bird

Ironically, I read recently that NYY signed Zack Granite to a minor league contract with an invitation to spring training, and I thought to myself that I wish they would have taken the bait on a trade of Jake Cave for Luis Gil.

Did you tell your son this from the front seat of a $55,000.00 SUV that you acquired with a 7-year loan for 90% of its value?

How I long for a simpler, safer time when it was the Baltimore Orioles who were the nemesis that we tried to tune into on our Philco 8-transistor radio from the confines of our freshly built bomb shelter.

Exactly what are you willing to conclude about this information? What does the current baseball operation have to do with Mike Pelfry?

I really like your thinking and the strategy of off-brand acquisitions IF they don't represent a compromise (in the FO's mind, not the fans'). The reason I like signing Romo AND one more veteran reliever goes beyond need and depth. I would be surprised if, under that circumstance of adding Romo and Martin or Pomeroy, both cheap adds, if we didn't end up with a couple of bullpen arme wasting away in AAA. Which gives them a chance to slough off a guy at the deadline, like they did with Zach Duke, and maybe add another intriguing asset like Dakota Chalmers. I'm all over that! In my best dreams, the medicals come back on Alex Wood looking great, our people tell Levine to pursue him and hang on to Larnach and Jeffers for a bigger haul than Boyd. Not that that would be a disastrous trade necessaritly, but maybe unnecessary if options like Wood surface? I love having a full arsenal of injury replacements that wouldn't cripple you if we ended up, like Cleveland or the Yankkes did, with the need to substitute multiple starters. So yeah, bring back Pineda, sign Ryu, hope Wood or someone like him is up for an incentive-laden contract, and have Thorpe, Dobnak, Smeltzer, Littell, Poppen, and Graterol waiting in the wings. Can't have too much starting depth. Something tells me that we'll see more pronounced financial stress, from a larger number of teams.

By far the most novel plan yet proposed.

Haha, I can't tell you how excited I'd be about this trade!!! Images of Francisco Liriano and Joe Nathan are dancing in my head. Think we can get them to give up Luis Patino instead of Trammell or Abrams?

I think it's great that you're an enthusiast for Rosario. I'd suggest, however, that people who question your valuation of him, and that's probably a majority of us, do not have "an agenda" as you have characterized it. If you think about it, you could be the one accused of being Rosario's dad. SDP would probably balk at trading Mackenzie Gore for Royce Lewis, let alone Rosario. Baseball teams have probably already put measurements in place that help them place a more meaningful value on high-volatility assets like Rosario. Unless I'm simply unaware of it, we as fans don't yet have fun new arithmetic to answer the questions that make Rosario the subject of such a wide divergence of opinions about his value. How much more value is Eddie producing above and beyond his season-average stats during those stretches when he's sporting a 1.200 OPS? Or conversely, what's the damage when he's giving you a .400 OPS? Highly volatile assets in any other business are known to pose extra risk. The uncertainty that comes with performance volatility from players like Rosario? Maybe we'd have more consensus about him if this uncertainty and randomness of production were factored in. In short, you're not wrong to love and value Rosario, but on one hand, you accuse detractors in 10 threads of being willing to give him away for nothing due to some nefarious agenda, and on the other hand, you want all of us to believe he's worth FanGraph's #5, #27, and #43 prospect? This does not compute, my friend.

You can't be suggesting seriously. Are you?

I don't need the old arithmetic OR the new arithmetic to see what's awry with both sides of this polarizing argument about Rosario's relative value. Looking at his season OBP distorts his value, I think. The counting stats probably do too. The guy's hyper-streaky. I think guys like him have to be viewed from a slightly different vantage point that the stats betray. Backing up, some players can adapt, can be coached, to reduce factors causing those periods of time when they are simply awful. Some players improve their consistency, perhaps even increase how often they get hot and carry the team. I wonder if the Twins think he might be one of those players. Or not. When an inconsistent, too-often erratic player is surrounded by production from others, those frustrating periods when the player looks so miserably inept aren't the cause of as many lost opportunities. Did Rosario's outfield play seem better when Buxton was in center? That's my perception at least. If he was surrounded in the lineup by bad players rather than great ones, he'd be much more problematic. Personally, I'm inclined to discount his full-season numbers. I love watching this guy play baseball when he's at the top of his game. I'd hope the field people have a plan they've shared with Rosario about the value for him of working on reducing the causes (mostly emotional/mental?) of those bad periods.

The David Price scenario (assuming some acceptable level of expected performance) is exactly the kind of opportunistic trade initiative I want this FO to pursue. I want them circling when there's blood in the water and dancing on graves. I want them to sniff out desperation and urgency, to take advantage of greater leverage over the situation. This is not a criticism of Boston, but an observation: Word has it that, given JD's decision to keep them on the hook for his $62M, Boston has the need to create some space to avoid penalties and might have to peddle Betts. They rank dead last in terms of pipeline talent, and we're talking, by FanGraph's measures, 25% worse than KCR at #26! By other measures, they may not even be a top 10 team these days when it comes to MLB talent, although that's probably a bad measurement. A deal with the Twins in exchange for Price might give them a chance to "buy" prospect talent by absorbing a larger part of the $96M contract liability over the next three years, thereby killing a couple of birds (a phrase which saddens me of course) with one trade decision. We've seen many hints that Falvey thinks opportunistically, likes finding players who lack leverage. I'm hoping he gets better at finding TEAMS who fit that bill, like Houston seems to do.

Smeltzer would have to win out in competition against Littell, Stashak, and maybe Thorpe for that first out of the pen role. And if the Twins sign a high-leverage inning stud and keep Romo too, which they should do, I think, then maybe he's fighting Alcala for a spot too?

That's how I feel too. I'm dreaming of Berrios, a guy in the Wheeler tier, an Alex Wood-type turnaround guy, Odorizzi, AND Pineda. There will be injuries. It's not just possible, but LIKELY, that a rotation arm is lost to injury for much or all of a season, and history says a team better have plans for 10 different players to make starts. I want my 6-10 possibilities to be guys like Dobnak, Thorpe, Smeltzer, Poppen, and Graterol. All guys with not just a taste of MLB, but a tiny taste of success. With guys like Duran, Jax, Wells, Balazovic, Chalmers, Colina, Ober, and Sands turning some heads in AA and AAA.

Yeah, we're in agreement. I think there's this misconception out there that prospect-lovers like me believe prospects like Lewis should always automatically be off-limits, and that's not the case, for me or IMO for Falvey. Rumors were flying about Syndergaard, a borderline Ace in the minds of some, becoming available. True or not, it was rumored they asked for both Lewis and Kirilloff, and a number of commenters thought that would be a smart trade for the Twins. I can see that side, although I think it can be clouded by our frustration and desire for a WS experience. I also see the side that says Lewis and Kirilloff represent huge upgrades at two positions for years to come, with one of them projected to become a superstar, and therefore are necessary, not surplus. Falvey was criticized for failing to outbid NYM for Stroman. TOR received two pitching prospects, a 1st and 2nd rounder, who now rank as their 4th and 5th best prospects. A comparable offer from the Twins would probably have been Duran and Balazovic. I suppose many might see that as a good trade-off. I can see and tend to be inclined toward the argument that, given the fleeting nature of pitching performances and the difficulty with finding front end talent, a club would really have to have great confidence that the acquisition would secure a long run in the postseason and be a big upgrade on the current options (Pineda and Gibson at the time). Two sides to the argument, surely. IMO, Falvey is attuned to all of this and is willing to pull the trigger under what he regards as favorable circumstances.

Concur 100%, as do most other contributors here, and as does Falvey.

My condolences.

Palacios was way down the depth chart, and he fetched Odorizzi. The team went from 78 to 101 in 2019. Odorizzi was a difference maker. Palacios, as I recall, was a 35+ or 40FV. Is your point that they should have given up one of the shortstop prospects that was higher up the depth chart? Or any prospect, as long as it was one higher up the depth chart? Or is your point that Odorizzi was not a difference maker? Or is it your hope that they peddle one of their starting MLB players and create a hole? I mean, they weren't THAT talent-rich. Many of us were dismayed by the Pressly trade and were against the idea of trading Kepler when that idea got helium here. 2020 may be the first year in a long long time when a starter becomes redundant, and that may not happen before August. If your point is that, this off-season, they should shoot even higher than Odorizzi, I'm not sure anyone reading this thread would disagree with you. It just seems on one hand you're complaining that they didn't do something they actually did, which is to trade valuable prospects like Palacios, Lewin Diaz, Jaylin Davis, Berroa, and Teng, and on the other hand you're complaining about something they have not done, before they even have a chance to not do it. They promised to pursue "impact pitching". Let's give them a chance to show us. You can go to the FanGraphs web site to read up on what the hell FV means. 101 wins.

Times have changed. It's hardly disputable that the Twins have enjoyed a radical improvement in revenues, and that has allowed guys like me to argue that this team could AND SHOULD spend upwards towards $150M on payroll if they need to, WHEN doing so adds the last piece or two. Like, say, 2020 for the first time. They spend an average amount currently, but you wouldn't think that was the case if you read a lot of the comments on TD, including a great number of yours. A dozen teams spend less. Target Field has helped. There were times in the not-so-distant past when they could have spent another $50M on FA talent (one year cost) and still would have been short a half dozen players, meaning it would be fruitless if the goal was a division title. I pushed back on blanket statements about spending, still do, always will. I say, connect the dots between the expenditures you think they should make and that elusive WS. How much have the odds improved? Even though the league has evened the playing field with limits and pools, a half dozen clubs have the capacity to outspend the average team like the Twins by $50M on payroll alone. Alas, even the biggest spenders, teams like WSN, BOS, HOU are paring back, and fretting about their lack of prospect talent and unfavorable draft order and IFA allottments when success can be so fleeting at the MLB level. Again, my argument is that a strategy of maintaining relative strength by avoiding financial strain and farm system depletion makes sense. You mention CIN and PIT. Both clubs HAVE felt financial strain, PIT in 2018, CIN today after a $25M bump in payroll expense. Both clubs are below average in MLB. CIN has an average pipeline at best. Now more than ever, a favorable draft order will improve a team's health very quickly because the success rate among the top few prospects has skyrocketed. For example, Detroit's farm system is ranked #8 by FanGraphs, up from #23 two drafts ago. Which is why the strategy of no MLB fire sales, available cash, strong IFA capabilities, careful and assertive FA moves, and active, opportunistic trading makes sense. The boom/bust thing is treacherous these days IMO. It's more a problem of expensive players declining (Price) than becoming too expensive, although that problem exists too of course. Boston is unloading Mookie Betts and is choking on its payroll costs while sporting the worst prospect pipeline in all of baseball. They won't like their Vegas odds either.

Nonsense IMO. Falvey isn't Ryan. And he's got more talent than Ryan often had. Falvey traded 3 40FV prospects and a 45FV prospect at the deadline. Boston has 5 45FV prospects in their whole system. Time to ditch that tired old trope. It ain't ringin' as true these days.

Yep, we all agree with that, and most of us also realize that the streets are clear in 29 out of 30 cities the day after the WS.

My bad on the facts, and it's a crappy example anyway for showing a good prospect haul for a veteran, even if the Twins won the trade of Viola for those good years of Aggie and Tapani. Frankie had some good years too.

I get that, Mike. I was simply pointing out that "saying hi to Milwaukee" as an example of a team that got better has a longer and much more complex story that may not turn out well for the organization. I applauded the Yelich trade, like I applauded the Verlander and Cole trades. But somehow, Milwaukee is now showing some strains, which I pointed out with facts. More facts have surfaced now, including trading Chase Anderson and his $8M cost. I remember having some of the very same types of discussions about the Detroit Tigers back when they emptied the farm system and strained their financial capacity. I remember that it paid off, but my point back then and is now that if my team's FO decides against a boom and bust approach, like the Red Sox have done and the Brewers have done, I can fully understand that. Falvey is trying to avoid having any of the three pillars, MLB, farm, and cash, crumble on him. In short order, he's strengthened this organization on all three fronts. I think he'll solve the pitching problem here too.

I don't think we're in complete disagreement. If by "never, ever resist a trade" you mean to always, always consider it? Then I'm on board, with the one caveat of not digging one hole (Pressly) in an attempt to fill another off in the future (Alcala). Or maybe the reverse of that might be giving up Graterol, Duran, and Balasovic for a #3 starter past his prime or something. Cuz we can pick up #3 starters in FA and those three guys have higher ceilings. And yes two of them will probably flop. , And yes, it should be evident that I'd include Yelich in the same way I'd include Tatis, Jr. Both were terrific trades. We don't need to bother with the arithmetic, we can find dozens upon dozens of examples of prospect trades that were good, prospect trades that were bad, and prospect trades we are glad never happened. Seeing the rationale behind not trading a Lewis or a Buxton or a Mauer is not the same as thinking Terry Ryan's aversion to trading prospects was smart. Not saying that's where YOU go with the discussion, but others do far too often IMO. When I argue that trading off the Lewis type prospect is a massive risk, especially for a pitcher? It's because the historical evidence says that 75% of those prospects pan out, and in a big way, whereas the historical frequency of performance collapses by stud pitchers must be taken into account in one's risk assessment. We don't get to pick our Verlanders, but man o man was that a great trade! Where you and I will likely always have a difference of opinion is in how, in general, we value the prospect pipeline, but to be clear, I personally don't value individual prospects and don't have my own opinion about any of them. I mean, what do I know? Instead I see value for an organization in having an exceptional prospect pipeline, both as the primary source of talent and as a critical means of procuring more and sustaining an advantage.

Thinking about this more generally, it's possible that our unprotected list will be viewed as more poach-worthy than we might think. Other organizations sure did raid us for coaching talent! Our full-season teams won a lot of games, and you can bet reports got sent upstairs by field people all over the league regarding some of the talent on display. The FO has already done some things to cut down on the possibility of a Shane Mack-like loss, I guess. We sent Diaz and Davis packing, and graduated guys like Alcala and Stashak to the big club. I'd still like them to dangle Blankenhorn and Gordon to see if someone bites on one of the two with a great offer of a low-minors prospect package (they won't attract the #2 starter we need). I'd hope they'd do the same with Cave, Rooker, Wade, and Raley with the thought of selling one or even two and protecting the others.

Milwaukee may not be our best poster child to bolster a MLB player versus prospect discussion. Personally, I think it's a more complicated thing anyway, but back to Milwaukee: For 2019, their player payroll exploded by almost $33M a larger dollar increase than all but NYY ($38M) and PHI ($45M). They ended the year behind 10 other clubs in the power rankings, have the 29th-best farm system according to Fangraphs, and at roughly $125M, don't have a lot of wiggle room in the budget. A tight window. The Yelich trade was terrific, but it doesn't support an argument that the MLB player side of trades is a surefire way to go. Even looking at the Yelich trade, Brinson started his MLB career, as did Yamamoto and Diaz, and Monte Harrison is a Top 100 prospect. May end up being a good deal for both clubs. FanGraphs thinks Miami's farm system is the 4th-best in baseball, and their payroll is $50M less than Milwaukee's. Might be a club that turns a GM into a superstar.