Otto von Ballpark
-
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
-
For the record, I did read your post all the way through. Your second revision, dropping Cron and one of Gibson/Odo, is probably closer to reality, although it still includes your optimism for Rosario, Berrios, Buxton, etc. as already noted. And that second revision comes in at basically our exact same 2018 payroll, with $15.5 mil allocated for two FA/old relievers. Which actually kind of proves my point that fitting in a $16 Kimbrel commitment for 2021 wouldn't be that hard. If by "breaking up the core" you mean not extending Cron at $11 mil per year through age 33, and Gibson at $18 mil per through age 35, and Parker at $7.5 mil per through age 36 -- well, I think enough of those decisions will be made anyway, regardless of Kimbrel, to give us at least $16 mil in 2021 flexibility.
-
Rosario is already getting $690k more than Ozuna as an arb1. How does that level of inflation rise to $5 mil by arb3? And Ozuna had a breakout season after his arb1 award, 149 OPS+, followed by a 107, and still only wound up at $12.25 mil in arb3. Rosario, for all his homers, still only has a 122 OPS+ for 2019 so far, and a 111 career. Seems unlikely that Rosario would get $17 mil in arb3. This is the kind of projection optimism that seems to permeate your list. Which is why in reality, I don't think it would be that difficult to add a $16 mil commitment for 2021 right now.
-
Those arb numbers and extensions all seem to assume 2019 health and performance going forward, which has obviously been pretty great. A single slump or injury -- which is likely to occur somewhere -- would knock millions off your estimates. If they keep playing like the 2019 squad, and winning, I think the payroll can grow. If they are at $120-130 mil these past two years, with fan interest -- ticket sales, advertising dollars -- coming off fairly pedestrian .500-ish performances, I could see $140 mil off of a 90 win season, and maybe even $150 mil off a deep playoff run (which adds significant revenue).
-
Where are they now? Ex-Twins in 2019
Otto von Ballpark replied to Doctor Wu's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Dozier is up from a 64 wRC+ then to a 92 season wRC+ now. -
Good question! Like anything, different offers would have different odds of acceptance. If you really wanted to get him, and soon, I suppose you might have to offer one of Larnach, Javier, Jeffers, or Rortvedt? Or Balazovic, on the pitching side? A lesser offer like Gordon/Enlow could eventually land him too, but it might take some time, and of course the odds of that offer ultimately prevailing over all others are much lower too. I have a feeling most teams could put together a comparable package, and then you'd be at the mercy of the Jays whims and preferences.
-
I think I would do it for a dominant Giles with 2020 control, but I am not sure the Jays bite, especially not so soon. Gordon and Enlow are both 40 FV prospects now on Fangraphs, and neither has been particularly impressive. And the Jays have prospects Biggio and Bichette knocking on the door at 2B and SS, so I'm not sure Gordon's middle infield skills or nearness to MLB carry any special value for them either. I think they would aim to move their needle a bit more than Gordon/Enlow would do, and they may target upside/ceiling more than floor too. I think they'd try to do better up to July 31st, and they very well might. Giles has had his ups and downs, but he's got a pedigree and is having a pretty special season right now.
-
In your last post, you predicted $20 mil combined for Buxton and Berrios. Now it's $29 mil? And now Cron is part of our core and needs to be extended through age 33? And we have to extend Odo and Gibson (through age 35) and pay them $18 mil every season? Hey, if you made this list a couple weeks ago, you could have given the same contract to Martin Perez too! And we're extending Blake Parker at $7.5 mil per for age 36-37, and budgeting an additional $8 mil for a FA reliever -- yet somehow none of this money can be applied toward Kimbrel's $16 mil? And you're confident that Rosario is going to get $5 mil more than Ozuna in arb 3? With Buxton and Sano close behind? If these guys all stay perfectly healthy and keep playing great the rest of 2019 and through 2020, which you seem to be projecting here, we will be able to afford more than a $130 mil payroll in 2021. (And/or they will have great trade value, so moving them before they hit FA may not be a hardship at all -- it might be prudent.) It seems like you are combining wildly optimistic player projections, with extremely pessimistic revenue/payroll projections. It doesn't add up. Not to mention, you seem to be assuming the front office will stop seeking/finding complementary bargains like how we got Cron, Odo, etc. in the first place. 12% of an anticipated 2021 payroll isn't nothing, but known well in advance, it's something that can be managed and mitigated by any competent front office without severe hardship.
-
They wouldn't have to get all $16 mil from just Jose and Byron. Likewise, they don't have to get it all from 2021 either. They have $10 mil in guaranteed obligations for 2021 right now. They should be sustaining a $130+ mil payroll every year. I find it rather unbelievable that $26 mil in obligations for that year, known 2 years in advance, would somehow force them to lose a valuable player currently under club control. Give them some credit here!
-
More like 12%? No reason payroll shouldn't be $130 minimum in 2021, considering inflation.
-
I don't think so? At least not yet. Two 40 FV prospects, one out for the season after surgery, the other with a 5.95 ERA at AAA. I think Thorpe is better than that, of course, but this combo seems light for a guy who is absolutely dominating MLB hitters right now, with an extra year of control too.
-
25.2% K rate isn't missing that many bats these days. League K rate is 22.6%, and I imagine it is higher among only relievers.
-
Which century?
-
Cubs would have had to forfeit their 2nd highest pick, which was only #64. Also they'd have to forfeit $500k from their international bonus pool allotment. But there were also luxury tax benefits: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/06/cubs-to-sign-craig-kimbrel.html Morrow was originally expected to return in April, so I guess they gambled on that, saved the pick, and wiggled under the top luxury tax threshold?
-
I guess they could deal Morrow to shave some money off their luxury tax payroll after adding Kimbrel. Kind of like how the Dodgers needed to send Forsythe back in the Dozier deal? But I don't know the particulars of their situation.
-
All three? And for how many years? And what are the odds they actually do that?
-
Ken Giles, Will Smith, or Craig Kimbrel?
Otto von Ballpark replied to darin617's topic in Other Baseball
This isn't quite right. Giles is controlled through 2020, and Smith only through 2019 (this season). When B-Ref says "Free Agent: 2021" as it does for Giles, that means 2021 is his first season as a free agent. -
My gut tells me the August thing isn't that big of a deal, at least on the high end. Guys like Fernando Rodney would need to get moved earlier -- but does anyone want them except as a backup plan for better options? Should be interesting to see for sure.
-
I only took a road through Cleveland once, on a Greyhound bus. I hope the 2019 Twins don't have to do likewise!
-
There's some cachet in going to the Cubs (and the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc.). Even with our current record, I'm sure the Twins don't have that yet (hopefully soon!). The Cubs aren't chopped liver either -- 2nd best record in the NL. So I could see us having to top the 3/43 offer.
-
I felt that it was a bad investment! Especially on our Metrodome payroll, when we still had control of Nathan for another year. And we just dealt Johan, which limited our ability to compete in 2008 anyway. At least Kimbrel would be adding a player, not just extending him.
-
I understand your take. I don't simply want to win the "most WAR per $" prize either. But something about big money for relievers scares me more than other positions. That said, 3/43 isn't *that* big (the Twins gave Nathan an effective 3/42 extension back in 2008), and the current season might warrant some special action. Hopefully it's yet to come.
-
I don't have any particular love of Kimbrel; in fact, I posted how I kind of hate the idea of spending that much on any reliever. As soon as we can make an aggressive move to address the pen, I'll probably feel relieved we didn't sign him! Just numbers and ranks without context don't generate much concern with me. Like your latest -- "his .216 BABIP is way under his career mark of .260" -- you know what that difference is? 5 singles over the course of the season. Simply add 5 singles to Kimbrel's 2018 stat line and he has his career BABIP. Meanwhile, his 2018 barrel percentage and exit velocity were both better than his 2017 marks. It just seems alarmist to present that BABIP, with no context, as another "red flag". That's all I'm pushing back against here. There just isn't a great surface stats case against Kimbrel, and that's okay. I don't mind general Kimbrel skepticism. I'm actually warmest to the the postseason struggles idea. That's a small sample too, and he was facing great lineups, and to an extent he still got the job done, but it wasn't a great showing. But then again, I'm not sure we'll find an alternative with a better postseason track record -- Ken Giles was pretty awful in the 2017 postseason, Will Smith's only faced 5 batters, etc.
-
When we can claim the white flag on waivers!
-
That's an interesting target to be sure. Although Kennedy is still owed like $27.5 mil through 2020, so if you take on most of that, you're not getting much cost savings vs Kimbrel. The Royals have also already cut payroll pretty well, with Gordon's contract expiring soon too. They may be looking to get more than just payroll relief with Kennedy, especially if they can get him dominating in the pen for a stretch themselves.
-
That would be nice, but you've got to be awfully confident you can find and execute one of these moves in the next couple months to really have a bearing on your Kimbrel decision. I'd say that's too optimistic of a goal, in-season, when you need results by the end of the season. And with a position as wide as the pitching staff, there is nothing precluding that kind of trade in addition to a FA signing. (In fact, some might say the current staff could benefit from multiple additions.)
