Front Page: Do the Twins Really Need to Add Another Starter?

[Supfin99]

 

Unequivocally yes, they need at least one other starter. 

 

They can probably mash their way to a division title in the weak Central but it'll be another disappointing postseason appearance if MN doesn't acquire somebody that'll slot into one of the top two spots in the rotation.

 

Rich Hill is far from a guarantee to even pitch this year. Pineda has his own laundry list of past injuries. Homer Bailey was largely ineffective and/or injured for 4+ seasons before a "strong 2nd half," last year where he was essentially a league average pitcher. Relying on Smeltzer, Thorpe, Dobnak, and Graterol to fill 2 rotation spots for any length of time is negligent. 

 

As of right now, if Berrios or Odorizzi are forced to miss any time over the first couple months, or Bailey simply isn't effective, an extremely potent offense could be wasted. 

At what cost though?  Also what are the chances that Graterol or Balazovic becomes a 1 or a 2?  Or Cole Sands or Blayne Emlow or Jhoan Duran?  All 5 of these guys have either pitched in AA or will this year.  That means they are closet being in the majors.  At least on and most likely 2 of these guys will have to be included to get a top of the rotation starter.  This team is built to contend for easily the next 3 to 4 years with the current crop plus Kiriloff, Lewis, Larnach, Rooker and company are close to making their debuts.  I'd rather keep all my pitching prospects for another year and see where we are.  Graterol and Balazovic could be pitching in our rotation come July of this season.

[Blackjack]

I liked this line from the original article by Seth: And keep an eye on the phone, always looking to make a big addition in July… or June… or May!

 

Jump in and make a trade in late May or June before teams start to get desperate at the trade deadline, forcing the price up. 

 

I think they do need to add more pitching before spring training, with the poor starting pitching, the bullpen is going to get wore down.

[tony&rodney]

 

Because they're cheap?

 

Seriously, no one here is saying the Twins should emulate Cleveland's most recent financial decisions.

 

With all due respect, you do know that half of the current brain trust was hired from Cleveland precisely because of that organization's ability to develop pitchers. The hope was for that ability to identify pitching and coax it to the team.

 

Cleveland has gone well past their financial limits in recent years and have carefully groomed young pitchers and put them in a place to succeed. Trading Bauer and filling holes in their offense was because they believed in the next guy up. Cleveland is still a tough squad and will vie for the division due to their ability to develop their young pitching.

 

As a vocal proponent of adding pitching (Cole) and Josh Donaldson all winter, I have never confused the two teams financial resources.

 

I haven't read a single proposal to add a pitcher in trade to slot above either Berrios or Odorizzi that another team would accept. Rosario and Gordon for ??? isn't happening.

[Halsey Hall]

No,  I think we are good to go as is.  Maybe add an arm for the pen in spring.  I'd stand pat.

[laloesch]

 

Sure the Twins could use another top of the rotation starter all teams could.  I think the questions should be do we have that top of the rotation starter in the system ready for this year?  Thorpe and Dbnak seem to the only two that appear to have innings and stuff to make it the whole year so you would be depending on them to step into that role.  I just don't know enough about Poppen to know if he has top of the rotation stuff or not.  Graterol and Duran might have ace type stuff but they don't have the innings to last through the year.

 

 

If I remember correctly Dobank isn't that hard of a thrower and his K9 isn't real high so the odss of him being better than number 4 seem remote but his results so far seem to defy that theory at least so far.  Other than the playoff game he has a very nice ERA and WHIP so maybe if you squint he can be a three.  Thorpe appears to have the stuff the K9 needed to be an ace but he has been quite hittable and given a few too many free passes in his SSS of work.  He might make it to a number three but again seems a stretch.

 

 

So I am not sure if we have guys that are better than Berrios, Pineda and Odo in the system but I guess we won't know until we see what those guys can do.  I do agree with Seth that if they trade for someone it needs to be a pitcher as good or better than our top three guys.  If they can find that guy for the right price this offseason I am all for it, but I am also fine seeing what we have and waiting for teams to realize they are out of it and need to make a trade. Maybe just maybe we get lucky like Cleveland and find two very good home grown pitchers that help us through the playoffs.

Dobnak sits in the low 90's with his sinker and occasionally touches mid 90's.  Smeltzer is also in that range 90-93 but has 4 pitches. 

[Doctor Gast]

 

why is anyone trading for a pitcher that no one thinks will be impact? That part of this argument never makes sense to me....

All teams do it even the Twins. I believe they are used as fillers until some one else better comes especially non contenders. Maybe you have one high impact arm & the other 4 stinks it makes sense to trade 1 high impact arm for some good arms

[Dman]

 

Dobnak sits in the low 90's with his sinker and occasionally touches mid 90's.  Smeltzer is also in that range 90-93 but has 4 pitches. 

 

That is decent velocity then.  I don't know why but I see Smeltzer more as a number 5 guy.  Maybe he can prove me wrong.  Not sure what to think about Dobnak just can't argue with the results he has had so far.

[DocBauer]

I also love the idea of at least 1 open slot in the rotation for the prospects to audition and gain experience. If they don't receive opportunity, how will they ever develop and how will ever know to trust them?

 

The problem with this process is we are looking at 2 such scenarios, at least to open the year. The best time to do all this would have been last year, when the Twins were coming off a disappointing season, rather than coming off a 101 win year.

 

But the kids weren't ready at the beginning of 2019. And late in the year, for whatever reason, Perez and Gibson were still getting opportunities.

 

I guess I don't know that I have the right answer at the moment. Wait until mid season and then see what happens and trust/audition the kids initially? Makes sense to me. But I also find it a scary proposition for the first month plus.

[cmoss84]

Maybe now is a good buy-low opportunity for Archer? The most reasonable SP to obtain that can slot into the rotation right now?

 

We need to clear room from the 25/40 man rosters anyway. Not sure what it would take, but it would probably be fairly cheap prospect-wise? 

[Riverbrian]

The answer to the question asked in the Article title is Yes. 

 

The Yes answer is: An upper level talent with at least 2 years of control.

 

The cycle has to stop. As it stands today... we will be once again searching for at least 3 arms next off-season to replenish the rotation for 2021. Acquiring an upper level arm (or any starting pitcher) for one year only will not stop this cycle and will also get in the way of major league development of guys who can truly stop the cycle with multiple years of control. You got to take steps to get off of this merry-go-round. 

 

Last July 31st... the team was probably playoff bound and in need of a starting pitcher to attempt to bolster the off-season roster. Perez was in a deep funk at the time, Gibson had E Coli issues that they had to know about, not to mention, the historical high probability that any pitcher is a candidate for an injury. 

 

They also knew in July that they would have to either re-sign or acquire at least 3 arms in the off-season. 

 

I think it is a safe assumption that they tried to land a talented starter (preferably with at least 2 years control) at the trade deadline because they surely knew about the need due to the issues I list above. However, they did not land a starter and with a clear need for one, the only assumption I can make is that the prospect price was too high. I completely trust the front office to makes these types of determinations and support the decision to not make a trade because of the prospect cost.

 

However... I've said this often. The very second they decided the price was too high and didn't acquire a starter. They fully committed to the prospects that they chose to keep instead because the need didn't go away and the problem has to be addressed. When they chose the prospects... they chose the solution. 

 

Now that they are committed to these prospects... and they are... by their own choice. The prospects must be counted on to stop the cycle of needing 3 or more starting pitchers every off season. Whoever it may be... Dobnak, Smeltzer, Graterol, Balazovic, Duran, Alcala or Thorpe. At least 1 and hopefully 2 of them need to establish themselves THIS YEAR as major league capable and if they do... they must be allowed to continue. They can't succeed and be sent down to Rochester so a Martin Perez type performer holds a spot when the gang of five is healthy.

 

If these guys can't hold down a MLB spot or are not given the chance to hold down a spot because Bailey with a 4.80 ERA but making 8 million keeps his job.

 

Each of these potential prospects will see their trade value reduced accordingly and when that happens... you run the risk of these arms dying on the vine due to lack of opportunity and that also means that the club just bet on the wrong horse last July 31st when they didn't trade for a starter because the prospect price was too high. 

 

Once they don't trade the prospects, they must develop the prospects and treading water with average vets won't get it done.

 

What I am talking about is critical in 2020. This isn't a "I hope this happens" situation.... it has to happen. We can't go into 2021 needing 3 arms again because that is treading water. 

 

Unless... the team can acquire a high end starter with at least two years of control left this off-season. because that lessens the critical immediate demand that one of these guys gets it done this year for a roster with playoff aspirations and it reduces the need from 3 to 2 starters next off-season. 

 

So the answer... is YES. High End Talent and at least 2 years of control.

 

If they don't... Dobnak or Smeltzer or Graterol or Thorpe or Balazovic or Duran or Alcala better be the real deal in 2020. 

 

Thank You... I'll step off the box now. 

 

[twins_89]

Dobnak, Thorpe, and Smeltzer are perfectly fine as the 5-7 starters on the depth chart, but having more than 1 of them in the major league rotation for any significant length of time is a truly bad idea. Graterol only pitched 70 innings last season (and his career high is 100 innings in a year), so expecting him to be a starter seems unrealistic.

 

The Twins absolutely need to add another starter. If that guy can slot in at #2, it would make a huge difference for a rotation that is currently average to slightly below average.

[howeda7]

Yes. Get Alcantarra from the Marlins or take a flyer on Archer. Either could end up your #3 starter by October if things go well and neither will cost you a ton.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

True, but most other contenders have a comparable bullpen these days too (and likely better, if you factor in recent postseason performance), so it's not a relative advantage.

 

For the second half of 2019, the Twins bullpen was 1st in FIP-, xFIP-, SIERA, and k-bb%, despite having the highest babip and 9th lowest lob%.  I think the Twins bullpen (if they can reproduce this performance) is much better than you're giving them credit for, and is very much a relative advantage.

[tony&rodney]

...  still waiting for a sound proposal for a trade that brings a "good" SP before the season begins. It could happen!

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

If our "clear cut number 1 starter" can't pitch well late in the season, then Yes, he's in the bullpen. And probably not a number 1 starter. No use wasting a postseason game just because we've labeled him. 

 

Berrios had a horrific August, true, but in 5 September starts averaged over 6 IP/Start, with a 3.79 FIP and 3.97 xFIP, which ranked 25th and 24th respectively in all of baseball.  If you think a top 30 pitcher in baseball shouldn't crack the Twins 4-man postseason rotation, either you're much higher on the Twins rotation than anyone else on the planet, or you have an agenda against Berrios.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I think there is some hope in Bailey. He's shown enough at various times, including recently. He's a #4 at best, probably, and he makes them better than what Gibson or Perez was in 2018. 

 

I agree that we all agree that they don't need to sign the Ivan Nova's of the world. Again, my point is to give the 24, 25 years olds a shot to be just as good... and gain some confidence thanks to a strong offense. 

 

And no one is saying everything will go perfect. I pointed that out multiple times throughout the article. It's also OK to give guys opportunities when you have given yourself some great depth. 

I don't understand this Seth.

 

1. Aside from Graterol, all of the depth is of the same talent level; 5 spot starter ceilings, with a decent chance they're AAAA and won't stick on a major league roster. There are questions about whether Graterol is even going to be a starter. I understand that almost no team has 6-8 solid starters rostered, and MN can probably get by rotating through Dobnak, Smeltzer, Thorpe, and Graterol in that last rotation spot for a short while, but you said it yourself, they're depth. Ideally none of them are handed a rotation spot out of ST, and certainly guaranteeing them 2 spots plus a potential 3rd due to injury/ineffectiveness is far from ideal no? Depth is an asset when it stays as that, not when it's filling out nearly or more than half of your rotation early in the season. 

 

2. The big league team in April isn't the place for tryouts. The huge lead the Twins built up through early June last year won them a division title. The games early in the season matter just as much as the ones in September. I'm not sure why anybody is endorsing the Twins "seeing what the have," by running a bunch of question marks through the last two spot in the rotation, especially considering the fact that the two pitchers they're counting on to return at midseason each have serious injury histories. 

 

I've beaten it to death in other threads, but again, if they roll into the season with the staff as currently constructed they're begging for trouble. One bout of ineffectiveness from Bailey, one minor injury or even some general soreness/fatigue for Odorizzi or Berrios, and the rotation starts to look like something resembling Rochester more than MN. 

[Major League Ready]

 

 

Yes. Get Alcantarra from the Marlins or take a flyer on Archer. Either could end up your #3 starter by October if things go well and neither will cost you a ton.

 

Last year he had a 4.55 FIP 1.318 WHP and 6.9 SO/9. Does not sound like a front of the rotation guy to me. What am I missing?

[cmoss84]

An interesting tidbit on Archer...his option for 2021 includes a 250K buyout. He kind of makes sense. 

[laloesch]

 

The answer to the question asked in the Article title is Yes. 

 

The Yes answer is: An upper level talent with at least 2 years of control.

 

The cycle has to stop. As it stands today... we will be once again searching for at least 3 arms next off-season to replenish the rotation for 2021. Acquiring an upper level arm (or any starting pitcher) for one year only will not stop this cycle and will also get in the way of major league development of guys who can truly stop the cycle with multiple years of control. You got to take steps to get off of this merry-go-round. 

 

Last July 31st... the team was probably playoff bound and in need of a starting pitcher to attempt to bolster the off-season roster. Perez was in a deep funk at the time, Gibson had E Coli issues that they had to know about, not to mention, the historical high probability that any pitcher is a candidate for an injury. 

 

They also knew in July that they would have to either re-sign or acquire at least 3 arms in the off-season. 

 

I think it is a safe assumption that they tried to land a talented starter (preferably with at least 2 years control) at the trade deadline because they surely knew about the need due to the issues I list above. However, they did not land a starter and with a clear need for one, the only assumption I can make is that the prospect price was too high. I completely trust the front office to makes these types of determinations and support the decision to not make a trade because of the prospect cost.

 

However... I've said this often. The very second they decided the price was too high and didn't acquire a starter. They fully committed to the prospects that they chose to keep instead because the need didn't go away and the problem has to be addressed. When they chose the prospects... they chose the solution. 

 

Now that they are committed to these prospects... and they are... by their own choice. The prospects must be counted on to stop the cycle of needing 3 or more starting pitchers every off season. Whoever it may be... Dobnak, Smeltzer, Graterol, Balazovic, Duran, Alcala or Thorpe. At least 1 and hopefully 2 of them need to establish themselves THIS YEAR as major league capable and if they do... they must be allowed to continue. They can't succeed and be sent down to Rochester so a Martin Perez type performer holds a spot when the gang of five is healthy. If these guys can't hold down a MLB spot or are not given the chance to hold down a spot because Bailey has a 4.80 ERA but making 8 million keeps his job. Each of these potential prospects will see their trade value reduced accordingly and when that happens... you run the risk of these arms dying on the vine due to lack of opportunity and that also means that the club just bet on the wrong horse last July 31st when they didn't trade for a starter because the prospect price was too high. 

 

What I am talking about is critical in 2020. This isn't a "I hope this happens" situation.... it has to happen. We can't go into 2021 needing 3 arms again. 

 

Unless... the team can acquire a high end starter with at least two years of control left this off-season. because that lessens the critical immediate demand that one of these guys gets it done this year for a roster with playoff aspirations and it reduces the need from 3 to 2 starters next off-season. 

 

So the answer... is YES. High End Talent and at least 2 years of control.

 

If they don't... Dobnak or Smeltzer or Graterol or Thorpe or Balazovic or Duran or Alcala better be the real deal in 2020. 

 

Thank You... I'll step off the box now. 

Good post. The problem too me is stability. You start the year with Odorizzi, Berrios, Bailey, ...... i guess some combination of Dobnak, Smeltzer, Thorpe and Graterol for the 4th and 5th spots. Dobnak looks like he has the stuff to hold down a rotation spot, followed by Smeltzer who doesn't throw that hard but has a multitude of offerings, and then Thorpe who has the stuff but is just plain hittable (at leasst he was). Then there's Graterol who is just plain raw. 

 

Then you get Pineda back in late spring and Hill early to mid summer.

Will be a very interesting spring regardless of whether or not they add another starter.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

For the second half of 2019, the Twins bullpen was 1st in FIP-, xFIP-, SIERA, and k-bb%, despite having the highest babip and 9th lowest lob%.  I think the Twins bullpen (if they can reproduce this performance) is much better than you're giving them credit for, and is very much a relative advantage.

FYI: FIP, xFIP, and SIERA are all ERA estimators that assume an average BABIP -- thus, they are BABIP independent. So a pitcher or staff can't have a low FIP "despite" a high BABIP -- the high BABIP is already taken out to determine the FIP. (You *can* have a certain ERA despite a high/low BABIP, because ERA is BABIP dependent.)

 

And I'm not sure FIP and other ERA estimators are all that important, for bullpens/relievers. Obviously good bullpens will generally do well in them, but I don't think being the best in those areas means you have the best bullpen. Same with K-BB% -- it's good to avoid walks, but there's more to being the best reliever than walk avoidance.

 

And of course, because there are so many relievers used in modern baseball, so many bullpen innings thrown, looking at total team bullpen performance isn't a good indicator of postseason bullpen strength either. A team like the Yankees rolled into the postseason with 5 elite-performing relievers -- they had other various pen arms that dragged down their regular season totals, so their total FIP, etc. was probably in line with the Twins, but those other arms were pretty much irrelevant to how their pen would be utilized in the postseason.

 

The Twins don't have a bad pen, but it's not clearly better than their playoff competition, and its strength is more in solid depth than in number of elite performers, which is more of an advantage in the regular season than postseason.

[beckmt]

Let's look at it this way.  If Gratrol, Balazovic, Duran, Enlow, Sands are at AA.  That is to go with Thorpe, Smeltzer, Dobnich.  That is 8 possible starters here in the next two years.  And there are more.  Now if you do not believe that 2 - 3 of these pitchers or more can make it, then you need to buy a front line starter at no matter what the cost.  I do not believe that, so Twins need to secure the future by finding out what these pitchers can do at the highest level or at least at AAA.  

By all means extend Odo and Berrios, but to buy mid level starters to block this group, will lead to the problem of any deal you want to make will ask for at least 2 of these pitchers, and most of you will have pitchforks out if one of them blossoms into an ace. 

[ewen21]

 

why is anyone trading for a pitcher that no one thinks will be impact? That part of this argument never makes sense to me....

What do you mean?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Here is another rhetorical question. What team would not like to add another QUALITY, PROVEN starting pitcher? Just asking.

right, every team wants to add another quality proven young starter. That’s why the free agent market for Cole was 9 years 324 mil....

 

Now that trade is the only option, it’s going to cost significant trade assets to out bid other teams.

 

The cost of poor forecasting....

[Mike Sixel]

 

What do you mean?

 

the post said figure out who is good, and trade the rest.....

[dex8425]

 

I think the bullpen needs to be considered when discussing chances of postseason success as well.  I think there's every reason to think the Twins could trot out, at minimum, 6 quality arms (Rogers, Duffey, May, Romo, Clippard, Littell).  While Rogers, and maybe Duffey, are the only ones that potentially qualify as elite, having that kind of depth, before even considering options like Stashak, Graterol, Duran, or Alcala means we should be able to shorten the game for our starters in the playoffs.

 

Should the Twins attempt to add a game 1 starter?  Absolutely.  Do they need to add a game 1 starter?  I don't think so.

May could be considered elite by the end of the year. He really had an untouchable stretch last year and has the stuff to back it up. He touched triple digits, completely changed his pitch mix and where he throws his pitches and it was like a switch was flipped. He has elite stuff. 

[dex8425]

 

 

I haven't read a single proposal to add a pitcher in trade to slot above either Berrios or Odorizzi that another team would accept. Rosario and Gordon for ??? isn't happening.

I don't think the Red Sox would require much if we agreed to pay Price's salary. But I don't think they'll sell yet. And I'm not sure Falvey wants Price. 

[drivlikejehu]

 

And of course, because there are so many relievers used in modern baseball, so many bullpen innings thrown, looking at total team bullpen performance isn't a good indicator of postseason bullpen strength either. A team like the Yankees rolled into the postseason with 5 elite-performing relievers -- they had other various pen arms that dragged down their regular season totals, so their total FIP, etc. was probably in line with the Twins, but those other arms were pretty much irrelevant to how their pen would be utilized in the postseason.

 

The Twins don't have a bad pen, but it's not clearly better than their playoff competition, and its strength is more in solid depth than in number of elite performers, which is more of an advantage in the regular season than postseason.

 

I don't think this adds up - if Team A has far better relievers #1-#5 than Team B, it would take an extremely bizarre situation for Team B to have equivalent or superior overall numbers. I doubt you could find a single such example in baseball history.

 

I mean, excluding position players, the Twins used 20 different relievers in the 2nd half last year, and 8 of them had ERAs over 5.00. So I'm really struggling to see any objective evidence to support even the most general reading of your post.

[David HK]

 

The Twins needed to add to the top of the rotation when the offseason started.

They havent.

The answer seems self evident.

I keep tellin' folks, we're gonna be on one or the other end of a heckuva lot of 11-9 scores this year...

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

FYI: FIP, xFIP, and SIERA are all ERA estimators that assume an average BABIP -- thus, they are BABIP independent. So a pitcher or staff can't have a low FIP "despite" a high BABIP -- the high BABIP is already taken out to determine the FIP. (You *can* have a certain ERA despite a high/low BABIP, because ERA is BABIP dependent.)

 

And I'm not sure FIP and other ERA estimators are all that important, for bullpens/relievers. Obviously good bullpens will generally do well in them, but I don't think being the best in those areas means you have the best bullpen. Same with K-BB% -- it's good to avoid walks, but there's more to being the best reliever than walk avoidance.

 

And of course, because there are so many relievers used in modern baseball, so many bullpen innings thrown, looking at total team bullpen performance isn't a good indicator of postseason bullpen strength either. A team like the Yankees rolled into the postseason with 5 elite-performing relievers -- they had other various pen arms that dragged down their regular season totals, so their total FIP, etc. was probably in line with the Twins, but those other arms were pretty much irrelevant to how their pen would be utilized in the postseason.

 

The Twins don't have a bad pen, but it's not clearly better than their playoff competition, and its strength is more in solid depth than in number of elite performers, which is more of an advantage in the regular season than postseason.

 

That's fair, I included the note on babip to demonstrate that the Twin's bullpen was the best in baseball at controlling those things they could control.  That being said, based on your dismissal of the stats I provided alongside your failure to provide any other stats upon which to gauge bullpens, I am at a loss as to how you specifically determine relative bullpen quality, other than gut feeling and bias.  Stating that it's not that important for bullpens to have the best ratio of strikeouts to walks (which is what the Twins had) also befuddles me; it flies in the face of all modern thinking about baseball--avoid balls in play/homers/men on base, which can only be done via a strikeout.

 

Your theory about the Twins and Yankees bullpen also doesn't hold water.  When limited to relievers with more than 10 IP, the Twins had 8 relievers with a FIP- under 90 in the second half, the Yankees had 6.  The Twins had 3 under 60, the Yankees only 2.  The Twins had 9 relievers with a k/bb over 4, the Yankees only 3.  The Twins outperform the Yankees in Siera as well--the only advanced metric they don't is xFIP, where the two bullpens line up pretty evenly.

 

At least compared to the Yankees, it can be easily argued the Twins have both a more elite AND a deeper bullpen.  If you'd like to make the argument that the Yankees are only one team, and your theory that the Twins bullpen is not better than other competitors holds true, then you'll need to provide the stats, otherwise I unequivocally dismiss your claim that the Twins bullpen is not better than other playoff caliber teams; "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

[Thrylos]

The Twins went belly up every single game against the Yankees with the same starters they have (unless someone believes that anyone of the other existing starters would have won the game that Dobnak lost.)

 

Going at it the same way and expecting different results, is the definition of insanity, so unless someone is okay with mediocrity and one and outs, yes the Twins need a starter on the top of their rotation.

 

They are fine within the division and they might be okay if they have to add that starter at the deadline, just for the post season, but they do have to do it.