Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

tobi0040

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,776

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by tobi0040

  1. tobi0040
    Just one prediction from ESPN's Schoenfeld. The comment at the end about raising the division flag relates to the title (the path towards a division title for each team. White Sox 78 wins (5 more wins). Twins 76. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/53956/path-to-the-playoffs-al-central
  2. tobi0040
    If you are pencilling in players at any age basec on their best season in most cases to sum up the WAR. I should be able to at least pencil career averages on the other side of the ledger. Age is part of the issue. the other part is they are adding a ton of payroll and are not a contending team and basically paying them all based on peak production. History has not been kind to these types of decisions and the scenario to 90 wins assumes they all pan out. On top of other guys currently on their team repeating great years and staying healthy.
  3. tobi0040
    Well Hunter was signed to give pep talks and run over catchers. I honestly don't think the Twins expect much, if any production out of him. Of course they won't say that. So Ervin and Nolasco, two pitchers who AVERAGE, not career year, who average 4.17 and 4.30 ERA's. That only gets you to about $26M and clearly would improve the Twins. Ervin has averaged 1.7 WAR per season, Nolasco 1.2. So we have added 3 wins. Halfway there. Still have $26M to spend. If we get the 2008 Ricky 4.8 WAR and 2010 or 2011 Ervin at 3 WAR, we are really cruising. Added 7.8 WAR. They are replacing negative WAR guys. Let's call it 10 wins with half the money still left.
  4. tobi0040
    Do you think it would be possible for a 73 win team to sign five players, adding $52.5M to next seasons payroll and not improve? I mean they could have signed 4 Nolasco's and every one theoretically could drop off the career norms, but it would be extremely unlikely for that to happen. Clearly they have improved. But every single decision is risky, they are over-paying, and adding 30+ somethings, many coming off career years. These are not the type of decisions that should scare us at all.
  5. tobi0040
    That might have been the most optimistic summary I have ever read. If these were Twins players, virtually every single one on the Twins thread would be in the regression bucket. LaRoche has had 2 or more WAR 3 x in his career, out of 11 seasons. He has actually been negative twice and at 0 one other time. Jeff S. WAR by year: 2011 - 1.1 2012 - 1.8 2013 - 1 2014 - 3.7 Penciling him in for another 3.7 seems a bit rosy. Career year out of Sale with a full run better than the last few years, sure pencil him in for another as well. Abreu, sure he won't regress off the .964 OPS like Puig or Cespedes did year 1 to 2. Lock it in. 2014 Robertson and Duke summed a WAR of 2.4. Duke's K per 9 basically doubled his career averages and his ERA was half his career average. If five or six guys had career years and are just penciled in to get to 90 wins, I am taking the under.
  6. tobi0040
    At the end of the day, I don't think they have a contending team the next 1-2 years. Adding the guys they added to a 73 win team does not add 17+ wins IMO. So I am just not very worried. We may differ on that, we may also differ on the throught process of the guys they signed and roster construction. That is fine.
  7. tobi0040
    Why did they win 73 games last year?
  8. tobi0040
    It sounds like a good shot Semien is the SS for the A's next year. I guess I don't get why the Twins and White Sox are in such different spots. They won 3 more games than us this year. I don't think this is a 90 win team next year.
  9. tobi0040
    I think if you leave your house to get gas, the drive there and act of pumping gas are really one event. Not two. But this part of the discussion is silly. If Jeff S. is a rental....a non playoff team gave up potentially a 25 year old starting short stop for a rental that meant nothing. Semien has an inimpressive .673 OPS in 300 AB's. But the guy has hit mid teen HR three years running with an OPS of .880 in the minors the last three years and BA had him as the 91'st best prospect before the season. He is under control until 2021 while Ramirez will be 33 next year in his last year with the option of paying him $10M in 2016. It sounds like they gave up "something" to me. The going rate for a short stop in free agency is enormous and they may kick themselves for this one. If Jeff S. gets the extension the White Sox are going to try and sign him too....i think it is high probably that ends poorly too. So I don't really see either being a good baseball move no matter what happens.
  10. tobi0040
    6/150 that Lester got may not be a big difference between what Shark may get. And I think the Cubs picked Lester over Shark because he has been better for a longer period of time. This was about risk/reward.
  11. tobi0040
    Just another thing we need to disagree about. If the White Sox intended all along to hand Jeff S. and extension and are actively planning to do so, then the whole reason they did this was to have him for the next 7 years at $130M or so. I see this as pretty black and white. They are either going to have a 1 year rental or hand him $130M. The rental does not make any sense to me, as they won 73 games last year. I don't think they are a contending team even after the money they have spent. The extension is too much money locked up in a guy that has not been that great in his career (ERA+ of 101). On top of pithcers from 31-37 not pitching well. So I think this will end up being a lose-lose. It made them better next year, but to what end? I think the extension they give him will be one of the best things that could happen to the Twins.
  12. tobi0040
    Your premise ignores that extending Jeff S. was not their plan all along. I would not want the Twins to trade for him, then give him $120M over 6 years, from ages 31-37 (would not kick in until he is 31 next year). By their own admission, that is their plan. I think the Cubs and A's, both relatively well run franchises under Beane and Theo decided that Shark was not worth it and/or too risky to extend. They both sold high. The White Sox swoooped in and bought high. I would not have wanted the Twins to do that. The theme of the thread was "look at all the great moves that the White Sox are doing.....the Twins are falling behind......it is real frustrating to see them aggressive.... Let's just wait a year or two and ensure we lost out on this one. That is all.
  13. tobi0040
    I think the White Sox spent a lot of money, $52.5M to next years payroll (Shark 10, Laroche 12.5, Robertson 12, Melky 13, Duke 5). In total they committed $130M and that number could jump another $100M if they give Shark an extension. which they are going to attempt per reports. http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/update/24892457/white-sox-will-attempt-to-extend-jeff-samardzija The first issue I have is they spent money in free agency at positions that are the easiest to develop in house (pen), or platoon (1b/Dh). The second issue I think they are taking a leap of faith on guys without long track records of success. Really a buy high on Shark, Duke, and Melkey. If you continually buy high, you will be dissapointed more often than not. The third issue is in addition to a lot of these guys not really being the top at their positions, they have them under contract at relatively high rates for the following ages: 30-33, 35-37, 32-34, 30-34, and 30-36/37 if they extend Jeff. These are not peak production years. You guys seem to think they spent the money as good as they could and neither addressed whether or not spending on positions/ages is a good idea. But it is time to agree to disagree.
  14. tobi0040
    MLB.com has him at 8th in OPS among 1B, and that includes the qualifier, which I believe is north of 400 AB's. If you take that out I get 13th. http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp#elem=%5Bobject+Object%5D&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&game_type='R'&season=2014&season_type=ANY&league_code='MLB'&sectionType=sp&statType=hitting&page=1&ts=1418741277019&position='3'&sortColumn=ops&sortOrder='desc'&extended=0
  15. tobi0040
    Jokin, I would suggest Bautista and Cabrera doing well against the white sox and twins over the last 10 years has more to do with the pitching Than the stadium. In 2012 he failed a drug test and had an ops plus 30 points higher than the other three in that sample. I am not sure where the disagreement lies there.
  16. tobi0040
    I know you overpay in free agency. That was half the argument I was trying to make. FA is the last place I would want to get a closer, for example. Not a great place to get a DH. The Twins got a dominant one in house and signed to a team friendly deal with many options. I believe we could have two other good closers from the 2nd and I believe 4th round (Burdi and Reed). I also philosophically don't get how a closer is worth $12M and that admittedly plays into my opinion. $12M at 60 IP is saying that a top 10 starter that goes 220 IP is worth $44M (both are 200k an inning). I am of the belief that you can lose the game by a bad 4th inning the same as a bad 9th. If you take the qualifiers out, LaRoche was the 13th best offensive 1B. Defensively he had a dWAR of -1 almost exclusively at 1B. That is a very bad defensive 1B. In his first year, Mauer was only a -.2 and my guess is Mauer would have been positive in the second half. That sounds about like league average to me.
  17. tobi0040
    On the great four years, they are skewed by the year he used PED's (157 OPS+). The year prior, he was in the mid 120's, well above his career norms. He could have been using. If you remove just his 157 year he falls to 111. No longer vastly above league averages. Factor in negative defense, no I don't think he will be a star, especially from 30-33. He has only played 34 games at US Cellular. Seems like a small sample
  18. tobi0040
    29m to two relievers and a average Dh is about as good as you could spend? I guess it is as much where they spent as it is who they got.
  19. tobi0040
    I somehow forgot the 50 million they gave a closer. So next years payroll could have 60m locked into five players and one potentially bein a star (shark) at a non bullpen position. (Assumes 20m annual extension)
  20. tobi0040
    Well, that is a tough response because the free agency period is only about half over. And I don't know that free agency alone appcoach if the best one. But here are just a few comments regarding the signings. Adam LaRoche - His career OPS + is 114 and he is 35 years old. They paid him more than the A's paid a 28 year old Billy Butler, who has a career OPS + of 119. But I am not sure I would spend $12.5M on a 35 year old DH with a career OPS of .811. I would think you could find that production via a platoon rather easily. Duke - This was a buy high, lots of risk. One guy that has done it for a longer period of time is Neshek. I would rather have given him 2/13 over 3/15 to Duke. Relievers can be good/bad so frequently that I would prefer shorter deals. But Neskek's ERA+ has been 288, 117, and 197 the last three years. His career ERA is 2.78. I would have gone that route. Such a small sample size to go off of with a reliever. Duke gave up 16 ER last year, but had another 3 unearned runs. 13 IP in 2012. 31 in 2013 and 58 last year. Extremely unimpressive career numbers, 4.17 ERA, 1.45 WHIP. Almost 11 hits per 9, 5.0 k per 9 Jeff S. - He has not been good for that long. His career ERA+ is remarkably average at 103. I just think now they are married to the guy and are going to hand him $100M. Melky - 30+ year old outfielder that is a negative player defensively and league average or so offensively by his career numbers. this deal looks like the Victorino deal, but Victorino actually has slightly better offensive numbers. They got the same contract and Shane and he could be had for a can of pepsi right now.
  21. tobi0040
    Yeah. I would think top 10-12 or so. Potential regression: Vargas, Santana, Plouffe, Suzuki, Escober, Dozier.... Potential to have a better year: Mauer and Hicks (how could he have a worse year?) Add in potentially adding Sano and Buxton at some point. Torii is at least a wash offensively vs. Willingham's .732 OPS last year, Schaefer that played for him.
  22. tobi0040
    Well, I don't know that some of your comps are great either. Melky's four year stretch with the 124 OPS + includes a season at 157 in which he tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. The three last seasons in which he did not fail a drug test average to about 111 and frankly, none of us know that he wasn't using in 2011 when he had a 121 OPS +, well above his career averages up to that point. And I don't get the Hunter/Melky comp. One was paid $10M for one season so he could give pep talks and help the development of the future. I think the Twins view that as an investment in the 2016-2020 Twins. Melky was paid $42M over three years to help them win games. I guess the broader point for me is if the Twins were a .500 team and wanted to go out in free agency and ramp up for a world series win, I hope they would get more for what the White Sox have spent this off-season. If they re-sign Shark at $20M a year, they would have increased payroll $50M and had Shark, Duke, LaRoche, and Melky Cabrera to show for it, and lost some prospects in the process. Yeah, they are better. You can't question that, but I think they could have spent that money in a smarter fashion.
  23. tobi0040
    II just think if you play this season 150 times the Twins would win at least one championship. I don't think that is overly optimistic.
  24. tobi0040
    "any time you spend $40M a year your team should get better". What I meant by that is they have gotten better. It would be hard to spend $40M and not get better. But I don't think they got $40M better. That is all.
  25. tobi0040
    Yeah...one year of Shark, LaRoche, Melky, Duke, and prospects does not seem worth $40M a year. Any time you spend $40M your team should improve.
×
×
  • Create New...