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
    By the time the Giants could fix him, Sano might be little more than a rental himself. I think they can aim for longer-term assets right now.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    FWIW, that "top 100" Cubs prospect (Cease) turned into a top 20-40 prospect within a year of the trade (he's up to #18 on MLB's list right now). So it's quite possible that the White Sox didn't value him as simply a "top 100" guy, and possibly even better than Graterol right now even though Graterol is still ranked #50 but on the shelf. Which highlights a tricky part of coming up with a comparable package. What we see as ranked 7 and 50 might be viewed by another team as very different, perhaps even lower than guys we see as 15/75 or whatever, or even a 3 player package like 30/60/90, etc. (Lewis, Kirilloff, and Graterol haven't exactly helped with their health/performance this year either -- they're obviously still good and valuable, of course, but there's a little more doubt about their rankings, and a little less confidence that they would be the top prospects targeted by another club.)
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    Who said anything about talking yourself out of taking the best deal? I get your take, in theory. But in terms of actual prospect packages, I'm not sure the "best deal" is usually all that clear. In all likelihood, the Twins best offer will be roughly equivalent to the best offers of 5 other teams, with or without Royce Lewis. In a case where a player has a more limited market and/or less control, like Realmuto or Eovaldi, you may more often find the best deal is in your division. But for a SP, with 3.5 years control? The market is broad enough where the Tigers probably don't have to consummate a deal with the Twins, without any foolishness necessary. It doesn't take accusations of Detroit foolishness to suggest that it's highly unlikely that Boyd lands in Minnesota. (There's plenty of actual Detroit foolishness to make up for that, though!)
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    If the Tigers make Boyd available, as a quality controllable SP, they will have no shortage of suitors. It should be relatively easy to avoid consummating a deal with the Twins -- the Twins aren't the only team that can put together a quality prospect package, nor is there any evidence at this point that the Twins would pay a premium to definitively top all other prospect packages. How is any of that foolish?
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Sure, but it's a balancing act. The longer you wait, the greater the risk you get shut out of any SP acquisitions. Once the Giants are willing to deal Bumgarner for a reasonable price, it will be risky to pass that up and pin your hopes on just Stroman (to say nothing of the much longer shots). Fortunately I don't think the Giants are at that point yet.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Even if he's available generally, I am not sure the Tigers will make Boyd equally available to the Twins.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, there is strong evidence that none of those 4 will be available (to the Twins, at least), even if we are willing pay the price. How does Bumgarner look then? No one is arguing that Bumgarner is perfect, but he might be the best of the realistic options for us. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good!
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Yup, although even that's already down about $17.5 mil, as the 2019 season is basically half over. So I'd estimate the remaining obligation on Scherzer at $87.5 mil right now. And for luxury tax purposes, MLB previously estimated the deferred money reduced the contract value by about 8.8%, so that $87.5 mil deferred may only be ~$79.75 mil in present-day dollars.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Interesting -- I hadn't heard that one before! Here's an article from 2001 that makes a similar general reference, but not many details: "Before baseball limited the number of on-line votes a fan could cast, someone set up a program a couple years ago that threatened to put David McCarty into the starting lineup." http://www.espn.com/mlb/columns/caple_jim/1190152.html This article, also from 2001, offers more specifics about ballot stuffing in 1999, although without any reference to McCarty: http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/0624/1218244.html
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    This is true to an extent, but by the end of July 2018 Pressly had four months of very strong work, fully backed up by peripherals, far more than he'd ever done before. Obviously the Twins bet on it not continuing, but I think it was enough that I would have bet Alcala/Celestino to see if it would continue.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, you probably could get closer. For starters, those FIPs aren't adjusted for league or park -- Verlander's was a 92 FIP- once adjusted, compared to Bumgarner's current 101. (xFIP- actually favors Bumgarner, though -- 94 to 100.) And of course, Verlander was also coming off of 81 and 85 FIP- marks the previous two seasons, as compared to 104 and 97 for Bumgarner.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    Agreed. Of course, in Bumgarner's case, I don't think this part is much of a factor -- there's no option on his contract, and I'm guessing he'd rather negotiate his next contract on the open market this winter, after a (hopefully successful) pennant race and postseason, than negotiate an extension in July. I suppose he could leverage the no-trade to hear extension offers from these clubs, which would be informative even if he didn't opt to sign them. But destination control is still a factor too.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    For reference, here are the 8 teams on Bumgarner's no trade list this season: Astros Braves Brewers Cardinals Cubs Phillies Red Sox Yankees It appears that he just named the 8 most likely/aggressive suitors (preseason), to try to maximize control.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    ? If he really didn't want to play here, why would he omit us from his no-trade list? That said, no-trade lists are a combination of preferences and likelihood of a deal. No one would want to be traded to the Marlins this year (or any year?), but there is little or no likelihood of that happening anyway, so generally no one will waste a limited no-trade spot on them either.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Sano would be highly unlikely -- most teams that are sellers probably don't assign a whole lot of value to his two remaining seasons of team control (at arbitration prices). The Giants in particular would probably have zero interest, as they are already stuck with commitments to Belt (and Posey) and Longoria and have no DH spot available either.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    That's fine, but your prospect proposals so far didn't just omit those 4 -- they seem to omit our top 15-20 or so. Even with those untouchables, I'm guessing the Giants are going to be asking about Larnach, and/or Javier, and/or Duran, etc., from us, and about their equivalents from other orgs.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    Again, you can't just pill up 3-5 injured/scuffling prospects (especially not 40-man ones). You will find little precedent for that - it's not how trades work. Teams generally prefer quality over quantity. Not that these guys are valueless, but you can't build a package consisting exclusively of them (at least probably not with a low upside guy like Smeltzer as the one non-scuffling/injured sweetener).
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, there is a strong argument that we took too little in return for Pressly. Also, value isn't static. The two guys we got for Pressly have both seen their value trend downward since the trade (not dramatically, but enough, especially as they are closer to requiring Rule 5 protection). And no matter how you slice it, Romero's value has been trending downward in 2019. You can spin that as "getting 3 prospects instead of 1-2" but I'm not sure the Giants would see it that way, and I'm not sure that Smeltzer is enough to compensate either. 1-2 players performing well / trending upward might be more valuable to them than 3 scuffling ones. If I'm the Giants, and you offer those 4 players, I'd probably be tempted, but I may not take it quite yet. I'd probably try to leverage it into a better player / mix of players from another team.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    But he'll be ready tonight! Just has to wear his Tortuga disguise, and no one will ever know...
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    I mentioned in the other thread that, while those prices seem high, it's probably close to what the Giants are asking for in negotiations, right now. (And definitely a month ago!) They'll almost certainly settle for less by the end of July, but they aren't settling on Cave and Romero type packages right now.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    Is it? Romero is struggling *in relief* at AAA. I guess he's in line for a fourth option year in 2020, but I'm really not sure he's enough to lead a package right now, even for a very good relief rental. Your proposal could work, but it might hinge a lot on the low minors names.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    I'd guess those would be too high as well -- but it might be close to what the Giants would ask for in negotiations, right now.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Rule for all. See my Greinke example above. Deferred bonuses/salary is different than simple backloading. I think any team trading for Scherzer now, and taking on the full salary, would starting paying him in 2023 (the second of the seven annual $15 mil payments from 2022-2028, since the first $15 mil payment would represent his first half 2019 salary which the Nationals are already obligated to pay). Absent any special cash negotiation with the Nats, of course.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    Again, struggling/injured guys can't comprise that much of a package. Also not four 40-man roster guys!
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    That might not work. First of all, there's 3 struggling prospects among those 4. Yes, teams can look past recent struggles to see a player's potential, etc., but you can't just pile up every prospect who is struggling in the same deal. (Likewise, the 4th player was largely a non-prospect until a recent hot streak -- if you want the Giants to overlook the recent performance, Smeltzer's value is dramatically lowered too.) Second of all, this package is two 40-man guys, plus 2 more who will be Rule 5 eligible this winter. That's fairly rare too -- teams generally prefer more of a mix where possible, to get more upside from lower minors guys and to alleviate roster strain. (They might overlook that for the right package, but then we're back to my first point -- would they overlook for 3 struggling guys?)
×
×
  • Create New...