jmlease1

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.

I think Nick has it right here. The FO looks smart to have held out for an additional piece like Bellinger. If we'd dealt an all-star on a good contract for a pitcher who got hurt and a couple of lottery tickets (A-ball prospects) they would have gotten crushed for it all season. De Leon may turn out to be a fine pitcher, but the injuries were a legit concern then and seem even moreso now. But the more important part for the twins future is the Twins seem to be making smart evaluations on what players are worth and aren't willing to sell low. Clearly, if they were asking for Bellinger, they were asking for the right kind of guy: he's been great. I hope this continues as we work through the off-season, whether it's trades or free agency.

I would do Seth's offer in a heartbeat if I'm the twins. Buying out three of Buxton's FA years would be fantastic. The deal i don't want to see if one where we only buy out the arbitration years and he becomes a FA on schedule. If we can get him for 7 years and anywhere under $90M total value, I'd feel good about it. Is Boras his agent? That's the danger, because Boras LOVES getting his guys into free agency.

I think this deal is fine. It's probably one year longer than Falvine would have preferred, but that's what happens when your manager is in the running for Manager of the Year: he gets a little leverage. Molitor has shown willingness to work with an adapt to the new regime, handles the clubhouse and media well, has useful fanbase connections, is a student of the game (which makes it hard to believe he's going to suddenly start insisting that everyone just do it his way), and has generally been fine as an in-game manager. Coming off a successful season in which young players in the lineup took a step forward, I don't have any great concerns about him running the club next season. The biggest problem on this team is pitching, and they just let Neil Allen go. So either Molly recognizes he needs a better pitching coach or the FO told him he's getting a different pitching coach, and that's ok with me. If it's the first, that's sound recognition. If it's the second it's evidence that guys aren't going to get to free ride because the manager likes them. Regarding bullpen useage: let's see what happens if/when we get a little more stability there. or a little more talent. (same with the rotation) Managerial contracts that are 3 years or less in duration tend to be pretty fungible. If this years turns out to be a total fluke year and next season goes to crap, they can move on without too much difficulty. If they take another step forward, they've got some continuity locked in.

I'm fine with Molitor coming back. He showed willingness to get on-board with the new regime's methods of doing things, which is hugely important. I don't expect him or any manager to simply be a yes-man, but if you're constantly at odds it's not going to work. I don't always love Molitor's in-game strategy or bullpen useage, but I say that about most managers. It's easy to do from the couch, and it's never going to be "perfect". He does fine and seems to handle all of the intangible stuff for the club well. Frankly, he's shown more flexibility than most managers out there with his levels of baseball experience, which I think is a major point in his favor. 2 year deal would be appropriate, 3 year deal would be ok with me. I'd be surprised if Molitor settled for 1, doubt team would go over 3.

He's not a great fit, because he's pretty terrible defensively so it's hard to play him in the OF if Rosario is starting (and the way eddie hit this year, it's hard not to start him). He's an on base machine, but you'd like a guy to be a bit more of a threat if he's your primary DH. and If Sano needs more time at DH next year, it's increasingly hard to carry him. Granite profiles better as your 5th OF right now (until he proves he can be a high average hitter in MLB) but he's a good defensive player you can slot in anywhere. It's not an easy call and may depend on what the free agent market looks like for hitters. Clearly the focus for next year will be pitching. The offense and defense are where we need them to be, the pitching has to improve, especially in the rotation.

1. Big assumption on Santana. No evidence they were looking to move him, only that other teams were asking (which they would have pretty much regardless). 2. This is premised on ol' Dougie getting his "side" of the story out there, whereas the FO has stayed pretty quiet on it. I'm fine with them moving on, and taking a swing at the new FO for not making sure Mienkiewicz's feeling were carefully catered to (and let's be clear: they were cutting him loose, what are the odds he's gonna walk away happy?) seems silly. We're not talking about Kent Hrbek here. 3. Garver has gotten some play. but his PT is on Molitor, not the FO. Or do you really want Falvine tostart dictating to the manager who should play where and when late in the season? Either you trust your manager or you don't. Year one of the new regime has gone pretty well. they're the benefactor of lowered expectations, increased luck (team is relatively lucky this year, were quite unlucky last year) and good player development on some younger players. they've been opportunistic and fairly creative. Bit of an injury bug on our higher end relievers, which hurt (May, Chargois, Burdi...) but otherwise nothing too ridiculous. If they can stabilize/bolster the rotation for next year this could be a contending club. Big if, but that's the whole this team has right now: they need more starting pitching that can compete at the higher levels.

I'm with Nick on this one. Bartolo looks cooked again, and while I'm still not sold on The Tease (Kyle Gibson) I'd rather start a guy that could actually be with this team next year than a guy who definitely won't. Nice to be worrying about such matters! I'm just hoping Sano can come back by the Detroit series and get a few games in to get his timing back. Adding his bat in there really makes this a formidable lineup.

I'm amazed at the difference between fWAR and bWAR (Fangraphs vs Baseball reference). For the top 10 listed above, with the fWAR listed first: Dozier: 3.7 vs 3.4 Buxton: 3.2 vs 5.3 Berrios: 2.6 vs 1.7 Santana: 2.5 vs 4.1 Sano: 2.4 vs 2.6 Rosario: 2.1 vs 1.6 Mauer: 2.0 vs 3.3 Escobar: 1.3 vs 0.9 Polanco: 1.3 vs 1.5 I don't know if this is all just different formulas on defense or what, but it was interesting to me how much better bWAR thinks Buxton, Mauer, and Santana have been this year

Hard to get too excited about Rodriguez; 28 year old 1B in AA? i think I might have downgraded him on the ballot just for that. terrific season for Granite, very much like to see him as the 4th OF on the twins next year and see how he does hitting with more consistent time. Wade is intriguing. How is his defense? because if he's solid out there, you can definitely find room for a high average/high OBP guy on your team.

This. I think there are several hitters on this club that look to bunt for a hit and will do it with a man on base knowing the manager will be ok with it if they don't get on as long as the runner moves over. It can be a weapon, but the Twins may be trying it too often. I love the patience of this team. 7 more walks last night. It's got to be driving dan barreiro crazy, especially since the team keeps winning, which makes him sound even stupider when he whines about it.