jmlease1

I don't think there's any question that Rosario's defense has declined from his rookie season (I'll debate the idea that Buxton is the only quality defender out there, however; Kepler is still a good defender and Granite certainly has potential). But if he can keep up the increased discipline he showed last season, he's a useful player. He doesn't need to be a walk-taking machine, just show an understanding of the zone so he doesn't get himself out. It's also possible that he can improve his defense back up to something closer to average out there if he's established a more consistent approach at the plate. he's got the arm to be a nice corner OF and enough range to get to the balls he needs to, but he makes poor decisions out there. well, he made poor decisions at the plate two years ago and that improved. He's not super young any longer, but maybe he's matured? I'm rooting for him, that's for sure.

I'm staggered that anyone would attack Nick Nelson for not reporting this assault accusation to legal authorities. That's not his responsibility and absent the consent of the accuser, he has nothing substantive to add to the conversation. The fact that this would come up is further evidence how much further we have to go in dealing with sexual harassment, sexual assault, and related issues in our society. At my job we have mandatory training that we are required to renew every year. It's comprehensive and actually quite informative for people who take it seriously. (The interactive web-based system used does a respectable job in making people people engage on the topic as well) One of the topics covered is the concept of mandatory reporting, so that people know their roles. Some people where I work are "mandatory reporters" and if someone tells them about an assault or harassment, they are required as part of their job to inform the appropriate authority. Most people are not. Most people, especially at a private business, are not going to be considered a mandatory reporter and if someone is then they absolutely would know that status. Other people are allowed to support a victim in whatever way the victim asks, including maintaining confidence. We do this because there are jobs (school teachers, in particular) who are in positions of public trust and authority who we have decided as a society that they can't keep things quiet. (not coincidentally, this can also help victims come forward: by telling a mandatory reporter they can trigger the start of something official starting with someone they can speak with more comfortably rather than straight to the police) A columnist/writer for a website isn't going to be a mandatory reporter. This is a serious accusation. It's been followed up by some preliminary investigation and commentary from people who have inside information that lends additional credibility to the accusation. The victim has gone on the record in public. The Twins had better take this extremely seriously. Regardless of what happens in this specific case, I'd suggest that the organization should rethink how it handles sexual harassment training and how they handle that training both in how it relates to players and staff. They will need to ensure that they are handling that training in a comprehensive fashion that addresses cultural and language barriers as they arise and not assume a basic "one size fits all" approach will be effective.

I'm ok with lowering our aim if we can't land Darvish (which admittedly will be tough, the competition is significant)...just not too far. I'm not all that excited about spending on depth guys for the rotation. If we can't improve the top end of our staff through free agency/trade, I'd rather stay internal next year and give some of our guys in the minors a shot rather than get a veteran back-end guy. Honestly...we have a few of those. (The Tease, aka Kyle Gibson, Mejia, Hughes...that's enough options for the back-end right there along with possibly May, Gonsalves, Jorge, and/or Romero competing for a slot. Heck, we could still bring back Santiago.) I'm not interested in sell mode. We've got 2 young stars already in the every day lineup (Buxton & Sano) and other young pieces around them (Kepler & Rosario) that could take another step forward. We have veterans with value around them as well (Dozier, Mauer, Castro) which makes for a potent offense and quality defense. Selling off Ervin or Dozier would have to bring a bonanza with players ready to step in almost immediately, and I don't see anyone likely to make that offer. Other teams have tried to lowball us on Dozier before, and with him closer to free agency his perceived value will drop even further. We're much better off keeping him. Now, making a deal that pushes Robbie Grossman aside? I can live with that. he was a nice find offensively off the scrap heap, but let's not pretend he's a quality starter. I'm not holding a spot worrying about getting Grossman some playing time and if we can get a guy like Cruz, who would be a big offensive boost (even if he probably can't play OF unless it's interleague), I'd explore the heck out of it. McCutchen would be even better, letting us mix & match in the OF but the haul required to get him out of Pittsburgh might be too high; they'll overvalue him based on past performance and his popularity with the fan base, something I can understand. If we can get him for a couple of mid-level prospects, though? I'd go for it in a heartbeat and platoon him at RF & DH for 140-150 games and hope the extra rest keeps his bat fresh.

Considering Mauer already has a higher bWAR (53.4 v 46.2) & fWAR (48.1 v 44.3) than Dale Murphy in 4 less seasons, I'm not sure it's a great comp. If Mauer adds another 5-6 WAR in the next 2-3 seasons that's a pretty significant difference. Mattingly played the same number of seasons as Joe (to this point), but Mauer again was better: (53.4 v 42.2 bWAR; 48.1 v 40.7 fWAR). Beyond that Mauer is still likely to keep playing for another few years to add to his total. After last season do you really expect him to put up negatives? the narrative is different as well: After being the consensus best catcher in the game, Mauer was forced to change positions because of injury and turned himself into a fine defensive 1B while still continuing to get on base at an elite level through walks and line drives. with Murphy the narrative is more like: after being one of the best CF in the game, Murphy turned 31 and went into a rapid and steep decline that he never recovered from. Mattingly: after an amazing start to his career, Mattingly became an average to above average starter in the league before injuries wiped out the real decline phase of his career. remember, mauer was having another outstanding season at catcher in 2013, before the brain injury forced the position change a few years earlier than anyone would have liked. The hardware for them might be pretty similar, but the production really isn't. (and how much extra did Murphy get for playing on TBS and Mattingly for being a goddamn Yankee? That really mattered for awards back then; it's normed out somewhat now.) Mauer had more dominant seasons than Mattingly, about the same as Murphy. Murphy never recovered once he fell from the heights and wasn't a good player at all his last 4 seasons; Mauer is still a productive player. Mattingly wasn't even a player at this point. That said, both Murphy and Mattingly have gotten real consideration for the Hall; both spent 15 years on the ballot. Mauer is better than both and should make the Hall when his time comes.

I left off Scott Rolen. Big oversight on my part. He won't make it in this year (partly because Chipper was a better hitter and healthier) but he should. He was a great player.

2 years with an option for a 3rd with a reasonable buyout and some salary escalators tied to playing time would be fine in my book. I'd make the offer seth outlines. He's a nice, flexible bench piece that gives you good insurance against an INF injury. I'd rather not have him starting in one spot consistently, but as a super-utility guy he's a great fit and $4.5M is a price I'd pay.

My list: Vlad Guerrero Trevor Hoffman Larry "Chipper" Jones Jim Thome Mike Mussina Edgar Martinez Larry Walker Curt Schilling Johan Santana I still can't decide where to fall on the PED guys, so I left 'em all off for now. Bonds & Clemens were both of HoF caliber before they started juicing, but the whole thing is still a mess. Manny...gah. Insanely great hitter. Useless defender. Cheater. feels like we need more distance from it all to decide. Toughest omission: Andruw Jones. Still thinking about adding him to the list. He was amazing defensively in his prime, and was a good hitter for most of his career. But wow, did he fall apart right after turning 30. Fast and steep decline. I'd be ok if he made it, still deciding on that 10th slot if I need to use it. Couldn't vote for Omar, much as I loved to watch him play. Bad hitter, much closer to Davey Concepcion than Ozzie Smith in my mind. Larry Walker is underrated, in my mind. He wasn't just a Coors Field phenom, he was a great player who could do it all...except stay healthy. But when he played, he was fantastic. Hall of Famer in my book.

Agreed. Plus, we're not overspending on a guy to simply pitch the 9th inning. Kenley Jansen is a great, great reliever...but is he really worth paying $21M for? for less than 70 innings? Two years ago Zach Britton was the shutdown guy in the AL; last year he got a $5M raise (to $11M) and was less valuable than Rodney was. (at roughly 4x the price) Rodney has generally been pretty effective as a closer, a role that is generally overrated and overpaid by modern usage. So signing him at a pretty reasonable price to fill a role on this team that he should be able to perform while not blocking any of the power relief arms we have coming up in the minors or preventing what may be better options in the system already from serving in higher leverage situations seems like a decent move. It's certainly not one worth hating on.

I'm a little surprised at the hostility towards this move, honestly. I mean, I get that it's not a big splashy signing but it's hard to see how this objectively a bad signing either. Rodney is a quality, experienced reliever with loads of experience in the closer role. Singing him doesn't mess up our salary structure in the future, nor will it jeopardize our chances at a big-time signing later in free agency. He should be a useful piece for the bullpen next year. This doesn't look like a "Ryan 2.0" move to me; that would have been giving a shot to a former closer who had sucked for 3 years and was looking for one more shot. Rodney was very good last year once he got past that first month or so. (yes, those count but my point is: this doesn't look like a guy who is cooked) It's a small move, but a fine one in my opinion. I'm not a fan of handing out multi-year deals to FA relievers generally; we've seen so much variance in performance over the years to make that a questionable use of funds. And there's no question teams have overpaid for "closers", especially with the 9th inning only useage, so i'd rather do it more like this.

A solid signing. the money is fine, I like that's it's a 1 year deal considering how many power arms we have in the system in relief roles that could easily emerge. The experience will probably help some of the younger relievers adjust, and it looks like he should still be effective...and if it turns out he's cooked it won't be hard to move on. Good move to bolster the roster.

Santana's miss on the Cy was really the start of the "hey, maybe judging starting pitchers on wins isn't very good" movement breaking more mainstream. Maybe being part of a watershed moment helps? a third Cy certainly would have made his case much stronger for the more traditional crowd. I'd vote for Johan. the level of greatness is there, the peak was at the max for long enough for me to get over the relative brevity of his career.

Kohl Stewart didn't get picked? He was the one I thought a team would take a flyer on. Hate losing Burdi, guess the team is more comfortable floating a 40-man spot to a starter that likely won't pitch this season than a reliever? That's not unreasonable, I guess. It's Rule V, it's sort of like buying a lottery ticket. A smart team with a high pick might get lucky but the odds aren't great.

God, are we STILL fighting the "did the twins screw up or do ok at the trade deadline last season" fight? So far i like the twins off-season. The draft looks very good and the FO made a number of moves and decisions like look smart, and it wasn't exactly a draft where every pick was obvious and they just had to wait for it to come to them. I like the trade of the int'l cap money for the prospects. Grabbing a catching prospect is especially good for our system and we gave away so very little for them that it's almost impossible not to call this a win. Bringing back Molitor was a good move as well and they handled it a way that was professional. They're continuing to remodel the organizational structure and minor league system the way they want to see it, which I'm fine with. (Dumping Doug Mienkiewitz is fine; he's the one who came off like a jackass to everyone who isn't in his pocket) Has anything else happened this hot stove? Yeah, we missed out of the stud from Japan, but that one was kind of a long shot form the get-go, wasn't it? Real free agency and trading hasn't even gotten started yet. but so far, they seem to be doing everything right and it lends confidence they';ll make smart decisions in the upcoming.

I think exposing Stewart is a reasonable move. He's not a short-term option for the 'pen right now and hasn't taken the leap forward he needs as a starter (velocity plateaued, K's haven't come, control has fluctuated) so while he's still an interesting prospect, you'd really be taking a risk trying to hold him on a MLB roster for the whole season. Hard to hold that roster spot for a guy who isn't ready to pitch right now at that level and needs innings in the minors if he's ever going to get there. I'd prefer he stays with the Twins because I do think there's still a chance for him but it's also not a terrible loss if he goes (just an indictment on the previous regime for busting a high pick). I'd like Mauer to keep playing for the Twins, in part just to piss off Dan Barriero. But if he can stay healthy like he did this year and play at this level, he's a real asset. Not a $23M asset, but them's the breaks. I don't know what the right price is for him, where the line is between what's a good value for the team and what's a number he just says, "nah, I'm good." No new deal should be longer than 2 years, though. 2 years, $20M? If Joe gets through another season playing 140 games with this level of hitting and defense, I'd love to have him back for another go around. Don't want Hosmer. Not even a little. Mauer was better defensively despite the GG and Hosmer has had some bad years sandwiched right in what should be his prime. This was Hosmer's best year as a pro and there are enough red flags that anyone signing him to a big deal should be nervous. he's not a good fit here and there's too much risk.

I don't think there's any question that Johan had a worthy peak. The question is whether that peak was high enough long enough to make up for the shortness of the overall career. It's not an easy one, and I think it makes Johan borderline. I would argue yes. he wasn't a guy who was only good for 5 years and did nothing else; he was a guy who was amazing for 5 years, good for 4 more, then around for 3 more past that (2 getting started and 1 trying to hang on). If he'd tacked on 3 more years like his last one with the Mets and boosted his innings and wins by 10-15% would it really change much about his case for the HoF? I don't think so, although it probably earns him a lot more votes. I can't hold post-season against Johan. The first two season were relief jobs when he was still a pup. As a starter he only got 5 chances: 3 great, 1 ok (pulled early), 1 awful. Given his last three were his best just when he was hitting his prime, it's hard to think he wouldn't have done well with more opportunities, and it's not like he was a disaster. Johan had a 5 year stretch where you had to bring his name up as one of the best pitchers in his league or people would look at you funny. He's got the awards and the "black type" stats to back it up. There's just enough years for me to be ok with him going in, because of the sustained greatness.

Personally, I prefer a guy who pitched at the absolute peak but got cut a little short on the years over the guy who never really dominated the same way but had the full length and health of a typical HoF guy. Johan was a comet and while that's always going to make you a little borderline, I think he deserves it. Johan wasn't just a "maybe" guy for best pitcher in baseball; for five years straight if you didn't bring him up in that conversation you were an idiot. That says a lot. Stieb doesn't have the story, and played basically his entire career in canada, but the most significant difference between him and Morris is Jack stayed healthier for a few years longer. (which basically accounts for their difference in fWAR; bWAR is another tale) The other difference is Jack played in more post-seasons; Jack was great in 2 of them, bad in two of them. Stieb was good in 1, bad in 1. I'm not advocating for Stieb for the Hall, but Morris and Stieb overlapped almost their entire careers and ended up as not unreasonable comps for each other. I just don't think 2-3 additional seasons of ok pitching is enough to get you into the Hall.

I used bWAR in part because I think their modelling makes more sense for evaluating a pitcher's season (Rany explains it better than me: https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2017/11/29/16712482/future-of-war-aaron-judge-jose-altuve-bill-james-debate ) The defense does explain some of it, but Morris also pitched behind excellent defenders, trammel & whitaker most notably, for basically his entire career...and according to fWAR some years he got bailed out by his defense and some years he didn't. considering how we're still trying to evaluate defensive value, I don't love the way fWAR uses FIP to calculate WAR, especially when you consider cases like Nolan Ryan as Rany presented in the link above. I'm not saying Stieb is a HoF pitcher, but you're sort of making my case for me: Stieb and Morris are interesting comps for each other in the 80's and ain't no one talking about Dave Stieb for the Hall, yet people act like it's this great injustice that Jack isn't in. (fWAR has them as basically the exact same pitcher in the time frame you highlight; bWAR would tell you to take Stieb every time and that was basically Stieb's career.) I can't say I love the argument that Jack should be in the Hall and not Dave because Jack stayed healthier for a few years longer and some people are pretty sure Dave pitched in front of better defenses.

Diagree with your analysis here; it's far too generous to Morris. Palmer and Hubbell (who are actually pretty decent comps for each other despite pitching in very different eras) were both substantially better pitchers than Morris. Palmer didn't deserve as many Cy's as he got, but he definitely should have gotten at least one, arguably two. But both pitchers were significantly better at run prevention than Morris. ERA+: Palmer 125, Hubbell 130, Morris 105. bWAR: Palmer 68.1, Hubbell 67.8, Morris 43.8. Both Palmer and Hubbell had Morris' greatest strength (ability to eat up a lot of innings) but coupled it with greater ability to prevent runs. Palmer and Morris both had the benefit of fine defenders playing behind them (Palmer especially had some of the best defenses of all time working behind him) but even taking that into account, Palmer is still a significantly better pitcher. I brought Morris into the discussion because a) someone suggested that Santana shouldn't be in if Morris wasn't, and there's been a fair amount of commentary about Morris getting in off the small committee vote that is looking at players from his era. (BTW, I really don't think Morris was robbed in '83; Hoyt shouldn't have won as he wasn't even the best pitcher on his own team. But Dave Steib is the guy who really should have won it. Morris is in a pack with Dotson and MacGregor and a few others. Steib is probably the most underrated pitcher from that time frame, and had a four year run where he was almost certainly the best pitcher in the AL and should have won 2 Cy's; he was tremendous from '82-'85) I do agree that the Koufax case has some similarities for Santana; Koufax was better and had to quit at the height of his powers because of injury, and also had the post-season success to go with it. But Sandy is considered a no-doubter HoF guy. No one really argues it. If that's where your starting point is on Santana, that's pretty strong for your case.

And Saberhagen probably deserved a little more consideration than he got, but Johan is still the superior pitcher. ('87 Saberhagen should have gotten Cy votes, but Clemens won it and deserved it; Viola was arguably better than Saberhagen that year as well) ERA+: Saberhagen had four years over 140, Santana had six. Saberhagen had three years over 150, Santana had five. Outside of Saberhagen's amazing '89 he rarely led the league in much of anything; Santana had a 5 year run where he was leading the league in K's ERA, ERA+, FIP, WHIP, IPs multiple times. Santana had a higher, more consistent peak. Saberhagen was able to come back from equally horrid injury to grind out a few extra seasons. Both great pitchers, but I'd put Santana above Saberhagen. Both are clearly superior to jack Morris, who is more likely to get elected.

I think Johan is a fair choice. He's a little borderline because the career was so short (only 8 seasons as a full-time starter, only 12 seasons total) but the peak was pretty stunning. 2 Cy's that no one questions. Should have won a 3rd, and would have in today's voting. Could have won a 4th and been a perfectly reasonable choice (2008). Finished top 5 five year in a row. in a row! Led the league in ERA 3 times, K's 3 times, IPs twice, WHIP four times...the "black type" splattered across his resume is fantastic. Heck his career ERA+ is actually better than Koufax! Koufax had better post-season success, but also was fortunate that his post-season opportunities primarily came at the same time he peaked as a player. Johan only made three post-season appearances in seasons where he started the full year and had become "Johan": he was great in all of them, so it's not like his post-season record was a mess. Just limited opportunity. I don't think Johan is a slam dunk, but he was so great and he did do it for an extended period: 5 straight years of being the best damn pitcher in baseball that I think he's a fair choice for the Hall. His case is closer to Koufax than Guidry in my mind. Take the top ten seasons from Guidry and Santana and lay them side-by-side from best to worst: Guidry had exactly 2 seasons that would top Johan's. Johan's 6th best season is roughly as good as Guidry's 2nd best; other than Guidry's ridiculous '78 season the others aren't all that close. Koufax is a much closer comp; if he's a no-doubt HoFer, Johan at least deserves very very serious consideration. I think the stretch of greatness was long enough he deserves to get in, even without the handful of additional solid years that would have locked it down.

It might be interesting, but I wouldn't expect it to be informative. Players are notorious for overrating the guys they played with/against.

I wouldn't have given it to Dozier, but at least he's not an awful choice. He did have a very good season out there: made very few mistakes, made a lot of spectacular plays. I don't know there was a slam dunk choice like Buxton was for CF in the AL at 2B this year, so Dozier caught a bit of a break. Buxton was an easy choice. Gosh, he's fabulous to watch. And frankly, he could be better next year. A little more experience at judging balls in MLB parks, a little more work on his routes, a little better recognition on balls off the bat...and hopefully no early season drought at the plate to distract him, either! Seriously: we may not have seen Peak Buxton in the field yet! I'm still disappointed that Mauer didn't win the GG, and leaving him off the finalist list was a crime. Hosmer won on reputation and that's a shame. He's a fine player, but his D wasn't there this season and it felt like the bad old days where 1Bs were winning based on their bat not their glove.

Sigh. I always feel bad crapping on the Jack Morris HoF candidacy, because we was a fine pitcher for a long time and was the most important part of one of the greatest games on baseball history. But you have to really hang a LOT on that one game and the concept that Morris was an "ace" to compensate for what are, quite frankly sub-standard numbers. Career ERA 3.90. That's just not hall-worthy. Tiant & John were both more than half a run better over their careers, and I'm not a proponent of either of them. Morris never had a season with an ERA under 3.00 in his entire career. never. He never won a Cy, and never really deserved one, either. You look down his stats and you don't see any truly dominant seasons. his best work was done in years where he had teams that had enough offense that they could let him keep pitching deep into the game. His greatest skill as a pitcher was eating innings. Make no mistake, that is a valuable skill! But I'd need him to have something else to make him into the Hall. Did you know he averaged less than 1.5 WAR for his last 7 seasons? There was one last really good season in 1991 with the twins, that magical year that everyone remembers him for...but the decline was fast for Morris. The 1992 season with Toronto had a lot of wins, but he wasn't a great pitcher that year. Post-season always comes up for Morris, so let's look at it. he was outstanding in 1984, the prime of his career. he got shelled in 1987. he was outstanding for the twins in 1991, especially in the WS. He was awful in 1992. So a bit of a mixed bag, right? he wasn't a great strikeout pitcher. he never had the elite seasons. he gave up a lot of runs. he didn't win the big hardware. he didn't get a lot of "black type" stats (leading the league) and half the ones he did get are the bad ones. (led the league in Wild Pitches 6 times!) very good pitcher. made a manager's life a lot easier because he pitched a lot of innings and could save your bullpen. not a hall of famer.

Not an impressive list, frankly. Trammell deserves it, I think. He should have won an MVP in '87, probably should have gotten at least one more all-star bid. A lot of great seasons and almost no bad ones. Tiant is a no for me. It wasn't like he was robbed of a Cy or anything. He's a terrific pitcher who's in the Hall of Very Good for me. Had some injuries in his prime years and inconsistency in his 30s. Doubt he makes this list if he's not on those Boston teams from the 70's. ted Simmons is a close call. He was a better defender than his rep and a terrific hitter, especially for a catcher. A terrific player for a long time, he also never had that really high peak where you'd legitimately think of him as an MVP. I'd have him just short, but I wouldn't cry if he went in, partly because there reall aren't a ton of catchers in there. Dave Parker has to be a no. Only one really good season once he turned 29? (The MVP votes he got in '86 were absurd; he was too highly ranked in '85, but at least he had a good year then, his last as a pro) The peak was great, but 5 years is not enough to get into the HoF and he doesn't have anything else to hand his hat on. Dale Murphy has the same problem as Parker: a great peak but then he fall off the face of the earth. probably didn't deserve the first MVP either, although he wasn't a terrible choice or anything; people just cared too much about RBIs back then and ignored Mike Schimdt & Gary Carter that year. I'd say no here too. Jack Morris. I've been down this road many a time. A fine pitcher who could hang with the best of them...he just wasn't actually the best of them. Pitching to the score is BS, and Jack gave up too many runs to get in. Marvin Miller. Eh, it'd be fine. Been better if they'd done it when he was alive. Don Mattingly. No, no, no! Vastly overrated player who piled up a ton of GG he almost certainly didn't deserve entirely because he played in NYC in the era before everyone could be seen often on tv. Won an MVP when he wasn't even the best guy on his own team. Short career, short peak. He's Kent Hrbek with far better press. See anyone clamoring for Hrbie to get in the HoF? Tommy John. Borderline for me here too. long, long career (sometimes I still think he's pitching). Certainly meets the "fame" threshold. Piled up a lot of innings, great at keeping the ball in the park. But got most of his Cy Young steam because he was playing in big markets on pretty good teams. The peak's too low, not enough high levels seasons for me. Something of a compiler because he played so damn long. Steve Garvey. Another No. Mattingly was a better player, and the extra 5 years of decline with the Padres don't do Garvey and favors. His MVP is another bad one; just like Mattingly he wasn't even the best player on his own team that year! Not a chance for this guy. Keith Hernandez is the biggest snub that comes to mind for me. He's substantially better than either Mattingly or Garvey and played the same position. Mex was actually a reasonable choice as MVP the year he won it, and was historically good defensively. There may be other guys that are deserving to be on this ballot, but it's especially galling to have Garvey & Mattingly on the ballot and then to exclude Hernandez. Maybe that's on purpose: if you leave of Hernandez, maybe people won't compare Garvey & Mattingly to him and realize how they really aren't in the same league...

I would like the team to sign a high-leverage reliever. I do not wish for them to pay extra for the "proven closer" tag. as long as "closer" is a term that describes a guy who comes in for the 9th (or occasionally the 10th) with no one on base to start the inning and pitches just 1 inning to rack up the not-terribly-meaningful stat of "saves", I'd rather not pay the extra freight. It would probably be good for this staff to add a veteran reliever, considering a number of the power arms in the system are coming off injuries or are very young and fairly inexperienced. But it seems wasteful to add $4-6M to a guy's contract just to pitch in such a limited role. I want more fireman relievers who can and will come out with guys on base, with the heart of a team's lineup due up in the 7th, or something like that. That's where I'd rather spend the money. Closers come and go.