bird

You DO realize, don't you, that most of us here rely on credentialed experts like BA, Sickles, KLAW, Fangraphs, Mayo, and others BECAUSE their opinions are based on data and and their opinions are ENTIRELY baseball-based and objective? The icing on the cake is that some of these very authentic experts also talk to other expert observers and even personally observe prospects. The opinions offered by the true experts on Gordon are a bit more wide-ranging than with most prospects, but it appears that your own point of view is occupying a territory of its own.

In his defense, I for one appreciate it when he or anyone else here takes the time to dig up information and share it. Personally, I want thrylos to continue to contribute in that way.

Well, of course. I read the BA rankings for 2018, and the write-ups on Gordon from all the other talent experts too. None of the experts would think that invoking the names of Florimon, Lombardozzi, or Adrianza when describing Gordon's prospects makes a lick of sense, I'm quite positive about that.

There are fewer similarities between the two than you're suggesting. First off, those rankings really tell you nothing unless you view it within the context of who else was ranked. I'd guess that we'd get universal consensus that Gordon is in a whole lot better company than Lombo was, as he was one of only two prospects from that '86 ranking, along with Alan Anderson, to have any semblance of a MLB career. Personally, I can't think of a single thing about the two that invites comparison. Not skiils, not industry regard, really nothing. I watched Lombo play almost every game during his career year. He was by far the worst position player on the field in most games. There's a reason his career fizzled out very quickly. He languished as a mediocre utility man for the better part of his career. Whether it's at 2nd or SS, most evaluators envision Gordon overcoming his current shortcomings with more seasoning and having a nice long career as a starter. You've been the low man on Gordon for some time, and vocal about it. Are you sure there's objectivity in play regarding your opinion? I mean, other than his choice of a shirt in a video of course.

This may shock you, Levi, but I'm in this camp too, probably along with 85% of the rest here. Absent a front line starter, the prospects for improvement for this team in 2018 are extremely shaky at best. If you start with an objective of mid-rotation performance, every potential rotation option, outside of maybe Berrios, is a big question mark in one way or another. I don't think it's a glass half empty viewpoint to expect that 3 out of 5 of them will fail to give us #3 type performance. Which means that we trot out Odorizzi, Gibson, Mejia, Santana, Hughes, maybe eventually May, and then begin the auditions perhaps of Slegers, Gonsalves...who am I missing? Oh. Sanchez. Maybe the team is more optimistic about some of these guys, and for reasons we don't know? It's perplexing. So maybe 2 of them give us #3 stuff, maybe even 3 of them if the cards fall right. Maybe another 2 or 3 give us adequate results for a #4-5 slot. But rationally, the addition of the front line starter we have all been clamoring for makes the difference between competing for a postseason berth or not. On paper. Assuming for a moment that Falvey is done now (a sad thought), where does this team finish in the AL Central? Out of the wild card hunt, at a few games under .500, in 3rd place behind Cleveland and Chicago? You have to play the games, but that's what I see as the risk without that front end guy.

It's probably relevant to note that Palacios was one of 21 Twins prospects given a grade of B- by Sickles. That's more B- or better prospects than you find in even the consensus top system in baseball, Atlanta (but who has LOTS more elite prospects). Palacios would crack the Top 10 prospects in the White Sox's vaunted system. Putting in this context, the trade may look a bit more balanced.

It wouldn't completely shock me to see CWS above .500 in 2018. And you're right, the Tiger's pitching pipeline is every bit as good and probably better than ours.

Who sold you on that?

Yeah, it's a good thing that we don't see anything that resembles that kind of attitude. If they feel a need to hold their cards close to their vest, it is not out of disdain for you.

Yes, that theory was posited by commenters, but not by the FO. I can't recall anything that gives us a hint about what their real assessment is on either of these guys. All we can point to are some rumors and speculation that they had conversations with their agents, and one would expect that to have happened. My own theory is that they got beat out on their bid for Darvish, their obvious first choice (you'd prefer to say they "passed" on him). Simultaneously, they poked around the trade market, with their first choice perhaps being Archer. "Right" or "wrong", they didn't like the prospect prices being demanded. And all along, they monitored the asking prices of Lynn, Cobb, and perhaps others, and haven't felt their demands fit with their own risk/reward calculations. So, at least for now, they're "passing" on those two. We don't know why, we just have theories. Pretty much our own theories.

If they don't lose a player from the 40-man, then it's a less painful but still ugly event. I can't help having this nagging suspicion that they don't think Lynn or Cobb are coming down enough on their demands to satisfy them and that they haven't found and probably believe they won't find a trade partner who isn't asking for more than they want to spend in prospects. I don't think it says anything about how they value the organization's prospects in general, but probably says something about the readiness of Gonsalves and Romero in particular. As much as it would deflate me, I'm preparing myself to expect the worst, which is no acquisition of a front end starter from the outside here in 2018. I hope I'm wrong. Yuck.

If he teaches Gonsalves how to aim an occasional FB at the belt buckle of a guy who's crowding the plate, that might be good.

I don't think anyone would argue that you can avoid cycling up and down in this business, so the objective probably has to be shallower down cycles and shorter cycles. I think that's really what Falvey is talking about when he talks about sustained long term success, and what drives every decision strategically. We all know that the difference between a .500 season and a wild card season can come down to one or two performance flops or injuries, or maybe one failure on the part of the GM to fill a hole. Falvey knows this. I disagree with the notion that he's intentionally going to compromise 2018 while thinking about 2019. But I also think he does his calculations one opportunity at a time, sets his "price", and won't compromise 2021 while thinking about 2018. I think he would have loved it if either Ohtani or Darvish signed with the Twins-at his price. I do have this nagging suspicion and doubt about Falvey finding a rotation solution that he believes is truly a solution and that he truly believes can be had at a prospect price that he can live with. If he doesn't think either Cobb or Lynn move the needle enough to justify their asking price, I'm not sure where he goes other than to load up on the Tillman-type long shots and roll the dice on guys like Slegers and Gonsalves for 2018. I just don't see a trade happening here because I think he puts a higher value on the prospects than even many of us do.

In terms of revenue, the half-dozen largest revenue producers have 50% more revnue to work with than Texas, whose 2016 revenues were $300M. The Twins in 2016 generated about 20% less revenue than Texas, around $250M, according to most sources. So that's less than half of what NYY has. I for one am tired of hearing the "small market" excuse when it comes to an explanation of why someone wasn't signed. It appears to me that our hometown team can (and should) spend more towards $130M rather than $100-110M. That said, I also think it's reasonable to recognize the extraordinary spending capacity of the big shots and acknowledge the significant challenges that causes for teams to compete against them. There's a reason NYY has an elite prospect pipeline as part of their strategy to counterbalance the luxury tax as an attempt to level the field. They're going to outspend somewhere else once their payroll outspending gets capped.

We'll agree to disagree about the rhetoric matching their actions. People are quibbling about Levine's use of the word "priority", which could be more innocuously construed as simply meaning "our first choice" or "our first step", but people are choosing to construe it more literally I guess. I think the spirit of their words and actions are completely aligned myself. And take heart, Levi. In the last sentence of this article, Levine is telling you in no uncertain terms that starting pitching is the need and that they're going to address it. If they don't get us a starter, one that's an upgrade over Jaime Garcia, I'll meet you at One Target Way with my pitchfork. http://www.startribune.com/twins-gm-thad-levine-free-agent-market-slow-trade-market-slower/474000323/

The Minnesota Twins Baseball corporation practices good governance and has prudent financial disciplines in place. Most corporations depend upon their Board of Directors to not only exercise oversight but to establish and enforce financial rules limiting the authority of the corporate officers who report to them. It's inconceivable that the organization could commit to a $100M contract obligation without first requiring approval from its board. This doesn't in any way whatsoever support a speculative opinion that Falvine was handcuffed on what it could offer Darvish. In fact, almost every indication we're seeing from Jim Pohlad as the face of the corporation points at least directionally to giving Falvine greater encouragement to spend than before.

On these points we can agree, Levi. I'm personally skeptical that we have any starters arriving here in the next two years that are going to be capable rotation pieces for a contending club. Maybe Gonsalves or Slegers, but talent experts aren't wild about them. Thad Levine, just yesterday, said they still want to bring in rotation help from the outside. You may not believe him, or you may think he's not working hard enough at it. I do. I would guess most of us believe him and see some signs that indicate they're serious about getting it done. Their work to solve the bullpen problem is what gives me the most confidence about that. The Darvish bid is old news. It's okay with me if people want to pretend they have enough information to rip on them for botching that effort. Attacking their motives, their honesty, and their effort is a different thing though. That's unfair in my opinion. I'll rip on them later if they don't solve the rotation issue. If it's a solution that's not perfectly to my liking? I'm not going to harshly criticize them. Who am I to judge harshly with a sliver of the details? I liked that Levine said they very much favor the FA route versus a trade.

I can say that we were working with decidedly different definitions because I was in fact counting all players who made a MLB roster. So yes, under that criteria, I think I side with your estimates. It will be interesting to see what the results looks like when the data catches up a bit more.

Was it a lack of courage? Link please?

I don't trust your explanation or your calculation, sorry.

In every way. Nothing you're saying even remotely suggests otherwise. Criticize the offer if you want. You think the offer was "late", even though you don't possess the facts, not one, to support this. Fine. You apparently think the offer was "late" (by your personal standards since you don't know if anyone privy to the process thinks that). And they made this "late" offer because they were disingenuous? You choose to believe the Twins opted to set their price on some factor other than a rational assessment of reward, value, and risk? Nonsense. Why do you insist on questioning their motives, about which you know zippo, instead of sticking with a criticism of their choice about how much to offer, which at least has a modicum of evidential support?

So spy, do you really believe that they pursued Darvish with little hope of signing him? Are you really equating their attempt to a Hail Mary? If so, on what do you base this opinion?

It's perfectly fine for people to base their judgment strictly on results. The organization is no more entitled to our goodwill as a result of their efforts than we are entitled to never having our hopes lifted and then dashed. Others don't have to, but I'm going to trust that the efforts to sign Darvish were genuine and the Falvey "priority" statement was sincere. (It was however an ill-advised comment in light of the false sense of entitlement and the pent up frustration permeating the fan base). Do I know that it wasn't a fake offer and an attempt to sell me a bill of goods about what was intended? No, but there's a lot more evidence supporting a real pursuit of Darvish, one that wasn't half-hearted. Lots of us believe the Twins could and should have offered him 6/150 or whatever was necessary to land him. That's fine too. We don't know the details, but we have evidence that Falvine had a risk/reward line drawn. We as fans are no more entitled to the Twins going over that line than the Twins are entitled to hearing no criticism about it. I would only view the whole effort, including the Darvish bid, as having been in vain if in the end no front end starter is acquired. You are not one to do this, but I'd like to read complaints that avoided suggestions that a bad result was due to a lack of effort, fan loyalty, honesty, charity, character, brainpower.... Again, it's perfectly acceptable to place no value on actions and words absent results, and it's perfectly fine to find some value there. But I'd love it if those members of the board, like you, who are highly regarded by the majority of us, would push back a little when people devalue those efforts and words by trying to cast them in a false light.

May. Just til May.

Enlow and other prospects like him are usually worth much more to the Twins than anything they would be offered for them. Any buyer will demand an exaggerated discount to cover perceived risks that the Twins see as overstated. I know that people think we overvalue prospects, but it works both ways, and when the mistake is made by the seller of the prospect, it can create a problem that won't go away for years. Wilson Ramos and Matt Garza come to mind. What makes those prospect for MLB'ers even more dangerous is that you give up multiple prospects, which increases the odds that one of them hits their ceiling while the single MLB player received in return faces his own odds of injury and early decline. Call me crazy, but I value the combination of Enlow, Badoo, and Graterol more than Archer, for example.