Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,590

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    169

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by chpettit19

  1. chpettit19
    Where do you think Dan Hayes got the "unwilling to give Buxton a full no trade clause in the talks in July" from? So my Dan Hayes quotes aren't good because they come from an agent, team officials, and Buxton, but yours are good because they come from an agent, team officials, or Buxton? Feels a little off. But I'm still not sure what you think that quote is proving. Your original stance was "I had heard the Twins walked away from the same deal before the deadline." Is your argument now that everything was the same except the no trade clause? Are you arguing that the Twins rejected the same financial terms in July and then accepted those terms while also adding a no trade clause? You don't think the no trade clause was part of negotiations that was tied to some financials? Is your stance that Buxton wanted to be here so much that he waited until the Twins made no real effort to sign any high priced pitchers in FA and then they felt they were backed into a corner and had to sign Buxton so they threw in a no trade clause to get him to accept the deal that was on the table in July? Because following your chain of comments that seems to be what you're suggesting.
  2. chpettit19
    I assume he wanted one. I assume every player wants one. What does that have to do with anything? I mean you've provided no explanation for your stance on anything other than maybe you heard Gleeman and the Geek say something once. I've provided literal quotes from Buxton's agent and can link the Hayes article if you have an Athletic subscription.
  3. chpettit19
    I'm aware of what you're talking about. Your claim is that Buxton's team offered this exact contract extension to the Twins before the deadline and they turned it down, but later accepted it. I'm telling you that Dan Hayes wrote an article covering 56 months worth of negotiations between the Twins and Buxton's reps. And nowhere in it does anyone say this deal was on the table before the deadline, but instead it came to fruition because Buxton wanted to be here and Thad kept working with Buxton's people to come up with a creative contract to make it happen. So until you can come up with actual quotes from people involved I'm going to choose to believe the Hayes' article and those people quoted in it.
  4. chpettit19
    Would be very interested to hear that quote if you can find it. The Hayes article suggested no such thing and he had quotes from just about everybody you can think of from FO personnel to Buxton to his reps.
  5. chpettit19
    I'm getting more and more nervous as the hours tick by. Once the FA flood gates open (likely after Freeman signs I'd think) I'll be even more nervous as names come off the board and there's still no starting SS for the Twins. Just sign Story (or Correa!) and let my blood pressure go back down!
  6. chpettit19
    Where did you hear that? The incredibly detailed article Dan Hayes wrote for The Athletic about the negotiations over the last handful of years certainly didn't paint that picture. "The effort surprised even Buxton's representatives" is a rather telling quote from that article. “There were times we thought, ‘That’s it. They’re not going to call back,’” Goetz said. “And they did. Thad was the front-runner, he was the guy who pioneered the whole thing. … Our willingness to be open all the way through this and Thad saying ‘I’m not giving up’ (got this done).” Goetz being Al Goetz, one of Buxton's agents. That certainly sounds like Thad Levine was doing a bunch of work to keep Buxton in town.
  7. chpettit19
    AK seems reasonable to have as part of plan A. I'm not a fan of Rooker at all so I'd be good cutting him today, but that'd be a waste so they should at least wait until they sign/trade for someone. Gordon is a reasonable enough UTIL guy I think. He's not the best end of the bench player in the league, but I think he's serviceable enough due to his ability to play all over the field. Agree on Larnach, Celestino, and Miranda starting in AAA, and I think that's likely the actual plan (the timing of this article seems poor to me, I have to believe there's more moves coming that would drastically change what things look like). As for the pitchers, that's just the nature of the 40-man beast. I thought bringing a 40-man roster guy back in the Garver-IKF trade was weird, but it happens. I think the Twins are likely willing to DFA Thorpe without much concern if/when they bring in another arm. But there's no reason to do it until you need to. But those are all arms worthy of protecting on the 40-man until you have a more proven option to replace them. I just don't think (hope?) the current 40-man is the one we'll see come April 7 (and hopefully it's changed by Thursday when they start playing ST games). So I think this is more about this article being poorly timed and looking at a project in the middle of being completed and trying to draw conclusions when there isn't enough of the picture to truly draw conclusions.
  8. chpettit19
    What should Plan B look like in your mind?
  9. chpettit19
    I don't disagree. I think it is likely a core part of their team building strategy to not spend big money on pitching extensions or free agents. At this point it seems silly to me to continue to beat the dead horse of the FO not spending on big money arms. They're not going to do it so why discuss it as a possibility when it clearly isn't?
  10. chpettit19
    That's fair, but doesn't change the situation. We don't know the behind the scenes of why he wasn't going to sign an extension here. Maybe the FO lowballed him (wouldn't be surprised), maybe he didn't want to stay in Minneapolis, maybe he really was planning on testing FA. We'll never know. But if they wouldn't/couldn't extend him it made no sense to hold onto him during a lost season and turn down a package like they got in return.
  11. chpettit19
    I was replying to a comment where the other person compared the trades. Your comment was quite productive, though. Thanks.
  12. chpettit19
    I think he likely has a stint or 2 on the IL each of the next 2 years. Kind of reminds me of Pineda in that he'll be rock solid when he's available, but likely goes down for 2 weeks at some point. He's a good pitcher, but certainly not an ace and isn't a difference maker on his own. Weird deal if this is the roster on April 7.
  13. chpettit19
    For what timeframe? This year or the next 6? That's the question. They weren't going to extend Berrios, that is now abundantly clear. So you'd only have Berrios for this year. If that's still your stance that's totally fine. I don't see the logic in it, but to each their own.
  14. chpettit19
    Really hard to compare innings between the AL and NL when the pitchers hit and were taken out of games for pinch hitters while AL pitchers didn't have to worry about that.
  15. chpettit19
    If you're comparing/combining the trades it was Berrios and Petty for Gray, Martin, and SWR. Now I don't like the Gray trade if they aren't going out and adding more (Story and another pitcher) for this year as he doesn't add nearly enough to compete yet. But as a comparison of the trades the Twins came out with a similar ML pitcher with an extra year of control for cheap, a 5th overall pick, and a borderline top 100 prospect while giving up the ML pitcher with less control and a 26th overall pick. That's a win for the Twins in a vacuum.
  16. chpettit19
    Man, some people really ride the rollercoaster on these moves. I've given up predicting where this offseason will go. Was pretty neutral on the first couple trades as they looked to be deals to fill specific holes on the current roster, but I wasn't overly excited as I didn't think they moved the needle much. With this move I'm just going to sit back and see what the opening day roster looks like because there's clearly more at play. Moving JD's contract as a salary dump makes no sense after bringing Gray in for Petty so to me it looks pretty obvious they're planning more. Let's see where things are by the end of the week when they start playing some ST games, and, more importantly, April 7 when they host the Mariners.
  17. chpettit19
    Just some FYIs...Kevin Gausman signed a 5 year 110M deal with the Blue Jays before the lockout so I'm guessing you're thinking someone else. Kiner-Falefa is likely not on the trade block anymore after the Ranger's top 3B prospect (Josh Jung), who was supposed to fight for the opening day job at 3B had surgery on his shoulder a couple weeks ago so he's out until August and I'm guessing they'll want to hold onto Kiner-Falefa now.
  18. chpettit19

    What the what??

    chpettit19 commented on Doc Munson's blog entry in Fantasy GM

    They're saying "let's not let this hurdle hold up the entire deal." Not sure how that's a bad thing. They are saying if they agree to the rest of the CBA they'll sign the deal now and give themselves a few more months to figure out the international draft. If they can't agree on it by July 15 they'll readdress it in the next CBA. Not sure how this is a bad thing. This is the most "fan friendly" move they've made in trying to get a deal done today instead of fighting over this 1 last thing.
  19. chpettit19
    Yikes. That's an absolutely brutal run of 1st round picks (even if Buxton didn't have his injury problems and was winning MVPs). Stewart, Gordon, Jay is awful. Jay is by far the worst, though. You can't take a college reliever 6th overall. So bad.
  20. chpettit19
    Will be interesting to see what the rule on shifts becomes exactly and what that does to Kepler's BA.
  21. chpettit19
    And they apparently can't afford their homegrown superstar first baseman on "only" 104M in profit...
  22. chpettit19
    CBT for the top or bottom spenders based on arbitrary numbers (100M floor or 238M "cap") doesn't help the players in terms of their overall cut of the revenue pie. Why do people assume if you put a 100M floor out there that the teams at the bottom of the spending spectrum would go out and sign "middle class" players and wouldn't just be going after the big name guys and running out a team with 2 guys at 30M and a bunch of guys at the minimum (like the Rangers are about to do)? If I'm the owner of the Pirates and you're going to make me spend 100M I'm not going out and signing 3 Pineda's for 15M a piece, I'm signing a Max Scherzer for 45M. He'll sell more tickets and jerseys than the 3 Pineda's combined which puts more money in my pocket. So the goal of spreading the money around to all players still isn't met. FOs are too smart and understand the goal is to get the most wins for the least amount of dollars. The low revenue teams signing some of the big guys just means the teams at the top would be spending less. You can argue that's better for the game, but I don't buy the argument that that's what the players should be fighting for because it'd be better for all players. Eddie Rosario types wouldn't suddenly be worth 15M a year. The NFL and NBA (and I believe NHL) base their cap situations on league revenue and the negotiations during the CBA talks are over what cut goes to the players to set the floor and cap. It's true that the players don't want a cap because they want to be able to have players make as much as possible and that's easier to accomplish when you let the Cohen's of the world loose to spend like crazy. But the owners don't want one either. At least not in the NBA and NFL style where they have to open their books and share revenue numbers with the PA. Of course the owners want a 100M floor and 180M cap. The teams receiving revenue sharing are still subsidized by the big money teams, and those big money teams would make ludicrous amounts of money by not being allowed to spend more than the 180 cap.
  23. chpettit19
    What does the average team in baseball make every year outside of 2020?
  24. chpettit19
    Except both sides have agreed to expanded playoffs to increase league wide revenue, and revenue for teams who actually build good teams. The MLBPA agreed to allowing more advertising opportunities for the owners with helmet decals and/or jersey patches. I have no problem with you being "on the owners side," but you're misrepresenting a lot in this thread. Edited to add MLB just added another revenue stream with Apple TV+ and have thus restricted viewing access even more while pocketing what one could only assume is a massive amount of money. Those owners really out there losing tons of money in the name of bettering the game.
  25. chpettit19
    You're misrepresenting the situation here. They haven't agreed to all of those things at the same time. That combination of things has never, and will never, be part of 1 offer. You've picked and chosen different concessions they've made at different times, but aren't representing any singular offer the owners have made. For example they never agreed to raise the CBT 30% while also implementing a 100MM floor. I don't direct my negative feelings at only the owners, I have negative feelings for all involved. It's greed on all sides creating this problem. Both sides are to blame for this and neither of them truly have the best interests of baseball or the fans at heart. The pre-arb bonus pool the owners are willing to do right now is $1MM per team. Let's not act like that's some sort of massive concession on their part. And that 30% increase to the CBT still wouldn't get them even close to matching the increase in revenue they've seen. The CBT has gone from $117MM to $210MM from 2003 to 2021 while revenue has gone from 3.8 billion in 2003 to 10.37 in 2019. The players are certainly trying to play catchup after getting smashed in the last couple CBAs, but I can't blame them too much while I also can't give the owners too much credit for still not increasing the CBT anywhere close to in line with the rise in revenues.
×
×
  • Create New...