jorgenswest

My guess is Hunter will have a good half season and get an extension. Either that or he will be in full decile mode this year. Either way Minnesota is sure to get the decline. It's the Twins way. Sign a guy, get a few good months and then let them play through the decline. Sometimes they do it with an extension like a Doumit or Burton. Sometime times they pay for it upfront like Willingham After they extend Hunter, Stauffer will be next in line.

Great report Nick. Thanks.

While I agree, Sano or Buxton need to be part of those multiple to get true top talent. Decline phase players on big contracts can't be given away. The Twins would get more for Escobar alone than they would for Escobar and Nolasco. Escobar combined with a Sano and a Gonzalves will get you something. I am not advocating for this trade but just pointing out that it is going to take multiple upside players and a true top prospect to get top talent.

Based on his road numbers and his use as a low leverage reliever in San Diego, he really needed to come out an establish himself as a late inning reliever option. In no way should he be considered a lock for any toster. There is a reason why he had to sign for 2 million. Minnesota might be the only team where he would be the 7th or 8th inning guy. If he doesn't excel in that role, I don't see why they would waste low leverage innings in a decline phase veteran with an expiring contract. Wouldn't it be better to give those low leverage innings to a young pitcher with upside?

I think Herrmann will be on the 4 man bench. Nunez just doesn't add much. He would never be used for late inning defense. His defense in the infield is not as good as Escobar. His defense in the outfield is not as good as Schafer or Hicks or likely even Herrmann. He can run but he can't run as well as Schafer. He can hit a little but would not be chosen to hit over Pinto,or even Escobar. Herrmann offers more with his left handed bat and his ability to play catcher. The only way Nunez is needed is if Santana is moved back to CF. In that case, Hicks is in AAA and Herrmann is still on the roster.

On the question of strikeouts, Twin catchers suppress strike outs. When cFIP is calculated, Twins pitcher strikeout rates will be adjusted (increased) due to the catcher. The other FIP variants do a good job keeping pitching independent of the defense in the outfield and the infield. The difference between last year's FIP/xFIP and ERA might be explained by the poor defense in the OF. FIP and xFIP do not adjust for the catcher or umpire.

So glad someone else brought this forward. Jonathan Judge's recent work on cFIP and on measuring catcher framing has added to the debate. The outfield defense is already factored into the other variants. The Twins had much better FIPs and cFIPs than ERAs. It wasn't bad luck. It was bad defense. Most of the FIP variants base themselves on basically three outcomes. Strike outs. Walks. Home runs. FIP sees them as defense independent. Variants try to adjust them. The catcher and umpire part of the calculation is new with cFIP. The catcher is added to the strikeout, walk and hit by pitch part of the equation. The umpire to the walk and hit by pitch. Not sure why the umpire isn't in the strike out part of the equations. Home runs get the stadium as part of that calculation. How does it differ from the other FIP variants? The biggest impact for Twin pitching is the catcher. Twin pitchers are losing strikeouts and adding walks due to their catcher and their ability to get strike and ball calls (and hence strike outs and walks). While the front office has been madly spending dollars trying to fix the pitching, little has been done to recognize the impact of the outfield and the catcher on preventing runs. On the other hand, maybe the Twins are right and the problem is solely awful pitching with the outfield defense and poor framing numbers having little impact on runs given up. Judge's recent work may just be added to the pile of work that the Twins and many on this board think should be ignored.

if the Twins approach corresponds to getting behind 0-1 in the count more often than any other team, how does getting behind 0-1 impact likelihood of runs scored with runs in scoring position? Are there situations where they need a more aggressive approach?

Must read article from BP on the Twins and their approach at the plate. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=25775 The Twins aren't swinging at the first pitch and correspondingly fall behind 0-1 more than any other team. Is more balance necessary? I do wonder about the Twins data with runners in scoring position. It wasn't in the article, but it seems like putting the ball in play has more value with a runner on base.

Just wondering... How much would it cost a team to bring salaries up to a reasonable wage? Is it possible that on doing so, a few more players would make the majors that otherwise wouldn't?

Rosario skills fit LF better than RF. His range is better than his arm. if that happens, the Twins will regret moving Arcia to LF for a he short term.

It will be a good sign in midsummer if they have Rosario, Buxton, Arcia and Hicks as their outfield core. Hicks in a role of playing against left handed pitching and late inning defense for Arcia. As soon as that happens, somehow magically Arcia will have adjusted to the overhang while playing LF and move back to RF. Rosario is a much better fit in LF.

I don't see it as a matter of deserves. The Twins need to put the best team on the field. If they are better with Santana at SS than Escobar, they need to play Santana. To my fan's eye, Escobar was very solid last year at SS and could play the position for a winning team without hurting them.

Thanks for the article. He messed up on the bases and the manager dealt with it in game. I respect that approach much more than making offhand comments in a press conference. I think Hicks will also and respond positively. His approach at the plate is moving in a positive direction. I trust Molitor to know where he should begin the season.

The team has plenty of 5th starter candidates. They spent millions on guys who will be fighters ng for the fifth spot in 2017. They need to fill the top of the rotation. they need Meyer. It takes many starters 50 starts to adjust to the major leagues. If they want him to be a number 2 starter in 2017 he needs to start growing to that spot this year. We can't waste half a season on Pelfrey before bringing him up. High walk rate? Several pitchers have had similar walk rates in the upper minors and that did not prevent their teams from bringing them up. http://twinsdaily.com/blog/36/entry-6339-alex-meyer-and-aaa-walk-rates/

The Yankees let Nunez go when they assessed he couldn't play 2B. Minnesota giving him a shot there today. Not impressive on that attempted turn.

Just adding to the rant... Pages in this forum were written last year about giving signing Stephen Drew and Emilio Bonifacio. During the winter Drew was seeking a 3-4 year deal and the aTwins had a clear need at SS. Suppose they sign Drew and he is under contract for two more years. Would we have seen the talent in Escobar? Would we see a guy who will be a valuable player on a rosterabl? The Twins might have signed Bonifacio to a one year contract and he got off to a great start much like Suzuki. The Cubs cashed in and traded him in the summer. What would the Twins do? They almost certainly would have extended him two more years. Would we have seen the talent in Danny Santana had Bonifacio been on the roster? It goes further. The Twins picked up Sam Fuld instead and he turned into Tommy Milone. Milone has some upside and there is a small chance he will be a useful player for the Twins long term. The guys he Braves DFA'd when they acquired Bonifacio was Jordan Schafer. Schafer also has a chance with some upside to be a useful player on the roster long term. It is so fortunate for our offense that the Twins focused on fixing the pitching staff last winter.

For the last three years, the Twins care more about selling tickets and the illusion of being competitive than they do about the long term health and success. They are a business and it has probably been necessary. The clubs in 82-83 and 99-00 fortunately had an ownership that did not spend money. They spent the 90s constantly signing decline phase players trying to patch and recapture the 87-92 stretch. Mike Morgan, Bob Tewksbury, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, Jim DeShaies, Greg Myers, Dave Hollins, Roberto Kelly, Terry Steinbach, Darrin Jackson, Greg Swindell, Orlando Merced and Otis Nixon were signings so similar to our current stretch. It wasn't until they were forced to go young that they began to take care of the long term. The current plan guarantees mediocre teams. Even if they get a good half season out of a player, they sign him to a couple more years (Doumit, Burton, Suzuki) guaranteeing a piece of the decline. Who is next? Stauffer? With Willingham they got one good year out of three. How many out of 8 will they get from Nolasco and Santana? The problem is that even if they get good years they are in the early half of the contract. In 2017 the Twins will be paying 30 million dollars to two guys that probably would not make the starting rotation of a play off team. While the younger players grow as often happens after 1000 plate appearances or 50 starts, the older players will decline and the record doesn't change much. At least not enough to turn 90 losses into 90 wins. Looking back, 2011 was unexpected and injury filled. They might argue that it was the injuries that year and that there would be a bounce back in 2012. When that didn't happen, they should have torn it down. Stopped signing decline phase players. They would have been better off today had they gone with upside guys and lost 100+ in 2013-2014. They would have been better off minimally due to the draft and the international cap. They would have found a player or two that they wouldn't have given a chance otherwise because they were busy filling their playing time with Pelfrey, Kubel, Nolasco and the like. No need to give a shot to a JD Martinez when you can have a Jason Kubel in camp. Kubel is proven. He has hit 30 homers before injuries and age started his decline. If they are going to sign decline phase players, they have to spend bigger. They have to sign guys well above league average so they are still valuable in their decline. They have to stop putting off problems to the next year with patches that never get fixed.

Three thoughts I believe you (Parker) wrote a year ago about Suzuki's love of the fastball. I wonder how that will sync with Allen. Nolasco has never had an effective fastball. Moving away from a fastball emphasis in Anderson may benefit him. It has been written before that Hughes loves to tinker. Let's hope Allen has seen plenty of video from last year to help keep him on track. They need to make sure he leaves spring with close to the same mindset he ended 2014. Tinkering in an early spring start is probably normal for a pitcher though.

I don't think anyone in need of starting pitching is calling the Twins.

At some point the Twins need to see how Pelfrey does when he comes in with runners on base. His performance as a starter with runners on base was significantly worse than with the bases empty. It contributed to ERAs that were worse than his FIPs. It could be his slowed pace with runners on. It could be a drop in performance when pitching from the stretch. They also need to see how his arm bounces back and whether he can pitch on back to back days without loss in velocity or command. I am not sure that can all be assessed in spring but as soon as they determine he is not a starter they need to be putting him in situations they expect him to see as a reliever.

Why would they sign a guy almost certain to drop well below league average as he ages from 32-35 to a 3-4 year contract? They can let him go or tender and get the pick or trade at 30. No one will force them into a bad 4 year 59 million dollar commitment. Let someone else pay for the decline.

If an old roster works together to lose 90 games, there is little hope for upside. If a young roster loses 90 games, they will grow together. That happened with 82-83 and 99-00 Twins. It did take patience on the part of the management.

2.9 WAR Dozier is born in May so I did look at the birth months to see if this group was mostly born in the fall and maybe really an older group. He would rank 4th by birthday according to how close they are to July 1. Only Victorino (the one positive in the group) and Swisher are more than 6 months older relative to July 1. I could drop Victorino and Swisher and see if the are some later summer birthday to add from the next group younger but I would be dropping a big portion of the 26.6 WAR. The Twins should not make any commitment beyond age 31. They have under team control through that age so there should be little urgency to extend. When he performs well, pay him. They can afford it. If not, have the flexibility to give the job to someone like Polanco.

For 2 million dollars you get a decline phase veteran reliever that was used in low leverage situations with poor performance outside of Petco park. Good set up men cost north of 5 million on the open market. Only the eyes of the Twins staff should be able able to gauge whether to be concerned on his performance earlier this week. There is good reason for anyone to be concerned that the Twins see him as a late inning reliever based on his performance outside of Petco and age. There could not have been many teams competing for his service this winter.