Jump to content
  • Create Account

It’s time for the front office to step up and ink some deals


Player extensions  

72 members have voted

  1. 1. If the front office can’t sign either Buxton or Berríos, should they be fired?

    • Yes
      26
    • Unsure
      13
    • No
      33


While I personally lean toward signing Buxton, I understand why others would prefer Berríos. But either way, the Twins can’t afford to let two very good players walk in free agency - or be traded - and compete at the highest level in the next couple of seasons.

There’s still time to get something done but it needs to happen by Christmas and if this front office can’t ink either player, it may be time for them to go.

And I’m not getting a good feeling after hearing their offer was so low on Buxton, possibly even insultingly low for someone of his talent level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

I replies unsure, we don't know if Buxton or Berrios even want to sign here or just use the Twins to drive the market up.  Until that is clarified cannot say for sure. 

If they would sign here and the FO does not, then yes they should be fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all depends what the players are looking for. Neither should take a discount, but that doesn't mean they're setting reasonable asking prices. If they're both asking for 30m a year guaranteed I'd want the FO fired for signing those deals. If Berrios is asking for 20m per and the FO is balking then I'd be upset. Buxton's situation is a whole different animal.

We simply don't have enough information to know if the FO is screwing the negotiations up or making poor decisions. Without knowing what the players are really looking for it's impossible to know whether or not the Twins should be agreeing to their demands. "Sign them at any cost" isn't realistic or smart team management. I'd offer Berrios 5/100 right now. If he says 5/125 is his ask I'd see if we can agree on 5/115-120. I'd offer Buxton 7/100 with escalators that can bring it to 7/200 based on games played. If they won't sign those deals then trade them (now or during offseason) and take another run at them during free agency if their markets don't prove to be as robust as they are hoping for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indecision is a decision. We had no trouble locking up Sano, Kepler and Polanco. Berrios and Buxton should already have been locked up or traded - and we all know we don't lock anyone up unless it is a "team friendly" deal.

The Sano and perhaps by next year the Kepler deals aren't looking to team friendly at this point. Not too mention the unexplainable Dobnak deal - other than our obsession with the supposed "team friendly" deal. 

I say we outsmart ourselves again here. We are stuck. I will hazard a guess and say the Cardinals step up this coming weekend and give us a ton for Berrios - we hold Byron - and this winter we sign him to something borderline "team friendly" - with a lot of incentive's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, In My La Z boy said:

Indecision is a decision. We had no trouble locking up Sano, Kepler and Polanco. Berrios and Buxton should already have been locked up or traded - and we all know we don't lock anyone up unless it is a "team friendly" deal.

The Sano and perhaps by next year the Kepler deals aren't looking to team friendly at this point. Not too mention the unexplainable Dobnak deal - other than our obsession with the supposed "team friendly" deal. 

I say we outsmart ourselves again here. We are stuck. I will hazard a guess and say the Cardinals step up this coming weekend and give us a ton for Berrios - we hold Byron - and this winter we sign him to something borderline "team friendly" - with a lot of incentive's.

If the Cardinals make a huge offer this weekend, it's too late.  The trade deadline is Friday afternoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted no because there is context to this that we're unlikely to ever know, especially if they don't sign here.  We don't know that the demands of the player are even remotely reasonable.  Nor do we know that the FO has given them something completely unworkable.

I'm also of the opinion that a FO shouldn't be fired solely because they weren't able to sign key in-house players.  There's usually more to these decisions than what is considered in the vacuum that is contract negotiations with a single player/team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

I voted no because there is context to this that we're unlikely to ever know, especially if they don't sign here.  We don't know that the demands of the player are even remotely reasonable.  Nor do we know that the FO has given them something completely unworkable.

I'm also of the opinion that a FO shouldn't be fired solely because they weren't able to sign key in-house players.  There's usually more to these decisions than what is considered in the vacuum that is contract negotiations with a single player/team.

I voted unsure for basically the same reason -- signing/trading/waiting all have both benefits and detriments. Hard to put a decision like firing/not firing on a move that does not occur in a vacuum.

My opinion of the FO took a pretty big hit this weekend learning that they offered (what I feel was) a pretty insulting deal to Buxton. They have some serious work to do to earn back trust from a lot of fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel more strongly on signing Berrios than Buxton due to needing starting pitching so badly but it all comes down to what they expect. I would not sign Berrios for 6/180M for instance. I am also more negative on the next few years than most here even if they do sign both as I think the Twins would still not be a championship team without a lot more help. I can envision a nice bounce back and winning 90-92 games and being competitive but that is the high end. Maybe others are happy with that but that is not exciting to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted yes but I think Levine should go. Not sure about Falvey.

I don't think the Twins will keep either Buxton or Berrios. I'm sort of torn on what to do. In reality, the FO didn't do enough to help with the pitching staff when the window was open and I'm not sure what they can do to pry the window back up, absent signing Rodon, Gausman, and another starting pitcher this offseason. Berrios seems like the type of durable pitcher that will be solid until he's 32 or 33. But he should be the third best pitcher on a good staff. If we look at the 2001-2010 Twin rotations, Berrios would arguably be the third or fourth best pitcher most years. Ideally, you'd want that pitcher to either be on a short contract (Pineda, Rogers) or under team control. Instead, someone will probably give him a Zach Wheeler type deal. But the Twins don't have much in the pitching pipeline so if we lose him, it'll be really, really bad. Like, 100 loss bad, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the front office's fault per se. It's ownership's fault for not increasing the payroll when the Twins were in a window of contention. When you have $27M (after adding Cruz) to spend and you spend $10.5 on Andrelton Simmons (a move almost universally applauded), you are left with Happ, Colome, and Robles. The Twins won't even have as much to spend next year as they did this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Buxton and probably Berrios think they can get more money, guaranteed money in Buxton's case elsewhere. Probably can't trade Buxton before deadline due to him not even back playing yet, but Berrios at the right price should be moved. Twins not going to contend next year, build for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are tough players to evaluate.   I think Berrios and his agent think he's a number 1, we generally think a 2.  But we finally have a 2.  And its hard to get a FA to come here, and a 27 year old 2 could still have a couple dominant seasons.   So is that a 150 million dollar pitcher?  I guess. Should they be fired if someone else goes 6 years 180?  Probably not.  

I think they're tired of the Buxton injuries and kind of hope he walks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We as fans can say the FO needs to step up and sign players, but it actually depends on the player. Berrios has stated he wants to test the FA market to see what he's worth, not the FO fault he won't sign. Keep him and see what the market bears out, or trade him and do the same. Buxton is a totally different case because of the injuries. For the most part they have been flukes, never really the same injury. So things should even out, right? Its a real crap shoot. All indications are pointing to him also testing the market also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted no. A long term contract which is middle ground for Buxton's potential earnings makes no sense for the Twins and a long term contract which is at the lower end of Buxton's potential earnings (where the Twins are now) makes little sense for Buxton. Reports are saying the Twins' offer was in the $100MM neighborhood with unknown incentives that looked more like a football contract than a typical baseball contract. Gleeman and the Geek was unusually direct to the point and worth listening to on this issue today.

Berrios' ask is unknown. If he wants 5 / 125MM, you give him 5 / 125MM. If he wants more than 25MM annual over 5 years or more than 22MM annually over 6+ years, you can't sign him to that because it's an overpay compared to an expected free agency market for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my book termination is on the table, but not because of any individual moves. We were promised sustainable contenders, what we seem to have on the horizon is sustainable 75-game winners as a high end. Which is better than perennial 100-game losers, and requires a certain level of competence given stiff competition throughout MLB. But if we're facing a new five year plan, I'd find someone new to give the five years to.

If I were deciding, how the roster and farm looks after they decide about Buxton and Berrios would shape my decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hayes interview with Jim Pohlad for The Athletic didn't give much of anything, as expected. However, maybe I'm reading too much into this, when questioned about current leadership, Jim didn't mention Falvey or Levine by name in his response, even though the question asked about the two and Rocco specifically. 

Mods - I hope a cropped screenshot from a paid subscription piece is okay. If not, please delete 

 

 

Screenshot_20210726-125017_The Athletic.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everyone that it’s very hard to evaluate the FO without knowing more about offers going back-and-forth. Having said that, I do think the reported offer to Buxton was pretty low. I think Lavell Neal of all people pegged it right when he said we should offer Buxton $15m a year for 4 to 6 years with escalators that get him to $20 million if he stays healthy and performs. That’s still may be a little less than he could get on the open market but I think would be a very competitive offer.

With respect to Berrios, I do think the market is relatively clear. If he remains healthy, pitches as he is pitching now, and becomes a free agent after next season he will get a contract in excess of $20 million a year, probably at or approaching $25 million a year. If that is not something we are willing to pay, and frankly I think we should be willing to pay that because I do think it’s the price for it a solid to strong number to starter, then we should trade him now. The logical Suitor is the Dodgers given their pitching problems (I don’t think Trevor Bauer will pitch another inning for LA, He’s not well liked in the clubhouse and the Dodgers don’t put up with this kind of stuff), and they have pitching to trade that is either already in the major leagues or right at the cusp. They also have a shortstop in Gavin Lux who is redundant if they resign Seager because Seager is better than Lux. I think the Dodgers are going to use the present situation to try to void Bauer’s contract and that frees up money to resign Seger and then, a year from now, give Berrios the kind of money he wants.

So I guess my answer to the question presented is if the FO gives Buxton and Berrios market value offers and they turn them down, then they will be judged on what kind of trade return back they get. If they can’t get a good return and don’t sign these guys, then they should be fired. Also, if they keep making below market offers then I think it’s fair for them to be fired because that means that they are either out of touch with the market, ownership is just not willing to play in the big leagues, or we have to go to a different philosophy Where we develop talent, try to sign guys to team friendly contracts early, and lose everybody else that’s any good. I don’t like that option.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

It all depends what the players are looking for. Neither should take a discount, but that doesn't mean they're setting reasonable asking prices. If they're both asking for 30m a year guaranteed I'd want the FO fired for signing those deals. If Berrios is asking for 20m per and the FO is balking then I'd be upset. Buxton's situation is a whole different animal.

We simply don't have enough information to know if the FO is screwing the negotiations up or making poor decisions. Without knowing what the players are really looking for it's impossible to know whether or not the Twins should be agreeing to their demands. "Sign them at any cost" isn't realistic or smart team management. I'd offer Berrios 5/100 right now. If he says 5/125 is his ask I'd see if we can agree on 5/115-120. I'd offer Buxton 7/100 with escalators that can bring it to 7/200 based on games played. If they won't sign those deals then trade them (now or during offseason) and take another run at them during free agency if their markets don't prove to be as robust as they are hoping for.

Those numbers are really close to what I’m thinking as well. A healthy, performing Buxton is a $30m player while Berríos is a $20-25m player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ashbury said:

In my book termination is on the table, but not because of any individual moves. We were promised sustainable contenders, what we seem to have on the horizon is sustainable 75-game winners as a high end. Which is better than perennial 100-game losers, and requires a certain level of competence given stiff competition throughout MLB. But if we're facing a new five year plan, I'd find someone new to give the five years to.

Oh, for sure… these deals aren’t in isolation and I view them as more of a straw that breaks the camel’s back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NapoleonComplex said:

Hayes interview with Jim Pohlad for The Athletic didn't give much of anything, as expected. However, maybe I'm reading too much into this, when questioned about current leadership, Jim didn't mention Falvey or Levine by name in his response, even though the question asked about the two and Rocco specifically. 

Mods - I hope a cropped screenshot from a paid subscription piece is okay. If not, please delete 

Screenshot_20210726-125017_The Athletic.jpg

This is fine, thank you for asking. Snippets from behind a paywall are fine, we only ask not to publish complete content. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirby almost walked but the Twins ended up making him the highest paid player and it sounded like Eloise Pohlad was insistent on this happening.  Everything seemed to indicate that Terry Ryan couldn't bring himself to offer Mauer his giant contract, then Bill Smith was hired and that was his top priority.

Neither of Buxton or Berrios are the touchstone kind of players that Puckett or Mauer were, but I still think having top players is good for business and just like I suspect they might have with the prior big contracts, I could see the Pohlads influencing a signing. I'm not sure if this is entirely in Falvey and Lavine's hands.

The front office got Kepler, Polanco and Sano on bargain extensions. They weren't all together cheap but they were very  affordable and clearly lesser deals than Berrios or Buxton were going to command. They also DO spend in free agency despite what many say, however they tend to spend late into free agency, which absolutely means they are getting the guys on better terms, which is fine, but it also means they aren't exactly getting to CHOOSE who they sign. It seems to me there is an awful lot of the same mentality here as the past front office; getting a good deal is more important that getting the right player.  I don't want that any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Minnesota Twins have been a poverty franchise for a long time. Unless there is a concerted effort to make a change, I doubt it happens and letting players like this go will stay the norm. Is it disappointing, yes. Is it surprising, no. Someone else said that the players we tend to sign are those who are willing to take some sort of below market deal at that point in time. It doesn't seem like either of these players are interested in doing so and therefore probably leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the original post, I don't necessarily believe that anyone in the front office needs to be fired as they seem to be working within the parameters of our ownership. It isn't their fault they don't have the ability to go "all in" and acquire the top end talent teams need to be able to compete. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted Unsure.

There have been lots of glowing reports about the infrastructure this FO has put in place and all of the highly respected individuals they've hired at various levels. Putting the right people, culture and processes in place are the keys to success in any organization and prior to 2021 there were tangible signs of all those good things. It's hard to do but important to not let this disaster of a season sway overall opinion of performance too much. 

I see two routes to salvaging this FO's legacy.

1. Work out deals to keep Buxton and Berrios WHILE surrounding them with a talented and competitive team. 

2. Swallow pride, make the tough decisions and blow this team up while there are still a lot of valuable pieces to trade. 

The worst outcome in my opinion would be minor trades at the deadline, fielding another middling team in 2022 and losing Buxton and Berrios to free agency. That would be a fireable offense IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything less than trying to compete in 2022 is reason for termination. We were promised they were going to do things the right way and have sustained success. With this year and rebuilding next year means they would have failed.

But with that said if that means trading Buxton and/Berrios and using the saved money to put together a solid pitching staff and adding a solid outfielder I am OK with it, but trading them for prospects years away because the 40 man is loaded with prospects that may or may not amount to anything and washed up pitchers they hope to bring back to glory, then thanks but no thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is cause for termination. 

The cause for termination would be when they do end up trading these guys and the pieces they get back don't develop into anything. 

If they trade them, they flat out need 2-4 guys that contribute at an extremely high level back for them. I'm not talking about #4 starters, 4th outfielders or replacement level guys. I am talking about #1 starters, top 10 league MVP type guys. 

Trading Kirby Puckett and Frank Viola would have been enough to stockpile the organization for years. This is a fairly similar situation. These 2 guys are flat out the 2 best players we have. If they trade these guys, they MUST get back and develop the players into huge pieces that lead to something close to a title. If not, CAN THEM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...