Otto von Ballpark

Perez is 27 now, but turns 28 as the season starts. Same as Odorizzi last year. Even if Perez returns to his 2016-2017 form, is that really worth much? Roughly league average ERA+ accounting for ballpark. Odorizzi fetched a pretty marginal trade return with similar performances, and was of questionable value on the field to us last year too. What exactly are we aiming for here?

People toss out this "you need 8-10 starters every year" line, and it's true in a literal sense. But that doesn't mean 8-10 guys get meaningful opportunities to start. The last few guys on that list are probably looking at 1-5 starts for the year, which is better than nothing but not really much for evaluation or development. 15+ starts for Perez is kind of a big deal, relatively, especially on a team that has already committed 3 rotation spots (and corresponding salaries) for expiring contract SPs in Gibson, Odorizzi, and Pineda. They really need to invest something in finding starters for 2020 and beyond, and probably something more than a flyer with an option on a guy like Perez.

Pretty sure he means someone has to get cut from the 40-man to make room for Perez. They will presumably be out of the organization, like Curtiss, so they won't be around to get another chance.

Perez did fine in the bullpen last year? 11 IP, 5 runs, 9 hits, 5 walks, 7 Ks. 5.7 K/9, 1.273 WHIP, 4.09 RA9.

Technically, Sanchez was an MLB signing -- he required a 40-man spot when the Twins signed him. But it was a split contract that paid him less if he didn't make our 25 man roster.

$3.5 mil guaranteed seems steep for a guy who *might* become a second lefty out of the pen...

Perhaps you are over-stating the difference in track record? Ottavino's 7 seasons in the pen: 9.2 bWAR, 5.5 fWAR in 390 innings. Reed's 7 seasons in the pen before signing with the Twins: 6.2 bWAR, 6.9 fWAR in 402 innings.

The curse of Eric Fox? https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN199207290.shtml

For many of us, born after 1976, that almost IS the curse -- not making it to the Super Bowl. 0-6 in conference championship games since then.

How about short term commitments? How about young FAs like Machado or Harper? It's easy to argue against "long term commitments to aging veteran FA's" but there is a lot more nuance to the market than that. Take a look at some of the 2 year deals that have already been signed this offseason, and explain to me how adding two of those would have jeopardized the franchise's long term health: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019-mlb-free-agent-tracker/sort_column-amount__sort_direction-0__contract_years_operator-3__contract_years-3

No. Mitch Garver is a 28 year old catcher, with 5 years team control. Cron is a 29 year old nontendered 1B. Rogers is a 28 year old middle reliever with 4 years control. May is a 29 year old reliever. In what universe do the Twins need to consider keeping significant payroll flexibility for these guys?

These guys aren't prospects anymore, or even first or second year players. We have a ton of data on them already, and the data says that very few of them warrant a long term deal -- perhaps only Berrios, and as a pitcher, that should clock in less than a deal for a similarly situated position player. Even if some of them perform well in 2019, they still won't have a track record to warrant a commitment of significant long-term dollars. How much would you want to bet on one good year from Kepler or Polanco after a string of average ones? Now is a good time for a major investment externally because we have an internal group that could be useful but generally doesn't look like stars, and our best internal star potential might be 6+ years away (Lewis, Kirilloff, etc.). In your opinion, is there ever an appropriate time for the Twins to spend on a significant FA? Seems like that might be the real issue, rather than anything special about guys like Kepler and Polanco.

Notably, that's bWAR (ERA-based). His peripherals were awful in 1994 -- more walks than strikeouts! Thus he had a 6.21 FIP and negative fWAR at -0.2 (virtually the same marks as Jim Deshaises, who struggled to a 7.39 ERA that year.) https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=1994&month=0&season1=1994&ind=0&team=8&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0 For his career, B-Ref has Mahomes with -0.5 bWAR; Fangraphs has him at -3.0 fWAR.

IIRC, the Cubs did sign Lester after a 72 win season, although I guess they still had room to spend more later. I do wonder, though, if these teams were able to do this because their "rebuilds" went so well. If Correa turned out like Buxton, maybe Houston signs a big FA to help things along? Same for Bryant turning out like Sano for the Cubs? (And Cleveland fans might argue that their team hasn't yet spent enough to support the talent they've developed...)

Not necessarily in baseball, thanks to an act of the devil (Jeffrey Loria).

Free agency is fairly limited in the NFL by a variety of factors. Hence why Kirk Cousins was considered a premier free agent. Seriously, there aren't a lot of memorable free agents in their prime in the NFL's history -- certainly nothing like the other major sports leagues. I don't think it is particularly damning that the Vikings haven't signed any/many. More damning is their lack of drafting/developing/retaining a star QB. Interesting that your MN high level FA example comes from the NHL. A salary cap league, with similar low endorsement money as MLB (relative to the NBA and NFL), so it makes sense that stars could choose from a greater variety of destinations. Although maybe the luxury tax is bringing MLB a little closer to that? The Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Cubs can't quite sign everyone anymore. Seems like more FA are gravitating to the next set of markets, and under the right conditions, even markets like Minnesota could be able to get into the bidding sometimes (if they are willing!).

Baseball endorsement deals don't seem that big: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2018/04/11/major-league-baseballs-highest-paid-players-for-2018/amp/ The largest endorsement income listed there is $3.2 mil (Stanton). Only he and Trout ($2.5 mil) exceed $1 mil in endorsements. Nothing to sneeze at, but also nothing that couldn't be offset by a slightly larger salary. I think money is still the key, but in baseball, that's primarily salary. Which is guided largely by team revenue, which is dominated by a few major market teams... (edited for grammar)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not heard anything to suggest that Machado is particularly sensitive about the location of his destination. His top two suitors are Philadelphia and the lesser Chicago team. His hometown is Miami, which is a pro baseball afterthought. He strikes me as a bit of a renegade in this regard, which could suggest he'd be amenable to a weak or nonexistent no-trade clause, on the presumption that he would welcome a trade to a contender that wanted him in the future.

FWIW, you jumped into this by responding to my comment, which said "the downside risk is significantly lower with mid-20s infielders than with most of the examples being tossed around here" (i.e. Pujols, Fielder, Wright, Mauer, Greinke, and even Felix Hernandez, who were all brought up previously in this thread to argue against a Machado deal, when none of whom were mid-20s infielders when they started their longest contracts). If you think anyone is saying there is no risk to a Machado contract, you are mistaken. We all agree there is risk -- just debating how much and whether it's an acceptable amount to the current Twins. There is certainly less risk (not zero, but less) in a Machado deal up to 8/250 than in Pujols' contract, so the usefulness of the Pujols deal as a cautionary tale is suspect. I'd argue that such a deal for Machado might be less risky than the Mauer deal was back in 2011 -- Machado's not a catcher, can play everyday, is slightly younger. Mauer had off-field advantages -- he was destined for the Twins HOF, would always remain marketable/lovable even if his team/performance declined -- but that cuts both ways too: it was never realistic to trade Mauer either, even if it made sense for the team. And of course, the surrounding organization and farm system here seems much better in 2019 than in 2011, suggesting that Machado's best years are less likely to be wasted. Of course, maybe the Mauer deal isn't the best benchmark, but in the absence of any similar investment right now or for the next few years, I think these kind of commitments are worthy of debate and consideration.

Sure, I can agree with that. Most aren't failures, although most aren't successes either. The vast majority of player outcomes don't even register, and I suspect this guy will be in that group. Curtiss probably will be too (although maybe a tiny bit of a failure considering the opportunity cost of his draft position).

I didn't say there was zero risk. I said less risk than signing older players. So no, citing one example doesn't mean I am wrong. I also referenced Machado's positional value, which your Fielder example ignores. (Not to mention Sandoval's unique physique among 3B.) Although interesting that of your 3 examples attempting to "disprove" my point, for 2 of them, the signing team actually got out of a significant portion of the latter part of the contract. That's part of the equation too -- a younger player can generally generate more trade interest too, if a team decides it wants to move a player later in the deal. That's why I'd also recommend forgoing a no-trade clause in a Machado deal, if one could avoid it. (Although Machado doesn't seem like he would have any problem being traded out of Minnesota eventually, if it came to that.)

25.4% K rate at AAA last year. For a reliever, 25 years old, repeating the level, versus a league average of 22.0%, it's not very good. (Curtiss was around 35% K rate in the minors in 2017.)

Success for the player, sure. That's relative to other 16 year old amateurs. As you say, very few of them make it that far. Success for the team, not so much. That is relative to other teams. Every team signs a few 16 year old amateurs that eventually make it to AAA. Now, some teams might have more 16 year old amateurs reach AAA than other teams, but you would need a much more expansive analysis to look at that.

The Orioles let Machado go because they were terrible and he wasn't going to re-sign there. (A more accurate phrasing would be that Machado let go of the Orioles...) The Dodgers let Machado go because they already have Seager and Turner at SS and 3B. (Seager was hurt last year, hence why they were interested in Machado as a rental.) I'd say it is curious that the Yankees apparently haven't pursued Machado in FA, but those top clubs also have luxury tax concerns which affect their strategy, so I wouldn't read too much into that.

Engelb Vielma represents a HUGE success for the Twins' player development? I'm pretty sure success is relative to other MLB teams, and every team either develops guys like Vielma -- or gets them for free on waivers.