IndianaTwin

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.

“...he’s turned himself in to a decent/quality 3B...” So if the 30-year-old has improved himself to 0 DRS, why would we assume the 26-year-old at -5 can’t get there?

Since this discussion has morphed into talking about both corners, it's worth noting that the Rays have DFAed Jesus Aguilar, who is one year removed from a 3.2 WAR season. That would save money on Cron.

Context: 1. When Schoop was signed in December 2018, Sano had offseason question marks, having had the traffic incident with a cop and had missed the end of the 2018 season. 2. At the point Schoop was signed, Gordon was not considered ready, and Arraez wasn't generally seen as an option. Without those, Gonzalez was probably their best option at 2B. 3. Sano would miss the first part of the season, meaning Gonzalez had to fill 3B for the first month and a half. 4. When Sano returned on May 16, Schoop had started 36 of 42 games at 2B, allowing Gonzalez to start 30 of 42 games at 3B. 5. Through those 42 games, Schoop's OPS was .823. That's impressive production from (mostly) the 7 hole on a team that would have an .833 OPS for the year in a league where the average OPS was .762. 6. Though Schoop would only start 64 of the remaining 120 games at 2B, he still ended up with an above-league average .783. His presence allowed Arraez and Gonzalez to move around, spelling others and allowing the team to start someone other than Cave when Buxton got hurt. So no, Schoop didn't carry the team offensively, but he wasn't asked to. What he did do was fill a significant hole without tying up future money. And from what I can tell, while playing well defensively. I also don't recall hearing anything negative about him as a clubhouse presence. I don't know what their other options were on the free agent market at the time, but I think it worked out quite well.

No matter how well he hits in spring training, I think it’s safe to say that he needs at least a few more days of Triple A “seasoning” or to “work on his defense at 1B.” Probably about 16, 17, whatever it takes to avoid a full year of service.

Also, don't forget the time value of money on your first example. I did a simplified version of an investment calculation, and at a 7 percent return, 30-30-12-12-12 virtually matches 20-20-20-20-20. (I'm assuming Mad Bum can invest all of it and use the proceeds from prior contracts for groceries and new motorcycle gloves.)

Fourth tab, section 3.7.4, subpoint C.1.a. Or something like that.

Guess what song just played on the oldies station I'm listening to...

Thanks. So what might that look like? Good as he's looked, I don't think there's a realistic likelihood he starts in the major league rotation with only 5.1 IP in Rochester to date and 9.2 IP with the Twins, none of them in a start. I also don't want to see him start the season in the bullpen. So how about something like about 18+ so starts at Rochester, targeting about 100 IP? For context, he had 47.2 IP in 9 starts this year, so that's a smidge longer outings. (With the new 26th man on the roster full time, will teams still get to add a player for a DH. If so, I could see him using a start or so that way if the opportunity arises). And obviously, if he's pitching lights out and the need arises at the big club, you consider him in the context of your other options. That takes you to around July 10-15. At that point, assuming he's earned it and the team is in contention, consider bringing him to the majors for the final 40 innings or so. If he hasn't or they aren't, go ahead and fill out the 140 or so with minor league starts.

Have you heard the 140 IP limit "officially" referenced in relation to Graterol? Or just making that assumption based on past patterns? (If the latter, I don't disagree with you, and I'd probably make a similar guess -- I'm just curious if there have been actual statements to that effect.)

Let's hope his career can still come together one piece at a time...

With 26 roster spots, I don't think any single player offers a litmus test.

Yes, I haven't seen much comment on Dyson, but I've been thinking the same, even going as far as making it a two-year deal. If Pineda was $2M+$8M and MLBTR projects him at $6.6M in arbitration, how about something like $1M + $7M?

Great article as a discussion starter, and you present a compelling argument! A question on the Statcast data -- does it take shifts into account? In other words, are the "expected" results against a normal defensive alignment? Because if the expected stats don't take shifts into account and many of his outs are hit into a shift, then maybe there's not as much difference as it appears. Beyond that: Gonzalez can play first, but I'd rather not lock him in there. Sano can play first, but he's probably not going to be great defensively anywhere. Being at third uses his two biggest defensive assets -- his arm and his ability to come in on the ball. The likelihood of him becoming an average 3B may be greater than the likelihood of being average at 1B in that he has experience there vs. starting mostly from scratch. Think about what it would be like to move him to RF, for example. Though Rooker/Kiriloff could kick the door in, I'd rather not have that as the plan for a contending team. If it happens, cool. That's a good problem to have. I'd rather have good problems than bad problems. As someone noted somewhere, he those guys do kick in the door, Cron could be trade bait. Or, it Cron is playing well, one of the young guys could also be trade bait as a "major league ready player" that young teams seem to covet. The FO does seem to place a premium on having good "clubhouse guys." If Cron checked the box this year, that's an advantage to resigning him over taking your chance on a different one-year fill in.So with all those, I lean toward "yes." On the other hand, what's the plan at C? I'd like a veteran besides Garver and Astudillo. If the choice is between a fairly-priced Cron and a fairly-priced Castro, I might consider Castro.

Not to mention that, in looking at the schedule, there are six off days during his suspension. If they chose to keep Berrios, Odo (hint, hint), _____, and Dobnak on a five-day pattern, it appears that they could conceivably get by with just six starts from the No. 5 guy in Pineda's absence. In other words, I agree -- there's flexibility, and I'm not overly worried about the suspension in itself. Realistically, the drop from Pineda to one of those guys over six (or even eight, if they pitch well and you don't skip the spot) starts is probably not worth more than a game or two. Not to mention that some have named a concern that he's never pitched more than 175 innings since 2016. Well, gee, I guess we just found a way to limit his innings. I don't know salaries well enough to know if QO dollars are the right figure (though I tilt toward yes, given the overall amount of budget available), but I do like pursuing him if due diligence addresses the chemical issue and the clubhouse issue.