Squirrel

No, was suggesting that he could take less of a cut this year to get it done

But ... the owner could set a higher payroll, knowing that there are several players under team control for a few years, and with our media contract ending after next season and presumably we can sign a new deal that gives us a boost, this is the right time to sign Correa long-term. I think the team can handle it and I think the owner can handle it.

I'm not suggesting that at all.

Yep ... agreed. And if we don't get him, there will be a ton of excuses. On this one, I won't accept, unless it can be proven that we had the best offer and he turned it down for intangibles. Show him the money!

Personally, I wouldn't even entertain the thought to move him if I were the owner/manager/coach, because of what you said. Not unless, years down the road, there was some definite decline that necessitated it, but I just can't see that now or even in 5 yrs. Was just curious if you had heard something publicly stated. And, I agree with you. I'd be the one resistant to move him off short, let alone him being resistant.

Neither can I. Was just wondering where Nick's opinion came from if there was something publicly said to that point.

Is your opinion that Correa will be more resistant to move off SS made from any public statements, or just your feeling? I think it will depend on how much he is paid. Didn't we think that of Story, and then the Red Sox signed him to play 2nd base?

Most fans won't really care as long as the team wins. If he provides them the chance to win, they will get on board

When your owner is one of the wealthiest of baseball owners (I think he's 8th?) and has a couple billion dollars, there is no reason he can't 'go for it' once in a while. I do agree that our revenue streams aren't the same as the Dodgers or Yankees, not even close, and we do have to operate with more caution, but we aren't the worst, either. So, I get why we can't have a team full of stars and 'ace' pitching, and why development is so important (development that has yet to show itself in its pitching, btw), but there IS money and flexibility to make a single, splash signing or two (I'm looking at Correa and Rodon). And now is the time to do that while we have quite a few 'youngsters' under team control for a bit. On top of that, our TV deal is done after next season and it will be time to renegotiate. Not sure what the Twins will get but I'm sure it will put them in a bit better position. So, there is some room to outbid the Dodgers on ONE player, especially at al position of high need, and it won't be detrimental to the whole team or in the long run, imo.

Why I spend an occasional $2 on a lottery ticket … which I have a higher chance of winning than the Twins doing this … but you still gotta dream big.

Complaints and suggestions are fine and welcome; I’m not saying otherwise, and agree to a point, which is why my reading of articles is waaaaaaay down. And I also am on the site daily. For future reference, however, please use the Questions forum, as that is its purpose. And I’ll be expecting your PM regarding a future debate. ?

For those complaining about the content from the writers, start your own threads of discussion, we have three forums … Twins Talk, Minor Leagues and Other Baseball. While I agree it would be nice if writers were given a bit more structure and guidance to cover all areas and not just Twins wish list speculating for next season when the current season is still ongoing, you have the power to start discussions on any subject you want and not read the ones you don’t. Explore the site, branch out, start a blog, volunteer to participate in a debate (and @mikelink45, I’m looking at you, the debates were your suggestion which we actualized). To start a discussion thread, you don’t have to write a full-blown article, just post a link or a tweet or a thought to start it off, that’s all it takes. If you don't like what the site is doing, please use the Questions forum or write the owners of the site with your suggestions.

See, I don’t think they are that far off from one another. But they are ‘mediocrely’ balanced. We need better pitching … a starter and one or maybe two RP. And we need a hitting and good fielding SS, and a good right fielder who can hit. And we need a good defensive catcher. And we need health. And we need the right coaching.

I give him credit for the 2% and 8%, but we all know (or should) the 20% was ball related. Still ... how much better were we from other teams? Where do we place in terms of everyone's 'percent better' that year? (If that makes any sense. But whether or not we want Rowson back, something isn't coming out the way it should, imo, with our hitting.)

I get that, and don't necessarily disagree. So, skip the numbers, but still use Berríos as a benchmark ... career Berríos, not last season Berríos. If we can get one better, great, if we can get more the same, great, if we can a few just a notch below, good. But I don't want to sink too far. I want more pitchers rostered who can get us to 6 innings, not 4 or 5. If I have to settle for one or two pitchers that give a quality 4 or 5 innings, okay ... I don't want to get greedy. But then we need to have a BP that is quite outstanding, imo. That's the point. Ace? To me that describes a very specific pitcher, of which there aren't many, and no one the Twins will pay for. Can we identify the potential to be that or almost as good for a season or two? Let's hope. But ... Anyway, back to your post, and it's a rather simplistic point I'm making ... we need to focus on all parts and get them to work together. But I think there is a philosophy among many here, and why I believe pitching and ace talk, tend to get a lot of attention ... good pitching beats good hitting. And it's not necessarily something I subscribe to ... I think a team needs a balance of parts (which should never be confused with a mediocrity of parts). Focussing on getting great pitching while neglecting hitting won't get us far, imo; and focussing on great hitting, neglecting pitching won't get us far, either. The focus can't be on any singular part.

Many have mentioned that here since he left. And many still mention it.

There is no other way for me to describe the quality of starter I want. It’s not so much a designation of order but the level of performance. I equated Berríos as 2, so there’s what I’m looking for. A couple of that quality and the rest a notch below. I don’t care where they pitch in the rotation or for how many innings, that’s the quality I want. If that’s too complicated for you to understand, school is available to anyone of any age. And I don’t subscribe to ‘just have 12-13 good pitchers and pitch then wherever, however, whenever’ as you do. I think that complete lack of rigidity is just as bad. And now your own response to a part of post has driven this to become a pitcher discussion, what you are offended by

I don't have a problem with that with one caveat ... they still absolutely have to have a high end BP. Will the pieces we have stay healthy and be what we need? I'd like to get one or two more. And I'd like Correa. And a hitter in RF. And a different hitting coach. That's not too much to ask for, is it?

Yeah ... I think my implication was ... it wasn't necessarily my subscription ... but why I think the discussions become so pitching (ace) focussed because many do subscribe to it. I still think a balance is needed and fully laid out what I think we needed? My mind is a million different places these days, so probably not clear in what I was trying to say.

I think I've made myself clear in every ace discussion ... I have a very narrow opinion of what an ace is. We aren't going to pay for one and developing one is a crap shoot, imo. So, work toward a quality starting rotation of 2's and 3's, and get off this 'we need an ace' mindset. (Berríos, imo, is a good #2 starting pitcher. While he may have been the best pitcher on the team, and earned him the moniker 'staff ace', he is NOT an ace pitcher by my definition.) It's not that I think we are focussed on the wrong part of the team, I think we are making the discussion impossibly and irrevocably muddied with everyone's various opinions of what is an ace, so the discussion is lost before it even begins. We need quality starters, and then we need a GREAT bp. And yes, we need our hitting to come through. We have proven hitters, but we have very poor consistency, so maybe we don't have proven hitters? In my humblest of opinions, you cannot focus on any one part. You have to focus on them all and find the parts that make the whole work. I personally think we need to move away from Kepler ... but he needs to be replaced with someone who has RECENT established consistency ... not a once-upon-a-time consistent hitter/fielder. I think we need another starter of the Rodon level. I think we need another relief pitcher or two who can be relied upon. Hitting ... I'd throw a ton of money at Rowson to get him back. There is something in the process that isn't working, not in the talent or ability, imo. I think we have some very good pieces, but I think we need a few more ... in balance. I'm not sure I subscribe to this point, but most here think ... good pitching beats good hitting ... great pitching beats about everything. Which is why I think people are pitching focussed.

I'm one of those who has a narrow definition of 'ace.' I don't subscribe to the 'Well, he's the team's ace' as some did with Berríos. He always was a good #2, but I never classified him as an ace or even a #1 pitcher, even though he was the best we had and loved having him on the team. We just needed another of that calibre and a couple of other better options behind him. And, after having said that, I think aces are rare, not easy to come by and expensive, something this team will never sign because of the cost. And who knows if we will ever develop that, as I think it's a crapshoot. Santana was an ace. I'm not even sure I'd classify Morris or Viola as that, but they certainly provided the feel of that in 91 and 87/88 respectively. It's so difficult to have these discussions when there is no definitive definition. But, and again, that all said, if we had a staff of #2's and 3's and a shut down BP, I think that could work and it's what I've been ascribing to for this team for a bit now. Would it 'win the WS' work? Hard to say ... depends on who gets hot, when and if one of our pitchers is having an 'ace-like' season. I think that's our best hope.

I think this is a good suggestion, although I think we could break this into two topics: Pitch clock: pro or con Ban the shift: pro or con If you or anyone else would be interested in these, please PM me privately. DO NOT RESPOND PUBLICLY EITHER WAY. We want to keep all identities anonymous through the debate.

This would make me not look forward to the season! But would also not surprise me if the FO did something like this.

This is almost identical to what I would do with a couple of minor exceptions. I think I might leave Maeda in the starting rotation and move Ober to the BP. I would also go out and sign or trade for another relief pitcher ... not a reclamation project, but a legit, durable, competent relief pitcher ... and leave Henriquez in AAA for depth. But if what you've done is the end result of the off-season? I'd be okay with that, too. I may also put Martin in as utility and leave Celestino in AAA, depending on what happens in ST. Martin will need some reps in the outfield, although I'd use him primarily in the infield, still, he needs some reps out there. And when Lewis is ready mid-season, depending on how he's performing, he would take over that utility role, or, possibly 3rd base, trading Urshela.

well said