chpettit19

Well they're 19 points away from the league leading Braves, but if they went down 19 points they'd only drop 5 spots. I think team ranking stats are almost completely useless. If you're technically 13th as a team, but you're only 10 points off the leader do you still feel like you're struggling a great deal? Take team FIP for example, the Twins have a 4.10 FIP and are 13th in the league. 14th place is a tie between the Cubs and Phils at 4.27. That .17 difference between us and the next team would be good enough to move us into a tie for 8th and .01 away from 7th. Team rankings shouldn't be used solely on their own. As for being a top 5 offense, I'd say we're the 7th best offense right now. The point of offense is to score runs so whoever scores the most runs is the best and so on. There's a number of different strategies to scoring runs, but as long as you're scoring you're successful and I don't care what your OBP, OPS, BA, HRs or any other stats are. Just score runs.

No, I expect to get 7 or 8 out of my starters in most of my wins. I was using 6 innings to prove the point that you don't need 8 Riveras in your bullpen, but instead need 3 really good arms, 2 guys a notch under them, and then fill in guys. Some of the wins will be like Tuesday when you don't need to use any of your stud arms because you put up 14. There's a certain segment of people on this thread that act like the good bullpens out there are running 8 all stars out there. That's not the case. If May, Rogers, and Parker are legit late inning guys, and especially if Romero settles in to a bullpen role and comes up as well, you're in good shape. My point in all of my posts on this thread is that the starters are putting the bullpen in a position to fail by "forcing" Rocco to use his mop up guys in spots they aren't meant to be in there for. If you don't believe in Rogers, May, and Parker then the bullpen is a major problem. But if you think those guys will come in and shut it down 85%+ of the time you're in a good spot. Most major league teams look to win series. So you're talking 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4 games. 3 shut down guys and 1 or 2 guys who can fill in on a less frequent basis is plenty for getting that done. I don't know what some of the people on here want the bullpen to be. $12+ mil for each of 8 shut down guys? I mean be realistic with what major league bullpens look like. This entire article and thread is Example A in small sample size, 1 bad early season showing non-sense. If you want to complain about pitching complain about the fact that Berrios is the only trustworthy starter we have so far. That's the hole in this team currently, not the bullpen.

Let's start with 90 wins as our goal. Let's say we only get 6 innings out of our starters in all 90 of those games. That means we need 270 innings worth of bullpen usage in those games. If you have 4 guys who throw all of those innings they're all throwing 67.5 innings. That's obviously a ridiculously perfect situation, but that's the plan you build for when you're a small to midmarket team because it's not sustainable to pay bullpen guys big money because they're too volatile. The argument I made in my post was you want 3 shut down type guys to lock down sure wins. Then you have 1 or 2 others are quite reliable. That's 4 or 5 guys. Yes, every guy in the pen will throw innings, but the plan is to use those 4 or 5 in the "important innings." Good bullpens do have multiple good arms, 3-5 of them. They don't have 8 guys that they expect to use regularly in high leverage situations. They have 3-5 and then pop some of those other few in there in the 6th or 7th in stretches where the team is in a bunch of close games. But that's only a few stretches of the season. Vasquez was brutal last night, yes. But to act like the bullpen is just collapsing right now is inaccurate. Harper, Hildy, and May haven't allowed runs yet. Rogers and Parker have allowed 1. That's 2 runs in 21+ innings. That's your 4 guys you're counting on at the end of games and 1 random guy. The expectation is that Romero will come up and be a 5th end of game guy. What else do you realistically want from a bullpen? This article and thread have people acting like the season is over because some random dude the team was never counting on came in and was absolutely brutal in 1 game. But in reality the bullpen is doing it's job. It's not doing the extra stuff the starters are forcing it to try to do.

That's a misleading stat. Yes, pitching has changed, but that's not totally why average innings per start is what it is. For 1 the Rays really throw the number off with their "opener" usage. They averaged just 3.9 innings per start, but that misleads as their actual starters were much better than that. Cleveland averaged over 6 innings per start because they have good starters. The problem with the Twins current pitching situation is that they built it to have starters who can go 6 and then have 3 lock down guys and 1 or 2 other guys who can fill in in their bullpen with just a couple random dudes to be the long and blow out guys. But their starters haven't nearly filled their role and it's put way more pressure on the guys who weren't supposed to be used often. When Berrios starts and then you can just get into a mix of Parker, May, and Rogers things look good. But when Odo and Gibson come up way short on expectations it forces Rocco to use guys in situations they weren't meant to be used in.

Why would they option Hildenberger at this point in time? Or outright Vasquez? Why wouldn't you keep the guy who hasn't allowed a run yet and just send Vasquez back down while calling Romero up if that's who you'd prefer to have?

I think it's the starting pitchers that are the real problem right now. Sure, last night looked bad with the pen unable to help Odorizzi out, but in the big picture it's him being awful so far and Gibson and Pineda, for differing reasons, not going more than 5. If the starting staff is getting through 6 more regularly we're looking at a whole lot less of the back end of the pen and a whole lot more of Hildy, Rogers, Parker, and May. Even Harper has been solid so far. Would Kimbrel be nice? Sure. But lets not act like we have 0 relievers. We have 3 guys who should be reasonably counted on to provide quality innings at the back end of games. I don't know that anyone here can name a single MLB team with a pen that can survive having multiple starters (who are expected to have a "real" start, not openers, etc. like Tampa uses) failing to get through even the 5th inning on a super regular basis. This is a starting rotation failure more than it is a bullpen failure. Unless you expect them to go out and sign 8 guys for 10+ mil a year so they never have a questionable bullpen arm.

I don't know that it's a super obvious choice to bring in your best reliever for 1 out in the 5th in a 1 run game. You're still going to need to get 12 more outs. I don't think it's fair to say Rocco blew it. You have to have somebody else in the pen who can come in and get literally 1 guy out.

I think part of why Kimbrel isn't signed is because he isn't a fireman. I don't think he wants to do anything but pitch 3 out, 9th inning saves. And with his predilection for putting multiple runners on base in most of his outings I'm not sure you'd want him coming in with the bases loaded anyways.

I think Cruz has earned the benefit of the doubt by leading all of major league baseball in HRs over the last 5 years while hitting in one of the worst HR hitting parks in the game. I don't think 40 HRs is an unreasonable expectation of him this year. That being said, unless you're really convinced he's fallen off a cliff and we're looking at LoMo 2.0 I don't get why anyone would be against this signing, or how him not being able to play any defense is really a negative thing. How is the "flexibility" to rotate lesser hitters through the lineup to give them "half days off" a better option than plugging an elite bat into the heart of your order every day? You can only play 8 defensive guys each day. You're not subbing your DH into the game to play a position ever. If someone is too tired to play the field give them the day off and let them just relax while we put the best hitter we have in at DH and watch him launch balls into the second deck in left or over the batters eye in center. Now if the plan was for Cron, or Austin, or someone like that to be your everyday DH then I can understand frustration. But as of now Cruz is the best hitter on this team. Being able to plug him in everyday without question should be an unquestioned good thing. I don't get why anyone would prefer Buxton's bat in the lineup while he's not playing center, or Kepler's, or literally anyone else on this team. If the goal is to put your 8 best fielders and 9 best hitters out there as often as possible, having a DH only who is your best hitter isn't a bad thing since you get an "extra" hitter. I think the bigger reason you see fewer "DH only" types is because there are fewer guys who can hit and can't field. We're seeing the elite bats be guys who field well, and even be up the middle guys. Boston seemed to do alright with Ortiz as a DH only, and now with JD as a DH only.

Renting Rendon would likely cost you one of your top 3-5 prospects and another 1 or 2 top 10-15 type guys so that's something to take into consideration. And I believe they changed the rule and you no longer pick up draft picks for rental players, but maybe I'm wrong on that. That being said, I don't think Rendon will be available as I think the Nats want to build around him. Maybe someone like Donaldson if the Braves don't live up to expectations, though. And then you're talking much lower prospect loss as well. I think you need to take the prospect cost into account as well.

Arraez's path to the majors is a Marwin Gonzalez type utility role, I think. He's played a bunch of 3B in the winter leagues and has worked out all over the IF and some OF for the Twins. If he keeps hitting I could see him stepping right into Gonzalez's role in 2 years when Gonzalez is gone.

The push is coming from Lewis, Javier, and Arraez. It's not that him struggling this year means he's never going to be a ML player, it's that he will get passed in the immediate future of the Twins' organization as well as the big picture future. He's already been passed in terms of future plans with Polanco, Lewis, and Javier I'd think being the IF plan of the future, and if Gordon struggles again and the other minor league guys do what they're expected to Gordon may never see a Twins uni as they will get to the majors next year and he'll be sitting in the minors still. To be honest I'd guess the FO is already looking at him as trade bait if he can get off to a hot start, and, at max, a backup IF for the Twins down the road. Nothing wrong with that, but I'd guess Gordon himself is feeling quite a bit of pressure to perform this year as he can feel his ML future slipping away.

That's fair. I'm not overly excited or down on either of them. Just find it interesting. Not saying it's good or bad, just interesting that their stats (given, only offensively) are super similar, but they tend to be viewed very differently on a lot of these boards.

Delmon Young was a minor league OF too, doesn't mean he should have been in a ML outfield. Having watched Austin run I can't imagine he's a useful outfielder. I think it is a sign that this FO, and possibly Rocco, too, take defense serious and don't want to put bad fielders out there if they don't have to. And it's not like Austin has lit the world on fire at the plate in his career. It's been spotty chances for him, but he's a career league average hitter. Taking ABs away from any of our OFs for that doesn't seem like the right move to me. If you think consistent ABs makes him an above average hitter maybe there's more to the idea of finding him a second position, but I just don't think he's good enough with the bat to make up for what I would guess is subpar OF defense.

I find it interesting that so many people seem so confident in Cave being at least a useful ML piece after 309 PAs of 113 OPS+, yet are so worried about Cron after 2035 PAs of 112 OPS+. And that's not even mentioning so many people really wanting Austin to be on the team despite having 400 PAs of 100 OPS+. Seems like a lot of this is maybe a little emotional attachment to guys who've worn a Twins' uni.

I think you're overestimating our "starting 9," and what 2019 baseball is like. Superstars/All-Stars play everyday. The rest of the league is interchangeable and matchup based. The Twins are finally getting into the modern game and have a manager who will (hopefully) be better at using the information at his disposal to mix and match his lineups to fit with that day's game. Go look at what the WS lineups looked like last year. And those are teams loaded with stars. They are mixed and matched and have certain guys, I.e. Pierce and Muncy, who hit in the heart of their orders, but only in platoon situations. There's no more "starting 9" in todays game. It's full 25 and 40 man rosters. The 10 day IL makes it even easier to use your entire 40 man roster as you can give a guy 10 days in the majors to fill in for somebody who's nicked up. Not even teams with lineups full of studs have a "starting 9" that is just penciled in each day. Cruz and Rosario are the only 2 Twins hitters who can even start to talk about being deserving of an everyday lineup spot. The rest are all mix and match until they establish that they're significantly better than the next guy. That is why you have to look at the payroll as being a big picture thing, and not just focus on this 1 contract. Do you have a specific player, and/or contract possibility, out there that you'd like to see the Twins sign right now that you think isn't going to happen because of this contract? If the team is competing at the trade deadline this contract isn't going to stop us from bringing in another player, not even Donaldson and the 12 or so mil he'll have left on his deal then. I think this FO has clearly established that they won't do any deal that will truly hinder their payroll flexibility.

So you think they're going to miss out on a difference making player because of his 2/21 contract? I don't think they're sitting in ST right now saying "dang, we could've signed Keuchel or Kimbrel if it wasn't for Marwin taking up 9% of our payroll." You have to look at the big picture. The hope is Byron and Miguel finally hit their ceilings and become the stars they were supposed to be. At that point you have 2 studs making less than they "should" based on their production. I think Marwin earns every penny of that $21 mil from his on field performance, the flexibility he provides Rocco, his clubhouse presence, and a myriad of other things, but even if he doesn't his contract won't be what sinks this team. He's not coming in to be the star and he isn't being paid like he is. Ben Zobrist signed a 4 year, $56 mil deal at the age of 35. Marwin is the poor man's Zobrist and is on a shorter contract for less money/year. DJ LeMahieu just signed for 2/24 after playing in Coors his whole career and being nothing but a high BA guy and good defender at 2nd. He provides no positional flexibility, and no power. Marwin got a deal that is right in line with who he is. This is what the MLB market has determined productive, but not All-Star level, players are worth. If you think his 10.5 a year for 2 is going to cripple this team you must have no hope at all that the Twins will ever compete.

So the team with superstars found it worth having him around, but the team without superstars is too good for him? I really can't follow your logic. Is it simply because he's making $10 mil a year? I don't understand what you're seeing in your head as how this season goes. Do you think there's one of the 9 players you see as starters who is suddenly going to get 100 ABs because of this signing? There a minimum of 4374 ABs to hand out this year. Do you think handing 400 of those to Marwin is going to cripple the Twins season? What if Schoop doesn't bounce back to his 2017 season and is cut 2 months into the year? What if Sano gets hurt AGAIN? Or Buxton sucks AGAIN? Or Cron and Austin are both negative WAR players? Or Polanco gets hurt? 1 of those things very well may happen and I think it's rather nice to have Marwin around to step in. They didn't bring him in to take someone's everyday spot. He's going to bounce around and give guys a rest. And you can "overspend" (as you seem to think this is) on a guy like Marwin for these 2 years when you have your "core" making less than they produce. It's what every smart team does.

Doesn't it make immense sense to sign a guy to provide insurance for injuries and underperformance? Every team, every year suffers from these things. Going into a season with 9 guys and saying "they're all starting 162 and hitting in this exact order and providing these exact stats" is a recipe for disaster. Marwin Gonzalez is a proven MLB player on a contract that doesn't hurt anything. I can't comprehend how adding a proven MLB player is a bad thing. It just doesn't make sense.

The Astros had Bregman-Correa-Altuve-Gurriel across their infield to start last year. They had Marisnik-Springer-Reddick across their outfield to start last year. Marwin still got 489 ABs for them last year. Which Twins starter are you plugging in for 1 of those guys? Rosario for Marisnik? Sure I can see that. There is literally no other Twins starter I would plug into that lineup. Maybe you see our players differently than I do, but I think it's safe to say the Astros had a better lineup last year than the Twins do this year and they were able to creep into the playoffs even with the weight of Marwin getting 489 ABs dragging them down. He's not a world beater but neither is anyone else in our lineup. Who are you concerned this established, quality big leaguer is taking ABs from? 2/21 is nothing. That is not hampering our team in any way, shape, or form. We could cut him tomorrow and be just fine eating that money. My point is that "kicking it down the road" means you're giving up more in the transaction. We got him for a reasonable contract that doesn't hurt us. If we are competing and hit the trade deadline and decide we need a guy like Marwin to get us to the postseason then we're bringing this sort of contract in while also sending out prospects. So now we're paying the money anyways and we also lost prospect talent. And if he makes us better at the deadline he makes us better now. Why would you want half the season of better? To save $5 mil? Signing him doesn't hurt us, but might make us better. I don't see the downside. No 2 year deal is ever going to cripple a team. Ever.

Me neither, but your post was asking why we would sign him now when we could just wait until the deadline and get a similar player then. And I'm asking why you would want to wait and see when his signing only costs money as opposed to trading assets for a similar player who will still cost money. I don't follow the logic of ever wanting to trade for a similar player to one you can just sign and save your prospects.

I don't get why anyone would be down on this signing. The biggest weakness of this roster before today was flexibility. We brought in one of the most positionally flexible players in MLB for a price that isn't going to hurt the payroll in any meaningful way. Oh, and he's a switch hitter so can give anyone on the field a day off anytime they need. It's a new era in baseball. Most guys aren't playing 160 games anymore. And at this point the Twins don't have anyone who's earned the right to demand they're out there every day (other than Cruz at DH). It's a long summer and there will be injuries and there will be guys who have bad years, or bad stretches. More depth is not a bad thing, ever. We are more talented now than when we woke up this morning. That's a good thing. Do we need more pitching? Yes. Does making our position players better hurt our pitching? No. I don't get the posts after every signing complaining that "now we won't sign so and so." People were mad when we claimed Cron because then we couldn't sign a "proven MLB" player, but now we sign a proven MLB player who has a ring and can help show our young guys what it takes to be a champion and we're mad that we didn't sign him earlier? Just don't get the complaints about this signing at all. The day we bring in a Marwin type guy to replace a Trout type guy we can complain. He's not replacing anyone at this point. And anybody getting sent down because of this signing wasn't that great of a player to start with.

Why wait til the deadline and then have to trade assets?

With all the off days in the first few weeks of the season I'd be surprised to see the Twins keep 13 arms to start the year. I think they take those few weeks to a month to get 13 guys action at the plate and in the field and delay their bench decisions until after the real games start and they see what everyone is looking like. Then they send someone down and bring up the extra arm when they need to.

1. The DBacks wanted (and got) MLB ready/MLB experienced top prospects. The Twins don't have anybody like that. That means in order to convince them to change their plan and go with a rebuild, instead of a retool, you'd have to give up one of our top 3. I'm cool if that's something you'd like to see, but the idea that you're bringing in a perennial MVP candidate by trading a bunch of non-elite prospects is rather far fetched I think. If you wanted them to trade MLBers for him then I'm not sure what you think this team would have been capable of without a pair of Rosario, Berrios, or Kepler, because that's what it would take to get a perennial MVP. 2. Grienke as a thrown in suggests the Twins would have been taking on all, or at least 90%, of his current contract. He is due $34,500,000 in 2019, and $35,000,000 in both 2020 and 2021. Goldschmidt is a free agent after 2019 and is going to get something in the 3-5 years, $30 mil a year range of a contract. That means you're paying 2 guys $60 mil a year for the next 3 years. What sort of team do you think the Twins can put around them? Keep in mind you just traded away either 2 established MLBers and some of your top 4-15 prospects, or a pair of your 3 top prospects. Big names are all well and good, and I'd like to see the Twins a take a swing at them at some point, but this is not the time to do it through trade. Now if you want to argue that the Twins should be in on Harper, Machado, Kimbrel and/or Keuchel I'd be more inclined to agree there. I don't think trades for high priced guys is a smart move at this point. Each year we are seeing more and more that it takes the entire 25 man roster to win in the post season, and the whole 40 man to win in the regular season. A roster with a couple high priced studs and a bunch of sub-replacement level bums is not a recipe for fixing the Twins' woes. But with the hope that your roster is going to be filled with low priced, top flight young talent for the next 6-8 years I think this is a good time for us to make a splash with a FA signing. I'd love to see Keuchel in a Twins uni for something like 3 years and $60 mil. I think the Padres are looking at their next 6-8 years and seeing that their entire team will be pretty cheap as they call up a stable of young stud arms and a few uber-talented position players and that's why they're chasing Harper and Machado. In conclusion, I'd love to see improved play at Target Field (I actually feel pretty good about this team compared to how I've felt the last few), but it needs to be done the right way so we don't watch it fall off a cliff again in 3 or 4 years. And I think making any trades at this point would really raise the likelihood of that happening. As someone earlier posted, it's a numbers game with prospects. And a team who refuses to (or can't depending on who you ask) spend big money needs to have a constant stream of prospects. I think the FO has that stream in place and will open the tap in the next couple years and we'll see if their plan worked or not. I think we also all need to prepare ourselves to start seeing our top guys get traded as FA gets closer. I think that'll be the next step in the plan for continued contention. We'll see how it all plays out.