An Argument for the Twins to NOT do too much to fix their 2017 rotation

[USAFChief]

Right now they were good enough for more than 100 losses. That's really your argument? That they're good enough now? Did you watch any of this season of baseball? "Good enough now" is perhaps the least accurate description of this team I can conceive of. If you want to continue your analogy, we're holding 8/2 off suit and you want to go all-in. That's is demonstrably poor-percentage thinking.

 

Look, you want to throw some hail mary bets out in hopes of turning them into a little bit of luck for a hand much later? Sure, I'm in on that. Sign a flyer or two and hope you can deal them in July. But that's the goal and nothing more. It's probably a good goal too - identify some buy low talents and sell them high for the future. Same with selling on Dozier and Santana. Sell now in hopes of turning the profits to your advantage later. But that means you knowingly take some beats now for the payoff later. Know what you have and know how to play it. Going all-in with 8/2 is just bad management of probability.

This thread started as a plea to "not do too much."

 

That's the argument I disagree with. Strongly. I would argue there can't BE too much done to this team's pitching staff.

 

"Wait for Gibson to turn it around...he just might!" "We spent money on Hughes, we need to see if he can turn back into something useful." "Gonsalves/Jay/2017 draft pick will are our staff in 2019...don't mess that up!"

 

To which I say "Bah!"

 

I hoe Falvey was hired because he doesn't believe that's any kind of plan. He doesn't have to create a 2017 WS winner, but I absolutely want him to start down that path.

 

The Dodgers starter in game three of the NLCS last night was in independent ball recently. Just because there aren't several obvious FA targets available is no excuse to give up. Get to work, Mr Falvey.

 

And BTW...I absolutely agree with the post above that states if Sano, Buxton, et al aren't good enough to form the everyday basis of a winner in 2017, they likely never will be. Get some pitching.

[Mr. Brooks]

The idea of a cap is to nullify revenue advantage. Saying there is no cap in baseball in the context that revenue should not be a factory makes absolutely no sense. Unless of course, you subscribe to the idea that the owners with $100M disadvantage should spend as much as the top market. In other words, they should invest a billion dollars for the right to lose a billion dollar in 10-15 years.

 

Unless you can demonstrate that other small to mid-market teams have won as much as the major markets, we are really not talking about opinion here. Here is the list of win percentages since the turn of the century through 2015 for teams with equal or less revenue than the twins. I did this last year and did not think it was necessary to add 2016.

 

Oakland - 537

Twins - 503

Rays - 499

Jays - .99

Indians - 498

Mariners - 492

Dbacks - 49

Reds - 481

Marlins - 480

Brewers - 471

Pirates - 452

Royals - 444

 

I only calculated the win records for a few of the top teams. Obviously, not all of the top markets have excelled.

 

Yankees - 582

Boston - 546

Dodgers - 536

Philly - 517

Angels - 546

Giants - 531

Cardinals - 565

 

Oakland is the only small market to team to even come close so to say you don’t buy the whole small market thing is to ignore the facts.

Why are you showing me regular season winning percentages? I'm talking about being able to win a title.

 

Also, I never said an owner should be expected to lose money to field a winner.

I simply said they are allowed to within the rules if they want to.

They could overspend for a year or two when a window opens up, and still make a profit over the life of the franchise.

[Mr. Brooks]

And how did that work out for both of those teams after firing those guys? Still abject failure I guess.

 

Success can be measured incrementally

The results were not my point.

I'm pointing out that there are organizations that feel the same as I do.

 

Incremental success is only success if the last step is a championship.

In that case I would agree.

If the Twins closed that 2000's window by winning a title I would say that the whole process was a success.

But they didn't. They were good enough to open a nice window but ultimately failed to cash it in.

 

I really thought this was the whole point of sports. Especially pro sports. I'm actually kind of surprised that I'm alone here in this opinion.

[sthpstm]

 

This thread started as a plea to "not do too much."

That's the argument I disagree with. Strongly. I would argue there can't BE too much done to this team's pitching staff.

"Wait for Gibson to turn it around...he just might!" "We spent money on Hughes, we need to see if he can turn back into something useful." "Gonsalves/Jay/2017 draft pick will are our staff in 2019...don't mess that up!"

To which I say "Bah!"

I hoe Falvey was hired because he doesn't believe that's any kind of plan. He doesn't have to create a 2017 WS winner, but I absolutely want him to start down that path.

The Dodgers starter in game three of the NLCS last night was in independent ball recently. Just because there aren't several obvious FA targets available is no excuse to give up. Get to work, Mr Falvey.

And BTW...I absolutely agree with the post above that states if Sano, Buxton, et al aren't good enough to form the everyday basis of a winner in 2017, they likely never will be. Get some pitching.

I don't want a GM to have to come in and press too hard to make moves and make bad moves to try to improve a team.  SD and Arizona tried this and I don't think anyone wants those situations.

I agree with the original premise of this thread overall.  

Falvey needs to build up a system of coaches and personnel first, and there is only so much that can be taken on when starting anew. I expect this to be more like Milwaukee when Stearns took over last year.  The coaching staff will be revamped and the player development process will be reviewed and a system put in place. It seems to me, the only difference is it being more likely Falvey makes a trade in his first offseason (Dozier and/or Santana) due to a player being at peak value instead of waiting for the value to go back up (Lucroy) and trading at midseason. 

Next offseason or the trade deadline is, in my opinion, when Falvey would make more drastic moves to shift players out and bring those into the system that fit the system, if necessary. At that point, you have to hope that your process and coaching staff have caused the Gibsons, Santiagos, etc. to have built up trade value that you can turn into long term assets.

[Jham]

 

Right now they were good enough for more than 100 losses.  That's really your argument?  That they're good enough now?  Did you watch any of this season of baseball?  "Good enough now" is perhaps the least accurate description of this team I can conceive of.  If you want to continue your analogy, we're holding 8/2 off suit and you want to go all-in.  That's is demonstrably poor-percentage thinking.  

 

Look, you want to throw some hail mary bets out in hopes of turning them into a little bit of luck for a hand much later?  Sure, I'm in on that.  Sign a flyer or two and hope you can deal them in July.  But that's the goal and nothing more.  It's probably a good goal too - identify some buy low talents and sell them high for the future. Same with selling on Dozier and Santana.  Sell now in hopes of turning the profits to your advantage later.  But that means you knowingly take some beats now for the payoff later.  Know what you have and know how to play it.  Going all-in with 8/2  is just bad management of probability.

So that's the definition of cherry picking.  I said IF they're good enough to win in 2019, they're good enough now.  I'm willing to see another card.  You're saying the team is historic garbage, but you want to build around that garbage for two or three more seasons?  Insanity.  Either they're garbage and we should fire sale while our core still has value OR we can see if this young squad can make a large jump as young clubs often do.  You're calling Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Berrios, Rosario, Vargas, Chargois, et al 8 2 offsuit.  I'm not the biggest believer in this core, but I think they're a lot better than that.  Again, if we're that stinkin awful, how on earth can you justify building around this squad for 3 more years?  Make some calculated moves, see if we can improve, and if we can't, I'd rather know that next year than 3 years from now.

[Major League Ready]

 

Why are you showing me regular season winning percentages? I'm talking about being able to win a title.

Also, I never said an owner should be expected to lose money to field a winner.
I simply said they are allowed to within the rules if they want to.
They could overspend for a year or two when a window opens up, and still make a profit over the life of the franchise.

I was illustrating the correlation between revenue and winning.  Post season success for a given franchise has very little value in demonstrating that link.  The season win records include all of the teams in the bottom half of revenue and it’s all the data, not a small sample size.  It clearly illustrates that revenue does matter.

 

Pointing out, as Jimmy did, that small market teams have won is stating the obvious.  The question is a matter of relative difficulty, how long between those WS appearances, and what happened between these brief periods.  Kansas City is the perfect example.  In the 15 years prior to 2013 when they went “all in”, the royals lost an average of 94.4 games per season.  The Pirates lost an average of 92.6 games the 15 years prior to them putting together a contender in 2013.   If you suck that bad for that long you get a lot of top picks.  Who you really have preferred KCs track record to the Twins over the past 15 years?

 

I would add that they managed their assets in a manner that shrunk their window.  They only managed a couple good years after 20 years of futility.  They might be decent next year but how long will it be before they contend again after they lose what has been their core to free agency.

Revenue does matter.  You have back peddled substantially from your original post and regardless of your position, the revenue should not matter theme is often heard here and it completely ignores the hard facts which are very easy to look-up for anyone who cares to take an informed position.

 

I agree they should spend when they have a window but I dont understand the complaint.  They spent when they got Target Field and they have not been in a window of contention since the period of time they were one of the lowest revenue team in the league.  Expecting it back then was naive and let's wait to see what happens when it occurs now that they have a modestly better revenue position.

 

Also, did the Mets, Pirates, Cardinals, Astros, Red Sox or KC spend beyond what is normal for the league during their window of contention?  Boston, one of the top 5 teams in terms of revenue let Ellsbury walk.  The Cardinals let Pujlos go.  The Dodgers let Grienke go last year.  These are all businesses and they simply are not going to throw around money like fans believe they should. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I was illustrating the correlation between revenue and winning. Post season success for a given franchise has very little value in demonstrating that link. The season win records include all of the teams in the bottom half of revenue and it’s all the data, not a small sample size. It clearly illustrates that revenue does matter.

 

Pointing out, as Jimmy did, that small market teams have won is stating the obvious. The question is a matter of relative difficulty, how long between those WS appearances, and what happened between these brief periods. Kansas City is the perfect example. In the 15 years prior to 2013 when they went “all in”, the royals lost an average of 94.4 games per season. The Pirates lost an average of 92.6 games the 15 years prior to them putting together a contender in 2013. If you suck that bad for that long you get a lot of top picks. Who you really have preferred KCs track record to the Twins over the past 15 years?

 

I would add that they managed their assets in a manner that shrunk their window. They only managed a couple good years after 20 years of futility. They might be decent next year but how long will it be before they contend again after they lose what has been their core to free agency.

Revenue does matter. You have back peddled substantially from your original post and regardless of your position, the revenue should not matter theme is often heard here and it completely ignores the hard facts which are very easy to look-up for anyone who cares to take an informed position.

 

I agree they should spend when they have a window but I dont understand the complaint. They spent when they got Target Field and they have not been in a window of contention since the period of time they were one of the lowest revenue team in the league. Expecting it back then was naive and let's wait to see what happens when it occurs now that they have a modestly better revenue position.

 

Also, did the Mets, Pirates, Cardinals, Astros, Red Sox or KC spend beyond what is normal for the league during their window of contention? Boston, one of the top 5 teams in terms of revenue let Ellsbury walk. The Cardinals let Pujlos go. The Dodgers let Grienke go last year. These are all businesses and they simply are not going to throw around money like fans believe they should.

How am I not explaining myself clearly regarding spending?

Again, I'm not calling for anyone to spend anything.

I'm saying that, unlike the NFL or NHL, there is no rule stopping them from spending more if they want.

 

Of course I would take the Royals last 15 years over the Twins last 15 years.

The Royals won a title, that is the whole point of playing.

 

How have I backtracked?

In terms of success, I see zero difference between getting swept in the first round versus losing 100 games.

Of course one is more enjoyable and entertaining than the other, but success/failure wise, not much difference to me.

[TheLeviathan]

 

So that's the definition of cherry picking.  I said IF they're good enough to win in 2019, they're good enough now.  I'm willing to see another card.  You're saying the team is historic garbage, but you want to build around that garbage for two or three more seasons?  Insanity.  Either they're garbage and we should fire sale while our core still has value O

 

That's not the either/or.  Like with most young players, we simply don't know what we have yet.  2017 should be about seeing what we have.  

 

In your analogy, I'm the one that wants to see another card.  You're the one that wants to go all-in before the flop with 8/2.  I'm keeping my hand, nudging out a small bet, and riding the flop to see what I have.  Then I make a decision one way or the other. 

 

I'm not saying do nothing, but Chief and you and others have all this aggressive language about what should be done and then when pressed to explain that in light of basic common sense about probability, you back your language down considerably.  

 

I want them to take a 1 year flyer on a starter or two.  I want them to spend some money on a guy like Storen or Feliz.  But more than anything I want 2017 to be about figuring out what this young core is, not about picking up a few meaningless wins.

[Major League Ready]

 

How am I not explaining myself clearly regarding spending?
Again, I'm not calling for anyone to spend anything.
I'm saying that, unlike the NFL or NHL, there is no rule stopping them from spending more if they want.

Of course I would take the Royals last 15 years over the Twins last 15 years.
The Royals won a title, that is the whole point of playing.

How have I backtracked?
In terms of success, I see zero difference between getting swept in the first round versus losing 100 games.
Of course one is more enjoyable and entertaining than the other, but success/failure wise, not much difference to me.

The lack of a rule is irrelevant.  Do you need a rule to tell you that you can’t spend more than you  take in?   You must work for the government.  This team does not spend as you would like because they are running a business.

 

You are welcome to hold winning the WS above all.  I think you are in the minority, especially if the context is that you prefer to have the worst team in baseball for 15 years (like the Royals) if the end result is one great year.  This board is seems very disappointed with 5 years of futility.  I doubt many here would prefer the Twins young guns really come on next year and our pitching prospects make great strides and we are back in contention by 2018 and have a 10 year run of 93-100 wins with no WS title vs 10 more years of this futility and then having one great year where they win it all.  For me, it’s not even remotely close.

[Mr. Brooks]

The lack of a rule is irrelevant. Do you need a rule to tell you that you can’t spend more than you take in? You must work for the government. This team does not spend as you would like because they are running a business.

 

You are welcome to hold winning the WS above all. I think you are in the minority, especially if the context is that you prefer to have the worst team in baseball for 15 years (like the Royals) if the end result is one great year. This board is seems very disappointed with 5 years of futility. I doubt many here would prefer the Twins young guns really come on next year and our pitching prospects make great strides and we are back in contention by 2018 and have a 10 year run of 93-100 wins with no WS title vs 10 more years of this futility and then having one great year where they win it all. For me, it’s not even remotely close.

There is really no need for personal insults.

 

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I'm not asking them to spend more money. That wasn't ever close to the point I was making.

I've said consistently in every money related thread for years that you don't need to spend more money to win.

[ashbury]

There is really no need for personal insults.

Moderator note: if you are referring to the "you must work for the government" line, that was IMO pretty mild as insults go, and was leavened with a little more humor than the typical slam. But, as a reminder to all, when disagreeing with someone, please stick to the topic and leave out the personal observations about one another. As we see here, such asides can be prone to misunderstanding, and that can lead to escalation.

 

And please, don't pursue this tangent here in the thread. There are other means for dealing with perceived violations of TD Comment Policy, mentioned in the policy itself.

[Doomtints]

Nothing is guaranteed in baseball.  There is no good reason to put off the overhaul of the pitching staff.   Fostering a youth movement is great, and believe me this will happen even if rent-a-pitchers are acquired in the meantime, but youth is not the only piece of the puzzle.  

 

In baseball, as in life, there is no other option but to go full throttle with your goals.  The only danger here is mucking up the expenses (payroll) -- and again this is the same dilemma we all face in life.  Believe me there are ways to solve both problems that do not involve doing nothing.

[DocBauer]

And I do not advocate doing nothing. Simply, I see the one big, potential, move of Dozier. I'm saying shop Santana...though I'm really not sure what the market will bear on that end. We still may be better off, gain better value, keeping him in the fold for now.

 

But other than a Dozier trade, I just see any other option as rather self defeating both short and long term. Please no more mediocre FA. I don't think it's the time to bundle a bunch of prospects to make a move either.

[Doomtints]

 

And I do not advocate doing nothing. Simply, I see the one big, potential, move of Dozier. I'm saying shop Santana...though I'm really not sure what the market will bear on that end. We still may be better off, gain better value, keeping him in the fold for now.

But other than a Dozier trade, I just see any other option as rather self defeating both short and long term. Please no more mediocre FA. I don't think it's the time to bundle a bunch of prospects to make a move either.

 

Mediocre FAs can work.  Just keep the contracts short.  Mediocre is a huge upgrade for this team.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Nothing is guaranteed in baseball.  There is no good reason to put off the overhaul of the pitching staff.   Fostering a youth movement is great, and believe me this will happen even if rent-a-pitchers are acquired in the meantime, but youth is not the only piece of the puzzle.  

 

In baseball, as in life, there is no other option but to go full throttle with your goals.  The only danger here is mucking up the expenses (payroll) -- and again this is the same dilemma we all face in life.  Believe me there are ways to solve both problems that do not involve doing nothing.

 

In life there is no other choice but full throttle?  Your argument seems to be something like: "My goal is to be the Senator from MN.  Riding this plane to see Disneyland is not full throttle towards my goal.  I'm jumping out of this plane because, dammit, full throttle to my goal!"

 

At no point does just basic common sense, realism, and probability come into making choices?  

 

Seriously, some of you are using "full throttle", "go for it", "be aggressive" and the name "Brett Anderson" in the same damn thought.

 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I have a few points to make here, and I apologize if the Long Island's I'm drinking in the Dominican might have clouded them a bit    and no, I didn't find a SS, C, or SP while I was here.

 

• Small market is a component to failure, but not an excuse. I hate these either or propositions, whether it is baseball, politics, or really anything. Small market is a component that leaves us at a disadvantage, but smart people can overcome it, though it's harder. I think the problem with TR in general is that while being smart, his skills got stale and the small market advantages he found in the mid-2000s stopped working when the nerds took over baseball.  Falvey, (I hope) will lead some much needed change here.
• The hitting core is here now, and will likely only get better. Pitching needs to be fixed by 2018, not 2020. You won't find much for 2017 fixes in the FA class, though right now the 2018 FA class looks VERY promising.
• Falvey will need to add his coaches (he also needs a GM yet, but that's a different issue). Some will likely not be kept, not because they are or are not qualified, but because he has some good people he trusts and wants to bring in. The rest will likely stick around for now as he assesses their talents. I do think there's some reason to make some changes at the major league level. I don't think everyone will go. If you expect wholesale purging of jobs, I don't see it. I'm no Nostradamus here, but I think that's smart. Some may go, especially if Falvey has someone he likes as a replacement. I do hope there are some changes at the ML level b/c while the minor league coaches seem to be doing their job, there does seem to be some serious problems with talent (particularly pitching) transitioning to the majors.
• The same goes with the rotation. Lots of guys need to be figured out, but it's time to move on from the Santiago's of the world. You trade or non-tender there. Given the lack of decent pitching out there, Santiago might fetch a high risk/high reward type low A player... and I'm fine with that.
• On to the original point. I'm fine with the 1 year deals to guys like Brett Anderson depending on how plan A shakes out. If this is plan A, I don't like it.  The hitting core is here. Some pitching needs evaluation. That requires time, and yes, it means we may find ourselves in a similar hole in April-June, but if it helps us figure out which of the young guys need to be kept vs. jettisoned, so be it.
• I have no plans on giving Hughes a shot. He's under contract and even with a stellar year, 2+ years remaining isn't going to do much. He's probably a pen option for now and likely a 60 day candidate.  A full season of baseball will without doubt give him a chance to be stretched out if he's ready. Let him be an option at that point, not a plan for April.
• Gibson has shown flashes, but yes I understand the lack of patience. He fell on his face this year, though the previous two years he posted some pretty stellar numbers for long periods of time. He gets one more shot.
• May did a good job when he had a shot, but never really had an extended trial. He deserves a fair shake.  I might add, he's had less of a shot than Duffey and has a higher ceiling.
• Berrios goes nowhere either.  You roll with him. Burning an option here is reasonable, but I want to see Berrios with some new coaching.
• One of Duffey/Mejia/??? certainly should get a shot on opening day.  The other(s) can sit in AAA and move up as someone gets optioned.  Again, I'm fine with this. 2017 is going to suck, let's let it suck with the possibility of identifying long term talent that can be a fixture. You have to try these guys out at some time. The key here is near ready vs. ready. There's a big difference with pretty big results. Like it or not, we have to figure out who can go.
• As to my plan A, I think you need to acquire some MLB ready type asset.  Yes, the price is high.  As well, we have two tradable assets that should net a supremely high return in Dozier and Santana.  My target would be a guy like Glasnow. Yes, I've had a man-crush on him for a couple years seeing him pitch here in Indianapolis, but a team like the Pirates IS a contender NOW and needs help at 2B.  They don't have the luxury of giving up a spot in the rotation to let Glasnow take his lumps as games matter to them. Dozier can net a guy like Glasnow and a few lower minor lottery tickets, and I'm fine with that. It doesn't need to be Glasnow. There are other high ceiling near MLB or MLB ready pitchers that can be targeted here, he just happens to be a good fit.  The Dodgers, Yankees, or perhaps someone else may pay handsomely for 2 years of BD. I think you do it.
• Santana gets shopped too, perhaps for that catcher.. and more lottery tickets (also part of plan A). If he stays, the Brett Anderson type move makes ZERO sense. If he goes, I can see it. If the team really sucks and Anderson is good, then you trade Anderson at the deadline. If the team is good and Anderson is good, then it adds some depth you can cycle through. If by chance Gibson is rebounding, or a guy like Duffey, Mejia, etc. clearly becomes 4th starter value, that's fine.  They can be moved for a quasi-decent spec making room for the high minors guys.  If the team is bad and Anderson is bad, then Anderson gets the boot when some high minors guy earns it.

End result, the team should improve (though I'd argue they could this with no plan).  It's possible we are back in the same boat come May, and I'm OK with that... THIS YEAR. I expect some improvement over the season as some of the pitchers figure it out. The ones that don't get replaced, whether that be with a 2018 pre-season FA or with high minors talent that has earned it. I'm not planning on 1 over all again, but I do think it's smart to be willing to take it for the name of figuring out what we have. To me, that was the biggest failure of Ryan. He never really went full in on the rebuild. He did some things very well, but instead of getting the Feldman's of the world, he picked up the Milones and Correia's...  That worked in the early 2000s, not so much in present day.

 

Edit:  Glasnow has a #1 ceiling... just for the record. I'd be targeting 1/2 type guys.

[dxpavelka]

If you're telling me that the biggest chip you're getting in return for the first guy in over 40 years to hit 40 home runs for your team is a guy you're pegging as your # 4 starter while pushing Berrios or May out of said rotation I'm recommending you be drug tested.  I'm probably less sold on Dozier as the best 2B alternative we have than anyone in the state but C'mon Man, If you move him now you'd better get a HUGE haul BIGLY.

[wsnydes]

 

Mediocre FAs can work.  Just keep the contracts short.  Mediocre is a huge upgrade for this team.

I don't really disagree with much of what you said, but if those mediocre FAs are blocking younger, higher ceiling players at some point this season, I would classify that as counterproductive.  

 

If this is the approach, my hope would be that the FA pitched well enough to have some trade value but would more realistically expect them to be DFA'd when the need arises.

[Doomtints]

 

I don't really disagree with much of what you said, but if those mediocre FAs are blocking younger, higher ceiling players at some point this season, I would classify that as counterproductive.  

 

If this is the approach, my hope would be that the FA pitched well enough to have some trade value but would more realistically expect them to be DFA'd when the need arises.

 

True, and blocking was a big problem over the past couple of years.  But right now, who would be blocked?  Berrios, if he's ready.  Who else?  There are too many spots available to fill with internal talent.  

[Major League Ready]

 

The boldest move would be to trade Brian Dozier, Eddie Rosario and some parts to the White Sox
for pitcher Chris Sale. He is a bonafide ace in a division you need an Ace. If you can pull off getting Sale from the White Sox you have accomplished a lot.

 

The boldest move would be to trade Brian Dozier, Eddie Rosario and some parts to the White Sox
for pitcher Chris Sale. He is a bonafide ace in a division you need an Ace. If you can pull off getting Sale from the White Sox you have accomplished a lot.

What you would have accomplished is trading two years of your best player and 4 years of a decent player with the potential to be very good for 1 year of Chris Sale.  That's a very questionable move for a contending team and a horrible idea for a team that lost 100+ games the previous season.

 

I have no problem with trading Dozier and/or Rosario but do it for something that can actually contribute toward building a contender.

[DocBauer]

This in response to diehard, just not going to copy everything. It's already about as long as some of my posts. Lol Excellent pointo made, BTW.

 

*I agree the hitting is pretty much here already. I mean really; Rosario, Buxton Kepler, Sano and Polanco with a hopefully healthy and steady Escobar, and possibly Vargas. Garver is oh so close to at least not making catcher a deep, dark hole. Granite and Palka, possibly Walker, are close. I still like a quality 4th OF on short term and another infielder to help/challenge and I feel pretty good.

 

*I'm going to disagree on Santiago, to a point. He's nothing special, but he's experienced, solid, a lefty, and can fill a role for this team depending on how others shake out. You could cut him loose, keep him, trade him before the season to a team with injuries, (there's always someone) or flip him at the deadline when someone else is ready. If you do move Santana, I keep him. If Santana stays, I'm more open to letting him go in whatever capacity.

 

*Great point on May not getting as much of a shot as Duffey to this point, which is huge. Speaking of Duffey, as I've stated before, I don't discount him evolving in to a quality starter. He now has pretty much the equivalent to one full season as a ML SP. ONE. We've seen tne good and the not so good. But unless everyone is blowing smoke, he's not just a week pitch pitcher and I think we need to stop with this arguement. He throws 2 different fastballs and 2 different curves, and all 4 have different actions and slightly different speeds. I wish i could pull out the reference...I cant...but I read somewhere during the season that his change had improved, but it was his fastball command that he was having difficulty with. The change will never be a priority pitch for him, but it doesn't have to be either. And maybe he will ultimately become a fine RP, but if the FB command comments are accurate, he can't be dismissed as a SP candidate after the "good" we've seen from him.

 

*As I've stated originally, I agree to stay away from the FA market entirely, unless the new FO thinks there is a real steal there. If you move on from Santana AND Santiago, then I could see a short term move. Could the Twins make a big splash in 2018 on the open market? They could. Several contracts will be off the books by then, with only Hughes potentially remaining and Mauer's last season.

 

*Hughes is a dark horse for me. I also don't count on him. But what if he DOES make it all the way back? He's already bought and paid for and could be a June or July "acquisition" type. (Which could be another reason to keep at least one of Santana/Santiago for now)

 

And excellent post. Just some commentary back from me.

[THE DFC]

 

 

• The hitting core is here now, and will likely only get better. Pitching needs to be fixed by 2018, not 2020. You won't find much for 2017 fixes in the FA class, though right now the 2018 FA class looks VERY promising.

 

I 100% agree with this, and I think this is the key.  Any move in an attempt to win 90 games next year at the expense of the 2018 - 2022 Twins is a silly one.

 

We need to focus next on getting lots of the young, high-upside arms either up on the big league roster or in the right positions for success.  The latter maybe being most important.

 

Here's how that breaks down:

 

• I'm very excited to likely see Trevor May in the rotation next year. Conversely, I want see Duffey in the pen. As noted on here, I never got May converting from a starter to reliever, and Duffey from a reliever to a starter.  May has obvious back troubles from pitching frequently.  Duffey has been killer in relief, has only two plus pitches and struggles after a round through the line-up. How isn't this switch obvious?
• Given the success of an Andrew Miller, why not move Tyler Jay back to the pen and have him ready for the big league squad in 2017?  A healthy Burdi, a relaxed Chargois, a converted Duffey and a fired up Tyler Jay seem like a devastating late-inning bullpen grouping in the making.  Throw in flamethrowers Jake Reed, Melotakis and Light and try out Hildenberger by the end of the year to go along with Taylor Rodgers, and that's a lot of velocity and upside in the pen that needs to be evaluated and done so quickly.  
• As long as Berrios, Gonsalves, May and Mejia get extensive looks next year in the rotation, I'm happy.  Hopefully, Felix Jorge and Kohl Stewart force their way into that conversation by mid-season, as well.  

Given the above evaluation needs to take place, I see these moves as musts:

• Let's swing Dozier for a young, ace-upside pitcher to join the aforementioned group of 4-6 upside arms that get looks in the rotation this year. The market will be there.
• Let's move Santana for max value at catcher or low-level, high upside starting pitching.
• Let's get what we can for Gibson and take it.  
• Let's let Santiago walk or bring him in with a very, very short leash. 
• Again, let's cut bait anyone above 27 in the bullpen.

Have slick-fielding Engelb Vielma man SS duties with Escobar until Nick Gordon's ready to take over.  Find a way to play Mauer less and audition Vargas, Park, Walker, etc. more.  

 

Evaluate appropriately from there.  Trust Falvey after he's had time to observe, weigh, contemplate, negotiate, etc. throughout the year. 

[wsnydes]

 

True, and blocking was a big problem over the past couple of years.  But right now, who would be blocked?  Berrios, if he's ready.  Who else?  There are too many spots available to fill with internal talent.  

Valid point.  I was thinking more along the lines of midseason callups.  I don't really expect any immediate blocking unless Mejia or Baxendale make a serious push.  I think it may be a bigger problem later in the season though.

 

I should clarify.  I think a few bullpen spots need to be filled from outside.  My previous comments reflect the starting staff more.  

[DAM DC Twins Fans]

Avoiding quoting longish post...

 

Hitting core is here now--that is true--but defensively this core sucks (can I say that??) outside of Buxton.  Pitching wont get better till the defense can make outs by improving range and not messing up fundamentals.  That means we need to see if Sano can handle 3B and not join the crowded list of 1B/DH guys including Kepler, Park, Mauer, Vargas, etc.  We need to ship some guys out and bring in a good defensive catcher and SS.  Catching is a black hole right now with Centano, Murphy, Turner, etc.  and that's not helping the pitching staff.

[Doomtints]

 

Valid point.  I was thinking more along the lines of midseason callups.  I don't really expect any immediate blocking unless Mejia or Baxendale make a serious push.  I think it may be a bigger problem later in the season though.

 

I should clarify.  I think a few bullpen spots need to be filled from outside.  My previous comments reflect the starting staff more.  

 

Right.  The Twins had Meyer, May, a very exciting Berrios who seemed like he would be ready at any moment, and an overachieving Duffey.  It really felt like the better players were being blocked.  

 

Unfortunately none of that really went as planned.  Meyer is gone, May is probably a bullpen arm from now on (though the jury is still very out on that), Berrios has had growing pains and Duffey's reality of not being a starter has set in.  

 

Hughes, Nolasco, Milone, Correia, Pelfrey, etc., perhaps weren't blocking as much as it felt like they were.  Simply no one has worked out, veteran or rookie.  

I don't think getting some veteran help will necessarily mean the team is repeating some old mistakes.  The mistakes were the long contracts.  

[laloesch]

 

OK...I know I'm going to get blasted for this idea, and I'll probably be accused of trolling even...but I'm really sane and serious about this thought as its been rolling over and over in my mind lately.

First, let me state I am NOT advocating the Twins do nothing. While I would prefer to keep Dozier's bat with the Twins in some capacity, I am on board now with finding the right deal with the right team for a top shelf, young, still controllable SP. Who that should be, and which team offers the best match, is obviously up for some debate, and has been here on TD.

But other than that big move, I'm going to argue the Twins stay mostly pat SP-wise the remainder of the offseason. And I have reasons that I believe are practical.

1] We have a new head of baseball operations in Falvey who has yet to hire a GM, but it would seem to me some of their biggest initial priorities are to examine the Twins coaching staff, and IMO, bring in a more experienced pitching coach that they feel comfortable with to work with the more established AND the young pitchers. Further, I firmly believe they will be implementing changes in development of said young pitchers in the Twins milb system. For a rebuilding team, this is pertinent stuff.

2] The FA market for SP is just not good at all. And unless there is someone Falvey or his new GM believes is a real steal, you're just throwing good money after bad and repeating the recent Ryan cycle of mediocre veteran FA pitchers.

3] Further, not only does Falvey and any new personel need time to implement changes as a priority, and need time to evaluate young talent on its way up...some of them close...but any new changes and said new pitching coach could allow for at least some immediate improvement, if not more, with what is already on hand. And the idea of trading or dumping Santana and/or Santiago immediately could leave the rotation short of just about anything other than the Albers and Deans of the world, and we've seen enough of that. (Again with the poor FA crop)

4] Young talent. Personally, I believe we have yet to see the best of Gibson. We've seen flashes, and with his missed time due to injury, we lost a full season of his career. But healthy, we've seen glimpses of a very solid SP. Berrios has a tremendous milb track history and has been a top 100 prospect for a couple years now. He needs to pitch at the ML level, preferably with a coach who relates and communicates well. May can and should move back to the rotation. Despite a waste of a full year of time in the pen, a healthy May has shown ability as a SP. Duffey has been inconsistent as can be this year, but showed glimpses of the pitcher we saw last year. Maybe he's best in the bullpen, but from what I have garnered this season, his biggest problem was not a still developing change but fastball control. There is a real chance that both Gonsalves and Mejia could be ready at some point in 2017, and projections for mid-season or sooner are not out of line. And there at least 4 other young prospects who could/should see Rochester at some point in '17 with some solid potential.

I am not going to include the addition of Hughes as a "point" in this discussion, and will refer to him later, but he is a potential dark horse candidate for the roster.

Our new, young, OF should provide some very good defense. Polanco to 2B should be a wash at worst vs Dozier defensively. Sano, healthy, a couple pounds lighter, and actually getting to concentrate on 3B should allow for some improvement there. (I'm a big believer in letting him play and develop instead of just deciding he's bad). A quality SS acquisition to compete with and possibly replace Escobar further sets and probably improves the infield defense.

In this scenario, preferably with a new, experienced and respected pitching coach, the Twins would enter ST with the following SP candidates:

Santana
Gibson
Santiago
NEW GUY from Dozier trade
Berrios
May
Wheeler (finally getting some kind of shot)
Duffey (better FB control and continuing to develop change)
Mejia (inexperienced enough to maybe need some AAA time)
Gonsalves (milb pitcher of year and building experience in the AFL, *see Mejia)
Hughes (BIG question mark, could end up in pen, could make it all the way back)

By the end of 2017, there is a good chance that at least one of Jay, Romero, Stewart or Jorge could be ready for an audition, along with the aforementioned Gonsalves and Mejia.

So in short, you bring in one top new SP via a Dozier trade, you bring in a new pitching coach, you have a mix of younger SP pitching candidates mixed with a couple under 30 veterans and one older veteran, plus a dark horse candidate. You implement changes, have promotional options at some point that could lead to trade options, have prospects developing for 2018 and beyond, and probably have a lot better FA class available to you before the 2018 season.

So there you have it, some thought by me. One big move, a new coach, and then stay pat. Let me have it!

 

Overall a good post and i agree.  I don't want Falvey to bring in a new GM that goes out and spends a bunch of money on free agent starters to try and patch quilt the rotation back together.  First of all, the Twins won't spend the money to get premium talent here in the first place and second no seasoned quality starter wants to go to Minnesota after the train wreck season they just had.  The Twins need to focus on trading from positions of strength to acquire what they need in prospects.  That means Santana, Dozier and Plouffe should all be on the block. 

 

Switching gears to some of your other points.  I'm not high on Gibson.  Guy just doesn't have "killer instinct" on the mound and the mental toughness to go with it.  He BARELY makes it through 5-2/3 innings on a good day and spends most of his at-bats trying to clip the outside corners of the plate instead of attacking the hitter.  Very annoying to watch considering he has halfway decent stuff.  In his third full season he got substantially worse, not better, worse.  I've seen enough.  He's almost 29 years old and a bottom of the rotation starter at best on a good team.  Case closed.

 

Duffey.  I agree with you that he needs to control his FB better and develop a third pitch (changeup), but I would add that he needs to control his curve ball better.  It has great 12-6 snap out of the zone, but he rarely throws it IN the strike zone to keep hitters honest.  That's how Bert was able to dominate.  He essentially was a one trick pony starter, but had fantastic control of his curve.  Duffey has the movement on the pitch, but doesn't appear to be able to vary it's drop in the strike zone.  Without another strong secondary pitch he's a reliever.  Plain and simple.  Hitters know it's either the fastball (hack away) or curve ball (stand fast).  Why the Twins didn't flip him and May earlier in the season is anybody's guess.  I'm guessing it was stubbornness of Paul Molitor and Ryan, but who knows.

 

As to the rest.  I think you start the season with

 

Santana (unless he's traded)

Gibson (nothing to replace him so tender him a contract for now) 

Santiago (kinda feel the same way about him as i do Gibson)

May (cross your fingers he's able to successfully transition back to a starter... yeah thanks Terry)

Berrios, Duffey and possibly Hughes? 

 

Other options:  Meija, Gonsalves (by mid season hopefully), and Wheeler (he was a starter before)

 

 

 

[wsnydes]

 

Right.  The Twins had Meyer, May, a very exciting Berrios who seemed like he would be ready at any moment, and an overachieving Duffey.  It really felt like the better players were being blocked.  

 

Unfortunately none of that really went as planned.  Meyer is gone, May is probably a bullpen arm from now on (though the jury is still very out on that), Berrios has had growing pains and Duffey's reality of not being a starter has set in.  

 

Hughes, Nolasco, Milone, Correia, Pelfrey, etc., perhaps weren't blocking as much as it felt like they were.  Simply no one has worked out, veteran or rookie.  

I don't think getting some veteran help will necessarily mean the team is repeating some old mistakes.  The mistakes were the long contracts.  

I think May needs to be in the rotation.  I buy into the notion that his health issues are related to his bullpen work.  Duffey is a bullpen guy in my view.  He's got two pitches, the roll suits him better.  I'm not counting on Hughes at all really.  I wouldn't be opposed to a rotation of Santana, May, Berrios, Santiago, Gibson/Hughes.  I'd prefer to deal Santana for younger pitching, but only for the right deal.  With Santana, I think that rotation is better than what they rolled with last season with more upside.  Is it a good one that would be the rotation of a playoff team?  Absolutely not, but it's one that can give the Mejia's and Gonsalves' of the world some time to develop and not really block anyone.  I think it would be adequate enough, and one that isn't going to really be improved upon by FA veterans.  I would expect that rotation to be improved upon at the trade deadline and the following offseason.

 

I don't think bullpen reinforcements are that far off, but like you pointed out, there aren't enough to fill out a pen in my view either.

[DocBauer]

Overall a good post and i agree.  I don't want Falvey to bring in a new GM that goes out and spends a bunch of money on free agent starters to try and patch quilt the rotation back together.  First of all, the Twins won't spend the money to get premium talent here in the first place and second no seasoned quality starter wants to go to Minnesota after the train wreck season they just had.  The Twins need to focus on trading from positions of strength to acquire what they need in prospects.  That means Santana, Dozier and Plouffe should all be on the block. 

 

Switching gears to some of your other points.  I'm not high on Gibson.  Guy just doesn't have "killer instinct" on the mound and the mental toughness to go with it.  He BARELY makes it through 5-2/3 innings on a good day and spends most of his at-bats trying to clip the outside corners of the plate instead of attacking the hitter.  Very annoying to watch considering he has halfway decent stuff.  In his third full season he got substantially worse, not better, worse.  I've seen enough.  He's almost 29 years old and a bottom of the rotation starter at best on a good team.  Case closed.

 

Duffey.  I agree with you that he needs to control his FB better and develop a third pitch (changeup), but I would add that he needs to control his curve ball better.  It has great 12-6 snap out of the zone, but he rarely throws it IN the strike zone to keep hitters honest.  That's how Bert was able to dominate.  He essentially was a one trick pony starter, but had fantastic control of his curve.  Duffey has the movement on the pitch, but doesn't appear to be able to vary it's drop in the strike zone.  Without another strong secondary pitch he's a reliever.  Plain and simple.  Hitters know it's either the fastball (hack away) or curve ball (stand fast).  Why the Twins didn't flip him and May earlier in the season is anybody's guess.  I'm guessing it was stubbornness of Paul Molitor and Ryan, but who knows.

 

As to the rest.  I think you start the season with

 

Santana (unless he's traded)

Gibson (nothing to replace him so tender him a contract for now) 

Santiago (kinda feel the same way about him as i do Gibson)

May (cross your fingers he's able to successfully transition back to a starter... yeah thanks Terry)

Berrios, Duffey and possibly Hughes? 

 

Other options:  Meija, Gonsalves (by mid season hopefully), and Wheeler (he was a starter before)

I still like Gibson. I think sometimes he doesn't trust himself enough to just attack the zone. And I think it is. Is this a remnant from the old staff? Could a new pitching coach help with this attitude?

 

But you and I are pretty much spot on with the initial rotation. Some combination of:

 

Santana

NEW GUY from Dozier trade

Gibson

Santiago

Berrios

May

 

That's 6 for 5 spots, allowing for injury, trade, or move to the pen for now. Wheeler and Duffey are challengers, each could find himself in the pen, particularly Duffey. Wheeler could be the first guy up, potentially. Mejia and Gonsalves could each be ready for a shot as early as June, probably no later than August 1st. Hughes is a dark horse who COULD bounce all the way back, which would be awesome, and be like a mid season acquisition. As crazy at it may sound, the Twins could have pitching to sell at the break.

[Mr. Brooks]

I have a few points to make here, and I apologize if the Long Island's I'm drinking in the Dominican might have clouded them a bit and no, I didn't find a SS, C, or SP while I was here.

 

• Small market is a component to failure, but not an excuse. I hate these either or propositions, whether it is baseball, politics, or really anything. Small market is a component that leaves us at a disadvantage, but smart people can overcome it, though it's harder. I think the problem with TR in general is that while being smart, his skills got stale and the small market advantages he found in the mid-2000s stopped working when the nerds took over baseball. Falvey, (I hope) will lead some much needed change here.
• The hitting core is here now, and will likely only get better. Pitching needs to be fixed by 2018, not 2020. You won't find much for 2017 fixes in the FA class, though right now the 2018 FA class looks VERY promising.
• Falvey will need to add his coaches (he also needs a GM yet, but that's a different issue). Some will likely not be kept, not because they are or are not qualified, but because he has some good people he trusts and wants to bring in. The rest will likely stick around for now as he assesses their talents. I do think there's some reason to make some changes at the major league level. I don't think everyone will go. If you expect wholesale purging of jobs, I don't see it. I'm no Nostradamus here, but I think that's smart. Some may go, especially if Falvey has someone he likes as a replacement. I do hope there are some changes at the ML level b/c while the minor league coaches seem to be doing their job, there does seem to be some serious problems with talent (particularly pitching) transitioning to the majors.
• The same goes with the rotation. Lots of guys need to be figured out, but it's time to move on from the Santiago's of the world. You trade or non-tender there. Given the lack of decent pitching out there, Santiago might fetch a high risk/high reward type low A player... and I'm fine with that.
• On to the original point. I'm fine with the 1 year deals to guys like Brett Anderson depending on how plan A shakes out. If this is plan A, I don't like it. The hitting core is here. Some pitching needs evaluation. That requires time, and yes, it means we may find ourselves in a similar hole in April-June, but if it helps us figure out which of the young guys need to be kept vs. jettisoned, so be it.
• I have no plans on giving Hughes a shot. He's under contract and even with a stellar year, 2+ years remaining isn't going to do much. He's probably a pen option for now and likely a 60 day candidate. A full season of baseball will without doubt give him a chance to be stretched out if he's ready. Let him be an option at that point, not a plan for April.
• Gibson has shown flashes, but yes I understand the lack of patience. He fell on his face this year, though the previous two years he posted some pretty stellar numbers for long periods of time. He gets one more shot.
• May did a good job when he had a shot, but never really had an extended trial. He deserves a fair shake. I might add, he's had less of a shot than Duffey and has a higher ceiling.
• Berrios goes nowhere either. You roll with him. Burning an option here is reasonable, but I want to see Berrios with some new coaching.
• One of Duffey/Mejia/??? certainly should get a shot on opening day. The other(s) can sit in AAA and move up as someone gets optioned. Again, I'm fine with this. 2017 is going to suck, let's let it suck with the possibility of identifying long term talent that can be a fixture. You have to try these guys out at some time. The key here is near ready vs. ready. There's a big difference with pretty big results. Like it or not, we have to figure out who can go.
• As to my plan A, I think you need to acquire some MLB ready type asset. Yes, the price is high. As well, we have two tradable assets that should net a supremely high return in Dozier and Santana. My target would be a guy like Glasnow. Yes, I've had a man-crush on him for a couple years seeing him pitch here in Indianapolis, but a team like the Pirates IS a contender NOW and needs help at 2B. They don't have the luxury of giving up a spot in the rotation to let Glasnow take his lumps as games matter to them. Dozier can net a guy like Glasnow and a few lower minor lottery tickets, and I'm fine with that. It doesn't need to be Glasnow. There are other high ceiling near MLB or MLB ready pitchers that can be targeted here, he just happens to be a good fit. The Dodgers, Yankees, or perhaps someone else may pay handsomely for 2 years of BD. I think you do it.
• Santana gets shopped too, perhaps for that catcher.. and more lottery tickets (also part of plan A). If he stays, the Brett Anderson type move makes ZERO sense. If he goes, I can see it. If the team really sucks and Anderson is good, then you trade Anderson at the deadline. If the team is good and Anderson is good, then it adds some depth you can cycle through. If by chance Gibson is rebounding, or a guy like Duffey, Mejia, etc. clearly becomes 4th starter value, that's fine. They can be moved for a quasi-decent spec making room for the high minors guys. If the team is bad and Anderson is bad, then Anderson gets the boot when some high minors guy earns it.

End result, the team should improve (though I'd argue they could this with no plan). It's possible we are back in the same boat come May, and I'm OK with that... THIS YEAR. I expect some improvement over the season as some of the pitchers figure it out. The ones that don't get replaced, whether that be with a 2018 pre-season FA or with high minors talent that has earned it. I'm not planning on 1 over all again, but I do think it's smart to be willing to take it for the name of figuring out what we have. To me, that was the biggest failure of Ryan. He never really went full in on the rebuild. He did some things very well, but instead of getting the Feldman's of the world, he picked up the Milones and Correia's... That worked in the early 2000s, not so much in present day.

 

Edit: Glasnow has a #1 ceiling... just for the record. I'd be targeting 1/2 type guys.

When has Gibson ever had a "stellar" season?

 

He's shown flashes of above averageness, but that's about it.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Avoiding quoting longish post...

 

Hitting core is here now--that is true--but defensively this core sucks (can I say that??) outside of Buxton.  Pitching wont get better till the defense can make outs by improving range and not messing up fundamentals.  That means we need to see if Sano can handle 3B and not join the crowded list of 1B/DH guys including Kepler, Park, Mauer, Vargas, etc.  We need to ship some guys out and bring in a good defensive catcher and SS.  Catching is a black hole right now with Centano, Murphy, Turner, etc.  and that's not helping the pitching staff.

 

I'll have to disagree here.  Sano is without question below average defensively, but even that is certainly improvable... look at Plouffe was just as bad when he came up. Escobar is average who can be slightly above. Polanco at 2B is above average. Mauer/Park are above average. Buxton is above average. Kepler is a bit of a risk, but I think he can improve there, even so he seemed average. Rosario is above average.  There's one defensive liability with the hitting core. The problem going forward won't be defense, especially if that becomes a point of emphasis on this team.