IndianaTwin

A few years ago, I bought a home plate from a sporting goods store and then worked with a local screen printer to have the words "Welcome to our home!" applied on it. At our previous home, it served as part of the welcome mat. Now it's on the wall in our entry hallway, surrounded by photo collages I made of the MLB stadiums I've been at. I don't know of this being available anywhere on-line, but if you've got the time, it was pretty easy to pull off, and it would make a nice gift.

Paddack can be put on the 60-day IL at the beginning of spring training.

Not sure if a Beef & Chedd will do it, now that they’ve added that brisket sandwich with the bacon and onion straws. If either of those do it AND they’d bring the Orange Cream shake back, all would be good.

A few years ago, I visited Holliston, Mass., and recorded a rendition of “Casey at the Bat” at their statue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LYgOURYpYM&t=11s

But actually, remember that there was a shortened spring training, so most pitchers had gotten fewer than normal starts during spring training. Additionally, they were carrying two more relievers than usual because of the expanded rosters. Even with those, they were throwing “normal” lengths as starters.

I agree that you have to plan for injury, and I'm always surprised at those on TD who list five guys for the rotation and assume that will be enough. But by May 29, the Twins had seven starters (Gray, Ober, Bundy, Paddack, Ryan, Dobnak, Winder) who'd spent time on the IL (Winder in the minors). I'm not sure how you can plan for that level of injury in the rotation. In addition, Balazovic was also on the minor league IL until May 1 and then was getting hammered when he did come back, so he wasn't the option they hoped he'd be. And I didn't speak to this, but also having four relievers (Alcala, Romero, Coulombe and Stashak) on the IL by late May certainly affected the bullpen's ability to bail them out when starters got injured. They only managed to get 36 innings all season out of four guys they were counting on for significantly more innings than that. And that doesn't consider the meltdown of a guy who was planned to help anchor the bullpen after three straight seasons of excellent relief -- Duffey. To me that's inordinate, so I'll offer sympathy. And we do have a new head trainer now. ?

Quite a number of posts have railed about “The Plan” for Twins starters to make short starts and never face the Third Time Through the Order, but I did a fairly deep dive into looking at box scores and would offer a different analysis of their starter usage this season. Here’s an alternative take for consideration, arguing that The Plan was not the plan: From Opening Day until about May 31, the Twins tried using starters in a “normal” pattern. If you look at starters across the board (except for Archer), there are a decent number of 6 inning starts and even some 7 inning starts from Gray, Ryan, Paddack, and Bundy. Unfortunately, by May 31, every starter except Archer had already spent time on the IL or was sent to the minors for being ineffective. That meant a 13-game stretch where their starters were Smeltzer, Sands, Ober, Archer, Gonzalez, Bundy, Smeltzer, Sands, Archer, Bundy, Smeltzer, Gonzalez. Continuing that is a recipe for disaster. On June 14 and 15, Ryan and Gray came off the IL to join Archer, Bundy and somebody else (more on that coming) in the rotation. At that point, I think the team felt like it had two choices. They could either keep using starters “normally” and risk them going back to the IL, replaced by Gonzalez, Sands, et. al, OR they could find a way to manage their workload. They chose the latter, shortening the outings of nearly all of their starters from that point forward. For a time it worked, at least in terms of staying healthy. From June 13 to Sept. 9, the quartet of Bundy-Archer-Ryan-Gray made all of their starts, with the exception of a short IL stint around the All-Star break for Archer, where he missed two outings. The fifth spot in the rotation was first filled by Smeltzer (6 times), Winder (3 times, once as a 27th man and twice in Archer’s spot) and Sanchez (2 times). Then they traded for Mahle, who made three starts in the fifth spot and got hurt. Then two more for Sanchez, one more for Mahle and one from Varland. I’d also suggest that it largely worked in terms of quality. Gray pitched as expected, but it was actually Bundy who was their most effective starter and who played a key role in keeping them in the race. Bundy had 14 starts (including two in the 13-game stint referenced above), going 72.1 innings with a 3.36 ERA and a .629 OPS against. Gray had 14 starts, going 71 innings with a 3.42 ERA and an .672 OPS against. Archer was arguably the next most effective. He made 15 starts (again counting the two in the 13-game stint referenced above), totaling 66.1 innings with a .657 OPS against. His ERA was elevated at 4.61, driven up primarily by several games when he got shellacked, including giving up six runs in 3 innings in his first game off the short IL stint. In 10 of the 15 games, however, he kept the team in the game by giving up two or fewer runs, but always in 4-5 innings. Though he threw the most innings (75 in 14 starts), Ryan was actually the least effective, giving up a .783 OPS on the way to a 4.80 ERA. In his defense on the latter, it’s skewed by a game in which he game up 10 runs. I didn’t total up the showings of the others, other than to anecdotally remember that it was a mix of performances, what one might expect of a No. 5. Though they had lost the lead, they were still just 1.5 games back when Cleveland came to town on Sept. 9. Then the wheels came off. Mahle had been picked up to the fill the fifth spot, but had gotten hurt. Though Archer had pitched a lot of decent games, he never stretched out to the degree they hoped and made just one more start before being shut down. Gray made two more starts and was shut down. Bundy kept making starts, but ran out of gas and was ineffective. The bullpen showed spurts of effectiveness (Duran, Jax, Fulmer and Lopez at times after their acquisitions, Pagan in low-leverage spots during July and August). But overall, the bullpen was unable to handle the workload required with the short outings. If you’ve made it this far, here’s my summary: Short starts wasn’t “The Plan,” but they were forced into it by early-season injuries and the inability of Archer to extend. Consider how the story with starters might have been different if either Paddack or Ober stayed healthy; Archer does stretch out to going 5 innings regularly and 6 occasionally rather than never getting past the 4-5 range; and Mahle stays healthy after the trade. Though they could have brought up some of the young guys to use as long reliever/piggy backs, I think they saw the writing on the wall that things were not sustainable. Instead, they placed an emphasis on the long view, allowing guys like Varland and Woods Richardson to continue their development. They DID have several instances where they used Sanchez as an innings-eater. Were there some games when Rocco could have read Twins Daily and kept a starter in an inning longer? Probably, but I think they were again playing the long game, believing that their only chance of staying in the race was making sure that guys could make their next start. And the one after that. As an additional data point to suggest that short starts wasn’t The Plan, it’s worth noting that in composite of the previous years of the Falvey/Levine era, the Twins were actually within 0.1 innings of the league average in start length. The one year in which they were 0.3 innings less than the league average was the year in which they used Openers on at least eight games. Eight starts of one inning instead of five knocks your season average down by 0.2 innings. Conversely, in the season when Berrios, Odo, Pineda and Gibson stayed healthy, they actually were 0.3 innings ABOVE average in starter length.

Does that mean Ron Davis was a Yugo?

For an extended time on Bundy. Over 14 starts from June 18 to September 4, he threw 72.1 innings with a 3.36 ERA and .629 OPS. For context, Ryan threw 75 innings over 14 starts from June 14 to Aug. 31, with a 4.80 ERA and .783 OPS. A major difference, of course, is that Ryan is on the upside in his career (we hope) and Bundy is in the decline stage (we suspect). But if the question is spending $3.7M on Bundy vs. Pagan (Pagan's arbitration projection), I'll take Bundy. And for the reasons @weitz41 notes above, I'm not the Pagan-disliker that many on here are. With what Bundy got as a guarantee this year, $3-$4 million may be the best he'll get as an MLB offer. At this point, I think the roster spot is more valuable, however, so I wouldn't make that offer until later in the winter when we see how other pieces pan out. And at that point, Bundy gets compared to the other leftovers that are out there, but I wouldn't be opposed to having him on the "perhaps" list at $3-$4 million. And if he doesn't get anything and has to settle for a minor league deal with incentives, I'm all over him.

I'm not sure either whether this would get it done -- I'm just not sure I'd want to go much further. My thought was that if he could only get three years of $35.1M AAV last year, it's going to be hard for him to get more years at that level this year. This gets him an additional two years at that level, plus another four years at close to that level. After adding up my numbers to get eight years at $270M, I realized that adding a ninth year at the $30M level would get him to that $300M number. But I'd be cautious about eight years, let alone a ninth. And my take on the front office is that they are more cautious about committing length than they are about committing AAV. Plus, in the industry, there seems to be a move toward opt-outs. I don't know if my numbers are right, but I could see a team using a structure along the lines of what I suggested. "Creativity and flexibility" in contract structure also seems to fit both the Boras and the Twins MO, so I see that as a potential advantage for the Twins over other teams in negotiations. Boras has already found that the Twins will listen to creative ideas.

With the pitchers, it's probably because Rocco didn't leave them on the mound long enough to get familiar with them.* *I'm not a Rocco/"Spreadsheet" basher (more toward the opposite, in fact). It just seemed like a smart-aleck thing to say before someone else did. ?

I could reasonably see it being beyond $300M. There's an element of one upmanship and pride in these negotiations. The .1 in $35.1M wasn't coincidence -- it allowed him to top Rendon in AAV among infielders. With that in mind, I think it will take either some years at >$35M or at $300M in total, since that's a nice round number. Perhaps both. So here's the idea that I've floated elsewhere... 8 years at $270M. The first four years at $36M, followed by two at $33M and two at $30M, with opt outs after four and six years. Correa gets... A raise for the first four years and in the neighborhood of some of the biggies that have happened. The ability to opt out if he thinks he can beat 4 years for $126M at age 31 or 2 years for $60M at age 33. A slightly front-loaded contract, which is beneficial for investment purposes. The Twins get... A bit of salary relief after four and six years if he opts in. A lot of salary relief after four or six years if he opts out. The ability for Lewis to play 3B for several years, flip-flopping with Correa at the appropriate time (think ARod moving to 3B). Is that close? I'm not sure it's enough, but I'm also not sure I'd go much further.

And completely unrelated, @Squirrel, you may be interested in knowing that my alma mater just introduced a new mascot, a squirrel named Dash. You have to be creative when you're the Maple Leafs. https://goleafs.net/sports/2022/10/6/meet-the-mascot.aspx

And while I'm at it, I'll make the first of my probably eleventy-seven times of saying this -- can we please not judge the entire offseason on one transaction that does or doesn't happen, can we please not make "we didn't even try" assertions on every free agent that we're not linked to, and and can we please wait until Opening Day to put a grade on the offseason? (This is not directed to anyone on this post -- just a general declaration about the tenor of how offseason TD discussions seem to go.) EDIT to add: @Squirrel, you must have posted while I was typing. I indeed wasn't poking at you! ?

Better than I thought they were at this point last year... Meaning, I still think it's doubtful, but they HAVE pulled off surprises. Few of us expected Correa. Few of us expected Donaldson. I don't remember back that far, but how many of us expected Cruz the first time? Not sure how many of us expected them to come through with seven years on Buxton.

I think it was Bill James where I first read... Good speed, good arm = CF Good speed, bad arm = LF Bad speed, good arm = RF Bad speed, bad arm = 1B There's exceptions, but I've generally found that an accurate take. Buxton equals the first.

On the last one, if the idea is that the CF is more athletic and thus can run into the wall more frequently than the toadstool in left who can't get to the wall in time to run into it, why put the athletic guy in left, where he's got a wall behind him and a wall beside him to run into?

Yes, Jansen is the guy I've been looking at, though more as a partner to Jeffers than ditching him altogether. Toronto has talked about getting Moreno at bats at other positions*, but I think that's more about not being seen to be having a glut at catcher and thus being desperate to trade. And Jansen will be a much cheaper pickup than Kirk or Moreno. *As the owner of Moreno in a keeper fantasy league, I'd be glad to have him playing every day at another position while maintaining his catcher eligibility.

Splitting time between two catchers? Yes, that will happen. But I don't think they'll be overly worried about a platoon arrangement. At catcher, they seem more concerned about balancing load than they do platoon-advantage. They tend to follow a pattern of alternating days, rarely giving a start three days in a row unless there are injury issues to deal with, When you're platooning, you're relying on the other team to tell you which person to play. So it might be a bonus if they have one catcher hitting from each side, but I'm guessing platoon balance is well down the priority list in shopping for a catcher.

An alternative way of thinking about your original question is that with teams moving to a 13-hitter roster, and with two of the spots going to catchers, there will be fewer and fewer DH-only types. If a catcher is hitting well enough to be in the batting race, there's a reasonable likelihood they will also be getting a decent number of DH at bats for their team. This year, for example, Sanchez ended up with 471 plate appearances. despite catching only 91 games and batting only .205. With the number of injuries the Twins had, it's not difficult to imagine him getting another 50 at bats as DH if he was hitting .340, particularly if Jeffers had been healthy enough to share the catching load. So, no, there likely won't be many players who qualify for the batting title based solely on their plate appearances as a catcher, but there may still be guys who were primarily catchers who qualify. Additionally, remember that there's the rule that says a player can qualify with less than 502 plate appearances, IF a player's lead in average is sufficiently large that enough hitless at bats can be added to reach this requirement and the player would still have the highest batting title. Tony Gwynn in 1996 is an example of the latter, winning with just 498 plate appearances. His average was .353, but would have only dropped to .349 with an 0-for-4, leaving him ahead of the next eligible player. In Mauer's case in 2009, he beat Ichiro by .013, so Mauer would have probably still won the batting title with around 490 or so plate appearances.

What are your thoughts on a Ron Davis reunion?

Jim Kaat is offended, but yes to your overall point. ?

"Opted for more of the same" doesn't acknowledge that they did something different than most prior years in offering a significant asset (Petty) to get a significant starter (Gray) via trade, which isn't mentioned in the article. They also took a risk in offering another asset (Rogers) for the potential of a significant asset (Paddack). Also, this will get called "making excuses for the front office," but losing two months of offseason last year didn't help their ability to zig rather than zag.

I neglected to mention that Do clearly had the best signature of the three, sporting a nice tail under the name, a la the Twins uniform. By contrast, "Nikkie" looked as much like "Ninnie" and all Rowan came up with was turning the "o" into a smiley face.

I disagree with the analysis on the trades and free agent signings. While it's true that none of the trades or signing acquisitions turned into a ace, I don't think any of them were intended to. You're right, for example, in that none of the free agent signings turned into an ace. But nor did they commit the amount of money needed to get an ace. In each of those deals, the player was signed to be somewhere between a No. 2 and a No. 5. In a number of cases, the guy indeed served his purpose. Pineda, etc. Similarly, in none of the trades did they give up what's required to get an "ace" (with the notable exception that the jury's still out on Petty). In terms of MLB success, the most they've traded away was Graterol, who would have helped the Twins in the time since he's been traded. Even so, he's not yet reached (and it seems doubtful that he will) the level that suggests he can be traded for ace-level talent. I think the bigger conclusion is that, for better or worse, the current Twins brass has not prioritized getting an "ace" to the degree that some fans would like. I say, for better or worse, in that a signing at $15M (which you used as the threshold) is still a significant risk, both in the signing itself and in how it affects payroll flexibility. In last year's class, for example, several of the signings would have been worth it. Eduardo Rodriguez and Noah Syndergaard (missing from the list at a $21M signing), not so much. You could also arguably put Yusei Kikuchi and Alex Wood in the not-so-much category in that, while they signed for slightly less than $15M per year, the Twins would have had to pay close to $15M to get the signing.