Mark G

I don't consider him a liar either, but there is a difference between saying I would love to stay here, and saying I would love to stay here as long as you pay me as much or more than the Yankees will. While he has said the former many times over, he may have meant the latter. Time will tell.

I will only say it for the 4th time, but Simmons' "d" was not good, it was the 2nd best at SS in the league and 6th best defensive player at any position (or so the articles tell me). And I would submit that is good enough to offset a light bat on this team, seeing it finished 1st and 2nd the last two complete seasons in HR. The team overall has the power to make up for a defensive whiz that makes those around him better as well. Buck has that same defensive ability, when he can stay on the field, but that is always a crap shoot so his overall value to the team is in direct correlation to his health status. He makes LF better by his range and he works well with Kepler in right. I do agree on signing Buck if it can be done on a basis that takes into account his playing status, just as I firmly believe we should keep the infield intact for defense and continuity. One is no more important than the other, and musical chairs in the field solves nothing; unless, of course, we had nothing to begin with and defensively, at least, I don't buy that. Now, pitching on the other hand..............

While I share your worry about this FO, BOY do I share that worry, I can't help but continue to believe the infield could be a better than average one defensively if we kept it intact and had some continuity within it. Donaldson (with Arraez as a backup when needed), Simmons, Polanco, and Kiriloff would make up a more than adequate infield defense. But we seem to want to unload Donaldson to save money to buy a SS that would cost just as much, and move a rookie into third when we really don't know how it will work out all around. Or is it move the rookie into the SS position and keep Donaldson and Arraez? Or is it move Polanco back to SS and put Arraez at 2B and.........crap, where was I? Oh well, a healthy Kirilloff at 1B and keep the rest intact and how is that a defensive liability? But, as I usually am, I am likely a minority in this thought. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, and to everyone here.

I concur. I do have a question: what is the reasoning behind the desire for right handed pitching? Posts that talk about it being better in this division in particular, or your thought that it would support the current core; what is the thought process behind the belief that right is preferred over left? Do we want to lean right, be mostly right, or be all right? What about lineups we may face that lean heavily left? Is this a new analytics tool that I haven't heard of? Just wondering what the main philosophy is and where it derives from.

Strikes me that this is the kind of pitcher (one year and no clue if we can extend him, or if we will even want to extend him) we would seek out in free agency, not trade for. If we have learned anything about short term pitchers in the last few years, it seems it should be pay for them in payroll, not in talent. Not to say we shouldn't trade with Oakland; we should have interest in Montas, for instance. And a package deal might work for Oakland, seeing they are revamping again. But as has been said here already, upper tier prospects, or even middle tier, for a 1 year pitcher is something contenders would do. So the question is: do we consider ourselves contenders? 2022 contenders? If not, look longer term. Trades are probably the way to go, but not for rental players. Maybe we should see if Oakland will do a sign and trade?

Very, very, intriguing. I am keeping this in my head as they make their moves. If they are going to go the low payroll route, this would be the way.

I can already feel the arrows piercing me as I write this, but here goes: can we STOP with the narrative that the Twins slide off a cliff into oblivion if we don't have a player who has played less than half the games in his career? The Yankees won 92 games last year with BRETT GARDNER as their CF for 100+ games, and the Twins won 101 in '19 with Buxton in the game just over half the games (87). It is indeed one of the most important positions on a team; SS and Catcher come to mind as well, and Buxton mans it the best when he is healthy. But the concept that the Twins can't compete with Baltimore unless we have one center fielder for half a season (or even a whole season), and no one can fill the void, is just a little too far out for me. It would be nice to get him signed, but I also wonder how much he (and Berrios as well, in hindsight) truly wants to be here for his career. Everyone talks a great game when negotiations are in full gear, but most go where the money is in the end, and Buck knows the money is there for the taking in a year. I agree with tony&rodney across the board in that this FO is no better (or worse) than the last one. I have said it before, and I will say it again, the cupboards were not that bare when this group walked in. It is ownership, from father to son (just as it was from father to son in the Griffin family) that puts a number on a budget, and this FO has the same parameters as the last one. JP and Falvine all give us a lot of gibberish about having money when it is needed, etc. etc. etc., but none of them gives a straight answer to a straight question. Ever. So we can only guess what is going on, and I fear that this contract, after the Donaldson one, for a player who hasn't proven he can stay on the field, may be too much for JP. But I just don't believe that it is the end of the franchise as we know it if we have to let go. If Buxton goes, sell 'em all. Just accept another 100 loss season. Sorry, I don't accept that, and still believe pitching is first on their list. We can be competitive, at least in this division, with the right pieces on the pitching staff, so I will reserve judgment on this FO and JP until that is decided one way or the other, although I do have to admit I am not holding my breath. Just as when they came in, the cupboards are not that bare now either, and it is their job to complete the roster. If they do, they should get a raise; if they don't, they should go. But they don't get a pass, or get fired on what happens with Buxton (or Berrios). Everyone knew it was going to be a crap shoot with these two when it came to extensions. Buck knows JP as well as we do; let's just hope he really does want to stay here and will be willing to get it done. But if he doesn't, we will live.

Am I wrong here, or does Montas look remarkably like Berrios in some ways. Age, ERA, 32 starts last year (durable),good stats, and still in arbitration. What's not to like, right? I would pull that trigger for a reasonable package, and give him a good contract - maybe 3 years with team/player options for one or two more years. My only question is: if he has that level of talent that we see in his stats, and made all 32 of his starts, why only 187 innings; an average of not quite 6 innings a start. Is his 3rd or 4th time through the lineup not good? I noticed in his career stats he doesn't have a single complete game in his career. Hard to figure with that arm and durability. Is it just the nature of the way the game is being managed today, or does he not pace himself well in the early innings? Just seems a shame to have a pitcher of his caliber only throw 5 or 6 innings on average. Otherwise, it would be a great trade if they can pull it off.

I will join in and say I love the concepts, and can't find anything to quibble about other than, as others have, the dollar amounts (they might have to be higher, which I worry about JP agreeing to). The only thing that stuck in my craw, so to speak: please do not say you are going to pay 23+mil and 11 mil (or more) for two starting pitchers and talk about putting them into a 6 man rotation. You don't pay pitchers that kind of money to pitch a few innings every 6 games; keep the 5 man going and let them pitch. Otherwise, you sold me.

After all the negotiations with us, and ultimately signing this deal, it begs two questions: how much did we offer as our best effort, and how much did he really want (or not want) to stay here all along? Is it possible that at the end of the day money had nothing to do with it? Or did we offer enough per year, but not enough years? I wonder if we will ever know.

We have spent the last few years stockpiling prospects, grading prospects, protecting prospects, and developing (as best we can) prospects. It wouldn't hurt more than a little to use some of that depth of prospects in a trade or two. There is nothing wrong with developing from within, even preferable at times, and there is nothing wrong with signing FA's as the need arises. But there is also nothing wrong with trading for needs we otherwise didn't achieve through the first two. And, in my extremely humble opinion, we have plenty of upper end prospects to entice a 110 loss team to part with some pitching, even if it means a couple of the young arms we have stockpiled. And, if not AZ, then look to Miami, or even Oakland. But find an arm or two that will be with us for awhile and is healthy enough to put some innings in, even if it means parting with some of our upper guys. Make a pitch (pardon the pun) for Gallen.

Just so I understand your plan, interesting as it is, you are suggesting a 14 man staff on a 26 man roster. Including the DH, 9 non pitchers will be in the lineup each day, leaving 3 bench players, which includes the other catcher not playing that day, which the manager hesitates to use unless he has to. That will leave 2 players to pinch hit, pinch run, use as defensive replacements if necessary, etc, so we can have 15-17 pitchers (I included your AAA rotation you talked about) because........well, actually, I am not sure why. There is no way we have 15-17 pitchers between Target Field and St. Paul who are actually major league ready and caliber, so we will on occasion have minor league pitchers pitching so our major league pitchers........what, don't have to go through a lineup a 2nd or 3rd time? That is a debate that is worth having, I guess, and it sounds like it would be a good one. I, for one, fall on the side of smaller pitching staffs with these pitchers pitching a little more, maybe, simply because they would be major league caliber, which also leaves us a bigger and better bench to work with. Using minor league caliber pitchers to lower the number of pitches and innings, or keeping pitchers from seeing the same batter more than one or two times may work short term, but for a 162 games? Every year? It makes me a little uneasy, I guess. Good post, though; it brings very interesting ideas.

I don't know, I think it does. And what makes you think they will not have an entire staff built this way? We are pretty close to it now, since JB left. Guys going 6 or 7 would mean a 3rd time through the lineup, or, dare I even say it, a 4th time? That is the whole point of a staff built the way we are discussing; to avoid even a 2nd time through for a majority of the guys, if not the vast majority. And I assume only SP's would have their innings cut back because that is what would happen; as you said, relievers would have theirs increased to the point where it would be hard to tell the difference between the two. And unless MLB changes the rule requiring starters to go 5 to get a win, what starter is going to want to pitch in that scenario? And why do we want prospects who have been starters their whole amateur and professional lives transitioning to the majors as relievers? I stand by the extremely humble opinion that we should be stretching them out in the minors to be major league starters, developing 3-4 pitches that would help them be successful. Guys throwing upper 90's and racking up strike outs belong in the bullpen, true. But if that is all you develop, no thanks; the guys who go 6-8 innings on a regular basis is what makes the others effective. I also stand by the even more humble opinion that the design the article laid out is designed to limit innings, which limit salaries, which is fine for small market teams, but not for a team that wants to be a perennial contender. The best want the innings and the wins, and they will go to where they can get them and that team will win. I have a feeling we are going to have to agree to disagree, but that is fine; I think the debate is healthy. And, in the end, the debate might boil down to what role each given pitcher plays. And the pitchers will be the first to tell us that they want a defined role so they can prepare both physically and mentally for a 162 game season. Knowing what their role is gives them insight as to when they will be called on depending on the circumstances of each game as it develops. The idea the article laid out requires too many pitchers a game all 162 games, which would require expanded pitching staffs, leaving less and less of a bench for anything else. Sounds like a lot of the guys here want the expanded pitching staff; I prefer the added bench players, requiring more like a 12 man staff with starters eating at least a simple majority of the innings. That's why, to me, my original posts make sense. Thanks for the discourse.

Again, with all due respect, they were not brought in to try to find 14-16 relief pitchers they can shuffle in and out and up and down (from St. Paul) either. I noticed you did not answer my question about how a pitcher that considers himself a starter would come here, or stay here past arbitration if they cannot pitch themselves into wins? What starting pitcher would sign here if they knew that is how they would be used? And with all the prospects we have traded for over the years and drafted since this FO came, how is it we don't have one starting pitcher in the organization that can pitch 6-8 innings on a fairly regular basis? (a side note: the team has had 2 complete games in 3 years, covering 394 games; both by JB) Pitch counts and innings limits have kept virtually all of our prospects from stretching out for this role, and may very well be accounting for some of the myriad of injuries we have littered through our MiLB system, as they simply aren't in shape. Again, I can be convinced if it works over a several year period, but saying we have a short term solution to a long term problem is no solution at all in the end. What we now refer to as bullpen games require several pitchers being on that game to win any type of close game; if even one blows up that day it is very hard to overcome, especially in low scoring games. One other question if I may: when you say one proven starter going in to the 2019-2020 offseason, is that the roster that was going to be penciled in for the 2020 season? Or was it the roster that began the 2019 season? I ask because I checked back on the roster for both those years and we had established starters from 1-5 on both rosters. That doesn't mean they were great starters, but they were established. This last season our rotation blew up, because we wanted to go on the cheap, but the 5 starters who began the season were established starters. So I am confused as to which season we only had one. Or should I not be mixing and matching established and proven, as we might have our own definitions of proven? Thanks for the discourse; I always enjoy debating ideas.

Let's see, how can I put this..............no. I know we all have our own views on this, and I mean no offense when I say the following, but no, that is not the definition of developing pitching. Taking a minor league system and producing a steady crop of relievers, no matter how many you bring up, might work on a short term basis, but for how long? I could be convinced, but it would take many years of success using that system to do it, and I am one of those old schoolers who believe starters need to be starters for relievers to be successful and not get burnt before August. A practical question: a starter cannot get a win unless they complete at least 5 innings. If a starter rarely goes 5 innings, and he can't get a win, who would come to, or stay with, an organization that does not allow him to succeed as a starter? Official scorers would determine who gets credited with the win the majority of the time (and it can't be the starter), and giving up a run in a close game will give you the loss more often than you get a win. So how does a starter come out ahead in that system? He won't, and wouldn't stay because of it. At the end of the day, it sounds like a way to continuously limit innings pitched for each pitcher, and keep salaries low by never letting a pitcher establish himself with the numbers worthy of the big money. Great for a small market team, but not for a team that wants to build a perennial competitive team.

The approach that we have had very recently has been the starter going 4-6 innings, depending on how sharp he was, and the pen taking over with no one pitching more than 2, and most 1 inning from there. 3-6 pitchers a game was the plan going into the game; anything goes south and it is 7. And it is held down that low because of the 3 batter minimum rule. My long winded point is, pitch the starters even less and you are looking at 5-7 pitchers a game as the plan going in and maybe more, depending. In a tight game, every one of these pitchers has to be on that day to come out with a win. Even one blows up that day and another tight game goes bad. Over 162 games? You are realistically talking a 14 man staff with 2-4 AAA guys on the shuttle bus back and forth routinely. How many years have we had 16-18 major league caliber pitchers? Almost half the pitchers in this round robin rotation will be AAA caliber; please don't pretend that this wins divisions or titles. Bullpen games due to unforeseen circumstances is one thing. Making it plan A in a 162 game season? I will stand corrected if it works, but I wouldn't put a plug nickel on it in advance. (and yes, I am saying a starter only going 3 innings or so does not make him a starter, hence a bullpen game) And there is quite a bit to the concept of pitchers knowing their role on a team. Knowing every 5th game they get the ball, knowing in what inning of a close game or a blowout you are likely to get the call, and being mentally prepared, as well as physically, to fill that role day in and day out. Does a "starter" who pitches 3-4 innings still pitch every 5 days? Does a "middle" reliever have a clue when he will pitch next? And late inning specialists? Are there any such things anymore? I know, I might be overanalyzing a little, but we would be asking pitchers to shed roles they have had since their teenage years and just start over in professional ball; some in their later years. Pitchers who never know if they will pitch, what part of the game, how many batters, etc., have no way of preparing themselves over a 6 month season, and very well may not like it. In my extremely humble opinion, if it works all the kudos go to the FO and dugout for making it work and getting the players to buy into it and succeed. If it doesn't, we clean house in both areas, because this is an area you can't be wrong and just say oops, oh well.

I would concur completely, depending on what they list as the incentives. Incentives for things like runs scored, RBI's, power numbers, etc. would be great. Extra money just for games played, regardless of production, should be a non starter. It would be like giving a pitcher more just for staying healthy and starting 32 games regardless of the results of the games. The guarantee should match his proven production so far, which has to take into account his games played vs. games missed. The incentives should be based on what he provides above and beyond that, including numbers beyond just games played.

I don't know, my friend; 30 mil on up for a player who, even when healthy, has only hit in the .250ish range his entire career, not withstanding one April last spring? That is the only way the team could foul up in my extremely humble opinion. Because, as I read it, all he has to do is stay healthy and play, not produce at any particular level to reach the "incentive" part. Good gig if you can get it, I guess, but not one I would give if I were the FO. Now if the incentives were like a pitcher might get, number of wins, All star pick, Cy Young selection, that sort of thing only a batters version of it, I would go for it in a heartbeat. But I think we can bet that he is not going to take a lower guarantee and bet on himself producing at an all time high level (for him) consistently throughout the contract. He wants a crap ton of guaranteed money and believes he can get it somewhere, and I not only don't think the FO will go that route, I don't think they should. We need that money elsewhere. I do hope I am wrong about the numbers, and the contract can be done, but I just don't see those numbers being realistic for us and I think he believes he can get them, so.........

Number 3 to whom? He might be number 3 on the Dodgers, or even a few others, but not to us. He walks in the door as our number 1 until someone beats him out. With Stroman, resigning Pineda, regaining Maeda, and our internal guys that have shown promise (Ryan, Ober, Dobnak and others) we just might get away with it. And with an infield of Donaldson, Simmons, Polanco, and Kirilloff, we would do just fine. And, yes, that means bringing back Simmons until someone can take that job and run with it. A team that has been 1st and 2nd in the league in HR's the last 2 complete seasons, can handle a defensive SS if it will help a guy like Stroman. Not that he will come here, but I would make a strong play.

From everything I have read, they did. They made an offer which was pretty incentive rich and not as much guaranteed, and he said no. And there is every reason to believe he will continue to say no. We are asking him (if 7 years is accurate) to commit to the team until he is almost 35, meaning he will have given up his prime free agent years for (reportedly) 80 mil or so guaranteed. To earn more than that he has to stay healthy, and even he knows that is not a sure thing with his track record. He thinks he can get a ton more guaranteed in FA, so it is time to poop or get off the pot for the Twins; give him his guaranteed money and cross your fingers, or get what you can in a trade while he still has value and rework your outfield. I know which way I would go, and it would probably be in the vast minority right now. And a quick question on this subject: what ever happened to the old sign and trade option? Sign him to a pretty decent long term contract, asking him which teams he would prefer to be traded to if a trade were to come to pass, and negotiate with those teams. They would know they have long term control, and we would have long term bargaining position, keeping him for ourselves if no one comes through with pitching. A win win? Or is that not done anymore?

I guess I am confused on this one. The Phillies need BP help, and the team who needs pitching the most of anyone is going to trade an up and coming pitcher? And the Phillies are going to trade their starting major league 2nd baseman for a class A 2nd baseman and a AA SP? Where is their BP help, and where do we put an ex SS turned 2nd baseman? And I wish folks would stop saying "no one wants to see Simmons" back at short; I know a lot of people who wouldn't mind him coming back under certain conditions, and I am one of them. If we can't get a long term fill in a trade or by FA, and we certainly don't have a rookie we truly believe can take the job on opening day and run with it, we should bring him back on a 1 year deal with a team option for '23 just in case, and let's see who develops from within. A little continuity in a good defensive infield (especially if we move Kirilloff to 1b) can only help whatever pitching we do patch together between now and April. And he is certainly capable of hitting more than .223; he always has and can again. I don't know; almost 15 mil for a former SS 2 seasons removed from playing the position, and playing it below average at that, scares me a little, but if it means keeping Polanco at 2nd that is better than moving Polanco. But if you are looking for a 1 year stop gap, and that alone, Simmons at 8 or 9 mil is a much better deal. We simply do not have any excess money for anything but pitching. We used that excess already on Donaldson, and we can't afford any more.

I think both are a gamble, and both would be nice to have. Beats the hell out of Happ and Shoemaker in my extremely humble opinion, which is what we have been doing. A more important question in my mind: what is making us think that Ryan and Ober are locks? They will likely come out of camp on opening day, but where will they be come September? Both are totally unproven through a whole season where teams have a book on them and make their adjustments. Will either be what we think they have a chance to be? And what is plan B, C, or D if either or both regress? I hear everyone saying we need to find 3 SP's somewhere, internally, or externally, but what if we really need 5? That is what worries me. I also have Ryan and Ober penciled in for now, but the key word there is penciled; neither is written in ink for now. We need to find some ink; we already have too much pencil.

I have to concur with this. We have a player who is great defensively, but average offensively despite what his most ardent fans want to believe. In 7 full or partial seasons he has played in 493 games out of 1686 games, has a lifetime .248 BA and .299 OBP. He has developed power over his career, but last year, even with 19 HR and 23 2B, he had all of 32 RBI's. Career wise, 187 extra base hits (not to mention 214 singles) only produced 204 RBI's. By comparison, even Simmons has 303 RBI's over his last 7 seasons, and he was graded out as the 6th best defender at any position with the minimum number of games, and everyone (well, almost everyone), is screaming to drop him and hand the job to a raw rookie or a 20 mil FA as soon as the ink on the contract is dry. I know I am a minority here (again), but I have never seen what everyone (well, almost everyone) else sees in BB. He is a very fragile player physically who cannot seem to stay on the field, a fantastic fielder when he is on the field, and an average hitter with some power. I get he had the fantastic April last year, but I seem to remember him hitting over .400 before getting hurt; he finished up the year at .306, so he was much closer to career form once back. One sensational month and a gold glove in center field vs roughly half a season a year actually in the field just does not equate to 80 mil plus over 7 years. The problem is, he believes he is worth even more, and somewhere there will be a deep pockets team that will gamble on him and give it to him. I just don't think it should be us. We have too many needs elsewhere, and JP always has had, and probably will have again, a finite range for payroll. I wouldn't take that gamble. Which means a trade while his value is at its highest. We have seen what we can do with him and without him; in '17 he played in 140 games and we won 85 games. He played in 87 in '19 and we won 101. I know that is only one example, and there are examples to use on the other side, but it does suggest anyone can be replaced if need be, by injury or a player leaving, and it is no different here. We need the money for other things.

I am pretty neutral on most of the options listed above; can't really find a lot to criticize, and can't find a lot to get overly excited about, so I could live with pretty much most of it. 3 things do stick out to me though. First, and always, I just don't see JP approving a budget that high, especially with incentives potentially spiking it considerably higher. 2nd, I don't believe Buxton will go for the contract you are proposing. He wants superstar money with most, if not all, guaranteed, and he believes he can get it so he simply won't take that low of a guarantee no matter how much the incentives are. And JP will never approve that much in incentives on top of the guarantee, so I see a trade on the horizon at some point. 3rd, they will never be able to afford a top tier SS on this open market and no one in our system is opening day ready, so bringing back Simmons is not only livable, it is essential. The infield defense, other than Sano, was more than acceptable last year, and with Donaldson needing someone with range next to him and Polanco needing to stay at 2nd, Simmons fits in perfectly with a gold glove caliber glove. He was a career 260ish hitter coming here, and a new hitting coach just might get him back to where he is capable of being. As I said earlier, the potential additions seem pretty solid in theory, but a trade or two to move salary is the only thing that might make it work within JP's thinking. And I think Buxton is the one who is ultimately going to go, unfortunately. So start thinking center field next.

Package Buxton, Sano, and Duffey for a solid SP and a solid utility player who can play short in a pinch until someone takes the job and runs with it ( a Pinto type). Put Garver at 1st much more while still using him as the secondary catcher, and have Kirilloff rotate between 1st and left/right field. Have Kepler platoon with whoever we feel the best center fielder of the future is, and still play right when needed. Use the savings to buy more pitching, and hope one of the plethora of corner outfielders we have in waiting can take over left field permanently. We have to face the fact that Buxton is not going to sign on the cheap, and JP is not going to open the vault for the kind of money Buxton wants. Not until he proves he can stay healthy, and by the time he does he will be a free agent. Trade now while the value is high, and the package will attract attention.