chpettit19

The blunt assessment likely is premature, and I'm usually the "offseason isn't over yet" guy. But, that being said, I don't want trades so if that's their pivot move I'll be disappointed. They don't have enough prospects left to ship anymore out and have a real shot at staying competitive (unless they're suddenly going to be willing to pay whatever established player they bring in a market level extension, but they should've just paid free agents if that were the case). And they don't have a surplus of anything on the big league roster to make a trade from 1 position to boost another one so to me it'd just be moving the holes around while not filling any. I don't see any real "problem solvers" left on the free agent market. Just more 1 year deals for Eovaldi types. Benintendi would be nice, but we don't need another lefty corner outfielder, and I think he'll get overpaid for his platform year performance last year. JD Martinez would be a nice DH option, but that's another 1 year deal for a likely non-difference maker. Swanson would be nice, but I also think he gets severely overpaid. They're much smarter than me, and have way more info, so there's a very real possibility they make some moves that are helpful. But I don't see those moves, or at least not enough of them to truly make a difference, and I'm at the point where I need to see to believe that they've changed their MO and strategies that have failed miserably the last couple seasons.

Because it guaranteed them tens of millions of dollars. Those are not comparable deals to the Correa, or any FA, deal. Buxton took his deal because he's never stayed healthy and he wanted to be in 1 org for his whole career. The Twins were already Correa's 2nd team and he was here for 1 year, not in the org for 9 years like Buxton. Polanco guaranteed himself $25 million. Before that he'd made $3.2 million. He'd only played 288 major league games, and hit 23 major league homeruns, when he signed that deal. He had nowhere near the same leverage Correa did. If Polanco had stayed as a 100-110 OPS+ guy for the rest of his career that deal wouldn't be team friendly, it'd be right on the nose. Instead he jumped up to a 120 OPS+ guy and it's now been team friendly. Kepler had made $2.95 million before signing a deal worth $35 million. He took his salary from $3.125 million in 2019 to $6 million by signing that deal. And there's people all over these boards that don't think Kepler's deal is team friendly at all and would like to see him traded because they don't think he's worth his $8.5 million this year. Sano gave up 1 year of free agency in his extension. That's not exactly screaming "team friendly!" He signed that extension to guarantee himself $30 million that he wouldn't have otherwise been guaranteed through the arbitration process. A young guy from the core you didn't mention was Eddie Rosario. He didn't sign an extension and instead got non-tendered so the Twins wouldn't have to pay him roughly $10 million. Instead he signed for $8 million with Cleveland. He had made $14.4ish million with the Twins. So he got $23.4 million through his arb years. Polanco got 28.2. Kepler got 38.125. And Sano got 37.9. So the guy who didn't sign the "team friendly" deal missed out on 5 million compared to Polanco, and 15 million compared to Sano and Kepler. It's simply not the straight forward "team friendly" concept you're talking about when the players are still in pre-arb or arb years. That's why Ozzie Albies and Ronald Acuna are on "team friendly" deals in Atlanta. They wanted to guarantee themselves 10s of millions of dollars without risking a bad injury here or there, or a down year, cratering their value. And they've both missed large chunks of time with injuries so it seems rather smart of them. Julio Rodriguez just signed a "team friendly" deal that guarantees him $120 million dollars. Comparing that to a free agent deal and suggesting he signed that because he just loves Seattle so much is ignoring a whole lot of context. Like $100 million worth of context.

I wouldn't doubt that Farmer was plan A. That doesn't make me feel better because you're right and being "in on" deserves to be in quotes. They weren't "in on" Correa if their best offer truly was 285. In that case they should've been signing guys the last month. More than just Vazquez. And not waiting for everyone worth truly investing in to be gone. It's feeling more and more like plan A, B, C, and D were all "payroll reduction." If it wasn't then they haven't changed from their unsuccessful "1 year deal for over the hill vets and cross our fingers they catch lightning in a bottle for that 1 year" strategy and I want no part of that strategy anymore. I've usually been able to see some sort of logic and game plan in their strategies. Even if I didn't agree with them. I'm failing to see a decent strategy anywhere in this offseason, and that's really disappointing.

No, it doesn't. The reporting on pretty much every offseason, and trade deadline, for this FO has felt like they don't have a real plan and are kind of making it up as they go. Last deadline felt more planned, and I was hoping that'd lead into a more planned feeling offseason, but that hasn't been the case so far. I fully admit it's a fool's errand to judge these things from the outside based on whatever reports we get, but being a fan is sometimes foolish. My real problem is that this feels like a payroll reduction they're trying to cover up with leaks and reports for as long as they can, and I find that unacceptable. Even if they end up spending 130-150 million it's likely going to be a collection of over the hill vets, and I'm done with that. JD Martinez is intriguing, but if him or Vazquez are the biggest signings in an offseason where you have 60 million to spend and a 40-man full of young, cheap players you've failed. They can salvage a few decent signings still, but it's hard to see any chance of this offseason not being extremely disappointing. The fans deserve better.

The quote was actually "The Twins appear to be regrouping after losing out on Carlos Correa, so Swanson’s likely out." So, does regrouping make you feel any better? That 1 sentence may have pushed me over the edge from "we'll see what plan B was and give them the rest of the offseason because they couldn't have possibly not had multiple backup plans for the 100% certainty that Correa wouldn't sign for 285 million" to "fire these guys now because plan A was clearly to sign Correa for no more than 285 and there was no real plan B."

Mike Trout and Aaron Judge are both winning MVPs with the seasons they've had if they're in RF. I agree, having guys up the middle who can hit is an advantage, but having guys on the corners who can still hit, but also field like up the middle guys is also an advantage. And it's the ultimate goal. Collect as many "tools" as possible. You want everyone to be a 5 tool guy. All I'm saying is that having too many shortstops isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Having Swanson for 6 years and having Lee and Lewis both turn out to be star SSs in the bigs is a fantastic problem to have. Cuz now you have SS quality defenders at 2B and 3B (or I'd put Lewis in the OF).

Well yes, but the goal is still to accumulate as many guys who can play up the middle as possible. I don't understand anyone arguing that the Twins shouldn't bring in a top flight SS because they have Lewis and Lee (some even mention Martin and Miller). Guys having to slide down the defensive spectrum is not bad. Tatis already has his deal, but he's not a good fielder at SS. His hitting with what I'd guess is above average defense in RF (or CF or LF) based on his athleticism is more than worth his contract. Bogaerts better not lose anything off his bat even if he is playing SS. It's an awfully big drop from SS to DH, though. I'd guess there's a middle step and he's not a DH in 4 years. Especially since Machado is likely to opt out after next season if he hits anything like he did last year. Mookie Betts got a bigger deal than Correa and he plays RF. Aaron Judge is also a RFer with a bigger deal than Correa. Superstars get paid no matter where they play. Mike Trout is going to move to a corner pretty soon I'd guess, is he less valuable to the Angels when he does? I'm pretty sure they'll feel he's plenty valuable with his bat no matter where he stands on the field.

That sounds pretty great to me. Why wouldn't you want 5 shortstops? Well 4 I guess since there's only 4 infield spots. But 4 shortstops and 3 centerfielders sounds pretty ideal to me. You wouldn't be happy with Correa, Lindor, Turner, and Bogaerts in the Twins IF? Wouldn't be happy with Buxton, Trout, and Rodriguez in the Twins OF? The goal should always be to stockpile up the middle players. Bogaerts at SS (for a couple years), Kim at 2B, Machado at 3B (why is he even in this discussion? He's been a 3B for more of his career than he was a SS), Tatis is going to the outfield.

I mean, to be fair, Freeman was in Atlanta for 12 years. It was a bummer to see him leave their because he was such a big part of their team for over a decade, but let's not act like he was gone as soon as he cleared arbitration. Anytime you keep a player in your jersey for over a decade you're doing pretty well.

That's fair. I could be completely misremembering, but I thought the last I saw on Soderstrom was that he was moving out from behind the plate more. And Susac is a couple years away which works perfectly for the A's since they'd be ready to trade Contreras and/or Langeliers by then! But if I'm misremembering on Soderstrom it makes more sense since he's just about ready to hit in the bigs.

I personally don't think him being in RF would make a difference. It would add an extra wall for him to run into, and he'd still go all out towards CF on any ball hit there. But, to me at least, where he plays in the OF isn't the concern because he gets hurt doing non-outfield things more than he gets hurt doing OF things now. Running the bases, standing in the batters box, etc. I'd leave him in CF because him playing CF as well as he does is a huge part of his value. Unless you told me moving to a corner would get him to 130+ games a year, but I don't think it would, unfortunately.

Welcome to Twins Daily! Why do you think moving him to RF would allow him to play more? It's an interesting discussion we've touched on a little around these parts, but I'm always curious to hear people's reasoning for things.

Interesting that Oakland wouldn't want Contreras in return. I never quite know what they're doing out there, but Contreras/Langeliers sounds like a real nice catcher combo for the next 5 years if I'm Oakland.

How is moving Cronenworth to 1B terrible mismanagement of talent? The ideal IF is 4 SSs so you're above average defensively at every position. Terrible mismanagement of talent is having players play positions too high on the defensive ladder, not too low. A CFer playing LF is a plus while a LFer playing CF is a minus. Moving him down the ladder just improves their defensive strength. Ha-Seong Kim had 1 fewer PA than Kyle Farmer last year. He had 4 fewer hits, but 18 more walks. He had 3 fewer HRs, but 4 more doubles. He scored the exact same number of runs. Struck out 1 extra time. Hit .252 compared to Farmers .255. Beat Farmer in OBP .325 to .315, but lost in slugging .386 to .383. He had 4 fewer total bases. Tell me how that's a significant improvement on Farmer? That's my point. They're almost exactly the same hitter. All getting Kim does is strengthen the floor in that you now have 2 of the exact same hitter who can play 2B, 3B, or SS. Kim is a better fielder, but he's no better hitter. That's my entire point. I want someone who's better than Kyle Farmer if I'm going to make getting a SS a priority. Trading for the exact same guy does nothing but improve their backup infielder. That's pretty low on my priority list. Like way at the bottom.

I had forgotten about Perez. That's an interesting option as well. Trades would always be my last option during the offseason (why give up player value when you could sign a similar player for just money?) but if the FA market doesn't go the way they want he's a very intriguing option.

From what I've read he's looking for a starting role. Part of the hold up is likely also how much time they're willing to promise him. Rumors are that he doesn't want a "time share" like the Twins prefer, but wants a 3+ year deal where he's the clear cut starter and gets to catch as much as he can handle. But Correa signing would certainly also help.

Or they need to adjust their math and be better at predicting what it will take to get guys and not waste time on guys who's market they won't be willing to pay up to. Every team reaches a cutoff point on every player eventually. The question is how high your cutoff point is. The Twins sometimes feel like they drastically underestimate player's markets.

The Twins have numbers they're willing to go to on everyone they're interested in. They know which ones they can fit into their budget in what combination. They are pretty notorious for not going above their number on guys. Especially someone like Vazquez. They wouldn't overpay for him even if they weren't in on Correa. There's no reason to assume they were significantly under market on Vazquez. What do you base your assumption that "it was a low ball number" and not at an "appropriate level" on? The house analogy is missing a lot of context. Were the furnace and car upgrade planned purchases with in depth pricing done to have a good estimation of what each would cost, or at least what you're willing to pay for each? Cuz the Twins, and every team, have done that math. The Twins aren't suddenly going to offer Vazquez twice as much because they miss on Correa. They know what they feel his worth is and the max they'll go for him. They know that max fits next to the max they'll go for Correa. The decisions weren't made independently, but the math doesn't change anymore. If either market goes above their already determined maxes they walk away.

Why do you assume they aren't attempting to get a catcher or trade Kepler while also negotiating with Correa? There's already multiple reports that they've offered Christian Vazquez a contract. Many reports about talks with multiple teams on trades of multiple players. They don't need to draw a deadline on Correa to make other deals. They can work on multiple things at once.

My guess is San Diego doesn't see themselves as having too many in fielders and Kim slides over to 2B with Cronenworth moving to 1B as they pair with the left side of Machado and Bogaerts. I also don't see Kim as a big enough improvement on Farmer to really make it worth it. If the Twins aren't getting Correa, or similar star level player, at SS I don't see why they'd spend much time trying to sign Iglesias or trade for Kim or whatever other mid-level SS people want them to get when they already have a mid-level guy in Farmer to cover until Lewis is back. Only reason to get a non-star level SS is if they don't think either Lewis or Lee are capable of being their SS of the future. Lewis looked ready to me, and I'd prefer they use resources elsewhere if they can't bring back Correa. Farmer is good enough to cover SS until June when Lewis can take over. Go get a C, right handed OF bat, or arms if you can't get Correa. Unless you plan to move Polanco, Kim doesn't make the team significantly better.

If I could get Miller in return for Kepler I'd do that in an instant. He'd be the best pitching prospect in the org immediately, with only Prielipp being his equal in terms of ceiling, but Miller is significantly closer to debuting. Could probably pitch out of the pen immediately.

Interesting that you have Narvaez as getting a bigger deal than Vasquez. I'd guess those numbers are inverse in the end and Vasquez gets the bigger deal. FYI, the Mets can't "meet the qualifying offer." That's not how it works in baseball. The Mets are in the same negotiating boat as everyone else when it comes to Bassitt. They just get a draft pick, and the Twins lose one, if we sign him. They can't match the offer and automatically get him. Bassitt also rumored to be demanding at least 4 years. And probably north of 22 with how the market is going right now. I like Fulmer coming back. I've seen a number of people suggest signing Iglesias and I'm fascinated by it. What is the motivation for signing a guy who's no better than the guy they already traded for? I'd bring Correa back on a pretty massive deal, but to each their own.

My guess is they're planning on inflation making his 2030 and beyond salaries not look that huge and they're stretching out his luxury tax threshold hit over extra years to make him more affordable during the years they expect him to be good. It's an interesting gamble. If they're wrong on their projections for where prices are going over the next decade it could look bad, but they were able to stretch it over so many years that his AAV is quite low (relatively speaking) and allows them extra flexibility. If prices keep rising his 25.5 per year may not look too bad as he gets old. They may even be crossing their fingers he retires at some point during the deal to free his roster spot as if they're right about prices his roster spot is going to be more of a concern than the 25 mil. I'm guessing they're expecting Machado to leave after 2023 as well. It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out. Edited to add: This is also going to be an interesting experiment for future CBAs. Does the league eventually push for contract length limits to avoid teams manipulating things in this way? I believe that's what the NHL did when teams were signing guys to 13 year deals and such. Same with the NBA. And the NFL with their rookie deals. Eventually the league saves the teams from themselves and limits contracts to avoid the anchors some teams sign. MLB obviously different with no cap and such. But adds an extra variable to the negotiations.

It's been interesting to watch the 2 "big money" team strategies do battle. You have the Mets and Dodgers who seem to be trying to do super high AAV deals for few years then you have the Padres and Phillies going with massive length (assumedly to lower luxury tax hits year to year) with lower AAVs. Will be interesting to see how those long deals effect things as Harper, Turner, Tatis, Bogaerts, etc. age and stop being productive. The Bogaerts deal blows my mind. I agree with your maxes for Rodon and Badditt. I want nothing to do with Rodon's arm for 7 years.

FYI, if the Twins sign 1 player who rejected a QO they lose their 3rd highest draft pick (would be pick 50), if they sign 2 they would also lose pick 85. Their current picks are numbers 5 (round 1), 34 (competitive balance A), 50 (#11 in round 2), 85 (#13 in round 3), 117 (#13 in round 4), and so on.