The Mad King

Joe Ryan just became the Twins' second rookie opening day starter, after Tom Hall in 1969. Who is Tom Hall, and how did he get that honor?
After all, Tom Hall is hardly a household name among Twins fans, and that was a successful era for the franchise, behind a veteran starting staff. Patrick Reusse of the Star Tribune recently published a nice biographical sketch of Hall, but omitted key circumstances about his unusual 1969 assignment.
Holdouts
Before the advent of free agency and multi-year deals, players still negotiated contracts with their clubs every winter, and the players' only real leverage came from not reporting for work. In 1969, pitchers and catchers were due to report on February 21, but relatively few Twins were in Orlando on that date, instead waiting to satisfy their own contract demands and a wider dispute over player pensions. Among the holdouts were four veteran pitchers: Jim Kaat, Dean Chance, Dave Boswell, and Jim Perry.

Minneapolis Tribune, February 22, 1969
The Twins wouldn't see all four of those pitchers in camp until March 14, and they wouldn't all pitch in a spring game until March 21, just two and a half weeks before opening day on April 8. This is strikingly similar to the lockout-delayed 2022 Twins spring schedule, and also illustrates the climate from which free agency and future labor strife was born. 
Expectations
Today, a player reporting that late to camp would not be expected to pitch deep into games, but that was not the case in 1969. Rookie manager Billy Martin, who later gained a reputation for overworking his pitchers even by the standards of the time, expected his starting pitchers to go the distance, all nine innings, in a spring game before the season even started. None of the veteran hurlers met that expectation in 1969, both due to the tight timeline and due to injuries: groin issues for both Kaat and Chance, and a finger cut while cleaning fish for Boswell.

Minneapolis Star, March 25, 1969
Roles
One veteran pitcher, Jim Perry, stayed healthy that spring, and could have been a candidate for opening day despite reporting late -- but he spent most of spring training and the early part of the season coming out of the bullpen. His Twins career of 6 seasons thus far had been spent as a "swingman", split almost equally between starting and relief. It wasn't until late May 1969 that Perry cemented his status as a full-time starter, finishing the year with 20 wins, starting game one of the 1969 playoffs, and following that with a Cy Young Award in 1970.
Tom Hall would ultimately become a swingman for the Twins too, perhaps limited by another factor not present in the modern game: military service for active players. With the backdrop of the Vietnam War, Hall was in the Marine Reserve. This meant he had to spend two weeks every summer in training, plus various weekends, which certainly limited his availability for regular rotation duty early in his career.
Still, Hall got the starting nod for opening day 1969, which like Joe Ryan's start in 2022, proved to be a 1-run Twins loss. The next day, Jim Kaat pitched 11 innings, so despite his late spring and injury, perhaps Kaat could have started opening day after all.
Hall's 1969 Twins would go on to win 97 games and the first American League West division title, before getting swept out of the playoffs by Baltimore. Can Ryan's 2022 Twins match that, or do even better?

Minneapolis Star, April 7, 1969

Joe Ryan heritage card!!
I don't know why it's sideways!!!

Signing Correa was a great move regardless of how long he is here. it is a move I screamed for for months.  This bought the Twins FO a bit of time and good will. Yet the Twins are still an enigma, and you cannot clearly call them contenders or rebuilders yet. This is not a new take. We have some pieces that just don't quite fit, and a few that are missing. Just because they might not fit traditionally doesn't mean it can't work. It just shows inconsistent messaging and makes a fan think there is no true plan. 
Gary Sanchez: Doesn't quite fit. 
Sanchez is essentially a DH only. yes he will catch maybe 30-35% of the games, but he is a liability behind the plate until he proves otherwise. and with a young and/or erratic pitching staff (Ryan, Ober, and all of the soon to be starters = young.  Archer, Bundy = erratic) you want him behind the plate as little as possible. Also both he and Jeffers are RH which means there is no natural R/L platoon. Yes this seemed to work with Jeffers and Garver, but none the less it still reduces flexibility.  As a result we cannot open up the DH for other hitters against certain righties or lefties. Also this requires us to have a 3rd catcher on the club, because if we want Sanchez's bat in the lineup then we have both Jeffers & Sanchez in the starting lineup and otherwise risk losing the DH if something happens. having the primary DH also be the back up catcher is the LEAST flexible option you can have, short of pure DH like Cruz.  it is almost the SAME as having Sanchez a pure DH... Which I thought we were getting away from in order to have more flexibility.  This is why it shows a lack of clear strategy when putting together the team.
Hopefully Sanchez significantly outslugs the alternatives... Rooker, Larnach, et al.  but by simply not having Sanchez would provide significantly more positional flexibility when you have Sano (can be hot or cold) Kepler (can play a good OF but really hasn't had a strong overall offensive game in years) Kiriloff (unproven but loads of talent) Rooker, Larnach (redundant poor to average OF but potentially strong bats) and soon to be added, Martin.
 
Pitching: missing
I have said all offseason due to the lack of even TRYING to get any top FA pitchers, the Twins obviously have a plan that does not include bringing in additional pitchers. Their plan is MUST be to roll with multiple young arms. Again I am not saying I am against this, or that it will not work, but it clearly is not traditionally what teams who are saying they are contending do. Signing Archer is a nothingburger. I would love to have him turn back the clock and pitch like he did 5-7 years ago, and he MAY, but it is not realistic to bank on it, same with Bundy.  At this point, with the Twins walking the fine line between contending and propping open the window to contend, it is clear the Twins will be waiting on any big pitching trades to see where they are by trade deadline.  If we are contending, then Twins will pull the trigger and move some prospects for an Ace, or at least a #2 or 3 starter. At this point, why move prospect talent if you do not know if you will contend? Which brings us back to the Sonny Gray trade.  You have to give something to get something. BUT giving up an arm like Chase Petty? to ONLY add one solid #2 starter in Gray, and not finish it off with a strong rotation??? Gray (or better could have/would have been there at the deadline). at $22M over 2 years, for a measly extra $3M per year, could have signed JON Gray... and still had a top arm in our system. and then if you want to make a trade deadline move can move him then. Trading your #1 draft pick, and arm talent like that should be done to secure the FINAL piece, not the FIRST piece... especially if you are not going to secure the SECOND piece.
 
You can say that high school pitchers flame out significantly more often than they pan out. and I can agree with that. but why would you move someone with such upside, yet hold onto a bunch of prospects who still haven't fully panned  out at 27 (Rooker) 25 (Larnach) 24 (Kirilloff... although he SHOULD this year) etc, that you do not have enough AB's for anyways? OF course may not get back top of the rotation starters for them, but stopping at just one #2 starter for a big arm is worse.
It is not that the Twins FO should be slammed for making BAD moves, it is just they need to be questioned for making INCOMPLETE moves.
 

... From my FB feed. I'll write a proper blog tomorrow. From work.?

I wouldn’t have done things this way. I would have tried for Canha or J.D. Davis or even Binentendi. but the FO didn’t do that.
My opening day lineup breaks with the current conventional thinking but I honestly think the Twins will be better this way. That means Kepler moving to 4th OF and Sano a man without a position.
Here’s how I’d start:
LF Martin - I think Martin is ready and could hit .300 with a lot of doubles. 2nd would be Gordon as I think he will hit better than in 2021 and can steal bases at will, which would help the Twins have more ways to score, especially if Buxton is also stealing bases at will I think Martin could swipe a decent amount of bases as well. 3rd is Larnach and I do still think he’ll be a future star but when last we checked, he was overmatched in the majors and AAA both.
CF Buxton
RF Kirilloff
3B Urshela
SS Correa
2B Polanco
1b Miranda
C Sanchez/Jeffers
DH Conforto//Beckham/Sano/Martin/Gordon
I think Beckham has earned a job.
The rotation would be Gray, Bundy, Ober, Ryan, Winder.
Note: I’m not at all satisfied with that rotation. It’s basically one proven starter and 4 "I hope they pitch up to their ceiling but truly they are question masks"
I would still try to sign for Cueto and maybe send 6 years of Sands for 1 year of Manea.
 
 
 
 

Disclaimer: Despite the photo, no Byron Buxtons were used in the preparation of this blog entry.
Do I have to say it? Okay, I will, just to get it out of the way: I love the Correa signing.  Teams should be trying to get good players, and we just got one of the best baseball players on the planet, in the middle of what should be his prime years - a center-cut slice, as they say. 
But ever since I heard about it, TWO LONG DAYS AGO, there's been something on my mind.  Risk versus reward.  And I don't think I've seen any of the writeups here, or elsewhere, look at it from this angle.  Did we really outmaneuver the Yankees?  I'm not sure that's what happened, or that New York's front office is gnashing their teeth with regret in the slightest.
Everyone's treating this like it's a one-year contract, and I agree that that's the most likely way it plays out.  But it's not a one-year contract - the Twins committed to three years.  There's the saying that there's no such thing as a bad one-year contract.  The converse is that (because team budgets don't carry over from year to year) everything longer than one year requires the signing team to put its neck into a noose, to one degree or another.
So, what's the risk with this contract, and what's the reward?  The risk is pretty obvious and pretty easy to define - Correa could get hit by a meteor tomorrow* and the Twins still would be on the hook for the full $105.3M, which by their usual accounting would apply equally to the budgets of those three years and in some way impact their ability to operate.  Probably they'll pay him $35.1M for one year of service and then thank him for his service as he departs.  But they've put $105.3M on the table, and are risking it.  You know how you say you'd "bet your house" on some sure proposition? You don't really ever do that, because you would actually have to put the deed to your house out there to be taken if you are proved wrong, and you'd start thinking about all the ways it could indeed go wrong.  It's like that here.  The Twins haven't bet the (Pohlads') house, but there's a significant chunk of change on the table that wasn't there three days ago.  That aspect still seems underappreciated.
Now what's the reward?  Much harder to estimate.  There is expected reward and then there's maximum reward.  Let's focus on the maximum here, since I started with maximum risk.  I'll use WAR as a catch-all for how to measure a player's contribution.  If you want to skip the details, jump down to "I'll Do The Homework Later."
Carlos Correa may not yet have had his "career year" - remember what I said about us getting a center-cut slice?  He might go full-MVP bananas-mode in 2022.  Shohei Ohtani was MVP last year and his pitching/batting WAR on b-r.com added up to 9.0.  So let's go with that.  If Correa has that kind of year, he walks after the season, of course - goodbye and good luck, good sir.
Let's say he goes out and puts up "only" a season like last year, with a WAR of 7.  Same outcome.  He walks away, with smiles all around.
But maybe 2021 actually was his career year, and he follows up like that with an all-star level WAR of 5.  Same outcome - maybe he loves his teammates here, but bidness is bidness, amirite - he leaves.
Maybe he's only above average and his WAR is 3.  Probably he walks, right?  Still can market himself to a big market team for a long contract, certainly for more than the $70.2M he's still owed.
What if he's average, and/or injured part of the time, and his WAR is 2.  Maybe he stays, maybe he walks.  What if it goes really badly and his WAR is 1?  Same uncertainty - maybe he stays, trying to rebuild value.  WAR can be 0 too, or even negative.  Probably he stays, trying to rebuild value.
Okay, sorry to belabor, but my point is that if he stays, it's almost certainly tied to low performance relative to expectations.  Reeeeeally low.
Now, consider Year 2, 2023.  Seems like it's 90% odds that he's gone, and whatever WAR he earned for the Twins this one year is the end of the story.  But in that remaining 10% case, what will be your expectation of WAR for 2023, given that he put up 0 or 1 WAR in 2022?  Depends on why, but probably a WAR of 9 is now off the table - chances of a bounceback like that are just too remote.  Could he return to 2021 levels and deliver 7 WAR?  Sure, maybe.  If he does, then he walks after the year, and his contribution to the Twins is that number plus his (low) 2021 number.  Like around... 8 or 9, for the two years together?  It can't be much higher, because he would have left already.  Of course he might not deliver 7, but only 5 - he still walks after Year Two.  3 WAR - probably he walks.  Lower than that, maybe he stays.
So if it was 10% that he's staying for Year 2, probably it's also at most 50/50 that he's back for Year 3, or 5%.  And that will be only if he's put up WAR in the neighborhood of 0-2 the first year and followed up with 0-2 WAR the second year.  Now what are the odds that he suddenly goes bananas at last, after 2 straight sub-par years?  Really small, right?  Anything can happen, but an MVP type season really is unlikely.  He could win Comeback Player of the Year with a 5 WAR.  I think that's about the ceiling at that point.  0-2, plus 0-2, plus 5, equals... gee, 9 at most, again.
There are all kinds of ways to do this kind of analysis, because nothing is certain.  But I've convinced myself that the absolute maximum the Twins can sanely hope for, from this particular contract, is a total WAR of 9, whether in one season or spread across multiple.
"I'll Do The Homework Later."  Good, I don't blame you.  To recap: the Twins stand to reap 9 WAR as a maximum, by signing Correa - go back and do the homework if you think it should be higher, I really don't think you'll come up with a sound argument.  The Twins' maximum risk is $105.3M.  We don't expect the latter to happen, but that's the risk.
Now, let's compare.  What if a deep-pockets team had gone ahead and instead given Correa a 10-year $325M contract like some were saying, and let's assume no opt-outs?  Let's do a quick version of the max risk/reward analysis for that - bear with me for one paragraph.  As before, the maximum risk on the contract is simple: $325M is on the line, win lose or Tommy John Surgery.  What's the maximum reward?  If we're allowing a chance at an MVP-like 9 WAR before, we need to do it again.  He might do that in any of the 10 years of the contract, but let's don't go crazy and think he does it every time.  Let's say 1 year of 9 WAR, and a 7 (a second monster year), a couple years of 5 WAR (still a huge asset), three more years of 3 WAR (above average), and then 1 WAR each of the other three years if he hits a steep decline or sprinkles in an injury-plagued season or two earlier in the sequence.  So really, I'm not talking absolute maximum after all, merely an optimistic outlook for a window of contention involving a great player.  Those 10 numbers, they all add up to 38 WAR.  A starry-eyed optimist could look at a potential future hall-of famer and come up with an argument for more, like 50 - meaning inner-circle HoF, which I can't honestly rule out for him at age 27 - he's less than halfway through his career and is more than halfway to HoF status IMO.  But let's go with 38. 
Estimated performance would likely be lower but remember, this is max risk and max reward.
So, put yourself in the Yankees' shoes.  Do you risk $105.3M for at most 8 WAR, like the Twins are doing?  Or do you say, **** that, I mean forget that, we're rich, and by tripling our risk, we can more than triple our potential reward.  Isn't that what smart money does?
So I think they, New York, say no to the smaller contract.  They have deep pockets, and won't risk significant money for modest maximum reward, when they could invest 3X as much in risk and really hit the jackpot.
Max risk and max reward are not the only analyses a team would make.  Not by a long shot.  Anticipated actual cost and estimated reward also are crucial.  Let's say 4 WAR for 2021 to reward the (very likely) $35.1M he gets from the Twins.  Compare that to maybe 30 WAR over a 10 year contract that costs $325M.  Now the dollars per WAR are much more favorable to the short contract - it is center-cut after all, an advantage not shared by the full 10-year cut of meat.
But likely outcomes aren't enough.  A front-office that didn't present a solid risk/reward analysis, which I have merely half-assed in this lengthy post, would be laughed out of the room by their higher-ups - if, that is, the higher-ups had an actual sense of humor and were in a forgiving mood and didn't fire them for lack of due diligence.
Bottom line, this is a mid-market contract, in my estimation.  The expected reward fits the expected price, but the risks are disproportionate.  A big team goes big.  No regrets for the Yankees.  This is the kind of deal the Twins have to embrace, but by no means did they "put one over on them" when they traded Donaldson to the Yanks to free up the cash to make this happen.  The Twins had to, in effect, buy Correa a $70.2M insurance policy, to get him to commit to just one year at $35.1M.  It probably adds $10M to the cost that the team's CPA has to factor in.
Thanks for your patience.  I welcome nit-picks, or bigger criticisms.
 
 
* Let's assume a small meteor, and like in Princess Bride he's only mostly dead, yet still slightly alive and expecting direct deposits at his bank to continue

"The Twins have signed a free agent to a 3-year contract with two opt-outs."
Sound familiar? It might.

Image courtesy of the Star Tribune
The seeds of today's Carlos Correa contract were planted on Feb. 5, 1991, with the Twins signing of Jack Morris. Technically the opt-outs were called "player options" at the time, but they were functionally the same: they empowered the player, alone, to turn a shorter-term contract into a longer-term one.
According to a  2016 NY Daily News article, the Morris contract is considered the birth of the modern opt-out clause:
Around the league, opt-outs have since become a staple of contracts, both short and long. But until now, those clauses had largely passed the Twins by, and top free agents had mostly eluded the Twins.
Does the Correa contract signal a change? Is there a new willingness and ability of the Twins to utilize the opt-out? Or have the stars simply aligned for another once-in-a-generation event?
Either way, it has Twins fans of March 2022 already dreaming of October 1991.

This morning I was woken up to, “I know your alarm is set for 8:30, but you need to wake up and see who you just signed for three years, $105mm.” I sleepily sat up as the name Carlos Correa was uttered, and I rolled over to check my phone, which had 105 notifications from Twitter, texts, and various news outlets. I am not a morning person, so waking up and being slammed with big news was not the way to start my day. 
Since coming back from the lockout, the Minnesota Twins have made some wild trades. It hasn’t felt like the usual off-season Twins front office with the acquisitions made.  The front office is actually making moves, and shocking moves at that. The first shock was trading out Mitch Garver to the Texas Rangers for shortstop Isiah Kiner-Falefa and minor league righthander Ronny Henriquez. Not a blockbuster deal by any means, but for fans who are attached to players, seeing Garver traded was a slap in the face. 
Kiner-Falefa wasn’t with the Twins that long. The front office pulled a double-play and traded Kiner-Falefa, Ben Rortvedt, and fan-favorite Josh Donaldson to the Yankees for Gary Sanchez and third baseman Gio Urshela. To say the fan base was shocked is an understatement, more like gobsmacked. Sanchez has been a liability both at and behind the plate since 2018. So when the front office decided to keep Sanchez instead of using him in a trade, the fans were less than pleased. The Twins also signed a deal with Chi Chi Gonzales and picked up catcher Jose Godoy.
The tornado of trades and the deafening silence after made Twins fans nervous. The Twins, not having a full roster of starting pitching and no shortstop, left rumors about Frankie Montras, Trevor Story, and Sean Manea in talks eating at the fans. We shed tons of players and salary, so what were we waiting on the front office to do? Free agents continued to sign with other teams, and it was beginning to feel like just a typical year in the Twins front office, clear salary and doing nothing. 
That all changed in the early morning of Saturday, March 19th, when Mark Berman from Fox 26 in Houston, that the Twins had a deal with Houston Astros shortstop, Carlos Correa. 
Twitter had spent six hours in excitement and losing their minds before I even was ‘scheduled’ to be awake. The one part of the acquisition I liked was that Houston and Yankees fans were both highly agitated and that was almost enough to make the contract worth it!
Once, I could sound off a couple of foul-mouthed tweets trying to figure out where this came from, considering I went to sleep praying that we would get some information on Trevor Story; I was majorly confused. The Twins made a HUGE acquisition, but they also pulled some considerable rabbit out of their “I’ll show you” hat either to 1. prove they could pay that much for someone, or 2. wanted fans to be proud of them, which they did both. But not all fans. It’s me; I’m that fan. 
I take baseball very seriously. It’s personal to me for many reasons, so when we pulled a player from the 2017 Astros, I was not too fond of it. The 2017 Astros not only cheated to win the World Series but also received immunity and not a single punishment. That felt like an injustice to baseball, and I have written off the players and the team. Everything that I loathed about that time was staring directly at me, including my moral compass about being a baseball fan and happy for my team. 
I am not a fan of Correa. I am still upset that he would insult the game like that. I know teams cheat; I am not naïve or blind; I was frustrated with how Major League Baseball and the Commissioner handled everything. It took me a few moments and rambling conversations in the shower while I got dressed and with my group chat. My group chat consists of avid female Twins fans from everywhere. While I was supportive online, I was honest about my frustration in my group, and one friend chimed in and made a good point, “The cheating isn’t allowed in this Twins culture, and once players leave Houston, the stigma tends to be to leave as well. This [sic] (being with the Twins) is the Carlos Correa Redemption Tour.” I liked that; it means that I don’t have to like Correa or the trade, but it gives me a mindset to be good support for my followers and other fans. 
There is no doubt at all that Correa’s numbers are good. They are downright impressive. 2017 was also a long time ago. It may take me a while to get there, but I did say this morning, and I will say again, “if he has changed and he is good for the boys, and they are happy, then I am happy for everyone else.” Being a fan of a team means being objective and also wanting to win championships, and I believe that is what the Twins front office is trying to do. 
Carlos Correa agrees to 3-year/$105.3M contract with Twins | SportsCenter
I am happy and impressed that we have pulled a player like Correa, but we still need starting pitchers. We are going to have to concede some pieces for that to happen. I wish we would have gotten pitching and then a shortstop, but now that we have the big piece, we need to continue building around that, and thinking about what will come from that is unnerving, because it’s clear, the Twins front  office isn’t done. 
So while I am excited to see what we can do or choose to do with starting pitching, I also know that there will be a sacrifice in players who made the same fans this morning who were happy…extremely upset. You have to take the good with the bad, the attachments with the releases, and the business with the emotions. 
That’s baseball. 

What exactly is the Twins FO waiting on to fill out our roster? From the outside looking in it seems to most that we still need at least 1 more pitcher, we need a SS, and bullpen help never hurts.  Yes, I understand it take two to tango, and of course we hear all over the place that the Twins are "talking" to this team or that FA, but seriously??? sitting with a payroll of just $72M (prolly closer to $90M when you add in the final pre-arb salaries) which means we have between $30-50M to spend, just to get mirror last years level. Are we once again nickel and diming other teams and FA?  Are we once again going to hear how the Twins were "in on", or "had interest in" or "had made offers to" different pitchers ONLY AFTER THEY SIGN ELSEWHERE???  It is easy to claim interest after the fact.
 
If we truly want to contend, it is OK to occasionally overspend if it allows you at actually get quality pieces and contend. You dont always have to spend 80 cents on the dollar.
Michael Pineda is still unsigned. Obviously there are reasons why any unsigned player is still unsigned. with the exception of the few at the top if they arent signed yet, that means noone else is really beating down the doors to sign them. and there are most likely reasons.
Michael Pineda is still out there. While not a game changer and not ultra reliable for the long run, when he has pitched he has given us quality innings. Why not bring him back??? can get him cheap and if he can give us innings on the front end, we will have our young kids ready on the back end of the season.
Jake Arrieta is still available. While HORRID over the last year plus, why not take a low cost flier? His TRUE value is not necessarily any innings he can provide, but to serve as a role model of the work ethic needed for our young guys.
Johnny Cueto. He is older but still serviceable.
On the position player front, while I do NOT want the Twins to sign Trevor Story unless it is a 1 year deal mainly for his defense, can we get going with setting our infield already???? Story has reportedly previously turned down multiple $100M contract offers. If this is what it will take ot get him, then RUN AWAY!!!  if his ask drops down and he is wiling to take a 1 year "prove it" deal to show he can hit outside of Coors as well, then get him, but lets go already!!!  Unless of course we are hoping one of the youngsters actually turns out to be ready.
We are less than 3 weeks from opening day, and do not have a full 5 quality starters, and do not have a set SS, We do not REALLY have a settled catching situation, can you REALLY plan on putting Sanchez behind the dish to control a young rotation even is a split role??? 
At this point we might as well just throw record contract out to Carlos Correa, we have little future commitments!! so could afford him and Buxton even with his incentives. Obviously we are resetting our "core".  Sano not so much "core" so we wont have to be paying him his FA money. we have Buxton locked up, Polanco is still locked in, we will be having 5-6 years of control on 3B = Miranda, OF = Lewis and/or Martin. 1B = Kirilloff and/or Larnach. We are positioning ourselves to have a god young pitching rotation, with a potential full pre-arb rotation by next year with Ryan, Ober, Balazovich, Winder, Canterino, Woods RIchardson et all, you know the group by now.
So if we are actually looking to contend, and we look to teh future and see most near FA contracts gone, and we have the talent to win with at AA & AAA, then lets overspend and get Correa, or for heck sakes overspend in prospects to get BOTH Manea and Montas.  Just DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!