Otto von Ballpark

Is it that frequent? Seems like most of the time, the injury or surgery happens before this point (Baker, Diamond, Nathan, etc.). I think pitchers get babied the next couple months. Unless someone is hiding something, I think all of our starters finished 2015 (Nolasco just barely).

Yeah, I've kept out of this thread because I don't have much issue with their payroll, more issue with their allocations and priorities. I'll back out again now.

True.

FA option year would be nice but might be too late to get him as a nice bargain. The time for those extensions seems earlier (Span) rather than later (Dozier). The cost certainty aspect alone doesn't seem all that important given his profile and the starters we have around him.

But that wasn't the case a couple years ago, was it? Sano and Buxton were at least 6 years away from a major payday then...

Pressly or Tonkin simply matching Stauffer's modest achievements on the mound would have been a win for the Twins because of their low salaries and team control. When they promised him a chance to start in spring training, it became pretty clear to me that the Twins didn't have any grand plan in mind for Stauffer other than wanting another veteran arm around.

Kubel was healthy enough to play. Harden was not. It's a simple distinction. The past 5 years, I think every veteran MLB player on a minor league invite with MLB salary clause who has been healthy enough to play has made the Twins roster, I believe. I actually didn't say anything about opt outs, but you could possibly lump those in as well (Boyer?). It's not a huge group, but it's large enough to conclude that Abad is probably a shoo-in if healthy. Such minor league deals are more about 40-man roster flexibility than making the MLB veteran prove something (other than health) in spring training. That's the only conclusion I was making there. Some guys on minor league deals are on de facto guaranteed deals. Nothing about other guys on minor league deals, like Joe Benson or whomever.

I have seen that logic before but I still don't buy it. A 2/12 contract to fill out your pen in modern MLB is not the time to start taking a firm stance on ROI. By thag logic, giving up prospects for the privilege of paying Jepsen a similar salary must have been a terrible move? Nobody blinks when you invest that kind of money in a starter coming back from injury, or an international guy. A reliever's potential upside is limited by his role, true, but he also often comes with a higher floor than those guys too.

I don't think the Twins can stash a starter on the DL to open the season, I doubt the starter would agree to it. Unless you are predicting someone gets hurts between now and then, but how many spring training MLB SP injuries have we had? Probably less than 1 per year average, no? You are probably right on Tonkin. They repeatedly picked Stauffer among others over him last season, I don't think their opinion of him will change just because he is out of options.

I agree that is probably points 1 and 2 of their plan (Perkins and Abad), but I am not so sure about #3 yet. As you note, O'Rourke was here in the 2nd half, he just wasn't used properly. They have thus far declined to use Rogers in relief despite obvious opportunity. Melotakis hasn't thrown a competitive pitch in 17 months now, and only had 16 IP at AA before then, so as much as they like him, I don't think he's competing for a spot this spring.

Rich Harden was never remotely healthy for us. I stand by my statement.

Actually the threshold is even slightly lower, if you're a veteran on a minor league deal with a MLB salary clause (i.e. Abad), it seems de facto guaranteed.

I think the larger point stands -- the Twins bullpen was still very suspect in the 2nd half, and it's largely the same group projected here.

Yes. Abad's and Nolasco's spots that should easily be in play for the kids. Tonkin and Fien too, probably -- the former has just never been trusted, and the latter is nearly priced out of his role anyway.

I think Clippard has been pretty quiet. Many predicted he'd get 3 years, and he's resisted one year offers. I'd guess he'd have to settle soon for a 2 year deal for a little more than Bastardo? Or maybe he's waiting for an opportunity to close? He wasn't on top of my list this winter, but he's got to be considered as a value play now.

Sorry, I don't think I've said anything like "the Twins are vet-loving morons." Just that they don't deserve any real credit for their handling of Stauffer. Again, obviously in one month, it probably wouldn't have mattered if Stauffer replaced Perkins last April, the Twins were pretty bad that month either way. Point is, there was no real point to playing Stauffer at all. He was a questionable signing, filling a questionable role, who had a terrible spring in terms of stuff and results (in over 3 times as many innings as either Tonkin or Pressly) and had no future in Minnesota almost no matter how he performed. It doesn't take much to be a better alternative to that. Just having good AAA stats and a potential future in Minnesota, with team control at minimum salaries, would be enough. Pressly's MLB career 113 ERA+ at that point would have been gravy. (Had Pressly or Tonkin made the team over Stauffer, they may not have burned any option year in 2015 either -- obviously a bigger deal for Tonkin right now since he is out of options.)

To be fair, some of his work last year was as a reliever. Fangraphs has him at a 117 ERA- as a starter last year (with the FIP and xFIP to match), versus 54 as a reliever. (Lower is better for ERA-.) Maybe still not horrible, but closer to Kevin Correia 2014 than Kevin Correia 2013. Although one year at $7 mil for a reliever might have been nice too.

it's a little trickier with David Price -- he got the 7th year and a higher AAV (7/217), and still got the opt-out, but there's been 3 years of inflation, and he's also been better and more consistent than Greinke circa 2013. It's not inconceivable that the Red Sox would have been better off giving him, say, 7/240 this winter with no opt-out. I've read that a lot of free agents want the opt-out now because they want to hit FA again as soon as possible after the new CBA (2017?), which they are betting will favor the players.

I'm not missing it, I just don't think it's that applicable to Greinke. Sure, the Dodgers couldn't have gotten Greinke on a 3 year deal back in 2013, but they also couldn't get him on a 3 year deal this winter. That would have only been possible without the opt out. As it was, the Dodgers bet $147 mil and any potential upside from ages 32-34 that Greinke wouldn't get hurt or crater in the first 3 years of the deal, through age 31. It's not that big of a stretch to say they would have been better off betting, say, $167 mil initially (assuming that was the premium needed to drop the opt out) and gotten the whole 6 years. Or even adding a 7th year. Elite players still have considerable upside through age 34, and whatever the premium, it ultimately wouldn't have been that big of a deal to the Dodgers, especially when spread out over 6-7 years. I'm not saying they're "terribly broken up about it" but the Dodgers and other big market contenders in particular need elite performers much more than they need the cost savings, the comp pick, or a hard line against keeping players beyond age 31. Some of that is hindsight, as I believe Greinke exceeded even the Dodgers expectations for him, especially in 2015, but in general this argument should hold for any elite level performers. Now, lesser performers, like Justin Upton and Yoenis Cespedes, or older guys like James Shields, I see teams being less concerned about the opt out. They're more easily replaceable and might not age as well. And a guy like Ian Kennedy -- well, let's just say the opt-out should be the least of Royals' fans concerns about Ian Kennedy right now.

Glavine also pitched almost twice as long as Radke (4400 innings versus 2400). I'm a big Radke booster, I think he was an ace from 1996-2000 and a solid starter after that, but let's not take things too far here.

By ERA+, Stauffer only had one such year prior to joining the Twins (2014), and that was compiled in mop-up duty for the Padres. In 2013, he had an ERA+ of 91, exclusively in mop-up relief. League average ERA+ for relievers is probably ~105.

Tonkin and Pressly spent the first month of the season in AAA. Tonkin spent an additional couple weeks down there when Stauffer returned from the DL too. Further down the list, Achter was in AAA until August, Darnell until September. Obviously not great options for immediate contributions, but clearly all of these guys offered more upside than Stauffer and his one-year contract (likely as a long reliever or swingman, as evidenced by his shot at starting in spring training).

Suzuki and Burton each have one season with the Twins above 0.5 WAR at B-Ref. Duensing has 3 in 7 years, including only one in the last 5. Considering their ages, salaries, trade value, and our contention status for most of those years, they don't strike me as being particularly useful most of the time.

Well, I will officially put my bullpen acquisition complaints on the shelf for now, and focus on what's to be done going forward. O'Rourke should already be penciled into a strict LOOGY role to open the year, he's shown enough vs LHB at all levels to deserve that, and he's almost 28 years old -- it's time to capitalize on his strengths, not work more on his weaknesses (vs RHB). I want to see Abad held to a VERY high standard in spring training. He's produced solid numbers the past 4 springs, and only produced one valuable season out of the bunch, so I want to see him dominate before he's allowed to make the roster. If he can't do that, let's move on -- we don't need him as a middling lower-leverage arm. http://m.mlb.com/player/472551/fernando-abad?year=2015&stats=career-s-pitching-mlb I also want to see our youngest options get lots of priority innings this spring. Not just Tonkin, Pressly, and Graham, who have already had a relatively decent amount of MLB opportunity, but Meyer (if not starting), Rogers, and Chargois. For that matter, 40-man roster status should not be a limiting factor, and Burdi should get strong consideration too. (Reed, Melotakis, and Williams are such extreme long shots for MLB opening day, we probably shouldn't invest many opportunities in them this spring, although they could be promoted aggressively later.) I'm resigned to the fact that Milone and/or Nolasco may make the opening day bullpen, but I'd prefer to move them aggressively. Nolasco in particular could be a candidate for release. They have usefulness as starter insurance, but their upside isn't so great as to keep them around forever waiting. May should be given consideration for any rotation openings, as should Berrios.

But there is always that kind of month-to-month variation in player performance, they're not robots. Crediting those short-term variations to external factors is usually a fool's errand, especially for veterans who have long demonstrated similar variations in performance like Pelfrey and Santana.