jdgoin

You’re not giving Boras enough credit.

As the former director of this non-existent analytics department, I take offense to this comment. ??

They had a tough culture to work in under the previous GM. They have now run off a good GM after 2 years and winning a World Series. External candidates for that job (if there are any) are definitely going to pause before entering that atmosphere. Having a good working environment and winning aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s tough to retain talent in a poor environment. You can only overcome dysfunction for so long.

You're probably correct Nick. There hasn't been a front-loaded $300M contract, especially with opt outs that I remember. My point was there are front-loaded contracts with opt outs at lesser dollar amounts and fewer years that would provide a framework, no matter the total dollar figure. Nolan Arenado, Eric Hosmer, J.D. Martinez, Chris Sale all have front-loaded contract with opt outs. Player opt outs are also used liberally in the NBA. By "structured this way" I meant a long-term contract where the money is front-loaded and includes opt out clause or two. I wasn't trying to be vague or generalize.

Gerrit Cole and I believe Trevor Story have this clause, or similar, in their contracts. If Cole opts out the Yankees have the option to resign him for 1 year at $36 million. In Story's case he can opt out and Red Sox can add another year onto his deal. But I do like your idea, it puts some risk back on the player.

Please stop using the term creative to describe to describe these types of acquisitions. There have been plenty of contracts structured this way.

I don't understand the fan's need to hear from the owner more than once or twice per year. What are you expecting them to say publicly? It's not like they're going to tell you something you don't know or some insider info that hasn't been released yet. If they do that's BS to the people who work for them. Owners that negotiate with Boras or block trades when they've been agreed upon create poor cultures. It doesn't tell me they want to win more when they do that. But it does make me think a bunch of other stuff. There is a reason people want to copy Tampa's culture, Stu Sternberg trusts his baseball people. They've made good decisions mostly. Would they make better decisions with more money? Who knows? Maybe they wouldn't be as creative or forced to make certain choices with a larger payroll. Driving change should be the responsibility of the people who work in the business each and every day. Maybe an owner should ask questions, encourage, and create a culture that values innovation. But most owners aren't around daily to push it forward. I guess my point is saying the Twins need different ownership or need to "open their wallets" is misguided. The Pohlads take owning the Minnesota Twins very seriously.

I believe Joe will be a very good leader for the club going forward. He is smart and listens well. He never believes or acts like he is the smartest in the room. He will ask questions and questions that need to be asked. He has been involved in a lot of the more aggressive change in Pohlad businesses in recent years. I believe he will continue to push for innovation as necessary throughout the business. Joe wants to win. Jim was/is very involved and wants to win. My observation is he wants to operate the club in a smart manner, but he's a fan and wants to win. He's been a very good owner. Owners who get overly involved in player personnel are usually the issue. You can look around all 4 major sports leagues and identify them. He has understood that he is not a talent evaluator, but he doesn't get in the way of something that makes sense and baseball people believe will help the club. I think look at the Correa signing as one example. The Donaldson signing is another. There are many more examples, some behind the scenes.

Did I interact with Joe? Yes. I considered him a friend and a proponent of innovation overall. Which I think you have seen in other areas where he has been involved. He’s not afraid to try new things and learn from them.

Joe will be an excellent leader for the club as he finds his own way. Very good people skills and listener. He has his own ideas on how he would like to see things done. He’s been very involved since he joined them team back in 2007. Initially you may not see much, but he is his own man.

No. They can't count on health. Especially the guys who have been injured in the past. There are 3 potential #3 starters among Gray, Mahle, & Ryan. I don't think any of them would be considered a #1 or #2. @Ted Schwerzler, I am curious which under-lying metrics of Mahle are "eye popping"? I see some that are above average. They currently have 3 above average starters who are good pitchers with questions around each one. After that they have wild cards and still need depth. The way they have constructed their pitching staff and handled their starters creates a lot of stress.

I've always appreciated your posts. I find them well thought out, curious, educated, and rational. OOTP has had significant input from ML employees I believe. One of the MANY reasons I wanted to hire an employee within the analytics department was his involvement in OOTP from both the technical side and his involvement as a player. I thought there were some things we might be able to explore, verify, and implement. In addition, I agree with you on analytics being more than formulas. I would say on a foundational level it's helping you sort into "red" vs "green" as you mentioned. Just starting here is a necessity. Analytics should also help you ask better/deeper questions and lessen risk. OOTP or any other well-constructed simulation exercise, should give you insight into risk, and also help maximize your roster construction. These simulations should aid in maximizing platoon situations and positional flexibility along with bullpen chaining. As you mentioned, the acquisitions of those 5 pitchers together is confusing. All have injury and/or performance questions attached to them that don't play well together. I agree with you, building a team is like building an asset portfolio. You're trying to balance asset allocation, sectors, cost, risk, etc....Perhaps it wasn't the strategy, but the execution or difficulty in executing the strategy. I'm not sure. In the end, I do agree with you and appreciate your insight and ability to mix in "real world" experience into the game of baseball.

Interesting clip. I had never seen that from him. Teams were struggling during Covid to keep front office, scouts, coaches, etc engaged. I'm guessing this was supposed to be a fun way to keep people involved, ask questions, and possibly do some fun/interesting research projects. With the Dbacks we were scouting KBO games. I'm not totally sure what to make of it. I'm guessing it was more team building. Is this what you're thinking?

Say more about this please...I would love to hear your perspective on this.

Deron Johnson was the Scouting Director. Tim O'Neil was Assistant Scouting Director. Mike Radcliff was VP, Player Personnel. Deron had final say.

Urshela is the type of player who frequently flies under the radar while coming up in the Minor Leagues. As he's coming up he doesn't "profile" for a typical power position. He was more of a contact-oriented hitter coming up which dinged his plate discipline metrics. He struck out at a better than average rate. Lot of fly balls without HR totals that make you think power production, however he did show power beneath the surface. He had a poor showing in his 1st taste of the big leagues. He performed well multiple times at 3A before "breaking out" in CLE. As a Minor Leaguer and young player in CLE he had the underrated skill combo of above-average defense and good to very good contact rates. Without traditional power totals these are the type of players who many people don't see coming. He was a skilled player rather than a tools player.

I honestly cannot remember 1 time the subject of a player being "the Union rep" ever came up in any type of discussion of moving on from a player, either by trade, waivers, or release.

I think you're correct here. Don't forget, Taylor would have probably been traded last year at the Deadline had he not been hurt. You almost always trade the reliever for the starter because of the value. Here, you have a pitcher in Paddack, who has the ability to miss bats & shows good control support metrics. He has added a CB to deepen his arsenal. He seems to have some command to tighten up, but that could be injury related. Minnesota saw an opportunity to add a pitcher with upside if he's healthy. They'll figure the rotation out later. Really, the rotation will figure itself out. They believe in their pitching program & think they can work with Paddack & Pagan to get them straightened out. Going forward they now have Gray, Maeda, Ober, Paddack, & Ryan going into 2023. Assuming Ober & Ryan continue to take steps forward that's a solid group.

I believe teams would be better off carrying a real 5th starter instead of consistently dipping into 3A for that extra arm or that 5th starter. Usually you are recalling someone who isn’t ML ready because of the circumstances surrounding his call up. Not to mention the what happens to these players mentally from being on that ML to 3A shuttle often. Teams are trying to manage innings as the season progresses and the 5th starter does this on its own. Injuries are bound to happen as well requiring more ML replacements.

You are correct. None of this will make sense unless they are able to complete the moves they want to make after freeing up this money. Fans may never know what those first options were if they don't pan out.

That is not what is going on here. It's not to line the Pohlad's pockets.