IndianaTwin

I was just thinking of Romero the other day, perhaps when I saw that Adalberto Mejia got DFAed this week for the fifth time in five months. Ah, the names we remember. What's up with Mark Funderburk these days? I know Romero was used exclusively as a reliever this past year, but given where we are at and that pretty much every pitcher starts spring training by only throwing an inning at a time, I hope he's still at least on the preseason Jim Kaat Award Watch list. Or at least still on the marker board in Wes' office. The chances are minute, and he's way behind the Dobnaks of the world at this point, but let's at least keep the option open to strike lightning in a bottle with a fresh start. As you note, there was a time he was highly regarded, and he's still pretty young.

Right, but what I'm asking is whether this is saying that Sano performed at a level where we missed out on approximately five outs over the course of the season compared to if we had an average 3B there? Or that he missed about 12 outs compared to having Marwin there? I recognize that it doesn't identify which specific outs he cost us over the course of the season. I'm just saying that costing us an average of less than one out per month compared to the average 3B doesn't seem like much of a cost to have a monster hitter there. I don't know if this is an accurate way to think about it, but if 4.5 earned runs over 27 outs converts to about 0.83 runs per 5 outs, that's not much.

We clearly have “impact” owners and moderators. Thank you, everyone, for the wonderful community that is great to be part of.

Is OAA a season’s total? What does It translate to in terms of runs? And even wins? For example, does this mean Sano’s -5 gives up a little less than an out per month? If that’s accurate, when I think of it that way, that doesn’t seem like much to be overly worried about. Sure, that theoretical out might open the floodgates for a four-run inning that costs the game, but if It happens when they’re up 6-0 and May strikes out the next guy to end the inning, that’s minimal effect. I wouldn’t want to sacrifice much offense anywhere for that degree of poor defense.

I think he’s talking about the lack of longevity on the front end, since his first homer didn’t come until age 26. He’s only had 11 seasons so far where he’s been over 100 games. To use Andruw Jones as someone on the opposite end of the spectrum, by the time he was 26, he had 226 homers. Give Cruz that kind of a start and we’d be having an entirely different discussion.

Yikes — thanks for summarizing these stats. I thought he ended up with above-average numbers, but I didn’t realize there were so many top 30s! It’s important that we don’t look at the 105 games and extrapolate that to having 50 percent more in each category. He actually only missed a quarter of the season. But even having a third more games to work with could lead to some impressive numbers. And I’m still not convinced that he can’t become at least an average defender if he puts in the work on that side of the ball that he seemed to put on conditioning and working with Cruz last year. He’s still got a great arm, and he comes in on the ball really well. The biggest challenge is lateral movement, but with more and more emphasis on positioning and shifts, that may lessen the effect of that weakness. Lateral movement is still important, but I’m not sure that it’s the be all and end all that it’s often been seen as in the past.

I tend to be a Bigger Hall guy, and I hate it when people say that someone only belongs in the “Hall of Very Good.” But in those terms, unfortunately, I’d have to say he’s a better fit for the “Hall of Pretty Good.” Even if he played another three years and got to 500 homers, he’d then move into the “played most of his games as a DH” and have that as a strike against him. My hunch is he’ll get 8-10 percent his first year and then fall off the ballot in a couple years. But don’t get me wrong — I’ll gladly have him bat cleanup for us this year. And thanks for the article. HOF articles are often fun reads.

Interesting thought on being an opener. In 57 career starts, his OPS allowed is .689.

Berrios Pineda + any of the rookies who have emerged.

You know the part where they talk about “sustainable”? In that scenario, I don’t think you generally promote a guy to the majors with 5.1 innings of AAA under his belt and only 52 innings of AA (including just nine starts). The Santana comparison isn’t really accurate — he was in the majors because he had to be. And the scenario you’re describing, TopGunn, was actually his THIRD season. In his first season (2000), he only started five games, three in April and two in September. And he got rocked — 24 runs in 22 innings. The vast majority of his innings came in blowout losses — they were 2-28 in games in which he pitched. In 2001, things he generally pitched low-leverage relief, then made four starts in June/July and went on the DL for the rest of the year before pitching an inning in September. The relief outings were generally in blowouts (they were 2-9 in his games). They won all four of his starts, but not because of him — 15 runs in 19.2 innings. His only decision on the year was in his one decent start, when he gave up 2 runs in 5 innings and left with an 8-2. In 2002, he made great contributions, but he had actually started the season in AAA and didn’t come up until May 31. It was his third season. Even if the Twins don’t come up with another starter (and I think they will still get one or even two), the 3-5 starters would be Dobnak, Stashak, and Thorpe, each of whom has significantly more innings at AAA. And assuming health, one would get sent down after 8 starts when Pineda returns. Between guys being ahead of him in the pecking order and what is shaping up as a deep bullpen, I don’t think there’s any way a 21-year-old with 5.1 AAA innings starts the season in Minnesota, let alone in the rotation. I could see him pitching impact innings, but not before mid-season. Elsewhere, I outlined a scenario where he targets about 130 innings. Assume about 18 starts averaging 5 innings in Rochester, which gets to about mid-July. At that point, MLB needs and his performance determines whether you bring him up for up to 40 innings of MLB relief or leave him in Rochester to get the remaining 40. If it lines up to cover a need, he could potentially be brought up to be the 27th man in a DH, but that’s about it. I wouldn’t even be surprised if the first half dozen or so of the starts came in AA.

I liked this $2.75MM move when it was announced. I like it even more now when I see that Betances just signed for $10.5MM. I didn't catch that anyone pointed out this tidbit, but I read somewhere that Clippard is the only reliever to have thrown at least 60 innings in each of the past 10 seasons (and in his case, it's actually 11). Not a one of those seasons had a WHIP above 1.30, and only one had a K/9 under 9.

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.