Otto von Ballpark

FWIW, the Angels were 8th in runs scored last year, and 8th in runs allowed. Their pitching staff lacks star power, but it's not that bad. Seattle got lucky last year (+12 wins over their Pythag record) and are tearing down a bit, and while Oakland had a nice year, it was built on largely the kind of pitchers you deride the Angels for acquiring -- Cahill, Edwin Jackson, etc. The Angels have absolutely not capitalized on having Trout, but that doesn't mean they have to deal him. In addition to Trout, they have Simmons in his prime, Upton still good, Ohtani. And some serviceable starters and relievers.

This was the refrain when we acquired him too -- Odorizzi also finished the 2017 season strong, although it was just one month. Maybe he's just a streaky guy? Edit to add: Odorizzi also had a .245 BABIP during that 10-start stretch you mention in August-September 2018, versus his career mark of .273, and he still only had a 4.40 ERA during that time. And his K rate actually went down for the season over those 10 starts. That stretch, and the after June 1st stretch, looks better by FIP than by ERA or xFIP. Do we think he's really a 0.5 HR/9 pitcher now? His career mark is 1.3.

Morin does already have 3 years and 41 days of MLB service time, so that limits his upside a little bit as compared to a guy like Magill, who came here with only 47 days service time. Limits our potential control to ~3 seasons for Morin, and after 2019 it would be at arb prices (although those would still be pretty reasonable, given his career to date). Still, for a minor league deal, there's no risk at this point. It gets a little costlier if he makes the team and reduces the roster flexibility by being out of options, but hopefully he'd be making up for it with valuable performance or else he could just get cut (although it doesn't always work out that way).

That's primarily just modern reliever usage. Morin did miss about a month in early 2017 with "neck tightness". (Has never been on the DL with an arm issue as a pro.) He also "missed" September 2018 because the Mariners declined to add him back to their 40-man roster for a September call-up.

Fangraphs, May 2016: "Mike Morin Has Baseball’s Silliest Changeup" https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/mike-morin-has-baseballs-silliest-changeup/

Statistically reminds me a bit of Oliver Drake in this way: Morin career: 4.66 ERA, 3.32 FIP Drake career: 4.59 ERA, 3.47 FIP Or Tyler Duffey's 2017 season: Duffy 2017: 4.94 ERA, 3.72 FIP Guys who can record K's and generally avoid HRs, so they have a decent FIP -- but still get hit pretty regularly in MLB. Magill had the reverse discrepancy, as he gives up too many HR (plus a few walks): Magill 2018: 3.81 ERA, 5.08 FIP

No options left for Morin, he burned them in 2015-2017. Although Seattle was able to outright him to the minors 3 times last season.

Steamer projects Cave for an 88 wRC+ next year. (His rookie year, while encouraging in some ways, was only a 108 wRC+ aided by a .363 BABIP.) He certainly doesn't need MLB at-bats in April 2019.

Lots of young players miss a month or more without much concern about the marginal value they could have provided toward a pennant. And Buxton's current position, and career to date, doesn't suggest that he is particularly irreplaceable for a month. And nothing about this front office suggests they place that much importance on early season marginal wins either (for example: their Rule 5 picks, Breslow, Belisle, etc.). But even so, if they wanted the possibility of Buxton in MLB to start 2019 while still gaining the extra year of control, they still could have managed 2018 much better. They probably should have just announced a shut down for health reasons when he went on the AAA DL at the beginning of August. The team had just sold at the deadline, so it would have fit with those moves. Buxton still may have been upset, but I think it would have blown over a bit better. Letting him come back, play regularly (and hit well) at AAA, then sending him home on Sep. 1st -- that was sending a lot of mixed messages. I mean, we were talking on this site about the service time implications of Buxton's injuries/performance way back in June and July -- it's not like this snuck up on anybody. There's really no reason the front office had to wait until Sep. 1st to unleash the drama, unless they were wishy-washy about the whole thing. (In which case, alternatives like optioning him in 2019 were probably just as acceptable too.)

To put it another way: I understand that, given Buxton's struggles and the rules of the CBA, any decent front office probably secures that extra year of control. But to me, a good front office would manage to do it without the obvious and predictable drama. (Not that this front office can't be good overall, but they just don't get any "good" points from me for this particular move, at least not right now.)

Cave was probably the only guy whose playing time would have been directly affected by a Buxton call-up. (Or Grossman -- given that Rosario got hurt around Sep. 1st, either Cave or Grossman probably would have still started most games in September even if Buxton was added to the roster. And of course, recalling Buxton doesn't mean you have to start him every game either.) I see no reason to assume the other players, most teammates of Buxton's for multiple years, would have not had a personal concern for Buxton in this situation (although that wouldn't preclude other concerns too). Generally agreed, although these decisions are rarely simple. Maybe a guy like Berrios is already weighing a desire for some financial security vs. a desire to play closer to home. Maybe an incident like this, plus coaching instability, plus selling at the trade deadline, etc., are enough to push him toward favoring the latter. And maybe the decision isn't so stark as "extension or no extension", but maybe it's between signing away one free agent year or none, etc. Also, given that Buxton apparently turned down the front office's extension offer last winter, could one interpret a bit of spite in their decision to send him home in September? FWIW, Berrios was also unable to agree to an extension last winter, and switched agencies this fall. There are going to be a ton of factors involved in contract decisions like this, and I wouldn't expect any single one to be all that important, but still, I'd lean toward trying to avoid situations like this, if at all possible. (And I think it was possible to avoid it with Buxton, either by more clear action/communication prior to Sep. 1, or by planning to use the option in 2019, etc.)

Worth noting that Kinsler was never available to sign by the Twins until now -- this winter is the first time he has reached free agency. He signed an extension with the Rangers in 2012 when he was 2 years away from FA, and that contract lasted through 2018.

Interesting, although for 2018, that's only a sample size of 68 PA. And as Rogers improved overall during 2018, he improved in this split too -- .208 wOBA vs RHB on the road in the second half (albeit only 25 PA). His 2017 numbers in this split were better as well -- .307 wOBA (73 PA) -- although his 2016 rookie season was similar -- .367 wOBA (74 PA). https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/splits-leaderboards?splitArr=6,10&splitArrPitch=&position=P&autoPt=false&splitTeams=false&statType=player&statgroup=1&startDate=2016-03-01&endDate=2018-11-01&players=13449&filter=

Roster Resource is correct, Duffey has an option year left. But it's because of 2015, not 2016. He spent fewer than 20 days on optional assignment in 2015, so it didn't burn an option year. (Time in the minor leagues while not on the 40-man roster doesn't count as "optional assignment", which covers all but 7 days of Duffey's time in the minors in 2015.) Also, "Days on optional assignment" is calculated by the MLB regular season schedule, not the minor league schedule, so Duffey met the 20 day threshold to burn an option year in April 2016 and again in April 2018. Exact same situation as Buxton -- fewer than 20 days on optional assignment in 2015, options burned in 2016 and 2018, and spent the whole season in MLB in 2017. So Buxton, like Duffey, has one option year left.

In a vacuum, I prefer the extra year too over not having the extra year. But in practice, I'd prefer if they didn't rush him back from the broken toe, instead of the extra year. I'd also prefer if they actually arranged a viable alternative for the position going into 2019, in case Buxton doesn't work out, over securing the extra year in Sep. 2018. For that matter, just speaking generally, I wish they were making moves to really improve the team, both short and long term, over just securing a speculative extra year of control of an existing asset at their earliest convenience. It's hard to get too excited or give them much credit just for securing the extra year of control.

This is a fair take. To me, the Sep. 1st, 2018 decision seemed too punitive. A demotion to AAA or the bench is one thing, but sending a guy home when there's games to be played and no roster limits... especially when that guy has been your opening day starter for 3 years now and has only had ~40 healthy MLB at-bats all year... I don't like it. Yeah, it's allowed in the rules of the CBA, but it still seems punitive compared to the alternatives. Buxton's had a rough, up-and-down career for sure, but nothing in it says to me that he deserved that punitive measure. He may not have deserved the opening day job in 2019, though.

But, consideration for what? Obviously, those 2015-2016 stats are part of the statistical ledger, you'd use them in an arbitration hearing, all of that. Just in the context of making a decision about Byron Buxton on Sep. 1st, 2018, I don't like the idea of saying you're denying him a call-up because he's been a awful MLB hitter for X% of his PAs when, while true, most of those awful PAs were concentrated in his debut 2-3 years earlier. And he's only ~40 healthy PAs removed from his most successful stretch in MLB. (Likewise, by mid-2018 Sano was very far removed from his 2015 success, and was even quite a bit removed from his early 2017 success.) The Sep. 1st decision will come down to a judgement call regardless, so neither of us is right or wrong here. Just sharing my perspective which was a little different than yours. Personally, I would have rather seen them call up Buxton on Sep. 1st, 2018, but then plan to option him to open 2019. Maximizes his at-bats, and forces us to come up with a viable alternative plan too.

A couple things: Billy Hamilton's offensive issues go beyond contact -- namely, zero power, ever. Also, how are you defining "marginal big leaguer"? FWIW, Hamilton has averaged 1.6 bWAR, 1.9 fWAR the past 5 seasons. By Fangraphs, he's never been below 1.2. Even without much contact and zero power. There are plenty of starters that register in that annual WAR range. Give that player even league-average power, as Buxton recorded (albeit inconsistently) over 832 PA in 2016-2017, and he's solidly average or better. (Buxton had a higher K rate too, which is why his offense graded out a bit below average in 2016-2017, but not as low as Hamilton's.) Obviously if Buxton repeats his 2018 offensive performance in perpetuity, he's even worse than Hamilton. But he can afford a month or two of hitting like that per season and still be an average or better starter overall. Might still be a frustrating outcome at times but not necessarily a bad one.

Another thing: it seems like this analysis is weighted a lot toward his early career performance. Not trying to cherry-pick (any more than isolating PA from sub-.600 OPS months is cherry-picking), but from his debut in June 2015 through the day he was optioned in early August 2016, Buxton had a .567 OPS, 48 wRC+, in 356 PA. Virtually 100% of his PAs in this time meet your "awful" sub-.600 monthly standard (his best month was a .611 OPS in 66 PA) -- he was never an acceptable MLB hitter, at any point, through August 2016. Since then, he's had 718 PA of .725 OPS, 90 wRC+ hitting, with only 37% of his PAs coming in "awful" months. And that's including his terrible 2018 numbers. Now, maybe 2018 was doomed to drag that down further had he played more, but to be fair he never really got a chance to show us either way -- only 26 MLB starts, the last 15 of which were played on an unhealed broken toe with zero rehab games. He's still streaky and nowhere near his purported offensive ceiling (and health is a massive issue too), but it's possible he reached a more tolerable level of streakiness once he got his first taste of MLB hitting success in September 2016. In which case, I don't like invoking his early-career PA to help justify the Twins' September 2018 decision, any more than I would like using Miguel Sano's successful 2015 PA to help justify keeping him in the majors while struggling in 2018.

Agreed. MLBTR also cited a report last winter that Lynn was seeking a 5/110 deal like Jordan Zimmermann. Even that is probably excessive, but even if he was willing to "settle" for 4/56, it's quite possible he turned down something like 3/30 and eventually opted for the 1-year deal instead to try again.

He'd forfeit the bonus, but the A's wouldn't get a comp pick like teams normally do when a player doesn't sign. I wonder if the A's could offer him more money after next year's draft (or, when they'd no longer be penalized for exceeding their bonus pool).

I also wonder if Ohtani could play some outfield in 2019, as long as he won't be pitching.

6/150 for Lynn sounds insane! MLBTR predicted 4/56 or 4/60. Interestingly, they predicted he would sign with the Rangers last offseason too. (This winter, they predicted Lynn on a 2/16 deal to the Rays.) As far as turning down larger deals, Ervin Santana turned down a reported 3/33 from the Twins in March 2013 to sign a 1-year deal with the Braves. Then he got 4/56 from us the following winter.

I think there is virtually zero percent chance of a Buxton extension this winter. What would that even look like? Has any player ever signed an extension coming off a season as bad/lost as Buxton's 2018? There's just no salary figure for those FA years that would make sense for both parties right now.

I can't speak for gunnarthor, but my position is that he's been a below-average hitter, but above-average defender, and roughly average MLBer overall. Obviously we all hope for better, but that's not necessarily a bad outcome either. Also, your awful/putrid numbers are somewhat skewed by his debut. For 2016-2017, he was exactly even by your earlier criteria: 385 PA in average or better months, 385 PA in poor months. (Plus another 80 PA near average at .701 OPS, which could roughly offset his 94 bad PA from 2018.) You need his debut 138 PA from 2015 to tip the scales toward the awful side, and I'm not sure we should weigh those equally. (And perhaps not coincidentally, his 2015 and 2018 were his least healthy MLB years, and account for an outsized share of his poor PAs.)