Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

nytwinsfan

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,784

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by nytwinsfan

  1. nytwinsfan
    This Fangraphs article, which is obviously not gospel, but is one educated take, suggests that the difference between the Twins (the worst outfield defense) and the Royals (the best) was 96 runs, or 9.5 wins last year. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-twins-may-have-weakened-a-weakness/ If I am reading it right, it says the difference between the Twins and an average outfield defense was 50 runs, or about 5 wins. That is quite a lot.
  2. nytwinsfan
    Mostly compelling analysis, but I think most of us (except Terry Ryan) already knew this based on what Nick and Parker have been saying for a while now. It is unlikely the Twins were really going to compete in 2015 anyway, so one more year of bad outfield defense probably isn't likely to make the difference between a playoff team and an 75-80 win team (although it may further demoralize Twins' pitchers and fans). What really worries me is that it suggests Terry Ryan will continue to evaluate outfielders' defense almost entirely on the eye test and his pitchers based on runs that should in all fairness not be attributed to their pitching. All I can say is thank goodness for Byron Buxton.
  3. nytwinsfan
    I really hope not with Plouffe, and would prefer not for Dozier either. Let's see how Dozier does next year, and also how Polanco does. By 2016 or 2017 Polanco might end up being a cheaper, better fielding, better hitting/OBP version of Dozier, albeit with less power.
  4. nytwinsfan
    By all accounts he is more likely to end up at 3rd base, or maybe 2nd base. This.
  5. nytwinsfan
    Yeah, there is a good chance he will regress a bit in terms of peripherals (K%, BB%, and HR%), but his BABIP was actually not that great last year, which could partly or fully counteract the regression in peripherals, especially in 2016 and after, when we (hopefully) have a much better outfield defense anchored by Mr. Buxton. So I definitely really like this deal. Certainly better than the Santana deal which itself was decent.
  6. nytwinsfan
    Great to see him taking the initiative. This guy is a competitor. But I have to think at his age the conservative approach is the right one. It just isn't worth the risk. I won't blame the Twins at all if they say no.
  7. nytwinsfan
    Yeah, there is some truth to that, but (1) there is also some downside risk for free agents, especially when they are above 30 (and certainly when 39), that there will be serious decline. True, there might be little risk of 0 WAR like there is for Moncada, although even that is possible with injuries, especially for pitchers. And (2) there is also way more upside for Moncada, i.e., by all accounts he has a shot (say 10-20%) of being a consistent 5 WAR per season player. Very few free agents, and even fewer that could be gotten for $100 - 120M for 6 years, have that kind of upside. So I agree he is riskier, but both on the upside and the downside of the equation.
  8. nytwinsfan
    I think the penalty is two years starting this year and going forward. Still relatively benign though.
  9. nytwinsfan
    So let's say $50 million to him, $50 million tax, and $20 million salary, which is the very upper range. He would not need to be Trout to make that a good deal. Right now about 1 WAR costs about $6 million. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cost-of-a-win-in-the-2014-off-season/ So he would need to earn 20 WAR over 6 years to make that worth while. 20 WAR over 6 years is a lot (3 1/3 per year), but Trout did it in 2 years, so not remotely Trout level. And that is not counting likely inflation in salaries, so that 1 WAR will probably be worth 7 or 8 million in a few years, which could make the deal even better. So yeah, it is a risk, and one I doubt Ryan will do, but one I'd love to see them take.
  10. nytwinsfan
    I understand the tax of 100% part, yes, but what is the "normal" salary? You mean normal first 3-year salaries plus 3 years of arbitration eligibility? My post assumed a $80-100 million dollar price tag (including the tax). For six years of team control that is a lot, true, but not unreasonable, given his upside and midpoint value. We are talking about a fast, great hitting, good defensive 3rd basemen. He could easily be worth that. Granted, I'm not expecting Ryan to do that, I'm just saying it wouldn't be crazy, and I would be very excited about it.
  11. nytwinsfan
    I assume you know this, and were just using a figure of speech, but once a team goes past the bonus limit, which they would certainly have to do to get Moncada, there is no "all" left to "blow", so to speak, because there is no remaining limit (other than Carl Pohlad's checkbook). So a team could spend what it takes to get Moncada, and then they could try to get some other good young prospects, because they won't be spending anything more for the next 2 years.
  12. nytwinsfan
    This is completely a rumor, so huge grain of salt, but Kiley McDaniel, who is a legit source, posted it based on "surveying about a dozen international sources," so I thought it would be worth mentioning it here. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-international-bonus-pools-dont-matter/ Apparently the Twins are one of a group of 11 teams known, suspected, or rumored to be considering going over their international bonus allotment in the July 2015-16 period. Could this mean they are in on Yoan Moncada (assuming he is not eligible before July 2)? Here is more on Moncada: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yoan-moncada-game-theory If Terry Ryan thinks Sano is destined for 1st base or DH, and also thinks the next 3-8 years is the Twins' best window, then spending 80-100 million on a likely top-10 Third Base prospect with all-star upside would make some sense. Yes, they would probably have to overpay to get him, but frankly I'd rather see that kind of money for that kind of upside, rather than signing more 32-year-old mid-rotation starters or 39 year-old outfielders. Or more likely (unfortunately) it just means Ryan has seen what the Yankees, Angels, and Red Sox have done and realized the Twins can get more young talent by unlimited spending once every three years than by spending a drastically limited amount every year. Or it could just be a false rumor.
  13. nytwinsfan
    Dude looks strong for his size.
  14. nytwinsfan
    Speaking of prospects, this guy won't be on the list until the 3rd installment, but holy crap does he look jacked: https://twitter.com/JOlaMaquina/status/545632902445551617 Someone's been working out this offseason.
  15. nytwinsfan
    The other difference is that Chicago doesn't have 3 stud young pitching prospects waiting in the wings like the Twins do, so signing Lester was a necessity. While again, I don't mind the Santana signing, it does create a possible logjam problem that Chicago won't run into with Lester. That being said, if Ryan is willing to force Nolasco or Santana to pitch out of the pen in their 3rd and 4th contract years (or trade them, if that is possible) then this shouldn't be a problem. But I'm not sure I trust him to do that, and I can see the Santana signing delaying Meyer, May, and Berrios developments, at least on the margin.
  16. nytwinsfan
    Mackey has a good overall point, but notably missing from his discussion is the Hunter deal, which nobody can convince me Epstein would EVER have made. I don't love the Santana deal, but I don't hate it either. In fact, I probably mildly like it. I agree it is analogous to the Lester deal, and probably actually better. But the Hunter deal is just bad. After the Santana signing, with a little luck, and the signing of a good outfield defender, we could be a .500 team this year, with the outside possibility of more. Instead, all of our pitchers will have an ERA about .50 higher than they should, because our outfield defense will be the worst in all of baseball. Yes, Hunter excites the fanbase. But another thing that excites the fanbase is winning, and not having bloated ERAs based on terrible defense. I don't even care about the money they spent on Hunter. I care about the playing time that could be used for someone like Colby Rasmus, or Eddie Rosario, or any number of other free agents with decent or good outfield defense. So Mackey is right that overall Ryan has done a decent job, especially at drafting and overseeing the scouting of young talent. But to say he is the equivalent of Epstein is a stretch.
  17. nytwinsfan
    I don't understand the assumption that we will be able to trade them "down the line." Whether it is because they collapse, like Nolasco, because we overpaid, or because of just normal age-related decline, it is a big and unjustified assumption that we will be able to trade veteran starters a few years later when they are 34 or35 and are attached to a $12-18 million a year salary.
  18. nytwinsfan
    I mean, if his shoulder fully recovers, then he probably has a lot of upside. If not, maybe still a long reliever?
  19. nytwinsfan
    I agree a 3 year deal wouldn't be a terrible idea, although I'd still be against it. But my post was explicitly based on the assumption of "more than 2-3 years."
  20. nytwinsfan
    Agreed about Pelfrey. The reason not to sign Santana is not because he might get injured/pull a Nolasco, but because even if he pitches as expected, he is at best a marginal upgrade over what May or Meyer is likely to provide at a cost of a draft pick and $15 or so for more than 2-3 years. If it were just about spending this year, then sure, I'd say do it. But in 2017 or 2018 we may actually be at a point where signing the RIGHT free agent could make the difference between a good team and a playoff contender. And if we do this, we won't have the money available then. And no it is not a given that we would be able to trade Santana then. Even if he doesn't pull a Nolasco, a 34-35 year old declining Santana may not be worth a team eating his $15 million salary in 2018.
  21. nytwinsfan
    I guess if it was limited to 4 years and $15 a year that might be ok, but with Hughes, Nolasco, Gibson, and then Santana all locks for 15 and 16, are we ok with only one rotation spot being available for May, Meyer, and in 2016 Berrios? I know people always say you can't have too much pitching, but is that really true? Nolasco will not go to the pen, and realistically they are not going to bench Nolasco after how much they paid him. For those reasons I'd rather get Brett Anderson for a year at a much lower cost. He'll either have a 3.25 ERA, in which case great, that's worth working Meyer out of the pen this year, or he'll be on the DL, in which case start Meyer and May.
  22. nytwinsfan
    The bad news is that it seems likely Matuella, Aiken, and Rogers will likely be gone (although much can change before next summer). The good news is that it seems like one of the next tier of pitchers (Kirby, Buehler, Funkhouser from college and Allard and Hooper from HS) will be there. I'd prefer a college arm at this point, so they can debut before 2020, but obviously if the value is significantly higher for a HS arm, you have to go with that. I have to say I'm not too enthralled with Cameron at #6, or with the other bats after Rogers, unless we were going to pay under slot and use the rest to sign a very high upside HS arm in the second round.
  23. nytwinsfan
    Totes agree. Those are my top two choices, although Garcia, like DeShields, has not progressed that far in his system, and would experience a big jump. But with us taking Hunter, it is not like we are attempting to make the playoffs this year anyway, so let's get someone of value while we're at it.
  24. nytwinsfan
    I agree, take Deshields, start him against lefties and use him as a pinch runner/defensive replacement, then drop him after a few weeks if he is playing worse than Hicks (unlikely IMO). His speed is valuable even if his bat is still mediocre, and his long-term upside is more than Schafer or (probably) Hicks.
  25. nytwinsfan
    Two words: Andrew Susac. He is a catcher with both the glove/arm and the bat. Also, he is blocked by Posey in the short to medium run. Meanwhile, while the Twins org seems to have little to no confidence in Pinto behind the plate long term, and Turner's bat is questionable as a starting catcher. I'd rather wait to trade Plouffe until later in the year, but if the Giants would be willing to trade Susac straight up, or even with us throwing in someone else (Pinto or a reliever for instance), I'd absolutely do it.
×
×
  • Create New...