Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    Polanco is out of options, otherwise I suspect he would have been sent down long ago.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    Ask the Orioles: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/07/brewers-acquire-international-signing-slots-from-orioles.html
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    The Phillies have a guy named Altherr. Any chance we could deal Altbrunansky for him?
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    That's actually higher than I would have guessed, although maybe most of them are of the "going over a couple thousand dollars" variety. But if a team were to use it for more than that, since the overage is 5%, it's a greater advantage for teams with big bonus pools. The Twins this year were allowed $707k extra without losing future picks; the Cardinals had ~$108k. It's too bad there isn't a more detailed breakdown, to see what teams are exceeding it and by how much. Have the Twins gone over at all? We've had a pretty large bonus pool in 5 of 6 drafts now.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    0.69 average game-entering leverage index for Duensing, so he's still firmly in mop-up man territory.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Again, not expecting them to pay it. By all accounts, they got the guys they wanted and didn't pay the tax. Good for them. But I'm not going to also give them bonus points for saving a bit on Lewis's bonus, as compared to Greene/McKay/Wright. The modest amount saved really didn't have any impact on the rest of their draft, other than avoiding the tax or maybe giving them an opportunity (ultimately unused?) to sign an extra guy after round 10. I have no quarrel with this Twins draft, but people keep trying to shoehorn it into the Correa template. This is much closer to a standard draft than that (in part by the new slot values, but also in part due to Lewis's standing among draft prospects), and there is nothing wrong with that.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Thanks for the info. (Do you have a cite? Just curious, I don't doubt it's true.) I have no doubt teams prefer to avoid the tax, but that doesn't make the modest Lewis savings more significant.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    But on the flip side, Greene didn't necessarily know yet he could get $7.2 mil at #2. That was in part set by the Twins signing Lewis for $6.7. Let's not forget, when Lewis signed, it was a record bonus for the bonus pool era (2012-present). Hypothetically, if the Twins had managed to sign Lewis for Swanson ($6.5) or Moniak ($6.1) money, that would have probably wiped off a few hundred K from the other guys too. With the presence of Lewis, Greene, Gore, McKay, and Wright bunched together in that top group, I don't think any one of them could have drawn a hard line in negotiations at #1 at $7.5+ mil. By the time they get to #3, they can't realistically do better than $7 mil, and at least 3 guys from that group were going to drop to #3 or lower. More likely, they could all argue they deserve approximately the same bonus regardless of draft position (which appears to be what happened).
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Even Pelfrey had a 10.4 K/9 in his first taste of AA, at age 22. It did drop quite a bit at AAA (6.8) then of course in MLB (5.1).
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    If you take a look at the 2012-2016 drafts, you will see some real examples of saving money in the top spot to spend elsewhere. The slot values changed for 2017 which made that strategy much more difficult, so I'm absolutely not criticizing the Twins for not doing it. My point is, it wasn't expected to happen, and given what we know, it didn't really happen. Lewis was pretty much a straight up #1 pick, took a largely straight up #1 bonus, and he looks like a perfectly fine selection. On the flip side, I also obviously disagree with the notion that the Twins were cheap in this draft. They spent approximately the same as anyone else in that position. So ultimately, the Twins don't deserve any early extra credit or criticism for draft strategy here.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    How is that me overthinking it? I know Lewis was included in the top group of draft prospects, and signed quickly for a comparable bonus to the others. If anything, claiming Lewis's bonus was critical to the rest of our draft strategy seems like it is "over thinking it". Assuming we didn't touch our ~$700k overage allotment, we didn't ultimately need/use the modest savings. He was just a straight up #1 pick.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    I suspect that a lot of these guys just leave most of it to the agent. That's what they are paid for, right? If the agent knows the parameters under which the player would sign at various slots, they don't really need to communicate much else until it's time to sign. And it is possible/probable the Twins had something in place with Lewis and his agent IF they picked him #1, but hadn't fully committed to doing that yet. And back to my original point, it was easier for the Twins to do that at #1 than the teams behind them doing it. Put another way, I suspect Lewis helped set the market for the following picks. Regarding Lewis's "shock", I suspect it was figurative/exaggerated/coming from a "long view perspective" if that makes sense. I mean, it was widely reported in the day leading up to the draft that Lewis was in the running for #1. Even if he wasn't entirely sure, I doubt he was actually surprised by the outcome, other than "still can't believe it" kind of shock. I'm sure Oscar winners often express similar sentiments -- but they were already one of only 5 nominees for the award...
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    Except it is quite possible they didn't ultimately need the savings to do the rest of that plan. I have no issue with the Lewis pick, but I don't think we can really give them extra credit for it.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    Also, Hand is #4 in relief innings this year, #3 in appearances, after having led MLB in both categories last year. With the leverage and effectiveness, it doesn't feel quite right to call that just "a pretty good setup man" as if that combination of performance and usage is fairly common. It's pretty much all-star caliber in modern MLB. With 2 more years of control, there could be more opportunities to flip him too depending on team performance. I don't think Rosario would ever be considered a top trade market candidate, based on his current performance level.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Hand was mediocre as a starter / mopup man 2 years ago. That means very little today. Rosario is an everyday LF, but with a clearly league average-ish bat. His Rbat in MLB: -5, -4, and 1 so far this season. That's not really a great asset on its own, especially not to the Padres. An aside: I do wonder if Rosario will be Super 2 this winter. He will finish with 2 years, 120 days of service time.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    I have no quarrel with the idea they were executing a specific plan. I just take issue with the assertion that Lewis's bonus was integral to the rest of the plan.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    Sorry if I wasn't clear -- I am objecting to the idea that Lewis's bonus was critical to the rest of the plan. Thought that was clear from the article and context of previous posts. I have deleted and reposted it, for clarity.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Mild correction, but Hand was claimed off waivers fairly quickly last year, he was never released. And I'm not sure how relevant that is anymore -- his performance and peripherals have dramatically improved in a year and a half since. And it's not his fault that the Marlins never really committed him to the pen. And he's a reliever, but one who has already shown an aptitude for handling one of MLB's highest volume bullpen workloads, and at fairly high leverage. The WAR might come out similar, but I think Hand would be considered more valuable. Even with 4 years of control to Hand's 2, I think Rosario might have higher projected arb salaries which neutralizes that a bit.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    I never said it can't happen. But the buying team generally has to pay extra to make it happen early. That is why they are rare, the buyers generally aren't willing to pay the steep price. What exactly do you see the Twins giving up for Hand? He might be the top reliever on the market. If you want the Padres to forego the July bidding, you will probably have to offer up Gordon, or maybe Romero or Gonsalves plus another piece.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    This article says we had $66k left, and 3 players unsigned between rounds 11 and 20: http://m.startribune.com/twins-shift-draft-money-allotment-to-help-sign-more-players/432574743/?section=sports%2Ftwins
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    If they spent their whole pool, they still may have left money on the table. Teams can exceed their pool by up to 5% and only pay a tax on the overage with no future penalty. For the Twins, that would be about $700k, and would have more than covered the bonus difference between Lewis and anyone else in this draft.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    Greene signed today for $7.23 mil.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    If you only look at the extremes, it's an easy decision. If Duffey is doomed to repeat his 2016 ERA as a starter? Sure, put him in the pen. Or if he can repeat 2015? Starter, no prob. Or if Duffey is going to rebound to his early season 2017 effectiveness in relief? Sure, he could be a pen weapon. But I think the reality is more muddled. Given his profile, I think he probably settles in closer to average in whatever role we put him in. In which case, there is still definitely an argument to be made for trying him in the rotation again. Kinda wish we had been more aggressive with, say, Hildenberger already, and kept Duffey stretched out in relief better, and it might be an easier transition. At this point, I am pretty sure they're not going to bother making the change before the end of the season, which is disappointing because it could have helped inform our offseason planning a bit better, in regards to FA, Trevor May, etc.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think anyone here has made any mention of trading Duffey.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Sure, but since we had the top pick, we also had an ability to negotiate (in specifics) and commit early to a selection, a resource that no other team had. It appears we chose to spend that resource on Lewis, and it may have been as much of a factor in his quick signing as anything else. But had we wanted to, it's possible we could have used that advantage to lock in another player instead. Crediting them for getting the player they wanted AND getting him to sign a little cheaper/earlier than the following picks could be doing a bit of double-counting -- one of those factors probably followed from the other. In any case, it's way too early for there to be any meaningful "bottom line" to this draft. That will only come after these guys actually play in the pros for awhile.
×
×
  • Create New...