TheLeviathan

George Springer is a 30 WAR player since 2015. Buck is 16. Your example only further reinforces there is no effing way he gets 200M. I wouldn't begrudge him betting on himself, but I won't play ball at that price. It isn't realistic. (His negotiating team seems to agree given 105M was close)

Walk away for now and explore the market. I won't guarantee him 200M because I am bidding against myself. He won't get that much in guarantees unless he plays 150 games at an MVP level. I would play those odds. The fact it was reported 7/105 was a real negotiation point tells me that counter would be silly.

Anytime Buck can play baseball for a long stretch and not get hurt is a win. 7/125 with incentives is still where I am.

Lol. Of course I can't prove that. Man, rather than accept the scientifically verified data that there are reasons some people get injured more than others you went straight off the rails. Your contention that injuries are purely luck based has been debunked. I won't argue with strawmen, sorry.

Did those three injuries account for all 300 games he missed since 2018? Straight from the article: Collagen proteins also form the backbone of tissues and bones, but in some people, structural differences in these proteins may leave the body’s structures weaker or unable to repair themselves properly after injury. Researchers have also identified genetic markers associated with bone-mineral density, an important measure of bone strength that provides clinicians with information on a patient’s risk of fracture. The events themselves, if you want to die on the hill that those are unlucky, isn't the underlying problem. Another player, perhaps with better genetic protein structures, may have walked away uninjured from all of those events. As well as the rib cage injury. The hip injury. The wall crashes. The wrist injuries. Etc. That's the part that isn't "luck"

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-genetics-of-being-injury-prone/385257/ This is but one study of many that debunks this whole "Injuries are a matter of luck" argument. Muscle flexibility, technique, genetics, injury history, etc. If the Twins gamble on him, and I hope they do, it IS a gamble. He needs to start playing 100+ games a season. Not 55.

Josh Donaldson hurts his leg muscles all sorts of ways. By your definition, we should totally expect him to be completely healthy! He won't run wrong, to first, against the *insert last injury opponent here* every time. Pure bad luck. C'mon. You can favor this extension without that sort of thing. This isn't controversial: That's not how human bodies work. "Bad luck" doesn't explain missing 300 out of a possible 480 games since 2018. Read that again if you need to. Not every athlete is able to play as long as others because their skills break down. Not every athlete is able to endure the same contact or wear and tear and come through it the same. Buck has demonstrated - to the tune of nearly missing 2/3s of the games he has been eligible to play - that his body doesn't seem to endure those rigors as well as others. Acting like he's just "good luck" away from playing more often is seriously naive. The Twins can't, and shouldn't, be that naive in their negotiations. And you're only punishing yourself as a fan to keep going to that well. Ask Nick Nelson and his Three Time Running "Buck for MVP" column in March that has, you guessed it, never materialized due to injury. Your kind of thinking keeps going back to that well because it refuses to acknowledge a problem that has persisted and, in all likelihood, will continue to continue. When we have a data point that Buck can play a whole season, THEN the narrative should change.

Guys who get injured don't do so by choice, I don't understand why anyone thinks this is a reasonable way to look at things. Of course Buxton isn't hurling his body purposely into injury with the intent to be injured. The problem is that we have ample evidence that some players maintain durability and others simply don't. Josh Donaldson isn't "doing something" or "choosing" to keep hurting his balky leg muscles. He's just clearly more prone to injuries there. His body can't handle the sport without more chance of injury relative to his peers. Likewise, we have a crap ton of evidence this is the case for Buxton. Could he suddenly be able to play baseball without getting hurt all the time? Sure. I hope that's the case. I'm on board for that gamble and want an extension. But I'm over this fairy tale that it's some kind of given he's going to be healthy. If Vegas was doing odds on Buxton's future games played per season, I guarantee you that over/under is WAY short of 150. It's probably short of 100.

Who cares whose fault they are? All we have to predict the future is trends of the past. Players with this kind of history rarely become durable. The time of his life where his body was the most resilient was spent playing halves to thirds of seasons. That has bearing on a 7 year contract.

Is this where I make a snowflake crack? Yeesh, sense of humor please.

How many people saw that he only started 55 games and thought it was more? I was going to guess he played half the season, but it's a third. Ouch. He stayed on the field after he came back, that was a very promising end. Hopefully they get a very fair contract done with incentives for Buck and protections in case we spend the next 7 years with 50 games played.

How is it uncertain? We have a guy in Jeffers who is 24, showed some great things so far in his young career, Rortvedt is still a guy I think we can count on as a future big leaguer, if only as a backup. So the team has options - keep Garver and let he and Jeffers hold it down another year so Rortvedt can season a bit more in AAA or, if you get a nice offer, deal Garver to plug another hole. But the Twins are in a leverage position, they don't need to do anything.

They're no Andrelton Simmons....

Since this is a baseball site. If any of you folks have an itch to GM a team using Baseball Mogul, we have the Twins open in the league I have been running the last decade. We sim three times a week, super stable and fun file. @Vanimal46this is your OOTP alternative!

That trailer was phenomenal. "What If..." has been a little disappointing IMO.

I appreciate this conversation and I think this issue is a really difficult one. A few things to point out: * As bad as it has felt, Rooker has a .691 OPS. Now, you might scoff at that but I think we forget that we're in a pitcher dominated year (in part because they are a bunch of cheats) but that OPS is not terribly far from the norm. I'm not making a value judgement on that, merely pointing out that it's fair to point out that he shouldn't be compared to historical examples of what would impress us. He should be compared to his peers now. By that comparison, he hasn't been "bad". Not "good" either, but not bad. * The team drafted way too many guys who can't field. That's the real issue here. If I'm the Twins I give Arraez a 3B glove and give him extensive work there all offseason. That's his new home. Donaldson looks washed, certainly like he's going to struggle to deliver on that price tag. Trade him and move on. That means with Sano getting some reps at 3B as well you have some room at DH to play a guy sometimes. That means Rooker may have some options to play at 1B, DH, or LF from time to time with enough consistency to evaluate him. I think Marten is the future LFer and could be a really good one defensively and offensively but he will need most of next year. The problem for Rooker is he has to fight off Larnach, Sano, Marten, Gordon, Celestino, etc. But as long as he has an option, with his draft pedigree and flashes of potential, I don't make that decision now. I keep him on the 40, I work with him on his defense and improving his approach, and hope he can hold down regular at-bats next year to see if we can find out if he has value or not. We have time, we should take it.

That's one way to squash those pesky USC rumors.

Good thing we kept finding reasons not to let Gordon play huh?

In place of your lord and savior. I'm using b-ref to cite that. Simmons has the highest rate of BOWCN, otherwise known as Being Old While Contributing Nothing.

Nick Gordon should play every day. Every day.

Picking 7th! Play the kids dammit.

I like the idea, just not the fit.

The guy who only cites batting average to defend players is now going to rag on Arraez? I....I mean....Wha?

Worst ever? No, but that click-baity headline forced the discussion in a bad direction. He's been an objectively bad addition to the team. His defense isn't worth enough to have what amounts to a hitter worse than Mike Hampton at the plate.

We really need someone with a good eye for breaking down film to help explain the deception this guy pitches with. Watching hitters, they react like his pitches hopped through a wormhole halfway to the mound. His velocity and movement can't explain that IMO, something about his delivery is frying brains.