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
    You are partially correct. Players added to the 40-man between August 15th and the Rule 5 draft are called "draft excluded players" and they can't be outrighted off the roster until mid-March, even if they clear waivers. https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3520 This is to prevent teams from adding a bunch of guys before Rule 5 and then trying to sneak them through waivers afterward. Not a huge deal. The only player in that group that we would even consider dropping this winter is Slegers. The others are Curtiss, Gonsalves, Littell, Moya, and Thorpe. If we want to drop someone, I suspect it would be Boshers. Maybe Chargois due to health? Vargas or Grossman could go in trade, if they were serious about Napoli.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    When Duke made his season debut last July, he was only ~9 months removed from TJ surgery. And he only pitched 18 innings, not sure his FIP is all that meaningful -- looks inflated because he gave up 3 HR and only got 12 K's in those 18 IP. But his hit and walk rates were pretty low, so he wasn't getting knocked around, it seems.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    By that logic, if they sign Napoli for league minimum plus incentives, they are technically not locked into keeping him until spring training either because they could release him anytime. But in practical/effective terms, as I explicitly stated in the comment that started this tangent, just like Napoli in that hypothetical, Kinley is locked into a 40-man spot into at least mid-March. Now if you want to argue that overall it doesn't matter, because they could just as easily cut Boshers if they need a spot in the meantime, or finally trade Vargas or Grossman or whatever, that makes sense. But in regards to Kinley specifically, it is illogical to deny that he's here until at least mid-March. And if one is doubtful of his chances of sticking and contributing this year, then I think it is a fair to question even that modest level of commitment.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    Name a Rule 5 pick who has been sent back before March. Technically possible, but it literally never happens. Not a huge deal, but they will cut or trade someone else this winter if they need a spot.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    And remember when Ervin Santana was talking about a $100 million contract too...
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    And front offices probably advance stories like this to help their favorite players, even if aren't seriously pursuing said player.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    I know you are mostly joking, but note that the cost of trading up in the Rule 5 draft is fairly modest.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, every team wants pitching to some extent. But the Rays strength right now is pitching (4th in AL in ERA, with SP prospects emerging to replace Cobb), and their weakness is offense (2nd to last in AL runs scored, losing Longoria and Morrison, and no offensive-minded prospects ready to emerge).
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah, but there was no reason to expect you would need to DFA Bard, if you were willing to roster Kinley at least through March.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    Would you rather have a Natasha client?
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    Sure. But the claim I was responding to was that Bard could be unprotected because he would have been 1st in line for DFA anyway, but a "feature" of the Kinley pick is that we could drop him this winter if needed. I just didn't think either of those was necessarily true.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    Somewhat. Those guys had a national presence, though. And again, the Tampa Rays baseball world is a pretty small bowl, being the biggest fish there isn't necessarily the same thing as elsewhere. It probably gets as much attention for Yankees spring training as it does for the Rays. The second extension was an unusual commitment by Tampa, but it also gave them the flexibility to keep him through his prime and still trade him for something before he got no-trade rights.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    When the franchise is Tampa, I don't think trading the "face" of it hurts all that much. They've done stuff not unlike this before -- Shields, Price, Zobrist. Doesn't mean they have to do a complete teardown unless teams are really willing to pay elite prices right now for Archer.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    True, but the same goes for Burdi or Bard -- had either of them been added in place of Kinley, it wouldn't have held the Twins back either. And it might have given them some more flexibility come March/April.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    They are very good examples. 25-man spots are very valuable. If you are willing to promise one, you can sometimes get the most desired minor league free agents (Brandon Morrow). If you have one available, you can easily claim an "out of options" guy on waivers (Blake Parker, Kirby Yates). So it's a big opportunity cost to lock a spot onto a Rule 5 guy, as it means one less spot to invest otherwise. It's complicated, but I think it's incorrect to say that rostering Graham and Haley didn't hurt the Twins. They weren't the only decisions that hurt those years, of course, but they didn't help, and the Twins almost certainly would have been better off not selecting either one.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    It was a bit of an exagerrated example, I admit. But the principle holds true. Can you show me one example of a team cutting their Rule 5 pick before they even get to spring training? Otherwise it doesn't really seem appropriate to say that's a realistic option the Twins would consider. Not that I think Kinley is holding them back from anything. Just that they wouldn't have selected him in Rule 5 if there was any real chance of cutting him before spring training. Someone else is the likelier first cut from the 40-man.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    Tampa is perpetually a seller, they didn't need to signal it. Also notice they got back Denard Span (and his salary) and a MLB ready prospect in this deal. It's quite possible they are trying to reload for 2018 *with* Archer, rather than pushing their timeline further out. They just won 80 games and had a virtual tie for a wild card spot in August, so it's not like they are hopeless for the immediate future. Look at their pitching staff -- even losing Cobb, they still have Archer (for 4 years), Odorizzi (2), Snell (5), Faria (6), and Honeywell (6-7), plus assorted others like Andriese and De Leon. There is no reason they'd have to move Archer at this point to rebuild with guys like Gonsalves from the Twins. If anything, they need hitters (2nd to last in AL runs scored), and their top prospect has been SS Adames, and they just acquired INF Arroyo, so their interest in Gordon may not be all that high either. They'll probably look to the bargain bin for guys like Logan Morrison again.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    But what I am saying is, that doesn't happen with Rule 5 picks before spring training, not just for the Twins but anywhere else in the league as far as I know. Despite the more modest financial commitment, dumping Kinley today is about as likely as the Twins releasing Rodney or Pineda (also technically possible). It can't be considered any kind of meaningful feature of his selection, any more than DFAing Bard this winter would have been (guys added to the 40-man in November don't get dropped before spring training either).
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    Not necessarily. Longoria was expensive. He made $13 mil last year, and his salary goes up every year through 2022 for a total remaining guarantee of $86 mil. By moving him, the Rays get a ton of salary relief, which would not be the case with an Archer trade (Archer is only guaranteed $16 mil, spread over 2-4 years). And Longoria is coming off a 100 OPS+ season, the worst mark of his career, and just turned 32. He also was set to earn no-trade rights in April (as a 10-and-5 player). Considering his contract, the Rays may have seen this as the last opportunity to do something with Longoria. Again, not the case with Archer, whose trade value/interest will likely remain high for the next year or two, barring unforeseen circumstances.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    Technically possible, but not likely. I'm not aware of any Rule 5 pick being returned or even let go on waivers before mid-March at the earliest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_5_draft_results Practically speaking, Rule 5 selections are basically locked into their team's 40-man roster into spring training.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    To those thinking those relievers will be returned to the Twins, it should be noted that the Angels, despite being a big market club, kept a Rule 5 guy on their roster for the entire season each year from 2013-2015 (although their 2013 pick went down with TJ surgery, and was actually selected again and ultimately returned to his original club after the season). The Pirates haven't been as active in Rule 5 (at least not until now, with 2 picks on their current roster), but given their financial constraints and a bullpen that has shed 3 of its top 4 (by innings) since the trade deadline, I could see them looking to keep Burdi too.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    To be fair to Bard, prior to 2017 he only had 14 career innings at AA, and those were at the end of 2016, his first full season back from missing multiple seasons with injury. That might have caused the Twins to slow his advancement a bit. And he not only performed well at AA in 2017, but he didn't miss a beat after making his AAA debut -- and beyond the stats, wasn't it reported that he had the best fastball spin rate in the whole system, along with Gonsalves? And if needing his 40-man spot was a concern, why draft Kinley? Kinley is effectively locked into a spot through March now.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Even if we protected him from Rule 5, Burdi wouldn't have been effectively taking a 40-man spot by opening day -- he will be placed on the 60-day DL. I mentioned upthread, but it's not clear that the Burdi-Garcia trade was the same as the eventual Ynoa-Garcia trade. If the Braves had been willing to eat some of Garcia's salary for Burdi, them backing out is not necessarily a "big red flag". Maybe they didn't want to pay for Burdi and also have to protect him while injured from Rule 5? Maybe they thought there was a chance they could select him in Rule 5 (he didn't last that long, although the Braves drafted another RH reliever instead).
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    To be fair to Kinley, his worst numbers at AA were to open the 2017 season -- 10 runs in 8 IP, .987 OPS, only 21.7% K rate. Then he got sent back to high-A and dominated, and returned later to AA and was better -- 9 runs in 18 IP, .664 OPS, 30% K rate. And not to get too selective, but most of that was one game where he was charged with 4 runs without retiring a batter. He finished the regular season with the following 8 game stretch: 10 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 3 BB, 15 K, .280 OPS. (He did serve up 2 solo HR in a playoff appearance, though.) Still, that's only AA, and while it might hint at talent, it doesn't suggest consistency. Kinley's Dominican Winter League stats are also a bit suspect. The league as a whole has a 3.34 ERA, which is even less run scoring than the notoriously pitcher-friendly Florida State League (where Kinley also excelled in 2017). In addition to Justin Haley doing well there, Sam Deduno is still pitching there. Alexi Casilla and Danny Santana are both hitting over .300 there right now too. Very hard to project from those stats!
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm not sure it was quite so simple as that. That was an early version of the deal, and there may have been cash coming from Atlanta at that point. Rather than changing their opinion of Burdi, maybe the medicals changed the Braves estimate of whether the Twins would protect Burdi this winter, and they didn't want to pay for a guy who could be available to them in Rule 5.
×
×
  • Create New...