Squirrel

I think all of them will see time with the Twins next year with spot starts, but as a regular in the rotation? Yeah, not sure. Maybe one or two could hold down a spot by season’s end. I suppose one of them could make the rotation out of ST, and if so, I’d bet on Winder first. But if all three are in to start the season, something will have gone very wrong. I really hope that is not the plan but we’ll see what happens.

Anyone seen the West Side Story remake by Spielberg?

Well, considering your first autograph was on a stone tablet, I’m still pretty young ?

My first autograph was Rod Carew ?

I suppose that's one '20/20 hindsight if' outcome, but I still think it's doubtful he would have remained a Twin for life. If he had known what would have happened with the Mets, he may have refused the trade to the Mets, or insisted on different usage once he got there that didn't wreck his shoulder. He had to approve a trade, and iirc, a team being able to extend him was part of it. So, if he refused a trade to the Mets, there might have been another team who would have traded for him and extended him. And he'd still have the hindsight on his shoulder and could have insisted on a different course of treatment with another team. Or, he would have finished his contract with the Twins and entered free agency the following off-season; that's another scenario of 'if he had known'. Those are more likely scenarios, imo, if he knew the outcome with the Mets, than him staying a Twin for life. Of course, in the game of 'ifs', him staying a Twin is one possible outcome, but I think it would have been the last possible outcome. Just because Johan may have known his outcome, it doesn't necessarily mean the Twins FO would have behaved any differently and it certainly doesn't mean there was then only one other possible path. And maybe Johan wouldn't have insisted on them trying to trade him (not sure that's accurate, but that was also part of what we were hearing at the time), but that still doesn't preclude in your if scenario that he doesn't hit free agency the following off-season because the Twins were still offering a seriously under-market contract. I think your '20/20 hindsight if' scenario still has a few holes in it. Yeah, 'if' scenarios are kind of pointless

I voted no. He was a DH only for most of his major league career. It's one thing (like Frank Thomas) to have had a position for about half his career then be a DH only, Ortiz was a DH first and only for most of his career. No. He's not a baseball player but a baseball hitter.

Harmon Killebrew, then Rod Carew; and then the whole 1987 team

I don't think Berrios forced anything, and I never said that. I think that they weren't able to reach an agreement so the Twins did the only thing they could, traded him in the best deal they could. I do not think Berrios is a 'back up the Brinks truck' player, so I'm glad they didn't do that. He is a solid player, a good number 2 but I do think he over-estimated his value prior to his move. Do I wish the Twins had kept both him and Buxton? Sure. Absolutely. If between the two of them and were only going to re-sign one, they made the right choice with Buxton over Berrios. But when it became clear the Twins were not going to re-sign him ... for reasons that we can only conjecture at, and do not know for certain ... they did the best thing they could - traded him for two very good prospects. This is how it works, whether we like it or not. If you go back up to my comment about where I'm at with the FO, I said I don't know, because it's an 'It's out of my control and I certainly could not do better and do not know what happens behind closed doors and I don't know who else I'd want' thing, so ... honestly, I don't know.' But I do think that his comment on Toronto's diversity is a legitimate comment, whether it was a complaint, or relief, or whatever ... I do think it was more than just showing praise for the city of the team that signed him. I mean, he could have just said what a great city Toronto is, no, he talked about its diversity. That's pretty specific and telling, imo. That's my opinion and I won't get into why I think that, but I do, that there was more to it. And it wasn't him bashing Minneapolis, but I think he's very happy to be where he is, and good for him. It's not anywhere near the generalized complaint we hear how no one wants to sign here. As you mischaracterized it as a Minnesota inferiority complex, it's not that. Any more than your comment is nothing more than the tired excuse of 'the Pohlads are just cheap.'

As I said, you have your opinion, I have mine. You have done your duty mischaracterizing what I said. So be it. I stand by my opinion. Yours is no more truth than mine.

Oh come on. You have your opinion, I have mine. He consistently said he wanted to try free agency and then goes on to say how happy he is to be in a city with a lot of diversity I think points to he wasn’t going to sign in Minnesota regardless the price. I don’t have any ill feelings toward him as is with any player, it’s their right to choose. You can spin it all you want as FO malfeasance but in this case, I don’t buy given everything. So stop with the ‘oh come ons’ as if my opinion is out in left field. It’s not

Right. I agree. That Berrios signed so quickly and so easily with Toronto doesn't imply the Twins didn't try, at least not to me. It implies that Berrios didn't want to be in Minnesota. He even said it himself ... he likes the diversity in Toronto, and his consistent messaging about wanting to experience free agency. How this unfolded to me is a clear indicator that no matter what the FO did, he was gone. So, we got something for him when we could. And so far, I'm happy with the returns, but I will be happier if the return performs to expectation. And while, yes, we need pitching and he'd be great to have, I never saw him as a #1 pitcher. He might have been the best we had, but that was more an indication of our pitching staff than Berrios being *that* good. All in all, I'm in the 'don't know' category. I've liked some things, disliked other things. Mostly it's an 'It's out of my control and I certainly could not do better and do not know what happens behind closed doors and I don't know who else I'd want' thing, so ... honestly, I don't know.

I read that one. Cancelled altogether, though, was meant just for this season, as I read it. I must have just misunderstood your initial post as I thought you had read somewhere that there was talk of it going away completely, forever, and not just during the lockout season

Do you have a specific link about this? I've searched MLB Trade Rumors and didn't see anything about the possibility of ending/eliminating the Rule 5 draft. There was talk of this year's MLB Rule 5 draft being indefinitely postponed and now they say it will happen after the lockout

Did I miss something? From what do you draw that conclusion? We won't get anything for him in a trade. And it creates more holes that you think, both offensively and defensively. Now is not the time to trade him, unless he's demanding a trade, but I don't get that vibe from him, unless, as I asked above ... did I miss something?

If you don't have a topic to suggest, or aren't expressing interest in participating, please don't post in this thread. We do welcome your participation as debaters, so please send me a PM which topic you'd like to debate

Human interest stories are always a good thing to put in the mix. As we tell many on TD ... if you don't like it, don't read it or go to the next article.

More likely he gets poached and goes on to win a WS with another team and everyone here starts screaming about how we gave up on him too soon

Yeah ... we don't know what they make or don't make. But I found it ... telling ... that when negotiations were happening in 2020 to get a short season going, they refused to truly open the books in trying to work out some options there. If it weren't profitable, they would sell and get out of it. But ... how profitable is it? I would guess some owners aren't as concerned at the profit margins as others, but some will always want to squeeze out every last bit they can, at the detriment to the sport and it's participants and fans. And, to be clear, I don't think all the owners are like this, but I don't really know. I'm only experienced on the labor side of these issues, so I know what gets said, and how you can manipulate the money to show what you want it to, and it's always difficult for me to be completely objective, but I do think, in this case, the owners have been setting this up for a long time. And for the good of no one but themselves.

Yep ... there was premeditation in all of this. There always is in a lockout. And perhaps the teams who made the biggest splashes are the ones leading the charge? I do wonder. I mean, could it be baseball's moment of 'insider trading'? Although, we have known that a lockout was going to happen for some time, but you don't really know for sure until it's for sure.

Yeah ... that's basically what I thought and was in agreement with ... a stoppage will hurt, no matter who stopped it. But, a lockout is ownership's/management's version of a strike. And it can last however long they want it to. It's up to them to end it, and only them. And put it this way ... and maybe this is my 'jaded' viewpoint ... they have less reason to really care. They have their money, they've shown they don't really care about the sport except for what they can make from it, so ... they have no incentive to end it. They hold the cards, so to speak, and they will hold them until they bleed. So they can reap more rewards because they know the players will want to play. They will keep the lockout in tact until the players acquiesce. I'm not even sure what a compromise would look like in this instance, but, in any negotiation (if a true negotiation resumes), for it to be a true compromise, neither side will completely like it or hate it, but they will be happy to be back to work. (In my experience as a union person who has been through several contract negotiations in my lifetime.)

I'm sort of confused by some of this. Over all, I agree ... a work stoppage isn't going to help anyone. But the players aren't striking, nor will they strike, because they have been locked out. These are two separate things, a lockout vs a strike, not at all the same or for the same reasons. In 1994 it was the players who struck which resulted in a work stoppage. This time, it's the owners who have ... well ... 'struck' ... by instituting a lockout. In this instance, it's the owners saying 'Do it our way or no way, so we're done here' and ended negotiations. And the statement they released was pretty dishonest, imo. I hope, though, that it doesn't come to an actual stoppage of baseball in a few months from now, but it could. It's up to the owners to end the lockout and come back to the bargaining table. It sounds like there may be some communication happening? I could tell for sure. But mostly, this is the owners' attempt at grandstanding. If they do end the lockout, could the players still strike? I suppose? But basically it's the owners who have done so this time. Depending on the resolution ... will the owners be allowed to continue to ruin the sport or not? ... I'm probably done spending any money on the team. I'll watch what I can from out of market, which isn't much, but I won't buy a subscription to watch MLB games, I won't be spending money on going to games or at games, I won't be buying their products online. I'm done supporting owners amassing wealth at everyone's expense.

I will probably watch way less because I don't think i will get an MLB subscription next year (I'm out of market), nor go to many (if any) games live. I just can't continue to support the MLB and the owners with my hard-earned money while they do their best to ruin the product on the field. But ... that still depends on what results come of this. Lockouts are pettiness of those in power. They are very different from strikes. Very.

Wow! We just got that in under the wire! Whooh.

If you see what I wrote earlier I said that I didn’t think this was the right target for a trade involving Arraez

Unless they sign someone else, which I doubt, it looks like what gman said above ... Gordon for a spot start here and there to give Buxton a day off. Even Kep could do that less often. If Gordon hits the IL, Celestino will be called up