DocBauer

Exactly! We're talking silly money here. But at this point, $2.5M more per year, especially for an AL team that has the DH for him to possibly slide in to a couple years from now, would be silly not to say yes to. I understand there is an invisible wall at some point you just don't push beyond. Just hard to believe the extra $2.5 would be that wall.

I really liked what I saw flash last year, I just want to see more consistency in his control. Young, aggressively promoted the last 2 years and a rookie seeing his first ML action. Not surprising he doesn't look finished yet. Can't remember who we played, but there was a 4 IP performance when he looked almost dominate for the first 3 innings before seeing his numbers inflate the 4th inning as he took one for the team. You could see the potential there.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Only a novice, but I kinda get and kinda understand all the modern day analytics. I kinda get WAR as well. It all sounds so smart and well researched. And then I read about how many WAR options there are. And pitchers, let's just stop before we get in to various ERA and FIP this and that. At some point...a player performs or he doesn't. Your eye shows you a guy is good or stinks at certain things, albeit with stats to help you make your final decision. But the catcher position in baseball is so unique that I care very little about statistics or rankings. There was a time when you hit, or you didn't. But managers and pitchers would talk about handling a staff, and calling a game, and leading a staff or team. Before there was Butera there was Boone. And if you don't know Boone, look him up. And if you don't know either...I don't know what to tell you. Modern metrics have really messed with catcher "rankings" in my opinion. Unless you are in the clubhouse, dug out, or on the field, you really don't know how good that catcher is or the job he does. Castro was good. Castro did a lot in his 2 healthy seasons for the Twins. I would have liked to keep him for a 60/40 ish split for 2020 since the 50/50 worked so well in 2019 but Garver is ready for more. IMO, the Twins were lucky to find an almost exact equivalent in Avilla for next season to replace Castro. What I don't understand is NO rumors and NO reported offers for Castro until this deal. Was he asking for and expecting too much? I'm guessing that is the case. Otherwise, I think the Twins would have spent a bit more to keep status quo. I think he was looking for a real shot at being the #1 guy and was disappointed. I think he was important for the club while here and for Garver's growth as well. Best of luck to him. Glad we have a nice #2 option available who is respected.

Maybe I'm just a homer, but I actually think the FO felt they either had Stroman in the bag, or felt they had an understood gentleman's agreement for first refusal to up their offer. Considering reportage as to their consternation, and other various reports that questioned what the Jay's got back, I am thinking this is what happened, for whatever reason. Betting you will not see another transaction between these teams for some time.

Why do so many discount keeping these guys in the fold. Baffles me!

Just tossing this out there for comment and consideration. It's possible the Twins are just being played by Donaldson and his agent to play Atlanta and Washington against one another as they both represent what are esentially "home" options if he wants to stay south. But the fact remains, the Twins are still in this at this point. I'd like to think Falvey and Levine are smart enough to know if they are just being played. Again, makes me think we are really in this play. With Atlanta now reportedly going 4yrs, I'm guessing at lesser $ per year or he would have already jumped, do the Twins look "weak" if they just call up Donaldson and his agent and just say; "look, we're serious about this. Are you? You want an opt out? (doubt it) You want another $2-3M per? We're serious and we're good. We want you and think you fit and would love it here. Here we go..in or out?" Smart? Does it make them look weak? Or are they smart to be pro-active and just throw in some extra sweetness to make it happen?

This may or not be the right place to broach this, but I don't know if it deserves a separate OP, and he's already been mentioned. At least by me, lol. What is the issue with Romero? I think he could be a huge surprise in 2020 and going forward if his arm and stuff can be harnassed. And his stuff is electric. I don't pretend to have the eye or knowledge of Parker or many contributors here. Is he just that inconsistent in his delivery? MY OPINION watching him last season is it felt like he pitched almost "scared". It felt, to me, like he was trying to be too perfect and "aim" the ball vs just throwing within the zone and allowing for natural velocity and movement to do what it does. Love to hear other opinions on the matter.

What is so interesting here, to me, is not the slider. I mean, the numbers sort of speak for themselves, but his FB. Unless I just missed something, the velocity seems to be there, but location or deception seem to be the issue. I don't recall if he normally throws a 2 seam or 4 seam, but something has to be found or corrected. Is it his grip? Does he need to slide to one side of the rubber? Is he just inconsistent with his delivery? Seems to me if Johnson can do the things we think he can do, add a tick or two, help him "tunnel" and find that consistent approach, we could end up finding something here. Just because no-one has yet doesn't mean this isn't the time and place and coaching point in his career to make something happen. I mean, the problem with most pitchers isn't the FB, right? It's usually their breaking pitch or change.

Can't and won't disagree with you as we agree 100% in principal. Betts, of course, was just an example. Part of me always likes to look forward to the young guys I see being so close. Yes, guys will get dinged. And you can always end up making an unexpected trade if you truly end up with surplus. Ranching it down a notch, what are your feelings on Frazier for a 1yr or Castellano as an OF, try him at 1B, he could play 3B in a pinch option? Not that I necessarily sold on either guy.

Agree 100%. But reflecting back, Gibson was beginning to have issues as well. And 1 kid in the rotation at a time may have been their thinking. But I agree, you give the kid of choice a shot, or you don't. (Did I just channel Yoda there?) When 2020 rolls around, and there is opportunity arises early on with Pineda out, I hope they just "go for it" with their youngster of choice. Maybe even piggyback a couple of them.

Generally, I think you are spot on. The problem is, for both sides involved, that amounts to $2.5M. That really amounts to nothing when you are dealing with these crazy numbers. So then you figure, why not make it $120M and add $5M more per? I mean, it's only $5M more right? It's not just player preference, but at $ values that close, that's what probably wins out. And at some point, silly money just becomes stupid. I agree the longer it drags out, the better it looks for us. But a pair of "home town" locations for almost the same money? Just doesn't feel good. (Sigh)

We generally agree on this point. You can never have too many good players. So get as many as you can and plug them in to the place, or places, that they fit best. But that has to come with at least a little context, doesn't it? You get Betts tomorrow and now who plays 1B? Do you move Kepler there and cross your fingers? He's athletic enough to probably convert well, but is that the best course of action? While I hope but don't think we will get Donaldson, he's a great fit due to bat and position and the move of Sano to 1B. But if not him, isn't a Moreland-type on a 1yr to replace Cron perhaps the best option? You have a handful of really good looking guys near ready to challenge for 1B, and Lewis getting that much closer to taking over one of the infield spots. Not saying "don't get someone" because you whiff on Donaldson. I just think how they fit within the structure of the team, even and especially in context of positional flexibility, has to still be considered. But yeah, have the money, miss on Donaldson, look to improve in any way you can.

How many times can I hit the LIKE button before I get in trouble or my phone blows up on me? Understand frustration, disappointment, optimism, etc. But the ENTIRE context of the quote, what has happened, and what might yet happen, all have to be considered. This is directed at nobody in particular, just my own thoughts and commentary. The quote never stated any guarantee one of the top 4-5 FA was going to be brought on board no matter what. In fact, to me, the first step, and what I'm extremely grateful happened, was bringing Oddo and Pineda back. They are impact guys. Now, I wanted more. I still want more. But I think any disappointment I feel is level headed in how things have played out so far.

I feel part of the reason Perez got such a long leash was based on hope from his early season performance, and maybe a feeling of not putting too much pressure on too many of the kids at once. Where I feel positive that they won't continue to play someone not performing is moving on from Parker, and others, in the pen, or embracing Arraez daily over Schoop. I hope I'm right, but I think we may be moving beyond the "pay 'em so play 'em" mantra.

My answer is no to a trade, and not due to dislike. His addition, even with a good bat, is not the same as adding Donaldson. Donaldson brings that big bat along with fine defense for at least a few more years. Adding a different quality bat but poor defense does not have the same affect as the slight re-shuffle of the infield corners. I'd rather come up with the best short term 1B option I can with Rooker/Raley/Kirilloff in the wings and close.

I would have preferred someone younger like Wood or Walker on a 1+1 deal as the upside is much greater, IMO, though the floor might be lower if they just can't make it back. Which leads to the premise of the OP discussing Bailey vs Perez. Bailey had success for a period if time before injury derailed his career. He had a bounce back in 2019 and finished strong, someone you can't say about my preferred and previously stated options. Bailey has also already had some career success whereas Perez really hadn't until the first months of last season. In short, there is every reason to believe Bailey, IF actually performing well/solidly should maintain and not fall off a cliff the way Perez did.

I believe the Twins are serious about this. $90M? What about $100M to sweeten the deal? At this point, really, we're only talking another couple $M per season to get it done. Not a biggie in the crazy finances of MLB. I just don't know how you go a 5th year. I think I'd be out at that point, keep Sano at 3B and find the best 1B option you can. Unfortunately, despite the Twins being serious, I think it comes down to Atlanta saying yes to 4yrs and same/similar numbers and he says yes to them.

Read every post. Ready to weigh in. I had a personal list of a few flier guys I liked. (Not that I KNOW anything). Neither of these guys were on my list. These guys are not part of my prescription for 2020. The Doctor is NOT overly happy about these moves. But whether it be life or Twins, I like to take a step back and look at the situation, weigh and examine everything, and try to see the big picture. Again, NOT happy. And I'm not going to be until I see Donaldson, or a trade for a quality arm, hopefully both. But with a step back, still hoping things are not done, I can offer a few points of "positivity" that should be considered. 1] While injuries have been an issue, Hill has been good to very good when on the mound. As recently as last season. He absolutely is a cheap mid season type acquisition that costs little. And if good enough to earn any of his incentives, the FO looks brilliant. There really is no risk here. 2] A few years back, Bailey had a nice run of a few good seasons before injury and such derailed him. For whatever reason(s), he had a bounceback in 2019 and a strong finish. Some decent/good previous success and said rebound doesn't look too bad for your your #4 or #5 SP. And that is what he was signed for. I think most of us were on board for a depth flier regardless. 3] Everyone, myself included, liked what the FO did EXCEPT for ignoring all the FA for the BP, except for Parker, and were confused and miffed greatly. But they had a vision/plan that we didn't see and by the time things settled down, they were right, and I will admit I was wrong. They like their first 3 guys. They like their youngsters, obviously, and believe in what is coming up. They obviously have a vision and belief we all don't see or agree with at this time. Once again, I'm not really happy. There still needs to be a couple smart moves made to build on this club and their potential. I'm not ready for torches and pitchforks yet because I've seen so much good they have done. And my "positive spin" here isn't to convince you, or myself for that matter, that these were any kind of brilliant move! I only offer a step back perspective, after reflection, to say there may be a method in madness here to be examined and not simply dismissed out of frustration and impatience.

First, tremendous OP, Nick. I especially liked the O'dowd comments because they are real. Kudos. The one comment, in all sports, that has always frustrated and confounded me is "This team is built for the playoffs". (I shake my head again just thinking about it). It is the worst case of hyperbole. It's as if someone assembled a team/roster and SOMEHOW the regular season should be skipped and we should somehow skip said regular season and just assemble a collection of teams based on paper and fantasy projection and just jump so some playoff scenario to decide the champion. It doesn't work that way. If it did, the Twins would have been virtually excluded in 1987. The Patriots would have just been handed the Lombardi trophy a few years back instead of having to actually PLAY, and lose to the Giants simply because they were the "best team assembled". While some want to scream "cheap" about "financial flexibility" as though it were an ugly 4 letter or hyphenated word, it is not. In MLB, we are seeing teams, and have seen glimpses previously, now looking to shed excessive payroll they themselves created. Take Boston as an example. Am I off topic or digressing? Not at all. The Twins window opened up in 2019 through a variety of factors, mostly due to health and progression of the core in place, along with a few smart additions. And yet, for various reasons, there remains room for INTERNAL improvement, based on experience/development and in some cases, health. Unless suddenly traded in mass, there is a collection of top prospects nearly ready to add and replace losses over the next year or so. This, even allowing for the loss of current players/prospects. You trade Rosario, Larnach is close to replacing him. Or Kirilloff does with Raley or Rooker taking over or sliding in to 1B. Lewis, untradedm could be at 3B/SS/CF. The point isn't horde prospects, but just don't dump them all so that you have options. We simply will not be able to keep and re-sign everyone. Trades will happen for various reasons. Some prospects will flame out. Others will surprise. Some trades will pan out, others will not. But additions and development will be key over time. The best run franchises with any sort of "sustainability" prove that to be true. As the Twins are constructed, RIGHT NOW, from the ML roster on down, knowing there will be losses here and there, I would say there is a legitimate window of 3 to 4 years. That's the best I can give because there are just too many factors in place. Example: we keep Berrios but lose Sano and Buxton. They are replaced Lewis and Javier. Give me the best, most competitive, versatile team you can put together every season for a shot, and I'll take that.

Saying "if healthy" is a redundant and somewhat bogus statement as really, that applies to EVERYONE! And career performance for an over 30yr old player is always a very slippery slope. HOWEVER, I'd like to think the health question is something any team, including the Twins, would investigate very thoroughly before making any move. (I thoroughly acknowledge mid-season moves like the one last year for Dyson throw a monkey wrench in place). To state the obvious, I don't pay a lot in prospect value. Boston also has to eat some of the $ cost. But how does that work exactly? If you are the Twins, you could be looking at Boston eating mkre the first year, potentially while we have $ sitting unspent for 2020. But over the next couple of seasons, even with some additional $ coming off the books, we also have some extensions we need to look at. Prince's performance in big games for 2018 shouldn't be discounted. Nor should his first half of 2019, which I would gladly take. But how much, if you are the Twins, do really and truly trust his health and ability to perform for 28GS over the next few years at something like $20M per with low prospect cost? Do you truly see the ends justifying the means? I'm saying no, but I am intrigued. I just feel the odds are better for Gray, Ray, etc, for 2yrs plus a flier type we've all discussed. Maybe there is another Odorizzi move that is even smarter.

A very interesting arguement, Matt. Honestly not sure Duffey and May couldn't be one of the guys to actually take a step forward. But of the 3 names you listed, I'd also agree on Littell, but with some hesitancy. I say that because I liked what he did and what I saw. He's come a long way from the kid with a deer in the headlight look thrown out on the mound when not quite ready in 2018. But damn when you look at what Stashak did as a rookie and his SO/BB totals. With the very nature of the BP role, so hard to predict regression. Because of that, I won't argue against Duffey, or anyone. Said regression would be minimal, I'd hope. I think a 3rd topic, and maybe more interesting, would be a Wild Card choice. Who might step up that we aren't exactly exlecting? Might that be Wisler suddenly finding better control, Romero harnessing his stuff, or Alcala embracing his new role? Or someone else?

I think I can help you with this. 1] Healthy again after injury in 2018, Donaldson proved again he is a fine defensive 3B. Staying healthy, you would expect a couple more years of quality play at 3B. 2] Better overall defense at 3B could actually make Polanco's job a little easier. (Polanco should also continue to get better just through religion as well as a full year with his new throwing motion). 3] Sano actually has pretty good hands. He offers the size/length you'd like at 1B. He charges the ball well and has really developed on chasing pop ups. His biggest negative, even in shape, is pure lateral range. That becomes less of an issue at 1B. Given focus on 1B, the skill set is there to be just fine at 1B, especially considering he already has some experience at the position. You add a much better overall bat to your lineup than Cron...who I actually liked...and improve the left side of your defense. Not hard to see a win-win scenario here. I'm OK if this mkve actually happens. Improving ANY AREA of your team is a good move, even if another area needs work done. Your team, your season, is still about improving your team as a WHOLE ENTITY. That being said, let me be clear that I'm OK with Sano at 3B and believe he will continue to improve if left there. I've said that over and over again. I also look at another option at 1B for the short term and see Raley, Rooker and Kirilloff all challenging soon for 1B and don't necessarily see Donaldson as a MUST. But I also believe you improve your team when and where you can and sort issues of playing time and even position later. Can't deny Donaldson's glove and bat aren't at least intriguing. And IF said signing took place, it still doesn't preclude additional pitching additions. I'm doubtful it's going to happen, but very OK if it does. I also clearly see the reasons NOT to over pay or be bummed if he signs elsewhere. I have to say, finally, I think you're missing the point on Marwin. Defensively, he can be solid to good at multiple positions and provides a well rounded offensive game. His greatest strength, however, is his ability to contribute so well at so many spots. Overrated? ONLY if he is asked to play a single position daily. Otherwise, I don't think he's overrated at all.

Thanks. Weird. Would have thought at least one of the places I checked would have said something. Going to be interesting.

I appreciate the whole concept but not sure it fits. Donaldson, and his bat, fits at 3B with Sano moving to 1B where I think he should be solid to potentially better. SSS errors at 1B don't bother me too much at this point as repetition helps and his problem defensively isn't hands or length or charging or pop ups so much as it is just limited lateral range. Castellanos has never played 1B and I just don't know I feel comfortable trying to learn it on the fly. I think the defense takes a dip that is not offset by a better bat vs adding a lesser bat but better glove at the spot.