Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Here's Why the Twins Haven't Gone Hard After Pitching


    Nick Nelson

    There's been a lot of frustration expressed over the Twins and their unwillingness to spend on free agent pitching. 

    I share that frustration. I'm not going to defend it here. I'm just going to try and explain the likely reasoning behind it.

    Image courtesy of Ed Bailey, Wichita Wind Surge (Jordan Balazovic)

    Twins Video

    Aaron Gleeman penned a great piece for The Athletic last week addressing the team's hesitance to spend on pitching. This has been a trend for years, and now has become a glaring oddity, given the severe need for rotation help.

    Unless they sign Carlos Rodón (unlikely), it is clear the Twins have actively decided to bow out of the high-end free agent pitching market this offseason. They had money in hand, and yet they let every frontline type fall off the board, with no signs of serious pursuit.

    Why? Part of it undoubtedly ties to a fundamental aversion to risk, but I think there are deeper strategic underpinnings. 

    When you look at the organization's pitching pipeline, and the number of MLB-ready arms that need to be evaluated, it becomes a bit easier to understand the desire for extreme flexibility.

    A pipeline ready to pay off

    It's no secret: this front office was brought in to develop pitching. That was Cleveland's specialization when Derek Falvey was there, and it's been a calling card of successful mid-market organizations over the years. 

    There seems to be a sense that Falvey has fallen short in this regard, but we're judging an incomplete picture. Realistically it takes around five years or so to draft-and-develop a pitcher. This regime had a minor-league season wiped out by COVID in their fourth.  

    When you look at the proliferation of intriguing arms in the system that are approaching MLB-readiness, the plan appears to be on track following a jarring disruption. 

    All of these pitching prospects could feasibly be listed with an ETA of 2022:

    • Jordan Balazovic, RHP (23 next season)
    • Jhoan Duran, RHP (24)
    • Josh Winder, RHP (25)
    • Cole Sands, RHP (24)
    • Chris Vallimont, RHP (25)
    • Simeon Woods Richardson, RHP (21)
    • Drew Strotman, RHP (25)
    • Matt Canterino, RHP (24)
    • Louie Varland, RHP (24)

    When I say these are "interesting" pitching prospects, I don't mean, "These are guys with raw stuff who could put up numbers if they figure things out." They've all put up numbers. In some cases, ridiculous numbers. Most of them have reached the high minors, and nearly all are at an age where good prospects tend to take the big-league step.

    Are the Twins viewing 2022 as a season to fully evaluate the quality of these pitchers and assess the strategy they've been developing for half a decade? It seems that way to me. 

    What to expect after the lockout

    If this theory is correct, it doesn't mean the Twins are going to stand idly and let Dylan Bundy be their only pitching addition. None of the prospects mentioned above will be ready to go out of the gates, barring an unforeseen spring development. But it does mean they'll likely continue to avoid larger investments in pitchers, and the commitments those entail.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see them sign one or two of the better mid-tier starters remaining – say, Zack Greinke or Michael Pineda – and then round out the staff with a bunch of hybrid starter/reliever types who can contribute bulk innings while offering some upside. I outlined what a model might look like in practice back in early November.

    This model would be ideal for gradually bringing along young rookie starters in a controlled setting. You're not asking them to go out and throw six innings every fifth day, which none are physically built up to do. You're simply asking them to let loose and impact games. Maybe even win some games.

    Is this a "rebuild"?

    Falvey has bristled at the notion his team is headed for a rebuild in 2022. "I'm not using that word," he told reporters. Is he off base? 

    Even if the approach I've put forth above is accurate, I think it's fair to steer away from such a characterization. "Rebuild" implies having no real aspiration to contend, but rather starting anew with a long-term scope. The Twins aren't starting anew. They're sticking with the rebuilding plan that's already been in place throughout this front office's tenure.

    These internally-developed arms were always going to the hold the key to Falvey and Thad Levine's vision for a sustainable winner. It's time to get a gauge on the validity of that vision.

    A prototype to follow

    Looking back through franchise history, we can find a pretty decent parallel for what a youthful takeover of the rotation could look like: the 2008 season.

    That season, too, had the makings of a rebuild on the surface. Minnesota traded Johan Santana for prospects during the previous offseason, while letting Torii Hunter walk. They didn't go out and make any big moves in free agency. 

    The rotation ended up being led by Scott Baker, Nick Blackburn, Kevin Slowey, and Glen Perkins. Of those four, only Baker had more than 100 innings of major-league experience coming into the campaign. All were between 24 and 26 years old.

    Ironically, the biggest misstep by the front office that year was signing Liván Hernández under the pretense that this young group of starters needed a veteran leader. Hernández posted a 5.48 ERA over 23 starts before being cut in August to make room for Francisco Liriano – another young starter who rounded out the youth-led rotation.

    That youth-led rotation proved very capable. The Twins came within a game of a postseason berth, thanks in part to a solid offense led by a pair of MVP contenders in Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer. 

    The 2022 Twins offense, led by Byron Buxon, Jorge Polanco and others, will have a chance to win if they get any help from the pitching. Why can't that help come primarily from the internal pipeline? It's happened before.

    A learning year

    Despite my efforts here to understand and justify the front office's lack of aggressiveness on the pitching market, I can't deny that the youth movement plan is a long shot. For every example like the 2008 Twins, there are plenty more where inexperience doomed a young rotation.

    But I'd argue that even in that scenario, the coming season can be a valuable one. They can throw numerous guys into the fire, take stock of what they've got, and assess their needs going forward more accurately. 

    Ideally, they'll add at least one more moderately good free agent starter and another impact arm via trade, so as to improve their odds and lessen the total reliance on unknowns. But as a general course of action, I don't hate the idea of letting the pipeline produce.

    It's not the start of a rebuild. It's the summation of a rebuild that was initiated six years ago when Falvey and Levine first took over. 

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Order the Offseason Handbook
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email

    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

    11 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

    4. The FO then uses the cash saved to build a killer pen and, if desired, add a more true #1 and/or a key position player or two to fill a hole. 

    The same thing was said while the club was sporting bottom third payrolls in the early 2010s. Those savings weren't spent following those atrocious years, and whatever isn't spent this year won't rollover into some future expense account either. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 hours ago, Nick Nelson said:

    I don't think that's a fair way to look at it. They missed an entire minor-league season and then had to try to build back up the following year. You can't treat their development cycle like a typical 24/25 year old's. I do think that point underscores the urgency of getting them looks in the near future, however. 

    The widespread injuries, to me, are the foreboding concern. But you've gotta believe some of these guys will see their lack turn around on that front after last summer. And I wonder how many of the IL trips/shutdowns were the result of extreme caution, given the circumstances.

    Did 2020 only happen to Twins minor leaguers?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

    I sincerely hope that "the plan all along," wasn't to fail miserably in FA, be meh in trades, and pin all hope of success over the next 3-5 seasons on a good but not great group of prospect arms. Gunnarthor nailed it; the goalposts have shifted considerably if we're rationalizing sitting out an offseason and wasting a year as necessary to build a "sustainable winner," and make upcoming 40 man decisions easier.

    The goalposts haven't shifted. The plan has always been to develop pitching as a means to success. The Twins rebuilt their infrastructure around that philosophy. They made outside-the-box coaching and front office hires. Falvey was hired away from Cleveland on this basis, and he was always going to be judged ultimately on the merits of his pitching development system. The goalposts are the same. 

    I don't know why you act like this is such a radical idea. When was the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher? Serious question.

    As for the bit about "rationalizing sitting out an offseason and wasting a year," this is is what I'd call moving the goalposts. No one is out here defending the notion of sitting out the rest of the offseason and making no more significant additions. And that isn't going to happen. The article is specifically addressing the team's choice to bypass the top tier of free agent starting pitching.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

    I wasn't specifying them? When I say "You can't treat their development cycle like a typical 24/25 year old's" I meant typical as in pre-2020. The same applies to any minor-leaguer. 25 is the new 23, if you will,

     

    .........When was the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher? Serious question.

     

    I would disagree. The youth that is playing baseball in the minors have been playing most of their life. They now have trainers and family and coaches that groom them to be baseball players with fervor with clinics and camps and weight training and cross training and private coaching at very young ages and carry it on and on. I see it all the time. They spend a lot of money on it, too. So by the time these youth are 18 and 19, they have had more baseball than players used to have accumulated well into their 20s, and certainly by the time they are 23. Their development is heightened and accelerated immensely year by passing year now. And I doubt many of them stopped working on their game on their own during 2020, either.

    In this light, one could say that the same applies to any minor-leaguer. In this light 19 is the new 23, not the opposite. One year doesn't really take away all the others.

     

    And in regard to the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher..... I don't know why that statement must be limited to an AL Central champion, and not all of MLB, because it has happened in MLB a lot. And the AL Central is in MLB. After all, the goal is always to win the World Series, not the AL Central, right?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, h2oface said:

    And in regard to the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher..... I don't know why that statement must be limited to an AL Central champion, and not all of MLB, because it has happened in MLB a lot. And the AL Central is in MLB. After all, the goal is always to win the World Series, not the AL Central, right?

    That sure is a long-winded way of not answering the question! 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't have any issues with the Twins running with the pitchers they have and rebuilding. I don't have any issues with the Twins trading for front end rotation arms and competing. I do have a problem with the Twins log jamming their older prospects behind mediocre at best arms who the Twins will refuse to release in a timely manner. 

    It's time for the Twins to prove they have the arms or prove they're willing to bring in the arms. It's that simple to me.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

    The goalposts haven't shifted. The plan has always been to develop pitching as a means to success. The Twins rebuilt their infrastructure around that philosophy. They made outside-the-box coaching and front office hires. Falvey was hired away from Cleveland on this basis, and he was always going to be judged ultimately on the merits of his pitching development system. The goalposts are the same. 

    I don't know why you act like this is such a radical idea. When was the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher? Serious question.

    As for the bit about "rationalizing sitting out an offseason and wasting a year," this is is what I'd call moving the goalposts. No one is out here defending the notion of sitting out the rest of the offseason and making no more significant additions. And that isn't going to happen. The article is specifically addressing the team's choice to bypass the top tier of free agent starting pitching.  

    No doubt, the goal of every team is to develop their own talent as a primary means to success. They'll always be judged based on team performance. The reason we're fixated on these prospects is because the FO has failed in other avenues. To say 'this was the plan all along," ignores those failures and what transpired to reach a point where so much is riding on this group, i.e. it shifts the goalposts from a team that should be competing, to one that now needs time for development.

    I honestly don't know why you're limiting the scope to the AL Central.

    Semantics maybe, but I would've considered significant to mean one of those top tier FAs that signed deals well within the Twins' budget. Rodon is still out there, and Pineda seems destined to return, but barring some massive trade (very unlikely) it's going to be another season of stop gaps, and considering what they could've had, I'd call that sitting out. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

    That sure is a long-winded way of not answering the question! 

    Well, I took it as a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer, so I chose rhetoric instead. :huh:

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They will go hard for the one or two year contracts that no one wants to sign  until there is no other option. One week before spring training is the time when the FO plan will become clearer. The other avenue is trades. When the price of long term contracts went up the asking price for traded pitching must have gone way up. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Prince William said:

    They will go hard for the one or two year contracts that no one wants to sign  until there is no other option. One week before spring training is the time when the FO plan will become clearer. The other avenue is trades. When the price of long term contracts went up the asking price for traded pitching must have gone way up. 

    It has, that is why some of the trade proposals for 2 year starters are taking 2 of the Twins top 5 or 6 prospects, plus possibly one major league piece.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The plan I am seeing from many of you is to trade for some pitcher (x) with 1 to 3 years control.  For that to work you are making two assumptions.

    1. they will sign an extension here.

    2. They will give us very good to great pitching.

     

    Neither is a given.  And will cost major propects/pieces to get these #2 or #3 starters.  We need to find what we have.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    27 minutes ago, beckmt said:

    It has, that is why some of the trade proposals for 2 year starters are taking 2 of the Twins top 5 or 6 prospects, plus possibly one major league piece.

    There hasn't been much for trades to judge what the price may be. Fan proposals are what they are. Too bad Smeltzer did not pitch just a little bit better 2 years ago. He could have been that major league peace err piece

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 minutes ago, beckmt said:

    The plan I am seeing from many of you is to trade for some pitcher (x) with 1 to 3 years control.  For that to work you are making two assumptions.

    1. they will sign an extension here.

    2. They will give us very good to great pitching.

     

    Neither is a given.  And will cost major propects/pieces to get these #2 or #3 starters.  We need to find what we have.

    The same people saying we have to trade for SPs are saying we are going to lose 90-100 games if we don't.  So, how many games difference can we make signing a couple SPs like Montas?  That does not even get us to 500.  How is it a good plan to trade away guys who could give us 6+ years for 2 years of control so that we can be a 500 team? 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

    The same people saying we have to trade for SPs are saying we are going to lose 90-100 games if we don't.  So, how many games difference can we make signing a couple SPs like Montas?  That does not even get us to 500.  How is it a good plan to trade away guys who could give us 6+ years for 2 years of control so that we can be a 500 team? 

    Makes us feel warm and fuzzy when they "try" the way we want them to try. That's why I feel warm and fuzzy about building a pitching pipeline.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, h2oface said:

     

    I would disagree. The youth that is playing baseball in the minors have been playing most of their life. They now have trainers and family and coaches that groom them to be baseball players with fervor with clinics and camps and weight training and cross training and private coaching at very young ages and carry it on and on. I see it all the time. They spend a lot of money on it, too. So by the time these youth are 18 and 19, they have had more baseball than players used to have accumulated well into their 20s, and certainly by the time they are 23. Their development is heightened and accelerated immensely year by passing year now. And I doubt many of them stopped working on their game on their own during 2020, either.

    In this light, one could say that the same applies to any minor-leaguer. In this light 19 is the new 23, not the opposite. One year doesn't really take away all the others.

     

    And in regard to the last time an AL Central champion was propelled in any significant way by a big free agent starting pitcher..... I don't know why that statement must be limited to an AL Central champion, and not all of MLB, because it has happened in MLB a lot. And the AL Central is in MLB. After all, the goal is always to win the World Series, not the AL Central, right?

    You are right in that it should not be limited to the AL central.  The appropriate sample set would be teams of equal or less revenue.  Teams with enough incremental revenue to pay for a top starter and have the twins revenue left over are not equivalent samples.  Also, the outcry here is not simply for free agents but high profile free (20M+ AAV) type free agents.   If there are many examples, you should not have a hard time listing several.   

    It would be great to see these examples instead of just making unsubstantiated proclamations.  The only impactful free agent SP I can think of that made an impact for a below average revenue team was Charlie Morton's 6 WAR season.  He signed for 2/30 so while 15M is a fairly substantial AAV, a $30M contract can hardly be considered a "big signing".

    Looking forward to your examples.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

    If they did what most people want them to do we would be in serious trouble beyond the short-term.

    The "what have you done for me lately" greatness of fandom. This FO is apparently the worst in the history of baseball at building pitching staffs despite being #2 in all of baseball in pitching WAR for 2019 and 2020 combined.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Quick thought from out east...  The payroll is about $90M right now.  Sign Pineda for $10M, sign Kris Bryant for $18M, sign a glove-first shortstop for $3M, and a bullpen guy for $5M.  The payroll is now at $126M.  That completes the offseason.  As the midseason trade deadline approaches, evaluate the where you are as far as competing in 2022, and either trade prospects for additional pitching, stick with what you have, or trade whoever is hot (Donaldson, Sano, Kepler, Bryant, Pineda come to my mind).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well written Nick. There can be an argument that production was delayed and now we'll see excellent results from the guys listed in the piece and maybe from guys not listed. Baily Ober was not on many people's radar and he looks like a solid starter. To think that a couple of Twins' prospects with higher profiles could come in and contribute as soon as this year would make sense. 

    With all the injuries that occurred last year, there would seem to be a crying need for short-term help to tide the team over in '22. Many of the prospective starters will be on innings limits as Ober was last year, and some will not step forward, that is just the way things go. Bundy is one piece, adding someone else and Pineda or taking a chance on Rodon would still make sense.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

    You are right in that it should not be limited to the AL central.  The appropriate sample set would be teams of equal or less revenue.  Teams with enough incremental revenue to pay for a top starter and have the twins revenue left over are not equivalent samples.  Also, the outcry here is not simply for free agents but high profile free (20M+ AAV) type free agents.   If there are many examples, you should not have a hard time listing several.   

    It would be great to see these examples instead of just making unsubstantiated proclamations.  The only impactful free agent SP I can think of that made an impact for a below average revenue team was Charlie Morton's 6 WAR season.  He signed for 2/30 so while 15M is a fairly substantial AAV, a $30M contract can hardly be considered a "big signing".

    Looking forward to your examples.

    Exactly this! I picked the AL Central because, well, that's the division the Twins are trying to win, and the teams they compete against most frequently. But I also picked it because those teams operate on somewhat similar financial footing. 

    It is utterly irrelevant to say "Look, the Yankees/Dodgers/Astros signed a big free agent pitcher, why don't the Twins??" Those teams operate in a completely different context. 

    So many people act like throwing money at free agent pitching is some surefire path to contention or getting over the hump. From my view there is just no real evidence of this being true, at least for a team like the Twins. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    34 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

    Exactly this! I picked the AL Central because, well, that's the division the Twins are trying to win, and the teams they compete against most frequently. But I also picked it because those teams operate on somewhat similar financial footing. 

    It is utterly irrelevant to say "Look, the Yankees/Dodgers/Astros signed a big free agent pitcher, why don't the Twins??" Those teams operate in a completely different context. 

    So many people act like throwing money at free agent pitching is some surefire path to contention or getting over the hump. From my view there is just no real evidence of this being true, at least for a team like the Twins. 

    In the last decade Detroit was a fixture amongst the top payrolls while they were racking up division titles and making deep playoff runs; the Twins have never shown a willingness to do that. KC and Cleveland sat in or very near the bottom 5 and briefly rose to the median during WS runs; the Twins never should do that. I guess the Sox are a comp if they don't spend like they did in the late 2000s, and instead continue to mirror the payrolls of their rough 2010s run. 

    Ray, Gausman, Stroman, and Berrios all signed deals well within the Twins budget. Spend like NY or LA is a strawman.  

    It's understood there's inherent risk with FA pitchers. Alternatively, prospect development carries a similar, if not greater, amount of risk. "For a team like the Twins," isn't painting an accurate picture. If you're only willing to spend mid level dollars on short term deals, then sure, it'll be tough to get over the hump, but that's not really the point of this whole discussion. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

    The "what have you done for me lately" greatness of fandom. This FO is apparently the worst in the history of baseball at building pitching staffs despite being #2 in all of baseball in pitching WAR for 2019 and 2020 combined.

    Nearly all of that WAR has vacated, hence the concern. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

    Nearly all of that WAR has vacated, hence the concern. 

    Oh, I get it. I'm concerned about 2022 just like everyone else. My point is that the storyline very quickly switched for certain fans to this FO being completely incompetent and having no ability to build a pitching staff. There's a large number of posters on this site who speak about this FO having to go because they have no ability to sign, trade for, or develop pitching. There's a large number of posters on here who have written off 2022 already because they feel this FO has no ability to put out a successful pitching staff in general. There's a large number of posters on this site who claim Rocco and the FO have only had success because of a historic HR hitting season. All of those stances ignore the actual results this team has seen. 

    Not saying they shouldn't be ripped for 2021. Not saying they've successfully setup the team for 2022. Just saying 2021 was 1 season and talking like this FO has completely failed on the pitching front is ignoring a massive amount of previous success. Saying 2022 is doomed because they didn't sign certain guys is ignoring their previous successes at snagging very successful players late in the offseason on multiple occasions already. Thus the "what have you done for me lately" comment. Stepping back and taking in all of the information we have should lead people to be concerned for 2022, but also realize this FO has put together incredibly effective pitching staffs with late offseason moves on multiple occasions so all hope is not lost and we don't need to freak out just yet. Just saying fans should have some more perspective.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    46 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

    In the last decade Detroit was a fixture amongst the top payrolls while they were racking up division titles and making deep playoff runs; the Twins have never shown a willingness to do that. KC and Cleveland sat in or very near the bottom 5 and briefly rose to the median during WS runs; the Twins never should do that. I guess the Sox are a comp if they don't spend like they did in the late 2000s, and instead continue to mirror the payrolls of their rough 2010s run. 

    Ray, Gausman, Stroman, and Berrios all signed deals well within the Twins budget. Spend like NY or LA is a strawman.  

    It's understood there's inherent risk with FA pitchers. Alternatively, prospect development carries a similar, if not greater, amount of risk. "For a team like the Twins," isn't painting an accurate picture. If you're only willing to spend mid level dollars on short term deals, then sure, it'll be tough to get over the hump, but that's not really the point of this whole discussion. 

    (Following numbers pulled from Cot's as opening day 26-man roster totals)

    To be fair the Tigers spent like crazy under Mike Ilitch, but Chris has sliced and diced payroll since he took over (200M last year of Mike's tenure (RIP), 125M very next year under Chris with 115, 43, and 81M payrolls to follow). Not saying he won't spend like his dad, but we certainly can't say he will yet. Didn't splurge on Correa a month ago so there's at least 1 data point that he won't just blow the top off things.

    The White Sox topped out at 127M in 2011. They were at 128 last year. Not sure why the Twins aren't a comp there. They're playing in basically the exact same financial waters.

    KC and Cleveland are definitely "cycle" teams in that they spend when they think they have a shot, but will slash payrolls after. Twins don't slash quite so low, but they have some "cycle-ness" to them, too.

    But I think Nick's point is that the max payrolls (until Chris Ilitch shows differently) for this division are all in roughly the same spot. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    28 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

    Oh, I get it. I'm concerned about 2022 just like everyone else. My point is that the storyline very quickly switched for certain fans to this FO being completely incompetent and having no ability to build a pitching staff. There's a large number of posters on this site who speak about this FO having to go because they have no ability to sign, trade for, or develop pitching. There's a large number of posters on here who have written off 2022 already because they feel this FO has no ability to put out a successful pitching staff in general. There's a large number of posters on this site who claim Rocco and the FO have only had success because of a historic HR hitting season. All of those stances ignore the actual results this team has seen. 

    Not saying they shouldn't be ripped for 2021. Not saying they've successfully setup the team for 2022. Just saying 2021 was 1 season and talking like this FO has completely failed on the pitching front is ignoring a massive amount of previous success. Saying 2022 is doomed because they didn't sign certain guys is ignoring their previous successes at snagging very successful players late in the offseason on multiple occasions already. Thus the "what have you done for me lately" comment. Stepping back and taking in all of the information we have should lead people to be concerned for 2022, but also realize this FO has put together incredibly effective pitching staffs with late offseason moves on multiple occasions so all hope is not lost and we don't need to freak out just yet. Just saying fans should have some more perspective.

    The fringes aren't really worth mentioning or arguing against. 

    I view both '21 as well as the pitching issues as a culmination rather than a snapshot. Is it doomed because player X wasn't signed? No. Do I think it's highly unlikely they're able to field a staff capable of competing for a playoff spot at this point? Yes. The Twins weren't mathematically eliminated from playoff contention until mid September, but we knew the season was over by the end of May. I'd certainly take an Odo type, but barring a huge trade, it's a band aid on a broken arm. 

    12 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

    (Following numbers pulled from Cot's as opening day 26-man roster totals)

    To be fair the Tigers spent like crazy under Mike Ilitch, but Chris has sliced and diced payroll since he took over (200M last year of Mike's tenure (RIP), 125M very next year under Chris with 115, 43, and 81M payrolls to follow). Not saying he won't spend like his dad, but we certainly can't say he will yet. Didn't splurge on Correa a month ago so there's at least 1 data point that he won't just blow the top off things.

    The White Sox topped out at 127M in 2011. They were at 128 last year. Not sure why the Twins aren't a comp there. They're playing in basically the exact same financial waters.

    KC and Cleveland are definitely "cycle" teams in that they spend when they think they have a shot, but will slash payrolls after. Twins don't slash quite so low, but they have some "cycle-ness" to them, too.

    But I think Nick's point is that the max payrolls (until Chris Ilitch shows differently) for this division are all in roughly the same spot. 

    In fairness Detroit went all in during that run, and Dombrowski sold every asset he could to keep the window open. Maybe (hopefully) they don't reach those levels of spending again, we'll probably find out shortly. The Sox could be, and I said as much. I think the scope was narrowed to downplay the opportunity missed. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

    Spend like NY or LA is a strawman. 

    Exactly.

    The off-season isn't over, but the Twins saw the lockout staring them in the face, and they so far have spent like they're Pittsburgh.

    Someday MLB will create a trophy for the most wins per dollar, or the best performance by a mid-tier market.  Until then, we go for the Commissioner's Trophy as World Series champ, and nothing less.

    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...