Trov

Only way I see him start in AAA is if he gets hurt in spring like he has the last 2 seasons so he cannot get ramped up to actually start the season. Again, he has been hurt 2 springs in a row so there is that possibility he does it again.

I personally think the Twins hope he takes the offer because they really just want 1 more season from him. If he turns it down I doubt they look for anything more than a 2 year deal for him and he will find better elsewhere. They have many catchers in the organization now that they hope will pan out. They will not want a bloated catching contract on their books when that time comes.

I would be shocked if Bednar gets 4 years in a contract. He is 32 and pen guys are so volatile there are very few pen guys that get that long of deal and many times the teams get burned quickly.

Your logic about the "DH Penalty", being in a SSS of one game has little impact, and therefore it is not a big deal to rotate the DH. I get not everyone has this effect, but data shows it is pretty common. Lets for argument sake there is some it, as you stated in a single game it will have little impact. If there is a "DH Penalty" for non-full time DH, and not for a full time DH. Then why have a guy have lessor at bats, even in 1 game? Because actually you are going to say in every game, 162 you will have the "DH Penalty" Sure, in any single game the player you pick will still get some hits, but if the assumption is they will do better while fielding, and someone else will do better if they are locked in as DH, why not do that? If Keashall sucks on defense wherever he plays, why not use him full time at DH? Generally, the penalty drops when a player gets used to DHing.

I personally believe having a full time DH, if you can have a good one, is better than the rotating through guys giving them a semi day off. The reason I say that is historically, position players do not do well doing the fill in at DH and hits much better when a fielder, where full time DH's know how to deal with the mental part of not playing defense. It can be hard spending 2 to 3 innings just sitting and thinking about your last at-bat or next. Getting used to that I believe can help hitting. I am not saying they need to go out and get one, but can use someone they have in house. I know most teams hate putting a guy into the "DH" roll early in career, but I see no reason not too if they are a good hitter but a negative in the field.

First off, I hate that the players and owners keep putting their proposals in the media for fans to fight over, because there are no winners for the fans. We all know there will be a lockout, and the owners want a cap and the players say no way ever. So one side will have to budge. The owners have already increase the proposed number and giving different things like no more QO and short time to FA. Players still say no way ever to a cap, making statement if they agreed the players as a whole would lose out on billions. Additionally, the players want the current soft cap they call it, when it really is just a tax limit for teams that want to go over they just have to pay a lot more, to increase, and make basically a floor, that teams that get revenue sharing need to pay the players with it, or it is given up, not sure who gets the money then. Like if say the A's do not spend enough from the revenue sharing, and they do not get to have it, does it just sit in MLB bank account, does it go back to the teams it was taken from, that is not clear from what I have read. So who budges first? Both sides can have a long hold out as the players have a huge war chest, and the owners do not live off the revenue from baseball, but use the "investment" and realize the money when they sell, while making billions off other businesses. Ultimately, I think the owners could hold out longer than players, mainly the young players that have yet to get their big payday will possibly waste a whole year of earning potential, in a job that you are generally capped to a short number of years to earn. The lower earning pen guys, back of rotation, bench players that earn around league min will possibly waste a full year of earnings. Sure, they will most likely be fine, but there will be a whole new crop of players from minors that will be ready to take their jobs when they can. The superstar players will always be fine, but will a long stoppage affect the lower rung guys, maybe. What about the owners though, they have billions from other businesses, but they are business men and women for a reason. They do not sit on assets and let them lose value. They do not run businesses to lose money. Even though they have to sell the team to realize their investment, they still see a loss in value of the team due to long hold out a loss. Then there is the real money they still need to pay others, that are not the MLB players. The minor league players still have to get paid, the managers, coaches, front office people, grounds crew, and many other workers and other bills that continue to build up even though games are not played. That money needs to come from somewhere, and normally it comes from earned revenue during the season along with the media deals. No games, no money coming in, at least not much. So to pay the people they still have to, they need liquid funds. Sure the teams will have some on hand, but mostly it will now have to come from liquidating money from their other businesses. Most of these owners do not have that much in cash, but in non-realized stocks. So to get liquid they either need to sell the stock, or take out loans using the stock as collateral. How much of that are they willing to do before it becomes too much? I do not know who budges first, but I do think a reasonable compromise is a soft cap, similar to NBA, and not a hard cap like NFL and what owners are proposing. It is similar to what MLB has now, but with a floor imposed, and owners could still spend over the soft cap to sign their own players, there would just be rules on ability to bring in outside players when over the cap.

Similar to SS and CF you cannot have too many catchers. Not all will pan out, and many can get moved off the positions. Catchers can get moved to many positions depending on their speed. Some get moved to corner OF, some to 3rd, but many to 1st. If their bat can play they will have a chance.

I see no way they do this. Even more so this off-season. With the CBA in question and what it looks like that will have a big impact on future FA decisions. Why sign a guy under old rules when there is a possible the rules will change? You also have a guy that has not played a full season of pro ball. We see guys have big rookie years and we start talking about how much we will count on them in the future, only to DFA them like 2 years later before they are even arb years. Three recent names come to mind. Then there are other prospects we have talked about in past to do this with, Lewis being main one, now we are talking about non-tendering maybe. If we signed him to a huge deal years ago we would be talking about how bad of a mistake that was. We have not had a player in recent years that we have looked back and said dang I wish we would have offered a big deal as a rookie or near that because now they are walking. If you can name just 1 in last 20 years I would be surprised. The closest that would come to mined would be Berrios, but he really has been a number 3 to 4 starter at best since we traded him, with Bailey Ober putting up a higher bWAR than him.

Increasing the scouting staff with diverse thoughts of the scouts should help. When you have a smaller number, you will most likely have a less diverse thought pattern on players, and less likely to have scouts push back on assumptions. Everyone has personal thoughts and beliefs about what is best, where issues are, and things like that. If everyone in the room has same thoughts or beliefs then it is just an echo chamber of everyone agreeing. That can lead to blind spots for organizations. Just have more is not the answer, having different ideas will lead to discussions about players and that will lead to more informed decisions.

This WS shows that money is not "needed" to win, but as we know it gives teams a better chance. What teams like Brews, Ray, and Cleveland have shown is if you are not going to spend, you need to know to reload well, and move pieces when needed to fill holes. Hitting on draft and international signings are important too. The problem with a mid-market team spending, is they cannot just spend to spend, like the big boys, because if you spend poorly, then you have to fight the bad contract you signed. Twins have 2 recent examples of that, CC and Donaldson. Both were outside the norm FA signings by the Twins that shocked people. However, both made it that you were tied to that player, unless you gave away assets to have another team take him off your hands because the contract became a bad contract. Big teams, can afford to miss on a bad contract, but they still need to hit on them too, and have a farm system to trade from, or bring up guys. Yes, the Dodgers spend a ton, but they also have a good system to use to trade for top end guys, and resign them, but also when a contract does not work out, they still have guys they can count on to come up. Look at Angels for years they had two of the best in the league, and would go out and spend big. However, they did not spend smart. They would just go out and get the top name on the market and had terrible contracts on vets that were well overpaid because they did not spend smart. Rays and Brewers will always trade guys away before they lose value, and would rather trade a year early than late. They will sign guys to long term deals early in team control to buy out the most important years of FA, the first 1 to 3. They take risk, but they know how to keep reloading their team, knowing not all prospects will be hits.

With the rule 5 draft going to be on hold until after lockout, it calls into question, when will need to "protect" anyone. There may not be a rule 5 draft this year, so why put anyone on to protect them. I would have to imagine, that with the lockout, part of any agreement to have a rule 5 draft this year will give teams a chance to put who they want to protect on it. It does not look like they have much risk of filling up the 40 too quickly. The big risk if there is a shorter season, is if the rule 5 is done, and you have less games, it could lead to some teams taking a waiver on a young guy that can ride end of bench more. You can stash pitchers at end of pen to eat up innings in non-high leverage situations, but it is harder to do that with hitters. Sure, you can do put the 13th guy as a come off the bench late in games to run and defense, if they can offer that, but you really lose out on possible hitting development, so really want to have them play. Most teams will not take a position player unless they are either very young, and the team will be bad and you just plan play through the ups and downs, hoping it will not affect long term growth, or older guys that it is now or never for them and you are willing to risk the cash.

I personally believe the fastball control and location is one of the most important parts of pitching. It is the backbone to full set of pitches. Yes, pen guys can get away with an elite slider, or change up, because they will only face a guy one time, but starters need to have multiple pitches and throwing and controlling the fastball is important. Also, it is not just about throwing the same fastball over and over. There are different types you can throw. One of Rays best pitchers, Rasmussen, throws fastball about 76% of the time, but it is broken up into 3 different types, 4 seam, cutter, and sinker. I am not saying you can only get by with fastballs, but when you can hit all 4 corners it makes your other pitchers that much stronger. Joe Ryan had an issue where his fastballs normally were up, and breaking stuff down, so it was easier for hitters to figure out what was what. Eventually, he was able to pitch some fastballs at the knees for strikes, that makes the breaking pitch better. If you can mix a 4 seam up, with a sinker up that falls into the zone, it makes the 4 seam up that much better. Same with bottom of zone, it will get more chase, or rolling over the sinker down. Cutters on inside and outside of zones mixed with 4 seams are that much more effective too. Throw in a change or slider from time to time you will get that much more chases. The key to pitching, has and always will be about keeping hitters guessing. Location and changing of speeds go a long way. I do agree pure velo and movement will always be hard to handle for hitters, but you can turn the velo up to 100 on the pitching machine and pump it the same spot eventually the hitters will hit it. If you get them looking up, and you hit the knees, or inside to outside that is what is effective.

I have long argued he was screwed by voters, for whatever reason, and long argued he is Sandy Koufax, just did not retire at peak. Santana should, and I think eventually will get in through vets committee. However, I do disagree with the one comment about how you should only look at peak, I think peak is important, but longevity of being very good is also important. It is interesting because if injuries play a roll in the reduced longevity and effective play where is the line? Santana matched Koufax almost exactly in terms of seasons and bWAR. However, you have some other guys that had great starts to careers and injuries derailed them and they had like 3 or 4 good seasons. Then you have the guys that peaks were great, no real injuries that we know of, and just fell off. Like Tim Lincecum, his peak 4 years were great, a couple rivaled Santana, but Santana's was longer overall. Lincecum then fell off being terrible rest of his career, no injuries reported as he pitched full seasons just not well. Matt Harvey had 3 great seasons to start his career than injuries set it. I doubt anyone would argue Lincecum or Harvey should be considered for HOF, but it does raise the question of how long of a "peak" do we look at, and how bad are the non-peak years? I am not a pure numbers, I am more of a if you say this guys feels HOF and has played a long time kind of thing. When Santana was playing, before his injury, I doubt there was a single voter that said he is not HOF, but for some reason because he got inured they decided he was no longer HOF, despite being same as Koufax in every aspect.

The QO offer needs to be made and accepted well before lockout. The question is if it is rejected, what does that mean after the lockout? What if a team signs someone as a FA before the lockout and the rules change after? My guess no team will sign a FA that turned down QO until after lockout, but it is a question. I know players have long been upset with the QO offer because they tried to use it as a starting point 1 year for X money for all other teams, but once it is rejected you cannot go back and take it. You can go back to your original team, but they are not bound by the offer anymore. What started happening is every player rejected it, but some found teams were not willing to pay the price to sign them giving up the draft capitol. Then they made the rules easier for teams to sign someone who had given the offer, but still teams have been hesitant, in part because the player tries to say this is the floor, but not every team agrees. I have a feeling the QO will get a change again this CBA.

Neither were expected to carry the team at any point, the fact that they helped in June make fans think the Twins had some chance was just bonus for the Twins. Caratini was signed to be backup catcher, he was used more than that early in year. Had they carried the hitting all season long that would have been great, but no one should have expected it. Baseball is always about adjustments.

I care less about the playoff seeding, but the 154 game schedule with almost always having Mondays off is interesting. I have a feeling it could lead to 6 man rotations. Some teams have messed with 6 man rotations, but when you know you have 6 games and a day off, it helps makes sense of it. If you stick with 5 man, your top guy say pitches Tuesday, then Sunday, then if you do regular rest would then be Friday, or if you give each person the off day rest, Saturday. I do not think each team would go to that, right way, but there will be teams that will try it. I do think the shortened schedule with always having an off day will be something players will like.

I am 100% on board with trading him. Cleveland and Rays do this all the time. They trade their pitchers before they walk in FA hope that at least 1 of the guys they trade for turn out. The only reason you would not is if you are going all in next year and willing trade away prospects to hope next year is your year, and nothing about this year shows we are ready to do that.

They 100% did it to keep him on the "prospect list". There is no doubt anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy. If he was not in that position he would have sat out a few games, or at least they would have started it that way, then moved him if after a couple days it still was an issue. We seen it with Buck many many times they would wait several days to see.

I think the ones with low cost are easy tender, unless you need the 40 man spots for guys to miss out on rule 5. Without looking closer at that list it is hard to say who should get tendered or not.

I would see if a team has interest in him and see if you can trade him for anything of value, then DFA him when no team comes biting. He is losing velo and outside of a few decent starts he has been very bad. Yeah, you need depth, but he will make too much money to be a guy that should be in AAA with getting spot starts as needed at MLB level.

I remember it was just a couple years ago when there was articles of signing him to a long term deal buying out his arb years and a year or two of FA. Now we have an article of do we DFA him two years before he walks. It shows how there is major risk to a long term contract on a prospect. I do not feel he is a no doubt cut, but you have to be willing to eat some money if he falters quickly. You cannot ignore what he did, but look at a few other guys we were so excited about from their early times with Twins and what happened to them. Miranda, Wallner, and Julien all had great stretches, but are not MLB level talent anymore. I would DFA him and move on. He seems to be a bit of a headache to deal with. He does not have a clear defensive home, and his offense is below average to unplayable at times. Outside of a nice stretch during our hot streak he was terrible.

Having a lefty starter is always valuable. Even better when they can be a good one. Twins have not had one really in a long time.

Lee was drafted as a high floor but low ceiling kind of guy. This year he appears to be getting that floor up there. Might he regress, yes, might he build on it, yes. I doubt he will ever be a star, but if can be a solid average at bat, and put up average defense, where ever he lands, that is okay. Not all high picks turn out to be stars, some never play a major league game.

Number 1 will affect everything. Mainly, if there is a floor and teams have to spend to get to the floor right away, and if the Twins fall below the floor. That will lead to certain moves. Until we know what the CBA looks like I doubt many teams will ink long term deals.

I will never believe that 2 pen guys would have made up 7 games in the standings. Yes, our pen was a big issue all year, and we added at the deadline to try to help it. You need to ask, how many innings would they have pitched that you assume would have been a different outcome. I could be wrong, but I refuse to believe they would have changed that many outcomes. Also, you need to remember both were being used as closers. They both would not do that here, so the fWAR cited would not be as high. Also, with Duran's money on the books, other moves may not have been made.