Article: Penciling A 2017 Starting Rotation

[Nick Nelson]

 

Then we probably picked the wrong person and we're screwed either way.

Are you under the impression that a good exec has a 100% hit rate on prospect acquisitions, especially when trading a good-not-great asset like Ervin? 

 

I think you're going to be sorely disappointed by anyone they wind up with... 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Are you under the impression that a good exec has a 100% hit rate on prospect acquisitions, especially when trading a good-not-great asset like Ervin? 

 

I think you're going to be sorely disappointed by anyone they wind up with... 

 

do you actually think Levi thinks that?

[bird]

 

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

 

I've been wondering about your first point, Mike. I suppose, with more FO people involved in these decisions in most organizations, we're less likely to witness some rogue GM with his objectivity in his back pocket and his ego on his sleeve pull the trigger out of desperation at the deadline. Darn that objective analysis and all that meddlesome arithmetic.

 

Things could go from bleak to fairly rosy pretty quickly. We just can't count on it. If we recall, people were lambasting the club (Ryan) for starting 2016 without Duffey and Berrios in the rotation. It's not at all beyond the realm of possibility a few guys really step up and surprise us early on, just like it shouldn't have been a surprise to see Duffey and Berrios struggle this year. Personally, I'm all out of optimism, and don't foresee that changing with this manager and pitching coach.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I've been wondering about your first point, Mike. I suppose, with more FO people involved in these decisions in most organizations, we're less likely to witness some rogue GM with his objectivity in his back pocket and his ego on his sleeve pull the trigger out of desperation at the deadline. Darn that objective analysis and all that meddlesome arithmetic.

 

Things could go from bleak to fairly rosy pretty quickly. We just can't count on it. If we recall, people were lambasting the club (Ryan) for starting 2016 without Duffey and Berrios in the rotation. It's not at all beyond the realm of possibility a few guys really step up and surprise us early on, just like it shouldn't have been a surprise to see Duffey and Berrios struggle this year. Personally, I'm all out of optimism, and don't foresee that changing with this manager and pitching coach.

 

Right, they could go well, I just wouldn't bet any money they do go well right away. This pitching is really, really, really bad.

 

I do think Berrios is a lot closer to league average next year than worst pitcher ever.....that will help.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Are you under the impression that a good exec has a 100% hit rate on prospect acquisitions, especially when trading a good-not-great asset like Ervin? 

 

I think you're going to be sorely disappointed by anyone they wind up with... 

 

If your response to my position that we should trade a guy is "what if it goes badly?" - how is that not an acceptable response to anything anyone says on these issues?  Including yourself?

 

Of course if we trade Ervin for nothing it's bad.  Same if we trade Dozier for nothing.  Does that undermine your suggestion to trade Dozier?

 

No?  Mine either.  It's a bogus argument.

[TheLeviathan]

 

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.

 

You're arguing that it's important we don't drop off from a 70 win team to a 65 win team.  I say the difference is moot.  Especially if 2018 is helped for it.

[dxpavelka]

 

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

That kind of thinking is why we are always thinking 2 years out.

[dxpavelka]

 

 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.

Thinking there will be some magic pill that will make  them successful in 2018 WITHOUT  a best and most reliable starter?  At some point you have to have your best players playing FOR you rather than against you.

[Mike Sixel]

 

That kind of thinking is why we are always thinking 2 years out.

 

if they had been thinking 2 years out...Perkins would have been traded. 

 

I disagree, completely. As far as I can tell, they weren't thinking 2 years out at all this year, they signed a 29 YO DH......

 

Nothing about this rebuild looks like a rebuild....

[jimmer]

 

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

 

 

It's not true. They talk about trade deadline premium for a reason.

Edited September 22, 2016 by jimmer

[dxpavelka]

 

if they had been thinking 2 years out...Perkins would have been traded. 

 

I disagree, completely. As far as I can tell, they weren't thinking 2 years out at all this year, they signed a 29 YO DH......

 

Nothing about this rebuild looks like a rebuild....

At some point your best players need to be playing FOR you rather than against you.

[Vanimal46]

 

Thinking there will be some magic pill that will make  them successful in 2018 WITHOUT  a best and most reliable starter?  At some point you have to have your best players playing FOR you rather than against you.

If a 35 year old is still the team's best and most reliable starter in 2018, this organization is in deep trouble. 

[dxpavelka]

 

It's not true. They talk about trade deadline premium for a reason.

I don't think there's an empirical difference.  The object is to make the best deal you can whenever you make it.

[dxpavelka]

 

If a 35 year old is still the team's best and most reliable starter in 2018, this organization is in deep trouble. 

Until he isn't, he is.

[Vanimal46]

 

Until he isn't, he is.

That could be as early as April 2017 when that happens. Ervin's been prone to a couple of 5+ ERA pumpkin seasons. Then we're stuck with him. 

[bird]

 

It's not true. They talk about trade deadline premium for a reason.

 

I'd guess historically the consensus would have generally agreed with this and capably supported their argument anecdotally. It's probably reasonable to question whether this premium is shrinking more recently, and whether a smaller number of trades involve a meaningful premium given the more sophisticated analysis going on in MLB's front offices.

[jimmer]

 

I'd guess historically the consensus would have generally agreed with this and capably supported their argument anecdotally. It's probably reasonable to question whether this premium is shrinking more recently, and whether a smaller number of trades involve a meaningful premium given the more sophisticated analysis going on in MLB's front offices.

With even more teams having a shot at the playoffs, more teams are going to go for it at the deadline. Nowadays, there are more teams in the race than not.  So now you have maybe 18-20 teams going for it and trying to find players to put them over the top from the remaining teams not in it, because they can't just go get someone in FA, and those other teams in the playoff hunt aren't going to give up anything, especially pitching.  

 

During the offseason, everyone gets a chance to trade with everyone else and the slate is clean. There's also FA where it's just about money.  No one is getting desperate because they find themselves either dropping after a good start and they want to stop the bleeding, or are surprisingly in it and want to make sure they can stay there.

Edited September 22, 2016 by jimmer

[Mike Sixel]

I doubt this is with much analysis.....

 

mike sixel
1:26 A: thanks for the beergraphs article on hops.
B: dangit.....which trades return more prospect value, mid-season or winter?

 

Eno Sarris
1:27 mid-season because the other team knows they are in it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think this team is better in 2017 without Dozier, provided they acquire an MLB-ready piece in return.

 

Dozier has been a 6 WAR player this season. Great.

 

But the Twins have five starters with a negative rWAR on the season: Gibson, Duffey, Berrios, Milone, Dean.

 

Five guys, the worst of which is Berrios at -1.8 rWAR. Yeesh. The yuck of those numbers cannot be overstated.

 

But we're not getting rid of Berrios so let's target the next guy on the list, Tyler Duffey, at -1.5 rWAR for the season.

 

Pick up a middling league average-ish guy for 2017 who will accumulate 2 rWAR in a season.

 

Right there, we're +3.5 rWAR, over halfway to Dozier's 6 rWAR total (which he's unlikely to repeat anyway).

 

Replace Dozier with Polanco and find an acceptable shortstop. Either Escobar or a glove-first guy who can scrape together 2 rWAR over a season.

 

Now we're at 5.5 rWAR, which is probably higher than Dozier's expected 2017 WAR.

 

I realize WAR doesn't translate directly to wins, especially when comparing pitchers and hitters. This is only an example of how easy it could be to replace Dozier and not actually get worse as a team because the pitching staff has been that bad.

 

(and none of this includes potential improvement from a team full of under-25 players, or the added benefit of Duffey potentially turning from a disaster to an asset with a move to the bullpen)

[TheLeviathan]

 

Thinking there will be some magic pill that will make  them successful in 2018 WITHOUT  a best and most reliable starter?  At some point you have to have your best players playing FOR you rather than against you.

 

The hope is to acquire at least two starters for 2018 and beyond in deals to move Santana and Dozier.

 

Since I think the odds of those two players contributing past 2018 is next to nothing (or they are extended and their production slowly tails off and we'll rue not moving them), I'd rather aim to have those 2018 starters come from other teams via trade.

 

Just consider the tradeoffs here.  The only thing sacrificed in my plan is a handful of meaningless wins in 2017. What's sacrificed in not dealing Dozier and Santana are viable assets for the next 6 years.  Of course it's predicated on our new GM taking advantage of their value and dealing them for a good return....but isn't that the assumption we'll make on all moves we suggest?

 

[laloesch]

 

The hope is to acquire at least two starters for 2018 and beyond in deals to move Santana and Dozier.

 

Since I think the odds of those two players contributing past 2018 is next to nothing (or they are extended and their production slowly tails off and we'll rue not moving them), I'd rather aim to have those 2018 starters come from other teams via trade.

 

Just consider the tradeoffs here.  The only thing sacrificed in my plan is a handful of meaningless wins in 2017. What's sacrificed in not dealing Dozier and Santana are viable assets for the next 6 years.  Of course it's predicated on our new GM taking advantage of their value and dealing them for a good return....but isn't that the assumption we'll make on all moves we suggest?

 

 

I guess my thoughts are timing.  This team's offensive core is young, like mid 20's.  How does it make sense to hang onto players that are 5-10 years older (Santana) when the team is nowhere close to competing?

[Nick Nelson]

 

You're arguing that it's important we don't drop off from a 70 win team to a 65 win team.  I say the difference is moot.  Especially if 2018 is helped for it.

Because you are arguing from the incredibly stubborn position that the Twins will be a 70-win team next year, there's really no point in continuing down this path with you. 

 

You and others may think it's the right approach to simply give up on 2017 before it starts but many others don't. And I can guarantee you with 100 percent confidence that the Twins will not be operating with that mindset. So these arguments are really, really pointless. I'm done wasting my time with it. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Because you are arguing from the incredibly stubborn position that the Twins will be a 70-win team next year, there's really no point in continuing down this path with you. 

 

You and others may think it's the right approach to simply give up on 2017 before it starts but many others don't. And I can guarantee you with 100 percent confidence that the Twins will not be operating with that mindset. So these arguments are really, really pointless. I'm done wasting my time with it. 

 

Which is why they never went into rebuild mode, which is part of why they are this bad now...IMO.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Just a moderator note, but let's try and cut down on the tension here.  There's a lot of good conversation in this thread that is being overshadowed by it.

 

Thanks.

[Nick Nelson]

 

Which is why they never went into rebuild mode, which is part of why they are this bad now...IMO.

That's a perfectly reasonable standpoint. But unfortunately what's done is done, and diving back into a ground-up rebuild at this point is illogical and unrealistic. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

It's not true. They talk about trade deadline premium for a reason.

 

I'd like to comment on this a bit.  I think we've all seen WOW moves at the deadline... and we've seen MEH moves at the deadline.  We can say the same for winter moves. It's all about supply and demand.  Granted there's an incentive midseason to keep up with the Jones' and show your fan base that you're all in, but I don't think the premium exists just because it's a deadline. It exists because you have something that everyone wants at the deadline, and in that scenario, they may pay more to get it.

 

But to that point, we know the Twins were willing to trade him, and we know the Jays backed out essentially killing the deal.  I think the Twins were quite willing to part with him in July for said premium.  I'm not certain they couldn't get a similar deal come December.

 

The question on Santana is whether or not he will have the same value he has this winter come next June. There's a lot of risk the team is going to swallow there, including a well documented UCL issue in his throwing elbow.  Given the risk with pitchers that doesn't exist with hitters, I'd note that risking waiting beyond this winter isn't quite the same with Erv than it would be with a hitter like Park or Vargas.  Not sure if that changes things, as I wouldn't move him for a less than stellar deal, but it does make shopping Ervin this winter a very reasonable option.

[Mike Sixel]

 

That's a perfectly reasonable standpoint. But unfortunately what's done is done, and diving back into a ground-up rebuild at this point is illogical and unrealistic. 

 

Agreed, but I'm not arguing for one. I think the OF is "set". I think 1B is set (either Sano or Park or Vargas) as is DH. 3B might be if Sano can do it. I think there are bullpen pieces to keep. I think Berrios is part of the long term rotation. I think there is a AA pitcher or two that are close.....

 

But, I don't think Dozier or ESan are part of that future. They are part of the present/past, imo.

[jimmer]

 

I doubt this is with much analysis.....

 

mike sixel
1:26 A: thanks for the beergraphs article on hops.
B: dangit.....which trades return more prospect value, mid-season or winter?

 

Eno Sarris
1:27 mid-season because the other team knows they are in it.

Dave Cameron has said the same thing, though with much more elaboration.  Similar to the reasons I gave  about an hour and a half ago on this thread,

Edited September 22, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

 

Because you are arguing from the incredibly stubborn position that the Twins will be a 70-win team next year, there's really no point in continuing down this path with you. 

 

You and others may think it's the right approach to simply give up on 2017 before it starts but many others don't. And I can guarantee you with 100 percent confidence that the Twins will not be operating with that mindset. So these arguments are really, really pointless. I'm done wasting my time with it. 

 

I wouldn't call it stubborn, I'd call it probable.  I'm arguing from the position of what is most probable and most looking towards the long term future and what will most probably help this team for the longest period of time.  

 

As you and mike agreed, part of why we're here is a lack of foresight into how a "here and now" approach has lasting ramifications.  I'm suggesting we learn from those mistakes.

 

Trading Santana and Dozier isn't going full rebuild.  It's trading your two best assets, who have peak value, who are not a long term part of the organization, when it will help the most and for the most time.  Your position is repeating many of the mistakes that got us here in the first place.

[jimmer]

As far as making players compete in ST for spots, I believe the Twins (and perhaps other teams) perpetuate that myth for PR reasons, but they've already decided what they are going to do before ST ever begins.  Too often we've seen the players doing the best in ST lose these supposed battles.