jorgenswest

It will be interesting to watch three teams as they try to pull themselves out of the basement. The Twins, Cubs and and Astros all have set out different path towards success. They also represent the three very different markets and revenue streams. The Cubs have purged salaries in trades and then are putting money back in for next year. They will probably not match last year's payroll, but they will spend the most of the three. They also have the most revenue. Will the additions be enough or will they be more like the Mets of the last 4 years? The Astros are all in the rebuild process. They have two players over 30 (Pena and Veras). In 2012, they hired Mike Fast and Kevin Goldstein. Their farm system had been one of the weakest for years. Keith Law has said that their farm system took a hug leap forward, the largest 6 month jump of any team. They go into this season without hope of approaching 90 wins, but they have set a clear direction. Will they be able to rebuild the team through the farm system? Like the Astros, the Twins have rebuilt their farm system in the last year. The draft class combined with the recent trades puts them in a much stronger position. Like the Cubs, they have more decline phase players on the roster. The Twins may have more over 30 players on their opening day roster than the Cubs. In order to help rebuild the system, the Twins traded off younger assets rather than older. That was out of necessity. The Twins have spent budget on decline phase players hoping to compete in the weak central. Can the Twins be successful at doing both? Three different markets. Three different paths. Which leads to sustained success?

It will be interesting to watch three teams as they try to pull themselves out of the basement. The Twins, Cubs and and Astros all have set out different path towards success. They also represent the three very different markets and revenue streams. The Cubs have purged salaries in trades and then are putting money back in for next year. They will probably not match last year's payroll, but they will spend the most of the three. They also have the most revenue. Will the additions be enough or will they be more like the Mets of the last 4 years? The Astros are all in the rebuild process. They have two players over 30 (Pena and Veras). In 2012, they hired Mike Fast and Kevin Goldstein. Their farm system had been one of the weakest for years. Keith Law has said that their farm system took a hug leap forward, the largest 6 month jump of any team. They go into this season without hope of approaching 90 wins, but they have set a clear direction. Will they be able to rebuild the team through the farm system? Like the Astros, the Twins have rebuilt their farm system in the last year. The draft class combined with the recent trades puts them in a much stronger position. Like the Cubs, they have more decline phase players on the roster. The Twins may have more over 30 players on their opening day roster than the Cubs. In order to help rebuild the system, the Twins traded off younger assets rather than older. That was out of necessity. The Twins have spent budget on decline phase players hoping to compete in the weak central. Can the Twins be successful at doing both? Three different markets. Three different paths. Which leads to sustained success?

Jim, I think the Twins management agree with you on defense and stats. They are going to let everyone else go ahead on this curve and hope it is the wrong direction. Even looking at the numbers, Carroll at best measured in the middle of qualifying shortstops. He did not have the innings to join that group. His defensive runs saved and UZR are ordinary. The numbers show that he has below average range and does not make a lot of errors. I think our eyes can see that. However, I do think the Twins should be paying attention to the defensive metrics. Maybe they are, but their roster decisions over the last two years indicate otherwise. Certainly, the decisions they have made indicate that they do not think defense has a significant impact on wins.

Good assessment at this point. It shows the Twins still have some work to do. I hope that Florimon doesn't make the team. If he does, it will be a starting SS. He gives the team nothing off the bench. The 25th spot on the team will be fluid due to injuries and whether it is a 12 or 13 man pitching staff. They should not add a player to,the 40 man to fill this temporary role like they did with Burroughs last year. I like the pitching, but I don't think Swarzak has any trade value. There are going to be several Swarzak type players who will be DFA'd as the season starts. No need to trade for one. They can not go into the season with that outfield. Mastro is only useful as a 4th OF. There has been a lot of discussion of June (or even June 1) with regards to Hicks and Arcia. That super two date is not a fixed target. The new CBA upped the number from 17% to 22%. It won't be until winter 2015 until teams get a sense of where the 22% lands. The Twins could be conservative and wait until later in June or maybe even the all star break. It will really depend on whether other teams will be as patient. Small market teams need to do this. I think it is too long to wait. The Twins are not a small market team. They can afford to pay arbitration a year earlier. Hicks and Arcia will struggle when we see them this year. They will also progress more quickly. I would plan now to have them in the opening day lineup with Matroianni as the 4th OF. They need to trade Morneau and move Parmelee to 1B. Alternatively, if they can't trade Morneau, they can DH Willingham.

As for the NL comment... I don't think any NL dependent numbers were quoted for the new players. WAR is context, league and year neutral. Players can be compared across teams, leagues and seasons. As for using WAR... It may not be te best measure. Debating whether someone is a #3 or #4 starter is not a measure at all. Choose another neutral measure to compare pitchers across leagues and seasons.

In the current era of baseball it doesn't make sense to quantify pitchers as #X starter. It used to be that #1 or #2 starters would get more starts because they would skip over guys at the back end of the rotation. I think Verlander and the Tigers are the only team that did that with any consistency. Virtually all teams roll their starters so that all slots get about the same number of starts. Even when the opportunity at the all star break comes to skip some starts at the back end, those opportunities aren't often taken. Last year the Twins took the opportunity to give Diamond a longer rest at the all star break taking away a start rather than getting an extra. It is more important to look at the staff's overall contribution in terms of WAR as a whole. Instead of a #4 starter, it would be better to quantify a starter as a 2 WAR starter or a 1 WAR starter. The #4 no longer has any value. The pitcher is not going to get their starts skipped. Note: Top starters in the playoffs often do get an extra start and rotations are dropped to 4 pitchers. There were 2268 starts last year in the AL. The ERA for those starts was 4.40. That included 95 pitches in 5.9 innings. Looking at AL pitchers who pitched the full season and had that profile you will find the league average pitcher contributes just less than 2 WAR over a full season. If the Twins can get 5 guys to give them 2 WAR they will far exceed the total of 3 WAR the starters earned last year. Let's look at the Twins recent acquisitions. According to fangraphs, from 2008-2011 Mike Pelfrey had 8.1 WAR over 4 seasons. If he can do 2 WAR for the Twins he will be well worth the contract. Vance Worley had 4.3 WAR over the last two seasons. It seems reasonable to project 2 WAR from him. Kevin Correia was worth 0.9 WAR last year and that was his best season in the last three. At his age, it doesn't seem likely he will produce more than 1 WAR. If he does achieve 1 WAR, he will be worth about the level of his contract. Of the returning staff, only Scott Diamond had more than 2 WAR (2.6) as a starter. Instead of debating pitcher number, the Twins should be striving towards putting together a league average pitching staff that contributes about 10 WAR. That alone is a 7 game improvement. I used fangraphs WAR calculation for this article.

In the current era of baseball it doesn't make sense to quantify pitchers as #X starter. It used to be that #1 or #2 starters would get more starts because they would skip over guys at the back end of the rotation. I think Verlander and the Tigers are the only team that did that with any consistency. Virtually all teams roll their starters so that all slots get about the same number of starts. Even when the opportunity at the all star break comes to skip some starts at the back end, those opportunities aren't often taken. Last year the Twins took the opportunity to give Diamond a longer rest at the all star break taking away a start rather than getting an extra. It is more important to look at the staff's overall contribution in terms of WAR as a whole. Instead of a #4 starter, it would be better to quantify a starter as a 2 WAR starter or a 1 WAR starter. The #4 no longer has any value. The pitcher is not going to get their starts skipped. Note: Top starters in the playoffs often do get an extra start and rotations are dropped to 4 pitchers. There were 2268 starts last year in the AL. The ERA for those starts was 4.40. That included 95 pitches in 5.9 innings. Looking at AL pitchers who pitched the full season and had that profile you will find the league average pitcher contributes just less than 2 WAR over a full season. If the Twins can get 5 guys to give them 2 WAR they will far exceed the total of 3 WAR the starters earned last year. Let's look at the Twins recent acquisitions. According to fangraphs, from 2008-2011 Mike Pelfrey had 8.1 WAR over 4 seasons. If he can do 2 WAR for the Twins he will be well worth the contract. Vance Worley had 4.3 WAR over the last two seasons. It seems reasonable to project 2 WAR from him. Kevin Correia was worth 0.9 WAR last year and that was his best season in the last three. At his age, it doesn't seem likely he will produce more than 1 WAR. If he does achieve 1 WAR, he will be worth about the level of his contract. Of the returning staff, only Scott Diamond had more than 2 WAR (2.6) as a starter. Instead of debating pitcher number, the Twins should be striving towards putting together a league average pitching staff that contributes about 10 WAR. That alone is a 7 game improvement. I used fangraphs WAR calculation for this article.

The Twins need to find the next generation Nick Punto. If that guy is in the organization now it is Escobar. Through at 23, Escobar is at least as accomplished as Punto at 23 with the glove and limited bat. if he is not in the organization, they would be better off trying to find him.

Far better option than the recently rumored Correia. I do have to wonder why he is looking for his 8th organization by age 29.

Signing no one is preferable to signing a decline phase pitcher to a multiyear contract. It is not the year to sign a Guthrie to a multiyear. They can offer opportunity. They are a perfect fit for an guy like Jurrjens. Last year they brought in a bunch of relievers and ended up with Burton. This year they need to bring in the starters.

Why is there such consistency since 2007 in which catchers do well (getting more strikes from balls) and which catchers do poorly (getting strikes called a ball)?

I looked at the data and I don't see the relationship between team, catcher and quality of pitchers. All of the new metrics about fielding and its impact on wins is very new. I am not certain how strongly the Twins should embrace all of the data that is available today.With their moves, they don't seem to be embracing it at all. I hope they are right.

2011 data on Butera and all other catchers with reference to pitch fx is below https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmezwgYbFov9dDNZTm1rMVJvSjNaMXNwUXI0d3VvRXc&hl=en_US#gid=0 He did not fare well in the 2011 analysis. Entering 2012, Jose Molina was ranked #1 and Doumit was at the very bottom. Is it simply an amazing coincidence that in spite of changing teams and parks they were ranked at the top and bottom for the 2012 season? If the catcher has no control, why isn't it random?

It is hard to believe. Can it be ignored? While other teams have hired some of the pitch f/x pioneers like Mike Fast, the Twins watch from the sidelines. Hopefully time will show that the Twins took the right path. Understanding the impact of defense on winning ball games is still in the early stages. It is easy to see the side the Twins stand on with their decisions to sign Willingham and Doumit last year and willingness to trade their best defensive player this year. What's next? Starting Parmelee in RF?

"I don’t say this about many decisions, but starting Doumit at catcher might be a fireable offense. In 60 games at catcher for Pittsburgh in 2011, his framing cost the Pirates 20 runs. In 59 games for Minnesota in 2012, his framing cost the Twins 21 runs. All told, his framing has subtracted 98 runs over the past five seasons, on top of the damage from the other things he does poorly behind the plate, which wipes out his offensive value." Ben Lindbergh, Baseball Prospectus Read the article at http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18863 It has been difficult on this site to state concerns about Doumit and the Twins extending him. In a debate last week, I was told 28-29 teams would love to have Doumit and he was more valuable than ever. Let's look at two teams attempt to fill out a bench. Last fall the Twins and Rays were both seeking catching help. The Rays signed Jose Molina and the Twins signed Ryan Doumit. The Rays signed Molina for 1.5 million and picked up his option for 2013 at 1.5 (also reported 1.8) million. The Twins have invested 10 million in Doumit over three years. For several years catching performance has been evaluated using pitch f/x. The results seem to be reliable as the catchers who perform at the top or bottom of the list remain relatively stable. This information and study by Mike Fast was available to both teams. Aaron Gleeman referenced it at the time of the Doumit signing. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15093 Jose Molina was the best catcher at saving runs through framing pitches over a 5 year period. Ryan Doumit was at the bottom of the list. They were at the extremes both in total and average per 120 games. How did it work out for both clubs? http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a/18896 If the metric is accurate, Molina saved his team 50 runs in 80 games. Doumit cost the Twins 21 runs in 59 games. Molina's value is all defense but those 50 runs saved represent 5 wins. Doumits -21 represents a loss of 2 wins and completely wipes out his contribution to the team as a hitter. Molina and Doumit took there familiar positions at the top and bottom of the list. A result that could have been easily projected. 28-29 teams would love to have Doumit? Must be everyone except the Rays. It couldn't be more clear that the Twins evaluation differs greatly from the Rays. One other quote from the first article about the Twins management and pitch f/x "...Ryan Doumit, the patron saint of poor receivers.Except that Doumit hasn’t exactly been blacklisted behind the plate: in fact, he caught more innings for Minnesota in 2012 than he did as a Pirate the season before. Well, okay, you might say, but that was the Twins, the one team you could almost persuade yourself hasn’t heard about PITCHf/x yet. (“Wait, you mean all this time all of our pitchers were throwing really slowly?”) I am assuming you stopped reading this a long time ago if you join the Twins management in skepticism about pitch f/x. If not, what should the Twins do about Doumit? Doumit's only value as a catcher is on someone's fantasy baseball team. In that realm, Molina isn't even an afterthought. Doumit does have value. He can platoon at DH and pinch hit. While I question whether that role merits an extension, the real concern is the Twins management understanding of the impact of defense on wins. The Twins should not enter the season with any plan of using Doumit as a catcher. Anything more than a late inning emergency replacement can not be justified. Our young and struggling pitching staff must be given any edge the Twins can provide. There has been much discussion about the Twins carrying 5 catchers. It is really 4 if Doumit is rightly moved into a Jim Thome role. It is 3 if Butera does not return. One of the three, Pinto, is not near ready for the majors. That leaves Mauer and Herrmann. The bigger question must be asked about the Twins management. From the outside, it seems like they are taking a long time to embrace some of the metrics of the last decade. One roster decision about a back up catcher speaks volumes about the two teams. One team commits 3 million to get two years of top ranked defense. The other commits 10 million over three years for an above average bat without a position. Let's hope the Twins are right and the metrics of the last decade are poor indicators of how to build a roster and win ball games.

"I don’t say this about many decisions, but starting Doumit at catcher might be a fireable offense. In 60 games at catcher for Pittsburgh in 2011, his framing cost the Pirates 20 runs. In 59 games for Minnesota in 2012, his framing cost the Twins 21 runs. All told, his framing has subtracted 98 runs over the past five seasons, on top of the damage from the other things he does poorly behind the plate, which wipes out his offensive value." Ben Lindbergh, Baseball Prospectus Read the article at http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18863 It has been difficult on this site to state concerns about Doumit and the Twins extending him. In a debate last week, I was told 28-29 teams would love to have Doumit and he was more valuable than ever. Let's look at two teams attempt to fill out a bench. Last fall the Twins and Rays were both seeking catching help. The Rays signed Jose Molina and the Twins signed Ryan Doumit. The Rays signed Molina for 1.5 million and picked up his option for 2013 at 1.5 (also reported 1.8) million. The Twins have invested 10 million in Doumit over three years. For several years catching performance has been evaluated using pitch f/x. The results seem to be reliable as the catchers who perform at the top or bottom of the list remain relatively stable. This information and study by Mike Fast was available to both teams. Aaron Gleeman referenced it at the time of the Doumit signing. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15093 Jose Molina was the best catcher at saving runs through framing pitches over a 5 year period. Ryan Doumit was at the bottom of the list. They were at the extremes both in total and average per 120 games. How did it work out for both clubs? http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a/18896 If the metric is accurate, Molina saved his team 50 runs in 80 games. Doumit cost the Twins 21 runs in 59 games. Molina's value is all defense but those 50 runs saved represent 5 wins. Doumits -21 represents a loss of 2 wins and completely wipes out his contribution to the team as a hitter. Molina and Doumit took there familiar positions at the top and bottom of the list. A result that could have been easily projected. 28-29 teams would love to have Doumit? Must be everyone except the Rays. It couldn't be more clear that the Twins evaluation differs greatly from the Rays. One other quote from the first article about the Twins management and pitch f/x "...Ryan Doumit, the patron saint of poor receivers.Except that Doumit hasn’t exactly been blacklisted behind the plate: in fact, he caught more innings for Minnesota in 2012 than he did as a Pirate the season before. Well, okay, you might say, but that was the Twins, the one team you could almost persuade yourself hasn’t heard about PITCHf/x yet. (“Wait, you mean all this time all of our pitchers were throwing really slowly?”) I am assuming you stopped reading this a long time ago if you join the Twins management in skepticism about pitch f/x. If not, what should the Twins do about Doumit? Doumit's only value as a catcher is on someone's fantasy baseball team. In that realm, Molina isn't even an afterthought. Doumit does have value. He can platoon at DH and pinch hit. While I question whether that role merits an extension, the real concern is the Twins management understanding of the impact of defense on wins. The Twins should not enter the season with any plan of using Doumit as a catcher. Anything more than a late inning emergency replacement can not be justified. Our young and struggling pitching staff must be given any edge the Twins can provide. There has been much discussion about the Twins carrying 5 catchers. It is really 4 if Doumit is rightly moved into a Jim Thome role. It is 3 if Butera does not return. One of the three, Pinto, is not near ready for the majors. That leaves Mauer and Herrmann. The bigger question must be asked about the Twins management. From the outside, it seems like they are taking a long time to embrace some of the metrics of the last decade. One roster decision about a back up catcher speaks volumes about the two teams. One team commits 3 million to get two years of top ranked defense. The other commits 10 million over three years for an above average bat without a position. Let's hope the Twins are right and the metrics of the last decade are poor indicators of how to build a roster and win ball games.

That is the other end of the argument. A reasonable position. Trading aging major league assets for prospects will cost wins in 2013 and reduce ticket sales. The 1982 and 1999 seasons were among the Twins poorest. They were also the first painful step towards the playoffs.

The early ZIPS projections were reported midweek and the AL Central has sobering information for the Twins. http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove12/story/_/id/8599684/projecting-american-league-central-players-teams-2013-mlb Note: Unfortunately, you will need an insider account to access the link above. The Twins in their construction are projected for 66 wins and 5th place in the AL Central. Entering the 2012 season they had a projected 70 win team from ZIPS so in the ZIPS lens the Twins have dropped back some. Clearly, the poor starting rotation has a significant impact on the performance. Scott Diamond and his poor k/9 ratio is the number 1 starter projected for a 4.85 ERA. Gleeman and the Geek had an interesting debate last week about indicators and performance. Runs given up is what matters. However runs given up in 2012 is not the best indicator of runs given up in 2013. Strikeout, walk, ground ball and home run rates are better indicators for 2013. Diamond's indicators and his three year past shows that ZIPS expects a significant regression. The projections have a hard time even finding a 5th starter listing Duensing but giving him an innings number and projection of a reliever/spot starter. The Twins can gain some ground by replacing Blackburn's and DeVries' projection. Replacing Blackburn and DeVries with league average performance will help significantly. Maybe even 6-8 wins. That only gets them to 74. The real concern has to be projections for the Twins offense. Willingham, Doumit, Mauer, Morneau and Span are all projected to regress. Why? All five had a relatively healthy season compared to previous and that can not be expected again. Four of the five are in their 30s. In the steroid era, some players kept their peak performance well into their 30s. That is not likely the case. ZIPS OPS projections for these 5 Willingham .890 to .819 Mauer .861 to .812 Morneau .773 to .767 Doumit .781 to .722 Span .738 to .700 Morneau's is not a mathematically significant drop, but it also isn't a return to his previous level and mediocre play for a 1B. ZIPS projections are based on 3-4 years of previous data based on the player's age. The Twins can choose to ignore them. Somehow they need to convince the faithful that they can add three pitchers and all will be OK. It is necessary for ticket sales. I would suggest that the Twins can not be fixed for 2013. The only long term fix is to repair the minor league system. How do they turn it around? 1) Sign no one to a multiyear contract that will commit the Twins beyond their age 32 season. 2) Trade off declining assets and build the system. Trading Willingham is a must. He is owed 14 million (2 years). He can not be put in LF any longer. He is unlikely to be more valuable than he is this off season. Someone will take on all 14 million and give the Twins prospects 3) Similarly Morneau has 14 million left over 1 year. The Twins should trade him and "buy" prospects in the form of picking up a significant portion of his contract. 4) Do not offer extensions that commits the Twins to anyone beyond their age 32 season. That means pay Burton his due this year and do not extend him beyond 2013. Hopefully he is a tradeable asset midseason. http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php?1968-Burton-What-s-is-the-Future-for-a-31-Year-Old-Set-Up-Man 5) Does Doumit have any value in a trade? Is it reasonable to think his 2014 season will be anything like his 2012 season? http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php?1390-Priorities-The-Best-Backup-Catcher-in-Baseball 6) Wait out the free agent season. Although Ryan would disagree, there are plenty of starting pitchers on the market. Some will be left with few suitors The Twins should be able to sign some of them to a 1 year deal. If the deal is one year, age should not be a factor. It is critical that they no longer sign decline phase players to multiyear contracts. They did it in the 90s with no success. The 1997-1998 teams were among the oldest Twin rosters. The 2012 roster is comparable to those of 98-99. Doing so will only continue the cycle of mediocrity. How do they turn it around? Go young. Build the system. They did it in 1982. The average batter and pitcher age were both lowest in organization history. It paid off. They did it again in 1999. Average batter age dropped 3 years and average pitcher age dropped 2.4 from 1998. Paid off again. Can you wait for the pay off? Would you rather be mediocre? I fear the Twins management doesn't trust the ticket buying public to accept the growing pains of building the system. They will sign decline phase players to multiyear contracts to satisfy the fans and drive ticket sales. This article will be written again next year as it was last year. http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php?332-Are-the-Twins-in-danger-of-entering-a-cycle-of-mediocrity

The early ZIPS projections were reported midweek and the AL Central has sobering information for the Twins. http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove12/story/_/id/8599684/projecting-american-league-central-players-teams-2013-mlb Note: Unfortunately, you will need an insider account to access the link above. The Twins in their construction are projected for 66 wins and 5th place in the AL Central. Entering the 2012 season they had a projected 70 win team from ZIPS so in the ZIPS lens the Twins have dropped back some. Clearly, the poor starting rotation has a significant impact on the performance. Scott Diamond and his poor k/9 ratio is the number 1 starter projected for a 4.85 ERA. Gleeman and the Geek had an interesting debate last week about indicators and performance. Runs given up is what matters. However runs given up in 2012 is not the best indicator of runs given up in 2013. Strikeout, walk, ground ball and home run rates are better indicators for 2013. Diamond's indicators and his three year past shows that ZIPS expects a significant regression. The projections have a hard time even finding a 5th starter listing Duensing but giving him an innings number and projection of a reliever/spot starter. The Twins can gain some ground by replacing Blackburn's and DeVries' projection. Replacing Blackburn and DeVries with league average performance will help significantly. Maybe even 6-8 wins. That only gets them to 74. The real concern has to be projections for the Twins offense. Willingham, Doumit, Mauer, Morneau and Span are all projected to regress. Why? All five had a relatively healthy season compared to previous and that can not be expected again. Four of the five are in their 30s. In the steroid era, some players kept their peak performance well into their 30s. That is not likely the case. ZIPS OPS projections for these 5 Willingham .890 to .819 Mauer .861 to .812 Morneau .773 to .767 Doumit .781 to .722 Span .738 to .700 Morneau's is not a mathematically significant drop, but it also isn't a return to his previous level and mediocre play for a 1B. ZIPS projections are based on 3-4 years of previous data based on the player's age. The Twins can choose to ignore them. Somehow they need to convince the faithful that they can add three pitchers and all will be OK. It is necessary for ticket sales. I would suggest that the Twins can not be fixed for 2013. The only long term fix is to repair the minor league system. How do they turn it around? 1) Sign no one to a multiyear contract that will commit the Twins beyond their age 32 season. 2) Trade off declining assets and build the system. Trading Willingham is a must. He is owed 14 million (2 years). He can not be put in LF any longer. He is unlikely to be more valuable than he is this off season. Someone will take on all 14 million and give the Twins prospects 3) Similarly Morneau has 14 million left over 1 year. The Twins should trade him and "buy" prospects in the form of picking up a significant portion of his contract. 4) Do not offer extensions that commits the Twins to anyone beyond their age 32 season. That means pay Burton his due this year and do not extend him beyond 2013. Hopefully he is a tradeable asset midseason. http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php?1968-Burton-What-s-is-the-Future-for-a-31-Year-Old-Set-Up-Man 5) Does Doumit have any value in a trade? Is it reasonable to think his 2014 season will be anything like his 2012 season? http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php?1390-Priorities-The-Best-Backup-Catcher-in-Baseball 6) Wait out the free agent season. Although Ryan would disagree, there are plenty of starting pitchers on the market. Some will be left with few suitors The Twins should be able to sign some of them to a 1 year deal. If the deal is one year, age should not be a factor. It is critical that they no longer sign decline phase players to multiyear contracts. They did it in the 90s with no success. The 1997-1998 teams were among the oldest Twin rosters. The 2012 roster is comparable to those of 98-99. Doing so will only continue the cycle of mediocrity. How do they turn it around? Go young. Build the system. They did it in 1982. The average batter and pitcher age were both lowest in organization history. It paid off. They did it again in 1999. Average batter age dropped 3 years and average pitcher age dropped 2.4 from 1998. Paid off again. Can you wait for the pay off? Would you rather be mediocre? I fear the Twins management doesn't trust the ticket buying public to accept the growing pains of building the system. They will sign decline phase players to multiyear contracts to satisfy the fans and drive ticket sales. This article will be written again next year as it was last year. http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php?332-Are-the-Twins-in-danger-of-entering-a-cycle-of-mediocrity

My apologies to the Urbina family.

A common thought among baseball fans like... "Since there are a larger number of starting pitchers on the free agent market, it is good for my team because we need pitching" I would like to challenge that argument. I do believe a larger market can be an advantage for some teams. I don't believe that a larger market can be good for every team that needs pitching. Many teams need pitching. If the market is an advantage for some, doesn't it need to be a disadvantage for others? In a large market both of these elements are in play... 1) There are more free agent pitchers available. Sounds good for teams like the Twins that have openings. 2) More teams have opening in their rotation. Sounds bad for a team like the Twins as their is more competition in the market. The starting pitching environment really remains constant. 1) The demand does not change from year to year. The number of jobs for starting pitchers is a constant. 2) The supply may change, but it can not be measured by counting the free agent pitchers. An accounting of all major league pitchers would be necessary. Is there an influx into the market of new pitchers that exceeds the number of starters no longer effective and exiting the market? I think it is more likely that the market will not help the Twins. With more buyers in the market, teams have to do something to become more attractive. How else attract the more desirable free agents? How can the Twins make themselves more attractive? These might be factors. - Dollars offered - Years offered - A teams record the previous season - The coaching staff and particularly pitching coach - The medical staff - Geographical location - Opportunities for endorsements - Facilities Would any objective look at these factors come to the conclusion that the Twins are an attractive place to sign as a free agent pitcher? I wouldn't think so. I think one could argue that the large number of job openings will actually be a detriment to the Twins ability to address pitching through free agency. I think they will have two options. 1) Sign the less desirable pitchers who are in decline and on the way out of the market. 2) Overpay for middling free agents risking crippling contract obligations in the future. So which teams will benefit from a larger market of starting pitching? We might look at previous years of large markets and see which teams came out ahead. That may be difficult to study due to sample size. We might try to project whether there will be an increase in pitching supply. That is not as simple as counting free agents, but it is the only way to truly measure the market.

A common thought among baseball fans like... "Since there are a larger number of starting pitchers on the free agent market, it is good for my team because we need pitching" I would like to challenge that argument. I do believe a larger market can be an advantage for some teams. I don't believe that a larger market can be good for every team that needs pitching. Many teams need pitching. If the market is an advantage for some, doesn't it need to be a disadvantage for others? In a large market both of these elements are in play... 1) There are more free agent pitchers available. Sounds good for teams like the Twins that have openings. 2) More teams have opening in their rotation. Sounds bad for a team like the Twins as their is more competition in the market. The starting pitching environment really remains constant. 1) The demand does not change from year to year. The number of jobs for starting pitchers is a constant. 2) The supply may change, but it can not be measured by counting the free agent pitchers. An accounting of all major league pitchers would be necessary. Is there an influx into the market of new pitchers that exceeds the number of starters no longer effective and exiting the market? I think it is more likely that the market will not help the Twins. With more buyers in the market, teams have to do something to become more attractive. How else attract the more desirable free agents? How can the Twins make themselves more attractive? These might be factors. - Dollars offered - Years offered - A teams record the previous season - The coaching staff and particularly pitching coach - The medical staff - Geographical location - Opportunities for endorsements - Facilities Would any objective look at these factors come to the conclusion that the Twins are an attractive place to sign as a free agent pitcher? I wouldn't think so. I think one could argue that the large number of job openings will actually be a detriment to the Twins ability to address pitching through free agency. I think they will have two options. 1) Sign the less desirable pitchers who are in decline and on the way out of the market. 2) Overpay for middling free agents risking crippling contract obligations in the future. So which teams will benefit from a larger market of starting pitching? We might look at previous years of large markets and see which teams came out ahead. That may be difficult to study due to sample size. We might try to project whether there will be an increase in pitching supply. That is not as simple as counting free agents, but it is the only way to truly measure the market.