Riverbrian

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.

I am a big fan of the 2018 deadline because they didn't stand still. They cashed in the expiring contracts and moved in a defined direction. I agree that it was a jump start. They announced to me that this was a new Twins front office and I liked it and I still do. It's time for the jump that follows that jump start. The prospects either produce in 2020 or they are traded for someone who will produce. This team ain't the same 2018 team.

Stability is extremely important and you can't stabilize unless they have stable top level needle moving talent. Teams have basically 3 ways of acquiring needle moving top level talent. Sign it Trade for it or Develop it Signing or trading requires cooperation from others outside of the organization and this is beyond the teams control. The free agent must agree to sign and may want to live in New Jersey. The GM of the team you are trading with may not want what you are offering and has the right to insist on a larger package beyond what you are willing to pay. We have learned this past trade deadline and this if off-season that simply acquiring a top level arm is difficult. This leaves development. Of the three options, Development is one option that the Twins have the most control over. But that development is made much harder to accomplish when secondary or tertiary free agent or trade acquisition options are preferred. They didn't trade for Stroman or Boyd or whoever last trade deadline. They must produce their own. They didn't sign Wheeler or Bumgarner or Cole or Strasburg this off-season. They must produce their own. They should have started last August. They didn't... They must start now. We can't be looking for 3 arms again next year. We have seen the result this off-season and last trade deadline... we don't wan't to do this again. If you are not trading the talent... USE THE TALENT.

The answer to the question asked in the Article title is Yes. The Yes answer is: An upper level talent with at least 2 years of control. The cycle has to stop. As it stands today... we will be once again searching for at least 3 arms next off-season to replenish the rotation for 2021. Acquiring an upper level arm (or any starting pitcher) for one year only will not stop this cycle and will also get in the way of major league development of guys who can truly stop the cycle with multiple years of control. You got to take steps to get off of this merry-go-round. Last July 31st... the team was probably playoff bound and in need of a starting pitcher to attempt to bolster the off-season roster. Perez was in a deep funk at the time, Gibson had E Coli issues that they had to know about, not to mention, the historical high probability that any pitcher is a candidate for an injury. They also knew in July that they would have to either re-sign or acquire at least 3 arms in the off-season. I think it is a safe assumption that they tried to land a talented starter (preferably with at least 2 years control) at the trade deadline because they surely knew about the need due to the issues I list above. However, they did not land a starter and with a clear need for one, the only assumption I can make is that the prospect price was too high. I completely trust the front office to makes these types of determinations and support the decision to not make a trade because of the prospect cost. However... I've said this often. The very second they decided the price was too high and didn't acquire a starter. They fully committed to the prospects that they chose to keep instead because the need didn't go away and the problem has to be addressed. When they chose the prospects... they chose the solution. Now that they are committed to these prospects... and they are... by their own choice. The prospects must be counted on to stop the cycle of needing 3 or more starting pitchers every off season. Whoever it may be... Dobnak, Smeltzer, Graterol, Balazovic, Duran, Alcala or Thorpe. At least 1 and hopefully 2 of them need to establish themselves THIS YEAR as major league capable and if they do... they must be allowed to continue. They can't succeed and be sent down to Rochester so a Martin Perez type performer holds a spot when the gang of five is healthy. If these guys can't hold down a MLB spot or are not given the chance to hold down a spot because Bailey with a 4.80 ERA but making 8 million keeps his job. Each of these potential prospects will see their trade value reduced accordingly and when that happens... you run the risk of these arms dying on the vine due to lack of opportunity and that also means that the club just bet on the wrong horse last July 31st when they didn't trade for a starter because the prospect price was too high. Once they don't trade the prospects, they must develop the prospects and treading water with average vets won't get it done. What I am talking about is critical in 2020. This isn't a "I hope this happens" situation.... it has to happen. We can't go into 2021 needing 3 arms again because that is treading water. Unless... the team can acquire a high end starter with at least two years of control left this off-season. because that lessens the critical immediate demand that one of these guys gets it done this year for a roster with playoff aspirations and it reduces the need from 3 to 2 starters next off-season. So the answer... is YES. High End Talent and at least 2 years of control. If they don't... Dobnak or Smeltzer or Graterol or Thorpe or Balazovic or Duran or Alcala better be the real deal in 2020. Thank You... I'll step off the box now.

Thanks for the info. Pressly was more of a general point using a specific example and not a specific point for a general example. If the system works and somebody gets clobbered with it. It could cost them money and probably did.

I agree with you. There is no way to assess the scope. I know I can't do it from my living in room in North Dakota and I'm not sure if Rob Manfred and his associates can say they have all of the potential ramifications completely understood either. It's simply too hard to do so. There are way too many tentacles that could come off of something like this that can't be quantified because of the uncertainty that clouds the air. Anything is possible, ranging from two world series titles that are now tainted, to front offices changing course due to effectiveness of the Astros organization, to other teams retooling after losses, to Yu Darvish signing for anywhere between a million dollars to who knows how many million dollars less, to the possibility of players being cut or sent down after a rough night in Houston, to Reverend Smith having to buy Gloria a soda after she won a friendly wager on the outcome of the series. All the way to Twinsdaily posters typing mean things about the Twins players involved in a May 2017, 3 game series that produced 40 Astros runs against our Twins at Target field. No idea if this scandal was functional on the road but you look at 40 runs and you gotta wonder. Ryan Pressly was tagged for 7 earned runs in that series while getting only one out. He finished the year with a 4.70 ERA over 61.1 innings. Take out those 7 runs and his ERA drops to 3.69. If his ERA was 3.69 instead of 4.70... perhaps he doesn't settle for 1.6 in his 2nd year of arbitration. I have no idea but no matter how much these guys make. The difference between 1.6 million and 1.9 million is a lot of money. I can't speak with authority because I don't know if the scheme was effective or a garbage banging waste of time. I don't know exactly when it was deployed and when it wasn't, who knows maybe it backfired a time or two. Maybe the Astros and Red Sox would have won the world series anyway. However... I can't dismiss the effectiveness with Cora involved in back to back World Series titles. As I sit here and try to decide on guilt or innocence in my mind and cause and effect in my mind... I gotta tell you... This would be a rare moment in time where two World Series titles actually doesn't look good on the cause and effect front and World Series titles used to look good in any light. And if a World Series title or two was the effect. I don't know if it was but... if it was... Yeah... it would probably cost Darvish a million or maybe a lot more in free agency. Baseball has some cleaning up to do... there is a major spill in Galveston Bay.

I remember multiple articles about the possibility of Darvish tipping his pitches as an explanation for his poor World Series Performance that year. Obviously... it can no longer be assumed that by "tipping pitches" it was something that he was doing... like holding the ball or glove in a different location or something with this new can of worms opened up. Now, I realize that Darvish got paid decently by the Cubs the following year in free agency but in consideration of that World Series performance and in consideration of the latest news out of Houston. Here's a question that no one has the answer to but...Potentially how much money do you think the Astros garbarge can banging cost Darvish in Free Agency that year? If he has a strong world series right before hitting FA... isn't it possible he gets a bigger contract?

This is exactly right. If the goal is to improve infield defense? Don't mess around, improve it. Go right to the most defensively important infield position (SS) and improve that position. You don't focus on the edges. The real reason you sign Donaldson is because he carries a special bat. Being a good defender is a really nice bonus but your infield defensive improvement isn't big enough attacking the corners. It's the Donaldson bat that demands the AAV and where he really moves the Twins needle.

Good article... I love the creative thinking and am fully supportive of anything other than being locked into past baseball conventions such as the traditional 5 man rotation. However... "Assuming a starter is acquired, a June rotation may look like Berríos-Odorizzi-Traded for starter-Pineda-Bailey-Hill, which as I mentioned before, is one too many". It is only one too many if all 5 stay healthy or all 5 perform at an above average level. The odds of these two things happening are off the charts... and if it happens... we should enjoy the moment because our ticket to the playoffs has been punched with 6 starters getting the job done leading the way.

You can also add Justin Turner, Kenley Jensen and AJ Pollack making big money in Dodger Land but here's the deal. Pederson Enrique Baez Seager Taylor Muncy Stripling Barnes Alexander Bellinger Urias Verdugo Buehler Will Smith Are all affordable great players who combine to a reasonable dollar total and allow the Dodgers to sign Kershaw to a contract like that and stay under the luxury tax. The Dodgers are doing it differently than other teams. They are not winning with the dollar bill. They are developing young talent and playing it. The current difference between the Dodgers and Twins is that the Twins are not there yet. They will have to spend a little at the moment. The Dodgers don't have to.