Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,606

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    169

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by chpettit19

  1. chpettit19
    Eh, a bit of semantics to me. Of course teams want to pay as little as they can for WAR, but, as bean pointed out, WAR generally costs $8m on the free agent market when all is said and done. Maybe I worded it wrong, but that's really the point. Teams would love to spend less than 6M for 1 WAR if they can, and it's generally the idea behind "smart signings" whether it's buying out FA years or signing free agents. Teams are always looking to get the most WAR for their bucks. MLB teams are most certainly aware of these numbers as well. The smart ones are baking in some WAR cushion and are expecting the free agent signees to perform at the 1 WAR for $8M threshold even if they signed them at the 1 WAR for 6M mark. I'd be surprised if those skeptical of analytics change their tune over 6M per WAR vs 8M per WAR. If you don't like WAR to start it doesn't really matter what monetary value you put on it. Maybe if we broke it down by dollar per BA/HR/RBI total they'd be on board? Whether you want to say he's worth 24 or 32 doesn't matter all that much to me. Like you said, paying him 15 a year is still a great deal.
  2. chpettit19
    Buxton has 4 WAR this year (both fangraphs and baseball reference have him at exactly 4). I'll assume he doesn't accumulate anymore. On the free agent market teams look to buy 1 WAR for $8 million. That means he's been worth $32 million this season. That means he's already been worth this year's $9 mil, next year's $15 mil, and over half of 2024's $15 mil. Him and his injuries are certainly incredibly frustrating. His Ks are frustrating. His lack of steals (likely cuz of his injuries) are frustrating. But that deal is still fantastic for the Twins. $15 million a year is not hamstringing them in any way. 75 to 100 games a year out of Buxton means he more than earns that deal. As frustrating as it'd be to only get that out of him, it's still a great deal for the Twins. A team serious about contending doesn't let a player with Buxton's skill level sign somewhere else. The team did do all the analytics and then threw a party when they signed him to a deal worth only $15 million a year.
  3. chpettit19
    I'm to the point that I don't have any idea how injuries are managed. Like who is in charge of IL decisions? They have guys sit the full allotment of days they can before retroactively putting them on the IL (I think it's 4 days, but could be totally wrong). That means they play all of those days short handed with a completely wasted roster spot. Then their guys are slow to come back and 10/15 day IL stints that should last 4-6 weeks turn into 60 day IL stints that last 10+ weeks. I think it's pretty obvious the FO has a large hand in game strategy and player usage, and it's why I don't think Rocco gets fired. He's in lockstep with them and their strategies. I'm starting to wonder how much of a role they play in the injury prevention and treatment department. Do they hire conservative medical teams that agree with a preconceived idea that rest, off days, and long IL stints are the smart thing to do? Have they just hired incompetent medical teams that can't diagnose or treat injuries? Really my question is what role the FO plays in everything involved with injury prevention and treatment. If it's more than simply asking Drs for their suggestions I think it's a major problem. Either way they need to re-evaluate everything when it comes to injuries moving forward into 2023 and beyond.
  4. chpettit19
    Limiting innings and pitches hasn't done a great job of winning games or keeping guys healthy the last couple seasons. Joe Ryan is far from a max effort guy. The fact he doesn't throw 100 pitches often is self-inflicted by the organization. I'm not suggesting there should be no pitch or inning limits, but if they didn't limit his pitches as often then 106 to 130 pitches in 1 game wouldn't be such a concern. Ignoring the human aspect of things also isn't a great strategy for winning games. Frustrating your entire starting staff isn't a great strategy for winning games. These are still hypercompetitive professional athletes who want to compete. They clearly didn't sell Ryan on pulling him Tuesday. He was visibly upset with the decision. You don't think his fellow starters, and likely entire team, didn't also want to see him keep going? I'd guess some of them accept the reasoning and it's whatever, but I'd guess there's more than a couple who get more and more frustrated as the team is managed in a certain way. And I'm not one who calls for Rocco's head or to ignore analytics or anything, but there has to be a balance. If 1 game was ruining careers left and right it'd be pretty obvious and nobody would ever go over 110 pitches, or whatever the cutoff is. It's simply not the case. Especially for a non-max effort guy like Ryan. Stepping on the field for any amount of time in any game is risking injury. You "risk having any kind of injury for a no-hitter" because it's what kids dream of. It's what fans come out to see. It's what Ryan puts the jersey on for. It's greatness. Even for a night. The search of finding that groove and being the best player on a field full of professional athletes even for a night is what they do it for. Taming that isn't a good strategy for winning games. At all.
  5. chpettit19
    Well the pitcher actually throwing that perfect game disagrees with you. There was not the slightest hint in anything he said after the game that suggested he thought he should stay in. So not sure what to tell you.
  6. chpettit19
    There was a reason Terry Francona was fired by the Phillies... what made the Red Sox think he'd be capable of being a competent manager? There was a reason Terry Francona was fired by the Red Sox (technically they just didn't pick up his option)...what made the Guardians think he was capable of being a competent manager?
  7. chpettit19
    I don't want Roberts, but that Kershaw game was the first week of the season after a shortened spring training with a guy who hasn't held up in recent years who they wanted to be around for the whole season, and, more importantly, the postseason. They're very different situations. So it computes pretty easily.
  8. chpettit19
    Funny thing is that Cash and Roberts would be just as hated here as Rocco since they manage just as strictly by spreadsheets as Rocco does. People poopoo the 2019 season because of "the Bomba Squad" and all those homeruns "make it easy to manage" while ignoring that they also had a top 10 pitching staff that year that Rocco apparently didn't ruin single handedly. Yet Roberts gets credit for managing successful teams full of All Stars and MVPs. I don't think Roberts is any better than Rocco. And the Rays are the leaders in managing by "the plan" so I hope fans who don't like Rocco don't want Cash here. Francona is a better mix of following the analytics and in-game feel. But it's just as easy to manage a pitching staff full of stars as it is to manage a lineup like the Bomba Squad. He hasn't turned the Guardians into offensive juggernauts with some sort of magical managerial potion. Managers just can't turn bad baseball players into good ones.
  9. chpettit19
    I expect Rocco to be back in 2023. I don't think he's THE problem, but I do think he's PART of the problem. Pulling Ryan last night was super frustrating to me, and I'd like to see Rocco replaced with someone who would have let the kid try for a likely once in a lifetime opportunity. The problem is that this FO wouldn't replace Rocco with anyone that isn't awfully similar to them and Rocco. So it's a bit of a catch 22. I want Rocco replaced, but his replacement likely wouldn't be much different at all in terms of in game strategy. So why replace him at all? Unless he's lost the clubhouse. I don't mind the FO. I think they're generally good at drafting/acquiring and developing (outside of front end starting pitching, sadly), and have been willing to make some bigger FA splashes like Donaldson and Correa (even if he fell into their laps, I don't think Terry Ryan would've even considered him). The Maeda, Gray, and Mahle trades were good (quit saying Mahle has an injury history unless you were also saying they shouldn't trade for Montas at the deadline, too, because he had missed time with a shoulder injury at almost the exact same time Mahle did, and he's still pitching for NY). But they're far too stubborn. They have their plans and clearly won't waiver from them. They're slow to react to changes in the FA market or performance outside their expected by the Twins team itself (DFA Pagan!). And that's where I'd like to see Rocco replaced with someone who'd push back and demand some in season changes. The problem is that the guys hiring the new manager likely don't want someone who will push back and thus it's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic unless they're going to be willing to be more flexible with the new guy. TLDR: Expect Rocco back, replacing him wouldn't change much cuz FO will just hire Rocco 2.0.
  10. chpettit19
    As many as it took.
  11. chpettit19
    Well now I have to jump on the fire Rocco train. This is a horrible decision. Give that kid a chance to do something that could be a once in a lifetime opportunity. Rocco broke me with this one. Have Moran ready, but let Ryan go out for the 8th.
  12. chpettit19
    Martin is certainly an interesting infield guy, but I don't know that they need to make a decision on him beyond whether or not he can even play at this point. To me, he's not someone to worry about until he's succeeding at AA (and I think he's likely an OF/Utility guy). Schobel was just drafted a few months ago. Not sure what decisions should be made on him after 32 minor league games. Noah Miller is years away in A ball. And Palacios seems to have established himself as a AAAA type player with a solid glove and not much hit. I don't know what decisions the team really has to make on those 4 particular players. Palacios holding down a 40 man spot is about the only one I can think of. I think there's a chance there's a bit of a logjam if Lewis and Lee are both ready within the next year, but I don't see too much of a problem. The 4 you named haven't shown they are worthy of the Twins making room for them and they really don't have much, if any, trade value at this point.
  13. chpettit19
    Which infield prospects are you referring to? They traded away multiple infield prospects at the deadline. Lewis and Lee are really the only ones they have left that are big time prospects. They may also need a Polanco replacement relatively soon if this season was a sign of declining skill and not injury.
  14. chpettit19
    I do. I'm saying that fans call for a return to those Ryan days and point at him as a success and they just wish the Twins would bring someone like him back so they can be "good again" when the current regime isn't doing any worse than he did. I don't care if they fire this FO. I don't think they should, but wouldn't be upset if they did. These guys already at least ushered them into the 21st century so whoever would replace them wouldn't have to completely rebuild the development systems and bring in actual 21st century strategies like Falvey and Levine had to do.
  15. chpettit19
    He maybe didn't have hype coming in, but he very much had hype during the early 2000s despite having a losing record for his first 7 seasons. Falvey also took over during a very low time in Twins history. "Total system failure" was the way the previous season was described. That's not exactly easy times. Nostalgia is very likely a large part of it. People remembering those early 2000s teams happily and enjoying the way those teams played. Fans want those days back despite those teams also completely failing in the playoffs. Were just more enjoyable teams to watch with a fun core. I have no problem with anyone of any age wanting things to be different, I'm just trying to keep some perspective when we're talking about the current regime. Most calls are for a return to an idealized past that never really existed. As time has gone on Ryan is remembered for these great teams despite never really overseeing a great team, and overseeing more bad ones than good ones. 7 teams over .500 in 18 seasons. This regime is taking over from "total system failure" and some people want them out after 6 years despite it taking 8 for Ryan to really get going. The fans calling for Falvey's head very well may have also been calling for Ryan's back in the 90s, I don't know. I wouldn't even be that upset if they were removed. I think they updated the development systems and that's a contribution that shouldn't be discounted, but is also something that a new regime could keep in place. Or maybe it's just a little shakeup needed and Levine needs to go, but Falvey stays. Or they need a new manager who will push back on their ideas more. I don't know. I think a lot of the pushback on them is more about a certain segment of the fans not liking the changes that have taken place in MLB in general. Bunting, 3 true outcomes, short starts, etc. are general baseball problems, not just Twins problems. Falvey, Levine, and Rocco have earned some fan ire for sure. Maybe they should be fired. I just want people to keep perspective on some things. Ryan wasn't a great GM, and the Twins style of play is pretty standard for 2022 MLB. Derek Falvey, for what it's worth, has also taken the time to chat with me on multiple occasions, and I've never heard about him not being kind to people.
  16. chpettit19
    And I told you I don't have that because I'm not a baseball prospectus subscriber, and there's no reason for Gleeman to post entire data sets in his articles. What reason do you have to not believe baseball prospectus? Either you think Gleeman is lying about what baseball prospectus' chart said, or you think baseball prospectus is using some sort of bad data that would artificially boost the Twins numbers. Do you have a reason not to trust the BP WAR calculations beyond you just not agreeing that the Twins should be 2nd on that list?
  17. chpettit19
    Again, if the shoulder issue is not structural then I extend him. Not structural would imply that no surgery is needed. I'm not a doctor and haven't seen his medical records so I don't know the extent of his shoulder problem.
  18. chpettit19
    18 years in and Twins fans were ready to give up on him? Wow, impressive. He didn't have a team reach .500 until his 8th season in charge. Had teams over .500 in 7 of 18 seasons in charge. And is still revered as a great GM and there are still fans on these very threads that ask for a return to a Ryan type GM so we can get back to being a good baseball team. I'm sorry for the hyperbole as I know you'd never stoop to such things. Just pointing out the very different response the Ryan regime gets compared to the Falvey one despite there being very little difference beyond the word "analytics" being used much more with Falvey. Ryan's teams bunted more while they lost so a large number of fans want his teams back. Just pointing out that what some fans find to be a "fine job" and what will "doom us to mediocrity" is lacking in some logic.
  19. chpettit19
    Yes. Based on the FO and how they seem to do things, I don't know if he's an extension candidate to them based on contract demands, but I'd try to extend him assuming the shoulder issue isn't something structural. And at this point it's hard to trust the team medical people on that. But he's hit the IL twice in 6 MLB seasons so I don't think the injury concern is too high. And I think he's a solid #2, great #3 if your rotation is really good. So I'd extend him.
  20. chpettit19
    He literally quoted Baseball Prospectus' data. I don't understand what you're asking for. He went on Baseball Prospectus and looked up their list of WAR lost due to injury. Filtered it by the highest WAR to the lowest. The 2nd name on that list was the Minnesota Twins. I don't get why you think he needs to put the chart itself in his article. His articles would get awfully long if he put every chart he used in it. I don't get how you can suggest literally quoting the site is him not providing the data. He didn't make up the stat and put Baseball Prospectus' name on it.
  21. chpettit19
    No. He unquestionably has a reputation for dragging the low budget Twins to prominence by being an innovator and finding market inefficiencies to make a winner out of nothing. When the reality is his teams won 6 playoff games in 18 seasons. He is held in very high regard despite never really accomplishing anything.
  22. chpettit19
    Wasn't dragging you into a 6 vs 4 games thing. I literally used 1 and 10. I even provided what the Twins records would be with 10 or 1 more win. My apologies for making you have a real opinion on it instead of the vague "the record would be better."
  23. chpettit19
    Terry Ryan won 6 playoff games in 18 seasons and he's treated like the greatest GM in the history of sports around these parts.
  24. chpettit19
    1 game? 10 games? That matters if you're going to suggest managers really matter. 1 game out of 162 is "eyewash." If you're going to argue managers matter you can't just wave those of us who think they have minimal impact away with "they'd have a better record" and not suggest how much better it'd be. 1 game over 162 games means managers really don't have much of an impact at all. 20 games would be a significant impact. So do you think Francona would have the Twins at 79-60 or 70-69?
  25. chpettit19
    While I'm generally on board with these thoughts, Mahle is 27 and Paddack is 26, so not exactly old. Certainly have their own very real injury concerns (although I think the Mahle stuff is blown out of proportion. Plenty of people on these boards wanted them to get Montas but he'd also just missed time with a shoulder issue), but they aren't old. So there should be real hope for Mahle since he hadn't had any other injury problems other than a hamstring back in 2019. Paddack is a wild card coming back from TJ 2.
×
×
  • Create New...