jkcarew

The Angels will be expecting to compete in 2019. A gold glove SS who is peaking offensively and signed for 2 more years...and whom the Angels gave up a top prospect to acquire...will be very expensive. (Nor do the Angels have an incoming SS prospect that is highly-regarded and ready. But it's moot, as I doubt the Angels will not be looking to move Andrelton Simmons this off-season. At that position, would probably need to find/target a rebuilding/tanking team with a good SS, but wanting to turn it over to a top prospect. I do think finding an upgrade at SS and moving Polanco to 2nd would be a good way to solve the 2019 roster opening for second-base. Although, I'd still advocate for signing Escobar back based on his flexibility. Of course, all questions regarding 2B and SS with hinge on what the FO thinks of Gordon, now that they've had two years to evaluate.

This is where time of possession can be so misleading....3 hours in and our pitchers have had the ball for about 150 minutes, Yankees pitchers, maybe 30 minutes. Yet, somehow we trail.

I like many/most of the trades so far. But overall, the new FO seems to be learning on the job. And learning slowly. They certainly don't seem to have accomplished anything yet. Like some others that have posted, I could not care less about the new 'processes' they have put in place...the processes will constantly evolve, what's brilliant today is obsolete tomorrow. Win baseball games at the major league level. And they've gone gone backwards in that regard. It will be an interesting off-season. I guess they have to wait another year on Buxton and Sano. But if Buxton/Sano turn out to be closer to what we've seen in 2018 than what we've seen in brief periods of success...then, we'll end up wishing the FO had pulled the plug and went full re-build mode. This team is frighteningly close to looking at 2020 and still having zero established players that you would build around. On truly good teams, guys like Rosario and Berrios are just nice pieces.

If the Twins think he can catch in the majors (in games that count...not just Sept mop-up games)...then I like him to remain on the 40. His career minor league OPS is about 750. He'd never shown much offensive value (beyond what would be considered decent for a catcher)...until he started showing occasional power. And that only started this year. The defensive flexibility is great, but it's not like he's going to be a late-inning defensive replacement anywhere on the field. He'll justify the roster spot with the bat...and that means, he'll have to continue to show the power.

Mauer and Grossman with virtually identical OBP and SLG right now.

The only thing worse than watching him throw pitches that miss the strike zone, is watching him throw pitches that don’t miss the strike zone. How was he getting AAA hitters out with this stuff? I mean, he was basically facing a AAA lineup tonight.

Last night's lineup would probably finish top-half of the International League. Maybe. You just look for interesting players with a chance of being pieces in the future. The other day, we had Stewart...this game?...I don't think Astudillo DH'ing is in the Twins plans...but, Garver continues to look like a major-league hitter and wasn't terrible behind the plate. Twins fandom!

Kirilloff in an extra-base drought. Hope he can snap out of it.

Not arguing that it shouldn't be tried. Not even arguing that it won't be effective. What I am arguing is that the theory is to 'win'/improve on the 3rd pass through the lineup...and that there MAY be a price to pay in the theory regarding the first inning. If the opener was one of the best pitchers on the staff, he'd be a 1-3 (or 4) starter, or one of the very back-end relievers. The very fact nobody is suggesting that you're going to use an opener for 'good' starters acknowledges this. I suspect that the effectiveness of the strategy will be related to the delta in ability between the opener and the 'primary'. If the delta is too big, you'll give up more in the first inning than you'll save in the 5th/6th.

The theory still has holes. The "best era for one inning" pool of pitchers (non-starters) only really consists of your closer...and maybe the 8th-inning guy. Taylor Rogers (as an example) one-inning ERA is irrelevant, because the batters he faces to arrive at that ERA are cherry-picked by the manager. In the opener role it will be the opposite...instead of the manager choosing which batters that pitcher faces, the other team will get to choose who that pitcher faces. Huge difference...I don't think there is much of a question that the opener role will not materially help (and might hurt) 1st-inning ERA's...the 'theory' is that it will help 5th and 6th-inning ERA (3rd-time through lineup) more than it will hurt in the 1st.

Yep. At some point...league batting average of 'X'...K% of 'Y'...the data will show that the pendulum needs to swing the other way....at least a little. For the sake of the entertainment value of the game, I hope those numbers are not too low...or too far off.

Agreed. The hitters have sacrificed some skills for others. The skills they are maximizing have more value (the data shows...so far) than those they sacrificed. There will probably be a natural limit to that, as well.

Gee...I hope the "more pitchers" part is not inevitable. Simply limiting roster size will put a cap on that somewhere....and that would put a floor under how short starts can be, as well. In my mind, for the foreseeable future, they need to hold firm on 25/40 (and no new loopholes). Big mistake to bump that up in the next collective bargaining session, IMO. But you know it will come up. But I agree that, even under current roster rules, we have yet to see how far this can go.

It's odd that the hitters are better...but they can't get hits or put the ball in play. Yet, I agree with what you're saying...for a combination of reasons having to do with how both batting and hitting have evolved, pitchers all max-effort every pitch/batter...batters have high-def video to watch between at-bats, etc., etc....fewer pitchers can get deep into games without sacrificing results. It will be interesting to see if the opener concept will results in fewer total runs scored (not just '3rd-time' runs). It addresses what is stated above...the "3rd time through the lineup" issue. But it flies in the face of another real, and known thing...that being the "1st-inning era" issue. The first inning is the one inning where the opponent can guarantee that the batters facing your pitcher are the ones that will optimize/maximize run probability. And if the opener is the 6th, 7th, 8th best pitcher on the staff (which he will be, more often than not)...your delta could easily be larger on the unfavorable side in the 1st/2nd innings than it is favorable on the 3rd-time side. Obviously, the concept will only be used for the bottom of a rotation. I think for it to be 'effective' in the long run, the concept relies on having a very weak bottom of the rotation. Something I'm not sure I'd want my club to aspire to. As I mentioned in another thread, I admit that I hope it fails. It would amount to one more reason for managers to want to carry and use more pitchers. No matter the theory, this will be an additional pitcher burned before the game gets to the middle stages...managers will still want the protection on the back-side for specific match ups and extra-innings.

Stewart's stuff looks major-league quality. Or maybe, it's just me. There will be some pretty decent data by the end of the year, when looking at opener results across the league. I think it's still a fact that the best pitchers are your starters....at least 1-3 in the rotation are better pitchers than all but maybe your 8th and 9th inning guys who posses maybe one ++ pitch. So, more often than not, you're opener is going to be your 6th, 7th, 8th best pitcher pitching against the top of the other teams order. To make it worse, the other team knows who the opener is going to be. Meanwhile, it does no good to reduce the number of runs surrendered in the second and third innings (or sixth), if you give up even more in the first. Admittedly, I'm hoping it fails. Only because it will be another reason to carry additional pitchers on the 25-man. No mater how you figure it, it's one additional pitcher burned before the game gets into the middle stages. Managers will still want the protection on the back-side for specific match-ups and extra-innings. Guaranteed.

For the record, I wanted Buxton up and playing in September. To me, if that had moved the needle on his 2019 even a little...I would have valued that more than 2023.

Tongue-in-cheek jab at those that are obsessing on how Buxton will react to this down the road. He won't. (If he becomes the player we all hope he becomes)...he'll end up going to a team that offers the best package of $ and winning. Period.

I heard a rumor that Carlos Correa is going to walk when he hits free agency in 2022 because the Astros took the immoral/disrespectful/unnecessary/deplorable/legal-but-still-really-icky action of exercising their leverage by only offering a $4.2M bonus to sign Correa out of Puerto Rico as the top pick. He's ticked that the guy picked AFTER him got $6M to sign with the Twins.

I think this is good perspective. I wouldn't mind having Goodrum as a utility infielder with some pop. Palka on the other hand...guys that can only play corner outfield...poorly...are below average on the bases...and wRC+ at a 102 clip are not rare or particularly valuable. Not that both aren't young enough, new enough to MLB pitching, to still get better.

Is it just my imagination, or did an inordinate amount of our top hitting prospects fade in the second half? Some longer/worse than others...but still. Lewis faded pretty dramatically in August...Rooker faded...even Baddoo some. Don't know if I'd call what Gordon and Wade did at Rochester a 'fade'...more like they were overwhelmed by the level...Gordon more so that Wade, but Wade struggled pretty dramatically as well, slugging .336 It will be nice to see Lewis get a chance in the playoffs to end the season with an exclamation point.

I disagree with this decision...but can’t quite muster the sky-is-falling angst that seems to be the theme taking over the thread. If Buxton gets “pissed” and turns into a player that can hit major league pitching and stay on the field...and we control him for an extra year...that’s the downside? He’s currently a 79 OPS+ guy with 1000 PA. If he turns into a good major league hitter, the Twins were probably not going to be able to keep him anyway. If he continues as the hitter he’s been (overall) he’s not valuable enough to obsess about losing. And the ‘nobody will ever sign with us after this’ hysteria, I don’t buy into. It doesn’t work that way.

I said I wanted Buxton up. And durability is a real and valuable quality...independent of effort. There are a ton of players that hustle for my entertainment and play 140-150 games a year.

No. No he hasn’t. You can’t lose something you never had and that was never guaranteed to you. This year of service was never guaranteed. And Buxton is at least partly responsible for being in the position he is to lose it...both in terms of lack of durability and performance. Does Cave deserve losing at-bats to Buxton this fall? Would we be even noticing this if Buxton was the scrappy journeyman 6th-rounder and Cave were the 2nd overall pick whose greatness had been proclaimed since 2014? And yet, I want Buxton up. Life isn’t fair.

And if Buxton had gotten the service year, and decided to sign elsewhere when he hit free agency...despite the Twins having made a ‘fair’ offer and having ‘stuck with him’ during his months/seasons of struggling.... would that then be poor form on the part of Buxton? Or would that be Buxton exercising his rights under the terms of the CBA? It’s a business, has been forever.

I simultaneously want Buxton up, getting as many MLB at-bats as possible....AND at the same time, don’t have a problem with a FO making a decision in a scenario similar to this based on service time. I just wouldn’t have gone this way with Buxton.