nicksaviking

I know I've posted this before, but Rooker improved each month: K% April - 29.6 May - 28.6 June - 28.0 July - 24.2 August/Sept - 22.8 BB% April - 2.2 May - 7.0 June - 11.2 July - 13.3 August/Sept - 13.4 Heading into the draft Rooker was known to be obsessive about crafting his hitting technique, he's a great candidate to always be able to adjust. And his last month isn't much to be worried about, his strikeout and walk rates were peaking at that time but he had insanely bad luck with a .210 BABIP.

Whomever worked with Kyle Gibson to improve his slider last year should be tied to the hip of Thorpe this year. I hope that guy is still on the payroll. Mid 90's or low 90's fastball, nothing is better than a lefty with a killer slider.

The three batter minimum rule seems to be getting the most push-back, which I understand as it is the most impactful, even more so than the DH. I'd be really curious to see how it played out though. Will it make guys who can ONLY go one inning marginalized? The staple 2000's bullpen of six one inning relievers and one mop-up guy couldn't work any longer could it? Seems to me that would force teams to start carrying more traditional starters in the pen. So even without thinking about options, it would seem like guys like Romero, Gonsalves and Mejia would need to be on the big club instead of guys like Busenitz, Moya and Curtis. Would these multi-inning BP roles for young relievers turn into a defacto waiting list for starting gigs instead of waiting things out in AAA? Also, I'd have to think it would help extend the careers of aging starting pitchers. A Clay Buchholz or Ervin Santana may be a better fit than say Brad Boxberger. So aside from the decrease in strikeouts due to playing matchups, I'd think some of the guys who typically get strikeouts would be replaced by guys who don't. If you have a BP made up of more guys than not that go multiple innings will teams go back to seven man bullpens? Or dare I speak it, six? With that 26th man could teams possibly go with a five or six man bench? Also, it sure would make it more enticing to be a switch hitter again and it would decrease shifting. You'd still have shifting, but if you can't dictate righty/lefty matchups at will, it won't be happening every at bat. I might also think this would actually help the traditional use of the starters. The good starters who don't have awful RH/LH splits won't be pulled for a LOOGY in the 5th, it will be more incumbent on the team to have it's best pitcher out there, not their best pitcher against a specific batter. 200 IP might become a realistic goal again and maybe we'll see another 300 win pitcher! Plenty of questions with doing this though. Losing some strategy seems to be the biggest thing. I don't know though, current strategy would basically be shelved, but I think a more complex strategy would be developed. Would a team bait the other with a reliever to see if the other manager will use TWO of his bench players in the same inning? Do you save your best relievers for the highest pressure situation, or do you save him to face the big bench bat that you know the other manager is saving? Originally at the top of my post I said I was just playing Devi's Advocate, but then I ended up talking myself into really wanting to see how this would play out. I like trying new things, of course that's with the understanding that I'm not opposed to dropping the new thing if it doesn't work out.

Yes to all, I like trying new things. That last one sounds a bit odd though, I'd think other repercussions might help with the tanking, because getting a high draft pick is only part of the motivation. I think a lot of tanking is caused by trading off vets for prospects and getting young players experience. I think in most cases, the low record and the ensuing high draft pick are mostly just a bonus. If you want to stop tanking, make a salary floor; force teams to go get free agents to fill their needs.

Nick Blackburn, Kohl Stewart Brandon Kintzler and Matt Capps threw relatively hard too. If they're just up there throwing sinkers half of the time, they're not going to miss many bats.

I'm guessing it's less of an indictment on Castro and more of a preference for Garver. While Castro hit better than average for a catcher two years ago, Garver hit better than average for any baseball player last year.

Despite what seems like a league-wide consensus that Kimbrel is the best available reliever, I still preferred Familia, Robertson and Soria due to expected length of contracts. Still, if it's only three years, I find it next to impossible that his contract could ever be a hindrance even if he implodes.

Fingers crossed with Enlow. Still, I'm a guy more interested in strikeouts, hope those hit a significant uptick. A 6.8 K/9 in Cedar Rapids is a bit ominous to me. I'm guessing he's throwing too many two-seamers?

I think this team needs better OBP guys so I wouldn't be interested in Jones. Gonzalez looks like a shell of himself even at Coors so I think I'd skip him. Plenty of room for Marwin though, he can play infield too. Span would be interesting. While a guy like Jones is likely looking to start, Span might be more amenable to just taking a job. Being a rotational outfielder might work for him.

Great contribution, welcome aboard!

Excellent article. Surprising the Twins are on three of the five lists. Seeing as they are not in the top ten in overall spending in any of those years, I think there is a pretty solid conclusion to draw: the Twins have been awful at developing players of their own worth paying money to.

I’d guess it means they already know Realmuto won’t sign one and they’d lose leverage if he was forced to flat out tell a team it was never going to be an option while they control him.

I was watching that chat and agreed until he threw Pomeranz out there. Pomeranz isn't any good either, at that point it sounded like he just had preferences between two terrible options and was disappointed that the Twins chose death by fire instead of death by drowning. Surely he could have found a better example than Pomeranz to support his view.

The Twins can still play Buxton the majority of the season, it doesn't mean he has to be the focal point and the key cog in the machine. Steve Lobardozzi wasn't either of those things and he played near every day batting about where Buxton will to start the year too. You should build up your team with potential, you shouldn't build your team around potential. Build it around known commodities; if you don't have enough of that, you're work isn't done. This team's work isn't done yet. Buxton should be an after-thought at this time and if he comes out of his shell, a wonderful surprise that maybe can be built around at a later date.

Yeah, I don't want Perez and a sinker heavy approach anywhere near this team. I am slightly intrigued due to the Kyle Gibson similarities. Also, I was looking through recent Texas starters for comps for guys who have left the team. There aren't many because the Rangers are awful at developing pitchers, but Derek Holland had the same silly sinker reliance. Now two years removed from Texas, just like Gibson, he upped his four-seamer and slider usage in the right counts and he turned into a real pitcher who can actually get outs all on his own. But if that's not the plan for Perez, dump him early.

I'm excited for Baldelli. I'm not excited that people keep implying that Buxton and/or Sano are the keys to success. There are lots of ways to win baseball games, I don't like the idea that we're pinning everything on one unproven young player. Just build the best team you can and if he contributes great, if he doesn't, deal with it and MOVE ON, he's just one out of 24 players on the roster.

Celestino is supposed to develop power? He looks very slight but he's young I guess. If he's supposed to develop good power I'm in.

I agree. My point is that 32-33 year old Kyle Gibson isn’t likely to be as good as 30-year-old Gibson was either. If we want to replace the production of Kyle Gibson at his peak, it shouldn’t be with Kyle Gibson post-peak. I don’t care if he’s extended, but if/when he declines people are going to want to get that production back. And if we’re complaining about salary now, having a $13M per year liability isn’t going to make things easier.

Well I’d think a 32-33 year old Kyle Gibson probably would be replaced by a Gio Gonzalez or Clay Buchholtz type.

It might not easily be replaceable, but he’s 31 so it’s also not likely sustainable. This team is most likely going to lose the good Kyle Gibson to age if not free agency.

If this team isn't going to sign free agents past one year I don't see why it would matter if these guys got paid toward the peak of their value. I'd do Berrios and Rosario now if they're willing, though they may not be. So far the others haven't shown they can be consistently productive. Gibson's different, he's too old. I wouldn't be upset about an extension, but I wouldn't be expecting him to be productive past another year or so. Still, this team isn't going to have any salary issues so dead money contracts aren't going to hurt. Also, Trevor May is currently very inexpensive at $900K and a free agent after 2020. Giving him a significant pay increase (relative to current earnings) over the next couple of years might convince him to be bought out of a couple free agent years. Just a dark horse extension candidate as he'd be rather painless.

I expect Garver to catch way more games than Castro this year.

And surrounded by tons of people who still view pitcher success based on ERA and Wins. I had written Stewart off a couple of years ago and even after last year when he did get called up I thought it was nice but still put no stock into him being a piece of the future. I'm going to reopen that door though. Despite Ryan Pressly's gushing to the contrary, what Stewart described sounded quite a bit how Charlie Morton described how Houston dealt with the minutia in getting their pitchers to maximize their pitches in the right moments to the right batters. It also sounds like what the Twins did to get Kyle Gibson to discover himself.

I think he was referring to a hypothetical situation. I agree, stud pitchers aren't available currently. It's hard to count on teams rebuilding in the offseason, some GMs and owners just don't see their teams in the same light as the rest of the league. But my money is that the Mets pitchers will be available this July. They've made some moves but that team looks like they are primed for disappointment. Perhaps that's based on little other than them hiring an agent to be their GM, but my spidey sense tells me it's a team fated for dysfunction.

Mauer, Posey and Lucroy all seemed to take a nosedive in their age 31 season. I'd bet that Realmuto is still decent for a couple more years, but I agree, I wouldn't want to pick up the check for his free agent contract or extension when he gets there.