chpettit19

Feels like a pretty routine claim, then waive and see if you get him through but don't care if you don't move here. Expect we'll see a lot more of these.

Doesn't it take some sort of struggles to be a breakout candidate? The original post clearly states they're looking at prospects who weren't in the top 10 for the Twins who have the chance to jump into the top 10 next year with some improvement. The entire point of this is to find somebody who has had struggles and project them as having a decent chance at jumping up. Like Miranda who had higher expectations when he first got to the org, but struggled, then had a breakout. This exercise doesn't exist with prospects that haven't struggled. Yes, "realism" says that almost every prospect will fail to ever breakout. It's why so few prospects ever make the majors. But what's the point of saying "hey, I think Martin may be really good in 2022?" He's a top prospect, he's expected to put up numbers. It's not over the top to suggest prospects won't break out. But it's also not fun or productive. The original post laid out some reasonable reasons why one could expect those players to see improved performance next year. At least provide the reasons you think they're wrong as other posters have. Do you think Sabato struggles with breaking balls? Do you think Strotman struggles with his command? Or do you just want to point out that prospects fail at incredibly high rates?

There were a number of Eddie's ABs in the post season that he laid off pitches he'd almost always swing at when he was in MN. He has always been a "prime time" type player who locked in more during high leverage situations so it may just be that he was able to lock in more throughout the playoffs (he was good in the playoffs for us too), but it'll be interesting to see what he does next year during the regular season. Did something in him change and he'll come out with a more patient approach all year next year or will he be the streaky Eddie who dominates mistakes for a few weeks at a time while getting himself out swinging at everything for other stretches? Great to see Eddie and Ehire get rings. Will be fun to see how this run changed Eddie's stock in free agency and if he'll be able to change his approach for 162 games next year.

Seem like 3 pretty reasonable picks. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Strotman make his MLB debut next year, and would actually probably be disappointed if he didn't. Not that he's going to be a top 3 arm in a rotation, but I think it's reasonable he can replicate Ober type production and it's never bad to have multiple guys who can make competitive MLB starts at the back end of your rotation. Steer showed more pop than I think anyone was expecting while maintaining his strong strike zone control. That's a pretty good recipe for jumping up prospect rankings. Sabato maintained an elite eye, but had huge contact struggles early. Being a DH only type puts him behind the 8 ball, but if the end of the year was signs of things to come he should reclaim his top prospect shine quickly if he's posting more 1.000 OPS months.

I think Marte is an interesting player for the Twins. I'm a big advocate for outfield defense and hate the Twins continually running out below average defenders who can't run in a league slanted more and more to fly balls and extra base hits. A defense of Marte-Buxton-Kepler would be great for run prevention and with Marte and Buxton at the top and Kepler hitting where he should in the 7-9 holes I like it offensively, too. Interesting plan and would be happy with it even if I think they should focus on a SS in FA instead. Not an Ehire fan. Solid glove and doesn't kill you with the bat as a utility guy, but him having to cover 70+ games at short doesn't sound like a winning formula to me. I just think Mondesi isn't someone I'd go after as I think the Twins can compete in 2022 and he's too big of a question mark to add to the question marks they have with health and prospects getting chances. I'd prefer a big name SS and some trades for arms which may open up the chance of Marte being the other big money FA signing over a FA arm. He's a real interesting piece, but I'd prefer to lock SS down with a more certain thing than Mondesi. Unless they can get KC to give him up for some of our excess corner talent. I wouldn't be mad with Mondesi, but he wouldn't be my plan A through D.

I see the Mondesi idea thrown around here a lot and I'm curious why people aren't scared off by his injury history and below average offense. I agree he's a good buy low candidate with upside, but the reports I've seen say the Royals don't plan to trade him unless they get a pretty darn good package, and the Royals have proven to be quite stubborn (haven't traded Merrifield despite everyone saying they should) and they feel they're ready to compete now. I'd think Mondesi and/or Witt could move to CF and be a stud defender there as well. But my real question is do you think it's wise to have Buxton who's only played more than 100 games once in his career and Mondesi who's really struggled to stay healthy the last few years as 2 of your 3 up the middle guys? That's a lot of faith in 2 incredibly injury prone players. And I'm all for bringing Buxton back with the injury risk because of the ceiling he's shown. Mondesi's best OPS+ season was 115 (wrc+ was 113) in 2018 in 75 games. He's definitely got a ton of potential, but I wouldn't give up any of our young pitchers for the hope he can become an above average bat and stay healthy. Add Arraez, Donaldson, Kirilloff and his wrist, and even Polanco and his ankles to the mix and you're looking at a top of the order with way more real health questions than I'd like.

Agree with the idea that the Twins, and every team, should be open to making deals to improve at the deadline, but this wasn't Atlanta trading for a bunch of stars to fill in for their injured and arrested stars they lost. Duval was the only one of the 4 who was really having a good year before they got him (still only a 100 OPS+ with Miami, 104 with Atl). Joc was below average before the trade and after. Eddie had been horrible in Cleveland. Soler was almost unplayable (76 OPS+) with KC. If the Twins made these types of moves at the deadline I don't think most fans would be praising the FO after the deadline for "going for it." I mean these are basically the deals they have been going after at deadlines, these ones just happened to work out way better than anyone could've guessed, especially in the playoffs. There's not a human on the planet who would've predicted the numbers Soler and Rosario put up for Atl after the first halves they had. I love to see Eddie succeeding and hope the Braves win this thing (Freddie Freeman deserves a ring), but this wasn't some huge swing the Braves made. They took a flier on 3 guys bouncing back a little and 1 guy maintaining. Duval maintained and Soler and Rosario took off to heights nobody would've guessed. Good for them, but not exactly a blueprint that can be replicated frequently.

I like it. As a general idea and plan, not the exact thing that will happen. I think a sizable shakeup would be good. I hope the FO is learning and will make adjustments. Hopefully it includes watching the playoffs and seeing how much just putting the ball in play helps teams. Smoltz keeps saying "pass the baton" over and over and it's what I hope the Twins look for in hitters moving forward. I just don't think you can sustain success with a lineup of more HR or K guys than guys who cut down their swings and put the ball in play with 2 strikes. I hope they've learned over the last 5 years and make a bold statement this offseason to change some things and go into 2022 with a team that can compete. I think it's possible and moves like the ones here (not a fan of paying Baez 22 a year, though) would go a long way to getting things straightened out.

I don't think they need 3 other pitchers. Ober and Ryan and the rest of the prospects are going to get the #4 and 5 spots. And I think that's the right call. Pineda has been every bit a #3 pitcher in his time here and there's no real reason to think he won't do it again in 2022. I 100% agree that you can't contend with him as your #1 or 2 (although the playoffs this year have been anything but a showcase of starting pitching), but spending 8-10M on him as your #3 seems quite reasonable. I don't see Paxton or Foltynewicz as having the upside of a #1 or 2. Besides 1 insane outlier season from each, neither has ever been better than Pineda so I don't see why they'd provide any hope of filling the #1 or 2 spot in a contending rotation. I think we mostly agree. If Pineda is the best, or second best, pitcher the Twins have going into 2022 they weren't really trying to contend and they shouldn't pretend they were. I just don't agree that bringing in any of the 3 you named (outside maybe Thor as the #2) would be a better indication that they're trying to contend or give them a better chance to contend. The team I'm promoting is one that doesn't spend big money on multiple FA starting pitchers, but trades for at least 1 young-ish, controllable arm that can slide into the #2 spot. Many have mentioned Marlins pitchers as targets and I'd trade just about any of our corner guys to them to get one of their guys. The Twins have too many corner guys and not enough up the middle defenders or starting pitchers. I'd spend money on the up the middle players and trade for the pitching.

I don't know that I agree Paxton or Foltynewicz have upside. Throwing hard doesn't automatically equal upside. They've established they are not front of the rotation guys. They're fighting to re-establish themselves as ML pitchers in general let alone front of the rotation guys. Pineda isn't giving "decent pitching." He's been well above average in his time with the Twins. I think you're maybe more focused on the flashy radar gun numbers than the actual results. Pineda isn't blowing people away, but he stops teams from scoring runs much better than the average ML pitcher. That's the goal. Prevent the other team from scoring. He does that. He shouldn't be the best pitcher the Twins have for 2022 if they're trying to contend. I think we very much agree there. But having him in the #3 spot is absolutely good enough to contend. In fact the Twins had the 2nd best fangraphs WAR in all of baseball for pitching staffs in 2019 and 2020 combined with him in the #3 spot. If the Twins are trying to contend they absolutely need to bring in better arms than Pineda, but taking a shot on Foltynewicz or Paxton for cheap should absolutely not be viewed as a better attempt to contend than having Pineda. Signing any of the 4 guys we're discussing as their best pitcher is 100% not a legit attempt to contend. They need somebody better than anyone we've mentioned to be their #1 and Thor is the only one with a legit shot to even be a #2. But Pineda is still a better option for building a contender than Paxton or Foltynewicz. Paxton and Foltynewicz should be the end of the offseason so sign him for cheap and cross your fingers guys, not any sort of sign of a plan to compete. They're younger, harder throwing versions of Happ and Shoemaker as back end, inning filling lottery tickets. I also think their best path is to develop the young guys, and if I were the FO my focus would be locking in the middle of my defense and top of my lineup (Buxton extension, Polanco extension, sign a big name SS) while figuring out which corner guys I want around and better balancing my roster. I'd much rather they trade some corner guys for pitching than sign a number of arms. But if they sign arms I don't want Paxton or Foltynewicz as anything other than competition with Ober and Ryan for back end roles or high velo bullpen options. If I signed Foltynewicz it'd probably be with a plan to let him rip for an inning at a time and see if he can pull a Liam Hendriks and reinvent himself as a shutdown reliever.

I find it interesting that you'd be more impressed with a Thor, Folty, or Paxton signing than bringing Pineda back. Pineda is a far more predictable pitcher and they would likely feel comfortable expecting an ERA+ between 110-125 next year. Thor was no better than Pineda in 2018, significantly worse in 2019, and has thrown 2 awful innings between 2020 and 2021 combined. And he'll cost about twice as much probably. Folty was out of this world (143 ERA+) in 2018, but other than a league average 2019, he's been below average every year of his career, including 24 starts with an ERA of 5.44 this year. Paxton was incredible in 2017 (140 ERA+), but has been worse than Pineda since. Including an awful 21.2 total innings between 2020 and 2021. Feels like based on actual performance Pineda is the much safer pick for competing next year than taking a flier on 3 guys who either haven't been good or haven't even really pitched the last 3-4 years. Don't really understand the idea that signing Folty or Paxton is a sign they're trying to contend while bringing back the significantly better pitcher in Pineda isn't. Pineda has been an above average pitcher in his time with the Twins. Including being their #3 on pitching staffs that had top 10 ERAs the last 2 years. I think you're significantly underselling how well he's performed in his time in MN.

I feel like Kepler for Manaea is exactly the type of move the A's like to make. Last year of control on a pitcher they aren't going to pay for 3 controllable years of a player at a position of need for them. That's Oakland 101. Manaea hasn't been some sort of world beater. He's basically the same talent level of pitcher as Kepler is an outfielder. I think it's one of the more realistic trades you'll see around here. I do agree it's very unlikely Verlander would come here, though. And Gray certainly has a chance to beat those numbers, but he's not getting 20M a year or anything crazy.

Agree with Lonestart that you're likely quite low on the E Rod salary, but he'd still be a good get for the Twins even if his price tag is a little higher. I think Heaney is an interesting bullpen convert project. I don't know what his market will look like as a former top prospect who's struggled in the bigs, but with his fastball and K rates I'd be interested to see what he could do while being unleashed for an inning or 2 at a time. I'd take a shot at him on a cheap deal and see what I could get out of him just letting it rip.

Pretty realistic offseason plan I think. I think Verlander coming here is by far the biggest question mark. Not sure this is the type of situation he'd want to use a year at the end of his career in. I don't think it's impossible, but I think it's unlikely. I'm not a big fan of trading Kepler. I think the biggest problem with him is that the Twins have done everything they can to force a 6-9 hole hitter into the 1-5 slots in the lineup. If you have a gold glove type RFer with some decent pop, but ends up around league average for hitters every year you have a winning player. Just stop hitting him leadoff or 4th or 5th. Put him where belongs in the order and fans will quit complaining about him so much and your lineup will be lengthened. It's a fly ball league now as everyone tries to lift the ball for power. I want as many big time gloves in the outfield as I can get. Part of the Twins run prevention problems early were defensive mistakes that the pitchers then didn't overcome and things snowballed. Kepler played a role in Milwaukee and Rooker had the worst fielding series I've ever seen in Oakland. Sano doesn't have the trade value of Kepler (I'd guess), but he'd be the first person I try to move. He's another one I think would help by being dropped in the order, but he also has the weight of being Org Savior #2 after they told fans to wait for him and Buxton and watch the magic once they arrived. At this point a change in scenery is probably best for both sides as he can go hit in the bottom of somebody's order and mash 40 bombs and strike out 36% of the time without the fan base demanding he be a savior. That allows Larnach more time at the DH spot (as I said earlier I don't want negative defenders in the OF) and Kirilloff can just take over at 1B with Miranda being able to start getting his feet wet, too. I love the bullpen plan and would be quite happy if that's what they went into the season with. Spending big money on relief arms is just too risky for a team with the Twins financial restraints (self inflicted restraints or not). I'd honestly be ok with 3 new arms in the 10M range if they can't get a Verlander type rental. I'd even give Dobnak a spot, but only if it meant they took the money saved there and the money you have ticketed for Galvis and Dickerson and went and got one of the big SSs. I've said on TD before, but locking up Buxton, Polanco, and one of those big SSs would be my priority. Lock in the middle of the field for the next 5, 6, 7 years and attack the corners after. Especially since we have so many corner pieces already. I'd be good with a big name SS and 2 or 3 Gray type signings for the rotation while we let the young guys get their shots.

They did skip his last start. Whether or not we should believe the injury story I don't know. But I believe the reasoning for not doing more innings in fewer starts is that the science/data/medical people say most of the arm injury problems come from overuse in a single session (game) more than too many sessions (games). All the starters throw everyday, but they get hurt from throwing high effort pitches after their arm has hit it's limit that day. Not saying that's all right, but I believe that's the reasoning. Ober threw 16 minor league innings this year. Obviously not a ton, but not nothing. That gave him 108.1 on the year. That's the most he's ever thrown in a season in his life (assuming he wasn't throwing 110 innings a season in HS). The Twins had a plan for him, and all their starters, coming into the season. It was based on science/data/medical people. They had a general plan for him in every start. But they also tracked his spin rates, velo, extension on release, and probably 10 other data points during his starts. They could see when he started to tire (lower spin rates and velo, shorter extension on release, etc.) and would then go to their bullpen/lineup matchup plan and set up a plan for when to take him out. I think fans sometimes fail to understand just how much goes into these decisions. I get that fans want starters to go longer. I want starters to go longer. But I think there's more that goes into it than the classic "100 pitches and you're done" thought. There's also something to be said for Ober's body getting used to having to pitch every 5th/6th day until the end of September. I think a jump to 150ish innings for him is a reasonable goal for next year. Maybe it's only 140, but somewhere in that 140-160 range. That's a jump of 30-50 innings. More than doable I'd think. I'd expect we see far fewer times that he's pulled before making it through 5 innings (assuming he's pitching well) next year. Maybe not a bunch of 7 inning starts, but probably a few. I think they'll have a completely different plan for him.

Old, tired, and incorrect take. The Twins had the 9th best ERA in baseball in 2019. They lead the AL, and were second to the Dodgers in all of baseball, in fangraphs WAR for pitching staffs in 2019 and 2020 combined. This is how the game is played now. The Twins were right where every other ML team was in starter innings per start this year, and every year since Rocco took over. The Twins had a plan coming into the year to lighten starter workloads early as they built back up from either 60 game or 0 game seasons. Berrios ended with the 2nd most innings pitched in the AL this year because Rocco let him go when he was good. Outside of that 1 game from the Astros this postseason they've averaged less than 3 innings per start. They're at 3.1 even with that 8 inning start. When pitchers are bad (like most of the Twins starters were this year) managers pull them. Obviously a quicker trigger in the playoffs, but this idea that Rocco is doing something wild and pulling everyone early is flat out ignoring the way baseball is played and managed at the major league level now. But, seriously, lets stop with this "Rocco only has a good record because of the HR record." It's provably wrong.

Chris Sale was cruising in game 5 and Cora didn't pull him when the analytics said he should and he imploded and they lost the game. Matt Harvey was cruising in the WS (I forget what game it was, 6 maybe?) and the Mets didn't pull him when the analytics said they should and he imploded and they lost that series to the Royals. You can find examples of things going poorly both ways. Not saying I disagree with you (I would've left Snell in). The playoffs are just such a weird beast and every decision is going to be second guessed. That's why I'm good with the strategy of "just get in and see what happens." The playoffs are a crapshoot.

Ok, you're right. He was just so heartbroken he couldn't hit. His reasoning was that it was cold in Cleveland and he started hitting better in Atl because it was warmer. It's cold in MN, too, so not sure he would've had great success early here if it was the weather. He's never, in his entire ML career, had a wRC+ over 117. But you think he was somehow going to carry the dumpster fire that was the Twins team for the first half of the year single handedly? And his fielding arm?! That's where we're at now? His arm would've saved the season? Come on. Nobody is saying they didn't like Eddie. Nobody is saying he's a bad player. Nobody is saying anything like that. But every team in baseball had the chance to claim Eddie and pay him his arb salary and every single team in baseball passed. Arguing that it was an error for the Twins to not pay the salary that literally every other major league baseball team refused to pay is awfully far fetched to me. You like Eddie. You wish they'd brought him back. But arguing he would've saved the season or it wasn't the right decision to not pay him his arb salary just doesn't have much evidence in the real world. No problem with you believing it, but it's a hard argument to make with any sort of statistical or objective evidence.

Twins season was doomed in the first half, can't argue that. So your argument would have to be that Rosario's bat would've helped right the ship early in the season in order to suggest it was an error not bringing him back. In the first half when Eddie was with Cleveland he had an 86 wRC+. The Indians paid to get rid of him. They traded him and cash to Atlanta for Sandoval who they cut immediately. He was so bad they literally paid money to get rid of him. But you think he was the guy that was going to save the season? For reference Larnach had an 89 wRC+ on the season. Refsnyder was 86. Kirilloff was 93, Kepler 95, Garlick 99. Eddie catching fire to end the season and during this series is the definition of small sample size. Rosario wouldn't have made any difference to the results of the Twins season.

Ober didn't pitch last year and never topped 78.2 innings in his professional career because of injuries. His max was 106 back in 2014 when he was a freshman in college. He's a terrible example for your point. Jose Berrios was second in the AL in innings pitched this year. He didn't get there by pitching 14 innings a game for the Jays. When pitchers are throwing well Rocco lets them go.

Feels like the definition of small sample size here. Innings by Astros starter during playoff games 2021: 6.2, 4.1 (Valdez himself!), 2.2 (not a bullpen game, Luis Garcia was the starter and had made 28 starts this year), 4, 2.2 (Valdez again!), 1 (again, not a bullpen game, Luis Garcia was just really bad again they then turned to Odo who only got them through the 5th), 1.2 (not a bullpen game, Urquidy just sucked), 1.1 (still not a bullpen game, Grienke just walked everyone), finally we get to Valdez going 8. That's an average of 3.1 innings per start. All of which were started by legit starters. Without that 8 inning start they've averaged less than 3 innings a start from their starters this postseason.

You're conveniently ignoring how I've repeatedly said that trading for Donaldson won't be at the top of anyone's list and won't happen until after they all took their swings spending their 15M on FAs. It's not about date it's about what's left and what options they have to improve their team. A fair way to argue my point is to say I don't think 15M is significant if there's not players worth 15M on the market. Which I have. Over and over. Having 15M extra when there's nobody left to spend it on is simply putting 15M in Pohlad's pocket and the team not having Donaldson. I've never suggested you want to trade Donaldson for Happ. What I have done is repeatedly say I don't believe there will be players of a higher caliber than Happ available by the time teams would look to trade for Donaldson. Your house analogy doesn't fit my point. I'm saying by the time somebody wants to buy the house they've already tried to buy every other house they wanted more and now you're the only house available to them and after you sell your house the houses available to you are worse than the one you had. Name a team and a situation that leads to them wanting to trade for Donaldson, even with the risk he has. You haven't named one yet. Beyond SF there are no contenders with significant needs at 3B. Again, I've explained why I think that over and over and your response is simply "there'll be teams." If you ignore all context and just say you can have an extra 15M with that "rich FA crop" available then you have a point. I've provided context after context after context for why I don't think there will be a "rich FA crop" left by the time you can trade Donaldson. My first point, and the one I continue to try to make, is that I feel Donaldson is a poor trade chip during the offseason when teams have numerous other places to spend their money and not have to give up prospects. He's a better fit as a midseason trade for a team that loses their 3B, or DH, and is fighting for a division. Which is why the Mets were interested last year. You continue to argue in a vacuum Donaldson gone, 15M spent on big-ish name FA. I continue to say that isn't realistic in the real world due to the reasons why you want to move Donaldson and the nature of teams having numerous options to spend their money on without having to trade any prospect capital.

Quit saying it's a mischaracterization. It's not. It's me disagreeing with your stance. It's not unfair framing it's me providing context and reasons for why I say what I do. I explained why I don't think they'd get much more than Happ or Colome types. By the time somebody traded for Donaldson (because it wouldn't be their first priority or plan A) the Thor, Gray, Seager types would be gone. That's not a mischaracterization, it's me saying I disagree and here's why. This is at least the 3rd time I've explained that trading for Donaldson won't be anyone's plan A and they will go after FAs first and turn to a Donaldson trade after they miss on FAs. I believe by the time somebody turned to that option any money the Twins would save this season wouldn't be able to go to anyone of significance because they'd already be signed. And your first paragraph is you explaining why nobody else would want to spend prospect capital and 15M a year on Donaldson. If he's a risk of being an albatross to the Twins he's a risk of being an albatross to them. But you keep arguing not only will teams want to take on that albatross, but they'll want to give a "decent return" to do so. I've explained numerous times why I think it's insignificant. I don't know how else to say it. I've provided the context for why I think that. If they can trade Donaldson and gain an extra 15M in early November I'm all good with it. That's not realistic. Nobody is going to be putting "Trade for Josh Donaldson" at the top of their offseason to do lists. Nobody. They're going to wait until everybody that they'd like to spend that 15M on is signed and then say "hey, may as well see if we can give the Pohlads 15M for Donaldson." You are yet to provide a team with a legit need for a 3B who may want to give up a prospect for the chance to pay Donaldson 15M a year for 2 years despite your proclaimed "very real chance" he can't perform to expectations. Your best example is the Giants wanting him over a longer Bryant deal. I've refuted that and laid out the 3B situation for every other contender all the way down to the Tigers. Your claim is he'll have an early offseason market (if they can't trade him early in the offseason they're simply cutting payroll because there's nobody of significance left to sign late, as I've stated over and over) of teams wanting to take on a potential albatross despite none of them having a priority need at 3B. None of this is me mischaracterizing anything. This is what you're saying. And I've laid out numerous examples and reasons for why I disagree. If your best response is "you're mischaracterizing me" over and over while I continue to explain that I'm simply disagreeing and providing reasons why I think you're the one struggling to find "fair framing" for an argument.

I don't think having an extra 10-15M this offseason would be significant, no. For the reasons I explained. I don't see the market you do. If the market were to materialize it wouldn't be until after the teams missed on their primary targets and by then the FA market would have been picked over and that 10-15 wouldn't be able to go to a Thor, or anyone else in that level of talent as I think they'd all be gone by then. So having 10-15 to spend on more Happ, Shoemaker, Colome, Robles, or Pineda types is not significant to me. With no context, yes, 10-15 million is obviously significant, but in this context, no, I don't think it is. And the idea that trading him could save us 50M is outlandish to me. I believe there is a literally 0% chance any team will take on his entire deal. Unless the Twins throw in significant prospect capital. So with only 2 years left and not believing they could use the 10-15 in a significant way this offseason I don't think trading Donaldson this offseason makes any sense. I haven't mischaracterized anything, I've simply argued that your ideas aren't accurate and have attempted to use a number of contextual thoughts as to why. I believe you overvalue his trade value. I've explained why. I believe you overstate his market. I've explained why. I believe you overvalue how much a team would be willing to take on of his deal. I've explained why. I have mischaracterized nothing, I simply don't agree and have used many different explanations to show the context around why I disagree.

My first response to you was that the Twins couldn't save enough money by trading Donaldson to sign Thor. 15M isn't enough to sign Thor. The QO is 18.4M, if he's willing to sign for 15 he'd take the QO he's very likely to receive. 15M per year isn't getting you a #1 pitcher. It's getting you a good 3, poor 2. I've given your position merits and disagreed with them. Mets: I already went over the their 3B situation. JD Davis is every bit the hitter Donaldson is and is still in arbitration. I don't see why you think they'd want to have Donaldson for 15M+ instead of JD for likely less than 3m. The Mets need a CFer far more than they need a 3B. They'd be more than happy to go into next year with JD Davis, Lindor, McNeil, Smith, Alonso across the IF/DH, not lose any prospects, and have that 15M to put towards a CFer (or Conforto extension). Yankees: I haven't seen anything about them wanting Urshela out, but even if that's true they have Torres at 2B and a pretty expensive DJ LeMahieu at 3B. They're going after the big time SSs, not Josh Donaldson. Phillies: Alec Bohm is a 3B costing the league minimum. I'd think they'd prefer him for the minimum, not losing a prospect, and having that 15M to throw in their offer for one of the "big 5", because. like the Yankees, they need a SS and will be in on the big 5 more than Josh Donaldson. If the Twins should prefer Arraez/Miranda at 3B with extra money to throw at bigger needs why would the Phillies not prefer to have that extra money to throw at bigger holes (SS and CF) and not lose a prospect? Brewers: Not taking on any sort of significant money (they're not paying 15+M a year) for Josh Donaldson. They're just not. They're cheaper than the Twins and already have a bad Jackie Bradley deal on their payroll. Giants: I guess they're your best bet in preferring Donaldson on 2 years and 35M (your numbers) while trading a "decent return" for him over wanting Bryant back. Josh Donaldson is not a great offseason trade piece. There are not the openings on contenders that you suggest there are and non-contenders aren't going to trade away a prospect to bring back Donaldson and 15M a year. It's why I say he's a better mid-season trade option. Teams are limited on how they can improve their team and the Twins can demand more in return at the deadline.