Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Lots of good reports about Kyle Gibson...

  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#81 Dave T

Dave T

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:45 PM

Gibson needs to come north with the Twins. The reason: He looks to be our best pitcher. If he stays in the minors for a couple of months, it's an absolutely unmistakeable signal from the front office that "we give up for 2013". Your single ticket sales will dry up, and next year's season ticket sales will be down as well. The Twins would lose a lot more money in lost ticket sales than they would gain by keeping control of Gibson for an extra year.

On the other hand, if he comes north, a lot of the games he pitches will probably sell out (unless he turns into a bust). This guy will help me forget two seasons of really awful pitching.

#82 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 2,045 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:47 PM

And if the angels have injuries and other issues derail them in the future, that year of control will be meaningless. The present is much more knowable than 6 years from now. It would clearly would not have been rushing him to the majors last year, and now they lost one of his peak years in terms of making the playoffs.

Three weeks in the present is rarely worth one year in the future, so much so that it seems like an imprudent exchange to me. I guess we're at an impasse.

Edited by PseudoSABR, 27 February 2013 - 03:51 PM.


#83 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,932 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:53 PM

Gibson needs to come north with the Twins. The reason: He looks to be our best pitcher. If he stays in the minors for a couple of months, it's an absolutely unmistakeable signal from the front office that "we give up for 2013". Your single ticket sales will dry up, and next year's season ticket sales will be down as well. The Twins would lose a lot more money in lost ticket sales than they would gain by keeping control of Gibson for an extra year.

On the other hand, if he comes north, a lot of the games he pitches will probably sell out (unless he turns into a bust). This guy will help me forget two seasons of really awful pitching.


Kyle Gibson is not Johan Santana. He'll probably end up more of a #3 than a #1. He's not going to draw much of a crowd unless he goes absolutely bonkers in his rookie season and there's no real reason to expect that to happen.

#84 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,230 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:58 PM

Yeah, because that would be exactly the same as advocating for a couple of weeks in year one, then staying on the major league roster for the next 6.9 years.


I'm pointing out that it's a slippery slope and a bad path to head down.

So this should simply be implemented as a general rule? All prospects have to sit in the minors for three weeks at the start of a season, regardless of how ready they appear? It’s an anti-player move designed specifically to delay the guy’s payday, much like Brock’s hypothetical about sending Gibson to the minors before DLing him for the rest of the year. And it reflects poorly on the organization, IMO. I think people need to take a step back and look at this situation from the other side.

It’s interesting to me that many of the same people who lament Minnesota’s standing as an (apparently) unappealing destination for free agents are also advocating this approach. These kinds of moves will help the Twins build a bad reputation among circles of players and agents, as an org more interested in protecting their own pocketbooks than helping their guys reach success and financial security more quickly. In this era of Target Field and mid-market payroll flexibility, shouldn’t we be past that?

(BTW, are we sure we're not mixing up team control and Super 2 arbitration status? I don't know if I believe that a team gets a full extra year of service by delaying a guy's call-up 25 days. To my knowledge, under no circumstances is a player under team control for more than 6 years.)

#85 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,932 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:03 PM

Here are the rules.

Service Time (MLB) - CBARules

Also, Liriano was under team control for seven years (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). An interesting situation because I was under the impression that if a player went on the DL with the MLB club, he continued to accrue service time. Maybe that changes at the end of the season, at which point he can be "sent down" and then DLed?

edit: his 2007 season must have counted as service time. He has 6.1 years of service, which looks about right if you start the clock mid-season 2006 and continue through 2008, at which point his clock stopped when he went back to the minors. Resume later that season and that puts you somewhere around six years today.

So, yeah, you can keep a player longer than six years but it takes more than a few weeks of minor league time to do it. Maybe half a season... Which doesn't really "solve" the Gibson debate, because he will probably end somewhere around half a season of service time.

#86 Dave T

Dave T

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:36 PM

Kyle Gibson is not Johan Santana.


Compared to last year's starters, yes he is.

#87 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,932 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:39 PM

Compared to last year's starters, yes he is.


Almost anything looks better than last year's starters but Gibson still isn't going to draw in a significant amount of fans (unless he vies for RoY honors).

#88 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,230 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:49 PM

So, yeah, you can keep a player longer than six years but it takes more than a few weeks of minor league time to do it. Maybe half a season... Which doesn't really "solve" the Gibson debate, because he will probably end somewhere around half a season of service time.

He'll get a full season of service time if he starts with the Twins and they shut him down midway through the year. Unless they were to follow the plan of demoting him and then DLing him, which would be shady and possibly against the rules.

Only way he gets half a season's service time this year is if he spends the first three months in the minors, or gets demoted somewhere along the way based on performance.

#89 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,932 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:54 PM

He'll get a full season of service time if he starts with the Twins and they shut him down midway through the year. Unless they were to follow the plan of demoting him and then DLing him, which would be shady and possibly against the rules.

Only way he gets half a season's service time this year is if he spends the first three months in the minors, or gets demoted somewhere along the way based on performance.


If I wasn't so lazy, I'd go find the actual amount of time required to defer service time a year.

It's an interesting situation with Gibson, though. It appears that they could easily extend his service time a year if they were so inclined. They could just as easily ship him to the minors as DL him. I wonder what the Nats did with Strasburg, as he will be a FA after the 2016 season, which puts him at seven years of team control.

#90 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,932 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:57 PM

I found this quote about Strasburg:

[FONT=Arial]And all after they so clearly (and smartly) manipulated the start of his service time clock by keeping him in the minors until mid-June.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]
[/FONT]
So, I guess mid-June is the point the service time changes. I guess that makes sense, as the difference between one year of service time and a full season is about 10-12 days. Extrapolate those 10-12 days over six years and you're looking at a little over two months to keep the number under six years of service time.

#91 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,339 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:20 PM

(BTW, are we sure we're not mixing up team control and Super 2 arbitration status? I don't know if I believe that a team gets a full extra year of service by delaying a guy's call-up 25 days. To my knowledge, under no circumstances is a player under team control for more than 6 years.)


I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't care one bit about Super-2 status. It's strictly about money and that's something they should have plenty of at this rate.

As for part two, yes they can acquire an additional year of control. I made a service time breakdown post in another thread, if I can scrounge it up I'll repost it here. Here's that post



Edit: The minimum time to spend in the minors is 20 days. Anything less than 20 days and the player is given full ML credit for it.

Also, yes, players accrue major league service time while on the DL.

Edited by snepp, 27 February 2013 - 05:37 PM.


#92 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,315 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:47 PM

I found this quote about Strasburg:

[FONT=Arial]
[/FONT]
So, I guess mid-June is the point the service time changes. I guess that makes sense, as the difference between one year of service time and a full season is about 10-12 days. Extrapolate those 10-12 days over six years and you're looking at a little over two months to keep the number under six years of service time.


I posted this exact thing on a previous page...

Mid-june also avoids super 2.

#93 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,230 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:02 PM

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't care one bit about Super-2 status. It's strictly about money and that's something they should have plenty of at this rate.

As for part two, yes they can acquire an additional year of control. I made a service time breakdown post in another thread, if I can scrounge it up I'll repost it here. Here's that post



Edit: The minimum time to spend in the minors is 20 days. Anything less than 20 days and the player is given full ML credit for it.

Also, yes, players accrue major league service time while on the DL.


So in order for all this to truly matter, the player in question would have to:

1) Be good enough that he remains in the majors steadily for the next six years and never gets sent down to the minors to work on anything.

2) Be unwilling to sign a reasonable extension that carries him beyond his sixth year of control.

Pretty rare that we've ever seen this happen with a Twins prospect. I just don't see it as a major issue. It's a minor consideration that shouldn't stand in the way of bringing a guy north if he is deemed ready. Particularly because, as I said earlier, I'd like the Twins to have a reputation as an organization that rewards its players based on merit, not based on the timeline that saves them the most money.

#94 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,764 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:34 PM

And I want the best players up here....would your story change if it was not a lost year? How well did it turn out last year for the Angels to keep trout sown, for example.....


It might, but that's not the case.

#95 Dave T

Dave T

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:41 PM

Almost anything looks better than last year's starters but Gibson still isn't going to draw in a significant amount of fans (unless he vies for RoY honors).

I don't agree. I think the Twins will fire up a marketing campaign around their new young pitchers. I think it'll work, too.

#96 jm3319

jm3319

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:46 PM

I doubt the Twins were stupid enough to believe one year like 2009 in his career (Mauer's) was gonna turn into his norm.


Maybe not, but let's be honest. A large percentage of Twins fans sure felt that way and still do.

#97 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,764 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:49 PM

I've written/commented many times on my stance on this topic, but just one more time:

1.) I really don't care about the Super 2 thing... As others have said, that's just about the money. I don't care about that... but I definitely care about keeping a player for an extra year.
2.) Others have said that the Twins do a good job of keeping their really good players by extending them to a long-term deal to buy out a couple of their free agent years. That is true, but this could potentially give them an extra year to make that type of long-term commitment.
3.) As I've written, the Twins have gone against this philosophy several times, including with Joe Mauer, Chris Parmelee and Liam Hendriks (and likely others). Most other organizations do factor in this business side of it. There is a reason that the Rays have all but said that Wil Myers will not be called up until May. (and they're certainly a model organization, right?)
4.) A week or so ago, MLB Trade Rumors looked up all of this for the top prospects (based on BA's Top 100) and gave the following dates (http://www.mlbtrader...rospects.html):

Kyle Gibson and Aaron Hicks (or any player with 0 big league service time): Team control through 2019 if not called up until "late April" and Won't be Super 2 after '15 if called up "mid-June."

Just seems like a No-Brainer to me.

#98 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:16 PM

Maybe not, but let's be honest. A large percentage of Twins fans sure felt that way and still do.


That says more about them than it does about anything else :-) I remember warning many, many fans to not expect that to be the norm...

Edited by ThePuck, 27 February 2013 - 07:19 PM.


#99 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:27 PM

Gibson needs to come north with the Twins. The reason: He looks to be our best pitcher. If he stays in the minors for a couple of months, it's an absolutely unmistakeable signal from the front office that "we give up for 2013". Your single ticket sales will dry up, and next year's season ticket sales will be down as well. The Twins would lose a lot more money in lost ticket sales than they would gain by keeping control of Gibson for an extra year.

On the other hand, if he comes north, a lot of the games he pitches will probably sell out (unless he turns into a bust). This guy will help me forget two seasons of really awful pitching.


This is the right point, though I don't think the presence or absence of Gibson will have much effect on ticket sales. How the Twins handle Gibson will be a good barometer of what the Twins front office truly thinks of this season. I think he goes north. If he ever has to be sent down due to ineffectiveness then they will make sure he is down long enough to impact service time.
Papers...business papers.

#100 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 6,485 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:49 PM

I'm pointing out that it's a slippery slope and a bad path to head down.

So this should simply be implemented as a general rule?


Since I previously described as like a parabola the "slope" you mention, with an optimal point if you actually had a forecast of it, there's an automatic braking effect if you try to go indefinitely.

And the parabola is so shallow for average players, not to mention only a few years long, that worrying about it should not be a general rule. But for studs, it's a consideration that a GM would be derelict in duty not to consider.