I have seen enough of your posts to believe you might actually be serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
Printable View
I have seen enough of your posts to believe you might actually be serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
Keeping them down until mid-May would be an attempt to avoid super-2 status. The way super 2's are designated changed in the last CBA if I'm not mistaken, and it goes by a percentage. So, teams would really have to be good at guessing or keep players down much longer than they should be to avoid super 2. I don't think the Twins were worried about that with Dozier or will focus on it too much in the future. I don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head (maybe Jeremy does), but the main reason to keep guys down will be the arbitration year now, which isn't too difficult.
I don't think the Twins should be concerned about super 2. They may spend more money on Aaron Hicks in arbitration, but mid market teams can afford to spend that cost. They should be concerned about service time and free agency. That date is fixed and waiting a few weeks into the season guarantees an extra year before free agency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badsmerf
Tongue-in-cheek only to expose and ridicule race-baiting and hypocrisy. Don't want to hijack the thread beyond this.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wise One
I created this thread so the comment must be aimed at me. I will have to be more careful about the words I choose and have edited the unintended heading. I am confused by the other references you attributed to me. I don' t recall participating or being interested in any of those discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio
Nope not you. Many on here will know to whom I refer, and remember well. Sorry this was not clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgenswest
Edit: What? Don't change the heading! There's nothing in there that's offensive. Don't self-censor.
Gibson should get the Medlen treatment where he stays in extended spring training a couple of extra weeks and then goes to Rochester where he can be limited to 3-5 innings/start. That can't be done in the majors and then there's a better chance that he won't need to get shut down in September. This of course can completely change if hendriks completely sucks or other pitchers get injured in spring training and the only other option is sending out the Manship equivalent.
I would also like the same done with Hicks. I'm okay with starting the season with Mastro and bringing Hicks up in May. This gives the team an extra year of team control but gets him Super 2.
The significant change in the last CBA is that more players now qualify for Super 2 status and the date is probably late June or maybe even July. Of course the date won't be known for a couple of years. I really don't care if players achieve Super 2 status (it's not my money) but team control is important.
Why can't Gibson start 3-5 innings in the majors? What prevents that? They will carry 13 pitchers, why not have Gibson give them good innings here, and not in Rochester?
Team control is only about money. This team has no contracts to speak of, what makes anyone think they won't be able to afford Hicks if they want to keep him? If he's the best OF, he should be up here. It is disrespectful of ticket holders to do otherwise. People seem pretty content just punting on 2013, as if fan interest will be there no matter how bad (and how little hope for the future the average fan sees) they are next season.
To be fair, the Twins do not always follow the wisdom of keeping players down for an extra month or two. Joe Mauer was up right away in 2004 right away. Last year, Parmelee and Hendriks both made the opening day roster. So, although I think sending Hicks/Gibson down for a month would be the smart thing to do, I don't think that is what the Twins will do if they go out and win a job in spring training (which of course is crazy because spring training stats mean so little).
Buxton, Arcia, Kepler and Benson. Sano or Rosario if they don't work out in the infield. The pipeline to the outfield is pretty full. One less year of team control of Hicks is not going to hurt the future if he is ready now.
Thanks for stating exactly what I was thinking. You read all the time about teams holding back their top prospects to preserve team control, yet I don't recall a situation where I felt the Twins were doing that. For a team that doesn't seem to want to spend money it would be the smart thing to do. I generally am supportive of what Ryan does, but this is one area I think the Twins don't make good decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Stohs
As for the individual players, I agree with keeping Gibson on a pitch count in the minors for the first 6 weeks. His post-surgery situation makes it easy to justify. I think Mastro would be fine as a fill-in for the first few weeks, so start Hicks in AAA. The team control is important, arbitration not so much. The Super-2 is hard to predict anyways and I don't think I would support keeping Hicks down that long unless Mastro tears it up in April and May.
First, it is not even clear that Hicks is ready to play in the majors. His AA numbers were not dominating, and it has already been pointed out he has not played in AAA at all. He maybe ready defensively, but again he hasn't played above AA, so it is certainly likely he may have something to learn on that side of the ball as well. Second, spring training will likely determine whether he begins the year in the majors, but it won't all be about stats. How he goes about his work, the kind of at bats he takes, how he reacts to this opportunity, and how well Benson and Mastroianni are doing those same things, will probably be the determining factors.
I don't think the Twins are going to worry about Super Two, and they may not care that much about the extra year of team control either. They probably don't want yo-yo a top prospect back and forth from the majors to the minors, however. So if Hicks is a bit shaky this spring, no matter what the stats say, he may very well begin the year in the minors. Some at bats in AAA won't hurt him, and giving Mastro and/or Benson a real opportunity to show what they could do as starter may not hurt either.
I don't understand, the ability to keep a player for an additional year before they hit free agency seems to be a fan friendly maneuver. I know I would have loved to have Santana one more year. Same thing with Torii. Starting the clock early on players, especially those that haven't seen AAA yet seems silly unless you're Kirby Puckett or Joe Mauer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwak
This is exactly what I was thinking. As a fan, as a season ticket holder, I am capable of seeing the difference between 2 weeks now and a whole year later. If he's good enough, I want the whole year later. THAT is the fan-friendly move.Quote:
Originally Posted by DelawareTwinsFan
Routinely putting 6 innings onto the bullpen would destroy it especially when you have other question marks.Quote:
Why can't Gibson start 3-5 innings in the majors? What prevents that? They will carry 13 pitchers, why not have Gibson give them good innings here, and not in Rochester?
I highly doubt that the Twins carry 13 pitchers the whole season. That gives them a bench of Buterrible, a utility IF'er and a 4th OF'er.
Kyle Gibson is 25. By the time he is eligible to be a FA, he will be 30+. Many of you are hesitant to even sign a FA pitcher that old. Why are we worried about control? And, the average fan, the ones that push them from 20,000 per night to good numbers per night, they don't care about 2015.
How? If you plan for this, why can't Gibson pitch 3-4 innings, and the stiff you were going to have be your number 5 pitcher pitch the second half of the game? How is 3-4 good innings from Gibson, followed by 3-4 innings from the long reliever or whatever, bad for the bullpen?Quote:
Originally Posted by kab21
Why use Gibson's innings in the minors, where they do the Twins no good?
I think it's safe to say that this is more about Hicks than it is about Gibson.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike wants wins
I was going to make this same point. Gibson is already at his prime years, and probably would have been up early last season if it wasn't for the elbow injury. We were willing to burn a year of team control then, why not now? If he's going to be on a 140 inning limit, what's the point of burning a bunch of those innings at AAA?Quote:
Originally Posted by mike wants wins
And this is not a matter of teams screwing players; it is the procedure set up in the collective bargaining agreement and agreed to by the players' union as well as the owners. Any hard feelings by a young star should be taken up with the team's union rep and then on up through channels, and not focused on the team's front office; if there's a real problem then it can be negotiated at the next CBA. Fans (IMO) can take note but mainly move on to other topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Nygaard