nytwinsfan

Ok, probably right, especially in a very small sample size, but still the opponent BABIP is .400 and he's thrown 20 K in 15.1 innings. And this after a full college season. He's doing great.

His FIP is 1.74. That's definitely "very solid."

This is meaningless semantics and just wrong. First, if you assume that you are only going to "offload" Nolasco's future commitment in exchange for (1) taking on other liabilities of an equal amount, or (2) giving up an equal value in assets, or (3) some combination of the two, there is in fact no way to "recover" or be "refunded" for the cost. I think that is a pretty reasonable assumption. Sure, Terry Ryan might be able to get someone to take only $12 million in assets in exchange for Nolasco's $13 million owed in 2017. In that case, $1 million would be recovered. But that would be a function of Terry Ryan's good bargaining and/or the other party overvaluing that unrelated asset, not anything about the "cost" at issue. Second, for most purposes on this site, people are using the term "sunk cost" to convey the concept that we should not be starting Nolasco or Santana, or Mauer just because we owe them money in the future. I think most people here understand that is what they mean, and that when they say that they are not ruling out the possibility that Nolasco or Santana's contract could be moved in exchange for other liabilities or for giving up assets. The term "fixed costs" doesn't adequately convey the idea they are trying to get across, because it doesn't convey the concept/idea that if we could do it over, we would be better off not to have committed to those costs. "Sunk cost" conveys that idea, without creating confusion, given the context. For the practical purposes at hand, then, they used the term absolutely correctly. Language means different things in different contexts, and in that context, they are correct.

If a reliever were used for more innings, you might be right, but relievers rarely have as much value (WAR) as starters, even though they are often used in higher leverage situations. You just pitch many fewer innings when you have to pitch every or every other day.

Why can't the Twins put Santana or Hughes in the pen? Is there a rule that if you pay someone more than $10 million a year they can't be a set-up man or middle-inning reliever? Seriously, the money Ryan invested in them is a sunk cost. Play them where they will help the Twins best, and if that means May, Berrios, Duffy, Gibson, and Hughes starting with Santana in the pen, then so be it.

I vote for a playoff rotation of Hughes circa 2014, Berrios, May, Gibson, with Santana, Pelfrey, and Duffy coming out of relief.

Well since the brain is part of the physical body, I agree.

I basically agree with this. I would bring up Kepler Sept. 1 and platoon him with Hunter until Hicks gets back, at which time I would platoon him with Hicks and leave Hunter as a bench bat, leader, platoon player with Mauer (moving Sano to 1B when Hunter hits against lefties and Mauer sits). Give the old guys a few extra days off and maybe that will improve their production. I'd also bring Polanco up on Sept. 1 and give him time and both SS and 2B (does anyone else think Dozier could use a day off every other week-- he has worn down the second half two years and a row now). I'd also bring up Vargas Sept. 1 as a bench bat, occasional starter. I'd bring up Berrios Sept. 1 to pitch out of the bullpen, since he's getting closer and closer to the innings limit. I doubt the Twins will do that though. I wouldn't bring up Danny Santana, except maybe just to use him as a pinch runner. I doubt Pinto is ready for the majors. Unless he is absolutely raking, I'd leave him in the minors. I wouldn't bring up Arcia. To all of you calling for him to be called up, are you insane? He is a mess right now. Maybe if he starts raking the next two weeks, but otherwise no way.

No, you aren't.

I mean, I started my post by saying "Even if the Twins don't go out and get a big name catcher or top 100 catching prospect this offseason." So I'd love to go after one of the Mets' catchers. But the premise of my post is that in addition to going after the talent you clearly need, keep your system balanced. I know prospects sometimes or often fail. Which is why I was saying Terry Ryan is crazy to rely on Turner/ Garver. Go out and get more prospects OR better yet a young talented catacher that is controllable (although the cost for the latter will be much higher). The thing about the Royals makes no sense, and in fact disproves your point. The Royals had a top system four or five years before the Twins, and look at them now. So by that logic, just wait until 2018-19. No? Seriously, what are you talking about? As for the last line, that is just a bunch of empty platitudes. I have no idea what you are talking about.

So because the Yankees have some good young pitchers who were not previously recognized as top prospects, it doesn't make sense to acquire good prospects??? I'm failing to see the logical progression there. I'm all for getting top young, controllable talent for prospects, but when has that been available? And no, Jonathan Lucroy does not count as young controllable talent, being 29 years old, having only two years of control left, and coming off his by far worst year.

Even if the Twins don't go out and get a big name catcher or top 100 catching prospect this offseason (via a trade of Plouffe, and/or one of Hicks, Rosario, or Kepler), they could at least go out and trade for one or two of the many decent high-minors catching prospects who are among their teams' top 10 prospects. They would immediately become the top catching prospects in the Twins system. Everyone always talks about how important it is to draft the Best Player Available, and I generally completely agree with that sentiment, but the flip side of that is the front office has to make sure it is out there making prospect for prospect trades when necessary to keep our system balanced. And as much as I think Garver and Turner have some potential, Terry Ryan has just not done this at all with the Twins' catching prospects. I understand that catching prospects don't grow on trees, but if you have to give up a little extra value to keep the system balanced then that is fine as part of the cost of drafting BPA every year.

Yeah, if a team would take him as part of the value for a higher-upside catcher (like maybe the Giants or Mets, cough cough), then that would be great. Not sure if other teams would look at it that way though.

**** Yeah! And I will say this as someone who wanted Santana to start at SS (although I also thought Escobar was perfectly adequate). I was wrong.

So this Garver guy is now hitting .252/.364/.343 (.706) on the year, although worth noting that since June 1 he has been hitting .288/.390/.412 (.802). His strike-zone control seems to be pretty good with 13.2% BB and 14.9% Ks. Now he just needs to find the power he had last year in Ceder Rapids, although some part of that may be the Florida State League effect. Is he still part of our plans? I still think the Twins should trade for a young, high-upside catcher, but that kind of trade always involves a lot of risk, and it is nice to have a decent prospect like Garver to help hedge against that risk.

Tyler Jay's FIP is now 1.98 with 17 K in 13.1 innings.

ahead of?????

It isn't contradictory. With Lucroy's relatively reasonable price of $4-5 million a year, I'd rather have the following things in the following order: (1) a 28 year old catcher with 3 years of control left. (2) a 29 year old catcher with 3 years of control left. (3) a 28 year old catcher with 2 years of control left. (4) a 29 year old catcher with 2 years of control left. I think most would agree, although maybe switch 2 and 3. I'm not too worried about paying Lucroy's salary. It is a down-side, but it is nothing compared to the opportunity cost lost by giving up those pieces. Polanco is not a sack of potatoes. You are giving up the pieces you could use to get a younger catcher who you will have for even cheaper and for longer. Yeah, there is always risk with prospects, but there is also a lot of risk with a 29-yo catcher who just came off a career down-year.

Or Vargas, but yeah. Totally agree.

Why would we want to trade all that for a 29 year old catcher in the middle of a historically down year with only two years of control left? No way. Trade for a younger catcher with some upside, even if there is some risk they won't turn out, and even if we have to offer more. Old catchers terrify me to begin with and old recently injured catchers with declining stats make me **** my pants.

I'd probably want Dozier 3rd, no? And if Plouffe is not there, hopefully that is because we've traded him for a better catcher, making Suzuki the backup.

Kepler is figured very heavily (2nd) in Fangraph's in-Season KOTAH update, actually above Buxton (3rd), both of whom have seen their stock skyrocket, at least under this projection system. Pretty great. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/katohs-in-season-prospect-update/

Yeah, I'd do that deal. I'd probably go more than $73.3.

Great, now we can move on to phase II: complaining about how Robinson is starting twice a week when Kepler is ready to go!

Yeah, but results are not all that matters in the short run. Gonsalves' FIP at A+ is 3.43 wheras Jay's FIP at A+ is 2.03. Obviously Gonsalves' is a starter and Jay is a reliever, so all else being equal you would expect Jay's FIP to be lower, but the reality here is that there is absolutely NO reason to be down on Jay, who is the victim of a .421 BABIP in a tiny sample size of 12.1 innings. Let's also remember he is coming off of a college season where he started for the first time ever in multiple games. His arm is probably being pushed more than it has in previous' years. And despite that, Jay's strikeouts (11.68 per 9) look great. If there is any slight criticism of Jay, it is he has walked too many batters, but again, tiny, small sample size. Really, we should be excited about BOTH Gonsalves and Jay. Now if Thorpe can bounce back strong in 2016, we'll have three truly promising lefties in our system, which hasn't been the case since . . . I don't know when.