chpettit19

He should remind you of Tony Gwynn, not Lenny Green. You just keep proving more and more that your eyes are entirely unreliable. Lenny Green hit over .290 1 time his entire career and was a career .267 hitter. In 913 career PAs Arraez is a .312 hitter. Gwynn and Arraez both started their major league careers at the age of 22. Now Arraez isn't quite done with his age 24 season, but close enough. And Lenny Green started at age 24 so this is his age 24-26 seasons. Arraez: .312/.375/.404/.779 6 HRs, 78 RBI, 84 BBs, 83 Ks, 4 SBs Green: .237/.302/.317/.619 4 HRs, 26 RBI, 31 BBs, 32 Ks, 9 SBs Gwynn: .329/.382/.415/.797 7 HRs, 125 RBI, 96 BBs, 60 Ks, 48 SBs One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Gwynn obviously had drastically more speed early in his career, but when comparing their hitting skills who does Arraez look more like? Was Gwynn greatly overrated? Again, you're more than welcome to dislike Arraez, but your reasoning (beyond being a bad fielder) is totally and completely inaccurate. He's 14% better than the average hitter even without hitting HRs according to OPS+. wRC+ he's 13% better. He's an above average hitter whether you like how he does it or not. Sorry for using my nerd numbers, but everywhere you turn they're proving your eyes wrong. And in the case of the Lenny Green comparison, drastically wrong.

Ah, yes. The old "I was proven wrong on my original argument so I will change it to something completely different" maneuver. It's a classic. I said you're entitled to feel Arraez is overrated. You original argument of him striking out looking in big spots too often was completely absurd, but an argument that he isn't a good defender is absolutely correct. You should've started with that one. Oh, and I also appreciate you using those "math nerd numbers." Makes me feel right at home.

You're proving my point. Name 2 then. Your memory is no competition for the stats. You've picked a position that is entirely impossible to defend. Your stance is wrong and it's provable. "I feel like" is not a defense against "the physical proof shows." Your opinions aren't a defense against my facts. It's patently absurd to suggest Arraez strikes out too much no matter what variables you want to try to attach to the situation. There's no argument you can make to truly defend your stance beyond "this is how I feel." You're certainly entitled to not like Arraez, not like the type of player he is, feel he's overrated, wish the Twins would trade him, be upset about an instance (or 2) where he was caught looking in a big spot, or anything else along those lines. But when someone is one of the 5 best people on the planet at something you can't say they are bad at that thing. It's simply ridiculous.

Name 5 times that he watched a 3rd strike go by "when the at bat really counts." This is exactly why front offices all around the league use the numbers and not just their memory for things like this. Arraez has struck out 43 total times this entire season and you're on here acting like he's watching 3rd strikes go by constantly. Your brain locks in on the moments that created the most emotional reaction for you and that appears to be a called 3rd strike or 2 against Arraez and you've decided one of the 5 hardest guys in baseball to strikeout is striking out too much looking in clutch situations. It's absurd.

You "going by what you see" and not "some math nerd numbers" is exactly why we have the "math nerd numbers." When your assessment is that Arraez "too often watches a third strike go by" and he is in the 99th percentile for K% in all of MLB you are literally proving the point that just going by your biased eyes is an awful strategy. You're complaining that a guy who strikes out less than all but 3 guys in baseball let's too many third strikes go by (Arraez strikes out in 10.2% of his ABs, Brantley 10.1, Fletcher 9.2, and Newman 7.3 are the only guys better in all of baseball. Sorry for being so nerdy). That's your complaint right now.

Why would the Twins trade anyone to bring in a lesser version of Polanco instead of just moving Polanco back to short? Strong no. I'm not a huge Kepler fan, but trading him for Torres worsens the Twins defensively without adding anything to the offense. Don't see the fit at all. He hit 13 of his 38 HRs in 2019 off Orioles pitching. He's hit 10 HRs in 152 games over the last 2 years. So I guess I'll change my stance to not only does Kepler for Torres hurt the defense it hurts the offense. Kepler is who he is, but I'll take who he is over the outside chance Torres is a 30 HR/year guy who will suddenly figure out how to play SS. Torres has negative trade value.

That 117 is what their payroll is after dumping money at the trade deadline of a lost season. All of those numbers are based on current rosters, not the start of year payroll numbers. The Twins started the season at a higher mark. But that's not the point. The point is the first comment of mine you responded to had me literally saying I think they could reasonably be in the 150-160 range. All the percentages I presented were based on a 160 Mil payroll (almost 50 mil more than the disingenuous number you presented here). What is even more disingenuous is you then stating that the "payroll is what you set it," which seems to be a pretty straight forward disagreement with my numbers. If it wasn't then I'm not sure why you'd choose my comment to respond to. It seems more that you simply felt like complaining about the Twins payroll and chose my comment to base your complaint off then call me disingenuous for already having used the general payroll range you wanted. You're not arguing against anything I've said you simply tried to piggyback off my comment to complain about the Twins payroll numbers, provided disingenuous numbers, ignored me twice using the payroll range you wanted, and that, to me, is exactly what I was talking about in saying that those complaints are tired. If you want to have a discussion on payroll sizes I'm more than happy to, but you better bring TV deal amounts, ticket, concession, parking amounts, revenue sharing amounts, sponsorship amounts, and a whole lot more beyond "hey Atlanta is currently 12th and the Padres are 8th so the Twins should be in there simply because these 2 random teams are at these places." Not to mention that Atlanta is only going to make the playoffs cuz the rest of their division is trash, and the Padres aren't going to make it at all. Guess those higher paid players aren't guaranteed to win more games. Who would've thought?

Yes. And in the real world it's based on real numbers and 150-160 million seems reasonable. If your expectations are the Pohlads spending Dodger type money on payroll and lose 10s, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars a year you should probably find a new team to cheer for. "There's no cap so they could/should spend more" is a tired, nonsensical, and unrealistic argument.

The premise of this post/article/whatever-you-call-it is that Joe Ryan's scouting reports were wrong about how good 2 of his pitches were. The author states that the scouting reports are wrong and he's basing it on 34 combined changeup and curveballs between 2 starts. For that matter he's only thrown 25 sliders. Suggesting that dozens of people who scout pitchers for a living have misjudged the hundreds of curves and changes they've seen him throw because his first 34 in the majors went well is absurd. Click-bate headline without any real substance. But has produced some solid conversation on Ryan and potential. If Ryan is going to be as good as some people think the Twins should be in great shape pitching wise if 1/3 of their other prospects hit their ceilings. Brighter days on the horizon?

Can the Twins afford to pay an "ace?" Yes. Any team can. The question is what can they surround them with. According to the contract numbers in the original post the average "ace" FA contract from each year is 27, 26.5, 26.5, 27, 27, 28, 28, 26.6, 25.4 29.75, 30, 30, 31.5, 31.5. The average annual money for all the "ace" deals is 27.75 per year (I didn't include the 2M per year deferrals for Scherzer as that isn't a typical deal and isn't what anyone is actually talking about when they talk about signing players to these deals). I think 150-160 is a reasonable enough payroll target for the Twins. We'll go with the top end 160. Having 1 of those guys takes up 17% of your payroll. Having 2 of them takes up 35%. Having 1 would leave you with about 130 million to spend and having 2 would leave you with about 105 left to spend on the rest of the team. The question isn't whether or not they can afford any of these guys, or even whether those guys are worth their money. The question is can you build a world series contending team (or division winning, or whatever your goal is) with 1 "ace" and 130M or 2 "aces" and 105M. There's 24 or 25 other spots to fill. Don't have time to run the numbers right now, but that's the discussion that should be happening. I think the answer to all of these questions is always that you have to develop minor leaguers. Whether you draft them, trade for them, sign them internationally, pick them out of Ubers, or whatever. You need to develop your own talent and have them be good from almost the jump to be competitive. Even the Yankees and Dodgers do. Walker Buehler being an "ace" on a pre-arb deal allows them to do so much more with their already significant financial advantage. Add in Seager, Smith, and Bellinger on pre-arb or arb deals and it's outrageous. The Rays and As compete because they have young guys who contribute more than their contracts say they should. Too much discussion is based around free agent signings. Free agents are the compliments to your young core, not the other way around. So, yes, the Twins can afford those big deals, but it doesn't mean anything if their cheap guys are garbage. Just ask the teams we ran out there with a cy young award winner, 2 MVPs, an elite reliever, and a young stud #2 arm that also couldn't win in the playoffs.

If I'm remembering correctly Simeon Woods Richardson was also struggling with walks for the first time in his career in Toronto's system early this year. Would be interesting to look at walk, and injury, rates amongst minor league pitchers this year. I feel like somebody around here could find some data.

Oh there's definitely pros and cons to their strategy. I think it makes sense to avoid signing guys for more than they're worth. I mean the Padres would love to have Eric Hosmer and his 20M a year off their books. So it helps them avoid those bad deals that weigh them down. But you also miss out on the players you identify as having the best chance to succeed because you won't go higher than a certain price. It all falls apart when 100% (Cruz was technically a free agent, but he was returning) of your signings fail. My guess is they break free agents into tiers and say "these guys are worth up $X" and "these guys are worth $Y." Then they want to bring in a certain number of guys from each tier and they engage with agents. They pursue their preferred guy until the price gets above X or Y then move to the next guy in that tier. It's a logical approach, but certainly has some holes. And when you miss like they did this offseason there definitely needs to be some reflection on what lead them to their decisions. Good news is they can't be any worse than missing on everyone!

I don't know that their strategy is signing FA late as much as it's not going over what they have decided a player is worth. They're "in" on plenty of players early, but they set hard lines on contracts and won't go above what they feel the player is worth. That can push them out of some negotiations and leave them to only getting guys later when the player's market has come back down. Think it's a solid strategy in many cases, but not all. The SS market this winter will be interesting to watch as there's a chance somebody will have that same sort of strategy and end up with an all-star SS for much less than expected.

That BA video is 2 years old. So BA would have him being 16 right now as well.

Duran feels like a reliever to me. A potentially really good one who throws 100 with a secondary pitch ("Splinker") that some people rate as a 70. If he comes back this year I throw him in the St Paul bullpen for a few outings and let him go a couple innings at a time. Bring him back next year with a shot to carve out a spot in the Twins bullpen or put him in St Paul's bullpen and follow the approach the OP is suggesting. I don't know that I'd really be banking on him being a starter ever, but I'd be looking to turn him into my Hader type fireman who can throw a couple innings sometimes or just come in and K the side. (I actually think Joe Ryan ends up in that kind of role, too, but that'd be real nice to have multiple shutdown guys in the pen)

If I'm the Twins ownership/FO I negotiate with Buxton until the new CBA has been finalized and I know next season is happening. If it's clear that we're not going to get a deal done then I look to move him for a package that's better than whatever the QO "reward" is. If it stays the current comp pick situation I need a first round pick type talent plus another prospect. If I don't get that I play out next year with Buxton knowing I finally have someone who can backup CF defensively in Lewis who will get his shot next year at some point. If Buxton stays healthy all year and is an MVP candidate I extend a QO and let him see if he can get the money he thinks he can. If he accepts the QO then I have to decide if I want to play with him on the 1 year deal or move him for prospects. If he's coming off a season of MVP type play in 150 games I'd think you can get a pretty decent return for him during the offseason from a team who wants him for a full season. Not having a legit CF backup for the last handful of years has been a huge mistake. I think moving forward they're finally in a position to better survive losing Buxton to injury for different stretches with Lewis, and maybe Martin, able to cover CF. Buxton on 7/80 plus incentives with a league minimum player able to step in if he goes down is a nice situation to be in, and I'd be willing to give Buxton year to year incentives (no vesting clauses that would guarantee future money) up to 30-35M based on games played. I think his glove alone is worth 15M a year and even league average offense from him makes him worth 25+.

Fair enough, I can appreciate that. I was just agreeing with the general point and not specific players.

Not sure why you'd tag me in this. I haven't said anything about Kintzler, or any specific player outside of Reed. All I've said is that Reed types are added and cut multiple times a year and this is a clickbait article.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/#month=8&year=2021 Trying to get some people to understand that this is what the MLB transaction tracker looks like is difficult. Literally every major league team loses multiple players to the waiver wire every single season. Some of them turn out to be something, most of them don't. If somebody wants to make the claim that any team's front office is bad and should lose their jobs they need to go through that list and track every transaction by every team and see which teams actually perform better or worst. Picking out 1 random guy and saying "see, Falvine sucks!" is completely useless and can literally be done for every single team. When you track 1 team you're aware of their failures while not being aware of the struggles other teams have. It's why articles like this are nothing but clickbait. No context and are just here to stoke emotions, not critical thought.

You could write this exact story for a dozen guys from every organization. This is nothing. The question shouldn't even be "did the Twins miss something," it should be "did the Twins, Angels, Dodgers, and Rays miss something." This is the life of fringe MLB players. Sometimes one will hit down the line somewhere, but there are dozens of guys a year who get DFA'd, claimed, DFA'd, claimed, DFA'd, claimed, and on and on until every team who wanted to see him for themselves has done their claiming. This is just click-bait chum in the water for fans already angry with the Twins FO this year.

Agreed there's no way Martin gets called up this year. No reason at all to take a 40-man spot for a September call up. But I'd be shocked if he isn't in Minneapolis before September next year. I'd argue he could hold his own in the majors right now with his approach and ability to get the barrel to the ball so it'd be really disappointed if he put up a huge minor league season next year and they didn't call him up midseason. Have to assume there'll be injuries and I think he'll show he's ready to hit for average and get on base and they'll go to him midseason. Or maybe post trade deadline if they move Sano or someone. But certainly no reason to add him to the 40-man mess now. Wait til next year.

I haven't viewed Buxton as a prospect for years. I viewed him as an incredibly talented player who was drastically underperforming his skills while changing his swing, drastically, multiple times mid-season. He then went back to square 1, simplified his swing, got real aggressive hunting fastballs, and started hitting the way basically everyone thought he would. Josh Donaldson didn't figure his hitting out until he overhauled his swing before his age 27 season and became a perennial MVP candidate. Nelson Cruz didn't figure it out until he was 28. Jose Bautista was 29. Max Muncy was 27. Justin Turner 29. The list goes on and on. And none of those guys had anywhere near the natural abilities Buxton does. You're more than welcome to view Buxton however you choose to, but to suggest that him being 25 before he figured it out means he's not actually a good hitter and is the 90-95 OPS+ guy he was his first few years seems overly negative. And, by the way, he got MVP votes with a 93 OPS+ in 140 games in 2017 because he does so many things on the field. And as for his infield hits falling off because he's going to get slow, again, he's 27 years old, not 35. And there's no reason to believe he's suddenly going to stop being fast. He comes into camp in shape every year and clearly puts in the work to keep his body in top shape. Him going from the 100th percentile in sprint speed to the 95th percentile (he's in the 99th percentile this year) in sprint speed takes almost nothing away from his production. You're talking the loss of a handful infield hits per season starting 4 years down the road. So from the age of 31-34/35 he'll be still OPSing higher than league average while still providing gold glove defense in CF. I just don't understand any part of your stance. At basically 11M/year base there is just very little downside to signing him to an extension.

Agree to disagree on what? Literally everyone actually involved and with direct knowledge of the situation says 7/80 is/was agreed upon. Your argument is that they're all wrong (or lying) and you know better. So, sure, agree to disagree.

Well both him and his agent have publicly stated that they agreed to a base of 7 years and $80M, but they couldn't come together with the team on the incentives so I think I'll stick with him being good with the 7/80 and wanting more incentives.

Since 2015 Buxton has a a 3.6% weak contact rate and 28% topped ball rate. Mike Trout is at 3.6% and 22.4%. League average is 3.7% and 33.3%. He's under league average for both. Since 2019 his weak contact percent's have been 2.4, 2.1, and 2.6. Well below league average. His topped ball %s have been 23.8, 25, and 38.5. 2 years of basically 10 points below average and this year above. Yes, his speed does give him a great advantage over other players in beating out infield hits, but you're making it sound like he's a slap hitter or something. I think you just have a very different view of Buxton than I do and what his recent stats have shown him to be. He has 10 homeruns in 27 games this year and you think he's a 20-25 homer guy in a full season. You're suggesting he would have gone from 10 in 27 games to 10-15 in the next 130 games. So from a 60 homer pace (he wasn't going to hit 60 hrs this year) to a 19 homer pace. You think his recent production is more than 3x better than who he really is. That's one heck of a hot streak for any player. Especially bold stance considering this is the type of player everyone thought he would be for years.