Trading for starting pitcher

[Major League Ready]

16 minutes ago, Trov said:

How do you know all those teams are on bottom half of "revenue"?  They are on bottom half of payroll, and a few you know are on bottom half of "revenue", like the Rays and A's based on just general attendance.  However we do not know for sure where the revenues really are at, other than Atlanta who has to show those numbers.  

It's not that hard to put together an accurate estimate.  The two primary revenue sources (TV & Ticket) sales are well documented which makes ranking revenue relatively easy.  There are also service like Statistica that provide some basic statistics for free as an enticement to subscribe to their service.  So, while we don't know exactly, we have a very good idea.  Therefore, to use the argument that these figures are not public appears to be a refusal to accept very compelling evidence because it does not support your preferred conclusion which was basically my original point.  Fans don't bother to look at how successful teams acquired their talent even though it is very easy to do.    

BTW ... The league inadvertently tells us which teams had the lowest revenue via their revenue sharing distribution.

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, notoriousgod71 said:

Trading for a starting pitcher is irrelevant since this organization won't let them pitch deep into ball games anyway.

Sandy Koufax could go out there and throw 5.1 perfect innings every single game and this bullpen/manager would find a way to blow at least half of those.

You realize that's how every team uses pitchers now, right? Even the Yankees.

[Squirrel]

22 hours ago, bunsen82 said:

Dobnak and Maeda will be available later.

Dobnak’s recovery is not going well. And not sure we can count on Maeda as a starter just returning from TJ, and likely won’t get into games until maybe August? I don’t know a specific timeline, but I do think he’ll get back this year. Dobnak, not so much.

[bunsen82]

26 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Dobnak’s recovery is not going well. And not sure we can count on Maeda as a starter just returning from TJ, and likely won’t get into games until maybe August? I don’t know a specific timeline, but I do think he’ll get back this year. Dobnak, not so much.

Thanks Squirrel,  I hadn't heard Dobnak's recovery was not going well.  Maeda most likely will be a reliever.  But if push came to shove and we needed another starter at the end of the year he could possibly do the Archer role.   I thought Mid to end of July was the timeline on Maeda.  

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

You realize that's how every team uses pitchers now, right? Even the Yankees.

Not sure what you are trying to say is true.

Cole hasn't pitched less than 6 innings since he third game or less than 91 pitches since his 3rd start, and 3 of those 8 starts 7 innings or more.
Cortes has went at least 7 in 4 of his last 5 and the other was at 100 pitches after 5. They did ramp him up a bit but only once pitched less than 82 pitches.
Taillon has went at least 7 in three of his last 4 and the one he didn't wasn't great. They did ramp him up for a few starts but only 3 times less than 82 pitches.
Severino who has pitched 7 games since 2018 ( I guess the Yanks haven't gotten the Covid memo), has pitched at least 7 in 2 of the last 4 and the other two went at least 6. Only twice has he pitched less than 83 pitches.
Montgomery has pitched at least 6 in 3 of his last 4, he does seem like the one guy that might be considered similar to what the Twins are doing, Most of his starts are in the 80 pitch count, but 5 of his 11 starts have been 6 plus innings, and 4 others over 5.

Are there teams pulling starters after the 4th or earlier, sure there but to say that is how every team uses pitchers is absolutely not a true statement. Just in yesterday's games, maybe you could say Oakland did it. Cincy pulled a guy doing great (6 innings, 3 hits, no walks) in a 9 - 0 game, and that turned in a 14 - 8. The Dodgers pull White after 5 innings of 2 hit no walk ball and 69 pitches, and the next two pitchers each gave up 2 in an inning total. They lost 4 - 0. The Brewers also pulled a starter after 5 with 79 pitches, they lost as well (Hader's 1st blown save). Otherwise ever starting pitcher went to around 100 (maybe more) or 6 plus innings, unless they were terrible.

You can go back every day and things look similar at least since pitchers have been stretched out, so are there teams pulling guys early, yes absolutely but not at the pace some people on here are saying it is happening.

People talk about the Rays, there last 6 games from their starter - 6, 1.2(6 runs), 7, 6, 3, 6 ,6

 

[Mike Sixel]

9 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Not sure what you are trying to say is true.

Cole hasn't pitched less than 6 innings since he third game or less than 91 pitches since his 3rd start, and 3 of those 8 starts 7 innings or more.
Cortes has went at least 7 in 4 of his last 5 and the other was at 100 pitches after 5. They did ramp him up a bit but only once pitched less than 82 pitches.
Taillon has went at least 7 in three of his last 4 and the one he didn't wasn't great. They did ramp him up for a few starts but only 3 times less than 82 pitches.
Severino who has pitched 7 games since 2018 ( I guess the Yanks haven't gotten the Covid memo), has pitched at least 7 in 2 of the last 4 and the other two went at least 6. Only twice has he pitched less than 83 pitches.
Montgomery has pitched at least 6 in 3 of his last 4, he does seem like the one guy that might be considered similar to what the Twins are doing, Most of his starts are in the 80 pitch count, but 5 of his 11 starts have been 6 plus innings, and 4 others over 5.

Are there teams pulling starters after the 4th or earlier, sure there but to say that is how every team uses pitchers is absolutely not a true statement. Just in yesterday's games, maybe you could say Oakland did it. Cincy pulled a guy doing great (6 innings, 3 hits, no walks) in a 9 - 0 game, and that turned in a 14 - 8. The Dodgers pull White after 5 innings of 2 hit no walk ball and 69 pitches, and the next two pitchers each gave up 2 in an inning total. They lost 4 - 0. The Brewers also pulled a starter after 5 with 79 pitches, they lost as well (Hader's 1st blown save). Otherwise ever starting pitcher went to around 100 (maybe more) or 6 plus innings, unless they were terrible.

You can go back every day and things look similar at least since pitchers have been stretched out, so are there teams pulling guys early, yes absolutely but not at the pace some people on here are saying it is happening.

People talk about the Rays, there last 6 games from their starter - 6, 1.2(6 runs), 7, 6, 3, 6 ,6

 

The average for starters was 5.1 innings last year. Same this year. That's what the twins did last year, and are likely to end up at this year, unless everyone remains hurt on and off. 

[TwinsDr2021]

21 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

The average for starters was 5.1 innings last year. Same this year. That's what the twins did last year, and are likely to end up at this year, unless everyone remains hurt on and off. 

True, but if you take out bullpen games and games were starters are terrible, that goes up, no?

Is the reason the Twins aren't averaging 5 innings per start this year, because of bullpen games?

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

True, but if you take out bullpen games and games were starters are terrible, that goes up, no?

Is the reason the Twins aren't averaging 5 innings per start this year, because of bullpen games?

If you take out all the starts that don't go into the league wide average, the league wide average changes......sure. But I don't understand your point here. The Twins are running their starters just like other teams do. 

[Trov]

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

It's not that hard to put together an accurate estimate.  The two primary revenue sources (TV & Ticket) sales are well documented which makes ranking revenue relatively easy.  There are also service like Statistica that provide some basic statistics for free as an enticement to subscribe to their service.  So, while we don't know exactly, we have a very good idea.  Therefore, to use the argument that these figures are not public appears to be a refusal to accept very compelling evidence because it does not support your preferred conclusion which was basically my original point.  Fans don't bother to look at how successful teams acquired their talent even though it is very easy to do.    

BTW ... The league inadvertently tells us which teams had the lowest revenue via their revenue sharing distribution.

First, I agree with your statement that teams should be built from within, trading for prospects and younger cost controlled talent.  Very few players perform well past their 33rd age year.  Some do, but very few.  Some even drop off sooner.  I have long argued we should not build our whole team on FA like many fans want.  Most big time signings never work out long term for teams.  Having a solid core and depth is best.  However, I do feel, if you can sign some guys to larger short term deals to supplement where their are holes, that is a good way to go as well. The main issue is most players that are top end talents are not looking for more per year but less years, they normally want the more years or overall total. 

My main point is MLB says teams make less than we think, and I know full well some teams have much better TV deals.  Twins tried to get their own network to increase the money they would get years ago, but it flopped.  We truly do not know where each team falls in the revenue stream.  Twins are middle of the road as they have been near the middle of spending, despite how some fans think we are one of lowest in league.  We just hardly ever make the big splash, but look at the teams that have, how well has that worked out?  Like Padres, Seattle, Detroit, Texas, and more.  Many have terrible contracts on old vets or did have them and need to pay just not have them on the team because they are below replacement. 

[RpR]

24 minutes ago, Trov said:

First, I agree with your statement that teams should be built from within, trading for prospects and younger cost controlled talent.  Very few players perform well past their 33rd age year. 

 

What percentage of rookies, bring the stats. they had in Minor League up to the Major League?

Building from within is merely another crap shoot; you can do that when you current squad is good enough that you are relying on wishful thinking, regardless where the rookies come from.

[Major League Ready]

21 hours ago, Trov said:

First, I agree with your statement that teams should be built from within, trading for prospects and younger cost controlled talent.  Very few players perform well past their 33rd age year.  Some do, but very few.  Some even drop off sooner.  I have long argued we should not build our whole team on FA like many fans want.  Most big time signings never work out long term for teams.  Having a solid core and depth is best.  However, I do feel, if you can sign some guys to larger short term deals to supplement where their are holes, that is a good way to go as well. The main issue is most players that are top end talents are not looking for more per year but less years, they normally want the more years or overall total. 

My main point is MLB says teams make less than we think, and I know full well some teams have much better TV deals.  Twins tried to get their own network to increase the money they would get years ago, but it flopped.  We truly do not know where each team falls in the revenue stream.  Twins are middle of the road as they have been near the middle of spending, despite how some fans think we are one of lowest in league.  We just hardly ever make the big splash, but look at the teams that have, how well has that worked out?  Like Padres, Seattle, Detroit, Texas, and more.  Many have terrible contracts on old vets or did have them and need to pay just not have them on the team because they are below replacement. 

I have been as adamant as anyone that trying to build a pitching staff through free agency has an extremely low probability of success.  I have also pointed that most big free agent SPs are good for a year or two and then very suspect beyond year 2.  Yet, I think next year is a unique situation for the Twins.   They are going to have a ton of inexpensive talent.  The only position that will need attention in the off-season is catcher.  They will also have Gray / Ryan / Winder / Ober / Smeltzer and probably Canterino and Paddack by the 1/2 way point.  They will be in a much better position to spend on a free agent SP than we have seen in as long as I can remember.

I know I am being optimistic especially given I have pointed out more than once that modest revenue teams don't land the big free agent SPs.  Others here have pointed out they have had no interest.  However, it did appear they were serious about Wheeler and Darvis or perhaps willing is the operative word.   If it's ever going to happen, it's next season.

[TwinsDr2021]

18 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

If you take out all the starts that don't go into the league wide average, the league wide average changes......sure. But I don't understand your point here. The Twins are running their starters just like other teams do. 

My point is that not all other teams are doing what you say, Bullpen games bring down the average length of a start. Are the Twins running out bullpen games? no? so shouldn't the Twins starters average be higher than teams that have and do this? I mean if everybody is doing what the Twins are doing?  I pointed out that yes some teams with some pitchers do what the Twins are doing. What the Twins have done with Archer and Smeltzer (just two examples)is way less common than you and others on here suggest. If everybody is doing it how many pitchers on night would you expect? Last night the Tigers pulled Faedo after 5 and 82 pitches, Eovalid was pulled after 5 with 84 and Detmers 4.1 after 85, Kluber went 5 with 80 pitches (3 runs), those are the only ones that are close, Now that is two days in a row that I have went though every boxscore and not seeing it.

It should be simple to prove other teams are doing it, besides looking at the average start across the league that does include bullpen games and terrible starts ( I am sure the Mets for example had plans for Bassitt to pitch more than 3.1 innings, but he got rocked, thus bring average down, but not by choice.

[Number3]

I admittedly am on the senior side of the ages on this board so maybe I am simply behind the times. However, I have no clue as to the viability of this discussion and the fact that there are 100 plus replies. The Twins-Yankees thread appears to have little or no interest. So my conclusion is that this board is a vicarious GM experience for many members and actual game results  and competition are of no interest. The comment that was made about Baldelli not giving starters a chance to go 6 innings is the most relevant I saw and last night was no exception if anyone was paying attention.

[Trov]

19 hours ago, RpR said:

What percentage of rookies, bring the stats. they had in Minor League up to the Major League?

Building from within is merely another crap shoot; you can do that when you current squad is good enough that you are relying on wishful thinking, regardless where the rookies come from.

Many rookies do not perform to what they did in minors, however, players generally peak between ages 27 and 30.  Most do not become FA until 29 to 31.  You will find no team that wins simply built on just FA signed players, no matter the positions.  Supplementing a team with FA can help put them over the top for sure, but to completely build a team from top FA has never worked out for teams.  Normally the player drops off in production and are barely replacement level player, but when you paying big bucks you feel like you need to send them out there, or you kept trading away prospects of that position over the years because they were blocked anyways, so you have no depth in organization.

Building from within is not nearly as much of a crap shoot as signing old vets.  You have years to determine what you have and form the players in your style.  Yes, many times top prospects do not work out, but I challenge you to find a single team that has more FA signed players than home grown players.  I would include players traded to organization while still in minors or considered rookies as home grown, despite not being drafted or signed originally with team.  

If you just tried to build a team on draft, or trades, or FA, you will not have a good team.  You need a mix of all three, but too heavy on FA or trades will set teams back for years.  As shown this year, depth is needed.  Imagine if we traded away all our top young guys over last year or two?  Where would we be with all the injuries? 

I was not suggesting you only rely on players from your minors to help the team, but to only rely on the FA you will miss much more than you hit on.  Just look at the FA pitching this year.  Many fans wanted us to sign like 3 or 4 FA pitchers, because we had too many unproven starters.  I started a forum about how right now only like 2 of the FA pitchers we could have had a real chance of singing, I did not include Scherzer, Verlander, or Kershaw, as all there were not coming here, have been a good signing so far.  Gausman, who we beat, and Rodon, who started off hot, but has slipped as season has gone on. Rest big signings are not off to good starts overall.