IndianaTwin

What would have been the reaction on TD (and elsewhere) if the FO didn’t give fans a heads-up last year about dropping the budget by $30 million and then did it anyway? I think the reaction would have been worse.

Chief silent anything? I doubt it.

Re: the part I bolded -- I agree. I posted a variation on this elsewhere and I'll keep saying it, a little differently this time. In an organization the size of an MLB team, "budgets" are better described as "spending plans." Organizations make adjustments all the time. For us on TD to make declarative statements that they have to get under x dollars is working with incomplete data. Unless I'm misremembering something, last year's decrease wasn't created by jettisoning players -- it was created by letting free agents walk. The only salary of substance that they traded was Polanco's, and they largely respent that immediately. Whether or not we agree (and I'm in the agree camp), they think they are close enough to contending that they aren't going to trade the big three. The alternatives are such that I don't see them trading Vazquez. Why eat salary and pay $5M for someone else? I could perhaps see them trading Paddack, but they have also shown a reluctance to go into a season with two rookies in the rotation. And given the price of pitching, I think they'll take the approach that when it comes to veterans, $7.5M on Paddack is as good of a risk as $4M on another Bundy. With the presence of a Lee and Martin, I think Castro is the closest thing to redundancy, and his $6.4M could be redeployed to a RH bat of some sort to play 1B or be an extra OF. To me, he seems the most likely to go. As to 2026, let's quantify it. Pay cut for Correa: $5M. FA losses: Vazquez ($10M), Paddack ($7.5M) and Castro ($6.4M). That quartet of changes is $28.9M. Topa's club option is for $2M -- either he's dropped at that price, or he's worth keeping. Tonkin will be 36 as he enters his S3 season and Stewart 34 entering his S2, so they are very possibly non-tenders. Again, if they are worth tendering, it's because they pitched well. So very likely $30M or more freed up. If that's not enough to cover increases for Ober, Ryan, Jax, Duran, Alcala, Sands, Jeffers, Lewis, Miranda and Larnach, that's a good problem to have.

Doc, thanks to both you and @chpettit19 for the responses. Where I pick up most is the phrase that I highlighted in your response. I've often made the point on TD that we as fans don't have all the info. However, we tend to read as gospel and inject a level of precision on comments that were made with vagueness and ambiguity. In reality, there is almost always a sense of responding to context. A couple of years ago, for example, I'm guessing the original budget didn't allow for a Correa signing, but when things played out the way they did, they found a way to make it work. While to (I'm assuming 😀) most of us on TD, a paltry $5M increase or decrease in our take-home pay is pretty significant, they are working with different levels of magnitude. At this level, for example, a $5M difference is about 4 percent -- not insignificant, but not necessarily insurmountable either. In that context, I'm with you in thinking that $5M SHOULDN'T make a difference. And I agree that if we could somehow guarantee that a $5M spend would lead to a Santana-like addition, that would be tremendous. So within the context of what we've heard, and to borrow a recent catch-phrase, I think there's a "non-zero chance" that the fuller message from (and I'd say "between," because these conversations almost always have some level of give-and-take) ownership to FO is something like, "Let's assure the fans we're not going to cut further. Last year we told them we planned to cut and it created backlash. I also don't want fans to assume we're going back up to prior years' levels, so a message like that heads off that idea. I don't want to increase significantly, and I'd prefer to keep it the same. Depending on how arbitration plays out,* we might have a slight increase. I'm okay with that, because I think we have a good roster. If possible, be creative and try to free up a little money. Depending on how much you free up, we could try sign a Santana-like person. Free up more and we can do more. And as always, if something comes along that you think blows us out of the water as an opportunity, let's talk. Meanwhile, could you ask Doris from HR to stop in? I've got some tough news for her." Overall, my plea to TD readers is to walk over to the bathroom drawer, find a tweezers and gently pull our shorts out of a wad**, recognizing that a) we don't have all the info, b) circumstances change, and c) things will play themselves out in ways that we don't yet know. *Using arbitration estimates is another area where we as fans ascribe a level of precision that simply isn't there. I appreciate that these estimates are generally in the neighborhood, and this year's players are generally on the lower end of the scale, so they are likely closer than if there were a bunch of studs in their S3 year. But they are still estimates. **And Doc and chp, that last paragraph isn't directed at you. I find you to be two of the more reasoned, thoughtful and helpful folks on TD.

@chpettit19, I'm not disputing the $130 million, but where have you actually read anything using that number? All I've seen is the end of the year statement saying, "We won't slash payroll any further" and a later statement to the effect of "We have to be creative," which I'd like to think any FO would say. Beyond that, the things I've seen have all been other people (mainly on TD) interpreting those two statements, making declarative statements the max is $130M, necessitating a reduction from the $140M that is projected by (smart, but without all the information) people on the internet. I'd open this to anyone. Are there actual statements from the FO saying things like, "We're hoping to be about where we were this past season?"

This is, however, the Internet. We want our trades NOW!* /s *Or better yet, yesterday.

Dx says it more concisely than me. Why trade Lopez and set yourself up for “Wow, we sure could use an ace*”? Why trade Correa and set yourself up for “Wow, our infield defense isn’t what it used to be and we sure could use another RH bat”? Said another way, if Correa’s and Lopez’s contracts are attractive for other teams, why wouldn’t they be for us? *Though it would generate more TD copy as people argue over the definition of an ace and whether or not Lopez is one to begin with. /s

Don't forget that the proposal includes giving up one of our two best relievers, so the proposal is Suzuki for three regulars. No can do.

It seems like they could simplify their review of candidates if they choose "Left handed" and "Relief Pitcher" in the drop-down boxes. With a four-player bench and their current roster, it's difficult to imagine choosing any position player that they would want to promise a spot to.

Related, the bar food nachos would be much better if served in a plastic helmet. All nachos are at least 25 percent better when served that way.

Leftovers? Have you ever tried reheating tortilla chips? They get soggy after spending time in the fridge. But hey, he's covering the Guardians, so his taste is already bad.

@Jamie Cameron, can you clarify what the numbers are for each team? They can’t be percents, since they only add up to 77.53.

I enjoy your historical looks, Al. But I don’t think I’d give it to Zimmerman, given that he had -1.2 bWAR over his seven years with the Twins. Roof only had six years, but he had a 2.2 bWAR. And in reality, Zimmerman played enough games in 1967 to be considered the starter, so in that sense, Roof played as many seasons as the backup. (Or maybe not, if you consider that Roof’s first and last years were partial years.) And if you use six seasons as a benchmark, an interesting candidate is Glenn Borgmann. He was a backup for six years, but was the starter for year 3 and 4 in his eight-year career with the Twins. He had a total bWAR of 5.0 with the Twins, but even if you take out the 2.6 from his two years as a starter, he’s left with 2.4 in his six years as a backup. And changes in the nature of the role makes Jeffers an interesting case. He’s got 7.2 bWAR in his five seasons, but that’s augmented by time as a DH and it’s hard to really call him a backup, given the team’s commitment to using two games more or less equally. This year, he and Vasquez had the same number of starts, but in prior seasons he would technically have been considered the “backup.”

(Quoting is my version of clicking “like” specifically on your last paragraph.)

By “too many examples,” how many do you mean? This year, between Lopez, Ober and Ryan, there was one game in which they went only five innings, with 80 or fewer pitches and 2 or fewer runs. It was Ober’s second start of the season, after he had gotten shelled in his first start, and the bullpen was very rested. Among the rest of the team, it happened to SWR once, Paddack twice (including his first start back from the IL), Festa once and Matthews once (in his first game in the bigs). That’s a total of six times on the year, with at least three of them easily explained with some context. As has been named elsewhere, the notion of Rocco having a quick hook in comparison to others is not true. Whether you measure by innings per start or pitches per start, Twins starters went slightly longer than average last year. When Rocco has the horses, he lets them ride. In the past, when Twins starters were pulled quicker than average, there was a simple two-part explanation: First, they used Openers more than other teams, which brings the average down. Second, they had starters that sucked and deserved to be pulled.

If you’re talking regular season, you’re right — it shouldn’t matter. But being a NYY got him lots of postseason action, where he threw 141 innings over 96 games. He went 8-1 with a 0.70 ERA and 110 strikeouts against 17 unintentional walks. I don’t know if he’s the most impressive postseason performer of all time, regardless of position, but he has to be on the short list of contenders. That does matter.

First base.

Given the team's willingness to go through the entire offseason last year with just two catchers on the 40-man roster, I'd be surprised if they feel the need to protect either that have been named. They already have Camargo, and it seems a little surprising that they would tie up 10 percent of their 40-man on catchers, given that backups and AAA depth are perceived as being a dime a dozen. I wonder if Rosario is the second-most likely. I also wonder if his inclusion on the AFL list (where he thrived) was to either a) give him some more at bats on which to base a decision or b) showcase him for another team, enticing them to give up a lottery pick for him in a low-level trade.

Best I can tell, in 2023, only two position players were selected. Old Nurse summarizes other drafts above. With only four bench spots for position players (five on occasion, if a team goes with a seven-man bullpen for a while), I think it's really difficult for a team to lock a fringe player into one of those spots for the entire year.

With his knowledge and history in the game, he seems like a no-brainer to be on one (or more) of the Hall of Fame Era Committees.

Selective memory, perhaps, but I would take Larry Hisle over any of the guys in his top 10 similarity scores. One of my favorites as a kid.

One reason why the Dodgers led the league in starts on five or more days rest is that they used 17 different starters over the course of the year. The Twins used 10, for context. Most starters making their first start of the year are doing it on more than five days rest. One reason why they used so many starters is because of guys going on and off of the IL. They only had two guys make more than 18 starts. Guys making their first start after coming off the IL are also doing it on more than five days rest. All that to say that I don't think the Dodgers were using a six-man rotation out of desire. They were using a five-guys-who-are-healthy rotation. I don't think planning to trade 10 starts of Lopez and Ober for rookies getting their feet wet is a good idea.

Which is an example of how it can be difficult to grade any transaction in isolation. There is almost always a domino effect.

This is great -- thanks for sharing.

I've always enjoyed tracking his stats among those born in Germany. He's the career leader in bWAR -- only Glenn Hubbard and good old Pretzels Getzien are close -- and he's far and away the leader in career homers. https://www.baseball-reference.com/bio/Germany_born.shtml