IndianaTwin

Oops. I forgot that there isn’t supposed to be any math.

Bad day at game > Good day at office

I believe it’s May 11 on Pineda.

Definitely agree that it’s a problem of their own making, but it WAS the situation they were looking at on Nov. 1. I get what you’re saying about the activity level, but I’d differ on the interpretation. The goal is always to fill 100 percent of your needs from the end of one year to the next, whether that’s two spots to fill on a roster or 20. I don’t give them extra credit for their work since Nov. 1st — that WAS their work. Related, then, I would add that that’s another small success of this offseason that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere. They’ve now got Berrios and Pineda under contract for 2021. That’s also part of why I’ve been advocating additional negotiation with Odo to turn his one-year contract into an extension. And while I’ve been advocating here or elsewhere for continued exploration of still more starting pitching through trade or even minor league contracts, the reality is that between injury and attrition, several from among the Dobnak/Smeltzer/Thorpe/Graterol, etc. will get the chance to audition. If one or more of them comes through to the point that they can be counted on for 2021, that would be three or four rotation spots filled. And then, next year I’ll evaluate their offseason according to how much they improve the team between Nov. 1 and Opening Day 2021. I’d love it if they have less work to do next year!

Thanks for quantifying these. To nitpick a tiny bit, it’s not a complete apples-to-apples to say that we replaced Cron with 2020 Gonzalez, since we also have to replace 2019 Gonzalez the bench player in that case. Similarly, counting on 2020 Arraez to replace Schoop means that we also have to replace 2019 Arraez. I think that’s why there’s interest from a lot of us in picking up at least one more hitter, with some wanting to jump in with both feet on Donaldson, some going after Bryant in another thread, and others naming the Moreland/Bird route. I do concur with the gist of your post, however. You’ve also helped to illustrate a point that I’ve made in a number of threads along the way, namely that this front office’s M.O. seems to be to make a high volume of moves that each nudge the needle a little bit, rather than making a few big-splash moves. I think that’s why they are VERY reluctant to make moves that they think will paint themselves into an even a tiny bit of a corner — they place a premium on future flexibility. Thus, I suspect they will sign very, very few FOs to contracts more than four years, with most of them being one and two years. They also seem big on tacking an option year whenever they get a chance, which I like a lot.

I think he can be a good contributor at the back of the rotation. The thing you may all want to be concerned about, however, is that I was one of the last people off the Mike Pelfrey bandwagon...

I haven’t played with sites like baseballtradevalues.com, but they would suggest that either Lewis or Kiriloff is a big overpay for Bryant straight up. Graterol or Larnach are the two that are closest to Bryant in a 1 for 1. In a 2 for 1, think something like Balzovic and Urbina. In a 3 for 1, Jeffers, Urbina and one of Gordon, Enlow, or Celestino. The second paragraph has names I like, but none that are untouchable. Between Bryant and Donaldson, I think they are pretty comparable for 2020 and 2021, and I think we’d be glad not to be paying Donaldson $25MM in 2022 and 2023.

For what it’s worth, I was able to find a site that listed total DL/IL days by season. It wasn’t updated for 2019, but for the previous 10 years, the Twins averaged 721 DL/IL days, so probably around 4 FTE would be more accurate, or a little over $2M.

Thank you, Tvagle. WIth all of the moving parts and now arbitration numbers available, it’s helpful to have a current snapshot. Question/comment/observation — it seems to be like I read somewhere that in doing projections like this, one also needs to add some allowance for the fact that with IL stints and the like, one has to include an allowance for bringing up additional guys. Usually those are going to be minimum salary guys, but I’m thinking the suggestion was that on average, a person should fill the spreadsheet out to 33 “full-time equivalents,” to use a term from elsewhere in my life. Does anyone else recall that? It doesn’t appear that your snapshot does that, correct? If so, even if one uses your inclusion of Hill as one of those extra spots, that would still need another six bodies at $600K. So then we’re talking about needing to go to $150MM to get Donaldson, which also wouldn’t take into account the possibility of any additional extensions or taking on any mid-season money above minimum salary. Under that scenario, a Donaldson signing seems less and less likely. Alternatively, I see that you have Sano’s extension in as 9-9-9. Do you know if that’s been confirmed, as opposed to some progression like 6-9-12 leading into the possibility of 14? If the latter, that would gain back the several million I added with the extra bodies.

With Syndergaard and someone else I’m not remembering at the time, it felt like there were some decent comparables for year 2, but there weren’t good ones for year 3. And if you’re right, then the free agency year number I gave is probably a little light. But, with the numbers exchanged, there’s a small savings in year one. Of course, the best way to answer the question is for them to agree to a deal and let us know what the numbers are!

I disagree with your first two paragraphs. But the post is still worthy of a “like” for the great way of poking fun at me and others who disagree!

Like others, I’ll “like” this post and do the same with posts 87 and 90 as statements of affirmation. Perhaps you’re a professional mediator in inviting us to recenter and find the places of commonality? (And wouldn’t it be great if I’d have been able to say that I’m affirming posts 87 and 91 — now that would be a great omen!) So I’ll say a hearty “amen” to No. 1. And as an optimist by nature, who prefers to look ahead over looking back, I’ll say that part of what of what I like about the offseason is that I would nuance No. 2 to say “That season could still get even better, because they have still have the time and money to be opportunistic, both in the remaining 2.5 months and during the season.” And then I’ll add a particular affirmation to the “One of the fun things about Twins Daily...” sentence.

Do you have a sense of what that would look like? Looking at the MLBTR arbitration projections and trying to find comparibles, I wondered about a $5MM-$10MM-$15MM progression in his three arb years, for a total of $30MM. Is that on target? And if so, would a fourth year of $20MM to continuing that procession make sense? If so, that’s $50MM/4. It’s not completely frontloaded, but does $10MM-$12MM-$13MM-$15MM fit the bill? That would only buy out one year of free agency, but it would keep in the rotation for four years. And on his side, it still gets him to free agency at age 30, with time for a much larger contract. Is that close?

Well, I think we’re going to need to disagree on our perceptions of these guys. I’ll be VERY surprised if none of these guys are productive this season. At 40, Hill is OLD. But there are a whole lot of guys in the majors who are going to be productive at age 34 (Bailey). Clippard seems old, but he’s the only guy in the majors who has pitched at least 60 innings in relief each of the last 10 years. And nearly all of those have been positive years. I’m glad to take my chances on him doing it again. And look at it this way. The average age of a major league is right at 28. Given that by definition a free agent needs at least six years of MLB season, it’s very difficult to get a young player as a free agent. At best, you can get an average aged player.

True, but very few, if any, other teams had only one starter under contract at that time (or even just two, given that we could have picked up Perez’s option). In that area at least, I’d argue that they had the most to lose of anyone if they didn’t have a good offseason, and I’d argue that as a result, they’ve improved more than anyone in that regard.

Thanks for the correction.

And thanks to you as well, both for your original questions and for this response. At the risk of being insensitive, my dad was fond of saying that there’s more than one way to (conduct feline taxidermy). While I think my solution is better than your solution (or I wouldn’t have typed it!), the reality is that either approach has the potential to succeed. That’s why they play the games, right? Part of my response to you on the Cole preference is that I prefer to spread the risk, and I really don’t like the thought of an eight or nine-year commitment to a pitcher. To your first one, I’m guilty as charged as being high on Odorizzi and Pineda (more so than on Bailey, but I’m reasonably bullish on him as well). If there’s one “I told y’all so” I could claim from the last several years, it would be the decision to give Pineda the two-year deal while still rehabbing from TJS. I was really on board with that one from the beginning. So in being high on those guys, I’d nudge our guys up your second list. For example, I’d take Berrios over Woodruff and might even put Odo and Pineda on his level. I honestly don’t know Hill that well, but some people on these threads are certainly high on him. Or as another example, Verlander is a Hall of Famer and still pitching like one, but the dude turns 37 next month. It doesn’t seem like it’s going to ever happen, but he’s got to come back to the pack sometime, doesn’t he? And as one of my fantasy keepers, I hope Kershaw gives me another Kershaw-like HOF season, but Berrios and Odo both had better fWARs last year and he’s got a lot of innings on his arm. By contrast, Berrios is entering his age 26 season. It’s not an impossibility that he takes another step forward and enters the Cy Young conversation, in his career year if not making it an annual thing. That to say, it’s not unrealistic to think that he could at least narrow the gap versus a Verlander. And my penchant toward spreading the risk lends itself to a valuing of depth. I honestly don’t know Hill’s pedigree that well, but some folks on TD are high enough on him to say that when he’s healthy he can be a stud. But while strength at the top is a sign of “impact pitching,” I think of strength at the bottom as another sign. Fangraphs ranked Berrios as No. 17 among guys with 100+ innings, so I think of that as basically being an average No. 1. But it had Odo at No. 20, which I think of as a slightly below average No. 1. He was an all-star, after all. And many of us were noting that Pineda was our best pitcher for an extended period as well. And if Hill is essentially right there as well, that’s the potential big-time depth. I don’t like the whole “this guy’s a No. 1, but this guy’s a No. 3,” because it’s so subjective based on what each of our perceptions of what a No. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 is. But for the purpose of this I’ll say that while we may not have one of the few No. 1+ Garrett Cole-type aces, a playoff rotation of some combination of Berrios, Odo, Hill, and Pineda could give us something like a 1, 1-, 2+, 2. Without looking at the current depth charts, it’s hard to think of many teams that could roll out the someone that matches the weakest of that quartet in Game 4, which counts as much as Game 1. And that doesn’t even include Bailey. As noted above, I’m not as high on him as on Bailey, but he actually had a better fWAR than Pineda. Best case scenario, that gives us five guys that pitch like No. 2s or better! To me, that’s also impact. Great discussion, Oxtung, but I really have to hit the sack. But it was a crappy week of work, and it’s a whole lot more fun to be part of the great community.

With the added benefit of some cost certainty as they make other long-term decisions. Not to mention that there’s a CBA in the works. What if a new agreement would give him the option to be a free agent in 2021? Then you’ve bought out two years of free agency.

Yeah, that was my thought on the $3MM option as well. Has anyone ever calculated what an average buyout is in terms of percentage of the total. It can’t be as high as 21 percent, can it? Have you seen the 6/9/12 progression reported, or is it just a guess? If the latter, it seems like a good guess to me.

I’ll respond by reframing your question a bit: Has the team gotten better than the playoff roster? Personally, I’d give it a pretty tentative “yes,” but that’s at least partially dependent on Gibson being hurt at the time and Pineda being suspended. With health and no suspensions, our playoff rotation would be Berrios-Odo-Hill-Pineda (or Bailey) in some order instead of Berrios-Bullpen-Odo-Bullpen. But that’s a tentative “yes,” and I can see what seems to be your suggestion that at best they’ve stayed the same. With the presence of Arraez, I’m more concerned about the loss of Cron than Schoop, which makes me wonder — if they would have known they were going to miss out on the higher-profile pitchers and have as little money committed as they do, might they have tendered a deal to Cron after all. On the other hand, they did still have the opportunity to sign him up until Dec. 21 when he signed with the Tigers, so maybe they didn’t value him as highly as I do. However, I frame the offseason evaluation question by asking, “Is the team better than it was on Nov. 1?” With Odo having the ability to opt out of the QO, they didn’t control his rights. They didn’t have Gibson’s or Pineda’s rights. They had one proven major league starter on their Nov. 1 roster. I won’t repeat my points from post No. 55 above, but with the additions of Odo, Pineda, Bailey, and Hill to the Nov. 1 roster, plus Romo, Clippard, Avila, and the no-brainer decision to pick up Cruz’s option, the answer to the latter question is an unequivocal “yes” in my mind. And part of my point In giving them an “incomplete” grade is that we are actually still closer to the last day of the World Series than we are to Opening Day. True, nearly all of the low-hanging fruit, i.e. free agents that only cost us money, has been picked. However, there Is still a LOT of time to turn my “yes” into a “YES” with some under-the-radar and not-very-sexy moves that are hard to predict, but that this front office seems to excel in. There is at least one sexy move left In signing Donaldson, but I’m ambivalent on that one. The reason for my ambivalence is that I value the flexibility that they have to use the same money for multiple boring moves. That includes in-season moves. They HAVE been active in mid-season the past several years — they just have been as bold as some folks would like. But I also wonder if having such a low payroll at this time might lead to them being considerably more aggressive if the situation calls for it.

As the one who added “and Romo and Clippard” to tarheeltwinsfan’s post, I’ll take a shot. To me it’s the cumulative effect of adding four veteran starters and two veteran relievers — all of whom I think have good likelihoods of being anywhere from above-average to well-above average — to a Nov. 1 roster that had only Berrios, four or so guys with something like a dozen combined career starts, and a solid, but still fairly inexperienced bullpen. The roster on Jan. 10 looks a heck of a lot better to me than the one on Nov. 1. Another way I would phrase that is that I’ve tried to view it as adding “impact pitchING,” whereas it’s felt like many have focused on adding an “impact pitchER.” I would rather the possibility of an eventual rotation of Berrios-Odo-Pineda-Bailey-Hill, with Dobnak-Smeltzer-Thorpe-Graterol as my 6-9, than have a rotation of Cole-Berrios-Dobnak-Smeltzer-Thorpe, with Graterol and I’m not sure who else as my 6-9. Now, that said, I think they can still do more, and I’d love to see them do that. That’s why I also posted that I don’t think it’s fair to evaluate the entire offseason on Jan. 10. So for example, I’ve thought about starting a post noting that minor league signings seem to be starting. Some guys who may have thought they were going to get a major league deal are still out there. I can think of Alex Wood, Drew Smyly, Felix Hernandez, Clay Buchholz, Danny Salazar, and Taijuan Walker. I haven’t taken the time to evaluate them closely, but I’m assuming the front office has. If they do their homework and can pull off signing the best one or two of them to a minor league contract with incentive-based bonuses, I could support that. Even if one of those guys only pulls a Martin Perez and is top-notch for eight starts (i.e. until Pineda returns), that would be a bonus. And with the return of Pineda and the presence of Dobnak-Smeltzer-Thorpe-Graterol, I’d like to think that the front office would be much more likely to pull the plug if one or more of the latter guys is lights-out in Rochester and said minor-league-contract-guy turns into August/September Perez. Similarly, with only Berrios, Odo, Bailey as vets on opening day, I’d also love to see them pull off a smart trade. Folks perceive that we don’t trade any prospects, but I keep pointing back to the February trade of a Single-A shortstop for Odo as one of their biggest wins so far. With their penchant for value, that’s the type of trade I think we’re most likely to see — what another team views as a lottery pick for an under-the-radar guy that our front offices perceives as under-valued. Probably more than you asked for, Oxtung, but that’s where I’m coming from.

That’s how I read it.

Okay, I can accept disagreeIng with the statement that the offseason can’t be judged until the end of the season. But I can’t agree with calling the offseason a failure with more than two and a half months until opening day.

Edited for you.

Yes. Has anyone counted to see if they do it more frequently than other teams? It sure seems to be the case.