Managing the Clock (Indians)

by kwyjibo on Jan 3, 2007 10:33 AM PST

A series of interesting discussions have been discussed by A's fans, who have been mulling over a Blanton-for-Milledge trade. The contentitous issues over service time and salary have also been mentioned. For instance, they have been discussing the trade-off of six(or less) years of Milledge for a cheap arm like Blanton (who is already in the majors).

Would you trade for Milledge and then play him immediately, knowing that you would likely waste one low-salary year for a lack of substantial production? Or would you trade for Milledge, and keep him in the minors so that you keep all of his peak years for cheap (you also are less likely to contend in the present)? Or would you keep Blanton, who is ready to play now?

The thing is I don't like Bush Milledge. Instead, I wanted to know how the situation of keeping Lincecum in the minors is similar. How does the McCovern feel about keeping Lincecum for more years in the minors, so that the Giants get his most productive years (so that we don't waste his cheap rookie season and we get his best years before he becomes a free agent)?

Also, I have been reading this old article by the Indians, which concerns service time and how arbitaration-eligibility affects roster decisions. Is there any chance that Cain might be affected by this situation?

http://www.letsgotribe.com/story/2006/6/23/15557/1077

If I remember correctly, when Cain was called up, he did not spend too much time in the majors. I hope the Giants didn't waste one of his pre-free agent years.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Cain will likely get a deal...

Like Lowry did. They signed lowry for 4 or 5 years if I recall correctly for more than the league minimum but still cheap for a good pitcher, especially in today's markets. Cain will likely get a deal like that, more than Lowry's, but much less than he would get in arbitration or free agency.

Here's to a good 2007. Or 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or...

by WalrusMan on Jan 3, 2007 10:44 AM PST 0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock (Indians)

I would trade for Milledge and play him immediately because I think he's ready now; you wouldn't be wasting a year at all.

With Lincecum, there are two opposing considerations:

He's probably not ready yet.
A serious arm injury, sadly, is not unlikely for any young pitcher, so maybe you want to get the most out of him before he gets hurt.

Considering the service time issue as well, it's an easy choice: keep him on the farm. But if it's June and he's still lights-out and the Giants are in contention, you can't worry about his arbitration status years down the road.

Now, what the hell are you doing reading Indians blog posts from June?

by Evan on Jan 3, 2007 10:45 AM PST 0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock (Indians)

>Cain will likely get a deal like that

Or he (and his agent) may look at the market and refuse a long-term contract, trying instead to cash in via arbitration for three straight years before he becomes a free agent. Unlikely, but possible.

Never mind whatever I do!!! Fan is my tresure!!!

by leftymalo on Jan 3, 2007 10:48 AM PST 0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock (Indians)

While I agree that might happen, any agent that advises a young pitcher to do that should be arrested. I think the future will bring a handful of underpaid aces because of arb-buyouts, and a lot of crazy overpaid Jose Rosado/Odalis Perez/Jaret Wright/Steve Avery-types

by Grant on Jan 3, 2007 10:58 AM PST up 0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock (Indians)

Well, the classic case of how to screw it up is Bonderman. Clearly, he wasn't ready and all the Tigers accomplished was starting his clock early while having him pitch for an awful team. From a player development standpoint, I think you very rarely go wrong by bringing a buy up a year too late [as opposed to a year too early].

For pitchers, there is also the injury factor to consider. Generally speaking, putting a lot of innings and pitches on an arm before they are 25 or 26 leads to injury. It's not always the case, but it's the smart way to bet.

Finally, I think you have to be very careful about the appearance of nickel and diming players. If a player thinks you screwed with him by keeping him in AAA for an extra 3 months because, I suspect he is a lot less likely to give you a hometown discount when he is approached with a contract.

Hermanson is a pretty good example of where this type of cheapness hurt SF.

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Jan 3, 2007 11:04 AM PST 0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock (Indians)

This sounds awfully familiar...

Ah! Here it is!

David
SPORTSZILLA - kickass sports writing

by David Arnott on Jan 3, 2007 1:52 PM PST up 0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock (Indians)

Wow, nice memory. I had forgotten about that discussion, entirely. At least I am reasonably consistent...

The Dodgers are evil.

by irwin on Jan 3, 2007 2:32 PM PST up 0 recs

We prefer contradictory and controversial posts

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of reasonable minds.

-Waldo

by Moggeee on Jan 3, 2007 2:48 PM PST up 0 recs

Re: We prefer cont

I still can't find that guy on the last page.

Coming to you by proxy

by howtheyscored on Jan 3, 2007 3:27 PM PST up 0 recs

Re: Managing the Clock (Indians)

I think, generally, the arb eligible isssue only comes up in August - with teams trying to decide if now will get them to the post season or if they can wait until September call ups.
I would expect Lincecum to start in AAA - no matter how well he does in ST. If he does well enough that he will get a shot in 08, he'll come up Sep 1 for a few innings - depending on how far in front of the division the team is (I can hear the collective choking an one's Bud lite).

by allfrank on Jan 3, 2007 5:05 PM PST 0 recs