Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jay

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,544

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by jay

  1. jay
    That sounds wonderful, but I don't buy it. The Marlins seem to be doing some of that in selling off their farm system to get whatever they can. The White Sox consistently do that and have marginal results to show for significantly larger payrolls. There has to be balance.
  2. jay
    Exactly. I could understand a case to trade Dozier now to kickoff a rebuild if the Twins had a barren farm system and no real hopes of contending in the next few years. That's absolutely not the case. Trading proven performers with significant team control for prospects is a great way to be stuck in a perpetual rebuild. A trade for MLB talent to fill a hole elsewhere can make sense if there's excess MLB talent at the position, but we most definitely aren't to that point. Not yet.
  3. jay
    I will never understand expecting the Twins to maintain the spending habits of the Cubs or Yankees. If that is what it takes to be satisfied as a fan, I'd have a hard time saying I was a Twins fan. Separately, of course the Twins and Cubs have not been perfectly identical, that isn't the point. They've both had some successes and failures. Highlighting the Cubs' successes and Twins' failures or personal pet peeves doesn't mean there aren't significant comparisons between the two.
  4. jay
    Show me some precedence of trading an above-average position player with four years of pre-arb and arb control still remaining. Doesn't happen much... Even rebuilding teams wait longer than that. We need more players like Dozier to get competitive, not less. Trading him away is a terrible idea unless the return is truly too good to be true.
  5. jay
    I'm still really hoping to be enlightened on a better projection system or model that is readily available. That is, unless the message is simply forecasting is stupidly inaccurate and shouldn't be done at all.
  6. jay
    Great. What do you propose instead to project 2015?
  7. jay
    I was hoping this would turn out a lot better than it did, but... Steamer projections for 2015: GS IP R ER Hughes 30 192 89 83 Gibson 28 163 90 82 Santana 32 189 90 86 Nolasco 30 182 99 92 *May/Meyer/Pelfrey/Milone 42 250 135 125 Rotation Total 162 976 503 478 **Bullpen 459 205 190 Total 162 1435 708 668 *approximation **fills remainder of 2014 team IP and same 2014 bullpen ERA 2014's team runs allowed? 730.
  8. jay
    $104M range for 2015 w/ Santana. Subtract $18M free agents after 2015 (Hunter, Pelfrey, Duensing). Add $10M for arb raises (probably closer to $15M with our current roster, so assuming a few non-tenders). 2016 payroll around $95M with the need to fill the free agent departures and non-tenders if the farm doesn't produce. Really not a terrible position...
  9. jay
    My only qualm about a deal with Santana is around my earlier point about opportunity cost. This deal brings the 2015 payroll into the range of $105M. I think that's quite a bit higher than basically any of us were expecting. That's great and all, but it would appear that adding other long-term commitments doesn't look likely with something like $95M committed for 2016 as well. That probably leaves room to fill one hole next year where ever that might be, but it's hard to see tacking on a $20M+ ace. Congrats to the Twins and Terry Ryan for aggressively seeking to improve what has been a dreadful rotation.
  10. jay
    ^^ Agree. Seems like a pretty dated approach to valuation.
  11. jay
    Definitely. My issue with directly comparing the results is that it makes the assumption that their capacity is apples-to-apples, when it's not. The White Sox payroll has outpaced the Twins every single year since 1998 with the single exception of 2003 -- often by a significant margin. We wouldn't try to compare the merits of the Twins approach to Yankees approach based on their results due to their significant financial disparities. It's less extreme with the White Sox, but that same concept is very relevant. For the additional resources the White Sox have expended, you'd expect to see a greater and noticeable separation in their results.
  12. jay
    Was that a typo? The Twins need him to do what only 3 players in all of MLB did last year (VMart, Abreu, McCutchen)? That seems like some exceptionally steep expectations...
  13. jay
    Because they don't exist in today's game. This isn't the Steroid Era anymore. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=1b&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=5,d
  14. jay
    I certainly didn't say they should never use it and actually said I'm in favor of making this move, so I'm not sure how to answer that. To clarify, the point I was trying to make is that the Twins realistically only have so many opportunities to sign contracts like these. Free agency, contracts and money are essentially limitless in the theory of your illustration while that is far from true in the application of reality. If this is their guy, then let's do it. I do believe they have the roster and financial flexibility to add a quality starting pitcher. If it's not their guy or it doesn't work out, I'm fine with that too.
  15. jay
    Okay, even assuming that's accurate... I'd still probably say I'd rather take concentrated boom and full out bust to rebuild than spread out boom and hoping patchwork works out right to be in contention.
  16. jay
    I can appreciate the simplistic logic, but I think it ignores too much to be applicable. The loss illustrated in "Sign nobody" doesn't happen. By signing nobody, the Twins get to keep someone. The opportunity to have someone pitch doesn't change. It's not an either-or situation. In "Sign someone", the Twins face opportunity costs around roster spots and salary commitments. That opportunity can be applied to any number of options -- a higher dollar FA like Santana, an upside guy like Anderson, an innings eater, a minor league free agent, etc. -- but each has their own appeal of positives and negatives. All of that said, I do agree with the idea of signing a pitcher like Santana this offseason if possible. In my assessment of the next few seasons, I see the Twins having the realistic financial capacity to take on a contract like the one being discussed here for Santana. However, it's not realistic to say or think that capacity is limitless. If the front office thinks this is the right guy and the right time to do it, then let's get him.
  17. jay
    Why not second? Please don't say it's about speed and bunting.
  18. jay
    I can't quite tell if it's the intent, but spy, your posts seem to be saying the White Sox approach is "better" than the Twins approach. I don't personally see a clearly distinguishable difference in the results. As I think levi has been saying, they are certainly vastly different approaches with each having their merits of generating some success and aspects that might be preferable. The White Sox should be able to support consistently larger payrolls due to their larger market size and franchise valuation. Beyond that point, if I had to pick one strategy or the other, it'd be tough but... I think I'd personally prefer boom and bust to consistently not quite good enough.
  19. jay
    He's never been a great 3-hole guy outside of his MVP season. Even at his 2014 production levels, he can be a valuable 2-hole hitter. His high OBP is much more valuable at #2 than #6.
  20. jay
    It should have been pretty obvious the White Sox were going on a spending spree this offseason. They shed Dunn, De Aza, Beckham, Lindstrom, Downs, Belisario, Konerko and Paulino since the start of the 2014 season. That was a lot of marginal production and roster spots eating up $35M. They deserve credit in that regards given that they were able to give themselves a lot more roster and financial flexibility. The Twins could take some notes in that regard. It was less expected that the Sox would sign 2 free agent relievers and trade for one year of a quality SP in this time frame. However, it don't see the condensed timing as a reason to congratulate them. It should be interesting to see how it turns out with a $12M closer for 4 years and $5M set up guy for 3 years who just had his first decent season since 2009. It'll also be interesting to see if they retain Samardzija and at what cost ($$$$$). They win "most early offseason action", but I'm far from calling these moves a winner.
  21. jay
    My 2013 AAP, I'm a bummed to see him go. There will always be that one time he was the AL Player of the Week! Good luck, Chris.
  22. jay
    His career average is .141. It was .153 just a year ago in 2013. .160 is just a hair past that. If he trades a little average for power as so many here are dreaming on, it's easily attainable. He can get there with 13-15 HRs.
  23. jay
    .290/.375/.450
  24. jay
    I think the potential for an extension with Plouffe would have far more to do with the market for decent 3Bs and his 2014 season than his career OPS+.
  25. jay
    From MLBTR last night,
×
×
  • Create New...