Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

2017 Staff Compared to 2018

  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#41 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 25,903 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:23 AM

Given that there was one starter better than Berrios available in free agency, perhaps your expectations were set unreasonably high.

Is anyone confident that any free agent not named Yu Darvish will be markedly better than Berrios in 2018? I’m not.


How about better than Slegers.... Or Mejia?

Everyone was nervous about the last years of yu's deal, but those same people are saying Santana will be good after surgery?

Nothing has been done in nearly two off seasons to fix the starting pitching while the core is here. I hope that changes soon, I don't expect it to
  • Twins33, notoriousgod71, Vanimal46 and 2 others like this

One of the best opening day rosters in years. Now go get 'em.


#42 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 20,012 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:28 AM

How about better than Slegers.... Or Mejia?

Everyone was nervous about the last years of yu's deal, but those same people are saying Santana will be good after surgery?

Nothing has been done in nearly two off seasons to fix the starting pitching while the core is here. I hope that changes soon, I don't expect it to

I’ll be very disappointed if we enter the season with the current rotation. I don’t like any of the available free agent options much but doing nothing is worse than paying a bit too much for mediocrity.

#43 Twinfan & Dad

Twinfan & Dad

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 232 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:30 AM

The thing is Plan B and C are not as good as Plan A. Otherwise they would be Plan A.



Sometimes Plan A ends up being a disaster while Plan B and C work out much better. Plan A is usually spot on when written on paper but results dont follow.
Again, time will tell.

#44 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,324 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:32 AM

 

Sometimes Plan A ends up being a disaster while Plan B and C work out much better. Plan A is usually spot on when written on paper but results dont follow.
Again, time will tell.

 

That's called luck.

  • SF Twins Fan likes this

#45 Twinfan & Dad

Twinfan & Dad

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 232 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:34 AM

That's called luck.


If that is your opinion then I HOPE WE AE REALLY LUCKY.

#46 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,153 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:38 AM

Given that there was one starter better than Berrios available in free agency, perhaps your expectations were set unreasonably high.
Is anyone confident that any free agent not named Yu Darvish will be markedly better than Berrios in 2018? I’m not.


They could have Darvish and Garrett Cole slotted 1-2 right now, had they chosen to make it happen, at reasonable cost.

I do not buy the argument that there wasn’t opportunity.
  • Vanimal46 likes this

I am not the paranoid you're looking for.


#47 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,153 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:40 AM

Sometimes Plan A ends up being a disaster while Plan B and C work out much better. Plan A is usually spot on when written on paper but results dont follow.
Again, time will tell.


If plan B is better than plan A very often, you need a new planner.
  • notoriousgod71, Vanimal46 and SF Twins Fan like this

I am not the paranoid you're looking for.


#48 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,324 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:42 AM

 

If that is your opinion then I HOPE WE AE REALLY LUCKY.

 

Yes I hope we sign Trevor Cahill and he luckily turns into Tom Seaver.

  • SF Twins Fan likes this

#49 bighat

bighat

    Sombrero Grande

  • Members
  • 1,056 posts
  • LocationGuatemala

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:47 AM

 

Everyone is forgetting Tyler Duffey.Could he be the pleasant surprise we all have been waiting for?  

 

Good point, I did forget him. I don't think he'll be a "pleasant surprise" - but I can picture him going 4.2 innings and giving up 3 runs in a couple April starts. He'll have a good game in there somewhere, but I think we should keep our expectations realistic.But you are right, he's certainly an option.


#50 Twinfan & Dad

Twinfan & Dad

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 232 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:48 AM

Yes I hope we sign Trevor Cahill and he luckily turns into Tom Seaver.



Sing along with me "The sun will come out tommorrow".

#51 Twinfan & Dad

Twinfan & Dad

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 232 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 09:55 AM

If plan B is better than plan A very often, you need a new planner.


Or your plan A is really a wolf in sheeps clothing.

#52 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 20,012 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 10:21 AM

If plan B is better than plan A very often, you need a new planner.

That’s not even a little bit true. We’re dealing with single data points with high rates of failure.

If plan A has a 68% chance of success and plan B has a 42% chance of success, it’s not a failure if plan B ends up working better than plan A. Obviously, you want the plan with the highest chance of success but nothing is guaranteed in this sport, just look at Johan Santana’s career with the Mets.
  • ashburyjohn and Twins33 like this

#53 rdehring

rdehring

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 500 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 10:23 AM

 

Do people not get how dramatic a fall off it is from Darvish to whoever we throw out there? Duffy? Gonsalves? Gonsalves profiles almost identically to Mejia no? At least as a prospect? Arguably worse stuff? Romero is most likely a bull pen guy. May couldn't clearly beat out Pelfry. There is some hope there. But realistically no chance in hell any one or combination of those arms can replace the production of a Darvish. I'd actually bet on Hughes to have an impact over any of those other options and I'm not even sure he has any ribs left.

Not to mention we'll probably spend that money anyway. On worse components. And if we don't, we're certainly not banking it for next year or for any other signing or extension.

We need to get over it.Darvish didn't want to come here for reasons we don't know.Yes, the Cubs gave him more $$$ and more years.Personally, I am glad the Twins didn't go that far out with big dollars to a good pitcher...but not a real ACE.There were other reasons, perhaps including the lack of a Japanese community in Minneapolis.

 

Would Darvish be better than whomever we have as our #5.Maybe...Probably.But who knows, the decline we saw in the World Series may accelerate this year.Or he may go on the DL next month and miss half the year.Personally, I am glad we didn't restrict future contracts to our young kids by giving him a sixth of the maximum budget we can expect...for the next 6 years. 

 

As for performance by Duffey or anyone else, we'll know how they are doing in a couple months.May be Duffey, hell, Jorge may earn the 5th starter slot.Let's give all these young guys who were breaking in last year a chance to give'em hell this year.I love this team and I will still love them if we don't sign another player.

  • Twinfan & Dad likes this

#54 strumdatjaguar

strumdatjaguar

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 10:28 AM

The original post forgot about Michael Pineda coming back in 2019.


#55 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Minnesota Twins Whine Line Host

  • Members
  • 9,784 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 11 February 2018 - 10:28 AM

I don't see 2018's rotation being any better than 2017. In fact, I see a decline as it is right now.

We loved to rip on Santiago while he was here. He was projected to be a competent back end starter in February last year. They foolishly relied on Hughes in 2017, and they could be doing the same thing this year!

Now Mejia, with less than 140 MLB innings is slotted in at #3, Gibson #2. This is a failure in my book. Go out and sign a SP...
  • notoriousgod71 and SF Twins Fan like this

#56 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,830 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 10:34 AM

Yeah, this rotation is bad.Like it was in 2017.

 

 

  • SF Twins Fan likes this

#57 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,519 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 10:54 AM

im not a big fan of Tillman, but he could be a fine lotto ticket on a team with a solid 1-4 rotation. The Twins don’t fit that profile do they?

The rookies won’t have a long enough leash to accumulate -2.2 WAR but yes, they will most certainly be on that pace in shorter stretches. None of them have near enough experience past high A nor have they gotten any of the short term call ups to the bigs.

Throwing them into the deep end will be painful. It can help develop for the future, but now is not the time for that as the hitting side of the game is ready now. Now is the time to acquire a veteran rotation


I'm not necessarily arguing against taking a shot on Tillman.
But, these signings aren't black and white.
In addition to the two options of him either bouncing back, or being terrible and easy to cut, there is also the grey area where he's bad enough to hurt you a little but, but not awful enough to give up on quickly.

#58 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,519 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 10:58 AM

Sometimes Plan A ends up being a disaster while Plan B and C work out much better. Plan A is usually spot on when written on paper but results dont follow.
Again, time will tell.


By this logic, couldn't you just as easily and accurately say that sometimes Plan B is a disaster, and Plan A really works out better?
  • SF Twins Fan likes this

#59 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 18,485 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 11 February 2018 - 10:59 AM

If plan A has a 68% chance of success and plan B has a 42% chance of success

I always want to see 110% in regard to our FO. :)

 

But if anything, you understated it. Each "Plan" consists of known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and they fit together as a larger framework that is actually The Plan. What we think of as Plan B doesn't even come into focus until some events unfold, and this off-season has been a bit unique.

 

Further events look like they will unfold at a much more rapid pace now, and I'm still in Jury's-Still-Out mode to see what transpires. RB hit most of the points, in his post, that guide my thinking for now.

 

For Now. :)

 

 

  • Brock Beauchamp and Han Joelo like this

Everyone hates me because I got cured of paranoia and they didn't.


#60 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,519 posts

Posted 11 February 2018 - 11:01 AM

That’s not even a little bit true. We’re dealing with single data points with high rates of failure.

If plan A has a 68% chance of success and plan B has a 42% chance of success, it’s not a failure if plan B ends up working better than plan A. Obviously, you want the plan with the highest chance of success but nothing is guaranteed in this sport, just look at Johan Santana’s career with the Mets.


That's true of any one individual decision.
Over the long run, Plan A should work out better than Plan B about 50% more often, using your hypothetical figures.
I don't want to speak for Chief but I think he used the word often intentionally.
  • Mike Sixel likes this