Otto von Ballpark
-
Posts
20,662 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
News
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark
-
Story alone might require Lewis plus a pitching prospect, and that's only if the Rockies are actually willing to sell right now (and they may not be, depending on what they want to / can do with Arenado, Blackmon, Marquez, and Gray). -
But Cave needed a .361 BABIP to do that, compared to Moreland's .281. Moreland does have a below-average .285 BABIP for his career, so maybe that won't improve, but Cave's number suggests he might not have a lot of wiggle room. (Cave's career minor league BABIP was also .360, but I wouldn't necessarily count on minor league BABIP to translate to MLB? Moreland's BABIP in the minors was .336. Cave's K rate has also jumped from 21.5% in the minors to 32.2% in MLB -- how much is he already selling out to get this production?) Not that I like Moreland all that much either!
-
Actually about 10 runs equals 1 win, in DRS/UZR/WAR terms. (And by -5, I meant that might be his season total, rather than a change of minus 5.) So this is exactly what I've been saying -- a shift of -2 would only represent about one-fifth of a win.
-
No, Pineda is on the ineligible list until his suspension ends. So we can be at 41 counting him, Bailey, and Hill -- no need to remove anyone yet.
-
Sure, although the marginal net effect may only be a couple runs for the whole season. Might also help to look at multiple years. Anderson, for example, was below average in 2019 and 2017, but average or slightly above in 2016 and 2018. On balance, he's still below average, but not nearly as much as his 2019 metrics alone would suggest. Maybe half that? -5 or so? That would reduce any marginal net effect for Keuchel/Gonzalez too. Furthermore, Moncada in his first season at 3B in 2019 was actually above average by UZR, although below average by DRS. He may very well be average, in which case there may be no net negative effect on Keuchel/Gonzalez from 3B at all.
-
Pineda and Odorizzi just had career years basically. You want to bet on both of them repeating/improving at age 30+? Remember where Gibson was, prior to 2019 or even at mid season? I'm not sure Bailey is better than that right now. And Hill is basically better than no one until he can actually take the field. And I wouldn't bet on Pineda and Hill being healthy for the playoffs, so it's a little early to start banking on that.
-
Over the last 3 seasons, Hill is averaging 2.6-2.7 bWAR/fWAR per 180 IP. That's solid, but one of the best in baseball? Ryu was at 5.1/4.8 in 2019.
-
For a team like the Twins, though, obviously contending and with payroll and prospect resources to spare, doesn't it make more sense to do something more to mitigate that risk?
-
I think "dumpster diving" is a common enough expression that it doesn't carry that particular connotation.
-
There are innings incentives all the time. Martin Perez earned some this past season with the Twins. I don't think Rich Hill would sign here on Dec. 31st, or that we would guarantee Rich Hill $3 mil on Dec. 31st, if there was any reasonable chance of him starting his Twins career in the pen. I'd say there is virtually zero chance of that happening, at least not until he gets a few starts under his belt. Could be in a 6-man rotation, though.
-
We know all of the FA SP options are gone. And we have 3 years of their trading activity, and they have never been particularly aggressive trade buyers, even looking for a SP at the deadline in 101 win season. It's not conclusive, of course, but it is data that leans toward pessimism at this point.
-
Well, Hill's outlook is by definition questionable. Even if you have him healthy and performing on July 31, I don't think you would get good odds of that lasting until Aug. 15. And while they can technically release him at any time and only be out $3 mil, that generally doesn't happen on a practical level. They will wait until he is ready, and then give him a shot to pitch. In both aspects, we will be at an information disadvantage compared to a more traditional midseason acquisition. Edit to add: and unless Hill is really bad, I think we'd risk angering a lot of players and agents and maybe even inviting a grievance if we try to move him to the pen to save on these incentives. There's risk if he's just a league-average type too.
-
Yes, Pineda is on the restricted list already. So we should be right at 40 now.
-
By deadline moves, I mean what Hill's presumed arrival in June or July is displacing. And by Bailey's cost, if the Twins like him for the top half of their rotation for 2020, where were they a couple months ago? The A's got him for virtually nothing. Remember when we were shopping for SP at the deadline? Were we not able to trade for Bailey when we had Gibson or Perez in our playoff rotation? That's making me wonder if we'll ever acquire a top of the rotation guy. I'm glad you're still optimistic, though.
-
Also, Hill's upside might be getting overrated. He was undoubtedly a productive major league pitcher the last few years, but his FIP- with the Dodgers the past 3 years was only 94 -- just a tick better than average. He'll be moving from the NL to the AL, from Dodger Stadium to Target Field. Even by bWAR (so runs instead of FIP), his 2017-2018 seasons in LA were more solid than dominant. 2.1 and 1.5 bWAR in 135 and 132 innings, respectively -- less than 3 WAR per full season.
-
Some folks here are promoting Bailey for having a better FIP than ERA last year. Some are also championing Hill, when he had a much worse FIP than ERA last year. Are the Twins successfully betting on both sides of the FIP/ERA scale with these two moves?
-
And Pérez's ultimate insignificance to the 2019 Twins, especially in the postseason, calls into question how significant this upgrade from 90 to 100 ERA+ might actually be.
-
I don't know about this. First of all, in 2019, Hill pitched notably fewer total innings, fewer innings per start, saw his FIP rise for the 4th straight year, and walked 4 in his lone abbreviated postseason start. We may already have seen diminishing returns in his ability to bounce back, especially as it relates to a postseason hopeful club. And if Hill isn't ready until at least June or July, the Twins may not have much if any time to move to a plan B. By the time they get a look at what Hill can do, the trade deadline may be past. (And even if they don't get a look at Hill by then, or if his results are less than stellar, I could see them betting on Hill to come back in August rather than making a notable deadline move otherwise. The 2019 deadline result wasn't a shutout for us, but it doesn't give me a lot of confidence going forward either. I can't help but wonder if Homer Bailey was too expensive for this FO at the 2019 deadline...)
-
That's a lot of qualifiers. What are the odds it comes together like that? Did the Twins have the payroll and prospect capital available this offseason to notably mitigate that risk?
-
That's also possible. But again, it still limits the benefit. Doesn't mean it's a bad signing, but it limits the value we can extract from any special upside to Bailey, at pretty much one year.
-
That's true. But a 1 year deal, with no option, also undercuts some of the special upside value that's being touted for him in this thread. He's going to have to be really great in this 1 year, and we're going to have to put him in the right circumstances in the same one year, in order to claim much of that special upside value.
-
Yup. Were LA and Boston interested in Hill, at this price? Otherwise, it feels like maybe we're betting more on Hill because we don't want to pay the price to get guys like Stroman -- or even Bailey? -- at the deadline.
-
I think he's referring more to optics -- two non-impact signings (or at least delay potential impact?), both on the same day. That said, while I like Hill, I'm not totally sold on that move either. Is he really a good bet, or is this the FO trying to avoid the "high cost" of trade deadline moves? Which both casts doubt on Hill's worth right now, and the future likelihood of an "impact" Twins trade. And of course, when we finally get to add Hill next summer, we won't have any 2020 data on him -- we'll pretty much have to throw him out there to see what he's got, in the middle of a pennant race, perhaps foregoing other trade deadline options in the process. It's the kind of move I could see liking better if it wasn't paired with a Bailey signing.
-
It's cheap, only if this isn't our "impact pitching" acquisition of the offseason. That cost remains to be seen. And if we really like Bailey's upside -- and we think 3+ WAR and those great August starts vs the Yankees are more indicative of his performance going forward -- then aren't we doing ourselves a disservice by only getting him for 1 year? What made the original Hughes contract really special was that we got 3 years at that value rate; even Martín Pérez had an affordable team option year. I guess if Bailey really comes through for us, we could QO him next winter, but that's not quite as good as an affordable control/option year.
-
To be fair, Oakland is under more payroll constraints than the Twins. Maybe they would have welcomed him back at this price, if they had the Twins budget. Of course, maybe they would have done something bolder to address the top of the rotation too...
