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
    I honestly don't think it is due to service time. If a prospect is good enough, and healthy enough, the Twins haven't had much trouble getting them to the majors quickly (Mauer, Baker, Liriano, Garza, Slowey, Hendriks, etc.), even if many of those guys made return trips to the minors. Right now, I would guess that they don't think Meyer is healthy enough yet. That evaluation could change this spring, especially if they were willing to deploy him out of the bullpen initially.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    After we arguably missed out on some chances to do it in the 2000's (Mauer, Santana, Hunter were all mostly arb-buyout deals -- could the Twins have been more aggressive with those first big contracts?).
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    Nitpick: Santana just turned 32, Hughes will be 33 years and 3-4 months at the end of the 2019 season. Still, the point remains: Santana's deal extends 3 years beyond that age.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    Hughes isn't at a table to collect more money for another two years, and the last time he was at such a table he got less than what many here predicted. I'd say it's a good deal for both sides. The qualifying offer is an interesting point -- a contract through age-33 might also be ideal for that factor. He will be old enough at that point to dissuade many teams from offering a 4-5 year deal, but young enough where he could easily be worth 1/16 to a contending team with an open rotation spot. (Assuming the qualifying offer system doesn't change too much between now and then.)
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Agreed, that's why I said "close to ideal" -- and for Hughes, if he had been born a week later, this contract would only run through his age-32 season.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    John, think about it this way: in 2008, the Twins did basically the same thing for Joe Nathan (although Nathan only had 1 year remaining on his current deal) -- a 3/42 extension. That was admittedly a sketchy decision, but: change it from a closer to a starter, subtract 3-4 years of age, and keep the absolute dollars the same despite 7 years of baseball inflation? That's a solid deal I think, a good risk to take.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Age factors? He'll turn 33 midway through the last year of the contract. Ervin Santana is signed for 3 years beyond that point, Nolasco for 2. Locking up a guy through his age 33 season might be close to ideal -- while people often talk about "the wrong side of 30", letting guys go at age 30-31 is probably giving up on them a little too early (barring major injury, which can really happen at any age), assuming your goal is to field a competitive team.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    I think you are under-estimating the value of having the #2 and #5 picks in the same year, in terms of creative slot games. Especially if they weren't enamored with Aiken, for health or other reasons. No doubt the Astros bungled a bit -- I am just giving them a little benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't make up their concern about Aiken out of whole cloth and grossly alienate so many people in the process (or at least they did so knowing they liked their fallback plan of getting two top picks next year).
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    I think Plouffe also sadly occupies a grey area, where he is not good enough to be a big trade target like Donaldson, but too good/controllable to be appealing as a cheap stopgap like McGehee. I am sure they could trade Plouffe if they wanted, but the above profile suggests it may be particularly hard to get a fair/good return.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    Agreed. It's interesting that while a lot of free agents are getting more money than expected, some big trade targets are fetching less.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    You think their plan all along was to dramatically lower their offer after Aiken's physical? And if all they needed for Marshall was $1.5 mil, they could have offered Aiken $5 mil right away, or right after the physical. They didn't. They agreed to $6.5 mil (meaning Aiken plus either Nix or Marshall) and then offered $3.1 mil (meaning no Nix, Marshall, or Aiken, and roll the dice with the #2 pick next year) at those two junctures. Your scenario of signing all three wasn't really on the table until the last minute, and only after they had massively offended Aiken (and allegedly hadn't negotiated much with Marshall). If they were trying to outsmart everyone, they were probably did so after the physical, partly a reaction to Aiken's health projection and partly in anticipation of the 2016 draft, where they will now have the #2 and #5 slots to play with (and more information about Aiken). Their multiple last-minute offers to Aiken suggest they may have somewhat regretted that gambit quite quickly, or perhaps made a last-minute effort to snag them all.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    I thought it was an OK flip too, but Milone might have been damaged goods and it doesn't look like we will particularly need him next year. And even if you make that flip, given the adventures of 2013-2014 you'd think a CF acquisition would be a priority going into the offseason, yet here we are...
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    It would be interesting to see the Twins do this -- they've generally been very loathe to deviate from even unofficial slots and caps. Might not be a big advantage anymore, now that other teams are keen to the idea too. But better late than never if you can land some potential impact talent.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    Hanigan has a career 90 OPS+, good defensive/framing stats, and a reasonable contract ($3.5 mil each of the next two seasons). Why wouldn't he have value? Rene Rivera, prior to last season's 117 OPS+, had a career mark of 45. Butera's is 42. Big difference.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Was Marshall's proposed bonus ever reported? I don't think they ever had anything close to a deal with him. I think their plan was to sign Aiken slightly below slot and then just one of Nix or Marshall. The Astros initially agreed with Aiken on a bonus $1.5 mil under slot, which almost exactly covered Nix's agreed-upon over-slot bonus, and Marshall was presumed going to college yet at that point. After the physical, though, they realized they might be better off just trying again with the #2 pick next year rather than sign Aiken at any price -- hence why they immediately reduced their offer to Aiken to the minimum required 40% to get the pick next year. I guess if Aiken had accepted, they could have made a late run at Marshall too, but it doesn't look like that was the original plan.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Royals also sign Kris Medlen, 2/7.5 plus a $10 mil mutual option ($1 mil buyout).
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    In fairness to Mr. Kang, if Eric Thames could play middle infield (or even an average corner outfield), he'd almost certainly still be in MLB.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    You know how much better we were offensively in 2014 compared the Royals? 50 offensive runs, according to Fangraphs. You know how much worse we were defensively? 110 defensive runs. Going back to 2008, only 1 team (out of 180) improved by that many defensive runs over a single offseason (the 2008-2009 Mariners). Only 11 teams (6%) improved by 60 or more (including the 2010 Twins). 3 of those clubs had a worse starting point than the 2014 Twins (-59 runs).
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    What's wrong with Pinto as backup DH? DH options with OPS+ figures around 90 aren't really good DH options.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't know -- they've cleared a lot of back-end bullpen types lately, and they usually keep one or more of those guys around even in competitive seasons. Who really fits that role on the current 40-man? Darnell is the primary one I see -- not sure about their plans for him. A lot of the other 40-man options are either short relievers or may have too much value as starters to waste in that role (Milone, May, Meyer).
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    If he fails, don't blame me -- I said we should sign Kodos.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    Bullock was our #8 prospect at the time according to Sickels, B- grade but pretty good, right around Hendriks, Arcia, Kepler in his list. "Could be a huge bullpen force if the command sharpens up a bit more." Same grade as Burdi in his current list. Both were 2nd round relievers with big strikeout numbers too. Bullock was a year older/further along -- imagine if Burdi made it up to AA this year with 14 K/9 and 5 BB/9 rates, that's where Bullock was. Burdi can't be traded until June, though (not that we would trade him). Diamond may have been less well-regarded by the Braves at the time too -- amateur free agent from Canada, and he had already spent 2 full healthy seasons at AA/AAA. Of course, if the Braves don't like Graham's recovery prognosis, it might not take much to get him.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Ryan Pressly hadn't pitched above AA, and had marginally more bullpen appearances than Graham at the time of his selection (about 1.5 more months worth). Pressly was also a year younger and less effective/regarded during his amateur and minor league careers. Plus, there will be innings to soak up at the back end of the bullpen, with Swarzak, Deduno, various AAA starters, etc. all gone. I think Graham's health and ongoing recovery are going to be the bigger factors than his minor league level or bullpen experience.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    "Grades" are problematic because they really need to be more cumulative to be meaningful (Twins don't really deserve a higher grade simply because their terrible rotation was easier to upgrade), and also who's grading criteria do you use? I am sure if the Twins set their own criteria, they would be near an A -- they got their veteran RH outfield bat -- but most observers had a different criteria for them (dramatically improve the OF defense). Personally, I'd put the White Sox closer to a B at this point -- they still have a few positions to address -- and Twins closer to a C+ -- passing, but not really standout work. Of course, the Twins will have the opportunity to earn a lot of A's during the coming seasons if they can convert their minor league talent into major league performers. Indians are probably in that C+ territory too, Kansas City might be a step lower at C after that Kendrys Morales signing. I'd probably schedule a parent-teacher conference to discuss the Tigers trade for Alfredo Simon.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    oWAR includes the positional adjustment, which probably isn't appropriate here. Rbat would be what you want (or wRC+, or even OPS+). Although I agree Rfield is probably a worthy consideration here too, as bad as Dunn was in that regard even in limited play (and as poor as Abreu was in that mark last year).
×
×
  • Create New...