Brock Beauchamp

Possibly... But play that Morris season out ten times and I suspect the majority of the time it's condemned as a bad, maybe even terrible, deal. And the inverse probably applies to the Rogers deal. Money isn't everything. The Morris deal happened to work out and that's great, games six and seven were the greatest Twins moments of my life (even better than 87 for me)... But apply the Morris thinking to today and we'd absolutely crucify Ryan for giving a formerly good (not great) 36 year old pitcher a boatload of money. Half this board would have pitchforks in hand storming 1 Twins Way for that move (see Hunter, Torii). With that said, I wish Ryan would have spent more money more intelligently in past years but it's unfair to apply a different standard to Ryan because a move didn't pan out than to MacPhail because a similar move did work.

Heheheheh. Again, the lack of midseason moves were frustrating and I agree more should have been done. No arguments about previous trade deadlines and how little action was taken to shore up deficiencies. But as I pointed out with the Rogers/Morris comparison, praising the Morris acquisition as some kind of "WE'RE GONNA WIN TWINS" move unrivaled in the history of Minnesota sporting clubs is a revisionist take on the deal. It was a good move but mostly because it worked, not because it was the modern day equivalent of signing Clayton Kershaw. Because, on paper, the 2003 Rogers acquisition should have paid better dividends. It didn't and that's baseball.

And before we say one more word about Jack Morris, take a moment to mull over the 2003 acquisition of Kenny Rogers. A guy with a career 109 ERA+ to that point, coming off a 123 ERA+ season. He pitched his way to one of his worst seasons with a 99 ERA+ in 2003. 1991's Jack Morris had a career ERA+ of 108 going into the season and was coming off an 89 ERA+ season (and hadn't posted an ERA+ of over 100 in three seasons). He pitched his way to a career year with a 125 ERA+ in 1991. But but but! Rogers was old, right? Well, he went on to post four more seasons of better than average ERA+, peaking with an ERA+ of 133 in 2005. Jack Morris never completed a season with a 133 ERA+, FWIW. Rogers did it at age 40. Morris? He posted one 101 ERA+ season with Toronto, pitched two way below average seasons after that, and was out of baseball at age 39. Kenny Rogers, three seasons previous to 2003: 551 IP, 104 ERA+ (one bad injury season sandwiched between two very good >110 ERA+ healthy seasons) Jack Morris, three seasons previous to 1991: 655 IP, 89 ERA+ Kenny Rogers, three seasons following 2003: 611 IP, 117 ERA+ Jack Morris, three seasons following 1991: 534 IP, 85 ERA+ So, luck.

While I'm not defending the lack of impact trades during the 2000s, this is a point worth making and is too often overlooked when people talk about the 1991 season. The 91 team started off abysmally and then caught fire. Sure, the team was constructed pretty well but there was a lot of luck involved with that squad. Jack Morris went into the 91 season having posted an ERA+ of 97, 79, 89 the previous three seasons. He wasn't a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination. Davis was a decent, not great, player who played out of his friggin' mind, posting the second best season of his career in 91. While there is no comparable to Davis in recent years, the Morris acquisition wasn't terribly different than the Santana (and even possibly Nolasco) acquisition. Basically, the 91 season was the result of a few good moves that turned into great moves in hindsight, partially through dumb luck (particularly in the case of Morris). That happens and that's why it can be important to take risks occasionally. You never know when the stars will align. On the other hand, the 2000s Twins had (mostly) the opposite luck. In 2006, they lost Liriano, their best pitcher and, at the time, an unstoppable force. Radke was pitching with... Well, I'm not really sure what was attached to his shoulder at that point but it wasn't an arm. In 2010, they lost what may have been the best player in baseball in Justin Morneau, a guy on his way to a 10 WAR season (!). Again, I'm not absolving the Twins for some of their past moves but winning it all takes some luck, often a lot of luck. The 1991 Twins had it; the 2000s Twins did not. Does the 1991 team win if Scott Erickson goes down after eight starts? No. Well, that's basically what happened to the 2006 squad. Does the 1991 team win if Davis receives a concussion mid-season? Well, that's what happened to the 2010 squad. We talk about luck/unluck in its various forms on this board all the time... It's only fair to point out just how bloody unlucky the Twins were at times in the 2000s. In what were possibly their two best seasons - 2006 and 2010 - they lost an elite player. Not a good player, an elite one. Someone worth 8+ wins over a full season. And before we praise the 1991 offseason too much and use that as a benchmark from which to grade current offseasons, we should acknowledge that everything went right for that team. Not most things... Pretty much everything.

I find it extremely unlikely Buxton hits .215 this season. I don't understand the consternation over Byron's 2015 season. 21 years old, fighting off minor injuries, facing MLB pitching for the first time. In September when he was finally healthy again, he posted slightly better numbers with an OPS around .650. With his speed, tools, discipline, and a bit more experience under his belt, I'd be surprised if Buxton doesn't post something close to league average offensive numbers this season.

Yeah, I think that's a byproduct of one league scrapping it out with several good-to-mediocre teams while the other has a large gulf between good and bad.

Agreed.

Yeah, there were other options. Santana and Garza were available that offseason. I liked picking up a decent starter, was unsure why they chose Nolasco over the other guys. Though in all fairness, we still have no idea what a "good" Ricky Nolasco looks like. Ricky was coming off three consecutive 190+ inning seasons so we can't blame the Twins for choosing the guy who suddenly decided to turn injury prone.

Mike Bates wrote this article. Seth made a boo-boo while posting it so his name appears in the forums.

I think 4-5 years is reasonable. I believe the Astros required five, the Cubs four, and the Pirates six.

Well, the Twins were in a somewhat peculiar situation. They went from 94 wins to 99 losses in a season. They also had some promising youngsters who were a few years away in Arcia, Sano, Gibson, etc. That makes it easier to speed up the timeline back to competitiveness, as you have something in the system that should arrive before any of your high draft picks (as it turns out, Berrios and Buxton flew through the system so that worked out well). I suppose a target of 2015 was reasonable under those circumstances. The Royals and Pirates aren't really comparable. Moore was a bad GM for some time. He did a lot of dumb things and the Royals stumbled for a long time because of it. And IIRC, Huntington inherited an abysmal farm system. For obvious reasons, that's going to slow the timeline.

If you graduate as many players as the Twins did from 2013-2015 and still have guys like Walker and Thorpe outside your top ten, your system is doing okay for itself.

It's hard to say the Twins have been "fleeced" in the trade market. They've had a mixed run since Ryan returned to the helm. Span/Meyer hasn't worked out but that deal was a gamble and it's too early to give up on Meyer. Revere/Worley/May returned an abysmal Worley but it's likely May will easily outperform Revere when all is said and done (Revere has a 4.8 WAR since leaving Minnesota, May is already at 2.5). Liriano/Escobar has worked out nicely for the Twins. Hicks/Murphy, Jepsen/Hu, and a few other trades are still too early to call. Dunno, am I forgetting something? That track record is unspectacular but far from awful. If you want to make an argument they've been fleeced in the free agent market a bit too often, you'll get no arguments from me (and the article you reference in the other thread is about "acquisitions", not only trades). And even most of their free agent pickups haven't been terrible (non-Nolasco edition), they're just a result of the Twins being incredibly cheap (they received what they paid for with Correia, the problem was they didn't pay for someone better). If you only spend a buck fifty on someone, it's hard to complain that you only received a buck fifty in value from them.

A fair point on Buerhle. I was being lazy and didn't feel like referencing both WAR numbers. Still, the general point stands in my eyes. The Twins could have made several good moves but unless they spend big and hit on every move, they're still a very bad team. And if competitiveness hinges on being right 100% of the time, IMO it's a better idea to wipe the board clean and start anew. I'm not saying Markos' (or your) strategy can't work, I simply believe my strategy has a higher probability of working in the long run.

I mostly agree but the Twins were in a very difficult position after the 2011 season. Nearly every player on the roster was massively devalued going into that offseason. Sure, they could have done more (and better), but it was going to be ugly no matter what they did with the team. I can't do anything but shake my head about that 2011 season. The sheer number of injuries and bad performances is staggering. Did anyone other than Cuddyer make it through that season with a decent year?

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. Let me rephrase: Without the ability to spend your way out of a hole by picking up multiple elite free agent contracts in a 2-3 year window, it's extremely difficult to sustain a competitive team without strength on the farm. And the Twins had little strength in the high minors. And IMO, that's when it's time to pack it in and prepare to lose for awhile.

Many of his moves make sense both today and at the time it happened but without a cornerstone like Sanchez, how many games do the Twins really win? Buerhle is nice and all but he was a 3-ish win player at that point. By the time the prospects are ready (2015), he's on his way out of baseball with a 1 win season. My point isn't that the Twins did everything right - they certainly did not - it's that they were so bad that acquiring even 8-9 player wins (basically combining Buerhle, Hunter, and Span) only puts them in the mid-70s win range. And short of picking up multiple cornerstone players to the tune of $200m+ in overall contracts, that wasn't going to change. Buerhle is nice but he's just a bit better than rearranging deck chairs on those 2012/2013 squads.

I advocated that approach either after 2011 or some time early in the 2012 season. I wanted to see the Twins start dismantling the team because it was apparent they were going to be bad for awhile. But no, I can't specifically recall if I advocated this approach in 2011.

Possibly not but he's also using a fair amount of hindsight. Sure, the Sanchez signing would have been great but how do you choose that guy and is he even interested? Remember, the Tigers traded for Sanchez and he resigned with the team because he enjoyed Detroit. It appears he mostly ignored the FA market and took a reasonable deal that was probably worth less than he would have received on the open market. The Span deal is another example. It was considered a fair trade at the time but unfortunately, it hasn't panned out for the Twins. Couple the Revere trade and we're getting into a quite revisionist form of history. If the Twins have Span, do the Phillies demand him (probably offering more in the process) and ignore Revere? Remove one key element and we can't expect the same events to cascade into place quite so gracefully. And then Hunter. Yeah, he's a former Twin but does he sign with the team if it's coming off a 75 win season? He was old and knew the Tigers were his last shot at contention. It's easy to look back and say "I would have done this" but without context of everything else happening at the time, it's hard to take it too seriously. With that said, I like a lot of what Markos is saying and many of his moves are defensible, both now and in context of the situation when it happened (mostly his "don't do this" arguments)... But not all of it, particularly the biggest moves he mentioned. And without those big moves, the Twins are still a very, very bad team. I just glanced over the pitching FAs in 2012 and outside of Sanchez and Greinke, they were pretty much all failures.

That's my point, though. The Jays' high water mark was 86 wins. No matter which division you play, that's going to miss the playoffs the majority of the time. If you don't like the Jays comp, let's look at an ALC team that takes a similar approach to Toronto: the White Sox. Since winning the WS, their high water mark is 89 games, which earned them a 163 playoff and a quick exit from the postseason. They try to compete every year yet have one (bad) postseason appearance to show for it. The only mid-market team that seems capable of sustaining success is the Cardinals and they might be the most well-run franchise in baseball. For the majority of teams, I believe the ebb and flow approach gives you the best chance of going deep into the postseason.

While I agree that your plan is pretty sound and keeps the team "in contention", is that really a good thing? As we've seen with past Jays teams, hovering around .500 in perpetuity leads to some really uninspiring baseball. I would have taken almost the opposite tack you did. After 2011, I would have dismantled the team as thoroughly as possible. Stop spending money. Pick up flyers like Kazmir, Marcum, and hope you strike gold, fueling midseason trades. Stay away from the Correias and Pelfreys and other "warm bodies". Every move is about two things: being bad in the short-term and filling the minors with prospects. Basically, the Houston Astros approach. In year three, start picking up a few small pieces. In year four, pick up nicer pieces. I don't believe it's possible for a mid-market team to stay in contention for over a decade (and, by and large, the Twins had been contenders for a decade going into 2011). I believe there has to be an ebb and flow to how you treat the roster. If the team is bad, blow it up quickly and try to move the window of a rebuild to three years, not 4-5 years. Don't try to work around a depleted farm system in hopes you can win 85 games and sneak into the playoffs if everything breaks right, blow that **** up and try to patch together 3-4 season runs of 90+ wins.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine a situation where that worked out better for the Twins. It's unlikely Cuddyer brings back a consensus #10-15 prospect in all of baseball.

I'm not underselling May. I think he's a good pitcher with good upside but he simply does not have the stuff to be a real ace. It's likely May will have a better career than Meyer but Meyer has a better chance to become an ace. He has the nasty stuff to do it, he just hasn't put it together (and probably won't). May doesn't. He'd need a few more MPH on his fastball, a better breaking ball, etc. That's not a knock on May, a pitcher can be very good and very valuable without being an ace.

Thank you. Marcum was the name I was trying to remember earlier in the thread.

All valid points.