Trending (March 10)

It maybe a coincidence and clearly not as blatent it was intentional, but deGrom and Syndergard debuted for the Mets on May 7 and May 14. 

 

I don't think that's true at all. I looked up BA's Top 100 prospects from 2013 and looked at the debut dates for the Top 13 pitchers (before I felt I could prove my point). Only Fernandez and Archie Bradley debuted in April. Two debuted in May, four in June, one in July and the rest in August and September.

Doesn't that kind of prove my point?  Top position player prospects have frequently been called up after ~12 days like Bryant (Springer, Longoria) or immediately after the Super 2 date in June (Lindor, Correa, Myers, Polanco, etc.).

Pitchers have rarely been called up at those times.  It's spread out through the year.  I think teams are not using service time as a big factor in their pitcher promotions.

David Price for example was used in the bullpen in September, but didn't come up the following year until mid May, I'm pretty sure they got the extra year handling it that way.  

I did notice Price recently, although he was a bit of a special case.  He got a late start in 2008 (his first pro season), and he was on a strict pitch count in the early part of 2009 as they gradually ramped up his innings.

Yes, they did get an extra year of control, and I don't think the Rays were unaware of that, but I don't think it was their top priority.  The Rays have had numerous other pitching prospects who haven't seen any service time games, like Archer (who qualified for Super-2 status) and Moore, Davis, and Hellickson (who all came up late one season then made the opening day roster the following year).

Over the next week FOUR Top 100 prospects made their debut including a pitcher. (Bryant, Russell, Rodon and Plawecki).

Rodon was a bit of a special case too, first full pro season, especially considering the White Sox used him in mop-up duty for his first 3 weeks in MLB anyway.

Then call Berrios a "special case" because they had two other guys that they were looking to give a shot to. There's literally no other reason to have Rodon not start the year with the White Sox.

They are wildly different situations.  Rodon threw 24 professional innings the year prior.  Even with his college innings, he only threw 122 total in 2014.  There was absolutely an argument to give him a late start in 2015 to control those innings, which is exactly what the White Sox did.  I am sure they weren't unaware of the service time implications, but given his mop-up usage for his first 3 weeks in MLB, it is pretty clear the innings were likely the primary factor.

I have no problem with holding Berrios down for 12 days, given our glut of SP options to sort through.  I am not disagreeing on that at all.  It just seems really odd to frame it as a service time imperative when that doesn't seem to be the case league-wide.  And it would be completely un-Twins-like to call up Berrios 12 days into the season, barring a coincidental injury.  They only called up Buxton when Hicks got hurt.  They didn't call up Sano until almost a month after the Super-2 threshold date, and it arguably cost them a playoff spot.

If the Twins were missing a fifth guy in the rotation, I'd be more bullish on having Berrios in a Minnesota uniform on Opening Day.

 

But given his young age and the sheer number of guys vying for a rotation spot, I have no problems punting this decision to May or June (or even July depending on situation).

 

Gibson, Hughes, Santana are locks. Duffey deserves a spot. Milone probably deserves a spot. I'd like to see May back in the rotation if the bullpen sorts itself out with Meyer and/or Burdi. Nolasco... Whatever. He's there, I guess.

 

That leaves Berrios in a tough place over the short term but I'm sure the team can find a way to work him in there as ineffectiveness/injury takes hold of a few of those guys.

Absolutely, I agree with this.

But if the Twins were missing a couple starters right now, I have no doubt that Berrios would be strongly considered for the opening day rotation.  Heck, it wouldn't shock me if they found a way to do it anyway -- well, the aggressiveness would pleasantly surprise me, but ignoring the service time implications wouldn't shock me at all.

I will be shocked if Berrios is up after 12 days or thereabouts, without a legit coincidental injury.

I'm not going to go through the work of researching it, but it's guess there's little to no difference between pitchers and hitters and their debuts.

You already did some research, and found pitcher prospect debut dates scattered throughout the year.

I've already presented the case of the penny-pinching Rays, who obviously held back elite prospects Longoria and Myers for service time reasons, but arguably have never done it for any of their many pitching prospects (with the possible exception of Price although he was on a strict pitch/innings count at the time).

I'm not sure what more evidence you want?  If and when the Twins fail to call up Berrios close to 12 days into the season, can that be considered evidence?

It maybe a coincidence and clearly not as blatent it was intentional, but deGrom and Syndergard debuted for the Mets on May 7 and May 14. 

 

Lots of top pitching prospects debut in May, I'm not sure how you can say no team has ever held down a top pitching prospect to get the extra year of control.  It may not be as blatant as it was with Bryant, since pitchers only play every 5 days anyways.  

I will add that I'm not saying service time is zero factor with pitchers, but it seems pretty clear that they are:

- less likely to see service time games than position players

- generally see far less obvious service time games than position players (suggesting that service time is more on equal footing with other factors, rather than being the clear primary factor)

To be fair, you started this off by saying "no baseball team has ever held down a top pitching prospect for 12 days at the start of the season" and reasoned "perhaps were overvaluing the extra year of control"

 

Those comments are far different than its less likely than position players, or just less obvious (pretty likely, since pitchers have other factors working against them like pitch counts, throwing every 5 days, etc.)

I don't think those comments are far different.

When I say "less obvious", I don't mean plus or minus 5 days.  It's usually weeks or months different, even last season, which was 7 years after Longoria.  deGrom and Syndergaard were mentioned earlier in the thread, and they actually debuted about as close to the Super-2 date in June as they did to the extra year of control date in April.   At that point, it's very far from clear that service time is the primary factor in their promotions.

Given the evidence, I definitely think that posters here are overvaluing the 7th year of control for Berrios, as compared to the Twins and to the rest of the league.  Not saying I endorse one approach or the other, just noting the disconnect.  The date of Berrios's MLB promotion is unlikely to be driven primarily by service time considerations, almost regardless of team (although it seems especially unlikely on the Twins).

1) Syndergaard had a sore elbow last Spring, which explains the May promotion instead of mid to late April (not sure why that makes a difference) 

It makes a difference because his promotion, like virtually all promotions of pitching prospects, can't be primarily tied to service time considerations.  Not even close.

2) Perhaps you are finding less examples of service time manipulation with pitchers because there happens to just be less top pitching prospects than position players? Keith Law's top 50 prospects for 2016 has 17 pitchers, 33 position players.  I would imagine that's the split most years, since there are nearly twice as many starting position players as starting pitchers on a team

Still, obviously holding back position players for service time reasons has been going on a long time.  Longoria was way back in 2008, with tons of readily available examples.  Even if there are only half as many pitching prospects, in that time frame there should certainly be more pitcher examples than the limited ones detailed in this thread, if teams really value their service time the same as that of position players.

I really don't see any correlation at all between service time mattering for position players, and not mattering for pitchers. If anything, teams should be more willing to hold back pitchers, because they can impact less games those 1st 2 weeks than a position player can. 

Pitching prospects have a ton more variability in their projections than position players.  That extra year of control, or even that extra year of arb, just doesn't mean as much over a wider range of projected outcomes.

I did find another pitcher who appears to have been held back to avoid Super-2, Zach Wheeler.  And you know what happened to him?  Elbow injury and he's missed a full season and counting, before he would have even been eligible for arbitration as a super-2 anyway.  Whatever future value they gained or money they saved by holding him back is probably dwarfed by that one injury.  The same can happen for a position player, of course (Wil Myers recently), but I don't think it is controversial to say that's a far more likelier outcome for a pitching prospect than a hitting prospect.

In 2 weeks, assuming 2 games started, a starting pitcher can easily have as much or more influence on a team's record than a position player.  Which is why you see a lot of teams essentially trade that speculative extra year of control (or Super-2 arbitration status, in the case of Syndergaard) for a few weeks of the present-day pitcher.  Even penny-pinchers like the Rays (although as noted upthread, maybe not the Pirates with Gerrit Cole).

Even going back to the Jose Fernandez example, where Jeremy chided the Marlins for sacrificing that 7th year of control -- what did it really cost them?  Fernandez got hurt, which is suppressing his arbitration salaries (and he only has 3 years of arb, instead of 4 had they delayed his promotion by 2 weeks).  And he's still dogged by health concerns even after a dominant return.  If they wind up trading him, it will almost certainly be to a team putting a premium on his immediate contributions and not his speculative contributions 3-4 years from now.

Of course, an extra year of control wouldn't hurt his value (although it would be partially offset by the extra year of arb), and his extra start in 2013 was especially meaningless given the otherwise hopeless Marlins squad that year, but it really doesn't look like it will have a major effect, despite him immediately exceeding expectations on the field.

(Of course, there are plenty of other reasons to chide the Marlins. )

It cost them 31 starts!

I don't think any MLB pitchers can be projected to make 31 starts 6-7 years from now. At least not at any particular quality. Heck, Fernandez probably still isn't projected for that many starts, 3-4 years from now.

Elite young position players tend to get longer contracts than elite young pitchers, just because there is a bit more stability in their projection. Why would we not assume that is also a factor in whether teams prioritize service time games at the start of their career?

You bring up a lot of Rays examples - Longo, Moore, Archer - they all signed long-term deals very early in their careers. Why? Control at a defined cost.Another thing to consider too, is that if a guy is on the 40-man, he has to be held down for 20 days to get an additional year.

Good point on the 20 days, although I don't think we have seen too many cases of that in regards to these kinds of early career service time games either. Putting someone on the 40-man for a late season call-up is generally an indicator you don't care about service time manipulation with them.

Control is great, and I am not saying I wouldn't do it with Berrios, but note that with those two Rays pitchers you mention, the team didn't put any great priority on manipulating their service time.

That's my whole point, is that these service time games matter less for pitchers than hitters. The reason Berrios will start in the minors is because of the glut of starters ahead of him. If we lost a SP candidates in a bizarre gardening accident tomorrow, and another by spontaneous combustion the day after, Berrios could quite likely make the opening day roster and few would mind about the 7th year. I really think that is more ofba focus for fans than it is for MLB clubs (not that MLB clubs are unaware of the implications, but they just put a much lower priority on achieving them).

Or, remember back in 2013, a lot of posters argued the Twins were making a mistake by not manipulating Hicks' service time. I think good pitching prospects fall closer to guys like Hicks than they do to elite position player prospects, in terms of how much these service time manipulations actually matter, and how much priority teams place on them.

For the difference right now between and Milone and Berrios, I would at least go the three weeks in the minors with Berrios. Sometime this year, he will get his shot and I doubt he'll ever be optioned again. Having Berrios for a seventh year is good (general) managing.

In my admittedly short look at the box scores, it appears to me that none of the out-of-options guys has taken the ball and run with it. Tonkin, Arcia, and Santana all have started slowly. I'm sure they will continue to get chances, but none of these guys has claimed a spot.