jmlease1

Any plan that has Polanco going back to SS is a bad plan, IMHO. And as long as Trevor Story is still on the market, I'd be trying to sign him. If they're not going to land a top starter (and it sure looks like that's not going to happen for...reasons? hard to understand, that), then put some money at SS. I'm a big fan of Story, who is excellent defensively (and should be quality there for the next 5 years) and I think he'll hit just fine. I'm not opposed to doing a bridge signing until Royce Lewis is ready, but they have to sign a legitimate defender at SS this offseason because they simply can't go into the season with the options being Polanco, Nick Gordon, and hoping that Royce is ready by midseason. If that ends up being the plan then every time Falvey gets asked a question it should be prefaced with "We know you're a damned liar, but..."

I'm unenthusiastic about trading Larnach because right now you're selling low on him (you can't tell me that his value isn't depressed by his 2021) and that's the sort of prospect play that comes back to bite you hard. Arraez is interesting in that we don't really have a great spot for him, he's got bum knees which could cause him to go poorly, but he's also a proven MLB commodity. I'm more interested there than Larnach, since we're dealing from strength there (Miranda could take his ABs pretty easily I think). Garver would be easier to move if Jeffers had been more consistent this year. But Garver was really good when healthy and it would be hard to lose that bat when you don't really know if you're getting what you think you're getting with Jeffers. Cavaco is another "sell low" move that I don't like. Yes, he's struggled but this would make him a throw-in. I like the Oakland pitchers, but I'm not sure about the trades here. I would think dealing for short-time pitchers like this you'd be looking at some more A-ball guys for Oakland to replenish their system rather than swapping out guys who are about to get more expensive?

Eh. he's doing a little PR work since the owners locked out the players and it's being reported that way (accurately). He doesn't care if it makes the players mad, they already hate the owners and management anyway. He's just trying to get some people riled up against the players so it's not all "the owners are greedy bastards!" If he can get people to be as mad at the millionaire players as they are at the billionaire owners, he wins this round on PR games. The owners are a bunch of contemptible greedheads, generally, who give zero Fs about the fans or even "the franchise", really. They also know they can wait longer than the players, because they are very very rich especially if they stop paying the players. They'll even start furloughing the rest of the staff and blame the players for that too. Despite being frequently despicable, they won't be entirely wrong about everything. But everything that Manfred says will be carefully wordsmithed so that it framers the players in the worst light and the owners in the best. everyone involved will care deeply about the game and the fans...right until it costs their side money. The fans have no friends in this fight; we will be lucky to have allies of convenience, on occasion.

Look, I'm not going to pretend the owners are an aggrieved party here. They've been doing very well, and want no changes because right now things favor them overall. That said, Manfred isn't wrong in the points he's choosing to make. All of these changes would create competitive balance issues (some more than others). Reducing revenue sharing? When there's already a huge problem with relative imbalances between franchises? Oof. Obviously, Manfred is just trying to get some marketing out to start the finger pointing...but he's not wrong about this particular set of things in this framework. Whether or not how they impact competitive balance also isn't the only thing that matters, either...

Meh, I'm less worried about the bullpen, and the fact that Rogers and Duffey are FA at the end of the season is a non-issue to me for this season. A bullpen of Rogers, Duffey, Thielbar, Cotton, Moran, and Jax is a pretty good start. Bring back Minaya at a good price and find another projectable RHP to drop in there and we're looking at what should be a solid bullpen, but also one where there are very few scholarships and guys who aren't performing can be sent back to AAA or cut as they dig for more guys who can make it work. (this is basically the rays strategy every year, and considering how fungible 2/3 of relievers are, it makes a lot of sense) But for any bullpen to survive, they'll need innings from the starters and we're nowhere near that yet. If we make a good trade for one of Oakland/Cincinatti/Arizona's quality starters, I'm going to feel a lot better about taking a flyer on Dylan Bundy.

Kershaw ain't coming here. Stroman ain't coming here, sadly. I would like Rodon, but that can't be the top move. If the pitching reinforcements are Rodon, Bundy, and Pineda, then I'm not impressed. At all. (And I'm someone who wanted Pineda back) Too many health risks sitting in there. And frankly if they're shopping in the budget bin for all the pitching, then I'd better see an announcement of Trevor Story coming to town, because we gonna need the help.

Context matters. Right now this looks like a "meh" sort of move that's closer to lottery ticket than solid signing, and after the botch up with Happ and Shoemaker last season, the Twins FO hasn't earned a lot of benefit of the doubt that they can knock out a bounce back season. The cost is fine, and if Bundy is healthy and keeping the ball in the park then he's a solid pitcher. He finished the season a heck of lot better than he started it, but he also didn't pitch in September, and it's fair to be worried about any shoulder injury from a pitcher, especially one you've just bought low on. As part of a bigger design to fill up the rotation, I'm ok with this. As a consolation prize for missing on apparently every front line starter with consistent track records of success, this is trash. If every one of the top 15 (20?) FA pitchers sign with someone else, then the Twins damn well better deal for someone or they're damn liars about competing in 2022.

I'm fine with this? Stashing Cave in Saint Paul is fine by me; I just didn't want him on the 26-man. Paying him a bit extra to keep him that way is ok. Megill is interesting, and I think Seth's point is right on: Wes probably thinks that he can improve one breaking pitch and get better performance and consistency by simplifying him down to basically two pitches as a reliever. If he busts, we're not really out much and he's easy to cut and move on from. But there's some things to like about him as a righty reliever, so why not take a flyer and see what he looks like in spring training?

Ellsbury isn't really a good comp, though. Yes, he plays the same position as Buxton, and had some injury issues...but Ellsbury was 30 when he signed the deal with the Yankees and they made the mistake of assuming that his flukiest season where he had a slugging % far and away better than anything he had ever done was representative of his true value. It's also important to note that Ellsbury averaged 130 games a season for the Yankees between 2014-2017; the real problem was he was only an above average hitter in one of those 4 seasons. Gary Matthews Jr signed his big deal after his first all-star caliber season, which came when he was 31. The Angels should have been concerned about the fact they were giving a 5 year deal to a player entering his age 32 season who had rarely been above average at the plate in his 20s, whether healthy or not. Jeffrey Hammonds had some warning signs too: huge batting average spike from playing in Colorado (the splits are instructive here OPS of 1.116 at home vs .741 on the road in 2000) that should have made people wary of his production levels thereafter. He was a first-time (and completely undeserving) all-star that year as well; his contract sure looks like a result of someone in MKE not understanding the ol' Coors Field Effect from back then. The injury history shows some similarities, but Hammonds was never, ever as good as Buxton, healthy or not. There's definite risk to the Twins in signing Buxton to this deal, but Ellsbury, Matthews, and Hammonds were all older when they signed those big deals, and only Ellsbury was ever in Buxton's league as a player. The Mauer comp is a bit better of one, but you can't predict concussions and until that nailed Mauer he was still turning in all-star seasons. beyond that...the Twins are better protected against the risk this time. Mauer's deal was $23M per signed 10 years ago. Buxton is only guaranteed $15M per starting today.

I would have given Ray the deal he got from Seattle in a heartbeat. Hell, I would have trumped it by $5M and smiled. Someone call me when they sign someone, because being "linked" to anyone is meaningless at this point. Sign or don't, but stop trying to pretend a lowball crap offer counts.

The thing is with a lot of these bullpen arms, they're looking at getting around $1M in arbitration, which isn't far off the league minimum. That's pretty fungible if they need a roster spot (trade/cut/DFA) so while they might not make your socks roll up and down, they're also pretty low risk. The riskier one is Taylor Rogers, if he's not healthy (finger injuries can be weird). If he's healthy, he's worth the tender and will be tradable if the Twins season goes south and likely important in the bullpen if they're contending. I'm also not someone who thinks spending big FA $$ on the bullpen is usually worth it, so all I'm looking for there is a couple of righty arms who can compete to add in there. I like a lot of our options in putting together a successful bullpen, despite how much of a mess it was at the start of the season in 2021 (it finished doing just fine). I would bet that we tender either Minaya or Coloumbe but not both, but that's really just a guess.

I'll be honest: the Twins being "linked" to Ray does nothing for me. Should they be interested in the reigning Cy Young winner? Yes. Does it mean anything for them to be linked with him if he doesn't sign? No. Being linked to any of the top FA starters means very little if they can't sign one. Would love to get him. Will not be impressed with being linked to him if he goes elsewhere.

I love this deal for Twins fans. Byron Buxton will be in MN and not kicking butt for the Dodgers or the Mets or god only knows whom. If Buxton is happy with it, then that's great for him. It gives him life-changing, generational wealth, which is terrific. I don't care about whether it costs ownership; the Pohlads are doing fine and will always do fine. From a franchise perspective and being a team with more limits on payroll than some other teams, this is great too. Huge bonuses for MVP? Sure. If Byron Buxton wins an MVP, he'll deserve every penny of those multi-million bonuses and the club should be happy to pay it. I had assumed that the sticking point was escalators, not bonuses; if they were getting jammed up on stuff like this earlier in the summer then someone needs to give some wakeup calls to the FO, because good lord this is pretty ideal for the team. Sure, you don't have the same cost certainty when there could be a multi-million dollar bonus hanging out there, but a) if he wins it the revenues will probably be pretty strong, and b) you could simply escrow a year's potential bonus and wait on it if you're that concerned about payroll certainty. The PA bonuses are also ones that the team should be thrilled to pay, because if Buxton is on the field that much, then the potential $2.5M increase is worth it. Byron Buxton could be the best player in all of baseball and the most we'll have to pay him will be like $25M. And with the way it's structured, this is a deal that's going to age really well. But mostly, I'm just super happy that the most singularly exciting player in my Twins lifetime (and I'm not young) is staying with the team. Losing Byron Buxton because we wouldn't pay him a good, but under market contract would have been soul-crushing. He's one of our guys. We've seen him from the start, and there's something wonderfully joyous about having a player who combines such great skill with excitement and happiness be on your team for 10+ years of their career all the way from the start, and uniquely painful if they leave during their prime. Today is a great day for Twins fans.

Nathan has a good case, but it's tough on relievers, and Nathan has the extra whammy of overlapping with Rivera. I think Jaffe is doing a good job finding some good metrics to help evaluate relievers to separate the wheat from the chaff, though and it may help him out a little. I hope he gets enough to stick on the ballot and give people time to consider his case. I don't think he makes it any time soon.

pitching is also more likely to get snatched up in the Rule 5, though. Unless you play SS, CF, or C any team selecting a position player in the Rule 5 has to be pretty damn sure they will hit immediately, and those guys tend to get added (see Miranda, Jose) once they break out. Pitchers are easier to hide. You can take a starter who is still working on that 3rd pitch they need to make it in MLB and stash them in the bullpen.

Yep. Still small samples on all the pitchers, but all of them were sent down to the AFL with a "show us something" mandate, and Laweryson was the only one who really stepped up. The rest still have some work to do. I'm still nervous about Wallner's K rate because if he's racking up this many against lower competition then I'm nervous about his ability to eventually translate that power to MLB. (see also, Rooker, Brent) But he did a nice job in the AFL and deserves his top 20 prospect status. Looking forward to seeing how he does in AA

I think this is right: Enlow would have gotten grabbed up in the Rule 5 by a team who would have stashed him on the 60-day IL and paid him to rehab. It's a worthy flyer to take on someone with so much upside and an even easier pitching stash than most Rule 5 picks, because they wouldn't have needed to even use a slot on the 26-man because of his injury. They made the right call in protecting him, I think. He's going to hold a slot on the 40-man until the season gets going and we can shift him to the IL, but the talent is there and I'm not ready to give up on Enlow.

I just don't see it as a good fit any longer. I love Nellie Cruz and he was great while he was here, but they need to invest money in SS and starting pitching (and hopefully a new contract for Buxton), and they have hitters who could use time at DH (Donaldson, Arraez, Sano, Garver especially but even Rooker, Larnach, and Kirilloff could see time there). We're better off doing DH by committee at this point and putting the money elsewhere. $12M gets you another guy for the rotation. Or two experienced relievers. More importantly, another $12M allows you go go big on a guy like Marcus Stroman after he turns down the initial offer...

I would add Enlow (I think a bad/rebuilding team will take him, then stash him on the IL for a while and rehab him in the bullpen at the MLB level), and then the real questions are Vallimont (who has the stuff to compete in a bullpen role right now and the control to show new levels of hilarity in strange pitching lines) and Palacios (who plays a premier defensive position, might be able to survive as a utility guy on a bad team right now, and still has intriguing tools). I like Severino a lot, but I think Seth is right that he's not someone who could stick on an MLB roster right now, even a bad one. Hamilton is interesting...I could definitely see another team grabbing him; the real question is whether the twins think he's ready to step back into a bullpen role right now. If they're ready to commit to him, then you protect him. Otherwise, he's probably gone because a team will pay the $200K on him in the Rule V and if he flames out in the bullpen you can offer him back and it's fine either way: either you get 1/2 your money back on a guy who busted for you, or you can send him back to the minors to try and get right.

You make the calls, you get the credit when it works and the heat when it fails. The Berrios deal is making them look poor; I can understand the principle of not wanting to go 7 years on arms, but you can't apply blanket rules to anything in baseball. There are always exceptions to everything and the deal Berrios appears to have signed is one the Twins should have been willing to do. they got a good return on him in trade, but if Martin & Woods-Richardson don't pan out, then it's meaningless. The Buxton one is making them look even worse, because it sounds like they really are trying to low ball him and find an excuse to deal him, and that's not going to sit well with the fanbase, nor should it. If feeling some heat on this causes them to get a deal done...good.

I'm much more interested in dealing a couple of A-ball lottery tickets than I am someone like Larnach, since this is for a player with only 1 year left under contract, no matter how good the rate. Larnach may have had a difficult first season, but he's still very talented with many more years of control, and I don't think I have much interest in trading a near-MLB ready corner OF for 1 year of a starter who has been quite good recently but didn't become a regular starter in the majors until he was 30. He's a quality pitcher and if Oakland would take Strotman and a couple of lottery ticket A-ball guys, I'd be interested. Sign Stroman, trade for Bassitt, re-sign Pineda and the rotation looks pretty good all of a sudden, and so does the team if they can fill in SS. But I still like Larnach a lot, and I'm unenthusiastic about giving him up for what might be a 1-year rental.

I would be happy if we got Stroman at around this number. He'd be a very good fit at the top of the rotation, and while he may not be the flamethrower some people want, it's not like he doesn't get Ks. His FIP is consistently good and if we put a solid D behind him he's going to do very well. When stroman keeps the ball in the park (which he generally does) and doesn't issue too many free passes, he's terrific and I want him.

Wallner is doing exactly what is expected of him, which is good. He still needs to find a way to keep his K's manageable as he advances in the system, but he's showing he can definitely do damage when he makes contact and has a good eye at the plate. I expect a prospect of his age and ability to rake a bit in the AFL, but it's still good to see it. The pitchers are all a little hard to evaluate because it's such small sample sizes with them. One bad inning can blow up a lot of their numbers and it take more innings than they're going to get to bring things back down. Laweryson still seems like he might be a guy and the AFL all-star nod helps his case. Sisk seems to be finding his command and has been much improved, and Funderburk is definitely improved as well. Featherstone...maybe he can play wide receiver. Disappointed in the position guys outside of Wallner; none of them are hitting enough to impress, and it feels like their relative lack of playing time shows a little what people think of them as well.

You've gone from saying "his defense needs lots of work" and he should be traded for it to it's "sub-par". sub-par in Jeffers' case means he's a bit below average (by some metrics). He's far from the Butcher of Cairo back there and has a bright future as a catcher in MLB. You want to trade him because the value we could extract for him is worth moving him now rather than later...fine. But he's not a bad defender back there. It's really hard to find catchers that offer both offensive and defensive value. Jeffers has shown the skills to be one of those guys.

His defense is solid. Both Fangraphs & Baseball Reference like him and he passes the eye test. He's not Yadier Molina, but he improved his throwing and was nearly league average in catching stealers. There's room for improvement, but he's not bad.