Busting 3 Myths About The Twins Offseason

MYTH #1: The Twins will significantly increase payroll.

I think you default to the "won't" until proven otherwise.

MYTH #2: The Twins need to add an impact starting pitcher.

I think nearly every team would like to add an impact starter. 

MYTH #3: Buxton's speed is real not "mythical".

Will the front office, or the Pohlads , be the biggest obstacle to the rise of this franchise?

You wonder if they really have the required interest. Many would say no. We are a mid-level franchise but pay like a small market team. Yes, I feel the Pohlads are the key to the

future.

Yes IF Santana has another career year AND Berrios improves AND Mejia improves markedly AND Gibson's last two months were for real AND a young arm does emerge AND there are no injuries whatsoever THEN yes you could get away without adding an impact starter.

That doesn't mean you should! 

Myth #1  The Twins will significantly increase payroll acquiring truly useful players.

Myth #2  The Twins don't need multiple good, starting pitchers.

Myth #3   The Twins don't need any more good hitters.

On Myth 1,2010-2011 were outlier years rather than the norm. And the Twins had just moved in to Target Field, so there was that boost. The Twins continue to count pennies by doing things like leveraging Park's finders fee against each season's payroll. This team has also never--never--publically stated what the following season's payroll will be. There is no real basis that I can see for an expectation of a sizeable leap in dollars.

On Myth 2, we absolutely need (I think!) a frontline starter, but because we don't spend top dollar, it makes acquiring one quite the challenge. There are not any Jack Morris's willing to take a hometown discount for the privilege of pitching for us for one year.

Finally, 2017 was less a career year for Santana than one of his typical good ones. He would need to go about 19-5 to have a career year. 15-8 or so is good but not any defining, singular statement.

I would also add that the last 2 aces we developed -- Viola and J Santana -- we traded away when they became too "expensive" by team standards. Those two combined to win three Cy Youngs for us (and the former was a WS MVP).

Not to quibble with what we received for Viola, but to rather say that we have at least a 30-year history of not even keeping our own aces, and with the exception of the Morris signing, which was something of a fluke, we've never gone out and bought one.

Amendment: E Santana

His stats for 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2017 are all but identical: 32-33 starts, 16-17 wins, 200+ innings.

2017 does not really stand out for E Santana other than to punctuate his consistency for more than a decade. It certainly qualifies as one of the better years of his career—in the top 4 using these standard stats at least. But not an over-the-moon career year.

Those types would be more the domain of Puckett ’88, Viola ’88, Radke ’97, J Santana ’04, Morneau ’06, and Mauer ’09.

Last amendment, what we received for Viola ... (Aguilera and Tapani; and David West, who pitched well in the '91 ALCS for those who delve into the arcane) 

From the original post, perhaps the biggest myth written in it is the paragraph that basically says Kyle Gibson has finally figured it out.

As far as Buxton goes, hopefully he'll stop slamming into walls.  A healthy Buxton who plays aggressive yet smart is more valuable than a Buxton who makes a great catch and then has to sit out weeks because he tried to run through a wall.  

All I can really agree with is Myth 3.

As far as #1, there is almost nothing to support the notion that the Twins will spend money. I think the "myth" would be that the Twins will start spending now that the window is open. This wasn't the case through much of the early 2000s. Their payroll didn't reach the heights it did (if you can call it that) until they had to sign Mauer to a large deal. Take that outlier out, and you're right back to where you historically are. They had to do that to avoid a PR nightmare. They knew it, Mauer and Mauer's agent knew it. No way they give that deal away to a traditional outside free agent.

Also. They'll have a lot of young guys that'll need big contracts. I wouldn't think they're going to go beyond a modestly priced 2-3 year deal on anybody.

#2 I think is also a fallacy. Sure, they don't "need" one to physically play baseball, bur they sure do to realistically compete with teams like Houston and Cleveland. Expecting Santana to repeat what looks to be a semi-anomalous season would be a mistake. Gibson had a nice run towards the end, and I like his stuff, but banking on him being that pitcher for 200+ innings going forward is another mistake. Mejia is virtually totally unproven. Berrios is the only one I'm looking at and think we're set there going forward.

Sure, that rotation could theoretically put it together. But, so could any mix of pitchers on planet earth. But, if you want to confidently go into 2018 as a contender, some quality rotation help is necessary, IMO.

You know what happens when you rely on unproven prospects to fill an MLB spot in the rotation?

You get Adam Wilk, Tim Melville, broken Phil Hughes, Nick Tepesch, Felix Jorge, Aaron Slegers, Dillon Gee, Nik Turley, and Big Sexy starting games for you.

Sign a gol dang impact SP.

I'm not entirely with you on the premise.   Every successful or impact SP was an unproven prospect at one time that some one promoted to fill a spot in the rotation.   World Series contention is what happened when Cleveland relied on Salazar and Kluver to fill spots in their rotation and I could probably come up with dozens of other examples but you get the drift.   Of course there are plenty of examples of going the other way.   I am still on the Cobb band wagon and think he could have a very big impact on our rotation though don't know if he would fit your definition of impact SP.  If he does then I am completely on board with your last sentence. 

  If the Twins came out of the gate with that signing like they did with Castro a year ago I would immediately rate their off season a B+.     

As far as myths go I agree with Sconnie.   If you think myth 2 is not a myth then myth one becomes pointless.    

First off, their revenue is down ONLY if they weren't able to sell media advertising. Attendance held (rather than dropped) and much of the ticket sales were for fuller price tickets controlled by the Twins because they were competitive and put a winning team on the field. The brand may have taken a hit as the Twins had no excitable advertising campaign and the team was second-tiered msot of the season in sports coverage (or so it seemed) which should be worse than ever during the off-season dominated by a winning Vikings team, hockey and basketball (as always) and the dreaded Super Bowl media hype.

If you immediately pull-the-plug on the Hughes salary and eat it (send the guy packing), you have Santana coming off the books...so you can splurge on an A-level starter. Wouldn't the prospect of having a Tim Sale-like arm be more than tantalizing right now. Even a Grienke of two years past. Hell, wished the Twins had known enough of their prospects to land Verlander for the remaining years of his contract.

A tough area is how to extend sooner rather than later (remember the wonderful Indians experiment of signing their young players longterm). You may average pay, seldom overpay, and if the guys produce you get a bargain or a wonderful trading chip with a reasonable contract (see Denard Span) if someone truly pushes a player out of the picture in the next 2-3 years.

With what seems to be many seasons of talk of a crop of young power arms coming to the majors (few of the names mentioned have made ANY impact in the last three years), we can possibly sit tight in the bullpen. Maybe a grizzled veteran would be a welcomed addition to keep the youngsters in place.

We have to address Joe Mauer sooner rather than later. Is he a longjam at first or wherever else he can contribute to the team. We need to address Dozier. How much is an extension. If it is for two seasons beyond with an option, can we hope that his play remains enough to be at the least a tradechip before his downslide, or that he is a franchise player eventually moving into a DH who can also play the field role.

The leg surgery for Sano is a toughie. Is he truly the DH and future Twins version of David Ortiz, or just another guy to move onto greener pastures, perhaps. He's one of those guys who can be a half-way decent player by just walking up to the plate and swinging a bat. He has highs and also lows. Yes, would love if he was a $15-20 million-a-year David Ortiz, and not the second-coming of Delmon Young.

All this talk of payroll and spending 55% or what-the-heck is meaningless. Once you hit $100 million in payroll, you no longer have to spend 55%. The otehr 45% pretty much stays the same (cost of front office, operations, minor leagues and such). So you can spend 100% of whatever the team takes in about that amount (depending, ultimately, on play which reflects attendance and media ad revenue).

The Twins can easily spend $140 million. They could spend $160-175 million and unless they happen to pick the wrong injury-plagued contracts, should succeed.

Gibson needs to repeat to stay a Twin and then the negotiations start for a long-term contract. Mejia may/may not be a longterm player. The Twins have young arms, but only one that you truly see breaking ranks in spring training and even he could spend more time in the minors (a familiar prospect rally cry, it seems). Yes, we can hope that there will be at least 3-4 young arms fighting for rotation positions come 2019 and that all 3-4 would be keepers, although a rotation of young arms if you are still a competitive team is a high gamble to remain competitive. But you never know.

But before spending major money on more than one player, the Twins have to address Sano, Mauer, Dozier, all the sophs, and get a strong handle on the minor league pipeline. If they BUY players, than many prospects will be available for trade (and as shown already this season, the Twins could fill the 40-man with a least 15 prospects...too many in my book...and there will be more next season).

Article: "Know what happened the last time the Twins planned for a season with true championship aspirations? They set a franchise record for payroll, under Bill Smith, at $113 million. That was in 2011, when they were coming off their last playoff appearance."

Wikipedia: "The Twins fired Smith as general manager on November 7, 2011, and replaced him with his predecessor, Ryan."

Is there any doubt the new front office is aware of this history? As a few others have stated, it's not a myth until it's proven wrong. 

Amendment: E Santana

 

His stats for 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2017 are all but identical: 32-33 starts, 16-17 wins, 200+ innings.

 

2017 does not really stand out for E Santana other than to punctuate his consistency for more than a decade. It certainly qualifies as one of the better years of his career—in the top 4 using these standard stats at least. But not an over-the-moon career year.

 

Those types would be more the domain of Puckett ’88, Viola ’88, Radke ’97, J Santana ’04, Morneau ’06, and Mauer ’09.

I think the angst over Ervin isn't that he had a career year, it's based on his age and the effects of Father Time (who remains undefeated).  I'm no stat-head, but I believe if you find a starting pitcher who had one of his best years at age 34, then look at the following year or 2, you are going to be a little nervous counting on him to come close to repeating 2017.  If you're counting on a youngster like Berrios to improve with age and experience, you have to acknowledge the likelihood of decline on a pitcher turning 35 in December.  

The problem for the Twins is that it isn't easy to find a top of the rotation starter, this will be a big test for Falvine.