Jham

How many everyday starters on the Twins have even a single elite skill? How many everyday starters do we have that are above league average on defense? The league adjusted and pounded him low in the zone. Let him adjust back. He's plenty good enough and works like crazy. I may be wrong, but I think he'll be fine and possibly even break out this year. It's a lot easier to improve your approach and understand what pitchers are doing than to magically acquire a skill God didn't give you.

Seriously... The whole "name names" thing is ridiculous. Numerous posters were looking at looming rotation gaps last season in front of the trade deadline. I won't even include Bauer who was likely never going to be traded to the Twins or Greinke who had a no trade clause. BUT... we were linked to Stroman (not an ace but certainly could be an ace any given year) and our excuse was that the Jays didn't ask us. DIDN'T ASK US?!?! Presumably we favored Bumgardner who we may have resigned as part of that trade (Eduardo Escobar style). Presumably we missed out because we were waiting on Thor. Well we didn't get him either. Zac Gallen killed us. Then a week later he was traded to Arizona. There's no evidence we even inquired. But the fact is we didn't get him. There were few buyers at the deadline last year. And the prices have gone up astronomically since. This front office did a lot right, got a lot from the previous regime's guys and stuck with their guns even when it didn't work. But the pitching staff has a real possibility of submarining an otherwise sound team or coaxing a panic move that cripples us for years.

His elite contact skill plays. Pitchers adjusted. Pounded him down down down then threw him out after the ball rolled directly back to them. He can hit anything. Really the only pitch he needs to lay off of is that ball in the dirt. He doesn't swing and miss which means he actually has a good eye and recognition. He just hasn't used that eye to command the strike zone. It's grossly unfair to assume that a player with his natural ability won't be able to adjust. He's already made a huge adjustment by adding power to his game. And he looked better when he returned at the end of the year. I feel he's underestimated.

Dobnak's success with ridiculous control of an unorthodox pitch mix is reminiscent of Tyler Duffey's 2017. Duffey was hitting corners with multiple curve balls at different speeds and from different angles. But doing that requires so much touch and finesse, almost no pitcher can have that much feel for multiple off speed pitches game in and game out. His curves were beauties, but only dominant when combined with control. Dobnak dominated with pinpoint control of his sinker and slider. In my opinion, I think it's really unlikely he can keep that up. I think his outing in Yankee stadium may well be his new normal.

Flip hits first half and his second half and we're probably not very excited. Flip Perez' first and second half and we're probably picking up his option. In the age of sequencing, I'm concerned that we're considering Big Mike II a lock. I'm also concerned we're calling him "Big Mike".

Yeah wait til we panic pay Kuechel and trade for Boyd paying more for both when we could have gotten them last year when we needed them. Also, when did the FO learn of Pineda's positive test?

Escobar was signed immediately following the 2018 season BEFORE he officially hit free agency. I remember this because many people on this site told me the Twins could always resign him at the end of the year and that having a player on your team gives you no advantage in trying to re-sign them.

I guess I wonder if he can continue to be an onbase and doubles guy making very little hard contact. The shift humbled Mauer. Araez isn't immune. Defenses were already adjusting to take away left field and shifting the infield right. He's got a great eye, but it's hard to know whether his eyes is elite or he was just locked in. Will he expand the zone if pitchers adjust and he struggles? Will he continue to trust his approach if defenses start taking his usual hits away? His rookie season was unicornish. If he regresses while the league also adjusts he'll sophomore slump pretty hard until he adjusts back. IMO, that will mean having to burn the heck out of drawn in outfields while not rolling over to shifted infield. He almost certainly can't be any better at controlling the zone and putting the ball in play. Unless you believe the league will never adjust, his only way of maintaining that production without adding power would be to add a whole bunch more walks. No-power guys rarely draw tons of walks. Of course, guys with his natural hitting ability, great approach and contact frequently add power to their game without great difficulty.

I think he'll have to improve his power and pull percentage numbers to keep defenses honest if he's going to continue his level if production. he's at a point in his career where contact hitters frequently make that jump. Neither Planco nor Dozier were power hitters in the minor leagues. If you have contact, you can usually add some power. If you have power, it's harder to dial back and hit for contact.

Nick needs to realize that how he says things is as important as what he says. The facts and analysis is good. The condescending attitude is offputting and borderline bullying, imo. A writer should never ever start a rebuttal with an LOL at someone who bothered to read and comment. Both sides are arguing the same point. Rosie's success in some areas is incongruent with his abject failure in other areas. Most players that struggle with obp also struggle with k's and getting hits. Rosie didn't. Does that mean that going forward his counting stats are likely to decline to be on par with his advanced metrics and suspect plate approach, or does the power and contract despite ridiculous approach suggest that major step forward is well within reach. What's easier to improve, skill or approach?

beggars can't be choosers. Best to keep all options open.

The CBA isn't negotiated by minor leaguers. The service time rules frees up more money for veterans. Every player thinks that they'll be one of the good ones that will get a big FA deal. So is it good or bad for players? As chief would say, "yes". It's also good AND bad for players. Good for vets but bad for talented rookies. Different strokes and such.

Do we have pitch fx and statcast data on 2019 compiled regarding league velocity? Studies showed the ball had less drag which should mean greater velocity although some guns measure straight outta the hand. I'm wondering if velo readings are sort of skewed last year like the HR numbers.

I dunno, in most of the appearances I saw, it was hard to argue he had more than 1 mlb ready pitch, and hitters can catch up to heat pretty well at that level. Control was an issue. He mostly sat high 90s not 103. Didn't generate lots of swinging strikes. His "wipe out" slider ducked out of the zone every time. I recall 1 outing where it was genuinely effective. He's got a chance, but he needs to get significantly better at pitching. His MiLB numbers are really good. But not MLB ace good.

The focus of these discussions always seems to fall 1 consideration short. We look at Rosie and what we need, and what he would return, and how we could replace him. That's a reasonable start. But we really need to know hom much more AK et al would return to considered trading anyone. The consensus seems to be that he won't draw a ton of interest. (I disagree but more below). The analysis can take 1 more step and ask if the replacement pieces could draw a better return. If Rosie only returned a bottom of ther rotation salary dump but Kiriloff gets us the controllable midrotation piece we need we should think about it. Trading Rosie's 2 years to save enough money to pay a good pitcher maybe 1 more year doesn't seem realistic. Trading a prospect for a better return and potentially cash relief seems like a better option if it played out that way. I think Rosie's value is undersold. Teams are trying to avoid long expensive deals for less than elite talent. The idea is to go big on superstars and finance over a long contract. Then go either: 1) cheap and controllable, or 2) expensive but short term. The Twins built a 102 win division winner using contracts like Rosie's. Basically a 1 year deal with a 2nd year option. Even though the AAV is around $9mil, the guaranteed commitment is low and easily shed. Teams like the Twins who want strong production from veteran players in their prime look at the short contract as a plus. Budget minded contenders are in play. But so are big spenders who are always looking to make incremental improvements (the same way we're talking voluntarily making incremental downgrades). Teams that operate near the luxury tax level but need to dip down below every few seasons to reset the clock could also find Rosario's contract beneficial. Rosario was a vote in candidate for the all star team. He struggled in the 2nd half while battling injuries. If Buck and Kep stay healthy, I think he hits the IL for awhile and continues hitting. Unlike those 2, Rosie stayed out there. I think our view of his season is skewed by his poor 2nd half which makes his above average numbers feel average and his average numbers feel dismal.

I believe Rosie played through a hammy too, no? Look at his first half. He was more selective. He frequently dials in and has better ABs when the v pressure's on. If his wheels are shot, I'd like to see him try first or even third (again). A second half like his first would have him on MVP ballots. In the end, I trust talent and skillsets. He's got a better chance of developing discipline than Sano has at developing contact.

Options aren't as valuable next year, I don't think. 26 man roster, but only 13 can be pitchers so not much difference for teams who would frequently carry the extra pitcher anyway. The big change is that players must be optioned for 15 days now. This essentially ends the shuttle system we used so well last year to not carry a designated looking reliever and keep everyone a bit fresher. Otherwise options would be even more important as you'd have to probably add a couple relievers to shuttle to pitch during those extra 5 days. I think most teams won't have that depth will be reluctant to send the best of their shuttlers down for that long and probably just keep the Smeltzers up and the Kohl Stewarts down.

Different things motivate different people. But generally speaking, satisfied employees do better work across all industries. It's not just happiness. It's feeling like you belong, that your work is important, that your work makes a difference, that you're good at waist you do, that you are paid fairly, etc. Again, there are tons of studies on this. Companies spend millions to make sure employees enjoy coming to work because it returns even more millions.

No one including the front office is saying that service time wasn't a consideration. Of course it was. Made him play hurt or let him play hurt? You realize that once he was cleared to play, they were free to option him instead of play him if service time was such a primary concern? Instead they decided to see if he could go. And he wasn't good. Would you really rather have had Buxton for September 2018 than for all of 2022? Is Buxton a victim of loophole in the labor deal? Yes. Is his case different than any other player held back despite being ready? No. Pretty much every young player deals with this. What your saying is that every player good enough to be in the bigs has to be in the bigs or they got screwed. Should Smeltzer be mad that he lost service time to Kohl Stewart or Ryne Harper? Should Gordon be mad that Arraez jumped him on the depth chart? Evidence suggests that many factors beyond service time were considered. Place in the standings, Evaluation of Cave and Kepler as centerfielders, Buxton's health and performance vs prior poor performance were all factors. I disagree that Buxton earned a call-up. I'll agree to the premise that played well enough to justify a call up, but so do many players who get left off. Buxton's case isn't special. Do think the front office was tempted to pull the trigger on Alex Kiriloff this fall? Did he play well enough? Was he a better player than Lamarre? Could the Twins have used his superior bat? Think starting the service time clock was a consideration in holding him back?

Winning probably correlates with job satisfaction for ball players. But it is almost certainly a 2 way street based, again, on actual studies of workplace satisfaction. Not to mention you don't have control over whether you win or lose. You control your roster, you hope for performance, you factor in luck and hope it translates into wins. The roster is the one thing you control. Clubhouse dynamics have to influence performance because it does in every other industry I know of. Do I think organizations ignore this? Probably not. Do I think some statisticians do? Yes. I just find that part ridiculous because there is lots of data across industries to pull from. Now if you want to say that it's hard to predict chemistry based off our current set of stats, I'd agree. But it absolutely does not mean it isn't important and shouldn't be a major consideration. The analysis just may not be all numbers driven. Smart teams will probably start surveying players and studying team dynamics and personalities. Sounds like some teams already are. But I don't need a stat to tell me that Nelson Cruz and Terry Francona are great leaders likely to bring the average team a few more wins.

Fiction? I'm stating what happened. He wasn't called up over concern that we were trading a month off Buxton in a lost year where he was bad and hurt for an entire year of arbitration eligibility where he's presumably had an off-season to prepare, more mature, better hitter, and the team needs him. If they call him up cuz he says he's good and the first week he's back he runs to first and his bone cracks and needs screws and his fascia tears, he goes on the MLB DL. He acquires service time for the rest of the season. Because of that month on the MLB DL, he now hits free agency a year earlier. What does he put up for WAR in 1 month of 2018? What does he put up for WAR in his final year of arbitration eligibility? Fragility argument aside, it's an easy decision.

This is my biggest issue with the hardest core sabermetrics. There's this snobbish notion that baseball is different. There are many many studies and articles indicating that work place productivity is benefited from collaborative positive work environment, and suffers from toxic negative environments. In a game involving lots of travel and time away from family, where mistakes are televised and reposted on forums and in social media, with few days off and frequent nagging injuries, burn out and fatigue is one of the biggest battles players face. Look at the greenie epidemic rampant in clubhouses before red bull and adderall were things. There is lots of empirical data to pull from. Baseball players are people, last I checked. To ignore science because it's not industry specific is dumb. "But we make widgets, not gadgets." There's literally an entire branch of psychology studying these types of issues, industrial psych. Willfully ignoring human nature in a team sport is ridiculous. And it's frequently led by sabermetricians who say it can't be measured, despite the fact that actual scientists have measured and reproduced results. Go ahead and celebrate team- friendly deals, and ignore player satisfaction. Talk about adding an ace at the deadline, get everyone's hopes up, and come back with 2 relievers no better than the 2 you cut. Every single employer out there knows job satisfaction matters.

This is a different argument entirely. It's a matter of player's side vs players' (plural) side. Dozens of prospects have been held back, demoted, or even traded due to service time and MLB team need. No one cares. But we're all supposed to feel extra bad for Buxton? Why? Why is his case special? Why be outraged for him compared to the many other good players who didn't get his signing bonus? The system works exactly like it was designed, to keep younger players in the minors and on cheap deals which allocates more $$ to vets. Except it backfired. Young players are so cheap, they're frequently more desirable than vets even if the vet is a better player. Stop me if you've heard this: "don't sign ______ for $X, when we could get almost the same production from ______ for almost nothing." So yeah, I support the players because the reps favored vets and negotiated a bad deal. But I don't support Buxton's case as special. The organization gave him every chance. If he plays better, nonstory. if he stays healthy, nonstory. He says he was 100% healthy. But there's still a risk. Bringing him back in a lost season only to see him tweak something go to the DL for a month and lose a full season of his prime? come on. his is the not the case that should generate outrage. as others have mentioned, guys like Garver are getting screwed way more by the deal.

Look at how much service time and MLB salary Buxton has received while on the IL/DL. Look how patient we were allowing him to accumulate service time while struggling with the big club. We could have optioned him this September but didn't. His injury history almost assuredly plays in. After last year, the team certainly could have activated Buxton then optioned him out of spring training in the traditional manner of holding a player back. If he killed it on September and ST, then keep him up and don't worry about service time. But you're leaving yourself vulnerable for another tweak and more IL service time you can't get back.

Based off what? Did the Cubs or Twins violate a rule or do the players not like the deal their reps negotiated after the fact? Do you think the veteran hanging on to his roster spot is just like, "here kris, take my spot and paycheck." The players' diverse interest is part of the issue too. Vets and Rookies might not have the same interests. Paying young players more, realistically means paying veteran players less.