Otto von Ballpark

Headley signed for $13 mil per year last season, without a comp pick attached, only 1 year older than Plouffe is now. And he had 4 straight seasons of 2.8 WAR or better, including one at 6.3 WAR, according to B-Ref. And that was from the big spending Yankees who had a void at 3B, presumably this winter the Brewers and Braves wouldn't bid things quite so high. I could absolutely see Plouffe getting less than Headley's deal. And players getting around that level FA deal tend not to be too valuable on the trade market.

That kind of stuff has been swirling around San Diego for awhile, so I'll believe it when I see it. (Plus, if they're in sell mode with Shields, Kimbrel, etc. -- why would they want Plouffe and his 2 years of control back?)

If we're moving Plouffe, that means Sano is the regular 3B, so the DH spot would be open. I probably wouldn't target Lind to fill it, but it's not unreasonable, especially if there is evidence that Arcia won't get back on track.

What guys like him are going to get that much? Freese is pretty comparable free agent, and didn't even get a 1/15 qualifying offer from the Angels. Chase Headley only got 4/52 from the Yankees last winter, without a qualifying offer and only 2 years removed from a 145 OPS+. I think if Plouffe were a FA, he would probably be worth a qualifying offer from this team, but on a longer-term deal, $12 mil AAV over 3-4 might be a better target for a FA contract. And that would put him in similar company as guys like Nolasco, who seem to be worth even less in the trade market because similar level FAs are available every winter and the financial risk of signing them isn't that great.

In addition to the rebuild comments, I'll also say that the Brewers had a pretty big void at 1B for a few years prior to Lind, so they might not be as willing to part with him as a team under normal circumstances.

Interesting -- do you have the link? The Astros have Jed Lowrie under contract for 2 more seasons plus a third option year, all at very reasonable salaries (perhaps less than Plouffe's remaining arbitration awards). Plus they have Luis Valbuena under control for another season, and the last 3 years he's been a 106 OPS+ bat with average defense at third base. Not to mention a couple solid looking utility options in Gonzalez and Villar. Plus two upper-minors 3B in their top ~10 prospects by Sickels. Add in one of the best young starting 2B and SS combos in the league, I really can't see them seeking more MLB infielders unless it was a Donaldson-type opportunity. By Sickels, Feliz was their #3 preseason prospect for 2015, quite possibly #1 by now, grade B+/B.

Since I was feeling generous, I decided to do your research. There have been 3 drafts since the new qualifying offer compensation system went into effect. (Drafts prior to that will be skewed because it was much easier to get compensation picks.) Here are the forfeited first round picks in each of the last 3 drafts: 2015: 13, 15, 17, 19, and 27 2014: 17, 18, 21, and 26 2013: 17, 22, 28, and 29 Notice anything interesting? The 17th pick has been forfeited 3 straight years! Still a small sample, but teams do not seem particularly protective of that pick so far in the qualifying offer era. (Also, in theory the forfeited 19th pick in 2015 and 18th pick in 2014 could have moved up to 17th or better given the forfeited picks ahead of them, although I didn't check the order of signings to know who forfeited first.) If you want to divide them into two groups as you suggest ("I bet the majority of the picks given up are later than 17"), 24% of unprotected picks 17th or earlier have been forfeited, versus 21% of first round picks 18th or later.

Well, one year is larger than the sample you cited. You said "I bet the majority of the picks given up are later than 17". If data exists to support your point, find it and present it, don't just "bet" on its existence and admonish someone who actually looked at some data. (And 5 years would actually predate the QO system, so I am not sure if it would all be relevant to the present year.) And when you find it, be sure to correct for the different group sizes as I mention. Picks later than 17 could be sacrificed almost twice as often and still not be "more likely" to be sacrificed just by simple math.

Cite? Otherwise stick to the topic at hand, and please don't assign other opinions to those you disagree with.

Put another way: despite missing most of the past 2 seasons, Wieters got a QO and is widely believed to net around 4/60 this winter. What does that mean? The demand for good catchers, with the potential to be among the best in the league, is huge. That demand isn't just limited to FA catchers though. The same teams that are likely to drive up the FA price of Wieters will also drive up the trade price of Lucroy. And on the other side of the ledger, if Plouffe were a free agent today, would he get a QO? Would there be a consensus about him getting 4/60 on the open market even with a QO attached? How about if you attached Arcia and Stewart to him too? He's not valueless, but his value just isn't in the same ballpark as catchers Lucroy or Wieters even with their question marks.

To be fair, he has also floated the idea of a 3-way trade. Still not sure I buy it, as an available Lucroy is going to generate more demand and better return than an available Plouffe. So the 3-way trade idea still suggests that we can get Lucroy without giving up any player/prospect that is going to "hurt". Acquiring anything better than a stopgap catcher is going to hurt. If you think the trade and major FA signing hurt is equal, that's fine, but yeah, it does seem silly to keep dismissing the major FA signing on the notion that a better option is plainly available less painfully in trade.

Actually, last winter 3 of the 5 first round picks surrendered were 17 or better. Also, since the first 10 picks are protected, it's pretty meaningless to say the forfeited pick is more likely to come from a group of 13 (picks 18-30) rather than a group of 7 (picks 11-17).

If Wieters was willing to sign for 1 year, even at the QO price, you'd have to do it. Not only would that eliminate much of the risk, but you would stand a decent chance of getting a comp pick back if he was decent enough to earn another QO from us next winter.

Better now than next season but Sano has only had a half season at 3B the past two calendar years, I think he still needs serious reps there, no?

"Through 2017" is only 2 more seasons. Perkins is in that group but making peanuts. Nolasco's $12 mil is relative peanuts too. Those aren't the kind of commitments that should make you draw a hard line on adding payroll if it can improve your team.

From Baseball America: http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/2015-mlb-draft-order-2/ Forfeiting #17 for a 30 year old catcher in Wieters doesn't seem so outlandish.

Obviously 1-2 year deals carry less risk, but good players aren't generally available on 1-2 year deals. The Twins "problem" isn't 4 year deals they've given to players like Wieters, it's that they gave 4 year deals to three guys at the same position (SP, although admittedly you need 5 of them), at least one of them being a completely unnecessary extension (Hughes) and another was a somewhat forced signing of a lower upside player (Nolasco). And even after all that, whatever "problem" caused by those deals hasn't impacted their budget to the point where it's not feasible to sign another such deal for the right player/position. If you want to say the Twins should have pursued Martin or McCann (or Montero in trade) the past few winters, even at higher prices, you won't get any argument from me. But those options are off the table now, so it looks like Wieters, bargain bin, surrendering talent in trade, or roll the dice on Suzuki again are your choices. Wieters doesn't look so bad then.

Why do you say Salty is cooked? He got cut by the Marlins, true, but he rebounded to a 115 OPS+ in Arizona. Outside his 33 PA for the Marlins that got him cut in 2015, his low point the last 5 seasons was his 91 OPS+ in 2014. I don't think he's great, but I don't think he's some kind of Bret Boone level flyer either.

I don't think "top 20 WAR in MLB" is a terribly useful threshold here, when discussing a mid-tier free agent. Nobody is suggesting buying him to be a top 20 WAR player in MLB. Also WAR is a counting stat, which hurts catchers. Aside from Posey who played a lot of 1B, the next best catcher by B-Ref WAR ranked #59 overall. It's no guarantee, but it's not really that unlikely that over his age 30-33 seasons, Wieters could rank in the same vicinity as Vogt (age 30), Martin (age 32), and McCann (31) did last year.

I think it's highly presumptive to say that "pulling a Mauer or Suzuki at age 32" means he physically can't catch at that point. Heck, Suzuki CAN catch, we just don't want him to if we can find someone better. I'd venture the percentage of catchers who physically can't play the position anymore at age 32 like Mauer is pretty low. Off hand, I know Jaso has hung up his catcher's mask, but he was also a below average catcher to begin with. Plenty others (Avila) have soldiered through multiple concussions. And Wieters doesn't even have a documented concussion history that I'm aware of. If Weiters falls off offensively, and even if he experiences some nagging injuries and a concussion, there's still a strong chance he can cover the position into his mid-30's like Jason Kendall, no worse than Suzuki is doing now and obviously with better upside.

As much as I love him, the confidence level on any Kepler projection is going to be WAY lower than Lucroy's next two years, even given the question marks introduced in Lucroy's 2015 season. Demonstrated MLB performance is a pretty big deal, especially at a position of scarcity (note the Brewers already have two starting MLB corner OF controlled until 2020 or so, plus two more near-ready corner OF prospects, and zero capable catchers beyond Lucroy) It's pretty clear that the Brewers would almost certainly turn down a straight-up Lucroy-for-Kepler swap, given the public information that we have. That should give you an indication of what the deal would be like for the Twins. A marginally higher prospect ranking is almost meaningless in these discussions. A Polanco for Lucroy swap would have the same issues as the Kepler for Lucroy one, meaning the Brewers still say no. Package the two together, or one of them with other players, and you're on the right track. Sanchez is an interesting target, but there are doubts about him sticking at the position, and the Twins seem particularly sensitive about that. So you might not be solving anything, and in fact just burning a trade chip to add another name to the 1B/DH logjam. And if there's any consensus he will stick at catcher, the Yankees gain a ton of leverage -- they don't really need Polanco, with Gregorius and Refsnyder slated to start in their middle infield, while the Twins and a bunch of other teams would LOVE a capable young catcher. Prospect-for-prospect trades also seem somewhat rare, which might raise the bar for the offering team (in this case, the Twins).

Who is this 25 year old catcher you speak of? If the Twins had a younger player with an equal projection to Lucroy we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Translation: "I only want him if he's perfect, but priced as if he's flawed." Got it.

Another follow-up, I found an article that ranks the errors by *series* win probability rather than single game win probability: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/daniel-murphy-and-the-costliest-errors-in-world-series-history/ Buckner is #1 at -20%, but Murphy clocks in at a (dis)respectable #6 with -13%. Tony Fernandez, 1997 and Mariano Rivera, 2001 are the other modern examples, just behind Buckner (both occurred in a Game 7). Frankly I am impressed that Murphy's error had that much impact in the top of the 8th in a Game 3, although I suppose there is a big difference between being tied 2-2 or down 3-1 in a series.

If he was already a year into it, and the relative decline was similar to that of Suzuki (who, outside of his 2014 comeback, experienced only one significant overall offensive performance drop-off), that would mean Lucroy projects as an above league average catcher for the next couple seasons, and likely a notable upgrade at the position for the Twins. Also, any number of performance levels COULD be possible for any player. The question for the Twins is: is the likelihood of Lucroy's performance dropping further greater than the likelihood that our catcher position continues to hurt an otherwise competitive team? Naysaying about a potential upgrade is pointless unless you claim that there is an equal or better upgrade available or that an upgrade isn't necessary.