Otto von Ballpark

Also, post-ASB 2002, Ortiz's number are almost exactly equal to his 2003 Boston stats... and during that run he also passed the 1500 PA mark for his career. Wasn't that TK's rule, a player needed 1500 PA in MLB to judge him? If they're raking as they pass 1500, maybe give them 500 more?

Just turned 27 that offseason, entering his "age-27" season, and despite some injuries, he had improved in both of his age-25 and age-26 seasons. I seem to remember hearing something about age-27 seasons from those cybermetric types... Nobody is saying the Twins had to give Ortiz a long-term deal. It would have been one-year contract for just under $2 million. Torii Hunter was only a second-year arb player himself -- he didn't command all that much money in 2003, and wasn't set to hit free agency for another couple years. Locking him up longer-term was fine, but it didn't have much to do with Ortiz making $1.8 million on a one-year deal. And again, I don't know if this can be emphasized enough: upon leaving the Twins due to $1.8 million and/or a 40-man roster spot, Ortiz immediately began a 10 year run which has catapulted him to Hall of Fame candidate despite the short career and DH penalty. How can that not be a massive mistake, whether it's GM or coaching?

Actually, according to this AP report, Ortiz was released in December 2002 rather than simply non-tendered -- an effort to get him off the 40-man roster immediately, rather than wait for the arbitration deadline? KELOLAND.com | Twins Release Ortiz In any case, it says he had to pass through release waivers, which means any team could have claimed him and gone to arbitration with him. Also, he was released in mid-December and signed in mid-January, well before spring training, so he was only on the market about a month, which isn't anything unusual. Also, the AP article above notes that Ortiz was playing winter ball at the time of his release, which also possibly delayed him re-signing with another club. And if salary was the driving factor, the Twins could have re-signed him as a free agent then, correct? Not sure if the rules were different back then, but I know Oakland non-tendered Jack Cust a few years ago and re-signed him the same offseason. I wonder if Ortiz would have made $2 million in arbitration -- Jeremy Giambi was in the same boat (second year arbitration eligible), was better than Ortiz in 2001, made $115k more in 2002, was arguably better than Ortiz again in 2002, and received exactly $2 million for the 2003 season. Going by that, Ortiz could have slotted closer to $1.8 million. Over $2 million, as has been suggested by some observers, seems highly unlikely. Also, the comparable Jeremy Giambi was traded twice in 2002, including the day before Ortiz was released. He didn't fetch much either time, but it suggests there could have been something of a market for Ortiz. At the very least, for just under $2 million, the Twins could have held on to Ortiz as a trade chip. (Giambi broke down pretty quickly in 2003, and Boston would have almost certainly dealt for Ortiz then.) That shouldn't have been an excessive amount even by 2002 Twins standards. The Twins paid a comparable sum in 2002 for the "services" of Bob Wells. They also committed $1 million for each of 2002-2003 for the last legs of Denny Hocking. One thing that gets overlooked here is just how rare it is for MLB regulars to be non-tendered/released, particularly before their second arbitration award. That's almost the exclusive territory of marginal players (relievers/bench guys), or guys with immediate serious injury concerns (i.e. Pelfrey's surgery last year). Even Luis Rivas got two arbitration awards from the Twins. (Jack Cust only got one arb award from the A's, but he was 4 years older, a strikeout king, and coming off a 105 OPS+.) How many healthy 120 OPS+ regulars don't get offered arbitration a second time?

What bugs me most about the Ortiz thing is that I understand it's not easy to get guys on your team, so it's hard for me to fault the Twins too much when they don't land a particular player in the draft, free agency, or by trade -- after all, 29 other teams are competing for the same players. But that makes it all the more glaring when you actually HAVE a guy and then you let him go. Particularly when you let him go after he showed significant MLB improvement in his age-26 season (what are the peak baseball ages again?) and was projected to make only $2 million or less... and then he immediately starts an epic 10 year run that makes him a Hall of Fame candidate (at least a guy like Johan took a few years in his new organization to develop)... I really don't see how you can spin that as anything but an epic screw-up, whether it's the GM and/or the coaching. Thanks for the opportunity to vent.

Ortiz was released in December 2002 and signed one month later in January 2003, long before Boston had any injury issues. And he actually signed with Boston for a raise over his 2002 Twins salary, even if it wasn't quite what he could have gotten in arbitration. Boston was coming off of a 93 win season in 2002 and their projected DH (Jeremy Giambi) was hardly a lock for the position. I doubt Boston was his only offer -- it was just the best situation for him.

oWAR includes the positional adjustment too. For pure hitting performance, you need to look at batting runs (Rbat). Ortiz ranked 5th on the 2002 Twins, and 4th on a per PA basis.

That's OPS park factor. If you look at HR park factor at ESPN, Target Field has always slightly to severely favored the pitcher in terms of HR outside of 2012, when it leaned slightly to the offense: 2013 MLB Park Factors - Home Runs - Major League Baseball - ESPN Of course, the Angels ballpark (and the Royals park in 2013) has similarly favored the pitcher in terms of HR.

I understand that K's have jumped league-wide, and notably for at least one team in our division. That's why it seemed odd that Ervin Santana's K rate remained constant in 2013, and basically unchanged as far back as 2009. Shouldn't it have gone up, like the rest of the league? I recall reading that the Royals made some big changes in the last year in terms of defensive positioning -- so some of those non-K outs he recorded in 2013 could disappear if he comes to the Twins...

Ervin Santana is very interesting -- I didn't immediately think of him as a front-line guy, but he's been pretty good and also he's been very durable -- not just starts, but also innings (almost 30 more innings than Ubaldo Jimenez last year, in the same number of starts). I wish the Twins would have nabbed him last year. Santana's K rate, while it would look great on the Twins, didn't go up last year, as compared to Jimenez and Sanchez who both saw huge K rate jumps pitching in the same division. Should that be a concern?

I was responding to both points -- you previously brought up player raises, but they aren't really an issue for the next 5 years at least. I agree that we don't have to get the payroll up to $120 million or whatever in one offseason. If Ryan can add $30 million to next year's payroll (bringing it back to $90 million according to Jeremy's chart), that would be a huge step in the right direction. We just haven't ever seen those kinds of moves from him before, which has me nervous.

I was looking for similarly dominant GCL pitching performances (good news: there aren't many), and I found Clayton Kershaw 2006. Kershaw jumped to low-A the next year, but he was about ~8 months older than Thorpe, and perhaps more importantly, a much bigger kid (6'3", 215 lbs when drafted, as compared to Thorpe's listed 6'1", 160 lbs).

Thanks for the interview Seth. You might want to clarify who "Mark Ellis" is, in this context (Australian baseball coach?), so readers don't confuse him with the veteran MLB second baseman.

Nice post. The term "Can't Miss Prospects" caught my eye though -- in this context, I guess it really means these guys (like any top prospects) CAN miss, but the Twins CAN'T afford for them to miss.

Thanks Mr. Goin for stopping by. I'm pretty sure posts about rebuilding strategy aren't really germane to Mr. Goin's work with the Twins, so let's try to avoid re-hashing that discussion, okay? Same with specifics about players and contract offers and negotiations. Let's try to focus the discussion on areas that he knows and information he can provide. If you are still reading, Mr. Goin, here are a couple of questions for you: 1) Has the composition of your staff changed from last offseason when you talked to Parker? I think it was just you and an intern then. (Asked as a Twins fan and possible job seeker ) 2) What's the status of PITCHf/x being added to Twins minor league parks? 3) What's the status of FIELDf/x? I remember hearing about it being installed in San Francisco a few years ago, curious about its status for Target Field (or MLB-wide).

One thing I'd add: I'm not recommending going all-in on Ervin Santana or anything, just that he's the kind of guy the Twins should be making competitive offers for. Same for Anibal Sanchez last year, and maybe Homer Bailey next year. Don't know about Asdrubal Cabrera, we need position players too but he seems like he may have peaked... at least we will have more time to see him before he hits FA.

tcarlic, I like your plan (at least for this offseason). No reason we can't "overpay" a little to try to get some long-term help in the rotation, as well as take advantage of potential short-term bargains. That's one of the "positives" about having a severe shortage of quality players... plenty of spots to put new guys!

For me, it's that TR has thus far refused to bid on good talent, anytime, anywhere. The only acquisitions he ever makes are either explicitly capped in spending, or involve modest interest at best (Correia, Pelfrey, etc.). Sometimes that's a good play, when you don't think the talent or value is there, but as a hard and fast rule? At the top level of a sport where talent is scarce? Even if you're really good at all of the other aspects of your job, it almost guarantees a slow rebuild (5-6 seasons?) at best, and quite possibly an unsuccessful rebuild if a particular player or draft doesn't pan out as expected. Fortunately for TR, the draft and most international signings are explicitly capped now -- one could argue that's the only reason we have Buxton and a few other of our top prospects. But I would love to see TR and his team put their baseball and scouting acumen to work on the domestic and Cuban/Asian free agent markets -- not necessarily to sign mega-contracts or get into bidding wars, but to target good investments and occasionally snag one. Right now they essentially sit those markets out, on principle. EDIT: Sorry I drifted away from the stats debate...

Don't know that I had heard that previously, but it seems to make intuitive sense. By the time pitchers reach AA and striking distance of MLB, innings limits seem to be more attractive than expanded seasons. Seems like only special circumstances (like Meyer's shortened season) would put a quality advanced starting pitching prospect in the AFL. Looking at Wikipedia, only one pitcher has won the AFL MVP award, and only 3 of the 26 players in the AFL "Hall of Fame" are starting pitchers (and none of those 3 pitched in the AFL after 1998).

I don't think its ego-driven necessarily. But I do get a dismissive "I'll do it my way, thanks" vibe from TR. Which was great when they emerged from the wilderness to have a good run in the low-budget Dome... less encouraging when we are lost in the wilderness again, under budget, and better players are always 2-3 years away.

It's going to be 3-4 years before the Twins have any decent young players looking for anything more than token raises. Probably 5-6 years until any homegrown talent could look for "star" money. I'm all for leaving a little wiggle room in the budget, but $30+ million is more than "wiggle room." I'd rather prove NOW that this team and GM are willing to spend, and willing (and able) to use free agency to improve the team. That's going to be a lot more important to the next good Twins team than leaving extra payroll space over the next 5 years.

Santana's 2008 was better than his 2013, so its probably not technically a career year. Also, Santana has had ~3 other seasons with innings and rate stats similar to 2013/2008, even if he didn't quite hit those ERA+ numbers. Phil Hughes is younger, but has hardly even approached any Santana's top 5 seasons in terms of innings or effectiveness. And I still think Hughes is unlikely to sign anything more than a one year deal, so best case, you might get a one-year upgrade and then have to make a Santana-type offer to retain him anyway. I credit this poster for giving a realistic estimate of Santana's potential contract (although I think he could get a fifth year, but the AAV looks about right). It's clear the we can afford him, and we have a gaping need at the position.

I think the lack of a decent lineup or competitive team has kept Mauer out of the catcher position the past 2 years as much as any injury or inability to catch. It's been discussed here before, but why force him to crouch behind the plate 120+ games a year when you've got nothing at 1B, DH, etc. and you're way at the bottom of the standings? Keep Mauer in the mix behind the plate in these lost seasons and you reduce his chance at injury while retaining the possibility of increasing his catching workload someday when you might need it (i.e. a future season where we might be set at 1B/DH and we're actually competitive). If you find yourself with a quality full-time replacement at catcher, or the concussion issue lingers, obviously you can make another move. But otherwise, I see nothing wrong with the above course of action.

Burnett: now that would have been a good pickup for the Twins. The Pirates essentially got him for 2/13 from the Yanks for a couple middling low minors guys. (Burnett had a partial no-trade, not sure if he would have blocked the Twins.) Bill Smith might have made that move, it's similar to some of his deadline deals.

Actually MLB has changed a lot to HELP Terry Ryan. With the spending caps on the draft and most international guys, the Twins can no longer get beat in those areas based on cash alone. They still can and will get beat in MLB free agency and Cuban/Japan free agency, but that's generally nothing new. It's a little maddening that they'd let themselves get beat in those areas when they're well under reasonable payroll expectations -- it seems more like a part of the job that TR just doesn't want to do (identify and buy MLB ready talent), rather than the result of any grand philosophy.

No doubt there were some farewell tours etc. but TR was rebuilding from his first season on the job. It just takes a long time when you confine your rebuild to draft picks only at slot (or lower) prices.