chpettit19

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.

The owners were trying to get a hard cap with no floor. And the cap they put forth was lower than the current CBT thresholds. So, yes, the players union rejected it firmly. Neither side wants the NFL style system.

I'm not arguing against the idea that building through cheap talent you either drafted and developed or traded for is the best strategy. I'm arguing against the idea that you can't do rental trades if you're outside the top 10 in revenue. This article is about a trade for Corbin Burnes. I disagree with the idea that you can't do this specific trade because it's a rental. I agree you can't do it every year, but doing this individual trade shouldn't be automatically dismissed because it's a rental.

I don't see much of a fit for the Twins and Reds. They're both looking for the same things and have the same perceived areas of depth. Trading away from the back of our pen sounds like a really bad idea as well.

I didn't say anything was wrong with it. I'd be totally good with MLB going to that system. I'm just saying I think people are mad at the wrong teams. I don't understand being mad at the teams that are actually trying to win instead of the ones that are happy to pocket money while not trying to win. There are far more "have nots" in baseball than "haves." If the "have nots" really cared about a "fair system" that doesn't have disparate spending and everyone is on an even playing field from a spending perspective baseball would have that system. But the truth is that the "have not" owners don't care about that stuff. They make money hand over fist while their teams appreciate without them ever having to truly try to win. The teams you should be mad at are the ones who don't care about winning, not the ones who do.

An increase in talent will lead to a decrease in strikeouts. The Twins have the same approach as all the best offenses in baseball: look for pitches you can drive and don't swing unless you get one of those pitches, then swing to do damage. The Twins problem isn't the strategy it's the lack of skill to be able to do damage on more pitches in more areas of the zone and to make their swings count more often. Although, I do think they can get a little passive at times looking to raise pitch counts. I'd also like to see some better situational hitting, but that's also easier said than done. Yes, they're all major league hitters, but, as others have pointed out, pitchers these days are really good. "Just learn to go the other way" is all well and nice, but when a ball is coming in at 90+ MPH while moving 12 inches vertically and horizontally it's not so easy. And as Washington and Cleveland helped show us last year, simply putting the ball in play doesn't actually lead to good things happening frequently like people like to pretend it does. It's not that easy to be Luis Arraez. If it were there'd be more Luis Arraez's. It's really hard to succeed in MLB while making soft contact. The current 3 true outcome style of game is far less entertaining than the strategies of old. It's a problem the league should definitely be trying to find ways to fix. But I don't know why we'd want the Twins to put themselves at a disadvantage by changing to a strategy that would make it harder for them to score runs. Would people really be happier watching the Twins lose more simply because they struck out less? I'll take the wins from the runs with the Ks over the losses from the lack of runs with the weak contact.

I say kick the As out of baseball. The Dodgers are trying to win. It's what we want all the teams to be doing. They have a clear and dramatic advantage in their ability to make, and willingness to spend, money. But at least they're trying to win. Why aren't we mad at the owners of teams that happily take the revenue sharing money from the Dodgers and pocket it while making no attempt to field a competitive team? I'm jealous as heck of Dodgers fans. It must be nice to have a team who can, and does, go crazy like this. But I don't get being mad at the team. If the other owners really cared about "fair" they'd get the system changed and make it so 3 or 4 teams can't go crazy like this. But they don't. Because they don't care about winning. I say good for the Dodgers and anyone else who's actually doing everything they can to win. Within the rules.

Now what could that team have done if they'd traded Luis Patino, Vidal Brujan, and Brendan McKay for a 1 year rental of someone like Kevin Gausman? Maybe they make it out of the division series. Constantly trading a bunch of prospects for 1 year guys is unsustainable for sure. But refusing to ever take a calculated risk on a rental is also part of why the teams you describe never win championships. There's absolutely risk in trading prospects. It's a numbers game. But the Twins are currently sitting on 4 guys in their rotation (Varland is in there as of today) who are signed or controlled for 4+ more seasons. Trading 1 or 2 of their pitching prospects shouldn't crush them. Yes, it's a risk that you trade a guy who becomes a stud and all the guys you keep flame out, but at some point if you want to take the next step you need to take a risk. If the Twins trading Polanco, Festa, and Prielipp tanks their future so be it. I find that basically impossible to believe, but maybe Festa and Prielipp are the next Johnson and Schilling and are going to carry a team to a title I guess. You can't trade a Festa and Prielipp for a rental every season, but doing it once isn't going to kill you.

Rojas isn't meaningfully younger. He's 29 to Jorge's 30. Actually they're nearly exactly a year different (July 5 birthday for Jorge and June 30 for Rojas). That 3.2 WAR season is the outlier, not his 2023. His career WAR numbers are -0.1, -0.3, 0.8, 3.2, 0.4 Betting on a bounce back by a guy who's had 2 negative WAR seasons to 3 positive WAR seasons, and only 1 season with a WAR over 1, as compared to Jorge Polanco who's had 1 negative WAR season (-0.1 in 2015) and multiple 4+ WAR seasons while being 1 year older would be a terrible bet. Josh Rojas is going into his age 30 season with a career bWAR total of 3.9. 82% of that WAR came in 1 season. Jorge is going into his age 31 season with a career bWAR total of 17.3. Seattle would likely bet on a bounce back by the clearly better player who's not significantly older. Maybe they'd bet on Urias to bounce back to his 2021/2022 numbers, but they have an opening at both 2B and 3B so it'd probably make sense to put Urias at 3B where he's played the most games of his major league career and Polanco at 2B where he's a significantly better option than anyone else you named. In fact, their current depth chart lists Urias at 3B and Rojas at 2B where I just laid out that Polanco is the clearly better option. Polanco would be a great fit in Seattle.