Mark G

283 wins, a 3.45 career ERA, 16 gold gloves, and let's not forget he hit as well (.185 lifetime average). 31st all time in number of wins; fields with the best and can actually hit a little. If Jimmy is held out, it won't be because he didn't earn it. Tony, on the other hand, is just fighting the old school idea that a shorter career doesn't equate no matter what the numbers were while they did play. Hopefully, that won't hold this time. It would be a shame if Tony didn't make it; it would be a crime if Jimmy didn't.

I know I am going to be a minority here (again), but I sense a theme as the off season goes along. Left field and SS seem to be topics of discussion quite a bit. We had a left fielder and didn't want to keep him, why? His defense? And we had a SS this year who excelled at defense and we don't want to keep him, why? His offense. At some point we have to accept the fact not every MLB player is going to excel at both, year in and year out. We could have lived with the occasional blunder from Rosario to keep his bat, and we certainly can (in my extremely humble opinion) live with a light bat in Simmons to keep that defensive infield together. But we won't. We didn't keep the one, and we now will not keep the other and it has opened two holes on the left side we are debating on how to fill. Any team that leads the league in home runs in '19 and finishes 2nd in '21 (the last two complete seasons) can live with a light hitting SS that can play the field with anyone, and could really use the bat in left and let Buxton cover the ground, leaving Rosario to play a defined area. Seems like these were areas that didn't necessarily need to be solved. I hope I am wrong and we find the gem at each position that pleases everyone, and it better come soon if we want to compete any time soon. Going with cheap rookies is a gamble, and signing proven commodities is going to be very high buck. Just seems to me it didn't have to come to this but, as I said, I know I am a minority in this. And, by the way, we may have finished 2nd in '21 because we lost Rosario. Just maybe.

All of it is interesting, and I read it closely to see if my first impression was in the ballpark or I needed to rethink. Two points stick out instantly: first, we are back to trading top major league talent for top minor league talent, and second, all of the free agent money on the mound seems to be going to SP, not the pen. Nontendering Rogers and signing Aglesias appears to be a wash, meaning the pen is going to be predominantly low in budget and experience. And with this teams (and many others today) love affair with 5 inning starts and bullpen games, I wonder what happens if this bullpen falters. One can hope that with quality starters we will let them handle the bulk of the innings, but that would mean allowing them to go through the lineup 3 and.......wait for it.......even 4 times; what do we all think the odds of that are? So I hope the pen is as good as we all are hoping for because they will be overworked as usual. I have to agree with Johnny Ringo in the belief we don't have much of a chance to sign top flight free agents, Nelson Cruz notwithstanding, at least in the pitching category. This FO doesn't have a great track record in signing top tier pitchers, and that is what you are counting on above. I don't mind the starting 9 at all, but I don't think Garver is going to take over the DH spot on a regular basis, and that is what it appears the roster above will require; either that, or keep 3 catchers, which is not something this team usually does (especially one that hasn't proven he can hit major league pitching). Spending 74 mil on 5 players and hoping that they fill out an otherwise low budget lineup is asking a lot from this FO. And with their marriage to analytics, they won't get their money's worth out of the SP's, because they will not let them go a 4th time through the lineup. Overall, trading the players you list is probably the right thing to do. Buxton is going to want more money than he is worth, and Donaldson is already being paid more than he is worth. Trading Sano opens up first base for Kirilloff, where he is better suited, and it shores up the infield defense much better. And Arraez can hold down third until Miranda is ready, which he will be soon. Kepler in center I assume is temporary, but he is virsatile, and will probably either get moved back to right eventually, or traded in July. A pretty fair team in the field overall. Now, for the 52 mil on 4 pitchers......it all rests on that, doesn't it?

I have stared at the roster you laid out for a while now (actually, quite a while), and while I like what I see vs. the '21 roster, it is contingent on some very unlikely scenarios. Miami, having depth at pitching and lacking some other components, would probably go for the trade as laid out, but it does leave some holes you are patching up with unproven commodities. And it assumes Buxton will sign for that price, which personally I don't think he will, but it is nice to hope for. And getting any of the FA pitchers you are talking about is highly unlikely for all the reasons listed by others and then some. A few questions if I may: If you are going to go with an unproven player who has never had a major league at bat in Miranda, why at DH? We know Donaldson is going to have to go there more and more often in his last years here, and Sano is a prototype in that position as well, with his well below average defense. And Kiriloff has graded out positive at first base, and not as well in the outfield; why not put him in a better defensive position manned now by a well below average fielder? And what is it about Jeffers and Rortvedt offensively that makes you comfortable with them for a whole season? And Ryan and Ober looked good for a few months, but what is plan B if one or both slide? And last, but certainly not least, what if JP says no to a budget beginning with the numbers 14? (I can't find a season yet that he has) What positions need to be changed on the chart? After 2 years of pretty heavy financial losses, I have to wonder about JP. I can't argue with the roster as you laid it out as a whole; good pitching will hold up the lack of offense if the defense holds up as well. But there are so many pitfalls in the compilation of the final package that I would have a plan B, C, and D in my back pocket.

As someone who has watched the Twins from near and far since the '65 World Series when I was 11 years old, I have learned to live with the fact that they will never spend the kind of money that some of the other teams do. For better or worse, all 3 have considered the Twins a business first, and a fun enterprise second. As I said above, my amateur sleuthing has been unable to produce a single season where the payroll began with the numbers 140, and after back to back losing seasons financially I just don't see a track record that would suggest that '22 is going to be that year. If it is, I will not only stand corrected, I will take the item off of my bucket list for all time. As such, I just don't see JP parting with 16-25 mil for a player who is continually hurt and has had what amounts to one spectacular month in what is otherwise an average offensive career. If all we cared about was gold glove defense, we wouldn't be so quick to jettison Simmons, who actually anchored the infield defensively last season. I still say I have no problem with any of the FA's you picked to sign, I just argue with the price tags of a couple of them as well as the price tag of Buxton. I wonder why the BP hasn't changed much at all from the end of '21, and why we would rely on two rookies who combined have never had a major league at bat. That is not to argue with giving Miranda a look, but I have seen too many guys excel in AAA and not in MLB; gotta prove yourself before 500 at bats are penciled in. I don't want you to think that by critiquing the roster I am being critical of the roster; not the same things. I just wonder how much money JP will shell out to bolster a roster that includes 14 players making the minimum or close to the minimum (in your above roster), meaning they do not have the overall experience and proven track record to provide the faith to write the really big checks for the proven veterans necessary to lean on for an entire season. One or two injuries in the starting rotation or another of Buxton's stints on the IL, (along with Donaldson and Garver?) and I can envision a drop off in the Win/Loss column and another sell off in July, after which it will be harder than ever to convince JP to spend again. And I still don't see a single trade in your scenario. A blockbuster package deal might be just the thing to free up the money needed to sign the guys you are hoping to sign. I know I am kicking a dead horse here, but I just do not see money only being spent, with none being moved. I truly hope you are right and I am wrong in all of this. And I hope the above roster becomes a reality, at least most of it; it would be a fun team to watch, but I won't hold my breath. It means keeping 3 players (Buxton, Rogers, and Duffey) who become FA's after '22 and would have no trade value, so if we decide not to sign them longer term we will trade them sometime in '22. And it means relying on FA's wanting to come here, which hasn't always been the case when it comes to front line pitching. And, as I said in the above trade comment, those 3 might just make a pretty good blockbuster trade if we don't resign them. That changes the scenario somewhat I would guess. But overall, I say again: go big or go home!

Well, as they say, go big or go home. That applies to dreams too, it looks like, as this is a great dream, but a dream none the less. First, it is predicated on JP going to 142 mil payroll, and I haven't been able to find a season in history (my amateur investigating) where we have started a season that high. And, coming off of two large loss seasons (financially), and a new CBA looming, with all the increases in spending that is likely going to be associated with it, I really think it is a pipe dream to think JP is going to shoot for the stars money wise. Not going to argue with any of the free agent signings, as they look sound, but the reality is even if JP will approve the money, will every one of these players want to come to MN? As for the current group and how they will fit in, you appear to believe in Miranda even though he has yet to take a major league at bat, as well as Contreras. You replace a very sound defensive right fielder with a less than stellar one, and leave Sano and his sub par defense at first, even though Kirilloff has graded out well at first. And if Kepler is healthy and gets his 500-600 at bats, he has the power to match (almost) Sano in that area. As much as Kepler will not change his approach, neither will Sano and his 34-36 percent strike out ratio. We might want to put the best defensive team on the field if we are going to go with a bullpen that doesn't change from '21 and 4th and 5th starters who are still unproven. This scenario appears to be very high on free agents, costing a boatload of money, and low (any?) on trades. I have a feeling before JP opens the checkbook for some salaries, he will want to move a few others to compensate; he will just not be willing to go to 142 mil after losing so much the last two years. But, hey, I would rather dream in late October than in late August when it is too late, so let the fun begin. Oh, and just for fun, where did the 16 mil figure for Buxton come from? It must be a long term contract, but how many years and what dollar amounts were figured in?

Spot on about the runs make wins point. Our team this year finished 7th in the league in runs, but 13th in the league in wins. That is because we scored 3 runs or less 45% of the games and many more runs than that in other games, win or lose. But what constitutes a replacement in the WAR? Actually replacing the player, or simply taking the overall average from all players at that position? And how would they figure the average, if WAR is what it is? Thanks for your insight into all of this. I still fall back on the old runs produced stat: runs scored plus RBI's, minus home runs. To me that is a great measure, and that is where Polanco shined. 162 runs produced through that formula in 152 games played. Great stat. Yet I only found a 4.8 WAR score for him. That is why I really don't know how seriously to take WAR.

I would have to beg to differ on a couple of counts. Eddie led the Twins in RBI's in '19 and '20. He had 46 in 78 games for Cleveland, even with some injuries. From an offensive production standpoint, how does that compare to our revolving door in left field this year (and who knows how much longer)? As for defense, no one we put out there this year was any better there, either. As for money, we had it, we just didn't want to spend it after losing our shirt in '20, so we took the chance one of our up and comers would win the job and run with it. Same theory as signing Shoe and Happ; cheaper than upper level pitching and hoping for come back years. Not tendering Eddie was a financial move to be sure, but not a very good one. Even in a semi off year and moving around, he still had a positive WAR in both places. The 8 mil would have been worth it. The hole that is there now is a self induced wound.

All of this is true to an extent. But just a personal anecdote here: I spent 10 years of my life working at a couple of Universities/colleges where some of the professors had IQ's higher than Jake Caves batting average. But get them out of the classroom and off the blackboard and they could barely find their way through a grocery store. Brilliance does not always equal common sense, and I wonder how many of the analytical geniuses that create the value we now put on certain player skills really understand the need for balancing a roster based on all different talents. For every Sano, or any other player whose primary worth is power, there needs to be an Arraez to be on base to make that power productive. A Simmons, for example, might make Donaldson a better 3rd baseman based on his range; same as Buxton has carried our left fielders for some time now with his range. Is that factored into the WAR equation? Is it factored into the monetary worth of each skill set? If Sano's 30 HR's only equal 54 RBI's because no one is on base, is that worth more than Arraez scoring 74 runs by being on base as often as he is? (made up numbers, but you get the point) Just because the slugging percentage is higher, is it worth more? Or is it not Sano's fault no one is on base when he hits, therefore the worth is fixed? Not an argument, just wondering if everything possible is taken into account when the analytics are compounded? I have never totally understood the formula. I do have one other question: when it figures Wins Above Replacement, what constitutes a replacement? Another player in your organization you would put there, or replacing a player with a player from another team through trade or FA? Is that a hard and fast equation, or does it depend on the circumstances? Or is it just the major league average for whatever position you are looking at? That is one area I still don't understand. Thanks.

Nobody (I hope) is advocating that Arraez is comparable to Polanco. But Sano? I will take Arraez for 162 games vs. Sano for 162 games, OPS or no OPS. Arraez: .294/.357/.733. Sano: .223/.312/.778. Sano strikes out just over 34% of his plate appearances (even worse when you look at at bats). Arraez just 10%.. A 45 point difference in OPS doesn't come close to making up for the above differences, as well as his poorer defense. I guess I fall into the category of a proponent of Arraez for a lot of reasons, but I like Polanco even better, especially at 2nd. Arraez is too young to put at DH on a permanent basis, but maybe later in his career. Molitor didn't play the field the entire time he was our DH at the end of his career. Arraez reminds me a lot of him at times the way he has quality at bats. I get we have no place to put him right now, but he is definitely worth finding 500 at bats a year somewhere. Only 3 players who were on the roster at one time or another had a higher OBP, and all 3 had less than 300 at bats. Yeah, I guess I am a proponent of getting on base, and he is a good one when it comes to that. Without the guys on base, all home runs would be solo.

Sano has a career .819 OPS. Arraez a career .777. All other batting stats and total defense: who is the preferred player? On planet OPS Sano is. On all others.......as long as you only look at OPS, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. If you could field a team of 9 Sano's, hitting and defense, and I could field a team of 9 Arraez's hitting and defense, who, in your opinion, would win? Assuming, of course, the pitching was identical for both teams?

You know, that is a post I totally agree with. Thanks for putting it in ways we can agree on.

I can only imagine what Rod Carew would say to Fritz.

Are you serious?? .294 and .357 is average? On what planet? The OPS is weak, maybe, but an average hitter? Sorry, my friend, not a chance. As for sub-par defense, at what position? He hasn't had a firm position since he came up 3 years ago. How about finding one, and letting him play there full time before deciding once and for all he is sub-par defensively? If you think Arraez is average and sub-par, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Take care, my friend.

I am not sure I could disagree with you more. I recognize that 3 years is only a brief snapshot, and cannot be put up against a 21 year career, but Paul Molitor's stats totaled .306/.369/.817. Rod Carew's numbers were .328/.393/.822. Arreaz falls between the two in everything but the OPS, and theirs were from an extraordinary number of triples throughout their careers, not HR's. Is it the word really that is the sticking point? Would it be better if one were to say he is a pretty damn good MLB hitter? Because he is. He also only strikes out approx. 9% of his plate appearances, and that in and of itself is an accomplishment today. I will meet you half way; how about he is really a pretty damn good MLB hitter.

I hear you. Recently on another forum a writer gave an opinion about what next years roster might look like; it looked almost identical to the roster we ended the season with, give or take a couple of possible additions in the off season. I looked at it and thought.......hmmm.......isn't this the same team we just watched? And when talking about trades, no one seemed to think anyone would bring a haul except Bux, of course. Which, I am guessing, is why the roster (in his forum) looked quite similar to the one we ended 2021 with. Individually, not very many players we have right now bring much back in return. A package, however, might be worth exploring, as it would fill a few holes we need filled. Maybe more than one package, but that would take courage and insight. And a few acquisitions in the FO market, primarily in the pitching department. Boy, isn't this fun? Thinking about what a team with a purpose would do to be a contender right now? Yeah, well, that is what a long winter is for, I guess; dreaming of what it could be like if only........ahem.........sorry, I lost my head there for a second. Back to reality. Fun while it lasted, though.

I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but I don't see any young player in this organization staying at any one position throughout their career. I would say Miranda has the best chance, but this organization believes playing multiple positions is more valuable than excelling at one and playing there full time. Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but we only had 3 players on the entire roster (non pitchers and catchers, and even Garver sneaks over to first once in a while) that played one position only the entire season, and they were long established veterans. I wouldn't expect any of the rookies to settle in at one position, again with Miranda having the best chance, any time in the near future.

I dunno, my friend. My amateur research of the Twins' payroll over the years says the team has never opened a season over 131 mil and change. They may have added some year to year through trades, etc., but starting the season at 150 mil? That would be a change of financial mindset that has never happened before, so I don't see it happening. Especially after 2 back to back pretty heavy losses and a new CBA looming out there. If JP opens the checkbook in your preferred target area, I will not only be amazed, I will take that item off of my bucket list forever. I don't count on it, though, and I have a feeling we are going to see a lot of young (meaning cheap) players next year and hope for a ton of development in a very short period of time, hence your vision of dropping to 100 mil. Having said that, if we gave multi year contracts to Bux, Rogers, and Duffey for instance, that would change the equation, and maybe nudge an additional investment or two to make it all come together. Let us hope for the latter, but for now I still have my bucket list made out.

From everything I can see in your plan, you have a possible FA SS, and a possible starter or two coming in from the outside; otherwise the entire roster is simply what we already have. You say the team (as you have laid it out here) should be competitive, but if that were so, wouldn't it have been this year as well? Or is it just that we have jettisoned the FA pitching signings from last year and replaced them with our AAA guys and assume they are going to be better? I hope you are right, but I think it may be more than just a little optimistic. And if we do trade for a starter or two, who replaces the guys we traded? I can only assume more guys down the 40 man roster. The team that is laid out above is pretty much the team we ended the season with and they struggled to play .500 ball and there were reasons for that; reasons that don't go away with a few more months experience. Having said all of that, I believe what you laid out is very close to what we will probably see, as it is a very cost effective roster. And with the team having lost a bundle the last two years, and the new CBA coming up (and probably costing more), there is not going to be a lot more signings like the Donaldson one and that very likely includes SS. So, let's hope for a few career years like we saw in '19 and keep our fingers crossed that no one gets hurt.

Individually, all 4 are very plausible, even worth taking that leap of faith. All 4 together at the same time? Ummmmmm, that is where I wince a little bit. My risking the '22 season altogether on that much of a leap of faith is a little scary. I did notice you didn't mention Miranda in that foursome. I think I would feel a lot better about the group as a whole if he slid in and Lewis was given another year to recover.

After reading all of the posts, I find myself in the position that a lot of us are in; I agree with many, don't agree with some, and wonder what the final decisions will be between now and April. I do have one fear, however it plays out, and that is no matter how many players change (or don't), the overall philosophy will not, and that is the philosophy that there are too many role players and not enough players with a role. Yea, I guess that sounds weird, but there is a difference; a role player is another way of saying utility player, where a player who has a role on the team has his position on the field and in the batting order. Correct me if I am wrong, but we had only 3 non pitcher and catcher position players who played only one position throughout the year: Donaldson, Simmons, and Buxton (and Buxton played all of 61 games). If memory serves, even Sano went to 3rd a couple of times in a weird kind of lineup, and every other player the team had on the roster throughout the season played more than one place. And no one knew from day to day, and week to week, if they would be in the lineup at all with all of the moving around. Or where they would be in the batting order.......you get my drift. As for pitchers, starters knew their roles; pitch your 70-90 pitches, or until you got knocked out, whichever came first. The RP's, on the other hand, never knew day to day if they would pitch, what inning they would be called into.......again, you get it. When players/pitchers never settle into a position or a role on the team, they never excel at anything; they do the best they can at everything, which is not always the better choice of the two. My long winded point is, please don't trade for, or sign FA's that you want to mold into role/utility players. We have way too many of them already; swapping one for another is a lateral move. Bring in players who excel at what they do and leave them there to excel, both position players and pitchers. Arraez and a couple of others are all the utility players we need if we have good starters. I may be a minority here, but a team of role players without a role of their own doesn't seem to work as well. We need starters in more areas than just the mound.

Agreed again. But if neither of those scenarios pan out.......?

Agreed, with one caveat; when you say replace Simmons with someone who can hit and play D, are you saying you want both in the same player? Or are you saying Simmons can't do either? The former would be wonderful, if we can secure one, but the latter assumes Simmons can't play D, and I would have to beg to differ. He graded out in Rtot score as tops on the team, including Buxton. 12 errors over a full season for a SS is more than pretty good, and he made Josh a better 3rd baseman with his range. My thought process is sign an elite SS who can fulfill the former, or resign Simmons (at a slightly cheaper price) and wait for an internal candidate to prove themselves. If we can't get the former, stay with stability in the infield; his defense will make up for SLG and OPS stats on the team that finished 1st and 2nd in home runs the last two full seasons.

When I was growing up playing the game our pitchers would get schooled in two primary things; throwing strikes, and changing speeds. Just making up numbers here, a pitcher today that can throw a fastball at 92, a changeup or slider at 82 and a curve at 72, and throw them for strikes will keep a hitters timing off by mixing up the pitches, regardless of the count, as long as he can throw them for strikes. But you do need a staff of pitchers who have different velo rates as well; when you change pitchers you also change velo rates and spin rates, which can also throw off the timing. A good mix of pitches by each pitcher and a good mix of velo and spin rates in the staff as a whole is a good combination. As much as I love the guys who throw 3 digits, IMO we don't need as many as we might think. Go for control, velo variance and spin rates that compliment each other, and you have a good staff.

Oh, I don't know, I think every conversation is productive if you choose to look at it that way. I appreciate this one. As for the game changing, I think of basketball, and how the shot clock changed the game. How the 3 point shot changed the game. In Football, for generations you had to control the ball all the way through the tackle; now "the ground can't cause a fumble". Total change of the game itself. Being tackled on the two yard line and stretching out your arm with the ball in it to the goal line, and it is a touchdown. Total change of the game itself. I simply don't see changes in the rules of the game of baseball that reaches a level even close to that. Things like putting a guy on 2nd to start extra innings, in my extremely humble opinion, is an experiment, as is 7 inning double headers. If these changes stick for good, I will say the game has changed. But a ball is still a ball, a strike is still a strike, a balk is still a balk, a force play is still a force play, a tag play is still a tag play, and I could go on. The baselines never change, the distances from base to base, the distance from the mound to home, the batters box, and on and on. Except for a couple of experiments I have mentioned, the game is exactly the game I watched in school in the '60's. Replay hasn't changed the game, it has simply slowed it down. What has changed is how the game is managed, by the organizations and the on field coaching staffs. Power pitching and spin rates. Exit velocity and launch angles. Strike outs and home runs are far more valued than ever before, but it is still the game. As for Tony vs. Rocco, you are right; Tony has 10 under .500 seasons. He also has 26 .500 or better seasons. Over 2800 games against.......let's see......less than 400? Tony has 12 pennants and 6 world series rings covering 3 different teams, and a .543 lifetime post season record. Just saying that he is a proven winner, Rocco's less than 400 games simply don't match up, no matter how many he won the first year. (He is actually under .500 since season one). I think he is a poor manager, because he doesn't manage. He mixes and matches what his computer says to mix and match; sometimes it works and sometimes not so much. He has eliminated any run manufacturing beyond the power numbers he is looking for. In Rocco's 3 years, his teams have a grand total of 15 sacrifice bunts - combined. (not counting pitchers hitting in NL parks) He is up front about the fact he simply doesn't believe in giving up an out for a base. The same is true for base stealing. Total for 3 years? 96, finishing 15th out of 15 two of those years. How often do you see the hit and run? I guess if it is happening, it must be when I am not watching, because I don't know if I have ever seen it. Taking the extra base on singles and doubles......anyway, you get my point. We slap balls into the shifts far too often, and our discipline in the strike zone (swinging at pitches outside of it) is, well, lets just say less than stellar. All of those things are on the manager, whoever he is. And all of those things are a large part of why we scored 3 runs or less in over 45% of our games this past season. And relievers are like anyone else, they want a routine and a role. Knowing your role, and knowing when it is likely you will be called on in any given game depending on the score and the circumstances, gives them a certain sense of security in their role. Our guys never know from phone call to phone call which one of them is going to get up; it is not a good way to run a pen. Again, on the manager. I could say the same for the defense. If you never know what position you will play that day, or if you will end up in the original position, it is hard to excel at any position defensively. For all of the above reasons I did not think Rocco was a good manager in '19, I didn't think he was good in '20, and I didn't think he was good in '21. Wins and losses are only part of it, as I believe I have laid out. TK managed the team for 16 years. His teams only made the playoffs at all twice; he just happened to win it all those 2 times. With a lifetime winning percentage below .500 (.478) he was put into the Twins Hall of Fame. Clearly, wins and losses are only part of it. He took teams that were supposed to be good and helped them be good. He took teams that were not so much and tried to make them into future contenders. And he taught fundamentals. Sorry, I just don't see any of that in Rocco. Maybe someday I will, and as I said before, I will stand corrected if it comes about. Not an argument, my friend, just an explanation as to why I think what I do. I treasure the game itself, and when half of it is gone by computer game players, I try to make my case. And pointing out that most managers do it this way as well doesn't convince old school guys like me. It is like saying that good grammar is going out of style, so I won't try anymore. Just wanted to see if you are still reading. Take care, my friend.