Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jorgenswest

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,174

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by jorgenswest

  1. jorgenswest
    That was my initial thought and then I looked at alternatives. Glasnow is projected for 3.8 WAR. His salary is 25 million which really helps. Think of that value as cash in the deal to avoid prospect cost. At 25M his surplus value is only 12.8. Festa can headline a deal at that level. At the end of the year Glasnow can be offered a qualifying offer with a comp pick in return. What are the alternatives? The prospect cost of a pitcher with three years of control projected at 3.8 WAR will be very high. Still using Glasnow as an example, he is project for 37.8 in value. Over three years that is 113.4. A player like this would likely just be entering their ARB years. That might be 35M over 3 years. The prospect cost for getting a similar pitcher with three years of control is 78.4. That would cost Lewis plus a little more or it could be Lee or Jenkins plus Julien to get there. I would rather trade a Festa each year than a Lewis every three years. It does have payroll implications but that is mostly year 1 when the three year player’s arb award is low. If Glasgow is a risk then go after Burnes or Bieber. Risks can be found in all. It is the concept of targeting players with one year of control every year that I am considering. The prospect cost is much lower and comp picks will come back.
  2. jorgenswest
    I was thinking yesterday about how expensive it is to buy those extra years of control. I wonder if targeting a pitcher with 1 year of control each year might be optimal. The Twins couldn’t put a package together to acquire someone Burnes two years ago but now it is feasible. Glasnow and Bieber are almost reasonable. They would constantly be trading out good but not their best prospects. They would get some resupply with comp picks. Why not trade Festa and Miranda (or Schobel) for Glasnow or Bieber and do it again next year and the year after?
  3. jorgenswest
    Miami already has Berti and he is a much better version of Farmer. I am sure they would like a clear upgrade for next year and I am not sure the Twins have that. Brooks Lee would fit in behind Berti ready to take over next season or earlier when he dominates AAA. I don’t see them having any need for Farmer.
  4. jorgenswest
    They traded Arraez and that third year of control in the Lopez deal. It might be the sweet spot for trading a player. Players have had enough time to drive up their trade value and they are now entering a phase where salaries escalate. The Twins bank the 10.3 WAR for little cost and then trade off that extra third year of control to get a lot more in return. In Luzardo’s case the 63.3 for the years is a 71% increase over the projected 38.7 for two years.
  5. jorgenswest
    I was thinking on the minors end where we took 4 and lost no one.
  6. jorgenswest
    I think the sweet spot is the pitcher with two years of control. That third year is very expensive since it will come at a low arb cost. Using BTV’s numbers Luzardo is expected to be worth 91.3 million in value over the next three years. He is expected to make 28 million in arbitration so his surplus is 63.3. A good deal of the surplus comes from that extra third year where he is projected to be awarded 5.9 million in arbitration. A year from now he will be expected 22.1 in salary left and have about 60.8 of his value left. His surplus value will have dropped nearly 25 million. The cost of that extra one season is close to Jeffers. I like Luzardo but that third year costs too much. I wouldn’t trade Jeffers or even Rodriguez for one season of Luzardo but that is essentially what they would be doing getting that third year of control.
  7. jorgenswest
    I wonder if not losing anyone is a sign that their system is not as strong. It is great not to lose anyone. Is it better to have so much depth that teams want the back end of that depth when they have to be left available?
  8. jorgenswest
    My other thought is… Let’s suppose they both have very good seasons in their contract years. I would think Verdugo’s age would make him a better bet to merit a qualifying offer adding possible value.
  9. jorgenswest
    It is comparable. They did lose a buyer in the Yankees. so the market has changed. If the Yankees liked Kepler better I am sure they connected with the Twins and tried to make the same/similar deal. It must not have been enough for the Twins.
  10. jorgenswest
    Number 1 has to be Jared Camp. They received Santana and 50000 for him At the close of the draft. Of course it is just silly to put Camp at number 1 instead of Santana. The Twins had the number 1 pick and could have taken anyone but why not get the extra cash? Santana was always their pick. That number 1 slot has to be Santana (or Camp if you must). Mack was a great pick but can anyone argue that he is worth more than Santana and 50K?
  11. jorgenswest
    It is @Doctor Gast’s thread. He put up a proposal and invited us to argue back. I jumped in a few times with a back and forth and got out. Not my thread. He listened to ideas of others, changed it up a bit and kept the argument going. I appreciate the thread and look forward to his next thread where we might not see eye to eye.
  12. jorgenswest
    I wonder if they are trying to go big on someone. If that is the case I don’t see them taking on Polanco or Kepler.
  13. jorgenswest
    I think playoff use showed who he valued. During the season it shifted to a 50/50 split. It is hard to argue with that when they were one of few teams that only needed two catchers on the season.
  14. jorgenswest
    Your work shows light on the need for depth. I think they need 3 pitchers. They will need to utilize options on a few listed to build the depth that will be needed. I would also utilize Miranda’s option and start him in AAA to get regular at bats. Gordon was a solid CF his second year and at this point they are thin there. I like the depth of Camargo, Martin, Lee, Larnach, Miranda and Severino in AAA. Additions don’t seem as necessary until Polanco or Kepler or Vazquez are dealt.
  15. jorgenswest
    I don’t believe prospect rankings are out for this winter. The most recent listed in baseball reference is the 2023 that I cited. If somehow the Rockies would take this deal, I am all in. Like the Pirates had no interest in trading Rodriguez unless blown away, I really doubt the Rockies would trade Romo. They both have the same 55 potential ceiling in their field scouting score on Fangraphs.
  16. jorgenswest
    Romo was ranked 80 by BA and 84 by MLB entering last season. Ramirez is ranked 24 in the Yankee system with field grades of 40 from both Fangraphs and MLB. From MLB pipeline “Whether Ramirez can remain at catcher is another question. He lacks quickness and soft hands, so his receiving, framing and blocking skills are very much works in progress. He does have solid arm strength and keeps the running game in check but some scouts believe he's destined for first base.” Do you value Vazquez more than Trevino so you wouldn’t make the deal absent the Rockies? I just can’t see why the Rockies trade the future for two years of a catcher in the decline phase of his career.
  17. jorgenswest
    How is it a win for the Rockies? They give up their catcher of the future who is a global top 100 prospect and has an ETA of 2024 for a catcher at 31 with two years of control and wRC+ of 61, 92 and 58 over the last three seasons. Vazquez has been better in each of those seasons. The catching prospect they get in the deal probably won’t remain at catcher. It might be a deal the Twins would make if they can trade Vazquez and his full contract. They get a similar player in Trevino and a lottery ticket that Ramirez can stay at catcher. The Twins can spend on a starter with the savings on Kepler and Vazquez. Would you do this deal? It can’t happen until they find a taker for Vazquez and his full contract.
  18. jorgenswest
    It would be a sell high in Jeffers. I am guessing teams see the same batted ball data and are a little concerned that his actuals outperformed his expected numbers based on his contact by quite a bit. He was third on the Twins in slugging percentage but 10th in barrels and 9th in hard hit rate. Is it luck or skill driving the .359 BABIP? His BABIPs the previous two seasons were .269 and .259.
  19. jorgenswest
    Last year in high leverage Pagán’s had an OPS against of .828. He pitched in high leverage situations in 21.6% of the batter he faced. More than half his batters faced were in low leverage situations. A late inning reliever like Jax will see more than 50% of the batter’s faced in high leverage. A closer will be over 60%. For his career Pagán has been consistently solid in low and medium leverage and poor in high leverage with an OPS against of .845 for his career and an OPS against in the .600s otherwise. His overall numbers looked good last year when the Twins minimized his exposure in high leverage but were they very valuable? Are they worth giving a reliever entering his decline phase 2 years and 16 million? He is worth the contract if you believe the career long discrepancy between his high leverage performance and lower leverage performance is simply random and bad luck. The Twins can afford an 8 million dollar reliever even with the cut budget. They need to spend it in someone they can count on late in games. Once they commit that money they aren’t going to cut the player loose. They need to spend it wisely. I don’t think spending it on Pagán for his age 33 and 34 seasons would be wise.
  20. jorgenswest
    I agree if his reliever ceiling is simply decent. If he can be a very good reliever bordering on All Star consideration, I think that is more valuable than a decent back of the rotation starter. Does he have the pitch mix to be a mid rotation starter and see the top of a line up a third time? Would you trade Duran for a decent back of the rotation starter? I wouldn’t in spite of the inning difference. I think I would trade Jax for that starter though. As for this year he would be my 6th starter beginning in AAA. I would also find another decent starter. Prepping him as a starter will not close the door on moving him to late inning reliever.
  21. jorgenswest
    ERA isn’t a very predictive stat and catcher ERA can’t be better. It would be so hard to control the varying quality of opponent and pitcher caught added to all of the other noise in ERA. It may have been helpful years ago when pitch level data wasn’t available. I sure hope it isn’t part of what the Twins use to evaluate a catcher.
  22. jorgenswest
    Something to consider. 156 Duran 145 Gray 139 Jax 121 Lopez Those are the top 4 in high leverage batters faced. The fifth through tenth range 49 to 69. Ryan, Ober, Pagán, Jorge Lopez, Thielbar, Maeda
  23. jorgenswest
    I would add a starter and prepare Varland to be a starter. Their 6th starter will be needed to start a lot of games and he has a better chance for success than Dobnak, Festa or Woods-Richardson.
  24. jorgenswest
    Vazquez has value to the team. I would Vázquez if they can find a team to take all of his remaining contract and part with a marginal prospect. If they need to add dollars or take on a bad contract I would keep him.
  25. jorgenswest
    They may wait it out. That didn’t work out so well with Lance Lynn though. Maybe Ryu is their next target.
×
×
  • Create New...