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
    Legitimately trying to win, or not trying to lose so much (which would be trying to win, but less "legitimately" I suppose). I think Nolasco was definitely a "not trying to lose so much" move, and E. Santana -- while a better signing himself -- was a bit of a reaction to Nolasco's failure. The Suzuki extension I'd lump in there too. As opposed to signing a guy you target as being a real asset (or just saving up to sign such a guy).
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    I think 10-and-5 rights are based on service time, down to the day, just like FA and such. 172 days = 1 full season service time. Perkins has appeared in 10 seasons, but still has less than 8 years service time, according to B-Ref. The only thing I've seen that factors seasons appeared in, is HOF eligibility. (A little premature for Perk )
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    There was no way we were going to be able to sucker anyone on Pelfrey, I doubt the front office was thinking that. Maybe if the peripherals supported his renaissance, like Esteban Loaiza circa 2003, Pelfrey's run was brief and unsustainable. I am pretty sure it was just a matter of not seeing much immediate difference between him and May, and giving the veteran preference (at least until someone else is willing to take his salary and perhaps also give him a chance to start, perhaps in August?). "May as setup man" was another factor, but given the evidence thus far, I think it was the smaller factor.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    Baltimore might be sellers this year, but they're going to look to contend in 2016 again, they're not rebuilding. I can't see them dealing Gausman primarily for prospects further away (Stewart, Gordon) or even less certain (Meyer).
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah, that's what I believe too. Which is why I'd gladly sign on to any theoretical proposal that is not an overpay, much less an egregious one.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    I doubt any contender would be targeting Meyer as a MLB addition right now. He's definitely a buy-low candidate for teams as a very recently fallen prospect, though, so he could draw offers like this. Conger or Castro would be improvements, but I'd rather roll the dice on AJ, Navarro, etc. for less than Meyer.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    But there's no guarantee that when you are fewer "horses away from being serious contenders", there will be another horse as good available to you. Potential multi-year assets should be always signed/acquired when the best opportunity presents itself, not when the need dictates. Otherwise you can make some very bad decisions (i.e. I think we signed Nolasco more because of our desperation and his willingness to sign than about his talent/projection).
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Maybe Pelf just needs to borrow Torii's fog machine and disco ball!
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    I'd do #3 in a heartbeat (but as I've said, I suspect Colorado would not), and then do #2 as well (AJ + relievers) presuming the cost is cheap. Lucroy would be nice, and we have a definite void at catcher, but Tulo > Lucroy and it's not particularly close. Giving up a similar package for Lucroy as you would Tulo strikes me as forcing a blockbuster out of need, which is akin to drafting for need or pursuing an expensive FA primarily due to need/timing rather than talent.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    Someone like Ervin Santana? Are you arguing Ervin Santana has ever been considered "elite" by anyone?
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    Willingham was 33 years old, well established, and pretty consistent in his career. If no one was prepared to offer substantially better than 3/21 the previous offseason, I doubt they'd be willing to surrender something worthwhile to take on that contract 4 months later just because he almost doubled his HR/FB rate for a half season. (And sure enough that rate returned to slightly below his career rate for the last 2 months of 2012, and the full 2013-2014 seasons.) Should we have just shipped him off to Miami for the Carlos Lee trade return? Or to Detroit for Lester Oliveros 2.0?
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    Would you have not approved a Twins trade for Cliff Lee in 2009-2010 either? Obviously, that to me was the perfect apex of need and availability (Cliff Lee, Yankee Killer), and in our defense, we tried to get something done (although Lee was traded 3 times in those two years, so I tend to think we simply didn't try hard or early enough). But I think there are less than perfect rental deals that I would approve too. Cueto to the Royals is one. He is one of the best pitchers in baseball, and you don't get your hands on those kinds of pitchers unless you are lucky enough to develop one, or you fork over $150+ mil. In that light, the Royals really didn't give up that much. Not sure if 2015 offers any such rental opportunities for the Twins (although Tulo and Hamels could provide rental benefits as well), but I tend to think the years 2001-2010 should have yielded something in this regard.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    No doubt he was having a good year, and was a fair value for us going forward on that contract -- but were other teams offering much of anything to take on that contract at that time? Better players were moved for not much in return in July 2012 (Hunter Pence and Hanley Ramirez), plus some lesser options moved for basically nothing at all. Teams generally don't pay extra for extra years of control at the deadline -- they can deal with those extra years better in the offseason. It's what makes the Hamels situation unique, because he is signed long term but also viewed as an elite player for the rest of 2015 too. Even in his career year, Willingham wasn't seen as an elite pick-up -- the extra years on his deal were neutral value at best in a trade deadline scenario. Also, Willingham was probably seen as a DH only option, which eliminated one league and any AL contenders already set at that position. And the AL wasn't particularly competitive that year. Eyeballing standings and rosters, only Detroit might have been a good fit (Delmon Young). Who would they have been bidding against? Not surprising if the Twins reasoned that Willingham at 2/14 going forward offered more value than anything offered in trade.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    I had no idea what this meant, but found this nugget: http://web.archive.org/web/20020921122954/http://www.startribune.com/stories/464/3240629.html and http://web.archive.org/web/20050413003729/http://www.startribune.com/stories/389/3328091.html Have no idea about Kielty's part, and the trade didn't happen until midway through the following season.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    To be fair, xFIP is largely based off those strikeouts, so your first "not coincidentally" is actually doubt-counting.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't recall anyone saying we should be aggressive at the deadline the past 4 seasons. At least, not aggressive buyers.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    Our bullpens in the later aughts were generally not comprised of excess pitchers moved to the bullpen. Guerrier is the closest, although he was a waiver claim who only briefly started. Crain, Nathan, Rauch, Mijares, Neshek, Reyes, Breslow, Balfour, Jackson, etc. were all acquired or developed as relievers. The effect you speak of was primarily limited to Rincon and Romero in the aughts, with Hawkins and Guardado being legacy examples remaining from the 1990s too.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    When people say, "We should be conservative at the deadline this year because we're not that good", it bothers me because we've heard before (and will probably hear again) from the team that "we are being conservative because we're already good enough." Basically, the way this front office has operated, there is always a justification for conservatism. There's never going to be a "right" time to them to be aggressive at the deadline, or bid on an elite FA.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    So we'll see TR deal some prospects this year? Great, looking forward to it. I think the effects of Target Field in this arena are pretty minor. The stadium allowed us to give a mondo extension to Mauer, and sign a few mid-tier veteran FA. Shouldn't really have affected a deadline rental, relatively low draft/international bonuses, etc.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    So it was perfectly reasonable to expect a player to return from a concussion in a couple weeks? Even in 2010, that's a pretty shaky argument. And we didn't even plan for any other contingency. The 2010 lineup situation was better than 2009, but only due to can't-DH-everyday Thome and the mirage that was Delmon Young. We absolutely should have prioritized another bat option over a "proven closer".
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    Read my post again -- I said he never traded a prospect midseason. Stewart, Reed, and Jones were not traded for prospects. Castillo was not acquired midseason. (Actually Castillo was traded AWAY for prospects at his second trade deadline with the Twins.)
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    "Exactly the wrong times" would be like August 1st or September 1st. Actually Liriano is pretty close in that regard -- on August 1st, 2006, he got scratched from his next start before pretty quickly going down for the year. But our rotation depth was already very shaky, and Liriano was on pace for ~210 innings in his first MLB season (despite spending a month and a half in the bullpen!), and Radke's shoulder was shredded by that point too. No way we should have sold Lohse on July 31st, at least not without a corresponding SP addition. We had plenty of time to react to Morneau's absence in 2010 but chose not to.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Certainly not time to "worry" about Gibson being a decent rotation asset -- that hasn't changed -- but probably a little cause to sweat if you had recently resisted Tulo-for-Gibson overtures. (No evidence the Twins actually did that, though.)
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    They also gave away 1.5 seasons of Kyle Lohse for meager salary relief at the 2006 deadline. Lohse struggled that year, to be sure, but even led by Santana and Liriano, that's not a team that should have been *subtracting* from its rotation options. (And Lohse immediately turned in a 103 ERA+ over the last two months for his new club.) They lost Morneau on July 7, and opted not to acquire another position player at all in July or August. In fact they traded away Morneau's best indirect replacement Ramos, who could have shifted Mauer to 1B. They also began losing Morneau to back problems in August 2009, yet didn't even make a waiver claim on pending FA Jim Thome. We wound up starting Brendan Harris and Jose Morales at DH down the stretch and in the playoffs. Combined with the 2001-2008 streak of zero midseason prospect trades, and I don't have a lot of sympathy. Two mid- to late-season star losses over 10 years isn't that bad.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Just looking back, in 7 straight seasons of pretty much solid contention (2001-2007), TR only traded a "prospect" during the season twice, both times on August 31st -- Garbe for Borders in 2004, Harben for Nevin in 2006. (Both stretching the term "prospect" quite a bit.) That's actually kind of remarkable. Smith continued the trend in 2008, before finally breaking it to great success in 2009 (and then going too far, for too little in return, in 2010).
×
×
  • Create New...