• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Reds tidbits (2010 season)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jaxbuck;1685526; said:
More teams don't use that approach because it's just like I said previously, high risk/non existent reward. A couple of starts between now and May from Leake are not worth the price you pay down the road if he turns out to be a stud. Not even close.
Click to expand...

It's not just a couple of starts at the beginning of the year. You can send him down later and avoid arbitration. What about that don't you understand? You really think Leake is going to be a Cy Young contender like Lincecum and the Reds can't send him down?

It's service time, not when you first appear in the league. Teams send players down all the time right at the 6 year mark to avoid free agency. If the Reds send down Leake for a month in the season it's same as sitting him in April, except if they bring him up later he will already have innings in the minors, therefore limiting the amount he can pitch in the majors.

I will say it again....SERVICE TIME!!!!! Leake is not going to pitch 200+ innings this year. He will probably be sent down at some point unless he is out of this world and the Reds are in a pennant race. Even then he will have to be shut down by August to save his arm. August plus September equals 2 months service time. Hey, look at that, avoid arbitration and free agency and get the most out of him in the majors.

Who knows how the season will go. Yet better to start him in the majors at day 1 just in case. If the Reds suck, send him down. They will probably send him down when Volquez comes back anyway. If they are a pennant contender and Leake is pitching great, then my other argument that they are a good team kicks in.

edit: Your Lincecum analogy is terrible. He is a super 2. Totally different ballgame. For the Giants to have avoided his arbitration they would have had to sit him for most of his 2nd or 3rd years (hence sitting him in the middle of a Cy Young year). The Giants did put off arbitration as long as they could with Lincecum.

For the record, Lincecum was called up in May and shut him down in September. If they did not do that he would have had arbitration a year before he got it. Yes, he got arbitration after 3 years, but he is under the super 2 rule. Therefore he was eligible after 2 years of service. He pitched 3 years before arbitration. Therefore the Giants did work the system right, and it's something the Reds can do also.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
jlb1705;1685539; said:
Sign me up for what Jax is saying. Small market teams do have a short window and you do have to go for it when you have your best chance. But I think you should also seek ways to extend that window whenever possible. Forgoing a few starts in the #5 spot in the rotation for an extra year of control over a young player is the wiser move in my opinion. I think that is especially true with the way games are scheduled in April and May. You can often skip that #5 spot in the early weeks and keep the other guys in the rotation on regular rest.
Click to expand...

Yet you do not have to do it at the start of the season. You can do it any time in his first two years for arbitration, and anytime in a 6 year span for free agency. With Volquez slated to come back in the middle of the season it's the right move. Heck, they may send down Leake, bring up Wood, send down Wood, bring up Leake, etc. They have all their options and can do that with those type of players who they feel are close. No worry about burning the options to the minors. There is more than one way to avoid arbitration/free agency, not just sitting them at the start of the year.
 
Upvote 0
scott91575;1685540; said:
It's not just a couple of starts at the beginning of the year. You can send him down later and avoid arbitration. What about that don't you understand?

I will say it again....SERVICE TIME!!!!!
Click to expand...

We can have a civil discussion or we can continue down the sarcastic, yelling and screaming path you seem to favor, its up to you.

I am completely aware of how arb eligibility works thanks, and the Giants had to go to arb with Linecum a year sooner than they needed to because of something like 8 days of service time. That's exactly the point I'm getting at if it be a super 2 or regular 3 year arb guy. Why give him any service time to find out he needed the seasoning in the minors (like 99.9% of pitchers do)? That is just fucking stupid.

BTW if you send him down later he has to stay down more than 20 days or he gets service time for that as well so its not as easy as just sending him down to stop the clock.

Back to the bigger issue: why rush the kid? Whats to be gained in a season with as many question marks as this team has? Start his SERVICE TIME!!!! (see I get it) accumulation later once he's had some seasoning and can stay up and contribute consistently. There is next to nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost, that's what the third time I've said that?

You've got a team with a #1 starter that looks like he's completely cratered, 4-5 of the starting 8 position players with massive offensive question marks, that hasn't broken .500 in a decade and all of a sudden we need to rush a promising young arm up to Dusty fucking Baker for a few starts out of the #5 spot?

Ryan Wagner says hello from wherever the fuck he's selling insurance these days.

I think the kid can be a special pitcher and its dumb to rush him this far this fast. Hopefully he does well, doesn't have his confidence, arm (or both) ruined by The Dusty and the whole thing works out.

This being the Reds we are talking about I'm going to go with the "this will end badly" option. I hope I'm wrong.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck;1685556; said:
We can have a civil discussion or we can continue down the sarcastic, yelling and screaming path you seem to favor, its up to you.
Click to expand...

You continue to simply ignore points. You kept making it sound like arbitration is screwed if he starts day one. You can sit him later and avoid arbitration. Right? It is very frustrating to have a completely legit point ignored and replied by "Tim Lincecum, Tim Lincecum, Tim Lincecum." Just because the Giants didn't know the super 2 rule enough (or chose to ignore it) does not mean the Reds will do the same thing. Starting Leake on day 1 does not mean earlier arbitration. Now, if they don't send him down later then you can make that point, and I will be on board with you (especially if he is not sent down at all and hurt the free agency timeline....that one is bigger IMO).

Jaxbuck;1685556; said:
I am completely aware of how arb eligibility works thanks, and the Giants had to go to arb with Linecum a year sooner than they needed to because of something like 8 days of service time. That's exactly the point I'm getting at if it be a super 2 or regular 3 year arb guy. Why give him any service time to find out he needed the seasoning in the minors (like 99.9% of pitchers do)? That is just fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

Once again, the Giants super 2 screw up does not mean the Reds will repeat the same thing. If he does enter the super 2 window that means he is either an all star or close to it. It also probably means the Reds are in the pennant race in August. Perhaps the Reds are willing to risk $12 million or so for one year in order to be in a pennant race. Who knows. The whole arbitration thing needs to be revisited in August, not now.

Jaxbuck;1685556; said:
BTW if you send him down later he has to stay down more than 20 days or he gets service time for that as well so its not as easy as just sending him down to stop the clock.
Click to expand...

Not a big deal. Hopefully they send him down to shut him down for the year. Of course he will be down more than 20 days.

Jaxbuck;1685556; said:
Back to the bigger issue: why rush the kid? Whats to be gained in a season with as many question marks as this team has? Start his SERVICE TIME!!!! (see I get it) accumulation later once he's had some seasoning and can stay up and contribute consistently. There is next to nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost, that's what the third time I've said that?
Click to expand...

Who says he can't do it now? You keep bringing up Lincecum, but ignore the fact he contributed right away after only a month in the minors. Is that the seasoning you are looking for? He also was a star at a Pac 10 school. Leake is not a 18 year old kid. Heck, he is almost the same age as Homer Bailey.

As far as nothing to be gained, how about wins? If the team doesn't win, then send Leake down. If he doesn't pitch well in the first couple months, send him down. It won't completely destroy the kid.

As for Ryan Wagner, maybe he just wasn't that good. BTW...where are Sandy Koufax and Bob Feller? They say hello from Cooperstown. As noted, Lincecum only spent 1 month in the minors. There are countless younger players who were called up, but they were high school kids that had to spend some time in the minors. Rick Porcello pitched all of 24 games in A ball. Leake pitched way more than that as Arizona State. Ask the Tigers if they think Porcello needs more "seasoning." Justin Verlander pitched 20 games in the minors. Should the Tigers have sent him down for some more seasoning? He was 3rd in Cy Young voting last year.

Jaxbuck;1685556; said:
You've got a team with a #1 starter that looks like he's completely cratered, 4-5 of the starting 8 position players with massive offensive question marks, that hasn't broken .500 in a decade and all of a sudden we need to rush a promising young arm up to Dusty fucking Baker for a few starts out of the #5 spot?

Ryan Wagner says hello from wherever the fuck he's selling insurance these days.

I think the kid can be a special pitcher and its dumb to rush him this far this fast. Hopefully he does well, doesn't have his confidence, arm (or both) ruined by The Dusty and the whole thing works out.

This being the Reds we are talking about I'm going to go with the "this will end badly" option. I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

This is where your pessimism and hatred kicks in. You are looking at things from your perspective of distrust in this team and hatred of Dusty Baker. First of all, I don't like Dusty and I think he should be gone. Yet that is a whole different point. Think of it this way....what if you were the head of the front office, thought you had a team you could win, and trusted your manager? The Reds have those beliefs, and if they believe those to be true then starting Leake on day 1 is the right call. They may be incorrect, but you cannot make decisions based on fear. Otherwise you will continually second guess yourself, never more forward, and continually screw up. Of course they should smarter up some and dump Dusty's ass. That would be a better call than sending Leake to the minors in order to avoid Dusty.

Personally, I, like the Reds, would like to see what Leake can do instead of watching Kip Wells, Matt Maloney or Micah Owings getting rocked for 2 months. The only other option is Wood, and he is young with the whole arbitration thing too. With Volquez coming back mid season it's the perfect recipe for giving Leake a shot early and sending him down later. I am not of the mind that it will destroy his career. As stated, there are plenty of players that only had a cup of coffee in the minors and went on to great careers. I don't think their short stay in the minors was the springboard to their career, and not much different than skipping the minors all together. On top of all that, I really think they will send down Leake eventually and bring up Wood or Chapman, therefore adding the extra year for arbitration and free agency for all of them. If not, and Leake pitches all year while the Reds suck I will be on board with you. Until then I will wait and see.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Scott- I am going from the assumption that if Leake is good enough to be up at this point then that means they have to think he'll stay up. I think that's the point where we are talking past each other.

If you bring a rookie up from Day 1 and he's good enough to stay up then you have indeed "started his clock". I am well aware that not exactly how it works mechanically but hopefully this makes it clear why I was saying it that way. Also the reason I keep using Lincecum is because he's an example of the rookie that came up before Y date (see below) and was too good to send back down. That's the situation I feel they are exposing themselves too needlessly.

Teams back into the math by figuring if player X starts accumulating service time after Y date and this is the maximum service time he can accumulate this season and it doesn't add up to 1 year of MLB service time per the CBA.

That's why so many teams hold good young rookie pitchers in the minors and use a career journeyman until they reach Y date. Now instead of going to arbitration in current year +3, they get to do it in current year +4 (or 2 and 3 if he's a super 2).

So yes you are correct in saying they can stop the service time accumulation by sending him down later but if he's good enough to come up now you can't count on that. Plus if anything should happen and he goes on the DL that's service time, then there is the 20 day rule etc etc. All reasons why I think they should wait until Y date for Leake/Wood/Chapman or any other rookie pitcher.

So to sum it up, assuming he stays up, I still think its a poor risk reward trade off from the financial point of view. The "reward" is a couple of extra starts in the spring from the 5 spot for a team that will be lucky to break .500. The risk is having to face the music on arbitration with a potential stud young pitcher a year before you had to in 2013.

This doesn't even touch on the dangers of rushing young pitchers to the majors before they are ready. I have read and heard all the same things about his amazing makeup and how if anyone is ready its Leake. Again, for me it comes back to risk reward. What do we gain by him being here from day 1 when compared to the risks (confidence shattered, arm shattered, service time)?
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck;1685790; said:
Scott- I am going from the assumption that if Leake is good enough to be up at this point then that means they have to think he'll stay up. I think that's the point where we are talking past each other.

If you bring a rookie up from Day 1 and he's good enough to stay up then you have indeed "started his clock". I am well aware that not exactly how it works mechanically but hopefully this makes it clear why I was saying it that way. Also the reason I keep using Lincecum is because he's an example of the rookie that came up before Y date (see below) and was too good to send back down. That's the situation I feel they are exposing themselves too needlessly.

Teams back into the math by figuring if player X starts accumulating service time after Y date and this is the maximum service time he can accumulate this season and it doesn't add up to 1 year of MLB service time per the CBA.

That's why so many teams hold good young rookie pitchers in the minors and use a career journeyman until they reach Y date. Now instead of going to arbitration in current year +3, they get to do it in current year +4 (or 2 and 3 if he's a super 2).

So yes you are correct in saying they can stop the service time accumulation by sending him down later but if he's good enough to come up now you can't count on that. Plus if anything should happen and he goes on the DL that's service time, then there is the 20 day rule etc etc. All reasons why I think they should wait until Y date for Leake/Wood/Chapman or any other rookie pitcher.

So to sum it up, assuming he stays up, I still think its a poor risk reward trade off from the financial point of view. The "reward" is a couple of extra starts in the spring from the 5 spot for a team that will be lucky to break .500. The risk is having to face the music on arbitration with a potential stud young pitcher a year before you had to in 2013.

This doesn't even touch on the dangers of rushing young pitchers to the majors before they are ready. I have read and heard all the same things about his amazing makeup and how if anyone is ready its Leake. Again, for me it comes back to risk reward. What do we gain by him being here from day 1 when compared to the risks (confidence shattered, arm shattered, service time)?
Click to expand...

and I don't think it's that hard for a front office to say "he will stay in the majors until August then we will shut him down." It makes sense for a young arm anyway. That addresses the arm issue and service time issue. Simply need to stick to your guns and not be stupid (and yes, I know you will say this is the Reds we are talking about).

As for confidence, I am not very worried about that, especially with a kid who was a star in college baseball. There are plenty of stars and Hall of Famers who didn't get much time in the minors to gain confidence. That is a case by case thing, and from all reports Leake is very mature.

I understand your reservations, but there is no reason those issues cannot be addressed by sticking to a long term plan. Those plans can fall apart due to fickle owner or managers. Yet if they are all on the same page from day 1 it should work. In the end it's about money anyway. Unless Leake becomes a 2 time Cy Young winner we are only talking about a few million for 1 year anyway (that is up to the Reds in how they spend that money....what else will they do with it, sign a crappy middle infielder?). As long as they send down Leake for any amount of time they can avoid the big one, free agency a year early.

Oh well, we will see how it will plays out. I'm personally happy to management taking risks to win instead of continually making decisions based on money. This team did that for a decade, and for that entire decade never had a winning team.
 
Upvote 0
Yeah I saw over on RZ they threw a 5+ page hissy over the lineup. Nix and Dickerson over Gomes and Stubbs on OD.

It does seem kind of fucking dumb on the surface but when you look at the guy writing the lineups you just have to come to expect it and not let it get you worked up.

I don't see many people talking about Harang's last 2 seasons and the fact he got hit like a pinata at a fat kids party all spring. I expect the offense to struggle to score runs all year but if fat boy is at the end of his rope this bitch will turn ugly quick.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top