Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Bollinger: Gibson Eyes Twins' Rotation

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 East Coast Twin

East Coast Twin

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 145 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:11 AM

Bollinger gives a higher projected inning limitation for Gibson than Brian Murphy's 100-130 innings from a few days ago. Bollinger also states that Gibson's role would more likely be as a starter.

They still haven't fully decided how they'll limit Gibson's innings, but the right-hander is expected to throw between 130 and 140 innings in '13.


Gibson, though, appears more likely to begin the season as a starter and be shut down later in the year; unlike Medlen, he doesn't have any prior experience as a reliever.


At full strength, prospect Kyle Gibson eyes Twins' rotation | twinsbaseball.com: News

Edited by East Coast Twin, 01 February 2013 - 06:49 AM.


#2 NoCryingInBaseball

NoCryingInBaseball

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:21 AM

With two young arms coming off Tommy John (Gibson and Pelfrey) and competing for starting spots, it would be nice if they could be staggered with their respective rehab inning limitation. Maybe one could be limited at the beginning of the year while the other is limited at the end of the year.

#3 Twins Twerp

Twins Twerp

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 791 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:49 AM

Maybe one could pitch the first 3 innings and one pitch the 4-7th.

#4 CDog

CDog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 856 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:17 PM

Well the higher innings number makes me happy a little bit. While I have close to zero actual knowledge on the subject from a medical standpoint, I've been hoping for around 150 innings for Gibson. I also wonder why I haven't heard as much about innings limits for Pelfrey and Baker (for them I see more "when will they be ready" concerns than "how much can they pitch once they are ready" concerns). Is that simply because they're a few years older than Gibson and don't have as much reason to "save" their arms? Shouldn't both of those guys be "able" to pitch even fewer innings than Gibson given he had his surgery several months sooner, all else equal? Anyone have actual information on this?

#5 Boom Boom

Boom Boom

    Hydraulic Choppers

  • Members
  • 1,110 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:44 PM

Well the higher innings number makes me happy a little bit. While I have close to zero actual knowledge on the subject from a medical standpoint, I've been hoping for around 150 innings for Gibson. I also wonder why I haven't heard as much about innings limits for Pelfrey and Baker (for them I see more "when will they be ready" concerns than "how much can they pitch once they are ready" concerns). Is that simply because they're a few years older than Gibson and don't have as much reason to "save" their arms? Shouldn't both of those guys be "able" to pitch even fewer innings than Gibson given he had his surgery several months sooner, all else equal? Anyone have actual information on this?


Pelfrey's on a 1-year deal. The Twins have less invested in him so they might beat him up a bit more than Gibson.

#6 CDog

CDog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 856 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:55 PM

Pelfrey's on a 1-year deal. The Twins have less invested in him so they might beat him up a bit more than Gibson.


But Pelfrey himself has been the main source I've seen that makes it sound like he expects to be full-go. Also not sure a player, the union, his agent, or even the team would really be willing to just let him hurt himself without speaking up.

#7 mcrow

mcrow

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:08 PM

But Pelfrey himself has been the main source I've seen that makes it sound like he expects to be full-go. Also not sure a player, the union, his agent, or even the team would really be willing to just let him hurt himself without speaking up.


Sort of puzzling on why they are not mentioning anything about an innings count for Pelfrey, it's not like he's old and this his last shot.

Might simply be what Boom Boom is saying, 1 year deal and you're talking about a veteran pitcher VS a prospect so if things go wrong with Pelfrey you lose a lot less.

#8 SweetOne69

SweetOne69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 460 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:28 PM

Other than the "investment" differences between Gibson and Pelfrey, the main reason that they will be treated differently is that Gibson is a rookie that has only topped 100 innings once in his career while Pelfrey is a 7yr veteran that has thrown 184+ innings/year since 2008 before the injury last year.

#9 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,063 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:00 PM

Sort of puzzling on why they are not mentioning anything about an innings count for Pelfrey, it's not like he's old and this his last shot.

There has to be someone pushing for an innings limit in order for it to be implemented. Pelfrey would probably prefer to pitch as much as he can because he stands to get a bigger contract (and hit more incentives) if he pitches 170 innings instead of 130. The Twins have no real reason not to let him pitch as long as he remains effective.

But yes, the difference is stark given that Gibson returned last June and already pitched 50 innings between rehab and the AFL, whereas Pelfrey will be less than 10 months removed from TJ at the start of ST. Quite honestly I think Gibson's inning cap (especially if it's 100-130 as Murphy reported) is overly cautious.

#10 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,712 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:16 PM

I recall reading that with the TJ you can go back up to the level of innings you pitched pre injury, hence the limit Strsburg had and Gibson will have. Pelfrey had the arm strength to pitch the number of innings.

#11 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:17 AM

At this point, **** it. Who knows what this team is going to do. I know what I would do, and that is keep him down to avoid an arb year and limit his innings in AAA so he can pitch deeper into the season... but I'm just a dude on the computer.
Do or do not. There is no try.

#12 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:40 AM

At this point, **** it. Who knows what this team is going to do. I know what I would do, and that is keep him down to avoid an arb year and limit his innings in AAA so he can pitch deeper into the season... but I'm just a dude on the computer.


start him in the pen in rochester, streching him out towards the end of june, then bringing him up?

#13 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,076 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:30 AM

I have been saying this for maybe months now:

--Gibson should likely be on a 140-150 innings limit (really, obviously, pitches count more than innings).
--Gibson should be STARTING ALWAYS this year
--There are ways at AAA to limit innings as a starter
--Gibson can pitch 3, 4, and 5 inning limits in AAA for a few months and the logistics for the Red Wings is not difficult
--Then he can be promoted and pitch fairly "normally" for the Twins
--And this stays within the innings limit.

Addendum: even though the Twins are not the Nationals in terms of contention, I still would not want to see the Twins mimic the 2012 atrocity that was the Nationals org. That was one of the stupidest things I have seen in baseball period. There are ways to manage innings so that you actually have your best young pitchers ENDING the season with you.

#14 IdahoPilgrim

IdahoPilgrim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,424 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:33 AM

Addendum: even though the Twins are not the Nationals in terms of contention, I still would not want to see the Twins mimic the 2012 atrocity that was the Nationals org. That was one of the stupidest things I have seen in baseball period. There are ways to manage innings so that you actually have your best young pitchers ENDING the season with you.


I concur with this. And, since I always start the season as optimistically as possible, I hope they take the post-season into account. I'd hate to have Gibson sidelined when the Twins magically find their peak and cruise into October baseball (OK, this may be a stretch, but in my field a belief in miracles kind of goes with the territory:D).

#15 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,030 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 09:26 AM

How are innings in Rochester less impactful to his arm? If he is one of the beat pitchers, have him up here. You can limit his innings here just the same. Only stubbornness keeps a team from doing this.

#16 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,063 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:19 PM

I recall reading that with the TJ you can go back up to the level of innings you pitched pre injury, hence the limit Strsburg had and Gibson will have. Pelfrey had the arm strength to pitch the number of innings.

Ah. That makes sense. Never heard that.

Still, Gibson is 17 months removed from surgery now. I understand the need to be cautious but I still think cutting him off at 130, if he's pitching OK, is overkill.

#17 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,088 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:02 AM

How are innings in Rochester less impactful to his arm? If he is one of the beat pitchers, have him up here. You can limit his innings here just the same. Only stubbornness keeps a team from doing this.


There is no difference to the arm. But you can't plan on a starter having short outings. It could blow out the bullpwn unless they keep 13 pitchers. Easier to manage shorter starts in AAA. I agree with you though, if he is a top 5 starter in the spring start him here and be creative with extra rest and skipping starts but not putting him in the bullpen or artificially short starts.

#18 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,088 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:05 AM

Ah. That makes sense. Never heard that.

Still, Gibson is 17 months removed from surgery now. I understand the need to be cautious but I still think cutting him off at 130, if he's pitching OK, is overkill.


I have never heard Ryan state a hard limit. There might be some flexibility if he can handle it.

#19 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,030 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 09:32 AM

You can plan for short starts, but no MLB team is that much of a risk taker.

#20 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,088 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:20 AM

You can plan for short starts, but no MLB team is that much of a risk taker.


I don't know if it's about risk as much as roster limitations.

#21 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,938 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:40 AM

They will limit him to avoid super two status also, right?

#22 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,239 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:44 AM

They will limit him to avoid super two status also, right?


I would hope not, that would require him to spend nearly half the year in AAA.

#23 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,938 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:11 AM

Super two this year was 2 yrs 139 days service time. They could bring him north and keep him going till the trade deadline, then shut him down. Something like 120 days