2 hours ago, old nurse said:

The data for 3 year contracts is a little better only because generally there was only 2 bad years to offset the good one. 

I have to admit I have not studies the shorter deals.  With just a little luck this current crop should produce a bunch of the guys we could get on a 3 year deal.  In spite of being the guy pointing out the poor track record of 5+,year deals, I am hoping all of these prospects position us to sign the next Zack Wheeler.  I guess it would be even better if a couple top of the rotation guys appear as they did in Cleveland.  In that case, they can buy a SS or whatever pieces we still need.  You can't achieve the best case scenario if you don't proceed in a manner that promotes it.

On 12/28/2021 at 5:58 PM, Major League Ready said:

That has nothing to do with my post.  My post responded to a post that suggested we don't have any long-term contracts with SPs.  While technically true, we have the same advantages (years of control) with prearb or arbitration eligible pitchers without the risk.  Therefore a distinction with no downside.  Perhaps more importantly building a staff from within provides longer control in most cases at lower cost and lower risk.  Something you are ignoring for a fast fix that is an inferior strategy.   That's really what this is about. Immediate satisfaction  vs taking the time to follow a better strategy.

"If they are correct the long-term looks much better than it would had they signed a couple free agents."

Again, none of these prospects are likely to fill the roll these FAs the Twins passed on would have. I'm not going to applaud potential cost savings while another year starts with an all too familiar hole(s) and a great opportunity squandered. You're incorrectly framing this as immediate vs. delayed. Developing players and utilizing other avenues to improve the team aren't mutually exclusive.

There's a ton of risk and downside to the path the Twins appear to be on. Moderation is key, and right now the approach seems very unbalanced. 

20 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

 Developing players and utilizing other avenues to improve the team aren't mutually exclusive.

There's a ton of risk and downside to the path the Twins appear to be on. Moderation is key, and right now the approach seems very unbalanced. 

Bingo.

As it stands today, the Twins "rotation" is easily the worst in MLB.

 

And the kicker: "investing a year in development" doesn't guarantee ANYthing for the future. It only guarantees 2022 will be awful.

20 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

"If they are correct the long-term looks much better than it would had they signed a couple free agents."

Again, none of these prospects are likely to fill the roll these FAs the Twins passed on would have. I'm not going to applaud potential cost savings while another year starts with an all too familiar hole(s) and a great opportunity squandered. You're incorrectly framing this as immediate vs. delayed. Developing players and utilizing other avenues to improve the team aren't mutually exclusive.

There's a ton of risk and downside to the path the Twins appear to be on. Moderation is key, and right now the approach seems very unbalanced. 

Exactly this. I wouldn't have hesitated to overpay Stroman to get him for only three years and I don't even like Stroman that much. I understand reluctance to buy into 5+ years on a pitcher at or over 30 years old but to go into the deadline with two rookie pitchers and one reclamation project is skewing way too far in being conservative about pitching, especially given where the Twins payroll stands right now, their absolute dearth of long-term commitments, and their dire need for rotation help.

This offseason, the stars were perfectly aligned for the Twins to spend a little on pitching and drastically raise the team's floor and the front office closed up shop instead. Frankly, I don't understand how any Twins fan isn't somewhere on the "annoyed-to-outright-angered" spectrum about how November unfolded in regards to competitiveness in 2022.

On 12/29/2021 at 5:29 AM, Major League Ready said:

I agree in any other year.  Not that I would object to signing the right guy to a 3 year deal this year but that's not going to make us contenders.  We can pretend to contend or we can invest a season in developing the assets we make us contenders for severl years.  To that end, I have stated on several occasions that free agents can and should be used strategically.  However, that’s not the approach often advocated for here.  For example, it’s often suggested / insisted that we should sign them whenever we can get them.  The idea of timing these acquisitions when we have a good chance of contending has induced some rather crass responses.  For those of us who bother to actually look at the history of these contracts beyond year 1 and 2 it’s brutally obvious these acquisitions need to be timed.  If not, you get a difference maker when the difference does not matter and nothing from a large investment when it could matter.  Call it opportunity cost if you like.

Perhaps more to the point this year is that trying to build three-fifths of a rotation through agency is destined for failure.  Again, history is quite clear if we are willing to be objective and look at how playoff teams acquire pitching.  There is also often an absolute refusal to accept we have far less financial resource.  It’s an absolute certainty we have to get more productivity per dollar spent.  While it’s undeniable, this is another concept that often draws sarcastic ridicule.  

Free agents are an important building block.  However, they have to be timed and we have to be more productive per dollar spent than the high revenue markets.  I am not in the least bit against free agency.  However, the premise of building the entire front end of a rotation or the general attitude of pay whatever it takes are not good practice and we should not be hoping they employ desperate measures through bad practice.

My hope is that they establish a homegrown rotation and use the financial flexibility to sign a top of the rotation guy and or fill any remaining holes.
 

Go get the perfect free agent after you're already good isn't a viable strategy. 

 

It ignores

-the fact you, by design, wasted at least a year when you had everything BUT the needed FA talent,

-assumes the FA talent will be there, just waiting for a Twins offer at the point you obviously need it, and

-assumes the rest of the team will continue to be good enough to win in the future You already wasted the previous year(s) when they were good enough but didn't have the needed FA talent because you were foolishly waiting for some future point to purchase it.

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Bingo.

As it stands today, the Twins "rotation" is easily the worst in MLB.

 

And the kicker: "investing a year in development" doesn't guarantee ANYthing for the future. It only guarantees 2022 will be awful.

We found something we agree on.  There is absolutely no doubt that investing a year in development provides no guarantees for the future unlike free agents who always perform.  If only we had signed Bumgarner.  If only we had traded for Sale and Darvish.

So, why do teams so commonly  invest in development or rebuilding?  Why did the Mariners rebuild a winning team and why did the White Sox trade away Chris Sale and Adam Eaton.  Why not build arounf them?  Why did the Red Sox trade away Mookie Betts and on and on.  Because it provided the best chance to be good in the future.  There are no guarantees ever, just odds of success.  You are refusing to look beyond next year but I would be happy to consider all of the examples of mid market teams that have acquired their top 3 positions in their rotation in one off-season by the means you suggest they employ. 

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Go get the perfect free agent after you're already good isn't a viable strategy. 

 

It ignores

-the fact you, by design, wasted at least a year when you had everything BUT the needed FA talent,

-assumes the FA talent will be there, just waiting for a Twins offer at the point you obviously need it, and

-assumes the rest of the team will continue to be good enough to win in the future You already wasted the previous year(s) when they were good enough but didn't have the needed FA talent because you were foolishly waiting for some future point to purchase it.

So, you are saying this "awful" team is "guaranteed" to be a contender?  Your words, not mine.  What exactly are the odds of them gaining this many wins through free agency?  They would need to pick up at least 20 wins, probably more, based on your portrayal of the situation. 

There is absolutely no assumption the talent will be waiting.  The critical thinking is that future availability or potential lack thereof does not validate a bad decision today.  In order to "waste" a year" they would have to be legit contenders.  Making them out to be horrible without these additions but contenders with them is not exactly rational.

On 12/31/2021 at 11:05 AM, USAFChief said:

And the kicker: "investing a year in development" doesn't guarantee ANYthing for the future. It only guarantees 2022 will be awful.

This often seems to be left out of the "development year," argument. Investment, flexibility, ect are all positive spins on the same thing; indecisiveness. It's not all that defensible regardless of which side of the rebuild/retool debate you fall on. 

If you're putting all your eggs in the prospect basket and the expectation is that they'll flourish, you'd think the team would want to further invest while so much talent was cost controlled. 

I hope they sign 3-4 more lottery tickets to ensure experience in the rotation and give time/flexibility to the young bucks.

I'd choose 3 from the following...some of these guys might be willing to sign a 1 or 2/option year prove it deal...not a lot of rotations in the bigs are as wide open as ours.

Kikuchi, Cueto, Boyd, Aaron Sanchez, Vince Velasquez, Carlos Martinez

Rotation would be something like:

1. Kikuchi 

2. Ober

3. Martinez

4. Ryan

5. Bundy

6/long relief: Sanchez or Boyd