drivlikejehu

Jim Pohlad is prone to dubious responses to reporter questions, I don't think too much should be read into this.

There's no reporting that suggests Buxton is looking for an epic guaranteed amount. When looking at the Twins' existing commitments, it's hard for me to see how extending Buxton could possibly interfere with any other plans . . . Even if he is fundamentally injury-prone (which I think is at least exaggerated, though perhaps not entirely fictional), it's still a no-brainer to me. I haven't lost faith in the FO yet but failing to extend Buxton might get me there.

While I wish Baddoo and Wells nothing but the best, if they continue to succeed, this forum will be unusable without blocking a pretty decent chunk of posters. Every thread will include numerous references to them as proof that random internet forum members are smarter at managing an MLB organization than the people that actually have the job. Never mind inconvenient details . . . like the fact that trading mediocre depth for superior talent is something that never happens, zero out of 30 clubs are able to use such a strategy . . . all 30 clubs leave prospects with some degree of upside unprotected, unless their system is terrible . . . Baddoo was ranked by FG as Detroit's #18 prospect before the season, and some other sources had him even lower . . . This whole topic is a complete nothingburger, 100% hindsight bias and fantasy thinking.

Sano always does this. He's basically a league-average starting first baseman. Sure, he goes through these slumps - if he didn't, he'd be a superstar - but he's ultimately been pretty consistent throughout his career, once you account for swings in BABIP. He's keeping the spot warm for Kirilloff, Larnach, or Sabato.

Pitchers are going to find weaknesses and exploit them. It's a fun story but he's still probably a 4th outfielder.

Since the #35 pick almost never does anything in the Majors, "not liking" a #35 pick will almost always result in you being "right." It doesn't mean anything. You aren't a scout and have no ability to independently evaluate draft picks. You can certainly provide an uneducated opinion and, as noted above, negative opinions on draft picks will usually be correct, outside of the very top of the draft.

Rooker reached MLB last year and was playing fine until he got hurt. What other corner OFs has the front office drafted that you would expect to be ready, based on typical timelines, factoring in a lost season to Covid? Oh, and fun fact - the prior 18 players drafted at #35 overall, before Rooker, have combined for less than 6 total career WAR. So, yeah, what an epic whiff, when the guy might still turn into a contributor and, in fact, could *easily* wind up with more career WAR than any #35 pick since the White Sox took Aaron Rowand in 1998. But, you know, those facts sure aren't very fun when mindless criticism is available instead.

It wouldn't.

Criticism loses its weight when literally every decision is 'wrong', save maybe 1 every 5 years or so. That's just criticism for its own sake.

Astudillo is a great fit for the 26th roster spot. The only alternative use of it that would make sense would be adding another platoon bat, but aside from kinda-sorta Kepler, there's no need for it. With respect to Rooker . . . it seems like maybe he's just not that good, despite having posted good top-line stats in his career-to-date. The projection systems generally have him as a tick above replacement level, and as he gets older his defense will only get worse. He needs a major hitting breakthrough to hold down an MLB roster spot, and the Twins evidently want to work on that at the alternate site/minor league level.

Basing initial assignments on spring training would not be more effective than the current system of relying on a player's overall career. That's a pretty basic fact that has been demonstrated countless times.

Maybe there's a middle ground option? Like giving him just a few extra 'off days to rest'? I'm equally or even more skeptical than you that the Twins would consistently platoon him (at which point they would also have to publicly acknowledge it). If he stayed healthy but played, say, 136 games, that could really cut into the portion of PAs he would have against lefties. Playoffs (if applicable) would be tricky though.

I think the most understated factor here isn't so much that Rooker 'earned' a spot over Kirilloff - though one can certainly make a strong case that he did - but rather that the Twins need to find out whether Rooker is part of their future plans (as more than a last-guy-on-the-bench role). Rooker has had superficially good numbers pretty much throughout his pro career to date, but his strikeout rate is a red flag, and his lack of defensive value means he needs to be a superb hitter to someday start for the Twins. He's 26 and the computer projections are for production below the MLB average. Undoubtedly the Twins coaching staff has been working with him to optimize his approach at the plate, and by all accounts he is a hard worker. But unless he takes a significant step forward, he's a borderline major leaguer. If Rooker plays well, he could be a helpful trade piece (not to get a star, but say, to help pick up a 7th inning guy before the deadline). Alternatively, the Twins could look for ways to get both him and Kirilloff ABs during 2021. And, while I don't think this is the case, there's a possibility that Kirilloff is just overrated. Post high school, he has only demonstrated success in A-ball. He also lacks defensive value, so he could turn out to be a solid MLB hitter and still be a borderline starter.

Zero chance of Lindor or Seager, but the other three . . . are a little bit above zero, but not a lot.

My inclination would be to only buy out one or maybe two free agent years. Maybe something like (starting with this year) 7.5/12.5/15? He'd be locking in a nice chunk of change for just a one-year delay in hitting the market. I'd like another year of his prime but I don't see him being particularly valuable on the other side of 30.