kab21

He has done this at age 24 while battling a few injuries. The injuries are the concern.

I would have to be blown away to trade Sano. I have concerns about his health (coming off of surgery) but that also reduces his blow me away trade value (not to mention the new PR mess). I don't think it is unfortunate to relegate him to DH at such a young age. Nor does it really hamstring you (vs trading him away) since he is the best hitter on the team by a decent margin and he can still play 1B occasionally. If someone else is dinged up and needs a day off then they can sit if they can't outhit Sano. If he is hitting 30-40 HR with a .850+ OPS then everything works out.

This is an issue that you address after the route to solve starting pitching this offseason. And more likely you kick the can down the road to the next offseason. He might ultimately come at a discount if the market is soft (like last year's trade market) but he is close enough to FA that he will want the upper end of any numbers discussed in this thread. I don't think he exceeds that in FA. The reason to push for an extension now is if he would be considered a MUST sign player that the team can't afford to lose. He isn't. The Twins have many options in the middle infield to reasonably replace him even if there is a falloff in overall ability. One thing that could change this would be trading multiple MI prospects (including non-prospect Polanco) for a pitcher like Archer. If that occurred then MI wouldn't be as strong and they might be able to tie up money in Dozier (Archer is cheap). But even then I probably keep spending on pitching (RP or SP). One thing that I have mentioned before is that I would MUCH rather pay Escobar elite utility player dollars in an extension (3/20-25M) than to give Dozier a 4 or 5 year contract at 15-20M/yr. Buying age 31-35 seasons at a premium makes me NERVOUS. He will get paid and he made the right choice (no option years) but it looks like a bad idea. Cano says hello though...

Prospects are overrated and the Twins can't wait any longer to finish the rebuild. Every year that you hold and wait equals one more year that Buxton, Sano and the young core inches closer to FA. The cost would be high (Lewis plus 1-2 other top 5 prospects) but you get a 10+K/9 and <3 BB/9 (avg 200 IP for 4 seasons) 29 yr old on a great contract (locked up for 4 years for peanuts). Getting Archer and his low contract would allow the Twins to go after another sort of expensive FA or really break the bank and sign Darvish also.

No, it makes sense to take a flyer like this if it doesn't affect your bigger plans and you could really use one more rotation option on your competitive team. Posting one example of this type of move not working out is meaningless.

That is a pretty weak link. Every player on the 25 man is part of roster management. If the FO isn't willing to move on from players for a variety of reasons then they have a roster management problem.

This isn't an argument and you are not the only one that is making the case that a winning team must (multiple dominate bullpen arms are the best translation of W-L outcomes). Numerous people are claiming that an elite bullpen is necessary but nobody is supporting this argument with any real analysis. Perhaps some anecdotal evidence on both sides but that doesn't say much. The thing is that most very good to great teams have a lot of good to great players all over the roster. Odds are that some of the teams will have a few in the bullpen also. I stand by my plan to spend money/prospects for the rotation and spend wisely (cheap if necessary) in the bullpen.

This is a singular example. The more comprehensive lists (listed in this thread) show the risk in signing RP's to multiyear contracts. You can't just use one example of where it would have been better to sign a longer contract to justify signing an unrelated RP to a longer contract. Do you have a link to any analysis that shows a greater correlation of an elite bullpen to winning vs starting pitching/defense/hitting/etc?

My alternative is to spend money and prospects for rotation upgrades that pitch 180+ innings every year and find competent to good RP's (Rodney included) to give the bullpen depth. Elite bullpen is nice but unnecessary. A deep bullpen however is VERY necessary. I answered your question. You are up.

Step 1 is to assemble a competent bullpen that can get it done from the 7th (or the 6th) through the 9th. It doesn't do the team any good to get one dominant RP if they lose the lead in the 7th inning and don't use him. And do you have an analysis that even backs this up? There have certainly been great teams that had great bullpens but I haven't seen an analysis that said it was the best translation of W-L outcomes or the more realistic way to be competitive.

And your alternative is? Spending big on 30+ yr old RP's? Trading really good prospects to the Reds for Raisel Iglesias? I think everyone would like to have an elite bullpen but buying it with prospects or money is not a good solution.

I really don't understand these snide remarks about Ryan 2.0 because the FO (wisely) goes after a low cost closer instead of giving a 3+ year contract to 30 something yr old RP. There were things to criticize from the Ryan era but not spending big money isn't one of them. And I still can't connect the dots with how this means that the Twins will be bringing in retreads for the rotation instead of adding a good pitcher. Nearly everyone understands that the FO is working with a limited budget (even if we want higher spending) and they can't spend big in multiple areas this offseason. Saving money on volatile RP so they can add a better starter is a wise move. But it remains to be seen who that starter(s) will be. I will wait with my pitchforks until then and am fine (for now) with the various small moves that they have made. I just can't get bent out of shape for a small one year contract to an effective RP or Rule V losses/additions.

Everything you said here has to do with roster management. Keeping him on the 25 man roster and not returning him because he isn't what they thought he might be is exactly what I am talking about as a roster management problem.

People are free to complain about Rodney as an addition to the bullpen. He isn't great but he is a solid pitcher and the price paid reflects that. But the more important item missing from many posts is that the closer role is totally overrated. It doesn't matter if Rodney is the 7th inning guy or the closer, if he is good enough for one of those roles then he is good enough for a different one. See Kintzler and Belisle as last year's closers. I also wouldn't have had any problems with Kintzler returning on his contract either. Rodney has some troubling numbers but so does Kintzler. So far his 5.5 K/9 has gotten him by (125 IP) but that is scary out of the bullpen. I can understand passing on him and picking someone with a longer track record on a shorter commitment.

Your complaint is about roster management and has nothing to do with Rule V other than your 1 example. The Twins should be better at cutting players loose regardless if they are Rule V picks or not.

The angst over this deal is baffling. Spending bigger money in FA is one of the most foolish places to spend money in an already risky place (FA). Rodney (annoys me greatly) isn't great but the Twins depth that is solid in their bullpen instead of adding one great arm. Save that money (or prospects) for starting pitching additions. Be angry when they bring in the Fernando Rodney of SP to fix the rotation. Complaints about the Pineda deal are equally baffling. For years we have complained about the Twins not making low risk/high reward moves like this. And for ignoring K's. This move wasn't made for this year but rather for the future and it affects this year minimally. Complaints about Rule V are the most baffling. As are complaints that the the Rule V pick will be mismanaged. Complain about the roster management. I disagree with the previous headline of 'crushing it' but the FO has added minor league pitching depth, a very good prospect and hasn't hamstrung the future with any players that start out mediocre (like Chatwood). They need their marquee move (SP) to be a great (or at least very good) to be crushing it.

You completely missed the point. It isn't pointless to participate in Rule V. It is pointless for Internet GMs to act like losing Burdi/Bard or a 25 man roster spot are awful moves. I think we (the Internet GMs) can form somewhat valid opinions on MLB players that we have actually seen play and have comparable stats for but we really don't have any idea on the real potential of Burdi/Bard/Kinley/Haley/Reed/Melotakis/Chargois/etc... It is okay to have an opinion but to act like some BIG MISTAKE has been made is laughable. Also participating in Rule V and poor roster management (keeping Rule V guys too long) are two completely different issues.

I don't have any problems with this. He was reasonably successful last year and it is a short term deal for modest money. Overall I am not a fan of spending big money in the bullpen or long contracts. Too much volatility but this should add a decent (but not great) arm into the 7th/8th/9th inning and I don't even care which role he takes. Who the actual closer is is overrated anyway.

This doesn't make any sense. Participating in Rule V is worthwhile even if the payoff isn't huge. Second guessing the draft and who was lost to the n-th degree is kind of pointless. Kinley seems like the RH version of Turley. If things click then he could be a solid bullpen option. If things don't click then they burned an offseason 40 man roster spot on him and 50K. Not a huge loss.

Much ado about (nearly) nothing I am not very enamored about Kinley but it is Rule V people. If Rule V works out then you get a Pressly type. That's alright...

It is a tremendous advantage if these borderline guys can pass through waivers. If the Twins added Bard (for example) and later needed that 40 man spot for a signing or trade then they have to expose him to waivers and potentially lose him that way. A team claiming him off of waivers only has to keep him on the 40 man roster instead of keeping him on the 25 man roster like a Rule V draftee. Hopefully I got this mostly right. There is some terminology that gets mixed up like waivers, DFA and outright. If Bard sneaks through the Rule V then the Twins don't need to expose him to waivers since he was never on the 40. Huge advantage for the team. The Twins leaving 4 spots open (2 filled now) indicates a high likelihood that the FO will be active this offseason.

I don't really see Ervin and Pineda related at all. Picking up Ervin's option will most likely be based on his 2018 performance. Pineda is there either way and provides good depth in the rotation that might actually be a strength in 2019. The Twins definitely need to make a big addition this offseason but combined with that mystery man, Berrios, Ervin?, Pineda and the hopeful emergence of a prospect the team might actually have a competitive rotation. I continue to like the outside the box thinking that the FO has been doing. In other seasons we looked at other teams making these moves and thought good risk/reward but didn't see the same moves being made.

But it is easier to ignore the statisticians and in depth analysis that has been done on a major site like fangraphs. With that being said - A team should target exceeding the market value when signing FA's. And the other big thing is that teams should try not to pay market value for 1+ WAR players (like Chatwood or Gibson) since you can find those guys on the cheap (like Gibson). I think fangraphs in the past has said that X/WAR doesn't account for the increasing value of elite players since they only occupy one roster spot. Meaning that two 3 WAR players don't equal a single 6 WAR player. Addendum #2 - I also find the 8M/WAR a little high but it doesn't really change anything if you change the number to 6M/WAR.

Making the one game playoff is nothing like a $100 pot. Trading (folding) some non-essential impending free agents was the smart move.

Being restricted in the same way is not the same as operating the same way. My biggest encouragement with the new FO is that they attempting to find every little advantage that they can instead of walking the line. The new FO was very creative going underslot/overslot to get players that they wanted and maximize the draft. They were creative and turned Ynoa and 4M into two better prospects. They traded Kintzler for a prospect and int'l cap money. They have a lot of surplus int'l cap money due to some sort of fiasco (I am suspicious of something...) and they turned it into two legit prospects that they didn't even have to spend money on. These moves don't even need to work out and in fact none of them have yet. We can see however that they aren't restrained to thinking inside a box.