TheLeviathan

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.

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.