Falvey: "...We're going to target impact pitching."

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Eavin Santana was just as premier as Jack Morris when he was signed.

Jack Morris’ contract with the Twins was the first in MLB history to include a player opt out. He wanted Roger Clemens money but couldn’t get the length, so instead opted for free agency a year later. Then got Roger Clemens money from Toronto in ‘92, when he exercised his option.

 

Ervin got standard 3rd starter money. Not comparable in the least.

[yarnivek1972]

Jack Morris’ contract with the Twins was the first in MLB history to include a player opt out. He wanted Roger Clemens money but couldn’t get the length, so instead opted for free agency a year later. Then got Roger Clemens money from Toronto in ‘92, when he exercised his option.

 

Ervin got standard 3rd starter money. Not comparable in the least.

If any team had felt Jack Morris had been a premier ace caliber pitcher after 1990, he wouldn’t have had to settle for a one year “gamble on himself” deal. Ervin may have only gotten “3rd starter” money per year, but he signed a 4 year contract with an option for a 5th.

[jorgenswest]

The Twins guarantee to Morris was 3 years and 7 million dollars.

 

The base for the first year was 3 million with player options the next two years at 2 million.

 

That same week Clemens signed a 4 year 21.521 million contract.

 

It was a brilliant signing and a risk for both with Morris betting on himself to rebound. The Twins got the World Series and Morris got his contract the next year.

 

For the Twins it was either going to be one great season and pay 3.7 million incentives included (and Morris opts out) or three mediocre seasons for 7 million.

 

A similar (scaled to today’s dollars) contract offer today is not going to bring a top or even second tier free agent.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Well they seemed to get the offense in order in a pretty short time, rather, to a record breaking level of awesomeness. Perhaps a bit of luck involved, but they targeted guys poised for a bounce back, or picked up some nice bargains, while riding the young core and getting the right guys to have good chemistry, manager included. None of these guys were hot ticket items.

 

What hot-ticket pitcher would have chosen the Twins last year? Yah sure money speaks, but these guys know they are in this game for only a short while, and I'd wager that for the elite arms, the chance to win trumps money all day, especially given the amount of money they command. 

 

Minnesota looks a lot more attractive to top arms this off-season than it has in a while.

Personally, the best thing I think comes from this is that if they try and lure some top shelf starting pitching here, this has a draw..

 

best offense in baseball, and a pen that's clearly up and coming... If they want Cole and/or Strassburg, the rest of the team assembled will certainly catch their attention. 

[yarnivek1972]

The Twins guarantee to Morris was 3 years and 7 million dollars.

 

The base for the first year was 3 million with player options the next two years at 2 million.

 

That same week Clemens signed a 4 year 21.521 million contract.

 

It was a brilliant signing and a risk for both with Morris betting on himself to rebound. The Twins got the World Series and Morris got his contract the next year.

 

For the Twins it was either going to be one great season and pay 3.7 million incentives included (and Morris opts out) or three mediocre seasons for 7 million.

 

A similar (scaled to today’s dollars) contract offer today is not going to bring a top or even second tier free agent.

But, it might be exactly the kind of deal that Pineda might go for.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Teams that win have contingency for losing starting pitchers that don’t involve using a guy that started the season in A ball starting game 2 of the playoffs.

yes and no... it's not like you can stash an ace or #3 in AAA. This is a bit of a hindsight/subjective argument. I doubt the FO was counting on Dobnak to start the season... He just happened, and they were as pleasantly surprised as we were... They were probably hoping Romero would take a step forward... or Graterol, Wells, and Gonsalves to not get inured... Perhaps Littell to stick as a starter or Stewart with some coaching and his stuff to also start to look more like a major leaguer.. or maybe Perez could do something with that cutter... who knows... 

 

They had contingency plans... and to be honest, those are the types of plans every team that doesn't have a sure fire #1 sitting in AA will have.

 

I'd argue they did more wrong with their primary options. I'd also argue that if what was said in this thread is true, now is the time to spend... 

[old nurse]

 

While Jake Odorizzi and Mike Pineda were savvy signings, we've seen many more pickups like Zach Duke, Martin Perez, Fernando Rodney, and Addison Reed fall flat.

 

If names like those above are considered "impact pitchers", then I'm not sure I can stomach more of the same. Let's go out and grab some high-profile talent and stop sifting through scraps for a change, Falvine!

Rodney pitched to career average for the Twins. Not a bad signing at all. They got a decent prospect for him. Duke pitched  decently for what he was. Costello  hit  better than what one would have expected for a back of the bullpen arm.  Reed was injured. Can't really blame the FO for that, although you seem to do so.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

No idea to what you are referring. Verlander has had two seasons in his career with an ERA + below 115. One was when he was 25 the other was when he was 31.

When he was traded, Verlander was coming off the worst season he had in years, had previous injury concerns, and was being paid like royalty for the next 5-6 years. 

 

There's a reason why no one else even appeared to be interested in acquiring him.

 

But Houston works on a different level than the rest of baseball. They didn't only see that Verlander was still good, they saw how they could turn a mid-30s Verlander into the best pitcher he'd been in his entire career. In his mid- to late-30s.

 

That's the bar the Twins need to set for their goals. How to find baseball's blindspots and exploit the hell out of them.

 

Now, I don't reasonably expect the Twins to be the Astros, they're out-of-the-stratosphere good at this stuff... but that should be the goal.

[USAFChief]

When he was traded, Verlander was coming off the worst season he had in years, had previous injury concerns, and was being paid like royalty for the next 5-6 years.

 

There's a reason why no one else even appeared to be interested in acquiring him.

 

But Houston works on a different level than the rest of baseball. They didn't only see that Verlander was still good, they saw how they could turn a mid-30s Verlander into the best pitcher he'd been in his entire career. In his mid- to late-30s.

 

That's the bar the Twins need to set for their goals. How to find baseball's blindspots and exploit the hell out of them.

 

Now, I don't reasonably expect the Twins to be the Astros, they're out-of-the-stratosphere good at this stuff... but that should be the goal.

when Verlander was traded, he had 2.33 years left at $22m per year, hardly "royalty" by today's standards. A tremendous bargain, in fact.

 

And he was coming off a year in which he was 16-9 with 227 innings of 140 ERA+/1.00 WHIP pitching, with 254 Ks.

 

There was a thread here prior to the trade in which a few people begged the Twins to acquire him.

 

He had no trade protection, which was a big issue, but there were no shortage of suitors. As is the case often it seems, it was less Houston changing Verlander than it was Houston's GM having the guts and wherewithal to get the deal done at the last minute.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

when Verlander was traded, he had 2.33 years left at $22m per year. And he was coming off a year in which he was 16-9 with 227 innings of 140 ERA+/1.00 WHIP pitching.

There was a thread here prior to the trade in which a few people begged the Twins to acquire him.

Sure, and I get that. 

 

My POINT is that Houston turned him into the best pitcher he's ever been... and the guy is approaching his late 30s. Literally, Justin Verlander, at age 36 or 37 or whatever, *right now* is the best pitcher he has been in his life. That's absurd and says so much about the Astros system.

 

The Twins would not have done that with Verlander in 2017 or 2018 or probably 2019.

 

That's the bar. Get to the point where you can take players no one else wants and turn them into spectacular players because everyone else is missing something.

[USAFChief]

Sure, and I get that.

 

My POINT is that Houston turned him into the best pitcher he's ever been... and the guy is approaching his late 30s. Literally, Justin Verlander, at age 36 or 37 or whatever, *right now* is the best pitcher he has been in his life. That's absurd and says so much about the Astros system.

 

The Twins would not have done that with Verlander in 2017 or 2018 or probably 2019.

 

That's the bar. Get to the point where you can take players no one else wants and turn them into spectacular players because everyone else is missing something.

I get the point, but facts matter too.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I get the point, but facts matter too.

True, somehow I missed that Verlander only had 2+ years on his contract when I thought he had 4 left.

 

But the overall point remains that no one else was falling over themselves to pick up that contract while the Astros said "yep", then literally turned a 35 year old pitcher into a better pitcher than he was at 25.

[old nurse]

Verlander had a no trade clause. Were other team inquiring? We will not know. There is no point in anyone saying anything.  Leading up to the trade Verlander could say no when approached, end of conversation. The holdup on the trade was Verlander saying yes.  Obviously he eventually said yes. His contract was for 28 million a year. Detroit kicked in 8

[nicksaviking]

 

True, somehow I missed that Verlander only had 2+ years on his contract when I thought he had 4 left.

 

But the overall point remains that no one else was falling over themselves to pick up that contract while the Astros said "yep", then literally turned a 35 year old pitcher into a better pitcher than he was at 25.

 

It seemed to me the biggest issue was that Verlander vocally said he didn't want to be traded and then only just agreed to do so at the literal last minute; to the team that was already the hands-down favorite to win the WS no less. I might think team's weren't falling over themselves to get him only because it had been made clear to them by Verlander or Detroit that it wasn't going to happen.

 

Not that some teams might not have been turned off by him as a pitcher also. 

[jkcarew]

I would think we're looking at the tier below Cole...plus a trade or two. Seem unlikely you're going to fill all the wholes...with anything even on the fringes of "impact"...with just FA signings or just trades.

 

Buried in the argument is the fact that the organization has been utterly horrible in identifying and developing top-end pitching in the system. Of course, not much of that is on the current administration...although, their track record for development isn't exactly off to a stellar start. Turning that around soon would probably also make an 'impact' for the current window...at least after 2020, one would hope.

[howieramone2]

 

Jack Morris’ contract with the Twins was the first in MLB history to include a player opt out. He wanted Roger Clemens money but couldn’t get the length, so instead opted for free agency a year later. Then got Roger Clemens money from Toronto in ‘92, when he exercised his option.

Ervin got standard 3rd starter money. Not comparable in the least.

If nothing else, Morris was in the decline phase, Santana wasn't.

[Tomj14]

 

If nothing else, Morris was in the decline phase, Santana wasn't.

Morris was coming off 3 not so good years. (WAR 1.2, -.1, .7)

But never over look the fact of bringing a star home to play in MN was their deal. Morris, Winfield, Moliter, Steinbach.

 

Coming Morris to someone, the best comparison might be for King Felix, three terrible years come to MN to prove something in your mid 30's and win a World Series.

[akmanak]

I always enjoy the end of the season for moments like this. Year after painful year we hyoe ourselves up believing that this is the offseason we make the big moves to aquire some decent pitching and year after year the Twins stand idle.

 

Here is the question I pose to the board, when do you finally realize that the owners simply dont care about this team?

[old nurse]

 

I always enjoy the end of the season for moments like this. Year after painful year we hyoe ourselves up believing that this is the offseason we make the big moves to aquire some decent pitching and year after year the Twins stand idle.

Here is the question I pose to the board, when do you finally realize that the owners simply dont care about this team?

If that was true there would be no investment in technology. They would not have hired the people they have. They would not have signed Cruz or Gonzales.  You could say that the owners care about not losing money. The Twins are a billion dollar asset. They care about it.

[jz7233]

Nationals showed what elite starting pitching could do in post season.

[laloesch]

 

Nationals showed what elite starting pitching could do in post season.

 

Yep.  I am envious.

[Riverbrian]

Nationals showed what elite starting pitching could do in post season.

It’s much more complicated than that. What did the Nats elite starting pitching prove in years past? Is Anibel Sanchez now “elite”?

 

Yes you want pitchers to grab the ball and get outs. You want hitters who hit and fielders who field. The Nationals are playing good ball on several levels. As are the Yankees.

[Squirrel]

 

It’s much more complicated than that. What did the Nats elite starting pitching prove in years past? Is Anibel Sanchez now “elite”?

Yes you want pitchers to grab the ball and get outs. You want hitters who hit and fielders who field. The Nationals are playing good ball on several levels. As are the Yankees.

All the teams have been good on all levels except one team, imo. And it wasn't just about pitching. Of course there's that, no question ... that's been a no question for a while. But the rest of the team just didn't get it done either. I've been watching some of these games ... particularly the Nats and the Cards ... but all teams, really ... and all I could think was, 'Okay, wow ... we just didn't play at that caliber all around.'

[Riverbrian]

All the teams have been good on all levels except one, imo. And it wasn't just about pitching. Of course there's that, no question ... that's been a no question for a while. But the rest of the team just didn't get it done either. I've been watching some of these games ... particularly the Nats and the Cards ... but all teams, really ... and all I could think was, 'Okay, wow ... we just didn't play at that caliber all around.'

We absolutely didn’t play good on any level and we are golfing now. The Yankees apart from a dropped pop up by DJ played very well. Clutch hits, diving catches, the long ball and effective pitching when needed.

 

Was it the Twins playing bad or the Yankees playing great or somewhere in between?

 

Take the Cards for example... you could say they played well against the Braves and are not showing up against the Nats. But That’s way too easy because two teams contribute to the dynamic.

 

The Braves have good starting pitching. Supposedly better than Sanchez.

 

Does Cron get all the blame for swinging at that ball in the dirt or does Paxton get all credit for setting him up and then executing.

 

Watching Sanchez, Scherzer and Strusburg shut down the Cards and saying it “shows what starting pitching can do in the postseason can do is way too simple”.

 

Are the Cards helping that starting pitching right now? My guess is yes. Did Kershaw suck or did the Nats Bats have a hand in Kershaw sucking.

 

In the aftermath. I believe the Yankees played really well and the Twins helped them play well by not playing well. Tomorrow could be different but we don’t get a tomorrow now.

 

Next time I guess. It’s all I got to hold on to.

 

I always take issue with any thing that places blame solely on the Twins and refuses to credit the other team and I take issue with any thing that credits the Nats starting pitching for example without consideration of the opposing team and what they are doing.

[Squirrel]

 

We absolutely didn’t play good on any level and we are golfing now. The Yankees apart from a dropped pop up by DJ played very well. Clutch hits, diving catches, the long ball and effective pitching when needed.

Was it the Twins playing bad or the Yankees playing great or somewhere in between?

Take the Cards for example... you could say they played well against the Braves and are not showing up against the Nats. But That’s way too easy because two teams contribute to the dynamic.

The Braves have good starting pitching. Supposedly better than Sanchez.

Does Cron get all the blame for swinging at that ball in the dirt or does Paxton get all credit for setting him up and then executing.

Watching Sanchez, Scherzer and Strusburg shut down the Cards and saying it “shows what starting pitching can do in the postseason can do is way too simple”.

Are the Cards helping that starting pitching right now? My guess is yes. Did Kershaw suck or did the Nats Bats have a hand in Kershaw sucking.

In the aftermath. I believe the Yankees played really well and the Twins helped them play well by not playing well. Tomorrow could be different but we don’t get a tomorrow now.

Next time I guess. It’s all I got to hold on to.

I always take issue with any thing that places blame solely on the Twins and refuses to credit the other team and I take issue with any thing that credits the Nats starting pitching for example without consideration of the opposing team and what they are doing.

If you watched the first two games of the Nats-Cards series, all I could say after was 'Wow.' That wasn't good baseball, it was great baseball, on both sides. It didn't matter one team lost (okay, well, it probably mattered to the Cards) but that was great baseball, by both teams, and I applauded both teams, and said ... no way the Twins would have competed with that, as I didn't see that level of play all year. It wasn't just pitching that we didn't have. We relied heavily on the home run, and that was okay to get us to the playoffs, but we just weren't able to shift to 'playoff caliber' for whatever reason ... was it the coaching? Maybe. Was it team construction? Maybe. Was it inexperience? Maybe. Was it just a slightly lower level of talent? Maybe. There could be lots of reasons, and there were a combination of things, but those first two games in that series, as I said, all I could say was 'Wow, the Twins would not have been able to compete with that.' It was great baseball, on all levels, getting the performances they needed at the right time to make for what it was.

[laloesch]

 

If you watched the first two games of the Nats-Cards series, all I could say after was 'Wow.' That wasn't good baseball, it was great baseball, on both sides. It didn't matter one team lost (okay, well, it probably mattered to the Cards) but that was great baseball, by both teams, and I applauded both teams, and said ... no way the Twins would have competed with that, as I didn't see that level of play all year. It wasn't just pitching that we didn't have. We relied heavily on the home run, and that was okay to get us to the playoffs, but we just weren't able to shift to 'playoff caliber' for whatever reason ... was it the coaching? Maybe. Was it team construction? Maybe. Was it inexperience? Maybe. Was it just a slightly lower level of talent? Maybe. There could be lots of reasons, and there were a combination of things, but those first two games in that series, as I said, all I could say was 'Wow, the Twins would not have been able to compete with that.' It was great baseball, on all levels, getting the performances they needed at the right time to make for what it was.

 

Agreed on that.  I watched that series as well and this team would be an 80-85 win team in the NL Central or AL East.

[Riverbrian]

If you watched the first two games of the Nats-Cards series, all I could say after was 'Wow.' That wasn't good baseball, it was great baseball, on both sides. It didn't matter one team lost (okay, well, it probably mattered to the Cards) but that was great baseball, by both teams, and I applauded both teams, and said ... no way the Twins would have competed with that, as I didn't see that level of play all year. It wasn't just pitching that we didn't have. We relied heavily on the home run, and that was okay to get us to the playoffs, but we just weren't able to shift to 'playoff caliber' for whatever reason ... was it the coaching? Maybe. Was it team construction? Maybe. Was it inexperience? Maybe. Was it just a slightly lower level of talent? Maybe. There could be lots of reasons, and there were a combination of things, but those first two games in that series, as I said, all I could say was 'Wow, the Twins would not have been able to compete with that.' It was great baseball, on all levels, getting the performances they needed at the right time to make for what it was.

Agreed

[Riverbrian]

Agreed on that. I watched that series as well and this team would be an 80-85 win team in the NL Central or AL East.

The Nationals didn’t play this way for 162 games prior. They had stretches of it and are having a stretch right now it appears.

[Squirrel]

 

The Nationals didn’t play this way for 162 games prior. They had stretches of it and are having a stretch right now it appears.

Yep ... a lot of it is about 'the right time, the right place' when you reach the playoffs.

[ashbury]

The Twins clearly weren't ready to win in 2019, but better days are coming. Hopefully Marwin Gonzalez and Sergio Romo and Nelson Cruz learned from this post-season and will be better prepared in 2020.