Jump to content
Can the Twins close out a game against the Reds and get back in the win column? Join the conversation! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

markos

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,430

  • 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 markos

  1. markos
    At least according to the Fangraphs info on UZR, it is split by league http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/ DRS uses all of MLB for its scores. I wonder how much this can account for the difference between DRS and UZR?
  2. markos
    That could be. But given that there are separate awards for the AL and NL, my guess is that they split the leagues.
  3. markos
    The scores (if like the other defensive statistics) are relative to league-average, and the AL currently has two amazing SS in Lindor and Simmons skewing the average higher than normal.
  4. markos
    I think the timing is being overblown a little bit. Yes, it is a little unusual, but not unprecedented or even that rare. Just off the top of my head, the Diamondbacks, Royals and Padres all fired GMs pre-All-Star break in the past 10 years. Also, it doesn't necessarily mean that good candidates won't be available. Neal Huntington was part of the Indians front office in 2007 when they went to the ALCS, but he left in September to lead the Pirates. David Stearns did the same thing last year when he moved from the Astros to the Brewers. Assuming the Twins do a 4-6 week interview process, they will be hiring the next GM in September at which point every candidate should be available.
  5. markos
    I thought Stern suggested that Taylor talk to Donnie Walsh for advice. Walsh recommended Kahn.
  6. markos
    I feel like there is a recursive problem with suggesting that getting outside advice will help St. Peter and Pohlad make this important baseball decision. That all depends on them selecting the right people or search firm to provide the help! I recall that Glen Taylor reached out to a respected NBA executive for help hiring a GM, and the recommendation was to hire a David Kahn. So is the question "Who should I ask for advice about hiring a GM?" any easier (or less critical) than "Who should I hire as GM?"? I'm not sure that it is.
  7. markos
    That's possible. I just don't think that any of the straws are very long to begin with, regardless of who is in charge. Hopefully he doesn't do a ton of damage.
  8. markos
    I disagree with you on a couple different levels. First, I really don't think there is anything Antony could do that would severely damage the franchise at this point. The Twins don't have anyone on this roster that will fetch a huge return in any reasonable scenario, so whether they decide to keep/trade Nunez, Abad, Plouffe, Santana or Nolasco isn't going to make huge swings one way or another. Second, I have to think that the vast majority of the leg work for the trade deadline has already been put in. I'm guessing numerous conversations have already taken place with opposing teams over these players. So I don't think that Antony and the rest of the staff are starting fresh.
  9. markos
    It happens. As an example, AJ Preller was hired away from the Rangers on August 5, 2014.
  10. markos
    Sure, but those stats are the difference between Jepsen with a 1.60 ERA and a 3.00 ERA. With the Twins, his K% (23%), BB% (7%) and swinging strike rate (12%) were all similar to his 2012-2014 run (25%, 8%, 10%). I'm just an armchair analyst, so maybe I'm missing something obvious. But right now I don't see obvious reasons why there was any expectation (other than normal reliever randomness) for Jepsen to not be his usual solid but unspectacular self (3.00-3.50 ERA) and instead be the worst reliever in baseball.
  11. markos
    This is the huge question for the franchise, and not just in regard to the Santana question. Basically: Where are we at with the rebuild? My opinion is, and always has been, that this front office has set themselves up such that they need (at least) two of the Sano/Buxton/Berrios/Kepler core to become superstars, and then they need just enough depth to avoid any blackholes on the rest of the roster. (And honestly, this stars-and-a-little-bit-better-than-scrubs roster construction was the basis for most of the 2000s success.) I think the offense is close. Sano has flirted with stardom, and Kepler looks like he might be ahead of Buxton right now. There were too many black holes in the first couple of months, but those have been more or less filled. And the past month has reflected that, as the offense has actually been above average. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the offense is set up for 2017 where if one of Buxton/Sano/Kepler takes a leap, there is enough talent (and depth) to hopefully keep the offense around league average. (At the very least, they should have a much better idea of who is wheat and who is chaff.) If a couple guys take a leap, then we're talking about a legitimately good offense. Pitching is a different story, as the road to respectability in 2017 requires a lot more wishful thinking. But is that enough to write off 2017? I don't know.
  12. markos
    I think it depends a lot on one's outlook for the next couple of seasons. If one doesn't think that the Twins will be contenders next year, I think there is a very good argument that the current combination Santana's performance/health, few pitchers on the market and a crappy upcoming FA class may be the best opportunity for maximizing his value. It may only be some mid-level prospects, but frankly a team can never have too many. There is real risk that he may get injured or further deteriorate in performance, which may completely destroy his trade value in the future. As it's often said: it is better to trade a player a year too early than a year too late. I can definitely see arguments on both the sides of this debate.
  13. markos
    I've been thinking the same thing. Is Mauer a top hitter? No. Is he overpaid? Yeah. Is he below-average for 1B? Probably a little. But he is still a high-OBP, league average hitter, and he is perfectly fine so long as he is the 6th or 7th best hitter on the team. From a team run generation perspective, having him in the lineup and getting on base is a big plus. This isn't a disaster like Ryan Zimmerman with the Nationals or Prince Fielder with Texas. I really like the Grossman-Dozier-Mauer-Sano-Kepler block in the lineup right now. All are capable of .340+ OBPs, 10%+ walk rates, and together have the potential to extend innings and really make pitchers work.
  14. markos
    There has been a lot of discussion about this very question within the sabermetric community. I was just listening to a podcast talk about "ceiling" for position players, and how it just so difficult to predict power development for players. There is a long list of very good players who were supposed to be low-power guys who figured out a way to hit for power and went from mediocre (or even non-prospect) to All-Star. Just looking at the best hitters in baseball so far this year, guys like Matt Carpenter, Jose Altuve, Daniel Murphy, Jackie Bradley Jr, Aledmys Diaz, Ben Zobrist, Mookie Betts all fall under this general category. Most of those guys are carrying ISOs above .200 right now with very little expectation when they were drafted (or even their first few big league seasons) that they would be 20+ homer guys.
  15. markos
    The problem with trading Dozier right now is finding a buyer. Almost all of the good, contending teams are getting solid production from 2B right now, so there isn't an obvious fit. The best fit is probably KC, and Dozier might be a marginal improvement for Toronto. In a vacuum, it is easy to say that Dozier is worth X. But other teams aren't buying X; they are buying the marginal improvement that X provides over their current Y. And for most teams, X-Y is pretty small and not worth paying a lot for. And I don't understand than consternation that Polanco needs a starting MLB spot right now. Don't get me wrong, he's a good prospect. But he has less that 300 PAs in AAA under his belt, and had a .719 OPS in AA. Maybe his new power is real, or maybe it is a fluky spike. Given the past history of recent callups, hitting well at AAA for a couple hundred at bats should be taken with a grain of salt. My vote is to trade Nunez for whatever either this deadline or during the offseason, keep Dozier a more advantageous trading scenario arrives, and have Polanco as the primary infield backup until Dozier is traded or leaves via FA.
  16. markos
    I think there is a decent argument that Nunez is actually the more valuable player going forward. Nunez is younger, is significantly cheaper, offers the same amount of team control, has more positional flexibility, and has actually out hit Plouffe both last year and this year. Plouffe has the better track record, and when healthy should have more power and better fielding, so it isn't a slam dunk. But I could definitely understand a team willing to play more to get Nunez than Plouffe.
  17. markos
    Both of them are examples that I was looking for. I think I might have underestimated the chance that Polanco or Kepler would have been selected.
  18. markos
    I was asking specifically about position players.
  19. markos
    I don't follow other organizations close enough to make a serious comparison about this, but it certainly feels like the Twins are overly aggressive with protecting players in the low minors. They protected Kepler and Polanco after the 2013 season when both were just 20 and neither had a single game above low-A. Given how reluctant they have been to play Polanco regularly in the majors, it would certainly be nice to have an additional option year in his back pocket for next season. And this year they protected both Yorman Landa and Randy Rosario when neither had pitched a single inning above low-A. Given their youth and inexperience, it doesn't seem likely that either would have been selected. And Landa in particular, as a full-time reliever at this point, hardly seams like huge loss if he would have be selected by another team. Roster flexibility is so valuable to teams trying to sort out young talent. I know its not exactly this simple, but if I had to pick between Arcia and Landa, I have to think that Arcia has way more future value. Can anyone think of a 21 or younger position player with zero at bats above low A that has been successfully claimed during the Rule 5 draft? I can't come up with anyone. Or is that just because every other team is protecting them as well?
  20. markos
    I completely agree with this assessment. I don't think this organization has realized that the hitting skills that produce box score success in the minors don't necessarily translate to success in the majors. Further, I don't think they make it a priority to develop big league skills at the expense of minor league success.
  21. markos
    He was a late-1st rounder last year, but could agree with the (I think) Dodgers and went back for this senior season. He was pretty crappy this year, though I guess he was better lately. I would definitely take a flyer on him.
  22. markos
    But at the same time, I don't think I've seen anyone argue that you need to be 100% certain that a pick will sign. And there is some evidence over the years (Pirates with Appel, Blue Jays with Beede and Bickford) that teams will make a pick even though there are sign-ability questions. Basically, my thoughts are this. First, it is unanimously agreed that 1) top picks contain almost all of the value in a draft, so punting a top pick loses a ton of value. 2) the next-season compensation pick recoups some, but not all, of the lost value. So that is the downside, and why everyone agrees that it isn't smart to intentionally punt a pick. The upside is that in certain cases you might get a better player than you otherwise would if you needed to be 100% certain that he would sign. How the upside and downside relate depends entirely on the specific situation: the probability that the player is bluffing, the talent difference between the players, etc.
  23. markos
    That might work in a vacuum, but every other team is thinking along the same lines, and many of them are in much better position than the Twins to be creative. Right now I think the odds of any top-30 talent dropping to #56 is exceedingly small. Too many teams have multiple picks between #15 and #56: Dodgers (3: 20,32,36)* Cardinals (3: 23,33,34)* Padres (3: 24,25,48)* Mets (2: 19, 31) Pirates (2: 22,41) White Sox (2: 26,49)* Orioles (2: 27,54) Nationals (2: 28,29) Reds (2: 35,43)* A's (2: 37,47)* Rockies (2: 38,45)* Diamondbacks (2: 39,52) Braves (2: 40,44)* The *s above all have larger bonus pools to play with as well. And this list doesn't even include the Phillies, who are going to have a ton of leftover money to spend at #42.
  24. markos
    Just out of curiosity, what do you have against Dunn and Manning?
  25. markos
    It isn't exactly punting a pick to select the best player and hope they were bluffing about their bonus demands. If, as an example, Matt Manning is saying he won't sign for less than $3.5M, but the Twins pick him anyway at #15 and offer him $2.8M (or maybe go overslot up to $3M), is Manning really going to forego the money and security over $500K? Maybe he won't sign at that number and go to college, but I have to think it is at least 50-50 that he will sign. So is taking a 50-50 risk (or 25-75, or 90-10, or whatever you think the odds might be) "punting" on the pick? Or should the Twins be 100% certain that the player they pick will sign at $2.8M? Personally, I mostly think these HS pitchers will all sign for a lower amount than they say, provided it isn't an egregious discount.
×
×
  • Create New...