Riverbrian

Don’t get me started on the word “starter”. LOL

Both still kinda qualify as small sample sizes in my eyes so I wonder about the benefit of any statistical comparisons. They have some years under their belt but neither have a ton of extended action. Who knows but I’m hesitant to close the book a couple of pages in.

Playoff? No idea from me but I do firmly believe that the core is capable of leading the way. It’s going to be up to them and I’m all for throwing support that direction in case it happens. 7M... eh... it’s only money.

Service Time. I know the minute I talk about service time being a factor, I get a string of responses back saying that it doesn’t matter but to the front offices... it does and it’s why the one year deal is important. Gordon isnt ready and by the time he is ready... we could be 3 years deep into his service time letting him fail at the MLB level. They have 3 years to make a decision on Gordon. He might be ready this year... he might ready in 2021 or never ready. Signing Schoop or whoever to a one year deal provides an exit if Gordon establishes himself filling in for injury. Giving Gordon the job and saying “Ok Learn” would be the same mistake they made with Hicks.

Yeah but you multi-task

Myself... I basically ignored the one year contract comment because people come in all shapes and sizes. Over the history of this game plenty of one year contracts have worked great. Yes some were bad but it isn’t locked down certain either way. Closing the door on them because it didn’t work out with one or two of them would be a freightening over reaction and end up being a self imposed speed bump to keeping all avenues open. It's not the contract Its the individual players themselves that determine if it was a good acquisition. Now if you think we could have done better than Schoop. That is valid and I get the concern but one or two years doesn’t worry me. I’d prefer the one year if it’s someone who needs a bounce back.

I’m not sure I understand the importance. Everything depends on a bounce back. If he bounces back and the team is in contention. Thumbs up. If he bounces back and the team isn’t in contention you trade him for prospects and stock the shelves. Thumbs Up. If he doesn’t bounce back... you are happy it is just a one year deal. Thumbs Up. What is the downside I’m missing?

I recognize the inherent risk based on his woeful Brewers performance last year but if you are looking a player trying to repair himself and if successful... that production for a year is meaningful. But if you feel different that’s ok

Mike, What if Schoop only wanted to sign a 1 year deal? He's 27 and was surprisingly granted free agency coming off a disaster in Milwaukee. If I'm his Agent.. I'd advise him to do a 1 year deal to get his production back and then work on the pay day the next off season. If Schoop only wanted to sign a 1 year deal... would you say "I'm sorry only a two year deal is what we are offering"?

Signing Torreyes with Adrianza on the roster suddenly makes me feel a little better about Cron and Austin on the roster. My guess is that the boys are acquiring talent and setting up options. Nothing is in stone. I'm absolutely OK with that. Umm... Well. Unless I'm wrong

Awesome... Thank you for responding back Mr. Rowson.

Dear Mr. Rowson, Head over to the film room and take a look at Schoop in 2017 and Schoop in Milwaukee last year. Do a compare and contrast. Figure out what he was doing in 2017 and began working with him during training camp. If you have trouble finding issues to point at... contact Parker at Twinsdaily for assistance. Sincerely, Riverbrian

Paragraph one: If you have to promise a free agent that the team will faithfully tank along with him if he tanks and his playing time won't ever be questioned... we shouldn't sign a free agent ever again. When you sign a free agent... you pay the money it takes to sign him. You outbid the other teams and no team is going to outbid other teams for limited playing time. Simply outbidding other teams is expressed expectation that he won't be benched IF and I mean IF he is performing. If you are trading to acquire the acquisition... you have his rights.You have all the leverage you need to demand results. If you want to extend your own player to a new deal... he is performing and therefore playing... If he isn't... you don't want to sign him to an extension anyway. If I'm a player... and I have competition for my services... I am strongly considering the talent next to me. I'm not signing with the Twins because they have players hitting .160 playing every day in the same lineup. If I don't have confidence in my talent that I need an assurance of playing time. Yeah... Sign me up Twins. I'd love a sweet deal like that. Get paid millions and produce whatever you like. Paragraph Two: Yep... and do it again if you have to. Paragraph Three: The only role they need to fill is the role of performing when given a spot in the lineup. If you are in the lineup as a 2B, you are in the lineup as a 2B. That is your role. The backup role will take care of itself by who isn't getting the job done. It will happen naturally by letting the players decide who gets that role based on who is less deserving. Don't go into the season... "Hey... You are my backup". That's all the expectation I have of you and then give him a million dollars for his willingness to put the uniform on and watch others play. Paragraph Four: I used Cave as an example and I used Kepler as an example. Don't get lost making the examples specific. They were "For example" but go ahead and insert any names you want for the example. Let's just take your final sentence. "The problem the Twins have right now in the OF is they don't know if Kepler can hit enough to be an every day RF or Buxton can hit enough to be an every day CF". I agree with that last sentence 1000%... So if you don't know... and I don't know (I don't)... the front office doesn't know... Even Chief doesn't know... Why on earth would you sign a back up who isn't good enough to deserve a starting job and say... he won't play much even if you don't know what is going to happen with Kepler and Buxton. Are we afraid that if Kepler and Buxton figure it out and actually perform, that a 4th outfielder who is also performing is going to be a problem? Same point for the middle infield... We got Polanco and now we got Schoop. Schoop has major question marks based on last year... just like the question marks we have Kepler, Buxton and Sano... does the team punt the 2B position if Schoop doesn't right the ship. Was he was promised an every day job no matter what to get him here and the season ticket holders are just going to have to take it, if it happens or does Schoop play every day because Adrianza was only signed as a back up to play on getaway days and not signed with the intention of him being needed to play full time? Just get a player who can compete with Polanco and Schoop. Trade, Waivers, IFA, FA... I don't care. We got money, we got trade chips and we got a weak AL Central. This isn't hard... and it's necessary. All the front office has to do is not sign a player with the attitude that he isn't going to play much. I don't hate Adrianza... He's got some value. I take issue with any comment that states "He's fine for a backup". I don't believe in backups.

You might be in lock step with the front office. They obviously see something in him. I won't knock you for liking a player more than I do. I don't hate him... I believe he should have played a lot more than he did last year but that was based upon what his peers were doing last year. There were times when he was our best hitter last year. Although, I admit I'm not comfortable with Adrianza being the replacement for a Sano meltdown in 2019. But that personal issue of mine is probably more of Cron/Austin discussion because I had the hope that the Twins would find a 3B that would challenge Sano directly instead of two 1B's taking up the roster space. Cron/Austin on the same roster would limit any 3B acquisition possibility. Bring me Castellanos or Moustakas and I'll be happy. Basically... I see no reason why the Twins couldn't start the season with Polanco, Schoop AND pick a reasonably priced middle infielder with some talent. Asdrubal or whoever. And let them dictate the playing time allocation based on performance. If all are performing... a decent manager will figure it out. He doesn't have to pick two and let the other collect dust. A decent GM will figure out how to turn the excess into something else if Nick Gordon hits the stage a running. And if someone isn't performing... you have another option to turn to. The Twins have rode the same horses into the ground over and over again. It has to stop.

SS... I agree with you. It's like the Catcher position where they sacrifice some offense for the defensive skill. 2B less and less... Reports on Adrianza is that he isn't off the charts defensively... not that I always believe the defensive metrics presented. Thanks for saying my flexibility points are rational but, this isn't a flexibility point I'm making. It's a depth point... It's a 25 man roster limitation discussion. Can Adrianza fill in for Schoop if Schoop hits like he did last year or would we be better off with Torreyes or could we trade a couple of low level players for Brock Holt and do even better?

We are probably talking past each other. My point is pretty simple. I believe they wouldn’t be scarce with better utilization. if they are scarce... it’s only because teams settle for a lower bar.... therefore making them seem scarce when in reality they are not. Teams can start fixing this decades long problem by simply not signing a player with the intention of only limited duty if everything goes perfect. Sign players to compete. Promise them playing time if they perform... take away playing time if they don’t.

I don't believe in backups. I only believe in 25 players on a roster, all with the ability to win the majority of playing time based on actual performance. I'm not asking for 25 all-stars on a roster. I'm simply asking for 25 players who are able to provide competition with the other 24 players on the roster for playing time. Jake Cave is not an all-star but he was able to provide competition for Kepler's playing time. If Adrianza is signed as a part-time role player.. his role has been established as someone who play's part time. His signing is only justified by saying... "He won't play much". I'm sure players would love to come to a team and be promised an every day job with no consequences if they don't perform. I'm saying, fine don't come. I'll sign the players who will come to the team with the promise that they will play if they out-play the person next to them. I don't believe in backups. I don't believe in a starting 9 come hell or high water. I believe that you sing for your supper. Morrison should have seen a reduction in playing time. If Molitor wouldn't play LaMarre, he shouldn't have been on the roster. We should have been able to identify a player who could have out produced what Morrison produced. I don't believe in backups.

My issue is going to be strictly fundamental. If the Twins front office presents a contract to Adrianza under the thought process that he is only going to play occasionally. If they say that .680 is good enough for an occasional part-time role. Adrianza gets the roster spot. They end up settling for a ceiling of .680 (my opinion that he has established a ceiling around that mark). When that roster spot is no longer available. They can no longer sign someone who is capable of producing a .750 OPS. The Twins are not the only team that does this and now you have roster spots taken up around the league which leads to a self imposed scarcity because teams have hamstrung themselves with lower expectations and limited the availability for players to establish themselves as .750 capable. Now if the front office believes in Adrianza (I think they might) and believes that Adrianza could play an every day role if Polanco has Tommy John in April or Sano retires from baseball. If they believe that Adrianza is capable of much more. If they believe he is better than Tim Beckham or whoever based on whatever specific set of data they are using to make those determination... than I have no problem with Adrianza. However... it won't take long into the 2019 season (based on usage) for me to determine from my living room with no data, if they (or the manager) believes that Adrianza is capable of competing for a starting job or taking over for a someone failing or hurt. If they utilitze Adrianza on just get away days. I'll know and this is a fundamental mistake that is immediate when they settle or say good enough for a part time player and it repeats itself over and over again until they stop saying... good enough for a part time player and get serious about each roster position.

Agree that they are hard to find. Disagree that they are scarce.

It isn’t football. It’s a 162 game schedule. 12 position player roster spots, one of those is a catcher position. That’s two extra players to find playing time for 162 games. I’m theory nobody would have to sit much at all. There is plenty of playing time for all. There is absolutely no reason to roster anyone as a backup until he earns the right to not play as much by actually not playing well. If you give a precious 25 man roster spot to a player under the pretext of the won’t play much. You’ve already screwed up and wasted an opportunity to improve your club just to put all your eggs in a fragile basket.

It isn’t easy on hand and incredibly easy on the other hand. Nearly every player on the list I put together wasn’t on the list prior. Meaning they got the chance and they produced plus .750. They got the chance and produced but they won’t get the chance when you say .680 is the best you can do and lock in. The Twins have a real strong painful history of locking in with mediocre to below mediocre talent. I dont have anybody in mind. I don’t have the data necessary. The front office does and this is where I have to trust them and I will. But if Baldelli won’t play Adrianza when we need him because he isn’t everyday material. I’ll complain.

They do exist. Often times the players you think will... don’t. And the players that you think won’t... do and it’s hard to predict obviously. Right now my concern is pretty simple. If Adrianza was simply signed for a “he’s cheap and fine for getaway days” reason. They have already screwed up the roster construction and I believe there are plenty of better options at the minimum salary even. If they signed him because the front office believes he’s the best they can do and he could assume a starting position at a moments notice (including 3B for Sano). Then I have no complaints and I’ll trust those analytics they have that I don’t. But I swear... if Cron or Polanco or whoever is hitting .185 and the manager doesn’t turn to Adrianza because he isn’t good enough. I’ll be pissed. I simply don’t like the word back-up. The backups will have to start. There are 25 roster spots every spot should compete against the other spots and you have to roster players who can compete.

I love logjams... I've never seen one... but I know 100% that I love them. If you create honest to god extra talent... you can trade some of it.

I'm not saying that the presence of Cron prevented the Twins from taking a serious run at Goldschmidt because the presence of Cron should never prevent anyone from acquiring Goldschmidt. However... the presence of Cron just might have caused them to lessen the need to find a replacement for Mauer. Why give up that Weaver and Kelly equivalent for a position that already has Cron and Austin. Especially, If Cron can't play anywhere else and Austin wasn't played in the OF in September. That is a suggestion that I will suggest as plausible.

When things go wrong... it's amazing, the things people come up while they are squirming to explain (what wasn't supposed to happen). Some free agent signings didn't work out... it was a mistake but they tried and I have no problem with a honest mistake of effort. When they continued to play the mistakes... that's when they compounded the original mistake and that was entirely preventable and that is an example of not trying. So now the assumption is that they won't try again? That's like saying, I'm not buying the belt because I kept whipping myself with it over and over again while my pants fell down. They can talk bout one year contracts being the problem... it's just a tortured grasping at straws. I also heard Lavine say that it was real hard to overcome getting 9% of the production that Dozier, Sano and Buxton were projected to get as consensus Top 50 players going into the season. Now they appear to be poised to go back to Sano and Buxton without safety nets. It obviously was a mistake to project that kind of production from Dozier, Sano and Buxton because they missed by 91%? However, we all make mistakes and they are forgiven but It's a bigger mistake to repeat that mistake and they got the dice in their hand again. I swear, if I hear them say anything like that again, If I hear, well we only got 12% of the projected production from Sano and Buxton this year and it was too hard to over come... I swear if I hear them use that excuse again... I just might type something on Twinsdaily about it.