Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store

Recent Blogs


Photo

Mastroianni Claimed by Blue Jays

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 SweetOne69

SweetOne69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 466 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 02:57 PM

MLBTR reports that Mastro has been claimed by the Jays.

http://www.mlbtrader...ate-wilson.html

#2 Boom Boom

Boom Boom

    Hydraulic Choppers

  • Members
  • 1,126 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:05 PM

So we won't get to see Bautista back in CF when the Twins go to Rogers Centre? :(

#3 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,929 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:20 PM

So we won't get to see Bautista back in CF when the Twins go to Rogers Centre? :(


Mastro has an option left, I believe, so the Jays could put him in AAA.

#4 drock2190

drock2190

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 223 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:55 PM

Blue Jays are known for claiming virtually everyone and trying to send them to Triple AAA.

#5 big dog

big dog

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,397 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 04:26 PM

Yeah, I was actually pretty surprised the Jays didn't pick up Diamond et al, at least for 20 minutes or so. They have a history.

#6 Joe A. Preusser

Joe A. Preusser

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 723 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 04:36 PM

So we won't get to see Bautista back in CF when the Twins go to Rogers Centre? :(


I'd rather face Mastro's 0-4.

#7 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 06:00 PM

Couldn't the Twins have just cut Bartlett to make room on the 40 man so they didn't have to waive Mastro?
Not saying it matter much in the big picture, but it would be nice to have a little bit more CF depth in the upper minors.

#8 SweetOne69

SweetOne69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 466 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 08:03 PM

Couldn't the Twins have just cut Bartlett to make room on the 40 man so they didn't have to waive Mastro?
Not saying it matter much in the big picture, but it would be nice to have a little bit more CF depth in the upper minors.


While they probably released Bartlett to make room for Fuld, doing so would've required paying his salary. I believe that retirement eliminates our financial obligations.

#9 howeda7

howeda7

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 408 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 08:05 PM

While they probably released Bartlett to make room for Fuld, doing so would've required paying his salary. I believe that retirement eliminates our financial obligations.


Thanks Jim. As long as you put it towards that MLS team, all is forgiven. :shoot:

#10 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 08:23 PM

While they probably released Bartlett to make room for Fuld, doing so would've required paying his salary. I believe that retirement eliminates our financial obligations.


Bartlett's salary isnt that much is it? We are well below budget, I don't see why this little bit of money would be an issue.

#11 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 9,601 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 22 April 2014 - 08:55 PM

I'm gonna say it.

I think we still need another CF in Rochester warming up in the bullpen.
A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

#12 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,929 posts

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:02 PM

Couldn't the Twins have just cut Bartlett to make room on the 40 man so they didn't have to waive Mastro?
Not saying it matter much in the big picture, but it would be nice to have a little bit more CF depth in the upper minors.

The Twins would have preferred this, but the paperwork for Bartlett's retirement (and open roster spot) couldn't be processed until Monday, and the Fuld claim needed to be made on Sunday. (I wonder if we could have 60-day DLed Bartlett to open the roster spot?)

So, Mastroianni is another casualty of the brief Bartlett reunion tour (although the way Mastro has looked since 2012, he probably won't be missed -- I really did like him as a sleeper depth guy back in 2012, though).

On the plus side, the Twins now have an open 40 man roster spot, hopefully they fill it with someone interesting soon.

#13 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 06:44 AM

The Twins would have preferred this, but the paperwork for Bartlett's retirement (and open roster spot) couldn't be processed until Monday, and the Fuld claim needed to be made on Sunday. (I wonder if we could have 60-day DLed Bartlett to open the roster spot?)

So, Mastroianni is another casualty of the brief Bartlett reunion tour (although the way Mastro has looked since 2012, he probably won't be missed -- I really did like him as a sleeper depth guy back in 2012, though).

On the plus side, the Twins now have an open 40 man roster spot, hopefully they fill it with someone interesting soon.


I don't think you understand what I am asking.
I am asking if (instead of waiting for retirement papers) they could have just cut him to open the spot right away.
Before I assume that they are just cheap, I'd like to know if that is even proceduraly possible.

#14 iTwins

iTwins

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 252 posts
  • LocationNorth of Missouri, South of Minnesota
  • Twitter: Trimbletj

Posted 23 April 2014 - 07:44 AM

I was just getting good at spelling Mastroianni too...

I thought the Twins had something in Mastroianni when they claimed him from the Blue Jays in 2012. He seemed to be the perfect 4th OF type - he had a decent bat, played average defense and best of all, was a threat on the bases.

Unfortunately, that ankle injury in 2013 seemed to sap his speed and on top of that he just wasn't hitting. Still, I think he had value for the Twins and I'm bummed to see him go.

#15 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,357 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 07:54 AM

I don't think you understand what I am asking.
I am asking if (instead of waiting for retirement papers) they could have just cut him to open the spot right away.
Before I assume that they are just cheap, I'd like to know if that is even proceduraly possible.


I agree the Twins are cheap and I can't believe I am saying this. But since MLB contracts are guaranteed, cutting Bartlett versus him retiring is probably $800-$900K in increased salary. I think the minimim for someone with his service time is about $1M.

The thing that gets me about the Twins, they seem to go cheap on some players, thinking they are saving money. Each year it seems they have at least $5M in dead money. Livan Hernandez, Pelfrey, Marquis, Ramon Ortiz, etc. We could have saved the Pelfrey and Bartlett money and signed Drew this year. Or avoided Pelfrey and Bartlett and signed a guy like Garza with only $5M more in salary.

In the case of Livan, Marquis, and potentially Peflrey this year, we end up cutting the guy and paying him a good chunk of money on a per game basis. We cut Livan on 8/1 and paid him $5M. Jason Marquis made $3M and pitched in 7 games. Would anyone be shocked if we ate a good chunk of the $12M guaranteed to Pelfrey?

Edited by tobi0040, 23 April 2014 - 08:03 AM.


#16 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:09 AM

Couldn't the Twins have just cut Bartlett to make room on the 40 man so they didn't have to waive Mastro?
Not saying it matter much in the big picture, but it would be nice to have a little bit more CF depth in the upper minors.


The retirement documents were not cleared through the league office before the Twins were awarded Fuld, so they had to make a roster move. They chose Mastro.

Mastro is not the same guy he was two years ago. He was a marginal player to begin with, but playing on a broken leg did permanent damage to his speed and agility. Plus, he never recovered his swing after the long lay-off. He was a guy who needed lots of cage time and winter ball to be able to put up a 600+ OPS. Not being able to hit for five months was an unrecoverable issue for him.

The real issue was letting Presley go to make room for Bartlett. They should have known in spring training that Bartlett was done. Just about everybody who watched him play saw a guy who could barely put the bat on the ball and who was trying to play six positions he'd never played in his career. It was ugly.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#17 Cris E

Cris E

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:13 AM

I think a lot of teams have a lot more than $5m of dead wood each year. It's not much at all in a world with a $0.5m minimum salary and total budgets running over $75m. Think of it as two guys not meeting your expectations, and then look at the list of lottery tickets you named. Frankly those were all longshots, and if they worked out they'd have been huge bargains; 200 IP of league average starting pitching costs a lot more than $5m.

If you think about it, saving the last 5-10% of your budget for gambles like those is not a bad way to manage your payroll. Marquis didn't work out here, but two months later he was awesome for San Diego. Livan wasn't league average but he did pile up a bunch of innings when we really didn't have much ready in Roch. Pelfrey and Correia did pretty well last year in the midst of a terrible season, sparing everyone more exposure to PJ Whatever and the rest of those guys. Kubel looks like he's got more left than he showed in March, so if he keeps it together he might be what the team needed to fill LF while Willingham is out (again.) No gambles in your lineup can only mean two things: the roster is perfect or you're sitting still when you could be trying things. A little dead wood is not bad, and in fact is a sign you're trying things.

#18 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,357 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:30 AM

I think a lot of teams have a lot more than $5m of dead wood each year. It's not much at all in a world with a $0.5m minimum salary and total budgets running over $75m. Think of it as two guys not meeting your expectations, and then look at the list of lottery tickets you named. Frankly those were all longshots, and if they worked out they'd have been huge bargains; 200 IP of league average starting pitching costs a lot more than $5m.

If you think about it, saving the last 5-10% of your budget for gambles like those is not a bad way to manage your payroll. Marquis didn't work out here, but two months later he was awesome for San Diego. Livan wasn't league average but he did pile up a bunch of innings when we really didn't have much ready in Roch. Pelfrey and Correia did pretty well last year in the midst of a terrible season, sparing everyone more exposure to PJ Whatever and the rest of those guys. Kubel looks like he's got more left than he showed in March, so if he keeps it together he might be what the team needed to fill LF while Willingham is out (again.) No gambles in your lineup can only mean two things: the roster is perfect or you're sitting still when you could be trying things. A little dead wood is not bad, and in fact is a sign you're trying things.


The problem with this is, these guys almost never turn out and for the same amount of money we could have an actual major league short stop this year. In the years of Livan or Marquis, we could have basically paid the same or less on a per start basis and signed an actual good pitcher. We did get 139 IP out of Livan, at a 5.48 ERA. We should be able to get the same or better production out of any random pitcher at AAA or AA. Look at the rag tag bunch we had last year and our staff still had a 5.25 ERA.

This offseason, we are paying Bartett and Pelfrey $6.5M or so, Garza cost $12M. I am in favor of getting above average production over below average production for a marginal difference.

Edited by tobi0040, 23 April 2014 - 08:35 AM.


#19 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,929 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:57 AM

I don't think you understand what I am asking.
I am asking if (instead of waiting for retirement papers) they could have just cut him to open the spot right away.
Before I assume that they are just cheap, I'd like to know if that is even proceduraly possible.


Good question, basically could we have DFA'd Bartlett instead (if not outright released him)? Would have cost an extra $500k or so over retirement, it seems, but would have saved Mastro. Maybe we could have DFA'd Bartlett, outrighted him, and he could have officially retired after that?

Fantastic question for next Sunday's call-in shows (does Antony do one of those now?).

#20 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 09:29 AM

Good question, basically could we have DFA'd Bartlett instead (if not outright released him)? Would have cost an extra $500k or so over retirement, it seems, but would have saved Mastro. Maybe we could have DFA'd Bartlett, outrighted him, and he could have officially retired after that?

Fantastic question for next Sunday's call-in shows (does Antony do one of those now?).


It is a fair point. It is telling that they didn't think enough of Mastro to keep him for the $500K it would have cost to guarantee Bartlett's salary.

As far as center fielders in Rochester, I'm surprised they haven't called up Danny Ortiz. He's repeating New Britain and had a very good spring. Meanwhile, the Red Wings are playing Eric Ferris, who is a career infielder, in CF.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#21 cmathewson

cmathewson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 09:30 AM

One other thought, is it legal to DFA a guy on the DL? I thought there was some rule against it.
"If you'da been thinkin' you wouldn't 'a thought that.."

#22 Cris E

Cris E

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 10:16 AM

The problem with this is, these guys almost never turn out and for the same amount of money we could have an actual major league short stop this year. In the years of Livan or Marquis, we could have basically paid the same or less on a per start basis and signed an actual good pitcher. We did get 139 IP out of Livan, at a 5.48 ERA. We should be able to get the same or better production out of any random pitcher at AAA or AA. Look at the rag tag bunch we had last year and our staff still had a 5.25 ERA.

This offseason, we are paying Bartett and Pelfrey $6.5M or so, Garza cost $12M. I am in favor of getting above average production over below average production for a marginal difference.


But that's the thing: you're talking like there are these freely available AAA guys are going to show up and deliver hundreds of innings of average work. They don't exist: you either sign fringy guys like Pelfrey or Marquis or Livan or Liam H or the rest of the guys we sent out last year and accept that they are going to range from meh to argh, or else you go try to pick up real starters for real money. Casually saying "Garza for $12m" is not real. He's making $50m/4 yr plus a $13m vesting option. It's not a marginal difference. You're not just spending an extra $5m, you're signing a 30 year old with a serious and recent injury history to a four year deal. That's substantially different.

They did go out and sign Hughes and Nolasco this season, which is better than a Garza deal because they're more likely to stay healthy. They didn't go get a SS because many of the options were bad, expensive or both. In retrospect they should have done more at that position a few years ago, or at least kept their eyes open for a quick win at some point, but this year the SS market wasn't good. Who knows, if Sano was healthy and hit the ground running maybe the plan was to trade Plouffe for a SS. Lots of plans don't see the light of day, but hoping for "above average production...for a marginal difference" is not realistic.

#23 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,357 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 11:28 AM

But that's the thing: you're talking like there are these freely available AAA guys are going to show up and deliver hundreds of innings of average work. They don't exist: you either sign fringy guys like Pelfrey or Marquis or Livan or Liam H or the rest of the guys we sent out last year and accept that they are going to range from meh to argh, or else you go try to pick up real starters for real money. Casually saying "Garza for $12m" is not real. He's making $50m/4 yr plus a $13m vesting option. It's not a marginal difference. You're not just spending an extra $5m, you're signing a 30 year old with a serious and recent injury history to a four year deal. That's substantially different.

They did go out and sign Hughes and Nolasco this season, which is better than a Garza deal because they're more likely to stay healthy. They didn't go get a SS because many of the options were bad, expensive or both. In retrospect they should have done more at that position a few years ago, or at least kept their eyes open for a quick win at some point, but this year the SS market wasn't good. Who knows, if Sano was healthy and hit the ground running maybe the plan was to trade Plouffe for a SS. Lots of plans don't see the light of day, but hoping for "above average production...for a marginal difference" is not realistic.


Couple of points. Deduno or Diamond could put up the same numbers as Pelfrey and cost us $500K. Deduno's ERA last year was 1.30 lower than Pelfrey's. Injury concerns? Of course, but if all we need is a bridge to Meyer or May in June anyway, the $12M over two years to Pelfrey could have been spent better. As could the money we paid Livan, Marquis, Kenny Rogers, Ramon Ortiz, etc.

You are correct, Garza received a 4 year, $50M deal. But if we have $5-7M in dead money in the 5th rotation spot each year over the next four years, then we are comparing 4/50 with 4/24 or something like that. At the end of the day, the goal is to win games. Not get innings at a terrible ERA. I am simply suggesting a real pitcher, or SS like Drew is not really as costly as their salary if we are smart and avoid the bargain bin signing that never pans out.

#24 TheDean

TheDean

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:32 PM

As far as center fielders in Rochester, I'm surprised they haven't called up Danny Ortiz. He's repeating New Britain and had a very good spring. Meanwhile, the Red Wings are playing Eric Ferris, who is a career infielder, in CF.


Speaking of center fielders drafted in the 2008, does the guy the Jays designated (Kenny Wilson) do anything for the Twins? He was the 10th OF drafted in 2008 (Hicks was the first, Ortiz was the 24th).

He's repeating AA this year after posting an OPS of .708 and had 16 SB to 6 CS in 242 PA (must have had injury issues). He's in his age 24 season just like Hicks. Not saying the Twins FO is or should be considering it seriously, but who would ever want to end the DFA limbo fun of marginal players that the Jays, Twins, and Orioles seem to have with each other?

Now, I've heard that there's a somewhat high ceiling player returning to NB soon, but until then, and even after then, seems like CF depth is an issue in the AA/AAA part of the organization.

#25 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 910 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:48 PM

Good question, basically could we have DFA'd Bartlett instead (if not outright released him)? Would have cost an extra $500k or so over retirement, it seems, but would have saved Mastro. Maybe we could have DFA'd Bartlett, outrighted him, and he could have officially retired after that?

Fantastic question for next Sunday's call-in shows (does Antony do one of those now?).


The money piece of it is one part of the issue. Which, for the record, I don't see how one could justify incurring that kind of cost to drop Bartlett a day earlier in order to keep Mastro. They'll be able to use that 40-man spot on someone else and Mastro was obviously on the DFA chopping block anyway (right or wrong).

Another piece of it to consider is the more human piece. I can't imagine it would reflect well on the Twins organization to cut a guy that you gave an opportunity to the day before his retirement papers are finalized. It's easy to think of these guys as dispensable pieces, but there's more to it than that.

#26 Cris E

Cris E

    Member

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:57 PM

Diamond and Deduno were already pitching last year and couldn't have picked up an extra 30 starts. And bargain bin signings do work out if your goal is just filling holes in the short term. It's not a good way to fill long-term holes (like their current SS vacancy) but it's a fine way to manage the back of the rotation.

But the real point is that they did spend $11m and they got 2 years of Pelfrey. That's about what you can get for $10-12m. It's a little high and the second year was probably a bad idea, but check out the list of free agent pitchers signed last winter (http://espn.go.com/m...ars/position/sp). There were a couple of slightly better options perhaps, but some of these guys had relationships to draw on, and in general you're not only dealing in salary, they want as many years as they can get. And then you have to convince them they can win in MN, that they might make some endorsement cash, and that you might keep them around longer than it takes for the kids to figure out AA and displace them. That makes it harder for 90 loss teams trying to go young.

The trouble with signing a guy for this year to win games is that we have no place for the kids to play. We've already got Deduno blocked from the rotation by Pelfrey, and the day we decide Meyer or May is ready they're even further back in line. (Deduno might not be your idea of a kid to block or not block, but he's a better option than a new two year deal for Pelfrey. The rotation is still crammed with more guys than we needed to sign.) Money is pretty irrelevant compared with roster management.

#27 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 01:18 PM

The money piece of it is one part of the issue. Which, for the record, I don't see how one could justify incurring that kind of cost to drop Bartlett a day earlier in order to keep Mastro. They'll be able to use that 40-man spot on someone else and Mastro was obviously on the DFA chopping block anyway (right or wrong).

Another piece of it to consider is the more human piece. I can't imagine it would reflect well on the Twins organization to cut a guy that you gave an opportunity to the day before his retirement papers are finalized. It's easy to think of these guys as dispensable pieces, but there's more to it than that.


1) What else are they going to do with the money? We are currently about 20 to 25 million below our "52%" budget.

2) How would that not reflect well on the Twins? Giving a guy free money that you didn't have to would make them look good to the players, not bad.

#28 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,357 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 01:47 PM

Diamond and Deduno were already pitching last year and couldn't have picked up an extra 30 starts. And bargain bin signings do work out if your goal is just filling holes in the short term. It's not a good way to fill long-term holes (like their current SS vacancy) but it's a fine way to manage the back of the rotation.

But the real point is that they did spend $11m and they got 2 years of Pelfrey. That's about what you can get for $10-12m. It's a little high and the second year was probably a bad idea, but check out the list of free agent pitchers signed last winter (http://espn.go.com/m...ars/position/sp). There were a couple of slightly better options perhaps, but some of these guys had relationships to draw on, and in general you're not only dealing in salary, they want as many years as they can get. And then you have to convince them they can win in MN, that they might make some endorsement cash, and that you might keep them around longer than it takes for the kids to figure out AA and displace them. That makes it harder for 90 loss teams trying to go young.

The trouble with signing a guy for this year to win games is that we have no place for the kids to play. We've already got Deduno blocked from the rotation by Pelfrey, and the day we decide Meyer or May is ready they're even further back in line. (Deduno might not be your idea of a kid to block or not block, but he's a better option than a new two year deal for Pelfrey. The rotation is still crammed with more guys than we needed to sign.) Money is pretty irrelevant compared with roster management.


Pelfrey was a terrible sign last year as well (allowing a player to rehab on your dime, then make excuses because it was his first year of TJ and he came back too quick). I was however referring to signing Pelfrey this year.

The point is, give me Deduno/Drew over Pelfrey/Florimon any day of the week for basically the same price. or Garza over Pelfrey for an extra few million. That applies for years 1 and 2 of Peflreys two years. Then give me Garza in years 3-4 over the next scrub we sign.

#29 Kirby_waved_at_me

Kirby_waved_at_me

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 724 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 01:56 PM

Back to the Mastro move - the Twins should try to claim the dude the Blue Jays DFA'd to make room for Mastro. Out of spite, or minor league OF depth, either way.

#30 tobi0040

tobi0040

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,357 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 02:14 PM

Back to the Mastro move - the Twins should try to claim the dude the Blue Jays DFA'd to make room for Mastro. Out of spite, or minor league OF depth, either way.


The last time I saw something like this, the Seattle Seahawks really stuck it to the Vikings. We signed away Hutchinson and they got us back, giving Nate Burleson $50M over 7 years!