The Great Hambino

What’s the book on Shelton’s managerial tendencies when he was with the Pirates? I wonder how similar or different it was from his predecessor. I’ll reserve judgment until the open letter to the fans comes out

You're not fooling anyone. That's obviously Mickey Gasper

I think the likeliest outcome from that is you've successfully built the middle-to-bottom half of a good 'pen. Your'e asking to win a lot of coin flips for that to result in legitimate high-leverage weapons at the expense of maximizing your return value on your starters. And at a bare minimum, you'd have to trust at least three of those acquisitions in high leverage. It's certainly not impossible. But even if you do hit on those, you still have to hit on a lot of internal development elsewhere in the lineup and the back half of the rotation. Stack all that together, and it starts to become wishful thinking to me given their recent track record. To be fair, I'm of the belief that the starting pitchers will have more trade value in this offseason than they will at the next trade deadline for multiple reasons. If I'm overstating that discrepancy, then maybe it is worth it to give it a go for next year and pivot at the trade deadline if necessary. But I'm also not interested in letting Ryan and Lopez walk for a comp pick for the chance at maybe sorta kinda having a shot at backing into the last wild card spot. I want to see them be legitimately competitive

BAH GAWD, THAT'S RON GARDENHIRE'S MUSIC!!!!!

We're all just projecting right now. That's sort of the point of this hot stove stretch of the year. I just think the ease and speed with which the bullpen rebuild will take gets pretty overstated pretty consistently. And that's a huge consideration in determining how feasible a quick return to competitiveness is going to be, which ultimately should be what determines the path they take going forward.

I'd already forgotten about Ridder He must've been really bad in his stint here if a guy that hasn't been in anyone's building since last preseason is a better option If I want to be optimistic (I don't; I'm a Vikings fan), I suppose you could spin this as them feeling confident in Brosmer as a 2

No, I'm not sure if I want to see how everything is gonna play out. That's my fear (I know what you mean)

Even if both those IFs are addressed, which are far from guarantees - if you're counting on internal starter prospects to be that competent bullpen, then it's not gonna happen this season as it's going to take time to sort out the rotation and games in April count in the standings as much as games in September - then you still have to address the lack of quality at the top of the lineup. What you're suggesting I think would require a level of investment that I don't see them making. "Short-term pain" "I expect Ryan and Lopez to be in the rotation. Well, that's my hope" "Limited partners that share Pohlad family values" Etc The tea leaves have not been encouraging

Yeah, seems like more of a Mannion-esque study buddy than an actual backup. He was with KOC in LA a few years ago

So who isn't the good prospect, Roden or Rojas?

I have Smoltz and Haircut

Take off, ya hoser! What a maroon

This is a good thought exercise. With the overall caveat that anyone can be had for the right price, this is how I see it right now: 1. I agree, worse players with a similar arbitration status like Gordon as you mentioned - also Kyle Farmer - have gotten something back in trade, I don't see why Larnach wouldn't. I also agree a middling reliever makes sense here 2. I don't know if now is a good time to move Ober. I think he has an opportunity to add trade value at the deadline if he bounces back strong. Not sure what I would want in return, but it would hopefully be someone with more control. I wouldn't shy away from a prospect if they have an ETA of 2026. 3. I'm only trading Wallner for a steal as I think he also has an opportunity bring his value back up. On the other hand, I feel like there's a very wide range of opinions on him, so perhaps there's opportunity to get good value from someone on the very optimistic end of things. I think the effect the hamstring had on him last year gets undersold. He actually had a pretty solid start to the season, he just had one hell of a time getting back on track. I'm actually a little optimistic on him myself (when will I ever learn...) 4. Too much upside with both of them to sell low now. The value of giving each of them a chance to emerge I think exceeds the value they could get in a trade, even if it is true that there's probably only room for one of them down the line if prospects develop well

I don't know if Bieber has it tonight. This could be a short outing

I agree. And you don't have to worry about those things if you don't acquire him in the first place. I mean what's more likely: the Twins unlock something that the Dodgers couldn't (he was absolutely putrid over the course of a year and a half, even if it wasn't a huge amount of at bats), or those fears you listed become realized.

Fair enough. That's not unreasonable. But in that case, the Twins should've let that other team take him. He's not young enough to expect future development and not good enough to help a team be competitive

David Popkins, obvi I did hear some talking head mention that MLB discourages teams from making major announcements like a new manager on World Series game days. So we could hear as early as Thursday. I'd be surprised if it went past the first week of November unless their top choice takes a different job

I'm not sure where you get that multiple teams wanted him just because the Twins accepted him in trade, or why that should matter to the Twins. They were bidding against themselves for all we know Obviously the Twins wanted him. I'm saying they shouldn't have wanted him. A 29 year old (in 2026) that can't hit his weight at an organizational position of surplus (at least in quantity) is not something a team setting up for a youth movement should be putting trade resources toward acquiring. Now they're committing playing time to him that should otherwise be going to their developing younger players. That's why I would've preferred a long-shot lotto ticket instead. I have no doubt that the Dodgers wanted to get rid of him, but the Twins were not obligated to do them the favor of removing him from their roster. To devil's advocate myself, the only reason I can think of for keeping him around is that they don't trust anyone else likely to debut with the big club on opening day to back up centerfield. Otherwise, it seems like a waste of Stewart to me

I seriously would've preferred a 17 year old from the DSL in return for Brock instead

Makes sense. I can't believe there's three whole levels below Skule

Interesting. I like this kind of breakdown. What's your methodology for assigning categories? PFF grades, your own informed opinion, some sort of blend, etc?

With everything a head coach has going on during a game, I think they're deferring to the trainer as much as the player when deciding how hurt is too hurt to play. I'm not going to assume any malfeasance on KOC's part unless something comes out about him overruling or pressuring the trainer to give Wentz the green light.

They also signed up for an arrangement where the Pohlads retain full say and are under no obligation to put any weight on limited partner opinion. Their voice in the room is only as loud as the Pohlads choose to allow it to be. I really don't think they invest their REAL money, as you put it, without understanding that. Which makes me think they're more likely than not on board with the Pohlads' vision. Such an arrangement is also the only way they were going to get any sort of ownership of a major sports franchise. They're limited partners instead of full owners because that's what they can afford. The amount of money they put together wouldn't even be able to purchase an MLS team. They're not in a position to be able to dictate operations, and they knew that going in. If they weren't okay with that, then there's plenty of other business opportunities at that price point where they'd have more of a say I'm expecting the worst and hoping for the best. And by best, I mean the Pohlads putting the team back on the market post-CBA

This is a good point that I think might also apply to the idea of moving Larnach (or Wallner) to 1B. They've been observing these guys for years and have a much better idea than we do about what these guys can or can't do. Given the general lack of in-house 1B options under this regime, if they thought they could successfully transition either of them to 1B, they probably already would've by now - or at least would already be in the process of doing so. Or maybe Falvey just really loves treating the position like a fantasy football player streaming defenses and kickers

It's all a mystery until we actually know who these limited partners are and what they want, but I'm not ready to assume that their first priority is winning, or that it's even a priority at all. In fact, if their priority is return on investment, then the quickest way to achieve that is to significantly reduce costs, especially since a sizable chunk of their revenue (national media deals) is fixed. As the Pirates, have shown us, you don't have to even try to win to be profitable in MLB. Furthermore, the Pohlads still control over half the board, so they only have as much of a say in operations as the Pohlads allow them to have. Besides, Joe's line about these groups "aligning with Pohlad family values" has me even more skeptical that winning is their first priority. And even if winning was their top priority, what are they going to do about it, ask for their money back? Not when the potential for rapid franchise valuation growth exists if the new CBA and subsequent media contracts settle in a manner that's beneficial to small/mid market teams. Again, it's all speculation at this point, but from what I see, I see more reasons to be pessimistic (I prefer realistic) than optimistic about the team's plans for 2026 stemming from this arrangement. If I'm trying to find a reason to be optimistic, I would look at the potential of ESPN acquiring MLB.tv rights and the Twins' local broadcast rights along with it. Manfred REALLY wants as many teams under that umbrella as possible to make his media vision work, so I could see them making the arrangement pretty lucrative for the teams who've granted them their local rights to entice other teams to join the fold. That theory has about as many unknowns as the limited parter situation, but I think there's a plausible scenario where it works in the Twins' favor - assuming they don't just pocket the additional revenue that could come from it.