PDA

View Full Version : Article: Spring Organizational Depth Chart: The Starting Pitchers



Seth Stohs
03-12-2013, 06:46 AM
You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1448-Spring-Organizational-Depth-Chart-The-Starting-Pitchers

Jeff A
03-12-2013, 08:13 AM
The Twins rotation looks like a bunch of fourth and fifth starters. That's not great, but at least they do, for the most part, look like legitimate major league starters. If they can just pitch five or six innings consistently, it will at least be an improvement over last year.

nicksaviking
03-12-2013, 08:46 AM
You have Baxendale, Melotakis, Rogers, Duffy, Bard and Powell from last years draft class getting a chance at starting. Is this what you would do with these young men or is this information that you have been made aware of? Within reason, I'd like to see most of those arms from the 2012 draft to get looks as a starter, but I was starting to assume it was just wishfull thinking.

Aside from Rogers, Bard and Berrios, I believe the only draft pick last year to get starts was Andre Martinez who didn't dazzle but the Twins did pay over-slot to ensure he didn't go to college. Would you have him with the short season crew, or is the team not likely to keep him in the rotation?

tjsyam921
03-12-2013, 09:17 AM
Twins starters may all be 4th or 5th on other teams but at least their different 4-5 starters than years past. At least their giving some one else a shot instead of running the same guys out there year after year.

Shane Wahl
03-12-2013, 09:29 AM
The Cedar Rapids rotation matches its position player roster in excellence. That is going to be a fun team to watch (esp. for JC). And if Bard is legit (still have some question marks, but we'll see) and Salcedo and Boer can pitch as well as they can, the Fort Myers rotation is going to be excellent as well.

Seth Stohs
03-12-2013, 10:34 AM
You have Baxendale, Melotakis, Rogers, Duffy, Bard and Powell from last years draft class getting a chance at starting. Is this what you would do with these young men or is this information that you have been made aware of? Within reason, I'd like to see most of those arms from the 2012 draft to get looks as a starter, but I was starting to assume it was just wishfull thinking.

Aside from Rogers, Bard and Berrios, I believe the only draft pick last year to get starts was Andre Martinez who didn't dazzle but the Twins did pay over-slot to ensure he didn't go to college. Would you have him with the short season crew, or is the team not likely to keep him in the rotation?

It's what I know they are doing with those guys. I don't know where they will start the season (Beloit or Ft. Myers). I know Bard will be worked into the starting role.

Regarding Martinez, the Twins had agreed to pay him over-slot, but then they found something in his physical or something and ended up signing him for well below slot. He's very young, he'll definitely be in the extended spring training group. He'll get a chance to start at some point, I'm sure.

Seth Stohs
03-12-2013, 10:35 AM
The Cedar Rapids rotation matches its position player roster in excellence. That is going to be a fun team to watch (esp. for JC). And if Bard is legit (still have some question marks, but we'll see) and Salcedo and Boer can pitch as well as they can, the Fort Myers rotation is going to be excellent as well.

Bard may or may not prove to be worth a late supplemental first round pick... like any pick... but there's no reason to not believe he's got a chance to be quite good when healthy. He certainly has the pitches, so now it will come to the development and the health.

Kwak
03-12-2013, 10:46 AM
"...4 runs in his 5-6 innings...". Hmm, ERA from 6.00 to 7.20, my oh my! 2 years of this "upgrade".

ashburyjohn
03-12-2013, 11:51 AM
"...4 runs in his 5-6 innings...". Hmm, ERA from 6.00 to 7.20, my oh my! 2 years of this "upgrade".

4 runs or less. He could keep the ERA down around 4.90 with that.

diehardtwinsfan
03-12-2013, 03:19 PM
I didn't realize the Phillies were down on Worley so much that he was the 54th starter. :)

cmathewson
03-12-2013, 03:20 PM
I think Deduno has a shot at the rotation if they decide to send Gibson down to start the year. He's pitched very well really since mid-August. He's the only guy on the list of options who has electric stuff, and he seems to have turned a corner with his control.

Seth Stohs
03-12-2013, 04:13 PM
I think Deduno has a shot at the rotation if they decide to send Gibson down to start the year. He's pitched very well really since mid-August. He's the only guy on the list of options who has electric stuff, and he seems to have turned a corner with his control.

I'm kind of in agreement with you. I think I saw a corner turned. Control was always the issue. I guess since he's not on the 40 man roster, I don't think they'd do it on Opening Day. They'll make him prove himself for a month or so in AAA (like Gibson), but I'm impressed with what he's done since then. Feels real.

ThePuck
03-12-2013, 04:19 PM
Didn't Deduno have an ERA over 6 in 5 starts during September/Oct, with like 15 or 16 walks in just over 20 IP?

roger
03-12-2013, 04:23 PM
I'm kind of in agreement with you. I think I saw a corner turned. Control was always the issue. I guess since he's not on the 40 man roster, I don't think they'd do it on Opening Day. They'll make him prove himself for a month or so in AAA (like Gibson), but I'm impressed with what he's done since then. Feels real.

Plus he is missing a good part of spring training while with the Dominican Republic team. That can't help making the opening day roster.

Thrylos
03-12-2013, 04:45 PM
I really hope that the one Twins' pitcher who was left out (Rich Harden) has the best season of all the starters (and that he is starting), which would probably make this a competing team. Otherwise, until 2015, it will be hard to have a good rotation (or even decent for that matter.)

fairweather
03-12-2013, 05:12 PM
Some people think it's better this year because the Twins have got some new names in the rotation. Everyone knows how the season went last year for Liriano, Baker and Pavano but I'd take those 3 over Correia, Pelfrey, and Worley.

PseudoSABR
03-12-2013, 05:43 PM
Some people think it's better this year because the Twins have got some new names in the rotation. Everyone knows how the season went last year for Liriano, Baker and Pavano but I'd take those 3 over Correia, Pelfrey, and Worley.None of the pitchers you prefer are likely to be ready/healthy enough to start the season. So there's that.

Brock Beauchamp
03-12-2013, 05:51 PM
Some people think it's better this year because the Twins have got some new names in the rotation. Everyone knows how the season went last year for Liriano, Baker and Pavano but I'd take those 3 over Correia, Pelfrey, and Worley.

I don't know if I would, honestly. Pelfrey is the real wildcard but if you line him up against Liriano, he doesn't look so bad. Worley isn't a bad alternative to Baker because Scott could never stay healthy, but was quite good when pitching. Both Correia and Pavano are pretty bad options no matter what.

birdwatcher
03-12-2013, 06:26 PM
Some people think it's better this year because the Twins have got some new names in the rotation. Everyone knows how the season went last year for Liriano, Baker and Pavano but I'd take those 3 over Correia, Pelfrey, and Worley.

Let's test our mettle as a prospective GMs. I'll go with Worley over Baker, Pelfrey over Liriano, and Correia over Pavano. See you in September.

jokin
03-12-2013, 06:31 PM
Let's test our mettle as a prospective GMs. I'll go with Worley over Baker, Pelfrey over Liriano, and Correia over Pavano. See you in September.

And I'll see you with Marcum, Lannan and Saunders...

PseudoSABR
03-12-2013, 06:46 PM
And I'll see you with Marcum, Lannan and Saunders...
And I'll trump you with Grienke, Sanchez, and Lohse!

jokin
03-12-2013, 06:49 PM
And I'll trump you with Grienke, Sanchez, and Lohse!

D*** you, and your Big Media Market Budget....

PseudoSABR
03-12-2013, 07:01 PM
With enough innings (which you seem to assume), Lannan costs $5mil, Saunders, 7.5, Marcum, 8; for a total of 20.5 million. The Twins spent about 10.5 million for the three pitchers they acquired. We were both working with fantasy budgets.

Kwak
03-12-2013, 07:17 PM
With enough innings (which you seem to assume), Lannan costs $5mil, Saunders, 7.5, Marcum, 8; for a total of 20.5 million. The Twins spent about 10.5 million for the three pitchers they acquired. We were both working with fantasy budgets.

This raises the question: Should Ryan have just saved that $10MM and rolled with last year's rotation--and either lose 100+ and select very early in the draft, or give those fellows one more shot to prove themselves? Hint: Based on earlier threads, the Twins aren't supposed to block the new talent from promotion.

PseudoSABR
03-12-2013, 07:38 PM
This raises the question: Should Ryan have just saved that $10MM and rolled with last year's rotation--and either lose 100+ and select very early in the draft, or give those fellows one more shot to prove themselves? Hint: Based on earlier threads, the Twins aren't supposed to block the new talent from promotion.Do you blame Ryan for the budget or ownership?

jokin
03-12-2013, 07:50 PM
With enough innings (which you seem to assume), Lannan costs $5mil, Saunders, 7.5, Marcum, 8; for a total of 20.5 million. The Twins spent about 10.5 million for the three pitchers they acquired. We were both working with fantasy budgets.

Actually, they have committed $10M to Correia (2 years) and $4M to Pelfrey plus $.5M to Worley, which makes the total $14.5M. Meanwhile, still cutting around ~$25M from the payroll.

The base salary for the 3 pitchers I proposed is $13M. And, they are all on one-year, incentive-laden contracts. In addition, it's extremely unlikely that Lannan and Marcum will hit most of their incentives, so the net cost of the 3 acquisitions is much likely closer to $15-18 M than the $20.5M potential max cost. So, assuming the Twins acquire Worley anyways via the trade, the Twins could have had 3 better pitchers for only a few million more dollars than the 2 they did sign, one attached with question marks after coming off of TJ and the other, 2 years committed to one of the worst SPs in baseball.

Regardless, throwing Greinke, Lohse, Sanchez into the conversation is sheer fantasy and not anything close to equivalent comparisons, as you're talking about $275M combined in committments to the three players.

PseudoSABR
03-12-2013, 08:06 PM
Actually, they have committed $10M to Correia (2 years) and $4M to Pelfrey plus $.5M to Worley, which makes the total $14.5M. Meanwhile, still cutting around ~$25M from the payroll.

The base salary for the 3 pitchers I proposed is $13M. And, they are all on one-year, incentive-laden contracts. In addition, it's extremely unlikely that Lannan and Marcum will hit most of their incentives, so the net cost of the 3 acquisitions is much likely closer to $15-18 M than the $20.5M potential max cost. So, assuming the Twins acquire Worley anyways via the trade, the Twins could have had 3 better pitchers for only a few million more dollars than the 2 they did sign, one attached with question marks after coming off of TJ and the other, 2 years committed to one of the worst SPs in baseball.
Well you certainly construed every contract to fit your premise, including Correia's second year cost while trumpeting the base salaries of health risk pitchers. If Marcum and Lanan don't hit most of their incentives, the haven't been effective--you simply can't have it both ways.

Moderator edit -- this is a great thread and I do not want to interrupt, but please refrain from characterizing other people's posts as "patronizing and juvenile". Also, I don't believe that he intended his formatting to be inflammatory -- it seems to me that he was trying to make his position clearer -- and you are both making good points and it will be disappointing if the focus gets distracted by personal attacks.


Regardless, throwing Greinke, Lohse, Sanchez into the conversation is sheer fantasy and not anything close to equivalent comparisons, as you're talking about $275M combined in committments to the three players.Obviously.

My point isn't to suggest the Twins should have signed the players that they did (Pelfry/Correia, etc.), nor that they should have signed Sanchez or Grienke, but rather my point is that the pitchers you suggest are only a better bet in an idealistic outcome.

My sense is that the Twins are cheap and health-risk adverse, not stupid.

jokin
03-12-2013, 10:02 PM
Well you certainly construed every contract to fit your premise, including Correia's second year cost while trumpeting the base salaries of health risk pitchers. If Marcum and Lanan don't hit most of their incentives, the haven't been effective--you simply can't have it both ways.

And seriously, if you can't make your point without bolding certain elements, you need to rewrite your post. It's somehow both patronizing and juvenile at the same time.

Obviously.

My point isn't to suggest the Twins should have signed the players that they did (Pelfry/Correia, etc.), nor that they should have signed Sanchez or Grienke, but rather my point is that the pitchers you suggest are only a better bet in an idealistic outcome.

My sense is that the Twins are cheap and health-risk adverse, not stupid.

Patronized-easily yet again- and an infusion of pejorative invective, all in one sentence of faux-dismissal, well played. Yet you "somehow" completely missed my point, even with the paint-by-number boldfaced dollar amounts that I provided.

Moderator edit -- this is what happens when someone starts throwing around words like "patronizing and juvenile." You gentlemen are having a great debate that is illuminating and fun. Go after each other's ideas as aggressively as you wish, but please refrain from personal attacks that are irrelevant to what is otherwise a profound discussion.

An "idealistic outcome", what exactly does that mean? In point of fact and directly contrary to your throw-away proposal, I "realistically" proposed 3 guys that the Twins "very realistically" could have obtained- with clearly better track records, predictable outcomes, durability and medical histories, and for only a slight premium to what they actually committed to (and yes, it is $14M guaranteed money that the Twins are obligated to pay).

Finally, we both agree that the Twins have made a choice to be miserly over the next few seasons, but how can you say the Twins are "health-risk adverse", given that virtually every SP in the potential rotation has health questions that are yet to be answered, and of the FA pitchers, all but Correia have serious health concerns that make them more wild cards than players who can legitimately have their likely 2013 production parameters penciled in?

jokin
03-12-2013, 10:10 PM
If Marcum and Lanan don't hit most of their incentives, the haven't been effective--you simply can't have it both ways.


...while trumpeting the base salaries of health risk pitchers.

Wrong. If Marcum and Lannan don't hit most of their incentives, which are based on innings and starts, they can still produce stats similar to what they have accomplished in most of their careers, which would be superior to last year's Twins starters and likely far better than what Correia will produce (I'm sure most will agree that Pelfrey is a wild card that might hit, but certainly a higher risk for a predictable outcome than Marcum or Lannan).

Wrong again. Marcum is the one health risk pitcher of the 3, Saunders and Lannan have a history of strong durability.

glunn
03-12-2013, 10:24 PM
Wrong. If Marcum and Lannan don't hit most of their incentives, which are based on innings and starts, they will still produce stats similar to what they have accomplished in most of their careers, which would be superior to last year's Twins starters and likely far better than what Correia will produce (I'm sure most will agree that Pelfrey is a wild card that might hit, but certainly a higher risk for a predictable outcome than Marcum or Lannan).

Can someone enlighten us as to exactly what incentives they have in their contracts?

jokin
03-12-2013, 10:36 PM
Can someone enlighten us as to exactly what incentives they have in their contracts?

Lannan gets $200K for each 10 inning step above 150 innings, $250K for 200 and 210IP and $250K for each start above 30 to 34.

Marcum's details haven't been officially disclosed, but are based on similar benchmarks of production.

glunn
03-12-2013, 11:03 PM
Lannan gets $200K for each 10 inning step above 150 innings, $250K for 200 and 210IP and $250K for each start above 30 to 34.

Marcum's details haven't been officially disclosed, but are based on similar benchmarks of production.

So based on that, would everyone agree that there is at least some merit to the position that Lannan and Marcum would probably be an upgrade even of they hit only half of the incentives, say roughly 175 innings and 2 starts? What jokin is saying makes sense to me, assuming that Correia is as bad as people are saying.

On the other hand, I have high hopes for Worley as someone who could be very good for years to come if he can improve his "out" pitch. And Pelfry could turn out to be a big contributor for a year, a total bust or something in between.

Only one thing seems certain -- we won't know which side was correct for at least another few months.

jokin
03-12-2013, 11:13 PM
So based on that, would everyone agree that there is at least some merit to the position that Lannan and Marcum would probably be an upgrade even of they hit only half of the incentives, say roughly 175 innings and 2 starts? What jokin is saying makes sense to me, assuming that Correia is as bad as people are saying.

On the other hand, I have high hopes for Worley as someone who could be very good for years to come if he can improve his "out" pitch. And Pelfry could turn out to be a big contributor for a year, a total bust or something in between.

Only one thing seems certain -- we won't know which side was correct for at least another few months.

I didn't necessarily have a problem with signing Pelfrey. My main objection was that they couldn't get a team option 2nd year out of his agent. The first year back from TJ is usually pretty meh. And even assuming that Pelfrey starts out of the gate gangbusters, the chance that the Twins can trade him for value at the deadline is very slim.

I like the Worley acquisition as well, young and with some personality and a chance to re-establish himself as a legit #3SP with a fanbase that has far more patience than Philadelphia.

PseudoSABR
03-12-2013, 11:56 PM
Marcum (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league/new-york-mets/)


1 year/$4M (2013)

signed by NY Mets as a free agent 1/13
performance bonuses: $0.250M each for 120, 140, 160, 170 innings. $0.375M each for 180, 190 IP. $0.5M for 200 IP
roster bonuses: $0.375M each for 90, 120 days on active roster without injury to right arm. $0.5M each for 150, 170 days

glunn
03-13-2013, 12:18 AM
Marcum (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league/new-york-mets/)


1 year/$4M (2013)

signed by NY Mets as a free agent 1/13
performance bonuses: $0.250M each for 120, 140, 160, 170 innings. $0.375M each for 180, 190 IP. $0.5M for 200 IP
roster bonuses: $0.375M each for 90, 120 days on active roster without injury to right arm. $0.5M each for 150, 170 days





Thanks for posting this.

Based on what you and jokin have posted, it looks like Marcum's incentives kick in sooner and more generous than Lannan's. Can we all at least agree that we would swap Correia and his contract for either Markum or Lannan and his contract even if all incentives are earned?

mako83
03-13-2013, 12:28 AM
Would any of those three have signed here. Market matters for these boys.

Oxtung
03-13-2013, 12:55 AM
Would any of those three have signed here. Market matters for these boys.

I don't think anyone can say for sure about those three specifically but there were a ton of pitchers available this offseason with better track records than what we signed. Which I think was jokin's larger point (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) If you'd like to rehash the FA market from mid September listen to this Gleeman and the Geek episode where they break down the available starters.

Gleeman and The Geek - Minnesota Twins Podcast (http://gleemangeek.libsyn.com/episode-59-buying-starting-pitching)

3up3down
03-13-2013, 08:07 AM
seth, I know you are a fan of hendriks, I would like to know why in your opinion is he being given so many chances? In years past i have seen projected top of the rotation guys get alot of chances but i dont think in the 30 years i have been doing my thing in baseball i have ever seen a guy with avg stuff get this much opportunity , he is basically being given the #5 spot. a guy like gibson ,top of the rotation stuff ,top prospect, those are guys that get every opportunity to succeed...i have been in ft myers & i see hendriks,devries gibson & walters competing for the 5 spot , and 1 will make the team out of camp to fill in for diamond 1 start.. right now it should be devries spot he pitched well last season & he has been great this spring, walters is having a good spring but his walks are a concern, when he was in college his control was plus , his pitches look good but his control has got to be better. deduno could be in the mix but if he is not here he is not in the conversation doesnt matter what he does in the WBC & once they get to rochester its all even & the guy that is pitching the best will be the 1st promoted..i just think these last 3 weeks the starts shoud go to devries & walters, hendriks has had his shot this spring & he is getting out pitched buy a couple of guys.

Seth Stohs
03-13-2013, 09:09 AM
seth, I know you are a fan of hendriks, I would like to know why in your opinion is he being given so many chances? In years past i have seen projected top of the rotation guys get alot of chances but i dont think in the 30 years i have been doing my thing in baseball i have ever seen a guy with avg stuff get this much opportunity , he is basically being given the #5 spot. a guy like gibson ,top of the rotation stuff ,top prospect, those are guys that get every opportunity to succeed...i have been in ft myers & i see hendriks,devries gibson & walters competing for the 5 spot , and 1 will make the team out of camp to fill in for diamond 1 start.. right now it should be devries spot he pitched well last season & he has been great this spring, walters is having a good spring but his walks are a concern, when he was in college his control was plus , his pitches look good but his control has got to be better. deduno could be in the mix but if he is not here he is not in the conversation doesnt matter what he does in the WBC & once they get to rochester its all even & the guy that is pitching the best will be the 1st promoted..i just think these last 3 weeks the starts shoud go to devries & walters, hendriks has had his shot this spring & he is getting out pitched buy a couple of guys.

A year ago, Hendriks was ranked anywhere from #3 to #6 Twins prospect. Yes, that does somewhat speak to the farm system being down last year and rocketing forward this year, but it also speaks to what Hendriks did. In 2010, he pitched in Beloit and Ft. Myers and was dominant. In 2011, he pitched great for New Britain, pretty well for Rochester, and then due to injury, he made a couple of starts with the Twins. He was the minor league pitcher of the year. In 2012, he was very good in Rochester, and really struggled with the Twins, as a 23 year old. No shame in that! This spring, he had three really good starts where the coaching staff was raving about his improvements, and then the rough start most recently on the day when the wind is blowing out. he's still just 24. He throws 90-93, has a good CB and a good CU. His control is traditionally quite good. He's aggressive. Sounds like a solid #3 starter to me. Certainly not a guy to give up on after his Age 23 season.

De Vries just turned 28, touches 90 and has a good CB.
Gibson is absolutely a top prospect (ranking anywhere from #5-#7 depending on the source) and he will be very good.

And, by the way... good job of (hopefully) changing the subject away from players that aren't in the Twins organization!

3up3down
03-13-2013, 12:23 PM
seth, yea the topic was headed in the wrong direction..

i agree with you on some parts, gibson is good & he is coming, not out of camp but he will be there this year & be in the rotation for a long time..he is a top of the rotation guy.

on devries , does his age matter, the only thing his age makes him is not a prospect & he never was a prospect, he is just getting the job done , isnt that what matters.

you did not mention walters but he like hendrks was a pitcher of the year, cruised thru the minors & just didnt have opportunity in st louis, he had a great opportunity last year & came up injured

on hendriks, what he did in A & AA ball means absolutely nothing, if you have decent off speed stuff you will sail thru the lower levels, now what he has done at AAA is absolutely amazing & thats why he has gotten his opportunity. but cmon how many starts has he had in the bigs, its beginning to not be a small sample size, he is more 88-91 just like devries & walters, his CB &CU grade as below avg to maybe avg, definately not #3 starter stuff...and i have seen his starts , a couple were not bad but there were some balls squared up & i know runs scored on a ball in the sun but its what he did after that , he lost it for a couple of batters , and i have heard the coaches comments before those are confidence boosters hoping that it finally gets thru..the wind was blowing out the other day but i know your not saying those were wind aided , they were all legit , & all the pitchers pitched with the wind blowing out , if your a GB pitcher keep the ball on the ground that way it dont fly over the fence..

i hope you know i am not argueing with you & i respect your opinion , i know you have seen these guys ..i just wanted hear your explanation..

and i have not given up on hendriks.