chpettit19

And I think some of us would be willing to chip in on some extra gas for the young man if needed.

Because he can win there. He can get more money off the field in those markets. NTCs aren't all about getting extensions or more money, they're just about control. There may be nothing the Twins or any team could do to get him to waive his NTC. He may be willing to do anything to get out of here. Or anything in between. But there's plenty of guys who waive their NTCs and don't get extensions or extra money. Arenado may waive his and he isn't going to get any extra money. If the Twins decide to blow it up at the deadline or after this season and trade everyone they can Correa may be very happy to waive his NTC to get out of here whether he gets extra money or not because he doesn't feel like spending the rest of his career on a 65 win team. He may not waive it to go to the White Sox, but if he has the chance to go to a contender he may be very happy to waive it. It all depends on the player, their family, and what they care about. Maybe Mr Dior really does only care about getting extra money, but it's also quite possible he'd be happy to go to a contender without any changes being made to his contract.

They are a smart bunch. Let's hope he comes into the year with some gas in the tank at least.

He ran out of gas at the end. His bat speed went down by 1.7 MPH. That wasn't a healthy Lewis. Now if he can't maintain his bat speed for an entire season that's going to be a problem. But that wasn't the league figuring him out, that was him running out of gas.

Put him in the pen, let him dominate there for half the season, then trade him at the deadline if the Pohlads really need to save that 3ish million and you'd actually get something in return for him.

Zebby being ahead of Correa doesn't make sense to me. Zebby, SWR, and the other handful of guys on that MLB/AAA bubble right now are all in the same boat to me. Because there's a whole group of them you have a better chance of finding one of them to pop. None of them are likely to be a #1 or 2 starter in my eyes so they're not as important as your starting SS. Correa was too low on this list, even with the foot problems the last 2 years. Jeffers is a tricky one. The pitchers have performed better with him behind the plate the last 2 years than with Vazquez which is the only defensive stat I care about for a catcher, especially when they're getting this even of play back there. And he's an above average hitter. They have no meaningful catching depth that any of us seem to be able to see anywhere in the system. Really hard to replace that guy. But he's not a star and goes ice cold for long stretches while not being a defensive stud so he's not overly vital or irreplaceable. He's important due to lack of other options. Which is not an ideal situation. The others feel about right. Larnach seems to have found his stride and stayed healthy enough to perform all year. Let's hope for more health this year. They need top prospects to perform (every team does) so Keaschall is important. And pens, especially the back ends of them, are showing more and more how important they are in today's game so Duran is important.

Not taking anything out of context. I'm using your words and your claims. Law is a former scout and front office exec. I'm going to go ahead and take his opinion over yours. I gave you Scott's first half numbers. I gave you his numbers in June when you claimed the Twins could have traded for him. He'd made 35 appearances by then and was amongst the best relievers in baseball. Puk didn't have a drop in pen performance. He made 4 starts in April, moved to the pen in May and was immediately dominant again. You're just making stuff up. He gave up earned runs in 1 of his 7 May pen appearances. 2 of 13 June pen appearances. 0 of 11 July pen appearances. He didn't drop in pen performance. I haven't spun anything. You made an outlandish claim of fact that "MIA was motivated to trade, we could have landed both Pukk & Scott very cheaply if we acted quickly to our needs. You sit & wait until the end high-end RP becomes more expensive & the last day you'll pick up the scraps. Here's another trade in July, Gonzalez 8.0 for Pukk 7.1, still a bargain." I haven't spun that. That's your exact statement. You stated it as fact. It isn't fact. And it's wrong. High-end RP is expensive. BTV isn't real life. They weren't going to sell Scott, who had 29 appearances and 1.80 ERA by the middle of June despite your false claims that his value was low and he had little chance to shine and didn't have a good "1st half image," for "very cheap" because you could make a BTV trade work because BTV was slow on changing their value for him.

This is a flat out lie about Puk. He started 4 games for Miami. 4. Then he moved back to the pen and was immediately successful again. He gave up earned runs in 1 of 7 pen appearances in May. 2 of 13 pen appearances in June. 0 of 11 in July. He absolutely did not struggle in the pen at all. He was immediately successful in his return to the pen. His value did not literally crater. I'd be amused at the criticism of BTV as well if my belief was that he struggled in the pen and thus his value cratered when that isn't the case at all. But since your premise is factually incorrect maybe that explains why you give BTV too much credit since his value didn't crater because of 4 bad starts when he immediately went back to being a dominant bullpen arm like he'd been for the previous 2 years. You're mischaracterizing the complaints about BTV. We are saying the same thing you are. That it is a nice tool for outsiders to start general conversations about trades. What we are pushing back on are statements like "MIA was motivated to trade, we could have landed both Pukk & Scott very cheaply if we acted quickly to our needs. You sit & wait until the end high-end RP becomes more expensive & the last day you'll pick up the scraps. Here's another trade in July, Gonzalez 8.0 for Pukk 7.1, still a bargain." Gast is making outlandish statements that have no basis in reality. The Twins could not have gotten Puk and Scott "very cheaply" in June because BTV said their value was low. That isn't realistic. The Marlins aren't stupid. They weren't basing their opinion on Gonzalez on BTV's value or "hype" they have their own scouts. It was pretty universally agreed upon that the Twins failed at the deadline by not making trades better than the Richards deal. That isn't the disagreement here. The blatantly incorrect claim that the Twins could've gotten Puk and Scott for significantly less than they were traded for a month before they were traded is the disagreement.

You may not have liked the return for Arraez, but here's what Keith Law wrote about it: "The return for Miami seemed solid with the initial reports that it included Dillon Head and Nathan Martorella, but when you throw in Jakob Marsee, this is the best deal the Marlins have made in years." So, maybe that's why they traded him in May and maybe it was a pretty decent return? Dillon Head was a first round pick the year before. That's a pretty good starting point for any trade. Nobody made a serious offer for Luzardo because he was awful and injured all of last year. He's actually a great example of the point here. His BTV value was probably very low (comparatively) at the beginning of the year while he carried around an ERA touching 7 through April. That would've tanked his BTV ranking so according to you the Twins would've been able to just call the Marlins and snag him for cheap because his surplus value was low so he could be had at a bargain. But the Marlins wouldn't take those deals because BTV isn't real. That's what ended their "hopes of a hay day." Him being bad. He had an ERA of 5. AJ Puk had a multi-year track record of success in the pen, the "failed starter experiment" didn't tank his value. Yet another reason BTV isn't real. It doesn't take that into account. Humans can remember that and think "hey, we know he can succeed in the pen, so we'll just do that." You know, like you did. You outsmarted BTV. I'm quite certain the MLB teams could figure that out, too. Including the Marlins. He made 4 starts in April before going back to the pen and having an ERA under 3 there through June. By the time they traded him it was 2.08 out of the pen. BTV doesn't take that into account. Teams do. Including the Marlins. Tanner Scott wasn't given much chance to shine? He was the unquestioned #1 reliever on the market. He made 35 appearances through June. 44 by the time he got traded. That's a ton of opportunity to shine. He was at 36 innings with a 1.50 ERA by the end of June. You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative now. 35 appearances through June tied him with Ryan Pressly, Clay Holmes, and Josh Hader. I think those are some names people have heard of and were given "chances to shine" by their teams last year. No stats are the real world? Of course they are. Batting average is literally a measurement of what happened in the real world. Homeruns are just a counting of what happened in the real world. BTV is very different. Yes, BTV is different. It is unbiased, but it is flawed because it can't take certain factors into account. It's a starting point for conversations amongst us outsiders. It is not a tool that can, or should, be used the way you use it to say "the Twins could have had this player if they would have offered this player on this date." That isn't how it works. You can't make those claims. Sure, humans have biases and can fall victim to hype, but if a front office is being swayed by outside hype on a regular basis instead of their scouting reports they are failing at their jobs and won't survive long. There's a reason the real draft doesn't follow mock drafts and prospect rankings. Shoot, there's a reason not all top 100 or draft rankings are the same. Teams have their own scouts, their own systems, their own rankings. They aren't following the hype you see. They aren't checking BTV. They aren't checking top-100 lists (except when it comes to the extra comp pick for rookie of the year stuff now). They aren't consulting outside mock drafts to figure out who to draft. They don't care what BTV or you or me or anyone outside thinks of Gabriel Gonzalez (I never liked him as a prospect either so we're on the same page there) or any other prospect. They could save themselves a whole lot of money on scouts and analysts if that were the case. Yes, biases and hype are real, but teams put processes in place to try to reduce them and they aren't making decisions based on outside opinions. They don't even make decisions based on individual scouts as often as possible. They have cross checkers and send multiple scouts out to see the same guy as often as they can. A good trader ignores all the hype and works off only their internal processes and doesn't overpay for anything. But they also know the worth of their own players and doesn't take an underpay which is why the Marlins wouldn't have given away Puk and Scott for cheap a month early like you suggest. Your suggestion is that the Twins be the only good traders while the rest of the league be fools who don't know the value of their own players and give them away at their low points because the Twins treat the trade market like the stock market and just buy everything on the down swing immediately. That isn't how it works. That isn't realistic.

The Marlins got a top 50 global prospect for Tanner Scott. Plus 3 other prospects. Did you want to trade Keaschall or Rodriguez for Scott? Because those are the non-top 10 prospects for the Twins that come close to what Robby Snelling was at the time of the trade. They were not trading him to the Twins "very cheaply" in June. That isn't how it works. As @old nurse said, BTV isn't the real world. I mean you show how fickle BTV is by the fact that Puk goes from 1.5 to 7.1 from June to July. Teams are smart and they know how to drive bidding wars. You weren't getting Puk and Scott in June for cheap because you acted quickly and Miami just wanted to get rid of guys. Teams know to wait until the trade deadline when the prices go up because more teams bid. So unless you get the high end prospect you want in June you don't trade them. Why would Miami trade Puk and Scott when their value is low in June instead of when it'll be high in July? The other team has a say in the trade, too.

If they don't make anymore moves I'd expect them to be in the same general area I expected them to be in before last season, 82-86ish wins. The pitching should be quite good, but the defense will likely be shaky and the offense has a lot of question marks. The question I have is how open will the competition for roster spots be if more moves aren't made? They don't have their usual collection of 1 year vets right now. They have 8 lineup spots spoken for as far as I can tell (Correa, Buxton, Lewis, Wallner, Larnach, Castro, Miranda, the catchers) so how willing are they to open up that 9th spot? They can move guys around and put that 9th spot just about anywhere they want. Can Emma win an opening day role and improve the team defense with Larnach at DH? Can Eeles take a 40-man spot and win the opening day 2B job with Castro in left and Larnach at DH? Keaschall? How open is that spot without another move? Same with rotation spots. If Festa and SWR are looking like the best arms in camp can they push Paddack to the pen or are they fighting over 1 spot simply because of Paddack's age and contract? Are they willing to go best players available or is it going to be more about "the plan" like it seems to usually be? Without further moves will we see competition and performance rule the day instead of veteran status and pre-season expectations?

Fair enough. That's significantly more than I'd consider offering for him, but to each their own.

Twins only have 39 guys on their 40-man, FYI.

How many base runners did the Twins allow compared to the teams ahead of them? How many runners were on first with nobody in front of them in a game situation that would call for a steal attempt? That's why I've only talked about caught stealing percentages. I don't care about the counting numbers because that's like RBIs and are situational based. I haven't said anything about their total CS numbers or called that a problem. I've called their ability to throw out a certain percentage of base stealers a problem. And I believe it is. Again, not a huge problem, not their #1 problem, but a problem. Because I care about their ability to catch a base stealer when the time calls for it. In the playoffs. And all signs point to them not being good enough at that. I disagree that simply looking at their CS and SB against numbers tells us that they kept the opposing running game in check. You need far more context for that. If they had far fewer runners on in situations that would call for a steal then having lower CS and SB numbers wouldn't be an indication that they kept the running game in check at all. Just like a guy who has fewer runners on, especially runners in scoring position, having fewer RBIs than a guy with more opportunities isn't a sign that he's a worse clutch hitter. Opportunity based counting stats aren't signs of skill. That's why I care about the percentage of success.

Oh, I'm certainly not calling for any heads or claiming it's anywhere near their biggest problem, but it's still a problem. I care about the playoffs where your margins get smaller. So, the margins matter to me. If you can't throw out at least 20% of the guys attempting to steal on you it's a problem. Not as big of a problem as being bad at pitching or hitting or fielding in general, but still a problem. When you break down most numbers in baseball over an entire season they're small numbers. HRs are the biggest earner for players on the open market and something nearly every team looks to add to their lineup constantly. Also something every team looks to avoid from their pitching staff. Difference between league leading HRs given up (Colorado) and fewest given up (KC) was 75. I'd be willing to bet Colorado views that HR differential as a problem even though its only one every 2+ games. Small numbers can still be problems. I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. This is nowhere near the biggest problem for the Twins. I think many people around here overrate the importance of SB in general and catcher defense as well (Vazquez kills this team). But not being able to throw out a decent percentage of base stealers (20-25+%) is a problem. Even if it's not a huge one.

I agree that stolen bases are not super high on their list of priorities, but the Twins gave up the 21st most stolen bases in baseball last year. For an organization that doesn't care how many they give up it's pretty good to be in the bottom third in baseball.

Their caught stealing problem. Total number of steals is dependent on base runners, game situation, etc. but the Twins threw out a below average percentage of base runners. But both of their catchers had above average pop times (with Jeffers actually being better than Vazquez). So, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw that the reason teams were able to steal at an above average success rate against the Twins is because of their pitchers.

The Twins stolen base problem is a pitcher problem. His 1.93 pop time average tied him for 18th in baseball. His arm is not the problem. The Twins pitchers are the problem. Probably more about the coaching/team philosophy if it's this widespread.

My position has plenty of credibility, I don't need your help. Thanks, though. I never said the values aren't related. Things can be related without being the same. In fact, I very much said they are related and it's the front offices job to be able to make decisions based on that relation and know when the lines cross. And, no, the Twins can't acquire another team's controlled players any time they want because the other team gets a say. The player may not, but the other team does. And how that team values its player matters. And how that team values its player may be different than how the trade market values that player. Because players value is different to each team based on numerous factors. Those values are related, but not the same. Thank you for helping prove my point. No MLB team is going on BTV to figure out if they're making a good trade or not. I provided an example for Correa's trade value using your own belief about the Nats being the only team who'd want him. That example alone shows the shortcomings with a site like BTV. It can't take into account what the actual market is for a player. It's a fun little tool. It does the same thing multiple other sites do in giving you a projection of a player's future performance compared to their contract/team control. Fangraphs does the same thing. It's also nothing more than a fun little tool.

Hey, they say they're trying to win! And I believe they're trying to win the central. Well, hoping they're good enough to win the central is probably the right way to say that.

And, like I said before, players on teams who aren't trying to win's value is equal to their trade value. But we were talking about the Twins who at least claim they're trying to win. So, in that case, the odds don't change their relative value to the team.

I would not use that analogy because that wasn't the point I was making in that post. Or any of the subsequent posts. My point is that there's 2 types of values. Value to the team's ability to win and trade value. They aren't the same thing. You've said many times that the Nationals are the only team you can see that would want/need Correa. That effects his trade value. His WAR projection hasn't changed. His salary hasn't changed. So, according to you and DJL his asset value hasn't changed. He's the same guy. But, according to you, there's only 1 team that would want/need his services, thus there would be no bidding war and the Twins would have to take or leave whatever Washington would offer. Now if the Mets or Yankees (for examples sake) were to jump in as well that would change his trade value because now that team would have to offer more than the Nats if they wanted him and the Nats would have to offer more than that still if they wanted him. So his trade value has changed but his WAR and salary still hasn't. He's the same player/asset but his trade value has changed. BTV is a fun little tool. They even change their numbers frequently to try to keep up with things. But the market changes. Players sign or get traded which changes the landscape of the league which changes what the trade value for individual players may be. But what Correa means to the Twins doesn't change until/unless the Twins change their roster. Those are 2 separate values. What you mean to the individual team you're on (the value Nick is ranking guys on on this list) and what your trade value is are different things.

Roster construction is a pretty big variable. Simply having the player already signed and on your roster is another. Trade Correa this offseason without another SS on hand and your FA options were/are Willy Adames and Ha-Seong Kim or play musical chairs with trades. "Can always use money to obtain players every offseason" is all well and good until no good players want to take your money. And then suddenly Correa's value to you feels way higher after he's gone because you have Brooks Lee OPSing .600 for you at SS in 2025 and nobody else in the system even close to ready. Or maybe they bring Farmer back to be the SS in 2025. But, hey, I'm sure it'd lead to Laureano in the OF and that'd make up the difference, right? It's not a grocery store. You don't get to just take that money and pick out who you want. Having the guy on your roster already is value and a variable that matters. The likelihood of winning the championship doesn't change a player's value to the team.

That quote you added literally says "whereas this list aims to capture a very Twins-specific point of view." Why would you then say "If this was specifically a Twins-centric evaluation?" The abundance of relief pitchers comment directly follows the "Twins-specific point of view" comment and the lack of catching comment. Those are statements about the Twins. You disagree with Nick's opinion, so do I when it comes to Julien, but don't just change what his list is to fit your own. I mean you enlarged a quote that literally says it isn't a trade value ranking and ignore the rest of the sentence that says it's Twins-specific and then go on to tell me it doesn't say it's not a trade value ranking and isn't Twins-specific. What are we even talking about? You provided the very statement you claim isn't there.

You've already explained multiple ways how they're different right there. The Twins don't have a SS that can step in for Correa (in my opinion) so his value to them is already different than his trade value right there. That's not something I'd say is "little," but to each their own. If you're just trying to rebuild then their value to the team is directly equal to their trade value. If you are actively trying to win then there are far more variables than just WAR minus salary. His trade value itself isn't the same for every other team. It's not a static number. His value to the As isn't the same as his value to the Dodgers which isn't the same as his value to the Mets which isn't the same as his value to the Rockies. The makeup of each individual team and their budget and their goal for that season and the ones immediately following it change that player's value to that team. The number of teams that value that player highly then changes that player's trade value. Correa's value is ever changing depending on the landscape of the team and league. Unfortunately for us, this team doesn't seem to be changing much. So, his value to the Twins, in my opinion, is incredibly high because I don't believe they can win without him (but I also think he's going to play 135+ games next year). It's Falvey's job to determine if there's ever a time when the lines cross and his value to the team is no longer higher than his trade value and they should move him. It's why it makes sense that they're always listening on every player (even if I think he needs to be much better at how he says that in the media). Because if some team decides Correa's value to them is suddenly sky high and they offer a ridiculous package that is higher than his value to the team the Twins should take it. But if he's still more valuable to their ability to win they should keep him. That Pohlad analogy doesn't work. Correa plays (or doesn't) every year. There's no sitting on that asset. He's "sold" every year. That's my point. That's why it's literally the front office's job to disentangle the difference between his trade value and his value to the team's ability to win. The Pohlads could move to Greece and never even think about the Twins and still have that asset there to sell in 15 years for whatever it's worth. That isn't how player value works. They have 2 very separate values. And you have to be able to separate them or you won't last long in a front office job, because you're either selling them on the trade market or you're selling them to play on your team. You have to decide which one they have more value in.