I ask this question of Aaron in the latest Gleeman and the Geek podcast, but I'll ask it of our community, too.

 

It seems like there is a lot of optimism that the Twins will have an aggressive offseason in free agency and perhaps sign a top starting pitcher (say Lance Lynn or better) or a closer-caliber arm for the bullpen. Or that payroll will increase significantly. I'm wondering - is there any evidence to support this? For instance, have I missed some quotes from the front office where they hinted this would be the case?

 

If not (and you're one of the optimistic ones), where does this optimism come from?

I can't see any evidence to support that optimism.  We get this kind of optimism from some every year.  We are the Charlie Brown of fans and the combination of the Twins FO and Ownership are Lucy.

Edited November 5, 20179 yr by jimmer

I can definitely see them spending money to fix the bullpen. I don't see them spending a lot on starting pitching. I think they go the trade route there.

is there any evidence to support this?

no. none

 

 

I can definitely see them spending money to fix the bullpen. I don't see them spending a lot on starting pitching. I think they go the trade route there.

Who do you envision them trading to get starting pitching?

Twins have a lot of money coming off the books after 2018.  There are extensions to be discussed, but revenue should be up along with attendance ( this usually tracks about a year behind).   I feel this would be the year because of the number of big market teams wanting to get under the luxary tax before next years massive FA class.  It is time to go big and I am an optimist.

Because they have tons of money to spend if they chose To?

 

That's not new, I admit.

Why does it matter if some choose to be optimistic and some not? So what? That's the way I look at it ... I guess I'd rather be hopeful than grumble about a fait accompli, evidence or not. Anything's possible until it's not, so until it's not, I'd rather have hope in the possible ... despite what the probable might tell me.

 

Why does it matter if some choose to be optimistic and some not? So what? That's the way I look at it ... I guess I'd rather be hopeful than grumble about a fait accompli, evidence or not. Anything's possible until it's not, so until it's not, I'd rather have hope in the possible ... despite what the probable might tell me.

I think he was asking if the Twins have given any indication that they will make a big splash during the offseason. 

 

I don't think anyone was saying one should or shouldn't be optimistic. That's an individual choice.

Edited November 6, 20179 yr by jimmer

All together now: "You've gotta have heart, miles and miles of heart. When the odds are saying you'll never win, that's when the grin should start...yes, you gotta have heart." quoted from the great musical, "Damn Yankees". Pretty ironic, isn't it!

 

I think he was asking if the Twins have given any indication that they will make a big splash during the offseason. 

 

I don't think anyone was saying one should or shouldn't be optimistic. That's an individual choice.

He asked a question, I answered. I don't care if there is 'evidence' or not. I'm choosing to hope good things come. I don't think it's any worse an answer than 'because they never have.'

Prefer to ask the question Why Not?

 

Coming off first playoff game since 2010

Glaring need for top of rotation arms to compete at the playoff level (can't believe the Organization can't see this)

Continually falling short of 50% payroll promise(?) can't continue

Spending dollars doesn't mortgage the organizations future ability to compete by trading away young controllable assets

 

Plus what good Minnesota Fan doesn't have unrealistic expectations before a season starts each year

 

All together now: "You've gotta have heart, miles and miles of heart. When the odds are saying you'll never win, that's when the grin should start...yes, you gotta have heart." quoted from the great musical, "Damn Yankees". Pretty ironic, isn't it!

Or:

 

Woman Reporter: (Running to catch up with McGinty heading to the locker room for halftime) Coach, what will Washington need to get back into this game?
Jimmy McGinty: (pause) You've got to have heart.
Woman Reporter: Can you elaborate?
Jimmy McGinty: (striking his chest with his roll of papers) Miles and miles of heart.
 

 

He asked a question, I answered. I don't care if there is 'evidence' or not. I'm choosing to hope good things come. I don't think it's any worse an answer than 'because they never have.'

I think we all hope they make a big splash.

My optimism doesn't come from any FO quotes I've seen. I'm optimistic the purse strings will be loosened because it's what I'd be doing as a GM, after a year of "let's find out what we've got" following a 59-win season, one that went better than many people forecast as likely.

I am optimistic the team will compete again in 2018, less optimistic they will sign a significant pitcher (or trade for one with a significant contract).

Edited November 6, 20179 yr by Hosken Bombo Disco

-They can sign a pretty significant starter and reliever without even increasing the payroll that much.

-The Twins have signed fa starters for over $125mil in the last 5ish years, it's not like they are completely opposed to spending.

-When the team was expected to compete, such as 10 and 11, the payroll refected that.

-It makes great sense in payroll, competitive expectations, money coming off the books in upcoming seasons, clear roster need, and competitive cycle considerations - basically the current core is relatively cheap the next 4 years.

 

While there haven't been any quotes about spending specifically, the front office hasn't said anything about anything heading into this offseason, and I wouldn't believe anything they said anyways.

Twins spent over 125M over a 5 year span and that was for how many pitchers and how much longer are the contracts?  What was the average salary per year and the biggest contract?

Edited November 6, 20179 yr by jimmer

Twins spent over 125M over a 5 year span and that was for how many pitchers?

Basically 2 and a mid sized deal.

 

Basically 2 and a mid sized deal.

Two-Three?  That doesn't sound right.

Two-Three? That doesn't sound right.

Nolasco 4/49, Santana 4/55, Hughes 3/18 (plus an uncounted but substantial extension), a couple spare millions for the Correas, Pelfreys, etc of the world.

 

They won't hesitate on Lynn or Cobb just because of money.

 

Nolasco 4/49, Santana 4/55, Hughes 3/18 (plus an uncounted but substantial extension), a couple spare millions for the Correas, Pelfreys, etc of the world.

They won't hesitate on Lynn or Cobb just because of money.

So for the main three you mentioned, 11 years of FA pitching for 122M.  11M a year average for our substantial FA signings, but then some bargain basement ones as well (which count towards conversations about FA signings done to help our rotation, I believe).

 

In any event is 11M a year going to get QUALITY pitching in today's game when 1 WAR is worth about 8M? Quality pitchers cost way more.

 

But, hey, I hope so, but neither Lynn or Cobb are impressive and not sure either are worth a 4/48 contract.

 

 

Edited November 6, 20179 yr by jimmer

So for the main three you mentioned, 11 years of FA pitching for 122M. 11M a year average for our substantial FA signings, but then some bargain basement ones as well (which count towards conversations about FA signings done to help our rotation, I believe).

 

In any event is 11M a year going to get quality pitching in today's game when 1 WAR is worth about 8M? I hope so, but neither Lynn or Cobb are impressive.

Lynn and Cobb are probably the 3rd and 4th best free agent starting pitcher options this offseason (not counting a possible Otani posting). This is what's out there.

 

And going by memory, the amount the Twins spent in that period is definitely higher than 13 other teams and probably higher than 18 teams. I might dig more tomorrow.

I am optimistic that the Twins will go after pitching via trades and not free agency.  Other than Morrow, I do not see anyone in free agency who will provide enough bang for their buck, and I'd rather do not see them half-rear ending this again with mediocre second tier pitchers.

 

As far as where this optimism comes from, Pohlad said so pretty much.

 

Lynn and Cobb are probably the 3rd and 4th best free agent starting pitcher options this offseason (not counting a possible Otani posting). This is what's out there.

And going by memory, the amount the Twins spent in that period is definitely higher than 13 other teams and probably higher than 18 teams. I might dig more tomorrow.

Perhaps it was, but how good were the pitching staffs of those teams who spent less?  Did they spend it earlier than that time frame?  Were they actually able to develop quality pitching and/or trade for young quality pitching instead of having to spend to put a competitive pitching staff together?

 

We've needed pitching for a long time.  We've had the worst pitching in baseball this decade.  We haven't done a good job developing it or trading for it, so being average in spending doesn't seem to be okay.

Edited November 6, 20179 yr by jimmer

As far as where this optimism comes from, Pohlad said so pretty much.

I couldn't help noting this off-topic nugget:

 

“I don’t think Derek would take credit for all those trades in Cleveland himself,” Pohlad said.

Jim Pohlad speaking, or Captain Obvious?

 

 

 

So for the main three you mentioned, 11 years of FA pitching for 122M.  11M a year average for our substantial FA signings, but then some bargain basement ones as well (which count towards conversations about FA signings done to help our rotation, I believe).

 

In any event is 11M a year going to get QUALITY pitching in today's game when 1 WAR is worth about 8M? Quality pitchers cost way more.

 

But, hey, I hope so, but neither Lynn or Cobb are impressive and not sure either are worth a 4/48 contract.

They are worth whatever someone will pay them. A lot of teams need help and the free agent list is thin so players will likely get paid well this winter.

Will they spend big? I really don't think it's in Jim Pohlads dna. Maybe a few smaller signings but nothing big, imo.

Martinez is the only one I'd spend big on.

 

Nolasco 4/49, Santana 4/55, Hughes 3/18 (plus an uncounted but substantial extension), a couple spare millions for the Correas, Pelfreys, etc of the world.

They won't hesitate on Lynn or Cobb just because of money.

 

Cobb:  6.7% SwStr%, 17.3 K%, 11.3 K-BB%

Lynn: 9.0 SwStr%, 19.7 K%, 9.7 K-BB% (in the NL so several of those against Ps)

 

That's why they should hesitate.

For comparison's purpose:

 

Mejia: 10.5 SwStr%, 19.2 K%, 9.3 K-BB%, and has not yet reached his prime.

 

 

Jim Pohlad speaking, or Captain Obvious?

 

Frankly, I don't see much difference there

 

 

Cobb:  6.7% SwStr%, 17.3 K%, 11.3 K-BB%

Lynn: 9.0 SwStr%, 19.7 K%, 9.7 K-BB% (in the NL so several of those against Ps)

 

That's why they should hesitate.

For comparison's purpose:

 

Mejia: 10.5 SwStr%, 19.2 K%, 9.3 K-BB%, and has not yet reached his prime.

Berrios, Santana, Mejia, Gonzalez and May if he's ready.  Let's rock and roll!

 

18 of Lynn's Ks were against pitchers, BTW.

Edited November 6, 20179 yr by jimmer