Go get Verlander

[alarp33]

 

Neither Mike nor I are saying that we should be trading the farm right now and be buyers for this season, it was meant to be a general statement on the front office and on the idea that you don't want to trade high end prospects ever. If you want to be a successful MLB team you gotta do some combo of developing your own prospects, trading your prospects for good players, or signing top tier free agents. The Twins haven't been doing any of those well in recent years, and unsurprisingly the result has not been good.

 

I'm just unclear on where this criticism is coming from.  You specifically have referenced THIS FO, and I'm asking at what point in time have they erred on trades or big free agent signings? Last trade deadline? This offseason? (I was all for a Cole trade, but I loved the offseason like most did). When did they miss an opportunity. And please don't answer Verlander because anyone who takes off their Twins colored glasses knows he wasn't waiving a no trade to come here.  

[S.]

 

Why are you lumping this FO in with past ones?

Same ownership, same approach, same results. Yeah, I'm glad we got Odorizzi this offseason and all but how is that any different than the last FO signing Phil Hughes or someone like that? No contender is looking at those type of pitchers and worrying about facing them in the playoffs. They aren't guys you trust to win you that 1 game wild card. They made an embarrassing lowball offer to Darvish. I dunno how serious they were about trade discussions for Archer or other pitchers, but the result is that we didn't get them. Our team isn't getting any younger. We're still signing guys like Belisle and not calling up many of our young arms. The fact is, that if I didn't follow the news and sites like this, I wouldn't have a clue that the FO was any different. Like I said, maybe this is the offseason they make a splash and make some big trades and sign some quality free agents now that a bunch of money is coming off the books, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

And on the Verlander note, I wouldn't have been a fan of selling the farm for him last season either, even if it were a possibility, which it wasn't. So we can agree on that front.

 

This is all just my opinion and I'm just some random guy who likes to watch some baseball, so I have no qualms with you disagreeing or having a different opinion, thats just how I feel about the situation. And until they show me something different, I don't have much trust in them to provide us with different results. Firing Molitor would be a great start. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Tulowitski

Thanks for the reminder.

 

Given a choice between Danny Santana and Troy Tulowitzki at shortstop, many fans did indeed argue for bringing in Tulo, given that Molitor was still all-in on Santana, all the way up to the trade deadline. Fortunately the compromise solution prevailed: Eduardo Escobar.

 

And who were our possible prospects to deal at that point? Arcia? Theilbar? Gibson? Josmil Pinto? It's all relative and case by case. A trade like that might have been doable, if not necessarily profitable for the Twins.

 

I want to keep Lewis but it's not an unreasonable position to want to deal Lewis for a guy like Realmuto instead.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Thanks for the reminder.

Given a choice between Danny Santana and Troy Tulowitzki at shortstop, many fans did indeed argue for bringing in Tulo, given that Molitor was still all-in on Santana, all the way up to the trade deadline. Fortunately the compromise solution prevailed: Eduardo Escobar.

And who were our possible prospects to deal at that point? Arcia? Theilbar? Josmil Pinto? It's all relative and case by case.

I want to keep Lewis but it's a reasonable opinion to want a guy like Realmuto instead.

 

We had talked about Berrios or Rosario or Gibson or Kepler in the deals among others.  And, as strange as it is to say three years later, Gibson was absolutely not worth giving up for Tulowitski.  Even straight up we'd have lost that trade.

 

So, perspective is good.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

We had talked about Berrios or Rosario or Gibson or Kepler in the deals among others.  And, as strange as it is to say three years later, Gibson was absolutely not worth giving up for Tulowitski.  Even straight up we'd have lost that trade.

 

So, perspective is good.

Ok, well I doubt I ever mentioned "Berrios" and "trade" in the same sentence, not even after 2016, and I'm not going back to find out who did

 

Also, I agree with you about Gibby, as rough as it was for him to get to this point.

[alarp33]

 

Same ownership, same approach, same results. Yeah, I'm glad we got Odorizzi this offseason and all but how is that any different than the last FO signing Phil Hughes or someone like that? No contender is looking at those type of pitchers and worrying about facing them in the playoffs. They aren't guys you trust to win you that 1 game wild card. They made an embarrassing lowball offer to Darvish. I dunno how serious they were about trade discussions for Archer or other pitchers, but the result is that we didn't get them. Our team isn't getting any younger. We're still signing guys like Belisle and not calling up many of our young arms. The fact is, that if I didn't follow the news and sites like this, I wouldn't have a clue that the FO was any different. Like I said, maybe this is the offseason they make a splash and make some big trades and sign some quality free agents now that a bunch of money is coming off the books, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

And on the Verlander note, I wouldn't have been a fan of selling the farm for him last season either, even if it were a possibility, which it wasn't. So we can agree on that front.

 

This is all just my opinion and I'm just some random guy who likes to watch some baseball, so I have no qualms with you disagreeing or having a different opinion, thats just how I feel about the situation. And until they show me something different, I don't have much trust in them to provide us with different results. Firing Molitor would be a great start. 

 

We'll have to just agree to disagree if you think this front office is doing things the same way as the previous one.  

[Jham]

I think the biggest problem with our organization and with the prospect-first posters on these forums is over-valuation of certain prospects. Some of us have offered that no player should be untouchable. How do you even say that without hearing what an offer might be?

 

It's pretty clear that our untouchables list is different than other teams. The excitement of seeing minor league success and big league failure lends itself to backup quarterback syndrome. Kepler and Berrios were untouchable several years ago along with Buxton and Sano. Guys like Dozier, Escobar, Gibson, and Goodrum, etc were deemed expendable.

 

 To me, it was pretty clear that Buxton, Sano, and Kepler were being vastly overrated by the league. The comparisons of the first two to Trout and Cab fueled that fire.  And mentioning Kep in the same sentence as the other 2 is in in itself an overrating, imo. 

Berrios is pretty consistently rated a 2 or 3 starter and not an ace. Why is that untouchable?  Romero has shoulder issues.  Gonsalves could be a AAAA guy without better control.  He could be a really good pitcher that everyone else is undervalues.  

 

All these guys are going to approach arb eligibility and eventually free agency at the same time.  Even under the best circumstance, then what?

 

I'm not saying we should or should have traded any of those guys.  I'm just saying it would be nice to see us take advantage of a market that favors an inferior player over a superior one. 

[Major League Ready]

 

We'll have to just agree to disagree if you think this front office is doing things the same way as the previous one.  

 

It's not like we have the kind of access necessary to fully assess any members of the FO but from the outside looking in this FO looks to instituting many fundamental changes for the better. There will always be people who complain the Twins won't spend like top markets. Somehow the concept those teams have a couple hundred million dollar revenue advantage does not register with some fans.

 

Prospect acquisition and development is absolutely essential to any team and that need is heightened the greater the delta in revenue. During the Beane years, Oakland had by far the best win record of any of the team outside the top 10 in revenue and also had a better record than some of those top revenue teams. When did he trade prospects. He did the opposite trading established players.  Why, because it's necessary to compete when you are at a substantial disadvantaged in terms of revenue.

 

How did it work for the Dodgers and Yankees to buy teams. When both became dominant again once they got back to focusing on prospects and they were not giving up Bellinger, Sanchez, Judge, etc.  They walked away from deals when those types of prospects were the asking price.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think Realmuto was really discussed on this thread. Machado was. Isn't 7 games under .500 and 13 games out of a WC kind of a weird time to be discussing trading prospects?

 

I don't understand your 2nd paragraph. Should they just trade legit prospects just to say they did it, or only if it make baseball sense? Should they pay $130 million to a Darvish just to show you they will sign an expensive free agent? Or maybe they should wait until their is an expensive FA worth signing?

There is an entire thread on realmuto, reads just like this one.

[USAFChief]

 

It's not like we have the kind of access necessary to fully assess any members of the FO but from the outside looking in this FO looks to instituting many fundamental changes for the better. There will always be people who complain the Twins won't spend like top markets. Somehow the concept those teams have a couple hundred million dollar revenue advantage does not register with some fans.

 

Prospect acquisition and development is absolutely essential to any team and that need is heightened the greater the delta in revenue. During the Beane years, Oakland had by far the best win record of any of the team outside the top 10 in revenue and also had a better record than some of those top revenue teams. When did he trade prospects. He did the opposite trading established players.  Why, because it's necessary to compete when you are at a substantial disadvantaged in terms of revenue.

 

How did it work for the Dodgers and Yankees to buy teams. When both became dominant again once they got back to focusing on prospects and they were not giving up Bellinger, Sanchez, Judge, etc.  They walked away from deals when those types of prospects were the asking price.

Since 1997 (not counting 2018 to date), the Yankees have gone a collective 1881-1341, with zero seasons below .500. They've won at least 90 games 14 times, 4 of which were over 100. They've made the post season 17 times, and gone 4-2 in 6 World Series appearances.

 

I'd say it worked out pretty well, but maybe that's just me.

[alarp33]

 

Since 1997 (not counting 2018 to date), the Yankees have gone a collective 1881-1341, with zero seasons below .500. They've won at least 90 games 14 times, 4 of which were over 100. They've made the post season 17 times, and gone 4-2 in 6 World Series appearances.

 

I'd say it worked out pretty well, but maybe that's just me.

 

I assume you know he wasn't referencing the 1997 Yankees.  Rather the "down" time they had prior to last season.  Of course spending the most money possible is always going to give you an advantage.  But the Yankees for them did go through a rough patch

[alarp33]

 

There is an entire thread on realmuto, reads just like this one.

 

Again, the Twins are 13 games out of a WC spot.  Why are you surprised people aren't jumping up and down demanding to trade a top 20 prospect in all of baseball in Lewis for him. 

 

Do I have a problem trading prospects? No.  Would I trade off a key piece like Lewis or Kiriloff in the middle of a lost season? No

 

People are capable of holding both of those opinions. Why does not wanting to do the deal you want suddenly "people here will never trade a prospect, twins will never sign a FA, etc"

[USAFChief]

 

I assume you know he wasn't referencing the 1997 Yankees.  Rather the "down" time they had prior to last season.  Of course spending the most money possible is always going to give you an advantage.  But the Yankees for them did go through a rough patch

What "down" time?

 

The last sub-.500 season for the Yankees was 1992. The data I provided above was for the period 1997-2017.

[Squirrel]

Difference being free agents go where they want. If a guy is traded, he goes where he’s told.

Not if he has a no trade clause. Of course that’s doesn’t apply to Machado but it did with Verlander. Wait, who are we talking about now in this thread?

[alarp33]

 

What "down" time?

 

The last sub-.500 season for the Yankees was 1992. The data I provided above was for the period 1997-2017.

 

Missing the playoffs 3 times in 4 years is considered a down time for the Yankees. You obviously knew what the poster was referencing, playing dumb is silly 

[Mike Sixel]

Again, the Twins are 13 games out of a WC spot.  Why are you surprised people aren't jumping up and down demanding to trade a top 20 prospect in all of baseball in Lewis for him. 

 

Do I have a problem trading prospects? No.  Would I trade off a key piece like Lewis or Kiriloff in the middle of a lost season? No

 

People are capable of holding both of those opinions. Why does not wanting to do the deal you want suddenly "people here will never trade a prospect, twins will never sign a FA, etc"

They weren't that far out, and the season wasn't this done, when the thread started. And he's controlled for two years beyond this one. Not many players with that much control ever become available.

[alarp33]

 

They weren't that far out, and the season wasn't this done, when the thread started. And he's controlled for two years beyond this one. Not many players with that much control ever become available.

 

On June 1st they were on pace for 68 wins and 10 games out of the WC. When Nick wrote an article about catchers they were 5 games under .500 and trailed the Astros by 8.5 games for 2nd WC. 

[USAFChief]

 

Missing the playoffs 3 times in 4 years is considered a down time for the Yankees. You obviously knew what the poster was referencing, playing dumb is silly 

The poster originally stated it only started working out for the Yankees (and Dodgers) once they stopped buying players.

 

That's ... incorrect, to be politically correct.

 

For one thing, they have never been "down."

 

For another, they haven't stopped buying players.

 

And if you really want to consider missing the playoffs in three of the last four seasons as "down," then that completely invalidates the poster's position that they've only gotten good in recent years once they stopped buying players. 

 

Your point seems to be they should go back to buying players, shouldn't it?

 

 

[alarp33]

 

The poster originally stated it only started working out for the Yankees (and Dodgers) once they stopped buying players.

 

That's ... incorrect, to be politically correct.

 

For one thing, they have never been "down."

 

For another, they haven't stopped buying players.

 

And if you really want to consider missing the playoffs in three of the last four seasons as "down," then that completely invalidates the poster's position that they've only gotten good in recent years once they stopped buying players. 

 

Your point seems to be they should go back to buying players, shouldn't it?

 

Sigh.  Have a good rest of your day, I'm not interested in this.  

 

If you can't recall the recent Change in Philosophy from the Yankees I can't help you, but google would

 

[Mike Sixel]

Sigh.  Have a good rest of your day, I'm not interested in this.  

 

If you can't recall the recent Change in Philosophy from the Yankees I can't help you, but google would

Buying mike Stanton is no change at all. And, they'll be buying players next year. And to chief's point, they've won since they decided to stay under the cap.....

[USAFChief]

 

Sigh.  Have a good rest of your day, I'm not interested in this.  

 

If you can't recall the recent Change in Philosophy from the Yankees I can't help you, but google would

Please explain how that has made the difference for the Yankees--rescued them from failure--which was the point the original poster was trying to make.

 

Again...the poster stated that the Yankees only recently had success, once they stopped buying players.

 

 

[Major League Ready]

 

The poster originally stated it only started working out for the Yankees (and Dodgers) once they stopped buying players.

 

That's ... incorrect, to be politically correct.

 

For one thing, they have never been "down."

 

For another, they haven't stopped buying players.

 

And if you really want to consider missing the playoffs in three of the last four seasons as "down," then that completely invalidates the poster's position that they've only gotten good in recent years once they stopped buying players. 

 

Your point seems to be they should go back to buying players, shouldn't it?

 

There was definitely room for me to me more specific but I thought the difference was obvious. That's what I get for expecting a reasonable interpretation. Of course the Yankees were still reasonably good after buying top free agents. However, they were not as good as they were when when Jeter came up.  Those teams had home grown talent. The teams I reference were not nearly as good as they are today. Judge, Sanchez, Andujar, and Torres all products of their farm system and Gregorius acquired from Arizona while still a prospect. Not to mention getting Hicks from us who was hardly considered and elite player at the time of the trade. Severino is their best pitcher. Their big trade (Sonny Gray) has been mediocre at best.

 

The Dodgers were good but not a serious contender during the years I referenced. They are now great and should be great for at least a decade perhaps longer because they have kept their best prospects.

 

How did Cleveland build their team that has been elite for the past few seasons? Someone please show me their mega free agents. Show me where they traded top prospects.

 

How well would it have turned out had we traded for Tulo and LeCroy like so many here insisted was the thing to do. Some wanted us to trade Berrios + others for Sonny Gray. We don't know the long-term implications for sure but right that looks like it would have been terrible. There are a number of deals promoted here that would have devasted this team for several years so how some of you can continue to insist these moves are the obvious solution is beyond me. Some of you here are unwilling to acknowledge how bad these moves would have been and equally unwilling to look at a successful mid-market teams (Cleveland) and fairly interpret their model of success.

[USAFChief]

"How did Cleveland build their team that has been elite for the past few seasons? Someone please show me their mega free agents. Show me where they traded top prospects."

 

Cleveland's top four starters: Kluber, Bauer, Clevenger, and Carrasco.  None are products of the Cleveland farm system, all were acquired from other teams.

 

Starting lineup: Lindor and Ramirez are products of the Cleveland farm system. Pending tonight's starting lineup, none of the others will be. DH Edwin Encarnacion signed for $20M/year as a FA.

 

 

 

 

[yarnivek1972]

I think the biggest problem with our organization and with the prospect-first posters on these forums is over-valuation of certain prospects. Some of us have offered that no player should be untouchable. How do you even say that without hearing what an offer might be?

 

It's pretty clear that our untouchables list is different than other teams. The excitement of seeing minor league success and big league failure lends itself to backup quarterback syndrome. Kepler and Berrios were untouchable several years ago along with Buxton and Sano. Guys like Dozier, Escobar, Gibson, and Goodrum, etc were deemed expendable.

 

To me, it was pretty clear that Buxton, Sano, and Kepler were being vastly overrated by the league. The comparisons of the first two to Trout and Cab fueled that fire. And mentioning Kep in the same sentence as the other 2 is in in itself an overrating, imo.

 

Berrios is pretty consistently rated a 2 or 3 starter and not an ace. Why is that untouchable? Romero has shoulder issues. Gonsalves could be a AAAA guy without better control. He could be a really good pitcher that everyone else is undervalues.

 

All these guys are going to approach arb eligibility and eventually free agency at the same time. Even under the best circumstance, then what?

 

I'm not saying we should or should have traded any of those guys. I'm just saying it would be nice to see us take advantage of a market that favors an inferior player over a superior one.

I really don’t think it’s fair to lump Kepler with Buxton and Sano. First of all, he’s been in the lineup (i.e. healthy) pretty much everyday. He has an OPS+ over 100 and a bWAR of .8. Sano and Buxton can say all but 3 of those.

 

Kepler’s problem is very much different than Sano or Buxton. Kepler has a career low 16% K rate and a career high 12% BB rate. He is not being overmatched. He has good pitch recognition and plate discipline.

 

Sano has a career worst 40% K rate and career worst 9% BB rate. Buxton has a 32% K rate, which isn’t career worst but is still terrible.

 

Kepler’s line drive % is 24% which is right about his career mark and just a tick below league average (26%).

 

Sano has a 16% line drive rate, about half his career mark coming into 2018. Buxton is at 19%, also a career low.

 

 

The number that stands out for me is Kepler’s .250 BABIP. He has always run low. His career mark is .265. My thinking is that it is mostly a result of hitting into the shift too predictably. That has to be the next phase of Kepler’s development. Making himself a threat to all fields. Then the shifts go away and his BABIP should normalize.

 

Sano’s BABIP is .303. Buxton’s is an absurdly low .226, but that just shows how bad a place he is in and could be related to the foot issues resulting in extremely weak contact (further evidenced by his LD%).

 

 

So, very different problem for Kepler. But one I think he can improve. He has made tremendous strides vs lhp, so he clearly is capable of adjusting his approach. Frankly, neither Buxton or Sano have proven they can adjust yet. They have gotten where they are largely with natural ability.

[Major League Ready]

 

"How did Cleveland build their team that has been elite for the past few seasons? Someone please show me their mega free agents. Show me where they traded top prospects."

 

Cleveland's top four starters: Kluber, Bauer, Clevenger, and Carrasco.  None are products of the Cleveland farm system, all were acquired from other teams.

 

Starting lineup: Lindor and Ramirez are products of the Cleveland farm system. Pending tonight's starting lineup, none of the others will be. DH Edwin Encarnacion signed for $20M/year as a FA.

You really don’t care about reality if you think you can make a point. Encarnacion was 3 years and $60M. That’s certainly not a mega contract in the vein we are talking about and you know this without doubt. That’s why you used the AAV rather than the total amount. Yet, you roll it out anyway.

 

Where the pitchers are concerned, the position you and others have taken is why won’t the Twins go sign a Darvish type or trade for a top SP. How are the pitchers you listed proof of the need to go sign a big name established player which is what you are arguing? They are proof of the opposite. They are examples of how a team with the Twin’s revenue can become contenders for a sustained period. This is my point. These types of deals are the key to elevating a team to contention. Very little risk paying off in huge production. You are so unwilling to actually evaluate the implications that you offer proof of my point as proof of your position.

[Mike Sixel]

There was definitely room for me to me more specific but I thought the difference was obvious. That's what I get for expecting a reasonable interpretation. Of course the Yankees were still reasonably good after buying top free agents. However, they were not as good as they were when when Jeter came up. Those teams had home grown talent. The teams I reference were not nearly as good as they are today. Judge, Sanchez, Andujar, and Torres all products of their farm system and Gregorius acquired from Arizona while still a prospect. Not to mention getting Hicks from us who was hardly considered and elite player at the time of the trade. Severino is their best pitcher. Their big trade (Sonny Gray) has been mediocre at best.

 

The Dodgers were good but not a serious contender during the years I referenced. They are now great and should be great for at least a decade perhaps longer because they have kept their best prospects.

 

How did Cleveland build their team that has been elite for the past few seasons? Someone please show me their mega free agents. Show me where they traded top prospects.

 

How well would it have turned out had we traded for Tulo and LeCroy like so many here insisted was the thing to do. Some wanted us to trade Berrios + others for Sonny Gray. We don't know the long-term implications for sure but right that looks like it would have been terrible. There are a number of deals promoted here that would have devasted this team for several years so how some of you can continue to insist these moves are the obvious solution is beyond me. Some of you here are unwilling to acknowledge how bad these moves would have been and equally unwilling to look at a successful mid-market teams (Cleveland) and fairly interpret their model of success.

I note you left off Houston and the Cubs, who have traded prospects and signed players. Also, the Yankees just bought Stanton, and will pay huge dollars for a player next year.

 

How many playoff wins do the Twins have using this strategy? Because I'm pretty sure the last time they won, they had one of the highest free agent singings ever

[USAFChief]

 

You really don’t care about reality if you think you can make a point. Encarnacion was 3 years and $60M. That’s certainly not a mega contract in the vein we are talking about and you know this without doubt. That’s why you used the AAV rather than the total amount. Yet, you roll it out anyway.

 

Where the pitchers are concerned, the position you and others have taken is why won’t the Twins go sign a Darvish type or trade for a top SP. How are the pitchers you listed proof of the need to go sign a big name established player which is what you are arguing? They are proof of the opposite. They are examples of how a team with the Twin’s revenue can become contenders for a sustained period. This is my point. These types of deals are the key to elevating a team to contention. Very little risk paying off in huge production. You are so unwilling to actually evaluate the implications that you offer proof of my point as proof of your position.

If the goal posts are going to keep moving, there's no point continuing this.

 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

There was definitely room for me to me more specific but I thought the difference was obvious. That's what I get for expecting a reasonable interpretation. Of course the Yankees were still reasonably good after buying top free agents. However, they were not as good as they were when when Jeter came up.  Those teams had home grown talent. The teams I reference were not nearly as good as they are today. Judge, Sanchez, Andujar, and Torres all products of their farm system and Gregorius acquired from Arizona while still a prospect. Not to mention getting Hicks from us who was hardly considered and elite player at the time of the trade. Severino is their best pitcher. Their big trade (Sonny Gray) has been mediocre at best.

 

The Dodgers were good but not a serious contender during the years I referenced. They are now great and should be great for at least a decade perhaps longer because they have kept their best prospects.

 

How did Cleveland build their team that has been elite for the past few seasons? Someone please show me their mega free agents. Show me where they traded top prospects.

 

How well would it have turned out had we traded for Tulo and LeCroy like so many here insisted was the thing to do. Some wanted us to trade Berrios + others for Sonny Gray. We don't know the long-term implications for sure but right that looks like it would have been terrible. There are a number of deals promoted here that would have devasted this team for several years so how some of you can continue to insist these moves are the obvious solution is beyond me. Some of you here are unwilling to acknowledge how bad these moves would have been and equally unwilling to look at a successful mid-market teams (Cleveland) and fairly interpret their model of success.

You seem very conservative and pro-ownership, which is fine, but your supporting points fail scrutiny so often.

 

This one I highlighted, the timeline as you remember it is completely wrong. Sonny Gray wasn't spoken of as a trade target until last summer (I remember this because I was one of the earliest, loudest voices for Gray.) But by last summer, Jose Berrios was showing quality stuff as a starting pitcher. There's no chance anyone would have seriously proposed sending Berrios in a trade for Gray, except as satire or tongue in cheek. 

 

By the way, the Odorizzi trade looks like a vastly better deal for the Twins than any Gray trade would have been.

[alarp33]

   No one has ever said to win you have to build your entire 25 man roster from home grown players. Let's stop with these absurdly stupid nit picking examples.  The cubs and the Astros are two great examples for the Twins to follow. Both won BY BUILDING THEIR FARM SYTEM, they then supplemented that through FA and Trades.  NO ONE IS ARGUING against that.  The Twins are 13 games out of a WC spot, they aren't in the Cubs, Astros, Yankees position when they acquired the Lesters, Verlanders, Stanton's   

 

I'm fully aware the posters trying to make these arguments understand exactly what Major League is saying but are choosing these odd nit picks to argue. 

[Mr. Brooks]

No one has ever said to win you have to build your entire 25 man roster from home grown players. Let's stop with these absurdly stupid nit picking examples. The cubs and the Astros are two great examples for the Twins to follow. Both won BY BUILDING THEIR FARM SYTEM, they then supplemented that through FA and Trades. NO ONE IS ARGUING against that. The Twins are 13 games out of a WC spot, they aren't in the Cubs, Astros, Yankees position when they acquired the Lesters, Verlanders, Stanton's

 

I'm fully aware the posters trying to make these arguments understand exactly what Major League is saying but are choosing these odd nit picks to argue.

To be fair, nobody is arguing for building entirely from FA and trades either.