Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

twins1095

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    323

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by twins1095

  1. twins1095
    Based on past compensation for ace's with roughly Degrom's profile and age (or younger), you should only have to give up 1 top 50 prospects and MAYBE 1 other top 100 prospects (although most deals haven't had multiple top 100 prospects) along with some other guys outside the top 100. Carlos Gomez (top 50-60 prospect) was the only top 100 prospect the Twins got for Santana. Ian Kennedy (top 50-70 prospect) was the only top 100 prospect the Tigers got for Max Sherzer, etc. Theoretically based on past deals something like Graterol, Rooker, Gordon or Lewis, Durhan, lower minor league prospects should be plenty and would actually be more value for an ace than historically most teams have given up. Lewis + Graterol + MORE is a huge overpay. I get that you're willing to do it especially with a ends justify the means mentality and an ace on your staff for a potential championship run, but in terms of value you are overpaying by quite a bit.
  2. twins1095
    That's how you end of trading Yordan Alvarez for a Kyle Gibson type pitcher.
  3. twins1095
    I definitely do not disagree. I just think it's easier for the non-power/3 true outcomes (XBH, BB, K) guys to get left out with the changes favoring that style. It seems like Gordon has been able to keep up, at a relatively young age for AAA, and really in his first full season at AAA. I think it's promising and suggests that he could have a role in the majors with his speed and contact skills if they play.
  4. twins1095
    Not to throw rain on the parade, but his plate skills have severely regressed at AAA. He's got a tiny walk rate and a K rate near 30%. He's basically like Buxton in previous years in terms of his BB/K% profile. Further, his power numbers are buoyed off a 50+% Flyball to HR ratio and his BABIP is 40-50 points higher than at any other point in his minor league career. He doesn't hit that many flyballs, strikes out a ton, doesn't walk and his power numbers are being buoyed by an unsustainable number of flyballs going over the fence and BABIP. His AA profile is better, but everything about his AAA profile screams fluke. If we can get value for him and a team is interested, my opinion would be that we should jump at it.
  5. twins1095
    The only counter I would have in that is that a lot of that production increase is coming from all of the HRs. Gordon does not hit many HRs so he is disadvantaged compared to other hitters in terms of that production increase being reflected in statistics. Guys who are hitting a lot of HRs who didn't before might have some question marks on how much that power will translate depending on the power profile. I would think that guys succeeding with a line drive/gap type approach would translate pretty naturally compared to the other profile even with the ball changes and silly-ball offense going on down there. Might not be true, but that's the only counter I would throw out.
  6. twins1095
    For all of the flak that Nick Gordon gets for his production especially compared to other middle infielders in the system and his draft spot his production this season as a 23 year old in AAA has actually been pretty solid: Current numbers projected over 162 game sample: .291/.335/.790 124 runs - 65 2Bs - 9 3Bs - 9 HRs (81 total XBHs) - 97 RBIs - 35 SBs __________________________________________________________________________________ If he keeps this up, with the way Baldelli likes to rest players and projecting some regression for Arraez, I'd be really interested in sort of platooning Gordon and Arraez in the MLB and having the main MI rotation be Polanco/Gordon/Arraez.
  7. twins1095
    Some posters are raising concerns about the offense from a combination of too many strikeouts, lack of situational hitting, etc. I think there are some reasons why those concerns are a little bit real. However, I think the biggest thing is healthy getting fully healthy for a consistent stretch. Rosario/Cron/Buxton instead of Cave/Schoop/etc likely leads to those extra runs everyone is looking for. Benign blue to bring Marwin, Adrianza, Schoop/Arraez off the bench is also helpful.
  8. twins1095
    Larnach/Rooker/Kirilloff/Arraez and Polanco are helping me stomach the struggles of Lewis/Javier
  9. twins1095
    He actually only threw 8 pitches.
  10. twins1095
    Taylor Rogers is _______
  11. twins1095
    This is probably just bias and not true, but for all the rest days most of the guys get Schoop seems to play more than most. Sano forsure sits a lot more frequently. Not really sure why.
  12. twins1095
    Boyd would actually be a very 2019 Twins pick up along the lines of Cron/Cruz/etc. Boyd's age, peripheral stats, contract, and relative value in terms of what we *should* have to give up to get him compared to other top targets make him arguably and I would say *probably* the guy who should be the #1 target on the Twins list.
  13. twins1095
    He's graded averagely this year. His defensive score, for whatever you take that is worth ~-0.2. Rosario's is -6ish. Other than 1 year, Sano has graded anywhere from just below average to average at 3B (above average his rookie year). I'm not sure it's fair to say that...it could mean that, but I think that discounts a lot of hard work and development done before the majors. Sano may have simply reached the top of his skillset sooner... It could be that he's more naturally talented in some ways. Regardless, it's irrelevant when looking at how productive a player is now if it took him 5 years to get there or he was there from Day 1. Either way, he is that player. The rest is an emotional reaction to a feeling that you have around a figurative word called "potential". Further, if we do want to say that Kepler/Rosario have topped out their ceiling while Sano has been at that level since Day 1 and has not topped out his...how great is it to have a Kepler/Rosario level hitter with the potential that he could be even better one day down the road if he ever puts it all together?
  14. twins1095
    I have consistently acknowledged that the analysis earlier in this post and in my other comments and posts about Sano regard his production on the field when healthy. It is 100% fair to criticize and question his ability to stay healthy. What is not fair, is the Twins fans who will make comments about Sano's production that are based in a biased reaction to a certain style of play instead of production to a team. I would also argue to some extent that his injury concerns will price down his next contract compared to his actual production which would be good value.
  15. twins1095
    Meh. None of the 3 player important defensive positions. Rosario grades as an extremely negative defender. Kepler actually does grade well especially with his ability to play CF in a pinch, so I might give you that. Not sure any of the 3 are really enough of difference makers to push the needle in any way defensively, especially since Sano has made himself into something of an average or close to average defender at 3rd. Sano and Rosario actually have the same fwar despite Sano playing about half the games largely due to Rosario's defensive ineptitude.
  16. twins1095
    I think that is a emotional bias reaction. It's penalizing Sano for developing earlier than the other two. To be fair, I know what you're trying to say is that you are criticizing him for not reaching his proverbial ceiling. However, whatever way you slice it... the 3 are similar level of players (in a good way). You can't knock Sano for being that level of player and call for his head while also praising Rosario and Kepler for being that same level of player. That does not make any sense. I don't think it's fair to say that it's an unwillingness to listen to coaches or an arrogance that he doesn't need to get better. I think that's a projection. I hope Sano can figure out how to take some steps forward and find a higher level of play. I think he will if he can stay healthy for a consistent stretch of time. However, do not let emotional biases distract you from player value--emotional biases.
  17. twins1095
    I mean even using Stroman's previous year FIP and xFIP number's...he's still essentially what Kyle Gibson was last year or Martin Perez has been this year. I guess to be fair he's a tick better than that, but not by much. It's a fair comparison to peg him to those guys in terms of stuff and level. Does that mean he's a bad player? No. Would acquiring Stroman make the Twins a better team for the rest of the season? Yes. Would acquring him give us a meaningfully better post-season short-rotation? I'm not convinced. All those numbers mean is that you're acquiring a certain type of player and you have to think about what'd you'd be willing to give up. If you think Stroman is an ace or even a good #2 on a good pitching staff you're seeing things. He's pretty similar to what Gibson has developed into...a solid #3 or below average #2. He would definitely make the team better, but not in a way I'm willing to give up crown jewel assets for.
  18. twins1095
    Probably Cron. If Kirillof keeps up his recent play and continues his trajectory he'll probably be knocking at the door midseason next year... Cron will be 30. Rosario 27. Honestly, he'd be a nice candidate to settle in as a DH as a replacement for Cruz. Either that, or push another player to DH if he's a better fielder...I don't think he is. Can we teach him to play 3rd?
  19. twins1095
    Update Baseball Prospectus just came out with a mid-season prospect list - Lewis is at #16Graterol is at #40Kirillof is at #43*Should note that pre-2019 Kirillof was #9 on MLB.com, #15 on BA, and #39 on Baseball Prospectus so that ranking may not be reflective of consensus opinion. Kirillof, after a slow may, would actually be 12th in OPS in his league and has been trending upwards since May with an injury stint in between. He's likely closer to top 20 than #40 if you combined rankings. Lewis was #5, #8, and #9 by MLB, BS, and BA respectively pre-2019. Graterol was #33, #55. and #68 by BS, BA, and MLB respectively. The 3 have dropped slightly due to injury issues and some level of mild struggles. Still think it's an overpay. But again just to ground the argument that's where those guys are pegged to the rest of the leagues prospects.
  20. twins1095
    Best post on here in terms of grounding the argument. Would you give up a top 10 prospect in all of baseball for Kyle Gibson? If not, what would you give up in our system for another Kyle Gibson level pitcher? Or Stroman + what would pry a top 10 prospect from your team (although Lewis and Kirillof will likely drop in terms of next years rankings). Would Stroman + Giles be worth a top 10 prospect + to you? Looking at past deals, most ace pitchers i.e. Sherzer, Santana, Grienke, Gerritt Cole, Justin Verlander etc. did not command more than 1 top 50-70 guy + prospects outside the top 100. Giving a top 10-20 prospect from Stroman is a ludicrous overpay.
  21. twins1095
    I think there is always going to be some level of streakiness. Both Rosario and Kepler have had and do have multiple streaks of 8-50 type runs throughout the season. It's the nature of the game. There's just more of a focus on Sano because of how bad his bad streaks are with the strikeouts that get even more pronounced.
  22. twins1095
    Definitely. This is an exercise of showing per game production when healthy. In the NBA they display points by PPG, in the MLB I think the equivalent of that is pace per 162 games. The point being that besides some general streakiness, that Rosario and to some extent Kepler also possess, the issue is not Sano's production when healthy. It is fair to question Sano's ability to stay healthy. With that being said, Sano has performed at this level (.320-.340 OBP / 40 HR / 30 2B / 100 runs / 100+ rbi) at a per 162 game pace his whole career. This is essentially Kepler's first year where he's taken that jump. There is something to that as well, although it also shows that Sano has not really improved since entering the majors. With that being said, some of that lack of improvement may be due to the constant injuries and having to rehab from injuries and never really being able to have a full stable season and a chance to really focus on some of those problem areas. Further, Sano's career average for OBP is essentially at where Kepler is at now in his career year. The overall point in terms of the exercise is a proof that Sano's issues in striking out do not KEEP him from being at the level of Rosario/Kepler and our other young stars. Sano's production this year is not new. The strikeouts KEEP him from being a level above that and entering the true superstar territory. Sano may or may not make adjustments and figure out on how to cut down the strikeouts by a standard deviation or two, but this exercise should peg the debate where it truly should be at as a reflection of Sano's actual production now versus where it could be if he could cut down the strikeouts. I think it would be unwise to give up on a player who's as productive as Sano and who still has the potential to reach another level because the strikeouts, swing and misses, and style of play looks ugly at times. It's important to start with the data and work opinions from the data and based in the data. I am hoping this exercise pegs the debate in a better place.
  23. twins1095
    Sano's numbers if evened to Rosario/Cruz PA levels: 225 times on base - Sano's numbers if evened to Kepler PA levels: 232 times on base
  24. twins1095
    Update: Player A (Rosario): .312 OBP - .841 OPS110 runs - 30 2B - 2 3B - 43 HRs (75 total XBH) - 130 RBIsProjected to get on base 218 times during 162 games3.45 pitches per plate appearance - 700 PAs per 162 game Player B (Sano): .321 OBP - .896 OPS113 runs - 37 2B - 4 3B - 53 HRs (94 total XBH) - 97 RBIsProjected to get on base 219 times per 162 games4.40 pitchers per plate appearance - 680 PAs per 162 games Player C: (Kepler) .337 OBP - .860 OPS110 runs - 42 2B - 42 HRs (84 total XBH) - 110 RBIProjected to get on base 243 times per 162 games3.56 pitches per plate appearance - 721 PAs per 162 gamesPlayer D (Cruz) .367 OBP - .921 OPS97 runs - 42 2Bs - 42 HRs (84 total XBH) - 120 RBIsProjected to get on base 256 times per 162 games4.22 pitches per plate appearance - 698 PAs
  25. twins1095
    Again, fair take. Thanks for the response. That’s the overall sort of back and forth thought analysis and take I was hoping other posters would get out of the exercise. The overall output between the two players is essentially the same. Player A does get on base more and drive in slightly more runs. Player B has more power. The RBI difference is somewhat buoyed by the differences in spot in the order. The differences in amount of times on base between the two, especially if you even out the play appearances, is marginal (Player A gets on base on average 1 more time per ~40 games). Player A is Rosario’s current 2019 season averages per 162 games. Player B is Sano’s current 2019 season averages per 162 games. Interesting contextual thought exercise because one gets a lot more criticism than the other. Sano’s power numbers will likely come down to a Rosario like level but I think his OBP and average based on his career averages will come up slightly to .240s / .330s so he could actually get on base more than Rosario. Even if it doesn’t come up that high, it should slightly come up to Rosario’s levels. Again, little bit of opinion in this last part but output differences between the two are interesting to look at outside of the noise and bias from the eye test on styles of play.
×
×
  • Create New...