IndianaTwin

My memory of Maeda going to the bullpen for LA was that it was more about other quality guys returning from injury than it was about managing innings. He was the odd man out in the rotation, and after transitioning successfully the first time, they decided to do it again the next season. But that's just my memory, and I don't have a good gene pool when it comes to memory loss.

I don't like THAT weather, that's for sure! What part of the country are you in? I heard on the news tonight that they reached -110 wind chill on Mt. Washington this evening.

A good exercise. I think you're maybe a little high on the innings. In his five full seasons (i.e., not 2020), he's averaged 139 innings. Coming off TJS, I'll suggest 125 as a target. Maybe skip his spot in the rotation a time or two, and because of the surgery, he may have the shortest starts on average, so 25 starts x 5 innings feels about right. ERA is maybe a bit high. His career is 3.70 and his highest is 4.10. TJS guys often have days when they are not sharp, but it makes sense to try letting them pitch through some things. I think there will be many days when he's on his career average of 3.70, but throw in a few of the clunkers and it's maybe pushing 4.00. I'll take 125 innings of 4.00 or a little better from the No. 5 guy.

It would be interesting to do a study of projected starting pitchers from the beginning of the season to Opening Day to see how many of them make it through spring training uninjured. By "projected starting pitcher," I'm not referring to those involved in battles for the No. 5 spot, but guys actually expected to start the season in the rotation. If the number is anywhere near 83.333 percent, it makes perfect sense to start spring training with a starting rotation of six, assuming that one will be injured by Opening Day and that the problem has resolved itself. And if they accidently all make it through spring training, then use all six for a couple times, knowing that one of them will almost certainly miss starts by mid to late April. For that reason, I think it's fine to assume that the "Opening Day rotation" is currently Gray, Lopez, Ryan, Mahle, Maeda and Ober. It will play itself out, and we'll see Nos. 7-10 soon enough.

I think too that if you sign the letter "Mikelink45" you'll have more credibility with Joey. None of this silly first name-last name signing convention that suggests that those of us on the internet have a real life. Being Midwesterners, I always like to add a few observations about the weather as well. 😄 Your friend, Indiana Twin

Thanks -- those are helpful comparisons. If I use the "housing appraisal" model, where you add or subtract a little based on the number of bathrooms, bedrooms, square footage, etc., it seems like the contract size for Gallo is about right. Certainly not way out of line. The question is whether the Twins are the right team to give him that contract. For guys in that price range, there's always going to be some positives and a flaw or two. Where I'm coming out is that he checks quite a few boxes, but isn't perfect, with the primary flaw being his handedness. There's also his strikeout level, but his walks and slugging ability are apparently good enough to have him with decent stats over the course of his career. He profiles as a slightly above-average hitter, just not a well-rounded one. If Gallo is the biggest acquisition of the offseason, we've got a problem. But with the Correa signing and Lopez trade, I'm cool with signing Gallo as a second-level move, like I see the Farmer trade and Vazquez signings. I continue to feel that depth and roster flexibility are a couple of their biggest strengths, and I think he adds to that.

And as an average, 2022 was greatly affected by Archer. Take out his 4.1 innings per start and the average goes up nearly .2 innings.

Have they made any statements to suggest they are not?

This is an honest question, not a leading one. Were there any free agent outfielders, who fit Gallo’s profile of being able to play all three outfield positions and first base, potentially have a ton of power, draw a ton of walks, willing to sign for $11M and bat right-handed?

There’s probably a way to create a Pagan question.

I think one of the challenges Gallo has faced on TD is that he’s not Carlos Correa. By that, I mean that he signed when many on TD were in a “Correa or Bust” mindset. So when Gallo signed early, many expressed their angst that we weren’t going to get C4, and that angst both spiraled in general and translated to a frustration about Gallo and his style of play in particular I think there are similar dynamics at play in many folks’ perception of Farmer. Even though it was early, people interpreted the Farmer trade as a sign they didn’t think we could get C4 and that the FO was settling for Farmer as a bridge to Lewis. In reality, in the context of their overall plan and the roster they’ve developed, I think it was a shrewd move to trade Urshela for Farmer, but I don’t think the FO has gotten much credit for that move either. And even Vazquez. I haven’t seen anyone complain about that signing, but neither has there been much celebration about getting the second-best catcher on the market. We were too concerned about not yet having signed a top-flight shortstop I get it. I didn’t particularly enjoy watching Gallo as a member of opposing teams, but I do enjoy winning, and I think he can help the Twins do that. I’ll also repeat a statement I’ve made elsewhere, which is that I just find it more enjoyable to go through life expecting the best rather than expecting the worst. I think the former is what the OP is encouraging us to do.

Phone call from Addison Reed on Line 1. Not saying they’ve dropped every under-performer, but Joe Smith and Tyler Duffey come to mind as well. When they feel like they have a viable alternative and don’t see a future, they’ve been willing to do so. And to anticipate a “what about Pagan” comment from someone, I think they’ll have a much shorter leash on him this year than last year. Difference being that this is his last year of control. Throughout last year there was always the possibility of an off-season turnaround. To bring this back to Gallo, I think if he stinks and other guys have come through, they’ll try to trade him for a lottery pick or go ahead and dump him.

1. The 10/$285M contract was "reported," but the reality is that we don't know the parameters of it. 2. The final contract only has 6 years guaranteed, but it's pretty easy to imagine it going to can go to 10/$270M. In addition, it's very front-loaded, so depending on what discount rate you use, it's actually worth more in current dollars than a straight line 10/$285M. 3. I picked up the "just get it done" response in some of the interviews. After what he went through, it's easy to imagine that he was getting fed up. 4. But we're still not privy to details of the conversation (as we shouldn't be), so this is all speculation on all of our parts.

I’m more familiar with Cisco and Greiner than Walters, but I like those signings as Saint stashes as well. WIth Vazquez and Jeffers, I concur that this is the best approach for the 40-man.

I agree, and...

This is the most convincing argument I've seen on either side of the topic. KEEP KEPLER, for the good of USNMCPO's marriage!

But if several years of so-so hitting mean we have to ignore 2019’s hitting, why we would we ignore several years of great defense and anticipate “random variance” to lead to so-so defense this year? Could it happen? Sure, but so could another 2019 bat then. I’m probably jaded by last year, but “redundancy” looks different if AK can’t hit, pushing Gallo to first, and even one of Buxton, Larnach, Gordon is hurt or unproductive. With Burton’s health and Larnach and Gordon having combined for about one-half of a productive season, that doesn’t seem like a stretch. I hope those don’t happen, but it’s not a stretch to see them. Folks are down on Kepler. I get that. But the Twin are not going to get much less for Kepler if they trade him in July compared to trading him now.

Right — why would a team on a “five-year-plan” prioritize a two-year outfielder. Not to mention that the “magic trade machine” isn’t that magic. According to it, the Arraez trade wasn’t even close to even, with the Twins winning in a big way.

The reference to Kepler in the top four spots needs a deeper look. He batted very rarely in the top three spots (18 games). He was No. 4 in 44 games, but the vast majority of those were between games 60 and 96, when their other options were an as-yet-unproven Miranda, Celestino, Sanchez/Jeffers, Kirilloff, an unproven Gordon, Cave, etc. In a decent number of games in that stretch, he did bat fourth in front of Polanco, but that’s more about batting lefties 1-4-7. Don’t forget as well that by definition, the top of the order gets more plate appearance. The 1-4 spots don’t get just 4/9 of the plate appearances (44.4%) as a team. Last year, they got nearly 50 percent. The opening statement says it’s time for the Twins to “realize what they have” in Kepler. I think it’s precisely because they DO realize what they have that they haven’t traded him. He’s the quintessential “floor” player. If he stays healthy, plays a great right field, and bats ninth on a regular basis (which is where I think his skill set fits best with the current roster), that’s a good lineup. At this point, if they do end up trading him, I hope it’s for a reliever, but I’d rather just sign a Fulmer type or two.

Yes. To me, that’s one of the biggest strengths of this roster — its flexibility. Other than catcher, there’s not a single position where there aren’t at least three viable options for solid, if not outstanding, play. Not necessarily three long-term options, but options that can work in covering a 10-day IL stint, etc. And even at catcher, they have a stable of guys in St. Paul with MLB experience.

I'd nominate this for TD "Truth Statement of the Week," but it's only Thursday, so there's a small chance someone outdoes this in the next few days.

I don't think it will be 5 and fly. Here's why: Here are some past averages from Rocco's managerial days that are above last year's MLB average of 5.2 innings per start: Joe Ryan, 2022, 5.44 Jose Berrios, 2021, 6.08 Kenta Maeda, 2020, 6.06 Jose Berrios, 2020, 5.25 Michael Pineda, 2020 5.33 (only 5 starts) Jose Berrios, 2019, 6.26 Martin Perez, 2019, 5.41 Jake Odorizzi, 2019, 5.30 Michael Pineda, 2019, 5.62 Do you know what these guys have in common? Two things: With the exception of Ryan last year, they were experienced pitchers. They didn't suck. In fact, they were usually pretty good, sometimes even excellent. Point being, when Rocco has had the horses, he's let them ride. The notion of "Rocco pulls the starter early" is recency bias, driven by a season when A) they were beset by injuries, so they were going to rookies way more than they wanted to; B) Archer never extended; C) if they were pitching veterans, they were protecting them out of necessity, knowing that another injury meant another Cole Sands start; and D) they often sucked. Sure, there were individual games when they didn't suck, and TD readers wanted Rocco to leave the guy in longer, but Rocco seemed to take the long view that C is more important than D. I generally agree. So this year, they are going into the season with Perez, Gray, Ryan, Mahle and Maeda. That group checks Box No. 1, though Maeda is coming off TJS and Mahle missed the season's end. And all of them have the potential to be anywhere from pretty good to excellent, which checks Box No. 2. And there's the herd of young guys coming from behind -- Ober, Winder, et. al. -- who we seem to think fit Box No. 2, if not yet Box No. 1. (Apologies if I took the thread off-topic. If need be, I can cut and paste the comment to any number of other threads where it also fits!)

Opening paragraph: "With the trade of Luis Arraez to the Marlins, the Twins are taking a risk by swapping a critical bat in their line up in the hope of pitching depth. But as many analysts here have shown, the trade leaves quite a few questions. So is it possible the Twins know something about the health of their players that we currently do not?" Uh, yeah. Of course they know more about player health than we do.

Polanco vs. Schoop at 2B? Duran vs. Rogers at closer? To me, where I think they are better is in the "collection" of folks. As in Gallo-Buxton-Kepler-Taylor-Gordon (+Larnach-Wallner-Celestino) feels better than Rosario-Buxton-Kepler-Cave-Marwin (+Wade-rookie Arraez-Ian Miller) or Kirilloff-Polanco-Correa-Miranda-Farmer (+Gordon-Lewis-and others) vs. Cron-Schoop-Polanco-Sano-Adrianza (+Marwin-rookie Arraez-Astudillo) But you're right, there's still significant question marks in the '23 batch, such as whether Kirilloff will be legit, whether it's Gallo '21 or Gallo '22, etc. It just feels like they have way more possibilities for upside than the 2019 did going into the season. Said another way, since folks are into this language -- I think there's just as much likelihood for "ceiling" as the 2019 team had going into the season, but also a much higher "floor." But hey, that's why they play the game on the field, not on the computer screen.

I also can't believe many people looked at the 2019 roster and then said to themselves, "This is a 100-win team." But baseball happens. I'm with those who suggest that Jan. 24, 2023, looks better than April 1, 2019, did, which is what I think the point of the article is. And interestingly, both the 2019 and 2024 teams were coming off 78-win seasons. We've also still got a couple months' worth of tweaking from a FO that has often good in the closing weeks of the offseason. In about three weeks, a couple more roster spots open, and I'd love to see them quickly filled by Fulmer, et. al.