Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Steven Buhr

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,682

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Steven Buhr

  1. Steven Buhr
    Yeah, this doesn't change my opinion at all. It would be surprising if Hunter didn't have some sort of no-trade protection. Just means he's protected from getting traded to a team he thinks has a really poor chance of making the postseason. If the time comes and he has a chance to make a deep October run, he'll waive the no-trade.
  2. Steven Buhr
    But that's on Hunter. I think the Twins may have used the, "we will find you a contender in July," line as a way to counter a desire on Hunter's part to chase a ring. Implied in that statement is that Hunter has to remain healthy and be productive enough that there is demand for his services in July. If that's not the case, that's not the Twins' fault and they're simply in a position where they have to eat his salary, which you have to be prepared to do any time you make an offer like this. If Hunter has a terrible year, he probably was going to get sent packing by any "contender" he might have otherwise signed with, anyway.
  3. Steven Buhr
    With so many of us, who typically don't necessarily agree with one another on much, all in relative agreement that this is not a good thing, the only natural conclusion is that it will turn out to be brilliant for both the Twins and Hunter. At least I hope so.
  4. Steven Buhr
    That's exactly the conclusion I came to last night as I was writing my article for Knuckleballs. It's the only way this makes sense from Hunter's perspective. Talking about "coming home" is all well and good, but he wouldn't make this move solely out of some emotional attachment to Terry Ryan and the Twins. 1-He's getting good money for a 1 year deal, and 2-While I'm not sure Ryan would make a commitment to trading him in July, I don't doubt for a moment that the possibility was discussed. "We have some young outfielders that are close to being MLB ready. If they are, and if there's a deal out there that makes sense for us, we'll do all we can to set you up with a postseason contender. We've done that for others and we would do that for you in the same circumstances." Despite what Texas, Baltimore or Seattle might look like now, there's no way for him to be sure those teams won't just be on the fringe of contention in July. His best strategy for being better positioned to make a postseason run is if he's traded to a team that needs him then. I called it the Josh Willingham gambit and it's the only thing that makes this whole thing logical from Hunter's perspective.
  5. Steven Buhr
    Can't say I would necessarily agree with this strategy, but at least it would demonstrate that the Twins do recognize Hunter's (and Arcia's) shortcomings defensively and that having them both in the same outfield is probably not wise. Whether I agree with such a plan or not, I'd take some comfort in discovering there actually was a plan being played out.
  6. Steven Buhr
    Of all the really bad moves the Twins could make, this one probably will be the least offensive to a significant segment of the fan base. So, there's that.
  7. Steven Buhr
    Knowing the TD crew would have this topic covered well over here, I simply posted my thoughts over at Knuckleballs, rather than both sites. If you care to read my thoughts, here's the link. Basically, I tried to make sense of what just doesn't make much sense.
  8. Steven Buhr
    Not sure who I would even consider dropping from your list to make room for them, but three guys I would feel pretty good about having around "just in case" at some point would be Kanzler, Vielma and Hu. I think all 3 have potential to be regular big league players down the road.
  9. Steven Buhr
    Glad you reminded me of that. Yes I believe they did honor him at the Diamond Awards event.
  10. Steven Buhr
    For some reason, Kaat has never seemed to get the same love and respect from the Twins organization that others from his era have. I've never understood that. Maybe there were hard feelings on one side or the other after his days in the Twins booth were over or some other acrimony with the Twins. I don't know. I do know that the Twins gave up on him too early... twice. Once, as a pitcher (he won 20 games for the WSox twice after the Twins gave up on him as a pitcher) and once as a broadcaster (he went on to be just about the best analyst in the business after his time in the Twins booth). I don't know the reasons why he was traded or why he stopped broadcasting Twins games, but the Twins were worse off without him in both cases. Regardless of whether he gets voted in to the HoF, I don't think any other former Twins player is more worthy of being the next to get honored by a statue at Target Field. The fact that the Twins have put up statues of two owners, a writer and a mascot before honoring Kaat is simply an embarrassment.
  11. Steven Buhr
    I do not believe you make that kind of long term deal with any player at a position you feel you have a better replacement for who is expected to arrive within a year. Plouffe looks like a good ballplayer, but Miguel Sano is Miguel Sano. You're expecting him to be a dominant hitter and play 3B for years to come AND you expect him to be ready in a year or less. In those circumstances, I just don't think you give the incumbent a 4-5 year contract. It's simply not necessary to take that kind of financial risk. Dozier was a slightly different circumstance. The Twins MIGHT have a replacement ready for Dozier in 2-3 years and even so, the prospects moving up may or may not be any better than Dozier. An extension in that circumstance makes more sense than for Plouffe, with Sano knocking on the door.
  12. Steven Buhr
    I wonder... if the Twins REALLY love Polanco, for example, and see him as potentially ready to be a MLB regular 2B as early as 2016 or 2017 at the latest, wouldn't you just go year by year with Dozier? There's still value in trade market for a guy in his arb years and, worst case, you make him a qualifying offer the first time he's FA eligible. Not a terrible outcome if Polanco or someone else really is as good, or better, within a couple years.
  13. Steven Buhr
    I'm probably in the "wait a year" camp, too, but I wouldn't strongly object to an effort to lock him up now. However, if I'm structuring the deal from the club perspective, I might front-load the contract more. The money is available this year and next to "overpay" a bit, in return for dropping the rate for the final 2-3 years of the deal. That would potentially make Dozier a more valuable asset in event you're looking to move him in order to make room for Polanco, Gordon, et al., by 2017-18.
  14. Steven Buhr
    If the price is excessive, you don't make the deal. My point was simply that you keep an open mind. Going in to an offseason with a mindset of, "we won't spend over $100 million," or, "we won't trade prospects," is foolish. It costs absolutely nothing to listen to any proposal. The thing you ask yourself is, "will making this move make a championship, at some point, more likely or less likely?" Then say yes or no, accordingly.
  15. Steven Buhr
    I'm ok with taking a flyer on an Anderson/Masterson-type with upside. I'm all for taking a shot at the Korean pitcher, if it turns out they did win the bid for him. But my preference, with regard to pitching, is to acquire a guy who is as close to a top-of-the-rotation arm as they can get, provided it comes with 3 years of team controlin some manner (years/options). How they acquire such a pitcher, whether through free agency or trade, is secondary to me. I'm not saying you pay any asking price, whether in dollars or return talent, but money and prospects are both essentially assets and you shouldn't rule out using either form if you believe you can improve your team over the next 3 years.
  16. Steven Buhr
    That's understandable. It's an uneasy proposition. Still, the downside of having a relatively stacked farm organization is that the time will come when you can not make room on your MLB roster for all of your legitimate MLB-ready players at every position. You would like to hold on to them until you're relatively certain which are going to turn in to the best big leaguers, but part of being a GM is knowing when to take a calculated risk and turn some of your projected "surplus" of talent at one position in to big league talent at another position where your organizational depth is more shallow. If the Twins could turn some of their minor league OF/MIF talent in to big league pitching that will be around for a while, that would be a risk I'd consider worth taking at this point.
  17. Steven Buhr
    Yeah, I admit I tend to overuse the term "overpay" at times, too. You can argue that whatever the "winning" price is for a FA contract, it was what the market would bear, so it is not "overpaying." Then again, you can argue that the "winning" bid is pretty much always more than any other team deems to be the appropriate value for the FA, so every FA signing is "overpaying." When I use the term, I'm usually defining it as, "more than what the specific team should reasonably expect to receive in value, given the player's likely performance over the term of the contract."
  18. Steven Buhr
    Just speculating, but maybe it was because the Twins asked them to play him in LF because they wanted to get a look at him out there?
  19. Steven Buhr
    While I'm not at all concerned with who they name 1B coach (assume it will be someone inside the org, with abilities to coach specific positions), the bench coach position is something I'm much more interested in seeing where they go. I'd like to see someone with MLB managerial experience in this position. It's essentially an "assistant head coach" position and, while there's a ton of baseball coaching experience among the already-named (or rumored) coaches, there is absolutely no big league managing experience. I'd feel more comfortable if one guy on staff has been there, since the manager has not.
  20. Steven Buhr
    Mike Berardino now Tweeting that source close to Allen insist he has not yet been told he will be the new Twins pitching coach. You just kind of have to laugh, don't you? This is SO "Twins Way." I don't know if the Strib just found out Willis had been told he didn't get the gig so they assume Allen did (not an unreasonable assumption, I suppose, but it's dangerous to make any assumption when you're dealing with the Twins FO) or if Allen was told by the Twins that if he leaked the decision before the Twins announced it, they would pull their offer. With as super-secret as the Twins are with everything they do, I could honestly see that being the case. It's all just kind of amusing.
  21. Steven Buhr
    Not to go off topic, but last I knew, the Cubs have a bench coach opening. I suspect Martinez is more likely to end up there than in Minnesota. I'm still wrapping my head around the Neil Allen hire. I find it kind of fascinating that Molitor and the Twins have hired a guy that their new manager has no history with at all. That just seems... odd (but not necessarily in a bad way). I honestly expected a pitching coach hire from outside the Twins immediate organization, but with some kind of historical relationship with Molitor. I'm very curious to see how this turns out.
  22. Steven Buhr
    There's nothing wrong with pounding the zone, but ever pitcher needs a reliable out pitch - something he can throw to miss a bat when it matters. The Twins pitchers have largely lacked that for years. I know it's not because their minor league coaches and managers don't believe it's important. I've heard enough of them talk about how important that is. I guess I'm hoping Allen and Guardado can somehow help the current and future Twins pitchers to develop that kind of pitch.
  23. Steven Buhr
    Guess I simply see no point in signing any FA to a 1 year deal unless it has at least 1 (and preferably 2) team options for reasonable amounts. What's the point in allowing a SP to rebuild his value with the Twins on a 1 year deal if expectations are that contention is, at best, a remote likelihood in 2015? Just as TR wasn't interested in Nolasco/Hughes a year ago unless they could be signed for enough years that, if they did work out, they would have a chance to be part of some better Twins teams beyond 1 year, he shouldn't be any more interested paying anyone else this year to rebuild his value without an option to retain. If the guys you sign work out well, great, and if May/Meyer turn out to be even better, that's wonderful! You've got some trade chips with SPs on club-friendly contracts. And if May/Meyer don't pan out, you aren't back to square 1. None of the reclamation project SPs are going to create financial hardships in years 2-3 if they have marginal guarantees or buy-out prices on their options.
  24. Steven Buhr
    Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't one main benefit of a podcast that you don't have to worry about time constraints? It's not like you have to fill 90 minutes or end up with a bunch of dead air like you would with a commercial radio program. I thought 30 minutes worked well for the amount of material there was to cover this time. Maybe next time it will require 45 minutes. Maybe not much is happening and you can rip through it in 20. Anything that runs over an hour, I typically have to break down to listen in multiple sittings and that runs a pretty good chance of me not getting around to ever going back to the last segment.
  25. Steven Buhr
    Anderson is my preference among the players on that list, primarily because I see him coming cheaper than Masterson and he's a lefty, which the Twins rotation could certainly use. But I'm also in the camp of seeing little value in signing any of them strictly to a 1-year deal. Now, if you can get a reasonable 2nd year team option that rewards the pitcher if he does bounce back well, yet stays affordable for the team to retain (and increases the pitcher's trade value), I'm significantly more interested.
×
×
  • Create New...