jkcarew

You protect the top-end international guys. You just do. (The fact that they become rule-5 eligible at such a ridiculously early point in their development, is a topic unto itself.) But it's about the ceiling. And especially in the day of tanking teams and 26-man rosters, more of these types will be targeted. Has Javier played his way out of being defined as a 'top-end' guy? Not in my book...yet. But it's reasonable IMO if one draws a different conclusion.

Nobody's making EE a full-time first-baseman at this point...least of all a club like the Twins that has enough infield defense issues as it is.

Your catcher of the decade caught a grand total of about 300 games in the decade....less than half the games played during the 4 years he was ‘playing’ the position. Meanwhile, your honorable mention catcher caught about 150 games. That leaves about 1150 games in the decade caught by guys that don’t get a mention.

So, the Twins will splurge on a reason to play their second best hitter even less? Don’t know why anyone thinks Rocco is inclined to play catchers at first on their ‘off’ days..when he had the perfect opportunity to do so last year, and went out of his way to NOT do so. The ‘talk’ referred to of utilizing Garver at first more is coming from everywhere...except the Twins organization. Given the other priorities, the only way I’d get behind this move would be if a full-time conversion to first base happened for Garver.

Not going to have power with that swing. This year, with the juiced baseball, he projected to about 7...by far and away more than he has ever hit in a season. He’s young, but the BABiP comes from his willingness to slap the ball around the field. And if his BABiP settles at .310, he’s not going to have that much value...even if the HR’s ticked up a bit. In the meantime, I think he’s a legit BA and ball-in-play guy...on a lineup where that fits a need. And I think that’s the important part for now.

Unwatchable.

So, we got a guy that needs to be fixed. And he'll have to be fixed while on the major-league roster. Sure is good to be playing in the AL Central! (until the post-season, of course.)

"...Randy Dobnak is the best internal option to remain in the rotation with Jose Berrios." Even if you disagree...the fact that this is even arguable should scare all Twins fans...and hopefully, it will scare the FO just as much.

"Cease finished the year strong with a 3.00 ERA in September, but his last three starts came against the Angels, Mariners, and Tigers." You could make a similar comment about literally every good number a Twins pitcher (or hitter) posted in 2019. The Twins strength of schedule in 2019 was historically low. Like, about as low as any team has had in recent history. The Twins won 32 of 69 games they played against >.500 teams. The White Sox won 29 of 69 games they played against >.500 teams (not including the Twins). Having said that, I think the White Sox are probably another year away...2021...we'll see what this off-season brings. But, it certainly looks like they're coming. It's just a matter of when.

You know you're riding hot as a manager, when giving a guy with a 155 wRC+ only 350 plate appearances is hailed as brilliant. Just say'in. The list of qualifiers with a better wRC+ than Garver last year consisted of Trout, Yelich, Bregman, Cruz, Bellinger, and Springer. One theory is that the extra at-bats will expose him (to more tough right-handers, etc.), as well as tire him out. But, if Rocco plays it the same in 2020, and Garver does the same thing, I hope they move him to a position where he can play every day. It's not like the extra rest is ever going to turn him into a plus defender back there.

You mean he's going to be a post-season star for a WS-winning team!!? If so, I DEFINITELY want the Twins to be the team that signs him.

The organization seems to be short on third-basemen and first-basemen. By that, I mean, prospects that are infielders and likely (in the near future) to hit at the level of a major-league 3rd-baseman...or the even-higher bar of a major league 1st-baseman. For that reason alone...and with all the holes to be filled elsewhere (primarily pitching)...we need Sano to keep making strides...even small ones.

The reporter shows up with the domestic violence shirt...and this idiot plays right into her hand. "How to take a bad situation (of your own doing)...and make it 10 times worse" - - by Brandon Taubman. I wouldn't fire him for lack of composure/respect/professionalism. I'd fire him for incompetence as an executive representing the organization.

I think things like relaxing blackout rules would help...if for no other reason than MLB should be doing everything possible with marketing and media to reach young audiences...playing the long game...even if it means taking short-term hits to some revenue. With regard to the stadium experience, speaking from the perspective of my 20-something kids (one who is married with small kid)...the primary reason they go to the games (2-3 times per year) is because they LIKE the experience provided at the ball-park...it's doubtful they invest the time to attend a game otherwise. Primarily, the things that need to be done IMO are... one, get more kids playing; and two, speed up the game, in terms of duration and also balls-in-play...even the number of games. I think MLB needs to be aggressive with changes to the game itself, in this regard. Meanwhile, participation is important. The efforts in urban communities were smart/needed...but participation in the burbs is at risk, as well. (Incidentally, this includes girls playing baseball and/or softball, as well. That, combined with figuring out what else marketing-wise or game-wise would grow the female audience. Huge opportunity here, I think.) In short, the vulnerability goes deeper than what a specific organization like the Twins can solve, IMO. It's just opinion. Based on anecdotal observations and a pretty small amount of reading/research. The death of baseball isn't imminent, but, I think we'll know withing the next 10 years if the current trends/challenges were transitory or fundamental (or maybe addressed and 'fixed'). And it's one of those situations where I'd be more than fine with having bought into the wrong narrative.

I’ll buy some of that. But, overall, I’m not buying the narrative that baseball is ‘fine’ and ‘things aren’t as bad as they seem’. I’m a believer of the narrative that MLB is vulnerable, needs to try harder, and be more aggressive with changes that will make the game more attractive to younger generations.

The thread asks if a team came asking for a major-league OF (that could play center), who would return more in terms on an impact pitcher...not a 'marginal upgrade' in starting pitching. If your point is that 'good' teams usually trade prospects, not major-league talent, I agree. If your argument is that it's dumb to trade major league talent when you are in a position to contend, I say not necessarily. If you have two outfielders that are 'really' good, but you think you have two more that can be just as good or better (or in the case of Buxton, good, and way more durable), why would you limit opportunities by not at least listening to teams that might be interested in one of the major-league pieces? (FWIW...off the top of my head, the Cardinals traded Garry Templeton coming off a division championship, Boston traded Nomar Garciappara for help at other positions literally while they were trying to win their first world series in 90 years. The Dodgers traded Puig because they had a ton of outfield depth...and they didn't want to sign him...but arguably, could have used him in this post-season. Nevertheless, I concede that it's usually prospects, even that prospects would be 'less risky'. But there are instances of it working out the other way, as well.)

What does that look like? You play him at all the positions other than SS that he might be asked to play? You've basically eliminated his chances of being able to play short-stop at an every-day major league level...or, you've decided that you will (when the time comes) develop him at short while he's at the major league level. Not worth it. It's relatively easy for an elite athlete to transition from SS to somewhere else,...vs the other way around. I'm arguing that the LOW risk move is to continue to focus his development at SS rather than guess where he might fit in when his bat demands that he move to the major league club. The HIGH risk path is to siphon significant development time away from SS by guessing where he might fit when that time comes. (And no, I don't consider playing AFL games at 3rd...and occasional minor league games at CF, etc. to be inconsistent with the low risk path. The question is, where should he focus his development at this time.)

Happens all the time. Clubs trade from positions of depth...including major-league depth, to address areas of weakness. In the Twin's case, the acquisition of pitching this off-season is not an option, it's a requirement. It's totally fair, IMO, to argue that the Twins should limit acquisitions to FA acquisitions...or that the Twins don't have 'enough' depth in the OF to warrant a trade of either Buxton or Kepler...or should trade minor league prospects instead, etc., etc. But, I think this thread just asks...if the Twins 'had' to consider trading from the major-league depth (maybe the trade partner demands a major-league-ready piece) which of Kepler/Buxton could be expected to return more.

Why would Polanco be 'entrenched' at SS, if Lewis is better than Polanco there? Under your original premise that Lewis is a better defensive shortstop than Polanco (with further development), you play Lewis at short...and Polanco moves. You always play the best defender at SS.

Thanks for posting. I buy into the 'local' nature of baseball following...and it probably is heavily influenced by the local/regional nature of the media and game broadcasts...certainly relative to the NFL, but even relative to the NBA. Agree with Van that there's probably an underlying demographic factor(s) at play. I have two boys, both played baseball through high school (one in college)...I coached them for years...it was a family activity (as was football in the fall). They are likely to buy tickets to Twins games a few times per year, and they 'follow' the team...but there's no way they would watch/stream a game, let alone pay for the right to do so. Yet, they would be considered that generation's 'baseball fans'. Meanwhile, both...and their sister...could name 100 NFL players beyond those that play for the Vikings. As with almost anything else...things will change with media/technology/society...but, I still believe it comes down to what kids do during their youth. Need to keep them playing.

Then there is absolutely no reason not to go down that path. Yes, expose Lewis to other positions to ensure that things aren't totally foreign depending on how events unfold. But SS is where the highest upside is for any player's value...and it's the most difficult from a technical standpoint. Focus development there until the above sentence is proved false. (Or, I guess...until Buxton is traded or forced to retire.)

I think it's a good question, and probably in the eye of the beholder...different clubs would value one more than the other. I do think most clubs would still consider Buxton's offensive game to be a work in progress. Then there's his track record of injuries and missed time. Then there's his contract status (relative to Kepler's). I would think these factors would give Kepler the edge with at least some clubs. Unfortunately, Buxton in 2019 left us with yet another year where, if you traded him, you would feel like you were selling low.

I also think it'd be in the eye of the beholder...on multiple dimensions. Could be this (above) type of scenario...or could be two different clubs both expecting to compete for championships over the next couple of years, but with different types of lineup constructions/weaknesses: maybe one lacks pop from the left-side; maybe one has all the pop in the world, but is weak defensively in the outfield.

Agree that his draft position is a sunk cost and shouldn't impact 'where he adds the most value'. Still, I'd be disappointed if a corner is where he adds the most value. With all the speed and athleticism he's purported to have...it would be at least mildly disappointing if he skill level is such that the speed/athleticism is marginalized by having to play in a corner. It would mean, basically, that he's doesn't have more defensive upside skill-wise than even Polanco. And also that the offensive threshold for what will make him valuable rises.

I think the theory only works if the top bullpen arms are all comparable, about the same. And if I had that, I'd just go 1960's/1970's on the bit. Back then, the best bullpen arms regularly (even usually) pitched multiple innings per appearance. If/when the rule changes (3 batter min), things hopefully will migrate in that direction at least some. You'd hope that bullpen arms will have to evolve more to guys with pitches that are decent against all hitters and evolve somewhat away from guys that have pitches that are only effective against left (or right) handed hitters. If the LOOGY can no longer be justified on the roster...there's less reason to not let a reliever (that's not getting killed) pitch more than 3 outs.