by jiminy

I wonder why the Mets didn't trade Wheeler? The Twins, and any number of teams, would have given them a LOT more than the rando they'll get with their compensatory draft pick. Maybe they still think they have hopes of making the wild card, or of resigning him. But if they'd dealt him they could have gotten some really good prospects.

Here's hoping that the Astros and Yankees beat up on each other in the LDS and then we beat the Yankees in the LCS. To me winning the World Series wouldn't feel as great if it doesn't go through the Yankees. If I had a choice between knocking the Yankees out of the playoffs and losing the next round, or winning it all but not ending that curse, it would be a tough call. I mean, I know you have to go with the championship. But honestly, if we beat the Yankees in a one-game wild card game and then got swept in the divisional round, I would be deliriously happy. I am so tired of being their stupid stepping stone. This time I want to be the one to end their season, forever.

MLBTR says Dyson had a top-ten ground ball rate last year. I wish our infield was as good as our outfield. But he sounds like a good guy to have when you need a double play.

But isn't that what's happening now? We clung to our prospects and now we're competing? I'm okay with that, personally. I'd rather have a shot at long-range success built on a rotation of Graterol, Duran, and Balazovic than trade them for some flaky reliever who is only marginally more reliable than the next guy. The Mets trading top prospects for Diaz is a perfect example of what people are clamoring for. That was a fiasco and was not that unusual. No reliever is a sure thing. I'd rather roll the dice on Graterol himself in the bullpen than trade him for a reliever.

The Twins don't just need pitching this year. Losing two of your top three pitching prospects, who both have the potential to be better than Ray and cost controlled for six years, is a steep price. I wouldn't pay that for 1.5 years of much more expensive pitching. I don't think a few starts in the playoffs by Ray instead of Pineda is worth losing the potential for sustained success. Young pitchers with high-end upside are very hard to find. If the Twins' window is going to be extended past next year, it's going to take several of those young pitchers panning out. Neither is a sure thing but you've got to have some dice to roll and those guys have a realistic chance to be 40% of a playoff rotation.

re: "Buxton's highlight grab in the bottom of the fourth had a xBA (expected batting average) of .670 and a catch probability of five percent." If there is only a 5% chance of a ball being caught, wouldn't the expected batting average be .950? Or if there is an xBA of .670, shouldn't there be a catch probability of 33%? Those are the only two options, a hit or a catch, right? I'm not being sarcastic, I really just don't understand this. Okay, I just looked it up (duh), and it makes sense now! For those interested (and ignorant, like me): xBA only takes into account exit velocity and launch angle, and how fast the hitter is, but not whether it's hit toward a fielder. http://m.mlb.com/glossary/statcast/expected-batting-average. Catch probability takes into account how far the fielder has to run, how much time he has to get there, how close he is to a wall, and which direction he has to run. http://m.mlb.com/glossary/statcast/catch-probability. So you could hit a line drive into the gap, or right at the center fielder, and they would look the same on xBA, but very different on catch probability. Makes sense.

I love it. If anyone can spot and correct a glass it's this coaching staff. I also like that this year is such an anomaly for him. He's never been this bad or walked this many people before. In his case, regression to the mean would be great!

I think he would cost extra because he's such a fan favorite, and a link to their WS wins. They're not going to be valuing him based on future production. It would be like trading Joe Mauer. It might happen as a favor, if he wanted to go to a playoff team. And I agree with the point above that he might not be a huge upgrade over Gibson. I think Gibson's stuff could play well in the playoffs. Odorizzi makes me nervous though. All those strikeouts on high fastballs could become dingers against the Yankees. I am just not convinced Odo, Perez or Pineda could subdue a top team. So I'd be fine with MadBum, if the cost was based on his projected future production. But they'd probably do better to find someone on the way up than the way down, like a Ryan Pressly, not a "proven closer" or former star with "playoff experience."

Not too long ago Pineda would have been our number one: a former Yankee, throws 95 mph, paid $10 million as a free agent. We've had worse starters pitching our season opener. Hell yeah I'll take that as a number five. And he's still getting better.

So far the story of the off season has continued to tthe story of the season: the Twins have what looks to be an explosive lineup top to bottom that could challenge the Indians in a weak AL central--making their refusal to dip into the loaded free agent market for relievers except for one bargain basement closer completely inexplicable. I know their plan is to invest in bullpen help via midseason trades if they prove they can stay competitive, but by then it may be too late. The bullpen has already blown two winnable games, and looked scary in a couple more, and it's not even mid-April. Six games by mid-season could cost them the division. I know every bullpen blows a game now and then. But it's not normal to gift seven free passes in a row. And yes I'm counting Odorizzi's contributions, because with a deeper bullpen he wouldn't have been left in that long.

If he was willing to sign for 1/16M or 2/30M, he would not be a free agent right now. The Twins would jump at that (or should anyway), but so would every other team.

I agree about not rushing him back. What about his play last season shows he would perform better than Gonzalez or Astudillo right off the bat, especially coming off an injury? See what he can do at AAA first. If he's hitting like 2017, hitch your wagon to him and go for a ride. But wait and make sure 2018 is behind him first.

While Gonzalez would seem to push Astudillo out of the utility player role, there's a good chance that could change. Gonzalez is only the utility player until someone gets hurt or gets benched. As Bonnes and Gleeman pointed out on the podcast, there are question marks to make it through the year at several positions: Sano could get hurt or moved from third or demoted; Schoop could fail to bounce back; and an injury could occur at just about any position. The benefit of Gonzalez is he can fill in almost anywhere as a starter without a big drop off. And when that happens, Astudillo or Adrianza would probably replace him in the utility role. Since Astudillo can also catch, and is a better hitter, he'll have a good shot at replacing Gonzalez when he becomes a starter.

Way too early to give up on him learning a third pitch! A starter is much more valuable than a reliever. Give him a couple years to master a changeup. Only reason to call him up this year is if he's the difference maker in a pennant race, like St. Louis used to do with their phenoms. If that happens, great. But otherwise the next two years should focus on his changeup and curve. Why start his free agent clock before then, and save his best years for the Yankees?

The problem with using him in the majors as a reliever is that he will concentrate on using his best pitches, to get people out. What he needs to do is improve his secondary pitches. You can't do that in the majors, with games on the line. That's what the minor leagues are for. If the goal is to succeed as a starter, keep him in AAA, where he can focus on improving his secondary pitches. Only in the minors can he afford to use his least effective pitches, even when it's not the best way to get batters out. That's exactly what he needs to do: Throw lots of curveballs and sliders, even if it means getting knocked around a little. And when they stop hitting them, THEN he's ready for the majors. And he'll arrive with four pitches, as good as he can make them without facing MLB hitters, and take it from there. I don't get why people say he'll improve faster in the majors, and is wasting his time in the minors. Can he work on his weaker off speed pitches in real games? Maybe I'm wrong, and he can work on his other pitches on the side, while going fastball/slider in games. I don't see it though. At some point he needs to use them to improve. To me, the only real justification for stunting the development of a potential starter is if you're in a pennant race. If every out counts, and you've got a fireballer who can help you in the pen right now, sure, screw the future and go for it. But for where the Twins are now, I would say, If you want to make him a reliever, do it because you're sure he'll never master a changeup or a curve. But if there's still hope, give the guy a chance to reach his potential. If our real window is a year or two away, do what gives you the best chance of turning him into a top of the line starter. And if he's not ready yet, do what you can to get him there. Which is to focus on his secondary pitches, not the ones he's already mastered. If the season goes surprisingly well, and the Twins are in contention, and you need another arm, grab him from AAA and throw him in the bullpen. He'll be even better for having worked on his secondary pitches. But unless you think his offspeed pitches are hopeless and are ready to make him a reliever permanently, I wouldn't pull the plug quite yet. But the only point in making him a reliever now is if the Twins are in win-now mode, and they really need him; or if they plan to throw him out there when the game is already lost, and he can experiment without a cost. If the Twins get so far out of the race that they're throwing in the towel, I guess they could let him work on his curve and change with major league batters then, too, even if it means getting knocked around. But otherwise, I'd let him work on his off speed pitches in AAA.

Seems like a good guy to lock up long-term. If he turns into an ace, you have a star locked up at an almost affordable rate. If he remains inconsistent his whole career, well I'd rather pay a home-grown talent who is fun to watch and a good guy. And even if he never becomes a number one, he'll still be useful somewhere in the rotation, and you need those guys too. The only truly terrible scenario is a bad injury. I'd say, insure the contract, and keep him around. I really don't want to see him pitching for the Yankees.

Baseball-reference.com projected Mejia to have a 3.87 ERA in 2019. Martin Perez they projected to have a 4.85 ERA. That's moving the needle quite a lot, actually. Just in the wrong direction.

Funny, that is my feeling about the Twins. ...Yawn. How could anyone possibly be excited about this team? For the second straight year (at least), the bullpen was an obvious need. And there were loads of quality arms on the market, most of whom signed two-year contracts for less than $10M a year. Even I, a long-time Pohlad skeptic, assumed we would sign a couple quality relievers. That wouldn't even bring payroll up to league average, or up to 50% of revenue. To not even do that is just baffling. I don't know why I even pay attention to a team that is spending under 40% of revenue on payroll. What's the point? I am starting to spend more time on athleticsnation, and it's a lot more fun. I also like the Brewers, and anyone else who can give the bloated coastal payroll monsters a run for their money. But this one isn't even trying. Most of their key players had a bad year last year. Some may rebound. But even if Buxton, Sano, Schoop, Kepler, and all our other former-future-stars miraculously blossom at once, it won't matter, because they don't have the pitching to compete. Match our lineup, our rotation, and our bullpen, man for man, with the Yankees. Is there one player who could beat out their counterpart for a job? I don't need a championship to enjoy baseball. I can enjoy a pennant race, even knowing they can't really win in the playoffs. And it wouldn't take much to deliver one, in this division. But they have barely even pretended to fill the many holes left from last year. And the odds of all their long-shot bets hitting at once are so low, I can't get excited until I actually see it happening, which it probably won't. Rooting for a team like this is all about hope. All it would have taken to hook me would be to shell out a league average payroll. Give me one real playoff quality starter, and two legit bullpen arms, and I will start dreaming on the potential of all their giant question marks. I've been enjoying the thrill of "what if" my whole life. I would do it again if, you gave me even the pretense of real hope. But this year, I'm not feeling it.

I understand the argument for using a down year to audition and improve young pitchers, not block them with one-year veterans who won't be here beyond that anyway. But you usually need 8 to 10 starters by year's end, so I'm not convinced anyone would really be blocked. Several will fail due to injury or ineffectiveness, so it's not either/or. Realistically we need them all. Also, I'm not convinced the Twins should be playing for 2020 yet. Cleveland could suffer some injuries, and the rest of the division is weak enough that the Twins could be competitive. I'm not optimistic about 2019. There is playoff upside on the hitting side. But this team is not a playoff team as currently constructed, because the pitching staff is far, far short of contender level. So if they have the budget to invest in a few more starter candidates and a few quality relievers, on one-year deals, why not? These are all low risk players, in that they would not require guaranteed salaries past 2019, if that. Would Mejia having to earn a spot (I'm not convinced he has yet), or Romero refining his pitches a bit more before starting his service clock, really be so bad? You have to expect at least two injuries, and at least two guys not pitching well. Do we really want to work your way down to Dejong starting in the majors in 2019? I'd hoped we'd put those years behind us. Personally I'd love to see Buchholz or Miley on the roster, as well as anyone else the scouts think might bust out.

For those concerned about spending on a veteran bat instead of pitching: I think this actually increases the probability they will invest in pitching this off-season. In previous interviews about Cruz Falvey mentioned a trade off between the immediate upgrade he would bring vs. The opportunity to develop and audition young talent. If they took the slower approach there would be no need to sign a win-now pitcher. Committing to this year on offense means they now have a reason to sign playoff caliber starters and relievers, which they would not need if this was a rebuilding year. What's the point of signing a top DH on a rebuilding team? That money is wasted if they don't create a pitching staff to match. Not saying they will invest in this flight pitching, of course, or that if they do that it will happen this year. The second year option may give them a reason to wait and see how Buxton and Sano do first before committing any big bucks to 2019. But they have more reason to now than they did yesterday. What's the point of signing a top DH on a rebuilding team? That money is wasted if they don't create a pitching staff to match. If the team is winning, or in the verge, they have him for 2020. If they flop, he's trade material for more building blocks. Worst case they are only risking 14.3M, out of revenue of $260+ million. This seems to offer upside in almost any scenario to come with very little risk. Unless you're a huge Austin fan I can't see much downside.

I agree. Buxton floundered up here because he was promoted too fast. Same with Gomez, Span, Hicks, Revere. Fans demanded to see them, they weren't ready, and fans turned on them. In every case, they had good years later, at an age they should have been peaking for the Twins. But we'd already burned through their early years and given up on them. Now there will be pressure to do the same with Gordon, because they didn't re-sign Dozier or Escobar, even though he has shown no signs of being ready either. All the outrage at not promoting Buxton at the end of a lost year was completely backwards, IMO. They haven't been stingy with his service time, they squandered it, hampering his development to boot. He clearly lost his confidence; facing big league pitching too early made him constantly change his stance and swing. He shouldn't have been promoted till he improved his pitch recognition and learned to handle outside breaking balls. Then, when promoted, he might have taken off. He still might. But personally I'd want to see him do it consistently in the minors for a while before dumping him into fire. I'd rather see him spend another whole year in AAA than fall apart again in the majors. Same with Sano. Earn your spot on the roster by showing you have learned to cut down the strikeouts. If you don't give them time to change bad habits in the minors, they might never change them.

Back to the earlier discussion about openers. Someone above said: "Once again, I get the principal of the idea. Seems to make sense. But there is also no guarantee, this idea or a conventional lineup, how the game plays out. .... You mentioned Trout being stuck in the dugout, or on deck, in a key situation, with an adjusted lineup. But even in a normal lineup, who can guarantee Trout would come to bat in any late game situation? No matter how you stack your line-up, or pitchers, there is still so many random outcomes involved that I just don't see a relevance that makes sense." It doesn't have to happen every time to make a difference over a season. It just has to tilt the odds. Let's say that you and I are flipping a coin: Heads I win, tails you win. I suggest this modification: if it's tails the first time, we flip again, so I get a second chance to toss a heads. It doesn't mean I would always win. There are still many possible scenarios in which the second toss would be a tails, too. So, what's the problem? Suppose you said that was unfair, and I answered, "I get the principal of what you're saying. Seems to make sense. But there is also no guarantee, this system or a conventional coin toss, how it plays out. .... You mentioned that I could win the coin toss in a key situation, with an adjusted system. But even in a normal coin toss, who can guarantee tails would come up in a key situation? No matter how you stack your coins, or how you toss them, there are still so many random outcomes involved that I just don't see a relevance that makes sense." Would you buy that argument? A statistical advantage doesn't have to pay off every time to still give one side an advantage over time. Same with a pitcher starting with the middle of the batting order. He may still face the top of the order in a key situation. He may still face the top of the order the same number of times as the bottom of the order. But he will ALWAYS face the bottom of the order a third time BEFORE he faces the top of the order a third time. And unless he stops after facing everyone in the order exactly once, he will face the bottom of the order MORE times than the top of the order, and NEVER face the top of the order more times than the bottom of the order. Doesn't mean the hitters at the bottom of the order will never beat you -- they're in the major leagues for a reason -- but baseball is a game of statistics and percentages, and over thousands of at bats, these things really do add up. I'm not dismissing your point that there are many, many other variables, and many ways things can still go wrong for either side. But so what? This particular statistical advantage is designed only to maximize the innings your (former) starter can pitch before the team's best hitters start to get too familiar with his stuff and time him. It doesn't guarantee that your opener will never give up runs. That will obviously happen sometimes. But that opener was a guy who was only going to pitch one inning anyway. You aren't trying to stretch him over as many innings as possible. So there is less reason to pitch him against lesser batters than a starter. Quite the opposite. You're wasting him against lesser batters, because whoever he faces is not going to see him a second time anyway. You want to make sure you don't waste your ace reliever against guys a lesser pitcher would have gotten out. And opening ensures that, in a way closing doesn't. The bottom line is, why not? This way your opener--whether it's your ace reliever, or someone picked to neutralize the handedness of the people at the top of the order--gets matched up against the players of your choice, not some randos who happen to come to the plate in the 9th inning. Your starter maximizes the number of batters faced before their best hitters get the third-time-through-the-order advantage. And the downside is... what?

Given the many sound points made above, can we belatedly give a little credit to the Twins for NOT doing this to Buxton? They've been pilloried for not playing him in September. Now they're being pilloried for playing Sano and Rosario. The bottom line is it's always a tough call, and we should probably remember that and give them a little benefit of the doubt. Personally I think they did the right thing with Buxton. They rushed him back twice already, to no one's benefit, including his. I'm fine with giving him a fresh start next spring. Preferably after working on his pitch recognition all winter. I complain as loudly as anybody when I think they're being cheap, or rushing people to the show for marketing reasons, etc. But in this case, I think they were just being smart. If anything they should have done the same thing with Sano and Rosario.

I totally agree. A consistent strike zone would allow (disciplined) batters to lay off bad pitches and swing only at good pitches. I think that would ideed increase meaningful contact, at least for players with good plate discipline, and greatly improve the game. I hate seeing batters punished for having a good eye. It's pernicious and destructive. And it's not just one pitch -- a single pitch can ruin an entire at bat. How often have you seen this: The count is 2-1. The pitcher drops a curveball two inches off the plate, trying to get the hitter to bite. The batter resists. It's 3-1. It was a good try, but now the pitcher is in trouble. He has to come over the plate now, and the batter knows it. The batter's plate discipline has been rewarded -- if he can make the most of it.... But no! The umpire called it a strike! Suddenly it's 2-2, not 3-1. The pitcher is no dummy -- he throws another pitch, in the same spot, or even another inch outside. The batter has no choice but to swing. The umpire has already shown he's expanded the zone, so you can't expect him to change now. But swinging is futile, of course. The ball darts three or more inches low and away, the batter strikes out or hits a weak grounder, and the at-bat is over. And all because of one bad call! That single missed call changed a 3-1 hitter's count to an out. And if there are men on base, it can change the course of the entire inning. Instead of first and second with one out, it's a man on first with two out. The next batter flies out, and the inning is over, and you're left to grumble about what might have been. How many times have you seen this happen? It was completely unfair, but there was literally nothing the batter could do. He had no choice but to swing at the next pitch, because even if the umpire knew he made a mistake, he now is going to dig in and defend the consistency of his strike zone. The pitcher knows this, the batter knows this, and the viewer knows this. And they just have to watch it play out. They also know that if the batter was unwise enough to express any disgust or disappointment at the bad call, he will be considered to have shown up the umpire, who can now be expected to call any ball within four inches of the plate a strike, lest he be seen as caving to criticism. Personally I could do without this human element. Just call a fair game, and let the best team win. Anything else is depressing and unfair. Now and then there is some gallows humor in watching a veteran pitcher mercilessly exploit the expanded strike zone. I would think that must become humiliating to the umpire. If consistency is such a point of honor, more so than accuracy or fairness, and they become unable to correct their mistake, how must it feel to have a pitcher force you to repeat it over and over? I don't blame the pitcher for doing this, mind you. I blame the umpire for being too proud to fix it. But is that what anyone really wants? Really? To me, there is no charm in this at all, only disgust. Open unfairness makes the entire contest meaningless. And a pretty big part of the fun of the game is the tension of real competition. I stopped being able to take baseball seriously as a fair competition when Livan Hernandez had his famous 15 strikeout game in the 1997 NLCS. Check out these gifs: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-consider-eric-gregg-and-livan-hernandez-in-the-1997-nlcs/ There was no way anyone could miss what was happening -- that huge strike zone was all the announcers talked about. But Gregg dug in out of pride, insisting it was fair because he was consistent. And Hernandez did what he was supposed to do -- make a fool of him. But it sure wasn't funny to the lefty-heavy Braves. It probably cost them a shot at the World Series. So yes, bring on the electronic strike zone! And if the umpire wants to remain proud and in control, give him a buzzer in his pocket that only he can hear, and let him announce to the world what only he knows. That just might work. Maybe he could even overrule the buzzer if he thinks the machines got it wrong (or he wants to prolong an at-bat instead of ending it with a fourth ball or a third strike, which statistics show umpires already routinely do). If umpires want to apply a higher standard to calls that end an at-bat, maybe that's even okay. If nothing else, for those who love controversy, it could be debated at nauseum whether to adopt this as official policy. Personally I'd go with accuracy, though. Once batters and pitchers know they won't get the call just because of their reputation, or deferential attitude, batters will defend the plate, and pitchers won't nibble quite so much. If everyone knows the consequences in advance, they will take the firm strike zone into account and play accordingly. Allowing umpires to overrule the machine will only create confusion, and force hitters to swing at bad pitches again, at least if there are three balls, and allow pitchers to toy with batters off the plate because there are two strikes and the batter can't trust the umpire to make an accurate call. I think a consistent strike zone might reward good hitters with more opportunities to make good contact. And isn't that what we all want? Except for Gregg Maddux, the Yankees, and the Red Sox, of course. Okay, apologies to anyone who considers that a cheap shot, maybe it is. And maybe not. I'm a small-market fan, and I'm strongly convinced that big name players, and big name teams, get more calls from umpires, just like stars in basketball. Do you really think an umpire is as willing to ring up Derek Jeter or Big Papi on a borderline third strike as he is if the batter is some nobody? Of course not! You're not going to bench the biggest TV draw unless the call gives you no choice. Michael Jordan knew who was bringing in the fans, so everyone knew he would get the calls. If you disagree this happens in baseball and think I'm just a whiner, call my bluff: make the strike zone indisputably fair.

I respect your skepticism, but in this case I see things differently. To me, it's jerking him around to repeatedly rush him to the majors, and throw him to the wolves before he is ready, before his pitch recognition skills are up to the task, and before he heals from his numerous injuries, and before he learns to not be so reckless with his body in the field. I don't think he has been cheated out of service time. I think the opposite: he was cheated out of the developmental time he needed to arrive ready to thrive. It looked to me like, having just traded away all our other center fielders for pitching, they had to prove they had not left a void at the MLB level, and needed a young star for the fans to hang their hopes on, so they rushed him before he was ready. I don't think they did him OR the team any favors in doing so. I think he has all the tools to be a star, but does not yet have the skills. He never had a full season in AAA. This recent six game streak of mashing AAA pitching, after a disastrous season with a terrible K/BB ratio, even in AAA, is not proof that he is ready to dominate the majors--as I still hope he can do in the long run! Personally I would not care if they kept him in AAA for another full YEAR--or more even, if it meant arriving in the majors prepared to play at an MVP level. I think his talents have been terribly wasted by promoting him to a level he cannot yet handle. How many times do we need to see him flail and fail before we start to wonder if maybe it is not his fault, but is the fault of promoting him before he was ready? What makes the promote-now people so sure his troubles are really over? Why not instead consider the proposal someone made above for a full off-season of weight lifting, and maybe winter ball, to give him the strength and muscle mass to prevent injuries, and time to work on his pitch recognition? We should all be playing the long game. That is in his interest, too. The real money issue for Buxton is not precisely when he gets his first free agent contract, but whether he gets superstar money when he does. And that depends on his long term health and the development of his skills, not a September call-up. I just don't believe three weeks of facing other September call-ups on walking-dead non-playoff teams will make or break his future. Take your time, do it right, and you'll maximize his service time AND his future earnings. That looks more like a win-win scenario to me.