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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaBombo
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.
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.
What if, "what's best for the team" is that additional year of control?
Why is that not even being considered a possibility?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Ashbury John... Congrats on reaching 1000 posts... 847 of them were good posts.