Riverbrian

Le'ts look at the performance of the staffs since that is all that is needed to be done. No doubt... The Nationals had some great names like Strasburg, Scherzer and Corbin. In the 2019 Playoffs their pitching staff was 5th with a 3.47 ERA. The Astros team ERA was 6th in the playoffs. The Rays and Yankees were the best playoff pitching staffs. In 2019, that great pitching staff almost got Martinez fired as the manager... it took the Nats until June 29th to reach the .500 mark. When they reached the .500 mark they had the 7th best record in the National League.? @Nine of twelve The 2014 Giants had Madison Bumgarner. His performance was incredible. It would have to be considered one of the best post season performances of all time. He Threw 52 innings that post season. About 33% of all innings. The other starters for the Giants? Hudson was so-so with a 4.29 ERA while Peavy and Vogelson had ERA's over 6. The 2011 Cards had a playoff rotation of Chris Carpenter, Jaime Garcia, Edwin Jackson and Kyle Lohse and a playoff ERA of 4.05. They beat a Rangers team that produced a 4.32 team ERA. It was David Freese who cranked out 5 homers while hitting .397 over 63 Playoff AB's leading the Cardinals to victory. At the All-Star Break that year. The Cards were 49-43. The 2004 Red Sox had a playoff team ERA of 4.47. Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling were pretty impressive names but they had playoff ERA's of 4.00 and 3.57 respectively. 2003... Josh Beckett was fantastic. Brad Penny and Mark Redmen were the opposite. Carl Pavano showed up nicely in the two playoff games that he started. The Marlins team post-season ERA was 4.30. Dead last out of all the playoff teams. They beat the Yankees that year who had the best team ERA in the playoffs. The Marlins were in 4th place in the NL East at the all-star break with a record of 49-46. I'll say it again... If you had 8 ping pong balls and 2 of those ping pong balls were labelled wild card. You would have a 25% chance of pulling out a ball labelled wild card. In the past 20 years... 30% of the World Series titles were won by wild card teams. Each Wild Card team had varying degrees of talent that all played individually at varying degrees but regardless... a wild card team should not be favored to win it all. Yet... Wild Card Teams are beating the odds at a higher percentage then if there were no odds at all. Pitching is always important but it wasn't the reason it happened.

I assume you are ranking them 7th by record. If so... you would be correct. They do indeed have the 7th best record in the American League at the all -star break. However, they are just 2 games back of being ranked 3rd. As a matter of fact... if they would have gone 5-5 instead of 3-7 over the last 10 games going into the all-star break. They would be ranked 3rd. I'll take it another step... If one pitcher in the bullpen doesn't cough up 4 games by himself against Cleveland. It's a completely different story all together. So... Since you asked... ? Here is what I'm saying. I expect our front office to be aggressive trying to improve the bullpen... I expect the Twins to buy.

2019 Nationals reached the playoffs via wildcard 2014 Giants reached the playoffs via wildcard 2014 Royals reached the playoffs via wildcard (Woulda won it if wasn't for the other wild card team) 2011 Cardinals reached the playoffs via wildcard 2004 Red Sox reached the playoffs via wildcard 2003 Marlins reached the playoffs via wildcard 2002 Angels reached the playoffs via wildcard If All things were equal... 6 division winners and 2 wildcard teams (Not including the 1 game playoff that includes an extra wild card team to determine who the wild card representative is) The Wildcard team has a 25% chance of winning the world series based on two teams being wild card out of 8 participants. The Wild Card has produced 6 world series winners over 20 years for a 30% success ratio. I love ya... But I have no idea what you are talking about when you use the word "Favorites".

How often does the favorite win the World Series? Do teams have the same set of conditions (IE The Same Rosters) from one year to the next? Is there performance variance from year to year, week to week, game to game with the players that make up every roster?

I'm as capable of flawed logic as the next guy but thinking that ANY front office (not just the Twins) is going to be able to explain to ownership, the press, fans and the CLUBHOUSE that despite being in first place at the All-Star Break, we don't believe this team is good enough and therefore selling. That is flawed logic that exceeds by leaps and bounds my "extremely flawed logic" ? As a front office it is flawed logic to stick to a plan and not allow for necessary adjustments based on ever changing information. It is flawed logic by any front office to assume that any plan is immune to injuries, extended slumps or take into any consideration that the other teams have front offices as well. Buyers Buy Seller Sell First place makes you a buyer.

Sure it does. Being in first place makes you a contender by definition. Only subjective extenuation can move a first place team to non-contender status and it can only take place in someone's head. In order to do that in your head, you have to completely ignore that the team is factually in first place. ?

If you are in contention... You buy. If you are not in contention...You sell. Any argument that the Twins shouldn't buy because the team isn't strong enough or anything of the like will not stand up to the fact that the Twins are in first place... right now.

You are correct. My post was replying to the traditional long reliever role being discussed. That guy who sits and waits for starters to blow up, so he can eat low leverage innings to preserve the other bullpen arms. There is no room for that guy anymore because of exactly what you are talking about. Now keep in mind, I don't like talking in terms of traditional pitching staff roles like Starter, Long Relief, Middle, Set Up and Closer but have to in order to make the conversation universal. I try to look at them all as pitchers. It's just a matter of how many innings can they throw. I don't care much for roles or designations. You are correct, you have to increase the innings thrown by the entire bullpen. The conversation has become trying to place a modern bullpen into traditional boxes that don't really apply anymore. Set up guys could be classified as long relievers if you have to throw them into a box because throwing one inning at a time doesn't cut it. If starters are going to average under 5 innings per start when they used to average 6 in the traditional sense. That's 162 plus more innings that the bullpen has to cover. If you have to cover 162 more innings, teams can't afford to have bullpen roster spots just sitting there waiting for low leverage to get in to the game. Every member of that bullpen has to be able to step up in a tight game and perform. Having 7 starters (Traditional Designation) on a staff is OK. You can run 5 through a rotation and the other two can be long relievers if you have to place them in that traditional box. However, they must be able to perform in a tight game when they enter.

Agreed. A long guy who comes into games after the wheels come off the starter does absolutely nothing to improve the pen. Teams can't afford to waste the roster spot on such a thing these days. Get Arms that can throw. Don't get tricksters. Get those I can strike you out when a strikeout is needed type arms. Add to the top and force out the bottom. We will all feel a lot better if the front office accomplishes this.

Every year... Every Team. Ups and Downs and every year we forget. In the words of Pete Townshend. "That Big Wheel Spins, The Hair Thins. People forget.

All teams lose a lot and All teams win a lot. When you show up at the ball park or turn on the broadcast. There is a high probability of watching your team lose and a high probability of watching your team win every single game. Over 162 games, there will be desensitization. If you want to grow the game going forward. You best look at the entertainment aspect of it. If you want to keep your job in the front office. You best focus on winning... whatever it takes. In the end... You need Both.

Lance Lynn is exactly the type of player that I fear the most... If he was on my team. You can be competitive with average performance. You can survive below average performance. Terrible performance is what kills your team. Lance Lynn has been terrible and they keep tossing him out there because he has another year on his contract and he can't be sent down. This is the type of player that I fear the most. The terrible player who can't be dealt with. Lynn, Grandal, Moncada and Giolito can't be sent down, are not going to be cut. Collectively they add up to a 57 million dollar investment in something that the rest of the team has to rise up to overcome. You can be competitive with average performance. You can survive below average. Terrible performance will kill your hopes and dreams.

Acquiring Josh Bell... I'm all for it because that is the type of rental bat that can make a big difference in your lineup. Baseballtradevalues is impressively close to accurate in most cases. It suggests that Woods-Richardson would get the deal done and I'd have to guess that the Nats would want pitching. It is only natural to be fearful that prices go up via bidding wars but the past few years I've noticed a more disciplined approach when it comes to parting with prospects. It really seems like all teams are protecting their prospect pool and not over paying. Trades are usually equal value. The complication with this deal is Sano. He will be back with very little trade value and a 14 million dollar club option for next year that kinda suggests that he won't be back with his inconsistent performance. If Sano could just do what we think he should do... It wouldn't cost us Woods-Richardson to replace him for an important stretch run. I know some here are pretty much done with Sano. I don't blame anyone for feeling that way but I don't quite see it that strongly. I'm OK seeing if Sano can get hot like he has in the past but there is no way I could justify the seeing if he can with a big question mark when a guy with no question mark is available. In other words, we can't let a struggling player with no future with the club prevent us from acquiring a difference maker. If the Twins are not picking up his option... he has no future with us. Bell comes aboard... Sano has to go. Now if the Twins plan on picking up Sano's option (which is not totally out of the question) then the acquisition of Bell is not a consideration. Sano now has a potential value to the club next season and we have to see if he can take us where we want to be. As for the playing time for Bell... Easily done. When Sano comes back... he will be worked into the lineup at 1B and DH. Kirilloff will play OF, DH and 1B. Rocco will continue to shift players around. Bell would be utilized just like they are going to utilize Sano when he returns. This isn't a problem. I'm for the acquisition of Bell.

Not to mention... Incredible. Over half the season with no change would be absolutely incredible.

Exactly... You have to be prepared for whatever the cat drags in. Whatever the players do... they do. To go into the season with the idea that you are still a year or two off and staying the course no matter what.... well... that would be debilitating hubris. That front office would just be getting in the way.. "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."

1. When it comes to pitching... Health is always a gamble. Pitchers go down left and right. I can be as guilty as the next guy, reading something and absorbing it but I do try my best to not read something (Mets - Paddack Medical Article) and concluding that the Twins ignored a problem because a Mets writer wrote something from the Mets perspective. The only thing that I would ever dare to assume is that the Twins did due diligence. Too much at stake to ignore information. 2. I agree... I don't personally believe that they Twins were bullpen serious enough before or after the Rogers trade but I do have the benefit of hindsight. I believe that is possible that the Twins knew that they were lessening the bullpen by trading Rogers but at the same time felt that the options they had could get the job done. There is a difference between lessening and tanking the bullpen. You also have to factor in that extra starting pitchers (Paddack) decreases the usage necessary for guys who can only throw 1 inning. I think it is possible that the Twins front office considered that before pulling the trigger on the trade. 3. I agree... I'd love to have Rogers in this bullpen but if he struggles like he has been struggling, he is adding to the big pile of our current problem. Now if we try to trade him at the deadline... He does not fetch a Paddack level talent in return. The Twins had the opportunity to pick up a decent starter with multiple years of control for 1 year of a reliever... I continue to believe that nearly every team makes that deal. 4. That is really the crux of it... It's one more guy that they need to acquire at the trade deadline. Rogers by himself doesn't fix our pen problems. Trading Rogers doesn't cripple your bullpen... Bad Pitchers are what cripple your bullpen. Replacing the Rogers roster spot can be done with someone decent yet not quite as good as Rogers. The Twins didn't get to the someone decent level and it wasn't just the Rogers roster spot. 5. You and I completely agree on this. I wait for them to get bullpen serious.

Anybody can be traded if the deal improves the team. However, depth is something teams should strive for. Depth is a good thing not something that should be compromised (even slightly). If the Twins are healthy... There is playing time for Urshela, Miranda, Kirilloff, Sano... all of them. If the Twins are not healthy... there is more playing time for those who are healthy.

1. I'm going to assume that the Twins medical staff looked over the Paddack medicals. Players get hurt, there was no guarantee at the time of the trade that Rogers stays healthy either. 2. Just because Rogers was traded, it doesn't mean that his roster spot has to be filled with crap. It isn't an either or proposition. There are talent levels between 0 and 100. 3. The current Rogers would only add to our current bullpen problem. 4. We are about to enter the all-star break. The team is in contention. We know what our most pressing problem is. The front office gets to make deals now. 5. They better.

I have been consistent in my advocacy of position flexibility. I believe it is necessary to allow the best minor league call up when the opportunity for call up opens up. I believe it is necessary in order to staff a deep 26 man roster, to find playing time for all and promote open competition through actual performance on the field. I have been consistent in my desire to see more position flexibility at the major league and minor league level. However, with that said... At Catcher... Nope... no way. That's a special defensive position that requires unique skills that need to be developed. Now... you can move catcher to other positions though like IKF or Varsho in Arizona.... Or Joe What's his Name with the Twins. ?

A long time ago... Someone walked through the Big Lake Minnesota Area and said "That Lake is Big... Let's call it Big Lake". Whoever named it BIG lake obviously hadn't seen a larger lake or they got really excited and lost perspective at the moment. In the past 30 days: The Twins are ranked 10th in team ERA with a 3.65 Year to date the Twins are ranked 11th in Team ERA with a 3.78 Last Year the Twins were ranked 26th with a 4.83 Yet... Every morning... our pitching staff is horrible, brutal, a nightmare. If these are your adjectives... you shouldn't be allowed to name any lakes.

I'm not a fan of rewarding playing time to a player who is struggling big time and doing so for a significant time frame but yet SHOULD be performing better. The highways are littered with these guys. It is perhaps the biggest mistake that any organization can make. It will damage your team in the present and bottleneck your team for the future. That roster spot could be used to find someone both better today and better tomorrow. No organization should ever reach the point where it believes that it can't find anyone who can perform better than Pagan has.

Flexibility becomes a necessity when a team has actual depth. Fitting Bell in is easy, you take a little tiny bit of playing time from everyone. Multi position players are tentacles that reach out to the entire roster for the sharing of playing time across the entire roster so you can fit in a new impact bat in at any position. We currently have a bunch of multi-position players playing 1B. Kirilloff also playing OF means that Kepler (for example) can give up a little playing time to fit Bell into the lineup. Miranda also playing 3B means that Urshela can give up a little bit of playing time to feed to Bell. It all adds up to Bell getting playing time and nobody losing a tremendous amount of playing time to accommodate. Bell adds an OPS of .895 to the squad Kepler OPS .732 Urshela OPS .728 I like Kepler and Urshela but they shouldn't stand in the way of picking up a .895 OPS bat. Now admittedly... it becomes much much harder to fit Sano in.

I was sitting at a bar when a horse walked in. Bartender: "Why the Long Face"? Horse: "We adapt to our environment through natural selection. The long face makes it easier to reach the grass and it's easier to spot predators while dining and over time we end up with long faces". Riverbrian: "Major league front offices often times ignore natural selection by selecting which players will get opportunity after opportunity to fail until they survive while others get no such opportunity". Horse and Bartender in Unison: "What the Hell are you talking about"? Riverbrian: (Looking at the Horse) "How did you learn to talk"? Riverbrian: (Looking at the Bartender) "I've had enough to drink"!

It's never as simple as the things the Twins did wrong. Maybe the White Sox did some things right. Over on White Sox Daily. It's never as simple as the things the White Sox did wrong... Maybe the Twins did some things right. The other team always has something to say in the equation of what happened but the other team is usually ignored as a possible X factor in the fans analysis of the aftermath. Apparently the Twins are masters of their fate. With that said. The opposing teams are doing a lot of things right against Pagan lately. ?

I agree that Boston will be looking and I'll raise that to everybody in contention will be looking for bullpen arms.