chopper0080

Except Lance has never more than 128 innings in a season since 2017 while Jose has never pitched less than 145 outside of 2020. In fact, if I average innings pitched per season (removing 2019 for Lance and replacing it with his 2015 season) Lance averages 123.83 innings and 7.6 wins while Jose averages 179.13 innings and 13.3 wins. And yes, if you project Lance's price per inning pitched per year to Berrios, it comes out to around 25 mil per year, but 5 mil to get to 30 is far from an overpay.

Sub 4 era since 2017 with the exception of the 2020 season. 20+ starts every year since 2017 except 2020. Over 10 wins every year since 2017 except 2020. WHIP under 1.23 every since 2017 except 2020. I agree that he may never be one of the 5 best pitchers in baseball. But I can't say that he won't be one of the 15 best, and we have not shown any ability to develop a replacement for him. I am willing to pay 5 mil over production per year to ensure my franchise retains it's reliable and solid young pitcher. Now we just hope one of our pitching prospects can develop into a player close to as good as Berrios. Competitive teams don't fret over 5 mil extra to ensure they have a top core of young players.

But what is really overpaying? If it is 2 mil more per year to ensure your young, dependable and talented pitcher stays with the team, why is that a deal breaker? A 5 year deal pays him to 33 which is not old for a pitcher so you likely don't see a drop off in production. It is an area of weakness without significant talent ready to replace him so you aren't just creating another hole that you will end up spending 15 mil on a replacement to fill. He has also stayed healthy so even if he tops out at a fringe #1 SP, you at least have that to count on. I understand not giving out 10 year deals. I also understand that teams want to not overpay for players. That said, the Twins failed in letting it get to this point by trying to pinch pennies instead of retaining a young player who should have stayed a part of their core.

Here is the failure. The Twins let go of a top 25 starting pitcher who is under 30 and has remained very healthy over his career when they have very little quality starting pitching. People will argue that he wouldn't re-sign with Minnesota but I challenge that. If the Twins would have offered him 30 mil per year, I think he definitely would have signed that deal. Before anyone balks at that number, that is the cost of young talented pitching and it isn't getting lower. It would have made him a top 10 paid SP but that isn't a huge overpay when considering his age and consistency. The Twins could have also chose to offer him a significant contract extension instead of letting it go to arbitration and trying to get a deal. Instead of doing either, the Twins tried to play it frugally (cheap) like they consistently do which leads to talented players heading out the door and the team once again searching for quality starting pitching.

About as good of compensation as you could ask for. Now we will see if the Twins can develop these players to generate a decent return.

A couple thoughts. I would prefer the Twins keep Kepler. I don't believe they are going to get a return that is worth getting rid of his versatility, level of play and contract value. I would prefer the Twins to keep Buxton. Even if he is oft-injured, he is the closest thing we have to a super-star and his contract demands don't seem exorbitant from what has been reported. I would love to see Donaldson traded just to get a nice look at Miranda but I don't see it happening and it isn't the end of the world. I have a tough time seeing the Twins keeping Berrios just because I believe they will get a really good offer. I don't know that it will be an over-the-top one, but definitely a quality deal.

I am not sad if they can't find a good offer for Kepler and keep him. He is exactly the type of player the Twins need to keep around with their financial restrictions and I don't believe it is in their best interest to trade him in general.

When you are losing because of controllable errors vs lack of talent, that is when coaching changes need to be looked at.

To the original post, I don't necessarily believe that anyone in the front office needs to be fired as they seem to be working within the parameters of our ownership. It isn't their fault they don't have the ability to go "all in" and acquire the top end talent teams need to be able to compete.

The Minnesota Twins have been a poverty franchise for a long time. Unless there is a concerted effort to make a change, I doubt it happens and letting players like this go will stay the norm. Is it disappointing, yes. Is it surprising, no. Someone else said that the players we tend to sign are those who are willing to take some sort of below market deal at that point in time. It doesn't seem like either of these players are interested in doing so and therefore probably leave.

I don't believe the Dozier situation is that difficult. You have an inconsistent player who is playing well right now. You trade him, get what you can for him, and move Polanco into the starting lineup. If you can raise up the return by packaging something with Dozier, that is great, but if not, oh well. Dozier is a similar situation to what the Twins went through with Willingham, Perkins, Hughes, and Suzuki. In all of those other situations, the Twins held onto the player because they could not get value for them. Well, the Twins fail to recognize that you are never going to be able to get the value for these player's max production. But you also don't want to put yourself in a position to get nothing for them (which we have been excellent at doing). Either sell for a lottery ticket prospect, or sell for a higher ceiling player whose value is low or get a vet at position where your depth is not great. I can't imagine anyone is selling bullpen arms, but if you could get one, the Twins should do it. The point is that something is only as valuable as what someone else is willing to pay for it. We need to unload these players, and it is better for the Twins long term to get something and move on rather than being consumed with getting our preceived value for them. I would keep our pitching unless someone wants one of the starters. I would trade Plouffe and Dozier. I would hold onto Nunez and Escobar because that is an ok middle infield rotation and is worth more than you would get for them in a trade. Head into next season with Sano, Polanco and Mauer in the infield and figure the rest out. The outfield should work itself out long term but Sano at 3B should allow the Twins to get more athleticism and cover more ground. We should, at worst, have a solid defensive outfield with the other players we have.

For any of those on the fence...last nights lineup sums it up 1-Nunez 2-Grossman 3-Dozier 4-Ploufee 5-Park 6-Escobar 7-Kepler 8-Centeno 9-Buxton SP Pat Dean If that lineup doesn't deserve to get a front office fired, I don't know what does.

Our lineup last night was gross.

When you have almost an entire roster of players who are putting up numbers under their career averages, it is a managerial problem. When you have a roster in which the younger players are showing a lack of fundamentals, essentially both in their process and the results are poor, then your manager needs to go, now. When you have a roster that can't compete with other teams even when they are putting up career average numbers, that is a GM problem.

Our luck Gardy will be the next GM, and then he will make himself the manager to keep things like this from happening in the future. There is no hire like a gardenHIRE.

"Hughes Nutz"

The Minnesota Twins Baseball Club for players who want to hit good, and do other baseball things real good too.

So, you are debating consistency vs competency. The argument you are posing is that Hicks can be competent in spurts, but fails to do so consistently. My counter to that is if Hicks was consistent, he wouldn't be a back up player. Mastro can't be decent for any stretch, and he isn't going to develop into anything more than that. Hicks at least has the ability to be a competent, league average player, even if it is inconsistently, and is young enough that there could be hope that he becomes more consistent. You are never going to have a bench of guys who are both consistent and competent. With that being understood, isn't a bench of guys who are inconsistently competent better than a bench of guys who are consistently incompetent?

Hicks as a backup plan if Buxton fails is a higher bar than trading away your young, struggling depth. Elevating players who aren't ready, and then turning to Mastro when it fails, that is a window into the organization's overall failure. I'm not saying that Hicks is ever going to be a viable MLB player. But when you are rebuilding, having young athletic players to backup young athletic players is a formula for success. You never know when or if athletic talent will take off in MLB, why trade it for a more limited player who hasn't shown anything.

I believe Hicks has more to offer baseball than Mastro...

Very similar to Carlos Gomez. In both situations, the Twins sold low on a young prospect that needed time. Now, Hicks's struggles were greater than Gomez's, and Gomez had a higher ceiling/better production, but it highlights the lack of commitment from this franchise towards it's young talent. They throw these prospects into the fire, and then jettison them with prime years still remaining taking pennies in return. Who knows what would have happened to Arcia if he hadn't came out hitting when given the chance?

I don't necessarily agree with this statement, but if I did, these would be my thoughts. Entitlement is created when roster spots are cleared for your young prospects rather than having to take them. When you have a terrible team, and you look to your prospects to save the franchise. The Twins gave the power and leadership to their young players, and now they have to deal with how they handle it.

Others have said it, and I will say it. The Twins have a lack of good baseball players on their roster. So, who is to blame. Manager or GM? A GM's job is to assemble a roster full of talent. Well, the GM has had years to put this roster together so, if we lack talent now, that problem is on him. A manager's job is to get the most out of the talent on the roster. Essentially, ensuring that more players than not are playing at or above their historical numbers. If we have a roster of players who aren't doing so, then the manager is not doing a good job. To me, it seems to be pretty evident that both Ryan and Molitor are failing to do their jobs.

I don't believe any change the Twins could make would result in anything as disappointing as we have experienced over the past 6 years. What is there to fear? Another 90 loss season? A shamble of things? Things already are in shambles. I am curious what you believe makes Molitor "solid". At best he is a league average manager.

The 2015 Twins were fool's gold, and shame on anyone who wasn't clearheaded enough to see that. To try an pin the past 6 years on any one person is naive. A variety of people in a variety of roles have come and gone, yet the results are still the same. The issue is that rather than make changes and bring in outsiders, the Twins have run their organization like a game of musical chairs. Gardenhire was the fall guy, he sat out a year, and then the organization brought him right back in. How do you expect anything to actually change when this is the approach?