Article: Impasse

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sure, we have a phone at home. We can still go out to play later, it's only January 13th.

 

And if they don't trade him, because they never get a "fair" deal, and pass on JDL, that's cool with you I assume?

 

Still not sure if I'd take JDL and "junk" or not, I am no scout and don't have access to dozens of scouts.....

[rghrbek]

 

In my opinion, the plan doesn't change if the Twins don't trade Dozier, at least big picture. The plan should be all about playing the young guys as much as possible and giving them opportunities. 

 

Sano, Kepler, Buxton, Polanco, Rosario, Berrios, .. these guys are the key, and hopefully each of them will improve in 2017. Castro should help the defense, or at least that is the assumption. Santana is a solid guy in the rotation, and we have to assume that Gibson and Santiago will be better (if healthy)... Hughes can be solid (if healthy)... and Mejia likely works his way into the rotation at some point. The bullpen, well maybe they can add another option, but I want to see Pressly, Chargois, Rogers and soon Reed, Melotakis, Hildenberger, Burdi, etc. 

 

if they'd like a DH, I'd be good with Chris Carter (if the front office is ready to give up on Park or Vargas). Target Field has been good for right-handed power hitters, and Carter - despite all the Ks - could hit 40 HR in his year. 

 

This is a 59-win team that could/should jump up to 75 wins in 2017 just with improved youth and some health. 

 

I agree, the plan doesn't change much with Dozier here, except you say the D should be better...well not at shortstop if that is the case.

 

75 wins.  Is this based in reality?  Why are people expecting mid 70's wins out of this team, this year?  I think a highly optimistic view is high 60's.  Gibson will be better?  That is a given?  I agree with Gleeman that Gibson, so far, has been pretty close to Nick Blackburn...that's not a compliment.

 

You are suggesting a 16 win jump is possible and likely.  We have the same manager, pitching staff, and pitching coach.  It's possible you feel 2015 is the norm and 2016 was the outlier?   I am doubting you think that, as the 2015 Twins, were one of the luckiest teams in MLB history....Hard to duplicate luck.

 

I agree that the young kids need to play often.  You are banking that some of these kids will make that big of a leap?  Some will, as I expect better play out of Buxton, Sano, Berrios and Shaggy, but some will fail...that's just the way it is with young kids/prospects.

 

I expect nothing from Hughes that is positive unless he is healthy, throwing harder and in the bullpen.  If Mejia is starting for us, I expect the same ups and downs all prospects seem to have, especially starting pitching.

 

Maybe the hope of mid 70's wins is why there is such a strong feeling between trading dozier, only if we get a huge return, vs. trade dozier for a strong pitching prospect and parts, on the chance that we start competing more in 2018, or more likely 2019?

[nicksaviking]

 

And if they don't trade him, because they never get a "fair" deal, and pass on JDL, that's cool with you I assume?

 

Still not sure if I'd take JDL and "junk" or not, I am no scout and don't have access to dozens of scouts.....

 

At this point, I strongly lean toward "no deal" and see if we get lucky at the AS break or next off season with full understanding that change in market is beyond the team's control. I'm not as high on De Leon as many others are, but who knows, perhaps my feelings will change and I'd take him straight up come March.

 

But I'm not making that determination in the middle of January, I'd at least wait to consider my options until right before the season starts. If Dozier is the Dodgers preferred target then they'll come back to check in on him before they make any other irrevocable plans.

[Mike Sixel]

 

At this point, I strongly lean toward "no deal" and see if we get lucky at the AS break or next off season with full understanding that change in market is beyond the team's control. I'm not as high on De Leon as many others are, but who knows, perhaps my feelings will change and I'd take him straight up come March.

 

But I'm not making that determination in the middle of January, I'd at least wait to consider my options until right before the season starts. If Dozier is the Dodgers preferred target then they'll come back to check in on him before they make any other irrevocable plans.

 

Actually, I meant .... what if they never trade him, and he's here for 2 years while they win nothing?

[Seth Stohs]

 

I agree, the plan doesn't change much with Dozier here, except you say the D should be better...well not at shortstop if that is the case.

 

75 wins.  Is this based in reality?  Why are people expecting mid 70's wins out of this team, this year?  I think a highly optimistic view is high 60's.  Gibson will be better?  That is a given?  I agree with Gleeman that Gibson, so far, has been pretty close to Nick Blackburn...that's not a compliment.

 

You are suggesting a 16 win jump is possible and likely.  We have the same manager, pitching staff, and pitching coach.  It's possible you feel 2015 is the norm and 2016 was the outlier?   I am doubting you think that, as the 2015 Twins, were one of the luckiest teams in MLB history....Hard to duplicate luck.

 

I agree that the young kids need to play often.  You are banking that some of these kids will make that big of a leap?  Some will, as I expect better play out of Buxton, Sano, Berrios and Shaggy, but some will fail...that's just the way it is with young kids/prospects.

 

I expect nothing from Hughes that is positive unless he is healthy, throwing harder and in the bullpen.  If Mejia is starting for us, I expect the same ups and downs all prospects seem to have, especially starting pitching.

 

Maybe the hope of mid 70's wins is why there is such a strong feeling between trading dozier, only if we get a huge return, vs. trade dozier for a strong pitching prospect and parts, on the chance that we start competing more in 2018, or more likely 2019?

 

If they go Polanco and Dozier up the middle in 2017, then the middle infield defense is pretty much the same (+ or - a bit either way). 

 

I would probably say that 2015 and 2016 were outliers. They were a 'better than .500 team' in 2015, and they had way more talent in 2016 to be a 59-win season. 

 

My optimism is in the hope that the elite young talent takes a step forward and that the pitching staff is better, healthier. Will Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Polanco and Berrios all take a step forward? Probably not, but could one or two of them take 2-3 steps forward? Sure. Can Jason Castro help the pitching staff? That's certainly the hope. 

 

It's certainly not a perfect roster. There are flaws. But there is potential.  

[Darius]

Well, let's hope another suitor comes along, or they get desperate before the deadline, once the season starts.

 

The inability to get deals done, and failure to maximize the value of assets that are probably going elsewhere once they hit free agency, is a big reason why this team is a train-wreck in the first place.

 

Letting Dozier walk for nothing in a couple of years will only perpetuate that problem. I'd rather then just take De Leon and some filler. De Leon may flame out because of shoulder issues....but a lottery ticket is better than nothing. Dozier hasn't helped this team win games the past two years, and that's not going to change over the next two.

[Pardon My Dinger]

Letting Dozier walk for nothing in a couple of years will only perpetuate that problem

Yes, there is that, too. I'm not sure that's been mentioned explicitly yet.

[nicksaviking]

 

Actually, I meant .... what if they never trade him, and he's here for 2 years while they win nothing?

 

I wouldn't be happy if they never trade him. However there are plenty more opportunities to do so and I'm OK waiting for the next opportunity if this is the best offer they have now.

 

And I won't be resentful if the Twins never get a better offer for Dozier; the risk of losing this bird-in-the-hand doesn't look all that terrible to me. Even if ensuing offers are less, I'm not inclined to think they'll be significantly less though I'm more than willing to chance that they are.

[gunnarthor]

 

Actually, I meant .... what if they never trade him, and he's here for 2 years while they win nothing?

There's just too many unknowns in what the next two years hold. They could be in competition for a playoff spot in 2018.  They could get a comp pick if they let him walk.  They could always revisit trades.

[Mike Sixel]

 

There's just too many unknowns in what the next two years hold. They could be in competition for a playoff spot in 2018.  They could get a comp pick if they let him walk.  They could always revisit trades.

 

That wasn't my question....if they don't trade him, will you be ok with that if they remain bad?

[KirbyDome89]

 

No, you're not. You're banking that the market changes for Dozier. We've long ago established that Dozier's value is not derived from his stats but instead demand.

 

Demand is low, which means so is his value. Everyone always complained that Ryan sold off the players at their low point. Well through no fault of his own or the Twins, Dozier is at a low value point.

Sure you are. Demand does drive the market. Part of demand though is appeal. Coming off a 40+ HR season and on a friendly contract for 2 more years, Dozier has a lot of appeal. If he starts next season like he did 2016 or even at a level somewhere between the first and second half of last year, and you combine that with the loss of almost a full year of team control that luster of appeal begins to fade. 

 

You're assuming his value can only go up. What if this isn't the valley but rather the peak of his value. You're also banking on the market for a 2B to change considerably as well. It could all work out (I hope it does) but I don't think its unrealistic to look at the current offer and think it might be the best they get for Dozier. Personally I would like to get more for him, but everybody who is so staunchly in favor of the Twins walking away also seems to be ignoring the risk they take by holding onto him. I find it difficult to believe that this is as easy of a decision as some think. 

[Bob Sacamento]

Haven't seen it mentioned in here yet but on the Fangraphs Podcast yesterday, Eno Saris states that De Leon was agreed but the second prospect was the sticking point and the Twins wouldn't come off of wanting Cody Bellinger also in return.  He then hypothesized that Willie Calhoun instead of Bellinger would seem like a suitable return. Whether the Twins took less we will see.

 

I said it about a month ago and still feel the same way, just do the DeLeon and Calhoun and be done with it.  Calhoun can hit there is no mistaking that, it's just whether he can stick at 2B or has to be moved to a less demanding position.  

[Loosey]

 

Putting it all aside, the fact they are at an impasse (if they are) and deal might not get done.....that makes me unhappy as a Twins' fan....

I agree.

[KirbyDome89]

 

By holding onto Dozier, you don't make a bad deal.  And, aside from one poster, no one here seems to think the Twins should have taken the Dodgers deal for De Leon, although some are suggesting that the Dodgers offer may have been more than, as Steve Adams described "and junk" but without any specifics.  

That depends on the context in which you view the trade. If they walk away from this deal and end up trading Dozier at the deadline for a lesser package then it was a good deal. Like I said, we need to be realistic about his value moving forward. That isn't to say they need to take this deal now, or that nothing better could come along, but you also have to consider the likelihood of that happening. If the Twins are going to wait until they're blown away by an offer for BD, then they're likely going to end up holding onto him until he walks in 2 years and that would be a mistake. 

[gunnarthor]

 

That wasn't my question....if they don't trade him, will you be ok with that if they remain bad?

Regardless of what they do with Dozier, this team won't be bad.  They have far too many young exciting pieces to be bad much longer.  If they are bad, it won't be because they didn't move Dozier, it'll be because Sano and Buxton and Kepler and Jay and Berrios and Lavine and Falvey ****ed up.

 

Right now, I'm happy that they turned down the Dodgers offer.  If that's all they ever get and Dozier breaks his leg tomorrow, fine.  They did the right thing.

[Darius]

If they go Polanco and Dozier up the middle in 2017, then the middle infield defense is pretty much the same (+ or - a bit either way).

 

I would probably say that 2015 and 2016 were outliers. They were a 'better than .500 team' in 2015, and they had way more talent in 2016 to be a 59-win season.

 

My optimism is in the hope that the elite young talent takes a step forward and that the pitching staff is better, healthier. Will Sano, Buxton, Kepler, Polanco and Berrios all take a step forward? Probably not, but could one or two of them take 2-3 steps forward? Sure. Can Jason Castro help the pitching staff? That's certainly the hope.

 

It's certainly not a perfect roster. There are flaws. But there is potential.

Not sure I can really agree with this.

 

Most, if not all, of the perpetual bottom dwellers (Twins, Padres, etc) are chalk full of potential. That's just what happens when you have loads of high draft picks.

 

The problem with this: 1) prospects very rarely reach their potential, and people often vastly overrate what the player will actually be once (or if) he reaches the majors. Buxton is a prime example. That guy never had a chance of living up to that kind of out of control hype. 2). These organizations, even if they find the prospects with the chops to fulfil that "potential" (often pegged by people who hardly known the kids, and have seen them play a handful of games, if at all), are totally incompetent when it comes to development. I have no reason to believe at this time that Falvey and LaVine will be given the freedom to change that.

 

Let's take a look at the "potential":

 

Buxton: I think he'll be a very good player....but I don't think he's an MVP guy as it was sold. He's a solid piece, but not an organization changer. I don't think he gets to the level of an Ellsbury....and definitely isn't going to sniff a Trout level. I'm not sure there is a good com out there....maybe a Pollack type from Arizona, with a lower hit tool, or a Kiermeier from TB with a little more hit and power?

 

2). Sano had an extremely tough year, and I'm worried about him. I don't know if he'll ever get back to where he was his rookie year. I could be way off here, just a gut feeling, but I don't think he gets even close to that "MVP" level that looked imminent his rookie year. When he's not on one of his homer binges, he's a big liability. The only silver lining in those stretches, is that he strikes out every time so he stays out of double plays. His eye at the plate seems to regress as he gets more and more desperate to break out of slumps.

 

3). Rosario: Same story. Huge potential, and highly touted tools. But, don't think they come to fruition. What we see now, is what Rosario is as an MLB player. Wildly inconsistent, volatile attitude, and wreck less on both sides of the ball. When he's going bad, he's an anchor dragging the middle of the lineup down, because he has no on base skills. He doesn't really have the power to speak of (like Sano) to justify hanging with him through those stretches.

 

4). Kepler: Of all of the prospects, I like his chances the most. I think that torrid start to his career threw expectations out of whack, but I think he'll be a solid, reliable, well-rounded player.....not a superstar by any means.

 

5). Polanco: He is what he is. Very good offensive middle infielder....if only he could hang defensively in the middle infield.

 

Berrios: Ceiling gets lower every week. At this point, if he turns out to be a reliable middle of the rotation guy, I'd be thrilled. His command just isn't there to be a legit frontline starter. You can have the best stuff in the world, but if you can't spot it consistently, it doesn't matter. Unless something changes drastically, I'm not counting on him, in terms of being a guy you can feel good about in game 1 of a playoff series....which is what matters in the end. If you don't have that guy, you might as well tank until you can find one.

 

I could go through other minor league prospects (Gonsalves, Stewart, Gordon, Romero), but I think those are the big ones, in terms of competing now.

 

The high-end players (that you need to really compete....not the phony 00s while in the weakest division in baseball...I'm talking championship calibur guys) just don't appear to be there. Sometime they come out of nowhere (Johan)....but short of a miracle like that, I think this organization is in real trouble of entering a Pirates or Royals type level of half-century futility (even though you can probably lump them in with them already).

 

I'm not optimistic. It'll be years until they compete. If they want to expedite things, it's going to have to come via free agency (a real stopper in the rotation, and some bullpen help....offensively, they should be fine).

Edited January 13, 2017 by Darius

[TheLeviathan]

Not moving Dozier compounds the problems thoygh. You let an asset languish when you had an opportunity to maximize it.

 

Again, how many times need we learn our lesson on this? Sometimes doing nothing is the worst idea. Even if you don't love the return, the status quo is bound to fail. We can't pitch.

 

You can't win if you can't pitch. And our best internal pitching options won't be here until Dozier is likely gone. Not trading him is going to feel like Perkins does now.

 

Or like the Sano in the outfield thing did a month into last year. Some of us were screaming about how terrible that idea was and the tone of the counter arguments rings all too familiar here. By many of the same posters too.

 

If this deal doesn't happen, we will rue it later. I guess I would've hoped last year had taught or team and our community here some lessons.

Edited January 13, 2017 by TheLeviathan

[nicksaviking]

 

You're assuming his value can only go up. What if this isn't the valley but rather the peak of his value.

 

I'm not assuming anything, including what the market will do. I just know the market never stays the same. No one's ignoring risk; those willing to walk away are accepting it, I won't speak for others, but this doesn't appear to be a big risk as the reward isn't very big.

 

If this is the peak, then it's not much different than the valley, I don't see any championships from up here with this return.

[dbminn]

There is risk to keeping Dozier but not near as much as putting all of his value on a single prospect.

 

I'd still rather trade Dozier if the price is right. But all is not lost if the Twins walk away from a poor deal.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I'm not assuming anything, including what the market will do. I just know the market never stays the same. No one's ignoring risk; those willing to walk away are accepting it, I won't speak for others, but this doesn't appear to be a big risk as the reward isn't very big.

 

If this is the peak, then it's not much different than the valley, I don't see any championships from up here with this return.

JDL might not be Kershaw, but he certainly would help one of the worst pitching staffs in baseball. Rebuilds aren't completed after one transaction. Moving Dozier for a solid starting pitching prospect would be a step in the right direction. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by KirbyDome89

[jimmer]

Didnt the Cubs get out of the cellar in 2015, winning 97 games, when they had, according to Cots, a 120M opening day 25 man roster payroll (12M more than the Twins 2016 open day 25 man roster payroll)?

Edited January 13, 2017 by jimmer

[Pardon My Dinger]

 

Regardless of what they do with Dozier, this team won't be bad.  

Hey, look! Another impasse!

[jimmer]

Hey, look! Another impasse!

while certainly not as bad as our record last year, we arent nearly as good as our record in 2015. This team is bad and will be bad. Edited January 13, 2017 by jimmer

[Loosey]

Here is my question.  Let's say Dozier stays with the team all year long.

 

Dozier hits 30 HR's and bats .250 with an .830 OPS.  De Leon has a decent rookie year 3.90 ERA with a FIP around 4 and 9 SO/9.  

 

If the Dodgers are still a 2B short next year, is De Leon for Dozier straight up better deal since the Dodgers now only get 1 year of Dozier and De Leon is more of known commodity?  Or do De Leon's stats diminish his value and Dozier increases his by following up 2016 with a nice 2017?

 

 

[Loosey]

 

Not moving Dozier compounds the problems thoygh. You let an asset languish when you had an opportunity to maximize it.

Again, how many times need we learn our lesson on this? Sometimes doing nothing is the worst idea. Even if you don't love the return, the status quo is bound to fail. We can't pitch.

You can't win if you can't pitch. And our best internal pitching options won't be here until Dozier is likely gone. Not trading him is going to feel like Perkins does now.

Or like the Sano in the outfield thing did a month into last year. Some of us were screaming about how terrible that idea was and the tone of the counter arguments rings all too familiar here. By many of the same posters too.

If this deal doesn't happen, we will rue it later. I guess I would've hoped last year had taught or team and our community here some lessons.

This is different that not trading Perkins.  The market for Dozier is ice cold.  

 

De Leon could become a superstar, or he could be just a middle of the road starting pitcher or worse. I want multiple lottery tickets to improve my chances of hitting on one.

[gunnarthor]

 

Here is my question.  Let's say Dozier stays with the team all year long.

 

Dozier hits 30 HR's and bats .250 with an .830 OPS.  De Leon has a decent rookie year 3.90 ERA with a FIP around 4 and 9 SO/9.  

 

If the Dodgers are still a 2B short next year, is De Leon for Dozier straight up better deal since the Dodgers now only get 1 year of Dozier and De Leon is more of known commodity?  Or do De Leon's stats diminish his value and Dozier increases his by following up 2016 with a nice 2017?

I think De Leon's biggest question is health.  Assuming he remained healthy all year, a 1:1 swamp would make more sense because he's shown that he's durable and his shoulder soreness is behind him.  Arguably, that could make the Dodgers not want to move him for Dozier if he's that established.  That said, just based on how the Dodgers operate, they won't let De Leon throw that many innings this year and he'll start the year in AAA.  I think the best realistic case scenario for De Leon would be 12 or 15 ML starts and around 80 ML innings since the Dodgers have a bunch of starters in front of him without options.

[Pardon My Dinger]

 

Here is my question.  Let's say Dozier stays with the team all year long.

 

Dozier hits 30 HR's and bats .250 with an .830 OPS.  De Leon has a decent rookie year 3.90 ERA with a FIP around 4 and 9 SO/9.  

 

If the Dodgers are still a 2B short next year, is De Leon for Dozier straight up better deal since the Dodgers now only get 1 year of Dozier and De Leon is more of known commodity?  Or do De Leon's stats diminish his value and Dozier increases his by following up 2016 with a nice 2017?

For the Twins, yes, it's a better deal. But, if that's DeLeon in one year, the concept of Dozier for DeLeon loses all balance. 

[nicksaviking]

 

JDL might not be Kershaw, but he certainly would help one of the worst pitching staffs in baseball. Rebuilds aren't completed after one transaction. Moving Dozier for a solid starting pitching prospect would be a step in the right direction. 

 

No, that is an assumption. De Leon isn't some magic pill, he still has a high probability of busting. That's why the Twins would be doing themselves a disservice by not hedging their bets with additional pieces with a reasonable chance of being useful players.

[Seth Stohs]

 

Not sure I can really agree with this.

Most, if not all, of the perpetual bottom dwellers (Twins, Padres, etc) are chalk full of potential. That's just what happens when you have loads of high draft picks.

The problem with this: 1) prospects very rarely reach their potential, and people often vastly overrate what the player will actually be once (or if) he reaches the majors. Buxton is a prime example. That guy never had a chance of living up to that kind of out of control hype. 2). These organizations, even if they find the prospects with the chops to fulfil that "potential" (often pegged by people who hardly known the kids, and have seen them play a handful of games, if at all), are totally incompetent when it comes to development. I have no reason to believe at this time that Falvey and LaVine will be given the freedom to change that.

Let's take a look at the "potential":

Buxton: I think he'll be a very good player....but I don't think he's an MVP guy as it was sold. He's a solid piece, but not an organization changer. I don't think he gets to the level of an Ellsbury....and definitely isn't going to sniff a Trout level. I'm not sure there is a good com out there....maybe a Pollack type from Arizona, with a lower hit tool, or a Kiermeier from TB with a little more hit and power?

2). Sano had an extremely tough year, and I'm worried about him. I don't know if he'll ever get back to where he was his rookie year. I could be way off here, just a gut feeling, but I don't think he gets even close to that "MVP" level that looked imminent his rookie year. When he's not on one of his homer binges, he's a big liability. The only silver lining in those stretches, is that he strikes out every time so he stays out of double plays. His eye at the plate seems to regress as he gets more and more desperate to break out of slumps.

3). Rosario: Same story. Huge potential, and highly touted tools. But, don't think they come to fruition. What we see now, is what Rosario is as an MLB player. Wildly inconsistent, volatile attitude, and wreck less on both sides of the ball. When he's going bad, he's an anchor dragging the middle of the lineup down, because he has no on base skills. He doesn't really have the power to speak of (like Sano) to justify hanging with him through those stretches.

4). Kepler: Of all of the prospects, I like his chances the most. I think that torrid start to his career threw expectations out of whack, but I think he'll be a solid, reliable, well-rounded player.....not a superstar by any means.

5). Polanco: He is what he is. Very good offensive middle infielder....if only he could hang defensively in the middle infield.

Berrios: Ceiling gets lower every week. At this point, if he turns out to be a reliable middle of the rotation guy, I'd be thrilled. His command just isn't there to be a legit frontline starter. You can have the best stuff in the world, but if you can't spot it consistently, it doesn't matter. Unless something changes drastically, I'm not counting on him, in terms of being a guy you can feel good about in game 1 of a playoff series....which is what matters in the end. If you don't have that guy, you might as well tank until you can find one.

I could go through other minor league prospects (Gonsalves, Stewart, Gordon, Romero), but I think those are the big ones, in terms of competing now.

The high-end players (that you need to really compete....not the phony 00s while in the weakest division in baseball...I'm talking championship calibur guys) just don't appear to be there. Sometime they come out of nowhere (Johan)....but short of a miracle like that, I think this organization is in real trouble of entering a Pirates or Royals type level of half-century futility (even though you can probably lump them in with them already).

I'm not optimistic. It'll be years until they compete. If they want to expedite things, it's going to have to come via free agency (a real stopper in the rotation, and some bullpen help....offensively, they should be fine).

 

Kevin Kiermeier's are worth like 5-6 WAR, and if Buxton provides a little more offense than him, that's a very valuable player. No one ever said he would put up the numbers that Trout has. Some said (and I saw both at the level) that he was a better prospect than Trout in Low A because he had better tools. Sure. But that doesn't mean anyone should have thought that he would be another Trout. If you get a 5-6 WAR guy with the #2 pick in a draft, that's pretty rare and a positive.

 

Sano's terrible year still had him hitting 25 homers and he missed 6 weeks. I'm not sure what to make of him, but he can be a 3-5 WAR guy just with his bat. I think the pressure is on him a bit.

 

Rosario isn't in the same level of prospect.

 

To give up or make any real opinion on Berrios after like 10 starts makes little sense. But, most prospect people saw him as a #3 type of starter that could reach up and be a #2 at times. I don't think that's unrealistic.

 

Plus, they'd still have dozier and santana and then you hope for better health and improvement out of a young bullpen.

 

We'll see how the Falvey/Levine regime does with player development. I'd say that the Ryan group (since Brad Steil took over) has shown a pretty strong ability to get guys to the big leagues. Few prospects come up and dominate, so I'm far from being willing to give up on them. 

 

 

 

If Vegas were to put the odds of the Twins winning 72.5 games in 2017, what would people take? I said between 70 and 75. 

[Vanimal46]

"If Vegas were to put the odds of the Twins winning 72.5 games in 2017, what would people take? I said between 70 and 75."

Given what we know right now, pre-trades, signings, etc. that could happen before opening day, I'd bet confidently on the under.