Cap'n Piranha

Fair enough. I do think however, it would be better to educate the individual in this case, and have him repay the community he has hurt, rather than fire him which does no material good. If you argue that a firing demonstrates you will not tolerate his type of behavior, I would counter that all it does is signal that these type of attitudes must be kept quiet. Eliminating hate and prejudice cannot be done by driving it underground, where it grows more extreme and virulent; rather, it must be brought to the forefront and educated away. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The Dodgers had the 11th and 12th best starters by WAR this year, and did not make it past the divisional round. The Rangers had number 3 and 19, and finished 15 games out of the playoffs. Your original post said it's no mystery why it's Astros-Nats, then discussed only the rotations. This suggests that you think the only reason it's those two teams is because of their awesome starting pitching. My point is that awesome starting pitching is definitely not enough. We could trade Kepler and Garver for Scherzer, and Sano and Arraez for Verlander, then sign Cole, and I don't think we make the World Series next year; elite teams are balanced. This year, of the 10 teams that made the playoffs, the lowest ranked by WAR on offense were the Cardinals at 14. Of those 10 teams, the lowest ranked by WAR on pitching was the Braves at 18, with the Brewers at 17. In fact, both the Astros AND the Nationals got more WAR from their offenses (in Houston's case, massively more) than their pitching. You can't slug your way to a title with bad pitching, but you can't pitch your way to a title with bad hitting either.

Except that's not what we're actually talking about here. It's not about the difference between Kepler/Buxton and starting pitcher X, it's about the difference between Kepler/Buxton PLUS starting pitcher Y and starting pitcher X PLUS Wade/Cave. That being said, with Berrios, Ododrizzi, and Pineda as a good start on a rotation, and still tens of millions left to sign someone, I don't want to weaken outfield defense and the offense to upgrade from Smeltzer/Dobnak/Graterol to someone like Syndergaard. If I'm letting Buxton/Kepler go, I need someone who starts game 1 over Berrios without a doubt.

I mean, this ignores the reality that minus a bases-loaded single + error against Hader, the Nats were 4 outs away from losing in the wild-card game. Ace(s) increase odds of getting to the postseason, and increase the margin for error when you get there, but they are nowhere near a guarantee for success. It just so happens that this year two teams with "super-rotations" also have 20 other good players each as well.

Yes, I'm definitely glad the Twins don't have any players on their roster who have been accused of wrongdoing, only for the accuser to provide no evidence of the alleged incident. How dare the Astros employ someone who has had no legal judgments against them--they should definitely work off the guilty until proven innocent method. As for the AGM's comments, sounds like a guy lacking tact to a nearly unbelievable level, to the point of looking to browbeat people for no good reason. That guy should be required to attend sensitivity training and then volunteer a large amount of hours at a shelter for victims of domestic violence, or find a different place of employment.

Gibson, based only on stats, having not seen any of his pitches, looks like a mixed (but mostly positive) bag to me last night. 18 k/9, 20% swinging strike rate, 2/1 gb/fb ratio, and 50% chase rate are all good. 50% hard hit rate is not so ideal however.

Um, Willians in 15 high leverage PA's this season has a .690 OPS with an 86 wRC+, and has made soft contact 42.9% of the time.

Not enough length in the pen for me. Assume you get 6 from Berrios, 5 from Odorizzi, and 4 from Dobnak. Unless there's a sweep, you'll then need 9 innings in Game 4--add it up and you're looking at a minimum of 19 innings from your bullpen (losing the first two on the road in non-walkoff fashion, no extra innings). That 19 innings comes in only 5 days, so asking Rogers, Romo, Duffey, May, or Littell to pitch more than 2 innings each starts getting dicey, as it would mean either a multi-inning outing, or pitching 3 times in 5 days with a back-to-back comprising two of those outings. This leaves us with 4 pitchers who would need to cover at minimum 9 innings. If Perez and Gibson each take 3, then that's only 3 innings left for the last two guys--but that assumes A) Gibson and Perez can make it three innings, and B ) no game goes into extra innings. Those seem like two big gambles to me when you could easily put Smeltzer or Thorpe on the roster instead of a 7th guy who covers an inning at a time. In that scenario, I prefer Brusdar's stuff over Stashak against the Astros or Yankees.

It doesn't need to be, no. In 1931, Babe Ruth's percentage of all American income was equal to a person making $60M today. It's perfectly meaningful, perhaps just not in a way you find compelling. That doesn't make it any less true or accurate.

Oh, not personal at all--at least no more personal than you make them. I'll agree that Stashak, in a vacuum is better than Thorpe or Gibson right now (although Thorpe's numbers are dragged down by one bad outing against Cleveland). However, he can't do what the Twins are going to need from bullpen options 6-9; provide multiple innings. While Thorpe has been over 4 only once, he's been over 2 innings 5 times--Stashak has been over 2 innings once, despite 7 more appearances. When you're likely to need 13-15 innings from your bullpen in Game 3-4 (which are on consecutive days, by the way), you will need 8-10 from the bottom 3-4 guys unless you want to pitch one or more of Rogers, Romo, Duffey, May, and Littell back-to back, and for the third time in either 4 or 5 days most likely. That makes having 3 guys that you ask to give you 3 innings nearly a must--putting Stashak ahead of either Gibson or Thorpe means Stashak will have to get stretched to two innings, and Graterol might have to as well (unless Graterol is left off for both Gibson and Thorpe). By the way, Thorpe is actually better against lefties than Stashak; .804 OPS against .859 OPS, .354 wOBA against .366 wOBA, 11.1 k/9 against 7.6 k/9, 4.27 xFIP against 5.25 xFIP, 20% hard hit rate against 38.7% hard hit rate. If the goal is to get another guy to face lefties besides Perez, neither Thorpe or Stashak are good options, but Stashak is worse. No need to make a wager, that interests me not at all. If I'm wrong, no big deal; I would just be really surprised if a team that will need a lot of length from its bullpen will elect for a 6th one inning guy (maybe 7th, depending on if he's behind Graterol) over a third length guy.

In 1931, Ruth made $80,000 out of a total of about $13.1B made in the US. Apply that percentage to the about $10.2T made in the US in 2018, and the total comes to around $60M.

Who's spot is Stashak taking? If the Twins are truly doing a bullpen game in Game 4, and knowing that 5 innings is about the most they can expect in games 2 and 3, while also knowing that their ace bullpen guys are not great when not rested, length becomes very important. You have to have at least 2 long guys in the bullpen, if not 3--at this point that's Perez, Gibson and Thorpe (assuming Dobnak goes in Game 3). If the Twins are carrying 12 pitchers (which has to be the maximum), the 9 in the bullpen would for sure include Rogers, Romo, Duffey, May, and Littell. Add in the 3 long guys above, and you're now at 8, so the choice would come down to Graterol or Stashak. I prefer Graterol, due to his upside, but I would not be opposed to Stashak. Also, saying it's an oversight or something else is completely meaningless. For example, should you respond to this, you will either use your keyboard, or something else.

While Gibson was awful, I can't really blame him too much--I blame the Twins for thinking a guy can bounce back from ulcerative colitis in 10 days. Gibson should have been given the rest of the season off with the only mandate to eat as much healthy food as he can get his body right. Have him pitch on the last Sunday of the regular season, and see what you have there. The Twins playoff bullpen is also going to be very interesting. Rogers, Romo, Duffey, and May are locks. With Berrios and Odo absolute locks to be the top two starters, that theoretically leaves you with 5 slots to cover two starters and 3 length guys. But if Littell and Brusdar are included, now you only have one spot, and since you need to count on at least 4 innings in Odo's start, and maybe 5 in both game 3 and 4, I have to wonder if the Twins carry 8 guys, not 7, as relievers. In this case, that would mean Dobnak, Smeltzer, Gibson, and Perez, with Thorpe an alternate if either Gibson or Perez is left off.

Trout is a multi-generational player, and as such is out side the rules of the norm. Babe Ruth (a similar multi-generational player) was the highest paid player in the league for 13 straight years. He made $80k a year at his peak (both 1930 and 1931)--no other player matched or eclipsed that for 18 years, when Joe DiMaggio became the first 6-figure player in 1949. Even then, you have to go all the way to 1960 to find the first year where, going forward, the highest paid player in the league always made more than Ruth in 1931. In fact, if you look at what Ruth made, compared to the rest of the country, he's the equivalent of a player making $60M today. To suggest that Harper (who has only one season over 5 WAR), or Machado (only one season removed from a 2.4 WAR season) should be getting multiple offers for obscene amounts of money misses the reality of the current environment--owners have figured out it's better to get a fraction of the production for an even smaller fraction of the cost. If you're looking for someone to blame, look no further than Billy Beane, who demonstrated that analytics and derivatives can build successful teams.

You seem to be assuming that Luis almost must regress, and simply repeating this year's numbers is the absolute best case scenario. This suggests you think it's impossible that he adds more muscle, turning singles into doubles and some doubles into homers. Or that with an entire offseason as the presumptive starting second baseman, he'll be able to more thoroughly study opposing AL pitchers, as opposed to this year where he spent the offseason worrying about AA pitchers. Arraez is a decent candidate to not regress, given his understanding of the strike zone (26.7% chase rate, 52nd out of 268 batters with 300+ PA's), his consistent use of all fields (all between 27.9% and 37%), his elite contact ability (3.0% swinging strike rate, 2nd of 268; 92.7% contact rate, 1st), his subsequent ability to avoid soft contact (11.1%, 16th), and his competence against all pitch types (only negative against cutters, and that's only -0.1). It seems highly unlikely that these skills will suddenly dissipate at the age of 23. Furthermore, stating that giving out a contract now is silly because Arraez might regress next year ignores the possibility that not giving out a contract now is silly because Arraez might progress next year. What if next year he flirts with .400 into August, before settling with a .370 average and winning the batting title by 40 points? What if the OBP hangs around .430 the entire year, but he also hits 40 doubles, and even 10 homers, leading to him OPS'ing above .900? What if his conditioning, and therefore defense and speed improve because he spends the entire offseason training in Fort Myers, as opposed to in Venezuela, where there's an actual famine going on? I don't think all, or perhaps even any of that happens, but none of that is out of the question, and if it does happen, will make him much more expensive than $5M-$7M a year. Finally, if Arraez does have 2 more years like this one (which would put him at about 10-12 career WAR before the age of 25), you probably won't be able to get him to sign a team friendly contract, as he might very will be in arbitration at that point, and looking at a $4M to $6M first year salary anyways. Team friendly deals happen because you're giving players giant raises in years you don't have to, in return for not having to give them huge raises in years you do. I posed this question already, but I'll ask again; what's worse--paying Arraez $35M over the next 7 years while he slashes .290/.330/.380, or saving at most $15M over the next 5-6 years, then watching Luis leave in free agency and win a couple batting titles?

Super 2. I don't know if Luis will attain Super 2 status, but it's certainly possible, which would give the Twins 5 years of control, barring significant injuries that allow the Twins to gain a fourth year of arbitration.

Altuve won't be a comp for arbitration because he didn't go to arbitration. Luis' first arbitration year (either 2022 or 2023) will be nearly a decade after Altuve signed that contract. Just a few things have/will have changed in terms of MLB compensation in that span.

As I understand it, Super 2 means you become arbitration eligible for the season after you achieve two years of service time. As Arraez cannot hit that mark next year (he will in all likelihood finish with 1 point something), he should have 2 years of pre-arbitration left. But if he wins a batting title in either of the next two years, that first arbitration number for his age 25 season might be more than the $4M I threw out, meaning the hypothetical $7M and $10M would be more too. You take risk signing Arraez to an extension now. But you take risk by not doing it too. And I personally would rather the Twins take the risk of a small (relatively) overpay to a league average player than watch a perennial all-star play for someone else because the Twins didn't want to pay an extra $10M to $20M over 5-6 years.

The goal for the Twins starting these last 13 games was to win every series; 2-1 against Chicago, 3-1 against the Royals, 2-1 against the Tigers, 2-1 against the Royals. Add that up, and it's 9-4--with a magic number of 9, that makes anything Cleveland does irrelevant. Last night's win secured the series win, so today we play with house money. Keep in mind that these 3 games with the White Sox were/are the hardest games left on our schedule. By far. Also, for the September thing next year, even if the Twins aren't allowed to pick 28 players from the 40 man for every series, they can still have the shuttle up and running, just from Fort Myers instead of Rochester.

Incorrect. He will cost about $1.1M the next two years, but if we assume he will continue to hit above .300 with an OBP in the .360 to .380 range, he will likely get somewhere around $20M in his 3 arb years (say $4M, $7M, and $10M as not unreasonable numbers). That's $21M for 5 years, after which he would be a free agent--the first two years of that deal would at that point surely by $10M-$12M a year. In this scenario, he would be following Kris Bryant (3 years at the minimum, FA after 6 years). If he has three more years after this one of team control, the story does change a little bit. 5 more years of control--somewhere in the neighborhood of $45M over the next 7 years 6 more years of control--somewhere in the neighborhood of $33M over the next 7 years You sign him to a 7 year, $35M deal because it creates payroll certainty for you, and because if he becomes a poor man's Jose Altuve when he's 25, you have him at $7M a year for the next 4 years, and not the $12M to $18M he might otherwise cost.

Plate discipline and control of the strike zone are skills unlikely to erode--neither is his elite contact ability (at least not until he approaches, if not hits, his 30's). Luis is, among players with 300+ PA's this year, 1st in out-of-zone contact, 5th in in-zone contact, 1st in overall contact, and 2nd in swing strike rate, all while making only 11.3% soft contact (16th). Arraez is about as good a candidate there is to maintain the tools that are his skills, ability to get hits and have a high OBP. The reason you give Arraez a contract now is because that's how you get it really cheap. For example, back in April, the Braves gave Acuna an 8 (or 10) year contract for $100M (or $134M) after only 487 PA's in the Bigs. How much more do you think the Braves would have to pay if they tried to do an extension after Acuna put up a 5 WAR season in his age 21 season? I'm not saying Arraez is the player Acuna is--I'm saying the philosophy of doing deals early is how you get deals that look like steals. After all, if you pro-rate Arraez' WAR to a 150 game season, he's a 4 WAR player.

Yeah, my bad, I did my math wrong and pulled his 2002 numbers (I had just looked at Cruz, so I had 1980 in my head). Here are the actual numbers, 100% in MLB .294/.372/.411/.783 in 554 PA's, 26 2B, 2 3B, 9 HR, 6.5% XBH Rate, 73 BB, 64 K, 1.14 BB/K Arraez maintains his advantage in OBP, and actually has a better bb/k ratio than Joe did, but falls behind Joe in the XBH rate, but remains ahead in slugging due to his better batting average. I still think the point remains, Arraez' numbers as a 22 year old can hold their own against Altuve and Mauer at the same age.

Yeah, I'm not looking for him to change his swing--I think Mauer is a good comp for him here. Arraez has great zone control, uses all the fields, and isn't trying to hit homers. Mauer averaged a double every 18.6 PA's, and a homer every 55.7 PA's; if Arraez matches those rates (he's not far off on doubles, but quite a ways on homers), assuming 600 PA's a year, that's 32 doubles and 11ish homers a year. Seems reasonable.

So he'll be on the team for the next 7-8 years at a team friendly price...

The guy who since the All Star break has a 4.30 ERA and is striking out less than 9/9, all with an unsustainably low .268 BABIP (his year-long mark is .303)? The guy who in his last 4 starts (against playoff-caliber teams) has a 7.65 ERA on a high (but not crazy high) .333 BABIP? I'd be fine with Syndergaard, but Twins Territory needs to collectively stop thinking he's Verlander or Cole.