Mark G

"Twins fans should welcome another year of the ace on the mound." As much as I like Gray, and as happy as I am that they picked up the option, I have to ask myself: how far has baseball fallen when someone with 120 innings and only 9 quality starts is talked about as an "ace"? I must be getting old. ? :

The key word in the entire post here was options. Options. Plural. We have options at every position in the field except catcher, arguably the most important position for no other reason than it is exclusive. Along with the other players you mentioned, you could move Urshella to short and slot in Miranda at 3rd. Arraez has played 3 different infield positions. All our outfielders could man any of the spots for a brief time if necessary. I could go on, but don't need to. Two positions on the diamond are not interchangeable or you could move a player to in a pinch if absolutely necessary; pitcher and catcher. From the get go I have been basing my thought process on what our 40 man roster contains, not on what we would call up from the minors and have to move the 40 man around. Last I saw we had 47 players on the 40 man, but some are current free agents and others we expect to not bring back as well. The article said it would probably end up being about 39 on the roster before adding and moving others as well. But as of today, none of the other 38 projected to be left standing could be put behind the plate; hence my thought process that this is the single most pressing position to look at in the beginning of the off season; by no means the only position, but the most pressing. And I would prefer not waiting until low cost defense first catchers are all that are left. Whether it be through FA or trade, get out ahead of this, or we relive '22 indefinitely. I would even entertain bringing back Sanchez if all else failed, but I would like to think we could do better, which we won't if we wait too long. I think our disagreement might simply stem from the concept of pressing vs. important. Other positions may very well be more important in the long run, but I believe this position is the most pressing currently, as there are not many quality guys available and there will be multiple buyers. Doesn't mean we can't look at other positions at the same time, but I feel there is more time with other positions because, as I said, there are options at the other positions, even if they are not necessarily the most desirable options. One catcher is an option, not options. And now that I have worn out my welcome, I will say thanks for the chat. ?

I'm not sure, here, but are you telling me that half the playoff teams have one catcher? One catcher on their playoff roster? Because that is what we have right now. Even if we had an incredibly terrible catcher along side Jeffers, at least we would have more than one. Right now we have one. I may be overlooking something here, but did I mention we have only one? Because right now, we have one. I am pretty sure all I said was I wanted more than one, and I am hoping they don't wait until the better ones are gone before we try to grab one. As the song goes, "one is the loneliest number. Two can be as bad as one, it's the loneliest number since the number one." Right now, I would settle for as bad as one, no matter who is actually number two. I say this with all due respect, but, yeah, it's a pretty pressing need, no matter who we share the boat with.

You know, I keep hearing people say "we have other needs" beyond catcher, and I understand that, but for the life of me, I can't think of one more pressing in the here and now. One injury prone .200 - .210 hitting catcher on the entire 40 man? And no one in the near future of the organization ready to move up? Picture only having one of any other position, much less a position you can't just slot someone into in an emergency; they kind of have to be a catcher, you know? What ever direction they go, defense first or offense, framer or good arm, etc., they better do it PDQ, or the league will make the decision for them by snarfing up everyone worth anything. We have at least some depth at every other position on the field; this may very well not be our only need, but it is the most pressing at the moment.

"Could there be an internal option?" Let me see, how can I put this..........?

I am chuckling a little as I write this, because I marvel at baseball for their ability to include as many categories and individual players as the law allows, so to speak. They have Arraez slotted at 1b for the gold glove category, but utility for the silver slugger. They have no idea what to do with the only 2 way player (pitcher/DH) in the game today, as he is the only one who has even picked up a bat, much less hit regularly. So they slot him in at..........utility?? On what planet is Ohtani a utility player? But, again, where do you slot a pitcher for the silver slugger award? DH? Or "utility"? And they create enough metrics in the batting category to be able to point to something to justify whoever they decide to pick for each position. But, just like the Oscars, it is an honor just to be nominated, right guys? This should be fun to watch.

Paragraph one: spot on. Paragraph two: spot on. Can't argue with a single word. Paragraph three is where I can't help but go back to the thought that we would trade one of the few above average players we have is because they are the only ones that would bring anything back. And Jorge in particular is going to lose trade value every year (even every month) that goes by from this point forward, although that can be said for a lot of the guys I suppose. Yes, you can spend to fill holes, and I hope they do if the right deal is out there (SS?), but that just adds to the 40 man without a subtraction. For every player we buy in the off season another player has to be moved from the 40 man. If we could spare spots on that roster would we trade the prospects that are being taken off? Your logic is impeccable in its own way, but how do we keep the prospects we want protected from the Rule 5 if we keep adding free agents that bump them from the roster? Or do you think that there is simply enough dead weight we are going to let go of that would make the point moot? I don't think there is anyone here who just doesn't like Jorge and is saying dump him, I sense that it is more along the lines that some of us feel he would bring the most in return at this time and we have needs greater than the difference at 2nd he would be over his replacement. Do not trade him just to make a deal of course, I remember letting Rosario go thinking we had plenty of OF prospects to take over, and how did that work out for us........but I digress. But if Jorge, alone or as part of a package, would bring something we need more than simply a better 2B than who would take over, I would (sadly) say bite the bullet and fill a need. I would trade any player on the 40 man, for that matter, that would make us a better club, but if I go there I am off topic, so I stayed with trading Jorge just for that purpose. Sometimes the hole you need to fill doesn't happen through free agency; a trade or two might be needed. You may very well be right when it is all said and done, but I don't want to rule something out that might improve the overall make up of the club. Besides, they don't listen to me anymore ever since they stopped taking my calls. So you don't have to worry.

I concur on quite a bit. I have lobbied to keep Urshella for a while now, and still want to. And, while I don't think Arraez would be a 140 game a year 2nd baseman, he could spell 1st and DH often enough to keep him from that. Or maybe give Gordon a shot with Arraez as his back up. But right now I see a roster with a lot of outfielders, and a lot of infielders who play 2nd and 3rd and fill in at 1st. But we didn't have a true 1st baseman much of last year, and we aren't going to bring back Sano, so do we keep the converts there and hope for the best, or find a first baseman? And we surely need another catcher (one that can throw out runners?), we have to sign a SS of some length and ability, and I see a need for a couple of stud BP guys. And that is assuming we are going to go with the starters we have now. If we buy those needs with all that cash everyone thinks we are going to have (I am not holding my breath on that), then aren't we just clogging our 40 man even more? We have a lot of assets and a lot of holes. Back in the day ( i know how much everyone hates it when I say that), we would trade one to fill the other. Right now the proven major leaguer that has a fairly decent contract and 3 years of control is an asset that, coupled with a prospect or two, might bring something to fill one of those needs. No one wants to pull that trigger, but it just might be the best bullet we have.

Not a bad thought at all, but as for his value, it is in the number of years of control we have right now and a 6 figure salary as opposed to an 8 figure salary, which is what Jorge is going to get in '24 and '25. That, in and of itself, might be enticing to plenty of teams, but it is probably what will keep him here. As an aside, and at the risk of being told I am off topic, we talk a lot about should we keep Urshella at 3rd or not. In the same sense that we might have a log jam at 2nd, do we have a log jam at 3rd? And is that why a lot of folks here don't think we should keep him, giving the job to Miranda, or if he fails, someone up and coming the following year. Why would 2nd base be any different? 30 mil for the next 3 years of a 30ish (starting next year) Polanco, or about the same to a 30ish Urshella. We have to make way at some point for the kids coming up, or trade them. And only one year of control('23) of Urshella makes him worth little in trade, where as Polanco has a value right now. Do we wait until he doesn't have that value? Do we keep him his whole career and move the kids coming up? I happen to believe we have enough depth that someone will step up and take control of the position, leaving the cash for other things. Isn't that how we have been looking at 3rd base? And first with Sano? We might have to make moves we don't want to make to adjust our 40 man to a better balance. Just my thought.

I would submit that his trade value is the highest it might be right now. He turns 30 next July, and the older he gets the less valuable he is. And he has 3 years of control now, and the less control as time goes by also decreases his value in a trade. Coming off an injury is never ideal, but at 29 (currently), a team friendly contract, and 3 years of team control pretty much maximizes his trade value; the longer we wait that only decreases. Waiting for him to be healthy and bring his stats back to normal might make him look better to the eye, but teams today look at the above when considering giving something up in trade. Or so I am told every day on TD.

If one of the draws another team might be looking at is the amount of control left, and we have multiple options at 2nd if we were to move him, waiting until the trade deadline or even next year wouldn't make sense at all. If you are going to move someone, you move him when his value is at its highest to get the maximum return. I have lobbied for a while to move Jorge, as we need to make room for the younger guys, we have multiple options, and we can use the money saved to buy other immediate needs. If we are going to move him, move him now so you know what you have to work with on those other needs, before those needs are snapped up elsewhere.

Not entirely a motley crew, but not a lot to get excited about either. Take an honest shot at a couple of the upper tier guys (Rodon?), meaning serious offers, but if not, maybe stay with our own kids before any of these guys. I would rather sign stud BP guys than iffy #3 or #4 starters.

Trade turned out alright. I really like Urshella; a good player, a good guy in the dugout, and he stayed healthy on a team that needed that more than any stat the computer can spit out. I hope they keep him around for a while. Sanchez on the other hand............ Overall, at least for the 1st year in hindsight, an A-.

The key point there would be if there's an opening. I would never hesitate to call up the best option we have on the 40 man due to injuries (which we all know we are famous for), but not just to see how he does. I still believe in letting them come along step by step, and not having faced pitching beyond AA for more than 2 weeks, as you suggest, I would hesitate quite a bit unless absolutely necessary. He has plenty of time as long as he stays healthy. I also happen to believe in trades when you have a log jam of players in the same or similar positions. When an organization has several 2nd and/or 3rd base players in the system, as an example, and there is no avenue to be brought up except by injury, out of respect to the players in that log jam it would be beneficial for all concerned to trade from the strength for a place of weakness the organization may have, in our case catcher. Maybe the best solution to all the prospects we have in the infield who can play multiple positions except SS would be to move one or two to open up spots. I believe it is time to trade Polanco for example, while he still has value, and bring along the young guys. If push comes to shove, Arraez can hold it down until one or more is ready, or Gordon as well. Maybe that would allow players to come along faster.

I wouldn't mind Bogaerts at all. It might come down to who he is pared with at 3rd base as to how much of a defensive asset or liability he would be, but the bat would make up for it over a 162 game season. I am a little confused in the article, though. On one hand it says he would be a good segue to our SS of the future, moving to 2nd or 3rd base over time. On the other hand it talks about a 5 year deal he might be willing to take, meaning he would displace at 2nd or 3rd.........who? Like in musical chairs, what happens to the rest of the infield when the music stops? Who goes where? And who doesn't have a seat left? I would want to think about that before I give a long term deal to a short term SS who we will want to move around fairly soon. Maybe sign him to that type of deal and trade both Polanco and Urshella, making room for the kids we have who appear ready? The money just might work that way.

"One suggests him not getting serious consideration until spring training 2024 after all of 2023 at AAA." That, I believe, would have been me. I still believe it. This extremely humble observer does not believe a professional athlete in any sport, much less baseball, is old at 24 which is what he turns next April. And with all the people ahead of him, why rush anything? When did a year at AAA become so absurd? He needs to improve his defense, and still needs to prove he can hit advanced pitching. If he is as good as we would like to think he is, he will prove it and be part of the future. In the meantime, we maintain the years of control we currently have. I have seen way too many players get called up only to be sent back down again because they were over matched at that moment. Give him the time he needs. With all the guys on the roster ahead of him now, what's the rush?

Love the potential, and his stats rising as he gets older and moves up the minor league ladder gives one a lot of hope. But with the log jam at 2nd we currently have, and the fact he is only 23 and has only gone as far as AA, I would like to see him for an entire season at AAA, somewhat similar to what Miranda did, before bringing him to spring training and giving serious consideration. If he continues to excel at that level we may have to start considering 2nd base a position of strength and possibly move some folks around or have some trade chips. But I would like to give it a year to see.

Nice to know someone else still feels defense is the most important part of the SS position. It is super nice if you can get both at the same time, but first priority is the glove. Ask any pitcher.

I wish I could share your enthusiasm, but the primary reason Lewis has only played a part of 1 season in the last 4 years is two major surgeries. I do not doubt his ability to swing a bat; what I do doubt is his ability to play the field long term without major injuries. I wonder if both Lewis and Kirilloff are of the Buxton mold; very talented and very fragile. Until both can prove over a period of time that they can stay on the field, the only place I would pencil in either one of them is the trainer's room. My point was that we keep on bringing up Lewis as though he would be plan A, when he hasn't proven he can stay on the field at any position, much less SS. And if we could somehow muster up the fortitude to keep the best SS in our system - heck, most systems - this whole conversation would be moot and we could get on to the task of putting together a potent outfield, and hopefully Lewis would be a good candidate there. As an aside, you are right, this isn't 1992, but it isn't 2052 yet either or we would be able to put all the Humpty Dumpty's back together again. ACL surgeries may be run of the mill at times, and with some athletes, but 2 in such a short time is still more than a slight concern. Let's hope you are right all the way down the line. If so, I will take my crow medium rare.

My only response would be that it is not Falvey's decision, it is Jim Pohlad's decision. If he wants Correa we stand a chance, but he knows the commitment it would take. Falvey only does the paperwork, JP signs the checks. If we do not sign him, it will not be on Falvey, it will be on JP.

"there is no guarantee Kiriloff will come back stronger and better after this highly invasive surgery". It always amazes me how many people are so skeptical about Kirilloff ever being able to be the player he once was and we hope he can be, but are convinced that Lewis will come back after not one, but two major knee surgeries. Knees that will always be questionable for years to come. Not putting down your optimism, just trying to be realistic about how much of a plan A Lewis can be. And below him, who is a legitimate plan A anytime soon? SS is a tough position to fill long term. A contending organization who has had the answer in their clubhouse all year would be trying to keep him instead of guessing which minor leaguer is going to be his replacement.

All I know is that JP and Falvine know the numbers they need to begin with, and very likely know the numbers they need to end with to get it done. I will withhold judgment for now, but I can't help but think they will come in, as Ted pointed out, something short of that, knowing the result, and then claim they tried their best, but the man just wanted too much money. In an auction, you don't get brownie points by putting in a bid and then hoping no one goes higher; you get the points for winning the bid even if someone does. Time will tell.............stay tuned.

"The Derek Falvey-led front office of the Minnesota Twins" That is the premise the article started with, and while I agree with the vast majority of the article, I still maintain it is the Jim Pohlad led front office. Nothing goes on there without his knowledge, and even if the decision he makes is to delegate the decisions to others, the decisions are his responsibility and the buck stops with him. This is his team, not Falvine's or Rocco's; begin with Big Jim and work your way down.

Funny, but the one name I thought would be here throughout, I haven't seen at all (or did I miss it). Ultimately, this all begins and ends with Jim Pohlad. This is his team, not Falvine's or Rocco's. If he wanted changes, there would be changes. As I have said elsewhere, even if the decision is to delegate decision making to someone else, the decisions are his, and the buck stops with him. It doesn't do much good to complain about the branches if we don't care about the tree.

Feel free to correct me if you think I am off base, but I would submit that analytics are far more than just stats, or we would use just stats. Analytics are a way of assigning weight to stats that give some more importance than others when evaluating players. Buxton has a BA 90 points lower than Arraez, for example, and his OBP is 70 points lower. His SLG is 100+ higher, which makes his OPS and OPS+ higher overall, thereby raising his "value". As an aside, how you had Buxton 3rd on your ballot is something I am unable to understand, but I digress. And, as has been said elsewhere, value is in the eye of the beholder (which, I guess, is why we had to bring analytics to the game to eliminate subjectivity). Correa, for example, made a huge difference in the life and play of Miranda by bringing him under his wing, so to speak. He is even planning on bringing him to his home over the winter and spending a week with him working on all sorts of things to make him a better player. What is the value in that? Arraez is a spark plug, and from what I can tell, a pretty popular guy in the dugout. Is there a value in that? Now I like Buxton as much as the next guy - well, maybe not the next guy, but a lot of guys - but someone who played the field 58 games out of 162 isn't my most valuable no matter how high his SLG is in his limited PA's, especially with a low BA and OBP, as well as a 33% strike out rate. Most valuable player is still somewhat subjective, because there has been a debate for a century or more over what player even means. The reason pitchers have their own awards is they don't play the field more than the innings they are on the mound, and they no longer hit (with one notable exception today). Yet you have two pitchers on your ballot. Not that I think that is wrong, as I consider a player a member of your roster, not just a person in the batting order, so I would consider pitchers as well; others may not. Anyway, the long winded point of this extremely humble observer is that out of all the considerations that one would take into account, analytics should be low on the list, and they are more than just stats. Thanks for the give and take, I appreciate your info.