DocBauer

People sometimes worry about what Berrios hasn't done yet they fail to remember what he HAS done. Really, he has been amongst the best SP in ball for about 3/4 of a season before seeming to wear out. I have always attributed that to his famous workout dedication being too strenuous for the season. He and the Twins seem to agree as he did much better at the end of 2019 and there has been additional talk of him adjusting his routine. Oh, and he just turned 26yo I believe Odorizzi needs to prove it again. But late 20's is right about the time a lot of pitchers really hit their peak as talent and experience mesh. Maeda was moved to the pen to close out each of the past few years...from all in have read...because the Dodgers had depth, needed help in the pen, and he was lights out there. The numbers back up his effectiveness. I don't know how good he will be, but his career has been very good so far. Just don't tire him put for the second half, but that's a non issue for 2020. BTW, he's also coming off his best season vs LH batters. We should be excited to watch him.

I also think it's very cool for the Twins to acknowledge their history. One of the benefits of this cluster that is 2020 is TD has taken time to reflect on Twins history. Some of it I know as a fan, some of it...60's and early 70's I don't, or know from my father...and it's great to visit the history of our beloved franchise.

Paying homage to teams and players from your city seems appropriate to me. But claiming championships or records shoukd never take place. THOSE Senators of the past turned in to the Twins. Period. I believe, off the subject somewhat, that the NFL Colts carried their history to Indianapolis, along with everything else they packed up in their moving trucks. (Ick). I always respected how the Browns, even with their temporary hiatus from the league, was allowed to STAY the Browns with all of their history. What I have always hated was the Houston team moving and keeping their colors and the new team calling themselves the Texans. (Confession, I was a HUGE Oilers fan as a kid as my second favorite team). The Texans became the Chiefs. So to re-name a "new" team after an old team has always bothered me. No hate, but the Houston team should be the Oilers with their history and colors.

Way too early to think about mock drafts, especially in baseball, but I find myself really intrigued about this draft considering the whole situation. I try to read and reflect on our FO and try to find some pattern. A couple things I've noticed: 1] Seems to me they look a lot at work ethic and character of a selection. 2] They often seem to look at one special ability of a player and then speculate how much improvement can be developed off of that. Probably even more true of pitchers. Example: He has a tremendous X pitch, now how can we project Y and Z playing off that the next couple of years. Area scouts watch kids across the country from early HS all the way to college. But seems to me, projecting a college age player, even with mixed results and a shortened 2020 spring, would be a lot easier right now than a HS player with a scholarship in hand who barely played ball this year, or not at all. The latest issue of Baseball America basically states this is a prime year for college talent, regardless of current circumstances. While the potential of position players is outstanding, this could be the best draft class of college pitchers in years! They even posted 2019 and 2020 pitching options in a ranking and it was dominated by 2020 arms. It's still all speculation, and I don't think TOP HS players will be ignored, but I'm wondering, with no milb season and maturation factors, if the Twins and most teams don't target primarily/only college players. Despite overall depth in the system, including better pitching talent than we've seen in years, I wonder if the Twins don't go this route. Maybe college pitchers only?

I feel for the milb system and am amongst the VAST MAJORITY of us here who have advocated for change there. And I'm not going to bring up that debate again except to say that I don't think financial "loss" is accurate. Players in MLB today "paid their dues" to arrive at their goal. They received millions to a couple thousand dollars for signing and then a salary to play, unfair though the $ may be. But they never lost $ to play, unless they chose to turn down $ in another career area to peruse their dream. Not picking on your post as you and mostly agree on all things, including this conversation, just trying to be clear headed and accurate while trying to make some additional points and using your quote as a place to start. When something hits a business hard, such as this pandemic, losses are also generally spread out from infrastructure to salary cutbacks. Most people I know, fortunately for them, have remained gainfully employed, though have lost bonuses or various forms of extra pay they may have earned. But they are still employed and still earning $. But it obviously hasn't been the same for a lot of people who are temporarily or permanently let go. Someone mentioned a chef, I believe it was, as an analogy of someone being asked to take a pay cut to work. While that stinks, at least that chef would still be able to work and earn while the business was carry out only, no in house customers, and now maybe partial in house customer occupancy. But that restaurant owner was still paying rent, utilities, taxes, benefits for his employees, and salaries for as many employees as they still could, even if there were cut backs. Taken to a big picture scenario, this is where baseball finds itself right now. When most anyone joins a business or a company, they start at a lower level and work their way up in regard to salary and title. This is generally true from a recent college grad to a fry cook who becomes a restaurant manager. Even if salaries are absurd, ML players have earned their contracts via the structures in place. And I can be appreciative of them and their talent and earnings, While also being a bit jealous, but I don't begrudge them their $. And IMO, they are being asked to make less $, but truly, they are not being asked to "lose" money the way MLB is expected to lose. (Or at best maybe break even). Now, where I think ownership is making a mistake is IF they are still trying to find profit here. It's one thing to mitigate losses or break even, but it's another situation entirely if they're still trying to eek out said profit in their "side investment/hobby" at this juncture. Another area where ownership could be POTENTIALLY making a mistake is the lower percentage of $ paid to the higher market players. If they are going to lose $ as the entity that is MLB, perhaps losing a bit more to adjust higher values to those players could be seen as a good faith offering, especially with the CBA around the corner. Business wise, agreeing to a bigger loss may not make sense, but for better labor peace it could pay eventual dividends. In regard to MLB, and owners, asking for assistance to mitigate losses but unwilling to share in additional revenue, i am utterly perplexed. Before THIS CRAZY SITUATION, the players have enjoyed great financial rewards over the past couple of decades. So they HAVE shared in tne revenue growth of the sport. Further, while final numbers may be fluid, I find it very interesting that tbe owners proposal includes bonuses paid out to the players based on post season and WS revenue. Perhaps I read it wrong, but my impression was that would be league wide. To the players I would simply add, they are smart enough to know this pandemic situation is going to have far reaching affects over the next few years in regard to everything from extensions, arbitration and FA. But for the good of the sport, the union, the players themselves, a little more hurt for 2020 might somewhat somewhat soften the blow over the next few years. But again, I'd offer up to ownership that a little more loss and cooperation with the union now may lead to a better CBA going forward.

Rounded slightly, as a whole, MLB brings in $10B to pay for the sport. (Obviously individual teams $ varies). Only half a season is played, total revenue becomes $5B. Your $20M player's prorated salary is now $10M. Simple, right? Now, half a season without fans, and expected MLB revenue becomes $3B, or so is estimated. That means a half season, fan less, is 1/3 total income. Your $20M salaried player now earns slightly more than $6.5M. In other words, not far off from the $5M proposed in the chart above. Now, there is some debate/confusion as to language in the original agreement between both sides. This could all be media fed hype, but it would sound logical that the reported clauses to re-address the original agreement once more information was gathered ring true. The debate then becomes very different. Lower salary players earn less, but make a higher percent of their 100% target. Are the owners just trying to save more $? Are they trying to be more equitable and fair to lower salary players? Both? You don't have to answer that, I'm just tossing out thoughts. Kind of puts some of the onus on the players to agree amongst themselves. But really, at least as an initial proposal, what ownership has presented doesn't sound all that illogical or impractical to me.

While a half season stinks, it should be enough for the true contenders to sort themselves out. Lesser teams could be hot for stretches, but not sure they could maintain momentum needed to reach the playoffs, much less win it all. However, the 1987 Twins team might disagree with me going from worst to first. I want to agree with Nick on their being a caveat asterisk involved if there is an "epidemic" of players who sit out. But if it turns our to be a small number, then I would call that not historically consequential as every season there are some guys stars or not, that are hurt and miss large chunks or all of a season due to injury. History should look on 2020 the same in this case should it prove to be a small group.

You are 100% correct. Don't know where my head was. Make my vote Sano or Donaldson. Either would have the big power and probably OB to make a difference and let Killer play 1B. Donaldson, with head reattached to body, is probably the correct selection. *I did have a little accident over the weekend that involved my forehead meeting concrete, so I have that as an excuse.

I'm with Ash on this one. 3 shutouts with few hits involved screams the need for a difference maker. Sano could have been that guy.

I've stayed out of this conversation the last week or so for various reasons. The fact that an offer is actually being discussed and there is a real chance for baseball being played...though I haven't found exact details...lead me to catch up on this thread and comment. Again, I take no sides here. I have offered, and will offer, comment and opinion that could lead someone to believe that I indeed am on either side of the aisle. That is not the case. I simply try to look at the work, this situation, as logically as I can. First, while a few players have made some comments that I can only describe as outrageous considering society and the world as a whole right now, attempting to attribute those comments and opinions to all players is also very wrong and outrageous. Second, while the players will not make as much $ with baseball in 2020, they will not lose money. Unless they are mortgaged to the hip, in which case something is better than nothing. I have also objected to the arguement that they have to earn ever dollar they can as their career is so short. Every player has the ability to invest, seek out expert advice, and then find something else to do with their life after they are done playing, even if it doesn't involve earning hundreds of thousands or millions of $. Thirdly, unlike the very old days of MLB, owners don't make a living/income from MLB. Until or unless they sell a franchise years down the road,the vast majority of owners may make money, but it is their other businesses that support their life and their families, albeit in a way none of us can understand or comprehend. So no-one should feel sorry for owners losing money in 2020 or suddenly hitting the skids. But at the same time, said owners are probably losing money in their other investments, and that's a very real thing in our society/world. Why should we care? Maybe we shouldn't. Maybe it's not important. But we as fans, and the players who are paid by the owners, and the milb players, and the hot dog and beer guy who is hoping baseball comes back AT LEAST in 2021 to some sense of normalcy, we might care about the future of the game beyond 2020 and how stable it is. Fourth, and part of point 3 as well as point 2, simple logic and intelligence should make it clear the owners ARE going to lose $ in 2020 regardless. Now, even without fans, there are some teams like N.Y. or L.A., etc, that might not due to media deals, merchandising and pure nation wide support. And maybe this profit sharing idea helps mitigate the losses of Minnesota, K.C. And others. I don't know the details. And while the financial numbers posted here by others in very intelligent arguments may not be 100% spot on, there seems to be a general truth to what is presented. But is it so far fetched to believe the owners are willing to take a loss on their MLB franchises, mitigated by a new agreement, for the health of their sport for 2021 and beyond? Again, ego and fun is the reason these billionaires own these franchises. They spend massive amounts of $ to purchase these franchises and see profit from them, absolutely, but don't enjoy any huge payday until years later if and when they sell said franchise. The context is absurdly different, but still similar to any of us making an investment over time and cashing in years down the road. In conclusion, it is up to both sides to find a solution that works for 2020, not just financially but logistically. If anyone wants to sit out and not play due to health concerns, I believe they have that right to do so. They forfeit their salary, but they should not be chastised or blackmailed from playing again. That crosses a line, financially, morally and legally I don't think anyone is really prepared to deal with. Salary cap with a floor...something other sports have...be damned. BOTH SIDES have a lot to lose and so much to gain! And I'm not just talking about making $ or losing less. I'm talking about the health of the sport in 2021 and beyond, especially with another labor deal pending. It's easy to be flippant and say blow it all up, but that is just not practical for anyone involved. Now, to me, the onus is on management at this juncture. And I don't just mean for 2020. Just be smart and act in good faith. There is greed and want from both sides. But maybe this is the perfect time for 20 owners, approximately, to show some backbone and step up to the plate...yes, an obvious pun...and challenge the other 10 owners, with or without Manfred, and look at the good of the future of the game. Cap, no cap, if you're willing to share more equitably for 2020 between yourselves, and the players, then why can't you do so going forward? If the basic financial floor of MLB going forward was more balanced, the game grows as more teams can compete year to year. You're telling me that doesn't pique the interest of fans and TV watchers everywhere and gate receipts? Remember, there are watchers, listeners, beer and dog consumers, and jersey/hat purchasing fans across this country besides L.A. and N.Y. and Boston and Chicago. I'm talking about long term investment in the sport itself. You're telling me there is no market for "game of the week" between the Dodgers and the Padres if both teams are competitive? ALL the various networks thrive on viewership. Point is, growing the sport. Perfect time for the owners to step forward for the good of the league and make it stronger. The players could only benefit with further growth as well.

A bit crazy and frustrating to look back at this season. How many years did the Twins have the offense but no or not enough pitching? And then they had plenty in 2005 but so little offense for various reasons. I lament but never really dwell on letting Ortiz go. Mistakes happen and the Twins have benefited from other team's mistakes. And it happened so long ago that to dwell seems counter productive. But I never understood the issues with Lohse. He did not have a great career, but he had a solid one with a few really nice seasons here and there. Something just never seemed to "fit" between he and the Twins.

2020......so far

The LHP Shuster sounds like the perfect selection if he's still around for our second selection. A little under the radar and projectable.

In regard to the original 10: 1] Garver: HR% numbers could drop league wide depending on the ball. But the HR and launch angle trend in MLB is real. So is Garver's power, approach and swing. Can we even really call last year a true "breakout" season when it was really his first year as the "primary" receiver and only 2nd season overall? I think he's for real. 2] Garver games caught: Ugh, math. Still a good platoon partner. But a short season. 50 games, which is 60%. 3] Sano at 1B: He's going to miss a few balls and botch a few plays. He's played there before but is learning the nuances. He won't be great right away, but he will be solid. He will also use his natural athleticism to make a few plays that will make you say; "Whoa! If he could just do that more consistently...." 4] Arraez: You won't see such a natural hitter slump even if he doesn't hit .330 in his second season. Even a dip to .310-.315 with a .390ish OB is excellent. He'll improve defensively and might even muscle up on the XB production. 5] Polanco: No, probably, because there won't be an All Star game. Not unless they want to have one after the season, similar to the NFL, which I doubt for various reasons. But he could make an All Star 1st-3rd team All Star post season selection team. 6] Rosario: He's been bothered the 2nd half of each of the last 2 seasons with different injuries. Healthy, smart enough talented enough, still young enough, healthy and just a small improvement in approach lifts an already good game to a more consistent level. And he will be back in 2021 Because he's good, still won't be overly expensive, and there are doubts anyone will be ready to replace him considering how weird this whole year is going to be. 7] Buxton: He will be dinged, like most players, and miss a few games. But not only should experience be teaching him how to save his body better, and it's a short season, but law of averages will come in to play here to balance some bad luck. 8] Kepler: Reference the law of averages again while factoring in youth, talent, approach, great swing and adjustments being made. At some point his ridiculous BABIP will adjust, even a little. We still haven't seen the best from Max. 9] Cruz: Father time will beat him. But it won't happen this year. Witness not only 2019 but the ST he was having before thjngs shut down. Now factor in a half season. He might not have another career season, even in an abbreviated one, but he will be fine. I would have said the same thing in regard to a full and complete 2020 season, with the idea Father Time would start to pull ahead in 2021. But in a Twins uniform or not for 2021, I'm thinking a short 2020 may put off the inevitable by another year. 10] Donlaldson: He won't be crushing on Twins pitching, but he has crushed about anyone, anywhere, in his career when healthy. I have no doubts he will continue to do so for the first 2-3yrs of his contract, as long as he remains healthy. Guy is a stud hitter. Like Cruz, the half season may actually work to an advantage. Yep, I'm an optimist, but I think all of this is logical and true.

First of all, if the Twins win the whole thing, you better believe I'm counting it!! Secondly, I don't buy all 30 teams involved. You still have a partial season for a buy in. Maybe 12-14 teams. The playoffs and WS are played at the neutral site of Hawaii. No weather issues, presumably. Then MLB and the owners have an NBA pingpong ball raffle for fans of each team's highest prolific website for a trip for 2, or a couple trips considering the length of the competition. The balls would be weighted for years of blogging, numbers of posts, and rewarded for less or zero numbers or warning points. We get our ultimate champion, MLB looks warm and fuzzy, and there are real fans in the stands!

Guess I'm going to end up echoing allot of things already pondered here. The Twins are absolutely in WIN NOW mode and they have to keep some AAA guys around who can "come up" from the taxi squad to fill in as needed, whether they are in Minnesota or Florida. And somehow,some way, those guys need to PLAY, scrimmages or whatnot. They can't just have bullpens and batting practice and stay sharp. I'm still hoping for some sort of limited or very limited type of milb season/set up where they can play other teams, even if it has a but of a pickup game feel to it. I would need to sit down with pen and paper to make a list as to who I might select for that taxi squad, but I think the original 30 man roster is easy to figure out. I don't think you necessarily need 3 reserve catchers, however, when you will already have 3 on the ML roster. Two probably works fine. But do you include Jeffers in that 2? And to me that begins the biggest issue. Can the Twins, or anyone, really afford to have members of their top 10-ish prospects that are a season or potentially half a season away just sit for a year? If there really and truly is no form of milb season, no MLB version of a "Cape Cod" league or modified EST, etc, then how does that affect 2021 and beyond for all teams when guys lose an entire season? It's debatable how much, if at all, Lewis, Kirilloff, Larnach, Jeffers, etc, would be needed or able to contribute this year if they are placed on the taxi squad. But if they are, they could still get valuable developmental time. But then again, does that screw up their service time? Not to mention 40 man implications for next offseason. What if you're a team like the Tigers...sorry to pick on your team Gardy...and you realistically have nothing to play for in 2020? You might as well load up your 50 man total roster with all the young talent you can to get them as much development and experience as you can to jump start 2021. Kind of an unfair advantage toward building your roster going forward. 40 man restrictions need to be thrown out the window with some sort of negated or prorated service time. Taxi squads need to play in some format. And the entire milb system needs to be addressed to SOME degree. Players need SOME sort of pay, losses be damned as they are part of each organization, and SOME sort of short season needs to be implemented later this summer or fall for ALL of milb just for development. Make some sort of Cactus/Grapefruit league work for a couple months at facilities even for a couple months. Considering the locations involved, you could even do so after the ML season. Call it an Americanized version of the winter leagues.

I like the principal here, especially early on, when an abbreviated ST part 2 May not have everyone fully ramped up anyway. And if the roster really is sitting at around 30 players, then this makes it a very practical idea, especially considering the depth the Twins have. The obvious caveat, of course being fewer days off of a series of double headers, could change plans for "secondary" starters to be made available to do just that, start games. Still a bit perplexed by the 80 games when a slightly extended season and some double headers could provide something closer to 90-92 games, but whatever. Just a personal comment, the 3rd one through a lineup situation can be made clear through numbers, like those posted here. But in a normal season, like 2019, those numbers presumably existed. And yet, pitchers like Odorizzi and Pineda ultimately prevailed with quality years and quality seasons. So it's not like we are talking about bailing out bums in the rotation.

NOT picking on sandbun, his post or feelings, in any way shape of form. But I find his comments/feelings about the Pohlad's to be interesting because there is such a far ranging opinion about Twins ownership. (I'm sure that's true of the majority of professional sports teams, to be honest). As fans, in general we get very upset at the players on our teams when they hold out, or make contract demands that could affect our favorite team. I don't think it's every personal, we just want our players to play and be part of the team. When financial situations disrupt that team, or lead to a loss of a favorite player, we lament the situation and sometimes forget it is still a business. When we feel ownership doesn't spend enough, or becomes "cheap" in any way, we become equally divisive about them. Again, forgetting sometimes it is still a business. On the one hand...and I'm NOT starting an old debate here, PLEASE...ownership has a reputation financially, right or wrong. And the entire potential contraction scenario brought about much fear angst and vitriol. Was possible contraction only a power play? Was it real? We may never truly have an answer, at least not one that everyone agrees to. If a power play, they certainly wouldn't be the first owners of ANY business to do so. But then again, not only was the Metrodome dieing a quick death, but we have seen the financial landscape change in all sports, not just baseball, over the last decade plus where you have to wonder where the Twins would even be today without Target Field. But on the other hand, current ownership basically saved Minnesota baseball when they bought the franchise. That should never be forgotten. They brought 2 WS titles and several winning seasons of quality baseball since said contraction speculation. No sides here, just...interesting how you want to look at things. 2000 and 2001 offered hope and promise again that 2002 began to fulfill. It's been a long while since the Twins have been to the WS, that much is true. But this was the start of a string of years of competitive ball that were fun and where we had a shot.

What I remember wasn't the final record, but a feeling akin to the early 80's teams when guys were coming up that the team was setting a foundation of hope.

The actual milb franchises exist, run and maintain from limited TV and radio deals, but count on gate receipts, concessions and the such much more as their lifeblood. But aren't player salaries paid for by the parent club? Someone please correct me here if I'm wrong. Even in this crazy, mixed up pandemic situation, don't the owners HAVE to find a way to have at least some sort of partial season or re-configured EST? Despite a small percentage of players who actually reach the ML and contribute, much less become regular performers, it is still the lifeblood of the MLB product. For the future of MLB, can they really expect some sort of expanded roster to work with only top prospects on some sort of reserve capacity to keep the integrity of the game intact? Need to find some way to pay the milb players, and engage their development for this season even on a limited basis. If not, then guys quitting, limited drafts, limited signings, MLB is going to end up with a potentially inferior product in the next couple of years with guys promoted before they are ready

One thing that concerns me here is teams with deeper pockets using the limited draft to their advantage. And I was reminded today listening to Gleeman and the Geek that the changes to the draft will probably extend to 2021 as well. HS players, with little exception, will be forced to go to college now. If you are a TOP HS prospect, you probably still sign even though you only get around $100K or so initially. But you get the rest of your bonus money over the next 2yrs. So you still probably sign. Over slot HS signings just probably don't sign and go to school. College players are just screwed. IF your school will allow you to come back, IF they will honor any scholarship money made available to you...big IF's at this point...you can try to go back for another season and see what happens with ANOTHER potentially limited draft in 2021. OR, you can sign with a ML team for $20K and peruse your dream for the bonus money that would be paid to a 14+ round draft selection and hope for a normal 2021 milb season. If that is your choice, and the Yankees or Dodgers, as an example, come calling, do you look at the Twins, or Royals, or Padres, etc. Some teams could use deep pocket reserves to offer a ton of $20k contracts others couldn't match. OR, would big market teams not interest you if you felt the road to the majors was a tougher road due to prospect depth and future FA acquisitions? OR, is there a loophole in the $20K bonus deep pocket teams see where they could offer incentives to make this an unfair free for all? Amongst the many things that have to be worked out for a ML season, including development of current milb systems and players, ownership needs to find a way to make any draft and potential signings fair and equitable across the board. If they don't, they end up further screwing up an already disjointed situation. And if they aren't smart about this, college pkayers will end up in the independent leagues for 2021 and a potentially unfair bidding war will take place then. It's not hard to imagine a collection of college players in independent leagues next season, 2021, developing/dominating/, and being offered contracts by big market teams who have greater financial flexibility coming off whatever 2020 ends up offering. There are ramifications that have to be considered beyond just "saving money" in regard to the 2020 and 2021 draft.

The actual milb franchises exist, run and maintain from limited TV and radio deals, but count on gate receipts, concessions and the such much more as their lifeblood. But aren't player salaries paid for by the parent club? Someone please correct me here if I'm wrong. Even in this crazy, mixed up pandemic situation, don't the owners HAVE to find a way to have at least some sort of partial season or re-configured EST? Despite a small percentage of players who actually reach the ML and contribute, much less become regular performers, it is still the lifeblood of the MLB product. For the future of MLB, can they really expect some sort of expanded roster to work with only top prospects on some sort of reserve capacity to keep the integrity of the game intact? Need to find some way to pay the milb players, and engage their development for this season even on a limited basis. If not, then guys quitting, limited drafts, limited signings, MLB is going to end up with a potentially inferior product in the next couple of years with guys promoted before they are ready.

Logic would dictate little action in a short season, especially since trading teams would be uncertain what they are getting back in terms of prospects with no milb season, as been projected. With expanded rosters...some sort of 40+ total roster for reserves, call ups, etc, working out and possibly scrimmaging, teams just won't know exactly what they are trading for. Agreed you need about 2/3 of the season to be played before you hit a deadline. Everyone needs to see what they have and where they are trending. September 1st could be a target date. Could a contending team, especially a team with deep pockets who figure they could over-sign next year, over pay to make a move to push them over the top? Would a team with injuries or covid cases also potentially over pay? Or would they fold up tents? Just so much we can only speculate at this point.

If Marwin has a good 2020, not so sure he doesn't re-sign with the Twins for another season or two but at less than he is currently earning due to age and the fact that I think FA is going to adjust downward for a number of players due to losses incurred in 2020. What Marwin has is a better bat than Hernandez. If Adrianza is brought back, you already have a Hernandez type on your roster who may be a better hitter. Not saying he would be a bad signing just the opposite, but he could be redundant with the guys already on the roster. Quintana would be very interesting. Honestly, I think I'd rather have Odorizzi back. And I'm expecting 3yrs in the $15-16M range, less than what he would have gotten had 2020 been a normal full year with no pandemic. But I think that's going to be true for a lot of guys. I'd almost wonder, with top prospects being delayed due to a missed season, FA $ dropping, Hill and a couple other guys potentially coming off the books, could the Twins afford to keep Odorizzi AND sign Quintana? Hill is going to be prorated like everyone, but he had the potential to earn up to $14M IIRC. could he essentially replace Hill??? I'd rather keep May over Herrera. Period. With a little luck, wisdom and maturity, the one good thing that will come out of this pandemic and mixed up short season is the owners and players association realizing how important coming to some sort of mutually beneficial labor resolution really is for all involved. Both sides have power. Both sides need and want baseball for income. Period. The public also wants and needs baseball. With fear, change of lifestyle, loss of jobs and income, missing sports in general, can baseball suffer another work stoppage at this point? The ramifications could be heavy for both sides I regard to finances and public opinion, which will in return further affect income and profitability. FA and even trades, as well as options and the such, could and will be affected next off-season. How much will each side be willing to lose even more? Let's hope cooler and smarter heads will prevail?

Equal or over on everyone except Arraez. Bad luck runs out eventually. While he might miss a few games, Buck will flash! Cruz is Steve Austin...the bionic man...and will mash as long as his wrist holds out. Might be a sort of farewell tour, but he will be ready. Maeda is damn good. He's changed his approach somewhat, and is coming off his best season against LH hitters. Also, new league that doesn't know him as well. Garver's bat is for real. And while he won't have to play daily, he also doesn't have to worry about being worn down. I expect some regression, but he will be above the .888 mark. Hunch on Arraez says he will be just fine but sophomore "slump" will factor in and he won't hit .320. Might hit .319, but I think he returns to mere mortal status for a season.