drivlikejehu

It never works out that way.

True middle-of-the-order bats are not easily replaceable. Having one big year like Morrison doesn't qualify (as we are seeing this season). No one knows for sure if Larnach will reach a high offensive ceiling, but it's fairly obvious why a team would be interested in a guy like that at #20.

Very few impact MLB hitters struggled badly in AA at age 23. Rooker's plate discipline numbers may have improved some lately, but still no power . . . if he doesn't right the ship in dramatic fashion - and soon - it will be a very bad sign.

It's not that early with respect to plate discipline numbers and batted ball profile. 5% walk rate, 30% K-rate, 1.5 GB/FB . . . those are indescribably bad for an offense-first player. I don't overreact to small sample sizes, but there's just no way around the fact that Rooker's projection has to be revised downward based on what's happened to date.

I'm pretty concerned about Rooker. Some initial struggles wouldn't be an issue but he's being completely dominated by AA pitching in every possible respect. He really looks like a guy that's been exposed, and while I expect him to make some adjustments, I think it bodes ill for his potential at the highest level.

For every season, there are the off-season moves and then the in-season moves . . . I think the off-season has given the Twins a solid starting point for the year, particularly considering the weakness of the AL Central. It didn't make the Twins clear World Series contenders, but I don't think they were in a position to reach that point (even if they signed Darvish) during the off-season alone. They'll need young players to continue developing for that to become realistic . . . and if that does transpire, a deadline move or two to enhance the post-season roster. I'm pleasantly surprised that the payroll has creeped up; it's still below average, of course, but given their lack of long-term commitments, the Twins should have reasonable flexibility for several years.

The problem is that no one is "crowning" the Twins' front office . . . and also, every team signs short-term free agent deals (even if they also sign some long-term ones). So I guess this is really just another repetition of how the F.O. is a failure for not getting an ace-caliber starter this off-season, which you emphasize later in the thread by saying that no team has ever succeeded through short-term FA deals with zero level of evidence. ---- Something I like about having both Lynn and Odorizzi is that, between the two of them, there is a pretty decent chance of *one* significant bounce back. That's obviously important from a post-season perspective, because a bunch of #4s aren't ideal for the playoff rotation. While they likely won't have a true #1 guy, that's not a requirement to win the WS (e.g., 2015 Royals, 2013 Red Sox, etc.). The teams without an elite starter did have good depth, though.

Right, but that's pretty close to the Archer scenario in terms of requiring significant prospects.

I think it's obvious that ownership capped payroll at around $115 million, basically making a major free agent signing impossible. There are only 2 significant questions that I think can be asked as relates to the Twins' off-season strategy: 1) Should the Twins have given up a huge prospect haul for Archer? 2) Should the Twins have signed Cobb or Lynn instead of acquiring Rodney, Reed, and Odorizzi? I don't think a low-payroll team like the Twins could realistically choose option (1), because they will need their prospects to have any hope of competing in the future. The more interesting question is option (2), which would have produced a more reliable mid-rotation option than Odorizzi albeit without being able to improve the bullpen.

The Twins wouldn't have been in the wildcard game last year without Dozier, so it's a stretch (if not just plain indefensible) to argue his production was "wasted." Nor would his production this year be "wasted" if the Twins are competitive. What I don't understand is - what would the armchair GMs on this site do if they got the job, went to Pohlad and said: "we need Darvish." And Pohlad said "no, but please do make a lowball offer for optics reasons. Thanks." Exactly what magic trick would overcome this issue? To me it seems like an immature need to blast away at the front office, in the worst traditions of online discourse.

Falvey went from #3 in a small market to #1 in a mid-sized market that spends like a small market. It was a no-brainer career move for him regardless of the limitations - which of course are known around the league (i.e., other ownership groups would judge his performance in the context of the Twins' low payroll). It's irrelevant that Falvey knew the Twins were cheap beforehand - the bottom line is the same, he lacks the authority to raise payroll in the manner that TD posters would like. The argument that he's choosing the wrong course is a poor one because he doesn't actually have a choice. All fans do by blaming Falvey for this is to play into the Pohlads' dishonest approach to team expenditures.

I don't necessarily disagree with the OP, but it's worth keeping in mind that Falvey and Levine are almost certainly operating under fairly severe payroll limitations due to classic Pohlad cheapness. This is really the only explanation that makes sense - for instance, Falvey and Levine gain nothing by offering under-market deals to free agents . . . it just makes them look clueless. But the Pohlads do gain something, because Jim can say that they were 'willing' to pay significant amounts to free agents but, aw shucks, it just didn't work out. It's not outside the realm of possibility that ownership is even opposed to extensions for the Twins' young core. Of course, one could argue that Falvey and Levine should get a trade done instead, for a starter with a cheap contract (e.g., Archer). But the payroll issue impacts this option almost as much, because trading away prospects carries the additional risk that future holes won't be fixable in free agency. Though I disagreed with a lot of his decisions, I always thought that Terry Ryan's apparent reluctance to sign free agents was really a cover for ownership, who wanted payrolls even lower than the alleged ceilings (which were still pretty low). Bill Smith's seeming willingness to spend is more easily explained by the fact that he was GM when the team moved into the new stadium and ownership's promises regarding payroll were most fresh. If the front office is mandated to remain within the bottom third of MLB payrolls, not just in 2018 but perpetually, there wasn't really a good way to address the rotation. This is not to absolve the organization, since ownership is responsible for what happens, but the criticism of Falvey and Levine strikes me as unfair under the most realistic assumptions.

You seem to think that the front office views prospects as their subordinates, which simply isn't the case. There is no connection at all to a typical office environment (except of course within the front office itself). Though there is a human element involved at some level, to Falvey and Levine prospects are basically just assets. They couldn't care less about who brought them into the org. Whether you believe it or not, that's unquestionably the way it is.

This is completely different - your analogy works with the front office, but not with the players, especially not minor leaguers. What you're saying is more akin to a new plant manager throwing out his production equipment because it was already there when he arrived. Zero chance this is a thing for the Twins.

I don't understand what aspect of "human nature" would cause Levine to want to get rid of Ryan-era draftees. Wouldn't that mean they want to get rid of Buxton, Berrios, etc.? The players don't really have a personal connection to the previous leadership, so I think there's zero chance Falvey or Levine will treat prospects differently based on who drafted them. Of course, they may evaluate players differently, but that could work in either direction. I agree with the rest of your post, but that part was way off base.

I don't think it's realistic to have the annual amounts drop off quite like that. I do think it's possible a player would accept a slightly deferred signing bonus. Something like: - $20 million per year salary for 6 years - $40 million signing bonus payable in years 2-4 (say 15/15/10)

Another comparable, Ian Kinsler, has aged very well. Also on the list is Jose Valentin, who had 4 solid years after age 31 (though not consecutively).

I think Dozier may age reasonably well . . . he's a solid overall athlete and has proven adaptable at the plate to the adjustments that pitchers have made. But I don't think it's practical for the Twins to pay him substantial dollars in his mid-30s.

The Twins have an enormous amount of payroll space, even for their limited budget, after 2018. I would offer Darvish a contract that included a significant signing bonus to be paid out in 2019 and 2020 . . . that would prevent his contract from being too burdensome as the Twins' young players get more costly.

Sorry but this is ridiculous. 'Asking questions' can be a way to level completely fictitious and unfounded accusations, which is exactly what you are doing here. 'Sure, there's zero evidence of anything amiss, but since I can make up a conspiracy theory out of thin air, it makes sense to discuss it.' I don't understand why this line of inquiry is even being allowed by the mods. It's pretty much the same as accusing Falvey of having a drug problem or any other completely made-up smear.

I don't see it with Rodriguez. He's borderline top 50 to me.

De Leon was an obvious injury risk at the time and it was apparent that the Dodgers wanted to get rid of him. The value of JDL + throw ins for Dozier was so off that it's kind of hard for me to give the front office too much credit, because they didn't receive a legitimate offer.

No he wouldn't, he is not a "prospect" and would be considered as AAAA depth that is interchangeable with basically random guys they could pull off the waiver wire. He has no value.

That has nothing to do with his fielding, and also, he's been stuck in AAA all year, so actually he's done nothing that matters for an MLB club.

In AA. That doesn't make him an MLB CF. Oswaldo Arcia played some CF in the minors.