IndianaTwin

I think Perez was an okay option coming off a 78-win season. Like you, I'd like to shoot higher coming off a 101-win season. That said, through his first eight starts last year, a lot of us were thinking we may have struck lightning in a bottle with Perez. Then came June, and we kept running him out there to the point of ending up with 29 starts. So while I'd like to shoot higher this year, the bigger key may be in having a shorter leash. Last year, when Perez started to stink up the place, we didn't have other options. This year, I'd like to think that starters 6-8 are much further along than they were last year.

I'm not sure I'll buy this one, though. My point is that most people seem to have defined "impact" as getting the big-time stud. Note the number of "giving Odo a QO (or signing Pineda) is okay if it's the second-best signing of the winter" comments. My point is that when the FO makes the "impact pitching" comment at a point when all you've got is Berrios and a batch of rookies in the starting rotation and a youngish, though promising bullpen, I measure getting "impact pitching" as the cumulative of the off-season moves. That's particularly how you fill Nos. 2-5, but also how you improve the bullpen. So far, I've seen additions of Odo, Pineda, Romo, and Clippard. I hope they aren't done, because I really would prefer to see two veterans added so that Dobnak/Smeltzer et al. would be fighting for the Pineda suspension starts and then to stay in the rotation. So in the context of this winter, I'd feel pretty good about still getting a .1 bWAR from 2019 coming off of 3.5 and 3.1 from the two previous years, with a four-year average of 167 innings, particularly if all it cost me was a Class A SS. That guy might indeed turn in a 1.5 bWAR, but he could also turn in a 3.6, so let's split the difference and call it 2.5, or even the 2.2 Odo had averaged his last three seasons in TB. I'd feel even better if they got two of them! With a winter that nets Odo, Pineda, Romo, Clippard and two veteran starters who get 2.2-2.5 bWARs, I'd definitely consider that getting "impact pitching."

I can go along with this, which is why I gave it a pretty tentative "I think I'm glad we missed out." Darvish would indeed have been very helpful as an alternative to a bullpen game in last year's playoffs, and while the remaining 4/$81 still feels a little high given his age, I do think (again, cautiously) I'd like it better than some of the other signings that have happened, particularly if we can assume that the Twins would have needed to go even higher to get this year's guys. You gave the "butterfly effect" more thought than I did and you're probably right on the later deals that would have been more directly affected.

Didn't say that I think they will, but rather that I'd love it if they would. But I do think the circumstances may be different later in the winter. A characteristic I like about this FO is that they don't paint themselves into a corner. Building on the thoughts of chpettit19 above, between being the known quantity and now having six straight seasons of 28+ starts, he'd be my top pick among the Bumgarner, Ryu, Keuchel crowd, higher even than Wheeler, I think. Just because they didn't offer Ryu more than $80MM for four years in December doesn't mean they wouldn't offer Odo what I outlined in February. As you note, they didn't offer him that much earlier because they didn't have to. But I hope that part of their communication with him was, "We are going to offer you the QO, but once the dust settles on the rest of the market and we know much we needed in filling other holes, we very much would like to come back for more conversation." And if they do offer something like I suggested, he may still say, "Thanks, but no thanks -- I'm betting on myself."

First, my bad -- I misread Bumgarner's contract in calculating the 30-40%. I'd also concur with your desire to be more aggressive in a slow market, though to use Darvish as the example, I think I'm glad we missed out, particularly if it had taken somewhat more than what he got. So far, we'd have spent however much more than $45MM for 218.2 innings and be left with however much more than $81MM over the remaining four years for his 33-36 years. The remaining amount is probably not a gross overpayment of what he might get if he was a FA this winter, and I know that one decision doesn't automatically correlate to another, but if having Darvish would have kept us from signing Cruz, for example, I particularly am glad we didn't get Darvish. I don't remember if there were other specific circumstances on why TB was trading Odo, but he was coming off three seasons with a combined average ERA+ of 109 and four straight years of 140+ innings. On the subject of "impact" pitching, I'm thinking more in the cumulative than in the individual. Considering that the "impact" quote came at a time when only one guy on the roster had more than six starts last year, if that's what they would get for a Class A shortstop this winter after already signing the sixth and ninth-best starters, yeah, I'd call that getting "impact" pitching. One note that I did see on Darvish's contract that I wish they'd do more of. It's front-loaded at 25-20-22-22-19-18. I'd love to see them go back to Odo and offer him a raise to $20MM this year, followed by two years at $18MM each and an option year at $16MM, for example. That would be getting him close to Ryu/Bumgarner money and better than Keuchel, while taking out his risk on getting injured.

Great minds thinking alike, apparently. Your post popped up as I was finishing mine. Brevity, you see, has never been a virtue of mine. (In fact, I could tell you about some of the long posts I've written. They started when I said something like...)

I think they will trade Jermaine Palacios for Jake Odorizzi. In other words, we've been exploring as trade targets all the guys who are supposedly "on the market" and who we think teams might be interested in dumping. But given this front office's penchant for value, I doubt that's who they are exploring and who we'll get. From what I remember, very few if any of us had Odorizzi on our radar, when suddenly we opened Twins Daily on February 17 (yes, FEBRUARY) and found that we'd gotten an under-the-radar starter for the cost of a Class A shortstop (and I don't remember how highly regarded he was at the time). I think that trade's worked out pretty well. Point being, there's lots of time left, and there's way more guys out there than have been named to date. I'd much rather have this year's Jake Odorizzi than guys who are going 30-40 percent more than what MLBTR had projected (not that they are gospel, but their projections seemed generally on target at the time).

I’ve told this story before, but the Thome shot is my best Hawk Harrelson moment. In character, he was babbling about something unrelated when Thome jacked it. In watching the recording, I believe I measured a full 52 seconds of silence from the broadcast booth as the mic only picked up crowd noise. Followed by an obviously deflated Hawk, who cut to commercial by just saying, “And we’ll be back.” I can only imagine the tight hold he had on his mute button.

And the numbers are even better when you take out a couple of the games when he was used as an opener against a certain Midwestern team that he, um, won't have to face this year. I've liked him for a few years. He's often been in the closer/I'm-surprised-they're-not-using-him-as-a-closer spot. Frankly, if they want to focus Rogers' use on high-leverage situations, it would be easy to slot Clippard into the more traditional closer role to allow that to happen. Greater flexibility in using Rogers would also lessen the need for another lefty.

Hey, hey, hey... -IT (Though actually, I'm generally with you in concept. I'd rather be living back home so I could change my name to IowaTwin. I hear the sun shines there from time to time.)

On the flip side, I’m not sure I’d include Berrios. We’ve had lots of discussion of what’s a “true ace,” but my view on it is this. Last year, his 4.4 WAR ranked 17th among starters who threw at least 100 innings. With 30 teams, that basically makes him a median No. 1. Yes, I acknowledge that he’s not quite an “average” No. 1 in that there are extremes on the top end. By definition, that also means he would be the No. 2 on a good number of teams. In fact, he’d have been the No. 3 on the Mets and Cleveland and No. 4 on the Nats and Astros (assuming I consider Greinke an Astro for ending there). But the flip side is to say that he would have been the No. 1 starter on 20 teams. Where’s the cut off on what’s an “ace”? I don’t know, but I feel pretty good about having my guy be better than two thirds of the other teams’ guy at a given position. Particularly given... Odo finished 20th among those with at least 100 innings, so in essence, our “No. 2” pitched like a slightly below average No. 1! AND, with Pineda at No. 48, our “No. 3” was close to being an average No. 2. They both pitched up a level. The catch is that Gibson was right behind Pineda at No. 49. So Berrios taking a step forward would be awesome, but right now, with the roster we have now, I think the bigger need is for someone to take a step forward as our No. 4 starter, whomever that might be.

“A rookie.” That sounds like a cop out in not naming a specific one, but the reality is that someone will likely get hurt or significantly underperform. We just don’t know which one. This past year, it was Arraez who stepped forward. Particularly given that our sense is that the top-ranked hitting prospects are seen as not quite ready, if one of them does indeed step forward in a needed way, that would be huge.

Thanks. It looks like that, according to Note No. 7, they have built in the remainder of the 26-man roster into the $7.889MM figure in the section with Garver and Arraez, so the $106.6MM would be their projection.

Where does this signing put us? The Google doc roster would show us at just over $110MM, but that includes a full season of all the guys on the 40-man.

Yes, and I prefer your first option. I can't imagine there are many teams who make it eight times through the rotation without at least one injury. Planning with Dobnak as the guy who gets those starts in Pineda's place makes a ton of sense. I'd rather not assume Dobnak the long-term No. 5 AND have to use Smeltzer or Thorpe as the Pineda fill-in. If we should be so fortunate as to make it through the rotation eight times, healthy and effective, it wouldn't hurt to have some combination of a brief DL stint for anyone who's even slightly knicked up, a few times through a six-man rotation, or even a demotion for a couple weeks of short starts from Dobnak to make sure he's well-rested for getting through a season that goes well into October. If we aren't, Pineda is our mid-May trade acquisition.

Sorry, I was typing No. 25 while you were typing. I think we're in agreement here on the issue being one of degrees. A parallel to what you are saying is that I work in financial services, where sometimes people only want to invest in CDs because they don't want the risk of the stock market. The risk they are taking is that they likely won't keep up with inflation in the long-term. Constructing a baseball roster isn't about taking a risk or not -- even not making a move is taking a risk -- it's about taking the appropriate degree of risk.

Whether you call it a gamble or a risk, my point is that it's a matter of degree. I don't mind people saying they don't take big enough gambles or big enough risks, but to say they don't take ANY isn't fair. Depending on how one does the math, they spent $50MM on free agents for 2019. And nearly $40 million so far for 2020 on an option, a QO, and a free agent. Cruz seems like very low risk, but it's still a risk to spend $12MM on a 39-year-old who only played in three-fourths of your games. (Sorry, I had his age wrong in the previous.) Odo may be a little more risk, since the price is much higher and he's a pitcher. And Pineda may be the most risk since it involves two years, a suspension, and the unknown of how much past performance was affected by the banned substance. I'm good with all those risks/gambles. I wouldn't mind seeing them take a little more risk in pursuing Bumgarner or Ryu, but I'm also a spread-the-risk guy by nature, so I also wouldn't have minded seeing them spend the $23MM that just got the Mets and Dodgers Porcello, Wacha and Treinen and still have the money to upgrade their 1B bat beyond Cron/Thames, etc.

The Twins don’t take risks... *Except when they pay $12MM for a 40-year-old DH. *Except when they sign a 1B that’s been non-tendered. *Except when they sign a guy with a past PED suspension to an extension. *And do the same with a guy who some people see as having platoon problems. *Except when they sign a 2B coming off a season with an 82 OPS+. *Except when they sign a pitcher to a two-year deal when he’s coming off Tommy John. *And then sign him again when he’s coming off a suspension. *Except when they trade a prospect having a great MiLB season for a relief pitcher. *And then do it again. Just because the team doesn’t take the risk YOU want them to take doesn’t mean they aren’t taking risks. Every move is a risk, and I want them to continue taking risks. I just want them taking smart risks, and I think more often than not, they have been right.

While returning from my 2nd inning stretch...

In terms of playoffs, I’d say we are already better, though only incrementally. 1. We have 26 year old Berrios vs. 25 year old Berrios. One could argue in favor of regression, but he should still be on the upside of his career. 2. We have 30 year old Odo vs. 29 year old Odo. One could argue in favor of regression, but he’s probably on the flat part of the career curve and he’s been remarkably consistent. 3. We have Pineda instead of a bullpen day. 4. We have 25 year old Dobnak with potentially a whole season under his belt vs. a 24 year old Dobnak with five career starts. And he could be outpitched by Smeltzer, Graterol, or others. Given the holes we had five weeks ago, I’m encouraged with what’s happened so far. With the amount of offseason left, I’m quite encouraged with what still could be.

Nice take. I suspect that a lot of this has to do with the unusual health that the Twins benefitted from with their starting rotation last year, but a sense that I had with Rocco and Wes is that they were really good at putting guys into a position where they could succeed.

Concur, Ted. I’d love to see someone take a step back and look for the trends they see since the new guys have come on. Here are a few hypotheses I’d suggest: 1. An emphasis on new approaches when it comes to staff (Rookie manager Baldelli and his emphasis on rest, a pitching coach from the college ranks, etc.) 2. A reluctance to back themselves into corners with long-term moves. We’ve yet to see a contract more than three years, right? Folks may grumble, but I don’t think we’re going to be grumbling about having four years left on an overpriced contract. 3. An emphasis on making multiple moves that nudge the needle as opposed to making single big-splash moves. For example, last year included five free agent signings in Cruz, Schoop, Cron, Perez, Gonzalez, and six if you consider that Pineda was really a 2019 signing. I didn’t count the trades in July 2019, but in both July 2017 and July 2018, they made a higher-than-average number of trades in comparison to other teams. 4. Often getting a little more, sometimes using options to do it. This is related to not backing themselves into corners. Rather than committing to two years to Cruz and Perez, they sign them to a year with an option. Then, they make the smart choice on picking up Cruz and walk away from Perez with very little outlay. In Cron and Schoop, they effectively did the same. By signing non-tender guys, they effectively got two years (or more of control), but decided at a later date that they didn’t want the additional years. If I could summarize what I’ve seen, it would be to say that there emphasis is on incremental change that keeps options open. That’s not everyone’s style, but it happens to match my preferred method of managing life, so I can say I like it a lot. I’m also intrigued to see where we end. It’s only Dec. 5, and I think there’s still a lot of moves they will make.

It’s been 25 years, but I’m remembering something like most of these. Remember that it was the mid-90s. Allison, Bostock, Carew, Disco Dan Ford, maybe Eric (Soderholm), Frankie Sweet Music, Gaetti, Hrbek, Don’t Remember, Don’t Remember, Kirby/Killebrew, Lombardozzi, Marty (Cordova), (Al) Newman, Olivia, Pagliarulo, Quilici, Rodney/Radke, Sorrento/Stahoviak, Tony, Uhlaender, Wynegar, Don’t Remember, Yount (needed some help), Zoilo.

Moustakas to the Reds.

I don't remember ever not liking baseball, and it was sealed by being a seven-year-old in 1973 as Hank Aaron chased Babe Ruth. I remember coming home from school each day to check the paper and see if he'd hit another. My older brother was a Cardinals fan, so I started in that direction, with Lou Brock as my favorite. Sometime during the 1973, the man who would become my brother-in-law convinced me that the Twins were a better team to follow, and tuned me in to WHO Des Moines ("coast to coast, border to border, and then some"), which was a key cog on the radio network, and I latched on to Tony Oliva as my new favorite player, since Paul had dibs on Rod Carew. I was a die hard as a kid during the 1970s, with a particular highlight on June 26, 1977, that I wrote about in a Game Thread intro at: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/26496-game-thread-twins-indians-62517-1210-cdt/?hl=thread. Interest waned a bit for me during high school in the early 1980s, but I was sucked back in in 1987 and will go on record as saying that I was optimistic enough in spring training 1991 to have changed my answering machine to provide daily updates on how good they were going to be that year. Though being a Twins fan has been a constant since then, things were certainly cemented when my first son was born. My wife was working evenings at the time, so that gave me the opportunity to teach my son the alphabet by explaining that "B is for Bostock, C is for Carew, D is for Disco Dan Ford," etc. It worked, and he's become even more of a geek than me, though living in northern Indiana where Cubs games were on so many days when he came home from school has sentenced him to that lifetime of misery. I would be remiss, however, in not taking the opportunity to also give props to Twins Daily. This web site has taken a Twins fan to an entirely different level. Thanks, all.