Otto von Ballpark

This is what you said: Sounds like you are saying that rostering Graham is no more or less deserving of criticism, in the context of what could have helped us reach the postseason, than a very large number of other decisions and performances that comprised our 2015 season. It's quite clearly a false equivalence. Unlike many of those decisions and performances from the 2015 season, the negative effects of rostering a Rule 5 pick who is providing zero/negative value at a position of need during a pennant race were very easy to predict and avoid, and indeed the Twins had the choice to avoid them literally every single day during the season.

Love this report (bold emphasis mine): http://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/baseball/news/twins-robbie-grossman-signs-minor-league-deal-with-minnesota/ He'll likely add depth at Triple-A with Minnesota, but he could have a shot at the major league roster as a veteran fourth outfielder if Eddie Rosario or Danny Santana struggle.

He probably didn't immediately sign with Rochester to sit on the bench. Do you think Walker is going back to AA? Or Kepler or Buxton back to Minnesota? (Or Kepler to 1B, Vargas to DH?)

One key piece missing from these reports: how Grossman was a free agent to begin with. He opted out of his minor league deal with Cleveland yesterday: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/05/robbie-grossman-opt-out-free-agent.html Then immediately signs with the Twins today. Sure sounds like he sees a path to MLB here... I think he's the new David Murphy. And we still have an open 40-man roster spot too...

Okay, after a long period of "TBD" flux, Rochester's web site has been updated with probable starting pitchers for the week (through Saturday May 21). And Meyer isn't on it. Next "TBD" is Sunday May 22, which would be 19 days after Meyer's last appearance. Is he still hurt? Or is he going to be working out of the pen later this week? At what point does this warrant official acknowledgement by the Twins, Red Wings, or their beat writers?

Dean "successfully" filled the long reliever role once, and gave up 10 hits, 2 runs, and an inherited run, in 5.1 innings. And now you want to remove him from that role too? (Assuming Dean takes Berrios' next turn -- Berrios won't be eligible to return for it, Meyer is still MIA, and Gibson still has to rehab.) We could've also swapped out Kintzler with a long reliever. Wait! Kintzler is out of options, he'd have to go through waivers, and he's been outrighted before so he could elect free agency. Maybe we're not ready to do that... Also, we're at 12 pitchers. If we were so desperate to get another fresh long relief arm in Minnesota, we could have gone to 13 pitchers for a few days, like we did with Meyer a few weeks back. Wait! Mastroianni is out of options, he'd have to go through waivers, and he's been outrighted before so he could elect free agency. Maybe we're not ready to do that... Notice a pattern here? Optioning Berrios right now is a "necessity" entirely of the Twins own making.

Where is this "big league pressure to win" coming from? The manager and GM frequently benching and demoting top prospects? Maybe they shouldn't be doing that, if they want these guys to get comfortable and develop.

Berrios did have 12 starts in AAA last year. And if 3 starts this year, 1 with control, weren't good enough -- why did we call Berrios up to MLB when we did? Why call up Meyer after 3 games in AAA too, only to demote him immediately after one MLB start (in a week and a half on the roster)? Why call up Kepler after 2 games in AAA, only to demote him after 2 starts (in two weeks on the roster)? Why roster Buxton after only 13 games in AAA and a poor spring training (34% K rate)? Why call up Polanco after 32 career games in AAA, to only start him 4 times in 3 weeks? Looks to me like a pattern of desperation and hope, but no trust or plan to develop.

How does that look when a long-time "mom & pop" organization suddenly puts all their kids on the chopping block? That suggests to me that ownership doesn't have a clue how to do things or what to expect, and I wouldn't want to step into that. It's just another downside of being so conservative and insular for so many years -- you can't make a clean break from it while making it look like normal smart business activity.

"Hope they turn things around and maybe they can be traded in July." How much realistic benefit is that? It is incredibly unlikely that they will turn things around to anything meaningful. Fangraphs "coin flip mode" -- putting aside all of their projections and depth charts and everything, just flipping a coin 50/50 for the results of each remaining game, largely neutralizing the difference between good teams and bad -- gives them a 2.5% chance of making the postseason, far lower than anyone in baseball save the Braves (whose division mates currently have better records). They're not going to get any good return on trading these guys in July. Hughes, Santana, and Nolasco all have future years and millions on their contracts -- how often do those guys get dealt in July? Cole Hamels did, but he was an ace. (And even then, the Phillies had to include a big K reliever in Jake Diekman, eat Matt Harrison's contract in return, etc.) Dozier and his contract and recent track record are more of the same. Plouffe? You saw the market for third baseman last winter, it's unlikely to get better in July for a player of Plouffe's caliber. Arcia as he's about to hit arbitration, utility man Nunez, struggling Suzuki and Jepsen... these guys will not bring a meaningful trade return. Best case, TR reprises Doumit-for-Gilmartin and gets another fringe guy who will need 40 man protection soon. Worst case, this bunch does just enough through July to not boost their trade value, but "earn" additional playing time in August and September contrary to the other part of your plan. Do you really think the Twins will suddenly cut/trade/bench a pile of veterans on August 1st? Or even if they would, that somehow doing that would be a better strategy than working young players in where appropriate right now?

The big thing is the strikeouts. 8.5 K% in April 2016 was exceptional, and made him a much more effective hitter overall even without incredible power or BABIP. 23.1 K% in May so far. If that trend continues through the end of the month, his season K rate will have almost doubled, back to 15.7%, very near the same figures that sapped his effectiveness in 2014-2015.

Not really. Mauer moved to leadoff on May 10th. Here is his batting line for the 7 days prior to that: .133/.188/.133 (.321 OPS), 16 PA, 2 singles, 1 walk, 6 strikeouts. If anything, the move to leadoff might have been an attempt to help Mauer out of his mini-slump as much as it was to help Dozier, Santana, etc. Mauer's line since the move to leadoff has been more of the same: .167/.259/.167 (.426 OPS), 27 PA, 4 singles, 3 walks, 6 strikeouts.

The Twins will be making money regardless of whether Pohlad makes a change. Why would a decent businessman feel compelled to change in that case? And with no change, Pohlad can avoid all the difficult decisions/discussions with TR, St. Peter, Rob Antony, Molitor, Gardy, and the whole rest of the crew that he has known and operated beside for his entire Twins tenure. There is zero evidence so far that suggests Pohlad is going to meaningfully shake things up soon.

But if Berrios did bounce back, it would create a dilemma when Gibby returned. This season belongs to Gibby and Hughesie, anything we see out of Berrios or Meyer is apparently a bonus.

Well, it turns out we didn't even have to wait a few weeks for Kyle Gibson to come back, or veteran Phil Hughes to pitch better. Pat Dean in a mop-up performance was enough to send Berrios packing...

Centeno is actually a little better than that over his minor league career. But, that's not particularly noteworthy for a minor league hitter, even a catcher. Minor league career numbers Centeno: .278/.327/.339 (.666 OPS) Fryer: .269/.357/.396 (.753 OPS) John Hicks: .283/.329/.412 (.741 OPS) It's better than Butera's minor league line, for sure (.214/.291/.317, .607 OPS), but virtually any fungible AAA catcher exceeds that standard too. Heck, here was Eric Fryer's career MAJOR league line entering this season (before his hot start with the Cardinals): .243/.329/.336 (.665 OPS)

Eric Fryer, first 6 games as a Twin (17 PA): .385/.500/.692 (1.192 OPS) Juan Centeno, first 5 games as a Twin (16 PA): .467/.500/.800 (1.300 OPS) Drew Butera, first 4 games this season (11 PA): .400/.455/.700 (1.155 OPS) Henry Blanco, first 8 games as a Twin (29 PA): .364/.500/.909 (1.409 OPS) Eric Fryer, first 17 PA as a Cardinal: .467/.529/.600 (1.129 OPS) Centeno is on a little hot streak, and we don't have any better options to start at the moment, but there is virtually nothing we can read further into this performance thus far.

Buxton had 113 days service time entering the season, and got about 22 more before his demotion. So, roughly 135 days. A full season of service time is defined as 172 days. So we would have to keep him under ~37 days on the MLB roster for the rest of this season in order to gain an extra year of team control (assuming he isn't demoted much in 2017 or beyond). So if we want him to finish the season up here in September, we pretty much couldn't call him up before August 27th or so if we want that extra year of control. It might be difficult to keep him down that long. At his present level of 135 days service, he's right around the threshold for Super 2 status, meaning even if doesn't spend another day in MLB this year, he may be eligible for the first of 4 arbitration awards after the 2018 season.

I'm not really a basketball guy, but it seems like while Thibodeau is an encouraging hire, he is something less than an elite hire, like Hoyer as GM would represent. (Or Maddon as manager would have represented last winter.) Thibodeau was fired from his last coaching job less than a year ago. Does he even have any front office experience? And it's a lot harder to hand over complete control of a baseball franchise than it is for a basketball franchise. How big is a pro basketball organization? All Taylor really had to do was give Thibodeau the same job that Saunders already had and displace an interim coach. And there's a salary cap. Pohlad would have to push Ryan out, possibly St Peter and others, the new hire might have to push out Molitor, the field staff, more front office staff, etc. And without a salary cap, any new hire is invariably going to ask for assurances about payroll budget, which Pohlad may provide verbally but might not be convincing due to our record in the matter.

Thanks for the link, I was unaware of the part-ownership offer. The quotes from MacPhail not only show why he left, though, but also illustrate a lot of the front office deficiencies that have been on display here in more recent years: "It would have been safe and secure, financially and reputation-wise, to stay in a small market and wring my hands and say, `Oh, gee, there's only so much we can do here. Isn't it a shame?' " says MacPhail. "But security and comfort aren't exactly what you should be aspiring to at 41."

Hoyer already had that opportunity, to some degree, in San Diego for several years. It appears he put a priority on working with preferred colleagues and under aggressive ownership when he moved to Chicago. Going to Minnesota would almost be a backwards career move for him. Pohlad would have to do a complete 180 degree turn on finances and "loyalty" to even get Hoyer to listen here, I think, and the suddenness of such a turn would suggest a lack of confidence and a great degree of instability by itself. Like a boyfriend that quits his job and moves his home to convince you he's a stable partner. I'm not even sure there is anything that Pohlad could do or say in the next 6 months to convince a new GM that they would really, truly have the level of control and resources they want.

To take on the investment analogy: Making an investment in Rule 5 is pretty cheap. All you need to get started is an open 40-man roster spot for a few months in the offseason (and $50k, of which you can later recover $25k, which is all loose change in MLB). It's like buying a penny stock, or a cheap lotto ticket. We likely had to sacrifice another penny stock at the time (Gilmartin, or another Rule 5 pick), but that modest level of player is generally an acceptable risk. However, once the season starts, you have to increase your investment in that Rule 5 stock. A 25-man roster spot is valuable, and becomes even more valuable if you are in contention through the summer months (i.e. 2015 Twins, and not 2013 Twins and Pressly, or 2000 Twins and Johan). I'm not a finance guy, but this is a little like a company demanding a "cash call" on investors throughout the season. And the Twins chose not to take a common route for avoiding some of those cash calls by failing to put Graham on the DL (except for the last 5 days before expanded September rosters). And unlike some Rule 5 penny stocks, like Delino DeShields or even Gilmartin last year, Graham provided virtually zero present-day value to help offset the investment (and arguably negative benefit, considering the clear area of need -- bullpen -- where he occupied his spot). The good news is, once that first season is out of the way, the "cash calls" basically stop. You've got the stock, you can option it, stash it in the minors freely all for the original low price of the 40-man roster spot. You might lose another penny stock (Zach Jones), you might have to pass on buying another similar penny stock again in the next Rule 5 draft, but those are still not great costs compared to what you just invested all season. So great, the big investment is out of the way! Graham's future costs are negligible now; even a modest gain in value is a net positive from this point in time. Except one month into the second season, the Twins basically sold the stock for their original penny back, without even having another stock or lotto ticket ready to invest in. Losing all the extra "cash calls" they invested in it, losing the opportunity to cheaply gain any more future value. I get the concept of "cutting your losses" but we didn't do that here -- our "losses" with Graham were largely already done, having been accumulated last season and the past two winters. We had practically nothing left to lose by keeping him on the 40-man for awhile longer, probably until November or so. All told, while Graham will likely not amount to much or be missed from a performance standpoint, and it is generally a worthwhile risk to add or lose a Rule 5 pick, we quite possibly mismanaged the whole thing to make Graham one of the costliest Rule 5 picks in all of history. Give the modest nature of Rule 5 value, it probably still doesn't rise to the level of, say, some of our MLB contract extensions, failures to acquire better catchers, relievers, etc., but it's definitely notable.

The original post you replied to said "I'd like to see Hughes to the bullpen or the DL but realistically I see Berries getting sent back down." Who were you referring to, with the small sample comment?

Fair enough. Although if Berrios and Hughes still have comparable ERAs when Gibson returns, I wouldn't be shocked if Berrios was sent down. Or maybe they'd carry 6 starters, perhaps even skipping Berrios at times to limit his innings. I think they really don't want to send Hughes to the pen. Not only did they give him that contract extension, but I think they got him on his original fair deal by promising him a rotation spot (a promise which the extension backed up financially). Hughes is owed twice the guaranteed money of Nolasco, and we saw the hand-wringing the team did with Nolasco's rotation spot back in March. $13.2 mil in each of 2017, 2018, and 2019.

It's a distinction without a difference, as far as it relates to an internet baseball discussion.