Article: Roster Projections Part 1b: Infielders and Outfielders

[cmathewson]

Service time and not ready yet, so that's at least two reasons...

 

[/b][/b]

 

I would agree that he's not ready if we had a viable veteran we could slot in until he is. I said the same thing in 2004 with Mauer. But there were no options then either. Mastroiani has started a total of seven games in center field in his career. He's a utility/fourth outfielder who hasn't started for long stretches at any one position in the last few years, not even in the minors. Joe Benson is behind Hicks in development, particularly strike zone judgement, especially after last year, in which he played sparingly and not well. He needs time to get his swing back before he is even a legit candidate. At that point, he'll be competition for Mastroiani more than Hicks, as Benson can play all three outfield positions and Hicks is a pure center fielder.

 

As always, this will be about who is most ready to take the job and play every day. Hicks is most ready to take the everyday job, imho, sspecially with the need for a lead-off guy. Mastroiani is a bottom-of-the-order hitter. Benson is a guy you slot in seventh or so, where his power can do more damage and his limited OBP skills won't hurt so much. They might try to send Hicks down because of service time, but they will not even get into May before they realize the error in their ways and call him up. When Willingham and Morneau are 1-2 in the league in solo homers, the player with the best OBP potential will get the job for good.

[snepp]

They might try to send Hicks down because of service time, but they will not even get into May before they realize the error in their ways and call him up.

 

They don't even need to get into May to get that additional year of control, so I guess there shouldn't be too much to complain about.

[John Bonnes]

He doesn't strike many out and for awhile, he had as many walks as strikeouts. But, the last 4-6 weeks, he figured out how to strike guys out. I don't think that they'd send him down, but you make a great point in that he does have an option left whereas Wood, Roenicke, Swarzak and some of the others are out of options and Pressly would have to be offered back. So, that is the one thing that could get Burnett sent down.

 

Unless he's hurt, I can't imagine Burnett not being on the Opening Day roster. I think this is an organizational blind spot.

[Seth Stohs]

Unless he's hurt, I can't imagine Burnett not being on the Opening Day roster. I think this is an organizational blind spot.

 

Maybe, but he also put up a pretty strong ERA, so no matter how, he actually got the job done most of last season.

[cmathewson]

They don't even need to get into May to get that additional year of control, so I guess there shouldn't be too much to complain about.

 

I was under the impression it was early June to be on the safe side (85 days prior to September). If he happens to be in a class with relatively few rookies, he could land on the Super Two list if he's called up in early May.

 

A player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season and he ranks in the top 22 percent (increased from 17 percent in previous agreements) in total service in the class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86 days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season.

[snepp]

I was under the impression it was early June to be on the safe side (85 days prior to September). If he happens to be in a class with relatively few rookies, he could land on the Super Two list if he's called up in early May.

 

Super-2 status has nothing to do with years of control, it's strictly a way to provide additional players access to arbitration as a reward spending a large amount of time in the majors, but not enough to be a full season.

 

Two weeks in AAA is all that it takes for the team to gain a 7th year.

 

Edit: It actually takes three weeks, not two.

 

 

A Mauer-like player that comes up on day 1, and never goes down, would have 3 seasons at minimum, and 3 arbitration seasons.

 

Year 1: minimum

Year 2: minimum

Year 3: minimum

Year 4: arbitration

Year 5: arbitration

Year 6: arbitration

 

A player that spends a couple of weeks (three) in the minors would end up with this...

 

Year 1: minimum (just short of one full year of service)

Year 2: minimum (just short of two years service)

Year 3: minimum (just short of three years service, qualifies for super-2 arb)

Year 4: arbitration

Year 5: arbitration

Year 6: arbitration

Year 7: arbitration

 

 

There are roughly 184 days in a ML season, it takes 172 days to acquire one year of service. Once 172 days are accrued in any one season the counting stops. As long as a player accrues fewer than those 172 days in any of their first 6 seasons, they require a 7th season to push them over the free agency threshold.

[Willihammer]

As long as a player accrues fewer than those 172 days in any of their first 6 seasons, they require a 7th season to push them over the free agency threshold.

 

I realize everyone on this site has already chalked up 2013 to a "lost cause" but am I reading this correctly, that the Twins could start Hicks in 2018 in AAA for 2 weeks instead of doing it this year, and achieve the same effect that way?

 

That is of course assuming the 2017 CBA doesn't change things.

[snepp]

I realize everyone on this site has already chalked up 2013 to a "lost cause" but am I reading this correctly, that the Twins could start Hicks in 2018 in AAA for 2 weeks instead of doing it this year, and achieve the same effect that way?

 

Yes. Or two weeks in the middle of 2014, or two weeks at the end of 2015, etc, so long as those two weeks occur within the same season.

 

The only potential wrinkle in the hypothetical 2018 scenario is that once 5 years of service are accrued a player earns the right to refuse demotion, even if they have options remaining. Hicks could theoretically refuse demotion in 2018 as he would have 5 full seasons at that point. (I am not 100% certain on the part about options, that's how I currently understand it)

 

That's almost exactly what the Brewers ended up doing with Hardy. They demoted him to AAA shortly before he had a chance to accrue his 5th year of service (thus no refusal) and pushing his free agency back an additional season.

[Willihammer]

5 years? Hell, that solves it. if he's the best CF or leadoff man out of ST then there's no reason not to bring him north.

 

Unless you really really want to win super 2 status I guess.

[snepp]

But if you bring him north, and he plays well from day one, you'll have a hard time ever justifying a trip back to AAA. I think it would be highly frowned upon demoting a 4+ year player strictly for service time reasons.

[Willihammer]

At least wait till the season is, mathematically, a lost cause. Punting from Day 1 to get that pesky 7th year, when they guy is your best CF and leadoff option, is laughably premature.

 

And, in the unlikely event that the TWins are any good this year, then they can wait till he sprains an ankle or goes 3-40. Send him down for 2 weeks to find his stroke or to rehab.

 

I just can't stand any of this big planning. Nothing ever goes to plan.

[cmathewson]

I rest my case. It's way too early to worry about arbitration years. When was the last time the Twins even let a good player get more than a couple years into arbitration? They bought out most if not all of Koskie's, Guzman's, Hunter's, Mauer's, Morneau's, and Span's arbitration years. They traded Pierzingski, Mientkievizc, and Revere before it was an issue.

 

If Hicks is anything like the player we expect, he'll never make it to arbitration with the Twins. They'll sign him to a long-term deal the first year he's eligible.

 

That's why I was focused on the Super two status. If they can at least prevent him from becoming a Super Two, they can delay the long-term deal by a year.

[Thrylos]

Interesting talk about Hicks and what the best strategy of delaying arbitration is; please compare that to the Angels' worries and action about delaying arbitration for Mike Trout and the Nats' issues with delaying arbitration for Bryce Harper and you will have a glimpse into part of the problems in the Twins' organization, and their fans' expectations. Frankly, I expect the Twins to bring the best 25 up north. Period. Like winning organizations do. I do not care about arbitration. I care about the Twins winning. Should not be an issue for an organization that made Drew a super 2 (heck, that rhymes.)

[Seth Stohs]

That's why I was focused on the Super two status. If they can at least prevent him from becoming a Super Two, they can delay the long-term deal by a year.

 

You're 100% right. It's that they get an extra year to make that decision. I think that's important.

[Seth Stohs]

Interesting talk about Hicks and what the best strategy of delaying arbitration is; please compare that to the Angels' worries and action about delaying arbitration for Mike Trout and the Nats' issues with delaying arbitration for Bryce Harper and you will have a glimpse into part of the problems in the Twins' organization, and their fans' expectations. Frankly, I expect the Twins to bring the best 25 up north. Period. Like winning organizations do. I do not care about arbitration. I care about the Twins winning. Should not be an issue for an organization that made Drew a super 2 (heck, that rhymes.)

 

Although I will constantly advocate keeping a player down 1 month to keep them from being a free agent for a year, the Twins are not a team who really worries about it despite so many fans on this site thinking they do.

 

1.) When the Twins had a prospect the caliber of Trout and Harper (Mauer), they called him up for Opening Day, not worrying about what that would cost them long term.

 

2.) Chris Parmelee and Liam Hendriks were both on the Opening Day roster in 2012, so clearly the Twins don't worry about such things.

 

3.) The Nationals called up Harper to make his debut on April 28. He will be a Super 2 eligible The Angels called Trout up on April 28th as well, but he has 1.070 years of service, so he won't be a Super 2.

[snepp]

I don't care about the arbitration portion of it, avoiding super-2 is largely irrelevant. With the way the payroll is heading and their obvious reluctance to spend any significant money in free agency, that first year of arb isn't going make any difference to the financials. Who else are they going to be paying in those years? Mauer, Worley, and a bunch of minimum wagers.

[cmathewson]

Although I will constantly advocate keeping a player down 1 month to keep them from being a free agent for a year, the Twins are not a team who really worries about it despite so many fans on this site thinking they do.

 

1.) When the Twins had a prospect the caliber of Trout and Harper (Mauer), they called him up for Opening Day, not worrying about what that would cost them long term.

 

2.) Chris Parmelee and Liam Hendriks were both on the Opening Day roster in 2012, so clearly the Twins don't worry about such things.

 

3.) The Nationals called up Harper to make his debut on April 28. He will be a Super 2 eligible The Angels called Trout up on April 28th as well, but he has 1.070 years of service, so he won't be a Super 2.

 

Great points Seth. This is what I've been trying to say. We need to distinguish between the theory of the CBA and the practice of managing a roster in relationship to it. In practice, I can count on one finger the times the Twins apparently took an inferior player north to save service time (Bartlett). It was nearly disastrous. They will likely take the best 25 guys north and let the contract issues take care of themselves.

 

Service time might be used to break ties, however. If Mastroianni and Hicks are equal coming out of spring training, they'll go north with the Maestro. This is the way they seem to be leaning right now, because Gardy loves Maestro and doesn't want to put too much pressure on Hicks. But if Hicks is clearly the better player, he will go north, with Maestro as the fourth outfielder. I might be alone on this board in arguing that Hicks is clearly the better player right now. I base my opinion as much on OBP skills as range in the outfield. With Willingham and Parmalee on the corners, they need an above-average center fielder. Maestro is average at best.

 

Benson is the wild card. If they send Hicks down, Benson becomes the fourth outfielder. This might not be in his best interests, considering the year he had last year. He needs to play everyday (as does Hicks). Maestro is a good bench player and not the future center fielder. Long term it makes sense to have Hicks and Benson starting in center field in Minnesota and Rochester. Between Benson and Hicks, Hicks is the clear favorite right now, especially since they need an OBP guy at the top of the order, not a free-swinging power hitter.