Otto von Ballpark

Technically yes, last night. But Boston won today, so they have officially clinched the division.

Sounds like you are prematurely judging unknown results too in your second paragraph, just in the Twins favor. You are invoking Polanco for unallocated IFA cash, and I've seen others bringing up Kluber in regards to Watson. The Twins didn't get that here, they got 2 lottery tickets with very low chances of that kind of return. Perhaps not meaningfully different than the lottery tickets already in the system or signable under our original IFA pool. (And in the FO's favor, I don't necessarily think they will deserve further blame if those lottery tickets don't produce meaningful contributions down the line.) I think the only way to really judge a trade like this right now is to assume both sides got fair market value. In which case, it is prioritizing type of return. And for a team with a real opportunity to play meaningful games after July 30 (and not just our own 10% wild card odds, but a much higher chance of staying in the race until the end given the suspect competition), and clearly not dealing from a surplus, it's enough to make me question it. It feels almost like the FO got too cute with a future strategy here, when they should have let the present strategy simply play out instead, and got bailed out on it so far by the unlikely result of us winning the 2nd WC by 5+ games. Still more returns left by which to judge the trade, of course. Our pen in the playoffs, and the front office's efforts to get meaningful future value from Watson and the IFA investment. Probably a small part too in where Kintzler signs and performs versus our own efforts to address our pen this winter. On IFA specifically, even players who are not eligible to sign on July 2nd generally have deals arranged with clubs. Haven't heard anything about the Twins plans for their remaining cash. Other late signings who go under the radar generally don't command big bonuses (like Fernando Romero'a $260k). Not that it is valueless, but it does seem the value of additional IFA money goes down the further away from July 2nd you get, and the further you are under your original IFA cap to begin with. (Personally, pessimistically, I wonder if the money was included as a speculative hedge because Watson alone wasn't valuable enough?)

Not anymore, that rule changed a few years back. Anybody on the 40-man as of Sep. 1st is eligible. The DL trick is actually based on the 60-day DL, it has nothing to do with the 10-day DL that Sano is on. And it has nothing to do with 25-man rosters, but rather adding guys who were in your org but weren't on the 40-man on Sep. 1st (i.e. Moya).

Not quite, Polanco got $700k. But that was 8 years ago, and Thorpe's $500k was even 5 years ago. Also Polanco and Thorpe both signed on July 2nd, but we will only be able to use the Kintzler $500k later in the signing period. This article suggests the Twins are still almost a millon under the cap, even before the added money, and I'm not sure who they will spend it on: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/09/twins-to-sign-venezuelan-prospect-carlos-aguiar.html Obviously we can evaluate those returns over time, but right now it looks pretty much like fair market value for a 2 month rental reliever. Given that, I think I would have rather had the 2 month rental reliever, given the wide open 2nd wild card race and our pitching needs.

If you think of the games as coin flips, you'd need to get specific results of 6 flips in a row to force a tiebreaker, 7 in a row to move the WC game to Boston. That's a 99.2% likelihood that NY hosts the wild card game. What level should that rise to before we consider it a "foregone conclusion"?

We're on a baseball message board -- of course the front office deserves some criticism! I concede that they made the 2nd wild card and didn't need Kintzler to do it. The loss of Kintzler may not be a factor next week either but I'd feel better going in if we still had him. Ultimately my concern won't be so much about the results though as the process. And I'm not sticking a fork in the FO or anything either, it's just a concern that rises a bit above simple disagreement for me. But yeah, it's been a great year so far, I've had fun following and discussing this team.

Please let's not resort to this kind of argument. "Likes" for long articles do not mean agreement and especially not full agreement with every point in the article, or whatever conclusions you are now inferring from the article. The Twins weren't likely to make the postseason after the trade. But they weren't likely to make the postseason just before the trade either. Depending on your threshold for "likely" it could be argued that no team was particularly likely to win the 2nd wild card (tops in the Fangraphs "coin flip" odds was 28%), but we knew that one of them would, and a few would stay close until late. Some of us just wanted to be best positioned to stay in the race, and best compete if we did happen to make it.

Rarely is one player the "delta between being legit". And if you want to argue that, Kintzler in a WC race is a lot closer to being a meaningful "delta" than Watson or a late international signing will likely be. And the trade return is almost immaterial to this debate. The only evidence we have at this point suggests it was a fair market return, neither a fleecing nor being fleeced. If the Twins turn out a hidden gem in Watson or in a late international signing, I'll be sure to revisit this, but for now I have to assume they were just fair market pieces for renting Kintzler for a playoff chase. And in that case, I think I'd rather take my chances with Kintzler in that chase.

1 & 2. Our team composition was changing. Buxton was showing up, Gibson wasn't going to be THAT bad, etc. Not enough to make us world-beaters, of course, but certainly enough that we could hang with that mediocre competition. 3. Our now-bWAR leader Buxton, who had been heating up at the plate at the beginning of July, missed the last 2 weeks of that month. Even so, 2 weeks before the deadline, we took 2 of 3 from the Yankees. We actually won a game in Houston. Our final 3 losses in July were 1-run walk-off losses, which suggests some bad luck. Buxton returned August 1st. 4. "Teams" plural coming on strong? Outside of the top 4 in the AL, I think it was just the Royals among the 2nd wild card contenders that could be characterized as "coming on strong". And of course that was based on a 9 game win streak, 8 of which came against Detroit and the White Sox (including 3 walk off wins, which suggest some good luck). And we knew they were limited, had restrictions on buying, and still had to play us a bunch head-to-head. July records KCR 16 10 SEA 14 12 OAK 12 14 TBR 12 13 DET 12 14 BAL 12 14 TOR 12 15 TEX 11 14 MIN 10 15 LAA 9 13 Not a great month, but nothing that screams to me "fear the Royals! Sell!" 5. Every team in that group had some severe limitations to buying, at least buying enough to discourage potential competitors. If they weren't discouraged by us buying Jaime Garcia, why should we be discouraged by them buying Jeremy Hellickson or Trevor Cahill? 6. I assume by "play in game" you are referring to the wild card game? If so, it's a postseason berth. While teams would obviously prefer to win the division, I think teams still take the wild card, even the 2nd spot, pretty seriously.

I never said the Twins were definitively better than the Angels. Point is, they weren't definitively worse, than them or any of the 2nd wild card contenders as of July 30. And the only one that had anything resembling a definitive record advantage as of that date was the Royals, a team whose weaknesses we knew well and he had a lot of head-to-head games with which to make up ground (which we ultimately didn't even need). And I think I clarified in a later post -- we didn't need to suddenly play well AND every other team to play worse. That happened, and we won fairly comfortably by 5 games. We really only needed one of those things to happen, or some mildly version of both, to stay in the race until the end.

Brock, I feel like you and others are basically saying the Twins were right to sell because in order to stay relevant, they needed to play great AND see a bunch of teams collapse/falter. But that's not right. That happened, and we actually won the 2nd wild card fairly comfortably. If just one of those things happens, we are still in the hunt. If neither happens to quite the degree that they actually happened, we are still in the hunt. At close of play on July 30, we trailed KC by 5, Tampa by 2.5, and Seattle by 1.5, with ~55 to play. We weren't likely to win it, but it wasn't necessarily going to require any miracles either. We were in the thick of it, with no sleeping giants poised to awaken (no, the Royals were not sleeping giants who awoke in late July).

What team in that group would you have forecast to have great post-July 30 success? None of those teams had a good case of separating from the pack. Maybe it's unusual that there is so much mediocrity in the AL now, but there is. And that was apparent in July. Didn't mean the Twins had a great chance, but it meant they had a decent chance. And the Twins FO should be expected to know that and not disregard, even if historically unusual.

Have you seen the Angels pitching staff? Ricky Nolasco? As of late July, they were pinning their hopes on the healthy return of Alex Meyer. That was supposed to intimidate the Twins into selling? I feel like you keep bringing up hypotheticals that don't match anything the Twins should have known about the field as of July 30.

Who are the 4? At close of play July 30, we trailed only 3 for the 2nd wild card. (The Angels have actually gone .519 since then!) Any teams, or these specific teams? I hope the FO isn't basing their decisions on abstract theoretical teams. Also, note that the Twins are up by 5 games. They didn't need the Royals and Rays to play .420 ball the last 2 months to be in the hunt this late. Both could have been right around .500 and we could have lost a couple more and we'd still only be a game out entering the final weekend.

"Recent champion", love it. They may not have Cueto, Shields, Ventura, or Davis anymore -- but we'd better give them credit for them! You are falling into the trap of selective endpoints (see my post above). The Royals were not that good as the July 30 snapshot suggested and we had ample time/opportunity left to dent the 5 game lead they built over 1 week in July. (In fact, it only took 10 days to completely erase it and put us back into a virtual tie for the wild card -- not that the FO should have predicted it would happen that immediately and quickly, but it was very possible with 2 months remaining.) And no one else had to collapse. No other contender was really even good enough on July 30 for their post-July 30 performance to count as a collapse. Tampa, Seattle, etc. continuing to hover around .500 was eminently predictable. There just weren't any dormant powerhouse teams or sleeping giants among the 2nd wild card contenders this year. If you thought the Twins could hang around .500, you basically thought they had a solid chance of hanging in the race until the final weeks.

I think that 5% was too low with that much baseball left to be played. First of all, Fangraphs projections hated us -- 3rd worst projected rest of season win percentage in the AL at that point, ahead of only the White Sox and barely the Orioles. Lower than Oakland! Lower than Detroit. We have been reading a constant drumbeat on this site about Fangraphs projections underestimating our Twins for 3 years now -- and now we want our front office agreeing with them? 538 doesn't update daily, but they had us at 9% just prior to that, and 24% just 10 days prior (before the Royals win streak). Also, outside the Twins, what either playoff odds system doesn't realize is the Royals just had a little hot streak. It is like a .250 "true talent" hitter (assuming there is such a thing for the sake or argument) -- they may have a little hitting streak to spike up to .290 at some point in a season, but they are likely to come down. The projection system says those hits are in the bank and they will hit their true talent .250 from here out, and it will buoy their overall numbers to .270 or so. And that is certainly possible. But we also know that given enough time, just like they over performed for a stretch, they will probably underperform enough for a stretch to wipe out some of gains from the "banked" hits in the final average. All of the playoff odds at the trade deadline were banking wins for the Royals that they were not terribly likely to hold on to with 1/3 of the season left to be played. Also, factual correction: there were only 2-3 teams "between" the Twins and the 2nd wild card at the close of play on July 30 depending on how you define between). Red Sox held the 1st wild card, Royals the second, then Rays, Mariners, Twins. Look at that crowd: Royals, Rays, Mariners. These are really the teams we want the Twins FO to be afraid of, with 2 months to play? No team is perfect, of course, but those 3 seemed particularly flawed and restricted. The Twins were too, but there was no reason we couldn't hang in that hunt. 1.5-2.5 game deficits behind the Mariners and Rays are darn near meaningless with 2 months to play, and even the 5 game deficit with the Royals was hardly that daunting with 7 head to head games left (and a .667 win percentage against them so far). If you want to make the case against a risky buy on July 31, I could see that, but to me, giving up Kintzler was a bit too risky of a sell. We're really kind of lucky that it won't be a big issue in the final regular season standings, but as we assemble postseason rosters, it feels like we are not quite taking as good of a shot at this thing as we should be. We're hopefully still improving in years to come, but our guys were promising enough today to at least deserve keeping their all-star closer over a #18 org prospect still in A ball.

How about just "Mitch the Trip"?

That is a very different debate than whether it was prudent to sell Kinztler as we did.

I wouldn't call that "likely." It is possible, but we are talking a #18 org prospect in A-ball, the most likely outcome is no notable MLB contribution. Versus Kintzler, who was performing at a high level in a pennant race (which is what we were in, even though we lost 4 games on the Royals the previous week). And even if Watson hits his 1.4 KATOH+ projection, which might top Kinztler's 2 month WAR, odds are it won't be as valuable (due to time and leverage).

A bunch of suspect .500ish true talent teams will make that a possibility, yes. I see nothing remarkable about one of them finishing above .500 and a few 1-2 games below. Was that the "hail mary" that you think keeping Kintzler would have been a bet on? I hope this factoid didn't even cross their minds, really. The Royals and Angels are still only at 80 losses, although I would bet they finish .500 or below. Also begs questions : did it happen in the NL in that time? Did it ever happen with 6th team at 82 wins or something else barely above .500? Also, isn't this a function of the top 4 teams being very good? Giving more teams like us a chance at the 5th best record? Shouldn't that be something we want our Twins FO to pick up on in late July?

Despite the Royals hot week, these were all .500-ish teams. Basically a coin flip every game. At the close of play on July 30 (when the Twins made their decision on Kintzler), Fangraphs coin flip wild card odds gave us a 10% chance. Virtually the same as the Orioles, Angels, and Rangers, behind the Royals, Rays, and Mariners who were 22-28%. Really not sure where people are getting "historic" and "unprecedented" as ways to describe how the last 2 months unfolded. Any single team winning it was unlikely, and the Twins a bit more unlikely than a few others, but they were definitely among a group that was going to produce the 2nd wild card, and did. http://www.fangraphs.com/coolstandings.aspx?type=0&lg=wc&date=2017-07-30 And that 10% chance understated things, as they apply to the Kintzler trade decision. It was a 10% chance that we would actually seal the deal, but something higher that we'd be in the race (30%? 40%? 50%?) and playing meaningful games in September. Especially with 7 games remaining (and a .667 winning percentage against) against the leading Royals In the face of that, we gave up our "all star" closer, out of a suspect pen, from that pennant race for our now #18 prospect. And these modest odds still include the Royals hot 10 days which weren't really indicative of their true talent level. There was still plenty of baseball left to expect that could even out, it's not like the Twins opening up a 5 game lead in the last week.

Most everyone on this side of the debate has acknowledged that the Garcia trade wasn't so bad, so I don't know where you are getting that strawman. Flipping Garcia was more like standing pat, which isn't as bad as selling (Kintzler). Your last paragraph is confusing, if you aren't willing to defend the Kintzler trade, then what are we arguing about? No one is saying he's Mariano Rivera or he alone takes us to WS contention, but there was enough of a chance of us playing meaningful games in September/October that I would have rather kept Kintzler as a pen option than get Watson.

Again, this assumes we "needed" to win by 5+ games. We could have won 5 fewer games the past 2 months it still would have been a mistake to sell. Actually a bigger mistake -- if we were going to win, odds are it was going to be closer than it turned out, and the marginal benefit of Kintzler would have been more important. Also selective endpoint. How did it look 10 days earlier? The Royals win percentage is virtually identical before and after July 19. Your analysis puts an outsized expectation on the events of July 20-30. I hope the Twins brass wasn't doing that.

None of those teams were above .500 on July 30 except the Royals (+5) and Rays (+2). Why is it shocking if none of them finish at .500? It's basically the Royals and Rays falling back a bit, and everybody else performing exactly how they did before. And we didn't them to "fold" to this extent (to win the wild card by 5+ games). We only had to outperform the Royals by 5 games (with 7 head to head, after we were already 8-4 against them), the Rays by 2-3 over the finals 2 months, and hang with the others like we did over the first ~4 months. Not saying it was super likely, but it was possible enough I didn't see the need for a marginal hedge against it in trading Kintzler. And holding on to Kintzler would have hardly been a "bet on a hail mary" as you suggest, given the modest speculative return.

I don't think it was nearly that dire. We were right in the thick of it until a hot week from the Royals right before the deadline. Yeah, those games counted, but it didn't really mean the Royals were suddenly that good -- they were still a flawed team and we still had 7 head to head games left with them. Trailing by 5 with 2 months to play obviously wasn't ideal, but we were still in the race. Obviously we still got the 2nd wild card but I think it's a little early to say the Kintzler trade will have no negative effect. The bullpen could still be a factor in the postseason. As we are constructing our postseason rosters, I still wish we had Kintzler's name to write in there instead of some others.