PDA

View Full Version : Article: SP Depth Chart - 8/22



Nick Nelson
08-21-2012, 11:29 PM
You can view the page at http://www.twinsdaily.com/content.php?947-SP-Depth-Chart-8-22

glunn
08-21-2012, 11:56 PM
These rankings seem fair to me, but maybe you might consider BJ Hermsen as a possible #11.

After looking at this, I would expect the Twins to lose 90+ games next year unless they can get some better starters. The only player on the list who seems semi-solid is Diamond, and it seems to me that there is a high probability every other player listed could be a disaster in 2013.

Nick Nelson
08-22-2012, 12:43 AM
Hermsen is on the fringe, but I think the Twins are going to move fairly slow with him. Doubt we'll see him up before midway through 2013 at the earliest.

I think this list makes it clear that the Twins need a lot of help toward the top. At least 2-3 of the guys currently in the top five should be sitting on the outside as depth and insurance.

old nurse
08-22-2012, 01:03 AM
Would it be worth the Twins looking to the independent leagues for some starting pitting. Scott Kasmir hasn't quite found himself yet, but a Jason Lane might be a worthwile look in spring.

weinshie
08-22-2012, 02:53 AM
Reasonable list, but shouldn't the title be "SP Shallow Chart"? Sorry, couldn't help myself!

beckmt
08-22-2012, 04:25 AM
This list shows how bad the Twins starting pitching is. TR has a lot of work to do this offseason. Do not think any of the AAA or AA types will help at this time.

stringer bell
08-22-2012, 05:17 AM
Walters is almost done rehabbing, correct? He probably figures in the list as well.

IdahoPilgrim
08-22-2012, 06:59 AM
Would it be worth the Twins looking to the independent leagues for some starting pitting. Scott Kasmir hasn't quite found himself yet, but a Jason Lane might be a worthwile look in spring.

I hear there's some guy named Clemens who might be worth a look.:)

twinswon1991
08-22-2012, 07:05 AM
Looks like 100 losses to me. A monkey could draft and develop better than that.

Visnovsky
08-22-2012, 07:26 AM
What a pathetic group of pitchers to make a major league rotation. If I were the GM, I would want to punch a wall every time I saw Bill Smith walking around the office.

Riverbrian
08-22-2012, 07:29 AM
Looks like 100 losses to me. A monkey could draft and develop better than that.

A monkey???

I admit it's possible that a Monkey could draft better... But Develop better??? A Monkey??? Now you are being silly!!!

A monkey couldn't lead by example cuz of Monkey Physiology and you also have a vocal communication problem because of the high screeching sounds that most species make.

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 07:33 AM
Looks like 100 losses to me. A monkey could draft and develop better than that.

Your schtick is tired. You repeat the same point over and over and over again. We get it. You don't like the front office.

Stop repeating the same "argument" (for lack of a better term) to the point of nausea. You're bringing absolutely nothing to the forum with these posts. We're instituting new rules on chronic negativity and you will put yourself at risk of a temporary ban if you keep it up.

twinswon1991
08-22-2012, 07:54 AM
Looks like 100 losses to me. A monkey could draft and develop better than that.

Your schtick is tired. You repeat the same point over and over and over again. We get it. You don't like the front office.

Stop repeating the same "argument" (for lack of a better term) to the point of nausea. You're bringing absolutely nothing to the forum with these posts. We're instituting new rules on chronic negativity and you will put yourself at risk of a temporary ban if you keep it up.


Go ahead and ban me tough guy. Are you that insecure that if someone disagrees with you on a subject your only reaction is to boot them?

It is hard to believe there would be any negativity after 2 straight 99+ loss seasons with no end in site.

Why dont you just admit that you are trying to kiss up to the Twins by trying to positively spin every disaster in hopes of getting a job with them or some insider info?

If you boot me I'll just go back to the only fair and balanced (non ass kissing) Twins site on the web: aarongleeman.com.

mike wants wins
08-22-2012, 08:18 AM
Let's hope they acquire two legit options in the off-season. I do think there are three MLB level starters on that list....

Fire Dan Gladden
08-22-2012, 08:36 AM
Looks like 100 losses to me. A monkey could draft and develop better than that.

Your schtick is tired. You repeat the same point over and over and over again. We get it. You don't like the front office.

Stop repeating the same "argument" (for lack of a better term) to the point of nausea. You're bringing absolutely nothing to the forum with these posts. We're instituting new rules on chronic negativity and you will put yourself at risk of a temporary ban if you keep it up.


Go ahead and ban me tough guy. Are you that insecure that if someone disagrees with you on a subject your only reaction is to boot them?

It is hard to believe there would be any negativity after 2 straight 99+ loss seasons with no end in site.

Why dont you just admit that you are trying to kiss up to the Twins by trying to positively spin every disaster in hopes of getting a job with them or some insider info?

If you boot me I'll just go back to the only fair and balanced (non ass kissing) Twins site on the web: aarongleeman.com.

Brock,

I agree that twinswon1991 does absolutely nothing but stir the pot. His comments are almost always inflammatory and provide little insight other than he does not like the current management system and anybody who works for the Twins. I personally do not think he brings anything constructive to this website. hat being said, I don't think he deserves a ban at this time.

Posters like him always make me laugh. He rips and rips on the team, yet calls himself a fan. Nothing in the way of how to get better, other than to fire everybody. No comments on realistic ways to improve the team, no constructive comments on why the team is struggling, no constructive comments on some of the positive things (which there are some), just fire everybody. I'll bet he listens to the Common Man and Barrero every day, and devours everything Mackey and Reusse say. Everybody knows he brings nothing to the table, let him squeak his peace then move on to the next topic. Posters like him show that this is a public site. As long as he refrains from personally attacking anybody, he isnt worth the time to monitor.

Worry more about the personal attacks and the spam then about posters whose only intention is to anger you. BTW, I am huge fan of Gleeman. When he ultimately moves up in the world and gives up his site, it will be missed.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-22-2012, 08:40 AM
Gibson should be higher then 9.

Winston Smith
08-22-2012, 08:48 AM
Reasonable list, but shouldn't the title be "SP Shallow Chart"? Sorry, couldn't help myself!


The only way "depth" should be used here is for how far under water this group is. This is a sad bunch for a supposed major league team.

Mr. Ed
08-22-2012, 09:02 AM
Dice K 1-hit the Twins AAA affiliate over 8 innings. MN could make him their big off-season acquisition :p

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 09:03 AM
Dice K 1-hit the Twins AAA affiliate over 8 innings. MN could make him their big off-season acquisition :p

Their track record on Asian players has been stellar to this point. I say they go for it.

JB_Iowa
08-22-2012, 09:15 AM
I appreciate the effort to lay out the list, Nick. It doesn't do anything for my lack of optimism about this team but it does provide a nice summary of information.

I want to add one response about Bill Smith, though. He was definitely not my favorite person -- and I made a number of posts on the Strib site last year calling for him to be fired -- but blaming all of this on Bill Smith (per one of the posts above) is ludicrous. Other than Smith, the SAME people are involved in the decision-making now. Same scouting director, same Assistant GM, same director of player personnel, same minor league coordinator -- and your current GM was a "Special Assistant" to Smith (primarily dealing with scouting matters as I understand it). The Twins front office has always worked cooperatively -- Smith may have been the final say but he relied on information from everyone else. I have no doubt that Terry Ryan excercises a greater degree of personal judgment and has significantly more "baseball savvy" to back up his decisions -- but the underpinnings of the Twins decision-making system all remain the same.

cr9617
08-22-2012, 09:24 AM
Looks like 100 losses to me. A monkey could draft and develop better than that.

Your schtick is tired. You repeat the same point over and over and over again. We get it. You don't like the front office.

Stop repeating the same "argument" (for lack of a better term) to the point of nausea. You're bringing absolutely nothing to the forum with these posts. We're instituting new rules on chronic negativity and you will put yourself at risk of a temporary ban if you keep it up.

Get over yourself Brock.

The team stinks as a result of an organization that can seem to tie their own shoe laces. What is there to be positive about?

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 09:35 AM
Get over yourself Brock.

The team stinks as a result of an organization that can seem to tie their own shoe laces. What is there to be positive about?

If you have an issue with how I do things, feel free to PM me about it.

As for "getting over myself", this has little to do with my personal feelings and everything to do with the quality of the forum posts.

3up3down
08-22-2012, 09:35 AM
this shows why alot of young pitchers try to pitch thru injuries, walters was in the discussion with diamond before he got injured....just shows its better to be bad than injured..

crarko
08-22-2012, 09:37 AM
The team stinks as a result of an organization that can seem to tie their own shoe laces. What is there to be positive about?

That you're not Cubs fans.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-22-2012, 09:38 AM
The problem isn't being negative, the problem is continuing to beat the same dead horse over and over again without bringing any substance or value to threads.

He wouldn't be banned because he was sour on the Twins, he would be banned because he was acting like a God Damned child. There are plenty of posters here who are very negative on the Twins these days, but still bring value and thoughts to a thread.

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 09:42 AM
The problem isn't being negative, the problem is continuing to beat the same dead horse over and over again without bringing any substance or value to threads.

He wouldn't be banned because he was sour on the Twins, he would be banned because he was acting like a God Damned child. There are plenty of posters here who are very negative on the Twins these days, but still bring value and thoughts to a thread.

ding ding ding

My point has little to do with negativity. It's about negativity and post content. Some people are negative and deliver their thoughts in a clear, well-articulated manner. We encourage those posters to keep doing what they do. To put it bluntly, this team sucks. Changes need to be made. We want posters to talk about what should be done in-depth, even (especially) if their views on the organization aren't pie-in-the-sky rosy.

But if your schtick is to deliver a one-liner that could be cut and paste into 90% of your posts and nobody would notice the difference, that's not adding anything of substance to the board while it does irritate other posters who are attempting to have a rational discussion of the topic at hand. In short, those people are "net loss" posters. They add nothing while detracting significantly.

Riverbrian
08-22-2012, 09:51 AM
The problem isn't being negative, the problem is continuing to beat the same dead horse over and over again without bringing any substance or value to threads.

He wouldn't be banned because he was sour on the Twins, he would be banned because he was acting like a God Damned child. There are plenty of posters here who are very negative on the Twins these days, but still bring value and thoughts to a thread.

ding ding ding

My point has little to do with negativity. It's about negativity and post content. Some people are negative and deliver their thoughts in a clear, well-articulated manner. We encourage those posters to keep doing what they do. To put it bluntly, this team sucks. Changes need to be made. We want posters to talk about what should be done in-depth, even (especially) if their views on the organization aren't pie-in-the-sky rosy.

But if your schtick is to deliver a one-liner that could be cut and paste into 90% of your posts and nobody would notice the difference, that's not adding anything of substance to the board while it does irritate other posters who are attempting to have a rational discussion of the topic at hand. In short, those people are "net loss" posters. They add nothing while detracting significantly.

Brock... Are you saying that discussion of Monkeys and their ability to run a MLB franchise isn't worth anyone's time.

What if you had an infinite amount of monkeys and an infinite amount of typewriters and an infinite amount of time?

Using that system... It's possible that we end up with Clayton Kershaw on our roster along with Sally Struthers.

diehardtwinsfan
08-22-2012, 10:09 AM
So to be honest with this list, I think most teams would be happy to have Diamond next year and rely on one of Hendricks/Gibson to be starters. The rest classify as depth for an AAA rotation. This team needs 3 SPs up at the top. It would be in their best interest to make a calculated FA splash on one guy, trade Span or Morneau for another, and sign a couple of guys to very cheap prove it contracts like they did with Zumaya last season. I don't necessarily expect it to work, but it is the type of deal you do because every now and then, a team gets a guy like Erik Bedard on the cheap. But the reality is that this rotation is pretty bad. I wouldn't mind seeing them give Vasquez a shot just to see if his peripherals can hold up in Minnesota, but given his age, I'm not expecting much.

Winston Smith
08-22-2012, 10:18 AM
I appreciate the effort to lay out the list, Nick. It doesn't do anything for my lack of optimism about this team but it does provide a nice summary of information.

I want to add one response about Bill Smith, though. He was definitely not my favorite person -- and I made a number of posts on the Strib site last year calling for him to be fired -- but blaming all of this on Bill Smith (per one of the posts above) is ludicrous. Other than Smith, the SAME people are involved in the decision-making now. Same scouting director, same Assistant GM, same director of player personnel, same minor league coordinator -- and your current GM was a "Special Assistant" to Smith (primarily dealing with scouting matters as I understand it). The Twins front office has always worked cooperatively -- Smith may have been the final say but he relied on information from everyone else. I have no doubt that Terry Ryan excercises a greater degree of personal judgment and has significantly more "baseball savvy" to back up his decisions -- but the underpinnings of the Twins decision-making system all remain the same.

+++++++

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 10:21 AM
Brock... Are you saying that discussion of Monkeys and their ability to run a MLB franchise isn't worth anyone's time.

What if you had an infinite amount of monkeys and an infinite amount of typewriters and an infinite amount of time?

Using that system... It's possible that we end up with Clayton Kershaw on our roster along with Sally Struthers.

More Sally, less Nishi!

Though I could only imagine the fights over the buffet table. Ten bucks says either Sally or Capps would be on the DL within a week.

mike wants wins
08-22-2012, 10:33 AM
I agree, this is not all on Smith at all.

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 10:39 AM
I agree, this is not all on Smith at all.

Smith should definitely not take all the blame here. IMO, he did a decent job with drafting and an excellent job with the international market (outside of Nishi). Many of the failures we're seeing today were from the mid-2000s when JR was at the helm. There's no denying that or shifting around responsibility for those mistakes, but I think Smith sped things along a bit with his bungling of the Major League franchise at almost every opportunity.

The question is "Has Ryan learned from his previous mistakes?" I certainly hope so and I think it's worth finding out if he did learn anything. Teams rarely pick up a new GM and start winning right off the bat. Ryan has the experience and ability to build a winning team, now it's just a matter of time to see if he can do it again. Thus far, I haven't been displeased with how things have played out in many respects but the real test will be this offseason when he has all the time he needs to put the franchise back on track.

twinswon1991
08-22-2012, 10:58 AM
I agree, this is not all on Smith at all.

Smith should definitely not take all the blame here. IMO, he did a decent job with drafting and an excellent job with the international market (outside of Nishi). Many of the failures we're seeing today were from the mid-2000s when JR was at the helm. There's no denying that or shifting around responsibility for those mistakes, but I think Smith sped things along a bit with his bungling of the Major League franchise at almost every opportunity.

The question is "Has Ryan learned from his previous mistakes?" I certainly hope so and I think it's worth finding out if he did learn anything. Teams rarely pick up a new GM and start winning right off the bat. Ryan has the experience and ability to build a winning team, now it's just a matter of time to see if he can do it again. Thus far, I haven't been displeased with how things have played out in many respects but the real test will be this offseason when he has all the time he needs to put the franchise back on track.

I understand you are a optomist but it is hard to trust a GM who cant figure out how to use the DL and who wont address the medical staff issues that were a priority when he took the job.

DAM DC Twins Fans
08-22-2012, 11:01 AM
this shows why alot of young pitchers try to pitch thru injuries, walters was in the discussion with diamond before he got injured....just shows its better to be bad than injured..

Very valid point. Walters should be on this chart--maybe number 5.

Are we (you) writing off Baker and Pavs?? I assume Twins will offer incentive laden contracts to both--neither will have much value on the free agent market. It is worth a shot to bring back both (only on incentive laden contracts)--one could come back.

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 11:02 AM
Very valid point. Walters should be on this chart--maybe number 5.

Are we (you) writing off Baker and Pavs?? I assume Twins will offer incentive laden contracts to both--neither will have much value on the free agent market. It is worth a shot to bring back both (only on incentive laden contracts)--one could come back.

The thought of Pavano returning to this team makes me want to cry. That is all.

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 11:06 AM
I understand you are a optomist but it is hard to trust a GM who cant figure out how to use the DL and who wont address the medical staff issues that were a priority when he took the job.

Not an optimist so much as a realist. Finding good people to run a billion dollar enterprise is no easy task. Is JR the right guy? Dunno, but he has the experience and the track record to make it work. Do I wish he was moving more quickly on some of these issues? Definitely. Do I really know what's going on behind the scenes right now? Absolutely not.

As I've been saying all along, Ryan hasn't been back at the helm for even a year yet. This organization had hundreds of important issues to deal with in that time. If he's still standing pat in February on glaring organizational issues, I'll be the first in line to say he needs to go.

But I'm not going to call him a failure before he's even had a chance to do his job. Turning around an organization with hundreds of moving parts is not a two month operation.

Riverbrian
08-22-2012, 11:13 AM
I agree, this is not all on Smith at all.

Smith should definitely not take all the blame here. IMO, he did a decent job with drafting and an excellent job with the international market (outside of Nishi). Many of the failures we're seeing today were from the mid-2000s when JR was at the helm. There's no denying that or shifting around responsibility for those mistakes, but I think Smith sped things along a bit with his bungling of the Major League franchise at almost every opportunity.

The question is "Has Ryan learned from his previous mistakes?" I certainly hope so and I think it's worth finding out if he did learn anything. Teams rarely pick up a new GM and start winning right off the bat. Ryan has the experience and ability to build a winning team, now it's just a matter of time to see if he can do it again. Thus far, I haven't been displeased with how things have played out in many respects but the real test will be this offseason when he has all the time he needs to put the franchise back on track.

It takes a village... Something like that. You have Scouts, You have Directors of this and Directors of that.

You have a Manager that has input... or at least... isn't a limp noodle... A Manager that has strong opinions on what he needs or wants and that I'm sure he expresses to the GM... At least you hope the manager is being heard cuz I'm not sure I'd want a passionless Yes Man for a manager... AND... You have owners on top of everything.

Bottom Line... The Owner hires the people who hire the people. If you don't like your franchise and the situation it is in. The Buck stops at the owners desk.

With that said... The only clue that you have is this. In an organization that doesn't fire people very often. In an organization that is claimed by some to be a good ol' boys situation. Bill Smith was fired!!! That clue seems to suggest that Bill Smith was responsible or was seen as responsible by the owners.

Very few front office firings over the years and Bill Smith was tossed.

Is Bill Smith solely responsible? I don't believe so because it takes a village. However, the GM is the filter of all those opinions including those from the owner.

Things were not being filtered very well during the Bill Smith regime. I can't site anything specific other than Bill got fired and things haven't been working out the past few years.

So I have no problem pinning a major portion of the responsibilty on Bill Smith.

On a side note... I've been noticing a lot of Rob Antony in the press lately... It seems like an increase of Rob Antony to me. Could this be a signal that the Terry Ryan Interim GM tag is actually that?

Is it wild to speculate that Rob is appearing more often in the press as a precursor to Terry Ryan stepping down?

Shane Wahl
08-22-2012, 11:25 AM
Damn, I was going to say that the list of pitchers is ugly, but the comments from people who seemingly just like to piss on everything are uglier.

I feel comfortable that 3 out of those 8 will be average-to-good next year (Duensing cannot seriously be considered a starter and waiting on Gibson until June at least makes the list 8). What is likely needed, however, is that 4 of them are average-to-good. I am not fully confident in that yet.

stringer bell
08-22-2012, 11:55 AM
Dice K 1-hit the Twins AAA affiliate over 8 innings. MN could make him their big off-season acquisition :p

Their track record on Asian players has been stellar to this point. I say they go for it.I was thinking that the Twins could have acquired Iwakuma but Seattle got him. Then I thought, would the current Twins' front office try to acquire any Japanese player? I thought about offering a poll of who the next Japanese player would be--someone currently in the majors, someone currently playing in Japan, or someone growning up in Japan, and I thought maybe I would add "someone who hasn't been born yet", because I believe it will be a long time before the Twins sign another Japanese major leaguer.

Steve Penz
08-22-2012, 11:56 AM
First, Baker.

I have only scanned these pages quickly and I saw his name one time. He is not "the answer" but if he would agree to a two year deal that was better for the twins than his 9million option that may be one small piece. This all hinges upon solid reports that he can contribute next year and that is a large "if."

Secondly, it is my hope that they sign just one. I am trying to keep it reasonable. Just sign one pitcher who is hopefully just a bit better than Diamond. If Diamond wins 14 next year and New Guy wins 15-16 that would go a very long way. Putting together #s 4 and/or 5 with names like Deduno, Duensing and DeVries would be acceptable.

stringer bell
08-22-2012, 12:00 PM
So to be honest with this list, I think most teams would be happy to have Diamond next year and rely on one of Hendricks/Gibson to be starters. The rest classify as depth for an AAA rotation. This team needs 3 SPs up at the top. It would be in their best interest to make a calculated FA splash on one guy, trade Span or Morneau for another, and sign a couple of guys to very cheap prove it contracts like they did with Zumaya last season. I don't necessarily expect it to work, but it is the type of deal you do because every now and then, a team gets a guy like Erik Bedard on the cheap. But the reality is that this rotation is pretty bad. I wouldn't mind seeing them give Vasquez a shot just to see if his peripherals can hold up in Minnesota, but given his age, I'm not expecting much.I pretty much agree. Sign a middle to upper level free agent starter--I've said Guthrie on other threads before he almost threw a no-hitter, get someone close to ready in a trade for an established position player, and then spend a little speculative money.

Steve Penz
08-22-2012, 12:10 PM
So to be honest with this list, I think most teams would be happy to have Diamond next year and rely on one of Hendricks/Gibson to be starters. The rest classify as depth for an AAA rotation. This team needs 3 SPs up at the top. It would be in their best interest to make a calculated FA splash on one guy, trade Span or Morneau for another, and sign a couple of guys to very cheap prove it contracts like they did with Zumaya last season. I don't necessarily expect it to work, but it is the type of deal you do because every now and then, a team gets a guy like Erik Bedard on the cheap. But the reality is that this rotation is pretty bad. I wouldn't mind seeing them give Vasquez a shot just to see if his peripherals can hold up in Minnesota, but given his age, I'm not expecting much.I pretty much agree. Sign a middle to upper level free agent starter--I've said Guthrie on other threads before he almost threw a no-hitter, get someone close to ready in a trade for an established position player, and then spend a little speculative money.

I am a serial scanner and have just now realized that my post is a bit redundant to this one.

birdwatcher
08-22-2012, 12:34 PM
Sigh. You know, twinswon1991, a monkey would provide us with more intelligent stuff than what you throw up on here. And less boring.

Any chance you could find a new place to throw your tantrums? Maybe go back to the floor of Target where you perfected your craft. Geez.

Rosterman
08-22-2012, 12:37 PM
Manship option...

birdwatcher
08-22-2012, 01:02 PM
My thoughts and wish list are:

Large ifs, but IF Baker and Gibson are set to go, the rotation would be 1. A #2-3 starter via FA; 2. A #2-3 starter via trade; 3. Baker, hope for #2-3 type performance; 4. Gibson, hope for #2-3 type performance; 5. Diamong, hope for #3-4 type performance. Rochester starters, and of course insurance: 1. Hendriks; 2. Vasquez; 3. Walters; 4. Hernandez; 5. Deduno; 6. DeVries, with Hermsen, Bromberg and others in the wings. Swarzak and Duensing in the pen. Blackburn gone. Please.

This could be done without breaking the bank, without depleting the lineup, and without decimating the farm system. And no more 100-loss whining tantrums around here. You OK with this idea, twinswon1991?

"Waaaaaaah!"

OK, twinswon1991, have an animal cracker. Look, it's a monkey!

Nick Nelson
08-22-2012, 01:54 PM
Very valid point. Walters should be on this chart--maybe number 5.

Are we (you) writing off Baker and Pavs?? I assume Twins will offer incentive laden contracts to both--neither will have much value on the free agent market. It is worth a shot to bring back both (only on incentive laden contracts)--one could come back.

Walters is on the DL, as are Baker and Pavs. Injured players are not included – the idea is to provide a snapshot of what the team's available depth looks like at this particular moment in time, which is why we'll be posting updated versions periodically. As I mentioned in the article, the top five are the guys currently in the rotation. Which pitchers are included among those spots is not subjective (though the ordering of them is, admittedly).

mbents
08-22-2012, 02:05 PM
My thoughts and wish list are:

Large ifs, but IF Baker and Gibson are set to go, the rotation would be 1. A #2-3 starter via FA; 2. A #2-3 starter via trade; 3. Baker, hope for #2-3 type performance; 4. Gibson, hope for #2-3 type performance; 5. Diamong, hope for #3-4 type performance. Rochester starters, and of course insurance: 1. Hendriks; 2. Vasquez; 3. Walters; 4. Hernandez; 5. Deduno; 6. DeVries, with Hermsen, Bromberg and others in the wings. Swarzak and Duensing in the pen. Blackburn gone. Please.

I mostly agree with this, but I would mash the first two points into one: I would hope for a starter who has #2/borderline-#1 upside. Also, when do you want to take a snapshot of the rotation and have it look like this? It's not going to be the beginning of the year because Baker and Gibson won't be ready at that time - Baker not fully recovered and Gibson still working his way up from the minors. I would expect to see Gibson in the Twins rotation sometime in June. I don't expect Baker to contribute much until 2014, and even then you're probably looking at a #3 starter. And yes - everything with Baker assumes that he re-signs with the Twins, hopefully on some kind of 2 year incentive-laden deal.

SweetOne69
08-22-2012, 02:14 PM
It's not going to be the beginning of the year because Baker and Gibson won't be ready at that time - Baker not fully recovered and Gibson still working his way up from the minors. I would expect to see Gibson in the Twins rotation sometime in June. I don't expect Baker to contribute much until 2014, and even then you're probably looking at a #3 starter. And yes - everything with Baker assumes that he re-signs with the Twins, hopefully on some kind of 2 year incentive-laden deal.

I've seen this many times. Why don't people feel that Gibson will be ready by the beginning of the season in 2013?

Personally I think he has an excellent shot to make the starting rotation out of ST mainly because:
1. Prior to requiring TJ Surgery, he most likely would've been part of the rotation coming out of ST in 2012.
2. By April, he will be 18 months post surgery.

Baker is the one that won't be involved at all until June at the earliest.

TheLeviathan
08-22-2012, 02:18 PM
How can anyone look at this list and still sanely believe contention is a possibility in the near future?

mbents
08-22-2012, 02:37 PM
It's not going to be the beginning of the year because Baker and Gibson won't be ready at that time - Baker not fully recovered and Gibson still working his way up from the minors. I would expect to see Gibson in the Twins rotation sometime in June. I don't expect Baker to contribute much until 2014, and even then you're probably looking at a #3 starter. And yes - everything with Baker assumes that he re-signs with the Twins, hopefully on some kind of 2 year incentive-laden deal.

I've seen this many times. Why don't people feel that Gibson will be ready by the beginning of the season in 2013?

Personally I think he has an excellent shot to make the starting rotation out of ST mainly because:
1. Prior to requiring TJ Surgery, he most likely would've been part of the rotation coming out of ST in 2012.
2. By April, he will be 18 months post surgery.

Baker is the one that won't be involved at all until June at the earliest.

I don't think health will be the reason Gibson doesn't start the season in the majors. He has 21 starts in AAA and I doubt he'll add to that total in 2012. After not pitching for so long, I think the Twins would want to bring him back slowly and make sure he faces increasingly difficult levels of competition in actual games before bringing him up.

Riverbrian
08-22-2012, 02:52 PM
I can't look at the list and be optimistic about the immediate future. Pitching and Depth of Pitching and Position Depth are serious problems. We don't need 5 arms to put a rotation together... We need 8 starting pitchers at least because some of the 5 are going to fail and some are going to get hurt.

Gathering arms isn't an easy thing.

I can't see anyway out of this without a nice trade and at least one decent FA Signing and maybe a Rule 5 gem. If ever there was a rotation that can hold a rule 5 player for a year and ride it out. This would be the one.

SweetOne69
08-22-2012, 02:56 PM
It's not going to be the beginning of the year because Baker and Gibson won't be ready at that time - Baker not fully recovered and Gibson still working his way up from the minors. I would expect to see Gibson in the Twins rotation sometime in June. I don't expect Baker to contribute much until 2014, and even then you're probably looking at a #3 starter. And yes - everything with Baker assumes that he re-signs with the Twins, hopefully on some kind of 2 year incentive-laden deal.

I've seen this many times. Why don't people feel that Gibson will be ready by the beginning of the season in 2013?

Personally I think he has an excellent shot to make the starting rotation out of ST mainly because:
1. Prior to requiring TJ Surgery, he most likely would've been part of the rotation coming out of ST in 2012.
2. By April, he will be 18 months post surgery.

Baker is the one that won't be involved at all until June at the earliest.

I don't think health will be the reason Gibson doesn't start the season in the majors. He has 21 starts in AAA and I doubt he'll add to that total in 2012. After not pitching for so long, I think the Twins would want to bring him back slowly and make sure he faces increasingly difficult levels of competition in actual games before bringing him up.

He will be doing that in the AFL this winter.

diehardtwinsfan
08-22-2012, 04:18 PM
I've seen this many times. Why don't people feel that Gibson will be ready by the beginning of the season in 2013?

.

He wasn't ready prior to his surgery. Peripherals were great but hadn't "put it together" so to speak.

As well, command tends to be the last to come back. He's pitching against guys right now that he's much better than... I expect good results. The time to get excited is when he's dominating against AAA type guys.

ScottyB
08-22-2012, 07:55 PM
Looking to free-agents for starters next year, there aren't a lot that can be trusted that might fit into the Twins budget. I would not select any pitcher who has spent his career in the NL (see Jason Marquis). But Bedard has had decent numbers in both AL and NL. And Edwin Jackson says he just wants to play somewhere for more than 1 season (he does like Wash), now that he has left Boras, he might be convinced on a 3-year deal for under the $20M+ a season that Boras would have asked. McCarthy didn't look great against the Twins, but compared to what we've got in the cupboard, might be worth a look.

snepp
08-22-2012, 10:45 PM
Looks like 100 losses to me. A monkey could draft and develop better than that.

Derp.

twinsnorth49
08-22-2012, 11:08 PM
How can anyone look at this list and still sanely believe contention is a possibility in the near future?

You're right but I don't think most people here do. At best it's sane to believe Diamond can continue to be consistent , Hendriks should be able to get his s**t together enough to be reliable and Gibson has the tools to be a regular contributor, maybe not until June. I say we still have a shot at Baker on a short term deal after we turn down his option and acquire a couple of experienced starters through free agency and/or trade.

SpantheMan
08-23-2012, 12:18 AM
Looks like 100 losses to me. A monkey could draft and develop better than that.
To be fair they drafted 2 decent looking college starters who both got injured (gibson and wimmers)

TheLeviathan
08-23-2012, 06:16 AM
You're right but I don't think most people here do. At best it's sane to believe Diamond can continue to be consistent , Hendriks should be able to get his s**t together enough to be reliable and Gibson has the tools to be a regular contributor, maybe not until June. I say we still have a shot at Baker on a short term deal after we turn down his option and acquire a couple of experienced starters through free agency and/or trade.

I'm probably bullish on Diamond and Gibson going forward, but of the list you provided we have two of the four coming off of major surgery, another pitching way beyond career norms and probably due for regression next year, and a guy we're hoping becomes a quality back-end guy. Nick has been one of the vocal optimists about 2013, I just don't understand how anyone can look at this list - even if we add two starters in the offseason.

Buck Nasty
08-23-2012, 08:55 AM
The way I view next year's rotation is:

1.) Free Agent. They don't have anyone close to being a #1 guy right now. Most expect a veteran "innings eater" guy
2.) Diamond. This is a stretch as most expect some regression for next year. But he's been solid this year and there is no one else
3.) Gibson. Yeah, I know many say he won't be ready to start year or not ready period. But I think he will be.
4.) Hendricks. Yep, he's 0-6 with a 7.06 ERA this year. But just as most realize Deduno is not going to maintain his 3.33 ERA after only 8 starts, I think most realized the same sample size applies to Liam based on his numbers through the minors.
5.) DeVries, Deduno, Walters, Swarzak, Vasquez, Hernandez, Duensing. All of those guys are spot starter/#5 type guys.

I'm sure they'll sign several other free agent guys. Not big names, but low risk guys to hedge against Gibson/Hendricks in case they are not ready or flop. Bottom line, it's not going to be a great rotation. But hopefully a couple guys step forward like Diamond did this year to ease the pain. Wimmers returns in 2014 and maybe they can add a prospect or two via Rule V or trades.

birdwatcher
08-23-2012, 09:36 AM
Buck Nasty, hope you're wrong on your prediction, that Ryan obtains only one starter, and a veteran innings eater at that. Acknowledging their history of making these kinds of economy moves, I remain hopeful for a change this off-season. Why? They have the money and the trade chips to acquire two #2-3 starters. Would Morneau plus a C prospect like a Pugh/Watts/Hauser/Summers get us such a starter? Maybe I'm being unrealistic. Am I also being unrealistic to think that Ryan will splurge a bit to land a quality FA starter instead of the next Marquis?

If you can add two bona fide starters, sign Baker, insert Diamond and Gibson, then all these #5-6 starters we have can serve as placeholders and insurance. Not a pennant winner, but at least competitive for 2013.

If Ryan does NOT bring in two #2-3 starters from outside the organization, count me in as pessimistic for 2013 and critical of Ryan for failing to make an essential and very doable move.

twinsnorth49
08-23-2012, 09:46 AM
You're right but I don't think most people here do. At best it's sane to believe Diamond can continue to be consistent , Hendriks should be able to get his s**t together enough to be reliable and Gibson has the tools to be a regular contributor, maybe not until June. I say we still have a shot at Baker on a short term deal after we turn down his option and acquire a couple of experienced starters through free agency and/or trade.

I'm probably bullish on Diamond and Gibson going forward, but of the list you provided we have two of the four coming off of major surgery, another pitching way beyond career norms and probably due for regression next year, and a guy we're hoping becomes a quality back-end guy. Nick has been one of the vocal optimists about 2013, I just don't understand how anyone can look at this list - even if we add two starters in the offseason.

I don't think it's insane to believe that adding 2 proven starters and relying on Diamond, Gibson, Hendriks and maybe Baker could get this team a lot of quality starts and chances to win games. As long as the Twins medical staff aren't the ones performing the surgery on Gibson and Baker, it's reasonable to expect recovery, Brett Anderson sure seemed fine the other night.

Buck Nasty
08-23-2012, 09:53 AM
Buck Nasty, hope you're wrong on your prediction, that Ryan obtains only one starter, and a veteran innings eater at that. Acknowledging their history of making these kinds of economy moves, I remain hopeful for a change this off-season. Why? They have the money and the trade chips to acquire two #2-3 starters. Would Morneau plus a C prospect like a Pugh/Watts/Hauser/Summers get us such a starter? Maybe I'm being unrealistic. Am I also being unrealistic to think that Ryan will splurge a bit to land a quality FA starter instead of the next Marquis?

If you can add two bona fide starters, sign Baker, insert Diamond and Gibson, then all these #5-6 starters we have can serve as placeholders and insurance. Not a pennant winner, but at least competitive for 2013.

If Ryan does NOT bring in two #2-3 starters from outside the organization, count me in as pessimistic for 2013 and critical of Ryan for failing to make an essential and very doable move.



Birdman - I agree with you that it would make sense to bring in a couple Free Agent guys to hold down two spots. Your guess is as good as mine, but I think they'll go for one higher quality guy vs. two Marquis types. Certainly a trade for a SP is a possibility and a great idea if we get equal or better value. I think they'll try a Rule V guy next year as well. Had Terry Doyle not had a terrible spring for us, he might be our #2 guy right now - lol. He's having a great year in AAA. I'm predicting moves like that vs. trades for big names. But it's just my opinion/guess. None of us knows what will actuall happen. Baker/Pavano/Blackburn might be in the picture too - but I personally don't think so.

birdwatcher
08-23-2012, 09:56 AM
The last thing we need is more #5-6 starters. It's our one "surplus".

twinsnorth49
08-23-2012, 09:56 AM
[/QUOTE]

Birdman - I agree with you that it would make sense to bring in a couple Free Agent guys to hold down two spots. Your guess is as good as mine, but I think they'll go for one higher quality guy vs. two Marquis types. Certainly a trade for a SP is a possibility and a great idea if we get equal or better value. I think they'll try a Rule V guy next year as well. Had Terry Doyle not had a terrible spring for us, he might be our #2 guy right now - lol. He's having a great year in AAA. I'm predicting moves like that vs. trades for big names. But it's just my opinion/guess. None of us knows what will actuall happen. Baker/Pavano/Blackburn might be in the picture too - but I personally don't think so.[/QUOTE]

Baker, sure, but the other two?.......................FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NOOOOOO!!!!!!

diehardtwinsfan
08-23-2012, 10:11 AM
The team should be looking at 2-3 starters. I could see getting one via trade, but they will have to go out and sign one decent one and go for one or two prove it deals with others. If they are relying on anything more than Diamond and one of Hendricks/Gibson, they are being foolish. Rookie pitchers rarely come out and do what Diamond is doing. You have to expect struggles, and at the same time be patient. Plus you have to account for the inevitable injuries that will hit them over the course of the season.

Buck Nasty
08-23-2012, 10:16 AM
Birdman - I agree with you that it would make sense to bring in a couple Free Agent guys to hold down two spots. Your guess is as good as mine, but I think they'll go for one higher quality guy vs. two Marquis types. Certainly a trade for a SP is a possibility and a great idea if we get equal or better value. I think they'll try a Rule V guy next year as well. Had Terry Doyle not had a terrible spring for us, he might be our #2 guy right now - lol. He's having a great year in AAA. I'm predicting moves like that vs. trades for big names. But it's just my opinion/guess. None of us knows what will actuall happen. Baker/Pavano/Blackburn might be in the picture too - but I personally don't think so.[/QUOTE]

Baker, sure, but the other two?.......................FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NOOOOOO!!!!!![/QUOTE]

See - I think just the opposite. I don't see what good it would do them to sign Baker since he'd probably cost the most and hardly pitch next year. Blackburn is already on the payroll next year like it or not. IMO, if he does well at Rochester (7 innings 1 run last night) he'll be back like a bad rash. I'm not saying I'll like it. I'm just saying it's a possiblity. Pavano - like Baker would be expensive and health seems to be a concern so I don't see him coming back, but don't discount Gardy love for vets that battle.

SweetOne69
08-23-2012, 10:31 AM
See - I think just the opposite. I don't see what good it would do them to sign Baker since he'd probably cost the most and hardly pitch next year. Blackburn is already on the payroll next year like it or not. IMO, if he does well at Rochester (7 innings 1 run last night) he'll be back like a bad rash. I'm not saying I'll like it. I'm just saying it's a possiblity. Pavano - like Baker would be expensive and health seems to be a concern so I don't see him coming back, but don't discount Gardy love for vets that battle.

While it true that Baker will miss at least half of next year, his guaranteed salary will reflect that. His salary for 2013 will be less than $3M and probably closer to $1M (plus incentives).

If Pavano doesn't retire, he will get at least $5M next year.

mike wants wins
08-23-2012, 10:49 AM
You really think you can sign Baker for $1MM? if so, absolutely do it, but I bet he gets more than that. No way I'd sign Pavano, no way. This team needs to go younger, imo.

SweetOne69
08-23-2012, 11:20 AM
You really think you can sign Baker for $1MM? if so, absolutely do it, but I bet he gets more than that. No way I'd sign Pavano, no way. This team needs to go younger, imo.


$1M is probably low, $2M base is more realistic with 3-4M in incentives and a 2nd year option @ $9-10M.

Brock Beauchamp
08-23-2012, 11:26 AM
You really think you can sign Baker for $1MM? if so, absolutely do it, but I bet he gets more than that. No way I'd sign Pavano, no way. This team needs to go younger, imo.

$1M is probably low, $2M base is more realistic with 3-4M in incentives and a 2nd year option @ $9-10M.

I don't think Baker will get an option year. He'll want a single season deal with incentives to prove he can pitch again. Options also generally come with buyouts so no team is going to be eager to toss another ~$1m at a guy who may fall on his face in May of 2013.

Buck Nasty
08-23-2012, 12:31 PM
To expand on why I don't think signing Baker is a good idea....I don't think this team will be competing for a title next year. So, signing Baker for one year w/incentives is just throwing $ at another unknown along with the rest of the #5 type guys. You have to remember, this is the Twins. We're not going to get Stasburg. We're going to get back Joe Nathan 2011. In other words, even if Baker does pitch, there's just as good of a chance he'll have reduced velocity, command issues and probably only a handful of quality starts. Why not put that money towards healthy guy with a higher percentage chance to contribute meaningful innings?

Brock Beauchamp
08-23-2012, 12:56 PM
To expand on why I don't think signing Baker is a good idea....I don't think this team will be competing for a title next year. So, signing Baker for one year w/incentives is just throwing $ at another unknown along with the rest of the #5 type guys. You have to remember, this is the Twins. We're not going to get Stasburg. We're going to get back Joe Nathan 2011. In other words, even if Baker does pitch, there's just as good of a chance he'll have reduced velocity, command issues and probably only a handful of quality starts. Why not put that money towards healthy guy with a higher percentage chance to contribute meaningful innings?

Because the money they'll pay Baker is far less than what they'd have to pay a guy who isn't coming off a major injury. I'd rather see them go after a Sanchez/Marcum/Jackson guy and sign Baker than see them throw ~$15m at two middling guys.

Buck Nasty
08-23-2012, 01:53 PM
To expand on why I don't think signing Baker is a good idea....I don't think this team will be competing for a title next year. So, signing Baker for one year w/incentives is just throwing $ at another unknown along with the rest of the #5 type guys. You have to remember, this is the Twins. We're not going to get Stasburg. We're going to get back Joe Nathan 2011. In other words, even if Baker does pitch, there's just as good of a chance he'll have reduced velocity, command issues and probably only a handful of quality starts. Why not put that money towards healthy guy with a higher percentage chance to contribute meaningful innings?

Because the money they'll pay Baker is far less than what they'd have to pay a guy who isn't coming off a major injury. I'd rather see them go after a Sanchez/Marcum/Jackson guy and sign Baker than see them throw ~$15m at two middling guys.

But it's not really "less money" if you don't get any type of return. It just becomes a needless expense (see Jason Marquis). I'd rather give that money/innings to someone who might be part of the long term plan. I don't think Baker is going to be motivated to give these guys any "home town discount" either.

Brock Beauchamp
08-23-2012, 01:58 PM
But it's not really "less money" if you don't get any type of return. It just becomes a needless expense (see Jason Marquis). I'd rather give that money/innings to someone who might be part of the long term plan. I don't think Baker is going to be motivated to give these guys any "home town discount" either.

Well, the Twins have a need for at least two starters and probably have less than $20m (probably closer to $15m) to do it. You can either spend that money on two guys of somewhat equal talent or you can heavily favor one of those guys and give him $12-14m and then Baker a few million. That's my thinking.

Baker isn't going to need to give a hometown discount. Given the pitching market this offseason, there aren't going to be many teams falling over themselves to pick him up. There are plenty of healthier options out there.

TheLeviathan
08-23-2012, 08:03 PM
I don't think it's insane to believe that adding 2 proven starters and relying on Diamond, Gibson, Hendriks and maybe Baker could get this team a lot of quality starts and chances to win games. As long as the Twins medical staff aren't the ones performing the surgery on Gibson and Baker, it's reasonable to expect recovery, Brett Anderson sure seemed fine the other night.

As Brock points out - 15M is probably our most likely number for available funds - and 15M doesn't go very far in FA when you want to add even one good starter much less two. You can probably get one, but then the second one is Jason Marquis. We don't need to get into the "well they COULD spend more" - if they do, great, but let's face it - that isn't likely. So the idea that you can patch this list up with 15M and FA seems very implausible to me.

And again, I don't think Span has nearly as much value as people think. Especially when you're shopping him for major league pitching.

diehardtwinsfan
08-24-2012, 12:18 PM
And again, I don't think Span has nearly as much value as people think. Especially when you're shopping him for major league pitching.

I'd be thrilled if they got some AA talent with decent upside personally. Given the derth of pitching in this organization, at the very list pick something up that can help in 2014.