bird

I miss the logic involved in construing this fact as so problematic. They can agree to new contracts should they choose, right? And if they choose to move on from most of these players, four of whom are pitchers, could it be because they can plug in better alternatives? The call to trade Gibson makes zero sense at all to me, unless Gibson's agent has made it clear that he wants out. He's not a surplus asset. He's a front line 2-3 starter, exactly the kind of asset you retain when you can. If Reed, Pineda, and Schoop turn things around and like their future here, same thing. Falvey is not going to trade or jettison any of these guys to make room for players he thinks will not be as good. He's going to trade Gordon, Gonsalves, and Rooker instead IMO. I just don't see the problem. That said, aside from Gibson, and possibly Pineda, guys like Cron and Schoop can be replaced for 2020 with upgrades just as easily as THEY upgrade those positions compared to Mauer, Dozier, and Forsythe.

My own read on this, spy, is not that Levine was deflecting their own part in it but simply acknowledging that they had more than one new guy that came in feeling victimized and therefore had a sour disposition towards being here. And that this was their mistake. He of course isn't going to name names. I can't cite specifics, but I got the impression that both Lynn and Morrison came in with a bit of a reputation for having "quirky" personalities, and it became evident, to me anyway, that Dozier was resentful underneath all his happy talk. Erv might come across as happy-go-lucky and a good team player, but he was selfish in the past, so I don't trust any characterization of him as a good clubhouse guy. I don't concern myself with the whole "mercenary" thing. To me, the question is about feeling good about opportunity versus feeling victimized at having to settle for the better of a two crappy choices like Lynn and Morrison might have done.

True, and this is my point. No one described Jobs as the guy who single-handedly wrote the code for the Mac. According to some legends, Billy Smith swam to the Dominican Republic, scoured the backroads, discovered the young, frail Miguel, handed him his first bat, and then coached and mentored him. Which actually has equal truth to the rest of the legend, which is that he single-handedly convinced Sano's handler to trust the organization and then negotiated his contract from start to finish as the kid's only champion and as the only one who recommended the organization pony up that dough.

You too, howie.

Here we go again. When I think of any of these players, I don't think of Smith or Ryan, because they had less to do with the whole process than people want to accept. They virtually played replacement level roles, and that includes the process of negotiating with Sano's agent, which people falsely describe as this heroic, bold move by Smith. Ironically, both men deserve massive credit for other things, but not for acting as the spearhead in any of those signings. Hmmm. Maybe I'm repeating myself. Oh well.

I really don't understand the angst about this decision. I've tried to figure out what I'm missing. Please help me if I missed an argument against the move: 1. There were better FA options available. Okay, maybe, but that's disputable. It kinda depends on what you predict you'll see from Schoop, LaMahieu, Murphy... Maybe the FO disagrees with you. 2. The 1-year deal is too short. Because? If one believes Lewis is ready in 2020, that Polanco can be moved to 2B? Or that Gordon will be ready? Otr that Schoop won't re-sign? Or that a QO comp pick isn't good? Or that he can't be flipped? Do you really think a guy who WANTS a 1-year deal is going to pout like Lynn and Morrison, who wanted multi-year deals for boatloads more than they got? I don't see the downside here even if he's a one-and-done. So what if he doesn't help past 2019? 3. It's a sign they're punting on 2019. Well, let's wait on that thought. If they punt on the RP options, then I'll agree with this. Opinions vary here, but plenty of us believe that with 2-3 more smart decisions, and the Buxton/Sano thing, things could get better fast. Yes, it will take a Soria/Robertson/Cutch/ Bour (bye bye to Austin) type signing spree, but let's wait and see. 4. I hate everything they do and I'm never happy. Well, you got me there. Hadn't considered that angle.

But show me the line on which that OF addition has signed, and then we'll talk. Let's stop trading from already-thin areas. Frankly, I'd go in the opposite direction. I'd sign Cutch if possible, then play matchup with RF/1B/DH. I'm skeptical about Cave, and would put equal money on a light bulb going off for Kepler and a wet blanket being thrown over Cave. And if (when?) Kirilloff becomes a real thing, wouldn't Kepler be nice as a 4th OF who can handle a bat AND play good defense? And if Cave is the real thing too, but Kepler id the better player, guess which 4th OF gets moved? Right, the second best one. Reed, Granite, and Wade? So far, they look like commodity items to me. I want more predictability in 2019. I have enough unpredictability as it is without adding more.

Scenario #1: Derek and Thad call a meeting with the Professional Scouting Department Derek: "Good morning everyone. You've now all had plenty of time to do your homework on the list of possible free agent candidates for second base. You've had a chance to review the medicals of each candidate and ask questions of our medical and training people. We hope that you've once again honored our request to refrain from having a discussion amongst yourselves about these candidates to avoid group-think. You'll recall that at yesterday's meeting, when we discussed shortstop candidates, the consensus recommendation was that we pass on all candidates. All the 2B candidates have flaws, but unlike with the SS exercise, where we asked you to recommend any candidate you thought would provide us with better overall production than Polanco, we're asking a different question today, as you all know. The question again is, which of the available FA candidates do you believe would give us the best overall production in 2019? Our candidates again are Lowrie, La Mahieu, Kinzler, Murphy, and Schoop." Unanimous chorus from the room: "Schoop". Derek: "Thank you. Then that's who we'll pursue." Scenario #2: Thad and Derek call a meeting with the Analytics Department. Thad: "Good morning everyone. We've asked you to calculate a projected WAR-to-dollar ratio for each of the second base candidates based on market projections regarding the required financial commitment extended out over the predicted contract length required for each candidate and recommend the best candidate based on value. What have you fellow geeks come up with?" Unanimous chorus from the room: "Schoop." Derek: "That's nice to hear, because he's our first choice."

Baseball is loaded with predictive analysis, is it not? FIP, defensive metrics in general, WAR, etc are all predictive in nature. 10s of millions are not invested based on intuition. I get your arguments. Decision-wise, I'd side with you on a majority of them. I give many TD contributors credit for sensitivity about the extra financial capacity of the top revenue producing teams. Derek Falvey and all of his minions are acutely aware of the limited predictive power of all those metrics. That's why they, like other progressive organizations, are spending greater resources on things they might be able to better control, such as mental and physical health, fitness and training, instruction, etc. I very much disagree that intuition takes a back seat. In my first job, I was mentored by this old curmudgeon who'd been in the investment business since 1936. He was the figurehead at a prestigious blue-blood investment firm in NYC, like for 45 years. For almost half that time, the previous 21 years in fact, the Dow traded in a range between 800 to 1000. My first week on the job, Newsweek's lead article was questioning if the stock market was "dead". This old fart was out there screaming that it was time to hop on and enjoy the ride, because the Dow was going to shoot through 3600 "like sugar through a tin horn".The basis for his conviction? Inflation was about to die, because Reagan had just fired the air traffic controllers. That was his signal. Not one useful financial extrapolation. Just a solid contextual understanding of the long term history of financial markets. I hope to heck this FO respects whatever intuitive capacity it has around there, and I think they do, as indicated by their retention of talent evaluators and their stated goal of valuing both analytics and scouting expertise. Mainly I hope their intuition is "right" about Sano and Buxton, lol.

"Show me the financial projections. There has been absolutely zero data / content presented that measured risk / return or the probability that any given plan would result in X number of wins." I'm sorry, but this is just so much silliness. Please educate us. Tell us exactly what Paxton's production will be in 2019. How many innings, starts, ERA, the exact number of wins he's going to produce. Tell us how to plug those numbers, numbers apparently so obvious to a credentialed businessperson like you, into one of them there spreadsheet thingies. Now do it for five more years, and where's the column about changes in attendance on the days Paxton pitches, by the way? I'll take the intuitive capabilities of MOST of us over whatever garbage you're about to throw onto a spreadsheet. The performance volatility of professional baseball players turns your "probability" analysis into just so much pablum. FO's place bets and do a lot of educated guessing. So do other businesses, as you know from doing strategic planning for your own business. We're all just guessing here, and I personally come here to enjoy the impressive guesswork. And we're not ignoring the financial side of things. I'm afraid that's a figment of your own imagination, no disrespect intended.

You may not mean any disrespect, but i think your radar is on the blitz, my friend. As has been pointed out before, a MAJORITY of your frequent contributors here do a great job of putting themselves in the GM's shoes and have as good a handle of the concept of profitability as you do. Whenever you say one of us can't understand something? That statement is dripping with condescension. You make such thoughtful, insightful comments. I for one just respectfully ask you to reconsider your viewpoint about the level of understanding you think the rest of us have. Case in point: many of our pals here put together offseason blueprints. MOST of them carefully considered the business side of things, and did so with dexterity. A lot of them were quite impressive. As for your own understanding of the business side of things, let me make one observation. You mention the notion of investing tens of millions with a low probability of success. Frankly, I see comparatively few ideas here that fit that description. I see many more ideas where the TD'er is suggesting a move that has a decent probability of success. Moves that don't financially cripple the operation. Acquisitions of assets with liquidity, i.e. players who can be flipped, or discarded without real damage. Moves that will boost wins, boost attendance, and probably boost profitability. Yes, there are annoying exceptions, that small handful of ignorant ranters about how the Pohlads owe it to us the cook the Pepsi books and sneak that cash out and over to the Twin's tills, but they're few and far between. And when someone argues that Paxton at $130/6 is a good idea, just as many comment that it's a deal that they're happy the team passed on. Because they want sustainable success too, and they respect and grasp the business side of things like you do.

One year contracts: My take on Levine's cautionary comments about the detriment caused last year by one-year contracts, was that they were a veiled criticism of Morrison and Lynn. Something tells me that in addition to being under-productive on the field, they were toxic in the clubhouse. I lack any direct eveidence of this, but reading between the lines a little, that's my suspicion. Wondering if others get that vibe or can point to more solid evidence. It would surprise me if they avoided single year commitments.

Yes, I agree completely, and I think they're doing the right thing in "forcing" themselves to take the over on those two for 2019. I do hope they're aggressive here in the FA market. I'm concerned however. Wish I could sit the whippersnappers down and talk some sense into them: 1. Quit worrying about Sano and Buxton, other than to do what you can to set them right, whatever that may be. The rest is up to them, but just ASSUME they'll be good and act accordingly. 2. Don't get cute with your valuation models and your fancy arithmetic when it comes to bidding for talent in FA. Decide who fits, and outbid the competition unless the price is stupid. Lots of fanatical fans will think $130M/6 years for Paxton isn't stupid, but if you do, fine, Just don't pass on some premium relief pitcher because his agent wants an extra $2M and an extra year. Suck it up and overpay. You have the cash. 3. Operate with the mantra that you have 25 roster spots and not one spot should be occupied by a player who creates a deficit. If Tyler Duffey is one of your solutions? No, just no! And stay in your hotel room and binge on Netflix during the Rule 5 crap. You're past that stage, and not as smart as you think, Derek. Good boy.

This is the logic that escapes many of us. Either those guys come through or they don't. If you take the bet that they turn things around, then you surround them with adequate support. If you bet they won't, you find a taker who will and move them. The least efficacious strategy is to watch them finally put it together and THEN invest in supporting players. They have the wherewithal to fill the half dozen gaping holes right now with unexciting but perfectly cromulent players because all the options are there via FA.

Going from recollection, I'd say these numbers are fairly representative. Usually 2-3 teams with around 20 B- or better prospects, another tier of teams with about 15, most of the rest at about 10, with a couple of dogs down at 5ish. The A- prospects are important though, with maybe a dozen total. Talent pipelines are going to be more variant, just like MLB talent these days. Some big tim "haves" and some woeful "have-nots" Watch out for the orgs with top quartile talent in both MLB and the minors. I don't think the Twin's system's depth is overstated however, for two main reasons. First, compared to other systems, a lot of those prospects are really young and/or new, and there are a handful more high ceiling prospects at the lowest levels than you see in many systems too. I thought the system might have been over-rated in terms of quality last year, but after last year's domestic and international signings, I think it merits its ranking as a top 10 pipeline because of both quality and quantity or depth. These assessments are incredibly fluid. All it takes is two of the likes of Javier, Urbina, Graterol, and Larnach to take off like Lewis and Kirilloff did to catapult an organization in these kind of rankings. KC, for example, probably had fewer than ten B- prospects the prior year, and now look.

Your final statement is a generalization that is not factual and that doesn't hold water. The statistical probabilities of success for an elite prospect are higher by multiples. You use two examples that perhaps support your case. Why leave out examples that don't? Do you think the theoretical trade value for Benintendi, Machado, Syndegaard, or Harper would have exceeded the value they delivered? That said, I was all for having them dangle Gordon out there, because he is a surplus asset IMO. Every potential deal has to be weighed on its merits. But it's important to recognize that when these evaluators project the value of a player into the future, they know their software and video doesn't make a calculation that's worth a whole lot. The decision is a bet. The reason Lewis is untouchable is because evaluators are betting he's a Barry Larkin type guy.

Only if they follow your suggestion and start the season with Rooker and Gordon in the lineup.

Who's gonna notice?

Can't wait for LaVelle E. Neal's incisive questioning on this. Falvey's sweating bullets.

A two-point response: The prospects ARE being developed and evaluated, and it won't require the MLB team to suck as badly as it would with the likes of Gordon and Rooker flailing away at the plate before they're ready, if they ever are. The right additions, all very doable ones for cash money with no prospect loss, WILL potentially move the needle. Two premium RP's, and maybe Cutch, Lowrie, and possibly Bour.

I start with the premise that the success in 2019 is predicated on Sano AND Buxton both improving their production to match their talent. I really believe that without this, the season is pretty much lost, even with moves that most of us would consider satisfactory. So, aside from two premium RP's off a loaded FA list, I'd be perfectly content if they signed Cutch, Bour and Lowrie as placeholders until guys like Kirilloff, Lewis, and maybe Rooker and Gordon are ready. I wouldn't worry about getting more than a low minors flyer for Austin. Getting nothing for him is a nominal setback. For that matter, if a prospect is ready to give you equal or better production, get what you can get for these new pickups the first chance you get.

2019

I demand a recount.

Novel. Maybe we should start a thread some time where everyone could noodle this idea.

I don't have strong opinions about how I'd deploy players. I just know I resonate to the whole flex concept, both with pitching and positional players. I especially like the idea of flexibility of usage with strong-armed pitchers with dominating stuff like Romero and May, and with the notion of knowing how to guard against the damage that can be done against guys like Over Easy and Mejia and maybe Stewart and others. I'm warming up to this new age. And I love the concept of a grouping of complimentary players to handle RF/1B/DH and the 5-7 slots. Especially if it addresses matchup opportunities and involves players who don't create a deficit defensively. If I had a Luger pressed to my temple and was told to make the call: I'd cut a check for McCutcheon or Brantley, cut a check for Lowrie or similar placeholder for 2019, live with Polanco for another year at SS. Be fine with Turtle and Adrianza as bench players, along with, more often than not, Austin and Cave. Kepler gets time at1B against righties with Cron shifting "down" to DH or to the bench. Basically, I'd hand out gloves to Kepler, Cave, Kirilloff, Rooker, Larnach, and anyone else who profiles as a member of that grouping and look to upgrade as fast as possible from Austin, Cron, and maybe even Cave. I'd pick up one more front line starter via trade or FA, and two of the Robertson/Familia tier RP's via FA. That lets me shift Mejia and Romero to the BP to join the new guys and May and Rogers, maybe Hildenberger (now fixed and used correctly?). Over Easy, Pineda, and Stewart become primaries, most of the time. Or they get moved, who knows? Short leashes. Speaking of which, I'm always a potential seller from surplus at the deadline, and always a shopper too, opportunistically. None of these decisions are worth squat without performance to expectation from BOTH Sano and Buxton in 2019. Additionally, my status as a genius is equally dependent on running the table with Lewis, Kirilloff, Larnach, and Graterol. My flops have to be from prospects further down the list, guys like Rooker, Gordon, and Gonsalves. In short, my whole "flex plan" philosophy and strategy has to extend to every area: between the lines, development, trades, deadline decisions, all decisions. Opportunistic, flexible in thought and action, nimble, rigorous calculation of risks as an alternative to simply experimenting. Anyway, I love the thinking Nick has offered, and love the many terrific thoughts others have posted. Great morning read.