Trov

That is a pretty high bar for 'ace' if a HOF pitchers are not considered 'ace'.

Sands stuff was not great, but he was not terrible, however, the Tigers lineup is terrible so if he faced a real lineup it may have been much much worse. The two run HR was not a terrible pitch, just did not get below the zone, it was low and in. The two runs later could have been 0 if Polonco made the play. There was a lot of soft contact against him. His biggest issue was when he got ahead he could not finish guys off. I again point out the lack of offense the Tigers line up has. Do not see Sands as a guy we will count on this year.

I would point out that had there not been a terrible throw from first base in Smith's inning he would have got out of the inning without giving up a run. The official scoring had it a hit with an error, and then the run turned to earn runs when the next guy hit a weak hit, but had Miranda made a good throw, like Torkelson on similar play later in game made, then we get out of inning without a run allowed. When you give teams extra outs, even when ruled hits, you will give up more runs. I do agree we are not dominate pen, but Rocco and company has a plan, and part of that is not to overuse the top guys or overuse starters. They plan out days in advance of who would be coming in and when normally. Of course plans adjust on the fly but they are working their process. Now, hopefully that gets us to playoffs, then throw that damn plan out the window in my opinion.

I think there is a lot of value in college pitchers later in drafts. Pitching is one of the hardest positions to really project over a career. So many little injuries can derail careers. You see some guys dominate for 3 to 4 years winning cy young awards only to bounce from team to team after a huge drop off. High school pitcher will put up big numbers in high school normally because they hardly face any top talent. Yes, they will go on their show cases, but in those the hitters will normally have never seen the pitcher, or seen them maybe see them a few times over the years. With college they will see same hitters a lot more often over their three year career. There is always such a fine line between good and great, and good and bad. High school guys you normally are looking at velo and movement but need to teach them to pitch. Sometimes they hit big, sometimes you miss big. Not that college arms are safe or anything, but at least you have more of an idea. Many top college arms over years have been busts.

I am glad to see Kirilloff driving the ball. I am not ready to bring him back up yet, but if he finishes out the week strong, and reports to be healthy, I am all for him coming up for Miranda, or if Polonco needs to go on DL for him.

Nice link, I think that gives a good definition of the type of starters. It seems to state that not many 'aces' in the game at any one time, but a lot of number two or three type guys that end up being the team's number 1.

I did not start the post for anything about Berrios, it was trying to see what people think an 'ace' is. I have seen many people say the Twins need one to compete in the playoffs, and I wanted to get a definition to hammer down if we have one, or where we could get one. So far by most definitions, Berrios would not fall into the category anyways, so if we still did have him, we would still need to get an 'ace' by most commenters. I am also trying to compare the definitions to see how often WS winning teams have one or not. By most definitions presented, Atlanta last year did not have one either. I think most agree, better pitching will make it more likely you will win, but I keep reading we need an 'ace' and that we do not have one. So lets define what one is. Sadly, most of the definitions I am getting does not really define it any better, but things like, you feel you they will win when they pitch, or will stop losing streaks. Some require this over periods of time, and some gave actual numbers.

This is a bit of hard way to nail it down as to what an 'ace' is. Sounds like you are saying it is a mindset of how you feel about the pitcher and cannot point to actual performances.

Steer is in an interesting situation here. First, he will not debut this year barring any major injuries, being he is not on the 40 man, and we have several guys that cover his position. Therefore, he really is showing what he could do for next year, or for other teams to get a shot. He has not been touted as a top prospect, but he has done nothing but shown he can play so far. Adding that power is really going to jump him up some lists. That being said, he will be a top trade asset because of his ability to play all over. The Twins will need to assess if they think he will play at the MLB level soon, and do they like him better than what we have. Does he fit into plans next year? I think that is a big question. We have Polonco still next year, Arraez as well so 2nd is locke down. Our LF area is stacked with possible people if they thought of that move. SS is should be locked with either Correa if he stays or gets locked up longer term, or Lewis. That leaves 3rd, which may be filled if Correa stays by Lewis. There is also Miranda, who has not shown much, but was a top hitter last year. Personally, I think Steer gets traded at deadline, or Miranda does. One of them gets traded as there is no real room for both moving forward.

If this is your thoughts on the team, then why even play the season? Why not just trade away anyone with value to plan for the future? Yes, we never win the playoffs over the last 18 games, which is just crazy, but if you look at the team and assume we will lose then why even try to make the playoffs? I bet last year no one expected Atlanta to win. They did not have the 'ace' starter everyone says we need to win, but yet someone how they went through the Dodgers, who had 4 'ace' type guys and like 7 all-star hitters in their lineup, and some lights out bullpen guys. I guess Atlanta should have just traded away Freeman because he was a free agent and they should have given up on the season because their best player was hurt too. Any team that makes the playoffs can win no matter the roster. We were never favored in our WS wins, but still managed to do it.

When do you decide they are WS contenders? What do they need to be there? If you keep trading away your top players because you want to be better the next time you can make the playoffs it will never end. Also, being the best team on paper never means winning the WS. Both Twins WS we were not favored going into the season, going into the playoffs, or going into the WS. The few times we were favored in the playoffs we did nothing. Plenty of teams get hot in the playoffs and carry that to winning and the team everyone thought would win does not. How many years have Dodgers been the favorite to win the ship? How many years have they won it? Dodgers on paper have been the best team in baseball for years. 1 ship from that time. They keep adding at deadline to help them out, but still 1 ship. Last year they got Max Scherzer and Trea Turner, they did not even make the WS. My point is what people think a championship team looks like may not be what actually wins it. Baseball is a crazy game where the under dog in a series wins it a decent amount of time. It is not like basketball where the better team will win the series 9 out of 10 times. In baseball the better team will only win a series like 6 or 7 out of 10 times, when the teams are close in talent, like in playoffs, not in the regular season. For years the Dodgers had the best pitcher in baseball, or at least top 5, and he would have some terrible post-season starts. He would have a few great ones mixed in, but compared to what he did during the season he would lay some big eggs. Every pitcher has off games, you can have the top 4 starters in all of baseball and that does not mean you will series. You can have the top 9 hitters in all of baseball and that does not mean you will win the series. My point is, you will never know if your team will win it all no matter how they look on paper, you just play the games and hope it shakes out in your favor.

Just to comment on the use past 6 innings. Only 5 averaged over 6 innings per start, 6 averaged exactly 6, and everyone else was below 6. So it is not just a Twins thing of pulling guys after 6 innings, most teams do that.

Electric stuff is a little vague of a term. What does that mean? Like do they need a certain velo, movement, number of K/9? I did see a comment of 5 WAR being a benchmark. At least that is something we can look at. I see an innings mark required of 200 and low ERA. If we go by that, only 4 guys last year broke the 200 innings mark, Of those 4, Two do not reach the 5 WAR. If we go by just the WAR there is 12 full time starters with a WAR of over 5 last year. Some of them only averaged 6 or less innings per start. So far not too many 'ace' pitchers by definition of the few responses we have if you combine them. With just WAR as standard we have a dozen, so that sounds like decent amount. I do not know how many would be described as electric stuff though. Of the top few WAR guys I think most people would say fall under 'ace', Zach Wheeler, Walker Buehler, Robby Ray(although not until last year) Max Scherzer, but then you have Wade Miley, not an ace, then Garrit Cole, and a few more 'ace' type guys. I would agree there are 'ace' which to me is someone like Scherzer, Verlander, guys that have been top of the league in pitching year in and year out, and will go deep into most games with low scores. I think part of it is a mindset of fans. Do you expect to when when they take the mound each time, with very few hits allowed? However, I think what most fans are talking about on here when they talk about 'ace' is they really mean a top of league performer. Maybe they are one of the best for a year or two, but are they a true 'ace' most likely not. When I see the "electric stuff" I think people are saying they just look in command and not getting it done through junk balls, ala Jamie Moyer who actually cracked 5 WAR 3 times late in his career. I bet if people listed who they think of when they think 'ace' they might be surprised where they really fall in rankings of WAR, innings per start and so on.

If you look just at on field performance you would say it was a bad trade. However, no way do we make the deal without expecting to sign a SS, like they did Correa. Maybe they do, but I doubt it. I agree getting Donaldson out of the clubhouse may be an upside. The Yankees are doing fine with him there, but maybe the honeymoon period is starting to end with recent White Sox series, which they are now on a 3 game losing streak. I have long said that in baseball chemistry plays a much bigger roll than any other sport. You spend all day every day with the same guys for hopefully 8 months. You get no weekends away from them, you shower with them, change with them, fly with them, take busses to games with them on the road, not sure if they will still share hotel rooms or not. My point is you do not get away from them. If you have a personal issue with someone it will eventually cause issues. We have seen teams in past have fist fights during the season. Do not be surprised if Yankess start to struggle if they blow up at some point too.

A couple of things. First, I agree I wish more guys would work on hitting the holes in the defense. However, for the last several years guys were taught to hit it over the infield defense and try to hit HR or doubles off wall. They were looking at launch angle not direction of hit. That led to guys not working really trying to pick a pitch and drive pitches the other way. When you never do it, hard to ask someone to do it out of no where. Also, MLB pitchers have increased velo over the years and increased movement, sure it is not too easy to just say I am going to hit that hole, some of the HOF could but they were very special guys. Now, as it has been discussed the team is starting to make adjustments to the lack of power in the league due to the ball, so they are working on doing exactly what you discuss. Now that hitting it over the OF is not as likely they are adjusting. In terms of the bunting, it comes down to fact most guys never practice it or do. If you never do it, hard to just step and do it. I do wish they were coached it more, as I believe if you can catch the pitch you can bunt the pitch. Part the issue when they do not practice it or they try to do it quickly to catch them off guard the hitter does it wrong. Sometimes they try to make it still a perfect bunt. It really comes down to teaching the hitters how to do it. You might see it more as the season goes on. The old thought is hit a HR who cares about a single. But now that HR are down, teams are going to be more willing to take the single.

I find it interesting how many people are for someone else. I think most of them are always thinking someone better may be out there. That may not be the case, and a bad signing can set your organization back for years. No way has this FO set us back. Are we at where we all want, maybe not, but I have seen many FO guys make terrible moves and set teams back. Once you have a solid foundation I say go with it, until it is broken. You will have up and down years, but overacting to just make a change because of a down year or a couple of moves that did not work out will cause the team to fall apart. Every time you change up FO you change up how teams want to build the organization. That means the style and type of players you look for. If you change that up too much there is no direction for the organization and you just spin in circles. We are just seeing the players that were developed under this front office start to come up. Give them some more time, because we have not been terrible overall and appear to be growing.

First, he is 100% opting out if he is healthy the full year, so no need to talk to him about what his thoughts are. The deal when signed everyone knew it was a 1 year deal if he was health and performed near his career norms, so unless he regresses on that end, or is injured, he will be opting out. That being said, if we are in line for playoffs we do not trade him for prospects. If there is a trade upgrade at a position of need for the playoff run and you are set that Lewis will do the job, then maybe you trade Correa to upgrade at the deadline for this year, not for years down the road prospects. To address your second question, any team that makes playoffs can win the WS. but was Atlanta the favorite last year? Was the Nationals in 2019? Was the Red Sox in 2018? Was the Astros in 2017? I think you know where I am going. Rarely does the on paper favorite win the WS. I mean in both the Twins WS wins we were not the favorite to win them entering the season or entering the playoffs, or even entering the WS. To address the third question, sure Lewis in his SSS looks the part, but why make your team worse, even if Lewis is competent he is not Correa at this point, if you truly are trying for a ship? To address the forth question, trading Correa at the deadline would not affect future signings because everyone in baseball knew what the deal was, it was a 1 year dealing giving Correa insurance if he gets hurt or has a bad down year. Summary, I do not trade him if team is on pace to make playoffs. He has great experience in playoffs and defense is key in playoffs and he is one of best, if not the best defender in game right now, and he can hit as well. He may not be MVP hitter, but he is above average to go with elite defense. Unless someone is willing to give up front end starter this year, and prospects down the road for years to come no way do I listen, but if you can make the team better this year and years to come, then I would listen.

Glad to see Steer get the move up. Also glad to see Kirilloff have a good week. I still think he should stay down for at least a month of sustained good at bats before they look to bring him back to MLB level. We are not in need for him right now, as we have plenty of options in LF and 1B. He needs to show that he can get back to making hard contact and having good at-bats before he starts taking some from guys that have been.

I am happy with his SSS output, but his value is very limited. He hits LH pitching only. Sure, that can be very helpful for pinch hitting or the few starts against LH starters. However, that is all he is good for, and if he starts to falter on that, then he has little value. I am not saying he need to be cut, but he is still on the short list guy to be cut off roster when 60 man IL guys come back. I do feel if you have an almost complete team he is that bonus guy for big pinch hit at bats in big games. I would fully be willing to roll with him for that roll in the playoffs. Knowing you can bring him in late against a LH guy and may hit it out is nice to know, and may affect how a team uses their pen.

For me the measure of a good front office is if they routinely have talent coming up through the system. Every front office will have good and bad FA signings, trades, and first round picks. It is about the overall how is talent evaluated and developed. You cannot make snap decisions on any single move or season. The FO has made some flop first round picks, but they have had some later picks that are moving up prospect lists, and most importantly on pitching. They were in part brought in on the ability to develop pitching. If you look we have a lot of now pitching depth, and each level has good pitching prospects. None may be super high end looking to them, but are performing well. I am a fan of that. I am not a fan of the power only first round guys that are not doing much. However, that happens with the first round flops, all teams have them. We still are getting good talent, and with pitching talent teams are always looking to bring in more pitching so having depth at that can fill in the misses at other positions. I would extend them as I like overall what I have seen. Are they perfect, no. Point me to a FO that never has a missed pick, bad trade, bad FA signing. I am waiting.

So you address 3 specific starters, Montas, Kyle Hendricks, I assume, and Nathan Eovaldi as 'ace' types we should target, and you say Joe Ryan is not one. Basically saying all three would slot ahead of Ryan. First, why do you rank them all ahead of him at this point? Is it because Ryan is a rookie and no long term track record? Also you say Berrios is not an ace, but a guy like him would be needed for the Twins, so going to look at him too. Maybe you are right that any of those guys would be the best starter. Montas, 9 starts, 50.2 innings, ERA 3.55 ERA+ 100, FIP 3.30, WHIP 1.007 9.8K/9 Hendricks, 9 starts 49.2 innings, ERA 4.89 ERA+ 84 FIP 5.52 WHIP 1.329 6.3K/9 Eovaldi, 9 starts 48.1 innings, ERA 4.10 ERA+ 99 FIP 5.51 WHIP 1.159 9.9 K/9 Berrios, 9 starts 47.1 innings, ERA 4.75 ERA+ 80 FIP 4.50 WHIP 1.437 6.7 K/9 Ryan, 8 starts 43.1 innings, ERA 2.28 ERA+ 159 FIP 3.24 WHIP 0.992 8.7 K/9 That is this season stats so far. I am using them because I want the pitcher they are now, not the pitcher they were before. Two of the pitchers are on the wrong side of 30 as well, which is when pitcher normally regress, so even if you look at career numbers, I would argue there is no reason to expect that. However, a quick snapshot of career WAR, I know not best to judge pitchers on but they are being compared to each other. Montas 6.5 in 5 full season, this being his 6th. Hendricks, 21.6 in his now 9th season, Eovaldi, 14.6 in his now 10th season. Berrios, 11.3 in his now 7th season. Ryan not even a full season is at 1.6, with 1.3 in his 8 starts this year. Judge how you will, but at this point I would say Ryan is the best out of all of them. Slightly less K/9 than Montas and Eovalid, but every other number Ryan is better on. Will it remain, maybe not. In terms of innings per start he is right on par with all of them too, but Berrios did have on start that went .1 innings. Now compared to other starters on our team would Montas be an upgrade, yes he would, but my point is that Ryan is doing just as well as any of the listed trade targets. Does he have the track record no, but even these guys outside of Hendricks none have a huge track record for a career. Hendricks though has dropped off his last 2 years being on wrong side of 30.

I keep reading in comments from the offseason and this season about Twins need to trade for an 'ace'. That they do not have one and need one to win. I have yet to see anyone really define what they think makes an 'ace'. Therefore, I am asking for people to comment and define an 'ace'. That way we can see if the Twins have one, if one can be brought in via trade. I would prefer more defined terms and not general terms, but something we can actually look into to see. Part of the reason I am asking this is I am thinking what some people call an 'ace' is very different than others, and it may not even be what people call an 'ace' is available for the Twins to trade for. So please even if you do not agree the Twins need an 'ace' lets get the Twins Daily commenters definition of an 'ace' as it pertains to pitching in baseball.

Who would you label as an 'ace'? What criteria makes someone an 'ace'? In this day in age, I bet you will be hard pressed to find what used to be an 'ace'. Also, do you expect the Twins to pitch someone of that capability that way? We have not seen the team run many guys out for even a 6th inning let along 7 or more. Maybe as the season goes on they would, but so far they are very much willing to pull guy after 6. Would you call Joe Ryan an 'ace' so far? Who do you think are available for a price the Twins are willing to pay in prospects that you would call an 'ace'? It is easy to say go get one, but the top teams that have them will not be trading them away most likely, because they will keep them. There are some good pitchers being talked about, but at least what I would say 'ace' none are in the talking points. I guess in part it will depend on what you define as an 'ace'.

It will make game more exciting because as the time between pitches get reduced more action is happening. Will it mean more pitches in play, no it will not, but we will not see a pitcher without anyone on stand there for 30 second plus shaking off the catcher, or the hitter walking around muttering to himself. It will get ball, get the sign and pitch. Then when on base you will not see endless no competitive throws over to the base or stepping off to look at the runner, or the spin around to the guy on second without a throw. The stepping off and asking to go through signs again because you cannot remember what the pitch is, or just you want to throw something different. Also, I think it will lead to more action on the bases, I could be wrong, but after two throws over, if you try a third you need to get the out or it is a balk. So I could see some cat and mouse games using the clock to try and get the runner going a second early, or something like that. Overall, cutting down the length of the game will keep people more engaged in the game. Cutting down 24 min simply because of imposing a clock is a good amount of time that people are watching nothing happen.

He has clearly raised his value as a trade piece if needed. He can play CF competently and get on base. That used to be all some wanted in a CF.