Article: Purchasing A Rotation, And What It Means

[diehardtwinsfan]

I really cannot understand this belief that rookies should only come up if they won't struggle. Not only does it not make sense on a number of levels and completely contradict volumes of evidence to the contrary, but this very team consistently calls up hitting prospects far less "ready" all the time.

 

Young players struggle to adjust at every level of advancement but you still have to advance them to know what you have.

 

I think the argument is to bring them up when they are ready.  Most will struggle at some point, unless by chance they are named Mike Trout.  But the reality is that you don't want to be wasting too much of their service time having them figure out things that they should be learning in the minors.  The best case in that scenario is that they still manage to stay on the same timeline had they not been rushed.  The worst case is that it takes much much longer (Gomez)... or never happens.

[diehardtwinsfan]

As for regression, they offense was pretty bad overall in the beginning of the year, yet they still finished where they did.  The second half of last season, they were the best offense overall.  That was with Suzuki regressing as it was. 

 

Regression:

 

Suzuki, Santana, and Vargas

 

Improvements

Mauer, Plouffe, Dozier (I think the power numbers drop a bit, but the average goes way up), Hunter (improvement over what we had in LF), Arcia (I think he takes a huge step forward this year).

 

Push

Escobar.  Hopefully the CF they can sign will play to the average of Santana and Hicks with better defense.

 

I do think Santana will see a big drop, and personally, I'd slate him for work in Rochester on his defense anyways.  That said, it wasn't like he was getting seeing eye singles.  Everything he hit was on a rope, so perhaps there's some talent that could allow him to be one of those guys who carries a higher BABIP... Who knows.

 

Could this team contend?  If things break right, yes.  I think the most realistic view of 2015 is that they are pretenders.  They should give us a good season and keep the fans interested in baseball well into September, but ultimately fall short because they are flawed.  What should be exciting is that there's a good chance we see Buxton, Rosario, Meyer, and Sano at some point this season. 

[USAFChief]

As for regression, they offense was pretty bad overall in the beginning of the year, yet they still finished where they did.  The second half of last season, they were the best offense overall. 

 

The Twins had a great April offensively last year, with their second highest run total by month. In fact, April was the only month last season with a positive run differential.

 

They went crazy offensively in August, that's true, July was dismal and September didnt quite get to April levels.

[jay]

Hughes, Nolasco, Santana, Gibson are starting on the roster on day 1, unless there is an injury. That leaves 1 spot for a guy that is a veteran, or that had some good starts last year, or that has a history of good starts, or for a guy they limited to 80 pitches a start in AAA last year that finished the year hurt......

Is that supposed to sound like a bad thing? Because it doesn't to me, at all...

[jay]

I just have a hard time sitting here and hearing people say "they'll get their shot!" when it seems like we're talking the clear runner up in the QB "battle".

 

Except there isn't just one spot they are waiting for like the backup QB. There are FIVE.

 

Not making the rotation out of ST is hardly a big deal. I'm willing to make a significant wager that the Twins don't use just 5 SPs this coming year.

[nicksaviking]

 Learning did happen as Gibson had a fine 2014. It is quite possible that the Twins brain trust handled Gibson appropriately.

 

Nice straw man Levi

 

But May and Meyer shouldn't have been afforded the same MLB learning opportunities?  Had they gotten June/July callups, they'd both be on the same learning arc as Gibson was but a year behind. 

[nicksaviking]

I think the argument is to bring them up when they are ready.  Most will struggle at some point, unless by chance they are named Mike Trout.  But the reality is that you don't want to be wasting too much of their service time having them figure out things that they should be learning in the minors.  The best case in that scenario is that they still manage to stay on the same timeline had they not been rushed.  The worst case is that it takes much much longer (Gomez)... or never happens.

 

Which is why they should have been called up and allowed to struggle as soon as the Twins were out of contention last year.  I'm of the mindset that there is very little minor league seasoning that is going to dampen a pitchers MLB struggles. 

 

Pitchers like Felix Hernandez, Clayton Kershaw and Jose Fernandez took the league by storm and pitched few MiLB innings.  You're either a prodigy, or you aren't.  If you aren't, you're just going to have to take your MLB lumps.  Doesn't mean you can't be a star, but AAA is just homework, on the job training is always best.

[jay]

I'm a prospect guy. They excite me. However, I don't quite understand what the issue is here. It's impossible to say the Twins have blocked out opportunity for their top pitching prospects. There's still a rotation spot available for whoever shows they should have it. There's still the inevitability of injury or poor performance.

 

What's the issue here? May and Meyer should both be guaranteed a rotation spot this spring no matter what? Really?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Improvements

Mauer, Plouffe, Dozier (I think the power numbers drop a bit, but the average goes way up), Hunter (improvement over what we had in LF), Arcia (I think he takes a huge step forward this year).

Plouffe and Dozier just posted career-high OPS+/wRC+ figures at age 28 and 27, respectively, which were already marked improvements over their previous 1-2 seasons.  I don't see how further improvement is likely for either of them -- possible, certainly, but not probable.  They should probably be in your "push" category.

 

The shape of their production might change, as you noted with your Dozier parenthetical, but 

[Otto von Ballpark]

"This isn’t exactly the blueprint we had in mind, going out and signing a guy for $55 million,” Ryan said. “Jim Pohlad gave us the ability to do that, and hopefully it’ll pay off, but the ideal is to keep [prospects] coming through the system, through player development.”

Back to the original article....  Obviously cheap prospects panning out is ideal, but it is pretty unlikely to create a whole starting staff like that.  Even the 2001-2006 Twins relied a lot on Radke, who was no longer inexpensive at that point; likewise, the 2009-2011 Twins relied on Pavano.  Did those signings really represent a deviation from the "blueprint" or just reality?

 

I think paying market rates for a quality veteran starter is a lot more common and necessary than TR thinks it is.

[Mike Sixel]

Given that they have 1 guy they drafted in the rotation, and really 1 guy last year, and no good guys the 2 years before that (I think I have Baker's departure time correct)......relying on prospects might not be the best plan......sometimes you have to go buy players.

 

I see the last two offseasons as acknowledgements (finally) of just how bad they have been at developing SP. I just wish they had signed Santana last year, to make the bridge start earlier. 

[TheLeviathan]

Except there isn't just one spot they are waiting for like the backup QB. There are FIVE.

 

Not making the rotation out of ST is hardly a big deal. I'm willing to make a significant wager that the Twins don't use just 5 SPs this coming year.

 

Are there really five spots or are four already sewn up short of injury?  There is one spot.  

 

And again, this isn't about needing depth or injuries coming up or anything like that.  It's the belief that these guys will truly be on the team when they are most deserving.  I am hopeful that the team is willing to make that bold stride but too often under Ryan it is not the most talented players, but the veterans or those with the most invested in them financially.

 

The notion that Alex Meyer or Trevor May have one of five spots open to them is just ridiculous.  They have one spot open to them and they are competing with each other, Tommy Milone, and Mike Pelfrey at the very least.  

[TheLeviathan]

I think the argument is to bring them up when they are ready.  Most will struggle at some point, unless by chance they are named Mike Trout.  But the reality is that you don't want to be wasting too much of their service time having them figure out things that they should be learning in the minors.  The best case in that scenario is that they still manage to stay on the same timeline had they not been rushed.  The worst case is that it takes much much longer (Gomez)... or never happens.

 

I'm ok with that, you won't hear me calling for anyone's head based on prospect timelines.  I might grumble about wanting to see one guy over another (see: Gibson vs. PJ freaking Walters) but I understand how readiness involves a lot of factors beyond us as fans.  I also put a lot of value on guys getting exposure to the next level and tempering expectations about that.  

 

All that said, this team is very willing to clear out the roster (to a fault) for Aaron Hicks but Alex Meyer and Trevor May have spin straw into gold before they get shots at a rotation spot?  I'm more baffled by the approach than anything.  That's why I use the QB "battle" as an example.  Everyone knows the backup could go 28-30 with 4 TDs and he's still riding the pine and I get that feeling a lot with young Twins' starters.

[Cris E]

All that said, this team is very willing to clear out the roster (to a fault) for Aaron Hicks but Alex Meyer and Trevor May have spin straw into gold before they get shots at a rotation spot?  I'm more baffled by the approach than anything.  That's why I use the QB "battle" as an example.  Everyone knows the backup could go 28-30 with 4 TDs and he's still riding the pine and I get that feeling a lot with young Twins' starters.

 

Hicks didn't get the nod in CF because position players are held to a different standard, he got it because they traded away all their better options and didn't leave themselves much choice. They want to be in a position to pick the kid when he's ready, not out of necessity. Mays and Meyer should earn a job just as Hicks would have if Revere were still around.

[TheLeviathan]

Hicks didn't get the nod in CF because position players are held to a different standard, he got it because they traded away all their better options and didn't leave themselves much choice. They want to be in a position to pick the kid when he's ready, not out of necessity. Mays and Meyer should earn a job just as Hicks would have if Revere were still around.

 

I would suggest they cleared the path intentionally for Hicks.  They did the same for Mauer, Morneau, and many others going quite a ways back.

 

The Twins' methods with hitting prospects vs. pitching prospects is almost Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde.  It's clearly some kind of organizational philosophy, but what it is and why they do it I'm not sure.

[ashbury]

If the hitters hit when the pitchers pitch, numbers don't mean anything. The record will have more wins than losses when the pitchers have only average stats

 

If the hitters hit when the pitchers don't pitch, we are looking at another 90 loss season. 

 

Its up to Molitor to get the Twins to play together.

I don't think it works that way.  Molitor isn't going to hold a team meeting, "OK guys, nice job with the clutch hits on offense and the timely GIDP on defense yesterday.  Today, we need to stay in sync as well.  Hitters, take a few more fat pitches for strikes.  Pitchers, let's try to be a little too fine, OK?  Let's see if we can lose 9-0, and really screw up that Pythag projection the poindexters love so much."

 

IMO it's up to Molitor to get the Twins to play well.

[Dantes929]

I don't like Hicks being the poster child for giving positions to young prospects.   It was extremely reasonable that he be given the spot at the time.   Strong AA season with a fantastic Spring Training.  The fact that he didn't thrive (yet) was on him, not the Twins for going that way.   Hicks not performing should not be a reason to be tentative with other prospects.  Look at Danny Santana as proof that prospects can succeed rather than going the pessimistic route.   Heck, did we have a backup plan for Puckett, Hunter, Gomez, Span, Revere?    Even as bad as he was hitting Hicks still got on base more than Revere.    If they earn it in the minors then promote them.  Depth is always nice but having strong major league ready or proven  candidates as a backup for every position just isn't that realistic.    Think I am wrong?  Butera and Punto have both been backups for WS contenders.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

Heck, did we have a backup plan for Puckett, Hunter, Gomez, Span, Revere? 

Yes, generally.  Actually a few of those guys WERE backup plans for someone else, or played alongside their backup plans.

 

Clearing the deck in the offseason for a guy coming out of AA is pretty rare -- I think only Mauer has achieved that in addition to Hicks in recent Twins memory.

[nater79a]

I think the argument is to bring them up when they are ready.  Most will struggle at some point, unless by chance they are named Mike Trout.  But the reality is that you don't want to be wasting too much of their service time having them figure out things that they should be learning in the minors.  The best case in that scenario is that they still manage to stay on the same timeline had they not been rushed.  The worst case is that it takes much much longer (Gomez)... or never happens.

 

Even Mike Trout struggled a bit and was sent back to AAA.  Twice!

[Mike Sixel]

I don't like Hicks being the poster child for giving positions to young prospects.   It was extremely reasonable that he be given the spot at the time.   Strong AA season with a fantastic Spring Training.  The fact that he didn't thrive (yet) was on him, not the Twins for going that way.   Hicks not performing should not be a reason to be tentative with other prospects.  Look at Danny Santana as proof that prospects can succeed rather than going the pessimistic route.   Heck, did we have a backup plan for Puckett, Hunter, Gomez, Span, Revere?    Even as bad as he was hitting Hicks still got on base more than Revere.    If they earn it in the minors then promote them.  Depth is always nice but having strong major league ready or proven  candidates as a backup for every position just isn't that realistic.    Think I am wrong?  Butera and Punto have both been backups for WS contenders.  

 

You are making our point.....they seem aggressive with hitters, and slow with pitchers. 

[dxpavelka]

Hicks didn't get the nod in CF because position players are held to a different standard, he got it because they traded away all their better options and didn't leave themselves much choice. They want to be in a position to pick the kid when he's ready, not out of necessity. Mays and Meyer should earn a job just as Hicks would have if Revere were still around.

Hicks got the nod the last two years because he actually performed during spring training, especially 2013 when his spring OPS was 1.051.  He didn't do quite as well last year but still hit .330 in the spring.  What he's failed to do was hold the job once he'd won it.  Gibson also WON the job last year.  I have no problem with the young kids having to win jobs and hope they do. 

[jay]

The notion that Alex Meyer or Trevor May have one of five spots open to them is just ridiculous. They have one spot open to them and they are competing with each other, Tommy Milone, and Mike Pelfrey at the very least.

I'm not seeing what's wrong with that. Are you saying they should both be guaranteed a spot in the rotation out of spring training no matter what?

[ashbury]

For now I am fine with having 8 candidates for the rotation.  I'm not focusing on which slots are currently "taken". This will likely sort itself out in a first phase by the end of spring training (and without having to give excessive weight to pitching records in spring games either), and completely sorted out in a second phase by late May.  A guy or two or three will have to bide some time in the bullpen (if not the DL), and by June it is very unlikely someone both healthy and deserving still hasn't gotten his chance.

 

The bigger challenge IMO is that only 7 out of 21 pitchers on the 40-man throw lefty, and at least two of those seem clearly destined for Rochester.  That's going to force more decisions than who starts.  My solution would be to tell a righty who's temporarily in the pen, "you want to be a big league starter? We can start with you getting this one lefty out today, and go from there.  You're going to have to get guys like that out anyway."

[Mike Sixel]

Hicks got the nod the last two years because he actually performed during spring training, especially 2013 when his spring OPS was 1.051.  He didn't do quite as well last year but still hit .330 in the spring.  What he's failed to do was hold the job once he'd won it.  Gibson also WON the job last year.  I have no problem with the young kids having to win jobs and hope they do. 

 

not sure someone should win a job in spring training.....the issue with Hicks, for me, is they had no contingency plan in place at all.

[Dantes929]

Yes, generally.  Actually a few of those guys WERE backup plans for someone else, or played alongside their backup plans.

 

Clearing the deck in the offseason for a guy coming out of AA is pretty rare -- I think only Mauer has achieved that in addition to Hicks in recent Twins memory.

I think Span and Revere were concurrent but otherwise not really.   Gomez and Span were unproven when they let go of Hunter.   I don't think having a .267 minor league centrefielder backing up the .232 centerfielder fits anyone's definiition of plan B.    I think either Chad Allen or 40 year old Otis Nixon were plan B for Hunter and Bobby Mitchel or Mickey Hatcher were plan B for Puckett.   I know I counted on Worley to be better but was completely fine with the trades that brought Meyer and May to MN.   If Hicks had been Hunter 2.0 no one would be even talking about it or criticizing the Twins for having no backup plan so in my mind it is all hindsight.

[Dantes929]

You are making our point.....they seem aggressive with hitters, and slow with pitchers. 

I think the article about age in the minors says differently.   I thought they were a little slow to promote May last year and should have promoted Meyer.  Other than that I can't think of any promotions of pitchers that should have been made that were not, especially in the last 4 years.   Meyer is the outflier but the pitch counts  and innings limits imposed on him is my main beef rather than promotions..    In fact, without those restrictions they most likely would have promoted him.  If he was healthy then he should have been stretched out.   If it forced surgery then so be it..   Better sooner than later.  

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not seeing what's wrong with that. Are you saying they should both be guaranteed a spot in the rotation out of spring training no matter what?

 

I'd like to feel that they actually have an equal shot as Milone, Pelfrey, and maybe even Nolasco.  Do you honestly feel like they will?

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think Span and Revere were concurrent but otherwise not really.   Gomez and Span were unproven when they let go of Hunter.   I don't think having a .267 minor league centrefielder backing up the .232 centerfielder fits anyone's definiition of plan B.    I think either Chad Allen or 40 year old Otis Nixon were plan B for Hunter and Bobby Mitchel or Mickey Hatcher were plan B for Puckett. 

Hunter's Plan B was Jacque Jones (and vice versa).  Similar to Gomez/Span -- two young guys for one spot (or one could shift to a corner).  Puckett was Plan B to Darrell Brown.

[TheLeviathan]

If they earn it in the minors then promote them.  Depth is always nice but having strong major league ready or proven  candidates as a backup for every position just isn't that realistic.    Think I am wrong?  Butera and Punto have both been backups for WS contenders.  

 

I'm fine with all that.  I'm even ok with the first year approach of clearing the deck for Hicks to start.  My question is, why do we do that for hitters and the exact opposite for pitchers?

[jay]

I'd like to feel that they actually have an equal shot as Milone, Pelfrey, and maybe even Nolasco. Do you honestly feel like they will?

Aside from Nolasco, 100%. Milone has an option and Pelfrey can come out of the pen (or get waived).