Trov

My wife is a Pirates fan, and it is sad to see how far they are falling and how quickly. They really need to sell the team to an owner that cares about the fans. They made their run with Cutch, but since they have sold off everyone. It is not even really a rebuild as the prospects coming back are mid-level. I do not know what it would have taken to get Musgrove, he would have been good fit at end of rotation. Kuhl would be good as well.

If it keeps him from an AL contending team great. He kills the Twins no matter what he was doing all season.

Of the list Paxton would be my preferred route. Not sold on any of the four, but Arch is a hard no.

Anyone else notice they are all 1 or 2 year deals? I wonder how many of the remaining FA are hoping for more than a 1 to 2 year deal. I bet many of the remaining guys have 1 year offers out there. I have been saying all off season, there will be very few long term deals. Most will be 1 or 2 year deals. This is because of COVID this coming season, still we do not know how much attendance will be there. The other is the CBA is coming up and I expect a work stoppage, with possible major changes to CBA. This could greatly affect what a bad contract could mean to a team. With all the unknown it is hard to agree to long term deal.

This is the exact reason I never would spend big on a reliever in FA. They are so volatile and many times get over paid. Yes, there are some guys that end up being worth it, but they are so few and far between. Closers were the thing for awhile, but teams learned the save was a such a loaded stat. I will never be upset for letting bullpen guys walk or not signing top guys. So often they end up being way overpaid.

Kluber signing for Yankees is no big deal, if he is washed up, unless that leaves a hole in rotation. I was willing to take a flier on Kluber, but being the shoulder issue was not connected to issue he had year prior it is bit of a risk moving forward. I think Yankees will be regretting Lemahieu at the end of the deal. Maybe not because he will be playing 2nd base or moved to 1st by then or DH and their stadium is still a little league sized park down the lines. I just have a feeling as he ages his numbers will drop and like many he will be overpaid. The international guys I know nothing about, but take little stock that they are SS now, as Sano was signed as a SS to. Lets hope 5 years from now we are talking about them being top young guys ready to help.

I get the steroids issue for Clemons and Bonds, but until there reported use, they were HOF players. They may not have put up the numbers late in their careers like they did, but even if you take away a couple of late years they are still HOF players. Also, if roids were as wide spread as expected, late in their careers with everyone else they were essentially on same playing field. I am not defending their use, but they should be judged by their peers at the time they played and they were two of the best at that time. If Hall wants to make an example of them, then put them in a special wing that says they used roids. I mean if you want to eliminate all that used you will be taking a lot of guys from 90's and early 2000's era that were best of their era.

Clearly a trade with Boston would have worked out better, based on the three names mentioned and how they did, assuming they would have done similar things in MN, no evidence they would have. The NY guys were all ehhh with big spikes in their careers but nothing super. I would not say the trade of Gomez for Hardy was bad, as Hardy was a good SS for years, just not with the Twins because we gave him to Baltimore for basically nothing. Had we stuck with Hardy and he was similar to what he did in Baltimore that would have been a fine trade. Really, the whole thing showed how bad Smith was. He did make some good international signings, but his trades were mostly very bad. He also made some bad international signings as well. He should go down as worst GM in Twins history.

Any time a player slips through and has good numbers later on everyone thinks why did we let them go. This is one where many let him go, and really any team had a chance. I have a feeling if our now FO was in place this may not have happened. They have found some scrap heap pitchers lately themselves. Sometimes it just takes the right fit.

My thoughts are every team and player are waiting for more info. They are waiting to know how likely butts will be in seats, and how much will players or other teams be willing to pay. It is odd off season. Teams will want to see what pitching is going for, and Bauer will be first to go, then others will go next. Some players may take some deals before Bauer to know what they are getting. Right now a lot of game of chicken going on.

The article limits the options to these two. I would say Cruz. That is because it is for 1 year. We have options to fill similar rolls in our systems. I would not want to clog that with a big deal for Ozuna, who may never live up to contract. His up and down seasons scare me, and even more when his best season was on a short contract season. He really only had 2 outlying seasons of high OPS. You list he had three over .775, and one of those was only .800, not like the over .900 of the other two. The big question, do you think for 18 mil a year for three years worth his expected numbers over what Rooker or Larnach would be expected? It is not always what the player can do for the price, but will the cost difference be worth what they would do compared to likely replacement. Cost of Rooker or Larnach will be for 2 years min 17 mil less, and for third year most likely at least 15 mill less. Can you spend that money each year on say a starting pitcher or another postion? To clarify why I said 3 years is with Cruz to 1 year the 3 years is the difference of the contracts.

I have said from beginning, if the price is right you sign him. You have possible internal replacements so not like you will miss out on signing someone else who is a DH if you sign him to a spot. However, if you pay too much to where you feel you need to ride him no matter how he does then that is a mistake. Basically, the front office needs to decide, what is the number they will be willing to just let go if father time finally wins. If Cruz falls off the cliff, you cut him and be fine with the loss of the money. The main question will be, how much that is, and will Cruz accept it? That is always the issue for mid-market teams, if they invest too much money into players that just are not that good, can you walk away from the contract? Even big market teams run into those issues with mega contracts. Albert in LA is one that comes to mind. He has been basically replacement or worse for 5 years now, but he makes too much money for team to just cut him. It makes little sense, you are paying him so much, and he is worse than an average player, why pay him to make your team worse? His last 4 years he has had a negative war, but made over 100 mil. That is a big price to pay for negative war. So that contract cost them in WAR and he makes so much you feel you cannot cut him and pay a replacement, so it cost you double. As long as the Twins will not put themselves in the that type of situation, bring Cruz back. He does have value in club house, from all reports, and that is something to consider too.

I am not a cord cutter, mainly for sports purposes because you cannot rely on getting the sports you want, mainly from contracts of local rights. I would not compare it to victory sports though, because that was where big media, Fox, would not allow big cable companies to carry the Victory as a normal package, without raising the price of other Fox media at the time. By choosing to cut the cord you are choosing to limit your chances of watching the games. It is not the same.

Cleveland may have pitching that they keep turning out, but they have ZERO offense. They were barely doing anything on offense before, now they have even less. No need to ever pitch to Ramirez because he will have no protection. There is almost no way Twins and Sox will be neck and neck for division and one will have a WC spot for sure, because the other three teams will all be near 100 losses I am guessing.

Very few teams around league have done much, outside of San Deigo and now Mets. So many big pieces yet to move. I think many teams and players are waiting to see how COVID affects things, and who will be like Cleveland and have a fire sale, or who will try to make moves with teams selling.

I just want to point out the contradiction you have. You address Story playing at Coors and that may be a problem, but then address that D.J. LeMahieu has done fine, which is true. However, then when talking about Sonny Gray, in just next section, you say, " It seemed likely that a resurgence was to be expected for Gray once he got out of the Cracker Jack box that is Yankee Stadium." Essentially saying it is offensive park, like it is. Well where has LeMahieu played after Coors? You basically say LeMahieu did not have drop off after leaving Coors so we should not worry too much about Story, who I do worry very much about him not playing half his games there, because LeMahieu did fine. Only to then talk about how once pitchers leave Yankee Stadium they are expected to do better to, meaning hitters crush there. You cannot have it both ways, just saying.

I was too young to remember the trade. I was told about it when I got older about how bad Herr was. A trade like this would never happen in todays game. I think it shows how important a players desire to play for a particular team is important though. If your heart is not in it, you will do well. Also, paying attention to how they may affect others in club house is important.

Personally, I think Rooker has very little value as an asset. Following your factors I just do not see him that high. He is old for a prospect that has very limited MLB time. Not all his fault as he was behind some decent players. We are loaded in corner OF/1B/DH type guys that he slots into. Yes, he can hit for some good power, and in his very short time he had some good hits, but I fear a player like him will get scouted and that will drop his hitting. He reminds me of Josh Willingham. He can hit HR, strike out a ton, and is basically a statute in the OF. Really, he only has 1 asset and that is power. Yes, that is important, but everything else is working against him. He has little to no trade value, he is aging, he has no defense, and no track record. If Cruz does not resign, and they do not go out to sign someone else, I could see him be the DH, and that is where all his value is.

How does ZIPS even work? The Maeda projection seems the most odd. Not saying he will perform to level of last year, but to project bull pen appearances is just odd. I do not trust these at all as any kind of prediction. It feels like they just look at player history, and generally career arcs of similar player histories based on age.

If we could get Grey for low level prospect I would be all for it. Not worth giving up much for 1 year on a guy that may not be worth much. Yes, sometimes a new team can find the secret to unlock them, or even just being the 4th or 5th starter will be enough. Story I am very low on for the price. His defense is good, but his offense away from Coors is about what Polonco has done. Why pay big money, and prospects for just a defense upgrade? Also, how many more years do you expect Story to stay at short, even if you do sign long term? I mean, most SS need to get moved around age 30, and the ones that do not get moved, in part, is due to their overvalue at the position based on history. Marquez I know little about and would defer to others on his value. He sounds like he may be a good get. CO has never been a team to sell off their guys though for cheap. I think because they know their pitchers have more value than what they tend to appear to have, and their hitters have lower value and it is hard for teams to really come to understanding of value. Much of it is optics based on overall stats that are affect too much by Coors.

I am always willing to bring in anyone that can help on minor league deals. No commitment, but you may get lucky with a gem.

Yes, that is very true.

I expect many teams to be slow on this until we get closer to season. Teams and players alike are playing the game of chicken on contracts. Many non-compeitive teams will be looking to dump money and will sell for pennies on the dollar, and many FA are getting crap offers to a normal off season and are holding out for better. What I expect to happen is once few guys sign dominos will start to fall very quickly. Every off season needs someone to set the market, this one everyone is afraid to set the market, not just for themselves, but for everyone else. If big name player takes less than players expect the other players will be upset. If Teams set it for more than teams looking to spend teams will be upset.

The only way I do this deal is under 2 situations. First, he will agree to long term deal then the cost of prospects is mitigated. Second, the cost of prospects is minimal and none of the top guys leave for a rental. I am all for rental guys, but only if you are not giving up years of service time on top prospects for it. I am not concerned too much about his 2020 numbers as many guys had issues during 2020. I just hate giving up top prospects for rentals. However, if the price is right, no guy should be a flat out no.

I have said this all along, this off season will be like no other before. So many teams will be waiting to see if players will take pennies on the dollar, and they will also see if teams will take pennies on the dollar to cut payroll. Players in trades seem to be getting much less than expected, in my opinion. Snell surprised me the most, as Rays already get no fans so their payroll should be similar. kind of a joke but kind of serious. Teams willing to take huge losses may go all in and take on ton of payroll, but teams worried about the bottom line will still look to dump payroll or save where ever they can.