Jump to content
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
    What should be under-the-radar about Jon Gray? He has a 138 ERA+ this year, for the 2nd time in the last 3 years. And controlled 2 more seasons at reasonable arb prices. The reason you don't hear any trade chatter about him right now is the same reason we don't hear about most other good, controllable pitchers -- their teams actually want them and aren't rebuilding.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    Maybe not even hiding their buyer status, but just seeing if anyone would be willing to bite on giving up an elite return. A longshot, perhaps, but probably worth a shot with that kind of asset once you're out of the race. It's not like the trade drama could upset their current clubhouse vibe any further.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm guessing talks were nowhere near actual offers, but I think this is the likely track. If the Twins maintained Lewis and Kirilloff were still untouchable, even for Syndergaard, it seems defensible to inquire about Buxton -- not so much to actually acquire him, but just to figure out what the Twins could possibly be thinking.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    It's been mentioned. How would you feel about it, if the Mets only asked about Buxton *after* the Twins said neither Lewis nor Kirilloff were available, as suggested by previous reports? I agree a trade match is unlikely to be found in that situation, but I wouldn't call the Mets side ridiculous in those circumstances.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    This earlier report suggests the Jays may not have required Lewis or Kirilloff, and/or the Twins reticence extended beyond Lewis and Kirilloff: https://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status/1154889022000340992?s=20
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    My first guess would be that Ervin Santana might not be good enough anymore to start a AAA game.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Dan Hayes, Twins beat writer? I am guessing he shares sources with Lavelle. I don't deny that the Mets inquired about Buxton, but as he was only mentioned by Twins sources well after the presumed discussions took place, the Buxton inquiry was likely after the Mets were rebuffed about Lewis/Kirilloff as originally reported. There has been national talk about a MLB player being a component of a Syndergaard return, but the focus has still been on elite prospects.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    There wasn't anything confusing about the Lowrie and Familia deals, though. They haven't worked out well, which might be a strike against the Mets evaluators, but the motivations behind the deals were fairly clear and sensible. The off-field stuff was a circus, for sure, but to date it hasn't really affected their transactions.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    My theory was that they weren't really interested in adding a SP unless it was top-shelf like Syndergaard, or close enough to top-shelf AND pair-able with a top-shelf reliever like Stroman and Giles. I guess the other guys might be pair-able with relievers too, but maybe not on the same level as the Stroman/Giles combo.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    True, but those guys have mostly been lower-stakes, short-term deals. TR and Bill Smith even managed a few of those themselves, with lower payrolls, although not with the same frequency! This deadline is a bigger test than the FA stuff, for sure.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    That's fine, but I strongly suspect the Buxton inquiry came after the Lewis/Kirilloff question. If you want to re-engage, I suspect the Twins just need a different answer to the Lewis/Kirilloff question, rather than a counter to the Buxton thing.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    That's fair, but at some point, they are going to have to deliver the goods, and this trade deadline seems like a very strong opportunity.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    This is the first time they are really trade buyers, but free agents Darvish and Kimbrel come to mind. (Not to make this a tangent about whether we'd be better off signing those players or not, just citing them as examples of players the front office admittedly pursued but failed to land.) Edit: Coke to Mike.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    The Mets were buyers last offseason, and are still buyers for 2020 and beyond, but have become sellers for 2019 as they have fallen out of the race. Every move they have made is perfectly consistent with that. Buyer/seller doesn't have to be a static, binary thing. Keep in mind they're not "actively shopping" Syndergaard with any kind of urgency -- they are looking for an elite return on him (i.e. Mackenzie Gore, or Lewis/Kirilloff), which again makes sense given their position. Sorry for mentioning the Buxton thing, but a lot of posters seem to be using that as a cue to bash the Mets FO right now.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Have you considered the possibility that asking about Buxton was perhaps the Mets way of giving the Twins "a dose of our own medicine"? It's still quite possible the Twins were unwilling to commit two top prospects to a Syndergaard package, you know. (Especially given the delayed, Twins-sided reporting of this Buxton thing.)
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Thanks, I might have to listen. This would suggest even more that Lavelle's story last night was spin from Twins sources, as other sources had the Twins dragging their heels on non-Lewis/Kirilloff deals with the Jays (as well as non-Buxton deals with the Mets).
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    What's the problem with what the Mets are doing, aside from the Cano trade? They extended deGrom through 2022-2024; they seem to have made a good deal for Stroman who has 2020 control; they salary dumped the mediocre Vargas; they are shopping Wheeler who is a pending FA; and they have a high asking price for Syndergaard and his 2.5 years of control, and likely Diaz and Lugo with their 3.5 years control, for whom there is no urgency to deal. Is it because they inquired about Buxton, after the Twins quite possibly said neither Lewis or Kirilloff were on the table for Syndergaard? Look, I would have never hired Brodie as my GM, and I glad he is not the GM of my team, but I think some of this "Mets are crazy/bad/crazybad" talk is rather exaggerated, at this point in time.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Never say never -- pretty sure Zack Granite could be reacquired! Duensing is a free agent so we could do a sign-and-trade.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    No worries. It should have zero effect on Graterol's team control -- he won't burn an option this year unless we call him up and then send him back down for 20+ days, which seems almost impossible this late in the season. And we can easily reclaim any service time by optioning him to begin 2020 (which we'd probably do anyway).
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    There are also Twins fans on Twitter saying we should trade Buxton. It's worth a chuckle, I suppose, but no further consideration.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    I mentioned this in another post, but Lavelle doesn't say or even imply that the Buxton ask was new or part of post-Stroman discussions. Wouldn't that be a pretty important piece of context, if true? At the very least, it would mean the Twins and Mets had revisited talks within the last 24 hours. But Lavelle says generally that "talks for Syndergaard never really progressed" which doesn't seem to fit that timeline. He doesn't refute his earlier Lewis/Kirilloff report, or add to it, which would be new and interesting information; he just ignores it altogether, as if it never happened. Given that the main thrust of this new article was "why the Twins didn't get Stroman", I strongly suspect it was a Twins source trying to spin the talks from 4+ days ago most favorably for the Twins. (Which is totally understandable, but also worthy of our awareness.) Even the newly reported Jays demand for Lewis or Kirilloff seems a bit of a departure from an earlier report by national writer Morosi: https://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status/1154889022000340992?s=20
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    Agreed. And technically, I think the injury loophole could still be employed to get him on the postseason roster, even after August 31st: https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3549 "7. An injured post-season eligible player can (with the approval of the MLB Commissioner) be replaced on his club's Post-Season Eligibility List by a player (regardless of position) who was on an Active List, Reserve List, 60-day Injured List, or Military List of a minor league affiliate from that organization prior to midnight (Eastern) on August 31st"
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Most people seem to think the Mets did all right in the Stroman trade, even if the timing was a bit of a surprise. The Vargas salary dump seems fine. The deGrom extension is all right in its early stages. They did poorly in the Cano trade for sure, although that was basically just a massive overpay for a closer.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    Everyone knows the Jays asked for Lewis or Kirilloff. What this post presupposes is... maybe they didn't?
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    The Twins be like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mnHA51NQE And the Mets be like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz5mI6tqm_Q
×
×
  • Create New...