Originally Posted by
jokin
On flippable assets, you're not really getting this. You build depth from below, in that you then create expendable tradeable & coveted assets- these theoretically become Perkins and Burton- if they continue their progression. Hopefully, they can be traded for prospects at positions of weakness as the position players come off the books and the draft picks move up to take the place of your tradeable assets from a now-developing position of strength. The WAR question in your first paragraph is key, it's not so much a goal as "turning a season around" all by itself. Create areas of strength and depth in as efficient a manner as possible, thus developing incremental improvements in each aspect of the team. Making a proposed turnaround in the bullpen in the proportions close to what I outlined is certain to make the 1000s of players and agents around the various levels of baseball sit up and take notice, particularly the bounty of potential FA starters this offseason, for example, in making the Twins recognized as a team serious about developing a consistent winner.
Range of opinion on the SPs I proffered? Their numbers and projections suggest how mediocre to very good they are, opinions may vary, sure. Jackson went to the Cubs, Marcum to the Mets, McCarthy to the D-Backs. Sorry... but Winning/Losing wasn't the make or break factor on ANY these deals. Nuff said here.
On the proposed SP pick-ups, even those such as the lowly #4-5 projections like Lannan and Francis, they sadly all represent potential upgrades, to at least some, if not most, on this lowly Twins pitching depth chart, and they were available for spit, and represented potential value when compared to Correia or Saunders. Again, incremental improvement-seeking, building the franchise back up one brick at a time, finding the next Burton, Dickey, Diamond along the way is all part of that dynamic process.
