Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Front Page: Absorbing Risk Is Twins Next Decision

minnesota twins madison bumgarner hyun-jin ryu dallas keuchel derek falvey
  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,465 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 06:50 AM

The Twins don’t take risks...

*Except when they pay $12MM for a 40-year-old DH.
*Except when they sign a 1B that’s been non-tendered.
*Except when they sign a guy with a past PED suspension to an extension.
*And do the same with a guy who some people see as having platoon problems.
*Except when they sign a 2B coming off a season with an 82 OPS+.
*Except when they sign a pitcher to a two-year deal when he’s coming off Tommy John.
*And then sign him again when he’s coming off a suspension.
*Except when they trade a prospect having a great MiLB season for a relief pitcher.
*And then do it again.

Just because the team doesn’t take the risk YOU want them to take doesn’t mean they aren’t taking risks. Every move is a risk, and I want them to continue taking risks. I just want them taking smart risks, and I think more often than not, they have been right.

#22 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,010 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 07:39 AM

 

The Twins don’t take risks...

*Except when they pay $12MM for a 40-year-old DH.
*Except when they sign a 1B that’s been non-tendered.
*Except when they sign a guy with a past PED suspension to an extension.
*And do the same with a guy who some people see as having platoon problems.
*Except when they sign a 2B coming off a season with an 82 OPS+.
*Except when they sign a pitcher to a two-year deal when he’s coming off Tommy John.
*And then sign him again when he’s coming off a suspension.
*Except when they trade a prospect having a great MiLB season for a relief pitcher.
*And then do it again.

Just because the team doesn’t take the risk YOU want them to take doesn’t mean they aren’t taking risks. Every move is a risk, and I want them to continue taking risks. I just want them taking smart risks, and I think more often than not, they have been right.

None of those are really risks, sure they are gambles, but if Cruz is old, it was for 1 year with a cheap buyout. Basically the same with Cron and Schoop without the buyouts.

They got 3/4 of a year for Pineda, signing him again but for only 2 years isn't a risk, the risk might be only signing him for 2 because he blows up and leaves.


#23 SpicyGarvSauce

SpicyGarvSauce

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 479 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 08:43 AM

 

From MLB Trade Rumors:

 

Lynn was ranked as the 9th best free agent overall and their 4th best starter, behind Darvish, Arrieta, and Tanaka. 

 

MLBT isn't the word of god, obviously, and MLB teams clearly soured on him during the FA period, but no matter how poorly he pitched in hindsight, he was still a high-end FA that offseason.

Again, that is not what I am arguing. It is all relative - if the rest of the FA crop is less than desirable, of course he will rank higher.

 

Point being, again - Lance Lynn was never going to come in and change the dynamic of the Twins and their postseason chances/ability to win a World Series. If you cannot see this, well, then so be it.

 

Guys like Cole, Strasburg, etc....THOSE guys move the needle. The Lance Lynn's of the world, they do not.

  • Mike Sixel likes this

#24 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 17,439 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 09:01 AM

 

The Twins don’t take risks...

*Except when they pay $12MM for a 40-year-old DH.
*Except when they sign a 1B that’s been non-tendered.
*Except when they sign a guy with a past PED suspension to an extension.
*And do the same with a guy who some people see as having platoon problems.
*Except when they sign a 2B coming off a season with an 82 OPS+.
*Except when they sign a pitcher to a two-year deal when he’s coming off Tommy John.
*And then sign him again when he’s coming off a suspension.
*Except when they trade a prospect having a great MiLB season for a relief pitcher.
*And then do it again.

Just because the team doesn’t take the risk YOU want them to take doesn’t mean they aren’t taking risks. Every move is a risk, and I want them to continue taking risks. I just want them taking smart risks, and I think more often than not, they have been right.

Virtually every team is making moves like this on a regular basis (short term, ~$10 mil AAV FA contracts, trading 35-40 FV guys like Jaylin Davis). And if every team is doing it, it's not a useful definition of risk.

 

In fact, a few of your examples -- like signing Cron for $5 mil -- are almost trending toward too-conservative risk, like inaction or doing too little. By this definition, TR might have been the riskiest GM ever, re-signing Rondell White to start after 2006. :)

 

I think it's fair to define risk, in this context, as putting more on the line -- more meaning significant money (more than short term ~$10 mil AAV FA contracts) or significant talent (top 100 prospects, and/or a lot of decent prospects). The Twins haven't done that yet. Maybe that's been the right decision so far, but they're probably going to have to do it sooner or later, lest they start limiting our potential through too much conservatism.

  • Mike Sixel, IndianaTwin and Tomj14 like this

#25 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,465 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 09:05 AM

 

None of those are really risks, sure they are gambles, but if Cruz is old, it was for 1 year with a cheap buyout. Basically the same with Cron and Schoop without the buyouts.

They got 3/4 of a year for Pineda, signing him again but for only 2 years isn't a risk, the risk might be only signing him for 2 because he blows up and leaves.

 

Whether you call it a gamble or a risk, my point is that it's a matter of degree. I don't mind people saying they don't take big enough gambles or big enough risks, but to say they don't take ANY isn't fair.

 

Depending on how one does the math, they spent $50MM on free agents for 2019. And nearly $40 million so far for 2020 on an option, a QO, and a free agent. Cruz seems like very low risk, but it's still a risk to spend $12MM on a 39-year-old who only played in three-fourths of your games. (Sorry, I had his age wrong in the previous.) Odo may be a little more risk, since the price is much higher and he's a pitcher. And Pineda may be the most risk since it involves two years, a suspension, and the unknown of how much past performance was affected by the banned substance.

 

I'm good with all those risks/gambles. I wouldn't mind seeing them take a little more risk in pursuing Bumgarner or Ryu, but I'm also a spread-the-risk guy by nature, so I also wouldn't have minded seeing them spend the $23MM that just got the Mets and Dodgers Porcello, Wacha and Treinen and still have the money to upgrade their 1B bat beyond Cron/Thames, etc.


#26 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,465 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 09:10 AM

 

Virtually every team is making moves like this on a regular basis (short term, ~$10 mil AAV FA contracts, trading 35-40 FV guys like Jaylin Davis). And if every team is doing it, it's not a useful definition of risk.

 

In fact, a few of your examples -- like signing Cron for $5 mil -- are almost trending toward too-conservative risk, like inaction or doing too little. By this definition, TR might have been the riskiest GM ever, re-signing Rondell White to start after 2006. :)

 

I think it's fair to define risk, in this context, as putting more on the line -- more meaning significant money (more than short term ~$10 mil AAV FA contracts) or significant talent (top 100 prospects, and/or a lot of decent prospects). The Twins haven't done that yet. Maybe that's been the right decision so far, but they're probably going to have to do it sooner or later, lest they start limiting our potential through too much conservatism.

 

Sorry, I was typing No. 25 while you were typing. I think we're in agreement here on the issue being one of degrees. A parallel to what you are saying is that I work in financial services, where sometimes people only want to invest in CDs because they don't want the risk of the stock market. The risk they are taking is that they likely won't keep up with inflation in the long-term. Constructing a baseball roster isn't about taking a risk or not -- even not making a move is taking a risk -- it's about taking the appropriate degree of risk. 

 


#27 Aerodeliria

Aerodeliria

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 655 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 10:31 AM

Then what would you call Boof Bonser's playoff debut? A masterpiece? How did he fare the next season?

I'm all for seeing what Dobnak can do in 2020, but that is completely irrelevant to the goal of strengthening the top of the rotation this offseason.


#28 Aerodeliria

Aerodeliria

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 655 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 10:36 AM

My point was simply to mention Dobnak because he was being ignored as a potential "5th" starter in every discussion. At the top of the post I said let's get one of the remaining starters that are out there. That's the baseline.

#29 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,513 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 10:39 AM

 

My point was simply to mention Dobnak because he was being ignored as a potential "5th" starter in every discussion. At the top of the post I said let's get one of the remaining starters that are out there. That's the baseline.

 

I don't think anyone is ignoring him as the 5th option.....

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#30 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 17,439 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 10:53 AM

 

I don't think anyone is ignoring him as the 5th option.....

Yeah, I think at minimum Dobnak is being universally endorsed as Pineda's replacement for the first month and a half, even among those who still want 2 more starters acquired. (And from there, he could easily earn a more permanent spot through performance or injuries.)

 

As far as being the 5th starter outright, even with Pineda, I'm open to that possibility too. Although I think Pineda's absence might be a good opportunity to let Dobnak compete with a quality buy-low guy like Alex Wood as well, and let the winner keep the 5th spot when Pineda comes back.

  • Mike Sixel and IndianaTwin like this

#31 IndianaTwin

IndianaTwin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 1,465 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 11:25 AM

 

Yeah, I think at minimum Dobnak is being universally endorsed as Pineda's replacement for the first month and a half, even among those who still want 2 more starters acquired. (And from there, he could easily earn a more permanent spot through performance or injuries.)

 

As far as being the 5th starter outright, even with Pineda, I'm open to that possibility too. Although I think Pineda's absence might be a good opportunity to let Dobnak compete with a quality buy-low guy like Alex Wood as well, and let the winner keep the 5th spot when Pineda comes back.

 

Yes, and I prefer your first option. I can't imagine there are many teams who make it eight times through the rotation without at least one injury. Planning with Dobnak as the guy who gets those starts in Pineda's place makes a ton of sense. I'd rather not assume Dobnak the long-term No. 5 AND have to use Smeltzer or Thorpe as the Pineda fill-in.

 

If we should be so fortunate as to make it through the rotation eight times, healthy and effective, it wouldn't hurt to have some combination of a brief DL stint for anyone who's even slightly knicked up, a few times through a six-man rotation, or even a demotion for a couple weeks of short starts from Dobnak to make sure he's well-rested for getting through a season that goes well into October. If we aren't, Pineda is our mid-May trade acquisition. 

  • Mike Sixel likes this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: minnesota twins, madison bumgarner, hyun-jin ryu, dallas keuchel, derek falvey