Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Making Sense Of The Final Roster Decisions


    Nick Nelson

    Do the Twins really think that Ricky Nolasco is their best option as fifth starter, or that Michael Tonkin is well suited as a long reliever?

    Maybe not, but placing the right-handers at the end of the rotation and bullpen buys the team a little more time to find out what they’ve got.

    Image courtesy of Kim Klement, USA Today

    Twins Video

    When Paul Molitor stated early in spring he expected to have Tyler Duffey in the rotation, it signaled that he was considering pushing Nolasco to the bullpen. Presented with that possibility, the veteran made it clear that he would raise a stink.

    Alas, Nolasco ends up getting his rotation spot and Duffey starts in Triple-A. Some might see it as the organization relenting to a malcontent, but I see it more as trying to salvage an asset.

    Had the Twins decided to send Nolasco to the bullpen, it sounds like he would have implored them to trade him somewhere he could start. I’m sure they would love to do that, but he stands no chance of building any kind of market as a mop-up man.

    If, on the other hand, he gets off to a decent start in the rotation, and some other clubs suffer early losses in their starting corps? That changes things. He’ll never bring back much in a trade but at this point that’s almost immaterial.

    It would be hard to stomach this course of action if it meant accepting a clear performance downgrade, but that’s not the case. Duffey simply didn’t look very good this spring, and it’s not about the results. The change-up that he’s been dedicated to making a workable third pitch isn’t there. The curveball that he leaned so heavily on as a rookie isn’t having the same kind of effect, even by his own admission.

    I thought this Duffey quote, in Parker’s story from Fort Myers last week, was telling:

    “I think guys know it’s coming so they’re sitting on it. One guy took two fastballs. Didn’t even budge. I think he was sitting dead-red on curveball. So that’s where I’m going to have to adjust accordingly.”

    Sounds like something he needs to work on, and maybe not against major-league hitters.

    Nolasco throws a ton of breaking balls, but insists his fastball is his most important pitch, as it sets up everything else he does. And whereas Duffey’s key pitch was failing him, Nolasco’s was trending up. This development, much more so than their Grapefruit stats, makes the decision a justifiable one for now.

    If the veteran gets off to a clunky start while Duffey rolls in Triple-A? Then you make the switch, and at that point Nolasco can complain all he wants but really has no leg left to stand on. Perhaps then the Twins consider a more drastic option like straight-up release.

    Another hidden benefit of the decision to put Nolasco in the rotation is that it opened up an extra spot in the bullpen and might have saved the Twins from losing Tonkin. The vibe when I was in camp was that the 26-year-old had little chance of making the roster because the team preferred Ryan Pressly and didn’t have room for both.

    Well, now they do. And I believe it would have been a big mistake to risk giving Tonkin (who is out of options) away on waivers, especially with the questionable overall state of the relief unit.

    As the last guy in the bullpen, he’ll start out pitching in lower-leverage situations and being called upon after short starts, similar to the role filled last year by Rule 5 draftee J.R. Graham. But Tonkin is certainly more deserving of being in the majors on merit (he has a 2.65 ERA and 9.7 K/9 at Triple-A), and if he performs well he’ll have a chance to work his way into more important innings.

    Carrying him means they lack a traditional long man in the pen. Giving Nolasco a rotation spot means sending down a guy in Duffey who did everything to earn it last year. But the upside of these decisions is that the Twins might get a solid middle reliever out of the deal, and get a chance to recoup some semblance of value on their $48 million investment in Nolasco.

    The downside could be losing a few more games. But that downside only extends so far as the team's resistance to implementing quick changes if things go south, and something tells me that won't be an issue.

    They believe in Nolasco and Tonkin enough to give them one more look, but they're skeptical enough of both that the leashes will be short.

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    If Jesse Crain is a comparable measuring stick for a reliever, that reliever belongs on the Twins roster.

    Crain may not have been the Twins closer, but he was seldom in danger of losing his job.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Well, he never had a truly bad season unless you're counting the 16 innings during his injury-plagued 2007 season.

     

    If that was his worst year, thanks for confirming that, whatever year it was. It was the year his fastball totally flattened out, and he was even demoted to Rochester for a spell. It was only a descriptive phrase, not a debate on Crain. I think it was actually 2009, though, when he was healthy (and the look on his profusely sweating face for outing after outing was similar to Perkins in September last year), and again, it was just a descriptive phrase, and not an attempt to hijack the thread to start talking about Crain, nor make this a new discussion about advanced stats and whether I can like Tonkin or not and his straight but speedy fastball because I like the inherited runners scored stat.

    Edited by h2oface
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If that was his worst year, thanks for confirming that, whatever year it was. It was the year his fastball totally flattened out, and he was even demoted to Rochester for a spell. It was only a descriptive phrase, not a debate on Crain. I think it was actually 2009, though, and again, it was just a descriptive phrase, and not an attempt to hijack the thread to start talking about Crain.

    Yep, no worries. We can drop it. Ancient history anyway.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Inherited runners scored means a lot to me! It is not relief if the pitcher comes in and lets the runners on base score. If he needs a strikeout and a double play to get out of a bases loaded with no outs jam, that is relief. If the pitcher comes in and there is two outs and the bases loaded, and he gives up a bases clearing double and then gets a strikeout, his line looks pretty good while he lays three runs on the teammate he was supposed to offer relief to. I get FIP/xFIP, but inherited runners scored tells me a lot more about a pitchers moxy and guts and whether he can do his job as a relief pitcher, and that job is to shut the other team down, no matter what it takes. That is why they call it relief.

    I agree with this. It's not just getting batters out it's when you get them out. It's very much analogous to BA with RISP.

    Edited to add: I'm not a stat-head and I'm sure this can be modified to be more representative of a reliever's performance, for example using win-probs, but the concept remains the same. It's more important to get the more important outs and less important to get the less important outs.

    Edited by spinowner
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree with this. It's not just getting batters out it's when you get them out. It's very much analogous to BA with RISP.

    Edited to add: I'm not a stat-head and I'm sure this can be modified to be more representative of a reliever's performance, for example using win-probs, but the concept remains the same. It's more important to get the more important outs and less important to get the less important outs.

    True, except I sorta believe, over time, if you get the less important outs, you won't need to get the more important outs.

     

    And if you can't do the former, I'm not going to give you many opportunities to do the latter.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    True, except I sorta believe, over time, if you get the less important outs, you won't need to get the more important outs.

    And if you can't do the former, I'm not going to give you many opportunities to do the latter.

    Yep. The more less important outs you get, the fewer more important outs there are.

    Edited by spinowner
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    In theory, prospect trades are a great idea to shuffle around players based on team need.

     

    In reality, they're hard to pull off for some reason. GMs simply don't do prospect swaps. Dunno why, exactly.

    Probably the old adage a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.  They have something that they know what they are capable of and they have a tough time trading it for something that they don't really know?  They do it in a heartbeat if they feel like they can get more back for the prospect, but even up trades are hard because they are probably just not familiar with the other guy in the deal.  So maybe they just go ahead and keep what they have?

     

    I think back to the Restovich, Buchanon et al days.  I mean they had guys like Morneau, Hunter, all of those guys that you just knew were going to beat those other guys out.  So why didn't they trade those other guys when their value was high?  Most likely because they knew what they had, those other guys were capable, and if a couple of the dudes in front of them went down with injury or just didn't pan out they had someone else that could maybe produce.  So they held on to them.  Had they traded them they probably would have ended up with someone not quite as capable, but then again they may have found some diamond in the rough too?

     

    JMO

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I don't want to pee on anyone's parade here, but I posted on another link a quote in SI from a rival scout and as I remember it went something like this:

     

    "If Nolasco is in the Twins rotation, then their rotation stinks"

     

    That's pretty brutal.

     

    It's also interesting that I see people wanting Plouffe traded and Sano moved to 3rd.  I get that, but the market for 3rd basemen wasn't high to begin with this offseason and Plouffe is not viewed outside of the Twins organization the way he is viewed by the Twins.  Outside of the Twins, he seems to be viewed as just OK.  Not an upgrade from what teams already have.  So, trading him isn't going to get much back.  I really thought they would move him to left field, put Sano at 3rd, and move Rosario to right, but I understand the reasons for not doing that too.

    Well I wonder what that same scout thinks about Detroit's rotation??  Since Pelfrey is slated as their #4 starter??

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I like how our team has quality options all over the diamond throughout the season available if need be.

     

    1B Mauer, Park, Sano, Kepler

    2B Dozier, Polanco

    SS Escobar (ok maybe not great options here) Santana and Polanco

    3b Plouffe, Sano, Polanco

    C  Suzuki, Murphy, Hicks (ok as a back up)

    OF Buxton, Sano, Rosario,Arcia Kepler we even have solidback up options to be a 5th of in Mastoianni

    DH Park, then just about anyone

     

    SP Hughes, Santana, Nolasco, Millone, Gibson, then Berrios, Duffy, and May

     

    RP we have a small army of relievers on the horizon almost ready. 

     

    So we have flexibility and options and trade fuel should we need to exercise any of it over the next season.  after this season lots of decisions get made so we will likely loose some of our depth.  Also we have time.  What if Mauer struggles this year ....we can sign Plouffe to an extension and move Sano to 1rst.....If Nolasco is winning games we can keep him till July and trade or trade this next offseason for some value.  If that happens we still have Berrios and Duffy available to pitch in the rotation next year. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...