Trov

I am not anti analytics, but just as I was upset that Gardy never used it, I feel Rocco, and company, fall to it as all decisions seem to stem from it. Here is the thing, every time a coach makes a move, it will be questioned if it does not work out. If it does, it will normally be praised, and if it is not under the normal type of moves it will get praised even more. The one thing I always try to remind people of analytics looks at hundreds of thousands to millions of situations over history, and never look at the situation at the time. For example, the historical of scoring 1 run with a run with a runner on first with 0 out is 18.7% with runner on 2nd and 1 out is 25.1%. So bunting seems to be supported here to try and get more runs. However, the analytic people then point to the chance of scoring more than 1 is lowered. So by bunting a guy to 2nd may increase the chance of 1 run, but actually decreases the chance of more than 1 run. So the analytics people say bunting is a negative thing and rarely do it. Because you would be more willing to do it when 1 run will win the game. However, if you never practice it, now you are doing things you do not do. Also, there are times where making sure you get a run will make a difference. Looking at individual game situations are still important. In terms of shifts I think people give them too much credit. You still have 7 defenders, catcher and pitcher need to start where they do, but the other 7 get to move, or did, and need to defend the same overall area. Teams took data to see where a guy was more likely to hit a ball and try to defend that area. When it "stole" a hit we all were like ugh the shift, but when the hitter hit a hole where a non shift would have made the out we would point out how the shift did not work out that time. It was all relative, and moving defenders around the field was never new, it just got highlighted when 2nd basemen were playing in short right and SS on other side of base. As the saying always went, just it it where they are not defending.

Position players rarely get taken in rule 5, mainly because they cannot hide them like they can a pitcher. Pitchers can get hidden in the pen and only pitch in blow outs, if they are not ready for MLB level, but hitters will only go to teams that are not trying to win. Julien would get taken if we do not add him so he will for sure. I think Sisk will get taken by a team. This is also a time to try and sneak guys through waivers as teams are adding guys to their own 40 man rosters, and passing others through. So do not be surprised if some of our other pitchers are DFA. Really, you just have to decide which pitchers you would rather have on the team.

Relief pitcher, and prospect rarely go together. Unless there is a worry about injury, very few minor league relief guys make it to majors. They need to be super dominate, or left handed. That is why Sisk is the only one as a relief guy I would say is a prospect. As stated Ronny Henriquez was a stater, and most likely will try to get slated back into that roll, but if he fails to as a starter he could be a decent pen guy, but most of the best pen guys, started in the minors and failed as a starter in majors, or were moved because of worry of injury or lack of pitch mix at majors.

I would not give him anything more than 2 years. Not normally a fan of any relief guy past 2 years, normally like the 1 year deals for relief guys in FA. They fall off the cliff so quickly sometimes, and very few teams want to trade for relief guys under contracts and prefer the rental guys.

Pretty sure Atlanta signed him. He also was a flash in the pan relief guy. The Rays got the max out him for about 38 innings. For some reason everyone thinks he is the one that got away because he was good over 38 innings over 2 season for the Rays. It was a nice run for him, but he is not like Pressley, who has had long term success.

Edouard Julien might be a huge diamond in the rough kind of guy. He fell to 18th round, and never was considered a top guy, but all he has done since being drafted is hit. He will be a guy that will work the count and take a ton of walks. I think his power has been a surprise for the Twins as he has hit 17HR last year, 18HR this year with 5 at AFL. In college he hit 17 his first year, but then 10 his second year. That really hurt his draft status I am sure.

A couple of things I would push back on. One, this is counter to the idea that the worst teams need should get the higher picks to rebuild. This could actually lead to mid-level, late season "tanking" more than a full season tanking. For example, we were in first most of the year, then just stunk it up the last month in a half, and Cleveland went on a run. By mid-September, it was clear we were not going to do far into the playoffs, even if we made it by how we were playing. Why not then make sure you do not make the playoffs just to get to then fight for the number 1 pick? Also, I personally do not think teams are specifically tanking for the number 1 pick, but they are keeping pay roll down for other specific reasons. Look at the team that said we are tanking, Houston. One would say, well it work out well for them doing so, but when you look at their top picks, only 1 of their number 1 picks helped them in their rebuild, or beyond. Correa was a number 1, and their next 2 number 1 picks never made majors, although 1 did not sign so they then got to draft number 2 the next year and their own number 5, which both of them turned out well. However, the point is, you still need to identify the talent, at the top. They failed two number 1 picks in a row, only to get lucky one did not sign. Had they signed, they would not have got lucky the next year, and maybe not be in the position they are. However, they also had very good international signings. like Alverez, or Altuve, who was part of that tanking teams, most of their starting rotation were all international signings, and later round picks as well they hit on, Pena their replacement for Correa was a third round pick. I have long said, the draft in MLB is not going to be the best or only way to build a team and tanking for high picks will not equal success. In Houston's case, they got more international signing money, then in one year went all in on signing guys and hit on many of them, hence the great rotation they built from international signings. Yes, top picks have a much better chance to help down the road, but very rarely is the number 1 overall the best player out of the draft. Unlike in basketball where the number 1 is normally the best, but not always, in baseball, they are rarely the best. They are good, more often than not, but many times someone later in the first turns out to have the better overall career. Picking number 1 only gives you the chance to ID who the best is, something that is not always easy.

Twins have a lot of decisions I think still to make in that department. They are down to 37 on the 40 man roster, this includes the 60 day IL guys coming back. I think they will still want to protect more than 3 guys from rule 5. I am pretty sure Garlick gets the non-tender. Conteras most likely too. I could see Sands, or Enlow if they felt they needed more room.

First, I would say still too early to evaluate the trade in full, mainly because Acala is still young enough to develop into a good relief guy, if he can stay healthy. Could we have used Pressley a couple of years ago in the playoffs, maybe, but would he have made the difference, doubtful. In both 2019 and 2020 we were beat and not because our pen blew the game late. If you do not have a lead late in game, the closer makes no difference. Sure, you can say, had we had a better pen it trickles down, but based on how the games went, I doubt even with both Pressley and Hendricks we would have won. If you are not going to win with the player, and you can get something that provides value down the road should you do it? In my opinion, yes. Maybe having Pressley this year, we could have made playoffs, assuming we kept him until this year. However, we do not know how other moves may have been made over the years had we not traded away Pressley either.

I have gone back and forth on the front loaded, so not overpaying as much at end of deal. The issue with that is money is worth more now, then it will be in 8 to 10 years. Meaning payrolls will go up, so even if you are paying for dead money the last few years, it will be less of a hit if you do not front load. However, if you do front load while we have a lot of guys on rookie or less than 3 year service time money, and then first and second year arbs, so your payroll will be lower, then you can get more money to other players on the back end. The player should want to take the front loaded deal as a financial reason, but you never know what pushes people. Maybe we can do a bonilla deal and be paying Correa until we are all dead, and the money will pass onto his kids and kids kids.

I think too many people are expecting too much offense from a catcher. Very few catchers are good at both offense and defense, similar to SS. When you find one that is good at both, they are worth a ton of money because they are super rare. You need to decide your balance between the two. Jeffers and Sanchez slash line is about equal. I do not know how much better Jeffers is to Sanchez, but to be set on Jeffers, he better be much better than Sanchez as it comes to defense, including pitch framing, to draw the conclusion that Sanchez is not the right one, but Jeffers is fine. Hopefully Jeffers can upgrade is offense, because if not, in the next few years his pitch framing will be pointless when the electronic zone finally gets put in.

I am not saying I agree with the way starters were used, however, we do not know how they would have done over the bullpen in their shorter starts. It is not just the 3rd time through rotation, but they want to generally pull guys after inning over, and not mid innings. To just assume that putting the starter out there 1 more inning, to have 1 less from pen, would have worked out well is just not based on facts. It is pure speculation. The post said out pen was 15th in ERA. Did anyone look up what the overall ERA of our team was? We were 19th overall. Tampa Bay, who averaged even less pitches per start had one of the best overall team ERA. They have a very similar plan as we do. It is really just comes down to needing better pitching overall.

How do you know the coaches are yes men? Are you in their meetings listening to conversations? Just because they are not vocally telling the media they are against what Rocco is doing, does not mean they are not putting ideas forward. Rocco is the one that takes the questions from media, so we only hear from. Maybe they are yes men, but what evidence do you have to conclude that?

I expect stolen bases to go up some, but not just because bases are larger, but that should help a little, I mean how often does it come down to just an inch or two? Where I think the rule changes will be the step offs and pitch count will increase base stealing more than anything. Mainly from pure strategy stuff. I am personally looking forward to hopefully more running. I still doubt the Twins will do a ton, unless they get some better base runners up. They operate under the risk reward factor is too low to risk it. I personally, miss the hit and run game, the stolen bases setting up and manufacturing runs. I could go on about how I feel the analytics cloud people's minds to cause them to stop doing certain things in the game. Not saying no analytics, but think people see the data and draw conclusions and forget it is still a situational game and we are not playing on paper or rolling dice.

The move could be made, if they sign a SS to long term deal, because an deal would require either Lewis, or Lee I would guess, and some pitching as well. This would hurt our possible SS options down the road. I am for it if we have SS on lock for another 3 plus years minimum.

I get that CF or SS move off their positions because they age and can no longer play there on defense, but the only reason he could stop doing both pitching and hitting is if he regresses in his ability of one or the other. I mean they do not move pitchers off the mound to another position as they age because they cannot defend it, they either move them from starter to pen or just say you are done pitching. Same with hitting, they only stop putting a DH in line up when they stop being productive at it. Of course that will happen one day to all players, but I do not think they will ask Ohtani to stop doing either until his ability reduces, not because he cannot defend the position anymore, like a CF or SS. Those guys, provided they can still hit, will generally get moved to 3b or corner OF because they do not need as much speed and range, which is lost as they age. Maybe he gets moved to pen, which could complicate things, as he would start games at DH then be asked to come into game to pitch, giving up the DH, but if you plan to always use him late inning, that would not be too much to deal with.

The only reason I would think about supporting this idea, is that we always need a backup for Buck, because we know he is likely to miss half the games anyways. So if we can get a good CF moving Buck to RF, then I would support it. However, if we are just looking to swap Kepler with Buck next year in hopes of giving more games to Buck, I would not support that.

I am personally a big fan of incentive contracts, but players are not. They do it, in cases like Buxton, when there are many questions as to long term risk. I do not see a ton of long term risk in Ohtani, at least not at both sides. You do make a valid point that if the signing team does not want to continue the two way thing for long term, just as in the Ruth situation, Yankees did not want to do that, despite Ruth being a great pitcher. However, I think Ohtani does not sign with any team if he thinks they will try to move him out of it. I also think the resting he got back in 2018, was in part this was all new to MLB, and they did not know how he could play full time DH when not pitching. The last 2 years he has done that, so no reason to think he will shift back soon. 2018 was his rookie year, no player had ever been full time pitcher and hitter. I also think even if he loses some as a starting pitcher, and you want to shift him to pen guy, he could then DH every game, and if needed to go into pen late in game you do that. Sure would be interesting to see.

One of the big pushes I make against this is one, one of his biggest values is in his CF defense, it is so much better than anyone else, by taking him away from that means you have lowered his value. Now, being his bat has become a plus value, years ago it was not, there may be some merit. However, where I also push back is many of his injuries have not been just from playing CF. This year his knee got injured on a slid. Other years he missed time from running bases too. He has missed time from foul ball into foot, or getting hit by pitches. If the majority of his injuries were from him playing the field, then again maybe there is merit, but when many is from hitting and running bases, no position change will reduce that. So I say, why decrease his value for the very limited reduced risk to injury in his specific case? Yes, he did miss some time in his career from crashing into walls, but he could just as likely do that in other outfield positions too.

That really is the question, one are you willing to accept years where he is very overpaid, hopefully on 2 to 3 years, for hopefully 6 to 7 years of getting paid fair to slightly overpaid? I am no expert, and cannot predict how he will age, or how a transition to 3b would like in 4 to 5 years. If you are convinced he will still be putting up 5 plus WAR in his mid-30's I say break the bank. However, if you are worried that in say 3 years you are moving him to 3b, and he is putting up 1 to 2 WAR because his defense fall off the cliff and so has his bat. The thing to remember is he has never been a super offense guy, he has been very good on offense for SS, but compared to other offensive positions he has been decent but not a superstar. However, he has always been generally consistent across his career. The fact that he has done this as a plus defender, to one of the best, for now. He has great value. It is possible at end of career they can make trades to dump his pay if it becomes to big of an anker. Not ideal, but if you can draft, trade, and develop well, it should not be terrible down the road. If you think your team can be a regular success over next 3 to 5 years, break the bank and worry about 5 plus years from now later.

I would disagree that as we got to electronic strike zone we will see less defensive catchers and just hitters. Part of catching is more than just framing and throwing out runners, which MLB is trying to get more steals in the game again. There is pitch calling, covering bunts, taking throws at home and blocking as much of plate as allowed, seeing when a pitcher is doing something wrong. Sure, the pitch calling could go to the dug out, but still think there is value from the catcher as he is sitting with the hitter and can see possible things, the coaches cannot, both in the hitter and the pitcher. If you have a weak armed catcher, there will be more steals on them, so they still need a strong arm. I would agree you may see more platoon catchers to give more breaks than the 140 to 150 games a year, but it would take a guy like Joe who actually never caught 140 games in a season, most he caught a single season was 139 then most was 120, so not even he did at as a 150 game catcher, but would DH double digit games as well.

I need to push back on the part about Joe blocking everything. He was good at throwing out runners, and he was decent to stabbing to balls in the dirt and getting in the glove, but he was actually not very good at "blocking" a ball. He would commonly even stand up putting is glove down to try and snag the ball and let it through his legs. They were not passed balls but he could have been better at blocking it. Now, he was still a great catcher overall and not trying to bash him, but many people thought he was better at blocking pitches than he really was.

To address the question posed in the title first. It very well may happen, but is not likely. Being Joe was the only AL catcher to ever do it, and only 2 in NL, both like 90 years ago, shows it is very unlikely. Is it possible, yes, someone like Joe could come along again, but doubtful. That being said, if you can get a good offensive catcher, even if not a batting title, but can produce above average on offense, then yes you pay those guys. Similar to an elite hitting SS, if they can be both an every day catcher, meaning they can defend the position at least at a passable level, and hit at an elite level, either by way of overall power, or average, you pay them big. I mean, why just relegate yourself to a fact that a catcher will be poor hitter, if you can get one that is not? Sure, the likes of Joe, Posey, Yadi, Piazza, Pudge(both of them), are not common. Piazza was not great defense wise, but he made up for it at the plate. This is what makes the likes of A.J. Pierzynski who was not amazing hitter, but at least about average compared to rest of league, which put him generally above average at his position. Catcher has always been a defense first position, and what you can get from offense is a bonus. As running was taken out of the game, generally from choice not elite catching defense, we do not see it as needed and worry more about offense. However, running is on a rise lately, and defense will be important again.

I know he is not a FA yet, but set to be one after his next season, so many teams are looking to maybe trade for and extend him. He will be entering his 29 age season when his new contract is coming. Now, in a normal player, you can look at a lot of comps as to what his contract could look like. However, he is not a normal player, and not since Babe Ruth have we seen a pitcher be a hitter as well. Ruth stopped doing both when he was sold to the Yankees after 1919, except for a few games here or there or later in his career. Of course we cannot compare those contracts. Now, if we looked just at pitching, I think Gerrit Cole could be a decent comparison, Cole had better strike outs and more innings the years prior, but still a top tier pitcher Cy Young candidate who was entering year 29. Cole got 9 years, averaging 36 mil a year. I think if Ohtani was just a pitcher we would see something a little less than this, but not much. I normally would never sign a pitcher to that long of a deal, let alone at age 29. He will be 38 when it is done, and expect a bit of drop off, and high chance of injuries. Ohtani did pitch less games over last couple years than Cole and has had some injury issues, which is why I would expect less years and less money, but Ohtani would still be looking about 7 years at around 30 mil, just as a pitcher I would bet. However, Ohtani, can hit like an MVP as well. He has a career slash .267/.354/.532 with an OPS+ of 139. He only DH's, to help save any arm injuries, but he could play OF most likely. There are many hitters entering age 29 season FA that we could compare, but none that are just a DH, so you do need to take that into account. However, just as a bat, I looked at a few recent signings around age 29. George Springer signed at age 31 season, got 6 years at 25 a year. He was mixing between CF and RF at this time, and slashed close to Ohtani with less HR overall. Kris Bryant signed entering age 30 season, and mostly as a bat at this point. He signed 7 years 27 a year. He slashed close again, with less HR overall to Ohtani. Corey Seager entering his age 28 season, signed 10 years at 35 a year. Now he does play SS, but expected to move to 3b at some point, but still considered average defender, so not a true comparison to a bat only kind of guy, but trying to get cross section of age and offense. Seager slashed with higher average on OBP, but lower slugging and much less HR, hitting less than 100 entering contract year, Ohtani has 127 and still 1 more year until contract year. Again, it is impossible to compare truly a value for Ohtani as there is no one to fully compare to. If we look just at WAR, the average cost per WAR in a FA is around 8.5 to 9 mil. Lets say 9. If team paid for Ohtani full WAR value, they would be paying close to 81 million, as he has got a 9 WAR the last 2 seasons. Of course he will not get 81 million over a single season. If we compare WAR, Mike Trout would be the closest, but he signed his contract at age 26 season, so length is not going to be as long, but annual value may be close. Trout contract is 35 mil average. It was signed 5 years ago though. So what does an Ohtani contract look like? I would be willing to bet it will be around a 9 year deal, around 40 mil a year, if not 45 a year. Why do I say that? I would say because what he does both pitching and hitting, he will continue to put up high WAR numbers as he has, for the next several years. He has shown even when he has a pitching injury, he can still hit, so less risk of losing him for time even with a pitching injury. Also, the cost of contracts are going up. Look at Seager, he got same annual value as Trout, but never had a WAR close to Trout, never having a WAR more than 5.2. Trout had WAR of average of like 9 a year. Really, he got hosed on his deal if you look at true WAR. His value has decreased due to injuries mainly, when healthy Trout still putting up crazy numbers. So with no true comparison, what do you think an Ohtani contract will look like?

Personally, I would not go after any of them. I would not want to give up the prospects for Darvish or Musgrove, and the FA do move the needle enough for me. They are better than our 4th or 5th most likely, but unless they are better than our 1, I do not care too much.