Otto von Ballpark

People toss out this "you need 8-10 starters every year" line, and it's true in a literal sense. But that doesn't mean 8-10 guys get meaningful opportunities to start. The last few guys on that list are probably looking at 1-5 starts for the year, which is better than nothing but not really much for evaluation or development. 15+ starts for Perez is kind of a big deal, relatively, especially on a team that has already committed 3 rotation spots (and corresponding salaries) for expiring contract SPs in Gibson, Odorizzi, and Pineda. They really need to invest something in finding starters for 2020 and beyond, and probably something more than a flyer with an option on a guy like Perez.

Pretty sure he means someone has to get cut from the 40-man to make room for Perez. They will presumably be out of the organization, like Curtiss, so they won't be around to get another chance.

Perez did fine in the bullpen last year? 11 IP, 5 runs, 9 hits, 5 walks, 7 Ks. 5.7 K/9, 1.273 WHIP, 4.09 RA9.

Technically, Sanchez was an MLB signing -- he required a 40-man spot when the Twins signed him. But it was a split contract that paid him less if he didn't make our 25 man roster.

$3.5 mil guaranteed seems steep for a guy who *might* become a second lefty out of the pen...

Perhaps you are over-stating the difference in track record? Ottavino's 7 seasons in the pen: 9.2 bWAR, 5.5 fWAR in 390 innings. Reed's 7 seasons in the pen before signing with the Twins: 6.2 bWAR, 6.9 fWAR in 402 innings.

The curse of Eric Fox? https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN199207290.shtml

For many of us, born after 1976, that almost IS the curse -- not making it to the Super Bowl. 0-6 in conference championship games since then.

How about short term commitments? How about young FAs like Machado or Harper? It's easy to argue against "long term commitments to aging veteran FA's" but there is a lot more nuance to the market than that. Take a look at some of the 2 year deals that have already been signed this offseason, and explain to me how adding two of those would have jeopardized the franchise's long term health: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019-mlb-free-agent-tracker/sort_column-amount__sort_direction-0__contract_years_operator-3__contract_years-3

No. Mitch Garver is a 28 year old catcher, with 5 years team control. Cron is a 29 year old nontendered 1B. Rogers is a 28 year old middle reliever with 4 years control. May is a 29 year old reliever. In what universe do the Twins need to consider keeping significant payroll flexibility for these guys?

These guys aren't prospects anymore, or even first or second year players. We have a ton of data on them already, and the data says that very few of them warrant a long term deal -- perhaps only Berrios, and as a pitcher, that should clock in less than a deal for a similarly situated position player. Even if some of them perform well in 2019, they still won't have a track record to warrant a commitment of significant long-term dollars. How much would you want to bet on one good year from Kepler or Polanco after a string of average ones? Now is a good time for a major investment externally because we have an internal group that could be useful but generally doesn't look like stars, and our best internal star potential might be 6+ years away (Lewis, Kirilloff, etc.). In your opinion, is there ever an appropriate time for the Twins to spend on a significant FA? Seems like that might be the real issue, rather than anything special about guys like Kepler and Polanco.

Notably, that's bWAR (ERA-based). His peripherals were awful in 1994 -- more walks than strikeouts! Thus he had a 6.21 FIP and negative fWAR at -0.2 (virtually the same marks as Jim Deshaises, who struggled to a 7.39 ERA that year.) https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=1994&month=0&season1=1994&ind=0&team=8&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0 For his career, B-Ref has Mahomes with -0.5 bWAR; Fangraphs has him at -3.0 fWAR.

IIRC, the Cubs did sign Lester after a 72 win season, although I guess they still had room to spend more later. I do wonder, though, if these teams were able to do this because their "rebuilds" went so well. If Correa turned out like Buxton, maybe Houston signs a big FA to help things along? Same for Bryant turning out like Sano for the Cubs? (And Cleveland fans might argue that their team hasn't yet spent enough to support the talent they've developed...)

Not necessarily in baseball, thanks to an act of the devil (Jeffrey Loria).

The Orioles let Machado go because they were terrible and he wasn't going to re-sign there. (A more accurate phrasing would be that Machado let go of the Orioles...) The Dodgers let Machado go because they already have Seager and Turner at SS and 3B. (Seager was hurt last year, hence why they were interested in Machado as a rental.) I'd say it is curious that the Yankees apparently haven't pursued Machado in FA, but those top clubs also have luxury tax concerns which affect their strategy, so I wouldn't read too much into that.

Why are you worried about blocking at all? Machado can/should play third. (And Sano can/should play first, at some point.) Plenty of room for him and whatever prospects emerge over the next few years. Harper worries me a bit more. His K rate spiked to 24% last year, which isn't bad, but it isn't good either, and the Twins don't necessarily have a good recent track record of controlling K's. Plus he's just a corner outfielder -- he has to hit more than Machado to equal his value --- and to his credit, Harper has hit more than Machado over his career, but it's something that would worry me about a long term deal. I think the back half of a Machado contract could have more usefulness / trade value than the back half of Harper's, just based on position alone.

And given the performance of most Rule 5 selections, it's not a stretch to imagine that Rule 6 might involve imbibing spirits, at least unofficially.

Cynthia?

Astudillo is the face *and* the body of the franchise right now. Also, the hair.

FWIW, Sanchez took a 40-man spot last offseason when he was signed. It was a "split contract" that would have paid less in the minors than in MLB, but it wasn't a minor league deal. Also, it's unclear if the Twins would have been able to get a successful season from Sanchez. Although he would have been a nice alternative to try once he was healthly in June -- but so was Mejia and we passed on using him until our season was more or less out of hand...

I'm not so sure the Cano and Greinke signings count as "bad things" just because their teams have expressed a desire to get out of the back ends of the contracts. Every team wants to get out of the back ends of contracts if they can, and at least Cano's and Greinke's performances have made that somewhat feasible for their respective clubs -- they've gotten good production out of both to date. I'm also not sure how you define "mid-market" but if you include Seattle and Arizona, there are probably other examples too. Washington signing Scherzer, Texas signing A-Rod -- both of those turned out great in terms of player performance/value. There have been bad deals too -- Detroit signing Fielder (although they got out of some of it), Baltimore signing Chris Davis, Washington signing Werth, Colorado signing Hampton -- but those turned out bad because the players/terms turned out bad, not because of the team's market. Obviously a big market team can better absorb a contract if a player under-performs, but if the Twins think Harper and Machado project like A-Rod or Cano type talents at age 25, they probably shouldn't be afraid to offer up a big deal for them. (Keep in mind Cano's 10 year contract would be over now if he had signed it at the same age as Harper and Machado are now.)

FWIW, no extensions for young guys would pay much more than they are already projected to make in 2019. Unless you are suggesting they should spend $X less than budget this season, so they could spend $X over budget in future seasons, but generally that doesn't seem to be how MLB accounting works. I would never trust it to actually happen.

FYI, while there are 180+ days in the MLB season, a full "service time" season is just 172 days. So with 12 more days in MLB, Buxton will be at 3 full years service time. And unfortunately for him, every player is capped at a max of 172 service days each year. So even if Buxton is on the roster for 186 days or however long the season is in 2019, he will only get 172 added to his previous total -- so he would be at 3.160 in B-Ref terminology (12 to get to 3.000, plus 160 more). https://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/4043

To add to what Levi said, "he's our starter" is pretty standard issue "we believe in you" rah-rah type stuff. Nothing wrong with that talk by itself -- but if it could be perceived that you are using it in an attempt to coerce him into signing a contract, like your example, then I think it crosses a line right now. I think the Twins will have to settle for simply avoiding a grievance, and hopefully avoiding an acrimonious arbitration hearing, with Buxton this winter. Edit to add: the Twins could make him a good 1 year offer in arbitration to help smooth the relationship, without bringing up the subject of an extension.

I think you suggested 6 years, $80 mil as a possibility for an extension last winter: http://twinsdaily.com/articles.html/_/minnesota-twins-news/minnesota-twins/the-time-for-a-buxton-extension-is-now-r6327 Using that as a guide for illustration purposes, I don't know which side was more responsible for the lack of a deal last winter, but if the Twins were the ones more resistant of 6/80 coming off 2017, that suggests they pegged his value closer to 6/50 then. And they'd be pretty nuts to offer 6/50 again coming off 2018, no? On the flip side, if Buxton balked at 6/80 last winter, I'm not sure it makes sense for him to accept 6/50 now either, under the present circumstances. He'd be giving up serious value, in part tied to the Twins service time decision. And yes, it could be a bit insulting for the Twins to revisit those negotiations immediately after the service time move. No matter how much you say you still believe in him, unless you are meeting his demands from last winter, the subtext of such an approach will be "Hey, I know you found our offer to be too low last winter, but how do you like it now that we have more leverage?" (Mind you, I don't think the Twins are doing that, but it illustrates why any extension just isn't feasible at the moment. The reverse could be just as insulting -- Buxton reopening talks now could be like circling back to a prom date you previously declined, after exhausting all other possibilities.)