Jim Hahn

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.

Thank you for posting this, Seth. I noticed that the Twins have really increased the number of coaches, as you have pointed out. Probably the number of support guys(health, strength and conditioning) as well. This is one area that I think is probably a good idea to beef up. With all the changes the Twins have made, it is good to see a certain amount of continuity as well. I think the development staff has done a decent job of getting players to the majors over the last few years. Good work should be rewarded.

I don't agree with any of this. He was a very productive hitter, a good defender, a spokesman, and from all reports, a leader/good teammate. The only issue I had is that he was wildly inconsistent during the course of a season. Still, it's very hard to argue with the total production. It's too bad he didn't get to play with better teams. I am not saying the Twins should of extended him or tried to resign him. With the near ready middle infield talent in the system, a one year deal to Schoop makes sense.

Z ? I thought Dozier was in the last year of a 4 year contract.

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.

Am I right and all these guys are college coaches who have never played professional ball? If that is true, I am not sure what to make of it. I would think there are a lot of former professional players with an analytical bent, who could make great coaches. So my question is the FO deliberately avoiding hiring guys with professional experience? If that is the case, I would be interested in why. I don't know if you or anyone else might have some insight into this, but I am curious.

This thread has been a very interesting and civil discussion. I thank all of you who participated in it. I nothing have more to add to it, except a likely off topic observation. Baseball, not just major league baseball, but all levels of baseball, has not done a very good job of protecting pitchers arms. This has been true for years, but it is especially true today, even with modern medicine and greater understanding of various stresses placed on arms. Weight training and other trainings have increased velocity and spin, but they have also increased stress on the arm. Too many promising and a great many successful pitchers get washed out of baseball far too early. I really don't have a lot of ideas about how to improve this aspect of baseball, and I realize many major league organizations are working on this, at least to a degree. I just want to point out that as teams go about changing how pitchers go about pitching, protecting pitchers arms needs to be a part of this. I am somewhat concerned that these new pitching models could, however inadvertently, actually cause more arm injuries.

In The 60's when I started following baseball, pitching staffs were typically 8, with 4 starters. Starters often pitched thru bad games to, I suppose, pertect the rest of the staff. They often pitched thru sore arms. The book Ball Four detailed some of this. There were usually one or two closers or finishers, who often pitched multiple innings. The other pitchers were long men or spot starters. Jim Perry was used this way by the Twins until he became a starter. This kind of usage tended to chew through starters, with the notable exception of a few rubber armed guys. Starters of that era had some advantages. Higher mounds and bigger strike zones tended to help reduce the number of pitches needed per outing. 5 man rotations and fewer dominant starters increased staff sizes in the 70's. There was still a lot of short careers due to injuries and a number of pitchers reinvented themselves from hard throwers to soft tossers because injuries robbed them of velocity. This might not help you much since these are observations not stats.

I get what you are saying here and elsewhere , Brian. I could even construct models that perfectly fit together 2 inning pitchers, 3 inning pitchers, 5 inninng pitchers, 1 inning pitchers and the increasingly rare 7 inning pitchers. It would look wonderful on a chart, and would get everyone their proper rest and you could fit around scheduled days off and everything. But baseball doesn't really work like that. There are rainouts and rain delays. One inning pitchers don't always complete 1 inning. Your workhorse starter sometimes doesn't get through 1 inning, which would mess up my model for at least a week. The reason baseball has used a 5 man rotation since the 70's is that largely, it works. It has some built flexibility, you can skip a starter after a rainouts or not. You can usually compensate for 1 poor start with a long men, etc. Now, right now it seems to be increasingly hard to find enough durable, effective starters to fill out a traditional 5 man rotation model. There are at least two ways to fix this problem. Work harder at making starters last longer and be more effective, or throw away the old model and try to create something new and theoretically more effective, as you suggest. I personally am leaning to the first solution for a lot of reasons. First, with a 25 man roster most of these new solutions are pretty hard to implement. You really can't contract the position player bench anymore than it is and shuttling pitchers has certain limitations that can inhibit its effectiveness. That tends to mean that at certain times during the season you will find yourself using the 14th and 15th best pitchers on your 40 man roster or dropping players off your 40 man roster and adding new ones merely to keep from overusing players. Another issue with these ideas is that relief pitchers are getting overused in any number of ways. Too many times pitchers are asked to warmup multiple times befor getting in games. Max delivery relievers asked to pitch multiple innings too often. Short relievers pitching too many games in a row. I am having a hard time seeing how new use models will help that, and it likely it could make this kind of abuse even worse. Finally, even if you change roster rules to make these ideas easier to implement, you are still using more pitchers. Since part of the real problem here is that there are not enough good pitchers, using more pitchers is a counter intuitive solution to the problem. Again, I would like to see baseball working harder to get more innings out of your pretty good starters rather than using more less good pitchers.

Now I'm confused. If a starter starts and wins a game, how is that not helping his team win games?

The focus of this article was how to best utilize Odorizzi who seemingly can only throw 75 quality pitches a game. Twodogs touches on the more important issue with Ordorizzi and others like him, what are the limiting factors that are reducing him to 75 pitches? Does he lose velocity after 75 pitches? Does his stuff flatten out? Does his command deteriorate? Does he become too predictable? Does he need another pitch to mix in with his existing pitches? I hope this FO is looking more at this aspect of starting pitching. Too me, this is the best way to fix the problems inherit in using so many relief pitchers every game. Take your pretty good starters and figure ways to get them deeper into games. Help them be more efficient. Work with them and catchers to sequence better. Talk about pacing, so you aren't taking 30 seconds between pitches, especially when it is near freezing or 100 above. Figure ways to improve command. Perhaps, even even suggest pitchers don't have to try to strike out every hitter, merely try to get them to hit your pitch. There are other ways to make starters better. Conditioning, refining mechanics, focusing exercises. Generally starters are better pitchers than most relievers, I want the Twins to figure out how to get more innings out of the starters, not less. The more relievers you have to bring into a game increases the chance that at least one won't have his best stuff in that particular game. It also decreases your flexibility for the next game. Getting as many quality innings as possible out of your starters will ultimately make your bullpen better by decreasing the usage of your poorer relievers and not overusing your best relievers.

I started with the hard throwing rightly. Then I brought in the softvthrowing lefty because he threw strikes. He claimed to have 5 pitches But they all looked like change ups to me.

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.

I don't know that they are being allowed to spend to last year's level. Even if they can, I wouldn't be surprised if they keep something in the kitty. If they get off to a decent start, they might want to see where the holes are and patch them as they go. There are a lot of young players on this team with more getting closer to the majors. I expect that once they see if the pieces fit, they might want some money to take on salary during the season.

I am not so sure I would do this deal. There seem to some assumptions inherit in this. We really don't know how much money they have to spend. With Kepler just entering his prime years, and McCutcheon already in his 30's, it is not that clear that McCutcheon will be the better player. It might be more cost efficient to keep Kepler and spend the money on pitching.

I saw part of this on tv. The scary part was that Dr. Ahmad was doing surgeries on middle school kids. The kids were putting so much stress on their elbow, that they were breaking the growth plate on the bone.

To me this kind of player is pretty easy to replace and not particularly valuable. Kennys Vargas was just like Palka. Field and Austin probably aren't much different. I think WAR overvalues this type of player. Except for the games they hit a home run, they provide negative value. Unless this kind of player can either figure out how to get on base at a better rate, or hits so many home runs that you are willing to put with the low on base, I would rather replace that kind of hitter with someone who is more a more of a well rounded player even if you lose most of the home runs. I don't think Rooker is horrible defensively and there is some promise he can improve his contact skills. So, I am hopeful about him. I will be a little surprised if we see him in the big leagues this year, unless there are multiple injuries or non performance at the big league level.

To me the safety net you are talking about should include include guys on the 40 man roster. Granite, Wade, and Gordon have all gotten to AAA. If they aren't considered likely/possible replacements for injuries or poor performances, they shouldn't be on the 40 man. Actually any highly rated prospect who has reached AA should be in that category. This is the whole point of building a strong farm system. You should have at least several ready or nearly ready prospects in system at all times to be the safety net. 4 A guys should just be short term replacements or backups to backups. Most major league backups are versatile guys or role player types. Even on good teams. What you want and sometimes you don't really have enough of these guys, is for your near ready top level prospects, to be your depth in case of injury or non performance. It looks like, maybe, the Twins are getting close to that goal.

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 understand this thinking, but isn't at least a good part of the problem with Buxton and Sano is that they can't stay healthy? Do we want more players like that? In addition he is reaching an age where he may have more health issues rather than less. As valuable as he might be when healthy, he draws a salary and takes up a 40 man spot when not healthy. I get signing a Ramos if he the last piece. In this case Garver,Castro and Astudillo maybe able to approximate his production. I would rather see the money spent elsewhere.

Teams also routinely send players to the Arizonia fall league in October. Why do they do that? Often because they have lost time to injuries. I am not claiming that this strategy will cripple his development or that it matters if he is pissed off or even that manipulating service time is a bad strategy. What I am saying is the best strategy is to help Buxton to be the best player he can be. I think that up to 100 more at bats, time with major league coaches, swings against major league pitchers, all of that, would of been greater benefit to the team than sending him home. Also and finally, I am not sure that the benefit of having an extra year of control is greater than those benefits. You and others disagree. That is fine, I am done debating. The damage,if there is damage is done.