I put the uncensored list on the web at http://www.skypoint.com/members/ashbury/anagrams
Starting pitching is so difficult to find. The Twins should be interested.
John, this is one of those decisions where makeup and scrappiness might actually mean something (in addition to his FIP ). I would strongly consider the trade with a good signoff from my scouts, if he has a real willingness to put in the time, and if we could get him for a light trade-off (middling prospect(s) in the Minors). That being said, he would be a Twin till 2016 you say, but would this give us many years of him being good. All told, I can't imagine the Tigers would trade him for what I would offer, but it's worth a shot to make a call.
Yeah, it doesn't really make sense. But they got another year of him in the system by not 40-manning him, something similar to what they did with Kyle Waldrop and, also, Cole DeVries. Be interesting to see if they try it with Carlos Gutierrez this fall.
Slama's 28 years old, right? Not wasting a year on the 40-man thus prevents his prematurely reaching the free-agent market when he's, what, 32, 33, 34? I'm never sure.
The Twins may actually be waiting to add Slama as a 40-man guy for the 2013 season rather than waste a year by adding him this year. So that might be good news. Again, anyone added in November can't be cut until after spring training, so you need some dead bodies to cut if you add free agents.
I believe several of the mentioned above players will be outrighted at the end of the season, Manship, Carson, Butera, maybe Walters and De Vires. My guess is the roster will have to be cleared to add players that will need to be protected from the Rule 5 draft.
Have not had time to research the players that need to be added(sorry), but have seen a couple of lists in prior posts. Also add Casilla to the list of probably will be outrighted as he has been given 3 chances to take the position and is 0 - 3.
And so many of the guys, starting with the already demoted Thomas, Gray and Maloney, and adding such folks as Walters, Perdumo, let's throw in Butera, Carson, Manship, the injured Gutierrez and Oliveros -- to name but a few would be unclaimed and available again, or easily replaceable by other ilk in the systems. And why not give recognition and expsoure to guys IN your system that you have promoted and supposedly believed in -- Guerra, Slama, Bigley even.
I agree. It certainly seems necessary this weekend after the burden handed the pen by Blackburn and Hendriks. I also think that some team will better figure out how to use their pitching staff.
I recall the 1969 Twins and a 10 man staff. Tom Tischinski was the 3rd catcher on the team. After playing the full season in the majors, he ended the season with 56 plate appearance and 12 starts. They had the left/right pinch hitting tandem of Charlie Manuel and Rick Renick. Both entered games more often from the bench. Frank Quilici was primarily a defensive sub for Harmon Killebrew at 3B. George Mitterwald was the back up catcher starting mostly lefties in a platoon with John Roseboro. There was still a spot on the bench and role for Bob Allison finishing his career and a young Graig Nettles. Imagine the options for Billy Martin with this 7 man bench. Weaver and Stengel were often credited with their ability to build successful platoon combinations. That's a lot easier to do when your carrying a bench with 7 players.
It's only a start to what would be a more solid analysis (say, looking a little harder for trades of lesser magnitude that still brought 2 or more legitimate prospects), but points in the direction that I think is a true conclusion, namely that we're looking at a summer of one-for-one trades of any significant talent that may have various spare parts included for any of a number of reasons.
Shoot! I forgot a trade candidate, even though he stares me right in the face in the first list of trades:
Age: 28 Jun 12 WAR: 0.6 Prev WAR: 0.8 Career WAR: 6.2
These numbers don't stack up any better to the list of big-time trading chips than the rest of the Twins' candidates (and it's not as if WAR is systematically prejudiced against closers, since Nathan regularly had seasonal WAR in the 2-3 range and Rivera goes even higher). What we need is a trading partner who'll do a swap similar to the Ramos deal; can we get Bill Smith planted as a mole in some team's organization?
Got it, thanks. It's a good analysis of WAR and what you can get in terms of prospects. Thanks for writing it.
> Is the WAR of the player, or the players returned?
Of the veteran player only. Unless I made typos.
> Because isn't that part of the question, how much WAR did you give up to get what WAR in return?
It's part of "a" question, I guess. But my purpose here was more modest: to try and line up current Twins assets to assets that have been used in big trades from the past. In the case of several of these trades, it's too soon to know the WAR gotten in return anyway (or also how much WAR was ultimately traded away in future years' production).
Again, I wasn't trying to assess the success of the trades; it's certainly an interesting question to wonder how much is received in return for a player with a certain profile of WAR numbers past and present, but when trading for prospects you don't know for sure what you'll get anyway, and looking after-the-fact at WAR is almost exactly the opposite of what I wanted to do, which is to look at the trades from the perspective of the moment they were transacted. You need something other than WAR (of the later years) to measure what a prospect's value was thought *at the time* to be.
Not every player in a 5-player package is a blue-chipper, but in the trades listed, the packages weren't typically just one stud with 4 fillers. So, it seemed enough to just group these trades generally, looking for a pattern of what was being traded away. And the pattern I think I see is that the Twins have absolutely no one on the roster who is likely to pull more than a single can't-miss prospect, paired maybe with a second good but unproven player. And IMO trading at that rate of speed means treading water, with a sub-.500 club, indefinitely.
That doesn't mean no trades are possible, or in the Twins' interest. But I'm convinced more than before that trading alone isn't going to restock the system in one stroke. Maybe I'm setting up a straw man argument here that no one was actually arguing to be the case.
> Also, if your team as currently constructed utterly stinks, but you think you have 2-4 starters in the minors ready in, say, 2015, wouldn't you want to trade your current players and get 1-4 more guys that will be ready in 2015? It can be done, but it's hard to do well.
It's true, a strategy of trading veterans for prospects is quite a lot more complicated than just backing up the truck and loading the merchandise. My aim here was much humbler, to assess how big of a truck might be needed. Looks like a U-Haul trailer is enough.
Is the WAR of the player, or the players returned? Because isn't that part of the question, how much WAR did you give up to get what WAR in return? Also, if your team as currently constructed utterly stinks, but you think you have 2-4 starters in the minors ready in, say, 2015, wouldn't you want to trade your current players and get 1-4 more guys that will be ready in 2015?
It can be done, but it's hard to do well.
I just set up the joke. Feel free to provide your own punchline.
Maloney was on the 40-man until he was DFAed. I, too, hope that he gets his chance to pitch as a starter. He has been terrible when coming in in the middle of an inning, but much better when starting an inning. He also showed an inability to hold runners and seemed to be distracted once somebody ran on him.
He's not on the 40-man. I assume the Twins were thinking long-relief totally, especially when Baker was in the mix. And the Hendriks shined, so there was no need to push him more. But he can hopefully be a possible alternative down the line.
The assumption is that Liriano and Pavano will probably be gone by mid-season and the Twins will need someone...anyone to throw innings. It is a great opportunity in Twinsville, and the competition are the guys in lockers next to you at Rochester, since I doubt anyone will make the jump from New Brit (Bromberg or Hermsen the only onlies).
I JUST WANT THE TWINS TO KEEP DUENSING AND SWARZAK as the two better long-guy out of the bullpen. They have important roles and fulfill them to expectations............
I think that's the plan, at least from what I've heard. As soon as he's ready, they'll insert him into the rotation.
Totally agree with you. Plus, I'm not sure I would trust to bring him up as a reliever before Guerra or Slama.
Just a little takeoff on Seth's blog post today.
Originally Posted by J-Dog Dungan
Their main problem the last few years when it comes to hitting is that their ability to drive runners in when they are in scoring position is extremely low. In several years before 2010, the Twins were always among the highest in average with RISP. Now, they have dropped to last (or nearly last) in that category because they keep choking with RISP.
Interesting, I don't know if I had heard that before. It seems like something that could be looked up. There are RISP stats on baseball-reference.com, both for league as a whole, and for individual teams. So I gathered information for years 2009-2012, for Batting Average, for OPS, and for "Runs per Plate Appearance", to see if any trends jump out. I'm doing it by hand, so I don't have time to go back an arbitrary number of years.
BA and OPS ought to be more or less comparable concepts whether in total or when just looking at RISP; but actual runs scored measured by R/PA will naturally be a *lot* higher in RISP situations than for all plate appearances, because, well, there are runners on base every time. I'm just looking for trends, anyway. Here's what I compiled, and I really hope I didn't make any errors in either transcription or (in the case of R/PA) my long division. (Sorry I don't know how to line these up in columns in this text editor.)
AL BA OPS R/PA
2012 Tot .250 .722 .114
2012 RISP .261 .749 .325
2011 Tot .258 .730 .117
2011 RISP .259 .743 .332
2010 Tot .260 .734 .116
2010 RISP .258 .739 .325
2009 Tot .267 .764 .125
2009 RISP .269 .774 .345
Twins BA OPS R/PA
2012 Tot .236 .660 .092
2012 RISP .233 .706 .279
2011 Tot .247 .666 .103
2011 RISP .248 .673 .320
2010 Tot .273 .762 .125
2010 RISP .285 .780 .347
2009 Tot .274 .774 .129
2009 RISP .278 .799 .367
What I see as a baseline (league-wide) is this:
1) Batting average normally is not too different in RISP situations, maybe a little higher overall but in 2010 it was slightly lower.
2) OPS (which measures walks to homers and everything in between) always is a little higher in RISP situations.
3) R/PA is hard to compare but 2009 was a higher-offense year than the years since then.
Then what I see for the Twins specifically is this:
1) Their batting average in 2012 is a little lower for RISP situations, but on a scale seen league-wide in 2010. In 2010 their BA was a lot higher in RISP situation, contrary to the league.
2) Their OPS rises in RISP pretty much like it does for the full league, each of these years.
3) Their offense was better than league-average in 2009 and 2010 and their RISP stats reflect that, and their offense in 2011 and (especially) in 2012 is below league average and their RISP stats reflect that too.
It still seems to me that the record indicates that if they improve their overall offense, the RISP part of it will take care of itself too. They don't merely need better production during rallies. They need better production, period.