bird

Okay birdwatcher, this is birdwatcher, and boy, were you ever wrong in thinking we can't accuse Falvey of being ambiguous. In fact, lots of people didn't think his answers were clear enough and frame his comments as sideswiping the question. For example, he sideswiped the specific question about the starting rotation that wasn't asked. Oh, and Chad Hartman? If you were thinking straight, you'd get that the right questions would have invited general answers. Questions like "why aren't we going all in"? Whatever that means.

I'm not endorsing the "pounce when the timing is right" strategy, but I read this to suggest they'll have the flexibility to add a missing piece or two if the other things are in place and they're contending. It was not a comment in my view that indicates a low aspiration about contending in 2019. But you could be right, he could indeed be thinking mainly about finances, and I get why most people think that. You're all wrong. I'm right.

I guess I see it very differently. He does not agree with you. Or me. But he didn't sidestep the questions.

We might not like his answers, but I don't think we can accuse him of being ambiguous. One of the better interviews I think I've heard in terms of questions which require real answers. Very un-Sid like. Apparently, the apple fell off the tree and rolled some distance away.

Do me a favor. Grab a dart and throw it at a list of MLB teams three times. Then compare the results of those teams over a full decade if you like. Pay close attention to the 1st round, since 70% of your success stories will be those guys. For recent drafts, use the prospect rankings. They are a very reliable take on things. Be fair. For example, adjust for the fact that Royce Lewis, #8 on BA's list, was unavailable to these other teams. First round draft order is immensely important in this comparative analysis. For later round picks, just add up the number of players who've made it and produced, say 1 WAR or more, and add up cumulative WAR for each team from these later round selections. You won't be doing much arithmetic. Throw out that 30 WAR outlier though, the lucky pick is not telling us anything. You learn more from the Rosario and the Rogers type about talent evaluation skill. The point I'm making is that drafting has not been a bugaboo for a long time. Development? Yes, and this is an area that Falvey has aggressively prioritized in the past year. It may be fixed already. It's futile to ignore what's happening presently.

There's an overwhelming consensus here that the FO's failure to add one (or more) of the big name FA RP's is inexplicable and dispiriting. There's still time, but if they do nothing more to add another RP who tiers in there with or better than May/Rogers? Then they better be a lot smarter than we're crediting them. Perez, Parker, and Addison Reed better be more than we think they are. Bottom line for me, and probably for most of us, is that the opportunity was so incredibly ripe, and anything less than an improvement to about, say, 85 wins or so would be a serious indictment against Falvey. I don't care how he gets there, and I go all "la la la la la" about all the 50% of payroll and cheap owner stuff. Derek, just contend in 2019, you have the ammo to do it. No one is stopping you. It still boils down in large part to a huge but understandable bet that Buxton and Sano both become reliable members of a future core, 4-5 WAR guys at least. If the core in fact DOES produce, maybe allowing for one <2WAR season from one of Berrios, Gibson (they're signing him, I just know it), Polanco, Rosario, and Kepler, the bet will have turned out well. If two or more of Schoop, Pineda, Cruz, Cron, Parker, and Perez give us + 2WAR years, and if only one or two roster spots are occupied by negative WAR players? Then I think this team might be in the hunt, and with that one last RP addition, I'll sing Falvey's praises. Lastly, if four or more of Gonsalves, Romero, Hildenberger, Mejia, Astudillo, Garver, Austin, De Jong, Littell, Thorpe, Moya, Cave, and Vasquez step up and become productive regulars or really solid role players in 2019, I'll sing the praises of our (perennially good IMO) scouting organization too. I might even be impressed with Falvey's horse-swapping process and see signs that development and coaching are better. I'm a lousy judge of these things, but I just don't see the pitching staff as being as bad as so many people describe it to be. It's not an exciting bunch, but they could be slightly better than adequate to win the division if the cards fall right. I'm not sure what, specifically, some people want this FO to do. I feel like I often am dealing with a cacophony of complaints about the distant past and generalizations about it all: "spend for high-end FA, if only they drafted better, bad owner, Sano is proof of..." Exceptions to this are welcome things for me. Cogent arguments to sign Machado, trade for Greinke, bid on McCutheon? Good stuff.

They HAVE learned from the past. I didn't ignore it at all, I addressed it. Don't ignore MY question please. What else should they do, today, to more closely emulate Houston? If we fixate on what happened in the past, we can miss the clues about what's happening now. They fixed development. You want to blame Sano and Buxton's delays all on development? I don't buy it. You think we should think of Gordon as proof of something? A kid two years younger than level who the pros still like a lot? And then ignore Kirilloff, who exploded last year and is as highly regarded as anyone coming out of that talent-rich 2016 draft? Again, the point I'm making is that they're now doing a fine job of following the pattern of the Astros in their long-term quest to buils something, and this year, their third, is logically when we should expect to see their efforts filter up into the MLB roster. We shall see.

They've hinted. I'm going with it.

I agree, the failure to make a play for one of the top 10 RP's in FA is nothing short of frustrating and perplexing. We have no explanation. Waiting For LaVelle, a tragedy. Conjecture: they like what they have, they thinks there's a solution still out there, or they have trade discussions going? Inexplicable.

The Twins' draft record over the past decade stacks up very well against other clubs, even Houston. Buxton was a good selection, picked right after Houston's Correa. Sano was an exceptionally good international acquisition. Houston, nor any other club, could have foreseen what's happened with those two so far. It's simply absurd to point to them as an example of inferior talent evaluation skills. The new FO has concentrated on improving development. What would you have them do that they haven't done? What is Houston now doing better? We can't keep commiserating about the past.

Hmm. Those are exactly what the Twins should do to emulate Houston here in January 2019? Hmm. Oh well. In any case: 1. The Twins have been at least as aggressive with promotions of elite prospects as Houston. 2. The Twins have converted May, Rogers, and Romero. Houston Peacock, McHugh...difference? 3. A fact check likely will show you that the Twins have a better later round record than Houston. A spot check of 2011-2014 will bear this out for you. 4. I didn't follow your last anecdote. But then, well, it's an anecdote..

I know you're not suggesting this, but people commonly bring up Houston as a team to emulate, and complain that we're not doing that, or that we're failing miserably at it. I think they should emulate Houston, and I think they basically ARE following a similar path. They're at a different stage than Houston. Part of that has to do with failings, part of that has to do with injury-related luck, and part of that has to do with happenstance, such as Bregman being there for you. Houston has superstars making a pittance. Bregman made $600k and played like a $30M player. That's a huge part of why they're regarded as possibly the best team in baseball in 2019. For every Altuve, who jumps from $9M to $29M after this year, they have a Correa, who made $1M. Two points: Houston hasn't gone out and made FA splashes very often, For every Verlander and Gerrit Cole, you have a deparure of Charlie Morton because $15M was too rich, or Dallas Keuchel looking for a bump from the paltry $13M they paid him in 2018. Instead, they'll enjoy McCullers at $4M for now, and plug in cheaper players so they can handle George Springer at $12M while grooming Kyle Tucker, and afford Brantley at about the same while taking advantage of Tyler White on the cheap. Their big splash so far was Aledmys Diaz's 1.4 WAR at $2M. They have a team-friendly Yuli Gurriel with a 2019 salary of $10.4M, dropping to $8.4M next year. I like what they're doing but have a question: Exactly what would you have the Twins do, right now, in January 2019, to more closely emulate what Houston has done and is doing? I can see possibly going after a top end pitcher and succeeding as a possibly legit answer, like Houston did with Verlander and Cole and the Twins failed to do with Darvish. What else?

You're expressing a common sentiment> Here's what could possibly get me interested again (I stopped watching a boring team last year): 1. Buxton has a chance to be one of the most exciting players to watch in all of baseball. Period. 2. This lineup could be pretty dang fun to watch, power-wise, and even basepath-wise. I won't walk to the fridge when Cruz or a healthy head-straight Sano steps to the plate, for example. And Rosario, Polanco, and Kepler don't make me cringe either. 3. If Romero turns into a shut-down guy, and May and Rogers deliver? We may end the habit of giving games away. Admittedly, Reed and others are question marks, but hey, bullpens are weird things. 4. This rotation could be bad. But it could also be good. It will be interesting. I'm not unhopeful. In one sentence, who suggest we match our roster to the Yanks. In the next, you say you don't need a championship to enjoy baseball. Then you say rooting for a team is all about hope. If one believes, as I do, that they DID address the departures of Dozier and Mauer in a good way and filled the holes adequately (assuming one more RP), then maybe one has hope. I'd simply suggest that you stand a very good chance of being surprised by this team in 2019.

While I agree that what they've done so far allows those "wait and see" things to happen, I also believe the FO knew they had gaping holes at DH, 2B, RP, and 1B. I believe they filled three of those holes with 2019 in mind IMO, not 2020. It's ironic to me that some of the complaints have been about playing for 2020 and ignoring 2019, and some of the complaints are that these moves ignore 2020, and some of the complainers are critical in both regards. I'm in the minority. Most believe they are more concerned with pinching pennies. Most probably believe they have a concerted strategy to avoid all long term commitments and that the Schoop type moves prove this. Many believe they haven't done enough because they haven't pulled the trigger on a high-profile multi-year FA deal and haven't traded prospects for the next Yelich or whomever. For me, if they add that one last RP, all of it makes sense. They're making moves to contend in 2019 without compromising their "sustained excellence" goals. I couldn't give a rat's derriere if payroll is at $100M. Fill the holes for 2019. Keep a robust pipeline. Accumulate some surplus assets for the first time in a decade or so, and then continue to be savvy at horse-trading when the opportunity comes along. Bottom line for me? They have a very unique opportunity this off-season to build asset value and at the same time make a run. An unprecedented opportunity, because of cash, plenty of choices n FA, capacity to make a trade from prospect surplus, and an open window to contend. If they produce a 90 win season, I'll sing their praises. If they produce an 85 win season, I'll rip them. I may be wrong. They could be playing the wait and see game, and I'm fully aware that this is the appearance of things. But my sense is that they think this core is solid, that Cruz, Schoop and Cron round out the lineup well, that the rotation is better than most TD'ers think, probably the pen too, and maybe they like the depth in AAA a lot better than we do too. My nagging concern is them falling one move short with that pen. I've been frustrated too many years in a row about this organization's under-appreciation of the value of a great bullpen.

I'm failing to see that too, which is why I'm disgruntled if they don't add a premier RP, now probably via trade. I'm on record as saying the Perez deal is perplexing. I'm limiting my opinion here to this offseason. But the prospect pundits believe they've added lots of talent that just hasn't made it to the big club in a forceful way. Yet. I think the Cruz, Schoop, Cron, and Parker moves look like solid bets. Some think the rotation is inadequate. I think it may or may not be. So, other than a back end RP, I'm impressed with how they solved the other problems. Pohlad blah blah cheap blah blah. Old, tired, unproductive, polarizing discussion. Nothing good comes of it. Yawn.

We might need to think about this statement for a minute, Mike. Have we not heard arguments that spending is the primary route ? Or more accurately, a lack of spending is the primary reason for poor results? We used to get lots of arguments that they just can't draft well, although that faded and even morphed into the more reasoned arguments that development was an area of deficiency. I guess I'll be the first one on this site, ever, to argue that development is not THE primary route to success. It's like a body part that requires a connection to other vitals. It's probably semantical and we agree that development capacity is essential, like a heart, and were getting heart healthy now. Our scouting function has been very good for a decade, I'm seeing signs that trading will be a strength and an active avenue for this FO, and I'm in the minority in thinking spending will cease to be much of a problem in the future.

I get this. But part of me questions a couple of the notions underlying the frustration. The first notion is that the singular consideration behind this off-season's one-year signings is financial. I'm not buying it. I see other very solid reasons for each of these transactions, although I'd venture to guess that the Cron conversation was quite different than the other three, meaning it had more to do with being opportunistic and "settling" on Cron as a reasonable solution whereas the others were more "best fit" decisions. I don't buy the "who will sign a one-year deal at below market price?" thing. To buy it, I'd have to reconcile examples where they were in serous talks where this criteria wasn't relevant. I also don't buy that they won't trade if they can take advantage of the right situation. Lewis, Kirilloff, and Graterol are probably untouchable. I won't argue that other prospects couldn't lure talent. Maybe Greinke wouldn't require the inclusion of one of those three, I don't know. But I think it's entirely possible that, while by their own admission they have been open to going the trade route, they have determined that they can best fill the gaps in the manner they have been. You didn't make this statement, but someone else did in this thread, I believe. And that is that no championship calibre team does it by relying on just a few standout players. I think the opposite is true, that teams build around a core. I think most of us agree on this point. Where we break down in our consensus is 1) who is core? and 2) what about the unknown? It's always going to be a matter of placing a bet for the FO, so the question isn't so much certainty but whether you have a hand that should be bet. This FO has no choice IMO. You bet the hand on the core: Berrios, Gibson, May Rogers, Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Kepler, and Polanco. One can argue a name or two either mentioned or not mentioned, but the point is, this FO is making decisions for 2019 to support this core group, knowing that additional internal reinforcements are close to being ready, and some of those will conceivably be regarded as core players too. We all know who they are. I'm not fond of the description of Cruz, Schoop, Parker, and even Cron as having been discarded. They weren't. Other teams wouldn't pay the required price is all. Each and every one of them has a chance to contribute extra wins for this team. Nothing wrong with that, right? I'm gonna hammer them if they don't deliver one more premier reliever, a reliever who would be viewed as part of the core. But I actually think their bet on the rest of the core is smart and I actually think the other moves are good bets too, no less certain than other choices in FA. And I like that they still have a fully stocked pipeline and a full wallet for later.

If this is the line of reasoning behind this decision, I'm going to be more concerned about the new culture that's forming than I already am. If they are so confident that their analysis has turned up something others have missed, and if they're so confident that their coaching can fix something that others have failed to fix?. Oh my. For $3.5M and another lost asset via DFA, they better bat 1.000. Being full of hubris and making cute moves like this is entirely unattractive otherwise, especially when you've passed on obvious opportunities to improve and still have a critical gap at the back of the pen. This move has rattled me. If we don't hear explicit rationale for it AND see the stunning success envisioned, I might really start to distrust this FO's capacity on the development front. Perplexing is an understatement.

Hey, no sweat, they have a plan. LaVelle and Sid will be all over it. Feels dang plucky.

Something tells me they'll take an intensely granular look at his arsenal this spring. They'll make a call based on whether they think he has a variety of pitches that he can execute consistently and that are good enough to produce outs in MLB. He's got lots of competition for a spot so he's going to have to be effective during spring training.

(??)

It would be nice if it weren't the case, but what choice does this FO have? They absolutely HAVE to place down a bet on the hand they have. (With maybe one or two more moves). Everything, and by everything I mean any chance of the postseason, hinges on a dozen "ifs". And frankly, it's a pretty good thing, because the best answers to all the "if" questions is really really really good! It's a high bar, not a low one. I mean, just think about all the players who could improve and make that 80 wins garbage look even sillier than it already does. Nothing has changed in one way, and that is that the postseason has always hinged on BOTH Sano and Buxton. It just does, and will until and unless Lewis and Kirilloff take another giant stride each. The exciting thing is that a lot of these "ifs" are practically the opposite of pipe dreams.

Please, Mr. Falvey, no more lumbering, boring, base-clogging, rally-killing, fumbling, flailing types. All-around players are so much prettier to watch!!

Or maybe flip him at the deadline if a couple of guys are lighting it up in AAA?

You made my day, thrylos!!! Gotta run. Coffee on my keyboard.