drivlikejehu

I like Fangraphs #17 ranking. His current approach doesn't seem like it's going to work, and he's 25 years old . . . just not sure where the value comes from, given lack of defense and the likelihood of very low batting averages with only average walk rates (i.e., low OBP).

There's zero reason to think Berrios would now refuse to sign an extension that met his demands. The issue is that he wants more than the Twins think is reasonable. So the arbitration issue is a nothing-burger.

If your standard for making a trade is whether you fleece the other team, you won't make many trades. TD posters demand that the Twins make trades that are not actually possible - for players that aren't available, with prospects that aren't good enough, etc. Those fantasy trades are really awesome compared to what happens in an actual trade. But they are just make believe. I'm glad the Twins aren't taking the division for granted. The simple fact, which many TD posters either cannot grasp or choose to ignore, is that teams can get hot in the post-season even without an ace starter. If the Twins win the division and go into the playoffs with an elite lineup, competent starters 1-4, and a good bullpen, they will absolutely have a solid chance to advance.

I love how there is always a chorus of posters demanding trades to bolster the club, and then when the Twins make a trade, complaining loudly about it (i.e., why didn't the Twins trade a few C prospects and get an ace!!). Graterol has a ton of question marks. His actual strikeout rate as a minor league starter was rather pedestrian. He's never shown he can handle anything like an MLB starter workload. His change-up needs work. Guys who throw super hard have a higher injury risk, as do pitchers that have already had TJ. Giving him up is a risk, but it's certainly a calculated one.

I like it. Maeda is similar to Odorizzi in that he can be really effective 2 times through the order . . . he's not a guy that will pitch 7-8 innings in a playoff start, but with 26-man rosters, he can pitch 4-5 strong innings and then turn it over to the bullpen. He's also a flyball pitcher that won't be hurt much by the Twins' infield.

It's literally a zero-risk signing.

All 30 clubs would take Thorpe.

The prior regime also struggled mightily to find pitching, and is largely responsible for the Twins' position-player heavy talent distribution.

I'm not sure that I see the upside in extending him. Seems better to wait until after the season and just pay him market value if it makes sense to do so. In general, 30-year old relievers are not particularly reliable assets, and May has an injury history.

I'm at a loss as to how the free agency of Royce Lewis is related to the signing of Josh Donaldson.

That's fair. I misunderstood your point, and don't disagree. I would say that, in general, quality differences are less as you tick down the list (i.e., clubs have more variation in their top 3 relievers than in relievers 6-8). The Twins could potentially get creative in the post-season, it's just too early to say whether that's going to be a viable strategy . . . all kinds of variables related to health, prospect development, etc.

If the Twins' "Great Advantage" is that they have a crystal ball and *know* which of their prospects will bust . . . they absolutely should be using that advantage (while taking great pains to keep it a secret). If the Twins' "Great Advantage" is that they have an above-average farm system, well, no that doesn't mean they should eagerly trade away prospects. They should certainly look for beneficial opportunities. But the article is a mess of nonsensical comparisons. I wonder if the author recalled that one of the Twins' recent 'Cashman-like' 40-man space-clearing trades was to give away Nick Anderson. It's also a fantasy that the Twins can just magically re-generate their farm system, if they trade away a substantial portion of its value. Their current farm strength owes in large part to two factors that we hope not to see for many years: picking at the top of the draft, and trading away players at the deadline. Without those avenues, it will be difficult or impossible for the Twins to maintain a strong system even *without* major trades. Everyone would love for the Twins to get a top of the rotation starter. But as to the general notion that the Twins are foolishly hoarding prospects for no reason, it's just categorically false, and very poorly argued.

I don't think this adds up - if Team A has far better relievers #1-#5 than Team B, it would take an extremely bizarre situation for Team B to have equivalent or superior overall numbers. I doubt you could find a single such example in baseball history. I mean, excluding position players, the Twins used 20 different relievers in the 2nd half last year, and 8 of them had ERAs over 5.00. So I'm really struggling to see any objective evidence to support even the most general reading of your post.

The premium is going to be just as bad or even worse if you try to get a pitcher from a team that thinks it can contend (even if the belief is delusional). Allegedly, the Rockies think they can trade Arenado and still contend. Clubs like the Rangers, Reds, D'backs, etc. have made a number of contention-oriented moves and aren't going to deal away a starting pitcher at this point. If you look at specific names, rather than speaking in generalities, it's fairly difficult to come up with many realistic off-season targets. Chris Archer presumably could be had, but Pittsburgh is more likely to hope he rebounds and he brings in more at the deadline. Not sure I buy the claims of poverty from the Red Sox and Cubs, that would allegedly cause them to consider dumping payroll.

The problem is that very few clubs consider themselves to be in rebuilding mode at this point. And the few clubs that do have minimal starting pitching. By the trade deadline, additional clubs will be facing the reality that they aren't contenders, and currently unavailable pitchers will become available.

It's interesting that the deal includes what is effectively deferred money (the $8 million buyout of Donaldson's age 38 season). His actual annual salary of $21 million in the four guaranteed years will still leave the Twins with tons of payroll room in 2021 and beyond. Obviously for 2020 they must be closing in on the limit, which will impact their SP trade options.

I guess it was a "serious offer" after all.

The Twins were 6th in MLB last year in ERA-. They do lack an 'ace,' to be sure, but this idea that the Twins have a horrible pitching staff doesn't hold up, at least as it relates to the regular season.

With shifting, high fastballs, and high K rates, infield defense has never been less important in the history of baseball.

Graterol is already a better pitcher than Alcantara.

I never 'scolded' anyone for being disappointed. I'm disappointed. I just pointed out that the front office couldn't rationally be held responsible for things like Bumgarner only wanting to play in Arizona, and that it wasn't productive to pre-judge the off-season before it was over. I think those were and are common sense. The off-season has not played out favorably for the Twins, but there's a long way to go until the allegedly unavoidable catastrophes that await (missing playoffs, or starting some dude again in ALDS, etc.). The front office's plans didn't work out, and now they are having to adjust. I'll wait and see how effectively they do that before declaring them willfully negligent noobs that know less about baseball than the average TD poster.

The problem is that they can't get into specific negotiation details. That would only make it even harder for them to attract players, and it's already rather difficult. The only thing they can really do - and should do - is admit that they didn't achieve their goals in free agency. They've implied it already and it's plainly obvious, but still I think it would be the appropriate course of action.

I'll say "advocate for" if that sounds better to you, the wording isn't the point. There are a number of teams that have their eyes on contending, yet have significant gaps in their roster. These teams should have just as much reason as the Twins to do what you suggest (whether for SP or another position). But they don't do it. Even when they have the payroll to theoretically compensate for a lack of young players, still they cling to their top prospects. The reason is that inexpensive young talent is the most important asset in the game, even for big market clubs, let alone mid-to-small market ones. The most successful deals (for the acquirer) is when the veteran is underrated. That was the key for the Astros, with respect to Verlander and Cole. On a smaller scale, Odorizzi is also a good example. The other side of it being franchise-crippling moves like Pittsburgh getting Archer.

If this was a smart strategy, presumably we would see teams trying it more often. Yet, these sorts of deals are extremely rare. All over the league, clubs have needs at various positions, yet they almost never try to fill them by overpaying with prospects in the off-season. Anytime you demand the Twins do something that almost never happens, you should probably wonder about why that might be.

Interesting how Cleveland had an elite staff, yet still lost. It's almost as if there's more to winning in the playoffs than just starting pitching.