Article: Position Battle: 4th & 5th Starters

[USAFChief]

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".

Only one poster in this thread has called winning the WS the only measure of success.

 

And it's not Mike.

 

//sorry, Mike, perhaps I shouldn't speak for you//

[Mike Sixel]

 

Only one poster in this thread has called winning the WS the only measure of success.

And it's not Mike.

//sorry, Mike, perhaps I shouldn't speak for you//

 

And, ironically, it is someone arguing against winning at all costs, I think......

[Vanimal46]

 

Only one poster in this thread has called winning the WS the only measure of success.

And it's not Mike.

//sorry, Mike, perhaps I shouldn't speak for you//

Yep. I would say there's a pretty big delta in wanting to win as many games as possible this year, and anything short of a WS title is a failure. 

[TheLeviathan]

Except, by definition, you probably didn't win "as many as possible" if you lost. Almost certainly you could have traded more or spent more money to have achieved that end.

 

But I might suggest a more rational idea is to suggest that there be some nuance. You know, like the kind not granted to those willing to perhaps lose a few games in the short term to help invest in the development of the long term.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Not to get us back on topic

 

But I have to think  that (assuming there are no injury issues) someone gets traded this spring. I do agree that it isn't as likely as it should be, but plenty of teams need pitching help, and we have 7 capable starters with an 8th 1 year away from having to be on the 40 man.  You can play an options game with Duffey, but I just don't see a scenario where one or both of Milone or Nolasco is with the team by June.  Nolasco b/c quite frankly he's been bad and should be on a short leash, and Milone b/c he is what he is (though to be fair to Tommy, he's been pretty consistent in outperforming his peripherals for his entire career).  If there aren't injury issues, I have to think someone would be more than happy to take Tommy off of our hands, and give us a nice prospect too.

 

Going back to May, this is that whole short term/long term thing. He led the team in WAR up until the point he was demoted, and was pretty much lights out that month too.  I think you have to look at his projectibility in the rotation as he could be a solid #2 for quite some time. To a lesser extent, that's Gibson as well (as his K rate took a big move in the right direction last season)... but that would hurt us in the short term (the pen in particular) for a much more valuable asset long term. We're pretty much stuck with Hughes and Santana (though in both cases, we probably won't feel 'stuck' with one or both next season).  That leaves the last spot to whom I'd put Duffey... again, more projectibility there. 

 

That's not how it will happen though.

 

What it should be:  Santana, Hughes, Gibson, May, Duffey

What it will be: Santana, Hughes, Gibson, Nolasco, Milone

[spinowner]

 

Only one poster in this thread has called winning the WS the only measure of success.

And it's not Mike.

//sorry, Mike, perhaps I shouldn't speak for you//

If it's me whom you are referencing feel free to use my user name. However, I'd prefer to be quoted accurately. That's not what I said. Here's the quote: "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."

This does not mean that I think the goal is to win the WS every year. That's an unrealistic, unsustainable and highly risky path to follow. A few franchises have the means to do that, maybe the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers, but even those teams can't do it every year because there are simply too many intangibles in baseball. The means to the end of winning the WS (IMHO) is to assemble a consistently good roster and hope that, from time to time, the cards fall just right and a World Championship can be won. In those years where enhancements can be made without mortgaging the future I'm all for it. The Twins were not at that point last year nor are they at that point this year unless we get outlier-type performances from quite a few players.

[jimmer]

 

If it's me whom you are referencing feel free to use my user name. However, I'd prefer to be quoted accurately. That's not what I said. Here's the quote: "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."

This does not mean that I think the goal is to win the WS every year.

Except you used the 2015 Blue Jays and 2001 Mariners as examples of failure. And the reason they were failures, you said, was because they didn't win the world series. And you talked about the 29 GMs who fail every year.

 

So, yeah, you did say throughout a few posts that if the GM/Team doesn't win the W Series, they failed.   

Edited February 12, 2016 by jimmer

[USAFChief]

If it's me whom you are referencing feel free to use my user name. However, I'd prefer to be quoted accurately. That's not what I said. Here's the quote: "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."

This does not mean that I think the goal is to win the WS every year. That's an unrealistic, unsustainable and highly risky path to follow. A few franchises have the means to do that, maybe the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers, but even those teams can't do it every year because there are simply too many intangibles in baseball. The means to the end of winning the WS (IMHO) is to assemble a consistently good roster and hope that, from time to time, the cards fall just right and a World Championship can be won. In those years where enhancements can be made without mortgaging the future I'm all for it. The Twins were not at that point last year nor are they at that point this year unless we get outlier-type performances from quite a few players.

If only a few franchises have the means to assemble the roster to consistently pursue a WS title, how are the Twins to "assemble a consistently good roster"? One good enough, for long enough, that from time to time the cards fall right?

 

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

 

I actually agree with you, by the way. I too want to assemble a roster good enough to win a WS. I just don't think that happens by punting years, and positions. Try to win now, AND next year. Every year.

 

That wouldn't hurt Buxton at all.

[spinowner]

 

If only a few franchises have the means to assemble the roster to consistently pursue a WS title, how are the Twins to "assemble a consistently good roster"? One good enough, for long enough, that from time to time the cards fall right?

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

I actually agree with you, by the way. I too want to assemble a roster good enough to win a WS. I just don't think that happens by punting years, and positions. Try to win now, AND next year. Every year.

That wouldn't hurt Buxton at all.

I apologize for not being clear.

Teams like the Yankees can sign free agents at their peak years. This requires overspending. They have the resources to retool every year and go for it.

It's simply not feasible for the Twins to take that approach. What I envision when I talk about a consistently good roster is something like what Cleveland did in the '90's, specifically drafting and developing enough good young talent to sustain a multi-year run of above-average play.

For the Twins to succeed they have to get the most out of their draftees. This takes time and patience. Baseball players take a long time to develop from draftee to major leaguer. Players can be ruined by trying to move them too fast.

[jimbo92107]

Watch out for Mister In-Between.

 

Hughes, Nolasco and Milone could provide a back end of the rotation that never sees 94mph on a fastball. The underwhelming power of these guys could brighten the day of hitters looking to break out of slumps. Meanwhile the Twins relegate their second best horse (May) to the pen and their best ace prospect Berrios to AAA to beat up on some more hapless minor leaguers, which is like sending a NASCAR contender to driver's ed. And the guy with the best curve ball on the team to the bullpen. Is any of that supposed to help the team win??

 

What's especially galling is that when you invert that plan and put Hughes, Nolasco and Milone in the pen, you might actually get the first two to add a few precious mph to their heaters, while keeping them in reserve for spot starts. 

 

A starting ro of Santana, Gibson, May, Duffey, Berrios provides lots of chances to go 6 or more innings, plus hotter, more dependable middle relief (and Meyer's big heater) for later in games. All the advantages seem to come by putting your vets in the pen, where their heaters can see a minor resurgence, and you save their arms for later in the season, like a spot start from a daisy fresh Phil Hughes in a playoff game.

 

Meanwhile, if one of the young guns falters, you've still got your veterans to fall back on. 

Edited February 12, 2016 by jimbo92107

[Jham]

 

 

Meanwhile, if one of the young guns falters, you've still got your veterans to fall back on. 

 

This a fine idea in theory.  It makes sense, and has benefits.  At the same time, the opposite argument also makes sense, that you can rely on your veterans, and if one falters, you've got young studs to plug in.  Young players have options, veterans don't.  Young players can be sent down, veterans must be sent to the DL with an imaginary injury.  There are merits to going young or going with experience.  I have doubts about May's ability to sustain his level of success in either role, although he seems to be learning to pitch a bit.  I'd move Meyer back to starting since he's seemingly lost some zip on his fastball and break on his breaking ball.  He's still a big strong kid, and if he can re-learn his craft and learn to mix spins and speeds, the rotation is a more likely landing spot.  Berrios will force his way in soon enough.  Bringing him up immediately simply isn't necessary.  Duffey forced his way in last year, and is 50/50 in my mind to do it again.  No matter which direction you go, it's nice to have actual quality options compared to prior years.  

 

[jimbo92107]

 

This a fine idea in theory.  It makes sense, and has benefits.  At the same time, the opposite argument also makes sense, that you can rely on your veterans, and if one falters, you've got young studs to plug in.  Young players have options, veterans don't.  Young players can be sent down, veterans must be sent to the DL with an imaginary injury.  There are merits to going young or going with experience.  I have doubts about May's ability to sustain his level of success in either role, although he seems to be learning to pitch a bit.  I'd move Meyer back to starting since he's seemingly lost some zip on his fastball and break on his breaking ball.  He's still a big strong kid, and if he can re-learn his craft and learn to mix spins and speeds, the rotation is a more likely landing spot.  Berrios will force his way in soon enough.  Bringing him up immediately simply isn't necessary.  Duffey forced his way in last year, and is 50/50 in my mind to do it again.  No matter which direction you go, it's nice to have actual quality options compared to prior years.  

I agree that the Twins this year appear to have better options at pitcher no matter how they distribute them. I'm a bit more optimistic than you appear to be about Duffey, who I think could be a star. I'm actually less optimistic about Meyer, who is starting to look to me like a complete bust. He fell apart last season as soon as he had a base runner, and that doesn't bode well for a tall guy with control issues. Trevor May on the other hand is I think going to be an innings horse if they make him a starter. May is one of those guys that absorbs lessons and techniques from other guys he watches, and that's a great trait in a young pitcher. His poise on the mound has improved greatly, and that includes his delivery from the set, which is MUCH better than when I first saw him. Obviously Berrios has to prove himself at the major league level, but I have little doubt he can be effective. His status depends on how the veterans look in spring training. If Hughes and/or Nolasco looks bad or lacks velocity, a spot opens up for Berrios. 

Edited February 14, 2016 by jimbo92107