Twins to Sign RHP Chris Archer to One-Year Deal

21 minutes ago, Harrison Greeley III said:

2. Pinpoint what worked about his slider in 2015-17 and rediscover what he lost somewhere around 2018.

I am going to guess this is also velocity related, just like his declining fastball.

7 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I am going to guess this is also velocity related, just like his declining fastball.

There's a little drop off on the slider, but not that much. But yeah, perhaps it became more hittable as the fastball it paired with declined. 

It's funny (well, not all that funny, really), but even if Archer pitches no better than he did last season with the Rays and is just healthier...it'll still be a significant improvement over what we got out of the 58 (58!) starts we gave to Happ, Shoemaker, Jax, Dobnak, and Barnes last season. Of that 5, only Barnes had an ERA under 6 (congrats, Charlie: 5.92 was the best of the worst). That's how dreadful our starting pitching was last season. If Archer can lend basic competence to the group, then he's a decent veteran addition. If he can't stay healthy and can't perform, we can walk away pretty easily.

I'm hoping this is a "raise the floor" move that helps us hold the line and let what should be a pretty good offense keep us in games. I'm a big believer that the easiest way to improve your team from being bad to good is to stop giving innings to bad pitchers and ABs to bad hitters. Reduce the amount of time you let terrible players on the field. We had a lot of starts and innings from terrible starters last season. Healthy, Archer should be at least ok. Would I have preferred someone with a better recent track record and greater likelihood of higher value? Sure. But as a raise the floor move, I'm still happy with this.

(removing all those ABs from likes of Jake Cave, Astudillo, Rooker, Refsnyder, et al will help too...)

It seems to me that the signing of Chris Archer itself is not risky, it's one year and very low cost. What is risky, though, is going into an ostensibly competetive season with a rotation that is built out of reclamation projects and unproven rookies. The write-up by Do-Hyoung Park goes as far as to say that Archer fills the last hole in the rotation. Whether or not you like this signing I think we can all agree that this is another back end addition, and they still don't have a front end, therefore this rotation still has a glaring hole.  I hope I'm wrong and that the rookies can step up and be very good, or that the reclamation projects can succeed, or that there is someone else coming. The way this rotation stands right now I can see another 3 games sweep in October if they make it that far.

14 hours ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

Besides, there is some potential upside here. Archer is 3 years away from being an effective MLB starter, with 2018 the last last decent year. He lost most of 2019 to a shoulder injury, and then part of 2020 and all of 2021 to a hip injury (likely because he changed his motion due to the shoulder issue). IF that's now all ok, a big IF, maybe he rebounds to a 3.75-4.25 ERA, 130-150 IP performance like he used to have before the injury. Not great, but plenty good enough for a #5 starter.   

100 innings with an ERA anywhere in the 4's would be a huge success IMO for a guy you're only paying 3.5 million and expecting to be your 5th starter.  

For reference, Shoemaker went 60 innings with an 8.06 ERA so that's a pretty low bar.

I like this move. It gives the Twins flexibility and gives Archer a prove it contract.  It also sends a message to the A’s that their prices are too high.  Maybe they come down to acceptable levels and we still get one of the M & M’s.

Look at the performances of Wood, DeSclafani, Gausman and even Sanchez the year or two before the Giants signed them. They were all pitchers who had previous success as a starter but recent struggles and some injuries. I don’t think it was good luck on the Giants part. Their staff deserves the credit for finding that talent again and Minnesota must do the same with Archer and Bundy. It won’t be bad luck either if the Twins continue to fail to identify inexpensive pitching help. 

14 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

You are probably correct that injuries played a role in the length of Shoemaker's leash... our injury situation got ridiculous, however it still doesn't hold water.  

Shoemaker's ERA was 8.08 when he was finally designated for assignment on July 1st....

 

Shoemaker stunk and probably needed to go, but if you look at his game log, it sorta tells a different/weird story. From the beginning of the season: 

• 6 IP, 1 run, so a quality start.
• 5 IP, 4 runs, not so good.
• 3.1 IP, 5 runs, another turd
• 5.1 IP, 2 runs, so close to a quality start, but particularly because of the third start, he's at an ugly 5.49.
• 3.1 IP, 8 runs. Ouch. They were down 4-0 after 3, so it was already tough to come back, so I suspect he was taking one for the team in trying to get another inning or two out of him, but after he gave up 8 runs total, Rocco mercifully takes him out. Now he's up to 7.83 and seems to be pitching for his job. They actually gave Thorpe a start after this to give a recently pummeled starting staff an extra day. And lo and behold, Shoemaker give us...
• 5.0 IP, 0 runs. Yay!
• 6.0 IP, 5 runs. Boo! He'd given up a run through four, but then gave up a pair in the fifth on a walk and a homer and then went 1-2-3. In the sixth, he went out-out, but then walk-homer and they're down 5-0 and a decent start had turned ugly.
• 6.0 IP, 2 runs. Yay!
• 6.0 IP, 1 run. Yay! And he'd gotten the ERA down to 5.48, thanks to nearly having four quality starts in a row, with one of them having turned into a bad outing. 
• 4.1 IP, 5 runs. Boo. And it was about here that the team's injuries were starting to kick in, as I recall.
• 0.1 IP, 8 runs. The turd that got him booted from the rotation and skied his ERA back to 7.28.

So yeah, the ERA was horrible, but he actually had a bunch of decent starts (particularly for a No. 5) thrown in there. It's just that when he was bad, he was really bad. And as a veteran, Rocco knew that he could take it for the team in a way that a rookie probably couldn't.

And with those starts, he also bought time for Ober. Ober had been up a couple weeks earlier and gave up four runs in four innings, but then went back down and apparently righted himself, coming back up to take Shoemaker's spot in the rotation. 

Then Shoemaker went to the pen in a last-gasp effort to right himself (and to eat innings, as I recall). He pitched a high-leverage game and threw a scoreless inning in the eighth before the Twins tied it in the bottom. Then he blew it in the ninth. A couple days later, he came in to mop up and threw the last two innings after they were down 11-2. He added to it, giving up three more runs in the process. 

But then he had eight days off. And Rocco went to him in desperation, bringing him in as the sixth guy out of the pen in an extra-inning game. And he threw two no-hit innings to pick up the win! And then a couple days later, he threw a scoreless ninth in a 4-1 loss, and you started to think that maybe he was going to be serviceable in the pen. And maybe, just maybe, would right himself enough to get back to the rotation. 

And then he came in to be the long man after Ober gave up four runs in three innings. Ober had gone walk-out-single to start the fourth. Shoemaker came in, gave up the sac fly and got an out, keeping the team in the game. But in the fifth, Bad Shoe returned. No, make that Really Bad Shoe. He gave up six that inning, and you knew the writing was on the wall. In a final act of sacrifice, he went back out for the sixth and gave up two more. After the game, he was DFAed with the 8.06 you describe.

So, as we agree, he needed to go. But I honestly think he did better than he's given credit for. He was quite close to having five quality starts out of his first nine. I bolded those above. But for comparison, using a similar generous interpretation of quality starts, Berrios also only had five quality-ish starts out of his first nine. It's just that Bad Shoe was so very, very bad. And again, I think part of that was Rocco knowing that Shoemaker could handle being thrown to the wolves in a way that others couldn't. And then the wheels fell off, but by that time, they had also bought time for Ober and gotten other guys healthy.

Again, I'm agreeing with you and pretty much everyone else that he needed to go. But that's the Paul Harvey Rest of the Story.

And sorry -- I wasn't planning to go into that much detail, but I was intrigued in trying to reconstruct what actually happened. 

11 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

...Shoemaker wasn't the sole life sucker of our miserable season. We have a bunch of 1 year deals that I could of included in what would be my overall point. I'm singling out Shoemaker to make a briefer example...      

And Riverbrian sorta ninja-ed me by being briefer.

It's just that "brief" and "IT" are rarely used in the same sentence. You should hear me when it's my turn to preach on Sunday morning!

21 hours ago, jrod23 said:

I'd probably move Montas down my list of wants after know that though.  Who knows, maybe it fully worked for him.  I had no idea Kenny Rogers had it done.  Didn't even know it was a thing back in 2001.  Again, good sleuthing.

I remember the days of plays not being able to return to form after TJ or ACL's.  Those days seem to be behind us and players coming back stronger.  Hopefully this type of surgery gets to that level.

Just looked this up because I thought I had read it recently: Montas had TOS and had his surgery in 2016, before he was established in the majors. It is a troubling injury for sure, but it seems safe to guess that he's more of a recovery success story than a health risk now.

54 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Today’s sermon: “The Parable of the Shoe Maker”

My favorite folk singer has an album entirely of baseball songs, the title track being "Sermon on the Mound." If you search for "John McCutcheon baseball songs" on YouTube, you'll find his songs about Roberto Clemente, Yogi Berra, the '57 World Series, etc., but unfortunately not that cut. He also wrote a wonderful song following Hank Aaron's death, but it's unfortunately not been recorded. 

https://www.folkmusic.com/store/p18/Sermon_On_the_Mound.html

On 3/28/2022 at 7:14 PM, Vanimal46 said:

100%. With expanded playoffs all we need to do is hover around .500 until the deadline. Then we can pounce and make bold moves for August and beyond. 

Do you see enough of the prospects getting sufficient major league time in 3.5 months that the Twins are comfortable making a decision that at the moment they might not be? Do you think the FO is willing to reverse course and pay a premium in July for an even shorter rental? 

50 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Yes, they’ll mix in quite a few of the young arms to see who sticks early on. Looks like Winder will get the first crack at it in the majors. 

Past history would indicate that Falvey and Levine have no problem changing course to supplement (arguably not enough) contending teams and sell when things aren’t looking good. Sometimes both directions within a week like 2018. 

Sure, but I'm guessing even that won't be until May at the earliest, barring injury or an implosion. Realistically you're looking at a couple months of guys in and out of the rotation. I just don't think their stock, in the eyes of the Twins or the rest of the league (for better or worse) changes much in that time.

Flipping Jaime Garcia is one thing. What I'm really asking is do you expect them to commit to making a big time purchase and subsequently outbid other potential contenders? There's no history of that, and it's clear they aren't willing to throw multiple years or $$ at arms outside of the deadline either. 

20 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

I’m not sure what we’re arguing here. The group of pitchers in the building is what we’re starting with. 3.5 months is more than enough time to sift through prospects and see who will or won’t stick. All they gotta do is hover around .500 then Falvey and Levine have historically made supplemental moves to make a playoff push. Are you implying with your question that in order to be contenders, we need to go after the shiniest brand name player available at the deadline?

I see the prospect value holding steady; 30-40 IP won't make dramatic changes or provide much of a SS to make long term assessments. I guess I don't know why we'd assume the Twins would pay a premium in July for a shorter rental if they aren't doing it now. If they're comfortable starting with the season with this rotation, I don't see them being all that motivated to wheel and deal mid season. 

They've made moves, but they've sold far more often than they've purchased. Romo is probably their biggest "get." There's no precedent for acquiring the type of impact arm (Berrios tier) this rotation needs. I'm out on expecting a reliever or middling end rotation piece to move the needle.

On 3/28/2022 at 8:04 PM, Squirrel said:

Yes, he's already passed his medicals and is already in camp

 

I had no doubt about that.

The "medicals" I was interested in are the "he's recovered and there's nothing physically preventing him from pitching at the level he did before the surgery, etc."

We're talking about the injury / condition which finished off Phil Hughes, one which has proven difficult to recover from in the past, after all,

I'll say this - off first two starts, it looks real good.