chpettit19

The interesting part of this is that the Twins would also tell you sacrificing an out at any time, on purpose, is not a way to win games. No out is measly when you're hitting. Big innings is the best way to win games. So on a very basic level it is a bit of a contradiction. That's where it really shows how detailed the Twins, Dodgers, Astros, Rays, etc. are in trying to get any fractional advantage in run scoring and run prevention. The difference is the "guaranteed" run scoring to get an out vs improving your chances to score a run by sacrificing an out on offense. The idea of "guaranteed runs" is also why HRs are the most desirable offensive result. On the surface that seems super obvious (and it is), but there are dozens and dozens of comments on this site of Twins fans being real upset with the perceived "HR or Bust!" approach of the lineup. They've completely failed to be successful in the postseason with that approach and it's lead fans to become frustrated and claim the approach has to change. But the teams winning in the playoffs have the same approach. HRs are guaranteed runs. They're not an improved chance at a run (like base hits, doubles, bunting, stealing, sacrificing, etc.), they are runs. The analytics era has changed the game and I'm in the boat that feels the game isn't quite the same, and, frankly, not quite as enjoyable to watch, with all the Ks and shifting (I've worked in baseball analytics and acknowledge my hypocrisy in adding to the changes to the game while saying they've made it slightly less enjoyable to watch). Teams are looking for even the slightest advantage in saving runs and scoring runs. The casual fan's brain would explode if they got a peak behind the curtain at the incredible amount of information these teams are collecting and algorithms they are running. Rocco catches a lot of heat for his in game "decisions," and rightfully so. He makes a lot of money to take the heat. Many of those "decisions" were made pre-game by spreadsheets and I think the Twins need to better balance pre-game and in-game decision making, but they are all made in an effort to sneak out miniscule percentage points of advantage over opponents. The most glaringly obvious spreadsheet data points are guaranteed runs and outs. HRs are guaranteed. The rest can just get close. That's when the algorithms really kick in (runner speed, arm strength of fielders, K rate of hitter, K rate of pitcher, speed of hitter, etc. etc. etc.) and baseball becomes more about the 4400ish outs you get, or need to get, during a season and not about the 1 you're worried about in the moment. Fans are worried about that 1 play in that 1 game. FO are worried about all the games of all the seasons. They know they're not going to get all the 1 play in 1 game situations right, but if they can get more right than they get wrong they're that much closer to winning.

Will be interesting to see how free agency goes this year. This could be one of those times that the big market teams have a crazy advantage over the smaller markets. The Dodgers just signed Mookie to a gigantic contract in the middle of this season and the Mets sold for 2.3ish billion. The MLBPA will not go quietly if all the teams try to depress salaries, but the "cheaper" teams, with owners who care about nothing but the bottom line, may not be taking big swings in free agency after a down year in profit. Teams willing to spend close to normal may have an advantage in snagging FA this winter. Another question is going to be the location of teams and what their local governments are doing for limiting fans. I believe Florida is already open and allowing teams to pack stadiums to full capacity right now and the teams there could go into the offseason much more comfortable with their chances of having normal attendance next year. Although that doesn't mean much for the Marlins or Rays, but the difference between being in FL and MN could be important for FO making guesses on attendance numbers for 2021. As for the Twins and their budget, I'd guess they aren't going to be increasing it at all, but I think they see that their window is open and its more likely they'll be in the 125-130 area than the 95-100 area. Hitters: I think they try to bring Cruz back on another 1+option year deal and I think the chances are pretty good he takes that. 12ish mil for him next year and 10 mil option. I think they let one of Marwan or Ehire walk and bring back whichever of them is cheapest. I think they non-tender Rosario. I think they want to leave the door cracked for a handful of prospects, but don't want to rely on them from game 1, or start service clocks (hopefully new CBA fixes that nonsense) They're running into a 40 man crunch and need to start making some tough decisions on players like Nick Gordon. That will play a role in Rosario (along with his $) and at least 1 utility guy leaving. Need to start clearing 40 man spots for young guys, but will likely bring in Vargas types to start the year. Easily DFAed for the young guys once the extra year is locked in and they're ready. Pitchers: I don't see them changing their "strength in numbers" approach to the bullpen in that they'll bring in a number of cheap fliers they think have a chance to be good. Bullpen arms are so hit or miss I think their plan will always be to have a number of cheap options and ride the ones who are good that year wile avoiding Kimbrel type deals. I think they reach out to Bauer, but just don't see them being able to convince him they won't pull him after the second time through the order so he won't come here. They'll explore trade options similar to the Odo and Maeda deals and kick the tires on short term starter deals like the last few years. Overall they're at the point where they need to balance their ability to stay competitive with more known quantity, cheap veterans with their need to start getting the young guns up and see what they have. Don't see them having the chance to keep any of Kirilloff, Larnach, Rooker, or Lewis in the minors all year. I'd guess they also have some sort of guess on what the league will be shooting for with the new CBA and know if playing the service time game this year is vitally important since the MLBPA will be fighting hard to get rid of it. If they can grandfather in a number of prospects to 6 years of team control by calling them up this year I think they do it. In order to do that I think you see them let expensive vets (Rosario) go and retain or sign cheap vets (Ehire, Marwan, TD poster's favorite Kevin Pillar) to leave the door open for the young guys to join their core of Buxton, Polanco, Kepler, Arraez, Sano, and Donaldson.

RBI is a useless stat. There's no argument against it. The point of the game is to score runs so obviously driving runs in is good. But as a measure of a player's talent or skill they are useless as there is no context to them. Let's say Eddie and Cruz each had 200 PAs. If Eddie comes to the plate with a runner in scoring position 100 times and comes away with 25 RBIs and Cruz comes to the plate 10 times with runners in scoring position and comes away with 20 RBIs is Eddie better than Cruz? He has more RBIs so he must be! The stat doesn't tell you anything useful about their performance. Maybe Eddie went 0-fer in those 100 PAs, but hit solo and 2 run shots with a guy on 1st to get his 25 RBIs. It's still good that he got RBIs, but he was the complete opposite of clutch and you wouldn't consider him someone who "drives em in." Counting numbers provide very little context and that is why "advanced stats" have been developed. Even something as basic as ABs per HR tells you more than straight HR totals. Garver hit 31 HRs last year. Eddie hit 32. Was Eddie a better HR threat? He hit more HR so must be! Garver did his in 311 ABs, Eddie did his in 562. If you're the pitcher are you wanting to go after the guy who hit a HR every 10 ABs or the guy who hit one every 17.5? HRs, RBIs, Ks, Rs, etc. etc. etc. are all good to compile. It's better to have more than less (Ks as a pitcher, not hitter), yes. But in the context of a conversation about whether or not a player is worth keeping for a certain dollar amount or should be playing over another guy or whatever other similar conversation is being had they tell you almost nothing. So, yes, we want guys that "drive em in," but using RBIs as the stat to prove that carries no weight as it doesn't tell any real story about how they performed.

RBIs are almost completely useless. If I shoot 100 3 pointers and make 25 and Steph Curry shoots 10 3 pointers and makes 10 am I a better shooter than Steph Curry? I have more makes than him so must be better, right? That's what RBIs are. I don't have their numbers in front of me as far as BA with runners on or runners in scoring position or the number of chances they had, but that is going to tell you drastically more than RBIs about who the better run producer is. Eddie is a perfectly fine player and I wouldn't mind seeing him back, and also won't be broken up over it if he's non-tendered. Also don't have a problem with your concerns on WAR and defensive metrics. But using RBIs as a metric to claim who's good and who isn't is not a good argument.

Agreed. And most of the stories we see about Bauer's attitude are him not getting along with coaches because he wants to train his own way. The Twins have openly embraced that attitude since Rocco took over. They believe in the professionalism of their guys and expect them to do what is needed to be ready to perform and don't push any specific protocols. The idea that 1 guy could come in and screw up a whole locker room is a little outlandish. There's 26 players, coaches, FO personnel, clubhouse personnel, grounds crew members, etc. who are around every single day in the clubhouse. To think that you're going to have 1 guy come in and destroy things isn't realistic. Do people think every player on the 2020 club got along and weren't individuals wanting to do things their own way? He goes out and performs. That's what teammates ask of each other. They don't have to agree on everything or approach things the same way. They're grown adults who work together. Get your job done and nothing else matters.

There aren't many people in the world who are as confident in themselves as Trevor Bauer. I don't see any reason to think he won't follow his year by year plan. Teams are much more willing to throw out crazy money for 1 year than multiple. Why not try to get 40 mil a year for a few years? I wouldn't pick the Twins over the field, but there's no reason they can't throw crazy 1 year money at him. The concern Bauer is likely to have is the Twins seemingly unwavering obsession with pulling pitchers early. He won't go for that stuff.

https://www.mlb.com/news/homers-are-still-the-key-to-winning-in-playoffs The idea that power doesn't play in the postseason just isn't true. The A's hit 5 bombs against the Astros yesterday. The Twins lack of playoff power is atrocious, but power still wins games in the postseason. It can't be your only weapon, but it is the most useful weapon to have. Going against the top pitchers from top teams means its harder to get ANY hit against them. So stringing together a handful of hits to score isn't exactly a world beating strategy either.

This^ There's been a lot of posts on Twins Daily since the abomination of a sweep last week suggesting the Twins' strategy of building a powerful lineup is forever doomed because teams just don't hit HRs in the playoffs. It's just not true. Stanton has about 1000 HRs himself already this postseason. I understand he is a different kind of beast, but Randy Arozarena has 3 in 5 games and he's certainly no Stanton. HRs play in the postseason, but they can't be your only weapon. The failure of the Twins is that many of their hitters don't adjust their approach (seemingly from the outside looking in at least) based on the situation. I don't know whether this is guys simply being stubborn and refusing to adjust or coaching staff not promoting a varied approach or what, but it needs to change before next season. Cruz took advantage of the shift all year. He has spoken many times about his change in approach from at bat to at bat and pitch to pitch based on the situation. I assume he's had conversations with Sano and others about that. The Twins need to figure out if it's a matter of convincing guys to change or if it's a lack of ability to change and make team building decisions around that. As for the shift in general, it's a tricky beast. Baseball is a game of adjustments. The best players are able to constantly adjust to what the league is doing to them. Especially hitters. The shift has been prominent enough for long enough that good hitters are adjusting and starting to beat it by taking their singles from time to time instead of trying to hit over it. Again, it's situation based, but the good teams are giving their good hitters the info needed for them to take the right approach at the plate. And good teams are convincing their good hitters that just getting on and moving the line along is how you win. Bases loaded less than 2 outs in the first inning of a playoff game? Sure, sit fast ball and look to lift and separate until you get a strike on you. Then adjust and make sure you score a run. It would be interesting to see the reverse side of shift data and see what hitters are the most successful against them. See how long teams continue to shift after a player "proves" he can/will beat the shift by hitting to the open spot. And what teams are most successful at beating the shift and how that influences run scoring and winning. All about balance. The Twins seem to have swung their analytics pendulum too far (pulling starters, pinch hitting, shifting, etc.) at this point. I know Rocco takes a lot of flack, but I think a lot of it is pre-determined and he is given less leeway than we think when it comes to making decisions. Could certainly be 100% wrong about that, but my guess would be the Berrios decision was heavily influenced by Falvine pregame and that trio decided before the game Berrios wasn't seeing the lineup for a 3rd time.

Thoughts on the Dozier comp: Baseball Reference Stats: Dozier OPS+ 2015-2017: 104, 134, 126 traded in 2018 Rosario OPS+ 2017-2019: 119, 116, 108 and now people talking about shipping him out in 2020 (or non-tender him after) His level of hitting has never been as high as Dozier's and has been declining for 3 years. (He's at 107 right now this year) Dozier WAR 2015-2017: 2.8, 5.8, 4.6 Rosario WAR 2017-2019: 1.5, 4.1, 1.7 (only 2 seasons over 2 WAR in his career) His overall play had 1 spike year 2 years ago, but otherwise hasn't been close to peak Dozier. Fangraphs Stats: Dozier WRC+ 2015-2017: 102, 132, 126 Rosario WRC+ 2017-2019: 117, 114, 103 (101 this year) Dozier WAR 2015-2017: 3.1, 6.3, 5.1 Rosario WAR 2017-2019: 2.6, 3.5, 1.2 Rosario's peak has never reached Dozier's peak and he has been declining for 3 years now. I think Dozier is a very accurate comp, and was trade-able because he was drastically better the 2 seasons before his trade than Rosario is. When we step back and actually look at the player Rosario is we can see why they weren't able to swing a trade this off season. He's incredibly replaceable. Response to the article and thread as a whole: Corner outfielders with similar WRC+ to Rosario last year (plus peak career year): Whit Merrifield (utility so bit of stretch on the Corner OF thing) 110/119 Franmil Reyes 109/129 (141 this year) Marcel Ozuna 109/143 (158 this year) Kole Calhoun 108/127 (over 120 twice) Adam Eaton 107/124 (over 120 3 times) Domingo Santana 107/127 Eddie Rosario 103/117 Dexter Fowler 103/129 (over 120 5 times including this year) Jason Heyward 101/134 (over 120 5 times including this year) Yasiel Puig 101/160 (over 120 3 times and currently unemployed) Andrew Benintendi 100/122 (over 120 twice) Alex Gordon 96/140 (over 120 4 times) Josh Reddick 94/127 Randal Grichuk 90/138 Eddie has the lowest peak year out of that entire group and basically all of them have beat his best year multiple times. This is just offense so it doesn't even take into account his terrible defense where many on this list are drastically better. Are these guys all worthy of major league jobs? For sure. But I don't think many fighting for Eddie to stick around would be thrilled to have him replaced by Kole Calhoun, but the reality is Kole Calhoun has had a better career than Eddie. Eddie is simply a league average corner outfielder offensively, and, as discussed in the article and thread, a well below average defender. Does that mean one of the prospects are guaranteed to perform better? No. But unless you're wanting to go out and spend close to $10 mil on Kole Calhoun instead of give a young guy a shot next year you shouldn't be fighting for Eddie who adds terrible defense and much more frequent than you'd like base running gaffes.

Ray? As in Robbie Ray? As in the guy with a 7.84 ERA and is walking a batter an inning (literally has 31 BB in 31 innings)? I hope you weren't suggesting he would've been the ace the Twins have been missing. Even with another year of team control, Robbie Ray is no ace, even in his best seasons.

I think it's a dangerous road to go down when speaking to the intent of these actions. I think it would be absurd to assume 100% of MLB players even care about the American social strife these postponements are meant to bring attention to. My guess would be that many of the foreign players who are only here to play baseball and don't have a great deal of interaction with the general public outside the field don't care about the subject and are standing with their teammates. The American born players, or players who live here year round and are much more versed in the issues, probably had very intense and heartfelt discussions on the subject. At the end of the day everyone involved decided to stand together. Was it an "empty gesture" because of that? I would say no. Was it empty for some of them? Almost a 100% certainty that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of MLB players (not to mention staff, owners, etc) who didn't agree to postpone because they aren't overly interested or invested in these things, or plainly disagree with the stance the postponements take. But to me you don't need 100% die hard, super invested participation to make the action itself not "empty." Not to mention there are already numerous reports of lots of money being donated by lots of individuals and organizations. Probably some "good PR" moves in there, but those actions also aren't "empty" just because some aren't 100% behind it.

He said Morey was either misinformed or not very educated on the China and NBA relationship and that his comments could hurt a lot of people not just financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually. And he got absolutely destroyed for it. But, again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Twins and Tiger's decision yesterday. I used the "shut up and dribble" line in response to the idea that athletes shouldn't speak on things and you guys have chosen to take it as a stand alone statement and discuss Lebron James and China outside the scope of the conversation that is being had right now.

No he wasn't. He spoke on China and was pretty roundly destroyed for it. Providing a prime example that people don't take athlete's opinions as some earth shattering piece of knowledge.

If the point of them not playing is to create conversation they have already succeeded as we are all here talking about it. The idea that they need to have some sort of negative impact on their own lives to help create change is nonsensical. If they canceled the season and donated their paychecks for the next 7 seasons to social causes would that make you feel better? Would that make anyone suddenly say "oh man, they're right! Now I see that police brutality is a problem and there are inequalities in our country. I will also join the fight to fix these problems."? The answer is no. It wouldn't. Is their postponing 1 game some great, grand gesture of self sacrifice? Of course not. Does that mean it's not effective and incredibly meaningful to many of them? No. Do 100% of players agree with the idea that police brutality, inequalities, etc. are a problem that the postponement is supposed to highlight and further conversation about? No. Were there likely dissenting voices in every clubhouse in baseball? Yes. Did they have conversations and agree that postponing wasn't some terrible tragedy worth stopping once they saw how important it was to their teammates? Apparently. The idea that there needs to be negative consequences (thus the differentiation between consequence and punishment) to make this action meaningful is misguided. The consequences of their actions are people are talking about it. The conversation has been progressed and people who wouldn't have shared their opinions with others now have. There were no punishments for the players. And I don't see how that makes any difference as it wouldn't have effected the consequences in any meaningful way.

Why does the profession of anyone speaking about something that matters to them matter? I have no idea what you do for a living and you don't know what I do, but I don't think you'd say I should keep my opinions to myself because of the career path I've gone down. They are aware they'll lose fans over this. Nascar knew they'd lose fans over the confederate flag ban. The idea that they should "shut up and dribble," to steal a now semi-famous response to Lebron, is pretty extreme to me. What does the NHL owe your wife or the Twins owe you? (Don't mean that in an aggressive way as I know is often taken over the internet in these kinds of situations) They are a business that runs how they choose to and at different levels finances and PR are considered. They don't have to play the sports we all love. Just like I don't need to do what I do. They're both jobs that our society has allowed to thrive to different degrees based on how people choose to spend their money. Do I think any athlete's opinion is better, more informed, or more important than any of ours simply because they're an athlete? Of course not. And I don't think you'd find a significant portion of society that does think that. They have a more broad reaching platform than we do, though. The vast majority of us have some sort of social media. We have friends and family we see in person. Coworkers. Strangers at the gym. We share our opinions and act in certain ways to spread the information we want spread and make stands for what we feel is worthy of taking stands for. Athletes being able to do that in different ways shouldn't be stopped. People disagreeing with them shouldn't be stopped either. The American way is elitist. We, as a society, judge people off their finances and material possessions more than anything else. You're rich: you're important, have worked harder than everyone else, and are better than. You're poor: you matter on the fringes, are lazy, and less than. Our society doesn't "bail out" the poor because the poor don't matter. We bail out the rich because the rich matter. We're the richest country in the world so we're the best. Trump had our economy in a great place so he was great. Now it's crap so he's crap. America is elitist. Athletes having view points that run counter to yours or your wife's doesn't mean they shouldn't speak to them or stand up for them. You disagreeing with them can be handled however you see fit. To turn athletes taking a stand on something into "telling us what we should care about" is on you, not them. They're using their platform the same way you're using Twins Daily as a platform. I don't think it'd be appropriate for anyone to tell you not to tell them what to care about because they disagree with a post on here (on this subject or a bullpen decision or whatever). No athlete owes any of us their performance. They are not here to follow our demands. We all pay each other's salaries in many different ways. It feels more direct with athletes because we pay for a ticket and watch them play, but that's how everything in America works. You pay for certain items and I get paid to make sure you get them. I spend money somewhere and you get paid to make sure I get whatever I paid for.

This is what it's all about. Supply and demand. Football is once a week so you have to dedicate that time each week to it if you care about it or you miss it. Baseball is every day. You can skip a few days, a week, a month, and jump right back in because there are still games everyday. I love baseball and watch multiple games everyday, but to expect the average person to tune in to a 3 hour game every day when they know they can just watch the next day just isn't realistic. And by the time the playoffs come around the average person is burned out on baseball. I definitely have to agree that marketing is a huge swing and miss by baseball. They've been awful at it. They made some strides the last season or two with the "Let the kids play" stuff, but in general they're terrible. Access to highlights and social media content has been a complete disaster with them trying to control all of it. Trout isn't as well known as we'd like because he doesn't want the spotlight and isn't as charismatic as those other stars (and doesn't win). I like thinking outside the box on these things, but I don't see how these changes would bring in more fans to the sport. Robbing homeruns or making diving catches in a setup situation like this just doesn't show off the athleticism of baseball players the way dunk contests do. And I think getting rid of the game itself runs counter to the intended goal. Wouldn't you want to use the skills challenge stuff to get non-fans interested in baseball and then show them what the best baseball players in the world actually look like playing a real game of baseball? I would think that would be how you expand the fandom beyond regions and create more fans who are interested in watching teams from different locations because they fell in love with a guy during the all star game when they saw Joey Gallo hit a 500 foot homer off Jacob DeGrom after DeGrom had just made Bregman look stupid and the crowd went nuts from the drama of the Astros this year.

This is much ado about nothing. Like Seth said, this is just how the system works. It's about trying to set new precedent. It's not about the difference only being about 300k this year for the Twins, it's about if they give in on that 300k this year it shows the arbitors that players of this level are worth more than what they've been granting players to this point. 4.35m is the top end for first time arbitration eligibile starting pitchers. Right now the teams are winning basically every time (Keuchel beat it after winning the Cy Young) when a player tries to go above that. If the Twins give in and go higher then next year the arbitors will go with the higher number. This is simply the business side of baseball and Berrios has been very open from early on that he understands the business side and he is more than happy to push things and is not taking any perceived discounts. It is no coincidence that he went with 4.4 instead of 4.3. He's trying to extend the upper limit just a little for future players. Absolutely driven by the players union. Them going through arbitration with him didn't improve or hurt their chances of extending him. He has been very open that if the team brings him a market level deal he is willing to consider it. He's just not taking a discount to extend.

The teams basically ask "is there anything wrong with him" and the other team tells them about any major medical concerns. The actual medical records are not shared until after it has been more or less fully agreed upon as the team wouldn't want any minor concerns being shown if a deal isn't going through and the player has privacy rights that restrict the teams from just throwing around their medical records all willy nilly.

This is a lot like the conspiracy theories that the Sox are trying to get out of it because of unexpected bad PR. There is a 0% chance Bloom, and the rest of the org, didn't expect huge blow back on trading Betts. They were never going to get equal player value in return and it's why they made taking Price part of any possible deal. The team doesn't care that NBC Boston wrote a bad article about them. Bad articles are written every day about every team. The teams don't care. Now that doesn't mean that the Twins aren't pushed out of this deal and end up with no Maeda and Graterol back. But it has absolutely nothing to do with John Tomase writing an article about Brusdar. Media influence has played no role in this trade.

I believe this was basically 2 trades. The Twins agreed to send Graterol to the Dodgers in return for Maeda and the Dodgers then moved Graterol to the Sox in the Betts portion of it. With the Twins only getting Maeda in return I think it's reasonable for them to say "if we're kicking in more we want more" or "this is all we're willing to pay for Maeda." Graterol and Verdugo were the return for Betts and Price (and there was money stuff) so the Twins are certainly within their rights to say "it's not our problem that you don't feel you got enough for Betts, we agreed to a swap of Graterol for Maeda." But then, to your other point, the Dodgers could then pull out of the Maeda part of the trade and give up their own prospect or find a 3rd team. But there is definitely a real reason for why the Twins wouldn't kick in any more and the Dodgers would pay the difference. Not to say they won't, but they have no reason to beyond really wanting Maeda.

I agree. The idea that Bloom is just now realizing that Boston fans would be upset with him trading the face of the franchise and a top 3-5 player in all of baseball is pretty out there. The better idea would be that they didn't look hard enough at whatever medicals they had on Graterol, or are getting different info from their in house drs. Worst case is the Twins did something shady, but I find that to be almost as far fetched as the idea that the Red Sox didn't know they'd take a PR hit by trading Betts.

Lucas Giolito, Tyler Glasnow, Alex Reyes, Berrios, Jose De Leon, Jon Gray, Robert Stephenson, Archie Bradley, Carson Fulmer, Mark Appel, Anderson Espinoza, Francis Martes, Michael Kopech, Jeff Hoffman, Reynaldo Lopez, Riley Pint, Walker Buehler, Brent Honeywell, Hunter Greene, Mitch Keller, Triston McKenzie, Kyle Wright, Mike Soroka, Forrest Whitley, Casey Mize, Sixto Sanchez, Dylan Cease, Nate Pearson, Matt Manning, Luis Patino, Ian Anderson, Dustin May. Those are most, didn't go to every rating site out there, of the RHP prospects who have rated higher than Graterol as a prospect in the last 5 years (That doesn't include the lefties so you could probably add another 15-20 to that list if you wanted to do overall pitching prospects). As in Top 50 overall prospects during the last 5 years. So many people in here acting like they just traded away the next Pedro with 100% certainty. I think some folks need to reassess what Graterol is and quit acting like he's already an established MLB arm let alone established MLB starter. He's thrown 15 innings above AA for goodness sakes. I listed 32 guys who have been rated better than he ever has and only a handful of them have shown they are any better than Maeda. Another handful aren't completely out of baseball, but aren't seen as viable ML arms. In less than 5 years Mark Appel went from the best young arm to out of the game completely. Lets get a grip on what any of the Twins prospects are and quit acting like they just traded Greg Maddux for Boof Bonser. Prospects are exciting and it is fun to dream on potential, but the certainty with which some of you speak about what Graterol will become is absurd. Maeda is not a sexy name and he is not an ace. But he is a proven ML talent. The Twins didn't "win" this trade, but they didn't get fleeced. Quite frankly, even if Maeda falls apart and Graterol does become the next Pedro this isn't a bad trade. It's not exciting or overwhelming, but it is a logically sound trade. Lets all chill and at least let the season start. A month ago these boards were blowing up about how the team isn't doing anything and are cheap and are just going to run a bunch of rookies out to the mound every day. Things can change quickly.

So Bailey, Hill, and Chacin are blocking our young guys and also not making it through the year on the roster? Not sure how you can have both of those things be the case. Did you actually mean to say the Twins have signed veteran guys to compete with the young guys and provide much needed depth since it is a 100% certainty that they will actually need more than 5 starters for the year and now they have 8-10 guys that have at least a decent chance of being average or better arms? That must have been it.

Kepler, Buxton, and Kiriloff (and Lewis if he's moved to the OF) are the only 3 (4) guys listed here that have the chance to be above average ML outfielders. Larnach looks to be a solid average MLB starting corner OFer. Wade, Cave, Rooker, Raley are all decent players who can be nice 4th outfielders, but if you're relying on more than 1 of them to be an everyday outfielder for you you're not winning the way we all want the Twins to win. (I don't mention Rosario cuz I think it's a foregone conclusion that he isn't extended beyond next year) The idea of trading any outfielder not named Kepler, Buxton, Kiriloff, or Lewis (maybe Larnach) and getting back "impact pitching" that can slot in at or above the Berrios/Odo level is a pipe dream. Nobody is giving up that kind of pitching for a combination of 4th OFs that can possibly hit, but not field. Could you get a Pineda type for them? Sure. Older guy who is good, not great, and slots in at your 3 or, preferably, 4 spot in your postseason rotation. I don't know that I'd call the current situation a logjam outside of Kiriloff being currently blocked by Rosario. With the injuries that happen throughout the year (and Buxton's history alone) this isn't a logjam, it's needed depth. The hope is that Kiriloff is over his wrist injury from last year and comes out the gate mashing. At that point when one of your ML starters goes down you mix him in to get him some exposure. If it gets to playoff time you aren't relying on a mix of 4th OFers or a guy with no ML experience. If he pulls an Arraez and never lets go of the job Rosario becomes your 4th OF and LH bat off the bench. Or part of DH rotation if Cruz finally shows his age or is hurt himself. If it's the bottom of the 9th and the tying run is on 3rd and winning run is on 2nd with 2 outs and a chance to go to the WS on the line I don't want the season coming down to Raley, Rooker, Wade, or Cave having to knock in those runs.

For sure. This signing does prove they're willing to spend as long as they feel like it's the right deal. They aren't willing to overspend, but they are willing to sign the right big money deals. Does that mean this deal turns out better than any of the deals those arms signed? Nope. But I'd guess the FO has a whole lot of info and reasons why they were willing to do this one, but not go any higher than they did on the arms. Now we just cross our fingers that we get production worthy of the price tag.