Twins Roster Among Baseball’s Top 10 Entering the Offseason

[Jocko87]

17 hours ago, Hubie29 said:

Farmer is a blue collar, hard nosed team guy we need to resign.  I would think he would be receptive to a reasonable offer after having one of his best years.  Every team needs players like Kyle Farmer.

Time to move on from the thought of Miranda and Kiriloff in the long term plans.  Package them in a trade deal for pitching or a CF.

 

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Farmer might be the last guy they need to extend.  He will turn 34 next season and they have multiple players that can replace him for $6M less.  He also would be competing for playing time with our number 2 rated prospect as well as our #7 rated prospect (Schobel) who probably has a higher ceiling.  Of course, Lee has a much higher ceiling.

I wouldn't extend Farmer as they can just go the arbitration route but I'm hard on record that he might be the most important guy they can keep for this coming season.

I think AK and Miranda deserve and get another shot to show they can hit in the bigs but at some point players like Farmer are just better players and better fits for winning teams. He raises the floor of the entire roster. His presence allows them to be patient with the youth at so many positions and if by some miracle all the kids hit he's got tremendous value at the deadline. Even if everyone is healthy and playing well I still think his versatility on both sides of the ball gets him in 120-130 games. Rocco won't be able to help himself and it will be the right move as the option is good.

[Jeff K]

17 hours ago, Hubie29 said:

Farmer is a blue collar, hard nosed team guy we need to resign.  I would think he would be receptive to a reasonable offer after having one of his best years.  Every team needs players like Kyle Farmer.

Time to move on from the thought of Miranda and Kiriloff in the long term plans.  Package them in a trade deal for pitching or a CF.

I agree with keeping Farmer and moving on from Miranda.  I can't help but believe Kirilloff should stay.  I know, I know...the injuries.

[NeverSeenATwinsPlayoffWin]

2 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

 

Don’t understand how the Staff is not up to speed? Losing Gray doesn’t help - understood!

We were 15-19 in Gray’s starts in ‘23. With a new arm, we have a good shot at equaling that success rate or better, especially with the offense you describe. The ERA will inflate & more HR/9 than Gray, but still competitive…….I AGREE, we should add an arm or two through various potential paths…….we’re not weak with existing roster though.

Potential Pen:

Balazovic - Thielbar - Funderburk - Alcala - Jax - Headrick - Stewart - Henriquez - Duran - Winder……..3-4 other guys on the fringe

Rotation:

Varland - Ober - Paddack - Ryan - Lopez

You do understand that we're going to need 8-10 starters throughout the season, right? If Joe Ryan goes down early, and then we have to shut down Paddack in mid-June because of fatigue- our rotation will be Lopez/Ober/Varland/SWR/Festa. If Thielbar and Alcala go down, our bullpen will be really struggling. We are losing Maeda, Mahle, Pagan, and Gray; that's three starters and our bullpen arm with the most innings. If you count Paddack, that's one starter back, but unless you think that SWR or Festa can come in and be MLB-quality starters instantly, we're going to be very unhappy with the pitching once players (inevitably) get hurt. 

The existing pitching roster is weak, because I do not want Jordan Balazovic, Cole Sands, Josh Winder, and Brent Headrick penned into an opening day BP role. I would also like Varland to start the year at AAA as depth, and I think we are overestimating Chris Paddack's ability to throw 160 high-quality innings next year- we should not count on it. 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

 

I wouldn't extend Farmer as they can just go the arbitration route but I'm hard on record that he might be the most important guy they can keep for this coming season.

I think AK and Miranda deserve and get another shot to show they can hit in the bigs but at some point players like Farmer are just better players and better fits for winning teams. He raises the floor of the entire roster. His presence allows them to be patient with the youth at so many positions and if by some miracle all the kids hit he's got tremendous value at the deadline. Even if everyone is healthy and playing well I still think his versatility on both sides of the ball gets him in 120-130 games. Rocco won't be able to help himself and it will be the right move as the option is good.

Makes sense.  I just think where position players are concerned that bat should be a RH OFer or Jung-Hoo Lee / Kiermaier would be fine even though they are LH.  Martin could sure change this equation but he has some more proving to do.  The other big potential improvements are already here in the form of Correa and Buxton.  How good would our offense be if those two guys are healthy and play to their potential.    I know, big IF but wow would that be great.  

[Jocko87]

56 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Makes sense.  I just think where position players are concerned that bat should be a RH OFer or Jung-Hoo Lee / Kiermaier would be fine even though they are LH.  Martin could sure change this equation but he has some more proving to do.  The other big potential improvements are already here in the form of Correa and Buxton.  How good would our offense be if those two guys are healthy and play to their potential.    I know, big IF but wow would that be great.  

When they first got Farmer there was discussion of him playing a little outfield as well. I don't know if it was team or pundit discussion but I have no doubt he could be functional left fielder. I'd have him working on it in the spring.

A healthy Buxton changes everything but a great problem to deal with.

[KBJ1]

If Brooks Lee can back up 3B/SS/1B then we can trade Polanco & Farmer. Wallner is basically Kepler redux, so he could go as well. Then we would have $30M to spend on a slugging LF & a #2 starter via trade or FA.

Martin can certainly play CF and brings speed and a dynamic contact hitter bat. Less strikeouts will help, but we do need power from LF. Buxton? if he can play or hit, would be a bonus, but obviously can't be counted on.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, KBJ1 said:

Martin can certainly play CF

If he's such a sure thing at such a critical position of need, why did he play so much 2B (35 games) after coming back from injury in July, and so little (11 games) in center?  While Andrew Stevenson was on the St Paul roster, he got the majority of starts in CF.  After Stevenson was called up to the majors, Dashawn Keirsey became the primary CF.  Austin Martin played CF only now and then, across nearly 3 months.

I hope Austin Martin turns out to be a good major leaguer, but I would not plan a single thing around him for the major league roster during this off-season.

[Nine of twelve]

20 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Unfortunately, the numbers by Fangraphs are inaccurate.  Over the last 5 full seasons, league-wide WAR has never been below 999.6, or above 1000.4 (the average is 999.9); this certainly suggests that the WAR formula by design spits out 1000 in WAR.  This makes sense, when you consider that anything a hitter does to increase their WAR decreases pitcher WAR, and vice versa.

When the figures Fangraphs came up with are totaled, it comes to 1063.5--clearly that's not going to actually happen.  That number also doesn't include any free agents (which FG pegs at an additional 148 WAR), meaning fangraphs is somehow expecting more than 20% more WAR than is possible in these rankings.  As such, I don't put much stock into these at all.

I'm not a stathead and I don't know the details of the formulas for fWAR or bWAR. I get that WAR is an attempt to put a uniform overall value on a player but what I don't like is the arbitrary nature of it. It's arbitrary in two ways. One, the formula itself, which ultimately comes from the opinions of the people who decide what the formula should be, and, two, the presumed level of the hypothetical replacement player.

It seems to me that the replacement player, whoever that is, would have a WAR of 0.0 because the WAR of a given player is literally Wins Against Replacement. But should the hypothetical replacement player be a league-average player or should he be a top-level AAA player since that's who would be most likely be the actual replacement? Moreover, the real-life replacement player varies so much from one team to another and from one player to another that it seems nearly impossible to project a single hypothetical replacement player. For example, in the Twins organization the replacement player for Ryan Jeffries would presumably be Jair Comargo. But the replacement player for Carlos Correa could be Willi Castro, or Kyle Farmer, or even Royce Lewis. The argument could then be made that it's whoever the 26-man roster replacement is. OK, then which replacement player was added, an infielder, an outfielder or a utility man? Or even a pitcher? What if the team makes a trade to replace a player? And I won't even get into the issue of contracts and options and so forth that affect who replaces whom.

So, to make a short story long, I'm with Cap'n Pirhana. I also take WAR with a huge grain of salt.

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

I'm not a stathead and I don't know the details of the formulas for fWAR or bWAR. I get that WAR is an attempt to put a uniform overall value on a player but what I don't like is the arbitrary nature of it. It's arbitrary in two ways. One, the formula itself, which ultimately comes from the opinions of the people who decide what the formula should be, and, two, the presumed level of the hypothetical replacement player.

It seems to me that the replacement player, whoever that is, would have a WAR of 0.0 because the WAR of a given player is literally Wins Against Replacement. But should the hypothetical replacement player be a league-average player or should he be a top-level AAA player since that's who would be most likely be the actual replacement? Moreover, the real-life replacement player varies so much from one team to another and from one player to another that it seems nearly impossible to project a single hypothetical replacement player. For example, in the Twins organization the replacement player for Ryan Jeffries would presumably be Jair Comargo. But the replacement player for Carlos Correa could be Willi Castro, or Kyle Farmer, or even Royce Lewis. The argument could then be made that it's whoever the 26-man roster replacement is. OK, then which replacement player was added, an infielder, an outfielder or a utility man? Or even a pitcher? What if the team makes a trade to replace a player? And I won't even get into the issue of contracts and options and so forth that affect who replaces whom.

So, to make a short story long, I'm with Cap'n Pirhana. I also take WAR with a huge grain of salt.

 

To be clear, I think WAR has quite a bit of merit, in that it establishes a measure of value that is uniform across all players (different defensive positions are granted WAR bonuses to account for position value to ensure this).  My issue with WAR comes only from the fact that fangraphs is projecting an unachievable amount of WAR for 2024 (unless they have altered the formula to untether it from the 1000 number, which would mean they're actually downgrading the value of replacement players).

When defining replacement player, what I've always heard is that the idea is a player who is comparable to the type of player every organization would be able to call up at any given time.  In that sense, we need to stop looking at replacement as organization specific, but league wide.  In this case, replacement assumes that you only have your 26 man active roster; if someone goes on the IL, what quality of player would you be able to acquire?

[Mike Sixel]

13 hours ago, ashbury said:

If he's such a sure thing at such a critical position of need, why did he play so much 2B (35 games) after coming back from injury in July, and so little (11 games) in center?  While Andrew Stevenson was on the St Paul roster, he got the majority of starts in CF.  After Stevenson was called up to the majors, Dashawn Keirsey became the primary CF.  Austin Martin played CF only now and then, across nearly 3 months.

I hope Austin Martin turns out to be a good major leaguer, but I would not plan a single thing around him for the major league roster during this off-season.

That's a good question, especially since there is zero chance he's starting at 2B for the Twins unless they lose Julien, Polanco, Lee, and Farmer all at the same time. His future is in CF or LF, not 2B, imo. (though he can be a utility guy that also plays 2B). The only thing I can think of is...well, two things....they wanted him comfortable on his return, and they think 2B is harder to master so they had him working there. The third option is they think he's a 2B......which, um, then he'll be dealt at some point next year.

[DJL44]

5 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

But should the hypothetical replacement player be a league-average player or should he be a top-level AAA player since that's who would be most likely be the actual replacement?

They actually try to set replacement value at the level of someone you can get off the waiver wire or buy for $10,000 cash from another organization's minor leagues.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

His future is in CF or LF,

Lemme ask what I think is another good question, then: why do we believe this?

Scouting reports I recall question his arm.  Same as why he was moved off of SS.  I suppose I'd rather have good range and good ability to track fly balls* in the outfield over a good arm, but the whole package is nicer, especially if the bat is looking good-not-great - in which case a corner OF spot to hide his arm starts to look like not-a-difference-maker there either.

I hate to sound like I'm always knocking him as a prospect, but the evidence seems to point to something else IMO.

It could be that all the grooming at 2B is because he's going to be used as a trade chip in the off-season, so they want to portray him in his best light, to a team that actually has an opening for his skills.

* Not that I know of any particular evidence for range and tracking for Martin either - raw speed doesn't necessarily translate directly to range if it can't be harnessed properly

[Mike Sixel]

38 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Lemme ask what I think is another good question, then: why do we believe this?

Scouting reports I recall question his arm.  Same as why he was moved off of SS.  I suppose I'd rather have good range and good ability to track fly balls* in the outfield over a good arm, but the whole package is nicer, especially if the bat is looking good-not-great - in which case a corner OF spot to hide his arm starts to look like not-a-difference-maker there either.

I hate to sound like I'm always knocking him as a prospect, but the evidence seems to point to something else IMO.

It could be that all the grooming at 2B is because he's going to be used as a trade chip in the off-season, so they want to portray him in his best light, to a team that actually has an opening for his skills.

* Not that I know of any particular evidence for range and tracking for Martin either - raw speed doesn't necessarily translate directly to range if it can't be harnessed properly

pretty sure I said all these things in my post?

[Mike Sixel]

6 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

I'm not a stathead and I don't know the details of the formulas for fWAR or bWAR. I get that WAR is an attempt to put a uniform overall value on a player but what I don't like is the arbitrary nature of it. It's arbitrary in two ways. One, the formula itself, which ultimately comes from the opinions of the people who decide what the formula should be, and, two, the presumed level of the hypothetical replacement player.

It seems to me that the replacement player, whoever that is, would have a WAR of 0.0 because the WAR of a given player is literally Wins Against Replacement. But should the hypothetical replacement player be a league-average player or should he be a top-level AAA player since that's who would be most likely be the actual replacement? Moreover, the real-life replacement player varies so much from one team to another and from one player to another that it seems nearly impossible to project a single hypothetical replacement player. For example, in the Twins organization the replacement player for Ryan Jeffries would presumably be Jair Comargo. But the replacement player for Carlos Correa could be Willi Castro, or Kyle Farmer, or even Royce Lewis. The argument could then be made that it's whoever the 26-man roster replacement is. OK, then which replacement player was added, an infielder, an outfielder or a utility man? Or even a pitcher? What if the team makes a trade to replace a player? And I won't even get into the issue of contracts and options and so forth that affect who replaces whom.

So, to make a short story long, I'm with Cap'n Pirhana. I also take WAR with a huge grain of salt.

 

I'll address the middle part about context. This is 100% why you don't take context into account....Here is a real life example.

Luis Castillo had negative value to Cincy when traded. They weren't making the playoffs, and he cost real money. Each start for him was one they couldn't use on someone else to gain information about them.

He had extreme value to Sea, MN, and NYY....as they didn't have 3 very good / great starters for the playoffs. He had less value to LAD and HOU, since they had "enough" starters for the playoffs.

that's why you take context out, why you use some generic replacement player. WAR isn't about VALUE at all. It is a tool to measure the outcomes produced by players so you can compare the outcome produced. 

Here is another way it isn't about value / context. Burnes likely produces more WAR next year than Peralta. But, Peralta has A LOT of control left at a low cost. He's going to cost more to acquire than Burnes for those reasons. WAR isn't a tool for measuring that. It ignores that context. If you want it to do more than it is made to do, well, it won't, because it isn't made to do that.

[ashbury]

16 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

pretty sure I said all these things in my post?

Must be past my bedtime.   Yep, I got hung up on that one absolute statement.

[Mike Sixel]

8 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Must be past my bedtime.   Yep, I got hung up on that one absolute statement.

I even said "imo"....to make it clear it wasn't absolute! Hope all is well. Enjoy the banter.

[ashbury]

6 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I even said "imo"....to make it clear it wasn't absolute! Hope all is well. Enjoy the banter.

"Ash, buddy, you okay, buddy?" 

Yep, doin' fine.