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
-
There was this thread last year, on the occasion of his first "retirement": http://twinsdaily.com/topic/29714-article-into-the-sunset-ichiro-against-the-twins/
-
In other reliever news, the Twins released Tim Collins on Friday, who was promptly signed to a MLB deal by the Cubs. To make room for Collins, the Cubs designated ex-Twin Brian Duensing. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/03/cubs-sign-tim-collins-designate-brian-duensing.html -
Did they "really overpay", though? Alcala's likely upside might be becoming Pressly a few years down the line. The other guy was in rookie league ball. I don't think it was a bad return, but I don't know it was something that we just couldn't refuse. Especially if we wanted to contend in 2019 but had no plans to invest much in pitching -- a guy like Pressly could be really valuable to a club like the Twins right now, no?
-
Remember, the Twins got Reed for the $50k waiver fee just a few months ago. At least 11 teams passed on him at that price, at that time.
-
Usually the cash in these kinds of deals is basically the waiver fee ($50k). Because that's what the Twins would get if we simply put him on waivers and the Giants claimed him. They just added a AAA piece to basically jump ahead of 9 teams in the waiver order.
-
Report From The Fort: Closing Time?
Otto von Ballpark replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
While they're at it, they should take the numbers out of drinking too -- no more 3.2 beer!- 25 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- blake parker
- trevor hildenberger
- (and 1 more)
-
Report From The Fort: Closing Time?
Otto von Ballpark replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I like Rogers, but I don't think it's right to invoke a Josh Hader comp for him right now. His K rate has peaked at 28.9% so far, with a big platoon split (36% vs LHB, 23% vs RHB). Hader was 46% against RHB last year, and 48% vs LHB. Then there's usage -- I'm sure Baldelli will make some changes in usage, but Hader has pitched 2+ innings, and thrown 30+ pitches, a lot more than Rogers, and basically came into that role at age 23 straight from starting in the minors. Rogers is 28 years old and 3 years removed from a notably larger workload. They might do some tweaking with his deployment here and there, but I suspect Rogers will be used like a more traditional top setup man more than a Hader type role.- 25 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- blake parker
- trevor hildenberger
- (and 1 more)
-
It's a lot of money. But compared to revenue in the sport, and Trout's position among players in the sport, and the relative stability of position players (as compared to pitchers, or, say, football players), it doesn't seem outlandish. Would anyone have predicted Trout would get less than 10/360 in free agency in 2 years?
-
I respect your decision to bow out, but I just want to point out these numbers are probably the source of our disagreement. Trout is a projected 9 WAR player -- trading him doesn't merely drop their playoff odds a few percent, like the Twins dealing Escobar. They essentially drop to zero, for this and at least next year too. Likewise, dealing Trout now instead of extending him doesn't give you appreciably better odds of hitting 50% postseason probability in 3 years either -- in fact, by subtracting a projected 9 WAR guy who only turns 27 this year, those odds are probably appreciably worse. You'd probably need to get at least 3 of the top prospects in MLB, and not just 3-5 of the top Braves prospects, in return to make up the projected performance loss on the field. And they have so little salary committed beyond 3 years that there is no real added benefit in saving Trout's future $36 mil salary either. I have no problem with an aggressive move in pursuit of a championship. But that's not what I'm seeing from you here -- especially with Trout willing to extend at 10/360, your suggestion of trading him instead is more like baseball nihilism.
-
The Trout extension is actually only 10/360. It's on top of the last 2 years of his previous deal, but as far as new commitments, it's in line with the others (when you consider that Trout is clearly better than those other guys). As for not spending on other FA -- I don't think the Angels view this as some limited window with Trout. He may not put up video game numbers forever, but there's no reason why he couldn't be a part of winning Angels teams after age 30. So they're looking to sustain some level of competitiveness for the long haul, rather than going all in for a limited window, or punting the current window and hoping for better down the line. Also, FWIW, you keep referring to the next 3 years, but Trout was only signed for 2. So if you think Trout could be valuable in 2021, and you think the Angels have any chance of improving the rest of their club by then, that's another point in favor of signing this contract. If things don't work out as expected, they can always work with Trout to try to trade him somewhere else in the future. But it's not a bad idea for them to want to keep his prime ages for themselves, especially if they think the trade market wouldn't adequately compensate them for those years (and I don't think there's much evidence suggesting it would).
-
You've made it clear that you have a "World Series or bust" attitude. But even if you think the next few years are hopeless, trading Trout now doesn't actually improve your chances of winning a World Series in 2022 all that much, if at all. The prospects would carry a lot of risk, we've established that the extra $36 mil probably can't be re-invested any better than Trout -- and there's simply a ton of uncertainty inherent in looking that far ahead. Injuries, player development paths, other teams -- all kinds of factors which are very hard to predict 3 years in advance. That's not to say you can't try to make moves around the margins, to aim to be better in 3 years -- teams do this all the time. But trading the best player on the planet, on a long-term deal, is not a move around the margins. You need a lot clearer aim for that kind of move than what you are providing in this thread. If the Angels really should be unsatisfied with their present day position, I can think of any number of moves that would be better toward satisfying the armchair GM "World Series or bust" attitude than trading the best player on the planet for an unspecific return and hoping things come together better in 2022. Spending like crazy, luxury tax be damned, would be one of them. Maybe even trading a guy like Jo Adell to try to land another superstar today. Or just do what real GMs do, rather than armchair ones, and accept that there are good outcomes for your team that fall short of the World Series (even if you obviously prefer to win it).
-
They were examples. Presenting one or two examples does not imply that no other examples might exist. I don't think anyone has suggested that here. In fact, I've repeatedly referenced their 82 win neutral luck projection. But a team doesn't need a 85 win projection floor to not trade the best player on the planet.
-
But you're not getting 3-4 players who put up 2-4 WAR every season. You're getting a very slim chance at that outcome. You seem to have no trouble dismissing 20% playoff odds for the Angels, yet you're probably embracing even lower odds with these trade return forecasts. I'm struggling with it because you've also said Upton's contract is an "albatross" to the Angels, and that Upton's contract is preventing the Angels from supplementing around Trout, to the point where Trout needs to be traded -- when Upton himself seems to be a fair supplementary player to Trout. If you want to retract all that, and just say that Upton might have a bit more value to some other clubs, sure, I'd agree with that. But it's not a stark difference.
-
Eloy Jimenez Near 6-Year, $43 million deal
Otto von Ballpark replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Other Baseball
This is all true, but buying out a FA year -- with a team option, no less -- is still a pretty good outcome after playing service time games. -
Eloy Jimenez Near 6-Year, $43 million deal
Otto von Ballpark replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Other Baseball
...and the Singleton deal didn't harm the Astros at all. -
But this doesn't even make sense when you also note that FA spending is inefficient. Sure, the Angels would rather have $24-30 mil the next 3 years to invest on players other than Pujols -- but is that sunk $24-30 mil each year really enough to mean they should trade arguably the best player of all time, even with an 80-something team win projection and ~20% odds of reaching the postseason? A lot of teams have $24-30 mil of "dead money", it's an obstacle but not really one that requires drastic measures. At most, that $24-30 mil means you can sign one less Upton. (I'm not even going to lump in Upton anymore, as you've obviously demonstrated his present usefulness and value -- he's not dead money. At worst, he's simply taking a spot that would go to a similar value player in Keuchel, Kimbrel, etc.)
-
You know, this "trade Trout" argument would have made more sense a couple days ago. In fact, it's been argued here before -- the Angels aren't that bad, but they're not that good either, and with only 2 years of control left, they really had to consider trading Trout before he could leave as a free agent. But once the 2 years control is no longer a concern, and Trout is willing to commit to the Angels for what is essentially Stanton/Machado/Harper money, it would seem nuts to turn that down and trade him instead. A team with the Angels resources should always at least consider buying Stanton/Machado/Harper type players as they become available -- and so it doesn't make much sense for them to turn away an even better player at that price level.
-
Those are 3 good teams, but I don't think you can act like they're going to maintain their 2018 paces.
-
I never said that those two alone would move the needle. It's not optimism to note that a 82 win neutral luck team has decent odds of exceeding 85 wins (while also having odds of falling short of 79 wins).
-
Sure, but at the point, you're settling. A team in the Angels position shouldn't be settling when discussing trade returns for an incredible asset like Trout. You realize the Angels project in that range too, correct? How can his contract be great value to these other teams but an albatross to the Angels? He's a similar value proposition to Keuchel or Kimbrel, either of whom could be good additions for the Angels. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the trend in baseball has been distinctly toward putting greater value on prospects. There's big risk in a even a decent team trading multi-year assets for prospects under these conditions. Eating salary will provide only marginally better return.
-
The Angels median, neutral luck projection for 2019 is 82 wins at Fangraphs right now. And next year, they get Ohtani back as a pitcher, and Jo Adell probably arrives too. It's just pessimism to suggest that their ceiling / best-case scenario with Trout is capped at only 85 wins over the next 3 years. And for that matter, 85 wins isn't even that bad. An 85 win pace likely means you're in the race and can make decisions accordingly at the trade deadline and perhaps improve that total by season's end. And 2018 was the first time in 5 years when it took 90 wins to make the postseason in MLB -- I wouldn't bet on the bar for AL postseason qualification to remain at 97 wins the next 3 years.
-
I disagree. An 80-something win projection is substantially different and better than a 70 win projection. Dealing a projected 9 WAR player (!) from that team invites so much more risk, you need a far more compelling reason to do it than mere pessimism.
-
The odds of getting 3-4 above average regulars from one team's 5 top 100 prospects is probably lower than getting frontline performance from an elite prospect. And you just said Upton's contract was an albatross -- now you're suggesting it has trade value? While they could certainly trade other players for prospects too, they'd be in a substantially weaker bargaining position once they trade Trout -- they'd pretty much have to trade Simmons and Ohtani (and Upton) for whatever they could get in the very near future. If they were too selective, they'd risk wasting those remaining assets altogether.
-
Perhaps they do that, but they probably don't give teams a number to match or beat either. "Last best offers" are still pretty much made blind.
-
Every contract could be "albatross" in the last few years, but that doesn't make it bad. A projected 2.5 WAR player at $21 mil AAV isn't necessarily a burden either -- for a team with a win projection in the 80's, those 2.5 wins could prove vital, and $21 mil for them could be a perfectly reasonable cost. That said, if you think the Angels need to aim for 2022 anyway, the Upton contract will be pretty much done by then, so who cares? I'd still rather start 2022 with the special player that is Mike Trout, even at age 30, than start it with an additional $36 mil and whatever prospects I can acquire for him right now -- not to mention the benefits of having Trout in 2019-2021 too.
