Riverbrian

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.

I love the DH and dislike players who only DH while thanking my lucky stars that Nelson Cruz is on the roster all at the same time.

This might be the best sentence ever typed on TD.

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.

I won't speculate on who the Twins should offer. However... to answer your question. The Twins would have to change course to maximize the value of Hader. The Brewers are not your traditional 5 starter rotation ball club. They created Hader to fill those gaps created by not being a traditional 5 starter rotation. Unless... the Twins are going to tailor the game plan to what Hader does, it would be better to trade for someone who will fit into what they do. Go for the starter.

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.