chpettit19

1. I don't know that we're going to see much more steals next year. Buxton likely snags some extra, but are they really going to just cut him loose to steal a ton of bags when he couldn't play a single MLB inning of CF last year? Find that unlikely. Lewis is probably the best bet to add some steals as he has the wheels for it. I think Julien is capable of adding a few since he's a good base runner, but he's not fast (41st percentile sprint speed) so it's not like he's going to go crazy. I'm interested to see where Martin's sprint speed comes in, and what kind of base stealer he is in the majors. I'd hope they green light him early, but it'll be interesting to see his success rate as he's more of a good athlete than a super speedy guy (at least that's what my eyes tell me watching him in St Paul, but that's why I want to see the sprint speeds). Lee? Lee is not a base stealer. Yes, he has about a dozen in the minors, but he's not fast at all. The Twins need to be much better base runners, but I think pointing to Lee as a hopeful boost to the base stealing is a good indication that we shouldn't expect a ton because they're just not a very fast team. Taking extra bases on hits would be a welcome improvement as well. But you need more athleticism than this Twins team has before we see a big spike in steals. 2. They can't set more K records, that's for sure. Need to get under 25% K rate next year. But that's an interesting write-up for that section. Julien had a 31.4% K rate last year. Yes, he takes walks, but he was in the 8th percentile for K% last year. He K's a ton. And part of that is because he's so selective at the plate. The more hitters who take Julien's approach the better, but don't expect to see a dramatic reduction in K's that way. He's the model hitter for their approach. Look for pitches to drive, swing hard when you get them, don't swing at all when you don't. Leads to power, walks, and strike outs. I don't think we need Lewis hunting for anymore walks. His K rate was quite reasonable, and his walk rate was good enough. 3. Good defense is always important. Would expect the left side to be quite solid if both Lewis and Correa can stay healthy. Julien and Kirilloff are less solid for sure. Julien was trending closer to acceptable as the year went on so maybe there's a decent enough fielder in there. I think Kirilloff can be quite good at 1B when he's healthy. His shoulder appeared to be causing him to short-arm some stuff later in the year. Room to grow for both of them to be sure. Not sure you can take either of their healthy bats out of the lineup, though, so it's really up to them to figure out how to be better with the glove. 4. It's hard to really judge a lineup by time of game. Innings 7-9 were their best trio of innings by OPS (.769) with 1-3 coming in second (.761) and 4-6 coming in a distant 3rd (.729). In terms of runs scored it goes 1-3 (278), 7-9 (252), 4-6 (218). Definitely like to see those middle innings come more in line with the start and end of games. And because every conversation about their offense has to include talk about strikeouts...innings 1-3 had a 27.6 K%, 7-9 was 27%, and 4-6 was 25.4%. Maybe they need to boost those middle inning Ks to see that runs scored total go up!

Yeah, I believe the MLB draft gets about 1 million viewers compared to 6+ for the NFL draft. I don't expect it to ever be the NFL draft, but could it grow it's viewership by having it during the winter instead of during your all star break when you're only eating into your own viewership? There's more sports on TV during the winter so maybe it wouldn't really help. But, outside of Ohtani type players, MLB is nearly completely out of the national conversation from November to March. I'm just spit balling ideas that could bring it back into the national view during the winter. Lots of complicating factors when it comes to moving the draft, but any extra eyeballs and clicks you can draw in their offseason would be helpful, I think.

A few of the discussions we've been having around here on different offseason things have gotten me thinking about changes MLB could make to their offseason to give it more "juice" or national attention. The Twins have signed 1 guy (Staumont) to a major league deal as we hit the new year. It's been incredibly slow for us Twins fans. I'm not here to debate the merits of the "let the market come to us" type strategy the Twins deploy, but instead I want to talk about what MLB could do to avoid this sort of offseason for all their teams (I don't think the Cubs have added anyone via trade or signing to their MLB roster yet). The "hot stove" hasn't been very hot for many years. I believe a large part of that is the lack of any deadlines in the offseason. The NBA and NFL have free agent dead times and signing periods. MLB has none of that once free agency opens. The NBA and NFL have large, nationally broadcast drafts during their offseason that brings in additional revenue for the league and teams. MLB does their draft at during their all star break and most fans don't even know it's happening. I think Major League Baseball needs to do a much better job of drawing national attention to their game even during the offseason. There's no time throughout the year that NFL fans aren't paying attention because they've done a much better job of building their calendar to always have something coming up. MLB just says "see ya in the spring, hope you guys pay attention during the next 4 months even though most of the time nothing is happening!" Putting in arbitrary deadlines for free agency and moving the draft up to the beginning of the year would be my first 2 moves if I were MLB offseason czar. There have been many articles written quoting FO execs who say a large reason not much happens before the trade deadline is because the deadline itself is what drives decisions to be made. I think that's pretty standard for most people. Adding a cutoff for when free agents have to be signed would force both players and teams to make decisions quicker, and provide MLB fans with things to look forward to instead of just checking MLBTradeRumors and Twitter for anyone saying a player may sign soon. If you have a "free agency period" on the calendar with more strict dates you give fans a time where they have to check out where the 40- and 26-man rosters are at (if they're that deep into things), what free agents are available, and then have guys they hope their team signs. Then you have a chunk of time where you know the "hot stove" is actually going to be hot because it has to be. You can move the draft combine and rule 4 draft up to the offseason as well. This gives you 2 other things to give your fans specific times to look forward to, and pay attention during. The combine wouldn't be as popular as the NFL one, but the draft rankings, and general draft prospect talk, would be programming you can provide. We know us MLB fans love ranking lists! It'd likely still have to be on MLB Network to start, but if you build it right there's a chance you can market it to the bigger networks and increase revenue. Having the draft in the offseason would add extra variability to the draft (Jackson Holliday likely not the #1 pick in 2022, for example), but it'd also give kids the chance to get into their organizations system earlier if they choose to. Bryce Harper wouldn't have had to go to JUCO for a year, for example. Just let him graduate a semester early and go pro (like HS football kids do to get to their college in the spring). Skenes, Crews, and Langford could've been drafted in February (or whenever) and decided to sign then or wait until after their college season if they wanted to play for a national title or stay with their team for that season still. What do people think? Would it help MLB to add more strict dates to their offseason? Would it help drive eyes to the league during the offseason if they moved the draft up?

I'm suggesting guys get drafted earlier, not later. They'd play in the minors from April to October if they wanted. Why wouldn't you want to get the guys in earlier for development if you could? You could easily make a rule that gives you high school (or college/JUCO) player's "rights" when you draft them, but not sign them until after their high school season if that's how you want that to go. NHL kids get drafted and play for other leagues all the time. Skenes, Crews, Clark, Langford, and Jenkins could've already been "controlled" by the Pirates, Nats, Tigers, Rangers, and Twins when the season started last year. They all could've then made decisions on signing or playing their college/high school seasons. Bryce Harper wouldn't have had to go to JUCO for a year for show. It'd take some tweaks to the signing system, but it's certainly doable. It could be as simple as keeping the same signing date (end of July/early August) but moving up the draft. The bigger hurdle is just how early you have to make decisions on these guys. It'd throw off the variability of the draft even more, but it's certainly doable. Jackson Holliday likely wouldn't have gone #1 in 2022, but he'd have been drafted in the first round still. Note: we're getting pretty far off topic here so we should move this conversation elsewhere. I'll start an "MLB Offseason" thread.

This was a fun exercise, thanks for putting it together. Fun to look back over the years at some names I hadn't thought about in a while. Markakis was so underrated. My hope for Jenkins is that he hits the Markakis or better section of the options listed here. I don't think we should put too much weight into early results beyond whether or not they look completely overwhelmed. Like Cavaco and his .470 OPS in his first 25 games after being drafted. I think early results that are horrid are more telling than early results that are great when it comes to high school kids first getting a taste. But Jenkins certainly gave us early results to dream on. My dream is that he does the Jackson Holliday thing in 2024 and puts himself on the doorstep for an early 2025 debut. I think him getting a taste of AA in 2024 keeps him squarely on the Markakis or better trend, though. The Meadows through Gordon section of the options here would still be "successful" outcomes from a talent standpoint, but I'm pretty sure we'd all still feel rather disappointed. Such is the nature of more access to prospects and the expectations that creates. The Meyer through Dahl section would obviously be super disappointing. Dahl may actually be the most disappointing because he showed true talent and then it all just fell apart. Kelenic is a tough comp because he's still pretty early in his career, and there's a decent enough chance Atlanta makes a tweak, or he just changes his mindset and isn't trying to be "the man" in a lineup full of stars, and he puts it all together. We'll have a much better idea of where he's currently pointing on this list of options after he gets a full year in and starts moving up the ranks. But that swing is so pretty, and he dominated so quickly, that it's pretty fun to dream on. Why can't the Twins have one of these kids who debut at 20 and take the league by storm? And why can't it be Jenkins? It's the offseason so I think we can all enjoy a little hope and picture what things could be like if they all go right for this kid.

If you think he's going to be his 2020-2022 self again (decent enough chance since he's only 29) he'd be a great fit on this team. I don't know if he's available or what he'd cost. But this team could definitely use a righty bat with a 125+ OPS+. Not sure where this idea that he strikes out a lot comes from. K% of 17.6% for his career. Polanco is at 18.2%. He's not the Twins typical power guy, and that's probably the biggest reason he wouldn't be a target for them. But a 125+ OPS+/WRC+ bat would be more than welcome. Not sure why we wouldn't want that.

I did state the alternative. I agreed he has upside. But the chances of him reaching it are not high. Of course I'd assume the Twins think he has a chance to reach it or they wouldn't have signed him. I'm not expecting a "sexy pickup this year in free agency." But that doesn't make this an exciting signing. It simply isn't. He wasn't good the last 2 years before the surgery. Chances are he won't be good again after it. None of that makes it a bad deal, as I said before. But it's also not an exciting deal. It's a low risk flier that every team takes on a handful of major league and minor league contracts every season. Most of the time they don't turn out. Pitchers coming off TOS surgery turn out even less. That's just the truth of the situation. I'm not telling you not to like the potential or to not be patient to see what they can do with him. But the reality of the situation is that chances are he isn't very good this year and he gives way to younger options if/when a 40-man crunch comes into play instead of being stashed on the roster for a full year and then given a chance in 2025.

He's performed at a high level in major league baseball, so of course there's upside to him. But if the keys to him hitting that upside are to come back from TOS surgery and recover elite velo while adding a whole new out pitch to compliment it his chances of reaching that upside are very, very low. It's a very low risk signing and I don't mind it at all. But it's most certainly not an exciting one. You basically just described every professional pitcher. If they can find elite velo, a wipe out pitch, and control they'll be really good. He's 30 years old and multiple seasons, and shoulder surgery, removed from being an effective major leaguer so I'm not really interested in him being a stash for 2025. It's a flier signing that every team does every offseason. I'm not mad at it, and don't think it's a bad signing. But it shouldn't be seen as anything more than that, and better not be a deal they are counting on providing significant returns at any point.

Yeah, going to the team page and counting 40-man spots was not a greatly encouraging activity. Not being willing/able to add outside talent to your 40-man without removing talent already on it is not a great offseason situation when you have open 40-man spots. I didn't know he had an option left, but that is a nice adder to the situation. Still not excited at all by the signing, but I'd bet that's a reason this FO was willing to sign him to a major league deal and not feel as strong a need to wait until spring to try to sign him to a minor league deal. A little off topic, but this entire offseason has me really wishing MLB would take a new look at their offseason schedule. Move your draft to the offseason and put some free agency dates to actually force decisions and moves and give your fans something to get excited about instead of just having a 4 month dead period with random periodic moves. It's nearly January and the only move Twins fans have seen is Josh Staumont. Follow the NFL and NBA leads and put in a deadline and force some action.

While I agree Staumont isn't exciting at all, I'm not sure the Twins are currently in a situation where 40-man spots are scarce. They have 3 open spots. Do we really expect them to bring in 3 more guys this offseason that are real difference makers while not removing anyone currently on the 40-man (trades)? I'd actually bet they go into spring training with open 40-man spots. Not excited about this signing at all, but they have plenty of 40-man space, and he's an easy DFA if they need more.

Canterino is probably the guy I'm most interested to follow for the 2024 season. If they are really willing to give him a shot at 125 innings in 2024 he could be the homegrown, front of the rotation player we've been looking for in 2025. He's got such tremendous stuff and health has really been the only thing holding him back. I'm fascinated to watch him and see what he does this year. 100 innings as a starter in the minors and then join the big league pen later in the year? I'm excited to watch him and hope he's finally able to stay healthy and show what he can do.

There's almost no bad minor league deals during the offseason. Get him with your personnel that you believe in and see what they can do with him. If it doesn't work out you cut him before the year even starts if you want. But, man, those AAA stats are tough to look at.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them go into spring with open 40-man spots. Could be used for waiver claims or snagging guys who get squeezed off 26-mans around the league. I wouldn't be surprised by them bringing in a veteran reliever who may be a guy who gets squeezed off their 26-man at the end of spring. They have a lot of ways they could go. But I don't know that I'd read into the 40-man spots too much.

I'm all for depth so am definitely not pushing back on adding that. I just don't know how you convince a major league free agent to come sit in the pen at the start of the year and wait their turn because the Twins were pretty clear they aren't going to roll with a 6 man rotation. It's possible they do some sort of piggy back plan early in the year for Paddack to limit his innings, but I don't see a major league free agent signing up for that role either. I think the more likely option is that they push Varland to AAA as the 6th starter, like Ober last year, and sign an Aaron Sanchez type minor league free agent who used to be a major leaguer, but isn't good enough anymore to get a major league deal. I don't see much of a chance that Varland starts the year in the pen. I don't think they'd want to have to stretch him out mid-season instead of having him stretch out in spring.

If they add a pitcher in trade and a major league free agent what does the rotation look like? They were pretty clear last year that they didn't think a 6 man rotation was a viable idea so who is going to the pen or AAA in that situation? I'd guess not the free agent since they likely wouldn't sign here if that were the case.

I agree the best 2024 plan for the rotation is to bring in a veteran starter who can slot in towards the top of the rotation and push Varland into the 6th spot in the rotation. I also think this is his last year to prove he deserves a rotation spot on opening day in 2025. The hope would be that one of the other high-minors guys are able to step up and lay claim to the #6 spot in 2025 and provide the same kind of depth that Varland should in 2024, and that allows Varland to go to the pen where he can be a real weapon. If he doesn't do enough in 2024 to be considered a real rotation piece in 2025 it's probably the end of the line for him as a starter. But he's the best option for the #6 role in 2024, and he should have every opportunity to turn that into a rotation job in 2025.

None of that makes that trade a good trade. Turning down better offers makes it an even worse trade. And Johan had 3 outstanding seasons for the Mets before the injuries took their toll. 2.53 ERA in 34 starts. 3.13 ERA in 25 starts. 2.98 ERA in 29 starts. Santana made 109 starts with a 3.18 ERA for the Mets. That's much more than "one good year."

Julien himself is worth more than Burnes on a 1 year deal so adding prospects to him isn't a realistic trade from the Twins point of view. And, yes, revenue is crucial. And the Twins have much more of it than the Rays. So I'm not sure why you want the Twins to operate like the Rays when they should be operating above that. But we've run amuck in this thread enough. I don't think rental trades of reasonable packages at the right time in the team building process should be automatically off limits to the Twins. You seem to disagree. To each their own.

I'm not talking about Julien plus a couple good prospects. Don't move the goalposts. I've repeatedly said I'm talking strictly about the proposal mentioned in this article. You're arguing against a point I'm not making to fit it into your narrative. I'm talking Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp for Burnes. That is it. And I really hope the Twins are running with some strategies beyond what Tampa is. Revenue, revenue, revenue. That's always the base of your arguments. Well the Twins have significantly more revenue than the Rays. They should be willing to do things the Rays aren't. What are the odds Prielipp lives up to his potential? He turns 23 on January 10th and has thrown 34.2 competitive innings since 2020. That's the guy you simply can't trade because he may reach his potential? Yeah, you're never going to convince me holding onto him is better asset management than getting a Cy Young candidate and a comp pick that'll be higher than where Prielipp was drafted.

He started every playoff game and hit .300 during their run. And it sent a message that the team was going for it. I wouldn't argue he carried them by any means, but he was certainly a helpful piece. Only using short-term strategies doesn't facilitate that goal. I'm not advocating for only using short-term strategies. I disagree that making a singular trade for a rental is sacrificing sustained success. If you can't recover from losing 2 decent prospects for a year of a Cy Young candidate (plus a comp pick in the 31-35 range) you're not going to sustain success anyways. There is no reasonable argument to be made that trading Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp (the deal proposed here) for Corbin Burnes is likely to be a significant hinderance on the Twins chances of sustaining success.

I don't know that I'd call it circumventing, though. The rule is spelled out very clearly in the CBA. I'd agree that the wording could've/should've been different, but the CBT language is very strong on how it's calculated. And I'd bet there was a lot of thought and discussion on it.

The A's got some prospect named Sean Manaea for Ben Zobrist in that trade to the Royals. He was the Royals #2 prospect, and #56 global prospect (according to MLB.com) at the time for 59 regular season games of Ben Zobrist. What are the odds that Festa and Prielipp combined reach 12 WAR in their careers (what Manaea is currently at)? I'd say that's a pretty decent sized investment in prospect capital compared to Festa and Prielipp, but maybe you see one of them as near top-50 global prospect. I'm not going to look up the White Sox team and I'll just give you that one. So 1 championship. So I guess I was too strong with the word "never." The 2003 Marlins are the very definition of short-term strategy. They actually followed your plan afterwards and traded every useful veteran piece they had. I don't think their fans would say that strategy has worked out so hot since. And, again, I'm not saying that trading for rentals should be your core strategy. I agree with you that bringing in young, controllable, cheap players is the right core strategy. My argument is with the idea of never being willing to make a rental deal. You point to Tampa, Cleveland, and Oakland constantly as these model franchises. Tampa's never won a championship. Cleveland hasn't won one since 1948. And Oakland hasn't won one since 1989. I'd much prefer winning 90 games consistently to losing 90 games consistently, but I want a championship more. My entire stance here is about this 1 specific trade at this 1 specific moment in time. If you think trading Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp for Burnes is likely to cripple this franchise moving forward, cool. We'll just have to agree to disagree there. The rest of this isn't something we really disagree on. Just the idea that you can never make rental trades. Why limit yourself by refusing to ever use an avenue for possible team improvement?

Oh, I'm not one sided on it either. I don't think either side wants it, and everything that comes out is marketing from one side or the other. Tony Clark makes that statement so that if it ever does come to be he can demand the highest possible threshold. Certain owners want it because they'd make more money in that system, but some don't because they would make less money in that system. Like you said, it's all big money battles. And nobody is battling for the fans. Can we get a fan union to the table for the next CBA negotiations?

Yeah, I don't know that they'd take the Polanco, Festa, Prielipp package. Their previous "trade for guys with 2 years of control plus sign 1 year scrap heap guys" strategy was unsustainable, and lacked ceiling. Absolutely not a strategy I'd propose. But their situation was different then. I'm just looking at this specific point in time with this specific team and the specific trade proposed here. They have 4 guys locked up for 4+ years and a 5th locked up for 2 more years. If you can't trade a guy who may never throw a complete season the rest of his life and a guy who doesn't realistically project to be better than a #4 pitcher and survive with their current rotation situation you're in trouble. I think the floor in the rotation, and team as a whole, is finally pretty well set. They have the vast majority of the 40-man roster locked up through 2027. I think this is the time you start taking some short-term risks. You have 4 years to develop more talent to backup this wave. Automatically rejecting rental trades when you're in this spot doesn't make sense to me.

History is overwhelming that your "never ever do a rental trade" strategy will never lead to a championship.