3 Twins Trade Targets to Watch

8 minutes ago, Dennesey55347 said:

I believe this piece perfectly points out this team's weaknesses. If/when the Twins hit a rough patch, it'll either be because pitching has returned to the mean (no true #1), the lack of a consistent clutch-hitter/ RBI producer, or injuries are piling up. My clutch hitter definition relates specifically to RBI production in close games with the team trailing. In these games, it's more about hope than expectation no matter who we send to the plate. The Houston series showed without question the gap in talent between us and AL elite so a few choice additions would help. 

Steve Carlton was a four-time Cy Young winner and what most would consider an ace.  His best year was 1972 when he went 27-10.  His team still lost 97 games.  An ace does  not guarantee anything except once every five or six days, you got a pretty good chance of winning.  I would rather have a good chance everyday with a starting staff of Ryan/Ober/Gray types.

How about Kyle Hendricks. I'm not sure about the cost. But I don't think it would be too steep. He's more consistent than Evaldi

Nice article. WHile I knwo this article was strictly about targets and not about what it would take to get any of the targets, the price to be paid has to be considered.  At the same time I do not think it woudl cost much to get any of them. Bell probably being the most expensive prospect wise. and even that wouldnt be too much given he is a rental.

I will go ahead and preface my next comments with the fact that I have always been enamored with "potential" so my suggestions have a built in flaw.

But here are a few alternate options...

1B = Instead of Bell, how about trading for Dom Smith of the Mets.  Yes, he is struggling, an dwhy would/should we take a risk on a :change of scenery" guy, but he is Gold Glove caliber 1B, the guy CAN hit, and he has always been a slow starter, granted not THIS slow.   I think given every day AB's would help get him back on track. Given his struggles and lack of ABs with the Mets he could be gotten relatively cheaply.

Bullpen Arm = While I am trying my best not to comment on a bullpen arm we could still have if we hadn't traded for a pitcher with known elbow issues, I will just say SD seems to have a pretty decent closer.  The arm I would love to see in a Twins uniform is AJ Puk.  Scary stuff, but has always been injured. SO there is the injury risk there. But he is the perfect Twins player... an older player who is still under team control. He is 27 has 1 more year of TC then 3 years of Arb, meaning he will not be a FA until his age 32 year. by that time he is past the window of big contracts, so we will be able to retain him for the rest of his career should we want and should he work out. Besides the years of control, as a reliever  Oakland is rebuilding team that already has a strong closer in Jimenez.  and while I hate to harp on the Paddack trade, the fact that we also included Rooker, means Rooker is now no longer a trade piece available in a trade for a reliever like Puk.

Starter = While it would be great to nab a true #1 or #2 via trade, we would have to give up a lot to get one, and what can we give at this point? (short of Correa, and anyone taking Correa would be a buyer not a seller, unless of course we go with a 3 way). Lewis is now untouchable, Larnach is proving valuable and will stay, We are a cheap team who loves our young pitching, and we have already traded away Petty,  Rooker is gone, Kiriloff is struggling to recovery from wrist injuries, Martin is 23 at AA and is proving to be averag at best, Miranda is struggling mightily in the bigs, so tell me what exactly we have of value to trade for a #1 or #2?  As a result I would suggest an older pitcher on a 1 year deal (as not to disrupt our youngsters) who is having a breakout , or resurgent year. Someone who is on a team that is below .500 and even with expanded playoffs, really doesnt have a CLEAR and easy path to a WC spot, that team is Texas, an dthat pitcher is Martin Perez.  Perez is having an All-Star year, btu should come cheaply.

I would counter Eovaldi, Bell, and Lopez with Perez, Smith, and Puk

1 minute ago, terrydactyls said:

Steve Carlton was a four-time Cy Young winner and what most would consider an ace.  His best year was 1972 when he went 27-10.  His team still lost 97 games.  An ace does  not guarantee anything except once every five or six days, you got a pretty good chance of winning.  I would rather have a good chance everyday with a starting staff of Ryan/Ober/Gray types.

That's a terrible comparison. If you add an ace like that to a solid team it can take you over the proverbial hump. 2019 Astros already had Cole and Verlander and still went out and added Grenke. There's never too many good arms. The 72 Phillies were terrible. But let's say you added Ryan and Seaver they won't lose 97 games. That just shows what a dominant pitcher CAN do

2 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

Steve Carlton was a four-time Cy Young winner and what most would consider an ace.  His best year was 1972 when he went 27-10.  His team still lost 97 games.  An ace does  not guarantee anything except once every five or six days, you got a pretty good chance of winning.  I would rather have a good chance everyday with a starting staff of Ryan/Ober/Gray types.

Wish granted. Twins management is taking your approach. I'd avoid tuning in to today's game though...and the post-season if we sneak in somehow. Ryan is probably a 2 or 3 and is the only reliable starter thus far- we'll see what he's made of against better competition. I wish this strategy luck against teams with a few true #1's.

5 hours ago, Mark G said:

I was hoping I wouldn't have to be the only one lobbying for Cron.  A decent defensive first baseman and has some pop.  I know they talk about Denver's air and all, but he hit what, 25 home runs when he played for us in Target Field?  He just might be a nice addition at a decent price.  

He was a good acquisition the first time - why did we let him go?

The Martin Perez suggestion is interesting.  I remember he started out well for us the season we had him and then he returned to his usual form.  He seems to be a different pitcher this year.  On cue today, Eovaldi K's 12 and looks tremendous.  I haven't given up on getting Montas.  I just think the Dodgers or Yankees outbid us. 

I think Lopez could be pretty good paired with Duran.  The kid has GREAT stuff.  Maybe it would cost a little more to get him (and maybe Mancini too for 1B and DH?) but if Lopez has figured something out and you've got him for 2 more years after this, what's not to like ?   Still, the guy I'd like to see up here after the All-Star break is Matt Canterino.  Talk about STUFF !!  He would have an etched in stone innings limit.  But I'd love to see his stuff on display in some high leverage situations late in the season.

Great topic and great ideas Nash.  This is the kind of stuff we all could talk and post about for days...heck weeks !!  It's just great seeing the Twins playing good baseball this year (and rallying against the Royals) !!

3 hours ago, Doc Munson said:

Nice article. WHile I knwo this article was strictly about targets and not about what it would take to get any of the targets, the price to be paid has to be considered.  At the same time I do not think it woudl cost much to get any of them. Bell probably being the most expensive prospect wise. and even that wouldnt be too much given he is a rental.

I will go ahead and preface my next comments with the fact that I have always been enamored with "potential" so my suggestions have a built in flaw.

But here are a few alternate options...

1B = Instead of Bell, how about trading for Dom Smith of the Mets.  Yes, he is struggling, an dwhy would/should we take a risk on a :change of scenery" guy, but he is Gold Glove caliber 1B, the guy CAN hit, and he has always been a slow starter, granted not THIS slow.   I think given every day AB's would help get him back on track. Given his struggles and lack of ABs with the Mets he could be gotten relatively cheaply.

 

Bullpen Arm = While I am trying my best not to comment on a bullpen arm we could still have if we hadn't traded for a pitcher with known elbow issues, I will just say SD seems to have a pretty decent closer.  The arm I would love to see in a Twins uniform is AJ Puk.  Scary stuff, but has always been injured. SO there is the injury risk there. But he is the perfect Twins player... an older player who is still under team control. He is 27 has 1 more year of TC then 3 years of Arb, meaning he will not be a FA until his age 32 year. by that time he is past the window of big contracts, so we will be able to retain him for the rest of his career should we want and should he work out. Besides the years of control, as a reliever  Oakland is rebuilding team that already has a strong closer in Jimenez.  and while I hate to harp on the Paddack trade, the fact that we also included Rooker, means Rooker is now no longer a trade piece available in a trade for a reliever like Puk.

 

Starter = While it would be great to nab a true #1 or #2 via trade, we would have to give up a lot to get one, and what can we give at this point? (short of Correa, and anyone taking Correa would be a buyer not a seller, unless of course we go with a 3 way). Lewis is now untouchable, Larnach is proving valuable and will stay, We are a cheap team who loves our young pitching, and we have already traded away Petty,  Rooker is gone, Kiriloff is struggling to recovery from wrist injuries, Martin is 23 at AA and is proving to be averag at best, Miranda is struggling mightily in the bigs, so tell me what exactly we have of value to trade for a #1 or #2?  As a result I would suggest an older pitcher on a 1 year deal (as not to disrupt our youngsters) who is having a breakout , or resurgent year. Someone who is on a team that is below .500 and even with expanded playoffs, really doesnt have a CLEAR and easy path to a WC spot, that team is Texas, an dthat pitcher is Martin Perez.  Perez is having an All-Star year, btu should come cheaply.

 

I would counter Eovaldi, Bell, and Lopez with Perez, Smith, and Puk

I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but that sounds as Twins esq as anything else I have seen.  A first baseman who hits within a couple points of Sano, a RP that would fit in perfectly on one of our IL's and a starter that averages 6 innings a game even when he is on an all star pace.    

You may be right on Perez; besides, by trade time we will have gone through every pitcher between here and AA, so we may need a couple of more arms that are still attached to the shoulders.  

9 hours ago, heresthething said:

I think the move that's coming is what do they get for CC at the deadline.  The Royce demotion so he can play shortstop full time with the Saints basically shows what they're intending.  

They should do the opposite and sign Correa long term. He’s already with Sanchez and Urshela taught the Twins a ton about winning and created a winning culture They can have Lewis and Correa in the same lineup.

5 hours ago, Doc Munson said:

Nice article. WHile I knwo this article was strictly about targets and not about what it would take to get any of the targets, the price to be paid has to be considered.  At the same time I do not think it woudl cost much to get any of them. Bell probably being the most expensive prospect wise. and even that wouldnt be too much given he is a rental.

I will go ahead and preface my next comments with the fact that I have always been enamored with "potential" so my suggestions have a built in flaw.

But here are a few alternate options...

1B = Instead of Bell, how about trading for Dom Smith of the Mets.  Yes, he is struggling, an dwhy would/should we take a risk on a :change of scenery" guy, but he is Gold Glove caliber 1B, the guy CAN hit, and he has always been a slow starter, granted not THIS slow.   I think given every day AB's would help get him back on track. Given his struggles and lack of ABs with the Mets he could be gotten relatively cheaply.

 

Bullpen Arm = While I am trying my best not to comment on a bullpen arm we could still have if we hadn't traded for a pitcher with known elbow issues, I will just say SD seems to have a pretty decent closer.  The arm I would love to see in a Twins uniform is AJ Puk.  Scary stuff, but has always been injured. SO there is the injury risk there. But he is the perfect Twins player... an older player who is still under team control. He is 27 has 1 more year of TC then 3 years of Arb, meaning he will not be a FA until his age 32 year. by that time he is past the window of big contracts, so we will be able to retain him for the rest of his career should we want and should he work out. Besides the years of control, as a reliever  Oakland is rebuilding team that already has a strong closer in Jimenez.  and while I hate to harp on the Paddack trade, the fact that we also included Rooker, means Rooker is now no longer a trade piece available in a trade for a reliever like Puk.

 

Starter = While it would be great to nab a true #1 or #2 via trade, we would have to give up a lot to get one, and what can we give at this point? (short of Correa, and anyone taking Correa would be a buyer not a seller, unless of course we go with a 3 way). Lewis is now untouchable, Larnach is proving valuable and will stay, We are a cheap team who loves our young pitching, and we have already traded away Petty,  Rooker is gone, Kiriloff is struggling to recovery from wrist injuries, Martin is 23 at AA and is proving to be averag at best, Miranda is struggling mightily in the bigs, so tell me what exactly we have of value to trade for a #1 or #2?  As a result I would suggest an older pitcher on a 1 year deal (as not to disrupt our youngsters) who is having a breakout , or resurgent year. Someone who is on a team that is below .500 and even with expanded playoffs, really doesnt have a CLEAR and easy path to a WC spot, that team is Texas, an dthat pitcher is Martin Perez.  Perez is having an All-Star year, btu should come cheaply.

 

I would counter Eovaldi, Bell, and Lopez with Perez, Smith, and Puk

I would never want Martin Perez back on the Twins - very streaky and when he’s bad, he’s very bad and it can last for months.

Frankie Montas would look good in a Twins uniform. Otherwise, maybe Ian Kennedy or maybe not. No objection to Lopez but perhaps Canterino and a a couple of others like Moran or Minaya work well at various points this season. Alex Kirilloff and Royce Lewis can certainly return with positive results. 

5 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

That's a terrible comparison. If you add an ace like that to a solid team it can take you over the proverbial hump. 2019 Astros already had Cole and Verlander and still went out and added Grenke. There's never too many good arms. The 72 Phillies were terrible. But let's say you added Ryan and Seaver they won't lose 97 games. That just shows what a dominant pitcher CAN do

You added two aces.  Why not add four or five?  The post I quoted said the Twins needed an ace.  That's singular.  And my response is that one ace doesn't move the needle (in my opinion - I refuse to make my opinions sound like etched in stone facts like so many on this site do).

3 hours ago, Dennesey55347 said:

Wish granted. Twins management is taking your approach. I'd avoid tuning in to today's game though...and the post-season if we sneak in somehow. Ryan is probably a 2 or 3 and is the only reliable starter thus far- we'll see what he's made of against better competition. I wish this strategy luck against teams with a few true #1's.

Your comment "if we sneak in" says it all.  Adding one ace to a team that might sneak into the playoffs isn't going to make much difference.

13 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Big difference between a reliever and a shortstop.

But more importantly, no one, and I mean no one, thought the Twins were actual contenders in March, even with Correa.

Sigh. I am not sure how your response fits. 

I was in total agreement with Chief when he made this statement prior to the announcement of the Rogers trade.

Quote

I just can't see any scenario where the Twins deal Rogers. Doesn't make any sense

As I read his definitive statement about Correa I recalled this similar one prior to Rogers. Merely pointed that out.
 

The American League has 15 teams and 7 of them are above .500 at the moment. Each of these 15 teams has quality pitchers, position players and enough overall talent to win on any given day/night. (In the NL there are 6 teams above .500.)

The general discounting of wins by the Twins because of the perceived level of competition is misguided. 

It is hard to win A game in MLB let alone 25 out of 41. The Twins have the makings of a good to very good team as evidenced by their record 1/4 of the way through the season.

Thanks for an article which accepts this evidence and projects what might improve the Twins potential for winning the division and having some post-season success.

51 minutes ago, GNess said:

The American League has 15 teams and 7 of them are above .500 at the moment. Each of these 15 teams has quality pitchers, position players and enough overall talent to win on any given day/night. (In the NL there are 6 teams above .500.)

 

The general discounting of wins by the Twins because of the perceived level of competition is misguided. 

 

It is hard to win A game in MLB let alone 25 out of 41. The Twins have the makings of a good to very good team as evidenced by their record 1/4 of the way through the season.

 

Thanks for an article which accepts this evidence and projects what might improve the Twins potential for winning the division and having some post-season success.

 

 

If your premise was true, most, if not all of the teams would be hovering around .500.  There are good teams, there are pretty good teams, and there are not as good teams (and, frankly, some pretty poor teams).   The Twins right now appear to be the best of the rest, but the win/loss record of the competition so far speaks for itself.  Re-post this in late September, when we have played more competition at the level we are currently 2-6 against, and we can kick it around at that time.  

That is not to say we don't have a promising team.  But we haven't proven anything other than we can handle teams under .500.  I, for one, am waiting to be proven wrong.  If I am, remind me of this post come the end of September.  

10 hours ago, heresthething said:

Look at this through the lens of what they could get for CC.  Do I want it?  Of course not, I would love it if they signed him longer term.  But this is not a WS team, they don't have the pitching for it.  Assuming CC is healthy and playing well they will get a haul from a team in the mix for the playoffs and think they are a CC away from it.  The Cruz for Ryan trade shows what the floor is.  The fact that he's playing other positions doesn't take away from where they want him to play.

For an interesting perspective on the FO strategy on to building a sustainable winning team find an article by John Foley on one of the other Twins fan sites.  

Trading CC for a young minor league pitcher does not improve the team this year.  On top of that, have you watched his defense this year?  A true spectacle.  How many games has Lewis played at the major league level?  Few good games and you wish to trade Carlos?

3 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Big difference between a reliever and a shortstop.

But more importantly, no one, and I mean no one, thought the Twins were actual contenders in March, even with Correa.

Well...I do know someone who did. ?

7 hours ago, se7799 said:

Trading CC for a young minor league pitcher does not improve the team this year.  On top of that, have you watched his defense this year?  A true spectacle.  How many games has Lewis played at the major league level?  Few good games and you wish to trade Carlos?

I said " Do I want it?  Of course not, I would love it if they signed him longer term."  What is worth reading is this article on the Twins FO philosophy and why I think they will trade him.  https://www.twinkietown.com/2022/2/6/22659344/mlb-minnesota-twins-offseason-2022-and-strategy-homegrown-pitching-not-a-rebuild-cleveland-tampa-bay

I think where I differ from other posters on this topic:

1. I do not believe they will sign CC for the level of money and years he wants and would get from other teams.
2. He is not going to take some discount because he loves it here.
3. Even with CC we are not a team that will make the AL Championship series let alone the WS in '22.  Principally because the FO will not buy or trade for the level of pitching in '22 to do so.
4. Some team will give up quality players for CC.  How does the FO not take those calls?  They didn't sign him to this deal to have him walk at the end of the year, he's too big of a trade chip.  The floor is at least one Joe Ryan type.

Seriously, the John Foley article is well worth the time and IMO explains much of what they are doing.  Not saying I 100% agree but it seems to fit pretty well.

1 hour ago, heresthething said:

I said " Do I want it?  Of course not, I would love it if they signed him longer term."  What is worth reading is this article on the Twins FO philosophy and why I think they will trade him.  https://www.twinkietown.com/2022/2/6/22659344/mlb-minnesota-twins-offseason-2022-and-strategy-homegrown-pitching-not-a-rebuild-cleveland-tampa-bay

I think where I differ from other posters on this topic:

1. I do not believe they will sign CC for the level of money and years he wants and would get from other teams.
2. He is not going to take some discount because he loves it here.
3. Even with CC we are not a team that will make the AL Championship series let alone the WS in '22.  Principally because the FO will not buy or trade for the level of pitching in '22 to do so.
4. Some team will give up quality players for CC.  How does the FO not take those calls?  They didn't sign him to this deal to have him walk at the end of the year, he's too big of a trade chip.  The floor is at least one Joe Ryan type.

Seriously, the John Foley article is well worth the time and IMO explains much of what they are doing.  Not saying I 100% agree but it seems to fit pretty well.

 

You are right.  That's an article worth reading.   I especially liked the part where he quantified how Tampa and Cleveland acquired pitching.  Most importantly he noted that the players acquired in trade had never produced more than 1 WAR before being acquired.  I have posted the same data here several times on both pitchers and position players as well as other playoff teams.  This information is obviously not understood by many fans who insist upon the opposite strategy.   

The whole basis of the article is balancing the short-term with sustained success.  It would appear from what I see here that the majority of fans are much more focused on the immediate.  The problem is that practices primarily focused on the present significantly deteriorate the chances for sustained success.  Trading impact players with 6 years of control for a rental is a suckers bet.  A dozen teams will trade away long-term assets at the deadline.  Only 1 team can win the WS nad there is certainly no guarantee they will win.  The Dodgers traded away some significant assets and it got them nothing.  The Rays (to my surprise) traded Ryan from Cruz.  Do you think they would like that deal back?   Now, trading almost nothing like the Braves did and getting a huge boost is a different story but one that is rarely seen.

None of this suggest they should or will trade Correa.  I would assume they keep him.  Balancing short and long-term success would suggest it's perfectly reasonable to retain Correa.  However, as the author suggests, there are many potential "right" ways to proceed.  

I will agree you can always use more pitching.  We have already used several starters in the first month plus of the season.  Is Evaldi the right guy?  As I say with all trades if the price is right.  I would not give up much to get him at this point.  He is not pitching well overall, but his history of doing so would give me some willing to use him.  He would not be the first SP to fall off the cliff though in his early 30's. 

Lopez I would be willing to take on as well.  He may be like many starters that when they get into that full time pen roll runs with it.  Liam Hendriks comes to mind, along with many others.  That being said I give up nothing major for him.  Do not buy high on a guy that has never had long term success in the MLB.  He has the possible stuff but for all we know this is SSS out of pen and as year progresses he falls apart. 

I wrote a long forum on the 1st base situation.  I am not a fan of trading for anyone at this point.  Bell would be a fine piece, but I think he is more smoke than fire.  He is in his 6th year with a career WAR of 6.8.  He only has two years of WAR above 1.  Last year he did have a 3.1 WAR, and this year at .8.  He could be an upgrade, but I think his numbers look a little more flashy than what his career has long been.  He has also hit into 12 double plays this year.  He has shown flashes of stardom in past only to have long stretches of poor hitting.  His defense is average at best too.  I would be worried we would be buying high on him when we have several possible options.  Arraez has actually a higher OPS than Bell right now.  Sure he has 3 less HR, and 3 less doubls, neither have a triple, but Arraez also has 50 less plate appearances and only 1 double play hit into.  Yes, Bell has a better defense right now, but Arraez just started to play it, I would expect some improvement over the year if he stays there. 

Kirolloff may come back, or other guys could look to transition into it.  My main point is, Bell does not appear to be the upgrade some will want, and if it means less playing time for Arraez overall, I am not a fan of it. 

18 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

You added two aces.  Why not add four or five?  The post I quoted said the Twins needed an ace.  That's singular.  And my response is that one ace doesn't move the needle (in my opinion - I refuse to make my opinions sound like etched in stone facts like so many on this site do).

I added 2 aces to the Phillies so that it was comparable to what Houston did. So let's go the opposite way. Let's take Carlton OFF the 1972 Phillies. Instead of losing 97 games. Will the replacement pitcher or pitchers win 10 or 15 of those games he won. That translates to 110 or 115 losses. Still a big difference. The argument that adding an ace is inconsequential is ridiculous 

1 hour ago, Schmoeman5 said:

I added 2 aces to the Phillies so that it was comparable to what Houston did. So let's go the opposite way. Let's take Carlton OFF the 1972 Phillies. Instead of losing 97 games. Will the replacement pitcher or pitchers win 10 or 15 of those games he won. That translates to 110 or 115 losses. Still a big difference. The argument that adding an ace is inconsequential is ridiculous 

Who would you label as an 'ace'?  What criteria makes someone an 'ace'?  In this day in age, I bet you will be hard pressed to find what used to be an 'ace'.  Also, do you expect the Twins to pitch someone of that capability that way? We have not seen the team run many guys out for even a 6th inning let along 7 or more.  Maybe as the season goes on they would, but so far they are very much willing to pull guy after 6. Would you call Joe Ryan an 'ace' so far?  

Who do you think are available for a price the Twins are willing to pay in prospects that you would call an 'ace'?  It is easy to say go get one, but the top teams that have them will not be trading them away most likely, because they will keep them.  There are some good pitchers being talked about, but at least what I would say 'ace' none are in the talking points.  I guess in part it will depend on what you define as an 'ace'. 

39 minutes ago, Trov said:

Who would you label as an 'ace'?  What criteria makes someone an 'ace'?  In this day in age, I bet you will be hard pressed to find what used to be an 'ace'.  Also, do you expect the Twins to pitch someone of that capability that way? We have not seen the team run many guys out for even a 6th inning let along 7 or more.  Maybe as the season goes on they would, but so far they are very much willing to pull guy after 6. Would you call Joe Ryan an 'ace' so far?  

Who do you think are available for a price the Twins are willing to pay in prospects that you would call an 'ace'?  It is easy to say go get one, but the top teams that have them will not be trading them away most likely, because they will keep them.  There are some good pitchers being talked about, but at least what I would say 'ace' none are in the talking points.  I guess in part it will depend on what you define as an 'ace'. 

I'll admit. The options are slim. But the Twins would misuse one if they had one. They dont/won't use anyone past 6 innings to avoid the dreaded 3rd time through the lineup. They never make their starters work out of a jam past the 5th. Look at yesterday's KC game. Singer cruising along pitching a SO. Metrics say get him out. Go to the pen and BOOM. There goes the game. KC went by the book and lost. So get a Montas Hendricks or Eovaldi type guy. Throw him out there evey 5th day to eat up innings. There's no Verlander Buehler Cole type of ace out there on a losing team that has a contract about to expire or will become a free agent at the end of this year to be had. But I would keep an eye out for possibly one of the Brewers starters. If they are in it at the trade deadline, forget it. If they're hovering near .500 they might want to unload

1 hour ago, Schmoeman5 said:

I'll admit. The options are slim. But the Twins would misuse one if they had one. They dont/won't use anyone past 6 innings to avoid the dreaded 3rd time through the lineup. They never make their starters work out of a jam past the 5th. Look at yesterday's KC game. Singer cruising along pitching a SO. Metrics say get him out. Go to the pen and BOOM. There goes the game. KC went by the book and lost. So get a Montas Hendricks or Eovaldi type guy. Throw him out there evey 5th day to eat up innings. There's no Verlander Buehler Cole type of ace out there on a losing team that has a contract about to expire or will become a free agent at the end of this year to be had. But I would keep an eye out for possibly one of the Brewers starters. If they are in it at the trade deadline, forget it. If they're hovering near .500 they might want to unload

And to answer your question. No Ryan is not an ace. But then I didn't think Berrios was either. But if you add someone close to that,  the Twins would be in much better shape.

16 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

I'll admit. The options are slim. But the Twins would misuse one if they had one. They dont/won't use anyone past 6 innings to avoid the dreaded 3rd time through the lineup. They never make their starters work out of a jam past the 5th. Look at yesterday's KC game. Singer cruising along pitching a SO. Metrics say get him out. Go to the pen and BOOM. There goes the game. KC went by the book and lost. So get a Montas Hendricks or Eovaldi type guy. Throw him out there evey 5th day to eat up innings. There's no Verlander Buehler Cole type of ace out there on a losing team that has a contract about to expire or will become a free agent at the end of this year to be had. But I would keep an eye out for possibly one of the Brewers starters. If they are in it at the trade deadline, forget it. If they're hovering near .500 they might want to unload

So you address 3 specific starters, Montas, Kyle Hendricks, I assume, and Nathan Eovaldi as 'ace' types we should target, and you say Joe Ryan is not one.  Basically saying all three would slot ahead of Ryan.  First, why do you rank them all ahead of him at this point?  Is it because Ryan is a rookie and no long term track record?  Also you say Berrios is not an ace, but a guy like him would be needed for the Twins, so going to look at him too.  Maybe you are right that any of those guys would be the best starter. 

Montas, 9 starts, 50.2 innings, ERA 3.55 ERA+ 100, FIP 3.30, WHIP 1.007 9.8K/9

Hendricks, 9 starts 49.2 innings, ERA 4.89 ERA+ 84 FIP 5.52 WHIP 1.329 6.3K/9

Eovaldi, 9 starts 48.1 innings, ERA 4.10 ERA+ 99 FIP 5.51 WHIP 1.159 9.9 K/9

Berrios, 9 starts 47.1 innings, ERA 4.75 ERA+ 80 FIP 4.50 WHIP 1.437 6.7 K/9

Ryan, 8 starts 43.1 innings, ERA 2.28 ERA+ 159 FIP 3.24 WHIP 0.992 8.7 K/9

That is this season stats so far.  I am using them because I want the pitcher they are now, not the pitcher they were before.  Two of the pitchers are on the wrong side of 30 as well, which is when pitcher normally regress, so even if you look at career numbers, I would argue there is no reason to expect that.  However, a quick snapshot of career WAR, I know not best to judge pitchers on but they are being compared to each other.  Montas 6.5 in 5 full season, this being his 6th.  Hendricks, 21.6 in his now 9th season, Eovaldi, 14.6 in his now 10th season.  Berrios, 11.3 in his now 7th season.  Ryan not even a full season is at 1.6, with 1.3 in his 8 starts this year.  

Judge how you will, but at this point I would say Ryan is the best out of all of them.  Slightly less K/9 than Montas and Eovalid, but every other number Ryan is better on.  Will it remain, maybe not.  In terms of innings per start he is right on par with all of them too, but Berrios did have on start that went .1 innings.  Now compared to other starters on our team would Montas be an upgrade, yes he would, but my point is that Ryan is doing just as well as any of the listed trade targets.  Does he have the track record no, but even these guys outside of Hendricks none have a huge track record for a career.  Hendricks though has dropped off his last 2 years being on wrong side of 30.  

20 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

I'll admit. The options are slim. But the Twins would misuse one if they had one. They dont/won't use anyone past 6 innings to avoid the dreaded 3rd time through the lineup. They never make their starters work out of a jam past the 5th. Look at yesterday's KC game. Singer cruising along pitching a SO. Metrics say get him out. Go to the pen and BOOM. There goes the game. KC went by the book and lost. So get a Montas Hendricks or Eovaldi type guy. Throw him out there evey 5th day to eat up innings. There's no Verlander Buehler Cole type of ace out there on a losing team that has a contract about to expire or will become a free agent at the end of this year to be had. But I would keep an eye out for possibly one of the Brewers starters. If they are in it at the trade deadline, forget it. If they're hovering near .500 they might want to unload

Just to comment on the use past 6 innings.  Only 5 averaged over 6 innings per start, 6 averaged exactly 6, and everyone else was below 6.  So it is not just a Twins thing of pulling guys after 6 innings, most teams do that. 

On 5/24/2022 at 8:33 AM, Trov said:

So you address 3 specific starters, Montas, Kyle Hendricks, I assume, and Nathan Eovaldi as 'ace' types we should target, and you say Joe Ryan is not one.  Basically saying all three would slot ahead of Ryan.  First, why do you rank them all ahead of him at this point?  Is it because Ryan is a rookie and no long term track record?  Also you say Berrios is not an ace, but a guy like him would be needed for the Twins, so going to look at him too.  Maybe you are right that any of those guys would be the best starter. 

Montas, 9 starts, 50.2 innings, ERA 3.55 ERA+ 100, FIP 3.30, WHIP 1.007 9.8K/9

Hendricks, 9 starts 49.2 innings, ERA 4.89 ERA+ 84 FIP 5.52 WHIP 1.329 6.3K/9

Eovaldi, 9 starts 48.1 innings, ERA 4.10 ERA+ 99 FIP 5.51 WHIP 1.159 9.9 K/9

Berrios, 9 starts 47.1 innings, ERA 4.75 ERA+ 80 FIP 4.50 WHIP 1.437 6.7 K/9

Ryan, 8 starts 43.1 innings, ERA 2.28 ERA+ 159 FIP 3.24 WHIP 0.992 8.7 K/9

That is this season stats so far.  I am using them because I want the pitcher they are now, not the pitcher they were before.  Two of the pitchers are on the wrong side of 30 as well, which is when pitcher normally regress, so even if you look at career numbers, I would argue there is no reason to expect that.  However, a quick snapshot of career WAR, I know not best to judge pitchers on but they are being compared to each other.  Montas 6.5 in 5 full season, this being his 6th.  Hendricks, 21.6 in his now 9th season, Eovaldi, 14.6 in his now 10th season.  Berrios, 11.3 in his now 7th season.  Ryan not even a full season is at 1.6, with 1.3 in his 8 starts this year.  

Judge how you will, but at this point I would say Ryan is the best out of all of them.  Slightly less K/9 than Montas and Eovalid, but every other number Ryan is better on.  Will it remain, maybe not.  In terms of innings per start he is right on par with all of them too, but Berrios did have on start that went .1 innings.  Now compared to other starters on our team would Montas be an upgrade, yes he would, but my point is that Ryan is doing just as well as any of the listed trade targets.  Does he have the track record no, but even these guys outside of Hendricks none have a huge track record for a career.  Hendricks though has dropped off his last 2 years being on wrong side of 30.  

I'm not responding to people who either can't or won't read. I don't think ANY OF THOSE GUYS ARE ACES. I said that.  And yes Ryan is NOT AN ACE. The A's promoted Sunny Gray as such when they trotted him out to face Verlander his rookie season. In time maybe. Not right now