Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55

Thread: Scholarship expiring?

  1. #21
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,132
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,606 Times in 833 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    I know you can bring back the word filters.... do it. do it. do it.
    This software doesn't support word filters, only censoring.

    If word filters existed, scholarship would have been replaced.

  2. #22
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,132
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,606 Times in 833 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    Except Gardenhire used the term first, not us.......

    "We're going to try to fit our team," Gardenhire said nearly a month ago. "We're away from the scholarships. No more scholarships because we don't have anybody else. You earn it, or you don't earn it. Scholarship program's out."


    from Mackey on 1500.....
    I realize Gardenhire used the word. That has little to do with the incessant trumpeting of it on these forums since that point, almost exclusively used in the negative.

    If you want to argue the legitimacy of a player on the roster, feel free to do it. If you feel the need to accompany that argument with small-minded rhetoric and catch-phrases to repeatedly bang the same drum to the point of irritation, don't expect me to like it.

    In short, argue smarter, not buzz-wordier.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    I realize Gardenhire used the word. That has little to do with the incessant trumpeting of it on these forums since that point, almost exclusively used in the negative.
    Yeah. A throwaway line in spring training (and not even this most recent one, if I recall) has been treated a kind of weird oral contract between Gardenhire and us, the loyal fans, amongst folks who need to rope some conspiracy of disaster around the front office and field staff instead of just participating in normal "this player sucks" fan kvetching.

    In Diamond's case, "scholarship" means that Gardenhire and Ryan have promised to keep the express lane to Rochester moving even for pre-arb pitchers who gave us 173 innings of 3.93 xFIP pitching last year. Why consider the possibility that Diamond will improve when there are people to be punished for our bad team in 2011?

  4. #24
    Senior Member All-Star Boom Boom's Avatar
    Posts
    1,091
    Like
    10
    Liked 214 Times in 100 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    I realize Gardenhire used the word. That has little to do with the incessant trumpeting of it on these forums since that point, almost exclusively used in the negative.

    If you want to argue the legitimacy of a player on the roster, feel free to do it. If you feel the need to accompany that argument with small-minded rhetoric and catch-phrases to repeatedly bang the same drum to the point of irritation, don't expect me to like it.

    In short, argue smarter, not buzz-wordier.
    Gardenhire himself used it in the negative. We're talking about professional athletes, not college kids, so the traditional definition of "scholarship" doesn't apply.

    It's not just Gardenhire who used it, and it's not just the fans who repeat it. Google "Twins scholarships" and you'll get articles going back to spring training of 2012 from legitimate sports reporters.

  5. #25
    Gibson has been good at AAA, nowhere approaching elite. He's striking out a fair number of hitters and getting a lot of ground balls. In the past two months, he's made 3 starts against teams with OPS over .740. One of those was the shutout against Lehigh Valley. The other two? Another vs Lehigh and one versus Durham. A total of 9 IP, 15 hits, 4 walks and 10 runs (9 strikeouts). He's done well against poor hitting lineups. When faced with better hitting lineups? He's gotten nocked around a bit. This doesn't bode well for his big league fortunes.

  6. #26
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,689
    Like
    3
    Liked 337 Times in 214 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by LoganJones View Post
    Gibson has been good at AAA, nowhere approaching elite. He's striking out a fair number of hitters and getting a lot of ground balls. In the past two months, he's made 3 starts against teams with OPS over .740. One of those was the shutout against Lehigh Valley. The other two? Another vs Lehigh and one versus Durham. A total of 9 IP, 15 hits, 4 walks and 10 runs (9 strikeouts). He's done well against poor hitting lineups. When faced with better hitting lineups? He's gotten nocked around a bit. This doesn't bode well for his big league fortunes.
    This is pretty extreme cherry-picking. You identified 3 starts out of 9 that meet your criteria, you discarded Gibson's shutout from those 3, and determined that he fared poorly in the remaining two. And this means what, exactly?

    Against the best team OPS in the league (Buffalo), Gibson has a total line this season of 11.2 IP, 6 H, 1 R, 2 BB, 11 SO. Is that two start sample more or less informative than your two start sample?

    I don't think I'd call Gibson "elite" either, but frankly I don't think he is/was an "elite" type prospect so I don't think that's the right bar to use. I think he's always projected as a #2-3 type, more like Scott Baker. And his AAA rate stats right now are tracking pretty close to Baker's.

  7. #27
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,132
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,606 Times in 833 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by spycake View Post
    I don't think I'd call Gibson "elite" either, but frankly I don't think he is/was an "elite" type prospect so I don't think that's the right bar to use. I think he's always projected as a #2-3 type, more like Scott Baker. And his AAA rate stats right now are tracking pretty close to Baker's.
    That's just it. Gibson is largely regarded to project as a good #3, decent #2 if the stars align for the guy.

    If you're waiting for pure domination, you're not going to get it from the guy. So let's just put that dog to bed and start being reasonable with our expectations.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by spycake View Post
    This is pretty extreme cherry-picking. You identified 3 starts out of 9 that meet your criteria, you discarded Gibson's shutout from those 3, and determined that he fared poorly in the remaining two. And this means what, exactly?

    Against the best team OPS in the league (Buffalo), Gibson has a total line this season of 11.2 IP, 6 H, 1 R, 2 BB, 11 SO. Is that two start sample more or less informative than your two start sample?

    I don't think I'd call Gibson "elite" either, but frankly I don't think he is/was an "elite" type prospect so I don't think that's the right bar to use. I think he's always projected as a #2-3 type, more like Scott Baker. And his AAA rate stats right now are tracking pretty close to Baker's.
    It's not cherry picking at all. It's pointing out that his consistency is closely tied to the quality of his opposition. When he's struggled, it's generally been at the hands of better hitting. When he gets here, he's going to face lineups that would have ops in the .790-.850 range at AAA. Until he can have more consistent results, irrespective of his opposition, there's no point in bringing him up here to get shelled.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    That's just it. Gibson is largely regarded to project as a good #3, decent #2 if the stars align for the guy.

    If you're waiting for pure domination, you're not going to get it from the guy. So let's just put that dog to bed and start being reasonable with our expectations.
    Then there's no point in bringing him up this year. He won't provide any value, and will burn a year of service time sitting on the bench (since they're going to shut him down at 160). A 2-3 starter is valuable at his pay rate, if he makes 30 starts. Not if he makes 7.

  10. #30
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,132
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,606 Times in 833 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by LoganJones View Post
    Then there's no point in bringing him up this year. He won't provide any value, and will burn a year of service time sitting on the bench (since they're going to shut him down at 160). A 2-3 starter is valuable at his pay rate, if he makes 30 starts. Not if he makes 7.
    He doesn't burn a year of anything. We're well past the cutoff for adding a year of service time. Hell, we're past the Super 2 deadline. There is no service time or financial argument to be made at this point.

    And why won't 5-7 MLB starts provide any value? Gibson can use the experience and the rotation has been mostly awful again this year.

    Get the kid prepared for 2014 and that's one less free agent the team has to sign in the offseason.

  11. #31
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,232
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    He doesn't burn a year of anything. We're well past the cutoff for adding a year of service time. Hell, we're past the Super 2 deadline. There is no service time or financial argument to be made at this point.

    And why won't 5-7 MLB starts provide any value? Gibson can use the experience and the rotation has been mostly awful again this year.

    Get the kid prepared for 2014 and that's one less free agent the team has to sign in the offseason.
    exactly!

  12. #32
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    4,011
    Like
    104
    Liked 394 Times in 208 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    Get the kid prepared for 2014 and that's one less free agent the team has to sign in the offseason.
    They are going to pencil Gibson into the 2014 rotation regardless.

  13. #33
    Please ban me! All-Star stringer bell's Avatar
    Posts
    3,588
    Like
    199
    Liked 540 Times in 350 Posts
    Blog Entries
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by LoganJones View Post
    Then there's no point in bringing him up this year. He won't provide any value, and will burn a year of service time sitting on the bench (since they're going to shut him down at 160). A 2-3 starter is valuable at his pay rate, if he makes 30 starts. Not if he makes 7.
    Except, Logan, that a partial season at this point will cost NOTHING, either in terms of arbitration eligibility or free agency. I think a tour around the league and the player "getting a taste" of his future team is worth it. He's certainly got a higher ceiling than anyone in the rotation and he's almost 26.

    Edit: I didn't see Brock's posting about service time. Sorry for the redundancy.
    Last edited by stringer bell; 06-21-2013 at 12:19 PM.

  14. #34
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,132
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,606 Times in 833 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    They are going to pencil Gibson into the 2014 rotation regardless.
    Then it makes even more sense to get him in the rotation now.

  15. #35
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    699
    Twitter
    @LoganTibbits
    Like
    498
    Liked 203 Times in 123 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Since we're talking hypothetical here, say we call Gibson up and he gives us 5-7 starts, and the Twins end up winning those starts and we somehow get into the playoffs by 1 game. Do those starts provide any value?

  16. #36
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    4,011
    Like
    104
    Liked 394 Times in 208 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    Then it makes even more sense to get him in the rotation now.
    I'm pretty confident he will be up within the next week or two regardless. People need to calm down a bit, if we are having this conversation in a month, then I would be pissed.

    Oddly enough I think they are trying to "audition" Pelfrey at this point, I read on MLBtraderumors earlier that there was a team looking at him.

    Also have the Twins publicly said how many innings they are limiting him too? I can't remember.

  17. #37
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,132
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    49
    Liked 1,606 Times in 833 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post
    I'm pretty confident he will be up within the next week or two regardless. People need to calm down a bit, if we are having this conversation in a month, then I would be pissed.

    Oddly enough I think they are trying to "audition" Pelfrey at this point, I read on MLBtraderumors earlier that there was a team looking at him.

    Also have the Twins publicly said how many innings they are limiting him too? I can't remember.
    To be clear, I'm not up in arms about Gibson... Yet. I haven't been up in arms about a promotion since the Bartlett fiasco, though Slama got close at one point.

    But if he's not up here in 2-3 weeks... Then yeah, I'm gonna be pretty pissed.

  18. #38
    Senior Member All-Star SpiritofVodkaDave's Avatar
    Posts
    4,011
    Like
    104
    Liked 394 Times in 208 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    though Slama got close at one point.
    lol

  19. #39
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,369
    Like
    1,324
    Liked 1,296 Times in 750 Posts
    I think there's an echo in here. I thought I read that first paragraph of Dave's about a month ago though not necessarily from Dave.

  20. #40
    Senior Member All-Star IdahoPilgrim's Avatar
    Posts
    2,421
    Like
    2
    Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave View Post

    Also have the Twins publicly said how many innings they are limiting him too? I can't remember.
    No, not directly, which is why all this 130-inning limit talk is iffy at best. Mackay did report this winter that he was told there would be a 130-140 inning limit, but since then there has been nothing - certainly nothing like we heard last year about Strasberg in Washington, where it was said continuously and very publicly that this is the limit.

    My guess is they'll let him pitch as long as he is effective and is showing no signs of wear, and once they get past 140 they'll just be extra sensitive to shutting him down if it looks like he's fading.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.