So what exactly do we do about the catcher spot?

[amjgt]

I'd say it's more likely we are 90 loss team this year than a 100 loss team.

[SF Twins Fan]

 

I think Thros makes a very good point that a 100 loss team is not a Catcher and a SP away from contention.  However, this is also not the same team that started the season so poorly.  That team could not score runs. 

 

Dozier was horrible.  It is obvious that Bruno/Dozier have made the right adjustments and this is a different Dozier.   He is hitting the ball to the opposite field with authority.
Kepler is a net new add.  He is a big plus offensively and defensively. 
Even Mauer has improved.  He is no longer a one trick pony to left field
Grossman’s OBP is a plus
Santiago will be a plus in the rotation. 

Vargas looks like a different player.  His approach is much better.
Taylor Rogers is looking like part of the solution

 

IT’s not the same team that was on a 100 loss projection.  They have been playing over 500 for a while now.  Having said this, I still think your point is completely valid.  The team has some development to do before we fill needs through major FA signings.

 

I couldn't agree more with this and it's why for the most part I think the Twins should stand pat this offseason.  The FA pool is really bad this year for starting pitching and catching. I'd try and sign one of the FA's to a 1 year deal to give Garver, Stuart and Murphy more time at either AA or AAA.  I'd go into next season with the following rotation:

 

1. Berrios

2. Santana

3. Gibson

4. Santiago

5. Duffey, Mejia or someone else.

 

It has the makings of a solid rotation - definitely not great but solid. Like many other people have mentioned there are also 4 very good prospects that have moved up to AA and are having some success. I'd like to see what these 4 prospects have to offer the rest of the season and next season before I'd make a splash and try to find the Ace for the staff.  Who knows maybe Berrios and 1 of these guys turns into that Ace.

[Taildragger8791]

 

I couldn't agree more with this and it's why for the most part I think the Twins should stand pat this offseason.  The FA pool is really bad this year for starting pitching and catching. I'd try and sign one of the FA's to a 1 year deal to give Garver, Stuart and Murphy more time at either AA or AAA.  I'd go into next season with the following rotation:

 

1. Berrios

2. Santana

3. Gibson

4. Santiago

5. Duffey, Mejia or someone else.

 

It has the makings of a solid rotation - definitely not great but solid. Like many other people have mentioned there are also 4 very good prospects that have moved up to AA and are having some success. I'd like to see what these 4 prospects have to offer the rest of the season and next season before I'd make a splash and try to find the Ace for the staff.  Who knows maybe Berrios and 1 of these guys turns into that Ace.

 

I don't think you have a choice but to go into next year with those rotation candidates, since you don't want to block prospects, but I'm not going to pretend that isn't a rocky rotation either. You'd be fortunate to get 2 pitchers under a 4.00 ERA and one pitcher under 3.50. Santiago is a wildcard but we'll get a good look this year to evaluate him. But Gibson and your #5 are likely to be adventures who could need replacing, and you'll need another prospect or two ready at that point. That could cost a lot of games while it shuffles out. Next year is a big development year for our pitching, similar to what our hitting has been going through lately.

[spinowner]

Haven't read the thread yet but I think our best chance is to hope that after a down year Murphy comes back to where he was projected when we traded for him.

[Mr. Brooks]

I couldn't agree more with this and it's why for the most part I think the Twins should stand pat this offseason. The FA pool is really bad this year for starting pitching and catching. I'd try and sign one of the FA's to a 1 year deal to give Garver, Stuart and Murphy more time at either AA or AAA. I'd go into next season with the following rotation:

 

1. Berrios

2. Santana

3. Gibson

4. Santiago

5. Duffey, Mejia or someone else.

 

It has the makings of a solid rotation - definitely not great but solid. Like many other people have mentioned there are also 4 very good prospects that have moved up to AA and are having some success. I'd like to see what these 4 prospects have to offer the rest of the season and next season before I'd make a splash and try to find the Ace for the staff. Who knows maybe Berrios and 1 of these guys turns into that Ace.

I disagree big time.

When I look at that rotation I see another pretty terrible rotation. Bottom 3 or 4 in all of baseball most likely.

 

Berrios has a good chance to be a great pitcher. But, he's still going to have ups and downs next year, he's only going to be 23 then.

He is a future 2, but best case for next year is he probably pitches like a 3.

 

Ervin can be a 4, if he continues to pitch like he has this year, but at his age that is no guarantee.

 

Santiago, I really don't know. If he truly is a guy who outperforms his FIP, then great, he's a solid 4 or fringe 3. If he regresses to his peripherals, then he's Nolasco. And not decent NL, in his prime Nolasco, but Twins dumpster fire Nolasco.

 

Duffey and Gibson are fringe 5's/AAAA guys. Yeah, yeah, I keep being told that Gibbs isn't REALLY as bad as he looks, or has just been unlucky, or is pitching through an injury.

That might all be true, but the guy is pushing 30. This is who he is, IMO. He's barely a MLB pitcher.

 

Now if a new GM comes in and shakes things up, who knows. But, the rotation you listed, yuck.

[Mike Sixel]

How is someone not yet 29 pushing 30?

 

He has 14 starts this year.

He has 7 with 3 or less earned runs given up.

He has 4 with 4 earned runs given up.

He has 3 with more than 4 given up.

 

At that ratio, he's no borderline 5........I'm sorry, he's just not that bad.

[Mr. Brooks]

How is someone not yet 29 pushing 30?

 

He has 14 starts this year.

He has 7 with 3 or less earned runs given up.

He has 4 with 4 earned runs given up.

He has 3 with more than 4 given up.

 

At that ratio, he's no borderline 5........I'm sorry, he's just not that bad.

He has a career ERA of 4.5 and near 5 this year. If that's not the definition of a fringe number 5, I'm sorry I don't know what is.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'd say it's more likely we are 90 loss team this year than a 100 loss team.

Yeah. After a horrendous start, the Twins are right around .500 over their past 65 games.

 

I think people are letting that atrocious start cloud what this team *should* have been from the outset and what they have been over the past 3-ish months.

[Mr. Brooks]

Yeah. After a horrendous start, the Twins are right around .500 over their past 65 games.

 

I think people are letting that atrocious start cloud what this team *should* have been from the outset and what they have been over the past 3-ish months.

Looking at the various adjusted standings on baseball prospectus, the Twins "should" have between a .433 and .450 winning percentage for the season, depending on which model used.

So, I would agree, it's probably safe to call them a 91 loss team (splitting the difference between .433 and .450) rather than a 100 loss team.

Either way, not good. And that awful start wasn't completely luck based.

They had some unlucky RISP numbers, but also they just played bad, and made poor decisions.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Looking at the various adjusted standings on baseball prospectus, the Twins "should" have between a .433 and .450 winning percentage for the season, depending on which model used.

So, I would agree, it's probably safe to call them a 91 loss team (splitting the difference between .433 and .450) rather than a 100 loss team.

Either way, not good. And that awful start wasn't completely luck based.

They had some unlucky RISP numbers, but also they just played bad, and made poor decisions.

In no way was that post meant to absolve the front office of their bad decisions.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

He has a career ERA of 4.5 and near 5 this year. If that's not the definition of a fringe number 5, I'm sorry I don't know what is.

 

Sometimes I wonder if people need to adjust expectations.  Using qualified pitchers, there are only 65 pitchers with ERA's at 4.5 or under. League average ERA, by the way, for starting pitchers in 2016 currently sits at 4.31. 

 

I wouldn't call that a number 3, but considering there's only 88 qualified players (out of essentially 150 positions), that ought to tell you what a number 5 really puts up. 

[SF Twins Fan]

 

I disagree big time.
When I look at that rotation I see another pretty terrible rotation. Bottom 3 or 4 in all of baseball most likely.

Berrios has a good chance to be a great pitcher. But, he's still going to have ups and downs next year, he's only going to be 23 then.
He is a future 2, but best case for next year is he probably pitches like a 3.

Ervin can be a 4, if he continues to pitch like he has this year, but at his age that is no guarantee.

Santiago, I really don't know. If he truly is a guy who outperforms his FIP, then great, he's a solid 4 or fringe 3. If he regresses to his peripherals, then he's Nolasco. And not decent NL, in his prime Nolasco, but Twins dumpster fire Nolasco.

Duffey and Gibson are fringe 5's/AAAA guys. Yeah, yeah, I keep being told that Gibbs isn't REALLY as bad as he looks, or has just been unlucky, or is pitching through an injury.
That might all be true, but the guy is pushing 30. This is who he is, IMO. He's barely a MLB pitcher.

Now if a new GM comes in and shakes things up, who knows. But, the rotation you listed, yuck.

 

 

So who do you suggest the Twins go after? I don't want to overspend on any of the FA's and to trade for a MLB ready Ace (i.e. Chris Sale type pitcher) is going to require multiple top 10 prospects and then a few others in the top 30. I just don't see a point in doing that when the Twins still have a lot of growing pains they're going to go through next season. As many people have pointed out they aren't a SP and C away from contending.  If the Twins can get adequate pitching next year, with an improving offense, what looks like an improving bullpen (Chagois and Hildenberger) and improving defense they should be a fringe playoff chase team.  Plus by the trade deadline next season they should have a better understanding of the timeline for the 4 pitchers at AA.  Maybe one of them is ready down the stretch or maybe you realize you can trade one of them for a pitcher at the trade deadline. 

 

I feel like the offseason after 2017 is when the Twins should make a splash for pitching or whatever positions they need to fill. The team will still be very young and on the verge of entering their prime.

[Mr. Brooks]

Sometimes I wonder if people need to adjust expectations. Using qualified pitchers, there are only 65 pitchers with ERA's at 4.5 or under. League average ERA, by the way, for starting pitchers in 2016 currently sits at 4.31.

 

I wouldn't call that a number 3, but considering there's only 88 qualified players (out of essentially 150 positions), that ought to tell you what a number 5 really puts up.

Using your numbers, 74% of qualified pitchers have an ERA under 4.50. On a 5 man rotation, The first 4 starters would be 80% of the rotation. So, it appears that 4.50 is almost exactly the cutoff from 4 to 5.

So yeah, using his career numbers he's a bad 4 or good 5. But he's going the wrong way this year. His next start could put him over 5.00 ERA.

Personally, I'd be looking to improve on a guy in the 4.50 to 5.00 ERA range.

[Mr. Brooks]

So who do you suggest the Twins go after? I don't want to overspend on any of the FA's and to trade for a MLB ready Ace (i.e. Chris Sale type pitcher) is going to require multiple top 10 prospects and then a few others in the top 30. I just don't see a point in doing that when the Twins still have a lot of growing pains they're going to go through next season. As many people have pointed out they aren't a SP and C away from contending. If the Twins can get adequate pitching next year, with an improving offense, what looks like an improving bullpen (Chagois and Hildenberger) and improving defense they should be a fringe playoff chase team. Plus by the trade deadline next season they should have a better understanding of the timeline for the 4 pitchers at AA. Maybe one of them is ready down the stretch or maybe you realize you can trade one of them for a pitcher at the trade deadline.

 

I feel like the offseason after 2017 is when the Twins should make a splash for pitching or whatever positions they need to fill. The team will still be very young and on the verge of entering their prime.

 

I'm patient enough to watch another bad year or two, so long as I feel there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

So, I wouldn't advocate committing big money or prospects this winter.

I would pick up 1 or 2 buy low, 1 year, make good type starters.

 

Also, a GM from outside the organization gets us May in the rotation. That is a nice upgrade right off the bat, IMO.

[DocBauer]

Yeah. After a horrendous start, the Twins are right around .500 over their past 65 games.

I think people are letting that atrocious start cloud what this team *should* have been from the outset and what they have been over the past 3-ish months.

Agree 100%. I'd like this post more than once if I could. I'm not going to bring up the whole good luck bad luck arguement again. And I dont want to get in to another debate about the construction of the team and the now gone TR. But this team has actually been playing decent ball the past 2 months despite some holsx, roster shuffling, and the influx of more and more young players. And I do think it's time to concentrate forward, not backward, and worry less about 90-100 loses but rather how things are going NOW.

 

I really like our 4 man OF, and there's more on the way. Sano is a stud in the making, but a work in progress defensively. A healthy Escobar is at ,East solid at SS with a quality bat. We've seen it the past 2 years, and healthy and playing again, I think we're begining to see it now as well. Dozier is still good. Very excited to see the young and talented Polanco up and playing. (And hitting) We have a logjam and some questions at 1B/DH, but at least it looks like we have some possibles to work with.

 

I know some will disagree with me, but I don't dislike Santana, Berrios, Gibson, Santiago in the rotation with May, Duffey, Mejia and maybe Wheeler as candidates. It's not where it needs to be, but I feel a hell of a lot better about those guys than Correia, Nolasco, Milone and others we've marched out to the hill in past years.

 

IF May is in the bullpen after all, we could be going in to next spring training with 5 of 7 spots virtually set: May, Tonkin, Pressly, Chargois and Rogers.

 

The one hole, the bite in the butt is at catcher. I'm high on Garver, that's obvious. And I hope he's up in September. But I just don't know if he's ready for a full time ML job come '17. That feels forced to me. But I'm just not sure what the right answer is.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Using your numbers, 74% of qualified pitchers have an ERA under 4.50. On a 5 man rotation, The first 4 starters would be 80% of the rotation. So, it appears that 4.50 is almost exactly the cutoff from 4 to 5.
So yeah, using his career numbers he's a bad 4 or good 5. But he's going the wrong way this year. His next start could put him over 5.00 ERA.
Personally, I'd be looking to improve on a guy in the 4.50 to 5.00 ERA range.

 

Except "qualified" is stupid, imo.....there aren't even close to 150 qualified starting pitchers every year.

Right now there are all of 91 qualified pitchers.......

[amjgt]

 

Looking at the various adjusted standings on baseball prospectus, the Twins "should" have between a .433 and .450 winning percentage for the season, depending on which model used.
So, I would agree, it's probably safe to call them a 91 loss team (splitting the difference between .433 and .450) rather than a 100 loss team.
Either way, not good. And that awful start wasn't completely luck based.
They had some unlucky RISP numbers, but also they just played bad, and made poor decisions.

 

Yep. That was my point. It might seem like splitting hairs and someone could say "well, what's the difference... we're bad".... But, two years ago we were a 90 loss team, and last year we were in contention. Why can't we be a 90 loss team this year, who's in contention (80-85 wins) next year?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yep. That was my point. It might seem like splitting hairs and someone could say "well, what's the difference... we're bad".... But, two years ago we were a 90 loss team, and last year we were in contention. Why can't we be a 90 loss team this year, who's in contention (80-85 wins) next year?

 

What are the odds of that? I mean, it can happen, but how likely is it?

[Craig Arko]

 

What are the odds of that? I mean, it can happen, but how likely is it?

Zero if you give up on it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Zero if you give up on it.

 

You sure? I mean, is Santana really the delta between the playoffs and not the playoffs? That is what is being tossed out there......

 

I get your point, and in no way should they "give up" on next year, OTOH, teams that keep veterans to keep from stinking tend to have longer, slower, rebuilds than teams that acquire as much young talent as they can, imo.

[Taildragger8791]

 

he

How is someone not yet 29 pushing 30?

 

He has 14 starts this year.

He has 7 with 3 or less earned runs given up.

He has 4 with 4 earned runs given up.

He has 3 with more than 4 given up.

 

At that ratio, he's no borderline 5........I'm sorry, he's just not that bad.

 

That's a misleading way to look at it because he often gets pulled after 5 or 6 innings when he's struggling, limiting the damage. 4 earned runs is workable if you go 7-8 innings, but hurts when it's only over 5 or 6 and he's turning it over to the bullpen with runners on base. He's made it through 7 innings 3 times this year.

 

He's a borderline #4 or #5 on a good team when he's going well and has a good defense to vacuum up all the contact he gives up. But he hasn't reached that level consistently other than a decent 2015. A winning team would have a plan for 4 pitchers better than him and be keeping an eye out for a replacement in the event he turns into a human Juggs machine again.

[Taildragger8791]

 

Sometimes I wonder if people need to adjust expectations.  Using qualified pitchers, there are only 65 pitchers with ERA's at 4.5 or under. League average ERA, by the way, for starting pitchers in 2016 currently sits at 4.31. 

 

I wouldn't call that a number 3, but considering there's only 88 qualified players (out of essentially 150 positions), that ought to tell you what a number 5 really puts up. 

 

The issue with league-wide stats is 1/3 to 1/2 of teams aren't playoff caliber and drag down the numbers. If you're looking to compete you need to look at the teams in contention and match up with what they have. I don't have time to research today but I'm guessing they don't fill most of their staff with 4.31+ ERAs.

 

On a good team even a number 5 should give you a chance to win most nights. Gibson does that every 3rd or 4th start, maybe, but most nights is giving up 4 runs over 5-6 innings and leaving with runners on base. Hard to win those games (unless you're playing the Indians and have a Max Kepler).

[Rosterman]

I could see Garver and Murphy splitting the catching role next year. One working on being a regular catcher, the other learning. But then the question is...who is the abckup in the minors if a call up is needed. (Someone ahs to make 24-27 outs in a game...you can have a weak lineup spot).

 

I am not sold on Gibson longterm and would've actively tried to trade him this alst off season when his value was high. Right now, he is hurting himself and his future.

 

My definition of a #1 starter is someone who takes the ball every five days, pitches 200 solid innings a year, is consistent and gives one a chance to win.

 

After spring training, I was having high hopes that the rotation of Santana, Gibson, Hughes, Nolasco and Duffy would get us into the 7th inning more often than not. Plus we had Milone as #6 and Berrios as #7. 

 

None of that happened. Santana has upped his game, even though he doesn't really have to. Secretly, I think he was hoping to be flipped to a contender. (Wouldn't you?) 

 

It was a tough first half of the season with the hitting thriving at one time and the pitching thriving at another. Sometimes good pitching can win games and, as we saw with the Indians, good hitting (we could've lost all three with the way the starters were pitching).

 

Back to

 catching. We keep Suzuki if no one will give us anything for him. But at some point we have to see what Murphy can do for us...and I would add Garver to the 40-man and get him up in September, if nothing else to just catch guys in the bullpen with a few late inning defensive replacement appearances if need be. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

That's a misleading way to look at it because he often gets pulled after 5 or 6 innings when he's struggling, limiting the damage. 4 earned runs is workable if you go 7-8 innings, but hurts when it's only over 5 or 6 and he's turning it over to the bullpen with runners on base. He's made it through 7 innings 3 times this year.

 

He's a borderline #4 or #5 on a good team when he's going well and has a good defense to vacuum up all the contact he gives up. But he hasn't reached that level consistently other than a decent 2015. A winning team would have a plan for 4 pitchers better than him and be keeping an eye out for a replacement in the event he turns into a human Juggs machine again.

 

It's misleading to point out that in half his starts he's good? And in 25% of his starts he's not good, and in 25% he's bad? How so?

 

I can't understand the dislike for Gibson. 

 

As for "only good in 1 year"....he's been in the majors all of three (full time)....and it's not like 2014 was bad, it was about league average.....

 

How many pitchers have been better than him over the last 3 years?

 

Of qualified pitchers? fWAR? 52 have been better than him over the last 3 years.......He's almost exactly a MLB median pitcher among qualified pitchers the last 3 years. If you expand that to guys who pitched 200 innings over the last three years....he's in the top third. Hell, among starting pitchers.....only 152 have pitched 200 innings over the last 2.5 years! 

 

What, exactly, do people compare him to, to think he's not a number 4 at worst, and close to a three? 

[Taildragger8791]

 

It's misleading to point out that in half his starts he's good? And in 25% of his starts he's not good, and in 25% he's bad? How so?

 

I can't understand the dislike for Gibson. 

 

As for "only good in 1 year"....he's been in the majors all of three (full time)....and it's not like 2014 was bad, it was about league average.....

 

How many pitchers have been better than him over the last 3 years?

 

Of qualified pitchers? fWAR? 52 have been better than him over the last 3 years.......He's almost exactly a MLB median pitcher among qualified pitchers the last 3 years. If you expand that to guys who pitched 500 innings over the last three years....he's in the top third

 

What, exactly, do people compare him to, to think he's not a number 4 at worst, and close to a three? 

 

We shouldn't ignore 2013 where he had 10 starts, with mostly rough results. The fact he's regressed since 2015 is a signal that this is what Gibson is. Most likely something more like 2014. Expecting his best season to become his baseline isn't all that reasonable.

 

The reason I say it's misleading because it ignores the innings component. He gives up a lot of good contact and gets knocked out after 5-6 innings regularly, putting his team on their heels. Calling every game with 3 runs or less "good" is painting with a broad brush. Reviewing his game log I'd call 3-4 of his games no-doubt good (7-8 innings with 3 or fewer runs didn't give up a lot of runners). The other 3-run or fewer games he still gave up 8, 9, 10 runners, went only 5-6 innings, and generally put pressure on the defense, bullpen, and offense to all pick him up.

 

I have hope for Gibson but I'm not thoughtlessly slotting him in as my #4 and moving on. Their needs to be a contingency plan for him if he continues pitching to a 4.50-5.00 ERA into next year. I could see him having better results with a gold glove infield defense to vacuum up the ground balls, but considering the adventures at 3B and SS right now I don't think he has that luxury.

[amjgt]

Back to the topic at hand....

 

I predict Suzuki is back on a 1 year 8M extension, that gets worked out in September.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Back to the topic at hand....

 

I predict Suzuki is back on a 1 year 8M extension, that gets worked out in September.

 

I agree.

[Craig Arko]

 

Back to the topic at hand....

 

I predict Suzuki is back on a 1 year 8M extension, that gets worked out in September.

It looks like the 2017 option for Suzuki is $6 million. Just pick that up?

[amjgt]

 

It looks like the 2017 option for Suzuki is $6 million. Just pick that up?

 

There's no team option. Mike Berardino confirmed it's ONLY a vesting option

 

 

 

 

Edited to Add: I suppose we could DH him on his off days to try to get it to vest

[Major League Ready]

 

The issue with league-wide stats is 1/3 to 1/2 of teams aren't playoff caliber and drag down the numbers. If you're looking to compete you need to look at the teams in contention and match up with what they have. I don't have time to research today but I'm guessing they don't fill most of their staff with 4.31+ ERAs.

 

On a good team even a number 5 should give you a chance to win most nights. Gibson does that every 3rd or 4th start, maybe, but most nights is giving up 4 runs over 5-6 innings and leaving with runners on base. Hard to win those games (unless you're playing the Indians and have a Max Kepler).

Gibson's ERA 2015-now is 4.16.  You are suggesting "most" games he is pitching to roughly a 6.5 ERA.  I am not sure by what you mean by "most games" in terms of percentage of games but he would have to pitch a shutout in every other game that make up the rest of his games and even then you would have to use a very liberal definition of most.