ashbury

This is not the thread for debating franchise health in other markets, but yes of course I have. And your comment suggested you hadn't looked at anything bigger-picture than win-loss record so I challenged it. I've long wondered if the Moneyball strategy that's evolved looks like a mixed bag at best when you take everything into account, and quite possibly is long-term slow-acting poison.

I like to remind myself at times that both Derek Falvey and Thad Levine played on NCAA teams. Maybe not powerhouse schools like Arizona State, Division III in fact (Trinity and Haverford respectively), but higher than the high school level. Maybe they were benchwarmers and held their spots out of compassion and kindness. But beats my own slow-pitch softball experience by a few light years. Anyway their on-field experience pales in comparison to Rocco's but IMO shouldn't be dismissed. Pretty sure they know from personal experience that if you hit .200 or have an ERA of 6 you might get benched.

Well then the Twins better get cracking and catch up with the top teams! Yeah, I resist my usual snarky impulse to pull out the "We Got Him" gif, because every team makes these signings. It's interesting to read about the players and their strengths, but honestly if any of them makes a contribution it will probably be some kind of beacon of success in a sea of wreckage for the season.

For me it comes down to the 2016 mantra of Sustainable Success, if I'm remembering the incoming FO's exact phrase correctly. Trades that come from a mid-season fire sale or trading-deadline sale of expiring contracts? That's not a pipeline, unless the trades would have happened if they were in first place - that's just being smart and making the best of an unsuccessful situation. Dealing away Berrios and Cruz are examples and I'm not really willing to call the guys we received part of any pipeline, because if we'd been fighting for a World Series that year those new guys wouldn't be with us. Trades that come from reallocating duplicate talent to fill areas of need, or to simply acquire young up the middle talent that is always valuable rather than let the duplicate talent die on the vine? Sign me up for that, and yes it's part of the pipeline. It comes down to specific cases. But a pipeline that relies in any important way on periodic failure isn't really the steady stream that we think of as a pipeline.

It would be poor stewardship of resources to make Gallo a full time DH; too much of the $11M price tag is for his glove. They could have made a surer bet on just the bat by applying that sum to outbidding for JD Martinez for instance. Packaging any of the young lefty corner outfielders in trade, to make room for this new guy who is on a 1-year contract that is even less likely to be extended than Correa's was, would also be poor stewardship IMO.

Attendance figures would seem to bear that out. Mission Accomplished?

You're the author. Pirates or Royals might also be instructive. But it's not my place to put more on your plate.

Now do the Cardinals, Rays, and Dodgers, as a compare/contrast.

I don't think a simple metric can be devised. A team should target wisely and then succeed more often than not on their key targets. Correa is a big fail. Gallo is a big meh. Vazquez is a medium success. That's all.

Much will depend on what further moves get made. If a corner outfielder with many years of team control, such as Wallner, departs in favor of having this one-year wonder who will absolutely move on if he has any success, I really will question the front office's strategery.

"To say Joey Gallo was bad last year would be like saying a turd isn't particularly tasty... it hardly describes the full truth." Is this observation from experience? I always have to ask, when people say things like this. At least, nobody can accuse you of burying the lede. In fact I can't remember anything you said after your opening sentence.

You forgot Fishing in the Ocean. Also, the courtesy shopping trip to Dior where you depart empty-handed and shaking your head at the idiocy of Other People

I might have been in the minority by thinking Taylor Rogers was a reasonable trade chip; his finger injury in 2021 worried me. What I didn't like was that the return represented an even bigger injury risk based on track record, whose worst case came to fruition almost immediately, plus a reclamation project that didn't really pan out. So, it was a lose-lose trade, but I see the Twins coming out the worse of the two trading partners, because their trade chip was the more valuable and they wasted it. Even if Paddack comes back after the surgery, too much time will have ticked off of the team-control clock on him.

Nice synthesis. Now do Gallo for us.

It's the off-season. Everything's on paper or is opinion. Check with me again at the end of the 2023 season and I'll give you my revised forecast, too.

"Where does Gallo play? RF is his best position. but we have Kepler. He could be DH, but didnt we want to get away from having a primary DH? " Gallo moved to LF when he joined the Yankees and remained there with the Dodgers - for reasons that are probably pretty obvious in both cases. It's not like he's inexperienced and we're pushing him out of some comfort zone. I don't expect Kepler (if he stays) to get bumped to LF, so Gallo surely knows the possibility he'll see time there at minimum, by signing the contract. "batting average is not the biggest thing, but making contact and getting on base is!! " His .160 BA this year is impossible to defend and the FO surely thinks there is reason to expect him to come back to his career norms. But the guy walks a ton, so that his on-base percentage is routinely more than .100 points above his BA, and that OBP is actually above league average. His career OBP, bad BA and all, is also (slightly) above Kepler's career log. Walks aren't as good as singles, but whatever else you say about the guy, he gets on base. I think his game, which consists of strikeouts and walks and homers, leads to boring baseball unless he's the only such slugger in the lineup. I think it's a big gamble that he does bounce back. He seems redundant to this roster rather than addressing a need. $11M for a guy who needs a "prove it" year seems way high. For all these reasons I'm less than lukewarm about signing him. But as Yogi said, in baseball, you don't know nothin'. Maybe it'll work out. "solid, coherent defense that says this signing is anything but horrid. " Maybe it'll work out... is the best I can do.

I don't want attendance to drop to zero, so I am grateful there are fans who will accept business as usual, in Twins country.

Even if he bounces back to previous production, he's a Three True Outcomes guy (SO/BB/HR) and that is boring baseball. Joe Pohlad needs to put his big boy pants on and insist that Marketing have some say. ... wait. What if Marketing thinks HR is the best and only way to publicize the team. Joe P has some housecleaning to do in that case.

That's definitely a reference worth including.

Your example is certainly true. As a second-order effect, the years (when it's that many) probably would matter. Two offers of $350M, but one at 10 years, would be more attractive than 13. Not because of "average annual value," but because it commits the player to less work. At that level of pay, the issue likely is more about the charitable foundation the player wants to fund. Getting out of bed at age 40 to go do strenuous physical activity with 25-year olds trying to beat you, grumbling "I'm too old for this ****, but I'm doing it for the needy kids," is all well and good, but he'd rather have that final grumble at age 37 if he's permitted.

I look at it more as execution*. They seemed to have believed they had invoked logic and planning and strategy. They couldn't execute. The off-season's not over and maybe that blunt assessment will turn out to be premature. * I'll save everyone the trouble, "wait, the front office's execution? Yes, I'm in favor of it." Har.

One more year and $3M more in AAV and pretty soon you're talking big money.

They spread the cost across 6 years instead of 5.

Slightly. And I hope my wording, at least in conclusion, indicated I don't take reports like that entirely at face value. It's preposterous they would really stop in their tracks to reassess, rather than pivot to an already-planned Plan B or C. But the signal coming out from that writer doesn't add any reassurance, does it.

What? Reassessing? Now, in the heat of battle, as it were? They didn't war-game this in September-October, following obvious pairs of scenarios such as "Correa signs with us" and "Correa doesn't sign with us" to their logical conclusions? I'd be... ahem... unimpressed to learn that. Reassessing would have been for if Cincinnati had asked too much for Farmer...