Role-reversal: Is Michael Pineda the New Rich Hill?

[Patrick Wozniak]

Before all the Covid madness it looked as if Rich Hill would be a late-season boost to the rotation. However with the potential season pushed back and significantly shortened, Hill should be ready to go and in a reversal of roles, it’s Michael Pineda who looks to be the late addition.Originally Hill was eyeing a June or July return from his modified Tommy John surgery, so he should be all but ready to go once/if the season begins. Pineda still has 39 games of his 60 game suspension left to serve after testing positive for a banned diuretic last season (he served 21 games in 2019). That would have left him set to return in early May, but with the season likely reduced to somewhere in the vicinity of 60 games, Pineda will miss the majority of the season.

 

The MLB has yet to show any willingness to reduce suspensions to reflect the shortened season and it doesn’t seem like something the Player’s Association will push for either. So instead of missing slightly less than a quarter of a would-be 162 game season, Pineda would be suspended for all but 21 games of a 60 game season.

 

That would make a best case scenario of just five starts for Pineda. Pineda will have gone more than a full year without pitching in an MLB game and there will be no minor league rehab assignment to help him get stretched out and adjusted. Presumably, he will ramp up against the players from Minnesota’s taxi squad, which is better than nothing, but less than ideal.

 

With just 60 or so games the race for the AL Central title is likely to remain tight. Plus, in such a short time it seems less likely that the rotation would suffer many injuries. With a rotation of Jose Berrios, Kenta Maeda, Jake Odorizzi, Rich Hill and Homer Bailey, plus Randy Dobnak fighting for a spot, there’s not a lot of wiggle room. Assuming the Twins have five starters that are pitching relatively well, would they want to risk Pineda potentially being rusty in key games down the stretch?

 

It’s also entirely possible that injuries or ineffectiveness will make the return of Pineda something the team desperately awaits, and if he pitches like he did in the second half of 2019, Pineda’s return would likely be a huge boost to the rotation. A 60-game season obviously brings increased variability but Minnesota still looks like the strongest team in a rather weak central grouping. An expanded postseason gives the Minnesota a good chance of getting in, so it’s possible that the Twins may be positioned well enough that they can comfortably ease Pineda into the rotation without worrying too much about his initial results.

 

Fortunately Minnesota has a great team with good depth so they are well positioned to succeed regardless of the length of Pineda’s absence. The shortened season gives Minnesota plenty of options to get creative with the pitching staff including piggy-backing, a six-man rotation, or even a four-man rotation if they want to utilize their best arms. Pineda gives the Twins an extra late-season tool to throw in the box.

 

He might not be the player the Twins envisioned as there late-season addition, but if all goes well Michael Pineda might provide the twilight impact the Twins hoped they were getting in Hill. And like a good body-switch film, maybe Rich Hill can be the steady presence that Minnesota hoped to get in Pineda. I’d watch that movie.

 

MORE FROM TWINS DAILY

— Latest Twins coverage from our writers

— Recent Twins discussion in our forums

— Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email

 

Click here to view the article

[DocBauer]

I understand and endorse suspensions for anyone who tries to cheat. Did Pineda take a masking agent? Or was he just irresponsible taking a diaretic to control his weight? MLB seemed to think he just made a silly mistake as they reduced his initial suspension.

 

With all the agreed upon service time issues, with or without a season, I am absolutely dumbfounded there has been nothing discussed about proration for suspensions in a shortened or zero season.

 

I'm sorry, but just look at the lack of logic here. The players union is supposed to be looking out for all of its members. (Again, don't like or support cheating). Betts could, conceivably, be traded to the Dodgers and never play a single game for them if there is no season. But a suspended player, in an abbreviated season, must still serve his entire suspension. And if I'm reading things correctly, if there is no season, a suspended player must still serve the remainder of his suspension in 2021?

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Again, no sides taken in this collective bargaining cluster between both sides that are at fault, but it sure seems to me the players union is as focused on $ as the owners without a sense of "fair" being part of the discussion.

[DocBauer]

I understand and endorse suspensions for anyone who tries to cheat. Did Pineda take a masking agent? Or was he just irresponsible taking a diaretic to control his weight? MLB seemed to think he just made a silly mistake as they reduced his initial suspension.

 

With all the agreed upon service time issues, with or without a season, I am absolutely dumbfounded there has been nothing discussed about proration for suspensions in a shortened or zero season.

 

I'm sorry, but just look at the lack of logic here. The players union is supposed to be looking out for all of its members. (Again, don't like or support cheating). Betts could, conceivably, be traded to the Dodgers and never play a single game for them if there is no season. But a suspended player, in an abbreviated season, must still serve his entire suspension. And if I'm reading things correctly, if there is no season, a suspended player must still serve the remainder of his suspension in 2021?

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Again, no sides taken in this collective bargaining cluster between both sides that are at fault, but it sure seems to me the players union is as focused on $ as the owners without a sense of "fair" being part of the discussion.

[Patrick Wozniak]

 

I understand and endorse suspensions for anyone who tries to cheat. Did Pineda take a masking agent? Or was he just irresponsible taking a diaretic to control his weight? MLB seemed to think he just made a silly mistake as they reduced his initial suspension. With all the agreed upon service time issues, with or without a season, I am absolutely dumbfounded there has been nothing discussed about proration for suspensions in a shortened or zero season. I'm sorry, but just look at the lack of logic here. The players union is supposed to be looking out for all of its members. (Again, don't like or support cheating). Betts could, conceivably, be traded to the Dodgers and never play a single game for them if there is no season. But a suspended player, in an abbreviated season, must still serve his entire suspension. And if I'm reading things correctly, if there is no season, a suspended player must still serve the remainder of his suspension in 2021? Please correct me if I'm wrong here. Again, no sides taken in this collective bargaining cluster between both sides that are at fault, but it sure seems to me the players union is as focused on $ as the owners without a sense of "fair" being part of the discussion.

Agree 100% - it doesn't make any sense to me why suspensions aren't shortened to correspond with the length of the season. Then again logic and the MLB don't exactly go hand in hand .

[mikelink45]

A suspension should be served.  We might not like it, but that is the penalty.  I do not know the circumstances and we never will, but PEDs really destroyed a lot of pleasure for me so I am hard to convince when it comes to being lenient - I am still against their inclusion in the HOF.  Sorry Mike, but you must serve your punishment. 

[IndianaTwin]

 

....With all the agreed upon service time issues, with or without a season, I am absolutely dumbfounded there has been nothing discussed about proration for suspensions in a shortened or zero season. I'm sorry, but just look at the lack of logic here. The players union is supposed to be looking out for all of its members. (Again, don't like or support cheating).....

 

We really don't know whether there's been anything discussed. I've had my curiosities and can see merits both in the argument to adjust suspensions or keep them the same. My sense is that with all the other variables being discussed, dealing with suspensions -- of what is it, maybe one to three players -- is pretty low on the list of negotiation topics. 

 

Put it this way, if a deal gets held up because of whether or not to reduce Pineda's suspension, we've got bigger problems with owner/player relations than any of us realized!

 

[IndianaTwin]

But in regards to the question at hand, I place Pineda's return squarely in the camps of "good problem to have" and "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it."

 

You've outlined several good options, but the choice is so very dependent on how other guys have done, both in effectiveness and staying healthy. So to your options, I'd one more -- bullpen reinforcement.

 

Particularly if starters are healthy and effective, I think it's very fair to say, "Big Mike, you're penciled into our 2021 rotation, but we've got a good thing going with our starters right now, and we don't want to mess it up. We're going to work you into the bullpen -- you just made our deep bullpen even deeper. We especially want to use you as a guy to vulture wins -- Bomba Squad 2.0 is at your service! We also want to keep you stretched out enough so that you're ready if a starter does go down."

[Doctor Gast]

I assume Big Mike will not come back that quickly. Come around PS, I see him piggy backing at best or BP. Especially if his suspension isn`t discounted

[cletus141]

 

A suspension should be served.  We might not like it, but that is the penalty.  I do not know the circumstances and we never will, but PEDs really destroyed a lot of pleasure for me so I am hard to convince when it comes to being lenient - I am still against their inclusion in the HOF.  Sorry Mike, but you must serve your punishment. 

 

The part you're missing here is that the suspension number of 60 days is based on a season being 162 games, meaning MLB thought that he deserved to miss 37% of a season. 39 games of a 60 game season is 65%, hardly fair.

 

He already served 21 games of a 162 game season for 13%.  The remaing 24% of a season would have him serving another 14-15 games of a 60 game season.

[DocBauer]

The part you're missing here is that the suspension number of 60 days is based on a season being 162 games, meaning MLB thought that he deserved to miss 37% of a season. 39 games of a 60 game season is 65%, hardly fair.

 

He already served 21 games of a 162 game season for 13%. The remaing 24% of a season would have him serving another 14-15 games of a 60 game season.

And the point I've been making despite being deservedly bashed some on my rough, napkin scribbling math.