How about DLing Pettitte?

March 28, 2008 by Joe Pawlikowski 21 Comments

Chad Jennings is always thinking. He’s got a decent idea for the start of the season, wherein the Yanks would place Andy Pettitte on the DL. He’d be eligible to return on Saturday, so it wouldn’t hurt the Yanks rotation. They’d go Wang on Monday, Moost Wednesday, Hughes Thursday, IPK Friday, Pettitte Saturday. Of course, this doesn’t have the effect of splitting up Wang and Pettitte, which many think will be good for the bullpen. It does, however, open up another bullpen spot for a few days, which could be valuable in the season’s early going.

steve (different one)

more importantly, they could have another OFer while Melky and Duncan are suspended (are they both going to be suspended for the 1st 3 games of the season?)
http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

I’ve thought about this but I don’t think the Yanks want to start someone’s option clock ticking just for a day or so. They could go with Igawa to take Pettitte’s place, but is that really worth it?
- TurnTwo
  
  are we really going to worry about starting someone’s option clock?
  
  leave that for the TB’s, KC’s, and Minnesota’s of the league.
  - http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.
    
    We’re not talking two months like with Evan Longoria; we’re talking three days. Is it really worth it?
    - TurnTwo
      
      the reason you’d worry about an option clock would be directly related to his future performance and escalating salary.
      
      with an Evan Longoria-type player, taking into consideration the current salaries for some of the best young position players in the game, keeping a certain level of control over him for an extra season at a reduced rate makes a sort of sense for a team like TB…
      
      but why would the yankees worry about what kind of salary they are paying a middle reliever? if it makes the yankees the better team in the bullpen for the first week of the season, then make the move.
      - Simon B.
        
        Chances are, with Patterson at age 29, the Yankees will not need the extra option year.
        
        Still, why give up a whole option year for 3 games where he is completely unnecessary? You never know what’s going to come. What if, three years from now, Patterson is pitching poorly in the bullpen, and the bullpen is crowded. With that extra option year, the Yankees could send him down, otherwise they’d DFA him.
        
        Does that scenario above sound a little familiar? Think Bruney. If Bruney had another option year, the Yankees would have a lot more flexibility with how they organize the bullpen. Now, he’s pretty much locked him because they don’t want to give him up.
        
        TurnTwo
        
        if he’s pitching poorly, DFA him. I’d do the same with Bruney right now; or make a trade… with all the bullpen trouble across the league, you’re telling me you wouldnt be able to find a team who would take a chance on an arm like Bruney? thats why the yankees picked him up in the first place.
        
        Simon B.
        
        You’re not making a whole lot of sense anymore.
        
        You want to DFA Bruney right now?
        
        Okay, just to restate this more simply:
        
        Option years are always nice to have for bullpen because they offer you flexibility to send people up and down. There. Patterson will probably come up some time during the year, but that’s not a given. Why bring him up at the beginning of the season when he’s entirely superfluous?
        
        I love Patterson, but I’m just tired of people thinking he must have a bullpen job at the start because he pitched well in Spring Training. Listen to Latroy Hawkins, please. If Patterson continues to pitch well, he’ll get his shot, don’t worry.
        
        Count Zero
        
        Bruney does have an option year left. This has been an area of much confusion this Spring, but the last I read of it on Banter:
        
        There seems to be some confusion over whether or not Bruney has any options left. Yesterday, Chad Jennings blogged that Bruney does have an option left, but back on March 3, Jennings said he didn’t. Looking back through the transaction listings, Bruney was optioned by the Diamondbacks in 2004, 2005, and 2006, and by the Yankees in both 2006 and 2007, which makes the matter even more confusing as players only have three option years. It seems Bruney slipped through a loophole in the Basic Agreement, which reads as follows:
        
        If a Player is optionally assigned for a total of less than 20 days in one championship season, such optional assignment(s) shall not count as an optional assignment in connection with the limitation upon optional assignments provided for in Major League Rule 11(c). . . For purposes of couting days on option, the date of the optional assignment shall be counted and the date of recall shall not be counted, provided that the date of recall shall be counted if the recall takes place after the start of any Minor League game in which the Player was eligible to play.
        
        Here are the length of Bruney’s optional assignments:
        
        2004: More than two months, total
        2005: 14 days
        2006: More than two months, total
        2007: 17 days
        
        Thus, despite being optioned in four separate years, Bruney has only used up two of his option years.
  - steve (different one)
    
    it has nothing to do with money. “option clock” wasn’t really the right term, since it is being confused with “arbitration clock”.
    
    but every team only gets 3 options. doesn’t matter if it’s the Yankees or the Royals.
    
    if you are going to bring a player up for 3 days (and not again for the rest of the season), you don’t want to burn an option year.
    - TurnTwo
      
      does he make the bullpen better? we dont know for sure, but he’s done everything you’ve asked him to do to make this team.
      
      if you think he makes the bullpen better, you make the move. if not, then dont. but i’m not going to make the call based on keeping an option year available 3 years from now, because chances are if he hasnt made it by then, he’s not going to make it at age 31 or 32, whatever he would be.
      - steve (different one)
        
        i didn’t realize this conversation was specifically about Patterson. that’s what i get for not clicking the link.
        
        i was speaking in general terms: if it’s only going to be for 3 days, you might not want to use an option. this would make sense for someone like Ohlendorf.
        
        speaking specifically of Patterson, no, the options probably don’t matter.
  - ikl
    
    I don’t understand. Patterson is on the 40-man roster anyway, so don’t we use an option whether we send him down before opening day or a week from Saturday?
Simon B.

It is extremely unlikely we’ll need an extra bullpen arm within the first three games of the season. All this move would do is start his option clock, and give him a hint of big league experience, which seems pretty silly because he’s already getting some of that in spring training.

Sorry, Chad. You’ve always got great ideas, but this one doesn’t really make sense.
E-ROC

Pete Caldera thinks the Yanks will DL Pettitte too. I always thought the last couple of spots should go to Patterson, Traber, and Ohlendorf. If Pettitte goes to the DL, then Rasner would take his spot. IDK.
Manimal

Bring Gardner up and play him while MelkMan is gone.
Pingback: yankeesdaily.com » Blog Archive » Pride of the Yankees 2/28/2008 The Bloggers
Greg G.

I’m sorry, I’m confused. There’s talk here of an “option clock”, and there’s also the issue of the three “options” for each player with a certain experience. Which is which?

For three days of an extra reliever, when the bullpen is already well-rested, why waste an option on a player that you might need later?

Sorry…it’s the end of a long Friday.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=56352514 Jamal G.

After a player is called up then optioned (sent down to minors w/o going through waivers) to the minor-leagues he MUST be in the minors for a minimum of 20 days for an option year to be used up.

For example if Brett Gardner starts the season on March 31 in the Bronx and then is subsequently optioned 4 days later (3 games) on April 3, he would have to be in the minors for a total of 20 days throughout the 2008 season before one of his three option years are used up. If Gardner is recalled to the majors before he spends 20 days (not games, days) in the minors and does not ever reach a total of 20 days on a minor league roster then his option year will remain unused.

And stop arguing about the Yankees being cheap or whatever because option years HAS ABSOLUTELY DICK to do with money. Option years are years where you can shuttle a player back & forth to the minors and majors without worrying about losing him on waivers. A player such as Sean Henn who has used up his three option years would have to be placed on waivers (which means he’s available to all 29 teams) before he can go down to the minors.
ikl

Well, we just found out the answer. Pettitte to the DL, 8 in the bullpen, but no Patterson. Seems kind of unfair to me – he was the best relief pitcher this spring. Though I am happy to see Ohlendorf in there and glad that they didn’t add Rasner just to have a long relief guy.
Pingback: River Ave. Blues | The 2008 New York Baseball Yankees

Google+