Royals Option Luke Hochevar to Omaha in Likely Free Agent Clock Move
by royalsreview on Mar 31, 2009 2:29 PM EDT
in News
84 comments
The Royals have sent Luke Hochevar to Omaha.
Why? I'm not sure. In an immediate baseball sense, I don't get it. He has a much higher upside than the guys he "lost" this rotation battle to (Bannister, Ho-Ram, Ponson) and he was seemingly better than them this Spring.
As has been speculated for awhile now, if the Royals stash Hochevar in Omaha for a month or so, they may be able to eek out another year of salary control for Hochevar. Essentially, the Royals, if they time it right, will be able to have two partial seasons of Hochevar for the price of one.
(Cot's lists his current service time standing as 1 year and 19 days. Hochevar's contract is a little different than 99% of Major League players coming out of the draft, as he was getting a larger salary from the beginning. As far as I understand it however, his free-agency clock remains the same as everybody else's.)
That's all I can come up with, although I will certainly leave open the possibility that there's a good baseball reason for this. It'll be interesting to see what comes out from Kaegel and Dutton and Mellinger on this over the next few days.
Assuming that this is the case -- although it will likely never be fully admitted to -- it brings up the age-old question of whether or not this is the right thing to do. It's a complicated issue that includes questions of a team's competitive responsibility to field the best product possible and the related issue of keeping a guy in the minors against his own self-interests in the name of "development". You can throw in honesty issues as well. Hochevar, however, is not a terribly glaring case, because he hasn't been terrific either in the minors or in the American League. Solid, but not spectacular.
What I do feel more certain about is that the Royals' rotation got worse today.
As I said yesterday, the easiest way for the Royals to make a big step forward in terms of run prevention was to turn Hochevar's 22 ok starts in 2008 into 30 better starts in 2009. Better quality, better volume. More Hochevar also would have meant less Ponson & Friends, guys who may represent good depth but who can get exposed if you're starting them too much, with subsequent ruination of the bullpen.
The missing man here, is Bannister. Banny has gone from a cause celeb to a mystery in about eight months, and despite some early Spring talk about him being back and better, he's since spent a ton of time in the minor league camp. I'd like to think he's better, or at least could be, than Horacio or Sidney, but really there's little basis for this at this point.
The depressing thing is, even though the Royals have some depth here, Bannister, Ramirez & Ponson are all the same guy when you get down to it: five labored innings of 3 (best case) to 7 (worst case). In a way, it's similar to the Royals "depth" at catcher: two guys with identical profiles that really aren't that great. Hochevar was the one figure who could have been more and maybe he will be, and soon.
Make no mistake: while this may work out in spades in the long run: this hurts the team's chances of winning the division this year.
1 recs |
84 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
i am
utterly pissed off right now
Mike Jacobs.... I hope your bat has as much lift as your hair does.....
by iNaLeXwEtRuSt on Mar 31, 2009 2:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
My best guess...
Bannister and Hochevar are both young guys with options who had 5 + ERA’s last year. Almost inevitably you need more than 5 guys in the rotation to make it through the season. Therefore you give Ponson a chance since he can be a free agent after May 15th if he is not in the majors and Ho-Ram a chance since he has a guaranteed contract that forces him to be on the team in some capacity. If either falter or injure you call up the young guys who have hopefully used their time wisely and improved in Omaha.
If you start with Bannister and Hochevar in the majors you relegate Ho-Ram to the bullpen and thus eliminate him as a starting pitching option and probably lose Ponson. This would leave Ducky as our primary starting pitching depth. Plus, as you alluded too, you gain an extra year of service for Hochevar.
by djk royal on Mar 31, 2009 2:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I suppose
but I don’t get why HoRam should really even be considered at all as a starter
by royalsreview on Mar 31, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he's a lefty damnit!!!
I don’t either. I think he will end up in the bullpen one way or another by the end of May.
by djk royal on Mar 31, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone know exactly what the terms are of that...
“in the majors by May 15” clause for Ponson’s deal? Does that mean as long as he HAS been in the majors before 5/15/09, the Royals retain his rights? Or does he have to BE in the majors on that date…and presumably continue to be on the 25-man?
That would be very interesting to know, and may help explain some of the reasoning behind the move. For example, if you put Ponson on the 25-man, have him make a start or two as the #4 or #5 in KC, then decide to send him down to Omaha, if the Royals then can hold his rights for the remainder of the season then this makes a little more sense.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 31, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Royals have to add Ponson to the 25-man roster by May 15
or else he may opt out of the minor league deal and become a free agent. Where he is physically does not matter, but if he is on the MLB active roster, he cannot pitch in the minors.
With his service time, once the Royals called him up, Ponson could reject any attempt to send him back to the minors and become a free agent.
by Gopherballs on Mar 31, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So the bottom line is that it's a one-way ticket...
once he’s on the 25-man (regardless of when that happens, now or by May 15), then he has to STAY on the 25-man, or he immediately becomes a FA, correct?
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 31, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty much except "immediately" likely means ten days
To remove him from the 25-man roster, the Royals would likely designate him for assignment (DFA), which gives them ten days to trade him, waive him, or release him. At the end of the ten days, if he was not traded or claimed on waivers, he would become a free agent. The team does have the option of releasing him immediately, but in most circumstances, the team uses the DFA process to give them the ten days just in case there is a trade partner.
by Gopherballs on Mar 31, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rays envy
They can do this with David Price, who barring injury is guaranteed to be much better than Hochevar and maybe even quality #1 starter level this season, and yet they still have enough quality starting pitching depth to be the favorite to win the AL East.
Hopefully we can say the same in 2-3 years. But not this season. Will, in some ways your post about the Royals winning the division is the typical “spring optimism” article with just smarter analysis and better possible outcomes objectivism than the typical “spring optimism” we get from JoePos. I’m not disparaging that work (i thought it was great), but either way you spin it I do not hesitate to put money down right now that the Royals will not sniff the top half of the division.
Waiting for April.
by DC Royal on Mar 31, 2009 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yea...
the problem is, the royals are probably as good now as they will be in 2010 (moose and hoz still not ready, other than rosa, most pitching prospects won’t be either)
by royalsreview on Mar 31, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I hate to say it...
because it probably won’t happen, but moving Guillen sometime this season (or next offseason…early) would be the only way to make a major improvement in 2010. So, you’re probably right.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 31, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone wanna take a stab at how long he'd have to stay demoted for the royals to save a year?
we’ve got lawyers around here, right?
by royalsreview on Mar 31, 2009 2:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
May 5th
I believe
The Allard Baird of incisive internet discourse.
by kcbottom9th on Mar 31, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i hope it's not longer
looking at cot’s contracts, it says he has 1.019 years of service time. although it says that this is an estimate, it might mean he will have to stay down there 19 days longer than someone like wieters.
by 9il on Mar 31, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as they leave him down long enough to get the extra year of team control
I’m ok with this move. He’d likely be better than the guys he was competing with, but I’d rather have the extra year of control.
If, on the other hand, they bring him up to start on April 25th, just before getting the extra year, I’ll be upset.
by Top Ramen on Mar 31, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to Craig Brown/Clark Fosler
The Royals won’t need a fifth starter more than once until the end of April or so. I guess by sending Hochevar down for that brief period you get the extra service year and only really give up one game (fulfilling whatever ridiculous commitment you gave to Ho-Ram by letting him trot out there for that one start and letting him get shelled…justifying—to him—your relegation of him to the bullpen for eternity). At the end of the day you give up one game for an extra year of Hoch, not necessarily a bad tradeoff. Even though that one game could be the difference.
My inner Rob Neyer is not betting on one game mattering all that much at the end of the season—in terms of playoffs—although you don’t want to concede that game before the season even starts.
So what you do is, you pretend that going with Ho-Ram really gives you the best chance to win. I really have no idea where the allegiance to Ho-Ram comes from. I think it’s a baseball fraternity thing — I’m working on a post about this. A non-sarcastic post.
I'm about to change my username to DannyDuffyfan
by jackie ballgame on Mar 31, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
interesting
although I still think Hochevar should be the #4
greinke
meche
davies
hoch
by royalsreview on Mar 31, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I can’t get really upset over this. Its not like Hooch was tearing up the minors or was brilliant last year in the big leagues. He had a decent FIP, but nothing to get too excited over. Another month in Omaha isn’t the worst thing that could happen.
More worrying is that the best we could do for a stop gap was Sidney Ponson. Really?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 31, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed on Ponson
but on the other hand, given the nature of the deal, it’s no higher than 4th or 5th on my list of “WTFs” for this offseason.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 31, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh
Too true.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Mar 31, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't disagree with the general point
but the 52% groundball rate is something to get excited about.
by Gopherballs on Mar 31, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to give another possible reason...
Keith Law observed Hochevar on March 4, 2009 and had the following to say:
Luke Hochevar has a great delivery that he repeats really well, but lacks an above-average pitch. And for a guy who’s supposed to be a ground-ball pitcher, he doesn’t get much sink on his fastball.
Maybe the Royal’s scouts agree and don’t think that the groundball rate is sustainable?
by djk royal on Mar 31, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure
Generally speaking, inducing groundballs represents one of the most consistent skills for a pitcher from year to year.
Some pitchers without a Derek Lowe-caliber sinker can still post a decent groundball rate by pounding the low part of the zone. Or maybe Law caught Hochevar on a day when he was not throwing his two-seamer, only the four-seamer.
by Gopherballs on Mar 31, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ground ball when hit on average are an out 70% of the time and not a HR 99.999% of the time
IF Luke throws strikes, he should be a very effective pitcher.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Mar 31, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So many jokes here, I don't know where to start
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 31, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
he also gets to pitch in the minors—sort of like an extended spring training—where he can keep working on his pitches (rather than needing to get W’s) and they can continue to monitor his injury rehab (to the extent that it’s still an issue).
by benfunke on Mar 31, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
100%
I’m with you 100% on this one – their goal here is to get Hochevar consistent starts at the beginning of the year, and most likely boost up some confidence down in Omaha. He’s going to be bouncing around the 4/5 spot for the Royals anyway, and for a guy like him, it makes more sense to keep getting reps (unlike HoRam or Ponson). If it saves them money, fine too.
by Brn4bsbl32 on Mar 31, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
we'll start Tejeda that game and dominate. :)
Plus Hoch gets to make regular starts in Omaha….
Everyone's recruits look better than ours.
by 306008 on Mar 31, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's all about the options
I agree with djk royal’s assessment – this move is as much about retaining SP depth for as long as possible.
I understand the strategy itself – but I’m not convinced it’s the right strategy to employ with this team at this moment in time. To me, it seems like this sorta strategy makes more sense for a team that is cetain to contend. A team like the Royals, apparent improvement this season notwithstanding, might be better served to develop the younger pitchers now at the cost of risking position depth rather than playing to win this season as much as Moore seems to do. I’ve brought this criticism up before – Moore seems to be trying to balance building a perennial contender for the future with trying to win in the present, but I think he has made errors in judging exactly where upon that path the franchise currently resides.
(Wow – I managed to comment on the rotation without adding a snide Soria-should-be-a-starter rant. Progress for me!)
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
by loyal2sdad on Mar 31, 2009 3:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One thing you don't touch on
surprising, is that this doen’t jive with the “we’re going to try to contend” vibes the organization has been sending out both tthrough the press and its acquisitoin of older, more expensive players.
Teams need to watch is with service time, especially teams with relatively small budgets like the Royals. Smart teams like the Rays and Orioles do this, so this makes sense.
But it does show some sort of schizophrenia. In this year when the FO clearly thinks the Al Central is there for the taking (it is, but not for this group of players they’ve assembled), they send down a guy who is at least their 4th, and possibly 3rd best pitcher. Yet in 2007, when they clearly had no chance, they not only had Gordon skip AAA, but left him up after he struggled horribly.
So while in isolation the decision is fine, to me it says that either Dayton Moore can’t quite decide what he wants to do, or, worse, he has decided, but has no clue of how to do it.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 31, 2009 3:10 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
3rd or 4th best starting pitcher
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Mar 31, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree on Gordon.
The fact that it only takes approximately three weeks of minor league time to start the season to delay free agency by a year for Gordon makes the decision to have him skip AAA highly questionable. Especially given the fact that the Royals were somewhat granted a “second chance” to correct the error once they realized he wasn’t ready when he struggled so badly to start the 2007 season.
by djk royal on Mar 31, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you said what I was trying to say, but much more clearly
“either Dayton Moore can’t decide what he wants to do,…”
I am still a believer in Moore, but my #1 criticism is that he seemingly thinks the team can realistically contend EVERY year. (Or at least that is his public sentiment). I think it is critical for a small market, low revenue team to recognize that it is easier to aim for a “narrow window” of realistic contention, followed by a rebuilding period, than to attempt to build a perennial contender. Building a perennial contender may be feasable in Atlanta, but may not be feasible in KC, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Minny, etc. – especially given the rules of MLB at this time.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
by loyal2sdad on Mar 31, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
also agree on Gordon
But it does show some sort of schizophrenia. In this year when the FO clearly thinks the Al Central is there for the taking (it is, but not for this group of players they’ve assembled), they send down a guy who is at least their 4th, and possibly 3rd best pitcher. Yet in 2007, when they clearly had no chance, they not only had Gordon skip AAA, but left him up after he struggled horribly.
by royalsreview on Mar 31, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moves like this
are why we are always buried 10+ games back by May 15th. The key to this season is getting off to a good start. I was going to post on your “how the Royals can win the division” thread that the first thing they need to do is go .500 in their first 40 games. This move makes that less likely.
by Big Guy on Mar 31, 2009 3:29 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
RR made the point that if the Royals are around 43 wins at the All-Star break, the Royals could be in a position to trade/spend to get a bat for a playoff push.. with HoRam and Ponson at the back of the rotation, I simply do not see this happening. Bannister and Hochevar are much better overall options (not to mention better upside). I don’t really know how the logistics work, but some people are making the point that this move is a move for the future of our young arms and the team overall. If that’s the case, I can understand. It is more likely that the Royals make a pennant run in 2010 as opposed to this year.
by FretFriendly on Apr 1, 2009 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The depressing thing is, even though the Royals have some depth here, Bannister, Ramirez & Ponson are all the same guy when you get down to it: five labored innings of 3 (best case) to 7 (worst case). In a way, it’s similar to the Royals “depth” at catcher: two guys with identical profiles that really aren’t that great. Hochevar was the one figure who could have been more and maybe he will be, and soon.
That’s what a #5 starter does. I agree vis a vis Hochevar being probably the best immediate option; however the Royals do have to pay attention to things like “gaming” the service time clock to stay competitive.
I hereby resign from this post.
by Home Run Tony Cogan on Mar 31, 2009 4:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
people need to chill. This caught me off guard as well but makes sense. They want another year out of him and want to see him dominate triple A. I think when he gave up the grand slam during a triple A game Moore/Hillman decided to see if that was an anomaly or if he has work to do. (which is probably the truth)
Remember Longoria was sent down until May CHILL!
by GobbleforCyoung on Mar 31, 2009 6:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And this way the Royals get use a proven veteran like Ponson or Ramirez
…or both!
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 31, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just -1?
That deserved a -10 at least.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 31, 2009 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahah yeah true
unless your being an ass and mocking me you do see Moore’s affinity for 2005 stats!
by GobbleforCyoung on Apr 3, 2009 6:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're half right
He is mocking you, but he’s not being an ass.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Apr 4, 2009 2:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd just like to point out that I said this would happen 2 days ago
"The way the schedule lines up they only need a 5th starter twice in April. The 2nd time they need him he will start to get a regular turn after that. My guess is Hochevar goes to Omaha, Ponson starts game 3 giving Davies the home opener, Banny is AAA, HoRam is bullpen/spot starter until we need #5. Then if HoRam is that bad, we bring back Banny in April and then Hochevar if Banny/Ponson/Davies struggle.
by AxDxMx on Mar 29, 2009 10:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs "
http://www.royalsreview.com/2009/3/28/813813/davies-ponson-positioned-e#13515707
by AxDxMx on Mar 31, 2009 7:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We'll see if it all ends up shaking out like that
Ponson isn’t yet the #4 starter and Bannister isn’t yet optioned to Omaha. It may well happen, but you should claim that you were right about all of this when those things actually happen.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 31, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Picky picky
You’re all acting like this is the worst move ever. We get him an extra year, and he misses at most 4 April starts and maybe a couple in May. An extra year of club control for Hochevar will be a huge deal if he turns into a good starter, which I think he can.
And that Davies for the home opener thing is wishful thinking, as I don’t really want to watch Ponson pitch since I have tickets. Those are the 2 guys lined up to start those games so I think at this point that’s a pretty good assumption, though yes, it could be wrong. But this Hochevar move makes it more and more likely.
As for Banny, you tell me where he fits, because at this point, he doesn’t.
by AxDxMx on Mar 31, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re all acting like this is the worst move ever.
No, I don’t think all or even most of us are reacting like that. There is understandable grumbling because he is likely the third or fourth best SP on the team. But I see lots of people recognizing the value of sitting him in Omaha for a month or two to get the extra year of team control.
Those are the 2 guys lined up to start those games so I think at this point that’s a pretty good assumption, though yes, it could be wrong.
It may well happen. But the way pitchers are currently lined up does not make it a fait accompli.
As for Banny, you tell me where he fits, because at this point, he doesn’t.
I don’t know. I’d slot him into the fourth SP slot. We’ll see if the Royals stay very positive about Ponson after multiple unimpressive ST performances. The bottom line is that we don’t know what’s going to happen until it happens. This month I’ve read posts of many people stating that certain personnel moves and roles are “clear,” “certain,” “obvious,” and “definitely going to happen.” Some of them will happen. Some won’t. We don’t know yet.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 31, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t necessarily think Ponson should be the #4, and almost definitely not after today’s game. Maybe they do put Banny there now, but he’s been pretty bad this spring too. With options left on him, I think they’ll use them. That’s all.
The guy right below me is furious, and the first post is pissed, so rereading the post I don’t see as much anger as I thought I did. I wasn’t specifically calling you out. You obviously aren’t angry.
by AxDxMx on Mar 31, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The guy right below me is furious, and the first post is pissed, so rereading the post I don’t see as much anger as I thought I did. I wasn’t specifically calling you out. You obviously aren’t angry.
I was just pointing out that the overall reaction to optioning Hochevar is mixed and measured. Some are pissed. Some think it is definitely a positive. Most see a mixture of good and bad in it.
Right now, if I had to predict, I’d say Ponson will start the season as the #4 starter unfortunately. If not, then HoRam, with Ponson as the #5. Since the #5 won’t get regular starts in April, I don’t think they’ll give Banny that job. I think they want him and Hochevar throwing 80-100 pitches every five days somewhere. Banny might make the #4 slot, but probably not at this point. But none of this is carved in stone. I wouldn’t bet too much money on any particular prediction. Most of the info we have on who the front office likes and doesn’t like and how they are leaning comes from Dutton at the Star. He’s not uninformed, but he often misreads the pulse of the front office (like when he reported for weeks that Emil Brown was going to get tendered an offer…and then of course he was non-tendered).
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 31, 2009 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True.
It’s just getting a little late at this point to slot someone else in. It almost has to be Banny or Ponson.
by AxDxMx on Mar 31, 2009 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it would be too difficult to move HoRam into that slot
It might limit his IP in his first start, but it’s not like anyone expects him to pitch 8 innings anyway. Not that I want HoRam to be the #4 SP of course.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 31, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am furious
Worst decision of the Spring
by FretFriendly on Mar 31, 2009 7:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Given the service time and team control issues, it's not even in the bottom 10
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 31, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops...
I was logged on under a friend’s account.
So… just let ME vent.
by FretFriendly on Mar 31, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vent away
Just throwing in my two cents. I’ve got cents strewn all over this website. If I had a nickel for every two cents I shared on this site…
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 31, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've noticed...
I have a lot of catching up to do… I’m waiting until you’re drowning in fatherhood to pounce.
by FretFriendly on Mar 31, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't take advantage of my weakest moment!
In all seriousness, not that I’m discouraging venting anywhere and everywhere, but the best place to vent during the season is in game threads. Game threads are full lots and lots of venting and…how shall I put this…strong reactions. That is why I avoid them over 90% of the time. So you’ll usually not have me there to attempt to moderate your venting.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 31, 2009 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have yet to participate in a full game thread
But I find them quite entertaining… I will give that a shot. Don’t worry, I’m cooling down about the Hochevar thing. I think I’m just upset because I predicted him as a lock a few weeks earlier… I still think he deserves a spot, but I guess that’s why I’m not a GM. Even so, I am not happy that either Ponson and/or Ramirez are going to be on the mound instead of him.
by FretFriendly on Apr 1, 2009 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The game threads are a wild ride and not for the faint of heart
Bring some beers and wear a cup.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2009 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I usually just drink my beer from the bottle...
…oooh that kind of cup…
by FretFriendly on Apr 1, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't take the easy way out
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2009 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was origionally crushed...
Then I started thinking about it, looked at the schedule, and dissected what this move means for each party involved.
Everyone's recruits look better than ours.
by 306008 on Mar 31, 2009 11:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
According to Blog Star
Ponson has to be on the roster by May 1st or be released. With the 4/5 spot looking at possibly 4-5 starts in that time this move makes sense. Move Hochs clock back and get a spot start or two out of Ponson. Luke pitched 146 innings last year so it would be nice if he didn’t get stretched to over 176, missing one or two early season starts could be effective in doing this and allow the better pitcher to be in the rotation late in the season.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
by kcscoliny on Mar 31, 2009 11:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Hochevar-to-Omaha part makes sense
The Ponson-to-KC part does not. As a fifth starter, maybe. As the fourth starter, definitely not.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Mar 31, 2009 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can someone breakdown
how long Hochevar has to spend in Omaha to gain another year under club control? Above it said his service time was 1 year 19 days. This is made up of his september callup in 2007, and almost all of 2008 in KC with 3 starts in Omaha. I’m not sure but I didn’t think september callups counted towards the free agent countdown.
by Balboni on Apr 1, 2009 1:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
All time in the majors counts (including September call-ups and time on the major league DL)
As far as exactly how long Hochevar needs to stay in Omaha for the Royals to get an extra year of team control, there’s no easy answer. For some reason, MLB doesn’t make this clear, at least not publicly. So we’re stuck with “a month or two.” Given that he spent some time in Omaha last year, I think another month this year would probably do it.
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2009 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Cots is right on the service time (1 year + 19 days)
the date is May 5 (plus or minus a day or so), as noted by kcbottom9th above. One season of service time equals 172 days (even though the actual number of days from opening day to last day of the regular season is something like 180-185 days). So using Cots’ number, Hochevar needs to stay in the majors for 153 days to finish the year with two full seasons of service time. It looks like if he was not called up until May 5, Hochevar would finish this year with 152 days (or less) of service time.
by Gopherballs on Apr 1, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have to worry about the Super 2's as well right?
If he gets over 2 years of service, and fits some other criteria that I don’t know off the top of my head, he could qualify for arbitration a year earlier. If he were here a full year, he might qualify at 2 years and 19 days.
by AxDxMx on Apr 1, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not this year
The earliest cutoff for Super 2 eligibility in recent years is something like 2 years and 125 days (and usually between 130 to 140 days), so there was no chance Hochevar would be a Super 2 after the end of this season. As long as he spends a little over half the season in the majors this year, however, he would be a Super 2 after the 2010 season. But an extra year of arbitration eligibility is the trade off for the extra year of club control, which is vastly more important.
by Gopherballs on Apr 1, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've now confused myself, thought I had it for a minute and then lost it.
So if he were to stay on the 25-man for the whole season this year, that would give him 2 years and 19 days of service time right? So that would make next year, 2010, his 3rd or 4th year under team control?
FKA "MileHighKCfan"
by JSouth on Apr 1, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's walk through it
Service time for our purposes matters for two main things: (1) when a player becomes a free agent and (2) when a player becomes arbitration eligible. As for (1), a player needs 6 full years of service time to become a free agent.
As for (2), players generally become arbitration eligible after they have 3 full years of service time. A particular exception in the labor agreement between the owners and the players is that the top 17% of players (in terms of service time) with more than two years but less than three years of service time also qualify for salary arbitration each year. These players are called “Super Twos.” Typically, the cutoff for Super Two eligibility is between two years plus 130 to 140 days of service time (and I think has been as low as 125 days).
So for Hochevar, he has 1 year + 19 days of service time entering the 2009 season. If he pitches the full year for the Royals, he would end up with 2 years + 19 days after this season. He would not qualify as a Super 2. Assuming he stayed in the majors full time thereafter, his service time would break down after each subsequent season as follows:
2010 — 3 years + 19 days (arbitration eligible for 2011 season)
2011 — 4 years + 19 days (arbitration eligible for 2012 season)
2012 — 5 years + 19 days (arbitration eligible for 2013 season)
2013 — 6 years + 19 days (free agent eligible for 2014 season).
On the other hand, if we assume Hochevar spends 152 days (or less) in the majors in 2009, he would finish the season with 1 year + 171 days in service time (remembering that 172 days is needed to count as a full year of service time). Assuming he stayed in the majors full time thereafter, his service time would break down after each subsequent season as follows:
2010 — 2 years + 171 days (arbitration eligible for 2011 season as “Super 2”)
2011 — 3 years + 171 days (arbitration eligible for 2012 season)
2012 — 4 years + 171 days (arbitration eligible for 2013 season)
2013 — 5 years + 171 days (arbitration eligible for 2014 season)
2014 — 6 years + 171 days (free agent eligible for 2015 season).
So the key is whether Hochevar is in the majors for enough days this year to end 2009 with two full years of service time. If so, he can become a free agent one year sooner (after the 2013 season) than he would otherwise (after the 2014 season).
by Gopherballs on Apr 1, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
based on that, if he stays in the minors for about 55 days between this season and the next, he could even slip by without becoming a super two?:
1yr ,19 days + 117 days (172 – 55, this season) + 1yr = 2 yrs, 136 days
maybe that’s pushing it (as far as guessing the machinations behind the FO’s scheming), since Hoch wouldn’t be called up until the end of May. this might actually make sense, though, if the FO sees Hoch’s performance right now as being equivalent to the production they can get from their planned #4 & 5 starters (i.e. HoRam/Ponson/Banny).
by benfunke on Apr 1, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is how I thought it worked to start with
but I was confusing myself with the number “2”. I forgot that you could qualify for Super 2 status even if you had service time in 3 or 4 different years. Thanks for clarifying what I already knew but couldn’t seem to actually know.
FKA "MileHighKCfan"
by JSouth on Apr 1, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
people need to chill. This caught me off guard as well but makes sense. They want another year out of him and want to see him dominate triple A. I think when he gave up the grand slam during a triple A game Moore/Hillman decided to see if that was an anomaly or if he has work to do. (which is probably the truth)
Remember Longoria was sent down until May CHILL!
by GobbleforCyoung on Apr 1, 2009 4:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Did you just copy a comment you already made and re-post it?
FKA "MileHighKCfan"
by JSouth on Apr 1, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was so good that it couldn't be limited to just one thread
The immoderate moderator
by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
