Not Hearing Much About Worley

[diehardtwinsfan]

What I think is this: Nolasco and Correia are basically locks for the rotation to begin the year, if healthy. Based on what they did last year and the money in Nolasco's case. Many of you seem to consider Hughes and Pelfrey locks as well, but I doubt if that is the case. Neither pitched well enough last year to earn that status. While they may have a leg up based on the money they will be earning, I think either could be forced to the bullpen to begin the year given the right set of circumstances.

 

I have to disagree with this. The Twins didn't sign Hughes to a 3 year deal and Pelfrey to a 2 year deal so they could earn a spot in the rotation. MLB contracts are guaranteed. This isn't like the NFL where if the guy doesn't pan out, you can cut him. These two, baring injury or trade, will be in the opening day 5 starters along with Nolasco and KC. There's only 1 spot open. That's why the Pelfrey signing supprised me... The Twins can get around some of it by putting Gibson in AAA to start the year and Deduno on the DL if they feel he's still not ready. I just personally think that Gibson should have been in the rotation to start the year.

[Jim H]

I have to disagree with this. The Twins didn't sign Hughes to a 3 year deal and Pelfrey to a 2 year deal so they could earn a spot in the rotation. MLB contracts are guaranteed. This isn't like the NFL where if the guy doesn't pan out, you can cut him. These two, baring injury or trade, will be in the opening day 5 starters along with Nolasco and KC. There's only 1 spot open. That's why the Pelfrey signing supprised me... The Twins can get around some of it by putting Gibson in AAA to start the year and Deduno on the DL if they feel he's still not ready. I just personally think that Gibson should have been in the rotation to start the year.

 

I understand your reasoning, and I do think Pelfrey and Hughes were signed to be starters. But if either struggles this spring, while say Diamond and Worley shine, I can't imagine why the Twins wouldn't put either into the bullpen, at least temporarily. You can't win a division in April and May, but you can pretty well lose it then. You put your best team on the field at whatever point of the season it is. The Twins probably don't have a great chance to be a contender, but if either Hughes or Pelfrey don't show themselves ready to start, to begin the year, well you know what the Twins should do.

 

I assume really, that is the reason the Twins went for overkill in starters this year. So that if somebody struggles they have reasonable alternatives rather than resorting to Pedro Hernandez or P. J. Walter. So, yes, given the right set of circumstances I expect that if either Pelfrey or Hughes struggle even in ST, they might begin the year in the bullpen. I also expect the Twins would prefer them to start. So there would have to be clear differences in performance for them not to.

[Jim H]

One further point about Hughes. He has been at best, a back of the rotation starter for 3 years now. He couldn't hold a rotation spot in a relatively weak Yankee rotation last year. The Twins know this. They signed him because of his "upside" and all the other reasons that have been talked about on this site. Still, if he doesn't deserve to be in the rotation at the beginning of the year, they won't put him there. They have choices, and they can still work with him in the bullpen and eventually move back to the rotation. I don't think the 3 year contract or the money should be a factor in that kind of decision. I rather expect that it won't be, either.

[TheLeviathan]

One further point about Hughes.

 

This has been a big part of my problem with the opposing view - guys like Pelfrey and Hughes were bad last year too and are getting a free pass into the rotation on upside. I'd just like that same mentality carried to a few other guys - favor upside over low floor.

 

But I totally disagree with the idea that Diamond, Worley, Deduno, Gibson, Albers or anyone else has a prayer of beating out Hughes or Pelfrey for a spot in ST. I simply can't conceive of a scenario other than injury in which that happens.

[jorgenswest]

The most important aspect of the organization tied to long term health is developing starting pitchers with service time.

 

Meyer and Gibson have the most upside. Gibson has shown he can get AAA hitters out. The Twins need to invest a spot in the starting rotation towards his development. They need to stick with him through the struggles as they did with Radke and Viola. Meyer needs to be in the rotation early in the season. Hughes and Nolasco are under contract long enough that the Twins need to stick with them through any struggle.

 

Of the remaining pitcher, Worley probably has the most upside looking forward through 2016.

 

An outline of a plan to try to develop starting pitching from within. This is not my prediction of what the Twins will do. I would assume Gardenhire will go with veterans with the contracts. I expect young pitchers will be shuttled back and forth to Rochester like Hendriks. Gardenhire is probably fighting for his job. HE may not be willing to invest innings in the struggles of young pitchers adjusting to major league hitting.

 

Opening day

 

Nolasco, Hughes, Pelfrey, Correia, Gibson

 

Worley and Diamond are in pen. If Deduno has a good spring, he is in the rotation and Correia is in pen. This will create a log jam in pen. Perhaps an opportunity to trade Burton will occur. Duensing could be released. Thielbar and Fien have options. The upside of any potential starter must be retained.

 

May 1

 

Assuming moderate success in AAA, add Meyer. Correia to pen even if he has his typically strong April. If Deduno was there to start and pitches well, be willing to cut loose Pelfrey. If everyone is pitching well... When was the last time that happened? The only way Meyer shouldn't come up early is if Deduno and Pelfrey are both pitching well. In that case, start looking for a trade partner for Pelfrey.

 

There will be injuries during the season creating an opportunity for Worley and Diamond to re-establish themselves.

 

If at the end of the season one of Worley, Diamond and Deduno show that they can be counted on, it will be a success. Gibson and Meyer just need to show signs of hope and be allowed to work through the struggle of adjusting to major league pitching.

[oldguy10]

Mentioned in this thread is that Correia will at some point go to the pen even early on, somehow I do not think the manager will do that with him, anyone else out there think this way also?

[Kwak]

The four free-agents will be in the rotation--and with a long leash. Tryouts for the fifth spot will be in Spring training. There likely will be some shuttling up/down between candidates--that have available options. Those without options will be waived, and likely claimed. There is a reason that players are only allowed three options. If a guy can't make it here in three trys--well it's time to move on, there are others who are earning their shot(s) too! If the Twins had set the performance bar higher for pitchers, there wouldn't be so much teeth-gnashing and shuffling--they would just conclude a guy wasn't good enough and move on.

[Jim H]

Mentioned in this thread is that Correia will at some point go to the pen even early on, somehow I do not think the manager will do that with him, anyone else out there think this way also?

 

Of course he won't be sent to the bullpen early on. He has earned the opportunity to start. The difference this year(hopefully) is that whoever begins the year in the starting rotation will not stay there if he isn't pitching well. That shouldn't mean he will be removed after one or two bad starts, but there should be depth and hopefully guys pitching well at AAA that a series of poor starts will lead to a different and hopefully better starter.

 

I also think that the idea that Hughes represents some sort of great upside is overrated. In his best season as a starter he was a mid-rotation starter. I expect he has a better chance to reach that upside consistently in Minnesota than he did in New York. I am not so sure that upside is much greater than that of Worley or Deduno. The key for any of them is good health or durability and few, really none of the candidates have demonstrated that.

 

I am not so sure I understand the idea of filling the rotation with the highest "upside" guys and just leaving them there whether they are struggling or not. Let's put the guys into the rotation who are pitching the best and force the rest to earn their opportunities.

[Alex]

Mentioned in this thread is that Correia will at some point go to the pen even early on, somehow I do not think the manager will do that with him, anyone else out there think this way also?

 

Considering they didn't do that last year with Worley and save an option year, no.

[Alex]

 

I am not so sure I understand the idea of filling the rotation with the highest "upside" guys and just leaving them there whether they are struggling or not. Let's put the guys into the rotation who are pitching the best and force the rest to earn their opportunities.

 

This is the crux of the argument in that, as things stand now, they'll likely won't get that chance with the Twins because they'll be picked up off waivers. So -- again, if no other moves are made -- the Twins will lose the chance to see if those players do have a high upside.

[kab21]

 

If any of the pitchers -- that are now out of options -- we're talking about (Worley, Deduno, Diamond) could become solid #4 or #5, that has a lot of value at their contract level for multiple years. It's possible that they won't, but this is a season where it might be worth a couple of wins to leave room and give a couple of them a last shot.

 

Worley will be in arb after the season and Diamond will super 2 so their cheap years are limited.

[cmathewson]

Of course he won't be sent to the bullpen early on. He has earned the opportunity to start. The difference this year(hopefully) is that whoever begins the year in the starting rotation will not stay there if he isn't pitching well. That shouldn't mean he will be removed after one or two bad starts, but there should be depth and hopefully guys pitching well at AAA that a series of poor starts will lead to a different and hopefully better starter.

 

I also think that the idea that Hughes represents some sort of great upside is overrated. In his best season as a starter he was a mid-rotation starter. I expect he has a better chance to reach that upside consistently in Minnesota than he did in New York. I am not so sure that upside is much greater than that of Worley or Deduno. The key for any of them is good health or durability and few, really none of the candidates have demonstrated that.

 

I am not so sure I understand the idea of filling the rotation with the highest "upside" guys and just leaving them there whether they are struggling or not. Let's put the guys into the rotation who are pitching the best and force the rest to earn their opportunities.

 

Your analysis of Hughes misses one crucial point. Yankee Stadium is the toughest place for fly ball righties to pitch. He will get better simply by having an easier home field. As Kwak said, he is inked in to the rotation to start the year. If he fails, they'll need to make a call. But not before May at the earliest. They let Worley get pounded into June last year before replacing him. And he wasn't high paid.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Considering they didn't do that last year with Worley and save an option year, no.

 

Well, they did delay Worley's arb eligibility, and it is pretty clear he was not healthy or at least not adequately recovered due to his early shutdown. So I am not sure his situation is quite comparable to Correia.

[Alex]

Worley will be in arb after the season and Diamond will super 2 so their cheap years are limited.

 

Valid point that their years are limited, but it's still more value (if they are successful), less risk, and cheaper than going out on the FA market. If they do fail another year, you can make the same decision that is being discussed now but would have more information to do so and won't really be any worse off.

[cmathewson]

Well, they did delay Worley's arb eligibility, and it is pretty clear he was not healthy or at least not adequately recovered due to his early shutdown. So I am not sure his situation is quite comparable to Correia.

 

I don't believe it. So it's not clear to me. Elbow clean outs are routine. He had his six months before the season started to rest and rehab. Maybe he re-injured it while he was pitching relatively well in AAA. Ligament fraying is not uncommon after chips. But when he was pitching poorly in the MLB, he was healthy.

[cmathewson]

Valid point that their years are limited, but it's still more value (if they are successful), less risk, and cheaper than going out on the FA market. If they do fail another year, you can make the same decision that is being discussed now but would have more information to do so and won't really be any worse off.

 

I think the risk is greater to give the guys another shot. If they earn it, fine. We tried giving it to them last year and that was a failed experiment.

 

It's funny how the board has swung around to not wanting Ryan to use Pohlad's stadium money to improve the team, preferring to give second and third chances to guys with fifth starter upside. After three years of 90+ losses, you would think winning would be more important.

[TheLeviathan]

I think the risk is greater to give the guys another shot. If they earn it, fine. We tried giving it to them last year and that was a failed experiment.

 

We tried to give HIcks one too and he was historically awful.....are you consistent in wanting to give up on him as well?

[Alex]

 

It's funny how the board has swung around to not wanting Ryan to use Pohlad's stadium money to improve the team, preferring to give second and third chances to guys with fifth starter upside. After three years of 90+ losses, you would think winning would be more important.

 

I actually think it is, but there is a balance that could be struck, especially when we have signed and still have marginal pitchers in the rotation. We're talking about pitchers who are not drastically, or even definitively, better here. So, saying the risk is greater to give these guys another shot is a complete matter of opinion, especially as all three have had success in the majors.

 

If we are evaluating players by one season, we should also be incredibly critical of the Hughes and Pelfrey signings. As Leviathan points out, there are other players we should then be looking to get rid of including Hicks, Willingham, Plouffe, etc..

[cmathewson]

We tried to give HIcks one too and he was historically awful.....are you consistent in wanting to give up on him as well?

 

Three thing differ about Hicks:

 

1. He has upside, and considerably more upside than he showed last year.

 

2. No one is suggesting to just give him the job for the sake of maximizing his value in the talent marketplace.

 

3. He has two options left. So if he does not earn it this time around, no big whoop.

[TheLeviathan]

Three thing differ about Hicks:

 

1. He has upside, and considerably more upside than he showed last year.

 

2. No one is suggesting to just give him the job for the sake of maximizing his value in the talent marketplace.

 

3. He has two options left. So if he does not earn it this time around, no big whoop.

 

The problem is all of this doesn't mesh with your other opinions. Especially since you've spent this thread stating things as matters-of-fact when they are really just matters of opinion.

 

Hicks certainly has upside, but that is an opinion. Just like my opinion of Worley and Diamond. If one were to base their opinion of Hicks' upside in the same manner you have with Worley and Diamond they simply could not conclude that. One year's worth of data - deliberately picked out from other relevant data - would conclude Hicks is one of the worst young players to ever make the major leagues.

 

You're simply not taking a consistent approach to things, in part because you believe your statements about Worley and Diamond are facts, rather than opinions. One can reasonably disagree with your opinions based on other data and you don't seem to acknowledge that.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I don't believe it. So it's not clear to me. Elbow clean outs are routine. He had his six months before the season started to rest and rehab. Maybe he re-injured it while he was pitching relatively well in AAA. Ligament fraying is not uncommon after chips. But when he was pitching poorly in the MLB, he was healthy.

 

These may be routine, but it isn't as though these surgeries aren't without reprocussions... and people do heal differently. I've had one knee surgery, and it was minor. It took years for my knee to actually heal after the said surgery. Admittedly, Worley is going to have access to Drs. far better than the one who did my knee, but that doesn't mean he's just going to bounce back. People do heal differently... not to mention that it would have had to affect his offseason program.

 

At the beginning of last season, Worley was listed by many on this board as a question mark because of that surgery. I think that was wise... and based on his results, I'm not sure we can safely say he was healthy.

[kab21]

We tried to give HIcks one too and he was historically awful.....are you consistent in wanting to give up on him as well?

 

I certainly am not ready to give Hicks a guaranteed starting spot to find out. That is basically what you are proposing with Worley and Diamond.

 

If AAA wasn't an option with Hicks then I would stash him on the MLB roster as the 4th OF'er but you seem to think that is an awful option with the loser the 5th spot.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

It's funny how the board has swung around to not wanting Ryan to use Pohlad's stadium money to improve the team, preferring to give second and third chances to guys with fifth starter upside. After three years of 90+ losses, you would think winning would be more important.

 

I highly doubt that there is a person on this board who is concerned with Pohlad's "hard earned" stadium money. What I do think a lot of people are saying (myself included), is that it's best interests of the Twins to give these second and third chances to some of these guys (and to be clear, we don't believe Worley and Deduno have 5th starter upsides) because they will likely be no worse than the likes of KC and could out perform him by a significant margin.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The problem is all of this doesn't mesh with your other opinions. Especially since you've spent this thread stating things as matters-of-fact when they are really just matters of opinion.

 

Hicks certainly has upside, but that is an opinion. Just like my opinion of Worley and Diamond. If one were to base their opinion of Hicks' upside in the same manner you have with Worley and Diamond they simply could not conclude that. One year's worth of data - deliberately picked out from other relevant data - would conclude Hicks is one of the worst young players to ever make the major leagues.

 

You're simply not taking a consistent approach to things, in part because you believe your statements about Worley and Diamond are facts, rather than opinions. One can reasonably disagree with your opinions based on other data and you don't seem to acknowledge that.

 

Ah, come on, Levi... I honestly don't care about this argument one way or the other but you cannot compare Hicks, a 23 year old position player who has been a top 100 prospect for most of his MiLB career, to 26 and 27 year old pitchers who were never highly regarded and struggled mightily during an awful season.

 

Diamond was so poorly regarded that the Braves basically gave him away. Worley was never more than a marginal prospect.

 

At some point, it stops being "opinion" and becomes "general consensus". The general consensus is that Aaron Hicks is a vastly superior prospect to either Scott Diamond or Vance Worley. He doesn't even belong in the same conversation as those two guys.

[DocBauer]

Response to two comments listed in some recent posts.

 

One I believe I made once before in that procedures for Diamond and Worley may have been relatively minor, but there is the throwing off of normal conditioning and preparation time for an athlete that needs to find consistency n his approach. Further, possibly greater for a pitcher, there is a need to not only have a feel for their pitches, but to mentally trust in their arm's condition as well.

 

Two is that Worley and Diamond ARE still on the roster, and each WILL be given an opportunity. Debate at length, as we could of many ball players, as to talent, potential and worth, (goodness knows I've taken cracks at it) but the Twins have not released either player, nor have they given any indication that they will not be given fair chance to prove themselves.

 

I am pleased that at least we have depth and options available to us at this point.

[cmathewson]

The problem is all of this doesn't mesh with your other opinions. Especially since you've spent this thread stating things as matters-of-fact when they are really just matters of opinion.

 

Hicks certainly has upside, but that is an opinion. Just like my opinion of Worley and Diamond. If one were to base their opinion of Hicks' upside in the same manner you have with Worley and Diamond they simply could not conclude that. One year's worth of data - deliberately picked out from other relevant data - would conclude Hicks is one of the worst young players to ever make the major leagues.

 

You're simply not taking a consistent approach to things, in part because you believe your statements about Worley and Diamond are facts, rather than opinions. One can reasonably disagree with your opinions based on other data and you don't seem to acknowledge that.

 

Brock covered the difference better than I could. But I do want to respond to your claim that I am mixing facts with opinion. Throughout this debate, I have repeatedly referred to odds and probability, not to facts or opinion. It is not a matter of opinion (or fact) that Worley or Diamond have a lower chance of success than Pelfrey or Correia. It is a matter of probability. It is unlikely that Worley will somehow find himself after two seasons of horrible pitching. I have always said it could happen, but I am not optimistic. I have been more optimistic about Diamond. But he has a very low margin for error. So, given the other options, I don't like his chances. Not that he can't won't won't do it. Just that, he is less likely than the other candidates.

 

On the other hand, Correia has a long track record of mediocrity, which is much better than being horrible, as Diamond was last year and Worley has been for two consecutive seasons. And Pelfrey has showed enough to warrant the kind of risk the Twins are taking. He is at least more likely to have a good season than either of the two you favor. Both could fail miserably, of course. And Worley and Diamond could have a miraculous resurgence. But I don't think it's particularly likely.

 

You are free to disagree with me. I expect you to. But please don't accuse me of confusing opinion with fact. That is a desperate rhetorical position that does you no justice.

[TheLeviathan]

At some point, it stops being "opinion" and becomes "general consensus". The general consensus is that Aaron Hicks is a vastly superior prospect to either Scott Diamond or Vance Worley. He doesn't even belong in the same conversation as those two guys.

 

The point, again, is being missed:

If you limit your analysis to the results of one season and dismiss other avenues to see upside - you're taking far too limited a scope.

 

This has been a constant theme. And that's how you get lead down the path of stamping your feet that "logically" Worley and Diamond have no upside. Which is a preposterous position. We can disagree about the upside, but we can't narrow the view of two players and then conclude we've figured it out.

 

My example was to illustrate that if I similarly narrowed my view of Hicks I could reach a conclusion that someone, like you rightly did, would disagree with. You bring more relevant data and can have a much different opinion. Or maybe the same. But the idea that you can just ignore everything about a player's profile but what fits your argument is simply not a good way to establish your point.

[TheLeviathan]

It is not a matter of opinion (or fact) that Worley or Diamond have a lower chance of success than Pelfrey or Correia. It is a matter of probability.

 

The degree of probability is still a matter of opinion, so this is a distinction without a difference. I disagree with your probabilities and can because they are based on your opinions.

 

That problem, combined with you repeatedly insisting upon "logic" and "fact" supporting you are part of the problem. This is a discussion of opinion, which may include opinions of probability, but still an opinion.

 

t is unlikely that Worley will somehow find himself after two seasons of horrible pitching.

 

Since when is an ERA+ of 127 horrible?

 

I'd argue most of your opinions/probabilities are based on bad data/facts and a complete disregard for SSS and relevant data.

[Guest USAFChief]

 

 

Since when is an ERA+ of 127 horrible?

 

I'd argue most of your opinions/probabilities are based on bad data/facts and a complete disregard for SSS and relevant data.

Unless I'm reading BRef wrong, Worley didnt have a 127 ERA+ over the past two seasons.

[cmathewson]

The degree of probability is still a matter of opinion, so this is a distinction without a difference. I disagree with your probabilities and can because they are based on your opinions.

 

That problem, combined with you repeatedly insisting upon "logic" and "fact" supporting you are part of the problem. This is a discussion of opinion, which may include opinions of probability, but still an opinion. [/Quote]

 

Fair enough. My opinion, based mostly on numbers and somewhat on stuff, is that Worley is not likely to improve enough to be better than the others. My opinion on Diamond is more about stuff than raw numbers, but he did not have good numbers last year, so he's had one year of fooling them and one year of not. That, coupled with his lack of stuff, makes him less likely to beat out guys with better stuff and numbers last year, in my opinion.

 

BTW, when I use the expression IMO or IMHO, it means I am expressing my opinion. I used them a lot in this thread. I did not see you using them at all. I sometimes appealed to facts, such as remarks on numbers. But everyone throughout this thread has relied more on opinion. That's what predicting the future is.

 

 

 

Since when is an ERA+ of 127 horrible?

 

I'd argue most of your opinions/probabilities are based on bad data/facts and a complete disregard for SSS and relevant data.

 

Worley's ERA+ in the last two years was 96 and 56. A rather precipitous decline from 127 in 2011. As I have said, he could rebound some. But he is not likely to be better than the others.