bird

Yes. What does it hurt to add one more really good reliever to the mix, besides the feelings of Magill's mom? I do disagree with the notion that we should not have added the three arms last year, for two reasons: First, what does it hurt? Second, I think we underestimate the opportunity to flip relievers at the deadline. Teams desperate for help overpay. For example, Zack Duke netted us Chase De Jong, who IMO is an under-the-radar insurance starter, a B prospect, who most clubs would love to have in AAA in 2019. If guys like Jake Reed and Matt Magill are pushed out, trade them for low minors flyers and move on. If John Curtiss lights it up in Rochester, move Addison Reed at the deadline. I didn't like the Pressly trade at the time, but you can't argue with the return of Alcala and Celestino.

I guess I'd take minor issue with the following: 1. The current likely depth in AAA represents feasible backup options. Going with a AAA rotation of Stewart, Gonsalves, De Jong, Thorpe, and Littell is hardly an act of malpractice, even if you knew for sure all of them were going to be called upon to start one or more MLB games. This is particularly the case when you might have other options pushing their way up from AA, you might have other options toiling in your own MLB pen, and finding an emergency arm in the market isn't exactly tough in this era of desperate selling. Every one of those five has a decent chance of settling in as acceptable mid to back end starters. 2. If we have three of Berrios, Gibson, Pineda, Mejia, and Odorizzi go down for the count, we're in deep doo-doo anyway, even if a guy like Buchholz comes in and cuts the mustard and sends Mejia to the pen or something. I don't see signing one of these guys to a make-good contract as a compelling need. 3. However, I suppose I'd be fine with taking a shot with one. My concerns would be with the message it sends to this AAA group, that your window of opportunity just got narrower, that your opportunity is less tied to your own merits now. Was the guy a clear upgrade from them? 4. And what about the slight risk of a guy in the clubhouse pretty much auditioning for other teams and not being a great team player? These attitudes are hard to anticipate. I'd hope they are being more careful about this after their admitted failings in this area last year. I could see them being hesitant about going in this direction.

When Levine made those remarks, he gave me a vague impression that he was alluding to the disgruntlement of Lynn and Morrison without naming names. Surely, Lynn was displeased with having to settle on both the AAV and length, Morrison too. Who knows, maybe Duke or someone else was a disruptive influence in the clubhouse too, but I'd very much bet those two guys in particular were the bad apples. They would not have signed a two or three year contract, I don't think, for the AAV they got on the one-year deals, and I think that's what Thad meant.

Concur. The length of a contract is basically irrelevant. Choose players who are positive and appreciative, stay away from players who are embittered by their circumstance. Sign players who solve a very specific problem.

Reading Tom's comment at #22 gives us a better context of what he meant by that sentence. I believe you may have misconstrued his meaning. That said, I'm sick and tired of this FO and the last one falling short on remedies in the penover the last half dozen off-seasons and a handful of deadlines.

I think this is a helpful synopsis. I'm not privy to what the entire Baseball Operations operating budget is of course. Many many years ago, Carl Pohlad finally gave in to the longstanding and persistent efforts of MacPhail, Billy Smith, and Jim Pohlad and approved an annual budget to build up the international presence. At the time, they were pretty much impotent in terms of relationships, influence and stature in the DR. Carl agreed to a long-range (10-year) plan and strategy to become competitive in the international scouting and player acquisition business, with a critical goal of being a player in the DR. That initial budget put them in the upper echelons of spending in the international category. The initial capital costs, land included, for the Dominican facility was $15M for the Twins. That was in the early stages of a commitment to shoulder higher overall operating costs, in the DR and elsewhere, than a vast majority of franchises. The international allotment decision reduced the value of this initiative, but it's been valuable nonetheless. Knowing this history, it didn't shock me that Jim Pohlad went to his board and got the blessing to bolster the annual operating budget regarding all these development-related initiatives, although it took him too long because he lacked champions of such a move within the organization. I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd venture a guess that when it's all said and done, the Twins will have one of the higher budgets in this area as well. But to your point, Spy, neither their above-average international fixed budget or this new fixed-cost domestic infrastructure is going to cost so much that it will be part of the calculus regarding the variable-cost MLB payroll. They're not even thought of in a similar context.

1. ?? 2. May 3. Rogers 4. Romero 5. Reed (rejuvenated hopefully?) 6. Parker (FB velo down but still within .5 of MLB average FB) 7. ??? Assuming they trade for or sign a guy who slots up there with May and Rogers, which of the in-house candidates is an acceptable last man, and which AAA options would be acceptable injury replacements? Moya Vasquez Magill Curtiss Hildenberger (recovered from over-use?) Duffey Kohl Stewart Jake Reed A slew of others I can't think of off the top of my head With one more premier addition, I'd be very comfortable that we have pretty much a complete roster of fairly decent call-up options, probably more than most teams.

I've never even heard of this guy. And yet he bores the crap out of me already. Maybe if he had a better name, like Adam Ottavino...

Your point is well-taken, but it's interesting (to me) to see that that "best system" assessment wasn't as far off-base as one might suspect. My opinion. It was greatly predicated on the two prospects with incredible and rare physical talents, and both have been delayed by injury and other factors and still aren't to be written off. There really weren't that many complete flops. The Alex Meyer injuries set them back. So did Oswaldo Arcia turning into a colossal headcase. The stunted production from Mauer and Morneau needs to be considered as well when people draw oversimplified conclusions in the "gee, we had this over-hyped farm system, and look how wrong and incompetent they were." catagory. We're still in the early stages of seeing the (optimism here) fruition of that assessment. We haven't perhaps seen the best from Berrios, Rosario, May, Kepler, and Polanco, for example, and we still may get a boost from Thorpe, and even Kohl Stewart for that matter. I don't discount the points Nick is making, but personally, I see two factors as more critical drivers of this re-shaping. One is the talent of this group of players, and others like Taylor Rogers from that period. The other is all the behind-the-scenes stuff, most of which is tied to improvements in managing and developing player assets.

I thought they made it quite clear that fitness was one of the things they wanted to help Sano address, and therefore they wanted him at the best facility for helping him address this. It wasn't a form of punishment, and monitoring his workouts vis video is not a sign of distrust either. I wish people would take care to limit criticism to known behaviors, and behaviors that are clearly worthy of scrutiny. And then, lay off the character-based conclusions based on that behavior that you can't clearly prove. I get annoyed more than anything else around here by unfairness and harshness. So yeah, criticize abusers, be outraged when Delmon Young accosts innocent people in Manhattan in a clear act of hatred, criticize Sano for harassing female ushers in Chattanooga. But don't talk about Kirilloff being home schooled like you know that's going to be a performance problem, or say that Gordon's rap music hobby is a sure sign of his lack of dedication, or conclude something from one fairly innocuous comment from a player or a GM or an owner or a manager. Cut people slack. As for Sano, I choose to take those close to the situation at their word, and that includes Sano. The proof will be in the advanced metrics. I'm optimistic about both he and Buxton. I don't know which one, but I'm wagering that one of the two has an absolutely monster 2019 and that the other one is better than average at their position on the field and in the lineup.

You know I was being facetious. Billy Smith is a crappy swimmer. Smith, BTW did not in fact have the final authority to sign Sano. This decision required approval from above. Smith was the GM of course.My tiresome argument has been consistently based on the distinctions among roles, titles, and authority and I think people have been quick to disparage, quick to attribute credit.

If every single transaction a GM makes has layers of underlings deeply involved, then why do we constantly have these claims that so very blatantly pinpoint credit and blame on one person and much more incredulously, state with complete conviction that one GM did something another would not? THAT, Levi, is the silly point that is so...damn...tiresome. People want to believe that Smith did much more than he actually did to snag Sano. They mischaracterize his role. Usually for the purpose of disparagement of Ryan of course. I'm as tired of hearing that inaccurate garbage with no mention ever of Guerrero's role for example, a role which included negotiating and agreeing to the financial parameters of a contract, as others might be of hearing me call bull. Give Billy Smith credit for the things he actually did. I have, and very few others have done the same. And criticize Ryan, if you still have to, for his REAL mistakes and failings, not fake ones. There. Now I'm done.

I'm just relieved they're not putting some hack out there like Kirilloff.

They had direct deposit in the 50's?

Not to mention the very distinct possibility that Rooker isn't being blocked. Because he's not going to be the next Hrbek, let alone ever a Nelson Cruz even in his current declining stage. Lewis and Kiriloff have a chance to zoom to the majors. They're simply that talented. I don't see reports that indicate anyone else fits into that category. We have to face the reality that most of the other top 20 positional prospects are much more likely to remind us of players like Rich Becker and Scott Stahoviak, not Kirby Puckett and Gary Gaetti.

I love this exercise of trying to assess the present and future value of these players and the things that have to happen for that value to be realized or sustained. A roster of players reminds me of a portfolio of startup companies, with all the unpredictability and all the volatility. You just can't really predict whether you have the next United Healthcare (Kirby Puckett) or if you're being a bit hoodwinked by early success like an Old County Buffets (Oswaldo Arcia). Or maybe we have a narcissistic entrepreneur who can't control his demons and takes us down with him (Delmon Young). Snapshots indeed, lol.

This is an interesting time. Without knowing, I'd offer the theory that we're about to witness an accelerated level of teaching to go along with the standard coaching, at all levels. Others can describe things with much greater accuracy than I can, but it seems to me that we've seen the introduction of some pretty remarkable observational technology recently. With all the new coaches, and with perhaps some more advanced initiatives to address kinesiology stuff, nutrition and flexibility and vision...something tells me we're going to see some real changes. It still seems logical to have prospects face AAA opponents, where theoretically they'll see advanced skills in action.

1. How have you arrived at your view that Jim Pohlad's statements are meaningless? Have you some personal insight into the man? Isn't that possibly a cynical point of view? And while most of us have an issue with the spending decisions this organization has made over a longer time frame, most of us avoid having an angry, exaggerated sense of entitlement. We're not victims. We can vote with our pocketbooks and yes, we can do a little ranting. It's not like they're spending and investing nothing you know. We don't know the precise numbers, but I would venture to say that their overall baseball budget, excluding player payroll, ranks up there in the highest quartile. Most of this expenditure is not very visible, as it includes state of the art facilities in the DR and Florida and their attendant annual operating costs, as an example. So I'm sorry, but angry accusations about how you've been shortchanged by Jim Pohlad are just kind of pathetic, frankly. 2. With all due respect, I don't think you're right about business decisions like the Cruz one. If you were, the Twins would not have signed him, right? I mean, didn't they just escape from regrettably bad contract decisions on a number of other players? This organization has the financial wherewithal to make a $15M contract mistake year in and year out given a quarter billion in revenues. You're complaining specifically about the Cruz decision. You are on an island, my friend. I have yet to hear anyone besides you describe it as a misguided expenditure. Bad idea? Nope. Bad contract? Nope. A one year $14.3M obligation, one that could end at the trade deadline perhaps, one that puts fannies back in some seats and a few jerseys in bags at the Twins shop? This decision doesn't do anything whatsoever to cause less "financial flexibility". If anything, it increases the likelihood that other such commitments will reap financial rewards. 3. This point is confusing. So, the only reason guys like Cruz, Schoop, Cron, Reed and Pineda sign these short-term deals is....? If they produce at a high level for my team in 2019, I'm totally cool with that, even if they choose to go elsewhere in 2020. Maybe we get a QO pick from it, maybe we flip a guy here and there for prospects (this FO added FIVE (!!) B level prospects at the deadline in 2018), maybe we extend a guy or two because they like being part of a contending team and like the culture here? I just don't see how a good contract for a good player makes terrible sense over the long run. Especially when the FO is keeping a very impressive prospect pipeline fully intact in the process with absolutely no one blocked in the process, especially B level prospect Rooker, BTW. The Twins have two prospects ranked among the very top dozen in all of baseball. Only the Blue Jays can say that, 28 teams cannot This is precisely the kind of move most of us were hoping Falvey would make.

In partial fairness, the first reason Nelson's agent mentioned as to why he picked the Twins was that we made the best offer, and I think we can safely conclude that this meant a higher number in the base contract. But then, he went on to mention all kinds of other considerations, and mentioned at least twice that Nelson felt like the Twins wanted him and valued him more highly. I suppose one could conclude that Cruz deduced this from the contract offer alone, but his agent spoke about the ongoing conversations between Thad Levine and Cruz, about the text exchanges Cruz had with Schoop that influenced him, and maybe one or two other factors as well IIRC. Walleyes were not mentioned. So while I don't think Mike is necessarily wrong that money trumped other considerations, I'm not at all comfortable with a generalization that it's always a "follow the money" scenario. This kind of generalization just invites the kind of unfounded or at least unsubstantiated mantras we get around hear all the time, which is that if the cheap bastards had simply submitted the highest bid, then the FA would have signed a contract. That notion is as equally far-fetched as the notion that players just can't ever be convinced to come here. There's a grain of truth to both "sides" of that endless debate. The problem is, we don't know the truth. We just like to think we do. Generalizations are our constant companion in these parts. I find them to frequently be specious.

This move does nothing but accelerate "the rebuild", whatever that is. (To me, it's a useless label). Cruz is another huge asset and it didn't cost anything but cash. This move is not being made in a vacuum. This move blocks absolutely no one. Do you really believe that plugging Rooker into the lineup here in 2019 makes a lot of sense? There's still a very solid chance Rooker flops at the next level. Who knows, he may not be as good as Todd Sears or Paul Sorrento were. What hat was that 82 win number pulled from? This team wasn't all that far away from mediocrity LAST year. And that happened with a below-average manager and coaching staff, Sano and Buxton disasters, Polanco caught cheating, Erv injured, Lynn and LoMo pouting on their locker room stools, and with about a zillion rookies getting their first taste of the big lights. Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Kepler, Polanco, Castro and Schoop. Not all will improve in 2019 over 2018 unless we experience a perfect storm. Some will, no? Cron, Cruz, Garver, Cave, Austin, maybe Astudillo. Not all of them will do worse in 2019 than they did in 2018, right? Pitching still needs a boost, no question, although the situation's not as bad as some portray it. I'd love to find wagers where I could bet the pitching will statistically be league average in 2019. Cheer up.

I'd suggest the exercise considers future value, but it discounts it. I personally would agree that Javier is slotted too high. I calculate two things into a discount: The time and the uncertainty, and Javier has a long way to go, although with less uncertainty IMHO than Gordon, for example. There are maybe ten prospects in the system who have more value, IMO than one or more players on the projected active roster. Certainly, Javier has more value than Adrianza for example? Graterol has more value than Magill? From what I've read about prospects, I'd slot maybe a half dozen or so in front of Javier, based on a certainty AND time advantage for the likes of Lewis, Kirilloff, and Larnach and for a time advantage for Thorpe and maybe a couple others. As an exercise, let's take Austin. WHich prospects are more valuable? He doesn't make the Top 20, right?

Yeah, you tell 'em, Chief!! Now let's get back to our private PM about Gregorian Chant music.

Nick's rankings appear to be biased more to a "present value" look at things, whereas in the trading environment, teams are calculating future value all the time. Teams are generally looking to get a discount due to the future nature of things on one hand and looking for a premium for the present value they're trading away. So presently, Cron's value can arguably be greater than Gordon's, to the Twins. I doubt they would have given up Gordon to acquire Cron despite this.

$17.00 per hour.

Ten comments in and no one has yet mentioned the incontrovertible fact that the Twins lowballed him.