Brock Beauchamp

What bothers me is when people speculate wildly without a speck of evidence to support their opinion. Doubly so when that speculation casts people in a negative light for no reason.

They wanted the new management team to experience the process. Falvey and Levine, who probably have plenty of experience in the process already, aren't the people who go into the arbitration hearing and argue how much Gibson is worth (actually, I don't believe anyone from the team does at all, it's an MLB thing and the experience gained was probably through working with MLB). You can choose not to believe that but when Gibson himself doesn't seem bothered by how it went down, getting upset about it seems a little ridiculous.

Exactly. Teams don't push for longer term contracts, players do.

In that I agree, my argument is that if you can get a decent player in free agency, the shortest term contract possible is almost always the best route to take. But some offseasons, that option simply isn't available so you go ahead and offer longer term deals.

Maybe in two years the Twins need to give someone 4-5 years to get a decent player. That was not the case this offseason. But that’s two years you don’t have to worry about a player’s long term health or potential decline. In essence, a two year deal now allows you to postpone the typically bad portion of a contract. Worry about the four year contract when that’s your only option to get a good player and be happy that day isn’t today.

Exactly. A two year deal is the sweet spot, especially at the prices the Twins paid this offseason. In two years, the rotation might look solid but third base is a black hole. Or maybe an outfielder goes down with an injury that removes them from the field permanently. Any number of guys could simply fail. A two year contract allows you the flexibility to do a few things: 1. Lock down a position in the mid-term. 2. Retain future payroll flexibility to adapt to new challenges. 3. Rotate through free agents and avoid what too often become albatross contract seasons in years four, five, and six. There's absolutely no downside here because we're not talking about locking down a 25 year old Clayton Kershaw, we're talking about locking down a 30-something Yu Darvish. Long term contracts are always a risk but they almost always contain a serious downside unless you're talking about one of the generational players who broke into the majors at 20-21 and reached free agency in the middle of their prime. And the Twins will never be able to afford one of those players so it's a moot point anyway. Where the Twins will play in free agency has enormous risk and a lot of downside at the back end of long-term deals. If the risk wasn't there, the player would be too expensive because teams like Minnesota can't afford to give Bryce Harper an eight year, $300m deal.

That's not a terrible deal, as you're only on the hook for three seasons but that's a lot of money per season. I'll take Lynn, thanks.

Dunno, I kinda lean with the "more is better" approach for an 85 win team. If 50% of your pitching staff is a black hole, one guy might not get it done in the regular season. Picking up two pretty good starters and two pretty good relievers might reap more rewards on a staff that flawed. If the Twins were a 90+ team, then obviously you want that front line starter because it's harder to gain wins at that level. But the Twins certainly didn't have that problem; they could shore up half a dozen roster spots and potentially gain more wins in the process, though obviously your team looks weaker on paper in postseason play. But if you don't make the postseason at all, that frontline starter is a moot point. And I think the Twins' acquisitions have given them a better chance at the postseason than Darvish alone.

Well... not really. They have an option on Morrison and Odorizzi is arg eligible in 2019 as well. And they can expect to see a healthy Pineda in 2019 as well. They also picked up a second year of Reed. Other than Lynn, the front office locked up the guys you might want to see locked up for more than one season. They didn't get a second year on Rodney but does anyone want that anyway? The front office did a very good job of dipping their toes into the water without overcommitting to any single player. It's a pretty impressive feat and given how little the front office paid to do it all, several other MLB front offices should be kinda embarrassed right now.

At this point, would you trade Darvish at 5-6 years for two years of Odorizzi, one year of Lynn, and two years of Morrison? I’m not sure I would. To get that kind of talent for Darvish money without suffering through the back half of a six year deal is HUGE. As for Lynn vs Cobb, I also lean Cobb but didn’t see enough difference to really get upset about it (not claiming you did either).

Given how this front office has plucked guys like Odorizzi, Morrison, Reed, and now Lynn this offseason for peanuts, I’d be enraged if I was a fan of one of the other 5-7 fringe contender teams in baseball. It feels really good to be on this end of things for once.

This just... isn’t correct. “Interestingly, current theory generally holds that rotational and angular movements are more culpable than linear ones.” I literally listened to a doctor talk about this with the football player for an hour about two months ago. There’s no way that Morneau’s concussion looked worse and therefore WAS worse. https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1800383-doctor-dave-explains-concussions-and-head-trauma.amp.html “Of course, there are cases where football players can get an injury and be dead in a few hours. In those cases, they are hit from an angle, and the brain can whip around inside the skull, tearing and stretching, which causes a large hemorrhage and they don't get to the hospital in time.” http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=7121271&page=1 Just search concussion plus either angular or rotational and you’ll find a gaggle of articles that talk about how dangerous some pretty innocent-looking hits can be.

While the offer seems insulting and lower than I’d offer Lynn (and I don’t even care for Lynn), has ANY other offer been publicized? Because I haven’t seen anything else publicized. And that matters. If you have one offer on the table and there are two other similar guys on the market with the same problem, is any offer actually insulting?

First paragraph: Absolutely, and that's the point of my post. I don't even approach the subject of claiming the severity or effects of Mauer's concussion. I won't touch that topic with a ten foot pole because concussions are way out of my depth as a layman. Second paragraph: Maybe I'm misunderstanding this paragraph but immediately after saying all concussions are different, you proceed to say one concussion looked more severe than the other. As I'm sure you understand, how a concussion "looks" doesn't have much impact on its severity or long-term effects. Just a month or so ago I was listening to an interview with a football player (can't remember his name for the life of me) who had several concussions in his career... and the one that took him out of the sport forever is the concussion he received when a teammate tripped over him, barely making contact. But the contact was particularly damaging to his brain because of the specific spot it hit, the angle at which it hit, and the impact's focus on a specific part of his brain.

The reason I'm in favor of a two year Lynn/Cobb signing is that it gives you insurance on Santana. If he's bad, you decline his 2019 option and let Lynn/Cobb slide into his role next season. If he's good and you have confidence in either Pineda or one of the prospects, then you dish off Santana or Lynn/Cobb for a prospect. At the money we're talking here, there just isn't much downside.

Yeah, this is my take as well. I think the Morrison signing was a lot more than an opportunity signing. They want to hedge their bets with Mauer.

Obviously, you're free to question these things provided you remain respectful and on-topic. I never implied otherwise in my post. But I think you're missing part of the problem here; symptoms come and go and they're often hard to pin down as being concussion symptoms in the first place. Is it possible Mauer was bad at communicating things he clearly should have been communicating to the team? Absolutely, but it's probably a bit more complex than "he just didn't want to share important information with other people".

You should probably spend a little more time reading up on concussions. What has been reported on Mauer is pretty common. Symptoms come and go, they vary in both intensity and duration, sometimes deceptively (often the person doesn’t even realize they’re there because the human brain is amazing at adjusting for ailments, diminishing their impact but not removing the underlying problem). Placing a timeline and set list of symptoms on a concussion is folly, as "concussion" can mean a bunch of different things and is more of a catch-all term than an actual injury (more on that in a bit). And depending on the severity and frequency, the effects often fade after a few years (or maybe the brain so completely adjusts to compensate for the effects that it essentially "normalizes" a continuing problem, making it invisible to the person). Nevermind that even using the term “concussion” is so generic that it’s almost useless. Do we say “player x broke a bone”? Of course not, we specify which bone and the severity. Yet there are SO MANY forms of concussions, many with different effects and severity. Getting hit on the side of your head is not the same as the back of the head is not the same as the top of the head. Hell, even the type of impact on the same spot on the head often leads to different effects. Those injuries impact different parts of the brain and therefore have different effects, yet we lump them all together as the same. And that doesn’t bring up severity of the impact, which adds another variable to the situation. We too often treat the discussion on concussions at the level of a third grade book report, which is ridiculous because it’s a friggin’ BRAIN INJURY.

I'm picturing the day Mauer has to hang up the cleats and emotionally falls apart, retreating to his lake cabin to become an eccentric recluse. He's found weeks later, alone in a dark room with at least 3-4 days of stubble, 30 lbs heavier, and surrounded by dozens of empty cartons of whole (gasp!) milk. The grass at the cabin hasn't been mown in at least eight days.

I don't trust Mejia so much as I believe he can fill out the back of a rotation and do okay for himself while gaining experience. It's okay if Mejia scuffles a bit because he's a future investment. You have five more seasons of control over the guy. It's the other guys that worry me, the guys you need to perform today because you don't really care about their future performance.

Damn it, I knew there was someone else injured who I missed but couldn't think of who it was.

It may seem weird to say now but there's a good chance the Twins won't be looking for a starting pitcher next offseason. Here are their available options, and some of them either have a good track record or are promising prospects: - Santana - Berrios - Mejia - Gibson (likely gone unless he really breaks out, IMO) - Pineda (easy to forget but he's a pretty good pitcher) - Odorizzi - Gonsalves - Romero

Ah, right. Thanks.

But if you can get him on a one year deal and think he's adequate enough to hold down a #3-ish position, you can just offer a QO the following season. And given how the Twins are likely an 85-87 team as-is (screw you, projections), those extra 1-2 wins Lynn provides are huge. With a few small breaks, he could catapult the Twins into 90 win territory and possibly take the division.

The Twins signed Morales in June. Also, pitchers and catchers reported a bit more than two weeks ago and over three weeks are left in Spring Training. I'm pretty sure any pitcher signed today could catch up.