Article: Surprises Mark Twins Opening Day Roster

[gunnarthor]

 

What exactly has Paul Molitor accomplished as a manager that should give him any say whatsoever as to who should head north?

He has been no different than Ron Gardenhire. And by the looks of it our new FO looks a lot like Terry Ryan.

Gardy was a hell of a lot better manager than Molly.  And Molly is a close friend to the owner, so that's the reason he's still around.

 

As for this FO seeming a lot like the old FO, well, two things: 1) It's still very early and 2) There really might not be a huge difference between "old school" and new school and $$$$ might still be very important to creating a baseball team.

[alarp33]

 

I mentioned this in a thread yesterday and firmly believe this...

We wouldn't be talking about D Santana making the 25 man roster if Adrianza didn't get hurt. I think this glitch will be fixed as soon as he's off the DL.
 

 

I really really want to believe you.  I'm not sure that I do though

[Pardon My Dinger]

On the radio just now, Falvey completely deflected the Park question. He chose to emphasize their desire to carry 13 pitchers. 

 

This guy...I don't know about this guy.

[DaveW]

I mentioned this in a thread yesterday and firmly believe this...

 

We wouldn't be talking about D Santana making the 25 man roster if Adrianza didn't get hurt. I think this glitch will be fixed as soon as he's off the DL.

 

The Gimenez move is baffling. Not sure why they don't trust JRM in a backup role.

 

Carrying 13 pitchers IMO is because there is minimal trust that Santiago, Hughes, or Mejia can make it 5 innings in a regular season start.

If you can't trust 60% of your rotation to give you 5 innings, there are much bigger issues to be solved.

 

Too bad we shipped off a guy like Meyer for no reason, he would actually be a guy I would like to see compete for the 5th spot this year.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I suspect Duffey piggybacks on Hughes

So that means "mop-up duty" right?

 

I'd add Santiago to Duffey's potential piggypack list in the early going.  Hopefully he doesn't injure his back in the process!

[ToddlerHarmon]

I would like to say I called it http://twinsdaily.com/topic/24839-article-additions-by-subtractions/?view=findpost&p=580719 but I was chicken.

 

 

Seriously they clearly refused to base any decisions on Spring Training. I guess we find out in June what the plan is. Sigh.

[DaveW]

On the radio just now, Falvey completely deflected the Park question. He chose to emphasize their desire to carry 13 pitchers.

 

This guy...I don't know about this guy.

Yes, perhaps going cheap and hiring the more inexperienced candidate to run the FO wasn't such a genius move to begin with.

[drjim]

 

If you can't trust 60% of your rotation to give you 5 innings, there are much bigger issues to be solved.

Too bad we shipped off a guy like Meyer for no reason, he would actually be a guy I would like to see compete for the 5th spot this year.

 

I would agree they have much bigger issues to solve. I'm sure they agree.

 

And Meyer has been brutal right? What would he solve?

Edited March 30, 2017 by drjim

[Coyner]

On the one hand, I like these moves because it's becoming clear that the new analytics boys are in charge and want to place a higher priority on the club's horrendous pitching.  This smacks of long-term rather than short-term solutions.  By that I mean, they don't much care that Park looked good this spring.  I doubt seriously if they ever really had him in their plans.  Winning now seems less important than gradually stabilizing a shaky rotation.

 

That being said, the club needs to be more cognizant of an ever-increasing apathy from fans already turned off by six years of bad baseball.  They don't want to see more of Joe Mauer.  They've seen the bargain basement, quick fix acquisitions of guys like Grossman.  The Twins' season ticket sales are in serious decline, yet they did little to nothing in the off-season to sell hope.  Jason Castro?  Hits .210 but is the league's best framer?  Send Park down again despite being the only real feel-good story coming out of camp?  Preaching patience to an already disenchanted and disinterested fan base is risky business.

[gunnarthor]

Well, as inexperienced as Falvey is, Lavine was a legitimately good hire for GM.  Give him time.  He can eventually construct a pretty good roster.

[Dantes929]

I just don't want to be out of the race after 9 games like last year.  

Interesting that so much analytics goes into this game in terms of the different stats  and metrics such that on most sites there is at least one additional tab and sometimes more for advanced metrics.    So much made of left/right pitching match ups and just recently there was a post with a lot of input about the preferred batting order.    There are a ton of posts about who should be in the pitching rotation but in this day of trying to get statistical edges there is very little consideration of the order of the rotation.    We have now had 6 years of being at a disadvantage at every spot in the rotation using traditional orders to start the season.   I know the variety of reasons that within a couple weeks team's rotations won't match up but wouldn't it make sense to start the season differently?   Rather than have a disadvantage in every spot in the rotation wouldn't it make sense to arrange it so there are a few spots where we have the advantage?     Wouldn't it make more sense for Hughes or Mejia facing Verlander the 2nd time through the rotation and have Santana facing a Pelfrey type pitcher?    Not that Hughes or Mejia facing Verlander is a gimme but the odds say Verlander is going to win regardless.  Wouldn't it make more sense to flip our rotation around?    Seems like it might be an advantage of a couple wins throughout the season.   A couple wins isn't a huge difference but we sure talk a lot more about stuff that maybe has less impact.  

[Blake]

 

Forgive me, but this is...questionable at best.

 

You don't get to claim "value" for having a guy around who's only there because of the short bench, when it was your decision to have a short bench in the first place.

 

Put players on the team who help you win games, not ones who are so bad they're one reason you're losing games, but who are bad in a whole bunch of different spots instead of bad in just one.

 

I very much want to give the new front office the benefit of every doubt, and realize they can't fix every problem over one off season, but man...I'm not impressed so far.  At all.  

Yeah, it looks more like a lot of the same. I don't expect miracles but I do expect something different.

[USAFChief]

 

It's opening day. It'll change fast.  

I keep reading this.  In addition to questioning what that opinion is based on...I ask what about that opinion makes the opening day roster ok?  

 

Why is "it'll change fast" somehow an excuse for the roster?  If that's true, why wouldn't you start the season with the changes already made?  Except for DL'd players, what's the advantage of starting the season with a less than optimal roster?

[DaveW]

I would agree they have much bigger issues to solve. I'm sure they agree.

 

And Meyer has been brutal right? What would he solve?

Meyer would have been another option, and is a guy who can miss bats. He isn't a sure thing by a long shot, but my point was that on a team with zero SP depth, it was really really dumb to trade him away.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And Meyer has been brutal right? What would he solve?

I don't think Meyer would solve anything, but he would have been an interesting option to keep around through his last option year.  He showed some progress at the end of 2016 with the Angels. I'd probably rather have him than Santiago right now (even if Meyer was optioned to AAA, it would open up a rotation spot for Duffey).

[drjim]

 

I keep reading this.  In addition to questioning what that opinion is based on...I ask what about that opinion makes the opening day roster ok?  

 

Why is "it'll change fast" somehow an excuse for the roster?  If that's true, why wouldn't you start the season with the changes already made?  Except for DL'd players, what's the advantage of starting the season with a less than optimal roster?

 

Protect starting pitchers that are question marks right now.

 

I think when Santiago stretches out and they see what they have with Hughes/Mejia/Berrios/Duffey/Haley/others they can adjust the pitching staff and hopefully go down with 12.

[gunnarthor]

 

I keep reading this.  In addition to questioning what that opinion is based on...I ask what about that opinion makes the opening day roster ok?  

 

Why is "it'll change fast" somehow an excuse for the roster?  If that's true, why wouldn't you start the season with the changes already made?  Except for DL'd players, what's the advantage of starting the season with a less than optimal roster?

It's pretty clear they are trying to keep some players and they have a 25 man and 40 man roster crunch.  Yes, we could just cut guys but that also kills our depth.  We need Hector Santiago, for example, because pitchers (May) get hurt.  (See what I did there?)  Park isn't a sure thing but putting him back on the 40 man roster means cutting someone and giving him a spot that we aren't sure he can hold down.  And it blocks Vargas if Vargas is the hot player in AAA instead.  

[Mike Sixel]

Let's recall, just 20 or 30 days ago, they DFA'd Park. In some ways, not letting ST change their mind is good...

 

As for not getting younger, Berrios and Chargois and Murphy are off the roster, two of whom were replaced by older players that won't be here in 2 years, maybe 1, maybe only a few months.

 

Here is who they added:
Castro, Gimenez, Belisle, Breslow, Haley, Mejia.

 

I don't think Gimenez, Belisle, and Breslow will be on the next good team this team fields. They aren't exactly young. Castro might be, but he's not spring chicken (to be clear, I like the signing, but he will be a backup in 2 years probably).

 

Haley is the annual rule V pick that can't be cut no matter how bad he is, even if there are guys in the minors about as good. We can hope that this time it turns out.

 

Mejia is the one young guy they really added, but his upside is number 4 starter, more likely he is a nice innings eater and a 4/5. 

 

So, where is the upside? Where are the risks? Where did they get younger? 

 

The fact that they are young has nothing to do with this FO, they inherited a young team. Where did this FO take a risk on a young player with upside?

[alarp33]

 

Protect starting pitchers that are question marks right now.

 

I think when Santiago stretches out and they see what they have with Hughes/Mejia/Berrios/Duffey/Haley/others they can adjust the pitching staff and hopefully go down with 12.

 

Good thing the games in April don't count as much as the games in May-September

Edited March 30, 2017 by alarp33

[drjim]

 

I keep reading this.  In addition to questioning what that opinion is based on...I ask what about that opinion makes the opening day roster ok?  

 

Why is "it'll change fast" somehow an excuse for the roster?  If that's true, why wouldn't you start the season with the changes already made?  Except for DL'd players, what's the advantage of starting the season with a less than optimal roster?

 

And I'm not really making an excuse for the roster. It's really disappointing.

[DaveW]

I don't think Meyer would solve anything, but he would have been an interesting option to keep around through his last option year. He showed some progress at the end of 2016 with the Angels. I'd probably rather have him than Santiago right now (even if Meyer was optioned to AAA, it would open up a rotation spot for Duffey).

Bingo

 

And for all the gushing about tonkin missing bats last year (with a poor ERA and everything else to boot) it seems odd that we wouldn't think the same thing about Meyer, a guy who has 9k/9in+ so far in his (limited) major league career but who can actually START as well.

 

Even if meyer never makes it as a starter he would have been nice depth for this Twins team that (wait for it.....) has zero RP depth.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's pretty clear they are trying to keep some players and they have a 25 man and 40 man roster crunch.

I don't know if a 103 loss team, with so few changes/additions, can truly have a roster crunch.

[DaveW]

Gimenez over JRM, to me it makes zero sense. Can anyone defend this with a straight face?

[Vanimal46]

I really really want to believe you. I'm not sure that I do though

Unfortunately we won't know who they would choose if Adrianza didn't get hurt.

 

You know my thoughts on D Santana.... All things being equal and Adrianza was healthy, if they still chose Santana I would be angry.

[DaveW]

Unfortunately we won't know who they would choose if Adrianza didn't get hurt.

 

You know my thoughts on D Santana.... All things being equal and Adrianza was healthy, if they still chose Santana I would be angry.

If Asrianza was healthy, I imagine they would have just brought 12 pitchers north.

 

The Twins are obsessed with Santana and his versatility. They view him as their nick punto version 2.0

 

Problem is Santana makes Punto look like A-Rod

[Willihammer]

Well, as inexperienced as Falvey is, Lavine was a legitimately good hire for GM.  Give him time.  He can eventually construct a pretty good roster.

Is it possible that finalizing the roster was more Lavine's call than Falvey's? I've never been clear on the division of GM and PBO duties. Edited March 30, 2017 by Willihammer

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Let's recall, just 20 or 30 days ago, they DFA'd Park. In some ways, not letting ST change their mind is good...

Actually it was almost 2 months ago, but I agree with the general point.

 

Although, given his lack of service time, I think the Twins will be able to outright Park off the 40-man roster anytime they want until he starts performing well.  I don't know if his spring training was enough to change that?  Or should we even be worried about losing him on waivers if he still doesn't hit in MLB?  Park will be able to opt for free agency next time we try to outright him, but he would have to forfeit his salary to do so (the same decision that Tommy Milone faced in May 2016).

 

So if the opportunity is there (and it certainly seems to be, we need a RHB 1B and taking some DH at-bats away from a possibly hobbled Grossman shouldn't be that big of a deal), and we've got 25-man and 40-man roster guys we can cut (and it certainly seems like we do), perhaps we should have added Park back.

Edited March 30, 2017 by spycake

[TheLeviathan]

If a better roster will be available on April 15th....why the hell are we waiting two weeks exactly?

 

I keep getting stuck on that argument.  That makes zero sense to me.

 

August 15th...ok, I get that.  April?  WTF?

[Vanimal46]

Is it possible that finalizing the roster was more Lavine's call than Falvey's? I've never been clear on the division of GM and PBO duties.

Good point. My perspective was that Levine is focused on the present short term. Falvey is focused on the big picture long term outlook. Could be wrong.

[Mike Sixel]

 

If a better roster will be available on April 15th....why the hell are we waiting two weeks exactly?

 

I keep getting stuck on that argument.  That makes zero sense to me.

 

August 15th...ok, I get that.  April?  WTF?

 

And do you really want them making cuts/changes after 2 weeks of data? If so, why not just start with those guys?