Doctor Gast

I was generalizing because I didn't want to go into great length in what DET did right or what MN did wrong because with MN I've stated already them in the past. If you are really interested, I could state them again and list some examples. for both.

Detroit did everything right and MN made a lot of mistakes. Lowly Detroit will be a force to be dealt with now. Hopefully MN will take a long look to acknowledge their mistakes and rectify them. Rebuild would be another mistake, my hope is that they can avoid that one.

Hate lose any of them but, I'm open to trade all of them for top of the line pitching, nothing less. Arraez should be our primary trading piece. On the field he is easily replaced IMO it could be better for him if he goes. If we trade Kepler we'd have to absolutely find another CF to play LF and sub Buxton. If we lose both Buxton and Kepler our OF would be worse than most AAA. As for Garver I'd rather trade Jeffers because Garver is a more established hitter, a better arm and IMO Jeffers will have a higher price tag because he's younger, more team control, less salary and is MLB ready. I also like Rortvedt as our future catcher. His defense is there and with time so will his hitting. We can find a Jason Castro type until he does. 2 RH catchers seems to me counter productive.

So would I

OAK is motivated to deal. Although Bassit is a good pitcher, I'd rather go after Montas instead because he's more upside and a extra year of contract. Both would be good in our RH dominating hitting division, LHP tend not to fare well. Though Bassit could be a dog. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Thank you Seth for those tidbits. I can envision Rosario gunning down runners as they try to advance to 3rd as well at home if he had played RF for the Twins.

I don't have his job and if I had I won't say that I could do a better job, I wouldn't want his job. I'm just making an objective assumption on what I've observed not being subjective or on what people say. Of all the time that he's been in the FO there have been a plethora of rumors of them seeking out FAs but never heard them seeking a big trade or any of them ever come to fruition. Yes, many have approached them about trades where they says yes or no but I don't see him initiating them. The Odorizzi/ Palacio was a minor trade at the time and don't know who initiated that trade. I'm not judging them, let me give you example. If I see a person walking down the street. A big dog w/ his owner is coming towards him, He cowers and goes to the side to avoid them. I make an assumption that he's afraid of dogs. I'm not judging him, I'm making an observation. I wish the FO well and that they'd would prove me wrong in my observations. But until then I"ll stick my assumptions. Many don't know how to observe and come to a conclusion but give opinions subjectively and on what they are told.

Also I think that this is one way he can try not to do a big trade. The fan base is demanding a big trade and I believe he's scared to death of putting together one. He doesn't have the make up for doing this. So he is coming up with this idea to get around not having to do so. I still believe we should at least put together 1 big trade for an ace to help balance out our out of whack 40 man roster.

Thank you Terry for the concern & effort that you put into it. It's a shame that CBA has disallowed these bonuses. These type of negotiations should be between player & owner not dictated by CBA. Anyway you know that every time that Buxton is on the field, he gives 100%, MVP level performance. So his # of games should reflect this, compensating him in this way. Awarding him $21.5M for putting in a full season is reasonable even if he doesn't get the hardware.

Thanks Andrew, It's a bit too late for me but I encourage you to go for it. You have the ability, understanding and desire to do well. The Twins would do well to hire you. The Twins hired a young Andy Macphail and he was their best FO ever. If the Twin hire you in this capacity please don't move on.

I'm getting a little off subject but I was wondering why Kepler & Rosario while coming up through the minors weren't switched? Kepler while being a superior fielder wasn't put in LF and Rosario who had the superior arm not put in RF. It more sense to me, Rosario in RF might have stuck around a little longer.

Very good article Nick, thanks for sharing this. This is what I advocated before the 2021 season started. Create and rely mainly on a group of long relievers. For reason #1 shortened 2020 season, pitcher didn't produced much stamina do to this & some didn't pitch at all. #2 Not to be dependent on a failing short relief group and a weak rotation where the only work horse we had was Berrios. #3 We can rotate our almost primetime prospects to see what they can do. Regrettably they didn't do this. They put most of their confidence on stretching the short relief and the rotation and used long relief to mop up games. This is one of the main reasons that I contributed to our spiral downfall IMO. This season we won't have Berrios The only starters we have to work with so far are 2 unproven rookies that'll be on a short leash. I've advocated again for a large long relief group to help support the starters that can't pitch over 5 innings (like a form of piggybacking) . Also if the short relief is failing, go with the long relief to finish the game . It'd be nice if we could find maybe 1 or 2 effective work horses but what you said maybe FO might not even go this direction, it sounds extreme. Last year my idea floated like a lead balloon because many can't think beyond their box. I'm willing to give it a try. I'd like to add 2 more pitchers in this group. One is Alcala, with his new found 3rd pitch, I'd like to stretch him out to eventually become a starter. The 2nd is Chris Archer. I know I'll get a lot of slack but I still believe in him. I know he didn't have very good stats in PIT but neither did other studs that left there and their careers skyrocketed. When he went to TB he hadn't pitched in a MLB game for well over 1 yr. TB wanted to rush him back into starting but that wasn't going to happen. He was absolutely dominating for 3 innings but after that the wheels fell off. He'd fit perfectly, we wouldn't rush him, let him gradually get back his stamina (before he hurt his shoulder he regularly pitched 200+ innings/yr.). Again I'll state that with Wes Johnson, Archer can perfect his already awesome FB and slider. And with Johann Santana he can perfect his circle change-up. I'd sign him to at least a 1yr. contract with incentives and 2 one year team options because I'd like to have some control over him after he turns it around but also protect ourselves if some thing drastic happens.

Thanks Nash, enjoyed your article. Last year they wanted a top prospect in return, so I imagine they still do. Baseball Trade Values (BTV) is a good source of general unbias trade values but you can't always go by them exactly because each team has specific needs, goals and motivation (TB usually puts their hyped up player on the market and try to squeeze out the most out of them or they don't trade, on the other hand if a team is going through a rebuild or salary dump, they are more motivated). But if you can line them up, you can come close. I don't know how motivated CIN is, this might be a ploy again. They might be just looking to see how much they can get for him. But I feel they are motivated to trade because his stock has fallen and will continue to fall. Also it might be window dressing to attract teams in to look at other players. I'd throw our best pieces out there if all of them don't fit, I'd go through a 3rd team (like OAK) to get it done.

I don't expect them to pitch much over 120 innings and that's if they have a good season. Here I'm advocating again the importance of maintaining a good group of long relief including a good amount of AAAA prospects to rotate in and out of the active roster. So we don't rely so heavily on the rotation and short relief.

Thanks Tom for your article. There is no doubt in my mind that we should. But our trades should be well calculated, meaning #1 we need to trade from our fat, not muscle. Meaning we trade some one where we can easily substitute with a capable replacement, not a player where we have no one that comes close to replace him. #2 we need to intelligently evaluate our talent and the talent of player of intent. Example of fat, we have an over abundance at the less demanding corner/ DH positions so we have many options there that we can choose from and right now we have quite a few good pitching prospects which we could spare a couple, we also have good depth at catching. Example of muscle, you gave some, Hicks, we had nobody to replace him and Span/ Revere, one maybe but not both leaving a void. NO! CF is a very critical position where you need depth not a void. SS is also a critical position and right now we have a void at SS that needs to be filled, Our future SS Lewis we need to step up some day, he's our only hope to fill that important position so I wouldn't trade him. CF we've had a great void at Buxton's sub for years. Our future sub and CF is Celestino. If we trade Buxton that would absolutely create such a unbelievably great void in the whole OF. I wouldn't trade Celestino or Kepler unless in Kepler's case only if we could in junction w/ other players get a great pitcher. Intelligently evaluating our talent and the talent of player of intent. Here I have some doubt with our FO ability to do so. Thinking that Cave is a capable sub for Buxton, is a major misevaluation, if he couldn't eye it he only needed to look at how many games we lost while he was there. I really don't even trust them to be able to cull down from our 40 man efficiently let alone pull off a big trade. In the Maeda/ Graterol trade, the Dodgers came to them and our FO enter that negotiations ignorantly, they could've gotten a much better deal. My impression is that they are uncomfortable initiating big trades, sending out the message "There's no trades out there". In the lesser Odorizzi trade, I don't know who approached who. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt with hope that they can pull off finally that big trade that we desperately need correctly.

La Tortuga does have value although I believe he won't remain a Twin. Catching is a valuable asset, Astudillo could be a safety net for many teams

I like your outside the box thinking but I'd hate to lose neither Garver or Jeffers. But our greatest need is SP so I our depth at catcher and MIA need there is a perfect match. I prefer to keep Garver because he's a more established hitter and has much better arm. I'm also very high on Rortvedt but I won't thrust him in a sole starting position. I'd even hesitate to have him as the main back up right away.

In the NL, nobody cares if their pitchers can hit, the importance is this, can they pitch? So why is that so many people don't care if a SS can play SS or not? The importance is on whether he's a stud at the plate or not. Next to pitching, SS and CF are the most important positions on the field so IMO more importance should be put on the glove and less on the bat. I can see at the corner positions, defense is less important but SS and CF positions are more critical. I'd pass on Segura.

Good job Mill, Like you being conscience of the 40 man roster. It'd be nice if the Twins could put together nice trading package early to get a top of the line pitcher. Then allowing more room on the 40 man to string along a little longer some of our border line prospects.

Buxton IMO impacts the game in so many way like nobody else can. The problem to get a viable sub so we can win at least 1/2 our games when he's not playing. They could offer him a little less in base pay and come to an agreement on incentives if he prefers it that way.

A bench coach is much needed, especially for young manager like Baldelli and Tingler is welcomed by me. Last year is an good example of what it's like of not having an established bench coach beside Baldelli. Baldelli needs that counter weight to keep him from making bonehead mistakes like staying with Cave all these years but maybe some of those bonehead decision comes from upstairs. Yet a bench coach frees up the manager from menial activity so he can focus on the game and sometimes reveal blind spots in a managers perspective. Welcome bench coach Tingler, I wish you well

I believe Tom Froemming suggested also Knebel as a closer option.

I think Oakland is motivated. IMO if they need Arraez, he'd be enough or maybe throw in a lower prospect. Because Montas has only 2yrs. team control and is much more expensive where as Arraez (I think) has 5yrs. My targets are, if MIA, Reds or CO (if they wake up and commit to rebuild) need a 2B, I'd shoot for Alcantra, Castillo or Marquez in a package headlined with them.

Thanks Seth for revealing Simeon Woods Richardson for us. It was great to see his love and exuberance for baseball. I expect great things from him. I'm a great fan of Johann Santana and his circle change up, I'd like to see them hook up and perfect Richardson's

Our main holes should be plugged via trade. #1 and maybe #2 SP, LF/ Buxton and SS via trade. If Marte, Rodriguez, Kneble or lower tier SS could be had for a bargain pursue it. The best bet from your list is Pineda. Nobody wanted him at deadline and there is a good relationship between the 2 so an agreement makes sense. Tepera also makes sense but he's not on your list.