Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store

Recent Blogs


Photo

The Twins have had one of the worst 5 offeseasons so far???

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#31 Joe A. Preusser

Joe A. Preusser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 725 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 01:25 PM

The more I looked at this article, the more I'm reminded of a few papers I wrote in college. You know, the ones that I started the day before they were due and stayed up all night long to craft. Rambling, illogical, often contradictory, netting me a C if I was lucky. No thought, no research, or worse, made up research. Pretty font, slightly narrower margins and wider spacing to cloud the eyes and pad length.

Basically a waste of time, energy and space for me and the poor prof. who had to grade it.

#32 B Richard

B Richard

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 520 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 01:50 PM

Poor article, irresponsible at best.

If you aren't a big fan of judging players by OPS+ to measure hitting skills, consider Ellsbury has only posted a WRC+ of 100 or more just twice in his career.
[SIZE=2]Bring a song and a smile for the banjo,
Better get while the gettin's good
Catch a ride to the end of the highway
Where the neons turn to wood[/SIZE]

#33 Tibs

Tibs

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 792 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 02:41 PM

Maybe the writer is a White Sox fan?
I couldn't be a player because of bad eyesight, so I decided to be an umpire instead.

#34 thetank

thetank

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 30 December 2013 - 02:46 PM

Poor article, irresponsible at best.

If you aren't a big fan of judging players by OPS+ to measure hitting skills, consider Ellsbury has only posted a WRC+ of 100 or more just twice in his career.


Yankees overpaid for Ellsbury and Beltran. Beltran has declined in the 2nd half in the past 2 years and his range is limited in the OF.

The Twins haven't replaced Morneau's bat.

#35 Oxtung

Oxtung

    I don't skinny dip. I chunky dunk.

  • Members
  • 1,523 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 03:39 AM

Without getting into his analysis of other teams, that I don't know well enough to comment on, I found his Twins blurb to have a lot of merit. Many posters seem to be glossing over his intent and skipping straight to the number of the ranking.

He writes that we are hoping that Nolasco, Hughes and Pelfrey all improve. Well, how many people here have commented that they hope Hughes will be better after getting out of Yankee Stadium or that he is still young enough to learn? Aren't many of us hoping that Pelfrey has a bounce back a second year after TJ surgery? Aren't we hoping that Nolasco is the 2013 version with his 101 ERA+ instead of the '09-12 version with an 87 ERA+?

That seems like a lot of wishing for improvement to me and yet the most likely outcome is that they remain who they have been for their whole careers. If that happens we will have a rotation filled with back half of the rotation pitchers that are signed for years to come.

It is clear that the Twins could have a potent lineup as early as 2015 if everything fits together perfectly. Yet that will mean very little without great starting pitching. His point seems to be that if you're going to hope and take a risk, then do so on players that have a legitimate shot at being a great starting pitcher. A player that could be slotted into the front of the rotation when the Twins young bats arrive because they have precious few arms that fit that description arriving from the minors in the next year or two. If you don't like Tanaka, fine, there are other pitchers who fit his description of "hope and risk".

If you can get past his ranking and who he names specifically as upgrades and drill down to his larger points I think he brings up a very valid point of view.

#36 stringer bell

stringer bell

    Manager-in-Waiting

  • Twins News Team
  • 4,352 posts
  • LocationZumbrota MN

Posted 31 December 2013 - 05:23 AM

I think it is safe to say that the acquisition of three free agent starters this winter has raised the floor considerably for starting pitching in 2014. None of the four acquired in the last two years profiles as an ace or even a number 2. With about five candidates to fill out the rotation out of Spring Training and a top prospect (Meyer) getting close, I think it can be reasonably expected that the Twins starting numbers will be quite a bit better, but quite a bit better might still land the Twins in the bottom quadrant of starting pitchers. How much value does one give for going from 29th to 22nd?

Meanwhile, most of the offensive issues haven't been addressed. The Twins are hoping for young and youngish players to establish themselves and for veterans to bounce back. Yes, help in on the horizon, but 2014 looks a lot like the year I foresaw for 2013--transition with a bright future probably a year away--and it doesn't look promising that the Twins will contend in the coming year.

#37 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,046 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 10:33 AM

This is my favorite aspect of the article(s). The Rays retained a 2.7 WAR first baseman, a guy coming off his best season since 2007. They, uh, picked up a couple of relievers as well. Relievers. Yay.

Great pickups, obviously the second best in all of MLB this offseason! Because the Rays are GREAT! Obviously, retaining Loney was smart because the Rays are smart, right? Right? There's no way a smart team could make a bad bet on a guy after a bounceback season. That's unpossible.


I'm sure the article is bad and don't intend to read it, but your criticism of the Loney deal could easily be applied to the Nolasco deal (particularly if you prefer ERA+/rWAR to FIP/fWAR). Our biggest/best acquisition was a 1.8 WAR SP (about the same as Correia last year) who just had his best season since 2008.

This offseason looks great compared to past poor FA offseasons, and it looks pretty good considering how awful our SP has been the past two years. But objectively, it looks like we've just removed a few negative value players, rather than truly adding any plus value guys. Considering the Twins position, that's not necessarily bad, but I probably wouldn't rank their offseason yet as anything more than middle of the pack.

#38 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,046 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 10:45 AM

Without getting into his analysis of other teams, that I don't know well enough to comment on, I found his Twins blurb to have a lot of merit.

Good points! Much better stated than my post above. :)

#39 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,937 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 03:44 PM

I'm sure the article is bad and don't intend to read it, but your criticism of the Loney deal could easily be applied to the Nolasco deal (particularly if you prefer ERA+/rWAR to FIP/fWAR). Our biggest/best acquisition was a 1.8 WAR SP (about the same as Correia last year) who just had his best season since 2008.

This offseason looks great compared to past poor FA offseasons, and it looks pretty good considering how awful our SP has been the past two years. But objectively, it looks like we've just removed a few negative value players, rather than truly adding any plus value guys. Considering the Twins position, that's not necessarily bad, but I probably wouldn't rank their offseason yet as anything more than middle of the pack.


Which is fine. Personally, I'd rank the Twins offseason somewhere in the 8-12 range because they improved so much from last season, which isn't saying much but it IS an improvement.

I have no issues with someone questioning the Twins' offseason and not ranking it near the top of the league. I have issues with a guy who ranks the Twins #26 and the Rays #2 because that is, well... it's damned ridiculous, that's what it is.

#40 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,318 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 09:45 PM

The Tigers, Rays and Yankees have not had good offseasons so far.

The Rays gave multiple years to Loney and signed Dejesus to an extension. And the Yankees have spent most of the their money without getting one starter (other than Kuroda) if they actually plan to stay under the luxury tax (talked about for years). And they will be starting Kelly Johnson and Eduardo Nunez in the infield.


The Yankees might be a bit of a stretch at #5, but maybe not too far from that #. Like the contract for Ellsbury long-term, or not, they got huge upgrades in 2014 with the premiere OF on the FA market, another big OF bat that plays every day and is well-familiar with the New York media from his many years with the Mets...... and the premiere FA C signing with them, as well as retaining Kuroda.

They've already made it clear that they are going to completely ignore the International signing restrictions for 2014-15, so there's no reason to think that they will abide by their supposed self-imposed luxury tax limit...therefore no one should be surprised when they end up getting at least one of the 3 best SPs on the market, and quite possibly 2, especially if Arod serves the whole 211 game suspension.

Kelly Johnson isn't great, but as a dead pull lefty, the short porch in RF should serve him quite well- the overall production will certainly be down at 2B, but he is fully capable of beating the 99 OPS+ that he got in 2013, which should translate to 20+ HRs in Yankee Stadium. And Nunez won't be going into the season as a starter on the depth chart, the Yankees will surely sign a veteran or make a trade before that happens. With the possible return of strong production from a fully healthy Tex and Ivan Nova for a whole season and plenty of potential excess trading chips in the OF and DH, the Yankees aren't that far away.

Edited by jokin, 01 January 2014 - 12:21 AM.


#41 howeda7

howeda7

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 414 posts

Posted 01 January 2014 - 02:25 PM

Phil Rogers ranks the Twins in the top 5. Shows how much these lists are worth.

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...0&vkey=news_mlb

#42 amjgt

amjgt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 540 posts

Posted 01 January 2014 - 04:35 PM

Nothing annoys me more than talking about how much money was spent (84M on three pitchers) without putting in context how many years it was for. It's just so lazy and meaningless.

The bottom 5 (or bottom 10 really) should be reserved for teams that regressed since the end of the season. Say what you will about the Twins signings, but I think very few would say that they have regressed. By definition that should at least put them in the middle of the pack.