Article: Penciling A 2017 Starting Rotation

[jimmer]

This offseason, the excuse will be, 'no really good starters available' AND/OR 'we're too far away from contending' (though many thought we would be contending this year and we did nothing to make the rotation better either, so who knows).

 

When/if the time comes when there are really good starters available (those times are going to get more and more rare), the excuse will be 'we can't compete with the big revenue clubs for the top guys' and/or 'we are still too far away'.

[kab21]

 

This offseason, the excuse will be, 'no really good starters available' AND/OR 'we're too far away from contending' (though many thought we would be contending this year and we did nothing to make the rotation better either, so who knows).

 

When/if the time comes when there are really good starters available (those times are going to get more and more rare), the excuse will be 'we can't compete with the big revenue clubs for the top guys' and/or 'we are still too far away'.

Except the Twins have signed starters in the past. They haven't gotten an elite starter but they have spent money in FA so this is kind of a tired criticism.

[jimmer]

 

Except the Twins have signed starters in the past. They haven't gotten an elite starter but they have spent money in FA so this is kind of a tired criticism.

Well, I didn't say they hadn't signed starters in the past nor did I say they hadn't spent money in FA.  Strawman, party of one...your table is ready.

 

They have not gone out and signed a really good starter in many, many years. And when they did, the money situation in the game was way different.  I'm talking about the kind of pitcher that requires a big money in today's game (though Santana was a good sign, no doubt, and if you want to count him fine.  One). But I'm talking about the kind of pitcher who can be a real difference maker.  And when I say big money, I don't mean compared to what we've spent in the past. That's not the same thing.

 

But you're right, it is getting tiring having to make the same criticisms over the last 20+ years.

 

And, you know, if we want to say it's bad idea to buy ace pitcher in FA, fine. I don't necessarily disagree with that.  But then you need to trade quality prospects for established pitchers (which we won't do) OR we need to trade vets when their trade value is high for quality established pitchers or quality MLB ready pitchers(which we also won't do) OR we need to develop our own....which we can't seem to do.

Edited September 22, 2016 by jimmer

[bird]

 

Or the idea we shouldn't trade any of our proven guys for prospects, but we should trade for proven top notch established MLB pitching (but without trading Rosario, Buxton, Sano, Kepler and Polanco).  I've seen things like that said too.   How are we going to get quality without trading any quality, exactly?

 

Precisely. And as Nick has pointed out maybe better than anyone, Dozier represents, by far, the best chance to bolster the rotation without seriously compromising the future.

 

The trouble I run into with the idea of trading Santana is with the answer to the question "for what gain?" He's not going to get a return of Santana (the throw-in on the Boof Bonser trade Santana), or even of Santana(the one who cheated his organization, teammates, and fans out of his services for a half-season). Help me with how trading him and then inserting a lesser pitcher in his spot does anything other than to in all probability weaken the rotation at the start of 2017. Do people believe we'll get a big-time prospect for him over the winter? This seems unlikely to me.

 

From what I see, Sano, Buxton, and Dozier are the only proven assets available who are very likely to bring back a front-line starter, and even then, it would likely be a prospect, not a proven guy.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by birdwatcher

[jimmer]

 

Precisely. And as Nick has pointed out maybe better than anyone, Dozier represents, by far, the best chance to bolster the rotation without seriously compromising the future.

 

The trouble I run into with the idea of trading Santana is the answer to the question "for what gain?" He's not going to get a return of Santana (the throw-in on the Boof Bonser trade Santana), or even of Santana(the one who cheated his organization, teammates, and fans out of his services for a half-season). Help me with how trading him and then inserting a lesser pitcher in his spot does anything other than to in all probability weaken the rotation at the start of 2017. Do people believe we'll get a big-time prospect for him over the winter? This seems unlikely to me.

 

From what I see, Sano, Buxton, and Dozier are the only proven assets available who are very likely to bring back a front-line starter, and even then, it would likely be a prospect, not a proven guy.

If you remember, I was for trading Santana at the deadline where I believe he would have had his best value.  If I knew for sure he'd stay healthy and keep performing like he has, I'd now say keep him till the 2017 trade deadline and trade him then.  It's a gamble I'm not sure we should take if we get a quality offer.

 

Then again, everyone is bemoaning the quality of starters available this offseason, so who knows what a very underpaid Santana gets.  I'd be asking because, really, this rotation is the worst in the AL and 2nd worst in baseball even WITH  1/5 of it being a very good Santana.

Edited September 22, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

 

Trade Dozier and replace him with Polanco. A step back but Dozier can get a pile of good prospects potentially.

 

Trade Santana and replace him with Pat Dean (or another mediocre AAAA starter) and hope to get one good prospect.

 

That is the problem with trading Santana. I am for it if there is a good prospect involved but the rotation goes from questionable to much worse.

 

Ooooh, can I play this game?  But if we play Polanco at 2B we'll have no choice but to sign Juan Castro and play him at short.  Ouch.  That really hurts your plan!

 

I don't think the options are limited to "Either we have Ervin Santana or we have Pat Dean".  Suggesting so is revealing to me about what's wrong with this argument.

 

Look, no one is asking for Ervin Santana to be given away.  But he should be shopped.  With the market for starters as weak as it is and demand always being high, it makes sense to shop him.  Hell, it's the exact same reasoning for shopping Dozier!  The only difference is the perceived depth we have in Polanco, which is hardly an established fact.  

 

In either case we're accepting a step backward in 2017 to assemble more talent going forward.  Exactly why Santana and Dozier should both be available for the right offer.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Ricky Nolasco Career K/BB: 3.41

 

just sayin'

True, but also THE pitcher in baseball who has most underperformed his peripherals over the last few years. Santiago has generally outperformed his, but this year even his ERA is pretty bad.  If Santiago were just $3-5 million I'd say sure, keep him around, but from what I understand it is more likely to be $8-10 million.

[ashbury]

If Santiago were just $3-5 million I'd say sure, keep him around, but from what I understand it is more likely to be $8-10 million.

My assumption when the trade was made was that we would benefit by non-tendering him in the off-season. Combine that money with other funds from other releases and non-signings. Now, I'm less sure. Where can the money be better deployed this off-season?

[Thrylos]

 

Shoring up the defense and the fundamentals could shave 1/2 a run off the team ERA. Errors are deflating to a pitcher, and a team as a whole. If Turner or Garver is our best defensive catcher, they should get the job. Add maybe a mild hitting defensive wizard at short(Vielma?), and with Buxton, you got some spine in your defense.

 

Kinda feel cruel doing this, but (let's say that I even accept that defense can save 0.5 a run off ERA) that would make them have the 27th best ERA in the majors instead of the 29th best.

 

just sayin'

 

[Thrylos]

 

My assumption when the trade was made was that we would benefit by non-tendering him in the off-season. Combine that money with other funds from other releases and non-signings. Now, I'm less sure. Where can the money be better deployed this off-season?

 

International free agents, including young Cubans.  Only way to do it in a rebuilding team.  Or overpaying for the 2017 draft and used as tax money...  Or to put in the bank and compound interest to extend Sano when that is needed...

[nytwinsfan]

 

My assumption when the trade was made was that we would benefit by non-tendering him in the off-season. Combine that money with other funds from other releases and non-signings. Now, I'm less sure. Where can the money be better deployed this off-season?,

Catcher and/or reliever.

 

May is moving to the starting rotation from the bullpen and can take Santiago's place. As for the last spot, Mejia, Hughes (if healthy) or Duffey if needed. Or spend $3 million on Bret Anderson and save the other $5 to combine with Suzuki's to sign a decent reliever or two.

 

EDIT: or as Thrylos says Cubans.

Edited September 22, 2016 by nytwinsfan

[jimmer]

Cubs have the best defense in baseball at 79 runs saved.  They have only given up 470 earned runs, best in baseball.  If they had just an average defense, 0 DRS, their ERA would jump from 3.10 to 3.60ish (if not higher).

 

We have -50 runs saved and have given up 764 ER.

 

I'd be amazed if a good defense COULDN'T cut a team ERA by AT LEAST 1/2 a run. Defense is still very under-rated even though it's a signficant portion of run prevention.

 

Good read:

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/200908344/cubs-defense-fueling-historic-run-prevention/

Edited September 22, 2016 by jimmer

[frightwig]

 

It boggles my mind that people are treating a statement like "people could pitch to their career norms" as some kind of fantasy scenario. 

 

I don't think it's a fantasy scenario, but I don't understand how you think their "career norms" is likely to lead to a good team next year.

 

Santana 4.10 ERA, 4.22 FIP, 4.18 xFIP

Gibson 4.59 ERA, 4.23 FIP, 4.17 xFIP

Santiago 3.86 ERA, 4.70 FIP, 4.89 xFIP

 

These are their norms, or their career averages, anyway. This is what you want?

[kab21]

 

Ooooh, can I play this game?  But if we play Polanco at 2B we'll have no choice but to sign Juan Castro and play him at short.  Ouch.  That really hurts your plan!

 

I don't think the options are limited to "Either we have Ervin Santana or we have Pat Dean".  Suggesting so is revealing to me about what's wrong with this argument.

 

Look, no one is asking for Ervin Santana to be given away.  But he should be shopped.  With the market for starters as weak as it is and demand always being high, it makes sense to shop him.  Hell, it's the exact same reasoning for shopping Dozier!  The only difference is the perceived depth we have in Polanco, which is hardly an established fact.  

 

In either case we're accepting a step backward in 2017 to assemble more talent going forward.  Exactly why Santana and Dozier should both be available for the right offer.

Your game failed. We have a useful but not great SS in Eduardo Escobar.

 

And yes our options for the spot that Santana occupies in the rotation is him or more starts by AAAA pitchers like Pat Dean. We have holes behind Santana to be filled and there is very little available in FA and there are few trade chips available. I asked this question in a different comment 'Do you decline a Santana trade for a very good prospect if that prospect doesn't pitch?' There might be a team that will pay for Santana but when you start making position specific restraints on the prospects then it becomes a lot more difficult to get top value.

 

But at the end of the day I completely agree that they should both be shopped. If a top trade package is there then make the deal and live with the pain in 2017. But I am not in a hurry to trade the only decent starter the Twins have for what is likely a borderline top 100 prospect at best. The bounty for Dozier is possibly 3-4x Santana's value. If I were to make a trade that would be the one.

[kab21]

 

I don't think it's a fantasy scenario, but I don't understand how you think their "career norms" is likely to lead to a good team next year.

 

Santana 4.10 ERA, 4.22 FIP, 4.18 xFIP

Gibson 4.59 ERA, 4.23 FIP, 4.17 xFIP

Santiago 3.86 ERA, 4.70 FIP, 4.89 xFIP

 

These are their norms, or their career averages, anyway. This is what you want?

Twins starters have a 5.48 ERA. If those players perform to their averages and the offense takes another step forward with improved play from young players then this is a greatly improved team. It isn't awesome but there are constraints in the offseason (terrible FA market and a general lack of trade chips). 

Edited September 22, 2016 by kab21

[KirbyDome89]

 

Your game failed. We have a useful but not great SS in Eduardo Escobar.

 

And yes our options for the spot that Santana occupies in the rotation is him or more starts by AAAA pitchers like Pat Dean. We have holes behind Santana to be filled and there is very little available in FA and there are few trade chips available. I asked this question in a different comment 'Do you decline a Santana trade for a very good prospect if that prospect doesn't pitch?' There might be a team that will pay for Santana but when you start making position specific restraints on the prospects then it becomes a lot more difficult to get top value.

 

But at the end of the day I completely agree that they should both be shopped. If a top trade package is there then make the deal and live with the pain in 2017. But I am not in a hurry to trade the only decent starter the Twins have for what is likely a borderline top 100 prospect at best. The bounty for Dozier is possibly 3-4x Santana's value. If I were to make a trade that would be the one.

Duffey, Mejia, Hughes (wildcard). No Pat Dean and other AAAA pitchers aren't the only options. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

If Santana, Gibson and Santiago perform up to their career norms, while Berrios pitches remotely well, it's not that difficult to envision this being a decent, albeit below average rotation. Especially if you shore up the defense and add a couple more upside arms. Not sure why that concept is so absurd to a few folks around here.

 

No one is advocating going all-in on a World Series in 2017. But saying, "screw it we have no chance let's just get more prospects" is flat-out silly to me. All you're doing is giving up on the present and putting more faulty hope into the distant future on the basis of young pitching prospects, which are basically the most volatile asset in the game.

 

I'm not OK with the idea of wasting years of these good young hitters' careers while not bothering to make an effort to compete. What happens if the prospects you get back for Santana and Dozier fail to pan? Start over? Another rebuild? Submit yourself to a 15-year swoon? No thanks. 

Obviously this all hinges on how somebody views the rotation for next few years. In the same way you aren't advocating an all-in approach to 2017, I don't think anybody hopes the Twins call it quits on next year either. It isn't improbable to think this rotation could be decent, but like you mentioned above they're below average. That is their ceiling if everything breaks right for this team. I'm frustrated by the idea of wasting years of good young players as well, but isn't sending out this rotation next year doing just that? I'm not advocating a FA signing, I realize the market isn't exactly saturated. The best options for the staff, barring a massive haul for Dozier or some team becoming desperate at the winter meetings and giving up a plus AAA prospect, lie within house. Objectively this team isn't going to anywhere near the playoffs next year with the current rotation. Is it not placing faulty hope in the present to hold onto Santana, thinking there is a chance 2017 is anything other than a last place divisional finish or that 2018 is anything but a toss up whether or not the team is competitive (new regime coming in so we can't know a direction yet)? I'm not saying the Twins have to trade Santana, but if they can get a piece back for him I don't see his loss as catastrophic to the rotation. Like I said, next year will be rough, and we don't know what 2018 will be like because we don't have a POBO right now, so selling Santana at peak value doesn't seem too crazy to me. 

[Boom Boom]

That's fine. I also didn't mention Gonsalves, Mejia, Hughes, May or any FA acquisitions/trade returns for Dozier etc. To act like they're doomed to anything approximating the same historically bad outcome as this year is nothing but blind pessimism.

 

It boggles my mind that people are treating a statement like "people could pitch to their career norms" as some kind of fantasy scenario.

Maybe not a fantasy scenario, but it's got to be exceedingly rare for any team's "Plan A" rotation to work that well.

 

Fans have been hearing about Ricky Nolasco's career norms for the last three seasons.

[jimmer]

 

Fans have been hearing about Ricky Nolasco's career norms for the last three seasons.

about a long as we've been hearing about Gibson being at the point of his career where he is just about to turn the corner ;-)

Edited September 22, 2016 by jimmer

[laloesch]

 

Exactly what I thought.... with a new Ivy League brained sheriff in town quite soon, plus hopefully a new big Ivy League baseball brain serving as his boss as POBO, if the 2017 rotation doesn't look drastically different than 2016... then the Twins Search Committee probably failed miserably in their "Search"

 

May I politely suggest that rather than "penciling in" a 2017 rotation at this point, the new management instead use a big, bold ink pen and completely blot out a bunch of these guys' names off the (glaring lack of) SP depth chart for good?

 

Meh....ivy leagues schools are packed full of snotty, ego maniacs who think their blank don't stink because they went to an ivy league school.  I prefer actual knowledge and experience gained on the job.  By the time someone reaches the level of being considered for GM their degree is pretty much meaningless. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by laloesch

[laloesch]

 

about a long as we've been hearing about Gibson being at the point of his career where he is just about to turn the corner ;-)

 

 

Agreed.  I am getting tired of the "TYPICAL" Gibson routine which appears to be slow starter in April and May season after season.  In 2016 he never got going at all.  We've seen 3 full seasons from Kyle Gibson and this is by far his worst campaign ever.   If he and Duffey had pitched half way decent this year, this team goes from 100 loses to close to .500 ball.  I am not ready to cut Kyle loose yet, but if he pitches next season like this he's toast in my book.  Same goes for Santiago.  

 

As others have said earlier, Duffey is a two pitch reliever and the sooner the Twins realize that and send him down to AAA to develop a third pitch or back to the bullpen the better. 

 

Besides Trevor May i think the next best option is Adalberto Mejia.

Edited September 22, 2016 by laloesch

[TheLeviathan]

 

And yes our options for the spot that Santana occupies in the rotation is him or more starts by AAAA pitchers like Pat Dean.

 

But at the end of the day I completely agree that they should both be shopped. If a top trade package is there then make the deal and live with the pain in 2017. But I am not in a hurry to trade the only decent starter the Twins have for what is likely a borderline top 100 prospect at best. The bounty for Dozier is possibly 3-4x Santana's value. If I were to make a trade that would be the one.

 

The false dilemma you keep trotting out is still that: false.  We are not choosing between Ervin and Dean.

 

As a general rule, no team should be "in a hurry" to make a deal.  I doubt anyone in this thread is arguing "Take moldy cheese for Ervin!  Anything!"  Can we dispense with that nonsense in every thread?  You know, where we paint people who want guys shopped or moved as intending to rid ourselves of the player no matter what?  Trade suggestions are pretty much always driven by the idea that we want to get a solid return for a player who is at good value. 

 

I shouldn't have to clarify that notion every damn time I suggest a guy should be shopped.  It'd be like me turning around every time you or Nick or someone else says "We should hang on to Ervin" and i counter with "Oh, so you want to have him starting games for us when he's 90! Pfff....so much for your opinion!"

 

Just knock it off.  Shop Dozier and Santana because it makes sense to right now and trade them if you get a solid return.

[ToddlerHarmon]

Thrylos hit the nail on the head IMO. Anyone over 27 who you might want in a rotation is trade bait, because they won't be around when the rebuilding is done. Does anyone really believe Gibson or Santiago will be sorely missed if you're putting together a playoff rotation for the Twins in 2019?

[Nick Nelson]

 

So, to be clear:

 

Trade Dozier: not punting on 2017, reasonable course of action

 

Trade Santana: We're lighting Target Field on fire and the Apocalypse is Nigh

 

I am honestly baffled that you're confused by this. Santana is the only starter on the team with an ERA+ above 83. Dozier is one good hitter among many in the lineup. 

[bird]

 

If you remember, I was for trading Santana at the deadline where I believe he would have had his best value.  If I knew for sure he'd stay healthy and keep performing like he has, I'd now say keep him till the 2017 trade deadline and trade him then.  It's a gamble I'm not sure we should take if we get a quality offer.

 

Then again, everyone is bemoaning the quality of starters available this offseason, so who knows what a very underpaid Santana gets.  I'd be asking because, really, this rotation is the worst in the AL and 2nd worst in baseball even WITH  1/5 of it being a very good Santana.

 

Yeah, I was in favor of a Santana deadline trade too, IF it involved a clear overpay. You're right, they should listen to offers this winter, but in the absence of a lopsided offer, I'd be inclined to take the gamble that Santana retains value and that others step up so that they could then shop him in July and maybe score a desperation offer. Even a favorable winter trade won't turn the tide for this team, so maybe he becomes part of a rotation for us that is at least 2/5ths adequate to start the year.  And let's face it, unless three of these promising pitching prospects pan out during the course of 2017 and very early 2018, this organization is in deep doo doo. There aren't enough high-ceiling position players in the high minors who could possibly burst onto the scene and create a surplus for trade purposes. Other than Polanco/Dozier, about the only other (very remote) possibility is with Park/Vargas/Palka. I think when the new regime does its asset evaluation of the organization, it will conclude that beyond Sano, Buxton, Kepler, and Dozier, its most mineable value is pitching prospects interspersed throughout the minors. The good news is this asset base is what they need above all else to correct the problem with the big club. I'm not suggesting they have a stunning treasure in pitching prospects, but it's probably better than 2/3rd of the clubs and might get better with the first pick in the draft. The bad news is that barring a streak of good karma, we're just not likely to see three out of Berrios, May, Gonsalves, Mejia, Jay, et al show up at spring training ready to give the team even mid-rotation production in 2017.

[Mike Sixel]

From what I read online.....winter trades return more than summer trades, but maybe that's not right....

 

I agree with the watcher of birds....things look bleak for at least the first half of next year. Maybe longer.

[ashbury]

I am honestly baffled that you're confused by this. Santana is the only starter on the team with an ERA+ above 83. Dozier is one good hitter among many in the lineup. 

Yes, and more the point, we have someone to step in for Dozier if he is traded (Polanco, with Escobar returning to starter's duty at SS). Debatable dropoff, unless you believe Dozier is at a new permanent plateau in performance (in which case Polanco is the trade bait), in return for some appreciable help at a position of need.

 

Who is the equivalent, ready to step in with minimal dropoff, if Santana is traded?

 

That's the crux. A team would need to knock me over with an offer for Santana, and no GM is going to do that.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yes, and more the point, we have someone to step in for Dozier if he is traded (Polanco, with Escobar returning to starter's duty at SS). Debatable dropoff, unless you believe Dozier is at a new permanent plateau in performance, in return for some appreciable help at a position of need.

 

Who is the equivalent, ready to step in with minimal dropoff, if Santana is traded?

 

That's the crux. A team would need to knock me over with an offer for Santana, and no GM is going to do that.

 

I think we disagree on next year mattering much.....I have zero expectation they are good next year. So, not replacing Santana with an equal player next year? Don't care. I care if that player(s) is better in 18 and beyond.

[cjj td]

 

 

 

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

 

I'm Latos intolerant.

[Vanimal46]

I'd prefer the whole pitching staff to be as fluid as possible. Santana had a good 2016. If he turns into a pumpkin, they're stuck with his $13.5 million price tag for 2018. The Twins already have someone they're stuck with at a high price point in Hughes. 

There's not going to be an obvious replacement for Santana. Depends on what you value more - having Santana and potentially getting stuck with him in 2018 when the younger guys are closer to being MLB ready - OR - getting out of the contract and taking a step back in the short term.