Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,662

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    FWIW, Arizona had 11% postseason odds before the season at Fangraphs, and stand at 14% today. That's not great, but it's not negligible, especially in a division with the Dodgers. It was their second highest preseason odds since they signed Greinke. (They're also -3 Pythag and -2 BaseRuns this year, which suggests some bad luck so far.)
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    The Goldschmidt trade wasn't a long-term rebuilding thing, though -- it was definitely a reloading move. They got their current starting catcher and #3 SP for an expiring asset. I also don't think Pollock counted as "high end" anymore, with his age and recent health/performance. They weren't going to push their payroll to ~$150 mil to re-sign Corbin in that context, but it's not clear that they need to slash it to $100 mil or below either by moving Greinke. Also, you don't address Greinke's no-trade clause which includes the Twins. It's going to be tough enough to move Greinke with his salary without also needing to convince him to waive that no-trade clause. The general likelihood of a Greinke deal doesn't necessarily apply to the Twins. Maybe a Greinke deal is more likely relative to a Scherzer deal, but they're both so unlikely in absolute terms that I'm not sure the distinction matters.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    Re: Scherzer's signing bonus installments In looking up Greinke, I found that he has similar (albeit smaller) signing bonus installments due, but it was reported that Arizona would be obligated to pay those, even in the event of a trade: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/11/latest-on-zack-greinke-2.html Which confirms my suspicion about Scherzer -- an acquiring team could ignore those payments, and instead would only be responsible for the remaining annual salary / deferred salary (the ~$105 mil).
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    I think Greinke to the Twins is nearly as unlikely as Scherzer. We're on Greinke's no-trade list. Plus Arizona is in contention, and doesn't seem desperate for further salary relief (they already rank 20th in payroll, behind the Twins).
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    http://twinsdaily.com/topic/32627-fun-with-numbers-2019/page-8
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Interesting thought experiment! If there was any single prospect that could be acceptable return for Scherzer right now, Vlad Jr. would seem to be it. Elite, already in MLB (and heating up?), mostly at a position of need (3B once Rendon leaves). Toronto might not see the benefit in that swap, though.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Interestingly, more than the hotel, I read "clubhouse and food" as implying the game day spread, but I suppose the Twins are fully capable of ordering some food on non-game days too.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    If this was true, I think we'd have seen similar trades in the past, right? Surely some team, at some time, would have wanted 2-3 years of a bona fide ace (albeit an expensive one) more than a top 10 prospect who's 2-3 years away, right? The closest recent example I can recall was Gleyber Torres for Aroldis Chapman, although that was a 2 month rental (and a bit of an outlier trade already!). If the 2016 Yankees had Scherzer circa 2019, I don't think they so readily trade him for Torres -- Scherzer would be much harder to replace in 2017-2018. Russell for Samardzija is another one that was largely one-for-one (sorry, Jason Hammel), although Shark then was still demonstrably worse than Scherzer now (and was only controlled for 1.5 years).
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    I agree, and never meant to imply otherwise. But the poster I was originally responding to said "I'm not sure he's going to cost too much in terms of prospects." I think he either costs a lot in prospects, or he stays put. We can also say that's a result of the market valuing him less than Sale, but then the market isn't providing any practical benefit for the Twins either. Edit: also we missed an opportunity for a Paul Sorrento joke!
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    I understand the differences between Sale and Scherzer, but I am not sure it makes much practical difference in terms of what actually happens here. It's not like Washington is obligated to deal Scherzer for X% of the Sale return, even if we estimate Scherzer's surplus value as only X% of Sale's.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, the other issue is, not all prospect rankings are equal in terms of value. I think the general consensus was that Gonsalves was rarely considered to have top-of-the-rotation potential -- but had a relatively high floor. That may be enough to get onto a few top 100 lists, but not enough to generate any significant trade interest. For example, Adalberto Mejia snuck onto one of those midseason top 100 update lists once with a similar profile (and was probably bubbling just under Gonsalves on others, I'd estimate around 130) -- and all he returned in trade was 1.5 seasons of Eduardo Nunez. I'd guess it's more likely no one was ever really willing to give up meaningful value in trade for Gonsalves, rather than the Twins held on to him too long.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    I think a number of teams would love to sign a guy like Scherzer to a 2-3 deal at a high AAV right now -- and that's exactly what they'd be paying in prospects to acquire from Washington. It's the longer term commitments that generally scare them off. In that sense, Jeremy's proposal might be an accurate market offer -- but Washington might prefer to keep Scherzer under those conditions anyway.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm not sure that's a reliable list, as I think it was a midseason update, and those tend to remove graduates (note no Bellinger on that 2017 list) but may not properly re-order the remaining players? B-Ref archives preseason rankings from BA, MLB, and BP. They have Gonsalves at #78 by MLB pre-2018, and that was his highest ranking: https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=gonsal001ste If he was ever truly considered #64 overall, it was brief and a decidedly minority opinion.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    It does seem a little light, in this context. Washington isn't in a tear-down mode, so I think they'd want elite prospects that could contribute very, very soon (even Lewis might seem a bit far off right now), and at positions where they don't already have assets. Kirilloff might have to play 1B for them, which is perhaps sub-optimal. Are the other pieces good enough to make up for that?
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    On the money, I suspect Washington would simply be responsible for the signing bonus, and the acquiring team would take on the annual salary / deferments earned for 2019-2021. Not much more than your estimate, though -- $93 mil at the moment, and which may only be ~$74 mil in present-day money due to deferments. The Twins could have a leg up on some bidders, though, because that money would put some of them over (or further over) the luxury tax threshold. They might need to send back some dead money to Washington. Either way, it would take elite prospects to get it done, though.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm not sure I understand? Scherzer has been 1st or 2nd (and deservedly so) on the last 3 Cy Young ballots. He's one of the best pitchers in baseball right now, presently healthy and demonstrably durable. Why wouldn't he cost a lot in terms of prospects? Unless he was owed like $50+ mil a year, I'm not sure the money really matters here. I get that theoretically, at $35 mil a year, he should cost less in terms of prospects than what Boston gave up for Sale a few years ago -- but Washington's not dealing him based on that. If the return is less than Sale's, they almost certainly just hang on to Scherzer.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    Wouldn't the Twins just set the money aside now, and pay him out of that stash over those 7 years? If not just convert it to present-day salaries, with the player's agreement. The key is that it's not deferred money on top of big present day money -- it's deferred money in lieu of any present day money. Even the signing bonus installments -- thinking about it more, I wonder if Washington is simply obligated to pay that anyway. They signed the contract, and specifically not considered his annual salary.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Washington is in a similar spot as the Mets, though -- even if the team is under-performing now, they're absolutely built to win in the near future. Rendon is a pending FA, but they still have Soto, Robles, Strasburg, Corbin, the aforementioned Scherzer, and even Doolittle is controlled for 2020. If they deal Scherzer, I have to imagine it's for an elite return.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    FWIW, Scherzer's deal does NOT contain any no-trade protection -- but he will gain full no-trade rights as a 10-and-5 player at the end of the 2019 season. So if they want to trade him, there might be some impetus to get a deal done during the 2019 season.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    Beat me to the punch! Edit: although I disagree with your last line, as I don't think this would lower the prospect price.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    According to Cot's, the deferred money in Scherzer's deal is simply his 2019-2021 salaries ($35 mil each year, $105 mil total, deferred without interest to be paid over 2022-2028), so that's not too bad. https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league/washington-nationals/ But he also has signing bonus installments due. $7.5 mil yet this year, and $15 mil in each of 2020-2021, so $37.5 mil. I'm guessing Washington would have to take on most of that, as it was largely used to suppress his early year salaries. "for luxury-tax purposes, Scherzer’s annual salary is $28,689,376" so I could see that as the baseline expectation for any deal -- the acquiring team takes on 3/84 or so (less the first half this year, I guess).
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    Sorry, by "their guys" I meant the previous FO's guys. (Darn pronouns!) Despite all the issues with the previous FO, they assembled a talented collection of ballplayers, and I think the current FO recognizes that as much as anyone. To the extent this factor could even be a tiebreaker, say between Thorpe and Smeltzer, I'm guessing it's not worth holding up a deal over it.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Agreed. And not only do I expect the Mets to hang around close enough this year, but they're built to win now. They already signed deGrom long term, and Conforto, Syndergaard, and Matz are controlled through 2021, Diaz and Lugo through 2022, plus a few more pieces beyond that. It would probably take a king's ransom to pry one of those guys away, even if they fall out of the 2019 race. Best Mets bet for 2019, if they fall out of the race, would be pending FA Zack Wheeler.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think that distinction is important at all. Two-thirds of our league-dominating lineup right now is composed of the previous FO's guys. Plus our best SP and RP. As well as TD top prospects #2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, etc. Edit: darn pronouns!
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Adams doesn't have options, so it would have to be a DFA.
×
×
  • Create New...