Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

From MinnCentric


Photo

Mastroianni Claimed by Blue Jays

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 SweetOne69

SweetOne69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 511 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
  • 1,272 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
  • 3,112 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
  • 286 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
  • 1,656 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
  • 726 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
  • 1,521 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
  • 511 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
  • 436 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
  • 1,521 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
  • 10,257 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
  • 3,112 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
  • 1,521 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
  • 390 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
  • 2,757 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
  • 99 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
  • 2,757 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
  • 3,112 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.."