TheLeviathan

I guess it depends what he'll cost. There certainly would be a point at which I walk away. But 8-10M and I'm in.

My detraction is based on about 1,000 at-bats. He had two MVP months, he's had nearly a dozen months as a big leaguer where he was scraping for a .500 OPS.

Go get Grienke. I'd try and bring back Escobar and then here are just a few guys I'd target: McCutcheon (CF insurance, right handed OF, DH) or Leonys Martin, Escobar, Nelson Cruz, and any bullpen guy with a pulse.

I agree, his defense is amazing. Let's get that other important element working too.

And Tyler Austin seems like a pretty useful player going forward.

Agreed, I think if they get that a 7 win season is a given. And it's gravy from that point.

Defense played like a bunch of bad asses. Winfield Jr. is a legit NFL prospect and one helluva player - not just the playmaking ability, but quietly stellar in his role too. It's hard not to look at this schedule and the awful play of Indiana, Illinois, NW, and Nebraska and see an 8 or 9 win team.

I agree, it's important to be ready. But we also know pitchers start losing velocity and a number of other physical side effects as they age. I don't think it's mutually exclusive to worry about both. Get them up ready....and as aggressively as possible.

That only helps my point!

In terms of talent, it might be true that those players are better. In terms of production since the deadline it's really not. (Quick comparison here only) Austin - .783 OPS, Forsythe - .679 OPS/ Dozier - .631 and Escobar .738. There is very little difference there. And what difference there is favors the Twins. May and Drake 3.99 and 3.83 in FIP replaced Pressley and Rodney (1.49 and 4.19) Clearly Pressley is a good player, but even that from a bullpen is not a hugely different outcome. Lynn has been lights out for the Yankees....but tell me one person that saw that coming. I doubt even the Yankees expected what they got from him. Of course, there can be an emotional impact from selling at the deadline, I wouldn't disagree with that. But in terms of the talent being shuffled on the 25/40 man roster as a result of the moves made at the deadline, it's hard to see how the overall talent level and production were radically changed. Even for 2019, only Pressley and Rodney were even counted officially as part of that group. The rest of the players dealt were all on expiring contracts. I just don't see how anyone can make a cogent argument that dealing expiring deals cripples the 2019 40 man (as suggested earlier) or how the overall talent of the team was radically changed. This wasn't a terribly talented team all year due to a confluence of issues that the FO does share blame for. So it really feels like unfair criticism to hammer the FO for selling on a talented playoff team and then hammer them a month later for having the organization in shambles for dealing a handful of meaningful players. (Most of whom are older and/or on expiring deals)

We seem to be talking about two different things. You are talking about the way the team is playing but I'm talking about the talent on the roster. What do you think of the talent on the roster today? What do you think of the talent on the roster July 25th?

Did they have the talent of a playoff contender as of late July? I'm asking you directly because I would assume a rational person who wants the team to invest for the playoffs would consider the team "good". If, for some inexplicable reason, you don't think they were a good team....well then you have another issue of consistency. Or at least of good decision making.

At their current pace Cleveland looks to be about a 90-92 win team. The same Twins team many here think is a 40 man dumpster fire would've had to go 43-13 to surmount that lead. Practically speaking, yes, that's insurmountable.

Are you saying losing Rodney, Pressley, and Escobar is enough to turn the 40 man from a playoff contender to a tire fire? If not, then....yes....you are being inconsistent. If you're saying, yes - those three players are that much of a difference, well then we can talk about that. Because I think that position is demonstrably misguided. Reality is that this is basically the same group, just swap out Lynn, Pressley, Rodney, Escobar, and Dozier for Austin, Forsythe, Drake, and DeJong. I don't see that as a terribly meaningful swap. Certainly not the difference between being awful and being a contender. If you're going to bash the FO for not being wise enough to see the WS contender they had in July and then turn around a month and a half later and claim the 40 man roster is a Titanic....you're going to have to do better than "But what about Rodney!" Your views don't mesh. The only thing consistent is that you want to bash the FO, but your justifications for doing so are basically contradictions.

So the Twins were good in July, trade three significant players (not all-star studs by any stretch, but good players) and became a tire fire? I don't understand that either. Your position is a near contradiction, but you refuse to take that issue head-on. You felt the team was a playoff team in July and now you think the organization is in shambles. That doesn't compute. At least not rationally. And if we're going to hvae threads evaluating the FO, I think being reasonable and consistent is important. You don't seem to be regarding the discrepancy in these two stances.

Seems odd to believe the team is bad in July but worthy of a playoff push.

No, your argument doesn't follow at all. We didn't sell players to restock the 40 man roster right now, so right there this entire post falls apart. We sold players and stocked up on talent that will hopefully be part of the future 40 man roster. So nothing backwards at all, the criticism of your positions still holds true. You can't argue how ready they were for a playoff run this year and simultaneously bemoan how awful our talent is. One of those two things is likely a silly notion. (Hint: it's the first one. Has been since July. Probably since May) So, yes, I will judge the returns on those trades in time. They were never designed to help September of 2018, they were designed to be a factor in September 2021. I liked the approach - high upside, lower minors guys for players that weren't going to do anything to change the trajectory of this year. They only have to hit on one or two of those acquisitions for it to be a massive success for that future 40 man roster. And that plays into what many of us are saying, the real measure of this FO's work will be seen in 2-3 years time. Just as it was for the Cubs, Astros, and others. We openly acknowledge the fact of today - this team isn't very talented. I give the FO an incomplete overall because so many of their moves have been to strengthen the overall talent in the organization, but I don't pretend the current 40 man is anything other than a disaster. We agree on that apparently. But we also openly acknowledge the moves made this year were for the long-term. There is no inconsistency. There is, however, inconsistency in your position. Unless you've changed your mind about how playoff ready this team was, your opinions do not mesh. Maybe, just maybe, the opinion that was misguided was the one people were trying to convince you for weeks: this isn't a very good baseball team. No reason to chase ghosts.

That might have been achieved trying to go for it this year. There is a bizarre disconnect that post was right to highlight: Some of the same posters who were loudly clamoring for the Twins to buy at the deadline are now loudly bemoaning the lack of quality players on the 40 man roster. That's a hard circle to square for both to be true. If indeed this roster is not talented enough right now such that the FO should be derided for their efforts, why would anyone in their right mind encourage them to buy? If this roster was a move or two from contention...why rag on them about the state of the team? Surely the difference between "Playoffs here we come!" and "We're god awful" isn't Escobar, Pressley, and Dozier right? Those two arguments aren't quite contradictory, but they're real close.

This is a really interesting question. All the trends in baseball are negative - the fan base is aging, ratings are down, attendance is down, etc. However, baseball might be in a really good spot as far as TV deals go. With CBS, NBC, Fox, and ESPN all vying for eyes on cable, baseball presents a really strong option to build a programming schedule around. I could see that competition for ratings driving them to get a really good deal for their national contract. One that probably exceeds what the sport deserves based on their trends. As for the money situation - it's hard for me to root for the players or the owners. They both are making insane profits at the expense of jacked up prices for fans. Whoever sticks up for the minor leaguers will get my support.

I do. I think this has potential to be a major issue for Buxton. It's when you try to project that to FA or other players that I think the criticism is reaching.

MLB does not operate like your company. Players resign with teams all the time that openly go into rooms, disparage the player, and talk an arbiter into saving them a few thousand bucks at the expense of a young player who could use it. If that doesn't move the needle....why would this? The reality is that players and agents understand the way the contract game is played - they find ways to use/game the system to their advantage and players make them pony up when it comes to free agency. Getting lost in the weeds on the little stuff isn't on anyone's radar. I get that some here WANT this to be true, because it serves as a point to attack the FO on, but practically speaking it's irrelevant. As irrelevant as how cold the winters in Minnesota are. Our climate doesn't stop people from signing here, our checkbook does.

I'm on the record as not loving their handling of it, so we agree there. I think they are making the decision to extend his service time on the same basis they handed him CF to start the year: they still believe he'll be a star. whether their basis is in his 2015-2017 performance, his athletic profile, his July/Aug run last year, or some combo of all of the above.....I think their decisions were consistent. The outcome just looks strange because of the weird timing of injuries, rehab, and performance.

Buxton should always look out for himself, regardless. That's why players sign agents isn't it? You and others act like some sacred bond of togetherness was broken here. Player/team dynamics are almost always adversarial when it comes to contracts. This is nothing new in that regard. There are specifics to this case that are somewhat unique, but not as unique as some of are trying to portray. At the end of the day it's a money squabble and that happens all the freaking time. Also, you don't know if he was pressured to play. He might have masked the injury or kept quiet about it also. Or it might have been a joint effort.

I don't think anything they've done has indicated they have a lack of belief in Buxton's future. In fact, saving his service time implies they still highly value his future. I'm not sure there is any real contradiction there. As you say, there are other decision in this that do mystify me a bit. I'm of the opinion that if a player can't play two days in a row due to injury, he probably shouldn't be playing at all. That's the real issue to me, they seemed to be half-assing their way through handling him.

If they're cheap what they did to Buxton is irrelevant. It'll never get past the stage of "Well, that offer sucked" So your point is moot. Which is kind of the point. There is zero evidence that players and agents use adversarial tactics against clubs in negotiations. Zero. And the plainest evidence is right in front of you - EVERY club is adversarial in almost all contract talks, issues of service time, and negotiations. If players and agents gave that any weight they'd have to stop playing major league baseball. You could find all sorts of jerk moves to use against a club if you wanted to. As an example - every arbitration hearing where a billionaire nickel and dimed me would piss me off WAY more than this. And that happens every year to all sorts of players! Buxton's will matter squat to anyone not named Buxton. The front office correctly dismissed that concern and, as I stated earlier, is really playing the long-game for upside here.