Article: Handling Gibson

[Nick Nelson]

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1419-Handling-Gibson

[Seth Stohs]

As I've said in several forum threads here at Twins Daily, the Twins typically don't pay attention to the service time as much as others. The Rays have already said that Wil Myers won't come up until early May. Last year, the Nationals had Bryce Harper spend a month in AAA before making his debut. They did the same with Strasburg.

 

The Twins had no problem bringing up Joe Mauer in 2004 from AA and having him on the roster the full season. Last year, Chris Parmelee and Liam Hendriks both began the season with the Twins. So, although we can all acknowledge the business benefit of gaining that extra year or team control, the Twins have plenty of track record of bringing players up to start the season rather than wisely waiting a month. in the minors.

[Nick Nelson]

The Twins had no problem bringing up Joe Mauer in 2004 from AA and having him on the roster the full season. Last year, Chris Parmelee and Liam Hendriks both began the season with the Twins. So, although we can all acknowledge the business benefit of gaining that extra year or team control, the Twins have plenty of track record of bringing players up to start the season rather than wisely waiting a month. in the minors.

And has it ever demonstrably hurt them?

[ashbury]

I think we've looked at all angles of this question for so long that it is easy to forget that chances are the decision won't be a tough one when opening day approaches - external events may move a close decision to a near-obvious one, one direction or the other. I'm kind of done speculating for now.

[Shane Wahl]

I appreciate the article. I think it is probably best for all sorts of reasons to keep him in Rochester for about 6 weeks and have him on an innings limit there that is fairly severe. 50ish innings there and then 100 with the Twins. This would mean that he pitches from April through September which is worthwhile in his case considering the fact that I believe 2010 is the last time he pitched a full season.

 

There is no reason to hate upon the idea that having Gibson end his season in September as opposed to August is better going into 2014. This is not a vacuum. September 2013 SHOULD be the time when we are guaranteed to see much of the Twins future: Hendriks, Gibson, Hermsen (maybe), Herrmann, Hicks, Benson, Arcia, Dozier, perhaps even Santana, and perhaps a few relievers like Guerra, Oliveros, Watts, Pugh, and Hauser. I like seeing the future in September as opposed to shutting a guy like Gibson down and then ending the season in lackluster fashion.

 

The service time issue is not central to my argument here. The future is central, and if there is an innings limit, I would like to see Gibson end the season starting with the Twins in September.

[Oxtung]

I think you have some flawed logic in this article in several places.

 

First, you claim there is a moral obligation to "...put their best team on the field...". But if this were true, or at least if the Twins FO believed it to be true then the offseason would have gone much differently.

 

Second, and this is really my larger point, you blame the Twins for potentially hurting Gibson's earning potential when all the Twins are doing is abiding by the rules as set forth in the CBA. The Twins, and any other team exploiting the loophole to acquire a 7th season of control, are not doing anything illegal. If abiding by the rules is morally wrong then the rules themselves are the problem. Since those rules are decided upon by the players association, as well as MLB obviously, the real moral failing here seems to be with the players themselves for allowing themselves to be "exploited" for a seventh year. Since this pay structure has been in place for quite a while and the players have had chances to make changes but have not, I think it is only logical to conclude there is no ethical problems with this particular rule. The Twins are within their rights, both legally and ethically, to hold a prospect in the minors for 20 days to obtain the 7th year of control.

 

Third, I think you overestimate how much a free agent cares about how a team handles the promotion of it's minor leaguers. Money, metropolitan area and competitiveness are much more likely to determine how a free agent responds to a contract offer. I would be surprised if an average player even knows how a majority of teams handle their minor league promotions.

[Twins Twerp]

Don't talk about morals when a guy ALREADY signed a 1.8 million dollar signing bonus. I know it is a business and that was his market value yada yada yada, but he made more with one signing than I will make in a whole career of teaching. So I think that the Twins not having him on the 25 man roster for until May has nothing to with morals and everything to do with looking towards the future.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Don't talk about morals when a guy ALREADY signed a 1.8 million dollar signing bonus. I know it is a business and that was his market value yada yada yada, but he made more with one signing than I will make in a whole career of teaching. So I think that the Twins not having him on the 25 man roster for until May has nothing to with morals and everything to do with looking towards the future.

 

I don't understand this thinking. Why is morality tied to the number on a paycheck? Just because Gibson makes a lot of money, it's impossible for a multi-billion dollar enterprise to exploit his services?

 

I'm not against the Twins making the most of the rules allowed them by the CBA, I only disagree with how you reached that point.

[Gene Larkin Fan Club]

I've been a teacher for 16 years and I certainly wish we made more money, but this has nothing to do with morality. This is an economic issue. It has everything to do with what the player is worth and treating him fairly (economically, not morally). If I could get 40,000 people to pay $20 a pop to watch me teach an Economics lesson, I'd get a $1.8 million signing bonus, too.

[Mike Sixel]

It astounds me people are so worried about how much money the pohlads make, by keeping a player cheap longer, but get mad at players wanting money, astounds me. He will be 31 or 32 when they lose control....that is an age many of you say is too old to even sign a guy....the best players should be up here. His innings should be used here, not in Rochester. They have more money than they are willing to spend. Bring him up.

[nicksaviking]

Seeing as he's 25, I don't think the service time should be as large of a concern. Calling him up now will mean he's younger when it comes to talking about an extension. As silly as it may seem, I find it much more likely that the Twins would be interested in extending a 29-year-old until he's say 34 than they would a 30-year-old until he's 35. It's only a year difference, but the perception of an under 30 pitcher generates positive reactions, while the perception of a pitcher over 35 generates pretty negative reactions.

[Nick Nelson]

I think it is probably best for all sorts of reasons to keep him in Rochester for about 6 weeks and have him on an innings limit there that is fairly severe. 50ish innings there and then 100 with the Twins. This would mean that he pitches from April through September which is worthwhile in his case considering the fact that I believe 2010 is the last time he pitched a full season.

Why not just have him pitch those first 50 innings in the majors is he appears ready? Also, if we unpack this theory a little bit we find that the math doesn't really make sense -- you're saying he should join the Twins after six weeks and then pitch 100 innings through the end of September, which would probably mean averaging under five frames per start. They're just not going to do that. The goal this year is to build up his strength to the point where he's throwing ~100/pitches per game and hopefully completing six or seven innings regularly.

 

First, you claim there is a moral obligation to "...put their best team on the field...". But if this were true, or at least if the Twins FO believed it to be true then the offseason would have gone much differently.

Have you seen me heartily endorsing their offseason approach?

 

In any event, this is a different matter. We're talking about choosing the best players out of the ones they already have available.

 

Second, and this is really my larger point, you blame the Twins for potentially hurting Gibson's earning potential when all the Twins are doing is abiding by the rules as set forth in the CBA. The Twins, and any other team exploiting the loophole to acquire a 7th season of control, are not doing anything illegal. If abiding by the rules is morally wrong then the rules themselves are the problem. Since those rules are decided upon by the players association, as well as MLB obviously, the real moral failing here seems to be with the players themselves for allowing themselves to be "exploited" for a seventh year. Since this pay structure has been in place for quite a while and the players have had chances to make changes but have not, I think it is only logical to conclude there is no ethical problems with this particular rule. The Twins are within their rights, both legally and ethically, to hold a prospect in the minors for 20 days to obtain the 7th year of control.

I'm not "blaming" the Twins -- they haven't done anything yet. I'm pointing out that there's an additional layer to this thing. The team certainly wouldn't be doing anything illegal by exploiting that loophole but it would have the potential to be rather upsetting for Gibson, especially if he pitches really well this spring (which, frankly, I fully expect him to). And as I said in the article, in my mind keeping Gibson a happy organizational soldier will be more important to his long-term future here than the service clock timeline, which can be handled in many different ways.

 

Third, I think you overestimate how much a free agent cares about how a team handles the promotion of it's minor leaguers. Money, metropolitan area and competitiveness are much more likely to determine how a free agent responds to a contract offer. I would be surprised if an average player even knows how a majority of teams handle their minor league promotions.

Do I think this specific instance will have a major impact on the desire of free agents to sign here? No. I do think that the Twins need to be conscious of how their actions are viewed, though. Right after hacking $30 million off their payroll in two years, they're going to bury good prospects who can help them now for the sake of saving a few million bucks several years down the line? I don't think that will go unnoticed if it continues to become a trend. If I'm a free agent looking to sign an incentive-laden deal, I'd probably have a hard time believing the Twins would be inclined to let me reach all of my incentives, or activate my expensive option, or build around me with quality players, if they're routinely exercising that type of penny-pinching.

[jmlease1]

Gibson's earnings shouldn't really be the issue here. (I will note that while he'll be under team control for the next 6 seasons, some of those are arbitration years, correct? I think we know what that looks like in MLB, where the arbitration rules are MASSIVELY slanted towards the players)

 

If Gibson can pitch at the MLB level, here's expected to be a core member of the rotation next season. The question for this season has to be about what will be best for his long-term development. Service time should be a secondary issue.

 

I would like to see Gibson's innings limit rationed out over the course of the full season. I think that would help him get used to the longer grind of a full season and prepare him to be a full-time member of the rotation. I don't want to see him in the bullpen; that's not his future role and he's never pitched there before.

 

He looks like he's ready now. Put him on the roster, put him in the rotation (5th slot, IMHO, skip him a few times over the course of the season, and let him keep pitching into Sept). The twins are going to have him for the prime years of his career, now that he seems to be recovered (mostly) from the injury. Let's see if he can stay healthy.

[edavis0308]

As I've said in several forum threads here at Twins Daily, the Twins typically don't pay attention to the service time as much as others. The Rays have already said that Wil Myers won't come up until early May. Last year, the Nationals had Bryce Harper spend a month in AAA before making his debut. They did the same with Strasburg.

 

The Twins had no problem bringing up Joe Mauer in 2004 from AA and having him on the roster the full season. Last year, Chris Parmelee and Liam Hendriks both began the season with the Twins. So, although we can all acknowledge the business benefit of gaining that extra year or team control, the Twins have plenty of track record of bringing players up to start the season rather than wisely waiting a month. in the minors.

 

So.. we are comparing Liam Hendriks and Chris Parmelee to players such as Harper, Strasburg, Price, Longoria....?

[Guest USAFChief]

I've stayed out of this debate, but IMO if Gibson earns a spot in the rotation, he belongs in the rotation. If he's on an innings limit (has there been any sort of announcement about that?), then deal with that as the season progresses. The extra year of team control isn't worth giving a second thought, the Twins can afford to have him pitch for them as long as they wish.

[DAM DC Twins Fans]

Given the fact that Pelfrey is also coming back from an injury and Diamond was injured in the off-season--this whole discussion may be irrelevant. If Gibson pitches well in spring training and wins a spot--he should be on the 25 man roster. Only if there are 5 starters that are healthy and pitching well--should he be sent to Rochester. Since it is likely the Twins will not be in a pennant race, shutting him down in August doesnt matter--let him pitch his 140-150 innings and then shut him down.

[diehardtwinsfan]

And has it ever demonstrably hurt them?

 

I think you can make a case that it did with Mauer. He was called up and hurt his knee almost immediately at which point he hit the 60 day DL and acrewed service time for all of 2004 without playing much of it. Had he had that injury in AAA, Mauer wouldn't have needed to be reupped after the 2009 season but after the 2010, which would have saved the franchize a lot of money... The flip side is whether leaving in AAA in 2004 would have "burned" Mauer enough that he would have said good bye. I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to it. But there's no question that decision cost the Twins a ton of cash.

 

The issue with service time is simply a business decision, and I have a tough time seeing where it would hurt them unless the player is obviously ready. There definitey have been cases in the past (such as Bartlett and Cuddyer) where a player was kept down when they appeared to be a clear upgrade over what was in place. Those teams were competitive as well, which soured a lot of fans. In Gibson's case, a good spring does not mean he's ready, and while I tend to agree that he's probably one of the best five pitchers now, he's on what is likely a last place team. You can look at his AAA numbers and see room for improvement, and asking that he pitch in limited innings out of Rochester during the beginning of the season is not unreasonable.

 

In that, I kind of see this both ways. The Twins should be a pretty consistent competitor from 2015 to 2020. The downside is that everyone is going to get pretty expensive come 2018-2020. Having that extra year of control on a few of these guys might allow them to control some costs better or perhaps trade someone for something of value at a position of need.

[Nick Nelson]

Gibson's earnings shouldn't really be the issue here. (I will note that while he'll be under team control for the next 6 seasons, some of those are arbitration years, correct? I think we know what that looks like in MLB, where the arbitration rules are MASSIVELY slanted towards the players)

I think it's more about security. The sooner Gibson starts his clock, the sooner he'll be in line for that potential big multi-year deal that will set him up for life. This is of extreme importance to a baseball player, because careers can take a sudden turn for the worse at any time, especially for pitchers.

 

If Gibson can pitch at the MLB level, here's expected to be a core member of the rotation next season. The question for this season has to be about what will be best for his long-term development. Service time should be a secondary issue.

Completely agree.

 

I think you can make a case that it did with Mauer. He was called up and hurt his knee almost immediately at which point he hit the 60 day DL and acrewed service time for all of 2004 without playing much of it. Had he had that injury in AAA, Mauer wouldn't have needed to be reupped after the 2009 season but after the 2010, which would have saved the franchize a lot of money... The flip side is whether leaving in AAA in 2004 would have "burned" Mauer enough that he would have said good bye. I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to it. But there's no question that decision cost the Twins a ton of cash.

Mauer's mega-deal was the second contract extension he signed in his career. The Twins gave him one in 2007 that bought out his final years of arb and his first year of free agency. The timing of the 2010 extension was pretty unfortunate but wasn't really dictated by his service clock... it was dictated by the Twins' previous decisions and by circumstance. Had they not signed him to that first cost-certainty contract, his final year of team control would have been 2009, and if they'd waited to extend him until before that season... well, he probably would have cost a lot less. To be clear, this isn't intended as a criticism because it's all viewed in hindsight.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Mauer's mega-deal was the second contract extension he signed in his career. The Twins gave him one in 2007 that bought out his final years of arb and his first year of free agency. The timing of the 2010 extension was pretty unfortunate but wasn't really dictated by his service clock... it was dictated by the Twins' previous decisions and by circumstance. Had they not signed him to that first cost-certainty contract, his final year of team control would have been 2009, and if they'd waited to extend him until before that season... well, he probably would have cost a lot less. To be clear, this isn't intended as a criticism because it's all viewed in hindsight.

 

I don't see your statement as criticism, as yes, this is all hindsight. I'm just suggesting that an extra year of service time for Mauer could have very realisticly pushed all of those items back one year, thus saving the team a bit of cash. Given TF opening up, I don't think Mauer's contract has really hamstrung the team, nor do I see that happening over the next 3-4 years either as they are going to have mostly pre-arb guys playing for them...

 

Now with a rash of guys who will be hitting arb come 2017-2020, there may be good reason to attempt to cost control some of them, especially at a time when the season is considered lost. If the Twins are smart, they'll do what the Indians did in the 90s and lock up the young promising ones through their arb years and into FA by a year or two. Having that extra year will definitely help them with those terms.

[Dave T]

Exactly. The best players should be up here. Get over it.

[Thrylos]

I think that if the Twins want to be extra careful with his arm and limit his innings, he should stay an extra month or so down to EST or play with the Miracle. April in Rochester (as in the Twin Cities) can be a pain.

 

If it is a medical decision I get it keeping him away. If it not, I don't get it. The best 25 should be in the majors.

[zenser]

As a side debate to the question if/when Gibson should be up, what about his innings limit? Lets say he has a 150 inning limit on him this year. Would you prefer that he only goes 5-6 innings a start to ensure he gets 25 starts or would you rather see him go as long as he can per start and then run the risk of being shut down in August. Obviously, there will be starts he wont last 5-6 innings. I hope those are few and far between, but I also hope there are starts he could go 8-9.

 

I am trying to think which ESPN analyst suggested that for Strasburg when he had about 10 starts left in order to prevent him from not getting shut down like he did.

[Riverbrian]

I have no opinion on his innings limit other than... I hope that the Twins find a different way to do it compared to how the Nats did it with Strasburg.

 

If Gibson is pitching well and the Twins are still in contention in September. I hope Gibson isn't shut down.

 

If this means a slowed down April and May or a break mid season... I don't know. I'd just rather see him throwing at the end of the year.

[snepp]

Exactly. The best players should be up here. Get over it.

 

This is a message board where people discuss topics from varying points of view.

 

 

There's nothing to "get over."

[Jim H]

I agree with the poster that suggested that the "right thing" to do with Gibson will likely be pretty obvious by the end of spring training. Right now, it seems that while he is likely healthy, he suffering the effects of not pitching competitively much in the last 2 years. It could easily be that pitching in the minors on pitch limit would make some sense. He could work on his mechanics, timing, secondary pitches, etc.

 

On the other hand if Diamond and/or Pelfrey aren't ready and nobody else steps up, maybe starting in majors makes sense. I suspect the "right" answer will be more obvious by the end of the month.

[cmathewson]

And has it ever demonstrably hurt them?

 

Yes the Twins typically extend players long before they are eligible for free agency and sometimes before they are elligible for arbitration. But it seems to have hurt them financially in the case of Mauer at least, and some others as well. Because Mauer hurt his knee on the major league roster, he ended up spending most of that year on the major league DL, accruing service time and pushing the date of his first long-term deal up by a year. In an age where they were scraping by on the meager earnings Bill Lester (MSPC Czar) let them have, that meant hard choices elsewhere.

 

The most obvious case of this is Nick Blackburn. He had two good years with the Twins between 08 and 09, after which they signed him to a four-year contract rather than wait until he was eligible for arbitration, which always drives up the price of any long-term deal. . If they had kept him in AAA for a month in 2008, they could have waited a year to do the long-term deal without looming arbitration to drive up his price. As it happens, he pitched badly in 2010 throughout his contract, largely the result of lingering elbow issues. And it continues to cost the Twins $5.5 million, despite almost zero chance he makes a contribution in 2013. It is one of the worst contracts in Twins history (almost as bad as the Joe Mays deal). Arguably, they would have avoided it altogether if they had just waited a month to give him a shot.

[FrodaddyG]

Arguably, they would have avoided it altogether if they had just waited a month to give him a shot.

Or if they could evaluate that a skilllset like Blackburn's wasn't exactly built for prolonged success. That should still be a much more important factor in figuring out who to give guaranteed money to than one less month of service time. The fact that "Blackie" had things on his side like being a "Twins way" pitcher and a Gardy favorite played significant roles in his early re-upping as well. The Twins would have likely been delighted to hand out that deal to "Blackie" at that time even if he had one less month of service time.

[snepp]

Or if they could evaluate that a skilllset like Blackburn's wasn't exactly built for prolonged success. That should still be a much more important factor in figuring out who to give guaranteed money to than one less month of service time. The fact that "Blackie" had things on his side like being a "Twins way" pitcher and a Gardy favorite played significant roles in his early re-upping as well. The Twins would have likely been delighted to hand out that deal to "Blackie" at that time even if he had one less month of service time.

 

Yes, Blacksie is/was a different can of worms. He was never the type of pitcher that was going to blow up arbitration, or pitch his way into an enormous free agent deal. His contract offered little potential reward right from day one.

[Nick Nelson]

Yes the Twins typically extend players long before they are eligible for free agency and sometimes before they are elligible for arbitration. But it seems to have hurt them financially in the case of Mauer at least, and some others as well. Because Mauer hurt his knee on the major league roster, he ended up spending most of that year on the major league DL, accruing service time and pushing the date of his first long-term deal up by a year. In an age where they were scraping by on the meager earnings Bill Lester (MSPC Czar) let them have, that meant hard choices elsewhere.

 

The most obvious case of this is Nick Blackburn. He had two good years with the Twins between 08 and 09, after which they signed him to a four-year contract rather than wait until he was eligible for arbitration, which always drives up the price of any long-term deal. . If they had kept him in AAA for a month in 2008, they could have waited a year to do the long-term deal without looming arbitration to drive up his price.

As others have pointed out, the Twins bought out the rest of Blackburn's arb years when they still had four years left of control over him, which made little sense considering he was already performing as well as could be expected. Also, the Twins played 163 games in 2008 so it's pretty fair to say that every win counted, and Blackburn was one of best starters on the team. Replacing him with an inferior arm for even the first three weeks of the season could have been the difference between forcing a tiebreaker with Chicago and falling short (though in hindsight obviously it doesn't make a difference).

 

The same goes for the example with Mauer in 2004. During the short time he played that year it was obvious he was MLB-ready; the alternative would have been starting Henry Blanco for the first three weeks of the season which -- with a playoff-caliber club -- is totally inexcusable. Yeah, it sucks that Mauer got hurt and spent most of the season accruing time in the MLB disabled list but who could have seen that coming?

[Shane Wahl]

I would say that the "best 25" argument ignores those few players who although they may be in the top 25, might benefit from time in AAA and may end up being better in 2014 and beyond if some caution is used in 2013, which is clearly a dubious season for the Twins unless the Tigers have some serious injuries. Gibson, Hicks, and Arcia are in the best 25, I think. But x pitcher, Mastro, and Ramirez/Boggs might be better options to start out with.