Twins confirm interest in signing pitchers Dallas Keuchel, Craig Kimbrel

[Mike Sixel]

This reminds me of their confirmed interest in Cuban players back in the day...

[Vanimal46]

Not that I wanted Keuchel... But yeah, last decent pitcher worth only the money in Jim Pohald's wallet is gone.

[prouster]

It wasn't kimbrel or bust, but every time they pass on a player, it isn't that player or bust. It's the pattern that might be an issue.

 

That seems to be the part some people miss. When some of us worry about moves it isn't that one move, it is the pattern. Like Vikings passing on OL over and over early in the draft. Then thinking they can find good ones late.

 

Like the AAA players some here want to rely on rather than acquiring RPs from outside. That hasn't worked here all that well, but what the back end of bullpens do is rarely brought up when saying how bad FA RPs are. How are the next two or three guys in AAA compared to them?

Sure, but in any given offseason (or June now, I suppose) they’ll “miss” on all but a few guys. I think every team has an unbreakable pattern of missing if this is the standard we’re going with.

[Mike Sixel]

Sure, but in any given offseason (or June now, I suppose) they’ll “miss” on all but a few guys. I think every team has an unbreakable pattern of missing if this is the standard we’re going with.

I must not have been clear. Because that last sentence was 100% not what I was trying to say.....

[Mike Sixel]

 

And the next...

 

[Mike Sixel]

[Mike Sixel]

There are more tweets there already, I expect more. At it's one person disagrees. Mostly just putting this on, like I do all twins content I find, but, I did also participate....

[Mr. Brooks]

Not that I wanted Keuchel... But yeah, last decent pitcher worth only the money in Jim Pohald's wallet is gone.

You didn't even want him... so you just want them to spend money just to spend money? I'm sorry Van, but it looks like you are just trying to find reasons to criticize them.

[Mr. Brooks]

We'll see how Kuechel does, but I don't think he'd even be much of an improvement in our rotation.

I was hoping we'd get Kimbrel, but not so much Kuechel.

[nicksaviking]

https://twitter.com/enosarris/status/1136830159997194240?s=09

Not that I wanted Keuchel in any way, but if we had local reporters covering our team that could get us information like this and critique it, I wonder if it would put more pressure on ownership to be more aggressive and forthcoming?

[Bob Sacamento]

Not getting Kimbrel is understandable due to the length of the contract the Cubs  gave him but to not get Keuchel now that has got to sting a little.  But the Twins honestly don't need either of them to win the division, they're something like a 97-98% lock to win the AL Central at this point.  So is it logical to spend so much money on player that's going to matter for one maybe two games in the playoffs?  Apparently Falvey doesn't think so and I can't really fault him for it either as the playoffs are a crapshoot at best.

 

At this point, in my opinion, if Falvey trades for any starter, I think he'll go after someone who has control or an option for the next year which will cost a couple of higher end prospects (think something like Graterol and Rooker for Stroman who's cheap next year in arbitration after earning 6.3M in 2019).  I've got a hard time seeing him give up a Top 5-15ish prospect for a Will Smith/Tony Watson type player.

[Mike Sixel]

The playoffs are not a crapshoot at best. They have some randomness, but they aren't random.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Some value is better than no value, which is what they'll get for Scherzer in two years.

 

...

 

If they believe in the ability of Robles, Kieboom, and Turner to turn into 4-5 WAR players in the next two years, then they should keep Scherzer.  If not, and I lean on the not side right now, getting ANYTHING for Scherzer (and if that something is Graterol, Gordon, Larnach, and maybe more--that's not too bad) is a plus, as opposed to nothing in 2 years.

I won't drag this out any further, as it's abundantly clear we disagree, but just for the record: these aren't the only two options (trade Scherzer for something now, or get nothing for him in 2 years).

 

With as good as Scherzer has been (8.7 bWAR last year, 3 bWAR already this year), and as much as his remaining salary obligation is dropping all the time, it's quite likely that Scherzer can still fetch a Graterol, Gordon, Larnach type package a year or more from now. They'll get a lot more data on their own young players in that time too, as well as the fates of Strasburg and Rendon.

 

It's true that Scherzer gets no-trade rights if he's still in Washington at the end of this season, but I'm still not seeing that significantly weakening your estimated return. Verlander had a full no trade, wasn't quite as good as Scherzer, had an extra year of control (but also another year of cost -- Detroit had to send $16 mil to effectively pay for a chunk of that extra year), and he still fetched 50, 45, and 45 FV prospects from the Astros per Fangraphs. (The three Twins prospects you mention were 50, 50, and 40 on Fangraphs preseason list, and that was before Graterol's recent shoulder issue.)

 

Given that you also preferred the Angels trade Trout rather than sign him long-term and render the "lose him for nothing in 2 years" aspect moot, it seems you just simply favor very aggressive rebuilding action over even 2-3 seasons of 20-40% projected playoff odds, which is fine for your personal preference, but worth noting that MLB teams generally don't seem to take that position. I hope I've helped you understand why -- trading a legit superstar like Scherzer would take those 40% down to almost zero overnight, and it would take a pretty optimistic projection from Graterol, Gordon, and Larnach, as well as other good moves, to even get back to those same 40% playoff odds in 3 years, much less top them. Teams generally consider themselves better off by keeping the legit superstar and their current chances, while working to make smart moves around the periphery to improve their chances 3 years out. (Those moves aren't always so smart, or don't always work, but then again, neither would the same front office trading Scherzer!)

 

I'll bow out now, as I think I've said all that I can say. (Probably several times, I am sorry. )

[howeda7]

Kuechel to the Braves for a prorated $21 million. I would gladly have done that deal or a bit more. I'm more disappointed in this than missing Kimbrel.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Kuechel to the Braves for a prorated $21 million. I would gladly have done that deal or a bit more. I'm more disappointed in this than missing Kimbrel.

One year?

 

Hell, I didn’t even want Keuchel and now I’m disappointed, too.

[howeda7]

 

One year?

Hell, I didn’t even want Keuchel and now I’m disappointed, too.

He's certainly an upgrade over Pineda and probably over Perez by the end of the season.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The playoffs are not a crapshoot at best. They have some randomness, but they aren't random.

 

I don't think that's true at all.  The playoffs are a small sample size, sure the results aren't "random" but they are subject to the kind of wild variations that all small samples are guilty of.

 

You can prepare for them the best you can and then laugh as dudes like Brandon Backe pull a rabbit out of their rear end.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't think that's true at all. The playoffs are a small sample size, sure the results aren't "random" but they are subject to the kind of wild variations that all small samples are guilty of.

 

You can prepare for them the best you can and then laugh as dudes like Brandon Backe pull a rabbit out of their rear end.

If they were a crapshoot, then it would have been close to mathematically impossible for the Twins to lose in the first round over and over again.

[Mr. Brooks]

He's certainly an upgrade over Pineda and probably over Perez by the end of the season.

You only need 4 starters in the playoffs, so I'm not sure upgrading the 5th starter spot should be a priority for us, with the division virtually locked up.

[TheLeviathan]

If they were a crapshoot, then it would have been close to mathematically impossible for the Twins to lose in the first round over and over again.

Pretty sure it was!

 

If we lose three of the next five to the Tigers....should we cede them the division?

 

I will say again - add talent for the playoffs. 100% on board. But the playoffs are always a small sample and all the things that come with that.

[howeda7]

 

Because some of us have accepted the fact the FO operates under a budget, and always will.
Money spent on Kimbrel doesn't ONLY come out of Jim Pohlad's pocket, it also comes out of the payroll budget for each season that he's signed for.
For a mid-budget team, $16 million is a lot of money to allocate to one relief pitcher.

I'm not saying that means you automatically pass on it. But, the reality is that the FO does have to weigh the impact that salary has on future payrolls. I imagine the FO has a rough outline of short, medium, and long term payroll spreadsheets, and they just decided that this would be too likely to negatively impact those down the road.

You'd think the second best record in baseball would at least buy this FO the benefit of the doubt until the trade deadline comes to see how they address this bullpen.
I can't imagine they won't address it at some point. And if they don't, they'll rightfully lose that benefit of the doubt then.

I understand not wanting to commit $32 million in 2020 and 2021 to a relief pitcher. Essentially you are trading the prospects you will give up in a trade for $32 million to spend elsewhere on your payroll the next 2 years. Depending on who the prospects are, that's not a bad trade. Not going all in on Kuchel is harder to defend. Presumably the Pohlads are willing to go all in within reason. So it's not like paying Kuchel $13 million means we won't trade for a reliever due to $$.

[howeda7]

 

You only need 4 starters in the playoffs, so I'm not sure upgrading the 5th starter spot should be a priority for us, with the division virtually locked up.

I'd start Kuechel ahead of Perez and probably Gibson in a play-off rotation. Maybe even Odorizzi if he turns back into a pumpkin.

[Mr. Brooks]

Pretty sure it was!

 

If we lose three of the next five to the Tigers....should we cede them the division?

 

I will say again - add talent for the playoffs. 100% on board. But the playoffs are always a small sample and all the things that come with that.

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

Small sample size fluctuations are not the same as randomness.

If we get swept in Detroit, it might mean nothing. If we get swept every single time we play Detroit, over and over and over again, then something is going on.

Grab a coin and start flipping. See how hard it is to get only heads to come up, over and over and over again. It won't happen. Technically it could happen, but you probably won't live long enough to see it.

For the Twins to get swept out of the first round, year after year after year, something was going on. If it was pure randomness, they would have won approximately half of the first round series, then roughly half of the second round series, etc.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'd start Kuechel ahead of Perez and probably Gibson in a play-off rotation. Maybe even Odorizzi if he turns back into a pumpkin.

That's fair, if you like him that much. I think he's cooked, and would be a clear 5th option here. Can he even touch 90 anymore?

[howeda7]

 

That's fair, if you like him that much. I think he's cooked, and would be a clear 5th option here. Can he even touch 90 anymore?

Presumably the Braves checked that before they agreed to give him $13 million.

[Mr. Brooks]

Presumably the Braves checked that before they agreed to give him $13 million.

Not necessarily. They might think he can be effective at 88 or 89.

Being in the NL will help, I'll be interested to see how he does, I'm no stranger to being wrong.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't understand what you are getting at here.
Small sample size fluctuations are not the same as randomness.

 

 Technically it could happen, but you probably won't live long enough to see it.
 

 

I already stated that.  I understand that small samples aren't "random", that's not my point.  Max Kepler didn't "randomly" hit 3 home runs last night.  But I'm going to go out on a limb and not draw any huge implications going forward either.  Or in assessing Max Kepler.  He had a helluva night.  Drawing more conclusions than that (which you are) is the mistake.

 

That kind of sober approach to a small sample apparently is completely abandoned when people judge playoff performances.  They say a team like the 116 win Mariners wasn't "as good" as the Yankees.  No, they were probably better.  They got beat in a small sample.  If we could run that sample a hundred times perhaps the outcome is different more often than not. 

 

Which goes to the Yankees - yes, it can happen.  And did. It is a historical anomaly.  It's much better explained by a combination of psychology, talent, and good fortune.  Not as some massive pattern we can just "figure out" and magically win the next 10 championships.  

[Mr. Brooks]

I already stated that. I understand that small samples aren't "random", that's not my point. Max Kepler didn't "randomly" hit 3 home runs last night. But I'm going to go out on a limb and not draw any huge implications going forward either. Or in assessing Max Kepler. He had a helluva night. Drawing more conclusions than that (which you are) is the mistake.

 

That kind of sober approach to a small sample apparently is completely abandoned when people judge playoff performances. They say a team like the 116 win Mariners wasn't "as good" as the Yankees. No, they were probably better. They got beat in a small sample. If we could run that sample a hundred times perhaps the outcome is different more often than not.

 

Which goes to the Yankees - yes, it can happen. And did. It is a historical anomaly. It's much better explained by a combination of psychology, talent, and good fortune. Not as some massive pattern we can just "figure out" and magically win the next 10 championships.

Those are one time examples though.

The Twins aren't getting swept year after year after year just because of SSS randomness.

If you started flipping a coin, yes you'd need a large sample to get EXACTLY 50/50.

But you wouldn't need a very large sample at all to make it extremely unlikely to get all heads.

Just 5 in a row is 31:1.

Just 10 in a row is 1021:1!

 

How many playoff games in a row did the Twins lose?

Was some of it luck? Of course, but the majority of it was other factors. The main part being (IMO) that our "piranha" lineups couldn't hit playoff pitching. You can't string together 6 singles in an inning against great pitching.

I expect this lineup will fare much better.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Those are one time examples though.

 

I'd argue each of those handfuls are that and you are wrongly lumping them together.  It created the false sense of a pattern.  

 

I too expect this team to be better and I too want them to add an ace an bullpen parts.  I'm just not going to delude myself about the playoffs.  The playoffs crown the World Series Championship.  The 162 games decide the best teams.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'd argue each of those handfuls are that and you are wrongly lumping them together. It created the false sense of a pattern.

 

I too expect this team to be better and I too want them to add an ace an bullpen parts. I'm just not going to delude myself about the playoffs. The playoffs crown the World Series Championship. The 162 games decide the best teams.

They were a pattern. They shared similar players against similar opponents and were managed by the same manager.

And probability is on my side. I just showed you the odds of 5 or 10 straight coinflips.

 

Here are the last 6 World Series participants:

 

Red Sox/Dodgers

Astros/Dodgers

Indians/Cubs

 

All six had either the best, or second best records in their league. I don't believe the facts point to as much randomness as you think.