Ten To Extend: A Five-Part Series (Part 5)

I said he is a #3 starter. And I said in terms of upside, he is behind Berrios, Hughes, and Ervin, making him 4th in terms of upside.

I really would not mind a gibson extension if his arb ended at 28. I would not do it, but I would not care a lot. But at 31 it seems really unnecessary and color me hesitant to lock up another lower upside starter to a long term deals.

I would not bet on any of the above pitchers having a better season than Gibson this year let alone for the next few years.  Hughes and Ervin are likely to decline, and Berrios is unproven while Gibson made some significant strides last season, particularly in his ability to mix in off speed pitches to get K's.  Gibson projected to have 2 upside as a prospect.  Berrios a 1-2.  Gibson is close to reaching his full potential.  Berrios may be our ace in a year or two, but it might well be the veteran Gibson we trust to start Game 1 in the World Series.  I'm ok extending a guy like that.  It might not save us much.  But if his K's go up to 7.5/9ip and he wins a couple playoff games in the next year or two, he may be a guy we wish we would have kept to avoid having to go to FA and purchase more Nolascos and Hughes.  

In general, I hate classifying types of players to extend (young aces v. avg 3B etc.) because it should always depend on price, market, and team need.  Of course you can extend a Berrios early, but it won't be close to cheap, if he agrees at all.  You need at least 5 starters.  The extensions proposed were very reasonable for Gibson at current level, let alone if he takes another step.  I want to win, and extending Gibson makes sense to achieve that end at a modest price.  

Plouffe is another story.  His hot and cold streaks remind me of other streak hitters like Jacque Jones and Jason Kubel.  The end came pretty quickly for those two once the decline started.  I'd like to get out on Plouffe before his cold streaks become permanent.  

Hughes will be 29 this year. Ervin 33. If they are both likely to decline, I am not sure what the rush is to secure Gibson's age 32 season.

And Gibson may have a better season next year than those guys, but he can have that season here without an extension.

Hughes and Gibson are similar ages.  Hughes also has around 1200 MLB innings on his arm.  Gibson has 425.  Hughes seems like a durable workhorse, and Gibson has had Tommy John.  I'll take my chances with Gibson's fresh arm vs. Hughes' potential loss of arm strength.  Really that is my point. You can have Gibson for less than the going rate in arbitration, let alone the going rate in free agency. You need 5 starters.  If I'm GM, I'd rather risk being wrong on an extension than wrong on a free agent or a loser in a trade.  I'd also like to establish some stability and culture in the rotation.  Maybe set the stage for a Berrios extension.  I understand that you can get great production at a tiny cost if you want to take advantage of the rookie deal.  In the end, I doubt Gibson would be happy with that, and I would bet seeing the Twins make all their young players play out their rookie contracts and negotiate arbitration each winter would make the Berrios camp awfully nervous.

^{Over the last two years there were 100 pitchers that managed to pitch 250 innings. Kyle Gibson is one of them.   By WAR he ranks 45.   There probably some variability over the years but I don not think it is unreasonable  To think Gibson  maintaining his current pitching would be considered a number 2 starter. What is that worth?  These figures are from spotrac. Some of you might need a barf bag for these numbers. Coming in at number 24 in salary per year for a starting pitcher, Ervin Santana Tied for 33, Nolasco Number 50 is Hughes,  Gibson would slot somewhere between Hughes and Santana  So after you figure out is Gibson  the Read Deal you then would have to figure  what to pay. Wade Miley got 3/18 to buy out his arb years and 12m option  plus incentives versus a you are a bust buyout.  That would be your basis. For Gibson then there is the question of security versus better payday.   If I were Gibson I would take security.}

Hughes and Gibson are similar ages.  Hughes also has around 1200 MLB innings on his arm.  Gibson has 425.  Hughes seems like a durable workhorse, and Gibson has had Tommy John.  I'll take my chances with Gibson's fresh arm vs. Hughes' potential loss of arm strength.  Really that is my point. You can have Gibson for less than the going rate in arbitration, let alone the going rate in free agency. You need 5 starters.  If I'm GM, I'd rather risk being wrong on an extension than wrong on a free agent or a loser in a trade.  I'd also like to establish some stability and culture in the rotation.  Maybe set the stage for a Berrios extension.  I understand that you can get great production at a tiny cost if you want to take advantage of the rookie deal.  In the end, I doubt Gibson would be happy with that, and I would bet seeing the Twins make all their young players play out their rookie contracts and negotiate arbitration each winter would make the Berrios camp awfully nervous.

There is a higher likelihood of a second TJ than getting a first. 

That Hughes  has pitched more major league innings than Gibson is a reflection of not being a college pitcher, not having TJ, and does not mean that he is more prone to wearing out faster than Gibson would.

Where did you get that data? I can't find anything to support that.... I read one comprehensive list of all TJ surgeries and found 68 players who had 2... about 5% of all the TJ's done.  

 

Also found this (from a few years ago); 

 

"Yes. 2-4% of pitchers undergo a second Tommy John surgery, often called a UCL revision. There have been fewer studies of players with revisions, but those have shown that these pitchers also are able to return to play at a high rate, though often in a reduced role."

 

"A 2012-2013 survey of active players found that 25% of Major League pitchers and 15% of Minor League pitchers had undergone Tommy John surgery at some point in their careers."

There was just a big study released attempting to predict TJ surgery a few weeks ago.  One of the factors they found predictive of future TJ surgeries is having one in the past.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/predicting-tommy-john-surgeries.html

There is a higher likelihood of a second TJ than getting a first. 

 

That Hughes  has pitched more major league innings than Gibson is a reflection of not being a college pitcher, not having TJ, and does not mean that he is more prone to wearing out faster than Gibson would.

I think you're missing my point.  You can say Hughes arm is stronger and more likely to last than Gibson's.  Both sides have arguments in that regard (more innings vs. prior injury).  My point is that buying out arbitration years is always going to be much cheaper than buying out FA years or signing another FA on the open market.  You let young players know that they'll be rewarded for early success.  You avoid forced trades and contract distractions.  We waited with Mauer, Hunter, and Santana and got burned in 3 different ways, 1 having to offer a bad contract, 2 letting a star walk and getting nothing, and 3 being forced into a take-what-we-can-get trade when the expected price war didn't materialize.  Each of those moves set the team back further than an early extension of Joe Mays, Scott Baker, or Brian Dozier.

I think you're missing my point.  You can say Hughes arm is stronger and more likely to last than Gibson's.  Both sides have arguments in that regard (more innings vs. prior injury).  My point is that buying out arbitration years is always going to be much cheaper than buying out FA years or signing another FA on the open market.  You let young players know that they'll be rewarded for early success.  You avoid forced trades and contract distractions.  We waited with Mauer, Hunter, and Santana and got burned in 3 different ways, 1 having to offer a bad contract, 2 letting a star walk and getting nothing, and 3 being forced into a take-what-we-can-get trade when the expected price war didn't materialize.  Each of those moves set the team back further than an early extension of Joe Mays, Scott Baker, or Brian Dozier.

Kyle Gibson is not an MVP caliber player like the 3 you mention above; if he was the conversation would be very different.  He is somewhere between below average and average right now in his prime.  The question is do we want to extend a pitcher that will be post prime and likely to be below average 5 years from now. 

You are definitely right with your 1st sentence... but the 2nd one, Kyle Gibson is below avg?  According to what? His era+ last year was 108, and he was 15 in the AL among starters in WAR.  He's a solid #3 starter. 

His ERA+ the year before was 87.  So if you want to split the difference and call him average at this point I'm fine with that.  My point is that if he is average-ish now, in his prime, do we really want the Twins to lock themselves in to decline phase (and probably below average at that point) Gibson? 

For those of you who are pro-Gibson extension, what is the upside to an extension?

On a completely unrelated note, does anyone know why my paragraphs are reformatting and I end up with no spaced between my sentences?

Kyle Gibson is not an MVP caliber player like the 3 you mention above; if he was the conversation would be very different. He is somewhere between below average and average right now in his prime. The question is do we want to extend a pitcher that will be post prime and likely to be below average 5 years from now.

K, the article suggested buying out the arb years, not extending 5 years. Even if he is declining, he still likely has value if you want to buy a couple free agent years at a nice discount. The proposed extension is team friendly. It rewards good performance, and provides substantial savings of things go right. If we disagree on the type of player Gibson projects to be that's fine. If you're arguing that only mvp calibet players (hunter?) Should be extended then i think your premise is flawed. The closer to fa a player gets the more attractive the open market becomes. In many cases you lose the final year of team control anyway because of the pressure to trade a guy instead of letting them walk. Leverage swings from team to player at that point. The arb figures go up as well.

His ERA+ the year before was 87.  So if you want to split the difference and call him average at this point I'm fine with that.  My point is that if he is average-ish now, in his prime, do we really want the Twins to lock themselves in to decline phase (and probably below average at that point) Gibson? 

 

For those of you who are pro-Gibson extension, what is the upside to an extension?

 

On a completely unrelated note, does anyone know why my paragraphs are reformatting and I end up with no spaced between my sentences?

I am pro Gibson signing, but it could be to buy out Arb yrs,with 1 or 2 team option yrs into his FA yrs. My contract would look like this 2017, $3M, 2018, $6M, 2019, $9M, then 2 team option yrs at $12M and $15M with maybe a $1M buyout.

On a different note, I would try to extend Trevor May too.

It seems we have a fundamental difference in how we view Kyle Gibson's future, and probably current, capabilities. 

The data shows that pitchers begin to enter their decline phase (albeit a slow decline initially) in their early to mid 20's.  By 32 their velocity and k-rate decrease while they're LD and FB percentages increase.  On top of that there are very real injury concerns here.  Set aside for a moment that he's already had one TJ surgery and what that means for a potential second surgery and instead focus on just the natural injury risk associated with pitchers.  We are currently seeing that with Nolasco, Hughes and Perkins.

Kyle Gibson is not the type of player that is going to break the bank.  He is a low strike out ground ball pitcher and that skill set just doesn't get paid very much.  Extending him just to save 5 or 10 million dollars over the next 4 or 5 years will have no impact on the Twins ability to sign future FA's or extend other deserving players.  It will however lock the Twins into paying him regardless of any injury or decline that does happen.  It also cements his spot in the rotation barring multiple terrible years like Nolasco.

Perhaps Gibson improves over the next few years.  Perhaps he can remain healthy.  As a fan I certainly want to believe those things, however the statistics show those are less likely outcomes. 

Mid market teams should not be in the practice of buying out the arbitration years of average players already in or close to their prime. They can afford the risk that the player will take a step forward and earn their reward in arbitration. It is far better to remain flexible and be able to move on from a player if they drop in performance either due to injury or early decline.