Penciling A 2017 Starting Rotation

This offseason, the excuse will be, 'no really good starters available' AND/OR 'we're too far away from contending' (though many thought we would be contending this year and we did nothing to make the rotation better either, so who knows).

 

When/if the time comes when there are really good starters available (those times are going to get more and more rare), the excuse will be 'we can't compete with the big revenue clubs for the top guys' and/or 'we are still too far away'.

Except the Twins have signed starters in the past. They haven't gotten an elite starter but they have spent money in FA so this is kind of a tired criticism.

Except the Twins have signed starters in the past. They haven't gotten an elite starter but they have spent money in FA so this is kind of a tired criticism.

Well, I didn't say they hadn't signed starters in the past nor did I say they hadn't spent money in FA.  Strawman, party of one...your table is ready.

They have not gone out and signed a really good starter in many, many years. And when they did, the money situation in the game was way different.  I'm talking about the kind of pitcher that requires a big money in today's game (though Santana was a good sign, no doubt, and if you want to count him fine.  One). But I'm talking about the kind of pitcher who can be a real difference maker.  And when I say big money, I don't mean compared to what we've spent in the past. That's not the same thing.

But you're right, it is getting tiring having to make the same criticisms over the last 20+ years.

And, you know, if we want to say it's bad idea to buy ace pitcher in FA, fine. I don't necessarily disagree with that.  But then you need to trade quality prospects for established pitchers (which we won't do) OR we need to trade vets when their trade value is high for quality established pitchers or quality MLB ready pitchers(which we also won't do) OR we need to develop our own....which we can't seem to do.

Or the idea we shouldn't trade any of our proven guys for prospects, but we should trade for proven top notch established MLB pitching (but without trading Rosario, Buxton, Sano, Kepler and Polanco).  I've seen things like that said too.   How are we going to get quality without trading any quality, exactly?

Precisely. And as Nick has pointed out maybe better than anyone, Dozier represents, by far, the best chance to bolster the rotation without seriously compromising the future.

The trouble I run into with the idea of trading Santana is with the answer to the question "for what gain?" He's not going to get a return of Santana (the throw-in on the Boof Bonser trade Santana), or even of Santana(the one who cheated his organization, teammates, and fans out of his services for a half-season). Help me with how trading him and then inserting a lesser pitcher in his spot does anything other than to in all probability weaken the rotation at the start of 2017. Do people believe we'll get a big-time prospect for him over the winter? This seems unlikely to me.

From what I see, Sano, Buxton, and Dozier are the only proven assets available who are very likely to bring back a front-line starter, and even then, it would likely be a prospect, not a proven guy.

Precisely. And as Nick has pointed out maybe better than anyone, Dozier represents, by far, the best chance to bolster the rotation without seriously compromising the future.

 

The trouble I run into with the idea of trading Santana is the answer to the question "for what gain?" He's not going to get a return of Santana (the throw-in on the Boof Bonser trade Santana), or even of Santana(the one who cheated his organization, teammates, and fans out of his services for a half-season). Help me with how trading him and then inserting a lesser pitcher in his spot does anything other than to in all probability weaken the rotation at the start of 2017. Do people believe we'll get a big-time prospect for him over the winter? This seems unlikely to me.

 

From what I see, Sano, Buxton, and Dozier are the only proven assets available who are very likely to bring back a front-line starter, and even then, it would likely be a prospect, not a proven guy.

If you remember, I was for trading Santana at the deadline where I believe he would have had his best value.  If I knew for sure he'd stay healthy and keep performing like he has, I'd now say keep him till the 2017 trade deadline and trade him then.  It's a gamble I'm not sure we should take if we get a quality offer.

Then again, everyone is bemoaning the quality of starters available this offseason, so who knows what a very underpaid Santana gets.  I'd be asking because, really, this rotation is the worst in the AL and 2nd worst in baseball even WITH  1/5 of it being a very good Santana.

Cubs have the best defense in baseball at 79 runs saved.  They have only given up 470 earned runs, best in baseball.  If they had just an average defense, 0 DRS, their ERA would jump from 3.10 to 3.60ish (if not higher).

We have -50 runs saved and have given up 764 ER.

I'd be amazed if a good defense COULDN'T cut a team ERA by AT LEAST 1/2 a run. Defense is still very under-rated even though it's a signficant portion of run prevention.

Good read:

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/200908344/cubs-defense-fueling-historic-run-prevention/

It boggles my mind that people are treating a statement like "people could pitch to their career norms" as some kind of fantasy scenario. 

I don't think it's a fantasy scenario, but I don't understand how you think their "career norms" is likely to lead to a good team next year.

Santana 4.10 ERA, 4.22 FIP, 4.18 xFIP

Gibson 4.59 ERA, 4.23 FIP, 4.17 xFIP

Santiago 3.86 ERA, 4.70 FIP, 4.89 xFIP

These are their norms, or their career averages, anyway. This is what you want?

Ooooh, can I play this game?  But if we play Polanco at 2B we'll have no choice but to sign Juan Castro and play him at short.  Ouch.  That really hurts your plan!

 

I don't think the options are limited to "Either we have Ervin Santana or we have Pat Dean".  Suggesting so is revealing to me about what's wrong with this argument.

 

Look, no one is asking for Ervin Santana to be given away.  But he should be shopped.  With the market for starters as weak as it is and demand always being high, it makes sense to shop him.  Hell, it's the exact same reasoning for shopping Dozier!  The only difference is the perceived depth we have in Polanco, which is hardly an established fact.  

 

In either case we're accepting a step backward in 2017 to assemble more talent going forward.  Exactly why Santana and Dozier should both be available for the right offer.

Your game failed. We have a useful but not great SS in Eduardo Escobar.

And yes our options for the spot that Santana occupies in the rotation is him or more starts by AAAA pitchers like Pat Dean. We have holes behind Santana to be filled and there is very little available in FA and there are few trade chips available. I asked this question in a different comment 'Do you decline a Santana trade for a very good prospect if that prospect doesn't pitch?' There might be a team that will pay for Santana but when you start making position specific restraints on the prospects then it becomes a lot more difficult to get top value.

But at the end of the day I completely agree that they should both be shopped. If a top trade package is there then make the deal and live with the pain in 2017. But I am not in a hurry to trade the only decent starter the Twins have for what is likely a borderline top 100 prospect at best. The bounty for Dozier is possibly 3-4x Santana's value. If I were to make a trade that would be the one.

I don't think it's a fantasy scenario, but I don't understand how you think their "career norms" is likely to lead to a good team next year.

 

Santana 4.10 ERA, 4.22 FIP, 4.18 xFIP

Gibson 4.59 ERA, 4.23 FIP, 4.17 xFIP

Santiago 3.86 ERA, 4.70 FIP, 4.89 xFIP

 

These are their norms, or their career averages, anyway. This is what you want?

Twins starters have a 5.48 ERA. If those players perform to their averages and the offense takes another step forward with improved play from young players then this is a greatly improved team. It isn't awesome but there are constraints in the offseason (terrible FA market and a general lack of trade chips). 

Your game failed. We have a useful but not great SS in Eduardo Escobar.

 

And yes our options for the spot that Santana occupies in the rotation is him or more starts by AAAA pitchers like Pat Dean. We have holes behind Santana to be filled and there is very little available in FA and there are few trade chips available. I asked this question in a different comment 'Do you decline a Santana trade for a very good prospect if that prospect doesn't pitch?' There might be a team that will pay for Santana but when you start making position specific restraints on the prospects then it becomes a lot more difficult to get top value.

 

But at the end of the day I completely agree that they should both be shopped. If a top trade package is there then make the deal and live with the pain in 2017. But I am not in a hurry to trade the only decent starter the Twins have for what is likely a borderline top 100 prospect at best. The bounty for Dozier is possibly 3-4x Santana's value. If I were to make a trade that would be the one.

Duffey, Mejia, Hughes (wildcard). No Pat Dean and other AAAA pitchers aren't the only options. 

If Santana, Gibson and Santiago perform up to their career norms, while Berrios pitches remotely well, it's not that difficult to envision this being a decent, albeit below average rotation. Especially if you shore up the defense and add a couple more upside arms. Not sure why that concept is so absurd to a few folks around here.

 

No one is advocating going all-in on a World Series in 2017. But saying, "screw it we have no chance let's just get more prospects" is flat-out silly to me. All you're doing is giving up on the present and putting more faulty hope into the distant future on the basis of young pitching prospects, which are basically the most volatile asset in the game.

 

I'm not OK with the idea of wasting years of these good young hitters' careers while not bothering to make an effort to compete. What happens if the prospects you get back for Santana and Dozier fail to pan? Start over? Another rebuild? Submit yourself to a 15-year swoon? No thanks. 

Obviously this all hinges on how somebody views the rotation for next few years. In the same way you aren't advocating an all-in approach to 2017, I don't think anybody hopes the Twins call it quits on next year either. It isn't improbable to think this rotation could be decent, but like you mentioned above they're below average. That is their ceiling if everything breaks right for this team. I'm frustrated by the idea of wasting years of good young players as well, but isn't sending out this rotation next year doing just that? I'm not advocating a FA signing, I realize the market isn't exactly saturated. The best options for the staff, barring a massive haul for Dozier or some team becoming desperate at the winter meetings and giving up a plus AAA prospect, lie within house. Objectively this team isn't going to anywhere near the playoffs next year with the current rotation. Is it not placing faulty hope in the present to hold onto Santana, thinking there is a chance 2017 is anything other than a last place divisional finish or that 2018 is anything but a toss up whether or not the team is competitive (new regime coming in so we can't know a direction yet)? I'm not saying the Twins have to trade Santana, but if they can get a piece back for him I don't see his loss as catastrophic to the rotation. Like I said, next year will be rough, and we don't know what 2018 will be like because we don't have a POBO right now, so selling Santana at peak value doesn't seem too crazy to me. 

That's fine. I also didn't mention Gonsalves, Mejia, Hughes, May or any FA acquisitions/trade returns for Dozier etc. To act like they're doomed to anything approximating the same historically bad outcome as this year is nothing but blind pessimism.

 

It boggles my mind that people are treating a statement like "people could pitch to their career norms" as some kind of fantasy scenario.

Maybe not a fantasy scenario, but it's got to be exceedingly rare for any team's "Plan A" rotation to work that well.

Fans have been hearing about Ricky Nolasco's career norms for the last three seasons.

Fans have been hearing about Ricky Nolasco's career norms for the last three seasons.

about a long as we've been hearing about Gibson being at the point of his career where he is just about to turn the corner ;-)

Exactly what I thought.... with a new Ivy League brained sheriff in town quite soon, plus hopefully a new big Ivy League baseball brain serving as his boss as POBO, if the 2017 rotation doesn't look drastically different than 2016... then the Twins Search Committee probably failed miserably in their "Search"

 

May I politely suggest that rather than "penciling in" a 2017 rotation at this point, the new management instead use a big, bold ink pen and completely blot out a bunch of these guys' names off the (glaring lack of) SP depth chart for good?

Meh....ivy leagues schools are packed full of snotty, ego maniacs who think their blank don't stink because they went to an ivy league school.  I prefer actual knowledge and experience gained on the job.  By the time someone reaches the level of being considered for GM their degree is pretty much meaningless. 

about a long as we've been hearing about Gibson being at the point of his career where he is just about to turn the corner ;-)

Agreed.  I am getting tired of the "TYPICAL" Gibson routine which appears to be slow starter in April and May season after season.  In 2016 he never got going at all.  We've seen 3 full seasons from Kyle Gibson and this is by far his worst campaign ever.   If he and Duffey had pitched half way decent this year, this team goes from 100 loses to close to .500 ball.  I am not ready to cut Kyle loose yet, but if he pitches next season like this he's toast in my book.  Same goes for Santiago.  

As others have said earlier, Duffey is a two pitch reliever and the sooner the Twins realize that and send him down to AAA to develop a third pitch or back to the bullpen the better. 

Besides Trevor May i think the next best option is Adalberto Mejia.

Thrylos hit the nail on the head IMO. Anyone over 27 who you might want in a rotation is trade bait, because they won't be around when the rebuilding is done. Does anyone really believe Gibson or Santiago will be sorely missed if you're putting together a playoff rotation for the Twins in 2019?

If you remember, I was for trading Santana at the deadline where I believe he would have had his best value.  If I knew for sure he'd stay healthy and keep performing like he has, I'd now say keep him till the 2017 trade deadline and trade him then.  It's a gamble I'm not sure we should take if we get a quality offer.

 

Then again, everyone is bemoaning the quality of starters available this offseason, so who knows what a very underpaid Santana gets.  I'd be asking because, really, this rotation is the worst in the AL and 2nd worst in baseball even WITH  1/5 of it being a very good Santana.

Yeah, I was in favor of a Santana deadline trade too, IF it involved a clear overpay. You're right, they should listen to offers this winter, but in the absence of a lopsided offer, I'd be inclined to take the gamble that Santana retains value and that others step up so that they could then shop him in July and maybe score a desperation offer. Even a favorable winter trade won't turn the tide for this team, so maybe he becomes part of a rotation for us that is at least 2/5ths adequate to start the year.  And let's face it, unless three of these promising pitching prospects pan out during the course of 2017 and very early 2018, this organization is in deep doo doo. There aren't enough high-ceiling position players in the high minors who could possibly burst onto the scene and create a surplus for trade purposes. Other than Polanco/Dozier, about the only other (very remote) possibility is with Park/Vargas/Palka. I think when the new regime does its asset evaluation of the organization, it will conclude that beyond Sano, Buxton, Kepler, and Dozier, its most mineable value is pitching prospects interspersed throughout the minors. The good news is this asset base is what they need above all else to correct the problem with the big club. I'm not suggesting they have a stunning treasure in pitching prospects, but it's probably better than 2/3rd of the clubs and might get better with the first pick in the draft. The bad news is that barring a streak of good karma, we're just not likely to see three out of Berrios, May, Gonsalves, Mejia, Jay, et al show up at spring training ready to give the team even mid-rotation production in 2017.