Riverbrian

It probably is semantics. You will end up with Starters and a Bench based on play but the front office shouldn't be staffing the roster (in the off-season) saying this guy is a starter... now let's go get some bench guys because you'll end up with Morrison playing every day while LaMarre wastes a precious roster spot. I also understand that not everybody plays like Trout and I understand that Rosario is probably going to play every day... but what do you do... if Rosario is hitting. 180 in June. Does he still play every day? If the front office believes that Adrianza can compete with Polanco and Schoop for playing time, be an adequate replacement for either of them... Then I fully support the front office and their belief in Adrianza. If the front office signed Adrianza because he will only play X amount of games and he is good enough for that amount only. They have already blown it. If the front office didn't try to trade for Profar because they thought Adrianza is better... I fully support the front office. If the front office didn't try to trade for Profar because they have Schoop and Polanco with Adrianza to play X amount of games and the manager could never figure out what to do with Schoop, Polanco and Profar on the same roster. They have already blown it. I don't know the answer to how the front office feels but I will know after context is formed around Adrianza and watching how he is deployed. You mention a "13 man playing roster". I think you and I need to be ready for "12". I'm pretty sure that the front office is looking at analytics that make some pretty strong suggestions that fly in the face of past baseball standard pitching usage. I'm willing to bet, they have data that suggests that starters shouldn't go as long as they do for both Health and Performance reasons... I.E. Increased injury risk correlation with increased innings, numbers getting progressively worse each time through the order. These things will point to 13 pitchers on the roster. You mention Danny Santana in another post. Danny Santana is an example of so many things. Danny Santana was never really utility. Danny Santana was consistently one or the other, static at either SS or CF. Came up as a SS in 2014, Promptly moved to CF out of necessity because Aaron Hicks crashed and burned without a safety net. Enter Santana as the emergency parachute CF. He performs well and they name him the staring SS in 2015 and he performs horribly, In 2016... He back to the OF still performing bad. Santana is a primary example of how most teams specialize. Starters don't play different positions... Starters start at the same position... period. Santana is also a reason no one should be confident that Cave or Astudillo will repeat or improve their performance in 2019. Santana is an example of forcing a move in the middle of the season by getting caught with your pants down instead of planning for a move, getting a belt to hold your pants up.

I believe they are going to run into walls before breaking through. The analytics are probably telling the new GM types some things that very few want to hear. There will be resistance because the traditional model is burned into the fabric of the game in the form of compensation, coaching, scouting, you name it. Everybody should have been testing the opener and bullpenning in the minors but not everyone did. Everybody should be trying to build their own Andrew Miller or Josh Hader but not everyone is. Everybody should be watching the Dodgers and Cubs but not everyone is. Nobody should throw away a players positional flexibility for consistency at one position but nearly everyone is. Working in Baseball or Working at Starbucks. Everybody resists change.

The concepts employed by the Dodgers and Cubs are even more necessary for the A's and Rays because the A's and Rays can't play in the same financial sandbox. The Dodgers can not only buy it... but they can also develop it cheaply and it makes them bullet proof. I contend that if you can't afford to buy the Marwin's anymore because now everybody wants one... Then you have to build your own. Can Schoop play SS or 3B? Can Austin play OF? Can Rosario play 2B or 3B? Can Kepler play 1B? I don't know... but if they can... Why wouldn't you let them... it increases their value for them and for the organization because they are now valued. Marwin Gonzalez is going to be an excellent barometer of what you are talking about. However... another barometer is already hanging on the garage wall and waiting for some actual baseball barometric pressure... I've been patiently waiting for Brian Dozier to sign so I can directly compare the contract he got with Eduardo Escobar's contract. (I wish Escobar would have waited and played out the market for a true weather check). Granted Dozier is a little older but I believe it is possible that Escobar will get the better contract because of this shift in sensibility. It has been contended by me, that supply and demand can trump actual historical production. I contend that demand for Escobar or Marwin increases by making them options for any team needing a 3B, SS or 2B instead of one single position (plus OF and 1B in the case of Marwin) while supply is still light for a player who can play all those positions.They will be in play for more teams with different needs and so value increases. I also contend because Dozier can only fill a hole at 2B where supply is over running the market... his contract will disappoint him and the year he had in 2019 isn't the main reason why. Look at how difficult is was to trade him the year before. Talented 2B all over the place so nobody needed to pay a high price for him. We lose a Dozier... we stumble across a Schoop who was released by the Brewers because they know they can just throw Shaw over there. When we finally dealt Dozier off... we got it take Forsythe back just to get a Raley. 2B are all over the place and the trade becomes about moving money to get a prospect. The Twins organization needs to realize immediately that playing a 2nd position... increases the value of that player because of the simple laws of supply and demand. The Twins organization needs to realize immediately that locking Brian Dozier into 2B and Trevor Plouffe into 3B didn't help them win games and it cost them value for trade possibilities and it cost Dozier a lot of money and it cost Plouffe a career. If players don't grow in value... you have nothing of decent value to trade and average value to compete with after you can't trade them for anything of value and this is the sharp object that the Twins have been stabbing themselves in the head with for over a decade now and I contend this is why we have been waiting and screaming for the rebuild to be done. It should be obvious to anyone that once a team is out of contention that moving expiring contracts for Farm depth is necessary or the club is standing still... We seem to have a front office moving that direction. It should also be obvious that once a team is out of contention that not playing Austin in the OF is also a form of standing still. Playing Austin in the OF will increase his value to not only the Twins but other teams that may want to give up something for him. Increasing value is GOOD. Locking them into a position where they are just going to get run over by a train is NOT GOOD. I also contend that another barometer of the changing weather should be clear to all by the General Manager and Manager candidates who interviewed for the open jobs. A Cub or Dodger or Ray were either hired or interviewed for every open position.

If you want to know where you are and why you are there. You must know where you've been. Things that you have touched on... Have ramifications being felt today. We have built no value. We've have consistently exhausted our assets Garza/Young trade - It's easy to minimize this deal as a simple bad trade... It was a bad trade. 11 years later, it's even worse when you trace what the Rays still have and what we still have. Matt Garza is still giving to the Rays with Glasnow, Meadows and Shane Baz. Carlos Gomez 9 years later is still giving to the Brewers. Josh Hader, Ben Gamel and Adam Houser are with the Brewers today. I encourage everyone to trace the trade trees. I've done it... it takes your breath away a little. Look at what we hold today and what other teams are holding and you realize soon after that maximizing value was something we were terrible at and this is a major reason we are still wondering what kind of team we have in 2019.

Or somebody besides Machado and Harper. I’m sure they have projections and I’m sure different doors of different considerations surprise them all the time. Having some extra financial flexibility is a good thing. Regardless if they spend it or not because you have the option to spend it. If you don’t have it... you don’t have the option to spend it. Even if they don’t spend it. I don’t what their budget guidelines are. I don’t know if it’s a loose guideline or a hard guideline but I’m reasonably sure that the Twins won’t spend what the Red Sox are going to spend and that creates a self imposed cap. The millions they got back from Hughes May be used for whatever falls into their lap because it increases payroll flexibility no matter how much Mauer money came off the books. Who knows maybe the Hughes money paid for Cron and the plan to use the Mauer money or a portion of is still available for Cruz and bullpen help. I don’t know what the plan is but getting money back compared to not getting any money isn’t a bad thing. The question is... what is the value of the draft pick they coughed up? I’m not going to assume the Hughes money was just acquired for the sole purpose of going into Pohlads pocket.

I could see ownership asking to salvage what they could. I just can't see hanging on to him longer than necessary because ownership is too cheap. Heck, I'd ask them to salvage what they could. And it's 6 million that could be used this year... or not. You never know what you need until you need it.

The ownership "demanded"? This makes it sound like he was parent demanding his kids eat Broccolli and the kids choked it down in protest. He announced it the day Terry Ryan was fired/stepped down. He re-affirmed it in a letter to season ticket holders (along with a pledge to pursue pitching. ) And he was then asked about it consistently by reporters afterwards. I think it would be safer to imply that Pohlad named the 2019 Manager before he named a President of Baseball Operations and before the POBO named a GM. I won't argue that he was out of order in a stupid kind of way but... Falvey would have walked into that interview wide-eyed and well aware who is manager was going to be. Paul Molitor was going to be part of the package of a job offer that he took just like Joe Mauer was going to be his 1st baseman. He knew that as well. To answer your question... I did... but not clarified enough I guess. I don't know for certain... but 6M dollars will spend and just because you say they won't spend it doesn't mean that they wouldn't spend it. It was May... not happy with the record obviously but they were also a hot streak that never came away from contention. If in contention that 6M gives them additional flexibility to maybe trade for and pay for additional help for the stretch run. If you don't have the 6M you have possibly reduced options. Every team has a budget some are hard budgets and some are loose but teams have budgets and 6M spends a lot easier than not having the 6M. The decision does not have to be mandated by ownership. And if ownership is mandating that the team play a failing player and therefore creating losses because he doesn't want to eat the cash. It would make him the worst owner in Sports. Do we expect owners to say "I don't care... you bought him... play him". Do you expect an owner to risk a 100 loss season and the money lost from that... season ticket revenue, parking, hot dogs, beer, jersey sales, corporate sponsorship's, advertising. Do we really expect an owner to risk all of that in pure spite over a line item in a previously agreed upon 2018 budget?

Good question. I don’t know. Another good question. Why wouldn’t they wait for him to clear waivers. I don’t know either but they wanted a draft pick and that is the only thing I can reasonably bank on.

It’s quite possible that the Padres went “What the hell... let’s see” and I believe the draft pick was the primary motivation but... I’ve been making this point and its understood by me that the Padres may not be in tune with my thinking but... There is absolutely undeniable downside to wasting a roster spot on a player who doesn’t increase in value. So I’d guess that the possibility of Hughes increasing in value was why he made 16 appearances.

As I mentioned in the post above... It may not have been as obvious as you suggest. The Padres didn't release him until August... He made 16 appearances for the Padres.

It doesn't have to be "satisfy ownership" directly. And it's an answer that none of us will be able to provide with certainty. But I'd imagine that both the Twins and Padres have their own valuations and each have a dollar figure attached to the draft pick and this catcher the Twins got in return and the trade satisfied both teams valuations. Teams have budgets, loose or hard but budgets none the less and maybe that 6M could be something we could throw at Free Agents this year (not that they will). Here's another thing to consider... Maybe the Padres called the Twins? Maybe Preller called the Twins and said "Hey Thad... We got some cash to play with here and we lost a draft pick when we signed Hosmer that we'd like to get back. Would you consider trading us a draft pick if we help eat some of that Hughes money and Thad was thought to himself... well we were going to release him anyway. Here's another thing to consider. It has been suggested that it was clear that Hughes was toast in spring training and that is causing the why did we wait to trade him discussion. You need to consider that maybe it wasn't clear. Even after the Twins ate a portion of the remaining contract and traded him to the Padres. Hughes made 16 appearances for the Padres out of the bullpen. The trade was made May 27th... the Padres released him August 16th (August 10th was the DFA date). Bottom Line: If an owner is sitting in his office demanding that a failed acquisition play at the expense of wins and losses just to avoid eating the money. I wish he'd make that public so I can file the divorce papers with certainty and move on to a different club with an owner that doesn't do that. That type of pressure is going to come indirectly from the owners (not just ours but all owners) when the released player regains his value after he was thrown in the garbage. In that scenario, the money will be an issue but secondary to the larger concern about the ability of the front office to make the kind of assessments necessary. In other words fitness for the job. That kind of pressure should make any front office slow down a little before they just start throwing babies out with bath water.

I think Brad Wesley had one of those things in the movie Roadhouse. Just in case the Double Deuce missed a payment.

In all seriousness. What Yarn and you are suggesting is a horrible horrifying thought. What you are both describing is dysfunction and an extreme form of it. Pohlad should know by now that mistakes are going to be made. And in any other business, mistakes are going to be made. When you extend someone or sign someone to a free agent contract there are risks involved. Signing Hughes to an extension was a mistake... to keep trotting him out there while he is getting lit up like a X-mas tree is a mistake on top of that mistake and that will kill a business. That roster spot he occupies will keep you from giving the roster spot to someone else who could actually increase in value. Bird is right... This couldn't be a Pohlad thing... If it was... I'll become a Brewers fan tomorrow because our situation would be hopeless. However... I'd be OK assuming that the Twins front office would need to be absolutely sure he is done before cutting their losses. Cutting Hughes and eating the money wouldn't be the problem... nobody would like it but the company has to keep moving forward. The problem would be the paying Hughes all that money and having him sign with the White Sox and then becoming decent again. After Hughes throws a shut out against us... That's when Pohlad calls Falvey into his office and says... that million dollar dump truck you pushed off the cliff seems to be working fine. Our competition recovered it, replaced the spark plug and they just dumped 15 cubic yards of dirt in our parking lot with it.

Million Bucks? That's one special dump truck. I'd like to see what else it can do besides dump things. Also... In your scenario... you are dumping a dump truck! That's like painting a paint ball or shopping for a shopping cart. That's Awesome. OK... I just had to type that... Back to the discussion.

Extensions are tough calls. I’d try to simplify the decision as much as possible by asking one question first. Is he the best we can do? Are the numbers we project the best numbers we can get. If Odorizzi projected numbers are the best we can do... it makes me shudder a little and I actually like the guy.

What took them so long?

I think these debates are necessary. I'm questioning baseball conventions right now and I'm questioning them hard. When I left the game threads, I ended up with time and energy on my hands. I spent that time and energy looking into what happened to my Twins. I traced it all the way back to 2011, I then started looking at the teams that were doing well and I started tracing them back. I ran across some examples of things working that were clearly different than what everybody typcially does and I wanted to share those things with my crew on Twinsdaily, I got crickets... So I continued which led to a smattering of we can't do that... because... (it won't work with the arcane model that has been in place for decades). I'm saying the Rays, the Dodgers, The Cubs are doing some things different and there is a reason that Brandon Hyde interviewed for nearly every manager job. There is a reason why the Rays staff was poached. There is a reason why the Dodgers are losing staff to other teams. I'm saying baseball is about to change and the things I'm talking about are going to hit you all between the eyes. The opener isn't the story of the Rays. The opener is a great idea but it's nothing. You take your guy in the 7th and move him to the 1st whatever. The living and dying with a starting rotation as we know it was challenged by the Rays (and A's) and the Rays won this round. This doesn't mean you don't acquire starters... The Rays just got Charlie Morton because they are still going to try and acquire starters because there is value in a guy who can go 6 or 7 innings... this is what I'm talking about... having your best pitchers throw the most innings... but if you don't have that guy... TRY SOMETHING ELSE... such as giving ROGERS more innings. But, you can't look at what I'm saying objectively unless you are prepared to take things out of their current boxes.

Please don't make me spend hours researching the many examples of players who produced better numbers in the majors than AAA. I will and you'll find the list lengthy but I really don't have the time... but I will. Also the Rays wasn't about the opener... It's just the part that everybody is talking about... and if you immediately think Opener when I bring up Rays. I began to realize that I really haven't prepared anyone for what I'm talking about in my posts and might as well be talking about earth revolving around the sun. What the Rays did was stay in contention with two starters and just one for a decent stretch... a good one in Blake Snell but he was the only starter they had for awhile. They traded away Archer and Eovaldi and kept ticking... only two pitchers over 100 innings for the entire year of 2018. They blew it out of the water. It's an unrealistic ask because we haven't asked it before.

Great Post Bullpen guys are easier to acquire at a lower price. Get bullpen serious and go get some guys. If we are overflowing with starters and we are... the extra's can be placed in the pen and be 3 inning guys like Rogers. All you got to do is think differently. What's the proper amount of rest for a 3 innings stint and 1 inning stint... If Berrios goes 3 innings... does he have to wait all the way through the rotation like he just threw 8 innings? You can see how robotic it has been. And I think this is something that can be done without question. Maybe Rogers is the right guy or the wrong guy but we got stop living and dying with a rotation and start figuring out how to get the ball in the hands of our best pitchers for more innings. Our best pitchers should be called "Innings Eaters" not the guy with an ERA in the High 4.00's who throws ground balls.

1990's thinking. MLB has starters who are tossing 97 MPH or higher pretty routinely now. We got Josh Hader throwing multiple innings out of the pen now. Not to mention the Drew Pomeranz, Brad Peacock, Collin McHugh, Kenta Maeda types who move from rotation to bullpen at the drop of a dime. Those walls are coming down. Albeit Slowly. Was Taylor Rogers a failed starter or did the Twins stubbornly try to force things with Tyler Duffey making 26 starts with a 6.43 ERA in 2016, Kyle Gibson 25 starts with a 5.07, Nolasco 21 starts with a 5.13, Berrios 14 starts with a 8.02 ERA, Tommy Milone, Hector Santiago, Phil Hughes and Pat Dean all with ERA's from 5.58 to 6.28 over 43 starts combined. That's 129 out of 162 starts or 720.1 Innings out of 1443 team total innings thrown by 7 starters who produced 469 earned runs totalling a combined ERA of 5.86. All of sudden Taylor's 3.98 in Rochester in 2015 doesn't look like a failed starter. He looks more like a guy who was brought up for a bullpen role and no matter how bad the starters crashed and burned... he remained in the bullpen role while the Twins just cycled through 5 starter rotation that has been done for decades. Finding 5 capable starters is perhaps the hardest thing a GM has to do and only 4 or 5 teams can honestly say that they found 5 in any given year and there is a big chunk of the remaining 25 teams that are lucky to have 2 of them. And then you factor in the injuries and you start needing 6 7 8 or 9 of them. And the data collected is getting larger every year and producing undeniable evidence that each turn through the order is becoming problematic and the Royals and the Indians were winning baseball games with a bullpen. Then the Rays come along last year and blow it all out of the water. One size does not fit all... If you say that they are all failed starters. We can never advance. They are labelled and done. I believe that there is middle ground between a starter going 6 and a reliever throwing 1 rinse and repeat.

Maybe but that's going to be a maybe once you tear down the walls. It's an easy no under old methods. I'm not talking about one inning at a time for 120 games with all of the warmups that a relief pitcher goes through. Taylor Rogers could throw 3 to 4 innings at a time. In 2015 he threw 174 innings for Rochester plus 25 more in the Arizona Fall League. Last year Taylor Rogers averaged 0.94 Innings per appearance every 2.25 games. (72 Appearances) Last Year Jose Berrios averaged 6.01 Innings per appearance every 5.06 games. (32 Appearances) I believe there is middle ground between these numbers that can be achieved. I don't believe that there are only two approaches that can be considered regardless if this is how it's been done for decades. If you want Taylor Rogers to throw 120 innings and if he's one of our top pitchers I would like to see his innings increased. How bout (52 Appearances) Averaging 2.30 Innings per appearance every 3.11 Games. Ryan Yarbrough for the Rays Averaged 3.87 innings per appearance every 4.26 games. It's just outside the box thinking. Something that could in theory prevent a team from throwing a 5th starter with a 6.11 ERA to eat 160 innings up. Give your best pitchers more innings to throw. If they get people out... let them keep getting people out.

I hope the walls are torn down between starters and relievers and the innings are allocated based on performance. If Rogers is our best pitcher... Rogers should throw more innings. Increase his workload from 60 to 120 or whatever in between... find out what he can handle. If anybody is our worst pitcher... don't give him as many innings. If we have a starter with a 6.77 ERA... there is no reason to call him an innings eater and have him eat innings while he is giving up earned runs. Simply move on to the next option or throw him less.

By the way, Plouffe he has become my poster boy of what has been wrong with the Twins organization but in this context. If Plouffe and his agent demanded that he was a 3B only. Or if the Twins demanded that Plouffe could only play 3B. Whoever made that decision just tied Plouffe down to the railroad tracks with the Sano Train coming and Dudley Do-Right is nowhere in sight.

I forgot about Flores... thanks for reminding me. I'd add Flores to my list of players who have "a chance" of replacing a decent percentage of any projected numbers lost by an injured or bummer like performing Sano or Schoop.