jorgenswest

What does it mean to contend? To me, a team isn't contending if they haven't spent a day in first place (or even in one of the wild card slots) in the previous two weeks It isn't contending if an occasional win streak puts you a few games a way from the second wild card spot. It is possible to bring yourself into contention by continuing that win streak, but teams have to get there. Being a competitive is a lower bar. Competitive teams score more runs than they give up. The Twins have neither contended or been competitive in quite a while. Various objective sources do not project the Twins to contend or be competitive this year either.

As I started my comment, I believe the Royals will suffer from losing Shields in two ways. They lose his starts and the bullpen will have a bigger work load. That will lead to more runs given up and more losses. I also believe they will continue to have the skills that will give them more wins than their Pythagorean projection whatever it is for 2015.

Losing Shields will hurt in two ways. They will not only lose his starts but also work the bullpen more in games he would have started. For that reason, they should drop back. However, I think the the Pythagorean projection is a little misused here. There has been several studies about teams that outperform or underperform their projections. Teams that outperform their projections win more one run games and have a more even distribution of offensive runs scored (fewer big innings) and are good at preventing runs with their pitching/defense. Teams with good bullpens will win more games than Pythagorean projects. Teams adept at playing small ball as measured by stolen bases, sacrifice hits and fewer home runs more evenly distribute their offensive runs and win more games than pythagorean projects. The Royals have a very good bullpen. No one played better small ball last year. They won more games than their Pythagorean projection because of their skill set. It wasn't a matter of luck. Won't they bring a similar skill set forward next year?

I don't think it is coming from the Twins. It doesn't make any sense to extend him into his free agent year. At this point his career OPS+ is 98. It is extremely rare that a player will outperform their career OPS+ through age 27 during their age 32 season or older. Trade him by age 30.

Schafer was not viewed as a good defensive centerfielder in Atlanta or Houston. Those were reports we saw as he came to Minnesota. I am not sure what happened in two months that he is now viewed as a good defensive CF. Perhaps it is in comparison to the guys the Twins have played in the outfield the last two years. If he was a good defensive CF, he doesn't get DFA'd twice. He is DFA'd because he can't hit well enough to play a corner and his defense in CF isn't good enough to maintain a fourth OF job. He helps a team with his base running and late inning defensive sub on a corner. That fifth OF role worked when teams carried 10-11 pitchers. It will be an encouraging sign when the Twins have enough talent to force his third DFA. Meanwhile he is good enough to make the roster and be in the starting line up conversation for a bad team.

Thanks for the fix. This was my source http://www.fangraphs.com/library/principles/contract-details/service-time-super-two/

The Twins can push back Alex Meyer's service time if they want. It will likely cost one start from the 5th starter. The first time they will need a 5th starter will be April 12. The next time would be April 19. By that date, he would not have enough days left to earn a year of service (169 needs 172). Alex Meyer can earn the job in spring and get sent down missing only one start as the 5th starter. In any case, service time should not be an argument for a 25 year old. It is likely that a 25 year old season would be better than the 31 year old season you would be gaining by delaying.

I don't agree that they can be successful buying a starting rotation. Last year they bought three starters. They had another in his second year of purchase. One was great and three were awful. It would be hard to find three starters who performed as poorly. Together the four accounted for about a third of the budget and 11 games under .500. Can they actually buy it? That's what they bought last year. The Twins improved to 70 wins by actually buying 80% of a rotation. What part of the budget will the Twins spend on Hughes, Santana, Nolasco and Pelfrey this year? I think they will have a total of 16 years committed to them. Can we get 10-12 good seasons out of 16? Is that enough for the cost? Is it enough to move towards 90 wins? So far they are 1-2 in seasons purchased. I don't believe they can win by buying a rotation. The best year is often the first year as pitchers lose velocity and decline as they enter or continue in their thirties. I believe the only way out of this cycle of mediocrity is to develop a core of cost controlled young pitching and then give them the starts in the major leagues that are necessary for their development.

The cost of trading for pitching prospects is high. Trading established talent for pitching talent in A ball or AA ball is going to land on the side of major league talent much more often. The gamble pays off when you get a good major league starter for all of their team control years. Until they can develop their own pitching talent, the Twins need to continue to seek similar moves.

The Twins need to take the best 12 north. They need to put the best 5 in the rotation. Last year's performance matters and Hughes and Santana are in. Gibson would need to be down in velocity to be out. If May and Meyer are throwing better than Nolasco, Pelfrey and Milone, the young pitchers need to be in the rotation. None of these 5 should be "in line". They need to go out and earn the job.

I have seen a study (and can't find it) of position players who held a regular starting job for 5 (I think) years. The AA age was 22 and the major league age around 23.5. A player in AAA at 25 has a very low likelihood that they will be a major league regular of significant length. It is just data. There are plenty of examples otherwise. As a group the 22 years olds in AA will have a much greater rate of success in the major leaguers than the 24 year olds. The age in fact has a higher correlation with major league success than the performance in AA. In other words it is more likely an average performing 22 year old will be successful long term than a higher performing 24 year old in AA.

Exactly. Even the best player in baseball isn't going to make the Twins a 90 win team. Last year the best pitchers in baseball were between 7 and 8 WAR which is where I got the high side value. They need to build a foundation of players and 2 years of Strasburg or 1 year of Zimmerman doesn't help enough long term. Buxton and Sano are the key. Keep them.

It is common to have an experienced minor league that moves between levels and provides organizational depth. It is often a player assessed to be talented in working with pitchers and catchers. The value lies in that skill.

Someone might do it if a team is well on the way to 90 wins July and Strasburg is the piece needed to bring home the world series. The Twins are not a good match. They can't trade the future for a very high side of 7 or 8 extra wins that Strasburg might provide the each of the next two years. Washington has no reason to accept anything less than a top 10 MLB prospect.

I need to see dominance at AA or AAA. Then I need to see the Twins have patience. It can take 1000 plate appearances or 50 starts.

It will take a top 10 MLB prospect and others. It will take Buxton plus. Strasburg and his two years fits a team that is projected for 90 wins now and he is the piece that puts them in contention to win it all. The Twins are not a good match. They need players for the long term.

One player isn't going to make enough difference for this Twins team. They can't sacrifice the long term to get better this year. No deal.

A comparable trade may have been Plouffe and a pitcher. Valbuena has shown the better bat last year. He bats left handed. Valbuena's also has the ability to play 2B which is a huge plus. They have similar contract status. It is extremely unlikely that the Astros would want Plouffe over Valbuena. The only way to win the trade is to offer a better pitcher. Straily at 26 and cost controlled has a better minor league track record than Trevor May and more major league experience. it needs to be something better than Trevor Plouffe and Trevor May to win the deal. The oft mentioned surplus of mediocre pitching (Pelfrey, Milone, Nolasco) aren't going to make the deal better. Would you offer more than Plouffe and May? I am not sure I would. I am pretty certain the Astros would take Valbuena and Straily over them in any case.

Thoughts from Mark Hamburger on Fangraphs http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/sunday-notes-spiritual-hamburger-new-boog-banny-in-boston-clint-frazier-more/

I would keep the pitching and spend on Rasmus. The Twins should not be interested in a 1 year deal though. They need to build for the future and he can be a Hughes like gamble. He has mixed two very good seasons among some bad ones. Last year he dealt with a hamstring. He is a buy low right now. Ideally they would have pursued Rasmus instead of Hunter but there is still a place for him. His left handed bat would ge a fit. Put him in CF this year with Hicks as the 4th OF. Start Hicks against every lefty for either Arcia or Rasmus. When Buxton is ready, move Rasmus to a corner in the same platoon. Offer him the same deal they offered Hughes. More on Rasmus http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/an-attempted-defense-of-colby-rasmus-defense/

Can Santana play average or above defense at shortstop? The scouting reports coming through spoke of his inconsistency. Escobar can play average or better defense at 3 positions. He didn't get to the majors or move so quickly through the minors with his bat. Punto always had plenty of playing time and escobar could have a similarly long career. A move of Santana to SS could be a defensive downgrade. In a year where the Twins are projected to win around 70 games, it is worth investing the time in Santana to see if he can play SS. If not, a career similar to Bonifacio would be an asset to the team. Schafer has had plenty of time and shown that he is a below average center fielder. Reports from Houston and Atlanta spoke of his trouble with paths to the ball. I have linked this reports a few times previously. With his speed had he played average or better defense in CF, he would not have been DFA'd twice. Like a lot of outfielders who are DFA'd, he doesn't have enough defense for CF or enough offense for a corner. He is good enough to hang around as a 4th or 5th OF on a bad team until the roster crunch (need for a 13th pitcher) forces a move or someone better is ready. His salary may be enough that no one will claim him and he will accept an assignment to Rochester providing some depth. Hicks is valuable to a major league team right now. His bat against left handed pitching and defense in a corner are good enough to be a platoon player. A role as a 4th OF while platooning with Arcia in LF would be a good fit. He is young enough to improve his bat for the left side and routes in the OF. A team with a projection like the Twins can afford to invest another 60 games as CF. Worst case, he falls into a platoon/4th OF/defensive replacement role. Nunez has had plenty of opportunity. He doesn't have near the glove to play SS. He isn't valuable as a utility without the ability to play 2B. In the days of 10-11 man pitching staffs, teams could afford to carry a platoon 3B or a guy that could play 3B and LF from the bench. That is role that would fit Nunez. I don't see the fit with the Twins. I do like the thought that he would be in Rochester ready to fill in at 3B if Plouffe is injured and Sano is not ready. He is out of options and probably would pass through waivers with the volume of players that will be DFA'd to open the season. Best investment for long term would be Santana at SS, Hicks in CF and Escobar as utility. Give it until June 1 and reassess.

They are looking to trade Blackmon for good pitching. They don't need to trade him. He is a good low cost player for Coors Field. Why would they they trade him for any of the mediocre pitchers listed here? It started with Gibson and he is he only one that they might consider other than Hughes or good prospects. He is a groundball pitcher for Coors. I wouldn't trade Gibson for him. The Twins need good pitching and he might be able to provide it for a while. I can't see why they would trade him for the other guys. If they wanted a decline phase guy with a contract they could have gone out and bought one in free agency. I don't see how the Twins are a match unless having a surplus of mediocre pitching is the new market inefficiency.

The Twins don't have good starting pitching to spare and it is going to take more than mediocre starting pitching to get Blackmon following last year.

Plouffe had virtually no experience at 3B entering 2012. It was Valencia and Burroughs to start the season in 2012. Ten guys some time there in spring but Plouffe wasn't among them. He did play one game there in the minors in 2011. Is it surprising that he struggled with the glove learning the position in the midst of a major league season? His improvement is a credit to his hard work and the experience at playing the position. The Twins probably could have done a better job of recognizing where he would best fit at the major league level and preparing him for that role.

I do know that the projection systems do much better than using last year's data to project performance on this year. The Twins acquire someone like Stauffer or Hunter or Santana and the forum is filled with data from their most recent performance in argument of whether they will be helpful to the Twins. it is more likely that their projections will be closer to reality than last year's numbers. Rarely are the projections used in the arguments.