Thread: Article: Houston, We have a Problem

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

What people don't seem to realize is that many more things have gone right than they have gone wrong. Willingham is having a career year. Mauer is healthy and having an outstanding season. Morneau is back and semi-capable. Plouffe had a breakout. Revere is having a breakout. Doumit is healthy and hitting very well. Diamond, Burton, Perkins, and Burnett are pitching some great ball.

When you compare that to the wrongs - Baker hurt, Pavano hurt, Capps hurt, Blackburn garbage. (Maybe one or two others I'm forgetting) - this team is actually a bit lucky they aren't WORSE.

I'm encouraged by some of Ryan's interviews the last few Sundays. He appears to get that this team isn't as good as some think and they're way further off than a pitcher or two.

This x 2

Originally Posted by DPJ

Which we all know won't happen, so were right back to where we were.

You keep saying that but it is anything but clear. As far as I can remember the Twins have never been in the position they're in right now. They have a historically bad starting rotation. Only Blackburn has a contract committment for next season. They have $20-30 million to put back into the club. They have little guaranteed starting pitching help available in the Minors for the next several years. Yes, maybe Gibson and Wimmers can come back but neither at this point (or even in the offseason) are going to be a sure thing to build around. That leaves you with Diamond, who I think we can all agree is going to keep seeing his ERA move in the direction of 4, and Blackburn, as much as nobody wants to admit it he'll get a shot again next year. The Twins are going to have to go out and get pitching help. And before you say it, veteran free agents on a 1 year deal doesn't help because the starting pitching is a problem long term. They're going to have to sign multiple pitchers and atleast 1 of those is going to have to be 3+ years.

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

This x 2

Then my reply to that post x 2, too!!! Haha.

Originally Posted by Oxtung

You keep saying that but it is anything but clear. As far as I can remember the Twins have never been in the position they're in right now.

I keep thinking that, too, but haven't really found the right place to mention it. (For the record, the "that" mentioned in the post quoted was the notion that the "we know" the Twins won't spend any/enough/lots of money this off-season.) But you're right, there really isn't any history to give a guide here. Comparing to Metrodome years is obviously silly since the overall payroll has vastly increased. I also don't know that we've got much knowledge on how and when and in what ways the new Pohlad may be different than Carl. As for New Ballpark History, the first off-season in Target Field is not even close to a good comparison because the first season was a division winner. And last off-season was much, much different in that four expected starting pitchers were already under contract and coming back. So yes, I'd say this is uncharted territory.

Even if the Twins do have money to spend, nothing says you can't bank that for a future increase. It's not typically a PR dream, but spending it just to spend it doesn't help much either. This team should take some flyers next season on guys like we did with Burton last year, but planning to fix this team with a few contracts is a big mistake.

Haven't there been quotes from TR in the past saying that they don't roll any budget room forward?

Originally Posted by snepp

Haven't there been quotes from TR in the past saying that they don't roll any budget room forward?

If so, that is ridiculous. But I wouldn't be surprised.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

If so, that is ridiculous. But I wouldn't be surprised.

Take it with a massive grain o' salt, my recollection is incredibly vague.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Even if the Twins do have money to spend, nothing says you can't bank that for a future increase. It's not typically a PR dream, but spending it just to spend it doesn't help much either. This team should take some flyers next season on guys like we did with Burton last year, but planning to fix this team with a few contracts is a big mistake.

It isn't about spending money just to spend the money. It's about helping this team in the short term through free agency, hopefully helping this team in the mid-term if you find the right deals or potentially helping this team in the long term through flipping those FA's for prospects. Along the way you improve the product to the point where you don't lose 100 games which is a very real possibility if the Twins firesale, reduce payroll and don't sign any decent free agents.

Originally Posted by Oxtung

It isn't about spending money just to spend the money. It's about helping this team in the short term through free agency, hopefully helping this team in the mid-term if you find the right deals or potentially helping this team in the long term through flipping those FA's for prospects. Along the way you improve the product to the point where you don't lose 100 games which is a very real possibility if the Twins firesale, reduce payroll and don't sign any decent free agents.

The kinds of FA splashes you're talking about aren't 50M+ kinds of deals. I don't have a problem with a few Willingham-like contracts, but people aren't talking about that. The focus of this team should be acquiring assets around our best prospects, not hoping 88 losses keeps more fans in the seats than 98. That is a useless, misguided strategy which is all anyone here is suggesting. As has been said by others - winning puts butts in the seats, so build to win - not keep your head above total futility.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

The kinds of FA splashes you're talking about aren't 50M+ kinds of deals.

Please enlighten me on what I am thinking and talking about. You clearly have no idea what I have been saying here or in other threads. Your post on the other hand seems to either be poorly articulated or not well thought out.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

The focus of this team should be acquiring assets around our best prospects, not hoping 88 losses keeps more fans in the seats than 98. That is a useless, misguided strategy which is all anyone here is suggesting. As has been said by others - winning puts butts in the seats, so build to win - not keep your head above total futility.

So winning helps put butts in the seats but winning 74 games doesn't matter we should instead cut payroll and win 60? The focus should be on acquiring assets but we should still cut payroll and not spend in FA? Why can't you do both? Why can't you trade Morneau, Span, Willingham, Carroll and other veterans that are worth something over the next year and replace them with a combination of minor leaguers as they are ready AND sign FA's that complement those pieces in the midterm and will help keep this team from absolutely cratering in the short term? If those veterans then become expendable, either because like Willingham they play exceptionally well and have great value, or because we have a prospect develop to replace them maybe a couple get flipped for more prospects which then helps us in the long term.

Given that they cut payroll this year, I see no evidence that they are willing to pay the price in dollars and years to sign big time, or even average, starting pitching.

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

Given that they cut payroll this year, I see no evidence that they are willing to pay the price in dollars and years to sign big time, or even average, starting pitching.

That's part of the problem, they won't break the bank of a Greinke type arm and a Jackson or Sanchez signing does nothing but make this team a little less worse.

Originally Posted by DPJ

That's part of the problem, they won't break the bank of a Greinke type arm and a Jackson or Sanchez signing does nothing but make this team a little less worse.

Zack Greinke hasn't been a very good pitcher lately. There's a chance that a Sanchez or Jackson performs just as well as him for 1/2 to 2/3rds the price. They're all the same age.

I don't they'd sign those guys either "well, tehy got 5 year deals, we just don't want to give pitchers 5 year deals, they get hurt and stuff....". Then they'll sign the guys that are willing to sign for 1-3 years, you know, 38 year old has beens, and 28 year old never weres. I'll believe they do something different, when they give us evidence they will do something different. So far, they've signed old guys for less money than the guys they replaced made. Classic Twins.

Originally Posted by rocketpig

Zack Greinke hasn't been a very good pitcher lately. There's a chance that a Sanchez or Jackson performs just as well as him for 1/2 to 2/3rds the price. They're all the same age.

Small sample size much?

Originally Posted by DPJ

Small sample size much?

Greinke has an ERA+ of around 106-108 in his past 510 innings.

Originally Posted by rocketpig

Greinke has an ERA+ of around 106-108 in his past 510 innings.

I don't put much stock into Zack's 2010 as he was completly checked out on a bad Royals team. Not how you would like to see a professional handle his ****, but nevertheless it happened.

In 2011 he was saddled with a .318 BABIP and even this year his BABIP is .326. I think Zack's just fine and far and away better then Jackson and Sanchez.

Originally Posted by DPJ

I don't put much stock into Zack's 2010 as he was completly checked out on a bad Royals team. Not how you would like to see a professional handle his ****, but nevertheless it happened.

In 2011 he was saddled with a .318 BABIP and even this year his BABIP is .326. I think Zack's just fine and far and away better then Jackson and Sanchez.

He's also falling apart this season. While you may be okay with ignoring almost three full seasons of pitching, I won't do it. I'd much rather see the Twins target a second tier pitcher like Sanchez or Jackson and get them for 3-4 years at $12-14m per season instead of the 5+ years and $16m+ per season Greinke might demand on the FA market.

Zack has been riding his Cy Young season for three years now and hasn't come anywhere close to repeating that performance (according to ERA+, he has been literally half the pitcher he was in 2010). Why on earth would you want to get into a bidding war on a player who is riding a name instead of performance?

Originally Posted by rocketpig

Zack has been riding his Cy Young season for three years now and hasn't come anywhere close to repeating that performance (according to ERA+, he has been literally half the pitcher he was in 2010). Why on earth would you want to get into a bidding war on a player who is riding a name instead of performance?

Well who the hell is gonna repeat an ERA+ 205 He's been saddled with some bad luck over the lack couple seasons but give me around 8.2 K/9 and a 2.3 BB/9 anyday of the week over Jackson and Sanchez.