Lots of good reports about Kyle Gibson...

[Brock Beauchamp]

Right. He can pitch 2/3 of a season regardless of where he's at. Why waste a chunk of that time in Triple-A if you feel he's ready to pitch in the majors? You want him to get as much exposure against top-level hitters as you can, so you have a better idea of what you've got going forward.

 

I want to focus on this for a bit because I have a question. What are the rules regarding shutting down a player mid-season? I know that it's either against the rules or extremely bad form to send down a player that is going to be DLed (which I assume is what will happen to Gibson). The Brewers caught a lot of flak for "stealing" a year of service from JJ Hardy by sending him down for three weeks.

 

If they can send him to the minors mid-season to essentially shut him down (and thereby temporarily stopping his service clock), I have absolutely no qualms with that.

[ThePuck]

Milwaukee sent Hardy down for the exact amount of time needed to gain another year of control. Then he got traded to us at the end of that season.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Milwaukee sent Hardy down for the exact amount of time needed to gain another year of control. Then he got traded to us at the end of that season.

 

I edited my post to include JJ Hardy, funny that you should mention him...

 

But are the rules different when the DL is involved?

[ThePuck]

I edited my post to include JJ Hardy, funny that you should mention him...

 

But are the rules different when the DL is involved?

 

I don't think DL time is included

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't think DL time is included

 

I'm almost certain that DL time counts as service time if the player is on the Major League roster when put on the DL.

[ThePuck]

I'm almost certain that DL time counts as service time if the player is on the Major League roster when put on the DL.

 

I phrased that wrong...I'm not sure if it affects service time if a guy is sent down to recover and get his timing or whatever after being on the DL.

[SweetOne69]

I'm almost certain that DL time counts as service time if the player is on the Major League roster when put on the DL.

 

This is correct. That is why during ST the first cuts are players on the 40-man roster that are definitely not going to make the team. They don't want to risk them getting hurt in ST and being forced to put them on the Major league DL. It's not that big of a deal if it is a minor injury, but they would lose a whole year of service time if it is a season ending injury.

[SweetOne69]

I phrased that wrong...I'm not sure if it affects service time if a guy is sent down to recover and get his timing or whatever after being on the DL.

 

It depends on how it is handled. If the player is sent on a rehab assignment, he is still technically on the DL and service time would accrue.

[ashbury]

People can continue making this argument indefinitely.

 

No. Not really. At least not if you accept the concept Bill James expressed many years ago, of each team having a reservoir of talent that rises and falls through the years. The amount of talent that can be used in a given year depends on where each player is on his career path. I think of it like a bell-shaped curve or an inverted parabola, though more flattened I suppose. Given the CBA, you get only a certain number of years at reasonable cost, and you have some control over which years those are. If you choose to start at age 18, you get a portion of the curve where the early years aren't worth very much at the major league level. If somehow you instead delay the start until age 35, you'd get the portion where the last years aren't worth very much. If you had perfect forecasting of a player's career, you could pick the window that maximized his value delivered. If you did this for every player in the system, you could pick those windows that maximize team performance over a period of years (with options to go for steady excellence over the years or try to pack the most value into certain years).

 

For players with low ceilings, these decisions aren't make or break. For high-ceiling players, it matters.

 

I'm not saying anything you don't understand and already believe, I'm sure. But it's an answer to why people aren't just being stubborn mules who would never bring a good player up if they were GM.

[Kwak]

Or option him to Rochester, and just not put him in a game. He's not injured, just not playing--coaches decision.

[Mike Sixel]

I am with nick on this.....110%....

[CDog]

I want to focus on this for a bit because I have a question. What are the rules regarding shutting down a player mid-season? I know that it's either against the rules or extremely bad form to send down a player that is going to be DLed (which I assume is what will happen to Gibson). The Brewers caught a lot of flak for "stealing" a year of service from JJ Hardy by sending him down for three weeks.

 

If they can send him to the minors mid-season to essentially shut him down (and thereby temporarily stopping his service clock), I have absolutely no qualms with that.

 

I'm not basing on much fact here, but it seems like having a guy who is known to be on an innings limit go down just before reaching it and then suddenly goes on the DL, that it would be a pretty big no-no with the union (not to mention just the principle of it). In fact, isn't that essentially what the Perkins grievance from several years ago was all about? I reiterate, this is all speculation and fuzzy memory.

[diehardtwinsfan]

If Gibson makes the roster opening day, he will be Twins property from 2013-2018. He will have 3 years of serfdom making approximateliy 500k/yr and 3 years of arbitration.

 

If Gibson gets promoted on May 1, he's Twins property from 2013-2019. he will also likely be a Super 2 meaking he has 3 years of serfdom and 4 years of arbitration.

 

If Gibson gets promoted between June and July, he essentially ends up with 4 years of serfdom and 3 years of arb.

 

You cannot say with a straight face that there isn't value in that... especially if he season is lost. The big downside, as I see it is some players know they are essentially being held back for that additional control. In the case of Gibson, he's not a lock to make the rotation, and for all intents and purposes, the season is lost (unless someone honestly thinks Gibson is the difference between playing in October or staying home). And while his peripherals prior to the injury were quite good, he wasn't exactly destroying AAA either. I agree that this is a much bigger deal if it's a Boras client who you know will leave, but it's still a big deal. This has nothing to do with Gibson being good enough or not. It has everything to do with getting an extra year of cost controlled player that will either make for a cheaper long term contract, give you more leverage in buying out some years, or make the player an attractive trade option.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm not basing on much fact here, but it seems like having a guy who is known to be on an innings limit go down just before reaching it and then suddenly goes on the DL, that it would be a pretty big no-no with the union (not to mention just the principle of it). In fact, isn't that essentially what the Perkins grievance from several years ago was all about? I reiterate, this is all speculation and fuzzy memory.

 

It has nothing to do with beingn on the DL, and everything to do with sending him down. Perkins got optioned, hence the grievance. JJ Hardy was also optioned. The team can only keep them down in the minors for so long when rehabbing an injury without optioning them. After that point, they either get called up or optioned. If Gibson tears his UCL in May in Minnesota, he's going to accumulate ML service time until the Twins can option him. If he does it in Rochester, he won't.

[PseudoSABR]

Sure, an additional year of team control may not matter; imho, I'd continue to try get that extra year of control, whether it has historically mattered or not, because in my mind, that extra year of team control could be a boon in some instances I don't foresee.

[Mike Sixel]

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.....

[PseudoSABR]

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.....

If we were competitive my tune may change, depending on our personal.

 

It's only in hindsight that we can say the Angels would have made the playoffs if they broke camp with Trout. The Angels had plenty of OFers and recently signed Pujols, there was no reason to think they needed to 'rush' Trout to the show in order to compete. I'm sure the Angels are happy with the extra year of control, and that will probably matter to some extent both in terms of Trout contract and when they decide to extend him. The Angels have more leverage now that they have Trout for another year; that's a good thing in my mind, esp considering the context of why Trout didn't start the season with the club.

[ThePuck]

If we were competitive my tune may change, depending on our personal.

 

It's only in hindsight that we can say the Angels would have made the playoffs if they broke camp with Trout. The Angels had plenty of OFers and recently signed Pujols, there was no reason to think they needed to 'rush' Trout to the show in order to compete. I'm sure the Angels are happy with the extra year of control, and that will probably matter to some extent both in terms of Trout contract and when they decide to extend him. The Angels have more leverage now that they have Trout for another year; that's a good thing in my mind, esp considering the context of why Trout didn't start the season with the club.

 

Trout can still be a free agent in 2018. Still only six seasons of control 2012-2017

[snepp]

By the same reasoning, why call Gibson up in three weeks when you could wait three months and extend your team control for half a year? Why not wait the whole season and extend by it by a full year?

 

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.

[Mike Sixel]

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.

[Dave T]

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.

[PseudoSABR]

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.

[Brock Beauchamp]

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.

[Nick Nelson]

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.)

[Brock Beauchamp]

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.

[Dave T]

Kyle Gibson is not Johan Santana.

 

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

[Brock Beauchamp]

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).

[Nick Nelson]

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.

[Brock Beauchamp]

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.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I found this quote about Strasburg:

 

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.

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.