No Half Measures

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

You won't need to pay all two years of his contract.  Why on earth do people think that's the only way he can be moved?

That would indicate a guy with absolutely no on-field value and that is clearly not true.  The Mets were willing to take him on with relatively minimal financial help.  They likely will be willing to again too if the prospect price is minimal.

It's odd to me that people are arguing about how important he is to the 2022 Twins, but that he's so value-less that you'd have to pay his entire salary just to get a deal done.  While not an impossible scenario, it sure doesn't seem to fit this one.

If the Twins paid his entire salary they should get a really solid return.  If they pay some of his salary they should get a noteworthy player.  If they pay none they probably get a flyer who is in the 15-20 range of someone's farm.  JD is a good player, he's not Jackie Bradley Jr.

I never said they'd have to pay his entire salary. I said they'd have to pay the balance of the 50M above what he'd be worth on the market now to get any sort of prospect back. JD isn't worth 25 a year for his age 36 and 37 seasons. No team (Mets or any other high spender) is going to give the Twins even a flier for the right to take on 50M in payroll for JD. They just aren't. 

JD is worth more to the Twins because trading him means they'd still be paying part of his salary and they wouldn't be getting much, if anything, in return. If teams wouldn't pay him 50 over 2 on the open market what makes you think they'd trade even a flier of a prospect for the right to trade for him and pay him more than they think he's worth? That's why people say he is important to the 2022 Twins, but he's got little value on the trade market.

The Mets very well may have been willing to eat almost all of his contract at the deadline, but they would've been asking for the Twins to send prospects with him to balance it out. So the Twins would be sending prospects out just so they could get out from under his contract. If you're trying to win in 2022 that would make sense as long as you're bringing in MLB players with the saved money. So they'd basically be trading prospects for the chance to sign a pitcher or SS with the 21/25M saved while creating a hole at 3B. If they miss on all the top guys in that price range and are stuck signing multiple lower level guys for that extra 21/25M they'd have traded the better player plus prospects for the chance to sign 2 or 3 mid-level guys. That's awful asset management. 

[TheLeviathan]

10 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I never said they'd have to pay his entire salary. I said they'd have to pay the balance of the 50M above what he'd be worth on the market now to get any sort of prospect back. JD isn't worth 25 a year for his age 36 and 37 seasons. No team (Mets or any other high spender) is going to give the Twins even a flier for the right to take on 50M in payroll for JD. They just aren't. 

JD is worth more to the Twins because trading him means they'd still be paying part of his salary and they wouldn't be getting much, if anything, in return. If teams wouldn't pay him 50 over 2 on the open market what makes you think they'd trade even a flier of a prospect for the right to trade for him and pay him more than they think he's worth? That's why people say he is important to the 2022 Twins, but he's got little value on the trade market.

The Mets very well may have been willing to eat almost all of his contract at the deadline, but they would've been asking for the Twins to send prospects with him to balance it out. So the Twins would be sending prospects out just so they could get out from under his contract. If you're trying to win in 2022 that would make sense as long as you're bringing in MLB players with the saved money. So they'd basically be trading prospects for the chance to sign a pitcher or SS with the 21/25M saved while creating a hole at 3B. If they miss on all the top guys in that price range and are stuck signing multiple lower level guys for that extra 21/25M they'd have traded the better player plus prospects for the chance to sign 2 or 3 mid-level guys. That's awful asset management. 

"Part of his salary" implies a significant "part" is NOT being paid for.  Money that can then be put towards areas on the roster in much more desperate need of help.  At no point were the deadline conversations about the Twins/Mets were concerned was there anything about having to give prospects with Donaldson.  So I have no idea where that last paragraph is coming from.  

This team has one 3B option on the roster already after Donaldson and one of their top AAA hitting prospects right behind that.  If the Twins need to send 10-14M with Donaldson the next two years that STILL gives them enough money to sign Jon Gray or even better than him.  Plus get a flyer prospect.  This roster is better with Arraez/Miranda at 3B and Jon Gray (or Thor or whomever) for the next 2-3 years than it is with an aging Donaldson. 

3B is a position of need for several contenders and very few viable options with upside.  A team willing to shell out money could get a relative bargain, prospects-wise, in acquiring Donaldson.  I see absolutely no reason why Donaldson, on the market, couldn't get 2 years and 40M.  It's a small step up from what Justin Turner got just last year coming off a 40 game, injury ridden season. 

20M not being spent at 3B is better for the balance of this roster IMO.

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I would bet a lot of money they don't spend $170 or $160 for that matter.  I would be pleasantly surprised if they spent $150M.  My guess is they spend $135-140M. 

Personally. I agree with these numbers. I'm hoping for a ceiling of $150 million but expecting just under $140 million. The Twins can field a really decent team at those prices and Falvine needs to use his phone often to complete at least two significant trades and then he can use the company checkbook. Please $150.

[tony&rodney]

Oh, to the post - JD stays.

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

"Part of his salary" implies a significant "part" is NOT being paid for.  Money that can then be put towards areas on the roster in much more desperate need of help.  At no point were the deadline conversations about the Twins/Mets were concerned was there anything about having to give prospects with Donaldson.  So I have no idea where that last paragraph is coming from.  

This team has one 3B option on the roster already after Donaldson and one of their top AAA hitting prospects right behind that.  If the Twins need to send 10-14M with Donaldson the next two years that STILL gives them enough money to sign Jon Gray or even better than him.  Plus get a flyer prospect.  This roster is better with Arraez/Miranda at 3B and Jon Gray (or Thor or whomever) for the next 2-3 years than it is with an aging Donaldson. 

3B is a position of need for several contenders and very few viable options with upside.  A team willing to shell out money could get a relative bargain, prospects-wise, in acquiring Donaldson.  I see absolutely no reason why Donaldson, on the market, couldn't get 2 years and 40M.  It's a small step up from what Justin Turner got just last year coming off a 40 game, injury ridden season. 

20M not being spent at 3B is better for the balance of this roster IMO.

If the Mets were willing to take on darn near all of Donaldson's contract without the Twins having to kick in prospects the FO should be fired for not taking that deal. It simply isn't realistic. No team would have been willing to take on 65 mil for Donaldson. There's no chance.

Justin Turner is a better player than Donaldson is right now and has been a key member of a championship caliber team for the last 8 years. Donaldson absolutely could not get more than Turner on the open market. Maybe Donaldson could get 2 years 30, maybe. So the Twins have to eat 20 mil just to get back to even and would then maybe get a flier prospect in low A. So now they're paying 10m a year for their 3rd best hitter and 3rd best fielder to play somewhere else. So your lineup and defense just got significantly worse. Adding Gray would be nice, but you can get him without trading Donaldson.

Shipping out Donaldson would also be a signal to FAs that the Twins aren't looking to compete in 2022 and are rebuilding with young guys. Many FAs wouldn't want to go to a team in that situation and MN already has a hard enough time convincing FAs to come here in the first place. Trading Donaldson and eating 20M guarantees the Twins have a worse lineup and worse defense for next year without guaranteeing they improve anywhere else. They'd have an extra 15M to spend, maybe. That doesn't mean they get a guy worth 15M/year. Maybe they miss on everyone in that range and end up with a Pineda type and Colome type. Are the Twins better without Donaldson but with a #3ish starter and ok, but not shutdown, reliever? I'd argue no. 

I have no problem with the Twins moving Donaldson if they can get a good deal. But he's not going to be at the top of anyone's to do list early in the offseason. Teams will look to bring in FAs first. The SS market is going to slow much of the offseason down as all the contenders will want to take a shot at getting one of them. So they'll have to wait until most of the FAs are gone and at that point the extra 15M isn't going to be bringing in a 15M player, but would, at best, be used to bring in some Happ, Shoemaker, Colome, Robles types. That's why I say chances are you get a better deal at the deadline if Donaldson is playing well and the team is struggling.

[TheLeviathan]

26 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If the Mets were willing to take on darn near all of Donaldson's contract without the Twins having to kick in prospects the FO should be fired for not taking that deal. It simply isn't realistic. No team would have been willing to take on 65 mil for Donaldson. There's no chance.

Justin Turner is a better player than Donaldson is right now and has been a key member of a championship caliber team for the last 8 years. Donaldson absolutely could not get more than Turner on the open market. Maybe Donaldson could get 2 years 30, maybe. So the Twins have to eat 20 mil just to get back to even and would then maybe get a flier prospect in low A. So now they're paying 10m a year for their 3rd best hitter and 3rd best fielder to play somewhere else. So your lineup and defense just got significantly worse. Adding Gray would be nice, but you can get him without trading Donaldson.

Shipping out Donaldson would also be a signal to FAs that the Twins aren't looking to compete in 2022 and are rebuilding with young guys. Many FAs wouldn't want to go to a team in that situation and MN already has a hard enough time convincing FAs to come here in the first place. Trading Donaldson and eating 20M guarantees the Twins have a worse lineup and worse defense for next year without guaranteeing they improve anywhere else. They'd have an extra 15M to spend, maybe. That doesn't mean they get a guy worth 15M/year. Maybe they miss on everyone in that range and end up with a Pineda type and Colome type. Are the Twins better without Donaldson but with a #3ish starter and ok, but not shutdown, reliever? I'd argue no. 

I have no problem with the Twins moving Donaldson if they can get a good deal. But he's not going to be at the top of anyone's to do list early in the offseason. Teams will look to bring in FAs first. The SS market is going to slow much of the offseason down as all the contenders will want to take a shot at getting one of them. So they'll have to wait until most of the FAs are gone and at that point the extra 15M isn't going to be bringing in a 15M player, but would, at best, be used to bring in some Happ, Shoemaker, Colome, Robles types. That's why I say chances are you get a better deal at the deadline if Donaldson is playing well and the team is struggling.

Donaldson was on the menu without some bounty of prospects with him.  You're welcome to go back and read those articles on MLBTR.  I agree, missed opportunity by the front office.  If you look up offseason trade suggestions/predictions you'll see that this partnership is still very connected.

Rapid fire: Free agents sign for money.  Not warm and fuzzy feelings.  Nothing anyone suggests we do - keeping Donaldson, trading Donaldson, anointing Donaldson our new lord and savior, asking Kirk Cousins to join the rotation, or investing heavily in cloning technology guarantees a damn thing.  We're having conversations that involve a lot of projecting and speculation. That applies to your position as well.  Keeping Josh Donaldson could very easily result in 25M worth of calf massages on the injury list.  Let's not play that game.

And that gets me to the last point:  I think JD is a great player.  I think he'll have value to whomever he plays for but is likely to decline to being worth less than his contract by a significant margin.  I'm not playing some convenient game on this.  I just want to allocate the money differently on the roster given the options we have.  Justin Turner and Donaldson are roughly equal offensive players.  There is no reason to expect them to have some radically different price and, once again, I feel like we're baking in some absolutes that are really unfair and contradictory.  The hyperbole you're dancing around about how devastating it is to lose him doesn't jive with how actively you're trying to downgrade him.  The only difference in this Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde analysis of JD seems to be in whether you're arguing it or not.  Not in any objective take on him.  I don't know how a discussion can proceed when one side of the conversation is allowed to talk about the same player as if he's the MVP of the league to justify their position, but the same player is some schmo when the other side is making a different argument about the same guy.

We'd all love a great deal on JD.  We'd all love to think he can earn that 50M the next two years too.  But reality has both of those things in doubt.  You're choosing the known over the unknown which is a justifiable position.  In the name of better roster allocation, I'm choosing the unknown.  I don't think that's an unjustifiable position without the unfair tact you're employing.  I understand your position, in no way have I bastardized it, I just don't agree: yeah, JD is a great player, he can help the Twins, it may be difficult to recoup trade value outside of freed up resources.  All of those positions on your part are ok....I just disagree about whether that's best for the roster because while that is all true...it's also true that the money that player takes up means we have less to spend, we will have interesting replacements blocked, and he has real injury and age regression concerns coming.  I'm just on a different side of where to bet and while I might well be wrong, this discussion isn't well served if I've gotta constantly reframe the conversation away from slanted arguments.

[chpettit19]

11 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Donaldson was on the menu without some bounty of prospects with him.  You're welcome to go back and read those articles on MLBTR.  I agree, missed opportunity by the front office.  If you look up offseason trade suggestions/predictions you'll see that this partnership is still very connected.

Rapid fire: Free agents sign for money.  Not warm and fuzzy feelings.  Nothing anyone suggests we do - keeping Donaldson, trading Donaldson, anointing Donaldson our new lord and savior, asking Kirk Cousins to join the rotation, or investing heavily in cloning technology guarantees a damn thing.  We're having conversations that involve a lot of projecting and speculation. That applies to your position as well.  Keeping Josh Donaldson could very easily result in 25M worth of calf massages on the injury list.  Let's not play that game.

And that gets me to the last point:  I think JD is a great player.  I think he'll have value to whomever he plays for but is likely to decline to being worth less than his contract by a significant margin.  I'm not playing some convenient game on this.  I just want to allocate the money differently on the roster given the options we have.  Justin Turner and Donaldson are roughly equal offensive players.  There is no reason to expect them to have some radically different price and, once again, I feel like we're baking in some absolutes that are really unfair and contradictory.  The hyperbole you're dancing around about how devastating it is to lose him doesn't jive with how actively you're trying to downgrade him.  The only difference in this Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde analysis of JD seems to be in whether you're arguing it or not.  Not in any objective take on him.  I don't know how a discussion can proceed when one side of the conversation is allowed to talk about the same player as if he's the MVP of the league to justify their position, but the same player is some schmo when the other side is making a different argument about the same guy.

We'd all love a great deal on JD.  We'd all love to think he can earn that 50M the next two years too.  But reality has both of those things in doubt.  You're choosing the known over the unknown which is a justifiable position.  In the name of better roster allocation, I'm choosing the unknown.  I don't think that's an unjustifiable position without the unfair tact you're employing.  I understand your position, in no way have I bastardized it, I just don't agree: yeah, JD is a great player, he can help the Twins, it may be difficult to recoup trade value outside of freed up resources.  All of those positions on your part are ok....I just disagree about whether that's best for the roster because while that is all true...it's also true that the money that player takes up means we have less to spend, we will have interesting replacements blocked, and he has real injury and age regression concerns coming.  I'm just on a different side of where to bet and while I might well be wrong, this discussion isn't well served if I've gotta constantly reframe the conversation away from slanted arguments.

I've never said JD is the MVP of the league with the Twins and some schmo with another team. Nowhere near that, actually. You're the one twisting things. I've said in every post I've made on this thread that JD is worth more to the Twins than on the trade market this offseason because of the $52 million he'd be owed if traded. That doesn't mean he's a better player for the Twins than he is for somebody else, it means teams aren't willing to trade for a player and pay them more than they're worth. Would you pay a car dealership for the right to pay twice as much for a car than it's worth?

I also went through the idea that other orgs won't be looking to trade for JD before they see what they can get on the free agent market. Trading for an overpriced vet isn't going to be team's first option. It'll likely be their backup plan if they can't get who they want on the market (any contender is going to be looking to bring in one of the 5 SSs before they trade for JD). Which means there's a very good chance that by the time the Twins could even pull off a JD trade there will be little to no top end pitching talent left on the market and now you've traded JD for the chance to sign Happ, Shoemaker, Colome, Robles, or, at best, Pineda types. That's why I say trading him during the season would be a better time as teams would have limited options for improving their team and he'd have less on his deal. That's not making a different argument or changing my stance, it's adding more context.

JD would get about half of what his current contract is if he were on the open market. Maybe a little more. No team is going to trade anything at all to take on his deal. They aren't. It's not a debate. Nobody does that. The Cards got $50M from the Rockies and traded no real prospects (Gomber was the best piece and he's a #4 type starter) to get a drastically better, and younger, Arenado last offseason, and the Rockies were blasted by everyone in the industry for being completely incompetent. But you think the Mets are going to take JD and most of his money? It's possible, but I highly doubt it.

Feel free to post any MLBTR posts about the Mets being willing to take on his deal and not get prospects back. I went through JD's, the Twins', and the Mets' MLBTR pages (where you claim there's talk of the Mets taking on his deal) this morning and the only mentions of trade talks in there say there was never real traction on a deal. Maybe because the Mets didn't want to take on his whole deal and the Twins didn't want to have to trade prospects to get rid of their 3rd best player?

But we'll just agree to disagree that Arraez/Miranda at 3B with $75M payroll room is better than JD at 3B, Arraez as IF utility/injury replacement, Miranda getting his feet wet, and $60M payroll room.

[TheLeviathan]

16 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I've never said JD is the MVP of the league with the Twins and some schmo with another team. Nowhere near that, actually. You're the one twisting things. I've said in every post I've made on this thread that JD is worth more to the Twins than on the trade market this offseason because of the $52 million he'd be owed if traded. That doesn't mean he's a better player for the Twins than he is for somebody else, it means teams aren't willing to trade for a player and pay them more than they're worth. Would you pay a car dealership for the right to pay twice as much for a car than it's worth?

I also went through the idea that other orgs won't be looking to trade for JD before they see what they can get on the free agent market. Trading for an overpriced vet isn't going to be team's first option. It'll likely be their backup plan if they can't get who they want on the market (any contender is going to be looking to bring in one of the 5 SSs before they trade for JD). Which means there's a very good chance that by the time the Twins could even pull off a JD trade there will be little to no top end pitching talent left on the market and now you've traded JD for the chance to sign Happ, Shoemaker, Colome, Robles, or, at best, Pineda types. That's why I say trading him during the season would be a better time as teams would have limited options for improving their team and he'd have less on his deal. That's not making a different argument or changing my stance, it's adding more context.

JD would get about half of what his current contract is if he were on the open market. Maybe a little more. No team is going to trade anything at all to take on his deal. They aren't. It's not a debate. Nobody does that. The Cards got $50M from the Rockies and traded no real prospects (Gomber was the best piece and he's a #4 type starter) to get a drastically better, and younger, Arenado last offseason, and the Rockies were blasted by everyone in the industry for being completely incompetent. But you think the Mets are going to take JD and most of his money? It's possible, but I highly doubt it.

Feel free to post any MLBTR posts about the Mets being willing to take on his deal and not get prospects back. I went through JD's, the Twins', and the Mets' MLBTR pages (where you claim there's talk of the Mets taking on his deal) this morning and the only mentions of trade talks in there say there was never real traction on a deal. Maybe because the Mets didn't want to take on his whole deal and the Twins didn't want to have to trade prospects to get rid of their 3rd best player?

But we'll just agree to disagree that Arraez/Miranda at 3B with $75M payroll room is better than JD at 3B, Arraez as IF utility/injury replacement, Miranda getting his feet wet, and $60M payroll room.

First, I think Turner and Donaldson are a very fair comp and you continually have pushed that value comparison down more and more.  Donaldson would get 2 and roughly 35-40 on the market.  The FA market is likely to only have Bryant and Escobar as even semi-viable 3B options at a position where there is significant need from contenders.  There will be a market for him.  Secondly, the very article you read spent several paragraphs detailing how the Mets could absorb the Donaldson salary with little issue in luxury tax fines or problems with affordability.  Thirdly, yes I was hyperbolic in that description but it's getting a little old to have to have to play this game where I'm arguing against Super JD, the one the Twins keep, but my JD that we trade is some schmo we'd be lucky to toss 50M in with and even have interest.  It'd be nice if we were both acknowledging the flaws and strengths of the player as he stands now and going forward with a little less baked-in convenience for our arguments.

There is a very real, I'd say pretty good, chance that this is the last time Donaldson is movable at all short of actually having to pay his entire contract.  At this point the team could pay 10-20% and get a decent return.  If age continues to sap his defense or his balky legs go bad again....this is an albatross the team now has hanging around it's neck at the tune of 15-20% of their payroll. It'll be an enormous dead weight.  I consider 2022 a retool and reload year and that money can be better spent on players with a significantly lower chance of being an albatross.  Wins in 2022 don't matter to me as much as a team primed for 2023 and Donaldson is a very real threat to that given his contract and his age.

We don't have to have the same conclusion on that, but I strongly believe that one thing smart teams do is sell a slight stepearly rather than when it's already too late.

[chpettit19]

52 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

First, I think Turner and Donaldson are a very fair comp and you continually have pushed that value comparison down more and more.  Donaldson would get 2 and roughly 35-40 on the market.  The FA market is likely to only have Bryant and Escobar as even semi-viable 3B options at a position where there is significant need from contenders.  There will be a market for him.  Secondly, the very article you read spent several paragraphs detailing how the Mets could absorb the Donaldson salary with little issue in luxury tax fines or problems with affordability.  Thirdly, yes I was hyperbolic in that description but it's getting a little old to have to have to play this game where I'm arguing against Super JD, the one the Twins keep, but my JD that we trade is some schmo we'd be lucky to toss 50M in with and even have interest.  It'd be nice if we were both acknowledging the flaws and strengths of the player as he stands now and going forward with a little less baked-in convenience for our arguments.

There is a very real, I'd say pretty good, chance that this is the last time Donaldson is movable at all short of actually having to pay his entire contract.  At this point the team could pay 10-20% and get a decent return.  If age continues to sap his defense or his balky legs go bad again....this is an albatross the team now has hanging around it's neck at the tune of 15-20% of their payroll. It'll be an enormous dead weight.  I consider 2022 a retool and reload year and that money can be better spent on players with a significantly lower chance of being an albatross.  Wins in 2022 don't matter to me as much as a team primed for 2023 and Donaldson is a very real threat to that given his contract and his age.

We don't have to have the same conclusion on that, but I strongly believe that one thing smart teams do is sell a slight stepearly rather than when it's already too late.

You continue to misrepresent my position. I have never, not one single time, suggested there's a "Super JD" that stays with the Twins and "some schmo" who gets traded. I haven't so stop suggesting I have. You're either not understanding my point or are just continuing to misrepresent it. Being the 3rd best player on the Twins doesn't make him the 3rd best player on another team. He is who he is, and he's a useful player. But he's not worth 35-40M let alone 52. Why would a team pay more for Josh Donaldson than the Dodgers did for Justin Turner? They wouldn't. So he's, at most, worth 30-34. Which means the Twins are eating around 20M, like I've said from the beginning. A team will not trade a real prospect for the right to pay Donaldson what he's worth so the Twins would have to eat more to get any real prospect. You don't care about the prospect return so I've been using the eating 20M number as the basis for everything in this because you just want to clear the money. That's the money they can clear. About 15M per year.

Being able to fit Donaldson in under the luxury tax threshold and being willing to take on his entire contract without taking prospects with him are two completely different things. The Twins can not "get a decent return" by paying down 10-20% of his deal. He isn't worth 40-45M. No team is going to give prospects to pay Donaldson more than he's worth. You're now suggesting somebody will give a "decent return" to pay Donaldson 10M more than Turner. That isn't realistic. 

Bryant and Escobar being the "only 3B" on the market is ignoring that teams sign the best talent and move them around on the field as needed now. Like the Jays signing Semien and moving him to 2B. Or the Mets trading for Baez and moving him back to 2B. I wouldn't be shocked by the Dodgers resigning Seager with the plan to move him to 3B after next year, bring back Turner at SS, and have Lux at 2B. 

Who are all these contenders that so desperately need a 3B that they'd be willing to overpay for the guy you want the Twins to trade because he'll likely breakdown (you're the one suggesting he's "Super JD" if they trade him and "some schmo" if they keep him, by the way)? None of the 4 teams playing now need Donaldson. The Yankees need a SS, not 3B. White Sox don't need him. Cards don't need him. Padres don't need him. Tampa doesn't need him and wouldn't pay him. Toronto could use him, but would much rather spend that money to bring back Semien, Ray, etc. Oakland doesn't need him and wouldn't pay him. Seattle could probably use him, but aren't good enough yet to overpay for a veteran (would probably prefer Seager back for much cheaper). Cleveland doesn't need him. Are the Tigers going to let the Twins off the hook by trading for him and his money? Angels don't need him. Cincinnati needs a SS, not 3B. Philly needs a SS, not 3B. Mets could maybe use him, mostly likely as a DH part time, but have JD Davis at 3B (he was hurt during the season which is why they were looking for a 3B cuz they didn't have FA options, you know, like I said). So really you're banking on the Mets being willing to overpay him. I'm not really seeing any other contenders outside the Mets, Brewers, and Giants who might be looking for a 3B.

I'd think the Giants would prefer to pay Bryant than trade for Donaldson and take on 40-45M of his deal (10-20% Twins payment leaves them with that much to pay) and give the Twins a "decent return." The Brewers are most definitely not taking on a huge chunk of his deal. They're cheaper than the Twins and would prefer to bring back Escobar for cheaper I'd think. So really it's the Mets thinking paying Donaldson 40-45M over 2 years is worth a "decent return" instead of having JD Davis at 3B. JD Davis had an OPS+ of 126 this year, by the way. Donaldson's was 127. Davis is still in arbitration so much cheaper which would allow them to bring back Baez at 2B. Not sure why you think their offseason plan would be to pay Donaldson 40-45M and give up a "decent return" instead of paying Baez part of that 40-45M and spreading the rest out to bring back Thor or Stroman and fill their CF need. Or instead of Baez let McNeil play 2B and go get Starling Marte since their need is far greater in the OF than IF. So who are all these teams you think are so desperate for 3B help they'd give a decent return for Donaldson with the Twins only eating 5-10 million?

[Brock Beauchamp]

My opinion on Donaldson hasn’t changed since June. Quietly shop him and if a team is willing to take 50% or more of his contract, move him and let Arraez/Miranda play third. Then use the money for pitching or extending players. 

If a deal of that kind can be reached - and I think the chances of finding a team willing to take on that kind of money is relatively small, particularly in the off-season - great. If not (the far more likely outcome imo), keep Josh as a clubhouse presence and hope he plays well and possibly opens a trade possibility later. 

[GV14218]

Article presents two paths of action, Cody, and is well written. In deciding how best to proceed with Donaldson, I’m stuck on this: “… gamble on the health of Josh Donaldson.”  That makes my decision: offload.

[LastOnePicked]

I just can't see a need for JD on the 2022 Twins. We have no established starting rotation and one of the league's worst bullpens for much of 2021. The only path to contention in 2022 is a string of incredibly-smart trades and brilliant free agent signings, and those players then having career years here in MN. In short, keeping JD is banking on something that just doesn't have a precedent here.

What does have a championship precedent here is letting talented young players and a few home-grown vets get hungry and develop as a core. Miranda has more than earned the opportunity to join this core. He'll take his lumps in 2022, sure, but that's as it should be.

Gotta admit, I'm surprised by the number of folks who seem to think this team can compete next year. I expect that hope will cool a bit after the free agent signing period ends and we head into late February.

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

You continue to misrepresent my position. 

Being able to fit Donaldson in under the luxury tax threshold and being willing to take on his entire contract without taking prospects with him are two completely different things. The Twins can not "get a decent return" by paying down 10-20% of his deal. He isn't worth 40-45M. No team is going to give prospects to pay Donaldson more than he's worth. You're now suggesting somebody will give a "decent return" to pay Donaldson 10M more than Turner. That isn't realistic. 

I'd think the Giants would prefer to pay Bryant than trade for Donaldson and take on 40-45M of his deal (10-20% Twins payment leaves them with that much to pay) and give the Twins a "decent return." The Brewers are most definitely not taking on a huge chunk of his deal. They're cheaper than the Twins and would prefer to bring back Escobar for cheaper I'd think. So really it's the Mets thinking paying Donaldson 40-45M over 2 years is worth a "decent return" instead of having JD Davis at 3B. JD Davis had an OPS+ of 126 this year, by the way. Donaldson's was 127. Davis is still in arbitration so much cheaper which would allow them to bring back Baez at 2B. Not sure why you think their offseason plan would be to pay Donaldson 40-45M and give up a "decent return" instead of paying Baez part of that 40-45M and spreading the rest out to bring back Thor or Stroman and fill their CF need. Or instead of Baez let McNeil play 2B and go get Starling Marte since their need is far greater in the OF than IF. So who are all these teams you think are so desperate for 3B help they'd give a decent return for Donaldson with the Twins only eating 5-10 million?

Yes, last two posts I have been deliberately hyperbolic.  Frankly, after dealing with it from you for several points I just dove into the muck.  At no point were you giving the merits of my position their due.  Sucks when that happens huh?  Look back at how you started this, you questioned whether moving on from Donaldson freed money and said it wasn't true.  Yet here you are acknowledging 15M.  I mean....what the hell?  Is 15M not "significant" under some weird definition? The entire conversation went sideways by a point you yourself basically have refuted now.  

The Mets need a 3B.  The Yankees want Urshela out.  The Giants might prefer a short contract over a long-term FA war, either way they may have an opening.  Phillies are looking.  Brewers are looking.  There may be other options.  At no point, anywhere, has it been suggested prospects would have to go with Donaldson.  Only a question of how much money would have to be sent with him.  That suggestion is made up whole cloth by you to support your point - that ain't fair.  My suggestion that there are teams potentially interested in taking him on has actual evidence, but how much money is definitely up in the air.  

I'm good paying about 20-30% of his contract and I think someone will take that on.  Getting Donaldson at 2 years and 35M is perfectly reasonable.  

[chpettit19]

52 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Yes, last two posts I have been deliberately hyperbolic.  Frankly, after dealing with it from you for several points I just dove into the muck.  At no point were you giving the merits of my position their due.  Sucks when that happens huh?  Look back at how you started this, you questioned whether moving on from Donaldson freed money and said it wasn't true.  Yet here you are acknowledging 15M.  I mean....what the hell?  Is 15M not "significant" under some weird definition? The entire conversation went sideways by a point you yourself basically have refuted now.  

The Mets need a 3B.  The Yankees want Urshela out.  The Giants might prefer a short contract over a long-term FA war, either way they may have an opening.  Phillies are looking.  Brewers are looking.  There may be other options.  At no point, anywhere, has it been suggested prospects would have to go with Donaldson.  Only a question of how much money would have to be sent with him.  That suggestion is made up whole cloth by you to support your point - that ain't fair.  My suggestion that there are teams potentially interested in taking him on has actual evidence, but how much money is definitely up in the air.  

I'm good paying about 20-30% of his contract and I think someone will take that on.  Getting Donaldson at 2 years and 35M is perfectly reasonable.  

My first response to you was that the Twins couldn't save enough money by trading Donaldson to sign Thor. 15M isn't enough to sign Thor. The QO is 18.4M, if he's willing to sign for 15 he'd take the QO he's very likely to receive. 15M per year isn't getting you a #1 pitcher. It's getting you a good 3, poor 2. I've given your position merits and disagreed with them. 

Mets: I already went over the their 3B situation. JD Davis is every bit the hitter Donaldson is and is still in arbitration. I don't see why you think they'd want to have Donaldson for 15M+ instead of JD for likely less than 3m. The Mets need a CFer far more than they need a 3B. They'd be more than happy to go into next year with JD Davis, Lindor, McNeil, Smith, Alonso across the IF/DH, not lose any prospects, and have that 15M to put towards a CFer (or Conforto extension).

Yankees: I haven't seen anything about them wanting Urshela out, but even if that's true they have Torres at 2B and a pretty expensive DJ LeMahieu at 3B. They're going after the big time SSs, not Josh Donaldson.

Phillies: Alec Bohm is a 3B costing the league minimum. I'd think they'd prefer him for the minimum, not losing a prospect, and having that 15M to throw in their offer for one of the "big 5", because. like the Yankees, they need a SS and will be in on the big 5 more than Josh Donaldson. If the Twins should prefer Arraez/Miranda at 3B with extra money to throw at bigger needs why would the Phillies not prefer to have that extra money to throw at bigger holes (SS and CF) and not lose a prospect?

Brewers: Not taking on any sort of significant money (they're not paying 15+M a year) for Josh Donaldson. They're just not. They're cheaper than the Twins and already have a bad Jackie Bradley deal on their payroll.

Giants: I guess they're your best bet in preferring Donaldson on 2 years and 35M (your numbers) while trading a "decent return" for him over wanting Bryant back.

Josh Donaldson is not a great offseason trade piece. There are not the openings on contenders that you suggest there are and non-contenders aren't going to trade away a prospect to bring back Donaldson and 15M a year. It's why I say he's a better mid-season trade option. Teams are limited on how they can improve their team and the Twins can demand more in return at the deadline.

[TheLeviathan]

42 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

My first response to you was that the Twins couldn't save enough money by trading Donaldson to sign Thor. 15M isn't enough to sign Thor. The QO is 18.4M, if he's willing to sign for 15 he'd take the QO he's very likely to receive. 15M per year isn't getting you a #1 pitcher. It's getting you a good 3, poor 2. I've given your position merits and disagreed with them. 

You bolded that I thought it would save a significant amount of money and disagreed.  Is 10-15M not significant?  Given that I have this crazy belief that 10-15M IS a significant amount, I could only read that as you thinking we'd have to pay off the whole thing.  Of course, my Thor example was one of many examples of what we could use that 15M for and merely to help illustrate the point.  I think you're smart enough to know that whatever savings we had was not exclusively valuable if or if not it could afford Thor.  C'mon.  This is what I'm talking about with the mischaracterizing.   My point stands, your characterization of it....by your own admission....was wrong.  (Unless you do actually want to argue 10-15M isn't significant.  Hell, I was arguing it might be as much as 20, but even at 10-15 doesn't change the point)  Perhaps, had you not been so intent to mischaracterize it you might have just argued "I'd rather have Donaldson".  Ok, fine.  Totally fine.  But it is objectively true we'd have a significant amount of money to spend elsewhere.  The bolded part is true, just maybe not worth the cost.

I believe there will be a market for Donaldson - a solid defensive player, seen as a clubhouse leader, who plays a position with some scarcity.  Teams will find a place for him (as you argued for other players but somehow can't see how it would work for JD as well) and at 2/35....they will see value there.

Is that necessarily the best path?  Of course not, JD might stay healthy and turn some of that great contact he's getting into a monster season.  Then again, dealing him may save us a 50M, 15% of our payroll albatross we won't appreciate when we contend again.  I lean towards the latter.  I think I have valid reasons for doing so, but time will tell.

[chpettit19]

28 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You bolded that I thought it would save a significant amount of money and disagreed.  Is 10-15M not significant?  Given that I have this crazy belief that 10-15M IS a significant amount, I could only read that as you thinking we'd have to pay off the whole thing.  Of course, my Thor example was one of many examples of what we could use that 15M for and merely to help illustrate the point.  I think you're smart enough to know that whatever savings we had was not exclusively valuable if or if not it could afford Thor.  C'mon.  This is what I'm talking about with the mischaracterizing.   My point stands, your characterization of it....by your own admission....was wrong.  (Unless you do actually want to argue 10-15M isn't significant.  Hell, I was arguing it might be as much as 20, but even at 10-15 doesn't change the point)  Perhaps, had you not been so intent to mischaracterize it you might have just argued "I'd rather have Donaldson".  Ok, fine.  Totally fine.  But it is objectively true we'd have a significant amount of money to spend elsewhere.  The bolded part is true, just maybe not worth the cost.

I believe there will be a market for Donaldson - a solid defensive player, seen as a clubhouse leader, who plays a position with some scarcity.  Teams will find a place for him (as you argued for other players but somehow can't see how it would work for JD as well) and at 2/35....they will see value there.

Is that necessarily the best path?  Of course not, JD might stay healthy and turn some of that great contact he's getting into a monster season.  Then again, dealing him may save us a 50M, 15% of our payroll albatross we won't appreciate when we contend again.  I lean towards the latter.  I think I have valid reasons for doing so, but time will tell.

I don't think having an extra 10-15M this offseason would be significant, no. For the reasons I explained. I don't see the market you do. If the market were to materialize it wouldn't be until after the teams missed on their primary targets and by then the FA market would have been picked over and that 10-15 wouldn't be able to go to a Thor, or anyone else in that level of talent as I think they'd all be gone by then. So having 10-15 to spend on more Happ, Shoemaker, Colome, Robles, or Pineda types is not significant to me. With no context, yes, 10-15 million is obviously significant, but in this context, no, I don't think it is.

And the idea that trading him could save us 50M is outlandish to me. I believe there is a literally 0% chance any team will take on his entire deal. Unless the Twins throw in significant prospect capital. So with only 2 years left and not believing they could use the 10-15 in a significant way this offseason I don't think trading Donaldson this offseason makes any sense.

I haven't mischaracterized anything, I've simply argued that your ideas aren't accurate and have attempted to use a number of contextual thoughts as to why. I believe you overvalue his trade value. I've explained why. I believe you overstate his market. I've explained why. I believe you overvalue how much a team would be willing to take on of his deal. I've explained why. I have mischaracterized nothing, I simply don't agree and have used many different explanations to show the context around why I disagree.

[TheLeviathan]

36 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't think having an extra 10-15M this offseason would be significant

First off, we have a 50M albatross potentially on our hands if we don't deal him.  I absolutely think we'll have to pony up some money, but in the scenario we don't deal him there is a very real possibility we eat every one of those dollars for a player well below that level of value.  In my scenario, we don't, that's one of the perks.  We're only on the hook for a portion and free up the rest for other targets.  To that point....

I don't think you'll find any person to agree with you that this figure being available to spend is not "significant".  It's also a mischaracterization of my argument to boil down that available funding to the addition of JA Happ or Colome.  That is precisely the kind of unfair framing I'm talking about.  I suggested that money could be part of the larger pool of available money to help add more pitching or shortstop talent to the roster in the form of someone like Thor or Gray or Seager or any number of free agents.  You frame it as more JA Happs.  That's the definition of a mischaracterization.

I can understand preferring Donaldson to an additional 15M. What I can't understand is looking at 15M more in spending flexibility on a roster desperate with needs and saying - "meh, insignificant".  

[chpettit19]

23 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

First off, we have a 50M albatross potentially on our hands if we don't deal him.  I absolutely think we'll have to pony up some money, but in the scenario we don't deal him there is a very real possibility we eat every one of those dollars for a player well below that level of value.  In my scenario, we don't, that's one of the perks.  We're only on the hook for a portion and free up the rest for other targets.  To that point....

I don't think you'll find any person to agree with you that this figure being available to spend is not "significant".  It's also a mischaracterization of my argument to boil down that available funding to the addition of JA Happ or Colome.  That is precisely the kind of unfair framing I'm talking about.  I suggested that money could be part of the larger pool of available money to help add more pitching or shortstop talent to the roster in the form of someone like Thor or Gray or Seager or any number of free agents.  You frame it as more JA Happs.  That's the definition of a mischaracterization.

I can understand preferring Donaldson to an additional 15M. What I can't understand is looking at 15M more in spending flexibility on a roster desperate with needs and saying - "meh, insignificant".  

Quit saying it's a mischaracterization. It's not. It's me disagreeing with your stance. It's not unfair framing it's me providing context and reasons for why I say what I do. I explained why I don't think they'd get much more than Happ or Colome types. By the time somebody traded for Donaldson (because it wouldn't be their first priority or plan A) the Thor, Gray, Seager types would be gone. That's not a mischaracterization, it's me saying I disagree and here's why. This is at least the 3rd time I've explained that trading for Donaldson won't be anyone's plan A and they will go after FAs first and turn to a Donaldson trade after they miss on FAs. I believe by the time somebody turned to that option any money the Twins would save this season wouldn't be able to go to anyone of significance because they'd already be signed. 

And your first paragraph is you explaining why nobody else would want to spend prospect capital and 15M a year on Donaldson. If he's a risk of being an albatross to the Twins he's a risk of being an albatross to them. But you keep arguing not only will teams want to take on that albatross, but they'll want to give a "decent return" to do so. 

I've explained numerous times why I think it's insignificant. I don't know how else to say it. I've provided the context for why I think that. If they can trade Donaldson and gain an extra 15M in early November I'm all good with it. That's not realistic. Nobody is going to be putting "Trade for Josh Donaldson" at the top of their offseason to do lists. Nobody. They're going to wait until everybody that they'd like to spend that 15M on is signed and then say "hey, may as well see if we can give the Pohlads 15M for Donaldson."

You are yet to provide a team with a legit need for a 3B who may want to give up a prospect for the chance to pay Donaldson 15M a year for 2 years despite your proclaimed "very real chance" he can't perform to expectations. Your best example is the Giants wanting him over a longer Bryant deal. I've refuted that and laid out the 3B situation for every other contender all the way down to the Tigers. Your claim is he'll have an early offseason market (if they can't trade him early in the offseason they're simply cutting payroll because there's nobody of significance left to sign late, as I've stated over and over) of teams wanting to take on a potential albatross despite none of them having a priority need at 3B. None of this is me mischaracterizing anything. This is what you're saying. And I've laid out numerous examples and reasons for why I disagree. If your best response is "you're mischaracterizing me" over and over while I continue to explain that I'm simply disagreeing and providing reasons why I think you're the one struggling to find "fair framing" for an argument.

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Quit saying it's a mischaracterization.

Except it is.  You know what kind of players are still available late into an offseason?  Josh Donaldson.  Liam Hendricks.  George Springer. Hell, pretty much everyone now signs well after the start of the offseason and the winter meetings.  FA isn't the frenzy it once was, it plays out over time.  The notion that the only way that money will be available is after everyone is signed is not commiserate with how FA has actually played out recently.  Whenever that money comes free, it will be a significant asset.  The idea it's only going to be when the JA Happs are out there is not in touch with reality. 

Now, to address the larger point, a fair way to argue your point would be to say "I understand 15M is a lot of money, I just have trepidation about how that will be spent".  In no way does that imply the asset is insignificant.  In no way does it imply I want to swap Donaldson for Happ.  In no way does it ignore the way FA and trading works and how those things align.  It's a value statement of what you value more.  It isn't that hard to do, yet time and again you've done the opposite starting with the silly denial that 15M in additional spending flexibility is not a significant asset.  It's like arguing a house itself, today, isn't valuable because the people about to move in are sloppy, destructive jerks.  Maybe that value looks worse in a year, but that's not a fair valuation right now.

There will be teams that will have an interest in Donaldson, even with the risk he has, and moving him would provide a significant spending flexibility.  How it will be spent I have no idea, I'm not a fortune teller.  I can only assess the balance of assets and make a decision.  I value 15M in a rich FA crop with a team with a ton of holes to fill.  Simple as that.

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

Except it is.  You know what kind of players are still available late into an offseason?  Josh Donaldson.  Liam Hendricks.  George Springer. Hell, pretty much everyone now signs well after the start of the offseason and the winter meetings.  FA isn't the frenzy it once was, it plays out over time.  The notion that the only way that money will be available is after everyone is signed is not commiserate with how FA has actually played out recently.  Whenever that money comes free, it will be a significant asset.  The idea it's only going to be when the JA Happs are out there is not in touch with reality. 

Now, to address the larger point, a fair way to argue your point would be to say "I understand 15M is a lot of money, I just have trepidation about how that will be spent".  In no way does that imply the asset is insignificant.  In no way does it imply I want to swap Donaldson for Happ.  In no way does it ignore the way FA and trading works and how those things align.  It's a value statement of what you value more.  It isn't that hard to do, yet time and again you've done the opposite starting with the silly denial that 15M in additional spending flexibility is not a significant asset.  It's like arguing a house itself, today, isn't valuable because the people about to move in are sloppy, destructive jerks.  Maybe that value looks worse in a year, but that's not a fair valuation right now.

There will be teams that will have an interest in Donaldson, even with the risk he has, and moving him would provide a significant spending flexibility.  How it will be spent I have no idea, I'm not a fortune teller.  I can only assess the balance of assets and make a decision.  I value 15M in a rich FA crop with a team with a ton of holes to fill.  Simple as that.

You're conveniently ignoring how I've repeatedly said that trading for Donaldson won't be at the top of anyone's list and won't happen until after they all took their swings spending their 15M on FAs. It's not about date it's about what's left and what options they have to improve their team. 

A fair way to argue my point is to say I don't think 15M is significant if there's not players worth 15M on the market. Which I have. Over and over. Having 15M extra when there's nobody left to spend it on is simply putting 15M in Pohlad's pocket and the team not having Donaldson. I've never suggested you want to trade Donaldson for Happ. What I have done is repeatedly say I don't believe there will be players of a higher caliber than Happ available by the time teams would look to trade for Donaldson. Your house analogy doesn't fit my point. I'm saying by the time somebody wants to buy the house they've already tried to buy every other house they wanted more and now you're the only house available to them and after you sell your house the houses available to you are worse than the one you had.

Name a team and a situation that leads to them wanting to trade for Donaldson, even with the risk he has. You haven't named one yet. Beyond SF there are no contenders with significant needs at 3B. Again, I've explained why I think that over and over and your response is simply "there'll be teams." If you ignore all context and just say you can have an extra 15M with that "rich FA crop" available then you have a point. I've provided context after context after context for why I don't think there will be a "rich FA crop" left by the time you can trade Donaldson. 

My first point, and the one I continue to try to make, is that I feel Donaldson is a poor trade chip during the offseason when teams have numerous other places to spend their money and not have to give up prospects. He's a better fit as a midseason trade for a team that loses their 3B, or DH, and is fighting for a division. Which is why the Mets were interested last year. You continue to argue in a vacuum Donaldson gone, 15M spent on big-ish name FA. I continue to say that isn't realistic in the real world due to the reasons why you want to move Donaldson and the nature of teams having numerous options to spend their money on without having to trade any prospect capital.

[tony&rodney]

4 hours ago, LastOnePicked said:

Gotta admit, I'm surprised by the number of folks who seem to think this team can compete next year. I expect that hope will cool a bit after the free agent signing period ends and we head into late February.

The future of the Twins as far as being competitive in 2022 is solely in the hands of Falvey with the blessings of Jim Pohlad. It is as simple as that really. Going by past practices, you are likely correct in being realistically pessimistic. However, some of us are pain in the ass hopeless optimists that look for trades that both teams are amenable to and a few simple free agent signings. A little juggling of resources and a $150 million dollar budget. Of course, you could be right.

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

 I continue to say that isn't realistic in the real world 

The crux.  Josh Donaldson has a bad history of missing time due to injury.  His numbers are trending down and he is aging.  He makes a lot of money.  Therefore it is "unrealistic in the real world" to think his value will go anywhere but down as his career progresses.  Therefore anyone suggesting he would have more value at the deadline is plainly wrong. /End unfair framing

That's how we play this game right?  Of course, all of those things are true.  In fact, they are more factual than any of your assertions.  Yet characterizing your argument as "unrealistic in the real world" would be a terribly unfair framing.  So I haven't done it.  Yet you repeatedly do this. Merely having facts does not lead to a certain conclusion.  It is the basis for a justified conclusion, not a certainty. (And I have several times over acknowledged you have a justified belief.  Alas the reverse is not true) It is still very much possible JD could be more valuable at the deadline.  At no point, despite an array of facts, have I questioned the validity or realisticness of your stance.  Only stated my disagreement.  By contrast, you have questioned the validity of my stance on the flawed logic I showed above.  It's a BS tactic.

Is there a chance Donaldson will not be tradeable until an inopportune time in the offseason?  Yes.  However, over the last few years player signing dates have been pushed further and further back so how likely that is highly debatable.  It's definitely not an absolute or a fact like the ones I stated above.  Could there be a limited market for Donaldson?  Yes.  Is it an absolute, unrealistic fact that is true?  Quite obviously no, that's speculation.  We disagree about probabilities, which is fine.  We shouldn't be stating the other's position as absurd or unrealistic in absolutes.  It's unfair framing, perhaps you can join me finally in ending that.

[Squirrel]

19 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The crux.  Josh Donaldson has a bad history of missing time due to injury.  His numbers are trending down and he is aging.  He makes a lot of money.  Therefore it is unrealistic in the real world to think his value will go anywhere but down as his career progresses.  Therefore anyone suggesting he would have more value at the deadline is plainly wrong.

No ... no one is plainly wrong. We have opinions that don't align. That's why we discuss. This isn't, and never has been, about being right. You feel as passionate about your opinion 'being right' as others do. You have made some valid points and arguments, as has chpettit. Both have given the community a lot to think about. But you don't agree. At this point I think the two of you are talking past one another and going in circles, and I think it's time to agree to disagree and walk away. This isn't a fight to the death that there is one ultimate winner.