Should Falvey come back for 2025? Does he want to?

[Brock Beauchamp]

There's a lot to unpack here and based on some of the writers' slack conversations, it's an interesting topic.

This is not a Rocco Baldelli thread, please leave him out of it. Let's focus on the front office.

1. Pinch-hitting. While Baldelli pulls the levers on the field, he's getting his data and guidance from the front office. In the past, I've mostly been okay with their tendency to aggressively approach matchups mid-game and try to win the game in the sixth instead of the eighth. There's a lot to be said for putting a guy like Wallner in the moment the lefty starter is gone or aggressively subbing a good fifth-inning matchup by inserting Kyle Farmer, who at the very least will bring good defensive play to the infield for a few innings after the plate appearance. But now that Kyle Farmer is in his mid-30s and guys like Manny Margot are the pinch-hitters du jour, this strategy played out to literally comical effect in the second half of the season as records of incompetence were set. The roster didn't have the horses to deploy this strategy, yet they deployed it anyway.

2. Does Falvey want to come back? From 2021-2023, Falvey was given license to pursue big-dollar players like Donaldson and Correa. He did a pretty good job of it, too. But the thing about using that strategy is that if your boss suddenly tells you to cut costs by 20%, your carefully laid plans for the future have little chance of working. Where you expected to have $40m to spend on players to round out your star cast, you suddenly have less than $10m. Which then forces shenanigans of trading players for salary relief, trading for players who might not have been even your third choice but possibly your eighth or ninth choice in Margot. Do we believe Falvey would have actively pursued Margot if he costs more than "literally nothing" in dollars? How much faith does this instill in Falvey that Minnesota is a place he wants to continue working? It looked like he had a pretty good thing going, the team had momentum with fans, and all of that vaporized almost exactly 11 months ago.

3. The farm system is the strongest it has been since the Mauer/Morneau days. If nothing else, this might keep the front office intact and at least somewhat able to mitigate the budget constraints suddenly placed upon them.

I'm just curious what people are thinking about this front office, the strategies they've used in recent years, and how it all came tumbling down over the past two months.

[TheLeviathan]

I appreciate this chance to talk bigger picture.  Here are some thoughts I have:

1) I think the team is right to prioritize matching up righties vs. lefties and vice-versa.  The data this year suggests seeking out that matchup via pinch-hitting (especially in aggressive fashion early in the game) is probably not working the way they expected it to.  I think a serious look at this strategy is necessary.

At the very least, if you plan to employ it, you better have a roster capable of enacting it with proper depth to pull it off.

2) Herein lies the rub on the above....will they be given the green light to fill out the roster with depth?  I'm a big believer that you win a World Series with your depth more than your star power.  One need only peruse the last decade of playoff runs to see that the teams who make it often bank on guys who are the 19th or 12th or 23rd best guy on the roster in April.  But without the cash to spend to build that kind of depth, can they pull off what they're trying to accomplish?  If not, then they seriously need to look at trading to add depth - in coin terms - think move dimes for two nickels.  Or a quarter for five nickels.  Not my preferred build style, but perhaps necessary.

3) Agreed on the farm - it's taken longer than we had hoped to see pitching returns, but it's clear this FO and their scouts are acquiring and developing talent well.  That cannot be overstated as a positive.

A few I'd like to add:

* I hope this FO revisits the stance it has on speed and the running game.  We are far too slow-footed and our roster is incapable of applying pressure to opposing defenses and creating easier run scoring opportunities.  

* The bullpen salvage operation has been pretty successful overall, but they need to focus on filling their major league bullpen with reclamation projects.  Sign guys you work on in St. Paul as reserves, your 4th thru 6th guys can't be as unstable as we've been using.

*We need to consider what our organizational coaching philosophies on hitting are doing to produce the kinds of inconsistencies we've seen.  Players seem to really struggle with their approach staying consistent.  I know slumps happen, but there are slumps and there are what happened this year where we go from an .800 team OPS for two months to .600 for a month and a half to end the year.  The swing shouldn't be that dramatic and that team wide.

* Our training/medical staff has had some MAJOR misses on trades and other issues with player health.  A serious look at that department and how it's failing the team in preparation, nutrition, maintenance, evaluation, etc. is desperately needed.

[USAFChief]

Is there also a Levine thread coming? Or is this a combined "front office" thread?

Honest question.

For one thing, I don't know where Falvey's job ends and Levine's begins. 

It'd be a lot easier to discuss if someone could explain that to me.

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

…if your boss suddenly tells you to cut costs by 20%, your carefully laid plans for the future have little chance of working. Where you expected to have $40m to spend on players to round out your star cast, you suddenly have less than $10m…

I also feel like there was no ‘suddenly’ here. That these discussions were had prior to 2022 during the Correa courtship. Falvey would get his payroll increases but knew they were going to reset at some point. 

[Riverbrian]

I think this is actually a Levine discussion but who really knows... other than the folks inside the walls. 

You raise excellent points.  

1 - I'm pretty sure that every major league team is using data. I believe that all 30 teams are working with the same information. What I think sets teams apart is how they weight certain data amongst all of the data collected. I'm pretty sure that certain teams will place more emphasis on something and less on other data points, therefore different approaches from team to team.

It seems clear to me that the Twins have placed more emphasis on the left vs left data than other teams do. No team takes it to this level other than the Rays. Maybe the Giants. This aggressive platooning has been consistent behavior since the young left handed hitters arrived last year. I don't argue the splits and what they say. The challenges that left handers face against left handed pitchers is historically true and there for all to see. The Twins have been playing the long game with this strategy through thick and thin. 

The Problem is:

A. They have chosen to fortify against 25% of MLB Pitchers and have placed basically none or at least certainly less emphasis against the 75% of pitchers. No matter what the numbers say in regards to left vs left. It is wrong to place your primary emphasis on the 25%. Focus on the big side if you must and take your lumps against the the small side. That's playing the percentages.  

B. Injuries or poor play will not allow them to stay consistent with this strategy. They want to play the long game and you need to play the long game with numbers but the context is constantly changing over the course of 162 games due to injuries and unexpected poor play. Injuries are bad enough, they are worse when you are tied to a strategy that basically requires health and players meeting expectation to work. The Margot or Farmer types that are necessary to make the system work from the short side... are pressed into  more service than simple short side activity and end up consistently facing more right handers than left handers. THIS NEGATES THE ADVANTAGE because the reason they are short siders is because they have bad splits against right handed pitching. That's why they are short siders in the first place. If they didn't... they would play every day. So... they end up playing close to every day.    

C. Roster size has limitations. If you have 3 Left Handed Hitters to keep away from left handed pitchers on the roster. You need 3 right handed hitters to play against the left handed pitching. You have to commit 6  out of 13 roster spots to the system. After you add the two catchers... you have 5 spots left for the Buxton, Correa's and Lewis... Who incidentally have had a real hard time staying healthy through the season. In regards to roster size limitations... Does the system actually limit the number of left handed batters you can employ? The way they utilize it... it sure seems to. Can they roster Jenkins, Erod, Larnach, Julien, Kirilloff and Wallner on the same roster? Do they have to jettison excess left handers because they can only staff 3 (4 at most) right handers to pair with them to continue sheltering them? 

D. Development. WE ARE NOT SPENDING MONEY IN FREE AGENCY... Pete Alonso is not coming. The Development of Jenkins, Erod, Larnach, Julien, Kirilloff and Wallner is critical. Development means developing against left handed pitching as well. I'm not talking about absorbing a .400 OPS... I'm talking about giving a guy a chance to get more comfortable and maybe raise that OPS to .600 to .700 OPS with more confidence and exposure. Then you can staff more left handers who are hitting .900 to 1,000 OPS against right handed pitching. There are teams that are doing very well with 6, 7 or 8 left handers on the roster. 

E. I don't want to sign Margot or the Margot equivalent every damn year just to keep the system in tact. You will have to... or else... you will have to commit young players Like Miranda and Martin to the short side. 

F. The same set of data that they are looking at also contains a pinch hitting statistical drop off that they have to absorb in order to not absorb the lefty vs lefty statistical drop off. You are absorbing **** either way. 

G. Wallner might be needed to come up big against Josh Hader in the 9th inning in the playoffs because the Astros started Framber Valdez and Wallner entered the game in the 6th pinch hitting when Pressly was brought in. 

OK enough on that. I have H, I and J as well and very few made it to B.  

2. This could be the canary in the coalmine. If they depart for another club like Sterns and Counsell departed the Brewers for the Mets/Cubs for example. It's an indication that the constraints are prohibitive. Don't know if the rumors were true but Falvey and Lavine have reportedly turned down big money clubs to stay. We don't know what is happening in regards to office politics but if they are consistently constrained. It would be a smart career move to jump ship. We will see what happens this off-season. 

3. I like what is happening down on the farm. I would keep them in doing what they are doing based on the farm alone. On the other hand... I think they are hurting development at the major league level with the platooning. Ultimately... If I ever pull my support for this front office... it will because of development. I like what's coming... I'm scared to death to what happens when they arrive. I am not afraid of youth... Young Teams are in the playoffs this year. I'm scared of Margot. If they screw up development... We are screwed.  

This collapse... Could be simply sequencing. We had a bad stretch as the clock expired. Bad ASS timing. There is so much possible complication with what happened. Good luck to the front office sorting it out. 

[USAFChief]

17 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I think this is actually a Levine discussion but who really knows... other than the folks inside the walls. 

You raise excellent points.  

1 - I'm pretty sure that every major league team is using data. I believe that all 30 teams are working with the same information. What I think sets teams apart is how they weight certain data amongst all of the data collected. I'm pretty sure that certain teams will place more emphasis on something and less on other data points, therefore different approaches from team to team.

It seems clear to me that the Twins have placed more emphasis on the left vs left data than other teams do. No team takes it to this level other than the Rays. Maybe the Giants. This aggressive platooning has been consistent behavior since the young left handed hitters arrived last year. I don't argue the splits and what they say. The challenges that left handers face against left handed pitchers is historically true and there for all to see. The Twins have been playing the long game with this strategy through thick and thin. 

The Problem is:

A. They have chosen to fortify against 25% of MLB Pitchers and have placed basically none or at least certainly less emphasis against the 75% of pitchers. No matter what the numbers say in regards to left vs left. It is wrong to place your primary emphasis on the 25%. Focus on the big side if you must and take your lumps against the the small side. That's playing the percentages.  

B. Injuries or poor play will not allow them to stay consistent with this strategy. They want to play the long game and you need to play the long game with numbers but the context is constantly changing over the course of 162 games due to injuries and unexpected poor play. Injuries are bad enough, they are worse when you are tied to a strategy that basically requires health and players meeting expectation to work. The Margot or Farmer types that are necessary to make the system work from the short side... are pressed into  more service than simple short side activity and end up consistently facing more right handers than left handers. THIS NEGATES THE ADVANTAGE because the reason they are short siders is because they have bad splits against right handed pitching. That's why they are short siders in the first place. If they didn't... they would play every day. So... they end up playing close to every day.    

C. Roster size has limitations. If you have 3 Left Handed Hitters to keep away from left handed pitchers on the roster. You need 3 right handed hitters to play against the left handed pitching. You have to commit 6  out of 13 roster spots to the system. After you add the two catchers... you have 5 spots left for the Buxton, Correa's and Lewis... Who incidentally have had a real hard time staying healthy through the season. In regards to roster size limitations... Does the system actually limit the number of left handed batters you can employ? The way they utilize it... it sure seems to. Can they roster Jenkins, Erod, Larnach, Julien, Kirilloff and Wallner on the same roster? Do they have to jettison excess left handers because they can only staff 3 (4 at most) right handers to pair with them to continue sheltering them? 

D. Development. WE ARE NOT SPENDING MONEY IN FREE AGENCY... Pete Alonso is not coming. The Development of Jenkins, Erod, Larnach, Julien, Kirilloff and Wallner is critical. Development means developing against left handed pitching as well. I'm not talking about absorbing a .400 OPS... I'm talking about giving a guy a chance to get more comfortable and maybe raise that OPS to .600 to .700 OPS with more confidence and exposure. Then you can staff more left handers who are hitting .900 to 1,000 OPS against right handed pitching. There are teams that are doing very well with 6, 7 or 8 left handers on the roster. 

E. I don't want to sign Margot or the Margot equivalent every damn year just to keep the system in tact. You will have to... or else... you will have to commit young players Like Miranda and Martin to the short side. 

F. The same set of data that they are looking at also contains a pinch hitting statistical drop off that they have to absorb in order to not absorb the lefty vs lefty statistical drop off. You are absorbing **** either way. 

G. Wallner might be needed to come up big against Josh Hader in the 9th inning in the playoffs because the Astros started Framber Valdez and Wallner entered the game in the 6th pinch hitting when Pressly was brought in. 

OK enough on that. I have H, I and J as well and very few made it to B.  

2. This could be the canary in the coalmine. If they depart for another club like Sterns and Counsell departed the Brewers for the Mets/Cubs for example. It's an indication that the constraints are prohibitive. Don't know if the rumors were true but Falvey and Lavine have reportedly turned down big money clubs to stay. We don't know what is happening in regards to office politics but if they are consistently constrained. It would be a smart career move to jump ship. We will see what happens this off-season. 

3. I like what is happening down on the farm. I would keep them in doing what they are doing based on the farm alone. On the other hand... I think they are hurting development at the major league level with the platooning. Ultimately... If I ever pull my support for this front office... it will because of development. I like what's coming... I'm scared to death to what happens when they arrive. I am not afraid of youth... Young Teams are in the playoffs this year. I'm scared of Margot. If they screw up development... We are screwed.  

This collapse... Could be simply sequencing. We had a bad stretch as the clock expired. Bad ASS timing. There is so much possible complication with what happened. Good luck to the front office sorting it out. 

D. "Development"

This is where I have some major issues with organizational philosophy, which I'd say falls under the PBO.

 I hate that players arrive in the big leagues not ready to contribute. 

Position players haven't learned a position. "Anybody can play anywhere" starts in the minors. Royce Lewis is a former number 1 overall pick, has been looked at as a franchise cornerstone for years now, has spent parts of muktiple seasons in the show...and to this day neither us or the Twins know where he'll be playing next year. Jeebus. This is exactly how you get a team that plays shoddy baseball. Not just errors, but shoddy baseball. A world in which fundamentals don't matter, and your new kids don't know how to play the game. 

 I hate that pitchers arrive in the big leagues unready for a big league workload. Festa hadn't thrown 100 pitches in a game in 2024 prior to being asked to do so in the Twins rotation. He'd rarely been asked to go longer than 5 innings. Never more than 6. Not even once. Then suddenly three rookies are in your rotation, pitching important games, and they can't actually pitch.

 

I also hate the attempts to substitute platooning for acquisition and/or development, as an organizational philosophy. Particularly when they're so godawful at pitching the players to implement this idea (hello Manny, hi Joey), and so pigheaded about admitting mistakes.

I loath the inattention to bullpen construction. "Just throw warm bodies at it. Who cares?" isn't my idea of how to go about this critical task.

 

I'll hold off on roster construction since I'm guessing that falls under the GM.

 

 

[Linus]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Is there also a Levine thread coming? Or is this a combined "front office" thread?

Honest question.

For one thing, I don't know where Falvey's job ends and Levine's begins. 

It'd be a lot easier to discuss if someone could explain that to me.

 

I don’t think anyone outside the organization actually knows. I am going to pen a post later about some of these subjects and I’m just going to identify the problem and not who I guess is responsible. 

[Linus]

8 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

D. "Development"

This is where I have some major issues with organizational philosophy, which I'd say falls under the PBO.

 I hate that players arrive in the big leagues not ready to contribute. 

Position players haven't learned a position. "Anybody can play anywhere" starts in the minors. Royce Lewis isna former nr 1 overall pick, looked at as a franchise cornerstone for years...and neither us or the Twins know where he'll be playing next year. Jeebus.

 I hate that pitchers arrive in the big leagues unready for a big league workload. Festa hadn't thrown 100 pitches in a game in 2024 prior to being asked to do so in the Twins rotation. He'd rarely been asked to go longer than 5 innings. Never more than 6. Not even once.

 

I also hate the attempts to substitute platooning for acquisition and/or development. 

 

I'll hold off on roster construction since I'm guessing that falls under the GM.

 

 

I also think the farm is overrated. Not necessarily from a talent standpoint but from a readiness standpoint. You make several good points. I would widen it out to players arrive that are really weak in basic fundamentals. Literally stuff that used to be taught in Legion ball and certainly should be mastered by the big leagues is absent from our call ups. 

[Linus]

And to answer the original question I think I want most of it to change. I would keep Maki as he seems to have extracted some good pitching results from a shallow pool. Since I don’t believe anything will change while Falvey is here I guess that’s me saying he should go. He’s not horrible but some of the organizations philosophies that aren’t working are never going to change if he is here. 

[notoriousgod71]

16 minutes ago, Linus said:

I don’t think anyone outside the organization actually knows. I am going to pen a post later about some of these subjects and I’m just going to identify the problem and not who I guess is responsible. 

They want to make it tough to criticize if you don't know exactly what they're responsible for.

[Mike Sixel]

Guessing.... But I think they did change the salary structure on this FO, and I'd expect them to leave. 

Before they got here, the twins won more than 70 games once from 2011 to 2016..... People forget how awful it's been under this ownership, imo. 

I think they're gone, but I won't be surprised if they aren't. 

[Craig Arko]

If it were me, I’d want out.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Is there also a Levine thread coming? Or is this a combined "front office" thread?

Honest question.

For one thing, I don't know where Falvey's job ends and Levine's begins. 

It'd be a lot easier to discuss if someone could explain that to me.

I consider them a pair because, as you said, it’s almost impossible to separate the actions and decisions of each. 

[Jocko87]

3 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I also feel like there was no ‘suddenly’ here. That these discussions were had prior to 2022 during the Correa courtship. Falvey would get his payroll increases but knew they were going to reset at some point. 

I'd go so far as to say that Falvey knew he was spending this years money on Correa and Lopez. 

So easy to forget they spent the Correa money before he came back. 

This whole thing is almost completely that simple. Then the TV thing took away whatever cushion there was. 

[NotAboutWinning]

I heard an interesting point yesterday. Ownership does not want to spend $$$. The FO does not want to spend prospects. That doesn't leave much space to maneuver in. 

[Riverbrian]

On the retention side of thing. 

I have a thought that has stuck with me. It might mean something... it may not but here's my thought anyway. 

Two trade deadlines in a row that they didn't do anything with a team in contention both years. 

I don't believe that is how Falvey and Lavine do things. Something is up. 

Terry Ryan used to sit out trade deadlines. I was used to that. But, when Falvey and Lavine came to town... they  were a breath of fresh air because they were dealing at the deadline... either buying or selling. Some of the deals didn't work out... some did but they were dealing including buying and selling in the same year with Jaime Garcia. 

2017 (On the edge of contention): Traded for Jaime Garcia - Traded Away Murphy, Jaime Garcia and Kintzler. 

2018: (Out of contention) Traded Away Pressly, Duke Lynn, Dozier and Rodney 

2019: (In contention) Traded for Romo and Dyson

2020: (In contention) Did nothing - Weird Year with Covid

2021: (Out of Contention) Traded away Cruz, Berrios, Happ and Robles

2022: (In contention) Traded for Mahle, Jorge Lopez and Fulmer. 

2023: (In Contention) Nothing

2024: (In Contention) Nothing - I'm not counting Richards as anything. 

Other than 2020... These guys have been active at the trade deadline. Two years in a row they haven't been. What does that say. 

I don't know. They are either scared off from the 2022 nightmare of results (I doubt that) or they are being restrained by something.  

So my nagging retention thought is: If restrained... This isn't what they do. They have shown us what they do at the deadline. They can't be comfortable in restraints.   

 

 

[nicksaviking]

15 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I consider them a pair because, as you said, it’s almost impossible to separate the actions and decisions of each. 

But only for us. They obviously don't do the same thing though or they'd be paid the same and have the same job title. 

Without the transparency, I'd guess the responsibility is pretty much what their job titles actually are. Year by year, Falvey decides what he wants to see from the team (one year, fewer strikeouts and higher OBP, another year, more HR and more position flexibility, whatever) and Levine identifies the free agents and trade targets. Wide organizational collaboration and discussion after that for sure.

With that presumption, I keep Falvey (mostly in fear of the team swinging in the exact opposite direction and going with another old-school, throw-your-computers-away type like Terry Ryan) and replace Levine who I think repeatedly is making dreadful decisions on no-upside free agents and poor calls on the demotions/promotions. 

But really, of St. Peter, Falvey, Levine and Baldelli, Falvey is the only one I'd consider retaining. But if he too is not retained, that's fine too.

[Riverbrian]

One more point on the trade deadline constraints... if they are indeed restrained. 

If there is a financial constraint in place and we all assume there is one... based on the comments of Joe Pohlad alone, it's a fair assumption. 

If there is a financial constraint in place. We should have left cushion for trade deadline needs. 

I'll go back to the Polanco trade. When the season was done... I questioned spending the Polanco money on Santana and Margot.

Forget hindsight because Santana ended up being a good replacement for Polanco because he was based on 2024 stats.

Go back to time of the trade when nobody really knew what Santana would do. If sitting at the deadline was due to financial constraints. They shouldn't have spent the Polanco money therefore putting themselves up against the cap, line... whatever that number is. Why would you take away your room to maneuver not knowing what you will need when the time comes?   

No matter what any of us think of the job Falvey and Lavine are doing (I personally like them). None of us should assume that they are not aware of their budget constraints at all times. To assume they are not aware  would suggest a level of organizational ineptness that simply isn't realistic. 

The only thing that makes sense to me is they were over budget after signing Correa and they knew when they signed him that belt tightening was going to come. Then the TV money went away and the belt would need to be tightened another notch. I highly doubt that they were surprised... but I highly suspect that they were disappointed.   

I don't want to assume to much on the retention side of things. No matter what though. MLB GM's are professionals... Nearly every team has a budget to adhere to. Maybe not the Dodgers or Mets but every one else. MLB GM's have to know that budgets can be fluid... it may be tough this year and the next but it's fluid and budget space will return with room to maneuver. 

The key question for the front office. If the Twins go into a down period because of constraints. Will the job offers with higher budget clubs go away when the results on the field are down? Will the Twins ownership hold them accountable for a down years?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions. It just might be in their best interest to take the Blue Jays job or the Giants job if they call.   

 

[USAFChief]

15 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

One more point on the trade deadline constraints... if they are indeed restrained. 

If there is a financial constraint in place and we all assume there is one... based on the comments of Joe Pohlad alone, it's a fair assumption. 

If there is a financial constraint in place. We should have left cushion for trade deadline needs. 

I'll go back to the Polanco trade. When the season was done... I questioned spending the Polanco money on Santana and Margot.

Forget hindsight because Santana ended up being a good replacement for Polanco because he was based on 2024 stats.

Go back to time of the trade when nobody really knew what Santana would do. If sitting at the deadline was due to financial constraints. They shouldn't have spent the Polanco money therefore putting themselves up against the cap, line... whatever that number is. Why would you take away your room to maneuver not knowing what you will need when the time comes?   

No matter what any of us think of the job Falvey and Lavine are doing (I personally like them). None of us should assume that they are not aware of their budget constraints at all times. To assume they are not aware  would suggest a level of organizational ineptness that simply isn't realistic. 

The only thing that makes sense to me is they were over budget after signing Correa and they knew when they signed him that belt tightening was going to come. Then the TV money went away and the belt would need to be tightened another notch. I highly doubt that they were surprised... but I highly suspect that they were disappointed.   

I don't want to assume to much on the retention side of things. No matter what though. MLB GM's are professionals... Nearly every team has a budget to adhere to. Maybe not the Dodgers or Mets but every one else. MLB GM's have to know that budgets can be fluid... it may be tough this year and the next but it's fluid and budget space will return with room to maneuver. 

The key question for the front office. If the Twins go into a down period because of constraints. Will the job offers with higher budget clubs go away when the results on the field are down? Will the Twins ownership hold them accountable for a down years?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions. It just might be in their best interest to take the Blue Jays job or the Giants job if they call.   

 

Well, Falvey could be covering his boss's ***, but he specifically denied that finances played a role in the 2024 deadline.

They also added Trevor Richards, who has a higher salary than, say...AJ Puk.

So there was at least SOME salary space available. 

They just wasted it. Worse than wasted it, because Richards actually made the team worse, and was soon gone. 

 

 

[DuluthRoots]

Rather than start a new thread, I will insert this here:  Time to retool completely. Trade the existing high dollar contracts for up and coming talent (like Povich?). At least we won't be in last place as long as the White Sox are terrible. If we must build a team with a low budget, this is the only way forward. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Should Falvey (and/or Levine) want to come back?

Roughly 1/3 of the teams follow the revenue cycle model, much like the Twins, Guardians, and Rays. Maybe not to the extremes, but they do it.

If the answer is no, maybe it’s time to evaluate career choices.

[nicksaviking]

19 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

One more point on the trade deadline constraints... if they are indeed restrained. 

If there is a financial constraint in place and we all assume there is one... based on the comments of Joe Pohlad alone, it's a fair assumption. 

I think the financial outlook changed three times since last winter, which likely would have jerked the front office around.

Ownership knew it was going to be bad early, and they had one bottom line in mind right up until Dave St Peter erroneously told everyone that there would be no TV blackouts. It changed, and likely better for the bottom line, a week later when someone decided black outs and the Bally deal would be OK after all. But by that time, even if there was more money to spend, there were no good free agents left to buy.

Then it changed again once Bally couldn't air games hurting TV focused in-stadium advertising and eventually the attendance decline caused largely by the fact that the Twins were off TV so out of mind of the fans.

[karcherd]

It would be interesting to know what the rest of the league really thinks of the two.  It sounded like Boston interviewed Levine and passed on him.  I don't think they have the ability to run a successful major league front office.  It has been seven years and we have one playoff series win and have been a sub .500 team for the last 4 years.  We should be on an upward trajectory not flat.  They are too rigid in the their philosophy and will not admit mistakes and move on when needed.  The young players are coming to the majors and are not producing at any sustained level. Where is the player development of the organization.  While not every prospect will flourish in the majors, you can't have them all regress.  There are some prospects that have been highly thought of by many throughout the league, why aren't they producing at the major leagues.  They need to have a plan and I don't see it.  Either go with the young guys if you can develop them or move on and bring in quality level starting position players, no more Margot's, Garlicks, Santana, or Farmer's of the world.

[nicksaviking]

13 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Well, Falvey could be covering his boss's ***, but he specifically denied that finances played a role in the 2024 deadline.

They also added Trevor Richards, who has a higher salary than, say...AJ Puk.

So there was at least SOME salary space available. 

They just wasted it. Worse than wasted it, because Richards actually made the team worse, and was soon gone. 

 

 

I'm definitely not giving Falvey a pass, because as you said, prospects for players was an option if money for players was not. However, that quote is so incoherent and rambling, that either English is his second language or he was squirming trying not to say what he really wanted to say.

[USAFChief]

3 minutes ago, karcherd said:

It would be interesting to know what the rest of the league really thinks of the two.  It sounded like Boston interviewed Levine and passed on him.  

And I certainly might have missed something, but I don't remember Falvey being a candidate for any other jobs.

[USAFChief]

4 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm definitely not giving Falvey a pass, because as you said, prospects for players was an option if money for players was not. However, that quote is so incoherent and rambling, that either English is his second language or he was squirming trying not to say what he really wanted to say.

Falvey always speaks "corporate-ese" but that seems fairly straight forward. 

And, as I said, they took on the remainder of Richards' $2.1m salary. 

[Riverbrian]

18 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Well, Falvey could be covering his boss's ***, but he specifically denied that finances played a role in the 2024 deadline.

They also added Trevor Richards, who has a higher salary than, say...AJ Puk.

So there was at least SOME salary space available. 

They just wasted it. Worse than wasted it, because Richards actually made the team worse, and was soon gone. 

 

 

It would really bad form to publicly state anything about ownership. 

I agree on AJ Puk. Puk and Tanner Scott were my #1 and #2 trade deadline hopes. We had a problem from the left side of the pen that was apparent at the trade deadline.

I also wanted a bat... A big one. 

And a starter but I just didn't think that was going to happen. I was worried about an innings eater and that I didn't want.    

[Riverbrian]

15 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I think the financial outlook changed three times since last winter, which likely would have jerked the front office around.

Ownership knew it was going to be bad early, and they had one bottom line in mind right up until Dave St Peter erroneously told everyone that there would be no TV blackouts. It changed, and likely better for the bottom line, a week later when someone decided black outs and the Bally deal would be OK after all. But by that time, even if there was more money to spend, there were no good free agents left to buy.

Then it changed again once Bally couldn't air games hurting TV focused in-stadium advertising and eventually the attendance decline caused largely by the fact that the Twins were off TV so out of mind of the fans.

Quite possible. 

 

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, Riverbrian said:

It would really bad form to publicly state anything about ownership. 

I agree on AJ Puk. Puk and Tanner Scott were my #1 and #2 trade deadline hopes. We had a problem from the left side of the pen that was apparent at the trade deadline.

I also wanted a bat... A big one. 

And a starter but I just didn't think that was going to happen. I was worried about an innings eater and that I didn't want.    

An innings eater would have been a godsend. 

We got a 5.71 ERA from Matthews and 4.90 from Festa, and that's withOUT eating innings.

I gotta believe an innings eater could have matched that production while actually eating innings.

Part of the 2nd half pen collapse was needing 12 outs minimum from 3/5ths of the rotation every time out.

 

See above: not preparing pitchers 

 

[TheLeviathan]

21 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I think the financial outlook changed three times since last winter, which likely would have jerked the front office around.

Ownership knew it was going to be bad early, and they had one bottom line in mind right up until Dave St Peter erroneously told everyone that there would be no TV blackouts. It changed, and likely better for the bottom line, a week later when someone decided black outs and the Bally deal would be OK after all. But by that time, even if there was more money to spend, there were no good free agents left to buy.

Then it changed again once Bally couldn't air games hurting TV focused in-stadium advertising and eventually the attendance decline caused largely by the fact that the Twins were off TV so out of mind of the fans.

That was my sense of things.  They were put in a holding pattern and then had to scramble when Defcon-1 was issued on payroll.

The malfeasance on the broadcasting deal had catastrophic consequences for this year.