Jim Hahn

I really don't care about budgets and whether or not the FO is spending as much as they could or should. I don't mind if the FO is pursuing a strategy of combing thru the discard pile, or dumpster diving or whatever you choose to call it. There is no doubt that good players can and are often acquired this way. Sometimes long term producers are found this way. The thing is if you are going to pursue a strategy of finding bargains, looking for marginal upgrades, and looking for bounce back candidates, you need to be good at it. Your processes,evaluations and judgements need to be good. You can't be losing many Derreck Rodriguez' s or going through the whole process of identifying, signing and working with the perfect bounce back candidate in Anibal Sanchez and then getting no benefit from that good work. Be good at this strategy also means more than getting good value for what you spend. The pieces have to fit together. Is having 2/3 of your lineup comprised of what appear to Be low acerage,poor contact, high strike out sluggers a good thing? Does adding Perez even at a bargain price, when you already have a very similar pitcher in Meija? Both are backend starter types who haven't worked out of the bullpen. Neither can be sent to the minors. Do both fit on the same roster? It is too early to say that this FO can't execute this strategy. Nick Nelson is right about that. So are the people wondering whether this strategy will help the Twins contend even if the core group actually become a core group. The FO chose this strategy rather than make bigger perhaps more easily justified splashes. Now they need to make their chosen strategy work.

Everybody understands/remembers that everyone mentioned in the last paragraph came off the same sort of discard pile that Cruz, Cron, Parker, Schoop, and Perez came off of. They were all acquired during during the off season. All were acquired during a down period, if not necessarily the exact off season before a very good season. Most were short term acquisitions to fill a specific hole, although some were kept around for a few seasons. Most teams do this. We just remember these specific decisions because they just worked so well.

That is fair way to explain the concept. It way even work that way, if you can count on the opener to get thru that 1st inning unscathed. If the opener puts your starter in a hole any significant amount of the time, then the value is gone. If occasionally your opener can't get out of that first inning, you either have to bring in your starter in the middle od the inning or use up up another reliever. There are other potential downsides as well. Teams will start preparing for openers better. The idea of starting the game with what is likely your your 11th or 12th best pitcher, I don't know. Usually you use those guys for mop up,or 1 out specialists, which they can't do if you have already used them up. The other question is why does a starter struggle in the first inning. Is it really because he is facing the other teams best hitters? Or maybe it just takes an inning to figure out what's working? Maybe he will still struggle if his 1st inning is the 2nd inning.

What I liked about Cuddyer is he was a team first guy. As pointed out in the story, he was moved around a lot. Even after he was established as a fine right fielder, he was moved around a lot as needed during a season. He adapted well to this, not all players seem to. I don't agree with the opinion that he was lackadaisical or was uncaring about winning. I doubt if you can have too many player with Cuddyer's attitude and effort.

You are likely basically right about the impact, but the actual dollar increase in spending from the last FO to this one, is probably much larger than you are suggesting. Do you really think a college coach with at least a 4 year degree, most probably at least a master's is going to sign a contract for $50,000? Most college coaches, even small college coaches, are going to be making considerably more than that. The FO personnel added above previous levels, aren't signing for $50,000 either. The analytics people they signed could likely make a pretty large salary for the right corporation, with bonuses. I doubt that Hunter and Hawkins signed for minimal salaries either. The other question is how many people above previous levels have they hired? 30, maybe as many as 50? Ryan ran a pretty tight ship. Even if this just gets them to what other clubs are spending, it changes considerably what they were spending. I also doubt that most of the upgrades were all paid for in the year they happened. What all these people have added to the payroll? I don't know. It has to be in the millions I would think but I don't really know. I also don't know that even if it is that much, that it should have much of an impact on the budget for major league player salaries. The problem is we really don't know much about any of this,so my guesses are probably way off. By the way, I was responding to spycake but I appreciate mlhouse's input.

There has been a lot of talk on this site how the Twins are sitting on piles of money, or at least how could spend at a much higher rate. While I suspect that is likely true, nobody seems to factor in the fact that this FO is spending a lot more money in areas that the previous FO did not. Beyond beefing up the analytics department, they have also beefed up the FO in general. They have added more coaches throughout the minor league system than the previous FO had. They have a couple more major league coaches. Though other adds are more difficult to track, they seem to have added to both the scouting department, the fitness department, and maybe even people who deal with mental health. Some of this was started by the previous FO, but money has been spent on facilities in Fort Myers and the Dominican Republic, Statcast and other tracking toys, as well upgrading the Elizabethan facilities. I expect I may be missing other "upgrades" but the money for these things comes from the same sources even if it doesn't fit under the same category as major league player salaries. Now, I believe income for the Twins is trending up, even if attendance isn't. While I think the various upgrades undertaken the last few years were largely necessary, it is likely that this spending could very well impact, at least to some degree, the money available for free agents.

I know that this has been debated in other threads, but it is hard to see much value in Austin to the Twins right now. Cron and Cruz likely make it almost impossible to keep Austin on the 25 man roster. He can't be optioned, so he may be traded or more likely, dropped from the 40 man and hoping nobody claims him.

I think the problem here is that a lot of you think Austin's skill set is more valuable than I do. He didn't look like a particularly good 1b to me, in a small sample size. He is plodding and slow on the basepaths. I don't know if he can play the OF as noted above, but would be very surprised if he is as good as Grossman. His contact skills are poor, his walk rate is mediocre, and he hasn't shown he can hit same side pitching at a decent rate. What he does is hit home runs. If you give him enough AB's he could probably get 30 or more in a season. Now I think what he can't do thoroughly out weighs what he can do. Sure, he could improve his weak areas, some at least. But I think Cron is better, now and don't think you need 2 guys like that on the 25 roster, especially with today's big pitching staffs. I do hope the Twins can sneak him through to the minors, because he has value as insurance behind both Cruz and Cron. I don't know how the FO values him. They could have a different view than I do. Judging from their off season moves, they don't seem to have a lot of confidence in him. I do think that modern stats tend to overvalue power and undervalue contact skills. I could be wrong about that too.

I could be wrong, but I doubt if Austin or Granite have much value in a trade. Most teams already have their own Austin's, and Granite was hurt and ineffective last year. Littel may have some small value, but not much if teams view him as a likely AAAA pitcher.

But that is what Austin is, a one dimensional 1b type. It is highly unlikely he can play OF at above a barely passable level, or the Yankees would of continued to use him there, at least in the minors when he was residing there between his short stints in the majors. There are too many guys like him, and unless they can hit same side pitching at a league average level, they have very little value except as a shuttle piece between the majors and minors. The large pitching staffs seemingly necessary in modern baseball, have ruined things for any sort of one dimensional bench player. In fact it has pretty much ruined any type of straight platoon, that was common even 20 years ago or so. This is why any infielder coming thru the Twins system in the last ten years, has generally played all over the infield and often in the OF too. Corner types like Rooker are played in both corner OF spots and 1b. Teams really need 8 regulars but anyone not starting has to play several positions. It is even difficult to accomadate a full time dh. Which is why Cruz received less money than he might of, if he could still play the OF or if there were larger rosters. This is why you need ready minor league talent that are above AAAA types. The bench isn't near large enough to protect a team from injuries and poor performances.

Actually, this is interesting but it isn't new. It's pretty much what was done with many relief pitchers in the late 50's and 60's. During the 70's the number of appearances went up but the innings per appearance began to trend down. Certain rubber armed relievers thrived, but many were burnt out after a year or two by this kind of use. So gradually the one inning reliever became the norm. The use you describe is possible, certainly it was done in the 60's. Part of the reason it worked then is because most teams had at least a couple of starters who could be relied on to throw complete games on a regular basis. The problem today, is that you need relievers pretty much every game. It may indeed be possible to let someone like Rogers pitch 2 to 3 innings per appearance. Then of course he is unavailable for the next 2 games when he maybe needed, and then multi inning appearances may not be needed for another week. So then you use him for an inning or less and then he is not available for a multi inning appearance. I don't know the total answer to this. There are too many max delivery guys who aren't very well suited to multi inning use. A guy like Rogers may very be more valuable as single inning high leverage guy where he gets a lot more appearances than as a multi inning guy. If you try to move him back and forth between those roles, you will almost certainly overuse him. Which may of happened with Andrew Miller. Unless baseball expands rosters some of these ideas look better on paper rather than actual practice. With less innings being eaten up by starters, we are having more and more innings being covered by the 8 thru 13th best pitchers on a staff. Often the back end of the staff is being changed off with AAA pitchers, so now we are using our 14th and 15th best pitchers. I think figuring out how to get more innings out of your best pitchers is a good thing. What I think though is that the best way to do that maybe figuring out how to get starters to maintain their effectiveness the 3rd time through the lineup. Also teaching them to be more efficient with their pitches would get them deeper in the games. Typically your starters are among your best pitchers. Making them more effective would help reduce the innings of your least effective relievers.

I actually like Stewart as a starter more than as a reliever. His stuff seems very comparable to Gibson's. He doesn't get enough strikeouts, but he doesn't give up hard contact either. When he is going well, he gets quick outs, and can get deep into games with a low pitch count. He needs more consistency on his secondary pitches, and perhaps a better understanding of when and how to use his 4 seam fastball. Hopefully, he can get there faster than Gibson did. I have hope for Gonsalves and Littel , they just needs very sharp command. Mejia kind of looks like a multiple inning reliever to me, though maybe he gets more chances to start. I believe he is out of options, so I think he starts the year in the bullpen.

I have no real problem with this deal. Schoop is the youngest of the various free agent 2nd baseman and probably the most likely to put up the best year, if not the most likely to put up a good year. I also like that it is a one year deal. It signals that the FO has some confidence in Gordon and may very well mean that they think Lewis can stick at short, and isn't too far away either. If the Twins are going to be good soon, it is mostly going to come from the young guys in the system. Schoop won't get in the way of that and he could be a big help in the short term.

It still happens in the American League. Look at what Gardenhire did with Cuddyer. After he became a right fielder, he played a bunch of games at 2nd. He was also switched to 1st a lot some years. He at times appeared at 2nd, 3rd or cf well after he was established as the regular rf. Teams do what they have to. The thing is that when Cuddyer was playing out of his regular position it was a sign of injuries or bad performances than any grand plan. The Twins actually tried a bit of flexibility when they tried Sano in rf one year. We know how that worked. I am not against flexibility, with big bullpens and short benches it is a necessity. Too much flexibility, however,probably means something has gone wrong.

Number 2 isn't really true. Go back and look at lineup construction in the 50's and 60's. Harmon Killebrew played 3b, of, and 1b almost equally during the 1st half of his Twins career. He did it to help get the best possible bats into the lineups. The Twins did much the same with Tovar. Stengel did the same with the Yankees. He was famous for playing his catchers in left field. Ken Boyer was a gold glove, all star 3rd baseman who one year played over a hundred games in cf. He also played ss a lot. Now, the question is why this practice died out. Some it may of been expansion. Not having an excess of good players you were trying to get into the lineup seemed to be part of it. The other part of it was having a bunch of players who hit but often didn't field very well didn't really help you win. That was the reason the Giants traded Cepeda rather than trying to continue to play him and McCovey at the same time. I also think that teams feel that not having to platoon is better. They would rather have their depth at AAA rather than moving too many people around. The Dodgers are different maybe, or maybe they just have so much money that they can afford to have 2 former all star 2nd basemen sitting on the bench.

You have been preaching positional flexibility and i get it. But keep in mind there are only 2 types of true utility guys. The true glove first guys who can truly play almost any position well. These guys might not help you much with the bat but seldom lose games with the glove. The other is the so called super utility guys who can win games with their bats and you hope their defensive short comings won't hurt you too much when you play them somewhere other than their best position. I think trying to get too flexible with a lot of these guys is a mistake. Sure if somebody gets hurt or sick or late in a game when you need to pinch hit to try to win a game, yah then throw Astudillo or Austin out into the outfield. But you shouldn't go out of your way looking to put guys like that out of position. They are barely passable at their primary positions. It also isn't very likely that their bats are good enough or at least that much better than the alternatives, that they should be forced into the lineup at a position they aren't good at. I agree that Kepler should bring his 1b glove along. I also think that plan works a lot better if both his bat and Cave's are forcing them both into the lineup.

I agree in a general sense that Grossman's on base skills would be more valuable if they were paired with another skill. I also think that on base skills are undervalued right now, in part because the popular new stats are constructed to overvalue power. Even OPS does this where a single becomes twice as valuable as a walk and a home run roughly 5 times as valuable. I go back and forth on Grossman, I would think a guy with on base skills and better defense might be more valuable. Someone like Wade, if he can hit.

I wonder if the Twins won't try to slide Austin through waivers at some point this winter. If they can, they still have another bat available at AAA, which would add depth. Cron could still be cut this winter if a better option presented itself. I would think a utility type bat who can play 1st, 3rd and maybe 2nd might be signed. It is also likely that Kepler will need his 1st baseman's glove this year in order to get him,Cave, and Rosario into the game at the same time. It also might a bit early to make too many assumptions about what the final roster will look like, or how it will fit together.

You may be right about Molitor not abusing him. I do think abuse can occur in more than one way. Pushing a pitcher past his normal pitch limit in an appearance is one way. Too much work over a season or seasons would be another. Another way is not getting enough rest between appearances, or even multiple warm ups over a short period of time could be another.I don't know enough to say for sure that Molitor abused some of his relief pitchers, but it sure seemed that some of his relief pitchers had multiple appearances over a short period of time . This seemed to happen to the same pitchers a few times. Of course it is also true that Reed had pretty high over several seasons, as you said.

The problem with the corporate culture is often they don't talk to the people who have to implement a policy or the people/customers it affects. In this particular case there are almost certainly ways to make people safer, keep the lines moving, and still be cost effective. One of the ways to do that is to that is to talk to the people that have will have to implement that plan. Maybe that is happened in this case, but the people making policy seldom have to deal with the people it affects. It isn't that they don't care, but when you are sitting in an office making policy you often don't foresee the possible fallouts and potential difficulties that people on site are going to deal with.

I agree with with your thoughts about war. I was too lazy to do a more comprehensive evaluation. My larger point is if Buxton is healthy and can stay healthy, I really believe he will be the kind of impact player that Betts is, even if it takes a little more time. He has shown enough flashes of that possibility. The other thing is if the FO had not decided to play games to get an extra year of player serfdom, we might of seen 100 AB's of a healthy Buxton and we might not be having this conversation.

That might be an optimistic answer. They may well be instituting a policy that looks like it addresses safety issues rather than doing the research, work, training and expense of coming up with something that will provide actual safety.

To me at least, a good share of it is probably health. That was probably a factor for the Boston players as well. You don't have to be on the DL to have hurts that affect your performance. As far guidance, well we have all been there, you can hear the same thing in different ways and it doesn't help, or doesn't register, until suddenly it does.

I expect Navaretto to eventually have a useful big league career. Still there are 4 catchers already on 40 man roster, with Rortvedt right behind him with likely a bit more ceiling. I don't think Navaretto gets protected. Jay had a tough year. At this point draft status means little. Nobody wastes a rule 5 pick on him if he has lost the velocity and stuff that made him a high draft choice to begin with.

In 2017 when Bogaerts, Betts, Buxton, and Sano were all 24, Buxton had twice the War of either Betts or Bogaerts. Sano had 50 points of OPS on Betts. Neither Betts nor Bogaerts have had particlarly straight roads to their current lofty status. I have no idea what Buxton and Sano might do in 2019. But if they are healthy, big ifs maybe, I would expect pretty darn good numbers. Probably not what Betts did in 2018, but then Betts will have a hard time duplicating that himself. Young players don't all follow the same paths to success. Given health, I really expect special things out Buxton. His talents are overwhelming and i believe he will work hard. Sano, is a bit ifier, but their is a lot of talent there too. Now, I understand your point of not depending on them for 2019. Still, you can't write them out of the plan either. Trading either at this time seems foolish to me. The answer is probably to build some depth, pray for good health, and see what happens.