Otto von Ballpark

That would be more of a breadth move, rather than depth.

I'm not sure $100 mil is all that meaningful, given inflation. Median MLB payroll didn't hit $100 mil until 2014, when the Rockies were in the middle of a pretty awful stretch of baseball. Here are their opening day payroll ranks: http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm 2019: 12 2018: 15 2017: 16 2016: 22 2015: 20 2014: 17 2013: 25 2012: 22 2011: 14 2010: 16 2009: 18 2008: 20 2007: 25 2006: 28 2005: 24 2004: 15 2003: 16 2002: 19 2001: 13 2000: 12 1999: 11 1998: 14 The Rockies are certainly not big spenders, but relative to league, they've spent at their current level before. Considering the Rockies have been been pretty bad over this time period (26th in MLB wins from 1998-2019), these spending levels/patterns don't seem unusual. The Rockies were 15th in revenue on the 2019 Forbes list, although in terms of raw dollars they were closer to the 23rd ranked team than they were to the 14th ranked team.

Basically, any action against the players, that would make the player ineligible or reduce his salary, whether by MLB or individual teams, would never hold up. The burden of proof would be too high to make the punishment stick -- the MLBPA could defeat it easily. That said, the Twins could release him like any other player, but they'd owe him his full salary. I don't think so. There's barely been a mention of Marwin in the local media since the scandal broke. He's not even projected to start for the Twins, or be much more than an average player when he does play. Seems like there won't be any particular spotlight on him that would even require PR mitigation.

Apparently Dan Ford was "The Man", but Gary Wayne was just "A Guy".

Yup. I said as much in a forum post recently, comparing the Twins landing Donaldson to the Brewers landing Cain. (Hopefully year 1 with Donaldson works out as well as year 1 with Cain!)

If they are citing "physical routine" as a reason here, then I suspect they may not be planning to push Graterol for that many innings / that long of outings out of the pen, which would presumably pose the similar physical risks as starting. Keep in mind, Yarborough was a college draftee debuting in MLB at age 26, with 157 IP in the minors the previous season. (And he wasn't much of a prospect anymore either, which meant less risk for the Rays using him in this manner.)

Johan's usage wasn't a development plan -- he was a Rule 5 pick. He threw 160 innings in the minors in 1999, then only 86 the next year in a full season of MLB. That wasn't really about development, or winning ballgames -- it was just hiding him on the roster. 2001, Johan was injured for much of the season, so he was limited to 43 innings. But he was still pretty mediocre at this point too. 2002, he had his breakthrough performance -- and he threw 163.1 innings for the year, combined minors/majors/postseason -- basically the same as the following year, 166. So the Johan example doesn't really say anything about holding back Graterol for years, if he's actually healthy and effective. (At least not holding him back much.)

He was counting the figures to the right of the decimal point too.

I see that he was listed #2 here: http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2018/?list=int But he wasn't even listed on BA's top 50, which did include Cubans: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/where-the-top-50-mlb-international-prospects-have-agreed-to-sign/ I guess there was some uncertainty about when he was going to sign (in what period), although his $750k bonus suggests that maybe a #2 ranking wasn't exactly accurate, in retrospect? Edit to add: after the signing, MLB.com still didn't include him in the Twins top 30 prospects, and Fangraphs has him at #34 in the Twins org (although at 40 FV, he's essentially in a tie with everybody ranked 16-35). Urbina is ranked higher on both lists. So I'm not sure anybody stuck by that #2 ranking for very long! Although he still could be interesting.

We're not talking about good vs bad bullpens, though. We're talking about finding separation between good bullpens. If you present me with two bullpens, and all I know is that one has a better K/BB ratio and FIP but both rank well in those categories relative to league, I can't really conclude which is the better bullpen without additional data. Not true at all. I want to look at a lot of measures -- just not FIP and K-BB% exclusively. I think we've both said our case. This is an argument that's going to involve some level of subjectivity, and it's okay to disagree. I'll drop it now.

First off, we're straying off topic here. Another poster was making the claim the Twins pen could be significantly better than that of the Yankees or Astros, enough to offset not having an ace SP in a postseason series. If you or anyone else wants to say the Twins have a comparable pen to those clubs, I would probably agree. So I'm not really talking about anyone being "far better", if anything that is what I am arguing against. If my language or examples suggested otherwise, I apologize and would like to re-focus on that point. That said, as a general example, the Yankees top 5 relievers entering the postseason last year threw 295.2 innings in the regular season; the rest of their relievers threw 369 innings. Theoretically, I don't think it's controversial to suggest the worst 56% of innings could offset some of the success of the best 44%, in terms of overall season numbers. The Yankees top RP by innings was a long man who was barely a factor in the postseason; their 3rd and #8-11 RPs by innings didn't even make their postseason rosters. Again, I don't know if that's really the case between the Yankees and Twins in 2019. I didn't mean to imply that the Yankees top 5 are that much better than the Twins top 5. More like, their pens are probably comparable, so it's going to be a challenge for the Twins to stake out a big advantage in that area in a postseason series.

Again, you're relying on ERA estimators and K-BB%. All teams with good bullpens will probably have pretty good K-BB% ratios and FIPs. I'd argue the teams with the best K% and best hit prevention among those teams would probably be the best pens, even if another team with fewer walks and Ks edges them in K-BB% or FIP. And I think pens do have some control over hits -- look at batting average against, and you'll generally see better pens at the top, and worse at the bottom. The Twins pen was in the middle-bottom half for 2019 by this measure -- I think their strategy of throwing strikes results in more hits, fewer walks, higher BABIP, better ERA estimators, but maybe not the very best pen in real world terms. (Although they've gotten good enough at missing bats recently that it's definitely closed the gap significantly.) It's going to be subjective, of course. If you prefer the ERA estimators and K-BB%, that's subjective too -- and there's nothing wrong with it, we simply disagree. I'm just laying out my position. To repeat, I still think it's a very good pen, but in the context of a postseason series, I'm not sure it's going to be a relative *advantage* over the recent pens of the Yankees and Astros, at least not enough to offset not having an ace starter, which is I believe how this tangent got started.

FYI: FIP, xFIP, and SIERA are all ERA estimators that assume an average BABIP -- thus, they are BABIP independent. So a pitcher or staff can't have a low FIP "despite" a high BABIP -- the high BABIP is already taken out to determine the FIP. (You *can* have a certain ERA despite a high/low BABIP, because ERA is BABIP dependent.) And I'm not sure FIP and other ERA estimators are all that important, for bullpens/relievers. Obviously good bullpens will generally do well in them, but I don't think being the best in those areas means you have the best bullpen. Same with K-BB% -- it's good to avoid walks, but there's more to being the best reliever than walk avoidance. And of course, because there are so many relievers used in modern baseball, so many bullpen innings thrown, looking at total team bullpen performance isn't a good indicator of postseason bullpen strength either. A team like the Yankees rolled into the postseason with 5 elite-performing relievers -- they had other various pen arms that dragged down their regular season totals, so their total FIP, etc. was probably in line with the Twins, but those other arms were pretty much irrelevant to how their pen would be utilized in the postseason. The Twins don't have a bad pen, but it's not clearly better than their playoff competition, and its strength is more in solid depth than in number of elite performers, which is more of an advantage in the regular season than postseason.

He wasn't perfect, but he showed enough in game 1 last year, and over his career in general, that he should certainly be part of our top 4 starters, and thus in our playoff rotation. I agree it might be nice to have an even better option start game 1, if at all possible.

The Donaldson deal reminds me of the Brewers contract for Cain. Donaldson's a little older, but much better at the plate too, which could keep him valuable longer. Hence, Donaldson getting more money. But both were at an age/profile that probably depressed their market a bit league-wide, compared to younger FAs. Which opened up an opportunity for traditionally frugal clubs like the Brewers and Twins to snag them. So I wouldn't expect the Twins or Brewers to play at this level of free agency frequently, but they don't necessarily have to. Hopefully the Twins can emulate the other form of Brewers aggressiveness and swing a trade like Yelich, Greinke, or Sabathia too!

Because they're cheap? Seriously, no one here is saying the Twins should emulate Cleveland's most recent financial decisions.

True, but most other contenders have a comparable bullpen these days too (and likely better, if you factor in recent postseason performance), so it's not a relative advantage.

There's no leverage for Sale until Boston is actually selling. They haven't sold anybody yet, and have even added a few low-level free agents this winter. They also still have the 4th most projected WAR in MLB at Fangraphs, and Sale alone is 10% of that. At this point, I'm guessing there is virtually zero chance of them dealing Sale before opening day, but they can reconsider that strategy midseason.

Hill wasn't coming off surgery those other years. He spent a lot of time on the IL for the Dodgers with blisters. The injury challenge he's facing now is an entirely different animal: https://www.mlb.com/news/rich-hill-has-surgery And the most recent season (2019) showing his least availability, and least October relevance (1 appearance, 2.2 IP, 4 walks), is a worrying trend as he turns 40 this spring too.

I'm pretty sure no one at "Astros Daily" is actually saying that. At least not this week. That said, Hill is clearly the least likely among this group to actually pitch in October 2020 (and even when he pitched in October 2019, he was a playoff non-factor for the Dodgers). And while Pineda looked good at times in 2019, he has a checkered history of performance and durability himself -- plus he's never even pitched in the postseason. Yes, the Astros have some question marks in their rotation like everyone else, but McCullers beat both the Yankees and Dodgers in the ALCS and WS in 2017, Urquidy had a gem road start in the 2019 WS and also pitched a few clutch innings in the ALCS clincher, and even Peacock has done well in some clutch postseason moments (WS Game 7). They also used a bullpen game to clinch the ALCS last year. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't consider any of those guys as October underdogs vs what's projected from Hill/Pineda/Bailey/Dobnak/etc. right now. Nor would they be too concerned about the injury risk of Verlander and Greinke at 1-2 -- they're both older but pretty well established as the most durable arms in the game. Did fans of yore worry about Clemens, Morris, etc. not being healthy for the playoffs? Plus considering the Astros trade history, their fans are probably more confident about making necessary upgrades before the deadline. (Even if they have fewer prospects to pull it off now.)

Depends on your measure. Marwin's power was significantly higher at home in 2017 -- 15 HR at home vs 8 on the road, in virtually the same number of PA. His walk rate was also notably higher in both 2017 and 2018 compared to the rest of his career. It's possible that Marwin knew what pitch was coming often enough in 2017 to turn on them and net a few extra HR at home. That could have had a trickle-down effect on his other stats, as teams would pitch him differently at home or away -- i.e. pitch him more carefully and he can get more walks. Of course, it could just be normal variation too. His 2018 power stats are the reverse. (Although maybe the sign stealing was reduced in 2018, and/or perhaps the scouting had caught up enough to neutralize his advantage -- teams likely quit throwing him the pitches he was consistently jumping on in 2017.)

Yup. I mean, they have Donaldson projected at 5.3 WAR, and he's mostly offsetting Marwin who was at, what, ~1.5 WAR in full-time play? Plus this shifts Marwin to a bench/sub role and reduces projected playing time for other replacements even closer to replacement level.

I mean, I don't mean to say I'm overly concerned with health, but Marwin Gonzalez is likely first in line for playing time in case of injury. Behind him might be Cave and Adrianza. Prospects could enter the picture, likely in the second half, but Arraez was pretty special in 2019 -- I'd expect most prospects, even those rated much higher than Arraez, to have a bit more difficulty in their first taste of MLB. We're also a club that had an offensive force at catcher in 2019, and catchers are pretty volatile in the health department, both for frequency of injury and scarcity of good replacements. So we're more susceptible to regression at that spot too.

Our pitchers already allowed the second-fewest HR in the AL in 2019. Compared to, say, Houston or New York, It seems the "Bomba Squad" may have benefitted from the lively ball disproportionately in 2019, on both sides of the ball. (And Buxton is one of our biggest health concerns too, which cuts into his projected value as a defensive asset.)

Don't get me wrong -- I'm optimistic too. But it doesn't take much to make regression cases for most of those guys. Health and a less lively baseball could have impacts on most.