Trov

The article seems to suggest that Buck has no decision in this process and it is fully on the Twins management and their doctors. I am pretty sure the person that decides if, and what kind of surgery they are going to get and when is the person getting cut open. We do not know what options were given to Buck, and what he was advised by the doctors. The assumption that Twins can just tell a player this is what you are going to do is crazy. Every surgery has risk. I do not know the extent of the injury, or the risk of the surgery, but I am sure Buck thought about it. I tore and ACL long ago. Most would say just get surgery that is the answer. However, my doctor did not say I had to get surgery that was my only option. In fact, people and athletes live without ACL in their knees. He said though that without surgery, with the amount of sports I do, I would most likely need a knee replacement at 40, no matter how much I put muscle on around the knee. My options, get surgery, do physical therapy and not do surgery and see how my next 20 years go. I went with the surgery, but it was not the only option I was presented by a doctor.

I am fine with the QO of Jeffers, and he may want to take it because with not knowing how the CBA will be changed and if a cap is instituted as owners want, how will that work with current contracts. However, the reverse is also true with a floor imposed, where will it fall and how much will teams have to spend and could he get a big winfall by teams having to spend to get to the floor. Jeffers is in very interesting situation, because of the CBA. Yankees have wanted him, but how much will they give him? He is 30 next year, and catchers, outside of HOF level guys, really fall off after 30. You highlighted Realmuto who was league average about ages 31 thru 33, dropped off slightly 34, but fell off 35 and still getting paid 3 more seasons. Jeffers may decline a QO hoping for long term deal, but there is risk there, and doubt he gets more than 4 years. He is not going to have a ton of suiters bidding. As to the trade for Edwards, what are we giving up?

I would say no, he does not provide enough value at DH. When hot he can do well, but when cold he is terrible. He is slow, does not hit enough power to make up for complete lack of speed, and offers no defense. We have a lot of guys that could rotate through DH using it as a semi off day, or you can move Keashall there being his defense is terrible but his bat, although not power, is useful in the lineup. The only pause I would give is that history has shown most guys do worse as a DH than when in field overall so having someone who has learned to DH can be useful.

I have not had a chance to watch E-Rod since he came up, but I believe what he will need to do is have a plan up and there and learn to adjust the plan as pitchers adjust too. Yes, if he takes hittable strikes early in counts with the plan to just go deep into counts, that could become an issue. However, if he takes the pitches on the edges that will not result in strong hits anyways, looking for a good pitch to hit that is a different issue. Yes, MLB pitchers are much better at spotting the corners, and those are generally where most hitters are weakest. However, if you know or at least look for a particular pitch in a particular area you can increase your chance of hitting it hard, as long as you are willing to not do too much with it. For example, if you look for a fastball outside corner, even if it is low and away, if you are planning it to be there and look to drive oppo you can do damage, but if you are looking for fastball inner half and swing at a pitch low and away looking to pull it you will get out most of the time. That is where a plan and patience can go a long way, provided you work the plan and adjust as needed. I remember for years Buck was a guy that his plan was see ball hit ball, and would chase sliders low and away with regularity. I would see some at-bats where they would throw 3 straight and he would chase all 3. Then sometimes he would take one and they would throw a 4th he would chase. Once a great while they would throw the fast ball low and away and he would sometimes hit it but it would keep him guessing. The point is, if E-Rod does not take meatball pitches early in counts, but only corner pitches he is not looking for then I am not worried in the long run. But if he takes fastballs down the middle just to go deep into counts that could become an issue.

As with any player, you need to balance the offense and the defense. Is the offense so good you can live with bad defense? Can the defense improve to passible? Will he hit at DH the same level as defending, knowing many guys hit much worse as just DH than they do in the field historically. There is long history of terrible fielders getting to play in field because their bat was too good to keep out of line up. You just hoped that their terrible fielding did not cost games, or at least the overall value was always a plus. Clearly he has been bad on defense, and maybe LF is where he needs to settle in to minimize is faults there. Maybe he needs to DH, get moved around to minimize his impact on defense, or just get enough reps to improve. His bat is what will keep him in lineup, and if it falters he will lose his spot.

The lockout will affect 40 roster decisions I do believe. I think it will affect rule 5 draft decisions too, assuming nothing will change from them, with an expected shorter season, due to lock out, a team may be willing to take a position player. Rosario being right handed will be a factor in putting him on the 40 man or not. We are so left handed heavy on our outfield that having some righties will be important. I would not be surprised if we see both Larnach and Wallner non-tendered/DFA to free up some room for someone like him. I am sure there would be a team willing to take a flier on him just based on the raw power potential.

Shelton was getting the club to out play expectations most of the year. He played the hand he was given well enough to warrant a second year. I get that Zoll could want someone else, but will the owners approve paying 2 managers? I cannot say Shelton is the right guy, it is hard to say who is because you need to know your direction, and expectations. I think no one expected much this year, and it ended up playing out that way with the drop off down the stretch. Really it was hot June and July that boosted us to hope, but then reality set in that the team was not set up to win. Then you add in injuries to like 10 starting pitchers, and your first half MVP done for season like you should expect as it always happens. Unless Shelton and Zoll just clash behind scenes I see no reason not go with Shelton a second season.

Without seeing them side by side and comparing I cannot say either will be the better defender. I would agree if range is equal then arm should be deciding factor. I recall though when Culpepper was drafted it was his bat that was known, and his defense was the question mark, article say other way around. Even when drafted, Culpepper was seen as future 3rd due to not being able to stay at SS, but he showed last year he could stay at SS, at least for now. Houston was the opposite, drafted as a glove first and bat would need to step up, which at lower levels of minors has done so. I will agree, we do not know what either will bring long term MLB wise and could shake itself out. However, assuming both show viable bat and nearly equal defense, then you need to decide which defense, as a whole is better, Houston at SS with Culpepper 2nd/3rd with Lee(assuming he sticks around) the other, or Culpepper at SS and Houston the other. It is about the net gain for the team. However, then offense also factors in as well.

So confused by this comment. You think ERod will become FA/DFA or just get put on waivers this off-season? Also, Ryan and Lopez will also be back next year, unless traded this year, both are under team control so not sure where you conclude they will get no value from them. Maybe they have them play year out, maybe get get extension, or maybe they get traded off-season or during season, you never know. Jeffers is only one that will walk for at best draft capitol, but sometimes that works out. People forget we let Cuddy walk many years ago and drafted Berrios with that pick. Sometimes the draft comp turns out be a bust, but sometimes it has good value.

First, we do not even know if the qualifying offer will be a thing in next CBA, as players want it gone. So it is possible they do get nothing for him. I said they should have traded him during the season, because our best stretch of wins came while he was on IL. That may not have been a direct connection, but the point was he was shown to be the "MVP" as we won a higher percent of games with him on IL than off it. Now he will go to Yankees for at best a draft comp. I do not know if there was a good offer out there or not, and I know if he was sent the fans would have said we are selling off. It would have been the type of move that teams like Rays and Cleveland would have done, and this in part how they sustain their winning by making sure they get something in return of assets and never "push all in" like some teams do. Not like we did that either. Point is if you are not going to push all in, then keep maxing assets. Jeffers was at peak value this year, and we could have got something in return. Now he will walk for best case draft comp, but that may not happen. It even comes with the risk he signs it, because other teams may not be willing to give him much more than 3 years at like 50 to 60 total. Most catchers offense falls off a cliff after 30. Outside the HOF guys, their knees just cannot hold up anymore. He will not be getting any like 5 plus year deals that is for sure.

I agree when I think of parity it is not just about each team having chance to make playoffs, that is about running a good team, but I want each team to have a legit chance to sign their drafted and cultivated players. Not just Twins, but other mid to low market teams know they get 6 to 7 years on most players, unless they do the super early long term contract, then they get like 9. But those sometimes have opt outs along the way. The point is many small market teams, not the Twins, but Rays, Athletics, Cleveland, Pirates, know they will never have a HOF player play their whole career with them, because when they get to be FA Yankees, Dodgers, or Mets will come in to sign them. So they trade them prior to the FA walking year. If you had a cap and floor, that gave more incentive to return to your last team, that would even the playing field to do that. Sure, a mid-market team can jump in from time to time, but that is rare, and we saw how well it worked for us long term with CC and a few other bigger deals.

Players have to agree. MLB wants a cap and floor, players want a floor no cap.

The new owner for Angels owns the Rams and I assume will plan to either work on a new stadium around Sofi, or some other development. I also have to assume that he will own a lot of real estate around the stadium. The deals are not just about the team, but about what else does, or could the area own to help make money outside of the actual baseball. The Twins have none of that. They do not own any real estate around Target Field. Any new owner will not move them to another location to get that either. That is going to be a huge issue in selling going forward. Teams now own the stuff around the stadiums to make money off all the bars, restaurants, hotels, and apartments, other entertainment stuff. Owners make tons off of that stuff.

I find it interesting they decided to add him to 40 man for a September call up. Nothing against him but they had guys on the 40 man they could have called up, and guys that can be the utility roll he will fill. I really do not know what to make of the move. Is it lets see what he has before deciding on adding him in off-season, or do they think he will help down the stretch?

I wrote a forum on this topic a ways back when both sides were putting "offers" in media to try to win fans, and when the biggest parts of the offers are about how "OUR" money is being split up, I get upset at both sides. I say "OUR" money because even from TV revenue it is ultimately our money because that comes from ads, which gets passed onto consumers. That being said, I would love parity. Fans in support of the players and no cap, echo their talking points of teams like Rays doing well, as a reason you do not need a cap. There are other teams near bottom of payrolls, Cleveland, Miami, White Sox, and Brewers that are competing for playoffs, Brewers and White Sox are in first place in divisions with Brewers best record in baseball. There are also several teams above the average payroll that are doing terrible, specifically, Mets, top payroll in baseball, Detroit and San Francisco are not competing for playoffs. However, generally the teams on top half are competing for playoffs, and teams on bottom half are not. Would a cap and floor be good for Twins? I think generally a cap and floor will be good for parity, and will really see which teams are best to winning on the edges. Rays, Cleveland, and some other teams have for years won with a below to near bottom payrolls, where teams like Angels and Mets have failed year in and year out with an above average payroll. (Angels just below average right now). If you cap the top market teams they will have to decide who they are paying top dollar too, and push for them and having to use other ways to get them, than just more money than everyone else. One issue will be implementing these, you cannot do it outright comply because teams well over the cap number, Mets, Dodgers, Yankees, Philly, Toronto, cannot reduce that much payroll next year, most likely. Also, teams at the other end, Cleveland, Miami, Cards, Athletics, will have to raise payroll so much that they will end of over paying for middle of road guys just to hit the floor. It will need to take a few years to get there. How can they implement revenue sharing? That is easy, instead of the 50% share of all local broadcasts, you do 100% goes into pool. Same with ticket revenues. I do not think MLB can copy NFL, I think they should be closer to NBA type parity. NFL players careers are so short and the players go right into playing from draft, because they only let college guys play and there is no minor league. Generally, the NFL has to churn so many guys out, and injuries eat them up too, that outside of HOF QBs and line men, or kickers, most guys even the best, retire early 30's, most never make a second contract. I do enjoy that each you outside a few teams, most fans can dream of their team competing. However, NFL and MLB are just not alike enough to fully work that way. MLB will always have the minor leagues with rookies that come in an out or fringe guys that need to make a few starts while top guy is injured. Do I think they will miss games? I do think that. I think both sides are too far apart and too entrenched, and until either side is losing money they will not blink. I personally think if both sides really cared about the game, and what would be best they would agree to a system like the NBA has. A full revenue split. The issue is players and owners cannot agree on what is "baseball revenue". They have fought over the stuff surrounding the stadiums that are owned by the team ownership groups should count, and owners say no way. If they can agree on what is revenue though a 50/50 split would make each side want to grow the game together. In addition, it would have a floor, but a soft cap, which is what the tax is really a soft cap. I think max length contracts, or max money contracts with giving prior team the right to have the longest or most money would help keep home grown talent. Lowering years of control from MLB service time to either years after draft or age or combo would help get them paid faster. For example, if a high school kid was drafted they become FA 6 years after drafted, regardless of years in majors. If they are college 3 years. This would stop holding kids down for years to maximize their years of control. In both cases, most players would become free agent around 24. To counter it though, if you gave a qualifying offer to your player, which is based on actual years in majors and a formula of WAR/WPA however you want to figure it out, for a base salary, at a minimum of 3 years, increasing pay each year, with automatic incentive bonus for all players on those contracts then the player becomes "restricted" FA. Just like all other team can match any deal then. After that contract they will be unrestricted to teams. The max length contract for first time FA is 5 years for other teams, and 7 years for returning players, max money not sure. This would make their next contracts generally between ages 27 and 29, where then they can get their second contract with similar max lengths but increase money based on years of playing and output. The above would do a few things, one it would make teams call up players sooner if they were ready to max their time with them. It would give a natural good FA time of 27 to 29 in most cases, or if they wanted to max on first deal 31. Not much different from how most guys do it now, with opt outs and what not. Then they can get a second big deal. For the teams at the top of cap, they can resign any of own players they had for full year prior just pay extra fee on what is over the cap. However, they are limited on trading on how much money they can take on. They could only take like 10% increase, or something like that. The fine details would need tweaking. I think this would help pay guys sooner, and get more contract chances. This would make teams think twice before always outbidding for guys, but other teams will then get chance to keep guys on as they need to at least get to floor.