jorgenswest

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.

With the new CBA and the increase in the number of super two, wouldn't that push back the June 1 date significantly. This is one of the areas of the new CBA that makes it more difficult for small market teams. The Twins, however, should view themselves as mid market and make decisions based on baseball readiness.

Roenicke is 30 and has no up side. Wasn't Butera dropped last year? No one picked him up. I don't see how he I proved his stock in the last year. Worst case, Herrmann begins his career as a back up catcher this year or the Twins find another defensive catcher. I can't imagine that going from Butera to a Rene Rivera type would have any impact on the won loss record. Maybe the worst case is that they don't have a better option than Drew Butera next spring. I hope they don't drop some of the younger players mentioned above. A lot of growth can happen between 23 and 27.

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.

It takes great patience to develop young players. Numerous good pitchers struggled early in the majors. The solution is to let them struggle in the majors once they have shown reasonable success on the way up. Hendriks is not going to learn how to get major league hitters out in AAA. The Twins can afford to be patient.

Brock is correct about the price of purchasing WAR on the free agent market. He may have read it on this site in one of Parker's excellent articles. Twins Daily - The rising cost of relief pitching Look at fangraphs valuation of Jackson and you will see that 16-17 million are his peak two seasons. It isn't unreasonable to think that some team will make an offer in that neighborhood. If the team is willing to go mulitple years, they should be able to bring the per year cost down. On the other hand, there must be some reason why he will making his ninth organizational move by age 30. That has to concern some teams and reduce the competition for his services.

It has been 50+ years in Minnesota and not once has an all white outfield claimed the top number of games at each of the three OF positions. 1963 was probably the closest. 22.9% vs. 0/52? I wonder if the math should be reworked. You might start by looking at the make up of starting LFs, CFs and RFs rather than baseball as a whole. I don't think the 22.9% will hold up.

Good point. The Twins could have John Lannan. He was projected to get 5 million or more in arbitration. I would have preferred him than Correia. I think Terry Ryan is looking for players that the Twins can count on in 2013 and 2014. That is why they needed the option in a Baker deal. That may be why they did not want to pay Lannan 5+ million in 2013 only to have him resurrect his career and leave in 2014. Maybe that is why a they favored a two year Correia deal. An extension to Burton fits the plan. If Ryan is thinking 2014 as he builds 2013, it would seem like a Morneau trade should be part of the same plan.

It won't happen throughout this year either. Hicks or Arcia will be up at dome point. 1963 is close. The Twins had Jimmie Hall in cf with Killebrew in lf and Bob Allison in rf for many games. Lenny Green was still with the team and while 4th on the team in of games, played a lot of cf.

Absolutely agree. I am all in on the rebuild. Acquiring the three young arms set the direction. Signing and playing decline phase players is a detour off that path.

I do think Lannon would only do a one year deal. His one year deal with incentive will better Correia's one year deal. He has to believe that he can go to the Phillies and put up Blanton like numbers. Once he does that, he will far exceed Correia's deal. He does risk injury, but the reward of taking a one year deal is well within reason. As for the Twins, they did not sign Baker because he wouldn't commit a second year. That second year might have been a key to them. Guys like Lannon and Baker want to do a one year deal and put up numbers. Decline phase guys like Correia need to squeeze out every dollar they can before the door closes on their career. I would rather have Lannon or Baker and risk losing them after the year.

Is it possible that Lannon took this deal because it is better than the Correia deal from his perspective? It is also carries greater risk. Let's assume Lannon is betting on himself meeting the incentives. His salary for 2013 is 5 million - 500k better than Correia. He also becomes a free agent or accepts arbitration. An average season will bring him much more than what Correia will get for 2014. He also gets to pitch in the NL for a better team. Both will improve his 2013 numbers and 2014 contract. I don't agree with the Correia signing. I can see why Lannon would prefer this deal and particularly a one year deal.

Twins need to find the next Nick Punto. This one is too old. I don't know if the future Punto is in the organization. If so, it is Escobar who has accomplished at least as much as the Punto at 23 had accomplished.

I would add that we might not only be civil to each other, but also to the players/management debated. Drew Butera is an example. Writing about his historically poor batting performance supported by facts/data is on one side of a gray line. Blasting him personally or mixing his name with any assortment of asterisks and symbols is on the other. It is a small step from calling a player names to doing the same to each other. I hope to be more careful in writing about players and keeping it objective and fact/data based.

You probably didn't enjoy watching the first two miserable years for Viola. His performance in those 57 starts was at he bottom of the major leagues and his second year was worse than the first. How about Radke? Santana after two years? Signing decline phase pitchers may add a few wins over what Hendricks provides. The Twins may need to invest 60 starts to know for sure what they have in him. Developing young pitchers under team control is the only way out of this mess. The alternative is to continue the cycle of mediocrity and give the ball to decline phase pitchers that will not be part of the solution.

These guys will be 34 and 35 years old. It would be foolish to trade any future assets to get marginally better in 2013. It makes no sense after the deals of Span and Revere.

The Twins should offer to pay a good portion of the salary in order to get a better return.

What if Blackburn and Marquis had ERAs just above replacement level rather than awful? Maybe Pavano joins them with a similar performance and isn't on the DL. Does Diamond get the same opportunity? I am not so sure. The Twins need to give this opportunity to a pitcher with the upside that comes with youth. The money is spent. I hope they don't compound it by giving regular starts to a decline phase pitcher with barely above replacement level performance.

I would be satisfied if he was in the bullpen and used in the rotation when a starter was injured. If a young starter makes a short start, give him the ball and let him go several innings. Don't worry about his arm. Let him take the burden and save the rest of the pen.

If a pitcher is going to be around replacement level, wouldn't it be better if they were in the growth phase of their career path rather than the decline phase?

The Twins need to find the next Nick Punto. We don't need the old one.

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.