Thread: Team Control and Hicks

The Twins will have a decision to make about Aaron Hicks and Kyle Gibson.

Do they make the opening day roster?

Waiting until early May will allow them an extra year of team control. They did this with Dozier last year waiting until May 7. Though criticized in an article about opening presents on this site, they did wait long enough. They did risk arbitration a year earlier but did not risk a year of team control. Mid market teams like the Twins can afford to start the arbitration process a year earlier for a super 2.

Should the Twins wait the 3-4 weeks necessary to ensure that Hicks and Gibson will not earn a year of service time? Isn't a full season in their prime better than a month of their rookie season?

Would anyone advocate the Twins wait through the super 2 threshold (likely late June) in order to save some dollars in arbitration?

I think waiting for team control is silly. This team has no veterans at all, and most of the players will not work out. Control is about cost control. If he's awesome, offer him a long term deal next year to lock him up. If he's average, great. If he's bad, whatever. If he is the best OFer on the roster, he should be up here, not in AAA. This team has plenty of money, money is not the issue.

Agree, If they have decent spring trainings, they should make the team. This is the year to find out what we have, not wait till we need them to perform and then they could fail.

To get a full year of service time a player needs to spend 172 days out of the 183 days of the season in the big leagues. Those numbers are pretty easy to figure and the trade off - 12 days in the minors or an extra year of team control - is also quite easy to see. Teams and players know well in advance how that is going to shake out and it's really no surprise teams often keep players down to start the year.

Avoiding the Super-2 status is much trickier. That's based on the service time of the top percentage of players to miss arbitration, so there is a lot of guesswork involved and you could go through the work and guess wrong.

I guess my point is that with Hicks, having not played any AAA, to give him time because he could use it and with Gibson, who is on a limit anyway, to put him on Rochester's DL to start the year. I would call them up when I think they're ready and/or there is a need as long as it's not in the first two weeks of the season. I wouldn't try to time their arbitration clocks, though, because that's less certain.

Even if Hicks makes the team out of ST, it's likely that he will be sent down at some point anyway. It's rare for a rookie not to be sent down. Gibson, I'm not worried about. I think the team should put him in the bullpen right away and make him a starter after the break.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Nygaard

To get a full year of service time a player needs to spend 172 days out of the 183 days of the season in the big leagues. Those numbers are pretty easy to figure and the trade off - 12 days in the minors or an extra year of team control - is also quite easy to see. Teams and players know well in advance how that is going to shake out and it's really no surprise teams often keep players down to start the year.

This.

Oh, and also this.

I would wait till may with both, better to save some money and better for the player to get there work in the early going

I think a GM for any mid-market team would be grossly negligent if he didn't attempt to maximize the assets he has to work with. A full season of Hicks and Gibson in 2013 will be not yet in their prime, and I would not trade a year when they are around 30 in order to get those few more weeks now. If the Twins happen to get off to a hot start, bring them up in May; if they are at 6-12 or some similar level then wait longer and try playing the arbitration game as well, rather than throw good money after bad for the 2013 edition of the team.

If you are going to keep some of your best players at Rochester, how can you either
1. Expect the Twins to have a better season in 2013
2. Grade Gardenhire when you tie his hands with inferior players.


They could start Gibson in Rochester if a couple of Harden and Pelfrey are ready to go. Hicks will gain nothing if he is ready and you send him to Rochester.

I I think everyone would be very happy if Hicks qualified as a Super 2. That would mean he was way to good in spring training to be sent down, and continued to play well.

I thought that your really meant something different with the title (Team control and hicks) which would have been more intriguing than this

my take has always been to take the best 25 up North. It makes for happy players (i.e. the best players are paid MLB $ vs AAA $ and you build a merit based system) and happy fans (they see the best players in the organization.) That said, the hicks who gave Butera a $700K scholarship have other motives in mind.

How much do the Twins pay you? It seems to me the whole purpose of your point is to screw players out of pay raises. Will we the fans see any of this--NO! keeping deserving playes in AAA for an extra month serves to degrade the team's April performance, thus making it more difficult to recover lost ground for the rest of the season. Ever since Gardenhire took over I have watched him f-around with the line-up in April digging a hole that the team has to recover. This policy you advocate is fan hating as much as player hating.

Originally Posted by Kwak

How much do the Twins pay you? It seems to me the whole purpose of your point is to screw players out of pay raises. Will we the fans see any of this--NO! keeping deserving playes in AAA for an extra month serves to degrade the team's April performance, thus making it more difficult to recover lost ground for the rest of the season. Ever since Gardenhire took over I have watched him f-around with the line-up in April digging a hole that the team has to recover. This policy you advocate is fan hating as much as player hating.

Keep them down for the first two weeks to gains a year. There is really not even an argument here. It just makes good business sense. The only way I see you bringing Hicks up to start the year is if he hits .600 with five bombs and 15 stolen bases in spring training. The guy has never played a AAA game!!

This is pretty straight forward:

It would be irresponsible NOT to take advantage of an extra year of team control. Two weeks is an insignificant portion of the season.

It would also be irresponsible TO mess around with the arbritration deadline. Both because it is inexact and involves guesswork, and because ~The end of June IS a significant portion of the season.

Also think of it this way. A year of control of a player is potentially worth quite a bit. One or two million dollars lost in arbritation can only be worth that dollar amount. It's pretty clear where the cost/benifit analysis leads here.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Nygaard

To get a full year of service time a player needs to spend 172 days out of the 183 days of the season in the big leagues. Those numbers are pretty easy to figure and the trade off - 12 days in the minors or an extra year of team control - is also quite easy to see. Teams and players know well in advance how that is going to shake out and it's really no surprise teams often keep players down to start the year.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I don't care about the 4th year of arbitration, but the Twins (and all teams do it wisely) should absolutely care about getting another season rather than an extra couple of weeks.

Joe A. Preusser:

It would be irresponsible NOT to take advantage of an extra year of team control. Two weeks is an insignificant portion of the season.

Well put. Anything can happen in a two week or a one month sample.

Some well-known examples of guys who spent time in the minors unnecessarily: Evan Longoria (who fell two days short of a year of service time), David Price (eight days short) and Matt Wieters (who spent two months in the minors to put off arbitration by a year).

One example of a player that could have spent two weeks in the minors and had free agency (and a $23 million year) pushed back a year: Joe Mauer.

Originally Posted by Joe A. Preusser

Also think of it this way. A year of control of a player is potentially worth quite a bit. One or two million dollars lost in arbritation can only be worth that dollar amount. It's pretty clear where the cost/benifit analysis leads here.

I looked and can't find it now, but there was a big to-do when Matt Wieters was sent down to start the season. I remember reading something that basically said missing arbitration and having free agency pushed back a year cost Wieters somewhere around $20 million over the life of his career. Or in the Orioles case, saved them $20 million over the life of his career.

I would guess that Mauer's situation would have been similar.

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

I think waiting for team control is silly. This team has no veterans at all, and most of the players will not work out. Control is about cost control. If he's awesome, offer him a long term deal next year to lock him up. If he's average, great. If he's bad, whatever. If he is the best OFer on the roster, he should be up here, not in AAA. This team has plenty of money, money is not the issue.

If money is not the issue why do we have such a poor starting rotation. The Twins could have become competitive in 2013 with better FA's.

Originally Posted by Top Gun

I would wait till may with both, better to save some money and better for the player to get there work in the early going

This would be a great idea if the Twins would actually have any intention of spending money.

Same poster who creates threads claiming the Twins brass are racist in their signings and Dick Bremer racist for saying Delmon Young was once property of the Twins, now says the Twins are hicks. Isn't that derogatory for poor, white, rural people? Wow, that's racist. Am I offended? No. But then again, I'm not real good at race-baiting.