Trov

This WS shows that money is not "needed" to win, but as we know it gives teams a better chance. What teams like Brews, Ray, and Cleveland have shown is if you are not going to spend, you need to know to reload well, and move pieces when needed to fill holes. Hitting on draft and international signings are important too. The problem with a mid-market team spending, is they cannot just spend to spend, like the big boys, because if you spend poorly, then you have to fight the bad contract you signed. Twins have 2 recent examples of that, CC and Donaldson. Both were outside the norm FA signings by the Twins that shocked people. However, both made it that you were tied to that player, unless you gave away assets to have another team take him off your hands because the contract became a bad contract. Big teams, can afford to miss on a bad contract, but they still need to hit on them too, and have a farm system to trade from, or bring up guys. Yes, the Dodgers spend a ton, but they also have a good system to use to trade for top end guys, and resign them, but also when a contract does not work out, they still have guys they can count on to come up. Look at Angels for years they had two of the best in the league, and would go out and spend big. However, they did not spend smart. They would just go out and get the top name on the market and had terrible contracts on vets that were well overpaid because they did not spend smart. Rays and Brewers will always trade guys away before they lose value, and would rather trade a year early than late. They will sign guys to long term deals early in team control to buy out the most important years of FA, the first 1 to 3. They take risk, but they know how to keep reloading their team, knowing not all prospects will be hits.

With the rule 5 draft going to be on hold until after lockout, it calls into question, when will need to "protect" anyone. There may not be a rule 5 draft this year, so why put anyone on to protect them. I would have to imagine, that with the lockout, part of any agreement to have a rule 5 draft this year will give teams a chance to put who they want to protect on it. It does not look like they have much risk of filling up the 40 too quickly. The big risk if there is a shorter season, is if the rule 5 is done, and you have less games, it could lead to some teams taking a waiver on a young guy that can ride end of bench more. You can stash pitchers at end of pen to eat up innings in non-high leverage situations, but it is harder to do that with hitters. Sure, you can do put the 13th guy as a come off the bench late in games to run and defense, if they can offer that, but you really lose out on possible hitting development, so really want to have them play. Most teams will not take a position player unless they are either very young, and the team will be bad and you just plan play through the ups and downs, hoping it will not affect long term growth, or older guys that it is now or never for them and you are willing to risk the cash.

I personally believe the fastball control and location is one of the most important parts of pitching. It is the backbone to full set of pitches. Yes, pen guys can get away with an elite slider, or change up, because they will only face a guy one time, but starters need to have multiple pitches and throwing and controlling the fastball is important. Also, it is not just about throwing the same fastball over and over. There are different types you can throw. One of Rays best pitchers, Rasmussen, throws fastball about 76% of the time, but it is broken up into 3 different types, 4 seam, cutter, and sinker. I am not saying you can only get by with fastballs, but when you can hit all 4 corners it makes your other pitchers that much stronger. Joe Ryan had an issue where his fastballs normally were up, and breaking stuff down, so it was easier for hitters to figure out what was what. Eventually, he was able to pitch some fastballs at the knees for strikes, that makes the breaking pitch better. If you can mix a 4 seam up, with a sinker up that falls into the zone, it makes the 4 seam up that much better. Same with bottom of zone, it will get more chase, or rolling over the sinker down. Cutters on inside and outside of zones mixed with 4 seams are that much more effective too. Throw in a change or slider from time to time you will get that much more chases. The key to pitching, has and always will be about keeping hitters guessing. Location and changing of speeds go a long way. I do agree pure velo and movement will always be hard to handle for hitters, but you can turn the velo up to 100 on the pitching machine and pump it the same spot eventually the hitters will hit it. If you get them looking up, and you hit the knees, or inside to outside that is what is effective.

I have long argued he was screwed by voters, for whatever reason, and long argued he is Sandy Koufax, just did not retire at peak. Santana should, and I think eventually will get in through vets committee. However, I do disagree with the one comment about how you should only look at peak, I think peak is important, but longevity of being very good is also important. It is interesting because if injuries play a roll in the reduced longevity and effective play where is the line? Santana matched Koufax almost exactly in terms of seasons and bWAR. However, you have some other guys that had great starts to careers and injuries derailed them and they had like 3 or 4 good seasons. Then you have the guys that peaks were great, no real injuries that we know of, and just fell off. Like Tim Lincecum, his peak 4 years were great, a couple rivaled Santana, but Santana's was longer overall. Lincecum then fell off being terrible rest of his career, no injuries reported as he pitched full seasons just not well. Matt Harvey had 3 great seasons to start his career than injuries set it. I doubt anyone would argue Lincecum or Harvey should be considered for HOF, but it does raise the question of how long of a "peak" do we look at, and how bad are the non-peak years? I am not a pure numbers, I am more of a if you say this guys feels HOF and has played a long time kind of thing. When Santana was playing, before his injury, I doubt there was a single voter that said he is not HOF, but for some reason because he got inured they decided he was no longer HOF, despite being same as Koufax in every aspect.

The QO offer needs to be made and accepted well before lockout. The question is if it is rejected, what does that mean after the lockout? What if a team signs someone as a FA before the lockout and the rules change after? My guess no team will sign a FA that turned down QO until after lockout, but it is a question. I know players have long been upset with the QO offer because they tried to use it as a starting point 1 year for X money for all other teams, but once it is rejected you cannot go back and take it. You can go back to your original team, but they are not bound by the offer anymore. What started happening is every player rejected it, but some found teams were not willing to pay the price to sign them giving up the draft capitol. Then they made the rules easier for teams to sign someone who had given the offer, but still teams have been hesitant, in part because the player tries to say this is the floor, but not every team agrees. I have a feeling the QO will get a change again this CBA.

Neither were expected to carry the team at any point, the fact that they helped in June make fans think the Twins had some chance was just bonus for the Twins. Caratini was signed to be backup catcher, he was used more than that early in year. Had they carried the hitting all season long that would have been great, but no one should have expected it. Baseball is always about adjustments.

I care less about the playoff seeding, but the 154 game schedule with almost always having Mondays off is interesting. I have a feeling it could lead to 6 man rotations. Some teams have messed with 6 man rotations, but when you know you have 6 games and a day off, it helps makes sense of it. If you stick with 5 man, your top guy say pitches Tuesday, then Sunday, then if you do regular rest would then be Friday, or if you give each person the off day rest, Saturday. I do not think each team would go to that, right way, but there will be teams that will try it. I do think the shortened schedule with always having an off day will be something players will like.

I am 100% on board with trading him. Cleveland and Rays do this all the time. They trade their pitchers before they walk in FA hope that at least 1 of the guys they trade for turn out. The only reason you would not is if you are going all in next year and willing trade away prospects to hope next year is your year, and nothing about this year shows we are ready to do that.

They 100% did it to keep him on the "prospect list". There is no doubt anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy. If he was not in that position he would have sat out a few games, or at least they would have started it that way, then moved him if after a couple days it still was an issue. We seen it with Buck many many times they would wait several days to see.

I think the ones with low cost are easy tender, unless you need the 40 man spots for guys to miss out on rule 5. Without looking closer at that list it is hard to say who should get tendered or not.

I would see if a team has interest in him and see if you can trade him for anything of value, then DFA him when no team comes biting. He is losing velo and outside of a few decent starts he has been very bad. Yeah, you need depth, but he will make too much money to be a guy that should be in AAA with getting spot starts as needed at MLB level.

I remember it was just a couple years ago when there was articles of signing him to a long term deal buying out his arb years and a year or two of FA. Now we have an article of do we DFA him two years before he walks. It shows how there is major risk to a long term contract on a prospect. I do not feel he is a no doubt cut, but you have to be willing to eat some money if he falters quickly. You cannot ignore what he did, but look at a few other guys we were so excited about from their early times with Twins and what happened to them. Miranda, Wallner, and Julien all had great stretches, but are not MLB level talent anymore. I would DFA him and move on. He seems to be a bit of a headache to deal with. He does not have a clear defensive home, and his offense is below average to unplayable at times. Outside of a nice stretch during our hot streak he was terrible.

Having a lefty starter is always valuable. Even better when they can be a good one. Twins have not had one really in a long time.

Lee was drafted as a high floor but low ceiling kind of guy. This year he appears to be getting that floor up there. Might he regress, yes, might he build on it, yes. I doubt he will ever be a star, but if can be a solid average at bat, and put up average defense, where ever he lands, that is okay. Not all high picks turn out to be stars, some never play a major league game.

Number 1 will affect everything. Mainly, if there is a floor and teams have to spend to get to the floor right away, and if the Twins fall below the floor. That will lead to certain moves. Until we know what the CBA looks like I doubt many teams will ink long term deals.