Trov

Oakland is clearly tearing down the roster. Anyone that has value and still 1 to 2 years of team control are getting traded. Unless they shock people it is unlikely Oakland will be competing in next 2 years. Why would they want a guy like Arraez in a trade as the headliner? By time they are going to compete again Arraez will be on the trading block. I see no way that Arraez is the piece Oakland is trying to get from Twins. They want either Lewis or Martin most likely and one of the top starting prospects. Most likely a third lower tier prospect as well. I would shocked if we make a deal with Oakland and Arraez is part of it, not that we would not deal him, but because he does not fit Oakland time table right now.

This is not some major move. He may never actually pitch for us because we may remove him from 40 man and he gets claimed. If he does stay he may be a pen guy in and out throughout the year and maybe into next year. He is a flier move that may help us for a couple years that is all.

In terms of the question of the contract talks, the rumor I heard was Correa was the one reaching out to teams on this contract. I read it was offered to Houston and they did not want to agree to it. For the Twins side, they were under the impression Story was not going to take their offer, whatever it was, so they gave Correa a call to see what he was looking for. When that offer was an option they jumped on it. I think it is a win win deal. I know most say well it is only a 1 year deal and we are back needing a SS next year. Most likely yes, but you deal with that at most positions every year. Personally, I am a fan of shorter deals giving you flexibility. If we are not doing well this year, Correa can be traded, he has limited no trade is my understanding, and most teams will be willing to take him on with this contract. If we are competing and doing well even if he walks so be it, we got a good year out of it.

This FO has always shown they are willing to make moves, but also never married to an idea. I like the difference in FO than what we had for the 10 years prior. I did like Terry Ryan and feel he did a good job when he first started, but he failed to change with the times. Bill Smith did a good job of signing some young guys and some decent drafting in his days, but was terrible at trades. It is still too early to tell how the FO is doing drafting, but in next year or two we will see if they made some good drafts or not. Just like all FO there will be some misses and some hits no one expected. What I like is that despite Donaldson being okay, they felt he was not going to give them what they wanted moving forward. Maybe we could have signed a FA SS with Donaldson on the books, but it frees up 3rd base where we have now 3 possible guys to fill in. Donaldson was fading quickly too. He stayed healthy and put up decent offense, but his defense was fading and he was quickly going to be a 1st base DH guy. He could not run at all anymore. I hated seeing him hit in the 2 hole with Buck in the 3, because if Donaldson was on base Buck was limited to what he could on the bases. Yes Donaldson had more power than who most likely will replace him over the year, but I think we will most likely have an upgraded team. Really, we have not given up anything that hurts our near future either. Hopefully we bring in at least 1 more starter, but even if Correa walks after this year, we can pivot to the FA SS next year or use one of our internal prospects if they are ready. We filled a hole for this year without handcuffing us in the future. That was my biggest worry about a long term deal with Story. I was concerned he would come no where near producing what we wanted after the first year or two and we would be stuck paying him way too much to play second base putting up subpar offense. Maybe I will be wrong on him, but I bet Story does not opt out his last couple years of his contract and Boston will be regretting his contract.

I think the back issues are exactly why we were able to sign him. We signed Buxton because of his injury history so his asking price was so much lower than could have been. Correa was looking for the biggest deal of the off-season. I think teams were worried that his back injury would continue to be an issue into his 30's so were less willing to give him a 10 year 300 mil deal like he wanted. He is mostly betting on himself here that he can show he will stay healthy for a second season and then a team will be more willing to take that long term risk. If it acts up again, then he has a couple more years to make good money and prove he can get another deal at 30. It would not be for record setting money at that point.

One thing Sanchez will learn is if he gets off to hot start the Twins fans will love him and even if he fades they will look at the hot start as what might be. If he gets off to slow start fans will get on him for his lack of offense. I am not sold on him as a DH or backup catcher, but he has shown he may be something and will trust our coaches to help him get back to what he was.

I just wonder what Oakland is seeking. They still have two pitchers they are most likely trading. I think what they may be asking in return is based on when they think their timetable will be. Just looking at their prospect lists, they seem to light on OF prospects, but do they have much interest in what we have there? My guess is they really do not want much of our MLB or near MLB OF guys, and I am think the discussion will be for either Lewis or Martin and a pitching prospect. We clearly are looking to win now with current moves, do we give up that, or can we get Oakland to accept younger hitting prospects and one of our more ready pitching prospects?

If you are expecting any DH on this team to produce like Cruz did then you will be disappointed. As long as we can get some production from the DH I am good, I am not asking for Cruz number from last couple of years with both the power and the average. I am not sold on Sanchez, but I am willing to give him a shot with new place to play and new coaching staff in his ear, maybe that will help him. With hitting being a very mental game, sometimes just a change will do. We have plenty of bat first guys we can rotate in if Sanchez fails. Many struggled last year, but hopefully they took the offseason to work on those issues.

Was not on computer yesterday, but when I woke up and checked phone to see the deal I was shocked. I kept checking to see the Story deal happen, but I am much happier with this deal. Sure, odds are it is a 1 year deal unless Correa has down year or injury year. However, it gives us the best player in FA this year, something no one ever thought they would say about Twins. Also, who knows, maybe just maybe he will like it hear and fine with earning 35 mil for a couple more years before testing FA again. I doubt that as he wanted something better than what Seager earned. If both he and Buxton can stay healthy, there is little reason we should not make playoffs. I have doubt that Buxton will, but Correa did last year. I know many will say but we still need pitching, which maybe we do, or maybe even if we do not make a trade the young guys will get it done. With this signing, we basically traded Garver and Donaldson for Correa, for at least 1 year, and I am okay with that. I fully expect a trade with Oakland in coming days, just not sure who they will be giving up.

I bet if the Yankees thought they could get Correa for this kind of deal they would have done that and not traded with Twins.

Baseball is a very mental game, and maybe that was affecting Sanchez. Also, maybe being full time catcher so long started to wear on him too. Maybe getting some DH at bats will help him. However, his huge K rate is an issue. I did look up the home road split of Sanchez and was expecting a bigger split being Yankee Stadium is very hitter friendly overall. The way I see it, no way will he be worse than we expect, so if he can offer much of anything that is just a bonus.

I have not been an advocate for Story signing here, but if the deal is limited to 4 seasons, maybe with a 5th year option, I would be open to it. I mainly have argued that you will not get the offense he has produced over his career because of the splits. Will he be terrible on offense, most likely not, but you should not pay him like he is an elite offensive SS, when all signs show he is not elite away from Denver. Maybe he will adjust and do well. The writer uses LeMahieu as a recent example, but fails to point out that Yankee stadium is very hitter friendly, and other than last year, his home road was still very skewed to be good home numbers. I have been low on Story not just for the splits, but also he is nearing 30, coming off of elbow injury, which will both greatly lower his defense over the coming years. Many teams think he should not even stay at SS, rumors are most offers are for him moving positions. I am not saying Story does not and will not add some value, but I am concerned too long of a contract we will be looking to dump him in a year or two like we did Donaldson because of regression. If you knew his bat would be elite you can put up with regression in defense and still pay top dollar, but it is not expected he will hit to the overall numbers he has over his career. I never said the man would be subpar at the bat, but he is likely to hit at same level as Polonco did during his down offensive time at SS. My comments against Story has mainly been to tamper expectations of fans that looked at his overall numbers and think that is who would be coming to Twins, when he will not hit at that level, and will regress quickly on defense as well. Anything beyond 4 years Twins will regret by end of the deal.

From the moment the trade with Yankees happened, I said this is not the last move we see from Twins this year. They freed up money from Donaldson to hopefully sign a SS, most likely it looks like Story, who I have not been big on, but we need something. For the right price I am fine with Story but he has a ton of red flags over next few years. I also believe Twins will look to move Sanchez as well for possible pitching, not sure if that move is out there though. I have a feeling the FO have ideas of where Sanchez could go, despite making statements they are happy to have him. Of course if follow up moves fall through and we are left with hole at SS and Sanchez as catcher or at least backup, I would say this was a huge fail. Donaldson was fading quickly, and his calfs could go at any moment. I am looking forward to hearing how the Yankees clubhouse deals with Donaldson and Cole together, as they had huge beef on social media last year, with the sticky substance issues.

I wonder if this was the plan when we traded with Texas, or after that got done Yankees came knocking. It seems like they could have done a three team trade, and maybe that was talked about but things just did not work out, so we had to go the path they did. NO way is the FO done with this deal. We get weaker at 3rd and catcher to just get a big contract out. It makes no sense as we still have hole at SS and go with a lessor 3rd baseman or unproven guy. I know Story is rumored, and read Twins have little plans to keep Sanchez, not sure if he will be released or they will try to trade him, but that leaves hole at backup catcher now too.

The second I saw this trade I said they are going hard after Story. Then I saw shortly after, that Twins are inquiring about Story. I wondered if the trade was planned when they traded with Texas, or after, Yankees came calling and Twins just went with it. Essentially, they traded Garver, Donaldson, and Rortvelt for Sanchez and Urschella. They saved some money on Donaldson to hopefully move on someone else. If they do not bring in Story, who I have been against for anything longer than 4 years, then I have no clue what team is doing.

I at first thought the lottery would not fix tanking, because rarely do you have a clear number 1 pick, once like every 10 years will you have a pick that is so clear number 1 people would really care if they got it. However, lowering picks if you routinely stay in the lottery may have the desired affect. The Kumar rule may not address his issue, but there was no rule in place that he would have to get contract at 75% slot value. I think it is a good rule for both sides. It will make all the teams get a chance to see the physical and they can decide to take the risk or not, and if they do the player gets a deal no matter what, if they want to take it. Sure it may lead to some guys dropping more than expected, but that is a risk the player will have to decide. If they do not share the info they will run risk of no offer at all, like Rocker got.

I wonder if the minor league camp that was going on will affect how a team was looking to go. Maybe a guy they were willing to trade for someone is no longer available. Maybe someone they were not looking to part ways with now is available. Maybe some of the non-roster invites have impressed enough they will not feel the need to bring in someone else. I was expecting signings and trades to happen very quickly as camps open in a couple days now. So far nothing that is disappointing to me.

Looking forward to the slew of trades and FA announced in the next 24 hours. I personally was surprised, it sounds like the actual players were less concerned about the issues than the heads of the union. I think the owners waited them out enough that the rank and file players that would see little from the changes in luxary tax line change did not want to risk missing too much time and money. Even more so when over the last decade jobs for 32 plus year old players are dropping quickly.

If it is like the minor league rule, assuming it is. If the time runs out the umpire issues a ball to the batter. Similar there was rules that made step offs limited per at bat when runner was on, and doing it too many times would result in a balk. To my knowledge there was no limit to hitters calling time, but that has always been up to umps if they want to grant it. I have seen times where batter steps out but no time is granted. I would bet the ump will be less likely to grant the closer the clock winds down.

I am never a fan of looking at MLB drafts on who we took versus who was taken some time after. It is even worse when you use large gaps, like top 5 to end of first round. The reason I say this is there are many things that go into a decision to draft someone, and without looking into all those reasons it is hard to really compare. That being said, I would agree the 2011 and 2014 drafts as good comparison type drafts. The reason I say that is the gap is not large, and the players played same positions, which meant the analysis of the team clearly was off. I actually remember the 2014 when Turner was talked as high as 5 for the Twins as well. Now, Mitchell and Story were not 100% comparison because Story was high school pick, and Mitchell was college, but as point out many were not high on Mitchell and questioned the pick at the time. I know for the 2014 draft a knock on Turner was he was not expected to stay at SS, which finally has happened him shifting but he has done very well for himself in the majors, while Gordon has barely played at this level, but similar to 2011, they are flipped flopped in high school versus college. Gordon was projected to be higher floor and stay at SS, but everyone was wrong on that. For 2010, it was clearly a miss, and I think I recall he was considered the same pick and we missed out on some top HS arms that panned out, at least a little in the comp round. But to compare a college pitcher to a HS OF, it is hard to compare. Yes, we could have, and if could do again should have drafted Yelish, however, we have no clue if he would have developed the same either. 2012, yes Seagar has higher WAR, but I would not say we got that one wrong, and no one was thinking Seagar was the number 1 pick in that draft, like Buxton was. If Buck could stay healthy he would have higher WAR than Seagar. 2013 comparing a guy that was top 5 rated to a guy that went comp round is just hard to say we should have taken the comp round guy. Sure, he has panned out well, and knowing what you know now most teams would have taken Judge over why they did, but it is not like everyone was saying Judge should go early, and we missed. 2015 we clearly blew that, but again Bueler was missed by many. There was 7 pitchers taken between Jay and Bueler, so again it was not like we were most likely between the two. That all being said, that was the old FO and they have been out and for good reason, they were missing more often than hitting. However, most GM's actually miss, very few will hit on most picks.

I have long advocated that a floor and cap would fix issues, as they get based on actual revenue and there is a true sharing. The info of the revenues get shared with players to set the numbers. Many of the issues is lack of transparency. My current union contract talks have that same issue. Management claims they cannot meet the demands because of lack of money, but will not show the books as to why that is the case. This leads to mistrust. I agree with the fact that if the players cared about all the players they would care more about a floor. If you expand the tax level all that will happen is the top few players will get a little more money. The teams that spend no where close to that number will not suddenly start spending more. Also, most teams could sign a guy to 20 mil or more, or raise what they are paying their players a little more and not pass the level. The tax level is not what is keeping teams from signing a vet for a few more million a season. The problem is the players have always said no cap ever, and will never budge on that. They do not want to limit what they can get paid, but they stupidly agreed to the tax level. Which is basically a soft cap that most teams will not pass, they do not want to throw away dead money. Really what should help all players is that money from the tax and the revenue that is shared with smaller market teams needs to be spent on players, that is the biggest issue. The smaller market teams take the shared money, but then still claim poverty.

I would hope that would not count, at least it will not in my mind.

There has always been a few pitchers that work quickly, one that always comes to mind for me is Mark Buehrle. He would get the ball, the sign and throw in just a few seconds. He was a good pitcher overall. Even when guys were on base he took little time between pitches and his games were very short. Personally, I am all for the pitch clock because I feel it has got crazy out of hand with how long some guys take. It will also lead to a new cat and mouse game when runners are on. As it will also have limited step offs and throw over. If it is like the minor league rule, you could only have 2 throws over or step offs, unless the runner took off before the pitch was thrown. I think there was a gray area of what was considered running going, meaning the runner could not just walk way off the base after 2 throws over. It will lead to more running game maybe but more trying to catch a guy too with pitch outs after 2 throws over. I do think the game needs to speed up, as it has dragged on. I always enjoy being able to do other things and not miss much going on, but at the same time I do not like 3.5 to 4 hour games every night. I think it will take time for the pitchers to adjust to it, but once they do there will not be much of an issue, and we will just accept it as part of the game now. I get that baseball has never had a clock of any kind, and that is part of the great part of the game, but at some point you need to not just let the game drag on forever. The game will continue to lose younger fans who want action. If this will make action happen I am all for it.

I fully agree he is not likely to be a starter, but can fill a decent ben roll. First, I remember when 93 was considered fast, not a determent to a pitcher as too slow. My how times have changed, and I am not that old. Radke averaged 89 on his fastball and got the job done just fine. Second, the speed is not super important if the breaking pitch is that good you throw it more often and just use the fastball to change up things sometimes. As long as you can spot corners.

MLB teams have exploited international kids for years. Yes, some kids get huge sums of money, but most of the time that money is taken by corrupt people if the kid does not get out of the country. These kids are brought to baseball academies owned by teams where the kids are taught basic English and baseball. They do not learn anything of real educational value. For the lucky few that emerge and get signed even for just 6 figure deals do hit the jackpot, but most of the kids never get signed or sign for only 5 figures move to US and get used in the minor leagues because it is either do that, or manual labor in their home country because they passed up all possible education because they had athletic promise. Is it a better life than if they went to school, I cannot answer that. However, MLB has tried to put the spin on their academies as some great thing they are doing for the country, but the money they spend there does not get spread around it stays with very few people. Sure, without them some of these kids would never get found and never make it to MLB earning millions to help give back to their country if they want to. However, there is a very dark side of these as well. I hope with the international draft there will be less of this, but most likely not.