Otto von Ballpark

I don't quite understand this. A whole week? At best, the Twins might want to be out of town Saturday April 6 (semifinal night). Monday April 8 (final) is a Twins off day anyway.

Oh, I know. The Twins just had regularly bad postseason "luck" from 2002-2010.

No worries! Obviously the whole thing is what-ifs, but to me, Kubel seems to stack two separate what-ifs -- health and performance. But I also remember getting excited for Kubel after this game in 2006 -- I guess I've sobered up since then https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN200606130.shtml Doesn't help that Kubel is on the negative side of one of my own personal what-ifs -- what if we had started (or at least pinch-hit) Lew Ford instead of Kubel in 2004 ALDS Game 2? (Ideally, putting Ford in LF ahead of Stewart.) Which leads to another injury what-if from the same time period: what if Mauer stayed healthy in 2004? I don't know if that rookie power was real, but darn he looked good, and we actually played the Yankees pretty close that postseason. Henry Blanco actually did hit a dinger in game 4, but Pat Borders played in both of our extra inning losses too...

I don't know. I mean, Kubel tore up the minors in 2004 -- but plenty of guys tear up the minors, and even have a good MLB debut, and don't ultimately go on to become "offensive forces" in MLB. Kubel was ranked #17 by BA after 2004 -- his first top 100 ranking there. That's very good, but it doesn't strike me as can't-miss-elite-in-the-absence-of-injury or anything. Kubel put up a 117 OPS+ from ages 25-30, which seems a perfectly appropriate outcome for that ranking and his minor league record. Beyond DH'ing during his 2004 MLB debut, he was also used in a strict platoon (61 PA vs RHP, 6 vs LHP), which suggests that platoon concerns were already apparent. Kubel ultimately had a 114 wRC+ vs RHP and a 82 wRC+ vs LHP in MLB. I don't like to read too much into small samples, but sometimes it's all we have -- and Kubel seemed pretty exploitable in the postseason too (2 hits, 3 BB, 13 K's, in 32 career PA), with his worst showing coming immediately after the best regular season of his career (2009). Obviously the injury set back his timeline -- he lost 2005, and probably needed 2006 just to get back into form. But how much did it hold him back beyond that? I'm no ACL expert, but Moustakas and Eaton have both recently had ACL surgeries, and returned to hitting form the following seasons. I could understand a notable effect on speed, defense, and durability / games played, but just pure hitting? I don't know.

Liriano would have improved the staff, no doubt, but would that have been enough pitching to actually win a title? Maybe if they go Schilling-Johnson circa 2001. Otherwise, even with Liriano, the playoff rotation still includes rookie Boof Bonser and Brad Radke's arm duct-taped to his shoulder. We had a few more relievers, but even they weren't a dominant group -- 8 runs allowed in 8 IP during the Oakland series (granted, 2 of those runs were on the inside-the-park HR that Torii allowed). Rondell White actually hit in the second half of 2006 -- 130 wRC+. (After a wRC+ of 4 in the first half!) But my great what-if for that team, beyond Liriano staying healthy, is acquiring Jim Thome before the 2006 season...

MLB teams have already signed way more than 50 guys, though, including plenty of guys who didn't crack that top 50. Obviously talent evaluation is especially subjective in this market, so there could still be some talent in that group. Far more interesting to me than top 50 lists or unsigned lists would be some historical data on international signings -- how many guys signed, and when, and for how much. Then we could at least peg some likelihood on notable signings coming in the last few months of the period. But alas, no one seems to offer this data publicly either. On BA's #34 guy, he's still unsigned for a reason: "Since the commissioner’s office has banned MLB teams from signing players with Mexican League clubs, catcher Fernando Villalobos (No. 34) won’t be able to sign until MLB ends its ban."

I wasn't expecting Kubel to come up in this discussion. I always got the impression that the injury delayed his development a year or two, but ultimately didn't really curtail his MLB performance level. Something about his swing seemed pretty exploitable by MLB pitchers, even before the injury. I don't think he had that much speed or defense before the injury either -- he was a right fielder through his entire minor league career, and never was a threat on the bases except for that partial season at Rochester.

That's why Nixon went with "the silent majority."

You know Oakland swept us in the 2006 ALDS, right? Johan lost game 1, then our bullpen gave up 3 runs and our offense only scored 2 in game 2 -- not sure how much help Liriano could have provided there. Then we scored 3 runs (in garbage time) in game 3. 7 runs total for 3 games. I'm not sure that losing Liriano was the key factor preventing us from going all the way that year.

"BREAKING: Twins Daily Changes Breaking News Policy"

If you are suggesting that the Twins sold Granite for cash, I don't think much actual cash changed hands here. At most, it seems the Rangers sent us the waiver fee as a courtesy? If the Twins spend any of the bonus pool allowance we got from Baltimore, the Twins will probably lose money on this transaction.

I don't think anyone has lists of unsigned IFA, aside from maybe a "top 30" each July (that's highly informed by the deals teams are arranging). There's no public information for anyone to create such a list, unlike draft prospects.

Agreed, although I don't if it will come down to 5 or so Graterol types, at least for this period (until July 2nd). But even if it's just one guy at $150k, that's $150k more they have free for the upcoming 2019-2020 period. I suppose there could be some 15 year olds, who turn 16 before July 2nd, who might be willing to sign early for $800k or less, and that would save money for the 2019-2020 period too.

Alcala signed with the Astros at age 19 -- but it was only for a $10k bonus, which doesn't count against a team's international bonus pool. https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesotatwins/comments/92iwzw/rosenthal_rhp_jorge_alcala_and_celestino_and_cf/e362fck

FWIW, you could have made a similar argument last spring. Remember both Dozier and Morrison were coming off 30+ HR seasons, and Rosario/Kepler were pretty much at their current power levels too. I do like Nelson Cruz, but I'm not sure this year's lineup will translate into meaningfully less pressure on Sano. (If there's any less pressure on Sano, it would probably be due his 2018 performance lowering expectations.)

The Twins probably don't need him right now, but Granite probably did have some value to various rebuilding clubs. Obviously 2018 was a lost year for him, but a strong defensive CF with speed *and* who rarely strikes out at the plate (and is MLB ready) is an interesting asset. Not an upside prospect, but possibly a guy with a high floor who you can plug in at CF right away for a cheap 1-2 WAR regular. Just in the Twins division, I could see the Royals and especially White Sox both being interested in a player like that. The White Sox depth chart shows Adam Engel at #1 in CF right now, and not much better in the corners either. Both the Royals and White Sox were ahead of the Rangers in waiver priority too, which may have prompted this deal from the Rangers perspective.

Usually we don't find out, and I suspect that in those cases it's a pretty nominal amount (basically the waiver fee?). I doubt it's anywhere near $750k here. As for brokering, while the deals were announced in order as Twins-Rangers followed by Twins-Orioles, it seems likely that much of the brokering here already occurred directly between the Orioles and Rangers. Just a week ago, those two clubs made a trade involving another Rangers minor league pitcher and Orioles international bonus pool cash: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/02/rangers-acquire-international-bonus-money-from-orioles.html Credit to the Twins for inserting themselves in the process, of course, if the alternative at this point was losing Granite for nothing.

Obviously it's not a bad trade or anything, but it's hard to judge it too much without knowing the front office's intent too. It's possible that they would have preferred to send Granite to Rochester, and they thought this was a good time to pass him through waivers, but then realized that wasn't going to happen after they DFA'd him and confirmed other teams interest. They'd still get some credit for pivoting and getting something, of course -- and we know this front office can pivot quickly (i.e. the Jaime Garcia trades).

Is it that hard to believe, though? Once they DFA'd Granite, they may have discovered they were going to lose him, and had their choice of the following returns: 1. nothing (lost on waivers) 2. Xavier Moore 3. $750k international bonus money I could see them preferring option #3 at that point, even without a specific plan on how to spend it. Given they only had $80k before, this gives them some wiggle room in case their scouts find an overlooked player this spring, and they can possibly sign them in the current period rather than taking out of their 2019-2020 pool come July.

From MLBTR: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/03/twins-acquire-international-bonus-money-from-orioles.html Perhaps why the Orioles were willing to trade it:

Could be, but this money is for the current international signing period, which is fairly close to ending. (Trades of future international bonus money are prohibited.) I'm not even sure if there would be 5 Graterol level signings available anymore? FWIW, Graterol signed near the start of his signing period (August), albeit just after his 16th birthday -- but any interesting prospects who turn 16 now might be waiting until July when a lot more teams have a lot more money to bid. Should be interesting to see what we do with the money. Probably better than the minor leaguer we traded away, but it's hard to get too excited about extra international bonus money this time of year. (And that's probably why were able to get as much as $700k for a guy like Xavier Moore -- the utility of $700k is lower this time of year.

Of course this is breaking news. This trade was only a few letters away from involving Zack Greinke!

Just want to say, I have enjoyed this discussion and all participants! My overly long posts are not screeds of negativity. Not about Gonzalez, and certainly not about any viewpoints here. Just exploration.

Worth remembering that a median projection is really just an average of weighted scenarios. We can all come up with scenarios where Gonzalez helps more than +1 win -- like your 0 WAR or negative WAR replacement scenarios -- but we can also easily come up with scenarios where he helps less than +1 win. Even scenarios where Gonzalez proves to be an absolutely useful, valuable contributor, he's not necessarily improving our overall projection. As an example, note that the median projection has Sano and Buxton worth ~2.3 WAR at their respective positions for 2019. After 2018, it's not hard to imagine a scenario where one of those guys contributes 0, either by performance or health, and Gonzalez spending most of his PAs directly or indirectly covering those spots. That scenario -- which sounds like an absolutely useful, valuable deployment of Gonzalez -- still doesn't represents a net increase from our pre-Gonzalez median projection, because Gonzalez himself only projects to 1.5 WAR: 82 wins pre-Gonzalez projection minus 2.3 WAR from Buxton or Sano plus 1.5 WAR from Gonzales equals 81.2 wins The scenario would actually need at least +1.8 WAR of good luck (Kepler breaking out, etc.) to get to where Fangraphs is right now, at +1 win post-Gonzalez (83 wins). And that would be fair, to project at least 1.8 WAR good luck to balance out -2.3 of bad luck. Rounding might be a factor here too -- you could easily refer to Fangraphs +1 win as +1.5 wins, perhaps even as high as +1.9, without changing my point, or constituting a blind spot in the projections -- but hopefully you can see how hard it is to move the needle significantly with these weighted scenarios, without assuming more than neutral luck. Ultimately, it's worth remembering that Gonzalez doesn't bring us more than neutral luck -- which could represent many wins; rather, he just shifts our neutral luck point upward, which appears more modest (but can still be useful and valuable, and again, doesn't necessarily indicate a blind spot in the projections). (And note I'm not claiming any precision to measurable WAR or accuracy in these particular projections, just using these figures for illustration purposes of actual value.)

What examples would you cite for this? Seems to me that most such instances are where we're committed to playing a guy for other reasons (i.e. Morrison), not where we're simply cycling through replacement options seeking a 0-1 WAR band-aid. I agree there's no extreme precision to WAR measurement -- although that cuts both ways, positive and negative. And an extreme SSS limits the extent of the potential damage in actual WAR. Note that when I say 0 measurable WAR, I'm really thinking of a range from -0.5 to +0.5 actual WAR, at least (maybe more for defense). In any case, Gonzalez doesn't move the needle much differently between those values -- either in small sample, because Gonzalez isn't generating much actual WAR himself in a small sample, and over a larger sample because -0.5 actual WAR is obvious enough over a small sample that it isn't allowed to increase over a larger sample! The Twins could be desperate enough sign a guy off the street again like Steve Holm, and I'm pretty confident he won't be worth more than -0.5 actual WAR before we've seen enough to move on from him to the next option. And for the 95% of the time when MLB teams aren't that desperate, when they're choosing between guys who aren't simply signed off the street -- Adrianza, Torreyes, even Palka or Petit or LaMarre -- I'm very confident they won't be worse than -0.5 actual WAR, and most will probably be 0 or better.