Baseball Gods to Tom Pohlad: 'Aight, Bet'

[mnfireman]

12 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Well yes, the AL representative to the WS might have to play the Dodgers.

As I understand it, the AL representative plays a National League team every year in the WS.

 

[mluebker]

13 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

It's been called a "trap" in this thread.  That's the right word.  Especially since you are part of that weakness.

No one is arguing that they’re going to win it all, just that you can’t if you don’t make the playoffs. And while I’d love to see another World Championship, I’d also love to see the Twins playing some meaningful post-season baseball. I’d prefer either to the alternatives.

[amjgt]

21 minutes ago, mluebker said:

No one is arguing that they’re going to win it all, just that you can’t if you don’t make the playoffs. And while I’d love to see another World Championship, I’d also love to see the Twins playing some meaningful post-season baseball. I’d prefer either to the alternatives.

Haven’t you heard?

We might have to play the Dodgers (or equivalent) if we get to the World Series, so we’ve decided it’s not worth trying to get there. 

Time to start building for 2028.

[Coach Wheels]

22 hours ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

Gomez, Morris, and Nance are good.  Rogers has provided some decent consistency.  Funderburk is up and down. The last month the bullpen has performed so much better.  The back end is still questionable.  Right now Adams and Sands sub 95 mph fastball are not good enough.   I actually think Anderson has some ability.  

Ryan is asking for 7 year $210 million contract.  

The Twins won't pay that I'd imagine. If they move both Jeffers and Ryan before Monday, the fan base will go nuts.

[TheLeviathan]

46 minutes ago, mluebker said:

No one is arguing that they’re going to win it all, just that you can’t if you don’t make the playoffs. And while I’d love to see another World Championship, I’d also love to see the Twins playing some meaningful post-season baseball. I’d prefer either to the alternatives.

I can understand that goal....I'd probably crack a joke about our playoff misery if I was keeping that theme going but neither of us needs that PTSD.....I just don't see it with this crew.  Trading low level prospects isn't the part that bothers me about buying either, it's missing out on assets for players I don't see sticking around that bugs me.  I think there is hope on the horizon, I'd rather have all the added talent to that group that I can get.

[bean5302]

13 hours ago, GNess said:

 

I get you prefaced your post by noting it was tongue in cheek.

Your analogy comparing playing at Nicolett and playing in the NFL falls short as if that reflects in any meaningful way the differences between any MLB teams particularly those that qualify for the playoffs.

Yes, 87 was a shorter postseason, but the Twins were underdogs vs Detroit and St Louis. (4-1 vs Detroit in the ALCS and 4-3 in the World Series)

As far as being part of the weakness simply because my view differs from yours is nonsense. I am just sharing my opinion on TD. I can't imagine how my or your words here would have any bearing whatsoever on the course of action the Twins will take at the trade deadline.

1987 Twins had to win only one single series to make the World Series, and the team had Bert Blyleven and Frank Viola who pitched 4 of 5 starts vs. the Tigers. Yeah, 3 days rest between starts for both. That's not happening in 2026. The 1987 World Series has both been the single best thing to happen for Minnesota Twins baseball history, and arguably the most damaging thing for the franchise as fans and owners bought into the idea it's all luck which has fueled decades of conservative mediocrity.

There's nothing in common in the playoffs then vs. now. Getting lucky for a single series? That can happen. Getting lucky for 3 or 4 series' in a row? Far less likely.

The 2026 team will likely need to win 3 series

[USAFChief]

44 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

1987 Twins had to win only one single series to make the World Series, and the team had Bert Blyleven and Frank Viola who pitched 4 of 5 starts vs. the Tigers. Yeah, 3 days rest between starts for both. That's not happening in 2026. The 1987 World Series has both been the single best thing to happen for Minnesota Twins baseball history, and arguably the most damaging thing for the franchise as fans and owners bought into the idea it's all luck which has fueled decades of conservative mediocrity.

There's nothing in common in the playoffs then vs. now. Getting lucky for a single series? That can happen. Getting lucky for 3 or 4 series' in a row? Far less likely.

The 2026 team will likely need to win 3 series

We're all aware of this, including the poster you quoted. He said as much.

 

[bean5302]

2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

We're all aware of this, including the poster you quoted. He said as much.

 

Then why am I seeing people advocate for minor roster changes because anything could happen?

[amjgt]

4 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Then why am I seeing people advocate for minor roster changes because anything could happen?

Because some of us view the cost of those minor roster changes as trivial compared to the opportunity, no matter how low those odds might be.

By the way... the twins are 3 games out of 1st round bye position and have ~10% chance of getting a first round bye according to Fangrpahs

[USAFChief]

9 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Then why am I seeing people advocate for minor roster changes because anything could happen?

Because anything could happen?

Just spitballin' here

 

Edited 20 hours ago by USAFChief

[bean5302]

3 minutes ago, amjgt said:

Because some of us view the cost of those minor roster changes as trivial compared to the opportunity, no matter how low those odds might be.

By the way... the twins are 3 games out of 1st round bye position and have ~10% chance of getting a first round bye according to Fangrpahs

 

2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Because anything could happen?

Just spitballin' here

 

So we agree "anything can't happen" but also that "anything can happen"

Got it.

[Parfigliano]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

1987 Twins had to win only one single series to make the World Series, and the team had Bert Blyleven and Frank Viola who pitched 4 of 5 starts vs. the Tigers. Yeah, 3 days rest between starts for both. That's not happening in 2026. The 1987 World Series has both been the single best thing to happen for Minnesota Twins baseball history, and arguably the most damaging thing for the franchise as fans and owners bought into the idea it's all luck which has fueled decades of conservative mediocrity.

There's nothing in common in the playoffs then vs. now. Getting lucky for a single series? That can happen. Getting lucky for 3 or 4 series' in a row? Far less likely.

The 2026 team will likely need to win 3 series

Really puts the changed path to World Series in perspective.

[amjgt]

15 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Then why am I seeing people advocate for minor roster changes because anything could happen?

I think we're just going to have to come to an agreement that:

a) you think people dreaming on a 30% playoff chance and their "anything can happen" attitudes are crazy

b) we think you telling us all the reasons why we wont win the world series and using that as justification for not trying for a playoff push is crazy

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, bean5302 said:

 

So we agree "anything can't happen" but also that "anything can happen"

Got it.

Please point out the post where i said "anything can't happen."

 

Winning a WS is tough. Tougher these days since you have to win multiple series. I doubt anyone here would say otherwise. TD's readership is mostly pretty well informed.

That's not the same as "cant happen."

In fact it WILL happen, for one team. They'll go through those multiple series and emerge as WS winners. I guarantee it.

Some teams will be better equipped to get through the postseason, for sure. But the only teams for which it CAN'T happen are those that don't get to the postseason. 

 

BTW, this is now the third time, at least, you've put words to my name that I didn't say. Please stop.

 

[bean5302]

All I'm saying is go big and make a real effort for the 2026 World Series push OR go big and make a real effort to 2027+. 

Don't half *** it.

[amjgt]

3 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

All I'm saying is go big and make a real effort for the 2026 World Series push OR go big and make a real effort to 2027+. 

Don't half *** it.

I'm curious what your idea of "go big" is.

[Rigby]

6 minutes ago, amjgt said:

I'm curious what your idea of "go big" is.

 

[USAFChief]

6 minutes ago, Rigby said:

 

 

[Rigby]

[GNess]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

The 2026 team will likely need to win 3 series

True and nice graphics.

Yes to win it all in 87 the Twins had to win 8 post season games, while in 2026 the Twins would have to win 13 games to win it all. 

Yet, a team in 2026 still has to make the playoffs to win the world series (12 teams get in 18 are eliminated through the 162 game schedule.)  

Also it isn't unreasonable for supporters of the Twins to root for the Twins to be amongst the 12 who earn the right to compete in the championship tournament.

This doesn't mean most are advocating for the team to sacrifice significant future assets for a long shot bid - there is some middle ground I suspect where the Twins could add a few players at a moderate asset cost which could enhance their chances of winning the division or earning a WC berth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[USAFChief]

For the record, I believe it's a reasonable position to take to say "it's tougher to win a WS now than in the past. You have to win more series."

Conversely, one could reasonably believe it's easier now. Much eeasier. You need a chip and a chair. Teams used to have to win their respective league to have a shot at the WS. I'd say beating the entire AL over 162 games is tougher than finishing as one of 3 division winners or the 3 best also-rans.

The 1987 Twins had to win the ALW, one of 2 divisions rather than 3, and there were no extra chances awarded to 2nd, 3rd or 4th place regular season finishers. The 1987 Blue Jay's won 96 games, losing the ALE to Detroit on the last day of the season. Do you suppose they'd say it's tougher now to win a WS?

You have to get in the postseason to have a chance. The postseason might be tougher. Getting there is certainly much easier.

 

Edited 18 hours ago by USAFChief

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

For the record, I believe it's a reasonable position to take to say "it's tougher to win a WS now than in the past. You have to win more series."

Conversely, one could reasonably believe it's easier now. Much eeasier. You need a chip and a chair. Teams used to have to win their respective league to have a shot at the WS. I'd say beating the entire AL over 162 games is tougher than finishing as one of 3 division winners or the 3 best also-rans.

The 1987 Twins had to win the ALW, one of 2 divisions rather than 3, and there were no extra chances awarded to 2nd, 3rd or 4th place regular season finishers. The 1987 Blue Jay's won 96 games, losing the ALE to Detroit on the last day of the season. Do you suppose they'd say it's tougher now to win a WS?

You have to get in the postseason to have a chance. The postseason might be tougher. Getting there is certainly much easier.

 

Reasonable post. 

[TheLeviathan]

53 minutes ago, GNess said:

True and nice graphics.

Yes to win it all in 87 the Twins had to win 8 post season games, while in 2026 the Twins would have to win 13 games to win it all. 

Yet, a team in 2026 still has to make the playoffs to win the world series (12 teams get in 18 are eliminated through the 162 game schedule.)  

Also it isn't unreasonable for supporters of the Twins to root for the Twins to be amongst the 12 who earn the right to compete in the championship tournament.

This doesn't mean most are advocating for the team to sacrifice significant future assets for a long shot bid - there is some middle ground I suspect where the Twins could add a few players at a moderate asset cost which could enhance their chances of winning the division or earning a WC berth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two things: Bringing up '87 (even with acknowledgements) is not helpful IMO.  It's a whole new playoff world now for those comps to have merit.  Baseball is a game with many random outcomes in small samples leading to a playoff setup with more rounds only compounding that nature.

To your point here: That's reasonable, but that path also includes knowingly bypassing the chance to add assets for players that are highly unlikely to be retained.  The balancing act comes down to choosing what you place more value in for lost opportunity.

I don't view low odds to survive multiple rounds worth that trade off for a team that can't muster a .500 record or even have a positive run differential.

[Woof Bronzer]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

 The 1987 World Series has both been the single best thing to happen for Minnesota Twins baseball history, and arguably the most damaging thing for the franchise as fans and owners bought into the idea it's all luck which has fueled decades of conservative mediocrity.

The thing is, the data supports the idea that, yep, there's a lot of luck involved. 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/yes-the-playoffs-are-still-a-crapshoot/

[ashbury]

4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

For the record, I believe it's a reasonable position to take to say "it's tougher to win a WS now than in the past. You have to win more series."

Conversely, one could reasonably believe it's easier now. Much eeasier. You need a chip and a chair. 

Used to be tougher to get into the post-season. For a long time only two teams did.  Now it's tougher to make your way through the post-season.  Between those endpoints, getting in got gradually easier, getting through got tougher.

The common factor is that one WS winner emerges under any of these systems.  The toughness factor strikes me as about equal, overall.  At least, I don't feel that the eventual champ is more, or less, worthy than 100 years ago.

Not in disagreement, just an alternative way to look at it.

[ashbury]

4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

For the record, I believe it's a reasonable position to take to say "it's tougher to win a WS now than in the past. You have to win more series."

One more thought showed up after I hit Submit.  Remember 1993?  The Giants won 103 games and missed the post-season by one game.  Everyone knew that the divisions were going to be reworked for the coming season.  Many voices moaned that this would be the last true pennant race, even though there already were two divisions per league.

They weren't exactly wrong about that.  A race for the final wild-card spot isn't the stuff of myth and legend to tell the grandkids.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

One more thought showed up after I hit Submit.  Remember 1993?  The Giants won 103 games and missed the post-season by one game.  Everyone knew that the divisions were going to be reworked for the coming season.  Many voices moaned that this would be the last true pennant race, even though there already were two divisions per league.

They weren't exactly wrong about that.  A race for the final wild-card spot isn't the stuff of myth and legend to tell the grandkids.

We've had some really memorable Game 163s and I do think a playoff race can provide a spark....but context matters.

We knew those Twins teams as consistent contenders.  They had an established past and promising future with that core to resonate emotionally.  I can't imagine anyone would argue the 2026 team falls in that category.  

[Mike Sixel]

It's way better for more teams to have hope at the end of the year. If I was commissioner, every team would make the playoffs, with lots of byes.... seeding would be very important. 

[TheLeviathan]

3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

It's way better for more teams to have hope at the end of the year. If I was commissioner, every team would make the playoffs, with lots of byes.... seeding would be very important. 

I personally hate that.  I think it has really hurt the trade deadline and diluted the playoff field.

In sports where there are less random outcomes that is a defensible position, but to me baseball and hockey (in particular) need to have a much smaller playoff field.

I'd want to encourage competitive behavior in other ways.

[Mike Sixel]

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I personally hate that.  I think it has really hurt the trade deadline and diluted the playoff field.

In sports where there are less random outcomes that is a defensible position, but to me baseball and hockey (in particular) need to have a much smaller playoff field.

I'd want to encourage competitive behavior in other ways.

I'm thinking of the fans across the country, and keeping interest all year. So many cities have no reason to watch for months.... casual fans didn't watch mediocre to bad teams right now.