Article: Penciling A 2017 Starting Rotation

[ashbury]

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.

We're currently sitting at 55 wins, not 70. I don't think it's smart business for a PBO/GM to flirt with consecutive 100 loss seasons, with a downside risk of 110. There seems to be an unstated assumption that once in the neighborhood of 100, it's all the same, or that it's impossible for a team ERA to get worse than the 5.11 we currently have; run enough Pat Deans out there for lack of anything better to try, and you can have ERA 6.00.

 

Being the go-to laugh-getter for Jimmy Kimmel every night is not where you want to be. It takes a long time to re-fill the ballpark even after the team starts winning, once you let that happen. Houston, now an attractive team in a large enough market, still is drawing just above 2M attendance. It may already be too late for the Twins to avoid long term damage like that, but waving the white flag even before Opening Day would be a compounding mistake.

 

I can envision offers where trading ESan makes sense, but it's far less likely we receive one than for Dozier because of the ready replacement at 2B.

[TheLeviathan]

 

We're currently sitting at 55 wins, not 70. I don't think it's smart business for a PBO/GM to flirt with consecutive 100 loss seasons, with a downside risk of 110. There seems to be an unstated assumption that once in the neighborhood of 100, it's all the same, or that it's impossible for a team ERA to get worse than the 5.11 we currently have; run enough Pat Deans out there for lack of anything better to try, and you can have ERA 6.00.

 

After as many years as we have been bad, doesn't it reach a point where another miserable season isn't moving the needle much any more?  At some point, the dwindling fan base reaches a low and I'd argue we've pretty much settled there already.  

 

What matters most is how quickly we get back to actual winning, not modest improvements that result in a team that still is never in contention.  The quickest path to actually winning, and the most probable path, is to deal your best assets for more assets.  Not double down on what is already not working.

[frightwig]

 

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). 

 

Honestly, this is the sort of thinking that got the Twins in this mess. 'If the guys who had a big season can keep it up, and the guys who played poorly can at least be not-so-bad, and the young guys all step up and maybe even become stars, and this guy from the bargain bin turns out to be a gem, then next year should be fun....' There was a lot of that going around last off-season.

[kab21]

 

Honestly, this is the sort of thinking that got the Twins in this mess. 'If the guys who had a big season can keep it up, and the guys who played poorly can at least be not-so-bad, and the young guys all step up and maybe even become stars, and this guy from the bargain bin turns out to be a gem, then next year should be fun....' There was a lot of that going around last off-season.

So what is your alternative? Sign an overpriced mediocre FA because the FA market sucks? There is also only one significant trade chip that the Twins have (Dozier).

 

The Twins are in this position because they haven't hit on any significant successes on pitching prospects. This changes if the Twins hit on 2 or more of Berrios, May, Gonsalves, Mejia, Jay or Duffey. That is the path out of this mess. Next year the rotation needs to survive and guys like Gibson and Santiago are part of that. And believe me that any remotely good pitching prospect will his chance.

[USAFChief]

After as many years as we have been bad, doesn't it reach a point where another miserable season isn't moving the needle much any more?  At some point, the dwindling fan base reaches a low and I'd argue we've pretty much settled there already.  

 

What matters most is how quickly we get back to actual winning, not modest improvements that result in a team that still is never in contention.  The quickest path to actually winning, and the most probable path, is to deal your best assets for more assets.  Not double down on what is already not working.

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man.

[Linus]

I don't agree with the notion that you punt on 2017. With improvement in pitching they can be 500 which puts you in contention for a wild card. Additionally it is good for young players to win and have their expectations grow. So you only make moves that make you better next year and beyond. That means you trade Dozier for the best youngish mlb pitcher available. Sign a good defensive ss to a two year deal and we are better right away and beyond.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't agree with the notion that you punt on 2017. With improvement in pitching they can be 500 which puts you in contention for a wild card. Additionally it is good for young players to win and have their expectations grow. So you only make moves that make you better next year and beyond. That means you trade Dozier for the best youngish mlb pitcher available. Sign a good defensive ss to a two year deal and we are better right away and beyond.

The Twins need to find about 23 wins next year...just to get to .500.

An all star is worth about 5 wins by himself. Think about that for a second.

I mean, miracles do happen occasionally. But you shouldn't plan on them.

Every move made should be with the goal of making the playoffs in 2018.

[dxpavelka]

 

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?

Those acquired assets don't always prove to actually be valuable.

[Doomtints]

 

The Twins need to find about 23 wins next year...just to get to .500.
An all star is worth about 5 wins by himself. Think about that for a second.
I mean, miracles do happen occasionally. But you shouldn't plan on them.
Every move made should be with the goal of making the playoffs in 2018.

 

That might be taking WAR a little too literally.  WAR may show 5 wins but the reality may be something completely different.  Reality could be -5 wins or even +10 wins.  Shoeless Joe Jackson has some pretty nice numbers while tanking a world series.  In fact, as a team the White Sox hit far better in the WS than they did in the regular season, and the pitching was very close too!  WAR would look at them favorably even as they were tanking.

 

Plus, some players do inspire others to do well, even if it isn't measurable. 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Doomtints

[TheLeviathan]

 

Those acquired assets don't always prove to actually be valuable.

 

Which, again, is not a valid argument.  By that logic we should never do anything because everything is doomed to failure.  It's the same bogus argument Nick was trotting out.

[Mr. Brooks]

That might be taking WAR a little too literally. WAR may show 5 wins but the reality may be something completely different. Reality could be -5 wins or even +10 wins. Shoeless Joe Jackson has some pretty nice numbers while tanking a world series. In fact, as a team the White Sox hit far better in the WS than they did in the regular season, and the pitching was very close too! WAR would look at them favorably even as they were tanking.

 

Plus, some players do inspire others to do well, even if it isn't measurable.

Sure, but I'm just pointing out how hard it is to make up 23 wins in one offseason.

 

Also, if a highly paid professional needs someone else to inspire them to do their job then those guys need to be outright released right now. This isn't little league.

[Doomtints]

 

Sure, but I'm just pointing out how hard it is to make up 23 wins in one offseason.

Also, if a highly paid professional needs someone else to inspire them to do their job then those guys need to be outright released right now. This isn't little league.

 

Agreed on all points.  

 

Judging by how surprised most of us were with this team being this bad this year, there is also the possibility that the Twins under-performed for their talent level.  If they overshot by a little in 2015, I can buy that they underperformed in 2016.  If this is really a 70-win team (with some TLC) instead of a 60-win team, then they're not quite needing a full rebuild.

 

If the Twins have at least an average pitching staff, their hitting can probably keep them in the thick of things.  They'll need more than that for the playoffs, but I think they can be competitive sooner rather than later.  

 

People generally call me a pessimist when it comes to the Twins, but I don't see them needing a full 3-year rebuild.  Three years to have a team that can advance in the playoffs, sure, but they're not 3 years away from not being embarrassing and not being taken seriously by opponents.  

Edited September 23, 2016 by Doomtints

[KirbyDome89]

 

Which, again, is not a valid argument.  By that logic we should never do anything because everything is doomed to failure.  It's the same bogus argument Nick was trotting out.

I wouldn't say its a bogus argument because there is risk involved in both dealing and keeping players. However, because the team doesn't look to be competitive next year and they enter 2018 with a 35 yo Santana who others are banking on repeating this year I would say the argument holds little weight.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I wouldn't say its a bogus argument because there is risk involved in both dealing and keeping players. However, because the team doesn't look to be competitive next year and they enter 2018 with a 35 yo Santana who others are banking on repeating this year I would say the argument holds little weight.

 

What makes it a bogus argument is that it can be applied to any position anyone takes.  If "What if that doesn't work?" is a valid criticism, then we might as well fold this sucker.  Nothing any one of us suggests, no matter how compelling our argument, can stand up to "what if it doesn't work?"

 

That risk is always present in anything.  The key is to try and do what is most probable.  And, for all of us, hope the front office does the same.

[KirbyDome89]

 

What makes it a bogus argument is that it can be applied to any position anyone takes.  If "What if that doesn't work?" is a valid criticism, then we might as well fold this sucker.  Nothing any one of us suggests, no matter how compelling our argument, can stand up to "what if it doesn't work?"

 

That risk is always present in anything.  The key is to try and do what is most probable.  And, for all of us, hope the front office does the same.

I agree, using it as a stand alone argument doesn't work well which is why I said it does't hold much weight. I was just pointing out that because there is risk involved both ways, choosing one side over another isn't necessarily a bogus position. 

[Doomtints]

Making mistakes is not what causes failure.  Provided you remain ethical, not taking action is what causes failure.  Ask any entrepreneur.

 

Ryan was good when his presence was felt -- when he was active.   When he disappeared for long periods of time and didn't make any moves the results were terrible.  

 

There are countless examples of the same thing in every business.  Everyone should have seen this coming with Ryan by the midpoint of last year, at the latest, when he seemed to forget about the trade deadline.  

Edited September 23, 2016 by Doomtints

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree, using it as a stand alone argument doesn't work well which is why I said it does't hold much weight. I was just pointing out that because there is risk involved both ways, choosing one side over another isn't necessarily a bogus position. 

 

I agree, it's not bogus to hold a position different from what myself, or Mike, or Vanimal are suggesting.  I would argue those positions have less probability of being successful in the long run, but they are a valid position to hold.

 

As you said, arguing against my stance to deal Ervin because "the prospect might turn out bad" is just a bogus argument.  By that logic so is dealing Dozier, but that didn't stop Nick or anyone else from advocating that position.  And, frankly, that argument should never stop anyone because it's always an assumed risk.

[Mr. Brooks]

Agreed on all points.

 

Judging by how surprised most of us were with this team being this bad this year, there is also the possibility that the Twins under-performed for their talent level. If they overshot by a little in 2015, I can buy that they underperformed in 2016. If this is really a 70-win team (with some TLC) instead of a 60-win team, then they're not quite needing a full rebuild.

 

If the Twins have at least an average pitching staff, their hitting can probably keep them in the thick of things. They'll need more than that for the playoffs, but I think they can be competitive sooner rather than later.

 

People generally call me a pessimist when it comes to the Twins, but I don't see them needing a full 3-year rebuild. Three years to have a team that can advance in the playoffs, sure, but they're not 3 years away from not being embarrassing and not being taken seriously by opponents.

I agree that we could compete for a wild card with an average pitching staff.

Where I disagree with some is hoe far away we are from even that mediocre bar. This pitching staff isn't just bad. It is embarrassing, pathetic, awful.

I don't think 1 offseason can even come close to fixing it. It's just too awful.

I think it will take 1 offseason just to close the gap between us and the second worst pitching staff!

[Willihammer]

The Twins need to find about 23 wins next year...just to get to .500.

An all star is worth about 5 wins by himself. Think about that for a second.

I mean, miracles do happen occasionally. But you shouldn't plan on them.

Every move made should be with the goal of making the playoffs in 2018.

Improving from a .360 team to a .500 team in 2017 is a very fair goal. They stand to gain 8-10 wins just by having normal sequencing "luck" and cleaning up the defense / fundamentals. That leaves 14-15 wins to get to .500.

 

And if they're going to make a push in 2018, they will need season ticket sales to recover, and that will require improvements in the W-L next year.

[Mr. Brooks]

Improving from a .360 team to a .500 team in 2017 is a very fair goal. They stand to gain 8-10 wins just by having normal sequencing "luck" and cleaning up the defense / fundamentals. That leaves 14-15 wins to get to .500.

 

And if they're going to make a push in 2018, they will need season ticket sales to recover, and that will require improvements in the W-L next year.

14 to 15 wins is still a lot to make up.

And that only gets them to .500. People are saying playoffs.

I just don't get it.

[Doomtints]

 

I agree that we could compete for a wild card with an average pitching staff.
Where I disagree with some is hoe far away we are from even that mediocre bar. This pitching staff isn't just bad. It is embarrassing, pathetic, awful.
I don't think 1 offseason can even come close to fixing it. It's just too awful.
I think it will take 1 offseason just to close the gap between us and the second worst pitching staff!

 

You could certainly be right but I think that's worst-case.  Santana is good.  Santiago might be good in the future.  Berrios may start being able to dress himself next year.  Gibson can bounce back and be solid (if unexciting) again.  

 

As you can see that's a lot of "might be" and "may" and "can" and nothing definite.  At this point we just don't know.  But there isn't much beyond this crew so the Twins had better pick up at least one guy, preferably two or three.  In any case, it would not be too shocking if we see better play from these guys next year.

 

The bullpen needs more work but it might not be as bad as it seems.  The Twins have a couple of bullpen arms who are OK (Kintzler, Pressly, Rogers), but they have no one who can set up or close.  Those are the two most important roles for a bullpen and not having them is a glaring omission.  The Twins should not be afraid to bite the bullet and pay market rate for a short-term closer.  There is no shame in that, and maybe next year someone steps up for 2018.  Same for a set-up man.  That still leaves a boatload of positions to fill, but they'll have May, Milone and Perkins and others coming back, and Duffey should be in the pen too.  Not expecting much excitement from those guys but they may at least play near the median.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Making mistakes is not what causes failure.  Provided you remain ethical, not taking action is what causes failure.  Ask any entrepreneur.

 

 

Sorry, this isn't true at all, especially when you consider that there are successful entrepreneurs and unsuccessful ones all of which took action.  Making mistakes can cause failure... but true failure is failing to recognize them and learn from them.  Sometimes, not taking action is the right answer.  Sometimes it isn't. I won't argue with you when you say that TR wasn't one to take much action... there's some truth to that... but that doesn't make it the answer to the Twins problem currently.  The new GM could take lots of action and do it all wrong.  Sadly, it can almost always get worse.  I just don't want to see action for the sake of action. I want to see action targeted at fixing specific problems.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

You could certainly be right but I think that's worst-case. Santana is good. Santiago might be good in the future. Berrios may start being able to dress himself next year. Gibson can bounce back and be solid (if unexciting) again.

 

As you can see that's a lot of "might be" and "may" and "can" and nothing definite. At this point we just don't know. But there isn't much beyond this crew so the Twins had better pick up at least one guy, preferably two or three. In any case, it would not be too shocking if we see better play from these guys next year.

 

The bullpen needs more work but it might not be as bad as it seems. The Twins have a couple of bullpen arms who are OK (Kintzler, Pressly, Rogers), but they have no one who can set up or close. Those are the two most important roles for a bullpen and not having them is a glaring omission. The Twins should not be afraid to bite the bullet and pay market rate for a short-term closer. There is no shame in that, and maybe next year someone steps up for 2018. Same for a set-up man. That still leaves a boatload of positions to fill, but they'll have May, Milone and Perkins and others coming back, and Duffey should be in the pen too. Not expecting much excitement from those guys but they may at least play near the median.

I hope you are right.

I just don't see it, especially with the same coaching staff coming back next year.

It's fair to expect the young guys to improve, but there is also no guarantee that next year is going to be the year they do it.

Santana is very unlikely to pitch this well again next year. Guys his age don't tend to keep out pitching their career lines.

So we need even MORE improvement to make up for the expected regression from him.

Gibson and Santiago both are who they are at this point. I agree, that means they should be better next year. But, not so good that they really move the needle from awful to league average. Mid to high 4 ERA guys just don't do that much.

There is a lot of really good pitching out there right now, which makes the Twins situation even more frustrating.

I think the gap between even the ceiling of our pitching staff (nevermind their actual performance), and the above average staffs out there is a lot bigger than some posters want to admit.

[Doomtints]

 

Sorry, this isn't true at all, especially when you consider that there are successful entrepreneurs and unsuccessful ones all of which took action.  Making mistakes can cause failure... but true failure is failing to recognize them and learn from them.  Sometimes, not taking action is the right answer.  Sometimes it isn't. I won't argue with you when you say that TR wasn't one to take much action... there's some truth to that... but that doesn't make it the answer to the Twins problem currently.  The new GM could take lots of action and do it all wrong.  Sadly, it can almost always get worse.  I just don't want to see action for the sake of action. I want to see action targeted at fixing specific problems.

 

No, mistakes don't cause failure.  You said it yourself:

 

"true failure is failing to recognize them [mistakes] and learn from them."

 

In other words, making a mistake, and then doing nothing to fix that mistake (inaction), causes failure.  That's right.  It's the inaction that causes the failure, not the mistake.  If someone is not analyzing their mistakes (or "learning from them" as you say) then they are not acting on them.

 

We saw this with Ryan.  He was hesitant to make any moves.  When he would step up and do something, if it was then a mistake he wouldn't fix it.  He sent the entire outfield away for prospects and then never fixed the defensive problem in the outfield.  How many years ago was that?  This is the first year since that the team has had anything resembling a proper outfield defense.  

 

The pitching is in the same ridiculous state it was in when he first got his job back.  The payroll is now the same as it was before he declared it needed to be trimmed.  

 

Ryan's inaction -- whether that inaction was to fix issues or a reluctance to fix his own mistakes -- cost this team five years.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

No, mistakes don't cause failure.  You said it yourself:

 

"true failure is failing to recognize them [mistakes] and learn from them."

 

In other words, making a mistake, and then doing nothing to fix that mistake (inaction), causes failure.  That's right.  It's the inaction that causes the failure, not the mistake.  If someone is not analyzing their mistakes (or "learning from them" as you say) then they are not acting on them.

 

We saw this with Ryan.  He was hesitant to make any moves.  When he would step up and do something, if it was then a mistake he wouldn't fix it.  He sent the entire outfield away for prospects and then never fixed the defensive problem in the outfield.  How many years ago was that?  This is the first year since that the team has had anything resembling a proper outfield defense.  

 

The pitching is in the same ridiculous state it was in when he first got his job back.  The payroll is now the same as it was before he declared it needed to be trimmed.  

 

Ryan's inaction -- whether that inaction was to fix issues or a reluctance to fix his own mistakes -- cost this team five years.

 

Ryan's inaction... Let's see... traded for Meyer, May, and Worley.  Signed Hughes, Nolasco, and Santana... yep.. inaction.  and that's before we talk about scrap heap guys like Pelf.

 

He made a lot of mistakes, and not for a lack of action.

 

If you want to define action is taking concrete actions to fix mistakes, I'll give you that, but that isn't what you said earlier.  Doing something for the sake of doing something is about the surest way to make sure things get worse. You have to actually identify the problem first... then you can fix it.

[beckmt]

Scary thing is that the Twins are 1 bad hire away from being irrelevant for the next 10 years.

You are probably not going to be able to fix the pitching staff in 1 year. Trading Dozier gives you hope if you pick the right team and right assets to give you a chance in 2018.

Santana you will probably not get you want you need unless you package with Dozier and I would rather package Gibson as it gives you more clubs that might make a deal for some real assets. Both are not paid what they could command, which gives you a better list of clubs to deal with. Dozier still has 2 years of control, which is great for a win now small market team.

Dodgers, Pittsburg, St. Louis and maybe one of the Mets, Yankees or Red Sox have the minor league assets(near major league ready) to target. There may be another club, but these are at the top of my list.

Going forward Pohlad may have to spend money to make money and if the is buying an ace in the 2017 offseason go for it.

Edited September 24, 2016 by beckmt

[twinssporto]

I honestly think with the exception of Ervin every other rotation spot is open. Berrios may have some upside next year but I'm cautiously optimistic.  I watched enough of this disaster the last few years that I don't like any of them.  No one is over powering, no one strikes fear with the opposing teams.    

 

The offense is decent, the defense is awful (but hopefully can get better) and the pitching is a TOTAL SYSTEM FAILURE.  It would be easy to say go into the FA market and buy some arms but that is a very risky proposition.  Keep bringing up the young talent and see who sticks.  I was hoping the rebuild would have been 75% complete by now but I'm afraid its going to be a number of years until we have a quality pitching staff.  

 

Seriously, if we are depending on or looking to use May, Gibson, Mejia, Hughes and Santiago next year it is a very depressing staff.  Based on what I've seen so far, a generous compliment would be to call them  back of the rotation type guys...They probably fit into the category of mediocre or just below that line. We haven't even started taking about the bullpen yet.... 

[thegambler]

I don't understand the concept of trading Santana. Why the F*** would you sign him to begin with? How do you improve a team with subtraction? If the Twins trade Santana for anything OTHER than proven starting player, I will refuse to attend a game. You have a losing season, you sign a guy to help your club, then you have another losing season, he does well, and you trade him? What kind of idiotic logic is that?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Santana you will probably not get you want you need unless you package with Dozier 

 

I really disagree with these video game type trade ideas.  If we're going to deal either of these guys, chances are the deals will be as individuals.

 

None of us know what will be out there for Santana or for Dozier.  The only way the team will find out is to shop them.  And I think we all agree, regardless of who is dealt or to where, that we want the team to get a good return.  

 

The recommendation to shop (and hopefully find a deal) for Santana assumes this as well.  As you said, the odds of us turning in a contending rotation next season is highly improbable.  So let's aim for a more probable date of 2018 and acquire as many assets for that as humanly possible.

[kab21]

Video game trade ideas are trading everyone on the roster for exactly what you want. The board is upset that Suzuki, Plouffe, Kintzler and Brian $#%^^%#$^#$^ Duensing weren't traded at the deadline. It also seems like the Twins are going to be able to get exactly what they want for Santana and Dozier. I can almost guarantee that the only suitable trade package for one of them (if not both of them) won't include a MLB ready starter. This team needs to take talent first and worry about positions second.