Trov

It completely depends on who the prospect is. I do find it interesting you left out the Mahle trade. Both prospects, that made majors last year had higher WAR than Mahle did. I still agree with that trade because of who we traded away was lower level prospects than who we kept. The point is that it in part depends on who you give up and generally the Twins are not willing to give up the top prospects in their system. Other teams have got very burned in prospects for current MLB talent down the road. One of the more recent trades that always comes to mind is Tatis Jr. for James Shields that the Sox made. When you look back at all the trades mentioned, outside of Petty, none were even like top 10 prospects in our system, but you left out the 1 trade recently that had 2 top 10 prospects that did not work in Twins favor overall.

If you looked at just his numbers as a hitter he would not get in, but I agree, the voters should look at that in the scope of him being a catcher for his peak career. Had he been moved off catcher to play a different position it is likely he would have started his career earlier. I remember Tom Kelly said if he was not a catcher he could have hit MLB pitching at 19, but he was not ready to catch MLB pitching at 19. He also would have likely had less injuries and played more total games. The voters should not just look at his numbers, but look at them in light of catching. One thing that will hurt Joe is his lack of personality, lack of post season success. Neither should play a factor, but voters vote for all kinds of reasons.

I do not know if Joe gets in first ballot. I think he should, but I think many writers will look at the end of his career as not close to his peak, and want his counting numbers higher. I think he will get in, but some writers feel passing on year 1 and building up sends some sort of message as to they were HOF but not as dominate kind of thing. It actually might be he has to get in on a committee vote. He had a stretch as not just best hitting catcher, if he had more power, ever, but one of best hitters in game at the time. If he played his whole career at catcher he would be first ballot, but writers will use his transition, due to injuries as a reason to slight him.

That is about as dark of a horse you can have. The only way it happens is if he just crushes camp, several options ahead of him get injured. Walker Jenkins has a better shot than E-Rod in my opinion, and he has very little chance as well.

I would not want to give up a top prospect for 1 year of a pitcher. It is not sound roster building. Even if you feel they are the 1 missing piece, you do it too often your gut your farm systems and eventually you run out of prospects to have depth when injuries set in, or you lose guys to FA. If you can get any of them for a mix of guys we have depth with, and middle of road prospects then I would be more open to it.

Gilbert is the most interesting piece to me being his years of control. With all those years of control you can afford to give up more for him. Would Seattle take Polanco and a prospect? Would they demand someone like Lee or Julien? Should we be willing to part either? There are no major 2nd base free agents, but if I was Seattle I would be looking for much more than Polanco and a prospect, unless it was a pitching prospect like Raya to help replace Gilbert down road, or I would want someone expected to be a long term solution at 2nd. Someone like either Julien or Lee. I would be fine if we traded away Julien for Gilbert straight up. It would be a similar type of deal we did last year. Moved a lack luster defense guy, that has high upside on offense for a pitcher that in this case would fill a hole for hopefully 4 years. We could slot Polanco in until Lee ready to take over. We would be selling high on Julien. He may be a very good MLB player for years, or he could be a rookie flash. Remember we thought Miranda would be manning a position for years to come, now he is outside looking in after one bad injury season.

The Gilbert trade seems reasonable. The trade for Burns is not bad but then next year you are again searching for someone to replace him as he will not resign with Twins most likely. The others I am not sold on.

I want to address a few things the writer had to say, and a few things some of the comments had to say. First, the argument I seem to be reading is that to improve the team they need to spend more to be better, and if they spend more we will more causing more fans to watch games. Then the second is even if they are losing money, the team is rich and should be find losing money to make sure fans see high priced players. Well, payroll does not equal wins or WS wins. Increasing it does not mean we will win any more than before. Does it increase the chances, maybe, maybe not. Looking just at Twins, we spent 11 mil on Gallo, many not happy about that deal, but he blocked Wallner from coming up earlier. He earned 11 mil, but was outplayed by a league min guy. Further, San Diageo has increased payroll for years, and last year many on here said Twins should be like them. However, they have yet to even make a WS either, and I read somewhere they had to take a loan to cover payroll. It is accurate they increased attendance, despite not making playoffs. Twins despite spending more last few years on payroll have lower attendance than in 2019. So it is possible we will not see a huge uptick in attendance. Outside of the first 2 years of Target field attendance has stayed pretty much between 2 mil and 2.5 mill, that goes back to beginning of 2002 stretch where they stopped bottom feeding, but still not spending more money. Overall, spending money on players does not mean more fans, winning means more fans, and spending money does not mean wins. Look at the Mets. Now to the second point, as pointed out, the Padres are cutting payroll a ton now, because they went way over what they could afford, despite the nearly 3 mil fans 2 years ago and over 3.2 million last year. So they could not afford their payroll. To expect a rich business owner to lose money on a business simply because they can is not a way to have a team stick around. I do not think any fans should expect a team to lose money. Yes, true we do not know the books, but we can estimate. The paid attendance was about 2 million, just under, and average ticket price is about $35. Yes some games they get more because of cost, and some seats get sold more, but also bulk buys and season tickets get discounts too. So for math lets say just the 35 average. That is 70 mil from tickets sales. If we increased to 3 mil that is 105, but we have only got to 3 mil a few times in history. Throw in concession sales, I will estimate 10 per person, only because some will spend much more some will spend none, but it is not all profit because there is the cost of the food and beverage as well. That is another 20 mil, for 90 mil. We know reports said teams got 110 mil from tv sharing, 48% of tv, and we had about 26 mil to ourselves, after counting tv sharing. That puts us at about 226 mil. Lets throw in an estimated 30 mil from merch, no clue if that is close or not, but I know I do not spend much on them year to year. So about 250. We had a 150 payroll. If that was only expenses, that would be a lot of cash to spend, however, do not forget there are a ton of employees that work day to day for team. There are travel costs. There is equipment costs. There are minor league players costs. Each year they award like 10 plus million on signing bonus for drafted players, and a few more on international players. I do not know how much it adds up to, but it really cuts into that 100 mil about. Now, this year not only are Twins losing broadcast money but other teams are up in air, which cuts into their share of the 48%, cutting that 110 down, and our 26 mil. Point is, cutting payroll may be only way to not lose money, and we should not expect a team to lose money, just as we should not expect an business to remain open losing money simply because we like it. I also have no clue if my estimates are high or low and by how much. Other than the broadcasting money that has been documented.

I am not trading a guy that is a top prospect for a 1 year rental. That is how teams get to have many years of bad teams because they sell all long term options for short term possible fixes.

I think anyone who is 100% analytics or 100% against it is closed minded. This is in all sports. I think each situation should be managed as it is, and using the analytics can help, but to base all decisions on it is flawed, just as basing all decisions on the old rule book is flawed too. In baseball it has became a huge push, and fans and managers alike point to analytics as a predicter of future outcomes, without looking at the situation as a whole. In the example of pulling pitcher after 2 trips through order because history says they are more likely to give up runs a third time is flawed to always pull pitcher. If the pitcher is dealing well and no hitter has had a good at bat against them, why pull him? Sometimes feeling the game needs to be done. Just as in football, the analytics points to the "odds" of winning a game based on a decision. However, it does not look at that particular matchup but historical data across thousands of games. For example, the going for it on 4th down and short instead of punting. In part it depends on time of game if it is wise decision. However, if you are the Eagals, and you need 1 yard, you should always go for it, because no one has stopped the tush push play. But other teams have failed at it, and they do not always get the 1 yard. Also, if your defense is playing well, giving the other team a short field is not wise. IN football I feel analytics should play less of a roll in decision making and how the team is doing in that game or historically should make more of a factor.

Farmer is the only one I think they DFA as he will be redundant with Castro and hopefully Lee coming up during season.

I agree with the estimated timelines, but that is always based on general linier progression of the player. Some players will not progress, and some will progress faster than expected. Also injuries always play a roll. For example, if Jenkins tears up both levels of A ball this year, and some injuries set in on OF in 2025, he could get an early call if he is tearing up AA. Not saying likely, but possible. I would say if he tears of up all levels he will be possible at starting 2026 out of camp.

I have had a similar comp, in regards to power and defense, but Encarnacion K rate was only 18% for a career, with walk rate of 11% Severino K rate in minors so far is 28%, even higher last couple of years, and walk rate of 10%. I expect Severino to increase his K rate above 33% closer to 40% if he does not make changes soon.

First, if we are hoping he is as good as Gallo, well lets move on already. Second, from what I have heard Severino is not a good defender at any position, where Gallo was always considered a top defender, even with the weak offense profile. I believe Severino will fall more into the Sano kind of profile, weak defender, has power but will strike out a ton.

I fully agree to never go into a season expecting a rookie to take the job out of camp and run with it. Many do have the ups and downs. Just look at some of the top guys last year. De Le Cruz last year, he broke out with one of the hottest months of any rookie ever. Then he played well below replacement level the remaining 3 months. Not saying he is the guy that finished the season, but point is even after super hot starts there may be fall off. We saw that with Wallner and in part Julien. Julio Rodriguez was the opposite, he was a top prosect and he started his first month just terrible but since, other than a bad month in June last year, he has been good to great. Hot starts for prospects mean nothing, and same with cold starts. I have high hopes for Lee, but he has not tore up each level, mainly just been steady. Do not expect he will come in and be an MVP type guy, just a solid piece.

It is not a dumb idea, but I would not do it. Does he provide that much defense to 1st base, most likely not. Would this save his knee wear and tear, most likely not due to the diving and stretching. Would it keep him on the field any more, most likely not, being as a DH he still missed a ton of time last year. He gets hurt hitting just as much, if not more, than fielding. The knee issue came up from base running 2 years ago. He has missed time with hip issues running out ground ball. The only way he can stay fully healthy is if he just hits HR and if not walk to dug out, and that may not even keep him healthy.

Larnach has little value in trade. He has never taken off as a hitter, plays corner OF, a position that is filled easy, is not elite at any one thing. Most teams know he is 4th OF on our list at best, and we have more depth behind him in coming years. I could see him as part of a package, but if he is traded straight up it will not be for anything of super value.

There are 3 on that list I think may get picked. Kersay, Prato and Sabato. Position players are rarely taken in rule 5 because hard to stash them like pitchers. The teams most likely to take a chance on them are teams like KC and Oakland/Vegas. Teams that have no chance next year and can take a year of poor play from a guy if need be in hopes of development. I am not high on any of them and do not feel it would be a huge deal to miss any of them.

Now lets hope he can develop even a little bit of a bat. He did grow a little bit of power, and still young. Just turned 21. He still has plenty of time to develop some bat, but if he can play elite defense with even a little bit of offense he should hopefully slot in to SS right around the time we need to move CC off.

I agree with not going for Burns. His price will be too high for 1 season. No way will we resign him because he will be looking for a mega deal, and a team will pay it hoping he can be closer to 2021 than the rest of his career.

Severino reminds me of Sano in part, not fully, but a sub standard defender that has huge power. Sano did it more as a younger guy, but Severino was injured when he was younger. Both strike out a ton. Severino being a switch hitter could be nice. However, if he does not cut down on strike outs he will be in big trouble at MLB level. Sano only struck out at about 28% in last minor season, and 36% at first season at MLB. Severino struck out at 33% last year in minors. I fully expect that rate to jump a bit as is normal. Do not be surprised if he gets up to 40% or more, unless he makes some changes.

Reducing payroll because you have too is never a great thing, but we are not in a position where we need to sell off contracts like Padres may be at. However, if we are forced to play some of the young guys it could pan out, because in general they tend to be as effective as many vet FA end up being. One reason the players started to get annoyed when they were not getting paid because teams saw the production of a 24 year old rookie was about as good as a 33 year old vet in most cases.

Both have clear trade value versus who is free agents. Polanco should have much higher trade value. He has been more consistent on offense over his career than Kepler. Also, he has another year on his contract after next. Kepler plays a position that is much easier to be filled. His defense is one thing that does help set him apart though.

I know fans feel burned from reaching to those leagues for players. The problem was the fans overhyped them and the FO at the time did as well. I do not expect this FO to just go and sign one giving an MLB spot and forgo other options. Lee sounds like an interesting option. He is young still, and if he can play top notch defense in CF, he could fill that roll and we can deal with a drop off in hitting. I mean would he be that much worse than Taylor?

It is easy to point out the players we signed that did not work well, but without showing who we passed on that maybe could have been had it is hard to say we failed. I mean because you signed bad players does not mean there was better options there.