Blake

I have to admit, I don't care as long as that arm is someone available for the team to use this year.

Yep.

Looks like this is the analytics approach to baseball contracts.

Wave of the future? Fewer huge contracts late in a players career and, instead, teams start paying earlier?

Completely against universal DH. I don't like the idea of the game becoming that homogenized. That's why baseball has "ground rules." Baseball is a very subtle game and incredibly difficult to play, from what I can tell. (never played, just somewhat of a student of the game) I honestly don't know how one draws in more fans. It used to be a day at the ballpark was a way for people to decompress, sit back, enjoy the game, and forget about the outside world. These days, I suspect people are just too busy to want to take time out of their lives to watch baseball. I don't know if it's due to a dynamic that's changed in the American psyche or what. Of course, if I could answer that question I would probably be working in baseball promotions somewhere. I think changing baseball to draw in new fans risks alienating existing fans. Glad I'm not the one making those decisions.

Ownership appears to have brought in people to address the issue through the hiring of Falvey and Levine.

This is the kind of article that reminds me why I need to give the new FO a lot longer leash than I have been. The new FO is not only trying to get things straightened out at the MLB level, but also trying to revamp and get the minor league system into better shape. That's a tall order and there just is no quick fix for all of the issues the FO is dealing with.

Taylor Rodgers may be one to keep an eye on this year.

Nah, I'm an old fashioned kind of blog guy. This new-fangled stuff is just a fad.

I don't like the idea of a long term contract for Machado. However, big money, short term, limits risk. Everything is a trade-off. I'm willing to accept Machado coming here on a short term big money deal. No way I want the Twins to sign Machado for 10 years. Which sort of got lost in the shuffle. Also, one cannot look at Machado's Series in isolation. Rather, it is part and parcel of Machado's history. Too lazy to say the same thing with different words, so you get recycled words.

I don't like the idea of a long term contract for Machado. However, big money, short term, limits risk. Everything is a trade-off. I'm willing to accept Machado coming here on a short term big money deal. No way I want the Twins to sign Machado for 10 years. Which sort of got lost in the shuffle. Also, one cannot look at Machado's Series in isolation. Rather, it is part and parcel of Machado's history of questionable play.

All eyes were on Machado during the Series and Machado knew he was hitting the FA market after the Series. Instead, Machado played like a punk and possibly damaged his chances at a big contract. I would think the Series should have been an incentive to step up and perform. Didn't happen,.

Watched him play in the Series. He was a FA after the Series, which should have given Machado huge incentive to play his guts out. He didn't. Plus, looked at other things he's done. i've seen a couple of people, don't remember who are when, say they think Machado, because of the way he handled himself in the Series, played himself out of a big long-term contract. Grain of salt and all that.

I've mentioned those things in past, which is why I didn't bring it up again. The "losing interest" angle is one that just recently struck me.

I am against signing Machado to a long term deal. I don't like him, but this kind of contract I could live with. One of the reasons I'm against Machado and a long term deal is that I think as soon as Machado loses interest in playing for the team he signs with, I'm pretty sure it would show up in his play on the field. At which point, the long-term contract become an albatross. However, short term, big money? You bet go for it.

And here I was looking forward to linking a picture of my depends. Oh wait, TMI?

Looks to me like a "hoping to get a good amount of innings and decent ERA at the trade deadline so he can be flipped for more prospects" signing.

Yeah, the big back swing that hits the catcher is a scream, isn't it?

I don't like Machado and think he's a punk that would be detrimental to the team. I was all for trying to sign Machado until I watched him the Series. After that performance, no thanks. Anyway, you'd mortgage the future for one player when the Twins have so many other glaring needs? You think it isn't possible to find two players for the money that Machado will command that will fill two holes rather than just one? Of course, in looking at big free agent contracts over the years, I think such contracts tend to be long term albatrosses for teams. I will admit I have a personal animus against these big contracts because I think teams tend to get stuck with a salary and a player that isn't producing yet still pulling down a significant chunk of money. And don't get me wrong, it's not the money. I just take a dim view of paying for a player that who's best days are long past. Granted, the contract length problem very well wouldn't be an issue with Machado because of his age, but the personality side really bothers me.

Great post. Thanks. And you know the FO is looking at these types of things.

Uh, sorry, no, it isn't. The Twins, nor us, cannot look at a contract in isolation it also has to be looked at in the larger picture, which is the Twins have some young and possibly marquee players that very well will need big contracts.

What if the Twins are passing on Machado not because of money, but because of his on-field antics? I think the Twins have enough to deal with in regards to Sano and I think the last thing they need is someone else who has issues. Again, just tossing it out there.

Yeah, count me as someone else who dislikes his on field antics.

Looks like we have a lively discussion going on here. If the Twins sign Machado to a ridiculous contract, where do they get the money to retain Buxton, Kepler, Sano and Rosario? Along with paying for pitching? I think it's safe to say at least two of those players are going to need significant jumps in salary if not all 4. And, how much money is Berrios going to command in order to retain his services? How about Odorizzi? And what if Gibson is truly hitting his stride and still has two or three good years left in him?

Fair enough.