Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    I wasn't defending/excusing those trades, but rather I was saying how they are not really applicable to the statement in question. Primarily because of era, which I admittedly did not explain well. "Just another reason when you can move a prospect for an established player to not be afraid to make the deal" -- I don't read that as a universal rule, but as a valid piece of evidence observed in the context of De Leon / Forsythe 2017. Certainly it's not meant to apply universally to all teams, prospects, or all definitions of "established players", especially not in earlier eras of MLB talent evaluation and acquisition, under which both Smoltz and Bagwell were dealt.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    Looking at potential FA destinations, it's worth noting the teams who have already forfeited picks in the 2018 draft: Milwaukee, San Diego, Philadelphia, and Colorado. If they signed one of Lynn, Cobb, Arrieta, or Holland, here are the picks those teams would have to forfeit: Milwaukee: #125 San Diego: #83 Philadelphia: #79 Colorado: #96 Other teams with notably low forfeiture requirements: Miami: #88 Oakland: #84 Cincinnati: #81 As I mentioned in my edit to my previous post, the Twins are in a unique position. Like the 15 other revenue sharing recipients, we would have to forfeit our 3rd highest pick, but because we're not in the Competitive Balance Round A (between the 1st and 2nd rounds), and we're not receiving any comp picks ourselves, our 3rd highest pick falls in the Competitive Balance Round B (between the 2nd and 3rd rounds) and is thus protected. So our top pick subject to forfeiture is actually our 4th pick at #95 (albeit technically our "third rounder").
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    FWIW, we only saved ~$400k from Leach. Enlow cost $1.25 mil over slot. Most of that came from Lewis going underslot by $1.05 mil. We picked 1, 35, 37, and 76 last year. This year, we've got 20, 60, 75, 95. I don't think another Enlow-style overslot signing is in the cards, regardless. This might be the year to forfeit our 3rd pick. EDIT: Actually our 3rd pick is in the Competitive Balance round, which is protected. So we'd be forfeiting our 4th pick, but 3rd rounder, at #95. Last year the slot was $564k.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    Yes, he has. Ramos was worth 3 wins more than what we trotted out at catcher in 2011 alone -- obviously those wins "didn't matter" in hindsight, but they did at the time. (Easy to forget we were only 5-6 games out of first place in late July that year before we collapsed at the very end.) At the very least, even if the Twins still slide into irrelevance and remain committed to Mauer at catcher, Ramos would have been much, much more valuable than Capps within a year of that trade. You could actually look at it the other way too: Capps turned out to be a guy we really didn't need. He was generally effective for us, but he was not a critical part of us pulling away from the White Sox that August/September, was completely irrelevant in the postseason, and not worth much in 2011 either.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, the actual contract language is quite different than that. But even so, Fielder was determined to be medically unable to play baseball, so being inactive was indeed "the best of his ability." The Rangers were free to dispute that determination, but it appears they chose not to. They were also free to negotiate a "void in case of injury" clause to his contract that would have applied, but they chose not to. I'm not sure why you think Fielder should recognize a contract clause that doesn't exist. Not true. HOF eligibility has nothing to do with "filing retirement papers". Fielder will be eligible in 2022 along with David Ortiz, as both last played in 2016: https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/future-eligibles Johan Santana got hall of fame votes this year, and I'm not sure if he's ever technically retired. He was on a minor league with the Blue Jays as recently as 3 years ago.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Bagwell and Ramos were traded for rental relief pitchers (OK, Capps had an extra year of control, but it wasn't even cheap), and Smoltz was traded for a 36 year old 103 ERA+ rental starter. Both Bagwell and Smoltz were even traded during the August waiver period, which gives you an indication of what kind of value they were returning. I think you can have a reasonable definition of "established player" of value that doesn't include those 3 veteran returns. And that's another stretch to include multi-prospect packages in this definition. But I agree that there is no universal rule, either for players or teams. Even here, while this was a solid trade for the Dodgers, would the Rays really have been better off keeping Forsythe and not rolling the dice on De Leon? And I've long contended that the Span for Meyer deal favored Washington at the time, but it's not clear the circa-2012 Twins would have done better by keeping Span either.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Aybar won't necessarily be in AAA, he can opt out of his contract if he doesn't make the MLB roster. Also, while Gordon should be in AAA, he's not on the 40-man roster yet, so I don't think he makes sense in a temporarily replacement role (not like Polanco a few years ago, who was already on the 40-man anyway). Honestly why do you prefer Vargas? He's got a career OPS+ of 102 -- I'm not even sure he's worth pinch-hitting for anyone in our regular lineup. Maybe Castro vs LHP? But Grossman is just as good of an option for that. And Escobar would be too, if he is on the bench. And hopefully Garver would be soon too...
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think 2/20 is insulting. Moustakas just signed for 1/6.5. (Doogie Wolfson's first report of 2/12 could have been insulting, had it been true!) KC also apparently offered Neil Walker a minor league deal, which would be insulting too. 2/20 seems like it will be in the ballpark for Lynn, at this point. Maybe the second year is the stretch, but I could easily see him signing a one year deal for $10-14 mil any day now. I wonder if the Twins were willing to do that over a one year deal?
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Lynn is almost 31, if he's going to bet on himself, it would be a 1 year deal. (Or include an opt out after 1 year.)
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    There is an out, it's called insurance. Those details generally aren't made public, though.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    They could be including player benefits as part of payroll -- I know they are used for calculating luxury tax. Cot's estimates them at $14 mil per team for 2018, on top of $118 mil player salaries.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    Are we extending him beyond 2019 now?
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    Reserve Champion Beef Showman: note that Acuna spent most of last season at AA/AAA. And there aren't many Acuna's around the lower minors either, and even they fail to reach base 60+% percent of the time against a collection of minor league pitchers including many worse than Littell. Obviously it's not a perfect indicator, but frankly neither are the subjective evaluations that filter through the media. I think it's a decent barometer for fans to gauge spring roles, if not a bit of performance too.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    Ha, yeah, I was probably too hard on him. At first I was just needling him, but honestly I don't think it reads quite the way he intended either. Taking a look at the spring training save leaderboards for the last few years was a fun exercise, though! I should thank him for that.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Good point on potentially signing a remaining FA, although I don't know if that option will be on the table by the time a Hughes decision comes down. And obviously contracts can be renegotiated, but renegotiating downward is pretty rare. Anything is possible, but since Hughes bothered to have a second surgery last summer and has shown up "healthy" this spring, at age 32 with 2 guaranteed years left on his deal, it's probably a longshot for him to retire (or be coerced into retirement) in just a few weeks.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    If that was your intent with the line "Zack Littell has had a very strong camp including a win and two saves among his outings", I'd suggest rephrasing it or adding this additional context. "Zack Littell has had a very strong camp, albeit against mostly minor league competition as evidenced by his late appearances in games."
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think we've had enough top pitching prospects recently to make this determination.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    FWIW, Baxendale has been Rule 5 eligible the last 3 offseasons. He's also due to become a minor league free agent after this season, if he's not added to the 40-man. Looking at our depth chart, I can't really see a place for him in Minnesota for 2018, though, except perhaps as a Wimmers-type cameo in case of injuries.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    FWIW, B-Ref has Littell's first two outings (they haven't updated for the third one yet) with a 5.8 Opposition Quality score, which basically means he was facing sub-AA quality hitters. I guess that's what happens when you are racking up saves in spring training. https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=littel000zac
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    Not to pick on you, Seth, but no one should ever reference spring training saves.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    Sounds like a recipe for another $100 million offer for Harper or Machado!
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    FWIW, Cuddyer retired in December, and was going to be 37 years old by opening day, and as mentioned was entering the final year of his deal. I'd guess a late March "retirement" by a 32 year old with 2 guaranteed years remaining would invite a lot more scrutiny from the union even if the buyout was correspondingly increased, especially in the current climate of MLB-MLBPA relations. They could ascertain (perhaps correctly) that Hughes was being coerced to retire by threat of being permanently banished to the 60-day DL for somewhat specious reasons. (If Hughes didn't figure that out on his own first, of course.)
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Not anymore, they got rid of repeat QO's in the new CBA. Now a player can only get 1 in his career.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    Wouldn't he want a one-year deal to do that?
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    You can release injured players, you just owe them any guarantees regardless. https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3534 "Outright Release Waivers cannot be requested on a player while he is on the Bereavement List, Military List, Suspended List, Disqualified List, or Ineligible List." Note the absence of disabled list. You can't option an injured player to the minors, but of course that doesn't apply to this situation. And Hughes isn't currently injured to that extent anyway. He's probably dealing with the effects of injury, some permanent, like virtually every other player.
×
×
  • Create New...