Are the Twins About to Build a Radically Unconventional Pitching Staff?

[Twodogs]

I think they'd be better off going all in on a rebuild as far as the pitching staff goes.  I mean use Ryan and Ober.  Bring up SWR or Balazovic and pitch them.  The more I see the Twins baby these guys for years and years next thing you know is that they can't do it.  I mean bring them up when they are young 22 - 23 and if they get blown up then send them down and give them another year or so to figure it out.  But the twins keep them down there till they are 25 or 26 and if they don't do well they are phased out because they are now too old.  Don't get me wrong, it was a different thing when they were coming off of a division championship and you had Berrios, Pineda, Odrorrzzi, Maeda and a staff of veterans anchoring your rotation.  But now it's got to be a different strategy, and throwing everyone for 3 innings is an experiment that in the long run won't develop anyone for the future.  You'd be doing that for the here and now and then punt and start over the next season.  Bringing up the young guys to see if they can pitch will show development for the future.  If it works in the here and now great!!!  If it doesn't then maybe you find 2 or 3 guys in your system that can handle it.  If you don't then you know that you have to go to the next wave of youngsters until you find some guys who can pitch.  Try some of the young guys and see what they can do.  Then at least those guys will have a baseline and know what they have to work on to be able to have a successful career.

[LastOnePicked]

On 11/11/2021 at 9:07 PM, mikelink45 said:

I like good pitchers who pitch a lot of innings.

I agree, Mike, but if we can't get 1-3 of those pitchers on our staff, I'm interested in a winning Plan B. This might be it, though that means we need a staff chock full of guys who are great the first time through a lineup.

[Nick Nelson]

1 hour ago, Twodogs said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm praying for the day another Jose Berrios shows up, I'm hoping for another Frank Viola, I'd take another Brad Radke or two.  But the cynical side of me just keeps telling me to look around, what has come out of the system as far as starting pitching?? has anything really changed??  Now you're trying to tell me that picking up Garrett Richards off of the scrap heap and praying that he can throw 3 innings is developing pitching?  

It's developing a method to get effective pitching results in the interim while you wait for the prospect pipeline to start providing. Again, as I said earlier: I don't think it's fair to judge this regime on on the merits of its systemic pitching development yet.

It took 5 years after Berrios was drafted to reach the majors and he was terrible his first year. This is Year 5 for the current front office. If nobody from the Winder, Duran, Canterino, Balazovic, Strotman, Woods Richardson etc group pans out you'll have a point.

[Linus]

Didn’t Tampa do this several years ago?  They had two good starters they used conventionally and used this method for the other three. Kind of creative as they knew they weren’t signing free agents. 
I don’t know how I like it but the risk mitigation aspect makes a lot of sense. If our top end free agent starter blows his arm out a team like the Twins is screwed. 
The caveat would be that you would have to figure out a way to make sure your better pitchers are getting the most innings. 

[Mark G]

2 hours ago, Nick Nelson said:

So you're telling me that taking pitchers and implementing changes to make them more effective does not qualify as "developing pitching." I'd love to hear your definition! Yes, it's about bringing young players up through your system but development is an ongoing focus throughout a player's career. When the Twins brought in Matt Wisler and turned him into a high-quality RP, that was a development success. When Cleveland traded for a no-name prospect named Kluber and made him a Cy Young winner, that was a development success. Tampa Bay has enjoyed a number of development successes with older & more established pitchers, and it's a big part of why they are successful.

This front office was not brought in to sign $150M starters in free agency. They were brought in to think creatively, find opportunities, and get more out of players. That's the kind of thinking this article is framed around.

They had basically one proven starter on their MLB roster going in to the 2019-2020 offseason. Worked out fine. (shrug)

The reason they have zero starters going into this one is because they traded Jose Berrios for prospects at the deadline, making a short-term sacrifice for a perceived long-term gain. Agree or disagree with the move, I'm not sure how you could describe it as anything other than "forward thinking"?

Again, with all due respect, they were not brought in to try to find 14-16 relief pitchers they can shuffle in and out and up and down (from St. Paul) either.  I noticed you did not answer my question about how a pitcher that considers himself a starter would come here, or stay here past arbitration if they cannot pitch themselves into wins?  What starting pitcher would sign here if they knew that is how they would be used?  And with all the prospects we have traded for over the years and drafted since this FO came, how is it we don't have one starting pitcher in the organization that can pitch 6-8 innings on a fairly regular basis?  (a side note: the team has had 2 complete games in 3 years, covering 394 games; both by JB)  Pitch counts and innings limits have kept virtually all of our prospects from stretching out for this role, and may very well be accounting for some of the myriad of injuries we have littered through our MiLB system, as they simply aren't in shape.  Again, I can be convinced if it works over a several year period, but saying we have a short term solution to a long term problem is no solution at all in the end.  What we now refer to as bullpen games require several pitchers being on that game to win any type of close game; if even one blows up that day it is very hard to overcome, especially in low scoring games.  

One other question if I may:  when you say one proven starter going in to the 2019-2020 offseason, is that the roster that was going to be penciled in for the 2020 season?  Or was it the roster that began the 2019 season?  I ask because I checked back on the roster for both those years and we had established starters from 1-5 on both rosters.  That doesn't mean they were great starters, but they were established.  This last season our rotation blew up, because we wanted to go on the cheap, but the 5 starters who began the season were established starters.  So I am confused as to which season we only had one.  Or should I not be mixing and matching established and proven, as we might have our own definitions of proven?  Thanks for the discourse; I always enjoy debating ideas.  

 

[mikelink45]

17 hours ago, LastOnePicked said:

I agree, Mike, but if we can't get 1-3 of those pitchers on our staff, I'm interested in a winning Plan B. This might be it, though that means we need a staff chock full of guys who are great the first time through a lineup.

I don't disagree, I just keep thinking about how many appearances are required to fill a minimum of three good pictures everyday for 162 games. I don't think we have that many pitchers and if we do we need to have the roster increased to 30 players since they've taken away the ability for us to just keep rotating players up and down like we did in 2019. 

[TopGunn#22]

I've been mentioning the problem of the Twins having only Ryan and Ober on innings limits and referring to them as a #5 "combined" or a #5/#6.  I'm much more in favor of a SIX man staff that allows Ryan and Ober to have their innings limited without disrupting the entire staff.  I sign Eduardo Rodriguez and Jon Gray as mid-level FA SP's.  I'd swing a trade or trades to add:  Bassitt and/or Manaea  /  a couple of young arms from the Marlins.  Whatever.  I don't like the mentioned "out of the box" idea.  I would rather leverage what we have on the big league roster and minor leagues to get some balance.  No "well managed" team should find themselves with the dearth of pitching the Twins currently have.  

Finally, I'd consider adding a Vince Velazquez to the staff to be a multi-inning (3 at a time?) kind of guy.  They simply NEED to add SEVERAL pitchers.  By choosing the correct "mid-tier' guys they can be successful.  I'm realizing that paying Robbie Ray or Stroman $20-$25 million per year doesn't allow the Twins to add the DEPTH they need.  They're not going to get anything out of Balazovic, Duran, Winder, etc...until at least July.

[D.C Twins]

Quick addendum: I refer to 'poo poo platter' for the relationship between the talent level of proposed players acquired/used versus the talent level needed to compete and win at the MLB level.

The players on the MLB poo poo platter are phenomenal athletes in top 0.000 someting % of athletes and kudos to them. But unfortunately we are talking about what it takes to win at the MLB level.

[Nine of twelve]

Some runners are marathoners. Some are sprinters. Some are best at middle-distances. Asking a runner to perform in an event that s/he is not suited for will not result in success.

The same thing is true for pitchers. As has been said many times by many people, players need to be put in situations where they have the best chance of success. If pitcher A does best going three times through the batting order every fifth day, then use him that way. If pitcher B does best going one inning at a time every day or two, then use him that way. If pitcher C does best going 3 innings every third day, then use him that way.

I think we need to get past the idea that it's necessary for a pitching staff to be used in a particular way. Of course, it's good to have many different types of pitchers, all of whom are very good at what they do, but to me the job of the manager and pitching coach is to take the pitchers you have, determine what each one's strengths are, and use them accordingly. One year you might have five good starters, another year you might have five good one-inning guys, and yet another year you might have five good middle relievers. That means your philosophy will probably need to change year by year to suit your roster.

[rv78]

Every pitcher has his good days and his bad days. Even Cy Young lost games. The more pitchers you use in a game the better chances you have of getting one of them on one of their bad days. I made a comment earlier about Joe Ryan pitching 3 perfect innings and then getting pulled only to have the next pitcher (Duffey) blow the game in the 4th inning. In the real world you'd let Ryan keep pitching because he's having a good game, not a bad one. If you are going to do that you can't continually use him as a 3 inning pitcher because he isn't stretched out and conditioned for going longer stints. The theory of having 3 pitchers go 3 innings each so they only have to face each batter once is great but in reality it isn't going to happen because all 3 won't pitch 3 perfect innings.

[Major League Ready]

18 hours ago, Mark G said:

Again, with all due respect, they were not brought in to try to find 14-16 relief pitchers they can shuffle in and out and up and down (from St. Paul) either.  I noticed you did not answer my question about how a pitcher that considers himself a starter would come here, or stay here past arbitration if they cannot pitch themselves into wins?  What starting pitcher would sign here if they knew that is how they would be used?  And with all the prospects we have traded for over the years and drafted since this FO came, how is it we don't have one starting pitcher in the organization that can pitch 6-8 innings on a fairly regular basis?  (a side note: the team has had 2 complete games in 3 years, covering 394 games; both by JB)  Pitch counts and innings limits have kept virtually all of our prospects from stretching out for this role, and may very well be accounting for some of the myriad of injuries we have littered through our MiLB system, as they simply aren't in shape.  Again, I can be convinced if it works over a several year period, but saying we have a short term solution to a long term problem is no solution at all in the end.  What we now refer to as bullpen games require several pitchers being on that game to win any type of close game; if even one blows up that day it is very hard to overcome, especially in low scoring games.  

 

You have made some assumptions that make absolutely no sense.  They would not have an entire staff built this way.  That would never happen.  See Nine of Twelve's comments.  Why would they only pitch a guy 3 innings if he can give you 6 or 7.   This is simply the Twins adjusting to the modern game on the front side of the adoption curve instead of the back like they did with analytics.

Why do you assume it's only SPs having their numbers of innings pushed back.  Why couldn't it be relievers be pushed to a Josh Hader role or even beyond?  They would push up their innings and make themselves more valuable.  It's could also help prospects transition the the big leagues.

Finally, have you paid any attention to the average length of starts?  Pitchers that go 6-8 innings on a regular basis are virtually extinct.  We want guys who throwing upper 90s and strike out a lot of batters.  Those attributes don't generally promote pitching a lot of innings.

[Mark G]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

You have made some assumptions that make absolutely no sense.  They would not have an entire staff built this way.  That makes zero sense.  See Nine of Twelve's comments.  Why would they only pitch a guy 3 innings if he can give you 6 or 7.   This is simply the Twins adjusting to the modern game on the front side of the adoption curve instead of the back like they did with analytics.

Why do you assume it's only SPs having their numbers of innings pushed back.  Why couldn't it be relievers be pushed to a Josh Hader role or even beyond?  They would push up their innings and make themselves more valuable.  It's could also help prospects transition the the big leagues.

Finally, have you paid any attention to the average length of starts?  Pitchers that go 6-8 innings on a regular basis are virtually extinct.  We want guys who throwing upper 90s and strike out a lot of batters.  Those attributes don't generally promote pitching a lot of innings.

I don't know, I think it does.  And what makes you think they will not have an entire staff built this way?  We are pretty close to it now, since JB left.  Guys going 6 or 7 would mean a 3rd time through the lineup, or, dare I even say it, a 4th time?  That is the whole point of a staff built the way we are discussing; to avoid even a 2nd time through for a majority of the guys, if not the vast majority.  And I assume only SP's would have their innings cut back because that is what would happen; as you said, relievers would have theirs increased to the point where it would be hard to tell the difference between the two.   And unless MLB changes the rule requiring starters to go 5 to get a win, what starter is going to want to pitch in that scenario?  And why do we want prospects who have been starters their whole amateur and professional lives transitioning to the majors as relievers?  I stand by the extremely humble opinion that we should be stretching them out in the minors to be major league starters, developing 3-4 pitches that would help them be successful.  Guys throwing upper 90's and racking up strike outs belong in the bullpen, true.  But if that is all you develop, no thanks; the guys who go 6-8 innings on a regular basis is what makes the others effective.  I also stand by the even more humble opinion that the design the article laid out is designed to limit innings, which limit salaries, which is fine for small market teams, but not for a team that wants to be a perennial contender.  The best want the innings and the wins, and they will go to where they can get them and that team will win.

I have a feeling we are going to have to agree to disagree, but that is fine; I think the debate is healthy.  And, in the end, the debate might boil down to what role each given pitcher plays.  And the pitchers will be the first to tell us that they want a defined role so they can prepare both physically and mentally for a 162 game season.  Knowing what their role is gives them insight as to when they will be called on depending on the circumstances of each game as it develops.  The idea the article laid out requires too many pitchers a game all 162 games, which would require expanded pitching staffs, leaving less and less of a bench for anything else.  Sounds like a lot of the guys here want the expanded pitching staff; I prefer the added bench players, requiring more like a 12 man staff with starters eating at least a simple majority of the innings.  That's why, to me, my original posts make sense.  Thanks for the discourse.  

[Doc Munson]

OK yes, this may be a "Get Off My Lawn!!" comment, but if we go this route I will be one step closer to moving on from being a lifelong Twins fan.  I just hate what the game is turning/turned into. pitchers only go a few innings, defensive shifts,  etc.  AND to me this makes no sense from a marketing standpoint. You need stars to market your team. The Twins are actually one of the few teams who CAN afford an ace like Scherzer... Why?  because right now we do not sell tickets. Scherzer will put butts in seats = $, which will drive concessions sales =$ He will drive Jersey sales =$  You can SELL a star like Scherzer (or anyone else)  How are you going to SELL Cahill and Tomlin?   "OK Kids lets get our Twins gear on and head out to the old ballgame... Tomlin and Cahill are piggybacking on the mound tonight!!!!!!!  sure hope there are still some good seats!!"  And, You do not even have a greater chance of winning going this route!!  The only reason you can point to the people winning World Series' like this is because the WS  has small sample sizes.  I may be proven wrong, but going this way over the course of a full season you will tire out arms.  For every pitcher you are able to keep fresh by less innings, you will have 1-2 relief pitchers get fatigued due to pitching their HIGHEST number of innings.

And do I need to remind you how the Dodgers absolutely blew their chances by turning to short stints and using pitchers in varying roles, vs just letting their starter throw?!?!?!

 

Lets look at the top pitching teams from last year (using the old fashioned ERA)

1= DODGERS: Buehler, Urias, Scherzer (after trade)Kershaw (before injury) all averaged at or near 6 innings. (which is sad 6 is the benchmark now) 

2= GIANTS: Gausman, DeSclafini, Webb, Wood = all again through at or around 6 innings per start. and these are NOT household names.

3= BREWERS: Woodruff, Burnes, Peralta, Hauser... you guessed it at or near 6 innings.

4= RAYS: Here is your outlier with 8 pitchers starting at least 10 games.

5= WHITE SOX:  5 pitchers averaging 5 1/3 innings, a little bit below 6 innings per, but close.

 

[Nick Nelson]

19 hours ago, Mark G said:

Again, with all due respect, they were not brought in to try to find 14-16 relief pitchers they can shuffle in and out and up and down (from St. Paul) either.  I noticed you did not answer my question about how a pitcher that considers himself a starter would come here, or stay here past arbitration if they cannot pitch themselves into wins?

Arbitration and baseball in general are moving away from valuing pitcher "wins" because we can all see they're a team-based stat -- not meaningful indicators of individual performance. Pitchers will go where they can make money and succeed. As the game evolves, teams will start paying more for roles that are deemed impactful. I could see these kinds of multi-inning/hybrid types earning more on average than the typical 1-inning setup man or scrap heap back-end starter (Shoemaker et al.) so it may become somewhat appealing for players.

Quote

One other question if I may:  when you say one proven starter going in to the 2019-2020 offseason, is that the roster that was going to be penciled in for the 2020 season? 

When the 2019 season ended, the Twins had Berrios penciled in for the 2020 season and that's it. Gibson, Pineda, and Odorizzi were all free agents. 

[Major League Ready]

40 minutes ago, Doc Munson said:

OK yes, this may be a "Get Off My Lawn!!" comment, but if we go this route I will be one step closer to moving on from being a lifelong Twins fan.  I just hate what the game is turning/turned into. pitchers only go a few innings, defensive shifts,  etc.  AND to me this makes no sense from a marketing standpoint. You need stars to market your team. The Twins are actually one of the few teams who CAN afford an ace like Scherzer... Why?  because right now we do not sell tickets. Scherzer will put butts in seats = $, which will drive concessions sales =$ He will drive Jersey sales =$  You can SELL a star like Scherzer (or anyone else)  How are you going to SELL Cahill and Tomlin?   "OK Kids lets get our Twins gear on and head out to the old ballgame... Tomlin and Cahill are piggybacking on the mound tonight!!!!!!!  sure hope there are still some good seats!!"  And, You do not even have a greater chance of winning going this route!!  The only reason you can point to the people winning World Series' like this is because the WS  has small sample sizes.  I may be proven wrong, but going this way over the course of a full season you will tire out arms.  For every pitcher you are able to keep fresh by less innings, you will have 1-2 relief pitchers get fatigued due to pitching their HIGHEST number of innings.

And do I need to remind you how the Dodgers absolutely blew their chances by turning to short stints and using pitchers in varying roles, vs just letting their starter throw?!?!?!

 

Lets look at the top pitching teams from last year (using the old fashioned ERA)

1= DODGERS: Buehler, Urias, Scherzer (after trade)Kershaw (before injury) all averaged at or near 6 innings. (which is sad 6 is the benchmark now) 

2= GIANTS: Gausman, DeSclafini, Webb, Wood = all again through at or around 6 innings per start. and these are NOT household names.

3= BREWERS: Woodruff, Burnes, Peralta, Hauser... you guessed it at or near 6 innings.

4= RAYS: Here is your outlier with 8 pitchers starting at least 10 games.

5= WHITE SOX:  5 pitchers averaging 5 1/3 innings, a little bit below 6 innings per, but close.

 

The other teams don't recognize the same benefits from signing a top pitcher?  Plus, if he brought in 5,000 extra fans who all spent $100 that would not cover half his salary.  That's assuming he had the same impact in road games.

[Nick Nelson]

4 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

The same thing is true for pitchers. As has been said many times by many people, players need to be put in situations where they have the best chance of success. If pitcher A does best going three times through the batting order every fifth day, then use him that way. If pitcher B does best going one inning at a time every day or two, then use him that way. If pitcher C does best going 3 innings every third day, then use him that way.

The problem is that it's not always easy to determine which situations they're best suited for. Some pitchers spend a large portion of their careers being misused. There aren't many who've even been tested in a McHugh-type role so it's hard to say how they'll take it to it, which is why this is a bit experimental and risky.

There's a big reason it's not THAT risky, though: For all their variations, one thing that is almost universally true for pitchers is that they;re better against hitters the first time facing them in a game compared to the second or third time. 

[Nick Nelson]

4 hours ago, rv78 said:

The theory of having 3 pitchers go 3 innings each so they only have to face each batter once is great but in reality it isn't going to happen because all 3 won't pitch 3 perfect innings.

I don't think anyone's actually suggesting the usage would be this rigid. Theoretically guys like Ryan and Ober will still go 5 innings frequently. There will also still be shorter-burst relievers like Alcala and Duffey for the late innings. Mostly the concept here is about shifting away from the idea that a SP has to go 5+ innings or it's a failure. Instead, you can plan around frequent short starts or piggyback situations.

The way this plays out in practice would be fluid. But I think with a 14-man staff you can accommodate it.

[Doctor Gast]

Also I think that this is one way he can try not to do a big trade. The fan base is demanding a big trade and I believe he's scared to death of putting together one. He doesn't have the make up for doing this. So he is coming up with this idea to get around not having to do so. I still believe we should at least put together 1 big trade for an ace to help balance out our out of whack 40 man roster.

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

I think with a 14-man staff you can accommodate it.

Yes, a larger pitching staff could help with the plan. The CBA will have language on roster size and I believe MLB currently caps pitching squads at 13. Going to larger numbers may hurt more teams than it helps as better financed teams could stash more players than they currently do. In any event, it is complex and the idea is evolving. 

The Rays had so many young pitchers this year and this accounted for some of their usage patterns. The Twins might see that pattern as beneficial to introducing Duran, Winder, Balazovic, and more. Time will shape the reality, but I'm still in favor of 25 man rosters.

[Nick Nelson]

20 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Yes, a larger pitching staff could help with the plan. The CBA will have language on roster size and I believe MLB currently caps pitching squads at 13.

Actually this rule was never put into effect. I kind of doubt it will be.

[tony&rodney]

5 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

Actually this rule was never put into effect. I kind of doubt it will be.

Ok. Thank you - you are correct. I guess I was caught remembering an article that MLB would reinstate their February 2020 decree of 13 person pitching staffs that was delayed due to Covid concerns. The CBA will sort this out, we hope. 

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

Also I think that this is one way he can try not to do a big trade. The fan base is demanding a big trade and I believe he's scared to death of putting together one. He doesn't have the make up for doing this. So he is coming up with this idea to get around not having to do so. I still believe we should at least put together 1 big trade for an ace to help balance out our out of whack 40 man roster.

The fan base does not have his job because they are not the best judge of what should be done.  They don't pay people millions to do this job because anyone can do it. The fact you would make this statement about someone without ever so much as having a conversation with him is good evidence you don't have the skill set to judge him.

[Nine of twelve]

6 hours ago, Nick Nelson said:

The problem is that it's not always easy to determine which situations they're best suited for.

It's the job of a good manager and pitching coach to be able to at least get a pretty good idea. If, after a few outings, things aren't working, then re-evaluate and take action.

[Doctor Gast]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The fan base does not have his job because they are not the best judge of what should be done.  They don't pay people millions to do this job because anyone can do it. The fact you would make this statement about someone without ever so much as having a conversation with him is good evidence you don't have the skill set to judge him.

I don't have his job and if I had I won't say that I could do a better job, I wouldn't want his job. I'm just making an objective assumption on what I've observed not being subjective or on what people say. Of all the time that he's been in the FO  there have been a plethora of rumors of them seeking out FAs but never heard them seeking a big trade or any of them ever come to fruition. Yes,  many have approached them about trades where they says yes or no but I don't see him initiating them. The Odorizzi/ Palacio was a minor trade at the time and don't know who initiated that trade. 

I'm not judging them, let me give you example. If I see a person walking down the street. A big dog w/ his owner is coming towards him, He cowers and goes to the side to avoid them. I make an assumption that he's afraid of dogs. I'm not judging him, I'm making an observation. I wish the FO well and that they'd would prove me wrong in my observations. But until then I"ll stick my assumptions. Many don't know how to observe and come to a conclusion but give opinions subjectively and on what they are told.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

I don't have his job and if I had I won't say that I could do a better job, I wouldn't want his job. I'm just making an objective assumption on what I've observed not being subjective or on what people say. Of all the time that he's been in the FO  there have been a plethora of rumors of them seeking out FAs but never heard them seeking a big trade or any of them ever come to fruition. Yes,  many have approached them about trades where they says yes or no but I don't see him initiating them. The Odorizzi/ Palacio was a minor trade at the time and don't know who initiated that trade. 

I'm not judging them, let me give you example. If I see a person walking down the street. A big dog w/ his owner is coming towards him, He cowers and goes to the side to avoid them. I make an assumption that he's afraid of dogs. I'm not judging him, I'm making an observation. I wish the FO well and that they'd would prove me wrong in my observations. But until then I"ll stick my assumptions. Many don't know how to observe and come to a conclusion but give opinions subjectively and on what they are told.

Sorry to be harsh.  I had to evaluate hundreds of people over my career at various levels ogf management and also as a consultant.  Passing judgement on people is a difficult role / responsibility and should not be done without being fully informed.  The kind of observations you are using are not even remotely adequate to form an educated opinion much less pass convey that opinion publicly.  

You are also assuming he is afraid to make a big trade when it is quite possible a big trade is not the best strategy.  How many below average revenue teams have made a trade in the past 10 years for the type of established elite players called for by fans.   They are relatively rare.  Look at playoff teams with below average revenue and you will find the number of players acquired as prospects outnumber established players acquired for prospects by a wide margin.  Tampa has thrived in part because they understand asset management and 5 or 6 years of control has more value than 2 years of control.  Fans love trades for established players because they are impatient but there is a premium to be paid for established players that does not favor small market teams.

Trades might be the best strategy when you have San Diego's incredibly deep farm system and/or you have all the other pieces.  Does it make sense to make a big trade with all of the holes this team has presently.  It might if they could convince a couple top FA SPs and a SS to come here.  What you assume is fear is simply good judgement, IMO.  

[jishfish]

22 hours ago, Nick Nelson said:

I don't think anyone's actually suggesting the usage would be this rigid. Theoretically guys like Ryan and Ober will still go 5 innings frequently. There will also still be shorter-burst relievers like Alcala and Duffey for the late innings. Mostly the concept here is about shifting away from the idea that a SP has to go 5+ innings or it's a failure. Instead, you can plan around frequent short starts or piggyback situations.

The way this plays out in practice would be fluid. But I think with a 14-man staff you can accommodate it.

Personally, I think this is exactly the way to think of it, and honestly I think there's a really good team to be built around this idea, with a number of great fits already in house. I think people get caught up in the "they're only going to go 3 innings no matter what" idea, when in reality I believe things would certainly be more flexible than that. I think the other item to consider is that we don't necessarily have to fill the rotation with just bargain bin pitchers. There are plenty of pitchers out there with health concerns or innings limits that I think would be perfect for this type of setup. 

 If you're still with me at this point, let me just propose a scenario that fits this method, while also building what I think could be a strong potential playoff rotation.

The way I'm thinking something like this could work is essentially with a 3-tier pitching staff consisting of: starting pitchers(5), bulk relievers(4), traditional relievers(5). First, to fill some spots internally we will have: Ryan and Ober as two of our starting pitchers, Jax and Dobnak as two of our bulk relievers, and Rogers/Duffy/Thielbar/Alcala as four of our traditional relievers. That leaves us with 3 SP, 2 Bulk, and 1 Traditional spots to fill.

To fill the final reliever spot, I'm signing someone like McHugh or Knebal to function as a high leverage, proven arm. I want these 5 relievers to be lights-out arms that can shut down the 7th-9th innings.

To fill one of the bulk spots, I'm swinging in a trade to bring in a guy from Miami, Elieser Hernandez. There are countless guys both in the organization already and outside of it that I think could fit these roles well, so I wouldn't read too hard into the one specific player I picked. But I did just want to show one stat line quick about why I think someone like Hernandez would be great here:

• 1st Time through the order: 25.3% K-BB% / .675 OPS / 2.54 FIP
• 2nd Time through the order: 15.6% K-BB% / .828 OPS / 6.31 FIP

The last bulk spot could simply be a rotation of AAA guys as arms are needed throughout the year. I'll let you fill in the blank there, I'm not going to think too hard about it. Eventually I think these could be ideal places for Duran or Canterino to end up long-term if they end up showing they can't handle a starters workload.

Finally, I think there are a number of interesting non-bargain bin candidates to fill out the rotation. I'm looking to identify players who maybe have a long injury history and have never hit the 150+ inning mark but are extremely effective when healthy, players coming off of an injury looking to manage innings and slowly build throughout the year, or young players like Ryan/Ober still building their workload. Nobody says these guys have to be scrubs.

Two pitchers that I think would be perfect for this type of rotation are Alex Wood and Alex Cobb. Both have an extensive injury history, but have proven to be strong starters when healthy. Let them go out and get their ~15 outs, throw 75-85 bullets, and help to manage their workload throughout the year so they are healthy and fresh going into playoffs. Then to top the rotation off, I think a great fit for this setup could be Carlos Rodon, as someone who is coming off of an injury and maybe doesn't have the capacity to be counted on for 150+ innings. Maybe his market isn't quite what he was hoping it to be, so we swoop in and offer him a 1x$22M contract to let him rebuild his value. If he's healthy going into playoffs, there's a Game 1 starter you can feel real good about.

I'm not saying this is the most realistic offseason, and if you asked me if I thought this plan was likely to be put into place my answer would be "of course not". In reality are we going to sign Rodon AND Wood AND Cobb, no definitely not! And would 1-2 of the SP spots and 1-2 of the bulk spots be more likely to be filled with the Chris Archer's of the world, absolutely! But some people are writing this off without even giving it consideration, and I think that's a mistake. We would all love to sign the Gerrit Cole's and Scherzer's of the world, but that's never going to be our reality here. I think ideas like this can allow us to be competitive in a "Rays" sort of way, while also not constraining us to a $70M total payroll.

Full pitching staff for this specific scenario is included below for clarity's sake. There are a million variations of this that you could put together, but this is just something pulled together on short notice.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

On 11/12/2021 at 5:53 AM, High heat said:

This could work only under a few conditions.  

1. New CBA allows for larger roster expansion.  28 or 30 on active roster/travel with big league club like what happened in 2020.

2. Lots of decent young controllable arms who can be call up and sent down and recalled with St Paul Saints being so close.  This would decimate AAA though. 

3. You use this method as a try out for 3 guys early in season if one guy gets hurt or ineffective and eventually finding a 5th starter.

Could adding St Paul as a Triple A farm team have been part of this grand plan? It certainly fits this interesting pitching plan to a tee. 

>

?

[Mark G]

13 hours ago, jishfish said:

Personally, I think this is exactly the way to think of it, and honestly I think there's a really good team to be built around this idea, with a number of great fits already in house. I think people get caught up in the "they're only going to go 3 innings no matter what" idea, when in reality I believe things would certainly be more flexible than that. I think the other item to consider is that we don't necessarily have to fill the rotation with just bargain bin pitchers. There are plenty of pitchers out there with health concerns or innings limits that I think would be perfect for this type of setup. 

 If you're still with me at this point, let me just propose a scenario that fits this method, while also building what I think could be a strong potential playoff rotation.

The way I'm thinking something like this could work is essentially with a 3-tier pitching staff consisting of: starting pitchers(5), bulk relievers(4), traditional relievers(5). First, to fill some spots internally we will have: Ryan and Ober as two of our starting pitchers, Jax and Dobnak as two of our bulk relievers, and Rogers/Duffy/Thielbar/Alcala as four of our traditional relievers. That leaves us with 3 SP, 2 Bulk, and 1 Traditional spots to fill.

To fill the final reliever spot, I'm signing someone like McHugh or Knebal to function as a high leverage, proven arm. I want these 5 relievers to be lights-out arms that can shut down the 7th-9th innings.

To fill one of the bulk spots, I'm swinging in a trade to bring in a guy from Miami, Elieser Hernandez. There are countless guys both in the organization already and outside of it that I think could fit these roles well, so I wouldn't read too hard into the one specific player I picked. But I did just want to show one stat line quick about why I think someone like Hernandez would be great here:

• 1st Time through the order: 25.3% K-BB% / .675 OPS / 2.54 FIP
• 2nd Time through the order: 15.6% K-BB% / .828 OPS / 6.31 FIP

The last bulk spot could simply be a rotation of AAA guys as arms are needed throughout the year. I'll let you fill in the blank there, I'm not going to think too hard about it. Eventually I think these could be ideal places for Duran or Canterino to end up long-term if they end up showing they can't handle a starters workload.

Finally, I think there are a number of interesting non-bargain bin candidates to fill out the rotation. I'm looking to identify players who maybe have a long injury history and have never hit the 150+ inning mark but are extremely effective when healthy, players coming off of an injury looking to manage innings and slowly build throughout the year, or young players like Ryan/Ober still building their workload. Nobody says these guys have to be scrubs.

Two pitchers that I think would be perfect for this type of rotation are Alex Wood and Alex Cobb. Both have an extensive injury history, but have proven to be strong starters when healthy. Let them go out and get their ~15 outs, throw 75-85 bullets, and help to manage their workload throughout the year so they are healthy and fresh going into playoffs. Then to top the rotation off, I think a great fit for this setup could be Carlos Rodon, as someone who is coming off of an injury and maybe doesn't have the capacity to be counted on for 150+ innings. Maybe his market isn't quite what he was hoping it to be, so we swoop in and offer him a 1x$22M contract to let him rebuild his value. If he's healthy going into playoffs, there's a Game 1 starter you can feel real good about.

I'm not saying this is the most realistic offseason, and if you asked me if I thought this plan was likely to be put into place my answer would be "of course not". In reality are we going to sign Rodon AND Wood AND Cobb, no definitely not! And would 1-2 of the SP spots and 1-2 of the bulk spots be more likely to be filled with the Chris Archer's of the world, absolutely! But some people are writing this off without even giving it consideration, and I think that's a mistake. We would all love to sign the Gerrit Cole's and Scherzer's of the world, but that's never going to be our reality here. I think ideas like this can allow us to be competitive in a "Rays" sort of way, while also not constraining us to a $70M total payroll.

Full pitching staff for this specific scenario is included below for clarity's sake. There are a million variations of this that you could put together, but this is just something pulled together on short notice.

Just so I understand your plan, interesting as it is, you are suggesting a 14 man staff on a 26 man roster.  Including the DH, 9 non pitchers will be in the lineup each day, leaving 3 bench players, which includes the other catcher not playing that day, which the manager hesitates to use unless he has to.  That will leave 2 players to pinch hit, pinch run, use as defensive replacements if necessary, etc, so we can have 15-17 pitchers (I included your AAA rotation you talked about) because........well, actually, I am not sure why.  There is no way we have 15-17 pitchers between Target Field and St. Paul who are actually major league ready and caliber, so we will on occasion have minor league pitchers pitching so our major league pitchers........what, don't have to go through a lineup a 2nd or 3rd time?  That is a debate that is worth having, I guess, and it sounds like it would be a good one.  I, for one, fall on the side of smaller pitching staffs with these pitchers pitching a little more, maybe, simply because they would be major league caliber, which also leaves us a bigger and better bench to work with.  Using minor league caliber pitchers to lower the number of pitches and innings, or keeping pitchers from seeing the same batter more than one or two times may work short term, but for a 162 games?  Every year?  It makes me a little uneasy, I guess.  Good post, though; it brings very interesting ideas.  

[old nurse]

On 11/13/2021 at 4:16 PM, mikelink45 said:

I don't disagree, I just keep thinking about how many appearances are required to fill a minimum of three good pictures everyday for 162 games. I don't think we have that many pitchers and if we do we need to have the roster increased to 30 players since they've taken away the ability for us to just keep rotating players up and down like we did in 2019. 

If they pitch 3 innings every 4th day that would be 120 innings for a season  That would be as productive as 4 innings every 5th day.  With better results it is a better plan. Considering player potential, and past outcomes they have nothing to lose by trying

[mikelink45]

3 hours ago, old nurse said:

If they pitch 3 innings every 4th day that would be 120 innings for a season  That would be as productive as 4 innings every 5th day.  With better results it is a better plan. Considering player potential, and past outcomes they have nothing to lose by trying

That also requires 12 very good pitchers.  We never have 12 very good three inning pitchers and with injuries and other considerations it really requires 15 - 18 pitchers to complete the year.  I do not know any staff that has that many good arms.