Twins Focused On Veteran Starters
by Jesse on Jan 14, 2010 4:36 PM EST
in By the Numbers
Email
PrintOne way or another
I'm gonna find ya
I'm gonna getcha getcha getcha getcha
Blondie, playing Nostradamus, predicts that the Twins will get their man. Be it necessary to drive past their house, or go to the mall...it seems like it's inevitable.
This is twice, in my memory, that the Twins have been tied to Doug Davis. We already know that the Twins offered Jarrod Washburn $5 million just two weeks ago. It seems the front office is determined to rely less on variables like Francisco Liriano or Anthony Swarzak in order to bank on inning-eating consistency. Even if that consistency doesn't have much upside.
There are some easy places for the Twins to upgrade that are more likely to increase their win totals than others, and finding another starter to upgrade the back end of the rotation is one of those places. Certainly there's something to be said for guys who can soak up 200 innings (Davis hit the mark four of the last six seasons and was within spitting distance a fifth, while Washburn...actually hasn't pitched 200 innings since 2003, he's averaged 173 since 2004), but are either of these guys worth the millions extra they'd be paid over their incumbants?
| Name | '09 Age | '09 WAR | '10 Age | '10 WAR (Proj) |
| Doug Davis | 33 | 1.7 | 34 | 1.4 |
| Jarrod Washburn | 34 | 2.1 | 35 | 1.8 |
Forgive me for not expecting either of these guys to improve.
Washburn is a flyball pitcher with a career 4.60 FIP. He experienced one of the best seasons of his career last year. Davis has spent the last six seasons in the National League, where he got to pitch to weaker offenses than he'd see in the American League, and has a career FIP of 4.41. He has some control problems, and it leads to a lot of baserunners.
At the end of September we estimated Cisco would get $1.5 million in his first arbitration-eligible season. Even if he doesn't improve his value at all next summer and, somehow, remains just 1.1 wins above replacement, that's preferrable than going after either Davis or Washburn. Paying between two and four times more for either one of these pitchers, for the difference of less than one full win, is a waste of money. And that's in a pessimistic projection for Liriano.
Felipe Lopez is likely to be a 2+ WAR player in 2010. Orlando Hudson could be even better. Third base (Joe Crede, Brendan Harris, Matt Tolbert, Brian Buscher) was worth a combined 1.6 WAR for Minnesota in 2009. If the Twins insist on spending another $5 million on the free agent market, there are better options out there. I don't blame the organization for waiting for Hudson's price to come down, or for not signing someone because they don't believe they fit, but I don't understand throwing money at pitchers who will not make the team better.
34 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Unless it would trigger a trade
I agree, it is pointless to add either of these two unless it would trigger a trade for a solid 2B / 3B.
You bring up a great point. If it would trigger a trade involving a starter we already have slated for the starting five (e.g. Slowey, Blackburn) then there’s some sense to be had. But that’s the only case, and very minimally probable at best.
And even in that case, who are we to be trading away our starting pitching? Has anyone taken a look at what the White Sox are running out there for their starting five? Detroit won’t be a walk in the park either.
http://twikipedium.wordpress.com
True.
That’s something we initially talked about when we heard about the Washburn offer, about how it would be alright if it meant the Twins were comfortable enough to flip another one of their starters. If that happens, then yeah, I can see myself actually appreciating the move in view of the whole.
But in general, I’m happy to stay away from these two. If the Twins want to toss millions into the rotation, at least pick a guy who could have some upside and could actually be better than who we have in-house.
I think you nailed it, Jesse
I think your original post nailed it, Jesse: why spend $5 million on a pitcher who would be a marginal upgrade at best, and possibly a downgrade, when you could use that money to upgrade a different position much more?
I don’t think this reasoning goes away at all if you say it’s to make a trade possible. You still have to pay the infielder, whether he’s a free agent or not. This would just add $5 million to the cost of his salary. And cost you a cheap young pitcher. Or two.
With that combined increase in payroll, you might just as well sign a free agent. And then you’d get to keep the young pitchers for several more years at low cost, instead of watching an aging veteran suck up payroll until he falls apart.
If the veteran pitcher gets a long-term contract, he could keep on sucking up payroll even after he falls apart. And if he’s here on a one-year contract, every year after that is a net loss because you’re missing out on the cheap years of the young pitching you traded away.
I agree that I’m not sure the reasoning makes sense, but it does seem as if their willingness to deal Perkins depends on having another veteran. With Liriano/Duensing, I don’t get why he can’t be moved either way.
by Twins Territory on Jan 15, 2010 8:09 AM EST up reply actions
It sounds as if it would trigger a trade. There was a report that if the Twins were to sign Washburn (or another veteran starter), they’d likely push hard to move Perkins (maybe for Kouzmanoff?). If that were the case, and the money was right, I do wonder if it’s not a terrible move.
by Twins Territory on Jan 14, 2010 10:48 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not sure if maybe this is it:
It also would be easier for the Twins to deal a starter – the Twins have let teams know that Perkins is available this offseason – if they have a veteran like Washburn in the rotation.
by Twins Territory on Jan 15, 2010 8:08 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly
my feeling on the point, who knows what say ugglas WAR would be, prolly pretty good, and that would be a huge plus factor
Want Railings got tohttp:// www.Kassonconcrete.com
If it's in addition to infield bolstering, I'm fine with it
Even if you add someone only as good as your 5th starter, it’s practically assured that one of your initial starting 5 is going to go down to injury, or just suck a lot more than expected, etc., so you’re really adding whatever value they provide over your 6th, 7th, or 8th option (depending on how many issues you have with your starting 5). In other words, depth is good.
Sure, if you have $15 million left to spend
on bigger holes. If not, if’s $5 million very poorly spent.
True
And one of the Twins’s magical abilities seems to be pulling an infinate number of competent #5-level starters out the minors at a moment’s notice, and this year doesn’t really look any different. Liriano, Duensing, Perkins, Swarzak, probably some other dudes.
Do you think the Twins, especially Gardy feel this way about 2009?
I agree with you, we do a pretty good job of pulling #5 starters out of the minors. But I bet the front office and Gardy look at 2009 #5 starters, Liriano (5.80 ERA), Swarzak (6.25), Manship (5.68), Perkins (5.89) and think that even though we appear to have spots #1-4 set, they don’t want to count on the young guys next year, so get a veteran who will be more likely to have an ERA under 5 and pitch around 200 innings.
While there is some validity to this line of thinking, I think we’d get better results if we state from day one that an open competition will be held among Perkins, Liriano, Manship, Swarzak and Duensing for the #5 spot. Last year, there wasn’t really any competition, it was Baker-Slowey-Blackburn-Liriano-Perkins from day one, then a constant shuffle (seemingly at random) between Rochester and Minnesota.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2010 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
Argue me this...
Are there any reasons, beyond money demands, that would lead someone to believe Felipe Lopez/Orlando Hudson wouldn’t be a GREAT fit for the Twins? Is there something, besides money that would possibly make the Twins shy away from one or the other? Besides Felipe’s rollercoaster numbers, I can’t see anything.
http://twikipedium.wordpress.com
Lopez & Hudson
Lopez’ numbers have been a carnival ride, but overall he is a great offensive improvement over the incumbents. I like it that he isn’t 30 yet, so you wouldn’t see a real slide coming.
Hudson lost his position in the Dodgers’ lineup to ……..Ronnie Belliard? That makes me suspicious of something. I don’t know what.
It appears that Hudson wants way more money than Lopez. I think the Twins should be looking at Lopez even more than Hudson.
by Alexi Casilla All-Star on Jan 14, 2010 9:46 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not too concerned
about Hudson losing his spot to Belliard. He was slumping and Belliard was the hot hand, and down the stretch that was a good decision for Torre to make.
Either way, on a positive note for us: if Hudson hadn’t slumped and stayed in the lineup, it’s likely somebody would have paid his asking price by now and we wouldn’t even be talking about him.
Hudson
is looking for $9 million per reports earlier this week. NOBODY will pay him that, so the big thing could be years. Would the Twins go three for either if it meant they secured them? Hudson or Lopez between Span and Mauer makes too much sense.
by Twins Territory on Jan 14, 2010 10:49 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't want to do three years for either of them
Probably 2 plus a team option for either. $9M is high for Hudson, but I’d be willing to do 2 years / $13M plus an $8M option to get it done. Then again, I’m not married to Nick Punto as our starting 2B.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2010 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not sure about three years either. I think two is perfect. Right now, from various reports, it sounds like a team willing to give in to an extra year might have the upper hand. If that is the case, and option might be the best route.
by Twins Territory on Jan 16, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
If the someone is Ron Gardenhire...
Then yes, the reason Lopez, Hudson, or any other 2B wouldn’t be a great fit is called “Nick Punto”. Given his arm problems, I don’t think we can count on Punto at 3B. And I don’t think Gardy has any intention of starting someone else in front of Punto, as much as you and I (and many others) would like to see Punto in a “super sub” type of utility infield role.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
wonder....
Could our pitching coach help Davis become more of a control pitcher this year and help him shave about 30-40 walks off of last years total? What effect would that have on his season?
Doofenschmirtz Evil, INC.
Phineas and Ferb
That's a walk+ per start,
and I think if you have a guy with stuff like Davis trying to hit the strike zone more often his strikeout numbers (okay…not bad, but not good) are going to drop. He already induces a lot of contact.
You can teach a player to throw more strikes, but that doesn’t really make him more effective. I suppose if he were to conjur the perfect storm, he’d induce a few more ground balls, his breaking balls (his strongest pitches) would have a little extra life, and the extra balls-in-play he’d give up by hitting the strike zone more often would turn into outs most of the time, then yeah I could see him having a better year. I just wouldn’t count on it.
I doubt it
I think our pitchers generally showing solid control has more to do with the type of pitchers we typically sign and the coaching emphasis in the minors than on the MLB coaching.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
It's a bad deal
If we wanted to trade Perkins, go ahead. We still have 4 guys for 1 spot, two of them are lefthanded. We all know the money could be spent more wisely. I’m starting to see a bad pattern of signing vet’s for no reason, is there always pantic in the FO. I don’t like it at all. I don’t have the time right now, but count all the Vet FA’s we have signed in the last 3 or 4 years. That’s alot of wasted time and money, but the thing I don’t like is the Twins come off as cheep with their own Vet players, and they show little confedence in the farm system. Two very bad signs I don’t like! Our farm system seem to always come through, yet here we go again! FO. RESPCT our farm system, we bring-up top players every year! Did you not notice, and we have some good ones this year. Give the Money to our own guys, we don’t need the outside help in weak FA’s.
I understand that they don’t want a situation like last season when pitchers got injured, but Duensing did great last year, and Liriano is showing good signs. If one gets the fifth spot as expected, they’d have one in the bullpen, and someone like Manship or Swarzak could fill a few games if needed after that.
I’d like to see the $5 million used toward Orlando Hudson or Felipe Lopez.
by Twins Territory on Jan 15, 2010 8:22 AM EST up reply actions
+1
This is pretty much exactly where I am. The only way Washburn or Davis makes sense to me is if we’re looking at Uggla or some other better trade option, and a team is demanding Nick Blackburn (i.e., someone better than Perkins) as part of a package.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2010 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
What I don’t get is when we hear that they want to add a Washburn/Davis to give them more incentive to trade Perkins. They have three starters with two spots (one rotation and one bullpen). There doesn’t seem to be room for all three and Perkins is the obvious trade candidate.
by Twins Territory on Jan 16, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
I think this may have been posturing
making it seem like Perkins is a more critical trade piece than he really is, in an attempt to get San Diego to bring their price down for Kouzmanoff. It’s too late for that now, if Kouz was really our #1 trade option, then we failed.
However, if we’re looking at other options like Uggla, etc, then maybe we’re continuing to play up Perkins’ trade value. The problem is, any other team can look at Perkins’ numbers and our rotation options and plainly see he’s not a lock for making our rotation…
by Adam Peterson on Jan 17, 2010 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
I think b1 is more or less right
and I have no interest in signing one of these guys. I dunno—it’s not like the Twins currently have a rotation of rookies or something. Pavano is back. Baker has been a major leaguer for while now. Blackburn has been in the rotation for 2 seasons. Etc.
What they lack in the rotation isn’t another below average/above replacement level starter. They lack a great pitcher, but that guy isn’t available.
by Eric in Madison on Jan 15, 2010 8:57 AM EST up reply actions
Better options out there
I’d rather pass on both Davis or Washburn, though to be honest I’d probably take Davis over Washburn, though that may have more to do with how little I like Washburn in conjunction with how little I know Davis. The thing about Davis is that the Twins have been good at taking guys like him and teaching them how to throw strikes effectively. He won’t K a lot of guys, but does seem to do a bit better job keeping it in the park.
The problem with this type of aquisition is that it makes little sense. 4 of the 5 spots are locked and you have Liriano/Perkins/Duensing competing for that 5th spot. Duensing has options so he can return to AAA. I’m not as sure on Perkins and Liriano. Either way, those 3 are perfectly acceptable options as a 5th starter and all have high enough ceilings to out pitch that position. We also have depth. Our pitching staff had some injury effectiveness issues last year, but I suspect that we will regress to the mean a bit in that department. Our younger guys are far more seasoned, so I’m not expecting erratic starts from Baker, Slowey, and Liriano this year. I could see one getting off to a bad start, but not all 3 like last season. I understand having depth, but behind those 3 you have Swarzak, Manship, and a few promising pitchers in AA as well. The only way this makes sense is if we are planning on trading more than one pitcher. I assume Perkins is gone, but that leaves Liriano/Duensing for that 5th spot, which is still fine. I highly doubt that Slowey, Baker, or Pavano is on the block. If they trade Slowey or Baker, it had better be for an unbelievable offer. Their relentless pursuit of a pitcher tells me that either Blackburn or Liriano are likely to be traded as well, or on the other side, they are going to move a couple of arms in the pen and put Liriano there for 2010. This is where the Marlins speculation of Uggla/Nolasco starts to make a ton of sense. I’m not sure this is what they are doing, but chasing pitchers like Davis/Washburn when you have a huge friggin black holes at 2nd and 3rd will not get any improvement.
Either way, given the holes at 2nd and 3rd, pursuing a pitcher for the sake of pitching depth seems rather dumb. I’m sure they can get Crede back cheaply, and I think that is a great move at this point, but if they have 5M to burn, I’d start talking to Felipe Lopez about a 2 year contract, as he’d provide a reasonable OBP in the 2 spot with some good defense at 2nd.
by diehardtwinsfan on Jan 15, 2010 8:39 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
