Rochester. It also exposes Gibson to MLB and serves to determine whether "he belongs up here" or not. Pitching in Rochester does not determine whether Gibson (or anybody else for that matter) belongs with the Twins or will be yet another failed prospect. Time to find out.

Nah, he signed his extension Mar 2010

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 12:18 PM
Mauer signed his 8-year contract extention December 2010.
AJ was traded between the '03 and '04 season (specifically to "unblock" the Catcher position for Mauer). The Twins were a good team and were favored to win the division for '04--but not overwhelming favorites. "Holding back" Mauer for "that extra year" of service would jeopardize the '04 season by requiring the Twins to play two 2nd string-catchers until it "was safe" to promote him to the Twins. Recall that the '03 Twins had to come from behind (about 7.5 games I think) after the ASB, so starting off slowly in '04 could well cost the playoffs.

The Gibson and Mauer scenarios are quite different. But playing Gibson early with the Twins, then optioning him to Rochester midseason for the purpose of shutting him down, accomplishes the same goal of service time reduction (that "control" thing) as does pitching in Rochester. It also exposes Gibson to MLB and serves to determine whether "he belongs up here" or not. Pitching in Rochester does not determine whether Gibson (or anybody else for that matter) belongs with the Twins or will be yet another failed prospect. Time to find out.

From Wiki:

On March 21, 2010, Mauer agreed to an eight-year contract extension with the Twins worth $184 million, which took effect in the 2011 and will run through the 2018 season.

If the Twins choose to rotate Gibson back to the minors mid-season, I'm fine with that. On the other hand, I don't see any problems with starting him in Rochester, either. At the end of the 2013 season, he's probably going to end up at the same place anyway.

The guy had 90 pretty mediocre innings in AAA before getting injured. I don't see the harm in giving him a few more in what will probably amount to a lost season anyway.

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 12:18 PM
The Twins don't dictate market value. The market dictates value and after the 2009 season, Mauer's value was the highest it had ever been. The agent negotiates based on perceived value and the team has to work with that number or an agreement will not be reached.

Twins still dictate what they are willing to spend though, right? Based on a slew of factors, not all of which are on the field, no? He wasn't ON the open market yet. Fangraphs had Mauer's 2010 value at 21.9M for on the field. 22.5 last year.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 12:21 PM
Twins still dictate what they are willing to spend though, right? Based on a slew of factors, not all of which are on the field, no? He wasn't ON the open market yet.

Sure, they dictate what they're willing to spend but in the Mauer situation, they basically had to agree to pay him whatever he wanted. Mauer had them bent over the barrel in that "negotiation". He was a once-in-a-lifetime hometown boy coming off an MVP season when the team was moving into a new publicly-financed stadium. They basically had to pay whatever he wanted to retain him.

Thankfully, Joe was a pretty reasonable guy and almost surely signed for less than he could have demanded on the open market.

Nick Nelson
02-27-2013, 12:25 PM
And my point is that if you have one more year of team control, you extend that "buy out time" by another year, as well. It shouldn't be the only driving force in deciding whether a player is going to join the ML franchise but it should be a consideration, particularly in a case like Gibson where he can't pitch more than 2/3rds of a season anyway.
Right. He can pitch 2/3 of a season regardless of where he's at. Why waste a chunk of that time in Triple-A if you feel he's ready to pitch in the majors? You want him to get as much exposure against top-level hitters as you can, so you have a better idea of what you've got going forward.


And do you know why this is a "manufactured" situation? Because the Twins already employ this strategy. Outside of Joe Mauer, is there a player on the Twins who didn't see their service time extended by a year by shuffling them from the minors mid-season? Justin Morneau, Denard Span, Jason Kubel, Johan Santana, etc... All guys who started their seasons in the minors before getting a call up.
Santana actually spent his entire first season with the Twins on the MLB roster as he was a Rule 5 pick. I doubt the decisions with the other guys had much, if anything, to do with their service clocks. If you can find me an example of a minor-leaguer who was widely deemed MLB-ready at the start of a season, then left in Triple-A for three weeks and called up, I might lend credence to historical precedent. You could maybe argue they did it with Garza but even that's iffy.


And if Mauer had one more year of controlled service time, chances are that buy out would have been extended through 2011. One more year of flexibility would have been nice. Why would a team buy out a guy only through his arbitration years? It doesn't make sense for either side.
If there's anything that can be criticized in this situation, it is the timing and length of the extensions the Twins gave Mauer. Again, it had nothing to do with when they chose to bring him up. Besides which, you're basing this example on a guy who put up career numbers one season before his walk year. That's very bad timing for the team, but can occur and become a problem regardless of when you promote someone.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 12:30 PM
Right. He can pitch 2/3 of a season regardless of where he's at. Why waste a chunk of that time in Triple-A if you feel he's ready to pitch in the majors? You want him to get as much exposure against top-level hitters as you can, so you have a better idea of what you've got going forward.

I want to focus on this for a bit because I have a question. What are the rules regarding shutting down a player mid-season? I know that it's either against the rules or extremely bad form to send down a player that is going to be DLed (which I assume is what will happen to Gibson). The Brewers caught a lot of flak for "stealing" a year of service from JJ Hardy by sending him down for three weeks.

If they can send him to the minors mid-season to essentially shut him down (and thereby temporarily stopping his service clock), I have absolutely no qualms with that.

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 12:35 PM
Milwaukee sent Hardy down for the exact amount of time needed to gain another year of control. Then he got traded to us at the end of that season.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 12:36 PM
Milwaukee sent Hardy down for the exact amount of time needed to gain another year of control. Then he got traded to us at the end of that season.

I edited my post to include JJ Hardy, funny that you should mention him...

But are the rules different when the DL is involved?

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 12:38 PM
I edited my post to include JJ Hardy, funny that you should mention him...

But are the rules different when the DL is involved?

I don't think DL time is included

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 12:40 PM
I don't think DL time is included

I'm almost certain that DL time counts as service time if the player is on the Major League roster when put on the DL.

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 12:44 PM
I'm almost certain that DL time counts as service time if the player is on the Major League roster when put on the DL.

I phrased that wrong...I'm not sure if it affects service time if a guy is sent down to recover and get his timing or whatever after being on the DL.

SweetOne69
02-27-2013, 12:46 PM
I'm almost certain that DL time counts as service time if the player is on the Major League roster when put on the DL.

This is correct. That is why during ST the first cuts are players on the 40-man roster that are definitely not going to make the team. They don't want to risk them getting hurt in ST and being forced to put them on the Major league DL. It's not that big of a deal if it is a minor injury, but they would lose a whole year of service time if it is a season ending injury.

SweetOne69
02-27-2013, 12:48 PM
I phrased that wrong...I'm not sure if it affects service time if a guy is sent down to recover and get his timing or whatever after being on the DL.

It depends on how it is handled. If the player is sent on a rehab assignment, he is still technically on the DL and service time would accrue.

ashburyjohn
02-27-2013, 01:00 PM
People can continue making this argument indefinitely.

No. Not really. At least not if you accept the concept Bill James expressed many years ago, of each team having a reservoir of talent that rises and falls through the years. The amount of talent that can be used in a given year depends on where each player is on his career path. I think of it like a bell-shaped curve or an inverted parabola, though more flattened I suppose. Given the CBA, you get only a certain number of years at reasonable cost, and you have some control over which years those are. If you choose to start at age 18, you get a portion of the curve where the early years aren't worth very much at the major league level. If somehow you instead delay the start until age 35, you'd get the portion where the last years aren't worth very much. If you had perfect forecasting of a player's career, you could pick the window that maximized his value delivered. If you did this for every player in the system, you could pick those windows that maximize team performance over a period of years (with options to go for steady excellence over the years or try to pack the most value into certain years).

For players with low ceilings, these decisions aren't make or break. For high-ceiling players, it matters.

I'm not saying anything you don't understand and already believe, I'm sure. But it's an answer to why people aren't just being stubborn mules who would never bring a good player up if they were GM.

Kwak
02-27-2013, 01:21 PM
Or option him to Rochester, and just not put him in a game. He's not injured, just not playing--coaches decision.

mike wants wins
02-27-2013, 01:23 PM
I am with nick on this.....110%....

CDog
02-27-2013, 02:11 PM
I want to focus on this for a bit because I have a question. What are the rules regarding shutting down a player mid-season? I know that it's either against the rules or extremely bad form to send down a player that is going to be DLed (which I assume is what will happen to Gibson). The Brewers caught a lot of flak for "stealing" a year of service from JJ Hardy by sending him down for three weeks.

If they can send him to the minors mid-season to essentially shut him down (and thereby temporarily stopping his service clock), I have absolutely no qualms with that.

I'm not basing on much fact here, but it seems like having a guy who is known to be on an innings limit go down just before reaching it and then suddenly goes on the DL, that it would be a pretty big no-no with the union (not to mention just the principle of it). In fact, isn't that essentially what the Perkins grievance from several years ago was all about? I reiterate, this is all speculation and fuzzy memory.

diehardtwinsfan
02-27-2013, 02:37 PM
If Gibson makes the roster opening day, he will be Twins property from 2013-2018. He will have 3 years of serfdom making approximateliy 500k/yr and 3 years of arbitration.

If Gibson gets promoted on May 1, he's Twins property from 2013-2019. he will also likely be a Super 2 meaking he has 3 years of serfdom and 4 years of arbitration.

If Gibson gets promoted between June and July, he essentially ends up with 4 years of serfdom and 3 years of arb.

You cannot say with a straight face that there isn't value in that... especially if he season is lost. The big downside, as I see it is some players know they are essentially being held back for that additional control. In the case of Gibson, he's not a lock to make the rotation, and for all intents and purposes, the season is lost (unless someone honestly thinks Gibson is the difference between playing in October or staying home). And while his peripherals prior to the injury were quite good, he wasn't exactly destroying AAA either. I agree that this is a much bigger deal if it's a Boras client who you know will leave, but it's still a big deal. This has nothing to do with Gibson being good enough or not. It has everything to do with getting an extra year of cost controlled player that will either make for a cheaper long term contract, give you more leverage in buying out some years, or make the player an attractive trade option.

diehardtwinsfan
02-27-2013, 02:40 PM
I'm not basing on much fact here, but it seems like having a guy who is known to be on an innings limit go down just before reaching it and then suddenly goes on the DL, that it would be a pretty big no-no with the union (not to mention just the principle of it). In fact, isn't that essentially what the Perkins grievance from several years ago was all about? I reiterate, this is all speculation and fuzzy memory.

It has nothing to do with beingn on the DL, and everything to do with sending him down. Perkins got optioned, hence the grievance. JJ Hardy was also optioned. The team can only keep them down in the minors for so long when rehabbing an injury without optioning them. After that point, they either get called up or optioned. If Gibson tears his UCL in May in Minnesota, he's going to accumulate ML service time until the Twins can option him. If he does it in Rochester, he won't.

PseudoSABR
02-27-2013, 02:44 PM
Sure, an additional year of team control may not matter; imho, I'd continue to try get that extra year of control, whether it has historically mattered or not, because in my mind, that extra year of team control could be a boon in some instances I don't foresee.

mike wants wins
02-27-2013, 02:51 PM
And I want the best players up here....would your story change if it was not a lost year? How well did it turn out last year for the Angels to keep trout sown, for example.....

PseudoSABR
02-27-2013, 02:56 PM
And I want the best players up here....would your story change if it was not a lost year? How well did it turn out last year for the Angels to keep trout sown, for example.....If we were competitive my tune may change, depending on our personal.

It's only in hindsight that we can say the Angels would have made the playoffs if they broke camp with Trout. The Angels had plenty of OFers and recently signed Pujols, there was no reason to think they needed to 'rush' Trout to the show in order to compete. I'm sure the Angels are happy with the extra year of control, and that will probably matter to some extent both in terms of Trout contract and when they decide to extend him. The Angels have more leverage now that they have Trout for another year; that's a good thing in my mind, esp considering the context of why Trout didn't start the season with the club.

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 03:14 PM
If we were competitive my tune may change, depending on our personal.

It's only in hindsight that we can say the Angels would have made the playoffs if they broke camp with Trout. The Angels had plenty of OFers and recently signed Pujols, there was no reason to think they needed to 'rush' Trout to the show in order to compete. I'm sure the Angels are happy with the extra year of control, and that will probably matter to some extent both in terms of Trout contract and when they decide to extend him. The Angels have more leverage now that they have Trout for another year; that's a good thing in my mind, esp considering the context of why Trout didn't start the season with the club.

Trout can still be a free agent in 2018. Still only six seasons of control 2012-2017

snepp
02-27-2013, 03:24 PM
By the same reasoning, why call Gibson up in three weeks when you could wait three months and extend your team control for half a year? Why not wait the whole season and extend by it by a full year?

Yeah, because that would be exactly the same as advocating for a couple of weeks in year one, then staying on the major league roster for the next 6.9 years.

mike wants wins
02-27-2013, 03:26 PM
And if the angels have injuries and other issues derail them in the future, that year of control will be meaningless. The present is much more knowable than 6 years from now. It would clearly would not have been rushing him to the majors last year, and now they lost one of his peak years in terms of making the playoffs.

Dave T
02-27-2013, 03:45 PM
Gibson needs to come north with the Twins. The reason: He looks to be our best pitcher. If he stays in the minors for a couple of months, it's an absolutely unmistakeable signal from the front office that "we give up for 2013". Your single ticket sales will dry up, and next year's season ticket sales will be down as well. The Twins would lose a lot more money in lost ticket sales than they would gain by keeping control of Gibson for an extra year.

On the other hand, if he comes north, a lot of the games he pitches will probably sell out (unless he turns into a bust). This guy will help me forget two seasons of really awful pitching.

PseudoSABR
02-27-2013, 03:47 PM
And if the angels have injuries and other issues derail them in the future, that year of control will be meaningless. The present is much more knowable than 6 years from now. It would clearly would not have been rushing him to the majors last year, and now they lost one of his peak years in terms of making the playoffs.Three weeks in the present is rarely worth one year in the future, so much so that it seems like an imprudent exchange to me. I guess we're at an impasse.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 03:53 PM
Gibson needs to come north with the Twins. The reason: He looks to be our best pitcher. If he stays in the minors for a couple of months, it's an absolutely unmistakeable signal from the front office that "we give up for 2013". Your single ticket sales will dry up, and next year's season ticket sales will be down as well. The Twins would lose a lot more money in lost ticket sales than they would gain by keeping control of Gibson for an extra year.

On the other hand, if he comes north, a lot of the games he pitches will probably sell out (unless he turns into a bust). This guy will help me forget two seasons of really awful pitching.

Kyle Gibson is not Johan Santana. He'll probably end up more of a #3 than a #1. He's not going to draw much of a crowd unless he goes absolutely bonkers in his rookie season and there's no real reason to expect that to happen.

Nick Nelson
02-27-2013, 03:58 PM
Yeah, because that would be exactly the same as advocating for a couple of weeks in year one, then staying on the major league roster for the next 6.9 years.

I'm pointing out that it's a slippery slope and a bad path to head down.

So this should simply be implemented as a general rule? All prospects have to sit in the minors for three weeks at the start of a season, regardless of how ready they appear? It’s an anti-player move designed specifically to delay the guy’s payday, much like Brock’s hypothetical about sending Gibson to the minors before DLing him for the rest of the year. And it reflects poorly on the organization, IMO. I think people need to take a step back and look at this situation from the other side.

It’s interesting to me that many of the same people who lament Minnesota’s standing as an (apparently) unappealing destination for free agents are also advocating this approach. These kinds of moves will help the Twins build a bad reputation among circles of players and agents, as an org more interested in protecting their own pocketbooks than helping their guys reach success and financial security more quickly. In this era of Target Field and mid-market payroll flexibility, shouldn’t we be past that?

(BTW, are we sure we're not mixing up team control and Super 2 arbitration status? I don't know if I believe that a team gets a full extra year of service by delaying a guy's call-up 25 days. To my knowledge, under no circumstances is a player under team control for more than 6 years.)

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 04:03 PM
Here are the rules.

Service Time (MLB) - CBARules (http://www.cbabaseball.com/rules/index.php?title=Service_Time_(MLB))

Also, Liriano was under team control for seven years (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). An interesting situation because I was under the impression that if a player went on the DL with the MLB club, he continued to accrue service time. Maybe that changes at the end of the season, at which point he can be "sent down" and then DLed?

edit: his 2007 season must have counted as service time. He has 6.1 years of service, which looks about right if you start the clock mid-season 2006 and continue through 2008, at which point his clock stopped when he went back to the minors. Resume later that season and that puts you somewhere around six years today.

So, yeah, you can keep a player longer than six years but it takes more than a few weeks of minor league time to do it. Maybe half a season... Which doesn't really "solve" the Gibson debate, because he will probably end somewhere around half a season of service time.

Dave T
02-27-2013, 04:36 PM
Kyle Gibson is not Johan Santana.

Compared to last year's starters, yes he is.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 04:39 PM
Compared to last year's starters, yes he is.

Almost anything looks better than last year's starters but Gibson still isn't going to draw in a significant amount of fans (unless he vies for RoY honors).

Nick Nelson
02-27-2013, 04:49 PM
So, yeah, you can keep a player longer than six years but it takes more than a few weeks of minor league time to do it. Maybe half a season... Which doesn't really "solve" the Gibson debate, because he will probably end somewhere around half a season of service time.
He'll get a full season of service time if he starts with the Twins and they shut him down midway through the year. Unless they were to follow the plan of demoting him and then DLing him, which would be shady and possibly against the rules.

Only way he gets half a season's service time this year is if he spends the first three months in the minors, or gets demoted somewhere along the way based on performance.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 04:54 PM
He'll get a full season of service time if he starts with the Twins and they shut him down midway through the year. Unless they were to follow the plan of demoting him and then DLing him, which would be shady and possibly against the rules.

Only way he gets half a season's service time this year is if he spends the first three months in the minors, or gets demoted somewhere along the way based on performance.

If I wasn't so lazy, I'd go find the actual amount of time required to defer service time a year.

It's an interesting situation with Gibson, though. It appears that they could easily extend his service time a year if they were so inclined. They could just as easily ship him to the minors as DL him. I wonder what the Nats did with Strasburg, as he will be a FA after the 2016 season, which puts him at seven years of team control.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 04:57 PM
I found this quote about Strasburg:


And all after they so clearly (and smartly) manipulated the start of his service time clock by keeping him in the minors until mid-June.
So, I guess mid-June is the point the service time changes. I guess that makes sense, as the difference between one year of service time and a full season is about 10-12 days. Extrapolate those 10-12 days over six years and you're looking at a little over two months to keep the number under six years of service time.

snepp
02-27-2013, 05:20 PM
(BTW, are we sure we're not mixing up team control and Super 2 arbitration status? I don't know if I believe that a team gets a full extra year of service by delaying a guy's call-up 25 days. To my knowledge, under no circumstances is a player under team control for more than 6 years.)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't care one bit about Super-2 status. It's strictly about money and that's something they should have plenty of at this rate.

As for part two, yes they can acquire an additional year of control. I made a service time breakdown post in another thread, if I can scrounge it up I'll repost it here. Here's that post (http://twinsdaily.com/twins-talk/5169-article-roster-projections-part-1b-infielders-outfielders-2.html#post84795)



Edit: The minimum time to spend in the minors is 20 days. (http://www.cbabaseball.com/rules/index.php?title=Service_Time_%28MLB%29) Anything less than 20 days and the player is given full ML credit for it.

Also, yes, players accrue major league service time while on the DL.

diehardtwinsfan
02-27-2013, 05:47 PM
I found this quote about Strasburg:


So, I guess mid-June is the point the service time changes. I guess that makes sense, as the difference between one year of service time and a full season is about 10-12 days. Extrapolate those 10-12 days over six years and you're looking at a little over two months to keep the number under six years of service time.

I posted this exact thing on a previous page...

Mid-june also avoids super 2.

Nick Nelson
02-27-2013, 06:02 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't care one bit about Super-2 status. It's strictly about money and that's something they should have plenty of at this rate.

As for part two, yes they can acquire an additional year of control. I made a service time breakdown post in another thread, if I can scrounge it up I'll repost it here. Here's that post (http://twinsdaily.com/twins-talk/5169-article-roster-projections-part-1b-infielders-outfielders-2.html#post84795)



Edit: The minimum time to spend in the minors is 20 days. (http://www.cbabaseball.com/rules/index.php?title=Service_Time_%28MLB%29) Anything less than 20 days and the player is given full ML credit for it.

Also, yes, players accrue major league service time while on the DL.

So in order for all this to truly matter, the player in question would have to:

1) Be good enough that he remains in the majors steadily for the next six years and never gets sent down to the minors to work on anything.

2) Be unwilling to sign a reasonable extension that carries him beyond his sixth year of control.

Pretty rare that we've ever seen this happen with a Twins prospect. I just don't see it as a major issue. It's a minor consideration that shouldn't stand in the way of bringing a guy north if he is deemed ready. Particularly because, as I said earlier, I'd like the Twins to have a reputation as an organization that rewards its players based on merit, not based on the timeline that saves them the most money.

Seth Stohs
02-27-2013, 06:34 PM
And I want the best players up here....would your story change if it was not a lost year? How well did it turn out last year for the Angels to keep trout sown, for example.....

It might, but that's not the case.

Dave T
02-27-2013, 06:41 PM
Almost anything looks better than last year's starters but Gibson still isn't going to draw in a significant amount of fans (unless he vies for RoY honors).
I don't agree. I think the Twins will fire up a marketing campaign around their new young pitchers. I think it'll work, too.

jm3319
02-27-2013, 06:46 PM
I doubt the Twins were stupid enough to believe one year like 2009 in his career (Mauer's) was gonna turn into his norm.

Maybe not, but let's be honest. A large percentage of Twins fans sure felt that way and still do.

Seth Stohs
02-27-2013, 06:49 PM
I've written/commented many times on my stance on this topic, but just one more time:

1.) I really don't care about the Super 2 thing... As others have said, that's just about the money. I don't care about that... but I definitely care about keeping a player for an extra year.
2.) Others have said that the Twins do a good job of keeping their really good players by extending them to a long-term deal to buy out a couple of their free agent years. That is true, but this could potentially give them an extra year to make that type of long-term commitment.
3.) As I've written, the Twins have gone against this philosophy several times, including with Joe Mauer, Chris Parmelee and Liam Hendriks (and likely others). Most other organizations do factor in this business side of it. There is a reason that the Rays have all but said that Wil Myers will not be called up until May. (and they're certainly a model organization, right?)
4.) A week or so ago, MLB Trade Rumors looked up all of this for the top prospects (based on BA's Top 100) and gave the following dates (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/02/service-time-considerations-for-top-prospects.html):

Kyle Gibson and Aaron Hicks (or any player with 0 big league service time): Team control through 2019 if not called up until "late April" and Won't be Super 2 after '15 if called up "mid-June."

Just seems like a No-Brainer to me.

ThePuck
02-27-2013, 07:16 PM
Maybe not, but let's be honest. A large percentage of Twins fans sure felt that way and still do.

That says more about them than it does about anything else :-) I remember warning many, many fans to not expect that to be the norm...

drjim
02-27-2013, 07:27 PM
Gibson needs to come north with the Twins. The reason: He looks to be our best pitcher. If he stays in the minors for a couple of months, it's an absolutely unmistakeable signal from the front office that "we give up for 2013". Your single ticket sales will dry up, and next year's season ticket sales will be down as well. The Twins would lose a lot more money in lost ticket sales than they would gain by keeping control of Gibson for an extra year.

On the other hand, if he comes north, a lot of the games he pitches will probably sell out (unless he turns into a bust). This guy will help me forget two seasons of really awful pitching.

This is the right point, though I don't think the presence or absence of Gibson will have much effect on ticket sales. How the Twins handle Gibson will be a good barometer of what the Twins front office truly thinks of this season. I think he goes north. If he ever has to be sent down due to ineffectiveness then they will make sure he is down long enough to impact service time.

ashburyjohn
02-27-2013, 11:49 PM
I'm pointing out that it's a slippery slope and a bad path to head down.

So this should simply be implemented as a general rule?

Since I previously described as like a parabola the "slope" you mention, with an optimal point if you actually had a forecast of it, there's an automatic braking effect if you try to go indefinitely.

And the parabola is so shallow for average players, not to mention only a few years long, that worrying about it should not be a general rule. But for studs, it's a consideration that a GM would be derelict in duty not to consider.

Steve Lein
02-28-2013, 09:06 AM
Yeah, sucks that they got nothing back for him in trade since he only had one year left on his deal.

Here are some players I can think of that the Twins have lost in recent years because they became free agents after their arbitration ran out: Francisco Liriano, Alexi Casilla… ? This team control thing is a manufactured issue with little real-life relevance. If the player turns out to be good, by the time he’s approaching free agency he will either be extended or traded for good value. This happens every time. Fretting about what age he’s going to be when he’s hypothetically eligible for FA is pointless.





Pretty rare that we've ever seen this happen with a Twins prospect. I just don't see it as a major issue. It's a minor consideration that shouldn't stand in the way of bringing a guy north if he is deemed ready. Particularly because, as I said earlier, I'd like the Twins to have a reputation as an organization that rewards its players based on merit, not based on the timeline that saves them the most money.

Aaaaaand, Thankyou Nick.

LaBombo
02-28-2013, 09:51 AM
2) Be unwilling to sign a reasonable extension that carries him beyond his sixth year of control.

Pretty rare that we've ever seen this happen with a Twins prospect. I just don't see it as a major issue. It's a minor consideration that shouldn't stand in the way of bringing a guy north if he is deemed ready. Particularly because, as I said earlier, I'd like the Twins to have a reputation as an organization that rewards its players based on merit, not based on the timeline that saves them the most money.

The cost of that extension is directly related to the length of team control, so you've spent an entire thread arguing that a team with a decidedly finite payroll should disregard money. That sounds foolish to me.

As for the reputation of the organization, I'd like to see it bolstered by not gambling on disco demolition night stunts like bringing up kids who aren't ready, with the goal of profiting from the hopes of the few fans who are knowledgeable to know who guys like Hicks and Gibson are but not knowledgeable enough to know they're not ready.

LaBombo
02-28-2013, 10:04 AM
I still feel the "team control" stuff that is always brought up is the dumbest argument anywhere on this site.

If a player is good enough, those 5th or 6th years of "team control" aren't ever going to factor in, they will get an extension

Good, now I know that you get how I feel about reading your repeated, misinformed ravings over this same topic.

Yes, let's magically wave away the concept of team control with An Extention! That's it! The enchanted kind signed with a pen fashioned from the horn of a unicorn, and that is totally and utterly unaffected by the length of team control. That's the irrelevant concept which necessitates a player living with a series of one year deals whose value is decided by a stranger with a limited knowledge of the player's actual value.

Team control affects the cost of an extension.

The end.

Nick Nelson
02-28-2013, 11:05 AM
The cost of that extension is directly related to the length of team control, so you've spent an entire thread arguing that a team with a decidedly finite payroll should disregard money. That sounds foolish to me.
It does not necessarily affect the cost of an extension. It affects the timing of an extension. The Twins are going to have to pay if they want to keep these guys around long-term one way or another, and they’ve really never had a problem doing that in the past. They certainly shouldn’t have a problem doing so in their current financial state.


As for the reputation of the organization, I'd like to see it bolstered by not gambling on disco demolition night stunts like bringing up kids who aren't ready, with the goal of profiting from the hopes of the few fans who are knowledgeable to know who guys like Hicks and Gibson are but not knowledgeable enough to know they're not ready.
This entire argument has been predicated on the assumption that the prospect in question (Gibson, Hicks, etc.) is deemed by coaches to be ready for the majors. That qualification has been laid out in almost every comment I've made. You’re taking whacks at a straw man.

kab21
02-28-2013, 11:19 AM
2) Be unwilling to sign a reasonable extension that carries him beyond his sixth year of control.


I'll take the option where the Twins can have for 6.9 years (or 6.8 or 6.7) and the option to try to sign him to an extension buying out an additional if he earns it.

The Twins haven't had many prospects as good as Gibson when getting called up in the last decade. I think gibson is going to stick in the majors for good when he gets called up. Hicks might need another go in the minors though.

Unless an injury occurs I'm okay rolling with Diamond, Worley, Pelfrey, Correia and Hendriks and allowing gibson to be that guy that replaces the ineffective/injured one in May.

Nick Nelson
02-28-2013, 12:59 PM
Unless an injury occurs I'm okay rolling with Diamond, Worley, Pelfrey, Correia and Hendriks and allowing gibson to be that guy that replaces the ineffective/injured one in May.

What if Diamond isn't ready? Or Pelfrey needs the full 12 months like nearly every other Tommy John rehabber? I'd say at least one of those two is likely to be unavailable. Suddenly, the guy you're replacing Gibson with is probably significantly worse. I know, I know... it's only three weeks in what everyone is chalking up as a lost season. But I can't accept the decision to go north with an unnecessary weak link in the rotation based on the possibility you'll have to pay the guy a little earlier.

Again, this is all contingent on Gibson demonstrating that he is clearly ready. If the coaching staff decides that he could use a little more seasoning in Triple-A (which is possible given that he hasn't pitched there a ton) then you let him start the season there and the service clock extension is an added benefit. But the decision should be based on what's best for the team and the player's development.

snepp
02-28-2013, 01:34 PM
What if, "what's best for the team" is that additional year of control?


Why is that not even being considered a possibility?

Kwak
02-28-2013, 02:03 PM
I conclude that there is a lot a resentment inside of posters based on reading this thread and others concerning the subject of "team control". "Yeah, Mr. BB Player, we're gonna` screw you out of one year's of free agent salary. That'll teach you!" Whew, what happened to cheering a guy on and wishing him not only success (for our benefit also) but the opportunity to enjoy said success. It's not like any poster will receive any of that "saved" money. Payroll constraint? The Twins executive committee sets their budget and imposes the constraints. The franchise is not in danger of overstepping the MLB threshhold for luxury tax, so there really is no restriction for the Twins to compensate a player for superior performance.

LaBombo
02-28-2013, 03:35 PM
It does not necessarily affect the cost of an extension. It affects the timing of an extension. The Twins are going to have to pay if they want to keep these guys around long-term one way or another, and they’ve really never had a problem doing that in the past. They certainly shouldn’t have a problem doing so in their current financial .

So in effect you're saying that even if less team control were to make an extension more expensive, it won't matter because they can afford it, but would never use the saved money on a worthwhile FA or other means to improve?

ashburyjohn
02-28-2013, 04:13 PM
I conclude that there is a lot a resentment inside of posters

One of the joys of reading a public forum is finding posters who are able to get inside of other posters' heads and accurately tell me what is actually going on inside.

LaBombo
02-28-2013, 04:54 PM
It does not necessarily affect the cost of an extension. It affects the timing of an extension.

Agree to disagree on the effect on cost. But how does the timing itself not have the potential to impact payroll in a big way? Would you rather have had the Twins determine whether or not to give Nick Blackburn $13 million for 2011-13 before his stinkbomb 2010 campaign, or after?



Again, this is all contingent on Gibson demonstrating that he is clearly ready.

How is this even possible? He was hardly lights out in AAA (though better than his ERA) before the injury, and after it he's thrown a total of six innings against hitters higher than A ball. The Twins may bring him up out of self-inflicted necessity at the rate they're going, but I can't imagine how Gibson being "clearly ready", or even completely healthy for that matter, can be determined by a handful of spring training innings.

ashburyjohn
02-28-2013, 07:37 PM
I can't imagine how Gibson being "clearly ready", or even completely healthy for that matter, can be determined by a handful of spring training innings.

None of the Twins' talent evaluators probably think in terms of confidence intervals, but it's what they mean if they say someone's ready. Watching him throw day after day, seeing spring training competition flail against him - the evaluator may conclude the guy's ready, and even though I'm a skeptic from looking at the actual AAA numbers pre-injury I'm not fool enough to bet against that conclusion if it comes.

Nick Nelson
02-28-2013, 11:38 PM
Agree to disagree on the effect on cost. But how does the timing itself not have the potential to impact payroll in a big way? Would you rather have had the Twins determine whether or not to give Nick Blackburn $13 million for 2011-13 before his stinkbomb 2010 campaign, or after?
The Blackburn contract was ill-advised but wasn't forced by his service clock. They gave him that extension when they still had four years left of team control. I hope that the Twins will exercise better judgment with Gibson (it should be easier since he's a much better pitcher). So far the examples that have been provided as warnings -- Mauer and Blackburn -- don't really fit. I'm still waiting to hear of an instance where the Twins have actually been hurt by calling a guy up "too early." There's a whole lot of theorizing going on and not a lot of real-life application.

They're about as frugal as can be and they don't seem to have much reluctance to start either Hicks nor Gibson on the Opening Day roster. That says something, to me at least. I'm sure they're well aware of the service clock dynamics in play.

glunn
03-01-2013, 12:08 AM
I'm still waiting to hear of an instance where the Twins have actually been hurt by calling a guy up "too early." There's a whole lot of theorizing going on and not a lot of real-life application.


Nick, would you agree that perhaps it was not a good idea to call up Carlos Gomez when they did? I felt at the time that he would have benefited from more time working on fundamentals in the minors.

jokin
03-01-2013, 12:28 AM
The Blackburn contract was ill-advised but wasn't forced by his service clock. They gave him that extension when they still had four years left of team control. I hope that the Twins will exercise better judgment with Gibson (it should be easier since he's a much better pitcher). So far the examples that have been provided as warnings -- Mauer and Blackburn -- don't really fit. I'm still waiting to hear of an instance where the Twins have actually been hurt by calling a guy up "too early." There's a whole lot of theorizing going on and not a lot of real-life application.

They're about as frugal as can be and they don't seem to have much reluctance to start either Hicks nor Gibson on the Opening Day roster. That says something, to me at least. I'm sure they're well aware of the service clock dynamics in play.

Gomez immediately came to mind, but Glunn beat me to it. It could be argued that Dozier might have been pushed too fast, too soon, with the potential to permanently retard the nice upward developmental arc he was on previously. He clearly melted down after about a month in to his call up. And unlike Hendriks and Parmelee who went down to AAA and destroyed the competition, Dozier was pretty awful after the demotion.

It could be argued that if the Twins decide in the choice of accelerating HIck and Gibson's service clock to 2013, and possibly Arcia's to 2013 or 14, it could be the club looking to balance out the collective team arb schedule after nearly complete roster re-construction kicks in around 2015-16.

Nick Nelson
03-01-2013, 09:29 AM
Nick, would you agree that perhaps it was not a good idea to call up Carlos Gomez when they did? I felt at the time that he would have benefited from more time working on fundamentals in the minors.

I might agree with that, but that's not what we're talking about here. Keeping a guy down for developmental reasons is different than keeping him down for financial reasons. I certainly don't think calling Gomez up when they did had any real adverse effect on the Twins in terms of what they had to pay him or how long they were able to keep him (his service clock had already been started by the Mets anyway).

Besides, if Hicks or whoever were to struggle the way Gomez (or Parmelee, or Hendriks) did when he joined the team at the start of the season, you send him back to the minors to work on some things and the entire point is moot.

Steve Lein
03-01-2013, 11:28 AM
I'm still waiting to hear of an instance where the Twins have actually been hurt by calling a guy up "too early." There's a whole lot of theorizing going on and not a lot of real-life application.


Me too, and is exactly what I'm getting at with all my "misinformed ravings" about why I think "team control" is a non-issue. It just takes care of itself in so many different ways...

My whole whole idea is that the 5, 6, or 7 years of "Team Control" from "MLB service time" scenarios (this is not the same thing as an "extension" in my world) are never going to factor in for good players.

If a "good" player is getting to those late years and they don't want to spend the money they will need to to keep them, the team will trade them instead of losing something for nothing (see Shields, James). If they're a guy a team has determined is worth it and wants to keep, they buy out those years (see Twins, numerous). If a player isn't all that good, they just get let go (see Casilla, Alexi).

Fact is, if it takes you 6 or 7 years to determine that a guy is worth keeping beyond that "team-control" time-frame, they probably aren't...

FrodaddyG
03-01-2013, 12:32 PM
And you should all know that Drew Butera is a "Super-2", but are any of you complaining that we aren't going to have that extra year of "team control" with him?!?!

...That's what I thought.
Or maybe team control would be a bigger factor with players that are actually, you know, good. The kind that get expensive, and not the kind that no other team in the league would waste a roster spot on.

ashburyjohn
03-01-2013, 12:51 PM
I'm still waiting to hear of an instance where the Twins have actually been hurt by calling a guy up "too early."

Maybe that's because the Twins have been pretty good at this aspect for a long time now, and the discussion is whether the team should deviate from that policy for Hicks.

Riverbrian
03-01-2013, 12:57 PM
Ashbury John... Congrats on reaching 1000 posts... 847 of them were good posts.

TwinsFanInPhilly
03-01-2013, 01:16 PM
Ashbury John... Congrats on reaching 1000 posts... 847 of them were good posts.

That % could actually lead the board

Steve Lein
03-01-2013, 01:16 PM
Or maybe team control would be a bigger factor with players that are actually, you know, good. The kind that get expensive, and not the kind that no other team in the league would waste a roster spot on.

That's EXACTLY what I'm getting at... For those "good" players (I've used that specific term in every post I've written about this), the "team-control" always get's taken care of before those 6 years are up, so it's essentially a non-issue.

ashburyjohn
03-01-2013, 02:51 PM
Ashbury John... Congrats on reaching 1000 posts... 847 of them were good posts.

You were kind enough not to mention that on #1000 I typed "Hicks" when the subject line was for "Gibson". Guess that was one of the 153 (as if that number were really that low).


That % could actually lead the board

If anybody achieves a percentage like that I would cease posting to avoid being embarrassed by comparison. (Actually, some do, yet I post anyway.)

:)

FrodaddyG
03-01-2013, 03:00 PM
That's EXACTLY what I'm getting at... For those "good" players (I've used that specific term in every post I've written about this), the "team-control" always get's taken care of before those 6 years are up, so it's essentially a non-issue.
Yes, but having an extra year of control in your pocket is never a bad thing. Trade-wise or contract-wise it will get you increased value. Throwing out the Super-2 status of Butera has nothing to do with anything, as he's a non-asset, and I'd assume we're talking about players of value.

Riverbrian
03-01-2013, 05:06 PM
You were kind enough not to mention that on #1000 I typed "Hicks" when the subject line was for "Gibson". Guess that was one of the 153 (as if that number were really that low).


Ummm... My Bad... make that 846.

ashburyjohn
03-01-2013, 09:52 PM
Ummm... My Bad... make that 846.

And outstanding post #1677 from you, my brother.