A Message To The Front Office

first of all, neither of us KNOW they're going to add to the rotation. They should...and they probably will.

But adding to the bottom of the rotation is pretty much the same as not adding at all, in terms of what it actually accomplishes. And FA options have dwindled down to one.

So we're down to that one option, or adding through trade...where options are extremely limited, and will be very expensive.

So why pretend there's unlimited time, and unlimited options, to add "impact pitching?"

I just don't get it.

It's a 100% chance that they will make a starting pitcher addition of some kind. If I'm wrong, I will post an apology and then never post any kind of prediction ever again. I don't need to know who it will be in order to apply basic deductive reasoning to the situation.

There were never many free agent options. It was basically Wheeler, Bumgarner, and Ryu. One of them is left, and no major pitching trades have happened. There is no empirical basis to say that the Twins are out of options or that their meaningful options have dwindled dramatically. 

you list three FA options, two of which are gone.

That's 2/3rds...seems like a Dramatic dwindling to me.

Free agent + trade options. Granted, the number of different trade options is unknown. But it's more than zero.

And however you want to describe the situation, Wheeler and Bumgarner did not want to play in Minnesota. So you can blame the unfairness of the universe more so than anything related to the Twins front office.

I think you're getting "lack of analysis" mixed up with an "overall impression" or "general synopsis": basically a conclusion reached after years of analysis. You're cutting the ownership spending analysis off the same way you're accusing others of cutting off the Wheeler analysis. I'll try to provide some context and nuance.

 

Wheeler and Bumgardner were 2 of, and perhaps, our top 2 targets in free agency. Acquiring "impact pitching" was the stated goal of both the FO and fanbase.

 

 

Not coincincidently, these were two of our top targets at the trade deadline as well. Now perhaps a trade for a mere rental only gives us a better chance of upsetting the Yankees. Or perhaps it gives us a foot in the door to signing them. Perhaps it shows a commitment to winning. Maybe it shows Wheeler or Madbum how much more we value them compared to the competition at a time they might not have been feeling the love from their own teams. Perhaps they see a passionate fanbase chanting their name and wanting them to stay. Perhaps they build friendships, and find August evenings in the 70s agreeable. Maybe they see that our high taxes correspond with great schools, that our northern lakes have better bass fishing than most southern reservoirs, that Canterbury Park has higher purses for similar horses compared to Turf Paradise. Perhaps sending the message that players we plan on targeting in FA are mere "rentals" at the trade dead line has consequences. Perhaps that line of logic is as equally unsound as "we can always get Escobar back at the end of the year." (Escobar extended any AZ before hitting FA for less money than Marwin while putting up better numbers than Kris Bryant).

 

In the alternative, showing a player we want them more than everyone else, that we believe in them enough to give up a prospect knowing we're taking a risk probably at least keeps Wheeler's agent from telling us "don't bother" as some are suggesting. Hence "cheap".

 

Perhaps we view Minnesota as an awesome place to play that doesn't require a foot in the door. But no doubt, if we're not going to show players why they should come here, we shouldn't be surprised when they don't pick us, and then the only way we can show them we want them more is more money and more years which we don't do. Hence "cheap". I'm also not sure December is the ideal time to market MN as a great place to play baseball.

 

Thank goodness Odo took the QO, but I bet he's not happy. Are we giving him reasons to want to stay. Think what a scramble we'd be in if he turned it down.

 

So anyway. We're now in position to make a trade. But every other team is tied with us in the standings. Our trade partners have heard our FO talking, have noticed us missing on free agents, and know they have leverage. Talk of trades before opening day will shift to trades at the deadline. Will cycle back to not overpaying for rentals, etc. The single most likely trade we are likely to make regarding or rotation is selling off Odorizzi at the trade deadline.

 

The Polanco and Kepler contracts are viewed as smart, team-friendly deals. Do you think that's how players view them? Or is cheap an accurate description? Do you think those deals make Berrios, Sano, or Buxton trust the FO more or less? The organization has subtly marketed frugality as intelligence. The "get to know 'em" campaign that suggested that following new young players making league minimum was a more satisfying fan experience than actually winning is a concept that still resonates. To this day, we don't trade away prospects, we market them, we compare them, we heap expectations.

 

We called ourselves "small market" before the numbers showed we're mid market and extolled the "Twins Way". We convinced a fan base that it should be proud of being competitive on the cheap. These organizational concepts stuck to the point where after 2 decades people don't question lunacy like single-year budgets with no carryover, no contract discussions after spring training, prospects aren't moved for prospects, young position players are more valuable than young pitchers, players are never traded before the deadline. And finally, we can always get so and so via trade until we can always get so and so via FA.

 

We were upset the Jays didn't circle back on Stroman. The only way that's upsetting is if we didn't intend to beat that offer. The only way they don't circle back is if our prior discussions were so lowball, it wasn't considered worth it.

 

Bottom line, there's way more analysis that goes into the feeling that the front office overvalues the financial implications of single deals compared to overall longterm budget, competitiveness, championships, and fan input.

 

Like waiting for 2020s to come out before purchasing a 2019 vehicle makes sense in a vaccuum, but you might sacrifice color and features, and not get the vehicle you really wanted by then, and while you're waiting for that "perfect deal" you're own vehicle might drop a transmission and head gasket, and you'll lose all your trade value and have to buy something you didn't even want just to get to work.

What a fantastic post. This encompasses my feelings almost 100%.

We were upset the Jays didn't circle back on Stroman. The only way that's upsetting is if we didn't intend to beat that offer. The only way they don't circle back is if our prior discussions were so lowball, it wasn't considered worth it.

Bottom line, there's way more analysis that goes into the feeling that the front office overvalues the financial implications of single deals compared to overall longterm budget, competitiveness, championships, and fan input.

Like waiting for 2020s to come out before purchasing a 2019 vehicle makes sense in a vaccuum, but you might sacrifice color and features, and not get the vehicle you really wanted by then, and while you're waiting for that "perfect deal" you're own vehicle might drop a transmission and head gasket, and you'll lose all your trade value and have to buy something you didn't even want just to get to work.

I didn't copy in the part where you suggest that extensions for young players are evidence of being "cheap." That's not accurate, and it's a practice used by every single organization, including the largest markets. That's a red flag for your post in general because it means you are holding the Twins to an artificial (not real) standard.

It's also just not true that the front office doesn't think about the big picture. The idea that Favley and Levine ignore things like future budgets, winning the World Series, etc., is just not reasonable. These are smart guys. Put yourself in their shoes. Do you really think they just don't care about winning? Just are too lazy to think about the big picture?

That's what I have a problem with in a lot of these discussions. If someone disagrees with the strategy of the front office, sure, talk about that. But to state or imply that the front office is just incompetent, uncaring, etc., is not a rational claim to make. 

I think fans of any sports organization should take for granted that the management of that organization at least *wants* to win. Maybe they are unable to achieve that goal for some reason, but I think very strong evidence would be required to overcome this presumption. It's just an inappropriate thing to question, and if someone is questioning that, there's really nothing to say. 

For the people that really believe Falvey and Levine want to lose, I wonder why it's even worth participating in discussions about the team? It seems like a pointless topic until there is new management.

I dont see anywhere in the post you quoted a statement that Falvey and Levine want to lose.

Its difficult to have reasonable conversations against strawmen.

He literally said:

"the front office overvalues the financial implications of single deals compared to overall longterm budget, competitiveness, championships, and fan input."

There is no other way to read this, other than they don't prioritize winning, or apparently even being competitive. The gist of his entire post is how cheap the Twins are, allegedly alienating both their own players and players around the league (one wonders what players must think of Oakland and Tampa!).

And this is just one among many, many posts alleging that the Twins don't actually care about winning. A huge percentage of all posts this off-season have explicitly or implicitly been based on that idea, your own included.

They prioritize money over winning is not the same thing as wanting to lose. Business is all about setting priorities, and in the history of this team, it's fairly clear that winning is not the top priority. Which is cool, they should make money. The question is, is there ever a time to spend more, increasing the odds of winning more, assuming you trust the FO to spend well. Which I mostly do.

Whoa . . . shifting from the front office to the ownership is a completely different topic. I doubt you'll find a single person that believes the Pohlads care about winning more than money.

The front office is unlikely to be paid kickbacks for coming in under budget. Their goal is to win. All the decisions they make, rightly or wrongly, are towards that end. The constant claims to the contrary - that they get a kick out of bargain shopping, that they are afraid to spend their budget, etc. - are not legitimate.

Whoa . . . shifting from the front office to the ownership is a completely different topic. I doubt you'll find a single person that believes the Pohlads care about winning more than money.

 

The front office is unlikely to be paid kickbacks for coming in under budget. Their goal is to win. All the decisions they make, rightly or wrongly, are towards that end. The constant claims to the contrary - that they get a kick out of bargain shopping, that they are afraid to spend their budget, etc. - are not legitimate.

Regarding extending prospects. I definitely do not believe every organization tries to squeeze its own players as hard as they can under the CBA. It's obviously a factor, but so is fundamental fairness. An organization can choose to use the CBA to drag down salary, or acknowledge it as part of making fair offers.

Lastly, I never said the FO or ownership wasn't trying to win. You're intentionally misconstruing my statements and it's not working. Obviously they're trying to win while balancing cost and revenue and team value and personal values like standing in the community and legacy for the Pohlads, and job security and resume for the FO. Falvey and Levine flat out made sustained winning their mission when they were signed. There are times when sustained winning bumps up against winning now. I believe that a lot over decisions we make to further that mission statement are actually counterproductive. Particularly viewing each specific transaction from a primarily fiscal perspective. Each deal or non- deal is responsible enough. Cumulatively, it may not fulfill team needs, it may caused players to lose faith, it may cause other organizations and agents to not want to deal with us.

As for the yearly budget, the team has said cost savings don't carry over. Every year is reviewed on its own merits, and the budget is always flexible if the perfect deal came along.

In short, the front office's fiscally responsible approach is very reasonable in light of their goal of sustained success. You can reasonably agree with them. I can reasonably say that championships are more important. I am actually more neutral on this point. However, I can also say that overvaluing fiscal responsibility could reasonably be detrimental to sustained success, and nearly fatal in regard to winning a world series, and back that up with facts and reasoned arguments. They're both just theories. So please be respectful and stop twisting my words.

Another good post. It isn’t just one thing. It’s a culmination of things over many years that have fans feeling this way. It’s also a new front office that has said they will strike when the irons hot and so far it’s just been the same old song and dance. People have every right to be frustrated and mad at this ownership and front office.