Trov

There are 30 teams in the league, and only about 3 or 4 have made signings, outside resigning their own players. Top FA, for most part have not signed. If we were signing lower level FA would you be happy they were making signings or would you be mad they made lower level signings? Top guys will not sign until new CBA.

I have an issue with players being attacked for PED use. First, we do not know how long they were using them. Like with Bonds, A-Rod, and Clemons, many believe they did not start using until later in career. Which both had HOF before use. Also, there is expected many of the players were using during that time. They were best of that era. Sure, to compare their numbers to prior users may not be fair to prior players but HOF makes adjustments based on era all the time. One thing we look at is the "modern" era for pitchers. Back in the day Cy young pitched every other game. No pitcher will ever come close to his wins, or losses because they will never pitch as many games as he did. To compare wins, strike outs, shut outs and other stats for pitchers now to even those of the 90's would be terrible, because starters just do not pitch as much or as often. If we hold pitchers now to prior pitching numbers, no current pitcher will ever make the HOF. Should we go back and attack the 70's and 80's players that used Speed? Should we attack the players that played prior to integration of baseball because they were not facing the best talent? We see numbers change over seasons based on the ball, the height of the mound, playing styles, and more. Teams have now started using the shift to higher levels, and hitters have learned about launch angles. I think Bonds, Clemons, A-Rod, Ortiz, should all be in. Schilling, Manny, Sheffiled, and Sosa are closer calls. Schilling would be most likely in my mind though. I look at what they brought to the team, and how did they compare to the league at the time, not how do their numbers compare to the others in the HOF. Manny could hit, but that is it. He was a clown in the field. He had a stretch where he was one of most feared hitters, but in my mind it was too short of a time and his defense was so bad I feel he falls just short, but would not die on that hill. Sheffield was a guy that I feel was very good for the era, but compared to others of the era is just not that elite. Yes, looking at historical numbers it was good, but again I am comparing to his era. Sosa would be on the fringe again, and maybe it was because he played in NL in 90's and until he exploded in 98 I had never really heard of him. I would have him in because for a stretch he was best in his era offense wise, but he would be lower on my list. I do hope the HOF has in players from this era, even the confirmed users, because they were best of their era. Do not compare them to other era's for "best ever" which I do not do for any era. In all sports to compare across era's lead to difficult comparisons. I mean just look at pitchers average velo now, to the 90's. Imagine if some of the pitchers now pitched back in the day. Maybe their arms blow up, or maybe they dominate the hitters and have strike outs off the charts. Hard to know. Maybe if you have hitters now that know about working out, and have the time to commit to it, hit back in the day against average velo's in the 80's without pen specialist guys.

I almost wonder if the FO is listening to offers to see how do other teams value Buxton. If teams are not offering top talent it may mean they are not valuing him as high as we do. It may give an idea of what he could get as a FA. I like Buck, and would like to see him sign long term, but I do understand the huge risk he is. I also know no prospects are locks, and we do not know what teams are even willing to give up for Buck. I do not expect that the Twins will let him get to FA. The only way that happens is if we are in contention next year at the deadline, or he is injured at the deadline, which is highly likely he will be injured at that time.

What is his fair market value? You say the Twins need to pay above market, but what is his market? His side will point to what he did last year, and in some short periods in prior years as to what he can be. However, the GM's around the league will point to how many games he has played over the years. He has only played 1 season where you could say he has played a full season, that was 2017 where he played 140 games. Outside of that season, he has played 92, 28, 87, 39(out of 60) 61. I did not include his first season. Those are terrible numbers of games played. Some were due to injury, some where due to production in the early years. We have 0 evidence he will ever play a full season, and we have no clue what his production will look like as he ages. He is hitting his prime now, and he may put up MVP type numbers when healthy for the next 3 seasons, but what about after that? As his speed starts to drop off, how will that affect his defense, his offense, his overall value? Will he get more injuries that may cut his career short? His market is so hard to judge because he will be a huge gamble for just about any team. When healthy for the next 3 years he may be MVP level guy, maybe that goes into his mid-30's, but most players that does not happen. Maybe he falls off the cliff in his young to mid-30's. I would like to see him signed, but I can understand the risks of paying him huge money for long term. I wonder what teams out there will be willing to pay him huge money for long term based on his history. The next CBA may really affect things too. If teams cannot just absorb his contract when he is in the trainers room teams may not want to bring him in. I would also say you always need a back up plan for CF when he is your starter. However, you cannot justify paying big for two CF, so you need to pay big for a corner guy that can slide over to CF when Buxton is out, because he will be. You can hope that a young CF is ready to fill in on the cheap. The point is, you cannot just sign him to 7 years and say our CF position is filled for 7 years now, because history will say it is filled for about half a year for next 7 years and you better have a back up ready to step in.

I feel Hunter will be another either late ballot guy or vet addition. He counting numbers are not as high many in the hall, but his defense was elite for so long. He had the nick name of spider man because of how many HR he would rob. It was not until much later in his career did I feel he made much of an offensive threat though. Personally, I used to call him captain double play because he seemed to hit into so many double plays when bases were loaded and 1 out. I get he was coached to hit the ball on the ground early in his career, but with less than 2 outs I never wanted to see him hit with bases loaded. With 2 outs, he was one of my favorite guys to see with bases loaded. He was never the fearful offensive guy, and had his defense not been so elite he would have never played long enough to develop his offense like he did later in his career.

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.