Twins Front Office Testing an Unsustainable Rotation Solution

[bird]

43 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Ryan, SWR, Martin, and Duran came aboard midseason because the Twins were selling. That's not really a sustainable avenue of acquisition either. 

No, the farm isn't devoid of talent, but if we're talking about the "pitching pipeline," eh, it's not exactly encouraging. They're almost at a point where they'll have more rotation spots than arms in the next year or two, and that's before injury/ineffectiveness enter the conversation. 

It's irrelevant to me how those prospects were acquired. Cruz was a FA at season's end. They weren't interested in re-signing him. They got a steal. Eduardo Escobar was looking for more money than the Twins thought he was worth. Hence Duran. Same with Santana. Potentially a great trade. I'd say these trades all qualify as part of a highly sustainable overall approach. Which of these trades would you take back on the basis that they were "selling"?,  Or for any reason for that matter?

As far as starting pitching, they'll be just fine. Lopez, Ryan, perhaps Mahle extended. Perhaps, among Ober, Varland, Winder, SWR, Balazovic, Sands, Enlow, Canterino... they get "lucky" and discover a couple viable startersand a RP or two, maybe pick up another via a trade of guys like Polanco and Kepler, and maybe they finally get another Shane Bieber-type surprise to go along with similar Bieber-like prospects (Ober and Winder) in a guy like Headrick or Festa, or maybe a couple years down the pike guys like Raya or Prielipp pan out.

 

[Mike Sixel]

19 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I am not quite there.  It depends on two things for me.  Do they actually contend?  If not, so what if they were a little better.  Obviously, they did not contend last year.  We will see about this year but a lot of stuff has to go right,  Two, how long and how well does the lost prospect perform.  5-6 years of a solid number 2 really lifts a team, not to mention that cost controlled guy frees up budget for FAs.

There are some examples like the Marlins got Alcantara and Gallen for two years of Acuna.  For me, unless they have two runs to the WS or win the WS one of the years, it's a very bad trade.  They won 88 games in 2018 and 91 in 19 then lost 4-0 in the NLCS.  So, they did pretty well but for me that is not remotely worth Alcantara for 6 years not to mention Zac Gallen as a bonus.

But you can't know that at the time. If you live in fear of making any moves, just find another job. Judging moves in hindsight is incredibly unfair to those making them. 

[Dman]

43 minutes ago, bird said:

I'm gonna push back a bit:

1) Falvey hasn't been stacking up prospect-for-vet deals at an excessive clip. He's added prospects pretty much as much as he's traded them, and one could argue that the quality of prospects added surpass the talent traded away. The farm system is not close to barren. A lot of our better prospects were acquired in trade, just as a lot of our 26-man this year will be acquisitions that cost prospect capital. Feels like a pretty balanced approach.

2) The playing field has evened out dramatically when it comes to the drafting process. Technology has closed the gap regarding development efficiencies, and league-imposed spending limits curb competitive advantages as well. How does a team gain an edge these days? Smart trades. So, I'd submit to you that their philosophy is to trade effectively, and often, rather than to deplete the farm as you're suggesting.

I guess it depends on your view of this team.  Are you projecting them out to be winners (in the playoff hunt) every year or win one year lose the next?  Because they made those trades in losing years.  So to maintain that kind of balance you would have to contemplate them losing almost as much as winning IMO.  Most teams in contention for the playoffs wouldn't be trading a Jose Berrios at the deadline for prospects.  

My line of thinking is that with these moves for pitching that they are planning on winning and that this would be a long term winning strategy and if that is the case I don't see much in prospects coming back.  By employing their current trade for a starter strategy and sustaining it they would be doing the opposite of an Oakland, Tampa, Cleveland who generally sell the last few years of vets for prospects.  They wouldn't be bringing prospects back but continuously trading them at least if they are winning.

I think what they are doing is fine short term but as the OP said I don't think it is sustainable if building a winning team year in and year out.

[bird]

31 minutes ago, Dman said:

I guess it depends on your view of this team.  Are you projecting them out to be winners (in the playoff hunt) every year or win one year lose the next?  Because they made those trades in losing years.  So to maintain that kind of balance you would have to contemplate them losing almost as much as winning IMO.  Most teams in contention for the playoffs wouldn't be trading a Jose Berrios at the deadline for prospects.  

My line of thinking is that with these moves for pitching that they are planning on winning and that this would be a long term winning strategy and if that is the case I don't see much in prospects coming back.  By employing their current trade for a starter strategy and sustaining it they would be doing the opposite of an Oakland, Tampa, Cleveland who generally sell the last few years of vets for prospects.  They wouldn't be bringing prospects back but continuously trading them at least if they are winning.

I think what they are doing is fine short term but as the OP said I don't think it is sustainable if building a winning team year in and year out.

We're not far off, Dman, but we're looking at the same thing and observing slightly different things.

GM'ing is hard. I think Falvey's sustainabilty strategy is to maintain a quality balance between the pipeline and the MLB team. Avoiding valleys is hard. The main culprit? Performance volatility of human assets, especially pitchers. Injuries have a massive influence on things, but even without injury issues, players have astonishingly variant performances year to year. Falvey's record is mixed. Like most GMs. Two things I want him to do? Add numbers because it's a numbers game. His pitching pipeline, while better, is still too thin. And trade like a maniac, winning more often than you lose. Trade from MLB surplus primarily to shore up the pipeline, and trade from the pipeline to plug holes with the big club. If I'm the GM, the standings are virtually irrelevant. If they're in first place at the deadline and Lewis looks like he can hold his own at 2B? See ya, Mr. Polanco, even if he's doing well, assuming an overpay surfaces.

My arbitrary standard for Falvey is Top 10 in the MLB power rankings 90% of the time and Top 10 in prospect rankings 100% of the time. I believe if he can do that, we'll stumble upon front rotation guys and win a bunch of post-season games.

[Dman]

4 minutes ago, bird said:

We're not far off, Dman, but we're looking at the same thing and observing slightly different things.

GM'ing is hard. I think Falvey's sustainabilty strategy is to maintain a quality balance between the pipeline and the MLB team. Avoiding valleys is hard. The main culprit? Performance volatility of human assets, especially pitchers. Injuries have a massive influence on things, but even without injury issues, players have astonishingly variant performances year to year. Falvey's record is mixed. Like most GMs. Two things I want him to do? Add numbers because it's a numbers game. His pitching pipeline, while better, is still too thin. And trade like a maniac, winning more often than you lose. Trade from MLB surplus primarily to shore up the pipeline, and trade from the pipeline to plug holes with the big club. My arbitrary standard for him is Top 10 in the MLB power rankings 90% of the time and Top 10 in prospect rankings 100% of the time. I believe if he can do that, we'll stumble upon front rotation guys and win a bunch of post-season games.

Yeah we pretty much dead on agree. We seem to have a different understanding of the OP "sustainability" it looks like.  I don't think we can trade top prospect for pitchers every year long term (i.e. not sustainable). Need that farm to give us some pitching.  I think once greater balance is established they can trade more often than not from strength to get the deals they need. I am never opposed to trading from surplus to fill a hole but we have a fair number of assets tied up in starting pitching right now and it would be nice to see that slow down.

I like this FO and we all mercilessly berate them for any move that doesn't work out (myself included at times).  Not all moves work out for any team.  They set this team up to have a chance.  Hopefully they perform well. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.

[KirbyDome89]

13 minutes ago, bird said:

It's irrelevant to me as to how those prospects were acquired. Cruz was a FA at season's end. They weren't interested in re-signing him. They got a steal. Eduardo Escobar was looking for more money than the Twins thought he was worth. Hence Duran. Same with Santana. Potentially a great trade. I'd say these trades all qualify as part of a highly sustainable overall approach. Which of these trades would you take back on the basis that they were "selling"?,  Or for any reason for that matter?

As far as starting pitching, they'll be just fine. Lopez, Ryan, perhaps Mahle extended. Perhaps, among Ober, Varland, Winder, SWR,Balazovic, Sands, Enlow... they get "lucky and discover a couple viable starters, maybe pick up another via a trade of guys like Polanco and Kepler, and maybe they finally get another Shane Bieber-type surprise to go along with similar prospect such as Ober and Winder from a guy like Headrick or Festa, or maybe a coiple years down the pike guys like Raya or Prielipp pan out.

 

What's sustainable about folding your cards in July? Sure, Ryan for Cruz is a W, no doubt, but it took a last place finish and overall miserable year to provide an opportunity for such a swap to take place. If MN is .500 and holding onto WC hopes Cruz stays put and walks at the end of the year. That's not a reliable approach. 

I get that nothing with prospects is written in stone, but Enlow and Sands have almost no shot at being a starting pitcher at the big league level. Balazovic needs a dramatic turnaround or he's likely out as a starter as well. Both Winder and Ober have bullpen written all over them due to varying degrees of health and performance concerns.

Right now it's Varland and SWR.

Prielipp maybe in a couple years if he's healthy/productive, but he has yet to throw a pitch as a professional. Raya is in A ball.

Gray, Mahle and Maeda all exit after this season. Lopez follows them the next year. You've already stated that this FO doesn't want to invest years/$$ into SP, why are banking on Mahle being extended? 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

But you can't know that at the time. If you live in fear of making any moves, just find another job. Judging moves in hindsight is incredibly unfair to those making them. 

I basically agree this is a hindsight judgment but there is also some degree of accountability if their evaluation is wrong as it was when the cardinals gave up both Alcantara and Gallen.  Just my opinion but I think this FO significantly misjudged their chances last year.  If they don't make much of a playoff run this year, they did in fact expend a lot of assets when their chances were not good.  So, while it is hindsight, that hindsight pretty clearly shows they were wrong about their chances last year and any team can misjudge prospects and end up over paying in a manner that has a significant long-term negative impact.  The best hitters fail 70% of the time. Decisions that don't work out are part of the deal but that does not change the fact that deals that seemed reasonable turn out to be bad decisions that hurt the team for several years.  

[Mike Sixel]

7 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I basically agree this is a hindsight judgment but there is also some degree of accountability if their evaluation is wrong as it was when the cardinals gave up both Alcantara and Gallen.  Just my opinion but I think this FO significantly misjudged their chances last year.  If they don't make much of a playoff run this year, they did in fact expend a lot of assets when their chances were not good.  So, while it is hindsight, that hindsight pretty clearly shows they were wrong about their chances last year and any team can misjudge prospects and end up over paying in a manner that has a significant long-term negative impact.  The best hitters fail 70% of the time. Decisions that don't work out are part of the deal but that does not change the fact that deals that seemed reasonable turn out to be bad decisions that hurt the team for several years.  

I don't think they misjudged last year. Their injury rate was insane, and the closer was awful at the beginning. Stuff happens. 

[bird]

57 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

What's sustainable about folding your cards in July? Sure, Ryan for Cruz is a W, no doubt, but it took a last place finish and overall miserable year to provide an opportunity for such a swap to take place. If MN is .500 and holding onto WC hopes Cruz stays put and walks at the end of the year. That's not a reliable approach. 

I get that nothing with prospects is written in stone, but Enlow and Sands have almost no shot at being a starting pitcher at the big league level. Balazovic needs a dramatic turnaround or he's likely out as a starter as well. Both Winder and Ober have bullpen written all over them due to varying degrees of health and performance concerns.

Right now it's Varland and SWR.

Prielipp maybe in a couple years if he's healthy/productive, but he has yet to throw a pitch as a professional. Raya is in A ball.

Gray, Mahle and Maeda all exit after this season. Lopez follows them the next year. You've already stated that this FO doesn't want to invest years/$$ into SP, why are banking on Mahle being extended? 

I guess I'm just more optimistic than you are, Kirby, for many reasons that can best be summed up by the word "possibilities". It's a numbers game. I'm less pessimistic about the pitching pipeline than you. Fangraphs thought more highly at the start of 2022 of six pitching prospects than they did SWR. They had 14 pitchers ahead of Varland. There's a story behind each of those 13 prospects not named Varland or SWR, and while I don't have a clue myself, there are plenty of evaluators who have a more promising outlook than you do about guys like Ober, Winder, and quite a few others among the 13.

[Major League Ready]

42 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I don't think they misjudged last year. Their injury rate was insane, and the closer was awful at the beginning. Stuff happens. 

True but I do remember thinking at the deadline that they were fooling themselves if they thought they were at all serious contenders, and I wrote that here.   There is a little more nuance to it though.  Others have pointed out that they did not give up top prospects although it would not surprise me if CES turned out to be an all-star.  They were really deep with "decent" prospects like Steer and you can't keep them all.  That's why I said earlier that the Twins could absolutely have a sustained period of success after making the trades they have made. 

Trading Arraez and replacing his production internally (at least close) is part of how they sustain winning.  Trading Polanco when Lee or Lewis is ready ... part of the solution.  Extending Mahle / Gray or getting a comp round pick, etc.  Getting lucky in the lottery helps too.

[twinstalker]

So what's the reasoning behind trading Petty, Hajjar, and Povich if they're trying to develop pitching for sustainability? Better put, the more candidates, the more likely one or more develop.  Chances of even one of Raya, Festa, or the others we know at similar stages will be a solid Twins SP are low.

[bird]

1 hour ago, twinstalker said:

So what's the reasoning behind trading Petty, Hajjar, and Povich if they're trying to develop pitching for sustainability? Better put, the more candidates, the more likely one or more develop.  Chances of even one of Raya, Festa, or the others we know at similar stages will be a solid Twins SP are low.

I'd say the answer to your first question is Sonny Gray, Tyler Mahle, and Jorge Lopez.

Both Raya and Festa are perceived as being better bets to succeed than either Hajjar or Povich, but I guess my question is, if Festa and Raya's chances of becoming a solid Twins SP are low, then why wouldn;t the same thing be true of the prospects we traded for Gray, Mahle, and Lopez? Aren't the odds a lot better that we get decent production from those guys than we would from Povich, Hajjar, and even Petty?

But I certainly agree that the more candidates, the better, and IMO the pipeline is a bit thin on the pitching side right now.

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, twinstalker said:

So what's the reasoning behind trading Petty, Hajjar, and Povich if they're trying to develop pitching for sustainability? Better put, the more candidates, the more likely one or more develop.  Chances of even one of Raya, Festa, or the others we know at similar stages will be a solid Twins SP are low.

Not punting last year is the reasoning. Should they have just not tried to win last year?

[beckmt]

pitching seems to be a numbers and development game.  Right now I like our numbers.  Hajjar was considered to be a low risk, high floor starter.  Good chance of reaching the majors, upside was more likely a #4 or #5 starter.  Steer was totally blocked here by other prospects, not that he could not be better than most in the long run, his chances of doing that were lower.  The outfielder, just look at the numbers, he might be good, but who was he going to jump in front of.  

We don't know how Mahle will turn out, if he has a good year, maybe we can extend him, or at least tag him.  Lopez I would try and extend.  Maeda is how he looks this year and what he wants.  He is more of a pitcher, who has a chance of being decent into his late 30's.   Then you have the rest of the pipeline, we have numbers which make me believe a least a few will work out, and more will probably become bullpen pieces.  This year will be the test, see who sticks and who we need to move on from. 

[twinstalker]

18 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Not punting last year is the reasoning. Should they have just not tried to win last year?

Yes, that is the one and only alternative to what I said.  Thanks.

I wasn't the one saying the Twins need to develop more pitching.  I was pointing out they're not really trying to do that relative to their options.  Maybe they had no real hope for Hajjar and Povich, but if they did, it seems they're not getting out of the cycle they're in by trading the guys next in line after Varland and SWR.

Or what I really meant was they should have just not tried to win last year.