Rod Carews Birthday

I admire your optimism for sure. I just remember living through some pretty awful trades over the years. . . Johann Santana, Rod Carew. . . . The list goes on. They did hit on the Frank Viola trade though, so I guess there’s hope, but that was 30+ years ago.

I don’t think that they are. I just think they are placing more faith in the return than i am. Trading for prospects is like playing the lottery. Once in a while, like in the case of Joe Ryan, you pick the winning numbers. Much of the time, you don’t, so when you get a winner, I’m against day-trading it away.

And if you’re selling on clearance, it might mean you’re going out of business — not literally, but competitively. We sold a player on an expiring contract when we were out of contention for Joe Ryan. It was a great trade. Now that we have him (and have always tried really hard to get front line starting pitching), let’s enjoy the fruits of that trade rather than trade him away for a couple of maybes and a will never be.

Because everyone knows that trading our best pitcher will automatically lead to a playoff team in 2027 or 2028 — at least that’s the Kool-Aid that some here are drinking. So we trade Ryan, we go from a team a little below .500 (projections) to a team a lot below .500. (His existence will save the bullpen more than any other pitcher we have, making other games winnable with him on the team because the bullpen isn’t always toast. Games are less interesting to watch. Young players flounder with less leadership. Some don’t really develop the way they should and if things break right, we are back to the same level of team in two years. In the meantime, we’ve all seen two years of sucky baseball. I’m disappointed that some see the Twins’ role in MLB as being a source of talent for other teams.

I think that the Twins have a pretty nice overall group of uniforms. As for order, I'm in agreement with @DocBauer, except that I would probably put the Cream and the Home Whites in an actual tie. I really like them both and they have different things to offer. The best part about the overall package is that there aren't any there that make you say "OMG what were they thinking!". There have been quite a few of those over the years with the all-time worst probably the old White Sox shorts (wow!) version from the 1970's or any of the Padres uniforms that try to use the brown and yellow (yikes!) color scheme. I also kind of like the old powder blue uniforms, but it's hard to grow too attached to them, because if I recall correctly, they stopped wearing them right before the 1987 championship season. I know they were back as throwbacks since then at least once or twice, and that seems appropriate. There are a lot of pictures of Rod Carew and Dave Goltz in those.

Without question, this season is make or break time for Brooks Lee. When he was drafted, we heard all about his high floor and that he was practically MLB ready because of his great fundamentals and knowledge of the game. The evaluators forgot one important thing, he was a player that had refined his talent into its best presentation and there wasn’t much room for him to continue to grow and progress. In some ways he’s kind of like the great 8th grade basketball player who got his growth spurt a little before the rest of the kids his age. He immediately becomes the best player, but if he doesn’t continue to improve, all of the other players catch up and surpass him. This is where Brooks Lee is right now. I hope he’s up to the task, but I’m not optimistic.

I'm not sure there's really that much clarity at this point. Someone will bomb. Someone else will get injured. Someone will surprise. One of the veteran signees will be cooked. One of the veteran signees will flash the upside. Some unknown will appear out of nowhere and become the Sire of Fort Myers. Give spring training a couple of weeks and we'll know a bit more than we do now. Version 2.0 will likely look pretty different.

First of all, the thought of getting a viable starting pitcher for Trevor Larnach seems pretty unlikely. I would take almost every one of these trades and then RUN, not walk, away with my newfound bounty. If you can actually make ANY of these happen, it's a fantastic return for a guy who has very little value and no real place on the team except in the payroll. I'm not holding my breath. A serviceable reliever would be about the maximum return that I could ever imagine. Second, IF we are confident in the young/inexperienced starting pitchers that we are touting as next up, then acquiring a starter who is roughly the same age/pedigree/experience level should not be on the list. If they decided that they need a veteran because they don't want that many innings in the hands of the rookies and rookies+, then that could make some sense. Trading him for an old prospect seems a lot like acquiring ANOTHER left-handed hitting outfielder.

I agree with this answer as an excellent long term plan. On the field, it will take veteran players playing to their ability and young players taking that next step. That's really what it takes for all teams to be successful, but the mid-market teams have less room for error when making those decisions. When I look back at the Twins Championship teams of 1987 and 1991, I don't see teams that were amazing juggernauts. I also don't see teams whose talent level made them predestined to win the WS. They had some veterans and a couple of young guys whose seasons came together in just the right way to be successful. It has happened before and will happen again. A 162 game season has a way of making that work.

No. I wasn't. As I stated earlier, I'm a fan of competitive (on a game by game and seasonal basis) baseball. I don't want to trade a couple of years of horrific baseball for a chance to be about as good as we are now, only with new players. I don't think that it is impossible that a full tear down and rebuild could work, but I'm far less confident about it than those who regularly tout it as the golden ticket. If there were a clear answer, all teams would be doing the same thing, which they are not. It's also one of the things that makes baseball interesting and fun to watch.

I’m glad you’re that confident. I’m not. How’s that working for the White Sox? The list is substantially longer of teams that haven’t done it that way. Combine that with the fact that not all of those teams have been that successful and the fact that the lay of the land has changed with regard to the draft and the introduction of a lottery system and it would seem even less likely that lightning will strike. You are welcome to have your own opinion about that but to suggest that it’s the only path to success requires more disconnect than I’m willing to entertain.

This is one of the biggest differences between big and small market teams. A team with a $100M payroll needs to have nearly everything go right from a performance and injury perspective in order to be successful. On the other hand, a team with a $200M payroll has some leeway built into the budget projection. They might just be able to go out and sign a replacement right out of the free agent market. A hit of $20M (Lopez) plus $10M (Correa) is extremely detrimental when your budget can’t absorb it. This problem takes the already inherent disadvantages of a small market/budget team and amplifies them to the point where an injury or two can tank an entire season, or at very least, delay progress.

They were trying to keep him healthy as well and they weren’t sure that he could do that under a starter’s workload. They also thought his stuff would play up big time in the bullpen — and they were correct. Indeed, Prielipp had no health issues last year as a starter. . . . for the first time in his career. . . ever. . . . after multiple lost years to injury. I’d like to keep him that way.

Exactly this. Watching a baseball game between a good team and a .500 team is very interesting and mostly competitive. Having a roughly 50% chance at victory keeps me interested in the team. Watching a game between a 90 win team and a 60 win team isn’t usually very interesting and likely mostly uncompetitive. It absolutely makes me want to tune out on the Twins. The idea that “if we trade everyone and just bottom out now, we’ll be good in two or three years” is wishful thinking at best, and ridiculous at worst. IF we make great trades, AND IF those players that we get do well, AND IF some other players do well, we MIGHT be that 85 win team that some are so frustrated for the past few years. However, if some of those things don’t actually occur, we’re back at 70 wins or less. YMMV, but that’s where I’m coming from.

Moving forward rather than looking back and lamenting (which is completely justified and understandable), what is the situation with insured contracts? What very little I do know is that the insurance doesn’t cover little things that happen during the year and that it does tend to cover injuries that result in missed seasons. Do we know if the Twins had insured Pablo’s contract and to what degree? If they can recover sufficient funds, perhaps a late signing of Lucas Giolito would be in order.

This situation sucks. . . . a lot. Taking Pablo out of the rotation undoubtedly makes the team worse. For a team whose competitiveness was already hanging by a thread it’s doubly brutal. Let’s hope that some of these young/inexperienced pitchers can come through and develop quickly into what they can be. Sometimes when faced with a pressure situation, players can step up to a degree well beyond what you would expect. I’m rooting for that to happen with Bradley/Festa/Matthews, et al.

MAYBE. IF the reason to move Prielipp to the pen was that they didn’t think that his arm will hold up to a starter’s workload, then moving him to the pen is the right thing to do, both for the pitcher and for the team. IF they were moving him from what was perceived as a logjam (I hate that word actually) of starters, then by all means keep him stretched out as a starter. We don’t actually know with certainty what the situation is/was with Prielipp, as we can only guess. A few years back there was another guy who they didn’t think would hold up to a starter’s workload named Duran. They chose wisely in that case. Regardless of which direction they go, let’s hope that they can choose wisely again.

Absolutely if we see a bunch of key injuries, this team is in trouble -- most teams are, except the ones that have $200M+ payrolls. I'm taking the over on 70 wins. They were playing at about a 77 win pace at the trade deadline, and there was under-performance in many areas as well as starting pitching injuries. I'm not saying that they will be "good", but .500 is definitely not out of reach.

There are far too many question marks to make an accurate prediction on this team (although if you're in the projection business, you have to!). If everything falls right, 80th percentile outcome, they could win 87 games. If everything falls wrong (injuries, underperformance, etc.), they could win 67 games. The middle of that isn't far from 79 games, so maybe? Defense isn't "unimportant" but it's less important than pitching and offense. because the margins between "good" and "bad" are much smaller. I think they have top third starting pitching, bottom third bullpen, and MAYBE middle third offense if some things go well. That also points to some middle of the road 75 to 80 win pace. Where that leaves them in the division is not really good enough to win but likely in third if one of the "big" three has an off year (entirely possible). I still think the White Sox are a long ways from competitive at this point, but they're young enough to pull a rabbit out of their hat.

I think that initially, Falvey brought with him a modernizing of the approach and definitely made some good deals. Unfortunately, I think that his tenure will seem like “what might have been” instead of credit for the good things. I absolutely agree that the wrong approach was taken post-2023. Whether that’s a Falvey issue or a Pohlad issue is likely something we don’t entirely know.

It’s that time of year when anything is possible, and I’m hoping for the over and not the under. The rotation should be (more than) fine. The bullpen is likely below average, but how much below will determine team success. Teams with mediocre bullpens do win, it’s just a little messier. To me it’s the position group that has the greatest variance. There are a number of players that could be better this year than last year, OR we could be looking at the same mess we had last year. Again, it’s how much better that will determine ultimate success. It is probably unrealistic to expect Buxton to be better. He’s another year older, but you never know, he could be Tori Hunter, who seemed to improve offensively the older he got. Keaschall probably won’t ever be better on a rate basis for his entire career, HOWEVER, simply being available and not hurt might make up for that on a compilation value basis. I completely agree with Jeffers and Wallner being underrated. They both have the potential to move the needle quite a bit. Lewis you’ve already addressed. He may not be an all-star (but you never know), but he could find a way to be moderately above average, which would raise the floor on the team considerably. Josh Bell should absolutely be an offensive improvement over some of the previous occupants of 1B/DH, although that bar isn’t very high. LF is a question mark with Larnach/Roden/Martin but also has strong potential for a youngster breaking through in ERod, GG, or Jenkins. Shortstop is a problem. We just have to hope that Lee can survive there for a year defensively while not getting even worse offensively. Is it murderer’s row? No, but it’s not hard to see a fairly competent offense developing out of this group. Top ten starting pitching, middle ten offense, and bottom ten bullpen could win 85 games, or it could lose 85 games. As I said, lots of variance. Thats why we play the games.

I completely agree with this assessment. It’s not very instructive to say pitching pipeline. What Falvey and company did do was put a stronger emphasis on the pitching side of the equation, and it could certainly be argued that they were fairly successful. They went after players in every way possible — trade, draft, waiver wire, develop, convert, etc. — in order to assemble a bevy of good arms. Some of them have already arrived and done well, others are likely still to come. Unfortunately, the offensive and defensive side of things haven’t gotten the same attention or experienced the same success. You could probably make a good case that traditionally/historically the Twins have focused more on the hitting side than the pitching side. This definitely represented a departure from that.

I think that this is a pretty reasonable list on both sides of the equation. The first Correa signing was nice for what he brought to the team, but it was *(or should have been) more important for putting the league on notice that we were serious about building a team and were willing to spend money to do it. That’s not easily measured in player stats. Unfortunately, ownership got in the way of that developing the way it should and could have. Signing Nelson Cruz and trading for Odorizzi get honorable mentions here. On the negative side of the ledger, it’s actually a great deal harder. Is it about what they did or what they didn’t do and whether things that seemed OK just didn’t work out? The trades for Jorge Lopez and Tyler Mahle were solid choices at the time, but neither of those worked out at all, becoming shades of Matt Capps and The Sheriff. The inability (or lack of desire, or lack of funds) to do anything at some of the trade deadlines were arguably worse in many ways, but going all in at the deadline wasn’t really his style and when he tried to do some of that, it didn’t work out. It’s easy to Monday morning quarterback decisions about trading or not trading players at peak values, like Julien or Lewis or Larnach. Or about trading a guy in Rooker (who was out of options and hadn’t done much) who a couple of years later would develop into a force. Falvey definitely whiffed on a few, but I’m also glad I don’t have that job.

Usually, going into a season, a bullpen consists of four or five guys that you assume will be solid pitchers for the team. Then, a team adds three or four who are a combination of a young guy, a waiver claim, a reclaimed veteran to make it work. We’ll have young guys, waiver claims, and a reclaimed veteran. Where are the four or five guys who will be solid pitchers for the team? Right now, their two best relievers re Sands and Topa, arguably reasonable choices for spots four or five, but not for numbers one and two. This could be rough.

Hey guys. I slept in this morning. Anything new?