Trov

If defense was not a thing, Kirilloff would be tops. I have huge expectations for that kid on the offense side. From what I have heard he is average defense, but offense he could be amazing. If he can stay healthy. Not calling him injury prone but he missed a seasons with tommy john not common for a fielder. He has missed several stints last year with different injuries I believe. I am huge on him and think he will be middle of line up hitter for years.

With the hopes that this last offer will get it done or very close to it. I am not sure how much of the past talks about 30 man rosters and taxi squads and how all that will work are in it. I assume they are. If that is the case they could march out a 6 man rotation, provided the starters work well with that. I know some guys in past say that is too much rest than they are used too. The pineda question of how many games he will have to serve is a big question. I believe he was at about 60 left, do not fully recall. If he is asked to serve them all, as the punishment is for the number of games, but that was with expectation of full season. It would make sense that the punishment would be for the percentage of season he was suppose to miss. If he can come back after about 20 games and play rest of season that would be good for playoff. If he needs to miss most of season no way should you just throw him in playoffs, assuming we make it.

I have a feeling Jeffers will be high on lists next year. As long as he can hold up on defensive side he looks like he will hit at a level that will be top end of catchers at MLB level for a few years.

It will be interesting what Twins do with Javier next year. He was available for rule 5 I believe this year and went undrafted, mainly he was still young and no team was willing to put him on Roster for full year, bet if you could go back some teams may have changed mind now. A team may be willing to take him next year just to take a look at him. If he was not so highly touted as a 16 year old he would not be in top 20 lists anywhere.

98's was one of the first seasons I really started to pay attention to the Twins, or most sports generally. I was young passive fan before it, remembering little things here and there. It was not the HR race that brought me in, just my age. I remember Otis Nixon playing and thinking he looks like he is 80. He was 39, but his face looked like he was 80.

I have not looked into the expected quality of the players that have signed. More of a deep dive than I am willing to invest in. However, it is interesting to see which teams have signed the number they have. First, it is small investment to bring someone in so very little risk, even for the, liquid cash strapped teams, a little bit of jest there. I would agree with assessments that teams with not as deep of farm systems would be best, or systems known for developing certain type of players. For some, it may be where would they by playing in minors next year, closer to family ect. Many things would go into a decision when each team has same cash offer.

Maybe a give away is a tear apart doll. I remember there being tear apart ref dolls in football.

One thought that just popped in head. Is there anything to stop a team from signing an undrafted kid to the 20K Then turn around right away and sign them to a long term MLB contract? Of course I assume they need to be on 40 man so that would be an issue, but just thinking outside the box to get around the 20K issue. I could see some teams for juniors that they are high on do something like this. However, it would have been more likely they would have just drafted them too. Just wondering if there is a loop hole that can be exploited.

This years signings will be interesting. With so much up in the air for next year, and an expected high number of players going to college, that being all undrafted high school players. Teams really will not be able to do as much moving money around. Half the rounds really makes that an issue. When you have 10 rounds you can take little from several players to add up to larger for one. When you have 4 players like Twins, cannot move as much money.

Some pretty good players on that list. Kubel if he would not have tore is knee up early in career may have been crazy good. I know he played for years and did very well, one of my favorite for the time. No one I would have preferred with bases loaded. It sure is interesting to think about how so many people got drafted ahead of these guys. It goes to show how crazy hard it is to predict future development of players. So often you draft on potential upside by looking at physical size, and attributes. You see the wholes, and you just hope they will get fixed. Some times you see a guy like Radke, never had great velocity, but he knew how to pitch. I am sure many drafted ahead of him, never made much of an impact. They most likely had higher velocity or taller. He just knew how to pitch. Just looked up his draft too, we had number 3 Dave Mccarty, passed on Man ram, Shawn Green, Demitri Young, to name a few. Got Hawk in same draft though. I bet if you look deeper, many of the guys were from smaller areas or cold weather places that would not get much scouts to. I think these days with show cases, and the ability to have digital tape in high def with use of programs to look at the spin rates, launch angles ect. there will be much less of the late round bloomers. They will still happen, because you can never interview them all to know their heart and desire to be the best. So little separate so many, and the small things like desire will make a big difference.

I believe Twins felt he was best available, he may not have been a position of need with several bat first guys that are likely to be first base or DH in future. However, if the power is legit as it seems, that just adds to the stock of players we can deal from too. Right now in the league first base is not the offensive position it normally is, so a lot of teams may be willing to deal to fill those holes in the near future. Not saying they drafted him just to trade later. Cruz will be gone in a year or two, most likely, unless he the next Julio Franco. So then Sano most likely will be DH and you have Rooker, and now Sabato to fill in first. Kiriloff has got some time there too. If you can hit, they will find a spot for you.

The Doc Gooden one stings because maybe if he was living in mid-west he could have stayed clean, not saying he would have but being in different environment could have helped. Big Mac does not hurt, for two reasons. We many not have got bert back to win the 87 series, and Big Mac most likely would have been traded as well because he would have been blocked by Hrbek. Trout hurts a ton. Of course may pass on him, but when you miss on best of all time it will sting. At least Gibson did make the majors unlike the first and last on your list. Think about Trout and Yelich on the same team? Well in reality no way would Twins have signed both to the contract they have gotten, but for a few years man that could have been a nice lineup. Of course, we never know if the Twins would have made them develop the same way.

I think drafting best available always the way to go. I hate hearing people say we need this position right now so should draft that position. Normally, no one drafted will contribute for at least 2 years or more normally. There are the rare college guys that need less time, depending on organization. Also, for hitters, if they can play CF or SS they can play other positions. I think high end high school guys are always a good way to go with all things being equal. Pitchers are so volatile, and from high school even more so. It is so hard to predict how some guys will adjust to better competition. Personally, I would want to interview and talk to the players. Of course physical skills are important, but feel baseball, unlike some other sports, work ethic and ability to adjust and learn is huge and makes all the difference. Yeah if kid throws 100 you cannot teach that, but if he does not know a second pitch and cannot learn a second pitch, the velocity will only go so far. If a hitter crushes only fastballs but cannot hit or pick up a breaking pitch, teams will learn to never throw a fastball to him. At least if the player is athletic he can hopefully give value with that. Take Buxton, he has huge swing issues and offensive issues, but his athletic ability raises his value on defense so much we can take less offense from him.

I wrote awhile ago in comments that I do not expect many to sign, much like the article here pointed out. Too much up in the air. The main question will be what is expectations of college and would it be too late to find a college to go to for the high school kids that were expecting to be drafted but were not. Are they willing to commit 3 years? If I had a kid that was not drafted and college was an option I would advise him to go to college. This goes against what I normally would advise if the bonus is big enough, like over 100K go pro, if you really believe in yourself. Many times guys turn down high school offers and go college get drafted first round sign 7 figure bonus and flop. I just feel the questions about what minors will look like have too many questions for a 20K bonus.

You clearly side with the players by highlighting the "agreement" of prorated pay. However, there is much debate as to the specifics of the agreement. One side says it was with the assumption fans would be in seats. The other says it was not with that assumption. If the owners are even close with the numbers they claim that 40% of revenue comes from fans in seats, then clearly the owners would have assumed the deal for full prorated was based on fans being in the seats. I have not read the actual agreement, but have heard the two arguments and both seem to have some weight. The important thing, is that the owners have the ability to pick the amount of games at the full prorated pay. You also mention the opt out of worried players, but fail to include the full pay for "high risk" players who opt out, and the players get to decided who is considered "high risk" with the league getting NO say. Therefore, the players could say if any member of their family, even if they do not live with them but may come in contact with them is high risk the player can opt out for full pay. So if they have a member of their family over 60 they could most likely opt out. How many players do not have that?

I expect the 50 game season will be what happens, if anything at this point. Players will not accept anything less than full prorated pay, and owners are not willing to pay more than 50 games at that amount. With the extended playoffs it would be interesting to see how teams will set up to hopefully make good run to playoffs. I also wonder if fans will give same boost for the next year coming off a WS win. That is one of the main things that teams get to talk about WS champs and sell more tickets, but at this point who would buy tickets for next year?

I wish the players you mentioned drafted after you had put where they were drafted. You make it seem they were very near them, but my guess that is not the case. Josh Hamilton was a bust for the Rays in that draft as well. I have stated many times, everyone misses in drafts and have the wish we would have taken this guy. How many teams are kicking themselves for missing on Trout? Yes this was three years in a row of high picks but very rare will a player be a lock. Even early on the Mauer draft people said the Twins screwed up, but now years down the road he was the better pick.

Ted, you clearly are anti owners, based on this and previous articles. I am not pro either side, but understand it takes two sides to make a deal. You point out that all proposals given to the players are for a similar amount of total pay. Clearly, the owners have determined that is what they are willing to pay and dug in. Well players are also dug in at full prorate for as many games as possible. Their first proposal to owners would take season into winter months requiring games to be at neutral sites, something the players first balked at saying they want to be home with families when the all AZ or AZ FL split was mulled about. So what changed, of they now will get paid more money. They also want players, under their own process to allow players to opt out at full pay. The league would have no say on who qualifies for "high risk." What would stop every player saying they are high risk, I won't play and pay me? Nothing under their proposal because they make the call on who is high risk. I bet many of the high paid players that are set for free agency would take the high risk route, no short season to drop numbers but still get full pay, sounds good to me if I am a player. The players are just as dug in as the owners. You point out the owners will not open books, well they offered to do that for this year for a full 50 50 split of the revenue, that would require an accounting of revenue, and opening of the books. The players had a resounding hell no to that. The players want no cap but full transparency of the owners books. What non publicly traded business gives their employees full look at the books? You seem to forget this is a business and the owners are willing to take losses this year, but have a bottom line of that. They can force it on the players the 50 games. The players will cry that they want to give the fans more baseball, which the owners offered, but it would be at same pay. So what the players really want is more money, not more baseball. Who can blame them. Both sides are so dug in and neither are willing to give. I wish they both would give a little, but neither willing to with how the last few off seasons have gone. You point out that it is Manfred that has led to the division, but I disagree. I believe it is that GM's have changed the way they value players and contracts. It used to be lets sign a guy into their late 30's for early 40's paying them top dollar, because we want them for the first few years and will accept the bad years. Teams quickly learned, with the new luxary tax, a basic salary cap that the players agreed to, changed the way teams were willing to have dead money on players. This led to lower and shorter contracts for most FA, only the age 27 to 28 free agents superstars were going to get the 8 plus year deals. The deals the 30 to 31 year olds were signing and when they turned 35 or even younger became terrible contracts. This division between the two sides has been brewing for years, and this just brought it to a head. It is not just the owners fault for this, as you seem to point out. This is both sides not willing to give anything. I have stated for years, a salary cap would be best for them, because there would be a floor and full accounting for the revenue. They can bicker over what is revenue, as players claim they should get their share of the land owned around the stadium that owners develop. Personally, I find that argument crazy. Should the players get a share of the land not owned by the owners too? I mean how many bars around Target field are filled before the games, in normal seasons, if the owners have no investment should the players still get a share because without them no games and the owners of those bars should pony up? Players point out to local own sports channels that carry the games. Not sure how media contract work, but players want the share of non-baseball content. For example, Yankees own the YES network. They have not only yankees games, but also Knicks and Rangers and other sports, much like FSN. So yes the owners of the yankees have invested into a sports channel, but why should players get value of the non-baseball revenue? The owners could have still started the channel and not carried the Yankees, should the players still get a share of if they dropped showing the Yankees? What about the teams that do not have local channels? For Twins who do not own one, despite trying to, they do not get any money from Wolves or Wild games, should players still get value there? What about non-baseball investments by the owners or no connection to the stadium, should players get anything there? The point is, where do you draw the line? The players are not victims of the owners. They could choose to try and play different sports or have different professions. The owners are not forcing them to play baseball for millions. The owners should not be expected to operate business at an extended loss simply because we want them too. How many local business close because they are losing money? How much should we expect the owners to lose before they close up? Just because the owners have values in the billions, does not mean they are liquid for that much and can just accept losing millions upon millions.

Very interesting to look at. I looked up the draft and the biggest miss, with some players still in minors being out of HS, is Walker Buehler, the second pitcher drafted from Vanderbilt. The first one being Carson Fulmer going 2 picks after Jay. Just shows how much of a crap shoot projecting players can be. There were 9 pitchers taken before Buehler, several from HS so jury still out on them, but sure most teams wish they would have taken Buehler instead of who they did.

Why must the owners make it happen? Why can the players not help make it happen? I am not taking sides of either, both have their arguments, and neither are willing to budge. Read a good article yesterday breaking down this season and the money that is at stake. About 350 million is what the two sides are fighting over. However, this is also about the past and what the next season may look like or the next CBA. It is simple to ask the owners to just say okay players to get baseball going we will pony up the 350 million. However, what happens next year if still no fans can go to games, or at a very limited amount. The players will demand full pay, just as they are this year. Then owners will again say they are losing a ton of money. The CBA comes the next year, which was already looking at strike or lockout. So both sides are thinking if we cave now, it will hurt us in the future CBA. Unlike every other league where both sides have incentive to make as much money as possible because they share in all revenue, so working together to make it happen is important. With MLB, the two sides still want to make as much money as possible, but then they get to fight over how the pie is cut. It is not spelled out how that happens. Owners say we make X, but do not release the books. Players call them liars and say even if the "team" pulls in X, you get other revenue for owning the team, or local sports stations, that is not part of what you claim to pull in. Not sure the truth of either because very little transparency. The players want their fair share, and who can blame them, they claim they are not getting it. Owners are saying they cannot operate with such loses. Over a short season it sounds like they could, but as stated above, they are worried about next season as well. They are concerned that if they agree to play games with no fans at a full prorate this year then next year they could be out even more. Maybe they can afford it and for the fans should afford it, but will the players allow the owners to recoup those losses? Most likely no, they will not care that the owners lost money for two years. I agree we need to start baseball, and I do not care which side caves. They are talking about the type of money most of us will never see in a given year. However, the divide between the two sides was so big before this. Neither side is willing to give, and now they are playing chicken and using the media, or social media to try and convince the public they are in the right. Where neither side seems to understand is, for the most part, the public does not care.

Interesting the top position players are not considered to be at top defensive positions. No clear SS or CF. I read a good article on Torkelson pointing out how 1B is almost never drafted early in first round. However, the old saying if they can hit you will find a spot for them. I wonder how much these boards would have changed had there been full college and high school seasons.

The 6th overall pick not even on a team 5 years after the pick. Just sad. I have big hopes for Kirilloff and Lewis. Larnich I think will have a good career but I am bigger on Kirilloff, if I had to pick between the two. Cavaco I do not mind the draft the athlete and hope he can make moves. I am sure he will take more time to develop, but Twins are not in a position they need to rush.

The culling of the minor leagues is about the teams cutting costs. There are so many independent college minor leagues out there that owners make enough to keep operating. Here was the Northwoods league that has grown over the last 15 years. In terms of the cutting the players, I do not know how accurate the claim that many would have been cut after spring training anyways. Not that it makes it any better. I wrote in another minors post that many of these players are not doing it for the money. However, to keep them on only to cut them in this situation, not knowing was it skill or payroll they were cut for. No way of getting signed by other teams at this point. Too late for any independent teams to jump onto, if they decide to try and have a season. I know many leagues are trying, but need the governments to allow it.

Interesting that it is the lowest of the top 30. One would think the 30th should be the lowest, but it shows what kind of a crap shoot it is. I do not have high hopes, but you never know.

I agree with all three as possible guys to get looks, IF a season happens. Another thing to factor is if the league forces the 50 game season at the full prorate, many players may opt not to play sighting health concerns. Any pending FA may think about not playing because they would not want to risk a poor season in a 50 game season having that used against them. Players set for arbitration may think similar. This could lead to more open spots.