Trov

I think the CBA will see huge changes. The QO being one of them. When it first went in every one turned it down and many players that should have accepted it, turned it down. Then when teams were not willing to give up the picks players really were against it. They got the small change to take away the loss of a first round pick, which helped, but still players hate it. I think they liked it at first, because it was the starting point to talks, but eventually it became a hinderance for other teams, and they looked at not just loss of money but the pick. The FO got much more big picture thinking and not tunnel vision like old school guys.

I had not seen that, and I think for him that is a smart idea. If he really wants to max his earning he should seek about as long of a deal he can get, unless he really wants to bet on himself being good and health late into his career. Many players that sign very long term deals out earn what they would be worth late in that deal, and very rarely under earn early in deal.

I by no means was trying to say owners are in the wrong, and I can see how you thought that. My point was that without revenue sharing or split, both sides are trying to get the biggest chunk of that revenue. Unlike in other sports where if the league makes more money it is good for all because they share in the extra money, but they also share in the losses. In MLB the owners take the risk of losses, but the players want to share in gains, making recent arguments that they should share in gains of non-baseball money like tv channels, real-estate around stadiums, and other areas. The point is, as a free market, both sides are trying to get as much money as they can, which will cause the other side to make less.

I find the Stroman comment interesting. It may state how bad the FA starting pitching is behind Bauer, or could be high on Stroman. Just ranking him 4th overall and second starting pitcher is not saying he is an Ace. It is just saying he is ranked second best. I mean if all you have to choose from is lower tier starters being called the only other strong canidate to be considered a number 1 is not saying much. It is just saying he is better than the other low level starters on the list. That was something players ran into a few years ago when the class was weak, but the players still wanted to be paid like it was strong. NBA has this happen where players get overpaid because they best available in the class. MLB was for years too, each "best" player in the FA class would get record setting deals, but then MLB teams were like okay if next year I can pick from the best steakhouses to eat at, instead the of best fast food places at streakhouse prices, I am going to hold off and eat at steakhouse for steakhouse price, not fast food at steakhouse price. They were thinking long term how a huge deal on ehhh guy will hurt you in years 3-7 of that deal, depending on length.

Six MLB players got qualifying offer. Who, if any will sign them? Trevor Bauer, Marcus Stroman, Kevin Gausman, DJ LeMahieu, George Springer, J.T. Realmuto are the six. It is worth 18.9 million. Personally, I think four should think about it. Stroman, Gausman, LeMahieu, and Springer. Bauer is an interesting case as well. Reason I say the four should think about it is because teams are cutting so much cost, and uncertain how next CBA will pan out, some teams will be less likely to give up picks and so much cash to bring them in, with a possible lost season from pending work stoppage. I have little faith they will work it out without losing at least some a season. They all are worth players to look at in normal offseason, but there is nothing normal about this offseason. So many guys are getting non-tendered, and options not picked up the pool will be huge, and teams will be bargain shopping. Bauer, I said long ago will be interesting because of his desire to sign only 1 year deals. With the QO being put down, will any team give up long term asset of a draft pick for a 1 year rental? I think only teams that will are high payroll teams that can fill in lost long term cost controlled assets like that. That being said, how many will bid against themselves? I think he should, and will turn it down, and most likely get bigger 1 year deal from a team like Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, or some other team always looking to add big name FA. It will be interesting to see how things shake out for him though. Realmuto, is good catcher that are always in high demand and teams will be willing to spend on him regardless of how the COVID spending is going. In normal year, all six should and would turn it down, but this year I feel different with the trends of cost cutting teams have been doing. What do you think?

This offseason will be a crazy one. I think many players will still try to act like a normal offseason, because their agents will fight for that. The owners will hold strong and not sign any long term deals, except for a very few guys. I know many players will not want to and will keep holding out. I agree later signings will be happening. I doubt many trades will happen until FA shakes out too, because you cannot expect certain things to happen in FA. Everything we know from past is out the window. This is also because CBA up after next year. Unlike other leagues were players and owners share in revenue, baseball is a true free market where the owners try to fleece the players and the players try to max their earning potential. Neither side cares about the other. In basketball there is talks that players may lose 40% of their earning, because their CBA is based on overall revenue, so when you hear player signed x deal in NBA it really is based on expected value, but COVID blew that up. Baseball has no provisions. So when players that are earing 20 million or more, it will cut against the players that could be earning say 10 mil, like hand. If you need to cut payroll, you will do it on that end, because you cannot cut to save money, like in NFL, you still owe it, so why owe it and then replace too. Like with Hand, he was bought out for 1 mil, so the saving was 9 mil on him, but his spot still needs to be paid, for say .5 to 1 mil, so saving is only about 8 mil. Really crazy times coming next season. I doubt many teams will want long term beyond next year too with not knowing what CBA will bring, and how long work stoppage will be. At this rate, I expect a full season gone, unless both sides see how damaging that could be to the game.

I would be willing to take a pass on Ray and Archer for the right price. I do not like Leake. For Ray, if you can get him some control he can be valuable, but I would not invest too heavy in him. For Archer, if you can get for a low amount thinking you can get him back with his slider I am all for it. Twins love the slider usage right now and if that was Archer's best pitch maybe they will get him back to it. Again, I would not bring in either saying they will be set as a starter, but sign to MLB deal at low value with incentive based output to increase value on a make good deal.

I think as more data has come available people have used it against the norms of history of baseball. At times it has been successful, and other times it has failed. Just like any decision sometimes it works sometimes it does not. Look at game 7 of 91 series. It turned out to be good call to leave blackjack in. What if we lose because we left him in, it would be second guessed forever saying he should have been pulled. If he gets pulled and we lose, people would say why pull him he had not given up a run, ride him tell he fails. Kelly made his call and it worked out. Now a days we have more data to look at and draw from. Managers act on that data. Joe Madden was one of first to do this, looking at reverse splits, and pulling starters sooner than later. Gardy used to never look at numbers like that and had old school, my guy is my guy, not matter the history. Cash made the call, he needs to live with it. For all we know it plays out the same way and Snell gives up the lead, we will never know. Personally, when it comes to Rocco pulling our guys quickly I was a little against it because they were looking good overall. Maybe it plays out same way if we leave them in, we will never know.

Hand is a free agent, not put on waivers. So you cannot claim him, he can sign with whoever he wants. His option was not picked up. I would look to try and sign him, but Cleveland felt he was not worth 9 million, or they could not afford to pay him 9 million. I say that because he was set to make 10 but bought out for 1 so the saving was 9 million. Which they will have to have someone play there so really savings will be closer to 8 million or even less. This shows how teams are viewing the the next season, that the AL save leader, in a 60 game season, will not be worth about 8 million for 1 year. I have a feeling there will be plenty of low cost relief pitchers out there on 1 year deals. At 10 mil Hand would have been 8th highest paid relief pitcher and on par or better than most ahead of him. Following my little fuzzy math of about 8 million, again that is estate of savings from the buyout. He would be tied for 12th highest paid relief pitcher. My point is, all teams are cutting costs and to look at past year contracts or to compare to current contracts will be a flaw in guessing what players will get paid.

NOOOOOOOO! MLB should not impose some rule to limit "shifting" I say this for many reasons. First, what would the rule look like? I mean what we refer to as the "shift" is moving a middle infielder to the opposite of second base generally. Some teams have gone to 4 man outfields as well. But what about other shifting of players? I mean will the rule be there must not be more than 3 players in the outfield grass prior to pitch being thrown, and if there is then the result is either a ball or the result of the pitch, which ever the team chooses? In addition, there must be 2 infielders on either side of second base prior to pitch being thrown, else same consequence? Do the infielders need to be a certain distance away from second base? What if the middle infielder is 1 foot from second base, making it very easy to run onto shifted side? Will the players have to start each play within some circle on the field? How big will that circle be, will the players get to move based on base runners? Will the team be able to bring in an outfielder to add extra infielder in certain situations? Will the corner infielders be able to play in if they think a bunt may be coming? Basically, way to many situations that some rule cannot fix. More importantly though, why should they outlaw it? Hitters are crying they are getting less hits. However, the same size of the field and same amount of defenders are on it. The hitters just do not want to adjust and hit to the giant holes that are on the field. Why should MLB cater to the hitters because they are either not good enough to hit to the very large hole, or not willing to try? Overall, the shifts cut down more hits, else teams would not do it, but once hitters start to pepper the holes that are vacated teams will stop doing it. Remember back in the day when hit-and-run was a play that was ran? It was designed to make a giant hole on the opposite side of the infield to let the hitter put the ball through it, but it had risk of losing the runner if the hitter missed the ball. Now, teams will give hitters that hole without the risk of the runner going, yet no one tries to hit there. Over recent years hitter adjusted how they hit, by being pull heavy trying to more HR, because it was learned hitting ball in the air is best chance for extra base hits, and extra base hits are best way to maximize run scoring. Well, teams also learned how to best defend against that, so why should defenses be handicapped now? If I know 90% of your ground balls will be in a small area, why can I not stand there to stop them? I am very much against making some rule against the shift, because to me they are not "shifting" they are putting their 7 defenders where ever they feel will increase their chance of an out. I mean the 1B will play in many different areas depending on situation. No runner on, they will be deep and off the line, unless the hitter can bunt, then they will play closer in most likely, should either of those be outlawed? Runner on the 1B will normally hold runner on, unless late in a game and team not worried about that runner, then they will play "normal depth" to increase chance of getting out. Will a rule require they hold the runner on, because not doing it is a "shift." There is just no way to properly implement a rule in my opinion, and they also should not try to. Let the hitters adjust to the defense, not the rules adjust to the hitters lack of ability or willingness to adjust.

This is a pretty big list of names that are decent starters and in a normal off-season would be looking for some big money. However, we have seen teams not picking up options on a ton of players, some would have happened anyways, but my guess Brad Hand would normally been picked up, if for nothing else to look to trade him. I think any "normal" off-season thoughts on teams acting, and players signing deals will be out the window. The question is, how many players will take below normal value deals just to play and make some money versus holding out and ignoring the fact MLB owners lost money last year and will expect to lose money next season, unless something changes quickly with COVID. I think many 1 year deals with options for additional years will be in play this season. I know many players will not want to do that, but if I was advising them, I would explain this is not a normal year. Not only do we have COVID revenue issues, but in future we have CBA coming up. This year showed how likely a strike/lockout will be. My guess many teams will not want to have long term contracts wrapped up in that time as well, not knowing how it may shake out after.

I read your part on Jeffers and makes it sound like you expect the Twins to carry 3 catchers all year next year. You said he will get to learn from Garver AND (insert seasoned vet). Do you really expect three catchers all year? Personally, if Jeffers is in, then either Garver is out or they do not bring in a vet. Unless the plan will be to use Garver some at 1b or DH, if Cruz is not back, 3 catchers just does not seem to make much sense.

Maybe I missed it in the article, but how are you coming up with FA estimates? You state in the beginning of the article payrolls will go down across baseball. So if that is true, and I believe it is, why would the FA estimates be what you are estimating? I assume this is based on some level historic data, but we are in uncharted territory moving forward. It is entirely possible the FA estimates are high because if every team wants to cut costs who will be willing to pay what the player feels they are worth? Maybe the player retires like Span did when he was lowballed, but maybe they take the paycut. I would argue they can bring back whoever they want, for the right price. Will the price be too high, you estimate yes, but maybe no other team will pay that price, so why should the Twins. Make your bid, see if other teams will outbid, and if they do then wish them well.

If the Twins can get anything for Eddie you take it. He will not be tendered and every team knows it. They can try to win any FA bidding, or they can give up a prospect and then pay the arbration bill. My guess they will just wait for a non-tender and look to sign for less than that what he would get in arbration.

If the only decision is money to field output, or some math set up for that, very few veterans would get big money. It has been shown time and again that many of their outputs put them overpaid compared to a younger replacement. Not all of course. However, vets bring something more than just output, and that is experience and wisdom to pass down to players and how to get through a long season, and many other things. More importantly, in my opinion, is in baseball you need to have goo chemistry. I am not one that says that for all sports, but in baseball, I believe if you like your teammates and get along it is a good thing. You will be spending, hopefully, 10 month of the year just about every day with the same guys. Unlike us regular humans, who get the weekend to get away from our co-workers or other days off if not weekend, baseball players do not get that time. So having good clubhouse guys that everyone likes is always a plus. Not saying rooker is not or Cruz is, although reports are his is, my point is just looking at dollar and cents to production is not the only way to look at a FA.

I think for Sobato and Cavaco this will be important for where they will be thought of in the Twins system. Neither have a for sure path to majors but both are first round picks so will be given time. Cavaco was a tool guy that is young and may slide in many places, if he can use his tools and have some hit, my guess they will fit in somewhere. Sobato on the other hand will need to crush to play. He would play first or be a statute in outfield and let his bat carry. Problem is those areas are stacked right now. He is older so will need to pop quickly to not fall behind others. He might have to have his bat carry him to majors and take over at DH. Pitchers will always find a spot just if they will start or not, but that is less of a thing now.

When I first read this I thought huh there may be something there. Then I looked up Story home road splits and they are not good. His numbers split, in similar games 304 home 299 road. At bat 1151/1145, Hits 350/286 2b 80/66 3b 18/4 HR 84/50 K 331/395(kind of odd to have that big of difference K wise, must be the breaking balls moving more on the road) Ave 304/250 OBP 370/315, Slug 624/445, with OPS of 994/760. The man clearly benefits from hitting at Coors field and if you are getting only the road guy, then no I would not give up any top prospect for a 1 year rental. I mean those numbers are basically Polonco, so why give up a prospect to replace the guy you have with basically the guy you have?

I bet all 30 teams will scout him, if they are not then they are not doing their jobs. Now, if and when the kid posts for signing that will be another story if Twins put in a bid.

First, much of it depends on cost for many of these players. For the pitching, I am open to any of the pen guys for right price and Odo as well. Hill I am ehh on. If he was a good clubhouse guy I would be willing to try another year with him. Cruz, yes I would want him back for not only his potential offense, but he is a good clubhouse guy as well. Avila I would pass on, unless you trade away Garver then keep Avila or find another of his like. Gonzalez and Adrianza are both no for me. They are easy replaced with cheaper options that may be offense upgrades. You can find similar players on waivers, via cheap trades, or internal.

I am all for shopping Sano, or any player at that matter. We have no players that cannot be had for the right price. I would not sell low on Sano if Twins feel the interest is low. I bet you can find 1 team out there that feel they can unlock his ability to make contact at even a 40% clip. For how hard he hits the ball he will do well if he can decrease his K rate. He has been around long enough that may not happen, but teams will always be willing to try. I would be fine moving forward with Sano as well. I do not even know who would want him or what they have the Twins would want either, but never hurts to look.

If his value is on the low end, why would Rockies look to move him now? Unless there are teams that believe they can unlock his full potential when he was drafted, few teams will give up much at this point. Rockies should hold onto him, if they think they can get some good numbers from him early in the season and flip him for more on a rental, when competing teams will give up a little more. I am sure the Rockies will shop him, I am just guessing the waters will be luke warm at best for him right now.

I am not sold on Stoman, unless it is on low risk deal. I agree he will be looking long term, but teams are less likely to do that with current environment and upcoming CBA changing. What scares me is when he faces teams that know how to hit grounders to holes in the field. See what happened against the Astros in playoffs. A few of them knew exactly how to hit a weak ground ball through the giant hole the Twins gave them. I am not going to get into the shift debate, but it does not matter how weak you hit a ground ball if you can it through the 90 holes sometimes the Twins give hitters. So that may take away Stoman's best attribute right there.

Eddie I have been saying for weeks is gone. Rodgers is a closer call. He was touted as a closer all year, only to lose that job and go back to closer by committee, which I am generally a fan of. I think he will be back for 1 year for sure. He still will get lefties out and can get righties so even if not closing he will still have value.

Sox pitching is not young, and the ones that are did not perform well. The hitters, they had 3 guys I would consider young as regulars. Roberts, Madrigil, and Jimeniz. The rest, although many are 27 or younger, they have been in the league for several years. Mocanda, Anderson, Mazara all have 4 plus years of experience. Abreue and Grandal both over 30 and been playing long time. So they very much have a mix of age and experience in the lineup. Roberts also faded down the stretch, scouting most likely caught up to him. My point overall, White Sox not as young as they seem. We had similar built line up. Many under 30 with years experience. Buck, Polonco, Sano, Eddie, Kepler. We had some rookie or second year guys, Jeffers, and Arraez. We had some vets Donaldson and Cruz. Our bench was older overall I would say, but comparing the two lineups of age and experience we are actually very close overall.

I wonder if the fact they did not beat above .500 teams very much is what led to this. They faded down the stretch too. The WS have always been an interesting organization to me with moves they make. They have the lineup but lack pitching depth, and a couple of their high draft picks they were counting on to develop never did. Most notably Rondon. They did turn Giolito around, but did they really? He pitches well against some line ups but Twins seem to have always handled him well. It was surprising to see a team on the rise to cut ties with manager, but if he is not the right fit you do it. Why hang onto guy if you do not think he is right for team. White Sox has always wanted to be offense first team, worry about defense and pitching later. It has not worked out too well over the years.