Trov

He stinks against Detroit too. I would just like to see him in less high leverage outings for a while. Some guys do well in lessor leverage than others. I always pointed to Hawkins as a guy that was amazing in set up roll for years, but once he was asked to be closer he would not be as good. I do not know if it is always the pitcher, or the hitters that have a different mind set in the late innings. I would like to see Pagan fill the Jax roll and Jax fill the Pagan roll for awhile.

It is a hard no for me. I always liked him, and could he add some offense, maybe. However, the way we are using the DH this year would make using him very limited. Right now we have a bit of a clog in a couple of positions, and needing to use Buck at DH some games means someone will be sitting out. I like how the Twins are using the DH this year moving different guys in there to give them rest from the field but keeping the bat in there. Cruz would just mess that up.

There was also a few taken just after him that never made majors. Of course we wish we could have went back and took Turner, but a lot of teams passed on Turner too being drafted 13th, but he was the next SS taken. I remember wanting him, but some scouts thought he would move to 2nd. Which he did for a time but back at SS again.

I have said this about Nick Gordon for a long time. He has a slow learning curve at the plate at each level, but give him time he always starts to produce. If you look at his first bit of time at every level he does poor, and we talk about how he was a bust. Then he bounces back and we think he figured it out. Look at his first season in AA he hit .270/.341/.409, then he started the next year in AA where he slashed, .333/.381/.525, then got called up to AAA where he slashed .212/.262/.283 in 93 games, looked like a bust. Then he repeated AAA in 2019 at age 23 where he slashed .298/.342/.459. Then in 2021 after year off and COVID issues, In AAA he slashed ..282/.338/.437, with an MLB slash of .240/.292/.355. This year he is slashing .271/.311/.418, but as article pointed out he is doing even better over last month. For whatever reason he has always been slow to adapt to each level, but given time he picks up his numbers. I have long advocated to giving him a chance to prove himself. He will never be a big HR guy, but he is not just a single guy either. He could be better, but he is a MLB player.

I have long argued this is a stat that is somewhat self fulfilling as well. Most pitchers now a days hardly get a chance to make a full trip through the order a third time, except in rare situations. That is not just on Twins but across the league. Many will get into the third time but not finish, for various reasons, inning count, pitch count, or not doing well. What that means just as you pointed out, that if the first couple of hitters get hits, and he is pulled he cannot balance out that hit. Heck, even if he retires the first 2 and gives up a single that is a .333 average, and he is pulled then he cannot counter that by getting the next guy out and dropping to a .250. I am not saying hitters have a better chance the third time through, but I agree that it is blown way out of proportion that a guy cannot do a third time through a line up. Overall the the sample is much smaller. It is like saying a left hander cannot hit against another lefty, but most of the time the hitters are not given much of a chance to prove it, unless they do it quickly.

Way to think outside the box with this one. "Anthony Bass - Miami Dolphins - 34 yrs old 0.9 fWAR 1.60 ERA 2.34 FIP 8.0 K/9" Looking to the football field for a relief pitcher. HAHAHA

So you are equating age to experience, and not age? Because again, the fact that he is younger than his competition is just a fact. You cannot argue that. You are arguing that his age has nothing to do with it, which is different than saying he is not young. Now that being said, I get what you are saying that people with certain years of experience should be put at different levels of prospect lists, and I do not disagree, however, you seem to ignore that bodies develop more as you get older, and there are times, that guys develop as they age even after years of experience. Look at Jose Miranda, he did not have his breakout year in minors until age 23, even though he was drafted at age 18. Following your argument he should have been called a bust and given up on because he had 5 years in the minors and only at AA. Guess we should have cut him. It is like something just clicked from age 22 to 23 and he broke out. I in no way am saying anybody who is young for their league is open for a breakout, but guys were top prospects for a reason, sometimes it just takes time, sometimes they are flops. The prospects you seem to be pointing to are potential HOF guys, who are in a league of their own. Look at Corey Kluber, a guy that was never even a prospect really, it was not until he was 28 at the majors that he became a Cy young level pitcher. 28 to 32 he either won or got Cy Young votes, guess Cleveland should have sent him packing well before that because he was not going to be good.

My guess the runners saw Roberts play the two Arraez doubles and where like our guy would not catch it so no way Buck does and just took off. What makes Buck so good is not just his speed, which is tops in the league, but he gets some of the best jumps on balls and takes amazing routes. Then is arm is elite too.

First, I have little knowledge of all the draft prospects, other than what I read on here or other mock draft sites. Also, I am not one that you draft for current need at the MLB level, but best player available. However, Kumar Rocker offers an interesting situation. First, at 8 in this draft, he might be the best player available, but he is expected to drop due to lack of leverage with signing, and possible future injury concern, although he could be an under slot value guy for that as well. He was not offered a deal last year by Mets after they thought he arm might fall off, or something like that. He did have surgery last fall, but is in an independent league lighting up the radar gun at 99. I have not seen him, but clearly velo is not something to worry about right now. Longer term health may be of concern. What made me want to write on him though is could he be a pen guy this year for us down the stretch? Other college guys have done that sign and almost right to MLB level as a relief guy in the past. Chris Sale was one that after he signed quickly after draft in 2010 he went right in as a pen guy down the stretch for White Sox and did well. Could Rocker be that type? Should he be? Again, I am not saying you should target Rocker for that reason, but if not for injury concerns long term, I doubt he would fall to 8. He fell last year due to injury questions, only to not be offered a contract. First, thoughts on drafting him at 8, is he a reach or a best player available? Second, if you draft him at 8, would you be willing to move him to pen roll with possible call up this year?

I would be against Winder moving into full pen roll right now as he is our 6th starter will be needed from time to time to step in. Similar with Sands if a guy goes down after Winder makes a start in AAA then he would be next man up most likely. As for Ronny Henriquez it is hard to say a guy with the numbers he is putting up that he will move into a pen roll down the stretch to be a high leverage arm. Maybe the change would help, but he has a high walk rate to go with his k/9, and he gives up a decent amount of HR too, 11 in 48.2 innings. High walks and HR numbers for high leverage situations normally does not work out well. As we have seen with Pagan lately.

I was mainly trying to get people to really think on things. I do not expect any actual answer but more of something to think for themselves. We tend to be in a new thought process with wanting results right away, and a reaction to the moment, unless a guy has a long track record, and even then we sometimes are quick to cast them as finished.

This is not about any player in particular. I was thinking the other day on two main questions. First, how long does a player need to have some level of success before you trust they will break out of a down turn, or slump? How long into a down turn or slump do you stick with that player before giving up? History may suggest it is a combo kind of thing. I know many will look to are the results reflective of underlying numbers. Looking at Correa early on his numbers were not good, but he was hitting the ball hard, and he had years of success, so of course you expect he would break out. We have seen some guys have breakout years in contract seasons and people praise them thinking that will be the long term expectations. So how long does a player need to perform at a certain level before you say, that is who they are? I am sure to the teams there is a lot more that goes into it, like attitude, work ethic, willingness to adjust, money being paid, and so on. But as a fan, when do you adjust your expectations? When do you give up on a guy, or accept they have turned a page? For example, just this year, Jose Miranda, a rookie, has put up a -0.5 WAR. Many fans were ready to have him come up after his breakout minor league year last year. He got off to a terrible start, outside of a couple of hits, he was auto out. Then he was sent down for a day, because of injury came back up. He did not play a game in AAA during that short stint and now has improved a ton numbers wise. At his lowest he was hitting .094/.143/.332. Yes it was very short sample size. We were not calling him a bust, but clearly not ready for MLB action. That was just hitting but fielding was just as bad. Since that time, he has played just over 30 games. In his last 30 games he is hitting .308/.337/.853. We gave him about 14 games of terrible hitting before he was sent down. Now about 30 games since coming back he is doing pretty well. Now if he goes back to the first 14 games, how long before he gets sent back down, or we stop finding playing time for him? It is similar with Vets. Some guys will have long term success, but then have a few years of sub performance, but yet they keep getting chances. I am guessing most people will give a guy that had seasons of success much more slack, than someone who had just 1 season. Look at Baddoo. Last year he was a good rookie and people were thinking he would be cornerstone for Tigers going forward. 17 games this year and a -0.6 WAR he was sent down. He is doing well in AAA overall, and most likely will return, but how much slack will he get back in the majors? Will people look at his rookie year and give him slack again, or will they look at his follow up start to the year? Even in his rookie year he had long stretches of good and bad. Baseball has always been ups and downs for players. I just always wonder how long before teams and fans turn on a guy for good or bad.

You think Celestino has hit his ceiling at 23? I agree Celestino needs to improve, but he is still only 23, most players his age are in AA or AAA. Most guys do not peak until age 27. Some sooner, some later. Either way he still has a few years to grow. Maybe he has "peaked" for this year but as a career he has far from peaked.

https://www.mlb.com/news/frankie-montas-departs-start-early-vs-mariners He just went to a big question make for a trade. 1 month short of deadline and he left game with shoulder issue, and his velo is down over 2 MPH on his pitches. He is getting MRI to see how long he may be shelved. The asking price just bottomed out most likely and A's may not get much in return for him now.

First, I am a fan of base hits, running bases, and actually making defensive plays, over the three true outcomes. But I need to point out you are incorrect about the NBA assessment and points per game. Scoring is up significantly over past 5 years versus the two decades before. It is on par with the mid to late 80's when there was little 3 point shooting, but played at much faster pace than the 90's and early 2000's. Now I would agree the entertainment value was higher with the fast pace of play, which is why MLB is trying to get back to more balls in play, and more actual action.

I would have him take as long as he can on the rehab games in St. Paul, unless there is an injury on MLB level opening a spot back up. If he looks like he could contribute then I would let him get a spot back, but if continues to struggle you see if a team will take him, and we pay the rest of the season and buy out, and see if we can get anything in return for him pen pitcher wise. Very few teams will want to bring him in though. Playoff teams that need 1B or DH may take a chance on him, but will not give up much in return. Non playoff teams will not want to take him on unless it is for a see what he can do for us and maybe pick up his option thing, but again will not give up much for him. His value is at all time low. Most likely he gets DFA unless he comes out hot in rehab starts. He is the type that if hot could carry a team in the playoffs, but that is rare for him.

There is a big difference if a throw is not needed, versus a knowing a throw cannot be made. For example, few run on Buck unless they know he cannot make the throw because he is known for a strong arm. However, if you know the guy has an arm issue and cannot make throws, you will run more on them. If you ask the infield group to come further out for relays that affects many other things as well.

You contradict yourself by saying Archer should be in a long relief roll, but then say he should replace the innings of guys that are not long relief roll right now. Do you want Archer to just be in long relief roll, or do you want him in single inning roll like Cotton and Pagan generally get? Sometimes Cotton goes 2 but Pagan is almost always 1 inning.

Are you saying of the names listed they are off limits too? I have a feeling depending on the team, and the player we are trying to bring in, some of the young guys you list on the roster right now may be required to go. One should also be concerned in 2 to 3 years as well on what the team will look like if you trade away all the guys looking to make debuts in 2 to 3 years. Yes, we can worry about that time when it comes, but a good FO thinks about the now, and the future. If you sell all your future for the now, even if it pays off with a flag flying, the FO normally gets the boot when they reap what they sew in the years to follow when you do not have a good team to field.

No team has gone deep in the playoffs for 20 years without an ace and strong number two? Really, no team? First, do you mean an established ace, or someone who pitched like an ace in the playoffs? The reason I ask that is of course if a team has someone pitch like an ace in the playoffs they will go deep, because you are looking at the results, but I am sure you can find plenty of teams that went deep in last 20 years without an established ace on their roster. Does having one help, sure does, but is it a requirement nope not at all. Also having one does not mean you will win either, just increases chances. Please tell me the ace from 2002 Angels. Please tell me the ace from the 2003 Marllins. Please tell me the ace on the 2007 Rockies, they lost in WS. How about last year's Braves? I know there is plenty more, those are just a few. I am sure if you look at the actual runs you will find good performances in the playoffs, but I am asking going into the playoffs. I would argue we have an ace and strong number 2 as well. Gray is pitching like an ace and Ryan a strong number 2. Also, we had guys in past pitching like ace and strong number 2 but did nothing.

I want to make clear, I was not advocating for doing nothing, but was pointing out that people say we should do something for the reason we cannot beat the Yankees. I fully support making small pen moves. In terms of Montas and Casitllo, we would need to sign to extensions to have them in our system beyond next year. About 80 to 90 percent of long term extensions of SP rarely work out well for the team. Not just the FA signings, but I could put on a huge list of guys that were traded for that did not work out well in long term. Again, I agree our pen needs improving overall, but I see no point in blowing up our farm system for high end SP or even high end pen arms, but doing smaller moves for pen guys I would fully support. I was mainly pointing out though that people say we need to make moves because we will not win in the playoffs as is, but I point out we will not be the favorite even if we do, so if the reason for the move is because as built we will not win, why make a move if we still will not win? Yes, a move will increase our chances some, and I am not saying not making any moves, but is there any move that you will feel like we no will win, or just say we are better?

You can adjust the roster and still looking to improve the team. We always think of the team as either competing or rebuilding. You say you cannot trade away established guys if you are "buying" and cannot being in established guys if you are "selling" but there is a third option of moving extra pieces of depth to fill holes, even if they are on the major league roster. Cleveland a couple of times traded away their top starters during the year to fill holes they had and still planed and still did compete overall. They did not go into full sell mode. Trading away Garver was not a sell move it was trade from depth move to fill a SS hole. Then when Yankees came knocking and there was still SS out there to try and sign, they freeded up Donaldson's contract to go after a SS. The FO makes moves and do not get married to moves made. They are willing to pivot quickly depending on the situation and the offers. You need to look at all the moves made, not each one made in a vacuum.

For the people that are not happy with the return, we need to remember what the other options where. We do not know what other teams had offers last year, if any. We do not know what we could have got during this offseason, if we had looked. I can say had we waited for this trade deadline we would be lucky to someone to take his contract based on what he is doing right now. Maybe neither Martin or SWR work out, but we have no clue if anyone would have, and so far the Jays are looking like they have a bad 7 year contract on their hands.

SWR is only 21 at AA, which 3.6 years younger than the average age at AA. Just because he was drafted out of high school does not mean he is not young, it means he is fat into he years of development, but that is why high school guys do not need to be on 40 man until after year 5 where college guys after year 3, because the age is factored into it. College guys have more years to grow and develop than a high school kid does. You can say he is far into his years in pro ball, but to say he is not young for the league just goes against facts. He normally pitches against guys older than him, that is just a fact.

I think we all agree the team is not the best, but has a good chance to make playoffs even as is. Maybe they falter and either Cleveland or Chicago go on a run, but as built we have been in competition for playoff spot. Now, many say, well who cares we will not win the playoffs as built and need 'x' to win. Okay, lets assume that is true, the logic says we cannot win with current team, mainly because Yankees will beat us. So that brings up the question, if we make some trades, would we be in a position to beat the Yankees? What would it cost to do that? So to me the logic suggests we do not make any major trades, a pen pitcher or two may be worth it for low level prospects, but big splash trades will still put us behind the Yankees on paper. So why blow up our farm system to increase our chances a tiny bit? I mean even if we go out and get Montas and Castillo, best two available starting pitchers in trade market, to increase our chances a couple of percentage points? I am not saying we should try to improve the team, but if the reason we feel we need to make a move is because the Yankees are better, is there any deals out there that after we say, now we are better than Yankees? I doubt it. So if you make the deal to try and get better than them, but you cannot, why make the deal? I would much rather make smaller pen moves then big splashes.