Major League Ready

The vast majority of teams value position flexibility so they can match-up and also to cover injuries. This is a trend all across baseball. So, it's not the twins. It's all of baseball that you are assuming does not get it.

Are you disappointed those two are not getting used much? It's OK by me. I sure would love to see Alcala back!

How many of those games were at 3B and how many were at 1B? Most were at 1B because Kirilloff was out, so you are just seeing what you want to see. The past will not reflect the future with Kirilloff and Polanco back. In addition, it is very doubtful that Urshela at 3B vs Miranda makes any difference at all in the Twins making the post season. Yes, Miranda started out slow but his wRC+ in June is 137 vs 106 for Urshela. There is more upside to Miranda. Plus, I seriously doubt Urshela is here next year so yes giving Miranda ABs in place of Urshela is investing in the future. Yes, we could DH him some but those ABs should be taken by Arraez when Polanco is back. Sano might come into play as well.

I would be more inclined to agree if we agreed on the merit of "playoff caliber". They are only a playoff team because they are in the weakest division. They would not be a playoff team in any of the other 5 MLB divisions. The Twins ranking with oddsmakers is around 14-15th. We can continue to do the same old thing or we can build a legit playoff team. That can be done to some degree with free agent spending but only in the top revenue teams. It can be done by trading away the future if you want to take a 2 year run at a WS or it can be done by investing in young players. Part of that investment is playing time at the MLB level. Do we want a band aid to get us through a season with a fringe playoff team or do we want a long-term solution. I would much rather have Miranda at 3B next year and an $8M RP acquired with the salary difference or the salary difference contributing to bringing on Willson Contreras or Joe Musgrove.

I have been an Urshela supporter from day1. However, I would trade him at the deadline if the return was decent and insert Miranda at 3B for the rest of the season. Steer is waiting in the wings if Miranda can't handle the job.

I think it would be more open-minded to say they should be mindful of the 40-man if they were to make trades. There are certainly trade opportunities where the players coming back don’t need to be added to the 40-man the following season. For example, when the Twins traded Escobar for Duran, he was not added until the end of the following season. So, if the Twins were able to make a similar trade of Urshela for a Duran equivalent, the 40-man would actually be reduced by 1 player. Another example would be when the Twins reduced the 40-man by 1 while adding two prospects (Alcala / Celestino) when they traded Ryan Pressly.

Why would we want Snell? He was mediocre last year and bad this year. His ERA is 5.46.

If your boss gave you a year to do something, would you feel it a fair criticism if he criticized you for not being done after six months. I appreciate your concern and I have similar concerns. However, it would be a huge accomplishment to establish several new pitchers and position players in 1 year. JHard as it might be, we need to allow this process to take place and then judge it at reasonable increments. 90 games into the 1st season of transitioning several players is not a reasonable increment. The Lewis injury really hurt. They had a good shot at replacing 3B, SS and 1B with high ceiling replacements in a single year. Larnach was looking quite a bit better than I expected at in LF, and Celestino was playing great. Ryan had been great and Winder looked quite impressive until he got hurt and even Devon Smeltzer had re-emerged. Duran went from will he ever make it to the ML level to dominant out of the gate and Jax was much better in a BP role. In the context of being 90 games into this "project", things are progressing well. Obviously, they have a ways to go but the results so far should make us hopeful as opposed to doubtful because the whole teams has not transformed in 90 games.

I don't know what Jim Pohlad will consider enough pitching and I don't think it's nearly that simple in his mind. My guess is that he is going to look at how well the team is positioned overall. In other words, how many pitching prospects are contributing at the MLB level and how much progress has been made throughout the Milb system. How are Miranda / Kirilloff, Larnach, Celestino, Steer, Walner, etc looking at the end of the year. There is a lot of season left but I could see a realistic scenario of this team being extremely well positioned for a several year run. Two of Kirilloff / Miranda / Larnach becoming well above average middle of the order bats is quite realistic. If Winder and Smeltzer continue to look good they have Gray / Ryan / Winder / Ober / Smeltzer with Maeda also in the mix at the start of 2023 and Paddack / Dobnak coming back at some point as well. Here is the part many overlook ... The only big contract is Buxton assuming Correa opts out which is nearly certain. They will be under $75M with most positions filled. They will easily be able to land a difference maker and spend on the BP. Kirilloff / Miranda / Larnach / Celestino / Duran / Ryan / Winder / Smeltzer and Jax will all have gained valuable experience. Fans can call for heads all they like, if several of these young players look poised to contribute for the next several years, this team is going to be very well positioned for a run. Jim Pohlad is not going to fire the people that put the team in that psoition.

He has to go on the 40 man at the end of the year or be subject to the rule 5 draft.

He showed a really good eye and got burned for it. I may have called the umpire a bad name.

If you look back to the off-season, most of us did not expect them to contend and most of us agreed we should take this season to see if the pitching pipeline produced. Actually, they not only have several pitchers that needed playing time at the ML level, they also had several position players. I think we can assume that ownership was on board with their plan to transition in all of these players with the obvious reality that they would not be true contenders this year. Their intent was pretty clear. Put a good product on the field while they transitioned in the players that would allow them to build a contender. So, why would there need to be a fall guy. It's also waaaay too early to judge the season. We still have half the season remaining. If ownership were to look at this halfway through the season I would guess their take would be that we have already established Ryan / Ober / Duran / Jax with Winder and Smeltzer have both looked good in limited exposure. They will get plenty of opportunity the 2nd half of the season. So far the depth at the Milb level has looked great as well. Then, if they look at the position players, Kirilloff / Larnach / Miranda and Celestino all looking like they will be solid contributors with Steer and Wallner looking like they will join this group. Of course, many argued if only they had signed Robbie Ray or if not him at least some of the solid guys like Stroman / Rodriguez or Gray. Well they have all been pretty mediocre. So, should ownership fire Falvey because he did not tie up long-term payroll in guys that are performing no better or worse than the prearb players that are getting playing time?

Most teams in 1st place don't have the 15th best odds of winning the WS. In other words, they are not mediocre teams. You can insist they are a contender all you like. Outside / unbiased industry professionals don't agree. They are in 1st place because the division has been weak not because they are a great team. 7 Teams not in first place have better odds than the Twins. The whole 1st place argument is a head in the sand insistence that manage for the immediate even though it will impede the playing time investment needed for all their young talent. They way I see it for next year, Miranda and $8M to spend on a free agent RP or $8M contributed to a top of the rotation SP is a far better outcome and we won't be back looking for a 3B in 2024. We need long-term solutions not instead of average players producing an average team year after year because we won't invest in the future. Take a look how Cleveland's current teams is constructed. 8 of their top 13 players by WAR were acquired by trading establish talent. The other 5 were drafted.

Then they must be horribly ill-conceived if they don't make sense to you.

How many perfect back-up plans do you expect to have? You are 100% concerned with fielding a team today and I am interested in constructing a team that can actually contend.

$50M or thereabouts would be enough to land Willson Contreras and Joe Musgrove or Jamison Taillon which would project to produce about 2X the WAR of Correa. Plus, he couldn't convince anyone to give anyone to give him a 10 year contract at age 27 so the idea he would get one at 30 is really farfetched.

I can't recall any examples of a good veteran position player being traded for a veteran position player at the deadline in the past 20 years. Can anyone else site an example of such a trade? Isn't the whole idea rather unrealistic? Urshela could definitely be moved to make room for Miranda / Steer but it won't be for a veteran player. Sano will be traded if they can find anyone to take him to keep Kirilloff at 1B and that won't be for a veteran either.

40% of revenue is associated with people attending games. The associated revenue is more likely to decrease than increase. TV contracts are 20+ years so the existing contracts are not going up. Inflation is not going to result in higher player contracts. Any increases in revenue would likely be new revenue streams. BTW ... Raising prices because people are not buying your product kind of flies in that old theory about supply and demand.

Why would you think that inflation will lead to higher MLB revenue and consequently higher salaries? Luxuries and entertainment spending are the first thing to go when an economy tightens. Contracts are not going to reflect a cost of living increase.

I agree with you that this discussion is a little early and there are many variables that won't be known until the deadline. I have made several posts to that position. With this in mind, it's just fine to blindly insist the FO "go for it". That position is repeated over and over here year after year. Every year is a go for it year. However, for the people responsible for the future as well as the present state of the team, ignoring hard facts/evidence and making decisions that defy such information get terminated and deservedly so.

They got Sisk for Happ who looked horrible so they can get something for Bundy and they can certainly get something for Archer. Note I did not say I would trade them today and also note I said one of Bundy or Archer so they still have Gray / Ryan / Winder / Ober / Smeltzer and one of Archer or Bundy. Arraez or Steer is the back-up plan for Miranda. In other words, they are 3 deep behind Urshela.

I understand your thinking on Rogers, I just don't understand why Miami would sell low on him when they have 4 and a half more years of control. Are there rumors they want to move him? Like I said, I don't disagree he could bounce back but why would they move him without getting a return that assumes he returns to ace status almost immediately?

For the same reason mathematically eliminated teams don't forfeit every game. I mean really, your answer is that if a team does not have a reasonable chance of winning the WQS they should not bother playing? By your logic every team should be trading for proven players. There wouldn't be any sellers if that logic made sense and had the Twins followed that logic they would not have acquired Ryan / Duran / Celestino or Alcala.

So, we should ignore the odds determined by oddsmakers because they are in 1st place? The Oddsmakers have given 7 teams that are not in first place better odds. Please enlighten us as to knowledge you posses that the people who make their living determining these odds fail to understand.

That logic is fine for a fan. It would get any person in a leadership position followed. However, ignoring 400:1 odds because it has happened in the past would assure termination of the authority to make such decisions is terminated. The statement that perpetuated this was " Worrying about losing prospects in a possible trade could be part of what holds the franchise back." The Braves invested virtually nothing so using the Braves as an example is misguided. They went out and got a couple guys who were playing terrible and they played like MVPs. Those calling "go for it" would be very disappointed with level of investment. We would all love to invest nothing in players that perform like superstars, and have the rest of the team play phenomenally better after the deadline.