Otto von Ballpark

Maybe if we were big buyers, sure. Another Ramos for Capps would absolutely draw the spotlight of the ownership, or even another Delmon Young / aggressive challenge type trade. I was thinking more minor moves (like Smith did in 2009) or standing pat (like Smith did at the deadline in 2008). There would have been little or no risk to the front office's job standing in that.

Hey now, the context of the post was postseason odds. If you want to move the discussion to pennant odds, fine, but please don't imply again that I am somehow being disingenuous in my posts.

I absolutely agree the front office made an honest assessment. But I still think I can reasonably disagree. I don't think the front office was in too much danger in this instance. I mean, I don't think the assistants/scouts have much sway in the decision -- it's pretty much Falvey's and Levine's decision to make and own. And the Pohlads probably don't care too much either way, relative to the good will Falvey and Levine have bought so far (with 2017, and saving a few bucks on Hughes).

You are wrong. No worries, though, I have referenced a couple different figures. 8.4% odds was Fangraphs projections, weighted a bit more to "season to date stats" (what Fangraphs calls them, hence why I try to include that phrase when referencing them too). I think their "normal" projection uses preseason projections pretty heavily, which isn't necessarily bad, but it can obscure some new info and keep some old biases, so I try not to rely exclusively on that: https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/season-to-date/div?date=2018-07-26 "Coin flip" mode odds were actually 12.5%, and I also tried to include that phrase in those references. I cited that previously just as one illustration of how much we still control our destiny, comparable to San Fran, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh -- our record is worse, but we've only got one team to target and a lot of head-to-head games left: https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/coin-flip/div?date=2018-07-26 (Also, FYI, when you select a date on Fangraphs playoff odds page, it includes the results of games played that date. So to judge pre-Escobar trade, you'd want to select "7-26-2018" since the trade happened before the 7-27 game. Probably pre-Pressly trade too, since he apparently became unavailable during that night's game. Not that I'm putting a ton of stock in one day's difference or anything, just a best practice.)

I totally get that. I would have liked to see some more changes earlier, even if just internal ones. We could have definitely auditioned new pitchers in the Belisle role -- maybe a starter coming up from the minors in a relief role? Maybe a bargain external buy -- Washington got Herrera pretty cheap last month. Venters and Brach were pretty cheap too. Asdrubal Cabrera at DH, maybe? I wasn't necessarily opposed to a "soft sell" either -- Rodney, like Kintzler before him? Lynn, like Garcia? Especially paired with a interesting minor league promotion. I liked getting Polanco and Erv back, calling up Cave, but yeah, I could see a desire for more, if we weren't going to sell.

There were also more teams between us and that goal last year. At the 2017 deadline, Fangraphs "season to date" projection mode gave us 7.3% chance of making the postseason. This season, at the time of the Escobar/Pressly trades, that figure was 8.4%. There is definitely some room for nuanced opinions around that, so please don't quote just a snippet of my post again and say I am being disingenuous or that I am claiming these numbers are "super meaningful". Please consider the context of my complete posts! Just saying there is room for two sides in this matter.

No, just that if we're going to go for that 8% or whatever, or even try to improve on it, trying to leverage Pressly might have been our best bet. His presence made me feel better about that 8% than, say, if Casey Fien was in his spot providing that performance. I too was surprised by that BP article, it's an interesting piece if you haven't seen it: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/41401/rubbing-mud-cant-help-falling-in-love-with-ryan-pressly/ (Interestingly, I too cited Pressly's shutdowns/meltdowns in a recent TD thread about Pressly's trade value. The Astros were apparently intrigued enough beyond that, though?)

Just saying that 2%, relative to 8%, is more significant than the same 2% relative to, say, 50%. I thought that was clear. No intent to be disingenuous at all, I thought I was pretty clear about my position in the rest of my post.

But in MLB, even historically bad teams can win 30% of the time. Baltimore is 5-5 versus the Yankees this season, KC has beaten them twice too in 7 tries. (Heck, the Twins are 6-3 versus Cleveland so far ) Going 9-2 in any MLB stretch, even with 7 games against those two squads, isn't something to dismiss entirely. Not that I am basing my opinion on that stretch alone, or just the Toronto series, or just the Gibson gem vs Boston. They had a rotten few months, absolutely. But perhaps getting Polanco back helped? Garver getting comfortable, maybe Cave too. The return of Erv. And I'm not totally sold on Cleveland either, they still have some weak spots -- their lineup is pretty top-heavy, they are still missing Miller, a guy named Bieber is starting tonight.

How much? And how much does that affect a future contending Twins season? I understand it's hard to put numbers on that, but honestly, when you look at prospect odds and the uncertainty inherent in long-term projections in general, I think it's actually pretty comparable to our odds of catching Cleveland in 2018. (And if the market is working like it should, then they should be pretty close, no?) That's not to say, my way (play it out) is right and your way (sell) is wrong. But neither is the reverse true. It's just different preferences at this particular juncture. Heck, I'm not even that stridently on the "play it out" side -- I'm much closer to a fence straddler that was simply leaning that way on that particular day. Had we sold after the Cubs series, or the Milwaukee series, or the KC sweep, I probably would have been leaning in your direction.

I'm not trying to present it like it's "super meaningful" but it's one of the few reference points we have. I think one can absolutely disagree about its meaning. What I object to, is that a few folks on the "sell" side are disagreeing quite specifically and stridently with me that the number could have any meaning whatsoever, or that an unspecified future odds number is now much greater due to our course of action. I think both sides can be logical here -- I just happen to be on one side, and you are on the other. No harm in that. Although a 2% drop, on 8% odds to begin with, is a 25% drop relative to where we were before. (And frankly, I'd also disagree with that limited drop in the odds. Sano doesn't look ready to take anyone's place right now, much less Escobar's, and Prospectus just compared Pressly favorably to Chapman, Hader, and Diaz -- the downgrade for the next 2 months to Moya, a guy who apparently couldn't beat out Belisle for mop-up duty all summer, is perhaps not captured well by the projections. For a team in a position where we need every marginal win we can get to actually pull off the upset, this was more than a 2% drop. It was a bigger sell-off than Kintzler and Garcia, for sure.)

4 of the 5 prospects we acquired were rated by Fangraphs preseason at 40 FV, and the other was not rated. We already had 30 prospects rated at 40 FV or better, before the latest draft. Fangraphs had this to say before the season: "The Twins have a deep system with promising players at all levels, featuring a variety of profiles and pedigrees. They’re positioned well, with a competitive, mostly young big-league team and a farm system that has at least one solid contributor emerging each year to fill holes." How much did that really change with these 2 trades?

Walker had 51 walks in 560 PA at AA in 2015. That is 9.1%. Again, as I thought I made clear in the rest of my post, I am NOT comparing Walker and Rooker as players at all. Do you have any response to the other names I listed in my post? Do you have any good comps for Brent Rooker, in terms of age and K rate at AA?

They didn't have a whole lot of good assets in 2011. We got 2012 picks #32 (Berrios) and #42 (Bard) for losing Cuddyer and Kubel, respectively -- that seems pretty good, actually. 2014, I guess we had Perkins, but by that time he had been eclipsed by Andrew Miller. Maybe we could have gotten a Soria-like return for him? Soria netted Jake Thompson and Corey Knebel that deadline. But even then, Knebel's only had one really good year (although it was really, really good), and Thompson has kind of busted so far.

Do you have any numbers on those odds? Not trying to be snarky, this is an honest question. Because you have employed a lot of qualifiers to diminish the Twins chances for 2018 that have raised the bar for your future expectations, to the point where it's not so clear those odds are all that different. For example, viewing the goal as building a great team that could be a favorite to win the World Series once the postseason begins -- that sounds good, but how often does that happen? I don't know if it's ever happened for the Twins in the wild card era. I guess in 2006 we had the top seed, but after losing basically every SP not named Johan and using Jason Tyner as a playoff DH, we probably weren't the favorite. So what are the odds for us to have such a "great season", 1 in 10 if you are charitable? 1 in 20? Arguably no better or worse than Fangraphs "season to date stats" projection mode (not "coin flip" )gave us for winning the division as of the Escobar trade (8.4%): https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/season-to-date/div?date=2018-07-26 Maybe the Twins new front office is trying to change that, forgoing some regular division contention for aiming to build that "great team" of the future, but given the revenue/payroll figures you often cite, it's very debatable if that is a wise strategy in this market. Then on top of that, you are adding an additional qualifier that the specific 5 mid-tier, low-minors prospects we just acquired will contribute significantly to that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 "great season". I don't think it's a controversial statement to say that prospects, especially that level and quantity, are hardly predictable with that any level of precision. Even if you forecast them to collectively give you more future WAR than Escobar and Pressly, you really can't say with much certainty when or how it will happen -- it might come in seasons like 2018 again, or worse. It might come in increments of 1 WAR per season, which are not uncommon augmentations for any team in any given season -- you don't necessarily need to sell in our current position to secure those kind of assets. So that's why I am asking you for something more concrete about your odds. Otherwise, all we have is platitudes about your gut feeling -- which isn't necessarily bad, we are just fans on a message board after all -- but the certainty with which you are dismissing my dissenting opinion suggests something greater than that. I've shown you 8.4% odds for the Twins winning the division, what odds do you put on your scenario (these 5 prospects contributing significantly to a future "great season" where we are postseason favorites)? And what are the underlying numbers you would use to arrive at that figure?

Maybe I still wasn't clear, there was no metaphor. "Coin flip" is name of the odds mode that Fangraphs tracks: https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/coin-flip/div?date=2018-07-26 Those odds are kind of a shorthand for how much destiny control a team has. So despite have a slightly worse record, the Twins as of last week had about as much destiny control as a variety of other teams who still consider themselves in the race, thanks to having only Cleveland to worry about (and ample head-to-head opportunities remaining).

"Millenial fans I reference"? Where? Or is this just a way to be demeaning?

I have been citing the "coin flip" playoff odds published at Fangraphs, which are based on each game being a coin flip. So given our deficit, plus the number of games and teams left in the race, that gave the Twins a 12.5% chance of winning the division. Nowhere did I mean the Twins had a 50/50 chance of winning the division. Hope that clears things up.

Also, there are degrees of acting like a contender. Personally, I wasn't advocating buying at this point, unless perhaps there was a real bargain to be had upgrading a weak spot like Morrison. Mostly just the lowest form of "acting like a contender": making some internal moves (Polanco and Ervin?) and keeping the roster together.

It's tricky for Twins fans, because they do remember 2017, 2009, and 2003. All 3 of those years, the Twins made the postseason after failing win more than they lost through 100 games. So it seems a bit more complicated than that.

To be fair, we were only 5 games under when we traded Escobar. I think the further back we are, the easier it becomes, which is why it hurt a bit to do it at that exact point, after we had gained since Polanco's return. I wonder what players Arizona and Houston were ready to move on to, because it would have been nice to take it up to the actual deadline, finishing the Boston challenge and getting one crack at Cleveland. Although if the FO was going to sell anyway, it may have hurt then even more.

Cardinals aren't really selling, at least not like the Twins. They traded away one reliever (with a below league average K rate) in one deal, and acquired a MLB reliever (and another MLB-ready one) in another trade. They also DFA'd two veteran relievers and promoted a couple top pitching prospects. Seems to be a reload/reorganization. San Fran and Pittsburgh haven't sold yet either, and have been rumored to be buyers. The Twins were pretty much the closest contenders to really sell, so far.

I asked you this before and didn't get an answer: what are the odds that the specific 5 players we acquired contribute meaningfully to a "great" Twins team in the future? I would guess those odds are not much different than the 9.1% chance of winning the division that Fangraphs' "season to date" projection mode gave us before the Escobar trade. (To say nothing of our destiny control.) To turn your phrase around: it seems many of you are dramatically overrating the success rate of mid-tier prospects, and the precision with which teams can use them to build to future greatness.

Not remotely? The spread of winning percentages in baseball isn't that great, most games are coin flips. At the time of the Escobar trade, our winning percentage was .475 and Fangraphs projected us to be .518 for the rest of the season. As you reduce the games and teams remaining, coin flip odds become more useful, as they can show how much of our destiny we control. It wasn't a lot, but was comparable to Pittsburgh, San Fran, and St. Louis, none of whom have sold yet like the Twins (St Louis has made trades, but more reorganizing/reloading).

It is the same all over the league. The best guys have pretty much all been dealt, and buyers can afford to wait it out with the remains until the deadline or into August.