But for the will to act

[Major League Ready]

 

Now link the Troy Tulowitski thread.  Most of the same people crowing about that thread will have a plate of crow to eat.

 

When we discuss actions like this people are far too black and white.  They either are gun-shy about every deal or they've never met an "aggressive" move they didn't love.  Well, truth is, they both hvae a pretty damn high failure rate.

 

How about the LuCroy thread. Was there a Sonny Gray thread or was that just part of a more general discussion. How about the Darvish thread where some that suggested just pay whatever it takes? How about when Ellsbury was a free agent. I recall posters insisting he was a great investment.

 

These risks also make a lot more sense when you are Houston and you have a great core to build around. So what if we would have gotten Verlander. Is the goal to build a 500 team? The one thing that is certain is that elite veterans are only traded by teams looking to acquire players that will make them contenders in the future. What is the point of giving away the players who have the potential to make you a contender to get to 80 or even 85 wins? That's a very good way to stay mediocre for a long time. Of course, this assumes the veteran performs and remains healthy.

 

Most of us who have opposed trading for veterans do so because we have not believed these acquisitions would get us even close to a true contender. There is an extreme emphasis on the immediate or short-term here. People who think that way do not retain GM jobs so those of you who are looking for immediate gratification or going to be disappointed most of the time.

 

 

 

 

[killertwinfan]

I am not going to endorse the Brewers approach for the Twins. BUT, it seems like our upcoming talent is "ordained" as that position for the future when, they should have to play their way into the lineup. As and example,  make Buxton the 4th outfielder and if he doesn't play his way into the everyday line up and needs more AB's, send him back to triple A.  To me, bring the player up and hope approach isn't working very well.  

[Blackjack]

 

"just fine" is one heck of an endorsement in trying to create a great team.....

 

Mike, the Twins are a long, long way from a great team, they have too many holes to fill, aside from catcher and left field/Rosario, every position is in flux, you can't count on Sano, Polanco needs to be moved to second base, but that leaves a big hole at SS, they need both starting and relief pitching, my view is that the outfield has a lot of young talent that just needs to play and mature, a couple of them can be part of the next great team, the Twins need to spend their resources upgrading other positions.

[Blackjack]

 

How about the LuCroy thread. Was there a Sonny Gray thread or was that just part of a more general discussion. How about the Darvish thread where some that suggested just pay whatever it takes? How about when Ellsbury was a free agent. I recall posters insisting he was a great investment.

 

These risks also make a lot more sense when you are Houston and you have a great core to build around. So what if we would have gotten Verlander. Is the goal to build a 500 team? The one thing that is certain is that elite veterans are only traded by teams looking to acquire players that will make them contenders in the future. What is the point of giving away the players who have the potential to make you a contender to get to 80 or even 85 wins? That's a very good way to stay mediocre for a long time. Of course, this assumes the veteran performs and remains healthy.

 

Most of us who have opposed trading for veterans do so because we have not believed these acquisitions would get us even close to a true contender. There is an extreme emphasis on the immediate or short-term here. People who think that way do not retain GM jobs so those of you who are looking for immediate gratification or going to be disappointed most of the time.

 

I wish there was a way to 'triple Like' this post!!!!

 

One thing that I've learned in life is that slow and steady will win you a lot of races!!!!

[Riverbrian]

 

How about the LuCroy thread. Was there a Sonny Gray thread or was that just part of a more general discussion. How about the Darvish thread where some that suggested just pay whatever it takes? How about when Ellsbury was a free agent. I recall posters insisting he was a great investment.

 

 

 

I just want to point this out. 

 

I don't recall any thread in Twins Daily history that didn't have posters on both sides of a discussion. 

 

There could be a thread about stopping the practice of water boarding old ladies over jay walking offenses and you'd find a couple of posters who are adamantly for the practice. 

 

I'm pointing this out, just to say that there is no such thing as a combined voice here.In other words, your list above, could truly be comprehensive with almost no limits.

 

It's a little misleading, to point at Verlander, Tulowitski, Lucroy, Darvish and Ellsbury as examples of Twins Daily posters getting it wrong because there would be a chunk of posters getting it right in each example. 

[Tomj14]

 

I wish there was a way to 'triple Like' this post!!!!

 

One thing that I've learned in life is that slow and steady will win you a lot of races!!!!

One thing I have learned watching pro sports is when you have a chance you need to take it because there are no guarantees. Remember when the Nationals were going to be in the championship every year?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

After 2017, were the Brewers "one player away" from competing with the Cubs, the Dodgers, Washington?

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

It's a little misleading, to point at Verlander, Tulowitski, Lucroy, Darvish and Ellsbury as examples of Twins Daily posters getting it wrong because there would be a chunk of posters getting it right in each example. 

 

That's sorta the point.  And it's the opposite of misleading actually.  Any given action/non-action is going to have people right and wrong on it.  But I think it's fair, when people want to crow about how right their strategy is, to point out some glaring examples of when they would have been horrifically wrong too.  When you only see one side (Verlander) you are being mislead.  When see Tulo's thread?  Well, that's called having more context, not misleading.  Personally, I'd prefer we not bring up old threads about how right we are.

 

So in the spirit of context, the same people who wanted Verlander were willing to give up Berrios for Tulowitski.  If you want to drudge up old threads to say "Look how right I am!", it's only fair to point out the threads where you were also laughably wrong.  

 

As I said - we're all in that boat.  The Twins would be fools to hire any of us with our 50/50 track record on "What should we do?" scenarios.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Mike, the Twins are a long, long way from a great team, they have too many holes to fill, aside from catcher and left field/Rosario, every position is in flux, you can't count on Sano, Polanco needs to be moved to second base, but that leaves a big hole at SS, they need both starting and relief pitching, my view is that the outfield has a lot of young talent that just needs to play and mature, a couple of them can be part of the next great team, the Twins need to spend their resources upgrading other positions.

 

First off, they will always be a long ways from a great team, and I suspect that most of us don't want to blow it up. Great teams tend to be rare. The other problem with being a great team is that it kind of sneaks up on you. Guys like Buxton, Sano, and Kepler all take steps forward and we are flaying the front office alive b/c they didn't put in some good complimentary pieces around what was a great team.

 

I think the Twins would be smart to use the 40M they have to get those pieces. A guy like Escobar gives some much needed flexibility to the team (and can do so for multiple seasons)… A shutdown reliever and a good 2B/SS would be beneficial as well. All of these can be acquired for less than what they have to spend, and it gives us a legitimate fighting chance. I don't think you can count on them so to speak, but you can definitely put pieces around them to help them succeed. 

 

[Blackjack]

 

 

 

There could be a thread about stopping the practice of water boarding old ladies over jay walking offenses and you'd find a couple of posters who are adamantly for the practice. 

 

 

 

That little old lady shouldn't have given me the finger when she was jaywalking!!!  She got what she deserved!!!

 

[Major League Ready]

 

I just want to point this out. 

 

I don't recall any thread in Twins Daily history that didn't have posters on both sides of a discussion. 

 

There could be a thread about stopping the practice of water boarding old ladies over jay walking offenses and you'd find a couple of posters who are adamantly for the practice. 

 

I'm pointing this out, just to say that there is no such thing as a combined voice here.In other words, your list above, could truly be comprehensive with almost no limits.

 

It's a little misleading, to point at Verlander, Tulowitski, Lucroy, Darvish and Ellsbury as examples of Twins Daily posters getting it wrong because there would be a chunk of posters getting it right in each example. 

 

That's very fair but I thought it went without saying. The context of the post in question was that there are two very opposed views. Perhaps more to the point, some of us believe you don't trade elite prospects as was suggested with Berrios until you have an established core with the key being the established part. The other side of this argument is generally speaking that we should upgrade whenever the opportunity presents it self. Some of us are of the frame of mind that you don't push your chips to the middle until you have a worthy hand. 

 

The free agent portion of this debate is even more naive IMO. History is very clear that the very best free agents go to teams who are the top third in terms of revenue. Somehow people find it unacceptable that teams with far more financial resource win was is basically an auction. How is this surprising? The FA argument also tends to ignore that Minnesota is not a preferred destination even if we are willing to bid equal to the large markets.

 

Having said this ... We have an unprecedented budget this year and I am very hopeful we can make meaningful FA additions. I too have unrealistic optimism because Machado is a big spend I could get behind. 

[nicksaviking]

 

But we don't KNOW that.....and the Twins could have enticed him with money.

 

But the point is, when did they ever do this, ever? Couldn't trade Hicks for a great pitcher either....because someday he'd be Willie Mays or something.....It's a pattern of aiming low, over and over and over.

 

Terry Ryan was clearly gun-shy about trading prospects, we have nearly two decades of evidence to support that. But is the new guy stuck with his labels, because unless he does I don't think we've had enough time to make any patterns.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

How about the LuCroy thread. Was there a Sonny Gray thread or was that just part of a more general discussion. How about the Darvish thread where some that suggested just pay whatever it takes? How about when Ellsbury was a free agent. I recall posters insisting he was a great investment.

 

Like Brian said, in the context of these forums, there are always going to be people right/wrong. It's just the nature of the beast.

 

However, in the context of the front office, I don't think it's their job to simply avoid these kind of moves either. I got the impression that the old front office did just that -- they couldn't make any big mistakes because they avoided big moves altogether. Still early with the new front office, but I hope they don't fall into the same trap.

 

In that sense, I think these Brewers are a positive example. It doesn't mean that a particular big move X makes sense for the Twins now, but if the new FO is doing their jobs correctly, they should be expected to make some big move X over time period Y -- even if it tightens payroll, even if it doesn't make us a favorite to win the World Series or even our own division, etc.

[Blackjack]

 

First off, they will always be a long ways from a great team, and I suspect that most of us don't want to blow it up. Great teams tend to be rare. The other problem with being a great team is that it kind of sneaks up on you. Guys like Buxton, Sano, and Kepler all take steps forward and we are flaying the front office alive b/c they didn't put in some good complimentary pieces around what was a great team.

 

I think the Twins would be smart to use the 40M they have to get those pieces. A guy like Escobar gives some much needed flexibility to the team (and can do so for multiple seasons)… A shutdown reliever and a good 2B/SS would be beneficial as well. All of these can be acquired for less than what they have to spend, and it gives us a legitimate fighting chance. I don't think you can count on them so to speak, but you can definitely put pieces around them to help them succeed. 

 

Its going to be an interesting off season for sure, it will be an interesting to see what Falvine does,  stick with mostly young internal candidates, mid-level free agents, bargain basement free agents, trades?    Plus a new manager (and coaches?) being named.    Plus how the whole free agent market last year was extended out because teams didn't want to pay the big money.    Will that trend continue?? I think yes.

 

Going to be interesting!!!

[nicksaviking]

 

I just want to point this out. 

 

I don't recall any thread in Twins Daily history that didn't have posters on both sides of a discussion. 

 

There could be a thread about stopping the practice of water boarding old ladies over jay walking offenses and you'd find a couple of posters who are adamantly for the practice. 

 

I'm pointing this out, just to say that there is no such thing as a combined voice here.In other words, your list above, could truly be comprehensive with almost no limits.

 

It's a little misleading, to point at Verlander, Tulowitski, Lucroy, Darvish and Ellsbury as examples of Twins Daily posters getting it wrong because there would be a chunk of posters getting it right in each example. 

 

Additionally, I don't think it's fair to paint everyone as on a specific side. Are posters not allowed to objectively look at each situation differently or are they confined to one general platform and have to vote down party lines?

 

For the record here were my votes on the aforementioned players (to the best of my recollection): Verlander - Yes (but I didn't believe he'd come to the Twins), Tulowitski - No, Lucory - No, Darvish - Yes, Ellsbury - No, Gray - No.

[TheLeviathan]

Terry Ryan was clearly gun-shy about trading prospects, we have nearly two decades of evidence to support that. But is the new guy stuck with his labels, because unless he does I don't think we've had enough time to make any patterns.

I agree. I view July as a positive for this FO, they sold off in a way unprecedented by the previous FO. I know others don't view that favorably, but I do.

 

I want the FO to find the right times to buy and sell. Sometimes it may look passive and sometimes aggressive.

 

What I find to be a misguided approach is one that can't find that balance. Or accept the prudence of it.

[Major League Ready]

 

Additionally, I don't think it's fair to paint everyone as on a specific side. Are posters not allowed to objectively look at each situation differently or are they confined to one general platform and have to vote down party lines?

 

For the record here were my votes on the aforementioned players (to the best of my recollection): Verlander - Yes (but I didn't believe he'd come to the Twins), Tulowitski - No, Lucory - No, Darvish - Yes, Ellsbury - No, Gray - No.

 

Also fair and also recognized. My vote for Verlander would have been a yes if the team was positioned even reasonable well but I did not think that was the case which I believe has been proven in no uncertain terms. Tulo - Hell no. Lucroy was a matter of price and control. The price was high for 2 years of control when I did not believe the rest of the team was anywhere near as good as the contenders. Darvish was a yes as long as the years did not exceed 5. Ellsbury was the biggest no of all and I was indifferent on Gray. I thought he was decent but would not move the needle.

 

Let's recap. One deal (Verlander) would have netted a player that performed very well but we still would never had been a serious contender. Four of these deals would have been horrible and one (Darvish) is yet to be determined. It looks to be horrible at this point. That deal and others like it depend on the early years being great because the final years are likely to be diminished performance. The first year netted to contribution and I would not expect the 1st year back to be great. Of course, it is possible that Gray bounces back.

 

The Milwaukee trade is not really an example of trading for an established elite player. They traded decent but not great prospects for a very good but not great player who broke out. I will take all of the deals like that we can find.

[Battle ur tail off]

 

I disagree with saying that trade is the wrong way. They were trading a young outfielder for a 25 year old catcher would looked to be on the brink of breaking out. Hicks has been good but injury prone as a Yankee only averaging 116 games a year. (he is now 29 and has a career war of just over 10) Even in hindsight it hasn't been bad since the Twins got Moya.

 

But the point is, our scouting department got it wrong. Way wrong. It was obvious after about a week that the catcher was no good. Don't they watch these guys play? Or are they just that dense? Same with when they traded for Delmon Young. After watching the way he took at bats and played defense for a week or so, it was obvious this guy would never amount to much.

[Battle ur tail off]

 

Where are our Superstars? 

 

We don't have them because we stopped at Trevor Plouffe and said that's good enough. 

 

I'm with you. They haven't produced one out of their system since M&M. Aside from that, anytime they've had a chance to sign or trade for one, they've been cheap, or wouldn't let go of prospects that have so far shown very little to help the club. 

[Battle ur tail off]

 

But we don't KNOW that.....and the Twins could have enticed him with money.

 

But the point is, when did they ever do this, ever? Couldn't trade Hicks for a great pitcher either....because someday he'd be Willie Mays or something.....It's a pattern of aiming low, over and over and over.

 

Cliff Lee in 2010. Coulda had him and made a run. Too scared to dump Hicks, Ramos +. Instead they got a relief pitcher that wasn't much good and cost a ton and a catcher that was terrible. 

[Battle ur tail off]

 

They'd trade prospects to make the team better now--something the Twins never did during our mini "run" in the 2000s

 

Wasted the careers of Santana, Hunter, Mauer, Morneau and Nathan. Just think about that once. What a great core. 5 All stars in the prime of their career. Did they help them get over the hump? Heck no, they had Jason Tyner starting playoff games as a DH for christs sake.

[Battle ur tail off]

 

 

Most of us who have opposed trading for veterans do so because we have not believed these acquisitions would get us even close to a true contender. 

 

So by doing what they have done, they haven't been even close. In fact, they've been terrible more than they have been even mediocre. Maybe time to try something new?

 

I'm not against holding onto some prospects. I'm not totally for signing veterans to long term deals, or trading guys for big names. But there needs to be a mix of both. 

 

The main thing is, the Twins need to aim higher. HIGH END talent. Not mediocre crap that's cheap. That means not signing 3-4 C level free agents each year. It means signing 1 A level guy for the same money it cost for those 3-4. 

It means not trading one middling prospect for #4 starter or fringy bullpen piece. It means trading from the top of your prospect list for guys that are towards the top of the MLB heap. 

[bird]

 

I think you're missing the point. It's not the specific players that matter. It's the willingness to take bold action to improve the big league roster, by spending money and prospects for immediate gain.

It's having the courage and vision to spend. It's not sitting around too afraid to pull the trigger because, oh my gosh, we're not the Yankees! What about 2022? What if one of these prospects become a MLB player?

Huzzah for the Brewers. Seize the day. Take a shot. It might go in.

 

I generally agree that we need to see this FO take bold steps for immediate gain at the MLB level, as Bert Blyleven would say with his voice in downward motion, down in the zone, dropping the bat..oops, sorry.

 

Seriously, while I am critical in particular that Falvey replicated past failures to boldly and adequately address the need for elite bullpen help, I'm not ready to cast them as timid, indecisive, or lacking urgency. I'm giving him this off-season to convince me he's capable of seizing the day like the Brewer's FO did. I'm willing to be forgiving of past transgressions, primarily because they've made some extemely good decisions, for one, and have avoided (so far) making any decisions that set a franchise back two years.

 

I want them to be bold and visionary, but I also want them to be smart and lucky. How does one become Yelich lucky? How does one avoid stupid trades that set the club back, such as Aaron Hicks and Wilson Ramos?

 

They have no excuses. They have the necessary assets: prospect talent and cash. But I also think there are risk calculations involved, and good and bad fortune comes into play.

 

With that last thought in mind, I'm not 100% convinced that the boldest and smartest decision for 2019 isn't to plan for Sano, Kepler, Buxton, Rosario, Polanco, and then make less bold, incremental moves based on a 1-year vision involving Kirilloff and Lewis. Sign or trade for a SS and a 1B/DH to remove a dependence on Tyler Austin, Nick Gordon, and Brent Rooker and then focus on one elite relief arm and one front-end rotation arm. I don't know enough to advocate for this, but I'd understand it if that's the route they went.

 

Deciding against finding alternatives in the marketplace for the likes of Buxton, Sano, and Kepler may not indicate a lack of courage or vision. It may simply indicate a conviction about the talent of these players and a thought that the risk of them failing you is worth taking in 2019. Because even though they're geniuses, they can still end up being Hicks stupid as opposed to Yelich lucky.

[Kelly Vance]

 

I think you're missing the point. It's not the specific players that matter. It's the willingness to take bold action to improve the big league roster, by spending money and prospects for immediate gain.

It's having the courage and vision to spend. It's not sitting around too afraid to pull the trigger because, oh my gosh, we're not the Yankees! What about 2022? What if one of these prospects become a MLB player?

Huzzah for the Brewers. Seize the day. Take a shot. It might go in.

I think it is the specific players that matter.  I have always liked Lorenzo Cain. I think he is a winner who brings a lot more to the team than his stats. So I think it matters a lot who you acquire.   Willingness to win means that you look for those kinda guys. 

[ashbury]

I think it is the specific players that matter.  I have always liked Lorenzo Cain. I think he is a winner who brings a lot more to the team than his stats.

Depends on what stats you look at. An amalgamation like WAR (either b-r.com or FanGraphs) for instance identifies him as no less than above-average ever since he made it to the majors to stay, and usually far above average. Today's analytics give him credit on both the offensive side of the ball and the defensive. Despite his late major-league start it's not crazy to think he could be on track to eke out a Hall Of Fame election by modern voters, if he keeps this up. The stats and the eye-test seem to concur in his case.

[USAFChief]

Now link the Troy Tulowitski thread. Most of the same people crowing about that thread will have a plate of crow to eat.

 

When we discuss actions like this people are far too black and white. They either are gun-shy about every deal or they've never met an "aggressive" move they didn't love. Well, truth is, they both hvae a pretty damn high failure rate.

And the Twins way has had a 100 percent failure rate since 1991.

 

For the record, I'd be fine with Tulo on the Twins. It wouldn't have hurt them on the least, he put up a decent 2017. Snf if healthy he'll do the same in 19.

[TheLeviathan]

And the Twins way has had a 100 percent failure rate since 1991.

For the record, I'd be fine with Tulo on the Twins. It wouldn't have hurt them on the least, he put up a decent 2017. Snf if healthy he'll do the same in 19.

You would've dealt Gibson or Berrios for him.

 

Not conceding that as a mistaken idea is sorta silly.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You would've dealt Gibson or Berrios for him.

Not conceding that as a mistaken idea is sorta silly.

 

And what have they won while Gibson was here? Nada.

[TheLeviathan]

And what have they won while Gibson was here? Nada.

Do I really need to lay out the contract, WAR, and injury history here?

 

This is silly at best. Disingenuous to a fair conversation at worst. I'd prefer we all accept how wrong we often are.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Do I really need to lay out the contract, WAR, and injury history here?

This is silly at best. Disingenuous to a fair conversation at worst. I'd prefer we all accept how wrong we often are.

 

If the goal is to win, keeping Gibson and not adding talent isn't going to do that. Standing still has not worked for this team for over a decade. Signing bargains and only bounce back types hasn't worked for this team. Not trading prospects hasn't worked for this team. Somehow, pointing out bad FA deals makes sense, but pointing out that the TWins have utterly failed for a decade not signing FAs doesn't make sense.

 

All I was point out was that keeping Gibson resulted in no more success than trading him would have....nothing more or less. Because, in context, their group of moves doesn't work.