Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,662

  • 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    The only Twins argument against the Nolasco-Shields trade is, we don't need another starter. I can understand that, although I think there is enough uncertainty with our other starters and in our bullpen (and potentially beneficial trade possibilities with our other starters) that I would respectfully disagree. The main Twins argument for a Nolasco-Shields swap is that it is looking increasingly likely we will get nothing for the remaining $25 mil on Nolasco's contract. Having the opportunity to put it toward an asset like Shields at a discount is better than nothing, even if that asset is not at our position of maximum need.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    In addition to the career numbers posted above, in his down year last year, Shields still topped 200 innings at league-average SP run prevention. Meanwhile, Nolasco failed to reach 200 innings total across his 2 Twins seasons so far, with a 70 ERA+, at ~25% below league-average SP run prevention. He's barely pitched at all coming off of midseason surgery and is only a year younger than Shields. Shields ain't Nolasco.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    The Padres did run him through waivers in August, but August waivers generally aren't a great barometer of value. I agree it's probably less than 3/65 but still fairly close. Lackey got 2/32 but he's 3 years older, and it also cost the Cubs a draft pick. I might peg Shields around 3/50.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    I think you can make the argument that while you have a cheap internal guy who could throw 200 innings, you might be better off using him for that and sign a free agent to throw the 60 innings of dominance. You could be O'Day and Madson for the price of Ervin Santana, for example. Although we do have a lot of starters right now, and our bullpen could probably use May AND free agent reinforcements, so I don't mind it. I do worry that May had back issues and limited availability after his move to the pen, though, which makes it harder to strategically place those innings.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think anyone is suggesting this. Is signing Shields to a 3/40 contract (his deal, minus Nolasco's) supposed to be the equivalent of giving up our first born child? Or signing Melvin Upton to a 2 year, $7 mil deal? Of course, I agree that his value is at rock bottom, and that's why the above swaps being discussed here won't happen, but neither would be a great sacrifice of assets. (Although the longer you keep a guy with rock-bottom value, the more negative value he can accumulate -- think why the Cubs released Edwin Jackson. That point in Nolasco's contract would be this July, which seems about right for his remaining leash.)
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Unfortunately, that's not really an option. Nolasco can refuse any minor league assignment, which would have the same effect as releasing him (you'd owe him the balance of his contract, and he'd immediately become a free agent).
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Here's an interesting article about the value of David Price's opt out: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-value-of-the-opt-out-clause-in-the-david-price-contract/ They conclude that the opt-out probably discounted the contract $10-13 million for the team. Of course, that deal is about twice the length and 3 times the money of Shields', so what's the value of Shields' opt out? Maybe $4 mil? If it was a concern, you could probably buy it out from him for that price. Would another $4 mil make a big difference in analyzing a hypothetical Nolasco-for-Shields swap?
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Again, no, there isn't. Not a significant one relative to the other considerations of the deal (namely, unloading Nolasco). Imagine if Nolasco had an opt-out in his Twins deal, would that have been a significant cap on the size of the upside? No, not significantly so, because we didn't sign him to that contract with the expectation that he'd perform at a level that would cause him to opt out, and pitchers with similar expectations to Nolasco could be had for similar commitments in free agency if we so desired (Garza, Santana, etc.). Even if he opted out, Nolasco would be fulfilling (or more than fulfilling) all the reasonable expectations of his contract. In absolute terms, Shields has a better expectation today than Nolasco two years ago, but he is also older and has a higher salary and therefore a higher threshold to clear before the opt out even becomes an issue, so I think it's a valid illustration. Shields still wouldn't be acquired with an expectation of being a $21 mil a year pitcher, just a better asset going forward than Nolasco, and if he opts out when we still need/want him, we can find pitchers with similar expectations for similar commitments in free agency (Lackey, Iwakuma, etc.). Even if Shields opted out, he would be fulfilling (or more than fulfilling) all the reasonable expectations of his acquisition (primarily to make lemonade out of the lemon Nolasco ). At this point, given his age and our full rotation, the opt out might actually be a feature for the Twins rather than a bug. He offers more certainty and better upside than Nolasco for 2016, which is nice, but no level of Shields performance in 2016 would probably cause us to "need" him or need any particular level of performance from him for 2017-2018, which dramatically reduces the potential negative effect of him opting out (or failing to perform at the elite level that would prompt the opt out). The opt out becomes problematic for a team when expectations are higher, time periods are longer, and they will likely want to retain a hard-to-replace player, like Greinke. Is this clear? I hope it is. I totally understand your point about opt-outs in general, like that of Greinke, but that is a vastly different situation than Shields. Especially if we're talking about flipping him and Nolasco. (As strange and unpredictable as I have found the Padres front office lately, I absolutely guarantee they would laugh at a proposed Nolasco-for-Shields straight-up swap, which should be an indication that such a move would dramatically favor the Twins.)
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Sorry, your post specifically said "Milone in MLB" so I didn't realize this was predicated on removing him from the rotation. Although I probably would have used Rogers for MLB relief help down the stretch in 2015, I don't mind keeping him starting now if it means we get a real quality FA reliever like Sipp. If we aim no higher than Cotts, though? Then Rogers should get a look in relief from day 1.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    Every contract has the risk of X number of bad years, in an absolute sense. The Shields contract was not probably not signed, and certainly wouldn't be acquired now, with an expectation for X number of elite seasons either. He's not Greinke. Heck, at this point, there probably isn't an expectation for ANY elite seasons from Shields over the next 3. (Not that Shields needs elite seasons to be useful.) So saying a team can't possibly get X number of elite seasons from this contract, while true in an absolute sense with the opt-out, isn't really a concern. Is this just a generic opt-out argument, or does this actually affect your opinion of a hypothetical Nolasco-for-Shields swap?
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    Care to respond to the rest of my post? Specifically, why you believe it is more important to have multiple LH starting pitchers rather than multiple LH relief pitchers? Given fixed starter usage patterns and flexible reliever deployment, that seems very counter-intuitive.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    To what degree? They could be more unpredictable relative to other positions (possibly based on sample size, as relievers have limited usage), but still not be so unpredictable in absolute terms as to warrant a ban on multi-year contracts (a position which Seth himself seems to be backing down from). If you have any links you'd like to share about it, I'd love to read them. All I've seen so far is this study, and the Dave Cameron one it was based on, both of which were pretty limited and flawed: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/20731-article-gambling-on-the-relief-market-simply-folly/ Overall, Twins bullpens over the past 4-5 years have turned in entirely predictable performances, so there's that. I'd love to add an "unpredictable" reliever like Tony Sipp, Darren O'Day, etc. for a change.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    I think it's a lot more important to have multiple LH relievers (for match ups) than multiple LH starters. You can't deploy starting pitchers based on match ups, but you can with relievers, multiple times every game. Also, for the record, Pat Dean is also a LH SP on the 40-man roster, and Logan Darnell was a longtime starter who returned to the role in August. Jason Wheeler still exists too.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    Nice deal. I mean, obviously we'd all rather find the next Lowe circa 2015, but this is a pretty affordable hedge against that.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    To be fair, in the abstract, the concern about opt-outs is real. Obviously getting opt-out worthy performance from any player on any deal is a pretty darn good outcome, but for some guys (i.e. Greinke), it would probably be a better deal to offer more guaranteed money upfront in exchange for no opt-out. For Shields, ages 34-36, probably not so much. Especially when we're specifically discussing exchanging him for Nolasco, rather than signing him to a FA contract.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    I understand this argument about opt-outs in general, but on a shorter term for a non-elite player, it's not bad. Shields age 34, you're not expecting to get an elite level performance, so if you do, that's a pleasant surprise, probably offsetting much of the value you anticipated to receive from him age 34-36 in total. Then you'd get to make a QO and receive a draft pick in return (not guaranteed later after his age 36 season), and Shields on a 2/44 deal at age 35-36 isn't that difficult to replace on the open market if you so desire. (For example, Lackey at 2/32, or Iwakuma at 3/45.) If you need to replace him at all. Again, he's not elite, you were not counting on him for an elite performance anyway, you don't need to worry much about not getting the potential elite performances for the remaining two years. The problem with opt-outs is when elite guys like Greinke exercise them near peak ages, when you are already counting on them for elite performances and hoping for more, with a lot more years involved (Greinke opted out of 3 years, and required 6 years to sign again).
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    Almost fixed last season? Did you watch the games in August in September? They blew multiple games the week May went back to the rotation. Perkins was shaky as heck. Cotts was barely trusted in the 5th or 6th innings of close games. O'Rourke (vs RHB!) and Graham pitched in critical situations. This all happened even with Fien and Jepsen pitching as well as they ever have, basically.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    But the Twins inability to produce a Madson type player for the pen over the past few years is WHY the Twins bullpen got so bad last year. TR has had 4 offseason since returning, and the positive FA / minor league deal assets he as added to the pen consist of Burton (who ultimately wasn't worth a modest $3.6 option last year), Fien (an arguable nontender candidate this year at an even more modest $2.2 mil arb estimate), and Boyer. Also, Sipp has been fantastic for the last 2 seasons with the Astros, plus 2 seasons earlier in his career with the Indians. That is ridiculous. Obviously no signing (reliever or otherwise) guarantees anything, but it can give you much better odds. Signing Hughes, Nolasco, and Santana gave us better odds at a quality rotation, as opposed to acquiring Correia, Harden, Diamond, Deduno, whatever. No guarantee, but unquestionably better odds. The same principle applies to relievers. Landing Tony Sipp certainly makes it more likely the Twins have a good or potentially even great bullpen in 2016 than just rolling the dice on Dan Runzler, Aaron Thompson, etc. Again, no guarantee, but unquestionably better odds. And it's not an either-or, the Twins can sign Sipp AND still search for the next Madson, Lowe, etc.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    Seth, has something changed? Previously you recommended a one-year deal for Cotts, Thornton, Parra, or Choate as the only FA addition: http://twinsdaily.com/articles.html/_/minnesota-twins-news/minnesota-twins/bullpen-strategy-what-would-you-do-r4283 Glad to see you seem to be endorsing a multi-year contract for a reliever, though. Most of these guys aren't costing that much, and our pen could use the help from day 1.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    And then Rogers went to the Arizona Fall League ostensibly to pitch out the pen, but made 6 starts there instead.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    True, although interesting to note that both Burton and Fien were signed 4 years ago, in TR's first offseason back as GM. I think Boyer's modest contributions in 2015 represent the only positive product of this strategy in the 3 offseasons since. That's not only prevented us from getting a "true top-tier relief corps" it's caused a borderline awful relief corps.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    I second this, good job. (Still think the Clippard one is nuts, though.)
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    That's not really surprising. With Shields owed 3/65 going forward, a team valuing him closer to 3/50 would still pass on claiming him. Heck, even if you thought he was worth 3/65, just the risk that the Padres had bad info about his medicals might be enough to pass on that. If no one claims him, and the Padres are still motivated to move him, you can probably get him for a similar price in trade but be able to review his medicals and walk away if necessary. Especially in August, most teams looking for short-term SP solutions already added them in July, and teams looking for a longer-term SP solution wanted to wait another couple months to try to get free agents closer to their valuation.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    That's perhaps a little closer, given the depths of awfulness that Melvin Upton reached in 2013-2014. But Upton quietly had a fine 2015 season (or half-season, as he was out until June). 112 OPS+, above-average defense in CF. Some of that offense is BABIP, but some of it is power and another slight improvement in K rate too. Upton's 2015 season is closer to Ervin Santana's 2015 season than it is to anything in Nolasco's recent output. Upton is also only owed $31.9 mil over 2 years, his age 31 and 32 seasons; Nolasco is owed $25 mil for 2 years, his age 33 and 34 seasons. For a team like the Padres that is short on outfielders, especially CF, and seems to have little trouble churning out decent pitchers in that ballpark, Upton is way more valuable right now than Nolasco.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Look at those last two years again -- Nolasco has serious performance AND health questions right now. In the current market, I think he'd be much closer to Bud Norris (1 year, $2.5 mil) or even a NRI than Mike Pelfrey (2 years, $16 mil). Remember, even with the crazy money going to SPs, the Cubs couldn't get anyone to pay Edwin Jackson more than the minimum salary going forward. Right now, I think you'd have to eat pretty much the whole salary or take a similar dead salary back to have a chance of moving Nolasco. And that means DEAD salary, like Edwin Jackson was, or the recent deals of Chris Johnson, Michael Bourn, Nick Swisher, etc., not simply excess salary for still good players like Shields. The Twins still have a few other suspects on the 40-man and probably 25-man roster too, so Nolasco's specific roster spot isn't terribly valuable to us right now. I think the better course of action is just holding on to Nolasco and hope he can turn things around.
×
×
  • Create New...