Trov

I expect stolen bases to go up some, but not just because bases are larger, but that should help a little, I mean how often does it come down to just an inch or two? Where I think the rule changes will be the step offs and pitch count will increase base stealing more than anything. Mainly from pure strategy stuff. I am personally looking forward to hopefully more running. I still doubt the Twins will do a ton, unless they get some better base runners up. They operate under the risk reward factor is too low to risk it. I personally, miss the hit and run game, the stolen bases setting up and manufacturing runs. I could go on about how I feel the analytics cloud people's minds to cause them to stop doing certain things in the game. Not saying no analytics, but think people see the data and draw conclusions and forget it is still a situational game and we are not playing on paper or rolling dice.

The move could be made, if they sign a SS to long term deal, because an deal would require either Lewis, or Lee I would guess, and some pitching as well. This would hurt our possible SS options down the road. I am for it if we have SS on lock for another 3 plus years minimum.

I get that CF or SS move off their positions because they age and can no longer play there on defense, but the only reason he could stop doing both pitching and hitting is if he regresses in his ability of one or the other. I mean they do not move pitchers off the mound to another position as they age because they cannot defend it, they either move them from starter to pen or just say you are done pitching. Same with hitting, they only stop putting a DH in line up when they stop being productive at it. Of course that will happen one day to all players, but I do not think they will ask Ohtani to stop doing either until his ability reduces, not because he cannot defend the position anymore, like a CF or SS. Those guys, provided they can still hit, will generally get moved to 3b or corner OF because they do not need as much speed and range, which is lost as they age. Maybe he gets moved to pen, which could complicate things, as he would start games at DH then be asked to come into game to pitch, giving up the DH, but if you plan to always use him late inning, that would not be too much to deal with.

The only reason I would think about supporting this idea, is that we always need a backup for Buck, because we know he is likely to miss half the games anyways. So if we can get a good CF moving Buck to RF, then I would support it. However, if we are just looking to swap Kepler with Buck next year in hopes of giving more games to Buck, I would not support that.

I am personally a big fan of incentive contracts, but players are not. They do it, in cases like Buxton, when there are many questions as to long term risk. I do not see a ton of long term risk in Ohtani, at least not at both sides. You do make a valid point that if the signing team does not want to continue the two way thing for long term, just as in the Ruth situation, Yankees did not want to do that, despite Ruth being a great pitcher. However, I think Ohtani does not sign with any team if he thinks they will try to move him out of it. I also think the resting he got back in 2018, was in part this was all new to MLB, and they did not know how he could play full time DH when not pitching. The last 2 years he has done that, so no reason to think he will shift back soon. 2018 was his rookie year, no player had ever been full time pitcher and hitter. I also think even if he loses some as a starting pitcher, and you want to shift him to pen guy, he could then DH every game, and if needed to go into pen late in game you do that. Sure would be interesting to see.

One of the big pushes I make against this is one, one of his biggest values is in his CF defense, it is so much better than anyone else, by taking him away from that means you have lowered his value. Now, being his bat has become a plus value, years ago it was not, there may be some merit. However, where I also push back is many of his injuries have not been just from playing CF. This year his knee got injured on a slid. Other years he missed time from running bases too. He has missed time from foul ball into foot, or getting hit by pitches. If the majority of his injuries were from him playing the field, then again maybe there is merit, but when many is from hitting and running bases, no position change will reduce that. So I say, why decrease his value for the very limited reduced risk to injury in his specific case? Yes, he did miss some time in his career from crashing into walls, but he could just as likely do that in other outfield positions too.

That really is the question, one are you willing to accept years where he is very overpaid, hopefully on 2 to 3 years, for hopefully 6 to 7 years of getting paid fair to slightly overpaid? I am no expert, and cannot predict how he will age, or how a transition to 3b would like in 4 to 5 years. If you are convinced he will still be putting up 5 plus WAR in his mid-30's I say break the bank. However, if you are worried that in say 3 years you are moving him to 3b, and he is putting up 1 to 2 WAR because his defense fall off the cliff and so has his bat. The thing to remember is he has never been a super offense guy, he has been very good on offense for SS, but compared to other offensive positions he has been decent but not a superstar. However, he has always been generally consistent across his career. The fact that he has done this as a plus defender, to one of the best, for now. He has great value. It is possible at end of career they can make trades to dump his pay if it becomes to big of an anker. Not ideal, but if you can draft, trade, and develop well, it should not be terrible down the road. If you think your team can be a regular success over next 3 to 5 years, break the bank and worry about 5 plus years from now later.

I would disagree that as we got to electronic strike zone we will see less defensive catchers and just hitters. Part of catching is more than just framing and throwing out runners, which MLB is trying to get more steals in the game again. There is pitch calling, covering bunts, taking throws at home and blocking as much of plate as allowed, seeing when a pitcher is doing something wrong. Sure, the pitch calling could go to the dug out, but still think there is value from the catcher as he is sitting with the hitter and can see possible things, the coaches cannot, both in the hitter and the pitcher. If you have a weak armed catcher, there will be more steals on them, so they still need a strong arm. I would agree you may see more platoon catchers to give more breaks than the 140 to 150 games a year, but it would take a guy like Joe who actually never caught 140 games in a season, most he caught a single season was 139 then most was 120, so not even he did at as a 150 game catcher, but would DH double digit games as well.

I need to push back on the part about Joe blocking everything. He was good at throwing out runners, and he was decent to stabbing to balls in the dirt and getting in the glove, but he was actually not very good at "blocking" a ball. He would commonly even stand up putting is glove down to try and snag the ball and let it through his legs. They were not passed balls but he could have been better at blocking it. Now, he was still a great catcher overall and not trying to bash him, but many people thought he was better at blocking pitches than he really was.

To address the question posed in the title first. It very well may happen, but is not likely. Being Joe was the only AL catcher to ever do it, and only 2 in NL, both like 90 years ago, shows it is very unlikely. Is it possible, yes, someone like Joe could come along again, but doubtful. That being said, if you can get a good offensive catcher, even if not a batting title, but can produce above average on offense, then yes you pay those guys. Similar to an elite hitting SS, if they can be both an every day catcher, meaning they can defend the position at least at a passable level, and hit at an elite level, either by way of overall power, or average, you pay them big. I mean, why just relegate yourself to a fact that a catcher will be poor hitter, if you can get one that is not? Sure, the likes of Joe, Posey, Yadi, Piazza, Pudge(both of them), are not common. Piazza was not great defense wise, but he made up for it at the plate. This is what makes the likes of A.J. Pierzynski who was not amazing hitter, but at least about average compared to rest of league, which put him generally above average at his position. Catcher has always been a defense first position, and what you can get from offense is a bonus. As running was taken out of the game, generally from choice not elite catching defense, we do not see it as needed and worry more about offense. However, running is on a rise lately, and defense will be important again.

I know he is not a FA yet, but set to be one after his next season, so many teams are looking to maybe trade for and extend him. He will be entering his 29 age season when his new contract is coming. Now, in a normal player, you can look at a lot of comps as to what his contract could look like. However, he is not a normal player, and not since Babe Ruth have we seen a pitcher be a hitter as well. Ruth stopped doing both when he was sold to the Yankees after 1919, except for a few games here or there or later in his career. Of course we cannot compare those contracts. Now, if we looked just at pitching, I think Gerrit Cole could be a decent comparison, Cole had better strike outs and more innings the years prior, but still a top tier pitcher Cy Young candidate who was entering year 29. Cole got 9 years, averaging 36 mil a year. I think if Ohtani was just a pitcher we would see something a little less than this, but not much. I normally would never sign a pitcher to that long of a deal, let alone at age 29. He will be 38 when it is done, and expect a bit of drop off, and high chance of injuries. Ohtani did pitch less games over last couple years than Cole and has had some injury issues, which is why I would expect less years and less money, but Ohtani would still be looking about 7 years at around 30 mil, just as a pitcher I would bet. However, Ohtani, can hit like an MVP as well. He has a career slash .267/.354/.532 with an OPS+ of 139. He only DH's, to help save any arm injuries, but he could play OF most likely. There are many hitters entering age 29 season FA that we could compare, but none that are just a DH, so you do need to take that into account. However, just as a bat, I looked at a few recent signings around age 29. George Springer signed at age 31 season, got 6 years at 25 a year. He was mixing between CF and RF at this time, and slashed close to Ohtani with less HR overall. Kris Bryant signed entering age 30 season, and mostly as a bat at this point. He signed 7 years 27 a year. He slashed close again, with less HR overall to Ohtani. Corey Seager entering his age 28 season, signed 10 years at 35 a year. Now he does play SS, but expected to move to 3b at some point, but still considered average defender, so not a true comparison to a bat only kind of guy, but trying to get cross section of age and offense. Seager slashed with higher average on OBP, but lower slugging and much less HR, hitting less than 100 entering contract year, Ohtani has 127 and still 1 more year until contract year. Again, it is impossible to compare truly a value for Ohtani as there is no one to fully compare to. If we look just at WAR, the average cost per WAR in a FA is around 8.5 to 9 mil. Lets say 9. If team paid for Ohtani full WAR value, they would be paying close to 81 million, as he has got a 9 WAR the last 2 seasons. Of course he will not get 81 million over a single season. If we compare WAR, Mike Trout would be the closest, but he signed his contract at age 26 season, so length is not going to be as long, but annual value may be close. Trout contract is 35 mil average. It was signed 5 years ago though. So what does an Ohtani contract look like? I would be willing to bet it will be around a 9 year deal, around 40 mil a year, if not 45 a year. Why do I say that? I would say because what he does both pitching and hitting, he will continue to put up high WAR numbers as he has, for the next several years. He has shown even when he has a pitching injury, he can still hit, so less risk of losing him for time even with a pitching injury. Also, the cost of contracts are going up. Look at Seager, he got same annual value as Trout, but never had a WAR close to Trout, never having a WAR more than 5.2. Trout had WAR of average of like 9 a year. Really, he got hosed on his deal if you look at true WAR. His value has decreased due to injuries mainly, when healthy Trout still putting up crazy numbers. So with no true comparison, what do you think an Ohtani contract will look like?

Personally, I would not go after any of them. I would not want to give up the prospects for Darvish or Musgrove, and the FA do move the needle enough for me. They are better than our 4th or 5th most likely, but unless they are better than our 1, I do not care too much.

Unless we can extend him, which I have no clue what that extension would look like, as there is no one to ever compare him to, I would not traded for a 1 year rental on him. It would cost way too much to get just 1 year from, and with only getting a pick back in return after he turns down the QO is not enough. I would love to have him and sign him long term but doubt we will.

Unless you going big, I would not understand going after starters. We have a good amount of solid 2 or 3 number guys. Assuming Maeda and Mahle will be healthy. Gray, Mahle, Maeda, Ryan all slot into that spot. Leaving 1 open spot in a 5 man rotation, that can be filled by Ober, SWR, Varland, Widner if needed. Of course injuries will happen and depth is needed, but I do not see the Twins going after a Bundy/Archer type guy this off-season. If they go after a starter it better be a spend big top end guy for a couple years. I could see them go after the level 2 type guys if they plan to make some trades of the glut we have. Depending on the years Degrom is looking for, I could see the Twins willing to give the 35 mil per, but only for like 2 to 3 years, with vesting options for anything after that. His injuries are huge concerns to be dropping that kind of cash on a single guy, but he would help if healthy most likely. Bassit to me is not an Ace, but a good number 2, which I would take but is he that much better than what we have now to spend huge when we could go after other positions is needed?

I have said all along, there is no guarantee that paying big for a pitcher in FA will equal post season success. First, if you pay huge for one pitcher, then you put all your eggs into that one basket, so to speak. If they have a bad start and lose you can call your post season basically over, because you were counting on that one win and hoping the second or third guy to get lucky. Yes, some teams have won that way, Giants in the past have done it, but other teams have failed with that approach too, like the Twins. Not that we paid big for a single guy, but look at Santana in his prime with us, His only post season games, he was 1-2 in starts the team wining 2 of the 5 games he started. He was the best in the game over that time basically, but we did not get it done with him. Look at Verlander, Scherzer, and Kershaw, 3 HOF pitchers. Scherzer has been the only one of the 3 with a lot of post season success over his career. His post season numbers worse than his career numbers, which is not super surprising, but take a look at this year, he was dominate all year, only to have 2 bad starts out of 3 this year. His team won the first start with a walk off come from behind HR in 9th, and they just lost the WS game he started. In games he has started team is 18-15 with a huge run in 2017 winning 4 of 5 games started. Scherzer, who overall has had some great games in post season, outside of 2019, where his team won all 5 games he started, his teams record is 4-13, so if you include the one great year it is 9-13. His bullpen time is about equal good and bad. Kershaw has been a big mix as well. In games he started the team is 18-15, which is not bad, but he has never had a dominate run in any post season. My point is, even with the HOF guys, having amazing regular seasons, there is no saying they will dominate in the playoffs. Personally, I would rather have depth in the rotation with 4 above average guys, than one single huge guy and fill in the rest. Yes, if we can go out an pay for a guy that will be great, it will help, but very few high paid guys go out and live up to their contracts if you look at the percentage of big deals to pitchers over the years. It is a huge gamble to pay big for a FA starter.

To me, Joe Ryan is the fix it before it is broken kind of approach. He has dominated on his fastball his whole career. All the 'experts' say, he will not dominate with his fastball at the MLB level so he needs to get better secondary pitches. So he works on his secondary pitches, only to be dominated by his secondary pitches, and dominate with his fastball. Hmmm, something seems odd here. We say he cannot dominate with his fastball in the MLB level, despite he has done exactly that. It is his secondary pitches that have not done well. I get that for most guys, you need to mix it up because if not they will tee off the fastball and lay off anything else, but it seems to me the approach against Joe has been the other way round for now. I hate the plan of predict failure so fix it before it happens, only to have it happen when you try to fix it, then point to I told you so. His fastball is not overpowering, but hard to barrel up, so why not throw it more and more, until teams start to sit on it, then mix in the off speed? Hell, I think first time through rotation, he should almost throw it every pitch, unless teams start hitting it hard. Then if they start to attack the first fastball and actually hit it hard, then look to throw some off-speed out of the zone, not waste pitches per se, but make sure not in a good place to hit. Pitching is all about keeping guys off balance for most part, but if you have a pitch they cannot hit well, why not throw it mainly until the hitters adjust? Why adjust to their expected adjustments? For example, for years Buxton was known to chase sliders off the plate. He would get one after another, and more and more on 2 strikes. He would chase over and over, but then some times a pitcher would get cute and throw him a fastball, only to see it get crushed. He never showed he would lay off the pitch, nor that he would square it up, unless it got hung, so why throw anything else? Until the hitter shows they will actually hit a pitch, why make it easy for them? Let Joe throw the fastball, then worry about him when teams actually hit it. I remember when pitchers started pitching up the zone, and everyone said they need to not do that or they will get crushed, now many experts point out that pitching up in the zone is very effective it is the top of the zone. I am not saying he does not need to work on the off-speed pitches, mainly for that time there is the adjustment. But until that time comes, stop telling him he needs to throw more off-speed to be effective, when that appears to be a main reason he has not been.

Sometimes it is just the right fit for the right team too. I mean look at Lance Lynn, he was terrible for us, most likely he was out of shape due to late signing, but it was the worst of his career between us and the Yankees in 2018. Then he follows that up with 3 of his best years of his career, or at least back to his expected level. This year not nearly as good. Other guys have outlying years over time as well. The issue is, pitching is super hard to predict long term future. Injuries derail many careers, or guys fall off the cliff very quickly, after many years of success. Only HOF level pitchers tend to be Ace level into their 30's, and they are very few and far between. I have said for years FA is the hardest way to get an Ace, at least for long term because normally they regress a ton into their 30's. Sure you can point to Verlander, Scherzer and a few others, but for every one of them you can see several that failed in their 30's, at least compared to what they did pre free agency. I am not saying do not try to get one, but they are hard to project in draft. I mean you mention Greene as a possible ace, which he has the overall stuff to develop into that, but his first year is not ace level outputs. Gore did even worse. Wright, now in 5th year pitching in majors had a 21 win season, but his numbers outside of that are fringe ace like. Overall my point is finding an reliable ace is very hard to do, and I cannot think of a single team that can always seem to find one.

This is the first year under the new structure. Like it or hate it, it is hear to stay. I have seen comments about how it is terrible because it is taking away from the regular season, which the more you expand playoffs that will always be the case. Back before the wild card era, we had 2 teams from each league make it, and sometimes the divisions were heavy to one side or the other. This still would happen with wild card, but then that good second team would have a chance. Then we added a second wild card, because the Twins had to good 163 games in short order, so why not have a mandatory one right? Now we have 3 wild card teams, all for more money for teams because playoff TV deals are worth a ton. With the top 2 division teams getting byes some speculated if the break would hurt those teams. Then in the NL, the wild card teams won their series against the teams that got the bye. Many fans said see this is not right. Both the Padres and Phillies won in 4. Now the Phillies, the 3rd wild card team has advanced to WS, and they faced off against the 2nd WC team. We can speculate if it was Phillies and Padres being hot because they had to fight for the playoffs, where the Braves, who did fight for the bye, or Dodgers were coasting and got the bye, which led to WC winning. However, when you look at the AL everything was different. In the AL we have Houston, who coasted to the number 1 seed, and has yet to lose a game. They have both come from behind late in games, and lead the whole way. They were on the ropes against Seattle, in first couple games, but made the come backs and won. The Yankees were down 2-1, but made it to the ALCS, only to be swept. So Houston, clearly the best team in the AL did not have clear issue with bye, although, they were on the ropes early, Had those games went other way maybe we have a WC team from AL as well. Can we draw anything from this first year of playoffs, other than that a baseball series is always hard to predict, and the best team does not always win? Should we, as fans, demand a smaller playoffs with longer series to help have the better team win? Should we get rid of byes so not team gets rusty? Should we leave it be for a few years and adjust if needed?

The regression is normally based on teams getting tape and scouting hitters, and the hitters failing to make adjustments. Similar pitchers surprising hitters with a particular pitch, then hitters learning how to hit it, or leave it. Baddoo is still young and could continue to develop, but Wade just is who he is a fringe MLB guy. Diaz too could adjust, but think Littell is also just a fringe guy.

It is not about the money per se, once you get to those numbers. It is more about being paid the most, because then you are considered one of the best. It is also about the union pushing contracts up. Also, why turn down 300 mil if it is offered?

I do not believe the rules will help him at all. The rule will still allow for the second baseman to play well in the hole, just not start in the OF, but I do not believe that he was robbed of solid base hits that where taken away because the second baseman was playing in the OF. Maybe like 5 over the season. Most of the ground balls he hit that way where weakly hit anyways.

Okay, you want to expand the area, from just the city that poster was showing. MN has a total population of 5.3 million, about. LA area alone has population of over 13 million. Over Twice the population of the whole state of MN. If you want to say LA is drawing from San Diego, you also have to then add in the population of LA to San Diego, which San Diego has 1.4 million. The post was comparing San Diego to Twin Cities because of similarities, I was pointing out the issues with that, but you change the area, but still trying to say San Diego is similar to Twin cities, Is it true that some fans from San Diego will go to LA for football, like their team did, or basketball or hockey, sure they may, just like fans in MN will go to other non Twin Cities games. Maybe many of the LA residents will go to support Padres if they are closer to them, or other reasons.

First, I am not saying we should or should not sign Correa to a long term deal. I expect he will be seeking an 8 to 10 year deal, around 30 mil or more a year. When thinking about the expected contract it got me thinking about Joe Mauer and his contract he signed with Twins, his 8 year 184 million, for 23 a year. Not top the of market back then, but pretty high. Correa is expected to seek top of market. When we signed Joe, just about every fan was happy, but after the first couple of years, when injuries set in, and natural age regression, many fans started to get upset that he was making so much but producing so little, which when you sign a guy into mid-30's you are expecting that. Now, Joe's injuries may have played much more of a roll in his regression, the shifting teams started to do, than age regression, but he clearly dropped off in production over second half of contract. I bring this up because most players, regress greatly in the mid-30's, some closer to 34 others hold on to say 36, and some mega stars can hold up, but they are very few and far between. Even the HOF players like Albert, have great regression in mid to late 30's. So, if we sign CC to even an 8 year 30 mil a year deal, which I think is on the low end and minimum he is seeking, he will be 36 at end of the deal. I cannot say how much he regresses, or when it happens, but it will happen. If it happens around the age 33 to 34 season, how will fans react to the last couple of seasons where he is moved off of SS most likely and not putting up offense you want from a 3B? Will the fans say okay we got some good years, or will they be upset like with Joe on his production to cost? What if it is 10 year deal where he will be signed to age 38 season, where for sure the last few years he will be draining money from the team for subpar production? I am not knocking Correa, and would be happy to sign him for the right price and length, but for fans that want to break the bank, sign for 10 years, I want you to ask yourself, how will you feel when he is overpaid? We know it will happen at some time, the question for each player is which season. Should we front load the contract where he will be of greater value to not have the overpay so much, or since payrolls should go up should be back load it? Should we keep it equal? Being the window is hopefully now to next couple years, should just worry about 5 years from now 5 years from now? We clearly can afford him, since we did. The question is how much are we willing to accept bad money down the road, and can accept that?

I though Arraez metrics were not good at first base, did they improve that much? I know in the past offense played a huge roll, but I thought now they actually looked at the metrics.

I am not saying the Twins are spending close to what they are brining in, maybe they are, maybe they are not, as the money they make is not made public. I would like to make a few comments though a few things posted. First, you compare the Padres with the Twins based on media market. In a vacuum that may make sense, but how many major sports franchise play in the San Diego media market? I could be wrong, but pretty just now just the Padres. How many play in the Twin Cities? Four, and if you count the MLS team that is five. That is a lot more sports entertainment money being fought over, than just baseball. Meaning if a family budget a set amount of money to be spent on going to sporting events, in MN there is a lot more teams pulling for that money, but San Diego has little competition. That aside, as much as I would love the owners to drop a ton of money and spend like crazy, simply because their net worth on other businesses would allow for that, I cannot blame them for wanting to make money as a business and not lose it. Until we see the books of the Twins on what they bring in all revenue and spend out on all expenses, because there is a lot more on expenses than just MLB player payroll, then I will be willing to make judgment calls on how they run the business. I would wager they could spend more on players in the budget, so not defending them on that point, but people own businesses to make money, they do not lose money to make others happy, because then they will not be in business long.