Otto von Ballpark

Rijo yes (Lance Lynn trade), but Vallimont no (we got him along with Sergio Romo in 2019, in exchange for Lewin Diaz).

On 2011: Cuddyer was turned into Berrios in the 2012 draft -- far more valuable than anything we likely would have fetched for him at the deadline. Likewise, Kubel turned into the #42 overall pick which had value (although Bard didn't make it). Pavano was eating innings but was old and not all that effective -- maybe we could have gotten a Yohan Pino back for him? Baker was our best pitcher in 2011 but he had a modest track record before that and had elbow issues by early July, well before the trade deadline. And Mauer had a full no-trade clause (even beyond his health and salary which would have prevented a valuable trade return anyway). I'll grant that Perkins could have been traded for some value, although even he had a very limited track record of success at that point (2011 was basically it), no closing experience yet, and only 2 years of control beyond 2011. (And of course his willingness to sign an extension with a hometown discount before 2013 turned out pretty good too -- he was still around a affordable/effective when we next sniffed respectability again.) Pitching was a problem then as now, although Berrios is better and more valuable than any pitcher on the 2011 staff. But the 2011 Twins offense was just awful, with very little hope for the future -- that's not the case with the 2021 Twins offense.

1. Does the system require extra re-stocking right now? (And is there a restocking fee? ) Seriously, there have been some prospect injuries to deal with, but there have also been some graduations and good performances/advancements. 2. Does selling at the deadline even provide meaningful re-stocking? 2017 gave us Littell, Enns, Moya, and Watson. 2018 looks much better, although the long-term effects remain to be seen (Alcala, Celestino, Duran, etc.). It's been a disappointing year, but we're way ahead of the 2011 disaster. The 2011 team didn't have the young controllable offensive performers that the 2021 team has (or the contributing veteran bats); the 2011 team didn't have a healthy ace like Berrios anymore either. And the problems of 2011 had been set in motion years prior. The 2021 team still has a very real opportunity to reload and contend in 2022, if our 2021 comeback attempt fizzles out over the next few weeks.

I hear you, they have been disappointing in both areas. What I was questioning was the specific claim that this is the worst Twins team ever in terms of fundamentals. That's a bigger claim than just "they've been bad at fundamentals" and it's likely being exacerbated by the pitching as I've shown (as well as recency bias and general subjectivity).

"There are going to be bad pitches and clutch hits" seems to gloss over the fact that Twins pitchers have the 2nd worst FIP- in MLB this season -- the only team worse is Arizona (on pace to go 44-118). And our pitchers expected stats by Statcast (xBA, xSLG, xWOBACON -- a fun stat to say, by the way!) are all among the very worst too. I don't doubt that there have been fundamental mistakes. But it's quite likely that the Twins fundamentals have been tested more than other teams. Yes, it appears they are failing that test quite often, but more testing is more opportunity for exposure. It's worth considering that part of the relationship.

I wonder though -- to what degree are those mistakes being magnified by the poor pitching? A bad cutoff may not be noticed -- or may not happen at all -- if the pitchers aren't putting the team in that position with walks, lack of strikeouts, hard contact, putting us into a deep hole, etc. Also, on fundamentals -- there seems to be the perception that past generations of ballplayers were fundamentally sound despite any failings otherwise. I wonder if that is true -- this perception often seems aided by a lack of video/media exposure. Every play of modern MLB is played back, analyzed, and available to watch on-demand, which wasn't true in the 1990s to say nothing of decades before that -- heck, it's even come a long way since the early 2000s (when Gardy's successful teams were sometimes criticized by fans for being less fundamentally sound than even TK's worse years).

And, the offense clawed back enough to get Hendriks into the game, which could help tonight and tomorrow. Of course, we'll need to convert these strategic advantages into actual wins at some point too.

Fangraphs gives Abrams a 60 FV right now, and this article from a few years ago pegged that at $56 mil value. BTV is likely just based on that. Abrams is #5 overall at Fangraphs, and was consensus top 11 in all the preseason rankings too.

Ah, Jack Morris. The debate that will never die! B-Ref has "tOPS+" which indicates if a player does better or worse in a given situation, as compared to their overall performance. (For pitchers, under 100 would be better than normal, above 100 would be worse than normal.) Morris's career tOPS+ vs 1985 AL pitcher tOPS+ (seemed like a good midpoint year) RISP: 106 vs 108 Nobody on: 97 vs 95 Men on base: 104 vs 106 Runner on 3rd: 113 vs 114 Runners on 2nd and 3rd: 120 vs 133 Runners on 3rd with no outs: 130 vs 129 When behind: 106 vs 105 Also note that the more specific you get with the split, the smaller the sample. The real standout splits for Morris are bases loaded with 0 outs or with 2 outs, although they are among the smallest.

The Strib article suggests umpires on site being involved in the process, as well as the league. My earlier suggestion, in the non-game thread, was a local weather service being involved too -- just so umpires wouldn't have to become weather forecasters themselves. (Could also be a good cross-promotion marketing opportunity.) The local grounds crew would always be free to come to the umpires with specific concerns about field safety/playability too.

From the Star Tribune today: MLB needs to take away control of 'rainouts' from home teams

Twins postseason odds as of today (Tuesday June 29) -- pre-White Sox series: Baseball Prospectus: 8.2% Fangraphs: 3.2% 538: 3% Baseball-Reference: 0.4% Looks like 4.3% of the BP downgrade was in the last day, not sure why. (Maybe some input in their projection model was out of date and didn't get fixed until now? Like, they expected Buxton back sooner, etc.?)

As another poster alluded to, just 6 starts ago, Gore was a top 5-10 prospect in all of baseball, and maybe the #1 SP prospect. I don't know if 7 times more valuable is the precise difference (I'm sure that varies by team and need too), but prospects like Gore are not traded for relievers like Rogers. Also, Gore's 5.85 ERA in AAA is in the old Pacific Coast League. League ERA is 5.69 there this season! Teams are scoring 6.06 runs per game. Gore needs to improve, obviously, but the league conditions might be exaggerating the degree of his struggles so far.

Hassell is #75 overall prospect at Fangraphs right now. Considering Buxton's current injured status and limited remaining team control, that seems about right for a match. (Again, no idea if the Padres are even interested in that level of OF upgrade.) It doesn't help! In fairness to the OP, he said we'd pay the rest of Sano's guaranteed salary. Still, that would only make him a neutral piece of the trade.

Funny how Winder was promoted to AAA yesterday. Why, it's almost like his promotion to AAA had nothing to do with picking up Burrows or Barraclough or anyone else!

Name the 11 or 13.

Y'all know that MLB had to change rules because teams were regularly manipulating the injured list and options to maximize pitcher rest? I'd be shocked if managers and GMs weren't thinking about pitcher rest when contemplating a potential weather postponement these days. No, they're not going to call off a game when it's 70 and sunny with 0% chance of rain, but when it's closer to a 50/50 proposition, it's going to influence the decision, even if they don't consider it deliberate manipulation. When the original rule was created giving teams this control, there was very rarely any incentive for a team to do this (and the league still reserved the right to override the team late in the season if necessary to preserve fairness in a pennant race). But now, we know that's not true -- every team talks about countless random early- and mid-season games as crises of pitcher rest. I don't think it's a major problem of course, but like other modern excesses, I wouldn't mind seeing it fixed before it gets worse.

Getting themselves fired is safe?

? The Padres don't have 11 guys as good or better than Berrios and Rogers already. Go ahead and list the 11 if you want to make that argument. By either ERA- or FIP-, Berrios would be the 3rd best performing SP on their staff right now. By ERA-, Rogers would be their 3rd best reliever (and best left-handed reliever); by FIP-, he'd be their #1 reliever overall. I don't think the OP's trade proposal is viable for a variety of reasons, but "Berrios and Rogers aren't good enough" isn't one of them.

I think you're too fixated on .500. .500 isn't great but it's not particularly meaningful without context. Not all .500 teams/records are in equal circumstances. The Twins would still be under .500 through July 21st with a 15-6 run in our next 21 games. But a 9-10 White Sox record in the same time period (with Cleveland no better than 11-8) would put us 6.5 games back. I highly doubt the Twins FO would say "welp, under .500, have to sell" at that point. At the very least, they'd let things play out closer to July 30. 2017-2018, they may approach that record with an eye to sell, but not 2021 -- they've invested too much in contending already this season to give up that easily.

Twins pitching overall has been poor, but Berrios and Rogers would fit in just fine on the Padres staff, or basically any staff. Padres SP quality right now is just Darvish and Musgrove. Snell and Paddack have struggled and Lamet is injured again. They might have some help on the farm but I'd be surprised if they weren't looking at acquiring some outside help too.

Only 7 of the 10 games vs CWS are before the trade deadline anyway. But as I alluded to at the end of my previous post, if we can climb to around 6.5 games out after July 21st as the deadline approaches (likely aided by 5-2 or better vs CWS), I'm not convinced the 2021 Twins will be sellers. We were sellers in that range in 2017-2018 but we were in a different phase of the cycle then (pre-Donaldson, lots of young players, etc.). Selling in that spot in 2021 (or just failing to get back in the race) may just be setting up the front office and/or coaching staff to lose their jobs if 2022 isn't a massive rebound. I think they've got to try to make a good run here at the end of 2021, even if they ultimately fall short, to reclaim a little leash for 2022.

An early trade deadline season domino has fallen: Toronto acquires OF Corey Dickerson and RP Adam Cimber from Miami. Twins effect: this presumably means Toronto won't be in the market for any of our bats (barring injury, of course). But they're probably still looking for more relief help (and starting pitching), like most everybody else.

Trade deadline this year is Friday July 30th at 4 PM EST. (They moved it up from July 31st so there wouldn't be any early games on deadline day.)

I think we're talking about different things. If the Twins swept 10 out of 10 from the White Sox, even though it wouldn't erase the full current 11.5 game deficit, the Twins would be considered the favorites at that point -- it would obviously signify a massive CWS collapse and MIN turnaround. Heck, we might have a commanding lead by Sep. 1st in that scenario. 9-1 might have similar effects. Even 8-2 would mean at least one MIN sweep of CWS on the road -- CWS would still be favored but it would be a dramatic shift. But my threshold here isn't a dramatic shift from just 10 games. Would be great if that happened, but that's probably not realistic with an 11.5 game deficit, and not how these comebacks generally go: 1978 Yankees went 7-3 vs BOS during their comeback 1995 Mariners went 2-3 vs the Angels in theirs 2012 A's went 7-6 in their final 13 games vs TEX And I've already posted about the 2006 Twins comeback vs DET/CWS So that's why I set the "getting back in the race" / " not quite done" threshold at 7-3. 7-3 won't give us good playoff odds, we'd require luck and good performance in our remaining games, and we'd still more than likely fall short in the end, maybe even require a game 163 -- that's just the reality of comeback attempts like this -- but it would represent a start at the attempt. (Obviously more wins beyond this threshold would be great, and we shouldn't concede any of these 10 games just because we hit the threshold early!) * And that 7-3 assumes an even distribution of wins across series -- sweeping them 3-0 in August after a 4-3 July might be too little, too late. Really, we'd need to be at least 5-2 vs CWS through July 21, and make up another game or two outside of head-to-head games by that point too. Then buy at the trade deadline and try to keep it up through August and September.