Here's Why the Twins Haven't Gone Hard After Pitching

[KirbyDome89]

Canterino threw 23 pitches last season, Duran threw 16, and each dealt with elbow issues. Assuming the Twins get lucky and there's no surgical intervention, those guys still aren't going to throw a significant number of innings, let alone get much experience at the major league level. Maybe Winder's shoulder issues were just fatigue, but even if his injury situation is also a best case scenario, breaking down after 70ish innings isn't encouraging; he's likely limited this year as well. SWR pitched so poorly the Twins decided to shut him down, but he's another guy with workload questions. That leaves Balazovic to round out the Twins' best shot at an "impact," arm, and none of these guys really profile as a front of the rotation arm. These guys aren't likely to start the year in MN. How much "learning," or evaluation is actually going to occur? 

From where I'm sitting the Twins still have a gaping hole at the top of the rotation, with Ryan as a long shot to fill in as a 3 rather than 4-5 type. If the belief is that the pipeline will debut and solidify the pitching need, why not get that front line starter(s) to supplement and actually try to win some games? If the prospects are still viewed as massive question marks, why not sign legitimate pitchers as insurance and again, maybe win some games. There really isn't an excuse for sitting on your hands and wasting a year, particularly with the position players in place. 

I sincerely hope that "the plan all along," wasn't to fail miserably in FA, be meh in trades, and pin all hope of success over the next 3-5 seasons on a good but not great group of prospect arms. Gunnarthor nailed it; the goalposts have shifted considerably if we're rationalizing sitting out an offseason and wasting a year as necessary to build a "sustainable winner," and make upcoming 40 man decisions easier.

[KirbyDome89]

11 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

4. The FO then uses the cash saved to build a killer pen and, if desired, add a more true #1 and/or a key position player or two to fill a hole. 

The same thing was said while the club was sporting bottom third payrolls in the early 2010s. Those savings weren't spent following those atrocious years, and whatever isn't spent this year won't rollover into some future expense account either. 

[USAFChief]

5 hours ago, Nick Nelson said:

I don't think that's a fair way to look at it. They missed an entire minor-league season and then had to try to build back up the following year. You can't treat their development cycle like a typical 24/25 year old's. I do think that point underscores the urgency of getting them looks in the near future, however. 

The widespread injuries, to me, are the foreboding concern. But you've gotta believe some of these guys will see their lack turn around on that front after last summer. And I wonder how many of the IL trips/shutdowns were the result of extreme caution, given the circumstances.

Did 2020 only happen to Twins minor leaguers?

[Nick Nelson]

15 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Did 2020 only happen to Twins minor leaguers?

I wasn't specifying them? When I say "You can't treat their development cycle like a typical 24/25 year old's" I meant typical as in pre-2020. The same applies to any minor-leaguer. 25 is the new 23, if you will,

[Nick Nelson]

3 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I sincerely hope that "the plan all along," wasn't to fail miserably in FA, be meh in trades, and pin all hope of success over the next 3-5 seasons on a good but not great group of prospect arms. Gunnarthor nailed it; the goalposts have shifted considerably if we're rationalizing sitting out an offseason and wasting a year as necessary to build a "sustainable winner," and make upcoming 40 man decisions easier.

The goalposts haven't shifted. The plan has always been to develop pitching as a means to success. The Twins rebuilt their infrastructure around that philosophy. They made outside-the-box coaching and front office hires. Falvey was hired away from Cleveland on this basis, and he was always going to be judged ultimately on the merits of his pitching development system. The goalposts are the same. 

I don't know why you act like this is such a radical idea. When was the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher? Serious question.

As for the bit about "rationalizing sitting out an offseason and wasting a year," this is is what I'd call moving the goalposts. No one is out here defending the notion of sitting out the rest of the offseason and making no more significant additions. And that isn't going to happen. The article is specifically addressing the team's choice to bypass the top tier of free agent starting pitching.  

[h2oface]

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

I wasn't specifying them? When I say "You can't treat their development cycle like a typical 24/25 year old's" I meant typical as in pre-2020. The same applies to any minor-leaguer. 25 is the new 23, if you will,

 

.........When was the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher? Serious question.

 

I would disagree. The youth that is playing baseball in the minors have been playing most of their life. They now have trainers and family and coaches that groom them to be baseball players with fervor with clinics and camps and weight training and cross training and private coaching at very young ages and carry it on and on. I see it all the time. They spend a lot of money on it, too. So by the time these youth are 18 and 19, they have had more baseball than players used to have accumulated well into their 20s, and certainly by the time they are 23. Their development is heightened and accelerated immensely year by passing year now. And I doubt many of them stopped working on their game on their own during 2020, either.

In this light, one could say that the same applies to any minor-leaguer. In this light 19 is the new 23, not the opposite. One year doesn't really take away all the others.

 

And in regard to the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher..... I don't know why that statement must be limited to an AL Central champion, and not all of MLB, because it has happened in MLB a lot. And the AL Central is in MLB. After all, the goal is always to win the World Series, not the AL Central, right?

[Nick Nelson]

1 hour ago, h2oface said:

And in regard to the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher..... I don't know why that statement must be limited to an AL Central champion, and not all of MLB, because it has happened in MLB a lot. And the AL Central is in MLB. After all, the goal is always to win the World Series, not the AL Central, right?

That sure is a long-winded way of not answering the question! 

[bean5302]

I don't have any issues with the Twins running with the pitchers they have and rebuilding. I don't have any issues with the Twins trading for front end rotation arms and competing. I do have a problem with the Twins log jamming their older prospects behind mediocre at best arms who the Twins will refuse to release in a timely manner. 

It's time for the Twins to prove they have the arms or prove they're willing to bring in the arms. It's that simple to me.

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

The goalposts haven't shifted. The plan has always been to develop pitching as a means to success. The Twins rebuilt their infrastructure around that philosophy. They made outside-the-box coaching and front office hires. Falvey was hired away from Cleveland on this basis, and he was always going to be judged ultimately on the merits of his pitching development system. The goalposts are the same. 

I don't know why you act like this is such a radical idea. When was the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher? Serious question.

As for the bit about "rationalizing sitting out an offseason and wasting a year," this is is what I'd call moving the goalposts. No one is out here defending the notion of sitting out the rest of the offseason and making no more significant additions. And that isn't going to happen. The article is specifically addressing the team's choice to bypass the top tier of free agent starting pitching.  

No doubt, the goal of every team is to develop their own talent as a primary means to success. They'll always be judged based on team performance. The reason we're fixated on these prospects is because the FO has failed in other avenues. To say 'this was the plan all along," ignores those failures and what transpired to reach a point where so much is riding on this group, i.e. it shifts the goalposts from a team that should be competing, to one that now needs time for development.

I honestly don't know why you're limiting the scope to the AL Central.

Semantics maybe, but I would've considered significant to mean one of those top tier FAs that signed deals well within the Twins' budget. Rodon is still out there, and Pineda seems destined to return, but barring some massive trade (very unlikely) it's going to be another season of stop gaps, and considering what they could've had, I'd call that sitting out. 

[h2oface]

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

That sure is a long-winded way of not answering the question! 

Well, I took it as a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer, so I chose rhetoric instead. 

[TNTwinsFan]

Sign Greinke. Let him do Hall Of Fame things with all of his hood rat friends. They'll all be better for it.

[Prince William]

They will go hard for the one or two year contracts that no one wants to sign  until there is no other option. One week before spring training is the time when the FO plan will become clearer. The other avenue is trades. When the price of long term contracts went up the asking price for traded pitching must have gone way up. 

[beckmt]

1 hour ago, Prince William said:

They will go hard for the one or two year contracts that no one wants to sign  until there is no other option. One week before spring training is the time when the FO plan will become clearer. The other avenue is trades. When the price of long term contracts went up the asking price for traded pitching must have gone way up. 

It has, that is why some of the trade proposals for 2 year starters are taking 2 of the Twins top 5 or 6 prospects, plus possibly one major league piece.

[beckmt]

The plan I am seeing from many of you is to trade for some pitcher (x) with 1 to 3 years control.  For that to work you are making two assumptions.

1. they will sign an extension here.

2. They will give us very good to great pitching.

 

Neither is a given.  And will cost major propects/pieces to get these #2 or #3 starters.  We need to find what we have.

[Major League Ready]

8 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Did 2020 only happen to Twins minor leaguers?

No but so what.  How does the fact that we lost 2020 not impact our prospects because it also impacted other prospects?

[Prince William]

27 minutes ago, beckmt said:

It has, that is why some of the trade proposals for 2 year starters are taking 2 of the Twins top 5 or 6 prospects, plus possibly one major league piece.

There hasn't been much for trades to judge what the price may be. Fan proposals are what they are. Too bad Smeltzer did not pitch just a little bit better 2 years ago. He could have been that major league peace err piece

[Major League Ready]

9 minutes ago, beckmt said:

The plan I am seeing from many of you is to trade for some pitcher (x) with 1 to 3 years control.  For that to work you are making two assumptions.

1. they will sign an extension here.

2. They will give us very good to great pitching.

 

Neither is a given.  And will cost major propects/pieces to get these #2 or #3 starters.  We need to find what we have.

The same people saying we have to trade for SPs are saying we are going to lose 90-100 games if we don't.  So, how many games difference can we make signing a couple SPs like Montas?  That does not even get us to 500.  How is it a good plan to trade away guys who could give us 6+ years for 2 years of control so that we can be a 500 team? 

[Prince William]

8 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Did 2020 only happen to Twins minor leaguers?

I don't think there were any pitchers who did not pitch in 2020 throwing much over 100 innings, so 2020 affected everyone

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The same people saying we have to trade for SPs are saying we are going to lose 90-100 games if we don't.  So, how many games difference can we make signing a couple SPs like Montas?  That does not even get us to 500.  How is it a good plan to trade away guys who could give us 6+ years for 2 years of control so that we can be a 500 team? 

Makes us feel warm and fuzzy when they "try" the way we want them to try. That's why I feel warm and fuzzy about building a pitching pipeline.

[Major League Ready]

9 hours ago, h2oface said:

 

I would disagree. The youth that is playing baseball in the minors have been playing most of their life. They now have trainers and family and coaches that groom them to be baseball players with fervor with clinics and camps and weight training and cross training and private coaching at very young ages and carry it on and on. I see it all the time. They spend a lot of money on it, too. So by the time these youth are 18 and 19, they have had more baseball than players used to have accumulated well into their 20s, and certainly by the time they are 23. Their development is heightened and accelerated immensely year by passing year now. And I doubt many of them stopped working on their game on their own during 2020, either.

In this light, one could say that the same applies to any minor-leaguer. In this light 19 is the new 23, not the opposite. One year doesn't really take away all the others.

 

And in regard to the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher..... I don't know why that statement must be limited to an AL Central champion, and not all of MLB, because it has happened in MLB a lot. And the AL Central is in MLB. After all, the goal is always to win the World Series, not the AL Central, right?

You are right in that it should not be limited to the AL central.  The appropriate sample set would be teams of equal or less revenue.  Teams with enough incremental revenue to pay for a top starter and have the twins revenue left over are not equivalent samples.  Also, the outcry here is not simply for free agents but high profile free (20M+ AAV) type free agents.   If there are many examples, you should not have a hard time listing several.   

It would be great to see these examples instead of just making unsubstantiated proclamations.  The only impactful free agent SP I can think of that made an impact for a below average revenue team was Charlie Morton's 6 WAR season.  He signed for 2/30 so while 15M is a fairly substantial AAV, a $30M contract can hardly be considered a "big signing".

Looking forward to your examples.

[Major League Ready]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Makes us feel warm and fuzzy when they "try" the way we want them to try. That's why I feel warm and fuzzy about building a pitching pipeline.

If they did what most people want them to do we would be in serious trouble beyond the short-term.

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

If they did what most people want them to do we would be in serious trouble beyond the short-term.

The "what have you done for me lately" greatness of fandom. This FO is apparently the worst in the history of baseball at building pitching staffs despite being #2 in all of baseball in pitching WAR for 2019 and 2020 combined.

[terrydactyls]

Quick thought from out east...  The payroll is about $90M right now.  Sign Pineda for $10M, sign Kris Bryant for $18M, sign a glove-first shortstop for $3M, and a bullpen guy for $5M.  The payroll is now at $126M.  That completes the offseason.  As the midseason trade deadline approaches, evaluate the where you are as far as competing in 2022, and either trade prospects for additional pitching, stick with what you have, or trade whoever is hot (Donaldson, Sano, Kepler, Bryant, Pineda come to my mind).

[stringer bell]

Well written Nick. There can be an argument that production was delayed and now we'll see excellent results from the guys listed in the piece and maybe from guys not listed. Baily Ober was not on many people's radar and he looks like a solid starter. To think that a couple of Twins' prospects with higher profiles could come in and contribute as soon as this year would make sense. 

With all the injuries that occurred last year, there would seem to be a crying need for short-term help to tide the team over in '22. Many of the prospective starters will be on innings limits as Ober was last year, and some will not step forward, that is just the way things go. Bundy is one piece, adding someone else and Pineda or taking a chance on Rodon would still make sense.

 

[Nick Nelson]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

You are right in that it should not be limited to the AL central.  The appropriate sample set would be teams of equal or less revenue.  Teams with enough incremental revenue to pay for a top starter and have the twins revenue left over are not equivalent samples.  Also, the outcry here is not simply for free agents but high profile free (20M+ AAV) type free agents.   If there are many examples, you should not have a hard time listing several.   

It would be great to see these examples instead of just making unsubstantiated proclamations.  The only impactful free agent SP I can think of that made an impact for a below average revenue team was Charlie Morton's 6 WAR season.  He signed for 2/30 so while 15M is a fairly substantial AAV, a $30M contract can hardly be considered a "big signing".

Looking forward to your examples.

Exactly this! I picked the AL Central because, well, that's the division the Twins are trying to win, and the teams they compete against most frequently. But I also picked it because those teams operate on somewhat similar financial footing. 

It is utterly irrelevant to say "Look, the Yankees/Dodgers/Astros signed a big free agent pitcher, why don't the Twins??" Those teams operate in a completely different context. 

So many people act like throwing money at free agent pitching is some surefire path to contention or getting over the hump. From my view there is just no real evidence of this being true, at least for a team like the Twins. 

[KirbyDome89]

34 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

Exactly this! I picked the AL Central because, well, that's the division the Twins are trying to win, and the teams they compete against most frequently. But I also picked it because those teams operate on somewhat similar financial footing. 

It is utterly irrelevant to say "Look, the Yankees/Dodgers/Astros signed a big free agent pitcher, why don't the Twins??" Those teams operate in a completely different context. 

So many people act like throwing money at free agent pitching is some surefire path to contention or getting over the hump. From my view there is just no real evidence of this being true, at least for a team like the Twins. 

In the last decade Detroit was a fixture amongst the top payrolls while they were racking up division titles and making deep playoff runs; the Twins have never shown a willingness to do that. KC and Cleveland sat in or very near the bottom 5 and briefly rose to the median during WS runs; the Twins never should do that. I guess the Sox are a comp if they don't spend like they did in the late 2000s, and instead continue to mirror the payrolls of their rough 2010s run. 

Ray, Gausman, Stroman, and Berrios all signed deals well within the Twins budget. Spend like NY or LA is a strawman.  

It's understood there's inherent risk with FA pitchers. Alternatively, prospect development carries a similar, if not greater, amount of risk. "For a team like the Twins," isn't painting an accurate picture. If you're only willing to spend mid level dollars on short term deals, then sure, it'll be tough to get over the hump, but that's not really the point of this whole discussion. 

[KirbyDome89]

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The "what have you done for me lately" greatness of fandom. This FO is apparently the worst in the history of baseball at building pitching staffs despite being #2 in all of baseball in pitching WAR for 2019 and 2020 combined.

Nearly all of that WAR has vacated, hence the concern. 

[chpettit19]

9 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Nearly all of that WAR has vacated, hence the concern. 

Oh, I get it. I'm concerned about 2022 just like everyone else. My point is that the storyline very quickly switched for certain fans to this FO being completely incompetent and having no ability to build a pitching staff. There's a large number of posters on this site who speak about this FO having to go because they have no ability to sign, trade for, or develop pitching. There's a large number of posters on here who have written off 2022 already because they feel this FO has no ability to put out a successful pitching staff in general. There's a large number of posters on this site who claim Rocco and the FO have only had success because of a historic HR hitting season. All of those stances ignore the actual results this team has seen. 

Not saying they shouldn't be ripped for 2021. Not saying they've successfully setup the team for 2022. Just saying 2021 was 1 season and talking like this FO has completely failed on the pitching front is ignoring a massive amount of previous success. Saying 2022 is doomed because they didn't sign certain guys is ignoring their previous successes at snagging very successful players late in the offseason on multiple occasions already. Thus the "what have you done for me lately" comment. Stepping back and taking in all of the information we have should lead people to be concerned for 2022, but also realize this FO has put together incredibly effective pitching staffs with late offseason moves on multiple occasions so all hope is not lost and we don't need to freak out just yet. Just saying fans should have some more perspective.

[chpettit19]

46 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

In the last decade Detroit was a fixture amongst the top payrolls while they were racking up division titles and making deep playoff runs; the Twins have never shown a willingness to do that. KC and Cleveland sat in or very near the bottom 5 and briefly rose to the median during WS runs; the Twins never should do that. I guess the Sox are a comp if they don't spend like they did in the late 2000s, and instead continue to mirror the payrolls of their rough 2010s run. 

Ray, Gausman, Stroman, and Berrios all signed deals well within the Twins budget. Spend like NY or LA is a strawman.  

It's understood there's inherent risk with FA pitchers. Alternatively, prospect development carries a similar, if not greater, amount of risk. "For a team like the Twins," isn't painting an accurate picture. If you're only willing to spend mid level dollars on short term deals, then sure, it'll be tough to get over the hump, but that's not really the point of this whole discussion. 

(Following numbers pulled from Cot's as opening day 26-man roster totals)

To be fair the Tigers spent like crazy under Mike Ilitch, but Chris has sliced and diced payroll since he took over (200M last year of Mike's tenure (RIP), 125M very next year under Chris with 115, 43, and 81M payrolls to follow). Not saying he won't spend like his dad, but we certainly can't say he will yet. Didn't splurge on Correa a month ago so there's at least 1 data point that he won't just blow the top off things.

The White Sox topped out at 127M in 2011. They were at 128 last year. Not sure why the Twins aren't a comp there. They're playing in basically the exact same financial waters.

KC and Cleveland are definitely "cycle" teams in that they spend when they think they have a shot, but will slash payrolls after. Twins don't slash quite so low, but they have some "cycle-ness" to them, too.

But I think Nick's point is that the max payrolls (until Chris Ilitch shows differently) for this division are all in roughly the same spot. 

[KirbyDome89]

28 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Oh, I get it. I'm concerned about 2022 just like everyone else. My point is that the storyline very quickly switched for certain fans to this FO being completely incompetent and having no ability to build a pitching staff. There's a large number of posters on this site who speak about this FO having to go because they have no ability to sign, trade for, or develop pitching. There's a large number of posters on here who have written off 2022 already because they feel this FO has no ability to put out a successful pitching staff in general. There's a large number of posters on this site who claim Rocco and the FO have only had success because of a historic HR hitting season. All of those stances ignore the actual results this team has seen. 

Not saying they shouldn't be ripped for 2021. Not saying they've successfully setup the team for 2022. Just saying 2021 was 1 season and talking like this FO has completely failed on the pitching front is ignoring a massive amount of previous success. Saying 2022 is doomed because they didn't sign certain guys is ignoring their previous successes at snagging very successful players late in the offseason on multiple occasions already. Thus the "what have you done for me lately" comment. Stepping back and taking in all of the information we have should lead people to be concerned for 2022, but also realize this FO has put together incredibly effective pitching staffs with late offseason moves on multiple occasions so all hope is not lost and we don't need to freak out just yet. Just saying fans should have some more perspective.

The fringes aren't really worth mentioning or arguing against. 

I view both '21 as well as the pitching issues as a culmination rather than a snapshot. Is it doomed because player X wasn't signed? No. Do I think it's highly unlikely they're able to field a staff capable of competing for a playoff spot at this point? Yes. The Twins weren't mathematically eliminated from playoff contention until mid September, but we knew the season was over by the end of May. I'd certainly take an Odo type, but barring a huge trade, it's a band aid on a broken arm. 

12 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

(Following numbers pulled from Cot's as opening day 26-man roster totals)

To be fair the Tigers spent like crazy under Mike Ilitch, but Chris has sliced and diced payroll since he took over (200M last year of Mike's tenure (RIP), 125M very next year under Chris with 115, 43, and 81M payrolls to follow). Not saying he won't spend like his dad, but we certainly can't say he will yet. Didn't splurge on Correa a month ago so there's at least 1 data point that he won't just blow the top off things.

The White Sox topped out at 127M in 2011. They were at 128 last year. Not sure why the Twins aren't a comp there. They're playing in basically the exact same financial waters.

KC and Cleveland are definitely "cycle" teams in that they spend when they think they have a shot, but will slash payrolls after. Twins don't slash quite so low, but they have some "cycle-ness" to them, too.

But I think Nick's point is that the max payrolls (until Chris Ilitch shows differently) for this division are all in roughly the same spot. 

In fairness Detroit went all in during that run, and Dombrowski sold every asset he could to keep the window open. Maybe (hopefully) they don't reach those levels of spending again, we'll probably find out shortly. The Sox could be, and I said as much. I think the scope was narrowed to downplay the opportunity missed.