Big League Stew Offseason Grades For All 30 Teams

[PseudoSABR]

 

Lowe seemed pretty eager to sign, and I don't think he has a connection to Detroit. He isn't even likely to be their closer. The Twins showed absolutely no inclination to sign him, or any of Bastardo, Clippard, or Kelley at similar rates.

Had they made a competitive offer to Lowe, I am pretty certain we would have heard about it somehow.

Come on, you have no idea whether the Twins explored contracts with any of those pitchers.   This notion that the Twins are twiddling their thumbs all offseason needs to be put to bed.  The Twins are typically tight-lipped about this sort of stuff and when there is a report about the Twins showing interest in a player, the same collection of posters say "well the Twins are reportedly interested in everybody, but we know nothing will happen." 

[TheLeviathan]

Agreed. Let's not judge them by speculation, let's judge them by their own words:

 

Did they do a good job addressing their "priority" by trade, signing, or any other means?

 

The answer by any reasonable standard is no.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Lowe was the only free agent reliever that had me wistful both before the deal and after. However if the Twins truly give everyone a fair and just shot at winning bullpen spots, Chargois, Burdi, et. al. could all be that upgrade over Fien.

 

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.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Agreed. Let's not judge them by speculation, let's judge them by their own words:

Did they do a good job addressing their "priority" by trade, signing, or any other means?

The answer by any reasonable standard is no.

It was foolish of them to publicly suggest bullpen was a priority.  They made that statement before the market for relievers blew up, and I'm sure reassessed their priorities--which is what smart organizations should do  Again, I'm thankful the Twins didn't overpay for a reliever in FA or in trade.  I can't blame them for thinking there wasn't as much value in the reliever market this year.  

[TheLeviathan]

If you walk into free agency looking only for value you should just accept your perennial D and stop expecting anyone else to grade you differently.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Come on, you have no idea whether the Twins explored contracts with any of those pitchers. This notion that the Twins are twiddling their thumbs all offseason needs to be put to bed. The Twins are typically tight-lipped about this sort of stuff and when there is a report about the Twins showing interest in a player, the same collection of posters say "well the Twins are reportedly interested in everybody, but we know nothing will happen."

Look, I agree we'll never know exactly. But no team is so tight-lipped that they can publicly identify an area of need, and go all offseason with as little activity as the Twins had in the FA reliever market.

 

Combined with the laser-like focus of May to the pen, and public focus on lefthanders, I think it's safe to conclude the Twins sat out the FA reliever market. In this case, with the information we have, there is no other conclusion than they made a conscious but firm decision to stay on the sidelines.

 

Many here on this board have been applauding them for that decision, so I think I am being rather charitable by assuming it was part of their deliberate strategy. If the Twins were intesested in Lowe, but failed to get him and instead let him go early in the offseason to a division rival for 2/11, that's almost even worse than not pursuing any FA reliever.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It was foolish of them to publicly suggest bullpen was a priority. They made that statement before the market for relievers blew up, and I'm sure reassessed their priorities--which is what smart organizations should do Again, I'm thankful the Twins didn't overpay for a reliever in FA or in trade. I can't blame them for thinking there wasn't as much value in the reliever market this year.

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.

[gunnarthor]

If the big concern is the Twins didn't add a LOOGY, they'll be fine. They have enough in-house options to piece together a strong bullpen.  As of now, the bullpen looks to be Perkins, Jepsen and May in the main roles.  They have Fein, Tonkin, Pressly (who I like), Meyer plus possibly two starters who didn't make the rotation to play with.  

[savvyspy]

 

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.

How do you figure we improved in RF? By moving a 275 lbs DH/3B who hasn't played one inning of outfield in his life out there? All I can say is WOW.......

[gunnarthor]

 

How do you figure we improved in RF? By moving a 275 lbs DH/3B who hasn't played one inning of outfield in his life out there? All I can say is WOW.......

WOW is right.  There must be 30 posts addressing that.  

[bluechipper]

 

Look, I agree we'll never know exactly. But no team is so tight-lipped that they can publicly identify an area of need, and go all offseason with as little activity as the Twins had in the FA reliever market.

Combined with the laser-like focus of May to the pen, and public focus on lefthanders, I think it's safe to conclude the Twins sat out the FA reliever market. In this case, with the information we have, there is no other conclusion than they made a conscious but firm decision to stay on the sidelines.

Many here on this board have been applauding them for that decision, so I think I am being rather charitable by assuming it was part of their deliberate strategy. If the Twins were intesested in Lowe, but failed to get him and instead let him go early in the offseason to a division rival for 2/11, that's almost even worse than not pursuing any FA reliever.

2/11 is a pretty pricey contract for a reliever who's only had one good year since 2010.

[old nurse]

 

To clarify, I'm grading Cwik's pathetic work here. My own Twin's grade would probably be a C, although INCOMPLETE would be the appropriate grade at this point untll we know how Park, Murphy, and the pitching staff works out.

 

In my old job, if a stock analyst graded a stock and was more articulate about his grade than about his underlying assumptions, he was sent off to work for the competition pronto.

 

If Cwik said he believed Park was a poor move, great. He gets a C-. He instead said they "did nothing". A stupid and lazy and false statement. D-, you're fired.

He also said the rotation was an area of need, There is a need to clear 4/5 starters.  But that is not what Cwik meant.  Cwik, as most of Yahoo Sports, should be read for entertainment value only. Shallow reasoning combined with laziness seems to norm. Agenda driven axe grinding is also big.

[Otto von Ballpark]

2/11 is a pretty pricey contract for a reliever who's only had one good year since 2010.

2/11 isn't pricey anything in modern MLB.

[bluechipper]

 

2/11 isn't pricey anything in modern MLB.

Yeah I shouldn't have posted that now that I think about it haha. Looking at his numbers though and the volatility that non-elite relievers have in general, I don't mind just hoping that Fien rebounds and then wait until the relief cavalry comes at some point this year.

[Platoon]

I liked the idea that they went out and got a young catcher by dealing from excess. And I think it's time to find out if all that firepower they have in the MiLB pitching staffs comes to fruition. Signing a mid grade lefty was not going to make this team a contender. That's going to have to come from within. They have a bigger need to find out what they have themselves, than looking outside the orginisation. That's where the future lies. And that strategy will not garner any admiration until the results are in. I really think the pieces exist between Chatanooga, Rochester, and Minneapolis. It's up to Ryan to put them in place. If on the other hand he dawdles with underperforming veterans, or holds tryouts for veteran non roster players into May, well that's another grade!

[jimmer]

 

I'm tired of reading these kind of statements.  Even if you set out to address an area of need, you don't overpay to do it.  I'm glad the Twins stayed out of the inflated reliever market this offseason. 

Regardless of whether or not you are tired of reading these kind of statements, it doesn't make the statement any less true..  The team stated they needed to really upgrade the bullpen and they didn't do it.  They barely addressed it.

 

And the market determines what is and isn't an overpay.  Just because a team thinks a salary is an overpay doesn't mean it is.  I'm glad you're happy they stayed out of what you describe as an inflated reliever market, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a serious area of concern going into the offseason and that concern hasn't been diminished in the least due to the Twins inactivity to address it.

[old nurse]

 

2/11 is a pretty pricey contract for a reliever who's only had one good year since 2010.

That he had only one good year is only important if the Twins had signed him and he regresses. Otherwise he is a very good reliever the Twins missed out on.

[jimmer]

Just because the Twins have decided not the have Sano stay at DH doesn't mean it's the right decision. Sano was the DH for a good chunk of last user and was the DH at the end of it.  It is highly unlikely Park improves on how well Sano hit as DH.

 

And I don't think it's too far of a stretch when one believes that a 6 foot 4, 260+ pound IF who has never played OF in his entire career is going to play worse, defensively, than a former multiple gold glove OF who played in the OF his whole career.  Even if that experienced OF was 40+ last year.  

[old nurse]

 

 

2/11 isn't pricey anything in modern MLB.

For a player that most of their career has been at replacement level, that is pricey.  That is the same contract given to Pelrey by the Twins. Their value to the teams are about on par with each other.  There were more than enough complaints about Pelf

[jimmer]

 

I liked the idea that they went out and got a young catcher by dealing from excess. 

I'm not sure Hicks actually was excess, but even if he is,  Murphy benefited from a very favorable BABIP and still only ended up with an OPS in the low-mid .700s. What happens when that normalizes?  And still, for 2016, he's the backup for next year unless someone has heard other-wise?  Whether or not it was a bad trade is debatable, but it's being touted as a plus way more than it actually deserves to be, at least going into 2016.

[Major League Ready]

 

We're looking at whether the 2016 team has upgraded over the 2015 team. The 2015 team (as a whole) didn't produce much out of the DH position.  I think what you and Levi are attempting to argue is that Sano would be a better DH and the Twins should leave him there and worry about other stuff.  That may be a valid point but it's not quite what this discussion is.  Park should be able to replicate and improve on the overall production we got from the DH position last year.  

 

Also, Sano was never going to be just the DH.  The team was pretty adamant about making him play in the field.  He's too young to become just a DH at this point.  Longterm, I still think he ends up at firstbase but he can hold down RF for a few years. 

There is a fairly consistent presumption here that the best thing for the team is to leave Sano at DH.  I think you are right the FO did not think that it was a good idea to lock-in a relatively athletic 22 year old  to a DH role.  I doubt any other FO would keep him there either.  There has been speculation about his desire to play the field but I cant imagine he would actually prefer a strictly DH role.  It might even cause some problems in the relationship and I doubt his agent would tell him it was a good idea to be a DH. 

[jimmer]

 

with no backup, unlike 2016

Going into 2011 they raved about having 6 quality starters for 5 spots so they felt they did have backup. They had a competition for the rotation and were pleased to say they had a quality rotation and depth because they had more quality starters than spots in the rotation.  Again, how did that work out when they decided to base the quality of their rotation on results from 2010?

[jimmer]

There are players who have excelled playing mostly DH for their careers.  These players showed they weren't good enough to play defense or to stay at a defensive spot.  Since the AL has a DH spot, there is nothing wrong with saying that.

 

If Sano goes to the OF and gets hurt, hurts Buxton, or really hurts the team defensively, is his value going to be higher than just mashing the ball as a DH?  Clearly he hasn't shown himself to be an acceptable defender at 3B or Plouffe would have been moved off 3B for Sano.  And Sano is not an OF.  He's very likely going to end up at DH.  Why not do it now?

[jimmer]

I don't think this article is about whether or not our opening day 2016 roster is an improvement on our opening day 2015 roster is it?  When we look at whether or not a position has been improved, I think many of us are looking at what the team looked like towards the end of last season and comparing it to how it looks to start 2016.

[old nurse]

 

 

Regardless of whether or not you are tired of reading these kind of statements, it doesn't make the statement any less true..  The team stated they needed to really upgrade the bullpen and they didn't do it.  They barely addressed it.

 

And the market determines what is and isn't an overpay.  Just because a team thinks a salary is an overpay doesn't mean it is.  I'm glad you're happy they stayed out of what you describe as an inflated reliever market, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a serious area of concern going into the offseason and that concern hasn't been diminished in the least due to the Twins inactivity to address it.

Bullpen. Perkins, Jepsen, May. Post season testing on Fien's shoulder if OK gives you a fourth ( after coming back from shoulder issues he posted a sub 3 ERA with a K/9 close to 7.  Ok, you need another left hander.  Why should there be a bloated contract blocking yet another young player.  Either one of the young players is going to step up, or they need to be gone. Rodgers, Melotakis, or Williams have more of an upside than overpaying for someone who had a career year and then regressess, or is inconsistent.

[Boom Boom]

I think the grade is well deserved. I give them a generous B for the Hicks/Murphy deal, an F for bullpen support, and a D for signing Park.

 

A common refrain from Twins bobos is "don't spend money just to spend money." I think that's exactly what the Park deal is. It could pay off, but it's a big risk on a position of un-need.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Bullpen. Perkins, Jepsen, May. Post season testing on Fien's shoulder if OK gives you a fourth ( after coming back from shoulder issues he posted a sub 3 ERA with a K/9 close to 7.  Ok, you need another left hander.  Why should there be a bloated contract blocking yet another young player.  Either one of the young players is going to step up, or they need to be gone. Rodgers, Melotakis, or Williams have more of an upside than overpaying for someone who had a career year and then regressess, or is inconsistent.

 

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?

[jimmer]

 

Bullpen. Perkins, Jepsen, May. Post season testing on Fien's shoulder if OK gives you a fourth ( after coming back from shoulder issues he posted a sub 3 ERA with a K/9 close to 7.  Ok, you need another left hander.  Why should there be a bloated contract blocking yet another young player.  Either one of the young players is going to step up, or they need to be gone. Rodgers, Melotakis, or Williams have more of an upside than overpaying for someone who had a career year and then regressess, or is inconsistent.

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.

[jimmer]

 

I think the grade is well deserved. I give them a generous B for the Hicks/Murphy deal, an F for bullpen support, and a D for signing Park.

A common refrain from Twins bobos is "don't spend money just to spend money." I think that's exactly what the Park deal is. It could pay off, but it's a big risk on a position of un-need.

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.

[bird]

 

Going into 2011 they raved about having 6 quality starters for 5 spots so they felt they did have backup. They had a competition for the rotation and were pleased to say they had a quality rotation and depth because they had more quality starters than spots in the rotation.  Again, how did that work out when they decided to base the quality of their rotation on results from 2010?

 

 

You're the one making a comparison between 2016 and 2011, so don't change the discussion to some nebulous statement about what someone boasted or claimed in 2011. There were plenty of us on record back then saying we were concerned about rotation depth, myself included.

 

The situation in 2011 just isn't a good comparison to 2016. They have decent backup this year. They didn't in 2011, and if someone claims differently, they're wrong.

 

You've lost me on this particular criticism. I'm not sure specifically what results from 2015 you find worthy of consideration nd which results you think should be ignored. I'm genuinely curious about what your recommendations would be for correcting the rotation.

 

I criticized Ryan regarding the lack of depth in 2011, and I am giving him credit for avoiding the same mistake in 2016. What should he have done differently?