Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Keith Law and his thoughts on Kyle Gibson PART DEUX

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 13,304 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:09 AM

Since the Twins are unlikely to contend next year, I would hope that they start him in Rochester where there is a lot less pressure. If he can perform there, then maybe Deduno gets sent down. :D


It won't be Deduno since he's already off the 40 man roster. He would have to make an incredibly strong case.

Don't get me wrong. Gibson's AFL performance was very solid considering the hitter friendliness of the league and the most important thing for him was eating innings. If I'm correct, I think Liriano pitched in the Dominican League right after the New Year for a little bit and dominated.

#22 Cody Christie

Cody Christie

    Twins Contributor

  • Twins Writers
  • 1,071 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:35 AM

Good to know his stuff is ready but the Twins are still aren't going to throw him into the rotation at the beginning of the year. He will start in the bullpen or in Rochester.

#23 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 16,611 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:14 AM

Why not in the bullpen in Minnesota? How is pitching in the minors less stressful?

#24 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,954 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:20 AM

Why not in the bullpen in Minnesota? How is pitching in the minors less stressful?


Yeah, this is what I want. Get him used to the majors like they did with Santana and Liriano. They can move him into the rotation in June and still limit him to 130 or so innings.

#25 Linus

Linus

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,532 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:27 AM

If I'm the Twins, I start him in Rochester for two reasons: they want to limit his innings, and to not start the clock on his service time. Bring him up in June or whatever the timeframe is and we get an extra year of control, which could be huge if he turns out to be a quality MLB starter.

#26 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,954 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:03 AM

If I'm the Twins, I start him in Rochester for two reasons: they want to limit his innings, and to not start the clock on his service time. Bring him up in June or whatever the timeframe is and we get an extra year of control, which could be huge if he turns out to be a quality MLB starter.


Two things,
1) The Twins will still count his AAA innings. He'll be on a 130-150 inning limit and it won't matter where he throws those innings.
2) He's 25. We'll have control of him through his age 31 season, no matter what.

#27 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 15,768 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:21 AM

I don't think it matters whether he starts in Rochester or Minnesota but I'd prefer Rochester. If he starts there, that means the Twins have actually picked up some arms this offseason and won't have to rely on Kyle out of the gate. Plus, it will allow him to build up more arm strength/control in a setting where the pressure will undoubtedly be lower.

Either way, being disappointed one way or the other is premature. Kyle still has several months of rehab and innings in ST before the Twins need to make this decision.

#28 TwinsFanInPhilly

TwinsFanInPhilly

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 133 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:03 AM

Good to know his stuff is ready but the Twins are still aren't going to throw him into the rotation at the beginning of the year. He will start in the bullpen or in Rochester.


Is this fact or speculation/opinion?

#29 ALessKosherScott

ALessKosherScott

    Member

  • Members
  • 353 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:12 AM

Now all the front office needs to do is uncover a breakthrough in cloning technology.


They did about five years ago, but sadly it only works with Carlos Silva.

#30 AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 399 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:26 AM

Now all the front office needs to do is uncover a breakthrough in cloning technology.


They did about five years ago, but sadly it only works with Carlos Silva.


This seriously made my day. Priceless.

#31 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 15,768 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:29 AM

Now all the front office needs to do is uncover a breakthrough in cloning technology.


They did about five years ago, but sadly it only works with Carlos Silva.


Fantastic.

#32 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:41 PM

If I'm the Twins, I start him in Rochester for two reasons: they want to limit his innings, and to not start the clock on his service time. Bring him up in June or whatever the timeframe is and we get an extra year of control, which could be huge if he turns out to be a quality MLB starter.


Two things,
1) The Twins will still count his AAA innings. He'll be on a 130-150 inning limit and it won't matter where he throws those innings.
2) He's 25. We'll have control of him through his age 31 season, no matter what.


I believe that's another reason the Twins are, IN MY OPINION, a bit slow to promote...wait till they are 24, 25 (or older), you get all their prime years...it's a business thing.

#33 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,954 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:04 PM

[quote name='ThePuck'][quote name='gunnarthor'][quote name='Linus']If I'm the Twins, I start him in Rochester for two reasons: they want to limit his innings, and to not start the clock on his service time. Bring him up in June or whatever the timeframe is and we get an extra year of control, which could be huge if he turns out to be a quality MLB starter.[/QUOTE]

Two things,
1) The Twins will still count his AAA innings. He'll be on a 130-150 inning limit and it won't matter where he throws those innings.
2) He's 25. We'll have control of him through his age 31 season, no matter what.[/QUOTE]

I believe that's another reason the Twins are, IN MY OPINION, a bit slow to promote...wait till they are 24, 25 (or older), you get all their prime years...it's a business thing.[/QUOTE]

Maybe. But in fairness to the Twins, Gibson would've been called up at 23 if he hadn't needed TJ surgery.

#34 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:10 PM

Maybe. But in fairness to the Twins, Gibson would've been called up at 23 if he hadn't needed TJ surgery.

.

Probably...but out of pure necessity (like they did with Revere)...not because it was the ideal time to do so. Gibson's numbers weren't overwhelming though. On the bright side, the old reliable excuse of defense not being up to par as an excuse to keep a player down is harder to use for pitchers. Garza was another that flew up...but then got in hot water cause he was a strikeout pitcher and he didn't want to conform to the pitching style we have :-)

There are some people who are always eager to give the Twins management the benefit of the doubt...not saying you are one, but there are some that just purely find a way to defend team's management to the bitter end. How can anyone not see that there's obviously something wrong with the drafting, development and philosophy of pitching we have (the philosophy being what drives the type we've drafted and how we've developed them)

Edited by ThePuck, 16 November 2012 - 02:14 PM.


#35 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 15,768 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:25 PM

There are some people who are always eager to give the Twins management the benefit of the doubt...not saying you are one, but there are some that just purely find a way to defend team's management to the bitter end. How can anyone not see that there's obviously something wrong with the drafting, development and philosophy of pitching we have (the philosophy being what drives the type we've drafted and how we've developed them)


Who on Twins Daily defends the Twins' drafting and development of pitching? I sure haven't seen 'em.

#36 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,954 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:26 PM

There are some people who are always eager to give the Twins management the benefit of the doubt...not saying you are one, but there are some that just purely find a way to defend team's management to the bitter end. How can anyone not see that there's obviously something wrong with the drafting, development and philosophy of pitching we have (the philosophy being what drives the type we've drafted and how we've developed them)


Clearly, the team did something right. Jim Callis of BA ranked the Twins minor league system the 3rd best of the 2000s. No one is perfect but I'm more of the cyclical camp than anything else. You draft low every year and ownership puts financial muzzles in place, it'll eventually affect you.

As to pitching, the team did change course when Deron Johnson took over the drafts. He drafted a lot of hard throwers where Radcliffe might have drafted focusing more on control guys. It's still open to see whether that change was good. However, the idea that the Twins are scared of strike out pitchers is absurdly stupid.

#37 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:38 PM

As to pitching, the team did change course when Deron Johnson took over the drafts. He drafted a lot of hard throwers where Radcliffe might have drafted focusing more on control guys. It's still open to see whether that change was good. However, the idea that the Twins are scared of strike out pitchers is absurdly stupid.


I don't remember saying anything about them being scared of strikeout pitchers. I find it absurdly stupid you read what I wrote and thought that's what I said.

I will say this though. Strikeout pitchers are more expensive to draft and keep if they work out...pitch to contact guys are, for the most part, less expensive...and you need to have strong defenders behind them...say, glove first guys in the middle infield...the inexpensive type of middle IFs...The kind of players a team under a budget would target.

And the team did do something right in the early part of the 2000s...that's nice...that was then. I'm referring to now...

Edited by ThePuck, 16 November 2012 - 02:41 PM.


#38 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:40 PM


There are some people who are always eager to give the Twins management the benefit of the doubt...not saying you are one, but there are some that just purely find a way to defend team's management to the bitter end. How can anyone not see that there's obviously something wrong with the drafting, development and philosophy of pitching we have (the philosophy being what drives the type we've drafted and how we've developed them)


Who on Twins Daily defends the Twins' drafting and development of pitching? I sure haven't seen 'em.


See the post right below yours

#39 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 15,768 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:56 PM

[quote name='ThePuck'][quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='ThePuck']
There are some people who are always eager to give the Twins management the benefit of the doubt...not saying you are one, but there are some that just purely find a way to defend team's management to the bitter end. How can anyone not see that there's obviously something wrong with the drafting, development and philosophy of pitching we have (the philosophy being what drives the type we've drafted and how we've developed them)[/QUOTE]

Who on Twins Daily defends the Twins' drafting and development of pitching? I sure haven't seen 'em.[/QUOTE]

See the post right below yours[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I don't see him defending anything there... Just stating that low draft picks and finances may have had something to do with the Twins' current woes.

And he's right in one regard: repeating that the Twins hate strikeout pitchers is absurd.

#40 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:57 PM

And he's right in one regard: repeating that the Twins hate strikeout pitchers is absurd.


He didn't say hate. And I didn't say hate either. I said financially it makes more sense not to get them..and I explained why.

and this isn't defending them? 'Clearly, the team did something right. Jim Callis of BA ranked the Twins minor league system the 3rd best of the 2000s.'

Edited by ThePuck, 16 November 2012 - 03:04 PM.