83 replies to this topic

[Mike Sixel]

I get that, Mike. I was simply pointing out that "saying hi to Milwaukee" as an example of a team that got better has a longer and much more complex story that may not turn out well for the organization. I applauded the Yelich trade, like I applauded the Verlander and Cole trades. But somehow, Milwaukee is now showing some strains, which I pointed out with facts. More facts have surfaced now, including trading Chase Anderson and his $8M cost.

I remember having some of the very same types of discussions about the Detroit Tigers back when they emptied the farm system and strained their financial capacity. I remember that it paid off, but my point back then and is now that if my team's FO decides against a boom and bust approach, like the Red Sox have done and the Brewers have done, I can fully understand that. Falvey is trying to avoid having any of the three pillars, MLB, farm, and cash, crumble on him. In short order, he's strengthened this organization on all three fronts. I think he'll solve the pitching problem here too.

Of course, there is a long list of teams that never had any success lately. I'd rather show strain, than be Pittsburgh or Cincinnati, for example. As I was told over and over under the previous GM... Mid market teams can't sustain success over a super long period, because they draft later and their players get too expensive to keep. That will likely happen to Milwaukee, sure. But that's what you and others told me was the natural cycle of the game.

Edited by Mike Sixel, 06 November 2019 - 08:53 PM.

[Riverbrian]

 

I get that, Mike. I was simply pointing out that "saying hi to Milwaukee" as an example of a team that got better has a longer and much more complex story that may not turn out well for the organization. I applauded the Yelich trade, like I applauded the Verlander and Cole trades. But somehow, Milwaukee is now showing some strains, which I pointed out with facts. More facts have surfaced now, including trading Chase Anderson and his $8M cost. 

 

I remember having some of the very same types of discussions about the Detroit Tigers back when they emptied the farm system and strained their financial capacity. I remember that it paid off, but my point back then and is now that if my team's FO decides against a boom and bust approach, like the Red Sox have done and the Brewers have done, I can fully understand that. Falvey is trying to avoid having any of the three pillars, MLB, farm, and cash, crumble on him. In short order, he's strengthened this organization on all three fronts. I think he'll solve the pitching problem here too.

 

 

 

If you drain the farm you'll have to go to the market for your ingredients. You'll have no choice. 

 

The Brewers are now critically low on Barley and Hops but they had a couple of impressive keg parties.

 

 

 

 

[birdwatcher]

 

Of course, there is a long list of teams that never had any success lately. I'd rather show strain, than be Pittsburgh or Cincinnati, for example. As I was told over and over under the previous GM... Mid market teams can't sustain success over a super long period, because they draft later and their players get too expensive to keep. That will likely happen to Milwaukee, sure. But that's what you and others told me was the natural cycle of the game.

 

Times have changed.

 

It's hardly disputable that the Twins have enjoyed a radical improvement in revenues, and that has allowed guys like me to argue that this team could AND SHOULD spend upwards towards $150M on payroll if they need to, WHEN doing so adds the last piece or two. Like, say, 2020 for the first time. They spend an average amount currently, but you wouldn't think that was the case if you read a lot of the comments on TD, including a great number of yours. A dozen teams spend less. Target Field has helped.

 

There were times in the not-so-distant past when they could have spent another $50M on FA talent (one year cost) and still would have been short a half dozen players, meaning it would be fruitless if the goal was a division title. I pushed back on blanket statements about spending, still do, always will. I say, connect the dots between the expenditures you think they should make and that elusive WS. How much have the odds improved?

 

Even though the league has evened the playing field with limits and pools, a half dozen clubs have the capacity to outspend the average team like the Twins by $50M on payroll alone. Alas, even the biggest spenders, teams like WSN, BOS, HOU are paring back, and fretting about their lack of prospect talent and unfavorable draft order and IFA allottments when success can be so fleeting at the MLB level. Again, my argument is that a strategy of maintaining relative strength by avoiding financial strain and farm system depletion makes sense.

 

You mention CIN and PIT. Both clubs HAVE felt financial strain, PIT in 2018, CIN today after a $25M bump in payroll expense. Both clubs are below average in MLB. CIN has an average pipeline at best.

 

Now more than ever, a favorable draft order will improve a team's health very quickly because the success rate among the top few prospects has skyrocketed. For example, Detroit's farm system is ranked #8 by FanGraphs, up from #23 two drafts ago. Which is why the strategy of no MLB fire sales, available cash, strong IFA capabilities, careful and assertive FA moves, and active, opportunistic trading makes sense.

 

The boom/bust thing is treacherous these days IMO. It's more a problem of expensive players declining (Price) than becoming too expensive, although that problem exists too of course. Boston is unloading Mookie Betts and is choking on its payroll costs while sporting the worst prospect pipeline in all of baseball. They won't like their Vegas odds either.

 

 

Edited by birdwatcher, 06 November 2019 - 10:35 PM.

[Aerodeliria]

I don't know how they would manage it (or if it's even possible), but I would love to get Livan Moinelo (Cuban) from the Softbank Hawks. He's a 21-yr old lefty and he was used constantly in high leverage situations. He throws a four-seamer with some pop, a splitter, a disappearing slider, a lollipop curve (which almost always freezes hitters) and he has a tremendous change-up.

[Aerodeliria]

Of course there will be some Japanese players posting. Tsutsugo is posting for sure (I would say "X.") I am afraid he'll have trouble adjusting and we have heard that Tetsuto Yamada is almost certain to follow suit. I would say "O" for Yamada who is a very talented player--good hitter and very athletic. Unfortunately, neither are pitchers.

[ashbury]

The Brewers are now critically low on Barley and Hops but they had a couple of impressive keg parties.

So, they switch to Budweiser's recipe. Problem solved.

[Battle ur tail off]

 

Nonsense IMO.

 

Falvey isn't Ryan. And he's got more talent than Ryan often had. Falvey traded 3 40FV prospects and a 45FV prospect at the deadline. Boston has 5 45FV prospects in their whole system. 

 

Time to ditch that tired old trope. It ain't ringin' as true these days.

 

What the hell does FV mean? He traded prospects that were way down the depth chart in our system. Wake me up when a difference maker is brought in and "gasp" they have to give up an actual MLB starting level player to get him. 

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Times have changed.

 

It's hardly disputable that the Twins have enjoyed a radical improvement in revenues, and that has allowed guys like me to argue that this team could AND SHOULD spend upwards towards $150M on payroll if they need to, WHEN doing so adds the last piece or two. Like, say, 2020 for the first time. They spend an average amount currently, but you wouldn't think that was the case if you read a lot of the comments on TD, including a great number of yours. A dozen teams spend less. Target Field has helped.

 

There were times in the not-so-distant past when they could have spent another $50M on FA talent (one year cost) and still would have been short a half dozen players, meaning it would be fruitless if the goal was a division title. I pushed back on blanket statements about spending, still do, always will. I say, connect the dots between the expenditures you think they should make and that elusive WS. How much have the odds improved?

 

Even though the league has evened the playing field with limits and pools, a half dozen clubs have the capacity to outspend the average team like the Twins by $50M on payroll alone. Alas, even the biggest spenders, teams like WSN, BOS, HOU are paring back, and fretting about their lack of prospect talent and unfavorable draft order and IFA allottments when success can be so fleeting at the MLB level. Again, my argument is that a strategy of maintaining relative strength by avoiding financial strain and farm system depletion makes sense.

 

You mention CIN and PIT. Both clubs HAVE felt financial strain, PIT in 2018, CIN today after a $25M bump in payroll expense. Both clubs are below average in MLB. CIN has an average pipeline at best.

 

Now more than ever, a favorable draft order will improve a team's health very quickly because the success rate among the top few prospects has skyrocketed. For example, Detroit's farm system is ranked #8 by FanGraphs, up from #23 two drafts ago. Which is why the strategy of no MLB fire sales, available cash, strong IFA capabilities, careful and assertive FA moves, and active, opportunistic trading makes sense.

 

The boom/bust thing is treacherous these days IMO. It's more a problem of expensive players declining (Price) than becoming too expensive, although that problem exists too of course. Boston is unloading Mookie Betts and is choking on its payroll costs while sporting the worst prospect pipeline in all of baseball. They won't like their Vegas odds either.

 

I admit I literally have no idea what this post has to do with Milwaukee and the fact that they have a less good farm system now that they've traded for some real MLB players. Like, I have no idea

[Battle ur tail off]

 

My original point was that GMs of average or below average teams all have proven to value prospects much more than Chief and some others here so I won't totally disagree. However, we should take a practical look at how trading lower ranking prospects would impact this team at the moment. Which position players could be upgraded without trading a top prospect? Maybe 1st base but is that how you would suggest we use top prospects? Are we going to get impact pitching without trading a top prospect? Can you give me an example of how you would acquire impact players without trading one of our top 5? The only way I see that happening is to take on a big contract and I am not sure who that would be.

 

I would love to see another Odorizzi type deal. The Mike Minor idea that was mentioned is good. I would think the cost would be outside the top 5 given he only has 1 year of control. I am on board with anyone who is advocating we find this type of trade.  

 

 

Our 5-10 ranked prospects in our system would be worth a fair amount IMO. Packaged up, there is no doubt in my mind they could bring back a player in the mold of Chris Archer, or someone of that stature. 

 

I don't believe trading these type of guys is a good idea all the time. Far from it. But when you are in the position the Twins find themselves in now. Young team/lineup on cheap deal, ready to contend, minor league full of talent, I think it's time to use a few of them to add those missing pieces and attempt to take things all the way. 

 

Will it be risky? Sure, of course it is. That said, if you see your team as that true contender and have that chance, it only comes around once every 10 years or so as we have seen by following this club. Just go ahead and go for it. If you have to move some of your veterans in a few years to re-stock, then by all means go ahead. The time is now though, the iron is hot. Let's not waste this chance. 

[birdwatcher]

 

What the hell does FV mean? He traded prospects that were way down the depth chart in our system. Wake me up when a difference maker is brought in and "gasp" they have to give up an actual MLB starting level player to get him. 

 

Palacios was way down the depth chart, and he fetched Odorizzi. The team went from 78 to 101 in 2019. Odorizzi was a difference maker. Palacios, as I recall, was a 35+ or 40FV. 

 

Is your point that they should have given up one of the shortstop prospects that was higher up the depth chart? Or any prospect, as long as it was one higher up the depth chart?

 

Or is your point that Odorizzi was not a difference maker?

 

Or is it your hope that they peddle one of their starting MLB players and create a hole? I mean, they weren't THAT talent-rich. Many of us were dismayed by the Pressly trade and were against the idea of trading Kepler when that idea got helium here.

 

2020 may be the first year in a long long time when a starter becomes redundant, and that may not happen before August.

 

If your point is that, this off-season, they should shoot even higher than Odorizzi, I'm not sure anyone reading this thread would disagree with you. 

 

It just seems on one hand you're complaining that they didn't do something they actually did, which is to trade valuable prospects like Palacios, Lewin Diaz, Jaylin Davis, Berroa, and Teng, and on the other hand you're complaining about something they have not done, before they even have a chance to not do it.

 

They promised to pursue "impact pitching". Let's give them a chance to show us. 

 

You can go to the FanGraphs web site to read up on what the hell FV means.

 

101 wins.  

[birdwatcher]

 

I admit I literally have no idea what this post has to do with Milwaukee and the fact that they have a less good farm system now that they've traded for some real MLB players. Like, I have no idea

 

 

My condolences.

[birdwatcher]

 

Our 5-10 ranked prospects in our system would be worth a fair amount IMO. Packaged up, there is no doubt in my mind they could bring back a player in the mold of Chris Archer, or someone of that stature. 

 

I don't believe trading these type of guys is a good idea all the time. Far from it. But when you are in the position the Twins find themselves in now. Young team/lineup on cheap deal, ready to contend, minor league full of talent, I think it's time to use a few of them to add those missing pieces and attempt to take things all the way. 

 

Will it be risky? Sure, of course it is. That said, if you see your team as that true contender and have that chance, it only comes around once every 10 years or so as we have seen by following this club. Just go ahead and go for it. If you have to move some of your veterans in a few years to re-stock, then by all means go ahead. The time is now though, the iron is hot. Let's not waste this chance. 

 

 

Concur 100%, as do most other contributors here, and as does Falvey.

[Battle ur tail off]

 

Concur 100%, as do most other contributors here, and as does Falvey.

 

Thanks and I agree with most of what you say as well. I just am not of the belief that there should be players or prospects that are off limits when it comes to improving a team such as this that has a real chance with a roster full of young talented ballplayers. 

 

If that means as Ace comes at the hand of trading one of our top 3 guys, then do it as long as you have someone on your MLB roster already manning their position. 

[Riverbrian]

 

So, they switch to Budweiser's recipe. Problem solved.

 

Wisconsin will never go for that! 

[birdwatcher]

 

Thanks and I agree with most of what you say as well. I just am not of the belief that there should be players or prospects that are off limits when it comes to improving a team such as this that has a real chance with a roster full of young talented ballplayers. 

 

If that means as Ace comes at the hand of trading one of our top 3 guys, then do it as long as you have someone on your MLB roster already manning their position. 

 

 

Yeah, we're in agreement. I think there's this misconception out there that prospect-lovers like me believe prospects like Lewis should always automatically be off-limits, and that's not the case, for me or IMO for Falvey. 

 

Rumors were flying about Syndergaard, a borderline Ace in the minds of some, becoming available. True or not, it was rumored they asked for both Lewis and Kirilloff, and a number of commenters thought that would be a smart trade for the Twins. I can see that side, although I think it can be clouded by our frustration and desire for a WS experience. I also see the side that says Lewis and Kirilloff represent huge upgrades at two positions for years to come, with one of them projected to become a superstar, and therefore are necessary, not surplus.

 

Falvey was criticized for failing to outbid NYM for Stroman. TOR received two pitching prospects, a 1st and 2nd rounder, who now rank as their 4th and 5th best prospects. A comparable offer from the Twins would probably have been Duran and Balazovic. I suppose many might see that as a good trade-off. I can see and tend to be inclined toward the argument that, given the fleeting nature of pitching performances and the difficulty with finding front end talent, a club would really have to have great confidence that the acquisition would secure a long run in the postseason and be a big upgrade on the current options (Pineda and Gibson at the time).

 

Two sides to the argument, surely. IMO, Falvey is attuned to all of this and is willing to pull the trigger under what he regards as favorable circumstances.

 

[Major League Ready]

 

Our 5-10 ranked prospects in our system would be worth a fair amount IMO. Packaged up, there is no doubt in my mind they could bring back a player in the mold of Chris Archer, or someone of that stature. 

 

I don't believe trading these type of guys is a good idea all the time. Far from it. But when you are in the position the Twins find themselves in now. Young team/lineup on cheap deal, ready to contend, minor league full of talent, I think it's time to use a few of them to add those missing pieces and attempt to take things all the way. 

 

Will it be risky? Sure, of course it is. That said, if you see your team as that true contender and have that chance, it only comes around once every 10 years or so as we have seen by following this club. Just go ahead and go for it. If you have to move some of your veterans in a few years to re-stock, then by all means go ahead. The time is now though, the iron is hot. Let's not waste this chance. 

 

The only place we differ here is that I don’t think a trade headlined by our 6 or 7th best prospect brings back an impact player.The only thing we are missing is impact pitching. We don’t need any position players and SP has historically been crazy expensive in terms of prospects. You know teams were asking for the moon last deadline based on the pitching that did not get traded.

 

This is not to say we can’t improve the team trading #6-30 but I just don’t see any such trade being a difference maker unless we take on a hefty contract but who would that be?

Someone brought up Mike Minor. I really like that idea because I am thinking he can be had without giving up the top 5. I would be curious to see what others think it would take to get him.

[Battle ur tail off]

 

The only place we differ here is that I don’t think a trade headlined by our 6 or 7th best prospect brings back an impact player.The only thing we are missing is impact pitching. We don’t need any position players and SP has historically been crazy expensive in terms of prospects. You know teams were asking for the moon last deadline based on the pitching that did not get traded.

 

This is not to say we can’t improve the team trading #6-30 but I just don’t see any such trade being a difference maker unless we take on a hefty contract but who would that be?

Someone brought up Mike Minor. I really like that idea because I am thinking he can be had without giving up the top 5. I would be curious to see what others think it would take to get him.

 

I brought up Archer and think he fits that bill. Sonny Gray is another one that could be had in that range. Those are just a few off the top of my head. 

[Battle ur tail off]

 

Yeah, we're in agreement. I think there's this misconception out there that prospect-lovers like me believe prospects like Lewis should always automatically be off-limits, and that's not the case, for me or IMO for Falvey. 

 

Rumors were flying about Syndergaard, a borderline Ace in the minds of some, becoming available. True or not, it was rumored they asked for both Lewis and Kirilloff, and a number of commenters thought that would be a smart trade for the Twins. I can see that side, although I think it can be clouded by our frustration and desire for a WS experience. I also see the side that says Lewis and Kirilloff represent huge upgrades at two positions for years to come, with one of them projected to become a superstar, and therefore are necessary, not surplus.

 

Falvey was criticized for failing to outbid NYM for Stroman. TOR received two pitching prospects, a 1st and 2nd rounder, who now rank as their 4th and 5th best prospects. A comparable offer from the Twins would probably have been Duran and Balazovic. I suppose many might see that as a good trade-off. I can see and tend to be inclined toward the argument that, given the fleeting nature of pitching performances and the difficulty with finding front end talent, a club would really have to have great confidence that the acquisition would secure a long run in the postseason and be a big upgrade on the current options (Pineda and Gibson at the time).

 

Two sides to the argument, surely. IMO, Falvey is attuned to all of this and is willing to pull the trigger under what he regards as favorable circumstances.

 

I would never give up that kind of ask for Syndergaard. I don't believe that is what it would have taken to get him though. One of those top 2 guys, maybe a guy in that 7-15 range and a throw in lottery pick most likely would have done it IMO. And I am all for those types of trades if they are available. Young pitcher, amazing stuff, controllable for a couple years. 

 

To be clear. I also don't trade our very top guys unless the talent you bring back is also high end. Marcus Stroman. Yep, I think beating the offer made that ultimately landed him wouldn't have hurt us too bad. That said, this type of guy isn't someone I'd sell the farm for, and he most definitely is not worth someone of the caliber of any of our top 3 prospects.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Ok so in exchange for Syndergaard, it was rumored that the Mets were interested in Buxton or Lewis or Kirilloff, or some combination of.

But now we know for certain that the Mets were interested in Gonsalves.

This tells me there might have been a deal to be made this past summer, somehow, and that an extra starter in the ALDS might have made a huge difference. Especially if it had been Syndergaard.

I want to see a trade or signing this winter—early this winter— that knocks me off my stool. This team needs pitching, bad. Their cutting Perez is a sideways admission IMO that pitchers can’t necessarily be fixed, or analytics applied to pitchers’ strengths. Sometimes sure, but what really makes a difference is getting pitchers who can pitch, who have that track record.

[USAFChief]

 

Ok so in exchange for Syndergaard, it was rumored that the Mets were interested in Buxton or Lewis or Kirilloff, or some combination of.

But now we know for certain that the Mets were interested in Gonsalves.

This tells me there might have been a deal to be made this past summer, somehow, and that an extra starter in the ALDS might have made a huge difference. Especially if it had been Syndergaard.

I want to see a trade or signing this winter—early this winter— that knocks me off my stool. This team needs pitching, bad. Their cutting Perez is a sideways admission IMO that pitchers can’t necessarily be fixed, or analytics applied to pitchers’ strengths. Sometimes sure, but what really makes a difference is getting pitchers who can pitch, who have that track record.

No, they've got pitching, bad.

 

They need pitching, good.