Trov

I think it will come down to what MLB does with DH in NL. If NL has DH I think he walks for more money. If not, my guess he will have to decide retire or go with what Twins offer. I would like to see him back, but only if you can eat his contract should he fall off the cliff and be a liability.

I am on Dobnak with the addition of Simmons. I am not high on Rodgers. I know his numbers appear that it was in part luck base, but at some point those hits he gave up you need to put on him as well. At some point he needs to get the outs. I mean all his BABIP was not just weak grounders that found holes. For Josh, if he can stay on the field I am high on him, but that is a big if.

His answer about shifting is great. I hope he does push back on some of the shifts and challenge the assumptions. I am a fan of shifting generally, but feel the Twins at times shifted when it was not the best decision and got burned on it. Look at Astros in playoffs. You know the Astros knew the Twins would shift a ton, and work on hitting against.

Personally, all the SS available he was the one I wanted most. I do not expect much with the bat, but what he does with the glove will make a difference. Many may not see it in the box score, but it will help. Pitchers that get ground balls will feel even more confident to let the ground balls be hit. Polonco should be better at 2b than SS because much of his issues was arm not actual fielding.

I am guessing Eddie will be extra dialed in against the Twins. He has always been one that would seem to like the pressure on him. It will be fun to see him plenty against us. Hope he does not haunt us.

I do not think too many teams value Arraez that high. I think he has great value for his bat, but his defense is overall poor and he has no power. I think we as fans like him because he puts the ball in play and gets a good amount of hits. I think he has value, but it is not right in your face, at least based on current MLB evaluation of players. 2nd basemen never have that much value to other teams, unless they produce offense at a huge clip and provides above average defense, else they are pretty easy to replace. They are on par with LF, easy to replace unless their numbers and defense are off the charts.

I think it depends on if Falvene duo plan to manipulate the playing time to get an extra year of team control or not. I think he breaks with the team barring a terrible spring or injury, because I think the service time thing will become moot with new CBA. I have no info that will be true, but know service time is huge issue with players right now, and teams manipulating it by holding a player back for a few weeks to say they need more training at AAA.

Everything I keep hearing and reading about Balazovic is he will be a huge steal of a draft and one of those Cleveland type of pitchers that no one was huge on but becomes a top pitcher in the league. I have high hopes for him.

Looking forward to the upgraded defense. Hopefully his bat will rebound to what it was a few years ago. I wonder if Arrize or Polonco will be shopped around now.

For HOF voting, it is up to the hall on if off field things are something that would bar you. If you gaged players that are in by todays standards they would not be. Cobb for example. Personally, I do not feel Shilling had the numbers to get in, even if you take away his after career issues. He was very good pitcher but it is more so his post season and longevity that he is known for. I would not be upset either way for him, but feel it is not just his political views that are keeping him out. In terms of Bonds and Clemons. I would support them being in. They did take steroids, and by all accounts late in career, so did just about all of baseball it would seem. The were putting of HOF numbers before their expected use. Did it make their numbers go up even higher, most likely, but even if you take the last few years from them, you still would say they were both the best of their era, when everyone was juicing. That is just my take. In terms the FA signings. It seems the dominos are starting to fall, which that happens every off-season. One player/team sets the markets for positions and then players fly off the board.

With signing of Simmons I think it unlikely they seek Wong as well. That would drop our offense a ton, for much better defense on the infield, but will the increased defense make up for the much lessor offense?

I would pass on Bryant, unless there are plenty of other moves that come with it.

It really depends on what you value more, offense or defense? Offense Kirilloff is higher, but defense Lewis is. Lewis is not only defense but his is more of a wild card on what kind of offense he will put forward. Even if he cannot stay at short he should still play high level of defense and if he can be above average on offense he should be better overall. I really like Kirilloff and expect big things from him. However, he will be playing average defense at best from what I hear and so his bat will have to be extra special.

Essentially my point yes. Hopefully, we can start to set up a pipeline like Cleveland seems to have. I agree you never want to count on several unproven guys, but if you can each year cycle one into the 5th spot that is not a bad way to go. You can live with 1 unproved guy but not 3. However, we have seen over the years you never get through the year with just 5 regular guys but will need about 7 or 8 because of injuries.

I trust the Falvene duo to come up with what we need pen wise. They get paid the big bucks to do it, and so far the last couple years have been fine. Finding guys we never would have expected to have big innings on low cost.

One part of article that stuck out to me was, "that still leaves us giving the ball to an unproven pitcher every fifth day." I do not understand this sentiment. If you only want proven pitchers in your rotation then you will never have home grown pitchers. You will bring people through your system to pitch, because you will say, "well they are not proven so we better not put them out there." They will forever sit in the minors until they go to another team and get a chance. I am not saying who we have are ready to go, they may not be, i am not in the system knowing how close they are. My point is, at some point you need to have unproven pitchers in your rotation, and really if you can do it just one at a time I think that is a good plan. Would I be upset with a big pitching signing, no not at all, we need as much depth as possible. However, I would be fine with using some of our young guys to get a chance.

I doubt either will be signed. As pointed out the FO is not a fan of signing 30 year old relivers that are considered top of game. Too often they end up being overpaid, and managers feel like they need to put them out there in the type of situation they are paid for. Not sure Rocco would, but he did keep putting Rodgers out in saves when he had issues last year. Relievers are so volatile and at age 30 even more so. Both rely on velo, which is common for relievers and it will start to drop off at age 30 typically. How will they react to that? I know this front office typically shy away from these types of guys and piece together the pen with less expensive guys.

My wife is a Pirates fan, and it is sad to see how far they are falling and how quickly. They really need to sell the team to an owner that cares about the fans. They made their run with Cutch, but since they have sold off everyone. It is not even really a rebuild as the prospects coming back are mid-level. I do not know what it would have taken to get Musgrove, he would have been good fit at end of rotation. Kuhl would be good as well.

If it keeps him from an AL contending team great. He kills the Twins no matter what he was doing all season.

Of the list Paxton would be my preferred route. Not sold on any of the four, but Arch is a hard no.

Anyone else notice they are all 1 or 2 year deals? I wonder how many of the remaining FA are hoping for more than a 1 to 2 year deal. I bet many of the remaining guys have 1 year offers out there. I have been saying all off season, there will be very few long term deals. Most will be 1 or 2 year deals. This is because of COVID this coming season, still we do not know how much attendance will be there. The other is the CBA is coming up and I expect a work stoppage, with possible major changes to CBA. This could greatly affect what a bad contract could mean to a team. With all the unknown it is hard to agree to long term deal.

This is the exact reason I never would spend big on a reliever in FA. They are so volatile and many times get over paid. Yes, there are some guys that end up being worth it, but they are so few and far between. Closers were the thing for awhile, but teams learned the save was a such a loaded stat. I will never be upset for letting bullpen guys walk or not signing top guys. So often they end up being way overpaid.

Kluber signing for Yankees is no big deal, if he is washed up, unless that leaves a hole in rotation. I was willing to take a flier on Kluber, but being the shoulder issue was not connected to issue he had year prior it is bit of a risk moving forward. I think Yankees will be regretting Lemahieu at the end of the deal. Maybe not because he will be playing 2nd base or moved to 1st by then or DH and their stadium is still a little league sized park down the lines. I just have a feeling as he ages his numbers will drop and like many he will be overpaid. The international guys I know nothing about, but take little stock that they are SS now, as Sano was signed as a SS to. Lets hope 5 years from now we are talking about them being top young guys ready to help.

I get the steroids issue for Clemons and Bonds, but until there reported use, they were HOF players. They may not have put up the numbers late in their careers like they did, but even if you take away a couple of late years they are still HOF players. Also, if roids were as wide spread as expected, late in their careers with everyone else they were essentially on same playing field. I am not defending their use, but they should be judged by their peers at the time they played and they were two of the best at that time. If Hall wants to make an example of them, then put them in a special wing that says they used roids. I mean if you want to eliminate all that used you will be taking a lot of guys from 90's and early 2000's era that were best of their era.

Clearly a trade with Boston would have worked out better, based on the three names mentioned and how they did, assuming they would have done similar things in MN, no evidence they would have. The NY guys were all ehhh with big spikes in their careers but nothing super. I would not say the trade of Gomez for Hardy was bad, as Hardy was a good SS for years, just not with the Twins because we gave him to Baltimore for basically nothing. Had we stuck with Hardy and he was similar to what he did in Baltimore that would have been a fine trade. Really, the whole thing showed how bad Smith was. He did make some good international signings, but his trades were mostly very bad. He also made some bad international signings as well. He should go down as worst GM in Twins history.