chpettit19

Baseball won't be hurt until the TV contracts quit growing. When will that be? I don't know nearly enough to even guess, but I find it hard to believe their next one will keep up with inflation as they see their viewership continue to decline. Baseball has been so miserable at content creation and providing their fans with access to the game. They deserve this. Unfortunately the fans don't deserve this, but they're stuck with it anyways. Baseball (owners and players) should be embarrassed.

I'd expect them to use the same sort of data this year that they did last year. Tracking spin rate, release point, velo, etc. to see when he starts tiring in each start and make their decision on when to take him out based on that. I think they'll use it for all their young starters, and maybe even Bundy, Cotton, etc. I'd think their goal will be to get 32 or 33 starts out of him. The length of those starts based on the tracking of a variety of in game data points. I'd expect him to be up and down, like any pitcher. I'm not suggesting he should be viewed as any sort of savior or stud rotation arm, but I find it overly, and unnecessarily, negative for h20 to suggest he shouldn't be viewed as someone who can stick in the majors. An up and down season with some clunker starts, but more very good starts and an ERA around 4 seems more than reasonable based on his minor league track record and his performance over 20+ starts last year. He could certainly fall apart, just like is a risk with any other player, but I didn't see anything last year to suggest he shouldn't be counted on as a #4 or 5 pitcher this year with the chance to be a #3 type in the prime of his career. I like Sands as a sleeper pick. His walks give me a little pause, but in a bunch of 4 inning appearances I'd think he could do very well next year. It'll be a fun season (if we have one) watching young guys test themselves against the best of the best. Don't expect a world series run, but should have some fun stretches where the young guns are all dialed in for the same stretch and can provide some glimmer of hope for the future.

That's not really a reason why he won't stick. What about his pitches, performance, mechanics, etc. lead you to believe he can't get major league hitters out anymore? The hitters he faced in the show last year weren't MiLB hitters either. He faced the White Sox 5 times last year. In his 5th start against them he went 5.1 innings allowed 0 runs and won the game 1-0. So the best team in the division saw him 5 times and he was still able to slice them up his 5th time seeing them. That's at least a little sign of hope that he can be a #3-5 arm in a rotation is it not? Against the Sox last year he gave up 4 (ML debut), 5, 0, 3, and 0 earned runs. He actually got much better as the year went on and teams got tape on him. Certainly not suggesting he's going to have a 2.5 career ERA, but I don't get why it'd amaze you that people think Ober can stick. Over his last 10 starts he gave up 1, 3, 0, 2, 0, 2, 2, 3, 4, 1 earned runs while averaging 4.9 innings per start. He had a 3.31 ERA in what was essentially an average length start in terms of innings (average AL start last year was 5.0 innings). Seems rather reasonable to expect someone who dominated the minors, improved as his rookie year went on, and dominated the best team in the division as he faced them more to be able to stick in the majors.

You're again assuming they're spending to their limit now. Do you know that 40M wouldn't have just put them up to 45% of revenue being spent on payroll? Do you know they didn't just pocket an extra 40M in extra profit that they could've spent and still pocketed 100M (or whatever you or they find to be an acceptable profit for the year)? Why should I, as a fan, care if that 40M incremental spending would do a lot or a little for their revenue if they're pocketing 150M in profit each year? That's the argument the players are making. The teams are claiming they can't spend an extra 40M cuz they don't have it. They say they aren't making enough, or any, profit year over year. The players are calling them liars. I tend to agree with the players. If there was no profit in baseball billionaires would quit buying teams and running them like businesses. If the Twins stick at 90ish million for their payroll in 2022 I'm going to be pissed. Not because I think the extra 30 or 40M means they're going to win the world series, but because I don't watch the Twins or pay astronomical prices to go to games for the Pohlads to pocket an extra 30 to 40M each year. The Twins can spend in the 120-140 range with ease and the Pohlads still pocket 10s, if not 100s, of millions a year off them. I want an extra 40M spent to add 5 wins even if those 5 wins get the Twins to a 75 win record.

They're all raking in money and more than happy with the status quo. If they weren't they'd be the ones pushing for change. It annoys me to no end when Manfred gets up there and says the owners are fighting for more competitive balance and to attempt to stop tanking. JUST STOP TANKING! They control their teams. If they want to get rid of tanking just quit doing it. But that isn't their goal. Their goal is to make money. Which I get. Takes money to run a team. But quit acting like the players are the ones stopping you from not tanking. Just quit doing it.

I've given you an explanation a number of times. You are working on the assumption that low payroll teams are spending to their limits, and not just to make profits while spending far less than they could. I, and clearly the MLBPA, reject that assumption. I think the low payroll teams could spend significantly more if they chose to, or were forced to. Raising the CBT would allow the big boys to have an even wider advantage at first, yes. But those low spending teams would adjust how they run their teams. Where people truly differ from you is the idea that the gap in parity is one of need and not one of profit driven greed by a subset of owners who are happy to deposit their revenue sharing checks directly into their bank accounts and not into the product on the field. I'm a proponent of a hard cap and floor as that forces teams to spend. Players aren't because it caps the top of the market salaries. Owners aren't because it forces them to open their books. But beyond that the best way to get the tanking teams to quit tanking is to make it less profitable to tank. Or preferably to make it not at all profitable to tank. As a Twins fan I don't want the rules changed to pander to the Pohlads and their pocket book padding. While the rules are in place I want them to use the best strategy possible within those rules to try to build a sustainable winner. But when it comes to the CBA I want it to force the Pohlads (and every owner) to be competitive and try to win. I realize that won't happen because they're mostly business people trying to make a profit, but it doesn't mean I think we should kill the competitive spirit of the owners who actually care about winning. So I say make it a bad business move to not try to win by letting the big boys go balls to the wall on trying to win. See how quickly the Pohlads are able to spend a little more when they can't be profitable without winning.

Them only sharing it with the league doesn't solve the problem of the players not trusting them and them being able to cry poor when they aren't. That's the entire problem. The players think the teams are making X but the league says they're making Y. A bottom CBT based off Y doesn't solve the problem of the players still wanting it based on X. If the teams won't open their books there's no way to execute your plan that actually changes the teams at the bottom being more competitive. And I don't see how your proposal is any different than a floor. If you're going to tax the people at the bottom it would act the exact same as the arbitrary floor. Telling Pittsburgh they have to spend 50% of revenue on the major league payroll still leads them to spending $X more than they normally would've on veterans like Simmons. I fail to see any difference. If you're forcing people to spend more than they want the problem remains the same. Unless, as I said before, you're assuming the low revenue teams are currently spending so little because they are truly making that much less. So the answer really becomes a floor and cap or you scrap all the CBT or revenue sharing rules and make the teams try to be competitive every year to earn their fan's money. If revenue sharing is going to be a thing you need a floor and cap if you want to force more competition. Just a cap does nothing. As we've seen since it's been implemented. I'd also bet that if you put any sort of floor in and forced Pittsburgh to spend the extra 35M they'd change the strategy for rebuilding. Teams rebuild this way because they can make a ton of money by convincing their fans this is the best way to do it. The reality is they've got a bunch of real smart people who dig through the CBA with a fine tooth comb and find every way to take advantage of every rule. Change the rules and they'll change their strategy. Based on the current rules I have no desire for the Twins to trade prospects for major leaguers, but I do want them to spend to their normal levels. Building through the system being the best way to build for a team unable (unwilling?) to spend doesn't mean you can't spend on the major league team, too. Picks aren't why teams refuse to spend on payroll, money is. Nobody hits on enough high first round picks for it to be a great strategy for picks alone. Trading veterans for more prospects is part of tanking, but you have to get good veterans in order to trade them anyways which means you should pay some veterans to get the good ones. Teams don't spend because they don't want/have to. They have no motivation to put a better product on the field because they're guaranteed to make money either way. Take away their safety blanket. Change the rules. And they'll change how they build their teams.

My concern with that is that it leads to the same problems we have now of the teams saying they're broke and the players calling them liars. The owners are never going to open their books for anything less than a hard cap/floor situation and I don't know if they'd even do it then. Their ability to work in the grey areas of what constitutes baseball revenue and what doesn't is something I don't think they'd give up lightly.

How do you determine who is spending enough not to be taxed and who isn't? Same way as the CBT? So you put in an arbitrary number and the teams have to stay above it to not be taxed? So you're proposing a soft floor to go with the soft ceiling?

I'll start by saying I'm a fan of cap/floor based off revenues, but that'll never happen because neither side wants it. And I want to shrink the disparity between high and low revenue teams. But you're coming at things from the idea that owners are spending what they can and low revenue teams are so far behind because they have to be. I think the MLBPA disagrees with that stance. I think they think lower revenue teams could spend more and choose not to. And I can't totally disagree with that. Especially since we already pretty well know that low revenue teams don't even spend their revenue sharing money back into the payroll. The MLBPA seems to be looking to take the bumpers away from the low revenue teams and make them actually compete. Do you disagree that the Twins would make more money if they filled Target Field more? The MLBPA is basically arguing that they should lose revenue sharing and force them to actually do things to improve their product and get fans in the stands. Revenue sharing takes away the competition and allows certain owners to make money off the owners who are truly trying to compete. I don't want them to neuter Cohen, et al and their big spending. Forcing the top teams to quit trying so hard has clearly not lead to the bottom teams trying harder. You want to see teams actually try to win? Take away their safety blanket and make them actually have to perform to earn their money. Maybe the compromise is to keep the CBT level for this CBA while lowering revenue sharing. Give the Pirates, Rays, Guardians, and Twins of the world a 5 year runway to adjust how they do things without their safety blankets from the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees. Then for the next CBA you fight for dramatic increases to the CBT and let the big boys eat.

He certainly hasn't lived up to the expectations of being the next Miguel Cabrera. He's been a good major league player, but not the 3 hole hitting, .300 BA, 40 HR guy people had in their dreams. From the outside he never seemed to have the desire or "need" to be a great hitter, but was happy being a good power hitter. I wonder what he may have been if he were 10-15 years older and played in the era just before this and 200 Ks a year was still somewhat embarrassing and people still cared a lot about BA. He fell in love with 450 foot HRs and slugging % which played right into this era of baseball. But when he's been at his best he's sprayed the ball all over with a nice short swing. He's disappointed, but still been more than useful during his Twins career.

I'm not backing off anything. You picked out one sentence from a much longer post then proceeded to ignore all context and misrepresent what I've been saying. It is the comparison I've been making. You're the one who's been misrepresenting what I've been saying. So I'll stick with what I've been saying since the very beginning and I'll take the entire Twins farm system over Frankie Montas for 2 years. My point is that he isn't good enough to drastically change the Twins outlook for 2022 or 2023 (which you seem to agree with) so you don't risk trading the 1 or 2 arms that turn into good big leaguers (if you only think 1 or 2 will). And I'll stick with my statement that the Twins have a plan to put a competitive staff together, it just doesn't look like what you (apparently) and many other fans want it to. And "known commodities" simply have more/different data to make an educated guess on. I've already listed at least a dozen (probably, I'm not going to go back and count) "known commodities" over the last 2 to 3 seasons that have been no better than prospects. Some of which have become far worse than the average prospect debut while making significantly more.

1.6 million prospects aren't expected to make an impact in the big leagues. I'm not suggesting prospects have an equal chance of becoming productive big leaguers the way you're suggesting I am. You're blatantly ignoring what I'm actually saying to twist it to your narrative. I won't pick out 2 minor league pitchers to compete against Montas for the next 2 years because that's not the point I'm making. Again, you're blatantly ignoring what I'm actually saying. I'll take the top 12 Twins prospect arms for the next 2 years (plus the minimum 4 after that that they're still controlled) over Montas for the next 2. Deal? I bet my 12 produce more WAR in a Twins uniform than Montas does in the next 2 years for whatever team(s) he's on. Montas won't be enough to swing the Twins fortunes in 2022 or 2023. That's where I started with things. I then responded to the idea that he, or someone like him, is a sure thing and the only way the Twins could be seen as trying to win is by trading multiple prospects, plus Arraez, for a "known commodity" like Montas as if he's guaranteed to produce like he did in his career year of 2021. I've pointed out a number of examples that that idea is completely false and just makes fans feel better while stockpiling the prospects is the better option at this point precisely because of the reason you give in your post ("I don't think trading for Montas, for example, will get the Twins far in 2022 or 2023"). So I'll take Balazovic, SWR, Duran, Ryan, Petty, Canterino, Enlow, Winder, Sands, Vallimont, Hajjar, and Strotman over the first 6 years of their major league careers vs Montas for the next 2 in total WAR. Deal? I'll even let you pick which site's WAR we use. You name whatever large amount of money you want and I'll take that bet.

If they're going to ban "shifts" I hope the rule they put in place is that you need to have 4 guys "on the dirt." That gets the game a little closer to how we all grew up playing it. 2 guys on each side of the bag doesn't really do much to change things as the SS or 2B can still stand basically behind second and take away those up the middle hits. But 4 guys on the dirt stops the missiles to right being caught by the 2B playing 45 feet into the grass. I'm not a proponent of banning shifts, though. Teach your guys to take a 2 strike approach every now and then if it's such a hinderance. Have more tricks in your bag to be able to adjust to game situations. Unless the problem really is that pitching has just gotten too good (high velo, movement, etc.) that we're testing the bounds of the human ability to hit it. But we see guys shorten up and go the other way all the time so I don't think that's the case yet. Down 2, guys on 1 and 2 in the 7th with a lefty up and they shift all the way over? Lay down a bunt. I don't feel bad for you hitting into the shift if the game situation says taking an easy single on the bunt to put the tying run in scoring position is a reasonable play. Top 1, 2 outs, nobody on and you want to hack away to try to launch? Have at it. It's your best chance to score that inning. There's always going to be guys who are limited and can't both pull for power and go the other way. Those guys are just screwed. You're going to get shifted. I don't blame a team for taking away your 1 trick if that's all you have. They're not going to force Joe Ryan to not throw anymore than 50% fastballs by rule. Have more tricks and it isn't a problem. Don't take all strategy out of the game to make the lesser players better. Joey Gallo is good enough to hit the other way if he wants with 2 strikes. He just doesn't want to.

The Rays rely on prospects and unproven players every year while throwing out one of the best pitching staffs in baseball every year. The Giants made a bunch of reclamation project signings that many fans on here would've bitched and moaned about for months and had the best record in baseball last year. The Braves refused to trade any of their young arms and built their rotation through having a ton of prospects and having a few turn out. The Padres traded for a whole bunch of "known commodities" and were league average and missed the playoffs. There's a difference between it being true and your comfort level with that plan. The truth is the Mariners and Padres have been "winning offseasons" for a decade by bringing in "known commodities" and one has the longest postseason draught in baseball and the other has underachieved at every turn. You may not like it, but I can go on and on and on listing "known commodities" that have failed and young, unknown players who have succeeded. During Jaime Garcia's career with St Louis (which ran until 2017 when he signed with the Braves for his age 30 season before the Twins traded for him) he had a 3.57 ERA in 147 starts. Known commodity! ERA with the Braves: 4.30. Twins: 4.05. Yankees: 4.82. Cubs: 4.70. Blue Jays: 5.93. Patrick Corbin was a "known commodity" before the Nationals signed him to a 6 year 140M deal. He's been well below league average after his 1 good season with them. I can go on and on. FA's and trades are not sure things. They make fans feel better, but they're just as much an educated guess as prospects. There's just more data to base your guess on.

My point is that this idea that some fans present of the only options the Twins having for competing in 2022, or the even worse premise of the only way the FO can be said to actually be trying, is if they trade for these "known commodities" is false. That's the general idea of this piece. People throw around the names of As and Reds pitchers and Rodon as if we just need to snag one or 2 of those guys and suddenly then we have a chance even if the prospects don't hit. That's not true. 1. because the As and Reds pitchers, or Rodon, are far from sure things, and 2. the prospects are the key to anything 2022 and beyond no matter who they'd bring in. The Twins rotation is so far from being competitive on paper that it doesn't make any sense to trade any of the prospect arms for major league guys because the major league guys being discussed are nowhere near sure things and they need as many shots at hitting on prospects as possible. If you trade the 2 who become legit MLB starters and are stuck with the 8 to 10 who aren't, getting Montas and Rodon (just picking random names) doesn't do anything for 2022 and now you're stuck in an even worse spot (news flash: this FO isn't extending anyone they trade for) moving forward as you don't have anyone in the rotation who's a "known commodity" and you're out of prospects. The FO wouldn't get credit for "trying" by making those moves and the fans would be calling for their heads. During the offseason fans just want to feel like the team is trying. I see people on here everyday saying the FO has no plan because the plan the FO pretty clearly has isn't the one they want executed. Fans want names they know because they feel like they're sure things. They aren't. At all. 1 to 1 someone with major league success has a better chance of being successful moving forward, but 12 prospects to 1 major leaguer with prior success isn't the same math. Especially the guys being thrown around as targets. They're called "front of the rotation" pieces on here like we're talking deGrom or Scherzer as targets. We're talking about guys who have been #2 and 3s and had up and down careers, or no sustained success, but fans are so enamored with their names that they're convinced that's the only way the Twins can succeed. The Twins have a massive hole at SS. Pretty darn big one in LF. And a whole bunch all over the pitching staff. This piece is suggesting that trading prospects for an "ace" isn't smart because there's so many other holes that the team wouldn't be competitive even with that "ace" (ace is in quotes because nobody the fans are suggesting the Twins target are aces. If the Reds and As were loaded with aces they would've been in the playoffs last year). I'm adding that these "aces" aren't the sure things and rotation savers some fans are suggesting they are. Bringing in arms with 1 or 2 years of control left who are at best #2 starters as defacto aces isn't the recipe for success some people are making it out to be. It's a comfort blanket for fans to feel like the team is doing something. I'm not interested in a comfort blanket for 2022 to appease fans but hurts their real chances for sustained success. Using SD's rotation is just evidence of my argument that these trades aren't the sure things fans are making them out to be.

He's not known. There's no such thing. He's a higher data pool educated guess. Every player is. Albert Pujols was a "known commodity" when the Angels signed him. They most definitely did not get what they were expecting. Blake Snell was a "known commodity" for the Padres last year. They were expecting 2ish production based on a track record, albeit limited. They got a worse pitcher than Bailer Ober. Yu Darvish was also a "known commodity" for the Padres last year. They were expecting 2ish production based on a track record, and not a limited one. They got a worse pitcher than Bailey Ober. JA Happ was a "known commodity" for the Twins last year. They were expecting 4ish production based on a track record, and not a limited one. They didn't get anywhere close to that. Alexander Colome was a "known commodity" for the Twins last year. They were expecting league average or better closer production based on a track record, and not a limited one. They got nowhere near that. There's no such thing as a known commodity in professional sports. Christian Yelich, Cody Bellinger, Trevor Bauer, Luis Castillo, Francisco Lindor, Nelson Cruz (after his trade to the Rays), and I can go on and on and on listing "known commodities" that were anything but. There's no such thing. There's players that make fans feel better and front offices have more confidence in, but there's nothing known. That's the entire point of sports. Look no further than the Padres to see how "winning the offseason" and bringing in a bunch of high paid FAs or big prospect capital trades of "known commodities" is no more a sure thing than throwing 5-7 arms into a rotation that's Dylan Bundy and nobody else. It just makes fans feel better that their teams are actually "trying."

There's no such thing as a known commodity. In this piece Montas was the guy in the suggested trade. Have you checked out his career numbers? He's far from a known commodity. He was very good last year. Really bad in 2020. Good, but hurt in 2019. He's started more than 16 games exactly 1 time in his 5 year major league career. Does he provide less risk than the prospects? For sure. But people seem to think you're guaranteed to get a top 6 Cy Young finisher if you trade for him. You're not. The prospects on any team are the fulcrum. Ask the Yankees how easy it is to build a WS contender without hitting on your prospects. Ask the Dodgers. Ask literally every major league baseball team. If the Twins get 0 big league pitching out of their current crop they're toast no matter what. The prospects are the absolute key to the franchise. Always have been. Always will be. I'm certainly not suggesting to never trade them. Should be willing to trade anyone at anytime if the price is right. But suggesting banking on prospects is some kind of crazy strategy is to ignore the entire philosophy of major league baseball in the 21st century.

That is a plan. In fact that's every major league baseball team's plan. You just don't like that plan. No team builds their team entirely through trades for major leaguers or FA signings. Prospects hitting is the lifeblood of every major league organization. Hope is all any team has. Christian Yelich signed a really nice extension in Milwaukee after an MVP season and he's been basically league average since. Cody Bellinger was supposed to be the star of a Dodger lineup full of stars after his MVP season and he's been well below league average since. The Padres traded everyone outside their top 3 prospects for pitching, pitching, and more pitching and they were basically a league average pitching team that missed the playoffs after collapsing because all that pitching failed for 1 reason or another. The Braves built their pitching staff by refusing to trade any pitching prospects. The Giants grabbed a bunch of reclamation projects to fill their rotation. One of them won the world series and the other had the best record in baseball last year. Trading for Montas or any other starter is still just having "hope" as a plan. Yes, you have a better data pool on your hope for success when you get guys who have had major league success before, but it's still just hope. You seem to be confusing previous ML success with future ML success. Every team's plan is hope. Trading for Montas this season doesn't guarantee he throws up a 3.37 ERA in 32 starts in 2022 since before that he'd never made more than 16 major league starts. Trading for Luis Castillo doesn't guarantee you a 3.40 ERA in 32 starts like he had in 2019 since last year he had a 3.98 ERA in his 33 starts. Fans seem to be confusing trading for MLB vets as a sure thing compared to relying on a dozen plus prospect arms. It isn't. Blake Snell had a 4.20 ERA for the Padres last year after they traded for him to be the final piece to a WS puzzle. Would that type of performance save the 2022 Twins?

Trading stops a team from "finding out what they have." If you trade Duran you are no longer able to see what you have in Duran. The Twins could add FA pitching without losing the ability to see what they have in their prospects, but this thread is about trading for an ace. Trading a player stops you from finding out what you have with them. I'm not giving the FO a pass to waste a season while waffling, because I don't think they're waffling. I think they've had a plan in place since the last half of last year. I don't think the plan included spending large amounts of money on pitching in FA. I don't think the plan included trading any of the near ready prospect arms for veteran arms. I will hold them accountable if they produce no quality major league starters this season. If Ryan and Ober fall apart and no prospects step-up and claim future rotation spots I'll call for their jobs. But I don't see them as waffling so I won't hold them accountable for that. Their plan not matching what some fans want isn't waffling, it's having a different plan. Their plan looks crystal clear to me. It's just a matter of whether or not it works.

Does anyone know what his knee problems are? Polanco had ankle problems, but now everyone seems to think they're fixed as long as he stays at 2B. If we don't know what Arraez's knee problems are why do we assume they'll always be bad and/or get worse? Maybe others know what the issue is so that sentiment is based on knowing he has a degenerative disorder or something, but I don't recall seeing anything about it so I'm not ready to write his knees off until I know what causes the pain. If the knee issue is degenerative he may not be able to pass a new team's physical and isn't tradable. But I'll assume he could pass the physical. What do people think the Twins could actually get in return for a no power 3B/2B with bad knees? I'm certainly not trading anything close to a top of the rotation piece for that player if I'm another team. If Arraez can't be the headliner in a deal for a #1 or 2 pitcher then I don't see the value in trading him. If you're still going to have to give up a top 10 prospect plus another top 15 or 20 guy on top of Arraez I want way more control than any of the As or Reds pitchers people are clamoring for. Arraez is most definitely a valuable big league hitter, but his best position is 3B or DH, and not many teams are going to be willing to trade a legit big league pitcher for a package centered around a player with his profile. At least I wouldn't think so. It only takes one team, though. I also don't see him as redundant. The Twins have 5 guys I trust to be above average bats if healthy (JD, Polanco, Garver, Buxton, Arraez). The problem with all 5 of them is the "if healthy" part. I'm not betting my season on any of their health (maybe Polanco). I believe Kepler will continue to be his usual self and am happy with him in the 7-8-9 holes. Same with Sano. If either of them is hitting 6th I'm still ok. Miranda has never seen a major league pitch. I'm a huge believer in Kirilloff, but can he stay healthy? Wrists are killer for hitters. Jeffers is a bottom 3rd of the lineup guy. We don't even have a SS to discuss yet. Larnach needs more AAA time. Celestino does, too. I don't believe in Rooker at all, and he doesn't play defense anywhere. I'm a huge believer in Lewis, but he hasn't played in 2 years so I'm not betting 2022 on him blindly. Gordon is big league filler. Martin may be the guy to push Arraez out and make him redundant, but if he's primarily a LF then he doesn't push Arraez out of his 3B/2B/DH role. Yes, the Twins need pitching, but let's not pretend trading Arraez isn't a huge blow to the lineup that isn't as deep as we like to think with proven talent.

With shifts and better positioning 2B has become probably the lowest rung on the defensive ladder. So every team has this sort of situation as anyone who can catch a grounder relatively routinely can be moved to 2B and shifted to be effective. I mean Max Muncy is certainly not a typical 2B historically, but plays there a ton now. A glut of 2B only guys is not a great look. Some of those guys can move to the OF, though.

I don't disagree with the premise, and many others talk about going for Montas with the intention of extending him. Why do we think that'd be the move the Twins make? Unless you're expecting Montas to be an ace and take a team friendly 4 year deal why do we think the Twins would extend him? We could all think it'd be great for the Twins to sign guys like Berrios or Montas or whoever to long-term deals, but there's more than enough evidence to say that isn't a move this FO has any intention of making so why would we want them to trade for someone who they're not going to extend?

“We’re still evaluating him, to be honest,” Hassan said. “I feel really confident in his ability to play the outfield right now. He has real skill in the infield. He has the ability to make some plays. He played a lot of shortstop last year. If we had to say where his focus is going to be, especially early in camp, it’ll be on the infield and (we’ll) continue to refine him defensively.” That's from Gleeman's article on Martin today on The Athletic. I find it interesting that they're still seemingly very devoted to keeping him on the dirt. It makes sense that if you think he's already good enough to move to the OF you'd work on the IF stuff and see if you can't get him to stick there I guess. Later in the article Hassan is quoted as saying that they're focusing on him being a SS still, but he'll have the ability to move around the IF. So the Twins seemingly haven't given up on him being a SS. I find that interesting. Not good or bad, just interesting.

Let me have my lockout dreams! Haha, I don't really disagree with anything in there (other than Larnach was hurt at the end of the year so made sense he wasn't up). I don't see any of Rooker, Larnach, Gordon, Celestino, or Jeffers as possible stars. I see Martin and Lewis as possible stars so I'd much rather get them established as regulars going into 2023 so they can then work on becoming stars. I don't believe in Rooker at all, but would give him the first half of 2022 to prove me wrong. After that I'm fine DFAing him for Martin. I think Larnach will be a legit MLB hitter, but not a star. And if he does become a star with the bat he's the primary DH moving forward if they all reach their ceilings. Celestino has 4th OFer written all over him. If he exceeds that, cool, but I wouldn't worry about his ABs at the expense of possible stars. Basically I see it as if Martin and/or Lewis are destroying AA or AAA I get them to the majors and let them work out the kinks this year with the expectation of them being average to above average regulars next year. I don't want to slow their ascension because of guys I don't think have the chance to be above average regulars. I'm not giving Rooker an extra 100 ABs in the majors to work out the struggles if Martin or Lewis are ready.