TheLeviathan

I suggested you scroll through the last few years. I reiterate that suggestion.

I encourage you to scroll through the last few years and so how the landscape has changed. This isn't the 7-10 year term contracts for Scott Boras era anymore.

This is not how teams operate any more. Your string of posts in this thread have a pattern of lacking context. It is possible Seager will get more term but very, very few FA contracts exceed four years anymore.

Right but the rest of those years had plenty of spending. We have young, potential core guys up now too.

I don't know why you cited 2013 thru 2016 if all you meant was 2013? The point isn't clear.

Aren't those Cubs signings exactly what happened in 2014-16? Only 2013 fits your example.

A worthy consideration for sure. I think the team would be wise to stay in the 1-3 year terms if possible. One alternative would be 1 year, high AAV bounce back targets you trade in July.

In an effort to get the thread back on track, I do agree with people that the team has a high need for pitching. What I will also suggest is that the team has a lot of money available to make several high priced signings. There isn't any reason the team can't sign multiple pitchers and a high price shortstop this offseason.

Holy derailed thread. My god. This just in....Ozzie Smith is a schmo with the glove and A-Rod couldn't out-hit a one armed Simmons.

Possibly, but baseball has steered away from those contracts pretty hard. Most big deals are now 4-5 years. But, yes, I do agree with you it could escalate to there. Part of me thinks the array of shortstop options may mitigate that possibility.

This team can and should be in on Correa and Seager. Walking away with one of them makes this team a whole lot better for the next few years. I think 4/108 gets Seager and I make that splash in a heartbeat. This team needs a competent shortstop that can hit his way out of a paper bag. Right now we have one who isn't a good fielder (Polanco) and another is so bad with the bat he's barely better than an NL pitcher. (He Who Should Be Elsewhere)

Starters getting pulled in the 6th is pretty much par for the course now. The Twins aren't doing anything the rest of the league isn't doing as well. That's just the modern game and how they protect arms. Nice article - I agree strongly on Simmons. He was a putrid offensive player whose one calling card is no longer elite, just good. You can find "good" shortstops that aren't slap-hitting .500 OPS guys. You damn sure don't have to pay them 10M and bring a bunch of other issues along with them. The team has too many no-field hitters as is. As much as I love Nellie, this team isn't the right fit for him. They'll need to look for leadership inside the current locker room.

Garver is fairly old and has a troubling durability history. His bat is good enough that I think he's the prize piece to move. You'll get a really good arm for him IMO and that's worth more than being three deep at catcher. Toss a contract at a career backup instead. If you want to get something you've got to give something. This team won't reverse fortunes on free agency alone.

I hate to break it to people, but based on this board's general definition of "ace" there isn't one available to sign this offseason. If there was, the Twins would need to be giving them a Gerrit Cole-like contract. The best they'll do this offseason is add some stability with good to solid pitching. They need to do that, but I think it'll be helpful once the offseason starts to keep our expectations within the realm of reason.

I'm confused why you don't see options? SP is an area they have players they can move. Good ones. So...explain please?

Makes sense, but I'd happily have the Garver/Sixto conversation. That's what the Twins need to be looking for.

I also don't think that larger package works. But how close are we in a swap of: Mitch Garver for Max Meyer or Sixto Sanchez Is that sort of one for one a viable path? If so, I make that trade in a heartbeat.

Buxton for CJ Abrams, Dinelson Lamet, Trent Grisham, and the Hosmer salary dump. Who says no? (I seriously don't know)

I would say all three shows have a roughly similar level of horror to go with all the character drama.

My wife and I binged through Midnight Mass on Netflix. You get what you expect from a Mike Flanagan show, but we always seem to enjoy them.

Yes, I think some of his early injuries were a lack of caution or bad technique, but as I noted I think he has made changes. However, the injuries he has had are more extensive than just "reckless or bad luck". They are significantly diversified both in terms of how he is hurt and what parts of his body he injures. Meaning, you can't dismiss the risk that comes with that history merely by chalking it up to bad luck and recklessness. His rib cage injury, wrist injuries, and hip injury all don't fall in either category. Among others. Which means extensive amounts of time missed can't be dismissed so easily as you have tried. Now...what explains that? I don't know. My point was that some athletes ARE more injury prone. They can get hurt more often regardless of luck or recklessness because their muscles/bones are predisposed to injury. Is Buxton necessarily in that camp? No. I can't prove that. Likewise, you can't dismiss the possibility he is either. Neither of us have the necessary information for a conclusion. We are talking about the future so we are dealing in possibilities and probabilities. I have never dismissed the fact that he might be suddenly healthy. (Go ahead and check. I said that's why I gamble on the extension) You, however, did dismiss the alternative: that this is a case of an athlete who won't see this go away. We know this can and does happen. (The idea that "injury prone" isn't real, again, I demonstrably proved false) Take his current manager, such a diagnosis may come after years of injuries. To claim, as you did, that past injury history has no bearing on future ones is plainly false in MANY cases. Now, it isn't necessarily an indicator either, but that's where risk comes in. And our conversation was about risks and 7 year contracts into the future. It's plainly, scientifically true that he MAY have such risk and there is evidence it MAY be true of him considering the wide swath of injuries he has endured and his difficulties coming back from them. It is plainly false to dismiss the connection between past injuries and future ones because athletes CAN be predisposed to injury regardless of whether they seem connected at the time. Again, I proved this with scientific citation as well as the fact that it just makes sense from the "common sense" perspective. I don't think this is controversial. Could these half a thousand games he missed since his draft day be a series of crazy bad luck? Sure. Could it also be that for all Buxton's genetic gifts that got him here, he had some unfortunate genetics for durability and endurance? Sure. Time will tell, but when predicting the future we only have the past and what we know about age/human bodies/etc. to inform us. The Twins should recognize the risk and invest accordingly - give him a comfortable base, pay the man if he plays, but protect yourself in case this problem isn't going away - because it very well might not.

Isn't reading this as an emphasis on only bad luck a fair interpretation? That leads me (and most people) to conclude that his injuries are a statistical anomaly. In other words, bad luck. i don't think I'm twisting anything with a statement like that. Now, maybe this is the lack of clarity issue, but that was the statement I went off of. So...in the interest of you clarifying...if not luck....why has Buxton missed 2/3rds of the possible games the last four years?

Exactly! Pain tolerance, recovery, endurance all vary among a host of other discrepancies. The idea that X = Y where X is the unlucky event and Y is an injury is not how real life works. X sometimes leads to Y is reality where the sometimes is dependent on a whole host of factors beyond the luck of X. Including genetic predispositions to getting hurt by X. Guys takes swings, run bases, get hit by pitchers, foul off their foot, slide headfirst, and crash into walls and some guys walk away from those X's without any injuries. Buck? That dude does always walks away with Y. That isn't purely luck. His manager had the same. Anyone who played sports long enough knows a guy or gal like this. We also know that guy or gal who could have a house dropped on them and brush it off.

For sure there are elements that athletes can control. Technique, flexibility training, and awareness can help but to Buck's credit he has tried to address those elements from reports we have.

4/110 best case scenario.