Wookiee of the Year

I enjoy this series every year! Looking forward to it!

I guffawed out loud when I saw the headline. Nicely done!

I have to agree with Ted that at this point, if a season isn't played in 2020, that's on the owners. It's always easier to say "both sides are to blame" than to analyze the negotiating maneuvers and tactics of each side and make a judgment call as to which side is holding up the deal, but that's not real analysis. I do think things changed when the MLBPA issued its "Tell us when and where" statement over the weekend. The MLBPA's position all along has been that they want to play the maximum number of games the owners will accept while maintaining 100% of pro-rated salaries. The owners have held firm on the rough dollar amount they're willing to pay for player salaries, while indicating at one point they could abide a 50-game schedule with 100% pro-rated salaries. The MLBPA has questioned whether it's true that owners will lose money if more games are played; doubts about the truth of how MLB's representing owners' books are what leads us to where we are today. Essentially, the MLBPA has said: "We aren't willing to budge on 100% pro-rated salaries. Under our previous agreement, you can impose a season in which we receive those salaries, so go ahead and do it. But keep in mind that under the agreement, you are required to try to play as many games as possible. If we believe you're being dishonest about what your books show as a tenable number of games, we reserve the right to file a grievance." The owners are only in a bind if they've been negotiating in bad faith. If it's true that more than 50-odd games means they'll lose money, then they can proceed and they'll win the grievance. If that was a negotiating tactic and they can stomach, say, 70 games before losses kick in, then they can impose that and admit 50 was a negotiating tactic. It's only if they impose 50 games when they could really stomach 70 that they're in trouble. Ball's in your court, owners.

Wisler and Kirilloff.

I think Cody Pirkl's spot on. If the winner is a team that was expected to be a contender in 2020, then the champion will be considered legitimate. But if the Rangers or Blue Jays or Mariners manage to come out of left field and get hot--even if unbeknownst to all of us, they would have done the same in an alternate reality 2020 where 162 games were played--people will blame the shortened season and consider their crowning illegitimate. That's especially true if it's a flash-in-the-pan season where they fall back considerably in 2021.

Am I right to assume MLB The Show 20 has implemented the Three Batter Minimum Rule? I lean heavily toward Stashak, but if there's a role for a LOOGY I'd think harder about whether Hardy would be nice to have around.

When I saw the headline of the MLB.com article, I assumed the article would name Twins fans' favorite nemesis as either A.J. Pierzynski or Chuck Knoblauch. I'd call Pierzynski a valid choice; he is certainly my brother's most hated player. But Derek Jeter is a great suggestion, too. As I think about it, Jeter might be the most recent player I've booed at Target Field simply for stepping into the batter's box. (Booing is not a regular part of my repertoire, but I made an exception for Jeter.)

Did I miss the "rest of playoffs" conclusion to this? Haven't seen it pop up on Twins Daily. I wait with baited breath to hear how these Twins did!

The factor that keeps me comfortable with a trade of, say, Rosario to make room for one of these guys is Jake Cave. If you toss Kirilloff out there and he falls on his face, Cave is a solid Plan B. That was the big problem with handing Hicks the job in centerfield; there was no competition and no back-up plan. When trading an established major leaguer to make room for a prospect, it's absolutely worth asking, "What's our plan if this guy can't make the jump?" But I'm convinced the Twins have a much better answer to that question now than they did in 2013.

I saw that headline and thought, "That looks like a Sam Miller question." Glad he got a mention! This was fun!

Sano the Yankee Killer breaks open the game! Fun that the Twins earn their shot at the division rival it took 163 games in order to crown a victor. If this happened in real life, I can only imagine how tension-filled the series would feel. I can also only imagine the insane amount of momentum Twins fans would feel after finally slaying the Yankee dragon.

There's something very Twins-y about winning 102 games, but still going on to face the Yankees in the Wild Card game. Here's hoping the Twins earn another crack at Cleveland!

Some friends and I are kicking off a Deadball: Baseball with Dice league. It's at least a way to pass the time.

Surprised how much opposition there is to moving Buxton around in the batting order. If his early season success is so sensitive that batting anywhere but 9th will ruin it, then it won't be around long, either way. Ted's proposal of 6th makes a lot of sense to me. Make him a "second table-setter" for some of the guys lower in the order with less power, so Buxton's speed proves to more of an asset. I understand why we wouldn't want to drop him back into the 3rd spot after just a few weeks of strong performance, but you can also reward a guy for hitting well by moving him up a few notches. I also agree with Riverbrian that I wish Baldelli was doing more day-to-day lineup tinkering overall. If that were the case, it would be easier to try Buxton in the 6th spot without it feeling like it had to be a permanent move, and without a move back into the 9th spot then feeling like a demotion.

Pretty cool that the Blue Wahoos' official account threw in a mailbag question. ...But what's this about the Chattanooga rotation? I have no interest in the Reds' minor league system.

I love this approach to rankings, Nick. Glad you're doing it again this offseason. It's obviously a challenge to make asset ranking decisions between current MLB players with multi-million dollar salaries and unproven prospects who cost nothing, but I think it's a useful exercise. Prospect rankings and Under 25 rankings look at only a slice of an organization's strength; this tries to put it all together in one list. I wish there were more team and organizational lists that took this approach. The Cron vs. Gordon discussion hinges on a few factors: (1) when you think the Twins' competitive window is, (2) how much you think Gordon's stock has fallen in the last year or so, and (3) what you make of other teams passing on Cron on the waiver wire. I'd probably put Gordon ahead of Cron, but it's definitely debatable. Trying to decide if it's an ominous sign that Javier has climbed two spots after missing a year. Does that suggest the Twins' assets are overall less valuable this year than last? Or is it more of a fluke? Not sure. Something I'll be thinking about as the list moves forward.

It's a provocative point, but I just can't agree. If Buxton and Sano don't perform in 2019, the Twins will not be contending in 2019. Period, full stop. There's just no way a contingency plan for these two struggling next year can be strong enough to produce a playoff berth.

Thanks for this write-up, Cody. I've had it in my head for some time that Mauer is a player who was on a Hall of Fame trajectory at age 27 and then saw that path evaporate as injuries and a move to first base wrecked the back half of his career. But in looking back at the totality of his work and where he ultimately landed, calling it a Hall of Fame career isn't far-fetched at all. Mauer was better for longer than I gave him credit for and I hope he gets the recognition he's earned.

I'm one of the few who thinks Mauer will spend 2019 in another team's uniform. The way I imagine this playing out is shortly after the season ends, Mauer will decide he wants to keep playing in 2019. The Twins' front office will be agreeable, but be transparent that they hope to use him in a platoon/bench bat role. Mauer, having made the decision to play, will want an everyday job, and ultimately some other team will offer it to him and he'll accept.

Fun stuff! I thought for sure the Bobblefoot Giveaway would make an appearance.

I'm assuming a "Gimenez for cash considerations" type of trade would get it done. If not, I agree, there's no reason to do it.

I'm high enough on Garver to think he's worthy of a starting role. Would make a point of upgrading on Bobby Wilson, though. How about reaching out to the Cubs to see what it would take to acquire Chris Gimenez? He's languishing in AAA with June 1 opt-out date; I'd have to think we could get him for almost free. Not a high-powered move, and yeah, it's righty-righty with Garver, but it would stabilize the back-up catcher spot cheaply.

One entry in and this article series has already become Must Read material for me. Looking forward to having these throughout the season!

I see both of these moves as good moves in a vacuum; the question is what they mean in the context of this offseason. I agree with Nick's premise--this is a good test of Falvine's pitching evaluation. Sanchez is an extremely low-risk signing. The question will be what they do with him. If they cut him during spring training or he makes the rotation and pitches like a major league pitcher, it's a good move. It's only if they mis-evaluate him and give him a roster spot he doesn't deserve that this one haunts us. There's no question Odorizzi is worth more to this organization than Palacios. In many ways, this trade reminds me of the Aaron Hicks for John Ryan Murphy trade. As a trade, it's a good one. As a Twins fan, I'm underwhelmed that this is how the front office has chosen to fill a glaring hole. Overall, I'm trusting their evaluators to see something real there and find value if this is their solution. The Hicks deal obviously didn't work out. The Odorizzi deal makes me nervous in that the Rays are known for their pitching savvy, too. But I'm willing to see what comes of it.

I always liked this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4RtPSoFFJg