Article: Twins New Front Office Off To Strong Start

[Doomtints]

 

I guess we'd have to better define "bold and strong" before passing judgement. I don't know how bold it is to realize you don't have a catcher, then go out and sign one. I mean what were the Twinkies going to do next year, just let the pitch roll to the backstop?

 

Exactly.  Let's see where things are in a month before we rate anything.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Exactly.  Let's see where things are in a month before we rate anything.

 

so, um, don't post opinions on moves for 3 more months?

[Squirrel]

Meh.  Ryan would have picked up a catcher too.  It's a necessity at the moment since they don't have one.  Ryan may have even picked up the same catcher. 

 

We need to keep it real.  As of yet, the Twins haven't done anything that will make a major difference.

Thanks for missing my point.

[Sheeran]

But first, may we all bow our heads and thank the heavens that the Kurt Suzuki era in Minnesota is over.

[TheLeviathan]

 

you are wildly stretching to make a point.

Who is complaining about what the FO has done so far? While some are saying that the move mentioned in the article, signing Castro, isnt bold or deserving to be described as a strong start, few are actually saying it was a bad signing. You mention things The FO has done that arent mentioned in the article that you like, and thats fine, but that doesnt mean people who may like the moves, but arent as enamored with them, have to be labeled the way you labeled them.

 

Of course I'm using hyperbole, anything short of that wouldn't do justice to what some are saying in here.  

 

At best you can argue that you're splitting hairs about what a "strong start" means.  That's literally the best frame I can give what you've said in this thread.   You've used terms like the "bar is embarrassingly low" and "horribly low" as if you think Nick or anyone else is setting up a church in their name.  

 

A strong start is simple - so far, so good.  We can evaluate that regardless of how the previous administration would've operated.  And we should do so without thinking "bold" has to mean something that rarely happens.  Bold can just mean confidently going out and doing what has to be done.  It doesn't have to mean something crazy or out of left field.  

 

So, yeah, am I stretching?  Absolutely.  But so are you.  You've stretched "bold" and "strong" to the point of being incomprehensible and meaningless.  And you've taken them totally out of the context they were being argued.

[Lee-The-Twins-Fan]

The Twins open against KC in April. Duffy is the top starting pitcher on the Royals' depth chart. He's a lefty; hence Murphy or Garver could be the starting catcher on opening day!!

[jimmer]

 

Of course I'm using hyperbole, anything short of that wouldn't do justice to what some are saying in here.  

 

At best you can argue that you're splitting hairs about what a "strong start" means.  That's literally the best frame I can give what you've said in this thread.   You've used terms like the "bar is embarrassingly low" and "horribly low" as if you think Nick or anyone else is setting up a church in their name.  

 

A strong start is simple - so far, so good.  We can evaluate that regardless of how the previous administration would've operated.  And we should do so without thinking "bold" has to mean something that rarely happens.  Bold can just mean confidently going out and doing what has to be done.  It doesn't have to mean something crazy or out of left field.  

 

So, yeah, am I stretching?  Absolutely.  But so are you.  You've stretched "bold" and "strong" to the point of being incomprehensible and meaningless.  And you've taken them totally out of the context they were being argued.

Yeah, I think most fans of most teams wouldn't consider signing a player like Castro to be a bold or strong move, their bar is set higher. And quite a few people agreed, so apparently that point of view isn't too off the wall. You have a problem with that opinion, fine. I respect that.  But you don't respect the other point of view because it disagrees with yours.  So what do you do? You do what you always do, which is attack the person/people who disagree with you by labeling them, in this case as obstinate or trolling. Not sure what you think you are accomplishing by doing this, other than making yourself believe your opinions are always superior, but it sure doesn't invite open discussion.

Edited November 30, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

You're welcome to your opinion.  Labeling the idea of this being a strong start the symptom of "embarrassingly low" expectations seems to be the real problem here.  

 

You made it about that when the first post, and subsequent opinions, said nothing of the sort.  I, for one, still have high expectations and am still quite happy with this start.  They need not be the same thing, as you have tried to tie together repeatedly.

[jimmer]

Question to all.

 

In the article this was said '.It has been evident that Castro was the team's top priority from the get-go'

 

Assuming we understanding FA isn't the only way to get players, how does everyone feel about Jason Castro being the team's top priority as opposed to say trading for some quality pitching prospects (or however else they want to go about improving the pitching)?

Edited December 1, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

In this FA class, I hope catcher was their primary target.  It was by far the best player, for the most need that this group offered.

[Riverbrian]

 

Question to all.

 

In the article this was said '.It has been evident that Castro was the team's top priority from the get-go'

 

Assuming we understanding FA isn't the only way to get players, how does everyone feel about Jason Castro being the team's top priority as opposed to say trading for some quality pitching prospects (or however else they want to go about improving the pitching)?

 

I think the question is legit and it fits the topic of this thread. 

 

My thoughts... I was never interested in catchers period. Not Enough Bang for a very large buck in my opinion. 

 

No matter my opinion on catchers... I will give the new guys every opportunity to complete the off season so I can look at it all in total. Ultimately... The pitching will be my primary personal interest.

 

Thad Levine was talking about the Twins scouts and office staff and saying that the goal was to give them the tools to succeed and then evaluate them.I liked that statement as solid thinking.

 

Maybe Castro fits that mold. Maybe Castro with his pitch framing will give the pitchers a better chance at succeeding for better evaluation. 

 

So... I Guess... I'm thinking it's possible that Castro as a priority will ultimately improve my primary interest... pitching... despite my previous lack of interest in catching. 

 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Question to all.

 

In the article this was said '.It has been evident that Castro was the team's top priority from the get-go'

 

Assuming we understanding FA isn't the only way to get players, how does everyone feel about Jason Castro being the team's top priority as opposed to say trading for some quality pitching prospects (or however else they want to go about improving the pitching)?

I feel it's unrealistic to expect Falvey and Levine to be trading assets for quality pitching prospects before they even unpack their boxes and arrange their office furniture. Good trade opportunities come at other times in the year, too. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I feel it's unrealistic to expect Falvey and Levine to be trading assets for quality pitching prospects before they even unpack their boxes and arrange their office furniture. Good trade opportunities come at other times in the year, too.

I guess I don't even understand what you are getting at here.

Are you saying that figuring out Dozier and/or Santana's trade value is something that takes more than one offseason to do?

There isn't much unknown about those 2 guys, and both Falvey and Levine come from other MLB front offices so they would be pretty familiar with prospects around the league as well.

I don't see how these two have much, if any, disadvantage attempting to trade one of those players, compared to if they'd been here 10 years.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I guess I don't even understand what you are getting at here.
Are you saying that figuring out Dozier and/or Santana's trade value is something that takes more than one offseason to do?
There isn't much unknown about those 2 guys, and both Falvey and Levine come from other MLB front offices so they would be pretty familiar with prospects around the league as well.
I don't see how these two have much, if any, disadvantage attempting to trade one of those players, compared to if they'd been here 10 years.

So they should have traded Dozier and Santana already, regardless of return? I'm sure you've negotiated things. It can be a courtship dance. If their top priority was to trade Dozier for whatever they could get, they could have done that by now. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Hosken Bombo Disco

[Craig Arko]

I think I don't hold the team responsible for Nick's opinion.

 

You make the deal when it's available.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

For all we know, there's a bidding war for Dozier going on. Why interrupt?

[Mr. Brooks]

So they should have traded Dozier and Santana already, regardless of return? I'm sure you've negotiated things. It can be a courtship dance. If their top priority was to trade Dozier for whatever they could get, they could have done that by now.

No, I didn't say they should have done it by now. I must have misunderstood you. I thought you meant it would be unrealistic to do it this offseason. I belive the subject you responded to was how do you feel if this ends up being the biggest move of the offseason.

[jimmer]

 

I feel it's unrealistic to expect Falvey and Levine to be trading assets for quality pitching prospects before they even unpack their boxes and arrange their office furniture. Good trade opportunities come at other times in the year, too. 

That wasn't the question though.  I am, in no way, suggesting they should have done any trades so far.  I'm asking whether or not Castro should have been their top priority from the get-go as was stated in the OP (which was just Nick's opinion, though he said it was obviously their top priority).

 

I have never dogged out this signing.  

[jimmer]

 

I think I don't hold the team responsible for Nick's opinion.

You make the deal when it's available.

And no one is.  It's basically a discussion on what should be our top priority from the get-go.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

That wasn't the question though.  I am, in no way, suggesting they should have done any trades so far.  I'm asking whether or not Castro should have been their top priority from the get-go as was stated in the OP (which was just Nick's opinion, though he said it was obviously their top priority).

 

I have never dogged out this signing.  

aahhh right. So catching was a top priority, easier to address, and maybe the new guys already had a good opinion of Castro and decided he would be the best fit, quick and easy to sign to boot. I can buy that. Pitching is a different beast and it's every team's top priority all the time every day, so maybe not an important distinction?

[Squirrel]

And no one is.  It's basically a discussion on what should be our top priority from the get-go.

I don't think it was a matter of the Castro signing being a higher priority than a Dozier trade. I think that a free agent signing is just going to happen more quickly than a trade. If they had focused on a trade first, Castro likely would have signed elsewhere. The priority wasn't in that was what was most needed, but in the timing of how things unraveled and needing to get that done and out of the way to be able to focus on things that are more important.

[jimmer]

 

aahhh right. So catching was a top priority, easier to address, and maybe the new guys already had a good opinion of Castro and decided he would be the best fit, quick and easy to sign to boot. I can buy that. Pitching is a different beast and it's every team's top priority all the time every day, so maybe not an important distinction?

So you believe catcher was our top priority.  Not pitching and/or a MLB caliber shortstop.

[Squirrel]

So you believe catcher was our top priority.  Not pitching and/or a MLB caliber shortstop.

I don't think that's what he was saying at all. I think he's saying that that was the piece that came up first and it was a quick and easy thing to get done and out of the way to then focus on things of greater need. It wasn't a priority in that it was the most important need, but it was the priority because that's just what came up first.

[jimmer]

 

I don't think it was a matter of the Castro signing being a higher priority than a Dozier trade. I think that a free agent signing is just going to happen more quickly than a trade. If they had focused on a trade first, Castro likely would have  signed elsewhere. The priority wasn't in that was what was most needed, but in the timing of how things unraveled and needing to get that done and out of the way to be able to focus on things that are more important.

I don't disagree a FA signing is able to be done quicker than a trade, especially for a player like Castro whose price tag shows he wasn't sought after too aggressively by other teams even if there were other offers by other teams (kind of like how we got outbid other teams for Park but still managed to get him for really not that much)..

[jimmer]

 

I don't think that's what he was saying at all. I think he's saying that that was the piece that came up first and it was a quick and easy thing to get done and out of the way to then focus on things of greater need. It wasn't a priority in that it was the most important need, but it was the priority because that's just what came up first.

Ok. that's not how I read it, but maybe that's what he meant.

Edited December 1, 2016 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

I took the comment to be "Top FA priority". He may not have meant that or he may have, I don't know.  

 

I hope catcher was their top FA priority.

 

I hope dealing Dozier and Santana are their top non-FA priorities.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Ok. that's not how I read it, but maybe that's what he meant.

yep, she nailed it. (should I be scared)

 

Honestly, at SS I think we can string it along with Polanco or Escobar another season (we're not supposed to win more than 70 or so, right?) and actually Esco was above average in 2015 so maybe he recaptures that form.

 

Pitching. As you know, there are roughly 29 other teams also trying to trade for quality pitching. There will be a trade for pitching at some point. 

[jimmer]

 

yep, she nailed it. (should I be scared)

 

Honestly, at SS I think we can string it along with Polanco or Escobar another season (we're not supposed to win more than 70 or so, right?) and actually Esco was above average in 2015 so maybe he recaptures that form.

 

Pitching. As you know, there are roughly 29 other teams also trying to trade for quality pitching. There will be a trade for pitching at some point. 

fair enough.  thanks for your opinion.

Edited December 1, 2016 by jimmer

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

fair enough.  thanks for your opinion.

Thank you for driving the discussion!

[Squirrel]

yep, she nailed it. (should I be scared)

 

 

Yes.

 

Hide.

 

Mwahahahaha!