Jump to content
Our free agent ranking is up to 100 names, and now you can filter by player position! Click here to check it out! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,669

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    But the Red Sox were trying to come up with a prospect package to replace full-value Graterol. It's quite likely that even at a reduced value after they saw the medicals, the Red Sox still considered Graterol the best prospect the Twins were willing to give up and a likely component of any replacement package. Reports suggest we (correctly) weren't willing to substitute Balazovic, Duran, or anyone better for Graterol. And even taking the "another top 10 prospect" report at face value, depending on the source that could mean prospects like Rooker, Miranda, Celestino, Thorpe, Javier, etc. -- guys who wouldn't necessarily be valuable enough on their own to substitute for full-value Graterol, but good second pieces alongside reduced-value Graterol (and likely considered better by the Red Sox than the second piece we ultimately agreed to send to the Dodgers in Raley). Hence the only way for Boston to try to salvage that iteration of the deal was to request an additional piece with Graterol, no ulterior motive necessary.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    Agreed that Maeda has some question marks as a starter. FWIW, ZiPS has him at a 4.25 ERA for 2020. Both ZiPS and Steamer don't really account for changes in playing time, so both are projecting him in a similar swing role that he had with the Dodgers. But beyond ERA, both systems project him in the 1.9-2.4 WAR range, prorated to 156 innings. That's about right for an average-range SP, which is still useful but may be a question mark for the postseason rotation just like he was for the Dodgers.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think so. The Dodgers used him 100% out of the rotation his first season and postseason. They didn't shift him to the pen until after an IL stint and an iffy start to the 2017 season; and subsequent shifts to the pen were generally when the Dodgers had 5+ better SP options and were preparing for the postseason. The Dodgers actually offered Maeda the option to re-structure his contract this winter, so he could meet some of those incentives without starting, but Maeda declined.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    According to this article, Fangraphs currently has Raley at 35+ too, the same as Camargo: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-big-mookie-betts-deal-is-finally-happening-but-the-dodgers-angels-trade-isnt/ They apparently had Raley at 40 FV on their 2019 and 2019 updated lists as well. 2020 will be Camargo's first appearance on an org list.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Is it time we put this conspiracy theory to rest? The Red Sox have steadily been getting bad PR for as long as they've entertained trading Betts, so nothing about the initial fan/media reaction to the trade was unexpected. Then they actually got *worse* PR in Boston once they delayed the deal over Graterol's medicals. Finally, once Graterol was officially off the table for them, they turned around and immediately completed a reconfigured deal, in return for arguably the same prospect value as pre-medicals Graterol seemed to have, which seems to prove they weren't in fact trying to backtrack the whole deal. Occam's Razor would suggest they really did see something in Graterol's medicals that they were unaware of before, and that it downgraded his value in their eyes more than, say, throwing in Luke Raley would have made up for. And it's a subjective evaluation by definition, so it's also not unexpected that the Twins and Dodgers apparently disagreed.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    This seems like a solution in search of a problem. In other words, I expect to hear Manfred is considering it very soon!
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Brian O'Halloran? The guy from "Clerks"?
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    I mean, none of us have the Twins tax returns, if that's what you're after. But Forbes seems like the most educated guess of all, and they had the Twins at $269 mil revenue for 2018, and almost certainly higher now: https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#header:revenue_sortreverse:true And Cot's has the Twins at $135 mil payroll for 2020, as commonly defined (current year MLB player salaries): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QXhMYkMxJE1VJvZiNMS1X7OHPFNaIVUjd-m1ZBCzHL4/edit#gid=1520401900
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Selling a draft pick and getting a low minors catcher back is what we did in the Phil Hughes to the Padres trade too...
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm pretty sure the Twins front office kept Graterol informed of his status and the stages of the trade process, so he didn't start house-hunting in Boston or anything. And as a player with minor league options, he likely still has no idea what city he'll be living in or what team he'll be playing for. For that matter, many players regularly have their "medical information debated across the internet" at least as much as Graterol. Nothing private or sensitive was revealed, just one team's vague interpretation of said medical information. The same seems to get communicated and discussed about other players all the time. I doubt that Graterol cares that some Boston columnist referred to him as "damaged goods" in order to criticize the Red Sox front office.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    If the Twins made this deal because of the general failure rate of prospects and picks, we'd see a lot more prospects and picks exchange hands for cash than we actually do. But we don't, because for the most part, even at their high failure rate, teams value prospects and picks more than the "cash value" printed on them. Not that there's anything wrong with this deal. I just think there's a lot more to it than that.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    But teams don't often flip prospects for money. So I don't think the general failure rate of picks or prospects is really much of a factor here.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    I honestly would like to know if there was a report I missed, attributing another reason to Boston for the hold-up beyond the starting workload thing.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah, and I don't think the availability of $10 mil has ever been the hold-up over a Berrios extension. The Twins have always had enough financial flexibility to make that work.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    I suspect it has to be spread out over all 4 years, since Maeda isn't even guaranteed $10 mil in the first 3 years of the deal. Even if it could just be called a lump-sum $10 mil cash payment, I doubt the Dodgers would want to do that because it would have greater effects on their 2020 luxury tax payroll, as compared to spreading it out over 4 years.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm curious -- do you have a link for whatever was attributed to Boston that they allegedly walked back with the starting workload thing? I may have missed something, but to me, it seemed like the starting workload thing was the only reason ever given. And Boston got ripped for it because it was too vague (the whole "that's obvious, they should have already known that" argument). Beyond that, I'm not sure why we're attributing the leaks to Boston. They didn't help Boston. Heyman was definitely citing sources outside of Boston in his reporting, and that was where most of the updates were coming from. The whole "Boston is leaking this" assumption seems to have its roots in the "Boston has cold feet" / "Boston is making this up to rip us off" takes. That was definitely coming from sources outside Boston, and I'm not sure how accurate it was. There were also reports that Boston asked about Balazovic in place of Graterol, and it wouldn't surprise me if lines were crossed by that point. Boston ultimately did not require two top 10 prospects from the Dodgers the very next day, for what it's worth. How much control do you think Boston had over the process here? There were at least 3 teams involved (probably 4 if you count the Angels and their related trade, whose owner became pretty vocal about it). National media. The biggest agent in sports and his favorite media member. The idea that there could be any kind of delay in this blockbuster trade, and Boston alone could make sure the whole process was handled like any random HIPAA records issue, seems to be an unfair assumption.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    I think the extra parts of the deal were required by the Dodgers, maybe to compensate for similar health concerns that Boston had. Not that we did poorly on the extra parts of the deal here, though. Raley was pretty fungible, the 67th pick would have been nice but $10 mil is a good price.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    You do realize Bailey had an ERA north of 6 (SIX!) in 2018 too -- with more starts and innings that year than Perez. (Plus Bailey was north of 6 ERA in 2016-2017 partial seasons as well.) Career wise, they are not that far apart, overall. But Bailey is on a better trend after 2019, so I like him better going into 2020 even though he's older.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    I have no qualms with disliking the Red Sox, but any evaluation of Graterol's medicals is going to be subjective, and teams won't necessarily agree. The Red Sox no more "lied" in this process than, for example, if the Twins and Rangers had different health forecasts for Kyle Gibson this offseason, or the Twins and Athletics had different health forecasts for Dakota Chalmers in August 2018, etc.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    This is an incorrect assertion about what is contained in player's medical record. Not just every exam, but every interaction with training staff, every treatment recommended by staff, the results of monitoring those treatments, etc. I've linked this a billion times already, but it's a very good explanation of the process: “How baseball teams exchange medical information, and what it means for the Mookie Betts trade” https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2020/02/06/how-baseball-teams-exchange-medical-information-after-agreeing-trade/Nu56T96T3GENiqQQs0amZN/story.html?outputType=amp
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm not sure where you are seeing $149 mil. I see $131.5 mil under Total Payroll: https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/minnesota-twins//payroll Luxury tax payroll is a little higher at $139 mil, but that's likely irrelevant to the Twins. (It ignores the Donaldson deal being a backloaded, etc.) Spotrac seems a little hard to read for my taste too -- for example, I can't see where or how they are accounting for the Maeda cash. I prefer Cot's Contracts as my source, and they have the Twins at $135.5 right now for 2020 -- they are assuming the $10 mil from the Dodgers is spread out evenly over Maeda's deal: https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/american-league/minnesota-twins/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QXhMYkMxJE1VJvZiNMS1X7OHPFNaIVUjd-m1ZBCzHL4/edit#gid=1520401900 Edit to add: Cot's also notes the 26th roster spot, and Perez's buyout counts against fiscal year 2019 which is generally how MLB teams operate. You are correct that IL stints will increase this, but it will basically just be at league minimum salary prorated for IL days. Per Spotrac's IL days for 2019 Twins, that would have been less than $2 mil.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm curious, how exactly do you think it was handled poorly? If it's about the timing (agreement in principle before medical review), that's just standard procedure in MLB. If it's that the trade agreement leaked in general, it's pretty unrealistic to expect otherwise for a trade of this magnitude. (And there's no evidence that suggests the Red Sox were the primary leakers of that, or any of the later developments.) And if you're referring to Graterol's privacy, I thought what leaked about him was pretty generic and respectful. (The Red Sox were actually criticized by many because their reported concerns weren't specific enough, and as I said above, it's not even clear that the Red Sox were responsible for that particular leak.) I'm not sure what folks expected the Red Sox or anyone in this trade to do otherwise.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Do we really know that it "took a toll" on Graterol? I guess it was revealed that one team expressed skepticism about his medicals, which might be weird but hardly surprising. No real details were leaked about those medicals. Being traded in general is probably a bit of a weird experience, especially the first time, but I wouldn't necessarily describe it as "taking a toll". On the positive side, Graterol saw that two powerhouse organizations were both interested in his services, which might be a bit of an ego boost. Also, I'm guessing it was more chaos among media and fans than with the teams and players. The Twins likely informed Graterol of the deal when it was first announced and kept him updated on the process. The process wasn't even that long when you think about it -- yes, longer than the average trade, but it appears the teams agreed in principle on Tuesday evening, spent Wednesday reviewing medicals, Thursday and Friday renegotiating based on those medicals, Saturday the original configuration of the deal was abandoned, then on Sunday all parties came to new agreements. Considering it's still technically the offseason, that's hardly an egregious timeline.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    I just posted this in another thread on the trade, but it seems relevant here too: Worth keeping in mind that the draft pick is probably worth more than $4.1 mil. Those Fangraphs value estimates don't take into account that only a few picks can be traded, which effectively makes those picks more valuable relative to the non-tradable picks. That's how we effectively got $7.25 mil from the Padres for the #74 pick in the Hughes trade of 2018. I'd guess that we could assign a similar value to the #67 pick in this trade, with the rest of the $10 million being for Raley (less the value of whatever prospect we may still receive).
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Worth keeping in mind that the draft pick is probably worth more than $4.1 mil. Those Fangraphs value estimates don't take into account that only a few picks can be traded, which effectively makes those picks more valuable relative to the non-tradable picks. That's how we effectively got $7.25 mil from the Padres for the #74 pick in the Hughes trade of 2018. I'd guess that we could assign a similar value to the #67 pick in this trade, with the rest of the $10 million being for Raley (less the value of whatever prospect we may still receive).
×
×
  • Create New...