Sveum - Rizzo call up to be discussed soon

[KingCubsFan]

I'm not quite willing to risk losing a full year of team control in Rizzo's prime simply so we have a decent DH option for 6 games. That said, I think there could be some benefit to playing him every day for a couple weeks and then sending him down for a month as a sort of sneak peek into how he's going to be pitched, and to give him some specific things to work on in his last month at Iowa. Above all though, you don't risk him breaking the 1 year of service time mark. To do so at this point would be near madness.

There's really nothing left for him to work on at Iowa. I think he's shown that. And what if he comes up for a few weeks and excels? Can you really tell him with a straight face he needs to go down and work on a few things?

 

The Cubs have already waited this long to bring him up. It makes absolutely no sense to bring him up until it's assured we get the extra year. And once he's up, he should be up for good.

 

I doubt he can't handle being told be needs to work on some things for a few weeks at Iowa. He may be disappointed, but you manage those expectations from the start.

I don't doubt he could handle it. By all accounts, he has a great attitude. But, realistically, there doesn't appear to be anything he can really "work on" in AAA anymore. He needs to be challenged in the majors. What can they possibly tell him? To pretend he's facing Roy Halladay when Mike Parisi is throwing?

[davell]

In all likelihood, the extra year won't ever matter. If he's really good, we'll lock him up longterm before that last arb year ever kicks in. I guess a small case could be made for years 3 and 4 and whether it's a renewal/arb 1 situation or it's an arb1/arb 2 situation that costs us a tad more. To me though, as a major market team, it shouldn't conceivably matter.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

In all likelihood, the extra year won't ever matter. If he's really good, we'll lock him up longterm before that last arb year ever kicks in. I guess a small case could be made for years 3 and 4 and whether it's a renewal/arb 1 situation or it's an arb1/arb 2 situation that costs us a tad more. To me though, as a major market team, it shouldn't conceivably matter.

 

Totally get what you are saying, but it always matters. For instance, what happens if Rizzo hires Boras as his agent in three years, and Boras advises him to go to free agency, etc.? A full year of team control, even for a large market, is huge for a variety of reasons.

 

But, again, I see what you are saying.

[chuckywang]

I think someone posted in one of the minor league threads recently a chart showing when guys need to be called up after to get super two/have FA be pushed back. I couldn't find it, but I think Rizzo has to be called up sometime in August to have FA pushed back a year.

 

That was for Super Two status.

 

http://rotoauthority.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834515b9a69e20163022d8563970d-580wi

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you Super Two if you are in the top 17 percent of players with more than 2 years of major league service time, but less than 3? If it's based on percentile like that (i.e. based on other players' service time), how can the Cubs know when to call him up so that he can't be a Super Two?

[Derwood]

If he's as good as we hope he is, I'm hoping we'll buy out some of those arbitration years....

[dew1679666265]

In all likelihood, the extra year won't ever matter. If he's really good, we'll lock him up longterm before that last arb year ever kicks in. I guess a small case could be made for years 3 and 4 and whether it's a renewal/arb 1 situation or it's an arb1/arb 2 situation that costs us a tad more. To me though, as a major market team, it shouldn't conceivably matter.

 

What do we gain by calling him up? This is a team that isn't contending this year and no matter how good Rizzo may be for the remainder of this year, he won't be enough to change that. I have no problem with calling him up if they really feel like he's the difference between us contending and not contending. But if having him play instead of Mather/Reed/Soriano/Campana/whoever is the difference between us winning 69 and 72 games or something like that, I really see no upside at all.

 

Basically, there's a possibility calling him up early will hurt us. However, there's no realistic chance that calling him up early will help us in any meaningful way. I simply don't see a reason to do it.

[Sammy Sofa]

You don't see any reason at all? None whatsoever?

[davell]

Oh, it doesn't matter to me when they bring him up. It appears as if it may be early June though(not saying I agree with it) but once he's here, I want him to stay.

[dew1679666265]

You don't see any reason at all? None whatsoever?

 

I assume you're referring to my statement that I see no realistic way he'll help us in a meaningful way. I wrote that with his ability to help this team win in the short term specifically in mind. He'll almost certainly be a clear improvement over some of the guys we've been running out there, but he alone isn't going to be enough to take this team from where it is now to a contender.

 

There's also the possibility that, on a personal level, he would get this season to see ML pitching and maybe be more prepared next season, but that also gives other teams more tape of him against ML pitching to determine his weaknesses.

 

Am I missing something else?

[Sammy Sofa]

Apparently, since that second reason is pretty ridiculous; it's not like they can somehow hide him forever, and it's not like he's some kind of secret stashed away in the minor leagues.

[Geech]

Yeah, I don't get that reasoning either. Rizzo has to try and get acclimated to the big leagues at some point. This season is a good choice for that since we're, hopefully, farther from contention that in upcoming seasons.

[dew1679666265]

Apparently, since that second reason is pretty ridiculous; it's not like they can somehow hide him forever, and it's not like he's some kind of secret stashed away in the minor leagues.

 

As the crux of my argument, yeah it would be pretty ridiculous. However, it's not even close to a main point of my argument. That said, I never said we should try to "hide him forever" or that he's a secret of any sort. What I did say is that the more ML PAs Rizzo gets in a meaningless season could expose more weaknesses in his game than teams are already aware of, since ML pitchers are (obviously) better than AAA pitchers and more adept at finding those weaknesses. In and of itself, that's not reason enough to keep him in the minors, but when coupled with the much more significant drawback of potentially having to pay him quite a bit more money sooner, it brings into question just how worth it giving him those extra 100-200 PAs (very rough estimate, I could be way off on that) between now and the point where his Super 2 status is delayed is.

 

In a nutshell what I'm saying is there's no meaningful benefit to the team to call him up early and only a minimal benefit to him personally to bring him up. At the same time, there's a clear potential risk to the team to calling him up early and a minimal potential risk to him personally to call him up early. Given that, I don't see the upside in bringing him up prior to his Super 2 deadline passing.

[Sammy Sofa]

Getting him ML AB is pretty meaningful and important. And worrying about "exposing his weaknesses" or whatever is irrelevant regardless of whether it's your main point or not; his weaknesses are going to be exposed at some point, so ideally by coming up earlier he'd be able to go through the motions to adjust and develop earlier, too.

[dew1679666265]

Yeah, I don't get that reasoning either. Rizzo has to try and get acclimated to the big leagues at some point. This season is a good choice for that since we're, hopefully, farther from contention that in upcoming seasons.

 

I'm not arguing he shouldn't be called up at all this season, I'm arguing we should leave him down at the very least until late June (when the extra year of team control kicks in), if not until late August (when Super 2 status is eliminated). If we were to call him up for tomorrow's game, you're looking at around 30 extra games this year (using the earlier, June date), which means around 90-120 extra PAs. I don't see that as beneficial enough to give up an extra year of team control of him.

[Sammy Sofa]

Ah, gotcha; I thought you didn't want him up at all this year, or not until September. Still, you have to admit the whole "exposing his weaknesses" argument is pretty goofy.

[dew1679666265]

Getting him ML AB is pretty meaningful and important.

 

And I'm not arguing that we shouldn't get him any ML PAs. If we hold out until the late June deadline, we're looking at 90-120 PAs. The late August deadline is around 300 PAs, so that becomes much more significant. However, bypassing the late August deadline is the one that will cost us earlier and will be a more significant negative (considering we'd have to pay him more money every year from 2014 on).

 

I could be persuaded that there's a significant enough benefit to call him up before the late August deadline. I really don't see much of a benefit to give up a full year of team control so that he can get an extra 90-120 PAs.

 

And worrying about "exposing his weaknesses" or whatever is irrelevant regardless of whether it's your main point or not; his weaknesses are going to be exposed at some point, so ideally by coming up earlier he'd be able to go through the motions to adjust and develop earlier, too.

 

That's a good point.

[Sammy Sofa]

Plus I don't really want him up before June myself.

[dew1679666265]

Ah, gotcha; I thought you didn't want him up at all this year, or not until September. Still, you have to admit the whole "exposing his weaknesses" argument is pretty goofy.

 

I don't think it's goofy. It's not the strongest of arguments, but that's why it took me two pretty long winded posts to get to it. Rizzo's already a guy who's had a long, loopy swing exposed in one short ML stint. He's spent this season working on correcting that, but it's not goofy to think that once he hits the majors again, another weakness may be exposed.

[Sammy Sofa]

Ah, gotcha; I thought you didn't want him up at all this year, or not until September. Still, you have to admit the whole "exposing his weaknesses" argument is pretty goofy.

 

I don't think it's goofy. It's not the strongest of arguments, but that's why it took me two pretty long winded posts to get to it. Rizzo's already a guy who's had a long, loopy swing exposed in one short ML stint. He's spent this season working on correcting that, but it's not goofy to think that once he hits the majors again, another weakness may be exposed.

 

Well, sure, but you need them to be.

[Geech]

Well, it's a little goofy because those weaknesses are basically going to get exposed at some point anyway. I don't know why you think keeping him down in the minors can protect him at all. Eventually he will have to try and hit big league pitching.

 

That's kind of beside the point, though. I agree that keeping him down a while longer to try and secure another year of control is a good idea, I just didn't realize that's what you were advocating. I do think he should definitely be up this year once we reach that threshold, though.

[dew1679666265]

Well, it's a little goofy because those weaknesses are basically going to get exposed at some point anyway. I don't know why you think keeping him down in the minors can protect him at all. Eventually he will have to try and hit big league pitching.

 

Ok, I'll give in on this one. Still not sure I'd call it goofy, though.

 

That's kind of beside the point, though. I agree that keeping him down a while longer to try and secure another year of control is a good idea, I just didn't realize that's what you were advocating. I do think he should definitely be up this year once we reach that threshold, though.

 

Clearly I didn't explain myself well on this one. I'd be just fine keeping him in AAA until the Super 2 deadline passes, but would absolutely keep him in AAA until the late June deadline passes.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, I don't get that reasoning either. Rizzo has to try and get acclimated to the big leagues at some point. This season is a good choice for that since we're, hopefully, farther from contention that in upcoming seasons.

 

I'm not arguing he shouldn't be called up at all this season, I'm arguing we should leave him down at the very least until late June (when the extra year of team control kicks in), if not until late August (when Super 2 status is eliminated). If we were to call him up for tomorrow's game, you're looking at around 30 extra games this year (using the earlier, June date), which means around 90-120 extra PAs. I don't see that as beneficial enough to give up an extra year of team control of him.

 

Tomorrow's game is in Houston against an NL team. The first game they will need a DH in is in 18 days, and the last game with a DH is 13 days after that. You are talking about a 14 day window where his services could be needed and used appropriately every day, then send him back and a measly 14 day extension to the original window of time he needed to stay in the minors.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, it's a little goofy because those weaknesses are basically going to get exposed at some point anyway. I don't know why you think keeping him down in the minors can protect him at all. Eventually he will have to try and hit big league pitching.

 

Ok, I'll give in on this one. Still not sure I'd call it goofy, though.

 

It's more than a little goofy. There is literally nothing other than the service time issue that should be included in any discussion about keeping him down. Keeping him down to hide weaknesses makes absolutely no sense.

[dew1679666265]

Tomorrow's game is in Houston against an NL team. The first game they will need a DH in is in 18 days, and the last game with a DH is 13 days after that. You are talking about a 14 day window where his services could be needed and used appropriately every day, then send him back and a measly 14 day extension to the original window of time he needed to stay in the minors.

 

If he can be called up for the IL portion of the season without losing the extra year of team control, then go for it.

[Guest]

Some quotes from Theo on the Rizzo issue. I doubt he would say the opposite of this("yeah, we're manipulating his service time to get more cheap years from him"), but still interesting to read.

 

Link

 

"Service time is not really a factor," president of baseball operations Theo Epstein said way back in spring training, well before Rizzo was crushing the ball at Iowa. "With potentially impact young players we always try to make decisions based on what is best for their development.

 

"There is certain criteria for advancement that we have at each level of the minor-league system and a checklist that goes into how those decisions are made. The same is true for the promotion of a potential regular player from Triple-A to the big leagues."

 

Raw numbers aren't always the only criteria for advancement, but Rizzo has certainly made a case for himself with a .352 batting average, a .697 slugging percentage, 15 home runs and 42 RBIs. He easily leads the Pacific Coast league in home runs and is second in RBIs, just two behind Reno's Randy Ruiz.

 

So what more does Rizzo have to do?

 

"I'd like to see players get a significant amount of time at Triple-A, usually a full calendar year if possible," Epstein said. "And certainly I'd like to check all the boxes and make sure all the criteria are fit before they advance up here. So as talented as some players are, and as talented as Anthony and Brett are, there are still some issues left in their development so we would like to see those addressed before they get up here."