bird

Yeah, I'm with you there. We need to see several concrete examples of improved performance to fully validate my optimism, which is entirely based on the build-out of the people and technology infrastructure and the commitment to a markedly larger annual operating budget dedicated to player development.

I don't have much of an opinion on the aggressive-conservative thing as a rule. I just know that, as a fan, I'd prefer them to be more "aggressive". But I'm also of the believe that there's almost always more than one way to go about solving an exceedingly challenging and complex problem. This FO has the challenge of solving the problem of baseball mediocrity in an environment where the competition is vast and competent. While they have resources, they also have an environment where finding ways to construct defensible beachheads aren't really there, other than cash, and just maybe a miniscule advantage in the DR or something. And I think that's why Falvey is taking the approach he's taking, much to ours and Kimbrell's chagrin. Build up value, keep it liquid, and follow the best practices of Houston and others. Personally Spy, I think they will be more aggressive once they believe the talent value has increased more, both with the core in MLB and with the prospect pipeline, and they plan to avoid ever running out of available cash in the event of an opportunity. But that's just my opinion, and I could be all wet.

I should have not used the phrase "envy of". I was really wondering (not opining) if the Twins aren't, at the current time, already in as good or better shape with respect to having the pieces in place to operate competitively in a changed environment. I cited the combined strength of the minor and major league talent, because aside from cash, it's the fuel that the FO needs. I could maybe simplify the point I was making. In doing so, I think we'll see a slightly narrower gap in our perspectives. And it will be a reflection of my propensity to be optimistic and your admirable trait of intelligent skepticism. Bonnes is describing a couple of strategic things that are trending among baseball teams. Things like making smart decisions about locking up non-elite core players, avoiding specific risks, and building and using the prospect pipeline. I think we can see that, to operate this way and be competitive, a number of component capabilities have to be top notch. Scouting is one. There are several ways the talent evaluation process works, as you know. Which is why they have five dozen employees, some very specialized. They have to be good with the numbers (analytics), with scouting professionals, scouting amateurs, scouting international players, having a presence and relationships in the DR where a fifth of the talent comes from, and with a complex process allowing their input to be utilized well. I don't follow your double counting notion. Other component capabilities, such as the adoption of state of the art technology, a competent, well-staffed coaching contingent, good training and rehab facilities-- all kinds of other things--they ALL have an influence, over time, on the value of the minor league talent. The FO really doesn't have much to show for "improved development" at the MLB level yet. But this hardly means saying the team has improved greatly in this are is very speculative. I suppose I should be more skeptical than I am, but I'm just seeing too many small examples that give me greater optimism than you have right now. And maybe I'm wrong about how they compare with respect to all these component capabilities, I can't be sure. I'd be more worried about that if I was touting their use, for example, of Rapsodo 2.0 as a sign of them being at an advantage, and I'm certainly not. I clearly have a greater believe in this new FO than many. I very much believe that they're operating with a strategic plan in their binder, that they know what they're doing, that they know enough to surround themselves with talented people, and that they are fairly early in the process. But as you said, there are some elite, well-run organizations out there, most of whom have the extra advantage of obscenely higher revenues and profits. Other than some luck thrown their way, how do overcome that. They aren't going to consistently outsmart the other well-managed teams.

Scouting entails more than draft selections, and why wouldn't you assign credit to them for signing off on the newly acquired prospects? Those additions have had an impact on the rankings, right? And yes, I'm assuming player development is better and would cite any number of things as evidence.

Fair point. I'm not relying on my own opinion when it comes to comparisons of MLB talent, but I DO contend the MLB talent is better than last year's W-L record, and I DO contend that this talent is trending in the right direction. It won't take that many of the unanswered questions to be positively answered. I do agree with you that there are some teams, maybe even six, that will remain formidable for a long time into the future, because they have incredibly valuable assets system wide, are maybe ahead of the Twins in a few other areas I mentioned, and have far more revenues. But my whole point wasn't about that. It was about suggesting an explanation for teams, any teams, deploying a strategy like what Bonnes describes.

This is spot on in my opinion. We seem to be witnessing this as a league-wide trend. I saw on the MLB channel yesterday a short segment detailing the difference, in one year, in the number of MLB players age 33 and over versus the number 26 and under, and it was like a 35% change in the ratio in a single year. I'm guessing the most plausible explanation is that front offices have assessed historical data in a slightly revised context. The Twins are far from the only team to adhere to a "commitment at the right price" discipline, and they're obviously not the only team to be much more cognizant of the risks associated with blowing through their perceived margin of error. We can rightly criticize our teams for being too conservative about the risk assessment and associated controlled spending, but from a pure business perspective AND, perhaps according to the performance data on the younger versus older players and the cost benefit analysis applied to that, it's hard to combat the logic behind it. The success of elite prospects has become more predictable. Player development tools and knowledge have exploded. No team has a significant advantage in either the draft or the IFA market due to the restrictions (if honored). Even payroll spending, as wide as it is, sits in a range with a portion of that range shared by most teams. This means it's become much more of an asset management game, favoring teams with system-wide asset value, exceptional player development capabilities, extremely competent scouting for the purposes of correctly evaluating talent in other systems, a focused operating strategy, and adroit traders. As counterintuitive as it sounds, I wonder if the Twins aren't the envy of two thirds the teams in the league. Close to a top 10 team (saw them ranked #11 somewhere recently). A top 5 or so prospect pipeline. Really good scouting, improving player development capabilities, established relationships in the DR where that stuff really matters, fabulous physical facilities, and a strategy in place emphasizing managing their considerable player assets (yes, I know some cringe at this notion) for sustainable excellence. We all know they could use a few more favorable bounces. I'd be curious to see how many teams have a top 10 MLB power ranking and a top 10 farm system, talent-wise. IMO, Mr. Bonnes described some things here that affirm this more risk-assessed, asset-based approach.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Both of these contracts look great to me, barring a performance setback. Neither limits the trade value and liquidity of the player.

I hope you're right about this.

I don't know. My intuition says that a guy like Rooker may not have his flaw(s) fatally exposed until he reaches the higher levels. Rooker's power is so very intriguing. I'd surmise that the organization is going to give him every chance to improve in the field and hone his skills at the plate. My wild guess is that if we were flies on the wall in the room with Steils and his people, they'd be expressing more reservations about Rooker than we'd like to hear.

Statistics tell us that prospects selected in this range generally have maybe a 50% chance of even sniffing the bigs and maybe a 30% shot at being better than league average. There is one, possibly two position players on that under 25 list that did not have higher expectations attached to them on their signing dates. Personally, I've had a lingering suspicion that people have been harboring unrealistic expectations for Rooker all along based on fantasies about his light tower power persona. I have a nagging suspicion that a #6 ranking here is a bit generous. I admit to knowing nothing, but I'm more excited about a few others on this list. Miranda, Rortvedt, Gordon...

Nope, no expert has ever thought Gonsalves was a front end guy. Maybe a few fans did. When Gonzo was 3rd in TD's rankings, the system was at best a top 10 system. This year, it's a top 5ish system. In retrospect, his #3 ranking was probably generous. He fell for two main reasons: one, because a whole slew of prospects have surged for legitimate reasons, Graterol being a prime case in point, and two, he's probably lost some luster because of his rough start in MLB and the things his debut illuminated to reinforce the expert views that he probably settles in as a back end guy if he fixes his remaining skill deficiencies. I think you'd be reaching for something that's not there to conclude what you're suggesting.

You're not likely to find a statement from any of the credentialed prospect pundits that describes Gonsalves' ceiling as higher than a #3 and certainly not a sure thing at that. Most have described his ceiling as back end. I doubt anyone in the organization pasted a #2 target on kid's back either. There's a very good chance that Duran, who is being touted by us, not by the organization, will cease being a darling just like we curbed our infatuation for Gonsalves. Let's just remember who does the touting around here.

There's a valid middle ground in this question. We see plenty of examples of what drivlkejehu is trying to point out, which is unrealistic notions about the kind of MLB talent we could get in return for our prospects. I agree that the Pittsburgh trade may not be a great gauge. Colin Moran as the centerpiece of that trade wasn't exactly a sign that teams are overpaying for MLB talent, as Feliz and Musgrove were uninspiring add-ons. In other words, I think an argument could be made that Cole got acquired on the cheap. But that doesn't mean the Twins somehow passed on an opportunity. We just don't know.

FIFY

Good qualifier for sure.

If I'm his agent, he changes it from Uh Kill to Killa. And networks with G Cinco pronto.

Huh. His last name is silent?

How so? An indictment of the state of things? Or an indictment of the decision to add an option? I personally don't have an opinion about the signing, other than that I find it perplexing on the surface.

I didn't take a dang thing from the data in this article. But I got this one thing from it: I want to read more stuff written by Matt Braun. You're an excellent writer.

Derek's 9:30am text: "Good morning Thaddeus. Shall we perhaps grab a late morning latte and render a decision as to the team's excess outfielder?" Thaddeus: "Yes, should you have the requisite schedule flexibility. My weekly mani-pedi concludes at approximately 11:00am. Shall we rendezvous at our usual Starbucks location?" Derek: " That is surely an acceptable plan. Shall I take a moment to poll any of the baseball coaches, kinesiologists, or analytic personnel, or should we proceed without their input?" Thaddeus: "To be frank, perhaps we are better served in this endeavor by avoiding any possible white noise. After all, we have data to peruse on our 7i Apple iphones, do we not? I believe we can accomplish the task in short order and perhaps take an early lunch. After all, we ARE in fact good at our jobs."

How does he pronounce his name?

I would have very much endorsed that trade! I can see why it stalled, can't you? This is precisely how I'd want them to execute on the strategy. Off-season trades, Trades that move surplus (Gordon, Granite). Trades that don't create holes (Cole instead of Gonsalves? Who'd pass on THAT?)

You sound like a sidestepping GM.

Good catch, thanks. Celestino is the better prospect they say, so the point does stand. I miss Edwardo Escobar.