jmlease1

Fair. All I want is a far greater degree of revenue sharing so teams can operate on a more level economic playing field. I think it's reasonable for payroll to increase proportionally with revenue, but without more equitable revenue sharing you end up with the Yankees making a profit at $350M in payroll while the Rays lose money at $180M. That's not healthy either.

The players and player's union were fine with this system (which rewarded veteran players much more handsomely at the expense of younger players) as long as there were teams that were willing to make signings that were loaded with risk and based more on prior production than future performance. As franchises have gotten smarter and more analytical about projecting performance and fewer franchises have reckless ownerships willing to throw extremely long and risk-laden contracts at veteran free agents, their discontent with the system has grown. This is not news, and it's one of the reasons why it's challenging to have sympathy for the players: they're extremely wealthy and have been totally comfortable with screwing the next generation of players in order to protect the current generation. Ownership, of course, is even wealthier and deserves no real sympathy either: their membership is filled with bad actors who don't treat their franchises as a community trust. They're drawing ever increasing amounts of revenue even with fan interest wavering, and work incredibly hard to conceal their true costs of operation so they can claim poverty whenever convenient. A strike would probably be a very poor outcome for both sides, but the players seem to be feeling more militant. But it's hard to have sympathy for the players when their primary argument right now is "how dare you operate systemically and intelligently to mitigate risk!" They're going to need to reframe things pretty significantly and quickly (and there are plenty of better arguments to wield against ownership) because going into a labor war over Bryce Harper (who hasn't been an all-star caliber player in 2 of the last 3 season) not getting paid for 10 years as if he's 2015 Bryce Harper doesn't really play well...and the owners know it. This isn't like the 80's when FA weren't getting offers from anyone other than their own clubs.

"advanced stats" absolutely would take passed balls into consideration when evaluating catcher performance, and would be the only way someone might try to capture something like "catcher created wild pitches" (which is a hilarious new stat that seems to be "I think it should have been a passed ball but the official scorer is dumb"). Castro isn't a lame duck any more than any player in their walk year is, but the fact that he's coming off a significant injury and is in that walk year means there's an opportunity for Garver to seize the job as the starter. And if either Garver or Castro goes down for any significant period of time, it opens a window for Astudillo to show he can be the next backup here, or potential to start. Everyone wants a catcher who can hit and field. Castro's first year with the club, he had a fine season, hitting well for the position and playing good defense while working well with the pitching staff and the catching position for the Twins was one of the more productive in baseball (8th in WAA). Last year he started slow but only played 19 games before getting hurt. That's hardly a big enough sample size to write him off as cooked.

I think our depth is actually pretty solid with Astudillo on board. Yes, we're going to be hurting if we lose two catchers for an extended period, but that's true for probably every franchise. Would it be nice if Rortvedt had already put some time in at AA and was a little closer? Absolutely, but that's just the way it goes. Castro should give good defensive value and works with pitchers well. As long as his bat doesn't completely vanish, he's a good plate partner with Garver. Mitch hits very well for a catcher and his D is better than advertised. I'd be pretty happy with the two of them splitting time this year. Maybe splitting time keeps the injury risks down on both of them, Castro having any setbacks on the knee and Garver protecting his head. I'm sure we'll see Astudillo a fair amount this year, although signing Marwin Gonzalez cuts that down a little. (He's not getting called up to fill in at 3rd if Sano falters in the same way) The goal on him should be to improve as a receiver and get enough ABs in MLB to see if he's a guy to keep around as the replacement to Castro. I'm not sure he's a starting quality catcher, but splitting time with another guy while possibly getting some time in the INF could be a good role for him going forward to help bridge towards Rortvedt or Jeffers. Frankly, we're in much better shape at catcher today than we were.

The initial numbers on Keuchel weren't 5/100M, Boras was pushing 7/210M. there's still no indicator that he's willing to do 3/60M, otherwise he'd already be signed. Right now the hot rumor is that he might bet on himself with a 1 year deal if he can't get the 6+ year deal he wants at the AAV he's (Boras, really) is looking for. I''d like to add Keuchel to this team, reliable starting pitching is worth paying a premium for, but 6-7 year deals tend to get ugly. And there's no evidence he's willing to come down to $20M per season. We probably don't make much sense for him to come here on a 1 year deal because of the uncertainty of how competitive we're going to be, at least from his perspective. I'd love to have him on a year deal, but I don't see him going for that Back to ZIPS: projection systems frequently seem to choose to regress players to the mean, unless they;re older, and then they tend to presume degradation. They're not great at spotting breakouts or even projecting steady improvement. They're also not good at spotting who's going to fall off a cliff or get hurt, either. They're educated guesses and fun to play with, but are probably best used as a baseline for assessing risk.

I think the Twins would have loved to have re-signed Escobar (and stayed out of the Marwin Sweepstakes), but AZ took advantage of their exclusive negotiating period and locked him down. But I like this deal for the Twins, especially as it's clear they're valuing Gonzalez for his versatility and not looking to him to lock down a particular starting role. John has this absolutely right: Marwin solves a problem when one of their younger players doesn't take that next step, have that bounceback year, or someone has a significant injury. He sweeps up all these games and ABs from guys we really don't have any interest in playing too. If this means we're not giving ABs to guys like Petit, Field, or Motter...that's a good thing. It should mean we don't end up sliding Adrianza into LF or 1B either. It's game-day protection against the stupidity of having 13 pitchers too, which sadly will happen (and I maintain is a total waste) because you can shuffle Marwin in if someone comes off for an injury and feel good about wherever he plays. You always want to be playing great players at as many positions as possible, but there's also significant value to not giving playing time to terrible players too. This move raises the floor for this team and buys nice insurance against bad slumps, injuries, or lack of development. I'm a fan.

Nick Gordon had a rough time in AAA...but last year was the first time in his career he repeated a level, even for a little bit. He'd previously moved quickly through the minors and had success at every level. Even in his first stint at AA he played pretty well, so struggling in his first crack at AAA shouldn't be a disqualifier. He's far from old. He's still got tools that should play well in MLB. There's a real chance that he just needed a reset and restart. Looking forward to seeing how he deals with the adversity of a rough year. He's still a talent. He's always been significantly younger than his competition. Way too soon to give up on Gordon for the next shiny object.

You're not being fair to Parker, who had a nice solid season. He was substantially better than either Hildenberger or Reed. So we're really looking at hoping a guy can bounceback from injury & overwork (Reed) who has a strong track record of success, and improvement from a young guy who had a bad second half (possibly because of overwork, possibly just because of being exposed) in that top 5. Bullpens are frequently so fungible that I remain convinced that you're better building one through development rather than FA. supplementing a role, occasionally grabbing a high-end guy...sure. but considering the supposed talent in our system (and I do believe in that talent) I think we're better off rolling with that group unless we add to the top end of the 'pen.

Meh. Signing the "veteran presence" does nothing for me. If the Twins are going to add to the bullpen, it needs to be at the top end. There's 5 guys on this squad that have at least 2 years experience in the bullpen, Parker has been a closer, Reed has loads of experience...I think I'd prefer to go with this approach where we can actually move guys up and down from the minors as needed as opposed to adding a veteran who we might be stuck with regardless of performance. We're already looking at a tiny bench for position players and I don't want to waste one on a garbage bullpen guy. Now, if we can get a deal with someone like Kimbrel? I'm interested, because that's an elite track record. But I can understand going, "oh hell, he's going to break down faster than addison reed did to us last year". (I do think Reed is likely to bounce back very nicely for us, though.)

The reality is, you can't assess player value as a dollar figure on a static line like that, because the true value of a player by bWAR or fWAR increases the more WAR they contribute. A 6 WAR player (no matter which formulation you like) is worth more than three time a WAR player, because of the scarcity of a 6 WAR player. It's a real guesstimate to assess dollar value on a linear progression like that and mostly applicable to lower WAR players. Back to Kepler: it's a really interesting contract, and probably a fair one for both sides at this point in time. There's risk going both ways as John notes: if Kepler breaks out as a hitter, this is a terrific deal for the Twins. If he doesn't, there's a good chance he'll be overpaid unless he moves to CF full time and can stay a good defender in that role. The front-loading of some of the money is beneficial to both the Twins and Kepler; it's almost always better to get your money sooner if you can for a player, assuming they can manage their money reasonably and not blow through it all and start reaping investment returns sooner. For the Twins, they have payroll flexibility now, this helps them maintain it in the future. (If this were the NFL, this is where a team pays the big bonus in year 1...) I'm a fan of Max, and I hope he has the hitting breakout. There's some data that suggests a change in approach last year that's likely to pay out in future years if he sticks with it. There's also data that suggests he may be who he is as a hitter. We'll see which way it goes.

I like this, but I'll admit this one makes me a little twitchier. Twins are definitely betting on kepler taking a step forward on offense. I hope they've bet correctly. Of course, with Kepler's defense and at this price, a team would still take last year's offense and defense even at the new price of $6-7M/year in CF.

His absence from a lot of lists last year is a result of the injury. with no information about his development, a lot of people are going to significantly downgrade a prospect until they get back on the field. It's not a crazy decision either, sort of like giving someone an Incomplete rather than a letter grade. he made some national lists after his first season and now he's surged up the lists.

I think this is a good move, presuming Polanco stays away from PEDs (a 1 year ban would SUCK). His hitting in the infield is a real asset, and I think he can defend well enough at SS to hold it down until Royce Lewis arrives and 2B is a more than viable option for him later in this proposed contract. I'm a Polanco fan. He doesn't get the hype of other guys, but he's performed. You need guys like him as part of a strong core and while there's always risk in a deal this long, I think by the end of it we're going to think it was a steal.

Huge potential for this guy. I think it's probably best for him to continue to develop in the minors this year and see how his development on the changeup goes and his stamina in going deeper in games and handling more innings. He's pretty young, and still not that far off his TJ that rushing him up to relieve doesn't seem like the best use of his development By my goodness, if he can get a solid changeup? He's an ace in the making. The fastball and slider are both good enough already that he doesn't need a great change, just a good enough one to keep hitters off balance, something to mess up the timing on guys trying to sit on his fastball or slider. He doesn't seem to drive hard off the mound and use his lower body terribly effectively, so if he's really a 240lb kind of guy maybe that's a refinement area that could help him deliver that superb velocity without straining the arm as much? Parker is absolutely right about the hips, though. Feels like he should start the year in Ft Myers with a midseason promotion to AA if he stays on path. The control is pretty impressive for such a hard thrower at such a young age. Looking forward to see him take on more advanced hitters. The floor seems to be high-leverage reliever. the ceiling is ace starter. love seeing that in the #3 prospect.

He's off to a very nice start. I would be aggressive with him and start him in Ft. Myers. Not sure there's much to be gained by having him beat up on low-A pitching for a month or so, and he needs to continue to show that he can hit against competition that's in his own development band. he's turning 22 at the end of the month and he needs to be playing against guys his own age or older, not knocking around guys still in their early stages of development. And if he performs in high-A, get him to AA for the second half. Going slow on Larnach in the low minors probably isn't going to help his development. I'll be very interested to see what happens with his BA, and whether or not some of that starts to fall off as he faces more advanced pitchers. I'm starting to think batting average is becoming an underrated skill again and it would be nice to have some higher contact guys in the pipeline. Larnach could be one of those guys that controls the strike zone, hits for power, but doesn't just wave at everything else he swings at...

I think we'll get a much better feel for where Javier should rank as a prospect after this season. If he plays a full season in A ball, that's a win. He's got terrific upside and the tools are real. I'm looking forward to seeing how he does during a full season facing other real prospects. How will he react to some adversity? How might he react to major success? He's a fun prospect. I might have dropped him a little lower, but that's quibbling a little. the upside is definitely there for him to be #5 in a high-quality system.

The K rate on Rooker makes me nervous. He seems to have no defensive instincts, and he needs to be a much much better hitter to be a primary DH IMHO. But here's the thing that really worries me: his first 50 games were a little rough. His last 30 games were awful. So he's really staking last season on 50 games in the middle? Hmm. I'd start him back in AA. Not sure he deserves to be ranked this high without better contact rates or more defensive utility.

It's especially interesting to peek at these rankings against Keith Law's recent list; there's a pretty significant divergence all over the place (except for the top 2). Law is calling Duran a one pitch guy and definitely sees him as a reliever. I wonder how much of the differences are based in proximity (TD guys might have more granular detail) and how much in preference (everyone may value things differently in prospects). But KLaw definitely agrees more with Tom on Duran...

I'd feel more confident about Thorpe if he had one elite pitch he could rely on to get some outs, but you can still have success in MLB based on command/control, pitch mix, and sequencing. I'm looking forward to seeing how he does in AAA this year and it should be fun to see him debut sometime in 2019 at the MLB level. He's still a young guy, and missing 2 full years and 2017 still being something of a rehab year has undoubtedly set his development back on pitch refinement. Here's hoping for another healthy year where he can continue to work on refining the changeup and making one of his breaking balls a better option. He might not be all that far off from finding an approach that will be very successful for him

While I still maintain that "closer" is an overrated role that teams usually overpay for...I would actually really be happy if we could bring in Kimbrel at 3/$45M. there's no question we have the payroll space for it and it wouldn't limit our ability to make other moves/sign extensions. And Kimbrel has been elite. not just top ten in the AL, not just top ten in MLB, but Hall of Fame-track kinds of elite. If he was 35+, I'd be more nervous. If it was a 5 year deal, I'd be really nervous. But for his age, experience, and skill...I'd jump on that one. I'm thrilled we're making that kind of offer, and I find it interesting reports have it as the best one out there. Our bullpen would start to look like a strength if you added Kimbrel to it. Kimbrel, May, Rogers, Parker as your top 4? Addison Reed & one more LHP? Only needing one more guy in the 'pen, allowing you to have a 4 man bench? I like this more and more, just hope Kimbrel start to like it too...

I like Enlow. I think this will be an interesting season for him, not on a make or break sort way but more on a developmental path. If the changeup starts coming together, if his command and control continues to develop and he's able to get deeper into games, if he continues to physically develop and avoid the minor injuries...he could be a fast-track guy. If not on some of these questions, he'll probably take a slower development path. He's got the plus curve that could be an elite pitch, and a good fastball to support it, so the future looks bright on him. Without a 3rd pitch he probably ends up in the bullpen at the MLB level, but mid-90's heat (more if he doesn't have to pace himself?) and a wipeout curve can make for a nasty backend reliever too. Future looks bright, upside is there, good start so far. but long way to go on this guy.

The twins do have options on this question, in part because with Kepler on the roster you don't need your 4th OF to necessarily be a backup for CF. I think Cave has the edge because he played respectably in extended duty with the Twins last year and he's a left-handed hitter. Having another lefty bat on the bench isn't a bat idea considering the lineup may well feature 6 righties on a regular basis (Cron, Schoop, Sano, Garver, Buxton, and Cruz) and one switch (Polanco). Sure, castro "hits" left, but... I'd like the twins to have a 4-man bench and not waste a slot on a 13th pitcher who only sees action once a week at best. Right now it looks like Adrianza, Casto/Garver (I don't know who's getting most of the starts at this point) and a 4th OF are going to fill 3 of them, with hopefully a player to be named later. If Tyler Austin is that guy, that's another righty bat and Cave makes the most sense out of the option we're looking a right now. I like Granite, but he needs time to get healthy and show he can hit. He's a nice defender, and has potential to be a speedy high-average guy who could get on base a lot at the top of a lineup. I don't hold his 2017 MLB struggles against him; first time in the majors and all that. But he was hurt a lot last year and really struggled. He need to get it back together before he's likely to be a real contender, and he's going to need to hold off Lamonte Wade now.

Seth is giving up on Rortvedt!

I'm a believer in Rortvedt, but he needs to keep working on his hitting. Last year was definitely a success, but he certainly hasn't answered all the questions yet. It will be interesting to see where Rortvedt and Jeffers start; I suspect that if Rortvedt gets his shot at AA, Jeffers will start out at Ft. Myers, but I would be surprised if they both start out in the same level they finished last year with an eye towards early season promotion. Personally, I think I would be more aggressive with them both and start Rortvedt at AA and Jeffers at high A. Rortvedt has the catching skills to work with more developed pitchers and we need to see if his bat can play at higher levels of competition. (and if he needs to repeat AA...ok) Let's see if Jeffers bat is what it looks like in a tougher league and competition closer to his age level; what are we gaining by having him beat up on younger guys? I'd also like to see how he does catching guys who have a little more advanced skills too. Gordon and Gonsalves are getting near make or break points. If Gordon can't hit better, he's gonna bust. He's been pushed fairly aggressively, so some adjustment is understandable, but he needs to find an approach that works for him at the plate. Gonsalves has to find better control. He's been able to generate enough K's at every level, so I suspect he can do better than his K/9 ratio in MLB last year, but the BBs have got to come down. He doesn't have the overwhelming stuff to be "effectively wild", so he needs to have the command and control working for him. Frankly, I'm nervous about his future.

This. but it's also noting that the defensive impact on run prevention at some positions is larger than others through sheer opportunity as well. there are simply fewer opportunities to make run-saving defensive plays at 1B than at CF. WAR is a useful way of summarizing a players total contributions to the team in a way that's fairly easy to understand, and in doing so it recognizes that certain positions are more valuable than others. That's all the positional adjustment really does. (it's also important to note that fWAR and bWAR are very different estimators for pitching; fWAR tells you how good they think a pitcher should have been, attempting to null out luck factors. bWAR tells you what they actually accomplished for the team in that year. fWAR may be better for predicting future success. bWAR is more descriptive of what actually occurred.) It's a useful tool, and it's nice to have a stat that tries to bring in everything about a player. It's not the end all be all, but it's a useful starting point for any discussion about a player's value. To my mind, if you have to argue that a player's WAR doesn't mean anything, then you have a weak argument.