PseudoSABR
-
Posts
6,119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
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
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PseudoSABR
-
I like the structure of both these deals. Not exactly front loaded, but they don't balloon at the end either. The Twins did end up paying each about 3 million more this year than would have otherwise. -
Looks like they "front-loaded" Kepler's deal a bit, by giving him twice as much this year.
-
I think Polanco's cost certainty will add to his value as a trade asset should the Twins decide to go in another direction in the near future.
-
Universal DH? No. (Baseball has an incredible distinction in that the disparate leagues play by different rules). 20-second clock? Yes. (Sorry neurotic weirdos that needs to lick the bottom of their cleat before throwing to home). Roster size? Why the heck not? (More is better. This would mean ASTUDILLO). Anti-tanking? Um, how? (Baseball is one of the few sports that the fanbase can sustain engagement by interest in what's coming next. I know, as I've huffed fumes on Sano/Buxton for the better part of decade).
-
Just a tease.
-
I thought we'd see more movement on Clemens/Bonds. I don't think they're getting in.
-
Didn't the Twins sign Parker to a similar deal, where if they cut bait sooner they take less of a haircut?
-
You really covet Duffey and Granite do you? If he stinks, I doubt he makes the 25 man roster.
-
Has the structure of the deal been announced? I imagine the Twins can get out it, ala Annibal Sanchez's contract last year, if things aren't working, but the longer they keep him the more they are on the hook for.
-
Me too. Again, Parker does not preclude them from signing such a pitcher. No need to rag on this signing, when your issue is actually elsewhere.
-
We'll be paying him half of what he stood to make in arbitration. As has been demonstrated elsewhere on this board, spending big on RPers has not worked out for the team spending. We tend to disvalue quantity over quality, and often rightly so, but RPer FA market might be one place where it's better to sign a few guys, than go all in on one guy.
-
You should care about value, too. Parker is a better player than you're willing to acknowledge; the bullpen is better with him. Given his low cost, he should not come at the exclusion of that "great player" you seek.
-
Much more favorable team deal than first reported. If he doesn't work out at some point, we can cut him at lower cost.
-
Seeing Griffey Jr. in a Whitesox uniform made me shudder. Glad he only hit three of 630 homers for them.
-
You need to watch it on a device (pc, tablet, phone) in order to interact, my amazon fire wasn't enough. So I haven't "experienced" the show, though if it was easier, I would have.
-
No. Identifying which prospects to discard as quickly as possible cannot be the organizational goal. Should we discard Buxton and Sano already and move on to the next guys? The organization needs to trust its ability to identify talent and develop that talent, and that development should be individually tailored to each player's needs and assets.
-
I don't find the hypothetical all that problematic--I think Nick was off-the-cuffing it, and you shouldn't hold him to one poor hypothetical. But the point of his hypothetical is that Cron has more value to the Twins than he does to nearly every other club to the point where he wouldn't trade him for another organization's Gordon. I.e. Cron's current value to the Twins eclipses Gordon's trade value. But I'll let it be as well.
- 81 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- nick gordon
- adalberto mejia
- (and 3 more)
-
I meant the obtuse comment playfully (hence, my friend). I've read Nick's post, and it isn't inconsistent with what I've been saying. And yet, you can't seem to accept him at his word that the metric is something more than just trade value or just current value to the Twins. If I'm characterizing the metric incorrectly, Nick would have corrected me rather than liking my posts.
-
You can't imagine a scenario where a prospect could be rushed? Basically, it's the phenomenon where the lack of the player's skillset results in the development of bad habits and/or the loss of confidence. I think we can see that the entirety of the MLB recognizes this with how few talented players make their debuts at young ages or shortly after being drafted. Clearly the minor leagues serve some purpose. You point to the exceptions, but they prove the general rule: don't rush your prospects. Rooker's age is a red hearing. He's had less than two years of pro-ball. Just because he's older doesn't mean the consequences of him being exposed to the major leagues too soon will be erased. In any case, whether he's rushed or not, he should not be penciled in the lineup when there's an affordable asset like Cruz which can be obtained. Even if we had not signed Cruz, or picked up Cron, I have a hard time imagining a scenario that would have Rooker as an opening day 1b/DH in 2019.
-
Again, it's Gordon's trade value (much more than Cron) PLUS his current value to the Twins (much less than Cron). So of course Gordon has more trade value than Cron, but his value to the Twins is so beneath Cron's that Nick has him ranked below Cron. You are horseshoeing the metric as trade value only or current value to the Twins only; it's a combination of the two. You're being a bit obtuse, my friend.
-
But Javier would have significant trade value if he were healthy, despite not being able to contribute currently. The equation seem to be current value to the Twins PLUS value in a trade. I think Nick is implying that Javier's value as a tradeable asset is greater than Cron's current value to the Twins. And Gordon's value as a tradeable asset and currently does not eclipse Cron's current value to the Twins.
- 81 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- nick gordon
- adalberto mejia
- (and 3 more)
-
Would you agree, that in spite of what Cron or Cave would fetch in a trade, they are more valuable to the Twins this season than Gordon is likely to be?
- 81 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- nick gordon
- adalberto mejia
- (and 3 more)
-
It seems like the rankings are based on two factors: [A] Present value to the Twins + Trade value (I think trade value incorporates potential/decline) Cron has plenty of present value but no trade value. Gordon has little present value, and his trade value, while higher than Cron's isn't what it was. Javier has no present value, but his trade value (once he's healthy) would--at least in Nick's opinion--eclipse both Gordon's present+trade value, and Cron's present value.
- 81 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- nick gordon
- adalberto mejia
- (and 3 more)
-
Under this logic, every free agent signing would be a poor one. In any case, Seattle has been shedding salary not adding it this off season.
