Big League Stew Offseason Grades For All 30 Teams

[glunn]

Moderator note -- the personal attacks in this thread are unacceptable.  Please cut it out.

[Thrylos]

 

I don't know - seems like the Twins did ok.  They upgraded at C, DH, CF and RF (assuming Park works out).  They have a good young pieces to plug in (that they shouldn't block) and enough pieces to fix the pen.  They'll be fine.

 

Given that Sano > Park, Murphy is a question mark, Hicks > Buxton (at least last season) and Sano's fielding might determine whether he sticks at RF or not,   I would say that, other than C, they took a step back.

 

Plus, they did not address their most glaring weakness, their bullpen.

 

So D- is pretty generous, if you ask me...

[Boom Boom]

I mostly agree with this. I'd give the Murphy/Hicks a lower grade because I'm not convinced a BABIP as high as Murphy had can be sustained. Additionally, it's a backup spot, at least for 2016.

 

Also, I don't think Park was a big risk, but I agree it's a position of un-need as you put it.

I actually like Murphy more than most, but I was also a bigger fan of Hicks than most. I give them a B because they desperately needed a catcher.

 

Park isn't a huge monetary risk, but it's not a short deal, and that money could have easily afforded some bullpen help.

[brvama]

Ones man opinion and as far as I'm concerned "so what?" Let the games begin!

[jimmer]

 

I actually like Murphy more than most, but I was also a bigger fan of Hicks than most. I give them a B because they desperately needed a catcher.

Park isn't a huge monetary risk, but it's not a short deal, and that money could have easily afforded some bullpen help.

Indeed, but Murphy's .730ish OPS was helped by playing so much in a hitter's park which gave him a BABIP of .357 (and even higher in 2014).   I hope he works out but can't just praise it as a very good move because I don't trust that BABIP staying anywhere close to that high

[jimmer]

Here's one thing I would have done to improve the rotation.  I would have gotten quality relief help so May could be put into the rotation where he belongs as opposed to wasting his talents in the pen.  We have rotation depth, just not that much high end quality to fill out a starting five, certainly not enough to waste May in the bullpen.

[USAFChief]

Did Twins management put the Twins in a decent position to win the ALC and get into the post season? And if healthy going into said post season, a reasonable shot at a WS?

 

If no, then the winter was a bust, IMO. That's the object. All talk about "overpriced" is pretty much beside the point. The objective isn't to save money. Cars are overpriced, but not buying one doesn't mean I save money getting to work, it means I don't get to work at all.

 

"d-" or "d+" or "c"... The specific grade isn't the point. The point is...pretty poor job of improving the team's chances, IMO.

[bird]

If you want to hand out a D grade specifically based on external moves made during the off-season, fine.

I don't, but maybe I'm not as prescient as others who are convinced about what we're going to get from Murphy and Park, and how terrible the BP is going to be. That said, the criticism about the Twins stating that relief pitching was a priority and then doing so little to address it is valid. 

 

However. Please don't try to argue that the ONLY means of ensuring improvement is via off-season transactions. Give the decision-makers at least a modicum of credit for the decisions to stay the course, or to NOT take an action. Give them at least SOME benefit of the doubt periodically. If you expect a full seson of Sano to improve the team, for example, give them a little credit for God's sake. 

 

Don't cloud the argument up. They can get a poor grade for off-season transactions and simultaneously get a better grade for positioning the team for improvement in 2016.

 

We can still have good discussions about whether they improved the team enough, whether they lost ground to the competition, whether specific decisions are good ones, etc.

[bird]

 

Here's one thing I would have done to improve the rotation.  I would have gotten quality relief help so May could be put into the rotation where he belongs as opposed to wasting his talents in the pen.  We have rotation depth, just not that much high end quality to fill out a starting five, certainly not enough to waste May in the bullpen.

 

 

Okay, I can buy this. So, had they signed Bastardo, they would've gotten an A from jimmer?

[bird]

Park was a need. A stated need. Disagree with that, but Ryan was clear about it going in to the winter. And disagree about whether Park meets the need too.

[USAFChief]

If you want to hand out a D grade specifically based on external moves made during the off-season, fine.

I don't, but maybe I'm not as prescient as others who are convinced about what we're going to get from Murphy and Park, and how terrible the BP is going to be. That said, the criticism about the Twins stating that relief pitching was a priority and then doing so little to address it is valid. 

 

However. Please don't try to argue that the ONLY means of ensuring improvement is via off-season transactions. Give the decision-makers at least a modicum of credit for the decisions to stay the course, or to NOT take an action. Give them at least SOME benefit of the doubt periodically. If you expect a full seson of Sano to improve the team, for example, give them a little credit for God's sake. 

 

Don't cloud the argument up. They can get a poor grade for off-season transactions and simultaneously get a better grade for positioning the team for improvement in 2016.

 

We can still have good discussions about whether they improved the team enough, whether they lost ground to the competition, whether specific decisions are good ones, etc.

Fair points.

[nicksaviking]

Obviously plenty of guys have that chance, but assembling a roster is often about getting the guys with the best chances, or at least notably better chances. The Twins have no internal youngsters who have nearly as good a chance as Lowe to be good in 2016, much less on opening day.

As I said, I like Lowe. No other free agent pitchers excited me though.

 

But even still, this club almost always bets on middling vets with next to no upside, banking on experience instead of the physical superiority that is with the youth. I'm thrilled they changed that aspect and gave themselves such a small safety net this year. Hopefully they'll finally have to play their hand and prove whether or not they can draft and develop these guys.

[DaveW]

D- is way too generous, Terry Ryan simply dropped the freaking ball worse than Juan Castro in the old BYTO meme.

 

The Twins are a team that missed out on the playoffs by only a couple games, have a bunch of young players and seem to be on the upswing...a key signing or two could put them over the top! Instead we trade our starting CF for a backup catcher, and sign a promising DH type (a position no where near a position of need) and fail to pave the way in our rotation for any of our young studs like May or Berrios off the bat.

 

F

[TheLeviathan]

 

If you want to hand out a D grade specifically based on external moves made during the off-season, fine.

I don't, but maybe I'm not as prescient as others who are convinced about what we're going to get from Murphy and Park, and how terrible the BP is going to be. That said, the criticism about the Twins stating that relief pitching was a priority and then doing so little to address it is valid. 

 

However. Please don't try to argue that the ONLY means of ensuring improvement is via off-season transactions. Give the decision-makers at least a modicum of credit for the decisions to stay the course, or to NOT take an action. Give them at least SOME benefit of the doubt periodically. If you expect a full seson of Sano to improve the team, for example, give them a little credit for God's sake. 

 

Don't cloud the argument up. They can get a poor grade for off-season transactions and simultaneously get a better grade for positioning the team for improvement in 2016.

 

We can still have good discussions about whether they improved the team enough, whether they lost ground to the competition, whether specific decisions are good ones, etc.

 

I agree, they MAY be better next year without diving into free agency.  With a young team like this I think anything from 75 wins to 90 wins is feasible depending upon how those young guys adjust to the difficulty of the major leagues.

 

For me, the offseason probably deserves a C, mostly because I think there were options to improve the one area that needed it (bullpen) and the team was even more reluctant than I could've feared.

 

I'm ok with Hicks for Murphy, mostly because I don't think much of Hicks as a long term player.  I'm ok with the gamble on Park.  I just would've liked the team to give itself a strikeout arm out of the pen rather than being content with Fien.  

 

But I can't quibble with this grade.  It's grading winter efforts to improve the club and the Twins didn't do that.  They're banking on spring and summer improvements from their kids.  I'm cool with that, looking forward to seeing them play.  But I'm under no illusion that I know how that's going to go either so some insurance in the bullpen would've helped me feel better.

[old nurse]

 

If you're content that the team needs nothing, than accept your D for doing nothing because you feel it wasn't necessary.

 

I don't get why people are so resistant to judging what the team actually did - which is very little - to improve.  If you're content with the improvements having to be internal (a perfectly fair position to hold) - why the hell do you care how they are judged in adding outside assets?

 

 

You're attempting justify their inaction, and perhaps it works out as you think, but that doesn't change the fact they didn't address they bullpen like they said they needed to do.  They didn't, whether you think they should have or not they clearly said they should and they didn't.

 

Additionally, is Perkins really healthy and able to go a full year?  I don't know. Do you?  Does the inaction ensure May has to stay in the bullpen instead of going to the rotation where he should be? Yes.

If in the end what is available to sign for bullpen help is no better than you got, you don't sign.  There were relievers moved that they could have traded for. They could have put together similar packages and upgraded. When starters go down on other teams, the Twins will be able to make moves. Time is on their side

[PseudoSABR]

 

How did it blow up? Lowe, Clippard, Bastardo, and Kelley, to name a few, signed around or below common expectations. Frankly, O'Day did too, and Soria and Sipp didn't get that much more than most estimates either. K Rod and Benoit were traded rather cheaply too.

Seems like an exagerration to say the market exploded based primarily on Ryan Madson, or the Kimbrel & Giles trades.

Perhaps blow up was too strong of a phrase, but I think all those guys are overpaid (perhaps with the exception of Lowe) when compared to previous years markets for similar players and their value added to the team.  Tom Verducci penned an article in December noting the phenomenon I'm talking about. 

[Platoon]

If I gave the Twins a D it would be about who they didnt get rid of, not who they didn't acquire. They did nothing to clean up the roster glut of mediocre starters, and ended up with the corner on almost all the DH's in baseball. Adding an outside bull pen guy would not have put May in the rotation. There's just too many bad contracts there for him to crack the starting 5!

[TheLeviathan]

 

Perhaps blow up was too strong of a phrase, but I think all those guys are overpaid (perhaps with the exception of Lowe) when compared to previous years markets for similar players and their value added to the team.  Tom Verducci penned an article in December noting the phenomenon I'm talking about. 

 

You don't think the current World Champs have influenced the perception of value for relievers?

 

Look, baseball is flush with money and it's only getting more flush.  We'll probably say the same thing about reliever deals in four years too.

 

If you choose not to pay to play, so be it.  But there were options.

[gunnarthor]

I'd have loved to added Clippard but we'll be ok without him.  I sure didn't want Sipp at 3/18.  This seems a lot like last year when the pessimistic fans were lamenting the Hunter signing while missing the obvious improvement of the team.  I remember arguing with Mike and Jimmer to no end about the status of the rebuild and how it looked like a .500 team.  Things don't seem to change.  I see this team as in pretty good position and a FO that understands that it needs to see what it has.  They'll be fine.

[PseudoSABR]

 

You don't think the current World Champs have influenced the perception of value for relievers?

 

Look, baseball is flush with money and it's only getting more flush.  We'll probably say the same thing about reliever deals in four years too.

 

If you choose not to pay to play, so be it.  But there were options.

Clearly, KC's success influenced the market conditions, and I'm not saying this is dispositive but the statistical projection systems don't seem to like their approach.  

 

Given what the Twins have in the minors, they decided to wait the market out; that strategy may not have worked out as late signees (Clippard/Bastardo) were getting more 6 million a year, but I think it was prudent risk none the less. 

[jimmer]

'I'd have loved to added Clippard but we'll be ok without him.I sure didn't want Sipp at 3/18.This seems a lot like last year when the pessimistic fans were lamenting the Hunter signing while missing the obvious improvement of the team.I remember arguing with Mike and Jimmer to no end about the status of the rebuild and how it looked like a .500 team.Things don't seem to change.I see this team as in pretty good position and a FO that understands that it needs to see what it has.They'll be fine.'

 

And I'm happy the team ended up over .500, but that doesn't mean the talent called for it.  Sequencing was awesome for us last year (which is why we can end up with being 8th in the AL in runs while being last in the AL for OBP and 13th in OPS) and we had one huge month.

 

Baseruns had us about 10 wins less and pythag had us three wins less. So I'm happy we outplayed it, but the talent on the team doesn't suggest we should be able to do that.  And the talent hasn't changed that much, so we'll see how it works this year. I hope I'm wrong again. Then again, if I'm right, I won't be happy nor trying to minimize the opinions that differed from mine by pointing out they were wrong about their projected record.  

 

Oh, and Hunter was still a bad signing. He gave us less than a win for 10M+.  Yet you keep preaching about overspending?  Hunter, at the time of the signing, was a textbook definition of overpaying. And that didn't change at the end of the season. His signing wasn't a good one because we ended up with more wins than our talent dictated.

[DaveW]

 

If I gave the Twins a D it would be about who they didnt get rid of, not who they didn't acquire. They did nothing to clean up the roster glut of mediocre starters, and ended up with the corner on almost all the DH's in baseball. Adding an outside bull pen guy would not have put May in the rotation. There's just too many bad contracts there for him to crack the starting 5!

Yup! 100%. If they could have traded Plouffe and opened up 3B for Sano it would have been better IMO, and all they had to do is sign ONE LEGIT RP. It's really not asking that much.

 

I still don't like how our  OF looks to begin the season, there is a TON of pressure on Buxton to produce immediately, and that makes me nervous.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Perhaps blow up was too strong of a phrase, but I think all those guys are overpaid (perhaps with the exception of Lowe) when compared to previous years markets for similar players and their value added to the team. Tom Verducci penned an article in December noting the phenomenon I'm talking about.

Verducci used Lowe as one of his top examples.

 

That Verducci article is all over the place, and lacks relevant comparisons. Of course relievers are getting more money than in the past, everybody is (in MLB anyway). That Verducci argument sounds a lot like the posts here that say "$11 million is a lot of money for a guy like Mark Lowe."

 

Also note that article is from December, before guys like Clippard and Bastardo settled for smaller deals. I am sure there were articles from early recent offseasons bemoaning the crazy SP market based on Ervin Santana's expectation of a $100 mil or even $75 mil contract that never actually materialized.

[gunnarthor]

 

'I'd have loved to added Clippard but we'll be ok without him.I sure didn't want Sipp at 3/18.This seems a lot like last year when the pessimistic fans were lamenting the Hunter signing while missing the obvious improvement of the team.I remember arguing with Mike and Jimmer to no end about the status of the rebuild and how it looked like a .500 team.Things don't seem to change.I see this team as in pretty good position and a FO that understands that it needs to see what it has.They'll be fine.'

 

And I'm happy the team ended up over .500, but that doesn't mean the talent called for it.  Sequencing was awesome for us last year (which is why we can end up with being 8th in the AL in runs while being last in the AL for OBP and 13th in OPS) and we had one winning month.

 

Baseruns had us about 10 wins less and pythag had us three wins less. So I'm happy we outplayed it, but the talent on the team doesn't suggest we should be able to do that.  And the talent hasn't changed that much, so we'll see how it works this year. I hope I'm wrong again. Then again, if I'm right, I won't be happy nor trying to minimize the opinions that differed from mine by pointing out they were wrong about their projected record.  

 

Oh, and Hunter was still a bad signing. He gave us less than a win for 10M+.  Yet you keep preaching about overspending?  Hunter, at the time of the signing, was a textbook definition of overpaying. And that didn't change at the end of the season. His signing wasn't a good one because we ended up with more wins than our talent dictated.

And clearly there were things you were wrong about on the Hunter signing last year.  I find it interesting that you are using pythag this year since you discredited last year at this time, since the 2014 team underachieved substantially.

 

I think the team has improved over last years team.  I think the false narrative about "one good month" and sequencing has been overplayed.  I think the young talent we have will improve and I think we have enough depth to support and challenge those who don't.  I think it's silly to overreact to not signing a relief pitcher or take anything from PECOTA.  I think Ryan has done a pretty good job at his rebuild (again) and it's pretty clear the FO has a good idea what it has.  It's possible the Twins take a step back this year, as Schonenfeld suggests, before breaking out in 2017.  But I think they'll be fine.  We'll see.  But arguing they didn't do enough - as the author suggests - seems empty and simplistic.  (Please note that I am not calling Jimmer simple and empty). 

[PseudoSABR]

 

If you agree they didn't participate in the market...why are you complaining that they got a grade reflective of that?

 

This isn't a grade on their potential to contend this year, it's a grade on what they did.  Which you seem to be openly acknowledging was very little.  That's fine, that a defensible approach to take.  But you don't get to whine that people didn't give you an A for activity if you purposely did nothing.

1) The Twins didn't purposely do nothing.  2) They didn't participate in a market that was inflated, a market for players who contribute 70 innings.  

 

If not participating in an inflated market warrants a horrible offseason grade; I'm glad I'm not enrolled in your class.

[jimmer]

 

Yup! 100%. If they could have traded Plouffe and opened up 3B for Sano it would have been better IMO, and all they had to do is sign ONE LEGIT RP. It's really not asking that much.

 

I still don't like how our  OF looks to begin the season, there is a TON of pressure on Buxton to produce immediately, and that makes me nervous.

One has to wonder what the team was thinking when they made the call to leave Plouffe at 3B and move Sano to the OF.  

 

IF we figure that Sano's and Plouffes offensive production will be roughly what they were last year, I would think they'd leave Sano at 3B IF they thought he was close to Plouffe on defense and let Plouffe play RF.  This would keep Sano at his position and raise his value, and not hurt us so much defensively in RF.

 

It's a reason why I think they believe Sano's defense isn't close to Plouffe defensively and decided one bad defensive spot is better than two.

[TheLeviathan]

 

1) The Twins didn't purposely do nothing.  2) They didn't participate in a market that was inflated, a market for players who contribute 70 innings.  

 

If not participating in an inflated market warrants a horrible offseason grade; I'm glad I'm not enrolled in your class.

 

FA is always inflated.  That's what FA is - you always overpay.  

 

But it's not jsut that - they didn't trade for anyone either.  Let's be clear again - they....did....nothing.  This is a grade on what they did or did not do.  If you do nothing, what kind of grade do you expect?

 

If you give out As for vaguely hanging around and talking about how good you'll be next semester while never doing anything - I don't want to be in your class either.  I mean, I appreciate the baselessly easy A...but it has no merit whatsoever.

[jimmer]

 

And clearly there were things you were wrong about on the Hunter signing last year.  I find it interesting that you are using pythag this year since you discredited last year at this time, since the 2014 team underachieved substantially.

 

I think the team has improved over last years team.  I think the false narrative about "one good month" and sequencing has been overplayed.  I think the young talent we have will improve and I think we have enough depth to support and challenge those who don't.  I think it's silly to overreact to not signing a relief pitcher or take anything from PECOTA.  I think Ryan has done a pretty good job at his rebuild (again) and it's pretty clear the FO has a good idea what it has.  It's possible the Twins take a step back this year, as Schonenfeld suggests, before breaking out in 2017.  But I think they'll be fine.  We'll see.  But arguing they didn't do enough - as the author suggests - seems empty and simplistic.  (Please note that I am not calling Jimmer simple and empty). 

I don't think that's clear at all.  I said it would be a bad signing.  That he was bad offensively and defensively.  That he hadn't even been worth a win the year before and I doubt he'd be worth 10M.  All of that was right.

 

I pointed out Pythag I didn't base any argument on it alone.  I have openly stated BaseRuns is my preferred one over and over. And the 2014 team didn't under-perform.  Bad team, bad record.

[gunnarthor]

 

FA is always inflated.  That's what FA is - you always overpay.  

 

But it's not jsut that - they didn't trade for anyone either.  Let's be clear again - they....did....nothing.  This is a grade on what they did or did not do.  If you do nothing, what kind of grade do you expect?

 

If you give out As for vaguely hanging around and talking about how good you'll be next semester - I don't want to be in your class either.

I think the grade thing is stupid but the question should be - did the Twins do stuff (either by action or inaction) that will make the 2016 team better?  I, and others, think yes.  I think a lot of potential FA signings were problematic in that they would block someone we might like and, in most cases, not really being worth it.  We see that every year.  Arguing about a guy like Sipp isn't really worth the energy. 

 

I also think the Twins are up against their payroll but they never address that.

 

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

I pointed out Pythag I didn't base any argument on it alone.  I have openly stated BaseRuns is my preferred one over and over. And the 2014 team didn't under-perform.  Bad team, bad record.

Yes, you told us all season long (and quite frequently) how the other shoe was going to drop.