Riverbrian

I agree with your post... Just that last sentence. I agree... You can't deny the results. History records such things. The Twins have the worst playoff baseball record out of 30 teams since 2000. The Brewers are 25th worst since 2000. The Royals actually have the best playoff winning percentage since 2000. They just don't get there very often. The reason for those results? That's a little harder to pin down. It's really hard when you consider that not a single player on 2003 Twins roster was on the 2020 Twins Roster. We just know that it's part of a long streak involving many many different players and coaches and front offices over many years. I agree that superstars win but superstars also have to play like superstars when the need is greatest and they don't always do that. I've seen enough Eddie Rosario, Howie Kendrick, Daniel Murphy, Marco Scutero, David Freese, Adam Kennedy Playoff MVP awards to believe that it's quite possible that Caleb Durbin could be the superstar for the moment and Yelich might struggle. I agree that Money is a huge factor without a doubt. Those with money to spend tend to be the teams holding that trophy. But... I can't help but wonder... is the money helping them reach the playoffs. Getting them through that 162 game grind. Therefore creating more teams with money in the playoffs. Therefore increasing the odds of money winning in the end. This year 8 teams with money made the playoffs. 4 without Made the Playoffs. The raffle drum is already stacked with money going in. Most years are a similar percentage between the have's and have nots. Again... Can't help but wonder. Not saying definitely... Just wondering out loud.

I agree. Baseball is so many factors and the timing of those factors. George Springer came up with a big home run last night and you could say that it was proof of what a home run could do. But, it also proof of what a bad pitch at the wrong time can do.

I think it's a case of fans not feeling like the team is better. On the field it can be a different story. Surprising how often it's a different story. There are no guarantees in anything. When the Red Sox traded Devers to the Giants. The Giants were 41-30 and the Red Sox were 36-36. After the trade: The Giants were 40-51 and the Red Sox were 56-37.

Take out the last sentence and I agree completely. Milwaukee was not bounced with little trouble... they reached the NLCS. The Dodgers are 9-1. A team rolling 9 out of 10 wins in the playoffs doesn't happen often. 2022 Astros? 2005 White Sox? If you had to choose a team to roll through like that. The Third Seeded Dodgers would be a popular choice but you still have to roll through like that and most don't. Detroit was trouble this year. Limped in but they were trouble once in. Cleveland reached the ALCS last year. Arizona swept the Dodgers in 2023. They were trouble throughout the playoffs. The Rangers spent some money on Seagar and Semien. They wouldn't fit any small market team narrative with the 7th highest payroll but they survived the regular season and qualified for the playoffs on the final weekend by going 2-4 over their last 6. The playoffs began and those struggles were gone. They rode the arms of Eovaldi, Montgomery, LeClerc and Sborz on the mound while Adolis Garcia had the best stretch of baseball in his 30 year old at the time life. Evan Carter showed up for an incredible stretch of baseball that he hasn't seen since. The Rangers haven't seen the playoffs since. The Dodgers are pretty incredible. I've never seen 5 pitchers this dominant over 74 innings in a ten game stretch in the playoffs. Just 18 innings thrown by everybody else. Just Snell, Yamamoto, Glasnow, Ohtani and Sasaki and it's about all they need. Yet the Dodgers haven't hit like the Blue Jays have hit. Vlad and Springer are earning their money at the moment. Clement and Barger are underpaid. The Blue Jays may have taken 7 games to get to the final... Doesn't mean the Blue Jays can't win this thing.

It makes perfect sense to separate the drafted player and the IFA. They are clearly separate methods of acquisition. I lump them into point 3 for the sole purpose of separating them from trades and free agency. The overall point of point #3 is that they actually all tie together. The percentages of player acquisition will have to add up to 100% in the end. If you are light in your utilization of the free agent market and if you are light in the utilization of the trade market. Home Grown (Draft and IFA) players will have to make up the difference to get to 100% of your roster composition. Regardless if they have talent or not.

There is no doubt that the Dodgers front office and manager are fans of Kike. Come playoff time. The heroes are not always the superstars.

It would stand to reason. Milwaukee would have an effort advantage erased by the Dodgers all of sudden dialing it up. However, it also stands to reason that it will be equal in the end. Toronto is trying harder... So is Seattle during the playoffs. Toronto isn't trying as hard game 92 of the season. Neither is Seattle. I think the top 10 payroll teams dominate because more of them make the playoffs due to being a top 10 payroll. The odds are usually going to favor the top ten teams because they make up the majority of the playoff teams. I'm just floating the possibility that Milwaukee and Cleveland are more entertaining to watch because of the youth that is still willing to leave their feet o catch a ball in game 92.

These are the two sentences. In the end, FA? Trades? Drafting? Rule 5? Waiver Signing? Whatever the acquisition method... It's about being good in the end.

As I watch the playoffs... I'm struck by the same realization every single year watching the playoffs The effort from the players is significantly more than you get during the regular season. The extra base, the head first slides, actually leaving their feet to make plays. Now this comment includes the fans. The stadium is packed and loud and that certainly adds a significant portion of the excitement level of watching a playoff game compared to game 94 of a 162 game schedule with 15,000 in the stands. The reason I mentioned this: I wonder if younger players with something to prove... I wonder if they would tend to be a little more 100% effort in game 94 compared to the guy with a secure job playing in his 5th, 6th or 7th game 94. When you see players going after it. Baseball tends to be fun to watch.

Hopefully... nobody is going to follow Cody down this narrative path. I'd hate for anyone to come away with the impression that the Brewers don't draft and develop. 1. The International Free Agents were ignored. Chourio, Quero and Uribe are pretty significant IFA's. Only a mention of Turang in the article because he was a 1st round pick. This tends to minimize Misirowski, Henderson and Frelick who were not first rounders. It doesn't matter... It's still development. 2. In order to acquire talent in trades... you have to have talent to trade. Talent that actually interests other teams... enough that they are willing to give up significant talent. Developing high end talent that other teams really really want is very helpful. Burnes was sought after, Williams was sought after. The better the player that is traded, the better the return. It's still development. 3. This is an important point. There are 3 primary methods used to staff rosters. Free Agency, Trades and Draft/Develop. If a team uses all 3 avenues equally... it comes to 33% for all 3 acquisition methods. If a smaller market team for example just doesn't do the free agency thing... let's say zero percent. Trades and Draft/Develop will have to compensate for not using free agency. Now we have 50% equally divided. If a team tends to make trades like Steer and CES for Mahle compared to a team that trades Burnes for Ortiz and Hall. That 50% is going to shift in either direction accordingly. The Twins have 14 home grown. Well, If you don't trade well and you don't have a budget in regards to free agency. What do you have left to work with? Drafted dudes. Either way... it's all about development... All of it... Development. Development determines what you get in trades and how much space must be filled by free agents. It's all development and the Brewers are kicking the Twins ass.

I've read your posts. You have earned the respect to take you seriously. I took your statement as the "worst offensive outfields in the majors" literally. "Anything but replacement players"... I took as predetermination. I'm here to say that I'm not a fan of predetermination due to the frequent errors of players gifted with the benefit of the doubt that fail. I'm here to say that if we need to locate 5 or 6 guys like you said... and I agree that we need to find at least 5 or 6 guys... actually more. Your odds of finding 5 or 6 guys is going to improve if you don't limit your serious auditions to exactly 5 or 6 guys. I'll add that if you are right about Martin and Roden and you might be. I'm not here to defend or tear down either player. If you are right and you got this thing nailed. Just move on now don't waste a roster spot on either player. Because having sub par players on your bench just leads to shaking off the rust and getting into the lineup when the injuries occur. How they will perform has already been predetermined and apparently... it's not going to be good.

I like comparing everything to poker. It's forecast for 59 Degrees today Mid October in Northeast North Dakota. In other words... A pair of aces and I'll discard 3. My wife picked up KFC for supper last night. It was like holding a J 9 7 3 and 2.

You can never get predetermination out of the game of baseball. These guys in front offices have to decide who to place on 40 and 26 man roster because those rosters have limitations and they have to attempt to predetermine and rank the options. All 30 teams still can't get the .650 OPS out of the lineup with all that predetermination. In your 2nd paragraph... You say those are the "exceptions to the rules". Rarities... therefore it happens but not that often is how I took that statement. I have to ask you a question(s). Wouldn't that attitude (I believe it exists) toward late age debuts contribute to that rarity. If Roden and Martin are now too old therefore let's move on... Wouldn't that play a major factor in the rarity that you speak of? Wouldn't that make it X amount times harder for a Nathan Lukes or Ernie Clement to be one of those rarities? If it's X amount times harder to even get consideration... wouldn't that be a factor in the rarity of that rarity? Also for consideration... Players that debut in the early 20's are typically pretty special players. Just logic will tell us that. For a team to rush a Walter Jenkins or Jackson Chourio up to the majors to start at a young age, to start his clock early so they reach free agency at age 26, to leapfrog the Martins and Rodens, wouldn't that player have to be pretty special? I'll contend that a player that special is the real rarity. Not many of them exist. That player is going to get every chance to prove he is what the team predetermined he will be. Therefore making his ultimate failure... a rarity... an exception to the rule which was already a rarity based on the specialness that put him in that situation in the first place. X amount times harder to fail because that player will be allowed to work through low performance and talented enough to be given the opportunity at a young age. Royce Lewis is going to get every opportunity to not fail. Not saying he shouldn't just trying to point out what could logically be considered major contributing factors to the rarity or exceptions to the rules that you speak of. However, after you deal with the superstars like Jenkins and Chourio. You still got 25 other roster spots to staff and I don't think asking for competition between Lukes and whoever else was predetermined for the 26 man roster is a lot to ask for.

Humor is a slippery slope.

Predetermination I'm not a fan of predetermination. If what you are saying is true. They are not "depth for injury or bad play" either. They are just bad play.

The Twins have eclipsed 3 million fans three times. 1988 following the World Series win. And the 2010 and 2011 seasons which were the first two years of Target Field which may have turned those turnstiles. 2010 and 2011 were also the last two years of the brief Bill Smith regime. I mention Bill Smith because Bill spent money in comparison to Ryan. 2010 and 2011 (2012) were also the only years of payroll outlier in Twins History. The Twins ranked 9th and 10th in opening day payroll in 2010 and 2011 respectively. 11th in 2012 before plunging to 21st in 2013. Was that Bill Smith or the opening of Target Field. Otherwise... between 18th and 22nd ranked is what the Twins are and have basically always been until we broke that ceiling in 2021 and payroll rose to 153 million in 2023 until they hit that wall.

You'll have to enter my garage to find out.

You are spot on. The Polanco trade wasn't the problem... it's the 4 lesser pieces that we divided Polanco into that was the problem. I honestly would have felt better if the Twins would have simply gotten nothing but prospects in the deal. I wouldn't have been happy because I saw Polanco as a key piece to what should have been a contending team. But... I would have been happier (still not happy) because it would have been potentially better than what we spent the Polanco money on.

That's not what I'm saying. I've said multiple times... There is no such thing as a log jam. There is room on the roster for multiple talented players. Multiple talented players is something every team should strive for... not reduce at the mere perception of it. Players are going to struggle, players are going to get hurt. I'm rather insistent that roster building goes beyond 9 players while 10 through 13 are some scrubs that we like to call bench. No one will ever be able to move me off of that and it's frankly beyond me that people are even willing to argue it. It took exactly one game for Royce Lewis to go down for two months. I argued at the time that there was room on the roster for Polanco and Julien. I'm prepared to make that same argument today even while knowing what actually happened in 2024 and I've made that argument multiple times in between this specific Polanco trade and today concerning other players and scenarios. Yep.. Lee was coming to... We would have had room for Lee, Polanco and Julien and Farmer. Oddly... none of those 4 players worked out at all. We've seen approximately Zero teams go through 162 games with the same 9 players performing to expectation and staying healthy over the course of the season. That's zero over the past 5 million years. On Kirilloff... I'm saying specifically. The signing of Santana moved Kirilloff off first base. Kirilloff was hurt for most of the year but when Kirilloff played and he had a ****** year. He spent the majority of his time in the OF. 31 games in the OF, 14 games at DH and 12 games at 1B and he retired following the season. Hindsight says... Who Cares... Kirilloff sucked. He's out of baseball. Without the benefit of hindsight. There would be no prediction of his eminent retirement. Just the expectation of a former first round draft pick. At the time of the Santana signing which is made possible in part by the Polanco trade. They said... we will sign this 38 year old and give him the full time job at 1B. Kirilloff and whatever he will become in the future will be pushed into the OF primarily... which is fine but it's also where he joins Margot, Martin, Larnach and Wallner and Santana leaves after the year and he is replaced by France and France is replaced by ??? I don't know who plays 1B in 2026 or 2027 but it might cost us Joe Ryan. Yes... we would still be in this 1B hole if Santana didn't take over 1B because Kirilloff vanished. But, it's another example of this front office punting youth for a one year fix.

Some will argue that Santana more than replaced Polanco's 2024 production. Santana did that using hindsight. No front office would have been able to predict that. The fact that Seattle paid around 20 million (my estimate with no accuracy implied) in value to acquire Polanco and Santana signed for 5 tells you that no front office would have been able to predict that Santana was going to out perform Polanco in 2024. However, it just can't be looked at as one for one since multiple roster spots were involved... including two players that 3 teams were paying approximately 14 million dollars TO NOT PLAY FOR THEM. The multiple roster spots involved as it happened made the team weaker on paper. In hindsight... it also made the team weaker. Margot alone did more damage than the simplicity of his numbers. But... for me... it just comes down to the time the trade was made. What should the team have expected out of Polanco in 2024 at the time of the trade? A good hitter is what should have been expected. That's why Seattle gave up what the gave up to acquire him. What was the current context of the team at the time of the trade? Coming off a playoff series win with the Blue Jays is the answer. I would have kept Polanco believing that he was going to be a good hitter when good hitting would help a team in contention. I wouldn't have traded for Margot believing that he wasn't going to be a good hitter and he was just going to compromise future development of the young left handed hitters. If Santana was necessary. OK... Fine... Spend the 5.25 million. It's only 4 million more than the 1.25 million they spent after the trade. If the ownership says 5.25 million is too much but 1.25 million is OK. Than don't sign Santana. We were seriously talking Log Jam's in the infield at the time. I laugh at log jam talk. There is no such thing but the sentiment on this board was that we had infielders coming out of ears so Polanco was expendable. However... the Santana signing was just going to push Kirilloff into the OF and off into the distance as a 1B candidate. No way of knowing that Kirilloff was about to retire at the time of the Santana signing but the scar is still visible today. It's a 1st baseman sized scar as we prepare for the 2026 season. It might cost us Joe Ryan to fix the scar.

I don't see any other way to look at it. In my opinion... It was a... budget was cut, there was no money left to work with so they moved money around in a salary reallocation trade. January 29, 2024. They trade Polanco to Seattle. Jorge was due 10.5 for 2024 plus a .750 buyout. So... Let's say 11.25 Million off the books. They received DeSclafini and 8 million in cash to cover two thirds of the 12 million DeScalfini was due in 2024. Spending 4 million plus Topa at 1.25 million. Leaving 6 million left to reallocate. February 7... They sign Carlos Santana to a one year 5.25 million dollars. Leaving .75 million to reallocate. and they concluded the off-season on February 26 with the Noah Miller for Manual Margot deal. The Dodgers sent 6 million to cover the 10 million owed to Margot and also included 2 million for his buyout. All the money was reallocated... Twins payroll went up about 1.25 million after the deal. Polanco had a bad year in Seattle... Very un-Polanco like with a 92 OPS+ in Seattle. Prior to the trade he was 111, 117 and 125 so anyone who says they saw the 92 coming... I'm not really listening to them. His replacements at 2B was Julien and Farmer (6M) who produced 74 and 82 OPS+ respectively. In hindsight... If we kept Polanco and he performed the same in Minnesota... we were still better off at 2B but we can't just look at this thing from one player compared to one player. The trade had roster and budget implications involving everybody listed in this post. If we don't trade Polanco, We don't get DeSclafini, Topa, Santana, Margot, we don't utilize Julien and Farmer as much. Polanco clearly had trade value because the Mariners not only picked up his 11.25 million... plus the 4 million they sent (4 Million of the 8 Million they sent was acquired in a previous DeSclafini trade making it two teams paying 4 million for him not to pitch for them) and they included a top 100 prospect (What's the Money Value of a top 100 Prospect?)and a reliever coming off a decent year. If you factor in GG and Topa... It isn't out of line to say that it was at least 20 million in value to acquire Polanco. That 20 million guess only matters in regards to the value that Polanco had at the time of the deal. It only matters to show that Polanco was not chopped liver when he was traded. That Value that Polanco had at the time of the deal leads to the crux of my issue with the trade. We were coming off a playoff win. In my opinion... it just wasn't the time to take a major league hitter and divide him into multiple parts. The Mariners paid a lot for him but that's the price you pay for a proven major league hitter. To me the question boils down to one thing. Would you rather have one good player or 4 lesser pieces. I'll take the one good player in an off-season following a playoff series win for a franchise that had been starving for playoff wins going on decades. In my opinion... The Polanco trade was a pivot point for this franchise. And I'll continue to say... If GG pans out... We may indeed win this trade. Until then... We lost the deal.

Here's what I'd like to know. Why did Falvey and Lavine think that money wouldn't be a concern? They made a lot of roster decisions that suggest they thought money wouldn't be a concern. There is absolutely nothing in the history of Minnesota Twins budgets that would lead a new front office... just coming into a job... to believe that money wouldn't be a concern in Minnesota. They staffed the roster like they could go to 160 million, 170... 180? Just keep increasing as needed. They are not idiots... Why did they have that impression? I understand course correction. What I don't understand is the impression in the first place. Minnesota has never been a "mid-market" team. We all know this. They had to know this. What made them think they could free agent sign their way to glory?

I'll be surprised if he remains on the 40 man. However,.. he plays SS and CF and our SS depth chart is pretty scary. It's kind of like grabbing a plastic bottle of motor oil to protect yourself against an intruder in your garage... because you haven't got anything better to protect yourself with and you hope you don't have to use it.

I believe you are looking at this correctly. Polanco is one roster spot. Whatever his 2024 was... it was... but in the end it's one roster spot. On the other hand and the point you are making. His trade potentially manifested into Julien, DeSclafini, Topa, Margot and Yes... Santana as well. That's two sub par performance roster spots, two wasted 40 man spots and Yes... Santana did a decent job but was one year and gone.

Exactly. In the end. My 4 requests are just slight variations on the same core. Just building blocks in the shifting sand of baseball nuance. All things being equal... I want the front office and manager to commit to youth over committing to an expiring contract. The problem is... Things are rarely equal but I believe that if the manager allows for honest to god competition. The Wins today will take care of themselves while at the same time building a strong future.