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
    Actually Young never struck out that much. Probably would have been a lot easier to evaluate if he did. As it was, after his low minors success, he coasted on a fairly empty batting average and RBIs most of the time.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    As hitters, I'd agree, but as base stealers, Mastro would have the clear edge. And the Twins roster as currently constructed could have more use for a pinch running specialist than the modest bat of a reserve outfielder who shouldn't play much anyway. Once Buxton is in CF (a predicate of this point, discussing Sweeney as a 4th/5th OF), if Sano is still in RF, with Rosario and Kepler, and perhaps even Arcia, Santana, and Walker still lurking around, the marginal benefit of Sweeney's bat on his rare opportunities to play would be minimal. It's not hard to envision a good pinch runner being more useful. Not that I endorse either Sweeney or Mastro at this point. I'd prefer neither on the opening day roster, and would probably only entertain promoting them if they had a strong couple months in AAA and we still have an opening.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    A lot higher, really? Sweeney is on a minor league deal, following a season of 79 wRC+ and then a season of not playing at all. Ask Jason Bartlett how that worked out. I don't think it's at all clear that Sweeney could out-hit Buxton on April 1st, in which case the deciding factor should probably be upside and future. Now, if one is determined to get Buxton more AAA reps, I understand, but it's still not clear Sweeney as a placeholder would be worth the 25 and 40 man roster machinations required to add him for opening day over, say, shifting Rosario to CF or even using Danny Santana there a bit. Sweeney is here on a minor league deal, presumably with the standard veteran June 1st opt out, and there is a reason for that -- he's probably not ready for opening day or to be evaluated properly based on spring training results alone.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    How were past RBIs meaningful to Young's future, though? That was the context of the discussion. Combined with Rob Antony's preference for RBIs over slugging percentage dated 2010, and the very high cost of players we surrendered in the trade, and I think that's pretty strong circumstantial evidence that RBIs (and games played, batting average, the sound of the ball of his bat, etc.) were probably given outsized importance in the Twins evaluation of Young at the time of the trade.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Tonkin moved up to AAA in May 2013. All of those listed pitched a considerable amount with the Twins beyond that point. Actually all but Roenicke pitched plenty with the Twins in 2014-2015 ahead of Tonkin, I suppose I could have left him out of this specific example and restricted it to just those two years.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Pretty sure you wouldn't have heard crickets if Danny Santana had even come close to repeating his historic .405 BABIP in 2015...
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Fangraphs also has Sano as a league average defensive RF and Byung Ho Park as a top 50 hitter in all of MLB. And despite Suzuki projected for 100 more PA than Murphy (which I'd say is actually fairly likely), they still have Twins catchers at a cumulative 2.0 WAR, versus the 0.2 WAR from that position last year. It's the nature of projections. It's not advisable to only discount the pessimistic ones.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Interesting, thanks! It appears they also valued Delmon's durability, even though he was accumulating negative value...
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Of course, he was a 79 the last time he played, and then missed a full season. Like Quentin, I don't think anyone should be comfortable giving that guy a 25-man roster spot to begin the season, there's almost no way for spring training to indicate it's worth clearing room on the 25-man and 40-man that quickly.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    My fear is they thought Jepsen alone was enough to fix it. That seems more in keeping with their approach throughout, starting with how they assembled it to begin 2015, their relatively slow promotions, past commitments to cheap low upside vets, etc. As opposed to the argument that they were inactive this winter because they knew a bunch of stud prospects were about to emerge.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    Top 10, perhaps, as those are often the only guys with projectable superstar upside. But by #50, the marginal difference between each successive prospect is much, much smaller, and thus quantity can easily overtake "quality" (as measured by rank, anyway). Take a look at these BA lists, just eyeballing it, but the upside / success rate between 40-60 and 80-100 isn't all that different most years: https://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/all-time Without knowing specifics, you would certainly be better off with 5 prospects ranked between 85-100 than with one prospect ranked #48 as the original poster said.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    How about the 'stache? http://www.milb.com/assets/images/1/6/8/117025168/cuts/Benson_Joe_4b3bc4vg_fcq6600e.jpg
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    Not quite. He had a ~160 ISO in AAA, and a ~3% walk rate. That's not mashing given his profile and his success at A/AA, that's regression. He was the #1 prospect in baseball because he was a #1 pick who mashed at A and AA, but the more he played at AAA and MLB, his rank actually dropped. By the time the Twins traded for him, he was a full 2 years removed from being #1. Brendan Harris, Dioner Navarro, and Akinori Iwamura were just a few of the Rays that had higher isolated power figures than Young that previous season. And Young didn't show any positive progression either, his isolated power actually steadily dropped from his first taste of MLB in 2006, to his first half in 2007, to the second half of 2007. (Add Josh Wilson and Greg Norton to the list of Rays players who showed more power in the second half of 2007 than Delmon Young.) By the time the Twins traded for him, it was abundantly clear he needed fixing. Which given his pedigree might have been a defensible gamble in a straight-up Garza-Young swap, but that's not the trade we made. The Twins traded for Young as if his previous season didn't exist (or more likely, put outsized importance on those 93 RBI as rookie).
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    What do you think Ryan would have said about Pinto before he got DFA'd? Probably that he would have a chance to win a spot in spring training. Not sure how meaningful that statement is. Tonkin in particular seems close to that Pinto path -- as you note, the Twins have never shown any great interest in rostering him before, so why would that suddenly change when he is out of options? The Twins aren't that afraid of cutting young players they are suspicious of (Pinto, Parmelee, Benson, etc.). Arcia would be the next least likely to make it -- they liked him well enough in 2013-2014, but seemed to bury him pretty quickly last year. Some of that was due to injury, but they are also going to factor in projected health in their decision, so it's still relevant. Santana is obviously the most likely, due to his positional flexibility and having most recently gotten the endorsement of the MLB staff (remember they were playing Santana ahead of Escobar as late as July last year).
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    But I'll be darned if we can find any fault with the Twins allocating relief innings to the likes of Roenicke, Duensing, Swarzak, Deduno, Guerrier, Stauffer, and Thompson over the past few years...
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Just found this when searching. Actually, Clippard will make $6.125 mil over each of the next 2 seasons, so this statement could still be technically correct.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    The Twins were keeping Jepsen no matter what, they weren't trading those prospects for a 2 month reliever rental. The Twins are effectively getting 8 months of Jepsen for ~$6.3 mil plus prospects, and Arizona has committed $12 mil for 12 months of Clippard. They're similar commitments. Had the Twins not acquired Jepsen at the deadline, Clippard on this deal would be greeted quite well on this board. And even in a year of iffy peripherals, both Clippard and Jepsen fetched interesting SP prospects in trade just a few months ago too. I think you might be overstating how red the flags are on these two at this point (and how much $12 mil buys in modern MLB). Also, note that MLBTR predicted Clippard to get a 3/18 deal. (The TD Offseason Handbook went nuts and predicted 4/44 for him! Still think that was crazy.) Sometimes guys deviate from that due to real issues, but sometimes it's just the market and their preferences. For 2/12, it's probably worth it a team with a bullpen opening to find out if he can perform more like that estimated 3/18 guy, or the $8.3 mil arb award guy from 2014.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Oh, and how about Jepsen? One can certainly make a case for preferring Jepsen, but it's not like there is a wide gulf between him and Clippard. And when you consider the prospects we gave up, we're effectively making a similar commitment as Arizona here. Again, I'd probably take Jepsen too, but just giving this deal some more context than simply saying "it's too much". It's really not.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    One season doesn't seem to equal "closer and closer." Maybe just "closer"? Like I said, he wasn't at the top of my list, I honestly haven't looked at him much at all. I would have targeted a Lowe, or a lefty, or a trade. But I doubt the Twins were really kicking the tires on this guy or anyone else, they made up their mind before the winter they weren't signing anyone for more than 1/4 or whatever and they stuck to their guns. It seems kinda pointless to dissect relievers and their deals as if the Twins were actively considering them. Of all Arizona's recent lousy moves, this isn't really one of them. This seems like a reasonable deal if you plan to contend and have an immediate need for a RHP with some upside.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    By B-Ref WAR, Clippard has been at 1.2 or greater 6 of the last 7 seasons, which is pretty remarkable. If he had better peripherals last year, he would have gotten a heck of a lot more than 2/12, he could have been closer to O'Day money. He is 31 years old this year, and just a year removed from a 6 season stretch of 10.4 K/9 pitching. What you call "trending in the wrong direction" could just be a solid buy-low opportunity. He wasn't near the top of my FA wish list, but I doubt Arizona will regret this modest deal.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    But remember, Rob Antony was on record as preferring RBIs to slugging percentage a full two years after the Delmon deal. I think it is highly likely the Twins were overrating Delmon's rookie batting line. Also, it wasn't just a Delmon for Garza swap. That would have been better than the actual trade, which saw Bartlett (a capable starting shortstop) swapped for a utility guy too. There's no question in my mind that the Twins thought they were getting a lot more than a change of scenery guy in Delmon.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    Just noticed this: http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3511 Note that "Article XX-B" free agents are those with 6 years service time, like Quentin. Does not apply to Abad or Kintzler, who only have 4 years service each. So sending Quentin to the minors to open the season would cost the Twins $100k, obviously less than what his MLB salary would be ($750k) but it is another amount the Twins could include in their calculations, particularly if they really think they might roster Quentin by June 1st and cut another player in that time anyway. Although I still think the opt out date is more important, and as he was apparently unable to negotiate that to an earlier date, I don't think we have much to worry about here yet.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Thanks for the stats! Duffey absolutely destroyed batters the first time through the order. By the second time through the order, he was below league average, and by the third time through the order he was pretty bad, although it was somewhat masked by luck, a fairly quick hook, and some help from his pen (9 of 11 runners stranded). Easily the Twins worst starter last year, in terms of opponent OPS 3rd time through the order: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/split_stats_team.cgi?full=1&params=times%7C3rd%20PA%20in%20G%2C%20as%20SP%7CMIN%7C2015%7Cpitch%7CAB%7C#3rd_PA_in_G,_as_SP1::18
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm referring to the Fangraphs projection.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Problem is, Park's PAs primarily come at the expense of 4 players: Sano, Arcia, Mauer, and Vargas. With Park, those are our top 5 hitters by projected wOBA, hence re-allocating PAs from them to Park doesn't move the needle much.
×
×
  • Create New...