Why the Twins should spend top $$ for an Ace?

[Guest USAFChief]

I think trading for an ace is much less desirable than buying one in free agency. Free agency costs a lot of money. Trading for one costs a lot of talent AND a lot of money if you plan to keep the guy.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think trading for an ace is much less desirable than buying one in free agency. Free agency costs a lot of money. Trading for one costs a lot of talent AND a lot of money if you plan to keep the guy.

 

Agreed. It makes more sense to throw money at a guy who you know will cripple your team in years 4-7 and keep that prospect who might help keep the team afloat in years 4-7 than trade the prospect and lose the ace pitcher in two years anyway.

 

I'd rather have an albatross of a contract and a top prospect than no prospect, no ace, and some money.

[Guest USAFChief]

Agreed. It makes more sense to throw money at a guy who you know will cripple your team in years 4-7 and keep that prospect who might help keep the team afloat in years 4-7 than trade the prospect and lose the ace pitcher in two years anyway.I'd rather have an albatross of a contract and a top prospect than no prospect, no ace, and some money.

Well, you do what you have to do. A team like KC probably can't spend the kind of money it takes to sign a top free agent, so if they want one, they have to go the less desirable route. I don't think the Twins have the same financial constraints.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Well, you do what you have to do. A team like KC probably can't spend the kind of money it takes to sign a top free agent, so if they want one, they have to go the less desirable route. I don't think the Twins have the same financial constraints.

 

Yeah. It's unlikely that KC could swing an ace even if they wanted to spend the money. I'm not really bashing the idea behind the Shields trade, only the timing. If you're going to trade for an ace with two years of control, you damned well better make the playoffs twice because things are going to only get harder after that point.

[Sssuperdave]

Besides signing an ace, they could develop one. Both Meyer and Stewart have that ceiling. Santana obviously. And occasionally a #2 or 3 has a ace type season - Twins got one from Tapani in 91. Radke had a few. Joe Mays actually led the AL in ERA+ one year and was second in pitching WAR. I'd rather the Twins focused on developing a complete rotation rather than worrying about who the #1 pitcher is.

 

This is where the "Ace" conversation always bothers me. I don't think you need an "Ace" to win the world series, but I do think you need at least one pitcher who has a really really good season, and that pitcher doesn't have to come with an "Ace" label. Scott Erickson had an ace-like season in 91 but I don't think anyone would have ever given him an "Ace" label. Erickson had a higher WAR in 91 than Felix Hernandez has had in 5 out of 8 full seasons, so I'll take Erickson's 91 over 62% of Hernandez' years. There are plenty of candidates currently in the Twins organization to have a year like that - they don't need to have some mysterious "Ace" label.

[nicksaviking]

I don't think we're really disagreeing. Much like the argument about the Royals and Shields, much of my opinion comes down to timing.

 

If the Twins are an 87 win team, go for that ace. He'll not only get you to the playoffs, he'll give you a better chance to advance once you're there.

 

But a 70 win team has as much use for an "ace" as it does 2013 Joe Mauer. It's going to barely move the needle and you'll give away incredibly valuable resources to barely move that needle.

 

For sure. Funny things happen when you jump into the middle of an arguement and miss the context.

[nicksaviking]

This is where the "Ace" conversation always bothers me. I don't think you need an "Ace" to win the world series, but I do think you need at least one pitcher who has a really really good season, and that pitcher doesn't have to come with an "Ace" label. Scott Erickson had an ace-like season in 91 but I don't think anyone would have ever given him an "Ace" label. Erickson had a higher WAR in 91 than Felix Hernandez has had in 5 out of 8 full seasons, so I'll take Erickson's 91 over 62% of Hernandez' years. There are plenty of candidates currently in the Twins organization to have a year like that - they don't need to have some mysterious "Ace" label.

 

Right, but then you're counting on the one season out of 15 that Erickson will produce his "Ace" season as opposed to the nearly 100% success rate of Hernandez. Those odds are terrible. How would you even begin to suspect that Erickson's "Ace" season would even coincide with a year your team is in position to win?

 

Also, while I had fond memories of Scott Erickson in 1991, it was pretty flukey. You really shouldn't suspect success with a 4.8 K/9 in any era of baseball. A 1.52 K/BB rate wouldn't normally predict much success.

[bear333]

If you look at every team that has won or been to a World Series they had either a HOF quality pitcher or a guy that dominated for a 5+ year span and pitched his team to the World Series, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Series_starting_pitchers. They had an Ace.

 

’87 Twins = Viola, Blyleven. ’91 Twins = Morris, Erickson Two HOFs and 2 guys that had great 5 years stretches.

 

Since Santana, the Twins have not had this type of guy, and will not make it or go far in the playoffs until they do. The Twins may not be able to sign an Ace, but they can trade for one. And I for one would give up valuable prospects for a known commodity. What % of prospects actually make it in the majors vs getting a known commodity?

 

Obviously, you may give up some good players in a trade, but you may also be giving up on top prospects such as David McCarty, BJ Garbe, Ryan Mills, Adam Johnson, Matt Moses, Kyle Waldrop, Matthew Fox. All very high drafts picks or considered top prospects.

The Twins have an ace in Hughes, Gibson is starting to look like our number two guy, You have to call Correia a number five guy and Nolasco has been pitching like a number four. So what we need is to swap out Deduno for a number three, which we probably have in AAA, just a matter of which one. All the Twins need to do is make a decision.

[zenser]

Agreed. It makes more sense to throw money at a guy who you know will cripple your team in years 4-7 and keep that prospect who might help keep the team afloat in years 4-7 than trade the prospect and lose the ace pitcher in two years anyway.

 

I'd rather have an albatross of a contract and a top prospect than no prospect, no ace, and some money.

 

This is my exact thought. The problem with this is that the big aces usually don't hit free agency. Scherzer said he is going to test it and look what he turned down from Detroit. Not that I would want the Twins to go after either, but you have to go after one, I would target Scherzer over Price. Scherzer and Price will both command a contract the Twins wont offer but at least you don't have to trade anything in order to offer the contract.

[TwinsTerritory]

The Twins have an ace in Hughes, Gibson is starting to look like our number two guy, You have to call Correia a number five guy and Nolasco has been pitching like a number four. So what we need is to swap out Deduno for a number three, which we probably have in AAA, just a matter of which one. All the Twins need to do is make a decision.

 

I liked the Hughes signing at the time and he's pitched great, but he is not a #1 on a World Series caliber team. On a team with a chance to win playoff series, I would say Hughes is a #3 and Gibson a #4. Here would be how I would hope that the Twins rotation might look like the next couple years, with 2016 or 2017 as a much more likely years to expect playoff wins.

 

2014: Nolasco, Hughes, Gibson, Correia, ????

2015: Nolasco, Hughes, Gibson, Meyer, May

2016: Nolasco, Hughes, Gibson, Meyer, May, (Berrios in Sept.)

2017: Nolasco, Gibson, Meyer, May, Stewart, Berrios

[TheLeviathan]

There may be no more overblown sports meme in Minnesota than "you have to have an ace to win a WS"

 

What you need is a minimum of bad players and a lot of playoff luck.

[Brock Beauchamp]

There may be no more overblown sports meme in Minnesota than "you have to have an ace to win a WS"

 

What you need is a minimum of bad players and a lot of playoff luck.

 

Agreed. Good players are a necessity. Great players are a bonus that help you advance but are hardly necessary if the team is firing on all cylinders.

[The Wise One]

When you look at Levi's list of top performing pitchers in a World Series on another thread, of the 10 pitchers listed only 2 were high priced free agents . It provides an argument that the free agent might not put you over the top and the need for several high quality starters.

[TheLeviathan]

When you look at Levi's list of top performing pitchers in a World Series on another thread, of the 10 pitchers listed only 2 were high priced free agents . It provides an argument that the free agent might not put you over the top and the need for several high quality starters.

 

This is a far better interpretation of what I was saying, thank you.

[Guest USAFChief]

Winning the WS--a best of seven--can fairly be looked at as "anything can happen."

 

But you have to get there, which is much less of a crapshoot. Having an "ace" means you take the field 30 plus times during the season pretty much guaranteed of having the better starter on the mound. That's a big leg up on getting into the craps game that is the post season, not to mention the postseason is now three series long, where the advantage of an ace is again magnified.

[TheLeviathan]

That's a big leg up on getting into the craps game that is the post season, not to mention the postseason is now three series long, where the advantage of an ace is again magnified.

 

While I agree with most everything you say, I think that last line is where my feathers get ruffled a bit. Aces haven't shown to be that kind of force anymore with the way teams insist on resting them. If they were, Detroit would have a WS title to their credit by now.

 

One thing that has won out lately is quality depth in a rotation. So I'd have to challenge the notion that investing in a true number 1 is worth it when it might force you to have weaker mid-rotation pitching. Maybe instead the real goal is to try and get good 2s?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Johan Santana was the best pitcher in baseball from 2004-2006 and it's not really close.

 

He's 1-3 in postseason play.

 

Aces can help. They guarantee absolutely nothing.