Trov

Dodgers are not going to overpay for a guy like Farmer who will just be a little upgrade over what they have, if an upgrade at all.  Could they have interest in Kepler, but gain will not overpay.  There will be other options for them to improve without overpaying.  

Dodgers are not going to overpay for a guy like Farmer who will just be a little upgrade over what they have, if an upgrade at all.  Could they have interest in Kepler, but gain will not overpay.  There will be other options for them to improve without overpaying.  

Dodgers are not going to overpay for a guy like Farmer who will just be a little upgrade over what they have, if an upgrade at all.  Could they have interest in Kepler, but gain will not overpay.  There will be other options for them to improve without overpaying.  

Dodgers are not going to overpay for a guy like Farmer who will just be a little upgrade over what they have, if an upgrade at all.  Could they have interest in Kepler, but gain will not overpay.  There will be other options for them to improve without overpaying.  

Dodgers are not going to overpay for a guy like Farmer who will just be a little upgrade over what they have, if an upgrade at all.  Could they have interest in Kepler, but gain will not overpay.  There will be other options for them to improve without overpaying.  

Dodgers are not going to overpay for a guy like Farmer who will just be a little upgrade over what they have, if an upgrade at all.  Could they have interest in Kepler, but gain will not overpay.  There will be other options for them to improve without overpaying.  

Not saying you will be wrong, but I remember Brendan McKay, who was drafted around same time Ohtani came over and was expected to be a two way player.  Rays have kept using him in minors that way, until 2021.  They did not give him as much run as a two way guy, but really he did not hit as expected and been injured as well.  He still could make it as a pitcher, but looks like hitting is behind him.  
However, that is part of the value of these guys, is if one does not develop, you hope the other does.  Some guys will start as one, then after failing flip to the other.  Normally it is failed hitter to pitcher, but some have gone from failed pitcher to hitter. Rick Ankiel is one of most famous to do it in recent years.  I am sure there are more that switched in minors. 

If you go by what teams are paying for WAR, bWAR has Ohtani averaging over 9 WAR last 2 seasons, his overall worth is 81 mil, as teams have been paying about 9 million per WAR to FA.  So with contracts going, $50 mil a year does not sound crazy.  Mainly because he is still only 28, turns 29 mid-season, and if ever needed, he can just go to either hitter or pitcher full time if he drops off doing one.  

If you go by what teams are paying for WAR, bWAR has Ohtani averaging over 9 WAR last 2 seasons, his overall worth is 81 mil, as teams have been paying about 9 million per WAR to FA.  So with contracts going, $50 mil a year does not sound crazy.  Mainly because he is still only 28, turns 29 mid-season, and if ever needed, he can just go to either hitter or pitcher full time if he drops off doing one.  

I have talked a few times about his overall value.  I agree he should not be graded as an OF, as he will not be playing much out there.  Sure he could transition there should his pitching ever drop off, but as long as he is still pitching as a top pitcher you do not take him off there.  I have long said though he is one I would be willing to sign to a long term deal as a pitcher, because he has the fall back of hitting should he ever losing the pitching level.  Normally, I say stay away from deals beyond 4 years for a pitcher due to their completely falling off cliffs, but none of them could just stop pitching and be only a hitter like Ohtani could. 

To me the only debate would be Mauer versus Oliva.  I would give Joe the slight nod as he did it at catcher, at least is prime years.  Oliva had the better personality, Joe is so bland.  They both played part of 15 seasons, bur really Oliva played 11 as 3 seasons were 10 games or less, and the 4th was 6.  Joe played like 13.5, as he had 30 game season rookie year, and a 80 game season.  
Joe put up slightly better numbers.  Oliva also played with other greats, Killer and Carew, Joe played with some greats too, but none that are HOF, still salty about Santana snub.  Neither brought home a WS.  I would not object to either above the other, but I would say Joe gets my vote.  He also had to deal with new defense data late in his career with a ton of shifting. 

A couple of things I would push back on.  One, this is counter to the idea that the worst teams need should get the higher picks to rebuild.  This could actually lead to mid-level, late season "tanking" more than a full season tanking.  For example, we were in first most of the year, then just stunk it up the last month in a half, and Cleveland went on a run.  By mid-September, it was clear we were not going to do far into the playoffs, even if we made it by how we were playing. 
Why not then make sure you do not make the playoffs just to get to then fight for the number 1 pick?  Also, I personally do not think teams are specifically tanking for the number 1 pick, but they are keeping pay roll down for other specific reasons.  Look at the team that said we are tanking, Houston.  One would say, well it work out well for them doing so, but when you look at their top picks, only 1 of their number 1 picks helped them in their rebuild, or beyond.  Correa was a number 1, and their next 2 number 1 picks never made majors, although 1 did not sign so they then got to draft number 2 the next year and their own number 5, which both of them turned out well.  
However, the point is, you still need to identify the talent, at the top.  They failed two number 1 picks in a row, only to get lucky one did not sign.  Had they signed, they would not have got lucky the next year, and maybe not be in the position they are.  However, they also had very good international signings. like Alverez, or Altuve, who was part of that tanking teams, most of their starting rotation were all international signings, and later round picks as well they hit on, Pena their replacement for Correa was a third round pick. 
I have long said, the draft in MLB is not going to be the best or only way to build a team and tanking for high picks will not equal success.  In Houston's case, they got more international signing money, then in one year went all in on signing guys and hit on many of them, hence the great rotation they built from international signings.  
Yes, top picks have a much better chance to help down the road, but very rarely is the number 1 overall the best player out of the draft.  Unlike in basketball where the number 1 is normally the best, but not always, in baseball, they are rarely the best.  They are good, more often than not, but many times someone later in the first turns out to have the better overall career. Picking number 1 only gives you the chance to ID who the best is, something that is not always easy. 

I was big on Arcia.  In part it goes back to when he was in AA I went to a game he was playing and the ball just sounded different off his bat.  He came on the scene and looked like he could be a hitter for years.  He just never adjusted to how MLB pitchers would pitch to him.  His attitude reflected that as well when he would make comments about he was there to hit HR. 
I was really big on Stephen Gonsalves.  His early low minor numbers were great, but he just never fully developed.  

There may be a team that will be willing to take a flyer on Sano, but unless you pay for the contract and buy out, you are not getting much of value for him.  He does have potential upside and maybe a new home could unlock it.  He is also one that if hot can carry a team through the playoffs, but could also be an auto strike out as well.  
You also point out that we have pretty much no where to play him right now, so why would a team be willing to give up much, if there is a chance we DFA him anyways.  Unless he looks amazing during his rehab I would not be surprised if we DFA him and any team can pick him up off waivers or sign him after clears and he becomes FA. 
Unless a team thinks he will be something more than he has, I doubt anyone gives up anything of much value to us at MLB level for him. 

There may be a team that will be willing to take a flyer on Sano, but unless you pay for the contract and buy out, you are not getting much of value for him.  He does have potential upside and maybe a new home could unlock it.  He is also one that if hot can carry a team through the playoffs, but could also be an auto strike out as well.  
You also point out that we have pretty much no where to play him right now, so why would a team be willing to give up much, if there is a chance we DFA him anyways.  Unless he looks amazing during his rehab I would not be surprised if we DFA him and any team can pick him up off waivers or sign him after clears and he becomes FA. 
Unless a team thinks he will be something more than he has, I doubt anyone gives up anything of much value to us at MLB level for him. 

I would challenge your last claim that NO team would trade MLB pitching that would take on Correa.  If you recall a few years ago Cleveland traded away their top starting pitcher for offense.  They were so deep in pitching they knew they could give up one of them at the top of their value for a win now player.  I would agree it is rare and unlikely, but pretty sure Yankees could afford to give up one of their guys, you only need 4 in the playoffs and they run 5 deep right now. Not saying we should trade with them, but pointing some teams would be willing to part with MLB ready starters. 

I respect the time and effort it takes to grade out how players are doing.  However, I find how a player is doing, even more so when injuries play a roll like in Lewis, it is poor way to evaluate a draft.  There are many factors that go into certain draft picks, like drafting a HS kid early because you expect he will sign under slot value, so you can use that money on an over slot value later on.  Unless the guy had injury concerns in say college or during high school, it is hard to fault a draft of a player only to have an injury that no one saw coming.
Also, without context of who else was available around that pick, and when is your next pick. You point out Jeffers was considered a huge reach.  Okay, maybe, but we did not have a 3rd round pick.  So our next pick was not until Round 4. Which was pick 124.  Between those picks there was 4 catchers taken.  2 has made MLB but 1 has had very small sample size, with total of 25 games over 2 seasons, but his minor league numbers suggest the very small sample will not continue.  The other has half the games as Jeffers but might have more power.  I do not know the defenses to compare.  
There was then 3 more catchers in round four that would have been available and none have made majors.  Being we have little to no catching prospects, and at the time Rortvelt was only prospect we had, a catcher was needed most likely.  There is not a whole lot of MLB players that were drafted after Jeffers and before our next pick, not sure how many are still prospects, but no names clearly jumped out to me.  I did not do deep dive so may have missed someone.  My point is though that to say we were wrong on Jeffers or it was a poor pick may not be actually true under the context of the pick.  One, he may not have been around the next pick, and there may not have been a better pick out there, at least not at the catching position.  He may not be an all-star or anything, but he still may be just as good or on par with any others in that draft. 
I am not defending every pick by any means.  I was not a fan of the Cavaio pick or Sabato pick.  But to just see how your pick does does not do a true analysis without seeing how other options could have been and how they panned out. Unless you can point to someone you would have drafted, at the time not after seeing how they ended up, it is hard to say it was wrong pick, even more so when the pick makes the majors.  
I do not know your grading scale, but looks like a C is MLB player, which is pretty low grade when 66% of 1st round picks make majors, 49% of 2nd round make majors, and only 33% of rounds 3 thru 5 make it. I would say sometimes the 1st rounds only make it as the team invested the time and money into them.  Is A+ MVP path, A all-star regular, B fringe all-star, C mlb player, D AAA regular with some MLB time, and F no MLB prospect? 

I respect the time and effort it takes to grade out how players are doing.  However, I find how a player is doing, even more so when injuries play a roll like in Lewis, it is poor way to evaluate a draft.  There are many factors that go into certain draft picks, like drafting a HS kid early because you expect he will sign under slot value, so you can use that money on an over slot value later on.  Unless the guy had injury concerns in say college or during high school, it is hard to fault a draft of a player only to have an injury that no one saw coming.
Also, without context of who else was available around that pick, and when is your next pick. You point out Jeffers was considered a huge reach.  Okay, maybe, but we did not have a 3rd round pick.  So our next pick was not until Round 4. Which was pick 124.  Between those picks there was 4 catchers taken.  2 has made MLB but 1 has had very small sample size, with total of 25 games over 2 seasons, but his minor league numbers suggest the very small sample will not continue.  The other has half the games as Jeffers but might have more power.  I do not know the defenses to compare.  
There was then 3 more catchers in round four that would have been available and none have made majors.  Being we have little to no catching prospects, and at the time Rortvelt was only prospect we had, a catcher was needed most likely.  There is not a whole lot of MLB players that were drafted after Jeffers and before our next pick, not sure how many are still prospects, but no names clearly jumped out to me.  I did not do deep dive so may have missed someone.  My point is though that to say we were wrong on Jeffers or it was a poor pick may not be actually true under the context of the pick.  One, he may not have been around the next pick, and there may not have been a better pick out there, at least not at the catching position.  He may not be an all-star or anything, but he still may be just as good or on par with any others in that draft. 
I am not defending every pick by any means.  I was not a fan of the Cavaio pick or Sabato pick.  But to just see how your pick does does not do a true analysis without seeing how other options could have been and how they panned out. Unless you can point to someone you would have drafted, at the time not after seeing how they ended up, it is hard to say it was wrong pick, even more so when the pick makes the majors.  
I do not know your grading scale, but looks like a C is MLB player, which is pretty low grade when 66% of 1st round picks make majors, 49% of 2nd round make majors, and only 33% of rounds 3 thru 5 make it. I would say sometimes the 1st rounds only make it as the team invested the time and money into them.  Is A+ MVP path, A all-star regular, B fringe all-star, C mlb player, D AAA regular with some MLB time, and F no MLB prospect? 

I think people undervalue Max's defense and only look at offense.  I am not a fan of trading established MLB guys when you are competing for struggling guys or prospects.  I am not saying I hate the trade idea, I am not sold on it either. If Padres think Campusano can stick behind the plate, I doubt they give him up for a RF, even by us taking on Snell's contract.  Offensive catchers are hard to find.  If we are taking building for future the deal could help us, but if we talking for this year, I do not think it helps us. 

A few comments.  The innings thing mentioned you need to remember that very few starters pitch much more than 150 innings in a season. Only 39 pitchers threw more than 159 innings last season, and Twins had only 1 of them, Berrios.  In 2019, there was several more pitchers that threw over 150, but not a ton over the 150, and Twins had like 4 guys, Berrios, Perez, Gibson and Odo.  Big Mike was just below 150, and we as a team did just fine. Berrios and Perez were the top innings guys with Gibson and Odo 160 and 159.  So to argue that we cannot win because it is unlikely people will pitch more than 150 innings, to me, is not backed up by data.
Now, in terms of Manaea, I wish the Twins would have at least asked about him, but rumors are they did not even ask, which means either they are high on what they have, or they are low on Manaea.  we know they have talked to Oakland about their other starter.  I do not know if Twins were low on him because maybe his numbers were inflated pitching in Oakland, a pitchers park.  It could be lack of years of control affected this as well.
In terms of the prospects, it is highly likely we could have matched, although I do not know if Cavaco would be the IF that got it done.  More likely Miller.  Maybe Manaea does well for Padres and we look a fool for not going after him.  Maybe not.  Maybe we actually make deal with Padres now as they are starter heavy and need OF help.
Finally, I find the hype on Petty interesting.  He was a late first round pick, that some scouts had as a reach.  Yes, he has the velo, but even with that velo he was still 13th pitcher taken, and 5th High School pitcher taken.  Sure he may be a good pitcher in future, but to slate him as the face of a pitching staff right now is some major hype.  He is 7th prospect in Reds, and was around there with Twins.  Maybe he will live up to that hype, but high school pitchers are generally a gamble. 

A few comments.  The innings thing mentioned you need to remember that very few starters pitch much more than 150 innings in a season. Only 39 pitchers threw more than 159 innings last season, and Twins had only 1 of them, Berrios.  In 2019, there was several more pitchers that threw over 150, but not a ton over the 150, and Twins had like 4 guys, Berrios, Perez, Gibson and Odo.  Big Mike was just below 150, and we as a team did just fine. Berrios and Perez were the top innings guys with Gibson and Odo 160 and 159.  So to argue that we cannot win because it is unlikely people will pitch more than 150 innings, to me, is not backed up by data.
Now, in terms of Manaea, I wish the Twins would have at least asked about him, but rumors are they did not even ask, which means either they are high on what they have, or they are low on Manaea.  we know they have talked to Oakland about their other starter.  I do not know if Twins were low on him because maybe his numbers were inflated pitching in Oakland, a pitchers park.  It could be lack of years of control affected this as well.
In terms of the prospects, it is highly likely we could have matched, although I do not know if Cavaco would be the IF that got it done.  More likely Miller.  Maybe Manaea does well for Padres and we look a fool for not going after him.  Maybe not.  Maybe we actually make deal with Padres now as they are starter heavy and need OF help.
Finally, I find the hype on Petty interesting.  He was a late first round pick, that some scouts had as a reach.  Yes, he has the velo, but even with that velo he was still 13th pitcher taken, and 5th High School pitcher taken.  Sure he may be a good pitcher in future, but to slate him as the face of a pitching staff right now is some major hype.  He is 7th prospect in Reds, and was around there with Twins.  Maybe he will live up to that hype, but high school pitchers are generally a gamble. 

One thing I want to point out, the last 2 full season WS winners, not including 2020, where teams that no one expected even near the trade deadline to win it all.  Specifically, last year, the Braves made a bunch of trades to fill holes that all paid off.  That is not common for sure, but the point is, the FO has always pivoted when things were not working if they felt they had a chance.  Last year was such a cluster of fails across the board early on that we had way too big of hole to climb out of. 
That being said, sure we did not bring in established FA pitchers, but history shows that is not the way to build your team on FA starting pitchers, most teams regret the deals they make by the end of the deal.  Unless every young pitcher fails and both Bundy and Archer fails, I think they will be in contention this year.  
Yes, Sanchez does not make much sense, but it was needed to free up Donaldson to sign Correa.  My guess when they traded Garver they did not plan to trade with Yankees, but Yankees most likely offered to take Donaldson for the SS, and the FO figured they could then use the savings to go after Story, who balked at our offer and Correa was the pivot.  
It is like people forget there are 30 teams all looking to do things with rosters and all the FA will just say MN is the place to go if they come calling.  We have minor leaguers too.  We do not see the progress that may have been made or how the team views the young pitchers.  It is fully possible they see the young pitchers as better options than many of the FA out there.  At some point the young guys need a chance, but if we always sign a vet to fill holes they never get that chance. 

One thing I want to point out, the last 2 full season WS winners, not including 2020, where teams that no one expected even near the trade deadline to win it all.  Specifically, last year, the Braves made a bunch of trades to fill holes that all paid off.  That is not common for sure, but the point is, the FO has always pivoted when things were not working if they felt they had a chance.  Last year was such a cluster of fails across the board early on that we had way too big of hole to climb out of. 
That being said, sure we did not bring in established FA pitchers, but history shows that is not the way to build your team on FA starting pitchers, most teams regret the deals they make by the end of the deal.  Unless every young pitcher fails and both Bundy and Archer fails, I think they will be in contention this year.  
Yes, Sanchez does not make much sense, but it was needed to free up Donaldson to sign Correa.  My guess when they traded Garver they did not plan to trade with Yankees, but Yankees most likely offered to take Donaldson for the SS, and the FO figured they could then use the savings to go after Story, who balked at our offer and Correa was the pivot.  
It is like people forget there are 30 teams all looking to do things with rosters and all the FA will just say MN is the place to go if they come calling.  We have minor leaguers too.  We do not see the progress that may have been made or how the team views the young pitchers.  It is fully possible they see the young pitchers as better options than many of the FA out there.  At some point the young guys need a chance, but if we always sign a vet to fill holes they never get that chance. 

In terms of the question of the contract talks, the rumor I heard was Correa was the one reaching out to teams on this contract.  I read it was offered to Houston and they did not want to agree to it.  For the Twins side, they were under the impression Story was not going to take their offer, whatever it was, so they gave Correa a call to see what he was looking for.  When that offer was an option they jumped on it.  
I think it is a win win deal.  I know most say well it is only a 1 year deal and we are back needing a SS next year.  Most likely yes, but you deal with that at most positions every year. Personally, I am a fan of shorter deals giving you flexibility.  If we are not doing well this year, Correa can be traded, he has limited no trade is my understanding, and most teams will be willing to take him on with this contract. If we are competing and doing well even if he walks so be it, we got a good year out of it.  

In terms of the question of the contract talks, the rumor I heard was Correa was the one reaching out to teams on this contract.  I read it was offered to Houston and they did not want to agree to it.  For the Twins side, they were under the impression Story was not going to take their offer, whatever it was, so they gave Correa a call to see what he was looking for.  When that offer was an option they jumped on it.  
I think it is a win win deal.  I know most say well it is only a 1 year deal and we are back needing a SS next year.  Most likely yes, but you deal with that at most positions every year. Personally, I am a fan of shorter deals giving you flexibility.  If we are not doing well this year, Correa can be traded, he has limited no trade is my understanding, and most teams will be willing to take him on with this contract. If we are competing and doing well even if he walks so be it, we got a good year out of it.