Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

South Dakota Tom

Verified Member
  • Posts

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Tutorials & Help

Videos

2023 Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Free Agent & Trade Rumors

Guides & Resources

Minnesota Twins Players Project

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Blog Entries posted by South Dakota Tom

  1. South Dakota Tom
    Right now, I'd project the opening day lineup to consist of Sano at 1b, Polanco at 2b, Simmons at ss, Donaldson at 3b, Arraez in LF, Buxton in CF, Kepler in RF, and Garver catching. Assuming a 13-man position player active roster, that leaves 5 spots open. Ryan Jeffers is one. Jake Cave is another. At some point, sooner rather than later, Alex Kiriloff is a third. Brent Rooker is a fourth, leaving Lamonte Wade, Astudillo, Blankenhorn, Gordon to fill in (or rotate in) the final spot.
     
    Once Kiriloff arrives, left field stops rotating, and while Cave is backup outfielder number one, having Rooker in the lineup (as well as Arraez, who is not great in LF, but his bat needs to stay in the lineup), tilts toward a second infield utility player being handiest. We can argue over who that should be (Astudillo as 3rd catcher, 3b, LF?; Blankenhorn or Gordon), but I'm sticking with my hopeful prediction of Gordon taking on that part-time skeleton key spot, offering some speed, flexibility, and reasonable pop.
     
    The depth chart says that (after catcher), Rooker backs up 1B, or potentially Kiriloff or Kepler, with Cave getting an OF start; Arraez backs up 2b along with Gordon; Polanco backs up SS; Arraez or Polanco or Sano backs up 3b, depending on whether the team prefers keeping Jorge to a primary-2b, sometimes ss role or moves him around more.
     
    Once Kiriloff arrives in LF, (or RF, if they want to shift Kepler to LF), there will be fewer ABs available for any outfield position reserves.
     
    DH, then, rotates between a handful of players - Sano (Rooker plays 1b, or Kiriloff plays 1b with Cave/Arraez in LF), Donaldson (Arraez or Polanco plays 3b, the other plays 2b), Rooker, Cave, Arraez as DH with no substitutions needed, maybe Polanco with Arraez playing 2b.
     
    While a Cruz reunion is favored by many, and for good reason (this is not to bash Nellie, who is a leader and great baseball player), none of the above is possible with a single, non-position-player taking on 500+ at-bats in the DH slot. There is a sound argument that Cruz's production would dwarf doling out 500 ABs between Rooker, Arraez, Cave, or whichever catcher isn't starting that day, but there's a logical argument that it wouldn't.
     
    And then there's the money. I think the figures thrown around ($12M with incentives to $15-16) are a little light, and gobbles up all - or almost all - of the remaining budget. I don't pretend to know what that number is, and clearly the team isn't saying, but multiple reports indicate that the annual salary for Cruz would constitute the lion's share of it.
     
    This team needs bullpen help and (in my opinion) one more starting pitcher for depth. We can hope against hope that Maeda, Berrios, Pineda, Happ and Dobnak all make 30 starts, but it never happens. We can hope against hope that Smeltzer, Thorpe, Duran and Balazovic can ably fill in, but that, too, walks a thin rope (and depending on how it shakes out, Thorpe could be lost from that depth chart if he doesn't make the relief corps). 8-9 starters is not enough, especially when two have never pitched a major league inning, and all are expected to throw 250% of their 2020 innings.
     
    It is also noteworthy how close our top prospects are to reaching ML level - a glance at the MLB prospects list https://www.mlb.com/prospects/2020/twins/ reflects that no less than a dozen of the top 30 (those who haven't already appeared in a big league game) have "2021" as their anticipated date of arrival. I don't see a dozen spots opening up this year, but wouldn't it be nice that if Celestino pounds AAA, or Miranda or Larnach or Lewis, that we would have the ability to move pieces around to make that happen.
     
    Our clearest open path to at-bats in 2021 is through the DH slot. The remaining 8 offensive starters seem pretty locked in (again, once AK moves to everyday play). The same dollars that bring us Cruz could fetch a couple of relievers (Colome, Rosenthal, Kennedy, Clippard?) and a starter (Brett Anderson, Jake Arrieta, Carlos Rodon, Cole Hamels?) who slip through the cracks.
     
    One final point - I know the team will miss the homers from Eddie and Nelson, but this team too often sat around waiting for some player to hit a bomb. The playoffs the past two years only highlight that shortcoming. Improved flexibility throughout, better defense, room for promotion from prospects, and more reliance on 1-9 rather than solo homers, while beefing up pitching depth, seems a stronger formula for success in 2021 (and beyond).
  2. South Dakota Tom
    There have been several excellent "how would you spend $x?" articles written this off-season. There is some point in the winter when the ice breaks and teams start signing players; there are often several points at which these occur, and I've often wondered how that math gets done, realizing that one would be criticized for either moving too quickly (gross overpay for Player A) or too slowly (completely missed out on Player A, you numbskull!).
     
    It is one thing to say that the Twins' payroll for 2021 should be in the $125-140M range, take the existing (probable, considering Maeda's incentives) payroll in the low 90s, and figure out a way to spend the remainder, given the estimates of value on all existing free agents, or the +/- in dollars exchanged in any trade.
     
    This year, however, presents a different set of possibilities. One can scour the team pages here and there, and come up with a list of teams that are either a)shedding payroll; or b)not going to spend any more than they have already. That limits the number of teams still in the race for the existing assets. For each of those teams, a little deeper dive can also unearth a relative number available to spend on any of the talent out there (the Twins' $30-35M figure, for instance).
     
    But what happens when you combine all that? Take the Twins, and several high-budget (or "available money") teams and pool them all. How much is available to spend, total? Then take the existing free agents, and their potential salaries, and see where that number lands you, in a.a.v. It occurs to me that we are in a market where the "available money" is far less than the "potential salaries." In that economic circumstance, it changes the dynamic of the when and where and how much in the acquisition of players. If a team can (accurately) project the available space for spending of all the competitors, and (logically or illogically) evaluates those teams' greatest needs, one can whittle down the available market for players. And somewhere in that analysis, bargains can be found.
     
    A couple of good examples exist in JT Realmuto and George Springer. Of the teams who possibly could afford a reasonable Realmuto contract, how many of them need a catcher? Of the teams who possibly could afford a reasonable Springer deal, how many need an outfielder? Carrying that further, once those players sign, and the teams who sign them have their available money evaporate, where does that leave the remaining teams with money to spend?
     
    Yes, I realize there is no hard cap in baseball (though the luxury tax and certain teams' stated desire to get under it does add some clarity), and a team who signs a Realmuto or Springer might well decide to change their budget, or go all-in. But in most cases, that won't be true. Now, we're left with a smaller number of teams, with a smaller budget, scrambling to sign the remaining free agents - and yes, the agents for these free agents can also do the math and see that there is now, hypothetically, only 75% of the available money to sign these players to "market value" contracts, and advise their clients accordingly that they are going to need to sign (now!) for 75% of what they hoped, or fall further and further behind in the dollars-to-talent available pool.
     
    This is where several teams will end up - those with relatively few dollars to spend are going to have to wait until all the big dogs have eaten before looking around for what remains available. Somewhere in between, before the scrounging occurs right up to and including spring training, there is a proper moment to strike.
     
    We aren't there yet. Once Bauer signs, the market for Odorizzi, Tanaka, Paxton, and a few others will heat up. Teams desperate (public relations-wise or otherwise) might overpay for the next available tier, but that leaves arms available that are beyond the price of the teams who are cash-strapped, and almost no competition from teams who have already filled their rosters.
     
    It makes business sense, though risky, as you are allowing other teams to snatch up the "best available" talent and contenting yourself with the best of what is left over. I don't have a perfect match for the Twins (though to me getting Sugano for 3 years ($9M/yr), Kluber for 3 years ($8M/yr), Kiki for 3 years ($5M/yr?), and then selecting the best non-Cruz DH candidate on a one-year deal in the $5-7M range, and a solid LH/RH relief tandem at $3-4M each) adds the most to the club and keeps us in the $125-$130 payroll range.
     
    Who do you think will have to come off the board before the Twins will react? What do you predict the next move will be? I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on the subject.
  3. South Dakota Tom
    It is universal that you have to beat everyone to win the World Series. I get that. But is there a playoff seeding that might be more preferable than even one or two seeds higher? That is the question.
     
    As it stands (games through September 10, roughly 15 games to go), the AL standings show:
     
    Rays
    A's
    White Sox
    Twins
    Blue Jays
    Astros
    Indians
    Yankees
     
    We know some things are pretty certain - the 2nd and 3rd place teams in the AL Central are likely to be the #4 and #7 seeds (best second-place record and best Wildcard/3rd place record). But what about the difference between being the #1, #2, and #3 seed? Sure, #1 plays the last team in, but then they play the winner of the two best second-place finishers.
     
    The #3 seed, on the other hand, plays the worst second-place team in the first round, and then the winner of the series between the second-best division winner and the best third-place team.
     
    There is certainly some argument that being the #1 seed doesn't necessarily make you the best team. Could be that there is only one strong team in a division, and that team runs away with the best record. I think you can argue that a team that finishes with the best record in a highly-competitive division may well be more battle-tested and ready than the #1 or #2 seed who beat up on the other teams in a division of mediocre clubs.
     
    Applying this to the current standings, are the Rays really the best team in the AL, or are they just better than Toronto, New York, Baltimore and Boston by a fairly wide margin? Are the A's for real, or are they benefiting from playing against Seattle, Texas, the Angels and the Astros? What's an easier path to the LCS - the winner of Tampa/New York versus Toronto/Minnesota? Or the winner of Oakland/Cleveland versus the winner of the White Sox/Astros series?
     
    I'd love to see the Twins win the Central for a lot of reasons - but playoff seeding, even being the #3 seed, might be the biggest prize of all. Thoughts?
  4. South Dakota Tom
    When players and owners put pen to paper on the last collective bargaining agreement, the hope seemed to be that a combination of revenue-sharing and a luxury tax would work in concert to allow all organizations to field competitive teams. The players went along with the traditional formula of underpaying minor leaguers, and locking up younger players for pre-arbitration (3 years, or at least 2 years if you were a Super 2 - including a minimum 86 days and being in the top 22% of your same-year peers in service time in the most recent season). That was followed by three more years of arb eligibility.
     
    But after six years, all those players who had not already signed long-term deals would be free agents. They would have reached the open market, competing to divvy up all that shared money, with at least a few teams pushing up to - and past - the luxury tax.
     
    Teams weren't supposed to make deliberate decisions to sacrifice on-field performance in the hope of accumulating cheap young players, rising in the draft (and international bonus pool money), trading away players in their second- or third-year of arbitration for lower-level flyers. The recent success of Kansas City and Houston employing that strategy to draft or trade veterans for high-end controllable talent, then supplementing that core with an expensive free agent or two, and winning a World Series, has not helped matters.
     
    For when a team or two employs that strategy, it gives them an edge in the construction of a future ballclub, at the price of fielding their best possible current team. When over half the league simultaneously employs that strategy, you end up with a lot of very poor baseball - and a lot of veteran players seeking out roles on the few teams remaining who will even consider employing them.
     
    How do we fix this? How do we simultaneously bring in new players, reward veterans, encourage analytics in personnel, and avoid the bust-and-build strategy? There is no one answer, but rather, a combination of factors, that seem necessary.
     
    A spending floor - Every team would have a requirement to spend a percentage of revenues, approaching 50%. This idea would promote the service of free agents to make sure teams spend sufficiently. It would also allow smaller-market teams to creatively invest in arb- and pre-arb extensions to give their teams financial and personnel stability. I can imagine owners neither wish to advertise their revenues or their utilization of those, or have their hands tied in deciding how to construct their teams. How can we be required to spend money on players whose contractual obligations might serve to block a simultaneous core of younger players more in need of big-league development?
     
    Given the disparity in revenue from top to bottom, one could also imagine a scenario where this could lead to unfair monopolization. Are the Dodgers now required to spend twice as much as other teams? Aren't we going to hit a point where the floor for the top teams comes dangerously close to the luxury tax we don't want them to spend beyond? We Twins fans (as most other teams not pushing the luxury envelope) have seen some pretty questionable roster moves made solely based on economics and options remaining , but one can imagine a team having to retain a $12 million albatross rather than promote a rookie in order to stay above sea level.
     
    Draft order and draft compensation for lost free agents - I suggested a lottery system for the first three rounds in an earlier article. I saw another suggestion that the team that came closest to the playoffs would pick first, on down to the worst non-playoff team, and then finally the playoff teams from worst to first. The concern here is that teams could easily be stuck in hellish mediocrity for a long time, unable to select the top draft picks, and unable to elevate their seasons, perhaps because of a single poor long-term signing that weighs down payroll for seasons to come.
     
    I will confess that I like a little competitive imbalance - races in which all drivers have the same exact car are not interesting to me. Even with revenue-sharing, a luxury tax and a spending floor, some teams are going to be more able to sign premium players than others. That is fine with me - it is when this practice is combined with the lack of a spending floor and half the league serving as a development pool for the top 8 teams that it maligns the sport.
     
    Many other ideas have been floated - decrease the amount of time until free agency. Decrease the amount of time until arbitration eligibility. Increase the pay of every level of minor leaguers, and the minimum salary for anyone making a big-league club.
     
    Some ideas promote greater interest in the sport from a less-patient audience (the "bigger pie" theory) - fewer trips to the mound. A pitch clock. A 3-batter minimum for any pitcher. The universal DH combined with a 26-man roster with a 13-pitcher maximum (wait, you just killed the LOOGY but you want to double the number of jobs for the aging slugger?). A much smaller roster expansion in September, so late-season games don't become a substitution-fest. An international draft. Major league free agency taking place all in the week after the Super Bowl. I'm not convinced personally that drastic changes to the sport will do more to bring in new fans than it will to alienate traditional ones, though common-sense pace-of-play tweaks seem justified.
     
    Of all the items out there, to me, the salary floor is the key. Simply by requiring a certain amount be spent by each team allows minor leaguers to survive, young major leaguers to be compensated earlier and more highly, and still retains a share of revenue that every team is going to need to spend on the accumulation of veterans. All the other competitive balance measures fail if not coupled with a requirement, at least, to try.
  5. South Dakota Tom
    There was an effort to discuss this topic awhile ago, but I thought I would pick it up again now that the rumors and suggestions are increasing about what to do with the existing pitching staff, both starters and relievers.
     
    I'm not someone who lives and breathes Baseball Reference, but I think a strong statistical analysis is the best route to take in considering both 1) what the front office is thinking; and 2) what the needs and holes are with the existing roster.
     
    So let's assume that in a 162-game season, you will have 35-40 games a year that you will lose on the road without having to pitch a 9th inning, but you will have a dozen extra-inning games that will stretch the innings. Last year, we had 1443.1 innings pitched in the season; we know (from painful experience) that a handful of those will be pitched by position players (we had 3.2 last year), but given the numbers, let's ignore that for now. We need to fill 1,443 innings.
     
    My math (also from the Twins page on Baseball Reference) shows that 907 of those innings (thereabouts, as I didn't try to winnow out how many innings that Gabriel Moya threw as a starter rather than reliever, or several others, but spitballed it with those types of players) were pitched by starters. That averages 5.2 innings per start, and whether you use the opener strategy or a "traditional" starting pitcher, (then calling the "starter" the primary pitcher rather than the opener) you are hoping to get something close to that out of your primary/starter.
     
    That leaves room for optimism, as we can hope that the slate of starters picks it up a notch (whether that is 5 guys or 15 over the course of a season), but let's assume they don't, that we need 536 innings out of the non-starters. My quick South Dakota math tells me that is 3 1/3 innings per game.
     
    I am also going to assume that we will roll with a 13-man pitching staff, unless the starters are on track to bump their innings to a level where the remaining innings can be handled by 7 guys (and that doesn't appear to be the case, but if we get to a point where starters are putting in over 1,000 innings combined, we might). How can we best divide innings for our 8-person staff so as to make that possible?
     
    1) Simple but wrong - that is 67 innings per reliever per year (and no, I don't assume that the same 8 guys will man the posts all season, but perhaps like a second unit in basketball, the substitutes will take the innings/minutes not played by the first string). 8 guys getting 67 innings per year means that within a 26-week season, each relief pitcher would pitch roughly 3 innings per week.
     
    2) More specialized - A look at the "typical" workload of a closer shows that they average pretty close to that number - 65-75 innings per year, maybe 30-40 of which are in closing situations. I don't expect the Twins to vary significantly from that role, even if they don't have that player on their roster right now (I think they do in Trevor May). But for purposes of this analysis, let's say we do have a closer (whether May or Allen from the Indians or someone else, that can be debated) and that person pitches 70 innings.
     
    3) Who does what? That leaves us with 466 innings. I think we can pencil in Reed (for all of these guys, let's just say "assuming health" without really assuming that all of them will stay healthy for the year) Hildenberger, and Rogers for 70 innings each. That's not unreasonable, given their traditional workloads, again citing this page: https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2018.shtml#all_team_pitching.
     
    Now we're down to it. That is 280 innings pitched by the core four relievers, leaving 256 remaining innings for 4 pitchers. The names of those now-existing pitchers includes Romero, Stewart, Gonsalves, Moya, Littell, Slegers, Vasquez, Curtiss, DeJong, Duffy, and Magill (I'm assuming for our discussion that Mejia is our 5th starter, but you can change names if you want to).
     
    While only 4 of them can be on the roster at once, many of the remaining names have options and can be shuffled between leagues as need arises.
     
    4) Opener strategy - if the team is indeed - as has been hinted - considering an opener strategy, it seems that Stewart and Gonsalves might be the primary candidates for those roles (lining up with Mejia and Pineda, possibly Odorizzi). If we utilized them for the typical 30 starts that your #3 through 5 starters get, and hoping for 2+ innings - once through the order and averaging a little over a hit and walk per inning means that you face 9 batters while getting roughly 6 2/3 outs or 2 1/6 innings per open). 2.16 times 30 equals 65 innings, so 130 innings with two openers.
     
    5) We have now defined several spots (which can be intermingled or altered depending on performance), but we allot 907 innings to Berrios, Gibson, Odorizzi, Pineda and Mejia; we allot 280 innings to May, Hildenberger, Reed and Rogers; we allot 130 innings to Stewart and Gonsalves.
     
    That leaves - ta-daa! - 126 innings to be covered by two remaining pitchers with Romero and Vasquez and Moya as your primary candidates, the third of them stashed at AAA and the remaining names, plus potentials in Tyler Jay, Jake Reed, et al lined up behind. That strikes me as do-able, especially if Romero emerges as the long man to back up short starts from Berrios, Gibson or Odorizzi, and Vasquez/Moya as the short-stint lefty.
     
    6) Now who do you want? Once whittled down to innings and performers for those innings, any discussion of a reliever or starter should also include the ramifications of what happens to the pecking order and opportunities for the above players. If we added a 5th starter, for instance, a Wade Miley (no offense, but please don't) and he took up his share of those 900 innings, either Mejia is bumped back into the core of 4 relievers, or one of the opener positions or one of the two remaining slots. Who should be bumped? Knock out Gonsalves for Mejia and leave the rest the same? Knock out Stewart? Move Mejia into Hildenberger's innings, Hildenberger into Moya/Vasquez's innings? Do we consider not giving Romero an audition in the regular season?
     
    While I think the strategy of strengthening the bullpen is a sound one, I get far more lost in the thinking process when I follow the logical chain and try to decide what this means for our chances of promoting from within or giving real opportunity to a slew of candidates.
     
    Best guess - no more starters will be signed (other than minor league contracts with an invite in case someone intriguing slips through the wintertime cracks), 1 more dependable reliever, only one opener (either Stewart or Gonsalves) to pair with Mejia, the other to start at AAA, plus Hildenberger, Rogers, May and Reed. Remaining two slots are taken by Romero as more of a long man and either Moya or Vasquez as the 8th arm/lefty. I think you also have to cut bait with some of the remaining names and keep your roster alive with players who could be optioned as the season progresses, even if that player isn't the one causing the gaping void. The more you fill this roster with veterans and guaranteed contracts, the more you make that flexibility impossible and are forced into waiver/release positions on players. I'd rather be in a position to take on someone else's unfortunate waiver casualty than be forced into one of our own.
     
    Happy holidays everyone!
  6. South Dakota Tom
    Means 9 trips through the rotation for each starter, and got me to questioning what would be the best way to appropriate those starts from now - 117 games in - through the rest of the season.
    The clear emphasis must be on 2019 and 2020 and what will best serve the club moving forward. That is not to say that you stop pitching Berrios, Odorizzi, or Gibson; those guys need to stay in rotation and continue to demonstrate that they can last an entire season and get their 30+ starts in. Injuries create opportunities but lack of injuries cannot serve to block those same opportunities.
    I don't intend to break down every match-up and start, but more to the point, who do I want to see and how many times between now and season's end? Let's start by saying that if we maintain the existing rotation of Odorizzi, Berrios, Santana, Gibson and Stewart, that each would pitch 9 more times and the chart would look like this:
     
    Odorizzi (9)
    Berrios (9)
    Santana (9)
    Gibson (9)
    Stewart (9)
     
    First, I would identify those starters I want to see pitch (whose names do not appear on the above list). I have 4: Adalberto Mejia, Stephen Gonsalves, Fernando Romero, and Michael Pineda. At this point, Pineda can continue his rehab until he is a little more stretched out, but I would like to see him for the last month, so (in an ideal world) I'll put his number at 5. Romero can continue to pitch in AAA, though I would like him to get a taste of regular rotation work for the next few weeks until he hits his innings limit (he's at 129.1 now), so I would pencil him in to start 4 more times at the mlb level, starting now, and see where that puts him. That might, honestly, dovetail into the Pineda starts as a timetable.
    I am most interested in seeing Gonsalves pitch, so would put him down for 7 trips through the rotation between now and season's end.
     
    The only way to get to the final numbers below is to switch to a 6-man rotation immediately, to rest the arms of the regulars and give opportunities to the newcomers, so that's what I do. It still does not create sufficient opportunities for all four so something else has to give. The victim in all this is Ervin; until and unless he can get his FB back up to 92 (which he won't), he is injured and on a rehab assignment. There is an argument that you continue to pitch him to see if someone will give you a C prospect for him or save a million dollars with a pass through waivers and a trade, but I don't see that happening either.
     
    So here is what it looks like:
    Odorizzi (7)
    Berrios (7)
    Gibson (7)
    Gonsalves (7)
    Romero (4)
    Pineda (5)
    Mejia (4)
    Stewart (4)
    Santana (0)
     
    So I have my six-man rotation, with Odorizzi, Berrios, Gibson and Gonsalves getting regular rotation work through the end of the season. I have Romero pitch the next 4 times he is scheduled on regular (or 6-man) rest, followed by Pineda starting the remaining games through the end of the season, and Romero potentially available out of the BP for long relief and to ensure he gets to the innings limit they have set for him. I have Mejia and Stewart rotate through the final spot (Stewart for 4 more now, and then a well-rested Mejia for the last 4 while Stewart finishes out the season in the expanded BP as an additional long man).
     
    Not only will this give me a look at the 2019 candidates, but it will inform me whether the above group is sufficient to attack the upcoming season (and yes, we can always use a frontline starter, but the question is whether or not we need another pitcher in the Odorizzi/Lynn/Stewart mode as a veteran who will take regular turns in the rotation but provide fairly middling results, if we're not being too optimistic about them).
     
    The lost season is quickly dwindling away, and the vague notion that we'll get a chance to see all of these guys when rosters expand is not accurate. This needs to start now if we are to get any meaningful feedback - and any valuable information - from the wreckage of 2018.
  7. South Dakota Tom
    The more consideration I give to the 2016 lineup, the more convinced I am that it is falling on the shoulders (fairly or unfairly) of Byron Buxton. Let's look at the ways he impacts the lineup.
     
    1. Lineup with Buxton leading off: Buxton, Dozier, Mauer, Sano, Plouffe, Park, Rosario, Murphy/Suzuki, Escobar.
     
    Without Buxton leading off: Dozier, Mauer, Sano, Park, Plouffe, Rosario, Murphy/Suzuki, Escobar, Buxton/Santana.
     
    Not only does the first lineup place players in their optimum position, it showcases a very strong lineup 1-9. We have power through the middle with Sano, Plouffe, Park in the 4-6 holes, We have a base-stealing, 1st-to-3rd demon at the top of the lineup, and what I would consider among the league leaders in the 7-9 holes.
     
    Without him at the top, almost every player is batting out of position. Too much pressure is placed on Park, Dozier is not a leadoff hitter in the OBP sense, and it feels like every player is one spot away from his ideal place in the order. We have almost no speed at the top of the order. We rely too heavily on 7-9 to produce runs or runners without a consistent RBI presence batting behind them.
     
    2. There has been a lot of recent discussion of OF defense. With Buxton manning CF, you can place Rosario in RF or LF, and Sano in the other corner. At least two of the three are elite defensively, all three have great arms, and Sano's athleticism and arm and bat make the team reasonable with the fly-ball pitching staff they have. Many have pointed out how valuable the athletic outfield was to the pitching staff. I don't think it is wrong to suggest that the defense was worth half of the decreased ERA among starters last year, though statistics could prove me wrong.
     
    But if Buxton is sent to AAA, the outfield scenarios become....what's the word I'm searching for?....frightening. Sano, Rosario, Arcia? They cannot score enough runs to make up for the defensive lapses. And those lapses don't just cause runs to occur because of missed fly balls, doubles and triples. Those lapses cause mental anguish in pitchers who try to be too fine and miss their targets because of their fear of solid contact. You cannot pitch in the big leagues worried that any ball that is hit will become a problem. Defense translates into confidence in pitchers. Confidence in pitchers leads to success. The last thing I want to think when I'm a pitcher is the things I cannot do - "can't throw a fastball here to this dead-pull hitter; can't throw anything offspeed to this guy and speed up his bat; can't throw a change because he knows I need to avoid the fastball to avoid solid contact."
     
    3. I'm not a huge believer in projections, but any scenario in which the Twins make the playoffs and win playoff games starts with Byron Buxton being a difference-maker. If he is a.290 hitter with a .365 OBP and .410 SLG, with 30 doubles, 13 triples, 10 HR, and 34 SBs, the progression or regression of every other player on the team (within reason, we can't have regression by everyone else) makes far less difference. We, in all fundamental fairness to our hopes and dreams, NEED this guy to break out. We don't need him to be the ROY, but he would need to be within the top 3.
     
    One caveat. I'm breaking one of my cardinal rules here. I rarely watch football, because I hate the hyperbole. They start every broadcast with "If the Lions are going to win today, so-and-so NEEDS to carry the ball 20 times" or "the defense NEEDS to keep the opposition under 50% in third-down conversions." I have watched enough to know that there are many ways to win, and teams win without 20 carries or 50% third-down conversions. There isn't one thing we need, if enough other things happen.
     
    But when I walk through the lineup, and through the defense, and through the possibilities and probabilities, it keeps coming back to this one guy. With all the known and unknown quantities on this team, if he's a bust and spends this year in AAA, I don't see a scenario where we are successful. If he's a ROY/MVP player, I don't see a scenario where we aren't a very, very competitive team with the sky as the limit.
  8. South Dakota Tom
    How do we keep Trevor and Miguel in the lineup together? How do we find the right catcher? How do we shore up the bullpen? Should Torii Hunter have a role? Do we need another starter, or just swap out some that we have? Can we afford an ace? How do we do all this under a scenario that the F.O. might actually consider, from an economic perspective?
     
    I think it can all be done, by next spring, with relatively few moves. But two of them are big. We would trade Brian Dozier and Kyle Gibson. We would not resign Cotts, Boyer, Hunter, Pelfrey, Robinson, or Nunez. We would sign two free agent relief pitchers.
     
    The idea is that the combination of Gibson/Dozier brings a cost-controlled young defensive catcher with offensive upside and front-line pitching prospect, perhaps a year away from the bigs.
     
    The holes get plugged in a different way than I've seen, as well. It's not Polanco to 2nd, but Rosario. The defensive arrangement would be young stud/Suzuki at catcher (keeping Kurt below his vesting option), Mauer, Rosario, Escobar, and Sano around the infield. Outfield would be Plouffe in left, Buxton in center, and Hicks in right. We would move Hunter to a coaching role. Customary DH is a combination of Arcia/ABWIII/Vargas. Bench is Suzuki, ABW, Santana, and Vargas. We have some pop in our pinch hitters for a change.
     
    Rosario/ABW/Arcia would be Plouffe's backup in left, Hicks would be depth in center, Arcia and ABW would be behind Hicks in right. Plouffe, Escobar and Santana would back up third, Santana would back up SS and 2nd, and Plouffe, Vargas, Sano would back up 1B. Max Kepler would start at AAA.
     
    Starters would be Hughes, Santana, Nolasco, Duffy, and May with Berrios, Milone, Meyer and the prospect received for Dozier/Gibson in the wings. Bullpen would be Jepson, Perkins, Duensing, Neftali Feliz, Tommy Hunter (both F.A. acquisitions), and some combination of existing relief and starters (thinking right now Milone and Meyer).
     
    "A" lineup is Hicks, Mauer, Sano, Arcia (putting a lot of stock in this guy's rebound, no doubt), Plouffe, Rosario, Escobar, catcher, Buxton.
     
    But the big keys to this transformation are moving Rosario to second base and Plouffe to left field (and given Plouffe's ability to play SS and 3B, I think he can be an effective LF, though not trying to clone the Alex Gordon experiment and expect the same results). This allows us to trade Dozier, keep Rosario in the lineup at a position where his OBP doesn't hurt you, keep Plouffe and still play Sano, and beefs up the three biggest holes - catcher, potential frontline starter, and relief, all while being cost-controlled and maintaining budget.
     
    And the trades are not that substantial - some combination of Gibson and Dozier for a great catcher and starting pitcher prospect. Or it could be simplified, depending on how you want to approach it, and Dozier is traded for a catcher, and Gibson remains. I just feel both are sell-high candidates right now, and this team has not sold high on anyone in a long time - they've looked for other team's castoffs and low-dollar free agents, but this gives them trade chips that will bring back quality in return.
     
    How would you shape the roster for next year?
  9. South Dakota Tom
    We have a rotation, today, of Santana, Gibson, Pelfrey, Milone, and Duffy. Let's say, theoretically, that we arrive at game 162 and need a game 163, or, better yet, a one-game playoff against the Yankees or Blue Jays (no other scenario seems very plausible right now, at least not one involving the Twins).
     
    Santana could pitch a game 163, though I'm not certain I'd want him to unless he starts picking it up a notch or two. I'm assuming Phil Hughes will be ready by then, but not certain I want him pitching in Yankee Stadium or against Toronto with his fly-ball tendencies and the way those lineups are constructed.
     
    What's your post-season rotation right now? The more I thought about it, looking at a rotation of Gibson, Milone, Duffy and Hughes, putting Pelfrey into the bullpen, still leaves me wanting. The person in my opinion that I'd most like to see starting a game 163 or Wild Card road game on the East Coast is sitting in AAA right now, and won't be on our playoff roster unless we bring him up before September (something that seems the club has not discussed publicly as being even a possibility).
     
    I realize there are other lineup issues to resolve if October baseball is a possibility, and feel free to discuss them all. But specifically, who is your game 163 starter or Wild Card starter, and (assuming for fun we win that or those) your ALDS rotation?
  10. South Dakota Tom
    As we approach the non-waiver trade deadline, many commenters have discussed the logjam that we are facing in the roster decisions that will need to be made this off-season.
     
    While we search for potential catchers, relief pitchers, and other assorted pieces of the puzzle (both this year and next), it would help me greatly if someone could list the names of those we need to add to the roster this offseason or risk losing to Rule 5 or minor league free agency.
     
    Whether this is in the form of a proposed trade, or just informational, I would love to see a list of those who need to be added, as well as suggestions of those who will need to be removed in some form or fashion to make room for these prospects.
     
    Assuming no major trades (or that a trade only swaps an equivalent number of rostered players for new players) how many need to be added - and trimmed - in the next six months? Who would you add? Who would you remove?
     
    Here is a link to the existing 40-man (plus Nolasco makes 41).
     
    http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/team/roster_40man.jsp?c_id=min
  11. South Dakota Tom
    There has been a steady drumbeat in Twins Territory regarding upgrades to the bullpen. The purpose of this article is not to disagree with them, so much as it is to discuss reasons why delaying such a move is best for the club over a long season.
     
    First, the facts: Twins have 5 pitchers on their existing 25-man roster who have options remaining. Berrios (1, which will in all likelihood never be exercised), Smeltzer (3), Rogers (2), Harper (3) and Duffey (1). I think we can add Rogers to the list of "probably will not be optioned."
     
    They have 7 pitchers on their active roster who do not have options remaining, meaning they would have to pass through waivers or be outrighted to take them off the 25-man - Odorizzi, Gibson, and Perez in the rotation, and Parker, May, Morin, and Magill in the bullpen.
     
    Important to note, too, that both Michael Pineda and Adalberto Mejia are on the IL, but neither has options remaining once their rehabilitation and rehab assignments are completed. That means we have 3 "optionable" pitchers in Harper, Duffey and Smeltzer, and two guys who could change from IL to "non-optionable" in the coming days and weeks.
     
    We also have 8 pitchers the 40-man roster in the minors with options remaining - Romero (1), Hildy (3), Moya (2), Vasquez (3), Stewart (3), Littell (2), Gonsalves (2) and Thorpe (2). (this is all courtesy of https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-minnesota-twins/ and could, for all I know, not be 100% current).
     
    One of the more interesting features I've been following in the daily roundup of the big league club is the utilization of bullpen arms. It has led me to a clear conclusion that filling the bullpen at this point in the season with non-optionable guaranteed contracts is not helpful to this team at this time.
     
    I would much rather roll with the bullpen of Parker, May, Morin and Magill (and there is certainly an argument that the last two of those - even though they have no options remaining - could be DFA'd if their performance hit the skids or if an emergency arose). But assuming we're not waiving/DFA'ing players right now, it is my belief that we are a better team with a bullpen of Parker, May, Morin and Magill, plus Rogers and Harper and a possible rotation of the last two spots between Smeltzer, Duffey, Romero, Hildenberger, Moya, Vasquez, Stewart, Littell, Gonsalves and Thorpe, than we are with the above six plus, let's say, Sean Doolittle and Will Smith.
     
    Crazy? I think not. Any player with options remaining must remain in the minor leagues for 10 days before being recalled (barring injury to someone on the 25-man or special circumstances like double-headers); so we could rotate the optionable players, above (10 of them) every series, two at a time depending on who is pitching well and how taxed the bullpen arms are at any given moment, or even more often than that.
     
    Having two option holes in your relief roster with 12 players eligible to fill those spots creates an effective relief corp of 17-18 players. Even if you don't consider all 10-12 to be big-league ready arms, you can still manage innings among 6-8 of them by optioning them back and forth on 10-day intervals. There are also interesting possibilities in which you drop to a 7-man relief corps because you can shuffle arms freely if the depth is available.
     
    Now look at what happens when Pineda and Mejia come back - now you are down to 1 option slot remaining. While you could still rotate guys through that spot, we would have already sent Duffey and Smeltzer down, leaving only Rogers and Harper (and Berrios) with options remaining.
     
    If we were to add Doolittle and Smith, we either need to pass Morin, Magill (or Pineda or Mejia in my example) through waivers or option Rogers and Harper, and we will then be chock full of immobile roster spots. Yes, yes, I understand that designating a player for a superior player is a benefit, but there is also a point in early June given our circumstances that keeping maximum flexibility is paramount.
     
    This is only focused on the pitching side, but I have a belief that players such as Smeltzer, Romero, Thorpe, Hildy, Duffey and Stewart could prove incredibly valuable to this team over the next 4 months, not to mention a healthy Graterol.
     
    Would I like to have Will Smith and Sean Doolittle on the playoff roster come October? You bet. But would I want to tie the hands of the front office between now and then by obtaining strong relievers and choking off the pipeline? No. There is certainly an argument to be made that come the trade deadline you choose the bottom two relievers and use DFA just like an option to add these stalwarts to the roster, but that is a choice that should be made in mid- to late-July, while we watch the myriad of options shake out. It is (judging from past playoffs and watching other teams juggle rosters) that the "list of 12" may end up containing a better ultimate relief option (or two) than anything out there right now - filling a perceived void could well create more problems with innings, options, overuse, and dead arms than rolling with this herd mentality.
  12. South Dakota Tom
    With Tonkin being optioned back to the minor leagues, the Twins have created a hole in the lineup in advance of a 10-game road trip, with the first six of those games in National League ballparks. Some people have suggested that Oswaldo Arcia could return, or a utility player such as Doug Bernier.
     
    However, it has appeared to me that the Twins have tried to introduce new prospects during road series, in order to avoid the double-edged nerve-sword of a simultaneous major league and home debut.
    This would apply to three of the names being bandied about as potential replacements, and a case can be made for each one.
     
    Alex Meyer - since his switch to relief, he has been very strong, and he only faced a couple of batters last night. Fans are anxious to see what this now-25 year old prospect will bring to the table. He is clearly an upgrade to the bullpen in terms of strikeout ability, though fears of his release point, consistency, and walks remain.
     
    On the other hand, Molitor has spoken frequently of wanting an extra bat for the lineup during NL games, and expressed confidence in the starters' ability to go deep into games. Since we were sporting 13 pitchers prior to Tonkin's departure, that would suggest that the 25th man will be someone who is both on the 40-man roster (saving that 40th spot for Santana a week from Sunday) and can contribute in some fashion to the big club.
    Two prominent names vying for that spot are Miguel Sano and Max Kepler, both in Chattanooga and both all-stars in the league. Kepler has been white hot lately, and plays multiple positions in the outfield and first base. Sano is a bigger household name, and while he is a big swing-and-miss candidate, contact equates to something special for fans to see. However, he plays third base and has not had significant time in any other position and it seems less likely that the Twins would remove Trevor Plouffe from the lineup. That would mean that Sano plays only as a pinch-hitter or Plouffe plays at first base for a game or two giving Joe Mauer a day off. There are some day games after night games coming up, so that possibility should not be entirely discounted
    .
    Do you expect a major league debut tomorrow night in Milwaukee? If so, who do you expect to see?
×
×
  • Create New...