Thread: Article: Are Gibson, Hicks Destined For Rochester?

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

Then I'll be glad he wasn't up with the Twins and hitting a buck-eighty. If "discouragement" is the issue then it may be best for the team to find it out now rather than wait and find that he pouts for other causes too. I suspect in most cases you've "seen quite a few times", the braintrust has not seen what they wanted, or seen something they didn't like, and sent the player down to improve, and hitting .230 in AAA might even bear out their judgement.

You can't be serious about the buck eighty.

The "discouragement" or "disappointment" or whatever you care to call it is well known by the team. There's no one that makes that long walk to the minor league camp that's excited about it. Having been here in spring training since the Twins started here, yes, "I've seen it quite a few times". I've even made part of the walk with a couple players. I just tell them to hang in there, I've seen it before, and I'll see them in Minnesota in a month or two. The last two were Span, and then Plouffe. Sometimes the reasons have been what you've stated. Sometimes other reasons. At times the FO has backed themselves into a corner to play a player, ie Nishioka. TK really liked to bring guys like Reboulet up. Gardy does the same. Once in awhile I think it's just a test, lol. TK did admit he brought up Torri Hunter way to soon, and it took awhile but Torri caught up.

I guess we'll know here in a few weeks what's shakin'.

Originally Posted by DJ Smith

You can't be serious about the buck eighty.

It's not a precise science, but yeah, hitters can easily lose 30 or 40 points of average in transition from AAA to the majors. 50 might be a little bit over the average non-PCL drop. But then you throw in the intangible of a guy with one season above A ball struggling to adjust to his first two-league jump and pressing when he scuffles, and yeah, an MLB equivalency average 50 points below your hypothetical AAA .230 average seems very plausible.

Liked your take on spring training, though. There's definitely a psychological element to the sorting process of spring training, especially when a non-contender has multiple unknown quantities battling for roster spots.

Oh I agree. It was just a hypothetical .230. The buck eighty would never come about, since he can't be in two places at once, is all I meant.

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

The most commonly used phrase against someone you disagree with in sports. I tire of unoriginality and this question in particular is so annoying. Doesn't make the huge difference people make it out to be. You watch him play one game and apparently you become an expert on the player. Just because you claim to have watched him doesn't make any difference. If that was the case, you could never question Gardy's or TR's decisions because I guarantee they have seen Hicks more than any of us. There's a reason we use stats.

LOL ok buddy. That's why baseball scouts are far more important to teams than saber guys... and I'd consider myself a pretty stat heavy guy. I'm done with this thread.

Originally Posted by Badsmerf

Reading box scores from 20 Spring Training AB's tells you he is the best player out of the 3? Have you even seen Hicks play? If you actually think this, then why start his clock before it needs to be? This is insane. Its like you and others think this is a playoff team and the slight upgrade that Hicks would provide for 6 weeks outweighs the future payroll. Again, only an idiot would say saving a few million doesn't matter. It does, and if Hicks does turn out to be pretty good it will be more than a few million. I'm getting sick of this discussion. Hicks hasn't seen an MLB AB and people are already voting him into the All-Star game.

Again, while there are legitimate concerns over whether Hicks is ready for MLB, only an idiot keeps bringing up non-factors like future payroll. People keep saying "a few million doesn't matter" because it doesn't. If you're sick of this discussion, perhaps you should consider not participating in the discussion.

Originally Posted by LaBombo

As for the "paragon" snark about the Rays, well, they certainly are a paragon of both competitiveness and payroll efficiency compared to the Billy Smith-era Twins. In the past 5 seasons the Rays have averaged 91+ wins and made the playoffs three times despite playing in the same division as a team against which the Twins have managed nothing but a decade-long collective pants-wetting.

As a long-time Ray-o-phile, and frustrated with the 21st Century-long Twins futility with the AL East, your words are aptly put. And it isn't really the Twin's futility on the field, it's the inability of the club to take Rays-like organizational steps to become more consistently competitive with the East, especially considering that during most of this era, the Twins have been positioned to carry a larger payroll and had superior competitive advantages to the Rays- in positional talent- and up to more recently, superior pitching talent, as well.

Originally Posted by YourHouseIsMyHouse

My opinion is to keep Hicks in AAA until he proves he's ready to start. There is nothing that screams he's major league ready right now and I think he'll be a strikeout machine if he starts from the season opener on. He had a good, not great year in AA, but it definitely wasn't something to have a guy skip AAA. Plus, it's not like he's strung multiple good years together. The speed and fielding is all probably good enough, but it's the batting I'm worried about. I will be shocked if he does he hits above .235 with a reasonable amount of XBH. The extra year of team control isn't the main reason, but I also think it's another small incentive. Give the job to Benson and see how he can do. He's 25 and it's now or never with him, so we may as well see. I think that's the right move for the future. .

Uhh, if you think Hicks will be a strikeout machine, you'll love the Air Conditioning that Benson would provide to Target Field this spring.

Please consider this a caution to all posters that the word "idiot" is highly charged, and personal attacks violate the TD policy.

This thread has had some great debate between people who totally and passionately disagree. Such debate is an important part of TD. HOWEVER, please keep the debate respectful.

Originally Posted by jokin

As a long-time Ray-o-phile, and frustrated with the 21st Century-long Twins futility with the AL East, your words are aptly put. And it isn't really the Twin's futility on the field, it's the inability of the club to take Rays-like organizational steps to become more consistently competitive with the East, especially considering that during most of this era, the Twins have been positioned to carry a larger payroll and had superior competitive advantages to the Rays- in positional talent- and up to more recently, superior pitching talent, as well.

By your reverence for how the Tampa Rays do business then you ought to love Ryan. The team hea crafted from 2001-2006 averaged only one less win per year than the Tampa team has over the last 5.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Personally... I can't get behind any argument that comes with the implication that 2013 is a lost season before the season has begun.

No matter how realistic that statement may seem to be to some. I hope that decisions are made based upon today and tomorrow.

The question to me is this... Is Hicks much better than Mastro right now? Forget about potential.... We all believe that Hicks is better potentially... What about right now... Is Hicks clearly better right now?

if he is just a little better right now... Wait a little while and let him do some more cooking in Rochester to cement it and preserve the year of team control... If he is a ton better... Let him start opening day in Minnesota.

Hicks had a great year last year but he didn't have the greatest years prior. A little patience won't kill this club to find out what we have before you kill a year for no improvement over Mastro or slight improvement over Mastro.

RB, I'm with you on everthing in your post, sans your opening statements. The club's offseason actions strongly tipped their hand that the bulk of their decision-making is based upon "tomorrow", not "today". Thus, the selling to the public that cutting the payroll another 25% and then celebrating the Correia signing as your headline FA acquisition and stripping the top of your order and your keystone defensive players (with no obvious heir-apparents) for 2 minor league pitchers and a question mark SP, and no effort to bolster other obvious holes as much of your AL Central competition is doing precisely the opposite- is the Twins silent scream: "2013 is a lost season". How else should a loyal fan interpret the current situation?

Originally Posted by The Wise One

By your reverence for how the Tampa Rays do business then you ought to love Ryan. The team hea crafted from 2001-2006 averaged only one less win per year than the Tampa team has over the last 5.

Pick cherries much, TWO?

The team he crafted from 2001-2006 averaged only one less win per year than the Tampa team has over the last 5

Originally Posted by jokin

Pick cherries much, TWO?

If one is going to compare the Rays and the Twins (which would, frankly, make a great separate thread if anyone wants to start it) it seems like those are the years to compare. Both organizations were coming off years of losing, starting with low payroll, struggling to maintain revenues in crummy domed stadiums. It certainly seems like a better comp than comparing the Rays recent success to the Twins last five years, when they were fighting years of success and a farm system that they had about used up.

This could make a great other thread.

Originally Posted by John Bonnes

If one is going to compare the Rays and the Twins (which would, frankly, make a great separate thread if anyone wants to start it) it seems like those are the years to compare. Both organizations were coming off years of losing, starting with low payroll, struggling to maintain revenues in crummy domed stadiums. It certainly seems like a better comp than comparing the Rays recent success to the Twins last five years, when they were fighting years of success and a farm system that they had about used up.

This could make a great other thread.

I've said this for quite some time. I love the Rays and how they operate but let's face it, they've had a good run that is little better than the Twins from 2001-2006 (and the Twins continued to be good off and on after that point). The Rays had years and years and years of #1, 2, and 3 draft picks to assemble their winning team. That helps any forward-thinking team get back into the playoffs.

But now comes the real test. Can they continue to win after picking in the bottom half of the draft, as the Twins did for most of the 2000s?

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I've said this for quite some time. I love the Rays and how they operate but let's face it, they've had a good run that is little better than the Twins from 2001-2006 (and the Twins continued to be good off and on after that point). The Rays had years and years and years of #1, 2, and 3 draft picks to assemble their winning team. That helps any forward-thinking team get back into the playoffs.

But now comes the real test. Can they continue to win after picking in the bottom half of the draft, as the Twins did for most of the 2000s?

KC and Pitt have had the same advantage the Rays had...

This all seems so familiar.....................

Originally Posted by ThePuck

KC and Pitt have had the same advantage the Rays had...

Irrelevant. The Royals and Pirates are poorly managed franchises. Getting high draft picks does not guarantee success. On the other hand, success with high picks does not guarantee continued success as you transition to lower picks, either.

I agree with Brock--things go in cycles. Picking in the top 5 for a few years in a row certainly should help an organization look good.

To the Rays lovers--I understand geographical loyalty. I'm lucky--the nearest Major League team to me is 600 miles away, so I can just pick a team I admire, which happens to be the Twins. I get it--you love your logo but wish it stood for something else. Hang in there--recent history (Sano, Buxton, Meyer, et. al.) seem to suggest the Twins are adopting a more Rays like approach.


This thread has gone pretty well despite the idiot comments. I've honestly been backed off my position that the extra year of cost-control doesn't matter. I still think that if Hicks earns the job he should come north. I don't care what job you have, if you're the best guy for the job, you should be rewarded. It sends a positive message throughout the org that if you work hard you will be rewarded. I'm sorry that hard work can't be quantified easily in some statistic.

And I stand by my premise that the Angels bungled it with Trout. He's the kind of guy that should get a Longoria type contract, maybe even this year, rendering his "cost-control" years moot. The Angels spent a lot of money last year going all in, and perhaps if they hadn't of chiseled Trout out of a few weeks in the majors, they might have made the playoffs.

Originally Posted by Han Joelo

I agree with Brock--things go in cycles. Picking in the top 5 for a few years in a row certainly should help an organization look good.

To the Rays lovers--I understand geographical loyalty. I'm lucky--the nearest Major League team to me is 600 miles away, so I can just pick a team I admire, which happens to be the Twins. I get it--you love your logo but wish it stood for something else. Hang in there--recent history (Sano, Buxton, Meyer, et. al.) seem to suggest the Twins are adopting a more Rays like approach.


This thread has gone pretty well despite the idiot comments. I've honestly been backed off my position that the extra year of cost-control doesn't matter. I still think that if Hicks earns the job he should come north. I don't care what job you have, if you're the best guy for the job, you should be rewarded. It sends a positive message throughout the org that if you work hard you will be rewarded. I'm sorry that hard work can't be quantified easily in some statistic.

And I stand by my premise that the Angels bungled it with Trout. He's the kind of guy that should get a Longoria type contract, maybe even this year, rendering his "cost-control" years moot. The Angels spent a lot of money last year going all in, and perhaps if they hadn't of chiseled Trout out of a few weeks in the majors, they might have made the playoffs.

Trout's rookie year was last year. He's free agent eligible in 2018. So last year and the upcoming 5. 6 years of control, just like most players.

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Trout's rookie year was last year. He's free agent eligible in 2018. So last year and the upcoming 5. 6 years of control, just like most players.

But didn't they gain a "super two" year? You know, I really don't think I know what I'm talking about, so maybe I should quit this thread.

Originally Posted by Han Joelo

But didn't they gain a "super two" year? You know, I really don't think I know what I'm talking about, so maybe I should quit this thread.

Super Two are for players who are arbitration eligible before three years of service. It doesn't affetc years of control but rather years of arbitration. Certain players with less than three years of service time can also become eligible for arbitration, if they meet the following criteria:

● If they have less than three years of service time, but more than two.

● If they rank within the top 22% of all 2-year players in terms of service time.


So if a player finishes a season and is just shy of three years of service time (say, 2 years and 171 days) then MLB will award them Super Two status and they’ll be eligible for arbitration. Since these players are still under team control for another three seasons, that means Super Two players get four year of salary arbitration instead of the typical three.

The Super Two cutoff used to stand at 17%, but got changed to 22% in the new CBA negotiations. This means that if a team wants to keep a player in the minors until after the Super Two cutoff, they will have to keep that player in the minors for even longer than before. Considering that the cutoff used to fall sometime in June — it varied from year to year, as the 17% cutoff isn’t tied to a specific date — it will likely end up being in July going forward.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/ind...ess/super-two/