Bradfoot

I'm trying to reserve my opinion of the trades until the roster is complete. It's clear that the FO is planning part of a bigger picture with each of these transactions. Speculating on a trades future impact or reflecting on trades with hindsight is often a fuzzy area anyway. Players entering different environments can have a pretty big impact on their results. Losing Donaldson and Garver might end up looking worse from a statistical standpoint than they actually are. Donaldson is going to one of the best offenses in baseball and will probably bat somewhere near Stanton and Judge. He should see a boost in that lineup. Garver was always locked in a pretty even timeshare at catcher here. He might find himself getting 450-500 plate appearances compared to his best of 359 here if he stays healthy.

Byron Buxton and Randy Dobnak are the only guaranteed contracts beyond 2023. We have a lot of flexibility.

Our opportunity for success is tied to Buxton's health and production. Even another solid pitching pickup won't change that. It would go a long way if our young guys all collectively took a big step forward (Kirrilloff, Larnach, Ober, Joe Ryan, etc.). I'm keeping my expectations in check a little bit but hoping we are within shouting distance of that shiny new 3rd wild card spot. It feels like everything has to go exactly right for us this year (health, development, bouncebacks, repeating the few breakouts from last year). Meanwhile, the White Sox are an obvious World Series contender that can easily weather a couple key injuries again. Only one of the Yankees, Rays, Red Sox, and Blue Jays can win their division. Then you have the Astros, Mariners, Angels, possibly the Rangers in the West. Competition will be stiff even with an additional seed.

It's possible they did try to sign Stroman. But 3 years/$71M is a pretty big increase on a one year $10.7M deal with a $12.5M option. Would 1 extra year be worth an additional $47.8M? Stroman is making the same amount in 1 year that Gray will make in both years if his option is picked up. Plus Stroman has the option to opt out of his contract after 2 years so it might not even be a longer deal. Keep in mind they probably would have had to beat that 3/71M deal to sign Stroman too.

If the Twins are not in the playoff chase this year, will Sonny Gray survive the trade deadline? With that option year they can abort this deal pretty easily and still get a good return. That seems to be the Twins mentality this offseason, make a soft run at a turnaround with an ability to do another small-scale selloff at the deadline if it fails.

Mlb.com claims his fastball has a high spin rate but I dont think the specific rates are posted anywhere for minor leaguers. Mlb.com seems to focus on a positive spin for every prospect though so maybe take their glowing review with some skepticism. "Though Henriquez is listed at just 5-foot-10 and 155 pounds, he shows flashes of three plus pitches and scouts can't agree on which is his best. His most consistent is a 92-96 mph four-seam fastball that tops out at 98 and features high spin rates and good carry. He achieves quality depth with his hard slider as well as his changeup, with the former a more reliable offering at this point."

A fair trade, a .270 hitter that can steal 20 bases and play great defense at SS and 3rd is a nice thing to have. I'm of the mindset that Garver got a huge boost from the juiced ball year in 2019. He is still a good hitter, I just dont think we are losing an elite hitter. The one thing this trade does not do is move the needle much at all. Although I find the trade fair for both sides, it seems a little unneccessary for the Twins to fill the SS position by downgrading catcher. I would think keeping Garver and signing a one year SS again might have been better. Jonathan Villar probably wont sign another 1 year $3.5m contract like he did last year but I doubt he will break the bank.

I support the union on a number of topics but they can be very damaging to the sports competitiveness. They just don't seem to understand the degree of variance in marketplaces. They would rather let the Dodgers and Yankees run wild uncapped then have a balanced league and I think that is horrible for the sport. They want to take away every rule that helps small market teams (Competitive balance tax, Qualifying Offer, etc.), They have a weird belief that these teams can just magically support a much higher payroll year after year. The League is super greedy but at least they wanted to make the sport more competitive with some of their bargaining desires, the union was all about the money. We hear the Twins use this phrase occasionally, "we will increase payroll when our competitive window opens." Not to debate how much they live up to that or not but it is clear that it is not easy for a team to patch a competitor together with free agents alone. If the Twins just roll out a $130M payroll every year (or even $160M) for a decade it will do nothing to compete with the big markets. I don't think the Pirates can realistically just buy a playoff team in the next 5 years. They need to acquire as many prospects as possible for a "future core" and when the time is right supplement that with free agents. I know it hurts to watch a team struggle so bad for a few years but it is the best path towards a winning team. Take the Timberwolves for example, they never win the lottery, they are not an appealing destination for free agents, they are destined for long runs of disappointing seasons. Teams that tank for a few years like the Pirates (or the 2014-15 Royals) have a better shot of a championship than the T-Wolves do.

For Mitch Garver, interesting. Additional prospect heading our way too.

I'm not a fan of the lottery, especially the part where they punish a team for being in the bottom 10 teams twice in a row. The players union has to accept that certain teams just can't spend openly like a lot of other teams. I don't think punishing them for being bad will make them anything but worse than they already were. I also think the idea of teams tanking specifically so they can draft higher is often overstated. For example, the A's are not shedding payroll so they can redraft a team with top picks. They are cashing in on players about to reach free agency for their next wave of cheap talent. It is much easier (and quicker) to restock your system when you trade anyone close to being a free agent. It seems like this is often misinterpreted as tanking for a higher draft pick when they usually make out better on these selloffs than with a single draft. I just don't think there are that many teams that are actively trying to finish last with the sole reason of getting that pick. Baltimore and Pittsburgh are the two that come to mind. I would say the Pirates have been trying to inject their system with talent as quickly as possible by trading their players like Josh Bell and maybe Bryan Reynolds soon. Lets be honest, will there ever be a time when Pittsburgh or Baltimore are spending big money? They kind of need the draft for any chance to build a strong core. Forcing these teams to draft a top 6 pick, then an 11th pick, then another top 6 pick will only make the rebuilds take longer than if they had 3 years of the top 1 or 2 picks. It will make these annual bottom dwellers less competitive for longer.