TheLeviathan

In the case of Bader, I don't think those are valid criticisms. Might he be over-used by the front office/manager due to platooning? Sure, but if that's the usage it blocks literally no one of importance in the farm. If (when) Buxton misses time, his primary role is one no one else in the minors is ready to fill. So I find that half of the criticism bunk. Opportunity? Well, maybe on E-Rod, but he has his own health concerns and his call-up likely depends more on the available ABs at DH/LF/RF, on which Bader may have some impact but is unlikely to cost him a roster spot for those positions. Those opportunities are going to be driven by his production and the health of Larnach, Wallner, Castro, etc. If we're going to apply those "when/how/why" we ought to do so more fairly than we seem to be doing in the case of Bader. "But what about Austin Martin!" just doesn't motivate me much Mrs. Flanders.

Except this line makes the discussion moot and that's why this thread and the other one have circled. If your argument basically boils down to "The team should be developing these relatively low end players (or high end ones for that matter) so free agency isn't required" - you will have a 100% agreement on that on this board. But that's a counterfactual. It's a hypothetical. One we may all agree ought to be the case, but when you're filling out a roster and making decisions about how to win games, no longer becomes a valid argument. It's like saying, after the game, that if we had just hit a homerun to go up 3-2 we'd have won! Yeah, of course.....but we didn't. That's not the reality of what we're dealing with. Which then requires you to have a real conversation about who the players in question really are and what they do, in reality, for your chances to win games. If Harrison Bader blocks out Matt Wallner (as happened last year) that's a horrifically stupid decision by the team. But signing Harrison Bader because you've failed to develop a requisite talent your roster needs....is just resource management/gap filling. We'd all like to have a different, better, cheaper option. We don't. And that is the realm within which the conversation should be happening, not counter-factuals.

It should mean nothing. The fact that it might mean something is why I really don't like the France move.

I think most of the bad arguments around Bader are Terry Ryan Free Agency PTSD. TRFAPTSD is a real condition. One I totally understand, but does lead to some conclusions I don't always agree with.

Agreed, but that's why I understand the France complaints and am mystified by the Bader ones. Bader clearly fits.

One thing I do think is worth pointing out in these "floor" conversations is that a roster with depth is a major component to a successful season. I don't have an issue with this team adding veterans that provide specific, needed skills to the roster. There seems to be a lot of False Dilemma going on in the last week. As someone who has stood tall to play more Nick Gordon, Matt Wallner, Eddy Julien, and many others....I appreciate the concern that we don't want to block young players. Like many of you, I'm old enough to remember how we wasted huge chunks of our available resources on guys like Rondell White. That concern resonates with me. But there is a balancing act between providing opportunity and leaving yourself pressing prospects who aren't ready into professional games. We can do both. Harrison Bader doesn't mean E-Rod will never see the light of day. Columbe doesn't mean Varland should get a job at Kwik Trip. I promise....we can do both.

This is a major issue I have as well. None of our young players seem to be maximizing their athleticism/talent as fielders.

I see the logic and the fit for Bader. I don't for France. It's nice the deal is non-guaranteed, I just don't know why you do it at all. Dejong? Sure, I see it. This? Nope.

Miranda is the right choice, but I really hope he put some work in on his body to help be a more durable, nimble player. Our depth behind him is "wreck the season" levels of bad.

I agree.....Bader won't make everyone else not hit like garbage. It's a high ask for 6M on the free agent market and I'm not sure he's up to it. But we're over-thinking this move. Martin can start in AAA. Injuries will happen. (Ya'll remember we have Carlos "No Feet" Correa and Byron "I've never met an injury I couldn't catch" Buxton...right?) All I see Bader as is a floor raiser from Martin. The Twins, as much as I'd like them too, were never going to patch 6M with 6M and another 5M from the Pohlad's coin holder in their limo and sign an actual talent. It sorta is what it is. If we're shopping at Dollar General, this guy fits some needs.

I think you lost the thread of your argument. Yes, the NFL and NHL are much fairer systems. NBA as well, but that system is far too convoluted. Championships are a poor metric of parity in all leagues, but baseball chief among them. With the Super Bowl in the rearview mirror, I get the tendency. People think the existence of dynasties or repeat contenders is a knock on parity, but that simply isn't true. A good system should allow for teams that are sound decision makers to thrive. And thrive often! (If they keep making good decisions with their competitively balanced resources!) It also gives those without the benefit of an LA TV market or a Yankees branding power the ability to truly compete with draft picks, free agents, and others. MLB doesn't have that and the data clearly shows that those advantages do have an effect on winning. All I want is a league, like the NHL and NFL, where your competency with your resources and leadership decides your fate, not your market size.

Why do we continue to think that the manager and the FO aren't on the same page on this strategy?

I mean...sure, if you want to trade him for a nice 1B I'm in. But the advantages Castro brings, as is, are still abundantly clear IMO. Especially given the way the Twins employ their roster.

What a hideous spectacle that was. Beef up your DL and OL.

People should remember that these billionaires could increase the payroll by 20M and probably find it between their couch cushions.

I think the Raiders going so hard (and publicly, without much shame) means we might be able to tag him and deliver him to the Raiders for some draft picks. Even if we get their two third round picks for him I'd be happy.

A team that hunts match-up advantages through lineup substitutions really shouldn't be looking to dump a switch hitter who can play anywhere but catcher. This is the kind of player this organization's philosophy absolutely demands. Couple that with being one of the only guys in the lineup that isn't slow....I absolutely see the value. This team should be getting Larnach a 1B glove and planting Castro in LF most days with his flexibility allowing them to move others to the DH spot for some rest. More directly....why are people overreacting to the Twins looking for a backup middle infielder? This roster has plenty of room for a backup SS and Willi Castro. I mean...we have people talking about Mickey Gaspar making the team and we think signing a backup infielder relegates him irrelevant? Yeah, I don't get that conclusion at all.

Well, you dodged the fact that your example worked against your point. But it's the key to understanding mine: your suggestion only works if there is a cap/floor system. Without a way to cap the massive financial advantages, extra shots at the prospect pool is irrelevant. And I don't think there is any path to smooth those advantages without a cap/floor.

Except the Braves have the 5th highest revenue in baseball. They are part of the problem. Yes, they do things in a way you'd like smaller market teams to do, but they can afford to because they have a giant TV contract. While I'm perfectly fine giving smaller market teams more bites at the prospect pool, it doesn't change the other problems that high revenue teams pose to competitive balance. It may allow some teams to pop up and challenge them, but those teams still have a year-in, year-out advantage based purely on their market and TV deals. Truth is....owners will siphon money no matter what. This is why they keep their books closed to the public. They siphon money from the states/cities they reside. The tax payers. The players. The states/cities their affiliates are in. On and on. It's how wealth works in this country regardless of MLB. And while there are downsides to a floor, the upsides to a cap are worth the risk.

I understand where you are coming from making sure players get more money than the owners. But I think if you share revenues, the only option is a cap and floor. Hopefully the PA is strong enough to get a 60/40 split, but that's the only real path forward.

In the NHL, if you're losing or have a hard road to climb....it's not because of your TV deal. Maybe you sign bad contracts, or draft poorly, or made poor decisions in team composition. In the NFL, if you can't elevate your team it's because you sign bad contracts, hire bad coaches, draft poorly, fail to develop a QB. But it's not because you signed the wrong TV contract. I won't touch the NBA because their mess of a "cap" is so preposterous and poorly formed I think you could get a kindergartner, a crayon, and five minutes and they could come up with a better one. And I have bad news for some of you....2027 isn't going to be the answer we want. And the reason for that is simple: as long as the big markets have massive TV contracts and the league hasn't taken a step to curb that, they aren't going to get any consensus to move forward. That's an issue that has to be resolved first and I just don't think the stars will ever align on it. I hope I'm wrong. As for parity? Good lord, I can't believe any of these writers (or anyone for that matter) would argue that champion variety equates to parity. That's such an over-simplified, silly way to look at things. Of course MLB has the apprearance of more variety, it's got a WAY higher randomness to it than the other sports. The point is simple: are teams genuinely able - with competence in management - to consistently put themselves in a position to succeed and thrive. In the NHL and the NFL they absolutely are, no matter what market they are in. The MLB is quite obviously not that way.

It's well deserved. Dude won 14 games with a guy who was all but drummed out of having a shot to start at QB. (And...likely will be re-drummed out within 2 years)

I'm really unclear why this team is shopping Ryan or Ober in any deal other than to get a really good young bat. If they want Ober for Mayo...well we can have a chat then. But shopping him for Cease and Mountcastle feels like a really, really bad use of assets.

If people think Gaspar is going to take the spot of Julien or Lee.....then that Bader thread is missing the wrong guy to take their anger out on for blocking young talent.

I expected a vigorous argument that Bader > Torres. No? Oh right...because the notion that it's not the Tigers is preposterous.