Projecting the 2027 Twins Lineup

[sweetmusicviola16]

27 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

For years I could see Julien's future with the Twins is at 1B not 2B. Not surprized that he's there in '27. So why not have him not only playing at 1B in '21  but kept him there so to have him totally familiar there & instead of causing confusion at 2B now.  Jeffers at catcher & Carmargo as back up because we aren't allowed any other options. Jenkins has out grown CF but there he'll be playing because of his bat. Not sure that Correa would keep his performance at that level to stick there in '27 if not shift Lewis & or Miller at SS, maybe platoon Correa & Lee, Lee & Lewis at 2B. I believe there'll some shifting around in the INF.

I can see Schobel being the SS, a year sooner actually. My honest opinion? We are going to wish Correa was gone by '26 and '27.

Lets not forget Brandon Winokur for an OF spot by '27. We are going to have perhaps one of the best OF's in the AL by '27. Wallner, Jenkins, Winokur and E. Rodriguez being the star of the show. J. Rodriguez will round it out. Buxton will be a quality backup and role player by then.

[tony&rodney]

These lists are pretty much just having fun and there is nothing wrong with that. I often don't even look at these guesses. The 2024 list will be lucky to have 2-3 guys actually starting in their estimated positions. 

Buxton has a full no trade clause in his contract through the 2026 season but he can be traded to all but 5 clubs thereafter. 

[tony&rodney]

I don't believe Royce Lewis would be too hot at 2B, but I hope he has a long career. Catching is brutal on the body, so projecting Ryan Jeffers is not a fair bet. It is hard to guess who could be behind the plate right now. I'm going to optimistically guess Jeferson Quero.

[Brandon]

2 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

We might be surprized by our rotation come around '27 with all this SP talent coming from Cedar Rapids this season.

Right.  If we have more starters on the way, and they are better or equal to what we currently have and that allows us to make trades then we will have years of low-cost starter meaning lots of stability for the foreseeable future like I said earlier.  

[SteveLV]

I guess I am more concerned and interested in their 2024 lineup.  Fun speculation, but it is not in any way realistic to think anyone can accurately predict 4 years out.  Injuries, trades, retirements, flame-outs, young players blossoming, just way too many variables to project.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

6 hours ago, arby58 said:

Just last year, Detroit's Eduardo Rodriguez used his no-trade clause to block a deal to the Los Angeles Dodgers. So who is on the other side of 'just negotiation clauses?' and what is to suggest Buxton would agree?

I agree it is unlikely, but depending on how/where Buxton is playing the next couple of years and how much heat he is taking from the fans/team, it may make him more willing to move on.  Nobody likes to play where there life is unpleasant.

[mnfireman]

Jeffers is a FA after the '26 season...

[Brandon]

3 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

These lists are pretty much just having fun and there is nothing wrong with that. I often don't even look at these guesses. The 2024 list will be lucky to have 2-3 guys actually starting in their estimated positions. 

Buxton has a full no trade clause in his contract through the 2026 season but he can be traded to all but 5 clubs thereafter. 

Won’t Buxton have 10/5 rights to be able to reject a trade by then?

[tony&rodney]

11 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Won’t Buxton have 10/5 rights to be able to reject a trade by then?

You know what? I think you are correct. I am familiar with his contract and now I'm not sure why that clause for the last two years is even in the contract (5 team list). I guess others may weigh in but you should be right on with this deal.

[arby58]

1 hour ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

I agree it is unlikely, but depending on how/where Buxton is playing the next couple of years and how much heat he is taking from the fans/team, it may make him more willing to move on.  Nobody likes to play where there life is unpleasant.

It's all conjecture. Players agents negotiate contracts with 'gives' and 'gets.' You have to assume that getting a no-trade contract clause was something he got and there should be a dollar value attached to it, in terms of what he had to give up to get it. 

Pro athletes have to be thick skinned or they won't survive - I highly doubt some heat from fans is going to affect a contract decision that he in some way had to pay for.

[dxpavelka]

And WHY are we waiting until 2027 to field this lineup?

 

[mikelink45]

19 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

What does that mean?

IMO, a no-trade is to give the player the ability to control his future, potentially as part of a mild discount in his salary. Don’t understand your lack of seriousness that this clause as a deterrent in a potential trade?

Who’s trading for a guy that’s averaged less than 70 games per season over a 9 year career?………& if he hits .240 or above & has 30 HR & similar total of doubles, he’ll never be considered as a trade piece by the Twins.

Just don’t see him going anywhere other than a potential mutual release to FA & a % of his remaining salary paid. Maybe this works? Maybe deferred $$ from contract & he retires? Twins are on the hook is the bottom line.

I have watched a lot of players get traded with a no trade clause - It does give them some control and it is also a way to get extra money.  Juan Soto had a limited no-trade clause in his SD contract.  

[mikelink45]

17 hours ago, arby58 said:

Buxton = no trade clause. Don't like him, fine, but suggesting they trade him is monotonously unrealistic.

Sorry but the monotonously makes no sense.  

I don't even dislike Buxton, but he has not been a major contributor as much as we had wished he would.  This article is about a future lineup and if all the pieces fall into place his value to the team is even less.  But other teams can still value his potential, so yes trade him if we get the value we want. 

[mikelink45]

17 hours ago, arby58 said:

Just last year, Detroit's Eduardo Rodriguez used his no-trade clause to block a deal to the Los Angeles Dodgers. So who is on the other side of 'just negotiation clauses?' and what is to suggest Buxton would agree?

I have watched many players get their no trade bought out.  Saying they should trade Buxton in the future - remember this article is not about next year - has certainly created a lot of reactions (which I enjoy).  But the projected player development in this article makes a regularly injured Buxton even less valuable and if a team wants him and if Buxton thinks that new team will provide him the opportunities he wants a deal will get done.  But don't worry it will not impact 2024.

[arby58]

26 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

I have watched many players get their no trade bought out.  Saying they should trade Buxton in the future - remember this article is not about next year - has certainly created a lot of reactions (which I enjoy).  But the projected player development in this article makes a regularly injured Buxton even less valuable and if a team wants him and if Buxton thinks that new team will provide him the opportunities he wants a deal will get done.  But don't worry it will not impact 2024.

This 'the Twins don't want him but another team will,  and will be willing to buy out his no trade clause seems so far fetched to me to strain credulity. Can you describe what that set of circumstances would look like?.

[JD-TWINS]

20 hours ago, FlyingFinn said:

I don't think Jenkins will end up as a CF. By 2027, Buxton is either in CF or not playing. 

Fun to think about.

I don’t understand any level of reality in Buxton playing in CF 4 seasons from now? Most everyone doubts he’ll play CF in ‘24 let alone projecting he’ll be there in ‘27.

Seemed Jenkins was drafted due to the speed-arm components of his probable 5 tools (I get he’s young & not completely developed) so I’m hoping he’s in CF out of Spring Training in ‘26. Not sure why we should think he won’t be there ultimately?

[JD-TWINS]

1 hour ago, mikelink45 said:

Sorry but the monotonously makes no sense.  

I don't even dislike Buxton, but he has not been a major contributor as much as we had wished he would.  This article is about a future lineup and if all the pieces fall into place his value to the team is even less.  But other teams can still value his potential, so yes trade him if we get the value we want. 

They’ll release him before he gets traded.

[JD-TWINS]

2 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

I have watched a lot of players get traded with a no trade clause - It does give them some control and it is also a way to get extra money.  Juan Soto had a limited no-trade clause in his SD contract.  

A big difference, that I realize was only an example, is Juan Soto had a broad market  - he can play (arguably top 5 at 25 & under in the game) & he’s in the line-up most days. If Buxton plays well enough for a team to have interest, he’s inexpensive as a Twin & he stays. If he doesn’t play well there’s no market & he stays.

Again, the Twins are on the hook with him for good or bad. 

[JD-TWINS]

11 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

And WHY are we waiting until 2027 to field this lineup?

 

Don’t.

Nobody says this can’t be ‘25 or more realistically, ‘26 line-up………….the premise was “what’s the ‘27 line-up look like?”

[Nine of twelve]

I'm interested in the long term health of the franchise, so I'm not sure this goes far enough into the future. Can we get an article projecting the 2033 lineup?

[ashbury]

11 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

I'm interested in the long term health of the franchise, so I'm not sure this goes far enough into the future. Can we get an article projecting the 2033 lineup?

Man, if you haven't played OOTP yet, you really should. 

[mikelink45]

13 hours ago, arby58 said:

This 'the Twins don't want him but another team will,  and will be willing to buy out his no trade clause seems so far fetched to me to strain credulity. Can you describe what that set of circumstances would look like?.

No - because baseball is not made up of creditable stories.  Who would have thought we could get rid of Donaldson and his horrible contract to the Yankees?  What I have posed in this 2027 lineup discussion is a player who might look like he has potential enough to interest another team.  This is three years from now - not next year.  I hope you have looked at the title of the essay. 

And, yes different teams have different realities.  Pujols goes back to the Cardinals for a big finish after being a white elephant for the Angels.  These things happen.

[mikelink45]

10 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

A big difference, that I realize was only an example, is Juan Soto had a broad market  - he can play (arguably top 5 at 25 & under in the game) & he’s in the line-up most days. If Buxton plays well enough for a team to have interest, he’s inexpensive as a Twin & he stays. If he doesn’t play well there’s no market & he stays.

Again, the Twins are on the hook with him for good or bad. 

We were on the hook for Donaldson too. 

[arby58]

10 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

No - because baseball is not made up of creditable stories.  Who would have thought we could get rid of Donaldson and his horrible contract to the Yankees? 

Donaldson had a limited trade clause - only 5 teams he could not be traded to. This is comparing apples and lemons. Buxton chooses, not the Twins (or Yankees in the Donaldson case).