Analyzing the José Berríos Extension from Minnesota’s Perspective

[LastOnePicked]

1 hour ago, DocBauer said:

I don't think the Twins look very good here.

Okay, Doc, but isn't it funny how the Twins don't end up "looking good" on most moves they make under this FO? At some point, we may have to realize that it's more than just bad luck or bad looks.

[Major League Ready]

6 hours ago, LastOnePicked said:

When the Twins can demonstrate either the ongoing MiLB developmental successes of the A's or Rays OR those team's competitiveness on the field and consistent postseason runs, then maybe these comparisons will ring a little more fair. 

The Rays are now perennial winners. The As hang in there year after year in surprising ways. The Twins fall short of expectations repeatedly.

 

This is not germane to the point I was making.  I responded to a poster who said the Twins are not a serious MLB team because they did not sign Berrios or give him a 7 year deal or however you want to interpret it.  I pointed out that there is literally one example of a below revenue team making such a signing.  Point being that it's not something low revenue teams do.  People constantly bitch about the Twins not doing things that none of the low revenue teams do.  It's an ignorant bitch.  It would be great if people had enough common sense to ask themselves if this is a Twins thing or a product of being a below revenue team. 

The argument they should follow bad practices because they have not been good at the practices essential to lower revenue teams is so ill-conceived it boggles my mind.  Wouldn't the best course of action be to improve those practices.  For example, get a new PBO and GM.  Replace the people managing identification and development as well as improving analytics.  I don't know yet if they have succeeded at these tasks.  However, I am absolutely certain pursuing inferior practices because we have not excelled at best practices in the past would be the height of incompetence.

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

How many other teams with below average revenue signed SPs to 7 year deals in the past 25 years?   The answer is 1.  Colorado signed Dan Hampton which was a horrific signing.  Is Colorado the only serious MLB team among those teams with below average revenue?  

Tampa traded Snell last year.  Are they not interested in winning?  Oakland is looking to trade their established SPs.  Does this indicate they are not a serious MLB team.  Was Billy Beane demonstrating he was not interested in winning when he traded Jeff Samardzija for Bassitt and Semien?

I came here just to see MLR's use of the phrase "below average revenue." I'm keeping count. 

[mikelink45]

4 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Berrios is indeed 4th in the league in fWAR over the past 5 years--if the league in question is the AL.  Expand it to MLB, and he drops to 14th.

Berrios' durability also potentially works against him here--as fWAR is a counting stat, staying healthy can skew this number (much like RBI numbers can be skewed by batting cleanup for 150 games).  Indeed, if you look at FIP- for the last 5 years, Berrios drops to 33rd in the league; by xFIP- it's 51st (not for nothing, his mark of 93 is identical to Joey Lucchesi, Micahel Pineda, and Kyle Gibson).

Now durability is obviously an asset--you can argue it is better to have a starter who makes 30 starts with a 3 ERA than a starter who makes 10 starts with a 2 ERA.  Jose Berrios is indeed durable--until he's not.  Perhaps Berrios pitches 10 more years without a single major injury.  Perhaps Berrios blows his arm out in his very first start of 2022.  The Blue Jays are gambling $20M+ a year that a clear 2nd starter by quality can become a 1st starter through quantity.  I'm not saying Berrios won't, but this is a gamble on Toronto's side.

I would take him.  All the stats provide different contexts for argument, but the fact is, he has been a dependable starter and that is hard to find. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

Honestly, ownership of TB and Oakland should be ashamed of themselves. Those teams (sometimes) win DESPITE their payroll behavior, not because of it. The ownership of those clubs is absolutely not committed to winning except on very specific terms.

And if they want to cry poor and STILL demonstrate how they truly want to win, then they need to come out and vocally and publicly demand revenue sharing akin to the other major sports, instead of tying one hand behind their backs and telling their tax payers "We could win it all in ten years if you just give us free stadiums and tax breaks!"

Apparently you  are more skilled than Billy Beane.  

[Mike Sixel]

7 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I came here just to see MLR's use of the phrase "below average revenue." I'm keeping count. 

don't start drinking every time they point out their business experience. We want you around a few more years...

[nicksaviking]

9 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Apparently you  are more skilled than Billy Beane.  

At what?

I've never built a baseball team on a needlessly low payroll and then accepted pats on the back for winning and being thrifty about it.

Again, these teams are 100% not making winning their top priority if they aren't demanding revenue sharing like the other sports do. There are way more small and mid market teams than large market teams. They could make it happen if they wanted to. Maybe they'll consider it if after they all get their free stadiums.

[Major League Ready]

54 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I came here just to see MLR's use of the phrase "below average revenue." I'm keeping count. 

It's am afraid it's necessary to point out the actual issue is revenue disparity given the fact that there are many people here who can't seem to grasp the concept you can't spend money you don't have.

[Major League Ready]

48 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

don't start drinking every time they point out their business experience. We want you around a few more years...

Same is true for constant insistence of sports fans everywhere that management is incompetent.  The reason for this perennial assumption that teams are being managed so poorly could not possibly be that it's the sports fan that does not understand.  They are all experienced senior level management running 9 figure businesses.

[LastOnePicked]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

People constantly bitch about the Twins not doing things that none of the low revenue teams do.  It's an ignorant bitch.  It would be great if people had enough common sense to ask themselves if this is a Twins thing or a product of being a below revenue team. 

It also might be great if people asked themselves if the Twins are really a low-revenue team. At least, according to the data I could find, it looks like they're a mid-revenue team. Wasn't that the whole point of a subsidized new stadium just a decade ago?

So it isn't ignorant *at all* to assume that if the Twins were serious about winning they would pursue a mix of lower-cost, high-impact prospect development strategies (like the Rays) as well as a few higher-cost signings of all-star quality players (like the Yankees). Particularly homegrown, fan-favorite players who play at a position of the team's greatest need.

That's not "bitching" ... that's wanting the team to assert some intent to win.

But I'm very much on board with the suggestion to search for a new PBO and GM. Spot on.

[beckmt]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

How many other teams with below average revenue signed SPs to 7 year deals in the past 25 years?   The answer is 1.  Colorado signed Dan Hampton which was a horrific signing.  Is Colorado the only serious MLB team among those teams with below average revenue?  

Tampa traded Snell last year.  Are they not interested in winning?  Oakland is looking to trade their established SPs.  Does this indicate they are not a serious MLB team.  Was Billy Beane demonstrating he was not interested in winning when he traded Jeff Samardzija for Bassitt and Semien?

We are a mid market team, not a small market.  Big difference, we can afford $150 payroll.  With a winning team, this is easily doable.  We have a ton of possible starters coming, no reason this could not be done.  

Trade value was fair, will work if Martin works out the be a jack of all trades knife and a good hitter.  Still going backwards in not my idea for the twins.

[Major League Ready]

2 minutes ago, LastOnePicked said:

It also might be great if people asked themselves if the Twins are really a low-revenue team. At least, according to the data I could find, it looks like they're a mid-revenue team. Wasn't that the whole point of a subsidized new stadium just a decade ago?

So it isn't ignorant *at all* to assume that if the Twins were serious about winning they would pursue a mix of lower-cost, high-impact prospect development strategies (like the Rays) as well as a few higher-cost signings of all-star quality players (like the Yankees). Particularly homegrown, fan-favorite players who play at a position of the team's greatest need.

That's not "bitching" ... that's wanting the team to assert some intent to win.

But I'm very much on board with the suggestion to search for a new PBO and GM. Spot on.

I have NEVER suggested they are a low revenue team.  As a a matter of fact I have been careful to point out they are below average and also pointed out they could follow some of the practices of the Rays but use their incremental revenue to do some things the Rays can't.  You won't find the A's or the Pirates or other similar teams signing Josh Donaldson.  In other words, I agree they can definitely do more than the lowest revenue teams but it makes no sense to believe there is a problem if they don't sign guys at the very top of the market., especially when they are already carrying Donaldson's salary.

The reasonable comparison would be to look at teams of similar revenue.  I included any teams with below average revenue just to provide the opportunity for anyone to use any of these team's signings as an example.  You might notice that whenever I ask for examples, I get tangential responses, never an acknowledgment of these facts or any sort of a response with actual examples.  People prefer to ignore the facts and believe what they want to believe in when presented with hard fact.

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

2 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I'd imagine getting to face a pitcher 2-3 times through the lineup might also skew some counting stats no?

If durability is an asset (it is) why are players that pitched less than half of the innings Berrios did during that 5 year span being tossed out as legitimate comps? Also, doesn't fWAR incorporate FIP? Why isolate xFIP-?

Yes it would.  Your point?

I've always said durability is an asset.  but assuming that because someone has been durable they will continue to be durable is a gamble--the Blue Jays are cleraly content to take that gamble.  Johan Santana pitched 960 innings in his age 23-27 season, Berrios has pitched 850--both were extremely durable.  But Santana only had one more great season left, 3 more very good, one ok, and then was out of baseball.  Is it crazy to say that could also be Berrios' post-age 27 season path?

fWAR does use FIP, but a modified version (see below).  In essence, pitchers get credit for IF FB as K's in the WAR calculation, and the FIP constant is also changed.  I used both FIP- and xFIP- as two metrics that are not reliant on innings pitched, and therefore strip quantity from quality.  The point I'm making is that Berrios is the Bizarro Buxton--he's a good pitcher who posts great WAR because he doesn't get hurt (whereas Buxton is a great player who posts good WAR because he's constantly hurt).  Therefore, if Berrios ceases being able to make 30+ starts a year, his value is dramatically impacted, as he's not a great pitcher, but rather a very good one.  That said, there are worse things in baseball to spend $20M on than a very good pitcher.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, mikelink45 said:

I would take him.  All the stats provide different contexts for argument, but the fact is, he has been a dependable starter and that is hard to find. 

I'd take him too--my only point was that Berrios' value is built on his availability, not max ability.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Mod note: knock off the semantic revenue argument. While ability to pay is relevant, please bring evidence or drop it. This line of debate is going nowhere

[DocBauer]

1 hour ago, LastOnePicked said:

Okay, Doc, but isn't it funny how the Twins don't end up "looking good" on most moves they make under this FO? At some point, we may have to realize that it's more than just bad luck or bad looks.

I appreciate your opinion as well as your frustration. But I'm going to have to disagree with your sentiment. While 2021 was a classic and utter failure, the plan in place was not a bad one. I mean, Colome is gone and should be gone. But he was quite good/effective from about early May on. (Too little too late I know). Happ just shouldn't have been that bad based on history, his 2020, and his first few starts last year. I don't know how anyone could have predicted Simmons bat to just suddenly turn to wet tissue paper when he had an OPS of like .750 or higher 4 if the previous 5 seasons.

The Maeda and Odorizzi trades were excellent. The Cruz signing was outstanding. A healthy Donaldson earned his deal in 2021, and hopefully will in 2022 as well. In previous seasons, the FO found a number of bargains for the pen that met or exceeded any projections. Whether you actually agree with some of the players they have traded away, the returns on those trades look to have been solid with many of the returnees having reached MLB or are very close. 

System wise, they have completely revamped their entire approach and with good reports and what appear to be good results. While 2020 remains an outlier at this point due to it's unusual subtext, the drafts this FO has been responsible for appear to be at least solid if not good. We've already seen several coaches poached by other organizations from the Twins after being hired by, you guessed it, this current FO.

Please understand, I'm speaking from MY perspective on how I see this FO to this point. I don't believe we can judge it by a season in which virtually EVERYTHING that could go wrong  did go wrong. Nor can we, IMO, use any singular move or non-move judged as a "mistake" and use that to categorically dismiss the FO as incompetent.

Now, a large number of mistakes can and will certainly add up. But absolutely no FO anywhere always makes the right moves or non-moves. You always hope they do the right thing much more often than they do the wrong thing. 

I'm disappointed and a little po'd by this announcement...with the previous caveat that we don't know everything and doubtfully ever will...because if there was ever a time to stretch your self imposed restrictions for length of a deal, this would have been the guy to do it for. 

The FO has an opportunity to make a lot of moves this offseason and here's hoping they have a good plan and enact it well. If they do, the window of opportunity may remain open and a lot of good faith lost will return. But despite some questions and frustrations, when I examine the entire content of what the leadership has done to this point, I'm still on board at this point. 

[h2oface]

1 hour ago, beckmt said:

We are a mid market team, not a small market.  Big difference, we can afford $150 payroll.  With a winning team, this is easily doable.  We have a ton of possible starters coming, no reason this could not be done.  

Trade value was fair, will work if Martin works out the be a jack of all trades knife and a good hitter.  Still going backwards in not my idea for the twins.

I agree. Regardless whether the trade "works out" or not, the trade takes the team backwards on the way to compete in 2022.

[LastOnePicked]

24 minutes ago, DocBauer said:

Please understand, I'm speaking from MY perspective on how I see this FO to this point. I don't believe we can judge it by a season in which virtually EVERYTHING that could go wrong  did go wrong. Nor can we, IMO, use any singular move or non-move judged as a "mistake" and use that to categorically dismiss the FO as incompetent.

It's an understanding, thoughtful defense. To me, the mistakes are just too darn numerous and too darn costly, but I understand your thoughts here. I'm really hoping they somehow prove worthy of your praise and loyalty. Fans like you deserve to be rewarded.

[Hunter48]

You must have some seriously low expectations if you're still on board with this front office...

[Mike Sixel]

45 minutes ago, Hunter48 said:

You must have some seriously low expectations if you're still on board with this front office...

Winning two division titles now means nothing? How was the team before that? 

[Jeff A]

The trade of Berrios basically announced that the Twins were not interested in competing for a championship.  It's one thing when you say you can't afford Gerrit Cole or Max Scherzer.  But if you can't afford Jose Berrios, you're basically saying you can't afford good starting pitchers, and you're not going to win without them.

[Major League Ready]

15 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

don't start drinking every time they point out their business experience. We want you around a few more years...

It was definitely a mistake to share actual experiences pertaining to why the front office does the things they do.  Of course, I too dislike some of their transactions.  I am not adequately informed in terms of their operations to have an informed opinion where that’s concerned but I probably would not agree with some of their operating practices either.  What an ego to believe an extensive business education and actual profit and loss experience responsibility for a 9 figure businesses would provide a little perspective.

I realize now that it makes far more sense that the angst with the Twins or sports team in general is a result of the average person or even people exceptionally skilled in other disciplines being more skilled and having a superior perspective to running a team than the people who worked their way up to these jobs.  Who wants to hear that the experience working their way up might provide insight the average guy does not possess when you want to rail about their incompetence.  Of course, there are no out of check egos involved in believing one has a superior understanding of how to run the team no matter how inexperience one might be in actually running an organization because it’s a simple job.  Why they pay those guys multi-million dollar salaries is a complete mystery.
 

[Major League Ready]

42 minutes ago, Jeff A said:

The trade of Berrios basically announced that the Twins were not interested in competing for a championship.  It's one thing when you say you can't afford Gerrit Cole or Max Scherzer.  But if you can't afford Jose Berrios, you're basically saying you can't afford good starting pitchers, and you're not going to win without them.

or they could be saying that they learned something from Milwaukee, Miami, Cleveland, Tampa, and Oakland.  Maybe they are thinking the only way they can truly contend is to build from within.  

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

It was definitely a mistake to share actual experiences pertaining to why the front office does the things they do.  Of course, I too dislike some of their transactions.  I am not adequately informed in terms of their operations to have an informed opinion where that’s concerned but I probably would not agree with some of their operating practices either.  What an ego to believe an extensive business education and actual profit and loss experience responsibility for a 9 figure businesses would provide a little perspective.

I realize now that it makes far more sense that the angst with the Twins or sports team in general is a result of the average person or even people exceptionally skilled in other disciplines being more skilled and having a superior perspective to running a team than the people who worked their way up to these jobs.  Who wants to hear that the experience working their way up might provide insight the average guy does not possess when you want to rail about their incompetence.  Of course, there are no out of check egos involved in believing one has a superior understanding of how to run the team no matter how inexperience one might be in actually running an organization because it’s a simple job.  Why they pay those guys multi-million dollar salaries is a complete mystery.
 

It was a joke. Not to be taken seriously. This is, after all, a place to talk about something that has no real bearing on our lives, for fun. 

I agree with your other post that we should also not drink when people think the twins are stupid. We'd all be dead.

Really, it's just not that serious, or shouldn't be, here. Or, it can. I'm ok if others want to take sports seriously. 

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

It was definitely a mistake to share actual experiences pertaining to why the front office does the things they do.  Of course, I too dislike some of their transactions.  I am not adequately informed in terms of their operations to have an informed opinion where that’s concerned but I probably would not agree with some of their operating practices either.  What an ego to believe an extensive business education and actual profit and loss experience responsibility for a 9 figure businesses would provide a little perspective.

I realize now that it makes far more sense that the angst with the Twins or sports team in general is a result of the average person or even people exceptionally skilled in other disciplines being more skilled and having a superior perspective to running a team than the people who worked their way up to these jobs.  Who wants to hear that the experience working their way up might provide insight the average guy does not possess when you want to rail about their incompetence.  Of course, there are no out of check egos involved in believing one has a superior understanding of how to run the team no matter how inexperience one might be in actually running an organization because it’s a simple job.  Why they pay those guys multi-million dollar salaries is a complete mystery.
 

Thank god we have you here to keep us "average people's" ego in check.

[Major League Ready]

12 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Thank god we have you here to keep us "average people's" ego in check.

You have manipulated what I said to fit your needs.  I included the range of anyone to "exceptionally skilled" in other areas not directly providing the skillset to run a baseball team.  You are high on the list of people who think they are more skilled than this front office but I am sure you have a lengthy list of credentials that make that a reasonable presumption.

[Minny505]

On 11/16/2021 at 9:35 AM, D.C Twins said:

I'm starting to follow the plight of our 2022 starting rotation more with morbid curiosity than breathless anticipation.

I wish I could give out five likes for this quote. So awesome.

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

You have manipulated what I said to fit your needs.  I included the range of anyone to "exceptionally skilled" in other areas not directly providing the skillset to run a baseball team.  You are high on the list of people who think they are more skilled than this front office but I am sure you have a lengthy list of credentials that make that a reasonable presumption.

First of all, neither you or I have accurate financial information, unless you're Dave St Peter. 

Second, I'd imagine "profit/loss responsibility" belongs to St Peter, not Falvey.  We're discussing baseball transactions here, not net gain. I understand Falvey has a budget to work within, but I doubt he "profitability" as a metric on his annual performance report. He gets graded on Wins and Losses. 

I don't give a rodents behind if Jim Pohlad earns a yearly profit or not. It's of no interest to me. But here's the thing....the value of this franchise has gone from ~$45m to ~$1.4b since Carl bought it. You claim these are smart people, so I have to believe they're making GOOD money or these smart people wouldn't keep bidding up the value of these franchises. 

So I'm left to believe Jim Pohlad, operating in a publicly financed facility,  could easily chose to spend more on player acquisition, development, and salary if he wanted. 

Cries of small market this, or mid market that, or 9 figure industries, arent very relevant to a discussion of whether the Minnesota Twins could have "afforded" Jose Berrios. Of course they could have. Easily. Ridiculously easily. It's literally a "mid market" contract. 

There are arguments to be made about whether or not trading Berrios, or Buxton for that matter, are wise BASEBALL moves. Financial arguments aren't in the least relevant, and only serve as smokescreen and diversion.

[h2oface]

7 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

It was a joke. Not to be taken seriously. This is, after all, a place to talk about something that has no real bearing on our lives, for fun. 

I agree with your other post that we should also not drink when people think the twins are stupid. We'd all be dead.

Really, it's just not that serious, or shouldn't be, here. Or, it can. I'm ok if others want to take sports seriously. 

Damn. And it made so much sense! 

"Kidding on the square" I hope.

 

[KBJ1]

This cements the writing on the wall.

The Twins will NOT be competitive again for a long time. Who are they gping to sign that is as young, capable and durable as Berrios for less? No one!

Even thinking about not locking Buxton up long term is insane. Injury history notwithstanding. He is a bona fide 40/40 candidate, which the league hasnt seen for a while.

Meanwhile they are stuck with Donaldson's 23M contract when Cruz is better at half the price. Going to lose 100 games next year with there completely empty pitching staff. #3 starters are going for 15M /yr now.

Good luck even getting one to sign here.

Unless they sign the entire Tampa Bullpen, they can forget about fans next few years.