KirbyDome89

Nope, that wasn't my assumption and I don't think anybody is making Trout comps. Spot on, he's an incredibly valuable player with the "when healthy," caveat. Big yikes if that's an actual argument you're making with those four names.

If the escalators are easily attainable and he can reach $20M+ that's a slam dunk. I think we'd all agree he isn't getting 7 years $140M+ in FA. What's your basis for these numbers? So I prefaced the comp by saying it wasn't perfect and Donaldson's past success far outweighs Buxton's. The Josh Donaldson from '13 to '16 wasn't who the Twins were signing. The committed $21M annually to a 34 year old that had one healthy season in the last 3 due to nagging calf injuries. I have no issue with the signing, and Donaldson was and still is a talent. The point was the risk the Twins were willing to take. Whether it's a final piece or a premium position with no internal replacement (CF) I don't think it really matters.

I've seen it, and you won't get any argument from me that it's anything but brutal. I agree, I just don't see him falling off a cliff during his age 27-30 or 31 seasons.

Different injuries, none of which having been nagging like Donaldson's calves. He's also seven years younger than Donaldson. If MN is willing to go $21M annually I'm inclined to believe Buxton can reach something near that AAV, even if it's a short (3-4 year) deal. Perhaps injured, and that's the gamble on either side. I'd be much less concerned about a decline in his 20s.

Doesn't Buxton's displeasure with the back end protection kinda signal that the escalators in this offer might not be that great, or at the very least relatively attainable? That's a tough sell if you're already starting from a very low base. We just watched the Twins of all teams sign Josh Donaldson to a $92M deal at age 34, following his first healthy season in three years. It's not a perfect comp, and obviously Donaldson had an earlier run of success that Buxton hasn't touched, but he was, and still is, a significant injury risk. I don't think it's a stretch to say in 3-4 years Buxton could earn what the Twins are offering in 7.

Ted is spot on. Signing one or both of Buxton/Berrios isn't the financial albatross we've been conditioned to believe it is. Also, consider this an official petition to ban the "they don't want to sign here (MN)," narrative. Until the Twins actually submit the highest offer, and are subsequently turned down that argument has zero merit. Find an alternative way to cope.

Pay market value to retain home grown talent at premier positions which lack internal options?

Maybe you missed the point? TB's success is attributable to their ability to replace holes, not create them. You'll have to show me why I'm wrong for suggesting the Twins aren't on par with TB when it comes to the three attributes I previously listed.

If you're trading Berrios, how are you solidifying 4 rotation spots in a 2 year window and avoiding a rebuild? "Be the Rays," sounds great until you realize the Twins need to instantly become elite at talent identification, acquisition, and development, because that's how TB has remained competitive, not because they move stars before they hit FA.

He lost me when he starting talking about outlawing protective gear and pine tar for hitters while simultaneously advocating for pitchers to "back guys off the plate more often."

I don't have a foot firmly in either camp right now. I'm certain any cost savings will be spun as $$ to throw at Berrios or Buxton, but I'm doubtful the Twins would pay the actual cost to retain either, regardless of Donaldson's status. If we're talking about taking $10-$15M annually in savings (chosen with no basis) and splitting it between 2 more back end fliers for the rotation, or trying to cobble together a 3B Platoon (Arraez + ?) and a low end SS is the team really better off? I think if you're moving Donaldson the return, whether $$ or talent, needs to solidify a position of need for multiple years. I'm concerned the FO is willing and able to do that. I understand the injury stance. He does feel like a bit of a time bomb in that regard. His history will certainly weigh into the decision but this all boils down to what direction they plan to go after the move.

He's allowed 71% of his inherited runners to score this season. I'm sure that's factored into some performance metrics already but it's a pretty atrocious stat line if we're talking about somebody as being above average.

We might be. Yes I think the '22 option is irrelevant as well. Yes I don't believe he'd survive the 40 man turnover if he were to make it to that point. No I don't see this years option as irrelevant. Yes I'm fine with him being shuttled. My stance on Burrows is that if you've handed a 40 man spot to a player like him then you might as well find out what you have sooner rather than later.

Sure, the first gaff was signing him, but failing to move on when it was clear he was of no value to the team in either the present or the future was a mistake in itself. Exactly, so it makes no sense for him to spend a bulk of his time in the minors and burn a year, particularly with a 40 man shuffle imminent. One option remaining isn't justification enough for holding onto a subpar reliever. If he's too much of a project to get innings for a team on pace to lose 100 games then he's not going to help next year, option or not.

They should. He isn't taking ABs away from anybody who needs them. Kirilloff can take over as the everyday 1B if Sano can't find some semblance of his former self, and the Twins aren't any worse off.

For sure, that's what I meant when I said the Twins aren't going to DFA him and eat that contract while he plays elsewhere. As bad as he's been, teams would line up for the chance to see if he regains his old form. If the Twins are desperate to move on then you try to trade him and even if it's only a 20% return, or a prospect or two, that's better than nothing. I'd rather keep Sano than eat $24M and get a bucket of balls in return. My point was simply that it makes zero sense to cut him right now.

I get the Sano angst, but this team isn't paying him $30M to go away. They'll have to eat money in a trade, how much and what they get in return is the sticking point. Going that route at least provides potential salary relief, or at the very least it can be spun as purchasing talent.

Rounding makes for easier math. He was one of the worst pitchers in baseball, but 2 relatively clean innings against the Reds bought him another 10 days? The notion that he needed to go out and have another poor performance to justify releasing him is pretty ridiculous. If you're at that point then just cut bait. We're all well aware of the injury situation, but if you're diving for starters (Coulombe) then diving for a mop up man in the bullpen shouldn't be off the table. At least take the minuscule chance you find somebody that can stick. Burrows already burned an option this year, and only has one remaining. The Twins will have to protect internal options, plus add offseason additions, and potential deadline acquisitions to the 40 man. You're not claiming Burrows to stash him at the back end of the 40 man.

The defense for holding onto Shoemaker after proving to be equally as awful in relief as he was starting was that the leash was short (Week + a few days give or take) and that the Twins "couldn't find anybody to replace him." That was 3 weeks ago.... In that time Detroit castoff Beau Burrows was added to the 40 man, and I had the pleasure of watching a Danny Coulombe start in person. Shoemaker gave up 8 runs in 2.2 innings tonight. Certainly a waiver claim or internal option can't replace that... Where's DaveW with a Shoemaker status thread when we need one?

The question was borderline rhetorical. In my view aptitude is at play beyond just a process, i.e. the natural ability of the individual(s) at the top to interpret and select is what sets them apart, and I have very serious doubts that can simply be learned or followed. TB's success is predicated on their ability to replace said players, not on the fact they're unwilling to pay for retaining their services. The Twins are certainly capable of trading away Buxton, Berrios, ect, that has never been a question. The argument centers around how easy or attainable accomplishing that second part really is. I think we'll just disagree here.....

I'd use the term douche but angry is certainly accurate. I'm putting spider tack in the same file as videoing opposing signals and relaying them. I'd imagine essentially every team has players that have used, or still are using tack. Every fan base should be careful about preaching from their soap boxes right now. I'm also curious whether Donaldson's "list," includes any Twins pitchers or any other teammates during his tenures with different clubs.

He was one of the top prospects in baseball; becoming an AS isn't exactly a meteoric rise.

What I'm asking is how you intend to bridge the gap between the decisions the Rays actually make, and the decisions those trying to emulate them think they'd make. If it's simply a matter of hiring a consulting firm and firing anybody who doesn't get on board, why haven't the 29 other teams had the same level of success? Are they all incompetent? If you hold the secret to accomplishing this monumental feat I'd recommend selling it to the Pohlad's.

Yes, we'll disagree about whether TB heavily utilized the draft to build these teams. Not once did I say "hold onto everyone." I was clear about using context when making those decisions. Mike said it perfectly, process alone isn't enough. What's your solution for emulating the decision making aspect of TB's FO? We watch baseball and accept that there are varying levels of physical and mental performance, i.e. a hierarchy exists, but those norms don't apply to TB?

TB's success and how it has been achieved isn't in question. The issue is whether the Twins, or any other franchise for that matter, can fully replicate it. I'll ask again, what has this FO done via FA or trades that makes you believe they're capable of being TB? The disagreement centers around whether other teams are able to identify and/or then develop these players in a similar fashion. Like I said above, we've got 15 odd years worth of evidence that says they're not. If the Twins were in contention, and they traded Simmons for 2 relief pitchers, who is replacing him at SS? He was signed because the team wanted to move away from Polanco there. There isn't a Wander Franco to call up. If Berrios is moved in July, who is taking his place in the rotation? TB has a line of succession: Shields, Price, Archer, Snell, and now Glasnow, that the Twins can't touch. Internal replacements are only one part of the problem. The FA signings by the Twins, particularly on the pitching side have been pretty dismal. How high is your confidence level with talent evaluation right now? If this team is going to move established players at positions of scarcity they can't afford to miss on the return. At the moment Alcala is the only player on the active roster who was acquired in the type of move you support. It certainly hasn't been a roaring success. That isn't an indictment of the process, but rather the execution. Nobody is saying that the Twins shouldn't look to acquire guys they view as on the verge of a breakout, but given the current state of the organization it'd be irresponsible to bank on "being the Rays," when there's no safety blanket in the minors, no successors in the current rotation, and a middling track record of success when it comes to acquisition/development.