DocBauer

What I remember most was how good Hughes was. He may have earned a new contract, but it shouldn't have happened after just 1yr. And I don't know if he would have made a big difference the next couple of seasons or not, but I would have like to see what a healthy Hughes could have done for the duration of his deal. The second thing I remember was just how good Santana was. While miscast as a CF, he didn't stink and was put in an awkward spot. With his athleticism and potential...I remember breakdowns during games how quick and strong his wrists were when turning on a ball...I thought we had found a really, really good super utility player. Ugh! What might have been for both guys.

I'm hoping not in regard to Celestino for obvious reasons. Despite pitching depth, I may have made the OP about 4 players and included Duran.

While he missed time here and there, as most all players do, I believe he was a starting catcher for 9yrs. Now that's not 12-14yrs, but it's a long time. Multiple All Star games, MVP, THREE batting titles, etc. IMO his career behind the plate speaks for itself. And then you look at some of the other criteria posted in the OP, and the arguement for him in the HOF just continues to grow. IMO, baseball writers are "smart enough" about all he did/was behind the dish before the move to 1B and won't hold it against him. In fact, his ability to still be a solid player and re-invent himself in to a Gold Glove worthy 1B should only enhance his resume. Again, IMO. A lot of guys may have faded away overnight or hung it up. Don't see any way he's 1st ballot. But I think he's in.

A little surprised Wade was selected. I think the kid still has a chance despite a poor 2019. A good eye and solid OB skills with solid defense just don't go away. But it feels like he is a tease at this point. He seems to have all the ability to be a perfect 4th OF who can fill in anywhere and who can do everything well, just not great. With that being said, he seems to posses enough overall ability to mature in to a potential starting corner OF...who could fill in at CF...and have the triple slash line to be productive and even dangerous as a #1 or #2 hitter along with good defense. (A better Cave). But I need to see a step forward we haven't seen yet. Really interested/excited by Seth's selection of Chalmers. If I could pick ONE GUY in the entire system who gets potentially screwed with no milb season, it's Dakota. (Though he could/should be on any proposed taxi squad). How many times have we seen a big arm have issues early on and then find the right place and time where he is healthy, learned and grown, and then is ready to rock? IF he is 100% and ready to go he has to work on control, duh, and find a 3rd pitch to keep him as a SP. Changeup, palmball, splitter, cutter, SOMEBODY find him a 3rd reliable pitch and you could have something solid to special. Who cares if injury set him back a full season or so. The wait could be worth it. I just think it's a mistake to speculate he's a RP waiting to happen. And he could be a great one! But I would be willing to give him at least another season, perhaps two considering where we are right now. Stud RP or quality/potential SP? I'm OK with the RP idea. I just want to give him enough time to know for sure.

"Daddy, when is the scary part over?"

I know there is so much to scouting and projection than just some basic numbers and observation. And I fully appreciate the reports presented here in this list. Maybe it's just me, but I seem to be as excited, or more so, for the pitching prospects in the last list.

I LOVE our Twins! I LOVE baseball! I WANT baseball! But right now, I am so damn frustrated with both sides that I almost don't care and want to concentrate on football season even though it is months away. I actually think the owners proposal was MOSTLY fair and realistic. Especially when they offered to basically split the post season pretty evenly with the players. (Post season $ is HUGE in regard to the established TV contracts). But I think their sliding scale to pay less % of salary to top players was off the mark...though understood from their point of view...and was guaranteed to rankle the top players who hold most of the power in the union. A big mistake on the owners part, IMO. The players tick me off with an even longer season...to get more prorated $ of course...as there is no guarantee the postseason happens if additional health concerns pop up. That takes a HUGE bite out of MLB profits, incurring additional ML losses, and the players know that. (As a fan, of course I'd like more games). Oh, and the players "graciously" will allow the owners to defer $ down the road. Down the road from what? A country and economy suffering from a pandemic and sudden social unrest and a future CBA right around the corner that could cause a work stoppage and further damage the entire structure of MLB? So now rumor spreads the owners, per the commissioner, are posturing a 60G season to mitigate losses. Both sides need to pull their heads out and find a compromise that is as close to fair and equitable as they can find. The players are absolutely, positively, not going to make the $ they hoped to make in 2020. The owners are absolutely, positively going to lose $ in 2020. (At BEST find a way to break even). And these things are going to have an affect on the next 2-4yrs as the entire economy of the U.S. and the world, much less baseball, Players: You are risking not only 2020, but future income and growth and public interest in your sport/profession for years to come. Do you not remember the ramifications from the last strike? Owners: You're going to lose $. You can try to mitigate your losses. But what happens if You alienate all of your key employees? Do you also not remember the ramifications from the last strike? To Both: Do you not remember the ramifications from the last strike? Have either of you paid attention to the growth of the NFL and NBA? BOTH of you suck it up, be smart, compromise, and don't destroy your sport. The Twins still have the potential to succeed and do well in a 60G season. Maybe win it all. But I don't expect a season that short. It will be at least 80G or it won't happen at all.

Yes please. May we take two? Ironically, Baseball America has the Twins taking Carmen Miodzinski with their 1st round pick 27th overall, which is where you have him ranked. Considering that coincidence, and the very makeup of his last name when reflecting on Twins history must make him the real world selection. If so, hoping all that Cape Cod magic is warranted.

To me, this not only one of the worst seasons in Twins history, but may be the most disappointing. This was a team that seemed to have everything in place following 2010, but also a few interesting additions and some guys coming back. If memory serves, it also the Twins previous record payroll due to high expectations. Despite never winning it all, or getting bounced earlier than expected, the team largely had a really good run from 2000 until this year. For various reasons, this was the beginning of mostly bottoming out for the next several years.

The Ramos deal turned out to haunt in the future. It was one of a few bad trades around this time. But when you had Mauer behind the plate, it's still really hard tomfault the idea of a prospect for a proven arm in a season when the Twins were in a "go for it" season.

I have chosen to stay out of the conversation, thus far, for a variety of reasons that are mine, and not because I am apathetic in any way. And I may or may not respond again, as that is also my choice, and again, not because I am apathetic. Any my own political beliefs will also be left out as they are personal, varied and really not important to this discussion. Honestly, not quite sure how politics were brought in to a human condition and society OP to begin with, but I guess these things happen. Nick, love you man. Love your courage to put yourself out there like this. It isn't easy to do things like this. I'm sure you knew that beforehand but betting you underestimated some of the backlash. I don't always agree on everything you say about baseball, or the Twins, but I always respect you, as I do now. As to MY $.02: 1] While I appreciate your reference to Kepler's picture and subsequent posts, referencing was probably appropriate. And while I think you were pretty clear on your Kepler stance, naming him in the headline and using him as an example, may have been a mistake. I believe he should have been left out of the lead as he ends up looking like a target, unintentional though I'm sure it was. REFERENCING the recent, unfortunate events surrounding him would have been more appropriate. I don't have to tell you that sometimes what you write and intend may not come across exactly the way you intended it to. To everyone, not directed to you, the TIMING of Max wearing that mask is seen as poor. But is it really? What happened is so abhorant and disgusting that I can't even find words. But something wonderful has happened in our country over the past couple of decades where we, as a society, have begun to pay real tribute, and show deserved respect, to our military forces abroad and our fire/rescue and police force in this country and to the men and women who make up these branches. Despite all the flaws that social media presents, one of the great positives is the sharing of good and profound opinions, actions and thoughts. Police officers across the country, of ALL races, have spoken out VERY directly and deliberately about what took place. They have been STAUNCH in their opinions and beliefs! And THEY ARE that blue line. T-shirts, posters, bumper stickers, hats, flags, rings, and so much more has inundated our society the past couple of decades for good reason. We should NEVER forget what that blue line means and represents to us as a society. If Max is guilty of anything, besides bad timing, it's having a bad PR campaign where he could have eased out of this uncomfortable situation with more grace. 2] Not sure how politics got brought in to this except for the reference to someone who is in politics. Which really shouldn't be an issue considering the quote you used was about life, rights and basic humanity and the quote ITSELF stated it wasn't about politics. Does the nature of the quote source just bring out angst from some that shouldn't be applied in this context? 3] I don't agree with the generalised comment that our community and country are "broken". Perhaps a poor choice of words? There are REAL ISSUES in our country that need to be addressed, INCLUDING race issues. And while it is so easy for me as a midwestern white person who is NOT affluent to state such things, I think the American society HAS changed and GROWN very much over my lifetime. MORE CHANGE is clearly needed. I don't think any of us could argue differently. As a society of quality human beings, we should all support additional growth and change. And none of should want anything more than that of hurry our heads in the sand. 4] Despite my "critique" of your post, GROWTH and UNDERSTANDING is what is most important. Whether you like Nicks post or not, whether you feel he espoused any political agenda or not...(go back and re-read calmly)...change for the better is something we should all want. I LOVE this site, what it is all about, and the WONDERFUL community that it is. And while all of this is an absentee community for most of us, I honestly feel there is a connection and friendship and sort of "familia" brought to all of us. But i am rather disappointed by some of the attacking comments I've read. It's OK to disagree. I've disagreed with Nick on a few things here without being nasty. And I know the whole world is in a weird, mixed up pandemic mess right now and this is a hot social topic. I just wish it could have been handled with a little more decorum. And I'm OUT!

Like and agree. But it's not that simple in today's game. Rogers earned the right to be the closer. But originally, early in the season, veteran Parker was OK in his role as traditional closer and Rogers was used more in high leverage situations. As things changed/developed, May and Duffey really came on and Rogers assumed a more traditional closer role. Advanced analysis and statistics have taught us that WINS and SAVES don't necessarily mean/indicate what we once thought they meant. I get that. I understand that. But at the same time, while a SP might pitch great and get screwed out of a win, or even end up with a loss despite a great performance, a consistently good SP may also gain a win or 2 or 3 to make up for it on a decent, competitive team. The life of a RP, however, is volatile. You can blow everyone away and do your job 4 times out of 5 and still have mediocre numbers due that that 5th appearance. Despite "easy" saves, I still find the role of a closer to be VERY relevant. IF your SP is of any quality, and your team is of any quality, you are still looking at most games with your SP going 5-7 IP. How does your team respond offensively? How does the rest of your pen respond? IMPO, the 9th inning guy is still very important. Unlike other sports, there is no real substitution in baseball, other than PH or the occassional double switch component. And yes, with all of that, how often does the closer really get a cheap 7-9 hitter save opportunity? Couple that with a quality bat off the bench. So what Cody is saying is, if you have May and Duffey available, and the 8th inning has your opponent's heart of the order up, maybe you let Taylor be your FIREMAN and let someone else pitch the next inning. THAT I can agree with.

Off subject but still on topic, I've mentioned before in discussion of the whole milb payment structure, were I an owner, knowing the milb system is my lifeblood, even though only a small percentage ever make it and make a real difference at the ML level I'd still like to leverage my odds. Unless there is some rule(s) I don't know about, I'd be the organization that would willingly pay more to my players, and do the best I can to improve their daily, weekly, monthly benefits. Why? Because a milb FA worth a darn might be more inclined to sign with my organization. An international FA might be more inclined to sign knowing he will be better taken care of in regards to salary and simple but important things like room and board plus introduction to English and culture lessons. Things like this can pay dividends over time, and the cost would be minimal compared to ML costs. Think about the 5 round draft coming up. Players, and we're talking about college seniors and draft eligible college players, who would you rather sign with if you can't go back to school for another year? Would you sign with a team that has already cut players...to be fair if it was a normal year EVERY team would be making some cuts pre draft...or sign with a team making NO CUTS at this time and guaranteeing pay and benefits for the rest of the season? Again, the Twins being classy, caring and forward thinking.

So the Twins are caring, forward thinking and classy? And maybe not so cheap after all, eh? I am extremely gratified by this news.

People sometimes worry about what Berrios hasn't done yet they fail to remember what he HAS done. Really, he has been amongst the best SP in ball for about 3/4 of a season before seeming to wear out. I have always attributed that to his famous workout dedication being too strenuous for the season. He and the Twins seem to agree as he did much better at the end of 2019 and there has been additional talk of him adjusting his routine. Oh, and he just turned 26yo I believe Odorizzi needs to prove it again. But late 20's is right about the time a lot of pitchers really hit their peak as talent and experience mesh. Maeda was moved to the pen to close out each of the past few years...from all in have read...because the Dodgers had depth, needed help in the pen, and he was lights out there. The numbers back up his effectiveness. I don't know how good he will be, but his career has been very good so far. Just don't tire him put for the second half, but that's a non issue for 2020. BTW, he's also coming off his best season vs LH batters. We should be excited to watch him.

Way too early to think about mock drafts, especially in baseball, but I find myself really intrigued about this draft considering the whole situation. I try to read and reflect on our FO and try to find some pattern. A couple things I've noticed: 1] Seems to me they look a lot at work ethic and character of a selection. 2] They often seem to look at one special ability of a player and then speculate how much improvement can be developed off of that. Probably even more true of pitchers. Example: He has a tremendous X pitch, now how can we project Y and Z playing off that the next couple of years. Area scouts watch kids across the country from early HS all the way to college. But seems to me, projecting a college age player, even with mixed results and a shortened 2020 spring, would be a lot easier right now than a HS player with a scholarship in hand who barely played ball this year, or not at all. The latest issue of Baseball America basically states this is a prime year for college talent, regardless of current circumstances. While the potential of position players is outstanding, this could be the best draft class of college pitchers in years! They even posted 2019 and 2020 pitching options in a ranking and it was dominated by 2020 arms. It's still all speculation, and I don't think TOP HS players will be ignored, but I'm wondering, with no milb season and maturation factors, if the Twins and most teams don't target primarily/only college players. Despite overall depth in the system, including better pitching talent than we've seen in years, I wonder if the Twins don't go this route. Maybe college pitchers only?

I feel for the milb system and am amongst the VAST MAJORITY of us here who have advocated for change there. And I'm not going to bring up that debate again except to say that I don't think financial "loss" is accurate. Players in MLB today "paid their dues" to arrive at their goal. They received millions to a couple thousand dollars for signing and then a salary to play, unfair though the $ may be. But they never lost $ to play, unless they chose to turn down $ in another career area to peruse their dream. Not picking on your post as you and mostly agree on all things, including this conversation, just trying to be clear headed and accurate while trying to make some additional points and using your quote as a place to start. When something hits a business hard, such as this pandemic, losses are also generally spread out from infrastructure to salary cutbacks. Most people I know, fortunately for them, have remained gainfully employed, though have lost bonuses or various forms of extra pay they may have earned. But they are still employed and still earning $. But it obviously hasn't been the same for a lot of people who are temporarily or permanently let go. Someone mentioned a chef, I believe it was, as an analogy of someone being asked to take a pay cut to work. While that stinks, at least that chef would still be able to work and earn while the business was carry out only, no in house customers, and now maybe partial in house customer occupancy. But that restaurant owner was still paying rent, utilities, taxes, benefits for his employees, and salaries for as many employees as they still could, even if there were cut backs. Taken to a big picture scenario, this is where baseball finds itself right now. When most anyone joins a business or a company, they start at a lower level and work their way up in regard to salary and title. This is generally true from a recent college grad to a fry cook who becomes a restaurant manager. Even if salaries are absurd, ML players have earned their contracts via the structures in place. And I can be appreciative of them and their talent and earnings, While also being a bit jealous, but I don't begrudge them their $. And IMO, they are being asked to make less $, but truly, they are not being asked to "lose" money the way MLB is expected to lose. (Or at best maybe break even). Now, where I think ownership is making a mistake is IF they are still trying to find profit here. It's one thing to mitigate losses or break even, but it's another situation entirely if they're still trying to eek out said profit in their "side investment/hobby" at this juncture. Another area where ownership could be POTENTIALLY making a mistake is the lower percentage of $ paid to the higher market players. If they are going to lose $ as the entity that is MLB, perhaps losing a bit more to adjust higher values to those players could be seen as a good faith offering, especially with the CBA around the corner. Business wise, agreeing to a bigger loss may not make sense, but for better labor peace it could pay eventual dividends. In regard to MLB, and owners, asking for assistance to mitigate losses but unwilling to share in additional revenue, i am utterly perplexed. Before THIS CRAZY SITUATION, the players have enjoyed great financial rewards over the past couple of decades. So they HAVE shared in tne revenue growth of the sport. Further, while final numbers may be fluid, I find it very interesting that tbe owners proposal includes bonuses paid out to the players based on post season and WS revenue. Perhaps I read it wrong, but my impression was that would be league wide. To the players I would simply add, they are smart enough to know this pandemic situation is going to have far reaching affects over the next few years in regard to everything from extensions, arbitration and FA. But for the good of the sport, the union, the players themselves, a little more hurt for 2020 might somewhat somewhat soften the blow over the next few years. But again, I'd offer up to ownership that a little more loss and cooperation with the union now may lead to a better CBA going forward.

Rounded slightly, as a whole, MLB brings in $10B to pay for the sport. (Obviously individual teams $ varies). Only half a season is played, total revenue becomes $5B. Your $20M player's prorated salary is now $10M. Simple, right? Now, half a season without fans, and expected MLB revenue becomes $3B, or so is estimated. That means a half season, fan less, is 1/3 total income. Your $20M salaried player now earns slightly more than $6.5M. In other words, not far off from the $5M proposed in the chart above. Now, there is some debate/confusion as to language in the original agreement between both sides. This could all be media fed hype, but it would sound logical that the reported clauses to re-address the original agreement once more information was gathered ring true. The debate then becomes very different. Lower salary players earn less, but make a higher percent of their 100% target. Are the owners just trying to save more $? Are they trying to be more equitable and fair to lower salary players? Both? You don't have to answer that, I'm just tossing out thoughts. Kind of puts some of the onus on the players to agree amongst themselves. But really, at least as an initial proposal, what ownership has presented doesn't sound all that illogical or impractical to me.

While a half season stinks, it should be enough for the true contenders to sort themselves out. Lesser teams could be hot for stretches, but not sure they could maintain momentum needed to reach the playoffs, much less win it all. However, the 1987 Twins team might disagree with me going from worst to first. I want to agree with Nick on their being a caveat asterisk involved if there is an "epidemic" of players who sit out. But if it turns our to be a small number, then I would call that not historically consequential as every season there are some guys stars or not, that are hurt and miss large chunks or all of a season due to injury. History should look on 2020 the same in this case should it prove to be a small group.

You are 100% correct. Don't know where my head was. Make my vote Sano or Donaldson. Either would have the big power and probably OB to make a difference and let Killer play 1B. Donaldson, with head reattached to body, is probably the correct selection. *I did have a little accident over the weekend that involved my forehead meeting concrete, so I have that as an excuse.

I'm with Ash on this one. 3 shutouts with few hits involved screams the need for a difference maker. Sano could have been that guy.

A bit crazy and frustrating to look back at this season. How many years did the Twins have the offense but no or not enough pitching? And then they had plenty in 2005 but so little offense for various reasons. I lament but never really dwell on letting Ortiz go. Mistakes happen and the Twins have benefited from other team's mistakes. And it happened so long ago that to dwell seems counter productive. But I never understood the issues with Lohse. He did not have a great career, but he had a solid one with a few really nice seasons here and there. Something just never seemed to "fit" between he and the Twins.

2020......so far

The LHP Shuster sounds like the perfect selection if he's still around for our second selection. A little under the radar and projectable.

In regard to the original 10: 1] Garver: HR% numbers could drop league wide depending on the ball. But the HR and launch angle trend in MLB is real. So is Garver's power, approach and swing. Can we even really call last year a true "breakout" season when it was really his first year as the "primary" receiver and only 2nd season overall? I think he's for real. 2] Garver games caught: Ugh, math. Still a good platoon partner. But a short season. 50 games, which is 60%. 3] Sano at 1B: He's going to miss a few balls and botch a few plays. He's played there before but is learning the nuances. He won't be great right away, but he will be solid. He will also use his natural athleticism to make a few plays that will make you say; "Whoa! If he could just do that more consistently...." 4] Arraez: You won't see such a natural hitter slump even if he doesn't hit .330 in his second season. Even a dip to .310-.315 with a .390ish OB is excellent. He'll improve defensively and might even muscle up on the XB production. 5] Polanco: No, probably, because there won't be an All Star game. Not unless they want to have one after the season, similar to the NFL, which I doubt for various reasons. But he could make an All Star 1st-3rd team All Star post season selection team. 6] Rosario: He's been bothered the 2nd half of each of the last 2 seasons with different injuries. Healthy, smart enough talented enough, still young enough, healthy and just a small improvement in approach lifts an already good game to a more consistent level. And he will be back in 2021 Because he's good, still won't be overly expensive, and there are doubts anyone will be ready to replace him considering how weird this whole year is going to be. 7] Buxton: He will be dinged, like most players, and miss a few games. But not only should experience be teaching him how to save his body better, and it's a short season, but law of averages will come in to play here to balance some bad luck. 8] Kepler: Reference the law of averages again while factoring in youth, talent, approach, great swing and adjustments being made. At some point his ridiculous BABIP will adjust, even a little. We still haven't seen the best from Max. 9] Cruz: Father time will beat him. But it won't happen this year. Witness not only 2019 but the ST he was having before thjngs shut down. Now factor in a half season. He might not have another career season, even in an abbreviated one, but he will be fine. I would have said the same thing in regard to a full and complete 2020 season, with the idea Father Time would start to pull ahead in 2021. But in a Twins uniform or not for 2021, I'm thinking a short 2020 may put off the inevitable by another year. 10] Donlaldson: He won't be crushing on Twins pitching, but he has crushed about anyone, anywhere, in his career when healthy. I have no doubts he will continue to do so for the first 2-3yrs of his contract, as long as he remains healthy. Guy is a stud hitter. Like Cruz, the half season may actually work to an advantage. Yep, I'm an optimist, but I think all of this is logical and true.