Article: Sizing Up The 2017-18 Offseason

[prouster]

On his chat today, Dave Cameron said that he thinks a Betances trade is the single most likely transaction of the offseason. The walks have been a big issue lately, but he could be a nice buy low candidate.

[Nick Nelson]

 

On his chat today, Dave Cameron said that he thinks a Betances trade is the single most likely transaction of the offseason. The walks have been a big issue lately, but he could be a nice buy low candidate.

Interesting. But is it really buy low when he just posted a 2.87 ERA and allowed a .141 average? It'll take a haul to get him.

[prouster]

Interesting. But is it really buy low when he just posted a 2.87 ERA and allowed a .141 average? It'll take a haul to get him.

I think it's possible, if only because his FIP rose pretty significantly, as well as the arbitration debacle last year. The Yankees have more than enough bullpen arms to offer him at a bit of a discount.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I tend to agree here. Let's just make the bold prediction a starter is signed. The bullpen, IMO, really needs that one proven arm for talent, depth, production and leadership. Kintzler and Belisle added a lot to the club despite not being "top shelf" options. I believe some of that was a veteran stability. And I don't think it's "safe" to just look at the talented young BP arms and simply assume we'll be OK. But on the other hand, Pressly, Duffey, Rogers, Hildenberger and Busentiz all offer a starting/building point with Curtiss, Reed, Bard, Jay as some that could be close, along with a return to health, eventually, for Burdi and Chargois sometime in 2018. What about Moya, Enns and maybe Melotakis yet from the port side?I could easily see a second BP arm, but I wouldn't get carried away with years and dollars. There ARE options to build with, turn to, and on the way.

lets not forget Romero, Mejia and Gonsalvez. Odds are much better for those guys to be relievers than starters, lots of upside there.

[Doctor Wu]

On the subject of adding a free agent DH, I'm not that gung-ho on the idea. You can spend a ton of money on some home-run machine like Napoli who ends up barely hitting for a .200 average (and less than a .300 OBP), or you can do as others have suggested, and have a rotating mix of guys like Mauer and Grossman to handle the DH spot. No, they don't hit for power, but they DO get on base a lot. Something to be said for that. And it doesn't cost us a lot, seeing as how they are already under contract. That money would be more wisely spent on either another starter and/or an extra bullpen arm.

[sthpstm]

From the article: "For Falvey and his general manager Thad Levine, the goal is to unseat the current Central champs by following a similar path, but skipping the stagnation."

 

Why is skipping the stagnation the goal? I thought building a winning organization for the long term was Falvey and Levine's goal.

Pushing hard this offseason, spending dollars and prospects to try to close the HUGE gap between the Twins and the Indians seems like folly. Yes, it may get us a few more wins this year and next but it could also diminish what we can do in a couple of years. 

Signing a mid-tier starting and adding a few bullpen pieces - isn't that exactly what TR would do? 

We need a system that wins. Yes, some fans may want the chips pushed in because of 1 winning season, but we are 10-15 wins below where we need to be. Adding a few pitchers will not do this. Having a system that creates this players and supplements them with a few additional players can do this. So if the FO decides to "tread water" for a year or two while building the system, I don't blame them.

As a very few others have noted, my expectation is that they find starters that don't excite but can develop into starters that do excite. This will take some time.

[Mike Sixel]

 

From the article: "For Falvey and his general manager Thad Levine, the goal is to unseat the current Central champs by following a similar path, but skipping the stagnation."

 

Why is skipping the stagnation the goal? I thought building a winning organization for the long term was Falvey and Levine's goal.

Pushing hard this offseason, spending dollars and prospects to try to close the HUGE gap between the Twins and the Indians seems like folly. Yes, it may get us a few more wins this year and next but it could also diminish what we can do in a couple of years. 

Signing a mid-tier starting and adding a few bullpen pieces - isn't that exactly what TR would do? 

We need a system that wins. Yes, some fans may want the chips pushed in because of 1 winning season, but we are 10-15 wins below where we need to be. Adding a few pitchers will not do this. Having a system that creates this players and supplements them with a few additional players can do this. So if the FO decides to "tread water" for a year or two while building the system, I don't blame them.

As a very few others have noted, my expectation is that they find starters that don't excite but can develop into starters that do excite. This will take some time.

 

How does signing a FA pitcher stop them from  building the system? Why are those mutually exclusive acts?

[Nick Nelson]

 

Why is skipping the stagnation the goal? I thought building a winning organization for the long term was Falvey and Levine's goal.

Signing free agents to multi-year contracts, and trading prospects you view as non-essential for long-term upgrades, is very much in line with the objective of building a sustained winner.

 

Treading water and stagnating is a bad idea IMO because during that time you are potentially missing out on excellent, and cheap, years from your blossoming young offensive core. They're here, they're ready. You're also wasting what could be the final years from Mauer, Dozier, Santana. And you're losing out on a significant opportunity with three-fifths of the division basically rebuilding. That won't last forever.

 

The time is now. I do not agree that the strategy should be focused around winning in 2-3 years. 

[howieramone2]

Andy MacPhail aways said develop arms, buy bats. Regardless, I would open up the farm system and make the mega-trade for a youngish 2/3 starting pitcher. I really don't care which prospects they trade, but my preference is not to include Gonsalves or board scapegoat Kohl Stewart. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Technically, yes, it is your money.

If you go to games.

If you buy Twins merchandise.

If you visit their webpage or assist them in fulfilling any other revenue stream.

Your just forking over some of your hard earned cash to the Pohlads and Falvey to put a baseball team on the field.

 

I'm intrigued by what this off season will bring.

Based on early 2017 I expected a fire sale of more than just Kinzler at the deadline. Dozier, Escobar, Castro, Grossman, Molitor, Belisle...had the Twins hit the expectation levels set in March, probably none would be here now.

Again, had results not been as good in 2017, I would have expected trades for young pitching talent. (see Indians rotation) As this year shows (34?), you can't have enough pitchers.

And we still don't have enough, so what do they do?

I would sign a veteran stop gap or two, but trade some young talented position players for more young pitching.

Naw, I buy a shirsey, I get a shirsey, I got what I paid for.

 

I buy a ticket to go to a game, I get entrance to the game, they play the game, I got what I paid for.

 

You can’t buy a ticket and expect a win. That’s not how it works in sports. Movies, sure the antagonist wins. Matt Damon always wins in the movies. Ervin Santana doesn’t always win in real life.

 

Now if you are unsatisfied with the product you can not buy a ticket, but you don’t get to dictate what a good product is. It’s not your money.

 

Even with a publicly funded team, it’s still not your money, and you still don’t have a direct say.

 

It’s the public’s money and the public has governance written by elected or selected representatives that dictates how the money is spent.

 

The USA isn’t a democracy. It’s a republic.

 

The Minnesota Twins are not a democracy, nor are they a public club. They are a privately held company. You have the choice to patronize or not, but you don’t get say in how things happen.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Andy MacPhail aways said develop arms, buy bats. Regardless, I would open up the farm system and make the mega-trade for a youngish 2/3 starting pitcher. I really don't care which prospects they trade, but my preference is not to include Gonsalves or board scapegoat Kohl Stewart. 

I personally doubt Stewart has the value to get a decent 2/3 back. But I'm bit surprised on your take on Gonsalves. I like him, don't get me wrong, but even if he breaks into the rotation in 2018, he's going to have some ups and downs making him at best an average pitcher in 2018-2019. If you can flip that for a guy who has already had the ups and downs and has figured things out, I think you do it. Yeah, you'll have 3 years of control, but that is still a good trade.

 

and that's coming from a guy that really likes Gonsalves.

[jimmer]

The prevailing theory nowadays is develop position players, buy pitching.

Edited October 20, 2017 by jimmer

[Richie the Rally Goat]

The prevailing theory nowadays is develop position players buy pitching.

seems like buy starters, churn and burn relievers

[spinowner]

 

"they'll exercise a $700,000 buyout to decline the $6.5 million team option for Glen Perkins."

 

A nice going away present for Perkins!!! I think I could feed my family on that for awhile!!!

 

Its amazing how the salaries of pro athletes has gotten into the Monopoly money range (see Wiggins, Andrew).  Baseball is the same way.

I'm not disputing that professional athletes make a lot of money. But why do so few people complain about how much money is earned by rock musicians and movie stars? It's really no different. Athletes are entertainers just like musicians and actors are, and they are entitled to whatever someone is willing to pay them.

[gil4]

 

 It's really no different. Athletes are entertainers just like musicians and actors are, and they are entitled to whatever someone is willing to pay them.

There is one big difference - Mick Jagger is still singing Satisfaction, while his baseball-playing fellow entertainers from that era have been forced give it up 30-40 years ago.