chpettit19

My thought as well. I wouldn't say it's super likely, but also not impossible. If he's non-tendered I'd scoop him up and say goodbye to Garlick.

Bellinger is an interesting player this offseason. If he were on any team outside of the few big spenders he'd be an unquestioned non-tender, but he plays for the Dodgers so there's a chance they risk the 20 mil on 1 more shot at getting MVP Bellinger back. I'd think that their decision on Bellinger is based on how they feel about their chances to sign Judge. If they think they have a legit shot at bringing Judge to the west coast I'd think they'd be more likely to non-tender Bellinger and shift that money to Judge. If they don't think they can get him it probably makes it more likely they just hold onto Bellinger and hope he figures it out. As for the Twins bringing him in if he's non-tendered...much like the Gallo article yesterday, if they're moving Kepler Bellinger wouldn't be a bad guy to bring in on a 1 year deal to see if he can catch lightning in a bottle offensively while not losing the defense in RF. I wouldn't be tripping over myself to sign Bellinger Saturday if he's non-tendered Friday, but he's someone I'd keep my eye on later in the offseason as I make other moves such as a potential Kepler trade.

Bauer is just about the only top free agent pitcher the Dodgers have brought in in recent memory. They built their rotation almost entirely internally. I'm not saying they aren't a threat to sign Rodon, because they're a threat to sign literally everyone, but spending big money on FA pitchers isn't their MO at all. They traded for Scherzer midseason, but also got Trea Turner in that deal, and then didn't extend Scherzer. They traded for David Price, but that was to get Mookie Betts. They've extended their homegrown HOF pitcher Clayton Kershaw, but they really don't bring in any long-term, high priced FA starters frequently. Grienke in 2013 and Bauer in 2021 (both of which will be only 3 year deals) are the only truly big money signings they've made in the last 10 years for starting pitching. Since they're the Dodgers they're always capable of these kinds of signings, but they most certainly aren't "always throwing money at top free agent pitchers."

Ah, the old Sano debate. Sano was an above average hitter for the Twins overall, but was the very definition of streaky. When he was "on" he was the scariest hitter on the planet. When he was "off" he was basically a pitcher hitting. There were very few in between times. To me, he was mostly a victim of the hype train. He was tabbed as a savior for this team from the day he signed. They made a documentary about him. They were calling him the next Miguel Cabrera. He was going to come up and win MVPs and carry the Twins to World Series titles. Then it turned out he was simply a poor defender, above average hitter who helped usher in the "strikeouts don't matter" movement in baseball. There's no argument that he was a "bust," but at the end of his time in a Twins uni he's certainly been disappointing. I expect Sano to sign a major league deal somewhere. And probably not have a ton of problems finding one. He's a 29 year old who makes harder contact than anyone in baseball. Not sure why people think that guy is going to struggle to find a big league deal. I know he was disappointing here, but 29 year olds with his batted ball data and a 116 OPS+ and 115 wRC+ get major league deals.

Way to just leave me hanging here, Brock! Although, that's pretty much the exact summary of what I think a lot of us are expecting with this saga anyways. Solid fifth-place offer.

I see. You not quoting them made it appear that you were saying you didn't think they needed Gallo cuz he was a DH. I follow now. I sure hope they don't accept any "dumbest move they've made" challenges! From me or anyone else.

Gallo isn't a DH. He's a multi-time gold glove winning outfielder. If they signed him and put him at DH it'd be the worst move they've ever made.

Would I be out there trying to get him signed today? No. Not at all. But if February rolls around and he's still sitting there and I can get a decent deal for Kepler I'd certainly consider it. Wouldn't lose anything defensively or offensively with swapping Kepler out for Gallo. They're different offensive players and get to their OPS numbers in different ways, but overall they've been awfully similar in terms of OPS type stats in their careers. Strong no to just adding him to the team, but if you can get something valuable for Kepler while replacing Kepler with Gallo in right it'd be an interesting plan with some real upside.

I didn't say loath anywhere. I don't think he's a player worthy of a major league roster spot on a contender because he brings 1 thing, and 1 thing only to a roster. And hitting against lefties is the smallest role possible on a roster. So, no, I don't like him as a player taking up a spot on the 26-man roster and I hope that doesn't happen. But signing him to barely above league minimum deal isn't hurting anything so I have no problem with that. Just expect a major leaguer to be able to hit righties, run, field, throw, or literally be good at any other part of the game besides hitting lefties.

I still remember last year when people freaked out about signing Tim Beckham to a minor league deal. I don't like Garlick and hope he's not on the Twins next year, but there's no reason not to keep him around until you have someone who's better. They'll DFA him in an instant if they can sign a Haniger type, but why not keep him until you do?

Thielbar and Rogers are on the same level for me for 2023. Thielbar is going to be 36 next year and I'm not betting my season on him being a late inning, shutdown guy. Same feelings I have on Rogers. Willing to go into the year with them as middle relievers, but I want better guys than either of them for the late inning/closer roles.

Teams don't have guys who close 100% of save opportunities, but they most definitely have guys who go back to back days and are used for virtually every 1 run save opportunity. If their closer threw 25 pitches to close a 1 run lead the night before and now they have a 3 run lead with the 6-7-8 hitters coming up in the 9th they use someone else. Teams that go "closer by committee" tend to not have great closers and are playing the matchup game. The Twins have tried to combine the matchup game and an everyday closer the last few years. Limiting your closer to no back to back games in that situation leads to a lot of problems with trying to determine bullpen usage during 162 games. Rogers can be great in his profile, sure. But his profile isn't a closer's profile. That's my point. If I can't use you back to back games you're not a closer. If I'm in a September series against Cleveland and we're tied for the division lead and the first game we have a 1 run lead in the 9th I need to be able to use my closer. If game 2 we then have a 1 run lead in the 9th I need to be able to use my closer again. Rogers not being able to go in game 2 means I need a 2nd closer and at that point I'm simply in "closer by committee" and I don't have a closer, I just have a highly paid reliever. Rogers' ERA spiked on June 2 last season, and basically never came back down before really spiking again in early July and he was basically done as a reliable closer after that. Before June 2 he was used on back to back days 5 times, including 1 three day stretch at the end of April where he was used in all 3 games. 5 times of being used back to back days in the team's first 50 games and that was too much? He was then used back to back days on June 4th and 5th, but wasn't used on back to back days again until June 20th and 21st. Then July 15th and 16th. By then his ERA was over 4 and never really got much below 4 the rest of the year while actually ballooning to over 5 at certain points. That's 8 times of being used back to back days in the teams first 93 games and that was too much for him? I don't think he was as overused in back to back days as you claim. He simply isn't a great closer. Definitely not worth 15 mil a year. And, for the record, Milwaukee didn't even use him as their closer.

If someone wants to give Rogers 3/45 they can have him. I included the breaks for city changes. I gave the exact schedule of the 2022 WS. I didn't say just closing games 6-7 of the WS made you great, I said you need to be able to pitch in 6 games of a 7 game playoff series for me to think you're great. But even if you're counting just closing games 6 and 7 "great" or "elite" or whatever you want to call it Rogers doesn't fit because games 6 and 7 are played on back to back nights. Rogers could throw in 4 games of a playoff series if he can't be used in back to back games. Games 1-2 are back to back. So he can only be used once. Games 3-4-5 are back to back to back. So he could be used for max games 3 and 5. Games 6-7 are back to back. So he can only be used once. In the "perfect" Rogers situation he's used in either game 1 or 2. Then used in games 3 and 5. Then used in 6 or 7. That's 4 games. You're not great if I can't use you in back to back games. It's that simple to me.

I don't think he's going to get a huge deal. I think he's got a very real chance to get multiple years, but a closer you can't use on back to back days isn't a great closer to me. If I can't use you in games 1 and 2 of a playoff series you're not great. With multiple off days in 7 game series you have to be available for 6 games before I call you great. This year the World Series had games Oct 28 and 29, Nov 1, 2, 3, 5 and game 7 was scheduled for the 6th. So games 1 and 2 were back to back. Day off. Games 3, 4, 5 back to back to back. Day off. Games 6 and 7 back to back. If Rogers can't be used in one of game 1 or 2, and then has to pitch games 3 and 5 or just game 4, and then is good for only 1 of games 6 or 7 why would I want him as my closer? At max he's good for 4 games in a 7 game series. No thanks on that closer. I'd absolutely take him back on the Twins, but not as their closer. Middle relief for him with at least 2 other guys that I'd be relying on to be my shutdown guys in the playoffs because they could go 6 or 7 games in a 7 game series.

He's way too far off for me to think he has any sort of real ceiling. He very well may develop nicely into a real piece, but any team willing to take a guy who just hit .246 in A ball can have him as far as I'm concerned. I think you're saying it nicer than me by saying it's low risk that someone would stash him for a year. To me the Rule 5 is mostly nothing. People freaked out when Baddoo got off to a crazy start in 2021, but he then came crashing back to earth for the last 3/4 of that season before being terrible in 2022. Like @Fire Dan Gladden said, the Rule 5 simply doesn't produce great players at any sort of a regular rate. If you can't replace a 65 OPS+ outfielder you lost through Rule 5 you're doomed anyways. I love the idea behind it and it's great for these prospects to get a chance to see a major league field, but there's very, very few that turn out to be real losses to their clubs. The amount of time we spend talking about who to keep and who they'll lose doesn't match the actual impact of Rule 5 drafted players.

If Rogers is getting a multi-year deal I'd stay away, but if they can get him on a 1 year deal I'd take him. I'm sure he's looking for a multiple years, but coming off a brutal second half there's a chance he's stuck with a 1 year "prove it" deal. Worth a call on. Because I'm not sold on Thielbar maintaining his success as he gets deeper into his 30s, and I like Moran, but am not willing to turn a job over to him without competition. If Rogers can be had for a 1 year deal I'd strongly consider it. As for the other 2, I'm fine passing on them both. Didn't want Kimbrel in 2019 for that deal as the signs of decline were already popping up. Robertson is simply too old for me to tie my bullpen hopes to him. I'd take any of the 3 on a cheap 1 year deal with middle relief as their role, but if these are the types of guys they're bringing in to lock down the end of the game I'm going to be quite disappointed.

If he's cheap and they aren't planning on just plugging him in as their everyday closer they should absolutely look at him. As a middle reliever he'd potentially be a very nice fit. We already know he can't go back to back days so I don't want him brought in as some late inning savior, but he could be a very nice lefty piece in the middle of the pen. I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that "San Diego changed the shape of his slider," though. When do you think they made that change? He got there on opening day. I don't think they chucked him in the trackman that day and told him to change the shape of his slider. Then he got off to a great start so I'm guessing they weren't out there telling him to change the shape of his slider in the middle of April when he was dominating. I don't think the San Diego staff told him to change anything. Maybe the reason they were willing to trade him to Milwaukee was because they couldn't get his slider back after he lost it. I think it's just the nature of 90% of relievers that they're finicky and any little thing being off leads to them being bad. It's why they're relievers instead of starters for the most part. Being able to get his slider back may be a nice tweak to try to make if they do re-sign him, though.

Julien and Canterino are the only 2 I'd protect. Maybe Severino. The rest seem to be just dime a dozen prospects. Nothing against them, but I'm not taking up 40-man space for the offseason with guys that could be easily replaced at any time. There's just not much ceiling on anyone beyond the top 2, and ceiling is what I'd want to protect against losing.

First, I think it's unfair to say the pen arms don't know their role. They may not know what inning they're coming in during, but they know what segment of the order they're expected to face and they should be able to follow the game closely enough to know when it's about to be their turn. They're each given scouting reports on the handful of hitters they're expected to get out and should be more than prepared to get those guys out. Second, I think the save is an entirely useless stat, but I do like having a set closer. Your team knowing "the guy" is coming in to shut the door is really helpful. The problem the Twins face is getting someone the team can have confidence in. And one who can throw back to back games without getting shelled the 2nd game (Rogers isn't a great closer cuz of that). Can Lopez be that guy? He was great in the first half and it certainly gives hope that he can be another failed starter turned lights out closer. I'd like to see a 2nd lights out arm to pair with him, though. As insurance and, best case scenario, an 8th-9th inning shutdown duo that turns playoff games into 7 innings games. I'm sure people would like Duran as the closer, or 2nd shutdown arm that I was just talking about, but I like him in his fireman role. I think his ability to come in and clean up and inning or wipe out the top of their order in the highest leverage of situations is a huge weapon. I'd also like him to be used for multiple innings sometimes when one of the other 2 shutdown guys aren't available. I'd keep Duran as the fireman (or future starter) and find 2 shutdown guys to put at the end of the game.

In 2 extra starts in 2021 he had 1 more start where he went into the 6th, 0 extra starts where he completed the 6th, and 1 more start that he completed the 5th. I acknowledged that there were games they pulled him too early, but those numbers aren't that impressive. The obvious argument is that 2021 was coming off the shortened season so they were being careful with him. My argument is that that's what the Twins were doing in 2022 based on in season injuries. When you look at the starts he had in 2022 where he was pulled after 5 without giving up 3 runs you see the starts on May 7 and June 15th were both his first start back after an injury, and within 2 starts he was up to 6+ inning starts in both cases. In fact after the 4 innings, 0 earned start on May 7th he went 4.1 and 2 earned on May 13, then went 6 innings, 7 innings, 6 innings on May 18, 24, and 29 before hurting his pec in that start on the 29th and missing more time. So I'd say they were letting him build back up into more innings after a shortened spring training that saw him start even later than the rest of the league due to the trade. It was early in the year so they gave him 2 games to work back up to 6 innings. After 3 starts of 6+ innings he was hurt again. He came back and went 5 innings, 4 innings (3 earned, 4 total allowed), then 7 innings. He followed that up with 3 ok, to really bad starts then was at 6 innings again before finishing the year with a bunch of 5 or 6 inning starts before going on the IL again. Sonny Gray isn't a workhorse. I think they had very good reason to pull him early a couple times in May/June after he had hit the IL after just 2 starts to begin the year. There was some load management for him, and I think they were too conservative with him a few times when they were still in the hunt, but when you go game by game through it there was good reason for why his numbers look the way they did.

There were times they pulled him when they certainly could've let him go longer, but there were also a number of short starts that bring his inning per start numbers down because he either got rocked and didn't make it that deep or he got hurt and that shortened things. Sonny Gray is not a workhorse starter. He hasn't been for years. There's definitely some games where I wished they'd have let him go longer, but he's also someone who's proven for most of his career that he's not going to throw 160+ (only topped it 4 times in his whole career) innings, let alone 200. I think the Twins were trying to get a higher number of starts out of him than having him go deeper in a smaller number of starts. He's just not the workhorse people want him to be. Hasn't been for a long time. It's why he's make 12.5 mil and not 20+.

Sonny Gray isn't considered an ace, though. Sonny Gray hasn't averaged 6 innings a start since 2017. He became a fulltime starter in 2014 and in his 9 seasons he's averaged 6 innings a start 3 times. His first 2 seasons he averaged 6.6 and 6.7 innings per start. Since then he's gone 5.3, 6, 5.6, 5.6, 5.1, 5.2, and finally 5 with the Twins last year. He's been with 4 teams now, and other than his first 2 seasons he's been used basically the same way with all 4 of them. We need to quit with this talk that the Twins were doing something crazy with Gray last year and he is super mad about it. Were there starts that he was pulled before he should have been? Absolutely. Did that likely upset him? Absolutely. But his overall body of work was pretty much right in line with who he's been for years now. And it produced his 2nd best ERA since 2015.

Murphy's first 4 seasons look pretty comparable to Realmuto's. Realmuto got traded with only 1 year of control left (if I'm remembering correctly). He brought back the Phillies starting catcher (Jorge Alfaro) who'd been with the team for part of 3 years like Jeffers has been with the Twins. But Alfaro was significantly better than Jeffers has been. They also got the Phillies #1 prospect (Sixto Sanchez) who was also a top 20 global prospect at the time. The last piece was a toss in flier arm in Low-A (Will Stewart). With the extra control the Twins would get they'd have to at least match this level of deal. So 1 young MLB starter (Arraez?), an elite prospect (Lewis or Lee?), and a flier arm (Raya or Medina? these types of fliers are hard to predict), plus probably another flier prospect since Lewis and Lee aren't as valuable as Sixto was back then. Do we think that's worth it? Arraez, Lewis, Medina, Flier A ball player for Murphy is probably what it takes.

Will be interesting to see how this changes the game and team over the next few years. I wouldn't expect the Twins to go out and reshape a bunch of the roster this offseason for these changes, but over the next few years it wouldn't be surprising to see a balancing of the roster to include more guys who can take a base here and there.

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have known that you responding to my post (no, you didn't quote me, but you clearly responded to my question about cheering for Correa) and having a different, very strongly worded, view wasn't you combatting my view. That's my mistake. I guess we're only allowed to repeat ourselves if we're going on moral superiority rants about how we care about more than winning ballgames because we watched the Twins teams in the 60s and didn't just hear about them. These are good notes and I'll be sure to keep them in mind for next time.