Riverbrian

C’mon now. Yes you would. You’d be a second nature complainer who couldn’t help it.

Good thing you have no income.

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.

Which I assume is likely.

The CBA states that Gordon and Wade must be on the 40 man or you lose them. However sometimes that hard timeline doesn’t match up with an individuals particular development and you simply need more time with them before setting them adrift. I agree that we are progressing nicely and the team looks closer to have legitimate options in Rochester for safety nets. But a Rochester 40 man safety net could be a significant step down from a 25 man safety net. There’s a difference between declaring Wade as your safety net and signing a Adam Jones type (for example no need to focus on Adam Jones) as a safety net. I’d rather the team bring in a stronger safety net to be 4 OF deep on the 25 man and have Cave and Wade as a safety net to that safety net on the 40 man. This sets up competition for playing time in Minnesota (May the best man win) and competition for call up to Minnesota in Rochester. I understand that a 40 man roster is a hard cap with limitations that will prevent GM’s from creating a 10 deep depth chart and therefore bottom line - I consider each roster spot to be precious. I want to avoid suffering through Byron Buxton playing everyday while hitting .140 because they don’t think the Ryan LaMarre type wasting roster space isnt good enough to replace a hitter hitting .140. I believe what I’m talking about is the minimum requirement of any front office and if it’s May and Buxton is hitting .140 and Michael Reed is gathering dust in the bench. That’s the moment I start complaining about not learning lessons from past issues, simple contingency planning and eggs in one basket. I will not tolerate any “we really expected more out of Buxton” excuse when they are asked what went wrong in 2019. Now (the off season) is when they can prepare for as many unplanned issues as possible.

Yes he should be given the chance to compete for a position and playing time. Jake Cave was a godsend for us last year. I’m a fan. However he has options. This allows the team to place him in Rochester and it allows the team to call him when we have an injury and it allows the team to sign another player and we have increased depth. If you have increased depth... it doesn’t hurt your team as much when Eddie Rosario goes down for a month. It keeps the Motters of the world off the 25 man. The alternative to my suggestion is saying Cave is good enough. Wade struggling in Rochester. Rosario getting hurt and then we have a player off the scrap heap that manager won’t play on the 25 man because we said “good enough and stopped trying to get even better... like the Twins have done every single year. Same for Astundillo. I love him... he was fantastic. I fought for his playing time last year. But he has options and this means you can hold him as depth. Because the alternative is a Bobby Wilson type getting a 25 man roster spot when Castro gets hurt again.

What took them so long?

Thanks for the research Gun. If you'd like to drill down on trades specifically. Take a look at the actual number of trades made by all clubs and you'll find that the Twins traded less than every major league baseball team by a significant margin. A high number of productive trades is much harder to accumulate when you don't make very many of them in comparison with your peers.

If those are his stats... I will thank my lucky stars that the Twins took my advice and signed Pollack or traded for Keon Broxton or someone. I’m also grateful that Jake Cave is down in Rochester waiting for an easy call up when we send Buxton down.

My expectations for Rosario and the other players who most are worrying about are also in check. I’m not ready for the rebuild part two because we got some raw talent but there is simply no way I could write Buxton or Sano’s name on the big board with no safety net behind them. I want 25 players on the roster in case 8 of them struggle or get hurt.

I remember having the money divided up in my head for bullpen acquisitions and then rumors serviced and I’m thinking “we got a new sheriff in town” and I allowed myself to consider the possibility. Silly Me! Anyway, this year I’m taking a completely different approach. I’m going to try avoid specific names, budgets and just hope for an operational 25 man roster with the players they choose. When 2019 comes around and if I hear the excuses that we really expected more out of Sano and Buxton... I will be all over them. So I’m sitting back and saying. C’mon front office... show me what you learned.

Yeah I get that. The Eagles knew how things work in life. They say “take it to the limit”. Taking it over the limit is not how the song goes. But again, if you really really want the player you must pay the price. Hoping the price comes down to your limit (setting limits is sensible) is going to leave you empty handed more times that it doesn’t. Thank God Darvish wasn’t the only pitcher on earth so they could do try something else.

Bottom line: If you want the player you have to pay the price. It’s a very simple equation. If the Twins fell short of the price. It signifies a limit on how much they actually want that player and Establishing those limits is a condition of the job they do. I was on them to sign Darvish but they got me salivating by showing up in the rumors. I say today what I said then. If you really want the player you pay the price. Obviously there was a limit to how much they wanted the player and I forgive them for that.

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.

Spring training stats shouldn't matter and most times they don't. But every once in awhile. Ryan LaMarre gets a roster spot. Aaron Hicks get the CF job over Benson and Mastro. Spring training stats shouldn't matter, most times they don't but sometime they do. As for Buxton... There is no way, I'm letting him win or lose a job in spring training and there is no way I'm naming him a starter in December. I'll give him a 25 man roster spot and the same promise that I'd make to the other 24. If you perform you will play. If fixing this or making this right for Byron caused the front office to declare him a starter as some form of repair in December. I'll say that two wrong's don't make a right.

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.

Nothing He shows up to camp and plays when the manager puts him in the lineup and if he performs... he earns the full time position.

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.

It's not my intention to hammer on Buxton any more than I have... But I will say this: I don't really like the front office statement that Buxton WILL BE the starting CF in 2019. If this September callup decision caused (in any way shape or form) the front office to feel they need to make it up to Byron by promising him a full time gig before he proves he deserves a full time gig. If they are willing to let Byron produce a 4 OPS+ and still play everyday because they feel the need to make it up to him. I immediately will switch my support for the move to non-support. If any damage has been done... it's been done. You move forward by not adding additional damage in the form of poor play. You move forward by making him earn the full time position. I really believe that communication and accountability are the next steps forward.

I believe you were 100% correct that starting him in Rochester for the month of April might have been a better path to take to gain the year back . However, if the front office thinks that Byron will hit the ground running on day one in 2019... We are in technically in contention for 2019 on day one as opposed to not being in contention in September 2018. I'm not saying that's the way to look at it. I think it's possible that's the way they looked at it. Buxton in Rochester or home in Georgia has the potential to impact 2019. September 2018... this move has no impact... other than the drama it caused.

Don Look Below This is what I was addressing. Jorgenswest is a very smart guy, he's earned my respect, he replied back with a clarification and it's all good. He has no idea nor do I.

This post I absolutely agree with. Accountability for all is all I'm asking. If Falvey and Lavine can't produce a winner, we need to find some people who can. If Buxton can't hit, we need to find someone who can. I'm done watching players walk past the lineup card without checking if they are on it and I'm done watching management allow it. Produce or get out of the way.