IndianaTwin

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.

L3OGY just doesn’t have the same ring to it. Or it it LTOGY?

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.

You know you're risking getting warning points, right?

From time to time, there are posts that deserve more than a like. This is one of those.

I love Hall of Fame discussions, at least partially because there are so many times when there isn’t a single “right” answer; that discussion is good for the game. Maybe it happens, but I don’t think there’s nearly as much discussion about whether people should be in the basketball or football hall as there is about baseball’s. That said, I appreciate that the wave of new statistics has made it easier to make a compelling case for the Bert Blylevens of the world, but the downside is that it seems to have become a case where only stats matter for some people. I take seriously the “Fame” part of the title, so I think there is room to consider things other than stats. It’s not the “Hall of Best Players,” after all. For example, Tommy John is probably borderline as a player, but I give bonus points for having a surgery named after him. Sure, it was desperation to keep his career alive and not life-threatening in any way, but I think it’s noteworthy that he had the courage and self-discipline to be the first to accept a procedure that would alter the game in significant ways. (My son has joked that John and Frank Jobe should go in together.) Similarly, I’ve said that any player who makes more than a million bucks had better be voting for Marvin Miller. Though I can’t say that I LIKE all the changes that have resulted from his work, it’s undoubtable to me that very few people have had the effect on the game that he did. The comparisons to Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson as game changers probably aren’t too far off. Someone above raised the question of, “if Miller, why not Boras?” Good question, and one I hadn’t thought of. He’s also made a big difference, but I think a distinction is that Miller worked directly with all the players and formal position with the MLBPA, whereas Boras only worked with some players (though clearly, his work with those players had carryover effect to others). After having been to Cooperstown a couple times, including for Puckett’s induction, I’ve also come down on the side of a bigger hall. Being there is a fun place to be, and this is a game that is, after all, about fun. I could go either way on Simmons, but if having him included brings a new set of people to Cooperstown, I’m cool with that. If including Simmons lets a dad my age get fired up about taking his daughter or grandson, I’m cool with that.

It depends on what we give up, of course (duh, right?), but Familia is only one year removed from being someone a lot of us wanted last year. Familia 2019 stunk, but Familia 2017/2018 would be a great add to the bullpen. A clarification is that he has two years remaining on his 3/30 contract, but it was backloaded according to baseball-reference.com. He has 2/23.33 remaining, plus gets a $1MM bonus if he’s traded. That seems steep unless the Mets pick up a portion, though Smith would save us a bunch compared to the Cron/Thames kind of guys that have been discussed.

For $22MM, I'll take Dallex Keuchwood and let him pitch two out of every five games.

I enjoy looking at the "similarity scores" section on a guy's baseball-reference.com page. I'm not a smart enough geek to claim how predictive they are, but on the surface, they often seem to be on target. So for Cole, the most similar players at particular ages were Syndergaard (at age 22), Marichal (23), Millwood (24), Nola (25), McDowell (26), Millwood (27), and Strasburg (28). The guys with the most similar stats through their age 28 season are Strasburg, Price, Santana, Weaver, Oswalt, Peavy, Hamels, Cueto, Hudson, Verlander. Those are good players, but looking back at the careers of the seven guys who have passed age 35 (all but Strasburg, Price, and Cueto), in my opinion the only one who earned close to 7/$245MM money was Verlander. He pitched an average of 206 innings with a 5.0 WAR in those years. As a group, those seven averaged only 158 innings and 2.9 WAR per season. Keep in mind that those are driven up by Verlander. There's an 86 percent chance you get an average of 150 innings and 2.6 WAR. And if you managed to get a Santana/Weaver/Oswalt/Peavy, you got 133 innings and a little less than 2.0 WAR. And as a reference point, Odorizzi pitched 159 innings with a 3.6 WAR this year. Do we really want to pay $27 million for something less than Jake Odorizzi for the next seven years? I don't.

How about 3/$54MM, with an extra $2MM at 27 starts and another $2MM at 30 starts each season? And given future needs, I'd also be open to frontloading the $54MM so that it is $20MM/$18MM/$16MM. It helps the player and it gives the team more flexibility down the road, both in terms of payroll maneuverability and as trade bait.

While returning from my 2nd inning stretch...