Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Leader
  • Posts

    815
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

chpettit19 last won the day on October 26

chpettit19 had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About chpettit19

  • Birthday 01/26/1985

Recent Profile Visitors

2,194 profile views

chpettit19's Achievements

  1. Bad pitching is still bad pitching. That will never change. But the role starters play in MLB has changed drastically over the last 5+ years. And the Twins are talking about possibly being even more dramatic with their approach to pitching in 2022. I mean if you want to get into it, the quote is actually "momentum is only as good as the next day's starter" and it was Jim Leyland quoting Earl Weaver back in 1985. In 1985 Bert Blyleven lead the AL in innings pitched at 293. In 2021 Robbie Ray lead the AL in innings pitched at 193. Oakland had their starters throw 892 innings in 2021. That lead the league in 2021. That is good for the 828th most innings by starters since 1985. Out of 1068 team seasons. Houston was second at 878 innings good for 877 out of 1068. If you take out the 86 team seasons from the 94, 95, and 2020 strike and covid shortened seasons there were only 982 team seasons. So the team with the absolute most innings pitched by starters in 2021 was good for 828th out of 982 seasons. All I'm saying is the game isn't played the same and starters don't matter like they used to. Especially in the playoffs. Which was brought up in the debate (difference between 162 and the playoffs). Teams are smarter and more creative and can find their way around a bad starter. The quote isn't as relevant anymore.
  2. The debaters coming at things from 2 different perspectives lead to some good conclusions. And people in the thread have added to it. There's a big difference between the regular season and playoff pitching staffs. To the point that Roger's quote of TK is now less relevant than anytime in the history of the sport. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but I know the Astros were averaging about 3 innings a game from their starters for most of the postseason. And that wasn't because they were using relievers as starters. They were using their regular starters and still couldn't get through 4 innings, yet almost won the World Series. Front offices have realized you need 25 arms to get you through 162, but then you need 6 or 7 to get you through the postseason. Those aren't exact numbers, but with extra off days in the playoffs you can use your elite bullpen arms every game so don't need a full 13 man staff. I voted that building a strong offense is more important because you need both pitching and hitting to survive 162 games (ask Jacob deGrom how elite pitching with no hitting goes for winning games), but you can scheme your way to good pitching in the playoffs when you can get away with using so few guys. Or you can be Dave Roberts and scheme your way out of elite pitching by using your elite starters as relievers, but that also goes to show that you can use strategy to affect your pitching outcomes in the postseason. But if you have a Brewers-esque lineup of guys who just aren't that good of hitters you can't scheme your way to better results so easily.
  3. If you're planning on looking into possibly buying a new car in the near future would you not do an oil change or get the brakes fixed on your current car before you actually get the new one? My stance is that it's reasonable to believe they signed Jake Cave to a barely above league minimum contract at this point in time as an insurance policy. They wanted him in their back pocket just in case. As I said in an earlier post here, I don't think any fan on here thinks the 40 guys on the 40-man roster right now are going to be the 40 guys on the roster at the start of the season. So why have any of them? Why not just cut everyone they plan to look for upgrades for? They weren't going to offer him arbitration. They weren't going to pay him over $1M like he would've gotten in arbitration. They likely went to him and said he wasn't getting arbitration and gave him the offer to sign for 800k. Why wait until Dec 1 to do all that? What's it matter? I'm not even saying you're wrong and that they don't plan to have him as their 4th OFer come game 1, but the suggestion that it's super obvious, and only explanation to things seems far fetched. 800K simply isn't going to stop them from cutting him. It isn't. There is no reason to believe they won't even consider upgrading their 4th OFer spot right now beyond animus (not even saying the ill will is undeserved) for the FO. I don't like Cave. I don't want him on the roster. I'll be upset if they have such an awful offseason that he has a role on the 2022 Twins. But none of that means it's impossible, or even unrealistic, that the Twins cut him before ST even starts. Them signing him as an 800k insurance policy simply isn't the clear cut, he's on the opening day roster move you, and others, seem to be suggesting it is. There's 4 months and a new CBA between now and game 1. This (hopefully) is far from the final 40-man. That's all I'm saying.
  4. You may be correct. They may have no intention of bringing in anyone else and have no intention of even looking at other OF options on the trade or FA markets. Or maybe it's just Thanksgiving and they have 4 more months to make moves? Maybe they are like everyone else who pays attention to baseball and are quite certain there will be a lockout starting Dec 2 and they will have far less time to make moves after the lockout and before ST/the regular season so they locked someone up just so they know they have someone before the chaos ensues in case they aren't able to find an upgrade to their backup OF position. I'm not missing any forests or trees. I've said the entire time that I wouldn't have signed Cave, but him being on the roster hasn't cost them anything yet and he's far from guaranteed a spot on the opening day roster. It's a pretty reasonable stance. Suggesting there's no chance he's cut feels like a more unreasonable stance to me. I'm not saying anyone should be happy with the deal or having him still on the roster. I'm not happy with it. But the idea that a 1 year deal for less than $1 million makes him some sure thing, can't cut asset the Twins would never ever replace feels far more like just animus for the FO than an unbiased, reasonable take on the situation at the beginning of the off season.
  5. I agree I don't think he's good enough and he shouldn't have been resigned, but I'm struggling to see what opportunity costs there are right now in having him on the 40-man. To this point in the off season the only thing it's cost them is their 7th best Rule 5 eligible prospect, right? Cave on the 40-man hasn't stopped them from doing anything to this point beyond protecting whoever they had as 7th on that list. That's not nothing, but let's not make it out to be more than it is. My point is that Cave on a 1 yr 800k deal shouldn't stop the Twins from doing anything they want to do this off season. I don't get their comfort with him either, beyond him being somewhat capable in CF while most of their OFers are corner only. I don't like that they gave him the deal, and I wouldn't have done it, but I'm just saying people should pump the brakes as all it's done to this point is fill a 40-man spot that could've gone to their 7th best Rule 5 prospect. I'm a prospect lover, but even I realize if you have 7 guys capable of being picked in the Rule 5 and sticking on a ML roster you've got much bigger problems with how you're running your system. Maybe that's what people are mad about, but it's not what I'm seeing.
  6. What do you mean by "decided?" I'm generally in the same boat, but I am starting to be concerned that Falvey is quoted as saying they're still navigating their plans and figuring out what their options are and they seem to not be making a push for anyone yet. I agree Buxton is priority #1, but how long can they sit and wait on him? What if he doesn't sign until ST? Plenty of extensions don't get done until then. While he's priority #1 I don't think it's wise to sit out the offseason until he's either signed or they decide he won't sign a deal. If their plans are so drastically different based on extending him or not that they can't, or won't, make any other moves until he's dealt with then they should be sitting down with Pohlad today and Buxton tomorrow and getting it solved. Waiting on Buxton can't shutdown operations for a month. I'm not jumping ship yet on the FO, but I'm getting my floaties out.
  7. Not having made moves yet doesn't necessarily bother me, but the utter silence and apparent lack of interest in anyone is very worrisome. I've understood the vast majority of their moves over the last few years, but I'm not seeing any plan here and that's concerning. If they really are waiting for the Buxton situation to be solved before making other moves they need to be on a plane to Georgia (assuming that's where Buck is right now) and hammer it out. Either he's going to sign or he isn't. Here's our best offer, take it or leave it. Then go about your business. Don't need to trade him immediately, but they should already have multiple plans in place in case he signed and even more in place if he rejects their offer. No rumors that the Twins are in on anyone plus the quote last week on The Athletic that they're still "navigating" their plan and trying to figure out what their options are has me dipping my toes into the "Falvine must go" pool. How did they not have a handful of routes to take with a Buxton extension in place and a handful to take with him rejecting their deal? How was there not a call to his agent during the WS? Maybe there have been talks, but they need to have an idea of where they're at by now and be in the process of executing some plans. Unacceptable to still be trying to figure things out.
  8. I didn't mean you personally were overly angry or anything, sorry if it came off that way. I'm just saying there seems to be a general theme that this 1 year 800K deal is a bigger deal than I think it is. As of 11/23/21 I'd say Cave would be the 4th OFer for the Twins based on the current 40 man roster. My point is simply that it's 11/23/21 and there's a whole lot more time to sign and trade for more talent and 1 year, 800K isn't going to stop the Twins from releasing Cave and not thinking twice. If people think the Twins are now actively not going to look for upgrades because they're so enamored with Cave that's 1 thing, but signing someone they're comfortable with to a barely more than league minimum 1 year deal is no clear sign to me that he's locked into the #4 spot. To me this was an 800k insurance policy as they believe Cave is capable of manning CF as the 4th OFer while nobody else on the roster is. Had Cave been set on going to arbitration and refused to sign this deal my guess is he'd have been released, but he agreed to a minuscule (in MLB contract terms) deal with a hope and a prayer that the Twins can't upgrade and he'll make the opening day roster. To me there's no sign whatsoever that the Twins have their 4th OFer in place and aren't going to look to upgrade. Don't like Cave and definitely don't want him as the 4th OFer, but I don't see the big deal with retaining your best fielding 4th OFer just in case you miss on your other targets over the offseason. It's just an 800K insurance policy as far as I'm concerned.
  9. I'm still completely confused as to the idea of a grievance being filed by a player who gets cut. Especially an 800K player. Do you have any examples of this happening? I am just not seeing the idea that Cave is somehow uncuttable because he signed a 1 year, 800K deal. This FO has done some things I don't understand, and I don't understand giving Cave this contract to start with, but I just don't think it's cause for great concern yet. We're not even to Thanksgiving yet and people are acting like Cave has been named the starting CFer and 3 hole hitter. All I'm saying is it feels like more anger than there needs to be just yet. Free agency just started. Lets give it a month before we start freaking out.
  10. Likelihood of a grievance against an MLB team for cutting a player who's hit .203 over the last 2 seasons? I'm not following at all. My understanding of the situation is that Cave was eligible for arbitration. The team never offered him arbitration as the 2 sides came to an agreement before it was even necessary. Cave agreed to a 1 year $800,000 major league deal. My understanding is due to the current CBA that deal is not fully guaranteed until Spring Training. I don't have any idea how any of that leads to even the potential that there's a grievance filed if he's cut. That's just everyday baseball operations. And Phil Hughes was traded with the 74th pick (not super high, but not nothing) to get rid of almost $7 million, not 800K. I don't see the connection there at all. This ownership group and FO release players making more than 800k all the time. They signed Addison Reed for 2 years and 16.75M before releasing him and eating more than 6 million. I'm not seeing any reason why they wouldn't be willing to release Cave if they find someone they feel is a better fit for the org in 2022 and beyond.
  11. As others have mentioned, Cave's contract is not yet fully guaranteed. Does that mean they don't fully intend to have him on the team come Spring Training and Game 1 of 162? No. But it's important to get the details right and his deal isn't guaranteed. I'd think that makes it even easier for the FO to cut him loose if/when they find an upgrade.
  12. My understanding is there's nothing left with arbitration anymore. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. My understanding is they signed him to a 1 year major league deal for 800K (that isn't fully guaranteed until ST). So not sure why we wouldn't see him as any other fringe roster guy on a 1 year deal that could be cut at any time. There's 40 guys on the 40 man right now. I don't think even the angriest of Twins fans think these are the 40 guys they're going into 2022 with. Not sure why Cave on an 800K deal should be seen as less likely to be cut than any other position player right now.
  13. Feels like much ado about nothing with Cave. He's easily cuttable. They didn't give him 10M or something. I don't like him and have no problem with people preferring they had just released him, but lets not make this out to be more than it is. Less than $1M to a 4th outfielder they'll cut immediately if/when they find a better option. Now on to the other players being thrown around as preferable over Cave. Yes, Castellanos and Canha are far better options, but, again, Cave signed for 800K, those 2 are getting way, way, way more than that. They're not the same type of signing. It's like saying "why did we extend Kepler? I would've signed Bryce Harper over Kepler." Yes, Bryce is far better, but they're not comparable signings. Clint Frazier can't play CF. We need to stop that talk right now. I don't like Cave in center, but Frazier is a Rooker-esque corner outfielder. As in one of the worst defenders in all of baseball. In fact, Rooker may be the best comp for Frazier there is on the Twins right now. Better contact skills, but he's a power corner bat who's a negative asset in the field. I wouldn't be upset with bringing him in, or even him replacing Cave, but lets not make him out to be what he isn't. He's a terrible fielder. I'd take him over Cave because I'd use Gordon in CF before I'd use Cave. But I'd never use Frazier there. But let's pump the brakes on the Cave rage. He's my least favorite Twin right now, and I don't think he plays a role on a contending team, but it's not even Thanksgiving yet, and he's on an incredibly releasable 1 year contract.
  14. Interesting to see them add so many arms. Not super shocking, and they're all guys I think are worthy of protecting, but it makes me think signing multiple FA arms is likely not in the plans. There's still a couple guys they could move on from if they find multiple guys they want to bring in, but my first thought is that they're going to turn the pitching over to more young guys than many would probably like. Or look to make trades that would have them moving guys on the 40 man.
  15. I saw a couple that were definitely drawing the line between tanking for draft picks and tanking in general, but there were also some comments that pretty clearly, to me at least, were stating they didn't think there were any teams attempting to lose on purpose (how I'd define tanking). They pointed to lost revenue as the reason no team would tank. To me that reads as they don't see teams attempting to lose on purpose (whether for picks or rebuilding or however you want to define things) because the owner would lose money, and I disagree with that. They cut payroll so they don't lose money while they tank. So I agree that tanking simply for a higher pick isn't really done, but rewording it as "rebuilding" is the same thing to me. Teams don't tank for a higher pick alone, but they do for more prospects, more pool money, and numerous other reasons. To me it doesn't matter if it's for a better pick or not, a front office actively refusing to field a competitive team is bad for the sport. No matter what the sport is. But it's done in all of them because it allows owners to save money while their FO takes advantage of rules meant to fix other problems that open ways to improve by being bad.
×
×
  • Create New...