Trov

A couple of things I would push back on. One, this is counter to the idea that the worst teams need should get the higher picks to rebuild. This could actually lead to mid-level, late season "tanking" more than a full season tanking. For example, we were in first most of the year, then just stunk it up the last month in a half, and Cleveland went on a run. By mid-September, it was clear we were not going to do far into the playoffs, even if we made it by how we were playing. Why not then make sure you do not make the playoffs just to get to then fight for the number 1 pick? Also, I personally do not think teams are specifically tanking for the number 1 pick, but they are keeping pay roll down for other specific reasons. Look at the team that said we are tanking, Houston. One would say, well it work out well for them doing so, but when you look at their top picks, only 1 of their number 1 picks helped them in their rebuild, or beyond. Correa was a number 1, and their next 2 number 1 picks never made majors, although 1 did not sign so they then got to draft number 2 the next year and their own number 5, which both of them turned out well. However, the point is, you still need to identify the talent, at the top. They failed two number 1 picks in a row, only to get lucky one did not sign. Had they signed, they would not have got lucky the next year, and maybe not be in the position they are. However, they also had very good international signings. like Alverez, or Altuve, who was part of that tanking teams, most of their starting rotation were all international signings, and later round picks as well they hit on, Pena their replacement for Correa was a third round pick. I have long said, the draft in MLB is not going to be the best or only way to build a team and tanking for high picks will not equal success. In Houston's case, they got more international signing money, then in one year went all in on signing guys and hit on many of them, hence the great rotation they built from international signings. Yes, top picks have a much better chance to help down the road, but very rarely is the number 1 overall the best player out of the draft. Unlike in basketball where the number 1 is normally the best, but not always, in baseball, they are rarely the best. They are good, more often than not, but many times someone later in the first turns out to have the better overall career. Picking number 1 only gives you the chance to ID who the best is, something that is not always easy.

First, I would say still too early to evaluate the trade in full, mainly because Acala is still young enough to develop into a good relief guy, if he can stay healthy. Could we have used Pressley a couple of years ago in the playoffs, maybe, but would he have made the difference, doubtful. In both 2019 and 2020 we were beat and not because our pen blew the game late. If you do not have a lead late in game, the closer makes no difference. Sure, you can say, had we had a better pen it trickles down, but based on how the games went, I doubt even with both Pressley and Hendricks we would have won. If you are not going to win with the player, and you can get something that provides value down the road should you do it? In my opinion, yes. Maybe having Pressley this year, we could have made playoffs, assuming we kept him until this year. However, we do not know how other moves may have been made over the years had we not traded away Pressley either.

I have gone back and forth on the front loaded, so not overpaying as much at end of deal. The issue with that is money is worth more now, then it will be in 8 to 10 years. Meaning payrolls will go up, so even if you are paying for dead money the last few years, it will be less of a hit if you do not front load. However, if you do front load while we have a lot of guys on rookie or less than 3 year service time money, and then first and second year arbs, so your payroll will be lower, then you can get more money to other players on the back end. The player should want to take the front loaded deal as a financial reason, but you never know what pushes people. Maybe we can do a bonilla deal and be paying Correa until we are all dead, and the money will pass onto his kids and kids kids.

I think too many people are expecting too much offense from a catcher. Very few catchers are good at both offense and defense, similar to SS. When you find one that is good at both, they are worth a ton of money because they are super rare. You need to decide your balance between the two. Jeffers and Sanchez slash line is about equal. I do not know how much better Jeffers is to Sanchez, but to be set on Jeffers, he better be much better than Sanchez as it comes to defense, including pitch framing, to draw the conclusion that Sanchez is not the right one, but Jeffers is fine. Hopefully Jeffers can upgrade is offense, because if not, in the next few years his pitch framing will be pointless when the electronic zone finally gets put in.

I expect stolen bases to go up some, but not just because bases are larger, but that should help a little, I mean how often does it come down to just an inch or two? Where I think the rule changes will be the step offs and pitch count will increase base stealing more than anything. Mainly from pure strategy stuff. I am personally looking forward to hopefully more running. I still doubt the Twins will do a ton, unless they get some better base runners up. They operate under the risk reward factor is too low to risk it. I personally, miss the hit and run game, the stolen bases setting up and manufacturing runs. I could go on about how I feel the analytics cloud people's minds to cause them to stop doing certain things in the game. Not saying no analytics, but think people see the data and draw conclusions and forget it is still a situational game and we are not playing on paper or rolling dice.

The move could be made, if they sign a SS to long term deal, because an deal would require either Lewis, or Lee I would guess, and some pitching as well. This would hurt our possible SS options down the road. I am for it if we have SS on lock for another 3 plus years minimum.

I would disagree that as we got to electronic strike zone we will see less defensive catchers and just hitters. Part of catching is more than just framing and throwing out runners, which MLB is trying to get more steals in the game again. There is pitch calling, covering bunts, taking throws at home and blocking as much of plate as allowed, seeing when a pitcher is doing something wrong. Sure, the pitch calling could go to the dug out, but still think there is value from the catcher as he is sitting with the hitter and can see possible things, the coaches cannot, both in the hitter and the pitcher. If you have a weak armed catcher, there will be more steals on them, so they still need a strong arm. I would agree you may see more platoon catchers to give more breaks than the 140 to 150 games a year, but it would take a guy like Joe who actually never caught 140 games in a season, most he caught a single season was 139 then most was 120, so not even he did at as a 150 game catcher, but would DH double digit games as well.

I need to push back on the part about Joe blocking everything. He was good at throwing out runners, and he was decent to stabbing to balls in the dirt and getting in the glove, but he was actually not very good at "blocking" a ball. He would commonly even stand up putting is glove down to try and snag the ball and let it through his legs. They were not passed balls but he could have been better at blocking it. Now, he was still a great catcher overall and not trying to bash him, but many people thought he was better at blocking pitches than he really was.

To address the question posed in the title first. It very well may happen, but is not likely. Being Joe was the only AL catcher to ever do it, and only 2 in NL, both like 90 years ago, shows it is very unlikely. Is it possible, yes, someone like Joe could come along again, but doubtful. That being said, if you can get a good offensive catcher, even if not a batting title, but can produce above average on offense, then yes you pay those guys. Similar to an elite hitting SS, if they can be both an every day catcher, meaning they can defend the position at least at a passable level, and hit at an elite level, either by way of overall power, or average, you pay them big. I mean, why just relegate yourself to a fact that a catcher will be poor hitter, if you can get one that is not? Sure, the likes of Joe, Posey, Yadi, Piazza, Pudge(both of them), are not common. Piazza was not great defense wise, but he made up for it at the plate. This is what makes the likes of A.J. Pierzynski who was not amazing hitter, but at least about average compared to rest of league, which put him generally above average at his position. Catcher has always been a defense first position, and what you can get from offense is a bonus. As running was taken out of the game, generally from choice not elite catching defense, we do not see it as needed and worry more about offense. However, running is on a rise lately, and defense will be important again.

Personally, I would not go after any of them. I would not want to give up the prospects for Darvish or Musgrove, and the FA do move the needle enough for me. They are better than our 4th or 5th most likely, but unless they are better than our 1, I do not care too much.

Unless we can extend him, which I have no clue what that extension would look like, as there is no one to ever compare him to, I would not traded for a 1 year rental on him. It would cost way too much to get just 1 year from, and with only getting a pick back in return after he turns down the QO is not enough. I would love to have him and sign him long term but doubt we will.

Unless you going big, I would not understand going after starters. We have a good amount of solid 2 or 3 number guys. Assuming Maeda and Mahle will be healthy. Gray, Mahle, Maeda, Ryan all slot into that spot. Leaving 1 open spot in a 5 man rotation, that can be filled by Ober, SWR, Varland, Widner if needed. Of course injuries will happen and depth is needed, but I do not see the Twins going after a Bundy/Archer type guy this off-season. If they go after a starter it better be a spend big top end guy for a couple years. I could see them go after the level 2 type guys if they plan to make some trades of the glut we have. Depending on the years Degrom is looking for, I could see the Twins willing to give the 35 mil per, but only for like 2 to 3 years, with vesting options for anything after that. His injuries are huge concerns to be dropping that kind of cash on a single guy, but he would help if healthy most likely. Bassit to me is not an Ace, but a good number 2, which I would take but is he that much better than what we have now to spend huge when we could go after other positions is needed?

I have said all along, there is no guarantee that paying big for a pitcher in FA will equal post season success. First, if you pay huge for one pitcher, then you put all your eggs into that one basket, so to speak. If they have a bad start and lose you can call your post season basically over, because you were counting on that one win and hoping the second or third guy to get lucky. Yes, some teams have won that way, Giants in the past have done it, but other teams have failed with that approach too, like the Twins. Not that we paid big for a single guy, but look at Santana in his prime with us, His only post season games, he was 1-2 in starts the team wining 2 of the 5 games he started. He was the best in the game over that time basically, but we did not get it done with him. Look at Verlander, Scherzer, and Kershaw, 3 HOF pitchers. Scherzer has been the only one of the 3 with a lot of post season success over his career. His post season numbers worse than his career numbers, which is not super surprising, but take a look at this year, he was dominate all year, only to have 2 bad starts out of 3 this year. His team won the first start with a walk off come from behind HR in 9th, and they just lost the WS game he started. In games he has started team is 18-15 with a huge run in 2017 winning 4 of 5 games started. Scherzer, who overall has had some great games in post season, outside of 2019, where his team won all 5 games he started, his teams record is 4-13, so if you include the one great year it is 9-13. His bullpen time is about equal good and bad. Kershaw has been a big mix as well. In games he started the team is 18-15, which is not bad, but he has never had a dominate run in any post season. My point is, even with the HOF guys, having amazing regular seasons, there is no saying they will dominate in the playoffs. Personally, I would rather have depth in the rotation with 4 above average guys, than one single huge guy and fill in the rest. Yes, if we can go out an pay for a guy that will be great, it will help, but very few high paid guys go out and live up to their contracts if you look at the percentage of big deals to pitchers over the years. It is a huge gamble to pay big for a FA starter.

To me, Joe Ryan is the fix it before it is broken kind of approach. He has dominated on his fastball his whole career. All the 'experts' say, he will not dominate with his fastball at the MLB level so he needs to get better secondary pitches. So he works on his secondary pitches, only to be dominated by his secondary pitches, and dominate with his fastball. Hmmm, something seems odd here. We say he cannot dominate with his fastball in the MLB level, despite he has done exactly that. It is his secondary pitches that have not done well. I get that for most guys, you need to mix it up because if not they will tee off the fastball and lay off anything else, but it seems to me the approach against Joe has been the other way round for now. I hate the plan of predict failure so fix it before it happens, only to have it happen when you try to fix it, then point to I told you so. His fastball is not overpowering, but hard to barrel up, so why not throw it more and more, until teams start to sit on it, then mix in the off speed? Hell, I think first time through rotation, he should almost throw it every pitch, unless teams start hitting it hard. Then if they start to attack the first fastball and actually hit it hard, then look to throw some off-speed out of the zone, not waste pitches per se, but make sure not in a good place to hit. Pitching is all about keeping guys off balance for most part, but if you have a pitch they cannot hit well, why not throw it mainly until the hitters adjust? Why adjust to their expected adjustments? For example, for years Buxton was known to chase sliders off the plate. He would get one after another, and more and more on 2 strikes. He would chase over and over, but then some times a pitcher would get cute and throw him a fastball, only to see it get crushed. He never showed he would lay off the pitch, nor that he would square it up, unless it got hung, so why throw anything else? Until the hitter shows they will actually hit a pitch, why make it easy for them? Let Joe throw the fastball, then worry about him when teams actually hit it. I remember when pitchers started pitching up the zone, and everyone said they need to not do that or they will get crushed, now many experts point out that pitching up in the zone is very effective it is the top of the zone. I am not saying he does not need to work on the off-speed pitches, mainly for that time there is the adjustment. But until that time comes, stop telling him he needs to throw more off-speed to be effective, when that appears to be a main reason he has not been.

The regression is normally based on teams getting tape and scouting hitters, and the hitters failing to make adjustments. Similar pitchers surprising hitters with a particular pitch, then hitters learning how to hit it, or leave it. Baddoo is still young and could continue to develop, but Wade just is who he is a fringe MLB guy. Diaz too could adjust, but think Littell is also just a fringe guy.

I though Arraez metrics were not good at first base, did they improve that much? I know in the past offense played a huge roll, but I thought now they actually looked at the metrics.

I disagree with the argument that we should have cut Bundy and Archer and run out Varland and SWR or others sooner. We already went through several SP going on IL. Paddock, Ober, Winder, all had long stints on IL, Gray had a few, Ryan had one. Archer ended on it. Had we dumped Bundy and Archer early on, and SWR, who was on IL in minors for a month, or Varland landed on IL, then we maybe would have had to add even younger guys to 40 man. Then when we need to cut down after the 60 day IL guys we could look to lose some of the younger guys to waivers. That is something to keep in mind as well.

Will this AFL for Martin jump him back up prospect lists? Will we try to trade him to a team that thinks he will be a breakout star, or do we keep him in hopes he will be with team next year? Personally, I am a fan of him, despite his lower power, as long as he is not a negative defense guy I think he will be a good lead off guy for years.

I think they will ask around about him, but will not sell him off for the cheap. He adds some value to the team to stay with them and maybe trade in the season for a team that has an injury or someone struggles.

I agree they should not go after a different SS, and if they plan to spend big on anyone it should be CC. However, I would not want any contract longer than 5 years, and I doubt that gets it done for him. I think minimum he will be seeking 8 years, and most likely will get that, but I think he is seeking 10 years. I am worried after 4 or 5 years he will drop off a bit, I could be wrong, but history shows most SS stop playing there in early 30's. His offense is above average for SS, but not for 3b, and if he drops off on that side of ball too, then he will be just a huge overpaid guy.

I think the article hit it perfectly, it depends on the player and the situation. For example, if say Brooks Lee makes team next season, or some other young player around age 21 to 23, that you have high expectations on, then signing a deal into their age 30 to 32 seasons makes sense. However, if they do not break into league until 24 to 26, there is little need to buy out FA years, and little incentive for player to want to do that too. Some times these contracts can backfire for the player or team. Both have risk. There have been a few guys signed to these types of deals when they are rookies that do not pan out for teams. Jon Singleton may be the most famous of these. He signed a 10 million deal with Houston before he ever played a major league game. He played less than a full MLB season, provided negative value and was cut. The deal had it panned out would have been a 5 year 35 mil deal, but he did get 10. Now this is not the type of contract we are really talking about, paying more in non arb years to have cost controlled arb years and maybe a year of FA. Being his 5 year deal would not have even got him through arb years. Basically, Houston threw away 10 mil in hopes of not having to pay more than 35mil over 5 year if the player was a superstar. Pretty big gamble for Houston, great call by player to sign that deal, considering he would not have earned much until year 3 anyways, and unless he was a mega star would not have even earned the 10 in year 4. Teams and players are looking to do these earlier deals to control costs and there is nothing wrong with it. But I do not think every player should be treated this way but with select players.

Last year I said no way would we sign a top SS, then we shocked everyone, but it took a crazy offseason, with a lockout to help that happen. Now, will a team give the top SS what they are seeking, or will they need to agree to less seasons. I think Twins would be willing to offer higher per year but would max out at 4 to 5 years, which I support that fully. Any of the top 3 should still be good for 3 to 5 years, but beyond that they will become a huge risk of being vastly overpaid. A high payroll team can afford that, but mid-market or small cannot afford to have 30 mil of bad money on the books. Personally, I think Lewis can fill in, provided he can stay healthy, but if we can bring CC back on a 5 year deal I am all in for that. He is seeking 8 to 10 though and I am not sold on him for 8 years or more.

History has shown small changes to relief pitchers can make huge pay offs for at least a season. Pagan has stuff, and if the team can get a small adjustment to get that to pay off, go for it. The guy we traded for, Lopez, had no success as a starter for most part. He went into pen and had a great year last year, until we traded for him. I am not saying slot Pagan back into closer role at all, but do not just DFA him. Let him come to camp, work on anything new, and see from there.

We should dump Garlick. He is a one trick pony that cannot seem to stay healthy enough to be all that reliable for that. I mean when you are on the team to hit just left handed pitching, you need to do that at such a high level to warrant taking up a roster spot on both 40 man and 26 man to justify it. I mean, how much of a difference does his very few at-bats against LF pitching does he make over the full season versus just about anyone else? I doubt it is that big of a difference to say he needs to stay. There is a reason he was available for us to begin with.

I doubt they will, unless no team offers him what he is seeking like Correa, and wants a "pillow" deal too. Personally, I think he was dumb for turning down the deal he did, even with the year he put up. He is one year older now, and maybe added a little bit of money to his deal, but I doubt he gets the payday he thinks he is worth. I am not saying he is not one of the best offensive guys in the game, and coming off of one of the best seasons ever. However, he is on the wrong side of 30, and many players show great regression. This is also, by far, the best year of career, with 2017, coming in second. If fans are expecting him to put up these numbers for the next 5 plus years, they will be disappointed. Will he still put up decent numbers for next 3 seasons, and still put up some 20 plus HR seasons into his later 30's, most likely. Will he be an MVP guy for next 3 to 8 years, doubtful. I would not want Twins to go after Judge if it meant more than a 4 year deal, and I am sure it will.