Analyzing Minnesota’s Trend of Acquiring Potentially Injured Pitchers

The common thread in the article seems to be that we had knowledge of some issues in almost all of the deals.  We went into the deals with our eyes wide open, hoping to get a pitcher coming out of injuries and pitch well again.  Same can be said with the Archer signing and the Gray trade.  Both coming off of injuries in the past and needing a little tender care in their innings and pitch counts.  These are the bargains we are constantly looking for, and the risk is sometimes worth the reward and sometimes not, but let's not pretend it is simply bad luck.  It is a pattern that cannot be ignored.  The jury is still out for how it will affect '23, but let's hope the guys get well by then.  

Dyson clearly didn't have any red flags.  He just turned out to have been dishonest with himself and/or his teams.  Maeda had some issues, but he seemed to have a pretty good history, so I am not sure anyone could have predicted his surgery.  On the other hand, everybody and their unce knew Paddack wasn't right, so that was not a wise move, especially since he had already had one TJ surgery.  I suspect if he recovers, it will likely be 2024 before he is "whole" again.  Why make this trade when you want a pitcher to help you this year?  It makes no sense.  Mahle did not have as big of a red flag, but when a pitcher has arm shoulder issues in early July, the chance of it acting up again is significant.  If you are making a deadline deal, why take a risk that the player you desperately need is going to be on the IL?  And, he did cost significant prospect capital IMHO.  Do I want the FO to sit on its thumbs at the deadline?  No, I want the FO to sign a good free agent pitcher to avoid being in the position to have to give up prospects for someone at the deadline.  Or, if you are going to add someone, don't focus on players with a history of injuries or one who has had arm or shoulder issues early in current season, even if the acquistion cost is higher.  Penny wise and pound foolish methinks.

We all know the old saying: “You pay your money and you take your chance”.  But this pattern goes beyond “bad luck”. Maybe we somewhat knew what we were getting with Paddack. Maeda produced for a while - we’ll see if and how he comes back.  But as trade deadline deals, the Mahle and Dyson trades were beyond terrible.

So sorry, but not all of us believe in “bad luck”, particularly when it happens over and over.  Our owners are savvy people and won’t/shouldn’t fall for the BS excuse of “bad luck” if that is what the FO is offering up.  Someone has to be accountable.

BTW, it looks like zero wins vs. the Dodgers, Astros and Yankees over the last three series with them this past month or so.  Do we blame that on “bad luck” and all the injuries as well?

Bottom line: If you believe in “bad luck”, your organization will be mired in mediocrity in perpetuity.  It doesn’t matter if it’s the Twins, your business, hell, even your love life.  If want your “luck” to change, you do something about it. Period. The Pohlads didn’t just fall off a turnip truck - they understand that.

Could Duran be added to this list?

I would say the biggest injury risk we dealt for was Paddock.  I still do not mind the trade overall because he still has years of control and do not feel we gave up a ton, some feel otherwise but do not want to go down that hole.  With Maeda I feel he should not even be on the list, he pitched nearly 2 seasons before the injury.  Dyson lied about issues, we could not have known. Mahle, he is one that had flags, but was showing signs of doing well when dealt, so not much of a reason to think anything major.  I mean we even had him come back because he seemed to just have a tired shoulder at the time.  

You can never fully predict if a guy will have an injury let alone a major one.  You can get better offers, but many teams take on these risk factors and other teams have got burned just like Twins have. 

Maeda can hardly be categorized the same as Paddack and Dyson. He was a season and a half post-trade before he lost time to injury.

I see him as an example of the times it pays off- pitchers who become available for a reasonable price because of lingering injury concern, but who then contribute beyond their price tag. I'd put Maeda's name alongside Pineda on that list.

I'm holding out hope Archer will prove he belongs in that grouping as well, but that would require he reverses some current trends. 

There certainly aren't many examples of that being a successful strategy.

Since the Twins won’t pay big money for a top of the rotation free agent starter, the FO took a measured risk with mid rotation starters with injury concerns. And ir hasn’t turned out well. The larger problem is the inability to develop potential number one and two starters, which are essential to making a strong playoff run. The current team will not be positioned for any playoff run until that happens. Also the injury problems of their highly regarded minor league starters is a concern, especially since the organizational theory of four to five innings that Rocco dogmatically follows, using a computer algorithm instead of actually managing on a game to game basis, is also applied in the minors.   Pretty disappointing about how this team is managed.

Plain and simple. Do your homework and stay away from previously injured pitchers. That's all I can say on this. But every team has had pitchers to go down- even unexpectedly. Blame Covid. Blame the weird pitches and grips. Blame diet. Heck, blame the President of the US if you want. But do your homework first.

I'm pretty certain I'm in the minority about this. I look at it as calculated risks that didn't pay off...It's been a tough season with an excessive amount of injuries and one that was looking so good 2 months ago now is Meh. If we're going to blame the FO for taking risks in trades are we going to throw them under the bus for extending Buxton? Or signing Correa who's seen plenty of time on the IL until last season.

Would we have been in 1st place most on the 1st half with Rogers and without Gray, Paddack and Pagan?

We traded 2nd and 3rd basemen (DH) and a pitcher for Mahle. Would that had gotten us Montas? I don't think it's even close to what the Yankees gave up for Montas. Plus he had just as serious and injury risk.

Maeda - I don't feel belongs on this list.

Dyson - hard to blame the FO for the things he was hiding.

Must disagree with your comment that the Twins aren't going to spend prospect capital for a top notch pitcher.  Isn't that exactly what they did in acquiring Gray and Mahle.  Gray certainly is a front of the rotation starter and I remember several/many commenters here ragging on the Twins to go out at this deadline and get someone with many mentions of Mahle.  

Will agree with those that believe Maeda shouldn't be in this discussion and that the guy from San Francisco who's name I prefer to forget flat out lied about his injury.  Did he lie to the Giants also, we will never know.

On the flip side every fifth morning when I read the Strib over coffee I keep seeing some guy named Montgomery pitch 6, 7 or more innings for the Cardinals with anywhere from 0-2 runs allowed.  Learned that they traded for him from the Yankees at this deadline.  And although I know nothing about the guy they gave the Yankees, he doesn't seem like that big of a stud.  Matter of fact, kind of mediocre from his numbers.  

Is it really more luck than anything when making these deals hours before the deadline when you can't spend too much time on things like getting to know the guy or even investigating injuries?

If Mahle needs TJ, he's missing all of next year and that means the Twins lost three high end prospects for basically two starts and change. I expect they'd be able to sign a guy like that cheaply in free agency, but they also could have done the same thing by letting the Reds worry about it and not losing anybody.

An interesting article, and I see both sides on this matter quite clearly.

On the positive side of things, Maeda has been a stalwart. Despite there being "some" concern his arm might snag the injury bug, he sure looked good for years, including 2020, and looked as good or better in ST 2021 before things went south. Is it Price that's been pitching year after year with a similar projection but never had surgery yet? Can't recall if I'm remembering correctly. But I don't think Maeda was acquired as "high risk".

Mahle has been very solid, very consistent in his young career. Over 30 GS in 2021, yes? He looked good after a IL this year and looked good his first few starts with the Twins. There seems to be no real indication to predict and injury situation with him other than his stint with the Reds earlier this year. But guys get tweaks at times. Unless the Reds and the Twins were just blind, I don't know that I can include him as a "risky" acquisition either.

Dyson cost very little, would have helped if healthy, but was basically pitching in pain and lying to all parties. An investigation in to the matter determined the Giants had no knowledge of his being injured. 

The "bad" to me is Paddack. I'm not going down the rabbit hole again concerning the trade itself. I've got nothing against the guy and I've stated many times that I wouldn't be at all surprised if a year from now most of us are clamoring for an extension despite having control for 2024. But for someone you wanted/needed for 2022, there were massive red flags indicating the Twins should have struck for someone earlier, or looked elsewhere for a trade option. 

Sorry, but I do believe in bad luck. Or bad fortune, or whatever you want to call it. But it also happens to other teams as well. HOWEVER, I DO THINK you can mitigate better "luck" by just being "safer" in some of your choices.

The Twins knew Pineda, for example, had some past concerns. But he was relatively inexpensive and contributed quite a bit and was mostly healthy in his tenure. And while I wasn't entirely sold on the Archer signing, for the most part, he's done what was initially expected, though he has yet to "climb the mountain" to be better. Were the front 3 better from the begining and the bullpen not such a mess to begin with, he would have filled the 5th spot "adequately", though I would have aimed higher initially and not signed him.

But again, Paddack should never have been acquired as a major piece because just about everyone knew he was destined for another surgery.

So you can't always predict, but you can, at times, just be smarter and maybe pay a little more for someone that appears to have a more clean medical report card. I don't know that there's any real pattern here, but where there's smoke, fire might not be far behind. And I do believe a more thorough examination of past moves is very much in order to try to prevent future negative situations.

Related, and built on speculation, Rodon has been strongly tied to the Twins last offseason and during the trade deadline this year. He's a guy the Twins like, and I do as well. Apparently, the Dirty Sox were out on him due to $ and possible future injury. The Giants jumped and he has had a good year and is expected to opt out for a longer deal. If the $ and terms are there, would the Twins make a move this offseason? Or would they be asking for trouble?

Dyson-no comment

Maeda-didn’t show issues early on, still a very good steal from the very weird Mookie Betts Trade. I would still take Maeda over Graterol and Raley.

Paddack-bad trade, especially considering the pieces you got back with him.

Mahle-trade irritates me. You knew of his injury issues and still gave up serious prospects for him, Steer already looks solid in Cincinnati and I think CES and Hajjar can be something big as well. They weren’t worth what we got back, and getting almost anyone else would’ve Been better.