Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Take Advantage of the Banked Wins

  • Please log in to reply
183 replies to this topic

#161 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Member
  • 6,538 posts

Posted 06 May 2019 - 04:18 PM

And you've been adamant with that stance, but I don't agree.
You are essentially saying that trading for a prospect is always a bad move. After all, nobody knows for sure if they'll make it.

I'm guessing the FO evaluates deals like this based on EV (expected value). I'm sure that as many variables as they can attempt to calculate are baked into this EV decision.
The fact is, some prospects WILL make it. And the ones that do, will contribute to varying degrees.
Each prospect has an EV. It's never 0, even though many will never contribute. And it's never 100, even though some prospects are near locks.

I don't want my FO passing up +EV deals, just because they are shortsighted.
They may be wrong in their evaluation, but that is a separate issue.
I want them making evaluations, then trusting them.

You do have to factor in opportunity cost as well, of course. I'll grant you that.
It'd be foolish to risk your entire net worth on a coin flip given 51% odds. Even though it's technically +EV, it's not worth the devastating risk of losing everything for such a small gain.
But, I don't view Pressley as being a devastating enough loss to pass up +EV in this case.

Again, we don't have to agree on whether this return actually was +EV, none of us know.
What matters to me is that if the FO believes it was, then I'm happy they didn't pass on it.

I want a long term, perennial contender. I don't believe that's possible for a mid budget team to accomplish by only making short term decisions.


Point one: Chief isn’t saying all trades are bad. Just ones that trade away pieces that you need and that you control during that time of need.

Second point: That’s an ironic statement. Trading away Pressly has been one of the few decisions this FO has made with long term (more than one season) implications. The others are signing Jason Castro, Addison Reed and Marwin Gonzalez. As well as the extensions of Polanco and Kepler. So, this FO track record on making non-short term decisions has not been very good - and that’s being kind.
  • Mike Sixel likes this

#162 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 7,894 posts

Posted 06 May 2019 - 04:34 PM

Point one: Chief isn’t saying all trades are bad. Just ones that trade away pieces that you need and that you control during that time of need.

Second point: That’s an ironic statement. Trading away Pressly has been one of the few decisions this FO has made with long term (more than one season) implications. The others are signing Jason Castro, Addison Reed and Marwin Gonzalez. As well as the extensions of Polanco and Kepler. So, this FO track record on making non-short term decisions has not been very good - and that’s being kind.


I never argued whether their track record, or this trade specifically, was very good or not. So why is that ironic?
I simply stated that, philosophically, I don't want them only focusing on the short term.
How successful those moves are is a completely different argument than the one you highlighted.

As to that argument. Reed looks like a bad signing. But Castro has already been worth 2.8 bWAR with 5 months left to add to that. That signing has already been a success.
Gonzalez is far to early to judge, and so are the Polanco and Kepler extensions, though those look brilliant with the small sample size we have so far.
Martin Perez is under control for 2 years. Again, too early to judge, but that looks brilliant with the SS we have.
Jake Odorizzi was acquired for a fringe prospect, he's provided 2.5 bWAR, that's more than likely a slam dunk.

I don't understand how these are bad moves.
  • birdwatcher and Mike Sixel like this

#163 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His Velocity?

  • Member
  • 13,084 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 07 May 2019 - 08:05 AM

The next 19 games are against non-playoff teams last season. Most likely non-playoff teams this season...

It's not crazy to think this team will be double digit games above .500 after this stretch.

Edited by Vanimal46, 07 May 2019 - 08:06 AM.

  • dbminn likes this

#164 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His Velocity?

  • Member
  • 13,084 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 08 May 2019 - 08:15 AM

  • Mike Sixel, spycake and Sconnie like this

#165 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 17,010 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 09:25 AM

 

 

And again, very similar story at Fangraphs: Twins 53.6%, Cleveland 46.1%. (Preseason, Cleveland was 88.6% vs the Twins 11.1%.)

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds

  • Sconnie likes this

#166 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 7,894 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 09:27 AM

Those odds must factor in that there will be a mid air collision between MIN and CLE's planes once every 100 simulations? If not, KC having 1% is nonsense.
  • MVP Nick Punto likes this

#167 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 17,010 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 09:42 AM

 

Those odds must factor in that there will be a mid air collision between MIN and CLE's planes once every 100 simulations? If not, KC having 1% is nonsense.

BP must be incorporating 2019 Pythag and/or BaseRuns a bit, where the Royals are notably better than their actual record so far (and by the same token, Cleveland's Pythag/BaseRuns records are worse).

 

Fangraphs still only has KC, CHW, and DET with a combined 0.3% chance of winning the division, same as their preseason forecast. (Although using their mode that favors "Season to Date Stats", KC's chances climb to 7.3% -- again, must be the Pythag/BaseRuns effect.)

 

EDIT: FWIW, BP had KC with a 3.1% chance of winning the division preseason. So they've at least fallen significantly from that, down to 0.6%. BP must use a bit more randomness in their simulations?

Edited by spycake, 08 May 2019 - 09:48 AM.


#168 ashbury

ashbury

    Twins fan, no joke!

  • Moderator
  • 24,871 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 08 May 2019 - 09:57 AM

Indians were 81% to win the division as of Opening Day. Six weeks later they're looking up at the Twins.

Perhaps when we check back in six weeks, we will see different odds again. :)

 

I mean, I'm happy to see all the recent success, but IMO we're still in small sample size territory. Cautiously optimistic we're seeing real trends of our players improving, though.

  • diehardtwinsfan likes this

I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.


#169 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His Velocity?

  • Member
  • 13,084 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:02 AM

Perhaps when we check back in six weeks, we will see different odds again. :)

I mean, I'm happy to see all the recent success, but IMO we're still in small sample size territory. Cautiously optimistic we're seeing real trends of our players improving, though.


That's fair. I'm cautiously optimistic about the starting staff right now... Not ready to hop on the Odorizzi bandwagon yet without more evidence. Perez I feel better about since his transformation is easier to see with the new cutter in his arsenal.
  • diehardtwinsfan and Sconnie like this

#170 Joe A. Preusser

Joe A. Preusser

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:34 AM

We've started out great, but we've lost several games already due to the pen imploding. While there's no guarantee that everyone of them would have been affected by an addition to the pen, I have to think that it's a bigger need than a starter... just my 2 cents there.


I have nothing to back this up, but I assume every team in baseball has lost several games due to their pen so far this year.
  • Twinsbar107 likes this

#171 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Member
  • 31,030 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 11:22 AM

I have nothing to back this up, but I assume every team in baseball has lost several games due to their pen so far this year.


And? The goal is to get better, and the pen was an obvious spot in the off season, and still is now. Every team had lost for a lot of reasons, not sure what that means to what should have, or should now, happen.
  • diehardtwinsfan likes this

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#172 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 2,221 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 12:04 PM

While posting in another thread, I realized 4 of our 5 starters are unrestricted Free Agents this year... This seems like the opposite of sustainable success. We have no one in the minors to replace even Pineda really.

The time to win has to be NOW!! This is why trading Pressley hurts. This is why planning for 2020 and beyond was dumb to begin with, and the idea that we could add pieces on top of giving our young players large amounts in arb or extensions was even dumber.

After saying all the 1 yr deals were a mistake, the FO did the same thing this year. Well, it's worked really well. But I think it's fair to ask, "Now what?"

#173 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 17,010 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 12:11 PM

 

While posting in another thread, I realized 4 of our 5 starters are unrestricted Free Agents this year

In addition to control over Berrios, we also have a team option on Perez for 2020.
 

Also, "unrestricted" might be too far for the rest -- Odorizzi, Gibson, and Pineda are eligible to receive a qualifying offer. True, it would be a high salary, and they may not be worth it, but forcing other teams to give up a draft pick could also give us extra leverage to negotiate a better deal for their services. (Looking way ahead, Perez could get a QO after 2020 too. Hope he's worth it! :) )

  • Jham likes this

#174 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 2,221 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 12:32 PM

In addition to control over Berrios, we also have a team option on Perez for 2020.

Also, "unrestricted" might be too far for the rest -- Odorizzi, Gibson, and Pineda are eligible to receive a qualifying offer. True, it would be a high salary, and they may not be worth it, but forcing other teams to give up a draft pick could also give us extra leverage to negotiate a better deal for their services. (Looking way ahead, Perez could get a QO after 2020 too. Hope he's worth it! :) )


Thanks. The option still doubles his salary, but looks like a no-brainer at this point. I hope Pineda gets a QO. If he joins the others, this rotation could be very tough.

#175 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Moderator
  • 14,694 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 08 May 2019 - 12:35 PM

 

While posting in another thread, I realized 4 of our 5 starters are unrestricted Free Agents this year... This seems like the opposite of sustainable success. We have no one in the minors to replace even Pineda really.

The time to win has to be NOW!! This is why trading Pressley hurts. This is why planning for 2020 and beyond was dumb to begin with, and the idea that we could add pieces on top of giving our young players large amounts in arb or extensions was even dumber.

After saying all the 1 yr deals were a mistake, the FO did the same thing this year. Well, it's worked really well. But I think it's fair to ask, "Now what?"

Perez has an option... so 3 of 5... Next season will be interesting. I suspect one starter gets extended... and if things keep going well, I wouldn't be surprised if a QO went to another one. 

 

But yeah, I get your point. Wouldn't be surprised if Romero and maybe even May were starting come next season. If the win the division, I wouldn't be surprised if the team splurged on a starter too. 

  • Jham likes this

#176 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 2,221 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 01:11 PM

Perez has an option... so 3 of 5... Next season will be interesting. I suspect one starter gets extended... and if things keep going well, I wouldn't be surprised if a QO went to another one.

But yeah, I get your point. Wouldn't be surprised if Romero and maybe even May were starting come next season. If the win the division, I wouldn't be surprised if the team splurged on a starter too.


Well, Levine basically said we'd splurge to put the boot on the throat. But dang we've got pitchers and position players to extend or replace, plus arb raises. I'm starting to really like Schoop and Cron as teammates, pros, and solid players on both sides of the ball.

#177 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His Velocity?

  • Member
  • 13,084 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 08 May 2019 - 01:46 PM

But yeah, I get your point. Wouldn't be surprised if Romero and maybe even May were starting come next season. If the win the division, I wouldn't be surprised if the team splurged on a starter too.


I'm convinced Trevor May will have to pass away in order for the thought of him starting goes away. He hasn't started in 4 years. The ship has sailed.
  • ashbury and USAFChief like this

#178 Joe A. Preusser

Joe A. Preusser

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,315 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 05:35 PM

And? The goal is to get better, and the pen was an obvious spot in the off season, and still is now. Every team had lost for a lot of reasons, not sure what that means to what should have, or should now, happen.


You're not sure? Clearly the OP was indicating that because we have lost several games due to our pen, that was evidence that we should add to our pen. My post suggested his relation was not a correlation. Nowhere did I say I wouldn't like to sign a reliever, simply that to point at that piece of information and draw that conclusion might not be valid.

#179 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 7,894 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 05:36 PM

In addition to control over Berrios, we also have a team option on Perez for 2020.

Also, "unrestricted" might be too far for the rest -- Odorizzi, Gibson, and Pineda are eligible to receive a qualifying offer. True, it would be a high salary, and they may not be worth it, but forcing other teams to give up a draft pick could also give us extra leverage to negotiate a better deal for their services. (Looking way ahead, Perez could get a QO after 2020 too. Hope he's worth it! :) )


The player can turn down the QO, so they are still unrestricted free agents.
Restricted free agents have no ability to leave if their current team matches a FA offer, which baseball doesn't currently have.

#180 MVP Nick Punto

MVP Nick Punto

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 570 posts
  • LocationDuluth

Posted 09 May 2019 - 05:34 AM

Those odds must factor in that there will be a mid air collision between MIN and CLE's planes once every 100 simulations? If not, KC having 1% is nonsense.


I know my post doesn't contribute to the dialogue on a good thread, but dude, you had me laughing into my pillow to not wake my roommates up with this.