Cap'n Piranha

The large issues the Twins have had this year begin and end with the disastrous injuries (Buxton, Garver, Pineda, and to a degree, Dobnak), and the complete failure of 2020's pitching free agents (Happ, Shoemaker, Colome). No reasonable baseball person would have forecast any of those 3 being sub-replacement level this year (perhaps at replacement level), and certainly not all 3. Trading for Maeda was a good decision at the time (getting an undervalued starter with 4 years of control on a team-friendly deal for a reliever is a no-brainer), and has been a steal since (Graterol looked good last year, if you ignore the 5 k/9, but this year has spent more time in AAA than MLB, and pitched to a 6.48 ERA). Donaldson has also not been the problem. Since signing with the Twins, amongst 3B with 300+ PA's, he's 5th in OPS, 5th in wRC+, 5th in wOBA, 4th in HR/PA, 7th in Hard Hit Rate, and 2nd in bb rate. He's compiled 2.6 WAR in 103 games, which is a 4 WAR player across a full season. It's peculiar to me that your go-to examples of bad FO decisions are, other than the Nelson Cruz signing, probably the two best decisions the FO have made to date, and are two moves that they would undoubtedly make again if given the chance, I also have no idea why you think Lewis is somehow 3-4 years away--if not for the injury, he would probably be on this team now. I see no reason that he won't debut next year, and probably be a starter by 2023 at the latest. Sure, trades look bad when the prospect in return fizzles. But what if they don't? Do you think maybe the White Sox regret trading Fernando Tatis Jr for James Shields? Do you think maybe the Padres would like to have Trea Turner back, instead of Wil Myers?

There was no reason the Twins could not have re-signed him in 2019, had they wanted to. You leave out here the possibility that the FO may have been aware that Escobar wasn't interested in signing with the Twins in FA. If so, trading him in a season where you weren't going to make the playoffs, and it also being his last season of control, is a complete no-brainer of a move.

Certainly not repeating what you said, as what you said was Kepler gets too much of his value from homeruns to be considered a good player. I said that if Kepler stops hitting homers (which seems likely, given the stats I referenced), he goes from being All-Star caliber to simply solid regular, which still has value for the current iteration of the Twins. Perhaps if you'd used more words, you'd have arrived at the same, nuanced, conclusion.

Fully explaining the thought: 36 homeruns is quite valuable, just not as valuable as it used to be. Put another way--$1M is still a large amount of money, just not quite as large as it was in 1980.

Almost any batter's wRC+ without homers is going to be horrific, as homers carry the most weight in wOBA (which is what wRC+ is based on). If you're saying that Kepler's 2019 wRC+ was anomalous due to a skewed HR ratio, then I would respond that we should instead be looking at his whether his HR rate would be expected to continue. As it turns out, the 18% HR/FB rate Kepler has in 2019 has not recurred, probably due to Kepler's failure to maintain the 40%+ hard hit rate he managed in 2019. As such, I think we can all stop waiting for 5 WAR Kepler to come back, but appreciate that he's still 2-3 WAR Kepler, which is perfectly acceptable for a guy who slots in the bottom half of your order, and is only owed $15Mish over the next 2 years.

I was saying nothing of the kind. I was saying anyone hitting 36 homers in today's game will have a lower OPS+ than someone hitting 36 homers 20+ years ago did. I do think that Kepler had has one big year in 2019, when all the stars aligned for any number of players, and I would be surprised to see him hit 36 again, but that in no way correlates to my point that Kepler's OPS+ was not too low for a guy who hit 36 homers.

As the league has shifted more towards hitting homeruns, the value of an individual homerun has decreased. As such, hitting 35 homers no longer has the same impact as it once did, and since OPS+ compares a player to the rest of the league, it's not surprising that players hitting a lot of homeruns would not have huge OPS+ numbers, unlike players in the past who hit the same number of homers. Think of it this way--if in 1980 you had 5 TV's in your house, that would be a ton of TV's, and would give you a high "TV+". in 2021, you would still have a "TV+" above 100, but it would not be as dramatic, as most people now have at least 2 or 3 TV's in their house.

For his career, on AB's that get to a 3-2 count, Sano has 178 bb, 205 k's, and has put the ball in play 150 times, with 64 of those going for hits. So...not quite the hacker you want to make him out to be. In fact, if you look at the entire league since 2016, in PA's that go to 3-2, the league records outs 54.5% of the time (27.7% in play outs, 26.7% k's). Sano records outs 54.6% of the time (16.3% in play outs, 38.3% k's). In other words, Sano is essentially no different than the league at creating outs in 3-2 counts.

John Bonnes ran the numbers on this. If you assume the Twins bring back everyone they have under team control, AND they keep payroll flat (far from a guarantee given the large losses incurred from low/no attendance last year and this year), they will have $35M to $40M. Between unproven/undebuted players the Twins control and free agents, the Twins need 3 starters (at minimum), and 4-5 relievers. If you're not comfortable with Polanco/Gordon/Lewis at short, you need a shortstop. If you're not comfortable with Sano/Rooker or whichever outfielder isn't starting as your DH, you need one of those too. That's 7-10 players, and while we can hope Ober, Balazovic, Winder, Duran, Cano, Miranda, and Lewis can fill some of that, to feel good about being a Top 3 team in the league, you'll have to sign 4-5 guys in free agency, minimum. That works out to $7M-$10M apiece, or in other words, the Twins can afford 4-5 J.A. Happs/Andrelton Simmons. I don't know about you, but that seems, shall we say, unlikely to achieve the desired result.

The Twins would be overjoyed to sign Rogers for 3/$20M. If that's truly what Rogers wants, he would be signed right now. That deal is essentially saying (assuming a $7.5M arb salary in 2022) that Rogers doesn't think he'll get a two year, $12.5M deal prior to the 2023 season. Since 2018, Rogers is 4th in WAR, 19th in ERA, 7th in FIP, 6th in xFIP, and 13th in k%-bb%, all while being 32nd highest in babip (meaning despite relatively bad batted ball luck, Rogers remains elite). I'm sure he won't get 3/$54M, but if we think Rogers will sign for less than 70% of the AAV of Andrelton Simmons, you're crazy. Barring injury or a performance decline this year/next year, Rogers is probably looking at 3/$30M at minimum. To get him to waive testing the open market, you probably have to go 3/$36M right now to get that done. Given this, and the Twins relatively low likelihood of competing for a championship next year (who cares if the Twins go 85-77 and get a hypothetical 8 seed, only to get swept by the 101 win Rays), does it make more sense to hope you can be back in contention in 2023 or 2024 (after which Rogers would be a free agent again, with the proposed 3 year deal), or see 2024 as your first year of potential contention, while targeting 2025 as the year to truly contend? If the latter, trading Rogers now is the only logical move.

I'll give you 10 good reasons the Twins might not compete for a playoff spot in 2022. Starting pitchers 3-5 and bullpen pitchers 2-8.

It's perfectly valid to call out Arraez in this situation. It's not that he's never allowed to strikeout--it's that he failed to protect the plate on a two strike count, and so let the umpire take the bat out of his hands. In that situation, if you aren't 100% sure a pitch will be a ball, you need to foul it off. Arraez' PA came across as a guy hoping not to make an out, rather than a guy hoping to get a hit. Championship players live for that opportunity, and the past few games, Arraez has been coming through in those situations. Because of that, I'm not calling Arraez unclutch or anything, but I am fairly surprised he was totally comfortable allowing the ump to decide his fate.

Am I the only one confused by Rocco's pinch hitting today? Sending Donaldson in with 2 outs and a runner on first in the 7th? I feel he would have been better served being kept available for a juicier opportunity in the 8th or 9th. Even more baffling is letting Simmons hit in the 8th, but then pinch hitting the very next at bat for Gordon. I think I would rather have Arraez and Gordon bat, and not Simmons and Arraez.

I think that actually might offend him. Before 2020, Ryu got 4 and $80M, as a soon to be 33 year old, who had only made 30+ starts in a season once (in 2013). Berrios, when he hits free agency, will be four years younger, with a far better track record for durability, and FIP and xFIP that are not that far off of Ryu. Until he's actually in free agency, I think Berrios says no to any offer of $100M unless it's for 4 years or less. Like I've said before, it's not what the market will actually end up paying him that you're working against, you're working against what Berrios thinks the market might pay him.

Bro, it's not a swing, it's part of the whole picture. Expected performance and financial constraints are connected; if I asked you to pick which team would have a better record, but the only details I gave you about the teams was that one had a payroll of $100M, and the other had a payroll of $200M, which would you bet on? You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend finances didn't play a role in the signing of Happ and Shoemaker. The Twins did not have the ability to spend better without spending more--in this case, those are the same thing. Are some of the other potential veteran starters performing better right now? Sure. Would it have been obvious in January/February those other options were superior to Happ/Shoemaker? No. Every person/entity is always up against a self imposed cap. I'm not sure why people expect the Pohlads to not profit off their ownership of the team, much less incur losses. I think the fact that the Twins held payroll largely steady despite probably over $100M+ in lost revenue last year, and continued lost revenue this year is commendable. I said it before, and I'll say it again--if you want to follow a team that has no payroll limitations, the Twins are not the team for you. Nobody is saying anyone is saying the last rotation spot should be a Game 3 starter. I'm not sure where that straw man came from. The Twins spent $10M for 2 starters--they didn't really have the ability to spend any more, and so they had to take bets on arms with some downside. Anyone else they could have signed for the same numbers also had downside. It just so happens the two guys they picked realized their downside--that's going to happen from time to time. FYI, there's no guarantee Hill/Ray/Kluber don't fall off a cliff soon. In fact, since I last posted, Ray had a start where he gave up 8 runners to Baltimore in 4.1 innings, and 2 earned runs. I also should have mentioned that Kluber is on the IL, and has been since late May. The Twins were never going to get two great options for $10M--they were going to get a couple of guys they hoped could eat some innings .

The Sox definitely got benefits, I just think it's pretty awesome to get $2m a year from an employer for multiple years, even when they haven't been your employer for almost 2 decades. To your point, I have to wonder if the Angels have thought about doing this with some of the albatrosses on their payroll, or even with Trout. I assume they have, but perhaps they haven't been creative enough?

Depending on the parameters, deferred money can actually work pretty well for both sides. The team gets cash freed up they can use to avoid the luxury tax/sign another player/invest towards future payrolls. The player extends their cash flow further into the future, and if they get enough money added on in the future, could come out better as well (A million today is better than a million 5 years from now, but there's a decent chance that $300k a year over 6 years is better than a million today).

This is what the Twins are up against right now. There are only two reasons for a player to sign a long-term contract before their initial foray into free agency. They're in the high minors, and signing an MLB deal immediately starts their service time clock, and ensures they never have to deal with arbitration or minimum salaries It's a hedge against injury/performance decline/non-materialization Point 1 obviously doesn't apply to Berrios, and point 2 appears not to either, as Berrios seems completely confident that he will remain a 2ish type pitcher (maybe a 1 in his/his agent's mind), and suffer no major injuries. As such, you can't just give him the deal he thinks he'll get in free agency, as by agreeing to that, Berrios is walking away from any and all potential upside (say the Yankees giving him $28M a year to keep him away from the Red Sox. Or the Angels being tired of second-fiddle in their market, and going over the top on the Dodgers. Or Seattle/Houston/St Louis/Atlanta getting involved). If Berrios thinks he can get 6/150 in 2 years, you probably have to give him 6/168 or 7/175 right now, otherwise he may as well wait and see if some other team is desperate for a starter and offers him 5/150.

We have a very good core of players, but need to make drastic changes to avoid being one of the 5 worst teams in baseball? I posit that if you have a very good core of players, you will not be a 100 loss team, and if you are a 100 loss team, you don't have a very good core of players.

According to Spotrac, indeed they are $8M in deferred salary. In even funnier deferred salary arrangements, the Red Sox are paying Dustin Pedrioa and MANNY RAMIREZ $2M+ a year through 2028 and 2026, respectively. That means the Red Sox won't have Manny off their books until 18 years after he stopped playing for them. It's the best deal ever (in a world where Bobby Bonilla doesn't exist).

I wasn't shifting the focus, I was calling out the absurtdity of you insisting we not look at moves in a vaccum, while completely ignoring the financial realities of the teams. Regardless of why they didn't have much money for new starters this year, they didn't have the money, and it's because they went all in for 2020. Is it therefore safe to say you would be against the Twins paying big money for a single player in the future, so they can keep payroll space open for mid-rotation starters in subsequent years? The Twins were indeed 11th in payroll in 2010, and 9th in 2011--maybe that was because of a once in a generation event, like say, a brand new stadium opening, or a record-setting contract going into effect? By 2012 they were down to 13th, and then 22nd in 2013; they've been in the 15-20 range ever since. As for the names of other players, again, you're the one who brought up the assertion that there were multiple arms the Twins could've pursued; of the three you listed-- Rich Hill was 41 before the season started, and struggle with health last year. He hasn't pitched more than 100 innings since 2018, had an xERA above 5, saw his k/9 drop by 4 while his bb/9 when up by 1. His 2020 babip was an unsustainable .240 and he had his worst swinging strike rate since 2010. I think most people would have pegged him for what has happened to Happ, that is, an old pitcher who stayed on one year too many. Robbie Ray has indeed been good this year, but is coming off a year with a 6.62 ERA, a 6.49 xERA, a 6.5 FIP, and a 5.84 xFIP; he was literally sub-replacement in 2020. He also walked almost 8 batters per 9 (somehow he's cut that down to 2.3 this year, his best rate ever), and didn't even average 5 IP/start. Ray would have been seen as a reclamation project, and not significantly better than Happ or Shoemaker Kluber only pitched one inning last year, and just 35 in 2019, when he had a 5.80 ERA (4.06 FIP, 4.88 xFIP). He would have been a gamble as well, and given that he barely averages 90 mph in velocity, there is a decent chance his 2021 success is short-lived, especially when you consider that his two best starts account for 17 innings with only two hits, but came against Detroit and Texas, who are 25th and 26th in OPS. Against the 2 offenses he's faced that rank 15th or higher in OPS (Toronto 3x, ATl 1x), he's averaged 4 IP, a 1.72 WHIP, a 4.60 ERA, 9 k/9, and 6.75 bb/9. While all of those guys have been better than Happ and Shoemaker, there was not really reason to assume that would be the case, and to be perfectly honest, we would not feel confident about any of them starting a game 3 or game 4 of a playoff series.

It's all well and good to say we don't want a rebuild, but I'm pretty sure one is coming. The Twins have at most 5 pitchers that can be counted on to be full year contributors next year (Maeda, Berrios, Ober, Rogers, and Duffey). With a 13 man staff, where you need at least 5-6 solid options in the bullpen, that means the Twins need to find at least 5-6 arms this offseason; if any of the above get injured, or regress (can't be counted out, especially for Ober and Duffey), that number goes up. We can hope that Duran, Winder, Balazovic, and a couple of relievers can make the jump from the minors, but can you really feel good about your playoff chances if you're counting heavily on 4-5 rookies? There also won't be a ton of money to spend, because while you're clearing about $43M with Cruz, Pineda, Simmons, Happ, and Shoemaker moving on, all of those guys need to be replaced, and Berrios, Buxton, and Garver will get raises. To truly feel good about competing, I think the Twins would need to spend around $70M a year in new contracts for 2022, and that's just not going to happen. Accordingly, the only thing that makes sense is to completely tear down, to try and shorten the imminent rebuild from 4-5 years to 2-3. Trade Cruz, Berrios, Buxton, and Rogers for sure--those guys should net you 4-6 Top 100 guys. If you find takers for Simmons, Sano, Donaldson, Duffey, Robles, or Pineda, trade them as well. Play Gordon every day in center or short to see where he best sticks. Let Rooker DH every day to see how he handles the bigs. Call up every reliever from AAA/AA you can to see if any of them show flashes. Get Miranda up towards the end of the year as well. With any luck, you'll find a couple of keepers from that group, have a farm system with 6-8 Top 100 guys, some high draft picks, and loads of cash to use starting in 2023 to build onto a core of Kiriloff/Larnach/Arraez/Jeffers/Duran/Balazovic/others.

This seems to contradict your claim in the immediately preceding post, where you opined that you can't imagine him wanting more than $20M AAV. Berrios is right around the 20th best starter in baseball over the past 3 years at almost any metric you look at (he appears anywhere from 17th to 25th on almost everything one would consider important for a starter; ERA, FIP, xFIP, k/9, bb/9, hard hit rate, swinging strike rate). That seems like something any number of teams would be interested in, particularly given the durability he's shown, and if more than one team wants him, the bidding war ensues which the Twins cannot be competitive in. The Angels have needed pitching for years, and in the next two years shed the contracts of Fowler, Cobb, Bundy, Quintana, Heaney, Upton, and Pujols. That's $111M they free up before 2023, meaning they could hand out 3 $20M AAV contracts next year, give out $20M in arb raises to their homegrown players, and still offer Berrios $30M AAV (given his willingness to bet on himself, do we really think a 28.5 year old Berrios would turn down a 3/$90M deal? He'd get to sign his second huge contract before 32, or the Angels could easily absorb 5 and $150M). The Dodgers will clear the contract of David Price next year, as well as Turner, Kershaw, Jansen, and Kazmir. That's also $111M, and they'll again have to replace those guys, but I don't think they'll struggle to find the coin (their current payroll is $250M, and they only have $107M in commitments for 2023). The Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox are also teams with deep pockets, in competitive windows, who are shedding salary to some degree in the next couple of years. I think it's very possible 2+ of those teams want Berrios as their number two starter. Would any of them be willing to pay $30M a year for that? Maybe not. But a year and half out, you're probably going to have to give Berrios that to keep him from exercising his right to find out. After all, if I can look all that up in about 15 minutes, I guarantee you Berrios' agent has as well. Should the Twins sign Berrios? In a vacuum, yes. In reality, no; because the only way you get him to sign on the dotted line right now is to give him either $30M AAV, or something like 8 and $200. Anything less than that, and he'll just wait for the bidding war after the 2022 season.

They didn't make poor financial decisions. There's not a single contract on this roster that was bad at the time of signing. The closest would be Donaldson, but even he provided a 129 wRC+ last year, and 118 this year. And was signed to be the piece that pushed the Twins over the top for 2020/2021. Has everything worked out with the players they've signed? No, but that's always going to be the case. If you reject the reality that the Twins will never be top 10 in payroll, then we're not ever going to be able to find common ground in this, mostly because you're on another planet. The Twins also did not print money last year. They missed out on high 8 figures, and maybe even just into the 9 figures of revenue. They are continuing to miss revenue this year. The Twins have indeed stayed middle of the pack on payroll, because that is where they will stay--that's my entire point; when you sign Donaldson, Pineda, Simmons and Cruz to 8 figure deals (the four are getting $54.5M this year), keep your arb eligible players instead of trading them (Berrios, Buxton, and Rogers are getting $17M), and sign team-friendly deals with your supposed core (Sano, Kepler, and Polanco are getting $21M), you end up with a pretty high base. Those 10 players make $92M, which means the Twins had at most about $45M to play with on their other 16 players, or less than $3M per player. If they spend $20M on two rotation pieces, they now have only $25M left for 14 players, which means they're essentially playing nothing but pre-arb guys. Who are the 3-4 SP's on one year deals worth $5M on average that you think would have been superior options to Happ and Shoemaker?

With all your talk about not looking at things in a vacuum, you seem to be ignoring the vacuum of payroll. As I mentioned in my response to Chief, the Twins were already at near record payroll BEFORE Happ and Shoemaker, DESPITE large reductions to revenue both last year and this year. If you want a team that's going to allocate $20M-$30M to it's 4th and 5th rotation spots, I suggest you check out Yankees/Dodgers Daily. You are in line for nothing but frustration if the Twins are the team you choose to follow.