Article: Early Offseason Rumors

[Otto von Ballpark]

Those deals were never TRUELY on the table In my opinion.  It was typical Red Sox vs. Yankees BS / feuding going between Epstein versus Steinbrenner.   In some ways it was clear tampering so that neither franchise got Santana.  Selig should have stepped in and told them to knock it off or make a clear offer.

Tampering?  They were trade negotiations.  If the Red Sox or Yankees weren't negotiating in good faith, then the Twins let themselves be used, simple as that.

 

Probably criminal to force that situation upon Bill Smith a couple months into his tenure (and borderline criminal to make Smith the GM in the first place), although even Smith should have known that, in the face of indecisive trade partners, keeping Santana for a year and taking the picks ("the TR method") wouldn't be the end of the world.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm a bit surprised there isn't more support for Rios.  He's another high ceiling guy just like Masterson with WAR > 3 in six of the last nine seasons (something Masterson has only done twice in his career).

 

He had a bum ankle and then a thumb injury holding him back in 2014.  Isn't there an opportunity to find good value with a bounceback in 2015?  Especially at a projected 1/$7M?

Rios is an interesting candidate but I'm not sure how far he can bounce back in Target Field. He has played the past five seasons in two of the most hitter-friendly stadiums in MLB.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Rios is an interesting candidate but I'm not sure how far he can bounce back in Target Field. He has played the past five seasons in two of the most hitter-friendly stadiums in MLB.

To be fair, B-Ref's park factors now have Target Field similar to Texas and Chicago of recent years.

[TheLeviathan]

I also worry that at Rios' age those nagging injuries are more of the norm rather than something he can bounce back from.

[jay]

Also, looking ahead, in the event of a bounceback 2015 season and lack of a deadline flip, who would be worth a qualifying offer for 2016? Masterson and Rasmus, almost certainly. Rios? Probably not.

Let's not make it sound like I'm in love with Rios... because I'm not.

 

I only mentioned Masterson to highlight that Rios has some ceiling as well. Rios can likely be had on a one year deal while every projection I've seen for Masterson and Rasmus says multi-year (and higher AAV), so comparing contract status is hardly apples to apples.

 

Of the OF free agent options, Rios has some amount of upside and bounce back potential... which is more than can be said for many of the other options.

[Willihammer]

Kubel is a year younger with as much upside. Perhaps the Twins should waste another 176 PAs on him?

[jay]

Pretty different players and body types. And no, Kubel did not have as much "upside". Power, sure -- every other aspect of the game, no.

 

If we want to highlight upside candidates that didn't work out, is that saying the Twins shouldn't make those deals? Seems to me it's exactly what they should be looking for.

 

How many other options are out there that would be a better fit for a short-term deal? Maybe a couple?

[Willihammer]

If we want to highlight upside candidates that didn't work out, is that saying the Twins shouldn't make those deals? Seems to me it's exactly what they should be looking for.

I disagree. How many times do upside deals deliver sub-replacement level production? They aren't no-risk propositions people make them out to be.

 

I'd rather see a healthy Reynaldo Rodriguez in left field than a gimpy 34 year old Alex Rios.

[Sam Morley]

Kubel is a year younger with as much upside. Perhaps the Twins should waste another 176 PAs on him?

Kubecakes! KOOOOOOBS!

[jay]

I disagree. How many times do upside deals deliver sub-replacement level production? They aren't no-risk propositions people make them out to be.

I'm not sure who those people are, but there's generally additional risk whenever people are talking about upside.

 

Kubel was on the far end of the scale in hoping for upside, as was represented in the minimal cost. I don't quite understand having a negative view of those deals based off that. Does that mean no interest in Rasmus or Masterson either?

 

The Twins are in a great position to take a risk on players that can exceed their contract value.

[ashbury]

Kubel was on the far end of the scale in hoping for upside, as was represented in the minimal cost.

Money isn't the only cost.  A fair amount of lineup time was wasted trying to determine how he could contribute.  Often that's a scarce resource too.  Not the first time this has happened, trying to find a gem in the discard heap.

[jay]

Not the first time this has happened, trying to find a gem in the discard heap.

Yes, but it's not quite the same when you're shopping in a nicer heap. The Kubel, Zumaya, Ponson pile smells a lot worse than the Masterson, Rasmus, Rios pile.

[stringer bell]

Money isn't the only cost.  A fair amount of lineup time was wasted trying to determine how he could contribute.  Often that's a scarce resource too.  Not the first time this has happened, trying to find a gem in the discard heap.

Do remember that most of Kubel's playing time came when the Twins were down not one but two regular outfielders. The Twins didn't have anyone ready to play corner outfield that was left behind because Kubel was in the lineup. He actually had a decent April, as well, IIRC. It didn't turn out that Kubel wasted too much lineup time at all IMHO.

[Mike Sixel]

They didn't have any corner OF because they signed Kubel instead of an actual OF.......it's a self fulfilling prophecy. That was the point, they take up roster space.

[Willihammer]

Yes, but it's not quite the same when you're shopping in a nicer heap. The Kubel, Zumaya, Ponson pile smells a lot worse than the Masterson, Rasmus, Rios pile.

I suspect these are all guys who won't be on board with a minor league deal like Kubel was, all but locking whoever signs them into giving them PT and probably suffering for it.

[jay]

I suspect these are all guys who won't be on board with a minor league deal like Kubel was, all but locking whoever signs them into giving them PT and probably suffering for it.

Isn't that the downside of ANY player the Twins are spending significant money on? What's the alternative here?

[Willihammer]

Isn't that the downside of ANY player the Twins are spending significant money on? What's the alternative here?

Get out of the discard heap?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Get out of the discard heap?

If you think the Twins W-L record will be better off by signing Scherzer or Lester rather than Masterson or Anderson, I don't think you will find much disagreement here.

 

Still doesn't mean that Masterson or Anderson are bad deals or too risky.

[jay]

Get out of the discard heap?

 

Where's the arbitrary line for the free agent discard heap?  Top 50?  Top 20?  Top 10?

 

Masterson, Rasmus and Rios are all anywhere from 15-50 in the top free agent rankings at ESPN, Fangraphs and MLB Trade Rumors...

[Willihammer]

Where's the arbitrary line for the free agent discard heap?  Top 50?  Top 20?  Top 10?

 

Masterson, Rasmus and Rios are all anywhere from 15-50 in the top free agent rankings at ESPN, Fangraphs and MLB Trade Rumors...

You know it when you're in it. If you have to ask yourself whether the player would immediately have to be placed on the DL, for example, you're in the scrap heap.

 

Let's be clear about the health issues.

 

Masterson: suffered oblique injury in fall 2013. Still suffered from in in ST 2014. This caused him to alter his mechanics, causing him to hurt the knee in his pushoff leg. Compensating for that, he hurt his shoulder. That's 3 things. Players with 3 injuries belong on the DL or out of baseball entirely, not on anyone's 25 man roster.

 

Rasmus: Right wrist, Right oblique, Right hammy. Has played 150 games once in 6 years. Textbook case of a player earning the label "injury prone."

 

Rios: 34 with declining production in 2014 - that was before he missed the final 22 games of 2014 with thumb injury.

[Willihammer]

If you think the Twins W-L record will be better off by signing Scherzer or Lester rather than Masterson or Anderson, I don't think you will find much disagreement here.

 

Still doesn't mean that Masterson or Anderson are bad deals or too risky.

Do we need to do another lap? Any player you put on the 25 man roster likely to perform at a sub-replacement level because of poor health, is a risk.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Willihammer

[Willihammer]

And before anyone says "no player is a risk on the DL," look at Peflrey, Nolasco, Colabello, Perkins ended the year with an elbow issue. Kubel was almost certainly still dealing with 2013's leg problems. Players don't pipe up when they're hurt. Certainly a player on a 1 year make good contract isn't going to.

[jay]

You know it when you're in it. If you have to ask yourself whether the player would immediately have to be placed on the DL, for example, you're in the scrap heap.

 

The contract value they sign for represents their expected value to that team.  Players like Masterson, Rasmus and Rios all carry significant risk -- no one is denying that.  However, it's that variation in expected value that makes their contract value lower.  There's also larger potential for them to exceed their contract value if healthy. 

 

I only see two alternatives:

- Contracts of similar value are going to be for players who might not have health issues, but have a lower perceived ceiling.  Hammel and Aoki might be good examples.

- Contracts of higher value and longer length.  Almost every team is going to be limited in how many of these they can do.  These guys come with a whole separate set of risks as we've seen illustrated by Nolasco and a majority of other larger dollar FA contracts.

I don't see how either of those are better for the Twins right now than taking some risk on higher-ceiling players.

[Willihammer]

The contract value they sign for represents their expected value to that team.  Players like Masterson, Rasmus and Rios all carry significant risk -- no one is denying that.  However, it's that variation in expected value that makes their contract value lower.  There's also larger potential for them to exceed their contract value if healthy. 

"If healthy" is such a huge caveat, it should preclude any kind of guaranteed deal. We're talking about 25 roster spots, not 53. I don't know what kind Wolverine bodies you people inhabit, I know mine wouldn't spontaneously regenerate from something like a bulging disc or a bum oblique that's been bothering me since 2013. I think the odds of that happening, at any age, pale in comparison to a healthy 25 year old Trevor May figuring it out over the first couple months of the season, and are even longer odds compared to someone like Ervin Santana.

 

And you say these bottom shelf types are a better bet to outperform their contracts compared to the high dollar, multi-year players.... This opinion is just kind of assumed around here. I don't know if its a dome holdover or a small-thinking MN trait or if its based upon a study someone did. I would love to read some actual evidence that the market is so inefficient in its valuations of free agents every year.

[jay]

And you say these bottom shelf types are a better bet to outperform their contracts compared to the high dollar, multi-year players.... This opinion is just kind of assumed around here. I don't know if its a dome holdover or a small-thinking MN trait or if its based upon a study someone did. I would love to read some actual evidence that the market is so inefficient in its valuations of free agents every year.

 

I said they have a higher range of variation due to their injury factors.  That can result in low or zero output if injured (sub-replacement level on one extreme) or the "upside" of high output if healthy (which exceeds contract value).  I don't see how that has anything to do with the Dome, Minnesota or an inefficient market. 

 

Price discounting as expected variation increases (aka risk) is the trait of an efficient market.  You can find reading about how risk and variation effect price in most any finance or economics book.

[bird]

They didn't have any corner OF because they signed Kubel instead of an actual OF.......it's a self fulfilling prophecy. That was the point, they take up roster space.

Kubel was a bad signing, but the right idea. Overpaying for an "actual OF" on the FA last year would have required a multi-year contract for a player that gets you maybe a few extra wins in a year that the team's going nowhere. (Not to mention the options are limited by the fact that the team's going nowhere.)

 

This year is a little different. If Ryan finds an actual #2-3 type starter, like he did last year, then .500 is within sight, right? And from there, it makes a lot more sense to overpay for an actual OF, even on a 2-3 year contract. So this year, I'm with you, mike.

 

It's funny how the conversation has evolved from finding useful ABs to insert in the lineup, then to avoiding wasted ABs from the likes of Kubel, and now to worries about blocking ABs from the likes of Rosario.

 

This is the right time to find an actual OF, via trade or FA, and it's the first year of the rebuild in which having a guy like this might really matter.

Edited November 22, 2014 by birdwatcher

[Otto von Ballpark]

Do we need to do another lap? Any player you put on the 25 man roster likely to perform at a sub-replacement level because of poor health, is a risk.

I didn't say they weren't a risk.  Every transaction has some level of risk.  I said I am not convinced that Masterson or Anderson on one-year deals are TOO risky.

Edited November 22, 2014 by spycake

[Otto von Ballpark]

"If healthy" is such a huge caveat, it should preclude any kind of guaranteed deal. We're talking about 25 roster spots, not 53. I don't know what kind Wolverine bodies you people inhabit, I know mine wouldn't spontaneously regenerate from something like a bulging disc or a bum oblique that's been bothering me since 2013. I think the odds of that happening, at any age, pale in comparison to a healthy 25 year old Trevor May figuring it out over the first couple months of the season, and are even longer odds compared to someone like Ervin Santana.

But it's not like we would lose Trevor May if we brought in Masterson or Anderson.  Depending on how things shake out, there still might be a rotation spot up for grabs even with a FA SP addition.  And there will probably be some important spots open in the bullpen too, if May has no further business in AAA.

 

Taking a one-year risk on Masterson or Anderson, while Trevor May continues his MLB acclimation as a reliever and 6th starter, might be a better use of resources for the 2015 Twins than a longer-term deal (and loss of 2nd round pick) for Ervin Santana.  Even if Masterson/Anderson are "riskier" than Santana in terms of median projected health/performance for 2015.  Given all the other factors, "riskier" in that context does not necessarily equal "worse."

[Willihammer]

I said they have a higher range of variation due to their injury factors.  That can result in low or zero output if injured (sub-replacement level on one extreme) or the "upside" of high output if healthy (which exceeds contract value).  I don't see how that has anything to do with the Dome, Minnesota or an inefficient market. 

 

Price discounting as expected variation increases (aka risk) is the trait of an efficient market.  You can find reading about how risk and variation effect price in most any finance or economics book.

I'm not the one presuming he can outsmart the market. People think 1 year guaranteed bounceback contracts on injured players is a smart gamble. That opinion underemphasizes the likelihood of sub-replacement level production and overemphasizes the upside, and the proof is in the price. The Twins are already hoping for bouncebacks from 3-4 players. Therefore, what this team needs is to take on as little additional risk as possible, not waste precious roster spots on  players with very long odds to reach their upside. Get out of the bargain bin, in other words.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Willihammer

[Willihammer]

But it's not like we would lose Trevor May if we brought in Masterson or Anderson.  Depending on how things shake out, there still might be a rotation spot up for grabs even with a FA SP addition.  And there will probably be some important spots open in the bullpen too, if May has no further business in AAA.

 

Taking a one-year risk on Masterson or Anderson, while Trevor May continues his MLB acclimation as a reliever and 6th starter, might be a better use of resources for the 2015 Twins than a longer-term deal (and loss of 2nd round pick) for Ervin Santana.  Even if Masterson/Anderson are "riskier" than Santana in terms of median projected health/performance for 2015.  Given all the other factors, "riskier" in that context does not necessarily equal "worse."

May is a bad example, I forgot he has one option year left.

 

It boils down to what you think is a smart allocation of roster spots and playing time and I think I've made my opinion more than clear that hoping Brett Anderson's bulging disc regenerates itself, or that Justin Masterson recovers from 3 different injuries in a single offseason, are a fool's gamble.