Otto von Ballpark

I prefer 12 pitchers max too, but remember, Correia's 185 IP basically matched his career high rate, and Hughes and Pelfrey had historically low IP/GS figures last year. And there's still the wide open 5th starter spot. They may become rotation of durable innings-eaters, but they're not there yet. Besides, the bullpen is probably the best and deepest part of the team right now. The 8th guy in this bullpen might indeed provide more MLB value than the likely options for 13th position player.

Why is that surprising? I suspect most MLB veterans just buy a house/condo near their home ballpark. Higher-end/luxury housing is probably pretty limited on the rental market, and a lot more hassle than just buying outright.

There is the line: A second person with knowledge of the Garza talks confirmed the Twins were “in on Garza until the last day.” That suggests the offer (or some offer) was on the table pretty late.

I didn't necessarily mean dollar-to-dollar, but they could have offset a good portion of Garza's 2014 salary and stayed in the same payroll range. And adjusted 2015+ decisions to match. We just don't know.

Playing devil's advocate for the original poster, the Garza offer could have been followed by a trade of Correia, Burton, Willingham, etc., which would have mostly neutral payroll implications. We really don't know much about its context. I am encouraged by the Garza offer, but it's a pretty small data point so far for the trend we all want to see -- more investment in the big-league roster.

I thought we were talking levels of performance. I am not really interested in what numbers or roles are assigned a player unless they can actually perform. Remember when Rondell White was assigned to be our cleanup hitter? Or Worley/Diamond were assigned to be our opening day starter? What's more important to team's record: a pitcher's run prevention ranking ~30-45 in the league (i.e. #3 starter performance), or you or even Gardy calling him "our #3"? I have no idea what this means. I get that you are optimistic, yes. I was presenting a subjective interpretation otherwise, and presented past performance as evidence. I'm optimistic too, but I hope our 2015 contention hopes don't really too much on "stuff" and "make up". There are plenty of pitchers outside of the top 10-15 that could improve this ballclub, even in our glorious projected future of 2015. Besides, the 10-15 best pitchers in baseball are based on stuff, make up, and stats. It can be quite subjective. I'm surprised you are unaware of this.

Thanks for the write-up, Seth. However irrationally, I've adopted Fryer as my new favorite Twin. I know you try to focus on the positive, but Fryer's offense definitely took a downturn once he was promoted to AAA in 2011 (or more accurately, when he was promoted from AA to MLB, then back to AAA, I guess). Admittedly a bit older for his levels, he was nonetheless a .298/.385/.453 hitter over 1344 PAs from A-ball through AA. Since then he's basically been a .200 hitter at AAA, with 2012 especially lacking in both power and walks too. Did you get any sense from him what may have caused that offense drop in 2011? And maybe how he's dealt with it? If it's mainly just a little bad BABIP luck, he could be a real sleeper (not necessarily a starter, but a solid or even plus backup). His K rate isn't the greatest, but his isolated power/discipline seemed to bounce back last year at Rochester, and he hasn't been overmatched in his brief MLB trials.

Your last point may be true. I feel like TR may have only offered the deal because he was familiar with Garza (drafted and signed), and that Garza only really listened to improve his market value. But your opinion of Garza's intelligence or health seems a little off base. He's not getting less money from the Brewers. First, he's getting $50 million guaranteed from Milwaukee, which is more than the Twins offer of $42 million guaranteed. Second, if the proposed Twins option vested and he made $56 million total, the Brewers option is likely to vest too and he will make $63 million total from them. The Brewers deal also includes $1 million in incentives each year (which should be met most years, if the option vests), bringing his potential total up to $68 million. Not sure what incentives the Twins deal may have contained, but the Nolasco deal did not contain any. So, any way you slice it, he's getting more money from the Brewers. His only downside to the Brewers deal is he will hit FA again one year later (roughly age 34 vs age 33 if he took the Twins deal), but by that point in his career, his age is going to be a lot less important than his track record. Also, for "intangibles", he's also going to be pitching in the same league and division as he has the past several seasons, and playing his home games very close to where he played them the past few seasons (Chicago). And he's joining what promises to be a better team in 2014 and probably 2015 too.

I like your optimism, but Nolasco has been a 3 exactly twice in 7 seasons, Hughes has thus far peaked as a 3 and was a 5 last year (and has been a 5 for 2 of 4 seasons since starting full-time), and the likely starter you left out (Pelfrey) has been a 5 starter in 3 of his 6 full seasons, and was also a 5 last year. So you're basically hoping for roughly peak seasons, that have thus far been 50% likely or worse, from 2 of 3 veterans. And given that record for the proven MLB vets, even if the guys both successfully transition to MLB (still a big "if"), what are the odds that both post 2-3 type seasons in the same year in 2015? When one has 10 MLB starts of sub-5 quality, and the other has yet to pitch above AA? Not to mention you seem to be banking on going 4 of 5 in SP health. What are the actual odds of all of this happening for 2015? And given our modest offense, all that good fortune gets the wonderful descriptor of "should be good enough to contend". What happened to "you can never have too much pitching"? Ervin Santana has a better rate of 3rd starter seasons (5 of 8 full seasons), a higher and more recent peak (127 ERA+ last year) than anyone on our current staff, more durability (both in-season and across seasons) than anyone on our current staff... and he appears to be available for roughly the same commitment (4/50) as the guy you list as our hopeful #3 starter in 2015. Not saying he'd be an ace, but the 2015 (and beyond) rotation results you are hoping for would appear to be much more likely by adding Ervin Santana to the mix.

Seems like the best place for this question: what if Ervin Santana would be willing to sign today for Garza's 3/42 offer? Or maybe Nolasco's 4/49? Given what Ubaldo Jimenez settled for, that's not an unrealistic proposition.

The market could be soft for Morales, as the 1/8 Cruz contract suggests. I don't like the idea of sacrificing a draft pick for a one-year contract, though, and the player probably has no interest in signing for multiple years at such a low AAV. Drew for multiple years still interests me, but otherwise, Ervin Santana might be the best target for this bargain-shopping right now -- he would cost more, but I could see him being worth a QO again next season, which could net us a draft pick or another season of a decent value pitcher at ~1/15.

Agreed. It's kind of like the Nolasco signing in that sense -- I like what it shows us about the front office (willingness to spend), maybe more than the actual results of the move. Would have like a slightly more aggressive or creative offer, though -- something to hope for next time. (And hopefully, TR extends his targets to less familiar faces, like Ervin Santana etc.)

Credit to TR for trying to score another asset in an apparently down market. Hopefully it wasn't just the familiarity of Garza or the lack of draft pick comp -- he really should be similarly in the hunt for Drew and Ervin Santana (and Jimenez before he signed). That said, it does look like a smarter offer by Milwaukee. If one is willing to pay 3/42 for a player of Garza's age and ability, tacking on an extra year at 8 mil guaranteed and shifting the vesting option to year 5 is pretty low risk. Plus, the contract language adding a cheap option year in case of injury is another great move by Milwaukee -- we are seeing the value of that with Boston and Lackey right now. Would love to hear TR's thoughts on that concept.

First off, I don't believe in automatically holding spots open for any "top 10" org prospect who is still likely a year-plus away from the show. Drew for 2 does not block Santana at all (if it develops that there is anything to block). Heck, Drew for 3 is barely worse, it at least gives you a fallback plan for 2016 if Santana doesn't take those steps forward. I don't like losing the pick, but as pointed out by others, the Twins have an advantage over some clubs in that regard (our pick is lower than most, and we allegedly already have a pretty deep system). Boston offered Drew 1/14 with no loss of draft pick. Not sure of the cash value of that pick, but Boston also gave him 1/10 last year before he was known to be recovered from injury. 2/20 plus the pick should not be a hold your nose situation at all. And 3/30 would not necessarily be caving -- without the broken ankle, think what Drew could have seen on the market this winter. It should be very interesting to see where he lands, and for how much. These late signings so far are looking like good values -- potential aces/#2s for Nolasco money or less, back of the rotation types for Kurt Suzuki type money guaranteed. Drew looks to be he best value position player option.

Exactly. And to those who think Florimon can be just fine as 9 hole hitter, remember the Twins have multiple 9 hole hitters in our lineup as of today. It helps to replace one of them!

I know very little about how trades actually happen, but I am pretty sure Drew was not offered to all 29 other MLB teams in 2012. There isn't really a "trading block" or central agency for these things. Arizona wanted relief of Drew's salary, and got it; Oakland wanted a SS for their stretch drive, and got it; Boston wanted a SS for $10 mil, and got it. If by "really hit" you mean "really hit more homers" I guess you're right. Same AVG/OBP, more homers for Cruz, more triples for Drew. Over his career, Nelson Cruz is worth 8 rBat (B-Ref batting runs) per 500 PA (and actually less than that rate over the past 3 seasons). Drew had 6 rBat in 500 PA last season. For his career, Drew is only -1.5 rBat per 500 PA. But even that is just a one-win difference between the two from hitting alone, more than dwarfed by defense, positional adjustment, our organizational depth at SS vs corner OF, and Cruz being almost 3 years older.

I should add, I really don't care that much about Drew specifically. When he was projected to get 4/48 by MLBTR, I thought "no thanks." But I like taking advantage of opportunities. How many established 3+ WAR shortstops hit free agency? At age 30? How many of them see their expected contract fall near Twins/Willingham levels, presumably due more to a lack of openings around the league and draft pick compensation issues than the player's own health or production? If you're a team with some big holes and some cash to play with, this is absolutely the type of situation you should be looking for: the chance to improve the team when the market favors you, when you have some leverage in negotiating with the player, and you don't have to get into a bidding war. Garza was a great example of this, since he didn't even require draft pick compensation, but most of the late signing free agents fall into this group too (especially the pitchers and this shortstop, given the Twins needs at those spots). Snagging a player or two every so often by this method, while not absolutely necessary from a strict "success cycle" perspective, reduces the likelihood you will have such big holes to fill in the future, and reduces the likelihood that you will be forced to try filling a hole when the market conditions are not as favorable. And improves your chances for winning.

Actually, 2 WAR is about what Steamer and Oliver have Drew pegged for too. So it's not unreasonable, although I do think it more pessimistic than a true mean/median projection should be, because we know specifically what caused Drew's sudden 2012 decline, and most projection systems don't. (Remember, to them, this is a guy who simply hit like Pedro Florimon for one season.) Even if 2 WAR is your median projection, he's still got 3+ WAR upside (his 2013 was 3.75 WAR prorated to 150 games) and, having reached that level at age 30, at age 31-32 he would still have a pretty healthy percentage likelihood of approaching that. Florimon doesn't have that, and Santana doesn't really have that, especially not for the next couple seasons.

Thanks again for the numbers. Aside from his lost injury year of 2012, Drew has 5 consecutive years of prorated 3+ WAR, including last year's 3.1 in only 124 games. He's actually pretty consistent in that regard. And it's mostly batting WAR, which should be more projectable than defensive WAR. And there's no way 2/20, or even 3/30, prevents this team from making any other move, really. Just a pretty modest investment that shows you're not completely punting 2014, and you're slightly less likely to punt 2015 too.

"Pure hitter" is one of those odd terms. Doesn't really mean best hitter, usually it means most consistent batting average hitter. Not a bad skill, but without some other skills (power/OBP/speed/defense), those kind of players generally don't stick in the top 100 prospect lists, and they can absolutely end up as utility guys. Brendan Harris was once a pretty good "pure hitter" in the minor leagues too, and reached AA just a few months older than Rosario.

Thanks for the answer. 2/20 guaranteed is your absolute, holding-your-nose-while-signing-it top end. (And for the record, I believe MLB contract incentives can only be based on playing time rather than performance -- although I believe "games finished" can skirt that rule for closers.) Now, what kind of production would you project from Drew for your 2/20? PA, OPS+, dWAR? What kind of production would you project, today, from the Twins in-house alternatives? Just trying to see if we disagree on valuation or projection. Personally, unless a physical reveals his ankle is held together by duct tape, I think 2/20 would be an absolute steal. As noted above, MLBTR predicted 4/48 for Drew, with a low estimate of 3/36, and they've been pretty accurate. He took 1/10 last year for a starting gig on a big media market contender, when there were still lingering questions about his recovery. Proposing 2/20 as your maximum acceptable contract now is basically saying you don't want the player under any circumstances. Might as well make the same 2/20 offer to Ervin Santana to compete for the 5th starter's job.

They reported without Lohse last year. They're also reporting without Ervin Santana, Cruz, and Morales this year. Late signings under the new comp system really can't be compared to late signings of days gone by.

I guess if you subscribe to the theory that one of the lasting effects of a broken ankle is poor hitting everywhere but Fenway Park, this is a salient point. Obviously 2012 is bad everywhere -- home, road, RHP, LHP. I don't like making excuses, but it's kinda hard to ignore a broken ankle. And 2013? He had 237 PA on the road, and only 167 PA vs LHP. Those are mightly small samples to write a guy off as a product of Fenway or strictly a platoon player (not saying he isn't better at home and vs RHP, like virtually all MLB LHB, but the difference is probably closer to his career averages than his relatively small 2013 sample). I'm not saying he will necessarily hit his career numbers every year (98 OPS+) -- even pre-injury, the guy bounced between 90 and 110 OPS+ figures. I just think that 90-110 is still the working range for Drew, for this year and the next couple, which is a fair sight better than Florimon's 70. (I know defense counts too, although there is less confidence in those numbers, and outside of Andrelton Simmons, the performance range is much narrower than on offense.) And with the current market, we could actually get Drew for less than anticipated (MLBTR predicted 4/48, with a low estimate of 3/36), which is better than waiting to see what a future offseason brings (or doesn't bring) or continuing to cycle through fringe/waiver guys indefinitely.

Well, I wasn't doubting that players in general decline with age. But to say that you're not going to sign a guy to a reasonable deal (~3/30 or less, plus 2nd round pick) at a position of need, because A) he's 30 years old, and you don't like his home/road splits for one season, seems to be taking this general concept to a bit of an extreme. So if a career MLB OPS of .764 is "not that good of a hitter to begin with", what does that make a career minor league .675 OPS? What kind of contract would NOT constitute "overpaying" for Drew? Some folks here are talking 2/20. I don't think he goes that cheaply, but are you arguing against that? Or 3/30? What would you pay him? And on that note, what's your projection for Drew in 2014 and beyond? PA/OPS+/dWAR? And how about Florimon? I would like to know what kind of production you are associating with these dollar figures too.

Arizona still held an option on Drew's services for 2013, but generally your point stands.