Cap'n Piranha

Blue Fuzz Paw?

Color me concerned when it comes to this offense--17th in wRC+, 22nd in OBP, 7th worst in k-rate, 19th in bb rate, 11th worst in soft contact, 4th worst in going oppo, 3rd worst in called/swinging strike rate, 3rd worst in contact rate. There will be days like Sunday when it clicks, and the Twins will look like world-beaters. But too often the Twins are going to fail to make contact, not get on base, hit harmless grounders/flyouts, and go down meekly, like they did the last two days.

I don't think I would characterize a .335 OBP as "strong", seeing as how the league average for AAA East was .332. For a guy playing in the same position group as Buxton, Kepler, Celestino, Larnach, Kiriloff, and potentially Lewis and Martin, I'm not super convinced he ever gets more than some bench duty when someone else is hurt.

Agree, banning the shift won't actually result in more interesting baseball (unless your idea of exciting baseball is weak grounders dribbling 20 ft into the outfield), as lefties will continue to sell out for loft and power--there's even less disincentive to do that if the shift is banned. Further, banning the shift might not actually ban the shift. Teams might still play the 1B and 3B where they currently do with the shift legal, and have the 2B and SS motion into traditional shift positions as soon as the pitcher starts his windup--if the SS is positioned literally 1 inch to the left of second base, and the 2B is literally one inch off the outfield grass, they would still be "banned shift compliant". If MLB truly wants more baserunners, and more action on the bases, the only way that happens is if the HR is devalued--I would propose one of the three ways below; Each team has a max number of out-of-the-park HRs they can hit, whether in a game or in a season. After that, out-of-the-park HRs are outs. The number of runs scored on an out-of-the-park HR is always 1, but all bases are emptied all the same--that is, if the bases are loaded, and an out-of-the-park HR is hit, only one run is scored, and all runners are taken away. Every out-of-the-park HR creates the same number of outs as runs scored. This means that all grandslams and 3R HRs always end the half inning, 2R HRs end the inning unless there are no outs, and solo HRs create one out.

Berrios did indeed sign an extension. With Toronto. Perhaps that is not a salient detail. Or maybe it is the only salient detail; speculate all you want.

This suggests that you think Berrios' agent did not act in a way Berrios desired. I find that hard to believe.

Next time you're going to write something this long and detailed, let me know beforehand.

And you are basing this feeling on....what, exactly?

Almost twice as many people in the metro area, and a better climate. If Berrios wanted to live in a city, there really isn't a comparison between Toronto and MSP. Also, as the only remaining team in CA, TOR might provide some more endorsement opportunities as well. It makes no sense to say Buxton would have been traded if Falvine had their way--they are running the team, and it is therefore their way. Being wary of overspending on an oft-injured player about to turn 28 who was potentially having an outlier year while staring a potential rebuild in the face is hardly an unreasonable position to take.

The MLBPA could have easily gotten a salary floor had they wanted it, so long as they also agreed to a hard salary cap. They didn't, so they didn't.

I read it as if the player submits pre-draft physicals, you do indeed have to offer him a contract, and it has to be for at least 75% of the slot value--this is under the assumption that if you have a player's physicals, and still draft him, you can't then back out by claiming his physicals aren't good. If I'm right, this opens a potentially nasty can of worms (although the frequency of if happening would probably be pretty low), which is what happens if something non-physical related happens after the pick is made, but the contract is offered? Say a player is accused of a crime the day after the draft, for example; does the team still have to offer him a contract?

I mean, to be fair, a Miguel Cabrera comes along once every, what...10 to 15 years? No 16 year old should ever have that expectation put on him. Cabrera is Top 30 all time in HR, RBI (meaning he's been good for a long time--he'll definitely be top 30 in hits soone enough too), and top 60 in SLG, WAR, wRC+, and OPS. He's one of the handful of best hitters ever, and a surefire first-ballot HOF, with close to a unanimous vote. If that is the expectation for a 16 year old, the problem is not the kid, it's the expectation.

Here's a comparison between two players, both at AAA. Player 1 turned 22 before the season started, player 2 turned 23 halfway through the season. Player 1--49 games, 211 PA, .290/.384/.443/.827, 11.3% bb rate, 20.4% k rate. Player 2--80 games, 373 PA, .343/.397/.563/.960, 6.7% bb rate, 13.1% k rate. Player 1 is Celestino, and player 2 is Miranda. Obviously, Miranda's stats are better on the whole, but Celestino's production compares pretty well to Miranda when you take into account he's a bit younger (about 8 months), and in particular the walk rate is very nice for Celestino. If he can continue to make strides in AAA this year, Celestino will be nice Buxton insurance/a good 4th outfielder to keep Buxton and Kepler fresh, especially as a bottom third hitter turning the order over.

Obviously the Twins can't win by emulating Lloyd Christmas outside the hotel. But to start the season with a combination of Ryan/Ober/Dobnak/AAA guys/veteran retread is not acceptable UNLESS they know something we don't about those AAA guys (meaning at least 2 of Duran/Balazovic/Winder/Strotman/Canterino/SWR are ready to be rotation fixtures by May). I'm very skeptical of that, so I find myself quite frustrated right now. That said, if they sign Rodon, and then manage to swing a trade for MLB ready pitching, I'll be ok.

After this and Gausman, I'm pretty frustrated with the FO. I assumed it was going to take $25M/year to sign either of them (and was perfectly happy with that pricepoint), so the fact that both went for less... Falvine is really betting on that pitching pipeline working out.

Lot to unpack here. I used .2 because that is the approximate difference between AL starters FIP/xFIP and NL starters. The fact that there are more pitchers with low FIP/xFIP in the NL cannot just blindly be attributed to their presence in the NL--for example, Yu Darvish had his FIP and xFIP go UP when he went to the NL; Blake Snell's FIP went down, but his xFIP went WAY up. It is very rare for any team to go through it's order more than 5 times (teams averaged 37.4 PAs in 2021, which is barely 4), so the idea that pitchers are constantly hitting just is not real. Even if a starter hits twice, every NL team will absolutely use 2-3 bench players to hit for relievers, and with double switches, they might not even need to use that many. Kepler and Polanco were both signed through their Arb years, but also some FA years. By my estimation, absent the extension, Kepler would be a FA right now (next year at the latest), and the Twins have him through 2023 with an option for 24, so they bought out at least one FA year, and potentially 3. Polanco by my estimation would have been a FA next year, and he is also signed through 2023, with options in 24 AND 25, so again, 1-3 years of FA bought out. Sano would be a FA right now if not for the extension, so they only bought out one arb year, but either 1 or two FA years. The Twins could still sign a starter this offseason, and look at it as having a pitcher about as good as Berrios, for the same price as Berrios, but also have two premium prospects to boot. That would be a win, and something a smart team should always do. The CBA changing is a slightly more realistic scenario than Berrios dying in a plane crash. Just slightly. Chris Davis was worth that contract the Orioles gave him. If he wasn't, the Orioles wouldn't have offered it to him. No one is saying Berrios isn't good, or that the Twins shouldn't have kept him. I'd have been perfectly happy if this extension was announced on July 1, 2021. What people are saying is that this contract is a risk, because Berrios produces more like a number two starter, but can be considered a number one starter because he's been so durable. But if Berrios is not durable, which is not exactly an improbable possibility, then this contract, particularly the back end, is an issue. Toronto is gambling, and good on them for doing that, but it is a gamble.

Of course there's a lot of supposing here--none of us are embedded with the Toronto FO. That said, it seems logical that when an organization on the rise trades two high end prospects, they will be under pressure to show it was the right move. For example, if in 2019 the Twins had traded Royce Lewis and Jordan Balazovic for a starter, and said starter led the way to a 2019 title, would any of us bemoan the trade? On the flip side, if that acquired starter had pitched like a number 3, and the Twins had bombed out in the first round, wouldn't there be some questioning about if the Twins had made the right decision?

I also think it's worth noting that Toronto might have felt more pressure to sign Berrios after not making the playoffs as well. If Berrios goes out, leads the charge to a wild card, and then goes 6-0 across 7 starts in the postseason with a 1.40 ERA and 62 k's in 51 IP as the Jays win the WS, Toronto no longer has to justify the trade. But what if the Jays didn't make the playoffs in 2021, and they don't in 2022 either, and Berrios then leaves, with no QO attached as it was eliminated in the new CBA? All of the sudden, the decision to trade two top prospects for 0 playoff appearances starts to get called into question.

I imagine it is an extremely rare occurence to face a pitcher 3-4 times in a game--for that to happen, the opposing team's lineup has to be getting a ton of baserunners, or the opposing pitcher has to be pitching into the 8th or 9th inning. Certainly it's easier pitching in the NL, but even if you shave .2 off of Berrios' FIP and xFIP (the approximate difference between AL and NL starters in 2021), he is still 19th amongst qualified starters in the last 5 seasons on FIP, and 24th-ish on xFIP (he would pass some pitchers, other than all the pitchers he's passing spent at least some, if not most/all of their time in the AL in those years as well, and would therefore also need to be adjusted). The Donaldson contract was indeed a gamble. Why was it ok to sign Donaldson, but not Berrios? AT the time of Donaldson's signing the Twins were coming off a 103 win season, and wanted to win a WS in the next 2 years, and were willing to overpay a little in 2020/2021, and probably a lot in 2022/2023 in order to do that. At the time of Berrios' signing, the Twins are coming off an 89 loss season, and there's reasonable debate about if they can/should even compete for the playoffs in 2022 (for what it's worth, that question was being asked on this site in June/July BEFORE Berrios was traded). Seems like a relevant distinction, no? As for the Twins not caring about their players, your logic makes no sense. Players don't want to come to Minnesota in free agency because the Twins won't give them an extension? The Twins have extended Kepler, Polanco, Sano, and Dobnak, while making multiple offers to Buxton and Berrios (we can quibble about if those offers were "serious", but if the Twins truly didn't care, why would they make offers in the first place?). Cruz, Pineda, Romo, Castro, Gonzalez, and Donaldson were all perfectly happy to sign here, in some cases, multiple times.

If the Twins truly are not willing to pay Buxton $14M a year REGARDLESS of performance (miss 140 games, put up 1 WAR? Fourteen Million. Play 150 games, put up 8 WAR, win MVP? Fourteen Million)...then I just don't know what to say.

I'd take him too--my only point was that Berrios' value is built on his availability, not max ability.

Yes it would. Your point? I've always said durability is an asset. but assuming that because someone has been durable they will continue to be durable is a gamble--the Blue Jays are cleraly content to take that gamble. Johan Santana pitched 960 innings in his age 23-27 season, Berrios has pitched 850--both were extremely durable. But Santana only had one more great season left, 3 more very good, one ok, and then was out of baseball. Is it crazy to say that could also be Berrios' post-age 27 season path? fWAR does use FIP, but a modified version (see below). In essence, pitchers get credit for IF FB as K's in the WAR calculation, and the FIP constant is also changed. I used both FIP- and xFIP- as two metrics that are not reliant on innings pitched, and therefore strip quantity from quality. The point I'm making is that Berrios is the Bizarro Buxton--he's a good pitcher who posts great WAR because he doesn't get hurt (whereas Buxton is a great player who posts good WAR because he's constantly hurt). Therefore, if Berrios ceases being able to make 30+ starts a year, his value is dramatically impacted, as he's not a great pitcher, but rather a very good one. That said, there are worse things in baseball to spend $20M on than a very good pitcher.

My point is his value is based largely on durability, not top-level performance. The outcomes he has produced are somewhere between very good 2nd starter, and lower tier 2nd starter, borderline 3rd starter. If the price to secure that in FA is $20M/year, that is not something the Twins are currently capable of doing. As such, what makes sense is a pivot to offering young pitchers extensions much sooner (for example, assuming Ober and Ryan repeat/improve on their 2021 performance, giving them both an extension for 6-7 years and $50M-$60M).

Berrios is indeed 4th in the league in fWAR over the past 5 years--if the league in question is the AL. Expand it to MLB, and he drops to 14th. Berrios' durability also potentially works against him here--as fWAR is a counting stat, staying healthy can skew this number (much like RBI numbers can be skewed by batting cleanup for 150 games). Indeed, if you look at FIP- for the last 5 years, Berrios drops to 33rd in the league; by xFIP- it's 51st (not for nothing, his mark of 93 is identical to Joey Lucchesi, Micahel Pineda, and Kyle Gibson). Now durability is obviously an asset--you can argue it is better to have a starter who makes 30 starts with a 3 ERA than a starter who makes 10 starts with a 2 ERA. Jose Berrios is indeed durable--until he's not. Perhaps Berrios pitches 10 more years without a single major injury. Perhaps Berrios blows his arm out in his very first start of 2022. The Blue Jays are gambling $20M+ a year that a clear 2nd starter by quality can become a 1st starter through quantity. I'm not saying Berrios won't, but this is a gamble on Toronto's side.

I would be completely fine with trading Buxton, so long as the package is right. In my mind, that only happens if it's part of a bigger deal, with my pipe dream being the below; Padres get--Buxton, Rogers, Garver, Ober, and Barnes Twins get--Abrams, Hassell, Gore, and take back Wil Myer's salary The Padres manage to add some star power to their lineup and bullpen, without increasing their payroll (or if they do, barely), and add two backend options to their rotation, which is what let them down this year. The Twins add two premium position player prospects, which will allow them to turn around and use Lewis, Martin, Miranda, Arraez, Larnach et al for trade bait for pitching to further buttress a system which could be the best in baseball next year. While this would absolutely mean the Twins are punting on 2022, a lineup in 2023 with some combo of Abrams, Polanco, Martin, Miranda, Kiriloff, Jeffers, Arraez, Larnach, Celestino is intirguing, and would be cheap enough to allow the Twins to invest heavily in starting pitching on the FA market.