Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,606

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    169

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

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

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by chpettit19

  1. chpettit19
    I'm aware of what you're talking about. Your claim is that Buxton's team offered this exact contract extension to the Twins before the deadline and they turned it down, but later accepted it. I'm telling you that Dan Hayes wrote an article covering 56 months worth of negotiations between the Twins and Buxton's reps. And nowhere in it does anyone say this deal was on the table before the deadline, but instead it came to fruition because Buxton wanted to be here and Thad kept working with Buxton's people to come up with a creative contract to make it happen. So until you can come up with actual quotes from people involved I'm going to choose to believe the Hayes' article and those people quoted in it.
  2. chpettit19
    Would be very interested to hear that quote if you can find it. The Hayes article suggested no such thing and he had quotes from just about everybody you can think of from FO personnel to Buxton to his reps.
  3. chpettit19
    I'm getting more and more nervous as the hours tick by. Once the FA flood gates open (likely after Freeman signs I'd think) I'll be even more nervous as names come off the board and there's still no starting SS for the Twins. Just sign Story (or Correa!) and let my blood pressure go back down!
  4. chpettit19
    Where did you hear that? The incredibly detailed article Dan Hayes wrote for The Athletic about the negotiations over the last handful of years certainly didn't paint that picture. "The effort surprised even Buxton's representatives" is a rather telling quote from that article. “There were times we thought, ‘That’s it. They’re not going to call back,’” Goetz said. “And they did. Thad was the front-runner, he was the guy who pioneered the whole thing. … Our willingness to be open all the way through this and Thad saying ‘I’m not giving up’ (got this done).” Goetz being Al Goetz, one of Buxton's agents. That certainly sounds like Thad Levine was doing a bunch of work to keep Buxton in town.
  5. chpettit19
    AK seems reasonable to have as part of plan A. I'm not a fan of Rooker at all so I'd be good cutting him today, but that'd be a waste so they should at least wait until they sign/trade for someone. Gordon is a reasonable enough UTIL guy I think. He's not the best end of the bench player in the league, but I think he's serviceable enough due to his ability to play all over the field. Agree on Larnach, Celestino, and Miranda starting in AAA, and I think that's likely the actual plan (the timing of this article seems poor to me, I have to believe there's more moves coming that would drastically change what things look like). As for the pitchers, that's just the nature of the 40-man beast. I thought bringing a 40-man roster guy back in the Garver-IKF trade was weird, but it happens. I think the Twins are likely willing to DFA Thorpe without much concern if/when they bring in another arm. But there's no reason to do it until you need to. But those are all arms worthy of protecting on the 40-man until you have a more proven option to replace them. I just don't think (hope?) the current 40-man is the one we'll see come April 7 (and hopefully it's changed by Thursday when they start playing ST games). So I think this is more about this article being poorly timed and looking at a project in the middle of being completed and trying to draw conclusions when there isn't enough of the picture to truly draw conclusions.
  6. chpettit19
    What should Plan B look like in your mind?
  7. chpettit19
    I don't disagree. I think it is likely a core part of their team building strategy to not spend big money on pitching extensions or free agents. At this point it seems silly to me to continue to beat the dead horse of the FO not spending on big money arms. They're not going to do it so why discuss it as a possibility when it clearly isn't?
  8. chpettit19
    I've thought about this, too. It's not the worst strategy we've ever seen a Twins FO execute. The Reds are just giving people away right now (literally, they gave Wade Miley away for nothing) so in strict asset management terms it's an interesting bet to make that you can flip some of their players at the deadline for more if you're willing to eat the first half of their salary (and why shouldn't the Twins be willing to do that?). It's not a strategy I'm a fan of right now since they can't convince me they don't have money to spend to build this team into a pretty decent club before April 7, but it could pay off if they're able to get him to a 3.50-3.75 ERA in a better pitching environment and flip him at the deadline for a couple more prospects. I hope it isn't the plan, but I won't write it off as actually being the plan.
  9. chpettit19
    That's fair, but doesn't change the situation. We don't know the behind the scenes of why he wasn't going to sign an extension here. Maybe the FO lowballed him (wouldn't be surprised), maybe he didn't want to stay in Minneapolis, maybe he really was planning on testing FA. We'll never know. But if they wouldn't/couldn't extend him it made no sense to hold onto him during a lost season and turn down a package like they got in return.
  10. chpettit19
    I was replying to a comment where the other person compared the trades. Your comment was quite productive, though. Thanks.
  11. chpettit19
    I think he likely has a stint or 2 on the IL each of the next 2 years. Kind of reminds me of Pineda in that he'll be rock solid when he's available, but likely goes down for 2 weeks at some point. He's a good pitcher, but certainly not an ace and isn't a difference maker on his own. Weird deal if this is the roster on April 7.
  12. chpettit19
    For what timeframe? This year or the next 6? That's the question. They weren't going to extend Berrios, that is now abundantly clear. So you'd only have Berrios for this year. If that's still your stance that's totally fine. I don't see the logic in it, but to each their own.
  13. chpettit19
    Really hard to compare innings between the AL and NL when the pitchers hit and were taken out of games for pinch hitters while AL pitchers didn't have to worry about that.
  14. chpettit19
    If you're comparing/combining the trades it was Berrios and Petty for Gray, Martin, and SWR. Now I don't like the Gray trade if they aren't going out and adding more (Story and another pitcher) for this year as he doesn't add nearly enough to compete yet. But as a comparison of the trades the Twins came out with a similar ML pitcher with an extra year of control for cheap, a 5th overall pick, and a borderline top 100 prospect while giving up the ML pitcher with less control and a 26th overall pick. That's a win for the Twins in a vacuum.
  15. chpettit19
    St Paul to start. Then the OF in Minneapolis.
  16. chpettit19
    Villar is 2 years older than Story so you're worried about his decline now, right? Far superior player? Their peaks have both been 5-6 WAR. Arenado has a longer career, but their peak abilities are basically the exact same. Signing Villar to play SS for the 2022 MN Twins would be a sign that the FO was not trying to contend. Which would make trading Petty for Gray a very questionable decision. And trading Garver and Donaldson for non-minor league players just as questionable. Jonathan Villar has no chance at being an impact player. Story does. Story has been. And Story can at least field the position.
  17. chpettit19
    Over that same 4 year time Story averaged 3.9 fWAR (looks like you're using fangraphs) and Villar averaged 2.14 (including a negative WAR year, yikes) so Story would still be almost a entire win better than Villar and would have a better season than all but 2 of Villars 9 years to this point. And Arenado was 36th in all of baseball in position player fWAR last year. That's "fine" in your book, but you'd be happy with Villar who's had 2 years of at least a 3 WAR and only 4 out of 9 reaching 2 WAR at SS? Not to mention Story has had positive defensive WAR (again, according to fangraphs) every year of his career while Villar has had 1 in 9 years. Story is a far superior player.
  18. chpettit19
    Story's road numbers: 1544 PA, 80 2B, 6 3B, 63 HR, 58 SB, .241/.310/.442/.752 Villar's numbers anywhere: 3714 PA, 155 2B, 17 3B, 98 HR, 232 SB, .258/.326/.403/.729 Story has been better on the road than Villar has been anywhere. And that's not even taking into account the struggle of bouncing between high and low altitude throughout the year. Villar has had an OPS+ over 100 4 times in his 9 year career. Trevor Story has had an OPS+ over 100 5 times in his 6 year career. Villar wRC+ over 100 4 out of 9, Story wRC+ over 100 5 out of 6. Career wRC+ (which takes into account the stadiums you play in so playing in Colorado doesn't give him an artificial boost) Story 112, Villar 97. Story is a way, way, way, way, way better player than Jonathan Villar. You're also coming at this from a lack of understanding of how home/road splits for Colorado players really work. Their home numbers are better than they should be, but their road numbers are worse than they should be. Playing a homestand and getting used to how pitches break at altitude and then going on the road and having to adjust to the pitches doing completely different things makes their road numbers worse than they should be. Home/road splits for Colorado superstars are not to be trusted. Nolan Arenado had 34 HRs and a 113 wRC+ in St Louis last year. Think they regret trading for and paying him?
  19. chpettit19
    Colorado player splits are a whole different monster. There are advantages to playing at higher altitude, but it's balanced by the disadvantages of hitting on the road. They're finding more and more that the first handful of games on the road after playing at altitude hurts pretty much everyone's numbers as they try to adjust to the different things pitches do at lower elevation. Stats like wRC+ take park factors into account and Story has still been 17% above league average since 2018.
  20. chpettit19
    It can't be worse than last year and 18 straight playoff loses! Shortened spring training gives them all a chance to come together and bond quick while creating a new identity for the team. Right? Or at least that's what I'm going to tell myself. Complete shake up is good if they win!
  21. chpettit19
    They definitely need to hit on some more moves and sign some more players for these moves to make sense. Worst case scenario is definitely coming out of all this without a star on board. I applaud the attempt at a real shakeup, but they better hit on a big name or it's a disaster.
  22. chpettit19
    The other 3 (likely more) years on his deal still count. I never understand the idea that signing a good player to a long term deal is bad if there are holes in other parts of the roster. Fill your SS hole for the next handful of years so you don't have the same exact hole in the roster next year. And I'd think they're still looking to add pitching, too. But generally speaking it's never bad to add talent for multiple years. Only problem is if you're wrong on that talent and you get Chris Davis deal that destroys your team.
  23. chpettit19
    Man, some people really ride the rollercoaster on these moves. I've given up predicting where this offseason will go. Was pretty neutral on the first couple trades as they looked to be deals to fill specific holes on the current roster, but I wasn't overly excited as I didn't think they moved the needle much. With this move I'm just going to sit back and see what the opening day roster looks like because there's clearly more at play. Moving JD's contract as a salary dump makes no sense after bringing Gray in for Petty so to me it looks pretty obvious they're planning more. Let's see where things are by the end of the week when they start playing some ST games, and, more importantly, April 7 when they host the Mariners.
  24. chpettit19
    I gave it a C. Feels a year too late to me. This is the kind of move they should've made going into last year. As others have said, if there's more moves coming the grade would go up. But as of right now I'm pretty neutral on it. It is nice to see them trying, though. Even if I'd still prefer to have signed Story in partnership with a move like this rather than trading Garver for IKF.
  25. chpettit19
    It looks awfully likely that the Twins will be well below their recent payroll numbers this year. Is that a response to lower revenues the last 2 years or the much more concerning situation of treating Buxton's incentives as guarantees when assessing their payrolls? Buxton's contract is great for the Twins, but only if they're willing to risk losing some profits if/when he hits his incentives. I don't like it, but I can understand them lowering payroll this year after the last 2 years with attendance being restricted and all. It feels like they're targeting 100-110M as a budget this year and I hate it, but can at least understand it if it's a 1 year thing. But if this is the plan moving forward and they're going to be consistently below where they should be on payroll because of Buxton's incentives I'm going to be very upset. Maybe my read on things are wrong and they're going to spend another 40M in the next couple weeks, but I don't see it. They have a nearly full 40-man and I don't foresee them dropping young guys for veterans at this point. Cueto or Pineda. Maybe a reliever or 2 when they put guys on the 60-day, but I don't see much more than that. What do people think? Are they going to get close to their recent payrolls this year? If not, is it a 1 year dip? Or do we need to be concerned they are going to be lower than normal for the entirety of Buxton's extension?
×
×
  • Create New...