chpettit19

Farmer is the starting shortstop on opening day unless they can swing a trade for an Adames level SS. And if they're going to make a trade for someone like that they better have the extension ready and waiting for that SS to sign. No desire to bring in Kim or Andrus or Iglesias or any of the other non-star type shortstops thrown around on these threads. They already have that guy and his name is Kyle Farmer. No need to have 2 of him. I don't think Swanson is worth the money he'll get so, to me, it's Farmer to Lewis or Lee or make a huge trade that I don't think is available for them (trading top end prospects at this point would be a desperate, job saving type move that would destroy this team for another decade and I hope ownership has told them they're not allowed to trade any of their top guys). Like others have said, I'm not as worried about who's playing SS specifically, just where they're going to find offense. There's a lot of people begging for more pitching when, to me, the offense is in far worse shape. Like bottom 5-8 in baseball levels. Buxton is a star, but will only play 80 games. Arraez is great at what he does, but only against righties and is very 1 dimensional (he's my favorite current Twin so don't yell at me, he just is who he is). Is Polanco on the decline or was he just hurt last year? Who is Miranda moving forward now that the league has data and video on him? This is when the challenge starts for him, adjust to the adjustments. Is there anyone else who even deserves to be discussed in the top 6 spots of a playoff offense? Kirilloff should be, but he's, very unfortunately, landed in the "believe it when we see it" bucket with that wrist. Can't at all count on him during the offseason, and not make moves because of him being on your roster. Same with Larnach and Lewis. Gordon, Lee, Julien, and Wallner are way too unproven (Gordon less so, but I need more than half a season to count on him). Same with Martin. Kepler, Farmer, and the catchers are bottom 3rd of the order guys. Celestino, Garlick, and Contreras wouldn't even be on my 40-man, let alone 26-man. To me, the Twins have 3 spots in the top 6 in the order locked down (half guy for Buxton and half guy for Miranda, plus Arraez and Polanco). I think they need 3 more bats. I don't care what position they play, but, if you're trying to compete in 2023, they need to improve on 3 guys pretty significantly. I just don't know how to do that since there's very few FAs left that would really help, and I want no part of trading prospects at this point since there's so many question marks to fill. Feels like it's time to turn it over to the young guns and form the new core. Not sure I want this FO running this re-tool, re-build, re-whatever you want to call it after the last couple years, though.

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.

It feels like a shakeup to the core/bringing in of the new core is on it's way. Sano already gone. Kepler feels like they have him packaged up and ready to ship out. Buxton not going anywhere. Polanco and Arraez both reportedly available in trades. Feels like they're attempting to put Buxton and Correa at the top of the lineup and turn the rest over to the youth. Maeda, Gray, Mahle holding their spots for the year while the youth start taking over the rotation when injuries occur then being gone after the year (I could see a Mahle extension, though). It just feels like they're ready to make some drastic moves if they can get the right return. Hopefully being more mindful of injury concerns and limiting the number of "injury prone" guys on the roster. It's exciting and scary all at once. I can support the idea of letting Buxton and Correa lead the new core of Lewis, Lee, Miranda, Larnach, Kirilloff, etc. but that is a lot of faith in those young guys figuring things out, and staying healthy. If that's the plan I really hope they sign Vazquez to help usher in the young arms. I don't mind Jeffers, but I want a veteran behind the plate helping to lead the young arms through a game. I'd also splurge in the pen to make sure I give the team every chance to lock down wins.

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.

That's a deal I wouldn't have minded the Twins handing him if he'd have taken that to play here.

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.

And if you think "they" are wrong then make a stand and tell us why they're wrong. Give a name. Not just a quote about missing shots you don't take. They may have been wrong, but you've provided literally 0 evidence as to why we should think they were wrong. Now you're trying to go back to before they added guys to the 40-man? Fine. They added Julien, Canterino, and Headrick. I won't even ask you to find someone better than them in the rule 5 cuz you clearly don't even know who they could've picked, so I'll just take those 3 off the 40-man. They'd be at 36 guys in this hypothetical. They need at least 1 catcher. So 37 guys. I think pretty much everyone wants them to add an arm (pen or starter). 38 guys. Right handed outfield bat seems to be almost universally desired by fans. 39 guys. Some want Correa, others don't. So we won't even count him. Basically every team carries 3 catchers on the 40-man but we'll even ignore that for the Twins. So they're at 39 guys. Now the choice is to add Julien or pick someone in the rule 5. I don't think you'll find a single fan who follows Twins prospects who would've suggested losing Julien to pick someone in the rule 5. So now they're at 40. And, fyi, taking someone off the 40-man automatically puts them on irrevocable waivers. So, yes, they'd have to waive someone to make room. Would you prefer I say DFA someone? However you want it worded it's the same thing. They will need to take people off the 40-man if they plan to add more than 1 player. There's no debating that. They're already going to have to do that. There are multiple people on the 40-man right now that are going to be passed through waivers this offseason so the Twins can bring in another catcher, etc. Or there's going to be trades. Either way guys are coming off the 40-man roster this offseason. There's literally no other choice. The Twins took many guys off the 40-man at the beginning of the offseason and Hamilton, Palacios, and Cave at least were taken by other teams. That's just off the top of my head. I may be forgetting a guy or 2. When you take someone off the 40-man they're put on waivers and any team can claim them and you have no way of stopping it. Maybe that's news to you, but taking a guy off the 40-man is a risk and "fringe" players get claimed over and over while bouncing between teams until someone just keeps them on their 40-man. You clearly have no actual reasoning for your stance other than Santana and Pressly turned out well. You have no name to put forth for drafting, just this vague idea of "taking a shot." So I'm done with this back and forth. I'm more than happy to debate real stances with anyone, but "just take a shot" isn't a real stance when you refuse to include the reality of 40-man decisions that would be tied to said "shot." They didn't pick anyone. Half the league didn't pick anyone. Their fringe guys are already set to be removed from the 40-man for MLB free agents. You can't name any specific players you'd draft or remove. You falsely claim that guys wouldn't have to be waived from the 40-man. This is no longer a back and forth of ideas, so I'm done with it. I'm sorry the Twins didn't take your unspecified "shot."

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.

I certainly hope 1 bad signing they weren't involved in wouldn't stop them pursuing any moves. More and more players are coming over from Japan and Korea and having instant success in the majors. They're getting better and better at scouting those leagues and being able to predict how the players will translate to MLB.

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.

Boston just went bonkers on their Yoshida signing so that just adds to the craziness of the offseason. The accepted contracts, and reported offers, all feel significantly higher than what was expected and Boston made that true of the foreign signing market as well. I thought we were getting out of these crazy 10+ year deals for 30+ year olds, but they've sprung back up with a vengeance in the last week or so. That being said, I like Senga, and would add him to the rotation in a vacuum, but I have no idea where his market is going to come in and how crazy that deal will be. I wouldn't be willing to take a whole lot of risk with him, but if the deal is reasonable he feels like a nice option.

My first question is what the point of Iglesias would be now that they have Farmer. Do you feel he's an upgrade on Farmer? I don't. I think he's a different style hitter (all contact, no power vs medium contact and power), but doesn't significantly help the team at all. So I'd spend that money elsewhere (he got $5 million last year and I'd assume he gets roughly the same this year). Or was this your plan before the Farmer trade? My second question is whether 4 years is just a random guess or you have a specific reason you think Correa's contract is bad by the time he's 32. "Buyers remorse" is an interesting phenomenon in sports. Some fans want the player to be worth their contract every year of the deal. Others look at the lifetime of the contract and judge it as good or bad based on the combination of years. Others are just happy the team signed that player at all. Some are just mad that athletes make so much money. I think the 2 "important" ones are the lifetime vs individual year approaches. It feels like you're an "individual year" kind of thinker. Nothing wrong with that, just my observation. That would definitely lead you to feeling a different way about these kinds of deals. I'm a "lifetime" approach kind of person. It's why I love the Buxton deal. The real question isn't how us two "keyboard GMs" view those contracts, but how the FO and ownership view them. To this point it sure feels like the previous head Pohlads and FO execs view those deals like you. They want the player to be worth their deal every season. It is starting to feel like this FO may view things a little more my way. The Buxton deal feels kind of in the middle while a potential Correa deal will almost certainly have some bad years at the end so you'd think the motivation for signing it is the lifetime view. All this to say I agree that these discussions are fun and interesting. I enjoy seeing how others process the deals that are handed out, or the possible deals. I hope they sign Correa (for multiple short and long-term reasons) as I think Correa+$8 million is better than Contreras, Walker, and Iglesias. I'd even take Correa+$3 million over Contreras (I don't expect him to age well) and Walker (he's no better than Joe Ryan and I only want someone who'd be the new "best on staff"). But I certainly understand the desire to spread the money around.

Yes, there are guys on the 40-man who many of us currently question why they're there (Emilio Pagan is exhibit A), but that isn't the point. Your argument has been that they should've taken someone in the rule 5. Don't back out with "not my job to make those decisions." They made the decision and you argued it was wrong. You said it was worth a shot to just grab someone in the extremely off chance they're the next Santana or Pressly (Side note: Santana didn't become a full time starter for 5 seasons after he was drafted and after a pedestrian rookie season Pressly actually threw more than twice as many innings in AAA than he did in the majors his second year with the Twins. So their successes were most certainly not instant.) If you think, as you argued, that their decision to not draft anyone in the rule 5 is wrong then you should be able to point to a few guys you think were worth it and who all you're willing to waive for those guys. The Twins have made their decision. They didn't see anyone available who was so much better than what they have that they were worthy of trying to carry for a season. They already know they'll have to waive or trade current 40 man guys for established big leaguers and felt it wasn't worth being forced to carry a rule 5 guy. You said that decision was wrong and they should've taken a shot cuz there was no real risk in it and "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take." If their decision is wrong you should be able to state why beyond naming 2 rule 5 picks in the last 25 years that worked out.

It's just not that simple. The Twins currently have 39 guys on the 40-man roster. Picking someone in the rule 5 would've put them at 40. They can't cut that guy (I mean they can send him back, but what was the point then?) so when they sign another catcher they have to cut someone else. Who you cutting? I assume they'll want to carry 3 catchers on the 40-man, so who you cutting for the other catcher they sign? I think we'd all like to see them grab a bullpen arm. Who you cutting for that guy? Right handed OF bat? Who you cutting for him? Correa? Who you cutting if they can sign him? The rule 5 guy would be the worst player on the 40-man roster and he can't be cut. It's not just grabbing a guy and crossing your fingers they're the next Santana or Pressly. There are numerous other dominoes that fall if they pick someone in the rule 5. The Twins are already set to have to waive multiple guys from the 40-man in order to grab actual MLB players. The cost of taking someone in the Rule 5 is far greater than what you're suggesting. Pick a name that was available in the Rule 5 and tell me how many current 40-man guys you'd cut in order to keep that guy on the 26-man all season. Try doing the actual exercise of making that decision and see if it's as simple as you're suggesting. And I point out in all of those threads that they're fretting about nothing.