Will the Twins ever sign a top free agent or are we all just wasting our time?

[Platoon]

If the arguement is that a 6 year deal for a Darvish aged player is way too long then there are likely 3 options. Don't sign him, sign him, sign him with an opt out. If you go the sign him route, why not the option. It's a given he isn't going to be worth the money at the end of the deal, so if he walks after 2 or 3 you have gotten the best years of the deal and can move on with the remainder of the cash. If he doesn't leave it's the same as not having an opt out, and you likely got him for less with the opt out in the first place. Is this a player favorable arrangement? Probably. But it doesn't have to be zero sum, as the team gets something in return. Of course you can stand on principle, Phil Hughes will appreciate the opportunity.

[Riverbrian]

 

Yeah, it's mostly moot in regards to Darvish. If they had offered 5/135 and refused to even consider the opt out in negotiation, that would have been a problem.

So I guess as worried as I might be about Levine's comments regarding opt outs in general, in practical terms it's never going to come up for the Twins because they are too risk averse to even get into a situation where an opt out clause matters. Not sure whether to be comforted or troubled by that realization, though....

 

I'm troubled

[Platoon]

Personally... I don't care if there is an opt-out that is advantageous to the player only. I don't care if he wants a lifetime supply of red vines. If you don't want to include the Red Vines because it isn't in your best interest... if another team is willing... you lost.

 

If you want to make a hard valuation and base it on historical declines and then stick to it to minimize your risk... you might think you are being mathematically responsible but if another team isn't mathematically responsible... you lost. If every other team is doing the same thing... you'll only get the guy who likes Mary Tyler Moore reruns.

 

It really is simple as... if you want the player... you pay the price it takes to get him. Free agency at the top end can't be executed with a hard and fast formula.

 

Free Agents have been held in chains to their club and now they are free. The CBA has allowed major league clubs to control players through their prime years and now teams want to lower the free agent price because they are no longer in their prime years based on hard metrics.

 

Front Offices need to realize that the current CBA is in their advantage. If they want to minimize risk of those decline phase years instead of baking the risk in like they should to acquire the player you want. The players are going to fight back and the next CBA will be a battle over the those prime years. The players are going to want them back because what they did have has been minimized. Just

 

If the players get those prime years back and become free to negotiate for the highest bidder at a younger age... Good Luck to Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee when that happens.

 

Front Offices need to give a little here or gear up for a much bigger fight later that is sure to come.

 

Some may think it's interesting that Tony Clark and the MLB offices are having a press release war. I consider it a portent of things to come.

 

Pretty much all of the above. Sticking strictly to the Twins. If the Pohlads business model does not allow for the flexibility to dive head first into a Darvish type situation during a window of opportunity, then while they will remain profitable year in and year out. (they likely would anyway), they will remain simply a MLB team in a league. With fans who love baseball following them, but never seeing the buzz of a competitor. And that is their option. But there is an alternate fact. And that is that they are a franchise in a business where they have to bid for talent. It doesn't really make any difference if the bids make their CPA happy, it's what it is, IF you want to compete within this franchise, or simply want to hang up the shingle and go to the owners meetings. And due to the structure of the franchise, you really cannot compete simply bye draft and develop, or FA, or the trade route, it takes all three. And since the Twins seem reticent to go the FA or trade route with any vigor, it's unlikely anything will change. Even after 26 pages. And 26 pages will be a pittance if the next contract does not level the playing field, so to speak, for all the teams. While I think that JP was extremely short sighted not to take a legitimate run at Darvish, I am not fool enough to insinuate that he can play day to day with the big boys. This was a situational opportunity, missed.

[Tomj14]

 

They also don't know exactly what other teams are offering, that would be collusion. So, if upon entering FA, it was suggested here that the Twins would offer him $100 million, what would your honest expectation of that offer being accept have been?

Below Zero!

[Tomj14]

 

 IF you want to compete within this franchise, or simply want to hang up the shingle and go to the owners meetings. And due to the structure of the franchise, you really cannot compete simply bye draft and develop, or FA, or the trade route,

I would add when have they attempted the trade route with any real zealous?

[USAFChief]

You know the

, right? On a giveaway show like Let's Make A Deal, there's 3 doors, behind which are two worthless goats and one Fabulous Prize - the contestant picks one at random, Monty (WHO KNOWS WHAT IS BEHIND WHICH DOOR) reveals one of the other doors has a goat, and then asks if the contestant wants to switch his choice to the other un-opened door. Should the contestant accept the swap? Does it matter? The answer is YES, which goes against many people's intuition. His chance of winning the prize goes up from 33% to 50%. A learning experience.

 

But, that's part of the showmanship. Monty knows that he's giving away more money by allowing the contestant to make that change. Absent showmanship, Monty is a fool to allow this swap.

 

It's a lesson in the economic value of revealed information. If Monty was in the dark about which door to open, then sometimes he'd accidentally reveal the Fabulous Prize. No, he always reveals one of the goats, because he's implicitly imparting new information to the contestant.

 

Different scenario with an opt-out clause, but same logic. Offering a second-guess after new information (say, 2 more years of performance data) is revealed, is costly to the person offering it.

 

I'm not saying it's wrong to offer an opt-out. But recognize that the cost is hidden: the contract value is static but you've removed some of the upside. The upside being that, after a good Year 1 and 2, the pitcher might defy the odds and lead his team to the World Series in Year 3, Year 4, or even 5 and 6. But you're still on the hook for all the risk of the bad things in Year 1 and 2 that perpetuate through the 6-year contract period.

You’ve also removed some of the downside. What was the big sticking point for the Twins re Darvish? Year six. Why? Because everyone acknowledges as a player ages there is a probability of reduced performance.

 

And the player continues to age even if they did well during years 1 and 2 of the six year deal.

 

So an opt out doesn’t change the odds of picking the fabulous prize for years 1 and 2, but it does reduce the odds you’ll be stuck with the goat for years 3-6.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

So an opt out doesn’t change the odds of picking the fabulous prize for years 1 and 2, but it does reduce the odds you’ll be stuck with the goat for years 3-6.

And not the good kind of "GOAT" either!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9za8VW7xBI8

[Platoon]

I would add when have they attempted the trade route with any real zealous?

I should have been clearer. While its one of the three options they haven't. Their only semi agressive approach has been draft and develop, and that has been mitigated by the fact (appearance) of avoiding high bonus draftees.

[amjgt]

 

In sports where the money is all guaranteed, the total value is typically the number that matters.
$26 million is a pretty big gulf, and that's before you factor in the value of an opt out, which makes it more like $40 million.

They also don't know exactly what other teams are offering, that would be collusion. So, if upon entering FA, it was suggested here that the Twins would offer him $100 million, what would your honest expectation of that offer being accept have been?

 

Low. But... 

a) 6/126 might have also been laughed at as incredibly low

b.) it was likely the 2nd highest offer

[Tomj14]

Honest question is there no negotiation in these contracts?

I mean if the Twins offered 5/100 can't the agent come back and say you are about a 1 year short and 26 million and my client is also looking for an opt out after year two?

The twins say "interesting" let us go run some numbers and get back to you.

Then they could have come back with something like 5/115 and the opt out or yea we don't want him that bad.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Honest question is there no negotiation in these contracts?

I mean if the Twins offered 5/100 can't the agent come back and say you are about a 1 year short and 26 million and my client is also looking for an opt out after year two?

The twins say "interesting" let us go run some numbers and get back to you.

Then they could have come back with something like 5/115 and the opt out or yea we don't want him that bad.

 

Sure, but as an agent and a player, if a team comes in that low you have to negotiate them a long way up.  And really, why would you?  Either they need to come up close enough to make the conversation interesting, or you need not care.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Honest question is there no negotiation in these contracts?

I mean if the Twins offered 5/100 can't the agent come back and say you are about a 1 year short and 26 million and my client is also looking for an opt out after year two?

The twins say "interesting" let us go run some numbers and get back to you.

Then they could have come back with something like 5/115 and the opt out or yea we don't want him that bad.

The negotiation likely takes place before the offer (which was a long time this offseason!). It was no secret that Darvish still wanted the 6th year. If no bid came up with that, he could engage in further negotiation, but once the Cubs submitted a formal offer with that, there's really no need to follow up on the Twins offer. (And it's quite possible the Cubs and Darvish negotiated further after the offer to reach the final deal -- maybe the opt-out, no-trade, or incentives?)

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

You know the Monty Hall Problem, right? On a giveaway show like Let's Make A Deal, there's 3 doors, behind which are two worthless goats and one Fabulous Prize - the contestant picks one at random, Monty (WHO KNOWS WHAT IS BEHIND WHICH DOOR) reveals one of the other doors has a goat, and then asks if the contestant wants to switch his choice to the other un-opened door. Should the contestant accept the swap? Does it matter? The answer is YES, which goes against many people's intuition. His chance of winning the prize goes up from 33% to 50%. A learning experience.

 

But, that's part of the showmanship. Monty knows that he's giving away more money by allowing the contestant to make that change. Absent showmanship, Monty is a fool to allow this swap.

 

It's a lesson in the economic value of revealed information. If Monty was in the dark about which door to open, then sometimes he'd accidentally reveal the Fabulous Prize. No, he always reveals one of the goats, because he's implicitly imparting new information to the contestant.

 

Different scenario with an opt-out clause, but same logic. Offering a second-guess after new information (say, 2 more years of performance data) is revealed, is costly to the person offering it.

 

I'm not saying it's wrong to offer an opt-out. But recognize that the cost is hidden: the contract value is static but you've removed some of the upside. The upside being that, after a good Year 1 and 2, the pitcher might defy the odds and lead his team to the World Series in Year 3, Year 4, or even 5 and 6. But you're still on the hook for all the risk of the bad things in Year 1 and 2 that perpetuate through the 6-year contract period.

 

I don't get this anology. The odds of getting the prize went to 50% the moment one of the losing doors was revealed. Allowing the player to pick again doesn't increase the players odds of getting it. Those odds are now at 50% whether the player picks a new or does not.

 

I agree that it's costly to the person offering it, but it also reduces said person's risk as well. In that scenario, Darvish out performed the first two years (yay) and then got a new deal allowing someone to take on the risk of the remaining 3 years... The risk gets higher each and every year, which means that he's doing the risk averse FO a favor.

[Jnball43]

Hey, long time lurker, first time poster, but I've always been fascinated by The Monty Hall problem so I have to correct a little misinformation. In fact, by changing your answer your odds actually climb to 66.67%. I'll try to explain as best I can, otherwise,I believe there is an entire Wikipedia article on it. The most important thing is to look at the entirety of the problem. When you are first offered a choice of 3 doors, behind one of which is a car, you have a 33.3% chance of guessing right. For argument sake, let's say you choose door #1. The game show host, who knows where the car is(a key assumption, as the probabilities change if he doesn't know), opens a door without the car. This is actually a lot of new info. Now, if the car was behind door #1, the host can open either door 2 or 3. However, if the car is behind door 2, he can only open door 3, and vice versa if it's behind door 3. The host now offers you the chance to switch doors. If you stay with door #1, the only way you get the car is if your original choice out of 3 was right (still 33.3%). However, if you change it, the only way you don't get the car is if your original guess was right (if the car is behind door 2, the host opens door 3 and you switch to door 2, if the car is behind door 3, the host opens door 2 and you change to door 3, either way you get the car). So by switching you are effectively being given the option to choose 2 out of 3 doors, thus increasing your odds to 66.67%.

 

In relation to the given topic though, the most important thing is to show how valuable additional information can be.

[ashbury]

Hey, long time lurker, first time poster, but I've always been fascinated by The Monty Hall problem so I have to correct a little misinformation. In fact, by changing your answer your odds actually climb to 66.67%.

D'Oh! I do believe you are correct. Can't fathom I wrote that down wrong. Compounding the error, I inadvertently provided an incorrect link to the Wikipedia page, which should have been https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

 

Chalk it up to a bad day. Glad I could tease you out of hiding, though. Welcome, and please do post again!

[ewen21]

Monty Hall.  Very compelling stuff guys

[ewen21]

 

The more that comes out, the more absurd it is that the Twins tried to be cute and just low ball the hell out of Darvish.

 

Will you come forward and say....

"Geez.  Maybe I was wrong about Darvish"

If he ends up injured or having a subpar 2018 season?

 

They are paying him for the first two or three seasons by your rationale.  If he craps the bed early then will you admit you made too big a deal about this?  NOt saying I need you to do that, but you certainly are making a big deal about a player that never EVER is going to play for this team.

 

 

[by jiminy]

 

 

Sure, I'm disappointed that the Twins couldn't get Darvish in on a deal around $21M per year. That's cheaper than I thought. But you know what? They took a swing and they missed.

 

They didn't swing and miss. They stuck out their bat to bunt, then pulled it back.

 

Darvish actually signed for a little less than what everyone expected. They offered significantly less. That's not a swing.

 

You can either try to sign a free agent, or offer a reasonable contract, but you can't do both. The way free agency works is the "winning" offer is one that EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE EXCEPT ONE thinks is too high. You have to, by definition, overpay. Every free agent signing was voted an overpay, 31-1. 

 

So why does anyone ever sign free agents? Because they want to win.

 

And they're willing to overpay a key player who will put them over the top.

 

The Twins weren't willing to do that.  You can have reasonable opinions either way about that. But you can't honestly say they "tried" to sign him.  The only way to sign a free agent is to offer more money than any other team.  Trying to sign him would mean, offering more than the Cubs offered.  But any GM who says he'll make a reasonable offer but won't overspend has no intention of winning a bidding war.  Trying means you are willing to pay more money than the Cubs. That's the definition of free agency. 

 

Realistically, this was probably their last chance at signing a top free agent. This year, guaranteeing the full $150 million  probably would have done it.  Next year, forget it.  It was a fluke that the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox all sat on the sidelines this year to get under the luxury tax. They will be back next year with a vengeance. So will the Mets, someday, and the Angels, the Cardinals -- all of the 22 teams that are willing to spend more than the Twins.

 

If they went through all those years of 90 loss teams, all those years of not spending their full budget because they were not good enough to invest in, all those years of waiting for the young stars to mature, all those years of waiting for a new stadium to supply enough revenue to compete, and it finally, finally, finally all falls into place, and they are one star pitcher away from having a realistic chance, and they still won't do it, why would they ever do it? 

 

Their plan is to build around young players, invest in some 2nd and 3rd tier free agents like Fernando Rodney, buy some lottery tickets on long shots like Pineda, and hope to get lucky, like they did 28 years ago with Jack Morris. Good luck with that.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

If they went through all those years of 90 loss teams, all those years of not spending their full budget because they were not good enough to invest in, all those years of waiting for the young stars to mature, all those years of waiting for a new stadium to supply enough revenue to compete, and it finally, finally, finally all falls into place, and they are one star pitcher away from having a realistic chance, and they still won't do it, why would they ever do it? 

 

Their plan is to build around young players, invest in some 2nd and 3rd tier free agents like Fernando Rodney, buy some lottery tickets on long shots like Pineda, and hope to get lucky, like they did 28 years ago with Jack Morris. Good luck with that.

The cheap payrolls of the last several seasons are going to look bloated after Mauer plays out his contract.   

 

This second point I also agree with. At this point my guess is that by hiring a new pitching coach and guys like Josh Kalk in the front office, that Falvey and Levine believe they will be able to marry analytics with intelligent, young starting pitchers to get good results. Over a six month season this is very likely to fail, but all we can do is hope it works. 

[USAFChief]

Will you come forward and say....

"Geez.  Maybe I was wrong about Darvish"

If he ends up injured or having a subpar 2018 season?

 

They are paying him for the first two or three seasons by your rationale.  If he craps the bed early then will you admit you made too big a deal about this?  NOt saying I need you to do that, but you certainly are making a big deal about a player that never EVER is going to play for this team.

Is it your contention that Falvine know he’s injured?

 

Because otherwise, there would be no reason to admit being wrong about Darvish if he gets injured in 2018.

 

Is it your contention Falvine know he’s going to be healthy but have a subpar 2018? If so, why would they offer him over $100m?

[ewen21]

 

Is it your contention that Falvine know he’s injured?

Because otherwise, there would be no reason to admit being wrong about Darvish if he gets injured in 2018.

Is it your contention Falvine know he’s going to be healthy but have a subpar 2018? If so, why would they offer him over $100m?

How do you glean that from what I said?  That is a heck of leap to take if that is what you read in my words.

 

I said IF he gets injured.  Simply put, it is within the realm of possibilities and when we are talking about a major FA pitcher signing it is something to think about.  I also read NOTHING into the offer beyond that is all they thought he was worth and I don't think he is even  worth that.  I think I have made that pretty clear throughout the discussion about him.

[USAFChief]

How do you glean that from what I said?  That is a heck of leap to take if that is what you read in my words.

 

I said IF he gets injured.  Simply put, it is within the realm of possibilities and when we are talking about a major FA pitcher signing.  I also read NOTHING into the offer beyond that is all they thought he was worth and I don't think he is worth that.  I think I have made that pretty clear throughout the discussion about him.

You want us to admit we were wrong if Darvish gets hurt in 2018, right?

 

Why would Darvish getting hurt make it wrong to want to sign him?

 

There’s no possible way to know, today, if he will get hurt this year. No more so than any pitcher. So if he does, that will have no bearing on whether or not it was a good idea to sign him.

 

So the answer to your original question is “no.” I don’t expect anyone to “admit”they were wrong, nor should they.

[ewen21]

 

 

You want us to admit we were wrong if Darvish gets hurt in 2018, right?

Why would Darvish getting hurt make it wrong to want to sign him?

There’s no possible way to know, today, if he will get hurt this year. No more so than any pitcher. So if he does, that will have no bearing on whether or not it was a good idea to sign him.

So the answer to your original question is “no.” I don’t expect anyone to “admit”they were wrong, nor should they.

 

My words:

NOt saying I need you to do that

 

​​Was only asking if the topic of Darvish comes up (and I am as of now done talking about him) would DaveW say that. Not you, not anyone else.

 

You have your take and I have mine.  I don't agree with much of your thoughts on this issue, but so what?  I am not looking for a debate with you so please.....let me take the high road here

[ewen21]

 

So the answer to your original question is “no.” I don’t expect anyone to “admit”they were wrong, nor should they.

 

Oh and I will gladly admit I was wrong if Darvish has two very strong seasons off the bat.  Not a terribly big deal.

[DaveW]

 

Will you come forward and say....

"Geez.  Maybe I was wrong about Darvish"

If he ends up injured or having a subpar 2018 season?

 

They are paying him for the first two or three seasons by your rationale.  If he craps the bed early then will you admit you made too big a deal about this?  NOt saying I need you to do that, but you certainly are making a big deal about a player that never EVER is going to play for this team.

If he is injured?

No

If he has a subpar season?

Most likely not. (unless he manages to tip his pitches throughout all of 2018 like he did in the World Series)
 

My issue with the Twins is they NEVER go big in free agency.

Do all big free agent signings workout? Of course they don't! But I would still rather be aggressive then be super conservative and fine with getting schooled in the playoffs each time we are lucky enough to make it.

Some people complain about Mauer's contract, and I never have FWIW, even if he has under-performed (I don't think he has) I still think it was the right move to sign him long term.

I will never fault a team for spending money aggressively on top tier players (see: Wild getting Suter and Parise)

I will fault them for overpaying for average players (Hughes, Blackburn, Pominville, etc)

[Danchat]

 

They didn't swing and miss. They stuck out their bat to bunt, then pulled it back.

 

Darvish actually signed for a little less than what everyone expected. They offered significantly less. That's not a swing.

 

You can either try to sign a free agent, or offer a reasonable contract, but you can't do both. The way free agency works is the "winning" offer is one that EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE EXCEPT ONE thinks is too high. You have to, by definition, overpay. Every free agent signing was voted an overpay, 31-1. 

We still don't know anything about the Twins offer other than it was 5 years and more than $100M. I'm not buying Dave's "99.9% chance if the Twins bidded higher that gets leaked" opinion, so I don't think we can safely say that lowballed or "bunted". 

 

Perhaps the price has gone down because teams have finally realized that paying pitchers over 30 years old over $20M a year is usually a bad idea? According to this report below, the Rangers were lowballing him incredibly hard.

 

 

Texas was “not even close” to landing him, Jeff Wilson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram hears. Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News adds that Texas didn’t make an offer to Darvish, and the club wouldn’t even have been willing to guarantee him $75MM in total if it did.

 

[Riverbrian]

 

Low. But... 

a) 6/126 might have also been laughed at as incredibly low

b.) it was likely the 2nd highest offer

 

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/b4/b45d07679de515cf1c0bcdd56f5e5223840a0d8e6283f3b5cb916bf48aac41be.jpg

[Otto von Ballpark]

We still don't know anything about the Twins offer other than it was 5 years and more than $100M.

Berardino: "reportedly refusing to go beyond five years at around $20 million per season"

 

https://www.twincities.com/2018/02/13/starting-nine-answering-twins-biggest-questions-as-spring-training-begins/

[Riverbrian]

Going into the off season I would have never considered Darvish a realistic possibility. It was the Twins who made me think it was possible. It was the Dodgers and Yankees on the sidelines that made me think it was possible. I got my heart broken when I had originally no intention of going there. The Bee Gees are now playing quietly in the background. How do you mend a broken heart? .

 

When I didn't think Darvish was a possibility... I still wanted the Twins to invest in this club so I was ready for some money to be spent.

 

I posted this back on November 2nd in a different thread. 

 

 

Of course I'm taking a different approach.

 

At those listed terms/dollars.

 

I'm signing

Addison Reed

Mike Minor

Jake McGee

Joe Smith

 

That's about 26 Million and I'm spending it.

 

I'm giving Minor the chance to compete for a rotation spot. If it doesn't work out he can always return to the pen. I've seen Pomeranz, Peacock and others return to the rotation and produce extremely well... I believe it can happen again... all it takes is opportunity and this possibility makes Minor my Number 1 Free Agent Target.

 

All of our young arms have options so they can serve as insurance/depth.

 

I'd start 2018 with a Bullpen of

 

Addison Reed

Joe Smith

Jake McGee

Trevor Hildenberger

Taylor Rogers

Ryan Pressly

Alan Busenitz (Busenitz Starts in AAA if Minor is in the Bullpen)

 

Duffey goes to the minors(Sorry he didn't earn the right to stay)

 

I'm also taking a flyer on that Miles Mikolas for 5 Million. With Numbers like that... I'm taking a chance. Win some Lose Some... Roll the Dice. I have no idea what the guy can do... Just rolling the dice because I'm hopeful that he is a miracle.

 

Starters for 2018

Ervin Santana

Jose Berrios

Mike Minor

Kyle Gibson

Miles Mikolas

 

Start the Year in Rochester

Mejia

Gonsalves

May

 

That is how I'm adding 31 million to the payroll and making a young competitive team deeper on the mound. 

I'd like to add a power threat to hit behind Sano but I don't like the options available... So I'm going to kick that can down the road.

 

 

These guys have been signed and the 31 Million turns out a little light because they cost 38 million total for 2018 alone... not counting the additional years. 

 

Reed -- 2018 8.25M Contract 2/16.75

Minor -- 2018 8M Contract 3/28

Mikolas -- 2018 7.75M Contract 2/15.5

McGee -- 2018 7M Contract 3/27

Smith -- 2018 7M Contract 2/15

 

Anyway... I'm just saying... I never imagined that Darvish was possible until I was led to believe he was possible. 

[ewen21]

 

If he is injured?

No

If he has a subpar season?

Most likely not. (unless he manages to tip his pitches throughout all of 2018 like he did in the World Series)
 

My issue with the Twins is they NEVER go big in free agency.

Do all big free agent signings workout? Of course they don't! But I would still rather be aggressive then be super conservative and fine with getting schooled in the playoffs each time we are lucky enough to make it.

Some people complain about Mauer's contract, and I never have FWIW, even if he has under-performed (I don't think he has) I still think it was the right move to sign him long term.

I will never fault a team for spending money aggressively on top tier players (see: Wild getting Suter and Parise)

I will fault them for overpaying for average players (Hughes, Blackburn, Pominville, etc)

Fair enough.  I just think this new team of GMs do not want to do much unless we are in the playoff hunt.  I think they are interested in some trade deadline stuff.  Plus this market is very confusing right now. 

 

And I agree with the silly extensions this team has given out.  The one to Hughes is a prime example, Blackburn's is painful.  Then again, he was one of Gardy's guys.

 

I want to see what guys like Gonsalves, Slegers and Littel do in ST.  I think it is a matter of time before we get some young starting pitchers who can actually come up and do something.  I also think our bullpen will be a lot better this year.