Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jay

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,544

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by jay

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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+.
  5. jay
    From MLBTR last night,
  6. jay
    I don't see how that first statement makes sense. Teams sign these extensions because they get those seasons, likely on options, at below free agent market values. That's very tradeable. Players entering the decline phase doesn't mean they can't be valuable MLB contributors. The line of reasoning here seems to suggest there is rarely value in having an MLB player that has entered the typical, age-induced decline. Teams need to be aware of it, but not necessarily completely avoid it -- particularly if they can get their players extended on team options that give them the flexibility to either retain the player if there is still excess value or let them become a free agent if not.
  7. jay
    First, the quote from Ryan to Sid about focusing on pitching. Now, this on MLBTR: Sure makes it sound to me like the Twins are envisioning bringing in a starter. Some realistic targets might be: Brett Anderson Brandon Beachy Jason Hammel Josh Johnson Justin Masterson Brandon McCarthy Brandon Morrow Ervin Santana Ryan Vogelsong Edinson Volquez
  8. jay
    I think the question there is how to explain the big gap between the two... If TR and the Twins' scouts say his range is no worse than average, why is that so different than the metrics that are saying his range is terrible?
  9. jay
    I can understand questioning the defensive metrics available today, but I don't think I've seen defense completely dismissed as a thing before... I don't see any way to question that better defense results in better results for your pitchers.
  10. jay
    Take that to mean what you want. I don't take it as excluding the team from making any other moves to improve from "decent", but that any remaining FA dollars will be prioritized to pitching. Trades and such aren't easy to clinch, so it might well be that we don't see any more moves on position players. However, last I checked, free agency isn't the only method of acquiring players -- despite the overweighted attention it receives.
  11. jay
    "Ryan added that any other free agents signed will be pitchers..." Bourjos?
  12. jay
    Or DH. Or they change their mind. Or Hunter DHs some and Arcia plays both RF and LF. There's scenarios where Hunter doesn't stay in RF either. Or a 39 year old gets injured early in the year. Or fails to perform. The OF defense isn't going to be great either way. Of all the things to possibly not like about signing Hunter, I don't understand making a big fuss about which corner Arcia plays in. Ideally, he probably wouldn't play in either.
  13. jay
    In the Strib today regarding the $10.5M just spent on Hunter...
  14. jay
    I think you missed my point. It's December. A lot can happen between now and March. I'm not convinced it's even nearly as big of a deal as some folks are making it out to be anyway.
  15. jay
    I recall that as well, but the same things can be said about how he plays RF... Arcia moving to LF because of signing Hunter is making an awful lot of assumptions in early December about how the roster will be finished in March.
  16. jay
    A bit off topic, but... This is great in theory. It really is. We'd all love for the Twins to just go sign whatever free agents they might need that offseason at whatever cost that might be. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like a reality that Twins fans (nor most fans) can realistically expect.
  17. jay
    The real question is... What would the Cardinals do? They gave a 28 year old Matt Carpenter a six-year extension after 2 seasons. They've also given multi-year extensions to guys with 2 to 3 years of service time in recent years to at least Yadi, Wainwright, J Garcia and Craig. These deals all contain club options at the end for what would have been free agent years. Jon Jay, Bourjos and Decalso are going year-to-year through arb without a locked in extension. They'll have similar decisions to make shortly for Wacha, Adams, Wong, Rosenthal, Lynn, etc. Do Dozier and Plouffe fit closer to the first group that has gotten extensions or the second group that hasn't?
  18. jay
    Nailed it, Nick. Could this really be the end of Duensing being the clincher in any trade offer?
  19. jay
    I assume you're citing UZR here, which has him at -0.7 and -4.4 the last two years. People who "believe in defensive metrics at all" also know UZR requires 3 years of data to start becoming reliable and those numbers above can hardly be used to say he's "below average". Over those same 2 years, DRS has him at +9 and 0. Sorry, but that statement is hardly accurate.
  20. jay
    2009 - Drafted and rookie ball 2010 - Low-A and High-A 2011 - High-A, AA and AFL 2012 - MLB and AAA 2013 - MLB and second half breakout Dozier was drafted as an 8th rounder, but forced a fast track. He broke out in his second MLB year after making the jump from AA for his rookie year. I don't understand faulting him for any of that. He's not some journeyman minor-leaguer who finally broke out. If Dozier is too old for an extension, that's practically saying don't ever extend a college draftee. I think Dozier is being consistently undervalued in this thread.
  21. jay
    To be fair, I think you've added the "a year" portion year. The key value I think you're missing here is extra years of control at less than free agency costs. That's why teams are doing these deals. Seager wasn't a top prospect either -- 7/$100M after 3 years. Gyorko was slightly more well regarded, but not a top 50 prospect either -- 5/$35 after ONE year. That's fine to not want the Twins to do it, but there's risk and downside to that as well.
  22. jay
    That wasn't the intent. The Twins obviously can't get Dozier for $5M/yr. If the Twins can save (for those touchy about that word, replace it with "spend elsewhere") $20M with an extension now, what does spending $20M too much look like? I think you've actually highlighted that dropping $20M from 7/$55 sounds so improbable, making the upside greater than the downside. No baseball player is ever "consistent" enough though. The guy has been healthy and put up back to back above average seasons by adjusting after a tough rookie year. That's a feat on its' own. But hey, again, I get the argument for not doing it. I just don't want folks to think there's no difference or harm in waiting if that's the easy answer most people are giving.
  23. jay
    I understand the argument against doing it, but the best case is more like $20M + significantly higher trade value than a few million. Seager was in the same draft class as Dozier and is a similar age. He just signed for $100M to go through '21. MLBTR projected Seager's arb years ('15-'17) at $27-30M and roughly $18M/year for the four free agent years that were bought out. Seth has projected Dozier's arb years ('16-'18) at $23-27M here. So, we're assuming Dozier is slightly less valuable than Seager, which seems about right. Let's change the years to make the two more directly comparable. Tack on another year to Seth's offer and you're at, let's say, 7/$55M to get through '21 (just like Seager). If the Twins decide to wait a year and Dozier puts up another year identical to 2014, that gets him even closer to Seager territory. I think he'd be looking for more like 6/$75 to get through '21 at that point. So, if the difference between extending this year and next year is $20M with just a repeat performance in 2015, let's also consider $20M of downside... and it's extremely hard to envision Dozier not being worth $35M over the next 7 years. There's certainly risk there, but it's attractive risk in my eyes.
  24. jay
    Of course there's risk both ways. Point is, you don't land a team-friendly extension for multiple-time All-Stars. There's little room to go up from there and you're probably MORE likely to overpay. One could probably argue the point that it might be too late already. You've never really been a Dozier fan, as I recall. He'll likely have a down year or injury at some point, as most players do, and I just hope that isn't used as ammunition to prove that point. I don't see much in his game that isn't sustainable. The BB% might fall back some, but the defense is there and his stroke fits TF well to match up with his pretty average FB/HR%.
  25. jay
    I'm with Doc on this one. The "wait" answer doesn't come without consequences. If Dozier has another good/solid year like 2014, these numbers Seth has proposed won't even be anywhere close to enough. The trend has been to lock players up earlier and earlier. Teams do that because they can get the best long-term deal BEFORE the player has fully proven himself. If Dozier is an All-Star again, there's little reason to buy out his arb years at that point. He'll get paid as a proven All-Star either way. Sign him, sign him now. And front-load it as much as possible.
×
×
  • Create New...