Decision Time - Jimmy Gobble

by James Quinn on Oct 19, 2006 11:16 AM EDT Comment 16 comments

Continuing a series of diary postings/polls centering on specific players and if the good folks here at RR believe the Royals should stick with them or relieve them/us of their/our misery.

The players I will focus on are those which the Royals can retain, but who can demand more than minimum salary.

Previous Entries and the consensus opinion of the RR management:

Runelvys Hernandez - RR management says: "Cut him loose"
Emil Brown - RR management says: "Short term commitment" Offer arbitration

Decision Time - Jimmy Gobble

Jimmy Gobble enters his first year of arbitration eligibility in 2007. This does force the Royals to make a decision in his case. Is he worth retaining now that he must be paid something approximating his actual value? I anticipate something in the area of $750K to retain Gobble.

Year: Innings Pitched, ERA (K/9, BB/9, HR/9) WHIP

148 - 5.35 (3.0 / 2.6 / 1.5) 1.35
53.7 - 5.70 (6.4 / 5.0 / 1.5) 1.75
84 - 5.14 (8.6 / 3.1 / 1.5) 1.48

At first glance these numbers do not seem to prompt any strong conclusions, but there are patterns here that do tell a story. The most significant development in Gobble's career is his evolving ability to strikeout batters. Decent MLB pitchers are expected to strikeout six or more batters per nine. Gobble has transformed this aspect of his game from a negative to a positive. In 2004 he had one of the lowest K/9 averages in all of baseball, last year he led the Royals in strikeouts despite only pitching 84 innings. He did this while keeping his homerun and walk per nine within normal parameters. The hole in Gobble's game at this point seems to be his hitability. Opposing batters hit (.282 / .341 / .469 / .809) against him last year. All on the ugly side. Also, all pretty consistent with his career numbers (.279 / .337 / .470 / .806). So Gobble is not improving yet in terms of getting more outs, just in how he gets those outs.

Gobble's value would be much higher if he could develop more effectiveness vs. right handed hitters, his lefty/righty splits are pronounced in batting average (.255 vs. .294) and OBA (.276 vs. .366) If he could bring these more into line he would be a better option as a starter (where he faces line-ups stocked 80% with overly comfortable right handed batmen). As it is he remains effective only in the bullpen where his exposure to righties can be better managed. For his career Gobble is (4-3, 4.95) in 79 games as a reliever, and (10-12, 5.58) in 34 starts. As long as Gobble is in the pen he is good for only about 70 innings a year, as a starter this number might triple, along with his value to the team.

I have perhaps an unreasonable degree of hope for Gobble. I see he has corrected one of his two problem areas (K's), and I anticipate (for no reason other than powder blue faith) that he will figure out a method of reducing his hits allowed. This leaves only the righty/lefty problem, and even if he never fully corrects that limitation he will still remain effective in middle relief for perhaps another 10 years. Gobble is still young at 26, and thus presumably growth can be expected for another few years. The normal pattern is to be MLB established by 26, improvement into late 20's, slow decline in early 30's, drop off around 34. Gobble is actually ahead of this model.

While it may be premature to open this discussion, I do think if the Royals decide they have faith in Gobble they might consider locking him up. If the Royals present him with something like a 5yr, $10M package now, Gobble might sign to buy that new bride of his a dream home and the Royals might have a reasonably priced swing man, or a bargain priced #4 starter, for years to come. Or of course, it could all go horribly bad.

Finally, there is that issue of his name. If he had been named James Gable things might have been different. Gobbler doesn't inspire the same degree of awe.

Poll

Decision Time - Jimmy Gobble

We've seen too much. Time to part ways.

13 votes

Too soon to know, offer arbitration for one year. Costs a roster spot and about $750K.

47 votes

We've seen enough, try to lock him up for the long haul. Costs about 5yr - $10M.

23 votes

83 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No more long-term contracts...

For young unproven players. As you made clear, there was some improvement in one aspect of his pitching. Until there is consistent improvement over the next year or two, a long-term contract makes no sense.

For a team like the Royals, long-term contracts should only be considered for young players when there has been 2-3 consecutive years of above league-average improving play. That way, you're locking in what you know instead of what you hope for.

by CentralChamps2009 on Oct 19, 2006 2:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think...

a 5 yr deal is a little extreme, but I definetly want to see Gobble back next year

especially with Wood gone, Gobble's a good fit as a utility pitcher, and I liked his work out of the bully last year (although the numbers don't really support this)

by royalsreview on Oct 19, 2006 2:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Do you have faith in the kid?

Hi Will, the reason I went with five years is because the Royals already have him locked up for another three as long as they continue to agree to arbitration with him.

But I agree with you, taking a five year gamble on him at this point is very risky. Five years at $10M would only work out to the Royals favor if Gobble pitches a step above what he did in 2006 and continues at that level for the next five years.

On the other hand, if Gobble takes two steps forward in the next year, and establishes himself as an effective starting pitcher, say for example if he has years like the below:

10-13, 4.65 ERA
13-11, 4.40 ERA

If Gobble is able to establish himself at a level such as the above than the Royals would be paying through the nose to retain him for years 3, 4 and 5. Something on the order of $4 to $6M per.

Do you think Gobble can reach the level above? If so, than the 5yr $10M is the way to go. If you expect performance similar to 2006 than he will be an overpaid swing man, but not a crippling burden on the team such as Sweeney's contract has proven to be.

5yrs - $10M
If Gobble does not take the next step, it's a bearable burdern
If Gobble takes the next step and maintains, it is market rate
If Gobble takes two or more steps and maintains, it is a steal

Can a team like KC really compete with the big guys if they play it safe?

My vote was for arbitration only, but I do not think it is a no-brainer. I wouldn't be put out to see the Royals take a risk on Gobble. Hopefully he wouldn't Berroa-out on us.

by James Quinn on Oct 19, 2006 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really like this line of thinking

but... I'm just not sure Gobble's the right guy to do this with. He's the most effective when he's used in short doses out of the 'pen.

Then again, if we paid Berroa 2 million in 2006 and 3.25 in 2007... maybe it makes sense

I might be down with $8 million for 4 years, although that may actually be a worse deal b/c the team doesnt get security... urg, can't think straight anymore

by royalsreview on Oct 20, 2006 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tough call

One thing that some contracts include is an out for the last year. The player can void the final year if he reaches certain benchmarks early in the contract, and the team can opt out with a buyout clause.

I was thinking more about the whole Gobble thing and I think I would sign the long term contract with him if it was something like this:

4 years at $8M guaranteed.
5th year at $2M. Gobble can void if he leads the team in either innings pitched or relief appearances during years 3 or 4. Royals can void by buying out at $100K.

And yes, I am putting way too much thought into this. Fantasying about managing the Royals is much more attractive than grading 80 exams.

The next diary I'll put up will be of a more immediate nature. What type of contract should the Royals consider offering Redman now that he is a free agent. That might bring out some opinions from the Royals Review management board.

by James Quinn on Oct 20, 2006 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sign him

and hope he has a nice three months at some point, at which point he can be traded for a C prospect to the Cubs/Yankees/Giants/Dodgers

by LeoBloom on Oct 19, 2006 6:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I guess I'm in the minority

But i just see another Brand X thrower who isnt worth the trouble.

FIRE BELL

by FireBell on Oct 19, 2006 7:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sign him and keep in the bullpen...

He bounced back and forth like a ping pong ball last year. I think he has good stuff and is young enough to invest sometime in. A full year in the pen and we may be surprised how he turns around.

And, you have to think about the kid....

by grudz69 on Oct 20, 2006 12:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bullpen roles

Totally agree with the lack of consistency with Gobble. I believe he would shine in a steady role in the bullpen. Gobble has some ability, is young and his K rate was up this year. When KC decides to use him correctly, his value will be worthwhile. For now, I would sign him short them - 5 years is forever in majors. Young LH with talent are rare. He will pitch in majors for a long time with proper management.

by daveyork on Oct 20, 2006 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

MLB: Gobble is a super-two.

It became official today, Gobble does qualify for arbitration. This from the KC Star:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/baseball/mlb/kansas_city_royals/15802699.htm

Royals Notebook | Five players are arbitration-eligible
Gobble headed for big raise after qualifying as super-two
By BOB DUTTON
The Kansas City Star
Royals reliever Jimmy Gobble is one of 13 players who will qualify this off-season for arbitration under the super-two provision in the game's labor agreement, according to a preliminary list released Thursday by the Major League Baseball Players Association.

The distinction virtually ensures a major salary jump for Gobble, who made $345,500 in 2006. The Royals must decide by Dec. 20 whether to tender Gobble a contract and thereby accept the possibility of arbitration.

Gobble would become a free agent if not offered a contract.

The union's list cited four other Royals as being eligible for arbitration: outfielder Emil Brown, and pitchers Brandon Duckworth, Runelvys Hernandez and Todd Wellemeyer.

Duckworth and Wellemeyer are eligible for the first time, which also puts them in line for significant raises if tendered contracts. Both made less than $400,000 in 2006.

Brown won an arbitration hearing last winter and made $1.775 million in 2006. Hernandez reached an agreement for $1.225 million before the case went to a hearing.

Arbitration is available to all players with at least three but fewer than than six full years of major-league service. Players with more than six full years are eligible for free-agency.

The super-two provision grants arbitration to the top one-sixth of those players with at least two full years of service but less than three full years.

Former Royals pitcher Mike Wood, recently claimed on waivers by Texas, was also a super-two qualifier.

This story also settled the question if Buck would qualify. He did not. So, what this means is that in addition to those players already covered by the previous postings, only the Duck and Wellemeyer also have reached "decision time." I'll try to get diaries up about them as well as about the only free agent that I think the Royals are considering bringing back, Redman, in the next few weeks.

by James Quinn on Oct 20, 2006 9:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

wow

Buck plays nearly every day for 2.5 years and doesn't qualifiy

sucks for him

by royalsreview on Oct 20, 2006 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Qualifiers

Buck entered this year with one full season plus 101 games on the roster. Gobble was at 1 year plus 142 games. Woody, who also made the cut, was at 1 year plus 140 games, but he did spend time on the DL. I am not sure if DL time counts as roster time. It might be that only time on the 60-day DL is not counted. Too many rules to really follow them all. It looks to me like Buck probably missed the cut by only a few days of service time.

What this means is that Grenke will most likely qualify at the end of next year as a super two (he is around 1 + 145 now.)

by James Quinn on Oct 20, 2006 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm....

Could that explain his random benchings down the stretch????????

FIRE BELL

by FireBell on Oct 20, 2006 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably not

FB, it appears to me that service time is computed as simply as days on the MLB roster. I could be wrong about that, but it appears that is the method used for determining who qualifies as a super-two. That would mean that a player gets as much service time regardless as to if he is starting or if he is riding the pine that day.

Of course, I could be overlooking something here. Which wouldn't be too surprising given how complicated the whole system is.

by James Quinn on Oct 20, 2006 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Service time

Service time accrues for time spent in the big leagues, whether player is active on the ML roster or on the DL. For example, Greinke this season accrued service time while he was on the 60 day DL, but once he was optioned to Wichita, that was not service time.

Being on the 40 man roster or having a major league contract as opposed to a minor league contract has nothing to do with service time.

This explains why Greinke is not arb eligible as a Super 2 - he came up in 2004 about mid-June, then spent all of 2005, then about another month or month and a half on the DL in 2006, plus another 10 days or so at the end of 2006, so he is probably somewhere near 2 full seasons. I guess this is one financial benefit from keeping him in Wichita all season, despite his performance (argueably) meriting promotion sooner than it was granted.

by loyal2s dad on Nov 1, 2006 9:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Adjustment to likely award

Royals Authority published an article about Jimmy Gobble and his upcoming arbitration hearing.

http://royals.mostvaluablenetwork.com/cfos/mr-gobble-goes-to-arbitration/

I can't say I agree with his assessment of Gobble. I guess he is more optimistic about Gobble's ability to make the jump into the starting rotation than am I. I just don't see Gobble as having the potential to become a truely great pitcher (RA compared him to a young Glavine, which would be great, but I just don't see it as a realistic assessment of the Gobbler's potential.)

That said, RA expects Gobble to come out of arbitration with a figure more along the lines of $950K, while I had earlier estimated him to be more in the $750K range. In retrospect, I think RA is probably going to be closer to the truth. I don't know if this adjustment will cause anyone to reconsider their vote.

by James Quinn on Nov 5, 2006 10:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs