South Dakota Tom

He was an honorable mention in the top 20 list, and he's definitely not our #1 prospect any longer. That being said, there was a lot of chatter about trading him (either solely or in a package) for some relief or starting pitching. I agree with the posters who suggest we'd be selling low on him at this time (though his abbreviated 2019 season looks pretty good to me). I see his future as a utility guy right now (in our organization, I should add); when Marwin is gone after 2020 then it will be down to him and Ehire, and Nick is under control for cheaper, longer. Sure there are also other candidates for that, but I would have him play some corner OF this year - if something happens to Adrianza or Marwin (assuming Jake Cave is also on the 26-man) much less to Polanco or Arraez, I think he is the call.

I know all the Dodger money is coming in 2020, but is it tied to Maeda's 2020 salary? I thought we got $11M no matter what ($10M plus assignment bonus).

Ted, a lot of these projections can differ widely depending on whether the author is talking about what "will" happen versus what the author predicts, or would like to see. This is a perfect case in point. I, too, like Thorpe's projectability, and feel he will show himself to be a strong rotation candidate. OTOH, it sure appears that a rotation of Berrios, Odorizzi, Bailey, and Maeda is going to be hard to dislodge, barring injury. I would also suggest that, given the roster opening(s), Chacin would be easy for management to slot into the remaining spot. That would leave Thorpe, Smeltzer, and Dobnak (all with options) as 1-3, with Duran and Balazovic in the wings, as well as the return of Pineda and Hill at some point in the season. I know you are putting no timeline on any of this (nor am I); I'm just suggesting that Thorpe's opportunity arises primarily with an injury during spring training to one of the guys above him, occurring before Pineda's return. My fear is that the leash on Chacin (even to exploit him as a showcase candidate for trade value) will be long enough that he alone will bridge the gap until 40 games in. If TSD (Thorpe, Smeltzer, Dobnak) doesn't crack the top 5 in the first month, it is going to be increasingly difficult for them to find a place when Pineda and Hill push them to the 8-10 slots, with Balazovic and Duran behind. Once Balazovic and Duran have half a season more under their respective belts at AA or higher, I would put them on an even playing field with TSD - those 5 will fight for their own pecking order in spots 8-12. For the 2020 season, however, my guess is that Thorpe is #8 on that list based on in-season performance. Just not sure he will be so much better than 5-7, quickly enough, for it to matter.

Like the old Casablanca line: "I am shocked..... shocked that gambling is going on in this establishment." "Your winnings, sir."

I like knowing both the age of the player and the age relative to his competition; knowing one without the other is the opposite of valuable - it's un-valuable.

Just a question I've been pondering (maybe someone will direct me to more on this): my sense is that any pitcher who routinely faced this obstacle is inherently better than his statistics would show. If this is as widespread as suggested, are we going to see a deflation of offensive statistics this year (beyond the tweaks to the baseball itself) merely because a percentage of ballplayers no longer know what pitch is coming? And won't folks point to any decrease by an individual player (or especially an entire team) to be "evidence" of their participation in this scheme? Not to carry this too far, but won't that increase the pressure on the cheating teams to figure out a way to continue to cheat so as not to be perceived as "cheaters?"

The reason I would advocate for standing pat at this point is two-fold (and largely already addressed): 1. We have a plethora of starters, when you include the additional four of Smeltzer, Dobnak, Graterol and Thorpe. Everyone says on one hand that they want to give the rising players a shot, and this is a locked-in way to do it. Further, leaving room with players who have options in that rotation allows transportation up and down from Rochester. Once Pineda and Hill join the rotation, we have five guaranteed contracts on the books already and a much better idea by mid-summer of who the top five might be and just how good (or bad). 2. The pickings are wickedly slim right now. Not only don't we know for certain that we need someone else, but adding a guaranteed contract right now puts us in a horrible position for flexibility. Sign someone now and then what do you do if Graterol blossoms, Dobnak stands tall, Thorpe keeps missing bats, and Alcala/Balazovic forces our hand? I know, I know, good problem to have, but a problem. No one wants to "waste" the first month of the season or treat it like old September when you could bring up a bunch of minor league guys and test them out. I don't feel like our 4-5 starters fall into that category (and maybe that's where we differ most). Plus, the number of teams designated for tanking in February, and the number of teams out of it in June/July are wildly different and if we are to find a solid trade of a frontline starter for prospects, I just don't see that happening now.

He is first-year arb eligible this year (2020), meaning arb years in '21 and '22. Assuming he is (as you say) $5.4M this year, there seems to me no way he earns $33M in his last two arb years. So a 3/$38M only allows him to know his income with certainty right up until free agency. That being the case (and I am not familiar enough with salaries paid to higher-end arb 2 and 3 pitchers), don't we look at these situations as risk/reward and try to buy out at least one free agent year, rather than solely a gamble on how much he increases his income through arbitration alone? If we assume $10M in 2021, and $15 in 2022, he'd be owed $30M (more or less) from now through the end of the 2022 season. I don't think $25M for his first free-agent season is without any worthy consideration, but doesn't this have to be a 4-year deal at a minimum in order to talk about risk/reward at all, other than minor (and at least somewhat predictable) arbitration awards variations in years 2 and 3?

I do think at least two of Smeltzer, Dobnak, Thorpe or Graterol will be in the early-April five (maybe you were already assuming Brusdar). But I do think there will be one more add in a high-ceiling trade or a couple of fliers - Walker plus one (Wood, Jimmy Nelson?). I also believe they trust Romo and Clippard over May (and equal with Duffey).

My sense last year was that the team's ability to scramble players up and down during the season was as valuable to their overall effectiveness as any individual contribution. It seemed weirdly effective to run 10 pitchers through 4 roster spots. "Solid bullpen" = no ability to remove a player without waivers?

Yet every year, there are a couple that remind us why non-guaranteed contracts with an invite are not bad things. I'm not saying these guys won't get major league deals, but there will come a time of the year in early February when the "fall through the cracks" pitchers can be had. We have both opportunity and some innings to give them in spring...and this is assuming we sign at least one more rotation lock, via trade or free agency. Lots of internal candidates, I know, but we right now have 2 rotation locks for the start of the season, and 3 for the last 3/4 of the season. Hope we don't get to Desperation Point (and don't think we will) but would love to know what Plans C-D-E-F and G are right now.

I like that plan - thought about Wood at the deadline as he was coming back with Cincinnati (glad that didn't happen in retrospect); I'll endorse the above but put Pineda on a two-year deal or one plus a team option(makes all of them that much more tradeable if it ever came to that and locks up 2-3 years of pitching all in one off-season).

I don't disagree with the Dobnak game 2, Odo game 3 decision. The "decision" was made by the FO in July, when they already knew that Big Mike was going to be suspended (barring a miracle), saw that we were (most likely, and if they didn't foresee it because the Indians were catching up, shame on them) headed for the post-season, and didn't do anything to bolster the starting rotation. I can take some losing. I just implode when they play so poorly. I'm old enough that I was an adult in '87 and '91, so that takes some of the sting out of the post-season losses. But not much. Not much.

Depends on where you start the discussion. If you start with "I want Dobnak, Stashak, Thorpe, and Smeltzer in the lineup" it becomes, I don't know, easier. Add Rogers, May, Duffey, Romo, and Littell, you have 9. Add Berrios and Odo, you have 11. Last guy? I say Brusdar. (yes, I know this leaves Gibson and Perez off the roster). 13 position players are pretty set - 2 catchers, the 6 infielders you mention, the 4 outfielders, and Cruz. Either Astudillo is off, or Adrianza, and I choose to leave Astudillo off (that one is toughest - I love the contact play). Going back to the first paragraph, though, I think that combination gives us the best chance at flexibility, lots of guys who can pitch more than one inning, and I agree with a separate poster who suggested starting the bullpen game in game two, using Berrios in 1 and 5 (if necessary, or your game 1 starter in the ALCS), bullpen in 2 and 4, and Odo in game 3. Just weird enough to work.

Noticing a lot of “3 runs (1 earned)” throughout. Nothing harder for a hurler than having to get extra outs. Is this just a Twins MiLB problem, or are field conditions an issue? Typically, guys can either field their position or they can’t - any sense that the same dedication is being made to overall defense as it is to receiving or framing for catchers (I realize that is “defense” as well)?

I'm like a death-row inmate - except I get to go outside and smoke.

Is this like "Sugar Rush" where they have to put down the spatulas (phones) at 3? Who keeps the clock on this?

17 minutes (and like most soccer games, this one goes "extra time" to announce deals) is plenty of time. Plenty. plen.....

You add Thor and Diaz to this team right now, and we are absolutely top-end for at least this year and next. Giving up prospects 1 and 2 is tough, but as an earlier poster noted, this is why we stockpiled position players (or at least took BPA) so that we could deal from positions of strength to fill holes. And then we'd have two years to fill a DH and 1B spot when Cruz and Cron depart (and yes, I trust Larnach, Rooker, Wade, Jaylin Davis, plus every free agent, waiver claim, and available trade to fill those holes). Sign Big Mike to a 2-year deal and hope Graterol is ready sooner rather than later, and we are solid around the diamond - Garver/Astudillo, Cron, Arraez, Polanco, Sano, Rosario/Buxton/Kepler, Cruz - Berrios, Thor, Pineda, Graterol, Perez/someone - maybe Gibson on a QO and then trade him mid-season next year when Graterol is ready. I think one nice thing that we've seen this summer is that we have enough depth to fill a 5th starter role as well as some long relief and maintain flexibility in the pen without inking long-term relief pitchers. Frankly (and I've said this before), I'd rather have 3-4 BP stalwarts and a rotation of 12 others filling the last 4 slots.

Just looked at Roster Resource, and counted 38 on the 40-man roster; am I missing someone? Also, much discussion about the glut of players who must be added this fall, but can't put my finger on a list anywhere. Just wanted to go through the annual exercise of seeing who I would keep and let go and expose to the Rule 5, and am lacking (knowledge) (intelligence) (perseverance)(all of the above)? Can someone help? Thanks.

The Reds are not the Royals. They are a sleeper in the NL Central with the worst pythag in baseball (I think, last I checked). My pick for 2d half team of the year. Even if Cleveland whooped them.

And if contracting the season is met with too much resistance, could play 18 games versus the other 4 teams in our division, making pretty much everything a 3-game series, and coordinating days off around the league so make-up games could be slotted in more easily. But with 15, could do 2 home, 3 road series in odd-years, 2 road 3 home the next year to keep a balance (maintaining 30 home games and 30 road games within the division each year).

I would vote Harper for rookie, just having seen his impact for the full season. Lots to like about Arraez as well.

There has been a steady drumbeat in Twins Territory regarding upgrades to the bullpen. The purpose of this article is not to disagree with them, so much as it is to discuss reasons why delaying such a move is best for the club over a long season. First, the facts: Twins have 5 pitchers on their existing 25-man roster who have options remaining. Berrios (1, which will in all likelihood never be exercised), Smeltzer (3), Rogers (2), Harper (3) and Duffey (1). I think we can add Rogers to the list of "probably will not be optioned." They have 7 pitchers on their active roster who do not have options remaining, meaning they would have to pass through waivers or be outrighted to take them off the 25-man - Odorizzi, Gibson, and Perez in the rotation, and Parker, May, Morin, and Magill in the bullpen. Important to note, too, that both Michael Pineda and Adalberto Mejia are on the IL, but neither has options remaining once their rehabilitation and rehab assignments are completed. That means we have 3 "optionable" pitchers in Harper, Duffey and Smeltzer, and two guys who could change from IL to "non-optionable" in the coming days and weeks. We also have 8 pitchers the 40-man roster in the minors with options remaining - Romero (1), Hildy (3), Moya (2), Vasquez (3), Stewart (3), Littell (2), Gonsalves (2) and Thorpe (2). (this is all courtesy of https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-minnesota-twins/ and could, for all I know, not be 100% current). One of the more interesting features I've been following in the daily roundup of the big league club is the utilization of bullpen arms. It has led me to a clear conclusion that filling the bullpen at this point in the season with non-optionable guaranteed contracts is not helpful to this team at this time. I would much rather roll with the bullpen of Parker, May, Morin and Magill (and there is certainly an argument that the last two of those - even though they have no options remaining - could be DFA'd if their performance hit the skids or if an emergency arose). But assuming we're not waiving/DFA'ing players right now, it is my belief that we are a better team with a bullpen of Parker, May, Morin and Magill, plus Rogers and Harper and a possible rotation of the last two spots between Smeltzer, Duffey, Romero, Hildenberger, Moya, Vasquez, Stewart, Littell, Gonsalves and Thorpe, than we are with the above six plus, let's say, Sean Doolittle and Will Smith. Crazy? I think not. Any player with options remaining must remain in the minor leagues for 10 days before being recalled (barring injury to someone on the 25-man or special circumstances like double-headers); so we could rotate the optionable players, above (10 of them) every series, two at a time depending on who is pitching well and how taxed the bullpen arms are at any given moment, or even more often than that. Having two option holes in your relief roster with 12 players eligible to fill those spots creates an effective relief corp of 17-18 players. Even if you don't consider all 10-12 to be big-league ready arms, you can still manage innings among 6-8 of them by optioning them back and forth on 10-day intervals. There are also interesting possibilities in which you drop to a 7-man relief corps because you can shuffle arms freely if the depth is available. Now look at what happens when Pineda and Mejia come back - now you are down to 1 option slot remaining. While you could still rotate guys through that spot, we would have already sent Duffey and Smeltzer down, leaving only Rogers and Harper (and Berrios) with options remaining. If we were to add Doolittle and Smith, we either need to pass Morin, Magill (or Pineda or Mejia in my example) through waivers or option Rogers and Harper, and we will then be chock full of immobile roster spots. Yes, yes, I understand that designating a player for a superior player is a benefit, but there is also a point in early June given our circumstances that keeping maximum flexibility is paramount. This is only focused on the pitching side, but I have a belief that players such as Smeltzer, Romero, Thorpe, Hildy, Duffey and Stewart could prove incredibly valuable to this team over the next 4 months, not to mention a healthy Graterol. Would I like to have Will Smith and Sean Doolittle on the playoff roster come October? You bet. But would I want to tie the hands of the front office between now and then by obtaining strong relievers and choking off the pipeline? No. There is certainly an argument to be made that come the trade deadline you choose the bottom two relievers and use DFA just like an option to add these stalwarts to the roster, but that is a choice that should be made in mid- to late-July, while we watch the myriad of options shake out. It is (judging from past playoffs and watching other teams juggle rosters) that the "list of 12" may end up containing a better ultimate relief option (or two) than anything out there right now - filling a perceived void could well create more problems with innings, options, overuse, and dead arms than rolling with this herd mentality.

Many suggest adding two relief arms, and I'm here to suggest that is not the best plan. The team absolutely needs to gear up for a long season, and if we added a Will Smith and another stalwart, it would make it difficult if not impossible to utilize the last spots of the pen as an open gate between AAA and the major league club. One of two things could happen - all 7/8 of the relief corps could perform admirably and we'd not need to dip into the pool of also-rans. On the other hand, adding two non-optionable arms to the bullpen could result in a minor leaguer being shut out from helping the team (should one or more minor-league arms start throwing lights out), or it could result in wearing out the bullpen if we hit 2 or 3 short starts within the rotation of 5. We play so many consecutive games for the next month, it scares me to count on long starts to ensure that the pen doesn't get over-utilized. I know it sounds counter-productive to denigrate a major-league caliber bullpen 1-8 but the value in having a couple of moving parts who can pitch a few innings and then go back down to AAA and be replaced by fresh arms strikes me as even more valuable.