Mark G

Agreed, but my fear is Jim Pohlad just might try to soften the blow of a possibly expensive new CBA, along with back to back years of big losses, and start fresh with a pretty young and inexpensive (cheap?) team once the dust has settled. No trade is going to surprise me at this point; disappoint, yes. Surprise? No. Unless, that is, if there are very few or no trades at all. That's when I would put on my shocked face. Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst at this point.

Once again, I know I will be a minority of one here, but I don't care even a little bit about any of the analytics that computers spit out saying who did what and who the computer says got the better end of the deal. When we trade Cruz, which I believe we will, it won't matter to me what grade the prospects we get back have from the computer; I will care about the presence in the clubhouse and the dugout that is now gone. If it were to turn out the Donaldson was a distraction in the same areas, with his antics, I wouldn't care how many home runs he hit in losing battles. And so on. I care about how a team comes together and plays together, and if the FO trades away key pieces of that team, regardless of the record, the team is not the same. Especially when the team sees the return from said trades; players that will never see the roster until current players are long gone. A friend and teammate for a minor league player they will probably never meet. One of the reasons I have harped my entire life on getting current talent for current talent. In todays game, where social media helps players stay in touch and get to know each other, players acquired in trades fit in much faster than ever before and help reduce the sting of losing teammates. Calling up AAA guys just isn't the same a lot of the time. Use trades to fill holes, not fill your farm teams; that is what the draft is for. If you can't get return for outgo, walk away.

I agree across the board except for one thing. We have a premier SS on the roster already; one source rated him the 3rd best defensive player among position players regardless of the position they play (however they figure that). Not sure there is an upgrade out there without it costing even more than Simmons does now. I can live with Kiriloff at first, and, all told, the current infield with him there looks good to me. And since I said that out loud, JD and Simmons won't see August, much less next year, :)

Actually, I don't know how bare the cupboards were coming in. The Twins total record in Molitor's last two years, and this FO's first two years was 163 and 161. Anytime a team hangs around the .500 mark the cupboards can't be too bare. They sold off all the goodies in the cupboards the first two years trying to get the prospects we are all looking at now, and used a healthy payroll increase from Pohlad to sign free agents who helped bring a 307 home run season; coupled with the fact we got 57 games with Detroit, KC, and Chicago before they decided to beef up, and we pulled off a 101 win season. But we all knew the 307 home runs were going to dry up, and we were going to have to start bringing up all these prospects we built the farm around. Well, based on where we are today, the time is now and I don't know what the future holds, but I have to say I am a little nervous when I look at today. And I will continue to say you can't take credit for '19 and not take the heat for '21.

Very nice article, but the last sentence says it all, in a lot more ways than Donaldson.

Odorizzi gave us one solid year out of 3, and Pineda a few good months at time out of 4. I really can't say how Hill would have done over 162 games; 60 wasn't much of a sample. I guess that is what I meant by bombed. I always hope for much more than what I just describe when we shell out the kind of money we have for this type of free agent. If they are going to take credit for the success, they have to take the heat for the lack of it as well. But I always appreciate another perspective.

There is an old expression: "when everyone is in charge of something, no ONE is". Who is actually in charge here? Who takes the pats on the back when it works and the blame when it doesn't? So far I haven't seen any ONE identified. Have I missed something?

I couldn't agree more Pitching held up in '20, give or take the back end of the starting rotation, but really hasn't been special going back to '17. The free agents they signed in '18 bombed and back end starters in '20 and '21 have bombed. They were given the first two years for free, rode 307 home runs to success in their 3rd year, and have regressed pretty far since then. Correct me if I am forgetting something, but they only seem to sell in July, then sign free agents in January. Everyone is put on innings and pitch counts and, yet, they all still manage to get injured.........a connection, maybe? Let the kids stretch out and see if they have the stuff to go 162 games. But I digress. We will see how this July sale goes before I burn my Twins jersey. )

I will start by saying I know I am a minority of one in this discussion, but I will never understand the current baseball mindset that says all you can hope for in trading proven quality major league talent is a package of 2 or 3 minor leaguers who may or may not ever see a major league field (Allan, for instance may or may not come back from Tommy John). I am old enough to remember getting something for something, rather than getting hope for something. I understand the situation with Berrios, as well as Buxton, Rogers, and even Duffy, all being free agents after next year. You can only commit so much money to so many players, and you attempt to get something before you get nothing. But hope is like being in limbo between something and nothing. I say, and will always say, prospects are fine if they come with at least some semblance of current major league talent, even if it is not equal. Loading up the farm with "prospects" (pick a number and assign it to them) used to come through the draft, not by sending away proven talent for someone else's draft picks. Get the Yanks or the Mets to cough up a decent reliever and give us a little hope in the deal, just not as much. Berrios in particular is too valuable to send packing for just hope; someone will give an actual player as well as hope if we don't back down. But then, I don't read the computer printouts, so I don't expect anyone to listen to me.

I haven't lost faith in the FO, because I can't lose something I never had. The winning percentage is what it is solely on a 307 home run season that will never be duplicated, and the post season record speaks for itself. They build teams by trading for prospects and signing free agents (not necessarily in that order). They give big money to hitters and skimp on pitchers, which gets you through the regular season, but not beyond. You very likely get my point by now; not a huge fan and never was. I guess it is in large part by the way they treated Molitor, doing everything humanly possible to sell off his better players, then firing him for not winning enough. Or was it because he didn't spend enough time in the computer room? Oh well, never mind. They want a team in their own image, and I am not sure if they believe they have found it yet. I have no faith whatsoever they will handle this trade deadline well, but I am dying to be proven wrong. We all shall see. Wish them good luck.

Trading Arraez straight up just doesn't make sense to me, entirely because of the return you would (wouldn't) get for a utility player. But if the time comes you have to trade a Buxton, Berrios, Kepler, etc., he would make an enticing player to include in a package deal. When a team has to pay out contracts the size that these guys will command, a cheap player under control who can hit might be the ticket to get a much better return.

I guess I am showing my age, but I remember a time when that was pretty much all teams did; if I had a need in one area, and a surplus in another area, I would look for a team that needed what I have and have what I need. If all I wanted to do was dump salary and wait for my farm to produce, I would sell contracts, not acquire more farm players. If you could build a winning club by acquiring other teams draft choices and combining them with your own, who would give up theirs? You trusted your scouts and draft team and filled holes through trades I have always been a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of guy; looking back, I just don't see where it was broken, so I still feel it is the best way to go. But you are probably right, no one else does it that way anymore. And I guess I am old enough to be very tired of always being the seller in July, then filling holes by buying 2nd tier free agents in the off season (the obvious exception being Cruz) and hope they regain their form for us.

Those 4 aren't going to attract anything by themselves, but packaged with an actual desired player they might get a player in return. We have to decide right now if we are going to sign long term Berrios, Buxton, Rogers, and even Duffy. They all become free agents after next year. Whomever we decide we are not going to commit to long term, trade now and package other players with them and demand major league talent in return; enough giving up real major league talent for "prospects" who may or may not ever see Target field. We have a decent nucleus to work around if we get players who can play now if we have to lose guys, but not if we get minor league guys in return.

Well, I guess we will never know if they were considering trading him by the deadline. It will make for an interesting off season, because you either sign him long term or trade him while he still has value, and that value just dropped with that pitch. And with his injury history, is Pohlad going to commit to the amount of money it would take? Considering he has Berrios in the same situation, probably costing even more money to sign long term. And Rogers. And Duffey........all of them free agents after 2022 season and pretty big parts of the current team. Where is the money coming from? Dropping other parts? This may very well alter whatever long term plans they had, and we will probably never know what they were. But it sure will be fun speculating. Get well soon, Bux!

I would love to speculate on trades and pick ups, rosters, and payroll, but the 400 pound gorilla in the room is the looming union contract status. From what I have read, there may be a lockout or strike if the contract is not settled and no one knows what this will do to any free agent signings. Add to that the fact Jim Pohlad has lost a considerable amount in 2020 and stands to lose a bundle this year as well, it might mean a cut back in contract commitments until all is settled. Might be going with a lot of younger players making the minimum or close to it in the near future.

I don't know, I may be a majority of one here, but I haven't been impressed since the day the boy wonder computer kids showed up at Target Field. The first thing they did was sell the farm the first two years, for "prospects", screwing Molitor the most, then firing him the first year they can get away with it so they can bring in another computer junkie. They sign a group of free agents in 2019 and virtually all of them over achieve, resulting in a record for home runs. They juggle free agent pickups and drop offs for 2 years, thinking they have all the makings of a roster in their own image. Well I, for one, have seen the image and I have no idea to this day what it is. I have said one other time, we have 7 outfielders (counting all the injured), 4 catchers (counting Austidillo) and have switched around our infield every which way you can looking for something that fits. And don't get me even thinking of the pitching staff (uuggggg). There is too much talent on this roster for it to be looking this bad. Quit juggling free agents, lineups, positions, and relief rotations and play your best players where they perform the best. In the meantime, you have more than enough talent to trade for holes we need filled......NOT "prospects".

As bad as the pitching has been, it is not the sole reason for the team decline. At times it wouldn't really matter what the pitching was or wasn't; you have to score runs to win, too, and the team has scored 3 runs or less in exactly half the games played so far. That used to be a big stat (3 or less and 4 or more) until all the analytics took its place. That is starting to improve as of late, and hopefully the pitching will too. But it may be too late for the immediate future; looks like we will be sellers come July.

I guess I am showing my age again, but the kid is 25 and in the prime of his physical life, and he can't throw more than 63 pitches??? There is a reason we can't keep players on the field; they baby them so as not to get hurt, and, as such, they are not in good enough condition to not get hurt. Sounds like a Yogi Berra commercial. Baldelli has a managing philosophy that says Plan A is to use anywhere from 3 - 5 pitchers a game, depending on how long he allows the starter to go. That plan is in place 162 games a year. No such thing as a complete game, that would mean facing the lineup a 4th time and we all know what his computers say about that. And the way he juggles the lineup, both the batting order and the positions they play, no one can get a true feel for their place. It is like we have 4 or 5 starters and 8 utility players. It was easy to manage when the team hits 307 home runs; when that drops, not as easy, and we are seeing that now. Let the starters be starters, not long relievers, and use your pen when it is needed for something other than to manage pitch counts. And let your players get comfortable in a position they excel at instead of 3 or 4 they are adequate at. And use the computer as an aide, not a manual. Bring back baseball.

To me, it is simple. They gave up on him because their analytics told them to. The boy wonders of the 21st century do what their computers tell them to, and there will be times they get burned because of it. And not only on who they give up on, but who they sign as well. And not just pitching........oh, don't get me started.

I don't know, I have a feeling I am going to be a majority of one here, but I would sign him to an extension. Seriously. 31 isn't THAT old, and I have seen enough injuries taking a player out for an entire season to know a percentage don't come back all the way. Add to that the fact that the minor league season was wiped out last year, and Lewis won't have played any length of time in 2 years. He may need a lot more seasoning if he comes back at full strength at all. And he is young enough to give him time to take that seasoning (as well as the team keeping control of him longer). We didn't sign Simmons for his bat, and his glove will be good for at least a couple of more years. A 2 year extension at a fair price (if he will even sign it), and see how the heir comes along.

Let's face it: the pending free agents are not going to get much in return, precisely because they are pending free agents. We need to start looking to lock up players who will be free agents in the next year or two, (Berrios , Buxton, and Duffey come to mind) or trade them now while they still have enough team control to get something in return. Tim has the right idea when it comes to packaging players and maximizing their value. Other scenarios as well could be drawn up, but the point is the same; don't wait for players to become "pending free agents" before signing or trading them. And don't be afraid to package players and demand something in return other than A and AA hopefuls.

This FO appears to have 2 thought processes when it comes to putting a roster together. Sign free agents as stop gaps, and trade for and draft prospects, hoping to develop a major league roster in the future. I have never understood why trading major league talent for major league talent is SO 20th century. If the Graterol trade did nothing else, it reminds us of the days when a team would look to improve through trades (and I don't mean trading away salaries for prospects, improving the team someday). Counting the players on the IL, we have 7 outfielders, 4 catchers (if you count the turtle). and at least 4 or 5 guys who have played first base at one time or another and DH'd at one time or another. We can't find a single team in major league baseball that would be open to a multiplayer trade, filling potential needs on both sides? Why is it always being buyers or sellers? How about mutual winners in a trade? Or is that showing my age?