chpettit19

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.

The reports are that the Marlins wanted Gleyber Torres and Oswald Peraza for Lopez and Rojas at the deadline. Polanco and Lewis probably the most comparable package as an established, but not superstar, vet and an MLB ready, big time SS prospect. I'd guess the price would come down a little now as he's closer to free agency. Would they do Polanco for Lopez? Would the Twins? Polanco is older, but has 1 more year of control than Lopez. It'd be an interesting trade.

Do you mean Machado? I don't remember Tatis having opt outs, especially not this early in his deal. I could be misremembering, though.

I don't know that they're overloaded with middle infielders. I think most in the sport believe they're moving Tatis to the out field. I think they view their middle infield as Bogaerts and Kim with Cronenworth playing more 1B this time. I wouldn't mind them calling about Kim if they don't sign Correa, but I don't think the Padres view themselves as overloaded with middle infielders.

Weird that you cut that off right before Rosenthal/MLB trade rumors goes into the fact that their Bauer bill is the main reason why they aren't pursuing him. Or any other big ticket FA. But I hope you enjoyed posting that. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/10/dodgers-interested-in-carlos-correa.html "Heyman mentions that the Dodgers “appear to have landed on” Carlos Correa as their preferred replacement for Turner in free agency while Ardaya notes that president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman has been non-committal about continuing to spend well above the luxury tax going forward and has mentioned a desire to integrate the talent LA has at the upper levels of its farm system into the 2023 big league club." https://dodgersnation.com/dodgers-rumors-la-is-leading-candidate-to-sign-carlos-correa/2022/12/04/ That's from the day before your post. https://dodgersway.com/2022/12/06/dodgers-rumors-carlos-correa-free-agency-ultimate-twist/ Oh, and that one. https://www.si.com/mlb/dodgers/news/dodgers-rumors-scott-boras-isnt-worried-about-carlos-correas-astros-connection-for-la-rm94 Sports illustrated getting in on the action, too. Maybe I'm not the one reality is calling... The Dodgers talked to Correa and Boras (why would they do that if they weren't interested? Weird). They got a feel for where the numbers would have to be and then backed out. It's almost like they're now playing the PR game of "we really care about you fans and that's why we didn't pursue him" even though they did pursue him. Or do you think they called Boras just to tell him they're still mad at Carlos?

It sounds like the bigger Dodger concern is the Bauer bill they may be having to pay soon. They are out on basically all big money guys because of that. Being in the luxury tax means if his appeal goes his way and they have to pay his whole salary they're getting hit with a massive tax bill on top of his already massive contract they think they got out of with his suspension. It sounds like the Padres prefer to move Tatis to the OF. Which makes sense to me. They seem to be looking to upgrade on Kim with the presumption of Tatis basically being done as a SS. I'm not sure the Red Sox being back at the table with Bogaerts is good. It certainly might be, but they don't feel like they really want to spend money these days. Bogaerts is the likely backup plan to missing on Correa and I'd prefer him still be available if the Twins miss on Correa. I don't like the Twins chances to outbid the Giants so would like to have a chance at Bogaerts still if they lose on Correa.

No worries, I agree with your long reliever take (they need at least 1 guy who goes multiple innings regularly) but Neshek was definitely not that guy. He was fun to watch, though. Draft lottery is at 7:30 tonight, fyi.

No, Eddie Rosario's batting numbers were not "very good." They were solid, but not worth the contract they would have had to pay him in arbitration. As shown by the fact that nobody signed him to a deal the size they would've had to pay him in arbitration. And he was a poor defender and base runner who made a lot of mental mistakes. Some of the rookies should be in AAA, yes. But they also need the chance to prove they can adjust and perform in the majors after they've mastered AAA. That's how it works. Alex Kirilloff can do no more in AAA. He's proven without a doubt that he's too good for that level. The question now is if he's good enough to be in the majors. You can't find that out if you don't play him in the majors. Trevor Larnach mastered AAA. Jose Miranda mastered AAA. Celestino did not and I'd put him back there. Wallner is on the border, but I'd start him in AAA. Lewis has mastered AAA and needs to be in the majors. I don't think they should build their entire team around rookies/young players (I want them to sign Correa and let Lewis/Lee/whoever find a spot when they establish themselves). But they need to have some mixed in because of the nature of finances in major league baseball. I'm not ignoring any side of the game and am advocating for taking the complete player into account. You constantly complain about young players being around the Mendoza line while pushing for Kepler to stay with the Twins despite him having a worse BA than many of the young guys when they're healthy. And that's because you love his defense. I don't mind Kepler around as a 4th OFer, but his defense in RF doesn't make up for the hole he puts in the lineup. It's entirely possible for those of us who wouldn't mind seeing him replaced are taking a defensive drop into account when we wish for an upgrade in RF. Slightly worse defense with significantly better offense makes the team better. But you often times just point to the defensive drop and say it'd automatically be a bad move. That's extreme.

Or it's poor offense. Each game is different. The Twins had the 12th and 11th best defenses the last 2 seasons. So, yes, they can absolutely improve. But your constant pointing to a player's defensive capabilities as the be all end all of where they belong in the organization is extreme. You wouldn't even have Wallner in AAA because of his defense. That's extreme. I gave you a whole list of really good defensive teams that lose and really bad defensive teams that win. You put too much emphasis on defense when baseball is more so about hitting and pitching. Yes, the Twins have some bad defenders, and could improve overall as a team. But simply pointing to a player's defensive stats and saying whether or not he should be on the Twins is extreme.

You have any proof of this? I don't see any reason to believe this.

I think he's going to have a hard time finding a 6 year deal, but good for him if he can. I agree the Rangers and Angels are the 2 teams most likely to get crazy (because they're the worst run, high spending teams currently), but extra years have been hard to come by with the other big guns (NYY and LAD especially). The big guys are now flexing their spending power on short term, high AAV deals. I wouldn't be surprised by either NY team signing Rodon for 3 years at 40M+ AAV. As for the Twins in this whole thing, they're pretty clearly out at the numbers being thrown around for front end pitching.

I got ya. I'm just saying that a player of his stature isn't taking a deal with half of it being tied to incentives. A player of his caliber likely isn't taking any incentives at all. Buyouts and opt outs are one thing, but incentives, especially those tied to team performance like playoff wins and world series, aren't something guys like Correa take.

The Giants are all in on bringing in the best player they can. First they're going to try to bring in Judge. If they miss on him they'll move onto Correa and try to bring him in. If they miss on him they'll move to whoever they have next highest on the list. Really they're just living the life of a big payroll team. Start at the top of the list and work your way down until you spend all your money.