Thread: Lots of good reports about Kyle Gibson...

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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.

Originally Posted by Steve Lein

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.

Originally Posted by LaBombo

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.

Originally Posted by LaBombo

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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.

Originally Posted by kab21

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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?

Originally Posted by Kwak

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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?

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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.

Originally Posted by LaBombo

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.

Originally Posted by LaBombo

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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.

Originally Posted by glunn

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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...

Originally Posted by Steve Lein

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

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.

Ashbury John... Congrats on reaching 1000 posts... 847 of them were good posts.