by jiminy

Not too long ago Pineda would have been our number one: a former Yankee, throws 95 mph, paid $10 million as a free agent. We've had worse starters pitching our season opener. Hell yeah I'll take that as a number five. And he's still getting better.

So far the story of the off season has continued to tthe story of the season: the Twins have what looks to be an explosive lineup top to bottom that could challenge the Indians in a weak AL central--making their refusal to dip into the loaded free agent market for relievers except for one bargain basement closer completely inexplicable. I know their plan is to invest in bullpen help via midseason trades if they prove they can stay competitive, but by then it may be too late. The bullpen has already blown two winnable games, and looked scary in a couple more, and it's not even mid-April. Six games by mid-season could cost them the division. I know every bullpen blows a game now and then. But it's not normal to gift seven free passes in a row. And yes I'm counting Odorizzi's contributions, because with a deeper bullpen he wouldn't have been left in that long.

If he was willing to sign for 1/16M or 2/30M, he would not be a free agent right now. The Twins would jump at that (or should anyway), but so would every other team.

I agree about not rushing him back. What about his play last season shows he would perform better than Gonzalez or Astudillo right off the bat, especially coming off an injury? See what he can do at AAA first. If he's hitting like 2017, hitch your wagon to him and go for a ride. But wait and make sure 2018 is behind him first.

While Gonzalez would seem to push Astudillo out of the utility player role, there's a good chance that could change. Gonzalez is only the utility player until someone gets hurt or gets benched. As Bonnes and Gleeman pointed out on the podcast, there are question marks to make it through the year at several positions: Sano could get hurt or moved from third or demoted; Schoop could fail to bounce back; and an injury could occur at just about any position. The benefit of Gonzalez is he can fill in almost anywhere as a starter without a big drop off. And when that happens, Astudillo or Adrianza would probably replace him in the utility role. Since Astudillo can also catch, and is a better hitter, he'll have a good shot at replacing Gonzalez when he becomes a starter.

Way too early to give up on him learning a third pitch! A starter is much more valuable than a reliever. Give him a couple years to master a changeup. Only reason to call him up this year is if he's the difference maker in a pennant race, like St. Louis used to do with their phenoms. If that happens, great. But otherwise the next two years should focus on his changeup and curve. Why start his free agent clock before then, and save his best years for the Yankees?

The problem with using him in the majors as a reliever is that he will concentrate on using his best pitches, to get people out. What he needs to do is improve his secondary pitches. You can't do that in the majors, with games on the line. That's what the minor leagues are for. If the goal is to succeed as a starter, keep him in AAA, where he can focus on improving his secondary pitches. Only in the minors can he afford to use his least effective pitches, even when it's not the best way to get batters out. That's exactly what he needs to do: Throw lots of curveballs and sliders, even if it means getting knocked around a little. And when they stop hitting them, THEN he's ready for the majors. And he'll arrive with four pitches, as good as he can make them without facing MLB hitters, and take it from there. I don't get why people say he'll improve faster in the majors, and is wasting his time in the minors. Can he work on his weaker off speed pitches in real games? Maybe I'm wrong, and he can work on his other pitches on the side, while going fastball/slider in games. I don't see it though. At some point he needs to use them to improve. To me, the only real justification for stunting the development of a potential starter is if you're in a pennant race. If every out counts, and you've got a fireballer who can help you in the pen right now, sure, screw the future and go for it. But for where the Twins are now, I would say, If you want to make him a reliever, do it because you're sure he'll never master a changeup or a curve. But if there's still hope, give the guy a chance to reach his potential. If our real window is a year or two away, do what gives you the best chance of turning him into a top of the line starter. And if he's not ready yet, do what you can to get him there. Which is to focus on his secondary pitches, not the ones he's already mastered. If the season goes surprisingly well, and the Twins are in contention, and you need another arm, grab him from AAA and throw him in the bullpen. He'll be even better for having worked on his secondary pitches. But unless you think his offspeed pitches are hopeless and are ready to make him a reliever permanently, I wouldn't pull the plug quite yet. But the only point in making him a reliever now is if the Twins are in win-now mode, and they really need him; or if they plan to throw him out there when the game is already lost, and he can experiment without a cost. If the Twins get so far out of the race that they're throwing in the towel, I guess they could let him work on his curve and change with major league batters then, too, even if it means getting knocked around. But otherwise, I'd let him work on his off speed pitches in AAA.

Seems like a good guy to lock up long-term. If he turns into an ace, you have a star locked up at an almost affordable rate. If he remains inconsistent his whole career, well I'd rather pay a home-grown talent who is fun to watch and a good guy. And even if he never becomes a number one, he'll still be useful somewhere in the rotation, and you need those guys too. The only truly terrible scenario is a bad injury. I'd say, insure the contract, and keep him around. I really don't want to see him pitching for the Yankees.

Baseball-reference.com projected Mejia to have a 3.87 ERA in 2019. Martin Perez they projected to have a 4.85 ERA. That's moving the needle quite a lot, actually. Just in the wrong direction.

Funny, that is my feeling about the Twins. ...Yawn. How could anyone possibly be excited about this team? For the second straight year (at least), the bullpen was an obvious need. And there were loads of quality arms on the market, most of whom signed two-year contracts for less than $10M a year. Even I, a long-time Pohlad skeptic, assumed we would sign a couple quality relievers. That wouldn't even bring payroll up to league average, or up to 50% of revenue. To not even do that is just baffling. I don't know why I even pay attention to a team that is spending under 40% of revenue on payroll. What's the point? I am starting to spend more time on athleticsnation, and it's a lot more fun. I also like the Brewers, and anyone else who can give the bloated coastal payroll monsters a run for their money. But this one isn't even trying. Most of their key players had a bad year last year. Some may rebound. But even if Buxton, Sano, Schoop, Kepler, and all our other former-future-stars miraculously blossom at once, it won't matter, because they don't have the pitching to compete. Match our lineup, our rotation, and our bullpen, man for man, with the Yankees. Is there one player who could beat out their counterpart for a job? I don't need a championship to enjoy baseball. I can enjoy a pennant race, even knowing they can't really win in the playoffs. And it wouldn't take much to deliver one, in this division. But they have barely even pretended to fill the many holes left from last year. And the odds of all their long-shot bets hitting at once are so low, I can't get excited until I actually see it happening, which it probably won't. Rooting for a team like this is all about hope. All it would have taken to hook me would be to shell out a league average payroll. Give me one real playoff quality starter, and two legit bullpen arms, and I will start dreaming on the potential of all their giant question marks. I've been enjoying the thrill of "what if" my whole life. I would do it again if, you gave me even the pretense of real hope. But this year, I'm not feeling it.

I understand the argument for using a down year to audition and improve young pitchers, not block them with one-year veterans who won't be here beyond that anyway. But you usually need 8 to 10 starters by year's end, so I'm not convinced anyone would really be blocked. Several will fail due to injury or ineffectiveness, so it's not either/or. Realistically we need them all. Also, I'm not convinced the Twins should be playing for 2020 yet. Cleveland could suffer some injuries, and the rest of the division is weak enough that the Twins could be competitive. I'm not optimistic about 2019. There is playoff upside on the hitting side. But this team is not a playoff team as currently constructed, because the pitching staff is far, far short of contender level. So if they have the budget to invest in a few more starter candidates and a few quality relievers, on one-year deals, why not? These are all low risk players, in that they would not require guaranteed salaries past 2019, if that. Would Mejia having to earn a spot (I'm not convinced he has yet), or Romero refining his pitches a bit more before starting his service clock, really be so bad? You have to expect at least two injuries, and at least two guys not pitching well. Do we really want to work your way down to Dejong starting in the majors in 2019? I'd hoped we'd put those years behind us. Personally I'd love to see Buchholz or Miley on the roster, as well as anyone else the scouts think might bust out.

For those concerned about spending on a veteran bat instead of pitching: I think this actually increases the probability they will invest in pitching this off-season. In previous interviews about Cruz Falvey mentioned a trade off between the immediate upgrade he would bring vs. The opportunity to develop and audition young talent. If they took the slower approach there would be no need to sign a win-now pitcher. Committing to this year on offense means they now have a reason to sign playoff caliber starters and relievers, which they would not need if this was a rebuilding year. What's the point of signing a top DH on a rebuilding team? That money is wasted if they don't create a pitching staff to match. Not saying they will invest in this flight pitching, of course, or that if they do that it will happen this year. The second year option may give them a reason to wait and see how Buxton and Sano do first before committing any big bucks to 2019. But they have more reason to now than they did yesterday. What's the point of signing a top DH on a rebuilding team? That money is wasted if they don't create a pitching staff to match. If the team is winning, or in the verge, they have him for 2020. If they flop, he's trade material for more building blocks. Worst case they are only risking 14.3M, out of revenue of $260+ million. This seems to offer upside in almost any scenario to come with very little risk. Unless you're a huge Austin fan I can't see much downside.

I agree. Buxton floundered up here because he was promoted too fast. Same with Gomez, Span, Hicks, Revere. Fans demanded to see them, they weren't ready, and fans turned on them. In every case, they had good years later, at an age they should have been peaking for the Twins. But we'd already burned through their early years and given up on them. Now there will be pressure to do the same with Gordon, because they didn't re-sign Dozier or Escobar, even though he has shown no signs of being ready either. All the outrage at not promoting Buxton at the end of a lost year was completely backwards, IMO. They haven't been stingy with his service time, they squandered it, hampering his development to boot. He clearly lost his confidence; facing big league pitching too early made him constantly change his stance and swing. He shouldn't have been promoted till he improved his pitch recognition and learned to handle outside breaking balls. Then, when promoted, he might have taken off. He still might. But personally I'd want to see him do it consistently in the minors for a while before dumping him into fire. I'd rather see him spend another whole year in AAA than fall apart again in the majors. Same with Sano. Earn your spot on the roster by showing you have learned to cut down the strikeouts. If you don't give them time to change bad habits in the minors, they might never change them.

Back to the earlier discussion about openers. Someone above said: "Once again, I get the principal of the idea. Seems to make sense. But there is also no guarantee, this idea or a conventional lineup, how the game plays out. .... You mentioned Trout being stuck in the dugout, or on deck, in a key situation, with an adjusted lineup. But even in a normal lineup, who can guarantee Trout would come to bat in any late game situation? No matter how you stack your line-up, or pitchers, there is still so many random outcomes involved that I just don't see a relevance that makes sense." It doesn't have to happen every time to make a difference over a season. It just has to tilt the odds. Let's say that you and I are flipping a coin: Heads I win, tails you win. I suggest this modification: if it's tails the first time, we flip again, so I get a second chance to toss a heads. It doesn't mean I would always win. There are still many possible scenarios in which the second toss would be a tails, too. So, what's the problem? Suppose you said that was unfair, and I answered, "I get the principal of what you're saying. Seems to make sense. But there is also no guarantee, this system or a conventional coin toss, how it plays out. .... You mentioned that I could win the coin toss in a key situation, with an adjusted system. But even in a normal coin toss, who can guarantee tails would come up in a key situation? No matter how you stack your coins, or how you toss them, there are still so many random outcomes involved that I just don't see a relevance that makes sense." Would you buy that argument? A statistical advantage doesn't have to pay off every time to still give one side an advantage over time. Same with a pitcher starting with the middle of the batting order. He may still face the top of the order in a key situation. He may still face the top of the order the same number of times as the bottom of the order. But he will ALWAYS face the bottom of the order a third time BEFORE he faces the top of the order a third time. And unless he stops after facing everyone in the order exactly once, he will face the bottom of the order MORE times than the top of the order, and NEVER face the top of the order more times than the bottom of the order. Doesn't mean the hitters at the bottom of the order will never beat you -- they're in the major leagues for a reason -- but baseball is a game of statistics and percentages, and over thousands of at bats, these things really do add up. I'm not dismissing your point that there are many, many other variables, and many ways things can still go wrong for either side. But so what? This particular statistical advantage is designed only to maximize the innings your (former) starter can pitch before the team's best hitters start to get too familiar with his stuff and time him. It doesn't guarantee that your opener will never give up runs. That will obviously happen sometimes. But that opener was a guy who was only going to pitch one inning anyway. You aren't trying to stretch him over as many innings as possible. So there is less reason to pitch him against lesser batters than a starter. Quite the opposite. You're wasting him against lesser batters, because whoever he faces is not going to see him a second time anyway. You want to make sure you don't waste your ace reliever against guys a lesser pitcher would have gotten out. And opening ensures that, in a way closing doesn't. The bottom line is, why not? This way your opener--whether it's your ace reliever, or someone picked to neutralize the handedness of the people at the top of the order--gets matched up against the players of your choice, not some randos who happen to come to the plate in the 9th inning. Your starter maximizes the number of batters faced before their best hitters get the third-time-through-the-order advantage. And the downside is... what?

Given the many sound points made above, can we belatedly give a little credit to the Twins for NOT doing this to Buxton? They've been pilloried for not playing him in September. Now they're being pilloried for playing Sano and Rosario. The bottom line is it's always a tough call, and we should probably remember that and give them a little benefit of the doubt. Personally I think they did the right thing with Buxton. They rushed him back twice already, to no one's benefit, including his. I'm fine with giving him a fresh start next spring. Preferably after working on his pitch recognition all winter. I complain as loudly as anybody when I think they're being cheap, or rushing people to the show for marketing reasons, etc. But in this case, I think they were just being smart. If anything they should have done the same thing with Sano and Rosario.

I totally agree. A consistent strike zone would allow (disciplined) batters to lay off bad pitches and swing only at good pitches. I think that would ideed increase meaningful contact, at least for players with good plate discipline, and greatly improve the game. I hate seeing batters punished for having a good eye. It's pernicious and destructive. And it's not just one pitch -- a single pitch can ruin an entire at bat. How often have you seen this: The count is 2-1. The pitcher drops a curveball two inches off the plate, trying to get the hitter to bite. The batter resists. It's 3-1. It was a good try, but now the pitcher is in trouble. He has to come over the plate now, and the batter knows it. The batter's plate discipline has been rewarded -- if he can make the most of it.... But no! The umpire called it a strike! Suddenly it's 2-2, not 3-1. The pitcher is no dummy -- he throws another pitch, in the same spot, or even another inch outside. The batter has no choice but to swing. The umpire has already shown he's expanded the zone, so you can't expect him to change now. But swinging is futile, of course. The ball darts three or more inches low and away, the batter strikes out or hits a weak grounder, and the at-bat is over. And all because of one bad call! That single missed call changed a 3-1 hitter's count to an out. And if there are men on base, it can change the course of the entire inning. Instead of first and second with one out, it's a man on first with two out. The next batter flies out, and the inning is over, and you're left to grumble about what might have been. How many times have you seen this happen? It was completely unfair, but there was literally nothing the batter could do. He had no choice but to swing at the next pitch, because even if the umpire knew he made a mistake, he now is going to dig in and defend the consistency of his strike zone. The pitcher knows this, the batter knows this, and the viewer knows this. And they just have to watch it play out. They also know that if the batter was unwise enough to express any disgust or disappointment at the bad call, he will be considered to have shown up the umpire, who can now be expected to call any ball within four inches of the plate a strike, lest he be seen as caving to criticism. Personally I could do without this human element. Just call a fair game, and let the best team win. Anything else is depressing and unfair. Now and then there is some gallows humor in watching a veteran pitcher mercilessly exploit the expanded strike zone. I would think that must become humiliating to the umpire. If consistency is such a point of honor, more so than accuracy or fairness, and they become unable to correct their mistake, how must it feel to have a pitcher force you to repeat it over and over? I don't blame the pitcher for doing this, mind you. I blame the umpire for being too proud to fix it. But is that what anyone really wants? Really? To me, there is no charm in this at all, only disgust. Open unfairness makes the entire contest meaningless. And a pretty big part of the fun of the game is the tension of real competition. I stopped being able to take baseball seriously as a fair competition when Livan Hernandez had his famous 15 strikeout game in the 1997 NLCS. Check out these gifs: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-consider-eric-gregg-and-livan-hernandez-in-the-1997-nlcs/ There was no way anyone could miss what was happening -- that huge strike zone was all the announcers talked about. But Gregg dug in out of pride, insisting it was fair because he was consistent. And Hernandez did what he was supposed to do -- make a fool of him. But it sure wasn't funny to the lefty-heavy Braves. It probably cost them a shot at the World Series. So yes, bring on the electronic strike zone! And if the umpire wants to remain proud and in control, give him a buzzer in his pocket that only he can hear, and let him announce to the world what only he knows. That just might work. Maybe he could even overrule the buzzer if he thinks the machines got it wrong (or he wants to prolong an at-bat instead of ending it with a fourth ball or a third strike, which statistics show umpires already routinely do). If umpires want to apply a higher standard to calls that end an at-bat, maybe that's even okay. If nothing else, for those who love controversy, it could be debated at nauseum whether to adopt this as official policy. Personally I'd go with accuracy, though. Once batters and pitchers know they won't get the call just because of their reputation, or deferential attitude, batters will defend the plate, and pitchers won't nibble quite so much. If everyone knows the consequences in advance, they will take the firm strike zone into account and play accordingly. Allowing umpires to overrule the machine will only create confusion, and force hitters to swing at bad pitches again, at least if there are three balls, and allow pitchers to toy with batters off the plate because there are two strikes and the batter can't trust the umpire to make an accurate call. I think a consistent strike zone might reward good hitters with more opportunities to make good contact. And isn't that what we all want? Except for Gregg Maddux, the Yankees, and the Red Sox, of course. Okay, apologies to anyone who considers that a cheap shot, maybe it is. And maybe not. I'm a small-market fan, and I'm strongly convinced that big name players, and big name teams, get more calls from umpires, just like stars in basketball. Do you really think an umpire is as willing to ring up Derek Jeter or Big Papi on a borderline third strike as he is if the batter is some nobody? Of course not! You're not going to bench the biggest TV draw unless the call gives you no choice. Michael Jordan knew who was bringing in the fans, so everyone knew he would get the calls. If you disagree this happens in baseball and think I'm just a whiner, call my bluff: make the strike zone indisputably fair.

I respect your skepticism, but in this case I see things differently. To me, it's jerking him around to repeatedly rush him to the majors, and throw him to the wolves before he is ready, before his pitch recognition skills are up to the task, and before he heals from his numerous injuries, and before he learns to not be so reckless with his body in the field. I don't think he has been cheated out of service time. I think the opposite: he was cheated out of the developmental time he needed to arrive ready to thrive. It looked to me like, having just traded away all our other center fielders for pitching, they had to prove they had not left a void at the MLB level, and needed a young star for the fans to hang their hopes on, so they rushed him before he was ready. I don't think they did him OR the team any favors in doing so. I think he has all the tools to be a star, but does not yet have the skills. He never had a full season in AAA. This recent six game streak of mashing AAA pitching, after a disastrous season with a terrible K/BB ratio, even in AAA, is not proof that he is ready to dominate the majors--as I still hope he can do in the long run! Personally I would not care if they kept him in AAA for another full YEAR--or more even, if it meant arriving in the majors prepared to play at an MVP level. I think his talents have been terribly wasted by promoting him to a level he cannot yet handle. How many times do we need to see him flail and fail before we start to wonder if maybe it is not his fault, but is the fault of promoting him before he was ready? What makes the promote-now people so sure his troubles are really over? Why not instead consider the proposal someone made above for a full off-season of weight lifting, and maybe winter ball, to give him the strength and muscle mass to prevent injuries, and time to work on his pitch recognition? We should all be playing the long game. That is in his interest, too. The real money issue for Buxton is not precisely when he gets his first free agent contract, but whether he gets superstar money when he does. And that depends on his long term health and the development of his skills, not a September call-up. I just don't believe three weeks of facing other September call-ups on walking-dead non-playoff teams will make or break his future. Take your time, do it right, and you'll maximize his service time AND his future earnings. That looks more like a win-win scenario to me.

I respect the decision to get something rather than nothing for a pending free agent. But I don't agree that there's no downside because we can still sign him next year anyway. He's not coming back. If they wanted to sign him, it would have made much more sense to extend him in the off season, or even midseason, than to pay peak market rate in an auction. I So I see the logic in this decision, but that doesn't mean it was not the only option. It may be the right choice now that his contineud elite performance has pushed him out of our price range. But it looks like extending him for three years at the end of last season might have been a very wise investment. If he regresses to a utility infielder again, they gambled and won. If his league-leading doubles are not a mirage, it was a missed opportunity to add a real building block. People say we can just swap in Nick Gordon, but if Nick Gordon turns into a league average player, he will have beaten the odds. Who has the better chance to lead the league in doubles, Nick Gordon, or a guy who's actually done it before? Gordon will cost less, but that's his only superior attribute. I would not have been at all sad to see the Twins spend some money and keep them both. Even if Sano's hitting rebounds he will probably move DH or 1B. So there is room in the infield for Escobar, Polanco, and Gordon to all start. Imagine having Escobar locked up for three more years. That would have some value, too. And if done a year or more ago, would have been a steal. If they had no intention of signing Escobar anyway, this trade was obviously the right thing to do. Just don't get your hopes up that he's coming back this off-season. He'll be getting starter money somewhere, unless he turns back into a pumpkin. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he'll continue to rake, and the Twins will sign him back anyway, at market rate for an elite starting infielder. But realistically, I think the time to resign him has passed. If they wanted him, they would have done so already, not waited to get in a bidding war. Given that he was gone at the end of the year anyway, this trade was the right choice. But the decision not to resign him when he was cheaper may turn out to be a huge missed opportunity. It also might not. Maybe this is a classic sell-high move. But he sure looks pretty good to me. I know I'll miss him, whether he becomes a star or not. Sorry if this is coming out too negative. I am not knocking Falvey and Levine. I think they handled this very well. There was no time I was shouting at my computer for them to do something else. I didn't know Escobar would do this either. I'm just in mourning a little. I agree with all the sound arguments why this was a smart move, exept one -- that we can still sign him back this offseason. I think it's over, and I'm in mourning over that. But they need to make the tough calls, and stocking the farm is the right thing to do. I'm just sad, and fear we could really miss the little guy for years to come.

I just want to step back a second from the assumption that the season is over, and the games are meaningless, once we are out of the playoff hunt. You know what? They are all meaningless! It's a game! And games are for fun! You don't have to win the World Series to enjoy baseball. It's also fun to win GAMES! Every game counts! If the Twins' young hitters rebounded in the second half, and we won more games than we lost the rest of the way out, I would not say, who cares, it's too late, these games give me no joy because we are too far out of it for them to mean anything. I would go, yeah! We are winning again, and I like it! I'd have happy thoughts, like, I knew it! This team isn't as bad as looked. The awesome young core is back! Maybe we are not as far off as we thought! Maybe we were right all along -- this team could make some noise, once people get back from injuries, and live up to their potential! What would be bad about that??? No question, it was much more fun last year when those games were part of a pennant race. The chance to knock the Yankees out of the playoffs gave them ten times more awesomeness. But was last year a failure because we flopped in the playoffs? It sucked, but we had a good ride! Remember how astonishing it was to have all our players hitting at once? That's why it was so hard this year when it stopped (except for the Eds). It would be a huge relief to me to see that wasn't a flash in a pan, and all that hitting talent is still there, waiting to explode! Personally I would be thrilled to watch Buxton, Sano, Kepler, and Polanco tear it up in the second half again, even in "meaningless games." Which is not to say, don't ditch the veterans who won't be here next year anyway, they are just clogging the way for the young people from reaching their potential. Is Litell, Mejia, Slegers, or Gonsalves more likely to make it into a playoff rotation? Maybe now is the time to find out! (As long as you don't short-circuit the development needed to reach their potential, of course.) But Belisle and LoMo wouldn't be missed. Same for the good rentals, like Lynn, Rodney, Duke -- I have no sentimental attachment to them, so by all means, trade them for someone who might help next year, and see what the AAA guys got. But unless we got something of real, significant value for Dozier and Escobar, I'd rather see them play out the string, and maybe help the team have a second half worthy of our pre-season expectations. Wouldn't it be fun to finally see that lineup of Mauer, Dozier, Polanco, Rosario, Escobar, Buxton, and Sano firing on all cylindars? I agree there's no point watching old guys who won't be here next year win an occasional game. But trading off every veteran for pennies on the dollar, and slogging through a depressing second half with AAAA players, would not be fun either. I'd still like to see a good team, based on a core of players we can imagine growing into a contender. So if keeping a half dozen veterans around puts them over .500 in the second half, I'm fine with that, too. I'm just saying, every win between now and October is a real, live win, a genuine victory. You have every right to celebrate winning GAMES, not just championships. Let's not lose sight of that. I'm all for dreaming about the potential of a glorious future, too--that's part of what makes little successes fun. I just don't think we should devalue good things that happen this year because we won't also win a championship. Take what you can get. The first half sucked -- but maybe the second half won't!

I read this article with great interest. Trading Gibson was not even on my radar. You're right that the pros and cons should be objectively weighed. Where I disagree, though, is that our pitching staff in 2019 would be fine without him. Every single pitcher after Berrios has a LOT of question marks. I also disagree that saving maybe $10 million should be a factor. The team already has a below-average payroll and most of the current contracts are set to expire. That money would not come close to matching Gibson's production on the free agent market. I'm just not ready to throw in the towel on 2019. And that's what such a trade would mean, IMO. If you have given up on Buxton, Sano, Kepler, Rosario, and Polanco ever being the core of a contender, sure, trade everybody. But I haven't. In which case, If this latest version of Gibson keeps it up for the next year and a half, they should not only keep but extend him. If he's good enough to pitch for a contender, why shouldn't that contender be us? Same applies to Escobar. If Buxton and Sano flop convincingly and irreversibly, and the foundation has obviously crumbled, then sure, trade anyone and anything for a reboot. But if they regain their previous peaks, they'll need all the pitching they can get. If a young, almost ready prospect with playoff quality upside was dangled in exchange, sure, of course I'd trade him. I just don't think the prospects he'd bring would be elite enough to improve the team in the near term. We've been waiting a long time for the playoff window to open, and when it does, there is plenty of revenue to pay for the players needed to fill out the roster. But I still see Gibby as playing on the next Twins playoff team, and I'd want to see equivalent talent in return.

In the podcast you discuss the seemingly baffling inconsistency in treatment of Byron Buxton. First, they rushed him back when he is still injured, without any rehab. The second time they send him down, they gave him an extended stay in the minor leagues, even after his foot is seemingly healed. Here's one possible explanation. Earlier in the year, they considered themselves to be in a pennant race. So their priority was putting the best possible team on the field any given day to keep pace with the Indians in a winnable division. They had good reason to do anything they could to hang in there, even if it meant Buxton manning centerfield at less than 100%. They couldn't afford to rest him. Cleveland had not run away with the division, and they had reinforcements coming in Santana and Polanco, Dozier could realistically explode at any time, and they still weren't sure what they might get from Sano and Buxton. Now, the pennant race is basically over. It makes a lot more sense to look ahead to next year. There is no reason to squeeze whatever production you can out of Buxton. So their priorities have changed. Sano can spend as long as it takes to master the strike zone again. Buxton can be given as long as it takes to get his offensive game back. Why not? What's the rush? I don't find these decisions inconsistent at all. Six weeks ago, they had a realistic chance to win the division. Now they don't. I think it's as simple as that. Personally I am in no hurry to watch Buxton and Sano flailing at sliders outside the zone. I'd much rather wait for them to return until they are ready to lay off those pitches, and knock the next one out of the park.

I am okay with sending Romero down. He wasn't winning us a pennant and his secondary pitches need work. He was holding his own which is great but I do not believe what we were seeing was his ceiling. Extending his service time is a bonus but not the real benefit here. I think he should be focusing on his weaknesses now not his strengths. You can't do that in the big leagues because you have to focus on getting guys out. I think a little more work in the minors is more likely to improve his performance next year and beyond than struggling to hold his own for the rest of this year instead of polishing his secondary pitches.

If they're not in a pennant race, why rush up a prospect, who probably does have more to learn, and start his service time early, rather than saving his arrival for later, when it will be more useful, and he'll be playing at a higher level? What's the downside? Why watch his growing pains in MLB, when he'll have to prioritize immediate production over working on weaknesses, when every day up here literally comes at the expense of a day later, when he's at peak value, for literally the same price? We get six years either way. Each day earlier he starts, each day as a fumbling rookie, puts him one day closer to free agency. I would argue that the only reason to justify that trade off is if you think his nearly formed talent is urgently needed to win a pennant race. I think that case could be made, actually -- they're not that far out, and could get back in it. If you want to win now, and he's your best shot at it, by all means prioritize that over service time concerns. But if you think a pennant is a pipe dream, what's the rush?

I would suggest keeping Buxton and Sano in mind when people get impatient about promoting Gordon, or Gonsalves, or whoever the savior du jour is. I never understood it when people rag on the Twins for taking their time with development. I've seen many cases where people were rushed for what looked to me like marketing reasons, to placate fans who didn't have much reason to buy a ticket otherwise during the down years. And I have seen it backfire. Gomez was brought up too early to placate people angry for losing Santana. Hicks was brought up too early. Then they traded Hicks and Revere and committed to playing Buxton whether he was ready or not. Was that wise? I don't see it. Best case, we've burned through his service time with poor production, sending him to free agency when he gets good. Worst case, we're derailed his development and he may never recover. I'm not saying he won't! But it might not be till he's about to become very expensive. Personally I'd rather have Sano and Buxton in the minors, learning to recognize and lay off outside curve balls, than watch them struggle up here. It's lose-lose-lose: the Twins' present is worse, their future is more expensive or worse because they leave; and their development seems to be being harmed by it. My guess is Gordon has plenty to learn still, too. And Gonsalves. I wouldn't mind seeing Romero work on a changeup in the minors a little more, too. I just don't see the harm in playing the long game. That way, every player plays better when he gets here, AND stays here for more of his prime. Is it really more fun to watch young players looking overmatched, while knowing that even if they do reach their potential, you just traded a year of peak value down the road for a year of AAA-quality play now? To do that, you have to be pretty damn sure their development will proceed much faster in the majors than in AAA. And I totally concede that might be the case. So If I see someone struggling in the majors, I try to give the coaches the benefit of the doubt. The coaches know much better than I what helps a young player learn. But I would not join the clamor to bring up someone too early, just to mollify fans of a losing team. If they do rush people because of public pressure, just to sell tickets, we all lose. I'm not saying I know when a player should be brought up. Who knows, maybe there isn't a single decent curveball in AAA, and the only way Sano and Buxton can learn to lay off them is to face them in MLB. But I highly doubt that. I think it's much more likely that the team was judged in win-now mode, and a potential stud who wasn't quite ready was seen as having more to contribute right now, even with unfinished development, than the alternatives. I'm not saying that's wrong, either. But if you trade the future for the present, and you don't win in the present, it's lose-lose. You lose games now, because they can't hit an outside curveball. You lose games in the future, because they are playing for the Yankees a year early, or you're tying up a quarter of your payroll in them a year early. Or, worst case, you stunt their development and they never figure it out. A mid-market team needs to maximize its assets. Imagine Sano and Buxton were arriving now, with perfectly honed plate discipline, and six years of cheap stardom ahead. Would the past three and a half years have been worth that sacrifice? You could make a case that last year, yes -- they would not have made the playoffs without Sano's first half and Buxton's second half. But man, wouldn't it be nice to see them starting out now, at their peak? Not getting promoted till they proved they could lay off an outside curveball? And learning to do it? What if Carlos Gomez had not skipped AAA, and instead spent two full learning his craft and earning his promotions by demonstrating consistent plate discipline? What would his career have been like? Are we doing that to Byron Buxton? It's always nerve-wracking, and you never know what's right: are they waiting too long? Are you bringing them up to early? I think, from afar, there's no way to really know. We don't know what the coaches are working with them on in the minors. We don't know if a plea from a major league manager for help made them grab someone too early. I'm sure that happens. Just as commitment to veterans probably holds back a young player who is ready. Of the two, the second error has less cost to the team, though, as you still retain their full six years of service time, while milking last remaining value out of the veteran's contract, whereas bringing the up early you sacrifice both the unused value of veteran option, and the best years of the young player's service time on the back end. But my main point is, no one knows for sure, and the people who have the best idea are the ones who work with them every day, not us. So I just don't ever get it when people express contempt for a team holding someone back too long. How could it be more obvious to us than an actual coach? And what's the downside of erring on the conservative side? You have better odds of making their six affordable years be at a consistently higher level. Sure, you may get additional years from them. But once they're in free agency, you're paying market value. Whether you pay them, or someone else, it's fungible. The way to outperform other teams with the same money (or in our case, with less money) is to get more than market value production. And that means maximizing the years you have players at below cost. Below-market-rate production is the key to a winning team. And calling up players too early is the single biggest way to blow that. It's almost never a long-term win. If you're in a playoff race, and you bring up your stud pitcher early from the minors to fortify your bullpen, absolutely! But if you're early in a rebuild, and your fans are getting impatient, no. If Romero has a major league fastball and can get people out now, and you're in a playoff race, sure. But if the cost is, his command could be better, and his changeup could be better, and one more year of tutelage could be the difference between a guy who can hold his own and a guy who is lights out, bringing him up early has a cost. I'm not saying don't bring him up, when you're a handful of games back of the Indians and the alternative is Phil Hughes. Just, there's a cost. So don't yell at the Twins for developing their talent slowly if it's too maximize their potential. That could simultaneously give us more years at their peak performance AND make their peak higher. It was worth it last year to go for it -- beating they Yankees in a one-game playoff would have made my decade. But if they continue to fall out of the race, Sano and Buxton are back in AAA in three weeks, I for one would have no problem with that. I'd rather see them later, looking unstoppable, than watch their service time wear down while they're clearly overmatched. And if Romero starts to get hammered once he gets scouted thoroughly, send him back down, too. Play veterans like May and Duffey and Pineda this year, and bring Gonsalves and Romero and Rooker and Gordon up when their flaws are polished away. If Gordon has nothing left to learn, fantastic. But don't get impatient and grab him just because we're frustrated with the alternatives. So why do people curse slow development so vehemently? Who are these players who were called up too late from the minors and it ruined a season or destroyed their careers? I'm not being sarcasting, or questioning that it happens. I just honestly can't think of any. I remember getting really impatient for Anthony Slama, who seemed to have nothing left to prove in the minors. The coaches thought his stuff wouldn't play against major league hitters, and apparently the were right. I remember calls to free Johan Santana, but that was from the bullpen -- and I agree, once you've started his service time, then use him! You can't argue that working him in slowly from the bullpen harmed Santana's development -- clearly he turned out alright! But you could make a case that we gave up a year or two of Cy Young level Santana because he WASN'T still in the minors during those bullpen years. I would sure love to have had him around in 2008 and 2009! I remember people getting impatient for people like Adam Brett Walker, who never panned out. And I remember stunningly early promotions for people like Mauer, Kubel, and Morneau, who did. So my feeling is, they probably know what they are doing. And they CERTAINLY know better than me. So my conclusion is, be patient, and don't demand your gardeners harvest fruit before it's ripe.

Hell yeah, 9th is vastly improved! You're forgetting that two years ago they were the worst pitching team in the league, by a full run. There was as big a distance between them and the second worst team as between the second worst team and the best. They were awful, and had a long, long way to go to reach mediocre. Making that big an improvement in two years is nothing short of amazing. And yes, average pitching is enough to win a division, if your hitting is the best in the league, as it was for the entire second half last year! They led the league in runs scored for the second half, and if memory serves were fifth for the entire year. And they had all the players from last year returning, plus Morrison and a full season of Sano. The pitching is fine. If they were hitting like last year they would be in first place. The reason for their crash this year is that the run-scoring has cratered. And while many players have underperformed compared to last year's second half, I would agree that the most worrisome are Buxton and Sano. If a championship team is going to emerge from this group it's going to be built around them. The supporting players are in place. But those two are the potential superstars. Their regression is very troubling. They are young enough and talented that they can still do it. They've done it before. But unless and until they reach their potential, this team is a building without a foundation.