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
    Compare the returns on the David Price trades versus the Chris Sale trade. Years of control are pretty darn important.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    Is this becoming a limbo? "How low can you go?"
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah, by that criteria, I'd bet virtually every team, every season has at least a similar chance to hang in the WC picture. It can't be enough to move the needle on planning.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    The Angels have no prospects? Nothing in the MLB top 100 right now. Their best guys might be C+/B- on Sickels scale. They quite possibly do not have a combination of guys that could rival the value of De Leon alone. EDIT: Also, forgot about Espinosa whom they just acquired. Probably the best 2B they could afford.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    It's not a factor unless it changes the amount of return we are looking for in Dozier. And frankly, it shouldn't.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Not necessarily. Vargas has a career 103 OPS+, Grossman 102. Park had a 83 last year. Mauer has posted a 103 since his concussion. That doesn't really cut it at DH/1B. If Calhoun's profile suggests he can be a ~120 OPS+ guy, that has real value. If someone else steps up to fill our DH spot sooner, that's still an asset we can deal to other teams.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    I recommend that you read Eric Longenhagen's write up on Calhoun at Fangraphs: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-21-prospects-los-angeles-dodgers/ That in no way reads like a guy who isn't evaluating the entire baseball player. A lot has changed in prospect evaluation since the days of Mike Restovich. Heck, I don't even think BA was considering league/park factors much -- they ranked him as high as #26, before dropping him out of the top 100 entirely when he not surprisingly failed to hit many HR in the FSL, but then put him back as high as #37 after he hit a few more HR in the PCL a couple years later: http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=restov001mic
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah, strikeouts aren't necessarily bad, but you have to be able to make up for it in your other PA. A lot of guys can't. Or, if they try to cut down on their K's, they lose their power. I think that's why Calhoun is interesting, and more interesting than your run-of-the-mill minor league slugger. The guy has made a lot of contact without sacrificing power.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't know about the location of his HR, but he only hit 11 in half a season in 2015, it wasn't a big sample. What does that same evaluator say about him after his 27 HR in 2016? Juan Uribe is a weird comp. RHB, below average walk rate, average K rate, average power. Compared to Calhoun's profile of LHB, average walk rate, well below average K rate, and above average power. They are completely different players. One was a defensive prospect, the other is an offensive prospect. No prospect evaluator would be putting Calhoun on top 100 lists, or giving him 50 FV, if his offensive "ceiling" was Juan Uribe. Even if you don't like Calhoun, that seems a pretty gross misapplication of the word/concept of "ceiling" in a prospect discussion.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    The Fangraphs guy is the one who said Calhoun won't stick at 2B and is too slow for the OF, but still pegs him as a 50 FV player. He's not a batting average guy, obviously, but even with a low average, he managed a 123 wRC+ at AA last year. If he had a plus walk rate, or any kind of a defensive projection, the guy would be a top 50 prospect in all of MLB. As it is, he still looks like a top 100 type based on a skill set that is interesting, if unusual. For now, let him play 2B or try a corner OF as opportunities arise -- even the ability to hold a glove at those spots can come in handy (see Cuddyer). But he has a fair chance to have enough bat to handle DH too, in the Carlos Santana mold.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm interested in Calhoun because he offers a very intriguing combination of contact and power. 11.6% K rate and .215 ISO in AA last year, with similar numbers the year before. Usually those guys are pretty good hitters, and good enough that it doesn't matter where they play. Only two guys with at least 250 PA in the affiliated minors were better than Calhoun in both measures last year, Benitendi and Bregman; in the majors, only Betts, Beltre, and Murphy. Obviously Calhoun isn't as valuable as those guys, but even lesser quality hitters in that mold, like Carlos Santana and Victor Martinez, are still pretty good (and illustrate how you don't need a position if your bat is good enough). He's not a headliner, but Calhoun is more interesting to me as a third piece than most of the lower minors guys the Dodgers could offer. Seems most evaluators agree -- even while acknowledging his shortcomings in speed and defense, Fangraphs has him at 50 FV the same as Buehler, a step above Stewart and below De Leon. Sickels had him as a solid B even before his 2016 performance at AA. MLB has him at #87, and BA had him at #98 on their midseason list right next to Polanco.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    That's probably the most important goal, yes. But in the new CBA, MLB has taken a more aggressive position about withholding bonus pool money as punishment too. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/mlb-mlbpa-agree-to-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.html In that light, that July 2nd thing and 6 month rule make sense. You can't trade future bonus pool money that's further than 6 months away (not unreasonable), and by forcing future bonus pool money to be traded as "future considerations", you essentially require the teams to have a contingency plan in place in case MLB withholds future bonus pool money as a punishment. (Like how "PTBNL or cash" trades generally have a contingency of another player or cash in case a player is injured.) Make the teams plan for it, so the league doesn't have to unravel an already completed transaction later.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    They probably are interested, just not at any price that would it make it worthwhile for us right now. They each have about ~4 starters already, and probably want to roll the dice on a cheap or internal option at #5 first.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    Of course it's possible that the Twins contend in 2017, but you can't act solely on what is possible, you have to take into account what is probable. The 2008 Twins were probable contenders, simply on the basis of returning the same young club that won 96 games in 2006. The 2015 Twins winning 83 games doesn't help the probability for 2017 quite so much, plus there's that 59 win season last year and four straight 90 loss seasons before that... simply put, it's not probable.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think it has anything to do with the Young trade. Friedman and the Dodgers in general just seem pretty conservative about losing talent. Note that the big-spending Dodgers have yet to forfeit a draft pick in the qualifying offer era, much less trade elite prospects. And I can't blame them -- it's a lot easier to recover from a bad contract than it is to recover from lost talent. Seems like that is the general approach of the Yankees and Cubs now too. It's too bad we didn't have an asset that appealed more to Boston or Washington this winter, or even Houston or Texas...
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Oh sure -- if Stewart was the second piece, there would likely have to be a third. I'm of the opinion that Calhoun is an interesting enough asset, if he's available like a few Dodger blogs have suggested, but it could be another lower level guy too.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    That is not only the best interpretation, but the only logical one. Neal and MLBTR don't even address Calhoun, Stewart, Lux, etc. in their reports. The "1 for 1" thing is strictly in the context of no Bellinger, Alvarez, or Buehler in addition to De Leon. But the Dodgers have enough prospect depth beyond that to still make an interesting offer, if they so choose.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Yes, that's when the "1 for 1" thing started, but I think you are misreading it. "Another prospect" (what Neal wrote) likely refers to a specific prospect or group of prospects. The Twins likely asked for Alvarez, Bellinger, or Buehler to be included with De Leon -- that's pretty much what Neal wrote. It makes sense that the Dodgers would decline this. "Any other prospect" would have been written if it was strictly 1 for 1. But it defies logic to think the Twins asked for ANY prospect (i.e. the Dodgers 20th ranked org guy) and were rebuffed. Neal didn't write anything approaching that -- he didn't even mention anybody outside the Dodgers top 5. If the Dodgers are giving up De Leon, they would clearly be willing to part with someone else -- it's just a matter of how many, and of what quality, which is what this debate has been about the whole time. We know from Neal, Heyman, and others that the rest of the package is unlikely to include Alvarez, Bellinger, or Buehler, but unfortunately they have given zero indication about other names, which further muddies the water. To his credit, Berardino reported that the Twins had interest in Brock Stewart during the winter meetings. Contrary to Dave's source, I still think Stewart is the more likely second piece to any finalized trade.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    I think it is fairly universally accepted here (or it should be ) that by "another prospect", Neal meant a SPECIFIC other prospect, not just any other prospect. (It wouldn't make much sense otherwise, I am sure the Dodgers could find any other prospect to add if that was really the hang-up.) Frankly, neither Neal nor Heyman or other media types have reported at all on names like Stewart, Calhoun, etc. Their reports have been limited to the big 3-4 names. I think it is safe to say other names beyond those would be in play too.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    Walker was available for Niese last winter. Kinda surprised the Dodgers didn't get in on that, or close out a FA deal with Zobrist. But a conservative offer for Dozier would be in keeping with their recent approach at the position.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    First, you need to look at a stat with park adjustments. Dodger Stadium is a pitcher's park. Secondly, I posted some numbers upthread -- all pitchers are bad hitters, but the Dodgers pitchers were especially terrible hitters last year compared to other playoff teams and contenders. By park adjusted wRC+, just looking at non-pitchers, the Dodgers offense was 4th in the NL and 7th in MLB.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    They can do both, it's not either/or. Look at the Cubs. Invest in stars who are free agents and re-signs and keep your best prospects. That is pretty clearly the path to building the best team.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    They have the prospects to make an in-season trade if circumstances warrant. And they are actually better suited to do that if they don't give up a ton right now for Dozier. Look at 2016 -- they cheaply patched 2B in the offseason, and went out and got a SP and an OF as needed at the deadline.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    If he's bad in 2018, sure you can extend him, but who cares at that point? They still would have wasted his current value. They could trade him now with a plan to re-sign if his performance fades for all I care. Even the value of a one year deal like Ian Desmond got this past season will be lower thanks to the new FA comp pick rules.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, they still have 6 months to plan. MLB doesn't allow much draft pick trading either, so I think they try to discourage teams from dealing these resources. I also think MLB prevents bonus pool trading until July 2nd to somewhat discourage pre-July 2nd deals with prospects. Also, I wonder if it helps them keep bonus pool adjustments as a punishment option -- say, if team A traded away from its future bonus pool, and then is revealed to have broken some international signing rules like the Red Sox did. Hard to take away from the future bonus pool after it has already been traded!
×
×
  • Create New...