Twins Must Attempt to Follow Guardians' and Rays' Blueprints at MLB Trade Deadline

[Mike Sixel]

26 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Concur, which is why I see moving fringe and/or expiring pieces are rearranging deck chairs. 

Sure, but they aren't dealing for big time players. Removing mediocre, or bad, players, at least makes room for other experiments. I think this is our disconnect. I'm talking about what they can do right now, not theoretically. They can move on from mediocre players, which they've failed to do in the past, which is the change they can actually make right now. At least they'll gather data on younger players, and they'll get experience, and maybe get lucky. They aren't doing anything useful keeping France or Kiersey. 

[KirbyDome89]

14 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Because retooling isn't necessarily about immediate gains? It's not like if we sell pieces in 2025 and they don't immediately cash in 2026 that means the moves were the wrong ones.  If Manzardo never becomes more than he is today (as a rookie being a slightly plus offensive player and minus defensive player) than it didn't cash out as much as hoped when you made the deal.  But it's not a bad deal.....because the guy they gave up in Civale is sub-replacement level now and has been for much of the last two years as well.  

You can't judge the move in a short-sighted manner because the process behind it is quite literally the opposite.  In 2023 someone could've made the same argument about Nelson Cruz for Joe Ryan after he settled in at 1.5 WAR.  How'd that deal end up in the end?

If the idea is to stay competitive, keep the window open, yada yada, i.e. the premise of this article, then yeah, the gains do need to be rather immediate. Sinking years of (MLB or MiLB) investment into players hoping to get passable MLB performance is what rebuilding teams do. If Manzardo never becomes anything more than a plodding 1B who hits the occasional HR, yep, it's a bad trade, because not only did you fail to capitalize on Civale's value at the time, but you've also continued to give away valuable playing time to Manzardo. 

Saying Manzardo has done nothing to help Cleveland the last 2 seasons isn't the same as closing the book on his career. Joe Ryan is a terrible example here. Not only was he immediately inserted into the rotation post trade, he was, ya know, actually pretty good for an entire season+ before "settling," in 2023. Even that season, relative to his peers, Ryan was an average pitcher. Manzardo has been a bottom tier 1B since he came up. 

[KirbyDome89]

29 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Sure, but they aren't dealing for big time players. Removing mediocre, or bad, players, at least makes room for other experiments. I think this is our disconnect. I'm talking about what they can do right now, not theoretically. They can move on from mediocre players, which they've failed to do in the past, which is the change they can actually make right now. At least they'll gather data on younger players, and they'll get experience, and maybe get lucky. They aren't doing anything useful keeping France or Kiersey. 

I'd prefer they deal some of their own "big time," players but that's likely a pipe dream.

You have more faith that a France and/or Kiersey won't be replaced with another France and/or Kiersey acquired in some low wattage swap or the waiver wire, but roll away, I have zero attachment to 95% of the roster. 

[Road trip]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Those 90s Cleveland teams let Albert Belle walk, traded Kenny Lofton for David Justice and Marquise Grissom (then brought back Lofton, brilliantly), traded Sean Casey, traded Richie Sexson, and let Sandy Alomar Jr walk. That's just the position player side.

Of course there was some turnover.  Even the big market franchises have some.  But Sean Casey?  C'mon, he played 6 total game for them.  Most Cleveland fans had never heard of him when he was traded.  Sandy Alomar walked when he was 35yo and finished as an effective player.  Sexson was a starter for 1 year, never a core player.

Yes, they let Albert Belle walk (he had extreme anger management issues you will recall).  Both the org and his teammates were quite ready to be done with him... 

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

They weren't a super stable team. They had plenty of roster turn. They also hit on multiple Hall of Fame level prospects at the same time (Manny and Thome) and made multiple World Series runs with an incredible offense and fun team to watch.

Fans showed up because they were one of the best offenses of all time and were a sustained winner with realistic World Series expectations every year for over half a decade. I think you're being awfully deceiving by trying to act like they used to be "attendance monsters." That was a 6 year run. That's it. Outside of that 6 year run they were never "attendance monsters." And they were turning the roster back then, too. They just nailed the moves they made during that 6 year run and their fans had legit World Series hopes every year.

Absolutely correct about hitting on multiple high quality players at the same time and the power of their offense.  Thome, Manny, Vizquel, Lofton, and Charles Nagy to anchor the starting staff.  It's very rare for this to happen.

And it was an 9 year run of attendance...never worse than 5th in the league from '94 (the strike year) to 2002 when their core got old and it fell apart.  Nothing deceptive about it.  Prior to that run of course the attendance was bad... a horrible ballpark until Jacobs Field and decades of losing teams.  There was a reason the Major League movie chose Cleveland as the sad sack franchise.  And since 2002?  They've made the top 5 in AL attendance a single time despite making the playoffs eight times.  No surprise that their payroll has collapsed over the past decade.

..which was really my point.  We all worry about affording quality players, but if you follow the model Cleveland has used for a long time you risk turning off fans by trading your younger stars (Duran, Ryan, Jax, etc have all been discussed in various forums here).  Turned off fans don't attend games, which turns into a death spiral for the organization's finances unless you are really good at developing new stars (which, unfortunately, the Twins need to improve on).  The hard core fans (us) will stay regardless.  The casual fans may disappear.

Where I do totally agree with the article:  The other key? Trusting player development. Tampa and Cleveland make moves knowing their farm can backfill. If the Twins want to join that tier, they’ll need to show the same confidence in their depth.

More than retooling via trades, the Twins have to do better emulating Cleveland and Tampa at this.

[TheLeviathan]

25 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

If the idea is to stay competitive, keep the window open, yada yada, i.e. the premise of this article, then yeah, the gains do need to be rather immediate. Sinking years of (MLB or MiLB) investment into players hoping to get passable MLB performance is what rebuilding teams do. If Manzardo never becomes anything more than a plodding 1B who hits the occasional HR, yep, it's a bad trade, because not only did you fail to capitalize on Civale's value at the time, but you've also continued to give away valuable playing time to Manzardo. 

Saying Manzardo has done nothing to help Cleveland the last 2 seasons isn't the same as closing the book on his career. Joe Ryan is a terrible example here. Not only was he immediately inserted into the rotation post trade, he was, ya know, actually pretty good for an entire season+ before "settling," in 2023. Even that season, relative to his peers, Ryan was an average pitcher. Manzardo has been a bottom tier 1B since he came up. 

You are closing the book on a trade based on the production of a 24 year old over 1.5 seasons.  So yeah...the Ryan example is terrible.  That's the point.  Picking any single time period to judge it, with a narrow lense, will result in making terrible arguments.  That's exactly my issue with your argument.

So yeah, I don't agree at all that they have to always be immediate.  I think that kind of rigidity...applied to any process or strategy....will lead to conclusions that your strategy is doomed.  Nothing is guaranteed to always show immediate results and cherry picking 1.5 seasons of a young player is going to lead to a lot of catastrophically silly conclusions made prematurely.  

 

[chpettit19]

51 minutes ago, Road trip said:

Of course there was some turnover.  Even the big market franchises have some.  But Sean Casey?  C'mon, he played 6 total game for them.  Most Cleveland fans had never heard of him when he was traded.  Sandy Alomar walked when he was 35yo and finished as an effective player.  Sexson was a starter for 1 year, never a core player.

Yes, they let Albert Belle walk (he had extreme anger management issues you will recall).  Both the org and his teammates were quite ready to be done with him... 

And they added Marquis Grissom and David Justice in the middle of their run. And Julio Franco. And Tony Fernandez. And Matt Williams. Traded Brian Giles after his first 4 years in the majors when he was a core player. Sorry, didn't know I needed to name every single transaction they made.

They turned the roster over significantly. Just like they do now. Trading Sean Casey was a significant decision. He was a 2nd round pick who was supposed to be part of their core that they traded for Dave Burba in the middle of that run to supplement their roster. Richie Sexson played 279 games for those teams in the late 90s. With an above average OPS in his early 20s. Trading him is an example of turning the roster. 

They turned their roster plenty during those times. The suggestion that they ran their team significantly different than they do now is false. They aren't trading all their guys well before free agency now, either. Jose Ramirez is still there, no? Shane Bieber still throwing baseballs for Cleveland? Steven Kwan still around? Lindor made it until his last year before he was dealt. Kluber got an extension. Santana played there for 8 years his first time around. 

They keep some guys around longer now just like they shipped some guys out then. They aren't doing things drastically differently.

51 minutes ago, Road trip said:

And it was an 9 year run of attendance...never worse than 5th in the league from '94 (the strike year) to 2002 when their core got old and it fell apart.  Nothing deceptive about it.  Prior to that run of course the attendance was bad... a horrible ballpark until Jacobs Field and decades of losing teams.  There was a reason the Major League movie chose Cleveland as the sad sack franchise.  And since 2002?  They've made the top 5 in AL attendance a single time despite making the playoffs eight times.  No surprise that their payroll has collapsed over the past decade.

..which was really my point.  We all worry about affording quality players, but if you follow the model Cleveland has used for a long time you risk turning off fans by trading your younger stars (Duran, Ryan, Jax, etc have all been discussed in various forums here).  Turned off fans don't attend games, which turns into a death spiral for the organization's finances unless you are really good at developing new stars (which, unfortunately, the Twins need to improve on).  The hard core fans (us) will stay regardless.  The casual fans may disappear.

Where I do totally agree with the article:  The other key? Trusting player development. Tampa and Cleveland make moves knowing their farm can backfill. If the Twins want to join that tier, they’ll need to show the same confidence in their depth.

More than retooling via trades, the Twins have to do better emulating Cleveland and Tampa at this.

Fine. Take your 9 years of World Series and new park fan spike. Congrats. Still has nothing to do with team stability. It was a great team mixed with a new stadium. The Twins saw a spike in attendance when they opened Target Field, too. Every team does. You are wrong that the turning of the roster is what's driving fans away because you are wrong that a stable roster is what drew fans in the first place. The opening of a new stadium and going to the World Series while being a World Series contender for half a decade plus is what drew the fans, not the stable roster. Because the roster wasn't any more stable.

Casual fans don't show up to see specific players. It's why they're called "casual fans." They aren't obsessed with the roster. They don't know when Joe Ryan is starting vs when Chris Paddack is starting. They don't check the lineup before the game to make sure their favorite player is playing. They're casual fans. They just go when their buddies are going.

Yes, the Twins need to be much better at developing. Much better.

[Road trip]

10 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

 

They keep some guys around longer now just like they shipped some guys out then. They aren't doing things drastically differently.

Ok, fine...apologies to the board for somehow turning this into a Cleveland history discussion. 

If you wish to continue the conversation I'm happy to introduce you to all of my middle aged in-laws from Cleveland, with whom I already have to talk about glory days of Cleveland baseball far too often.  Peace..

[KirbyDome89]

12 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You are closing the book on a trade based on the production of a 24 year old over 1.5 seasons.  So yeah...the Ryan example is terrible.  That's the point.  Picking any single time period to judge it, with a narrow lense, will result in making terrible arguments.  That's exactly my issue with your argument.

So yeah, I don't agree at all that they have to always be immediate.  I think that kind of rigidity...applied to any process or strategy....will lead to conclusions that your strategy is doomed.  Nothing is guaranteed to always show immediate results and cherry picking 1.5 seasons of a young player is going to lead to a lot of catastrophically silly conclusions made prematurely.  

 

No, I'm closing the book on the idea that Kyle Manzardo, Lane Thomas, and Alex Cobb helped keep afloat Cleveland's chances at competing the last few seasons. 

It's likely more semantics than rigidity. If you want to rebuild I'm not necessarily opposed, but if you're investing years into your return before you can hope to see any type of production that's cashing out IMO. 

[TheLeviathan]

5 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

No, I'm closing the book on the idea that Kyle Manzardo, Lane Thomas, and Alex Cobb helped keep afloat Cleveland's chances at competing the last few seasons. 

It's likely more semantics than rigidity. If you want to rebuild I'm not necessarily opposed, but if you're investing years into your return before you can hope to see any type of production that's cashing out IMO. 

I mean....part of the reason for doing the trade is adding years to your return.  The exact issue with the Twins strategy is that you take a finite resource and deliberately put an expiration date on it rather than extending it.  I don't need that return/resource to have an immediate impact to justify the decision.  

Lane Thomas turning into a pumpkin or Kyle Manzardo not being an instant-impact rookie doesn't defeat the purpose of the move.  The purpose was to keep expanding your available opportunities to have young, controllable resources at your disposal rather than watching them walk for nothing.  

You don't stop churning the waters for fish because the first net came up empty.  All anyone is advocating for is to keep throwing in nets rather than rolling them up and hoping they jump in your boat themselves.

[Mike Sixel]

If people really believe most minor league players success is random, you need more of them that MIGHT succeed for any to do so (I don't believe it is random, at the top and bottom of the pool. But the middle? kind of, yes).

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I'd prefer they deal some of their own "big time," players but that's likely a pipe dream.

You have more faith that a France and/or Kiersey won't be replaced with another France and/or Kiersey acquired in some low wattage swap or the waiver wire, but roll away, I have zero attachment to 95% of the roster. 

I actually don't have more faith they won't just use another bad veteran, but that's what I want changed. I want them to try young players in their system (if they don't think those players exist, they should resign).

[Linus]

The difference between the Twins and Rays or Guardians or any other small / mid market successful team isnt some secret sauce philosophy. The difference lies in their success rate in making player personnel decisions - they just execute FO duties better. 
 

Fwiw - as long as we have Correa (and Buck to a lesser extent) you have to be in win now mode. It makes no sense to do a rebuild with an older SS making $35 million per year. Ergo, I’m trading every expiring contract and Larnach as we have to infuse some athleticism into the roster at 1 base and a corner outfield spot during the off season. 

[Major League Ready]

13 hours ago, Linus said:

The difference between the Twins and Rays or Guardians or any other small / mid market successful team isnt some secret sauce philosophy. The difference lies in their success rate in making player personnel decisions - they just execute FO duties better. 
 

Fwiw - as long as we have Correa (and Buck to a lesser extent) you have to be in win now mode. It makes no sense to do a rebuild with an older SS making $35 million per year. Ergo, I’m trading every expiring contract and Larnach as we have to infuse some athleticism into the roster at 1 base and a corner outfield spot during the off season. 

Not exactly true.  The Rays and Guardians operate differently.  The way they accumulate talent is quite different.  The Guardians rarely spend on free agents and both the Rays and Guardians have traded away significantly more established players for prospects.  It MIGHT be fair to say they have a better success rate but the bigger difference is the number of opportunities they have created through trades.  

The Twins trades of established players that worked out were Cruz and Escobar for Ryan and Duran.  The Berrios trade remains to be seen.  It looks OK at this point.  The Polanco trade remains to be seen.  That trade also looks OK rat this point.  I am blanking on other good established players they have traded in the past decade.  They too often refuse to turn over players the way the Rays or Guardians have in the past.

[DocBauer]

Personally, I want a team that has a chance to win games and be in contention for every season possible. Every few years, things do line up for a good team to make a serious run. And you have ZERO chance if you don't actually make the playoffs, yes? Also, winning...and having a chance...is a hell of a lot more fun than losing. It can also bring in fan interest and affect payroll. I never want a team that's willing to tank for years just to get high draft choices and HOPE lightening strikes one year.

BUT, to the OP itself:

To different degrees, the Twins attempt to model themselves after 3 franchises:

1] TAMPA: The use of viable analytics to put forth the best possibility of winning. This includes things like platoons, pitching matchups at opportune times, even playing situational baseball at times. (Rocco has leaned more in to the situational part of the game the past couple of years, but you also need thr right players to make this happen). 

2] CLEVELAND: And really, TAMPA is part of this as well. It's the part about drafting pitchers, signing arms, trading for arms, and building a SYSTEM to find arms. Recent history has Lopez, Ryan, Ober, SWR, Festa, Matthews, Duran, Varland, Jax, and others as all part of this formula. Some drafted, some traded for from existing talent, internal development, and conversion. It also includes reclamation projects that they have found some success from, and should maybe look at harder.

3] DODGERS: The Dodgers have the $ to go out and do about anything they want to when they want to. But one thing they stress is roster flexibility. When someone gets injured...or even needs a rest...they usually have the roster flexibility to move pieces around. Marwin Gonzalez in the past, and Castro are examples of this flexibility. Taylor 2yrs ago and Bader this year are OF examples. Despite playing daily and being a young player still developing, Lee is also an example.

There are quality examples of what all 3 of these organizations do that the Twins have embraced, or attempt to embrace. I think where the current FO has lost opportunity...FAILED is too strong a word IMO...or been "confused" about their approach is by trying too hard to be "perfect". For instance, building depth is a wonderful and perfect idea. But they have done so, at times, with almost an obsession about having a mass injury season and "losing" depth, even at the risk of keeping underperforming players. As a result, they have, at times, refused to follow Cleveland and Tampa in moving on from expiring vets via trade that MIGHT bring back SOMEONE who has a chance to contribute in the future. 

Think about Rocco's first couple of seasons. He had teams built on power offenses with high K numbers that ranked top 5-10 in offense, but less pitching than they have currently. By his own admission, he didn't have to do much managing for the offense. Now the K's are down, but so is the power and runs scored, though they have a better pitching staff. He's trying for a little for situational ball, but he has little speed to work with. While the Twins still try to draft power...and they should...they've been selecting more athletic players the past few years. Keaschall is about the 1st to reach the ML level.

They are attempting to build a more balanced roster of power and athleticism. But it doesn't happen overnight. It sure doesn't help when your payroll suddenly gets restricted and some of your TOP players all seem to suddenly underperform.

A] I think they're struggling with an identity. Its great to steal/copy ideas from other teams. But put your OWN STAMP on what you want to be! KEEP looking for power because power rules! It's been proven over and over again. KEEP building your pitching! And KEEP looking for better athletes and better defenders, as they've been doing the past few drafts. 

B] Do a better job of recognize when something/someone isn't working and follow Cleveland and Tampa a little more in approach to "take a risk" and move on from guys you are going to lose anyway, and see if you can get a 4th OF, a SU utility INF, a solid backup catcher, or a solid pen arm for the next season.

My goodness, Detroit made trades in 2024 and suddenly GOT BETTER.

ANNNNND this leads me to....

C] Start to embrace more of what MILWAUKEE does. They are also a mid market team. I'm NOT suggesting the Twins, with all the confusion about the team being bought, by whom, when, who will be in charge next season, and trade major assets NOW, BUT, the Brewers haven't been the least bit shy about promoting young talent and letting them learn on the fly. For the most part, they've been rewarded.

Right now, the young SWR is throwing about as well as he did last season. Festa is building on what he did in 2024. There's opportunity at the moment, and development in the process, despite some lumps taken and the temporary loss of Lopez and Ober. Matthews should be back soon, and also has an opportunity to build on some of the flashes he showed in 2024, and so far this season. 

Keaschall, healthy soon, will hopefully provide a spark. No way he's as good as he was in his debut or we're talking about a HOF player. But talent and opportunity can offer serious upside.

Going out on a crazy limb here, but what if Rodriguez can get back soon and actually be healthy the 2nd half of the season? Is it time to bring all that potential up for September and just let him have some growing pains? Give him the LF job next year and just live with what he does and let him grow?

Unless the Twins have a really good July and actually look like they can make the playoffs, get what you can for the expiring FA. At that point, get the kids up. But I don't like just giving up the season. Figure out who you WANT to be as an organization! Borrow from EVERYONE, but put your OWN STAMP on who you WANT TO BE going forward. But always remember you ARE a mid market team, and sometimes that means moving on and taking some chances.

 

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

I mean....part of the reason for doing the trade is adding years to your return.  The exact issue with the Twins strategy is that you take a finite resource and deliberately put an expiration date on it rather than extending it.  I don't need that return/resource to have an immediate impact to justify the decision.  

Lane Thomas turning into a pumpkin or Kyle Manzardo not being an instant-impact rookie doesn't defeat the purpose of the move.  The purpose was to keep expanding your available opportunities to have young, controllable resources at your disposal rather than watching them walk for nothing.  

You don't stop churning the waters for fish because the first net came up empty.  All anyone is advocating for is to keep throwing in nets rather than rolling them up and hoping they jump in your boat themselves.

I'm not pounding the table for the Twins to hang onto expiring deals. In fact it's the opposite, I'd love to see them at least seriously try to pair actual value with what's expiring and shake things up. Idk if I necessarily want them dealing SP with 2 years of arbitration left a la Civale, but that's an entirely different discussion. 

My opposition is holding up Cleveland's last few deadlines as some sort of blueprint. Their 2024 pickups were, and have been, atrocious. To date (I'll die on this hill) they've gotten nothing from 2023 either. Like I said before, Idk why we're putting them on a pedestal. Bad teams can and do sell soon to be "expensive," or expiring contracts too. 

[KirbyDome89]

27 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The Twins trades of established players that worked out were Cruz and Escobar for Ryan and Duran.  The Berrios trade remains to be seen.  It looks OK at this point.  The Polanco trade remains to be seen.  That trade also looks OK rat this point.  I am blanking on other good established players they have traded in the past decade.  They too often refuse to turn over players the way the Rays or Guardians have in the past.

Buxton signed long term. Garver was moved, Idk if that was W though. They hung onto Dozier for too long. Maybe Kepler last year but selling during the 2023 deadline would've been questionable. Ervin Santana if hindsight is allowed.

The fact that it's difficult to come up with names kinda says it all no? There hasn't been much for young, arb eligible talent, or established and still contributing talent for this club to consider selling. 

[Woof Bronzer]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I like the Cardinals organization a lot.  However, "Market Size" does not necessarily dictate revenue.  St Louis does not have an NFL team or an NBA team.  It's a great baseball market and the Cardinals generate substantially more revenue than the Twins.  You can't just ignore all every factor outside of population size and call them similar markets.  Therefore, it is unrealistic for the Twins to operate the same way as the Cardinals. 

Haha well if you say so!  I'll fully admit Cleveland's NHL team and Tampa's NBA team really steal a lot of the attention in those towns.   

The Cardinals generate more revenue than the larger-market Twins because it's a well run organization that doesn't actively seek to alienate fans and understands that winning is good for business.  Not every baseball owner is a failson communications major who has literally run every single business he has led into the ground.   

Again, saying "this is as good as the Twins will ever be and nothing will ever change that" is such loser thinking.  Don't be afraid to dream lil buddy!

[Woof Bronzer]

5 hours ago, BillyBallLives said:

While the Cardinals and Twins are both small-market teams. That’s where the similarities end.
St. Louis has a great fan base, stronger TV income, and a franchise worth over $2.5 billion. 
 

Yes, it's amazing, winning and treating your customers well is good for business!  

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I'm not pounding the table for the Twins to hang onto expiring deals. In fact it's the opposite, I'd love to see them at least seriously try to pair actual value with what's expiring and shake things up. Idk if I necessarily want them dealing SP with 2 years of arbitration left a la Civale, but that's an entirely different discussion. 

My opposition is holding up Cleveland's last few deadlines as some sort of blueprint. Their 2024 pickups were, and have been, atrocious. To date (I'll die on this hill) they've gotten nothing from 2023 either. Like I said before, Idk why we're putting them on a pedestal. Bad teams can and do sell soon to be "expensive," or expiring contracts too. 

If we want to add in the ability to be fortune tellers....Manzardo being a replacement level player is a cheaper upgrade over what Civale has provided.  0 is still better than -1.  

But the pedestal is there because that's the process that has a chance to work.  The fact it isn't working right now a year and a half later doesn't necessarily make it the wrong one.  They got good value in those moves.  Ultimately, they dealt a starter taht was having a good year but with an iffy track record (who wound up mostly being terrible since the trade) for a top 50 prospect.

I'll take that process all day long.  I'll put it in real terms....if the Cubs offered Owen Caisse for Bailey Ober....I take that trade.  I'd take Luke Keaschall for Bailey Ober right now.  I have no problem with that pedestal.

[Parfigliano]

9 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Thanks for the link.  It sure seemed like both Sherman and Heyman believed they should sell.  They did not come out and say it but the way they framed the questions suggested they believed this team needs a makeover.  

Needs more then a makeover.  Team needs a face lift.

[dxpavelka]

14 hours ago, arby58 said:

That litmus test hasn't existed for the Twins in recent memory (being 23 games over .500 near the trading deadline). You'd have to go back to 2019 for that.

You can take the 23 games over out and change it to "in contention" if it makes you feel better.

 

[dxpavelka]

10 hours ago, Rufus said:

The Pohlads really enjoy watching the Twins lose, it was their highest form of entertainment.  I also like how people talk about "we"  when referring to the Twins.  That is until something goes wrong, then it is they or the cheap Pohlads.   If it is truly "we" then chip in some money to help make the payroll.   It is easy to critique when you have nothing in the game

Few will realize your first sentence is sarcasm.

[arby58]

19 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

You can take the 23 games over out and change it to "in contention" if it makes you feel better.

 

I take statements at face value - i.e., the writer meant what they said. It makes me feel better if that is actually the case. Your mileage may differ.

 

[Ghost of Kirby Puckett]

20 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Oooohhhhh, Kyle Tucker would be great. Let's get him.

Two things can be true. We already have one down in AA, who is 20 years old and on his way soon. And yes, I would very much love an OF with him and Buxton!!! Sweet baby Jesus!

[dxpavelka]

8 hours ago, arby58 said:

I take statements at face value - i.e., the writer meant what they said. It makes me feel better if that is actually the case. Your mileage may differ.

 

To my point:  Since as I have been educated, 2019 was that last time the Twins were 23 games over .500 and the author made a point to talk about both the Twins need to emulate Cleveland's deadline strategies AND the fact that it's not unheard of for Cleveland to be 23 games over and NOT bet the farm, my point is that if the Twins followed that strategy Twins fans would not be happy.  I was not overwhelmed by trading for Sam Dyson & Sergio Romo in 2019.  YOUR mileage may also differ.

[TwinsDr2021]

17 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Sure, his .1 WAR (yes that's real) in basically a full season at 1B will fit right in. 

He would be the third youngest on the Twins (Lee, Keaschall, and SWR  ), Only 6 Twins have a WAR above .2. So you are correct he would fit right in, other than he is a bit young for the Twins liking. I think Manzardo just needs more time in the minors and then he can put up numbers in AAA like the twins over age 25 prospects. 

[chpettit19]

13 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Not exactly true.  The Rays and Guardians operate differently.  The way they accumulate talent is quite different.  The Guardians rarely spend on free agents and both the Rays and Guardians have traded away significantly more established players for prospects.  It's MIGHT be fair to say they have a better success rate but the bigger difference is the number of opportunities they have created through trades.  

The Twins trades of established players that worked out were Cruz and Escobar for Ryan and Duran.  The Berrios trade remains to be seen.  It looks OK at this point.  The Polanco trade remains to be seen.  That trade also looks OK rat this point.  I am blanking on other good established players they have traded in the past decade.  They too often refuse to turn over players the way the Rays or Guardians have in the past.

The Twins, in my opinion, need to do my emulating of these teams in that they need to move more of their established players. But not as many of them as those teams. They still have significantly higher payrolls. I've been saying for a quite a while now that one of Lopez, Ryan, or Ober (if he comes back and dominates) should be traded this offseason for offensive help. That'd be the Cleveland/Tampa type move. Trade an established arm (Kluber, Snell, Glasnow) that's getting (or is) more expensive for multiple longer term pieces with higher risk but lots of reward.

The Twins need to stop losing so many guys for nothing, but they also have more spending power than those 2 organizations so they shouldn't be run exactly the same. It's a balance.

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Haha well if you say so!  I'll fully admit Cleveland's NHL team and Tampa's NBA team really steal a lot of the attention in those towns.   

The Cardinals generate more revenue than the larger-market Twins because it's a well run organization that doesn't actively seek to alienate fans and understands that winning is good for business.  Not every baseball owner is a failson communications major who has literally run every single business he has led into the ground.   

Again, saying "this is as good as the Twins will ever be and nothing will ever change that" is such loser thinking.  Don't be afraid to dream lil buddy!

Who said it's the best they can do.  That's hyperbolic response to reality you don't want to acknowledge.  I completely agree that there is room for improvement.  However, with the exception of the Mets or a couple teams that had owners who knew their time on earth was very short, teams don't spend well beyond their revenue assuming revenue will take a giant shift upward.  Expecting business owners to not care about the bottom line is incredibly naive.

[Major League Ready]

13 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The Twins, in my opinion, need to do my emulating of these teams in that they need to move more of their established players. But not as many of them as those teams. They still have significantly higher payrolls. I've been saying for a quite a while now that one of Lopez, Ryan, or Ober (if he comes back and dominates) should be traded this offseason for offensive help. That'd be the Cleveland/Tampa type move. Trade an established arm (Kluber, Snell, Glasnow) that's getting (or is) more expensive for multiple longer term pieces with higher risk but lots of reward.

The Twins need to stop losing so many guys for nothing, but they also have more spending power than those 2 organizations so they shouldn't be run exactly the same. It's a balance.

Completely agree and I have voiced this position quite a few times here.  I would like to see them follow most of their practices and use the incremental revenue they have over these teams.  Ideally, they would have more of the type of players we want to extend which would result in them moving fewer established players.  It would only be a few less but the players we kept would hopefully be impact players.  Rameriz for example is a waaaay better deal than Correa.  He produces more for 60% of Correa's salary.

[Linus]

13 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Not exactly true.  The Rays and Guardians operate differently.  The way they accumulate talent is quite different.  The Guardians rarely spend on free agents and both the Rays and Guardians have traded away significantly more established players for prospects.  It MIGHT be fair to say they have a better success rate but the bigger difference is the number of opportunities they have created through trades.  

The Twins trades of established players that worked out were Cruz and Escobar for Ryan and Duran.  The Berrios trade remains to be seen.  It looks OK at this point.  The Polanco trade remains to be seen.  That trade also looks OK rat this point.  I am blanking on other good established players they have traded in the past decade.  They too often refuse to turn over players the way the Rays or Guardians have in the past.

So if the strategy is the difference that implies the other small or mid market clubs are unaware of what the Rays et al are doing. Don’t find that plausible.