Riverbrian

I should have included the word "necessarily". My fault but the sentence should have read like this. I think it has been established that increased contact doesn't NECESSARILY lead to increased offensive production. Cleveland and Washington led the league in not striking out by almost 100 less strikeouts than the 28th ranked team. Cleveland and Washington were not good offensive teams.

Rest is the X factor in what is ultimately a math problem. There are approximately 25 weeks of baseball. Duran threw 62 IP last year which is an average of 2.5 IP a week. 1.5 more innings a week will put him at 100 IP and increase the usage of the best pitcher on the staff. 4 IP every 6.5 games will get him to 100.

Both Santana and Margot K'd at nearly half of Taylor's rate. I'd say it's quite possible that the Twins front office are prioritizing K's... Less of them.

If he has that type of year. Why not pick up his option and keep him?

Very rarely do you run across the answer to a question inside of the actual question. Here are some more examples of the answer to a question inside the actual question. Why don't people like dogs that bite? Why don't people eat food that doesn't taste very good? Why do I sweat mowing the lawn when it's 120 Degrees? I'll open up the floor for anyone who would like to answer those questions.

The question comes down to proper rest. Based on usage... we can reasonably conclude that Starters after 100 pitches are rested at minimum 4 days and we can reasonably conclude that the one inning reliever typically can pitch back to back days with a day of rest on the third day. So if relief pitcher X throws 3 innings... how much rest is required. Long relief is a defined role that has been in place for decades. Availability and rest is also an issue with long relief. There are times when starters get pulled early on back to back days and one LR can't manage that. Essentially... what I am thinking about by stretching out the entire bullpen... is in theory creating multiple long inning guys. Will it work... I don't know. Just something that I've been theorizing for a long time now.

In past discussions... I think it has been established that patience leads to increased two strike counts and two strike counts leads to increased strikeouts. I also think it has been established that increased contact doesn't lead to increased offensive production. However... We set a record for the most strikeouts in the history of the game. That number must come down. Because I also think it has been been established that STRIKING OUT is not a positive result.

The possibility of Correa returning to Correa numbers and the possibility of Lewis continuing to play like one of the best players in all of baseball are indeed possibilities. I wish for that along with a sincere wish for health.

I will not speculate on player issues outside the clubhouse. I will not speculate on players personality inside the clubhouse. Some of the players that we think of as wonderful might be buying up property in Florida and tossing old ladies into homelessness. Some of those bad people may do some great things. Up can be down and down can be up. Everybody has a skeleton or two or twelve. A couple of years ago... I accidently clicked on a story that I was not interested in. After that accidental click... My news feed fed me story after story about how Ellen Degeneres is really really mean. There was no other conclusion to draw from the avalanche of stories sent my way on the subject. Ellen was clearly a horrible person. I want to state for the record that I have never met her. Social Media is a dangerous place. That said... I'd probably pass on Bauer... because... well... I mean... I do read X, Facebook, instragram, Tik-Tok.

I would also worry about that due to the lack of precedence. It has been done before to both failure and success. However... there has to be middle ground between 180 innings as a starter and 60 innings as a reliever. There has to be because middle ground is everywhere but sometimes we don't think about it. I was at a party talking with a friend (acquaintance). She was really really pissed at her husband. She told me that she hated him. I thought that was odd because last week she was telling me how wonderful he was. I asker her if it was possible if she was just disappointed with him at the moment. I was hoping she could find that middle ground between the extremes. Thankfully, somebody else called me away to have a heavy conversation on the best rock bands of the 70's. So, I was able to excuse myself out of that conversation.

Jordan Hicks is another guy who will be attempting to do the trick this year. It's a fair question that is going to require traditional thinkers to recover from the shock of the question before they can seriously consider it. Would I do it. Nope... I wouldn't go that far because Duran is one of the best in baseball but I've said this before... I would look for ways to increase his innings and not just limit him to 9th inning when we have a lead by 3 runs or less. Deploy that weapon whenever we need it... Squeeze some extra zero's out of him when you can. Increase his innings from 62 to 100. That will be 38 innings less for pitchers who are not as good. Get extra innings out of anyone pitching well in the bullpen. If you get more innings out of Jax and Stewart as well, They could add up to 100 innings not need to be thrown by an innings eater. Rather than an innings eater in the rotation... I'm OK with the bullpen handing the 5th day instead if need be. Why deploy a 5.00 ERA innings eating starter if your bullpen is posting a 3.95 collectively. When searching for the best 13 arms. Search for the best 13 arms. If you want to be a starter and pitch 150 plus innings. to justify that usage, you should at least produce better than the bullpen produces collectively.

If you consider how I wish the Twins would operate... Margot isn't the guy. If you consider how the Twins actually operate. Margot is a perfect fit. That wall isn't worth banging my head against. I have no expectation that the following will think exactly like I do. 1. The Twins Front Office 2. My Wife 3. The Twins Manager 4. Kevin Costner 5. Any Twins Player 6. The Democratic Party 7. Any Front Office in Baseball 8. The Republican Party 9. The road guy who plows snow into my recently snow blown driveway. 10. Dennis Rodman For not thinking like me... I will forgive 8 of the 10 listed as they have jobs to do. 6 and 8 can pound sand. I would have bet big money that the Twins were going to bring in one more player who profiles exactly like Manuel Margot. I hope he does a great job. He is one of us now.

If you are trying to find a pitcher. The players listed will keep you from finding a pitcher.

With Joc Pederson on the roster. The D-Backs will need Randal Grichuk insurance.

Not sure why the list was limited to three. Brooks Lee is a Non-Roster Invitee. One or two of the NRI pitchers will probably be needed. Limiting the discussion to the list. Prato - .990 OPS over 299 AB's. Michael Helman was hurt but he showed power and speed while he produced ,902 OPS in 118 Plate Appearances with the Saints. Compare those numbers to Brooks Lee - .731 OPS over 168 PA's. If either Prato or Helman repeat those numbers this year... I don't know how you can justify keeping them out of Target field. Niko Goodrum has a career .816 OPS against left handers. I think the front office will consider that.

I'm guessing that the Brewers would be a good team to add to your list of 3 teams. The Brewers have spent a lot of time in contention and they have loudly at times moved players on expiring contracts for prospects and certainly revenue challenged, Trading value before they reach free agency is absolutely a viable strategy. Cleveland, Tampa and Oakland have done a great job of this as you point out. Now there are some considerations that come to my mind. 1. There are primarily 3 ways that teams acquire players for their team. Draft/IFA Development, Free Agency/Waivers and of course trades. If a team doesn't participate fully in one of those areas.... for example If they shop the waiver wires and bargain basement free agents... it would in theory produce a low percentage in that avenue of talent acquisition... therefore a natural by-product would be higher percentage in your model from the other two avenues. Development or Trades, You have 100% to account for. If Free Agency only accounts for 10%.... There is 90% to divide up between the other two. You'd have to compare contrast across all teams. I'd guess that any team that typically stays out of free agency is going to have a higher percentage of development or trades. 2. Of the 3 primary ways to acquire talent or WAR as you are using as a measurement. Only 1 avenue requires sending WAR Back and that is trades. Kyle Manzardo will probably be a shining star in your research for a while if you continue with it. But, the WAR that Aaron Civale who they traded for him has to be factored in. Right Now... I'm betting that Cleveland is sorry that they gave up a lot of future WAR by trading Junior Caminero. Nolan Jones looks like a big negative in that department. Will Benson with the Reds might be someone they would like back. 45% via trade does look impressive but I can't help wonder how much WAR went the other way. 3. Context has to be considered. You use the Rays as an example and rightly so. However, They are the team gave up Manzardo for Civale. They were the team that gave up Joe Ryan for Nelson Cruz. Context contending or not contending determines if they acquire prospects or if they acquire expiring contracts. I agree with you... the Twins should pay attention to what these teams are doing. They have done well. But... Context matters. I think the Twins are contenders... I think Polanco is one of the best hitters on the team. I would have kept him.

If I had to bet... We will probably see Lee in a Twins uniform this season and it could be as soon as the extra year is gained. I still request or at least hope that Lee be required to demonstrate some proficiancy at the AAA level first but if I had to bet... We will probably see Lee in a Twins uniform this season. I think it's important to curb some enthusiasm though. Even if we see Lee... we don't what he will be. On that you must agree. His arrival might be a reasonable bet but his production upon arrival is certainly no certainty. If Lee in a Twins uniform is used as justification for trading Polanco. They better be right because it would be a completely unnecessary dice roll considering that Lee doesn't have to be added to the 40 man until Dec 2025.

We agree but we might be coming from opposite directions. I think in the case of a struggling vet keeping his job... they would have to ignore stats to justify it. I get it... it's a long season of peaks and valleys... if a player valleys out of the gate there just might be peaks to come. I haven't been shy admitting that I would have cut Gallo and Kepler in June. In the case of Gallo I was right but in the case of Kepler I was wrong. Kepler was one of the best hitters in baseball after the all-star break. Regardless we do agree. I think the Twins have been too patient with struggling vets on expiring deals.

OK Fair Enough. Then they are not Bench Players they are starters against left handers. However, I am willing to place a bet right now that your bench of Farmer, Margot and Santana will each receive more plate appearances against right handers and probably by a significant margin. You say you would rather have a veteran on the bench than a young prospect because they are battle tested and they have made the adjustments, faced all there is to face. .I agree with you on that 100 percent on that... With one rather large condition. The Veteran must be able to take all that they learned and display it on the field when put in the lineup. This brings us back to the post from Jorgenswest that started it all. It brings us back to the topic of this thread... it bring us back to the post made by Nicksaviking that lists all of the veteran players who have been through it all and did a terrible job, couldn't be sent down and become something for the team to over come because the team didn't release them. Jorgenswest floated the possibility that the team would be better with Polanco and 720,000K player than they are with Santana and Margot. It's debatable but I side with Jorgenswest.

I'm strong enough on my own two feet to not have to rely upon national baseball writers, podcasters and TV analysts for influence. 😉 I think you are also strong enough on your own two feet to not need that type of influence either. Both of us have bravely continued on... through the heavy winds of the popular opinions prevalent on this website. I have seen you not back down against national baseball writers, podcasters, TV Analysts and a ton of posters on this site in regards to fiscal responsibility. I'm not sure why you'd expect less of me so I hope you don't mind if I blow past your first paragraph. 2nd Paragraph: I'm not sure how the best 13 players do not combine make the best team in any circumstance but I think the point you are making is based on the extremely limiting containment of all 3 players to the 2B position. You have to know by now that I am not going to contain all 3 of those players to one tiny bucket. You have justified letting Polanco go because: Polanco would have been the inferior player when replacing Julien against RHP or Farmer against LHP. I'll go down this path using (Choose your favorite stat - I'll use OPS for simplicity) Julien had an OPS of .898 against Right Handers while Polanco had an OPS .775 last year. (.803 Career). So... Julien is better against Right handed pitchers. Now since Polanco had a higher OPS against lefties than Farmer did last year. (.824 to .782). We will have to switch to career in order to make Farmer the better option against left handers. Farmer has a career .825 against the southpaw while Polanco has on LH OPS of .729. So... Farmer is now the better option against left handers. 1. We can't use last year for one example and career for another. But we really can't use career for Julien since he really doesn't have a career yet. So... you basically have to use two different sets of time to make this the truth. 2. And... let's address the obvious... You have to not only use two seperate time periods but you have to use two separate players... two separate 26 man roster spots just to make Polanco the inferior player. 3. You can't right/left handcuff at all 9 positions. You can only do it at three positions at most unless you find a left/right catching handcuff for a 4th. You will need 5 players who can face both hands. 4. If you remove the containment chains of 2B in order to combine two players together to make Polanco the inferior player. You don't have to sign Santana. The DH Spot is still sitting there if everybody stays healthy... and you acknowledge that they will not stay healthy. Paragraph 3 Your first sentence is inaccurate. Polanco's value to the team is that he was one of our best hitters last year and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that. ' Even if Lewis, Julien and Farmer stay healthy all year long... Polanco is still one of our best hitters on the team and I think he may be the most consistent good hitter on the club. You may or may not agree with that but at the very least... you and I should be able to agree that Polanco is a better hitter than Santana at age 38 who was the player acquired with the Polanco cost savings. As for Brooks Lee... He isn't here yet. When he gets here... we will see what kind of contributions he makes to the team... we will see if the team is in contention or not... There will be more data and recent data to consider so they can cross the Brooks Lee bridge at the appropriate time. If Brooks Lee was a consideration for the trading of Polanco... the front office better be right about BROOKS LEE THIS YEAR and not next year because that would be the type of thing that would make me shake my faith in them. Polanco got traded... there are obviously going to be reasons for the deal. Including the very strong possibility that Seattle wanted Polanco over Farmer and were willing to give up a pretty strong package when you include the young top 100 prospect they included. I have already moved on from the Polanco deal and also conceded that if it comes down to budget... it comes down to budget... All teams have a budget that he will adhere to. But if you are asking me for specifics. I would have kept Polanco over Descalfini, Santana and Margot at the same money.

This discussion is probably in need of some straightening out because in order to make our points it has gotten into a realm of something that will never ever ever happen because the 26 man roster will not reach the point of healthy and kicking ass enmasse. I'll take responsibility for that. So Let's get things back to a more sensible level. The article is about players who can and can't be sent down due to options remaining or not having options. There are a group of us who are very nervous about the lower priced vet who can't be sent down and we question the value of what we will get production wise in comparison to what the younger player with options will provide production wise. We are wondering out loud if it would have made sense to combine the millions of dollars being spent on average to below average vets on expiring deals and spending that money on someone with more talent. One big player and a 720K guy as opposed to two average vets. I'm not sure how many are in this group but I agreed with Jorgenswest when he expressed this and I believe Nicksaviking and Chia Pet are also in this group based on things they have type. From what I'm gathering from your comments. Your primary fear is that a young future starter will be given a roster spot and waste away on the bench so you much more comfortable with Santana and Margot taking up bench space. I am 100% opposed to giving any player a 26 man roster spot based on the reasoning that you are OK with them sitting on the bench. I get what you are saying and I am stretching the meaning of what you are saying but not needing to play someone isn't a sensible reason to roster someone in consideration that there are only 26 roster spots. There are lot of people in your group who like to choose 9 players and clear the dance floor for them by picking up 4 lesser players so those 9 starters can play 161 games. I will never ever join that group. I have never seen a group of nine players not only stay healthy all year but also not have one or two or three of that chosen group of 9 completely lay a performance egg. Players 10, 11, 12 and 13 (however they are labelled) are going to be needed for much more than a guy who is on the roster because you are OK with them sitting should be needed. Stop looking for lesser players is what I suggest doing. Stop looking for bench players... I'd quit calling them bench players altogether. The way it needs to work is: Bench players are players who earn bench time because they are playing bad. If your bench player is playing good... why should he be on the bench. When Royce Lewis gets hurt and the time comes to call up Brooks Lee. Brooks is going to play... if he performs well... He should stay and keep playing. If Royce returns and Brooks is performing... there will be some player on the 26 man roster who is not performing and Brooks can replace that player so he doesn't go back down and the manager will figure out how to get the playing time to all deserving. If Brooks isn't performing... Uber him over to St. Paul and let him continue his development. There should be absolutely no concern at all about having too many players who need playing time. Guys with options can always be sent back down. It's the player who can't be sent down, that keeps getting fed playing time despite long extended slumps that I worry about. Santana and Margot taking up valuable real estate and struggling. If Santana plays like Solano did last year. I got no problem with Santana... If Santana plays like Joey Gallo did last year and the Twins keep him on the roster all the way to the very end... I got a major problem with that. Nicksaviking has a list on this thread of players that the Twins hung on to and shouldn't have. The Twins have shown that they will be hang on to the 8 million dollar mistake and doing that again is my biggest fear.

Yep That Guy. I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same guy. I'm not sure... The guy I'm talking about has a career .750 OPS in the minors. Just to make sure. The guy drafted 5th overall in the 2020 draft out of Vanderbilt. The scouting report from Baseball America said he "has some of the best pure hitting ability in the class, with eye popping bat speed, excellent contact ability and impressive plate discipline as well". The guy we got back in the trade for Jose Berrios. The guy that we gave a 40 man spot to protect from the vultures. The guy who still has a 40 man spot after all the 40 man roster horse trading that takes place. The guy who went from a .683 OPS in AA to a .791 up a level in St. Paul. It's too bad that baseball is not linear because his .108 OPS increase from AA to AAA would rise to .899 in the bigs. 😁 The guy with a .857 OPS against Right handers in St. Paul last year and a .626 against left handers. The guy with his future in front of him, who doesn't need to have his development handicapped by a front office trying to strip mine him so we can strip mine other young baseball players. I'll admit that I've never driven one of those Austin Martin cars made in Britain but I'm willing to test drive it.

You obviously know them.

Do the Reds have an infield problem or a good thing? https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/depth-charts/reds

If Martin is earning playing time If Wallner is earning playing time. If Brooks Lee is earning playing time. If Royce Lewis is earning playing time If Alex Kirilloff is earning playing time. If Eddie Julien is earning playing time. That would be awesome... It would be exactly what every team should hope for. We can clear our October schedule to make room for playoff baseball. Too many baseball fans look at a starting nine and look for crap for the next four spots. I'd stop doing that but I can't convince people to stop thinking that way. We had a large chunk of people who wanted Jorge Polanco gone because they couldn't see past Julian. I'd be looking for 13 players who get the job done and let the manager figure out playing time for all and if you got to the point where you have 13 players who are getting the job done. It doesn't matter who the manager puts in. They are all getting the job done. There is no justification ever to keep two people on the 26 man roster because they are players you have no problem sitting. The biggest thing that KILLS a team is keeping a Margot or a Santana on the roster while they hit .190 and yet don't release them because they are making 9 million dollars collectively. Too many players, all young with years of control, all needing playing time. That is never a problem... that's a successful franchise.