Article: Penciling A 2017 Starting Rotation

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 

Ervin is back. The rest need to fight for their jobs. It's also why Dozier needs to be traded for the best starter available. What a mess.

I think Dozier needs to be traded for a prospect(s), not a veteran starter. So, if that means a young pitcher or near ready one, then yes. 

[TwinsWonWithHunter]

In all friendliness, I have to take an eraser to Nick's

penciled-in rotation. No way do we roll into 2017 with the same

re-treads who made up the worst 2016 MLB rotation by far, and who

have the dubious distinction of comprising the most regrettable

staff in Minnesota franchise history. Pohlad did not fire Ryan to

maintain business as usual.

 

1. MLB proven and capable front-line ready starter acquired in

trade for Dozier.

2. Significant FA signing.

3. Santana.

4. MLB proven, legitimate starter acquired in trade for prospects.

5. Open competition among the leftovers. I count any pitcher not named Santana a left-over.

 

We do this, we may sniff out .500 in '17 and gear up for a winning season in '18.

[Mike Sixel]

There are no FA pitchers available, you can erase that.

 

no one is trading a MLB starter for Dozier, not that has more than 1-2 years left on his "goodness".

[Vanimal46]

 

In all friendliness, I have to take an eraser to Nick's
penciled-in rotation. No way do we roll into 2017 with the same
re-treads who made up the worst 2016 MLB rotation by far, and who
have the dubious distinction of comprising the most regrettable
staff in Minnesota franchise history. Pohlad did not fire Ryan to
maintain business as usual.

1. MLB proven and capable front-line ready starter acquired in
trade for Dozier.
2. Significant FA signing.
3. Santana.
4. MLB proven, legitimate starter acquired in trade for prospects.
5. Open competition among the leftovers. I count any pitcher not named Santana a left-over.

We do this, we may sniff out .500 in '17 and gear up for a winning season in '18.

I agree with you that the Pohlad's didn't fire TR to keep the status quo going forward. There's an issue with your plan, at least the significant FA signing... This year's list of FA SP are frightening. We're talking maybe Rich Hill being the best possible option out there, who will most likely see a 3/45 type contract. Ick. 

Whoever the new PBO / GM will be, they'll have to be quite creative with fixing the rotation this year. It's probably not going to look pretty when they announce the signings. But hopefully one or more becomes a Scott Feldman type to flip somewhere else for more upside. 

Long story short, I agree with you and hope there is an overhaul with next year's rotation. 

[dxpavelka]

 

I still hope Santana is dealt this offseason.  

Deal your best and only reliable starter?  Makes perfect sense IF you have a replacement ready to step in at the same level.  We don't.  If 2017 Phil Hughes is going to be 2014 Phil Hughes that makes sense.  He won't be.  Nothing to see here. Move on.

[Vanimal46]

If Brett Anderson could be had for a 1 year heavy incentive laden contract, I'd pull the trigger on that. Very high risk where he could be like Rich Harden/Joel Zumaya and never pitch an inning for the Twins. 

 

I guess I would also take a flyer on Mat Latos and hope to be surprised about it. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Deal your best and only reliable starter?  Makes perfect sense IF you have a replacement ready to step in at the same level.  We don't.  If 2017 Phil Hughes is going to be 2014 Phil Hughes that makes sense.  He won't be.  Nothing to see here. Move on.

 

They are losing 85-90 games, does it really matter? Isn't 2018 and beyond more important?

[Taildragger8791]

 

It's absolutely not the same rotation. No Nolasco, no Milone, Duffy to the pen. No Pat Dean as our 1st backup. How much better is our team ERA without the numbers those put up. I'm pretty sure we would gain half a run per game right there. I'd like to see what a year of Nicks starting 5 would get us. Do NOT trade Ervin or any member of the offense that isn't a DH/1B. The offense is good enough to compete, but not good enough to start hacking off chunks to leverage into pitching.

 

That sounds like a big assumption you made there. Just to provide some context, even if that did shave off half a run it would only take our starting rotation from the worst ERA in baseball (5.48) to the second worst in baseball. They would need to shave off another half a run to get just outside of the bottom third in baseball, and then almost another half a run to get well into the top ten. That's how far we have to go.

 

And with all the work there is to do breaking in young pitchers and fixing our veteran ones there's little chance they will be significantly better than Nolasco, Milone, Duffey, or Dean were this year.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Taildragger8791

[frightwig]

 

People calling to trade Santana are being short sighted I think. What I would like to see is Santana and Santiago followed by youth including Berrios and the next two who stand out in spring training.

 

Keep in mind, the starters only get 10-17 IP in spring training, often against minor league hitters. And Gibson had a 1.53 ERA, Milone had a 2.40 ERA, in spring training this year. So spring training isn't all that useful for evaluating who should win jobs for the season.

 

I think the new GM will have to go bold, in one way or another: either commit entirely to a fresh rebuilding project or make a few big moves to overhaul the starting rotation with pitchers who can win next year. IMO, the pitching staff needs SO MUCH help that it's hard to imagine the team being legit contenders in the next 1-2 years, so I'd prefer to see the club sell high on Dozier and Santana and go with a youth movement. But if the new GM keeps 4/5 of the rotation and just hopes for better luck next year... damn, how depressing.

[nicksaviking]

 

GM should not be involved at that level. That's on the manager and the pitching coach.

 

If this team gets an analytically inclined GM, he or she better be analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of players from a numbers standpoint. If Pohlad has his say about the 2017 field staff, the manager sure isn't going to do it. What good is it going to this team to modernize the front office if the field staff won't implement their ideas?

[Thrylos]

 

 

Realistically, there aren't any options to turn over this rotation in one year

 

 

 

 

Indeed, that's why, since the Twins will not be seriously competing in the remaining period of the contracts of Santana and Dozier (and likely before Gibson,  but for sure before Santiago becomes a free agent,) makes no sense keeping the above

[nicksaviking]

 

In all friendliness, I have to take an eraser to Nick's
penciled-in rotation. No way do we roll into 2017 with the same
re-treads who made up the worst 2016 MLB rotation by far, and who
have the dubious distinction of comprising the most regrettable
staff in Minnesota franchise history. Pohlad did not fire Ryan to
maintain business as usual.

1. MLB proven and capable front-line ready starter acquired in
trade for Dozier.
2. Significant FA signing.
3. Santana.
4. MLB proven, legitimate starter acquired in trade for prospects.
5. Open competition among the leftovers. I count any pitcher not named Santana a left-over.

We do this, we may sniff out .500 in '17 and gear up for a winning season in '18.

 

Any and every team will want to do #2, but it's not possible. If Ervin Santana was a free agent, he'd probably be overwhelmingly viewed as the top target except for those teams that are confident in 37-year-old Rich Hill.

[Taildragger8791]

 

Indeed, that's why, since the Twins will not be seriously competing in the remaining period of the contracts of Santana and Dozier (and likely before Gibson,  but for sure before Santiago becomes a free agent,) makes no sense keeping the above

 

I agree on Dozier, if there's good young pitching or catching talent to be had in a return. I guess I agree on Santana too but I don't see the market for him. Age/contract are going to work against him. Rather than get a mediocre player that's going to clog up a spot I'd rather let him continue to lead by example for the young pitchers, and provide a little stability so the bullpen can maybe get a break every 5 days.

[Thrylos]

 

It's absolutely not the same rotation. No Nolasco, no Milone, Duffy to the pen. No Pat Dean as our 1st backup. How much better is our team ERA without the numbers those put up

 

Here:

 

No Nolasco (5.13 ERA) plus Santiago (6.20 ERA)

no Milone (5.51 ERA) and no Duffey (6.39 ERA) plus Berrios (8.88 ERA)

 

Methinks that the ERA with the replacements is worse... 

 

 

[Thrylos]

 

I agree on Dozier, if there's good young pitching or catching talent to be had in a return. I guess I agree on Santana too but I don't see the market for him. Age/contract are going to work against him. Rather than get a mediocre player that's going to clog up a spot I'd rather let him continue to lead by example for the young pitchers, and provide a little stability so the bullpen can maybe get a break every 5 days.

 

I guess having another young pitcher (let's say Gonsalves or Jay) who can learn at the job is more valuable to me than having a tutor; but of course you need a decent pitching coach to do what Santana does.  Rebuilding teams need to determine who is part of their future, because they will not compete in 2017 and 2018.  Nobody who is not going to be with the Twins in 2019 should be with them in 2017, because of a. losing the opportunity for a decent return in a trade and b. the opportunity cost for someone like Gonsalves or Jay being in the minors... 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Here:

 

No Nolasco (5.13 ERA) plus Santiago (6.20 ERA)

no Milone (5.51 ERA) and no Duffey (6.39 ERA) plus Berrios (8.88 ERA)

 

Methinks that the ERA with the replacements is worse... 

 

only if you assume they don't get better. I think this is a pretty weak argument.

[Taildragger8791]

 

I guess having another young pitcher (let's say Gonsalves or Jay) who can learn at the job is more valuable to me than having a tutor; but of course you need a decent pitching coach to do what Santana does.  Rebuilding teams need to determine who is part of their future, because they will not compete in 2017 and 2018.  Nobody who is not going to be with the Twins in 2019 should be with them in 2017, because of a. losing the opportunity for a decent return in a trade and b. the opportunity cost for someone like Gonsalves or Jay being in the minors... 

 

Again, I basically agree. I'd rather dump Santiago and his salary to open up a spot. If some team offers up a promising young starter then of course I trade Santana. But I don't think there's a logjam preventing those guys from coming up next year. Gonsalves won't be up until mid-season most likely, by which point there will be a spot for him. Jay and Stewart might be looking for room in the second half and by then another 1 or 2 guys will have pitched themselves out of a job or be hurt. If not, then that means the rotation is doing pretty well and don't need to be replaced anyways. But most likely two out of Mejia/Gibson/May will be replaceable before the end of the year.

[frightwig]

 

It's absolutely not the same rotation. No Nolasco, no Milone, Duffy to the pen. No Pat Dean as our 1st backup. How much better is our team ERA without the numbers those put up.

Numbers as starters this year:

 

Santana 3.38 ERA, 3.80 FIP, 4.21 xFIP

Gibson 5.10 ERA, 4.83 FIP, 4.49 xFIP

Santiago 6.20 ERA, 5.71 FIP, 6.20 xFIP (4.82, 5.23, 5.45 all season)

Berrios 8.88 ERA, 6.55 FIP, 5.48 xFIP

 

It's pretty bad, regardless, and Santana's peripherals indicate a probable ERA regression for him next year, too.

 

I can see the case for giving Gibson a chance to bounce back, but I wouldn't care to pin my plans on him if I could find better options. Santiago's career shows that he may do OK if you put a good defense behind him, particularly a good OF defense, but he's not really a good pitcher. You don't really want him back, unless you're just desperate for filler. If you're committing to a youth movement, then OK, pencil Berrios into the opening rotation; but if you're really trying to win next year, then no, making a spot for him shouldn't be a priority. It could be better for him and the club, anyway, if they send him back to AAA to start next season, let him work on whatever they think needs fixing and get his confidence back, and give him another shot when he's needed and seems ready.

[Jham]

My only take from these discussions is that the debates highlight the need for obtaining more pitching.

 

Kohl Stewart appears to be a slightly worse Kyle Gibson. Jay has some upside. Gonsalves looks like a spitting image of Andrew Miller. The remaining possibilities including May are likely rotational filler. Improvement of this year seems unlikely, save Berrios, but that would probably be offset by a return to norm for Erv.

 

Duffey and May both learned on the job. Hadn't really helped either of them. I think it can make guys gun shy, and fail to refine auxillary pitches.

[laloesch]

 

My only take from these discussions is that the debates highlight the need for obtaining more pitching.

Kohl Stewart appears to be a slightly worse Kyle Gibson. Jay has some upside. Gonsalves looks like a spitting image of Andrew Miller. The remaining possibilities including May are likely rotational filler. Improvement of this year seems unlikely, save Berrios, but that would probably be offset by a return to norm for Erv.

Duffey and May both learned on the job. Hadn't really helped either of them. I think it can make guys gun shy, and fail to refine auxillary pitches.

 

I don't know what to think of Stewart or Gonsalves yet other than Stewart's low strikeout rate.  The Jay conversion is still ongoing.  I do foresee a May Duffey in the very near future (starting in 2017), unless Duffey dramatically increases his usage of the change-up and turns things around.  The organization could also choose to move on from Santiago and Gibson but given the lack of depth right now that seems unlikely for both.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Deal your best and only reliable starter?  Makes perfect sense IF you have a replacement ready to step in at the same level.  We don't.  If 2017 Phil Hughes is going to be 2014 Phil Hughes that makes sense.  He won't be.  Nothing to see here. Move on.

 

 Sometimes a step back is required to take two steps forward.  As others have said, there is no conceivable path to turning this rotation into a playoff contender, so aim for 2018.  I know that's a bitter pill to swallow for some, but no less necessary.

[Nick Nelson]

 

Here:

 

No Nolasco (5.13 ERA) plus Santiago (6.20 ERA)

no Milone (5.51 ERA) and no Duffey (6.39 ERA) plus Berrios (8.88 ERA)

 

Methinks that the ERA with the replacements is worse... 

Good thing this year's performances completely dictate and predict exactly what will happen next year!

 

It's nice to have the assurance that the Santiago we've seen the last few weeks is the real version and not the guy from the last 5 years. And of course there's no chance a 22-year-old rookie is going to improve in any regard. Gibson had a bad year so he might as well just quit and try something else.

[Nick Nelson]

 

 Sometimes a step back is required to take two steps forward.  As others have said, there is no conceivable path to turning this rotation into a playoff contender, so aim for 2018. 

People were saying the same thing after the 2014 season, then they shaved off 80 runs and came within a few games of the playoffs. But yeah, totally impossible. 

 

Look, this is not a good pitching staff. But it's been flukishly bad. If the Twins had allowed the same number of runs as the 2nd-worst run prevention team (Texas) they would be a .500 team by Pythag W/L. 

[gocgo]

 

why? Teams send players to AAA all the time.

 

If you have terrible starters, you should be open to trying something else. I predict that eventually a team will do this....

Yeah, but I'm guessing between the league office and the players union, there are restrictions on things like how quickly they can be brought back up to the majors after being optioned down to the minors.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Santana is a fine pitcher, I like him, I appreciate what he brings, but I'm also not going to let some delusion about 2017 guide my decision making process....

Will the Twins sniff the postseason in 2017?

 

Doubtful, but this is still essentially the same team that sniffed it in 2015, minus Torii Hunter, Mike Pelfrey, and half a season of Glen Perkins. 

 

When spring training rolls around I will be drinking the kool aid again anyway, so I figure why not get a head start.  

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

People were saying the same thing after the 2014 season, then they shaved off 80 runs and came within a few games of the playoffs. But yeah, totally impossible. 

 

Look, this is not a good pitching staff. But it's been flukishly bad. If the Twins had allowed the same number of runs as the 2nd-worst run prevention team (Texas) they would be a .500 team by Pythag W/L. 

 

No one said impossible....but how should you PLAN......that's the question. Seriously good straw man though.

[Thrylos]

 

Good thing this year's performances completely dictate and predict exactly what will happen next year!

 

It's nice to have the assurance that the Santiago we've seen the last few weeks is the real version and not the guy from the last 5 years. And of course there's no chance a 22-year-old rookie is going to improve in any regard. Gibson had a bad year so he might as well just quit and try something else.

 

Nope.  But that was not the argument I was answering.  The argument was that having Santiago instead of Nolasco and Berrios instead of Milone and Duffey will make the Twins a better team.

 

Nolasco (4.03 ERA and 1.121 WHIP btw in California) is a better pitcher than Santiago this season, and there is no reason that he will not be the next season.

 

Yes Berrios will improve, but one improved Berrios will not turn this team into a contending team, and you got to figure out Santana's regression

 

And if they do not turn into contenders, they better rebuild instead of wasting the value that Santana or Gibson might have and wasting opportunity cost as well by keeping Santiago around who is a perfect number 5 pitcher in a competing team in a good day and will cost $10m a year.  A rebuilding team does not need that.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Thrylos

[Willihammer]

I agree you shouldn't count on getting a FA better or equal to him, but you could take a really cheap flyer on someone, without relying on them. My solution was to hedge bets between Mejia/Hughes and someone like Brett Anderson if he's even remotely healthy, who could be taken on a pretty cheap contract. The idea is not to count on Anderson, but to count on one of the three of Anderson (if healthy), Hughes (if healthy) and Mejia (if ready). I'd honestly take my chances with the combination of those three as the fifth starter over Santiago. Yes his ERA hasn't been terrible, but his peripherals have been, and with a defense as bad as the Twins, we cannot count on a low K, high BB pitcher like him to continue to be merely slightly below average.

Santiago has the highest k-rate of the group (excluding Mejia) career-wise.

[Willihammer]

Unfortunately, that offense we are so proud of are the same guys playing the 2nd worst defense in the majors.

 

The interim GM said he wants May to compete for a spot in the rotation next year. Kind of like he supposedly did this spring training.

 

And Gibson....oh boy...

Yeah. Oppoents have a .321 BABIP against us. The staff has underperformed their peripherals by 80 runs if not more, and counting.

The lowest tech, most cost efficient way to improve the pitching, is to improve the defense.

Lucky for the Twins, they have improvements all around the 40 man already. Plouffe, Escobar, Rosario, etc.

They just need a catcher.

Boom, that's what, 50 runs, easily?

[bird]

The pitching talent is better than the pitching itself. What does that tell us?

 

Taking a top-level view, I'd suggest it's unreasonable to think we have the tradable assets to net more than one starter that is equal to Santana in expected production or equal to Berrios in talent.

 

My discipline regarding selling is to ALWAYS seek opportunities to sell from surplus. However, we lack a surplus of acceptable starting options, at least for now. My discipline is also to NEVER sell from an area of deficiency.

 

So, I'm going to pencil in just one outsider. That means I need to "count on" perhaps two or three of the veterans to  fill spots. I therefore retain Santana, Gibson, Santiago, and Hughes to start the season. None of them are part of my future. I don't care about their contract amounts. All will be traded or otherwise disposed of IF my system produces MLB-ready replacements, and not before.

 

The final spot, and hopefully final spots, go to whomever my brand new field coaches tell me they want on the roster. If they tell me we have four guys more likely to produce wins over the four guys above, we're moving the veterans at first opportunity.

 

I'm of the mindset that, if you're not good enough for my rotation, you're probably not good enough for my bullpen. I'm starting to think we're about to have some viable solutions in the pen. Like I said earlier, I suspect the talent surpasses the results, and part of that has to do with inexperience, part of it might be overuse, part is on the coaches and managers. What I like about the situation is we have numbers, lots of talent on the cusp for the bullpen. Guys like Hildenberger, Burdi, Reed to go with Chargois, Taylor, and Pressly. So, if Duffey, Mejia, Berrios, or any of the other youngsters don't cut it as starters, I'd strongly consider demoting them to AAA unless they clearly win a BP spot.

 

So, since I'm not winning in 2017 anyway, I'm looking for this to be a year in which as many as three of May, Berrios, Mejia, Gonsalves, Jay, Rosario, Jorge, or others perform well enough to allow me to move veteran pitchers and maybe even surplus relievers at the trade deadline.