Fangraphs (and other national publications) on the Twins

[Vanimal46]

Worse. A secret job that does not allow us to even pay to see his content.

Bummer for the fans.

[Mike Sixel]

ANSKY

12:54 What do you expect from Berrios this year for IP, K nd ERA, will he be the twins best pitcher?

 

 

Travis Sawchik

12:56 I'm a big Berrios guy. He'll be a 15% K-BB guy with a sub-4 ERA. He'll be the ace on a staff that will lack a true ace

 

https://www.jotcast.com/chat/travis-sawchik-fangraphs-chat-3024.html

[Mike Sixel]

Mike sixel

2:53 Do the Twins not think Lynn or Cobb is good? Are they frugal? What is the plan while Buxton and Sano are here?

 

 

Dan Szymborski

2:53 I don't think Lynn is that good.

And Cobb has risks.

[jimmer]

 

Mike sixel
2:53 Do the Twins not think Lynn or Cobb is good? Are they frugal? What is the plan while Buxton and Sano are here?


Dan Szymborski
2:53 I don't think Lynn is that good.
And Cobb has risks.

Dan S hit the nail on the head.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Mike sixel
2:53 Do the Twins not think Lynn or Cobb is good? Are they frugal? What is the plan while Buxton and Sano are here?


Dan Szymborski
2:53 I don't think Lynn is that good.
And Cobb has risks.

This is pretty much my take on it as well. Once Darvish passed, I had interest in Cobb but also a few concerns. I don't really care for Lynn at all.

[gunnarthor]

 

This is pretty much my take on it as well. Once Darvish passed, I had interest in Cobb but also a few concerns. I don't really care for Lynn at all.

Well, I'll give the FO some credit for the bullpen upgrades. And Pineda could end up being a sneaky good acquisition that'll help next year. But we're really going to need Berrios to take a step forward and Santana not to regress too much ...

[Mike Sixel]

This is pretty much my take on it as well. Once Darvish passed, I had interest in Cobb but also a few concerns. I don't really care for Lynn at all.

All fair, but so far, they've not really moved the needle at all in terms of starters.

[nicksaviking]

 

All fair, but so far, they've not really moved the needle at all in terms of starters.

 

To be fair, moving the needle in February means squat compared to moving the needle in October. If they're right and they can fix these guys I guess then they get to be right all along.

 

Not that I think that's the case here at all. Even at their career peaks I wouldn't want Sanchez or Odorizzi leading a rotation into the post season.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

To be fair, moving the needle in February means squat compared to moving the needle in October. If they're right and they can fix these guys I guess then they get to be right all along.

 

Not that I think that's the case here at all. Even at their career peaks I wouldn't want Sanchez or Odorizzi leading a rotation into the post season.

Well, at his absolute peak, Sanchez was worth 6.3 bWAR (although his next best season was only 3.8). 5 out of his 6 postseason starts were very good for Detroit, as he helped them to WS and CS appearances. Of course, all of this was back in 2012-2013, when Johan Santana was still tossing no-hitters.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

To be fair, moving the needle in February means squat compared to moving the needle in October. If they're right and they can fix these guys I guess then they get to be right all along.

 

Not that I think that's the case here at all. Even at their career peaks I wouldn't want Sanchez or Odorizzi leading a rotation into the post season.

Exactly. Once Darvish was off the table, the other options weren't going to move the needle much and could actually hinder the team significantly going forward. All were flawed - some more than others - and while I personally think Cobb is a decent option, none of them have me falling over myself to sign at the rates they were asking through the offseason.

 

So now the front office has to prove its decisions were the right ones. That doesn't happen during February workouts.

[Mike Sixel]

And Sanchez? Or all the AA pitchers aren't without risk? This is another year of Buxton and Sano, not even close to championship pitching.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And Sanchez? Or all the AA pitchers aren't without risk? This is another year of Buxton and Sano, not even close to championship pitching.

There's prospect risk and there's "this guy is smoke and mirrors but wants $15m a year" risk.

 

If the front office likes Cobb and thinks he's a good bet to perform going forward but cheaped out on the price, that's flat-out wrong and it'd piss me off to no end.

 

If they think Cobb is a $9m pitcher going forward but wants $15m - or if they think he'll be so bad that he gets in the way of other pitchers in the system - then that's the right decision. Or maybe they think they can get a $5m guy to perform at the same level and get him for a single season, not 3-4 seasons.

 

The problem is that we don't have any idea how the front office views the long-term prospects of Lynn, Cobb, Arrieta, et al. If they're down on all of them for one reason or another, no, they should not sign those players at an inflated cost just because they have the payroll space to do it (and possibly tie up that payroll on a lackluster player in future seasons). No player is perfect but if you think a guy profiles to be pretty bad in future seasons, you don't give that guy $60-70m just because you have the money and a need at the position.

 

One thing I find interesting about this week is that the Twins acquired two pitchers with solid peripherals and a tendency to hand out moonshots every third or fourth batter by pitching up in the zone to an extreme level. Maybe that's coincidence or maybe they're seeing something in each player that can be remedied.

 

It's their decision, now they live with them, for good or bad.

[nicksaviking]

 

One thing I find interesting about this week is that the Twins acquired two pitchers with solid peripherals and a tendency to hand out moonshots every third or fourth batter by pitching up in the zone to an extreme level. Maybe that's coincidence or maybe they're seeing something in each player that can be remedied.

 

It's their decision, now they live with them, for good or bad.

I sure hope Santana and Gibson receive invites to the anti-moonshot seminar too.

[bustedstuff88]

 

There's prospect risk and there's "this guy is smoke and mirrors but wants $15m a year" risk.

 

If the front office likes Cobb and thinks he's a good bet to perform going forward but cheaped out on the price, that's flat-out wrong and it'd piss me off to no end.

 

If they think Cobb is a $9m pitcher going forward but wants $15m - or if they think he'll be so bad that he gets in the way of other pitchers in the system - then that's the right decision. Or maybe they think they can get a $5m guy to perform at the same level and get him for a single season, not 3-4 seasons.

 

The problem is that we don't have any idea how the front office views the long-term prospects of Lynn, Cobb, Arrieta, et al. If they're down on all of them for one reason or another, no, they should not sign those players at an inflated cost just because they have the payroll space to do it (and possibly tie up that payroll on a lackluster player in future seasons). No player is perfect but if you think a guy profiles to be pretty bad in future seasons, you don't give that guy $60-70m just because you have the money and a need at the position.

 

One thing I find interesting about this week is that the Twins acquired two pitchers with solid peripherals and a tendency to hand out moonshots every third or fourth batter by pitching up in the zone to an extreme level. Maybe that's coincidence or maybe they're seeing something in each player that can be remedied.

 

It's their decision, now they live with them, for good or bad.

It would be my guess that while they are "in" on pretty much everybody available. the asking prices were simply not justifiable...And I say the proof is in the pudding: Look who is still unemployed **cough cough Arrietta cough**

 

And to this end, I beleive the FO knows the window of contention wont be wide open indefinetly. The prime years of our core will eventually come to an end. They are also not oblivious to the notion of "you gotta strike while the iron is hot". So I say again, how do we know that the FO isnt just prepping to make a MAJOR move in 2019??

[Dantes929]

You generally have to pay premium prices for free agents so the dollar value should be held to a little different standard.     Everyone is so fixated on the top of the rotation.   To me, if they think Cobb can come in with a 4.00 ERA or even slightly better for 4 years that is worth a lot because over the last 7 years the ERA average of our 5th best starter has been closer to 6.     Playoffs can take care of itself.   I want to actually get there and you can increase your odds by improving the bottom also.

[Mike Sixel]

It would be my guess that while they are "in" on pretty much everybody available. the asking prices were simply not justifiable...And I say the proof is in the pudding: Look who is still unemployed **cough cough Arrietta cough**

 

And to this end, I beleive the FO knows the window of contention wont be wide open indefinetly. The prime years of our core will eventually come to an end. They are also not oblivious to the notion of "you gotta strike while the iron is hot". So I say again, how do we know that the FO isnt just prepping to make a MAJOR move in 2019??

As we learned with the M and M boys, injuries happen. Everyone they are relying on is healthy, except ESAN.... And he's only out one month. Who knows how that will look next year? Also, the Yankees and dodgers will have reset their cap situation. And, there aren't many great pitchers available next year. They'll have to trade prospects. Oh, and will Dozier be ok with this off-season if it goes South, and they passed on better options?

[bustedstuff88]

 

As we learned with the M and M boys, injuries happen. Everyone they are relying on is healthy, except ESAN.... And he's only out one month. Who knows how that will look next year? Also, the Yankees and dodgers will have reset their cap situation. And, there aren't many great pitchers available next year. They'll have to trade prospects. Oh, and will Dozier be ok with this off-season if it goes South, and they passed on better options?

So what is the alternative theory as to why we just cant seem to have nuthin' nice? That most FA's really just dont want to play in MN? 

 

Not trying to be snarky whatsoever. I am genuinely interested in what the fanbase thinks here. 

[Mike Sixel]

So what is the alternative theory as to why we just cant seem to have nuthin' nice? That most FA's really just dont want to play in MN?

 

Not trying to be snarky whatsoever. I am genuinely interested in what the fanbase thinks here.

I wish I knew. Actually, I wish they had better pitching, but knowing if they have a plan to seriously compete or not would be a nice consolation prize.

[TheLeviathan]

 

So what is the alternative theory as to why we just cant seem to have nuthin' nice? That most FA's really just dont want to play in MN? 

 

Not trying to be snarky whatsoever. I am genuinely interested in what the fanbase thinks here. 

 

I think most of us agree it starts and stops with ownership.  They seem to employ people in the FO who are conservative spending money and, at the end of the day, money talks in free agency.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You generally have to pay premium prices for free agents so the dollar value should be held to a little different standard.     Everyone is so fixated on the top of the rotation.   To me, if they think Cobb can come in with a 4.00 ERA or even slightly better for 4 years that is worth a lot because over the last 7 years the ERA average of our 5th best starter has been closer to 6.     Playoffs can take care of itself.   I want to actually get there and you can increase your odds by improving the bottom also.

This is the key, I think. If the front office believed Cobb was a 4.00 ERA pitcher going forward, I don't see how or why they would hesitate to give him a four year, $60m contract.

 

Because $15m a year for four years is a fair price for that guy.

 

There's something in this free agency crop the front office doesn't like. They were obviously in on Darvish but appear to have largely backed out since he signed with the Cubs. If they were willing to pay $100m+ for Darvish and also believed Cobb would be a pretty good pitcher going forward, there's no reasonable explanation why he isn't in Ft Myers right now.

[beckmt]

Prices are still too high on the rest of the FA pitchers.  At this time I would guess the prices will drop if unsigned by the first of March.  And a lot of clubs are waiting for that.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I think most of us agree it starts and stops with ownership.  They seem to employ people in the FO who are conservative spending money and, at the end of the day, money talks in free agency.

 

The people in the FO probably aren't "conservative" when it comes to spending money, they just aren't given money to spend.

 

If Falvey took over the Dodgers down the road, do you really think he would slash their payroll?

[TheLeviathan]

The people in the FO probably aren't "conservative" when it comes to spending money, they just aren't given money to spend.

 

If Falvey took over the Dodgers down the road, do you really think he would slash their payroll?

Possibly he would. When "value" is a priority it tends to lead to conservative behavior.

 

And I think a wave of that thinking is taking over in a lot of front offices. I think the term "sustainable" is indicative of this mindset.

 

I dont disagree the Pohlads keep the purse strings tight, but part of the appeal in hiring this FO (and retaining Ryan for so long) was that they agreed not to open the vaults as a strategy. They dont believe in it either, which is agreeable to ownership.

[Mr. Brooks]

This is the key, I think. If the front office believed Cobb was a 4.00 ERA pitcher going forward, I don't see how or why they would hesitate to give him a four year, $60m contract.

 

Because $15m a year for four years is a fair price for that guy.

 

There's something in this free agency crop the front office doesn't like. They were obviously in on Darvish but appear to have largely backed out since he signed with the Cubs. If they were willing to pay $100m+ for Darvish and also believed Cobb would be a pretty good pitcher going forward, there's no reasonable explanation why he isn't in Ft Myers right now.

Or they weren't willing to spend $100 million on anyone, and knew that wasn't likely to land Darvish, but allows them the public perception that they are trying to spend money.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Or they weren't willing to spend $100 million on anyone, and knew that wasn't likely to land Darvish, but allows them the public perception that they are trying to spend money.

Eh, I don’t buy that at all. Not enough of the fan base follows free agency rumors to make that effort worthwhile, plus it requires one to believe everyone else in the world is a big fat liar trying to trick you.

[Mr. Brooks]

Eh, I don’t buy that at all. Not enough of the fan base follows free agency rumors to make that effort worthwhile, plus it requires one to believe everyone else in the world is a big fat liar trying to trick you.

As opposed to believing they thought 5/100 with no opt out had a real shot of landing Darvish?

 

And all the places that the bulk of the fan base gets their info from (LaVelle, kfan, etc.) are making sure to tout how serious of a run they made at Darvish, so definitely everyone who even casually follows the Twins think they tried super hard to sign Darvish.

I don't even know what to make of the second part of your comment. This wouldn't require everyone in the world lying. Seems like a bit of a straw man to me.

Are you suggesting people don't sometimes lie or deceive? Especially in business?

[KirbyDome89]

 

There's prospect risk and there's "this guy is smoke and mirrors but wants $15m a year" risk.

 

If the front office likes Cobb and thinks he's a good bet to perform going forward but cheaped out on the price, that's flat-out wrong and it'd piss me off to no end.

 

If they think Cobb is a $9m pitcher going forward but wants $15m - or if they think he'll be so bad that he gets in the way of other pitchers in the system - then that's the right decision. Or maybe they think they can get a $5m guy to perform at the same level and get him for a single season, not 3-4 seasons.

 

The problem is that we don't have any idea how the front office views the long-term prospects of Lynn, Cobb, Arrieta, et al. If they're down on all of them for one reason or another, no, they should not sign those players at an inflated cost just because they have the payroll space to do it (and possibly tie up that payroll on a lackluster player in future seasons). No player is perfect but if you think a guy profiles to be pretty bad in future seasons, you don't give that guy $60-70m just because you have the money and a need at the position.

FWIW I wasn't high on Cobb or Lynn entering the offseason, but I think I could be sold on signing either of them at this point. It certainly wouldn't be an exciting signing (nothing was going to be after the Darvish debacle) but I think I would feel better about 4 years of Cobb than hoping everything turns up roses for the current patchwork rotation. 

 

Apart from the Hosmer and Davis contracts, I think it's fair to say that quite a few players have signed  for less than expected, so I'm not sure how inflated a deal for Cobb would honestly be. In a vacuum the $5 M value play works but a big part of the associated risk is how heavily a team is leaning on that outcome. They're also banking on those contracts working out year after year. IMO there's a lot that can go wrong in doing that, maybe more so than signing Cobb at a reduced rate this offseason. Ultimately you're right, if they don't like the way a guy projects then there isn't any reason to spend the $$, no matter the "value." 

 

I feel like the risk they're taking by putting trust in young arms, and bounce back arms (Odorizzi and Sanchez, although they might not be expecting anything from him,) and then honestly doing little else to aid a significant hole in the roster is massive. The rotation is fragile to say the least. Like I said, I certainly don't love Cobb, but the FO must either be so down on him or anybody else left, that the difference between what they're willing to offer and what the others will accept isn't worth the stability it would provide, or they're frugal to the point of harming the team. 

[drivlikejehu]

 

Possibly he would. When "value" is a priority it tends to lead to conservative behavior.

And I think a wave of that thinking is taking over in a lot of front offices. I think the term "sustainable" is indicative of this mindset.

I dont disagree the Pohlads keep the purse strings tight, but part of the appeal in hiring this FO (and retaining Ryan for so long) was that they agreed not to open the vaults as a strategy. They dont believe in it either, which is agreeable to ownership.

 

I can't see the logic behind your reasoning at all. This seems very simple and basically inarguable to me, because the underlying motivations of the individuals involved are fairly straightforward.

 

Falvey wants to win baseball games. That is what he personally benefits from and presumably derives satisfaction from (though really only the former is necessary to establish an overwhelming presumption that the statement is true).

 

Raising payroll helps to win baseball games, all else being equal. I'm not aware of a counterargument to this statement, but I'm happy to review any research to that effect. In any case, proceeding with the presumption that it is true, it is a fact that Falvey would prefer a higher payroll to a lower one.

 

All teams have some kind of payroll limit, so the front office of any club certainly must include financial considerations within their overall strategy. But it's irrational to suggest that, within those constraints, any front office would choose to perpetually maintain a payroll below the level authorized by ownership. 

 

Falvey, in his current role, is obligated to justify the Twins' profit-oriented ownership by carrying the mantle of prudence as an excuse for low payrolls. There is, however, zero reason to believe that Falvey gets some personal gratification from intentionally handicapping his professional success. I am baffled as to how any reasonable person could believe such a thing.

 

Yet, that is your very claim - that Falvey is ideologically motivated by concepts such as "value" and "sustainability" that lead him to accept a reduced number of wins per year than he would achieve by spending more money (of course, in reality he has no authority to do this, but you seemingly believe otherwise).

[Rhino and Compass]

I think one thing is clear to me that seems like an elephant in the room... Minnesota is not a popular destination for young men from warm climates. Of course we all think that the Twin Cities or Minnesota is great, but it doesn't have a global or even national reputation as a fun place to hang out. If you are from Florida or California, or especially the Caribbean or South America, would you want to go to a small market team where all you know is the time you were there in April and it was 50 degrees? No, probably not. Don't underestimate the lack of desire to spend your thirties in Minneapolis, especially if you are from Miami, Santo Domingo or Tokyo. 

I suspect the Darvish situation played out like this. Twins reach out to Yu, and he is up front about how he would prefer not to come to Minnesota, but he doesn't have any offers from his preferred destinations yet (LA, Texas) Ultimately, those offers never come, the only real option for him is Chicago, but the Twins slipped him an offer just to think about in case nothing better comes along. 

So, yeah, they were "in on" Yu all off season, but they never actually had a chance. Now, the remaining top end pitchers I fear aren't asking for the widely circulated contract demands, but are asking for a premium to come to Minnesota. If my interpretation is correct, then by all means, trade away. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As opposed to believing they thought 5/100 with no opt out had a real shot of landing Darvish?

And all the places that the bulk of the fan base gets their info from (LaVelle, kfan, etc.) are making sure to tout how serious of a run they made at Darvish, so definitely everyone who even casually follows the Twins think they tried super hard to sign Darvish.
I don't even know what to make of the second part of your comment. This wouldn't require everyone in the world lying. Seems like a bit of a straw man to me.
Are you suggesting people don't sometimes lie or deceive? Especially in business?

1. You don't know the Twins' actual offer. It almost certainly wasn't "5/100", as I've only seen it reported as "5/100+". For all we know, the Twins' offer was beaten only by the Cubs and was ahead of all the other teams.

 

2. No, I'm not saying people don't lie in business, I'm saying I don't walk around accusing people of lying with absolutely no evidence to back up my claim.