jmlease1

I like Cron, but this is a perfectly reasonable move. His production is fairly easy to replace, it's one of the easiest positions to fill in MLB, and the Twins have a variety of internal options, plus there's a reasonable question about what his health looks like (you can be ready for spring training without actually being "ready"). I don't think there's going to be a big market for him, so even if the Twins want him back they should be able to do it at a lower number. Hildenberger sucked this year. And sucked the second half of 2018. He's a marginal player; even fWAR has him as a replacement level guy. I don't think he was cut for $, I think he was dropped for the 40-man spot and that spot is unfortunately more useful than Trevor Hildenberger. It's easy to suggest that he was overworked and that's why he fell off in 2018...but was he, really? 73 appearances and 73 innings isn't some absurd number. (for example, the hated Yankees had 2 relievers make 72 & 73 appearances last year) Maybe the real answer is, he got figured out. That he's just another guy in the 'pen. Hate to say it, but that's probably the reality on Trevor Hildenberger. I like Adrianza at $1.6M, especially if last year's performance at the plate wasn't a fluke. Positional flexibility, switch-hitter...he's a nice asset as a utility guy.

Regression to the mean is always a big thing in these projections, which is probably why Kepler is only projected to rack up 3.5 fWAR; considering Kepler took a big leap forward last season, but had improved his fWAR every year for the past 4, the regression is probably overstated assuming good health. I'm not always the biggest fan of Fangraphs defensive ratings, which seems to be hurting Kepler as well. #2 & #3 are reasonable, but I suspect Buxton clears if he plays 140 games. Man, I hope he plays 140 games. #4 seems reasonable. If Arraez can get within shouting distance of an .800 OPS, I think everyone will smile and call it a solid sophomore season. #5: I think we all want more out of Garver if he keeps hitting like this. Rest is good, but we can find another 15-20 games for him to play, even if it's not catching. Cruz is probably going to need more days off this year with the wrist, so throw him some DH and 1B time to keep his bat in the lineup. #6: all seem reasonable; some of them may not get that AB with the Twins. I think Lewis is the least likely because he needs a good, healthy year in the minors and there's no need to rush him. Larnach is the next least likely just because there are quite a few OFs ahead of him, so unless he really crushes it, he'll probably have to get in line.

I think someone takes a flyer on Jax, maybe on Reed as well. So it goes. I could see a team wanting to grab Wander Javier, but I can't see him sticking on a 26-man all year, especially after really struggling at the plate last year. Yes, the tools are all there. Yes, he was a highly rated prospect. Yes, we spent $4M on him. No, he's not capable of being on an MLB team this year. The basic problem is a) you give up a 26-man spot for a player that can't really help you, you screw up the kid's development by him not getting the game time he needs. If a team does select him and hold him all year, the next year he has to stay on the 40-man...and go back to A-ball, after having what was probably an completely unproductive time in MLB. Now he's 22 in low-A, behind the development curve and still occupying a 40-man spot with a real challenge to get to the pros. I think Javier stays where he is.

I think most writers think the Baines induction was a mistake run by a committee of biased insiders supporting one of their guys. I don't think it will lower standards in the mind of most; I truly doubt most voters are looking at Harold Baines and going, "welp, if Baines is in, we have to vote in anyone better than him". Because dang, then a LOT of guys are getting in...

Jeter's case is undeniable. he's a no-doubter, even if his defense was overrated for most of his career, he was still a fantastic player and offensive force especially when SS was still a position that teams were willing to ignore offense on. easy pick. Larry Walker is also an easy one for me, although I recognize it's harder for others. walker was a true 5-tool player who was also able to turn it into results. He was a great hitter (and not just at Coors, where he put up video game numbers), an excellent defensive player, a terrific baserunner and the only reason he wasn't in almost immediately was a) he played in Colorado in his prime, and he struggled to stay healthy. walker only played 150+ games once. Only made it in 140+ 4 times in 16 "full" seasons. but when he played...man, was he good. Power, patience, and contact as a hitter. It wasn't just Coors; Larry Walker hit .322 playing his last year in Montreal. he could hit lefties, rightes...he could hit on Mars if you asked him to. Vlad Guerrero glided in to the HoF and the only thing Vlad truly did better than Larry Walker was stay on the field. If Vlad is worthy (and I'm fine with it), how is Walker not? Even with the injuries, I'd take Walker in a choose-up game every time. Equal as hitter, Walker was a significantly better baserunner and defender. Vlad had an amazing arm; Walker's was as good and Walker had a ton of range to go with it. I hope Walker gets in. Scott Rolen is another easy pick for me. 3B are underrepresented in the HoF and there are stars that deserve the nod. Rolen is one of them. A sterling defensive player, he also brought a sturdy bat to the yard. His 2004 season wins the MVP race easily if he's in the AL that year, but 3 St.L players (Rolen, Pujols, and Edmonds) all having elite years probably didn't help (Bonds was a deserving winner, Beltre could have taken it too). but it remains an amazing year. health is the only strike against Rolen; if he had been able to stay on the field more we might be talking about him as the best 3B of his generation instead of Beltre, but again: longevity and health are Beltre's advantages. Lop of the first season for both men (where neither came close ot a full season) and compare the first 16 years of their careers: Beltre comes out ahead on bWAR, Rolen takes it on rate stats. In terms of total value, Rolen and Ron Santo are almost identical, and there's no doubt in my mind Santo's a worthy HoFer. reluctantly, I would probably vote for Schilling for on field performance. but I'm not going to lose any sleep over people leaving him off the ballot and invoking the character clause on him for everything he's shown post-baseball. Great pitcher. Big game performer. Rotten human (JMO). A tough call for me. Very hard to separate the things he's said (and many of the things he's done) off the field. I'm on the record as being no on Clemens & Bonds. Age them off the ballot and let some future committee decide. I think they were probably worthy pre-steroids, but I also think they're both a disgrace. Let this be their pennance: they don't get in on the writer's ballot and have to play to a committee down the road. I struggle on Andruw Jones: the last 5 years of his career don't do anything for his case, it's a relatively short peak...but so was Joe Mauer's. CF is a pretty demanding position, as seen by Buxton's inability to stay on the field. Transcendent defensive player. Great 10 year run. Game changer in his 20's. I'm leaning yes on him, but i understand the no's. Omar Vizquel is a no for me. Loved watching him play; he was probably the most fun shortstop to watch since Ozzie Smith...but he wasn't anywhere near the player Ozzier was. Omar has a lot of highlights, but is a bit overrated defensively, IMHO. Almost certainly won more Gold Gloves than he deserved. Pretty bad offensive player. No power. Played forever, but is that HoF? He was literally never the best SS in the AL; even in his best season he was never higher than 3rd. He was never an MVP and never deserved one. 3-time all-star, who really only earned it once even with extra credit for defense thrown in. he was very good, he was fun to watch, and he was skilled enough to keep playing long after most of his peers had move on...but I vote no on Omar. Helton is another one I'm leaning yes on. I know he's another Coors kid, but OPS+ adjusts for park factors and he was still insane. That 5 year run from '00-'04 is ludicrous: 163,160,148,165,165 for his OPS+! (Joe Mauer's MVP year was 171) He wasn't quite Frank Thomas or Jeff Bagwell but it's not that far off. I hope his candidacy gets a looooong look. I lean no on Pettite: lot of good years, only a couple of great ones, plus the 'roids. manny is another no: might have been the best pure hitter in the game at his peak, but was an awful OF, hurt his team with the antics, and is an unquestioned cheater. billy wagner is the one other guy I look at: more dominant than hoffman and if "closer" still matters...he's worth a good argument.

Avila would be nice if Castro isn't returning. Rich Hill is fine as a 5th starter on the cheap if you've already signed a Wheeler or Ryu and added someone else via trade or signing for the 4th spot, but that's where the expectation and contract scope should be on him. pencil him for #5 at a contract where you can cut him if he's injured/cooked, but if he's still got the stuff to get people out you can space him out and keep him fresh. Kendrick...might be interesting if Cron goes, but he's probably going to want more than 1 year and had a big enough season last year that he could get it. Not sure he's worth a multi-year, would probably prefer to ride Cron for a bounceback year.

I think they may let him go on arbitration, but I think he'll still be in the mix to come back at a lower number. I'm not opposed to that; I do like Cron and would like to see him back. I think his D was better than advertised, especially before the injury, and I think he's a credible hitter (interesting and different approach than a lot of guys too; he hits line drives rather than fully embracing the "launch angle" revolution so he might be someone who isn't impacted significantly if there's a ball reversion). That said, it's not like there aren't guys who can fill the role. I'm not so enthusiastic about the idea of "meh, just platoon it with Marwin, La Tortuga, Adrianza, and whomever else is on the roster today", though. None of the guys named there really hits well enough to be a true asset at 1B, Marwin is the only one who might be a plus defender (not sure if either of the other two is even average, though 1B D isn't usually a big difference maker). there seems to be a level of "who cares, it's only CJ Cron" to this exercise, and that could be a mistake. making yourself a contender is often about players turning in star performances, but it's also about raising your floor and not having terrible performers suck up a ton of time. Even with the injuries, Cron wasn't bad (1.4 bWAR); Astudillo for all that he's stupendously fun was much less valuable ( -0.2 bWAR). the Twins did a great job last year in "raising the floor" on their team and not giving ABs to bad players. Cron's ceiling might not be super high, but his floor is pretty solid, i think.

Wha-? How exactly did we lose on Dozier? Are you assuming that Dozier would have magically returned to 2017 form if only he played for the Twins? Or is this a claim that the Twins should have been able to get more for him, somehow, even though he hasn't been a quality starter in 2 years (and it sure seems that other teams looked at him and saw a player that was injured and likely to decline back then). And the idea that we can't compete with the White Sox roster just because they signed a good catcher is pretty silly, don't you think? We were 30 games better than they were. I'll take bets right now that the Twins will finish with a better record than the White Sox in 2020. Let's not pretend they have a great lineup or much of a rotation right now, ok? (Giolito was great last year, but also pitched so much better than he ever had before that it might be a fluke year)

They've done a good job overall on dealing MLB players for prospects. The Pressly deal was a miss, even if Celestino makes it, in retrospect because the Twins window for contending opened faster than they thought and Pressly would have been a serious impact arm and right now Alcala looks like a guy who needs to transition to relief to make it to MLB. Celestino has defensive skills who might never hit his way out of the minors. It seemed like we lost that deal at the time and it still does; one of those two needs to take a leap soon or it's a definite loss. The rest of those deals are good ones, especially since all the players we dealt were FA at the end of the season and we weren't making a run in that year. Sure Escobar would have been a nice fit this year instead of Marwin Gonzalez, but the Twins tried to resign him and he decided to stay in AZ. Even if we had kept him around he might have left for another club, so counting this year's numbers against the deal is silly. Sergio Romo showed how fungible old closers are so getting a decent upside pitcher for Rodney is a good one too. I think they've overall got a solid track record on dealing MLB for prospects. Jury is still out on dealing prospects for MLB; the Romo acquisition was solid enough. The Dyson one was a miss., but not a major one. Neither really cost all that much; if Jaylin Davis was still in the organization would he be on the 40 man? Honestly, I think not, so it's hard to get on the FO too much for swinging and missing on Dyson. But they haven't put together a really significant deal packaging a bunch of prospects for a major piece. They're showing they know how to flip guys who aren't in their long term plans for assets, but the next test is whether they can package the right combo into an impact player and call it a win for the franchise.

I was a little surprised they added Celestino; the FO must be pretty high on him. I like Jax, but there's reason to believe he could slide through in part because teams seem to be looking for higher upside guys when considering Rule V picks. Beyond that, even if he gets selected it might be tough for him to stick on the 26-man all season. but that's why i didn't think they'd protect Celestino: even on a bad team he's probably just a defensive replacement who hits very poorly next year. he needs quite a bit of work still. I think they're making the right call on Raley and Blankenhorn: both are getting close to their MLB debut, both have some trade value, both have some positional flexibility that makes them easier to select. We'd lose one of them for sure. I think Javier slides through. It's tough on some of these international players who come over at 16-17 because they really need the development time. Javier isn't even 21 yet and already missed a full season of development time due to a serious injury. Absent the injury, he's either on his way or at AA...or he's no longer a top prospect and has been exposed. the injury makes it a lot tougher to know who he's going to be, and really hard to put him on an MLB roster for the full year. Reasonable decisions by the Twins.

I feel like it's going to be 3 or 4: Duran, Chalmers, Raley, & Blankenhorn (and Chalmers is the most on the bubble for me). Duran is an easy call, Raley is likely MLB-ready and would almost certainly be selected, and Blankenhorn is close enough that a bad team might be willing to stash him. Chalmers is still wild to be effective, but again: a bad team might take a flier on him. I would not be stunned if it was only Raley & Duran. I'm increasingly of the opinion that Jax doesn't have the peripherals to make a team want to dedicate a spot on their 26-man roster for the whole year and he'll slide through, but I could be very wrong. feels like the decision on this comes down to protecting high-upside arms and ready for their debut position players; for everyone else the value of the 40-man spot is too high (and so is the value on the 26-man roster)

Eddie Rosario received comparisons to Kirby Puckett, Mike Trout, & Christian Yelich in this thread. (I'm aware that some of those had the caveat that Eddie needed to add walks to deserve that comp, but still) I think that shows the range of how people value Eddie Rosario. I tend to agree with Nick, I'm afraid. The lack of patience and control of the strike zone is problematic for me, especially because players with that tendency often don't age well. Maybe Eddie was nicked up this year, but that also shows the downside to his approach at the plate: if he's not 100% can he be a plus player? When he's going, he looks like he can hit anything. It's fun as hell. But when he's not going there are long stretches where he can't hit anything. I think his overall value is a tough one. he is good in the clubhouse. he does have big moments. he can carry a team for a stretch. But he's also not a consistent player and the low OBP really hurts him. The power is great, his arm is still excellent, and he can play in both corner spots but his routes have not improved and he made more than few routine catches into adventures or botches last season and it's fair to be concerned that his speed may never come back up. He's never been BAD...but overall he's been a pretty average starter for the twins over 5 years. As he gets more expensive, the concerns are real. this is how guys like CJ Cron are ending up on the market. If your over/under on rosario's bWAR is 1.5 do you want to pay that player $6M? What about if it gets to $8M? Frankly CJ and Eddie are players in a similar sort of situation: useful players on a club, but with limitations. They play positions that are some of the easiest to find replacement. Their price is getting more expensive to where if they have a good year, it's worth it, and if they have a bad one...maybe not. Eddie's the better player and younger to boot but this is not a new story. I think the temperature gets hotter around Rosario's future because we've seen him for 5 years, he's been one of our guys for his whole career to date. I'd argue that makes it easier to see him with Rosario-colored glasses for some, but also easier to feel the frustration mount for others. (see also; Gibson, Kyle)

Gibson is a pretty complicated case because his track record isn't entirely indicative of who he is right now as a pitcher. He made a substantial change to his approach a couple years ago and it had really good results for him. He was giving up fewer hits, getting more Ks and still kept the ball in the park at a respectable rate. Last season he went out there every 5th day or so, but clearly wasn't fully healthy and there's no doubt the ulcerative colitis (combined with the offseason illness) really impacted him. Despite that, he was a pretty solid pitcher in the first half. the peripherals for those first 3 months or so look pretty solid. I'd love to have a healthy Kyle Gibson back as a 4th or 5th guy on a cheap deal. But I don't think he's going to be available for a cheap deal, and I don't know if he's going to be healthy. I certainly don't want him on a multi-year pact right now. 1 year, $6-8M? I'd probably take the flyer on him getting healthy and pitching in the 4 or 5 spot in the rotation. $10-12M? I think someone else can give him that deal and we can find his performance elsewhere. I like the guy, and respect the way he a) overhauled his entire approach to starting, and stepped up and took the ball every 5th day last season. He's got talent and can get guys out. But I don't think there's going to be a match here any longer, because the risk factors coupled with salary is going to be too high.

I would pick Garver off this list too, just because he had a Bonds-ian HR rate. I think he'll have a fine year as the primary catcher, but he literally was at 1 HR every 10 ABs. Expecting that to continue is unrealistic. Second choice is Arraez, because the BABIP was really high, sophomore slumps are real (especially as sophisticate teams get god tape on players at the MLB level), but I don't expect him to fall off the table. He's got great control of the strike zone and the fact that he doesn't expand the zone to hack at everything (even though he can get the bat on almost anything he wants) will serve him well. The bigger question will be his power potential; it's never been an area of strength for him and he was nearly at career highs in SLG% this year. It wouldn't take a big dropoff for him to show real regression, but I do like his future. I think Kepler and Sano are the least likely to regress, and could still take another step forward. Kepler wasn't hitting a bunch of cheap ones and still has room to refine his approach to rip some more line drives that could increase that low BABIP. Sano had a really rough stretch that dragged his total down and any dip in his SLG% could be matched by more selectivity at the plate. We'll see, but he's a legit slugger who could hit 50 HRs if he stays healthy. It's important to remember that with any projection system, they're almost always going to project a regression to the mean. It's really hard to predict who took a sustainable leap forward vs who had a fluke year. but every player on this list is young enough that their production could be sustainable. Garver & Kepler are the vets who never showed this before, but Polanco and Sano have. Arraez is a rookie, so anyone who absolutely knows about him needs to either be in Vegas or working in the FO...

I think smeltzer could be an effective bullpen piece, or as a 1-2 inning "opener". Which could be really useful! If odorizzi is back and struggles to get out of the 6th, maybe Smeltzer becomes his partner in games: Odo does 1-5, Smeltzer does 6-7, May/Duffy/Romo (who i still kinda want back)/Rogers combo finishes off 8-9. Instead of a long man that only gets used in blowouts, you've got 1-2 guys who you plan for them to go 2 innings when they get in the game, regardless of matchups. so maybe your pitching staff is set up more like this: 5 starters, 2 bridge guys, 5 for late & close. Your bridge guys never pitch on back to back days, but their expectation is that they're going to come in and give you 2 innings. maybe you still need that 13th pitcher based on your staff, but it's a bridge guy. I may be a crazy person, I admit it freely.

Look, I like Rosario but there simply no way you can look at his numbers as being "MVP candidate numbers". Mike Trout had 1/3 more HR in roughly the same amount of games with nearly 140 additional points in OBP and nearly 150 pts in SLG%. (while playing far superior defense at a much tougher position) That's an MVP season...and there's decent odds he loses out this year to Bregman. Rosario wasn't even one of the top three hitters on his own team this year, even taking defense completely out of it. He's a useful player, has at times been a good player, and the totality of his contributions (including staying healthy, which is a valuable skill) have been good for the Twins but there's simply no way he's an MVP candidate.

I think this is right. While I think Kirilloff is a better player than the options in AAA and will surpass them all, it doesn't mean that he's ready for MLB pitching. He won't be the first guy that gets a look for an injury replacement, but I think he does hit his way on to the roster at some point in 2020. I'm not worried about the drop in power; that was clearly related to the wrist injury and he should be fine after a winter to recover fully from the season. he looked great down the stretch again and the only real concern is that he might need to be a bit more patient at the plate. I'd prefer to see his OBP sitting in the .380 range or higher, but he's shown decent enough patience and you can't fault a kid for an aggressive approach when he's hit .362 before! I'm not looking to give Eddie Rosario the bum's rush out of town, but I feel a lot better about our ability to replace him in the lineup with a player like Kirilloff waiting in the wings. I like the fact that he can hit for a high average, keep the Ks reasonable, and still hit for power. Potentially a very dangerous bat with runners on base. I'm pegging him to get an audition in 2020 and get penciled in to start in 2021, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him hit is way onto the club and then refuse to let go (a la Luis Arraez).

The problem with Rosario is his defense just doesn't look like it's going to be very good going forward (two of the last three years his defensive runs saved/total zone rating metrics have put his dWAR into the tank) and with his plate discipline collapsing again he's become a decent player, not a cornerstone. If he could add one more BB per week and get his defense back to par, sure he's a plus starter. But the odds of his defense improving with his speed declining aren't great and he's had more years where he's a pure hacker at the plate than not. He's not a replacement level player, but he was a below average starter and there's legitimate reason to be concerned he's trending in the wrong direction. Much as I think relievers can be pretty fungible from year to year, Taylor Rogers is right in his prime. He looks like a perfect candidate to one of those old school "buy out the arbitration years for cost certainty" deals and maybe tack on one extra year. Rogers gets security and doesn't have to go through arbitration, the Twins get cost certainty and don't have to go through arbitration (and maybe another year of team control) and everyone is happy. I'd try for an extension with Sano; even if he can't stick at 3B long term, there's no question that he can play there for at least the next couple of seasons; 1B could be open by then, DH will almost certainly be open after Cruz's contract ends and his power absolutely plays. Yes, there are going to be big K stretches, but come one: the power plays. Sano isn't a juiced ball guy, he hits moonshots. He will get the walks, there's plenty of value there and the injury at the start of the season was a fluky thing. Yes, I want him extended; he might hit 50 dingers next year. Buxton...oh, Byron Buxton. Tough one. I love the guy, his D is amazing and it looked like he was figuring some things out at the plate. The health is a HUGE concern. I suspect he won't go for an extension because he'd be buying low on himself and I don't think his representation would advise it or he would accept it. It's worth exploring, but I don't see him accepting a deal that's based on his actual performance and with his health concerns and lack of MLB track record as a hitter, so I don't see an agreement. Berrios: absolutely extend him. He's a #1 starter in my mind (are there 20 starters out there you'd take over Jose Berrios?) and is a terrific anchor for the rotation. He makes his starts, he eats up innings, he gets Ks and is a tough pitcher. I want him in the rotation for the next 5 years minimum. Hopefully they can get it done, but he seems awfully willing to bet on himself.

Agreed on Jax; if you want to keep him you have to add him; he's definitely a guy who could pitch some middle relief for a crap team, or spot start. Duran is an easy call. Chalmers...man, I don't know. There's some interesting upside there, but his control is still rough. I feel like he's a guy who might get claimed but would end up being returned once a team realizes that they can't really send him out to mop up and he's not developing sitting on the back of the bench. But if he's claimed, does that screw up his development path so badly you might not even be able to get him straightened out? I think he might slide through, but the team seems high on him so maybe they don't want to take the risk. Raley and Blankenhorn are worth adding; both could contribute as soon as next season, there's at least some positional flexibility there...I think these are guys you want in your system for depth or trade at worst. Celestino...there's talent there, but there's no way he's ready to hit in the majors. Would a team claim him to sit as a defensive replacement all year? Seems unlikely to me. He's barely had a cup of coffee in high A. Kepler was a much higher rated prospect at the time, but the Twins also had a lot more chum on their 40-man, too. I think he slides through and isn't protected. Javier is the really tough call, I think. There's still so much potential, but he's still a looooong way away. I like the kid, but 40-man spots do have value. With more teams tanking and having the 26th slot could a team grab him and just stash him for the season? It's probably more likely now than it was 5 years ago, so i think he might get a spot. I think this is the hardest call of any of them.

It's true that 2013 is looking like a down year (although players like Tim Anderson and Hunter Dozier are certainly going to be adding value to their clubs for the next few years); only Aaron Judge has really emerged as a great player. 2014 is definitely looking much more productive already...but it doesn't change the fact that the Twins had a top 5 pick bust. But your math is a little arbitrary. here's what round 1 looked like post twins pick for bWAR in 2019 and career-wise for players with 2+ bWAR: Austin Meadows (3.8 in 2019, 3.6 career), Hunter Renfroe (2.6 & 6.2), Tim Anderson (4.0 & 10.2), Marco Gonzalez (3.2 & 5.4), Aaron Judge (5.4 & 18.6), Sean Manaea (1.4 & 8.7), Michael Lorenzen (2.0 & 4.4), Corey Knebel (0.3 & 4.3) Which doesn't even include Hunter Dozier, who was 2.1 bWAR in 2019 after a rough 2018. but Kohl Stewart was the start of a stretch that hasn't gone so great for the twins in drafts: Stewart, Nick Gordon (jury still out, looks like an MLB player to me in the next year either with the twins or elsewhere) and Tyler Jay (out of baseball). Two out of three years busting on your first round pick when all three of them fell between 4-6 is rough on an organization.

I like Hamels in that scenario. I do not like Hamels on a 3 year deal. I'm not sure I like Hamels on a guaranteed 2 year deal, with the velocity dipping and his distinct slide in the second half. I think you'd have to get serious about NBA-style "load management" with him to make sure he's effective come fall.

I was surprised at Gonsalves getting dropped, but the more I think about it, the less surprised I am. 2019 was a lost year and there were some really worrisome indicators in 2018, despite some good results. The jump in BBs in 2018 was a bad sign and his loss of control exploded when he got a taste in MLB. If the velocity is down, coming back off an injury year, at age 25 (not 26), with control problems, and the elbow is where the problem is...he's not looking like a great bet. He's looking like a AAAA player whose chance to be more is getting wiped out by injury. I held out a lot of hope on Kohl Stewart; I thought with his ability to keep the ball in the park and avoid hard contact, he might be a useful back of the rotation guy, but he just couldn't finish off batters. I still think there's room in this league for guys who don't rack up huge K totals, but you have to be able to get some, and Stewart just doesn't get enough. The other thing is, if you're going to give up contact you can't also hand out the free passes. It's too many base runners to survive, even if you can get a bunch of DPs. The WHIP for Stewart tells the story, i think; he never got it under 1.3 in any level past A-ball. he's a bust and another red flag on the dangers of taking a HS pitcher too high. I'm a big no on Perez coming back. Teams figured out the cutter once they got enough tape on it, and while the ability to throw a bunch of innings is in fact a skill, the twins should aim higher, even for a LH specialist, because for as good as he was against lefties, he got smoked against righties and I don't want to waste a spot on a LOOGY

Smart move by the Twins. $18M is a bit of an overpay for Odorizzi, but it's worth the premium for the 1 year deal if he accepts. I would prefer a 3 year deal with him at a lower AAV (3/$45?) but that might not be realistic. It might take a 4th year to induce him to sign a multi-year deal, or he might insist on a higher AAV. Regardless, this fills a spot in the rotation with a quality starter. If Jake Odorizzi is our #3 starter going into the season, that's not bad at all.

he takes walks and he's cheap. Can play both corner OF spots at need, DH, and can hit in any spot in the order without complaint. I wouldn't want to start a Grossman, but there have been years where we sure could have used him as a 4th OF. The upside is limited, but the floor is pretty good. I agree with Seth; you don't deal rosario just to deal him, especially because it risks your depth if Rooker/Kirilloff/Larnach isn't ready to seize the opportunity. Wade & Cave are decent enough players...who are best suited to be 4th OFs, I think. We don't know for sure how much wade can really hit in MLB and if he can't he won't be as effective drawing walks. Cave looks like he might be better than Rosario with his more patient approach, but he also might get exposed with more ABs. I think there might be some good partners out there, but I'm not exactly in "trade him now" mode. Unless we add another guy to the roster who seems like he might be a little crazy. You only should have 1 of those.

Archer is not going to move the needle that much on the rotation. His value is in chewing up innings while giving you a chance to win, but he's never been dominant. He's really only had one really good season (2015) and has gotten progressively worse every year since. he's a full year older than odorizzi, but in their 8 years in MLB they've been almost exactly as valuable. Archer pitches more innings, odorizzi is more effective in the innings he pitches. I think you have to look at someone like Archer as a pitcher who likely shores up the back end as a 4th starter and you're putting a lot of faith that Wes Johnson can work some magic with him to get more than that. The contract is fine, but are you going to get better results than what you might from an internal option? Gray has better odds of improving the high-end of the rotation, but I suspect he's due for some regression this year. Remember that while he's put up two 5+ bWAR seasons in the last 5 years, he also put up seasons of -0.3 and 0.6 bWAR in that same span (the 3rd season is right in the middle at 2.6 bWAR). Gray is very interesting but there's a lot of risk there, especially for the likely price. I'm very interested in making a deal for Archer if we can sign or otherwise acquire a high-end starter, because i think his floor is still pretty high, he could bounce back and spin a nice year, and we'd be buying low. I think Gray's price tag will be too high for the risk of crapping out. Kershaw and Paddock seem unlikely to be real options, IMHO (but fun to consider for this kind of exercise!)