Otto von Ballpark

I wouldn't read it so much as a knock on Drew as a player, but probably his contract demands. Boras doesn't like to adjust down for the market. It is probably magnified now that the season is underway if Drew/Boras still want to be paid as if 2014 is a full season.

So the Twins should be willing to sign Drew for market rate.... but only if they get a modest pitching prospect too? If they were that close to signing him, I am pretty sure the Red Sox would say "good luck" as would Boras and Drew. Based on his 2013 salary and performance, Drew should get 2/20 minimum on the open market, probably more. The value of the 2nd round pick *might* be $6 mil, I think? It really shouldn't be much of an impediment. The bigger impediment is almost certainly Boras' demands. I wonder if he is still looking for Peralta/Bourn type deal, in which case a little side deal with Boston means nothing. Or the impediment could be the Twins demands -- if they are only willing to pay Drew like Nishioka money, that is obviously a nonstarter too.

You're nothing if not optimistic, Seth. .670 OPS would be just about average for an MLB shortstop. If Bernier was ever remotely capable of being an MLB average SS, he wouldn't have been a minor league free agent after each of the past 6 seasons, and he wouldn't be stuck in AAA and off the 40 man roster on a SS-starved team like the Twins.

Not to detract from this delightful, fact-based article, but I am pretty sure the Twins offer to Torii was only 3/45. Like the Johan offer at the time (4/80), the Twins were competitive in AAV but wanted a significant "hometown discount" in terms of years.

Ah, I remember being excited about Rivas, circa 2001. It's amazing how similar his MiLB and MLB batting lines are. He was like a .680 OPS chameleon -- no matter his age or level, he was posting a .680 OPS. If he could have been even an average defender, he's probably useful as a utility guy if not a starter, especially at pre-arb salaries.

If only we could combine Rivas' bat (80 OPS+) with Florimon's glove, we'd have an acceptable starter!

Actually the Twins lead MLB with 17 unearned runs scored. And to give some context, the average team has scored 9 unearned runs so far, and the 2nd place total is 14: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=p&lg=MLB&year=2014#oppon_extra Last year the Twins were almost precisely average in scoring unearned runs.

No doubt they've been doing some good work at the plate, but their unsustainable walk rates and BABIP is almost the definition of some luck. Not all luck, hopefully/probably, but a fair amount of it.

Well, the first 3 guys you mention were basically the replacements for Arcia and Willingham. Even if they are all hitting well, there's no way they are all in the lineup at the same time. Heck, right now, there isn't really a spot for either Arcia or Willingham, performance-wise -- the one guy they might "replace" is either Pinto or Suzuki (pushing them out of the DH spot), and you'd be hard-pressed to improve upon what either of them has hit thus far. Not that it won't be nice to have more options, but I highly doubt the offense improves (or even maintains this crazy pace) even with Arcia and Willingham back. Also, from my post above, Pinto and Plouffe are in the group that has doubled their established walk rates thus far; Kubel (and Willingham) "only" has a career high in that rate. Kubel, Colabello, and Plouffe are also 3 of the group who have added 100 points to their established BABIP levels.

For some context, the Twins batters current 12.9 BB% would be an expansion era (1961+) MLB record, by far. Next highest is the 2000 Seattle Mariners at 12.1%. Most of the high teams are from the sillyball era (1993-2000) or 1969-1971 following the lowering of the mound, when the league BB% was 1+ percent higher than today; otherwise, the absolute max team high is closer to 11%: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=np&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=1871&ind=1&team=0%2cts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=9%2cd Out of our 10 "regulars" (the current 9 plus Willingham), 4 of them have basically doubled their established walk rates, AND 5 more are posting career highs to boot. The only one who isn't posting a career-best walk rate, and he's actually dropped interestingly enough, is Colabello. Also, as a team we are +.017 in BABIP over 2014 league BABIP and our yearly team BABIPs since moving to Target Field. 4 of the above 10 regulars are about 100 points better than their established BABIP levels so far in 2014, and Suzuki is about 60 points better too. We've also got a few BABIP underperformers, but they've been dwarfed by the overperformers so far. Looking in the Plate Discipline section at Fangraphs, we're now 2nd best in out-of-zone swing percentage... but we were already a very respectable 6th last year, behind only 4 AL playoff teams (and, inexplicably, the Cubs). In 2014, we have the lowest in-zone swing percentage, notably lower than last year's (which was already second-lowest in baseball). I guess that means we're being more selective even in the zone, which is good, but given our crazy walk rates, it also suggests that maybe we've been the beneficiaries of a poorly called strike zone thus far? Like we're getting away with not swinging at strikes? I'll take it, but this just screams fluke. I'd like to see some improvement in ISO (we currently rank 21st, with a slightly lower figure than last year). So far, we have made modest gains in AVG (up 8 points from last year, even as the league is down 5 -- we're basically league average at the moment).

Agreed! You just can't say "Look how nicely the offense is out-performing expectations so far" and then say "Imagine how good we'll be when the pitching quits under-performing expectations". Odds are, they will both trend toward their expectations, and wash each other out. Hopefully, though, if they offset each other fairly evenly, we can maintain our current ~.500 level of performance for a while.

FWIW, Mauer was NOT mentioned in a Fangraphs post today about hitters to stary worrying about: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/some-hitters-to-start-worrying-about/

He probably has options, we don't have to put him on the 25 man. But every player has to pass thru waivers to be removed from the 40 man (same with Mastro, who also had an option IIRC).

Twins claim Kenny Wilson. Pretty bleak stats. Even as a CF in an org with a shortage right now, he's still a pretty suspect 40 man roster guy. I'd have rather seen Dan Robertson -- Texas just purchased him from the Padres. Older, but a consistent career .300 hitter in the minors, with a good eye and very low K rate: http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=robert002dan

That's OK. Guarantees him wearing a Twins cap on his HOF plaque.

I second this sentiment. A record of 0-0 means your winning percentage is calculated by dividing by zero, which is "undefined". Mostly semantics, but it's probably better to count when their record is .500 or better AFTER every game. That gets rid of the 0-0 problem, and also includes their final season record in the count too (which we will hopefully be counting as over .500 this year!).

Good question, basically could we have DFA'd Bartlett instead (if not outright released him)? Would have cost an extra $500k or so over retirement, it seems, but would have saved Mastro. Maybe we could have DFA'd Bartlett, outrighted him, and he could have officially retired after that? Fantastic question for next Sunday's call-in shows (does Antony do one of those now?).

The Twins would have preferred this, but the paperwork for Bartlett's retirement (and open roster spot) couldn't be processed until Monday, and the Fuld claim needed to be made on Sunday. (I wonder if we could have 60-day DLed Bartlett to open the roster spot?) So, Mastroianni is another casualty of the brief Bartlett reunion tour (although the way Mastro has looked since 2012, he probably won't be missed -- I really did like him as a sleeper depth guy back in 2012, though). On the plus side, the Twins now have an open 40 man roster spot, hopefully they fill it with someone interesting soon.

Mastro has an option left, I believe, so the Jays could put him in AAA.

Looking at this list again, Michael Saunders looks to be the best of those remotely comparable to Hicks in skill set / performance. Maybe Brady Anderson. But both of them had more consistent success in the minors than Hicks, and arguably better early MLB results too. And Brady Anderson was kind of surprise late bloomer at age 28 -- certainly more of an exception rather than the rule, which is was a positive Hicks career might be too.

Thanks! But while .225 may be statistically comparable to .192, some of those .225 guys were hitting for serious power too. Actually, most of the guys near the top of that list were low-AVG sluggers. Mike Schmidt batted .192 as a rookie just like Hicks, but he clubbed 18 HR and had a 92 OPS+. Buhner hit .215 with a 99 OPS+, Bonds .223 with a 103 OPS+, etc. If Hicks had shown that kind of power last year (or at any time in his pro career), I think he'd have a much longer leash. As it is, his leash is already lengthened a bit by his walk rate, but when that only brings your OPS+ up to 61, it's still not a real long leash.

Well, the glaring difference would actually be defense. Gomez rated very well at the time defensively, offsetting virtually all of his shortcomings with the bat to make him an average overall CF; Hicks looks to be an average glove at best so far, which makes him about replacement level (or worse). Also, Gomez was significantly younger. Hicks debuted last spring at age 23 years (and 6 months). Before his 23rd birthday, Gomez already had a full MLB season of 77 OPS+ and 2.1 rWAR under his belt, plus his partial Mets season of similar stellar defense. Hicks also had 4 full years of full-season minor league ball, versus Gomez's 2. Finally, low BABIP does not automatically equal bad luck -- it could just mean a lower AVG hitter. That Hicks' low BABIP is continuing into 2014 isn't a good sign. Although I agree, too early to pull the plug, given the alternatives. If he doesn't get going by June, though, establishing himself in AAA might be the best way to salvage his career?

Per 500 PA, Fuld is a 1.4 rWAR player over his career, Hicks is 0.3. 2012 onward, though, the difference is more like half a win, though, and all defense. Probably not enough to displace Hicks yet, although if early trends continue (Hicks playing poorly, team around .500, Fuld rebounding from career low OPS), it could be a move worth making.

Gomez actually had a decent offensive start with the Twins, which buoys his early career stats a bit. And if you factor in defense, Gomez was always useful even with the weak bat.

That's probably close to accurate, certainly during his epic early 2013 slump. And his possible similarity to early-career Hunter/Gomez is lessening as his struggles continue into 2014. Dozier had a pretty comparable career start, OPS wise, and he didn't begin turning it around until almost 500 PA into his career (about 100 more than Hicks currently has). Of course, Dozier's turnaround was fairly unlikely too, largely attributed to some specific adjustments, and it was also accompanied by a shift to a slightly less demanding defensive position, and a shift in the shape of his offensive production (more power, more K's, less BA).