Twins pitching coach Rick Anderson will not be back with the team next year, tweets Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports. According to Rosenthal’s source, Anderson informed GM Terry Ryan that he wouldn’t return once Ron Gardenhire was ousted as manager. However, John Shipley of the St. Paul Pioneer Press spoke with Anderson directly, who went on the record with a different story, saying he didn’t quit, but just assumed he was out once Gardenhire was dismissed. “It’s been a tough four years,” Anderson tells Shipley. “I understand where they’re coming from. Maybe they need someone new. I imagine the new guy will want someone new. It’s not like I’m saying, ’I’m out,’ I’m just assuming that will be the case.” However the scenario truly played out, it does appear certain that the Twins will have a new pitching coach for the first time in 13 years next season.
Here’s more from the AL Central…
- The Twins have expressed interest in arranging a private workout for slugging Cuban outfielder Yasmany Tomas, reports Darren Wolfson of 1500 ESPN (Twitter link). The news comes as a bit of a surprise, because as I noted in yesterday’s Offseason Outlook for the Twins, the team has never shown a willingness to approach the dollars Tomas figures to command. However, the team does have a need in the outfield.
- White Sox GM Rick Hahn spoke with Daryl Van Schouwen of the Chicago Sun-Times earlier this week and offered several glimpses into the South Siders’ upcoming offseason. “Long-term targets are priority,” the GM said when asked whether the Sox would be players on the free agent market before softening his stance a bit. “We may be in position where shorter-term deals for veteran players might make sense.” The bullpen will be a target for the Sox this winter, and while Hahn isn’t opposed to signing or trading for an established ninth-inning arm, he said he’s never much bought into the “proven closer” concept: “The overall goal for the bullpen is to have multiple options from potentially the right and left side, many of which could be end-game options. I’ve never been of the mindset that somebody has to be the closer. It’s not an ideal way to deploy what should be your best reliever.”
- ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick hears from multiple sources that Miguel Cabrera’s comments about not wanting his postseason bonus money were made in jest, and the Tigers slugger will indeed sign the paperwork to receive his money. As USA Today reported Tuesday, Cabrera stated that he wouldn’t sign and didn’t care about the money, as he “just want[ed] the ring.”
White Sox offseason moves:
Trade Matt Davidson, Erik Johnson and Chris Bassitt to Cincinnati for Mat Latos and a minor league pitcher
Sign Rafael Soriano to two year 13 million dollar deal
Sign Melky Cabrera to three year 27 million dollar deal
Sign Adam Lind to two year 10 million dollar deal
Resign Matt Lindstrom to one year 3 million dollar deal
The only one possible is Lindstrom. Rick would never sign Soriano or Lind. They’re definitely not giving up on Matt Davidson so soon either.
I’m not sure the WSox would trade what essentially amounts to 18 years of service control for Mat Latos, who becomes a free agent after 2015 and was injured half the year. I’m sure they’ll dangle Davidson and Johnson, but there won’t be much return for them, if any. But for what they were saying about Bassitt in September, that’s not happening I don’t think.
Absolutely no way Melky signs for that low and if he did it would be with Toronto. It’s pretty much a guarantee that the Jays pick up Lind’s option as well.
Lindstrom stinks.
I do not wish to see a PEDs guy on the roster, I do not care if it has been 3 years since he was nailed.
Latos is not worth 2 pitchers and a 3rd baseman, regardless on how poor that 3rd baseman performed this season in the minors.
Soriano may be worth it in the bullpen
I think they also should let Flowers go and go with Phegley and Nieto behind the dish.
Danks is likley gone one way or another. You will likely have Sale, Quintana, and Rodon as your 3 lefties in the rotation and Santiago was gone because Rick did not want 4 lefties in the rotation last off season.
Would not be surprised if they feel out McCarthy and see if he’ll take a 1 yr deal with an option for a 2nd, despite his should issues. Noesi will likely be back as a 5th starter and aside from about 3 bad starts and joining the team with an ERA over 7, he looked pretty good this year, ate innings and gave up 3 or fewer many times. Also cannot give up on Johnson.
Closer, well that is a pitfall.. Not too many out there I think, but obviously need to find someone. Im guessing Danks is going to be the package to get you a prospect that is being groomed in the minors as a closer.
I wouldn’t give up Davidson, Bassitt or Erik Johnson. Not for Latos at least. It would take alot more. I would keep our prospects to bring in a short term righty like Jake Peavy or Justin Masterson. I do not have interest in Melky Cabrera because of his past. I would rather spend the money on Nick Markakis. I might be in the minority on this but I prefer Soria over Soriano. Like the difference in their names, just add no to Rafael. I may take a chance on Rasmus or better yet, I like my Viciedo for Dominic Brown proposal.
I actually see some surprise moves coming that would be impossible to speculate on.
Why are people making such a huge deal about this playoff bonus? It’s a bonus people receive whether they make the league minimum or they’re on a record breaking deal, right? Maybe Miggy was playing nice for the media present and then the team told him to just take the money- it’s all in the game. Hard to say what $300,000 means to a guy who’s probably seen $50-60 million in CASH flow through his pockets, with another $100 million or so on the way.
It’d be like a guy with $100 turning down thirty cents, to put things in perspective. On some level, that 30 cents does eventually add up to $100…but it’s still only 30 cents versus a $100 bill.
It’s a non-issue that someone’s making an issue. If you want to boil it down to a point, Cabrera basically said his top desire during the playoffs was not the bonus money but the championship.
I’m sure the MLBPA doesn’t want players in the habit of refusing pay…even if they might favor a player taking the check, cashing it, and dispersing it to team personnel at their own discretion.
Well, he’s already banked $138 million with another $262 million guaranteed on the way, but anyway, pretty much a non-story.
Honestly, I simply thought it was a cool gesture from him based on the original report, so I included it in a Notes post on MLBTR for anecdotal purposes. Once it was refuted, I felt I basically had to link to the correct report.
I agree that it’s been made too big of a deal and wish I hadn’t linked to it in the first place at this point. A player taking his cut of a bonus isn’t a story, and Cabrera’s done nothing wrong here in my mind.
Don’t be too hard on yourself. The original report is very believable, considering the people involved.The most plausible explanation is that it happened exactly like it was originally reported, but the players union convinced him it was a bad move for the players.
Scherzer is a very strong union man who believes any player who gives a team discount is hurting all other players. Cabrera commented during extension talks that he was more motivated by a championship than maximizing his money. He just wanted what would be considered a fair contract.
The jest story is cover for the peer pressure.
I like Rick, but I don’t agree with his philosophy of closer by committee. Has that worked for any team? I think it takes a certain individual to take over that role and accept it. The closer needs TWTW.
That isn’t really the point though. It’s two-fold: first, you can find quality end-of-game relievers that are not established/proven closers, and second, you would ideally deploy your best bullpen arm in the highest leverage situation, regardless of inning. Saving your top reliever for the ninth as a hard and fast rule is a potential waste of resources.
That statement about waste of resources is a cop out pure and simple. The fact is when there is no established closer in your bullpen then you are going to have a lot of blown saves (by the way if the Sox do not have this merry go round at closer for the season maybe they are in the playoff hunt this season) . The numbers do not lie. Show me a team that made the playoffs and World series with out a proven or at least established closer (ie a guy who could show he could do it).
I’m sure there may have been one or two, but I guarantee you the majority of teams that have made the playoffs or WS have at least an established closer. Any other statement is trying to make lemonade out of lemons.
While we wait for my actual response to be approved, it’s interesting that of the 21 blown saves by White Sox relievers this year, 7 of them came before the 9th inning. That’s 1/3, a significant number. The idea behind using your closer in high leverage situations before the 9th is that you still get to the 9th with a lead. Which goes a long way toward winning the game. The Sox had a terrible bullpen, having Addison Reed as the 9th inning only guy would not have saved that.
Again closer affects more than the 9th. Closer sets up the rest of the bullpen.
You have your 7th inning guy (or guys: righties and lefties), 8th inning guy (or guys: righties and lefties), and closer. when you fail to be able to do this, as what occurred with the sox this season, you try to micromanage your bullpen, which leads to guys not being comfortable pitching in certain innings of situations. You cannot fit a round peg ion a square hole.
Well the Tigers made it despite having a proven closer that was terrible, but here are the playoff teams in-house, good stuff pitchers that were simply installed in the closer’s role:
Orioles – Zach Britton
Royals – Greg Holland
A’s – Sean Doolittle
Cardinals – Trevor Rosenthal
Nationals – Drew Storen
and I think the Giants’ is basically closer by committee after several ‘established’ bullpen-types couldn’t keep it together this year.
The ‘proven closer’ thing is nonsensical, but I can understand the argument that there is some psychological effect to pitching in the 9th with a small(ish) lead – I just don’t really believe it.
I will say this, the team with an established (that is again they prove they can close many more games than blow and do it without tons of drama either) closer is always going to have an edge on the team that does not. The Tigers made it partly due to being in a pretty bad division where the Royals had their struggles offensively and the Indians lost steam. Twins were just bad, and the Sox closer and bullpen situation was much much worse. But you are telling me that the Royals finding and now having an established guy with what about 46 saves did not matter?
According to your opinion, Holland could have been not used as a closer for half the season and the Royals would have been fine?
Are you really saying that anyone in the Royals bullpen could have saved 46 games? If it as that easy, then why didn’t Yost do just that? Oh yeah, because Holland is an established closer. All I know is every time I see the Sox try to take a career 7,8, inning guy and convert them they fail miserably and it costs them the season. So go ahead and keep thinking it does not matter, but it does, at least from what I have seen on the field.
Does not believe in a ‘proven closer’ concept eh? I think, what, close to about 20 blown saves should tell you otherwise Rick. Sox need a proven closer, not a Lindstrom, or Bellasario. He should have learned with the Thorton experiment some years ago that just becasue a guy has decent stuff, it does not make him a closer.
I guess he has to stick by his guns on that statement though or really looks foolish in trading Reed for a guy that struck out a lot in the minors.
But proven closers fail all the time: just a few in recent years – Rafael Soriano, Jose Valverde, Joel Hanrahan, even Joe Nathan. Relievers are super volatile; there are an elite few who remain healthy and consistent (or even remotely reliable) year after year, but they are way too expensive for their actual value. The trick is to find the elite ones before they establish themselves, and that’s likely to fail more often than not. Otherwise you end up paying Papelbon crazy money.
Ok there is a big difference here between what Rick Hahn is saying vs the cost of players.
You can have closers that are established (That is prove they can do it) without paying papelbon type contracts. The Sox had one with Reed. While they blow saves, you need the guy that you are going to know can save the majority of games. That solves a nagging issue in your bullpen and also sets up the rest of your pen, you know this is your 7th inning guy, you know this other guy is your 8th inning guy, and you know this guy is your closer. Without the closer your bullpen is a mess. Again simply look at the Sox bullpen this past season to see this. The bullpen needs roles, it needs some sort or structure and it starts with the closer.
But in my view that is exactly what Hahn is saying; his goal is to have more than one high quality reliever that is capable of addressing multiple, late high-leverage situations. Also, even if you have a distinct hierarchy in your bullpen, with one guy being the clear best, more often than not, the next best guy will be good enough to secure the win, if you use your best guy to stop a lead-threatening rally earlier in the game.
The closer is there for a reason. It has worked for 20-30 years, and still does.
His comment is absurd and he only has to look at his bullpen this year to see that it starts with having a established closer, one of which you do not have to spend huge amounts of money on. But they are by no means easy to find, it takes a certain makeup for a closer and I think Hahn should know that after this season.Also it is hard to build a bullpen granted, but harder when your manager is picking a different closer every game
But the rate of success for bullpens over the last 20-30 years suggests that it isn’t really working except in a few exceptional circumstances. Hahn’s comment is only absurd when viewed through the lens of this year’s failed bullpen. It’s reasonable to hold him accountable for that, but this bullpen doesn’t really have any bearing on the validity of his relatively uncontroversial position.
Thinking about your lemons/lemonade comment above, it seems you might think Hahn is trying to suggest the pieces that make up this year’s bullpen can be justified, but I think his comment is more forward-looking. It’s about allocation of resources and following a process of roster construction that tries not to overvalue dedicated roles in the bullpen. I’m sure he knows that this bullpen was a failure, but that’s sort of the nature of the game.
Lots of Fans in Boston think Sale is available if it is right package, Betts, Swihart, Owens even adding E-Rodriguez. I keep telling I don’t think so. Just wondering what WS fans think.
I wouldn’t be shocked if Sale were dealt… it’d clearly have to bring back several pieces for the white Sox
I’d disagree completely. Hahn/Williams have said multiple times that they will not shop or trade him. Quintana is a remote possibility, likely based on how Rodon looks and the fact that Danks is nearly untradeable at this point. Four LH starters in the rotation may rattle some but I get no indication that Hahn is one of them.
I think Danks is gone, even with his bloated contract, before Sale, Quintana, or Rodon (who I do not think can be traded anyway at this point, he has to be with the club for 1 year before anything like that can occur). Hahn would really need to be out of his mind to trade Sale or Quintana at this point, even for a ‘great deal’. Sale and Quintana have results now, which is what the club needs. I think Rienzo, Johnson, Basset, etc would go before those guys. However, Danks just needs to go.. I dunno, maybe they should see if he can be a closer before cutting him lose/trading him.
“lots of fans” believe that. seriously?
The ChiSox expect to be competitive in the next couple of years. I suppose if a trade raises the likelihood of a championship in that timeframe, then it would be possible.
If Sale is available, I’d talk to Jed Hoyer a few miles north. Cubs are looking for an ace pitcher. However I’d be asking for Kris Bryant.
Cubs get – Sale, Gillaspie and a top 20 prospect (not named Rodon, Johnson, Danish or Anderson)
W.Sox get – Bryant, Pierce Johnson & Kyle Schwarber
Remember, Jake Shields was traded to the Kansas City Royals (along with Wade Davis) in exchange for Wil Myers, Jake Odorizzi, Mike Montgomery and Patrick Leonard. Sale is a better pitcher now than when Shields was traded. Myers was the #1 hitting prospect in all of baseball (like Bryant is now).
The money saved by trading Sale will go into signing a guy like Shields or Scherzer or Volquez. They could get 2 of them if they find a team to take Danks off their hands.
Difference being that the Royals couldn’t acquire a James Shields on the open market. Where the Cubs can hold Bryant and spend on a Jon Lester or even Shields in free.agency.
Sale, Quintana,and Rodon are going NOWHERE. N-O-W-H-E-R-E, unless the Sox want a emptier stadium next season. It does not matter what they get back, unless it is a guy, or group of guys, that can start/play in the Majors now. The Sox are not the Cubs, they do not have a fan base that will accept stinking for a few seasons to rebuild the org. The Sox trading any of those guys is subtraction by subtraction regardless of who they get for them: either the guys they get are major league ready but you still lose an ace or 2nd man in the rotation, who also ate 200 IP the last two seasons (in Q’s case), OR you are ‘blowing it up’ and trading these guys for younger version AND hoping that: A) The fan base does not get worse for the club than it already is and B) The org can develop what prospects they get, which I’m not convinced the Sox can based on previous failures in the past 10 years. Remember the Sox have 3 OF prospects and Hahn felt he had to trade a starter for Eaton, which tells you how much faith he has in the Minor league development in his own system.
I think people are misunderstanding what Hahn said. He’s not saying there’s no need for an everyday closer, he’s saying it’s important to have multiple options that have the ability to close if necessary. If they get a guy that has shut down stuff, he’s gonna be the closer, unless he messes up multiple times, then they’ll go to a different option. I don’t get what everybody’s mad about. Not to mention the “proven closer” types are always more expensive.
People are misunderstanding Hahn, he’s not saying there’s no need for an everyday closer, he’s saying it’s important to have multiple options that have the ability to close if necessary. If they get a guy with shut-down stuff, he’s gonna close, unless he messes up multiple times, then they’ll go to a different option. Plus, the “proven closer” types are always far more expensive because of the save stat.
Absolutely. Also, sometimes you need a shut-down reliever in an inning that is not the 9th, so it’s good/necessary to have more than one.
I would add that it’s imperative that the 9th inning guy doesn’t display much of a platoon differential.
A self fulfilling prophesy
Thanks for the responses guys.