The Chris Paddack Dilemma: Is He a Viable Starting Rotation Option for 2024?

Every year people on this site panic when all of the team's needs have not been fulfilled by Dec 1.  I think we can be very sure the FO is aware of the need created by the departure of Gray and Maeda.  Does anyone really think they will do nothing and rely on internal options?  The question is not if.  It's how?  Will they clear payroll space and sign someone or will they trade or will they do both.

How quickly we forget that Madea was a Cy Young candidate a few years ago. Then he needed TJ surgery.  He is just now coming back fully and I don't know why he can't dominate again.  Paddack  was slotted as San Diego's number 4  starter when we acquired him, and then he needed TJ surgery.  When he is fully back, he may reach number 4 status again.  Not dominant stuff.  I'm not looking for anything more from him.

Teams generally don't put a pitcher on an innings limit because of Tommy John,  its more due to the strength of the arm and previously handling that many innings.  Personally I could see Paddack going 130 innings next year possibly 140 if the arm looks strong.  They may skip a start or two,  but beyond that they have him on a 2 year contract.    If he blows out the arm again he is likely done.  A few more innings likely isn't going to determine if it holds up or not.  He will be a full 2 years removed from the Tommy John so it should be strong and healthy,  which he looked this fall.  

After a 2nd Tommy John it is unheard of to gain velocity,  and thats what Paddack did.  He dialed it up to 98.  Now it was the playoffs, but he was regularly in the 95 to 96 range on his 2-3 inning outing.   He is throwing it easy, and the command of the secondary pitches looks really good.  Stuff wise, I would argue he is maybe right there with Pablo.  Maybe a little below.   

I am expecting his fastball to hover in the 94-95 range next year.   If he can be our #3 or #4 pitcher this year with possibly being our #2 in the playoffs this year,  then being our #2 in 2025 I think that would be the ideal situation.    

@Mike h Are you saying that Paddack’s ceiling is #4 and no better? Or just that way since thats what he was 3 yrs ago at age 25 and had TJ 3 years before that. He only has 350 innings on him in MLB so its not as if he has a long track record of anything but blowing his UCL. He has 6 more years to be viewed as either washed up and gone or holy cow did he mature and become a hell of a pro SP.  Other than health, how can a #4 starter be his career ceiling? 

@Hawkeye Bean Counter just counting beans over here… 25 quality starts x 6 innings = 150 innings so your right in the money. I would have to believe thats what the FO is penciling him in for.  Its may be the high end of expectations but like you say, if he is healthy and get outs, he is gonna be on the bump. 

3 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

Paddack could be totally solid for 100 innings and he may take the ball as a starting pitcher for around 17 games. Expecting anything more doesn't seem realistic. I'm feeling positive about Chris Paddack.

I agree. Those who think he's going to be a number 2 starter and pitch 175 innings are dreaming. We need to trade some of our surplus and hope we get as lucky as we did with Lopez. When we got Lopez, no one thought we were getting an ace pitcher.

Dan Hayes had a great story in The Athletic 11/30 about what the Twins’ expectations of Paddack are for ‘24. Falvi and Maki both expect high end innings from him. There was a great point made that if CP doesn’t have the arm fatigue, he could go well above the innings and results of Maeda’23. I’d trust Maki to know what his players are capable of. 

27 minutes ago, Morland said:

When we got Lopez, no one thought we were getting an ace pitcher.

To be clear, i like Paddack. He is going to find it tough at times this year but we can hope he does well. 

I agree about the challenge trades similar to the Lopez-Arraez deal. BTW, I was proposing trading Arraez to Miami from the start of last offseason, including deals that acquired Lopez for much more than the final deal. I thought Lopez was a stretch but the Marlins really wanted Arraez. It will be more difficult to trade this offseason. Any deal for a good pitcher will be far more costly than Arraez was last year.

34 minutes ago, Morland said:

I agree. Those who think he's going to be a number 2 starter and pitch 175 innings are dreaming. We need to trade some of our surplus and hope we get as lucky as we did with Lopez. When we got Lopez, no one thought we were getting an ace pitcher.

Even if Paddack has those kind of high end innings, we still need another ace. 

5 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Dan Hayes had a great story in The Athletic 11/30 about what the Twins’ expectations of Paddack are for ‘24. Falvi and Maki both expect high end innings from him. There was a great point made that if CP doesn’t have the arm fatigue, he could go well above the innings and results of Maeda’23. I’d trust Maki to know what his players are capable of. 

When I read that I thought that both Falvey and Maki were being very optimistic. I'm bullish on Paddack but building up in games is different than building up on the side. I will take the under at 110 innings. Another question might be ... Did we all take Maeda for granted? Lastly, Paddack is signed for 2025 and the Twins will want to protect him in 2024 when necessary in order to get full value from Paddack in 2025.

5 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

When I read that I thought that both Falvey and Maki were being very optimistic. I'm bullish on Paddack but building up in games is different than building up on the side. I will take the under at 110 innings. Another question might be ... Did we all take Maeda for granted? Lastly, Paddack is signed for 2025 and the Twins will want to protect him in 2024 when necessary in order to get full value from Paddack in 2025.

Not me, I wanted Maeda back and I would have given him the QO but Im not in charge.  If Paddack somehow becomes reliable in ‘24, at 28 years old, I would extend him thru 2027. 

6 hours ago, Mike h said:

How quickly we forget that Madea was a Cy Young candidate a few years ago. Then he needed TJ surgery.  He is just now coming back fully and I don't know why he can't dominate again.  Paddack  was slotted as San Diego's number 4  starter when we acquired him, and then he needed TJ surgery.  When he is fully back, he may reach number 4 status again.  Not dominant stuff.  I'm not looking for anything more from him.

Maeda will turn 36 a couple weeks after the season starts.  It's a rare thing for SPs to dominate at age 36.  I hope the Twins are looking for more ceiling over what he is likely to be as opposed to what he has been.  

54 minutes ago, arby58 said:

If the Twins can pick up a decent starting pitcher who can provide 150-180 innings, things should be just fine.

Considering there were only 59 pitchers who pitched more than 150 innings last season, and the Twins had 3 of those, and 2 of the 25 who pitched 180+ innings, this is a big ask. 

1 hour ago, PatPfund said:

The Keith Law piece was bizarre as the OP said. I pretty much assumed he put it together under time pressure, or in moments of distraction, because there really is no other excuse (other than incompetence which doesn't apply to Law) for putting together a piece on the rotation that mentions Balazovic, but skips any mention of Paddack, and refers to Varland as a "former starter' (when he was a rookie starter converted to RP strictly for the playoffs).

Law made it worse by his defenses in the comments; instead just saying something like 'my bad' he tried to make a case for not mentioning Paddack. A really stupid case implying no one could consider Paddack as an MLB starter (he has 65 MLB starts) while mentioning Balazovic (who has ZERO MLB starts and is closer to being DFA'd than starting '24 in the Twins rotation).

The OP's point is that Paddack is the Maeda next year is apt. I also like Varland's chances to improve; he was a rookie, so there is room, and he seems to be a driven young man, so I suspect the effort won't be lacking.

And yep, it still leaves the Twins needing a couple more SP arms, because injuries are part of the game, and even if Ober is less restricted inning-wise, Paddack will have limits.

KLaw's piece really was weird. He's always been high on Balazovic and was the first national guy to highlight him as a prospect to watch, so it's understandable that he's holding a torch for him, but the mention suggested he hadn't really been paying attention to what had been going on with him recently. Missing Paddack was equally odd: even if Law doesn't think he's a viable rotation option coming off TJ and with his track record, he's obviously in the mix for the Twins and shown improved stuff in his relief appearances that would make him intriguing to most. Instead of just stating "hey, I don't think this guy can be a quality starter and here's why" when challenged in the comments, he got pretty nasty, insulting both the commenters and the Twins front office...which has earned better.

Paddack seems like a very reasonable 5th starter for most teams; he's got real upside if his pitch mix has developed (Law is correct that he hadn't consistently shown a 3rd pitch) but might have an innings limitation based on his surgery. But as a 5th starter who might get skipped a couple of times to keep him fresh? Seems reasonable. 

6 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

What does more than viable mean?

Well, really you'd have to ask Cody Schoenmann; he used viable in the headline. But my inference is that he thinks viable means good enough to be in the rotation. What I meant by more than viable is that I think he will be one of the top three in our rotation (with Lopez and Ryan).

Well, he’s not wrong.  It’s malpractice to go into the year with Paddack and Varland penciled into the rotation.  It doesn’t matter what people believe or think about those two.  This is what losing poverty franchises do, rationalize however you want.

13 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

Paddack could be totally solid for 100 innings and he may take the ball as a starting pitcher for around 17 games. Expecting anything more doesn't seem realistic. I'm feeling positive about Chris Paddack.

So what does that mean? That he pitches 17 games and gets hurt again or the Twins release him or trade him? Your 17 games for 100 innings is almost 6 innings a start.  

Very odd comment that doesn't explain why he only pitches that much in 2024.

18 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

1. How should innings be "vamped up"?

2. Is it a fact that a lot of Law's ideas are way off?  Or is that just your opinion stated as though it is a provable fact?

1. Maybe because he will be pitching deep into the night, bwaaaahahaha!

2. I skip national reporting because more localized reporting gives you deeper insight into your team. A national reporter can't possibly have that deep of insight into all the teams. 

The number of responses here kind of made me chuckle. Paddack looked great for that flash last year but none of us have a clue what he will be in 2024. 

My guess is that around 120 innings of mid 4 ERA ball is the base case. But as the math guys would say, this comes with significant error bars.  Injury prone, 2 TJs, but all the promise in the world. 

The enthusiasm around this topic might be attributed to hot stove cabin-fever though.

Dear God. Give us something!!!!!!!!

13 hours ago, Beast said:

Well, he’s not wrong.  It’s malpractice to go into the year with Paddack and Varland penciled into the rotation.  It doesn’t matter what people believe or think about those two.  This is what losing poverty franchises do, rationalize however you want.

I don't think anybody is rationalizing anything, everybody thinks we need more pitching. We did just lose 40% of our starting staff. 

Just now, wabene said:

I don't think anybody is rationalizing anything, everybody thinks we need more pitching. We did just lose 40% of our starting staff. 

and then added 20%. The FO is gonna replace gray and then we get to see if the young guys develop to deliver more production. Next man up …. Again and Again.