Three Teams

[Mike Sixel]

The difference in philosophy is seen as simply as looking at how the Twins are babying Berrios, and not using all their available assets THIS YEAR while they were in competition for the WC. They just said, like TR did in the past, "next year is more important".

[howieramone2]

 

This might be my biggest issue with the FO, an inability to react. They move so slowly, take no chances, and almost always defer to the stable veteran, than the upsided rookie. This is what breeds mediocrity. If something is not working, try something. Who knows, you might end up with more than one Tyler Duffy in a year? I may be wrong, but I think the era of 26 yr old rookies is coming to a close.

Would you be happy with Berrios and Duffey in a single draft?

[ThejacKmp]

 

It's pretty questionable how much value Hughes has in a trade today.  He's 29, pitched 200 innings once in his career, has a career ERA over 4, topped out with a 111 ERA+ in his best season, has posted below average ERAs in 3 of the last 6 seasons, currently has lingering and unresolved injury issues, and is owed $49M over the next four seasons.

 

BTW...Compare that to Hamels, who you don't want:  31 yrs old, has a LOW pt of a 104 ERA+ over the past six seasons and has been as high as a 152 ERA+ as recently as 2014, has pitched 200 or more innings in each of those seasons, and is owed 77M over the next three seasons (including his buyout).

 

It doesn't make sense to me that somehow Hamels would "cripple" the Twins, but Hughes is a bargain.

 

Yeah, Hughes costs less.  He SHOULD cost less.  A lot less.  

 

Hamels contract doesn't cripple the Twins since it's only three years, what they would pay in prospects would. If Hamels were a free agent, he would get a 6-7 year deal which would be irresponsible of the Twins to sign.

I would love to have Hamels, I just contend that as a trade target they'd be giving up too much and as a free agent the contract would be too long. Both of those are reasonable contentions.
 

[ThejacKmp]

 

Hughes was OUR #1 starter, but he was NOT a league #1 starter. Gibson was OUR full season #1 this year, but certainly not a league #1 type. Hughes MIGHT never be anymore than he was this year...it happens. Gibson might just be what he is the past few years, which is really good for periods and really bad for periods, averaging out to being okay. Santana can be as good as he was the last month, but I don't know that he can sustain it for a whole year, but at least he does have the talent. Duffey will likely regress as he gets scouted more, but I like what I see from him- probably a #3 upside over time. 

 

He was certainly one of the 30 best pitchers in the majors that year and a true #1 starter in every sense of the word. He finished 7th on the AL Cy Young ballots, had the 6th best FIP (better than Price and Lester) and had historic BB/9 and K to BB ratios. He may have been a flash in the pan but to not call him worthy of being a #1 starter is a disservice to a fine campaign.

 

Agreed on the lack of a #1 starter for the Twins. I doubt that Hughes will be a long-term #1 starter (we'd all settle for him being a #2/#3 type after this year frankly) and Gibson, Duffey, Santana are all #2s at best (and likely lower). So you're depending on either (A.) Berrios or Gonsalves or Thorpe to become a #1 starter or (B.) the more likely scenario where the Twins are like a poor man's version of this year's Cardinals team, which lacks that elite frontline presence but is a deep set of very good starters. I can't see the wisdom in the Twins singing the long-term deal aces get - maybe they could get a guy like Price who is a rental?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Probably not, but they don't have to. I like the back end of the Twins rotation more than the Cubs right now. But after learning the genius of Theo Epstein, he'll probably sign Mike Pelfrey and teach him how to control his splitter, leading to an all star appearance and Cy Young run.

 

Why do we have to bash Theo Epstein?  Are we so fragile in our confidence about Ryan that we can't admit there may be better GMs out there?

 

This just in....my loyalty to the Vikings doesn't change a bit if I tip my cap to Belichek.  Or to the Wolves if I tip my cap to Pop.  C'mon.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Interestingly, our previous GM Andy MacPhail has a lot of career parallels with Epstein.  Hired for his first GM job very young by a new ownership group, inherited a good core group of players, made a few moves to win a World Series, reloaded and won a second World Series a few years later, then moved on to bigger money/control (and potential rewards) leading the Cubs.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Probably not, but they don't have to. I like the back end of the Twins rotation more than the Cubs right now.

Really?  Kyle Hendricks, Jason Hammel, Travis Wood, maybe Tsuyoshi Wada, plus a few prospects -- I guess you could prefer the Twins 3-6 starters, but I can't see any way they make up for the likely massive gap between Arrieta-Lester and Duffey-Berrios.  Arriea might be the best pitcher on the planet right now, not just in quality but in quantity (durability) too.

 

And of course, the Cubs may go out and get another free agent SP too, which could make Lester a very nice #3.

[jimmer]

 

Really?  Kyle Hendricks, Jason Hammel, Travis Wood, maybe Tsuyoshi Wada, plus a few prospects -- I guess you could prefer the Twins 3-6 starters, but I can't see any way they make up for the likely massive gap between Arrieta-Lester and Duffey-Berrios.  Arriea might be the best pitcher on the planet right now, not just in quality but in quantity (durability) too.

 

And of course, the Cubs may go out and get another free agent SP too, which could make Lester a very nice #3.

yeah, I was surprised too.  Not sure I wouldn't prefer the backend of their rotation to the front end of our rotation

[dxpavelka]

 

You mean when the 73-win Cubs bought Maddon, Lester, and Montero to help jump start their return to contention?  That's precisely the opposite of the Twins "right way" to rebuilding.

Actually I was referring to them keeping Kriis Bryant in the minors at the start of the season not to them paying $20 million to a sub .500 starting pitcher or trading for a .248 hitting catcher.

[dxpavelka]

 

You mean when the 73-win Cubs bought Maddon, Lester, and Montero to help jump start their return to contention?  That's precisely the opposite of the Twins "right way" to rebuilding.

Actually I was referring to them keeping Kris Bryant in the minors at the start of the season not to them paying $20 million to a sub .500 starting pitcher or trading for a .248 hitting catcher.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Actually I was referring to them keeping Kriis Bryant in the minors at the start of the season not to them paying $20 million to a sub .500 starting pitcher or trading for a .248 hitting catcher.

Precise service time games aren't really part of the Twins "right way" either, see Joe Mauer 2004 or Miguel Sano this year (coming up 22 games after the assumed Super 2 date had passed).

 

But, pitcher wins and batting average FTW!  (By the way, in case you didn't notice, .248 is pretty close to league average these days, and when you add in some power and walks, it was actually a better overall hitting performance than even Suzuki's career high .288 AVG last year.)

[Platoon]

Would you be happy with Berrios and Duffey in a single draft?

I am not sure what you are referring to, but my comment was about calling them both up in the same year, not drafting them in the same year. I should have been more precise.

[Platoon]

Precise service time games aren't really part of the Twins "right way" either, see Joe Mauer 2004 or Miguel Sano this year (coming up 22 games after the assumed Super 2 date had passed).

 

But, pitcher wins and batting average FTW!  (By the way, in case you didn't notice, .248 is pretty close to league average these days, and when you add in some power and walks, it was actually a better overall hitting performance than even Suzuki's career high .288 AVG last year.)

The decline in BA was noted by one of the game announcers Thursday night in the Houston/KC game. What he said referred to BA and SO's: nowadays these guys come out of the bull pen, throwing mid to upper 90's! You just don't see the guy anymore in the upper 80's coming in to get through an inning! I sighed, and figured he apparently has not done any Twins games this year! Lol

[spinowner]

 

 

And minor quibble but it's "lo and behold". No biggie, just one of my pet peeves.

+1

[spinowner]

 

The Cubs won 14 more games the the Twins, there were lots of reasons why this happened not just Arrieta.... (Not as big as you want to make it out to be)

And one of the reasons was playing in the National League. I'm not saying the Twins would have had the same W-L record as the Cubs but I feel pretty confident they'd have won more games this year, especially if we'd been in the NL East. I think the Cubs would have been hard pressed to make the postseason in the AL.

[spinowner]

 

You think Berrios and Duffey are going to equal Lester and Arrietta next year?

Maybe not next year, but it will be interesting to compare Berrios and Duffey to Lester and Arrietta over the next 5 years. I think our two have a very good chance to outperform their two.

[jimmer]

 

And one of the reasons was playing in the National League. I'm not saying the Twins would have had the same W-L record as the Cubs but I feel pretty confident they'd have won more games this year, especially if we'd been in the NL East. I think the Cubs would have been hard pressed to make the postseason in the AL.

Cubs also played in the same division as the team with the best and second best record in baseball.  Twins get put in that division and, yeah, I doubt they have as good of a record as they did.

 

The AL was full of mediocre teams, so I doubt the Cubs would have missed the playoff this year if in the AL.  I imagine they would have at least won as many as they did (which put them 2 games ahead of best AL record) and maybe even more. Their pitching and hitting would have done well in the AL.  With their talent, I doubt they would have lost 11 more games and missed the playoff altogether.

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 

yeah, I was surprised too.  Not sure I wouldn't prefer the backend of their rotation to the front end of our rotation

The thing is, they, like other really good team, realize that only #1-3 starters matter when it counts. Regular season pitching staffs from two teams can have similar overall results $1-5(6) spread out differently, however The team that gets more results from their #1-3(4) are the team that is better set up to win in the post-season when it counts.

 

In a way, the playoff schedule is rigged in a way that favors teams that can afford to put a lot of money in top-end SP's #1-3. Teams like the Twins would be better off shuffling their rotation to pitch their best pitcher in game 2 or 3, while punting against aces. That way if you get lucky and beat the ace you are set up good for the rest of a series, but if you lose vs the ace who cares, you likely would have lost no matter who pitched. 

 

Anyway, #4-5 SP's aren't as big of a deal. If the Twins met the Cubs this year in the WS, they might as well throw Pelfrey out there vs Arrieta. 

[spinowner]

 

Cubs also played in the same division as the team with the best and second best record in baseball.  Twins get put in that division and, yeah, I doubt they have as good of a record as they did.

 

The AL was full of mediocre teams, so I doubt the Cubs would have missed the playoff this year if in the AL.

You think you see mediocrity in the AL but what was actually there is parity. The Cubs played 38 games against the Pirates and the Cardinals. They played 104 against the rest of the NL, which had 7 of the 8 worst teams in MLB. 2 of those 7 are in their division. The AL Central had a winning record against the NL Central. I think they'd have had difficulty finishing ahead of the Astros.

[jimmer]

 

You think you see mediocrity in the AL but what was actually there is parity. The Cubs played 38 games against the Pirates and the Cardinals. They played 104 against the rest of the NL, which had 7 of the 8 worst teams in MLB. 2 of those 7 are in their division. I think they'd have had difficulty finishing ahead of the Astros.

I think I'll stick with the mediocrity description.  Looking at the teams themselves, very mediocre indeed.  Two really good teams, the rest ho-hum.

[USAFChief]

Maybe not next year, but it will be interesting to compare Berrios and Duffey to Lester and Arrietta over the next 5 years. I think our two have a very good chance to outperform their two.

Maybe so, but that wasn't the context of the claim.

[spinowner]

 

Maybe so, but that wasn't the context of the claim.

I realize that. I was just speculating about the future.

[spinowner]

 

I think I'll stick with the mediocrity description.  Looking at the teams themselves, very mediocre indeed.  Two really good teams, the rest ho-hum.

I think we are having an agree-to-disagree moment.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think I'll stick with the mediocrity description. Looking at the teams themselves, very mediocre indeed. Two really good teams, the rest ho-hum.

While I hate to argue whether the Cubs would be better or worse in the AL - I think it's a dumb argument because the Cubs would build a different roster if they played in the AL - I think "mediocre" in the AL translates to "decent" in the NL.

 

The two leagues simply aren't playing on the same level because one has a distinct rule advantage. There's a reason the AL clobbers the NL pretty much every year.

[spinowner]

 

The two leagues simply aren't playing on the same level because one has a distinct rule advantage. There's a reason the AL clobbers the NL pretty much every year.

What rule advantage? The teams play by the same rules when they play each other. And most of the opinions I've read are that it's easier for NL teams to adapt to playing with the DH than it is for AL teams to adapt to playing without it. I think it's much more likely that the AL clobbers the NL pretty much every year (every year for the last twelve, in fact) because AL teams have had better players.

[jorgenswest]

Twins were 8-12 against NL Central this year. Overal central v central was 51-49 in favor of AL central. No significant difference.

 

There might be a difference of a few wins if they were in the AL, but the Cubs performed significantly better than the Twins this year. Does anything else matter?

[bird]

 

Yeah, because of who the GM was.

 

 

Oh, yes, I remember that distinctly. The Twins called Maddon, who said "Gee, I'd jump at the chance to manage the Twins, except that Terry Ryan guy. Yuck. So, heck, I guess I'll have to go with my second choice."

 

 

[howieramone2]

Our friends next door at Twinkie Town are running a GM approval poll, and TR has an approval rate of 77% at this time. Pretty clear indication that the millions of knowlegeable and loyal Twins fans, consider TR to continue to be the savior of our favorite team.

 

I would encourage you to read the members comments. You can't help but notice the lack of innuendo, myth building, and conspiracy theories. The membership appears to be constrained by the truth, and attach a great deal of significance to personal credibility.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Our friends next door at Twinkie Town are running a GM approval poll, and TR has an approval rate of 77% at this time. Pretty clear indication that the millions of knowlegeable and loyal Twins fans, consider TR to continue to be the savior of our favorite team.

 

By millions, you mean 800 people right?

 

It's also possible for a person to generally approve of what he's done and still say that there are others doing better.  And/or that he may not be the right guy going forward.

 

Those aren't mutually exclusive positions.

[Broker]

We seem to be acting like the Cubs are some kind of perenial powerhouse. While looking good now they haven't won a WS for 108 years.