bird

Verducci thinks you would have been better off shorting the market from the perspective of results. Caveat: I think he isolated non-closers. But still 13/14? Yikes. https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/12/13/free-agency-relief-pitchers-bryan-shaw-pat-neshek-jake-mcgee

Yeah, but THIS time I'm serious.

I agree. Strategic thinking, committment to sustained excellence, courage to assume calculated risk.

Note to self: remember to hit the joke button...

Second only to Butera we're told. So kinda big, yeah.

Socialization issues.

Yeah, I don't know much myself, but I find myself thinking of Granite more in the Tyner Maestro Shane Robinson Alex Pressly category.

I've been a huge proponent of the concept of building for sustained excellence. However, once you have a chance like 2017, remote as it is, logic tells me to make decisions with a primary focus on the task at hand as long as those moves don't set the sustained excellence objective back in any significant way. I thought giving up Ynoa for a chance to eek out another win or two was an example of doing this. To make decisions with a primary focus on the future, decisions that theoretically reduce your current chances? I don't get that. That said, I think it was a tough call, and I really like the potential for those moves to pay off.

When I assess the quality of decisions like the trade deadline ones, I judge several things separately: the logic behind the move, the quality of the decision process itself, whether the execution of the decision itself matched intent, the philosophic underpinnings of the decision, and one's values. Like a few others here, were I the man in charge, I would value the chance to advance so highly that even some almost arbitrary 5% chance would be enough for me to avoid ANY decision with an even higher arbitrary chance of reducing those odds. They did not make the decisions to deal Garcia and Kintzler with an intent to increase those arbitrary odds. The ultimate outcome can't be known in advance. That's not relevant to me.

The new boys inherited a good situation, not a bad one. Jim Pohlad and company finally realized they had to commit the funds to building a competitive organizational infrastructure. They went out and hired two baseball people with credentials to replace one, and then they infused the budget for the new guys. They've improved the situation nicely. The main changes I think I'm seeing from the new boys are that they're much more strategic. They're more opportunistic. They're less risk-averse. They're more proactive. They're more decisive, even when they're wishy-washy. They're supporting what was already a very able scouting and development staff by making the few personnel changes that they deemed necessary, by adding additional talent, and by supporting the whole effort with all the modern technology and data-driven methods. From where I sit, it's all good, as long as they don't suffer from hubris or get too cute about it all. Other organizations are run similarly and by equally adept management teams. I find it comforting that some things haven't changed all that much. The boys didn't just look at the back of a baseball card before pulling the trigger on acquiring the new assets via the draft and these other transactions. They relied on the very same competent scouting staff. And yes, it's a lot easier to infuse your already decent farm system with even more talent when you have the two things they've had going for them, which is a favorable draft position and valuable assets to trade. Time will tell, but you gotta like what you see so far with Lewis, Rooker, Enlow, Moya, Littell, Watson, Pearson, Severino, et al.

I'm only going on the video scouting report from MLB.com, which described Pearson as having 20/20 power/speed potential, described him as a strong kid with a body that could develop, and said his only fielding weakness, throwing, should improve coming off surgery on said arm. And on a third party reference from someone on Twinkietown who said MLB.com ranked Pearson higher than any Twins OF prospect other than Kiriloff. So you could be right, but I'm going to choose to be happy that Pearson is even regarded perhaps as highly as Badoo, Rooker, and Wade. Sounds like a pretty good use of IFA money to me. I didn't find any glowing reports on Banuelos's minor league career, but maybe I missed them. The one thing I read was a pre-draft article that categorized him more as a sleeper while over a dozen other catching prospects were showcased in the article.

Are you sure about this? One of the contributors elsewhere mentioned that MLB.com is saying he ranks behind only Kiriloff in the Twins system, and ahead of both Wade and Pooker. So who knows, really, but that sounds like a decent return to me. Another source said he was lured away from LSU and might have been a late first round pick otherwise. In a cursory look, it appears that a dozen or so other catchers were mentioned before Banuelos in discussions about promising catchers in the draft class, so his 5th round selection might be an accurate reflection of his talent. Which certainly makes Garver's 9th round selection look nice.

I get what your viewpoint is but I'm not all that convinced that we're seeing much more than a handful of anecdotal examples where and that there's a discernible pattern. There are probably as many examples of an organization aggressively promoting pitchers and watching them struggle mightily than there are of that same team being rewarded. I could be wrong about this, but I generally believe the readiness of all these players is defined by their own individual performances, and that development philosophy plays a very insignificant role.

The only surprise I want to see is an entire pitching staff capable of giving me better than Gee-like optimism.

SSS. Cherry picking.

It seems to me the new boys forewent an argument that says you don't pull the plug on something this important (the WC) if there's still the slightest uncertainty. That should frankly be a philosophical underpinning for many reasons, not the least being the "message" such a decision sends. I think they looked too hard at the abacus and played the odds. They got too cute. One hopes they learned a lesson. I forgive them. And if they manage a nice recovery via the IFA cash, Littell, and Watson, I'll double forgive them, but I still think they got cute there, and I hope it wasn't hubris, or if it was, it's gone now.

Or the Twins.

Why would we move talent from an area of deficit rather than surplus? Especially when you're trying to compete for the big prize? Who are we counting on? If I'm GM, I'm counting on this: 1. Whoever my 5 starters are to start the year, one of them goes down for the season. 2. Two starters simultaneously are out with injuries for a few consecutive starts. 3. Gibson, May, Mejia, Hughes, Gonsalves, Sleger. I'm not counting on ANY of these guys. Every one of them poses meaningful risk. The only question is, how many of these guys can I plug in on the basis of informed hope? Two? Three seems like the outside limit and a huge risk. Santana, Berrios, Gibson, Mejia, and May. (Who am I missing?) One goes down for the year, and two are out at the same time for a stretch, meaning Gonsalves and Slegers come up. The point: We're operating, right now, with AT LEAST a two-starter deficit, and both are front end deficits if you're contending. Darvish, Otani, and Cole. Then we'll talk about a meager surplus rather than a massive deficit.

Good thing you left out that your check might bounce.

It would be even "nicer" if they were actually tracking the dollars they did not spend over the lean years when they "could have" but didn't and instead "overspent" now that the timing is right. If this organization fails to go "over budget" a couple of times here during what appears to be an up cycle, that will really really make me angry.

It's true that most thought they were wise to spurn the Dodgers, but there were plenty of people, on here and in the media, that criticized the organization for turning down what they saw as a legitimate offer.

Everyone here agrees the Team need to add high-quality pitching talent. I found it interesting that you railed at commenters and their SSS myopia regarding JDL, and yet in an earlier comment you attach meaning to how our "ace" struggled in one particular game. Are you watching the playoffs and counting the number of times a highly reputable starter has been knocked around early in games? People aren't breathing a sigh of relief because JDL performed poorly in 41 innings. They're happy we laid off one guy whose history suggests he's an injury risk. Our pro scouts made a smart recommendation to their bosses in this case.

I'm uneasy about Molitor longer-term (I was rooting for Lovullo), but I understand this decision, and three things come to mind: 1. How do we argue with the appearance that this group of players came together and showed some of that elusive sense of cohesion in the final months? Even Joe Mauer said he had fun playing with this group of teammates. How do we not give Molitor some credit for this? 2. As fans, we can judge in-game stuff, but we don't have much insight about what may be the more important part of managing well, which is managing the clubhouse. We don't see many signs that the players lack respect for Molitor or the coaches, although to me, I find it curious that we don't hear player heaping on credit either. In any event, my own sense is that there isn't a glaring problem in general. 3. This feels like a two year contract in a three year package. The financial risk of changing course at any time is negligible. If I'm a betting man, and I am, I'm betting Paulie isn't around for the entire term of the contract.

I believe you're inserting things into my comments that aren't there. You think they got cute and the trade was ill-advised, Fine. As I said, i don't have a strong opinion about the quality of the decision and can see both your side and the other side. All I said about the trade results is that it's too early to judge that part of things. I don't buy into your pessimism and your belief that the value of that $500k has "diminished" to any measurable extent. But the point I'm making relates to the majority of comments from people who have already judged the results, making no mention at all of the IFA money and forming a definitive viewpoint about Watson's future value. I don't have an opinion about what that value is and don't find any use for nitpicking about whether that $500k has more or less value post July 2..

Yeah, I don't have a strong opinion on the quality of the Kintzler decision itself, other than that both decisions had merit. Although I wouldn't have traded him myself because he didn't represent surplus. I was talking about unknown results being prematurely judged. I probably should have used other examples instead of Thorpe and Polanco, could have used, say, Felix Jorge or someone, but the point I attempted to make is that the potential is certainly there for the organization to score an IFA of considerable future value. Plenty of IFA talent is eligible to sign after July 2 but not before, so while the pool of talent isn't as strong after July 2, unique opportunities exist. Having dry powder to pursue these opportunities is not something most teams possess, so I'm loathe to discount the potential that $500k represents. And Watson was gaining some believers too.