Jham

This is a very Minnesota Twins-esq response and the reason we're always outside looking in on FA. Front loading a contract means you're actually paying more for the player because of interest and the future value of money. $35 mil now is worth more than $35 mil 7 years from now. Invest that same $35 mil at a modest 3.15% over seven years and you've got $43.5 mil after 7 years. $8 mil. $7 mil for 6 years. $5.1 mil for 5 years. Meanwhile the price of players is also going up. $35 mil won't be as much then either. Long guaranteed contracts = interest free financing. Front loading loses you money, although it may be more attractive to the player.

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.

last year he was seen as a DH and perhaps even damaged goods. The perception was maybe Tampa knew something the rest of the league didn't. Many teams were scared of him for that reason. I was.

I don't think Cron makes it through waivers. He's relatively young, relatively productive, and has the upside for a breakout season (basically if he sandwiched his healthy 1st half). Unlike when the Twins took the chance, he's now shown he can be defensive asset. Cron in his final arb year only costs money 1 year. The pitching we're discussing will be 4 or 5 year deals. This staff loves 1 year deals. Insurance for a Cruz injury isn't awful either. I'd rather pay a little more for short term investments than have an extra couple million thinking that will be the difference on Cole and not the 6th and 7th year and extra 75 million the Yankees are going to offer.

Agreed. Don't know if the nomination says more about Grossman or the margin of error for defensive metrics.

I dunno. I doubt he makes it past waivers. The amount of teams that are shedding payrolls would probably love a player of his caliber available on a 1 year basis. Even if not picked up on waivers, we'd have to outbid the free agency market which may require a multi year deal. Cruz is in his last year. Dangling a reasonable extension with the leverage of a non-tender is an option I'd look at. I shudder to think what our infield defense would have looked like without Cron scooping everything for most of the year.

96 regular season games and 3 playoff games this season? My point is only that all the forum talk is centered around bringing in free agent arms slotting above to just behind Berrios. No talk about a Berrios extension which we attempted and failed last winter, reportedly. If he's not going to re-sign its reasonable to start thinking about a potential Glasnow type return.

Rays traded Archer and got back Glasnow. (and Odo for nada) Berrios has to be even more coveted... Lots of ways to build a winner.

I can see the front office really trying to lure back Odo, sign Ryu, trade for Darvish or Thor. Then I see them getting very frustrated by other teams willingness to overpay or demand premium prospects in trade. This is why they were mad about Stroman. It's a deal we actually could have done if we weren't preoccupied in waiting for prices to drop on Thor and Madbum. In the end, I see Dobnak and Smeltzer getting shots, I see Perez coming back on an incentive based deal with an option for 2021 (I actually don't hate this idea). I think there's also a string possibility we'll look at non-tenders or even a rule 5 pitcher to fill a spot as we test the waters with our rookies and reclaimations while we're constantly "in on" Odo and whoever's sitting out with a QO awaiting the draft or whatever pitcher will be dealt before the deadline. This FO has cobbled together competitive teams from scraps. They love prove it deals. Other than Cruz, they haven't worked. Maybe we'll get lucky this time.

Probably Mike Trout. Full no-trade clause.

By what standard was he good? WHIP<1.10 K/9>11.5 xFIP 3.39. 45% GB rate. Numbers were killed by likely unsustainable hr/fb of 22%. In the post season, he's had 3 good starts and 3 poor. line ups are good come October. We all get you never liked Darvish, but you don't have to disparage a good pitcher who had a sneaky good year, who'd be a prime candidate to improve with better luck on fb and Buxton roaming center in target field. Didn't Odo lead the league in HR 2 years ago? More to the point, our decision makers like him.

Kepler is more coveted. Not close. Buxton carries a stigma of intense struggle that Kepler doesn't really have.

I guess there's really 2 conversations going on with a little overlap. There's: What SHOULD we do? Sign Cole. Trade for Thor. Sign Wheeler. Then there's: What WILL we do? Announce we have no spending limit, try to construct a team within a spending limit of $110 to $135 million. Renegotiate Perez. Kick the tires on Odo, Bumgardner. Get outbid for Gibby. Probably being back Pineda, a test away from a year-long suspension and not having to pay the second year. Give Berrios to a modest extension (1 year past arb) to placate the fans. Look for the next Anibel Sanchez among late free agents. Both are interesting conversations to have. but read alongside each other, the realistic version is frustrating and depressing. If we did somehow make a deal for a big name, I wouldn't be surprised if it's Yu Darvish. Could trade now without giving up a ton and get him close the deal we originally offered. FO obviously likes him.

We will trade them both... when cheaper replacements are available and it's evident neither will resign for a lowball offer. This team doesn't trade prospects, it hypes them. This team doesn't sell superstars, it sells hope, and hope is much much much cheaper than super stars. From that standpoint it doesn't matter much if the prospects pan out or not. What matters is that they represent the hope of the unknown. Fans love prospects, Twinsdaily loves prospects, and the Pohlads love rookie deals. everyone wins... except the twins. Get to know 'em, in deed.

I'd guess Pineda gets a multi- year deal and Odo declines the QO and goes to free agency. Probably signs after the draft. We likely get nothing.