RJA

I am not against trading Lewis IF the deal was right, but that is not going to be the case given his injury history and lack of great offensive numbers. I wouldn't trade any top 5 prospect for one year of control over any pitcher, and probably not for two years of control unles he were of the Montas or Castillo level. Now the front office's reticence to sign a free agent pitcher has really put them behind the 8 ball. I think they are trying to play the Rays' game but they have shown no evidence that they have the talent to do so.

Ted, you must be a "glass is half full" guy. I like that in people, and you are right about this not being a bad signing IF they had done something in the free agent market. But, they didn't. So, to say we should be thankful they signed a Bundy rather than a Happ is rather like asking us to be grateful that you are only going to cut off one of our fingers instead of our whole hand ;). Frankly, they totally misread and mishandled the free agent market and I am not sure what they can do other than trading away a bunch of prospects in order to have even a decent starting staff for 2022.

I confess I am a tad cynical by nature, but I don't see them making a move on Story. If they refused to be a player for any of the free agent pitchers--they were linked only to Ray and they wanted a 3 year deal apparently--I can't see them going for a shortstop for 5 years. I would say that Story is the weakest of the big names given his recent performance and getting the Colorado boost at home as he has hit .303 with .972 OPS at Coors and .241 and with a .752 OPS on the road, but he is still a big time guy who would make the Twins better. I suspect they will end up signing a fill in for a year thinking that Lewis will be ready by 23. As for trades for pitching, I would like to see a couple of the Oakland starters here but I fail to see the logic of spending nothing on free agent pitchers, and trading assets for any pitcher with only one year of control. To save 45 million, they will trade Arraez, Larnach, Sands, and Sabato and maybe more only to end up with 3 total years of control over 2 pitchers. It almost qualifies as malpractice that they did not sign at least one starter to a five year contract, and then trade for Montas or Castillo which would give them a fine rotation for the next two years, and if they cannot (or refuse to) sign them to an extension, by then a couple of your top prospects might be ready and hopefully Ryan and Ober will be even better. With 40 plus million to spend, what in the world are they going to spend it on if not at least one starting pitcher in a tremendous free agent class? I suspect the plan is to piece together a starting staff while suggesting they are developing "the next great trend in starting pitching" using openers and shuttling relief pitchers between Target field and St. Paul. These guys really do think they are the smartest guys in the room. I really hope for all our sakes that they are, but I fear their arrogance is going to be their Achilles heel.

Actually, Lucas, both sides are villians in this matter. Take your three issues. The players want to reduce revenue sharing. Who would that benefit--players like Scherzer, Correa, Ray, etc.--in other words, the top 5% of players who would benefit from large markets having more money to spend. The "ordinary joes" will not see this help them much at all as the additional revenue will all go to big name players, like Scherzer, who can make 48 million dollars a year rather than 43. How about the reduced reserve period? Who are the big winners again? The same super rich big name players who will make more money earlier. The average players are not going to see a huge jump in their salaries. Why don't the players make increasing the minimum salary by 200 thousand as a top 3 priority to help those average players at a time when they most need the income? Why don't they act as powerful advocates for how minor leaguers are paid, housed, etc? Why? Because it does not affect the powerful element in the player's union--we all know that a majority of the players on the negotiating committee are Boras clients and he brags to prospective clients how much pull he has with the union. Boras does not represent many ordinary joes. Finally, earlier arbitration would be the one part that would help everyone, so I could definitely see how this might help all players. Overall though, this is a battle between spoiled billionaire owners and the spoiled millionaires in charge of the players union. This is not to be taken as support for the owners. I just think your analysis was too one sided and showed your bias. Great article though. Made me think.

Good data analysis, Jamie. But, I agree with Mikelink that we should be fishing in the deep end of the pool, especially when we have 40 million available. If you added Bundy after Ray or Stroman, it is a good flyer, but with only one top starter left--Rodon who has huge injury issues--it appears if the Twins are going to add a premium starter or two, it will be through trades. It makes no sense to trade assets for one or two years of a pitcher when you can get at least one premium starter via the open market for a longer term. Buy one on the open market, and then add one via a trade and then add a Bundy type. I do suspect that the A's and the Reds didn't want to trade anyone until the top end of the market was gobbled up by free agency which would make the bidding for their pitchers a little more intense for those teams, like the Twins, who didn't sign a big name. I also thought perhaps the Twins were planning to use Bundy as a three inning pitcher in their new scheme to have several bullpen games each week, but when I looked up his data per inning, I found that he was no more effective in the first inning than the 2nd through 4th, meaning unlike Jax he gets hit pretty consistently through the first 3 innings. Finally, I think pitch usage could be a way to improve, but improving location is difficult or else there would be a lot fewer pitchers with great stuff still in the minors.

I would love Story or Correa but, alas, I cannot see a scenario where the Twins spend that much money on a shortstop, and with the current pitching staff, why would either come here unless you really outbid other teams, which the Twins have no history of doing. The other three options do not thrill me. I would look to the trade market as there are a number of shortstops who could be available--look at Rangers, Diamondbacks, Cardinals, etc.--at a reasonable price. If we land one, and both Lewis and Martin end up looking good at shortstop, it would be a nice problem to have. Also, if Yanks sign Story or Correa, they would likely make Peraza available.

The Yankees have 2 top 100 shortstops in Volpe and Peraza. IF they end up signing Correa or Story, they would probably make one of them, Peraza most likely, available in a trade. They desperately want to move on from Sanchez despite reluctantly tendering him, so Garver or Jeffers might be of interest in a trade package. Lewis is not certain to stick at short anyway, and could be used to spell Buxton in center, Polanco at 2nd, and probably at 3rd as well. He could take the role Arraez currently has so Arraez could be moved. Lewis likely will need at least half the year to get his feet back under him, and may not arrive at all until 23 anyway,. Besides, you can never have too many shortstops. If they don't sign Correa, the Yankees will likely hang on to both so this idea would be down the drain.

Well, it is obvious that the front office hasn't learned a thing from last year's fiasco. Like I said a few days ago, they are the dog at the dinner table waiting for free agent scraps to fall on the floor. Bundy is one of the scraps. It is sad, really.

Nice summary, Seth. Frankly, given the fact that as things stand at 7:00 am this morning the Twins starting rotation consists on two young pitchers, I would tender everyone, even Cotton, as a strong bullpen looks to be a necessity this year and you never know how relievers will do year to year. It is best to bring a bundle of them to spring training, keep the best on the roster, and stash the rest in St. Paul as it looks like bullpen usage will require frequent shuttling of pitchers back and forth from St. Paul. Had the Twins signed a couple of starting pitchers, my answer would be a little different. Also, it might be that the Twins have plans to put Cotton back in the starting rotation, especially if Rodon and Stroman go elsewhere, so I would tender him. If the rotation was in better shape, I would agree with Top Gun, but for now I would go with them all.

Signing Buxton to an extension is crucial if the Twins really are serious about retooling for next year and beyond. Not only is his bat important, but his defense is irreplacable. If you were Marcus Stroman, for example, would you sign here if you knew Buxton is gone or on his way out, there is no starting shortstop and the Twins look to be in the market for a "stopgap" player, third base is iffy because nobody on the roster, not even Donaldson because of injuries, is an above average defender, left field has no incumbent and Rooker is a poor defender, and first base is questionable if Sano spends any time there? Stroman needs good infield defense, and would love to have Buxton in center catching everything within eyesight. Established pitchers want to be on a team that can compete out of the gate, not in two or three years. If the Twins don't plan to sign him, then stop this ticket selling charade and trade him, Taylor, and anyone else with value for top prospects. Frankly, this front office is constipated in its approach to free agency. They are like a dog at the Thanksgiving table waiting for scraps to fall that they can gobble up. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

If the Twins trade Buxton, we are in a rebuild. What sense does it make to trade a top prospects for 2 years of Chapman? I think it is fantasy land to think the Twins would resign Chapman to a long term deal after the two years, especially if his hit tool has a resurgence. The Twins won't be competitive until at least 2024 under the trade Buxton scenario, and Chapman will be long gone. Even if he produces 5 War a year and helps us win 5 more games a year, we still won't be in the playoffs. In such a case, play and develop the kids, and look for established players two years from now when a window opens up again (if it does).