Twins stuff from around the Web (Fangraphs, Twitter, Athletic, non-local news sites, etc)

[Thrylos]

 

‘Go time’: New pitchers’ camps are latest piece of Twins’ player development plan. New article by Dan Hayes at The Athletic. The first ten pitchers have reported to Fort Myers for some individual instruction, with ten more next week, and ten more in two weeks. Enlow is reporting two weeks early, likes the new plan (instead of the month long instructional league in September/October).

 

Here is the link for that (pay wall.)

[PseudoSABR]

Schoenfield of ESPN would like to see Buxton traded to the Rockies for Gray.

[jorgenswest]

Schoenfield of ESPN would like to see Buxton traded to the Rockies for Gray.

I am in if they also sign Harper for RF moving Kepler to CF.

[Mike Sixel]

Schoenfield of ESPN would like to see Buxton traded to the Rockies for Gray.

I'd do that, if they then sign a legit OF star

[bird]

 

Schoenfield of ESPN would like to see Buxton traded to the Rockies for Gray.

 

 

Buxton produced a 5 WAR season when he was clueless at the plate half the time. If I'm GM, I'm giving my coaches a chance to use all the ammo we've brought in, to see if they can get this guy out of his own head, free from injury and emotionally and mentally ready to have a clue more than half the time. The upside of that is not something I'm handing off to another organization. Yet. They get 2019 to git 'er done.

[Mike Sixel]

Buxton produced a 5 WAR season when he was clueless at the plate half the time. If I'm GM, I'm giving my coaches a chance to use all the ammo we've brought in, to see if they can get this guy out of his own head, free from injury and emotionally and mentally ready to have a clue more than half the time. The upside of that is not something I'm handing off to another organization. Yet. They get 2019 to git 'er done.

 

Fair. Where do you find pitching? They lose three of their starters after this year, since no one is singed past this year.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Fair. Where do you find pitching? They lose three of their starters after this year, since no one is singed past this year.

 

I think next offseason they trade Rosario or Kepler for a good pitcher (assuming Kirillof is ready), sign another high-end 1-2 starter, sign a second 3-4 starter, and go with one of Thorpe/Mejia/Stewart/Romero at the back end (or best case scenario, if two of those four young pitchers blossom into decent pitchers, they don't need to sign the second 3-4 starter).  They will easily have the money to sign a 1-2 and a 3-4 starter next year if necessary, especially with all these 1-year contracts. Also, Gibson could get a qualifying offer and potentially take it. Not likely, but not implausible either.

[Major League Ready]

 

Fair. Where do you find pitching? They lose three of their starters after this year, since no one is singed past this year.

 

1) Resign either Gibson or Odorizzi

2) One of the AAA SPs has to step up. No team, much less a mid market team) can be successful today if you don't develop any starting pitching.

3) This is why you don't spend every available dollar this year. They can afford to resign one of the current SPs plus another free agent or trade for one next year if we are forced but you don't sell at the bottom on a player like Buxton. The path to success is not discarding your highest ceiling player.

4) You could always convert May.

[jorgenswest]

My offseason blueprint.

 

Sign Harper. Trade Buxton for Gray.

 

I think their over under goes from 84 to 89. They add a starting pitcher 3 years and they desperately need the last two of those. They will have Harper under team control longer than they will have Buxton.

 

The payroll takes a big hit but they are going to pay dearly for starting pitching after this year. We saw how well that went with the 14 years and 170 million committed to Santana, Nolasco and Hughes for a return f 3 good years. Gray will be in arbitration but the costs and risks will be much less.

 

Harper and Gray will still be around as Kirilloff and Lewis are expected to arrive. This pair of moves elevates them to contender status now and when the next wave arrives.

 

They will never be in a better position to take on a contract like Harper’s.

[bird]

 

Fair. Where do you find pitching? They lose three of their starters after this year, since no one is singed past this year.

 

Re-signing Gibson, Pineda, or Odorizzi, if they want, would be a place to start, and I'd bet on one of those. Second, I'd bet at least ONE of all those B pitching prospects makes the grade during 2019 and shows considerable promise. Maybe two of them: Romero, Mejia, excluded, we're discussing Gonsalves, Stewart, Thorpe, De Jong, Littell, four of whom have MLB experience already, meaning they aren't impossible candidates. And now you have Graterol, Alcala, and Wells knocking at the door too. Third, they can sign a FA. They'll still be flush. Fourth, they will have an even more robust and ripe minor league pipeline, with more surplus from which to trade.

 

One thing for sure: I'm not thinking, hey, maybe I'll trade off Buxton in what could be a criminal act because maybe Gibson, Pineda, and Odorizzi all don't work out.

 

Easy peasy.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Re-signing Gibson, Pineda, or Odorizzi, if they want, would be a place to start, and I'd bet on one of those. Second, I'd bet at least ONE of all those B pitching prospects makes the grade during 2019 and shows considerable promise. Maybe two of them: Romero, Mejia, excluded, we're discussing Gonsalves, Stewart, Thorpe, De Jong, Littell, four of whom have MLB experience already, meaning they aren't impossible candidates. And now you have Graterol, Alcala, and Wells knocking at the door too. Third, they can sign a FA. They'll still be flush. Fourth, they will have an even more robust and ripe minor league pipeline, with more surplus from which to trade.

 

One thing for sure: I'm not thinking, hey, maybe I'll trade off Buxton in what could be a criminal act because maybe Gibson, Pineda, and Odorizzi all don't work out.

 

Easy peasy.

 

They could potentially offer QOs to any (or all) of Pineda, Gibson, or Odorizzi, and I have to think that at least one takes it, especially given how the FA market has played out the last two seasons. 

[TheLeviathan]

They could potentially offer QOs to any (or all) of Pineda, Gibson, or Odorizzi, and I have to think that at least one takes it, especially given how the FA market has played out the last two seasons.

 

You want to pay Pineda and Odorizzi at QO rate? Eeek.

[gunnarthor]

 

Schoenfield of ESPN would like to see Buxton traded to the Rockies for Gray.

I don't want to trade low on Buxton but Gray is a nice target. I'd probably see if Kepler would fit their team and move him, knowing that Kiriloff will be ready soon and assume Cave and Wade can hold down the corner until then.

[Thrylos]

 

I don't want to trade low on Buxton 

 

That's one of the major problems with that proposed trade. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

You want to pay Pineda and Odorizzi at QO rate? Eeek.

 

That would depend on how they performed this year... I'm just noting that it's possible. 

[Mike Sixel]

1) Resign either Gibson or Odorizzi

2) One of the AAA SPs has to step up. No team, much less a mid market team) can be successful today if you don't develop any starting pitching.

3) This is why you don't spend every available dollar this year. They can afford to resign one of the current SPs plus another free agent or trade for one next year if we are forced but you don't sell at the bottom on a player like Buxton. The path to success is not discarding your highest ceiling player.

4) You could always convert May.

Based on their behavior, there is no evidence they will sign free agent pitchers that are likely to be all that good. Those kinds of players don't want one year deals.

[bird]

 

Based on their behavior, there is no evidence they will sign free agent pitchers that are likely to be all that good. Those kinds of players don't want one year deals.

 

 

Mike, my friend, you insist on steering every discussion back to this fixation you have with convincing us that the FO is rigidly opposed to multi-year contracts for some treacherously misguided reason. Their behavior probably refutes your claim rather than supports it, BTW.

 

Will you at least concede that maybe we haven't seen a bunch of your coveted multi-year contracts because AT THIS TIME the FO thinks it's smarter to do the things they've done and limit longer offers to situations that require it, like, say, the Darvish bid and the Cruz contract?

 

Name one contract you think they signed that is bad because it's a one year deal. Because off the top of my head I can name a half dozen that make complete sense.

 

You asked how they can possibly replace three pitchers with expired contracts for 2020. Several people gave you FIVE very achievable ways to do it.

 

Your issue is a non-issue. 

[Mike Sixel]

Mike, my friend, you insist on steering every discussion back to this fixation you have with convincing us that the FO is rigidly opposed to multi-year contracts for some treacherously misguided reason. Their behavior probably refutes your claim rather than supports it, BTW.

 

Will you at least concede that maybe we haven't seen a bunch of your coveted multi-year contracts because AT THIS TIME the FO thinks it's smarter to do the things they've done and limit longer offers to situations that require it, like, say, the Darvish bid and the Cruz contract?

 

Name one contract you think they signed that is bad because it's a one year deal. Because off the top of my head I can name a half dozen that make complete sense.

 

You asked how they can possibly replace three pitchers with expired contracts for 2020. Several people gave you FIVE very achievable ways to do it.

 

Your issue is a non-issue.

It's the contracts they aren't signing that are, imo, bad. Those ways all rely on them doing things they have not done in three years. Signing extensions, signing free agents, trading prospects. I'm all for those happening, but none have. I've even asked for all three of those to happen. So, great, let's hope they eventually do.

[USAFChief]

 

Mike, my friend, you insist on steering every discussion back to this fixation you have with convincing us that the FO is rigidly opposed to multi-year contracts for some treacherously misguided reason. Their behavior probably refutes your claim rather than supports it, BTW.

 

Will you at least concede that maybe we haven't seen a bunch of your coveted multi-year contracts because AT THIS TIME the FO thinks it's smarter to do the things they've done and limit longer offers to situations that require it, like, say, the Darvish bid and the Cruz contract?

 

Name one contract you think they signed that is bad because it's a one year deal. Because off the top of my head I can name a half dozen that make complete sense.

 

You asked how they can possibly replace three pitchers with expired contracts for 2020. Several people gave you FIVE very achievable ways to do it.

 

Your issue is a non-issue. 

I'd say it's most definately an issue.

 

Can it be handled? Sure.

 

But it's an issue. 

[bird]

 

I'd say it's most definately an issue.

 

Can it be handled? Sure.

 

But it's an issue. 

 

 

No issue with that.  You're not ducking away from a falling sky about it.

 

1. Re-sign one or more of the starters.

2. Promote one or more now-tested internal candidates.

3. Trade for a front line starter in exchange for higher-quality excess talent in the minors or off the MLB roster.

4. Sign a really decent FA starter to a MULTI-YEAR contract. Not an issue, BTW, IMO.

5. Convert from the pen, Romero, or May perhaps.

 

An issue with lots of ways to handle it.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Mike, my friend, you insist on steering every discussion back to this fixation you have with convincing us that the FO is rigidly opposed to multi-year contracts for some treacherously misguided reason. Their behavior probably refutes your claim rather than supports it, BTW.

 

Will you at least concede that maybe we haven't seen a bunch of your coveted multi-year contracts because AT THIS TIME the FO thinks it's smarter to do the things they've done and limit longer offers to situations that require it, like, say, the Darvish bid and the Cruz contract?

 

Name one contract you think they signed that is bad because it's a one year deal. Because off the top of my head I can name a half dozen that make complete sense.

 

You asked how they can possibly replace three pitchers with expired contracts for 2020. Several people gave you FIVE very achievable ways to do it.

 

Your issue is a non-issue. 

I get the whole "no such thing as a bad one year deal," mantra, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're always the better option right? Couldn't we flip the above and say name a contract they've handed out that looks great due to performance and not because they could cut bait quickly? Of course we're all happy that the team could move on from Lynn and Morrison, but there's a reason those guys were fielding one year offers, and it wasn't just because the market was down. High end talent isn't signing short term deals. I wanted Darvish last offseason, and while I still think it was a bargain at the time I can fully admit that it might've been for the best that the Twins bowed out. That said, this club needs help in that high end talent department, and the whole "spend small fail small," thing doesn't particularly move the needle there. Backend starters and bullpen pieces have their place, but they aren't pushing this team towards playoff contention.

 

I understand the patience aspect of handing out the long term deals, but honestly if they won't do it now, especially while offers are reportedly ridiculously low, then why should be bank on it happening down the line? There's plenty of room in the payroll for a Machado ect. even if the narrative is they need to "wait," on Buxton and Sano. If either of those guys falters then it's essentially another couple years of tear down anyway, at which point premium talent can be traded. 

[JustinCB]

Buy low on Stroman and /or Sonny Gray? Jays were already talking to San Diego about low top 100 prospects for him and that was too steep. Maybe would take somebody like Rooker or Larnach.

[bird]

 

I get the whole "no such thing as a bad one year deal," mantra, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're always the better option right? Couldn't we flip the above and say name a contract they've handed out that looks great due to performance and not because they could cut bait quickly? Of course we're all happy that the team could move on from Lynn and Morrison, but there's a reason those guys were fielding one year offers, and it wasn't just because the market was down. High end talent isn't signing short term deals. I wanted Darvish last offseason, and while I still think it was a bargain at the time I can fully admit that it might've been for the best that the Twins bowed out. That said, this club needs help in that high end talent department, and the whole "spend small fail small," thing doesn't particularly move the needle there. Backend starters and bullpen pieces have their place, but they aren't pushing this team towards playoff contention.

 

I understand the patience aspect of handing out the long term deals, but honestly if they won't do it now, especially while offers are reportedly ridiculously low, then why should be bank on it happening down the line? There's plenty of room in the payroll for a Machado ect. even if the narrative is they need to "wait," on Buxton and Sano. If either of those guys falters then it's essentially another couple years of tear down anyway, at which point premium talent can be traded. 

My point has been that the length, short or long, isn't generally problematic absent an issue with its value, meaning with the player's performance. You have to separate the two issues. The one year length of contracts for Gibson, Pineda, Odorizzi, Schoop, Parker, Cron? If those guys perform in 2019, who cares about that?

 

If you want to argue they should go after higher end talent, that's a separate argument.

 

I won't get into a discussion about the merits of making a LT offer to Machado. Knowing nothing, it seems like good idea to me. So did Darvish. So did Lynn. So does Schoop. The complaint about one year deals that I addressed has nothing to do with whether or not a contract works out. 

 

One can argue about how many holes there were or are to fill, but let's for the sake of argument, limit it to the holes at 2B, DH, and 1B. I contend that all three of those moves make sense. NONE of those deals was made in order to avoid a longer term commitment to a different player, IMO. You're not going to convince me that they salivated over Lowrie, for example and passed just because his agent wanted more years. I'd take a bet that Schoop and Lowrie end up having similarly productive years. And let's not pretend Lynn, Schoop, or others were pleading to please make it for three years instead of one that smart price. 

 

The FO is not choosing short contracts because they can cut bait quickly. The FO, in all four of this year's cases so far, chose a player they like at a smart price, not the length of contract. The contract length just doesn't matter, one way or another. Of course they're cognizant of the fact that they have guys in the pipeline, but if they had liked Lowrie more and had signed him for three years at a smart price, and then Lewis and Gordon both look ready to step in and produce 8 WAR as rookies, super. Trade Lowrie and Polanco, they have liquidity, what's the problem? Same thing with the pitching staff, Contracts expiring? Big deal. Renew, find a FA, make a trade, promote, or pull Romero out of the pen. Done. Five different ways to possible solve a problem.

[nicksaviking]

You want to pay Pineda and Odorizzi at QO rate? Eeek.

If they’re not worth offering a QO they’re probably not worth worrying about losing. Back end starters are fairly cheap.

[KirbyDome89]

 

My point has been that the length, short or long, isn't generally problematic absent an issue with its value, meaning with the player's performance. You have to separate the two issues. The one year length of contracts for Gibson, Pineda, Odorizzi, Schoop, Parker, Cron? If those guys perform in 2019, who cares about that?

 

If you want to argue they should go after higher end talent, that's a separate argument.

 

I won't get into a discussion about the merits of making a LT offer to Machado. Knowing nothing, it seems like good idea to me. So did Darvish. So did Lynn. So does Schoop. The complaint about one year deals that I addressed has nothing to do with whether or not a contract works out. 

 

One can argue about how many holes there were or are to fill, but let's for the sake of argument, limit it to the holes at 2B, DH, and 1B. I contend that all three of those moves make sense. NONE of those deals was made in order to avoid a longer term commitment to a different player, IMO. You're not going to convince me that they salivated over Lowrie, for example and passed just because his agent wanted more years. I'd take a bet that Schoop and Lowrie end up having similarly productive years. And let's not pretend Lynn, Schoop, or others were pleading to please make it for three years instead of one that smart price. 

 

The FO is not choosing short contracts because they can cut bait quickly. The FO, in all four of this year's cases so far, chose a player they like at a smart price, not the length of contract. The contract length just doesn't matter, one way or another. Of course they're cognizant of the fact that they have guys in the pipeline, but if they had liked Lowrie more and had signed him for three years at a smart price, and then Lewis and Gordon both look ready to step in and produce 8 WAR as rookies, super. Trade Lowrie and Polanco, they have liquidity, what's the problem? Same thing with the pitching staff, Contracts expiring? Big deal. Renew, find a FA, make a trade, promote, or pull Romero out of the pen. Done. Five different ways to possible solve a problem.

"Smart price," sounds like a very nice way of saying bargain shopping. NOBODY is interested in earning that over multiple seasons. If you're limiting yourself to "value," signings then in essence you're committing to only short term deals. It's hard for a team to fill three holes in an offseason, the odds become even less favorable as that number grows. I don't think you can truly separate contract length from talent level, or the effect that performance has. 

 

For the sake of argument lets say Gibson, Pineda, and Odorizzi all hit their ceilings. IMO they're unlikely to sign any sort of team friendly extension. The Twins haven't even been able to lock down some of the younger guys so how confident are you they'd be able to/or desire to do so with any of the above? How about paying market value to bring all of them, or any starter for that matter, back in FA? We've watched the FO successfully trade for a back end starter so there's that I guess. I'm on the Romero bandwagon but if he's the best hope they have leading in 20' I'd be disappointed barring an absolute breakout this season. All those options you presented are valid, I just don't know how much stock we should put into THIS organization exhausting all of them, and therein lies much of the angst with procrastinating adding long term talent.

[Mike Sixel]

Money Machado
10:31 Which teams in the AL Central can overtake the Indians and what would they have to do to make it realistic?
Jeff Sullivan
10:31 This year, only the Twins
10:32 I'd like to see them go get Robbie Ray or something
Byron Buxton, of course, would be required to be playable

[Mike Sixel]

Broken Bat

12:44 Do see the Twins having a potent offense in 2019? To me they have some various pathways to their lineup that is not dependent just on Buxton, or Sano coming to forecasts a few seasons ago. Pitching, seemingly is trailing the offense but they seem to have advanced closer to Indians. Thoughts?

AvatarDan Szymborski

12:45 I think they're middle of the pack. I expected them to be more aggressive in free agency than they have been

 

AJ

12:57 Berrios or Buehler?

AvatarDan Szymborski

12:57 Buehler

 

Matt

1:04 Berrios or Mikolas?

AvatarDan Szymborski

1:04 Berrios

[Mike Sixel]

2:45
Hello : Who are the 2 wildcards in the AL? Angels? Twins? Rays? Athletics? Yankees/Sox?
2:45
Meg Rowley: Woof if I had to pick right now?
2:45
Meg Rowley: Today?
2:45
Meg Rowley: This minute!
2:46
Meg Rowley: Red Sox and Rays. I think I like the Yankees better to win the division, and I like the Red Sox and Rays better than the A’s or Angels I guess?
2:47
Meg Rowley: or the Twins

[yarnivek1972]

Is this sarcasm? It's nearly the same length with the same AAV; perks aside.

 

Anyway you look at it, the Cubs guaranteed him $20 mil more than the Twins.

[howieramone2]

 

It's the contracts they aren't signing that are, imo, bad. Those ways all rely on them doing things they have not done in three years. Signing extensions, signing free agents, trading prospects. I'm all for those happening, but none have. I've even asked for all three of those to happen. So, great, let's hope they eventually do.

They signed free agents this year, they signed free agents last year. They traded a prospect for Odorizzi and Ynoa for someone else . No doubt they will be working on extensions in the near future. I know Escobar turned one down.