Otto von Ballpark
-
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
-
David Ortiz: A Minnesota Retrospective
Otto von Ballpark replied to Cody Christie's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
From looking at the Fien/Milone waiver situations, it appears the Twins could have done better with Ortiz too by applying similar logic. Had they offered Ortiz arbitration, they would have been on the hook for ~$1.9 mil (although like all arbitration awards, only 1/6 of it was guaranteed before March 15), BUT they could have waived him at any point later to remove him from the roster. If he cleared outright assignment waivers (likely, since he cleared release waivers anyway), with less than 5 years service time, Ortiz would have had to accept the assignment or forfeit his salary. Either way, it would have had benefit for the Twins -- they would have cheaply bought some extra time to evaluate their options and continue to try to trade one of them. Then if he accepted the assignment, they would have been able to stash Ortiz in AAA while they got a longer look at LeCroy (and also delayed Ortiz's free agency, and kept his next year's arb salary from rising). Or, if Ortiz elected free agency, by forfeiting his contract, the Twins would have again saved his ~$1.9 mil arbitration salary. Why a team needing to conserve assets like the 2002-2003 Twins didn't do that again suggests a decision that was driven more by personality and hubris than money, performance, etc. -
Actually, we didn't even release Fien. Outright assignment waivers -- had he cleared, we would have outrighted him to AAA (Fien could have elected free agency, but with less than 5 years service time he would have had to forfeit his contract to do so). Fortunately the Dodgers claimed him. So no salary has yet been eaten by the Twins.
-
Milone was traded from the minor leagues back in 2014. Of course, he had a 105 ERA+ in 16 starts in MLB that year before getting optioned by the team with the best record in MLB at the time, and he was also making the league minimum salary. And he still only brought back Sam Fuld. Two years later, Milone is making $4.5 million, and already cleared waivers to be demoted to minors for performance reasons (74 ERA+) by the team with the worst record in baseball. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that he's not going to fetch more in trade than 2014 (i.e. somebody eating his salary) by continuing to pitch at Rochester.
-
Feldman was currently starting in MLB with a 112 ERA+ when he was traded, higher than Milone's career high. He was not subject to waivers before his trade. Butera's career earnings to date are still less than Milone's 2016 salary. Butera was not subject to waivers before his trade. Willingham was subject to waivers, and was claimed, unlike Milone. Morse was not subject to waivers before his trade, although it didn't much matter -- the Dodgers had to eat about $5 million to swap him for Tabata. I am pretty sure if the Twins want to get out of Milone's remaining salary, much less get any player back, he will probably have to come back to MLB first.
-
Shields was pretty much exactly league average in performance last year -- 105 ERA-, versus the MLB SP average of 103. His performance this year is a little below league average (110 ERA-), but only because we are looking at it after a disaster start (2.2 IP, 10 ER). A week ago, he had a 79 ERA-, which would rank 22nd among qualifiers in all of MLB. I'd say a fair assessment would be that he is a league-average starter, still with a decent upside to be better than that. And a pretty high floor not to wind up worse. And that can be a notable upgrade, quite easily a win or two over a season, at least.
-
I updated my post with more explanation. It's not about trying to lose. Even bunting for a hit there is the least beneficial means of reaching base or advancing the runner -- barring an error (and Tampa is good defensively, right? and was not surprised by the bunt), you're capping Buxton's advancement at one base in that at-bat, and also capping Nunez at one base too. You're cutting off a ton of upside by attempting a bunt hit. Hence, trying to do too little.
-
This happened in the second game of the season in Baltimore too. A little more extreme there -- Buxton was already on second base and it was only the 3rd inning -- but again, our leadoff hitter (Dozier) bunted early in the count, the defense was not surprised, and he was thrown out rather easily. Molitor has clearly set a culture where advancing the runner is rewarded too highly, if hitters are pursuing a questionable low-upside strategy in pursuit of it.
-
Huh? Isn't this pretty clearly under-thinking and trying to do too little? Whatever Nunez was thinking, he clearly wasn't assigning enough importance to the fact that it was only the 6th inning, that if Dozier didn't reach there would be an open base to walk our next best hitter in Mauer, etc. That's under-thinking. And even if he wanted to get a bunt hit, he could have advanced Buxton to second on a majority of ball in play outcomes, settling for that as a consolation prize on a bunt hit attempt is not very ambitious at all. Barring a defensive error (and isn't Tampa noted as a good defensive team?), you eliminate all chance of Buxton advancing to third on that at-bat or even scoring, or Nunez himself advancing to scoring position. Hence, trying to do too little. Also, even if he was trying to bunt for a hit, he didn't catch anybody unaware. He was thrown out rather easily. It was a poor time to try that -- again, under-thinking and trying to do too little...
-
Why are we trying to assign blame? it was a Total System Failure, which we all know is no one's responsibility in particular.
-
To be fair, it could have been a typo or brain fart, and/or related to the fact the Escobar and Gibson were pretty bad in April along with their longer-term questions.
-
The Mets lost Wright last year too, on April 14, and didn't trade for a 3B until the July deadline.
-
Not really disputing any of this. But it's not really comparing bullpen quality vs the current Royals, it's comparing bullpen plans, composition, expectations, deployment, etc. The Twins pen was good, but was really just viewed as another piece on a solid all-around team (pieces which often seemed to fail us at crunch time, sadly). The Royals have invested in their whole pen as a weapon, to explicitly carry the team. The Twins never did that. Just like the Royals also invested in contact, speed, and defense to help do the same. The Twins never did that either, at best they seemed to luck into good BABIP seasons from piranha bench players (who they then rewarded with DH assignments in the playoffs, future starting roles, etc.). Again, not saying the Twins were bad or any component of the team was bad, but the Twins plan and construction isn't particularly comparable to that of the current Royals.
-
They didn't have any more than 2 of those guys at once, really. Hawkins and Guardado were gone by 2004, which was the first season for Nathan and the first year where Rincon had graduated from long relief. Balfour never really did much of anything for us, outside of that one playoff game vs NY -- 4.63 ERA in 68 IP across two seasons, in neutral leverage. No doubt they were very good pens, probably league-leading some years, but they were never really a "weapon" like the recent pens the Royals have created. The Twins were seemingly always content with a solid closer and setup man, and then filling in solid but unspectacular performers around them. To say that the recent Royals pen is modeled after the old Twins one is just not true.
-
I addressed this upthread, but there were some sizable holes in the early 2000s Twins commitment to defense. And while the Twins pen was solid and serviceable for much of the decade, I don't recall it ever being considered a weapon for the team. It was rarely better than two-deep anyway, as far as arms you would trust in a playoff game (and even those arms blew their share of games). And while it does seem like limiting strikeouts at the plate may not be a huge deal, that (plus speed) is a definite offensive identity for the Royals. Even when they had some good hitters, the Twins never really had an offensive identity, and perhaps that showed in their lackluster postseason efforts -- having a real, thorough "piranha" game plan, rather than counting on BABIP luck, might have helped those lineups focus and produce more runs when it mattered?
-
You might be on to something. The Mets did pick up Juan Uribe, Kelly Johnson, and Tyler Clippard last year at the deadline, but their former teams chipped in a bit of cash in each deal. I suspect the Mets have no interest in paying extra June/July salary for anyone, so they will evaluate their internal options and perhaps make a move at the deadline. At the point, though, the Twins might still be at a disadvantage, as Plouffe has one of the higher guarantees on the market (considering Hill & Prado both have salary relief already attached from their former teams). And have the Twins ever included cash in a deal?
-
The Mets aren't completely helpless without Wright either. Flores is their utility guy, slumping this year, but a career 88 OPS+ entering the season. Ty Kelly and Matt Reynolds aren't top prospects, but they both have interesting elements to their minor league stat lines (Kelly's K/BB rates in particular remind me a bit of Robbie Grossman). I suspect the Mets will want a month or two to evaluate those guys before they made a move for someone like Plouffe.
-
This is the big stumbling block. Milwaukee, Oakland, Miami, and San Diego have all been much more aggressive traders than Minnesota, and the market for average-ish 3B placeholders isn't going to be all that robust. I don't think the Twins can afford to wait things out, as is their usual custom.
-
That's true, also if we don't trade Plouffe, we could non-tender him and try to sign him back at a reduced price.
-
Sorry, it was a bit of an undefined tangent, didn't mean to sound like I was moving goalposts. I just didn't know how guys like Padilla or Kinney were remotely comparable to Trevor Plouffe. Walker, Redman, Lohse, and Slowey weren't starters when they were moved. (Technically Mientkiewicz wasn't anymore either.) Knobby had 4 years left on his deal, Span 3, and AJ had 3 years of control, Revere 5, Kielty ~5. Those moves were about the return, not moving on from the player. Ryan doesn't have a history that suggests a willingness to move on from guys like Plouffe at this stage of his career/contract.
-
In generic platitudes, maybe. Where was the emphasis on defense when we trotted out an aging Shannon Stewart to protect a late inning lead in a playoff game? Cuddyer at 2B? Cuddyer and Rondell White manning the corner OF spots? Heck, even the "piranha" stuff was more talk than action -- the Royals have actually emphasized SPEED to achieve those results, not just relied on Nick Punto's fluctuating BABIP. And while the Twins had successful bullpens during that run, they were really nothing like the Royals recent pens. Davis is a BEAST, and Herrera is becoming one too. And they still bolstered those guys with Madson last year, and Soria this year. Meanwhile, various "valued contributors" to our pen were blowing playoff leads annually, it seems, and our reinforcements were, what, Todd Jones and Matt Capps?
-
But it wasn't until they clearly broke from those plans (Myers trade, Cueto trade) that they actually achieved any success.
-
Not all "vets" are created equal. Hollins and Kelly were rental players (the kind that no longer brought aggressive trade returns anymore 10 years ago). The modern equivalent trades are Willingham, Carroll, etc., and have returned virtually nothing, and have been meaningless to the Royals most recent rebuild. That's not who the Royals traded in Greinke, although Knoblauch way back when is a fair comp. And the Royals certainly didn't pattern their Myers trade after the Twins!
-
I agree it's unlikely that Plouffe is non-tendered, although we disagree about the reasons.
-
You are plumbing the depths of transactions here. Few of these guys are even remotely comparable to a starting position player like Plouffe. Seriously, Padilla? Kinney? Mahomes, Walbeck? Redman was traded from the disabled list. How many of these guys were actually starting when they were traded, like Plouffe presumably would be? You may as well include Herrmann and Butera... Aguilera was actually first traded a few months from free agency in 1995, then re-signed to a 3-year deal, then re-signed/extended again beyond that, before he was finally traded to the Cubs at age 37 when any "extra year of control" he may have had was pretty much meaningless. You could add Span and Revere to your list, but those two had 3 and 5 years of control remaining, respectively. Decently aggressive moves, but so early as to be very weak comparisons for Plouffe, a player basically in his 5th year of commitment from the Twins. Milton might be the best, and perhaps only real comp here. Of course, he had already completed 6 full seasons with the Twins, and we just picked up an option on his 7th year, so it's hard to argue he was traded terribly early.
-
I agree with your general points, but Grossman was only a top 100 prospect once, by one publication (Baseball Prospectus), at least among the 3 commonly listed at B-Ref (BA, BP, and MLB.com). I'd also argue that his minor league numbers failed to be "solid" last year -- a 93 wRC+ in his third season in the PCL. That was the catalyst for Houston releasing him, and Grossman failing to secure anything more than a minor league deal this past winter.
