Otto von Ballpark

I've got news for you: Blake Parker is probably a Fernando Rodney-type. In addition to Rodney, we also lost Pressly from the 2018 pen, which is going to counteract some of the potential benefit from adding Romero and hopefully a full season of May. I might understand waiting if the proposed price was a costly trade -- but the cost appears to be just money in free agency right now. Why wait? Even if we added the most expensive option in Kimbrel, we'd still have enough flexibility to add additional salary at the deadline if necessary (since we'd only have to pay a deadline acquisition for 2 months). What exactly is the upside to "wait and see" besides money in Pohlad's pocket? Giving a nice long leash to Hildenberger or Magill?

Is he in poor shape? Or does he simply have an unusual natural shape for a pro athlete?

Although now that I think about it, that extra year is basically a minimum salary year -- so you are right, the terms are basically the same. If anything, the Twins are taking on more risk by guaranteeing it a year earlier -- so it would be nice to get two option years instead of just one.

Sorry everyone for hijacking the thread, but I'd like to jump back to this. I wasn't trying to ignore any questions, but perhaps I wasn't being clear in my responses. I'll try here. "What are you really saying about this methodology I need to look at more closely? To what end?" First of all, it's important to remember these Fangraphs dollar figures are just a column on their player stat tables expressing past WAR values in dollar terms. They're not saying these are contracts, or should be contracts, or you could assemble a whole team with contracts like these, etc. Looking back at any random player and season, it's just another way of saying Dozier's 2016 performance was valuable. Other ways to say it might involve his 42 HR that year as a second baseman, or his 132 wRC+, etc. But the nice thing about WAR (and by extension, WAR in dollar terms) is that it attempts to quantify these value estimates relative to league, park, and position. We know 42 HR from a 2B in 2016 is more valuable than 42 HR from a 1B in Coors Field in 2000 -- but it's also nice to estimate how much, especially when the comparisons aren't so stark. As I said, that's all looking backward. But there is a more careful, limited use of it looking forward, if instead of past WAR you look at future projected WAR. If you see how much teams are paying in free agency (and trades) for projected future WAR, you get a dollars per WAR figure you can use as a baseline for roughly estimating FA contracts, trade returns, and such. Like in the case of Michael Brantley. He was a FA this winter. He had 3.5 WAR last year, but at his age and health history, we won't project him to repeat that. Fangraphs has him projected at 2.4 WAR for 2019. We observe that teams recently have paid $8 mil per projected WAR in free agency and trade. So, we could estimate a potential salary of $19 mil for him on a one-year contract for 2019, or less than that on a multiyear deal where the projected WAR would gradually decline with age. And indeed, he actually signed for 2/32 -- not far off. Now there are a ton of other factors -- most obviously a team may have different projections for a player. Maybe that $ per WAR figure is going down around the league, maybe there is a lot of competition on the market at that position, maybe a team is willing to pay for upside above projected WAR, or for a steady performance floor, etc. Clearly not every team would have equal interest in signing him at that figure. But it's an easy way to get an *estimate* without having to duplicate the extensive work of an MLB front office! It's very useful, for a fan who wants to estimate what a FA might get, or quickly analyze whether a FA contract is fair (or favors the team or player). I agree that in this thread, it's not really appropriate for judging Kepler's extension right now, because he's not a free agent or even particularly close to free agency. He was an asset already under control for sub-market prices -- something the Fangraphs figure is clearly not trying to incorporate. But that's an issue with the application of the information, not the information from Fangraphs itself. (Although it could be relevant for Kepler soon -- a team looking at Kepler as a potential trade target would be looking at the value he provides, above his salary, compared to alternatives on the open market.)

It's similar dollars, but Seth's proposal has an extra year over the Severino and Nola contracts (by virtue of Berrios being 1 year behind them in service time). Now would seem to be the best time for an extension -- Berrios isn't arbitration eligible yet, so he's still a year away from even a $1 mil salary. The Twins should have some leverage right now. Maybe they can even tack on another team option year? Those have worked very well for Cleveland and Tampa.

Here's a current example from MLBTR which again suggests the 80% rule doesn't apply to extensions: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/02/latest-on-khris-davis-athletics.html

Well, they front-loaded Polanco's deal by a few million, and Kepler's too, no? So obviously they don't mind that. I was describing why there wouldn't be more extreme front-loading scenarios. That could mean interest on a lot more than $1 million. (And of course, interest is just one factor.)

I posted this thought elsewhere too, but I don't think most teams can afford to wait and time things that much. Yes, the 2012 Twins didn't have much reason to aggressively add MLB talent; same for the Marlins today and other orgs bereft of wins and talent. But pretty much every other team should be on constant alert for smart aggressive risks to take to add significant MLB talent. If Milwaukee waited to be aggressive until they were in Houston's position circa August 2017, they might have been waiting forever, and squandered good opportunities along the way. (Heck, one could argue that Houston was perhaps too passive given their talent and resources but got lucky with Verlander being available and rejuvenated when he was -- in addition to the luck they had with building their core too.) I feel like, whether they realize it or not, the Twins stated policy of waiting to be aggressive is more a de facto acceptance of too many of the limitations of the Terry Ryan era.

This is a fair difference. I know I've seen folks citing Stewart's 2018 season as meaningful in this context, and I'm definitely not sure about that yet. Same with the improvement of Pressly and Gibson -- those are good things and signs of competence, but I'm not sure they are indicative of anything greater yet.

I think those posters were mistaken. The Cub Reporter is an excellent resource. Here is where they reference the 80% rule: https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/4044 Note that it is specifically about tendering one-year contracts to pre-arb and arb-eligible players. There's basically no official restriction on extensions or multi-year deals. Mauer could have certainly signed an extension like Todd Helton did in 2010 (Helton was already signed for $19 mil in 2011, but tacked on 2012 and 2013 at $5 mil each). Practical concerns are what usually discourage extreme front-loading (and back-loading too). The luxury tax is calculated based off AAV, so front-loading or back-loading doesn't help teams there. And for the Twins, while the luxury tax isn't a concern, and they may want to spend a few mil today to save a few mil down the line, there are limits to that benefit too -- complicating contract insurance would an obvious one. They may lose money on interest in the long run. Also they probably don't want to risk payroll spiking too high in 2019, etc.

First off, sorry to nitpick rankings and stuff. I was responding quickly between other things, but I should have known better! I fall into that trap too often, and I apologize. Back on topic, I think I understand your point, and to an extent, I agree -- this team is better than last year's 78 wins indicate. But I'm not sure that necessarily supports a conservative approach -- we're still maybe just a low-80s team on MLB talent right now. Going conservative probably keeps us in the same range for 2019. These extensions, plus Berrios and Rosario in the same group, suggest we have a pretty stable core right now -- not necessarily stars, but some solid longer term assets. We pretty much had this core when the new front office took over too, despite the dreadful 2016 season. I don't like to demand any splashy moves in any given short time frame, but I think I would have liked to see this front office show a bit more aggression to improve our MLB talent over the past couple years, and take a chance at elevating this low-80s win team to a high-80s projection. Short-term deals, selling at the deadline -- those are necessary parts of the toolbox too -- but I'd like to see the front office differentiate itself with some smart forays into trades and FA to add more significant MLB talent. Perhaps those moves are still coming, but given our talent base, I wonder, if not now, then when?

That's perhaps fair, although I'm not sure we really know much about their scouting process other than what we see manifested in the results. (At least we may not know enough to notably differentiate them from other teams in this regard -- I'm guessing the scouting quality spread is much narrower among MLB teams than the spread of farm system talent, for example.) Also, with our recent regime change, it might be hard to assess where our scouting currently sits -- Kirilloff and Graterol were both scouted/signed by the previous regime, for example, and make up a decent size chunk of our farm system upside right now. Not to slight the new front office in any way, but we may not have a sample size yet to really judge their scouting relative to the league. Edit: but I admit, this tangent is nit-picking, and I apologize! I was commenting quickly yesterday and I'll try to stay on topic now.

If you credit their scouting for getting prospects in trade, and you credit their farm system ranking which includes those prospects from trades, then that seems like double counting. Same with scouting the draft and farm system ranking. And a lot of this stuff is still very speculative -- the new FO doesn't really have much to show for "improved development" at the MLB level yet. Some of that will no doubt improve with time, but just in a current snapshot, I don't necessarily think other orgs envy the Twins development processes quite yet.

That's just in the 1 years deals of arbitration (and pre-arb?). The team and player can agree to whatever terms they want otherwise.

This seems to be double-counting -- giving credit for 5th ranked farm AND scouting, for example -- or assuming a lot of things that are far from clear at this point (like player development).

Top 10 power ranking seems generous -- Fangraphs has them tied with 2 other teams at #12 in projected 2019 wins right now, and we're in the worst division (featuring the 26, 27, and 28th ranked teams in projected 2019 wins). Also misleading -- "top 10" meaning ranking 10th in a league with ~8 great teams isn't all that notable of a distinction. A team in that position might be much closer to the 20th ranked team than they are to 7th or 8th.

I see now that I was mixing up the Kepler deal with the Polanco one upthread, though -- we only have 1 option year on Kepler, but 2 on Polanco. That tempers my enthusiasm for this deal a bit. I wouldn't call it a steal or anything at this point, but I still think I'd rather see us sign this deal than not sign it, all else being equal. (I'd rather see us add more significant external MLB talent, of course, but this deal doesn't preclude that.)

I think WAR aging curves suggest age 30 output may not be all that different than age 25 production overall. You're right, the shape of the production may change, but even without any kind of a breakout, Kepler could still be a 2-3 WAR player at 30 like he was at 25. And that's as far as this contract is guaranteed -- $8.5 mil at age 30, plus a $10 mil option or $1 mil buyout on his age 31 season. This contract pretty much ends before the steeper effects of aging should be expected.

No. But 10.6 WAR from a single player could absolutely be worth a ton to a team. Maybe not precisely $83 mil, but it would likely blow our minds compared to the current MLB salary scale. But, Betts isn't projected to produce 10.6 WAR (no one ever is), and nobody ever that good would settle for a one year deal on the open market either -- they would leverage it over many years and more money.

You used (and are still using?) that little incorrect detail in an attempt to ridicule Fangraphs. I am not pursuing anything other than noting the correction for others.

If you looked closer at methodology, you would see that Fangraphs isn't saying what you think they are saying. They are saying that 6.2 WAR could be estimated to be worth that much on the open market. Now, that itself is of limited utility on the actual market, because projected 6.2 WAR players are extremely rare (Dozier was never one, despite his one 6.2 WAR performance), and they rarely hit the open market, and if they do, they generally don't settle for one year deals. It's really just another way to illustrate value, for those who are unfamiliar with WAR or the WAR scale. It's not meant to applied in the manner you are suggesting, and indeed Fangraphs has never advocated Dozier to receive anything approaching $46 mil for a single year of his services (even in the hypothetical alternate universe where he was declared a free agent after 2016 because TR originally tendered him a contract after midnight, or Falvey fed him after midnight, or whatever). In general, dollars per projected WAR can be one data point to start analyzing or predicting deals. And it's not too unreasonable in that context (i.e. Brantley).

Subtracting pre-FA players, especially the pre-arb ones, would significantly raise the average. Probably to the point where $20 mil for a 1 year deal of 2.6 WAR isn't an unreasonable starting point (see Michael Brantley). How does that further your case that the Fangraphs estimate is unreasonable?

Then you understand your comparison was apples and oranges?

I think 2018 Kepler in 4 years, on a reasonable 1 year contract with two reasonable team option years, could absolutely still be an asset. Nothing elite, of course, but valuable enough to trade for something useful.

No. The average salary is suppressed by pre-arb and pre-FA salaries. You are comparing apples and oranges when you say "Fangraphs claims FA Kepler would be worth over 5 times the average player!!!!1!1!1!" Look at the average FA projected to produce 2.6 WAR. No, they generally don't get $20 mil for a single year, but they often get a multiyear deal with a discount value based on something close to $20 mil (obviously context dependent on projection confidence, upside, age, other options on the market, etc.). Michael Brantley just got a 2/32 deal with a 2.4 WAR projection -- given the age difference, that's probably not an unreasonable comp for Kepler on the open market. (Meaning, while Brantley has been better than Kepler, he is also significantly older which balances the equation a bit.)