Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Are the Twins buyers again?

  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#101 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 11,873 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 08:11 AM

 

Brandon Kintzler, at his current pace, will be worth about 0.55 bWAR the rest of that season.
He's very unlikely to be the difference between anything.

It was 0.69 bWAR at the time of the trade.  By bWAR, it was a top ~20 relief performance in the AL, not exactly the kind of thing contenders usually trade away.  So it would seem most teams value that as potentially difference-making.  (Plus, Kintzler has actually out-performed that pace so far by 0.5 bWAR with Washington, which could have made a top 10 relief performance in the AL as of today.)

 

Also, the difference you are describing -- Kintzler or no Kintzler -- is between standing pat and selling.  But the complaint here is that we didn't buy when we had the chance -- we could have added another player at the deadline, plus keep Kintzler.  Joe Smith and Anthony Swarzak were cheap and have already posted 0.3 bWAR each for their new teams, for example.  And as a bonus, getting Smith would have kept him from Cleveland, or getting Swarzak when the White Sox were ready to deal him (July 26) could have helped mitigate some of the 3 walk-off losses we experienced between that date and the trade deadline.

  • USAFChief and Oldgoat_MN like this

#102 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,452 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 08:30 AM

It was 0.69 bWAR at the time of the trade. By bWAR, it was a top ~20 relief performance in the AL, not exactly the kind of thing contenders usually trade away. So it would seem most teams value that as potentially difference-making. (Plus, Kintzler has actually out-performed that pace so far by 0.5 bWAR with Washington, which could have made a top 10 relief performance in the AL as of today.)

Also, the difference you are describing -- Kintzler or no Kintzler -- is between standing pat and selling. But the complaint here is that we didn't buy when we had the chance -- we could have added another player at the deadline, plus keep Kintzler. Joe Smith and Anthony Swarzak were cheap and have already posted 0.3 bWAR each for their new teams, for example. And as a bonus, getting Smith would have kept him from Cleveland, or getting Swarzak when the White Sox were ready to deal him (July 26) could have helped mitigate some of the 3 walk-off losses we experienced between that date and the trade deadline.


I don't disagree with any of that, really.
You are right that true contenders do place value on acquiring even 1 win the rest of the way.
At the time of the trade, however, they were pretty big long shots (around 6%, I believe). And to a 16:1 long shot, that one win is less likely to make a difference.
I agree they could have acquired help sooner, but regarding Kintzler in a vacuum, hindsight is 20/20, I don't want the FO making bets on 16:1 shots, I want them planning for the 94% likelihood. So, I'll never have a problem with it, even if it does end up being the difference.

#103 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 11,873 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 09:26 AM

 

I don't disagree with any of that, really.
You are right that true contenders do place value on acquiring even 1 win the rest of the way.
At the time of the trade, however, they were pretty big long shots (around 6%, I believe). And to a 16:1 long shot, that one win is less likely to make a difference.
I agree they could have acquired help sooner, but regarding Kintzler in a vacuum, hindsight is 20/20, I don't want the FO making bets on 16:1 shots, I want them planning for the 94% likelihood. So, I'll never have a problem with it, even if it does end up being the difference.

I don't know if I want the FO paying that much attention to day-to-day odds.  By the same measures, a week earlier, they were more like 6:1 shots.  And per Fangraphs Depth Charts, that was with a very pessimistic .464 projected rest-of-season winning percentage (worse than every AL team but the White Sox), despite a .505 winning percentage at the time:

http://www.fangraphs...date=2017-07-23

 

And even when they were 16:1 long shots, it was almost entirely because of the Royals winning streak. On July 23rd, Fangraphs was projecting the Royals finishing at 82 wins, with a 3:1 shot at the postseason.  On July 30th, just one week later, they were up to 85-86 wins, and ~60% chance at the postseason.  If you didn't believe that was an accurate snapshot of the Royals true talent level, then you didn't really have to buy those 16:1 odds either.

 

I think the more reasonable assumption was that the Twins, despite their short-term ups and downs, were always within sight of 81-82 projected wins which has them at ~25% playoff odds today, along with a few other undistinguished clubs (including the Royals, Mariners, Angels, etc.).

  • USAFChief, Mike Sixel and pbrezeasap like this

#104 Oldgoat_MN

Oldgoat_MN

    A starter, please.

  • Members
  • 1,799 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 09:42 AM

 

Garver will get his chance. It just shows that they really like Gimenez as the backup, probably more for his intangible leadership skills, more than his physical skills. I'll bet Mikes monthly salary that Garver will be up before the end of the year. Does a few weeks sooner really make any difference???

Has anyone asked Mike how he feels about this?

I'm guessing he was rather counting on that being in his bank account.

But what the hell. I'm in.

  • USAFChief, Mike Sixel, wsnydes and 1 other like this

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet just because it has a name or a photo you recognize.

- Abraham Lincoln


#105 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 23,259 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 09:55 AM

 

Has anyone asked Mike how he feels about this?

I'm guessing he was rather counting on that being in his bank account.

But what the hell. I'm in.

 

hahahahaha. Ya, I don't think UPS and MN Morris would think that's a good idea either....genuine laugh. thanks!

  • Oldgoat_MN likes this

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#106 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,452 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:05 AM

I don't know if I want the FO paying that much attention to day-to-day odds. By the same measures, a week earlier, they were more like 6:1 shots. And per Fangraphs Depth Charts, that was with a very pessimistic .464 projected rest-of-season winning percentage (worse than every AL team but the White Sox), despite a .505 winning percentage at the time:
http://www.fangraphs...date=2017-07-23

And even when they were 16:1 long shots, it was almost entirely because of the Royals winning streak. On July 23rd, Fangraphs was projecting the Royals finishing at 82 wins, with a 3:1 shot at the postseason. On July 30th, just one week later, they were up to 85-86 wins, and ~60% chance at the postseason. If you didn't believe that was an accurate snapshot of the Royals true talent level, then you didn't really have to buy those 16:1 odds either.

I think the more reasonable assumption was that the Twins, despite their short-term ups and downs, were always within sight of 81-82 projected wins which has them at ~25% playoff odds today, along with a few other undistinguished clubs (including the Royals, Mariners, Angels, etc.).


Even still, if it's only 25%, I want the FO planning for the 75% to happen.
Don't go chasing waterfalls, as TLC once said.

#107 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 11,873 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:13 AM

 

Even still, if it's only 25%, I want the FO planning for the 75% to happen.
Don't go chasing waterfalls, as TLC once said.

Depends on what the plans are.  Selling for minor league depth doesn't seem like it's necessarily worth chasing either, at those odds.  Buying with minor league depth wouldn't make much difference in long-term plans either. The 2009 Twins trade deadline is an interesting parallel.


#108 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,452 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:20 AM

Depends on what the plans are. Selling for minor league depth doesn't seem like it's necessarily worth chasing either, at those odds. Buying with minor league depth wouldn't make much difference in long-term plans either. The 2009 Twins trade deadline is an interesting parallel.


Well I'd say that's one way to look at.
I'd say another way to look at it is that, while Watson alone may be unlikely to be a significant mlb contributor, you do often see guys that weren't top prospects become really good MLB players. And, maybe the FO thinks that the more of those type of guys you acquire, the better your odds of hitting on one or two of them.
  • Mike Sixel likes this

#109 VirginSturgeon

VirginSturgeon

    Elizabethton

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:28 AM

I have no problem with the trades at all because it does bring depth to minor league pitching which we need after seeing all the injuries we have had down there. I was an avid Kintzler fan but he could not keep that pace up all season. He was showing kinks in the armor the last week he was here. The Garcia trade I really like because Enns could end up being better than Jaime altogether for the rest of the year. The offense has improved and that is the biggest reason we will make the playoffs. If Sano comes around and improve his K rate we could make some noise in the post season. I personally have full confidence in the front office and am excited to see what the offseason brings!
  • Oldgoat_MN likes this

#110 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 11,873 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:42 AM

 

Well I'd say that's one way to look at.
I'd say another way to look at it is that, while Watson alone may be unlikely to be a significant mlb contributor, you do often see guys that weren't top prospects become really good MLB players. And, maybe the FO thinks that the more of those type of guys you acquire, the better your odds of hitting on one or two of them.

I'd agree with "better odds" but how much better?  It was probably a net of 1-3 players, depending on how you value some of the pieces.  At meaningful outcomes (i.e. better than marginal relievers), the difference based on quantity is probably negligible.  Could easily be washed out by 25% playoff odds.


#111 jun

jun

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 373 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:58 AM

It's not a good idea to trade with Nationals.

#112 Blackjack

Blackjack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 724 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 11:56 AM

 

Has anyone asked Mike how he feels about this?

I'm guessing he was rather counting on that being in his bank account.

But what the hell. I'm in.

We could be a months worth of your salary, but since your handle is 'Oldgoat', I'm guessing you're on social security, and that Mike can afford it more than you can.Unless you're a rich Oldgoat!!! :)

 

Two weeks to roster expansion, Garver will be up soon. 

  • Oldgoat_MN likes this

#113 birdwatcher

birdwatcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 12:33 PM

They may not succeed, and probably won't, at either bringing in someone worthwhile or doing that and claiming a WC spot, but I do think Falvine is telling the truth when saying they're trying to find ways to take advantage of any opportunities out there.

 

I have no idea whether Kintzler or Hildenberger is going to be the better contributor to his team over the next month. All I know is I want my GM looking to sell from surplus, any surplus, to fill holes, any holes, IF he can win the trade over the longer haul. It was my biggest criticism of the last GM and might be one of my best hopes for the current guys. I just believe a team absolutely has to incorporate an active trading and FA acquisition strategy if they have designs on sustained excellence. 

 

Short-term fixes concern me. Mistakes can set a franchise back badly. In a weird way, the Capps for Ramos trade has ultimately cost us many wins plus Hicks and netted us Moya. Span wasn't a surplus asset. So I say Falvine, transact business 24/7/364, just don't screw up. Don't pay so much attention to the standings that you're tempted to do something stupid. Instead, take advantage of teams who are willing to make a longer-term "sacrifice" to attempt (and often fail) to fix a near-term issue.

 

I also wonder if, by thinking of Falvine's recent acquisitions simply as minor league depth, we not underestimating the returns. Moya was a Southern League All-Star, the league's pitcher of the month in June, a lefty with some gas, age 22. I think every one of the other guys were ranked within their organization in their top 20, Enns perhaps falling off after injury, and the reports on every one of them are pretty good. And maybe the most important acquisition of all is the half mil in IFA money. This organization, uninformed opinions to the contrary, has done a very good job at finding value for $500k. Guys like Thorpe, Romero, etc.

Edited by birdwatcher, 14 August 2017 - 12:35 PM.

  • SwainZag likes this

#114 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 11,873 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 02:26 PM

Bringing up Ramos for Capps isn't helpful in this context, because clearly that's not the market price for a decent rental reliever in 2017 (if it even was back in 2010 :) ).

 

And I don't mean the new acquisitions are necessarily "minor league depth" like org depth (although Enns might be close to that), I mean they are C+ prospect depth.  Hoping for the best, one of them might even contribute down the road, but at this point, there is nothing to suggest that the Twins outsmarted the market by acquiring these guys.

 

Also, I'm not really including Moya in this analysis of the proceeds of the "sell" trades.Murphy hadn't appeared in a MLB game all season.