ThejacKmp

Yeah, I should have been more clear. Last year was no good. But people (here and in the media at large) regularly cite a recurring pattern of second half fades in Dozier. This is based on a view of 2014 which is heavily skewed by an obsession with raw stats (particularly HRs) and a lack of understanding of the differing lengths of the two halves. Dozier does not have a pattern of second half fades: he has one fade last year*, a 2014 mistakenly called a fade and a 2013 where he was significantly better in the second half. Sorry for not explaining that better! * Which I in part tie to the fact he was banged up but never got a day off - one great thing about Polanco coming up is that we should see the Twins have a viable alternative to Dozier so he can get some rest and stay fresh for the stretch run.

I had always thought he tailed off badly that season, since he had 19 homers at the All-Star break but finished with "just" 29. It's really time for us to find some other nomenclature besides "first half" and "second half" of the MLB season. The two "halves" are not the same, as the first one is significantly longer than the second one. When we take raw numbers and halves into consideration, we always end up mistakenly disappointed by the second half (see Dozier, Brian).

I think the issue with May isn't so much that he moved to the pen last year but that he seems bound there. So I'd disagree that May to the pen was illogical - it may not be what I'd do or you’d do but you can see the rational at the time. To wit: (1) May arguably had the best stuff for transitioning to the pen. He throws hard and dropping the frequency one of his off-speed pitches allowed him to really become a more dominant pitcher. Other starters might be 6th or 7th inning guys in the pen but May seemed like a late-inning option. That’s more valuable and something the Twins really needed at the time. (2) May was also in his first year in the majors and limiting his innings isn't the worst thing in the world. In essence, the Twins could ride arms they didn't have much future investment in and keep May fresher for the future. That’s good economics. (3) May wasn't pitching particularly well as a starter. He had a mid-4.00s ERA and got shelled some. I think we all saw glimpses of a bright future so that’s not to say he was awful, just that he didn’t make a great case to be the best guy for right that moment. (4) The main part though is that there wasn’t another obvious candidate. While Hughes has experience, he got Cy Young votes the year before and was your opening day starter so he didn’t make sense. Gibson was pitching better and doesn’t profile as well out of the pen. You signed Santana to big money to start so he wasn’t going to the pen (plus you’ll never get another free agent starter if you force a guy who did sign to the pen). Milone gave you a lefty in the rotation, doesn’t profile well in the pen and was the better pitcher at the time. And that leaves Pelfrey. It’s easy to use hindsight to say that Pelfrey sucked late in the season but at the time the Twins made the change, he was pitching better than May. In fact, early in the season Pelfrey carried the Twins and was kind of the staff ace the first two months of the season (as bizarre as that sounds now). It’s hard to throw that guy in the pen. And even with his struggles he still finished with a better ERA as a starter than May (too lazy to look up FIP etc. Sorry!). So really, May made the most sense for a team that was surprisingly in contention (if they had been 15 games out it would be a totally different story). Now hindsight is 20-20 and I think we all wish that the Twins had moved Pelfrey to the pen and left May in the rotation. May could have improved as the season went on and certainly couldn’t be as rough as Pelfrey was down the stretch. But to say that moving May to the pen had no rational is a bit much – he wasn’t pitching well and was really the best candidate for being an impact arm in the pen. The thing that is worrisome now is that May seems stuck in the pen this year, where he is likely seventh in line for a starting spot (behind Hughes, Santana, Gibson, Duffey, Milone and Berrios – I think he beats out Nolasco). That’s not the worst thing in the world for this year since the Twins do have a lot of good options and some of the logic from last year holds true this year. But long-term, we want the Twins to see what May looks like in the rotation. Milone and Nolasco will likely be out of May’s way next year and you have to hope that the glut of good young relievers will make May expendable in the pen but there will still be five guys ahead of him along with some young arms (Thorpe, Gonsalves etc.) hopefully pushing the majors soon. It’s concerning to think that May might not get back to the rotation after this year. He doesn’t seem like an ace but a good #3 pitcher is exceedingly valuable and he would be wasted in the pen long term. P.S. One hidden aspect of this that doesn’t get talked about is the Carlos Gomez factor. We all saw the Twins push Carlos Gomez because he was the main guy in the Santana trade and the Twins wanted to show fans some tangible results. That desire to showcase the positive results of a trade doesn’t seem to be a factor for Mays and Meyer. Both of those guys were billed as potential top of the rotation starters but the Twins seem comfortable moving both of them to the pen. I understand that Span/Revere is not the same as Santana as far as showcasing goes but the Twins are handling these Mays and Meyer very differently. They aren’t being pushed to be starters so as to show that the trades were good. It’s kind of refreshing on one level but also kind of odd since both of these guys should be starters long term (I still believe in Meyer! Randy Johnson comparisons are the best!). It’s a source of hope for me that the Twins will eventually want May to be a starter (and hopefully will keep working with Meyer in that role as well). P.P.S. Back to Pelfrey. If I’d been in charge of the “who goes to the pen” decision, I would have ignored what I said above and moved Pelf to the pen. Not because I expected him to be bad but because I’ve always thought that he would make a pretty good reliever. He really only throws two pitches and while he doesn’t have the strikeout numbers to become a true 8th/9th inning guy, his tendency to get groundballs would play well in a 6th – 8th inning “get out of a jam” role and you’d expect that his K rate would spike as he was able to air it out a bit. That’s why I always thought Pelfrey was a bit loopy to insist on being a starter at the beginning of 2015. The Tigers clearly disproved it with their insane spending this offseason but at the beginning of last year, he didn’t seem like a guy who would ever get a multiple year deal as a starter and seemed more likely to be headed towards the one year $3 million contract or spring training invite side of the starting rotation market. One good season as a reliever with a little spike in the K rate due to increased velocity might have made him one of those three years $15 million to $18 million guys. It never made sense to me that he was so gung-ho on being a starter. I guess he was right in the end but I’m still intrigued by what he could do in a pen.

It's a more difficult position but it's also a position he played through the minors and has a good comfort with. I know the Twins are now selling Sano's move to the OF as natural but we all know that's cover-your-ass corporate speak for "we didn't find a deal we wanted for Plouffe so this is the next best option." The only real variable I could see changing it would be if Sano was somehow a really good OF. But I think we can agree that's pretty unlikely. I disagree that the Twins braintrust makes illogical decisions. In particular, they will want to see Kepler in the majors very badly if he hits at all so any serious injury to Mauer, Plouffe, Arcia/Park etc. is going to make moving Sano in to the IF or DH the obvious choice.

Oh I love Vielma - he is one of those sneaky prospects who I'll be keeping a close eye on because if he can continue to hit .270 on the way up he will be a big part of the Twins plans. A great defensive shortstop changes a team. But even in a best case scenario he's not going to be ready this year. Next year is even a huge maybe. Switching Escobar to 3B doesn't change any of the above scenarios. You're still not able to justify the offensive downgrade of moving one of those guys in. Plus Santana, Polanco and Nunez are all worse shortstops than Escobar. You'd be downgrading your defense at SS. The only way I see Escobar leaving SS is if he leaves the starting lineup. The position is finally his.

That list doesn’t make much sense. If Plouffe is traded or hits the 60 day disabled list, it's hard to see the Twins not moving Sano in to 3B as they are better every single scenario you raised. To wit: 1) You'd need a time machine if you think Engelb Vielma is ready for the majors. He hasn't played above High A and put up a .627 OPS there. I understand his glove is excellent and can hopefully make up for his bat someday but that someday is key – he's years away from being ready for the majors at the plate. Guys who hit that poorly in A+ don’t make the jump to the majors after a half season in AA. Even guys like Kepler don’t do that. A September call-up would represent an insanely good, best-case scenario for him this season. 2) Polanco started 10 games at 3B in the minors, all in Rookie Ball in 2011. I know that middle infielders can often make a switch to the hot corner but that would be asking a ton for him to do it in the majors. He likely would be worse than Sano with the mitt so he'd have to hit much better than whoever they put in the OF (since he'd also have to make up for the difference in OF defense between Sano and an experienced OF). Polanco may play 3B in the future if Sano is an OF or 1B long-term but it's hard to see him ready this year, especially since the Twins will be prepping him to be ready to take over at 2B or SS if there is an injury. 3) Danny Santana played one game at third in Rookie Ball, even less than Polanco. And even if you did decide that Santana was going to replace Plouffe, you would certainly be better off moving Sano to 3B and putting Santana in left (with Rosario in right) as Santana’s experience in the OF (not extensive but more than Sano!) and his better range would make that the optimal defensive configuration. So definitely not Santana. 4) Nunez is more interesting. He’s certainly the 15 day disabled list option for the Twins and has started 83 major league games at 3B so he clearly is the only other real defensive option which presents a potential upgrade over Sano. I won’t compare their defense cuz that’s boring so let’s assume that Nunez is slightly better. Problem is, his offense (career OPS .696, last year .654) likely doesn’t offset the benefit of getting an experienced OF to replace Sano. It’s hard to see the Twins not taking the opportunity to check out Kepler or ABW3 if Plouffe went down. That doesn’t even take into consideration Arcia, who would certainly get a shot at playing every day and represents a pretty big upgrade over Nunez offensively. And finally, Mastroianni’s career OPS of .564 is likely close enough to Nunez that the defensive advantages would playing him every day a better option (substitute Benson/Sweeney/Rodriguezif you don’t love Darin). So it’s super difficult to see any situation where a long or permanent absence by Plouffe doesn’t lead to Sano being your every day 3B. In order to not do this, they would have to sacrifice both defense (even if Sano is okay in RF, the Twins have much better defensive OF options in Santana/ABW/Kepler) and offense (Sano to 3B allows you to get PT for Arcia/Kepler/ABW etc.) Here’s the one Plouffe injury scenario where Sano stays in the OF (and yes I’m knocking on wood like mad): - Plouffe hits 60 day DL (because if he’s traded, Sano at 3B makes sense no matter what because that is his likely home for the next few years) - Kepler, Arcia, Santana and ABW have all either gotten injured or are so ineffective that you can’t even think about playing them full-time - Benson, Mastroianni, Sweeney and Reynaldo Rodriguez have all tanked in AAA - There is no decent OF on an expiring contract the Twins can trade for or sign as a free agent Yeah, looking at that, I’ll guarantee that Sano is your 3B if Plouffe hits the 60 day DL or is traded. Cuz that ain’t gonna happen (knocks on wood). The Twins are saying Sano won't go to 3B because they want him to settle in as a RF but if fate dictates that Plouffe can't play 3B long term, it's ludicrous to think that anyone besides Sano would end up there.

I don't think it was negative at all. It was just a correction of something that was obviously false. At the time it was written, people couldn't watch this game if they weren't there in person or get a play by play so it does stand correcting. You appear to be the one who is the one who should lighten up. :-) P.S. I don't think it's a concept of better, not sure why you put it that way. Is striking out twice much different if you make the first two outs of a game or if everyone else is out in between you? Either way, you struck out twice. I guess you could argue that the strikeouts were rally killers but I don't think that's what the post author was getting at (and in fact, you could argue that makes it more pivotal to correct the four to a six since the four makes it seem like Buxton was killing rallies when in fact, he struck out to lead off and with two outs and just one guy on base). Just food for thought.

Erroneous. Buxton made the first out, Arcia the second, Park the 3rd. Murphy made the 4th out striking out in the second. Tovar made the 5th out right after that via ground out. Buxton made the 6th out.

I would sign Kepler to a Longoria deal. I know he hasn't proven anything but those numbers are super low ten years later and if he craps out and becomes a 4th OF, $3 million is not a disastrous amount. And the upside . . . Heck I'd do this for Berrios and Duffey too with the concept that it's a low price to pay and outside of injury, $3 million is not a lot to pay for a low-leverage reliever. The option years could be so key if either of them turns into even a solid #3 pitcher. Throw me in for Eddie on the Longoria deal too. Same thought process - he's a nice 4th OF and that's not a crazy overpay with the upside there. He's the one I'd do it with last because I think he played over his head but even there it's not totally nuts. Again, those contract numbers are 10 years old.

Yeah this makes no sense. I would sign every single one of these guys to this contract but I don't think any of them would even think about it - in fact, you might insult them by asking. Even if Duffey turns into nothing, it costs you $1 million to buy out potentially expensive arbitration years. Of course you do it. Pretty pointless post, no offense intended. More interesting to think about how much you would pay to buy out 5 years of Sano/Buxton etc.

And I think this has even been taken out of context. Molly likely means that he won't be moving Sano around, that he'll play in the OF even when Plouffe gets the day off. That's probably smart when transitioning someone to a new position. But if Plouffe were traded or hit the DL for more than a few weeks, I guarantee you Sano would become your regular 3B.

And the alternative to begin the season seems to be Oswaldo Arcia, who is not exactly a defensive dynamo. The real test comes when Kepler is ready because he would be a marked improvement over Sano and Arcia. But by that point, we'll know how Park is going to fare and if Mauer is finally rebounding etc. If Kepler makes a run at the majors, the Twins may find Plouffe more expendable at the break (and they may be able to get more for him from a team that needs a 3B in the middle of the season).

I've heard this before and it's inane. Buxton and Sano could also collide if he played 3B in a shift and went out for a popup. Unless you want to move Sano to catcher, you can't avoid this. It would be ludicrous to make decisions based on worst-case scenarios.

Especially with Sano in right. The Twins are going to want someone experienced in center.

I concur. Also, I suspect Arcia will be a major part of the Twins no matter how things play out. The Twins are going to give Mauer more day games off and, they're going to rest Park and Poluffe and Rosario and Buxton and Sano on the regs. In all of those situations, Arcia is the guy who subs in for them in the lineup as either OF or DH (maybe Danny Santana for Buxton sometimes). Basically, Arcia gets in the lineup any time anyone who isn't a SS, 2B or C needs a day or hits the DL. Not crazy to think he'll be playing at least three to four days a week with a pinch hitting experience or two as well. He'll stay busy. So I guess I think it's kind of irrelevant how it plays out. Park will be on this team regardless and Arcia will likely beat out Vargas for options reasons. Both Park and Arcia are going to get plenty of playing time and Vargas will be waiting in AAA with Kepler. The Twins depth is very exciting this year.

Good write up. But Harmon Killebrew led the way in 1964, hitting 49.

It's spread over 15 years and yes it will matter. You can correctly say it won't matter as much as if it was part of today but the money doesn't disappear. The O's will have less to spend. That's how businesses work, they can’t make costs disappear. Bobby Bonilla’s salary currently plays into the Mets financial picture, even in a small way.

You’re the only one bringing up contract differences, I’m asking you to throw that away. We’re talking about performance, purely performance at the age. You seem confused about this (likely my fault) so let me take it back: ------- Entering his age 32 season, Albert Pujols had a career OPS of 1.037, five top-2 MVP finishes and an OPS+ of 170. His lowest OPS season was a .906, the only time he hit below .300 (that was his age-31 season, still a fine season where he hit .299). He’s a first ballot Hall of Famer if he retired right then. Chris Davis is currently entering his age-30 season. He has a career OPS of .835 and one top-3 MVP finish. He has a career OPS+ of 122. Since his age 27 season, he’s had one great season (which I call a Pujols Season since Albert did that for a decade - amazing) and one very good season, sandwiched around a dismal season where his OPS+ was 96. His best batting average was .286 – in 2014 he didn’t hit his weight. He’s been a very good power hitter who is a bit inconsistent and pretty one-dimensional. When Pujols moved to the Angels for his age-32 season his performance continued his drop off from his age-31 season. He hasn’t hit above .285 in the four seasons since and his OPS is .804 for an OPS+ of 126. Those are fine seasons but they are not Pujols Seasons. Interestingly those four seasons actually represent a close approximation to Chris Davis’s peak, whose last four seasons yield an OPS+ of 136. Davis hasn’t been a significantly better hitter that Pujols, peak Chris Davis has been slightly better than Old Man Pujols. And before you ask, I’m not cherry picking those stats, the four-year sample shines Chris Davis in the best light. ------- Okay those are the numbers. What I’m saying is that Albert Pujols shows that even a once-in-a-generation hitter and power slugger experiences issues when he gets towards his age-32 season (and I won’t do the numbers but Teixeira has a similar drop off as do a number of other power hitting first basemen). Chris Davis signed a 7-year deal at age 30 and here are the warning signs to me: (1) Chris Davis has never proven himself like Pujols or Teixeira did. We don’t really know if his big seasons are a flash in the pan or if the 2014 season is more representative of what we can expect the next season or two of his prime. I imagine it will be somewhere closer to 2015 than 2013 or 2014 for the record. But we can’t ignore his inconsistent past, which adds some risk. (2) If Chris Davis follows the pattern of much better players than himself (again, not a given – if better players drop off, we could reasonably see Davis’s decline being more sharp) he looks to be taking a drop-off in year 3 of this contract, his age 32 season (Pujols dropped at age 31 so I’m giving Davis an extra year since he likely has less wear and tear from starting his career later). If Davis is declining from his current state (Old Man Pujols), you’re talking about a replacement level player. For five years at $17 million a year while playing a premier offensive position. Even if he extends his peak a year beyond Pujols and Teixeira did, you’ve still got 4 years of a replacement player. That’s really tough, especially since The Tribe would be hitting Lindor’s prime and be looking to start locking him up along with their strong starting pitching. They could really use that $17 million at that point, especially since they aren’t a huge market team. So my point isn’t to say Chris Davis = Albert Pujols, it’s just to use Pujols to point out that even the greatest and most well-rounded slugging first basemen are prone to a drop off in their early 30s. With the caveat that we obviously can’t guarantee Davis will fall off in the same manner as Pujols and Teixeira (again just because A., doesn’t mean B.) there are some really alarming trends which don’t point in Davis’s favor. He’s coming up on an age where slugging first basemen experience a drop and in his case, that drop indicates he’s likely to be a replacement level player. That’s why I think the contract is a disaster (and absurd since the Orioles were competing against no one). Chris Davis would have been the wrong signing for the Tribe and the Orioles are likely going to really regret the last 4-5 years of his 7 year deal.

You've got to read the whole thread. This isn't about signing Pujols instead of Davis -- it's about projecting the future of 30 year old slugging first basemen. Pujols is just there because he is part of a comparison of that type of player. It's absolutely okay to talk about him when thinking about Davis's future.

I mean, I think GMs have to make projections about later years so it matters but agree hat you and I are likely not the authority on that. I just don't like Chris Davis's performance going forward (see above). But I do agree that the Tribe could have targeted some of the shorter term talent out there. I like the concept of bringing in some hitting, just not signing anyone on the cusp of 30 for most of a two term presidency. Cespedes would have been much more interesting to me, that's a good target that the Tribe were not in on. That's the difference between the Twins and the Tribe. The Tribe have the hard part set (pitching) and should have been more active with the free agent market. The Twins don't have position player needs (beyond catcher, which they took care of) and the free agent market would be a tough spot to grab the amount of pitching that would make a difference this year. Hopefully next year they will be at the point where one big free agent pitching signing will be warranted.

Don't compare where they are now, compare where they were when they were the same age. Pujos went into a significant decline at 32. The O's committed to Davis for 7 years at 30. That's the comp - you're getting bogged down in comparing the two in the present which you can't do due to age and salary differences. And yeah, I acknowledged you can't say "If A then B" but it's not like Pujols is an aberration. Have to agree to disagree on the window. When you have multiple pieces come up at the same time, I think you can plan on being competitive for that period of time. Yeah the Tribe only control the pitchers for 3-4 more years but they also have time/advantages in signing the guys who work out - that money, BTW, would be better used that way than paying for Chris Davis's decline.

1) $42 million is still $42 million. The Natives aren’t the Dodgers or Yankees and that does represent a lost opportunity later on. Don’t get me wrong, I’d have set the contract up the same way but I’m not going to pretend that money isn’t part of the cost. 2) Pujols was also a significantly better player, in the conversation for greatest hitter of all time. And Pujols contract is actually the perfect example of the downside, no matter the differences in length and when he signed it. Pujols fell off the first year of that contract, in his age 31/32 year. If Chris Davis follows that path with that level of decline (and he’s nowhere near as good as Pujols) he’ll be a replacement level first baseman in two years. With 5 years left on the contract. Mark Teixeira is another great example, as he fell off at age 32. Obviously you can’t say, “If A than B” but the comparable recent history suggests bad things. And again, both Teixeira and Pujols had vastly better resumes to bet on – Chris Davis is still relatively unknown. 3) That's true. But you’re ignoring the fact that Chris Davis was worth $5.8 million in 2014. That’s the big key to Chris Davis – he has two big years of playing well but there is equal evidence that the house may be built of sand. I’m not saying he’s for sure going to suck but the lack of a proven track record is a reason to pause. His most similar players on Baseball Reference are guys like Richie Sexton, Glenn Davis, Lee May and Cecil Fielder. All of those were good, even great, players for a few years in their prime but all of them fell off in their early 30s. 4) But will he give you even three years? And a lot of the issue with these contracts is that you have to play the guy on the back end. This isn’t the NBA where a guy who doesn’t perform but has a big contract rides the bench or sees his minutes reduced. Veteran baseball players who sign huge contracts play out those contracts, expecting and getting to have a regular job. It's hard to find examples of non-pitchers losing their jobs. Mauer isn’t fighting for his job at first, Teixeira wasn’t being pushed out of his position by Byrd, Pujols is years away from any reduction in playing time. The only real example of a huge money position player in danger of losing his job was A-Rod last year and that was for PR reasons more than performance. There is an opportunity cost to having to play Davis the last 3-5 years of that contract and that plays a major role in whether it’s a good signing. That last part is why it’s a bad gamble for the Indians. The Royals have a 3 year window, they can justify going all in with a guy like Chris Davis. With that young pitching and position player talent, the Tribe have an 8-10 year window. You really don’t want to start shutting the back end of that window by tying money up in a guy who will keep you from being flexible when Lindor hits his age-27 season. Believe in your youth movement - don't tie a boulder to the bumper of the bandwagon. Chris Davis’s contract isn’t the worst thing ever but it’s a terrible bet for the Tribe (and in an aside, made no sense for the O’s - who have no window. Davis just makes them an average team hoping to get lucky for 3-4 years.) He doesn’t have the track record to make you feel sure past performance isn’t a fluke or aberration and guys like him tend to start declining right about now, when he’s signing the contract. It is very believable that the last 5 years of that deal could be pretty tough, with the last few unbearable. It just doesn’t make sense for Cleveland.

After seven years you still owe him $42 million. Chris Davis has had two good seasons and is a year removed from a .704 OPS in 127 games. He's played a bit of OF but it is telling the Orioles have mainly kept him at first - he doesn't profile to be able to play OF in three years, let alone the end of that contract. He will be a DH or 1B. He is about to turn 30 and is a very one dimensional player. He's a power hitter with two elite seasons and five average ones. So you're betting that he will continue to be an elite power hitter into his mid 30s. How many guys do that? It's hard of think of anybody besides Big Papi - and he hit for average in a way Chris Davis never has. Pujols had a way better (HOF) track record and that contract looks terrible now. Texiera has been a terrible contract due to health and ineffectiveness - which is the rule rather than the exception for aging sluggers. Power hitting first basemen are not a good gamble in their mid 30s. If his power slips at all and he's hitting 25 bombs he becomes a liability. And the salary makes him untradeable so he will just block young talent. This could be a terrible contract for the last five years of the deal. It's the last thing a developing team like the Twins or Tribe should be doing, especially since first base is a relatively easy place to find power or to stick a young guy with defensive liabilities.

With that pitching staff they have time to let things develop - their pitching is young and developing. You lost me at Chris Davis. That contract was absurd and you would have had to beat it. If I were to pick one move for the Tribe not to do, that would have been it.

Tonkin is out of options and is unlikely to pass through waivers so I don't see #2 happening. And I really hope Buxton isn't in aaa. He's a better defensive outfielder and he'll hit the same as any of the guys replacing him. And there no service time reason since he was up last year so much.