Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    Yes. The 2013 rotation play was desperately devoid of upside. It screamed for Kazmir or at least a Liriano replacement. Looking back, Burton in 2012 could have fetched a return not unlike Jepsen did last summer. Nothing great, but almost certainly better than extending him through rebuilding seasons and delaying that opportunity. Perkins was probably signed with the understanding he wouldn't be flipped, so I'm less critical of holding onto him. In any case, more Burtons or Fiens in those years, or Uehara's or Andrew Miller's or even Liam Hendriks, instead of Grays, Roenickes, Guerriers, etc. would have been advisable.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    Agreed, given what the Twins were offering those years, adding cash wasn't going to sweeten the return. The more interesting idea was that of taking on other teams bad contracts to add potential assets. Although a willingness to eat salary probably could have cleared roster spots earlier. Not a huge deal, as we often weren't overloaded with internal replacements, but potentially relevant at times, i.e. Corriea who stayed on our roster into August when his starts could have been going to May and/or Meyer much earlier. True, we could have simply cut Deduno or Pino earlier, but I like the idea of trying to find hidden value in them as well as developing future value in May and Meyer. Casting aside a no-future player like Correia, even if we have to eat some salary, is clearly the best option of those 3 for a team like the 2014 Twins. Holding on to him until we can offload his remaining salary too doesn't seem to offer much present or future benefit.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah, we are pretty much already hearing from folks about how we need to conserve our money to pay Buxton, Sano, and Berrios. (Ignoring the fact that they won't make anything until 2019 at the earliest, at which point every current contract will be off our books except Hughes' last remaining guarantee of $12 mil in 2019 -- actually, I wish someone in the Twins front office had used this excuse to block the Hughes extension...)
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah. From 2012-2014, the Twins seemed to be committed to getting low-variability immediate performance results from their FA investments. Sometimes that is defensible to add some stability or fill out a roster, but it doesn't seem wise as an exclusive FA strategy, especially during rebuilding years.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    FYI, Martin just posted arguably the second-best hitting season of his career. A relative decline from his outlier career year of 2014 but not really a "sign of decline" as you apply the term. McCann too has been about as good/valuable in his first two years with NY as he was in his last 2 years with Atlanta -- again, a relative decline from his long-ago Braves peak but not really any kind of strong recent decline you could accurately project into 2016. And there is plenty of reason to believe they will both be better in 2018 than 67 OPS+ replacement level performers like Suzuki in 2015. Their 2015 performances at the plate were both better than Suzuki's peak. I doubt you'd see a long-term projection that would be that pessimistic about their outlook for 2018. (I know PECOTA used to offer long-term projections, but I'm not a BP subscriber so I can't tell.)
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    With the Santana, Hunter, and Suzuki contracts, plus the $42 mil "bonus" for Phil Hughes after his first season in Minnesota, it doesn't take a whole lot of hindsight to see expectations for 2015 were quite a bit different than 2012-2014. I don't have any real quibble with total payroll or big FA pursuits, although I think the team is picking some odd spots to selectively stay tight-budget-minded even as they return to relevance (i.e. the bullpen).
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    How are those contracts similar? All for 4 years, but Nolasco is $4.5 mil AAV ahead of O'Day's deal, and Santana is a full $6 mil AAV ahead. If $9 mil is large enough to block an addition to a hypothetical 2018 star-studded team, isn't a $4.5-$6 mil AAV contract difference pretty important?
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Just FYI, but $9 mil (and O'Days $7.75 mil AAV) isn't that much in modern MLB. It should never prevent you from signing the final piece like your 2018 hypothetical, and frankly shouldn't prevent you from betting against PECOTA in what's expected to be a tight division in 2016. And the Twins seemed to be drawing a hard line well south of that this winter, without a rumored offer or strong rumored interest in any reliever beyond a $4 mil total commitment.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    But didn't they shut him down from playing at all this winter, to focus on controlling his weight by other means? Regular season defensive game time seems like a relatively small percentage of a player's total exercise. Couldn't they have achieved the same thing by giving him a lot of practice reps in the outfield, but only an occasional start? Or, for a fraction of Park's $24 mil, they could have given Sano a contract with weight clause bonuses, no? Reusse suggested on his radio show that Sano's original signing bonus has been largely depleted and he might respond well to financial incentives (would be curious if we've talked long-term deal with him yet).
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    I think focusing on a lefty obscures the issue. The Twins had plenty need for another good reliever, regardless of throwing hand.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    Agreed. And I think it's important to note that most folks aren't saying Fien had to be non-tendered, but rather Fien is the type of guy, and in the type of role, where he can be pushed down for a better acquisition, or pushed out by a up-and-coming prospect as needed. Instead, I get the impression that the Twins have had Fien locked into their pen untouchables group this whole time, which is the kind of decision that increases your risk of repeating last year's middling pen.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    Jepsen is a free agent after the season. If we're out of contention, he's a perfect July trade candidate too. Fien's arb award might outstrip his production by next winter as well. Perkins is only guaranteed through 2017, and should be aggressively DL'ed based on the results of the past two seasons. And since the context of the original comment was cutting veterans during this season, I think it's fair to include Abad since he is very likely to be a veteran making the opening day roster. And perhaps Nolasco too, as he could be Edwin Jackson circa 2015, just biding time at the bottom of then pen until his release. That's 5 of the 7 current commonly projected opening day bullpen spots. The other is May, and finally Tonkin who doesn't seem to have much future here regardless (twice demoted in favor of Tim Stauffer in 2015). In all likelihood, this is the only spot in play for youngsters in early 2016, regardless of whether or not we upgraded one of the 5-6 aforementioned veteran spots. There's just no logic to resisting a reliever acquisition this winter due to perceived inflexibility. (Not to mention there were relievers guaranteed only one year in the trade market where we did not appear particularly active either, like Benoit, Storen, and technically even K Rod.)
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    Hey, Alex Meyer pitched two and two-thirds innings in the majors last year! But I agree generally, he almost certainly should have been up in September for the additional experience alone if he was a real candidate to break camp with the club this year. Would have been nice to see him in that meaningless game 162 I attended....
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    Actually, Stauffer was used exclusively as a mop-up reliever (and spot starter) in San Diego, that was my issue with the signing. His gmLI figures for his three relief seasons there: .77, .85, .68. Combined with the promise to let him try starting, he was almost certainly signed to fill a role not worth filling with a guaranteed free agent deal given our internal options at the time. Which is very much different than looking at our projected top half of the bullpen for opening day 2016, where any mid-tier relievers acquired this winter would have slotted.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    The DL time is a bit of a smokescreen, as I doubt the Twins would have cut Stauffer a month earlier without the DL stint. They generally don't make moves like that until June at the earliest, and that's with epically bad performance and injury. The Duensing example shows they are more than willing to continue rostering a healthy middling performer much longer than that.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    No one was predicting Bastardo would sign for 1/4 or whatever the Twins were rumored to offer. I think it's an insult to the Twins to suggest they were predicting that. It's far more likely the Twins just didn't want to use that route for upgrading the team, for whatever the reason. Wouldn't be the first time.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    Mauer actually struck out at a lower rate in 2015 than he did in either 2014 or 2013. How could TR have been surprised by that rate? It's possible he hoped the rate would go down further in 2015, but the result hardly seems to merit surprise. I brought up the counting stat thing because it's the only way the statement made any sense -- Mauer set a career high in strikeouts in 2015, going into triple digits for the first time in his career. With the move to 1B, Mauer setting a new career high in playing time shouldn't have been that surprising either, but again, those raw numbers seem relatively more "surprising" in 2015 than the rates.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    That sounds reasonable, but it wasn't quite what was being alleged upthread, that clearly the Twins view Murphy as better than Suzuki right now. I think he has a chance to be better, but as you say, he's going to have to prove it in April/May/June, and he might be handicapped by only playing once or twice a week in that time too. That's not how you'd treat someone you knew was better than the starter right now, that's how you treat a backup that you hope will someday become better than the starter.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    Unfortunately not since the last time TR signed him.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    Funny, it was a line from my post, taken woefully out of context, that inspired this hijack. I chose not to respond to the out-of-context response, and I recommend the same action for others.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah, what was the popular theory behind Suzuki's modest improvement in August/September last year? His worst months were June and July, and he clearly wasn't getting played less after that. Maybe he's just a ~.640 OPS true talent hitter at this point in his career, with the usual random variations above and below that mark. Seems more likely than the idea that he's really a .700 OPS hitter dragged down by a lack of off days.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    8 K/9 as a rookie starter in 2015 was "simply a younger version of Pelfrey"? Also, May was kept in the MLB rotation over Milone for a stretch last year too, which suggest they like him quite a bit as a starter, but his stuff plays better in the bullpen than most of our other starters. I think the same might eventually happen for Duffey -- actually, looking at his splits the second and third time through the order in 2015, I suspect Duffey might soon "earn" a spot in the bullpen more than May ever did.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    The Twins have apparently communicated poorly with veterans before (Pelfrey, now Mauer?), and have also underestimated deficiencies before, not sure why you'd jump to these assumptions now, that they are assessing and handling things behind the scenes perfectly in line with our opinions. Also, I didn't mean that Murphy was only marginally better than Fryer or Herrmann. The Twins probably think he's got a much better future or they wouldn't have sought him out at that price. However, that says nothing about them displacing Suzuki right away, maybe in 2017 while spelling Suzuki more than a strict backup would in the meantime. Maybe this situation is different, and they really do think Murphy can displace Suzuki right away, but there is virtually zero public evidence of it at this point. It is more wishcasting right now.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't expect him to name Murphy the starter in February either, but if there was any chance of him being named the starter in April, I imagine he'd be talking about competition right now. And I don't know why you'd assume they think Murphy is better than Suzuki, at this point. Again, wouldn't they say it was an open competition then? The only thing I'd assume at this point is they think Murphy is better than Herrmann (and Pinto, and Fryer), probably significantly so.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    I'd say there is nothing surprising about the Molitor statement either, and in fact the Twins may have artificially limited their catcher search this winter because they didn't want to displace Suzuki as starter. (Not that I think there were many starting options available.)
×
×
  • Create New...