chpettit19

Arraez is my favorite player on the Twins right now so I (selfishly) hope they don't shop him, but certainly would understand (and support) them taking a deal that improves the team. If he's a .400 Slugging guy (was .439 and .402 the last 2 years) he's likely a 110-120 OPS+ guys from year to year. That all comes down to how many doubles he can bang out really. I just think he provides such a good balance to the current day power, power, and more power lineups that teams like to throw out there (Twins especially). It's refreshing to see a guy who seemingly hates to strikeout and battles every pitch of every at bat. In a perfect world where everyone hits their ceiling (and stays on the field) having an Arraez, Buxton, Kirilloff, Lewis, Larnach top 5 of the order for the next 5 or 6 years sounds like heaven to me.

Found this to be an interesting argument/discussion point so wanted to look up some numbers (baseball reference was my source for this data). Batters faced per season by Berrios from 2016-today: 281, 616, 797, 842, 271, 338. Total: 3145 Plate appearances per season by Buxton from 2016-today: 331, 511, 94, 295, 135, 110. Total: 1476 Fielding "Chances" (putouts + assists + errors) per season by Buxton from 2016-today: 249, 400, 70, 224, 105, 71. Total: 1119 PA and Chances total for Buxton: 2595 So Berrios has influenced 3145 "events" on the field since his debut and Buxton has influenced 2595. Don't know what you, or anyone else, wants to draw from that, but I found it interesting. *Obviously a very basic way of looking at this concept that doesn't include Berrios fielding data or Buxton steals, effect on positioning by other fielders because of his range, etc. etc. etc.

I have no data to back this up, but it feels to me like players of Arraez's skillset are worth more to the team they come up with than they are on the trade market. I can't imagine anyone is throwing a top 100 prospect at the Twins for Arraez. Generally speaking the top 100 guys are guys with a ceiling well above Arraez's and, especially this day and age, teams need to feel they're getting All Star type MLB players in return for giving up a big time prospect with All Star upside. Every player should always be on the block. If the Angels are offered a 3 team trade that returns them Tatis Jr, Vlad Jr, Bo Bichette, Alek Manoah, and Mackenzie Gore for Trout they should take it. Arraez is by no means "untouchable," but what would a realistic package be in return for him? He's a 1 tool player, but he's exceptional at that 1 tool, and it's the hardest tool to find at that skill level. That makes him incredibly useful, and also not worth much on the trade market. If you're trading a controllable young asset who's proven to be an everyday player I think you need to get back more than a team would be willing to give up for Arraez. If they get an offer that improves the team they should absolutely take it. I just don't think that its likely.

If 5/100 gets either of them signed they should do it. If they both will agree to 5/100 they should sign both. I find it hard to believe either would agree to it 1 year from free agency, though. I think the Wheeler contract is probably what Berrios is looking for and thinking he can get on the open market (maybe he thinks he can get more?). So I doubt he signs for 5/100 this close to free agency. The Twins likely have to match, or get very close to, what he feels his max market value is to get him to skip the chance to find out what he can get. And Buxton seems like an incredibly confident young man who's willing to bet on himself. His value when healthy is 35m+ a year. Maybe he's at the point where he's starting to believe he'll never be healthy and he'd take the 5/100 just to ensure himself 100m, but if he's convinced it's just bad luck and he can stay healthy I can't imagine he's taking that deal. Why wouldn't he play next year on a 1 year deal if he's convinced he can stay healthy? Go out and win an MVP next year and take home 300m from the Red Sox or Yankees instead of 100m from the Twins this year. If I'm Buxton I'm not signing any long term deal coming off an injury. I'll do 1 year deals until I string together a full season or 2. Somebody will pay him 20m on a 1 year deal. If I'm him I'm taking that kind of deal until I establish my health and then taking home 35m a year on a longer deal.

2020 being such a crazy season and the effects it's having on 2021 make it hard for me to say they're failures at this point and should be replaced. Not only the complete loss of a MiLB season last year, but the jump in innings needing to be covered this year just isn't something that we've ever seen in the game (self inflicted lost seasons from CBA arguments isn't the same). I firmly believe we'd be starting to see the "pitching pipeline" (not that they'd all come up and be great, but we'd have a better read on if there's real MLB arms in the system) at this point if 2020 had been a normal year. They went into that season, I believe, looking to make it through that season with a mix of veterans doing their thing and rookies getting test runs as injury replacements. Then they planned to be able to hand a spot or 2 in the rotation and pen to youngsters in 2021. Instead they got nothing from rookies last year because the world shut down. Now they're seeing their top arms go down with arm issues 1 after the other and are delaying their timeline once again. I just don't know how to assess a FO with all these factors. Are the injuries something we can put on the FO? I don't think so, but maybe. I think they've earned another year to see what the prospect arms look like. Definitely feel there needs to be some adjustments with how they're assessing major league arms, but I don't think that is a great indicator of their ability to set up a development system for pitching. 2 different things in my view. But if we get to this point a year from now and there's no sign of an arm better than Ober (and I like Ober, but they need to develop better arms than that if they want sustained success) arriving and sticking in the bigs I think it's fair to start questioning if they're the right people for the job. Just too many crazy circumstances the last year+ for me to say they've failed to this point.

Dman pretty well covered my response. Packaging Berrios, Buxton, Rogers, etc. with the 4 players listed in this article would be a move that brings back prospects. Maybe close to MLB ready prospects, but not established MLB players. Teams that would be dealing for current MLB players are looking to contend now, that's the motivation for going out and getting a Berrios, Buxton, or Rogers. They wouldn't lessen their MLB roster to do that. It's all well and good to say "demand major league talent in return," but that simply isn't how it works. The other team is looking to upgrade their current MLB roster so even if they sent us a player currently on their MLB roster it'd be a player with a lower ceiling than the guys we traded. There aren't many trades of MLB player for MLB player of equal talents. I'm sure there's some, but the vast majority are MLB player for lesser MLB player plus lesser prospect or MLB talent for prospect with chance to replicate current MLB player results. The 4 guys listed in the article are not likely to bring back high end prospects. Berrios, Buxton, and Rogers could all fetch a decent to very good prospect haul depending on a number of factors. There wouldn't be much reason to package any of these players together as the 4 in the article wouldn't significantly increase the capital in return for the 3 "big name" targets, or boost the return to include an MLB player worthy of trading any of those 3. At this point, if they decide to trade those 3, the strategy would likely be to trade FA to be veterans for whatever lottery ticket prospects you can while using these 3 to try to get high end, close to MLB ready prospects. But nobody is trading a legit MLB player for any of those 3. It would defeat the purpose of bringing one of those players in as their team wouldn't improve.

Not sure what that looks like. Can't imagine anyone is giving up MLB ready prospects who could turn out to be real players for anyone listed in this article. So that leaves the Twins getting back lesser MLB talent for these guys if they're determined to get MLB ready players. Not sure that's a successful trade deadline for this team. The guys listed in this article are likely not bringing back real prospects in return so their best bet is probably to get back some lottery ticket, low level prospects for these 4.

Sorry, the pitch before was the fastball, you're right it was a breaker. I think we're all always disappointed to see someone strike out looking. Many of us are disappointed to see any kind of strike out. It was a disappointing outcome for sure. My problem is with the phrases "begging for a walk" and "totally comfortable allowing the ump to decide his fate." There's a difference between being disappointed in the outcome of the AB and making statements like that. Especially about that hitter. He got fooled. That's disappointing. Worthy of discussion about it being disappointing. "Begging for a walk" is a gross misrepresentation of that AB and that was the first comment I replied to. He got fooled. There's a difference. Then someone replied to me stating he was "totally comfortable allowing the ump to decide his fate." Which is also a misrepresentation of that AB. He got fooled. He was frozen. However you want to say it. It happens. It's disappointing, but suggesting Arraez wasn't up there looking to drive in that run by swinging the bat is flat out wrong. He swung the bat. Miguel Cabrera got K'd looking to end a world series. He's one of the 5 best hitters of his generation and a top 5 to 10 right handed hitter of all time. It happens. Guys get fooled. As for RBIs being downplayed (and I'm someone who downplays them) picking 1 AB where he failed to come through after having driven in 3 in his last 4 games is something else I'd throw into the small sample size bias. Picking out 1 AB is never a good idea.

He got fooled and got caught looking. It happens literally 1000s of times a season across the league. Including to Trout, Acuna, Soto, Tatis Jr, Vlad Jr, and every other superstar hitter. Even in late game, clutch situations. It makes no sense to me to say how he's been coming through in these situations since coming off the IL and then suggest he was "totally comfortable allowing the ump to decide his fate." If he hadn't swung at a pitch all at bat maybe you could make an argument somewhere along those lines, but he got fooled. It happens. But it almost never happens to Arraez. So picking out the 1 time it does seems off base to me. And h2oface suggested he was up there "begging for a walk." Again, if he hadn't swung at a pitch all AB maybe you could argue that, but he had fouled off a pitch 2 pitches earlier so he was clearly up there to hit. He got froze on a fastball on the black. It happens. They made a 5 run comeback in that inning and the choice you guys are making is to focus on one of the least strikeout prone hitters in baseball finally being struck out. Why choose that as your focus? It was unfortunate it happened, but to suggest that specific player was "begging for a walk" or "totally comfortable allowing the ump to decide his fate" is the epitome of unnecessarily negative fandom.

Arraez is in the 99th percentile for K rate and he's the one you want to call out? Talk about small sample size bias.

All their hitting prospects have basically been complete busts since that run and it's crushed them the last few years, but that doesn't make their WS run a fluke. That's the nature of the playoff beast. The Dodgers couldn't break through the WS ceiling until last year despite having invested in every part of their team for nearly a decade. The Yankees haven't been a playoff threat for years. Tampa doesn't invest in anything but data analysts and scouts and they're one of the best teams in baseball year after year. Cleveland is clearly a flawed team, and I don't want the Twins to be a team based around 3 big time starters, 2 bullpen studs, and a bunch of hopes and prayers, but they've been a competitive team for a while now. Was just pointing out that their strategy did work and got them right to the doorstep of a championship. They just have very little room for error when it comes to hitting and missing on prospects.

They did make it to game 7 of the World Series not too long ago.

It's been reported that they've approached Berrios about extensions the last few years and talked with Buxton and his people about one during ST this year. I'd hope they have a decent idea of what those 2 would be expecting. As they are so close to free agency now I'd think the Twins would need to offer pretty close to the player's desired money to get a deal done. Berrios seems more than happy to take it year by year and hit the open market if the Twins don't give him what he expects to make on the market. Maybe he's way off on his estimate of what he'll get, but he still likely doesn't sign for less than he thinks he'd get on the market. Buxton may be the hardest extension, trade, whatever candidate in baseball history. He's a top 3-5 player in the sport when healthy now. But he's never healthy. He could demand Trout-esque money based on talent, but can't imagine any team gives him anything crazy. Hopefully the Twins have an idea of what the contract demands for both are and have done a great deal of budget work trying to determine if they can sign one or both. As we approach the deadline I'd hope they reach out to the player's agents with a final contract offer before making any trade. Or if they know they're not going to meet their money demands then trade them. Worst case scenario is having both for 1 more year and only getting 2 comp picks out of the whole situation. Twins need to play the Rays game of trading big name guys before losing them for nothing sometimes. Not every big name guy as they can spend much more than the Rays, but they'll never be NY or LA so they can't sign them all and need to maximize returns on the ones they can't/don't resign.

Not sure what incentive Berrios would have to sign an incentive laden extension at this point. He's 1 year away from free agency and has had no injury concerns to this point in his career. Even TJ surgery next year doesn't stop him from getting a fully guaranteed deal during the offseason from someone. At this point the Twins will have to get pretty close to, or go over, what he feels his max value on the market is for him to sacrifice the chance to pick his team and go after the biggest money possible if he so chooses.

Resigning him should be option 1 for the Twins, and I think it is. They've reportedly offered him extensions the last few years and he's turned them all down. I'd guess those numbers were around the 5/80 type idea suggested in the original article. Berrios seems to be willing to bet that he can get more than that, and, frankly, he should make that bet. He's been incredibly durable and had no injury issues. If I remember correctly he just set the team record for consecutive starts with 4 or fewer runs allowed (or something like that). If 5/80ish is all he can get on the market I'd be absolutely shocked. 5/110 would be my guess for the area he ends up in. Maybe it's 5/100 or 5/120, but I'd be floored if he doesn't get 100 from someone. Have the Twins already offered that? We'll never know. If I were them I'd approach his team with 5/100 between now and the deadline. If they say no I offer 5/110. If there's no sign that we're close I shop him to the highest bidder. Assuming he brings back a legit arm in return I move him. I think 2022 will be better than 2021 has been, but they aren't going to contend for a WS even with him. 2023 would be my target year. If I can get a close to ready arm that I can throw in with Balazovic, Duran, Canterino, Winder, et al I do it. If I can lock him up for 5/110ish, or at least feel I'm in the ballpark and an extension is possible, I do that. What I don't do is go into 2022 with Berrios on a 1 year deal. He'll hit the open market for sure then and I don't want any part of losing him for a comp pick only.

3 Full blown starters- No/limited inning/pitch counts. If they're getting people out let them go as long as they can. 4 Long guys- 2 pairs. "Starter" gets the first 5, "reliever" gets the last 4. Example: Happ gets first 5 innings, Dobnak gets last 4. Next time through rotation Dobnak gets first 5, Happ gets last 4. (They're just examples of back end guys, I don't want to see either of them really pitch right now) 6 relievers- 3 "go to" guys used in concert with the 3 starters. 3 "mid-reliever" types who come in when 1 of the 4 long guys have a bad game (2nd long guy always comes in in the 6th to allow them to go through their whole warmup routine) and need a reliever. Twins seem to like 13 arms, but could also do 12 and go with 5 relievers. I'd go every other Starter/Pair/Starter/Pair to allow the 3 big time pen arms to have a day off in between each starter game. Obviously can adjust some with off days, etc. When a starter gets hurt whoever your best pair guy is gets bumped up to take that spot and you call up your AAA guy to replace him in his pairing. I'd be interested in the Twins "piggy-backing" young arms the second half of this year. Let them get in the routine of going every 5th/6th day, but limit their innings by having short (4/5 inning) stints. And anything to reduce having to see these bullpen arms in games would make everyone happy I think.

According to Gleeman in his Athletic article today, Ober has the second longest average extension in the bigs at 7'2" (Tyler Glasnow #1 at 7'3"). Gleeman says 7'2" is "nearly a foot more than the MLB norm" for what it's worth.

I think it's a combination of spreadsheet and wanting him to build confidence. I think getting him his first ML "W" would have been a nice confidence boost, though. 1 more inning, after the team just extended the lead to 7, felt like a good way to let him get the pride of that first "W" (even though I think pitcher W's are a useless stat, it's still nice to get). Think it set itself up nicely to get him that boost, get 4 relievers an inning of work, and not have him throw a crazy number of pitches on the night.

Houston is the best hitting, and hardest to strikeout, team in the league and he struck out 7 over 5 against them. Certainly not anointing him the ace of the future, but his last 3 starts have been him doing what he should against bad hitting teams (8 innings, 1 earned, 10 Ks against KC and Sea) and looking quite good against a very good hitting Hou team (5 innings, 2 earned, 7 Ks). I wouldn't list that as blowing people away necessarily, but it is definitely noteworthy and should give a little hope for the future in this bleak mess of a season. Hard to wrap our heads around, and get excited about, a guy who throws 90-93 and gets really good results. We're so used to guys having to throw 95+ to get those results. Based on his MiLB track record and early results I think we can allow ourselves to believe he has a more than reasonable chance of being a solid rotation piece in the future.

Happ has been an above average pitcher in the majors all but 1 year since 2015. If you want to complain about Shoemaker in the 5 spot, fine. But if you're suggesting you expected Happ to be as bad as he has been recently you were simply ignoring his previous performance. He wasn't expensive, or flashy, or anything like that, but there was every reason to expect him to be a serviceable back end of the rotation arm. Especially in a year where you're going from 60 games to 162.

Absolutely can't be viewed in a vacuum. Including the fact that they were going from 60 to 162 games. Meaning they needed to make up 900 innings. There are a couple minor leaguers who would've been up last year who didn't get the chance because the season was canceled. They also had Smeltzer, Thorpe, and Dobnak to take up some back of the rotation starts. They probably planned on being able to cycle through a few of the young guys starting about this time (or early July?), but then MLB pushed the MiLB season back a month and their 2 top arms, and the 2 closest to the bigs, missed time with injuries. They didn't have to just ignore '19 in favor of '20 for Happ. '19 was the 1 bad season he's had since '15. He was more than reasonable as a back end of the rotation guy. Shoemaker wasn't a 30 starts signing. If he made that many starts for them it would've been an incredibly pleasant surprise as he would've been drastically outperforming their expectations. Being completely unusable wasn't what anyone's prediction for him would have been. Same with Colome. Shoemaker in the 5 spot to get you through 2 or 3 months of starts wasn't unreasonable. Maybe not preferred, and maybe not the best move they could have made, but not unreasonable in trying to find an extra 900 innings this year. Someone else mentioned him, but Taijuan Walker in the 4 spot with Happ in the 5 was what I was hoping for. But suggesting Happ in the 4 with Shoemaker in the 5 and Dobnak, Thorpe, Smeltzer, and the young guys starting to knock at the door behind them should have been obvious that they'd be 15 games back by the middle of June is ridiculous. They didn't have the pitching to win the WS, but coming into the year certainly should've had enough to compete for the division.

Hopefully they're always learning and adjusting.

There's a difference between a smart signing that doesn't work out and a bad signing that predictably didn't work out. Signing Jackie Bradley Jr to a 2 year, $24m deal and watching him struggle to hit major league pitching is a bad signing that predictably didn't work out. Signing Albert Pujols to a 10 year deal and watching him immediately stop performing to career norms is a smart signing that didn't work out. Or signing Joe Mauer to a big extension that he earned to only watch him come down with head injuries and have to move to 1B is a good signing that didn't work out. There's a difference. Signing Happ to a 1 year deal to bring up the back of your rotation in a year you're going to need extra arms because last year only had 60 games is a good decision. It just didn't work out. But the process and decision making that went into it weren't flawed.

That's all fair. I'm mostly just coming from a point of the 20/20 hindsight being thrown around as proof the FO is horrible is getting a bit much. There was an article on here about Littell the other day, too, where I said the same thing. He's different cuz I think they gave up on an injured player too soon, but it's lead to a lot of talk on these comment threads about the FO missing obvious signings which is really just fans using 20/20 hindsight. But your points on Shoemaker vs Flexen are more than fair and I could see that as being a decision the FO should have put some serious thought into.

During the offseason they weren't seen as bad pitchers. That's what this discussion is about. In hindsight the moves were bad because they've both imploded. Since 2015 Happ has had more than respectable ERA+ and ERA- numbers. His peripherals have matched as far as FIP, etc. go. The Happ signing made a lot of sense and was a good signing. It has now turned into a bad signing because he's fallen off a cliff his last 5 or 6 starts. His first handful of starts were right in line with expectations, but he's fallen apart. Same with Shoemaker. He wasn't a bad pitcher coming into this year. His problem has been staying healthy. The Twins weren't necessarily concerned with that as they weren't signing him for 200 innings, they were signing him to be an added arm to help extend the team from 60 games to 162 games. In hindsight he has provided almost nothing of use in a completely lost season. The thought process was sound. They have been productive major league pitchers in the recent past and even with expected regression there was nobody who would have predicted the recent results. There was far more expectation of those 2 being productive pitchers than Flexen. That's what this discussion is about. Hindsight is changing the narrative. Coming into the season Happ and Shoemaker made infinitely more sense for the Twins than Flexen.