Trov

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.

If I had the Twins money, assuming that is part of the question, I would look to sign him to a base contract of say 15mil a year, with game played bonuses kicking in at 100 games. If he plays over 100 he gets 2 mil more, if he plays 110 he gets another 2 mil, all the way to 150 games played, meaning if he plays 150 games he get 25 mil a year. I would offer it for 7 year deal, with his opt out after 3 so if he manages to put together 3 full years he feels he can opt out and cash in on newer richer deal.

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.

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.

For the people that are upset at his age or not being a past MLB player or MLB level coach, who cares? If he knows what he is doing age does not matter, and maybe he lacked the physical ability but knew how to get the best out of what he had. Also, being good at something does not mean you know how to coach someone. Teaching is a skill, knowing how to connect to different people in different ways to get them to understand is a skill. Some of the best players of all time tried to coach or manage and failed because they had no clue to teach people how to be good because it just came natural to them. Even if it did not come natural to them they still had no clue to get everyone to see the same picture. Think of when you play Pictionary, sometimes people will draw a picture and their partner has no clue what it is. The drawer has two options draw something else that will connect to the partner, or keep pointing at and drawing the same picture, often larger. The first option is more likely to get the partner to guess the correct answer and see the picture you want. However, not every person can think of a second picture. The best coaches/teachers, can tell when the person being coached or taught is not seeing the picture with the first type of attempt, so they change up the picture to get the person to see it. Good coaches know how to change up approach with different players to get the most out of them.

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 get the players are upset about the real estate around the ballparks that some owners have and make money off of. Not all owners do. Do you feel it is fair that owners that decided to buy property around their ballparks should have to pay extra to players? Should owners of land that do not own the ball bark be asked to pay a percentage of their money to the team for the players? Should the bars around the parks pay some of their funds from before and after game sales to the players because if the attendance to the games were down the bars would have less money? Should the hotels pay money to the players on game nights for the people that came into the city to stay for watching games? What I am getting at, is the players stance businesses around the parks make money, and sometimes those are owned or at minimum the property is sometimes owned by the teams, so the players feel they deserve a slice. Does this only go to things owned by owners of the team? What if a player buys up some land, should they have to pay some of that to the owner because without the team staying in the city, their property is worth less? Personally, I think extending the money earned beyond tickets, tv contracts, merchandise and food sales at the park should not be counted. I am not saying the players do not deserve a greater share of that, but I think that is where the line should be drawn.

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.

The salary cap players have fought forever. Without a cap there is no floor, but for most players that was not an issue. The way the GM's are signing plyers now, some vets would benefit from a floor. In terms of the revenue sharing the players will be all for that, but the owners will be against it without a cap. Much like the NBA or NFL where cap is set by the revenue sharing, the players just want more money saying they should get it, but the owners say why, there is nothing saying we need to. The Players and owners have been against each other for so long that they do not understand how working together to raise the money is best for all. Players will be against capping the length of a contract as well because if they can get a 10 year full contract they would not want to stop that. That being said, I full agree with much of what you are saying and wish both sides would see the light. The problem is the players have never wanted to agree to cap their earnings because teams were willing to pay bad money to players. Now, GM's have learned they can get as much WAR or close to it for much lower paid team controlled guys so they stopped paying old vets. If there was a floor, some of those vets may get jobs because money would have to be spent. However, there are some teams that will be wayyyyyyy against these as well. That being the large market teams. Right now they do share some money with the smaller market teams, but unlike in the NBA and NFL where most of the league money comes from national media deal, MLB much of the media is done local. Yankees and other teams have their own networks that help bring in cash and the large markets charge more for advertising so they get more money to show games. They do not want to give up that money to teams like Oakland, Tampa, and other small market teams. There will be push back on those teams having to share their money with other teams and raising how much money they make.

I have been predicting stoppage for years, even more so after 2020 issues. The main point of contention is money and how it gets doled out. The QO will be a point of contention, service time and the manipulation of it, Which comes down to money again. The GM's change the rules of engagement when it came to contracts in the last 6 years or so. With that change the amount of money players are getting for average guys is dropping a lot. The mega stars are still getting tons of money, but the middle of road guys are not cashing in much. In particular, when a guy hits FA at 30 they are no longer getting 7 year deals normally for tons of money, unless they are a mega star. It used to be the top FA would still get good money no matter how he ranked compared to league. Teams started to say, we are not paying top FA money for middle of road FA and stopped offering contracts to guys that had many years of bad money. Sure, you could point to a few, but not many. Well this has led players to believe the teams are "colluding" in keeping pay down because only the top mega stars are getting asking prices. Have you noticed all the late small contracts some guys are signing lately? Many of this comes down to QO being turned down. Some guys treat it as a starting point for FA 1 year 18 mil give or take, but to non-returning team, it is a cost of a draft pick as well, which teams have learned has greater value in long run. So now players hate the QO as it pushes back cash in year one more year for some. Have you noticed more players are accepting it too? Players will want to be FA sooner and get rid of QO or how it works. Owners will want a tougher tax or a cap if possible. We are in for a long winter I think. I bet it goes into ST and maybe even some of the season.

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.

He will get in my guess during a vet vote. The biggest issue was Johan career was cut short due to injury, he never won a WS and he pitched at the end of the old era but before the analytic era started. For years with the Twins he was the best in the league. I still cannot believe he did not get past the first year of voting. I am convinced if he would have pitched like he did for Twins in a major market he would at minimum still be on the ballot. Major market guys always get inflated because they show up on national media more often.

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.