Riverbrian

Roster spots are for 3 things 1. Helping the team win now 2. Increasing in Value 3. Fixing someone's flaws to eventually help the team win now or increase in value. (Shouldn't exceed a month's time) If a player doesn't fit into any of these 3 things. They are a waste of precious 26 man roster space. This is how you keep the factory at full production. If Adrianza is "capable of filling in at multiple infield positions, including SS". We should allow him to fill in at multiple positions including SS. I'll let you designate the backup tag on him, if it helps.

It's OK.. It fits into the larger point and I want to be clear that I'm only using Rosario and Cave as an example to fit into the larger point, that there is no reason for Rooker, Kiriloff or Larnach to be "Impacted" by the Donaldson signing. "You say Rosario is the better player... OK... I won't disagree or argue that assessment. But, you will kill Cave with that assessment and I do know this. Jake Cave has 481 career AB's. Rosario has 2451 career AB's. You better be right. I don't know a lot about Baseball Prospectus's new DRC+ stat. I'm not dismissing it, but I'd like to play with the formula (whatever it is) before I pass any judgement on the stat.

Disclaimer: It wasn't my intention to turn this into an Adrianza discussion so as I continue on... I'll just remind the viewers that this isn't really about Adrianza, it's part of a larger point that comes from the article title "3 Twins Prospects Impacted By Josh Donaldson's Signing". Which is more likely: Adrianza at age 30 suddenly became a vastly better hitter than ever before? Or he had a career year in a relatively small sample size? I don't know and I'm not going to guess either. There is only one way to find out. The only thing I know for sure is this: If the front office agrees with you and they believe that it's a career year and don't give him playing time because of this pre-designation. They will make themselves be right. At which point, Adrianza will not increase in value at age 30 so it's a waste of precious roster space, he won't play enough to help the team win in 2020 and therefore is a waste of precious roster space and they will end up playing Adrianza anyway when injuries occur, even if they agree with you and assume that he is a less talented player. So... they are committing to rostering a less talented player. If he is wasting roster space, you might as well cut him right now and call up Rooker, Kiriloff or Larnach and give the roster space to someone who will play and increase in value in the process. Better for today and the future. I'm not saying it's impossible that he suddenly figured something out. You agree with me... This is my point. But I think it's far more likely that he's a .680 OPS guy that got hot for a few weeks last year. No offense intended but I don't trust you, I also don't trust myself in these matters and I don't trust the front office either, . I only trust the player to either succeed or fail. Once either of those two things happen, guessing is no longer required. Tying this all together with the OP "3 Twins Prospects Impacted By Josh Donaldson's Signing". Donaldson will only impact them if the Twins drop what they were doing in 2019 and go back to the traditional old school, Terry Ryan, Paul Molitor and Ron Gardenhire method of we got our 9 guys, that's all we need, let's hope we were right and extend our days of darkness longer than we should be in the dark.

Adrianza had an OPS of ,765. Paul Dejong had an OPS of .762 Nick Ahmed, Dansby Swanson, Jean Segura, Willie Adames all had lower OPS. I don't agree that Adrianza is a backup.

Let's try it this way. Forget Equal Time... I only used Equal time as a reference point to show what is possible. Let's use Jake Cave for an example. Last year Jake Cave had 228 AB's and he produced .805 OPS Last Year Eddie Rosario had 590 AB's and he produced .800 OPS Both are above average major league numbers. Why should Eddie Rosario be the designated a starter over Jake Cave? I'm not knocking Rosario, I love Eddie and wouldn't do such a thing. I am not advocating benching Rosario. What I'm doing? I'm stating that by designating one as the starter and the other as a backup, you are basically throwing away Jake Cave. Jake Cave will not increase in value and you are limiting your organization to only Eddie gaining in value. Let's say both Rosario and Cave both have around 500 AB's (This isn't an equal time argument) and let's say they keep the same OPS as last year. .805 for Cave and .800 for Rosario. In that scenario... who has more trade value? Rosario with 2 years of control at Arbitration prices or Cave with 5 years of control at league minimum prices? If Cave is worked into the lineup like his performance suggests that he should. Maybe next time they call the Marlins and try to trade him for a starting pitcher, maybe the Marlins will actually listen. If Cave remains designated as the backup... the Marlins will not listen. Or even more realistically... if Cave can produce as well or better than Rosario at 600K compared to Rosario at 7.75M, and if Rooker (for example) is given playing time and producing .800 OPS or better as well.. the Twins have two roster spots at 600K instead of Rosario at 7.75M and whoever else at 10M. That 17 million saved can then be re-invested into someone who will produce OPS over 1,000 in the off-season. If you keep throwing away the Cave's or Rooker's of the world... you will fill your roster with Arb Eligible Contracts and have no budget left. You must produce 600K talent and you can only do so by not designating Blankenhorn as utility or bench before he even hits the stage. I am saying that anybody on the roster that the manager doesn't trust to play, any player who joins the 26 man roster and becomes bench glue with the tag of backup, utility or someone you have to limit playing time for due to talent deficiency, that you should take them off the roster and find someone who doesn't have that pre-determined designation or it's a waste of valuable roster space for today and for the future. In the context of this article. "3 Twins Prospects impacted by the Josh Donaldson signing". Specifically listing, Rooker, Kiriloff and Larnach. I'm saying that Josh Donaldson better not impact them. If they are ready... Donaldson better not be in the way. I'm not advocating playing Rooker with .600 OPS so Rosario with a .800 OPS sits. I am advocating the exact opposite. I'm often surprised why and how often this idea I bring up frequently gets challenged but I've come to realize that the Twins organization hasn't thought this way for decades until last year so how can anyone really come to grips with it, if all they see is Terry Ryan, Paul Molitor old school type execution. Last year was the first year that the Twins made an effort to get everyone into the lineup and it worked quite well. Let's do it again... and if they do it again. Rooker, Larnach and Kiriloff won't have to worry about the Josh Donaldson high hurdle to clear because there is plenty of playing time and nobody should be glued to the bench. Unless you are not performing... if you are not performing. Then YES... play them less.

I'm not saying that either. I'm using equal rotation as a starting point to show that players don't have to be diminished if they are performing. You can roster more than 9 talented players and make it work. The whole reason for doing this is to avoid playing Logan Morrison everyday with only Ryan LaMarre to turn to and keeping the pipeline turning or to avoid giving Buxton or Hicks a job out of spring training with no safety net or to avoid wasting a 23 year old on the bench over .50 OPS points. If Rooker gets called up and struggles... send him down and call up the next guy. Its 2020 and we just watched Arraez grab the ball and run with it. If Arraez comes up as a backup and plays once a week we probably resign Schoop or Dozier this off season.

Exactly and so does Adrianza and even Arraez. If a middle infielder goes down we don't have to force a struggling middle infielder on to the roster to replace them. It can truly be the guy who is raking in Rochester. It could be Rooker or Kiriloff.

How does he exceed expectation? If he is viewed as backup at best?

Backup guys who don't play are the very definition of no value. You can't trade them for anything of value because you've labeled them as not good enough and if they don't play they don't help you win immediately and when you have to play them due to injury, they were already determined to be not good enough so you are purposely playing lesser talent and if they are good enough to play... sitting them just kills them anyway. As for the math. Are you sure that the 6 players we have are better? How much better? .300 OPS better or are they .50 OPS better? If you have Mike Trout on your team and he is .300 OPS better, I agree with you. He should play everyday. Will you bench a 23 year old for .50 ops? How do you know if the 23 year old isn't the guy who is .50 OPS or .300 better? If the 23 year old is .50 OPS better do you now bench Rosario and throw him away? It's your choice... you can increase value of 13 players or 9. If you choose 9 you better choose right because you have removed all cushion.

Here is how it should work, if a team is trying to win and develop. When an injury occurs at the major league level. The front office should look at all of the players available and call up the guy who can contribute and then the team should let the player contribute regardless of the position he plays. If it's Wade... Call him up and play him. If it's Rooker... Add him to the 40 man roster, call him up and play him. You call up the player who is ready to contribute and whoever that is... You play them. If 2B or SS gets hurt, do we just call up Gordon just because he is a 2B or SS, even if Gordon is hitting .200 at Rochester and Rooker is hitting .400 at Rochester? We shouldn't call up Rooker because the club could never get past Donaldson, Sano, Rosario, Buxton and Kepler every day and if we did call up Rooker instead of Gordon due to talent, he has to sit on the bench because Donaldson, Sano, Rosario, Buxton and Kepler have to play every day. It's like last year never happened and we are back to Terry Ryan. Do the math. How often would each player have to sit if you had 7 guys for 6 positions. If Rooker, Kiriloff or Larnach are held back because they can't find playing time because of Rosario, Buxton, Kepler, Cruz, Donaldson and Sano and they just can't figure it out. We might as well trade the three of them now and prepare to sign Cozart types in the future. BTW... If anyone in the front office labels Blankenhorn as utility or backup. Please remove Blankenhorn from the 40 man roster or trade him now. Because if the front office feels that Blankenhorn is only utility or a backup... that's all he will be, the front office will guarantee that Blankenhorn is only utility or backup by not allowing him to rise above it. Blankenhorn is officially 40 man roster space waste with that designation... please don't place it on him.

In regards to OAA. It states that Polanco is the worst SS in baseball. If it was important. A replacement for Polanco at SS would be high priority. To my knowledge. They are not seeking one this off season and they choose to play Polanco at SS even when Adrianaza is also in the lineup. In a nutshell... The Twins are not reacting to this information.

In my opinion, UZR is most likely to inadvertently show which teams shift more. I'm not sure about the success they have shifting. Perhaps 9 out of 10 balls are either impossible or routine leaving 10% of all plays to be determined as difference makers. Of course... it isn't 10% of all plays because the data entry staff are told to ignore any play that has a pronounced shift so you can lower that to 5% or whatever. Consider that the camera doesn't always show that there is a shift, when the $7.25 an hour people are entering in the data. 5% is probably 1 play a week and that 1 play a week will determine weather you have a UZR of 15 or -15. Now consider, every time a ball rolls through where the SS usually stands but is not standing because of a shift, which may or may not be ignored by the minimum wage staff, that ball is rolling through a very high percentage vector. When that ball is rolling through a high percentage vector, it is the equivalent of a relief pitcher giving up 7 runs and getting nobody out. It's going to take a lot of relief appearances, to stabilize the data from that tragic event which may have been caused by a shift. With UZR you get maybe 1 play a week out of the ordinary to repair that (shift induced high percentage vector ground ball single) bad result. Therefore, I'll guess that the more you shift, the more tragic the Team UZR results. And of course... UZR is then folded into WAR. I remain hopeful that OAA turns out to be much much much more stable.

When the demand for young goes up so does the supply of old.

Defense is critical. Everyone gets 3 outs. If you blow a play that should have been made, you have given the opponent 4 outs. If you make a play that shouldn't be made, you have reduced the opponent to 2 outs. It's that simple and the +/- of the outs the opponent has to work with is a huge, massive percentage, swing. It is the difference between hanging a zero and a crooked number in most cases. The problem with zone related defensive metrics is that the stats drown in the routine play, limiting the sample that produces the differences, leading to an over-weighting of good and bad data, leading to Robbie Grossman in 2019. I'm waiting for a defensive stat that better expresses the +/- swing of 2 outs to 4 outs. This stat will have to be reliant on starting position for determining range and this stat will need to stay away from any zone related measurements. This stat will also have to incorporate honest to god errors, not the official scoring representations of what happened over the decades. Major League Baseball will have to overhaul what is considered an error because many plays that should have been made were actually ruled hits. Errors need to be more accurate. Until then A minus whatever doesn't scare me that much. Robbie Grossman scared me more.

According to language expressed in the CBA. Both Swordplay and Murder are prohibited.

I've already taken that leap of faith. I believe that "Utility Players" in the traditional sense are complete wastes of roster space and I believe the traditional "utility" role should be stricken completely from baseball if a team is serious about consistent winning. Traditional "Utility Players" don't play regular innings because they are not good enough and they are only "utility" because roster limitations forces them to backup multiple positions regardless if they are proficient at it. This will force a team to roster a player who either can't hit but can field multiple positions or a player who can hit but can't field multiple positions but has to anyway because you can't provide backup's for every position and the team will only play them on getaway days or in the case of injury and they are not good enough to play when the injury occurs because that's why they are utility in the first place. The end result of utility players is 3 or 4 players out of 12 or 13 position players on your 25 (26) man roster that will not increase in value because they are not given regular playing time so they can increase in value. Only less talented players will agree or deserve a diminished playing time role. If they were talented enough to play every day... they would. So a team must roster 4 guys of less talent and do so on purpose. This means the traditional "utility player" model is actually a club purposely deciding to only incubate 9 eggs when the incubator can hold 13 eggs, therefore limiting their production of chickens and allowing each failed chicken to kill you. I only believe in "Super Utility Players". Players who are good enough to play every day and can play multiple positions so they can be fit into any lineup. Super utility players allow a team to roster 13 players and give them all significant playing time. Therefore maximizing each egg slot in the incubator. Much like the Twins did last year... I hope to see them continue forever. I also don't believe in making elite defensive performers super utility. Byron Buxton is elite... he should only play CF... Josh Donaldson is close enough to elite to only play him at 3B. Polanco is not elite at SS and capable of other positions. I also believe that Elite players should play every day, while less than elite players can share time with other less than elite players and no one has to sit on the bench for an extended time unless they EARN it by playing poorly. I'm ready for the leap of faith trust fall.

I'll make that blunder. My best SS is playing SS if he is in the lineup. If my best SS is not in the lineup, then the next best SS who is in the lineup will play SS. http://m.quickmeme.com/img/05/05509c85f187981cd90ac0e1e17da9dd622ec5e2284213756dc940ace8c1225a.jpg

I don't know but I would be shocked if they didn't. Shocked. It's human nature. Actors read their reviews. Meghan Markle reads the Daily Mirror. If a co-worker is talking about you a couple of cubicles over, you will listen as closely as you can to hear what they are saying. They are all connected to the internet. They know TD exists, Yeah, I'd be shocked if they were not regular readers.

Your wife's high school sweetheart left her alone for hours to hang with his buddies in the parking lot at prom. You were going to stand by her side through thick and thin. This is good for you because Brad Pitt can't have every third baseman in the world. You need to respect your wife's decision and let her speak free or eventually she won't?

Last year at the trade deadline... We needed a starting pitcher. Last year at the trade deadline... We did not trade for a starting pitcher. The article title is a question: With Donaldson in the Fold, Can the Twins Afford to Wait Until the Deadline to Trade for Starting Pitching? I'll answer that question with a question. Wait for what?

When Polanco and Adrianza are in the lineup together. Polanco plays SS every time. Isn't that the Twins letting us all know (through action) how important they feel it is?

If this stings a little as a Twins fan. Remind those Twins fan that he chose us on purpose. He looked at everything and decided on Minnesota. If this stings a little, it would be an example of "Gave her my heart but she wanted my soul". You should think twice cuz... it's alright.

This post is spot on. I've been on Twinsdaily pointing at the Dodgers organization for quite some time now. Saying "Look Look Everybody". The Dodgers are doing it different and it's clearly working. They are not winning with "Money" they are winning through development. Yes the Dodgers have money, they have the resources to spend it if they choose but they are doing it primarily with players who don't cost a lot and by doing so... it allows them to fill roster spots cheaply which produces available money to throw at Kershaw and others if they choose and still stay under the CBT threshold. Teams need 600K talent so they can afford more expensive talent and you can't find 600K talent if you trade it away. So, the Dodgers are very stingy when it comes to which prospects they will trade and which ones they hang on for dear life with. You can't look at the Dodgers today through a Terry Ryan lens. It's night and day and it won't make any sense if you try. There are way too many quotes about the percentage of prospects that pan out. The Terry Ryan way of doing things (Pre-Moneyball way of doing things) was extremely hard on cheap talent because they were held back from the lineup. The Ivy league guys are looking at the cost per and trying to find cheap talent with playing time because they can afford a Josh Donaldson if they do... and they are finding it from Austin Riley to Luis Arraez. Those percentages that people quote are based on opportunity and opportunity wasn't there in the past. The Dodgers routinely find playing time for the Max Muncy and Walker Buehler types and have created an abundance of cheap talent and they have more coming and they won't stop. Joc Pederson will be gone and replaced Gavin Lux and so forth. Terry Ryan routinely did not find playing time for 600K talent and were slaves to the performance of the (I Play Everyday) Trevor Plouffe's of the world instead and our return to competitive took much much longer than it should have. WIth all that said... I support the decision of the team to hold on to prospects. It's sensible and the way to build sustainable success. But... if you choose to hold on to it... you have to play it. You can't let Martin Perez keep his job with a 6 plus ERA and keep a Randy Dobnak out of the rotation. Mike Morin can't keep a roster spot, if he isn't going to increase in value while the manager keeps him out of high leverage situations. You must play the 600k talent or the refusing to trade it, makes no sense at all.

This post is spot on. I've been on Twinsdaily pointing at the Dodgers organization for quite some time now. Saying "Look Look Everybody". The Dodgers are doing it different and it's clearly working. They are not winning with "Money" they are winning through development. Yes the Dodgers have money, they have the resources to spend it if they choose but they are doing it primarily with players who don't cost a lot and by doing so... it allows them to fill roster spots cheaply which produces available money to throw at Kershaw and others if they choose and still stay under the CBT threshold. Teams need 600K talent so they can afford more expensive talent and you can't find 600K talent if you trade it away. So, the Dodgers are very stingy when it comes to which prospects they will trade and which ones they hang on for dear life with. You can't look at the Dodgers today through a Terry Ryan lens. It's night and day and it won't make any sense if you try. There are way too many quotes about the percentage of prospects that pan out. The Terry Ryan way of doing things (Pre-Moneyball way of doing things) was extremely hard on cheap talent because they were held back from the lineup. The Ivy league guys are looking at the cost per and trying to find cheap talent with playing time because they can afford a Josh Donaldson if they do... and they are finding it from Austin Riley to Luis Arraez. Those percentages that people quote are based on opportunity and opportunity wasn't there in the past. The Dodgers routinely find playing time for the Max Muncy and Walker Buehler types and have created an abundance of cheap talent and they have more coming and they won't stop. Joc Pederson will be gone and replaced Gavin Lux and so forth. Terry Ryan routinely did not find playing time for 600K talent and were slaves to the performance of the (I Play Everyday) Trevor Plouffe's of the world instead and our return to competitive took much much longer than it should have. WIth all that said... I support the decision of the team to hold on to prospects. It's sensible and the way to build sustainable success. But... if you choose to hold on to it... you have to play it. You can't let Martin Perez keep his job with a 6 plus ERA and keep a Randy Dobnak out of the rotation. Mike Morin can't keep a roster spot, if he isn't going to increase in value while the manager keeps him out of high leverage situations. You must play the 600k talent or the refusing to trade it, makes no sense at all.

I won't name names. That up to the front office to apply the information they have on those spreadsheets but this is a great post.