Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,662

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    Does that include when runners are on base? I thought previous pitch clock implementations had a different time limit with runners on base too...
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    I think the Cubs would have us beat on that front too.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    I think you are right: https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/transactions?year=2017&month=2&type=30 A lot of guys do seem to go on the 60-day DL around opening day, though, but that is probably because they have to miss the first 60 days of the season regardless (spring training days don't count toward the 60), and you can't 60-day DL a guy unless your roster is otherwise full, and a lot of roster decisions are due around the end of spring training anyway (i.e. minor league opt outs, players out of options, etc.). But it does seem like the Twins could DL Pineda on Feb. 13 and sign a MLB free agent. Although it seems like it would barely be a consideration if the cost of signing him earlier would only be losing Kinley.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    On a technical level, all transactions are separate, of course. But that doesn't mean they're not related. I'd say fringe 40-man guys who have the same position/profile and whose roster status has to be considered within a few weeks of each other in November/December are going to be inextricably related.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Kind of. Players with less than 3 years service time who are added to the 40-man roster between August 15th and the Rule 5 draft are called "draft-excluded players" and can't be outrighted off the 40-man roster between the end of the World Series until 20 days before spring training, even if they clear waivers: https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3520 So if you want to remove that player from the 40-man roster during that time, you can't keep them in your organization -- they must be lost on waivers, traded, or released. (On an individual level, it doesn't much matter -- a player worthy of Rule 5 consideration would probably get claimed on waivers anyway. But in the absence of such a rule, if a lot of teams did this with 2-3-4 players a year, there probably wouldn't enough roster spots for all of them to get claimed, allowing teams to effectively protect more than 40 guys from Rule 5. Hence the rule, I guess.) Among current Twins, this "draft-excluded" group consists of Curtiss, Gonsalves, Littell, Moya, Slegers, and Thorpe. That's why I was a little worried when we added Slegers (and why I really disliked adding Pat Dean a couple years ago). Of course, we basically locked ourselves into a similar situation by drafting Kinley -- while he can technically be returned at any time, I don't think any Rule 5 pick in the modern era has ever been returned before March, so unless we plan to buck ~20 years of history, he's just as much locked in until March as Burdi or Bard would have been.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Sure, but even before Reed, there wasn't much of a spot for Kinley. (And I only used the term "justified" because that was in the comment to which I was replying -- probably too strong / not quite right for this situation, but I think it is still certainly fair to question the Kinley draft.)
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    But by the same token, was the selection of Kinley justified? It doesn't look there is possibly a 25-man spot to keep him now, and Bard could have taken the 40-man spot and been optioned, or Burdi could have taken it and been DL'ed (opening up a 40-man spot for someone else in late March). As long as we don't throw around terms like "pitchforks" I think that series of moves is still very much worthy of discussion.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Yes, he was just added in November.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    It's important to keep in mind that the list of teams "in" on Darvish isn't anything official or limiting. As those teams drop out or if his market truly doesn't develop, Darvish will expand his considerations. It's doubtful he will be stuck deciding between just 2 teams if his market only develops to 5/125 or whatever.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    To remove any doubt about Moya's security, because he was added between August 15th and the Rule 5 draft (with less than 3 years service time), he is classified as a Rule 5 "draft-excluded player" and can't be passed through waivers to be sent outright to the minors until mid-March at the earliest: https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3517 So the only way Moya could be removed from our 40-man at this point would be trade or release. Slegers and Curtiss are in the same situation. I'd guess they try to put Boshers through waivers and outright him. Could try it with Enns too, as unlike Moya, Enns was added before August 15. Although it does seem like there can't be possibly be a spot for Kinley anymore either...
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    I think there are reasons you never see deals like this. There is no relative tax savings for Darvish over a larger contract, especially not with, say, Texas or Houston. Even though the Yankees and Dodgers may be more aggressive next winter, that will likely be offset by the presence of better FAs like Harper, Machado, Donaldson, Keuchel, etc. And no decision-makers are seriously putting much weight on his 2 most recent starts. I think Darvish's slow market is being driven by the Boras clients at the top of the market this year, primarily Arrieta and JD Martinez. They are holding up the whole market except relievers. Once that clears, I think Darvish will eventually find an acceptable long term deal at a preferred destination, no reason he will have resort to something drastic like this.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    FWIW, Keuchel is a FA after 2018, and is also a Boras client who has thus far been unwilling to sign an extension. Morton is also FA after 2018, and Verlander and McHugh after 2019. And Cole would only be controlled through 2019 too. I could see interest in Darvish plus dealing some of the shorter term assets from the resulting surplus.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    There are a few reasonably large markets that could be in on Darvish, especially if his market price is manageable to the Twins. LAA is one. Seattle is another with a strong history with Japanese players. Here is an article from November with some estimates about "payroll room", showing there are still a few good possibilities to be the unnamed team, or even jump back into the market: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/an-estimate-of-every-teams-payroll-room/
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    That is a mischaracterization. MLBTR said "Of all the teams in the mix, the Twins’ payroll outlook is by far the most open (zero dollars on the books beyond the 2019 season)": https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/01/yu-darvish-five-teams-yankees-rangers-cubs-twins-astros-mystery-team.html The Cubs are not against any luxury tax, and absolutely have the financial flexibility to sign Darvish if they want to. As could the mystery team, if it wasn't the Dodgers. And while the Astros might prefer not to, hence kicking the tires on Cole, they too have the flexibility to do it if they want. (Rangers are likely in that group too -- any inflexibility would appear to be self-imposed, which frankly might apply to the Twins as well.)
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Still not sure how "legitimate" our chance is. They are apparently maintaining interest but we really have no idea if they are truly prepared to make the offer it will likely require to land him. At this point, they might just be hanging around with their Levine connection in the unlikely event that Darvish doesn't get an acceptable offer from the other 5 suitors (and the known ones ranked 1, 3, 11, and 12 in MLB revenue last April per Forbes, compared to 23 for the Twins). Luxury tax might limit the Yankees, but not the others.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think modern MLB front offices are going to be influenced by blatant "pumping up" attempts. There are some nuanced cases where it could work along the margins, but if everyone and his dog knows that a top FA won't be signing with a frugal mid-market team, a meeting accomplishes nothing. I still think the only way Darvish signs here is if we significantly outbid everyone else. All parties involved (Twins, Darvish, other clubs) know that's unlikely.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    The comment was about a "good pitcher" and presumably a starter, since the thread topic is Darvish. Despite the quantity of moves you reference, the Twins have not yet added a good starting pitcher for 2018. At best, it seems like they have added some backend competition, but even that so far is basically just Enns, and maybe Littell (although he has yet to appear in AAA, so he's probably not on the radar until the latter part of 2018).
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    But, you're not going to get an ace (certainly not 4 affordable years of Archer) by dealing Gordon or Polanco plus back end rotation prospects.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    If Darvish makes his decision while in Japan, and then crosses the International Date Line, we might find out yesterday!
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    That blog says in general terms that it should take "something like a top 25 hitting prospect, a top 50 hitting prospect and a back end of the top 100 pitcher". And then they go and fudge that estimate by leading off their trade package with Keon Broxton, who is none of those things. And unfortunately, your Twins version fudges it further. Gordon is not a top 25 hitting prospect after his second half 2017, and Granite is nowhere near a top 50 hitting prospect. Tampa has no urgency to trade Archer. There is no way they bother pulling the trigger on a Twins deal that doesn't at least include one of Lewis, Berrios, or Buxton. Thus a deal is unlikely now.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    http://m.startribune.com/settling-on-a-second-baseman-twins-sign-dozier-through-2018/297472871/ “It offers a measure of security for Brian and offers the cost certainty for the club,” said Damon Lapa, Dozier’s agent. “The element that ultimately swayed our decision to move forward was that Brian did not have to sacrifice any free agent or option years and ultimately preserve his ability to become a free agent during the prime of his career.”
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    Archer may be 28, but he is controlled just as long as Sano (4 years), and likely for similar money. Keep in mind, Sano's performance has been spotty the last 2 years too (combined 3.3 bWAR), and on multiple fronts (health, defense, contact). Meanwhile, Archer has still excelled at health, durability, and peripherals (7.8 fWAR over the last 2 years). He is not perfect, but if you wanted someone better / with more potential than Archer, you'd likely have to give up a lot more than just Sano. In fact, just given the relative market value of SP potential versus DH potential, I am confident the Rays would decline a straight up swap of the two, even before yesterday's news broke. This is why free agent Darvish is so appealing -- trading for ace potential is much more difficult than ponying up cash.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Here's another version of that report: http://m.startribune.com/settling-on-a-second-baseman-twins-sign-dozier-through-2018/297472871/ “It offers a measure of security for Brian and offers the cost certainty for the club,” said Damon Lapa, Dozier’s agent. “The element that ultimately swayed our decision to move forward was that Brian did not have to sacrifice any free agent or option years and ultimately preserve his ability to become a free agent during the prime of his career.”
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, it's not as useful as a 3 year sample, which is what you claimed to be presenting. Not that either Cobb or Lynn is perfect, and I'd want to see how the market plays out before I'd make an aggressive offer for either. Frankly I may take a pass on both.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, Cobb and Lynn have histories of ERAs over-performing their FIPs, while Gibson has done the reverse. And of course in each of 2013 and 2014, Cobb and Lynn matched or bettered Gibson's career best season, so ignoring those years skews your sample. (And while "last 3" seems a logical recent sample, it is unfair to Cobb who missed virtually all of 2015 and 2016. It is basically a one season sample for him -- not clear whether the higher FIP than his career rate is really a trend or just a blip. It is certainly not a trend supported by 3 seasons worth of data yet.)
×
×
  • Create New...