nytwinsfan

Same. A starting five of Santana, Hughes, Duffey, May and Berrios, (especially if Hughes is somewhere between his 2014 and 2015 self, which seems possible) could be a top 5-10 rotation in the MLB. No ace, for sure, but possibly four or even five #3s, and possibly one or two #2s. That's a very solid rotation. Already last year, based on xFIP, the Twins rotation was pretty solid. http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/2015-visualized-starting-pitchers/

Yup, here we go again. Three of the best five starters are in the "depth" column to start the season. Hurray! Seriously though, if those five are the starting rotation come June I'm going to jump off a bridge.

Unless Suzuki is hitting much much better than last year, we would have to pay another team to take him, given his $6 M contract.

You must be new here.

Wait, are you talking about the same Arcia that has a career OPS of .741 as a 24-year-old and had OPS's of .734, .752, and .718 (with a very small sample size of 65 PAs) during his 22 yo, 23 yo, and 24 yo seasons, respectively? His only "blunder" at the major league level (besides a couple defensive plays) has been getting injured. Is that what you are talking about? I am a huge believer in Kepler, but given the service-time considerations for him, the fact that he has not played a single game in AAA, and the fact that Arcia is out of options but still has huge upside, I think it would be really stupid to call up Kepler on May 1st, unless (1) Arcia is floundering at the plate, (2) Kepler is tearing AAA a new one, and (3) an OF of Buxton, Sano, and Rosario is not playing really well.

Wow, that's a great deal for the Twins. Holy smokes. Given the potential upside, no way this deal wasn't worth it. Fantastic.

He was pretty clear about the small sample size.

We would trade Plouffe ideally for pitching, either in the form of a good reliever or a pitching prospect. We don't need another DH or OF bat. Well, we could use a 4th OF for the first half of the season, but I don't want to trade Plouffe for just that. We don't need a 2B or SS, or middle infield prospect. We don't need a 3B or long-term OF. And with Murphy and to a lesser extent Garver and Turner, we don't need a C anymore. What does that leave? Pitching. And as the old saying goes, there is never too much pitching. Trade him for a good reliever or a pitching prospect. Heck, through in Polanco (a MLB ready 2B) and get an even better pitching prospect.

Time to make a call. Either Sano is going to be able to play third or he's not. If you keep Plouffe then Sano isn't going to get a chance to play 3B, at least not every day where he can really show you his ability. At some point you have to stop hedging and make a call. Now is likely that time. If you think you can get more value for Plouffe mid-season, then I guess you could keep him for the first few months and split Plouffe and Sano between 3B and OF, but boy, you better be convinced you'll get more value mid-season to make that worth it. If not, trade him this offseason.

LOL. That would be awesome.

Ok thanks, and generally I would trust you over Fangraphs or Baseball Reference or whatever, especially for someone who is still in the Dominican or Gulf League. Strange that they all have his attributes wrong. I can sort of understand that they have not updated his height by 4 inches he presumably grew, but it isn't like he switched which side he was pitching from, right? Even MiLB.com has it wrong. Very very strange. http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?player_id=649143#/career/R/pitching/2015/ALL

Yup, that's a pretty solid list. Hard to argue with that. Some people might say Buxton's poor major league performance, but nah, I don't think that much time under those conditions (never gettting to play every day for an extended period of time) means much.

Ok, I was wondering about that too. Also, the LH v. RH thing.

I know he was only 18 this year, so it is not as important as it is for a 21-yo, but what is his fastball generally at? Do you expect him to be at Elizabethton next year Seth? Only 11 BB in 47 innings for a 18-yo is particularly impressive. Will be one to watch. Seth, Fangraphs says he is a rightie. Is that right? http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa877857&position=P

I totally get the Duffey thing, and I think if he had had time for a few more quality starts, he'd be on this list. I am guessing Nick left him off because even though he far exceeded expectations, and is a tantalizing dark horse for a #2 starter, his season still was mostly a small sample size. But there is no question in my mind that if Duffey continues what he started in the last third of 2015, he would deserve to be in the top 3 or 4 of this list.

A non-prospect just developed into an above-average player at the first or second-hardest position to field, where the Twins have not had an above-average multiple-season talent for 20 years, so let's (A) poo-poo it, (B] trade him when we don't even have a potential average replacement ready. Makes sense.

Lot of interesting stuff here, especially about Kepler. Thanks. You really think so? If he puts up the same numbers as last year I'd be fine with him moving into a platoon-like role, only starting against RHP (or even less).But I'm not sure Terry Ryan and DSP would be ok with that. Hopefully he returns to his 2013 numbers or something approaching that, and it becomes a moot point.The Sano/Plouffe/Arcia/Mauer/Park/Vargas log jam really is something (with Kepler soon to be joining them). You gotta think that at least one of those guys, if not two or three, won't be in Fort Meyers come February. And the only ones I'm sure will be there are Sano and Mauer.

Lot of interesting stuff here, especially about Kepler. Thanks. You really think so? If he puts up the same numbers as last year I'd be fine with him moving into a platoon-like role, only starting against RHP (or even less). But I'm not sure Terry Ryan and DSP would be ok with that. Hopefully he returns to his 2013 numbers or something approaching that, and it becomes a moot point. The Sano/Plouffe/Arcia/Mauer/Park/Vargas log jam really is something (with Kepler soon to be joining them). You gotta think that at least one of those guys, if not two or three, won't be in Fort Meyers come February. And the only ones I'm sure will be there are Sano and Mauer.

Yes, but as you sort of acknowledge, most teams don't have Dozier for a 2B or Buxton for a CF, both of whom have a lot of power/power potential. But more importantly no, Teams do not "have to" get power and extra base production from somewhere. Look at the Royals, to take the best example. Very low on the power. But exceptional outfield defense. During the last two years, with TWO World Series appearances, they were 16 out of 30 in power, and most of that limited power was based on a high BA, as they were 27 out of 30 in ISO. All that being said, i'm fine with the trade, because we have a deep corner outfield with Rosario, Kepler, Arcia, and Walker all arrived or on the doorstep. The first provides more in defense, Arcia in power, and Kepler and Walker probably somewhere in between. They can all be potentially average or above average Corner Outfielders (although obviously Walker has the most work to do and is the least likely to make it as a starter). Value is value, no matter what part of a player's game it comes from.

That's a fair criticism as far as it goes, and honestly probably the best criticism of this trade. But it also really is a larger criticism of the organization's (and coach's) unwillingness to platoon, because the reality is that the Twins were never going to and remain uninterested in platooning on a systematic basis. Given that as a background assumption, the trade makes some sense to me. If I were running the show though, yes, I would have tried to trade Plouffe, Gibson/Milone, and some lesser prospects for a catcher, and kept Hicks as a platoon corner outfielder and backup for Buxton.

I'll respond to your paragraphs one by one. (1) You suggested that there were two reasons Murphy's OPS shouldn't be taken seriously, (a) BABIP and (b his Home/Away splits. My point was that it is ironic/inconsistent to use (a) to criticize my point when (a) also undermines your criticism (b. And it does. As you admit, the home/away splits, which are not minor, are definitely driven largely by BABIP. So if you think BABIP is a good criticism of his OPS because it shows it was luck driven, then it also shows his home/away splits are also luck driven (or unlucky driven for the away splits), and therefore not sustainable. You can't have it both ways. (2) His BABIP was league average away, but it wasn't at home, which is about half his plate appearances. So are you saying to find his true BABIP we should take his home/away splits and choose the lower one? Is that how you calculate "true BABIP" for other players? Of course not. Do you think Yankee stadium leads to a .417 v. .288 BABIP split from home and away? If so, then wow, Yankee stadium is a really really friendlier park for singles and doubles, which were most of his hits. Also, note that Murphy's ISO was much higher away than it was at home (.159 v. .105). This just goes to show you that these differences between home and away based on even smaller samples than his overall numbers last year are being driven by short-term luck/unluck, not Yankee stadium. The most likely outcome is that his "true BABIP" is somewhere in between .288 and .417, and yes, I admit, probably a bit lower than the .357 BABIP he had last year although not .288. Which brings me to my third point. (3) Mauer is related because I started by comparing Mauer to Murphy and making light of those who call for Mauer to catch but are upset that we traded for someone to catch who had a better OPS than Mauer last year by .15. You criticized this point originally (surprisingly, since I don't think you are one of the ones calling for Mauer to catch again, so I don't know why you would be defensive, but maybe you do think Mauer should catch again afterall). That is why Mauer is relevant. And yes, saying that the worse half of Murphy's splits is almost as good as Mauer's overall performance is relevant and interesting because it shows that even under your strongest assumption (that Murphy will regress to his away splIts -- which I think is pretty unlikely), he is still pretty close to as good as Mauer. Also, I don't agree that it is "widely believed" that Mauer underperformed. According to whom? According to previous years? Sure, but he is a 32-33 year old still obviously dealing with the lingering effects of a concussion. Another word for "underperformance" may just be "decline." I'm not a Mauer basher, and I hope he returns to his 2013 numbers next year, but I really don't think we should count on it.

And I think it is funny that people who are purportedly really into BABIP point to home/away splits without taking into account that his home/away splits are being clearly driven by an extremely higher BABIP at home than away (.417 v. .288), but that even just in away games, his OPS was still .699, not that much worse than Joe Mauer's OPS of .718.

LOL, funny how some of the same people (not necessarily at Twins Daily, but probably some here too) that were demanding Mauer to move back to catcher are now upset that the Twins traded for a catcher that had a higher OPS than Mauer last year. Yes I understand that part of the Mauer thing is about freeing up 1st base, which isn't an issue with Murphy. I still think it is funny though.

Just FYI, among catchers with more than 150 PAs, Murphy was 20th last year in OPS. And at least one of the 19 ahead of him--Schwarber-- is not really a catcher. Combine that with the fact that he is only 24 (which for a catcher is still pretty young) and by all accounts has at least average defense, and it is really a stretch to claim that he is only a "backup" catcher. This guy has a likely outcome as a league average catcher, with some upside and some downside. But he also is 2 years younger than Hicks and has 1 more year of control. Plus he is at a position the Twins really really need to improve at. Is it a great trade? Clearly not. But I do think it is one of those trades where it is fuzzy who got the better deal. For all his performance last year, Hicks never showed he could hit right-handed pitching. A plus defender in CF who can hit lefties is obviously a good player, but unless he can hit RHP, which the Twins I think concluded he would not, his upside is limited.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but is the Angels are interested, why is nobody talking Taylor Ward? Would he take a lot more than Plouffe?