Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Article: The Twins Should Extend Odorizzi, Not Gibson

jake odorizzi kyle gibson
  • Please log in to reply
149 replies to this topic

#21 rdehring

rdehring

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,037 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 07:55 AM

Interesting.But I still prefer to sign Gibby to an extension.If it is more expensive, so be it.As many have stated, the Twins have the space to do it.  

 

Hadn't thought of extending Odorizzi, and it does make some sense.If several of the young studs perform as hoped for, he could always be a nice trade piece in July of this year or next.

  • DocBauer and Original Whizzinator like this

#22 KGB

KGB

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 509 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 08:09 AM

 

Interesting.But I still prefer to sign Gibby to an extension.If it is more expensive, so be it.As many have stated, the Twins have the space to do it.  

 

Hadn't thought of extending Odorizzi, and it does make some sense.If several of the young studs perform as hoped for, he could always be a nice trade piece in July of this year or next.

What do you think his trade value would be?You picked him up last year for a marginal minor league player when he had 2 years of team control.Last year was a continuation of his downward slide and he would be more expensive with the extension.


#23 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,459 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 08:25 AM

I get that you are banking on the fact Odo has figured something out just like Gibson seemed to the end of 2016 but his not being able to handle the lineup the third time through kind of scares me.If you are right and he becomes Gibson 2 that sounds like a great deal.If he remains the same or regresses it seems like an overpay.

 

Based on your stats and if they truly can get him to sign a 3/30 contract it might be a risk worth taking.My gut says no but head says maybe.I guess it depends on how much you believe in Odo's end of the year stats and if they will transfer to next year and beyond.

  • DocBauer likes this

#24 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 13,310 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 19 December 2018 - 08:51 AM

Item 3 is probably the reason why you do it. If the twins think that turnaround is for real, then I think they should do it. If not, I'd pass. Of course, on the flip side, I'm sure Jake is well aware of his second half turnaround too and if he and his agent thinks it's repeatable, I doubt you get too much discount. There's always that injury risk, so something both Jake and Kyle would have weigh if they get extended....

 

That said, didn't realize Gibby's WHIP was so high. He's a ground ball pitcher, is he not? So doesn't that tend to lead to higher strand rates and DPs?

  • Original Whizzinator likes this

#25 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:04 AM

I don't understand the obsession with making multi-year commitments, especially to pitchers. I'd understand it if the pitcher could also make a commitment to perform at the same level each year, but...

 

You make a long-term commitment to a player because you HAVE to in order to retain his services, right? Unless you feel that Odor Easy gives you a better chance in 2020 than all your other options for that #5 slot, which would be a sad indictment IMO, you part ways. 

 

To these untrained and statistically meh eyes, he's a dull 5-inning starter who often strains your pen. I'm not sure we're not better off, right now even, with starts from Mejia, Gonsalves and Stewart. And I wouldn't even place a bet that he has a better 2020 than Thorpe, Littell, or De Jong, and I'll take my chances on the emergence in 2021 of someone like Graterol, Alcala, and Wells.

 

And if each and every one of my internal options fails to be an improvement over Odor Easy, I'm finding someone via trade or FA for that 5th spot because guys like him are basically always out there if your professional scouts are doing their jobs.

  • Mike Sixel, TheLeviathan, Hosken Bombo Disco and 3 others like this

#26 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Opener Poster

  • Members
  • 11,834 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:12 AM

I don't understand the obsession with making multi-year commitments, especially to pitchers. I'd understand it if the pitcher could also make a commitment to perform at the same level each year, but...

You make a long-term commitment to a player because you HAVE to in order to retain his services, right? Unless you feel that Odor Easy give you a better chance in 2020 than all your other options for that #5 slot, which would be a sad indictment IMO, you part ways.

To these untrained and statistically meh eyes, he's a dull 5-inning starter who often strains your pen. I'm not sure we're not better off, right now even, with starts from Mejia, Gonsalves and Stewart. And I wouldn't even place a bet that he has a better 2020 than Thorpe, Littell, or De Jong, and I'll take my chances on the emergence in 2021 of someone like Graterol, Alcala, and Wells.

And if each and every one of my internal options fails to be an improvement over Odor Easy, I'm finding someone via trade or FA for that 5th spot because guys like him are basically always out there if your professional scouts are doing their jobs.


I'd love a multi year commitment, but not for pitchers like Odorizzi. I concur 100% with you that pitchers like Odorizzi are available every season. No reason to lock him in.

Totally separate note that you didn't comment about... I don't buy Odorizzi as a solid sell candidate either. The Twins gave up very little to get him for 2 years. Why would anyone give the Twins value for less than 1 year of Odorizzi?
  • mikelink45 and Tomj14 like this

#27 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,160 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:20 AM

You also make longer commitments to reduce uncertainty. If you have a roster of guys who can leave, it's pretty hard to plan for the future.

To answer Nick, if I thought he'd have an era under four for the next few years, of course I'd sign him. But if anyone thought that, it would take more than palacios to acquire him.
  • birdwatcher, Twins33 and TheLeviathan like this

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#28 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,935 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:28 AM

I also don't understand the logic behind sending a better player back to AAA because of some contract obligation. First of all, I'm limiting those obligations as much as possible, again especially to pitchers. But if I have to cut bait with a guy with a contract to make room for a rookie who is ready to cut his teeth, I eat the salary and trade for the best low minors prospect I can get. It's part of why I want some "flexibility" with my payroll budget.

 

So sure, sign him to a team-friendly contract through 2021 if you have minimal faith in your five B grade pitching prospects who are all on the cusp, and if you can't or don't want to sign Pineda and/or Gibson to retain their services, and if for some reason you think the FA market won't bear fruit, and if you think Graterol and Alcala and Wells and Enlow are mirages, and if you doubt anyone will part with a better solution in exchange for your surplus player assets on the 25-man or below. If all that happens, I'm cheering for Mr. Sixel's new Portland franchise in 2020.

 

Don't give him a no-trade clause and be quick to trade him when a better alternative is available. Please.


#29 caninatl04

caninatl04

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Members
  • 709 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:29 AM

Here's the rub though, how does Gibson respond to an extension for Odorizzi and not himself?


He'll pitch as best he can as he'll be pitching / auditioning for 29 potential employers.
  • beckmt, adorduan, ChrisKnutson and 2 others like this

#30 rdehring

rdehring

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,037 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:36 AM

 

What do you think his trade value would be?You picked him up last year for a marginal minor league player when he had 2 years of team control.Last year was a continuation of his downward slide and he would be more expensive with the extension.

Not a clue.But when looking at what we got for Lynn and others this past July, would have to think it would be a couple lower level prospects. 


#31 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 3,789 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:38 AM

 

So two down years projects to be better next year by reverting to career totals that make it appear more attractive? And a turning the corner year gets the same treatment in the other direction? I'm not buying. Trending performance means a lot more to me, and I hope it does to the new manager, too.

Overrating or overvaluing recent trends is the biggest mistake a team can make with long-term decision-making IMO (haven't we learned that by now?). Odorizzi's track record speaks for itself and -- again -- his "two down years" are better than Gibson's career baseline. So you don't really need to contort any stats to make this case, you have just have to be honest and objective in your assessment.

 

The difference between the two careers is that Gibson's successful runs have been outliers, whereas the opposite has been true for Odo.

 

 

If you commit 2-3 years to a guy performing at or near replacement level, it makes it harder to replace him if/when a better choice comes along. Say the Twins sign him through 2021. And he slots in the 4/5 spot. What happens when you want to bring up a pitching prospect but have no room because your worst starter is guaranteed millions? You have to most likely send down a pitcher better than Odorizzi to make room. And that’s not how to build sustainability. You should always be looking to improve your weakest links. That’s how you get better.

Odorizzi has been worth 2+ WAR in four of the last five years. If you're worried about the Twins being overloaded with internal guys that can match or surpass that in the next 3 seasons... well... I admire your optimism. This team has ZERO starters locked in with guaranteed deals past 2019, and Odorizzi has solid fallback potential as a reliever, so I have zero concern about what you're mentioning here.

 

  • Mike Sixel, beckmt, Dman and 1 other like this

#32 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 3,789 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:43 AM

 

Nick, did you just cite being the worse pitcher in baseball the 3rd time through as a reason to extent Odorizzi? Accumulating marginal starters that are willing to open or bullpen has become a goal? 

He's a good arm. The goal is to collect good arms and maximize their positive impact. The flip side of those poor numbers during his third trip through the lineup is that he is extremely good his first two times through. 

 

The notion being stated by some here that "pitchers like Odorizzi are available to the Twins every offseason" is wild to me. You've all seen this team's outcome with free agent pitchers... right?

  • Mike Sixel, Twins33, beckmt and 6 others like this

#33 SomeGuy

SomeGuy

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:44 AM

I want to point out the first bullet point on the list.Gibson is just as durable as Odorizzi so its not like Odorizzi has a leg up on him in the category. Saying Odorizzi has less innings doesn't necessarily translate to less pitches. Gibson has only pitched one more MLB game in his career than Odorizzi, 159 to 158 (that is games started, Odorizzi has technically pitched 161 games if you count non starts).Odorizzi is notorious for reaching his "pitch count" early in the game.

 

Since the article focuses on 2014 to 2018 and Orodizzi's 28+ games lets compare Gibson for the same stretch.Odorizzi threw 832.2 innings in 152 games.That is about 5.47 innings per game.Gibson has thrown 3 less games in that stretch but 876 innings, about 5.88 innings per game.

 

EDIT:Gibson has thrown 15,432 pitches to Odorizzi's 15,317.Gibson has thrown 115 more pitches. 

 

  • Original Whizzinator likes this

#34 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,160 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:46 AM

He's a good arm. The goal is to collect good arms and maximize their positive impact. The flip side of those poor numbers during his third trip through the lineup is that he is extremely good his first two times through.

The notion being stated by some here that "pitchers like Odorizzi are available to the Twins every offseason" is wild to me. You've all seen this team's outcome with free agent pitchers... right?


Those outcomes come from bad decisions, and being frugal. Good pitchers are available.

That said, you are close to convincing me to consider your idea.
  • birdwatcher and Original Whizzinator like this

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#35 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 3,789 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:46 AM

 

To answer Nick, if I thought he'd have an era under four for the next few years, of course I'd sign him. But if anyone thought that, it would take more than palacios to acquire him.

His career ERA is under 4 and he's still only 28 so I'm not sure what reason there would be to NOT expect that, especially if you take some steps to limit instances of letting the lineup roll over twice against him.

  • TheLeviathan, Sconnie and howieramone2 like this

#36 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:46 AM

I also don't understand the logic behind sending a better player back to AAA because of some contract obligation. First of all, I'm limiting those obligations as much as possible, again especially to pitchers. But if I have to cut bait with a guy with a contract to make room for a rookie who is ready to cut his teeth, I eat the salary and trade for the best low minors prospect I can get. It's part of why I want some "flexibility" with my payroll budget.

So sure, sign him to a team-friendly contract through 2021 if you have minimal faith in your five B grade pitching prospects who are all on the cusp, and if you can't or don't want to sign Pineda and/or Gibson to retain their services, and if for some reason you think the FA market won't bear fruit, and if you think Graterol and Alcala and Wells and Enlow are mirages, and if you doubt anyone will part with a better solution in exchange for your surplus player assets on the 25-man or below. If all that happens, I'm cheering for Mr. Sixel's new Portland franchise in 2020.



Maybe you do that. The bottom line is that given how long it took the Twins to eat Phil Hughes’ salary, it is clear Jim Pohlad doesn’t easily do that. And it’s ultimately his call, as I’m sure the Hughes decision was.

#37 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,160 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:48 AM

Maybe you do that. The bottom line is that given how long it took the Twins to eat Phil Hughes’ salary, it is clear Jim Pohlad doesn’t easily do that. And it’s ultimately his call, as I’m sure the Hughes decision was.


Not only that, they traded a valuable draft pick to do so.... Which makes no sense if you entire strategy is to build thru the draft nearly exclusively.

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#38 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,160 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:49 AM

His career ERA is under 4 and he's still only 28 so I'm not sure what reason there would be to NOT expect that, especially if you take some steps to limit instances of letting the lineup roll over twice against him.


I'll try again.... If teams thought this, why wasn't he traded for top prospects? Multiple.

It's IL now, btw, not DL.....


#39 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 3,789 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:49 AM

 

Those outcomes come from bad decisions, and being frugal. Good pitchers are available.

That said, you are close to convincing me to consider your idea.

Good pitchers don't always want to sign here. The Twins actually have leverage in negotiating with Odorizzi, and don't have to compete with 29 other clubs (unless they wait).

 

I think some folks tend to underrate the difficulty of luring quality players here (which I believe contributed to the fast action on Cron and Schoop). It's not just about being frugal. And in any case, committing $10M to your 4th/5th SP won't prevent you from doing anything on the market.

  • beckmt likes this

#40 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 5,073 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:51 AM

He's a good arm. The goal is to collect good arms and maximize their positive impact. The flip side of those poor numbers during his third trip through the lineup is that he is extremely good his first two times through.

The notion being stated by some here that "pitchers like Odorizzi are available to the Twins every offseason" is wild to me. You've all seen this team's outcome with free agent pitchers... right?


Just because this team hasn’t picked good free agent pitchers, doesn’t mean they weren’t out there.

As Mike said, if the Rays - or any other team - thought Odorizzi was going to continue with a sub 4 ERA, it would have taken more than Palacios to get him.

In principle, committing to your # 4 or 5 starter long term makes zero sense to me. This is the slot you should be trying to constantly upgrade.
  • Vanimal46 likes this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: jake odorizzi, kyle gibson