jorgenswest

The Indians have stated that catcher is not a priority. I am sure they would listen if the deal had a cheap prospect cost. Gimenez and Perez are both good defensive catchers. Suzuki may not be a significant upgrade worthy of a good prospect.

Whatever direction the Twins take at the deadline, it will be different than the direction Ryan planned. A new GM from outside should lead to an overhaul of on field personnel throughout the organization this winter. Keeping Antony would probably not lead to that overhaul. If the move was about the short term deadline direction, Antony has a shot a keeping the job. If it is about long term direction, an outsider is necessary.

Isn't the definition of cherry picking selectively picking a sample based on the case? I still have no idea what sample should have been chosen to avoid cherry picking. Of course the confidence interval shrinks when comparing Kluber against Pomeranz. Pomeranz would be more likely to underperform and out perform a projection. There is more risk that Pomeranz has not pitched 200 innings. On the other hand, he also has less wear on his arm. You made the statement extreme cherry picking when using three seasons. What do you suggest should be used so that I am not selecting a sample case by case? I guess the Red Sox must have been picking the same cherries when offering one of the best prospects in baseball for a guy that has made only 36 starts over three seasons.

Three seasons is typical for projecting forward. Far better than a half season stats. I think I also used three seasons in other posts looking at Suzuki and Santana. Was I also cherry picking there? What would you suggest in general to avoid cherry picking? I know that selecting samples differently case by case would be cherry picking.

His strike out and walk data is OK. He has a very poor ISO. He has not been very successful throwing out runners. Not enough data for slash stats to be meaningful. There is very little that can be seen in 183 PAs of AAA ball.

Since 2014, Pomeranz has an ERA+ of 137 striking out more than a batter per inning. He is 27 and under team control through 2018. That kind of pitcher will get a good return in any market. It has no meaning for 2016 other than to set the bar for guys like Teheran.

I don't get the connection between the value of Pomeranz return and Suzuki (or Santana) for that matter. Young starting pitchers will get a good return in any market. I don't think it has any meaning for Suzuki's trade value. His trade value will depend on the supply and demand of catchers. It will depend on how other team's value defense at catcher. It will depend on how they project second half offensive performance. No team is foolish enough to take first half stats and use them to project second half stats. Slash stats need a larger sample. They probably go back to 2014 to project (if they use stats at all). In that case, they would see Suzuki as a slightly better than league average hitter (relative to catchers) with a very poor arm, history of poor framing numbers and adequate ability to block pitches. That has some value to a team like the Indians, but they have many other options in the market. Considering offense and defense, Suzuki probably isn't a significant upgrade to many other teams in a starting role.

Brad Radke was drafted 25 years ago. He arrived in 1995 and averaged over 30 starts a year through 2006. The Twins haven't developed a pitcher of his quality since. I wondered about today's better pitchers. What were their numbers in the minors? In particular I wondered about strike outs and walks. Those numbers are relatively fielding independent. I went to fangraphs as teams were hitting the 81 game point in the season. Starting with 2013 through mid 2016, I sorted the pitchers by fWAR and pulled the top 30. A group of consistently solid pitchers resulted with many top of the rotation pitchers. They range from Clayton Kershaw to Anibal Sanchez. I grabbed the minor league data for the group of pitchers (throwing out anything that appeared to be a rehab stint). As a group they faced 43897 batters in the minors over 10464 innings. I compared their minor league rates with their major league rates (2013 to mid 2016). K% (Majors) 23.92% BB%(Majors) 6.15% K%(Minors) 23.50% BB%(Minors 8.78% The strike out rates in the majors and minors were similar. The walk rates were not. This group of successful pitchers has significantly greater walk rates while pitching in the minors with an increase of more than 40% of 6.15. Why? Maybe there was some trouble in the low levels of the minors. I compared walk rates at the different levels. 9.32% AAA (3035.1 IP) 8.66% AA (2927.8) 8.15% A+/A (3616.9) 9.08% Short Season (758.1) The group actually had more trouble with walks in AAA. I also noticed that the group as a whole spent about the same amount of time in AAA as AA. I would have guessed that the better pitchers would have jumped to the majors from AA. The data wasn't skewed by high walk rates and different levels. I then wondered if individual pitchers having seasons with very high walk rates skewed the data. I looked at individual season/level lines and considered any line with at least 100 batters faced. There were 128 season lines to consider. There were 39 season/level lines with a rate 10% or greater or a little 30% of the total. There were 14 lines with a rate of 5% or lower or about 11% of the total. Overall there were many more season lines where pitchers exhibited significant trouble with walk rates than there were season lines with very good control. Shouldn't walk rate matter in the minors? Why did so many of baseball's better pitchers struggle with walks in the minors? I wonder if their stuff is so good that they get far fewer outs as a result of weak contact in the minors. Their stuff is so good that a batter (even at AAA) struggles mightily to put the ball in play. The result is deep counts and many more walks. In the majors, some of those swings and misses turn into weak contact and longer counts are avoided. It seems counter intuitive that a walk would be good. It might be. Maybe when looking at minor league stat lines, the strike out rate and the walk rate should be added. I added the rates and found that the majority (62.5%) of season lines had K+BB% rate of over 30%. There were few season lines (16%) in which the pitcher combined for a K+BB% rate below 25% In all of those plate appearances the batter was not able to put the ball in play. The pitcher's stuff was just too good. Perhaps we should call the K+BB% rate their stuff rate. What might it mean for an organization? I wonder if some teams see high walk rates and try to fix a problem that really isn't there. In trying to lower the walk rate, they may end up taking away from a pitcher's strengths also. The deep counts as a result of keeping the batter from putting the ball in play is a good thing even if it results in more walks. How about Brad Radke? He had a very low 5.5% walk rate and a strike out rate of 19% in the minors. Since he retired 10 years ago, the Twins seem to be looking for the next Brad Radke. Maybe that wasn't such a good idea. The google sheet with the data can be found here.

I don't think the Twins can get a significant return in prospects for Santana. I think teams will see him as the route to go if they don't want to pay the prospect cost of an Odorizzi or Teheran. They might prefer taking the contract and keeping the better prospects. Even if the Twins offer to pay salary it doesn't help because they enter the Santana market with the hope of keeping their good prospects and willing to spend the dollars. He might be at his high selling point this July. That high point might not include the kinds of prospects that some are hoping for in return.

The supply... Ervin Santana Rich Hill Julio Teheran Drew Pomeranz Matt Moore Jeremy Hellckson Jon Niese Matt Shoemaker Sonny Gray Andrew Cashner Jorge de la Rosa Tyron Ross (if returns and shows healthy) If the demand isn't greater than the supply, only the most desirable of these options will get a return of top prospects. I don't see Santana among the most desirable. If the Twins asking price is too high, teams will look elsewhere. Right now the Rangers are looking to Kyle Lohse. It would help if the Twins can get them to look elsewhere.

Pomeranz, Teheran and Odorizzi will come with a significant prospect cost. The appeal of Santana is that his return would be much less in prospect cost. I think to get even a moderate prospect, the Twins would have to pay some salary. If the demand is a top prospect, teams would be wise to go after one of the other three. Once they move, demand for Santana should increase.

Hill going to Red Sox. Reyes with Mets. Two teams found an infielder at no or little prospect cost. Gourriel still available. How much demand will there be for Dozier, Plouffe or Nunez? Is there a supply of other players like Hill with a low cost of acquisition?

If the Twins are reasonably certain he can continue to perform as a number 4 starter over the next two years, they need to keep him. If they look at a large group of similarly aged and performing pitchers, I think that they will find that far less than 1/2 of those pitchers can continue as a number 4 as the progress into their age 34 and 35 seasons. The Twins would need to see something special in Santana that would suggest that he will decline at a slower rate than typical and avoid injury more common with older pitchers.

Fair enough. If Arcia returns a player or Jepsen gives salary relief, isn't that what we are hoping to get from the likes of Nolasco or Plouffe? I would put Santana in the salary relief group also. They might not count either. In that case, the Twins have very few veteran players worthy of a return. Everyone should go under on th number.

Is the trade counter already at 2? Arcia and Jepsen were part of the opening day roster. Arcia has been moved. Jepsen is yet to be resolved. The return is minimal but similar to what we might expect from Nolasco or Plouffe. Space is cleared on the roster.

Kintzler might be of some interest.

I may be misunderstanding the "should've" since they were exiting their primes. In no way should the Twins have expected 12-12 records with 4.14 ERAs from Nolasco and Santana. At best, they should have hoped for 2 or 3 seasons between the two of them out of the 8 at that level. I think the performance they have received is much more typical of similar pitchers in their ages 32-35 seasons. They are getting what they paid for. Hughes was in his prime and the Twins locked him up throughout his prime years. They were fools to extend him after a single good season. He would have been off the books after this year looking for a minor league deal. It is signings like these that continue the cycle of mediocrity.

Good work John and Thrylos. Thanks.

Pitchers are going to decline ages 32-35. They are going to be injured more frequently. A player needs to be very good entering those ages to return in a good performance in that span. If you are league average ages 26-31, there is a good chance you won't be very useful by age 35. The performance and health that the Twins are getting from Santana, Nolasco and Hughes is well within what should have been expected. Terry Ryan is 100% responsible for those decisions. http://twinsdaily.com/blog/36/entry-6349-what-can-the-twins-expect-from-santana-and-nolasco/

The next time Berrios and Chargois come up needs to be the last time. Once up, they need to let the work out any struggles at the major league level. Once they are confident there is nothing else to learn at AAA, bring them up. I don't think we can assess that readiness with a stat line though.

They have an opportunity to do that in rehab.

If no one in the league equates playing SS and 3B poorly with defensive versatility and the best offer is a C/C+ prospect with a rule 5 decision coming up, do you take the best offer? The Mets gave up a C+ prospect and a prospect outside the top 20 for Juan Uribe (and Kelly Johnson) last year. John Gant was up for rule 5. He was recently called up to the majors. At the time Sickels wrote that he was a innings eating 5th starter type. The other player, Whalen, had a better ceiling but also a likelihood of a back end starter or bullpen arm. Uribe is an excellent defensive 3B and was hitting well. I would think his overall game has more value in helping a team reach the playoffs. Kelly Johnson had an OPS of .772 at the time of the trade. Both guys were key players for the Mets in the second half. Their return was good but not the level many on this site are hoping for Nunez. The Twins might expect one of those two for Nunez. Do you trade Nunez for a guy who projects to be a back end starter with the need to be put on the 40 in the winter?

Rosario hurt the team in the field this year with several balls he misjudged into extra base hits and poor decisions on throws and cut offs. It is partly the aggressive nature he brings to every aspect of his game. It is also something that can get better with time and commitment.

Keep playing Buxton. They should have kept him in AAA, but once they brought hi they need to stick with him. Rosario in the same sample as Buxton is doing well in AAA. The can't make decisions based in that sample. If they want to add Rosario into the LF mix with Grossman that's OK. It could be an odd platoon based on plate discipline and opposing pitcher. He is up instead of a 13th pitcher and not Buxton.

ZIPS projection of 106 wRC+ for Dozier is a match for his performance at the moment. That performance is slightly above the typical performance at 2B. The Twins need more of these guys. Not less. Any trade needs to bring a valuable piece to the 2017 team.