Otto von Ballpark
-
Posts
20,665 -
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
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark
-
Article: A Re-Do On Dozier For Minnesota
Otto von Ballpark replied to Ted Schwerzler 's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
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.” -
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.
-
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.)
- 107 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- brian dozier
- joe mauer
- (and 3 more)
-
Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that Duke was a worse deal than those, just that it was a little different and maybe not quite the bin the Twins should be focused on, with Rodney already under contract. Hopefully we do see some upside projects signed, but it might be difficult now that most pen spots are locked in. It seems we have about 7 guys who should be guaranteed a spot, and that's not even counting Busenitz or May.
-
Except for Holland, those guys all signed minor league deals in their comebacks, so there was less risk than Duke, who is guaranteed $2 mil and a roster spot already. Kintzler even had an extra year of club control remaining. I wouldn't mind targeting one of those projects, and ostensibly keeping Duke's or Rodney's spot open to do it.
-
Keep in mind Ervin initially asked for $20 mil per year too, and a guy like Mike Leake has actually gotten $16 mil annually, Samardzija $18 mil. Probably not outlandish for Cobb to be asking for $20 mil at this point, he can come down a bit when he finds a reasonable match with a willing partner. No sense lowering his demands if teams aren't even prepared to commit, waiting out Darvish.
- 107 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- brian dozier
- joe mauer
- (and 3 more)
-
FWIW, Darvish was great in the NLDS and NLCS, so I am not sure his WS performance should be too concerning. And 2017 was his first full year back from Tommy John, so it makes some sense that he could fade at the very end. And as a divisional opponent, the Astros had seen him a lot the past few years, so they were in perhaps the best position to take advantage. Darvish has been very good vs the Yankees in his career, which is nice. No guarantee we face them in the playoffs every year, but it would be more comforting to have Yu take the hill in such a situation than Ervin.
- 107 replies
-
- 7
-
-
- brian dozier
- joe mauer
- (and 3 more)
-
There's the rub -- it's not clear that Duke is the same pitcher as he was 2015-2016. I guess $2 mil isn't a bad bet on it, but at the same time I understand those that think the Twins should be aiming higher than a bet on returning to form. (Seems like they are perpetually making such commitments in the pen, and haven't had a whole lot of success in that regard.) Personally, I don't mind the Duke signing, although paired with the Rodney signing, it does feel a little underwhelming. A little too close to past marginal vets who got locked into spots they didn't really justify based on results/trust. If they can use their remaining resources to make a serious rotation upgrade, though, it won't matter so much.
-
If Boshers wasn't already on the bubble, he is there now. He does have one option year remaining, by virtue of spending fewer than 20 days on optional assignment in 2016. (He did use option years in 2014 and 2017.) I suspect he is DFA'd if they make another MLB signing without an accompanying MLB trade. Although it is possible there are no more MLB signings, and he could survive until the end of spring training if not longer.
-
Somewhat off topic, but is Gimenez likely coming back? Weren't they using him to recruit Darvish? I guess Gimenez could be on a minor league deal again, but he would need a roster spot on opening day (Pineda's?).
-
You are partially correct. Players added to the 40-man between August 15th and the Rule 5 draft are called "draft excluded players" and they can't be outrighted off the roster until mid-March, even if they clear waivers. https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3520 This is to prevent teams from adding a bunch of guys before Rule 5 and then trying to sneak them through waivers afterward. Not a huge deal. The only player in that group that we would even consider dropping this winter is Slegers. The others are Curtiss, Gonsalves, Littell, Moya, and Thorpe. If we want to drop someone, I suspect it would be Boshers. Maybe Chargois due to health? Vargas or Grossman could go in trade, if they were serious about Napoli.
-
By that logic, if they sign Napoli for league minimum plus incentives, they are technically not locked into keeping him until spring training either because they could release him anytime. But in practical/effective terms, as I explicitly stated in the comment that started this tangent, just like Napoli in that hypothetical, Kinley is locked into a 40-man spot into at least mid-March. Now if you want to argue that overall it doesn't matter, because they could just as easily cut Boshers if they need a spot in the meantime, or finally trade Vargas or Grossman or whatever, that makes sense. But in regards to Kinley specifically, it is illogical to deny that he's here until at least mid-March. And if one is doubtful of his chances of sticking and contributing this year, then I think it is a fair to question even that modest level of commitment.
-
Name a Rule 5 pick who has been sent back before March. Technically possible, but it literally never happens. Not a huge deal, but they will cut or trade someone else this winter if they need a spot.
-
Article: Tampa Open To Trades
Otto von Ballpark replied to Cody Christie's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
And remember when Ervin Santana was talking about a $100 million contract too... -
I know you are mostly joking, but note that the cost of trading up in the Rule 5 draft is fairly modest.
-
Article: Tampa Open To Trades
Otto von Ballpark replied to Cody Christie's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Well, every team wants pitching to some extent. But the Rays strength right now is pitching (4th in AL in ERA, with SP prospects emerging to replace Cobb), and their weakness is offense (2nd to last in AL runs scored, losing Longoria and Morrison, and no offensive-minded prospects ready to emerge). -
Yeah, but there was no reason to expect you would need to DFA Bard, if you were willing to roster Kinley at least through March.
-
Sure. But the claim I was responding to was that Bard could be unprotected because he would have been 1st in line for DFA anyway, but a "feature" of the Kinley pick is that we could drop him this winter if needed. I just didn't think either of those was necessarily true.
-
True, but the same goes for Burdi or Bard -- had either of them been added in place of Kinley, it wouldn't have held the Twins back either. And it might have given them some more flexibility come March/April.
-
They are very good examples. 25-man spots are very valuable. If you are willing to promise one, you can sometimes get the most desired minor league free agents (Brandon Morrow). If you have one available, you can easily claim an "out of options" guy on waivers (Blake Parker, Kirby Yates). So it's a big opportunity cost to lock a spot onto a Rule 5 guy, as it means one less spot to invest otherwise. It's complicated, but I think it's incorrect to say that rostering Graham and Haley didn't hurt the Twins. They weren't the only decisions that hurt those years, of course, but they didn't help, and the Twins almost certainly would have been better off not selecting either one.
-
It was a bit of an exagerrated example, I admit. But the principle holds true. Can you show me one example of a team cutting their Rule 5 pick before they even get to spring training? Otherwise it doesn't really seem appropriate to say that's a realistic option the Twins would consider. Not that I think Kinley is holding them back from anything. Just that they wouldn't have selected him in Rule 5 if there was any real chance of cutting him before spring training. Someone else is the likelier first cut from the 40-man.
-
But what I am saying is, that doesn't happen with Rule 5 picks before spring training, not just for the Twins but anywhere else in the league as far as I know. Despite the more modest financial commitment, dumping Kinley today is about as likely as the Twins releasing Rodney or Pineda (also technically possible). It can't be considered any kind of meaningful feature of his selection, any more than DFAing Bard this winter would have been (guys added to the 40-man in November don't get dropped before spring training either).
-
Technically possible, but not likely. I'm not aware of any Rule 5 pick being returned or even let go on waivers before mid-March at the earliest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_5_draft_results Practically speaking, Rule 5 selections are basically locked into their team's 40-man roster into spring training.
-
To those thinking those relievers will be returned to the Twins, it should be noted that the Angels, despite being a big market club, kept a Rule 5 guy on their roster for the entire season each year from 2013-2015 (although their 2013 pick went down with TJ surgery, and was actually selected again and ultimately returned to his original club after the season). The Pirates haven't been as active in Rule 5 (at least not until now, with 2 picks on their current roster), but given their financial constraints and a bullpen that has shed 3 of its top 4 (by innings) since the trade deadline, I could see them looking to keep Burdi too.
-
To be fair to Bard, prior to 2017 he only had 14 career innings at AA, and those were at the end of 2016, his first full season back from missing multiple seasons with injury. That might have caused the Twins to slow his advancement a bit. And he not only performed well at AA in 2017, but he didn't miss a beat after making his AAA debut -- and beyond the stats, wasn't it reported that he had the best fastball spin rate in the whole system, along with Gonsalves? And if needing his 40-man spot was a concern, why draft Kinley? Kinley is effectively locked into a spot through March now.
