Taildragger8791

I'd agree with that, but I don't think hardly anyone is seriously advocating for a long-term big money FA for the bullpen. Nick's suggestions, and most of those I've seen in this thread, were talking about buy-low 1- or 2-year deals on bounce-back veterans. With the additional consideration that said veteran could be flipped for trade value if they reestablish themselves. Any thoughts of getting a Jansen/Chapman type sounded pretty tongue-in-cheek to me.

I don't really understand the aversion to spending the Pohlad's money. I don't think their budget is strained, and there won't be any new money spent on SP or the lineup this next year. So who cares about a few extra bucks spent on the bullpen?

That's reasonable and could work if the manager adhered to it. My other thought was if he plays 120-130 games it probably means someone else got their playing time cut. Someone that needs that time for development and evaluation, such as Park/Vargas and potentially Palka/Walker later in the year. I'd like to emphasize development next year so we can have a clearer picture going into 2018 on where everybody stands.

I'd probably lower the bar to 100 games, unless his performance and health dictate more. He only played 134 this year and looked like his legs were a wreck. His should be a backup & bench bat, playing mostly on the advantageous side of platoon splits when possible. I don't want to see Vargas & Park get shoved to the side for Mauer next year. He still has value in those roles with what skills he has left. Then revisit after next season to see if he his final year should be cut based on how things went in 2017.

The like didn't show up until after I got the reply, my bad. It's entirely possible, he's just got a big uphill battle starting this next year to make it work. He's going to get plenty of opportunity to try. The difference is he's gone from someone we hoped to be comfortable slotting into future rotations to someone that we need to ready a backup plan for, which certainly complicates things for the 2018+ teams.

I was being cheeky, and I assumed you were too. I just don't see the value in comparing to all-time greats who were extremely exceptional at how they succeeded. Tons of pitchers have better raw stuff and strikeout rates than Maddux that wash out of baseball every year because they don't figure out the finer points required to have actual success. Nobody ever advocated to cut him so I don't get point of that snark either. It's entirely reasonable to have doubts about a prospect while supporting him.

And worse BB/9, H/9, BB/K, and way less innings per start.

Berrios and Gonsalves are the only pitchers in that list that are intriguing to me for next year. May, Duffey, Gibson, Stewart, and Mejia are lottery tickets to even be serviceable. We're going to go through a lot of pain next year while we figure out who can play but hopefully it'll set up a somewhat established rotation and bullpen for 2018. Jay needs another full year of development and building innings, but he has real promise with his stuff. Looking forward to seeing how him and Thorpe recover from their injuries and develop next year.

I don't know if being 21 is an excuse for having a track record of low strikeout rates. Strikeouts at those lower levels are achievable largely on stuff alone. By far his best K rate above rookie ball was 7.6/9 when he repeated high-A this year, and otherwise has rates of 4.6/9 (AA), 5.0 (High A last year), and 6.4 (Low A last year). Those are remarkably low for someone who scouts think has such good stuff, so I don't know what to make of him. Is it sustainable to rely on inducing poor contact against major league hitters? The Gibson/Pelfrey comps make sense but those guys still had managed decent strikeout rates in the minors. How many MLB pitchers thrive with a K/9 below 6.0?

That Nolasco guy has looked pretty good since he started there. We should try to get him.

After Parker's article about Berrios tipping his pitches, I've been watching his wrist angle as he brings the ball behind him and have been able to call every fastball or changeup he's thrown before he starts forward. It's plain as day. No way the hitters don't see that too.

Again, I basically agree. I'd rather dump Santiago and his salary to open up a spot. If some team offers up a promising young starter then of course I trade Santana. But I don't think there's a logjam preventing those guys from coming up next year. Gonsalves won't be up until mid-season most likely, by which point there will be a spot for him. Jay and Stewart might be looking for room in the second half and by then another 1 or 2 guys will have pitched themselves out of a job or be hurt. If not, then that means the rotation is doing pretty well and don't need to be replaced anyways. But most likely two out of Mejia/Gibson/May will be replaceable before the end of the year.

I agree on Dozier, if there's good young pitching or catching talent to be had in a return. I guess I agree on Santana too but I don't see the market for him. Age/contract are going to work against him. Rather than get a mediocre player that's going to clog up a spot I'd rather let him continue to lead by example for the young pitchers, and provide a little stability so the bullpen can maybe get a break every 5 days.

That sounds like a big assumption you made there. Just to provide some context, even if that did shave off half a run it would only take our starting rotation from the worst ERA in baseball (5.48) to the second worst in baseball. They would need to shave off another half a run to get just outside of the bottom third in baseball, and then almost another half a run to get well into the top ten. That's how far we have to go. And with all the work there is to do breaking in young pitchers and fixing our veteran ones there's little chance they will be significantly better than Nolasco, Milone, Duffey, or Dean were this year.

Realistically, there aren't any options to turn over this rotation in one year other than getting Sandy Alderson liquored up at winter meetings and tricking him into trading Syndergaard and deGrom for Plouffe and Duffey. So we're going to just have to suck it up and relive this season again next year while we wait on options to develop, and yes it's going to be a bunch of try-outs and burnouts and 95+ losses. I doubt you'd get more back from trading Santana than you'll get from playing him. He provides some stability and mentorship to the other pitchers. I don't want to sell the farm for veterans. Dozier is the only chance to get some talent back but the 2B trade market may be weak with how strong that position has been this year, and it's rare for the Twins to sell high on a player, so I don't expect anything to happen. The only chance to improve this junk rotation is to swap out the coaching, because that's the biggest common thread between so many sub-par performances. You can't fire every pitcher on the team, especially when there is clearly some talent there. With that, then the hope is that next season provides clarity on these things going into 2018 on how to build a better rotation: Which Gibson is real, 2015 or 2016? I have my doubts but there isn't anyone pushing him out at this point so you have to let him keep trying, even if it hurts to watch.I'm not crazy about Santiago but he'll eat innings...maybe. If the money could be reallocated more effectively I'd be for cutting him though. I worry he's going to underperform and eat the money instead of innings like almost every other pitcher we've run through here. Whether that's due to coaching, defense, or a warlock's curse I don't know yet.Can Berrios make the leap?Can May start and hold up?Give Mejia a long tryout to see what we have thereAt mid-season, audition Gonsalves and later on Stewart to see what they look likeIf Jay has a big year at AA I'd be okay with giving him a little time later in the year, maybe out of the bullpen to startAlso: Put Duffey in the pen and let his two good pitches play upHughes also stays in the pen all year unless he suddenly goes "Rookie of the Year" and starts throwing fire. He's likely done as a starter.

I noticed that as well. The wrist is bent more and the hand cups around the ball more. It adds up to a noticeable difference rather than just looking for the extended pinky.

I didn't intent to be pedantic, but the way you phrased this heavily implied that you thought our prospects would shake out that way: "That six good prospects to go along with May.Granted, none of them look like an ace at this point but I will take two 2s a 2 ½, and two 3s and day over 5 guys that that represent the statistical average for 1-5 starters." Seemed pretty clear cut the way I read it, but my bad if that wasn't your intent. Anyways, I agree that's probably better than a prototypical 1-5 rotation but we're a long ways off from that scenario without some big luck. It would take most of our prospects hitting their ceiling, a great fast-moving college pitcher in the upcoming draft, and probably one more pitcher that currently isn't in the organization.

That's extremely optimistic to think you'll get "two 2s a 2 ½, and two 3s" out of that group, and likely a #1 with the pick next year. The percentages just don't play out that way. Guys flame out or get hurt or just don't make the jump way too often. We haven't developed even a 3 in a long time. Realistically, you'll be doing great if you got a true 2, 3, and a 4 out of that mix. Also, the #1 pick in the draft may not even be a pitcher, and there isn't necessarily going to be an obvious ace available. Even if they get one it'll be a 3-4 years before they'd contribute. I'm not advocating for any action, I think the Twins have to hold steady, see who develops, and maybe make a couple smart trades if a great opportunity is presented. Finding an appropriate trade return for Dozier is the only big one I'd push for. I just can't get on board when people look at the farm system and assume quantity will settle out to a starting roster of studs. Especially with the way things have gone lately. The failure rate is way too high.

It was enough sample size for the Twins to decide they couldn't make use of him and trade him off for petty cash.

That's a lot of hair splitting to try and differentiate between grades of luck. I don't even have to see Dozier's scouting report to know that the scout didn't project him to have an all-time great power-hitting season for a middle infielder. He was 165lbs when drafted, at shortstop mind you, and he hit 14 HRs in his entire minor league career. He was likely projected to have gap power with enough pop to sneak a few out. Anyone who sniffed hope for 20+ HR power this would have drafted him far sooner due to the positional bonus.

I'm still bothered by the fact that we apparently couldn't get any use out of Worley, who's been a pretty effective pitcher everywhere except his stint in Minnesota. Hell, his ERA was 3 runs higher here than at any other point in his career. What the hell are the Twins doing to ruin pitchers?

I'm not sure what your point is. The Twins certainly deserve credit for drafting Dozier, but even after a few years in the majors, and even up until 3 months ago, nobody thought he was a 40+ HR hitter. That aspect was blind luck.

I don't think that the list of players you gave is comparable other than Dozier who is a blind luck steal if the power keeps up. The rest of those players, and their 1st rounder Gibson, could easily be on their way out of baseball in 2 years. They'll get a bunch of opportunities since they have some talent and this team is non-competitive, but that doesn't put the class at the same level as Rosenthal, Carpenter, Miller, & Adams. I don't care about cup of coffee guys or non-impact players when evaluating the draft/development results. Those guys don't build playoff teams and that should be the standard we're looking to achieve.

So...pretty much the same thing as Blackburn and Slowey then. Partial rookie season with not much to show, followed by a couple of 2-3 WAR seasons, then falling off a cliff and never really recovering. Fangraphs WARs: Slowey: 2008: 2.7 2009: 1.4 (short season) 2010: 2.3 [insert cliff] Remainder of career: 1.2 Blackburn: 2008: 2.0 2009: 2.4 [insert cliff] Remainder of career: -0.4 Gibson: 2014: 2.3 2015: 2.5 2016: 0.6 [nervously putting on parachute while looking out for cliff] I think you can see why pointing to Gibson's first few years isn't all that inspiring.

I'm curious why people hold Gibson up as a draft success, unless they're just talking about guys who reached the majors and aren't considering their impacts. We're looking at a career 4.63 ERA & 1.40 WHIP with one good season. He's going to be 29 next year and is trending the wrong way. If we've seen the best he'll ever be then he'll be just another fizzled-out short-lived starter like the Blackburns and Sloweys that we've gone through over the years.