LA Vikes Fan

i agree that we need pitching but there's three things wrong with this statement. First, Garver by himself wasn't going to get us established MLB pitching. He could only have been the veteran part of a trade that also saw us give up a real pitching prospect. We aren't going to get real controllable major league pitching for a guy like Garver or even for Garver plus Sano. Real MLB ready pitching is going to cost us a guy like Garver PLUS a Martin, Lewis, Caterino, Winder, etc. Second, we got pitching; a guy that Fangraphs likes and who could be in the bullpen as early as this year or in the rotation/bullpen next year. That's the kind of pitching a 31 year old C who hits well but only plays 80-100 games a year if things are good is worth. Third, we don't have "a bunch of shortstops", we now have ONE SS and its the guy we just traded for. I really like Garver and hate the fact that we traded him. Still, we got a guy who is a real MLB SS for the next 2 years at least, and maybe a decent pitcher to go with him. It seems like a fair trade between a team that wants to compete NOW, the Rangers, and a team that may be a year away, the Twins. I think it's defensible move and may actually be a win-win. I'm not a huge fan of this FO either but this trade isn't the reason to hate them; it's actually a good move.

Baseball lost because it lost the TV audience. It lost for 2 reasons (1) baseball can't make fans care about a "national" game, and (2) it can't make the game exciting enough. I like both baseball and football. I'll watch a football game between two teams I don't follow because it's exciting entertainment with plenty of action, with interesting comments by the announcers, and because football does a good job of explaining the game and context. Baseball tried a national game for awhile. it seemed to always be the Yankees and the Red Sox, and I still have nightmares of Dustin Pedroia adjusting his gloves after every pitch "to focus his concentration" after the Yankees had a deliberate strategy of "working the count" to get to the bullpen. 3.5 to 4 hour games with maybe 30 minutes of actual action. It may be that baseball just inherently isn't good TV, although I have seen some good TV baseball. The game as now played is death on TV, and that's if you care about the teams playing. If you don't, it mind numbing ennui commentated by guys talking about "the good old days" or stories about where they went to dinner. The NBA has more irrelevant mediocre matchups than any sport outside of college basketball and it's better on TV than baseball for the casual fan. Add the lack of availability and streaming and you have one completely incoherent media strategy. Baseball's inability to adapt to media like TV and streaming is why it's 4th instead of 1st and soon heading to 5th or 6th.

I also have issues with both sides too numerous to list here, but I am amazed how poorly MLB/the owners are handling this negotiation. They seem to have a complete tin ear from a PR standpoint and also appear to have little real interest in a resolution that doesn't include the MLBPA making some significant concessions. I'm now starting to realize that this "negotiation" is going to stretch into the regular season unless someone takes control that actually has some business sense. Manfred is not that guy. Monfort's comment if he was quoted accurately both amazing and not amazing at the same time. I'm a lawyer and litigate business cases for companies and wealthy entrepreneurs. I almost NEVER allowed my clients to speak directly to the other side about settling the case. Why not? Because most of them start out with the unbreakable sense that they are the truly aggrieved party and if everybody just understood how truly aggrieved they really were, they would instantly agree and the case would be over. Guess what? Both sides think they are the truly aggrieved party and telling the other side you are the only aggrieved one doesn't help, it makes things worse and marks you as a narrow minded, unthinking idiot. That's why you let the lawyers do the talking. Here, MLB should have a chief negotiator who actually does the union negotiations for a living do all of the talking, not a Billionaire owner who does not regularly negotiate union contracts. Add to that the fact that Monfort runs what is perhaps the most ineptly run of all the current MLB franchises and I am appalled that he is let anywhere near a union negotiation committee, much less the chairman of that committee. Who makes these assignments? There has to be at least one MLB owner that actually understands union negotiations, the necessary PR in negotiations, and actually could add value to the discussions. Monfort absolutely is not that guy, This is incredibly painful to watch. I'll continue to interact with you guys on baseball substance because you are knowledgeable and very fun to talk baseball with, but I'm done with these negotiations. A pox on both of their houses. We are watching the slow and continued disintegration of baseball as an important force in the American life.

Let's start with the facts; Polanco is at best an average fielding SSS, Arraez at best a slightly below average fielding 2B. Polanco is a very good hitting MI, Arraez hits RH pitching well, LH pitching not so well, good OBP, no power. We don't have another SS on the roster and a trade likely will cost us more than we want to give up. Story is still available and could be within budget but will cost us a contract that runs several years and paying him means no more pitching signings or at most Pineda on a team freindly deal. My solutions in rank order - (1) sign Story, make Arraez and Donaldson a 50/50 3B/Dh combo, Sano plays 1B, Kirilloff LF. Re-sign Pineda, budget now gone, roll with the young pitchers for a year. Miranda starts on the 26 man, Martin in AAA, both get ABs for rest and injury. (2) Sign Simmons back on a 1 year deal (or someone similar), sign Rondon and Pineda, everything else the same. (3) Make Gordon the everyday SS, promote Polacios or Martin to be SS competition, everything else same as #2. (4) Move Polanco to SS, Arraez to 2B and Martin and Miranda get ABs for the 60-80 games that Donaldson is too hurt to play in the field and the 40-60 that Arraez can't physically play in the field. DH spot gets clogged finding ABs for Garver, Donaldson, Arraez, Sano since ABs are going to an unproven everyday SS. Numbers 1 and 2 mean we probably win 76-88 games this season and possibly contend for the last playoff spot but most likely miss. Numbers 3 and 4 mean 70-82 wins and no meaningful games in September but better long term development of some young guys. None of these are exciting. Pick your poison.

Interesting take, but we need to leave Polanco where he is. We're trying to develop a contending team. Polanco is an elite 2B for a contending team, good with the glove, very good at the plate. Don't mess with that. Boring as it sounds (and is), we need to get good fielding SS to help out a developing pitching staff. Simmons might be the best choice for another year, Niko Goodrum or Igelsias might also work. I understand wanting to open up a spot for Arraez but let's not forget that his physical limitations and injury history suggest that he's a 400-500 AB guy at best. He's not a 140-150 games a year player. Plenty of spots for his bat starting with 80 games a year at 3B since Donaldson is a half time player in the field because of HIS physical limitations. Add 20-25 when Polanco plays SS to spell whoever starts there and another 20 at DH and you've hit Arraez' limit. And that's without giving him any games in LF. You don't need to move Polanco to a position he can't play well to get Arraez his 400-500 ABs. Now if the goal is to get ABs for Miranda or Martin THIS YEAR, the solution is different - trade Donaldson or Sano. The former opens up 3B, the latter LF since Kirilloff can then play 1B. You can't DH Sano a lot because we need the DH spot for Donaldson half time and he's the #4 hitter. To me, if we want to open up a spot for regular at bats for Miranda and/or Martin, trading Sano or Donaldson is the answer. That opens up LF for one of them to run with a spot. I hope the FO is exploring that as we speak.

At the risk of repeating what others have said, this is not a yes or no question. There is no reason for the Twins to declare Arraez as somehow "untouchable" in a trade, nor is there any reason to give him away to open up a spot for others. He has value to the Twins on the field next year. He may have more more value to the Twins as a trade chip because there is the chance that we could combine him with either high end hitting prospect or slightly lesser pitching prospect and potentially get a quality starter. A quality starter does not mean a number 1 starter, more like a 2/3. Getting a 1/2 means trading Arraez and 2 high end hitting prospects or a high-end hitter and high-end pitching prospect. I would do the former for a quality pitcher like Sonny Gray if we can extend him so we have at least 2-3 years of control. I would do the latter at if the return was someone like Chris Bassett from Oakland, but only if we also extend him at least 2 years past his present one year remaining, or if we get a younger pitcher like Lopez or Sanchez from the Marlins plus a solid MLB ready pitching pitching prospect like Meyer. Otherwise, we keep Arraez. By the way, to those of you suggesting the solution is to move Polanco back to short and put Arraez in as the everyday 2B, clears dear God don't let the FO hear you. Polanco is a great hitting, solid fielding 2nd baseman, even All-Star game worthy. He is a lousy fielding, injury prone shortstop whose bat takes a hit when he has to play SS. Even worse, Arraez is average at best at 2nd base so now we have a below average fielding middle infield behind a bunch of young, kid pitchers trying to transition to the major leagues. Moreover, any FA starter is not going to come to a team that has a lousy fielding middle infield since it will make that pitcher look bad. To me, that is a recipe for a disaster. Assuming we do not trade Arraez, Polanco needs to stay at 2nd base and Arraez can get his 500 bats at the DH, 3B, and occasionally at the 2B spots. The team then needs to sign a quality defensive shortstop and frankly not really care whether the guy can hit.

Reload, don't rebuild, but acknowledge that the 'reloading" process will probably take more than one year. The core lineup is pretty good, maybe even very good if we can find a SS, and its got about a 3, maybe 4 year window left (except for Donaldson). We missed out on the FA pitchers but can still get a good starter or two in the trade market if we are willing to sacrifice some assets. We should be, particularly hitting assets. How do we do this? I say we trade for a starter we can either have for 2-4 years (Lopez in Miami, Mahle in Cincinnati) or one we can extend (Bassitt in Oakland, Gray In Cincinnati) but ONLY if we can extend to get a total of 2-4 years, and re-sign Pineda for 2 years. That leaves 2 starting spots for the young guys, 3 once Bundy washes out, and we use 2022 as the evaluation year. We hope to get 1 or 2 young guys that can pitch consistently 150 plus innings and hold down the 3 or 4 spots in 2023 out of 2022 and by 2024 have at least 3 of out home grown guys starting and Maeda back, one of which is hopefully in the #2 hole. Bassitt (my choice if we can extend him) or Lopez hold down the top of the rotation. We're semi-competitive in 2022 (78-85 wins), 85 plus in 2023 and hopefully up from there. Who do we sacrifice? It's going to have to be someone pretty good and I would consider trading ANY of our hitting prospects for the right pitcher - yes, that includes Miranda, Martin and Lewis even in combination with Kepler, Sano or Arraez if we get the right pitching back. That's my idea of a reload. Did we miss a chance to do something like this in the FA market without sacrificing assets? Absolutely. The bottom line is that not a lot of high end pitching free agents want to come to Minnesota with the uncertainty in the rotation, lack of outside income opportunities, and lousy weather. We got to grow out own.

The best young corner OF ready for the MLB player in the organization is Miranda. He needs a place to play next year and has played some OF. The problem is that there's no place for Kirilloff to play every day with Sano, Donaldson and Arraez on the roster. Those 3 have 1b and 3b covered so we can't even move Sano back to 3B to give Kirilloff 1B. I think Kiriloff is the opening day LF next year and stays there for at least 1 season. The rest of that group doesn't look like much except for Larnach.

The real problem is that our lineup and our pitching staff aren't on the same cycle. The lineup is good enough to to compete now and could be really good if Larnach, Miranda, Martin or Contreras steps up to be a competent or better hitter next year. The pitching that we have is at least a year or two away from what is needed by a competitive team. That lack of synchronicity is the root problem. So like many here, I think the answer is to decide which way you want to go. If you want to compete NOW, you have to either (1) sign Rondon and Pineda at a minimum AND add to the bullpen or (2) trade for at least 2 established starters or one plus a real prospect and sign Pineda. Option number 1 means trading real pitching or hitting prospects, probably pitching ones. Option 2 is to decide to rebuild or re-tool for a year or two and see what your existing pitching prospects can do. If you do that, there's no real reason to keep Donaldson or Garver because of age, and maybe the same for Sano and Kepler although less so, Those guys are all available for trade, and you would consider trading Arraez for the right return. All trades are of veteran players with a A ball lottery types and concentrating on getting a younger, controllable player at SS or or for pitching. The worst strategy is number 3 - just run the lineup back and "hope" that the young pitching can step up this year or next and fill all of those holes. Very unlikely. Frankly, I could get behind either strategy 1 - compete now and take the risk of trading away prospects who become stars for other teams, or 2 - 2022 as a re-tool/rebuild year, 2023 as maybe the same or starting to compete with the "window" being 2024 and beyond. I just can't stomach option 3, which is frankly just more of the same thing that didn't work in 2021.

To trade or not to trade? That indeed is a question. The answer - depends on who and for what. If we can get an established MLB starter AND extend his contract so we have him 3 years or more, we should absolutely do it even if that pitcher is in his early 30s like Bassitt or Gray, IF we don't have to trade more than 2 "real" prospects. We have Martin, Lewis, Miranda and Larnach (Col. A). Probably isn't enough Room at the Inn for all 4. We have Donaldson, Arraez, Kepler, and Sano (Col. B). Probably is barely enough room for those 4.We have 8-10 "real" SP prospects depending on who's counting (Col. C). The trade? One from Column A or C , and I would say that Winder, SVR, Balazovic, and Duran are off limits and I don't count Ober or Ryan in the "prospect" category any more and would absolutely not trade either one. Add in one or even 2 from Column B and that's what you have to trade. IF that will get you an MLB starter with at least 2-3 years of control (and, if 2, the real possibility of an extension), you make the deal. The one from column A or C changes depending on the return. IF you can't, you don't. My money is on the don't. Twins re-sign Pineda, roll with him at the front of the rotation and maybe sign Duffy, and see what happens. I actually would make a trade for Gray or Bassitt (Montas and Lopez will be too expensive) because I think we can get them for the kind of package I outlined above or maybe that plus an A ball type. Prospects are just that; prospects. Most of them do not pan out. I predict though that we don't make a trade.

I like the article and the reasoning, but don't completely like the suggested approach. I think the move is to re-sign Pineda and trade for one of Bassitt, Montas, Lopez, Gray or Mahle. I like Basstit and Gray the best - veteran guys without long term deals so hopefully the prospect cost won't be to high and won't have to include more than one of the pitchers listed above and won't include Winder, Balzovic, or Sands. I think Montas, Mahle or Lopez will cost 2 or 3 guys on that list and certainly won't be available for hitting prospects. I think you're right on the FO strategy. This year it's trade starter, Pineda, Ober, Bundy and Ryan with at least 30 plus starts available for others due to those 5 being ineffective or on the IL. Next year, 3 young guys, Pineda and Bundy. 2024 - all home grown.

I see your point regarding a 4th OF, although I would like to see Celstino as that guy at some point in 2022, but trading Kepler doesn't give you a chance to entrench Kirilloff at 1B. You still have the same problem regarding Donaldson, Garver and Arraez needing multiple games at the DH spot to keep them healthy and productive while still in the lineup. I think the only way you can entrench Kirilloff is by trading Sano. I would not be against trading Sano but I think the only way to get a decent pitching return is to pair him with a pitching prospect like Winder, SVR, or Balzovic and even then I'm hard pressed to find a trading partner who both has starting pitching you want and would be willing to take on Sano's contract, Oakland, Miami, Tampa, and Cincinnati all seem to be out on that contract. I just think that for next year Sano is the primary 1B and Kirilloff is the primary LF. That's not going to be pretty in the field, although not too ugly, but it is the work around to get 500 plus ABS from Donaldson, Arraez, Sano, Kirilloff and Garver (400 plus for Garver) because it leaves the DH spot open for multiple players.

That's doable but we need the DH spot for Donaldson at least 50-60 games a year. He won't last playing 130 games at 3B. We also need a spot for Arraez' bat, either at 3B or DH- he won't get much playing time at 2B unless Polanco (aka our best player other than Buxton) gets hurt. This is my problem with the idea of moving Kirilloff to a full time 1B spot "because he's better there". That's only a small part of the equation. Unless there is a trade, you have to find a place for Kirilloff, Sano, Donaldson, Garver, and Arraez to each get 500-600 plate appearances next year. You can't do that with a full-time DH because both Donaldson and Arraez can't get there without having days where they can DH. That rules out the possibility of making Sano a full-time DH a la Nelson Cruz. Based on our present roster construction, it seems like the best way to keep all of those bats relatively fresh, healthy, and consistently in the lineup means Kirilloff has to play at least part time in LF. Basically you have Donaldson and Arraez holding down 3B, with a healthy dose of DH duty for Donaldson (60 plus games), and a healthy dose of LF (30-40 games) and DH (30-40) for Arraez. You also want to have some open DH days to give Buxton, Polanco. Garver and Kepler a partial day off, and possibly if you have a guy tearing up AAA we want to get in the lineup like Miranda. In other words, there just is no Room at the Inn (seasonal reference) for Sano to even get 300 at-bats in the DH spot much less the 500 to 600 that he should get if we're going to keep him. Sano has to play at least 100-120 games at 1B if for any get the value out of his bat - really the only reason to keep him around. Kiriloff gets 100-20 games or so in LF assuming he hits, and can play another 30 or 40 at 1B when Sano either sits or is the DH. Bottom line for me is that we don't need to pick up an outside player to play LF, we already have that position filled by Kirilloff. That only changes if we trade or bench Sano, and I don't think were going to pay him $10 million next year to sit on the bench.

I agree, the Donaldson signing has panned out as well or perhaps even better than one could reasonably have expected. He is the classic trade-off when one signs and aging, very good player: good production when he plays but several stretches a year when he simply isn't able to play. I'm hopeful that the Twins found the right way to use him last year by basically playing him about 50% of the time at 3B and about 50% of the time at DH. Hopefully will get another 130 – 145 games from him in 2022 (assuming there are that many games in 2022). Arraez is the obvious heir apparent. He actually fielded the position pretty well and it would be helpful to have his bat in the lineup. He is a defensive liability at 2B and besides, Polanco is our best player and should stay at 2B. Where does that leave the Miranda? I think the Twin should try him in LF next year IF last year's offensive results were not an aberration. He did play some outfield last year at AAA and with Buxton and Kepler in the outfield, we don't need a defensive whiz in LF if that player can hit. He can also fill in at 2B and even 3B to get some playing time. Let's get him some at bats at the MLB level next year so we can see what we have. It will be a little crowded with the Miranda, Kirilloff and Sano all looking for at bats at the same 2 positions (LF and 1B), but there should be 30 to 50 games of DH duty available to make it work.

Thanks for the article. Well thought out and it's got to be tough to put out content in a lockout. Having said that, the choices in our price range - Yuck. No reason not to have Kirilloff play LF with Sano at 1B, Donaldson at 3B and all of them rotating through the DH spot with Arraez. Larnach and Rooker start in AAA and if, and only if, one comes up big there he gets a call up. Same with Contreras. Celestino is the 4th OF. Miranda has played some OF in AAA. If he looks good in ST, he gets a shot. Same for Martin if he looks ready. By the way, we need a spot for Arraez to play. He's not horrible in LF and with Buxton in CF and Kepler in RF we can stand a "not horrible" LF. My point is there's no need to go out and get a mediocre vet to play LF given our internal options, and the good ones are out of our price range. Stand pat on the OF. If we want to spend money on a position player, spend it on a SS. Better result - spend the money on Rondon and/or trade for Montas/Bassitt/Lopez and spend the money on a contract extension .

I'm not in favor of trading Lewis short of a blockbuster return, but the article does point out something important. I start with the idea that the best thing to do is trade from surplus to get the things you need but don't have. Where is the Twins surplus? Good hitting or high potential non SS IFs (Arraez, Miranda, Lewis, Martin), and corner OFs with power potential/longer term CFs (Larnach, Kirilloff, Celestino, Contreras). Areas to shore up? Starting Pitching, Starting Pitching, and SS, in that order. The point is that the team should be trying every avenue to shore up the SP and SS holes. That includes trading Lewis, Arraez, Martin, Miranda, etc. I would like to see a trade with the As for Bassitt and/or Montas and I would be willing to give up 1 or 2 of the 8 players above to accomplish that goal; 3 if we got both pitchers. Actually 3 of any of our Milb players except Winder, Baelazovic, and Sands. Our timing is off. Today's good players will be out or in downward cycles by the time the MiLB replacements are ready. Let's capitalize on our surplus now.

The key question is who can you trade for starting pitching or a closer, since it appears that the FO route isn't going to happen. We basically have everything else pretty well covered once we sign that stopgap SS. To do that, we are going to have to find a trade partner that needs what we have in surplus - non-SS bats - and has pitching to trade. I see that as Miami, Oakland and Cincinnati. Why? Because they're cheap and don't want to pay their talent. I don't see any of them taking a Kepler and Sano package or a Garver plus Kepler or Sano package because they are doing rebuilds and they don't want to pay those guys. We will have to trade highly valued prospects. They will want players on cheaper contracts for at least the next 2-3 years, if not more, and they are likely to want at least one of those prospects to be a starting pitcher. My view is we have tradeable assets but they aren't Kepler, Sano or Garver. Those three are the second part of a muti-player package to entice a trade. The first part is the prospect. We have some redundancy with Miranda, Martin, and Lewis (and, to a lesser extent, Larnach), assuming we don't want to trade Kirilloff. The most likely trade is a package of one of those three prospects with a Kepler, Sano or Garver for a young pitcher or even one of those three prospects plus a WInder, Sands or Enlow. Those are the tradeable assets.

I live in LA. Bundy was the Second Coming in 2020, a number two at the bottom of the bowl in 2021. Worth a shot, particularly on that contract. We've all identified the same problem As one of 3 trades/FA signings where the other 2 are better, not a bad thing to do. As the only one, terrible off season. The off season has a ways to go . We're just going to have to wait this out. No way to make a fair evaluation or decision until February.

I'm fine with the idea of trading Kepler. He's an above average fielding, below average hitting corner OF with some power, that could be an average fielding CF. In short, he's replaceable, The idea of trading Lewis is tough but we need to remember one thing. We have Lewis, Miranda and Martin, al of whom are IFs, probably not SSs, and their ability to play CF just got a little less important since we now think (hope against hope?) that Buxton is the CF for the next 7 years. I think we can trade one of them. Trading one for a high upside controllable SP is not the worst idea I've ever heard. I'd rather keep Lewis and give up Larnach or Miranda, but trading one of Martin, Miranda or Lewis should definitely be a possibility for the right starting pitcher.

Why not do this? We take a shot at a reliever with a 96 mph fastball; cut him if we can't make him more consistent. Who cares about Cave? He gets 300k a year - chump change by MLB standards - and we see if he can somehow come back to where he was in 2018/2019 when he looked like an upgrade over Kepler. And if Cave hits .200 in AAA we lose him. Until then he's insurance in case Celestino isn't ready to be the backup CF/4th OF. All makes sense. All of this is just a reminder that we have to break out of the 24 hour news cycle and give things time to play out. Good idea, but hard to do, I had my pitchfork out when Cave was signed and couldn't understand why the FO wasn't talking to Buxton. Those idiots!! Then it turned out that they were talking to Buxton all along and signed him to a contract that actually seems to make sense for both sides and kept a guy who has shown some promise at the big league level that they could stash in the minors. Now I'm furious that they haven't signed or traded for a FA starting pitcher or closer when we need at least 3 of the former and one of the latter. Those morons! All the good ones are either gone or going to be gone soon! Hmmmm, maybe I should wait a few weeks before I decide whether the FO moves back to the idiot category....

I like the moves but I agree with the first poster that your salary for Knebel is waaaaay too low. He is much more likely to get $7-10m after his performance for the Dodgers. The $5m salary for him you project would be a steal. While I would also prefer Montas or Bassitt over Maneaa, and would be willing to give up more to get Montas, the cost for Montas is going to be very high and Bassitt is 32 years old, 33 in February. So I would switch to a deal with the Reds, trading Larnach, Strotman and Cole Sands for Sonny Gray. I would give them Winder as well if they swap out Mahle for Gray but I don't think that's enough. I think that the only way to get Mahle would be to trade Miranda or Martin in conjunction with a pitcher like Strotman or even Winder and I don't want to do that. Arguably though, we have Lewis, Martin and Miranda as IF coming up with Polanco still relatively young and Buxton hopefully playing CF for the long term. One of those 3 could be made available if we get young, controllable pitching in return - like Mahle. I would do a Mahle for Martin or Mirnada straight up but I don't think that's enough for the Reds. So bottom line, the package for Gray or Miranda (or Martin) for Mahle. I like the rest.

Manaea would be great to get, but ONLY if he can be signed to at least a 2-3 year type deal past 2022. Otherwise, the cost is way too much for a one year mid rotation rental for a team that is unlikely to be a true contender next year. I'd rather pay more in prospects/players if we need to and get Montas, Bassitt, or one of the controllable starters from Miami. I think a good scenario for next year is to turn over the roster a bit, get younger, and be an up and coming team in 2022 who we hope makes the playoffs but isn't a WS contender on their way to true contention in 2022-2025. That means only getting youngerish pitchers with at least 2-3 year contracts or control, and being willing to trade Sano, Kepler, Garver, and Donaldson. Oh yeah, by the way, and SIGNING BUXTON to a longer term deal. I agree that we may be seeing the FO strategy in the Twins' lack of involvement on free agent pitching to date. It looks like either (1) the team is going to try to get pitching in trades and maybe signs a #3/4 type as a FA, or (2) we are going to add Pineda and maybe one other Pineda type and then roll with our own young guys in 2022. I hope it's number 1 but we may be looking at number 2, so to speak.

Excellent idea. I didn’t realize he was that good with the glove. If you’re right and he can field at an above average big league SS level, he is now my first choice. Like you, I think the Twins need to spend all of their money on pitching and sign a one year stopgap shortstop. I like Goodrum much better than Jose Iglesias, who stunk for the Angels last year, Freddie Galvis, wants to go to Philadelphia, and Simmons, who cant hit and just a little too weird for my liking.

Excellent point and one I couldn't really address with my limited knowledge. My thinking is that once the FO decides how many spots they need for free agents, that the next players sent packing are Thorpe, Stashak, Garza, and Smeltzer. Each without a corresponding add so the spots stay open. I think Cave and Astudillo are already all but gone. No one should be surprised when they are DFA'd in the next few weeks. The shock would be if either one is retained on the 40 man roster. Keeping either one on the 40 man would be a very bad decision.

Can someone tell me if I'm doing this right? I went to twinsbaseball.com and they show 38 players on the 40 man roster including the 8 on the 60 day DL. We start there. Next, I would then remove Cave, Astudillo, and Garlick. All easy calls, all possible MiLB contract signers with some team and it could be the Twins if we want them back. Now we're down to 35. The top 5 players on Seth's list are all more important to the Twins both long and short term than those 3 guys. The FO should be able to make this decision in their sleep or over coffee. Now we're back up to 40. So far, no really tough decision to make. NOW, we get to the hard part. Are any of Vallimont, Gore, Hamilton. Palacios, etc. more important to keep than Smeltzer, Thorpe, Rooker, Strotman, Jax, Garza, Dobnak or Barnes? That's the choice. My choice would be to drop Thorpe and Barnes, replace them with Vallimont and Gore. Thereafter, the questions are who might get drafted and would we rather have them than Garza, Smeltzer, or Minaya, and do we need open spots for free agents. It seems logical to me that the best thing to draft/easiest to stash guy for a bad team with a longer term horizon is a pitcher; even better is an injured pitcher. Utility guy comes next. With that mindset, I do 2 things. First, I trade Rooker or Larnach together with Sano or Kepler for a combination of one MLB ready pitcher and younger non-40 man prospect(s). Opens 1 spot. I leave it open for a FA. If I need more spots, I drop Smeltzer, then Garza, and I keep Minaya. If I can't swing a trade, I drop Smeltzer, Garza and Rooker in that order (hoping to re-sign them to MiLB deals), and keep Palacios first, then Hamilton, then Schulfer. Not sure I'd trade Hamilton for Garza or Rooker for Schulfer so I might stop before or right after Hamilton. Take my chances with the rest.