Trov

Unless we can extend him, which I have no clue what that extension would look like, as there is no one to ever compare him to, I would not traded for a 1 year rental on him. It would cost way too much to get just 1 year from, and with only getting a pick back in return after he turns down the QO is not enough. I would love to have him and sign him long term but doubt we will.

Unless you going big, I would not understand going after starters. We have a good amount of solid 2 or 3 number guys. Assuming Maeda and Mahle will be healthy. Gray, Mahle, Maeda, Ryan all slot into that spot. Leaving 1 open spot in a 5 man rotation, that can be filled by Ober, SWR, Varland, Widner if needed. Of course injuries will happen and depth is needed, but I do not see the Twins going after a Bundy/Archer type guy this off-season. If they go after a starter it better be a spend big top end guy for a couple years. I could see them go after the level 2 type guys if they plan to make some trades of the glut we have. Depending on the years Degrom is looking for, I could see the Twins willing to give the 35 mil per, but only for like 2 to 3 years, with vesting options for anything after that. His injuries are huge concerns to be dropping that kind of cash on a single guy, but he would help if healthy most likely. Bassit to me is not an Ace, but a good number 2, which I would take but is he that much better than what we have now to spend huge when we could go after other positions is needed?

I have said all along, there is no guarantee that paying big for a pitcher in FA will equal post season success. First, if you pay huge for one pitcher, then you put all your eggs into that one basket, so to speak. If they have a bad start and lose you can call your post season basically over, because you were counting on that one win and hoping the second or third guy to get lucky. Yes, some teams have won that way, Giants in the past have done it, but other teams have failed with that approach too, like the Twins. Not that we paid big for a single guy, but look at Santana in his prime with us, His only post season games, he was 1-2 in starts the team wining 2 of the 5 games he started. He was the best in the game over that time basically, but we did not get it done with him. Look at Verlander, Scherzer, and Kershaw, 3 HOF pitchers. Scherzer has been the only one of the 3 with a lot of post season success over his career. His post season numbers worse than his career numbers, which is not super surprising, but take a look at this year, he was dominate all year, only to have 2 bad starts out of 3 this year. His team won the first start with a walk off come from behind HR in 9th, and they just lost the WS game he started. In games he has started team is 18-15 with a huge run in 2017 winning 4 of 5 games started. Scherzer, who overall has had some great games in post season, outside of 2019, where his team won all 5 games he started, his teams record is 4-13, so if you include the one great year it is 9-13. His bullpen time is about equal good and bad. Kershaw has been a big mix as well. In games he started the team is 18-15, which is not bad, but he has never had a dominate run in any post season. My point is, even with the HOF guys, having amazing regular seasons, there is no saying they will dominate in the playoffs. Personally, I would rather have depth in the rotation with 4 above average guys, than one single huge guy and fill in the rest. Yes, if we can go out an pay for a guy that will be great, it will help, but very few high paid guys go out and live up to their contracts if you look at the percentage of big deals to pitchers over the years. It is a huge gamble to pay big for a FA starter.

To me, Joe Ryan is the fix it before it is broken kind of approach. He has dominated on his fastball his whole career. All the 'experts' say, he will not dominate with his fastball at the MLB level so he needs to get better secondary pitches. So he works on his secondary pitches, only to be dominated by his secondary pitches, and dominate with his fastball. Hmmm, something seems odd here. We say he cannot dominate with his fastball in the MLB level, despite he has done exactly that. It is his secondary pitches that have not done well. I get that for most guys, you need to mix it up because if not they will tee off the fastball and lay off anything else, but it seems to me the approach against Joe has been the other way round for now. I hate the plan of predict failure so fix it before it happens, only to have it happen when you try to fix it, then point to I told you so. His fastball is not overpowering, but hard to barrel up, so why not throw it more and more, until teams start to sit on it, then mix in the off speed? Hell, I think first time through rotation, he should almost throw it every pitch, unless teams start hitting it hard. Then if they start to attack the first fastball and actually hit it hard, then look to throw some off-speed out of the zone, not waste pitches per se, but make sure not in a good place to hit. Pitching is all about keeping guys off balance for most part, but if you have a pitch they cannot hit well, why not throw it mainly until the hitters adjust? Why adjust to their expected adjustments? For example, for years Buxton was known to chase sliders off the plate. He would get one after another, and more and more on 2 strikes. He would chase over and over, but then some times a pitcher would get cute and throw him a fastball, only to see it get crushed. He never showed he would lay off the pitch, nor that he would square it up, unless it got hung, so why throw anything else? Until the hitter shows they will actually hit a pitch, why make it easy for them? Let Joe throw the fastball, then worry about him when teams actually hit it. I remember when pitchers started pitching up the zone, and everyone said they need to not do that or they will get crushed, now many experts point out that pitching up in the zone is very effective it is the top of the zone. I am not saying he does not need to work on the off-speed pitches, mainly for that time there is the adjustment. But until that time comes, stop telling him he needs to throw more off-speed to be effective, when that appears to be a main reason he has not been.

Sometimes it is just the right fit for the right team too. I mean look at Lance Lynn, he was terrible for us, most likely he was out of shape due to late signing, but it was the worst of his career between us and the Yankees in 2018. Then he follows that up with 3 of his best years of his career, or at least back to his expected level. This year not nearly as good. Other guys have outlying years over time as well. The issue is, pitching is super hard to predict long term future. Injuries derail many careers, or guys fall off the cliff very quickly, after many years of success. Only HOF level pitchers tend to be Ace level into their 30's, and they are very few and far between. I have said for years FA is the hardest way to get an Ace, at least for long term because normally they regress a ton into their 30's. Sure you can point to Verlander, Scherzer and a few others, but for every one of them you can see several that failed in their 30's, at least compared to what they did pre free agency. I am not saying do not try to get one, but they are hard to project in draft. I mean you mention Greene as a possible ace, which he has the overall stuff to develop into that, but his first year is not ace level outputs. Gore did even worse. Wright, now in 5th year pitching in majors had a 21 win season, but his numbers outside of that are fringe ace like. Overall my point is finding an reliable ace is very hard to do, and I cannot think of a single team that can always seem to find one.

This is the first year under the new structure. Like it or hate it, it is hear to stay. I have seen comments about how it is terrible because it is taking away from the regular season, which the more you expand playoffs that will always be the case. Back before the wild card era, we had 2 teams from each league make it, and sometimes the divisions were heavy to one side or the other. This still would happen with wild card, but then that good second team would have a chance. Then we added a second wild card, because the Twins had to good 163 games in short order, so why not have a mandatory one right? Now we have 3 wild card teams, all for more money for teams because playoff TV deals are worth a ton. With the top 2 division teams getting byes some speculated if the break would hurt those teams. Then in the NL, the wild card teams won their series against the teams that got the bye. Many fans said see this is not right. Both the Padres and Phillies won in 4. Now the Phillies, the 3rd wild card team has advanced to WS, and they faced off against the 2nd WC team. We can speculate if it was Phillies and Padres being hot because they had to fight for the playoffs, where the Braves, who did fight for the bye, or Dodgers were coasting and got the bye, which led to WC winning. However, when you look at the AL everything was different. In the AL we have Houston, who coasted to the number 1 seed, and has yet to lose a game. They have both come from behind late in games, and lead the whole way. They were on the ropes against Seattle, in first couple games, but made the come backs and won. The Yankees were down 2-1, but made it to the ALCS, only to be swept. So Houston, clearly the best team in the AL did not have clear issue with bye, although, they were on the ropes early, Had those games went other way maybe we have a WC team from AL as well. Can we draw anything from this first year of playoffs, other than that a baseball series is always hard to predict, and the best team does not always win? Should we, as fans, demand a smaller playoffs with longer series to help have the better team win? Should we get rid of byes so not team gets rusty? Should we leave it be for a few years and adjust if needed?

The regression is normally based on teams getting tape and scouting hitters, and the hitters failing to make adjustments. Similar pitchers surprising hitters with a particular pitch, then hitters learning how to hit it, or leave it. Baddoo is still young and could continue to develop, but Wade just is who he is a fringe MLB guy. Diaz too could adjust, but think Littell is also just a fringe guy.

It is not about the money per se, once you get to those numbers. It is more about being paid the most, because then you are considered one of the best. It is also about the union pushing contracts up. Also, why turn down 300 mil if it is offered?

I do not believe the rules will help him at all. The rule will still allow for the second baseman to play well in the hole, just not start in the OF, but I do not believe that he was robbed of solid base hits that where taken away because the second baseman was playing in the OF. Maybe like 5 over the season. Most of the ground balls he hit that way where weakly hit anyways.

Okay, you want to expand the area, from just the city that poster was showing. MN has a total population of 5.3 million, about. LA area alone has population of over 13 million. Over Twice the population of the whole state of MN. If you want to say LA is drawing from San Diego, you also have to then add in the population of LA to San Diego, which San Diego has 1.4 million. The post was comparing San Diego to Twin Cities because of similarities, I was pointing out the issues with that, but you change the area, but still trying to say San Diego is similar to Twin cities, Is it true that some fans from San Diego will go to LA for football, like their team did, or basketball or hockey, sure they may, just like fans in MN will go to other non Twin Cities games. Maybe many of the LA residents will go to support Padres if they are closer to them, or other reasons.

First, I am not saying we should or should not sign Correa to a long term deal. I expect he will be seeking an 8 to 10 year deal, around 30 mil or more a year. When thinking about the expected contract it got me thinking about Joe Mauer and his contract he signed with Twins, his 8 year 184 million, for 23 a year. Not top the of market back then, but pretty high. Correa is expected to seek top of market. When we signed Joe, just about every fan was happy, but after the first couple of years, when injuries set in, and natural age regression, many fans started to get upset that he was making so much but producing so little, which when you sign a guy into mid-30's you are expecting that. Now, Joe's injuries may have played much more of a roll in his regression, the shifting teams started to do, than age regression, but he clearly dropped off in production over second half of contract. I bring this up because most players, regress greatly in the mid-30's, some closer to 34 others hold on to say 36, and some mega stars can hold up, but they are very few and far between. Even the HOF players like Albert, have great regression in mid to late 30's. So, if we sign CC to even an 8 year 30 mil a year deal, which I think is on the low end and minimum he is seeking, he will be 36 at end of the deal. I cannot say how much he regresses, or when it happens, but it will happen. If it happens around the age 33 to 34 season, how will fans react to the last couple of seasons where he is moved off of SS most likely and not putting up offense you want from a 3B? Will the fans say okay we got some good years, or will they be upset like with Joe on his production to cost? What if it is 10 year deal where he will be signed to age 38 season, where for sure the last few years he will be draining money from the team for subpar production? I am not knocking Correa, and would be happy to sign him for the right price and length, but for fans that want to break the bank, sign for 10 years, I want you to ask yourself, how will you feel when he is overpaid? We know it will happen at some time, the question for each player is which season. Should we front load the contract where he will be of greater value to not have the overpay so much, or since payrolls should go up should be back load it? Should we keep it equal? Being the window is hopefully now to next couple years, should just worry about 5 years from now 5 years from now? We clearly can afford him, since we did. The question is how much are we willing to accept bad money down the road, and can accept that?

I though Arraez metrics were not good at first base, did they improve that much? I know in the past offense played a huge roll, but I thought now they actually looked at the metrics.

I am not saying the Twins are spending close to what they are brining in, maybe they are, maybe they are not, as the money they make is not made public. I would like to make a few comments though a few things posted. First, you compare the Padres with the Twins based on media market. In a vacuum that may make sense, but how many major sports franchise play in the San Diego media market? I could be wrong, but pretty just now just the Padres. How many play in the Twin Cities? Four, and if you count the MLS team that is five. That is a lot more sports entertainment money being fought over, than just baseball. Meaning if a family budget a set amount of money to be spent on going to sporting events, in MN there is a lot more teams pulling for that money, but San Diego has little competition. That aside, as much as I would love the owners to drop a ton of money and spend like crazy, simply because their net worth on other businesses would allow for that, I cannot blame them for wanting to make money as a business and not lose it. Until we see the books of the Twins on what they bring in all revenue and spend out on all expenses, because there is a lot more on expenses than just MLB player payroll, then I will be willing to make judgment calls on how they run the business. I would wager they could spend more on players in the budget, so not defending them on that point, but people own businesses to make money, they do not lose money to make others happy, because then they will not be in business long.

I disagree with the argument that we should have cut Bundy and Archer and run out Varland and SWR or others sooner. We already went through several SP going on IL. Paddock, Ober, Winder, all had long stints on IL, Gray had a few, Ryan had one. Archer ended on it. Had we dumped Bundy and Archer early on, and SWR, who was on IL in minors for a month, or Varland landed on IL, then we maybe would have had to add even younger guys to 40 man. Then when we need to cut down after the 60 day IL guys we could look to lose some of the younger guys to waivers. That is something to keep in mind as well.

Will this AFL for Martin jump him back up prospect lists? Will we try to trade him to a team that thinks he will be a breakout star, or do we keep him in hopes he will be with team next year? Personally, I am a fan of him, despite his lower power, as long as he is not a negative defense guy I think he will be a good lead off guy for years.

I think they will ask around about him, but will not sell him off for the cheap. He adds some value to the team to stay with them and maybe trade in the season for a team that has an injury or someone struggles.

I agree they should not go after a different SS, and if they plan to spend big on anyone it should be CC. However, I would not want any contract longer than 5 years, and I doubt that gets it done for him. I think minimum he will be seeking 8 years, and most likely will get that, but I think he is seeking 10 years. I am worried after 4 or 5 years he will drop off a bit, I could be wrong, but history shows most SS stop playing there in early 30's. His offense is above average for SS, but not for 3b, and if he drops off on that side of ball too, then he will be just a huge overpaid guy.

I think the article hit it perfectly, it depends on the player and the situation. For example, if say Brooks Lee makes team next season, or some other young player around age 21 to 23, that you have high expectations on, then signing a deal into their age 30 to 32 seasons makes sense. However, if they do not break into league until 24 to 26, there is little need to buy out FA years, and little incentive for player to want to do that too. Some times these contracts can backfire for the player or team. Both have risk. There have been a few guys signed to these types of deals when they are rookies that do not pan out for teams. Jon Singleton may be the most famous of these. He signed a 10 million deal with Houston before he ever played a major league game. He played less than a full MLB season, provided negative value and was cut. The deal had it panned out would have been a 5 year 35 mil deal, but he did get 10. Now this is not the type of contract we are really talking about, paying more in non arb years to have cost controlled arb years and maybe a year of FA. Being his 5 year deal would not have even got him through arb years. Basically, Houston threw away 10 mil in hopes of not having to pay more than 35mil over 5 year if the player was a superstar. Pretty big gamble for Houston, great call by player to sign that deal, considering he would not have earned much until year 3 anyways, and unless he was a mega star would not have even earned the 10 in year 4. Teams and players are looking to do these earlier deals to control costs and there is nothing wrong with it. But I do not think every player should be treated this way but with select players.

Last year I said no way would we sign a top SS, then we shocked everyone, but it took a crazy offseason, with a lockout to help that happen. Now, will a team give the top SS what they are seeking, or will they need to agree to less seasons. I think Twins would be willing to offer higher per year but would max out at 4 to 5 years, which I support that fully. Any of the top 3 should still be good for 3 to 5 years, but beyond that they will become a huge risk of being vastly overpaid. A high payroll team can afford that, but mid-market or small cannot afford to have 30 mil of bad money on the books. Personally, I think Lewis can fill in, provided he can stay healthy, but if we can bring CC back on a 5 year deal I am all in for that. He is seeking 8 to 10 though and I am not sold on him for 8 years or more.

There is so much with injuries we do not even know. We do not know how much of a roll he played in some of the things going on, or was it other medical guys, or what. However, if the FO feels he needed to go to better the team I got no issue with it. People to are calling it a scape goat thing just shows some level of ignorance. They would seem to argue he played no roll in the injuries and the time to return. Of course some of the injury onsets of tears and breaks would never be the trainer or anyone's real fault, but the soft muscle things I believe would be more on the trainer, but again, I do not truly know how the process works, only people on the team really do. Maybe, for all we know he asked to be let go for his personal reasons, to my knowledge nothing has really been reported about it, just that he is gone.

I think most people are upset at his performances against the better line ups, Dodgers, Padres, Boston(can argue not all that great) and Yankees he was not good. However, I fully agree, he still pitched well enough to be happy with how he closed out the season. People need to remember he missed a few weeks with COVID and if he was out all that time it will affect you.

History has shown small changes to relief pitchers can make huge pay offs for at least a season. Pagan has stuff, and if the team can get a small adjustment to get that to pay off, go for it. The guy we traded for, Lopez, had no success as a starter for most part. He went into pen and had a great year last year, until we traded for him. I am not saying slot Pagan back into closer role at all, but do not just DFA him. Let him come to camp, work on anything new, and see from there.

We should dump Garlick. He is a one trick pony that cannot seem to stay healthy enough to be all that reliable for that. I mean when you are on the team to hit just left handed pitching, you need to do that at such a high level to warrant taking up a roster spot on both 40 man and 26 man to justify it. I mean, how much of a difference does his very few at-bats against LF pitching does he make over the full season versus just about anyone else? I doubt it is that big of a difference to say he needs to stay. There is a reason he was available for us to begin with.

I doubt they will, unless no team offers him what he is seeking like Correa, and wants a "pillow" deal too. Personally, I think he was dumb for turning down the deal he did, even with the year he put up. He is one year older now, and maybe added a little bit of money to his deal, but I doubt he gets the payday he thinks he is worth. I am not saying he is not one of the best offensive guys in the game, and coming off of one of the best seasons ever. However, he is on the wrong side of 30, and many players show great regression. This is also, by far, the best year of career, with 2017, coming in second. If fans are expecting him to put up these numbers for the next 5 plus years, they will be disappointed. Will he still put up decent numbers for next 3 seasons, and still put up some 20 plus HR seasons into his later 30's, most likely. Will he be an MVP guy for next 3 to 8 years, doubtful. I would not want Twins to go after Judge if it meant more than a 4 year deal, and I am sure it will.

If they do make it, if they are asking Rogers to close out games they should just give up. He has blown a large percentage of his save chances with them, not that he has had a ton, but he has blown 3 and converted 3, not a good percentage 50%.