Minnesota Twins

What’s the Plan?

69 Comments

The injury to Joel Zumaya once again brings up the Twins' lack of pitching, especially in the bullpen.  We all know that there were a lot of free agent pitchers out there, and that almost all of them went to teams other than the Twins.  That means the Twins will enter this season with pretty much the same pitchers they had last year other than some subtractions, most notably Joe Nathan.  It seems obvious this will not be good enough.

The thing is that if it's obvious to us, it must be obvious to the people running the Twins, too.  That raises the question of why the Twins didn't do more to deal with it.  There are two default explanations we tend to go to in a situation like this, but neither seems to apply.

1.  The Twins are a bunch of tightwads.  Maybe they are, but that's not really an answer here.  No one was expecting them to sign a superstar.  As many people have pointed out, most notably Aaron Gleeman, there were lots of pitchers the Twins could have signed for very little.  The Twins may or may not be cheap, but that's not the reason they did not make more moves.

2.  The general manager is a doofus.  I have to confess, if Bill Smith was still the GM, this is where I'd have gone, but he's not.  Terry Ryan is, and I don't think Terry Ryan is a doofus.

When Terry Ryan ran the Twins before, he always had some sort of plan.  It may or may not have been a good plan, but he always had one, and eventually we could see what it was.  So, assuming he has a plan now, the questions are what is the plan, and why did making moves to improve the pitching this off-season not fit the plan.

I clearly don't know, but here's my best guess.  Terry Ryan made the decision that the Twins were not likely to contend for the division anyway.  While the pitchers out there might have helped some, they were not good enough to turn the Twins from a 99-loss team into contenders, and they were not good enough to be part of a long-term solution.  Therefore, he decided to go with what they have.  This will save a little money, but I don't think that was the primary motivation.  I think the main reasons are a)  to give some of these guys one last, long chance in the majors and determine, once and for all, whether they're good enough to pitch there and b) to make sure there's room for guys like Liam Hendriks, Carlos Gutierrez, and Deolis Guerra when they're ready to come up.

We may or may not like this plan, but that's my best guess at what the plan is.  What do you think?

69 thoughts on “What’s the Plan?”

  1. My brother-in-law is an aspiring (and very gifted) sports writer. He insists that the Matt Capps signing was what got Bill Smith fired. I tend to like that idea. Seeing the 2012 roster as the team that "The Twins" put together doesn't do justice to the difference between Terry Ryan and Bill Smith.

    Given that the Twins are in the middle of the pack prospect-wise, and that all of their best guys are at low levels, I think Terry Ryan is going to be looking down the road a ways. There's a rebuilding benefit to losing more games, and if you've got more confidence in your scouting departments than anything else, you should play to that strength.

    I think the Twins should start looking at 2014 or beyond (If Morneau keeps playing, 2014 is his last season under contract, so they should make a push for that if he gets back towards where he was before, otherwise they can take another year or two). I think Ryan is heading this way. I like your theory.

    1. i find it hard to believe that if the capps decision was a strong enough reason to get smith fired that they would have let him pull the trigger on that decision to begin with.

      1. I think the Capps signing was a message signing. If a guy takes the ball even if he's injured, we're going to pay him like that season never happened.

        I don't really agree with it but I think all signs point towards that.

      2. i think i was misunderstanding what phillyospher was saying (and for some reason, thought it was smith that re-signed him). like these boys said, were you reference to the capps trade? if so, i, and many others argued at the time of the smith firing that it essentially changed nothing. there's no way smith was making his decisions in a vacuum, especially not one that involved the trade of a star prospect of the organization.

        1. I was thinking the resigning was under Smith. I was wrong.

          And now that I reflect back on it, I think my brother-in-law's point was that he thought Smith saw Capps as a closer (bad) not a serviceable middle relief arm (true), and that he thought the Zumaya signing indicated TR was seeing Capps differently than Smith had (health Zumaya as closer?).

          I think that's a salient point still. We know who is on the roster, but we don't know how differently TR vs. BS feels about them.

          I disagree with Hungry Joe though. I think the awful trades indicated that BS, while maybe not making decisions "in a vacuum" was really the catalyst. Those trades spoke not to an inability to properly assess value (that is, Capps was essentially what he was supposed to be, Ramos the same, etc.)to an inability to properly asses relative value, (that is, great catching prospect has more value than a relief pitcher). That falls on the decision maker.

          1. I don't think Ramos had that much value. He was having a bad year and everyone knew he was going to be traded. Smith basically sold low and bought lower.

            1. But I'd still argue that in terms of relative value to each other/the organization, Ramos was way more useful than Capps. I'm not saying he pegged Ramos' value wrongly, I'm saying he pegged it wrongly when compared to Capps. I don't think any other GM in baseball makes that trade unless they are literally one middle reliever away from the world series. That's not what the Twins were.

              1. Right, that was the justification. But adding Capps when they had bigger needs didn't make sense. It showed poor judgement by the ultimate decision maker, who wasn't doing a good job assessing the relative value of the trade to the team. That's all I'm saying: I think it's fair to blame Bill Smith for a bad trade because it appeared to be one where the relative values of the players was such that it didn't benefit the Twins organization, even at the time of the trade.

                1. I am sure that Terry Ryan gave Smith his $.02 on the Capps trade. Did Smith disregard Ryan's advice or did Ryan agree that trading for Capps was a good idea?

                  1. Why are you sure about that? We're all speculating here, right? I mean, I'd guess that Ryan gave some advice. But how much advice? That's something I've got no reason to guess at.

                    If you want to blame Terry Ryan for the mistakes when Bill Smith was GM, feel free.

                    1. i don't think he's he's blaming TR for BS' mistakes, but it's very hard to believe that TR, and the rest of the FO as well, didn't have a significant amount of input, nor that they didn't give BS the green light to make that trade.

                    3. I'm not doing that. What I am saying is that I don't think that Billy Smith made the Ramos trade decision all by himself. I would have to think that a deal of this nature would have discussed in the front office quite a bit before it was consummated. They were taking on salary and dealing a top prospect. I have to believe that Ryan expressed his opinion.

                    4. I'm not saying TR didn't express his opinion, I'm just saying that we can't approach Terry Ryan 2 with the idea that he agreed with the Capps trade. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, because Bill Smith was the decision maker, we can make no projections as to whether or not Terry Ryan supported or opposed that trade.

                      My point was that it's fair to blame Bill Smith for that trade. And now I'd add to that, "and we can't know how Ryan felt about it."

  2. From Gleeman today:

    they're left with a right-handed setup man void and only in-house arms like Anthony Swarzak, Alex Burnett, Kyle Waldrop, Jeff Gray, Lester Oliveros, and Carlos Gutierrez to fill it.

    I think this is somewhat the wrong way to look at it. Rather than trying to fill the right-handed setup man role, the Twins should be looking at filling the get right-handed hitters out setup man role. This would probably be with a right-handed pitcher due to talent available and how platoon splits work, but you shouldn't limit yourself to that. I understand not being confident with Swarzak, Burnett, or Gray; but Oliveros has merely 21.1 innings in MLB and his MiLB numbers suggest he could be decent, Waldrop has had some success relieving in the minors, albeit his peripherals are underwhelming, and Gutierrez just transitioned to a full-time relief role last year.

    I think it's premature to say the Twins right-handed relief options are terrible, and I would have preferred them to sign another pitcher or two, but I'm okay with how it is right now. I imagine it's harder to sign pitchers on short deals when the team doesn't have much of a chance to contend. They're basically setting themselves up to be traded midseason, hopefully to a team they like and will contend.

    1. It might be the pink spectacles, but I thought Chuck James was pretty proficient at retiring Right-handed hitters in AAA last year, too.
      [grumble, grumble]

    2. This also assumes that the Twins aren't looking at Doyle as a reliever, which is the easiest way to get a Rule 5 pick on the roster, and Doyle seems to have the sort of profile where he could benefit from a switch to relieving. I think there's some benefits to sorting through waiver claims to find the next Guerrier, and the stop-gap guys that AG's drooling over have some opportunity cost associated with them that way. Not to mention, there are no guarantees with the stop-gap relievers--they are cheap for a reason.

        1. Sure, but Smith (and Ryan) clearly perceived him and valued him as a "proven closer", not a middle reliever.

              1. No, he resigned Capps. For all we know, he signed Zumaya to be the closer. It might very well be that Capps was a low-risk rental with potential trade value (in which case, yes, make him the closer to increase that value).

                If it had been a multi-year deal with Capps, sure, then we could complain more. But basically Capps is exactly what Carter Hayes was asking from the Twins, signing guys who could be trade bait mid-season.

                I thought the trade for Capps was awful. Signing him to be our closer for multiple years would be awful too. Signing him as trade bait on a one year deal is not awful.

                1. You can speculate "maybe he was doing some other thing" all you want, but considering everything he said at the time was "Capps is going to be our closer", and considering Gardenhire's history of usage of Capps, it's difficult to believe Ryan signed Capps with the intent of him being anything other than the closer.

                  Additionally, I'm not going to hold my breath on this organization choosing to trade Capps midseason.

                  My real original point, though, was that there's no indication Ryan 2.0 values closers or middle relievers differently than Smith did. Smith shuffled through middlemen and let several go as free agents who signed large deals, and meanwhile paid premium prices for closers. Ryan has so far not paid high prices for middlemen (I'm not casting a negative judgment on this, by the way, just saying that's what happened) and has paid a more significant price to sign a closer. If you want to say "He's paying him $4.5 mil, he's calling him the closer, Gardenhire's going to use him as a closer, but he didn't really sign him as a closer", that's fine, but that's a pretty big stretch.

                  1. Sure, he might have been signed as the closer, and he might start the season as a closer, but that doesn't mean he'll continue to be the Twins closer regardless, and it doesn't mean he won't also be trade bait. These aren't static things. That's my point.

                    You're saying "Ryan valued Capps as a proven closer." I'm saying "Sure, but he might have valued these other things too."

                    1. Sure, I won't disagree with that. Like I said, I probably won't believe they'd trade Capps until they do it, but in the theoretical sense, you're right.

                      My main line of thinking (which as I frequently do here, I failed to put succinctly) was that I remembered Smith as perceiving "closers" and "middle relievers" as two different things, and valuing them differently, and that I haven't seen Ryan deviate from those differences and valuations so far. But, "potential trade value" is certainly an aspect of why one might value a "closer" differently.

  5. Overall, I think that Jeff A is right with his analysis here. No need to promise OK pitchers playing time to block potentially OK pitchers from the minors. Zumaya was a well-bearded lottery ticket that didn't pay off.

    At the same time, I think this forecasts a middling, 75-win-at-best season for the local nine-plus-sixteen.

        1. If the young guys are getting playing time instead Sidney Ponson and Livan Hernandez (yeah, I know, starters not relievers), then yes. The most frustrating part of bad years to me is watching established guys with no more upside out there playing while the prospects are viewed as late-inning/injury replacements who ride the pine.

          But I'd really rather see 75 wins than 63.

  6. I'm going to push back a little bit, Padre. I won't go so far as to accuse the Twins of being tightwads, but I don't understand why they wouldn't pick up a reliever on a minor league deal (Wheeler, for instance) or for a low, one-year salary. Nobody who was available this winter for the kind of money we're talking about is going to block any significant prospect the Twins have, and how many innings do Burnett, Waldrop, et alii need to determine their viability? If the Twins are out of contention this year (and my guess is they will be), trade the reliever around the break or near the deadline. Ryan might not net a Ramos in return, but he might get a little lucky depending on what he can swing.

    Terry Ryan's a decent talent evaluator, and it'd be nice if he could replenish the farm system - even in small ways - by trading superfluous players near the deadline. By not signing a reliever or two who could be traded during the season, he's effectively throwing a useful item out of his GM toolbox.

    2. How many should he have signed beyond Zoomowwie?

      Serious question. Obviously, Zumaya was a low-risk signing with the potential for large rewards. How many 40-man spots do you want to dedicate to these signings? Or are you suggesting that there were plenty of guys out there willing to take make-good minor-league contracts whom the Twins could then have had compete for a 40-man and 25-man spot?

        1. And how good are the guys willing to take minor league contracts? There are other below-average bullpens out there, why haven't they been able to find a home yet?

      2. How many guys who are on the 40-man are actually vital to the Twins' success? I would say at least two spots on the 40-man should be flex spots, maybe even four.

    4. I've thought about this a little more. Doesn't it make more sense to do the same with your own minor league guys than it does with the Wheelers of the world? You know what you're getting with Wheeler, and so does every other GM. There might be one or two teams for whom, at the trading deadline, it looks like a Wheeler might make a difference. The rest of them could snatch him up in the off-season, just like you're suggesting the Twins do. So the trade value in Wheeler is going to be limited, because you're talking about a guy who, by definition, teams don't think they'll need.

      Meanwhile, the trade value of your own minor league guys who proves themselves is higher because they're younger, cheaper, under team control for longer, etc. Now, naturally, that requires your minor league guys proving themselves. But basically, worst case scenario, you're passing up the middling prospect you could get in a trade at mid-season if you sign and successfully trade Wheeler in exchange for the chance at the higher-reward your prospect proves himself scenario.

      It makes sense to have a guy or two like Wheeler, sure. And the Twins did that with Capps and Zumaya. Now let's hope the "prospects" can be worth something too.

    5. I won't go so far as to accuse the Twins of being tightwads, but I don't understand why they wouldn't pick up a reliever on a minor league deal (Wheeler, for instance) or for a low, one-year salary.

      That's exactly why I don't think the tightwads theory makes sense here. The price for signing someone to a minor league deal would have been low, as (obviously) would a low, one-year salary. Sure, they save a little money (as I indicated), but it's hard for me to think that little bit of money is the reason why they wouldn't sign someone. That makes me think there must be some other reason they haven't done anything to improve the pitching.

      My main problem with Bill Smith was not the individual moves he made so much as that I could never see a plan to his moves, other than just trying to plug holes. In that past, under Terry Ryan, I could always see a plan. I could understand what he was trying to do, even if I didn't agree with it. That makes me think he has a plan now, too. I'm just trying to figure out what it is.

      2. One reason they might be pinching their pennies is that MLB has given them a limit of about $12M to spend on draft bonuses this summer (close to the most in the majors), based on the slots they are drafting from. Assuming they have some kind of budget, a million or two spent on the major league payroll means a million or two not spent elsewhere, like maybe the draft budget or international signings. Would we rather have Dan Wheeler this year or an extra couple million to kick towards signing the next Miguel Jean?

        1. Dan Wheeler's availablity for less than a million makes me want to answer "Both." If the Twins can't absorb half the league-minimum salary ($480k in 2012 provided Wheeler made the team) over half the season and still spend about $12M in the draft, they have some fairly serious financial issues.

          1. All I'm saying is that there is a budget. Half a million dollars over budget is still over budget. Dan Wheeler is not so compelling that you need to break the budget.

              1. The budget encompasses more than just the major league player salary. There is the money that goes towards draft bonuses (which will be substantial given a #2 overall pick) and money that goes towards international player signings.

                1. i understand that there's more involved than just player salaries, but my understanding was that the budget for on-field personnel for the 2012 year was supposed to be around $100 million, and that wouldn't be including draft signings. at least that's sure how the FO made it sound.

                  1. Well let's not forget the cost of future teams too. If they come in $2 million under budget this year, hypothetically that's $2 million+ that they can spend on more talent in a winning year.

                    1. heh. if only... i highly doubt that money that does not get spent goes into "the bank" for future years.

                    2. I saw something from Terry Ryan(?) a few weeks back mentioning that being under budget would necessarily be bad for this reason. It was kind of a throwaway line, but it made me wonder.

                      I've also seen things indicating that they were over-budget last year, which is affecting this year's budget, so that would tend to indicated that year-to-year spending varies based on previous years.

                    3. I believe it only varies in the sense if last year was too much, then this year will be lower. They bank the losses, not the profits. It seems like it would be a good idea for teams to be keep the profits for lean(er) years or to make a splash, but everything I've seen says the owners pocket it.

                    4. yeah, exactly. also, i think it's somewhat established that the budget tends to be about 50% of revenue. i wish we could see how/where they think revenue will be down by $30 million this year (or if there was a $30m drop last year), and how they think most likely putting another subpar product on the field (though hopefully not to the tune of 99 losses) is going to stave off that revenue drop.

                    5. I could see it being a one way street, but the fact that the Twins were over budget last year does tend to speak favorably about them.

  7. How about 3. None of the above. Maybe TR's evaluation of the pitchers he has brought in is that the pitchers available for the right price are no better than what he already has. Remember, Glen Perkins seemed like a longshot to make the team last year and now he's one of the best setup men in the game. If Capps can stay healthy, he's a solid closer. Right now, the Twins have an experienced closer, a top setup man and an experienced lefty reliever in Duensing who is good against lefties but can still go multiple innings if needed. Swarzak is a solid long reliever, which I think is underappreciated, especially for a team that lacks depth (quality not quantity). I'm fine with the 8th and 9th, now the Twins just need to figure out who can bridge the gap from the starters to the 8th innings (and help out in the late innings when Perkins and/or Capps are unavailable).

    1. I suspect that if they avoid the DL, Capps, Perkins, and Burnett will all be near the top of the AL games-played leaderboard.

      1. I guess if Capps is pitching like he did very early in last season, I guess I'd be fine with that.

        I really don't understand what the Twins see in Alex Burnett, though. He's been pretty brutal as a Twin. It looks like he had good AA numbers, but above that level he has not shown much at all. He pitched 50.2 innings last year. I really hope he doesn't pitch that many this year.

        1. He had a 4.47 FIP last year, which for a reliever is a bit below replacement level. He's still young and had good MiLB numbers, so that easily explains why he received time last year. His 98.1 MLB innings don't look good though. I'm guessing the leash is getting shorter and this might be his final chance.

    2. We don't really disagree too much. You've said Ryan's evaluation is that the available pitchers are no better than what he has; I've said his evaluation is that they might be better, but not so much better that it'll make a significant difference. Either way, it makes some sense to see whether what he already has is going to be good enough.

Comments are closed.