Cole Kimball was claimed off waivers today by the Blue Jays. The Nats needed space on the 40-man to prepare for the Rule V draft and Kimball wouldn't pitch until half-way through the season so he (along with the unwanted Corey Brown) were the most sensible men to try to get back to the minors. Unfortuantely for the Nats Kimball was good enough, and his contract situation so favorable, that the Blue Jays were willing to sit him on their 40-man while he recovers.
Is it a loss? Yes, but not a big one. After spending 2009 adjusting to being a reliever, Kimball had been very successful in that role posting ERAs under 2.50 at every stop, including the majors. He's big with the K, doesn't miss in a way that's easy to hit, and doesn't give up the long ball. That sounds great but he also walks too many guys (7.1 BB/9 in the majors, over 5 in AA and AAA stints the last two years) right now to be the type of crunch-time reliever you rely on every day. With Clippard and Storen in line right now, at best he's a 7th inning man next year and 8th inning guy if/when Clippard leaves. Could he develop like Hanrahan did? Sure, but you can say that about a lot of minor league relievers with live arms. Kimball's a guy you can have pitch an inning and feel pretty confident the game isn't going to get away from you, and he's a guy that can come in when you NEED a K but can afford a walk. Valuable but if your organization is any good, replaceable.
This is also one of the downsides of signing all those high draft picks. The Nats have three guys on your 40-man who didn't play last year in the majors and could likely not play most of this year, Bryce, Purke and Rendon. Of course if losing a bullpen arm is part of the cost of signing guys like this, you sign guys like this every time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
What's the advantage to a draft pick of signing a "major leaague deal" and thus being on the 40 man roster? Why not just ask for the same amount of money without that perk? There must be something that I'm missing. My first thought is option years, but I believe those are related to the 25 man roster.
Cass - I think it is option years. A major league deal only allows a team three 'options' of a player to the minors (an option counts for the whole year). So by the guy's 4th year, he is either in the majors full time with his original team, or he becomes a free agent. That is much quicker than if he starts on a minor league deal.
It's also a nice sign of progress. The Nats have real hard decisions to make b/c there are a bunch of guys other teams really want, even in the minors.
I think the Nats also think Kimball's delivery will always make him injury prone.
I didn't know that about option years. That's interesting.
Other reasons to demand a major league contract that I can think of (for the player): Guaranteed a spot on the 40-man, can probably squeeze more money since it's not all paid in an up-front bonus, don't have to deal with three years of major league minimum, or any years of whatever the hell peanuts minor leaguers get paid. Don't forget spreading out income is good for tax purposes.
For the team: the only rationales I can think of is that it spreads out total money spent (that is, less bonus money in exchange for major league contract), can give the player more money without the League bitching about slot, perhaps some players demand it in order to get signed.
http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/team/roster_40man.jsp?c_id=was
According to this link the Nats currently have 31 on the 40-man, including only 3 OF. I understand that free agents (big or small) will be signed, meaning Brown and Kimbrall are likely to be waived in the future anyway, but why do it now?????? Do the Nats think their best chance of players passing through waivers is now as opposed to later? That might be the case, since there are 29 other teams waiving players now so these players can be "hidden" of sorts. But I'd think they would want to wait as long as possible, since teams will be filling their rosters with free agents in the coming months.
Allison - I generally agree in terms of Major League deals. It's the player that would prefer the Major League deal, not the team. There are probably few instances where the Major League deal can lessen the impact of bonus money, but that's probably rare.
I gotcha that the team needs to free up space for minor leaguers who are rule 5 eligible, but I'm still perplexed on the need to go from 33 to 31. Assuming the Nats can sit comfortably at 38 until they sign free agents, that's 7 players within their minor league system with 5 or more years experience that they want to protect. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head that meets that criteria (even Tyler Moore has only has 3+ years). So again I return to musing that the Nats are thinking long-term they are going to waive these guys in the future, ie after they activate LaRoche and sign their Free Agents, and view now as the least risky time to do it.
Rizzo is the poker player GMs respect and fear. He sits stone-faced at the table, picks up his cards, sips his drink. No blustering, no drama.
Definitely something in the pipeline and I can't wait to hear about it.
@Cass and Wally--Wally brought up a good point, but another reason may be that they start arbitration earlier, and can also become free agents quicker, which means more money in the medium term and potentially through the course of their entire career. Typed that and just realized Allison had the same answer. Anyway I think that's the driving factor.
As for the merits of bonuses vs. salary, I think you're right about being able to keep more money when it's spread out---but I also think most players (and people) would rather have most of that money up front than over the course of several years; they still get bonuses, it's just that they also get a higher annual salary than minor leaguers w/o a contract like that (I think...am open to the possibility that I'm wrong about that since I'm not an expert, I just play one on Nats blog commments sections). I'm willing to be it's also a pride thing to be labelled a major leaguer even if you've yet to play there.
@Cass and Wally--Wally brought up a good point, but another reason may be that they start arbitration earlier, and can also become free agents quicker, which means more money in the medium term and potentially through the course of their entire career. Typed that and just realized Allison had the same answer. Anyway I think that's the driving factor.
As for the merits of bonuses vs. salary, I think you're right about being able to keep more money when it's spread out---but I also think most players (and people) would rather have most of that money up front than over the course of several years; they still get bonuses, it's just that they also get a higher annual salary than minor leaguers w/o a contract like that (I think...am open to the possibility that I'm wrong about that since I'm not an expert, I just play one on Nats blog commments sections). I'm willing to be it's also a pride thing to be labelled a major leaguer even if you've yet to play there.
As to why put Kimball on waivers and shrink the roster from 31 to 33:
One thing people have not mentioned is that because he was on the 25-man when he was on the DL, he was accumulating ML service time as if he was on the 25-man roster. If he'd stayed on the 40-man and gone on the DL first thing this upcoming spring, he would have continued to accumulate service time as if he were on the 25-man roster. Slip him into AAA and he doesn't get any ML service time. For a big injury like he has, this could have impacted the years he would have played under team control significantly.
DELETED BETWEEN Michael K comments - my wife has much smarter things to say.
cass - Wally has it right. Basically you are a major leaguer. You can get paid bigger annual money, (generally if you sign a minor league deal that money you see is ALL bonus and they get tiny annual salaries) and you have to be on the 25 man roster within 4 years (for all intents and purposes) which speeds up your route to the BIG money in arbitration and free agency by as much as 3 years. This encourages the organizations that draft you to promote you ASAP.
Hoo - agree on both points but I think Kimball could have a good 3-4 year run of great relief in him.
michael K - I think the team's would always rather not sign a major league deal. It's now just a negotiation tactic though for the best deal.
need to put minor leaguers on so they don't get drafted in Rule V
michael K - Zuckerman went over this a couple days ago
http://www.natsinsider.com/2011/11/who-needs-to-be-protected.html
Most likely along with a CF and a starter, the Nats will look for this years Alex Cora (no need to waste Lombardozzi time in that role) and a big bat off the bench. Perhaps back-up first, more likely 4th/5th OF spot. So that's at least 4 spots they need open (I think they'll fill in the bullpen completely internally, but there's also the "Hairston" spot that needs filling) so they need to be at 36.
I suppose rosters may be fuller later, then again they may be too full now - when teams still haven't made their last Rule V moves.
Ah - I thought an option involved the 25 man roster, not the 40 man roster. Now I see an option year is used for any player on the 40 man roster who plays in the minors for part of a year. That's where I got confused.
Kimball had a shoulder injury this year, he wasn't going to pitch until at least the 2012 All Star break anyway. He will be a 27 year old this year who has thrown 14 innings in the majors. They are not going to miss him.
Ryan - think of it like the Nats just dropped a bunch of change on the floor of the subway when they are in a hurry. Would have been nice to have that change but they're not getting down to pick it up.
yes, you'd rather keep it because something is better than nothing
Aannnnddd .... he's back.
Post a Comment