Article: Position Battle: 4th & 5th Starters

[USAFChief]

This sounds good as a bumper sticker, but some elements of reality disagree.

 

Sometimes, in the maturation from losing to winning, you accept a slightly lesser return immediately for a higher return in the near future.  Most young players go through a rough patch early and need to adjust to the advanced talent of the big league level.  The only way to make that adjustment is to give them the opportunity.

 

The consequence of that is sometimes a lesser performance than if you went with some vanilla, no upside player that at least gives you a higher floor than the learning young player.  But it's part of the process and has to be accepted if you want to really start winning.  What you're advising is putting lipstick on a pig so you can say you are "winning" more than if you were playing the kids, whereas I'd rather swing for the fences and let the talent adjust for bigger and better things than a pretty pig.  In other words, I want to start to really win and sometimes that requires a small step backward first.

I think you're confusing me with another poster...one who advocates, for example, keeping Buxton in AAA, so as not to potentially hurt his long term development, while doing little to nothing about THIS team.

 

I'm the guy who would put Buxton in CF, and let him develop-- maybe even sink or swim--but do my best to surround him with the talent to win now. Let the future take care of itself. If Buxton/Sano/Berrios don't lead us to the promised land in 2019, at least I haven't wasted another 3 years finding that out.

 

If I have the choice to win now, and perhaps tomorrow, I take that every time over losing now, in hopes I MIGHT perhaps win tomorrow.

[spinowner]

 

I think you're confusing me with another poster...one who advocates, for example, keeping Buxton in AAA, so as not to potentially hurt his long term development, while doing little to nothing about THIS team.

I'm the guy who would put Buxton in CF, and let him develop-- maybe even sink or swim--but do my best to surround him with the talent to win now. Let the future take care of itself. If Buxton/Sano/Berrios don't lead us to the promised land in 2019, at least I haven't wasted another 3 years finding that out.

If I have the choice to win now, and perhaps tomorrow, I take that every time over losing now, in hopes I MIGHT perhaps win tomorrow.

As for Buxton, I'm in favor of whatever TR and PM think is best for his development. I don't know enough about baseball and about Buxton to say whether that means AAA or the bigs and neither does anyone else on this board. But if he heads to Rochester the team should not make any significant sacrifices to acquire a stopgap center fielder. Trying to get a couple extra wins while we wait would not be worth giving up anything.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think you're confusing me with another poster...one who advocates, for example, keeping Buxton in AAA, so as not to potentially hurt his long term development, while doing little to nothing about THIS team.

I'm the guy who would put Buxton in CF, and let him develop-- maybe even sink or swim--but do my best to surround him with the talent to win now. Let the future take care of itself. If Buxton/Sano/Berrios don't lead us to the promised land in 2019, at least I haven't wasted another 3 years finding that out.

If I have the choice to win now, and perhaps tomorrow, I take that every time over losing now, in hopes I MIGHT perhaps win tomorrow.

 

No, what I may be confusing you with is someone that says "development be damned, if it hurts Buxton long-term I don't care, as long as I get one more 2016 win"  Because that is a natural consequence of what you're advocating.

 

There are tradeoffs for forcing your hand too soon and finding that balance is important.  If "win now, at all costs" is the mantra, you are casting off concern for the negative consequences (meager or substantial) for whatever (meager or substantial) rewards you might incur.  I prefer to mitigate the negative consequences while maximizing the overall rewards.  So I don't want to "win now at all costs".  I prefer to "win as much as I can, without hurting myself in the future".

 

That can mean different things to different people and the job of Ryan is to establish what we "can" do and what would hurt in the future.  And certainly the team could be doing more to help win now and not hurt the future.  But at some point you need to let your Kyle Gibsons flounder/adjust a bit so they can be ready to contribute later.  Or let your Trevor Plouffes settle in where they can contribute.  That comes with the very likely result of losing some immediate success for the investment in future contributions.  And you can't just get out of that need to invest in players to adjust.

[USAFChief]

Trying to get a couple extra wins while we wait would not be worth giving up anything.

Not even worth money?

 

What would a couple more wins have been worth last year?

 

I'd be fine with sending Buxton to AAA, and letting him force his way past a good player into the Twins lineup.

 

I'd be fine with Buxton starting in Minnesota if the judgement is he's better than anything they could get.

 

What I have a problem with is doing neither.

[Twodogs]

I honestly think that everyone is going to groan, but I really feel that Nolasco is going to break out this year.  I don't mean he is going to be an All-Star.  But his arm has only been used for half a season for two years in a row and his legs are finally healthy.  I realistically predict 12 - 14 wins with 9 - 11 losses around a 4 era with 170 - 190 innings pitched and 140 - 160 strikeouts.  Everyone has always noted that a lot of his periphrials have always looked decent and that he has been somewhat of a victim of bad luck; I think that with a healthy arm and healthy legs that he breaks out, not like a super star but like a Ricky Nolasco of about 4 - 5 years ago. That puts the beginning of the year at Santana, Hughes, Gibson, Nolasco, Milone. 

My next prediction is that everyone is saying that Phil Hughes is toast and should go to the bull pen which I agree, but I think the Twins are going to need him in the rotation because this years injury will be Ervin Santana.  His arm has been hanging on by threads for a couple of years now.  I don't see him making it through a full season, or possibly spring training.  Santana is in my opinion going to become the next big elephant in the room.

[spinowner]

 

What would a couple more wins have been worth last year?
 

Zero or less. We'd have lost either to the Yankees or to the Royals in the postseason. And we'd be further away from contention this year and in the future because we would have had to give up another prospect or two to get those couple more wins.

Edited February 11, 2016 by spinowner

[HitInAPinch]

Would have been, could have been, should have been.  I think we pretty much know how this will play out.

He who has the contract gets the job.  However, I'm also on the side that says:  if another pitcher forces the issue, they get the job.

 

Duffey [after the horrible decision to bring him up against a Blue Jays team that just reloaded] pitched very well and deserves a shot at starting.  Berrios was protected.  The Twins follow a loose rule that says you allow a young starter to pitch an increased number of pitches per year.  MiLB.com says 166 for the year.  I'd say he's ready for the next step, and in the MLB. 

 

I'd like to see both force this issue during Spring Training.

[Jham]

 

Zero or less. We'd have lost either to the Yankees or to the Royals in the postseason. And we'd be further away from contention this year and in the future because we would have had to give up another prospect or two to get those couple more wins.

 

Well in a bubble where you can predict the future, I suppose that could be true.  I think you doubled down on the absolute Chief was warning you to avoid.  Aside from the fact that Chief was directly referencing money and not prospects, a small percentage of prospects ever make a difference at the big league level.  Most of the time you can easily recovery from losing a couple prospects, even blue chip prospects.  Your assumption that giving up a prospect or two would hurt us in the future is an over-assumption.  Well run organizations should have some balance between present and future.  If your goal is to win a championship, you run your organization one way.  If your goal is to win multiple championships, you might run it another way.  If your goal is to stay consistently competitive and make money by convincing your fan base that you're a small market team who should be prouder of making the playoffs on the cheap than winning a World Series on a larger budget, then you're the Twins.  If your goal is to consistently be a farm system for other big league squads, then you run through your prospects with little thought to your W/L record, and provide the other teams with detailed reports of your prospects so they refuse to trade for the bad ones, and wait to outbid you on the good ones.  After 7-8 years, you may have accumulated enough high first round picks to finish at .500.  (Twins last year).  At this point some teams may think it more fun to actually make the playoffs and go after a Gomez and a Fiers.  To each their own.  People enjoy baseball for a lot of reasons.  Watching prospects develop is the one good thing about following a losing team.  Following a winner, no matter how its built is much more fun, to me.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jham

[Mike Sixel]

 

How'd that work out for the Blue Jays last year? How'd that work out for Oakland in 2014? Look at KC. They didn't make big sacrifices. They built their team for longer term success primarily with young players. Yes, it's better to win than to lose but if you put all your eggs in one season's basket you'd better wind up with a dominating team. Otherwise there's a high risk of ending up rebuilding for years when you should have been contending.

Oh, and by the way, as we all know, this is and ever shall be an agree-to-disagree issue. (And we all love to disagree!)

 

Uh, Toronto had the best team in baseball last year.....the playoffs are not a good measure of that. I'm not sure using them as a failed team is a good idea.

[USAFChief]

My guess: the Twins are healthy through camp and start the season with Milone and Nolasco in the rotation, Duffey in a long relief role in the pen, and Berrios in Rochester.

 

I could possibly see Nolasco and Duffey switch roles, but I think the most likely scenario is the one above.

[USAFChief]

Uh, Toronto had the best team in baseball last year.....the playoffs are not a good measure of that. I'm not sure using them as a failed team is a good idea.

If Toronto was a failure, then Terry Ryan has never had a single successful season as a GM.

[Vanimal46]

 

How'd that work out for the Blue Jays last year? How'd that work out for Oakland in 2014? Look at KC. They didn't make big sacrifices. They built their team for longer term success primarily with young players. Yes, it's better to win than to lose but if you put all your eggs in one season's basket you'd better wind up with a dominating team. Otherwise there's a high risk of ending up rebuilding for years when you should have been contending.

Oh, and by the way, as we all know, this is and ever shall be an agree-to-disagree issue. (And we all love to disagree!)

I would argue that KC did make big sacrifices to get over the hump and become WS champs. They gave up Finnegan, their #4 org prospect and 2 other prospects to get Cueto. It's debatable if Cueto helped or hindered the team during the regular season, but I'd be willing to bet every KC fan would make that same trade again after his CG in the WS.... 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's debatable if Cueto helped or hindered the team during the regular season, but I'd be willing to bet every KC fan would make that same trade again after his CG in the WS.... 

No way.  The Royals won that game 7-1.  Jeremy Guthrie had a 5.95 ERA, so he could have won it 7-6 and they could have held on to all of their prospects.  

[spinowner]

 

Uh, Toronto had the best team in baseball last year.....the playoffs are not a good measure of that. I'm not sure using them as a failed team is a good idea.

They may have had the roster best suited to win the regular season. However, last time I checked the goal in MLB is to win the WS. So the postseason is in fact a more important measure than the regular season. The 2001 Mariners are now remembered as the best baseball team that ever failed.

Edited February 11, 2016 by spinowner

[Mike Sixel]

so, as posted above, then, Ryan has never had a successful year? Only winning the WS is considered a success? That's an awful way to go through life, imo.

[Rosterman]

I hope they stretch May out as a starter in spring training just in case. Having him pitch 3-4 innings as spring rounds down. Otherwise, they get to use that "not stretched out" excuse again. I hate to see May become the Swarzak replacement in the pen, and if he stays in relief he will become too expensive for the Twins UNLESS he can become a bonifide closer.

[Mike Sixel]

 

No way.  The Royals won that game 7-1.  Jeremy Guthrie had a 5.95 ERA, so he could have won it 7-6 and they could have held on to all of their prospects.  

 

Excellent saracasm, btw.

[Don Walcott]

 

No way.  The Royals won that game 7-1.  Jeremy Guthrie had a 5.95 ERA, so he could have won it 7-6 and they could have held on to all of their prospects.  

There was definitely value to shutting down the other team and saving the bullpen for the next game, especially after they emptied the bullpen the night before.  And three of those runs came in the bottom of the 8th, so the game was actually much closer throughout.

[Don Walcott]

 

so, as posted above, then, Ryan has never had a successful year? Only winning the WS is considered a success? That's an awful way to go through life, imo.

Poor Billy Beane!!

[spinowner]

 

so, as posted above, then, Ryan has never had a successful year? Only winning the WS is considered a success? That's an awful way to go through life, imo.

It's a tough business, to be sure, and it's very common to do the best you can and still fail. I think the 29 GM's who fail each year probably are able to move on with their lives.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It's a tough business, to be sure, and it's very common to do the best you can and still fail. I think the 29 GM's who fail each year probably are able to move on with their lives.

 

I guess we'll never agree on this point, which is cool with me. Have a great day.

[TheLeviathan]

 

so, as posted above, then, Ryan has never had a successful year? Only winning the WS is considered a success? That's an awful way to go through life, imo.

 

Well, you also can't have it both ways.  If you don't make any allowance for the GM but "win, baby, win"....then isn't that the only way to judge a GM is by if they win the World Series?

 

It's part of the problem if there isn't much nuance to how you judge the efforts being made.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, you also can't have it both ways.  If you don't make any allowance for the GM but "win, baby, win"....then isn't that the only way to judge a GM is by if they win the World Series?

 

It's part of the problem if there isn't much nuance to how you judge the efforts being made.

 

I've never typed "the only way to be successful is to win the WS", so I'm not sure what this post means......I am not trying to have it both ways.....

[Tibs]

I'd be a little sad if they gave up on May and Meyer as starters so quickly

[howieramone2]

 

How will we ever know what we have in young players if we don't give them a shot? We know what Milone is and it's back of the rotation starter. Shouldn't we want to at least see if we can top that?

What Milone is, is a proven starter on a contending team with a career record of 41-29. When Berrios is called up, he'll still have plenty of time to win the ROY and Cy Young.

[alarp33]

 

I'd be a little sad if they gave up on May and Meyer as starters so quickly

 

May has given them absolutely no reason to give up on him as a starter.  

 

I think Meyer is a little different case, since with his height its always been a question about whether he could start long term.  That being said, if they don't plan on using him in the Major League bullpen early in the year, I hope they let him start for a few months in AAA

[Don Walcott]

Meyer's too tall and Berrios is too short.  Now, we need to find a pitching prospect who is just right . . . .

[TheLeviathan]

 

I've never typed "the only way to be successful is to win the WS", so I'm not sure what this post means......I am not trying to have it both ways.....

 

No, but you've liked the posts about "always win as much as humanly possible or else...."

 

If you're going to endorse that sort of thing, I'm not sure how you can prize anything short of a WS.

[Mike Sixel]

I like posts that are good, sometimes (often) even ones I disagree with. That's not an "agree" button.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I like posts that are good, sometimes (often) even ones I disagree with. That's not an "agree" button.

 

Right but then keep the responses in context.  The argument being advanced by some is "win at all costs", I'm not sure how you can go by that mantra and consider anything short of a WS title a "success".

 

To me, those things go hand in hand if you're truly going to pound that stance of "win, baby, win".