Otto von Ballpark

Worth keeping in mind that coaches and analytics folks are generally taking significantly less money to work in pro baseball than they could make in another field. Not unlike how most minor league players work for less than they could get elsewhere too, just on a different scale. MLB teams don't have to offer these guys the same pay and benefits that they could make elsewhere -- they are a prestige entertainment industry. Also, these additional salaries could collectively get "into the millions" like you guess ($1-2-3 million), and that still wouldn't make a meaningful dent relative to a $130 mil MLB player payroll. They certainly aren't spending $10-20-30 million annually on coaches and analytics people, which is generally the amounts that most critics fear they will be below average on MLB payroll. (Mind you, I am not arguing that here myself, just discussing what I think are realistic estimates for other expenses.) I also think you are perhaps shorting the previous front office. Yes, we know they didn't invest much in analytics, but that was much more of a philosophical resistance than a financial one. And by 2007-2008 they started making notable capital investments in Latin America, Ft. Myers, then Target Field, etc., including that new Dominican academy. The chief financial criticism of the old front office was pretty much the same as the one being leveled against the new one: that they are too low/conservative on MLB payroll. Frankly, if the new front office is using other expenses as a justification for where they set the MLB payroll, they are probably more like the old front office in that area than they are different.

"Some degree" is probably an incredibly small degree. It's just a reality that MLB player salaries dwarf these other expenditures. Average MLB team payroll is in the range of $130+ million annually. None of the expense items you list could likely equal even 1% of that in a single year. An expense like Elizabethton is a drop in the bucket: $300k upfront, $50k per year for 10 years: https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Government/2018/10/09/Elizabethton-City-Council-may-reach-agreement-Thursday-with-the-Minnesota-Twins-on-Joe-O-Brien-stadium-upgrades Coaching staff salaries are maybe $50k per year too? Depending on level? And it seems doubtful that there are significant new Statcast costs in 2019 (Target Field was outfitted during the previous regime). The Twins newest Dominican academy was reported as costing $18 mil, but that was 2 years ago (again, the previous regime) and split between the Twins and Phillies: https://www.mlb.com/news/twins-open-dominican-republic-baseball-academy/c-213683558 And it's not as if the average team is investing zero dollars in these things -- they are likely adding new Statcast equipment, new coaches, new facilities too. Even if the Twins are spending above average in these areas now, it's doubtful they are above that average enough to justify any meaningful drop from that $130+ mil average annual player payroll.

Not sure if it's really any kind of inefficiency -- maybe more just the market reality. Players in their last 1-2 years of arbitration are generally overpaid via arbitration, particularly at corner positions (Cron) or coming off average or worse seasons (Parker, Schoop). Thus they tend to become available. An older free agent like Cruz faces a similar market effect.

Practically speaking, there's just no way for the money to be "right" this offseason. To make sense from the Twins side, it would have to reflect a lot of uncertainly given Buxton's extremely poor recent performance and health. But to make any sense from Buxton's side, it would have to ignore a lot of that. Note this isn't a commentary about the Twins, or Buxton, or any animosity between them -- it's just a practical reading of circumstances. Teams and players virtually never agree to extensions after a bad/injured seasons, especially not on the level of Buxton's 2018 -- there's just no middle ground or overlap with their competing interests right now. Fortunately, with 4 years control through 2022, it's nothing that can't be reversed by reasonable health/performance in 2019.

Obviously there's no way to prove either hypothetical, but I suspect that quite a few other organizations would have approached things differently before Sep. 1st and at least avoided the acrimony, even if the end result was similar (extra year of service gained). Not rushing him back in May, shutting him down on August 1st, etc.

FWIW, while the 2013 Twins were fairly punchless, they were still aggressive swingers, ranking 2nd worst in MLB with a 23.0% K rate. And actually, the Twins haven't necessarily achieved much more punch *yet* than their 2013 compatriots. The 2018 squad ranked 21st in MLB in isolated power for non-pitchers. The 2013 Twins ranked 20th in that measure. Hopefully Cruz (and Cron, and Schoop) can improve that significantly in 2019.

I think it's worth asking, "how wild?" For example, Buxton's wild swings in monthly OPS (as well as his wild swings in general ) seem noteworthy. Rosario isn't at that level, of course. And especially not based on just 1 season. But I suspect there could be players who fall outside the normal range of streakiness over larger samples, and it might affect their value/forecast somewhat.

I know Rogers had 2.2 bWAR / 1.9 fWAR last year, and he has 4 years of control, but even if you think he is very good, that level of output is pretty unsustainable for relievers over the long run. Only 3 relievers averaged 2 fWAR per season over the last 4 years: Jansen, Chapman, and Betances -- and they all required peak seasons of nearly 3+ WAR to do it (they also all have career K/9 rates of 13.5 or higher, vs. Rogers peak of 9.9 so far). By comparison, Polanco posted 1.5 bWAR / 1.3 fWAR in just half a season last year, and has the same 4 years of club control. Kepler also has 4 years of control, and posted 2.8 bWAR / 2.6 fWAR last year, and has averaged 2.3 bWAR / 1.7 fWAR the last 3 years too. Even pedestrian careers from Polanco and Kepler could easily best the WAR of an elite Rogers.

Kepler has 0.7, 0.0, 0.7 WAA (Wins Above Average) the last 3 years per B-Ref -- we hope that goes up, for sure, but that's a starter level performance, definitionally average or a bit above. As for your "among contenders" qualifier, in 2018, only 3 teams in the AL reached even 1.0 WAA in RF as a team. Same for LF. So while 0.7 WAA isn't great, it isn't bad either.

https://www.mlb.com/news/nelson-cruz-explains-why-twins-are-good-fit/c-302313998

Sano's last 275 PA before the 2017 leg injury (June 1st - August 17th, 2017): .245/.313/.442, 95 wRC+. Probably about replacement level performance, given his defense. His entire 2016 wasn't much better: .236/.319/.462, 107 wRC+ Sano just hasn't shown an approach that can sustain MLB success at the plate yet. EDIT TO ADD: And to Nick's point, if his 2016-2017 struggles are attributable to the same leg/hamstring issues as he had in 2018, it's probably just as concerning as swing/approach issues, maybe even moreso.

I didn't read the original comment as meaning AA or AAA were too much for him. I read it as, there were/are obvious issues with Sano that required drastic action. In this case, getting him close to Fort Myers to control his diet and workouts (as well as try to rebuild his swing -- his issues go beyond conditioning). Still doesn't bode well for Sano's current state. I hope you're right about him rebounding, of course.

This was the refrain when we acquired him too -- Odorizzi also finished the 2017 season strong, although it was just one month. Maybe he's just a streaky guy? Edit to add: Odorizzi also had a .245 BABIP during that 10-start stretch you mention in August-September 2018, versus his career mark of .273, and he still only had a 4.40 ERA during that time. And his K rate actually went down for the season over those 10 starts. That stretch, and the after June 1st stretch, looks better by FIP than by ERA or xFIP. Do we think he's really a 0.5 HR/9 pitcher now? His career mark is 1.3.

Interesting, although for 2018, that's only a sample size of 68 PA. And as Rogers improved overall during 2018, he improved in this split too -- .208 wOBA vs RHB on the road in the second half (albeit only 25 PA). His 2017 numbers in this split were better as well -- .307 wOBA (73 PA) -- although his 2016 rookie season was similar -- .367 wOBA (74 PA). https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/splits-leaderboards?splitArr=6,10&splitArrPitch=&position=P&autoPt=false&splitTeams=false&statType=player&statgroup=1&startDate=2016-03-01&endDate=2018-11-01&players=13449&filter=

Roster Resource is correct, Duffey has an option year left. But it's because of 2015, not 2016. He spent fewer than 20 days on optional assignment in 2015, so it didn't burn an option year. (Time in the minor leagues while not on the 40-man roster doesn't count as "optional assignment", which covers all but 7 days of Duffey's time in the minors in 2015.) Also, "Days on optional assignment" is calculated by the MLB regular season schedule, not the minor league schedule, so Duffey met the 20 day threshold to burn an option year in April 2016 and again in April 2018. Exact same situation as Buxton -- fewer than 20 days on optional assignment in 2015, options burned in 2016 and 2018, and spent the whole season in MLB in 2017. So Buxton, like Duffey, has one option year left.

The Brewers used Schoop to fill in a bit at SS down the stretch this year. I don't know if he was any good, but I think that kind of flexibility might be what Brian is referring to. (Plus a willingness to use the DL and AAA guys when appropriate.)

FYI, oWAR includes the positional adjustment, so it is heavily penalizing Cruz for being a DH. If you really want to compare just hitting, use Rbat at B-Ref, where Cruz's 22 in 2018 dwarfs anything on the Twins (Escobar led with 11, Rosario had 6). Or better yet, a rate stat rather than a counting stat -- Cruz had a 135 OPS+ versus Escobar's 127 or Rosario's 115.

Overshadowed by Jeffress, but Soria was pretty poor for the Brewers in the NLCS...

It's not easy to add long term talent outside of the draft and "sell" trades, but I agree I would like to eventually see some results in that regard with this front office. If you have a bad division, doesn't that mean you don't have to be as aggressive, in a way? I might regret saying this, but Cleveland seems like our only real threat in 2019. If they falter at all, we're in pretty good position, even with our modest/conservative approach (like we almost were at points in 2018). As opposed to, say, the AL East or NL Central, where there have generally been multiple teams ready to prevail should one top dog falter. Obviously we can still seek upgrades and try to close the gap with Cleveland, but maybe it's not such an immediate need to pay Corbin 6/130 right now, or offer Romero in trade for Goldschmidt, etc.

Actually 6th in the AL in scoring -- and a distant 6th (5th to 6th was the biggest gap between any two spots) -- and only 10th in wRC+ which suggests maybe we were lucky to score that many? 10th in BaseRuns too. Cave may have arguably been second best, but he was only a 108 wRC+ hitter with a .363 BABIP. Steamer projects him at 88 wRC+ for 2019. Don't think his inclusion would move the analysis needle too much.

I said an 80-85 win forecast, not that 80-85 would win the division. A team with an 80-85 win forecast might win 90 (they may also lose 90 ), but perhaps more importantly, they may find themselves in the right circumstances midseason to make some moves. Point being, there's value in staying in that forecast range even when you're working toward longer-term goals. There are only 6 teams in all of MLB who project to 90+ wins for 2019 right now, per Fangraphs. That's elite territory. Obviously we all want the Twins to get into that group too, but it's virtually impossible to move from 80 to 90 on paper in one offseason. If they've got a plan for 90 wins in 2021, and can keep us in 80-85 in the meantime, that's not bad -- although I echo the sentiments of others here that such a 2021 plan might not be achievable without some longer-range talent additions that just these 1-2 year MLB moves (plus the draft and deadline deals).

How many super teams have we ever seen in the AL Central? Chicago and Detroit have only reached 95 wins twice each in the history of the AL Central. Cleveland 4 times, but only 2 since 1997. KC, never. Twins, once (although twice more at 94). I get that Chicago and others won't be awful forever, but I don't think there is a serious risk of falling behind a "super team" in the AL Central. An 80-85 win forecast should be enough to keep us in the mix most every year. Not that we should limit ourselves to that, but it's not necessarily bad to have a few years like that while hopefully building toward something better.

A 52 wRC+, over 410 PA, can almost certainly be universally characterized as "awful". Obviously, it would be worse if he was older or repeating a level or playing a corner position, but it's still awful.

Nitpick, but that seems a touch high. Using MLBTR's arbitration estimates, that trio clocks in at $25.3 mil for 2019.

Thanks for sharing, I hadn't seen that. (Although I had heard earlier speculation.) I wonder how true it is, or how much Levine might simply be embracing an excuse that's a bit of a deflection of his own responsibilities. (Obviously he assembled the roster, but saying they struggled because of chemistry is a bit gentler than other GM job analysis.) Also, FWIW, only Lynn and Duke were acquired as strictly one-year "mercenaries" last winter. Odorizzi had 2 years control through arb, Reed a 2 year guarantee, and Morrison and Rodney 2 years through team options. And as far as current players who were "mercenaries" on expiring contracts, it was only Dozier, Escobar, and Mauer. (Erv had a team option too.) I doubt Mauer could be considered "mercenary" in any context, and by all accounts Escobar was beloved and offered an extension. So this "mercenary" line of thinking seems like a convenient way of laying outsized blame on primarily two guys, Lynn and Dozier, when they're already out the door. Neither was great for the Twins in 2018, but this probably exaggerates their roles in our scuffles. Edit to add: And of course, this offseason so far, they have added a 2 year guy in Cron and another 1 year mercenary in Schoop. And I guess by the earlier definition, Reed and Odorizzi join the expiring contract "mercenary" club, along with Gibson and Castro.