h2oface

I like it when players bet on themselves. $375K means a lot more to Berrios than it does to Pohlad's. Plus, what's the rush? 3 years of control left. I don't get the worry or the disdain. This whole paradigm where player's only get paid their worth after getting paid way less than they performed for years just because a team can is tired. I would rather Berrios get paid than a dumpster diving free agent pitcher, as has been the practice. Berrios is worth Wheeler money. It's the principle. Just because a player is younger, doesn't mean he is worth less. I think he should be paid 8 million for this coming year.

Anything can happpen, and usually does. The only way this is not a failure, is if treading water is a success. And it could be. I just can't declare it not a failure, with all that presented itself.

Garver still not getting credit he has always deserved. More like Garver developed himself. Do you really think that if Garver had been picked by many other teams, that he would not have worked to be who he is now, just the same? The Twins didn't develop him, Garver developed himself, and he was the best of the two (Turner) when he was drafted, too. He was Johnny Bench runner up, after all. You don't get that if you don't already have good defense in college. The talking heads and the TD writers always deferred to Turner, too. And the Twins always kept Garver behind Turner in the promotions, even though he was killing it on offense. This could have happened at least a year before it did, if not held back, I think. Years were wasted holding him back.

Marwin has historically been kind of a slow starter, anyway, regardless of ST. I recall Hinch saying that in more than one article I have read in the past...... https://www.chron.com/sports/astros/article/Astros-Marwin-Gonzalez-enjoy-turnaround-12901276.php

or 26.......

This study gives support to why I disagree with the oft touted declaration that a pitcher is "young" when they just get to the bigs at 26 or 27. They are not young, they just aren't that good, perhaps, and they are getting "old" in the minors! If they don't get to the show by their prime, is it just all down hill from there? Plus, it is so often found discouraging and a negative to sign the vet that is now old at 29 and 30, because they have been in the bigs since they were 22! So they are too old. I personally disagree with the assumptions. Many can be very good, and have their best years after 26, but this study is the kind of thing that is driving the market these days. But I don't consider a pitcher "young" if they don't get to the bigs by 26. Every case is unique, sure, but taken as a whole population, a study like this should indicate that too much time is wasted in "development" in the minors. I sure hope the best 5-7 years of Berrios are yet to come.

That's what the Organization is counting on. A stadium full of folks with the same attitide, and especially buying tons of concessions and $20 beer. On TD, it doesn't appear to be the consensus.

They certainly are. Massively. Never satisfied. Even with all the playoff wins, (which the Twins know nothing about for the last 19 games). Not that comparable to the Dodgers as far as payroll though, considering the Dodgers actually spend up to and over the luxury level to get the talent that augments the core, and that is what is usually the kicker (except for the Dodgers).

Thad Levine told Hayes, “The one thing we’ve learned over the years is that you can’t just have a Plan A. Tomorrow’s Plan B becomes the next day’s Plan A.” Derek Falvey went on to suggest he “may rue the day I ever mentioned that (impact) as a singular word.” Talk talk talk. Actions mean something. Talk, not so much. Hurry up and wait. I hope, as little as I expect it, that our young pitchers have actually been 'identified' by the pitching experts, and surprise us all, because that is the impact that is left.

Totally agree. He was the creator of many wild pitches in that sense. Way too many. And passed balls. Especially for being hailed as a defensive specialist.

As Castro really only played basically 2 years of the 3 year contract, it comes out to $12 million/year. Not the best value. But it could have been Butera, so not the worst, at all.

I disagree. Especially with the shifts happening now and in the last 5 years. 1976 never came close to presenting the defenses batters are now looking at. Right now, even the slowest of baserunners can easily make it to first with a well placed bunt if the shift leaves only one person on the left side of the infield (or the right for that matter). And they should. Lewis and any speedy runner - piece of cake. 2020 calling.

Looking at top ten prospects in the rear view, how can you not consider the best ones, regardless of the supposed experts and talking heads proclaimed pedigree and spin, are/were actually the ones that made it to the show and how well they performed at the highest level? That is the only thing that makes a prospect actually good, is that they weren't worthless at the highest level in the show, and became an MLB player. You can bypass all the mistakes and bad choices you made in real time. Kepler and Rosario don't even make the top 10 of the decade? It is like continuing to hang onto the hype instead of the reality, even when you have better, more complete info to judge from now. Kepler was one of the top five, even if you missed it/didn't see it while it was happening.

Yet, pitcher's like Rodgers, May and Duffey, etc, even if their innings are much better than Hill's (who will get at least 100K an inning with just bonus money) , get paid a pittance in comparison. Amazing how a team can not care about money on one end, and are so f'n stingy (as in never) to give players a bonus at the end of the year that their contract doesn't call for when they actually performed massively over contract value. The system is so messed up. I sure hope those in the farm blow the aging signings away, and make it impossible to even give Hill innings and drives them to trade (or release if necessary) Bailey earily. But if he does pitch with the 40 year old torn and repaired arm, I hope they aren't worthless innings. This team is getting older with each signing. All these 1 year contracts. That really makes a lot of visitors in the dugout.

That very well could be the case. I wonder how much medical vetting they did before the signing, and doctor updates? At least it isn't Tommy John surgery (again), but the primary revision surgery. Like Tommy John surgery, primary revision surgery is performed to fix a tear in the UCL. It is less intrusive and requires a shorter rehabilitation period, but Hill’s age and injury history — which includes his Tommy John surgery in 2011 — could shrink his market. https://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/story/2019-11-25/rich-hill-arm-surgery-free-agent-dodgers Plus, I haven't heard anything about his knee, which gave him trouble in a September return from the IL last year......"scar tissue that had broken off from the area in which he suffered a strain of the medial collateral ligament in March." https://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/story/2019-09-18/rich-hill-return-knee-injury-pitch-dodgers-padres

MLBTRADRUMORS "Both players secured one-year deals, per Joel Sherman of the New York Post (via Twitter). Hill is guaranteed $3MM, Rob Bradford of WEEI.com tweets. His contract includes a hefty $9.5MM in total available incentives which can be met by recording only 15 starts and/or 75 innings thrown." I saw that, but they are just siting the same source - Rob Bradford -, and looks like, two people down from the source, the total might be relayed in a way that is offering confusion instead of clarity, and MLBTRADERUMERS even never totals the contact at $12.5 million (perhaps Jeff Todd left out a with - with total available incentives - in his haste?). Either way, only $3 million is guaranteed, not $12.5 million. I am sure we will get more comfirmation on actual terms......

"Hill’s deal includes $3 million in guarantees, MLB.com has confirmed, with escalators that could take it to $9.5 million with 75 innings or 15 starts, according to Rob Bradford of WEEI." https://www.mlb.com/twins/news/twins-sign-homer-bailey-rich-hill That is some fuzzy math........ or did I miss something?

Not even worth a comment, so 'no comment'.

True, technically. But Y2K wasn't celebrated at the end of 2000, either. You just can't stop the inertia, regardless of what is correct sometimes.

"Why in anyone's imagination would he sign a minor league contract?" ....because he doesn't need the money, but believes he can still compete, and wants to give it another shot? I read (can't find it now) that he himself gave that as a reason, and thought that to accomplish his desire, he would probably have to sign a minor league contract....... Thanks for the article series, renabanena. Nice to see new contributors, and this reader fully understands limiting to 12 this Twins-mas, but I would take 12 partriges in pear trees before one big sexy, for the same reason, "nuff said". I really would have rather had just one ace and 1 day of Twins-mas.

All 3 could work depending on the price, and whether the initial contract takes up a roster spot. All could be great. All could stink. It is not what I asked for for Christmas, but am used to not getting what I want and moving on. I like both Walker and Wood. I think things could pretty much be flushed out in Spring Training. I don't, however, think they will sign a minor league contract with all the excalation clauses. Excuses are made and forgiveness is found for Pineda, so I don't know why a man defending his wife from overzealous security, all over a fanny pack, is an embarrasment. There is a reason all charges were reduced by the people who counted, and clarity was restored, with a grand dropped to save face for the "security". "The charges were ultimately reduced to civil, non-criminal infractions, and the couple was fined a total of $1,000 during an appearance Monday in Wrentham District Court, according to Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey’s office." ...... "The couple’s lawyer, Francis O’Brien Jr., said the matter was “appropriately resolved” by prosecutors. “This was a terribly unfortunate event that should never have escalated beyond a routine encounter with stadium security,” he said in an emailed statement. “Commendably, the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office recognized this.” https://www.boston.com/sports/mlb/2019/12/24/rich-hill-wife-arrested Dave Hill is a great guy, beloved by his Dodger teammates, and a veteran leader with a competitive drive that would fit in great if he could only stay on the field, which is the only question about him that draws concern from me.

Fun to read. But..... I don't see how 2003 ties Cruz and Ortiz together..... at all.

Owning a MLB baseball team, or any professional sports team, certainly does not fit economics 101. The business is an outlier, and really, there are no rules on what owners will, could, should, or decide to do. They are not a first source of income or wealth. They are a hobby. That might be the only part of owning a MLB team that fits in economics 101. And when you have a billionaires like Pohlads as owner, there truly are no rules that must be followed.

Interesting thoughts in the article. I don't see it comparable, the Royals gambit and the Twins choices now. The Twins don't have to follow the model. The Royals won with contact from the hitters and a bullpen that made the last 3 innings toast for the opposition. The key is to power up the pitching now. Do what it takes with the resources. They passed on the money (surprise suprise) and they still have the propects, and treating people like assets to be traded like they aren't human. One World Series victory is worth 9 horrible seasons. That would give you 10 a Century, one each decade. You win 10% of the time. I would take that every decade. Like the 60s and the 70s and the aughts, and the teens. Yup. Go all in. You might still lose, but chances are you will lose if you don't go all in anyway, so go all in. The 80s and 90s was a good time to be 25 to 45 and gloat with winning 2 World Series, and in 1991, be able to sport 2 in 5 years! 40% of the time. Nothing like it. The rest of the 90s..... oh well. The aughts was fun though. In it almost every year just to be crushed. (2006 should have been a championship. If only Liriano wouldn't have gotten hurt.) But that was nothing compared to Sandy Koufax game 7 of the 1965 World Series as a 10 year old that memorized the back of baseball cards. That team was magic. The 80's and 90s were better. Nothing like the pinnacle. Go all in. Some of everything. But absolutely get the pitching. If we draw the Yankees again, we will certainly need it.

Oh, I don't know...... maybe the Golden State Warriors can answer that. It won't take many injuries to derail most teams. It is amazing the Yankees were as good as they were last year with all the injuries. Nothing is a sure thing, and when one thinks it is, that is when they are often slapped in the face with a dose of reality and Murphy's Law.