Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Twins should be taking advantage of this market

  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#141 Supfin99

Supfin99

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 23 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 10:42 AM

I'd drop Reed and Hildenberger for two of Tyler Clippard, Bud Norris, Ryan Madson and Nick Vincent right now. All of whom will likely get a one year deal if not even a minor league deal.
 
I might drop them anyway, actually.


Hildenberger was great for his 1st 90 innings of his career and then really bad for his last 30 innings last year. As late as July 15h his ERA was 2.88. Bud Norris career era 4.45 and last year was 1st year below 4 ERA in 7 years. Tyler Clippard managed more than 14 innings last year for 1st time in 3 years. Madson’s ERA was 5.47 last year. What’s more likely to happen, a mid 30’s reliever with history of massive volatility has a great year or a 28 year old with bad 2 months regains his form? Also quick note Hildenberger, he gave up 20 of his season total of 44 earned runs in just 7 outings covering just 4 and a third innings. Nearly half the runs he allowed for the season. In the other 67 appearances covering 68 and 2/3 innings he gave up 56 hits, 22 walks and struck out 63 for an ERA of 3.14. I know stats can be cherry picked but this is a guy that even last year in a 2nd half struggle was a very good pitcher 90% of the time. He is team controlled for 4 more years, makes 500K and has been a Twin for his entire professional career. Maybe let’s give him just a little more rope before writing him off.
  • Miggy's Little Helper and sweetmusicviola16 like this

#142 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,828 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 12:06 PM

 

I think both Cron and Schoop would have received more through the arbitration process than they did from the Twins. The reason they were dfa'd was not that they aren't good or at least pretty good players, it was the arbitration process was making them relatively expensive in relation to their production. A team with greater resources might have kept those players, because either or both has a good chance to outproduce whoever replaces them. However, there is a pretty large pool of similar players available, maybe even from your minor league system, so a team can gamble on adequate production, and use the money saved elsewhere.

In the case of Cleveland, their great players are getting enough thru the arbitration, that Cleveland had little choice(apparently) but to spend less on their secondary players.

Now again, the Twins are nowhere near that situation. But while the Twins probably could spend $40 million more this year, and probably next year as well, they are seemingly avoiding committing to that kind of money long term. At least right now. That makes sense to me. Signing Harper or Machado would clearly make the Twins better now, and perhaps the next year too, but at some point players in their prime will have to be moved in order to keep either one. It may even happen that at some point that either Harper or Machado will not be any better than than an in house replacement but will be virtually impossible to trade.

Now I would like to see the Twins try to sign Keuchel. But you cannot get him for less than 4 years, probably. Whether he can stay healthy and effective for 4 years is one question. What you have to give up to keep him that long would be the other.

Exactly, but it's different to say that teams choose to replace players rather than they're forced to let them go. Personally I don't think it's any more of a gamble to replace a Cron or Schoop than it is to sign one of them and expect production closer to career peaks rather than valleys. 

 

Signing a Harper or Machado doesn't preclude the Twins from holding onto their younger players, unless you think they'll be unwilling to spend above league average, which itself is a greater issue. 

  • Miggy's Little Helper likes this

#143 wsnydes

wsnydes

    Winter baseball enthusiast

  • Member
  • 3,766 posts
  • LocationApple Valley

Posted 14 February 2019 - 12:31 PM

 

Albert Pujlos produced .4WAR over the past 4 years
Price Fielder – Produced .4 WAR over his last 5 seasons
Melivin Upton – Averaged .38 WAR over 5 seasons
Josh Hamilton produced .4 WAR over his last 3 seasons
Jason Heyward, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Chris Davis all would be cut.
Annabal Sanchez produced .73 WAR over the last 3 seasons of his deal.
Cueto and Zimmerman have been under 1 WAR per season the last couple years. 
CJ Wilson produced 2.2 WAR over his last 3 seasons.

 

There are also several high-end RPs that produced less than 1 WAR in the last year of their deals and other players who produced adequately enough to make it debatable if they were detrimental.Had these players been on shorter deals, those teams would have had even more money to absorb an even greater portion of the FA market.Perhaps more importantly, they could have improved their teams if not saddled with these bad contracts.Therefore, I don’t agree the result would have been the same.Those teams would have had even greater dominance over the FA market and in all likelihood would have have improved their teams if those players were not under contract.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not debating that they'd dominate the market. My point is that they're doing it now. Despite the payrolls of the Dodgers, Cubs and Yankees, they're still at the very least reportedly looking in to Machado and Harper. Their payroll or even roster composition doesn't seem to deter them at all. Also, despite having the third highest payroll in MLB, the Red Sox still went out and got JD Martinez last offseason. This coming after an offseason in which they brought in David Price and traded for Chris Sale (with Ortiz coming off the books). You don't see the Rays or Milwaukee or KC linked to these guys, it's still the big market teams. Obviously we don't know where those two are going to land, but it's not going to be in TB. In my view, your scenario just drives the price up for the player and they still just go to a big market - which is what is happening now. There's no difference between the two scenarios in my view. Either way, the best players will still go to the big markets.

 

 

"Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes it rains." 


#144 Jim Hahn

Jim Hahn

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 138 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 01:34 PM

Exactly, but it's different to say that teams choose to replace players rather than they're forced to let them go. Personally I don't think it's any more of a gamble to replace a Cron or Schoop than it is to sign one of them and expect production closer to career peaks rather than valleys. 
 
Signing a Harper or Machado doesn't preclude the Twins from holding onto their younger players, unless you think they'll be unwilling to spend above league average, which itself is a greater issue.


I suspect we are closer to thinking similarly on these ideas, I am probably not expressing myself that well.

To your second point, I doubt if the Twins win spend to league average. Even if they did, it could be very difficult to keep all of the young core guys with a Harper or Machado on the roster. If you did you could end up with a stars and scrubs situation, which can leave you entirely dependent on the health and productivity of your stars.

To your first point. We all hope it becomes a choice. Assuming the current core gets close to their perceived ceilings, it would be very fine if our highly rated farm system allows the front office to make those choices. If those type of players are good enough, you can choose to trade or even dfa players who get expensive and replace them with players who have a good chance of being as good or possibly better. This would allow you the choice you are talking about. There are fewer good gambles to replace players as they get expensive, if your farm system can't produce those players.
  • Mike Sixel and Riverbrian like this

#145 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,828 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 02:48 PM

 

I suspect we are closer to thinking similarly on these ideas, I am probably not expressing myself that well.

To your second point, I doubt if the Twins win spend to league average. Even if they did, it could be very difficult to keep all of the young core guys with a Harper or Machado on the roster. If you did you could end up with a stars and scrubs situation, which can leave you entirely dependent on the health and productivity of your stars.

To your first point. We all hope it becomes a choice. Assuming the current core gets close to their perceived ceilings, it would be very fine if our highly rated farm system allows the front office to make those choices. If those type of players are good enough, you can choose to trade or even dfa players who get expensive and replace them with players who have a good chance of being as good or possibly better. This would allow you the choice you are talking about. There are fewer good gambles to replace players as they get expensive, if your farm system can't produce those players.

I could certainly be guilty of misreading it as well. 

 

They'd have to exceed league average to absorb a large signing and hold onto core young players. What little optimism I have regarding this organization's willingness to commit to winning remembers their 10' and 11' payrolls and thinks it might happen. 

 

Maybe this is where I misunderstood, but I took your OP to mean that teams weren't able to hold onto guys like Schoop and Cron because they couldn't afford to. IMO those players become fringe roster types due to the ease with which they can be replaced, rather than teams letting them go against their own desires. Whether it's an internal option, or a FA, there's a large enough pool for teams to choose their "gambles." 

Edited by KirbyDome89, 14 February 2019 - 02:50 PM.


#146 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,864 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 02:59 PM

 

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not debating that they'd dominate the market. My point is that they're doing it now. Despite the payrolls of the Dodgers, Cubs and Yankees, they're still at the very least reportedly looking in to Machado and Harper. Their payroll or even roster composition doesn't seem to deter them at all. Also, despite having the third highest payroll in MLB, the Red Sox still went out and got JD Martinez last offseason. This coming after an offseason in which they brought in David Price and traded for Chris Sale (with Ortiz coming off the books). You don't see the Rays or Milwaukee or KC linked to these guys, it's still the big market teams. Obviously we don't know where those two are going to land, but it's not going to be in TB. In my view, your scenario just drives the price up for the player and they still just go to a big market - which is what is happening now. There's no difference between the two scenarios in my view. Either way, the best players will still go to the big markets.

 

I understand where you are coming from I just don’t agree it’s all the same. If the contracts mentioned were shorter, those teams would have had hundreds of millions of incremental dollars to spend while losing very little production. If those teams maintain the same level of spending, that will absorb even more of the available talent. This is not a theory, it is a certainty if we accept the premise they would continue to spend at the same rate.

 

The other probable difference is that those teams become even better because of the propensity for poor performance in the latter years of these contracts. In other words, those exceptionally poor producing players will be replaced by players that likely perform better. Therefore, the big market teams absorbing this talent will be better which is a tangible difference between the two scenarios.


#147 wsnydes

wsnydes

    Winter baseball enthusiast

  • Member
  • 3,766 posts
  • LocationApple Valley

Posted 14 February 2019 - 03:25 PM

 

I understand where you are coming from I just don’t agree it’s all the same. If the contracts mentioned were shorter, those teams would have had hundreds of millions of incremental dollars to spend while losing very little production. If those teams maintain the same level of spending, that will absorb even more of the available talent. This is not a theory, it is a certainty if we accept the premise they would continue to spend at the same rate.

 

The other probable difference is that those teams become even better because of the propensity for poor performance in the latter years of these contracts. In other words, those exceptionally poor producing players will be replaced by players that likely perform better. Therefore, the big market teams absorbing this talent will be better which is a tangible difference between the two scenarios.

I think where our primary differences lie is in the next tier of FA players. In my view, currently the big market teams identify an area where they can improve and go and improve it. That includes the big names, it includes the next tier, it includes all levels of FA. It includes trading for players (i.e. Chris Sale). There are still roster limits and assuming the luxury tax still exists (or something similar to it), it won't be a completely free market for lower tier FA's. Of course, revenue streams will always be a consideration. 

 

Part of how the big market teams remain competitive year in and year out is by drafting and developing well and then trading those pieces for areas of need. 

 

There's also the flip side of this. The long term risk exposure gets reduced so perhaps the smaller market teams start jumping into the mix on the 2nd tier FAs. I imagine that the big names will still go to the large markets though. In my view, typically what scares smaller market teams away from a FA is the term, not necessarily the dollar though obviously there are instances where both are prohibitive. Obviously the large market teams are better able to absorb the risk involved with 10 year type deals.

 

We can agree to disagree, I'm perfectly fine with that. I've enjoyed the debate!

  • Major League Ready likes this

"Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes it rains." 


#148 less cowbell more neau

less cowbell more neau

    Elizabethton Twins

  • Member
  • 46 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 03:53 PM

 

 

They also should have signed players that could easily be flipped for prospects at the trade deadline. 

 

I thought that was their strategy.

"Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi." -Bob Wilton