Article: Twins Don't Need More Starters

[Winston Smith]

You can always use more pitching if it's good pitching. The rotation is now mostly mediocre at best. If they can add a good or better guy do it. However, I don't think they need more mediocre or worse guys.

[cmathewson]

If I'm Santana, I'd be very wary of the Twins pitching depth. They've got three starters locked in for the next two years or more. They've got three other starters out of options. They've got three other top prospects waiting for opportunities. And that doesn't count the guy who was their de facto top starter last year. That's a lot of competition for opportunities.

[Mike Sixel]

Mike, what's the difference between blocking and good, healthy competition?

 

 

I'm all for signing great players. but competition for mediocre players or average players? the only real way to know what any of this pile of players can do is to let them try to do it. this team is NOT competing this year, not with this offense. Signing an old player that won't be here in 2 years, in a position where they have 4-6 guys waiting in line already, that makes zero sense.

 

Signing a great pitcher, that makes sense. Signing more spaghetti to throw against the wall? The next strand will just pile on top of the others, stopping you from seeing if they are good or not. (wow, bad mixing).

 

they have 10 or so "starters". What they NEED to know at the end of this year is if any of them should be on the roster past 2015 or not.

[cmathewson]

By all accounts, the Twins tried to get this done. Ultimately, it's Santana's decision, and dollars are not the only part of that. I can't blame them for not getting it done. It's his choice.

[TheLeviathan]

Which pile is that?

 

There is a very well written blog article detailing exactly that and this is the thread responding to it. I'm not sure why that needs to be elaborated upon. The Twins have plenty of "meh" pitching.

 

The saying "you can never have enough pitching" is in reference to good pitching. Not roster glut.

[howieramone1406390264]

There is a very well written blog article detailing exactly that and this is the thread responding to it. I'm not sure why that needs to be elaborated upon. The Twins have plenty of "meh" pitching.

 

The saying is you can never have enough pitching is in reference to good pitching. Not roster glut.

 

I agree Nick's article was well written, but what I'm referring to is the less than exact term pile. One poster listed his pile labeled starters, while many are in fact relievers. Another poster has since used the same term and added another in spaghetti.

 

Let me give an exact example. I would put Correia in the you can't ever have too much starting pitching pile and the pile of starting pitchers who can be traded for value when the time comes.

[jokin]

I agree Nick's article was well written, but what I'm referring to is the less than exact term pile. One poster listed his pile labeled starters, while many are in fact relievers. Another poster has since used the same term and added another in spaghetti.

 

Let me give an exact example. I would put Correia in the you can't ever have 1)too much starting pitching pile and the 2)pile of starting pitchers who can be traded for value when the time comes.

 

Let me posit that both of those piles don't take up a lot of room down in the Twins and Red Wings bullpens.

[Mike Sixel]

But that's not reality for the next three months. Adding more guys over 30 something does nothing to help the players in AA and AAA and MLB get better. It only keeps them down a level, not being challenged.

 

I doubt any SP on this 40 man is being dealt for at least 3 months. In the meantime, adding more bad SP only pushes guys down, farther from the majors than they should be.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't see the purpose in picking up any more starters. I was back-and-forth on Santana because he won't be ready for a few months but after seeing the deal he got from the O's, no thanks. It's unlikely that he will contribute anything meaningful to a team that looks to struggle to reach the 75 win mark.

[jokin]

I agree Nick's article was well written, but what I'm referring to is the less than exact term pile. One poster listed his pile labeled starters, while many are in fact relievers. Another poster has since used the same term and added another in spaghetti.

 

Let me give an exact example. I would put Correia in the you can't ever have too much starting pitching pile and the pile of starting pitchers who can be traded for value when the time comes.

 

If you were referring to me, please note that I labeled my list "pun intended" by including Watts and Turpen. My point was to the fact that the Twins have a huge glut of pitchers, a "pile" if you will of much older pitchers, who are supposed to be in their peak performance years, but who are still trying to prove that they belong at this level.

 

The question on the table is: should the Twins, as a rebuilding team trying to figure out who the keepers are, be getting older on the pitching staff or younger? It's very debatable that a team in their position, pitching-wise, should be wasting any more time with even more guys that have proven mediocre at best, thus far in their careers; it's somewhat absurd that any more PJ Walters-types be given more opportunities over younger guys that might actually become relevant during the next competitive phase for this team.

[troyhobbs]

If the Twins wanted to sign Garza or Ervin Santana I'd be all for it, Saunders and Johan Santana...not so much. Still not terribly optimistic about this staff though, it'll be hard to throw fewer innings than last year's starters but not sure there's enough improvement to correlate to more wins, especially with the projected lineup they'll be running out there.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think looking for the pitchers to lead to more wins is a good way to judget their progress......giving up a lot less runs is. Wins will come if the O ever gets better.....but I agree, I'm not holding my breath this year.

[tobi0040]

[

 

I think most of us would be fine with trading Correia, but to do it now, you'll likely have to wait for an injury to a starter on a another team with an undesirable contingency plan. An injury like that is likely to happen, but we can't count on it.

 

With hindsight, it is the Pelfrey deal that is the biggest head scratcher. To see Saunders get a minor league deal and Pelfrey get 2/12, that could be worth 2/16 seems very high. I was not a huge fan of the Pelfrey deal at the time.

[cmathewson]

Nobody seems to remember just how bad the staff was last year. The reality was far worse than anyone thought. Here is a list of the starters who had a 5 ERA or worse with their ERA+, starts and innings totals:

 

Mike Pelfrey: 78/29/152

Scott Diamond: 75/24/131

Pedro Hernandez: 59/12/56

Kyle Gibson: 62/10/51

Vance Worley: 56/10/48

Liam Hndriks: 59/8/47

PJ Walters: 68/8/39

Cole DeVries: 38/2/15

 

Four of those guys are gone, with their rotation spots replaced by Nolasco and Hughes. We can expect some improvement from Pelfrey and Gibson. We won't need the services of Diamond or Worley unless they're substantially improved.

 

The result: This year's rotation should be twice as good as last year's. Not that it means they'll double the wins. But 10 more wins is within reach, methinks.

[tobi0040]

Nobody seems to remember just how bad the staff was last year. The reality was far worse than anyone thought. Here is a list of the starters who had a 5 ERA or worse with their ERA+, starts and innings totals:

 

Mike Pelfrey: 78/29/152

Scott Diamond: 75/24/131

Pedro Hernandez: 59/12/56

Kyle Gibson: 62/10/51

Vance Worley: 56/10/48

Liam Hndriks: 59/8/47

PJ Walters: 68/8/39

Cole DeVries: 38/2/15

 

Four of those guys are gone, with their rotation spots replaced by Nolasco and Hughes. We can expect some improvement from Pelfrey and Gibson. We won't need the services of Diamond or Worley unless they're substantially improved.

 

The result: This year's rotation should be twice as good as last year's. Not that it means they'll double the wins. But 10 more wins is within reach, methinks.

 

I put us at about 6-7 wins due to the rotation. I think you get regression out of Kevin C. and Deduno did pitch 108 innings at 3.83 last year. I don't know that he matches that. Regression from those two could wipe out an improved Pelfrey. I don't think Pelfrey puts up a 5.19 ERA again, but he is a career 4.48 guy that had two good years and several mediocre years.

 

Our starters had a 5.25 ERA I believe. If you give Nolasco, Hughes, and Meyer a 4.25 ERA and they pitch 480 IP, that is 53 fewer runs against. That would drop us from 29th to 23rd in MLB based on last years totals.

 

To your point, we could see a huge improvement out of three of the rotation spots and still be 23rd. We were very, very, very bad last year.

[TheLeviathan]

Let me give an exact example. I would put Correia in the you can't ever have too much starting pitching pile and the pile of starting pitchers who can be traded for value when the time comes.

 

Correia is the kind of starter you don't mind having around in AAA or your bullpen if you're the Tigers. For this team? He's irrelevant. He's unlikely to have much value at the deadline and he's not part of the future. So you're investing innings in, essentially, wheel-spinning.

 

We also have Pelfrey, Hughes, Deduno, Diamond, Worley, Swarzak, Duensing, Gilmartin, Kyle Gibson, Trevor May, Kris Johnson, Ryan Pressley, Alex Meyer, Pat Dean, etc. Are some of these guys relievers? Sure, we also have been told they might be stretched out. Some have no options and none belong in AAA. So you're talking about 14/15 guys for 10 spots.

 

Given that finite number of spots these guys can pitch in, adding "more" doesn't mean you get more value. More starters only gives you value if they are clearly better than what you already have.

 

If I'm going to watch another 90 loss team, I'd at least like to get some answers about our roster. Not waste time on someone like Correia, Saunders, Santana or anyone else that is done with this team in October regardless of their performance.

[TheLeviathan]

Nobody seems to remember just how bad the staff was last year. The reality was far worse than anyone thought. Here is a list of the starters who had a 5 ERA or worse with their ERA+, starts and innings totals:

 

Mike Pelfrey: 78/29/152

Scott Diamond: 75/24/131

Pedro Hernandez: 59/12/56

Kyle Gibson: 62/10/51

Vance Worley: 56/10/48

Liam Hndriks: 59/8/47

PJ Walters: 68/8/39

Cole DeVries: 38/2/15

 

Four of those guys are gone, with their rotation spots replaced by Nolasco and Hughes. We can expect some improvement from Pelfrey and Gibson. We won't need the services of Diamond or Worley unless they're substantially improved.

 

The result: This year's rotation should be twice as good as last year's. Not that it means they'll double the wins. But 10 more wins is within reach, methinks.

 

Um...Hughes was a 5+ ERA too last year. Diamond and Worley can't be "substantially improved" if they don't have innings to pitch in.

 

I'm baffled by this notion that "Well, Worley/Diamond/Deduno just need to prove themselves and they will get a chance". Ugh - when exactly are they doing that? Meaningless ST innings? Mop-up innings? Shell-spitting in the dugout?

 

You have to have a spot to show you can keep it or meaningful innings to prove it. Otherwise this is really just hot air. Once the rubber meets the road on this kind of analysis it doesn't work.

[howieramone1406390264]

Um...Hughes was a 5+ ERA too last year. Diamond and Worley can't be "substantially improved" if they don't have innings to pitch in.

 

I'm baffled by this notion that "Well, Worley/Diamond/Deduno just need to prove themselves and they will get a chance". Ugh - when exactly are they doing that? Meaningless ST innings? Mop-up innings? Shell-spitting in the dugout?

 

You have to have a spot to show you can keep it or meaningful innings to prove it. Otherwise this is really just hot air. Once the rubber meets the road on this kind of analysis it doesn't work.

 

It's silly to think our favorite team spent 84M just to trot Worley, Diamond, and Deduno right back out there. ST innings may be meaningless to us, but not so to them.

[darin617]

You can view the page at http://www.twinsdaily.com/content.php/2715-Twins-Don-t-Need-More-Starters

 

Exactly! The Twins don't need more starters they just need better starters to contend. The have a quantity of starters just not much quality to choose from.

[TheLeviathan]

It's silly to think our favorite team spent 84M just to trot Worley, Diamond, and Deduno right back out there. ST innings may be meaningless to us, but not so to them.

 

The 84M was invested in upside. The second year to Correia was not. Nor would redundantly adding to him on the roster with Saunders or anyone else.

[cmathewson]

The 84M was invested in upside. The second year to Correia was not. Nor would redundantly adding to him on the roster with Saunders or anyone else.

 

Yeah, we get it. Lack of foresight. Unforgivable decision. Blah, blah, blah. They kept Blackburn in AAA for two years while paying him the exact amount as Correia's contract. I'm pretty sure the field staff will ask for the best pitchers regardless of contract status. The rest will either play their way on the team or off the team. Based on Anderson's comments, I'm pretty sure that includes Gibson making the team on opening day regardless. I'm not worried about it.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm pretty sure the field staff will ask for the best pitchers regardless ....The rest will either play their way on the team or off the team.

 

Gardy and his staff have passed over talent for "veteran presence" more than once in the past, so I don't share your confidence.

 

again, I ask, when exactly are they playing their way in? Meaningless ST starts against split squads? I'm genuinely curious when you envision their opportunity is.

[Oxtung]

IMO, the problem wasn't signing (or not) Santana but rather resigning Pelfrey. I truly don't understand what the point of that was (especially for two years). He won't be here when the Twins contend next, he is another below average pitcher with little to no upside and he is taking up a rotation spot that could be used by a pitcher that will be here down the road to either gain experience or show he belongs. To me, if the question is between giving innings to Pelfrey or Gibson/Deduno/Worley/May/Meyer/Darnell/Gilmartin that is an easy choice to make.

 

I also think 2 years from now we'll all be saying, "WTF were the Twins thinking signing Hughes to a 3 year contract?!?"

[TheLeviathan]

They kept Blackburn in AAA for two years while paying him the exact amount as Correia's contract. t.

 

They also gave him 19 starts at a 7+ ERA before that. So forgive me if I find this example FAR from convincing to put it nicely.

[70charger]

IMO, the problem wasn't signing (or not) Santana but rather resigning Pelfrey. I truly don't understand what the point of that was (especially for two years). He won't be here when the Twins contend next, he is another below average pitcher with little to no upside and he is taking up a rotation spot that could be used by a pitcher that will be here down the road to either gain experience or show he belongs. To me, if the question is between giving innings to Pelfrey or Gibson/Deduno/Worley/May/Meyer/Darnell/Gilmartin that is an easy choice to make.

 

I also think 2 years from now we'll all be saying, "WTF were the Twins thinking signing Hughes to a 3 year contract?!?"

 

This is literally the exact opposite of the criticisms that were such a common refrain here in the past year or two. (Not necessarily Oxtung, but a huge number of others.)

 

The old criticism was "why can't the Twins just go out and get someone who will make the team better now and quit worrying about a bunch of scrubs who wouldn't make the team over the free agent anyway?"

 

The new criticism is "why did the Twins go out and get someone who may make the team better now but will block the young guys who may or may not have a major league future?"

 

Are we really worried about a $7 million a year contract being ultimately destructive to Logan Darnell's presumed major league career? I don't see it.

[jokin]

This is literally the exact opposite of the criticisms that were such a common refrain here in the past year or two. (Not necessarily Oxtung, but a huge number of others.)

 

The old criticism was "why can't the Twins just go out and get someone who will make the team better now and quit worrying about a bunch of scrubs who wouldn't make the team over the free agent anyway?"

 

The new criticism is "why did the Twins go out and get someone who may make the team better now but will block the young guys who may or may not have a major league future?"

 

Are we really worried about a $7 million a year contract being ultimately destructive to Logan Darnell's presumed major league career? I don't see it.

 

Actually, I don't think anyone would presume that Darnell is being blocked at this point, can we just dismiss that strawman? But there are definitely more worthy prospects that are/have been blocked now and in the recent past. And it isn't just the "$7M guys" being so "destructive", it's also the recent huge excess of guys at the level of the likes of DeVries, Vasquez and Walters occupying roster spots on the Twins and at Rochester over guys with more potential that is what's so problematic. By contrast, the Cubs have used the ML-level SP short-term Bandaid approach with some arms with upside and better resale appeal, that they then successfully flipped for more prospects and players- no mediocrity logjam in Wrigley.

 

And I think I can sum up the criticism as more along these lines (and it really hasn't been that inconsistent):

 

"...Why won't the Twins only acquire SPs who can make the team better now and into the near future, and not acquire any guys on a rebuilding team who are older, speculative reclamation projects or who project at a #5 ceiling....so that we can make a full determination which of our young guys are keepers and which are pretenders in anticipation of the next run?"

[Kwak]

Apparently many have forgotten that most of the Twins pitching prospects are years away from the majors. Thus, when most of these contracts have expired that nobody has been "blocked" from advancing to the Twins. With regards to Pelfrey, I don't think that much of him--but I think a lot more of him than the dreck I saw last year that (fortunately) is no longer with the the team.

[cmathewson]

Apparently many have forgotten that most of the Twins pitching prospects are years away from the majors. Thus, when most of these contracts have expired that nobody has been "blocked" from advancing to the Twins. With regards to Pelfrey, I don't think that much of him--but I think a lot more of him than the dreck I saw last year that (fortunately) is no longer with the the team.

 

Gibson, Meyer, and May are close. Though Gibson is not technically a prospect because of his time on the team last year, he has yet to receive a full shot. When we talk about prospects, I think we mean those guys primarily.

 

The thing I agree with about Pelfrey as a head scratcher is an Antony quote. To paraphrase, they didn't want to just pay for his rehab. They wanted to get more out of that investment with a fully healthy guy. That is an example of the sunk cost fallacy. If he's not as good as, say, Gibson, why sign him?

 

I have a bigger problem with the Pelfrey signing this year than the Correia signing last year. Last year they were desperate for an innings eater. A two-year deal was the cost of entry. This year they are not desperate.

 

In another thread, Antony was recently interviewed about spring training results. Much of it was devoted to the fifth starter spot. He did mention the possibility of making a trade if necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if something happens towards the end of spring.

[jokin]

Apparently many have forgotten that most of the Twins pitching prospects are years away from the majors. Thus, when most of these contracts have expired that nobody has been "blocked" from advancing to the Twins. With regards to Pelfrey, I don't think that much of him--but I think a lot more of him than the dreck I saw last year that (fortunately) is no longer with the the team.

 

The first steps were made ("fortunately", indeed!) to begin moving out the "pile" in the offseason, but there is much work to be done in that area- hopefully there is a change in philosophy in this regard. Nothing wrong with going "younger" by trading for Gilmartin and acquiring Raley to replace some of the "dreck", who both offer some speculative upside and left-handedness.

 

But-

 

Gibson was blocked last year from a May promotion.

Logan Darnell and Trevor May probably should have had more innings at Rochester.

Todd Redmond was available, for free, twice, on the waiver wire, the Twins somehow thought they had better options?

Paul Maholm and Scott Feldman were available in the FA market, both proved that they were eminently flippable, for only slightly more $$$ than Correia or Pelfrey.

Meanwhile, soon-to-be 30-year old Kris Johnson is now being thought of as an important part of the SP depth chart- though Chris Capuano could have been brought in cheaply and had nice potential as a flipping chip.

[howieramone1406390264]

Actually, I don't think anyone would presume that Darnell is being blocked at this point, can we just dismiss that strawman? But there are definitely more worthy prospects that are/have been blocked now and in the recent past. And it isn't just the "$7M guys" being so "destructive", it's also the recent huge excess of guys at the level of the likes of DeVries, Vasquez and Walters occupying roster spots on the Twins and at Rochester over guys with more potential that is what's so problematic. By contrast, the Cubs have used the ML-level SP short-term Bandaid approach with some arms with upside and better resale appeal, that they then successfully flipped for more prospects and players- no mediocrity logjam in Wrigley.

 

And I think I can sum up the criticism as more along these lines (and it really hasn't been that inconsistent):

 

"...Why won't the Twins only acquire SPs who can make the team better now and into the near future, and not acquire any guys on a rebuilding team who are older, speculative reclamation projects or who project at a #5 ceiling....so that we can make a full determination which of our young guys are keepers and which are pretenders in anticipation of the next run?"

 

Who specifically projects at a #5 ceiling? How has that approach been working for the Loveable Losers?