Wasting Mauer and Morneau in their primes

[jewscott]

I think reliable mediocrity has value. You don't. I think everybody gets it.

No. To win a division you're going to have to have some "reliable mediocrity." Unless you're Nostradamus, not every move is going to work out. The problem I have is limiting yourself to reliable mediocrity, and the reason why the organization is right now is because this is a big problem. It goes beyond Ortiz and Hernandez even. When you look at the problems with the pitching staff this year, the big problem has been that the goal has been to find the next Radke almost exclusively when finding young pitchers, instead of taking the risk that the hard-throwing kid could at least turn into the next LaTroy Hawkins if he doesn't become the next Johan Santana. This hasn't changed as corporate policy. When you take a look at the 2009 Twins draft crop, there's not a lot of upside to it outside of maybe Ben Tootle. The young Dominican shortstop we spent $700,000 was labeled "scrappy" and an "overachiever" by those who follow Dominican teenagers. Outside of Aaron Hicks, there isn't one prospect in the system who you can point to and say "That's a superstar in the making" right now. The best part is how pitchers like Shooter Hunt and Delois Guerra who come to the system with plus stuff get encouraged to tone down their mechanics and pitch to contact. If they don't, they get bad mouthed in the press by their managers and potentially run out of town the way Matt Garza was.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the problem with this team is that there's too many holes. Mauer and Nathan are great, Morneau is solidly above average and Cuddyer, Span, Kuddubel, Baker and Slowey aren't bad when they're healthy. Liriano, Gomez and Young have some upside to them. After that, you've got a lot of player who you're hoping play average baseball, and in any given year a percentage of them are going to fail you. Contending teams are going to have a lot more players solidly in the Cuddyer through Slowey group, and hopefully a starting pitcher who's better than that.

The real problem is that Bill Smith and the Twins brass seem to think like you. They need to be a little more creative if they're going to fix this problem on the fly. If they don't, we're going to be having the same debates until the current core of the team rots out and leaves us in the same position we were in 1998 all over again.

[USAFChief]

While they negated some of his value by sticking with him too long, if you think having Livan during the first two months of 2008 when Baker and Slowey were both injured and Liriano was not ready was not valuable, you're being naive. If the Twins had not signed Livan, or someone at least as good, they would have finished more then 1 game out of first, that's for sure. That said, if they'd cut him and gotten Liriano in there 4 or 5 starts sooner they probably would have won the divion by 2-3 games.

Spot on. I don't know about the 'won the division by 2-3 games' part, but the rest is spot on.

Urban myths die hard, I guess.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm tired of this narrow-minded bitchy bullshit that comes out every year as we near the deadline. We arguably have the best lineup we've had in ten or more years; and nearly all those guys are homegrown. We have a young, inconsistent rotation but there's both talent and a past history of success for each pitcher, nearly all of them are homegrown. (As has been mentioned, the Soriano trade we didn't make a couple years ago, looks quite good now.) The team is 2.5 out, despite two horrible recent losses. And neither competitor has yet to make a move (well, Chisox did get Tony Pena!). There's still a week left, and than waiver-wire August as well. Statfreaking on July 23rd just makes you look like a rube.

The time to be adding key pieces around Mauer and Morneua isn't the deadline; it's probably in the offseason--if you're looking for acquisitions at the deadline, they should be affordable role players that we won't have to shell both cash in prospects for.

I mean who do you want Freddy Sanchez? Does that change the context of "wasting Mauer and Morneau in their primes" by anything other than minimal amount. Short of acquiring Halladay, there's no move that's going to change the context of the team.

Bingo bango. Deadline deals make sense for the Yankees and Red Sox, they have the money to eat a $10-million contract, and the loss of prospects doesn't hurt them either when they can just buy new ones. The simple fact of the matter is, we don't bring in that much money, so we have to do business in an entirely different way. If you don't like it, buy a ticket.

i'm pretty sure everyone on this forum realizes that we can't throw money around like the Yankees. but there's no justification for a lot of the blunders that this FO makes. they signed punto to a contract that probably could have landed either bobby abreu or miguel sano. they wait until the last fucking second to trade our best assets (santana, hunter, silva, and eventually mauer). they invariably bring in low-risk/zero upside guys in lieu of taking a flyer on a high upside guy. the list goes on and on.

Not to be a nit picker (and I haven't read the rest of this thread), but All-Star third baseman Joe Crede is the definition of a high upside signing. There's no way this team is going to ink a guy like Texiera on the FA market. Crede is about as close as you can get to a high upside deal.

[Etspaceman]

I don't really get this argument.

Bill Smith should look to build a contending team around Mauer and Morneau, and he should do so by adding players with 'upside'.

In his first year, he makes two huge trades, in order to net players with tons of 'upside' (Gomez, Guerra, Young, Harris). This year, he signs the best 3B that this team has had since Koskie (granted, that isn't saying much, however, the point stands), and while it was a generally uneventful offseason, it does show that he is, at the very least, trying to solve the issues on the team with some of the better FA options on the current market. The only thing that I could see as a viable argument against Smith is his inability to sign Juan Cruz, but shy of that, you can't really yell at him for "not doing anything" to build a contending team.


Really, outside of Juan Cruz, what would you have done differently that would've built a contending team? You guys talk about it like it's as easy as it is for Punto to "pick it".

[VodkaDave]

can you please tell me when Harris had a ton of upside?

[Etspaceman]

can you please tell me when Harris had a ton of upside?

At the time, his bat had far more upside than Bartlett's, considering the power advantage.

[Pseudofool]

I think reliable mediocrity has value. You don't. I think everybody gets it.

No. To win a division you're going to have to have some "reliable mediocrity." Unless you're Nostradamus, not every move is going to work out. The problem I have is limiting yourself to reliable mediocrity, and the reason why the organization is right now is because this is a big problem. It goes beyond Ortiz and Hernandez even. When you look at the problems with the pitching staff this year, the big problem has been that the goal has been to find the next Radke almost exclusively when finding young pitchers, instead of taking the risk that the hard-throwing kid could at least turn into the next LaTroy Hawkins if he doesn't become the next Johan Santana. This hasn't changed as corporate policy. When you take a look at the 2009 Twins draft crop, there's not a lot of upside to it outside of maybe Ben Tootle. The young Dominican shortstop we spent $700,000 was labeled "scrappy" and an "overachiever" by those who follow Dominican teenagers. Outside of Aaron Hicks, there isn't one prospect in the system who you can point to and say "That's a superstar in the making" right now. The best part is how pitchers like Shooter Hunt and Delois Guerra who come to the system with plus stuff get encouraged to tone down their mechanics and pitch to contact. If they don't, they get bad mouthed in the press by their managers and potentially run out of town the way Matt Garza was.

Just a couple of broad observations. Nothing precludes the Twins from going after high-upside talent (Eric Munson! Ha.) if they acquire some reliable mediocrity. Part the reason the Twins acquire such mediocrity, I think, is the Twins often have a muhc higher upside guys waiting in the wings; and while you might not agree with the development curve of young players, it's hard to argue with the success the Twins have had with players who came up through our system. I get the frustration with not bring in enough high-upside guys through the draft and intl. signings, that's totally fair; the Twins are frustratingly risk-adverse. But when the Twins do draft high upside guys, they just haven't tended to work out recently, esp. on the pitching side. So we don't have much to show for it; I think that colors the notion of anti-upside-Twins.

As for Guerra, I understood his mechanics were changed to get more movement on his fastball (which evidently had none); I think that might help with missing bats. And you can't possible be insinuating it's the Twins philosophy of pitching to contact that's messed up Hunt's ability to throw over the plate. This is another example where you're mishandling examples to illuminate some great Twins conspiracy. In this case, you think the Twins conspire to shed the organization of power pitchers (by trade or making them all sinkerballers). Which is insane. I can accept the notion that the Twins may have messed with a few of their pitchers too much, and maybe traded Garza away hastily, but I just can't generalize that to the point where I believe Twins are adverse to superstar talent or will always mess it up.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the problem with this team is that there's too many holes. Mauer and Nathan are great, Morneau is solidly above average and Cuddyer, Span, Kuddubel, Baker and Slowey aren't bad when they're healthy. Liriano, Gomez and Young have some upside to them. After that, you've got a lot of player who you're hoping play average baseball, and in any given year a percentage of them are going to fail you. Contending teams are going to have a lot more players solidly in the Cuddyer through Slowey group, and hopefully a starting pitcher who's better than that.

Again, I just can't accept your rankings--they are totally colored by the argument you're about to make, and have none the objectivity of a 'rocket scientist.' Morneau solidly above average? Ha! The reality is the Twins are just a few reliably mediocre players from winning the Central; of course, getting some good players to fill in the middle infield and the bullpen would be better, but if we can simply plug a -20 Vorp hole with a 0 Vorp player, we have a significant net gain. The Twins chances in the playoffs totally relies on our pitchers ability to consistently find their stuff. Outside of trading for Halladay, I'm not sure what you expect of the Twins in this specific moment.

The real problem is that Bill Smith and the Twins brass seem to think like you. They need to be a little more creative if they're going to fix this problem on the fly. If they don't, we're going to be having the same debates until the current core of the team rots out and leaves us in the same position we were in 1998 all over again.

Who heck is against getting creative? I'm not. (Trading for Delmon was creative, afterall.) Again, I'm not really sure what you expect the Twins to do, outside of drafting more power arms and not mucking with their mechanics. It's fine and good to suggest the team get creative, but that's a moralized abstraction which isn't very compelling much less convincing.

[notoriousgod71]

Who cares about "reliably mediocre" players?

We need to acquire a few proven good players to complement the two great ones that we have. Otherwise we will remember their years here like we remember Garnett's years here.

[Pseudofool]

Who cares about "reliably mediocre" players?

We need to acquire a few proven good players to complement the two great ones that we have. Otherwise we will remember their years here like we remember Garnett's years here.

I think you guys are really being myopic about how you are viewing the rest of the team. Slowey, Baker, Kuddubel, Cuddyer, Span are better than 'not bad;' they are pretty fucking good, much better than many of the players who were in our core, say five years ago.

My point is that the team can compete by making some minimal upgrades right now (bullpen, 2ndbase); the longer term problems about bringing in more talent sounds like offseason stuff to me, and I tend to agree the Twins need to bring a premium player next offseason (preferably a starting pitcher).

[amjgt]

The Twins made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. For years, it was "small market" this and "low revenue" that, when they had to answer for not spending money or trading for top tier talent. And that was fine. We were fairly low revenue.

We were not the ones that in 2007 (when our payroll was at 70mil) told an interviewer that payroll was projected to go up to 80, then 90, then 100mil when we got the new stadium. That was Captain Billy Smith.

Since then, we've had had guys win MVPs and Batting Titles, we've signed some nice extensions for players and somehow our payroll managed to drop to 60 mil (not the 90mil B.S. projected in 2007).

Outside of Nathan, our entire pitching staff costs 6.5mil. 6.5 mil

Nobody is saying "get Halladay or I'm jumping ship", but some fans aren't as stupid as they seem to think we are.

Bill, for years you've been given a "low revenue" pass. Not any more, Bill. Not any more. You've got your revenue, now show us a glimmer of wanting to compete in the playoffs. Not compete FOR the playoffs. Compete IN the playoffs.

[Pseudofool]

If not Halladay, who did you have in mind; and what would you give up for them? I mean in theory, everyone is going to agree with what you said.

[notoriousgod71]

If not Halladay, who did you have in mind; and what would you give up for them? I mean in theory, everyone is going to agree with what you said.

Seriously what is wrong with getting Halladay? We certainly have pieces better than what Ricciardi offered the Mets.

Then in the offseason get another piece or two (without trading anyone). Eventually we're going to have to make a legitimate run at it or we're going to be sitting in mediocrity for the next decade anyway (or at least until Mauer leaves).

[Pseudofool]

If not Halladay, who did you have in mind; and what would you give up for them? I mean in theory, everyone is going to agree with what you said.

Seriously what is wrong with getting Halladay? We certainly have pieces better than what Ricciardi offered the Mets.

Then in the offseason get another piece or two (without trading anyone). Eventually we're going to have to make a legitimate run at it or we're going to be sitting in mediocrity for the next decade anyway (or at least until Mauer leaves).

I'm an advocate of getting Halladay; if we're going to spend in terms of prospects and money, I've always thought we should get a pitcher. Given that he wants to be somewhere quiet, it's possible he'd want to come here. And I don't buy the Mets rumor for one second. But, beyond Halladay, whom every team is chasing and face it, our farm isn't that deep, what other players should we be targeting that we aren't?

[amjgt]

If not Halladay, who did you have in mind; and what would you give up for them? I mean in theory, everyone is going to agree with what you said.

I'm not saying DON'T get Halladay, or even that I, personally, need to see The Glimmer within the next week, but I damn sure better see something before next March 1st.

[notoriousgod71]

If not Halladay, who did you have in mind; and what would you give up for them? I mean in theory, everyone is going to agree with what you said.

Seriously what is wrong with getting Halladay? We certainly have pieces better than what Ricciardi offered the Mets.

Then in the offseason get another piece or two (without trading anyone). Eventually we're going to have to make a legitimate run at it or we're going to be sitting in mediocrity for the next decade anyway (or at least until Mauer leaves).

I'm an advocate of getting Halladay; if we're going to spend in terms of prospects and money, I've always thought we should get a pitcher. Given that he wants to be somewhere quiet, it's possible he'd want to come here. And I don't buy the Mets rumor for one second. But, beyond Halladay, whom every team is chasing and face it, our farm isn't that deep, what other players should we be targeting that we aren't?

Halladay would obviously be the only guy at the deadline. All I am asking is for the Twins to add pieces on occasion instead of trading away our players and hoping that our prospects are more than fillers. There's absolutely nothing wrong with refusing to deal a guy you consider untouchable (like Mauer or Morneau or whoever when they were prospects) but when "Moon Shot" T. Scott Baker or Olympic Bronze Medalist Brian Duensing appear to be untouchable that is a bit ridiculous.

[snepp]

Seriously what is wrong with getting Halladay? We certainly have pieces better than what Ricciardi offered the Mets.

Ricciardi didn't offer anything, that was Heyman douchebag moment #7,522.

[username]

Because Halladay would definitely waive his NTC to be traded from the 5th worst team in the league to the 6th worst team in the league.

[FrodaddyG]

Because Halladay would definitely waive his NTC to be traded from the 5th worst team in the league to the 6th worst team in the league.

Yeah, because the difference between the team 11 1/2 back and the team 2 1/2 back in their respective divisions shows nothing of the immediate competitiveness or playoff chances of the teams.

[a-wan]

Let us all just rejoice at the fact the Twins aren't wasting Johan Santana too. We can thank the Mets for doing that.

[jewscott]

Cutting and pasting to address issues as I see fit.

The reality is the Twins are just a few reliably mediocre players from winning the Central; of course, getting some good players to fill in the middle infield and the bullpen would be better...The Twins chances in the playoffs totally relies on our pitchers ability to consistently find their stuff.

True. But winning the Central this year is like winning the Northern Arizona College Bowl Tournament. It simply earns you the right to get squashed in the next round by the team from Cal, UCLA or Stanford.

but if we can simply plug a -20 Vorp hole with a 0 Vorp player, we have a significant net gain.

Maybe. But is that net gain going to be enough to make you competitive against the Yankees? The Red Sox? The Devil Rays? Are you really happy shooting for 90 wins in a weak division? Do you not think this team could be something more?

Winning a weak division isn't really all that big of an accomplishment. That Tampa, Boston and New York have basically crushed us this year isn't really surprising. They each have their stars too. But where they one-up is is that they have a lot more in the middle tier that's right above "acceptable mediocrity."

Nothing precludes the Twins from going after high-upside talent (Eric Munson! Ha.) if they acquire some reliable mediocrity.

The problem is they haven't. Lest we forget it was the formerly freely available Jack Cust who cast the sinking stone on Monday. Ha!

And it's far better to have reliable mediocrity with upside than just plain-old reliable mediocrity.

Who heck is against getting creative? I'm not. (Trading for Delmon was creative, afterall.)

Trading a shortstop who had been average to slightly above average and a starter with promise for a corner outfielder with promise is "creative"? We have different definitions of the word, I guess.

quote]Morneau solidly above average? [/quote]

Wrong choice of words. But no one is going to deny that he's not Pujols. In most years, he won't even be Hyannisport Captain Nick Brophy. He's a very good first baseman. But he's not elite. In a best case scenario, he's the Hrbek to Mauer's Puckett.

And you can't possible be insinuating it's the Twins philosophy of pitching to contact that's messed up Hunt's ability to throw over the plate.

What else would you say it was? The Twins readily admit to monkeying with his mechanics in Instructional League. They admitted it in the BA Top Prospect Blurb.

[quote=BA]Weaknesses: Command has vexed Hunt since he became a full-time pitcher as a high school senior. He improved his strike-throwing ability in instructional league by moving his feet closer together, which aided in maintaining his load in his delivery and providing better balance. He lacks confidence and consistency with his changeup, but it does have potential.[/quote]

Suddenly in the Midwest League, Hunt's control gets worse and his fastball suddenly doesn't hit 90 on the gun consistently any more? Is this really coincidence? Do you really think it's coincidentally that when you slow down a pitcher's delivery, his velocity suffers from it? What effect did it have in say Fragile Frankie Liriano and his inability to sit 95 anymore?

Let's face simple facts, from Ryan Mills to present the Twins have shown a lack of fear in tampering with the way their young pitchers throw the ball. What role has that played in the number of pitchers who lose velocity in the system, would you say?

As for Guerra, I understood his mechanics were changed to get more movement on his fastball (which evidently had none); I think that might help with missing bats.

The same way Nick Blackburn and Carlos Silva miss bats? If Guerra's fastball is really straight at 95, does it meet the organizational needs to turn him into another potential back-end starter? Or is it better to let him continue along throwing gas knowing full well that in a worst case scenario LaTroy Hawkins was often accused of throwing a fastball as straight as a Montana Highway at 95 miles an hour, and boy would it be nice to have a guy like him setting up in the bullpen again? Do we really need to create a clone army of pitchers with underwhelming velocity?

Outside of trading for Halladay, I'm not sure what you expect of the Twins in this specific moment.

My first suggestion would be to stop thinking about the team in terms of "this specific moment" and start thinking long term. A Hallyday trade isn't really feasible, since the reason Toronto would do it now is to get a Haren package in return over a Santana one, and we don't have the potential impact player in Rochester or New Britain that they'll be looking for. Real answers aren't going to be that simplistic.

It's fine and good to suggest the team get creative, but that's a moralized abstraction which isn't very compelling much less convincing.

Fair enough.

Creative thinking is considering whether or not you should trade off say Nick Blackburn this offseason, knowing that his trade value will be superficially high, he's fairly replaceable in the long term scheme of things and he's the starter most likely to fall off a cliff in 2010

Creative thinking is do you throw up a white flag right now, knowing that there's not a lot to be had on the market right now and pieces like Cuddyer or Blackburn are at a premium because there aren't a lot of sellers on the market. It puts a crimp in 2009, but it might set you up for a better 2010. Again, Cuddyer has proven he can slug over .500 when he's healthy. But he's also been an injury risk through most of his career. Do you move him to try and solve two or more problems or take the risk of what the 2010 season may bring? What will Liriano bring in return for trade? Do you think you'd regret trading him long-term if he somehow finds his velocity again?

Given the state of the minor league system, there aren't a lot of answers there, and that's a big part of the problem. Second base seems the easiest to solve internally (if its not Casilla, it could be Tolleson or Hughes), but shortstop right now is Trevor Plouffe or bust and third base is Danny Placenta or bust. On top of which, there isn't really a power arm on any pitching staff outside of Morillo, who may or may not be usable.

How do you replace Perkins with a harder thrower with more upisde in the back of the rotation? How do you find your long term answers in the middle infield? What players can you give trade on the current roster who would A) bring value and B) won't affect the long-term outlook?

If you think that's a lot of tough questions, you're damn skippy. And I know I don't know the answer to most of them. But then again, the process of actually making a change requires asking a lot of questions and answering them as honestly impossible. Tackling actual analytical issues is a lot harder than bashing Statfreak, though, so you'll be forgiven if you just want to go back to being the smarmy Kevin Bacon character in our Animal House that you've become.

[howeda7]

Comparing the Twins making the play-offs this year to winning the Insight Bowl (or whatever the specific reference was) or a 16-seed in the NCAA tournament is dumb. In the first instance in doesn't even make sense, in the second it's just ridiculous.

The 'inferior' team wins play-off series in MLB all the time and even win the World Series often enough. A 16 seed has never won a game in the NCAA tournament much less multiple games. To make the comparison is laughable. I know we're all pissy right now, but the gap between the Yankees and the Twins while there is one, is not as significant as some of you are making it seem. Acting like they have NO chance of beating the Yankees or Red Sox in a play-off series is dumb frankly.

And those suggesting we should waive the white flag and sell, come on. First we are indeed 2.5 games out and are probably league average production at SS and 2B and one even passable bullpen arm from having a very good chance of winning this division. But even if you believe that we either: A) have no chance of winning divsion or B) are so CERTAIN to get absolutely mauled 3-0 by whoever we face in the play-offs that it would better to not make it, it's still a TERRIBLE idea to sell.

Mauer has already indicated that the team's intent on competing for a title will sway his staying more then the exact $ amount. Selling while 2.5 games out at the deadline is like giving him a swift kick in the ass and saying 'we dare you to leave'. It also looks terrible politically and with the fan base to do so the year before the stadium opens. If Detroit or Chicago had pulled 10 games in front, it might be different. But to do so now, would do nothing but cause a mutiny in the clubhouse and with the fans and for what? We don't exactly have a lot of tradable pieces unless we're going to start offloading the Blackburns and Bakers and that would be foolish.

Frankly, even doing nothing is not a tenable option for Bill Smith IMO. It's basically a less severe slap at the current players and the fans as selling is. We have huge gaping holes that are obvious to everyone. Yes, we have had that in the past, but need 'a big bat' and just needing someone who can play SS and 2B and hit .250 are two different things. The latter is not that hard to acuquire and won't require giving up 'too much'.

[jewscott]

.

The 'inferior' team wins play-off series in MLB all the time and even win the World Series often enough. A 16 seed has never won a game in the NCAA tournament much less multiple games.

Aaaah yes. That tired old argument that anyone can win in October. The problem with saying that though is that the "lesser" teams who win World Series had a lot more pitching than we do. The 2005 White Sox had a great bullpen from closer down and a stronger rotation 1-5 (Vazquez would probably be our game one starter, as well). The 2006 Cardinals had a great bullpen and Chris Carpenter and a few lucky starts along the way.

Odds are, the Yankees bitch slap us into our places in the first round of the playoffs. If they don't, odds are the Red Sox then do it for them in the ALCS. I don't believe we wave the white flag. For one thing, there's millions of dollars to be made in making the playoffs, and that means a lot of Dominican pool boys for Verve to drool over. But you can't dismiss the fact that the best way to fill holes on this team is to sell high, too.

If we "do nothing" though, we're at best a 90 win team for the next couple of seasons. No one wants that.

[Nick N.]

Aaaah yes. That tired old argument that anyone can win in October. The problem with saying that though is that the "lesser" teams who win World Series had a lot more pitching than we do. The 2005 White Sox had a great bullpen from closer down and a stronger rotation 1-5 (Vazquez would probably be our game one starter, as well). The 2006 Cardinals had a great bullpen and Chris Carpenter and a few lucky starts along the way.

Odds are, the Yankees bitch slap us into our places in the first round of the playoffs. If they don't, odds are the Red Sox then do it for them in the ALCS. I don't believe we wave the white flag. For one thing, there's millions of dollars to be made in making the playoffs, and that means a lot of Dominican pool boys for Verve to drool over. But you can't dismiss the fact that the best way to fill holes on this team is to sell high, too.

If we "do nothing" though, we're at best a 90 win team for the next couple of seasons. No one wants that.

If the Twins acquire a quality bullpen arm (like, say, Brandon League, who I'm going to pushing for like crazy over the next week), they have a reasonably good backend of the bullpen capable of holding leads in a playoff series. Especially if Crain can get his shit together.

Likewise, if Baker/Slowey/Liriano pitch like they're capable of, they can team with Blackburn to form a playoff rotation that is good enough to win a postseason series against any team with some offensive support. Whether or not those three will ever get it going consistently is certainly unknown, but there's no doubt that they are capable.

I'm far from optimistic about this team right now, but dismissing their chances at this point is pretty silly.

[jewscott]

If the Twins acquire a quality bullpen arm (like, say, Brandon League, who I'm going to pushing for like crazy over the next week), they have a reasonably good backend of the bullpen capable of holding leads in a playoff series. Especially if Crain can get his shit together.

The same Brandon League with a career ERA over 4? Is that really someone who's going to shut down the 7th and 8th innings?

Likewise, if Baker/Slowey/Liriano pitch like they're capable of, they can team with Blackburn to form a playoff rotation that is good enough to win a postseason series against any team with some offensive support. Whether or not those three will ever get it going consistently is certainly unknown, but there's no doubt that they are capable.

That's a lot of ifs there, don't you think? Baker is going pretty good right now. But Slowey is fighting injuries, Liriano's control is off and Blackburn is very hittable. Is that really the rotation that's going to bring home the World Series? I seriously doubt it.

The flipside of the argument is let's say the Dodgers offered you a package based around Ivan DeJesus for Blackburn. You know Blackburn's strengths. You know his limitations. You know that DeJesus strikes out too much, but has also hit .300+ the last two seasons in Double-A and has a good glove.

Do you turn this offer down and try to find another way to fix the shortstop problem? Or do you take the bounty and run? This is why it's difficult to be a major league GM.

[a-wan]

I'm far from optimistic about this team right now, but dismissing their chances at this point is pretty silly.

Playoff crap shoot, baby! Well except if the Twins get the Yankees then it will only be a crap your pants shoot.

[Nick N.]

The same Brandon League with a career ERA over 4? Is that really someone who's going to shut down the 7th and 8th innings?

I don't want to dig into this too much since I'll have a long blog post about it on Monday, but that's basically a very shallow view on League. He's pretty young. He had a 2.18 ERA last year. He's been unlucky this year, but has allowed less than a hit per inning and has a very good K/BB. His xFIP is better than any Twins reliever other than Nathan. He's got a legit 95-mph fastball and a quality slider. And his inflated ERA, along with Toronto's outstanding bullpen depth, might make him easier to acquire. Yeah, I do think he's someone that can cmoe in and shut down the 7th and 8th.

That's a lot of ifs there, don't you think? Baker is going pretty good right now. But Slowey is fighting injuries, Liriano's control is off and Blackburn is very hittable. Is that really the rotation that's going to bring home the World Series? I seriously doubt it.

Sure it's a lot of ifs, but a middle-market team needs a lot of things to go right in order to win a World Series championship. The '05 White Sox bullpen was amazing in large part because of the contributions from Cliff Pollitte and Neal Cotts; what have those guys done for the rest of their careers? I don't think asking three pitchers to pitch up to a level of ability they've already clearly demonstrated is such a huge reach. I'm least optimistic about Slowey because of his wrist problems, but I'm quite confident that Baker and Liriano are going to be very good pitchers down the stretch.

[jewscott]

I don't want to dig into this too much since I'll have a long blog post about it on Monday, but that's basically a very shallow view on League. He's pretty young. He had a 2.18 ERA last year. He's been unlucky this year, but has allowed less than a hit per inning and has a very good K/BB. His xFIP is better than any Twins reliever other than Nathan. He's got a legit 95-mph fastball and a quality slider. And his inflated ERA, along with Toronto's outstanding bullpen depth, might make him easier to acquire. Yeah, I do think he's someone that can cmoe in and shut down the 7th and 8th.

I've had him on my Fantasy Baseball teams for the last five years. Great fastball. Mediocre secondary pitches. More hittable than he should be with his stuff (even when his ERA was in the 2.00s, his WHIP was over 1.2, which isn't the sign of a sustainable ERA). I'd love to have him on the Twins actually. But calling him firm in stone as "the answer" seems more of a shallow view. He has talent and drawbacks.

The '05 White Sox bullpen was amazing in large part because of the contributions from Cliff Pollitte and Neal Cotts; what have those guys done for the rest of their careers?

Become injury prone and not been backed up by the same level of defense that the 05 White Sox played with. 2005 was a flukey year for the White Sox. But Rowand, Posednik and Dye covered about as much ground in the outfield as Puckett, Gladden and Mack, and Crede and Uribe could have a case made for a Gold Glove that year, too. Is it really that surprising the White Sox led the AL in ERA despite playing in a bandbox?

[fishedwithhrbie]

Best.Twins.Site.Ever!

[TheLeviathan]

. Aaaah yes. That tired old argument that anyone can win in October. The problem with saying that though is that the "lesser" teams who win World Series had a lot more pitching than we do. The 2005 White Sox had a great bullpen from closer down and a stronger rotation 1-5 (Vazquez would probably be our game one starter, as well). The 2006 Cardinals had a great bullpen and Chris Carpenter and a few lucky starts along the way.

So the great pitching you're talking about was more luck than it was talent? I think if you go back and look at those two teams, they had a lot of seasons from their pitchers that were never replicated again. As I showed in another thread - more often than not in the last 10-15 years - the team most people would consider the best - doesn't win it all. In many cases, they don't even make it to the World Series. That doesn't mean just getting there gives you a 1/8 shot - that's ridiculous - but it's almost as ridiculous as anyone who suggests that being the best locks you for anything.

I also want to challenge the assertion that Blackburn is "easily replaceable". In terms of his stuff - yes, he's not a world beater. But Slowey's injury, Perkins unreliability, Liriano's piss-poor season combined with the season that Blackburn has put together should dispel anyone from saying it's "easy" to replace him. Would we even be in contention if Duensing or Mulvey or Brad Penny or however was in his place? Hell, Blackburn has been our ace. That's a sad commentary on the rest of their performances, but right now - Nick Blackburn's performance has been absolutely essential to the fact that we're in this at all.

Of all people on this board jewscott - you preach the "Power Pitchers will Save Us!" doctrine - but our "power" arms have been our worst pitchers this year. Just because Nick Blackburn isn't Mr. Strikeout doesnt mean he isn't very, very valuable to this team right now and going forward. His trade value might be great, but we aren't working from the kind of pitching depth you seem to suggest.

[StatFreak101]

Let us all just rejoice at the fact the Twins aren't wasting Johan Santana too. We can thank the Mets for doing that.

Think the Twins can trade for him?

[jewscott]

Of all people on this board jewscott - you preach the "Power Pitchers will Save Us!" doctrine - but our "power" arms have been our worst pitchers this year. Just because Nick Blackburn isn't Mr. Strikeout doesnt mean he isn't very, very valuable to this team right now and going forward. His trade value might be great, but we aren't working from the kind of pitching depth you seem to suggest

save specialist Joe Nathan has been our worst pitcher this year? </incendary comments intended as sarcasm>

Blackburn is a perfectly fine pitcher. But he walks the same thin line that Carlos Silva did. When he's just a little bit off, like he has been the past two games, it winds up being a bit like the old conga line in that Brad Radke Sega Sports commericial. The point is this. A) Blackburn might have more trade value than any pitcher on our staff not named save specialist Joe Nathan right now. B) Blackburn has been luckier than any pitcher in the rotation right now. I believe it was Branch Rickey who said that it's better to trade a player too soon than it is to trade him too late. Blackburn has been a fine pitcher this year. But you can fill some holes by trading him and you don't know what you're going to get going forward. If the right offer is there, you have to consider it.

Re: Playoff Baseball

The 1987 Twins often get hailed as a team that wasn't the best, but won the World Series. But it's also pretty easy to explain why they won it. A) Frank Viola was the best starting pitcher among all the teams in the playoffs. B) They didn't have to start the ghost of Joe Niekro or Steve Carlton C) They really didn't have to run the bullpen much past Keith Atherton. D) It didn't hurt that both Jack Clark and Terry Pendleton were injured and Tom Herr was the Cardinals power threat in the World Series.

The playoffs may be a crap shoot, but there's a certain formula to success. Their odds of winning aren't zero. But they're less than say the Tigers, even though the Tigers may well be a slightly worse team overall. They'd be a lot better if we had a Verlander in the rotation that we could ride.

[username]

Re: Playoff Baseball

The 1987 Twins often get hailed as a team that wasn't the best, but won the World Series. But it's also pretty easy to explain why they won it. A) Frank Viola was the best starting pitcher among all the teams in the playoffs. B) They didn't have to start the ghost of Joe Niekro or Steve Carlton C) They really didn't have to run the bullpen much past Keith Atherton. D) It didn't hurt that both Jack Clark and Terry Pendleton were injured and Tom Herr was the Cardinals power threat in the World Series.

The playoffs may be a crap shoot, but there's a certain formula to success. Their odds of winning aren't zero. But they're less than say the Tigers, even though the Tigers may well be a slightly worse team overall. They'd be a lot better if we had a Verlander in the rotation that we could ride.

a fantastic point that often goes overlooked by the many users who swear by the "catch lightning in a bottle" approach to winning championships.

yes, the best team does not always win. but the inferior teams who eliminate them are often well-built for a best-of-seven system. "lightning in a bottle" fans love to point to the white sox, who had an entire rotation of <4.00 ERA and ~1.20 WHIP starters.

[Pseudofool]

Yeah, we've never had the best pitcher in the playoffs since 1987.

[username]

Yeah, we've never had the best pitcher in the playoffs since 1987.

i think you missed the point of jew's post. he's basically saying that while inferior teams can sometimes manage to win three best of sevens against stronger opponents, it takes a little bit of help. so while having Santana around would eliminate jew's point A, the early 2000s twins really had no answer like the '87 twins had in B, C, D. one player isn't going to close the gap between an 88 win team and a 101 win team. and if he does, you shouldn't count on him to make that difference throughout the remainder of the playoffs.

[Pseudofool]

Yeah, we've never had the best pitcher in the playoffs since 1987.

i think you missed the point of jew's post. he's basically saying that while inferior teams can sometimes manage to win three best of sevens against stronger opponents, it takes a little bit of help. so while having Santana around would eliminate jew's point A, the early 2000s twins really had no answer like the '87 twins had in B, C, D. one player isn't going to close the gap between an 88 win team and a 101 win team. and if he does, you shouldn't count on him to make that difference throughout the remainder of the playoffs.

I think as far as team building goes it makes sense to field a competitive team each in every year (bet on playoff crapshoot), than shoot for a two-year window where we have the supposed best team (bet against playoff crapshoot). I mean it would take some real doing for the Twins ever to field the best team (even in 2006 when we got close, we were beset by LIriano's injury); and if we miss our best-team window, we're totally fucked.

I still owe jwe a response to his long, thoughtful post from a couple days ago (the kevin bacon one) so I don't want to get too worked up here.

[FrodaddyG]

and if we miss our best-team window, we're totally fucked.

And if the unwillingness to try and field a competitive team in the eyes of the players themselves drives away our best guys, that's not going to leave us totally fucked?

[crapforks]

The Twins rotation really hit a sophomore slump this season, and the starters themselves were exposed for their weaknesses. Blackburn has been good, albeit with an assist from lady luck, and is the only pitcher from the initial starting five who performed better than expectations. Swarzack has been surprisingly good as well, although his success might be due to being an empty book thus far. The real problem has been the infield and bullpen, no? There are really no MIs coming up through the system and the team is feeling the negative effects of being starter heavy throughout the minors. I am a broken record when I speak of not wanting the Duensings, Swarzacks, and others in the bullpen when their value lies in their ability to start. The bullpen should be patched up with bullpen arms from the minors or from the demotion of a ML starter.

The most frustrating part of this season for me is the shittyness of the central. Had Cleveland played at all, KC finally taken that step, The Twins could have very well fell hard out of the race. That would have been the best thing for this team. Any player not initialed JM, or JN could have been had for a rebuilding process that might only take a season or two. But since the team is 'competitive', the FO will try and add little pieces here and there. The Twins will probably trade a B level prospect and then some to get OCab. No net loss, no net gain. Mired in mediocrity is what the Twins seem to be.

[Pseudofool]

and if we miss our best-team window, we're totally fucked.

And if the unwillingness to try and field a competitive team in the eyes of the players themselves drives away our best guys, that's not going to leave us totally fucked?

Torii would have resigned. Morneau and Nathan did. So we're talking about Santana. And potentially Mauer. Funny how Morneau and Nathan and Cuddyer all resigned after we had traded a Gold Glove second baseman with a .300 average, Bartlett, Garza and Santana, let Torii go, and acquired no one of consequence. I consider these idle threats esp. when Mauer's comes via Morneau's speculation.

[FrodaddyG]

Torii would have resigned. Morneau and Nathan did. So we're talking about Santana. And potentially Mauer. Funny how Morneau and Nathan and Cuddyer all resigned after we had traded a Gold Glove second baseman with a .300 average, Bartlett, Garza and Santana, let Torii go, and acquired no one of consequence. I consider these idle threats esp. when Mauer's comes via Morneau's speculation.

Mauer, Nathan, and Morneau, according to LEN3, all spoke out about the team's inactivity over the weekend. ("Yeah, there's frustration," Mauer said, "but I've learned over the last few years not to try to get my hopes up that we'll have something, then get disappointed.'')

And Cuddy and Morneau signed BEFORE they traded Johan, and some speculated the signings were part of a last second push to keep Santana in Minnesota. They had also just made the Delmon deal, (the "losing Garza/Bartlett" portion of your argument) which would not have been expected to be the debacle it has been, and was considered "attempting to make the team better and addressing weaknesses by dealing from strengths" when it happened.

Yes, they had lost Torii, but there wasn't a soul who made a peep about the Twins not spending that kind of money to keep Torii. It's called realistic expectations, as opposed to unrealistic ones. Expecting the Twins to pay $90M for Torii is unrealistic. Asking them to trade for average players to bolster both the on-field production of the team and the rapidly withering spirits of the team's core group of players should not be.

[howeda7]

Torii would have resigned. Morneau and Nathan did. So we're talking about Santana. And potentially Mauer. Funny how Morneau and Nathan and Cuddyer all resigned after we had traded a Gold Glove second baseman with a .300 average, Bartlett, Garza and Santana, let Torii go, and acquired no one of consequence. I consider these idle threats esp. when Mauer's comes via Morneau's speculation.

Torii would have resigned if we'd offered him 3/$45 in the Winter of 2006 or 5/$90 at the trade deadline in 2007. Niether seemed prudent at the time and may still prove not to be so.

Morneau and Cuddyer's deals were part of buying out thier arbtiration years. That's totally different then the situation with Mauer or Johan. Morneau signed for 2 more years then he had to, but that may have had as much to do with wanting long-terms security as anything. Johan's threat wasn't idle, though I think he was gone long before the 2007 trade deadline, and the a Gold Glove second baseman with a .300 average trade was just the last straw. They needed to get an extension with him done prior to Opening Day 2007 and they screwed it up. If they'd offered him 5/$100 then, he'd still be a Twin now. It was the single-biggest screw up of Jerry Ryan's tenure.

Likewise with Mauer, they should have had his extension done before Opening Day this year. With everything that happened to him this offseason, that was virtually impossible. As such, they should be negotiating right now, and maybe they are, but there is no indication of that. In the meantime, Mauer's made it pretty darn clear that if they continue with business as usual even going into the new ballpark, he's likely to walk. I don't consider it an idle threat just because it's coming from Morneau. Mauer's never going to rip the Twins that hard, he'll just walk away. Frankly, the comments coming directly from him are stronger then I would have expected as it is.

With few exceptions (Morneau) the Twins have failed to be proactive locking up the key guys for much longer then arbitration + 1 and it's coming back to bite them. They've now managed to paint themselves into quite a corner and what they do in the next 4 days does matter. If making a move now increases the chances that Mauer and Morneau will be here in 2013 by even 10%, you have to do it. None of our prospects are likely to be HOF'ers.

[Pseudofool]

Torii would have resigned. Morneau and Nathan did. So we're talking about Santana. And potentially Mauer. Funny how Morneau and Nathan and Cuddyer all resigned after we had traded a Gold Glove second baseman with a .300 average, Bartlett, Garza and Santana, let Torii go, and acquired no one of consequence. I consider these idle threats esp. when Mauer's comes via Morneau's speculation.

Torii would have resigned if we'd offered him 3/$45 in the Winter of 2006 or 5/$90 at the trade deadline in 2007. Niether seemed prudent at the time and may still prove not to be so.

Sure, point being he didn't leave because of some perceived notion of not trying hard enough.

Morneau and Cuddyer's deals were part of buying out thier arbtiration years. That's totally different then the situation with Mauer or Johan. Morneau signed for 2 more years then he had to, but that may have had as much to do with wanting long-terms security as anything.

6 years/$80M (2008-13) 08:$7.4M, 09:$10.6M, 10:$14M, 11:$14M, 12:$14M, 13:$14M. I'm pretty Morneau would be an FA this season or next. So that's at least three years of FA. Cuddy, gave up two with the option. And you just conveniently leave Nathan out.

Johan's threat wasn't idle,.

Mauer didn't make the threat, Morneau did on his behalf. I tend to find Mauer and Santana situations pretty dissimliar; Mauer has way more incentive to stay than Santana ever had.

In the meantime, Mauer's made it pretty darn clear that if they continue with business as usual even going into the new ballpark, he's likely to walk.

That's not true. There's been two articles where Mauer isn't quoted; not even a second hand quote. Both times it's Morneau speculating. There's something to it, no doubt. But it's not at all "darn clear." And could be nothing at all.

I don't consider it an idle threat just because it's coming from Morneau. Mauer's never going to rip the Twins that hard, he'll just walk away. Frankly, the comments coming directly from him are stronger then I would have expected as it is.

Your still missing that Morneau's not even relaying anything from Mauer, he's just speculating (or he's very clever to disguise it as speculation). What is honest is frustration over the clubs nonmoves--but I doubt Mauer has given any indication to Morneau that he's thinking seriously about leaving. You can go on and get hot and bothered about it, but I'm not; not until we see something more definitive. Second hand speculation doesn't go very far with me.

With few exceptions (Morneau) the Twins have failed to be proactive locking up the key guys for much longer then arbitration + 1 and it's coming back to bite them. They've now managed to paint themselves into quite a corner and what they do in the next 4 days does matter. If making a move now increases the chances that Mauer and Morneau will be here in 2013 by even 10%, you have to do it. None of our prospects are likely to be HOF'ers.

No, they've been typically proactive whihc makes it surprising they aren't with Mauer and didn't with Santana. They signed Kuddubel and Baker, each buying some of their FA (damn cheap on the Kuddubel deal IIRC).

[notoriousgod71]

The beat goes on... we continue to NOT make any moves that could potentially put us over the top.

We needed a bonafide ace pitcher and still have glaring holes at third and second and yet we sit here. I applaud Bill Smith for acquiring Hardy, but he alone is not going to take this team to an elite level.

[VodkaDave]

The beat goes on... we continue to NOT make any moves that could potentially put us over the top.

We needed a bonafide ace pitcher and still have glaring holes at third and second and yet we sit here. I applaud Bill Smith for acquiring Hardy, but he alone is not going to take this team to an elite level.

Lets slow down a second...

First off- The Off-season isn't even close to being over. There are still plenty of good players out on the market who haven't been signed.
2nd- The Twins did trade for JJ Hardy (who sans 2008) is an all-star caliber SS who also plays great defense.
3rd- Pavano is no "ace" pitcher, but he is pretty solid and has the potential to give us 200 innings with a 3.75-4.00 ERA. Do you understand how much a true "ace" costs? If they were to sign an ace this off-season (hallady etc)
Lastly- There are no indications that the Twins are done this off-season. They have still expressed an interest to fix the 3rd/2nd problem.

[notoriousgod71]

The beat goes on... we continue to NOT make any moves that could potentially put us over the top.

We needed a bonafide ace pitcher and still have glaring holes at third and second and yet we sit here. I applaud Bill Smith for acquiring Hardy, but he alone is not going to take this team to an elite level.

Lets slow down a second...

First off- The Off-season isn't even close to being over. There are still plenty of good players out on the market who haven't been signed.
2nd- The Twins did trade for JJ Hardy (who sans 2008) is an all-star caliber SS who also plays great defense.
3rd- Pavano is no "ace" pitcher, but he is pretty solid and has the potential to give us 200 innings with a 3.75-4.00 ERA. Do you understand how much a true "ace" costs? If they were to sign an ace this off-season (hallady etc)
Lastly- There are no indications that the Twins are done this off-season. They have still expressed an interest to fix the 3rd/2nd problem.

Yes, I understand how much a true "ace" costs. Judging by Texas's contract of Harden it would have been quite doable. Sheets is still out there. We should take risks on high reward guys, not guys who if all pans out will be average.

Second, I already acknowledged that the Hardy move is a good start but he is not a difference maker.

Third, Pavano can not be counted on for anything. He makes Harden look durable.

Lastly, there are no true difference makers left on the market. Thome would be great, but none of the 3B or 2B are superstars. The best we can do is get a solid player, which is obviously nine steps above Punto and Harris. But even if we signed Thome, a real 3B, and a real 2B, we would still not be as good as the Yankees or Phillies. A lot of other people have said this, but I will echo it. We should strive to win the world series not just the division, especially with Mauer and Morneau in their primes.

[VodkaDave]

But even if we signed Thome, a real 3B, and a real 2B, we would still not be as good as the Yankees

So your advocating for the Twins to take on an additional 100-120 million in payroll?

[notoriousgod71]

But even if we signed Thome, a real 3B, and a real 2B, we would still not be as good as the Yankees

So your advocating for the Twins to take on an additional 100-120 million in payroll?

I'm advocating that for once we make a legitimate run at things. For an additional 100 million in payroll we could get five superstars. I'm saying spend some money on players that are actually sought after and will improve this team substantially and not just taking the shit from the bottom of the barrel.

[fowlergac]

I'm advocating that for once we make a legitimate run at things. For an additional 100 million in payroll we could get five superstars. I'm saying spend some money on players that are actually sought after and will improve this team substantially and not just taking the shit from the bottom of the barrel.

An additional $100 million in payroll? Please.

[twinscowboysbulls]

Wow, don't ever complain about Gardy again about wanting 12 pitchers. Says here that Ozzie prefers carrying 13!

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/n ... id=4851862

[notoriousgod71]

I'm advocating that for once we make a legitimate run at things. For an additional 100 million in payroll we could get five superstars. I'm saying spend some money on players that are actually sought after and will improve this team substantially and not just taking the shit from the bottom of the barrel.

An additional $100 million in payroll? Please.

I think you have it confused. I'm not calling for us to add 100 million. Dave was the one that asked if I was advocating adding 100 million in payroll? For 100 mill you could get five superstars. I just want one.

[Narf]

Yeah, we've never had the best pitcher in the playoffs since 1987.

i think you missed the point of jew's post. he's basically saying that while inferior teams can sometimes manage to win three best of sevens against stronger opponents, it takes a little bit of help. so while having Santana around would eliminate jew's point A, the early 2000s twins really had no answer like the '87 twins had in B, C, D. one player isn't going to close the gap between an 88 win team and a 101 win team. and if he does, you shouldn't count on him to make that difference throughout the remainder of the playoffs.

Radke was a great #2 in the playoffs for the Twins. Santana/Radke were not our problem. Starting pitching was not our problem. We used that formula and lost in the playoffs. Now the Twins have bats up and down the lineup and look like they are not done yet.

The Twins NEVER do anything to make a playoff run. Like trade a prospect for a young bat at a position of need. Or open up their wallet for a free agent or two. Clearly Billy is running the same system of pitching, defense, and light hitting that the...yeah I'll shut up now. Sarcasm aside, you guys are on crack if you think the Twins are running business as usual though.