SELL!

[Mike Sixel]

 

This is an excellent clash of "Are Sports a Science or an Art" aficionados.  As I've stated often, teams overcoming seemingly overwhelming odds is the most captivating thing to watch in sports, for me.  For others, building the robot exactly according to plan and then watching it walk around in perfect circles, and maybe bring you a beer from the refrigerator is more satisfying.

 

Selling right in the middle of a competitive game against arguably the best team in baseball is...pretty unfortunate, karmically speaking.

 

No, that's not really how "other" people feel. We too love it when underedogs win. If sports were completely predictable, play after play, and each individual game, I wouldn't watch.

 

But, that's not necessarily how a GM should run a team........so, no, we aren't robots. Not close.

 

As for the Twins, they've still not done one thing that really hurts for next year......and if Sano plays well on his return, they've barely hurt this year, unless you think Escobar plays for Polanco, Dozier, or Sano, which seems unlikely. Losing Pressley hurts, but what, one game, maybe two? I mean, if the FO doesn't have Belisle for some reason....

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

As for the Twins, they've still not done one thing that really hurts for next year......and if Sano plays well on his return, they've barely hurt this year, unless you think Escobar plays for Polanco, Dozier, or Sano, which seems unlikely. Losing Pressley hurts, but what, one game, maybe two? I mean, if the FO doesn't have Belisle for some reason....

No, I'm still not counting out the Twins necessary... Escobar could have played second. I think just about everybody was braced for a Dozier trade. Not an Escobar trade. And they didn't get much more than filler for Escobar.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

You are going to have to elaborate on this logic because it makes absolutely no sense to me. We have a 12.5% chance of winning the central and roughly a 4% chance of winning a playoff series. As proven last year, we can still get in the playoffs and improve our holdings (prospects). The chances of winning a playoff series remains extremely low. 

 

Both involve significant risk. I guess if getting crushed in a playoff series is somehow a goal, I can see your point that 12.5% are not terrible odds. What are the odds that one of the 5 players the Twins traded for so far will contribute to the ML team? We just had a thread where several people articulated the value of coming up with low cost trades that produce big. Pretty hard to do that if you refuse to trade assets of modest value (pending FAs). 

 

I think we can look the national baseball reporters to see what an unbiased view looks like. Plus, I am very certain I could present this argument before a BoDs and be well received.

 

No, "getting crushed in a playoff series" is not the goal.

 

I've already told you I think you bring a different perspective to these discussions, but ya know, I don't think the corporate schtick applies to every issue that arises with this team. In this world view you present, the Escobar trade is well received in front of the board, but what about in front of the employees? I would like to know what happens if and when Falvey or Levine close the doors of the clubhouse to tell the players how trading Escobar is for the best for the long term health of Pohlad's business. How do you suppose such a talk would be received?

[Han Joelo]

 

No, that's not really how "other" people feel. We too love it when underedogs win. If sports were completely predictable, play after play, and each individual game, I wouldn't watch.

 

But, that's not necessarily how a GM should run a team........so, no, we aren't robots. Not close.

 

As for the Twins, they've still not done one thing that really hurts for next year......and if Sano plays well on his return, they've barely hurt this year, unless you think Escobar plays for Polanco, Dozier, or Sano, which seems unlikely. Losing Pressley hurts, but what, one game, maybe two? I mean, if the FO doesn't have Belisle for some reason....

I had qualms about setting up that false dichotomy.  I really don't want to be someone in this day and age who falls into these us vs. them; black and white views of the world.  There are no others, brother, just us.

 

Truth is, the Twins are in the grayest of gray areas, hence the interesting dialogue on this thread.  There is no good way to trade away a popular player (or two), but it seems like this went down in the worst possible way.

 

Having said all I've said, I do think the return on both players was good, and I see that side of the equation.

 

 I do wonder how this affects the culture of the clubhouse in the future.  Will guys play better next April because they know if they don't, the team will be busted up?  Will they play tighter?  Is that what happened this year, after trading away popular clubhouse guy Kintzler last year?  (My best answer--the myth that winning and losing together is any kind of meaningful motivation gets busted a bit more, and the reality that this is just a job--"it's a business"--becomes clearer and clearer.)

[Mike Sixel]

I agree they are in a gray area, which is why I said either trade players off, or add MLB players, but don't stand pat.

 

And, yes, we are all siblings here!

 

the clubhouse? Hard to say really. I think, once the shock wears off, that players understand this is part of the sports world.....but I could be wrong. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

the clubhouse? Hard to say really. I think, once the shock wears off, that players understand this is part of the sports world.....but I could be wrong.

Never underestimate the professional athlete's ability to blame external factors!

[Major League Ready]

 

No, "getting crushed in a playoff series" is not the goal.

I've already told you I think you bring a different perspective to these discussions, but ya know, I don't think the corporate schtick applies to every issue that arises with this team. In this world view you present, the Escobar trade is well received in front of the board, but what about in front of the employees? I would like to know what happens if and when Falvey or Levine close the doors of the clubhouse to tell the players how trading Escobar is for the best for the long term health of Pohlad's business. How do you suppose such a talk would be received?

 

If a player gets a better offer in FA, do their teammates say "hey forget about the money, think about the team? Do they apologize to the players for abandoning the team or do you suppose the players understand this is a business and everyone is going to look out for their best interest.

 

Do fan's basically accept that it's a business and free agents are going to take the best offer they can find? Why should that only apply to the players. I really don't understand a fan who objects to the team making moves that should be good for the team long-term because the current players who are under performing might be upset. 

 

MLB players are INCREDIBLY fortunate. They get paid an insane amount of money to play a game. They hire agents to makes sure they get every dollar they can. It would be incredibly unfair for them to have a problem with the owners looking out for the long-term benefit of the team. 

[Riverbrian]

Players are people and players getting upset under these circumstances would be what I consider to be "unreasonable". 

 

Unfortunately... People are unreasonable often. 

 

 

[yarnivek1972]

Not every player bases their decisions on top dollar. To some, where they play matters. Whether it’s family, weather, playing on contending teams consistently, etc. All these things factor in to a player’s decision. I’ve read enough pro athlete biographies that I think I know that their agent isn’t going to make a where decision for the player. He will give his client the offers, lay out all the options and the player will say something like “get me the best you can to play with this team.”

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Never underestimate management's ability to blame external factors!

Fixed - you're welcome

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

If a player gets a better offer in FA, do their teammates say "hey forget about the money, think about the team? Do they apologize to the players for abandoning the team or do you suppose the players understand this is a business and everyone is going to look out for their best interest.

 

Do fan's basically accept that it's a business and free agents are going to take the best offer they can find? Why should that only apply to the players. I really don't understand a fan who objects to the team making moves that should be good for the team long-term because the current players who are under performing might be upset.

 

MLB players are INCREDIBLY fortunate. They get paid an insane amount of money to play a game. They hire agents to makes sure they get every dollar they can. It would be incredibly unfair for them to have a problem with the owners looking out for the long-term benefit of the team.

 

well, ok, sure, most of that is true, but it's just the management point of view.

 

And the one big detail you are ignoring, intentionally or not (not sure), is that this is a pennant race. This is not the offseason free agency period when teams are still forming. This was the team that needed to rally and make a run. Not likely it would have happened, but barring something really extraordinary now, we will never know.

 

And here's the kicker: these are guys, Falvey and Levine, who will sell off at the first opportunity, but I will bet you dinner they are not the kind of GMs who will trade prospects for a rental to put them over the top. Not a chance.

[Danchat]

 

well, ok, sure, most of that is true, but it's just the management point of view.

And the one big detail you are ignoring, intentionally or not (not sure), is that this is a pennant race. This is not the offseason free agency period when teams are still forming. This was the team that needed to rally and make a run. Not likely it would have happened, but barring something really extraordinary now, we will never know.

And here's the kicker: these are guys, Falvey and Levine, who will sell off at the first opportunity, but I will bet you dinner they are not the kind of GMs who will trade prospects for a rental to put them over the top. Not a chance.

How can you know this, we haven't even seen two full seasons of this regime and you assume they will always trade guys away and never acquire rentals? Perhaps if this team hadn't arrived at the trade deadline below .500 two straight years, this wouldn't be happening. I'd be willing to bet that if the Twins were several (5 to 10) games above .500, they would be willing to go for it. 

 

Teams that hover around 7 games below .500 should not be in pennant races - we're only alive because Cleveland is struggling to pull away, and that's not a good reason to make a run at it. If the Twins go to the playoffs, I want them to win it all, not get kicked out of the first round for the upteenth time. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

well, ok, sure, most of that is true, but it's just the management point of view.

And the one big detail you are ignoring, intentionally or not (not sure), is that this is a pennant race. This is not the offseason free agency period when teams are still forming. This was the team that needed to rally and make a run. Not likely it would have happened, but barring something really extraordinary now, we will never know.

And here's the kicker: these are guys, Falvey and Levine, who will sell off at the first opportunity, but I will bet you dinner they are not the kind of GMs who will trade prospects for a rental to put them over the top. Not a chance.

 

I don't think that's fair.  I think the best counter-argument to a lot of the "don't sell" folks who are blaming the front office is this:

 

You want to bank on the same players who are 8 games under .500 to make some kind of magical run.  They've played about 100 games and can't manage a .500 record.  Sure, maybe they could make a flukey run, but gambling on that is going to fail the vast majority of the time.

 

If you don't like what the FO is doing because you want a chance at the playoffs, I get the emotion.  But you know who is really at fault?  Brian Dozier, Lance Lynn, Miguel Sano, Byron Buxton, and all the other underperformers that have brought this team to the point where it is 8 games under .500 and nearly double digits out from the division leader.  Maybe the FO gets some blame for that too, but they shouldn't get blamed for reading the tea leaves correctly and shopping the assets that have value.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

How can you know this, we haven't even seen two full seasons of this regime and you assume they will always trade guys away and never acquire rentals? Perhaps if this team hadn't arrived at the trade deadline below .500 two straight years, this wouldn't be happening. I'd be willing to bet that if the Twins were several (5 to 10) games above .500, they would be willing to go for it. 

 

Teams that hover around 7 games below .500 should not be in pennant races - we're only alive because Cleveland is struggling to pull away, and that's not a good reason to make a run at it. If the Twins go to the playoffs, I want them to win it all, not get kicked out of the first round for the upteenth time.

 

It's just a strong feeling and it's just betting on dinner-- not betting the farm.

 

We'll see.

 

We can continue to debate and argue in other threads, but the bottom line is the front office inherited an 85-win team in 2017, and here we are in 2018, in a weak division, selling. Hoping they learn some lessons and come back ready to take the prize in 2019. They already have the pieces.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Coming out of the break on a 9-2 stretch getting several key players back or seeing them seeming to round into form, I wasn’t sure if they should buy or sell.

 

Ten games later (albeit a road trip), going 4-6 and losing two games in the standings, I am ready to sell. (I don’t believe that the trades affected their ability to win in Boston, these are professionals.)

 

I hope that 24 hours (or so) from now, the FO has traded Dozier, Rodney, and Duke. I don’t expect that, but I expect at least one and maybe two of those, or maybe Lynn or Morrison. I’m fine with upside Single A prospects in return, including players in the 15-25 range of other teams’ systems. Walking away from this deadline with 7-10 upside players would be an great change from many disappointing deadlines of the past decade. A few of these prospects will develop into quality players.

 

Meanwhile, even without a handful of current veterans, I expect the team to play better over the last two months. Sometimes it’s addition by subtraction, when pressure is off and youngsters are given the opportunity.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It's just a strong feeling and it's just betting on dinner-- not betting the farm.

We'll see.

We can continue to debate and argue in other threads, but the bottom line is the front office inherited an 85-win team in 2017, and here we are in 2018, in a weak division, selling. Hoping they learn some lessons and come back ready to take the prize in 2019. They already have the pieces.

 

they literally upped the payroll to its highest level ever, signing 5 pitchers and a DH. I don't see any indication they are all about the future, given that. I think this trade deadline shows they are willing to adjust plans if the team does, or does not, perform as expected when the year started.

 

edit: ooops, they actually traded a prospect for odorizzi, not a FA....so, um, hmmm, I got that wrong, but it actually strengthened my disagreement!

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

they literally upped the payroll to its highest level ever, signing 5 pitchers and a DH.

Yeah, well, none of the players they signed did much good.

 

If that is a point in their favor to you and the other folks, then great.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Ten games later (albeit a road trip), going 4-6 and losing two games in the standings, I am ready to sell. (I don’t believe that the trades affected their ability to win in Boston, these are professionals.)

Well, the trades did leave them short-handed for the Friday night game. Rosario ably manned the hot corner, but we also had to turn to Belisle who has been absolutely owned by the Red Sox the past 2 seasons (I assume Rodney had the 9th either way, although you could make a case for a different pitcher after Rodney's previous night experience). Then on Saturday we turned to Moya/Magill in an unusual spot (mainly just pitching in a MLB game ).

 

It certainly could have turned out the same in Boston either way, but it would have been fun to see at "full strength".

 

Arm chair manager, but a win Friday and I may have felt the freedom to start Mejia on Sunday and give Berrios an extra day rest and the assignment to open our Cleveland series.

[Battle ur tail off]

Honestly, at this point in the season, it would have been a major mistake to deal for rental pieces and go for it. This isn't a great team this year and even by adding the best of the best rental players, you can maybe expect 1 or 2 more wins than you would have got with the players you had. 

 

Let's see if they can get anything for the expiring contracts left on the roster. I will be awfully disappointed now if they don't stay the course and dump 2-4 more of those guys and bring back at least something. Maybe even a player or two in some positions of need. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Yeah, well, none of the players they signed did much good.

If that is a point in their favor to you and the other folks, then great.

Other than Morrison, none have been black holes either. Most have been upgrades over what they would have rotated through those roles. Reed and Odorizzi both have an extra year as well. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yeah, well, none of the players they signed did much good.

If that is a point in their favor to you and the other folks, then great.

 

That part is very bad......but I think you were saying they were never really going to try to win, and always trade FOR prospects.....which is the point of what I posted. Maybe I was wrong?