Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Forums

What will it take to get Gerrit Cole?

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 10:55 AM
The NY Post reported the Yankees are working on a deal to acquire a Gerrit Cole. Players mentioned include Clint Frazier and Chance Adams...
Full topic ›

OOTP Baseball -- Who Plays?

Other Baseball Today, 10:55 AM
Who plays out of the park baseaball?   Personally, I love it and found out about online leagues. Is anyone else interested in joinin...
Full topic ›

Article: Twins Sign Closer Rodney To One-Year Deal

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 10:37 AM
The Twins headed into the Winter Meetings with almost zero closing experience on their roster. They will exit with a wealth of it.On Thur...
Full topic ›

Twins Name Garvin Alston New Pitching Coach.

Minnesota Twins Talk Today, 10:27 AM
I'd never heard of him, so here's the press release...     TWINS NAME GARVIN ALSTON PITCHING COACH Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN – T...
Full topic ›

Article: Twins Select RHP Tyler Kinley In Rule 5 Draft (L...

Twins Minor League Talk Today, 10:25 AM
See updates below...The Twins lost two players in the Major League portion of the Rule 5 draft and added a right-handed pitcher. In the m...
Full topic ›

Twins Need To Be Buyers Next Winter

The Gophers are (correction, were) in the Big Dance, the Wild are Stanley Cup contenders, even the Timberwolves are fighting for a playoff berth and 35,000 fans recently attended the first Major League Soccer game in Minnesota.

The Twins, meanwhile, have averaged 94 losses the past six seasons, haven't won a single playoff game since 2004 and are expected to post another losing record in the season ahead. Opening Day is right around the corner, and they're essentially an afterthought in the Minnesota sports scene.
Image courtesy of Matt Kartozian, USA Today
Something drastic will need to be done in order to keep this team relevant. The front office turnover made some waves, but it was followed by a typically quiet offseason for the Twins. To be fair, with a free agent pitching class "headlined" by Rich Hill and Ivan Nova, this wasn't the winter to make a huge signing.

Next offseason it'll be a different story, however, and the Twins should be in a great position to make a big splash. Can't imagine the Pohlad's approving a marquee signing? Well, they have very little money tied up beyond 2018, so there should be plenty of room in the budget. The only guys signed through the 2019 season are Phil Hughes ($13.2M), Jason Castro ($8M) and ByungHo Park ($3M).



So without further ado, let's play my favorite game: Spend the Pohlad Family's Money!

MLB Trade Rumors released its top 10 free agents for the 2017-18 off season this week, and the class looks to be flush with starting pitching. The list is topped by Jake Arrieta, Yu Darvish, Johnny Cueto and Masahiro Tanaka. It's worth noting that both Cueto and Tanaka would have to opt out of their current contracts to become free agents, and it's possible between now and then one of those top guys signs an extension.

None of those big four free agents has even turned 32 yet, with 28-year-old Tanaka being the youngest. Arrieta was a Cy Young winner in 2015 and both Darvish (2013) and Cueto (2014) have a runner-up finish for the award. I'm drooling just at the thought of any one of these guys in a Twins jersey, but each of them will command a hefty salary and all have some questions to answer in 2017.

Arrieta looked human from June on last season, posting a 4.05 ERA, then had a 3.63 ERA in the playoffs. There are some durability concerns with both of the Japanese imports, but at least we know Darvish's UCL has been repaired. Tanaka had an elbow injury in 2014, but he elected to forego surgery. Seems to have worked out for him, but that arm could be a ticking time bomb. Cueto has been a workhorse, but his underwhelming run with Kansas City in 2015 may cause AL teams to shy away.

But even beyond that impressive foursome, is yet another group of less tantalizing, yet still intriguing names. Chris Tillman, Micheal Pineda and Alex Cobb are among that next tier, and could dramatically improve their stock this season. Here's a quick look at the numbers:

LAST THREE SEASONS
Arrieta: 2.42 ERA, 2.72 FIP, 9.15 K/9, 2.55 BB/9
Darvish: 3.20 ERA, 2.94 FIP, 11.55 K/9, 2.94 BB/9
Cueto: 2.80 ERA, 3.26 FIP, 8.21 K/9, 2.08 BB/9
Tanaka: 3.12 ERA, 3.53 FIP, 8.18 K/9, 1.54 BB/9
Tillman: 3.99 ERA, 4.22 FIP, 6.68 K/9, 3.19 BB/9
Pineda: 4.10 ERA, 3.42 FIP, 9.20 K/9, 1.77 BB/9
Cobb: 3.54 ERA, 3.51 FIP, 7.88 K/9, 2.58 BB/9

Assuming the 2017 Twins put the worst season in franchise history behind them and look to be playoff contenders in 2018, which of these guys would you prefer? Would you pay top dollar, or wait out the market to see if there's a bargain? Or do you avoid free agency all together?

Is it too early to be speculating on such things? Absolutely, but c'mon, let's have some fun.

The guy I'd personally most like to see would be Darvish, and perhaps having Thad Levine around could be helpful in landing the strikeout machine. Levine was with the Rangers when they signed Darvish out of Japan, so he likely knows a thing or two about what makes the big righty tick.

Even if the Twins can scrounge up the $150 or so million it'll cost to sign one of the top flight guys like Darvish, will they even want to come to Minnesota, or take less to play for a World Series contender?

That's where Derek Falvey is going to have to earn his salary. Between now and next winter, he will need to get the franchise in good enough shape to be able to convincingly tell free agents "this team will be in the playoffs next season."

The front office was apparently unable to deliver that message to Mike Napoli, who took less money and a shorter commitment to play for the Rangers. Continuing failure to attract free agents is going to result in a continuing failure to attract fan interest.

  • Doomtints likes this

  • Share:
  • submit to reddit
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

125 Comments

Photo
KirbyDome89
Mar 19 2017 10:04 AM

 

The difference is if I endorse a 7 year 150M contract I accept the reality and long term ramifications. I know it's basically a one time deal that will limit further spending for a decade. I do so knowing we have a finite payroll and that deal has major long term implications.

Do you? Or does it remain as easy as ever to complain about payroll?

See, I also have been vocal in my criticisms, but I'm also very grounded. It's less about how much and more about how the money is spent.

I think a lot of the push for signing a front of the rotation starter IS about how the money is spent though. The Twins have been moderate players at best in FA, I don't think that has to change if they open it up and sign an ace type pitcher. Given the current state of the pitching staff and performances by pitching prospects it isn't crazy to think the only young arm they have with a chance to be that #1 starter is Gonsalves and hes still a long shot. They need to do something to fix this horrendous pitching. They've been unable to move Dozier and if they refuse to dip into the market to sign top tier FAs the only other option for bringing back top end talent is trading away their own top young talent. Personally I would rather endure a 7 year 150 million dollar contract than watch former Twins prospects turn into quality major league players with other teams. 

Photo
Brock Beauchamp
Mar 19 2017 10:55 AM
I view front line starters as championship pieces. Right now, I'm looking at "not terrible" pieces.

I think this team would benefit more from two 4/$75m contracts than a single 7/$150m contract.

Lots of bad players on this team. More could be gained from two 4 WAR players than one 7 WAR player who will likely fade to a 2-3 WAR player within a few seasons. And it's a lot less risky to sign those two good players than a single great player.
    • snepp, TheLeviathan and Major Leauge Ready like this

First time poster here. 

 

First, when the time comes (assuming they continue to develop), we need to retain our young hitters like Buxton, Sano, and Kepler. I think we can all agree on that.

 

Second, the pitching has to improve. Again, stating the obvious here. We have a few guys that look promising such as Fernando Romero and Gonsalves, but we need more. Hopefully whoever we draft first overall this season (Hunter Greene, please) pans out and will be ready for the majors within a few years. We need Berrios to finally break through this year and be the guy we thought he would be. We need Mejia to be serviceable. I know we are unlikely to land Arrieta, Tanaka, Darvish, etc, but in my opinion we need to at least try. We have a ton of cap space available going forward, and I think it makes more sense to pay a guy who has proven he is an ace than it does to sign a few Ricky Nolasco types and hope for the best. 

 

Third, and semi off-topic to this discussion, but I think Molitor needs to be shown the door. Let Falvey bring in his own guy. In my opinion, Molitor has not helped the development of our young players. Obviously not all of this falls on him, but I think a lot of it does.

 

Last, I want to get you guys' thoughts on something. If Dozier has another good season and we don't move him at the trade deadline for prospects, do you think we should/would extend his contract? I wrestle with what the right move is regarding Dozier all the time. Part of me thinks that we are missing our chance to sell high on our best asset. The other part of me thinks that if we aren't going to get a good enough offer to deal him, then we need to extend him. If we don't trade him and he leaves in free agency, I think it is a complete waste.

 

Just my two cents. Let me know what you guys think!

    • USAFChief, Mike Sixel, nicksaviking and 5 others like this

Tom:  "I actually don't think the org is trying to get younger and build. I think they're trying to win."

 

Concur.And I support that approach.I have no interest in a "rebuild," which really is more of an excuse than a strategy anyway.All it does is push off trying to get better players far into the future while giving ownership another reason not to spend money.Start getting better players now.

    • Mike Sixel, nicksaviking, beckmt and 1 other like this
Photo
Willihammer
Mar 19 2017 12:44 PM

 

 

Last, I want to get you guys' thoughts on something. If Dozier has another good season and we don't move him at the trade deadline for prospects, do you think we should/would extend his contract? I wrestle with what the right move is regarding Dozier all the time. Part of me thinks that we are missing our chance to sell high on our best asset. The other part of me thinks that if we aren't going to get a good enough offer to deal him, then we need to extend him. If we don't trade him and he leaves in free agency, I think it is a complete waste.

 

Just my two cents. Let me know what you guys think!

The Twins have a decent track record when it comes to first extensions, and a terrible one when it comes to second extensions, so I'm probably biased. But I wouldn't extend Dozier a second time for the kind of deal I think he'd want- something in the 4 year 60+m range I reckon. Too many times it seems to bite us in the ass (Morneau, Mauer, Perkins, Hughes come to mind.)

    • Vanimal46 and TwinsFan23 like this

 

 

 

Last, I want to get you guys' thoughts on something. If Dozier has another good season and we don't move him at the trade deadline for prospects, do you think we should/would extend his contract? I wrestle with what the right move is regarding Dozier all the time. Part of me thinks that we are missing our chance to sell high on our best asset. The other part of me thinks that if we aren't going to get a good enough offer to deal him, then we need to extend him. If we don't trade him and he leaves in free agency, I think it is a complete waste.

 

 

Great first post! Welcome to TD

 

Yes... We are missing our chance to sell high on Dozier based upon the numbers he produced last year and length of contract remaining.

 

However... it is clearly not our chance to sell high based upon the market.

 

It seems natural to extend Dozier if his market never materializes... I mean why give him away.

 

However... if his market value never materializes that means that he has very little value and shouldn't be extended because value is value when it comes time to make those decisions.  

 

Supply and Demand

 

He's great... but if everyone has got one? That means he can be replaced at less cost. 

 

In the end... I think the 2B Market will shift favorably and he will get moved before he hits free agency. 

 

 

    • Tom Froemming and TwinsFan23 like this
Photo
TheLeviathan
Mar 19 2017 01:01 PM

 

I think a lot of the push for signing a front of the rotation starter IS about how the money is spent though. The Twins have been moderate players at best in FA, I don't think that has to change if they open it up and sign an ace type pitcher. Given the current state of the pitching staff and performances by pitching prospects it isn't crazy to think the only young arm they have with a chance to be that #1 starter is Gonsalves and hes still a long shot. They need to do something to fix this horrendous pitching. They've been unable to move Dozier and if they refuse to dip into the market to sign top tier FAs the only other option for bringing back top end talent is trading away their own top young talent. Personally I would rather endure a 7 year 150 million dollar contract than watch former Twins prospects turn into quality major league players with other teams. 

 

See, I'd MUCH rather deal a few prospects for something known.  We're talking in hypotheticals here because the truth is, we don't know if next offseason we'll have a team that warrants making a big splash.  

 

So let's look back at when the team did warrant that splash.  When the Twins were at their peak 7-8 years ago and needed that cherry (as Brock described it), I'd have much rather traded for Cliff Lee than sign CC Sabathia.  And for me, it's not even close.  

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat and here's what I see: If you sign a 150M-200M contract for some FA - you will have that turn into a glaring negative at some point with near certainty.  There isn't nearly as great a chance of having your move backfire if you trade.

 

All that said, I'm not opposed to venturing into that market at some point.  But if I do it's either for a hitter or if I think one piece over the first 1-3 years of that contract might land me a title.  Short of that?  The negatives are far too great for me to take that route.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating a rebuild, nor am I stating Falvey or Levine are looking for one either. This team is already full in the midst of a rebuild with all the young talent currently on the roster.

When I reference getting younger, I am referencing the rotation in particular vs additional 30yo veteran types. Thus, a healthy Hughes and Gibson, a couple young guys like Berrios and Mejia hopefully becoming established this season, I am arguing/contemplating running with one of many potential 5th starter options or possibly a trade for a top SP rather than the length and cost of a FA contract.

I should have been more clear.
    • Tom Froemming likes this

Looks like Big Pelf and Garza will also be on the market next offseason.

 

http://www.spotrac.c...arting-pitcher/

 

I'd kick the tires on Pineda and Darvish, and probably Cobb, too, depending on health.

 

Like several mentioned, I wouldn't necessarily spend just to spend, however.

 

Can we just save up all of the Twins' pennies to make a run at Shohei Otani? Sure, Asia hasn't been kind yet to the Twins, but one will have to stick at some point, right?

    • Tom Froemming likes this
Photo
KirbyDome89
Mar 19 2017 11:32 PM

 

See, I'd MUCH rather deal a few prospects for something known.  We're talking in hypotheticals here because the truth is, we don't know if next offseason we'll have a team that warrants making a big splash.  

 

So let's look back at when the team did warrant that splash.  When the Twins were at their peak 7-8 years ago and needed that cherry (as Brock described it), I'd have much rather traded for Cliff Lee than sign CC Sabathia.  And for me, it's not even close.  

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat and here's what I see: If you sign a 150M-200M contract for some FA - you will have that turn into a glaring negative at some point with near certainty.  There isn't nearly as great a chance of having your move backfire if you trade.

 

All that said, I'm not opposed to venturing into that market at some point.  But if I do it's either for a hitter or if I think one piece over the first 1-3 years of that contract might land me a title.  Short of that?  The negatives are far too great for me to take that route.

Performance risk doesn't discriminate between a trade or FA signing. Yes, the last years of big contracts rarely are good years, but they also aren't counted on to be stellar seasons in terms of performance. No team signs a player to a seven year deal and expects all those seasons to be elite, its just like you said they're paying for roughly 3-4 years solid performance and the rest of the contract is the price for those good years and keeping their young talent. Personally I would rather the Twins use cash instead of prospects to bring in talent. The rebuild is centered around drafting and developing (insert joke here) players. Giving those players up via trade feels a lot like robbing peter to pay paul. If they were a pitcher away from a WS then I could understand it, but right now they need all the young talent they can get. 

    • Mike Sixel and beckmt like this
Photo
ScrapTheNickname
Mar 20 2017 12:34 AM

 

David Price was still very good last year. Not sure why they included him on the disappointing list.

I have to agree with you. He did well. Perhaps they listed him because he is having elbow problems this spring?

So now we make a decision on 7 year deals after 1 year? So, if the players had been great for 1 year, the deals would have been good deals?

 

 

Photo
TheLeviathan
Mar 20 2017 09:01 AM

 

Performance risk doesn't discriminate between a trade or FA signing. Yes, the last years of big contracts rarely are good years, but they also aren't counted on to be stellar seasons in terms of performance. No team signs a player to a seven year deal and expects all those seasons to be elite, its just like you said they're paying for roughly 3-4 years solid performance and the rest of the contract is the price for those good years and keeping their young talent. Personally I would rather the Twins use cash instead of prospects to bring in talent. The rebuild is centered around drafting and developing (insert joke here) players. Giving those players up via trade feels a lot like robbing peter to pay paul. If they were a pitcher away from a WS then I could understand it, but right now they need all the young talent they can get. 

 

To be clear, I'm talking in very general terms about what strategies I would use towards free agency.  Where we are in a year is anyone's guess at this point.  We may be just as easily looking to tear this sucker to the studs again as wee are buying starting pitching.  

 

As for my more general beliefs - many prospects fizzle.  Cash always has value.  So would I choke down blowing cash on the back half of a giant contract in hopes that the first half gives me what I want?  Perhaps, depends.  But I'm far more interested in dealing prospects for immediate help.  Think about how little we would have missed Aaron Hicks if we had dealt him for Cliff Lee for example.  

 

I much prefer that route.  

    • Vanimal46 likes this

 

As for my more general beliefs - many prospects fizzle.  Cash always has value.  So would I choke down blowing cash on the back half of a giant contract in hopes that the first half gives me what I want?  Perhaps, depends.  But I'm far more interested in dealing prospects for immediate help.  Think about how little we would have missed Aaron Hicks if we had dealt him for Cliff Lee for example.  

 

I much prefer that route.  

 

As do I. Prospect's values are almost always higher than where they actually end up after a year or 2 in the league (if they're fortunate enough to make the show)... I'm of the belief that a prospect can easily peak in value before they get to the majors. For example, I think the White Sox traded for peak value of Giolito. Jay's peak was probably the beginning of 2016 when he (I think?) made a top 100 prospect list and was still thought of as a starter. 

 

I truly do hope that is the route the new regime goes with. Not all of Gonsalves, Stewart, Romero, Mejia, Jorge, etc. is going to work out. It sure would be nice to find out their value for immediate help. 

    • TheLeviathan likes this
Photo
KirbyDome89
Mar 20 2017 01:00 PM

 

To be clear, I'm talking in very general terms about what strategies I would use towards free agency.  Where we are in a year is anyone's guess at this point.  We may be just as easily looking to tear this sucker to the studs again as wee are buying starting pitching.  

 

As for my more general beliefs - many prospects fizzle.  Cash always has value.  So would I choke down blowing cash on the back half of a giant contract in hopes that the first half gives me what I want?  Perhaps, depends.  But I'm far more interested in dealing prospects for immediate help.  Think about how little we would have missed Aaron Hicks if we had dealt him for Cliff Lee for example.  

 

I much prefer that route.  

Of course I agree, if they're ripping it down there isn't value in the 3-4 year window. The signing is only viable if Buxton, Sano, Kepler, ect take more steps forward and it looks like a core is forming. 

 

I get the prospect volatility aspect, but they're also necessary. Not all prospects are created equal and its often the elite ones (lowest chance to bust) that must be moved to bring back established talent. No, nobody misses Hicks, but those deals go both ways as well. I'm certain the D-backs would redo that Miller/Swanson trade in a heartbeat. 

 

If they had a glut of young talent in the minors or if they were a respectable MLB team then yeah it would make total sense to me to deal some prospects for a starting pitcher. I just see the Twins lacking in so many areas right now that for me, spending cash to keep some of the talent they do have is the lesser of two evils. 

    • beckmt likes this
Photo
TheLeviathan
Mar 20 2017 01:41 PM

 

Of course I agree, if they're ripping it down there isn't value in the 3-4 year window. The signing is only viable if Buxton, Sano, Kepler, ect take more steps forward and it looks like a core is forming. 

 

I get the prospect volatility aspect, but they're also necessary. Not all prospects are created equal and its often the elite ones (lowest chance to bust) that must be moved to bring back established talent. No, nobody misses Hicks, but those deals go both ways as well. I'm certain the D-backs would redo that Miller/Swanson trade in a heartbeat. 

 

If they had a glut of young talent in the minors or if they were a respectable MLB team then yeah it would make total sense to me to deal some prospects for a starting pitcher. I just see the Twins lacking in so many areas right now that for me, spending cash to keep some of the talent they do have is the lesser of two evils. 

 

I'm not advocating they clean out the farm when the time comes, it's just my preference.

 

Your argument that they have needs in so many areas would work against the case of dropping 20+ on one guy.  

Photo
KirbyDome89
Mar 20 2017 03:39 PM

 

I'm not advocating they clean out the farm when the time comes, it's just my preference.

 

Your argument that they have needs in so many areas would work against the case of dropping 20+ on one guy.  

Not sure where that implication came from but yeah I know.

 

If baseball was capped then yeah it would. However, its the same thing I said in a earlier post; they're moderate players in FA at best so a large deal shouldn't change how they're operating. That big signing only "hurts," them as much as they allow it to. 

 

Do I believe they'll spend that money? Not a chance....

    • USAFChief likes this
Photo
TheLeviathan
Mar 20 2017 04:49 PM

 

Not sure where that implication came from but yeah I know.

 

If baseball was capped then yeah it would. However, its the same thing I said in a earlier post; they're moderate players in FA at best so a large deal shouldn't change how they're operating. That big signing only "hurts," them as much as they allow it to. 

 

Do I believe they'll spend that money? Not a chance....

 

That's simply not true.  A large deal does eat away at available resources.  Any time you are handing 1/25 of your roster 1/10 (or more) of your available payroll, it absolutely has side-effects that can be negative.

 

This is where people lose me.  I get it, it's easier to spend someone else's money and demand they spend to whatever degree you deem is ok, but that's not reality.  Do I think the Twins can spend more?  Yes.  But I also know that their payroll is mid-market at best, possibly much less given their own bungling of their cable contract.  And a team in that market range has to be very careful about handing out 20M+ per year deals because it will have ramifications for other spending the team has to do.

Photo
KirbyDome89
Mar 20 2017 05:52 PM

 

That's simply not true.  A large deal does eat away at available resources.  Any time you are handing 1/25 of your roster 1/10 (or more) of your available payroll, it absolutely has side-effects that can be negative.

 

This is where people lose me.  I get it, it's easier to spend someone else's money and demand they spend to whatever degree you deem is ok, but that's not reality.  Do I think the Twins can spend more?  Yes.  But I also know that their payroll is mid-market at best, possibly much less given their own bungling of their cable contract.  And a team in that market range has to be very careful about handing out 20M+ per year deals because it will have ramifications for other spending the team has to do.

It absolutely is. The available payroll is what they decide to make it.  

 

 The idea that this franchise can't afford to pay a player $20 million per season moving forward is where people start to lose me. They're definitely a mid market team, but they prefer everybody to treat them as if they're small market. They're sitting at a little over 30 million dollars under the league average team salary right now. Mauer comes off the books after next season. MLB revenue continues to increase, meaning more sharing is generated. Somehow despite all this the Twins payroll has been decreasing over the last few seasons and now they can't even afford to hand out a contract close to Mauer's without drying up the well? I think the reality is that it is just easier to believe that this franchise can't spend above an imaginary line because they've refused to do it for so long...

    • USAFChief, Mike Sixel and Twins33 like this
Photo
TheLeviathan
Mar 21 2017 09:19 AM

 

It absolutely is. The available payroll is what they decide to make it.  

 

 The idea that this franchise can't afford to pay a player $20 million per season moving forward is where people start to lose me. They're definitely a mid market team, but they prefer everybody to treat them as if they're small market. They're sitting at a little over 30 million dollars under the league average team salary right now. Mauer comes off the books after next season. MLB revenue continues to increase, meaning more sharing is generated. Somehow despite all this the Twins payroll has been decreasing over the last few seasons and now they can't even afford to hand out a contract close to Mauer's without drying up the well? I think the reality is that it is just easier to believe that this franchise can't spend above an imaginary line because they've refused to do it for so long...

 

I never said it would dry up the well.  Like any budget - and payroll is a budget - you have opportunity costs.  Signing a giant 7 year 200+ contract has the cost of signing two smaller FA deals like Ervin Santana.  It's not that they can't afford to, it's that (for me) the cost of doing is likely too great.  

 

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.  I wouldn't dive into those waters unless I thought I was putting the cherry on my World Series sundae.  I'd prefer to trade or dabble in the tier one below that where the years and dollars are not nearly so cumbersome to my budget.

Photo
KirbyDome89
Mar 21 2017 11:30 AM

 

I never said it would dry up the well.  Like any budget - and payroll is a budget - you have opportunity costs.  Signing a giant 7 year 200+ contract has the cost of signing two smaller FA deals like Ervin Santana.  It's not that they can't afford to, it's that (for me) the cost of doing is likely too great.  

 

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.  I wouldn't dive into those waters unless I thought I was putting the cherry on my World Series sundae.  I'd prefer to trade or dabble in the tier one below that where the years and dollars are not nearly so cumbersome to my budget.

Again, this isn't about spending just to spend. I've been clear about that. 

 

We'll chalk it up to a difference in philosophy. 

Photo
nicksaviking
Mar 21 2017 12:18 PM

 

Tom:  "I actually don't think the org is trying to get younger and build. I think they're trying to win."

 

Concur.And I support that approach.I have no interest in a "rebuild," which really is more of an excuse than a strategy anyway.All it does is push off trying to get better players far into the future while giving ownership another reason not to spend money.Start getting better players now.

 

I understand those who don't want a rebuild, but it's really hard not to roll one's eyes when bringing in vets to go for the "trying to win now" strategy basically boils down to Castro, Giminez, Beslise, Breslow, Stubbs and Vogelsong. No rational baseball mind is going to say a defensive only catcher and 5 DFA candidates is what a 100 loss team needs to contend.

 

If that's the kind of effort put into free agency, is there really much downside to going for the rebuild?

 

    • Mike Sixel and Tom Froemming like this

I also don't think they are rebuilding. They only talked about adding veterans all off season. They did so. they tried to add even more. There is zero evidence they are rebuilding, or even building at all.

    • KirbyDome89 and Tom Froemming like this

 

I understand those who don't want a rebuild, but it's really hard not to roll one's eyes when bringing in vets to go for the "trying to win now" strategy basically boils down to Castro, Giminez, Beslise, Breslow, Stubbs and Vogelsong. No rational baseball mind is going to say a defensive only catcher and 5 DFA candidates is what a 100 loss team needs to contend.

 

If that's the kind of effort put into free agency, is there really much downside to going for the rebuild?

I certainly agree I don't much care for the actual actions.  

 

I just agree that I don't think the Twin FO is trying to "rebuild," I think they are trying to win, and win now.  And I support that approach.

 

How they went about that approach is another story.

 

 

    • Mike Sixel and nicksaviking like this
Photo
KirbyDome89
Mar 21 2017 02:21 PM

 

 or even building at all.

Hammer meet nail


Similar Articles


by Cody Christie , 06 Dec 2017
Photo


by Cody Christie , 03 Dec 2017
Photo


by Cody Christie , 29 Nov 2017
Photo


by Cody Christie , 16 Nov 2017
Photo


by Seth Stohs , 20 Jul 2017
Photo