Trov

I would be interested in him for short term. He is aging and the question will be can he adjust to losing velo most likely and get something out of not being in CO. As pointed out being in CO may not be the issue but lack of defense. Not sure our defense will be that much of a boost when Buxton gets hurt.

If they do sign Rondon to that contract Twins better hope last year was not a fluke and he stays healthy. He had good start to career then went way downhill until last year. We have seen it before from pitchers that they have a big year get paid big then never live up to that contract, or they maybe have 1 or 2 good years but the last several years of contract is terrible.

I would not want to sign either to long term deals at this point. I would take short 1 to 2 year deals if they have interest in that. Signing either to long term with potential wasted money for years is something a team like Twins cannot do. I would point out to the writer that Noah Syndergaard did not spend his full career in the Mets organization, only all his years in the majors. He was traded to Mets from Toronto for a former Twin R.A. Dickey after he pitched a cy young season for Mets.

I never like articles about poor MLB drafts. The main reason is every team has bad picks and very few teams can point to success every year. The other reason is years down the road you can point to who you could have drafted and what they became, but unless you can point to fact that it was suggested they take that player and took someone that was considered a stretch it is hard to say the team got it wrong, but more so everyone did. For example, Appel was drafted high twice, the second time by Houston number 1, and the first time by Pirates at 6 or 7, and he did not sign because wanted number 1 money, because he was scouted as possible number 1. So many missed on him, it was not that he was slotted 5th or 6th best pitcher and Houston thought they knew more. Personally, I would be much more upset if team reached and missed on guy that was scouted to be near them, than take a guy all scouts think was good spot only to find out a guy at end of first round did well, like Judge. Unlike in other sports where guys normally make team right away and you can make quicker comparison, MLB takes years to compare. Also, when you compare High school guys to college guys that gets skewed as well. For Gordon, the writer talks about how Gordon just made debut, and others after him, 2 pitchers and one SS, all have played for years with decent WAR. All three were college guys and Gordon was HS guy, so he is 3 years younger, and could possibly make up for that WAR, maybe not. The point is MLB drafts are crap shoots that you are projecting many years down road. I challenge anyone to show me a team that hits on even 5 straight 1st round picks, heck I bet hitting on 3 straight might be a stretch.

The article points out struggle of Strotman after coming over, but address why the writer believes he may turn things around, mainly late season fatigue that should hopefully not happen next year. In terms of Sabato, calling any player a bust after 1 season is rather narrow minded. The fact that Sabato made huge difference in his short time in high A should give hope that his early issues were long layoff and transition to pro ball related. I wrote a couple of comments on Sabato during the year, and although his average was low, his OBP was high, but his slugging was bad. Without watching him there are questions that those numbers bring up. Specifically, what kind of contact was he making when he was putting ball in play? Was he missing pitches in the zone or taking pitches he should hit, and can that issue be addressed? He clearly was walking a lot. With the fact the FCL is known to be a pitching league was the area and parks sapping his power causing a lot of warning track flies that in other parks are 3 to 4 rows deep? The fact that he had a huge change in power numbers when he advanced in league suggests that FCL was affecting his power numbers. I was down on Sabato all year, and never liked the pick, but I am willing to give the kid another year or two before I say he is a bust.

If there is a good deal to be had dealing Buxton I am all for it. I like him when he is on the field, but that is rare to see. I doubt we will sign him long term and getting some value for him is needed. I would be fine with Donaldson going too. His legs just seem to be gone, he cannot run and his defense if falling off too. To me those are not a "rebuild" they are Rays type moves that keep you stocked.

I fully agree about theACE thing. They are one of 26 guys, and really of like 40 guys when you look at how many guys play during a season. As the game has evolved ACE is less of a thing. Yes, if you can have a guy that can shut down a team two or three times in a series in the playoffs that is great. However, hamstring the rest of your team for 1 pitcher will not get you over the hump. There is at minimum 1,458 innings pitched each year. The best ACE's these days will throw 200 innings, give or take. That is less than 1/7 of the innings. Even if they make every possible start at best the ACE can help win about 33 games. It is unlikely even the best pitcher in the game will make that huge of a difference through a full season, maybe add 4 or 5 wins at best. In the playoffs they can make a much bigger difference, but as Doc pointed out, Yankees had Cole, Dodgers had Bueler, Scherzer, Urias all pitching in post season, but they lost. Does a top pitcher give you a better chance, yes, but can you win without a certified Ace these days, yes as well. It is about building a good solid team with depth.

I am always hesitant to outbid for an ace. Of the top 10 paid pitchers, about 3 fully lived up to contract, meaning performed at level expected each year, but Cole is only in year 2. 2 had a few good seasons under their contracts but had some bad seasons of being greatly overpaid for WAR output. 5 maybe had 1 good season over the length of the contract and has really been a bust. That is a huge gamble to put 20 mil plus out for a guy that may have a couple good years and then you get stuck with a bloated overpaid guy you are looking to dump or keep sending out because you are paying them so much. Now, if the team is convinced or willing to take that huge risk all the power too them, as long as it does not mean they keep a bad guy playing simply because you are paying them like a Cy Young candidate.

One question as it pertains to Lewis or Martin for SS is not just how well they defend, but how well would others defend better than them, and how much better will they be at the other positions. I have written several times that to find a top hitting and fielding SS is very rare. Normally, you are happy with one being above average and the other average, but many times it ends up being one is average and the other is below average. Teams need to balance the defense with the bat. Both are expected to be good hitters overall, Marten less on the power. So the team needs to see who else would fill in. Do we have anyone in the organization that is better for SS than either? If not, can they go out to sign someone that is expected to be better? If not, then do you settle for now on Lewis at SS until someone better comes along? Lewis could play there maybe for a season or two until someone else is available and you move Lewis to new position then.

Buxton extension is one of the hardest things to figure out. When he is healthy and on field he can be the best in baseball, but he is only on field half the time. It would make sense to offer him something like a 5 to 7 year deal, with options at the end allowing him to opt out after like 3 seasons to try and cash in again if he stays healthy over those 3 years. Including in games played incentives to boost his pay over that time too. The question is, will he be willing to accept a contract like that without testing the market? If I was his agent I would advise him to demand full value contract without games played incentives on the value he has shown when he plays. If Twins balk at it, then test the market. I bet there is a team out there that will give him what he is seeking, and if he fails to play they eat the cost. Teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, or other big market teams can afford to push the luxary tax line and eat his lost costs if he does not play. If no team is willing to, then maybe he comes back to something similar to the offer I mentioned. Signing Buxton to long term deal at big bucks will be one of the biggest gambles of any mid-market or lower team. It will still be a little bit of a gamble for a large market team.

I would not be upset for another 1 year deal, but I doubt it happens. With the decline on defense of Donaldson and many hit first guys in the wings I think the team moves on to someone else to fill the DH role.

He is just being the player he always was. He will get on hot streaks and can carry a team, but he will also always have stretches where you wonder why he is on the team at all. Cleveland saw that first hand. You always have to take the good with the bad with Eddie. I always liked him, but he is not an above replacement guy overall. Good for him with what he is doing in Atlanta, but no team will give him a long term deal based on this. I bet Eddie has max 3 more seasons and he will bounce around signing 1 year deals getting traded or cut a few times is my guess.

I have long said to be successful in baseball you need to build a quality team across the board not just try and have the top pitcher or few hitters. Look at Angels, they have had the best player in all of baseball for a long time but have not won. They have had a few other top guys and still could not put together winning teams. You need minor league depth too. Supplementing your team via trade and FA is important but you need to build the core through your organization no matter who you are. I have always felt baseball more than any other sport having solid guys across the board will get you much further than a few top guys filling in the rest. If you get lucky and you have some top guys come through your system great, but if you expect to just go out and drop tons of money on FA and expect results that hardly works out.

I have never been a fan of going out to sign FA relievers to big deal. One, relievers can be so volatile in terms of output. You can find guys out of no where or guys that have long string of success flop. Investing large sums to them never seem to pan out all that well. I hope the team does not make in big splashes in the RP department.

I think in all of the mentioned players have a flaw going forward, that their defense is going to make them move from SS, as Semian already did. You pay top dollar for a SS that can field it at either elite level with average offense, or elite offense with at least average defense. I would worry signing any to major deals for the combo of wasted value at end of deal, if not quickly. Look at Lindor, signed huge deal and already looks like it was a terrible deal for the Mets.

I wonder what led the decision to send no top prospects. They normally send at least a couple of expected future MLB players. Here only Walner is expected to make it at some point. Who knows though maybe the FO sees something in them and want to face some other comp. I have not looked at full rosters maybe every team was holding back.

I like that you went over the 5 year period and not just recent as some want to. For some reason in sports people always do the, what have you done for me lately thing. When it comes to FO in baseball looking at single trades or FA signings you will find flops always, and you hope you will find steals. Now, if it is a long run of flops and no steals then you have issues. I mean we signed Lance Lynn, who was out of shape and not ready to pitch and really was upset to not getting paid. We let him go after he did terrible, then he goes to a hitters ballpark tears it up and now getting paid. Were the FO wrong on that signing because he did bad for us, or were they right to see the talent? Was the coaching staff wrong in how they used him and coached him? People will point to 40 man roster decisions that went wrong, at least so far, but give little credit when they snatch up someone that panned out too. The fact that the FO did a full tear down of things I am not upset at the overall product, this year was not good, but I still feel good for the future.

While I do not agree Simmons was as bad as a signing as some paint him, I agree there is no need to bring him back, and I recently read the Yankees looked to bring him in during trade deadline. Not sure what was offered, but just about anything would have been worth it to give others a chance to show what they could maybe do on defense. In terms of Cruz, I would not be upset if he returns, I doubt he does as many guys can fill DH next year. If team thinks Cruz still can get it done and they do not want others to DH I will not be upset, but not asking to bring him back.

Velo can make up for being a poor pitcher, but the best pitchers of all time had location, and an ability to change speeds. If you mix up location and speeds with some movement that will be better than just speed alone. The guys you mentioned about being traded away or let go all are pen guys, not starters as well. They drafted a guy because he threw 100. I am not saying stay away from velo, but brining in a guy that throws heat only is not always a success story either.

For the same reason we have interest in trading Garver and keeping Jeffers other teams would have interest in Jeffers over Garver. The main plus about Garver, is he will never be a very high cost guy because by time he is FA he will be past prime, but that is also a problem as he is not a 6 year option either for a team, he is a bridge to the future, but not the future. Only teams that are on the verge of doing things that need a catcher will want to give up much of anything for Garver.

I think they did it right after the season in hopes he would pass through. My understanding is they need to get back down to 40 by the winter meetings and can no longer use the 60 day DL, which they had a lot on it. They also need to put guys they need to protect from the rule 5 draft as well. As of writing this comment I see 42 on the 40 man with 8 on 60 day DL. The only player listed from the article as other DFA is Danny Coulombe, the others were DFA already. Are there others above him that could have been DFA sure, but needing to get below the 40 to have room for others that need to be added for rule 5 draft purpose. I know of at least 4 that need to be added, Lewis, Sands, Widner and Miranda, plus others they may want to add. So they still need to find 6 more guys to DFA to make room for the 60 day IL guys and the new additions. That means hard decisions needed to be made, and the recent second surgery for Colina and right after the season reduces the amount of teams that was going to take a shot. None of the playoff teams were going to put in a claim as they still have playoffs to deal with. Every team is in a similar situation as the Twins, needing to DFA players for the coming year. I bet we see Colina on the waiver wire again during the off-season as TX tries to sneak him through much like Twins did.

I would give him around a C+. I think early in the year he fell into the these are our guys thing putting Colome out there again and again for too many blown saves, but Rodgers blew some early too. Really early on no bullpen guy had it going. I less had an issue early on when some guys were failing because you do not expect them to be so bad because they had track records. Where I had more of an issue is later in the year when the season was a loss and he did not give some guys a chance to see what they could be long term. Maybe that was mandate from FO or Rocci showing he will continue to try and win and use the best team possible but I would have liked to see Gordon get a little more time at SS just to see if the team is right that he cannot play there. Some times I feel teams create a self fulfilling prophecy. They believe a player cannot do something, so they never give them a chance to do it over time and the few chances they get if the player does not excel right away the team just says, "see they will fail." In a lost season, I like to give guys a shot to see if they can do something, because there is little to lose if they fail, other then they may learn to do it better later on.

The lack of depth on the offensive side of things is concerning. Of course we do not need much in the next year or two, but after that there will start to be holes that need to be filled. I know pitching was a big need for long time to have depth there, but my worry is we will be too much like Cleveland minors that keep pumping out pitching but no offense at all. Some of our bat only guys have not shown their bat carries into pro ball as much.

9 guys on 60-day DL seems to be high, not sure how many could have stayed off it and the team just said ehh lets put them on 60 day to bring someone else in. Either way that is a lot of DFA's that have to happen.

To compare the two is a poor comparison. Ortiz was not a top prospect that played elite defense and at times was possible MVP if could just stay healthy. Health was something that kept Ortiz back, but Buxton will be snatched up in a heart beat if he is not resigned. Ortiz was a bench player when the Red Sox signed him to a low paying contract. It took an injury to their starter to give him a shot and he ran with that. I did not read the article, but the only comparison I can see is that if Buxton leaves he could have a few great seasons with another team if he can stay on the field, but what led to the non-signing is not the same. Yes, Twins made huge mistake of letting Ortiz go, but he may not have become what he did in Boston if he stayed with Twins as well. Buxton if he stays healthy can be a top player in this league for a few years. Everyone knows that. I think Buck will continue to turn down offers unless the bank is broken for him. He will test FA to see if a team will bet on him staying healthy. There may be some teams willing to take that bet knowing he is a bonus and not some to count on. Mid to small market teams cannot plan to pay huge sums to someone that may not play much. Teams like Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox can pay him large sums and if he only plays 50% of games they are not hurt by it.