LA VIkes Fan

Here's a question: is a starting infield of Arraez/Miranda at 3B and Urshela/Gordon at SS better or worse than last year's combination of Donaldson and Simmons? Before you react, add in the factor of durability and games played. When you do that, I don't think it's that big a drop off if even much of a drop-off at all. The SS defense suffers but the 3B defense is probably just as good or better since Donaldson had no range and that certainly wasn't getting any better this year. Add in the fact that these guys are likely to be available to play most of the year whereas we would be lucky to get 90 games a year at 3B out of Donaldson. The offense gets much better it shortstop while there may be a small downgrade at 3rd base but again, not huge given that you're only getting 80-120 games out of Donaldson even if he DHs a good part of the year. On balance, I do think it's a small downgrade because of the shortstop defense but I don't think it's a very big downgrade. The point of this is not that the Twins should pocket the $25 million a year they just saved by moving Donaldson's contract. My thinking is we should spend that money but I don't think we have to spend it all on a shortstop like Story. I think it would be just as smart to trade for a guy like Sean Maneaa, Frankie Montas, Tyler Mahle, or Luis Castillo, and then use the money to extend their contracts out at 15 – $20 million a year for 2 or 3 years. As far as SS goes, Jonathan Villar is still available for that stopgap role. Another way to look at this would be to basically trade Donaldson's contract for a combination of Villar to play short, Pineda to pitch in the rotation, and a relief pitcher like Archie Bradley or Mychal Givens. Now maybe we have gotten better even if we don't sign Trevor Story. Add in a trade of prospects for Amneaa, Montas, Mahle or Castillo and I do think it's a viable strategy. My thinking is there a lot of ways still to go make the team better for this year and beyond including signing Trevor Story or something like outlined above. If we do nothing more? Then I think it's time to get out the pitchforks and torches and storm the castle. I do have my torch handy, but I'm not going to light it for at least 2 or 3 weeks to see how the rest of this puzzle plays out.

I think this is a good take. When you sign these aging stars in their 30s you wind up paying for the back end years where they won't be worth the money (see Pujols, Albert). We unloaded those years on the Yankees. I do agree with those who say that this makes the FO look bad for signing Donaldson 2 years ago when they clearly overestimated whether the twins had an open "window" to compete. Having said that, at least they were smart enough to cut bait when the time came.

You got that right, Mike. Story may not have another good place to go.

While I’m not sure I like this trade, or even that I completely understand what’s going on, I don’t think I agree with some of the comments here about where we gotten weaker and where we’ve gotten stronger. Can you put everything you’ve done together, I think we are weaker at catcher, stronger in the rotation with the addition of Sonny Gray, a little bit weaker but not much at third base since Urshela Is a better fielder than Donaldson, similar but not quite as good a hitter, and substantially less injury prone. We also now have some payroll flexibility to either sign someone like Trevor Story or trade for a pitcher that either has a good size salary or can be extended. As we sit, we definitely have a black hole at shortstop so one has to assume we’re going to do something to resolve that. Truly bizarre. I think we’re basically halfway through the novel and still in suspense because we can’t figure out the ending. All I can say is I certainly hope we don’t end up here.

I agree the trading for Bassitt and then extending him would have been a good move, something I’ve advocated for on this board previously. Still, I do think we need to give the FO a little more time on getting SP for this year. It’s starting to look to me more and more like the plan is another veteran placeholder or two, like Cueto and/or Pineda, and use this year to shuffle through the 5 to 7 potential MLB SP guys we have in the minors plus Dobnak to see if they can find a couple more starters for next year or the year after. Bassitt’s Contract doesn’t work the same way and he’s good enough that it’s going to be hard for the Twins to extend him without paying top dollar for a guy who may be on the decline when the team is actually ready to contend. I’m beginning to think that’s that’s the strategy here, use this year to shuffle through everyone you have in the hopes of creating a contender in 2023 or 2024. The trade of Garver for IKF fits that strategy; it gives Jeffers a chance to play 75% of the time at catcher and gives you two years of a quality shortstop as you try to develop one of your own in return for older catcher who won’t be part of your next contending team due to age. Also, if you can’t develop a shortstop IKF can be that guy for the next five years assuming he can be resigned for a reasonable price which seems likely. He can then be part of your next contending team. Not a strategy that particularly appeals to me because I think that means this team isn’t going to be very good in 2022 and may remain mediocre in 2023. Still, it is a strategy that makes some intellectual sense.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the twins plan now for the rotation is to try to sign Cueto and Pineda, and then start the season with the rotation of those two, Bundy, Ober, and Ryan. The long-term idea might be to use this year to find two or more guys presently in the minors ready to start in the majors, cull the three veterans down to one or two for next year, and have an all “young pitcher“ rotation by 2024. Cueto fits that timeline well. It’s not my first choice but it does fit in with what I think is the actual strategy.

i agree that we need pitching but there's three things wrong with this statement. First, Garver by himself wasn't going to get us established MLB pitching. He could only have been the veteran part of a trade that also saw us give up a real pitching prospect. We aren't going to get real controllable major league pitching for a guy like Garver or even for Garver plus Sano. Real MLB ready pitching is going to cost us a guy like Garver PLUS a Martin, Lewis, Caterino, Winder, etc. Second, we got pitching; a guy that Fangraphs likes and who could be in the bullpen as early as this year or in the rotation/bullpen next year. That's the kind of pitching a 31 year old C who hits well but only plays 80-100 games a year if things are good is worth. Third, we don't have "a bunch of shortstops", we now have ONE SS and its the guy we just traded for. I really like Garver and hate the fact that we traded him. Still, we got a guy who is a real MLB SS for the next 2 years at least, and maybe a decent pitcher to go with him. It seems like a fair trade between a team that wants to compete NOW, the Rangers, and a team that may be a year away, the Twins. I think it's defensible move and may actually be a win-win. I'm not a huge fan of this FO either but this trade isn't the reason to hate them; it's actually a good move.

Hey, we got to have somebody. Don't think it's Polanco. Jose Iglesias, come on down! Actually, part of me wants the Twins to start Martin and Gordon at short and see if one of the can handle the position. Given the state of the rotation, it's not like we going anywhere this year any way, might as well see if one of those two can play there SS. Probably not a good idea, but I am intrigued by the possibility.

Well, the wait is over. The first player the Twins sign post lockout is … Juan Minaya to a minor league deal with an invitation to Spring training. All of you that had Minaya in the pool, report to the table and collect your Winnings!

Baseball lost because it lost the TV audience. It lost for 2 reasons (1) baseball can't make fans care about a "national" game, and (2) it can't make the game exciting enough. I like both baseball and football. I'll watch a football game between two teams I don't follow because it's exciting entertainment with plenty of action, with interesting comments by the announcers, and because football does a good job of explaining the game and context. Baseball tried a national game for awhile. it seemed to always be the Yankees and the Red Sox, and I still have nightmares of Dustin Pedroia adjusting his gloves after every pitch "to focus his concentration" after the Yankees had a deliberate strategy of "working the count" to get to the bullpen. 3.5 to 4 hour games with maybe 30 minutes of actual action. It may be that baseball just inherently isn't good TV, although I have seen some good TV baseball. The game as now played is death on TV, and that's if you care about the teams playing. If you don't, it mind numbing ennui commentated by guys talking about "the good old days" or stories about where they went to dinner. The NBA has more irrelevant mediocre matchups than any sport outside of college basketball and it's better on TV than baseball for the casual fan. Add the lack of availability and streaming and you have one completely incoherent media strategy. Baseball's inability to adapt to media like TV and streaming is why it's 4th instead of 1st and soon heading to 5th or 6th.

I also have issues with both sides too numerous to list here, but I am amazed how poorly MLB/the owners are handling this negotiation. They seem to have a complete tin ear from a PR standpoint and also appear to have little real interest in a resolution that doesn't include the MLBPA making some significant concessions. I'm now starting to realize that this "negotiation" is going to stretch into the regular season unless someone takes control that actually has some business sense. Manfred is not that guy. Monfort's comment if he was quoted accurately both amazing and not amazing at the same time. I'm a lawyer and litigate business cases for companies and wealthy entrepreneurs. I almost NEVER allowed my clients to speak directly to the other side about settling the case. Why not? Because most of them start out with the unbreakable sense that they are the truly aggrieved party and if everybody just understood how truly aggrieved they really were, they would instantly agree and the case would be over. Guess what? Both sides think they are the truly aggrieved party and telling the other side you are the only aggrieved one doesn't help, it makes things worse and marks you as a narrow minded, unthinking idiot. That's why you let the lawyers do the talking. Here, MLB should have a chief negotiator who actually does the union negotiations for a living do all of the talking, not a Billionaire owner who does not regularly negotiate union contracts. Add to that the fact that Monfort runs what is perhaps the most ineptly run of all the current MLB franchises and I am appalled that he is let anywhere near a union negotiation committee, much less the chairman of that committee. Who makes these assignments? There has to be at least one MLB owner that actually understands union negotiations, the necessary PR in negotiations, and actually could add value to the discussions. Monfort absolutely is not that guy, This is incredibly painful to watch. I'll continue to interact with you guys on baseball substance because you are knowledgeable and very fun to talk baseball with, but I'm done with these negotiations. A pox on both of their houses. We are watching the slow and continued disintegration of baseball as an important force in the American life.

Let's start with the facts; Polanco is at best an average fielding SSS, Arraez at best a slightly below average fielding 2B. Polanco is a very good hitting MI, Arraez hits RH pitching well, LH pitching not so well, good OBP, no power. We don't have another SS on the roster and a trade likely will cost us more than we want to give up. Story is still available and could be within budget but will cost us a contract that runs several years and paying him means no more pitching signings or at most Pineda on a team freindly deal. My solutions in rank order - (1) sign Story, make Arraez and Donaldson a 50/50 3B/Dh combo, Sano plays 1B, Kirilloff LF. Re-sign Pineda, budget now gone, roll with the young pitchers for a year. Miranda starts on the 26 man, Martin in AAA, both get ABs for rest and injury. (2) Sign Simmons back on a 1 year deal (or someone similar), sign Rondon and Pineda, everything else the same. (3) Make Gordon the everyday SS, promote Polacios or Martin to be SS competition, everything else same as #2. (4) Move Polanco to SS, Arraez to 2B and Martin and Miranda get ABs for the 60-80 games that Donaldson is too hurt to play in the field and the 40-60 that Arraez can't physically play in the field. DH spot gets clogged finding ABs for Garver, Donaldson, Arraez, Sano since ABs are going to an unproven everyday SS. Numbers 1 and 2 mean we probably win 76-88 games this season and possibly contend for the last playoff spot but most likely miss. Numbers 3 and 4 mean 70-82 wins and no meaningful games in September but better long term development of some young guys. None of these are exciting. Pick your poison.

Interesting take, but we need to leave Polanco where he is. We're trying to develop a contending team. Polanco is an elite 2B for a contending team, good with the glove, very good at the plate. Don't mess with that. Boring as it sounds (and is), we need to get good fielding SS to help out a developing pitching staff. Simmons might be the best choice for another year, Niko Goodrum or Igelsias might also work. I understand wanting to open up a spot for Arraez but let's not forget that his physical limitations and injury history suggest that he's a 400-500 AB guy at best. He's not a 140-150 games a year player. Plenty of spots for his bat starting with 80 games a year at 3B since Donaldson is a half time player in the field because of HIS physical limitations. Add 20-25 when Polanco plays SS to spell whoever starts there and another 20 at DH and you've hit Arraez' limit. And that's without giving him any games in LF. You don't need to move Polanco to a position he can't play well to get Arraez his 400-500 ABs. Now if the goal is to get ABs for Miranda or Martin THIS YEAR, the solution is different - trade Donaldson or Sano. The former opens up 3B, the latter LF since Kirilloff can then play 1B. You can't DH Sano a lot because we need the DH spot for Donaldson half time and he's the #4 hitter. To me, if we want to open up a spot for regular at bats for Miranda and/or Martin, trading Sano or Donaldson is the answer. That opens up LF for one of them to run with a spot. I hope the FO is exploring that as we speak.

At the risk of repeating what others have said, this is not a yes or no question. There is no reason for the Twins to declare Arraez as somehow "untouchable" in a trade, nor is there any reason to give him away to open up a spot for others. He has value to the Twins on the field next year. He may have more more value to the Twins as a trade chip because there is the chance that we could combine him with either high end hitting prospect or slightly lesser pitching prospect and potentially get a quality starter. A quality starter does not mean a number 1 starter, more like a 2/3. Getting a 1/2 means trading Arraez and 2 high end hitting prospects or a high-end hitter and high-end pitching prospect. I would do the former for a quality pitcher like Sonny Gray if we can extend him so we have at least 2-3 years of control. I would do the latter at if the return was someone like Chris Bassett from Oakland, but only if we also extend him at least 2 years past his present one year remaining, or if we get a younger pitcher like Lopez or Sanchez from the Marlins plus a solid MLB ready pitching pitching prospect like Meyer. Otherwise, we keep Arraez. By the way, to those of you suggesting the solution is to move Polanco back to short and put Arraez in as the everyday 2B, clears dear God don't let the FO hear you. Polanco is a great hitting, solid fielding 2nd baseman, even All-Star game worthy. He is a lousy fielding, injury prone shortstop whose bat takes a hit when he has to play SS. Even worse, Arraez is average at best at 2nd base so now we have a below average fielding middle infield behind a bunch of young, kid pitchers trying to transition to the major leagues. Moreover, any FA starter is not going to come to a team that has a lousy fielding middle infield since it will make that pitcher look bad. To me, that is a recipe for a disaster. Assuming we do not trade Arraez, Polanco needs to stay at 2nd base and Arraez can get his 500 bats at the DH, 3B, and occasionally at the 2B spots. The team then needs to sign a quality defensive shortstop and frankly not really care whether the guy can hit.

Reload, don't rebuild, but acknowledge that the 'reloading" process will probably take more than one year. The core lineup is pretty good, maybe even very good if we can find a SS, and its got about a 3, maybe 4 year window left (except for Donaldson). We missed out on the FA pitchers but can still get a good starter or two in the trade market if we are willing to sacrifice some assets. We should be, particularly hitting assets. How do we do this? I say we trade for a starter we can either have for 2-4 years (Lopez in Miami, Mahle in Cincinnati) or one we can extend (Bassitt in Oakland, Gray In Cincinnati) but ONLY if we can extend to get a total of 2-4 years, and re-sign Pineda for 2 years. That leaves 2 starting spots for the young guys, 3 once Bundy washes out, and we use 2022 as the evaluation year. We hope to get 1 or 2 young guys that can pitch consistently 150 plus innings and hold down the 3 or 4 spots in 2023 out of 2022 and by 2024 have at least 3 of out home grown guys starting and Maeda back, one of which is hopefully in the #2 hole. Bassitt (my choice if we can extend him) or Lopez hold down the top of the rotation. We're semi-competitive in 2022 (78-85 wins), 85 plus in 2023 and hopefully up from there. Who do we sacrifice? It's going to have to be someone pretty good and I would consider trading ANY of our hitting prospects for the right pitcher - yes, that includes Miranda, Martin and Lewis even in combination with Kepler, Sano or Arraez if we get the right pitching back. That's my idea of a reload. Did we miss a chance to do something like this in the FA market without sacrificing assets? Absolutely. The bottom line is that not a lot of high end pitching free agents want to come to Minnesota with the uncertainty in the rotation, lack of outside income opportunities, and lousy weather. We got to grow out own.

The best young corner OF ready for the MLB player in the organization is Miranda. He needs a place to play next year and has played some OF. The problem is that there's no place for Kirilloff to play every day with Sano, Donaldson and Arraez on the roster. Those 3 have 1b and 3b covered so we can't even move Sano back to 3B to give Kirilloff 1B. I think Kiriloff is the opening day LF next year and stays there for at least 1 season. The rest of that group doesn't look like much except for Larnach.

The real problem is that our lineup and our pitching staff aren't on the same cycle. The lineup is good enough to to compete now and could be really good if Larnach, Miranda, Martin or Contreras steps up to be a competent or better hitter next year. The pitching that we have is at least a year or two away from what is needed by a competitive team. That lack of synchronicity is the root problem. So like many here, I think the answer is to decide which way you want to go. If you want to compete NOW, you have to either (1) sign Rondon and Pineda at a minimum AND add to the bullpen or (2) trade for at least 2 established starters or one plus a real prospect and sign Pineda. Option number 1 means trading real pitching or hitting prospects, probably pitching ones. Option 2 is to decide to rebuild or re-tool for a year or two and see what your existing pitching prospects can do. If you do that, there's no real reason to keep Donaldson or Garver because of age, and maybe the same for Sano and Kepler although less so, Those guys are all available for trade, and you would consider trading Arraez for the right return. All trades are of veteran players with a A ball lottery types and concentrating on getting a younger, controllable player at SS or or for pitching. The worst strategy is number 3 - just run the lineup back and "hope" that the young pitching can step up this year or next and fill all of those holes. Very unlikely. Frankly, I could get behind either strategy 1 - compete now and take the risk of trading away prospects who become stars for other teams, or 2 - 2022 as a re-tool/rebuild year, 2023 as maybe the same or starting to compete with the "window" being 2024 and beyond. I just can't stomach option 3, which is frankly just more of the same thing that didn't work in 2021.

To trade or not to trade? That indeed is a question. The answer - depends on who and for what. If we can get an established MLB starter AND extend his contract so we have him 3 years or more, we should absolutely do it even if that pitcher is in his early 30s like Bassitt or Gray, IF we don't have to trade more than 2 "real" prospects. We have Martin, Lewis, Miranda and Larnach (Col. A). Probably isn't enough Room at the Inn for all 4. We have Donaldson, Arraez, Kepler, and Sano (Col. B). Probably is barely enough room for those 4.We have 8-10 "real" SP prospects depending on who's counting (Col. C). The trade? One from Column A or C , and I would say that Winder, SVR, Balazovic, and Duran are off limits and I don't count Ober or Ryan in the "prospect" category any more and would absolutely not trade either one. Add in one or even 2 from Column B and that's what you have to trade. IF that will get you an MLB starter with at least 2-3 years of control (and, if 2, the real possibility of an extension), you make the deal. The one from column A or C changes depending on the return. IF you can't, you don't. My money is on the don't. Twins re-sign Pineda, roll with him at the front of the rotation and maybe sign Duffy, and see what happens. I actually would make a trade for Gray or Bassitt (Montas and Lopez will be too expensive) because I think we can get them for the kind of package I outlined above or maybe that plus an A ball type. Prospects are just that; prospects. Most of them do not pan out. I predict though that we don't make a trade.

I like the article and the reasoning, but don't completely like the suggested approach. I think the move is to re-sign Pineda and trade for one of Bassitt, Montas, Lopez, Gray or Mahle. I like Basstit and Gray the best - veteran guys without long term deals so hopefully the prospect cost won't be to high and won't have to include more than one of the pitchers listed above and won't include Winder, Balzovic, or Sands. I think Montas, Mahle or Lopez will cost 2 or 3 guys on that list and certainly won't be available for hitting prospects. I think you're right on the FO strategy. This year it's trade starter, Pineda, Ober, Bundy and Ryan with at least 30 plus starts available for others due to those 5 being ineffective or on the IL. Next year, 3 young guys, Pineda and Bundy. 2024 - all home grown.

I see your point regarding a 4th OF, although I would like to see Celstino as that guy at some point in 2022, but trading Kepler doesn't give you a chance to entrench Kirilloff at 1B. You still have the same problem regarding Donaldson, Garver and Arraez needing multiple games at the DH spot to keep them healthy and productive while still in the lineup. I think the only way you can entrench Kirilloff is by trading Sano. I would not be against trading Sano but I think the only way to get a decent pitching return is to pair him with a pitching prospect like Winder, SVR, or Balzovic and even then I'm hard pressed to find a trading partner who both has starting pitching you want and would be willing to take on Sano's contract, Oakland, Miami, Tampa, and Cincinnati all seem to be out on that contract. I just think that for next year Sano is the primary 1B and Kirilloff is the primary LF. That's not going to be pretty in the field, although not too ugly, but it is the work around to get 500 plus ABS from Donaldson, Arraez, Sano, Kirilloff and Garver (400 plus for Garver) because it leaves the DH spot open for multiple players.

That's doable but we need the DH spot for Donaldson at least 50-60 games a year. He won't last playing 130 games at 3B. We also need a spot for Arraez' bat, either at 3B or DH- he won't get much playing time at 2B unless Polanco (aka our best player other than Buxton) gets hurt. This is my problem with the idea of moving Kirilloff to a full time 1B spot "because he's better there". That's only a small part of the equation. Unless there is a trade, you have to find a place for Kirilloff, Sano, Donaldson, Garver, and Arraez to each get 500-600 plate appearances next year. You can't do that with a full-time DH because both Donaldson and Arraez can't get there without having days where they can DH. That rules out the possibility of making Sano a full-time DH a la Nelson Cruz. Based on our present roster construction, it seems like the best way to keep all of those bats relatively fresh, healthy, and consistently in the lineup means Kirilloff has to play at least part time in LF. Basically you have Donaldson and Arraez holding down 3B, with a healthy dose of DH duty for Donaldson (60 plus games), and a healthy dose of LF (30-40 games) and DH (30-40) for Arraez. You also want to have some open DH days to give Buxton, Polanco. Garver and Kepler a partial day off, and possibly if you have a guy tearing up AAA we want to get in the lineup like Miranda. In other words, there just is no Room at the Inn (seasonal reference) for Sano to even get 300 at-bats in the DH spot much less the 500 to 600 that he should get if we're going to keep him. Sano has to play at least 100-120 games at 1B if for any get the value out of his bat - really the only reason to keep him around. Kiriloff gets 100-20 games or so in LF assuming he hits, and can play another 30 or 40 at 1B when Sano either sits or is the DH. Bottom line for me is that we don't need to pick up an outside player to play LF, we already have that position filled by Kirilloff. That only changes if we trade or bench Sano, and I don't think were going to pay him $10 million next year to sit on the bench.

I agree, the Donaldson signing has panned out as well or perhaps even better than one could reasonably have expected. He is the classic trade-off when one signs and aging, very good player: good production when he plays but several stretches a year when he simply isn't able to play. I'm hopeful that the Twins found the right way to use him last year by basically playing him about 50% of the time at 3B and about 50% of the time at DH. Hopefully will get another 130 – 145 games from him in 2022 (assuming there are that many games in 2022). Arraez is the obvious heir apparent. He actually fielded the position pretty well and it would be helpful to have his bat in the lineup. He is a defensive liability at 2B and besides, Polanco is our best player and should stay at 2B. Where does that leave the Miranda? I think the Twin should try him in LF next year IF last year's offensive results were not an aberration. He did play some outfield last year at AAA and with Buxton and Kepler in the outfield, we don't need a defensive whiz in LF if that player can hit. He can also fill in at 2B and even 3B to get some playing time. Let's get him some at bats at the MLB level next year so we can see what we have. It will be a little crowded with the Miranda, Kirilloff and Sano all looking for at bats at the same 2 positions (LF and 1B), but there should be 30 to 50 games of DH duty available to make it work.

Thanks for the article. Well thought out and it's got to be tough to put out content in a lockout. Having said that, the choices in our price range - Yuck. No reason not to have Kirilloff play LF with Sano at 1B, Donaldson at 3B and all of them rotating through the DH spot with Arraez. Larnach and Rooker start in AAA and if, and only if, one comes up big there he gets a call up. Same with Contreras. Celestino is the 4th OF. Miranda has played some OF in AAA. If he looks good in ST, he gets a shot. Same for Martin if he looks ready. By the way, we need a spot for Arraez to play. He's not horrible in LF and with Buxton in CF and Kepler in RF we can stand a "not horrible" LF. My point is there's no need to go out and get a mediocre vet to play LF given our internal options, and the good ones are out of our price range. Stand pat on the OF. If we want to spend money on a position player, spend it on a SS. Better result - spend the money on Rondon and/or trade for Montas/Bassitt/Lopez and spend the money on a contract extension .

I'm not in favor of trading Lewis short of a blockbuster return, but the article does point out something important. I start with the idea that the best thing to do is trade from surplus to get the things you need but don't have. Where is the Twins surplus? Good hitting or high potential non SS IFs (Arraez, Miranda, Lewis, Martin), and corner OFs with power potential/longer term CFs (Larnach, Kirilloff, Celestino, Contreras). Areas to shore up? Starting Pitching, Starting Pitching, and SS, in that order. The point is that the team should be trying every avenue to shore up the SP and SS holes. That includes trading Lewis, Arraez, Martin, Miranda, etc. I would like to see a trade with the As for Bassitt and/or Montas and I would be willing to give up 1 or 2 of the 8 players above to accomplish that goal; 3 if we got both pitchers. Actually 3 of any of our Milb players except Winder, Baelazovic, and Sands. Our timing is off. Today's good players will be out or in downward cycles by the time the MiLB replacements are ready. Let's capitalize on our surplus now.

The key question is who can you trade for starting pitching or a closer, since it appears that the FO route isn't going to happen. We basically have everything else pretty well covered once we sign that stopgap SS. To do that, we are going to have to find a trade partner that needs what we have in surplus - non-SS bats - and has pitching to trade. I see that as Miami, Oakland and Cincinnati. Why? Because they're cheap and don't want to pay their talent. I don't see any of them taking a Kepler and Sano package or a Garver plus Kepler or Sano package because they are doing rebuilds and they don't want to pay those guys. We will have to trade highly valued prospects. They will want players on cheaper contracts for at least the next 2-3 years, if not more, and they are likely to want at least one of those prospects to be a starting pitcher. My view is we have tradeable assets but they aren't Kepler, Sano or Garver. Those three are the second part of a muti-player package to entice a trade. The first part is the prospect. We have some redundancy with Miranda, Martin, and Lewis (and, to a lesser extent, Larnach), assuming we don't want to trade Kirilloff. The most likely trade is a package of one of those three prospects with a Kepler, Sano or Garver for a young pitcher or even one of those three prospects plus a WInder, Sands or Enlow. Those are the tradeable assets.