TheLeviathan

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)

I think he could get 1 year and 25M, for sure. But if a team is giving him 4 years that AAV comes down significantly. 1/25M is the high end of the AAV scale. (Maybe even a bit higher) 4/70 is about the most I see him getting in guarantees. All subject to change based on his durability next year. That's why I think you go 7/120 with incentives and you can close this out.

You are entitled to an opinion, but when you comp Gordon's upside and Denny Hocking you've stopped allowing a fair discussion because you've gone off the rails. This conversation is, at least partially, about process. The process of how you go about investing your available time, resource, at-bats, development etc. in a losing season. You didn't, in any way, distinguish your Denny Hocking and Nick Punto reference as a good outcome/bad outcome. Maybe you meant to, but you clearly didn't. You stated that we should care as much about Nick Gordon as we do "Denny Hocking or Nick Punto" and that's just ridiculously unfair. Nick Gordon, as a potential investment, is a hell of a lot more intriguing than either of those guys. Is that a guarantee of anything? Of course not, no one is claiming any such thing. Is it arguable that playing Simmons to help the young pitchers is a more valuable asset than playing Gordon? Sure, that's possible. I think you'd have to breakdown just how many difference making plays in 56 games Simmons can make over Gordon relative to the potential in his bat, but it's possible. But then let's make that argument and not some asinine one that Gordon's upside is limited to Denny Hocking. Teams get paid off investing opportunities into young players with potential all the time. Twins included, we could come up with a laundry list of impactful Twins who helped the organization out of nowhere because we gave them a chance. And many of those guys had nowhere near the raw talent and pedigree of Gordon. Pretending Gordon has no such potential isn't fair. I acknowledge that a bad SS behind the pitchers could be detrimental and I understand that. I acknowledge that Gordon might flop entirely. But here's what I do know: Simmons offers a terrible bat, no future upside, and a selfish mindset. When my favorite team is terrible, those aren't the kind of players I want to invest opportunity in. I just don't think the difference in fielding, in a third of a season (less than that because, as you know, the Twins stopped caring about their young pitchers being harmed by his absence in September) is enough to offset the value in getting a longer look at Gordon. An extra 100 PAs almost certainly doesn't shake the foundation of the team, but it's a better mindset of team growth IMO. Instead the Twins did the worst of all options - they didn't dump him, played him for a few weeks in which time they bounced Gordon around unnecessarily, then stopped playing him altogether and played Gordon there. That's splitting the middle of both opinions into a stupid middle ground that makes zero sense.

But then you cited Denny Hocking. I notice you didn't use him as an example. As for WAR, I'm still not much of a believer in the way defense is over-balanced in that calculation relative to offense. Looking at Dee Gordon's career and Nick Punto's and concluding that Punto was more valuable is not an endorsement of your point as much as an indictment of WAR.

I think saying Nick Gordon is comparable to Denny Hocking is completely unfair framework to the discussion. Nick Gordon is a former top pick with a ton of pedigree. He's not Nick Punto or Denny Hocking in terms of upside, even if that's all he ultimately ends up as. Investing ANY playing time into a black hole of awful like Andrelton Simmons when there is a lottery ticket worth scratching is the issue. Just like I give credit to the FO for the Simmons signing as a strategy/process move that was a good idea idea, bad result; I can't give them any credit for sticking with a black hole in a lost season when there is a young player to test out. It's a flat-out bad process to engage in with a lost season.

You are joking right?

A plan with a total lack of specificity is no solution. When offseason plans start coming out from posters I hope you fill in these gaps.

I don't think the reaction to dumping him would have been all that negative. I tend to agree with their overall thinking in the signing as well. But by the time the Yankees asked about him it was clear he wasn't what they thought they were getting and dumping him for dirty socks would've been fine with pretty much everybody. It was a good process, unfortunate result. But I'll also point out that they did play Polanco and Gordon there with some frequency even with Simmons on the roster. There was no excuse for keeping him. Gordon should've been playing there as Kirby pointed out.

One, what a bunch of people are saying on the internet about how guys just magically take one fluke opportunity a year and bat it into the stands isn't a good reason to make a rule change. Two, why not have that happen for every ball that bounces into the stands, fielder or not? A guy hits a one hopper over the wall and we call it a double whether it's Buxton or Pujols. While that may not be fair, but it may be (I tend to think it is) better than regularly making plays like this a complicated computation for an umpiring crew to work out as far as who was on base, who was fielding, how strong their arm was, how fast the runners are, how efficiently they are rounding the bases, etc. and determine where everyone goes at the end of the play. I simply do not see a rule that open-ended going well over time. This was a fluke. Flukes need not rewrite the rule book IMO.

I guess I didn't see anything intentional or "gamesmanship" on that play. I guess I just don't think a rule that says "Let the umpire's discretion decide what base everyone gets" will end well either.

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.

That play was so flukey. How could the rules be written better?

TROLPO.....is that you?

Huh? I think you forgot 40% of your incorrect post here in publication.

No clue what happened to the playcaller from the Seattle game.

If they lose....it's for the best.

The run defense still sucks.

Andrelton Simmons is the closest thing to an automatic out I've seen since Pedro Florimon. (Fun fact....Florimon once had an OPS+ of -11. It still makes me giggle)

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.

Ok....now I'm on board for firing them.

I see the Giants are riding noted Ace Brandon Webb to victory! What's that? Logan? Logan Webb you say? Oh....right.....noted ace Logan Webb. Yup, playoffs are here!

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.