bird

That's the listed dealer price. Mine wasn't that much.

Was the dump truck worthless? If so, as a CEO or board member of that business, don't waste my time telling me how you disposed of it. Oh, and hop out before it goes over the cliff. If it was worth a quarter mil, you're fired. But you're fired anyway for littering, so... I agree that Falvey and his people factored in salary relief. They moved Hughes off the roster, and in retrospect, they should have done so earlier. We don't know how much hope they had in getting some performance out of him, but they didn't keep him around strictly because Jim Pohlad told them to. It was a sunk cost. As a businessperson, if you have an asset that impedes the efficacy of your business, you discard it in favor of a producing asset. Get what you can for it. Took 'em too long, but they finally concluded that Hughes was as worthless as an old dump truck. The Twins sent the 74th selection and a future cash obligation in Hughes. They got back a Venezuelan catcher named Janigson Villalobos. This may be a lopsided transaction done primarily to slough off the contract. But my only point was to push back on what I'm confident is a misinformed impression that Jim Pohlad was responsible for the decision to keep him around and the decision to ship him off. He's not running a Christmas tree lot here. He's got people to handle this stuff. Back to Odorrizzi: it's not extending him that's necessarily a bad move, it's rendering him illiquid by overpaying him. But again, you could extend him on a "reasonable" contract and have him become illiquid because injury erodes his value. Like what happened with Hughes.

I did not realize this. I thought that was money already spent whether Hughes got moved or not.

That roster spot was filled, was it not?

You're making a false assumption that Jim Pohlad makes a call about things like that. It will certainly come to his attention, but he hardly requires them to ask for his permission to make a minor call like that. If the CEO at United Properties, another Pohlad Company, reports on an expenditure to make extensive repairs to a parking ramp, this might come to the attention of his board and Jim Pohlad in a similar way that jettisoning Hughes might come to the board and him through Dave St. Peter.

Good point. Generally, assets that are illiquid sell for a discount. So kudos go to the FO for signing a liquid (tradeable) asset for a bad contract discount (Palacios). I'd agree that Odo at 3/30 makes him less liquid if you don't eat the "premium" portion of the contract at the time of a sale. If his intrinsic (WAR stuff) worth is $6M and you sign him for $10M, you're asking for trouble, especially with multiple years of course. That's why the team needs to be pretty comfortable with their bet that a guy like him gives you a performance advantage over a guy like, say, Thorpe or Gonsalves, and over the next FA candidate for 2020.

I also don't understand the logic behind sending a better player back to AAA because of some contract obligation. First of all, I'm limiting those obligations as much as possible, again especially to pitchers. But if I have to cut bait with a guy with a contract to make room for a rookie who is ready to cut his teeth, I eat the salary and trade for the best low minors prospect I can get. It's part of why I want some "flexibility" with my payroll budget. So sure, sign him to a team-friendly contract through 2021 if you have minimal faith in your five B grade pitching prospects who are all on the cusp, and if you can't or don't want to sign Pineda and/or Gibson to retain their services, and if for some reason you think the FA market won't bear fruit, and if you think Graterol and Alcala and Wells and Enlow are mirages, and if you doubt anyone will part with a better solution in exchange for your surplus player assets on the 25-man or below. If all that happens, I'm cheering for Mr. Sixel's new Portland franchise in 2020. Don't give him a no-trade clause and be quick to trade him when a better alternative is available. Please.

I don't understand the obsession with making multi-year commitments, especially to pitchers. I'd understand it if the pitcher could also make a commitment to perform at the same level each year, but... You make a long-term commitment to a player because you HAVE to in order to retain his services, right? Unless you feel that Odor Easy gives you a better chance in 2020 than all your other options for that #5 slot, which would be a sad indictment IMO, you part ways. To these untrained and statistically meh eyes, he's a dull 5-inning starter who often strains your pen. I'm not sure we're not better off, right now even, with starts from Mejia, Gonsalves and Stewart. And I wouldn't even place a bet that he has a better 2020 than Thorpe, Littell, or De Jong, and I'll take my chances on the emergence in 2021 of someone like Graterol, Alcala, and Wells. And if each and every one of my internal options fails to be an improvement over Odor Easy, I'm finding someone via trade or FA for that 5th spot because guys like him are basically always out there if your professional scouts are doing their jobs.

We don't know what they're going to do with Romero or the basis for it right now. But isn't it possible that we're the ones overly infatuated by Romero as a starter? Maybe they question his stamina, or his secondary offerings. I wonder if putting him in a BP role is such a bad idea.

They're not thrift store shopping right now. Even if they were, they aren't looking for knickknacks. In the past, they've hit the thrift store looking for useful items. Like Cave, Austin, and Magill for example. That wasn't so foolish. They weren't expecting to find a $200 cashmere sweater for $20 there. Some of us just wish they'd head over to Nordstroms for that special sweater right about now, but alas, it feels like they might be headed into Macy's, and we're holding our breath hoping they ignore the sale signs in front of Kohl's.

It appears that, right or wrong, this FO is pretty much doing the opposite of what you'd do. Let's focus on pitching so as to not veer from the point of this thread. Looking at SIckle's analysis and comparing it to the 6 other teams he reported on prior to his sudden temporary hiatus, some things are clear: The Twins have 40 pitching prospects who grade out at C or better. People will dismiss this fact as insignificant. Because it's a numbers game, they shouldn't. Plenty of pitching prospects who grade out as C or C+ do in fact make it to MLB, and the Twins had a few on last year's team. For example, Vasquez, Curtiss, and Slegers are all C types. More importantly, C types become B's and even A's in small numbers, so let's look at the other six teams. Surprisingly KC has 39 such pitching prospects, so their system is very much on the rise despite less excitement about their positional prospects. No other team has more than 31 (Boston), although Atlanta, with 29, has a pipeline that is obscenely good, with 5 of those prospects better than our best (Graterol). After that, LAD has 26, Sea 24, Cincy 21. But the point remains that having 10 more legit pitching prospects than the average team is a pretty big deal. Especially when plenty of them are earning B grades. ( B prospects have a good chance of having successful careers ). Atlanta has 10 of those, Twins 9, KC 8, Boston 6, LAD 5, Cincy 3, SEA 2. My guess on what they're thinking: They're better off filling holes through FA than via trade because the present value of the Romero's and Graterol's in the system aren't high enough to fetch difference-makers, so Odor Easy and Pineda are their solution. They probably like our prospects better than most of us do. Remember, many of us wrote Stewart off completely, and Gonsalves gets less love by the month. I think your premise is fine, but trying to time the trade of a prospect to get optimal value is fraught with difficulty. Stewart's value, for example, may be higher now than it was when he was first eligible to be included in a trade. Whoduthunk?

The Twins can very much afford to pay market rates for guys like Gibson, and they should. Because it's in their own interests. What they CAN'T afford to do is to pay above-market rates, especially if the player flops. And they can't afford multiples of players like Hughes and Nolasco either.

This idea is not lost on the brain trust, but they're not looking up and seeing the sky falling. Nothing is preventing them from signing Gibson and Pineda for 2020 and beyond. And maybe they have more faith than you do in one or more of their B prospects, who all but Thorpe have gotten a taste of MLB: Gonsalves, Stewart, Romero, Thorpe, De Jong, and Littell. And maybe they think the ETA of 2020 for Graterol and Alcala is legit? That's 10 options right there that they currently have under contract. They are aware that the FA marketplace will be open for business next off-season, not to mention that they may or may not be done looking for starters at the moment. And remember, they can trade for one from surplus assets in a top 5 prospect pipeline next off-season.

You can be sure that my response will be considered that of an apologist by many, and they'll be wrong about that. Aside from some of the more obvious things, like for example that Bryant and Bregman and others were obvious selections and also unavailable to the Twins, there are other huge flaws in drawing conclusions from your comparison. I'll give you some examples, starting with comparing the Astro's prowess in selecting Correa and leaving Buxton as the table scrap for us. Today, Buxton has the second-most WAR of any player not named Correa among the top 10 picks. That includes Almora, who you label a success story. Of course, the Cubs didn't have access to Buxton, but 15 0f the 45 first draft choices that year have more WAR than Almora, and 39 of them were picked after he was. This group includes both Berrios and Buxton. Buxton, in fact, will probably finish his career with more WAR than any of those guys, perhaps with the possible exceptions of Correa and Corey Seager. It's critical to consider the details of each draft. Did you know that Stewart, today, has the 3rd most WAR among the top 10 in his draft? And that, among the first 30 picks, Stewart has the 3rd most WAR among ALL pitchers selected? Springer was a great pick, 8 of 10 of the first guys from that draft have been great picks, and 3 guys selected after him have been even better so far, because that draft was a weird case of being rich at the top but very shallow, with lots of busts later on in the round. The 2015 draft is shaping up to be an odd class, with Bregaman and Benintendi in a class by themselves. Ian Happ and Kyle Tucker look to be okay picks, but certainly nothing special at all, certainly no more special-looking than Nick Gordon or Kyle Schwarber are shaping up to be from a weaker 2015 draft class. I'm with you in thinking that the Twins can't afford to miss very often with their 1st-rounders, and especially if they have a guy who slots in as one of the very very elite prospects like was the case with Mauer, Buxton, and Lewis. Gordon, Stewart, and Jay were never thought of in that way, nor were Schwarber, Almora, Tucker, or Happ. But Bryant, Aiken, Correa, Buxton, and Appel were. Every team misses, even occasionally on elite players, especially pitchers. Ask the Marlins about Tyler Kolek, or the Rangers about Dillon Tate, taken two picks before Tyler Jay. This team HAS to take advantage of FA opportunities when they have the cash and the merchandise is attractive, because while they aren't any worse at the draft stuff than the teams you mentioned, they're not any better either.

I'm sorry, Mr. Brooks, I wasn't accusing you in particular of ignoring the fact that all teams miss on first round selections. All the people who "defended" the Jay pick were using an indefensible argument in your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I think the people who saw that Jay had the potential to bring four workable pitches to the majors, including a plus slider and a plus fastball, are likely to end up disappointed. This is partly due to injury and not necessarily due to a mis-assessment of his stuff. So I think you're being unfair when you categorize the error as this fireable offense. They thought they drafted a starting pitcher, not a reliever, and it's not like Jay had zero experience pitching multiple innings. So yes, a bad pick, but not entirely indefensible. At the time of the decision, I am 100% confident that commenters on this board would have been up in arms calling for heads to roll if the Twins had selected Benintendi instead of filling a desperate need for pitching. It's unlikely, but still possible that Jay ends up as a high-leverage MLB bullpen piece, and as we know, those guys are as valuable on a team these days as most first-rounders on that team's roster. I find it mildly ironic that we can point to two "misses" out of their last 10 first round selections, and both of them will be in spring training with a chance to further their development. Stewart could even make the team, and he's a guy whose selection has resulted in lots of calls for the Twins to replace their entire baseball department. Do very many teams have a better record with their last ten first round selections?

A draft and develop only team, absolutely.

While I think it's fair to say the Tyler Jay pick was very much questionable, it wasn't as misguided as people like to portray it to be. Benintendi's success makes it seem like a glaring misjudgement for sure. But consider that he and Walker Buehler at #24 are the only two selections among the first 42 (!) that have contributed anything so far to a major league team. This includes 3 of 5 picked BEFORE him. Some of the others will obviously eventually turn out well, and chances are really strong that Jay will fizzle. But while many liked Benintendi as a the better pick, many liked the Jay pick too, might still be okay with it if his injury history was erased. So, yes it is hindsight criticism for many (most?), and overly harsh in general due to a lack of context. Criticism of the Gibson pick was mild right afterward, but it sure as hell picked up plenty of steam and only subsided because his success squelched it. It's no crime to have unprotected players passed by in Rule 5, and it's no crime to swing and miss on a draft choice now and then. It happens to ALL teams. Ignoring that fact is unfair.

So much for RELEVANCE...

Pure happenstance. Anyone trying to make something out of this will be making stuff up.

The goal of the FO, for 2019, is to give Baldelli a chance to win. I agree with the idea of looking to move assets before their value declines. It remains my third biggest gripe about the old FO. Why would they create ozone-sized holes on the roster? Which player steps in to possibly give you the #2-3 rotation performance you can bet on from Gibson? And fine, maybe Mejia, Gonsalves, or Stewart perform better than Odor Easy in 2019 (my own bet), but why not wait for one or more of these things to happen and then move him at the deadline? If someone will pay Lynn $10M in each of the next three friggin' years, then some desperate team might give up that decent B prospect for Odor Easy at the deadline. But I sure hope that if this happens it's because we have an abundance of better options! Gibby is worth a lot more than some middling B prospect and a league average player today. He's well above league average. Maybe he falters or gets injured, but that could happen to Berrios too, so I'm trying to lock Gibson up if I'm Falvey. And then I'm hoping he sustains his productivity and settles in as my 4th best starter as I continue to upgrade this rotation.

I agree with this, and also understand your legitimate concerns (but not your pessimism) about a Berrios/Gibson/Odor/Pineda rotation. You can't look back 25 years. None of that has any meaning. The changes, while almost imperceptible to fans today, are going to be fairly impactful. The old regime over-valued even more mundane prospects. By mundane, I'm talking prospects like Gonsalves, Rooker, Gordon types, guys with a future in MLB but not projected as perennial all-stars. I'm going to disagree that you can rightly accuse this FO as being opposed to spending bigger than they have in FA or to trading prospects to fill holes. We haven't exactly had a whole slew of expendable (surplus) premium prospects, for reasons unrelated to Derek Falvey and his FO. But yeah, he's going to be judicious as all heck, and rightfully so.

I realize that, here in this regime's second full off-season, that it is common logic to think of last year's record and the current 40-man roster as evidence that the FO has no strategy. Things are a lot more complicated than that. A deeper and more complete assessment tells us much more. I believe Falvey knows this is an asset management game. Acquire, develop, produce, and transition players as assets. His first evaluation, rightfully, was about talent evaluation and the whole acquisition process. I personally believe he was largely impressed with many of the scouting personnel, but felt they were not supported properly. Much of the first year's efforts went to investments in behind-the scenes "infrastructure" in observation technologies, information systems. changes in methodology, and analytical support to bolster those among the scouting ranks that were receptive and meritorious. The organization has supported this and has committed to massive increases in the annual budget related to talent evaluation and acquisition alone. These substantial and important strategic advances have yet to impact the 25-man roster. However, you're getting perhaps your first glimpses of it on the 40-man. Law calls the talent pipeline "loaded", Sickles ranks it as a top 5 system now. It's a consensus top 10 system. His attention has clearly been turned to development. He's said this. He's already made huge technology investments, completely revamped everything in the fitness, nutrition, training, and medical area, canned tons of field people who don't qualify under his upgraded and updated standards, brought in new, innovative people and concepts all the way through the ranks, including at Target Field....the list goes on. These have been bold and aggressive initiatives. From the inside looking out, the baseball operation of this organization looks and feels different, because it is. Again, these incredible advances can't be seen when you look at the 40-man roster. Personally, I expect to see signs of these changes subtly permeating the things we all care about starting in 2019, in bigger ways than implementing shifts. Opener/primary usage perhaps, maybe some anecdotes about performance breakthroughs for pitchers and hitters, that sort of thing. We'll see if better coaching results in some on-field production. It may still be too early to say we'll have players more ready to produce upon arrival, who knows? I may be stupidly optimistic in the long term, and like the rest of my pals here, I've endured the frustrations. But when I see the things going on behind the scenes, I can't help but think we could start to see some fun things happening as early as late 2019 at the front of the store. BTW, I liked the horse-trading they did last trade deadline. Another good sign to me. Asset management. Acquire talent, develop talent, get talent to produce, stay liquid and sell high from surplus to increase overall asset value top to bottom.

Ah. My mistake, Chief. Concur then. Nick?

If spring training rolls around and these are the only moves we see, then I'll agree that Falvey was standing pat and non-strategic. Until then, I think those descriptions are inaccurate and a bit unfair. That said, I wish I saw evidence that Levine's hint about being open to trading for help is in play. Although I really wonder if dangling prospects #4 and beyond, guys in the Gordon Gonsalves Rooker Baddoo tier, are going to net you a frontline starter or a solution at 2B all that much better than Schoop. I don't see the Cron and Schoop decisions as non-strategic. They seem like fairly smart ways to put you in a position to compete in 2019 if your core of Sano, Buxton, Rosario, Berrios, Gibson, Polanco, Rogers, May, and (yeah, I know) Kepler come through in general terms. I was hoping for another starter in that Gibson range, via trade probably. I doubt that's gong to happen, not because of a non-strategic "stand pat" attitude, but because they trust their own plan (opener/primary using Odor, Mejia, Stewart types?). I was hoping for McCutcheon, willing to settle for Nelson Cruz maybe. If Falvey "stands pat" with what we have right now for a line-up, I'll be mildly unhappy about it unless Kirilloff and Lewis burst onto the scene. And if he passes on all the RP FA opportunities for guys like Soria, Robertson, Familia, Allen where the cost is maybe 3 years at $8-10M per? THEN I'll be on board with the criticism. THEN come February, I'll label Falvey as having sat on his hands and worse.

Not really.