Major League Ready

I like it but there is one other thing I would love to see. That's Miranda here early in 2022 to take over 3B. He hit two more HRS today and his OPS is now 948. I am really cheering for this guy to continue his current success and get even better. He looks like the Twins minor league break-out player of 2021. That would be a real boost. It would great if Gordon continues to push him for that honor and DeLa Trinidad is all the sudden a hitting machine too. He is batting .328 with a 946 OPS. We could also have a fantastic bench with great flexibility next year. If Miranda did take over 3rd at some point we potentially have Arraez / Refsnyder / Gordon as bench players.

The best trade they did was Odorizzi for Polacios, Especially given they resigned Polacios and he is doing well. You could argue the Maeda trade was their best trade but that one could still go the way of great for us or bad for us. The one with the most upside is probably Duran given he was traded for a rental but it's also possible he could bust. Of course, they got DeLa Trinidad in that deal. He has not looked like much until this year but he is hitting 319. We also did not give up much for Valimont or Rijo. They may not ever see the big leagues but those trades could also be very positive in our favor.

It's probably about 100 days too early. The relative progress in developing starting pitching and BP options for that matter are likely to weigh heavily into how much the spend and what they spend it on. Next year is sunk IMO if they don't develop two SPs that can be mid rotation types or better and they will need to be relied on next year. I don't consider Dobnak to be a reliable option to even fill a spot but he certainly could become a decent back of the rotation option. If they don't develop two SPs this year I think they have to hope Maeda bounces back and they land an free agent SP as good or better than Berrios if they are going to win the division and have any shot in the post season. They would need to do something with the BP because that group won't cut it.

It was not meant to be a comp. It's a concept directed at the comments that some here made that it's incompetent to trade away good players. Of course Sale was a superior asset. That's not even remotely the point. The point is that Buxton and Berrios are players that SHOULD bring a good return and I prefaced the scenarios I laid out with IF we got impact prospects the years of 2023 and beyond were very likely better than if we kept them. I believe he brings a top 40-75 prospect. Keep him if not.

Yes. The reality is that the large markets have a very significant advantage in free agency. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the CBA. Teams have caught on to prospect value so even the larger market teams are far more reluctant to part with prospects. They are not paying for rentals. Somehow the league needs to promote parity and the players are going to want to somehow loosen free agency terms.

That seems reasonable. I just expect that some players are not willing to leave any money at all on the table. Engaging the free agency process without questions is more likely to present the highest possible offer. And, as I have said previously, many players, especially of this profile (good but not elite) have demonstrated they believe they are worth much more than they actually get in free agency.

The assumption he will sign for "somewhere between 5/80 and 6/125" is a bold assumption. If he thinks he can get 6/125, there are plenty of players that are not signing for a dollar less. We also need to acknowledge there are a lot of players who start out with absolutely wild salary demands. Free agency is the opportunity for all the highest revenue teams to bid on your services. There are lots of players who are not budging without the benefit of that process so to assume they can convinced to forego free agency is a wild assumption.

The point was that they got a return very soon after the trade. They were not going to compete for a couple years regardless of ifthe kept Sale which is why they traded him. I don't believe the it's realistic to believe the Twins will compete next year. This board has been wildly optimistic for as long as I have been here. To suggest the Twins won't compete for 4 or 5 years if they trade Berrios makes no sense. The Twins competing or not will be a product of many other things. I do believe we are positioned to rebound in a shorter period of time than the Whitesox but the pitching prospects will need to transition between now and the end of 2022. 2023 and forward . It's kind of this simple ... The Twins can invest the money Berrios is demanding in any number of ways. If he is demanding an over pay, then that money could be spent to make the team better than they would be with Berrios. Plus, IF they can get a top prospect, there is a reasonable chance the team will be significantly better over the next several years as a result. People act as if we are automatically worse. Basically, we break even or get somewhat better by investing elsewhere instead of overpaying for Berrios if the prospect we get washes out. What if the prospect is as good or better. Obviously, the team is much better of in that scenario by trading him and investing elsewhere.

What if you can get a player as good or better than Berrios in return that will be ready the 2nd half of 2022 or in 2023 and replace him with one of the players you listed or similar? Isn't that what Tampa Bay would do?

Sorry! Post repeated for some reason.

They have had 3 seasons given we lost last year so I will reserve judgment. They cobbled together a pretty good group of starters and RPs in 2019 & 2020 despite several years of failing to develop pitchers internally. If Duran / Balazovic / Canterino / Enlow / Ober / Winder / Valimont and Sands all fail to assimilate to the MLB level in the next two tears we can say they have failed. Right now we can only observe that they have assembled a group of prospects that are promising.

They got Moncada prior the winter between 2016-17 and he played 54 games in 2017 and was full-time in 2018. The equivalent in this case would be a prospect who is playing for us full-time in 2023. Giolito was up in 2017 as well. He just wasnt good until 2019. That trade had a huge impact on them becoming a contender. The Cardinals let Pujlos go after a 90 win season in 2011 and won 97 in 2013. We have been over Tampa letting Snell go. It's very reasonable to believe the Twins could trade for prospect(s) that will be ready in 2023. Anyone who believes this mess is going to be completely turned around next year is welcome to that belief but I believe that is purely fanatical think. They are going to contend again if and when the current SP prospects can contribute significantly to a contender. When that time comes an additional top prospect could be aiding that contention for several years. Tampa understands these principals better than most teams which is why they contend with 1/2 the revenue as most teams.

Are you thinking if Duran / Balazovic / Canterino and I will add Winder are close they should keep him or they could let him go if they think these prospects are close? .

You do know that Tampa Bay traded away Snell, right. They also lost Morton to free agency. They have the best record in baseball with half the financial resource of many teams. Why. because they understand how to maximize asset return. Boston let's Betts go and many said it was the end of them. They seem to be doing fine to me. Chicago traded away Sale and Eaton because they realized they could not reasonably expect to contend during their tenue. How did that work out? While I would prefer to "dance" with home grown players. I will opt for signing an equivalent outside player if the homegrown player requires a significant overpay. Especially if I can get at top prospect in return. He might flop but he might also be better than Berrios. Now I have two "Berrios equivalent" players for the same price. We could call this the Tampa Bay philosophy.

Incorrect. The return is the player(s) they spend the money Berrios would have received plus whatever they get in prospects if they trade him this year. Yes, it's possible the propsects don't pan out. Let's also keep in mind that Tattis Jr. was the return for James Shields. Cane and Escobar came back in the Grienke trade. Moncada and Giolitto in the Chris Sale trade and on and on. Frankly, if you are going to pay him whatever it takes, why not take the prospects now and sign him later or just wait until he becomes a free agent given we know pitchers are prone to injury or the "Mike Hampton" disease old nurse pointed out. We could call it the Jordan Zimmerman or Chris Davis disease or even Albert Pujlos disease or any host of other free agents who were never that great after signing a big deal. I think Mike's question "what if he wants" 6/150 is the underlying reason he has not been signed. How many times do we hear in the off-season, especially high profile players are looking for X and X ends up being 150% of what they were looking for? As I recall JD Martinez started at $200M and got $125. It's quite common. Players see this process as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and rightfully so. The author's blank check premise is the answer to what is the last thing Tampa Bay would do or most teams for that matter. St. Louis let the great Albert Pujlos walk. Boston with a couple hundred million in incremental revenue as compared to the Twins did not give Betts whatever he wanted and on and on.

I think we can reasonably approximate the advantage of height if we can determine how much closer his release point is to plate. That's the difference, right? His height in effect brings the mound closer to the plate. If the average players stride and length provide a release point 57 feet from the plate and he releases 56 feet from the plate the travel time is 98.2% which takes a 92 mph pitch to approximately 94 mph. So, you are very close. Is there also a form of deception or difficulty picking up the pitch given his length? The advantage might be even greater. Your 95-96 seems very reasonable.

Anyone consider the possibility Baldelli was doing the opposite of spreadsheet management. Perhaps having been a player he understands the role confidence plays in developing players. Ober performed really well and pulling him when he did was a good way of assuring he gain some confidence from this outing. Was he managing by spreadsheet. I don't know but I know what happens when I assume.

Ober just might be the bright spot in a dark year. Sure hope he continues to be part of the solution. Also hoping for another bright spot or two.

I was wrong. Would you like to go back on all the times you were not just wrong but dead wrong. I have a long memory starting with your insistence that we must sign Jacoby Ellsbury. Sometimes you need to take a step back when things don't go as planned and things have not gone as planned. Having said this my position has not a 180 it's a regroup for 1 year not a complete rebuild entailing being bad for multiple years. I am simply open to trading Berrios and/or Buxton because in all likelihood doing so significantly improves our odds of contention for the next several. I do strategic planning for a living. and you have a very short-term focus. We are never going to agree. BTW ... I guy that has consistently proposed stuff that would have hurt the team significantly for several years should not throw stones.

I have put up their roster and how the players were acquired a couple different times. They have been great at trading established players for players with minimal MLB experience that have assimilated quite well to the MLB level after being with Tampa. They have also done a great job of what is often referred to as "dumpster diving" here. They have also drafted pretty well. BTW ... I did this for all of the small/mid market teams that made the playoffs. I just assumed people who don't want to accept it simply ignore this type of information because the facts are clear. It's also not that hard to go back and check how teams constructed rosters in successful years.

As you know from some of the analysis I put up on things like elite FA starting pitchers, I use the entire data set or as complete as reasonably feasible when it is of value. In this case, it goes without saying that not every team that trades away established players goes on to contend. The intent is to illustrate that it can or often works. I know you think you are pointing out bias. I just don’t agree that it is necessary to prove it doesn’t always work. Obviously, there are many variables. Also, keep in mind I was responding to people who basically suggested it was incompetent to trade proven players. Most of us listen to nation baseball programs where the need to trade players that teams can’t likely retain is a common discussion. I am happy to concede that this tactic or any other does not universally succeed. Perhaps I should have prefaced my position with something like “while it’s not a guarantee of Success”. I just don’t think it is necessary to provide this disclaimer. It’s obvious and is it really necessary to say this does not work every time. I will agree to a degree that my assertion for “2023 relies very heavily on 2-3 of the guys in the minors right now turning out to be good to very good starting pitchers.” It is not dependent on 2-3 guys being really good. We need 1 guy to be really good and 1 or 2 to be good. As I have stated in the past, 2 or 3 prearb guys in the rotation provides the payroll flexibility to add a very good FA starting pitcher. I was merely pointing out that with the depth and quality of prospects we could build a mostly homegrown rotation. My advocation of trading Berrios and/or Buxton has always stipulated we get impact players back. You are not acknowledging the very premise of getting impact players back when you limit the 2023+ team to players currently in the system. The entire premise of trading Berrios/Buxton is the acquisition of impact players. None of these things are a given. Of course, things have to work out. Do we really need to discuss it’s necessary for any roster plan to pan out if we are to build a contender. The debate should be the best way to build a contender. In 2022, that would be keeping Berrios/Buxton. Beyond 2022 the best way is most likely trading them. I have been a critic of the team’s track record in developing pitching. That does not mean we should pursue less viable strategies because the team has failed to develop SPs in the past? Sorry, but not following the best strategies because we have failed with those strategies in the past is nonsensical to me. Should we pursue inferior practices or get better at best practices. That’s not the plan I would put in place but you are welcome to your opinion.

I agree with Dman. There are some players that want to stay with their team even if they don’t get every penny that the free agency process generally yields. A much greater percentage of players can’t wait for free agency and there is no way they are foregoing that process. The whole pay them whatever it takes mantra is patently naïve. Just as assuming we can win a bidding war with teams that have 40, 50 or 100 percent greater revenue. Mid/small market team have to get return for players they can’t resign. We can hate ownership and the front office if it makes us feel better but denying the reality that we simply have considerably less financial resource is not a thoughtful or even logical response. We should look around the league. The Angel and Phillies who have significantly greater financial resource signed huge names and failed. They traded away assets for “known quantities”. How have they done? The Dodgers went through a period where they spent huge and traded for vets. Thar was not a complete bust but they were not serious contenders. The Whitesox traded away key (core) players and rebuilt a winner. Tampa and Oakland trade away established players for players that have not made their mark yet and they have consistently been top teams despite their limitations in free agency. Cleveland has also been inclined to trade away established players. Even Boston traded Betts while they could still get something. Verdugo is now an important part of their team. The even better recent example is Chicago. Moncada has the highest war among position players for the Whitesox. Cease and Jiminez were acquired by trade as was Giolito. The successes associated with restocking with controllable talent are everywhere. The most likely way for this team to get into serious contention is developing SPs that are low cost and will be here for several years. That's not going to happen by the start of 22. We can go "all-in" for 22 by trading for more talent and ride it out with Buxton and Berrios. The odds of success are quite low IMO and that strategy leaves you in significantly worse shape after 2022. If we can get a substantial return that impacts 2023 and several years after we are likely to be significantly better for several years. Basically investing one year for a significantly better team over the next several years is a preferable strategy for me.

Every night I check the box scores to see how Javier and Miranda have done. Its a little more exciting because they seemed destined to be AAAA players. It's a bonus we did not expect. I guess the same is true of Gordon. What a boost for the organization if a couple of these guys ended up living up to the potential.

What did Chicago do? Tampa traded Snell and lost Morton to free agency and yet they have the best record in baseball. They have always been willing to part with players approaching free agency while they still have value. You are welcome to your opinion but IMO you don't trade these players if your only focus is next year. You trade them if you get the kind of return that makes you better for several years.

Agree completely. Who should they trade that would yield high quality prospects? The only players I see netting that kind of return are Berrios / Buxton / Polanco / Arraez. Maybe Kepler if he plays better the rest of the year.