Trov

I do not believe anything Boras has to say. He floats out things all the time over and over. J.D. Martinez contract with Boston years ago he kept saying other teams had interest, in hopes of getting better offer. All media was saying no team has any interest close to what Boston was offering. Yes, teams will have interest in CC, it may be the Twins, but unlike the Mets swooping in against the Giants, no one is blowing CC away with an offer to change up.

I was thinking about how that question may change depending on perspective. First, I am not addressing next year specifically, but just generally. There are 30 team in MLB. Only one wins the World Series. Two teams win their respective league. Six teams win their divisions. 12 teams make the playoffs. Most fans look at anything less than a World Series win as success. However, I remember after the second half of the 90's being terrible team each year, when we finally won the division we thought that was success. Then, after having many years of winning division, but not winning a series, and now on a run of now winning a playoff game, we felt like our season was a failure. Then we had our run of 100 loss seasons, only to again make the playoffs and people were happy again, despite not winning a playoff game. So is it a matter of meeting or exceeding expectations that makes success? It seems to me, if a team is considered rebuilding, if they compete for a playoff spot, like Baltimore last year, they were expected to be terrible, but competed for a playoff off spot late in the year. Was that success? They failed to make the playoffs, but did better than many expected. If they repeat the same this season, will people feel the same, or will they say it was a failure? Clearly if there is regression that is a failure, similar to Detroit did last year. What if a team wins more games than the year prior, but their competition did even better and team misses the playoffs? Did they fail? That is less likely to happen these days, with all the wild card teams, but it could. For teams like the Dodgers, and Yankees, who are expected to make playoffs each year, is it WS or bust? What about teams that do not make the playoffs most years, should they also see only a WS as a successful season? The next time the Twins make the playoffs, should we be happy with just winning a game, as it has been forever since that happened? Some teams have never won a WS in their whole history. Have they ever had a successful season? Personally, I think it is a matter of perspective. If you are meeting and exceeding expectations, then you are being relatively successful. If you are not expected to make playoffs, which is much easier to do now, it was more of a feat a few years ago, then you had a good season. Even the better team loses a series all the time in baseball. However, if you are expected to make playoffs each year, then you need to advance and at some point win it all. I also think it should be over a span of years you look at. If you win only 1 WS over a few years after having multi times being in playoffs, that should still be successful, but looking back at Twins in the 2000s, that was not successful, even as it may have started out that way, but we never built on that and never even advanced to WS.

When the anti-shift rule was announced everyone started talking about how it will help guys like Kepler, Gallo, and other guys that get shifted a ton taking away singles from pull hitters, both right and left handed. I have debated that I do not think the rule as stated will make a huge difference in that aspect. Mainly, it only takes away the middle infield guy from playing the few feet on the other side of second base, but they can play just behind the base, still playing way over from past traditional spots. It does prevent the 2nd baseman from playing in short right against lefties taking away a few line drives or hard hit ground balls for hits. However, one shift people seem to not be talking about, that we did not see a ton, but did increase the past year or two. The full 4 man outfield. We saw teams play it that way against Polanco, and we even employed it a couple of times ourselves I believe. We would see heavy fly ball gap to gap type hitters face a 4 man outfield. To me, this is a much bigger shift being taken away. Despite it not happening often, although was increasing last year, and we all know would have started to grow more, as data showed it worked. How did it work? It was not just getting outs maybe a normal 3 man would not have, it really would help reduce extra base hits, which as many know is the key to scoring runs, getting extra base hits. Sure, you would leave huge holes for ground balls, but the 4 man was used against guys that hit very few ground balls compared to line drives and fly balls. You trade making sure no extra base hits for the extra shot at a single. Even if the outs were not increased, the extra base hits would be decreased. Our now Gallo saw this defense a bit last year, and so did Polanco. In my opinion, this shift going away, will have much more of a long term impact, than the infield shift. I feel many did not talk about it, because it really just started to happen more last year. But just like the infield shift started with a few teams against a few guys, we started to see it happening over and over again for all teams. As we talk about the anti shift helping guys like Gallo, people forget he faced the 4 man outfield more than just about any other. He was having doubles turned into singles, and having guys that would normally score from first on that double get stopped at 2nd base. As we talk about how Gallo should have some bounce back in offense, it is less from the 2nd baseman being in short left, but actually facing a 4 man outfield.

I have always liked Polanco. When healthy he has shown he is a great hitter. He is starting to get out of his prime, and injuries have been hitting him over his past few seasons. Even when he plays sometimes we learn he is on weak ankles, affecting his offense. If he can stay healthy, and with the anti shift rules hopefully he can have a good bounce back year and either be trade option, or we will feel better about trading another middle infielder for something. People forget that teams played the 4 OF shift on him this past year. Without being able to do that should help him bounce back on offense too.

As a replacement for Garlick I am fine with it. He is a vet and known to be a good team guy. As pointed out, he does not make the difference, but I would take him as a Garlick replacement, if he is fine being a platoon pinch hitting type guy.

I will not deny we could use an upgrade at pitching overall, the numbers show that. However, you say they need a better philosophy as well. I would disagree with that. You point to total number of innings pitched, but if you look at innings per start, outside of Archer, most put up around 5 innings per start. Ryan was about 5.5 innings per start. The Rays, who had a winning team in a tough division, averaged around the same innings per start, just around 5, for their starters. I am not saying I agree with the 5 and fly when a guy still has stuff, but it is not like it cannot work if done right. The issue was also the fact that the pen was not deep enough to sustain so many innings every day. So improve the staff, but you can make the shorter starts work.

He has missed long stints for various issues. He has been injured playing defense, hitting, running bases. He has had hand injury from sliding, and getting hit by pitch. He injured toe from foul ball. He has twice injured hip just from running the bases. He injured his knee sliding. Yes, they are all from playing the game 100%, but to me that proves the point, that he will continue to find ways to get hurt, because he goes all out all the time. He will continue to find a new way to get hurt. Oh I think he also missed time due to migraines as well, lucky that never popped up again.

I agree with number 1, however, I disgree with saying over and over it was a fluke or weird slide. Reports were he was dealing with knee issue even in spring, it just showed up in regular season right away. He also had a hip injury that ultimately put him on the shelf I do believe. I could be wrong there, but I recall the full IL stint to end the season was not the knee.

Kepler has the least amount of teams looking to deal for him. No rebuilding team would give up much for him, as he would not fit their timeline. That leaves playoff level teams, but they are less likely to deal from their MLB roster, outside of bullpen, or back of rotation guys. Maybe, if they near MLB ready guy at a position of depth. So if you are looking for someone to help out this year for Kepler, you will be limited to mid pen guys or back end rotation guys most likely. For the other 4, all could be traded to either rebuild teams, or competing teams. If they are for rebuild teams you could get someone ready to help now, but still not likely for ready to help now guys from teams looking to compete. I get we have a ton of depth, and not enough playing time. Kepler is most likely out the door, but do not expect much for him in my opinion.

Every year we get the, if only Buxton can stay on the field we can see some great numbers. Then he misses half the year and we point out to the few months he was healthy and get back into what if mode. At this point, you just need to slot him for 60 to 90 games, of which maybe 30 of them he will be hurting and not at max. He will carry us for a month or 2, then will struggle with staying on field. I will believe he can play a full season, and be what he does over 30 to 60 days, when he actually does it.

This is true that most do not, but some do, after they learn how to pitch without the velo they had. They learn a new pitch, or new way to pitch. They are never aces, so not saying Wacha will come out as an ace, but many can have a good season later in career. It is not the norm, but Carl Pavano had a few decent seasons later in his career after a bad run. CHarlie Morton is a more recent guy that not until age 33 when he pitched in Houston that he really started to be a top of rotation guy, normally just a end of rotation, but at age 33 he learned to pitch and lowered his FIP and ERA to career bests, and has been on playoff rotations. Rich Hill is another guy that not until his mid-thirties that as a starter pitched well over full seasons. I think he was part of health. Some guys get by early on with velo, then as they age they actually learn how location, movement, and change in velo can be better than just velo itself. That all being said, I am not suggesting Wacha will be that, but for depth in the rotation I am all for it.

First, I think people have a crazy expectation of what a pipeline looks like. It is not going to be an endless run of cy young guys. What it hopefully will be is having guys, ready to step in when injuries set in, or guys get traded because near the end of their control years. As Major League Ready point out in his comment, Cleveland would continue to trade their pitchers, during season or in offseason, even when competing to reload the pipeline. Many Twins fans got upset when we traded our top pitcher in a similar type deal. What makes Cleveland, and Rays a team that continues to turn out talent, is they will continue to trade established MLB guys, at peak or near peak value, to reload. They are good at identifying who to target and developing them. They are also good at knowing when their guys are about to regress. How many of the top Cleveland guys did better after they were sent away? Only Bauer with Reds. Rays have had a few guys do better after left, but they were never going to sign them either. There are a few ways to build your team. No team hits on every way, so they need to try many different ways to do well. Then some teams will be like Rays and Cleveland who will continue to trade away top guys to refill with prospects, some guys hit some miss. The Royals, took different path on their WS runs. They built a winning team, and had many guys set for FA all at the same time. There was talk about should they trade some or all away to reload, or hang on for one more run. They hung on for one more run, and did not win. They got almost nothing in return for losing their top guys, and believe they even made some trades, could be wrong, to help build a contender again. The Royals won a WS and could have traded their top guys away to reload. They were hoping to get a second WS, but never got that close again. Now have been rebuilding. I hate to say it, but if you want to continue to compete, unless you are paying above tax, you normally need to avoid long term deals to aging players, locking you in on diminished output years, and be willing to trade popular top players at peak of value. I am of the opinion, raise the floor of your overall team, and not have just super high ceilings for a couple of guys. For pitching, a starter only pitches, even the best, about 1/7th to 1/8th of the innings. That is if they get 200 plus innings. Relief guys get even less. Hitters get up only 1 out of every 9 times, and the best only get on base like 4 out 10 times, or less. If you are loading up only on top talent, but have crap for the other 3 or 4 starts, a rotation, or 6 or 7 hitters, you will not be good. Look at Angels for perfect example.

He needs to stay healthy, and make adjustments when pitcher adjust to him. He has shown in stints could be a top hitter, but then regresses quickly. This past year we can assume it was mostly injury. If you have a core muscle issue, you have no power. So as long he can stay on the field it looked like he could be decent.

I believe it really will come down to health and progression of the young guys. We all know Buck will miss half the season, but beyond him, if some guys can avoid long stints on shelf, mainly in pitching area, we should be better. One issue was also the little injuries that took away some production from the offense. It is a big if, but if we can get some big strides from the younger guys that will help a ton. However, until I see it, I will not assume much of a difference.

There is a difference between spending money to spend, and spending it smart. Look at the Padres, they went out and signed a terrible contract for Eric Hosmer, when they started spending. Everyone said it was a huge overpay, and then it became a big issue where they traded him off just to get the money off the books, but still paying him. The Twins reportedly tried to sign CC to more per year than any other team, but yet fans are harping on us being cheap. Should we just go sign anyone for 27 mil because we were willing to spend it on CC? No, because if you spend huge on a bad player, you set a floor for the good players when they are FA. Fans were upset we did not pivot and spend huge on Swanson, but I have a feeling he will regress a lot back to his norm and be a huge overpay, and over the next few years he SS will point to his deal and what he is doing in comparison on why they need to get paid more than him. The Twins can increase their payroll, but that does not mean it will make them a better team. Reports are we were in on some top guys, but they chose to sign elsewhere. For CC we were willing to pay more per year than any other team, just not willing to sign him into his 40's. Now the first team backed out, and the second is looking to get a different deal.

I am surprised a team has not taken a flier on him for DH. He cannot field, but when healthy he can hit and when hot carry a team for while. The problem is when he is off he is so bad that he is below replacement. However, I am sure a team will give him a shot.

I do not think the FO is trying to change how players play. I do not think they are trying to just get slow big hitting guys. They did have a stretch of drafting bat first limited defense guys, but they also drafted big time athletes as well. They had a few of the Walner, Sabato, Larnach, Rooker, but they also drafted athletic SS types that are not huge power guys. Buck finally took off when he went up there looking to drive every ball over the fence. It was prior when he was being coached to hit ball on ground and use speed that he struggled. I think in part the FO is looking for power guys, because we really do not have any clear big power guys. Not every one will make it, so you need to draft many.

I have long said corner OF have little trade value. Unless they are elite defender and hitter, or super elite at either, they have little value. The reason why is they are easy to replace. I mean we have so many guys that are close to what Kepler can do we are looking to trade him. I also do not understand why so many people think with the new semi-anti-shift rules will suddenly make Kepler that much better of a hitter. I could be wrong, but I do not recall Kepler being robbed from the shift all that often. Also, if you believe in what Glenn Perkins said during the season, that BABIP across the league has basically been the same before teams shifted and after they shifted. If we keep Kepler, I hope I am wrong and he increases his numbers, but they will only be an increase of singles. It is not like he will suddenly start hitting more HR or extra base hits. The shift did not prevent that. Maybe, he got too much in his head trying to avoid the shift over last few years that it hurt his power, but I doubt that. I bet if you look back over a full season, Kepler may have lost 10 to 20 hits at most from the shift, but he also got a few hits because of the shift. Also, the only difference is a matter of a few feet the fielders will have to move. The SS can play an inch to the left of second, and can move the second the pitch is thrown. The 2nd baseman can still play way in the hole toward 1st, just have to play on the dirt. The only hits that will come from this are the liners over the 2nd baseman head that would have been caught with the depth before, or the ground balls that due to the deeper play the 2nd baseman was able cut off. Kepler will not suddenly start hitting over .300 with much higher power. He may see an uptick, but I think people are expecting way too much of an increase, if anything.

As an upgrade from Garlick I am for it, but I am not for trading away any high level prospect for him. As pointed out he has not been elite since juiced ball year. His defense is getting worse. Will he be that much better than who we can put out there now? If not, why give up prospects that could be used for other trades, or possibly be better overall? He just seems way to low in value right now to pay big for him.

What I find interesting is how fans were upset with Twins not offering more for Correa and letting him go, but now both teams that he has agreed to have balked after seeing the medicals. I wonder if the Twins knew the medicals, and said this is our bottom line we are willing to put risk in. Then when teams balked they wanted to have a second look. I mean Borras now seems to be wanting someone to buy a house, without doing an inspection first. Borras last off season said one of his clients, Conforto, would be ready to go by May, but he never signed with a team. I do not trust Dr. Borras, and his medical opinions. What concerns me more, is that either we did not do a good physical last year, being we want to see what other teams are seeing now.

If the Sox did this, their fan base would riot. I would do it in a heartbeat if I was the Twins, depending on who the 3rd name is, but not too many are cut off on that, as long as Devers is signing a long term deal with us. Not doing it for a season most likely.

Joe 100% should get in the hall for sure. If the medical issues would have knocked him out of baseball no one would have a question, as he is the best overall hitting catcher in terms of OBP and average to ever play. His career behind the plate was cut short thanks to concussions, and then his overall numbers took a bit of hit when he moved off of catcher. If you look at just his numbers at catcher he is a HOF for sure. Had he wanted to play a few more years to rack of some more counting numbers he could have, but chose not too. I was never a huge Joe fan, for various reasons, but he is a HOF no doubt. However, I believe Satana was a HOF as well, and he fell of first ballot, mainly because voters right now are looking at total counting numbers and not how they compared to their counter parts when healthy. However, when injuries cuts a guy career short in the past when putting up HOF numbers until the injury, those players have got in. Puckett and Koufax are the main two that come to my mind. Puckett and Joe have very similar numbers, but Joe played 3 more seasons, but only like 60 more career games over those 3 years, so Joe spent much more time on IL than Puckett did. Puckett got in because of health cutting his career short, projecting that he would have got 3 to 5 more seasons and would have cracked 3,000 hits. Likely would have happened in that era. Joe retired same age, doubtful he would have cracked 3,000 hits, mainly he walked so many more times than Puckett. Not saying Puckett is not HOF, but if he is, Joe for sure is, as he did it at a position that offense is normally secondary.

I have to wonder what kind of physical, or why our doctors may have had different thoughts after last year? I mean we still did one, and I get the contract lengths very different, but we were still willing to offer 10 year deal, and did something change in the year, or did our doctors not see what two team doctors have, or did they just have different opinion? Rumors are we wanted a closer look as well before jumping in.

If two teams backed out of huge contracts after agreeing and having physicals, I would not be standing by a 10 year deal. I mean neither the Giants or the Mets are really expecting much from CC at end of contracts, so they must have been much more concerned about the mid years. Why would we swoop in and ignore what 2 teams have had issues with?

I read an article when approached after the Giants backed out, the Twins as well said they would want to look deeper at the medicals. My guess, not being a doctor, is that the old injury may lead to possible greater regression as he ages, but at this point not as big of risk. Just my speculation.