Otto von Ballpark

Mainly due to injury -- he missed over a month of action right before that. I hope you are right, but I think Hughes has at least 3 weeks left in the rotation (assuming that's how long it takes Gibson to come back, nobody gets hurt in between, and Berrios has improved by then). He's got a much longer leash than Milone. Meyer alone will not be enough to bounce Hughes from the rotation.

Why wait? Nolasco's not becoming meaningfully more trade-able in 4 weeks. If you just want his rotation spot, just move him to the pen today, or use his next few starts to stretch out May at the MLB level. And you still have Dean and Kintzler on the 25-man who could be painlessly switched out when Gibson returns, you want to promote Meyer, etc. Well, I guess Kintzler is out of options, but it shouldn't be a great pain to expose him to waivers. I think Nolasco might still have a place among this team's top 12-13 pitchers. Not quite enough health or more prospects knocking down the door for me to cut him yet, but I would have no problem with stashing him in the pen to get starting looks at May and Meyer.

The Twins obviously didn't care about what kind of groove Meyer was in for his first start, so why should they now? I guess I could give him one more Rochester tune-up, but if he's healthy enough to pitch, there's pretty much nothing that he or Hughes could do in one start that would change my mind about who should take the next turn.

Well, Meyer was buried and then quickly demoted before the report shoulder fatigue, so it's probably not the reason they'd hold him back now. I'd be surprised if he was recalled again after a Rochester tune-up. I'd love to hear a Twins official take on Trevor May right now. They always gave lip service to him remaining a starter long-term, and I don't think we'll ever find a more perfect opportunity to try him back there, with one starter on the DL and one more needing a move to the pen himself.

Despite being "solid for years", Milone was optioned by Oakland in 2014 and again by the Twins in 2015. He had a history of being demoted, even by the Twins, before this season. Not so for Hughes or Nolasco. Which could be a function of their contracts too, but in any case, should indicate that they are not equally movable pieces.

I think you are missing the point. Obviously in any kind of backwards-looking, season-long analysis, it is impossible to blame a single event or player for the team falling short of a season goal. There are tons of players and events in a season, and we don't have a time machine. No one is disputing that. And it's further difficult to blame unexpected poor performances in a particular game from a particular player -- we may know a guy is a 3.00 ERA reliever, but we don't know when that one 3 run inning out of 9 will occur. However, Graham was not just any "particular player" participating in normal reliever functions at an expected overall performance level. He was a Rule 5 pick, which can have value, but in this particular case, did not appear to offer much if any present-day value, which became clearer as the summer wore on. He was an interesting risk at the beginning of the season, when our likelihood of contention was low, but as our odds of contention climbed in May and remained high the rest of the season, and as Graham's performance and the team's trust in him waned, the calculus changed. Graham's game-entering leverage index for the season was 0.48, which as far as I can tell was the lowest mark for any full-season reliever in all of MLB. Rostering that kind of player all season put us at a disadvantage compared to the teams with whom we were competing. How many close games did we lose when we were deploying relievers sub-optimally because we had Graham occupying a spot? Other relievers forced to pitch longer, more frequently, and in less ideal match ups than a team with a fully usable pen? And then August 18th, when we apparently ran out of relievers and inserted him into the 4th highest reliever leverage appearance of the season. Even if you wanted a mop-up man available for some games, permanently locking Graham into that role was much worse than being able to recall and demote one as needed. And Graham's suspect performance likely restricted what situations he was even able to effectively "mop up" -- pitching fewer than 60 innings, well less than Swarzak's recent marks in that role. Did other, better relievers have to pitch in borderline mop-up situations because Graham couldn't, which impacted their availability and effectiveness in other games? And Graham was probably such a poor mop-up man that he wasn't considered a reasonable candidate for a spot start anymore on August 14th, which went to May instead, which left May unavailable for relief duty for some days after and forced us on August 18th to turn instead to Graham in a key spot... Ugh. Sorry for the rant. Bad memories. In any case, I hope this illustrates that while we'll never be able to say "conclusively" that Graham and his Rule 5 status prevented us from making the playoffs, it was one of the largest preventable factors that could have easily netted us a few additional wins. And the fact that the one benefit from it -- the right to retain Graham and option him freely for 3 years -- we cast aside for virtually nothing after one month, it was not only a preventable factor, but one the team likely foresaw but failed to act on when it could have given us a positive benefit (much more positive than that open 40-man roster spot is today).

Yes, but he had some shoulder fatigue in a bullpen session, so he has yet to appear in a game for them. He's expected to start some time this week, though (their probable starters are all TBD beginning Tuesday). Personally, barring a return to the rotation for Trevor May, I'd love to see Meyer start in place of Hughes tomorrow night. Hughes would probably be more useful out of the pen than Pat Dean too.

"Fairly short sample size"? Phil Hughes has 196 career games started, 1122 IP, and a career 109 ERA- (100 is average, higher is worse) as a starter. He's at 119 since the beginning of last year (32 GS). He has been better than 99 ERA- as a starter in exactly one season in his entire career: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2016&month=0&season1=2006&ind=1&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=7450&sort=1,d Also, better than 98 FIP- once, and better than 100 xFIP- once. All the same magical 2014 season, as you may have guessed. I don't necessarily think he'll be quite this bad (158 ERA- so far in 2016) going forward, but he has a pretty large sample of demonstrated mediocrity as a starting pitcher. A decision to shift him to the pen right now would not be based on a "fairly short sample size."

Frankly, while Gibson's return is still a few weeks off, you can make a strong case for May or Meyer to take Hughes' spot right now.

According to this report, Gibson has thrown off a mound, and is set to throw his third bullpen session today: http://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/baseball/news/twins-kyle-gibson-set-for-another-bullpen-session-monday/ But you are correct on the latter point, that he will need a rehab assignment, although I am not sure it would necessarily be "extended".

That's fine, but it still admits a pretty massive, obvious "mistake of last year". And they have yet to replace Graham on the 40-man, and the guy most likely to take the spot in the near future is Buddy Boshers. (And we still have other dead weight on the 40-man too, so it's not like Graham was blocking Boshers anyway.) Why the rush to cut him right now? They seem awfully certain that Graham is hopeless now. And coming from the brain trust that believed Graham was a present-day bullpen asset as late as August 18th last year, I'm a little skeptical of their decision-making process...

A lot of teams don't make Rule 5 picks. And most teams that find themselves in contention don't roster a non-contributing Rule 5 pick all season. What exactly is your point? Simply put, the Twins screwed up by rostering Graham all season if they had so little confidence in his future that they'd cut him this quickly. The Angels probably screwed up too by rostering Taylor Featherston all season -- they only fell 1 win short of a playoff game, and they likewise dealt Featherston this spring for "cash or PTBNL" (presumably a modest amount of cash, probably equivalent to a waiver fee). Although at least the Angels weren't bringing Featherston into key game situations in August, like the Twins did with Graham. And at least they tried to immediately add a player to replace him on the 40-man roster, unlike the Twins just now with Graham (the Twins still rocking 39 guys on the 40-man roster).

Not only that -- they could have stashed him on the DL for a good portion of last year. (They did DL him briefly, but not until August 26th when it was practically meaningless with the rosters expanding in 5 days.) If they have such little confidence that they would cut him for no appreciable gain right now, then why did they insist on keeping him as part of a beleaguered bullpen during a pennant race first? I remember Graham coming in with the bases loaded, 7th inning to face A-Rod on August 18th, protecting a 3 run lead. Mind-boggling by itself, but even moreso if the team didn't even want him once his Rule 5 restrictions were gone. What exactly were they doing with him?

Thanks for the info. The 60% split salary is interesting. A player can't be optioned then immediately DFA'd, though: "A player on Optional Assignment to the minors must be "Recalled - Not to Report" before he can be Designated for Assignment. The player continues to be paid and the player accrues MLB Service Time for the entire period of time he is Designated for Assignment during the MLB regular season." http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3535 I agree that the 10 day window should be shortened, but I still think you exaggerating the effects. Putting extra roster/time requirements on DFA acquisitions would only make it easier for them to slip off the 40-man roster. I suspect if you gave these guys the right to declare FA, most probably wouldn't -- it would be very difficult to be a fringe player and be a FA mid season, especially if you come with higher salary requirements. Teams will be more willing to quickly make room for a waiver claim (or trade) acquisition, than a marginal free agent. Teams may also pass on claiming a player or trading for him, essentially pressuring him to opt for free agency so they can acquire him at better terms and according to their schedule. Again, the process should be sped up, but I think it is a stretch to say it "hurts careers" versus the alternative ways to be removed from a roster.

Do you have a cite for that? I hadn't heard that before (that he would get the same salary whether he was on the 40 man or not). The quote you provided doesn't indicate that at all, only specifying his salary while he is on the 40-man. The "chunk" Graham lost to thr DFa process was a week. A week for which he got the MLB minimum salary, probably north of $20k just for that week alone, over 6 times what he would have made in the minor leagues during that time. Also, by staying on a 40 man roster with the Yankees, Graham has greatly improved his chances for a return trip to MLB this season, if not as an emergency/26th man situation with NY, then getting claimed by another team in need if/when they try to pass him through waivers again. Had he cleared waivers and been outrighted by the Twins, he would have been minor league chattel of the Twins for the rest of the season, who would have little incentive to add him back to the roster quickly, and his services would not be readily available to other clubs. I can't imagine a situation where a player would prefer to get dropped from a 40-man roster if another team was willing to claim them, even if only temporarily.

He wasn't DFA'd to add anybody better (or perhaps anybody, given the open spot on the 40-man). I am not sure anyone was advocating Graham be cut just for the sake of cutting him.

Add the journeymen. It appears there is no shortage of guys on the 40-man the Twins are willing to cut loose (and they haven't even touched perhaps the most likely drop candidate, the uber-blocked, struggling, and nearly out of options Vargas).

FYI, the game today is on Fox Sports 1.

But why dump Graham with an open spot on the 40 man roster, no one needing an immediate add, and at least Mastro, Vargas and probably Dean available for painless removal at any time? Not to mention Perkins being in 60 day DL territory (I notice the Yankees put someone on the 60 day DL to make room for Graham). And our bullpen still largely lousy overall. Seems a weird time to make a definitive judgement on Graham, for no appreciable gain.

I don't know. Meyer is still one of our better prospects, just demoted, and could be Rochester's ace again. You'd think someone would have some interest in reporting on his week-plus absence, if only to keep on top of his return timetable. Also, it is apparently due to a shoulder issue, which shut him down in both 2013 and 2014, which seems notable.

Not sure why you'd need to, but you could send May down for less than 20 days and he wouldn't burn an option year.

Berardino and Neal confirmed Meyer's situation when asked on Twitter, but to my knowledge, no, no one has actually reported it anywhere. Which is a little strange in and of itself.

Hey, the Braves are 6-8 on the road, and the Twins are 6-10 at home. Put those together and you've got a not-quite-so-terrible 12-18 team!

The Braves did win at home back on April 19th too. Although every team they had played at home had beaten them at least twice -- I suppose that is what you are referring to? They've only played 7 different teams at home, though, so technically there are a bunch of teams tied with zero wins in Atlanta. Actually, with Philadephia's win on Thursday, every team that has played there this year now has at least 2 wins in Atlanta, so the Braves are still "tied for last" in that group. Until Wednesday, the Braves were also #3 in wins this year at Wrigley Field, behind the Cubs and Rockies (!). The Padres pushed them down to #4 with a doubleheader sweep, though.

I didn't mean to suggest that 40-man space would be an issue. Just that if Burdi was required to be added after this season anyway, they might add him later just for a few innings in September or whatever, regardless of his minor league performance or how healthy his season is. Because, they'd have to add him anyway. But without that, I think it would take an exceptional turnaround to get him to Minnesota this year. No sense getting him up here early if he's not pitching well and there are lingering concerns about his arm. Of course, if he can address those concerns over the next couple months, that obviously changes things, but that would probably represent an exceptional turnaround from where is at the present moment.