Michael Pineda And The Mariners' Opening Day Roster
We've been tip-toeing around this for the last few weeks. Coming into camp, I predicted that Dustin Ackley and Michael Pineda would begin the regular season in Tacoma, both because they each have things to work on, and because they each have service time issues to keep in mind. However, while Ackley still seems like a near-lock to go down, I've been hearing more and more often that Pineda could stick, and earlier today Geoff Baker went so far as to say the fifth starter job is Pineda's to lose.
During that interview with Kevin Calabro the other day, Jack Zduriencik was asked point-blank whether the service time stuff would play any part in the team's decision, and Z's response was a direct "no". I didn't pay it much attention at the time, just because Z had to say no, but the sense I'm getting - as supported by Baker's piece - is that Pineda really is the favorite. Rather than having to pitch himself into the job, he'll have to pitch himself out of it. And to pitch himself out of it, he'll have to lose that job to Luke French.
The natural response to this - at least for some people - is that bringing Pineda up immediately would be an irresponsible and short-sighted decision. Doing so would put Pineda on track to make seven figures by 2014 and become eligible for free agency after 2016, where just waiting a month or two could push both of those dates back a year. And, obviously, this is a good argument. Baseball teams make personnel decisions based on things like this.
But I do think it's worth remembering that there are good reasons not to hold Pineda back. The first, and the simplest, is that Pineda is probably one of the organization's top five starting pitchers. If he's better than French, he deserves to be higher on the depth chart. It helps the team win more games.
Another reason is that Pineda might get better instruction in Seattle than Tacoma. I think we all know that Pineda could use some work on his slider, changeup, and consistency. An argument for sending him down is that he could work on things in a lower-pressure environment. But in Seattle, he'd get Major League attention and coaching, and he'd get feedback from Major League hitters. You don't learn to succeed against the highest level of competition by playing in a lower level of competition.
Then there's the pseudo-team chemistry argument, as Baker discusses. There's no denying that Pineda is an exciting prospect, and the Mariners see it. The players watch him pitch. They see his stuff, and they know how good he could be. Those players are probably going to want Pineda in the rotation, and I'd imagine they'd be happier handing the ball to Pineda than handing the ball to French, even if they'll never admit it.
Pineda would also presumably get the fan base more enthused. The fans are buying into the whole youth-movement thing, and Pineda's a popular figure.
And beyond that, remember that Michael Pineda is a pitching prospect. We know how good he is, and how healthy he is, right now. We do not know how good or how healthy he'll be in three years, or six years, when those service time issues really become a factor. Ackley's a bit more projectable, just because he's a position player. Pitchers are volatile, and who's to say how much that extra year of team control would matter?
There are arguments to be made for both sides, here. Good, intelligent, compelling arguments. And while I still lean towards sending Pineda down, I am not so confident in my preference that I think doing otherwise would be stupid or irresponsible. There's a lot of good that could come from bringing Pineda straight up. I know I'd be excited, it could help develop a good relationship between the player and the team, and as Matthew noted in the last podcast, it still wouldn't guarantee a lost year of service time anyway since Pineda could theoretically be send down to Tacoma in the event that he struggles.
This is a tough call, and no matter what choice the Mariners end up making, I'll understand. Don't listen to anybody who takes a hard stance, because the only people in position to take a hard stance work for the organization. I'll defer to the M's on this one, and if the M's choose to hand the game ball to Michael Pineda in the first week of the season, any disappointment would be outweighed by a level of excitement I haven't felt for any single game in years.
102 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If he can throw his secondary pitches with consistency,
He should break camp with the team.
"This is my signature, this is my gun..."
Every single argument that is made for keeping him with Seattle
pales in comparison to the simple fact that he would only need to spend a couple weeks in Tacoma to preserve that extra season. I can find no logical argument that him making four starts in Tacoma stunts him, the team, the fan base, anybody.
by Matthew on Mar 14, 2011 8:39 PM PDT reply actions 8 recs
I guess some of it depends on how he and French look for the rest of the month
If Pineda pitches a good deal better I can see how that could make people upset.
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 14, 2011 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the casual fans who might get upset over something like this are the same fans that naturally distrust prospects
over veterans.
Here's how Baker put it in his Times article
Team officials privately say that keeping a deserving player in AAA because of service-time issues can negatively impact a club later on. They say the player could become bitter and resentful, hampering his development .
The Mariners are also conscious about how the rest of the team might react to a lesser player being promoted over a deserving one and how it could impact the club’s standing around baseball.
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 14, 2011 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Bah
I’m sure every player in Tacoma thinks he is worthy of being on the big club and I’m equally sure that most other ball players aren’t that in tune with who is actually the lesser player. See: Vidro, Jose
by Matthew on Mar 14, 2011 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
But not every player in Tacoma is as important as Michael Pineda
I am more with you than against you. I’m just not willing to completely write off what the M’s might be thinking.
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 14, 2011 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions
To expand, because of the way they handle the media
I trust nothing that comes from the Mariners front office via third parties
Ordinarily I'd agree with you but if they were to call Pineda right up I don't know why they'd lie about their reasons
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 14, 2011 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions
They may not be lying but I find them wholly unconvincing
So either they’re holding something back or //shrug
I don't know, I think even the players (except for maybe Luke French) have to know that Michael Pineda is probably going to be a better major leaguer than Luke French.
I’m sure most of the hitters would choose to face French over Pineda if given the opportunity to choose.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 14, 2011 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Consider money.
I can’t find info on his signing bonus or anything, but couldn’t he potentially be making chump change in AAA, compared to playing with the big league club making a big league salary?
I can see how that could cause a guy to harbor resentment.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
I could see that with someone other than French who has earned his status as a veteran.
I remember the reaction from the sect you speak of after the Washburn trade and they sure didn’t seem to think of French as anything.
Condiment found in the back of the fridge that's past its due date
Other than that SB wouldn’t be too happy about this
I would assume that Pineda will have some sort of innings limit.
Assuming he starts the season with the Mariners and makes his start every 5th day, is it possible to then send him down to Tacoma toward the end of his innings limit and let him peter out and spend his rest time in Tacoma? I realize that this is the most dastardly possible way to game the system and is a gigantic punch in the netherlands to a guy that, in this scenario, was an MLB player all year.
I don't know, it can work both ways depending on the person
Some people take being passed over as impetus for motivation. Depends on the person and how the situation is presented to them.
by Kermit. on Mar 14, 2011 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
In the situation Jeff and Matthew are debating, I can see the young player using it as motivation and accepting his role.
In the one I described where he had just pitched the better part of a full season with the big league club, then they are screwing him.
Oh, how right you are. I'm tracking now
In that scenario they should pull the MRI shenanigan
Basically what we've learned is that in my attempt to ponder what I thought to be a meaningful opportunity,
I just instead found one of the shittiest ways to screw a player.
I shouldn't turn everything into a joke
Your point makes sense to me, of course we’ll have to wait for them to break camp to know. But you’ve caused me to believe they’ll have be all in if they bring him up, that would be pretty shitty to send him back down later. Unless it’s obvious it was a mistake.
And, considering the minor league season ends earlier,
it might not even work from the vantage point of the team’s stated goal. Unless the idea is expressly to put him on the roster of a team that CAN’T pitch him, just so the MLB manager wouldn’t be tempted.
Couple that with the roster expansion in September and this is basically an automatic grievance from the MLB players union. Which is sort of too bad, because putting aside the stink it would cause, it’s got some positive aspects.
Or they could sent him in for an exploratory MRI on his elbow
And give him a bunch of baloney “preventive exercises” or some kind of crap. I’d make the worst GM of all time
Pineda is the most prominent pitching prospect in the organization
If he comes up and doesn’t struggle/isn’t injured, I think it would be very hard for the org to send him down. They need wins and happy vibes.
by lemonverbena on Mar 14, 2011 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree
But (I think) there is absolutely no question that Pineda will be on a strict set of pitching limitations this year, and likely next year to a lesser extent as well. He’ll probably have a hard limit on pitches per game, say something like 100 max. He’ll probably have a hard cap on total innings pitched this season, with my guess being in the range of 150-165 IP (hard to decipher what GMZ might say, based on Pineda’s past). And within games I would bet that they’ll regulate the total number of pitches thrown if he has any big innings… depending on how big and how bad, and how many. All of this to reduce the stress on his arm and take every precaution to avoid an injury, as he does have an injury history.
Now add in limitations next year as well, albeit less limitations.
So the remaining question is if all these limitations will in total keep Pineda outside the top 17% of those who have between 2-3 years of service time when the tallies are counted? I think it just might…
On second thought...
Limiting how much he pitches in games will extend his overall time in the majors each year… letting him go balls to the wall, with a cap on total innings pitched would be a better way to limit his total service time (he would reach the cap quicker), but its also the riskier choice in terms of damaging his arm. I’m guessing he’s either just gotta start in Tacoma, which won’t likely go over well right now, or hope for an injury to limit his time, which is just ****ed up in general. Otherwise he’ll get the bigger pay day quicker… and maybe when all is said and done, that’s the best answer anyway.
Innings pitched don't matter with regard to service time
It’s just days spent on the roster.
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 15, 2011 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I realized that after the first post...
But the second post still stands that limiting how many pitches he throws will also limit the IP per game, and therefore extend his total number of starts with a hard cap on total IP. Therefore it hurts in the long run to limit his pitches/innings per game if you want to also limit his number of starts… can’t do both if you have a set limit of total IP over the season. This is all assuming once he reaches the limit on IP they will send him to Tacoma for a bogus reason to stop the service time clock… its not the first time we’ve done that.
It would probably be better if they started him in Tacoma for the month of April.
And told him they want to watch his inning limit and they can’t have him making 5 inning starts in the majors.
But yes I can see how your way would piss him off.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 14, 2011 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions
No, because in that case, why would you send him down at the end?
the only way to do it would be to set his limit, have him reach it and then send him down so they can bring someone else up, but they could also do that by just sticking him on the DL
by seattlebruin on Mar 15, 2011 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, exactly
if they wanted to do that, they’d just put him on the DL to free up the roster spot, but he’s still accruing service time and they’d have no excuse to send him down
by seattlebruin on Mar 15, 2011 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it's easy to make the argument for starting him in Seattle if the team were expected to contend.
6 years is a long time, and pitchers are fragile. Trading something you can actually use now (wins) for something that might not be aavilable later is tricky.
But the wins now really don’t matter.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
Ahh, but they do
If this season goes too badly, the FO could very well go with it. I’m sure they don’t expect to win or place, but I’d bet they’ll try flat-out to at least show.
by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 16, 2011 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
No, they don't
the marginal .5 wins (maximum) could matter if the Mariners were expected to be in contention for a playoff bid, especially against evenly matched opponents.
The difference between expecting 72.5 wins vs 73 wins is not the difference between the FO being let go or retained
by seattlebruin on Mar 16, 2011 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions
So there's a chance
that the Felix-Bedard-Pineda trio will be formed the first week of April!!! That’s if Bedard and Pineda make the team…I can only dream I suppose.
Is there a place I can see a larger version of that image?
I think that’s my brother in the background.
And?
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Mar 14, 2011 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions
The whole super-two thing, a player has to be in the top 20% of playing time for his position over a two year span correct?
In my mind, if Pineda reaches that figure in his first two years as a starter then the lost team control would be well worth it. I also think it is extraordinarily unlikely that a guy who was shut down after 140 innings last year will get there. I think the strongest arguments for keeping him down were developmental, but if the team feels he is better served learning in the majors it settles it.
I will eat my hat if Pineda reaches super two status because of an extra few weeks this year.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 14, 2011 8:59 PM PDT reply actions
Nobody really cares about Super Two status
it’s the extra team control year that’s important
I don't get it then I think.
How does holding him back even a short time buy Seattle an extra year?
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 14, 2011 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions
A full year of service time is 172 days
If Pineda ends up with 171 days on the roster this year, then that doesn’t count, and the M’s would still control him for another six seasons.
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 14, 2011 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions
And since there's an offday on the 7th of April, that's one start.
The Mariners may put an extra year of Pineda’s probable peak in jeopardy for one single start.
I hope they don't
I have no problem waiting 10 days to gain a year and I think it’s kinda crazy to do otherwise.
by OlSalty on Mar 14, 2011 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for all the replies
I have found some info on this on MLBTR (although he did not say what counts as a full year). I thought it was all about the super two thing.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 14, 2011 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I feel like the union would jump to action were the Mariners to pull such an obvious stunt
I don’t know what the union could do, but I know they’d try to do it.
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 14, 2011 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I think they do have some kind of leverage.
K-Rod has a vesting option based on games finished and apparently there has been some kind of play fair or else exchange between the union and the Mets. If they can threaten an or else in KRods case I don’t see how this is very different.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 14, 2011 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions
That is a specific contract signed,
Pineda is subject to the same rules as every other service time player.
In Both cases limiting playing time or role for reasons other than performance affects a player's future salary
I see the distinction you’re drawing – Rodriguez stands to make a fixed sum while Pineda’s free agency may never produce anything – but Pineda is under contract as well, in a manner of speaking. It just happens to be a generic, team friendly contract.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 14, 2011 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions
The union needs to bring it up in the next CBA for sure
but thems the rules on the books as it is. I’m not sympathetic to the plea to “do the right thing” but the cost so vastly outweighs the completely subjective and minor benefits.
Has there ever been a time when the Player's Union has filed a complaint against a team for something like this?
I’ve never heard of it, and there’s been plenty of obvious examples of teams manipulating service time rules.
I’m not even sure they would have any grounds to do so anyway — as Matthew said, the agreement was reached between the union and MLB, thems the rules, can’t very well complain about something you previously agreed was permissible.
by nathaniel dawson on Mar 15, 2011 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is so wrong
If I were Pineda I’d be pissed. I would also be 6’ 20" and 260klb. No, the k is not a typo.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 14, 2011 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I would've thought players would expect it under the current rules.
Like Matthew said, it’s far too alluring for teams to get that extra year of control just by holding them back a little, that’s why it happens so often, and will continue to as long as teams can do it legally.
Looks like I have super two status wrong
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 14, 2011 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions
It's 17%, and it means that a player enters his arbitration years one year earlier.
So he gets 4 years of arbitration instead of the normal 3. The team still controls his contract rights for 6 years. Having a player enter arbitration a year earlier makes him more expensive for the club, but not by any extreme amount.
The big thing is the service time. Holding a player back a couple of weeks means you basically have one more reduced salary year from him, while being able to keep him one year longer at the end, which also tends to be a point where a player is at or near his peak. You are basically trading away two weeks worth of production at a time when it probably isn’t all that valuable for another year’s worth when the player is likely to be much better.
For pitchers, it probably isn’t quite so cut-and-dried. There’s something to be said for getting what you can from them while you can. Still, giving up two weeks or so of Pineda’s age 22 season doesn’t seem like much of a price to pay for getting possibly a whole year of his age 28 season.
And all of what I just said could be meaningless if the CBA changes next year and moves like this aren’t treated retro-actively.
by nathaniel dawson on Mar 15, 2011 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Simply being on the team is enough to accrue service time.
it does not matter whether he pitches or not. He can even go on the 60 day and still be on the clock.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 14, 2011 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions
We answered the question the same way with a different response.
His service time will be impacted by being on the team even if he’s not pitching, therefore I chose “Yes”.
They need to just set a clear expectation with him.
Basically give him some threshold he needs to pass in ST to earn the job. Be it a certain strike% in his remaining outings or a certain level of speed on his pitches at the end of the game.
With a goal, Pineda determines whether he makes the team based on his performance. Set the goal fairly high and the Ms get the desired outcome no matter what happens.
by hcoguy on Mar 15, 2011 6:27 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
"Wow. You threw 90% strikes? Welcome to the team. It's a shame you ended ST with a 12.37 ERA. But that's okay."
Or “Good job. 100mph on you 80th pitch. I guess you’re starting on Opening Day. Just try not to walk 12 men a game.”
I think if they’re going to set a clear expectation with him, they should tell him either he has a chance to make the ball club or they want to limit his innings, so they are going to start him in Tacoma and his ST + AAA will affect how quickly he is called up.
What about good relations with the player and his agent?
This is a slightly different issue from Baker’s bitterness/resentment point. My thought on this has been that, in the future, it won’t be an auspicious start to a contract negotiation when your young star says “hey, remember that time six years ago when you guys screwed me out of a few million dollars?”
by Suburban Shocker on Mar 15, 2011 8:54 AM PDT reply actions
I see now
Matthew addresses this argument in the Fangraphs article, which I hadn’t read. But I don’t see the logic in the counterargument that the team can just make it up to him with more money. The whole point of this exercise is to save money. The most that can be said is that how he’ll feel down the road is speculative, which is true — but still, if my employer intentionally held me back, I’d hold a grudge for a while.
by Suburban Shocker on Mar 15, 2011 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I say if he's clearly pitched better than French the rest of spring training,
put him on the major league team. If he’s earned the job, give it to him. This is a pitcher, there’s no guarantee he’ll even be pitching in 6 years. I hate to say it like that but pitchers get hurt all the time and he has had some injury issues in the past. To me this is very different from Ackley, who needs to be in the minors until his super two time.
Is there any history of a rookie player spending just the first 2 weeks in AAA before being called up?
Yep
Came up on April 12th and accrued 170 days of service time. Of course he then signed a giant long-term contract.
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 15, 2011 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
This is my main argument for why I've never really cared about the service time thing.
If the player is good enough to warrant keeping for that extra year of control, then the team will have likely(hopefully) signed him to a long term deal anyways. I could see the argument if we were a team like the Marlins, or the Rays, or the Pirates. But the Mariners have the money to keep these guys should they choose to do so.
RIP Dave Neihaus.
It still saves you money
You could call a guy up immediately and then sign him to a long-term contract. Or you could wait a month, call that guy up, and sign him to the same long-term contract that now carries an extra year.
As for the greater point, though, I agree.
by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 16, 2011 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
After reading the fangraphs article, and the following comments I have a question.
Someone said,
Pineda would have to stay down for 20 days, not 10. If a player is optioned for fewer than 20 days before he is recalled, the option is voided and the player is given service time credit for however many days he was gone. So French would need to make 3 starts.
Even though this is fairly minor, if true, then it wouldn’t quite be like him missing just one start. Even though 3 starts really isn’t too significant either.
With that said, I think I would prefer to see him develop in Tacoma while locking in that extra year of team control. Being a rookie, I can’t imagine him getting too upset over the decision. Nor should that even change the team’s opinion on the matter. Baseball is a business and decisions should be made with the team’s best interests in mind, not the players.
I think the answer is simply that he would not be added to the ML roster until later.
the rule quoted only applies to players who are optioned to AAA. However, I am not an authority on this.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 15, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Aren't all players on the 40-man optioned to the minors if they don't make the 25-man out of Spring Training?
Maybe that 20 day thing doesn’t apply to options at the start of the season? Or perhaps Longoria wasn’t on the 40-man at the start of the season, so the 20 day thing didn’t apply? Why do they make all these roster rules so hard to understand?
by nathaniel dawson on Mar 15, 2011 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Right, and right.
If the M’s send him to the minors, that’s an option. He’s already on the 40-man. Longoria was not, and was added to the 40-man and 25-man at the same time.

by 


















