Tiantwindup

FESTA = Future Elite STarter Asset fits his name better (as well as my hopes)!

Fun read!!

I think another way to describe some of this behavior is to say the organization acted with integrity. In addition to Nick’s thoughts there is another benefit of this recent activity that could positively impact future signings—the Boras relationship. It was not too many years ago that when the discussion of trading for or drafting of Boras’ clients arose many on this board were fearful because once they got close to free agency we expected them to bolt. We did not want to draft or trade for such players. They would become unaffordable. They would not stay. Five or ten years ago were any Twins players represented by Boras? Now, shortly after signing C4 we sign Paddock (to what I think most would agree is a pretty team-friendly deal). . Boras is his agent (I haven’t checked for the full list but there are other Boras clients in the Twins’ organization). I do think the relationship with Boras helps with future negotiations with his clients. And possibly more importantly, when major leaguers see that the highest profile agent has many clients employed by the Twins it can only help their perception of the organization. And by extension, their willingness to consider signing here.

Thanks for the details on the big names and the ‘low-dollar’ signees beyond the first 3. Although it’s fun to read about the potential of the high-end guys, I think it’s the low end guys that dictate success level in international signees (Arraez vs Sano, for example), simply because, as mentioned, it’s hard to predict the future of a 16 YO. Are the most successful teams those that sign the the big names or those that sign, say, the most in the $50-200K range (Altuve, anyone?)? Should the Padres have signed 30 guys for $100-200K rather than one for essentially their total pool of money? Anyone got any insight over the question of ‘quantity vs quality’?

Simply to flesh out more information. Did the info from the Giants answer every single question you have about his opinion or do you want to clarify something or go a little deeper? You are about to commit $315M. Look, I’m not saying the Mets aren’t using this as an excuse to rescind a hastily proposed contract or whatnot, I’m just of the opinion that if you want to sign a guy for 12 years and you know of an eminent physician who thinks it’s not a good idea then I think it would be proper due diligence to speak with him directly versus just relying on a report or whatever it is they had. I think NOT talking to him would be weird.

It seems logical to me to call the same doctor. If he is the one who raised the red flag wouldn’t you want to talk to him directly and understand exactly what his position is and why he thinks what he thinks? Now if that is the ONLY doctor they spoke with it would be a different story.

Totally agree on Gordon. What’s not to love? how about a package of gray and polanco for a starting pitcher?

Yes it does: the Yankees, also mentioned, are at -10%!

It’s seems that the Twins drafting philosophy is that there is less risk drafting a bat vs an arm when the pick is at the top of the draft. In the ten drafts from 2008-2017, the twins drafted 9 pitchers in the first round and only two—Berrios and Gibson—have had success as staring pitchers. And the two highest picks, Stewart and Jay, were big busts. On the hitting side, there were 8 first rounders and 3 of them, Buxton, Hicks, and Gordon, have been solid contributors. In addition, both Lewis and Kiriloff still have a good chance to be solid and arguably would already be if not for injury. This may be a small sample size but I think it is instructive.

Its seems that there is one specific instance where all might agree that a bunt is a worthwhile out. Extra innings, tie game in bottom of inning. Only one run is needed. Bunt the ghost runner to third …

Spot on. It is beyond me as to why there aren’t relievers pitching multiple innings to help manage workload. That could take the form of Bundy/Archer piggybacking or relievers pitching 2 (or more) innings rather than 1 on each outing. For example, rather than having Jax and Fulmer pitch 1 inning each for 4 consecutive days (not gonna happen), have one pitch 2 innings on day 1 and 3 and the other do same on days 2 and 4.

It seems to me the meaningful alternative is for mlb to do offer in-market viewing option as an add-on to the current plan; for example, for $10 more per month allow MN residents to watch the Twins.

Yes, surprisingly nice for us that they made it through waivers.

Intriguing thoughts. Anyone know the deadline for him to opt out for next year if he chooses to do so?

Many of the comments reflect a view that from a performance standpoint Duffey had to go and then follow up with some combination of statements on good performance in past/wish him well/he was a good guy. Too often we blame underperformance on laziness, stubbornness, etc. rather than recognizing this is a really difficult game to play and it is hard to sustain at a high level of play. I appreciate those of you that recognize and acknowledge that in your comments on Duffey.