drivlikejehu

Jim Pohlad is prone to dubious responses to reporter questions, I don't think too much should be read into this.

There's no reporting that suggests Buxton is looking for an epic guaranteed amount. When looking at the Twins' existing commitments, it's hard for me to see how extending Buxton could possibly interfere with any other plans . . . Even if he is fundamentally injury-prone (which I think is at least exaggerated, though perhaps not entirely fictional), it's still a no-brainer to me. I haven't lost faith in the FO yet but failing to extend Buxton might get me there.

Sano always does this. He's basically a league-average starting first baseman. Sure, he goes through these slumps - if he didn't, he'd be a superstar - but he's ultimately been pretty consistent throughout his career, once you account for swings in BABIP. He's keeping the spot warm for Kirilloff, Larnach, or Sabato.

Pitchers are going to find weaknesses and exploit them. It's a fun story but he's still probably a 4th outfielder.

Since the #35 pick almost never does anything in the Majors, "not liking" a #35 pick will almost always result in you being "right." It doesn't mean anything. You aren't a scout and have no ability to independently evaluate draft picks. You can certainly provide an uneducated opinion and, as noted above, negative opinions on draft picks will usually be correct, outside of the very top of the draft.

Rooker reached MLB last year and was playing fine until he got hurt. What other corner OFs has the front office drafted that you would expect to be ready, based on typical timelines, factoring in a lost season to Covid? Oh, and fun fact - the prior 18 players drafted at #35 overall, before Rooker, have combined for less than 6 total career WAR. So, yeah, what an epic whiff, when the guy might still turn into a contributor and, in fact, could *easily* wind up with more career WAR than any #35 pick since the White Sox took Aaron Rowand in 1998. But, you know, those facts sure aren't very fun when mindless criticism is available instead.

It wouldn't.

Criticism loses its weight when literally every decision is 'wrong', save maybe 1 every 5 years or so. That's just criticism for its own sake.

Astudillo is a great fit for the 26th roster spot. The only alternative use of it that would make sense would be adding another platoon bat, but aside from kinda-sorta Kepler, there's no need for it. With respect to Rooker . . . it seems like maybe he's just not that good, despite having posted good top-line stats in his career-to-date. The projection systems generally have him as a tick above replacement level, and as he gets older his defense will only get worse. He needs a major hitting breakthrough to hold down an MLB roster spot, and the Twins evidently want to work on that at the alternate site/minor league level.

Basing initial assignments on spring training would not be more effective than the current system of relying on a player's overall career. That's a pretty basic fact that has been demonstrated countless times.

I think the most understated factor here isn't so much that Rooker 'earned' a spot over Kirilloff - though one can certainly make a strong case that he did - but rather that the Twins need to find out whether Rooker is part of their future plans (as more than a last-guy-on-the-bench role). Rooker has had superficially good numbers pretty much throughout his pro career to date, but his strikeout rate is a red flag, and his lack of defensive value means he needs to be a superb hitter to someday start for the Twins. He's 26 and the computer projections are for production below the MLB average. Undoubtedly the Twins coaching staff has been working with him to optimize his approach at the plate, and by all accounts he is a hard worker. But unless he takes a significant step forward, he's a borderline major leaguer. If Rooker plays well, he could be a helpful trade piece (not to get a star, but say, to help pick up a 7th inning guy before the deadline). Alternatively, the Twins could look for ways to get both him and Kirilloff ABs during 2021. And, while I don't think this is the case, there's a possibility that Kirilloff is just overrated. Post high school, he has only demonstrated success in A-ball. He also lacks defensive value, so he could turn out to be a solid MLB hitter and still be a borderline starter.

Zero chance of Lindor or Seager, but the other three . . . are a little bit above zero, but not a lot.

My inclination would be to only buy out one or maybe two free agent years. Maybe something like (starting with this year) 7.5/12.5/15? He'd be locking in a nice chunk of change for just a one-year delay in hitting the market. I'd like another year of his prime but I don't see him being particularly valuable on the other side of 30.

I'm a huge Celestino fan. He of course has a ways to go, particularly on offense, but he has a broad skill set and has performed well in the lower minors. He definitely could be a 2.5 - 3 WAR guy in CF. There's an outside chance his power improves and he's even more than that in his prime. Given the risks inherent to prospects, the most likely outcome is probably 4th outfielder, but I have a good feeling.

I never said the Twins' 2019 bullpen was perfect. None are. But no, the information I requested is not readily available - I asked where you ranked the Twins' 2019 bullpen, and you refuse to answer. Truthfully, no facetiousness, I don't even know for sure if we agree or disagree. You won't share your actual assessment, and instead point to anecdotes that do nothing to evaluate the bullpen overall. I just don't see how someone can say a front office fell short in a particular area and then not even say whether that area was good or bad.