Trov

Gallo will not be DH much, his glove has too much value. The signing of Gallo does allow to open up some more trade options for Twins. The headline says too many Outfielders, but do we really have too many? I mean how many have we burned through the last couple of years? Sure they are on our roster, but 3 of them have been on the injured list several times, for long periods. Others have spent stints on it from time to time over the last couple of years. So unless the often injured guys actually stay healthy, which no reason to suspect that will happen, we will need like 7 OF through the full year.

If Gallo can play elite defense, and as long as his HR are timely, then I will take it. It increases the chance Kepler gets dealt, or it may be he will more so be used in RF and slide Kepler to CF when Buxton gets hurt. I think there may be some hope with the anti shift rules Gallo may increase BABIP, which I doubt will happen.

I personally expect him to do better than last year, if he is given a real shot. If you look at his history at every level of minors, he would take a long time to adjust to the league, but when he did he kept showing why he was regarded as a top prospect. Each time he moved up he would struggle, and people would say, yup he is a bust. Then the next year he would be back on path. Not only did he miss time for COVID, he missed time because he had other medical issues, that he reports he now can actually put on muscle, something he was having issues with. As long as the team does not bury him on depth chart, I expect him to be better than last year.

Why would we help out Detroit by taking a terrible contract off their hands to hopefully help for 1 maybe 2 years? I would not give up any prospect of value to take on Baez. Hell, I would demand we get a prospect to take that contract off their hands.

I get the point of the article, but what if we would have went with so Bogarts, then Correa signs for close to what we were willing to offer, then the argument would be they acted too soon. There is no right way or wrong way to act in these situations. Also, I do not know if Swanson gets above a 3 WAR, he did it 1 time in his career, last year. I do not expect any player to match their outlier year, even more so in a contract year.

I love how fans like to spend other people's money. None of us know the books, or what the owners allow the FO to spend. We made a competitive offer of per year amount, but were not willing to sign him until he was 41. He will actually be 42 when the contract ends, but just turned 42. It is easy for fans to say offer him 10 at 350. This would mean for about 4 to 6 years was have SS on lock. 4 to 6 years of him at 3b. This would cause us to trade more prospects, because he would be blocking some of them. By the end of the deal we would be paying 35 mil to a guy that is most likely not even playing above replacement level, maybe he still would be, but doubtful at 35 plus he is really putting up too much WAR even at 3b. Now, would the 7 mil by that time make much of a difference most likely not. I am not defending the choice not to up the offer, if they were given that option, it is possible the offer to Correa was a take it or leave it offer where he could not bounce it off the Twins, we do not know how the talks actually went. For all we know, we made our offer, then Giants called up said we will give you this offer, but you need to accept it right now, no calling any other teams or it is off the table. It is possible the Twins did not even know the Giants offer until too late. I bet many here that want the Twins to go into the luxury tax level like the Padres would be just as mad when the players are not earning the money we throw at them if it ends up like a Hosmer deal, or how many were mad at Joe's contract near the end.

I would have no issue with bringing in Swanson, as long as we do not overspend on him simply because we feel like we need something. He has been above average SS his whole career, but not elite until his contract year. This normally does not play out well if we gave him a super long deal. Give him a 5 to 7 year deal max. Do not expect him to carry the offense. Maybe he repeats what he did first time ever, but generally he has been a below average offensive player. Do not look at his one outlier year and think he will repeat it for years to come.

Based on the reported offer, I believe we made a fair competitive offer. Could we have jumped to 10 and 300, most likely, but doubt that would have got it done. This was likely to be Correa's last contract, because at 10 years he would have been 38 at end of it. Maybe he would have been playing at level to get a 1 year deal for something, but odds are not good on that. So those extra 3 years he was not going to earn an extra 50 mil if he signed just a 10 year 300 mil. Personally, I am glad we did not try to match the length because only a very few position players have ever been replacement level into late 30's. He will most likely transition to 3b in 3 to 5 years. Will he be elite hitter and good enough defender in his late 30's early 40's to stay in field, doubtful. So he most likely shifts to DH. I do not wish him any ill will, but if we would have matched, assuming that would have got him to stay here, we would have been not happy with his production the last 5 years if not more. Larger market teams can take on that bad money easier than a mid-market like Twins. Will we pay big for Swanson, maybe, not sure we should at this point. I mean, we have several guys that could eventually step in. Do we think Swanson is that much better on defense than what hopeufully Lewis brings? Swanson is not a top offensive guy. He is coming off his best offensive season, in a contract year, something that is not uncommon. It is by far his best season ever, can we really expect he sustain it for the length he is most likely seeking? I doubt the Twins take on a bad deal just to say well we spent, they do not seem like that kind of FO. Do we spend big on Rodon? I doubt we give him the length he wants, but if he does not get that length we may spend bigger per year over shorter term, but if a team offers him the 7 or more years he has been seeking, no way do we go that long. The length of some of these contracts are getting crazy, but the reason for it is to manipulate the tax number. Teams are adding several years on to deals to get the average value down, and are actually front loading the deals in terms of how they are paying it out. The big market teams are offering many years past prime to draw out that money expecting the tax number to increase by end of contract.

Does the people the measure pitch framing, also compare the catcher and pitcher to same pitcher but different catchers? Meaning, did the comparison look at Vazquez and the pitchers he caught, and compare how other catchers did with same pitchers? I have to think sometimes it is the pitcher that helps cost the pitch framing at times too, I could be wrong, but that to think it plays some roll.

I think Arraez has not peaked, and could get better. He even could get more power, without hurting his approach of getting on base. First, it is selective power, meaning based on count, based on situation, pitcher, and situation in game, you can look to swing for more power, but go to normal approach when swinging harder is not needed or really get you much. For example, runner on 3rd less than 2 outs late in game and tied, making sure you get ball in play to drive in run is important. However, if runner is on first, 2 outs down 1 or 2 runs, trying to hit a HR or extra base hit is more important, and risking a strikeout is not a big deal.

I take little weight in the history of 5th overall picks, and what it may mean for Twins. There are many players taken after the 5th pick that have been great, turns out the team that picked that year were wrong, it happens a lot. We just need to hopefully guess right. In 92, Derek Jeter went 6th overall, none above him were all that great, Phil Nevin 1st and Jeffery Hammond 4th were all-stars, and some guy named Chad Mottola went 5th. Jeter was first high schooler off the board too. The MLB draft is mostly a crap shoot of trying to figure out if the kid is peaked, or will grow.

No way do Twins give him the 7 years he is seeking. I doubt they ever will, but he would be a huge risk to do so.

From the rumors we are willing to offer a contract to Correa that is comparable. The question is will he want to take it? Will he just go to highest bidder, and if so who will that be? Rumors are already 2 players took smaller contracts but still had huge contracts either way. I am not surprised Correa is waiting out, that is normal Boras advice. Bogarts did not hold out because he got offer no other team would have been willing to match, so jump on it. However, both Correa and Rodon are in bidding wars. They will continue to bounce offers between those teams to get his max amount. Sometimes this may backfire, but when at least 3 teams are bidding, if not more, and only 2 SS out there, easy to keep asking for me. There can always be a team no one expects to swoop in, like we did last year to sign CC to begin with. The teams just need to decide how long will they wait, and how high will they go. Some might pivot and bow out of bidding, which is a risk CC faces. However, I think he can keep holding out for awhile to get best deal for himself.

I do not see PIT trading him this offseason. Maybe at deadline or next offseason but not this one. Unless they get blown away by a deal. Even if Reynolds will not sign long term, they do not have to trade him right now, they have time.

Do their fans really feel like they have a chance? They started spending big on FA and making tons of trades back in 2018. Hosmer deal really started it. They finished 66-96 in 2018. 2019, they finished 70-92, both last place finishes, despite then spending big on Machado. Then 2020, they finally got out of basement but still second place. 2021, third place again below 500 at 79-83, despite trading for Yu Darvish and Blake Snell. This year they bounced back some, even without having Tatis play, so they do have hope, with other trades and deals they have made. However, I would not say they have a big chance being their team still continues to have holes despite them throwing money and every prospect they have at filling them. They are choosing one way to build a team, but I would say it is a flawed way in my opinion. Are Twins building it the best way, maybe not either. I still say team building comes down to player development. If you cannot develop your own players through draft, international signings, it really does not matter you teams will still have holes. Rumors are Twins are willing to spend more, the question is will the players sign with them? Should we throw bad money at players like Hosmer, who everyone said was overpaid at the time, simply to say we spent big? I mean we could go out and offer Andrew Benintendi 10 years and 200 mil, just to say we spent big, but is he really worth 20 mil a year? I am not hearing anyone saying he is. We could offer Chris Bassitt 40 mil a year too, just to say we signed a pitcher, but should we? I am not saying we should not try to sign CC or Rodon if the money works, but if they sign elsewhere we should not just go and spend the money we were going to on the next best option just because we have the money to spend.

A few things. If you are saying the markets are similar, but you point out Padres are only team around, in all major sports, but MN has many major sports teams, so to compare the two seem a little odd. Now if you are saying because each only has 1 baseball team with similar market okay lets go from there. Now, we do not know what the actual books look like. For all we know Padres are losing money right now, or barely breaking even. We also do not know if the Twins are raking in money, or barely breaking even. Those decisions of what to spend is up to the owner. Neither should be expected to lose money, and how much they make that is also up to them. In addition, Padres did not start spending until 2018. Until then they were a well below average payroll. In 2018, they surprised people with big FA deal for Hosmer, then in 2019, Machado, and other players as years went on. They continued to make big splashes and move up to top of payrolls. Has it translated to wins, not really. They are trying to build winner through trades and big FA deals. They have yet to build a good winning team, despite brining in big time FA, and trading for top prospects. Could the Twins spend like Padres, yes. Will it mean wins, no. You need to spend smart, still make good trades, and draft well. Rumors are we are willing to spend big on Correa, and we had offered larger contracts on players that have signed else where. Just because you have money to spend does not mean you should spend it on bad players. Look at how Angels have continually spent bad on players over the years. Despite having the best player of this generation, they have only made playoffs 1 time with him. They kept spending on top FA only to not make playoffs for years.

That is basically the point I was trying to make. It is to address the fans that think simply if Twins offer biggest contract for a player that player will sign with us. I get annoyed when I read comments of see how cheap we could have got this player for and how they are doing. However, we do not know if we could have signed that player for even a similar contract, it may have taken much much more to get the player to sign with us, for whatever reason.

After many off seasons I read people post about how Twins should have signed player x because the contract was a good one and if only the Twins would have offered that it would have been good. I normally comment that we do not know if the Twins did offer anything, or if the player had any interest in the Twins anyways. This is not like a fantasy draft of auction where highest bid wins. Recently, there was rumors of two players the Padres offered contracts to that were significantly more money, but similar annual value. First Turner signed 11 year 300 mil contract with Philly, rumor was Padres offered 342 million, no details on years, but imagine it would have been a year more most likely. Turner said no to an extra 42 million, and no way will he make that up after his 11 year contract is done, as he will be 40 and doubt anyone offers him a 1 year 42 million deal. Then Aaron Judge signs 9 year 360 deal with Yankees, but rumor is he was offered 10 year 400 deal by Padres. Similar, no way will a team offer him 1 year 40 million at age 39, so he left 40 million on table. In both cases, players turned down 40 million, according to rumors, to sign with a different team. Now of course, when you are still getting over 300 mil, pretty easy to say no to extra 40, but that is still a lot to turn down. I mean it is still over 10 percent total value. In Judge's case it was same annual value, but 1 extra year. So it got me thinking, how much more, does some teams need to offer to get players to come, and what if any do other factors play in. Fans and reporters speculate that returning home plays a factor but for these two it had nothing to do with that, as Turner is from FL, and Judge is from California, central not south, but still he rejected more money and his home state. I do think some players it does play a roll though, some even say it does. Some speculate that the states tax laws play into it. Specifically, Texas has no income tax so the player will take home more of their money, and CA has a high income tax, so maybe that is why players rejected Padres, because their financial planner told them the take home would be less. Not sure how it compares to NY or PA exactly though. I do know PA generally has a 3% flat income tax regardless of how much you make, I lived and worked there for a few years. Each city has a working tax too, which I do not know what Philly working tax is if any for athletes. NY cost of living is similar to CA. Maybe it is just where the players feel the team is at for championships. Maybe in Judge case he did not want to leave where he has a huge fan base. Turner has been moved around in his career. Twins have been rumored to be offering various different contracts for Correa, will we have to offer the most? Will we need to offer a huge amount more than other teams? Will we get some kind of discount? What will Correa care more about? I do think some players will be swayed by more money from other teams. For example if team A offers 100 mil over 5 years, but team B offers 120 mil over 6 years, they will take the offer B, but some will take offer A in hopes of earning more next contract, if they can get one. Some care about overall value, where others care about annual value. Some care about other things once they reach a certain amount of money. I feel players that are making less overall, can be swayed by an increase. For example, 10% increase may make little difference to someone already earning 300 mil, but to someone offered 10 mil, but then someone offered 11 mil, will that make the difference, that extra million? Is it he actual dollar amount, or the percent increase? Meaning, would one player not see much of difference in a 20 to 22 million, 10% increase, but a 10 to 12, 20% increase, but same dollar amount increase? I know many factors go into each players call. I just think the rumors of Padres offers should show to fans, that think just if the Twins offered a little more we would get a player is not accurate, as some players have turned down huge amounts of extra money, for whatever reason.

Personally I try to shy away from HS arms high in draft. They are so hard to really project. Yes, some become some of the best, but some fully flop too, they are the biggest high risk high reward kind of guys. Not that college pitchers are locks either though, but they tend to be ale to fly through minors faster and contribute faster too.

Padres have been throwing crazy lengths and money to all kind of guys that snubbed them. First Turner turned them down for less money, then Judge took less money, so they went big. I am not sure if it shifts the market for CC or not. I mean the annual value is not super high, only just over 25 a year. No opt outs, or options, just full no trade. I do not think anyone was expecting that length for him.

I think some are reading the article as they should be traded, or even will be, but it is just stating they are the most tradeable at this time. Mainly, it is based on where they are at in organization, and possible trade value at this time. All are pretty high at this point. I agree I would not look to move really any of them, but if you can get the right player back no guy is off limits in my mind. Of course much depends on other moves. Should we sign CC for long term, well that locks up SS and or 3b for many years,(depending on details of contract) which makes Lee and Lewis more expendable, if you do not plan to move positions. That is exactly why Steer was easy to move. We already had many IF prospects that are boarder line SS with decent bats. Even if he goes on to be a good player for Reds, people will need to compare him not to what we got in trade, but to who we sign, if anyone at SS, Lewis, Lee, Martin, Miller, and Julien, all guys that are in similar roll. Also, Mirana and Arraez would need to be considered as they would play similar position as Steer. That is a lot of other players that could all have better time with Twins than Steer would have. I have no player in mind I would move any of those guys for, but if you can get a young controllable top end pitcher, which SWR could be for ourselves, you have to listen to offers. I would not like moving any of them right now for a 1 to 2 year guy. The only one I would be open at this time for a 1 to 2 year pitcher is Julien, as he may be a great hitter, but his defense is suspect from what I hear. We cannot have an infield of Miranda, (SS to be determined) Julien, Arraez or something like that.

I believe the draft lottery benefits the teams that are near the playoffs that got that chance to move up. There really is very little difference between number 10 and 15, but a big difference between 5 and 10, generally in MLB drafts. I also feel there is much less of a difference between 1 and 5 than 5 and 10. Unlike in NBA where there is normally a clear number 1 or 1 and 2, MLB rarely has a clear number 1. Also, number 1 generally have decent MLB careers, but rarely do they actually end up being the best in their draft. This is why I have long said teams do not tank for the number 1 pick, they tank for other reasons. One, is to have higher picks to have more money to spread around for later round picks to sign over slot value, have more international money to spend, sometimes get competitive balance picks to use or trade, and to suppress service time of their top prospects. I am happy for Twins moving up to the 5th pick, as that pick is much more likely to help at MLB level than the 13th, but you never know. However, if you look back, very rarely, is the number 1 pick the best player in a draft. Now, they still have a great chance to be a good player, the number 1 overall is rarely a complete bust as well.

Judge bet on himself and won. He turned down like 218 mil, had one of best seasons of anyone in recent years, now get 360 over 9. He is now one of top paid guys per year. I think the price for CC just went up. Do not think it will quite be at that average value, mainly because Judge is a power hitter, and they tend to age better than non power hitters. CC has power, but not a power hitter. I still do not expect CC to sign by end of meetings, Boras clients at least the top ones, normally hold out until closer later in off-season.

It depends on when the opt outs are and how much he has left on the deal. This past deal we all knew he was going to opt out barring injury. But there are many players recently that have opted in because chances were they would not get the same level on FA. Of course that means we are overpaying, but not that he has no value. If there are multiple opt outs at 10 years, odds are it will be after 3 or 4 and after 6 or 7, and maybe after like 9. I doubt it will be like this past deal that is after each year, no team would agree to 10 year opt out after each season.

I would like to see the data on that, not saying it is not there, but find it may not be super accurate. One thing, does that data take into account the few hits he gets because of the shift, or just the hits he maybe would not have got due to the shift? Also, is it based on assuming range led to the ground ball being stopped because of the depth of the 2nd baseman, or position of SS on right side of base? Meaning, did the 2nd baseman have to move left or right to stop the ball and only because of depth they managed to cut it off? Is this also based on if the 2nd baseman was in a standard position for RH hitter, or old traditional position for LH hitter? Even without playing deeper into the RF, many 2nd basemen would still play much closer to 1st. Again, I am not saying the data is wrong, but I would love to see it to see if it is flawed. I personally did not watch every at bat over the past year for Max or past years. However, I do not recall seeing too many balls that were smoked to a hole between 1st and 2nd where the 2nd baseman makes a great ranging play to throw out Max. I would normally see him hit many weak ground balls that would have been cut off at normal depth. I also recall seeing a few balls he hit where a SS would have normally been that he got hits on, so that should count against the count of hits lost because of shift, because he got some hits because of shift too. That being said, I am more than happy to keep Max this year as I doubt he will have much trade value, and you do not just trade a guy because he is not playing to the level you hope, because normally what you get back is not much value either.