Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The Store

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Recent Blogs


Photo

Article: Twins Punting 2013? Not So Fast

  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#61 Einstein

Einstein

    Member

  • Members
  • 89 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:16 AM

Even if the starting rotation is solidified, they've got holes at 2B, SS, 3B, CF and even DH. I predict another 90 loss season. They've definitely punted on 2013, come to grips with it already.

#62 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:30 AM

The Twins have zero intention to "punt" for 2013.. Ryan made that very clear again today in more than one interview. He said they intend to shore up the rotation. He may misfire, but he isn't punting.

Now, it could certainly be that Ryan's expectation is to field a .500 ballclub at best for 2013. Isn't it unrealistic to expect a contending club for 2013 AND these great strides towards respectable future results? So, some of you might describe efforts to produce a .500 ballclub a "punt". I don't.


Not surprisingly, you're a nest-half-full guy. What else would you expect Ryan to say in this situation? Read his actions, they speak far more clearly than his words.


And of course, jokin, true to form, you are a half nest empty guy. Congratulations. Thanks for the advice, by the way, to rely on Ryan's actions and not his words. Perhaps you should take your own advice, jokin. Ryan's stiil going to take more action, but you judge him on his words and accuse him of various forms dishonesty, don't you? Isn't that hypocritical of you? Isn't that perhaps a form of dishonesty in and of itself?

#63 wavedog

wavedog

    Member

  • Members
  • 86 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:31 AM

I like the trades but before talk of contention in 2013 - we certainly have questions at 2B, SS, 3B and CF. Far from strong up the middle and along with questionable starting pitching doesn't sound like a mix to be a serious contender. We will see who else we add in the next couple of weeks.

#64 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,253 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:34 AM

I don't think we know yet, until the top 10 pitchers are signed, and we see what the Twins did.....

#65 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:39 AM

I like the trades but before talk of contention in 2013 - we certainly have questions at 2B, SS, 3B and CF. Far from strong up the middle and along with questionable starting pitching doesn't sound like a mix to be a serious contender. We will see who else we add in the next couple of weeks.


I agree, wavedog. Ryan can maybe fortify the rotation and tweak the roster enough to give us a team with a 50/50 chance to win that night's game. Any expectation for 2013 beyond that isn't realistic. And Ryan has stated that we have to be realistic.

#66 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,253 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:57 AM

Realism is great. They realistically could sign 2 really good pitchers if they wanted to. But I think they will not. I think realistic is code for cheap, but I am still hoping I am wrong.....

#67 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:03 AM

I favor using the 20-25 million as follows: Sign one guy to a long-term deal in the mid teens. Sign the other guy to a one-year deal in the $6-8 million range. This strategy is made possible by the presence of Meyers, May and Gibson in 2013, who, with Worley and Diamond, would make a decent young rotation by themselves. Understanding that you want six capable guys, one of the guys you sign can be a short timer.

The question is, what will Sanchez cost in $$ and years? If he would accept a 4/56 type of deal, doesn't it make sense to go after him? I like McCarthy and all, but Sanchez is a cut above. Am I estimating too low on him?

#68 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,066 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:07 AM

The question is, what will Sanchez cost in $$ and years? If he would accept a 4/56 type of deal, doesn't it make sense to go after him? I like McCarthy and all, but Sanchez is a cut above. Am I estimating too low on him?


Yeah, I think he gets at least 5 years and over 15m per. His agent called a 4/48 offer insulting. Still, I'd be willing to offer him 5/70 and hope that's enough. Also like to see Marcum come here.

#69 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:27 AM

mww, it's also realistic for me to buy a new Mercedes and enter it into a demolition derby. Not gonna do it. Guess I'm just cheap, right?

You're not wrong for wanting Marcum, Sanchez, or whomever at their asking price. That doesn't make you greedy. But refusing to do that doesn't make the Twins cheap either.

#70 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,253 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:30 AM

They have a new stadium, and their payroll has three guys that make 5 million or more. I believe that they would be cheap not to sign a legit pitcher this year. But that is an opinion, not a fact, so your mileage may vary.

#71 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:37 AM

Most of these contracts-Blanton, Feldman, Haren- the ones that have set the market- are going to come back to haunt the teams. Especially the ones with multiple years. The future performance value of these guys will not match the market value. The Twins have been guilty of poor contract decisions, as Ryan has admitted repeatedly. Ryan appears to be determined to avoid these contract errors. It's not a matter of being cheap. This club has been spending money, mre than any other team last year on the draft and on international signings.

#72 minn55441

minn55441

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 520 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:42 AM

We have punted for the 2013 season. I don't think that is a bad thing, but we are not going to contend this year. If it's 4th and a mile at your own 20 yard line, you don't "go for it", the correct call is to punt and look forward to your next possession.

I like the moves that TR has made. We aren't signing washed up pitchers to one year deals, everything he has done so far insures that we are looking forward to 2014 and beyond. Not sure how he is going to do it, but I would hope that any investment in the pitching FA market would benefit us not only this year but would be even more geared to 2014 and beyond. Sign quality and lock them up for more than 1 or 2 years.

#73 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:07 AM

If your definition of punting is not contending, then I agree, minn55441. My definition is trying to field a .500 team. If Ryan fails to add at least one more pitcher that meets or exceeds the "Diamond Standard", and maybe one more Liriano-type to compete with the 10 other fringy guys for the #5-6 spots, then I will say he punted.

#74 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 496 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:40 AM

2013 is written off as far as I am concerned.

If you are going to do it, do it right.
Trade Mauer. Trade Morneau. Trade Willingham.


Mlb rumors reports Terry Ryan will listen to offere for everyone including Morneau and MAUER
so does that mean Ellsbury in cf,and Lester in the rotation?


If you click the link there it takes you to a cheap and irresponsible twitter post, and someone has sent a reply that states they re-listened to the broadcast and Ryan said Morneau and Willingham. Mauer was not mentioned. I have not heard it.

#75 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,439 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:52 AM

Will the top pitchers really take this team seriously after they traded both CF's and are reported to be listening to offers for both Mauer and Morneau? True or not, it doesn't sound like a situation that a pitcher who values winning as importantly as money would want to walk into.

#76 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:54 AM

[quote name='h2oface'][quote name='johnnydakota'][quote name='clutterheart']2013 is written off as far as I am concerned.

If you are going to do it, do it right.
Trade Mauer. Trade Morneau. Trade Willingham.[/QUOTE]

Mlb rumors reports Terry Ryan will listen to offere for everyone including Morneau and MAUER
so does that mean Ellsbury in cf,and Lester in the rotation?[/QUOTE]

If you click the link there it takes you to a cheap and irresponsible twitter post, and someone has sent a reply that states they re-listened to the broadcast and Ryan said Morneau and Willingham. Mauer was not mentioned. I have not heard it.[/QUOTE]

Thanks

#77 joeboo_22

joeboo_22

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 173 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:33 PM

I think the Twins are making a play for 2014, and that is why they are hesitant to trade Willingham. Even though they have traded Span and Revere, how many 2014 WAR's do they translate to over the replacements of some combo of Hicks/Benson/Parmelee/Arcia? I'm going to say not too many. And because of that I think thats why I'm against and the FO is against a fire sale. I'd still be shopping Carroll as there appears to be some type of market out there for that type of player, and it would cut some more salary. I think Willingham and Morneau are deadline guys where if they feel they are close in 2014 they might try to resign Morneau, keep Willingham and make a play, if not they would trade both, also depends on the market.

Its all a crap shoot but I don't see the Twins having a worse team after making these moves

#78 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,253 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:36 PM

Why do they need to cut salary? Carroll is great at getting on base. There is zero reason to move him.

#79 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,526 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:28 PM

Why do they need to cut salary? Carroll is great at getting on base. There is zero reason to move him.


Not entirely true. I certainly don't think Carroll's salary will break the bank and I agree there is no reason to be actively looking to cut salary; quite the contrary I think they should be actively looking to spend all of their money. However, Carroll does have a player option for 2014 where he will be 40 years old. If the Twins FO has decided to essentially build for 2014+ then IMO looking to move Jamey Carroll is a good option.

#80 by jiminy

by jiminy

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:43 PM

Why sign two $10 million pitchers? The Twins should sign one of the top available free agent pitchers like Grienke, Jackson, McCarthy, or Dempster and fill out the rotation with Diamond, Gibson, Worley and allow someone to earn the fifth spot in training camp (if nobody earns the spot ofr someone is injured, take a cast-off from anther team at the end of Spring Training).


Why sign two good pitchers? I think the premise was they were trying to contend.

Sure they can use castoffs and not-ready minor leaguers; they did that the past two years. But they wouldn't very likely contend.

Personally, though, I'd rather wait another year or two than take on a Grienke type contract. If that didn't work out, they'd be worse off than they are now.

I prefer the approach of stockpiling young pitching shown by the Span and Revere trades. I'd keep doing that and hope to build a playoff-worthy rotation the way the A's did. If they could get similar talent for Morneau and WIllingham, the future could become very bright by 2014.

#81 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,840 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:51 PM

However, Carroll does have a player option for 2014 where he will be 40 years old. If the Twins FO has decided to essentially build for 2014+ then IMO looking to move Jamey Carroll is a good option.


The player option kicks in if he accrues >400 PA in 2013. That makes it somewhat a team option - if he sucks, he'll be on the bench anyway, if he's marginal then his playing time goes down in Aug-Sept if he can't be traded at deadline. Don't know how much, if any, this changes the thinking.

#82 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,526 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:01 PM

However, Carroll does have a player option for 2014 where he will be 40 years old. If the Twins FO has decided to essentially build for 2014+ then IMO looking to move Jamey Carroll is a good option.


The player option kicks in if he accrues >400 PA in 2013. That makes it somewhat a team option - if he sucks, he'll be on the bench anyway, if he's marginal then his playing time goes down in Aug-Sept if he can't be traded at deadline. Don't know how much, if any, this changes the thinking.


Brian Dozier
Pedro Florimon
Trevor Plouffe

Barring injury I just don't see how he doesn't get >400 PA's.

#83 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:06 PM

There is plenty of revenue to build for the future and still improve for 2013. Signing veteran pitchers to 1-yr contracts does not deter the Twins from building for the future--if anything it prevents the team from being hamstrung with washed-up players when money and roster spots are needed.

#84 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,840 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:13 PM

[quote name='Oxtung'][quote name='ashburyjohn'][quote name='Oxtung']However, Carroll does have a player option for 2014 where he will be 40 years old. If the Twins FO has decided to essentially build for 2014+ then IMO looking to move Jamey Carroll is a good option.[/QUOTE]

The player option kicks in if he accrues >400 PA in 2013. That makes it somewhat a team option - if he sucks, he'll be on the bench anyway, if he's marginal then his playing time goes down in Aug-Sept if he can't be traded at deadline. Don't know how much, if any, this changes the thinking.[/QUOTE]

Brian Dozier
Pedro Florimon
Trevor Plouffe

Barring injury I just don't see how he doesn't get >400 PA's.[/QUOTE]

If he's healthy and contributing as the super-sub to an extent he reaches the threshold, then just pay the man his $2M in 2014. I'm just saying that even this minimal risk is pretty well covered - if he turns out to be totally not worth that much money at age 40, chances are his 2013 will take care of the question on its own.

#85 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,168 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:19 PM

I'd still be shopping Carroll as there appears to be some type of market out there for that type of player, and it would cut some more salary.

If you trade Carroll, who's hitting leadoff? Mastroianni? Dozier? Yuck.

If someone knocks your socks off with an offer for Carroll, you take it, but that's not going to happen. He's 39. He's also the only player in the Twins' (apparently finalized) middle-infield mix that is likely to be anywhere close to average. That's worth a lot more to the Twins than $3.75 million.

#86 Jim H

Jim H

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 439 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:33 PM

One of the things that Ryan does well, generally, is evaluate talent. While I haven't seen enough, at the major league level, to have a lot of confidence in either Florimon or Dozier. At seems that perhaps Ryan has. Clearly, it doesn't seem to be a priority to add middle infield talent. It looks to me, like the top of the order will be pretty weak to start the season. I expect Hicks still needs minor league seasoning and even if Benson takes the center field job, that wouldn't address the top of the lineup.

Maybe Ryan thinks that Mastroianni and some combination of Dozier, Carroll, Plouffe, can fill the 1st 2 spots in the order. I actually hope so, or you are going to with about 4 darn weak bats in a row somewhere in the order.

#87 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:03 PM

Who is batting 1 and 2. If they aren't good, Mauer doesn't get to hit...much. Who is playing cenetrfield. We gave up two leadoff hitters for a number nine spot in the batting order. ho is at second and short. How will they play together,

Yes, the Twins are two starters away from having a rotation. And, don't forget, for all the grips of 2012, I felt we had a chance with Pavano, Baker, Blackburn, Liriano and Marquis (plus Swarzak/Duensing/Hendriks as backup). 4 of the 5 should've started 30+ games and thrown 200 innings and all win more games than they would lose. You would've thunk. But we all know what happened.

Right now, today, I would predict a Twins line-up of Benson, Carroll, Mauer, Willingham, Morneau, Doumit, Parmell, Plouffe, Florimon. A bench of Butera, Dozier, Mastro and someone undetermined.

A starting rotation of Worley, Diamond, Gibson/Hendriks and two guys to be determined.

A bullpen of Perkins, Burton, Duensing, Burnett, Robertson, Pressly, Roienke.

There are defense problems in the outfield and infield. They is still the clutch-hitting that plagued the team alst year. Without Revere and Casilla, the Twins lost a lot of stolen bases and MAYBE toe ability to make something extra happen in the gameplan.

If Morneau is traded, the Twins need an established outfielder. If Mauer would go, the Twins need a better-than-average catcher. Hopefully, both could bring some major-league ready bodies to the game (Mauer for 4 Red Sox, Morneau for a pitcher and a 4th outfielder or starting infielder). I can live with Parmelee at first. I can almost live with Doumit and another person catching (not Butera). I can't live with 2-3 rookies in the outfield (sorry Hicks, Arcia and Benson -- I still see Hicks one solid year away, and Arcia coming up early and learning and flaying on the job).

The Hot Stove season still has two solid months yet. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope the Twins can do something with $25-30 million. They have my money, I want to se them spend it rather than look at it!

#88 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,717 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:59 PM

My outlook on 2013 is greatly discouraged every time I hear how vital Jamey Carroll is so he can hit at the top of our lineup.

Just sayin.

#89 Kobs

Kobs

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 301 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:22 PM

Call me crazy, but I have a hard time considering a guy with a .343 OBP as "great" at getting on base.

I don't expect three OPSs over ..800 this season. Tough to win with that.

#90 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,155 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:24 PM

Not sure if you guys are aware of a potential BIZARRE change in the NFL, but it involves having like 4th and 25 or 30 at their own 30 or something after a touchdown or field goal. It's completely strange to think about a team punting after having just scored. The Twins have just scored and cannot be said to be punting. They are bound to now get Dempster or Marcum, or they could even get both if they go up to 25 million to spend.

The 2013 team is already a bit better with Worley than Revere anyway.