Otto von Ballpark

But you could at least put butter on it, right? Was lutefisk offered at the same buffet? I'd check myself, but "norwegian-food-reference.com" seems to be down right now...

Generally agreed. Quentin and Sweeney can't even opt out of their minor league contracts until June 1, as I understand, so there is no real imperative to add them to the roster for opening day. So we can easily afford another chance for Arcia. That said, Arcia is looking more and more like a bust every day. It happens sometimes. He obviously didn't have the past MLB success, but a lot of people here made a statement similar to yours about Joe Benson a few years ago. Arcia is closer to Benson circa 2013 right now than he is to Ortiz circa 2002-2003. Arcia was already around replacement level even with his early career power. If Arcia's power is gone (and it largely was in 2015, .107 ISO in MLB, .090 in the second half at AAA, .000 so far this spring), that's a pretty bad player.

Are you sure you don't mean lutefisk (a jelly-like fish dish)? Lefsa is just bread, and I've never seen it characterized as gross. Lutefisk, on the other hand, is almost universally characterized as gross...

Well, Beltran is almost 39 years old, and posted a -14 Rfield last year. And as mentioned by another poster, he's a FA next winter, and Ellsbury missed significant time last year (and got benched for the wild card game). And Gardner, the healthiest one, is just returning from an injury today himself, and has been the subject of trade rumors. I think it's quite likely that there could be a starting job there, very soon for Hicks, if his performance warrants one (as well as if/when there is an injury).

See my post above -- I think Seth overstated their chances a bit, although they could certainly sneak onto those rosters.

Herrmann is competing for a starting job in Arizona? Seems unlikely, they are returning their 2015 starter Welington Castillo (116 OPS+). Herrmann has received some at-bats this spring, but not many games at catcher (only 5th most on the team). I could see him beating out Gosewisch for the backup job, although Arizona seems like the kind of team that would like an old-school backup guy like Gosewisch. And now that Molina has returned to game action for St. Louis, I doubt that Fryer has a "good chance" at the backup up job there. Molina will start as long as he is remotely able, they signed Brayan Pena to a 2 year, $5 mil deal this winter to be the backup, and they also have an interesting prospect Mike Ohlman on their 40-man roster who could soon make a good platoon partner with Pena if Molina goes down again.

Only Schafer started on opening day, of those three. Presley didn't even make a Twins opening day roster. Mastroianni only did once (2013), and didn't get an AB until the team's 8th game of the season. The Twins went with youth (Hicks) to start at this spot in 2013-2014, and arguably could have again in 2015 (no Schafer) had they not felt burned by Hicks' performance in 2013-2014.

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.

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).

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?

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. )

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).

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. 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 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).

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Not quite. The first "off day" is the second day of the season. So as early as April 10th, you would need a 5th starter, or have your #2 start on short rest.

Jeremy, don't you think the fact that no baseball team has ever held down a top pitching prospect for 12 days at the start of the season suggest that maybe we're over-valuing that extra year of control for pitchers? Fernandez (predictably) getting hurt probably suppresses his pre-FA salaries enough to offset much of whatever premium the Marlins or whoever will have to pay to buy out his first FA year. Had he struggled in his return like Liriano, they could have optioned him and recovered some service time too. Teams have been holding back elite position player prospects for some time now, and have only very rarely done it for pitchers (most notably, Gerrit Cole was called up after the super 2 threshold date).

How was the wind today? 7 Twins XBH, all to left field.

On the subject of spring training stats, one of the most useful (to me) seems to be B-Ref's "OppQual" which is average "quality" of opponent faced. Tells if you are facing more scrubs than MLB regulars, and generally indicates who is getting first crack at opportunities (and likely has an inside track at making the opening day roster). http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2016.shtml At the moment, ranking by OppQual with a playing time threshold of 1 IP or 7 PA, it almost exactly matches the commonly projected Twins opening day rosters, with exceptions around Sano/Park who had a priority on getting early work in regardless of opponent quality. It even seems to be capturing what I expected for the bullpen competition, that Reed/Burdi/Chargois/Melotakis in particular have little chance of making the club. Note that B-Ref spring training stats seem to lag a day or so behind MLB.