Lots of good reports about Kyle Gibson...

[ThePuck]

We are already going to get ALL of Gibson's prime years...he's 25 right now, if the Twins chose to, they can have till he's 30 (even if he heads North right away) won't be able to pitch for anyone else till he's 31.

[Mike Sixel]

Correct...service years are not an issue.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I don't ignore it. His AAA numbers pre-surgery weren't all that good. He was young, and arguably his ligament was an issue before completely blowing out. But unless he totally stakes a claim to a rotation spot in spring training, I'm fine with letting him do some final polishing in Rochester. That also does the relationship with our farm team some good, an aspect that can not drive all decisions but also can not be ignored.

 

His peripherals were actually fairly good, though there was a very noticable drop the last few starts before the diagnosis that skewed the stats a bit. I do agree that he could use some time to season. The Twins will end up with an extra year of time too, which certainly won't make them complain.

[Oxtung]

Correct...service years are not an issue.

 

Because no pitchers are good after their 30 year old seasons.

[PseudoSABR]

We are already going to get ALL of Gibson's prime years...he's 25 right now, if the Twins chose to, they can have till he's 30 (even if he heads North right away) won't be able to pitch for anyone else till he's 31.

Why is having him, or the option of having him, at age 32 necessarily a bad thing? While players may digress in their thirties, they might still be valuable players, especially if they are arb eligible.

 

We'll see what the Twins do, but I don't see how gaining an extra year of player control isn't the best outcome (esp. if they really believe in punting the 2013 season).

[Brock Beauchamp]

Why is having him, or the option of having him, at age 32 necessarily a bad thing? While players may digress in their thirties, they might still be valuable players, especially if they are arb eligible.

 

We'll see what the Twins do, but I don't see how gaining an extra year of player control isn't the best outcome (esp. if they really believe in punting the 2013 season).

 

Yep. This. People seem to believe that just because a player is over 30, an extra year of control is worthless. How does that make sense? It takes all of three weeks in the minors to get that extra year of control. Three friggin' weeks.

 

Now, it's certainly not as important to manage Gibson's clock as it is, say, Miguel Sano. No one is arguing that. But to state that service time doesn't matter at all is foolish. Of course it does. Any time you can retain a Major League starter for less money and/or additional years, you're doing something right.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We are already going to get ALL of Gibson's prime years...he's 25 right now, if the Twins chose to, they can have till he's 30 (even if he heads North right away) won't be able to pitch for anyone else till he's 31.

 

Yeah, it would be really horrible if Tampa had another year of control of James Shields. I mean, what would they do with that?

[drjim]

Yeah, it would be really horrible if Tampa had another year of control of James Shields. I mean, what would they do with that?

 

Tampa got that control by signing an extension well before free agency. Exactly what the Twins should do with Gibson if he is healthy and effective and rendering these service time machinations moot. If he's ready start him with the Twins.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Tampa got that control by signing an extension well before free agency. Exactly what the Twins should do with Gibson if he is healthy and effective and rendering these service time machinations moot. If he's ready start him with the Twins.

 

My point is that some players are still extremely effective into their early 30s. Discounting an age 31 season as worthless is fool-hardy, especially if you're sacrificing it for three weeks of playing time in a lost season for a player who won't be with the team for 162 games.

[Mike Sixel]

Not worthless, but not worth as much as having him pitch in the majors, so fans do not have to watch AAA starters at MLB prices. That said, if they held him back for three weeks, fine. But when they hold him back for 3 months, that will be an issue.

[Shane Wahl]

They are not going to hold him back three months. On the other hand I think that having to shut him down at the end of August is pretty dumb and not the right way to end the season when looking forward to 2014.

[ThePuck]

Why is having him, or the option of having him, at age 32 necessarily a bad thing? While players may digress in their thirties, they might still be valuable players, especially if they are arb eligible.

 

We'll see what the Twins do, but I don't see how gaining an extra year of player control isn't the best outcome (esp. if they really believe in punting the 2013 season).

 

Never said it was. The person I was responding to was talking about 'prime years'. Though it probably would have been easier for you to know that if I had actually quoted the guy. so my bad :-)

[ThePuck]

Yeah, it would be really horrible if Tampa had another year of control of James Shields. I mean, what would they do with that?

 

I'm not sure why I get the sarcasm by simply pointing out his prime years, but in your scenario I imagine the extremely pitching rich Rays would have traded him anyway...

[ThePuck]

My point is that some players are still extremely effective into their early 30s. Discounting an age 31 season as worthless is fool-hardy, especially if you're sacrificing it for three weeks of playing time in a lost season for a player who won't be with the team for 162 games.

 

Who was discounting an age 31 season?

[Steve Lein]

Any time you can retain a Major League starter for less money and/or additional years, you're doing something right.

 

If you are retaining a "Major League starter for less money and/or additional years" through the arbitration/team-control process, that means that player isn't doing as well as you want as an MLB player. Arbitration does not keep salary down for good players, it inflates it rather rapidly (Look at Buster Posey, he is "Super 2," and his 1st year of arbitration eligibility got himself $8MIL, up from about 615K). I still feel the "team control" stuff that is always brought up is the dumbest argument anywhere on this site.

 

If a player is good enough, those 5th or 6th years of "team control" aren't ever going to factor in, they will get an extension (or they'll get traded because the price is too high). There are numerous examples of Twins players where this has happened. You can also look at the players who do make it to that 5th or 6th year of "team control." You will notice that they are middling players that you hope will come around and show they deserve a longer-term commitment.

 

The Twins, as far as I can tell, only have 2 players with contracts through Arbitration for this season, and their names are Brian Duensing and Drew Butera. A middle-reliever and backup-backup-catcher. Not exactly key pieces for the future.

[Brock Beauchamp]

If you are retaining a "Major League starter for less money and/or additional years" through the arbitration/team-control process, that means that player isn't doing as well as you want as an MLB player. Arbitration does not keep salary down for good players, it inflates it rather rapidly (Look at Buster Posey, he is "Super 2," and his 1st year of arbitration eligibility got himself $8MIL, up from about 615K). I still feel the "team control" stuff that is always brought up is the dumbest argument anywhere on this site.

 

If a player is good enough, those 5th or 6th years of "team control" aren't ever going to factor in, they will get an extension (or they'll get traded because the price is too high). There are numerous examples of Twins players where this has happened. You can also look at the players who do make it to that 5th or 6th year of "team control." You will notice that they are middling players that you hope will come around and show they deserve a longer-term commitment.

 

The Twins, as far as I can tell, only have 2 players with contracts through Arbitration for this season, and their names are Brian Duensing and Drew Butera. A middle-reliever and backup-backup-catcher. Not exactly key pieces for the future.

 

You can't honestly tell me with a straight face that having an extra year of control over a player isn't important. Some players will test the free agency market no matter what you offer. They'll get a 3-5 year deal that extends far beyond their prime years for doing it, too. And you don't believe that a player's team control influences whether they sign through their arbitration years? If you have three years of team control left, signing a four year deal might make sense. If you have two years of team control, why would you sign that four year deal that buys out two prime years of your career that might seriously hurt your chances to sign a 4-6 year deal afterward?

 

Plus, you get them for one more year. Not the 2-3 it may require to sign them beyond arbitration. One year. If the player flounders or gets injured (particularly important in the case of pitching), you can jettison the pitcher with little harm done to the franchise.

 

And while arbitration in year 5-6 may not give you big discounts, it still gives you a sizable chunk of money to use on other players (depending on the player in years 5-6 of arb, they may only get 80% of their open market value... a $10m player saves you $2m in that situation).

 

But mostly, it's about the years. The team gets an extra year of control over the player. Some players, it doesn't matter. They may sign an extension.

 

But if that player is going to test the free agent waters (basically, any Boras client), that one year of control is extremely valuable.

 

And in the case of Gibson, he can't pitch the entire season anyway. What's the harm in letting him shake off a bit of rust in Rochester? No matter how well he pitches in 2013, his impact on the team will be marginal because he won't make more than 20 or so starts.

[Brock Beauchamp]

To ground my point, you need to look no further than Joe Mauer to see the importantance of cost-controlled years. The team had to sign him after the 2009 season, which increasingly appears to be a career year.

 

Now what if the team had that extra year of control over him and was allowed to re-sign him after the 2010 season? Over the course of that contract, they probably would have saved $20m. He's not a $180m player if you sign him after the 2010 season.

[Kwak]

I just don't see the point of Rochester if he is ready to go. He is 20 months from surgery he doesn't need to be babied at the beginning of the year. Yes he needs to be protected from a big jump in innings over the entire season but worry about that later.

 

He has limited innings no need to waste them in AAA. He might have a DL stint or they can get creative in skipping starts or extra rest to extend him through the season. If he is good in spring training let him start with the Twins.

 

Absolutely! I was going to post this myself! Valuable innings in AAA? Baloney! That's where failures reside, scratching clawing, whatever to get another chance. A young up-and-comer might be sent there for a couple of weeks to show him that he never wants to be in AAA--so don't fail when promoted to the ML parent club.

:s-instagib:

[Nick Nelson]

Yeah, it would be really horrible if Tampa had another year of control of James Shields. I mean, what would they do with that?

 

Yeah, sucks that they got nothing back for him in trade since he only had one year left on his deal.

 

Here are some players I can think of that the Twins have lost in recent years because they became free agents after their arbitration ran out: Francisco Liriano, Alexi Casilla… ? This team control thing is a manufactured issue with little real-life relevance. If the player turns out to be good, by the time he’s approaching free agency he will either be extended or traded for good value. This happens every time. Fretting about what age he’s going to be when he’s hypothetically eligible for FA is pointless.

 

People can continue making this argument indefinitely. 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? At some point, they just need to get these kids in the majors and learning the ropes. Delaying the process for distant financial gains would be a frustrating sign that the Twins aren’t especially urgent about this rebuild.

 

To ground my point, you need to look no further than Joe Mauer to see the importantance of cost-controlled years. The team had to sign him after the 2009 season, which increasingly appears to be a career year.

 

Now what if the team had that extra year of control over him and was allowed to re-sign him after the 2010 season? Over the course of that contract, they probably would have saved $20m. He's not a $180m player if you sign him after the 2010 season.

 

I don’t see how this is relevant to the point at hand. Mauer had already signed one contract extension before this one that bought out his first year of free agency. Had that deal not been inked '09 would have been the last year on his contract and he'd have probably been re-signed before that season took place.

[ThePuck]

I don’t see how this is relevant to the point at hand. Mauer had already signed one contract extension before this one that bought out his first year of free agency. Had that deal not been inked '09 would have been the last year on his contract and he'd have probably been re-signed before that season took place.

 

Remember his really bad 2010? When he was a silver slugging, gold glove wearing all star with a 140 OPS as a catcher finishing 8th in MVP voting? :-)

 

All those great seasons before, along with that one, would have dropped his price tag a good 3-4M a year...it being only his 3rd best season at the time and all :-)

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yeah, sucks that they got nothing back for him in trade since he only had one year left on his deal.

 

Here are some players I can think of that the Twins have lost in recent years because they became free agents after their arbitration ran out: Francisco Liriano, Alexi Casilla… ? This team control thing is a manufactured issue with little real-life relevance. If the player turns out to be good, by the time he’s approaching free agency he will either be extended or traded for good value. This happens every time. Fretting about what age he’s going to be when he’s hypothetically eligible for FA is pointless.

 

People can continue making this argument indefinitely. 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? At some point, they just need to get these kids in the majors and learning the ropes. Delaying the process for distant financial gains would be a frustrating sign that the Twins aren’t especially urgent about this rebuild.

 

And my point is that if you have one more year of team control, you extend that "buy out time" by another year, as well. It shouldn't be the only driving force in deciding whether a player is going to join the ML franchise but it should be a consideration, particularly in a case like Gibson where he can't pitch more than 2/3rds of a season anyway.

 

And do you know why this is a "manufactured" situation? Because the Twins already employ this strategy. Outside of Joe Mauer, is there a player on the Twins who didn't see their service time extended by a year by shuffling them from the minors mid-season? Justin Morneau, Denard Span, Jason Kubel, Johan Santana, etc... All guys who started their seasons in the minors before getting a call up.

 

I don’t see how this is relevant to the point at hand. Mauer had already signed one contract extension before this one that bought out his first year of free agency. Had that deal not been inked '09 would have been the last year on his contract and he'd have probably been re-signed before that season took place.

 

And if Mauer had one more year of controlled service time, chances are that buy out would have been extended through 2011. One more year of flexibility would have been nice. Why would a team buy out a guy only through his arbitration years? It doesn't make sense for either side.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Remember his really bad 2010? When he was a silver slugging, gold glove wearing all star with a 140 OPS as a catcher finishing 8th in MVP voting? :-)

 

All those great seasons before, along with that one, would have dropped his price tag a good 3-4M a year...it being only his 3rd best season at the time and all :-)

 

Yes, let's just ignore that 2009 Joe Mauer was "the best player in baseball" and that 2010 Joe Mauer was "an extremely good player".

 

No, that wouldn't affect anything.

[ThePuck]

Yes, let's just ignore that 2009 Joe Mauer was "the best player in baseball" and that 2010 Joe Mauer was "an extremely good player".

 

No, that wouldn't affect anything.

 

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

[Brock Beauchamp]

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

 

The Twins don't dictate market value. The market dictates value and after the 2009 season, Mauer's value was the highest it had ever been. The agent negotiates based on perceived value and the team has to work with that number or an agreement will not be reached.

[Kwak]

To ground my point, you need to look no further than Joe Mauer to see the importantance of cost-controlled years. The team had to sign him after the 2009 season, which increasingly appears to be a career year.

 

Now what if the team had that extra year of control over him and was allowed to re-sign him after the 2010 season? Over the course of that contract, they probably would have saved $20m. He's not a $180m player if you sign him after the 2010 season.

 

Mauer signed his 8-year contract extention December 2010.

AJ was traded between the '03 and '04 season (specifically to "unblock" the Catcher position for Mauer). The Twins were a good team and were favored to win the division for '04--but not overwhelming favorites. "Holding back" Mauer for "that extra year" of service would jeopardize the '04 season by requiring the Twins to play two 2nd string-catchers until it "was safe" to promote him to the Twins. Recall that the '03 Twins had to come from behind (about 7.5 games I think) after the ASB, so starting off slowly in '04 could well cost the playoffs.

 

The Gibson and Mauer scenarios are quite different. But playing Gibson early with the Twins, then optioning him to Rochester midseason for the purpose of shutting him down, accomplishes the same goal of service time reduction (that "control" thing) as does pitching in Rochester. It also exposes Gibson to MLB and serves to determine whether "he belongs up here" or not. Pitching in Rochester does not determine whether Gibson (or anybody else for that matter) belongs with the Twins or will be yet another failed prospect. Time to find out.

[ThePuck]

Mauer signed his 8-year contract extention December 2010.

AJ was traded between the '03 and '04 season (specifically to "unblock" the Catcher position for Mauer). The Twins were a good team and were favored to win the division for '04--but not overwhelming favorites. "Holding back" Mauer for "that extra year" of service would jeopardize the '04 season by requiring the Twins to play two 2nd string-catchers until it "was safe" to promote him to the Twins. Recall that the '03 Twins had to come from behind (about 7.5 games I think) after the ASB, so starting off slowly in '04 could well cost the playoffs.

 

The Gibson and Mauer scenarios are quite different. But playing Gibson early with the Twins, then optioning him to Rochester midseason for the purpose of shutting him down, accomplishes the same goal of service time reduction (that "control" thing) as does pitching in Rochester. It also exposes Gibson to MLB and serves to determine whether "he belongs up here" or not. Pitching in Rochester does not determine whether Gibson (or anybody else for that matter) belongs with the Twins or will be yet another failed prospect. Time to find out.

 

Nah, he signed his extension Mar 2010

[Brock Beauchamp]

Mauer signed his 8-year contract extention December 2010.

AJ was traded between the '03 and '04 season (specifically to "unblock" the Catcher position for Mauer). The Twins were a good team and were favored to win the division for '04--but not overwhelming favorites. "Holding back" Mauer for "that extra year" of service would jeopardize the '04 season by requiring the Twins to play two 2nd string-catchers until it "was safe" to promote him to the Twins. Recall that the '03 Twins had to come from behind (about 7.5 games I think) after the ASB, so starting off slowly in '04 could well cost the playoffs.

 

The Gibson and Mauer scenarios are quite different. But playing Gibson early with the Twins, then optioning him to Rochester midseason for the purpose of shutting him down, accomplishes the same goal of service time reduction (that "control" thing) as does pitching in Rochester. It also exposes Gibson to MLB and serves to determine whether "he belongs up here" or not. Pitching in Rochester does not determine whether Gibson (or anybody else for that matter) belongs with the Twins or will be yet another failed prospect. Time to find out.

 

From Wiki:

On March 21, 2010, Mauer agreed to an eight-year contract extension with the Twins worth $184 million, which took effect in the 2011 and will run through the 2018 season.

 

If the Twins choose to rotate Gibson back to the minors mid-season, I'm fine with that. On the other hand, I don't see any problems with starting him in Rochester, either. At the end of the 2013 season, he's probably going to end up at the same place anyway.

 

The guy had 90 pretty mediocre innings in AAA before getting injured. I don't see the harm in giving him a few more in what will probably amount to a lost season anyway.

[ThePuck]

The Twins don't dictate market value. The market dictates value and after the 2009 season, Mauer's value was the highest it had ever been. The agent negotiates based on perceived value and the team has to work with that number or an agreement will not be reached.

 

Twins still dictate what they are willing to spend though, right? Based on a slew of factors, not all of which are on the field, no? He wasn't ON the open market yet. Fangraphs had Mauer's 2010 value at 21.9M for on the field. 22.5 last year.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Twins still dictate what they are willing to spend though, right? Based on a slew of factors, not all of which are on the field, no? He wasn't ON the open market yet.

 

Sure, they dictate what they're willing to spend but in the Mauer situation, they basically had to agree to pay him whatever he wanted. Mauer had them bent over the barrel in that "negotiation". He was a once-in-a-lifetime hometown boy coming off an MVP season when the team was moving into a new publicly-financed stadium. They basically had to pay whatever he wanted to retain him.

 

Thankfully, Joe was a pretty reasonable guy and almost surely signed for less than he could have demanded on the open market.

[Nick Nelson]

And my point is that if you have one more year of team control, you extend that "buy out time" by another year, as well. It shouldn't be the only driving force in deciding whether a player is going to join the ML franchise but it should be a consideration, particularly in a case like Gibson where he can't pitch more than 2/3rds of a season anyway.

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.

 

And do you know why this is a "manufactured" situation? Because the Twins already employ this strategy. Outside of Joe Mauer, is there a player on the Twins who didn't see their service time extended by a year by shuffling them from the minors mid-season? Justin Morneau, Denard Span, Jason Kubel, Johan Santana, etc... All guys who started their seasons in the minors before getting a call up.

Santana actually spent his entire first season with the Twins on the MLB roster as he was a Rule 5 pick. I doubt the decisions with the other guys had much, if anything, to do with their service clocks. If you can find me an example of a minor-leaguer who was widely deemed MLB-ready at the start of a season, then left in Triple-A for three weeks and called up, I might lend credence to historical precedent. You could maybe argue they did it with Garza but even that's iffy.

 

And if Mauer had one more year of controlled service time, chances are that buy out would have been extended through 2011. One more year of flexibility would have been nice. Why would a team buy out a guy only through his arbitration years? It doesn't make sense for either side.

If there's anything that can be criticized in this situation, it is the timing and length of the extensions the Twins gave Mauer. Again, it had nothing to do with when they chose to bring him up. Besides which, you're basing this example on a guy who put up career numbers one season before his walk year. That's very bad timing for the team, but can occur and become a problem regardless of when you promote someone.