Trov

I would be willing to take a pass on Ray and Archer for the right price. I do not like Leake. For Ray, if you can get him some control he can be valuable, but I would not invest too heavy in him. For Archer, if you can get for a low amount thinking you can get him back with his slider I am all for it. Twins love the slider usage right now and if that was Archer's best pitch maybe they will get him back to it. Again, I would not bring in either saying they will be set as a starter, but sign to MLB deal at low value with incentive based output to increase value on a make good deal.

I think as more data has come available people have used it against the norms of history of baseball. At times it has been successful, and other times it has failed. Just like any decision sometimes it works sometimes it does not. Look at game 7 of 91 series. It turned out to be good call to leave blackjack in. What if we lose because we left him in, it would be second guessed forever saying he should have been pulled. If he gets pulled and we lose, people would say why pull him he had not given up a run, ride him tell he fails. Kelly made his call and it worked out. Now a days we have more data to look at and draw from. Managers act on that data. Joe Madden was one of first to do this, looking at reverse splits, and pulling starters sooner than later. Gardy used to never look at numbers like that and had old school, my guy is my guy, not matter the history. Cash made the call, he needs to live with it. For all we know it plays out the same way and Snell gives up the lead, we will never know. Personally, when it comes to Rocco pulling our guys quickly I was a little against it because they were looking good overall. Maybe it plays out same way if we leave them in, we will never know.

Hand is a free agent, not put on waivers. So you cannot claim him, he can sign with whoever he wants. His option was not picked up. I would look to try and sign him, but Cleveland felt he was not worth 9 million, or they could not afford to pay him 9 million. I say that because he was set to make 10 but bought out for 1 so the saving was 9 million. Which they will have to have someone play there so really savings will be closer to 8 million or even less. This shows how teams are viewing the the next season, that the AL save leader, in a 60 game season, will not be worth about 8 million for 1 year. I have a feeling there will be plenty of low cost relief pitchers out there on 1 year deals. At 10 mil Hand would have been 8th highest paid relief pitcher and on par or better than most ahead of him. Following my little fuzzy math of about 8 million, again that is estate of savings from the buyout. He would be tied for 12th highest paid relief pitcher. My point is, all teams are cutting costs and to look at past year contracts or to compare to current contracts will be a flaw in guessing what players will get paid.

NOOOOOOOO! MLB should not impose some rule to limit "shifting" I say this for many reasons. First, what would the rule look like? I mean what we refer to as the "shift" is moving a middle infielder to the opposite of second base generally. Some teams have gone to 4 man outfields as well. But what about other shifting of players? I mean will the rule be there must not be more than 3 players in the outfield grass prior to pitch being thrown, and if there is then the result is either a ball or the result of the pitch, which ever the team chooses? In addition, there must be 2 infielders on either side of second base prior to pitch being thrown, else same consequence? Do the infielders need to be a certain distance away from second base? What if the middle infielder is 1 foot from second base, making it very easy to run onto shifted side? Will the players have to start each play within some circle on the field? How big will that circle be, will the players get to move based on base runners? Will the team be able to bring in an outfielder to add extra infielder in certain situations? Will the corner infielders be able to play in if they think a bunt may be coming? Basically, way to many situations that some rule cannot fix. More importantly though, why should they outlaw it? Hitters are crying they are getting less hits. However, the same size of the field and same amount of defenders are on it. The hitters just do not want to adjust and hit to the giant holes that are on the field. Why should MLB cater to the hitters because they are either not good enough to hit to the very large hole, or not willing to try? Overall, the shifts cut down more hits, else teams would not do it, but once hitters start to pepper the holes that are vacated teams will stop doing it. Remember back in the day when hit-and-run was a play that was ran? It was designed to make a giant hole on the opposite side of the infield to let the hitter put the ball through it, but it had risk of losing the runner if the hitter missed the ball. Now, teams will give hitters that hole without the risk of the runner going, yet no one tries to hit there. Over recent years hitter adjusted how they hit, by being pull heavy trying to more HR, because it was learned hitting ball in the air is best chance for extra base hits, and extra base hits are best way to maximize run scoring. Well, teams also learned how to best defend against that, so why should defenses be handicapped now? If I know 90% of your ground balls will be in a small area, why can I not stand there to stop them? I am very much against making some rule against the shift, because to me they are not "shifting" they are putting their 7 defenders where ever they feel will increase their chance of an out. I mean the 1B will play in many different areas depending on situation. No runner on, they will be deep and off the line, unless the hitter can bunt, then they will play closer in most likely, should either of those be outlawed? Runner on the 1B will normally hold runner on, unless late in a game and team not worried about that runner, then they will play "normal depth" to increase chance of getting out. Will a rule require they hold the runner on, because not doing it is a "shift." There is just no way to properly implement a rule in my opinion, and they also should not try to. Let the hitters adjust to the defense, not the rules adjust to the hitters lack of ability or willingness to adjust.

This is a pretty big list of names that are decent starters and in a normal off-season would be looking for some big money. However, we have seen teams not picking up options on a ton of players, some would have happened anyways, but my guess Brad Hand would normally been picked up, if for nothing else to look to trade him. I think any "normal" off-season thoughts on teams acting, and players signing deals will be out the window. The question is, how many players will take below normal value deals just to play and make some money versus holding out and ignoring the fact MLB owners lost money last year and will expect to lose money next season, unless something changes quickly with COVID. I think many 1 year deals with options for additional years will be in play this season. I know many players will not want to do that, but if I was advising them, I would explain this is not a normal year. Not only do we have COVID revenue issues, but in future we have CBA coming up. This year showed how likely a strike/lockout will be. My guess many teams will not want to have long term contracts wrapped up in that time as well, not knowing how it may shake out after.

I read your part on Jeffers and makes it sound like you expect the Twins to carry 3 catchers all year next year. You said he will get to learn from Garver AND (insert seasoned vet). Do you really expect three catchers all year? Personally, if Jeffers is in, then either Garver is out or they do not bring in a vet. Unless the plan will be to use Garver some at 1b or DH, if Cruz is not back, 3 catchers just does not seem to make much sense.

Maybe I missed it in the article, but how are you coming up with FA estimates? You state in the beginning of the article payrolls will go down across baseball. So if that is true, and I believe it is, why would the FA estimates be what you are estimating? I assume this is based on some level historic data, but we are in uncharted territory moving forward. It is entirely possible the FA estimates are high because if every team wants to cut costs who will be willing to pay what the player feels they are worth? Maybe the player retires like Span did when he was lowballed, but maybe they take the paycut. I would argue they can bring back whoever they want, for the right price. Will the price be too high, you estimate yes, but maybe no other team will pay that price, so why should the Twins. Make your bid, see if other teams will outbid, and if they do then wish them well.

If the Twins can get anything for Eddie you take it. He will not be tendered and every team knows it. They can try to win any FA bidding, or they can give up a prospect and then pay the arbration bill. My guess they will just wait for a non-tender and look to sign for less than that what he would get in arbration.

If the only decision is money to field output, or some math set up for that, very few veterans would get big money. It has been shown time and again that many of their outputs put them overpaid compared to a younger replacement. Not all of course. However, vets bring something more than just output, and that is experience and wisdom to pass down to players and how to get through a long season, and many other things. More importantly, in my opinion, is in baseball you need to have goo chemistry. I am not one that says that for all sports, but in baseball, I believe if you like your teammates and get along it is a good thing. You will be spending, hopefully, 10 month of the year just about every day with the same guys. Unlike us regular humans, who get the weekend to get away from our co-workers or other days off if not weekend, baseball players do not get that time. So having good clubhouse guys that everyone likes is always a plus. Not saying rooker is not or Cruz is, although reports are his is, my point is just looking at dollar and cents to production is not the only way to look at a FA.

I think for Sobato and Cavaco this will be important for where they will be thought of in the Twins system. Neither have a for sure path to majors but both are first round picks so will be given time. Cavaco was a tool guy that is young and may slide in many places, if he can use his tools and have some hit, my guess they will fit in somewhere. Sobato on the other hand will need to crush to play. He would play first or be a statute in outfield and let his bat carry. Problem is those areas are stacked right now. He is older so will need to pop quickly to not fall behind others. He might have to have his bat carry him to majors and take over at DH. Pitchers will always find a spot just if they will start or not, but that is less of a thing now.

When I first read this I thought huh there may be something there. Then I looked up Story home road splits and they are not good. His numbers split, in similar games 304 home 299 road. At bat 1151/1145, Hits 350/286 2b 80/66 3b 18/4 HR 84/50 K 331/395(kind of odd to have that big of difference K wise, must be the breaking balls moving more on the road) Ave 304/250 OBP 370/315, Slug 624/445, with OPS of 994/760. The man clearly benefits from hitting at Coors field and if you are getting only the road guy, then no I would not give up any top prospect for a 1 year rental. I mean those numbers are basically Polonco, so why give up a prospect to replace the guy you have with basically the guy you have?

First, much of it depends on cost for many of these players. For the pitching, I am open to any of the pen guys for right price and Odo as well. Hill I am ehh on. If he was a good clubhouse guy I would be willing to try another year with him. Cruz, yes I would want him back for not only his potential offense, but he is a good clubhouse guy as well. Avila I would pass on, unless you trade away Garver then keep Avila or find another of his like. Gonzalez and Adrianza are both no for me. They are easy replaced with cheaper options that may be offense upgrades. You can find similar players on waivers, via cheap trades, or internal.

I am all for shopping Sano, or any player at that matter. We have no players that cannot be had for the right price. I would not sell low on Sano if Twins feel the interest is low. I bet you can find 1 team out there that feel they can unlock his ability to make contact at even a 40% clip. For how hard he hits the ball he will do well if he can decrease his K rate. He has been around long enough that may not happen, but teams will always be willing to try. I would be fine moving forward with Sano as well. I do not even know who would want him or what they have the Twins would want either, but never hurts to look.

If his value is on the low end, why would Rockies look to move him now? Unless there are teams that believe they can unlock his full potential when he was drafted, few teams will give up much at this point. Rockies should hold onto him, if they think they can get some good numbers from him early in the season and flip him for more on a rental, when competing teams will give up a little more. I am sure the Rockies will shop him, I am just guessing the waters will be luke warm at best for him right now.

I am not sold on Stoman, unless it is on low risk deal. I agree he will be looking long term, but teams are less likely to do that with current environment and upcoming CBA changing. What scares me is when he faces teams that know how to hit grounders to holes in the field. See what happened against the Astros in playoffs. A few of them knew exactly how to hit a weak ground ball through the giant hole the Twins gave them. I am not going to get into the shift debate, but it does not matter how weak you hit a ground ball if you can it through the 90 holes sometimes the Twins give hitters. So that may take away Stoman's best attribute right there.

Eddie I have been saying for weeks is gone. Rodgers is a closer call. He was touted as a closer all year, only to lose that job and go back to closer by committee, which I am generally a fan of. I think he will be back for 1 year for sure. He still will get lefties out and can get righties so even if not closing he will still have value.

Sox pitching is not young, and the ones that are did not perform well. The hitters, they had 3 guys I would consider young as regulars. Roberts, Madrigil, and Jimeniz. The rest, although many are 27 or younger, they have been in the league for several years. Mocanda, Anderson, Mazara all have 4 plus years of experience. Abreue and Grandal both over 30 and been playing long time. So they very much have a mix of age and experience in the lineup. Roberts also faded down the stretch, scouting most likely caught up to him. My point overall, White Sox not as young as they seem. We had similar built line up. Many under 30 with years experience. Buck, Polonco, Sano, Eddie, Kepler. We had some rookie or second year guys, Jeffers, and Arraez. We had some vets Donaldson and Cruz. Our bench was older overall I would say, but comparing the two lineups of age and experience we are actually very close overall.

You trade away someone you are underpaying if you feel you have a replacement ready to go. The fact they are underpaid for a few years makes them more valuable to other teams and a wider range of teams. I am not advocating for doing so, but the point is if you feel you have someone ready to step in, and their value is there then go for it. Like, I wish we would have traded Garver in the offseason when he was peak value, knowing we had Jefferson. Kepler and Polonco are both coming off of down years so their value may not be super high but at same time they have history of being MLB level player too.

Not sure there is too much out there for Trade on what Twins have and willing to depart with. Eddie will not be traded for a quality SP or even part of any group that would, unless he is more of a throw in. He does not have the value a team that is stacked with pitching would be looking for, and no rebuilding team would want him. Sano may have some interest in a team that think they can get him to make more contact, but at this point I do not see any blockbuster involving him. So that brings us to prospects, much like how we got Meada last year. We are not getting top end starter for anyone other than Lewis most likely because hitting corner OF are not too hard to come by these days that they would be worth major trade. You list a few in the article worth looking at, but the teams you listed are not ones that will be looking for prospects most likely, they are in trying to win now mode, well LA has been that way for long time, just never seem to be winning. Of course they should look and make calls, but I do not see much happening trade wise for top arm. Now FA we could push big for Bauer on 1 year, if he truly is just looking for the biggest money for 1 year.

I have always liked Eddie and felt he was undervalued when he first came up. He has always loved the spotlight. He also has made head scratching plays in field and on bases, trying to do the spectacular too much. I am impressed with his walk rate increasing this year. However, it did not increase in his overall output. His average was lower, making his OBP. and Slugging, both lower than previous years, despite being on a similar HR pace over full season. What made people not like him over the years, his chase rate, was what led to some of those extra base hits and lower walks. I would want to go back to see how often he walked with no one on versus when runners were on. The old saying, "a walk is as good as a hit," is not accurate. It is same as a bases empty single, else a hit is always better than a walk. So to increase walks by decreasing hits is not a good exchange. The question really is, did he stop being aggressive on pitches he normally would have got hits on in efforts to walk more? If he did that is bad trade off. That being said, I would support keeping him, but will fully understand releasing him based on his expected salary. If he can show that is new found patience at plate would increase his other numbers I would want him to return even more, but fact is that did not change his overall output for the team, it only fixed one aspect, but hurt or did not help others. The assumption many made, I was not one of them, was if he started walking more and chasing less, he would have overall better output. However, that was not the case. Why you may ask, and why I was not one clamoring for him to take more walks and chase less? He would get hits on balls out the zone many times, and he would foul off the balls out the zone, because despite chasing balls out of zone at high clip, he made high contact on them. So he was hard to pitch too really, because you would think pitch out of zone he will chase, but he would not miss that often, and at times get hits or at least extend at-bat for a different pitch. Now he takes the pitch and the walk, taking away his chance at a hit. To make things worse, if he was not crushing pitches he did swing at, which appears his numbers were similar, reducing the swings really just reduced chance of driving in runs when runners were on base. He took away his aggression, which did not have the results intended. Can he still take walks and get hits when pitches are thrown in zones to drive? Yes, but he needs to work on that next. The eye was first, now harnessing how to make pitchers pay when thrown in the zone is next, but I fear he will not do that.

Mr. Bauer is one of most interesting FA ever, and throw in a very interesting FA off season to boot. I could be wrong, but I believe he reps himself. He is always outspoken about business of baseball and many other things. He has always been different from other players, doing things his way. He was known for his odd warm ups of pole to pole long toss. He studies the game and his delivery to be best at what he does and to stay healthy. It seems he will always do what he thinks is best and not listen to coaches too much. He has stated in past he will go year to year FA to max his earning potential over that time. He wants to bet on himself. However, he said that years ago when FA was not looking him in the face coming off of a great season. Will he change his mind and go multi year deal in these uncertain baseball times? I do not just mean when fans will return, but with possible stoppage and looming salary cap. Maybe it does not happen, but if one does, that will lower his future earing potential than he first thought, most likely. If you just wanted the numbers I would offer him 1 year deal in a heartbeat. If you care about clubhouse personality, Falvey would know that better than anyone who he is like. We all know he will throw a tantrum from time to time, once throwing a ball from the mound over CF wall, that is impressive in its self. However, it can be thought he cares more about himself than the team when he does stuff like that. He is not alone in these actions either, but something to keep in mind. What will also complicate things is if he is given QO, unless I read they took that away for this off-season, so much stuff happened, something like that rings a bell. If he can be offered a qualifying offer, which he will turn down, will a team sign him to a 1 year deal? You give up a long term piece in a draft pick for a single season of work, that is something to really look at for some teams. I know I would second guess a 1 year deal and giving up a pick, in an expected shortened draft again.

I can see an argument to let him go, but I feel better reasons to keep him on. As addressed cost should be low overall and Twins can take the hit. If he goes belly up and drops off a cliff, he retires, or we cut him and move on. You out some money but you need to be wiling to cut him loose no matter the contract if he falls off the cliff. I do not think he will, but you never know. I am not overly worried about his decline in overall numbers this year because as the year moved on it became clear he and buck was our only run producers that you could count on. He had little to no protection behind him and I think he may have been pressing some. Last year, 2019, he had HR behind him every game no matter where he hit so pitching to him was more needed. This year, he was getting so many sliders just off the plate, some for strikes and he was not willing to make them pitch to him because he needed to drive in runs because whoever was behind him was not doing it. Maybe I am wrong with that theory, but sounds good to me.

I think Wade is just the wrong time in baseball. I think in a different time he would have made majors as a lead off guy. He is not CF defender most likely it would seem, but his OBP would have got him to majors a decade ago. MLB is moving to power power power and that is not him. Could he get with a team that values his skill more, maybe, but for Twins he is not the fit for this current team plans. I say let the kid get a chance else where if you are not willing to give it to him. If we were not so deep in corner OF guys I would feel like he should take over for Eddie next year, but we have too many guys that bring more to plate than he does.

I have a feeling there is going to a bit more non-tender FA options out there. The third year arbitration guys that will not warrant the high raise, but still worth a flier at less of a cost. This years FA will be very crazy I think, with not only COVID questions about butts in seats, and pending work stoppage. Overall, none of the starters impress me much mentioned, but if you can get one cheap for depth that is always worth something. See how much depth we needed this year. In terms of pen, I would never give long term big money deals to them, they are volatile and hard to predict from year to year how they will do. Position players I think too many internal options.

There has always been a saying in baseball, "hit it where they aint" (pardon the poor grammar I did not write the saying) That being said, no matter where you line up there is holes in the field. The concept of the shift is not knew, I actually get annoyed when people act like it is and want outlaw it. Shifts have been going on for decades, sometimes big shift like now, but sometimes little shifts, that we would call 'x' defense. Double defense would shift the middle infielders closer to the base, leaving larger holes between the corner defenders, but making double play more likely because someone is closer to the base. No doubles defense, would have outfield further back, and corner infielders closer to line. Infield in, which Twins used a ton this year. Bunt prevention, so on and so on. Now, teams have identified that generally ground balls are hit at higher rate on pull side, however, some can still hit to opposite side beating that shift. Some times will still shift those players, some will not. As the article points out, there are times teams will still shift to dare the hitter to take the HR swing away. It really comes down to hitter philosophy and game situation. So many MLB hitters could learn to bunt well and get so many singles bunting against shifts, but they have yet to do that. If they went up looking to hit a certain pitch a certain way they could hit more against it, but some players are not there to get a single. They are there to hit HR. If the team has the plan to hit HR, why would they teach hitter to bunt for a single? My personal philosophy is take the easy hit, do it again and again and again, until the other team tries to take that away, and different holes open up. Personally, I think eventually, hitters will make that change and teams will then adjust to it. I wonder why it has still taken this long. However, it is not like tee ball where you can just hit where ever you want. Pitchers are trying to pitch into the shift, or get out the hitter. Not all hitters are so good they can see the hole and hit it every time no matter the pitch. Maybe, as shifts keep happening some teams will teach how to beat it better. Right now, the league just tries to hit line drives over it anyway, and does not care about hitting grounder through the hole, but maybe if a team sees that as easy win, they will start doing it more. I would only ask players that can make that change in approach easy though, else they may not be able to change it up when teams stop shifting.