IndianaTwin

Thanks for the clarification on the surgery. And yes, I was intending to reference Lopez. Apologies.

@The Great Hambino, could you please do us all a favor and save your this post on your clipboard so it's available as a comment for each of the "Trade Buxton" posts we're going to see over the next 15 months? If you'd like to incorporate @Riverbrian's excellent observation on another post that the reworking of Buxton's contract that would be necessary for him to approve a trade is only going to lessen the trade return, that would be fine as well.

Excellent point, that is too often overlooked. Said another way, he is worth more to the Twins than he is to other teams.

The first place to start in the 2027 planning is to recognize that it's very unlikely Ryan will be available on Opening Day. I'm optimistic he'll return healthy, but the shortest return in history for a pitcher is reportedly 397 days. Much more likely is a May or June return at the earliest. EDIT: I meant Lopez.

Drafting Mauer No. 1 and trading Pierzynski for Nathan and more also turned out pretty well...

For example, it's hard to evaluate Jeffers' market when he's on the IL and it's not clear when he will be back...

To clarify, I clicked "like" for the picture, not for the caption.

I'm not quite sure which is the better long-term sight -- the Lewis swing at the beginning of the clip or the Lewis/Buxton hug at the end of it. I hate playing amateur psychologist, but I just have a sense that Lewis is better off with Buxton's positive affirmation leadership style than to Correa's perfectionism. And I didn't have a problem with Correa, but different people respond differently to different styles. The Lewis reaction in the front end of the dugout looked like happiness, but the Lewis/Buxton moment felt like a deeper-seated joy.

I've no problem with your saying Hill was hot. That's reporting, and he was. I was reacting to now getting a declarative statement from someone telling us that it is time to be concerned. We weren't just told that Hill has struggled the past while, but that we should be "worried," as if we can't decide on our own whether we should be "worried." I get it -- it's the internet and declarative statements lead to clicks. But I'd rather just have the reporting and come to my own conclusions.

Oh, how a few weeks changes things on TD. From about three weeks ago...

And if Rogers reaches a point of being sought after, I'd actually consider going the opposite direction and giving him a modest one year extension. He's only getting $2M this year, and he'll be a year older. I suspect the same amount would get it done and have a spot filled for 2027. (Emphasis is on "reaches a point of being sought after.")

If Gomez proves himself legit, don't trade him. With his years of control, that's exactly the kind of guy they should be trading for. (Also, if he's legit and gets traded for prospects, I'm not sure I can handle another bazillion "I can't believe we traded Gomez for nothing" articles and comments on TD.)

Just another castoff retreat. That's sarcasm, but without going back and checking, I'm guessing that's a lot of the reaction the waiver claim got a month ago. I don't know whether he'll maintain his success long-term, but this is exactly how the Twins should be approaching the bullpen this year -- claim and make cheap trades for guys, give them up to 20 innings or so to see if they've got something and then move on if they don't. Meanwhile, keep bringing up internal guys for cups of coffee, focusing on the long-term developmental nature of those. I've said it elsewhere, but this is a season of sifting and sorting. Any success this year is bonus, but if they end the season with a rotation of Ryan, Lopez, Ober, Bradley, Abel, Prielipp, et. al, and a stable of at least 5 or 6 "knowns" in the bullpen, that's a contending staff. Pair it with continued sifting and sorting on the hitter side, and I think contending in 2027 is very possible.

Whether or not he should be in the Hall is debatable. What I think is not debatable is that he shouldn't have been a one-and-done. Realistically, he got penalized for being on a strong ballot with a strong batch of first-timers. Chipper and Thome were elected as first-ballot. Vizquel, Rolen and Andruw Jones were also on the ballot for the first time. Twelve guys ahead of him eventually got in, but voters can only vote for 10. Additionally, there was a huge group of PED-linked players (Clemens, Bonds, Ramirez, Sheffield, Sosa) who were siphoning off votes. I'm not arguing that these guys should or shouldn't be elected, but the five of them received 453 combined votes from the 421 voters, when it was pretty clear that at least Ramirez, Sheffield and Sosa weren't going to make it. Without the selections that went to those five, I think Santana would have easily gotten the extra 12 votes he needed to stay on the ballot.

There is a difference between a long lockout and missing games. There was a long lockout in the 2021-22 offseason, the second-longest stoppage in MLB history (1994), but it didn't cost any games. The season was delayed a week, but they made up to postponed games. The current CBA ends on Dec. 1, so a lockout could start then. If like last time, there will be a flurry of signings before that date. Hopefully there is enough institutional memory on both sides to get a deal done before games are canceled.

There’s no need to fill the 40-man until they have someone they want to activate. Having an open spot allows them to make a waiver claim without having to DFA someone.

I also thought you were talking about Jeffers.

I do think it would be fun to be a fly on the wall in the offseason (and in-season) planning meetings as they are talking about things like pitching staff makeup. We tend to oversimplify it and say things like "5 starters x 160 innings means 800 innings, so 8 relievers x , but they are working with so much more data. I imagine they are sitting there with statements like: Best case scenario is Lopez and Ryan at 170 innings (or whatever). Based on history, we know that "top-level" starters average about 85 percent (or whatever) because of injuries. Best case scenario on Ober and SWR is 150 (or whatever). Based on history, we know pitchers of their ilk average about 80 percent (or whatever) of that total because of injuries and (in)effectiveness level. Then we've got Bradley, Abel, Festa. Based on their talent and development levels, best case is 135 (or whatever). We know that one of them will need to be in the Opening Day roster. Based on history, it's reasonably likely two will. On average, we need a sixth starter by April 15 (or whatever) because of injury and our seventh by May 1 (or whatever). We've got Prielipp, Rojas, etc. Developmentally, the ideal is to keep them in St. Paul until at least May 1. Developmentally the best case scenario is 120 innings (or whatever) on the season. Based on when we think we'll need them, it's best to start them with just 4 innings on a seven-day schedule in St. Paul so we don't use their bullets. But if the best case scenario on Lopez turns into the worst case of a TJS, here's the most likely adjustment... And so on and so forth, knowing they need an plan for some combination of pitchers to pitch approximately 830 innings in "starter" roles over the course of the season. And then the same thing with the bullpen: We'd like a bullpen that generally includes: Someone in a closer "role." Historically the person in the starter role pitches 65 innings (or whatever). An "8th inning guy." A "7th inning guy." A "mid-inning, come in with runners on base guy" A "flexible guy" Another "flexible guy" A "long guy" (capable of up to 100 innings, see upcoming comment) A "developmental guy" (see upcoming comment) Obligatory "(or whatever)" comments as these roles are defined. And each of those "roles" has a typical number of innings. We know that very few guys pitch the entire season in the same role (other than perhaps the closer if you've got a Duran still around), but we are going at the roles. We also know that there's no such thing as a "low-leverage reliever," but we also know that some guys aren't ready for consistent high-leverage innings. Developmentally, the guy in that "developmental" role is either going to pitch himself up the ladder or down (or be forced up or down by some guy getting hurt or coming off the IL), at which point he's replaced by a new guy. A few times, he'll be forced into higher-leverage innings than we really desire. And then you're figuring out combinations. We don't have an established closer and we don't see a rookie immediately ready to step in. Let's invite x number of veterans to camp and let them sort themselves out, hopefully buying time until.... Injuries and ineffectiveness happens, so we know that that on average, the eight guys who start the season in the bullpen end up getting about 65, 65, 60, 50, 30, 25, 15 and 10 (or whatever) innings. On average, we know that it takes about seven guys with the ability to throw 60+ innings to end up with three that actually do. Do we have those seven guys? We want to always have a "long guy," even if it's not always the same guy. Let's start the season with (whomever) in that role. When he pitches his way into higher-level innings, or is needed in the rotation, or sucks, or gets hurt, etc., a new guy is going to be in this role for a time. So while it won't be a single guy in that role all season, there will be a combination of guys who total that number of innings during the windows of time they are in that role. That also sounds way, way, way, way, way more rigid than I'm intending. Thus the constant "or whatevers" I included. I'm just thinking that there has to be a process that they start from and that constantly needs to be adjusted as stuff happens. It's essentially an ongoing asset allocation question not unlike what businesses go through. That's a conversation I'd love to listen in on, just to hear how they work at it.

I think we're in complete agreement that the OP was based on a false premise, which was the bulk of my first comment. I think we're also in complete agreement on the value of having at least some of the relievers a) be able to throw multiple innings and b) be used that way. Maybe I misinterpreted how you were describing it. My larger rejection of the "piggy back" or "bulk" premise is that it's not really feasible to do it in an overly structured way, the rigidity you reference. Because of how some others on TD have talked about it in the past, I may have read an implied rigidity into your comments that wasn't intended on your part. Sorry about that.

My son gave me a "Relax, I have a spreadsheet for that" fridge magnet that I have by my computer at work, so I love a good set of numbers. Some of these ideas work well on screen, but they don't work well in practice. First, though you used an average start of 6 innings for ease of numbers, that's not reality. So far, the league average is 5.1 innings per start. For context, the Twins are right at league average with 5.1. That's skewed a bit because of some Openers, so let's give the benefit of the doubt to having starters that average 5.33 innings (or 5 1/3). Average 5.33 for the season over 162 games means the starters have only covered 864 innings, so your bullpen has to cover essentially 100 more innings than you've allotted. The actual number of innings a team typically needs is a bit lower than 1458, since road game losses (with 8 pitched innings) tend to exceed extra innings. More typical is around 1440. So if your starters cover 864, you're needing 576 from the bullpen, which works out to 72 innings per spot, about 10 innings more than you've assumed. But the bigger issue is that having a piggy back reliever has usually meant tying a given reliever to a given starter. In a best-case scenario, that starter gives 5 innings and the piggy back 4 to fill a game, leaving the other seven relievers to cover the remaining four starters. But the piggy back is pretty much by definition the weakest starter, so he's likely not going to average 5 innings (160 innings for the year). And the piggy back guy is probably your sixth-best starter. It's possible, but not necessarily likely, that he could average 4 innings (about 130 for the season). But there's a problem here on several levels. Big picture, an injury is going to happen (quickly), so that piggy back reliever is likely going to get pressed into the rotation somewhere and now you need a different guy to start throwing up to 4 innings per game as a piggy back reliever. Medium-sized picture, the reality is that pitchers aren't so mechanical that you can guarantee getting even eight innings combined from the two guys. More times than not, you are going to need at least one of your bullpen guys to finish out the piggy back game. Often, whether because of game situations, including extra inning possibilities, you're going to use two other relievers, which makes it even harder to cover the other games. Now you don't have the full use of seven guys to cover the other four starters. And unless he gets shelled immediately, your piggy back reliever is going to throw enough pitches that they aren't available for any of the other games either. And even if he was available, you'd be reluctant to use him, because you want to save him for the piggy back starter. And then smaller picture, using the piggy back approach ties the manager's hands into not being able to adapt to game situations. There's just too many times the flow of the game doesn't lend itself to staying on pattern. Say the piggy back starter is throwing great, so you run him out for the sixth, but then he runs into trouble and you need to use your fireman to get out of the inning. But because the fireman gets the last hitter on three pitches, it makes sense to run him out for the seventh and get four outs. Now there's just two innings for the piggy back reliever. But then the tight game calls for using the closer, so you only use the piggy back for the eighth inning (and even then, there may be another reliever best suited for the job). Now your piggy back reliever is he's either sitting idle (while very rested) for four days until the next piggy back day or you use him on one of the ensuing days to bail out a starter that's gotten hit, which makes him unavailable for his intended piggy back day, etc. While piggy backing looks good on paper (or screen), it just doesn't work in practicality. Now what you're describing as a "bulk reliever" getting 40 longer appearances is more realistic, but by definition, with 40 appearances, he's not tied to a given starter as a piggy backer. In practical terms, I think it's going to be hard to have a bulk reliever go through a season with 40 appearances of 3 innings each to get 120 innings, primarily because injuries are going to happen and that guy is likely going to get pushed into the rotation, but also because he'll get hit a few times to go less than 3 innings and probably won't go 4 innings enough times to make up for that. There's also the reality that game situations won't conveniently line up with his availability. If he's available, but a couple starters have great games on back-to-back days, he's not going to get to 40 games, etc. So while I don't think there will be a long-term "bulk reliever," I do like that Shelton seems to be more willing to use guys for multiple innings that previous managers have (and I'm not limiting this to Rocco, it feels like he's doing it more than Molitor did, though I'm not digging into it to check). If there was a single reliever that got to even 90 innings, that would be a huge boost to the rest of the pen, Right now, there's not anybody on pace to get to 90 innings, however. Orze has the most innings and is on pace for about 75. Morris is a little harder to calculate. He's not been on the roster the full season. If you took the innings he's thrown in the time he's been up and extrapolated to the entire year, it works out to about 86, but that's driven by a few longer outings when he came up, Last night not withstanding, his role has morphed into one that is being used at a rate that would him to about 65 innings over 162. I think it will be interesting to see how the season wraps up. Rojas hasn't been a full-time starter or reliever, but has pitched multiple innings. Depending on how quickly he's back, I could see him being used at a pace that would give him around 100-120 innings for the year. Even if he stays healthy, I could see them either shutting Prielipp down or moving him to the pen so he ends up around 120-130. Ryan is the only guy on pace to go more than 162 innings. Technically, Ober is, but he's on the IL. After Sunday, he won't be. Bradley is a little under that pace, so if the recent missed starts are the only ones he has, he could get there. No one else is close.

I wouldn’t say they have experimented with a six-man rotation. Look at Ryan. He started game 1. Then because of two off days, he started game 5, followed by games 10/15/20/25/30/35/40/45/50/55 and then 61. So only once (the last time, in the middle of their current long consecutive-day streak), has Ryan been out of a five-man rotation rhythm. That there have been more than five guys getting starts is more of a reflection on the rotation shifting to compensate for injuries (or suckage, in the case of SWR’s demise). On one occasion, they used a rotation shift to get Prielipp a couple extra days once, but again, other this current time of injecting an extra starter, the rest of his starts have come five games after his previous start. He’s thrown in games 24, 29, 34, 39, extra rest 46, 56 and then the insertion to 62. Separately, a reason not to go to a six-man rotation is the same as the reason to not piggy-back long-term. It leaves you with a seven-man bullpen.

As does Spotrac.

I don't know if these are bold or not, but here's mine... June prediction: TD has at least six articles on the pros and cons of trading/extending Joe Ryan. July prediction: TD has at least nine articles on the pros and cons of trading/extending Joe Ryan. August/September prediction: TD has at least four articles on why they should have or shouldn't have traded/extended Joe Ryan.

Berrios bWAR in the 1.5 seasons of control the Blue Jays received: 0.8. SWR bWAR, even with the debacle of this year: 2.5; Martin bWAR so far: 0.7 and counting.

Several have noted here and in other threads that the bullpen has been pitching much better "of late." I think a better way of saying it is that the guys currently in the pen have pitched well all season. They've gotten rid of the dead weight in Topa, Garcia, etc. The seven current guys in the bullpen not named SWR have a combined ERA of 3.64. If you take out an eight-day April stretch from Banda, it drops to 3.06. And for what it's worth, SWR hasn't given up a run in the extremely SSS of 3 innings in the bullpen. Add those and the numbers drop a smidge to 3.56 and 2.98.