Jump to content

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

Wolfson: Starting pitching on the Twins' radar

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 09:12 AM

Career ERA+ for Nolasco is 94, for Vargas it's 91.

#22 Brandon

Brandon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,490 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 09:42 AM

Ubaldo is the only one likely to cost 15 million or so per season. Nolasco and maybe Ubaldo are the only ones worth 4 years on a contract. If the Twins sign one of these and another one like Vargas or Hughes at 8-10 million on a short term contract 1-3 seasons then They won't break the bank to sign these guys. I would be surprised if they get Nolasco or Ubaldo.

So we could have a rotation of:
Nolasco
Vargas
Deduno
Correia
Gibson/Pelfry
with a bunch of capable 6th and 7th starters Albers/ Diamond/ Worely/ Hendriks/ Meyer and more...

#23 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 09:54 AM

Nolasco is going to get at least 3 years. And it's going to be a disaster for whoever signs him.

#24 Willihammer

Willihammer

    Nostrombolimus

  • Members
  • 7,252 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 02 November 2013 - 11:09 AM

Roberto Hernandez is worth a call IMO. Coming off a career low BB rate and career high K%. Over a run difference in xFIP to ERA, good candidate for regression.

#25 goulik

goulik

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,438 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 11:49 AM

In our complaints, let's not forget that Correia, While average at best was our best pitcher and costs less than Blackburn. If we sign some big names, Correia does fit nicely as a #3. He started slow but his final numbers were better than we expected and his contract is quite reasonable for what it brings...

Any of these would improve the rotation so I am in as long as it makes long term and short term sense numbers wise

#26 Jeremy Nygaard

Jeremy Nygaard

    Twins Draft Czar

  • Twins Database Managers
  • 2,985 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 12:18 PM

If Santana performs, sacrificing a second rounder is a no brainer, even in a deep draft, but given his history, is Santana worth that price?


The "depth" of the 2014 draft is being over-stated. Last year the top tier was 3-4 guys, followed by 8-9 guys, followed by about 30 other guys that could be first rounders.

Obviously it's early, but right now that top tier is looking deeper (maybe 7-8 guys) followed by a dozen or so guys, followed by very few guys that are getting first round grades.

If there is an offseason preceding a draft where I would advocate burning a 2nd round pick to sign a FA - based solely on early reports - it would be this one.

#27 Wookiee of the Year

Wookiee of the Year

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 12:48 PM

If we sign some big names, Correia does fit nicely as a #3. He started slow but his final numbers were better than we expected and his contract is quite reasonable for what it brings...

Honestly, that's not how I remember it at all. I remember Correia getting off to a strong start, but then his numbers bounced back to typical for his career. (A quick search gives me this from Aaron Gleeman on 8/8: "Kevin Correia has a 5.90 ERA and .329 opponents' batting average in 17 starts since May 1.") Not that he can't function as a back-of-the-rotation arm--you're right, he can hold down that fort for another year.

The "depth" of the 2014 draft is being over-stated. Last year the top tier was 3-4 guys, followed by 8-9 guys, followed by about 30 other guys that could be first rounders.

Obviously it's early, but right now that top tier is looking deeper (maybe 7-8 guys) followed by a dozen or so guys, followed by very few guys that are getting first round grades.

If there is an offseason preceding a draft where I would advocate burning a 2nd round pick to sign a FA - based solely on early reports - it would be this one.

Thanks for this assessment. Honestly, I love this kind of analysis--the sort of "is this the year to..." questions. (I find myself wondering what next year's FA Starting Pitching market looks like--how easy will it be to continue building then? What does that say about how aggressive the Twins should be this year?)

#28 goulik

goulik

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,438 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 02:59 PM

I had to look Correias numbers but When I said started slowly I was simply remembering he finished strong the last couple months. Correia ERA by month. (ESPN.go.com MLB splits)
April 2.23
May 6.26
June 4.29
July 6.18
August 3.60
September 3.48

#29 Wookiee of the Year

Wookiee of the Year

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:30 PM

I had to look Correias numbers but When I said started slowly I was simply remembering he finished strong the last couple months. Correia ERA by month. (ESPN.go.com MLB splits)
April 2.23
May 6.26
June 4.29
July 6.18
August 3.60
September 3.48

Ah--thanks for providing the breakdown. I hadn't realized Correia turned it around so much in August and September. It's funny how much sequencing has to do with how good a year we think someone had. In 2012, Willingham got off to a hot start, then had a good but not great year. Jamey Carroll started very cold but actually played quite well in August and September. While people remember 2012 as a great year for Willingham, few think of Carroll as providing much value that same year.

#30 MinnesotaMike

MinnesotaMike

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 06:49 PM

It is fun to speculate, but seriously? The Twins will throw out enough rumors to stoke the hot stove fire but at the end of the day, they are planning and have planned all along to stand at the end of the line and pick from the remaining junk that no one else wanted.

#31 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,374 posts
  • LocationThe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 03 November 2013 - 01:58 PM

You know how you feel about Nolasco?

I feel that way about Santana. Times two.

I think he's going to be a dreadful signing. Too old, too inconsistent, coming off a very good year. He's going to be a bad value.

I'd rather give four years to Hughes than four years to Santana.


The only difference between Santana and Nolasco in my opinion is the price and I think Santana has more upside to go with the risk. I don't necessarily disagree with you, which is why I posted my question. Santana is going to get 4-5 years at 15-18ish per year from someone, and that someone will give up a second rounder or a late first round pick. I think the word here is trepidation. I'd rather go after Tanaka or Hughes.