Trov

For me any trade comes down to costs. What would he be worth for a 1 season, and if he walks what would you get back. Any trade to me needs to wait until a new CBA is agreed to because I expect the QO to be changed, and if you will not be getting anything back for Manaea if he does not resign, we should give up even less. Also, if this is the only move we make then I would want even less to be given up, because without more pitching we do not know where the team will end up and giving up assets for 1 year of a little better record to me is not worth it either.

I do not think he will make it. He was great for a few years, one of the best against every team but the Yankees. He may get in if the voters start adopting the metrics and not the counting stats, and with shift of starters only going average of 6 innings, it puts more importance on pen pitchers. If he does get in on the votes it will be one of his last years, but more likely it would be on vet committee vote.

Pitchers are also more common to be taken in rule 5. Badoo I think surprised a lot of people that he was taken under his circumstances. Pitchers are easier to store at end of pen, but position guys need to play normally.

I do not find guys like Ortiz question of steroids to be a huge issue. Ortiz is a huge man, so the power he produces is not surprising. It is not like he was a singles hitter his whole career for years to then break out hitting tons of HR. I think he will make the hall but will be a late ballot kind of guy.

Was there arbitration extended, or did they just sign him forgoing arbitration? How often is a guy signing less than 1 million in arbitration? I bet if you look at those signings you will find the likely of being cut goes way up. I doubt they will be tied to him this year if they feel there is an upgrade out there. Will he be first of the 40 man, most likely not, but not like they are married to him.

What if it takes 500 mil over 10 years? What if that is the only offer he will sign? Would you agree to that? I mean I know that is unlikely but you said do what it takes period. I personally do not understand people's obsession with extending him no matter what. We basically have played every year of his career without him for at least half the season. If we extend him, we need to sign a backup CF for when he will be injured. I am not saying do not sign him, but do not overpay for someone that will be injured half the time at minimum. The fact that he has had head issues concussion and migraines, that always concerns me because they can end a career without even a contact injury sometimes.

Lets assume we do not trade him, what is the plan to address the 81 plus games he will not play due to injury? He may be one of the best players when he is on the field, but he lacks one of the best abilities in the game. Availability.

I do not believe the draft is what is leading to tanking, but other things, like signing bonus money, comp picks, and years of control of players. The teams that "tank" are not really going out saying lets try to lose, but they are saying, lets not waste our cheap control years on our top guys when we are not ready to compete. Keep them down and we will bring in someone else for the year. The fact that they can get the other things helps too. I mainly think the draft is not the issue is because even having the number 1 pick does not mean they will be a future star. It is not like Basketball where most of the time teams hit the number 1 pick as the best in the draft, sometimes not, but history shows they are normally pretty accurate or close to it. Baseball though so often number 1 picks are not the best in the draft, some never even make the majors or have just a short time, and guys much later in draft end up being the best player. Personally, if you want to fix tanking, change the way teams get to control their players. If they did not get rewarded for sitting talent in the minors for an extra year or two because then they get to keep them into their prime for much cheaper teams would call them up sooner if they gave best chance to win.

If you can swing getting Chapmen for not much in prospects I am good with it. I do not see him sticking around as he hits his 30's. His offense is already dropping some, maybe just a down year, but some guys drop off really quickly. I am not for giving up prospects for someone already showing regression possibly.

Paul Molitor did get healthier later in his career when he went to First and DH. He was an all time great hitter though his full career. Buck has been up and down his whole career. He has yet to put together a full season of sustained hitting to expect he will hit when he gets older.

I find it interesting the article points to guys what their WAR was when they signed, but not what it is since they signed. For me, you never pay a guy for what he did, but for what you expect he will do. I looked up each one of listed guys since their contracts were signed. Cain is the only one that even lived up to value in any year, the first year he had a WAR of 6.9. In the 3 years since his WAR is not even 5 total. Blackmon has in 4 years a total of 6.3 WAR. Fowler, has a total of 1.6 WAR in 5 years, ever getting above 2 in a single year. Hicks I did not find for each year, but last year was negative war of .3 and other years looked similar. Upton has 1.7 WAR in 4 years, and last three were all negitive. To compare those guys as to why the Twins should pay Buxton based on their WAR the year of the signing is terrible. They should be caution tales as to why you should not pay Buxton much. None have lived up to their deals for more than a single year, and they are costing their teams a ton of money to produce a negative WAR. Now Buxton is younger than the rest, so maybe he would be fine for more years, but at 7 years he would be a gamble that he will drop off in value. Much of his value is based on his speed. When his speed goes as he ages, assuming it will, he will need to carry things with his bat, and we do not know how that will age either.

I always find it interesting when people speculate about contract talks. Everyone assumes Berrios came to Twins and said 7 years 20 a year will get it done and Twins balked at it. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. We have no clue what the talks were. Maybe he never wanted to resign with Twins no matter what, we do not know. Maybe his agent was standing strong playing chicken trying to get price up and Twins blinked first trading him. So much goes on that we will never know. We will hear reports that are never fully sourced so we never know if anything is actually true.

If the contract is basically 6 years 120 or 20 per year, he is the 9th highest right now in total contract cost and about tied for 15th per year with his teammate Ryu. This all depending on what some other guys get. The value per year is most likely in Twins offer, but the years not so much. 7 years for any pitcher is a long time. He is young entering his prime, but pitchers are volatile and may drop off in production out of no where, or he may get the TJ surgery and miss at least 1 full year and then some. We will not know for about 3 years if the contract was good or bad for Toronto. For this length though I am not upset with not signing him. We would have needed him to be the ace for next 7 years, and he has never put up ace numbers over a full year. He has always teased being one, but never really was one. Maybe entering his prime he will be. I am glad we got some good prospects back for him at the very least.

What I always enjoy about people who blame the FO for not going out and signing an ace, they never point out to who, at the time they wanted the FO to target but failed to sign. First, just because a contract is offered does not mean a player will agree. We have no clue who was offered, what and when. Many operate under assumption that every player can be had for just the right price, but that is not always the case. Some guys want to stay in NL, or play in a particular area of the country ect. Sure, some may cave to bigger money, but how much more? How much should you overpay, and how much would it take? I remember why Ryu signed with Toronto, rumors were we offered similar money, but he went to Toronto. Do we blame FO for this? Should we? I feel we should not because we do not know what factors drove Ryu to Toronto over us. Lynn was a good pitcher, but he was not for us. Maybe it was coaching, maybe he was upset that he did not get long term deal and had to settle, maybe he was out of shape due to late signing. I do not know, but the FO saw his talent, he just did not do it for us. Some pitchers just will not fit with certain teams no matter the talent. I also point out that many of the top paid pitchers are in long term contracts that teams wish they were not at this point. Paying big for pitching is a huge risk.

Only way I would want Kluber is if he is as a bonus type signing and not as you expect anything from him. He would be the type of signing that if he bounces back everyone would say great signing, but I do not expect much from him. If you are counting on a old Kluber with 180 innings to carry a staff we will be in trouble. However, if you feel the rotation is figured out and you want to bring him in hopes he can do something cool.

I think pointing out the terrible trade the Sox made with Billy Beane should give some pause. Much like Tampa, Oakland seems to normally get the long term winning end of a trade. I am not saying do not trade, but be careful when you make an offer and Beane throws in some off the wall prospect he wants. Going back to the Sox trade, look at how bad of trades they made when they were chasing vet pitching. James Shields was traded to them for Tatis Jr. Shields was flop for them Tatis is one of best players in league. They did trade mentioned in article too, getting the raw end of it too. It is a caution to not over pay for vet pitchers in trades.

The problem is very few of those top end guys you penny up and pay pan out over their deal. Look up the top 20 paid pitchers and what they get paid to how they have done over their contract. Only about 3 to 4 lived up to deal, and about half did fine for about half the deal, and the other half were mostly train wrecks for the money they got. If the Twins know which one will be living up to the deal, great, but breaking bank on 1 guy that plays less than 1/5th of the innings played in a season, That is a huge risk. It also fills only 1 hole, even if it works out great, but then you have to save on the other 2 holes. I am not saying they should refuse to sign a top guy, if they truely feel they are worth the risk, but to just say lets go out and overspend everyone on guy x because we need to sign the best player out there, will not set us up for WS. As the game evolves, top end starters are losing even more value, they pitch less inning each year meaning at most they influence even less of the games. Only 4 guys pitched over 200 innings, and they were are barely over 200. At minimum you have 1,458 innings in a season. Tat means even the best starters these days influence the game 1/7th of the season, but get paid over like 1/4 of the total payroll for some mid-level payroll teams. Even in playoffs, look at Dodgers staff, nothing was guaranteed of winning.

I hightly doubt Buxton signs an extension with incentives at this point. If I was his agent I would tell him to test FA market see what he can get before he agrees to an incentive deal. I am not high on Story at all, I believe his home road splits are way too bad to think he will be any real value for Twins. I also worry as he ages he will have to leave SS, as only the top elite guys manage to stick there into mid-30's, which most of them only stick there based on what they did in past. If he cannot stay there for the last 2 years of his deal and is only average hitter he will be very overpaid.

The time may be now to try and make some offers to guys, using the expected lock out and unknown of future CBA to entice some 2nd tier guys, but most player will not sign until new CBA is what I would expect.

I agree with Cave, Smeltzer, Thorpe, Garlick, and Astidillo, each I feel have had enough chances and have served a purpose for a period but not worth losing out on some of our prospects for them. Some may even pass waivers and will stay in organization. In terms of Dobnak, the long term deal is for very little money overall, and if he continues to struggle cutting him will not cost much. He has show stretches of great pitching, but then stretches' of terrible pitching. Hopefully he can come back healthy get back on the right track. For Kepler, I am all for trading him, but why would Oakland want anything to do with him? If they are blowing up their roster, it would be to bring in young controlable guys and prospects, not some the age of Kepler. Only way Kepler gets involved with a trade with Oakland is if a third team is involved. Kepler is losing value each year, as he continues to remain the same type of player, good defender with okay hitting. When he is hot he can put a few out of the park, but at this point I think teams are not going to be high on what he could be as he has not made improvements and despite the years of his number not matching his hard hit rate, ect. Eventually, you just have to accept he is going to be who he is. The time to have traded Kepler was a couple of years ago. Now they would just be selling low on him and dumping in hopes of getting something for him. Because he is good on defense I would keep him, unless some team blows you away with an offer, but I doubt that will happen.

The early trades made a lot of sense, good players overall nearing end of team control to get younger team control guys at areas of need. Then when Bill Smith took over things went down hill quickly. He was the type of GM that made trades to just do it without much direction. Swapping young team controlled guys for other young team controlled guys, but he pulled in a hit first corner OF prospect, which are easy to find, for pitching and SS, which are hard to find. Then he at least brought in a good defending SS but had to give up decent CF, not a bad move, except for following it up with the terrible trade of the SS for two bullpen pitching prospects UGH. Bill Smith had some of the worst trades in Twins history. Every GM will have some bad trades, but Smith was so bad. I will say he did a good job of some drafts and bringing in some good international guys over his short time as GM. I personally am a huge fan of trading guys ending of team control for young team controlled MLB ready guys. I would never trade away prospects for hit first OF/1b guys. You can find them so often for cheap in FA market. Look at what Rays do, they continue to trade away guys near end of their team control years, normally 1 or 2 years left for young controlled prospects. They rarely miss when they send a guy away or let him walk. Sure, a few have had decent careers after leaving Rays, but not many. If you cannot sign Buck long term, you have to figure you can get more in a trade for him than in what ever you get from someone else signing him as a FA, assuming new CBA will still have FA walking comp.

I would agree an incentive deal is warranted, but the question is will Buck agree to one. My guess he will hit FA market and not sign an extension this year. If the Twins are competing for playoffs they will keep him on the roster, but if they are not doing well they will trade him, unless the offers do not match what they could get in QO, assuming the new CBA still has compensation for lost FA. Buck is entering last year in crazy time because of CBA up in air this year. I am sure his agent is saying do not sign incentive deal with Twins, but bet on self this year, and look for full contract from other teams. Some teams may be more willing to risk him not playing for big money than Twins can afford. Dodgers and Yankees come to mind right now that will take that hit.

Personally, I would stay away from Verlander. The QO makes him hard to sign giving up draft pick for a 1 or 2 year guy that you have no clue what he will bring. He could be a possible cy young as he was prior to injury but he could be way over the hill because of the injury and then would be a waste of money bur more important waste of draft pick. Kershaw I would be willing to give a flier to, but doubt he would come here as many other teams would make offers.

It think some people put too much stock into strikeout rates. Not all strikeouts are equal. Some pitchers now a days seem to always seek to strike a guy out in every at-bat, raising pitch counts. If a guy can get quick outs it does not matter if he is getting K's. The key is if he can get strikeouts when needed, or can he finish a guy off when at 2 strikes. Some guys have lower K rates because they get outs before they even get to 2 strikes because the first strike or two is put in play, but they can get the K when they get to 2 strikes. Some guys have low K rates because they just cannot miss bats. Just like many numbers they only tell a small story and you need to look at more than just 1 number to get full story of a player.

The fact that Rondon did not get a QO should tell you a lot of what Sox think of him and his future going forward arm wise. Twins Handbook is projecting 18 mil a year for Rondon, which is just about what QO is for. So if the team he has spent his whole career with thinks he is not worth 18 mil for 1 year, I would be hesitant to sign a long term deal. Now, I would be willing to give him a 2 year deal or something like that with no draft pick attached. Verlander is interesting person to get one. He is old enough that he would most likely not get more than a 2 year deal, and if he turns down the QO not many teams will want to give up a pick for a short return. I do not know if Verlander will take it, but my guess if he does not take it, he will either return to Houston, or sign for less than 18 a year.